Anyone Else Swayed By PC Gamer Review?

So, the latest issue of PC Gamer has a review of N:TW. They give it a fairly respectable score of 82, but bearing in mind they gave Empire, vanilla Empire no less, a 94, the 82 is hardly flattering.

Also, actually reading the article gives a more negative view: "To impess us - the old hands - NTW needed two things: novelty and refinement. Alas it offers precious little of the latter and only a flawed form of the former." They also bemoan the lack of replayability of the Italian campaign, the lack of diplomatic options during the Egyptian campaign and the ease of conquering enemy capitals.

Throughout the article, sometimes in the text, sometimes in the captions, the reader is made aware that the Black Watch routs too easily, naval battles are beautiful yet bland and, perhaps most vitally, that the AI still utterly sucks at both campaign strategy and diplomacy.

It is when they get to discussing the new attrition features, however, that it starts to sink in that CA really haven't been making the efforts they should.

Originally Posted by Tim Stone, PC Gamer

Depleted armies will automatically replenish just about anywhere as long as they've got a general. Supply posts can only be built in economic satellite towns, and are far from essential. Attrition - which should have been a major pain in the rump - only occurs in midwinter and desert conditions. Elite units are immune. In short, Creative Assembly have bottled it. The enhancement that should have prevented that classic and increasingly tiresome TW phnomena, the rampaging MegaKill Army, barely impacts it.

I don't know about the rest of you, and I'm certainly not usually one to pay too much attention to reviews, but I can't help feeling that if the very magazine that generously described ETW as 'A strategy masterwork' is struggling to find very much positive to say about it's sequel, then it's unlikely to be worth investing £30 of my hard-earned cash.

We will see in 1 day and 10 hours.

Originally Posted by Malkuth

Well will see in 1 day and 10 hours.

I won't be alive by then...

I guess it depends on your expectations. I expect NTW to be a refined ETW game with a Napoleonic theme. That is really all that I expect and as long as the overall game is stable I will most likely get it. I quit expecting new TW games to be outstanding or ground breaking since RTW.

I agree expectations are the key - I had huge expecations for Empire because I made the mistake of believing the hype. I felt that it simply couldn't go wrong after Rome and MTW2 which were pretty weak on release. (improved significanlty with mods and patches). To think that Empire Vanilla was even worse made me realise that what i was expecting would probably never be delivered, so now they are rock bottom. I'll probably still whine about the poor features in NTW, just because i am still bitter over Empire, a period I've been looking forward to playing for years.

Elite units are immune to Attrition?

That doesn't even make sense...

So really tough guys don't need to eat? Now that's macho.

Nice CA, real nice.

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

So really tough guys don't need to eat? Now that's macho.

No but they probably get first dibs on what rations there are, and they don't desert because their high morale and loyalty.

Originally Posted by Graphic

No but they probably get first dibs on what rations there are, and they don't desert because their high morale and loyalty.

Well i think the way rations were actually distributed IRL was something like this:

General > General's stupid nephew > General's strumpet > general's dog > general's horse > officers > officer's strumpets > officer's horses > The camera crew filming the battles for Ridley Scott's next historically inaccurate history lesson movie

and everyone else was pretty much left catching rats and stealing turnips

Originally Posted by eric2min

remember, an 8 out of 10 isnt bad at all.

I wasn't trying to say 82% is a bad score, I was more saying 'Empire was crap but got 94%, so if this one is worse......'

Originally Posted by Maleficus

Well i think the way rations were actually distributed IRL was something like this:

General > General's stupid nephew > General's strumpet > general's dog > general's horse > officers > officer's strumpets > officer's horses > The camera crew filming the battles for Ridley Scott's next historically inaccurate history lesson movie

and everyone else was pretty much left catching rats and stealing turnips

Exactly. It goes from the top down, and the Old Guard gets fed before some crappy conscript militia.

I don't necessarily agree with elite units taking ZERO casualties from attrition, but they should definitely be effected a lot less by it and I see where they're coming from.

I usually never trust reviews in mainstream publications, but usually they tend to be too positive; not too critical.

Looks like CA hasn't given PC Gamer enough complimentary goodies with the review version ...

Originally Posted by Graphic

No but they probably get first dibs on what rations there are, and they don't desert because their high morale and loyalty.

Graphic, when Napoleon's army was destroyed by 'General Winter' on their retreat from Russia, the Imperial Guard froze and starved as well.

When General Paulus's army was encircled inside Stalingrad, the elite 'grenadiers' and armored regiments ran out of ammo, food, and uniforms too.

Or did someone forget to enlighten them that 'Elites don't eat?'

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

Graphic, when Napoleon's army was destroyed by 'General Winter' on their retreat from Russia, the Imperial Guard froze and starved as well.

When General Paulus's army was encircled inside Stalingrad, the elite 'grenadiers' and armored regiments ran out of ammo, food, and uniforms too.

Or did someone forget to enlighten them that 'Elites don't eat?'

Of course, but I'd bet $1 that the "elites" froze and died at slower rates. Pissant militia don't get the coats. Napoleon and Paulus didn't freeze to death because they were at the very top and well taken care of. The same goes for the army as a whole: the higher up the better your chances.

Again, I don't agree that they should take zero casualties but I believe they should take less.

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

Graphic, when Napoleon's army was destroyed by 'General Winter' on their retreat from Russia, the Imperial Guard froze and starved as well.

When General Paulus's army was encircled inside Stalingrad, the elite 'grenadiers' and armored regiments ran out of ammo, food, and uniforms too.

Or did someone forget to enlighten them that 'Elites don't eat?'

Cossacks and hordes of angry Russian peasants are equal opportunity killers.

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

Graphic, when Napoleon's army was destroyed by 'General Winter' on their retreat from Russia, the Imperial Guard froze and starved as well.

When General Paulus's army was encircled inside Stalingrad, the elite 'grenadiers' and armored regiments ran out of ammo, food, and uniforms too.

Or did someone forget to enlighten them that 'Elites don't eat?'

I can't give numbers without looking it up (which I won't be troubled to do, because my library and my computer can't be in the same room together, and I don't want to walk so far) but I believe the Imperial Guard did fare better in the retreat from Moscow. They were still far worse than decimated, however; I believe 60% losses would be about right, whereas the army in general suffered more than 80%. Like I said, that's from memory. Surely CA can be troubled (unlike me) to properly consult a book and get some idea of what attrition armies suffered on campaign.

Originally Posted by IAB1789

I can't give numbers without looking it up (which I won't be troubled to do, because my library and my computer can't be in the same room together, and I don't want to walk so far) but I believe the Imperial Guard did fare better in the retreat from Moscow. They were still far worse than decimated, however; I believe 60% losses would be about right, whereas the army in general suffered more than 80%. Like I said, that's from memory. Surely CA can be troubled (unlike me) to properly consult a book and get some idea of what attrition armies suffered on campaign.

So because of a 20 percentage point difference, CA makes elite units immune?

Think about this, that means I can sit elite units out in the cold, unsupplied, and not have to worry.

That's just silly.

Originally Posted by Graphic

No but they probably get first dibs on what rations there are, and they don't desert because their high morale and loyalty.

right-they have no reason to leave when they have the best accomodations, best food, and when in perfect form never have packs because there are baggage carriers doing it for them (at least Russians...)

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

Elite units are immune to Attrition?

That doesn't even make sense...

So really tough guys don't need to eat? Now that's macho.

Nice CA, real nice.

To me what that implies is that the elite units will be provided for from a stock that is not counted amongst the standard army supply and rationing,much as was the case many a time throughout history.As well i am assuming they looked at the greatest example of attrition during the epoch that of course of the retreat from Russia,where the Grand Armee was devastated yet the Old guard made it through relatively intact

Originally Posted by Chevalier IX

As well i am assuming they looked at the greatest example of attrition during the epoch that of course of the retreat from Russia,where the Grand Armee was devastated yet the Old guard made it through relatively intact

i always though this game was going to be like a big expansion to etw anyway. i think a big reason for the drop in score may have been hiow its not "new" like empire and the similarities. still worth buying considering its 20 dollars cheaper than most new games. ign gave it an 8.9.

remember, an 8 out of 10 isnt bad at all.

Originally Posted by Maleficus

So, the latest issue of PC Gamer has a review of N:TW. They give it a fairly respectable score of 82, but bearing in mind they gave Empire, vanilla Empire no less, a 94, the 82 is hardly flattering.

Also, actually reading the article gives a more negative view: "To impess us - the old hands - NTW needed two things: novelty and refinement. Alas it offers precious little of the latter and only a flawed form of the former." They also bemoan the lack of replayability of the Italian campaign, the lack of diplomatic options during the Egyptian campaign and the ease of conquering enemy capitals.

Throughout the article, sometimes in the text, sometimes in the captions, the reader is made aware that the Black Watch routs too easily, naval battles are beautiful yet bland and, perhaps most vitally, that the AI still utterly sucks at both campaign strategy and diplomacy.

It is when they get to discussing the new attrition features, however, that it starts to sink in that CA really haven't been making the efforts they should.



I don't know about the rest of you, and I'm certainly not usually one to pay too much attention to reviews, but I can't help feeling that if the very magazine that generously described ETW as 'A strategy masterwork' is struggling to find very much positive to say about it's sequel, then it's unlikely to be worth investing £30 of my hard-earned cash.

So they gave ETW 94.. Release-day ETW with broken naval invasions etc. LOL..
And they still say that the ai still utterly sucks at campaign strategy and diplomacy.
Then imo it (like ETW) isnt worth more than 50/100.
If the AI is broken and worthless in a singleplayer game, whats the point?