By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - How much has Empire Total War improved since launch?

I have a giftcard that I recently recieved as a gift and I was thinking about using it to help pay for Empire: Total War. The thing is that I know that the games in that series usually need a few patches after they release.

Thus, I was wondering if anybody plays Empire: Total War and how it performs now compared to when it launched. Has it improved? Does it still have a ton of issues? Any other details you can think of about the game?



Around the Network

I haven't played the game personally, but I can say that there has been a fuckton of DLC released.



Wii/PC/DS Lite/PSP-2000 owner, shameless Nintendo and AMD fanboy.

My comp, as shown to the right (click for fullsize pic)

CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.2 GHz
Video Card: XFX 1 GB Radeon HD 5870
Memory: 8 GB A-Data DDR3-1600
Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3
Primary Storage: OCZ Vertex 120 GB
Case: Cooler Master HAF-932
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Extra Storage: WD Caviar Black 640 GB,
WD Caviar Black 750 GB, WD Caviar Black 1 TB
Display: Triple ASUS 25.5" 1920x1200 monitors
Sound: HT Omega Striker 7.1 sound card,
Logitech X-540 5.1 speakers
Input: Logitech G5 mouse,
Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 keyboard
Wii Friend Code: 2772 8804 2626 5138 Steam: jefforange89

They still haven't delivered on the online campaign that was supposed to be part of the original game package(and they said it would be in a patch--still waiting). Most of the bugs are fixed, though. Also, I recommend getting the Imperial Splendour mod http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1138 for Empire. The original game sucks compared to what this mod brings.



You u know which game is better in a strategy (grand) game
Europa Universalis 3. check that out it has three expansions tons of mods.. You'll probably love it more than total war it came out before and if basically it with more terrotories and features



"Rainbird: Why don't Nintendo and Microsoft Copy the Sony Blog?

Bagenome:You can't shoot things on a blog, and babies can't read, so I don't think it would suit either one's target audience."

 

d21lewis said:
Honestly, do JRPG makers even realize how hard it is to save the world? That shit is impossible!

 

 

 

I think that game is the worst pc war game ever made. Every iteration of it ever. My instructor at ITT loved that game, so we played it from time to time after class (usually and mostly Call of Duty), and I hated it. I honestly could not see what anyone would like in that game..it was soooooo slow, and on top of that, after spending 30 minutes getting within range, half your damn army runs away. Improved? Maybe..but what's an improvement on shit? Fertilizer? I dunno man..

/rant



Around the Network
Phrancheyez said:
I think that game is the worst pc war game ever made. Every iteration of it ever. My instructor at ITT loved that game, so we played it from time to time after class (usually and mostly Call of Duty), and I hated it. I honestly could not see what anyone would like in that game..it was soooooo slow, and on top of that, after spending 30 minutes getting within range, half your damn army runs away. Improved? Maybe..but what's an improvement on shit? Fertilizer? I dunno man..

/rant

Can you be more specific about your complaints about Total War? I've only played Medieval I and Rome Total War extensively, and only played a few dozzen hours for Medieval II (College doesn't allow you to play all nighters, which this game is meant for). I suck at online.

If you're playing single player, you could just fast forward, and the enemy only spawns really far away if they're completely fucked anyway (in which case you could have just done auto resolve). If you're talking about online, you should have set some basic rules, and I'm sure it wouldn't take 30 minutes literally. A major part of the strategy is advancing, especially if you have Macedonian Phalanx units (with the tiny shields) that are weak against arrows, and constantly shifting your lines and calvary. It's sorta like Football and its setups.

If half your army ran away, you must have made your units reallly vulnerable... which means that you didn't properly advance and set up your formations.

 



Akvod said:
Phrancheyez said:
I think that game is the worst pc war game ever made. Every iteration of it ever. My instructor at ITT loved that game, so we played it from time to time after class (usually and mostly Call of Duty), and I hated it. I honestly could not see what anyone would like in that game..it was soooooo slow, and on top of that, after spending 30 minutes getting within range, half your damn army runs away. Improved? Maybe..but what's an improvement on shit? Fertilizer? I dunno man..

/rant

Can you be more specific about your complaints about Total War? I've only played Medieval I and Rome Total War extensively, and only played a few dozzen hours for Medieval II (College doesn't allow you to play all nighters, which this game is meant for). I suck at online.

If you're playing single player, you could just fast forward, and the enemy only spawns really far away if they're completely fucked anyway (in which case you could have just done auto resolve). If you're talking about online, you should have set some basic rules, and I'm sure it wouldn't take 30 minutes literally. A major part of the strategy is advancing, especially if you have Macedonian Phalanx units (with the tiny shields) that are weak against arrows, and constantly shifting your lines and calvary. It's sorta like Football and its setups.

If half your army ran away, you must have made your units reallly vulnerable... which means that you didn't properly advance and set up your formations.

 

Well, it was only local multiplayer, and what you described may very well be the case.  It didn't help that I never got any tips on how to play, they just said 'This is what we're playing!' I naturally sucked, most likely, because of that and the fact that the game seems to be pretty complicated with the varying units, formations, movement patterns and such.  It's not a game that's easy to just 'pick up and play', and because of that probably isn't a game you should ever pick up and for the first time, play against a bunch of other people (of varying skill level, some as bad as me, some quite skilled like my instructor).  In that instance, you can't really 'fast forward' or 'resolve' and it seemed to take forever.



I haven't been all that interested in playing Total War games online so at the moment I'm just curious about the status of the single player since I know that there were lots of issues when it first came out.



Phrancheyez said:
Akvod said:
Phrancheyez said:
I think that game is the worst pc war game ever made. Every iteration of it ever. My instructor at ITT loved that game, so we played it from time to time after class (usually and mostly Call of Duty), and I hated it. I honestly could not see what anyone would like in that game..it was soooooo slow, and on top of that, after spending 30 minutes getting within range, half your damn army runs away. Improved? Maybe..but what's an improvement on shit? Fertilizer? I dunno man..

/rant

Can you be more specific about your complaints about Total War? I've only played Medieval I and Rome Total War extensively, and only played a few dozzen hours for Medieval II (College doesn't allow you to play all nighters, which this game is meant for). I suck at online.

If you're playing single player, you could just fast forward, and the enemy only spawns really far away if they're completely fucked anyway (in which case you could have just done auto resolve). If you're talking about online, you should have set some basic rules, and I'm sure it wouldn't take 30 minutes literally. A major part of the strategy is advancing, especially if you have Macedonian Phalanx units (with the tiny shields) that are weak against arrows, and constantly shifting your lines and calvary. It's sorta like Football and its setups.

If half your army ran away, you must have made your units reallly vulnerable... which means that you didn't properly advance and set up your formations.

 

Well, it was only local multiplayer, and what you described may very well be the case.  It didn't help that I never got any tips on how to play, they just said 'This is what we're playing!' I naturally sucked, most likely, because of that and the fact that the game seems to be pretty complicated with the varying units, formations, movement patterns and such.  It's not a game that's easy to just 'pick up and play', and because of that probably isn't a game you should ever pick up and for the first time, play against a bunch of other people (of varying skill level, some as bad as me, some quite skilled like my instructor).  In that instance, you can't really 'fast forward' or 'resolve' and it seemed to take forever.

It seems like the guy you were playing with was a douche. He should have given you basic tips and went easy on you.

I can't play online, because while traditional tactics work Offline, you have to get creative against real players, and also be good at micro managing (pure skill).

It kinda sucks, being happy at beating the stupid AI, but I just can't compete against real players.

But single player campaign is still really fun, especially if you pick a bad faction and you're constantly setting up forts and taking command for battles which are against your odds.

I kinda cheat and constantly quick save. Maybe I'll get better at Medieval II, challenge myself to a higher difficulty, and only use Quick save if I do an unintentional mistake.



Yeah, Coach kinda was a douche...but it was ok cuz he couldn't mess with me in Call of Duty, and we played it more..=P I might give the game another chance one day but only when I can find a few equally horrible people to play it with. Maybe next time I go by ITT if I have time, I'll try out this campaign you speak of. Maybe it will change my opinion.