SOFBear1
Infantry
posted 16 September 2010 10:21 PM EDT (US)
Rome Total War had the Barbarians. Medieval 2 had the most owesome expansion pack known to man. Empire had nothing. Napoleon Total War is a very, very good game but it is unfocused in scope. Too big or too small. The Grand Campaign is every grognard's dream, but really think of the glory of a Prussian-Russian 1806-7 campaign. A 100 days campaign instead of just "Waterloo" as a battle. An Austria stands alone 1809 Campaign, and dare I say it the 1812-13 Campaign. We get DLC for Spain and that's it. This should have been the highwater mark but it didn't happen. I just don't understand this. Is anything like this in the works. Frankly, I don't understand how a rehash Med II game garnered such an EXCELLENT expansion pack and this game gets nada. Just don't get it.
Cancer of the Head
Infantry
(id: say1988)
posted 18 September 2010 07:05 PM
EDT (US)
3 / 10
I would say that the main reason for a lack of a major expansion is that Napoleon fills the role as an expansion to Empire.
SOFBear1
Infantry
posted 18 September 2010 09:12 PM
EDT (US)
4 / 10
While I agree the Grand Campaign encompasses all of the more discreet "sub-campaigns" but when you view the history of it, the Grand Campaign loses focus of the synergy of the more limited campaigns. The Grand Campaign is really 1805 on, and on, and on. It would be nice to have more focused campaigns dealing with the realities of the actual situation. Frankly, Austrian towns and Prussian cities were not in revolt while they each had a corps under Napoleon's command while attacking Russia. Yet that is a constant, incessant and non-historical component of this game.
1809, Austria stands alone, never happens.
Medieval II Total War came out with the most outstanding campaign add on know to gaming. It was awesome. I've played it gobs of times and frankly Medieval war is a yawn to me, but the Devs made it FUN. The Nappy wars should shine and a more compact campaigns selection would draw folks in as opposed to losing interest in what is frankly, a too long campaign (look I love it but it loses the feel of "Napoleon's Campaigns" as so wonderfully set forth in David Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon Book first published in something like 1965 and still the greatest tome on the subject). It's for the history I play these games and if indeed it is simply an "add-on" to Empire then the Devs missed the boat and history hasn't been served. I stand firm in my deep desire that a set of campaign oriented add ons would be forthcoming but I think that is a thing of the past. It seems the Collective is losing its creative steam. Medieval II was great, but it was ground well trod from a prior release. Now Shogun... what next Rome II? Empire I liked, Nappy I loved. I think the DLC thing didn't go as they liked, leaking a campaign here or there (and the Indian Wars...YAWN) and so they have dumped the whole idea of an awesome add on such as we saw with Rome Barbarians (which I bought, wasn't my cup of tea, but still appreciated enough to spend my cash on it) and were blown away with by Medieval II. Frankly, it was that add-on that kept me in the fold for these games. It showed a Dev with dedication non-pariel.
The Kommandant
Infantry
posted 24 October 2010 06:16 AM
EDT (US)
9 / 10
For me, I find that Napoleon's campaigns are pretty much wrapped up in the Game as it is. I think that it would be a waste of time to be just adding in the 1809 campaign because it just be a waste of time. There would be little difference in anything apart from perhaps the time scale and the sizeof the map.
I do miss however the big expansion packs such as Barbarian invasion (in my opinion and awesome expansion pack) and Kingdoms because they were big and full of new stuff and you didn't have to waste time buying six or seven sets of DLCs for new units that you won't really use and cost you way more then a single expansion pack where they have to put in whole new regions or challenges or else it will be seen as a waste of money.
DlCs also irritate me because it gives (age old argument here) the rich kids with plenty of buck behind them tons of units that are overpowered and just make me feel like I'm fighting their money bags rather then their skill.
I'm no tactical genius so I'm very good at outflanking or breaking the back of their army or just generally isolating an enemy army.