Sega announces Empire: Total War

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
http://i207.photobucket.com/al...Mac/ShipBattlesEng.jpg

I translated that from German as well.

Unfortunately I have no idea about factions. Here's the scoop though: CA showed units from three factions in that screens: Prussia, Britain, Russia. There'll be 50 factions, 10 playable.
So if we were to accept these three factions as playable (which I guess yes) that means 7 more playable, plus, it gives me a good idea of who else is in.
Here's what many people guess:
1. Britain
2. Prussia
3. France
4. Russia
5. Ottoman Empire
6. 13 Colonies
7. United Provinces (Dutch)
8. Republic of Venice
9. Spain
10. Swedish Empire

(possible "others")
Portugal
Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth

Keep in mind, CA have confirmed 50 factions, 10 playable, and among the confirmed factions (not confirmed playable) are the Mughals of India, which means that Empire will be globe spanning, but will somehow not include the Pacific Island and Australia.

These are (ahem) illicit scans that were posted in German on teh interwebz. I just took them and translated them.
Here's my translation of another scan relating to the RTS Ship Battles interface (WIP)
http://i207.photobucket.com/al...Mac/ShipBattlesEng.jpg
http://i207.photobucket.com/al...9/teh_Mac/6apjmM4x.jpg
^ A lesser well known screen--it's a scan
http://i207.photobucket.com/al...9/teh_Mac/aGVtVK92.jpg
^ditto
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
So now that the E:TW takes place in a time period with uniforms, what are people going to complain about? ;)
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,189
184
106
Wow ... just wow.

It looks beautiful (well, for a Total War game that is).

And, they've FINALLY made Sea Battles a reality ?! ENFIN !

I can't wait for it, thanks for all the info, much appreciated.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Originally posted by: Bateluer
So now that the E:TW takes place in a time period with uniforms, what are people going to complain about? ;)

Hrmm...I'm sure they'll get something wrong. :p

But actually, I found so much more annoying with Medieval 2, the graphics were good, I just felt there were path finding issues, battles felt uninspired (at times) and I guess I just psyched it up too much. The merchants were a dumb feature, as well. They just clogged up the map, not much atmosphere, Music was bland as hell, etc.

That was developed by CA Brisbane in Australia, and Empire is dev'd by by CA UK. So hopefully, CA UK dev's all future Total Wars, while the idiots at SEGA put CA Aussieland to work on the kiddie console crap.

My expectations for this game are not all that psyched up, simply because I am a Classicist and Medievalist, so I'm not a huge fan of the 1700's, but any military history is exciting, and I used to be a huge fan of this period when I was younger, so I guess I'm at the very least, very interested.

Originally posted by: Zenoth
Wow ... just wow.

It looks beautiful (well, for a Total War game that is).

And, they've FINALLY made Sea Battles a reality ?! ENFIN !

I can't wait for it, thanks for all the info, much appreciated.

Yeah, no problem, keep in mind, it's skepticism, cept the parts I confirmed.

If you live in the U.K. (aarrr looks like you live in Frenchie land!) be sure to pick up Total PC Gaming for more details on ETW.

There's a correction on Total War's website though
Total PC Gaming magazine makes its UK debut this month with an exclusive Empire: Total War preview. Within their Empire-covered pages is an interview with lead designer James Russell and some gorgeous screenshots to boot.

We have one amendment to their printed release date for Empire: Total War. The game is not scheduled for release in March 2008 and isn't currently 75% complete, as their Complete-o-meter indicates. Stay tuned to TotalWar.com for the official release date at a later time!


So if any UKies are out there with scanners, be sure to check your local bookstore and come back. :p ;)

Alternatively, Zenoth, you could swim the Channel, smuggle the British magazine into France and scan from there!
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,189
184
106
Hehe !

To take the famous "why walk when you can ride" line from Morrowind, I'll say why swim the Channel when I can take the high-speed train. But perhaps a little swim would do some good to my cardiovascular system. :)

But right now I'm still playing and having most of my attention taken by Medieval II: Total War (modified with DarthMod). I will wait in due time for the news to come in France. :)
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Alright, sounds good I suppose. I hope maybe MarcVenice, our Total War journalist guru will be able to help us out.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,761
777
126
How come Australia and the pacific islands arent on the map? Seems a bit cheap to me. Werent places like Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii part of the British Empire by 1800? Seems a bit like having Rome:Total War without the British Isles to me....
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Well, the Southeast Pacific, to CA's mind, didn't feature much struggle over the islands, the British used Australia as a prison, tbf ~_~, so I can see how they're somewhat justified.

Btw, that's not confirmed, it's rumor, but it's well founded rumor.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
If they could do this for the American Civil War, I think I will be in heaven.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,189
184
106
I have a strange feeling that Empire: Total War's expansion (because we all know it will happen) will be, finally, the Napoleonic Wars. And I believe that one of (if not the only one) IGN's previews of the game mentioned something along those lines, because the time period covered in E:TW reaches the French Revolution, which saw Napoleon's first "major" victory against the British forces pushing them back from a southern port at Toulon, and then it all started after that (going up the military ranks, and so on).

Perhaps the ending of E:TW will suggest it, or not. Personally I can't hide that I've always wanted to see the Napoleonic Wars made by Creative Assembly themselves, I think since I first played Rome: Total War. If it happens I will be in heaven (or in Hell, depending on how you see it, it's war, after all).
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
It's definitely a 90% chance that the next Expansion pack will feature the Napoleanic Period in some sort or another. They might make a y-pack, or a couple other 10$ campaigns (might be nice).


Supposedly, The following factions have been confirmed to be in the game (this does NOT mean they're playable--only 10 factions out of ~50 will be playable).

Mughals of India
Britain
America
Sweden
United Provinces(Netherlands)
Poland-Lithuania
Russia
Prussia
Venice
Spain
France
Ottoman Empire-
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Hi guys
Welcome to our second Empire: Total War Q&A, where we provide more answers to some of your most burning questions!

Q: How many factions will there be in the game? And will [insert name of home country here] be included?
A: These two related questions are two of the most popular, particularly the "Will my country..." bit. People also wondered how we end up with the faction list. Surprisingly, nationalism and irrational prejudice do not drive our choices. If they did, then Yorkshire, Dorking, the Kingdom of Bognor, Chicken Madras and the Democratic Workers' Republic of Woking would automatically be factions. In every game.

Naturally, not all factions are equal. This has always been the case; it is far harder to win as the Western Romans, big though the faction is, than the Saxons in R:TW Barbarian Invasion. We tend to define factions as being potentially playable (or not), by their culture, whether they are major or minor, and whether they might be "emergent" when we look at the candidate list. We then look at getting a good mix in terms of culture, national unit and army lists, and gameplay potential.

We use "culture" as a way of collecting similar factions together and sharing resources: you'll find Western European nations all share a lot of the same cultural baggage, so it make sense to have a common set of game resources for them. Sometimes this means we can sneak in extra factions because they are similar to something we have already done (hurrah!): it is relatively easy to add Mysore if the material for the Mughals and the Maharattas already exists.

The major/minor split is our take on whether a faction starts the game with more than one region (e.g. France = major; Hanover = minor). When we are considering who to include a minor faction is less likely to make the cut than a major one. Some potential factions end up as rebels early on because the nation in question simply did not go anywhere during Empire's historical period. Often these were considered for full faction status before they were assigned to the rebel category: it is not sensible, for example, to do a full faction work up on the Republic of Genoa.

Emergent factions (these, you might remember, were in RTWBI) are those nations that did, or might, come into being during a game's historical period, or could have come into being. The most obvious one in the Empire period is the United States of America. There are no guarantees that the USA will appear, but if there is a rebellion in the right sort of area, at the right sort of time and other factors are appropriate, then rather than seeing rebels, you will see the Continental Army marching off to war.

So, the Empire: Total War factions have yet to be finalised. There will be at least 10 playable factions in the game, but we're currently engaged in a free and frank exchange of views about the candidates for inclusion on that list. Some, like France and Prussia, have guaranteed places as playable factions because they were significant in the wars and politics of the time. The powers that changed status (waxing and waning) are the ones that cause us problems! The full faction list is much longer, and it includes all the AI-controlled factions that we don't think are that rewarding for a human to play.

So, we are currently looking at around 50 factions and scratching our heads to decide which ones make the cut as being interesting both historically and in terms of game play. The final point is that what we'd like to do with the factions and what's practical are not always the same thing. Often we'll have to exclude a faction for time reasons. If we're going to have to create a completely new set of buildings, units, animations and on-screen messages for a minor (and therefore relatively obscure) faction, the chances are that it won't make it into the game. And sometimes more does not automatically equal better. It can mean that the development marmalade is spread too thinly over too many slices of conceptual toast.

Q: Will famous characters such as Wellington make an appearance in the game, and will they have special abilities to reflect their historical importance? What new character traits are there?
A: Famous and some not-so-famous characters are present in the game, yes. However, because the unfolding of a TW game isn't a fixed path, there is not going to be a guarantee that an Arthur Wellesley (the Duke of Wellington eventually), a Napoleon Bonaparte, a George Washington or anyone else will *always* appear when the game is played. If they did, then camping on their spawn points until the right date would not make for a very interesting game. This, by the way, is all part of the larger counterfactual-historical debate in Total War games: history probably won't repeat itself exactly as you play.

We're having to be quite disciplined about the famous people that we include as characters and ancillaries, simply because there could be thousands of them, all with their own claim to a place in the game. Should we include Mozart as a famous composer, Thomas Slade, a naval architect of some genius, Lancelot "Capability" Brown, the man who completely reshaped the English countryside, Jethro Tull, the folk rock band and agriculturalist, or Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, a right royal pain in the neck? They're all interesting people, and made their contribution.

The traits system is being revised for Empire: Total War; the Rome/M2TW system could "spam" traits sometimes and we need to address that. We're not going to give you a list of the new character traits because it (a) would be a bit boring done like that; and (b) the list isn't finalised, so that if we tell you there's a trait called "Sausage" might not ever make it into the finished game. There is a trait called Sausage, by the way, but it's not really the kind of thing you want to talk about in polite company. However, just to whet your appetites there are two interesting traits: "American General" and "Indian General" that have potentially interesting effects. These are gained by Europeans fighting in the relevant parts of the world and represent "going native" in terms of skills and attitudes. If everything goes to plan, the American General trait will even give a general and his unit some stealth ability on the battlefield. It's also possible for generals to develop a complete dislike of the two continents too - not everyone likes curry or burgers, after all.

When the list has firmed up at beta, we'll return to the subject of traits and historical characters in another FAQ or as a developer diary.

Q: The bayonet was invented in this period, so how will the various types be used on the battlefield? Will key technological inventions like this be events on the campaign map?
A: The bayonet is quite an interesting technology that directly impacts on battlefield behaviour in units. Before it arrives, musketeers have to reverse their muskets and use them as crude clubs to beat down opponents. The plug bayonet is a big step in the right direction, but once it is fitted (like a cork in a bottle neck) it prevents a man from firing and reloading his gun. It does give a musketeer a short "pike" for hand-to-hand fighting, and that's useful. Incidentally, the bayonet was seen as a substitute pike and accordingly pike drill was used after its introduction. The ring bayonet allows fire and slow reloading, but isn't very secure in its fixing to a musket; it's better in a fight, but not that much better.

Finally the socket bayonet slides onto the musket and then locks on a barrel lug. The blade is offset, so that the musket can be loaded and fired easily, and it won't come loose when thrust into an enemy's guts. This kind of practical, brutal weapon made it possible to introduce "modern" bayonet fighting as a drill.

And no, we're not handling technological advances as set historical events. We're giving you more control over the game than that, but as to how -that's for another day.

Q: Won't the rampant expansion of European powers over less developed countries unbalance things in Empire? Won't players be able to simply sweep aside native populations and establish colonies?
A: No, not necessarily. This is where the art of the game designer comes in, at least in our opinion. It's our job to make sure that the game isn't just a predictable rush for colonies. The question also ignores the number of wars that went on across Europe during the 18th Century as well.

There was "rampant" European expansion during the Empire period, but the European nations and their trading companies weren't guaranteed to have things their own way at all. In India, for example, the Europeans fought against each other and used proxies in a series of vicious little wars that could have seen the Europeans driven out on several occasions. That they weren't is more a tribute to cunning diplomacy, bribes, and the fact that some local princeling was always willing to cut a deal.

Interestingly, native populations weren't always swept aside. At least part of the sense of grievance felt by the American Colonials towards the British government was fuelled by the agreements that London had struck with the native tribes to restrain their colonisation efforts. In India the Europeans were in no position to sweep "the natives" aside. Instead, they mounted a "hostile takeover" and left the senior and middle management in place; the poor old peasants at the bottom of the heap probably never realised that they were now farming "colonial" land.

Q: Will the game be totally different from M2TW?
A: Firstly, Medieval 2: Total War was a development of the Rome: Total War engine. For Empire: Total War we've started again with new game and graphics engines. Apart from anything else, we needed to do this for the naval combat system. This follows our revolution-evolution pattern of game development at The Creative Assembly: a new game engine, an evolved version of it, rinse and repeat.

Secondly, the Empire period requires a different approach to the medieval era. Warfare, politics, and technology have moved on. We have a "palette" of game mechanics that we can use to bring these to life, and we must pick and choose the right ones for the subject matter. Naturally, some aspects of a Total War game are "givens": a turn based strategy game and real time battles. We won't - and wouldn't want to - change that. Within that broad constraint, though, we hope to use mechanics that are appropriate to the period. Papal sanctions are important in the medieval world, but they don't matter so much during the Enlightenment. Therefore, the Pope doesn't need to be simulated in detail in Empire. The choreography of musket fire is important, so that gets a lot of attention. And then there's the naval game: not to blow our own trumpets too much, but some developers would publish that as a separate game in its own right!

And finally, the development team on Empire is not the M2TW group. The Empire people did Rome: Total War, and some of the core team have been on TW games since Shogun: Total War. Chrysler don't just have one team working on all their different car models, you know!

Q: Will we see the Jacobite Rebellions? And will the game pick Presidents correctly after the Constitution is ratified?
A: Both of these questions assume that Empire: Total War will run on tram lines of historical inevitability. TW games don't do that. We set up a historical situation and create game rules that follow the pattern of history, but once that is done the game is on its own!

So, no, there's no guarantee that there will be a '15 or '45 Jacobite rising in Britain. If there is a rebellion, then there's a chance that it will be Jacobite in nature, that much is true, but there were other (potential) rebels during the period. You might get Luddites instead, intent on frame-breaking and similar industrial sabotage (a word that owes its origins to French workers throwing their wooden shoes - sabot - into machinery to ruin it). The Jacobites were, from one perspective, (un)witting dupes of the French who financed and supported them as a way of causing troublesome distractions for the British.

As to American presidents, there's no guarantee that the game will throw up a "revolution" during play if the rulers of North America are canny enough to keep the colonists onside!

Keep your questions coming on our official forums, and stay tuned to TotalWar.com for all the latest Empire: Total War news and updates!

Take care,

Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)

So it seems that there will be at least 10 playable factions, but me personally, I would expect no more than 15. And that's a pretty liberal estimate.
 

alm4rr

Diamond Member
Dec 21, 2000
4,390
0
0
maybe it wont require so much micromicro management and diplomacy will be better..........
 

OVerLoRDI

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
5,494
4
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
I have Rome and liked it. I didnt pick up the last one and will probably skip this one. Hopefully they will eventually get to a WWII era version.

That would be awesome, the battle system would have to be redone but the campaign map and turned based system would be really interesting in that setting. Axis and Allies anyone?

The other thing I want them to implement is a turned based multiplayer system for the main campaign. I think that would make for some epic lan parties, 10 people vying for control of Europe. Would feel like a board game except with the advantages of computers. Maybe if they allowed you to work on your turn while others were taking theres and fighting battles that don't involve you, then simply apply all your micromanagement changes all at once then fight the battles. Probably would get way too complicated way too quickly (which is possibly why they never implemented it before) But even so I would love to see it.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Meh, no, no WW2. I think that's best done for other titles, but not a Total War one. Moreover, there are many other clashes in history that are more antique and feature the TW's engine to a better degree.