Jump to content

Talk:Napoleon: Total War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Text

[edit]

Ok, I know we only have the text from the email to go on, but this article reads like an advert as is. --143.210.222.85 (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article still seems to read like an advertisement. In addition this sentence: "It is alleged that this Total War will also try to support..." seems overly vague and negative. Who alleges? It should be sourced. The next sentence seems more like a complaint or a rant than encyclopedic article material. Sorry if I come off sounding negative, but I am only trying to improve the article. Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon TW is Empires TW's stand-alone game,Steam requires

[edit]

I think it should be mentioned that the game is based on Empires TW game's engine and is counted as stand-alone to ETW. Plus that the game reqires activation on Steam and can be played only through Steam. Edelward (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If true, I agree. I came here to see if it required Steam like the previous game or not, but the article is unclear. Wjousts (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

[edit]

Steam has it listed as "26 February 2010" how should this be posted? Tazz (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Edition/Emperor's Edition

[edit]
  • I took the liberty of adding a reference tag to the first section's content regarding the different versions being released. I've also included the Steam versions in the list of versions. bwmcmaste (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI that both the Imperial version and the standard version come with the Royal Scots Grey unit. That unit is provided if you pre-order the game. The Imperial edition comes with a bunch more units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.11.83 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished NTW Review(s)

[edit]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=327601. there is some discussion on the credibility of unpublished user reviews. therefore, I put this link on the discussion page so that anyone interested has access to it and can draw their own conclusion on the credibility of the author. I will say that the author - Samsonov - is rather unknown in the TW community AFAIK, so make of it what you will. In contrast, Darth Vader (many fans of the series will know who this is) has also been given one of these press copies and has promised to do his own review, but has since seemed to have second thoughts about writing it. If he does decide to write it, I will update this post with a link to his review as well.Dmcheatw (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=328279 - another FWIWDmcheatw (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section?

[edit]

Considering issues brought up in "Napoleon TW is Empires TW's stand-alone game,Steam requires" stub and general uproar considering the speed of NTW's release, continuing problems with ETW, and certain other perceived failures on the part of the Total War series publishers it may be time to add a Controversies section to this page. Material for these "controversies" does not appear to be that hard to find as the comments in the steam forum cited as the fourth sources.

In addition to providing Wikipedia readers with a wider array of facts this section may also improve issues with balance that several commenter's have mentioned. This article reads like an advertisement and the first two cited sources lead to the steam store to the exact page to purchase the game. Helping games sell is not the goal of Wikipedia, recording a factual, unbiased account of the subject matter is.

I would appreciate collaboration on all aspects of a new section (including titling) on this discussion page if anyone is interested. EvitoSol (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would probably be better to create a new article for the controversies surrounding the TW series, and incorporate the various historical, performance-related and gameplay issues into one piece. Mephistophelian (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • i agree that there needs to be a controversy section, i don't want this page to subvert the facts and become an advertisment for NTW. When I tried to edit the ETW article I was told that the truth isn't relevant to wikipedia (only reviews and scores from "professionals") and that what a potential buyer needs to know is beyond the scope of the article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Empire:_Total_War/Archive_3#Serious_concerns_about_the_neutrality_of_the_.22reception.22_portion_of_the_article #10). The fact is though, with NTW they haven't promised or promoted hardly anything, so even if the game sucks there wont be the controversy that ETW had simply because SEGA have not hyped this game up with promises. Anyway, I'd edit the article myself to add information on CA's history which - in addition to buggy gameplay on initital release - includes a myriad of compatibility/stability issues, lackluster post release support, false advertising, non-existant public relations, and draconian moderation on their yuku forums, but since i am a disgruntled former customer i am biased against the creative assembly and total war so i don't think i could do it properly. also, upon further thought it'd probably be more appropriate to add this to CA's existing article or the article on the TW series that already exists as well (or possibly even SEGA's page). the problems are not specific to this game and it wouldn't be fair to put all this controversy on the page of a game that hasn't even been released.Dmcheatw (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't an advert. It was; isn't now. ~Mephistophelian Talk 15:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that "issues" and "bugs" with TW games are often emulations of RT behaviours of certain units under certain conditions, and attempt to remain historically accurate as much as possible. Wonky artillerymen and misbehaving light horse are not bugs, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.62.237 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Editor

[edit]

I have the game and I can tell you: there is no uniform editor released yet. It may be an additional download in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia reporting as fact that there is a uniform editor when it is generally known among everyone who bought this game, that there is not? Promotional sources claim that there is a uniform editor, but it is untrue. This MUST be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.127.157 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsular War addon?

[edit]

Does the peninsular war campaign bear mentioning? I'd have thought so... but I don't know much about it so I can't write it myself :) 203.217.150.68 (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon's Accent

[edit]

It should be noted Napoleon did not speak with a French accent. As an 18th Century Corsican, and of an Italian noble family, he spoke with an Italian accent. This was no doubt changed for French identification, but historical accuracy demands the acknowledgment of his mother tongue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.62.237 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 18, 2012 release - Imperial Eagle pack

[edit]

Anyone willing to write some lines on the release of the pre-order units and the 2 new units that just came? Nostalgia of Iran (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

features two special campaigns that follow the general's career

[edit]

I changed it to "features three special campaigns that follow the general's career" I have game and it's definitely three special campaigns, northern Italy, Egypt, and into Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.121.162 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Napoleon: Total War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Napoleon: Total War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Napoleon:_Total_War&oldid=1198670280"