Napoleon vs. Empire

This thread is here to cater for your praise, your criticisms and your outright insults to the two most recent total war games. In this thread you can post whatever you want; suggestions, comparisons and mod posts are all welcome. So blast away! Voice your opinion on these two great(?) total war games!
Enjoy...

Both games very bad if you compare them with Rome or Medieval. If Shogun 2 will follow path of Empire and Napoleon, then i wont be wasting my time with it.

Well, I agree that Medieval defiantly tops Empire, but I'm not so sure about Napoleon. One of the most annoying things about Empire (aside from the bugs!) was the size of the regions on the map, they were huge! I mean having France as all one region? No way! Anyway I do agree that total war games seem to decline as they go on although, Napoleon has been a slight turn around. But yeah, I will defiantly skip Shogun II.
Also, taking Knights of St. John out

I really didn't have any love for Empire: Total War at all until I recently installed the game again with the well known Darthmod. Now my opinion of the time period and the battles themselves has changed completely for me. While the vanilla version of the game was lacking, it was the same in my opinion for Medieval II. If it wasn't for the modding community for Rome, Medieval II or Empire: Total War, I probably wouldn't be playing this series at all.

Medieval II really takes the cake for variation of mods and the battle animations were just more exciting to watch. But, the massive geopolitical scale of Empire was a definite plus for me. I really enjoyed being able to become a global economic power and the sea battles were tons of fun once I got the hang of it. They really did pull a risky move with this more modern time period, but I really think it was a decent game (once again, with the innovative community to fix the errors of the original game). I did dislike initially how France and Spain were all one region, but now it doesn't irk me anymore either.

I bought Napoleon: Total War and played it for a few hours before turning it away. I'm currently installing it again and will give it a go with an unbiased mindset since I'm now adjusted to the tactics of the period. This was another dramatic change for me, since I've been so used to the global interaction between nations.

In my opinion, its way too early to draw any negative criticism towards Shogun II: Total War. I really think its going to be a landmark in their series, since its essentially going to be an improvement of everything seen in the previous series.

They decided to experiment a bit and I'll be optimistic in thinking they've learned from their mistakes and will release a fine game. I think it was Shogun II or Rome II that was most desired by the community in some poll I saw, so they're making a step in the right direction by choosing to return to this time period.

Things that Empire did better than Nappy:

• Scope of the Campaign (Americas, Europe, India)
• Decent amount of (playable) factions (Including eastern ones such as the Ottomans and Marathas)
• Better unit cards (I'm picky about that sort of thing)
• Diverse amount of units (Militia to Elephants, Bows and Arrows to Air Guns and everything in between)
• Greater amount of technologies

Things that Nappy did better than Empire:

• Runs much better even with high settings (For me at least)
• Fort battles are bearable now (In my opinion)
• Superior DLC (and much less of it as well)
• I enjoy the mini-campaigns

That is off the top of my head. Overall, Nappy runs much smoother and plays well, however the Grand Campaign can get old rather quickly. Empire on the other hand had an utterly fantastic campaign but was brough down by sub-par game play. All in my opinion, of course.

Originally Posted by KayRim

Things that Empire did better than Nappy:

• Scope of the Campaign (Americas, Europe, India)
• Decent amount of (playable) factions (Including eastern ones such as the Ottomans and Marathas)
• Better unit cards (I'm picky about that sort of thing)
• Diverse amount of units (Militia to Elephants, Bows and Arrows to Air Guns and everything in between)
• Greater amount of technologies

Things that Nappy did better than Empire:

• Runs much better even with high settings (For me at least)
• Fort battles are bearable now (In my opinion)
• Superior DLC (and much less of it as well)
• I enjoy the mini-campaigns

That is off the top of my head. Overall, Nappy runs much smoother and plays well, however the Grand Campaign can get old rather quickly. Empire on the other hand had an utterly fantastic campaign but was brough down by sub-par game play. All in my opinion, of course.

In my opinion unit cards suck in Empire. Unit cards and the fact that generic clone units still remain in game are what's stopping me from fully enjoying Darthmod.

Originally Posted by Ethien

I really didn't have any love for Empire: Total War at all until I recently installed the game again with the well known Darthmod. Now my opinion of the time period and the battles themselves has changed completely for me. While the vanilla version of the game was lacking, it was the same in my opinion for Medieval II. If it wasn't for the modding community for Rome, Medieval II or Empire: Total War, I probably wouldn't be playing this series at all.

Medieval II really takes the cake for variation of mods and the battle animations were just more exciting to watch. But, the massive geopolitical scale of Empire was a definite plus for me. I really enjoyed being able to become a global economic power and the sea battles were tons of fun once I got the hang of it. They really did pull a risky move with this more modern time period, but I really think it was a decent game (once again, with the innovative community to fix the errors of the original game). I did dislike initially how France and Spain were all one region, but now it doesn't irk me anymore either.

I bought Napoleon: Total War and played it for a few hours before turning it away. I'm currently installing it again and will give it a go with an unbiased mindset since I'm now adjusted to the tactics of the period. This was another dramatic change for me, since I've been so used to the global interaction between nations.

In my opinion, its way too early to draw any negative criticism towards Shogun II: Total War. I really think its going to be a landmark in their series, since its essentially going to be an improvement of everything seen in the previous series.

They decided to experiment a bit and I'll be optimistic in thinking they've learned from their mistakes and will release a fine game. I think it was Shogun II or Rome II that was most desired by the community in some poll I saw, so they're making a step in the right direction by choosing to return to this time period.

Yes, Empire is a great game with Dm installed but without...not so. I think that Napoleon was a MASSIVE improvement on Empire, although the scope and distance of land covered in one game was better. Napoleon improved: bugs,turns per year, naval warfare(although it was good in Empire) and the amount of regions in Europe. Although I think taking the Middle East out was a slight oversight, I mean Egypt was one of Napoleon's campaigns! But I agree with you on Medieval, it definantly has the most diverse array of mods and opportunities. Not so sure about Rome though...as I do not own it. Shh...

I rate Empire the best because there are 3 different continents as well as trade theaters in different places in the world. The Road To Independence campaign impressed me a lot as well. I would rate Napoleon the highest if there was a Grand Campaign mode with as big of a map as Empire TW. I have Medieval Total War II and Kingdoms...it is a good game and for a combined cost of £15 was worth it tbf, but I dont rate it as high as Napoleon or Empire.

1. Empire
2. Napoleon
3. Medieval II

Originally Posted by KayRim

Things that Empire did better than Nappy:

• Scope of the Campaign (Americas, Europe, India)
• Decent amount of (playable) factions (Including eastern ones such as the Ottomans and Marathas)
• Better unit cards (I'm picky about that sort of thing)
• Diverse amount of units (Militia to Elephants, Bows and Arrows to Air Guns and everything in between)
• Greater amount of technologies

Things that Nappy did better than Empire:

• Runs much better even with high settings (For me at least)
• Fort battles are bearable now (In my opinion)
• Superior DLC (and much less of it as well)
• I enjoy the mini-campaigns

That is off the top of my head. Overall, Nappy runs much smoother and plays well, however the Grand Campaign can get old rather quickly. Empire on the other hand had an utterly fantastic campaign but was brough down by sub-par game play. All in my opinion, of course.

Yes, I agree but I thin k that there is more that Napoleon did better, although I can't think of it now!
But yeah, I think you are basically right.

Originally Posted by English Total War Gamer

I rate Empire the best because there are 3 different continents as well as trade theaters in different places in the world. The Road To Independence campaign impressed me a lot as well. I would rate Napoleon the highest if there was a Grand Campaign mode with as big of a map as Empire TW. I have Medieval Total War II and Kingdoms...it is a good game and for a combined cost of £15 was worth it tbf, but I dont rate it as high as Napoleon or Empire.

1. Empire
2. Napoleon
3. Medieval II

Hmm...well I agree that having more theatres in Empire is a BIG plus but I wouldn't say that that would make it the best. I mean, Empire was full of bugs, but Napoleon, hardly any! And plus I think the Maps in Napoleon are superior to those of Empire (France is not a single region etc.) Also, the AI and just general game play in Nappy seem to make it generally superior and to tend to increase the gaming experience entirely. I seem to look at Empire as a kind of beta version for Napoleon and when you look at some of the things in Napoleon you can see they are inspired by DarthMod! LOL
Still Medieval is a good game and I would say it would rank even, if not better with Empire.

Originally Posted by English Total War Gamer

I rate Empire the best because there are 3 different continents as well as trade theaters in different places in the world. The Road To Independence campaign impressed me a lot as well. I would rate Napoleon the highest if there was a Grand Campaign mode with as big of a map as Empire TW. I have Medieval Total War II and Kingdoms...it is a good game and for a combined cost of £15 was worth it tbf, but I dont rate it as high as Napoleon or Empire.

1. Empire
2. Napoleon
3. Medieval II

Get the Stainless Steel 6.1 mod and your mind will definitely be changed. After that, get the Third Age TW mod too. You will than realize just how awesome M2 is simply because of its modding capabilities. And in a year or so EB2 will be released which will easily be better than CA's R2TW.

Originally Posted by Chyeaaaa111

Get the Stainless Steel 6.1 mod and your mind will definitely be changed. After that, get the Third Age TW mod too. You will than realize just how awesome M2 is simply because of its modding capabilities. And in a year or so EB2 will be released which will easily be better than CA's R2TW.

Thanks mate, I haven't tried any Mods yet, will give them a go

Napoleon Total War is leaps and bounds better than ETW, which I uninstalled after 3 weeks. My favourite all time is M2.

My rating

Mtw1
Empire
Rome
Nappy
MTW2
shougun