Does this have game have campaign A.I.?
For the few weeks that I played Empires, as far as I could tell, there was essentially no campaign A.I., or some extremely rudimentary campaign A.I.
Just completed my first campaign on very hard/very hard (the hardest difficulty does not allow manual game saves, which I think might be too tedious for me). I played as the Uesugi, as I have always liked the warrior monks from Shogun 1, and hate those meddling Christians. The combat and campaign AI is MUCH better than medieval 2. Cavalry is back to being exceedingly powerful, as better path finding allows for hit - withdraw - hit attacks, causing rounds of panic due to charge on flank/rear plus sudden causalities. Sieges, especially in larger castles, are varied and intense. However, siege type combat was always more fun in European based TW games, with their vast assortment of equipment and fortifications. Naval combat is also very good, but not as impressive or realistic as Empires (much less tedious though). Overall, this is a fantastic game. CA has definitely improved their methods through iterative products, and I hope they keep churning these TW games out for a long time to come.
Just as an aside, to all the people comparing this game to Empire: have you tried the mods? I know many of you may say it is unacceptable that mods need to fix a game because the devs cannot/wont. The Darth mod, for example, fixes many of the inconsistencies in vanilla Empire, improves the campaign and battle AI an enormous amount, reskins all units, tweaks and otherwise refines the gameplay. I honestly don't even remember if vanilla Empire was good/bad, but mods make it an exceptional game. I agree the guns/cannons are not as visceral or appropriate as swords and shields, but the comments on this forum are really selling Empire short imo. Bashing it as almost become a truism, where even people who have never tried it "heard" it was buggy/too ambitious/not fun and so believe these things implicitly. To any doubters: try it again, with some mods... you might be surprised.
Wait what? Why would you even create something these days with no DirectX 11 implementation?
Don't get me wrong, Empire was a great game (eventually) with great potential, but I'm only comparing Shogun 2 to where Empire was at the same time in its life cycle.
It was released, however, in simply deplorable condition.
Simply put, next to perhaps Gothic III, I can't think of too many other big-budget PC games I've played in the past several years that were as bug-laden and problem filled.
The fact that Shogun 2, so far, is free of all those issues, while improving things across the board, just goes to show how great this series can be. Not perfect, sure, but I'm just thrilled the game is playable, fun, and all it was cracked up to be right out of the gate, rather than months later after patch 2.xx
:thumbsup:
So, Empires has been patched up to better condition now? Would you consider it a good game? Because I would certainly pick it up if it was. The period it covers is awesome, I was just disappointed at release.
I love Total War!
Empire is great! Napoleon too, which is sort of a series of scenarios using Empire mechanics. Using mods, like the Darth mod for example, makes the game much more challenging and smooths out any rough edges still remaining. If you like the period, get the game!
1680x1050 with no AA is horrible. The main screen is horrible. AA won't force in the NVIDIA drivers properly no matter what I do.
Crap, it's still fairly costly on Steam. I figured it would've dropped below $20 by this point. Not sure if I should get Shogun II or the Empires superpack. Am I really going to spend over $100 on games this month?
Just get Napoleon. Empire has a cool time period, but it's not that great, frankly. Napoleon has redone sound, tweaked graphics, and imo, cooler looking units.
Empire has like 150 capturable regions and a diverse array of playable factions, including native north americans and the martha confederacy in India. You literally play as a nation state, and can take over the entire world using the tools available in the colonial period. The game includes trade theatres from africa, polynesia, and south america. It is an amazing experience, and with mods that improve the AI its extremely tactical and challenging. You really appreciate some of the idiosyncrasies you might read about in history class. For example, England or the Netherlands, with their strong navies and colonial holdings but little presence in Europe play the game with certain challenges. They completely depend on overseas trade for income, and so defending their trade routes from naval harassment while maintaining peace with their stronger European opponents is vital. Playing as landlocked Prussia, however, requires a strong army and an expansionist strategy regarding its weaker continental neighbours. The Iroquois have their own completely different play style and priorities. Empire is so good at modelling reality, you get a real sense for the global issues of the time. Empire is an amazing game.
Napoleon, while "tweaked", is a much smaller game in scope, covering the Napoleonic wars only. It is arguably what CA should have started with and perfected, before trying something as ambitious as Empire. However, I would say it is definitely not "better" than Empire is now... more of a stand-alone expansion.
Europa Universalis 3 gives you that stuff but much better. Just without the flashy battles. Not that TW games are bad mind you.