View Full Version : What are you looking forward to?
Freedom Onanist
08-22-2007, 11:12
Factions?
UK, France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, the Ottoman Empire, Kingdom of the two Naples(?), Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Persia, Moghul India, African nations, the USA. Any more? How far exactly does the map extend?
Naval combat?
How are they going to model this? Are you going to be able to create "superior" naval units by specialising. Britain ruled the waves because she invested heavily in achieving this (and becasue of secure land borders of course), others didn't. How will that be modelled if at all?
How are you going to be able to lead your men in boardings?
Gunpowder
Will European armies have a clear advantage over eastern ones as they did historically? Again, the result of different development paths before anyone gets hot under a nationalistic collar. Or will it be entirely down to you as leader?
Questions, questions....
I am just looking forward to the whole bloody thing - at last an era that seems to fit exactly the battlefield structures of the whole TW series. Ranked formations manoeuvring coherently on a battlefield.
For me that is the heart of the TW series, not as the blurb says the campaign map - there are other games that do that (better?), none other does the battles anywhere near as well or as immersively.
Not looking forward to.
I'm worried about the emphasis on the campaign map and elements like diplomacy, spies etc... Again, other games do these. Also, because the campaign impacts directly on the battles if it doesn't work 100% you get borked battles (weird little stacks moving randomly on the map, stacks of catapults/peasants anyone?). Just a bit worried is all, I'm sure it will all work perfectly. And I for one have never had a real problem with any of the games so far.
Can't wait.
Haudegen
08-22-2007, 11:55
Actually I am very fond of the emphasis on the campaign map :2thumbsup:
I hope the map will contain the whole world and that it´ll be possible to make expeditions around the globe, with some dark spots to be dicovered, like Australia or central Africa.
Further I´m curious whether they create a new game engine from scratch or whether it will be an upgraded version of the RTW engine, like M2TW. I wouldn´t be too disappointed if it were the latter case, because it would probably make things easier for the modding community.
Jack Lusted
08-22-2007, 12:05
It uses a brand new game engine.
Nobunaga
08-22-2007, 12:05
wondering how battle engine / battle mechanics will be. Am mostly interested in mp balance / good mp experience.
sometimes more means less...
Freedom Onanist
08-22-2007, 12:10
I like the Campaign map as well but if that doesn't work too well it massively impacts the battles.
Also, how will factions that don't engage in the Industrial Revolution be modelled? The Ottoman empire declined throughout this period becasue of its inability/unwillingness to engage in the kind of technological and social changes happening in the West at the time. Similarly for the others - Persia, India, China, etc...
Will you be able to play any African nations?
Nobunaga
08-22-2007, 12:12
will their be a mp campain?
I'm looking forward to modding Finland in (as a challenge faction of sorts) and kicking Swedish and Canadian (!!!) ass. :smash:
Take that for always thwarting us in Ice Hockey.:furious3:
:clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:
It uses a brand new game engine.
I wonder what will be the hardcoded limits. M2TW expanded to 31 the faction slots. If Empire is gonna raising tis limit to 50+ possible factions i'd like it.
Also, I'd like a more "historical" approach, in which historical messages will play a decisive chioice role. Look at Europa Universalis to see what i mean.
Im looking forward to see japan in tokugawa's family hands :2thumbsup: and to make sme "last samurai" on some english azz. but on the other hand japan was closed for the rest of theworld in that time and im afraid this game will be just another all-graphics + naval battles enviroment to create boring mods.
Freedom Onanist
08-22-2007, 12:55
to make sme "last samurai" of some english azz
Huh?
Huh?
read one more time or watch the movie :dizzy2:
Freedom Onanist
08-22-2007, 13:04
read one more time or watch the movie :dizzy2:
Yeah, tried that, still makes no sense to me? What have Japan, the Togukawa and English azz got to do with each other?
if etw will have japan faction in the package then it will be ruled by shogun from tokugawa family and they will fight like samurai do so. if some english wellington (dont mistake with boots) will land on japan he will face the same experience that Tomi Crusi had in movie "the last samurai". I mean by that that japan with indians could be the only factions fighting in the old ways in this game.
Rhyfelwyr
08-22-2007, 13:34
I wonder how armies will move if there are no tiles. This game is still turn-based isn't it, not an RTS?
It sounds like the macro-battle (i.e. invasion routes & pre-battle maneuvering) may become at least as important as on-the-field tactics. I do hope we'll have the granularity on the big map to engineer that sort of thing well.
And i see the facing system from other turn-based games. if your army will be attacked from behind you start a battle like you would be in ambush in rtw/m2tw. It must be like that if naval battles can have some strategy in it and not only typical rts "who have more and bigger guns".
I'm hoping it's an entire-world, wrap-around map. To be honest, I don't see how you could make a game in this era without it being one. If India is in the game and the Americas are in the game, it would be ridiculous to have to sail east to get from Mexico to India.
Entire 3D globe perhaps...
A man can dream, right? :clown:
BoyarPunk
08-22-2007, 14:39
Being able to conquer the world as the Russians, of course. :2thumbsup:
On a minor side note, pleeeeeaaaase bring back titles! Pretty please? :saint:
Randarkmaan
08-22-2007, 15:38
I'm looking forward to marching Red Coats forward against an enemy line, being fired upon once from too far away, walk up to point blank and fire!
http://www.gardesmusik.nu/musik/Svea%20Livgardes%20Fältpiparkår%20-%20The%20British%20Grenadiers.mp3
Would also be fun to be some of the more eastern nations, like the Ottoman Empire and keep them from becoming as weak as they did, I hope that such nations, like the Ottomans, who I believe would have had an opportunity to industrialise and to reform their army, something, they did, in the 1830s their army was reformed along Western lines, would be cool if there was the possibility to do that earlier, ofcourse you would have to defeat the Janissaries first, who would likely rise up in revolt.
Naval battles will also be fun.
Stuperman
08-22-2007, 15:38
I'm really looking foreward to a bigger Campaign map (maybe more than 199 provinces this time?) improved Diplomacy AI and Campaign map AI.
I'm most certianly not looking foreward to musket heavy battles, finding cover for my men, ordering them into buildings..
And CA Developers/programmers/designers if you are reading this, I know that your bosses/publishers/fans will be pressuring you to get the game out ASAP, but please, please, please take an extra 6 months to iron out bugs. The 2hand and shied bugs in m2tw were amazingly annoying, and the subsequent re-balancing is still needed. I would rather wait a few months to get a more polished out of the box game than have the M2tw situation repeat it self.
Marching with your own soldiers lined up at the enemy also lined up and firing muskets sounds not terribly tactical b.t.w.
Jack Lusted
08-22-2007, 16:04
Marching with your own soldiers lined up at the enemy also lined up and firing muskets sounds not terribly tactical b.t.w.
Well that's not, but that's not what most battles in the time period were. Battles in this time period were some of the most tactical in history.
And CA Developers/programmers/designers if you are reading this, I know that your bosses/publishers/fans will be pressuring you to get the game out ASAP, but please, please, please take an extra 6 months to iron out bugs. The 2hand and shied bugs in m2tw were amazingly annoying, and the subsequent re-balancing is still needed. I would rather wait a few months to get a more polished out of the box game than have the M2tw situation repeat it self.
Hear, hear. And PLEASE spend a significant amount of time on both the campaign and battle AI. A strong AI can make a game enjoyable even if it has bugs and various flaws. A poor AI can make a game unbearable, even if it is otherwise perfect.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
08-22-2007, 16:09
It uses a brand new game engine.
Guess alot of people might have to upgrade their RAM if they didn't do so already For MT2W?
Moghul India and USA :yes:
Randarkmaan
08-22-2007, 16:10
Marching with your own soldiers lined up at the enemy also lined up and firing muskets sounds not terribly tactical b.t.w.
No, but it's fun and if they do fire on you too early, you will obliterate them... And doing so with "the British Grenadiers" playing would be really, really awesome. Tip to CA, include some variation of that song (played on flute or fife, together with drums) for Great Britain.
Also, would be great if the option to view your settlements came back in some way.
Well that's not, but that's not what most battles in the time period were. Battles in this time period were some of the most tactical in history.
Well, that is your opinion.
Normally the english won the field battles because their ability to shoot and reload faster than their opponents was better.
At least in the english-france wars.
The cannons and the muskets will win the day.
Tactical perhaps, but tactical battles like Zama or Alesia?
Diversity of troops for the different nations?
I'm not convinced that the tactical level of the Total War series except eye candy and naval battles will improve with the musket and cannon era.
Nothing can be said about diplomacy at this time naturally.
Stuperman
08-22-2007, 16:17
@ Jack lusted (or any other CA official)
Will ETW support multi-core cpu's and/or Agea's physics processing unit?
@SaFe - agreed
what am I looking foward too? Well seeing how Tosa is the only mod listed, im looking forward to seeing him deal with all the hooligans like me... :2thumbsup:
Seriously: The naval warfare looks pretty sweet... I mean if we can get an engine that has the kind of land warfare sim and naval sim of the TW series, and its moddable :thumbsup:
The main parts of this game that i'm looking forward to, the ilberian war; England and portugal against france. Battling in the Americas, (hopefully) fighting in the carribean (would be awesome!), and the turmoil of india, sikhs vs muslims, whilst the british sit and the sidelines waiting to take out the victor.
I cant wait!! XD
And they'd best do british riflemen the respect the need!
Marching with your own soldiers lined up at the enemy also lined up and firing muskets sounds not terribly tactical b.t.w.
If you're saying the 18th century is that then thats like saying the time of the romans was just charging and stabbing at each other. Play the Napoleonic Total War mod for rome, since it was online only tactics were fantastic.
earl of shrewsbury
08-22-2007, 17:04
a bit early but will the game ram for the game be bigger than mtw2 as i don't really like the idea of buying a new pc for the game as i will lose all the campagian i have allready done
sounds good though
Im just relieved that the "viking total warrior" or whatever it was called that was mentioned in norwegian media yesterday wasnt the big news CA promised us...
but the scope of this empire game is alarmingly big, lots of room for historical-accuracy cockups and lack of depth in the portrayal of factions.
I have been wanting navel battles sins i first played mt, So i hope they make something cool out of it. But for this specific total war i hope the main factor of the game wil be trade, like it was religion in m2t. Cause most wars fought during that time are about controling trade
NagatsukaShumi
08-22-2007, 18:15
PIRATES :7pirate:
Rebel pirate ships will now actually be awesome :laugh4:
On a serious note, if the sea battles are anything like Sid Meier's Pirates I'll be in heaven.
I hope they keep nations' relative strength as historically accurate as possible. This time period is when some nations became way more advanced than others and met with people who are so far behind them technologically. I'd rather not have them make certain nations stronger for PC crap reasons.
gardibolt
08-22-2007, 18:26
Since the map will be much bigger, one hopes that it will no longer take 25 years to cross the Atlantic....
BoyarPunk
08-22-2007, 19:12
Thought of a few more things besides the return of titles...
1. I'm going to assume most of the playable factions will still be governed by a monarchic form of goverment...so I hope CA brings back the option to change your faction heir.
2. Making alliances actually worth something. Have an diplo-option similar to Europa Universalis wherein if you go to war, your ally(-ies) immediately must choose to honor your alliance and fight alongside you (or subsequently back out and lose a tremendous amount of respect). Likewise, if your ally goes to war with faction neutral to you, you have the option to support your ally or take a big hit against your reputation/prestige by stiffing them.
I've always dreamed of seeing campaign battles with one or more allies fighting along side you against one of more opponents. Have never come close to seeing that happen in any campaign going all the way back to MTW.
Implementing multi-faction battles would truly make alliances so much more worthwhile and the battles themsselves so much more epic.
:beam:
UltraWar
08-22-2007, 19:53
I doubt that I have anything to look forward to. I can still just barely run Europa Barbaroum and Medieval Total War 2! :furious3:
Two words:
!!-NAVAL BATTLES-!!
:2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
I'm hoping that u will have the ability to make your own custom ship.
just one, the one that leads the navy
Nikos_Rouvelas
08-23-2007, 03:05
Well I WAS looking forward too the American civil War but I guess mow I will have to look forward too The American Revolution.
Ignoramus
08-23-2007, 04:16
As BoyarPunk's said, please fix the succession. I hate how in MTW2 that for some strage reason the new Prince is totally unrelated to the previous king. It makes roleplaying very difficult to say the least(especially in AAR's).
I'm looking forward to a game that not just looks, but plays like the era it takes place in. I'm looking forward to real armies led by competent generals making a campaign at my lands, and not just dozens of rag-tag suicide squads milling about without a purpose. I'm looking forward to cohesive, organized lines of men doing battle with my troops as though they were a part of one large unit, as opposed to a mess of overlapping fools shooting diagonally and disregarding their comrades. I'm looking forward to a game where diplomacy has more meaning than "trading rights".
Finally, I'm looking forward to a game where conquering a far away city of an entirely different culture and religion does not enable me to immediately begin producing the best crack soldiers of my own nation just because that city had some buildings of equivalent tech level.
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-23-2007, 05:47
The good thing about the time period is that it might force CA to have realistic speeds on the battlefield. All units will have to move slower to make set piece battles that really look nice. If infantry can hustle like they do in M2 (and worse in Rome) then battles would quickly degenerate into melee, I imagine.
Ignoramus
08-23-2007, 05:58
CA, will units on board ships be present in naval battles?
I mean, if you have a couple of units of musketeers on your fleet when it gets attacked, will they actually be on board the ships and be able to fight during the battle?
Well, that is your opinion.
Normally the english won the field battles because their ability to shoot and reload faster than their opponents was better.
At least in the english-france wars.
The cannons and the muskets will win the day.
Tactical perhaps, but tactical battles like Zama or Alesia?
Diversity of troops for the different nations?
I'm not convinced that the tactical level of the Total War series except eye candy and naval battles will improve with the musket and cannon era.
Nothing can be said about diplomacy at this time naturally.
I think it is a tactical era. Its the time of Frederick the Great, king of Prussia. In the battle of Rossbach in the seven years war he won a brilliant victory. He was outnumbered 1:2 (22000 prussians against 42000 austrians. The austrians also held the better position on a ridge. By a brilliant flanking manoeuvre he managed to defeat the austrians, losing only 550 man. The austrian losses where 10000 (including prisoners)
This battle is not widely known, but in my opinion it stands besides more famous battles as Gaugamela, Canae, Agincourt and Austerlitz.
Another battle of interest is the battle of the Narva. The Swedes with a little more than 10000 men where 3:1 outnumbered by the russians. With the loss of only 700 men the complete russian army was destroyed. This victory was achieved by tactical, technical and disciplinal superiority.
I think that this era has a lot possibilities for tactical warfare. Ok, technical superiority is a nice thing, but a commander has to use the right tactics to win a battle. And well, didn`t the romans have technical and discipline superiority (their legions) at Alesia and Zama
(References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach
Or the battle of Fraustadt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fraustadt), smaller army surrounds and completely destroys a larger one.
Mount Suribachi
08-23-2007, 12:45
I look forward to my Thin Red Line routing the barbaric Frenchies.
I mean really, that's what TW is all about isn't it? Defeating the French?
NagatsukaShumi
08-23-2007, 13:11
I look forward to my Thin Red Line routing the barbaric Frenchies.
I mean really, that's what TW is all about isn't it? Defeating the French?
Naturally Mount Suribachi, only now I have those troublesome Yanks to get too :laugh4:
Kraggenmor
08-23-2007, 14:34
but the scope of this empire game is alarmingly big, lots of room for historical-accuracy cockups and lack of depth in the portrayal of factions.
Theres as much room to get them correct too.
Of course, one should never sacrifice gameplay on the altar of realism too.
I'm looking forward to fighting the American Revolution and to naval battles in general.
This would be one where it would be especially nice to have the Rebels as a playable faction! Build your pirate empire!
iblewafuse14
08-23-2007, 15:01
I'm looking forward to modding Finland in (as a challenge faction of sorts) and kicking Swedish and Canadian (!!!) ass. :smash:
Take that for always thwarting us in Ice Hockey.:furious3:
:clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:
I'm going to play as UK since they own parts of Canada :P... Canada = kick ass... Hockey is our sport :whip: and UK has the red coats :2thumbsup:
Iavorios
08-23-2007, 17:44
I personally would love to know is China in the game. It must be, if you have the entire world, you just can't miss one third of the global population. And if it is in, well it would be fun. Taking China out to globally conquest, and putting the world under the rule of the emperor will be great. And bices, China become tehnologicly bad only after 17-18 century.
Freedom Onanist
08-23-2007, 18:05
China become tehnologicly bad only after 17-18 century.
Certainly by the 17th century they would've been hard pressed to compete navally. thorughout the 18th century they were moribond and playing wouldn't be nuch fun if it was made accurate.
Of course there is always the danger that CA will use China as the joker in the pack. A sort of fantasy faction. I was watching a programme the other day on the History Channel and there were still people insisting that mystic powers had made the Chinese the scourge of the battlefield:wall: I think that's what the poor saps believed during the Boxer rebellions - bullets would never touch them. That was until a lump of lead with no knowledge of Eastern mysticism decided otherwise:idea2:
I'm going to play as UK since they own parts of Canada :P... Canada = kick ass... Hockey is our sport :whip: and UK has the red coats :2thumbsup:
No they don't, Canada=French. Until 1760. Well after the game will probably start.
iblewafuse14
08-23-2007, 22:04
No they don't, Canada=French. Until 1760. Well after the game will probably start.
I'm sure most of it will be French BUT, the English speaking settlers who went to what is now New York did move north and settle in Southern Ontario.
Randarkmaan
08-23-2007, 22:28
China become tehnologicly bad only after 17-18 century.
Yeah, but they gave up their great power status in the 15th century when they abandoned their war fleet. That's what I think that the game should actually require quite alot of investment in buildings and such before you are able to have a war fleet, and then when you do ships should be relatively expensive and be able to really make a difference, in this era having a (functional) war fleet was the staple mark of a great power, it's basically why they were great.
thorughout the 18th century they were moribond and playing wouldn't be nuch fun if it was made accurate.
The power of the Qing dynasty peaked in 18th century. They had some great emperors at the time.
Freedom Onanist
08-24-2007, 13:39
Yeah, but they gave up their great power status in the 15th century when they abandoned their war fleet. That's what I think that the game should actually require quite alot of investment in buildings and such before you are able to have a war fleet, and then when you do ships should be relatively expensive and be able to really make a difference, in this era having a (functional) war fleet was the staple mark of a great power, it's basically why they were great.
I agree, I think you should be forced to make tough decisions here. Where do you spend your money? Do you play for money (money) or hegemony (France)? Do you need a large fleet to protect your trade routes (and win some) or do yo need a large army to invade and impose your will?
Iavorios
08-24-2007, 13:48
About the navy- there is, and there will never be a nation destined or not for a naval power. All technologically superiority is temporary. What is important is economy and leadership. Rome had no war ships before the first war whith Carthage, Sparta build huge fleet against Athens, England in early 16th century was far back from Spain and Portugal, and even Netherlands. Peter Russia, USA after the civil war, USSR after WW II.... As a mather of fact USSR had much bigger and bether navy then UK after the 70, less then 30 years after Britain looked undisputed ruler of the seas.
Do i have to continue?
Randarkmaan
08-24-2007, 14:39
Yes, but you can't deny that the aqquisition of a war fleet does sort of make a state more of a power. What I was saying was simply that it should require a lot of money to be able to field one and that it should be very important in the game, and a heavy blow if it is wrecked (yes, the Ottomans rebuilt theirs after Lepanto, but it undoubtedly cost alot of money). China gave up their war fleets and their expeditions in the 1430s, and this was a huge war fleet with nine-masted, cannon-armed ships, because the expenses proved too great together with the fact that they also maintained a huge army guarding the borders to the north. With this China no longer was able to impose their will on nations (or just be able to demonstrate their power) overseas and was reduced to a regional power.
Anyway, do you think Rome would have been able to defeat Carthage in the punic war if they had not built a navy? Do you think Greece would have remained independent if the Athenians had not had one of the best navies in the mediterranean?
Well, since your infantry, cavalry and Arty cannot swim over the English channel to defeat France, I think there are certain countries suited for naval power. Especially those located on an island as Britain is.
It was the trouble for Holland in the 17th and 18th century to build a navy strong enough to rival britain for naval supremacy and to maintain an army large enough to keep France ( With Europes strongest land force)
at bay.
The cost of such an enterprise was even for the dutch economy disastrous.
Every continental state has such troubles, they exception maybe portugal, wich was protected by Spain over land (when they have an alliance of course)
When you build a large navy as say Prussia, you will be overwhelmed by the forces of Russia and Austria lurking on your borders.
When you build a large army for huge costs, as say Holland, to keep France from conquering your land, then your navy, colonial empire and economy will be crushed by the english fleet.
So trouble... :wall:
But not for Britain, Cause England never had the need for an enormous standing army, because they could sink other armies before they invaded.
So England is suited for Naval domination. (Presumed the english get rid of the Scotts of course)
Freedom Onanist
08-24-2007, 23:51
The strategic option here then is to neutralise Britain. Invade or or foment unrest. Although the quality of Britain's troops was relatively high they were never very numerous, so if you can get a foothold you might succeed.
This is what happened, with the French supporting rebellions and trying to organise invasions. However, they were never successful at it, mainly because a strong RN stopped the invasions and limited the support for rebellions. Hmm... What to do? Just do it fast and successfully.:yes:
2. Making alliances actually worth something. Have an diplo-option similar to Europa Universalis wherein if you go to war, your ally(-ies) immediately must choose to honor your alliance and fight alongside you (or subsequently back out and lose a tremendous amount of respect). Likewise, if your ally goes to war with faction neutral to you, you have the option to support your ally or take a big hit against your reputation/prestige by stiffing them.
I've always dreamed of seeing campaign battles with one or more allies fighting along side you against one of more opponents. Have never come close to seeing that happen in any campaign going all the way back to MTW.
Implementing multi-faction battles would truly make alliances so much more worthwhile and the battles themsselves so much more epic.
:beam:
If your ally wants / needs your help they should send a diplomat asking for it and stating what help they require. There should be penalties for not helping (other than losing an ally to an enemy faction, which becomes more powerful).
Same when you ally attacks a neutral country, they should ask you to supply troops (in a similar manner to a crusade).
Well, the English may not have had a large number of standing land armies but at least for coastal invasions and raids the sailors on the ships were used to increase manpower. Also they relied heavily on auxilaries/mercs for a large number of campaigns far from the English mainland. (The use of indian regiments for example for over 150 years. Hell they were even in africa fighting the Italians and Germans.) So yes Britain didn't really need a large standing land army anyways. Oh and there are only ten factoins and three continents. Australia, South America, Antartica, and Africa are being left out for the most part. (It should however feature bits of North Africa. So really they kind of scewed you over historically wise.
This however is balanced by the fact that if they did include Africa, it would be pretty much rebel hunting half naked black men for most of the game.....
Jack Lusted
08-25-2007, 21:56
There will be more than 10 factions in Empire.
Jack Lusted
There will be more than 10 factions in Empire.
What? slightly more than 10 factions? That isn't enough.
Or I incorrectly understand you... Maybe 10 playable factions?
One other thing, if this is supposed to go along historical lines, will Napolean be there? Like an event or something. If he is there he better have insane bonuses for his character. Kind of like the Kingdoms one I am guessing. Also, the Americans are going to have to revolt when Britains at war with France. Otherwise Britain will just crush the poor dumb bastards...
"The game will include 10 playable factions including Britain, Prussia, France, Spain, America and the massive Ottoman Empire."
That was taken from the sight. I hope there isn't a crap load of non-playable factions... Having like 15 versions of Aztecs, Papal States and Invading hordes gets boring after ahwhile....
pevergreen
08-26-2007, 00:56
Check out the summary thread you CA guys :tongue:
(as should everyone else :yes:)
Frederick the Great
11-11-2007, 14:33
This game is going to be massive!!! The thing I'm looking forward to is the uniform's of this period as major nation's had started to uniform their armies in national colour's Prussian Blue,Russian Green,British Red and so on......and if CA show the same detail to uniform's as in MTW2 then this is going to be awesome.British Ship's of the Line taking on all comer's....well she did rule the waves more or less.....this period saw the start of her empire building.
Bigger land battles with sub-commander's who can react and think for themselves so I can be focusing somewhere else on the battlefield.
The disappearance of deployment area's on the battlefield and the fact that you have to march on the map and deploy in your order of battle.Not all land battles started with armies facing each other as some general's did tactical manovering,flank marches etc.
Finally I hope CA and the maker's of ETW will take note of thing's said in this forum or are we all just wasting our time writing these message's while we wait in earnest for the game to come out and CA will please themselves what they put in or out of the game.....remember it's sales that counts.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.