Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Real Time Strategy (Games) Games

Early Praise For Empire: Total War 79

Posted by Soulskill
from the more-nutritious-than-17-bowls-of-generic-brand-war dept.
CVG had a chance to preview Empire: Total War, the latest in Creative Assembly's popular strategy series. This installment focuses on a time period which includes the Industrial Revolution and the struggle for US independence. CVG praises the intuitive interface and the improved AI, as well as the level of detail shown in large-scale battles. Quoting: "With a single mouse click I changed my troops' attack orders to melee and sent a sea of blue uniforms sweeping down the hill at the enemy. Zooming into the action revealed a previously unmatched level of battlefield realism and detail, with each motion captured soldier actively seeking out an opponent before engaging in a mortal shoving and stabbing match. Men toppled into the mud, squirming with terror before receiving a deft bayonet jab to the windpipe. After a titanic, 20-minute struggle the tide turned my way with the enemy hightailing it thanks in no small part to a bullet to the British general's head that broke his men's morale."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Early Praise For Empire: Total War

Comments Filter:
  • Total War Series (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mseeger (40923) on Monday December 29, 2008 @08:14AM (#26256679)
    Hi,

    i like the series since it's first implementation: Shogun.

    But the AI was never something to write home about. Neither on the tactical nor on the strategic level it ever posed a threat. So any improvement here would be a very welcome. But i have my doubts. I'm playing quite a lot of strategy games. I never found an AI which

    • ... could manage a fighting retreat,
    • ... has an understanding of the "schwerpunkt" concept and
    • ... knows when to avoid a fight.

    Some AIs have shown a little of one or the other, but none was ever strong on those issues. Typical "human" cheats against comuter opponents are:

    • Split their territory into two parts. Usually the computer treats the loss as any other and doesn't recognize the disadvantages.
    • If outnumbered, you can usually save most of your troops by splitting them. Offer the computer a small sacrifice and withdraw yout host in the opposite direction.
    • Usually an AI has "modes" as agressive, defensive, etc. If the computer is in an agressive mode, invite them to attack your strong points.
    • Typically AIs have problems with counting their enemies. Decision are based on the strongest force. Split your mighty army into small hosts but keep them close together for mutual support. An AI avoiding the large host may attack now.

    These are only examples. What i miss in an AI is the impression, that the AI has some kind of strategic plan. AIs never try to mislead me. So there is a lot of room for improvement.

    I love beating my oponent.... so i hope the AI doesn't get too strong :-))).

    CU on the battlefield, Martin

  • by MaulerOfEmotards (1284566) on Monday December 29, 2008 @10:00AM (#26257297)

    You reply in good faith and for good intentions but you are somewhat mistaken,

    First, Romans did NOT field regiments of archers. However, following Gaius Marius' reforms, in legions a cohort (8-10 centuries of 60 men) could have archers attached. These were generally placed as an archery shield in front of the front maniples and retracted when enemies approached. More usual, however, was simply the legionaries throwing their pilum javelin before equipping their gladius short sword.

    Secondly, Romans did NOT field any cavalry units. Cavalry fight from horseback, and cohesive military cavalry usage requires stirrups. Romans DID use mounted infantry though, and this could also perhaps harass enemy skirmish flankers. Stirrups wasn't invented until approximately the 7th or 8th Century. Thus, cavalry does not mean "mounted soldier". Also, the Roman social hierarchy included a "knight" class. This is not to be interpreted anachronistically as of a kind with the medieval knights, it simply means a social status above Plebeian but beneath the Patrician strata eligible for election to Senate.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29, 2008 @10:35AM (#26257541)

    Romans DID [wikipedia.org] field cavalry units, and they fought mounted without stirrups.

    A couple of famous examples are Cannae [wikipedia.org] during the Punic Wars (216BC). And at Pharsalus [wikipedia.org] during Caeser's civil war (48BC), where Caeser's troops used spears against an enemy cavalry charge.

    Stirrups are needed for the longer medieval lance and making riding a bit easier. But it is perfectly possible to fight on horse back without them.

    The mounted infantry was more common in the later era (post 300AD), especially for patrols.

Theory is gray, but the golden tree of life is green. -- Goethe

Working...