Hey Dave!
Napoleon: Total War
Game » consists of 6 releases. Released Feb 23, 2010
Napoleon: Total War follows Napoleon from the early Italian campaign, to the Battle of Waterloo, and beyond.
Quick Look: Napoleon: Total War
The total war games have always been my favorite but there is no reason for them to make a Napoleon: TW.
More Total War is always good. The historical context in terms of gameplay isn't the most interesting sadly.
Wow that was fast? This game didn't have nearly as much marketing or fanfare as Empire did.
@Ben_H said:
" Medieval 2 is where this franchise ends for me. I didn't like what I played of Empire and this seems to be a very similar thing to that. "And yeah you're right, Medieval 2 was perfection! I played that ad nauseum but never really got into the flow of Empire.
I love how they're all just filing into the house at the end, like it's a sweet Kid n' Play house party.
NTW was going to be an expansion to ETW but due to all the issues and problems they had with ETW they decided to make it a stand alone game (iirc). Also they could charge more and that's what all the cool kids like to do now.
Looks alright and will buy it but not day 1. ETW burned me to much to believe that the game will be playable upon release.
Napoleon seems like a good choice. He's widely considered one of the greatest war generals of all time. His tactics have been taught at West Point for a long time.
As for his accent, I wonder what type of accent he'd have. He was born on Corsica, which was under French control, but had more in common with Italy (technically the Republic of Genoa). Napoleon's name was Napoleone di Buonaparte, but he changed it to make is sound more French. Of course, his accent in the game doesn't sound Italian either, but realistically he wouldn't be speaking English anyway, so the accent is irrelevant.
I really like the Total War games, but I've long wished that they managed to get the AI to improve. I mean, yeah, it must be really difficult to program a competent AI general, but Total War kind of banks on awesome, large and tactically challenging field battles, and the AI more often then not simply fails to deliver.
I can't tell you how many times I fended off an enemy, storming my castle with 2000 men, with an army of 100 or 200, just by sending out cavalry and harassing them until the entire army forgot this was a fucking siege.
What ended up happening is they just got confused, stood there, and got pelted by my archers forever while the game was set to x3 speed.
Online play can get really intense, though.
How come we get FOUR campaigns in the Medieval II Total War expansion 'Kingdoms' and yet this puny little game gets to be a full price addition?! Not going anywhere near it - I prefer my King Arthur The Roleplaying Wargame, which GiantBomb don't want to review for some reason and just dumped on the game in it's quick look...!!!
" @Lazy0718 said:Yeah, he got destroyed several times by them, but for quite a while he was untouchable. His ground tactics were the standard for the next century." His tactics have been taught at West Point for a long time. "They should call the course "How not to fight the British - Love, Nelson and Wellington xx". "
Who is Mike Horn? Did he work on the game? If he's just a dude from the office, you guys should tell him to talk. Shy dudes who only speak when spoken to aren't the best for quick looks.
or "Why not to invade Russia"" @Lazy0718 said:
" His tactics have been taught at West Point for a long time. "They should call the course "How not to fight the British - Love, Nelson and Wellington xx". "
Oh, and I think that game Jeff was talking about was "Mount and Blade"
" I haven't played TW games since Rome. I don't like the battles that much. I just played it for the turn-based stuff. And CIV4 was so much better. I hope there will be a CIV5 in the near future. "lol all I managed to do in that game after failing the campaign for the most part was set up unfair scenarios... like an army of war elephants vs a bunch of peasants or something. Also flaming catapults and whatnot.
" I think this was a misstep; it's just too close to Empire in terms of tactics and units. This won't enjoy a fraction of the (quite considerable) success that Empire had. They either needed to make Total War: Pirates!, or Total War: Victoria. "Stone Age: Total War !
" @Jimbo said:Primordial Ooze: Total War" I think this was a misstep; it's just too close to Empire in terms of tactics and units. This won't enjoy a fraction of the (quite considerable) success that Empire had. They either needed to make Total War: Pirates!, or Total War: Victoria. "Stone Age: Total War ! "
" @Funkydupe said:Isn't that Spore?" @Jimbo said:Primordial Ooze: Total War "" I think this was a misstep; it's just too close to Empire in terms of tactics and units. This won't enjoy a fraction of the (quite considerable) success that Empire had. They either needed to make Total War: Pirates!, or Total War: Victoria. "Stone Age: Total War ! "
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment