Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Total War Empire 2

Darth_NicoDarth_Nico Registered Users Posts: 4
Hey, what should a new Empire 2 contain? More Campaigns, mechanics, ect. Personaly I started the Total War franchaise with Napoleon Total War, what was basicly a better but smaller Empire Total War. So I would like to see a Napoleon Campain this time, but with a much bigger map. Or maybe a French Revolution Campaing. What would be your wishes?
«134

Comments

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    I honestly think that one of the biggest things that CA could do with an Empire 2 would be more so focused around making the various factions feel different than bring a million new mechanics.

    What I mean is that I think that they could focus more on making the playable factions feel unique in terms of their armies and playstyles.

    Like having some factions like the Ming or Qing Chinese armies feel vastly different from the European as well as other factions and cultures.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,045
    edited August 2021
    Imagine Rome 2 was made with Rome 1 engine.

    Same engine and improved only. The core gameplay will be the same.
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • arthadawarthadaw Registered Users Posts: 1,836
    jamreal18 said:

    Imagine Rome 2 was made with Rome 1 engine.

    Same engine and improved only. The core gameplay will be the same.

    2004->2011 for Rome 1/2 with 7 year difference

    If Empire came today, it would be 2010(?)->2021 so 11 years with many game in between (Nap, Shogun, Rome2, Attila, Britannia, Warhammer, 3K...) so we could at least hope new mechanics
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    jamreal18 said:

    Imagine Rome 2 was made with Rome 1 engine.

    Same engine and improved only. The core gameplay will be the same.

    Rome 2 had a different engine than Rome 1 dude.


    And I think that while the European factions might have a lot of similarities with each other, I think that it'd be all the other factions that are from other areas that would add a lot of flavor to an Empire 2.

    Because I really do think that they could potentially make an Empire 2 a nearly global scale campaign map.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,045
    edited August 2021
    arthadaw said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Imagine Rome 2 was made with Rome 1 engine.

    Same engine and improved only. The core gameplay will be the same.

    2004->2011 for Rome 1/2 with 7 year difference

    If Empire came today, it would be 2010(?)->2021 so 11 years with many game in between (Nap, Shogun, Rome2, Attila, Britannia, Warhammer, 3K...) so we could at least hope new mechanics
    The problem is not about the gap but the foundation wherein its going to built upon.

    Take note, CA can't do innovation if its using the same engine. Since they move to current engine, they can't bring back simple ladders until now.

    There is engine limitation and CA can't do anything about it. If they do, how come Troy still don't have simple ladders that is being carried by men and picked-up by others?

    CA can add some features but they can't fix the same problem that is existing in the current engine. They can only put band-aid but not healing the wound. In simple words, CA can make Empire 2 look different but the same problem will still occur.

    ...just my opinion
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    I’d prefer they go all out and go 1815 to 1899. Enjoyed the more modern options in FotS
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,086
    Well we have a few issues atm with the direction they've gone with design. Run in to issues of the new province system meaning lack of ports, towns for covering the rise of industry and so on and also the lack of naval coverage recently (although I do make the argument that it's not fitting most of the recent games periods) and the army number cap being unfitting for the setting. Would also say the new "tech" trees have been lacking. Oh also bring back trade nodes

    So would say they need to remove army and navy caps, bring back navies, change the settlement and province system to something more like we saw with Empire and Napoleon but have it all controlled via the cities UI. Work on a new tech tree system with multiple branches of schools that exist and not random terms. Readd trade nodes, really needs the navy and unlimited stacks of course.

    Mechanically they can bring back a number of ones used in other games: the replenishment system, ports being able to gain defences (although shorter range than seen in FotS), colonization is rather an obvious update, supply system would be good and apply well to campaigns like the Americas. We also have the new and greatly improved diplomacy that came with 3K. I think there's also been enough of an improvement to defences that forts could be of use. Return of population numbers and types.

    I guess the "horde" mechanic could also be of use for some of the natives in the Americas.

    I don't want to see agents reappear.

    I would like to see trade get more of a focus and not just be about making money. Supplying the needs of your economy and damaging your enemies should be part of the game. So having things such as iron works require a source of iron and coal each turn, settlements having a demand of sugar and spices based off their population counts.

    On campaigns, personally not a huge fan of them. I dislike them in nearly all the games they've done them as most of the time they add nothing to the overall game, they end up being a tiny little spinoff game with nothing added to the primary game mode. So if they do campaigns I want to see them bring units, map changes and events to the grand campaign as well. Otherwise I'd prefer 3K style parks adding depth to some time periods and regions. New units and settlements for the grand campaign is of much more value than spinoff content.


    I also don't expect the map to expand that much but get more detail in what is shown and enhancing these existing regions.
    jamreal18 said:

    Imagine Rome 2 was made with Rome 1 engine.

    Same engine and improved only. The core gameplay will be the same.

    Rome 1 had a different engine to Rome 2 but stil had the same core gameplay. So engine isn't what matters there but game design. And again there's been more changes in the engine since Empire to now than there was from M2 to Empire now.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089

    I’d prefer they go all out and go 1815 to 1899. Enjoyed the more modern options in FotS

    Then be prepared for gun spamming and more gun spamming, because that'd pretty much all there'd be if that happened.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259

    I’d prefer they go all out and go 1815 to 1899. Enjoyed the more modern options in FotS

    Then be prepared for gun spamming and more gun spamming, because that'd pretty much all there'd be if that happened.
    Not really, we’d still have cavalry and hand to hand. Not forgetting the Charge of the Light Brigade were shock cavalry, there’d be plenty of melee as it worked fine during FotS.

    I’m hoping CA take advantage of a global strategy map, upgrade diplomacy, economics, various cultures, political movements etc.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089


    Not really, we’d still have cavalry and hand to hand. Not forgetting the Charge of the Light Brigade were shock cavalry, there’d be plenty of melee as it worked fine during FotS.

    I’m hoping CA take advantage of a global strategy map, upgrade diplomacy, economics, various cultures, political movements etc.

    And I played a LOT of Shogun 2. So I know plenty about just how broken gun spamming can be in a TW game.


    I'd much rather have an Empire 2 be set in 1680 or so to 1800.

    At least then there could be a lot more potential options to play around with in the game.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259


    Not really, we’d still have cavalry and hand to hand. Not forgetting the Charge of the Light Brigade were shock cavalry, there’d be plenty of melee as it worked fine during FotS.

    I’m hoping CA take advantage of a global strategy map, upgrade diplomacy, economics, various cultures, political movements etc.

    And I played a LOT of Shogun 2. So I know plenty about just how broken gun spamming can be in a TW game.


    I'd much rather have an Empire 2 be set in 1680 or so to 1800.

    At least then there could be a lot more potential options to play around with in the game.
    That’s more of a personal preference, I used plenty of shock cavalry and melee tactics and no, I’ve never heard anyone describe it as broken. FotS is a solid game and works fine, another pure copy off Empire would be a bit of a waste. The combat in 1815 is virtually the same as Empire and it’s only later guns get better.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089


    That’s more of a personal preference, I used plenty of shock cavalry and melee tactics and no, I’ve never heard anyone describe it as broken. FotS is a solid game and works fine, another pure copy off Empire would be a bit of a waste. The combat in 1815 is virtually the same as Empire and it’s only later guns get better.

    Heh heh, I doubt that.

    But I guess you were either lucky enough to never actually play someone who used the Red Bear spam in multiplayer, or you only ever played Shogun 2 single player.

    And guns do NOT equal a better game.


    It would objectively be far better if an Empire 2 started in 1680 or so, and went up to 1800.

    Because there would in fact be a lot more options outside of just the European factions to play around with.

    There's all sorts of factions that could come from outside of Europe that could make for interesting factions to play in an Empire 2.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259


    That’s more of a personal preference, I used plenty of shock cavalry and melee tactics and no, I’ve never heard anyone describe it as broken. FotS is a solid game and works fine, another pure copy off Empire would be a bit of a waste. The combat in 1815 is virtually the same as Empire and it’s only later guns get better.

    Heh heh, I doubt that.

    But I guess you were either lucky enough to never actually play someone who used the Red Bear spam in multiplayer, or you only ever played Shogun 2 single player.

    And guns do NOT equal a better game.


    It would objectively be far better if an Empire 2 started in 1680 or so, and went up to 1800.

    Because there would in fact be a lot more options outside of just the European factions to play around with.

    There's all sorts of factions that could come from outside of Europe that could make for interesting factions to play in an Empire 2.
    You can only go off your own experiences, S2 generally has a positive reception so I’m not the one in the minority here.

    You use spam if you want to use spam, that’s on you.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089


    You can only go off your own experiences, S2 generally has a positive reception so I’m not the one in the minority here.

    You use spam if you want to use spam, that’s on you.

    I don't like to use spam thank you very much.

    But I've played against more than my fair share fools that do.

    And I can tell you from my experience that more guns would NOT make the game better, it would just limit the tactical options players could effectively use, both in single and multiplayer.


    If the game started earlier, like at 1680 or so, there could possibly be a lot of factions that don't rely solely on guns and artillery in their armies.

    I think that they could take some liberties with how they might make some units, but I think for the most part, I think that many of the non European factions could have a lot of options that could still allow them to eventually stand toe to toe with the European powers.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259


    You can only go off your own experiences, S2 generally has a positive reception so I’m not the one in the minority here.

    You use spam if you want to use spam, that’s on you.

    I don't like to use spam thank you very much.

    But I've played against more than my fair share fools that do.

    And I can tell you from my experience that more guns would NOT make the game better, it would just limit the tactical options players could effectively use, both in single and multiplayer.


    If the game started earlier, like at 1680 or so, there could possibly be a lot of factions that don't rely solely on guns and artillery in their armies.

    I think that they could take some liberties with how they might make some units, but I think for the most part, I think that many of the non European factions could have a lot of options that could still allow them to eventually stand toe to toe with the European powers.
    That's MP, so just a fraction of actual gameplay

    Yes, based on your subjective experience you don't like the idea. However, FotS was generally popular so for the majority it won't be an issue.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089


    That's MP, so just a fraction of actual gameplay

    Yes, based on your subjective experience you don't like the idea. However, FotS was generally popular so for the majority it won't be an issue.

    My experience isn't "subjective" just because you don't agree with it.

    I know for a fact that more guns would dumb down the tactical options in a TW game.

    Because there's too fine of a line with how firearms can work in a TW game.

    They'll either be too slow firing and be little more than massed early muskets, or they'll practically be semi automatic rifles like many of them were in FotS.

    That's what you're not thinking about.

    Because I would find such a unbalanced mess of a game infuriating to play, in single or multiplayer.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,083
    edited August 2021
    If somebody can reasonably disagree with a statement, then categorically the statement is subjective. That’s what an opinion is.

    “More guns would not make the game better” is a subjective opinion.
    Post edited by Warlocke on
    ò_ó
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,086
    Yeah and means an Empire 2 wont be your cup of tea either.

    Also think he got the wrong end of what was said as well. The idea was that the guns would change and be different in the time period than those we see in Empire 1.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259


    That's MP, so just a fraction of actual gameplay

    Yes, based on your subjective experience you don't like the idea. However, FotS was generally popular so for the majority it won't be an issue.

    My experience isn't "subjective" just because you don't agree with it.

    I know for a fact that more guns would dumb down the tactical options in a TW game.

    Because there's too fine of a line with how firearms can work in a TW game.

    They'll either be too slow firing and be little more than massed early muskets, or they'll practically be semi automatic rifles like many of them were in FotS.

    That's what you're not thinking about.

    Because I would find such a unbalanced mess of a game infuriating to play, in single or multiplayer.
    Everybody’s experience is subjective as it’s personal them.. we are not ‘the borg’.

    No, you don’t know that for a fact, you’re just going off your personal experience. I don’t think the generals of the medieval period had a harder time than those in the more modern periods due to complexity.

    My experience isn’t the same as yours, hence subjectivity of personal experience.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Warlocke said:

    If somebody can reasonably disagree with a statement, then categorically the statement is subjective. That’s what an opinion is.

    “More guns would not make the game better” is a subjective opinion.

    No, it's not dude.

    I'm kind of getting tired of how so many people try to use "that's just your opinion" to try to dismiss what other people say.

    I'm not simply looking at this from a "subjective" point of view, I'm speaking from what I know of history.


    It is historical fact that the standardization of long range firearms rendered a lot of tactics irrelevant, as the "modern" armies could just use massed firepower to overwhelm their opponents. And that's not even factoring in artillery.

    So yeah, just bringing in more and more guns would in fact greatly dumb down the tactical options for a TW game.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Commisar said:

    Yeah and means an Empire 2 wont be your cup of tea either.

    Also think he got the wrong end of what was said as well. The idea was that the guns would change and be different in the time period than those we see in Empire 1.

    Well, that'd be kind of the problem.

    Like I just said, the further in the 1800s you go, the more long range the rifles and such get, and that would really limit pretty much all the tactics to just relying on sheer firepower in one form or another.

    Because you can't really progress the technology of firearms in the game and only ever have line infantry have 125 range.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,086

    Well, that'd be kind of the problem.

    Like I just said, the further in the 1800s you go, the more long range the rifles and such get, and that would really limit pretty much all the tactics to just relying on sheer firepower in one form or another.

    Because you can't really progress the technology of firearms in the game and only ever have line infantry have 125 range.

    Same issue as in Empire. At least by the Victorian era they'd branched out the techs more.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,045
    What is the difference of Empire 2 and Victorian Era?

    Will their gameplay unique towards each other?
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    jamreal18 said:

    What is the difference of Empire 2 and Victorian Era?

    Will their gameplay unique towards each other?

    The best comparison is between Empire and FotS. There are still the usual troop types although FotS introduce unique weapons like revolvers, Gatling guns, torpedos etc.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,083
    edited August 2021
    “More guns would not make the game better” is a qualitative statement. It is categorically a subjective opinion.
    Post edited by Warlocke on
    ò_ó
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    Warlocke said:

    “More guns would not make the game better” is a qualitative statement. It is categorically a subjective subjective opinion.

    Indeed, it would depend on how the are implemented and what they bring to the game.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,083

    Warlocke said:

    “More guns would not make the game better” is a qualitative statement. It is categorically a subjective subjective opinion.

    Indeed, it would depend on how the are implemented and what they bring to the game.
    Well aside from that, it’s entirely dependent on the personal preference of the player. Even if we concede that guns limit tactics (which I think is a dubious claim at best) whether or not that is a good thing depends on the player.
    ò_ó
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    Multiple levels of the subjective then..
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 853
    jamreal18 said:

    What is the difference of Empire 2 and Victorian Era?

    Will their gameplay unique towards each other?

    Empire 2 - 18th century
    Victoria - 19th century (second half?)

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Commisar said:


    Same issue as in Empire. At least by the Victorian era they'd branched out the techs more.

    That kind of also feeds into my point about how more guns would dumb down the tactics for a TW game.

    With such things as Gatling guns and such long range rifles and artillery, it would pretty much just make spamming guns as a problem always the best option, when it comes to military stuff that is.


    I honestly think that an Empire 2 would work far better if it was from 1680 to 1800.

    Not only would that give a huge range for possible factions, but also possible playstyles for their armies.

    You could actually still have things like horse archers still actually matter, while not having guns be the more absolute overpowered thing.
This discussion has been closed.