Why all the hate?

This thread'll probably be closed soon, but i'll ask anyway...
Why do so many people hate NTW? I love it. it is the most difficult TW game yet (RTW and m2tw were much too simple) its highly realistic, historically accurate, graphically beautiful, and in depth. Diplomacy is no longer the shoddy sham it was in RTW, oversimplified as in m2tw, etc. you no longer can "stack spam" as the financial system has been streamlined and made more realistic. The battles are accurate, interesting, enjoyable. Naval battles are gorgeous, realistic, and fun. The campaign is one hell of an experience- fast paced, deadly, accurate. there are actual turning points now, something that was lost in the stack spam of previous titles. Historical accuracy, something glaringly lacking in RTW and m2tw, is very finely done here-CA listened to their fan base, i think. there are some faults, of course, but i don't see why people hate NTW so much. Why?
EDIT: and if the hate is all residual damage from ETW...come on now. i realize how bad ETW was, but doesn't CA deserve a second chance? they give you 4 or 5 great games and release one shoddy one, and you blast them endlessly!

I agree, all i have read is how Shogun 2 is a return to form since the disaster that was ETW/NTW. Sorry I must be missed something as I have had some of my best experiences in playing both games. After ETW got patched ( and the addition of Darth mod I must confess) it is a truly amazing game. I agree with the OP about Napoleon but mention must be made about multi player. Yes it can be laggy, cursed with drops and such but I have had some of the most adrenilin fuelled battles that no FPS has ever given me. Dont get me wrong I am enjoying Shogun but Napoleon is the true emperior. Just give us those tools and the last of the units please!

I don't hate Nappy, a pretty decent game in my opinion.

Napoleon was the most polished game CA had released before Shogun 2. It had some great production values, from the music and the voice acting, to the stunning graphics. It was also streamlined towards those with low end systems, case being I could play larger battles on Napoleon with less framerate drop in comparison to a similar battle on Empire. One of the best battles I fought in a Total War game, Waterloo, was also in this game. A truly epic, nail-biting battle.

With that in mind though, I was never really hyped to play it, and it's probably my least played Total War game, having spent roughly 30 hours on it since its release. I got bored of the campaigns quite quickly. The only ones I completed were the tutorial and Italian campaigns. I skipped Egypt quite early on in the game and I didn't bother at all with the Western European campaign. Same goes with all the historical battles except Waterloo. I roughly spent most of my time playing as the British during the Peninsular War DLC - something I failed to complete. It's hard to explain but it never really appealed to me in the same ways as Rome or Medieval.

Still, I will admit it's one of the best 'out of the box vanilla' games that CA have ever made.

I dont see that much hate

Originally Posted by Asterix

This thread'll probably be closed soon, but i'll ask anyway...
Why do so many people hate NTW? I love it. it is the most difficult TW game yet (RTW and m2tw were much too simple) its highly realistic, historically accurate, graphically beautiful, and in depth. Diplomacy is no longer the shoddy sham it was in RTW, oversimplified as in m2tw, etc. you no longer can "stack spam" as the financial system has been streamlined and made more realistic. The battles are accurate, interesting, enjoyable. Naval battles are gorgeous, realistic, and fun. The campaign is one hell of an experience- fast paced, deadly, accurate. there are actual turning points now, something that was lost in the stack spam of previous titles. Historical accuracy, something glaringly lacking in RTW and m2tw, is very finely done here-CA listened to their fan base, i think. there are some faults, of course, but i don't see why people hate NTW so much. Why?
EDIT: and if the hate is all residual damage from ETW...come on now. i realize how bad ETW was, but doesn't CA deserve a second chance? they give you 4 or 5 great games and release one shoddy one, and you blast them endlessly!

I adore NTW. MY favorite game of all games ever. Must play Shogun to make my judgment.

They think NTW was made out of the tears of frustrated people who where disappointed of ETW. Powered in the most polish state thanks to unicorn gonads.

Napoleon is defenitley a fantastic game! I like all total war games but i think Napoleon and now Shogun are the most advance from the Total War series. They are defenitley improved in many ways. But offcurse in the end it all comes to the feeling and i think most of the people who say that Napoleon and Empire are a step back for the CA, don't really like or know how to apreciate that period of time. All that Napoleonic warfare kind of stuff. Gentlmen's in uniforms walking in formations with muskeets in their hands. Empire was pretty bad but they were doing it for the first time. Napoleon is a very polished game. The gameplay is great, the graphic is good, pretty historical accurate and all that gives you a feeling that sucks you into that perioad of time. Offcurse it's not perfect but none of them are! Now Shogun camed and they are all pretty much satisfied and gained back their trust in the CA

I am not a hater of Napoleon, but didn't play it much (2-3 campaigns?).

it is the most difficult TW game yet (RTW and m2tw were much too simple)

I think either original Shogun or Medieval1 is the winner here.

its highly realistic,

Sorry, but no.

historically accurate,

Nope.

graphically beautiful,

I agree it looks awesome, I especially liked the naval battles

Diplomacy is no longer the shoddy sham it was in RTW, oversimplified as in m2tw, etc.

Still, it isn't a big improvement.

you no longer can "stack spam" as the financial system has been streamlined and made more realistic. The battles are accurate, interesting, enjoyable. Naval battles are gorgeous, realistic, and fun.

I found the battles especially boring, it is very easy to win. Also, the weapons used are badly implemented. (like too efficient musket-fire)

The campaign is one hell of an experience- fast paced, deadly, accurate. there are actual turning points now, something that was lost in the stack spam of previous titles.

Well, that is a point, but the same thing from my perspective is that the campaign is too easy, too short, and this should have been a disk for empire, or dlc.

Historical accuracy, something glaringly lacking in RTW and m2tw, is very finely done here-CA listened to their fan base, i think. there are some faults,

Not really, Napoleon is far from historical. No problem for me, I even loved Rome's wardogs and Medieval2's scotsmen in kilts, because these are moddable and were modded.


I don't think this game is hated, but nothing special in the Total War lineup.

Well quite obviously based upon the fan mail posted above the entire pretext behind the start of this thread is flawed.

Indeed the reason why those of us who are dissappointed with NTW are inclined towards hatred is precisely because we don't agree with those who love it.

- we don't agree that its highly realistic,

In fact its nothing more than a mockery of Napoleonic warfare and tactic's, based largely upon the imagery used by Universal Studio's.

- Its not remotely close to historical accuracy,

It ignores both the political and social aspects of the war, the economic pressures that made the Coalition possible, the tactic's and strategies that made the French army so formidable in the early part of the war and the principles that caused the rest of Europe to fight the French.

- the graphics whilst pretty are just simply worng,

Even the uniforms of the Imperial guard are incorrect.

- the battles are a waste of time bearing no relationship to the originals in tactical complexity.

- diplomacy is pointless as factions still cannot co-operate with each other even though this was a fundemental aspect of Napoleonic warfare at the time.

However, the biggest source of hatred for NTW is probably ETW, which was abandoned by CA so they could move on and make more money out of their customer base. The back lash from those loyal fans like myself who spent good money on a game which was released before it was finished and then dumped without being fixed, has obviously be focussed upon the game that CA was working on instead of fixing the game we purchased.

So, I'm glad somebody likes it, but thats why there are so many people on this forum who don't.

[QUOTE=Didz;9205408]
- we don't agree that its highly realistic,

In fact its nothing more than a mockery of Napoleonic warfare and tactic's, based largely upon the imagery used by Universal Studio's.

- Its not remotely close to historical accuracy,

It ignores both the political and social aspects of the war, the economic pressures that made the Coalition possible, the tactic's and strategies that made the French army so formidable in the early part of the war and the principles that caused the rest of Europe to fight the French.

- the graphics whilst pretty are just simply worng,

Even the uniforms of the Imperial guard are incorrect.

- the battles are a waste of time bearing no relationship to the originals in tactical complexity.

QUOTE]
its still a far cry from the faux roman legions in RTW, the cringingly innacurate representation of the barbarians, the frustratingly appalling portrayal of the eastern Hellenistic factions, the movie-like Muslims in M2tw, the tragically wrong depiction of the barbarian invasion in RTW, fantasy units, etc. granted, i don't know much about this period, but i know enough to say that NTW beats every other TW game in historical accuracy by a mile.
as for your complaints about battles, i agree they aren't as complex as they should-but isn't this the same as in any TW game? Napoleon and Caesar both led tens of thousands of men into battle, something that we as TW players cannot do-we are only capable of commanding at most a few thousand. this takes away from the complexity aspect, not just in NTW but in RTW. as for the "political and social aspects of the war," what do you mean? vanilla NTW may not give a great job in explaining why France was at war with the rest of Europe, but it does a heck of a job with that war. and principles that caused the rest of Europe to fight the French? elaborate, please.
as for the above post-yes, i must agree unfortunately. TW is losing that uniqueness that we all loved in RTW and m2tw. it is becoming more and more like every other strategy game on the market, IMHO. i like some of the things that CA did with the NTW/s2tw games, but i think they went a smidge too far.

Disappointed in NTW; their attempt at a rock, paper, scissors combat system is unhistorical; especially where it concerns navies.
As an example, bomb ketch's firing at a moving target on the open sea.
Lack of army cohesion parameters, siege mortars on a open battlefield; in game battlefield tactics vs real life.
As an example of how they could use the computer to reflect more accurately the tactics; look at how Sid Meier's Gettysburg handled the morale bonuses. For example, they could give a bonus for the French use of column, flanks protected and units behind in support.
Leaders should have included at least a brigade cmdr with penalties if sub unit was too far away.
Unlimited artillery ammo; you should have to choose when you fire your cannons, fire away at targets too far away and not have ammo for when they are more appealing targets.
A better use of skirmishers, where their fire reduces the enemy morale more than the casualties they inflict. This is just an example.

[QUOTE=Asterix;9206182]

Originally Posted by Didz

- we don't agree that its highly realistic,

In fact its nothing more than a mockery of Napoleonic warfare and tactic's, based largely upon the imagery used by Universal Studio's.

- Its not remotely close to historical accuracy,

It ignores both the political and social aspects of the war, the economic pressures that made the Coalition possible, the tactic's and strategies that made the French army so formidable in the early part of the war and the principles that caused the rest of Europe to fight the French.

- the graphics whilst pretty are just simply worng,

Even the uniforms of the Imperial guard are incorrect.

- the battles are a waste of time bearing no relationship to the originals in tactical complexity.

QUOTE]
its still a far cry from the faux roman legions in RTW, the cringingly innacurate representation of the barbarians, the frustratingly appalling portrayal of the eastern Hellenistic factions, the movie-like Muslims in M2tw, the tragically wrong depiction of the barbarian invasion in RTW, fantasy units, etc. granted, i don't know much about this period, but i know enough to say that NTW beats every other TW game in historical accuracy by a mile.
as for your complaints about battles, i agree they aren't as complex as they should-but isn't this the same as in any TW game? Napoleon and Caesar both led tens of thousands of men into battle, something that we as TW players cannot do-we are only capable of commanding at most a few thousand. this takes away from the complexity aspect, not just in NTW but in RTW. as for the "political and social aspects of the war," what do you mean? vanilla NTW may not give a great job in explaining why France was at war with the rest of Europe, but it does a heck of a job with that war. and principles that caused the rest of Europe to fight the French? elaborate, please.
as for the above post-yes, i must agree unfortunately. TW is losing that uniqueness that we all loved in RTW and m2tw. it is becoming more and more like every other strategy game on the market, IMHO. i like some of the things that CA did with the NTW/s2tw games, but i think they went a smidge too far.

What about the super-accurate howitzers, deadly muskets that can wipe out half of my attacking regiment before they return fire, chasseurs a cheval firing while charging (super annoying), and the French eating their own allies instead of attacking the coalition.
I don't hate NTW, but with mods it is so much better.;

Originally Posted by Prince of Darkness

I don't hate NTW, but with mods it is so much better.;

isn't this the case with any TW game? every one is vastly improved upon by mods. i haven't tried any NTW ones yet, but i can say for sure this is, for me, the best, most solid, most enjoyable vanilla TW game ever. Once i've had my fill, i'll move on EIC.
as for your other points: true, true. but all of these complaints don't come remotely close to the innacuracies of previous TW games. m2tw, for instance. WTF Muslims? what's with all the fantasy units? What's with the horrifyingly atrocious representation of the Romans in RTW? 3 factions for houses? A reform system that doesn't come close to the complexity of the Marian reforms, barbarian factions so horrendously wrong (screeching women?!). the list goes on and on...

ETW is crap, and NTW as far as reality goes isn't a lot better. CA should've never touched musket era without making more complex systems, like a chain of command, corps system, advanced diplomatics, economy. But i don't hate it because it isn't a broken piece of crap like Empire.

Originally Posted by emperor77

ETW is crap, and NTW as far as reality goes isn't a lot better. CA should've never touched musket era without making more complex systems, like a chain of command, corps system, advanced diplomatics, economy. But i don't hate it because it isn't a broken piece of crap like Empire.

Personally, I prefer ETW, even in its 'broken' condition to NTW, mainly because its more strategically challenging and varied. I find I get bored very quickly with NTW campaigns as they are essentially the same and universally pointless to play.

However, thats largely a matter of taste, and doesn't alter the fact that neither game works properly or reflects the period it claims to be based upon.

I agree with you that CA should never have touched either period without doing some thorough research into the history and some major rework of its game engine to ensure that it reflected that period propery.

i didnt play ETW because i was told by mate it will not be pached so i jumped on NTW. However i started NTW last week even tho i had a game over 9 months or so (was playing medieval TW2) and on hard i finished already with russia. All you need to do is go around napoleons back and keep trashing his cities because he is focuse don austria and his cities arent protected.

dont think game is challenging at all. Definitely not historically accurate. I found it amazing that you can have Romania as independent country but ot bugaria and serbia. throughout history bulgarians and serbs had much more impact on almost every war that was happening in europe than romania but ...

uniforms arent accurate. colours are all over the place.

i had most fun with medieval total war 2 despite its being completely historically inaccurate.

Originally Posted by emperor77

ETW is crap, and NTW as far as reality goes isn't a lot better. CA should've never touched musket era without making more complex systems, like a chain of command, corps system, advanced diplomatics, economy. But i don't hate it because it isn't a broken piece of crap like Empire.

The thing about Total War games is that they are NOT hardcore-micromanaging-pay-attention-to-every-single-detail games. They are much more about epicness and overall fun factor rather than hardcore strategy. Does that include a challenge? It should, especially within the AI zone*improved in Shogun, but still has problems* but a Total War that is as complex as you are talking about would easily beat ETW as worst in the series.

Originally Posted by bbad89

The thing about Total War games is that they are NOT hardcore-micromanaging-pay-attention-to-every-single-detail games. They are much more about epicness and overall fun factor rather than hardcore strategy. Does that include a challenge? It should, especially within the AI zone*improved in Shogun, but still has problems* but a Total War that is as complex as you are talking about would easily beat ETW as worst in the series.

Go back to your consoles mister no-startegy-necessary-in-a-FRIGGIN-STRATEGY-GAME!

You simply can't use the same diplomacy and army management for a Napoleonic game that you use for a Medieval game without it looking silly. Napoleonic wars was all about making coalitions to fight napoleon and we don't even get to do that in game.

Originally Posted by emperor77

Go back to your consoles mister no-startegy-necessary-in-a-FRIGGIN-STRATEGY-GAME!

You simply can't use the same diplomacy and army management for a Napoleonic game that you use for a Medieval game without it looking silly. Napoleonic wars was all about making coalitions to fight napoleon and we don't even get to do that in game.

well, the thing is, it doesn't-m2tw is so much different than ntw. NTW actually has a replenishment system for casualties (thank god) and diplomacy is undoubtedly better. you can actually break up alliances with bribes. and i know little about the napoleonic era, but by the time the Europe campaign begins, hadn't the coalition already been established?