sparta300  posted on Aug 04, 2009 10:01:28 AM - Report post

Personally, I like Medieval 2 total war more than Empire due to some disappointments. I felt that Empire total war obsoleted the general unit and i always liked how the general unit in Medieval 2 could change the course of the battle. Although the general nit is active in Empire, I feel that the gunpowder units could just obliterate the general.

Dhampy  posted on Aug 04, 2009 11:11:52 AM - Report post

I'm going to bring John Keegan into this... In The Mask of Command, Keegan identifies four distinct modes of military leadership.

The two of them which are relevant to this are typified by Alexander and Arthur Wellesley.

What these two represent are the ideal required by the expectations of the men they led and by the requirements of the type of warfare being engaged in.

Alexander represents the classical age (RTW) through the beginning of the renaissance (M2TW). The soldiers expected their leaders to be leading the charge. Alexander led from the front, as did all good generals of the day. The combat was close and brutal so a general had to be in the middle of it to lead.

In the era represented by ETW, the generals were almost entirely drawn from the ruling class and you had class expectations. They were expected to be aloof and stoic. At Assaye, Arthur Wellesley (later the Duke of Wellington) had two horses shot out from under him, so he was always near the fighting. But, except on a few rare occasions, he did not engage in it himself. He was aloof, as his men expected, but was always right behind them. In danger, but detached from it.

But, having said that, I agree. The general unit should have more effect on the battle. Especially a high level one.

Having a good general nearby should make even the weakest infantry stand longer.

It should take into account that the range of musketmen is far longer than that of a sword. I've had a general lose his entire bodyguard from being directly behind the line, with no appreciable effect on the soldiers in front of him.

sparta300  posted on Aug 04, 2009 5:29:15 PM - Report post

Yah I just like leading my troops into battle with the general being the primary but in Empire I feel like the general is like a secondary, but i do love the naval battles

powergrind  posted on Aug 05, 2009 1:16:49 PM - Report post

I liked medieval, and like etw, but I do think that mtw had less bugs and problems. but I love the medieval time period a lot more then the 1700's. ive been kinda thinking about installing it again, but im not sure if I want to. If they made something like WWI or WWII id liek that too, but they'd havta rework the game a lot, or just extend out the map more. that would make me happy, all of Asia and more of the Americas and Africa, or let us occupy Antarctica xD

sparta300  posted on Aug 05, 2009 3:03:58 PM - Report post

Yah WWI and WWII would be a cool total war and yes u should install medieval 2 total war again

ArchDuke  posted on Aug 05, 2009 9:31:32 PM - Report post

When it comes to era I prefer Medieval 2, regarding the interface Empire is much better.

wardy20d  posted on Aug 15, 2009 7:23:20 AM - Report post

well i loved medieval 2 total war but when i got empire i was fairly disappointed. i wasnt to keen on what they did to the campaign map and the graphics as ive a fairly basic machine. however the gameplay on both is pretty good but id have to say medieval 2 is what id prefer

personally empire's campaign map became overly complicated IMO but im sure others were happy about that ^^