IGN Napoleon Total War *Update*

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/105/1053026p1.html

Looks too good to be true imo

IGN and Gamespot are not really reviewers. I'm pretty sure they get paid to write a good review. You can tell by the way that they both give really high scores for a certain game then, just as people start to slam them for doing so, they make a stunning attack on a particular game (Empire Earth 3 is a good example). Empire : TW was so hyped up by CA they decided to go along for publicity and reputation reasons. Gamespot gave ETW a 9. They ended up having egg on their face.




The real reviewers are the honest folk on the TWC center ...

Bwahahaha, wasnt it IGN or gamspot the one that said the AI was a Bas£$rd to beat. Bunch of paid up lackeys. Read their reviews with a sarcastic tone in mind and that will be more insightful.

Gameplay also changes to accommodate this focus on generals. Just as Napoleon broke the rules of war, disdained 'fighting like a gentleman' and led troops from the front, General units have considerable roles to play on the battlefield. They are now powerful units in their own right, with buffing powers. Brigden demonstrates, showing off the snowy plain of Austerlitz, where Napoleon won one of his greatest victories. His Austrian generals are atop a hill but quickly move where they are needed, supporting morale of beleaguered troops, activating traps and demonstrating other powers.

Great. Instead of going forward, we are now returning to the game system we see in STW, where Generals don't die and have some sort of superpowers? Seriously? Giving super powers to the generals?

Also, won't this result in AI trying to make more sucidal decision for the generals?

He sends a crack team of dragoons on a seek-and-destroy mission, looking for Napoleon himself. Finding him, the French general is killed and the invading armies quickly fold up. 'When a general dies on the battlefield, we call him critically wounded and he goes back to Paris. That means the French will be at a strategic disadvantage for a while in this campaign. So you have to use your general, it's to your benefit, but you must also protect him. He's a big target.' Graphically, this is represented by a blue sphere of influence, allowing you to easily tell precisely the limits of your boss man's control. Certain generals have particular skills and should be carefully matched up with who they best suit. 'They also learn their own worth, sadly.' Kieran shakes his head. 'If they succeed a few times, they may start asking for pay rises.'

Yes, because the killing of Generals and national leaders is so common in this era. And didn't Generals get a higher pay when they are promoted anyway? Does this mean that there is no promotion system?

What happens when the nation is broke? Is there some sort of loyalty stats for the General?

The Warscape physics engine has been tweaked as well, focusing on conditions within Napoleonic times and war. Topography and terrain are enormously important considerations when planning a battle. Kieran Brigden demonstrates a cannon barrage, which blows huge chunks out of the battlefield, forcing the enemy troops to advance through a black and smoking gouge in the ground. 'They'll be nervous now, lower morale.'

How large is the impact on troop movement?

High ground, weather - all of these things affect combat conditions, the morale of troops and their ability to fight. Taking the high ground, matching troop types against enemy units they have bonuses against, everything contributes to a battle.

Something that is present in all the other total war games. Nothing to be proud of.

With over 350 kinds of units available, it's not simply a game of rock, paper, scissors.

350 units means nothing if they all look the same. And I'm so sure that it is not simply a game of rock, paper and scissors.

'A new addition to the game is the ability to troops to become veterans in the middle of battles. In previous versions of the game, that happened between battles. That now occurs in the middle of a game.'

How the hell does this work? It doesn't make sense to promote people or promote entire unit in the middle of a pitched battle.

While explaining all this, particle effects go to work. The engine overhaul has made them look not only visually arresting but a vital part of gameplay. There is smoke and explosions, coats flap in the breeze and eyes of soldiers catch the glare of the sun. Snowfall and dust kicked up by marching boots not only look incredible but also have a very real game effect on line of sight issue. With ten thousand possible troops present on any given battlefield, you can imagine the incredible level of detail. Closing in on a vicious melee battle as the Prussians and French fall to bayonet combat at close quarter, a Frenchman is pulled from his horse and stabbed. A Prussian dragoon is shot from his saddle while his horse charges on. Moments later, the horse, too, falls to musket shot, trips and dies. The whole thing is spectacular to watch.

Oh sure it is. Of course, CA would definetly want to forget to mention that there is a high possiblity that we see spirtes instead of 3d model for our armies.

Because Napoleon changed the way war happened in his time, modern tactics are also rewarded. 'The French have no business fighting fair,' says Kieran, and he's not fooling. While enemy AI generals may be constricted by traditional techniques of warfare, a player is rewarded with aggressive tactics and stratagems, both in and off the battlefield.

So you are telling us that it is easy to bear the AI because they are fighting fairly?

The campaign gameplay also reflects small but significant changes in the Total War experience. 'Game turns are down from six months to only two weeks. Napoleon changed the timescale of war. He campaigned against the Fourth Coalition for less than a year, which is two turns under our old system, so we've sped things up to account for that change of pace. It gets rid of that chessboard style of game and makes the campaign more dynamic.'

You know, it might be a good idea to explain the new system in detail. Take a look at how CA's poorly implemented idea such as the "zone of interception" messed up the gameplay for a lot of people.

Even Naval gameplay is getting the once over. With a fairly large array of ships to choose from, the new addition to sea combat is the ability to repair ships mid-battle and send them back on the line. 'We've seen players' perfect tactics where they send in waves of ships, get them shot up, then return them to battle fairly quickly.'

What kind of repairs are we talking about? Doesn't this just drag the battles longer?

As new technologies change the way that war progressed, so the advanced campaign transforms. Industrial towns are focused on guns, cannons, the creation of extra troops and the like. Economic towns provide Gentlemen, who in the new game facilitate tech trees but also see to the creation of spies.

How quickly can the industrial towns be build? How long does it take to train an entire unit? And there is a difference between a industrial town and a economic town? How does the spy system work?

Social towns give you the opportunity to practice the art of 'negative diplomacy', which translates as intimidating scumbags into compliance. Spies can spread the ideals of Republicanism in enemy camps;

Wait, is it really THAT easy to convince people? Won't spies that openly declare that he is trying to convince everyone in the camp that their enemies ideology is good be killed off in a short period of time?

You'll also want to be careful about where you bivouac troops. Keeping them out in the desert will see them die of attrition, for example.

What happens when your army is not in a desert and their supply lines are cut off? Is there going to be a supply line system?

A war-game demands war and so multiplayer has also been tweaked. One of the most interesting features is the ability to play the otherwise solo campaign battle against another player, inviting them to control the enemy forces for a single match. That'll keep things from getting stale against an AI enemy. On top of that, all maps will have 1x1 up to 4x4 player battles.

A war game does not demand war all the time.

You can't help but worry about a tweak to an already pretty sodding amazing game system like Total War. If it ain't broke, don't fix it isn't a bad rule after all. But the Napoleonic Wars were a radical new step in warfare and perhaps a new game is required. Napoleon: Total War has some very real potential and seems likely to be necessary to anyone who fancies strapping on a sabre, a tricorn hat and conquering Europe.

So you are saying that CA isn't trying to fix the mistakes they made in ETW or what?

Originally Posted by risker

IGN and Gamespot are not really reviewers. I'm pretty sure they get paid to write a good review. You can tell by the way that they both give really high scores for a certain game then, just as people start to slam them for doing so, they make a stunning attack on a particular game (Empire Earth 3 is a good example). Empire : TW was so hyped up by CA they decided to go along for publicity and reputation reasons. Gamespot gave ETW a 9. They ended up having egg on their face.

Yet no one seems to have any actual evidence to support this claim.

And for the record, Gamespot pointed out that the AI had some issues and there were several bugs and glitches that still needed to be fleshed out when they reviewed the game. If they were actually paid off by CA they wouldn't be mentioning those two at all.

You people are simply ridiculous. Do you actually read their reviews or you just look at the scores? If you read it you'll see where they are coming from and I find gamespot to be pretty fair for most reviews.

The real reviewers are the honest folk on the TWC center ...

Yes, anyomous people who simply want to bandwagon jump on others or hijack threads to troll around or simply are unhappy because the soldier's belt isn't tied on correctly

If your that concerned about that then look at gamespot or IGN's user reviews, at least those are consolidated into one group and if your willing to sift through it you can get a better idea.

On topic though that was just a preview with CA showing off which confirms some stuff like the craters in the ground or guys being dragged off by their horse.

Not to mention the new "social towns"

One thing that didn't make sense was the general being injured, they said it like it was generals in general. Not just Napoleon.

Great. Instead of going forward, we are now returning to the game system we see in STW, where Generals don't die and have some sort of superpowers? Seriously? Giving super powers to the generals?

Great are we going back to Kingdoms where people cried over those Heroes' special abilities like Richard the Lion Heart's warcry?

The real reviewers are the ordinary players on this site and others. Official reviewers are not worth listening to.

I had a laugh though when he spoke about the light reflecting off a soldier`s eyeballs! Well, that`s all the reason to buy NTW then! How vacuous!

Like the others I also saw the reviewer say things as if new to NTW but not at all.

Higher ground having an effect on morale - been in every TW since Shogun.

Men advance in experience during battle. Been there since STW. Definitely in RTW and MTW2. I have watched men in battles gain an extra chevron of experience. Nothing new.

Don`t like the fact that you as Player can cheat, but the BAI cannot because it will fight fairly. Tjhat is NOT what we want. We want an AI that will take us on equally. Human Beings are way more advanced than any AI we don`t need AI handicapped. Did WELLINGTON not technically cheat when he hid his men behind the brow of a hill until the last minute, tricking Napoleon into sending his men into an ambush?

Isn`t this what mike Simpson said they didn`t want?

It sounds like TW is turning into a Total child-fest game. It`s sad. Pretty hopeless really.

Nothing here has made me think NTW will be even worth getting.

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

Higher ground having an effect on morale - been in every TW since Shogun.

I don't think so. It made sense to take the higher ground, as you'd have better coverage from your archers, and you'd tire out the enemy more, but you didn't actually get a morale bonus from it. In fact, high ground was broken in M2TW for awhile; the attacks of the units coming uphill would strike the legs of their enemies, scoring kills, while the attacks of the uphill folks would whiz harmlessly over the heads of the downhill chaps.

Either way, this isn't a feature to get excited about.

Men advance in experience during battle. Been there since STW. Definitely in RTW and MTW2. I have watched men in battles gain an extra chevron of experience. Nothing new.

I've seen it too, but I don't think those units actually get the associated stat bonuses until after the battle is finished. I suppose they do now.

Again, not a feature to get excited about.

Honestly, all these features are neat, yes, and I would probably enjoy them. But I would be happy with absolutely no features, but a better BAI. Even CAI is satisfactory (could be way better obviously, but its not an inconsolable idiot any more), but BAI needs fixin'. It would be cool to see enemy soldiers clambering through cannon-ball holes, but if once they climb out they walk straight into a 3-sided pincer movement without firing a single shot back, then who cares how cool it looked.

The real reviewers are the ordinary players on this site and others. Official reviewers are not worth listening to.

Words to live by.

Originally Posted by johncage

you're a ca fanboy. you find ways to justify their faults, and diminish the people trying to enrich the game. people like you do more harm to the community than any complainer can ever do. flattery does not improve games, period.

Don't call people fanboys. It's just uncalled for at best, and ad hominem at worst.

As others have said, IGN reviews are best taken with a grain of salt, as they tend to say what the company in question would like them to say sometimes, but not all of the time, as I've found some of their reviews to be pretty even handed (arguably most, but I won't go into that now). I'm a little shocked that some people think having Napoleon not die in battle is a bad thing, wouldn't this be kind of a game breaker if he could fall victim to a stray cannon shot? (EDIT: And to be clear, I'm aware of the system planned currently, I mean fall victim as in permanent, good ol' fashioned death!)

Also, calling people 'fanboys' is a sign of ignorance more than anything, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a fanboy. Similarly, I wouldn't call every person who rails against Creative Assembly a whiner. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume they aren't here with some evil fanboy or whiner agenda, because they almost certainly aren't, because people generally spend and value their free time better than that.

Originally Posted by nameless

You people are simply ridiculous. Do you actually read their reviews or you just look at the scores? If you read it you'll see where they are coming from and I find gamespot to be pretty fair for most reviews.

I agree.

None of them do, they just generalize about all reviewers so they still have a reason to keep complaining. Gamespot is pretty harsh most
of the time and rated ETW down for bugs.

It's pathetic how much people here nit-pick. Like ray243, dissecting every sentence and not even doing a good job at it.

Because Napoleon changed the way war happened in his time, modern tactics are also rewarded. 'The French have no business fighting fair,' says Kieran, and he's not fooling. While enemy AI generals may be constricted by traditional techniques of warfare, a player is rewarded with aggressive tactics and stratagems, both in and off the battlefield.

I hope this statement has been misinterpreted by the article writer, and that it isn't a sign that the enemy Ai will fight with one hand behind its back. If it did then it would be a complete walkover. I also don't really understand what they mean by 'modern tactics'.

Does this mean that Napoleon's army will fight in 19th century formations while the enemy is constricted to 18th century styles? What's the big difference between the two anyway?

Originally Posted by Doe3000

I hope this statement has been misinterpreted by the article writer, and that it isn't a sign that the enemy Ai will fight with one hand behind its back. If it did then it would be a complete walkover. I also don't really understand what they mean by 'modern tactics'.

Does this mean that Napoleon's army will fight in 19th century formations while the enemy is constricted to 18th century styles? What's the big difference between the two anyway?

This does sound like an excuse for why the Coalition AI is not so good. I wonder what the excuse will be when we play the Coalition powers against the AI France. On a historical note, I think Napoleon had all he could handle at Marengo even though the Austrians were using "outdated tactics".

Originally Posted by D.B. Cooper

I agree.

None of them do, they just generalize about all reviewers so they still have a reason to keep complaining. Gamespot is pretty harsh most
of the time and rated ETW down for bugs.

It's pathetic how much people here nit-pick. Like ray243, dissecting every sentence and not even doing a good job at it.

gamespot is only harsh to small game companies who can't afford to buy them.

also, please keep informed about etw, so you won't make ridiculous threads asking question everyone, except you, knows the answer to:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=314799

and this:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=315143

if the mods aren't up to standard, you can blame ca for restricting package access and refusing to release tools.

the bottom line is, you're a ca fanboy. you find ways to justify their faults, and diminish the people trying to enrich the game. people like you do more harm to the community than any complainer can ever do. flattery does not improve games, period.

Originally Posted by johncage

the bottom line is, you're a ca fanboy. you find ways to justify their faults, and diminish the people trying to enrich the game. people like you do more harm to the community than any complainer can ever do. flattery does not improve games, period.

On the contrary, I think DBCooper represents one of the more rational voices in the ETW forum, and you are overgeneralizing the posts and comments he makes.

It might be true that flattery does not improve games. It's also true that harsh unrelenting criticism does not improve games either.

Case in point: it's one thing to point out that the IGN writer made mistakes in listing the "new" features of NTW. It's another thing to illogically extrapolate from that IGN article that CA isn't doing anything new and NTW is going to be another train wreck and wow CA suckz0rz mods rulez and SEGA should go bankrupts lawlz (notice the sarcasm?).

Don't you think it's a little hypocritical to say that game review sites like IGN are untrustworthy, and then use those same sites as evidence that NTW is going down the tubes?

Just a little?

Originally Posted by nameless

Yet no one seems to have any actual evidence to support this claim.

I stopped trusting Gamespot since I read all about this years ago:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/gamespot-editor-fired-over-kane--lynch-review-328244.php

The big game review sites steadily become less trustworthy as they become more attractive to Big Game Publishers. The bigger the game, the less you believe the hype. As an avid gamer veteran and independant thinker I've known this for years, and had it continually confirmed by innumerable personal experiences.

At least we posters are only influenced by our own prejudices and not advertising income*. Reviewers are influenced by both. The nature of dedicated forums is that you have to take the unreasoned rants with the insightful observations. Welcome to the internets. I consider user reviews the primary sources, warts and all; I don't think I have much choice.


* Unless, of course, SEGA is employing company drones to help push their agenda on the forums. I'm sure it's unnecessary though. The average fanboy (not that I'm accusing anyone today) is convinced by a prime time television commercial and needs no further indoctrination.

Originally Posted by nameless

Yet no one seems to have any actual evidence to support this claim.

And for the record, Gamespot pointed out that the AI had some issues and there were several bugs and glitches that still needed to be fleshed out when they reviewed the game. If they were actually paid off by CA they wouldn't be mentioning those two at all.

Gamespot pointed that out AFTER people were disgusted with their review and score (9) just to save credibility. They clearly only played the game for 20 minutes then decided to write a review based on what CA had said in their previews. The only thing they did point outwas that there were "tiny" glitches that "didn't" spoil the game which it did. Gamespot mainly base themselves on graphics rather than content. Just because a game has astonishing graphics, they'll at least go for a 7.5.

- Mmmm... Generals being not immortal, but hard to kill, including their hard to kill general's bodyguard. They also boost morale.

That's something I have seen since Medevial I, Rome, M2TW and ETW. I even doupt they will have as cool powers as the Kings in the Crusader campaign. Nothing new here.

Very powerful figures like Napoleon are immortal but they get wounded. Also their sphere of influence can be seen this time. Well, not so much of an innovation. Dread/Chivalry did that too but you couldn't see the limits.

- Cannons on hills pawn enemies and lower morale. Yeap, seen that in ETW too. High ground being important. Seen that before Napoleon too, especially with Med2 that had powerful ranged units. Sure, in such an era high ground is more important but that doesn't mean that Genoese crossbowmen on high ground was something to ignore in Med2 too.

- The new addition of XP awarded in the battle!
Oh wait... that's true in Medevial 2 too, when my light cavalry round up routers and I can see them getting chevrons in the battle. Oh, and then in ETW my 4th rate gets a couple of chevrons, again in the same battle.
The guy propably hasn't played a lot of TWar games before it seems.


Really, most of the changes aren't really changes. Some things are new, but most were there since at least Med2. The reviewer propably doesn't play a lot of TW games

I really don't like that stuff about Industrial, Economic and Social towns... It just seems excessive and wrong.

And ships repairing themselves during combat? I'm not very excited about that either...

I would like to hear this from CA about NTW:

"We have made the higher difficulty levels much harder. Very Hard now actually means very hard, and will prove to be a true challenge for the player."

What worries me the most about the review is this:

They were able to send 1 unit of dragoons out to kill Napoleon (the great emperor of France) and they succeeded..
You'd think he'd have enough units guarding him to beat a unit of dragoons or that the AI would have at least retreated him to safety.

I hope it's just a made-up story to tell us what happens when Napoleon goes down ..

Personally I cant wait for this game not cuz i think its going to be amazing but because I love this time period and there arnt many games that take place during the Napoleonic age

People also aren't reading confirmed information carefully...

For example, whoever in this thread thought Napoleon was immortal is wrong. CA has said that if Napoleon gets hit once, he'll return to Paris for a # of turns and be out of action. THe second time though, and he's ka-poot for good.

That is, of course, if you trust these articles written by game reviewers that some people are decrying as completely untrustworthy