I really don't know....

[V22 Osprey]

I want to get this, but the fact there is no:

-Online Multiplayer
-No detailed Battles without Strategic Play.

Its either this or empire total war, I just tried the E:TW demo and found out that my laptop can actually run it so I'm leaning towards Total War.I want a wargame, but I want the options from empire total war in CoC:EE.

I dont know what to choose!

[Joram]

I'll be upfront and say I'm a tester for this game but let me tell you that Empire Total War fell far short from my expectations.
 
Luckily, they have fixed some of the more grevious errors yet the tactical AI is still completely braindead and the only way to make it challenging was to speed it up by 50%.  On the strategic side I have *still* not seen any naval invasions (thus making GB completely safe) however there has been anecdotal evidence this has improved.  They also improved the AI milling about the countryside with 30 stacks issue though I still find them strangely stop and start.  For example as GB I captured Flanders and then nearly immediately every adjacent power declared war on me.  But strangely, even though I had a small army there, not one made a single move on it.  This allowed me to dedicate resources in America where, again, every single country declared war on me (save the colonies since they are a protectorate).  There's more 'issues' with the game but a quick scan of their forum will say more than I ever could.
With that said, it is undeniably gorgeous to look at.  Just once you get past your first campaign, it is difficult to be awed by that and you are just left with wanting something more.  A lot of people say they bought it for the mods and there are some good mods for it but I personally don't like sending money to a company in hopes that some nice person will fix it up for them.
 
Ok, so that turned into a mini-review of the game and in short, if you want a pretty beer-and-pretzels game, then you will probably like it.  If you want more a thinking person's game, then I think you will enjoy CoG:EE more.  Of course, if you have the money you could always get both because they really are apples and oranges you are comparing here and you could really get to enjoy both.

[ptan54]

I agree with Joram. I play Total War when I want some "action", the 3D battles are second to nobody. But when I want a Napoleonic experience, it has to be COGEE.

[arras]

I vote with Joram and ptan54 on this.

I have both games but have spent 10x more time with CoG. TWE is graphicaly great looking game (in tactical) so playing battles is really some experience. But ...after few battles you notice that AI is as stupid as was since Rome series ...you can beat it any time on normal even if outnumbered. You got naval battles and thats what I hoped for since Rome ...great. They managed to improve somehowe diplomaci which was one of the weakest points of series. Now actualy you can get oponent surrender without you wiping him out completly and AI will accept gift of territory. Trade was also improved and you got some interesting option with goverment management as well as research. On the other hand, strategicaly AI is at par with its tactical skill ...that is plain dumb. It cant concentrate its forces and priorize targets. Tend to spred its forces through provinces and send out small stacks wandering countryside. AI is so hopeles that it stops to be fun to play game afther while since whole game will tur in to endless series of your victories and conquests.

In general they have put some nice new features in to game but did not work on horible AI which was always weakest point of whole series except Shogun ...which in my option was and still is best of the series (beacause AI actualy posed real chalenge to player).

On the other hand in CoG AI handles its armies strategicaly quit well, concentrate forces and priorize targets ...not allways the most clewer way but at last it does. Whole diplomatic system is simply superior to TW series. For example afther you declared war and won, surender treaty will settle the terms so it is not just conquer the province game as TW is. You dont need to ocupy anything to win war ...even few decisive victories in battle can force opponent to surrender. Compared to TW you have many more other diplomatic options ...mutual protection pact, enforced peace, you can lend forces and money, force him to disarm, scutle ships or strip defences. Even force him to remove some generals. And AI actualy reacts reasonably to your proposals.
Of course, graphicaly CoG in nowevere near TW and it have it flaws but generaly is much more balanced to play.

To sum it up, TW is nice to watch while CoG is nice to play ...make your choise If you have money, take both

[Ursa MAior]

I switched from ETW to COGEE about 2-3 months ago. Although it takes a little time to get used to it (UI and simulation solutions), after that nothing can match its experience esp. detailed land battles. You can tinker with OOBs, unit strengths, diplomacy (way better than ANY other Nappy game's). If you are brave enough you can go for complex economy hwere geopolitics will become another factor (beside military and political). You can also have more options with difficulty (at first ETW was a piece of cake on VH/VH after the patch it is impossible).

   

[V22 Osprey]

Ok so neither are E:TW or CoG:EE are bad games.

Well both are strategic, with Tactical Battles(Land and Naval) so technically in a way I'm not comparing apples and oranges, as one just has fancy graphics and the other does not.Gameplay and AI wise of course CoG wins.BUT, in empire:total war you get online multiplayer and the ability to play single tactical battles without the strategic layer.Unless someone can conform these features are going to be added to CoG.

I will try to get both, but if I can't its Empire:total war.As CoG looks fun but its missing alot of features that I would really enjoy.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

Ok so neither are E:TW or CoG:EE are bad games.

Well both are strategic, with Tactical Battles(Land and Naval) so technically in a way I'm not comparing apples and oranges, as one just has fancy graphics and the other does not.Gameplay and AI wise of course CoG wins.BUT, in empire:total war you get online multiplayer and the ability to play single tactical battles without the strategic layer.Unless someone can conform these features are going to be added to CoG.

I will try to get both, but if I can't its Empire:total war.As CoG looks fun but its missing alot of features that I would really enjoy.

I have not played ETW, or any of their games. Its not that I'm a total anti-RTS or anti-FPS type guy. I had some fun with Call of Duty (FPS), and Close Combat: Wacht Am Rhein (RTS) is fun. But I have been reading on various forums what guys have to say about ETW, and I will confirm (third hand mind you) that all the foibles these guys point out (brain dead AI, lack of invasions, failure to prioritize and concentrate, no challenge, pretty for a while but utlimately no fun) I have seen repeated repeatedly on various forums.

On the other hand complaints about COG:EE seem to be fairly rare and when they do occur, 50% are spurious and based on unreasonable bias or false impressions by the complainer; 45% are fairly minor, and have more-or-less been addressed in the patch; MAYBE 5% of the complaints I've seen about COGEE are at a level higher than 'minor' problem and have not been addressed. Actually I cannot even think of a single one. ADDIT: well actually there is ONE complaint that I made that slipped through the cracks and didn't make it into the patch: it seems to be too easy to capture whole fleets when you blockade ports . . . but that is the ONLY 'moderately serious' issue I've heard of that has not already been fixed. It probably will get fixed in the next patch or an interim patch.

Based on all that, I would grade COGEE a "great" game and ETW a "bad" game. If I want to see 'pretty' graphics fests, I can buy a copy of the 300 movie and watch it till I wear grooves in the CD. Why would I buy a strategy game whose strategic challenges were zilch and whose only redeeming qualities are that it has pretty pictures?

When you add to this the whole DRM nightmare stories . . . I encourage to you NOT buy ANY of ETWs games ever . . . or at least till they abandon DRM and start making real strategy games. If they want to sell graphics-fest games that are just interactive cartoons fine, but don't market them as strategy is what I say.

One more ADDIT: I guess there is ONE thing that ETW has going for it, that is not in some way fundamentally flawed (from my outside looking in perspective I acknowledge): the online multiplayer RTS game function. Now to me, that is not a selling point at all. I will never participate in a LAN party, or a net play type setup. I play strategy games, and IMO, 'strategic' thought and action are best carried out in a turn-based or more-or-less turn-based dynamic, in short, PBEM is more than enough to me. RTS games IMO combine some level of strategy, with a large and overwhelming dose of reaction-time, coordination, and luck. Nothing wrong with games that work through these skills; I love MS Flight Sim X, and like I said Call of Duty was a lot of fun for a few weeks till I 'beat it.' Online multi-player might be one -good- reason to buy ETW, but then there is still the issue of DRM. Even if I wanted to be a net player, the DRM would dissuade me.

[V22 Osprey]

Alot of interesting points, how can you say no to a speech like that!

I will get CoG:EE for sure, but can someone please confirm atleast online multiplayer will be added???

I want to play multiplayer, but my friends hate PBEM, so I need online multiplayer.PLEASE!!!!

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

Alot of interesting points, how can you say no to a speech like that!

I will get CoG:EE for sure, but can someone please confirm atleast online multiplayer will be added???

I want to play multiplayer, but my friends hate PBEM, so I need online multiplayer.PLEASE!!!!

I kinda doubt that adding it is in the plans, though I may be wrong. Hopefully Gil or Eric or somebody who actually knows the answer to this for sure will speak up here shortly.

[V22 Osprey]

Well before I was told that the current online multiplayer use an old system that wont work on system with Windows XP or above.I dont see it as such a major project, all you have to do is change the code for it work with newer DirectPlay systems.Should be an easy and simple project that can be easily added in the next patch.I'm not going to buy this until it can be confirmed.Maybe I should just get Forge of Freedom, since it uses a newer code and is officially supported for TCP/IP and come back to CoG later.

[aprezto]

V22 Osprey. Just a point on your friend's aversion to PBEM. I think this need not dissuade you. You get together, either in person, or online, to multiplay with your friends. This takes coordination of theirs and your time. The absolute beauty of PBEM is it is 'do at your convenience'. You are sent your turn and you find time in your schedule to play it. There are community matters to attend in a PBEM, everyone is waiting on you in order for them to have their turn, but it is far more flexible on time than a LAN party or online.
 
You can choose when you sit at your PC to do it.
 
As to friends, one of the absolutely incredible facets of the matrix stable of games is the forum members it seems to attract. There are mature, intelligent and wise people who play the games. You are very unlikely to find bubbleheads as opponents. Therefore I have found that in every case of opponents I have played I have made friends with them.

[06 Maestro]

It could get a little irritating playing TCP/IP. Just imagine 6 players going at it and 3 of them like to do the detailed battles. There would need to be some house rule about time in battle or the non battle players will just walk away. Such a game would actually last much longer than a PBM with the instant battles. A one on one multi player game might work a little better/faster than PBEM.

[Mus]

What I would really like is a setting at the start of a PBEM game where you decide which battles can be exported to a tcp/ip battle resolution system.  When a PBEM turn results in a battle above that size selected the data is eligible to be exported as a battle data file and sent to the players involved, they resolve it in the detailed battle system and then import the battle result data to the PBEM game and play continues.

[V22 Osprey]

A feature to play detailed Battles without strategic mode would be very, very, nice.

Keep in mind that my friends are fancy graphical RTS players and I'm trying to show wargames arent so bad.Not having an online multiplayer option isnt helping with my persuasion.I like PBEM, but I do perfer online multiplayer also.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Mus

What I would really like is a setting at the start of a PBEM game where you decide which battles can be exported to a tcp/ip battle resolution system.  When a PBEM turn results in a battle above that size selected the data is eligible to be exported as a battle data file and sent to the players involved, they resolve it in the detailed battle system and then import the battle result data to the PBEM game and play continues.

I'm sure that will be available someday-how long is the question. Of course, after that is implemented, the next step will be to have the ability for the RT game to proceed some time and then be updated to a new current status from the results of the battle. All in good time I'm sure-perhaps this century.[;)]

[IronWarrior]

Well to be honest noone can really tell you what you would like better. Of course on this forum you can surely guess what the preferred game is. [;)]

You also have to decide if you're going to buy a game for you or to please your friends. I've been through that myself, my best friend that I used to miniature wargame with- who I thought for sure would get into more grognard-style games would rather play casual RTS games etc. For me they are mind-numbingly boring! We're still friends of course, but I decided to find new friends for computer gaming that I can relate to. [:)]

I used to play Rome TW, but when I found devs like ageod and WCS, I left and never looked back. I do still like to lurk the TW forum though for a side-splitting laugh. They haven't changed after all these years, I used to rain on the parade of everyone ooohing and awwwing over new screen shots by posting questions about gameplay improvements. [:D]

If it's a mp game you seek, again it depends if you're looking for a casual beer and pretzels game or something with some layers of complexity and depth. If I were you I would visit the TW forum beofre making a decision though. There are a multitude of complaints and problems. Though many you can't see because as one poster there said something like " any complaints on this forum are instantly deleted unless written in thesis form". [:D]

The multiplayer in TW has always been the ugly stepchild of their single player campaign and as far as I can tell they've never made that a secret. Not trying to bash them, but after years of ignoring their fanbase and a mp that is the same for years despite all those years of complaints and petitions nothing has changed. Just find the most overpowered unit and spam an army full of them. Camp on a hill to exploit the bonus. Bugs and cheats like infantry being able to fire across the whole map (of course it is played on Steam after all [;)]). Imbalances in unit prices... it goes on and on.

CA's answer to fix and make things right with thier fans? New free units. [&:]

At the end of the day WCS and Matrix are far more deserving of my support than CA.

[Gil R.]

V22 Osprey,
Before you make a decision you might regret -- that is, buying one of our games! -- I should make sure that you know the exact situation regarding online multiplayer. This will be the short version, since the topic has been addressed numerous times in the COG, FOF and COG:EE forums over the past few years, so a bit of keyword searching would turn up more on the subject.

Essentially, while plenty of people have played both FOF and COG/COG:EE TCP/IP, a small but unknown percentage of customers simply cannot. The reason is that the COG/FOF engine incorporated a Microsoft software library that turns out to have been flawed but was never fixed, and this leads to those problems that some experience because of an unknown incompatibility in their system. Our programmer has spent an enormous amount of time in the past trying to fix or work around the problem, but it cannot be done without spending at least a month completely rebuilding the engine (not to mention all of the time that would be needed to debug that rebuilt engine).

FOF, though a newer game than COG, does not include newer TCP/IP code because it is the same engine. Because of the limited but serious problems with both games, when we released COG:EE we decided to leave in the original COG code that lets some/many players play online games, but also that we would not officially support it -- that way, those who are able to play online can still do so. So, whether you buy FOF or COG:EE, you have about the same chance of not being able to play a networked game. Which means that you need to decide whether you would want the game if TCP/IP proved not to be an option for you once you got it.

[V22 Osprey]

Ok, thanks for clearing that.

Looks like CoG:EE it is, Forge of Freedom I will get later.

[ericbabe]

I spent two months trying to update the TCP/IP, but unfortunately there are no good options short of a very major re-write of the engine.  DirectPlay 4.0 that we're using now has a very different architecture from subsequent versions of DirectPlay, even DP 5.0.  Furthermore, all the DirectPlay libraries have been deprecated by Microsoft, so rewriting for a subsequent version wouldn't be the best long term solution.  I looked at several other sets of libraries, but the architecture of DP 4.0 is very different from any of them.

I have some marketing information about how many sales are spurred by TCP/IP capabilities; based on this, in order to break even on the cost of rewriting the engine for a more robust TCP/IP system we'd have to be selling several times as many copies of the game as we are now, and sadly I just can't afford to lose money implementing this for the sake of having a cooler game alone.

[Russian Guard]

Ahhh, the vagaries of capitalism [;)]