PDA

View Full Version : factions?special units? Strategies?



woad&fangs
08-22-2007, 21:47
Just wondering what everyone thinks the factions will be. I know the CA site said that England, Spain, America, France, Prussia, and America are all playable but I was wondering what other factions you think they will include. Also, what do you think each factions special units/strengths and weaknesses will be. It's a pretty safe assumption to say that England will have a great navy but what else sets the countries apart? Also, I will admit I don't know a great deal about the strategies of warfare at this time. I am assuming there was a lot more strategy involved than I realize or else CA wouldn't bother making the game. Does anyone know what kind of strategies were comman at this time? I know the Prussians would overload one flank and then try to encircle the other flank.(Modern Version of Alexander's tactic.) One last question, does anyone know which faction will make the most use of dragoons? I think they will be a lot of fun to play with based on how they're used.

Furious Mental
08-23-2007, 02:41
They said Charles XII of Sweden is in the game so one would rather expect Sweden to be in the game.

Nikos_Rouvelas
08-23-2007, 02:54
The ottomans

Warluster
08-23-2007, 02:56
You mentioned America twice.

Well all mentioned, Russia, The Ottomans, proably some Algerian Faction, Austria, Saxony,Bavaria(Y'know, German States) The Italian States (Pope, Venice,etc) Scotland and ireland maybe, Portugal, The Netherlands, India, Some Asian States, Some Indian Tribes, Mexico.

Thats all I can thnik of.

Ignoramus
08-23-2007, 03:56
Mexico won't be in; they only gained independence in the 1820's.

Warluster
08-23-2007, 06:51
Maybe New Spain instead?

Mikeus Caesar
08-23-2007, 08:33
You mentioned America twice.

Well all mentioned, Russia, The Ottomans, proably some Algerian Faction, Austria, Saxony,Bavaria(Y'know, German States) The Italian States (Pope, Venice,etc) Scotland and ireland maybe, Portugal, The Netherlands, India, Some Asian States, Some Indian Tribes, Mexico.

Thats all I can thnik of.

I'm not so sure about Scotland...

After all, Scotland and England ceased to exist as seperate independent countries in 1707 when they merged to form the United Kingdom.

Freedom Onanist
08-23-2007, 09:25
Well, I thought this had already been established?

The press release said of the 10 playable factions, there would be:

Britain
France
Spain
Prussia
America
Ottoman Empire
Russia (reference to Peter the Great)
Sweden (reference of Charles XII)

So 2 are missing. Chances are that one of those has got to be Austro Hungary. The other one could be The Netherlands (though in decline throughout the period), Portugal? Maybe Mughal India?

Warluster
08-23-2007, 10:05
Ah, those are playable ones but we were, or I was under the impression, we were talking about playable AND non playable factions.

Rakker
08-23-2007, 10:25
I seriously hope that the Habsburg empire (Austria-Hungary) is in the game, it`s a mayor player on the continent in that era. It has fought numerous wars against France and Prussia. And it has probably a nice choice of units ranging from german line troops to the swift hungarian skirmishers and hussars

Torin XII
08-23-2007, 11:41
What about Denmark-Norway? If Sweden is in they should be as well. Poland likewise.

I'm wondering over the 3 continents, is is Africa or Asia that is the third? Europe and America seems pretty clear.

anders
08-23-2007, 12:11
If you look to colonization and the overseas trade race, portugal and the dutch definitely have their rightful places as playable factions. if you look to the napoleonic wars austria-hungary has a very central role and must be in. and denmark-norway, while not a big power player, actually has something of a role in both.

doubt any non-western factions will be in, they historically lack the capability to be global powers.

so i think they should all be in. btw 10 factions arent exactly a lot, must be the least of any tw game yet?

Elmar Bijlsma
08-23-2007, 12:48
Coming from a Dutchman this may sound suspect and overly patriotic but you would expect the Dutch to be a shoe in for inclusion. In the early 1700s they were one of the major world powers and at the forefront of military development. Hard to believe nowadays, such a tiny country.

Would be interesting to see them in a Total War environment though. The survival of The Netherlands historically was because no other major land power would except another to occupy them, to preserve the balance of power. Whoever was attacking the Dutch tended to soon have an alliance arranged against them. Hard to see this happening in a Total War context. I'm expecting the Dutch to be quickly overrun, TBH.

NagatsukaShumi
08-23-2007, 12:53
As we know, unlocking factions to play with is relatively simple on TW games and even though CA didn't intend you to play with them, they mostly work fine when you do unlock them, with only a few requiring a tweaking.

I would entirely expect an Indian faction of some kind to certainly be involved, likely the Mughals. Dependant on just how this map works, there may well be a African continent too so I would expect some African tribes to appear should that be the case. Indians may well make an appearance to cause a nuisance in America, after all the War of Independence doesn't happen until late on into the game.

There is a big choice of people to include, who will find their way into the game is another matter and really we can't speculate entirely until we see a map of the area actually involved, as I'm not really sure on that one yet.

Besides, the modding community will probably already be setting the wheels turning in their heads (or is that just me?) for what to do, not in any depth of course but I am sure it will continue to thrive.

BoyarPunk
08-23-2007, 14:44
Better have Russians or I'll be boiling mad :smash:

Praxil
08-23-2007, 14:54
Yeah, it was kind of strange not to mention that the Russia is playable faction, when at that same time Peter the Great is one of the heroes in the game. I hope for the sake of gameplay and sense that these heroes will be only passive characters to add persona to factions. Bring different passive elements like better training for troops or better trade etc.

Cornwallis
08-23-2007, 15:01
[\Quote]Well all mentioned, Russia, The Ottomans, proably some Algerian Faction, Austria, Saxony,Bavaria(Y'know, German States) The Italian States (Pope, Venice,etc) Scotland and ireland maybe, Portugal, The Netherlands, India, Some Asian States, Some Indian Tribes, Mexico.[\Quote]


Russia yes
Ottomans certainly
Austria
Prussia
England
America
France
Spain
maybe portugal
maybe holland
sweden
but as for the rest of your ideas they would be unhistorical and ridiculous based on the infrostructure of the time

Fate
08-23-2007, 16:43
I would suspect that the faction list would be roughly as follows:
Britain
France
Portugal
The Throne of Spain
New Spain
Netherlands
Denmark and Norway
Sweeden
Russia
Prussia
Austria/Hungary
The Ottoman Turks
Bavarian States
Some kind of imalgimation of eastern european factions, encompassing lithuania, poland etc
America
Mahratta Princes (India)
Persians
Algerians (most likely)

I would also highly suspect emergent factions, such as Ireland, American Indian Tribes, the US (opposed to it being british america), and many other ones to shake it up some what.

Zenicetus
08-23-2007, 19:23
As we know, unlocking factions to play with is relatively simple on TW games and even though CA didn't intend you to play with them, they mostly work fine when you do unlock them, with only a few requiring a tweaking.

I'm wondering if that will be true with this one though, unless you just ignore sea power and the western side of the map. The choice of playable factions seems to be based on who had major force projection with navies during the period (with the curious omission of the Dutch??). That makes sense, as a showcase for the new naval combat engine, and it's probably why Russia didn't make the list.

It will be interesting to see if those other unlockable factions can actually get access to the shipyards, navigation tech, and ship types that the playable factions have, or if they're blocked out of advancement due to the tech tree... something like the situation with M2TW with the Byzantines or Scotland in the late game, with respect to gunpowder.

If they are blocked from major sea power, then maybe the modders can try their hand at an alternate history mod, where these other factions can get their ships. Or maybe the game is winnable as, say, Russia if you just ignore sea power.

DisruptorX
08-23-2007, 19:39
Ugh, I would have thought that CA realised that no one likes having unplayable factions. Everyone is playable in MTW 2. The worst thing about Rome was having to mod it to use like have the factions.

Lord Winter
08-23-2007, 19:54
The Dutch should defently be in if their starting at the War of the Spanish Succesion. Leaving out the dutch would be akin to leaving out the U.S. in WWII.

I don't know if they need a pourtagal faction, much of thier power was gone by this time, as they merly played a secondary role.

Matt_Lane
08-23-2007, 20:00
I'm interested in how the America's will start out. Will it be Spain, Britain and France slugging it out against each other and the indigenous population or would New Spain, New France and America be a separate entities?

Also the CA site particularly mentioned the revolutions in France and North America. Would these be represented by new emergent forces or would there be a mass rebellion within the French and British ranks?

Lastly how much will the logistics of supply come into play? Feeding and equipping far flung armies in distant lands could make or break a campaign. Foraging can alienate the local population and can be vulnerable to a scorched earth policy whilst resupply from a home base can leave dangerously extended supply lines.

Matt_Lane
08-23-2007, 20:06
The Dutch should defently be in if their starting at the War of the Spanish Succesion. Leaving out the dutch would be akin to leaving out the U.S. in WWII.

I don't know if they need a pourtagal faction, much of thier power was gone by this time, as they merly played a secondary role.

Could you have a Peninsular War with out Portugal?

Rhyfelwyr
08-23-2007, 20:11
Were the Dutch not in a union with Britain in 1700?

Matt_Lane
08-23-2007, 20:20
Were the Dutch not in a union with Britain in 1700?

I think there where various alliances around this this time (Grand Alliance and Triple Alliance) which the Dutch and British were both part of but Britain and the Netherlands where not in union like Scotland, Wales and England are.

anders
08-23-2007, 20:58
you cant have a game wich is partly about the napoleonic wars and not include russia! thats just silly.

emergent factions and some scripted rebellions would be a natural part of a game in this period, the jacobites as has been mentioned by several people here would be nice.

Slaists
08-23-2007, 22:39
You mentioned America twice.

Well all mentioned, Russia, The Ottomans, proably some Algerian Faction, Austria, Saxony,Bavaria(Y'know, German States) The Italian States (Pope, Venice,etc) Scotland and ireland maybe, Portugal, The Netherlands, India, Some Asian States, Some Indian Tribes, Mexico.

Thats all I can thnik of.

scotland and ireland were part of the british empire at the time, weren't they?

i'd guesstimate:

1. england
2. france
3. prussia
4. austria-hungary
5. russia
6. ottomans
7. spain
8. portugal
9. dutch
10. sweden

Warluster
08-23-2007, 22:39
but as for the rest of your ideas they would be unhistorical and ridiculous based on the infrostructure of the time

I guess not. German states were major then. Think War of Spanish Succesion, War of Austrian Succesion. The Italian States were still there, and definetly the Pope!

The rest are fine as well. What part do you think unhisotrical?

Ireland was not part of the British Empire then. I don't think.

Incongruous
08-23-2007, 23:08
Well, they said that Churchill was in, so it follows that so will Eugene. So it follows that the Holy Roman Empire will be too.

Matt_Lane
08-23-2007, 23:14
Ireland was not part of the British Empire then. I don't think.

England and Ireland had been linked since the Norman conquest with a series of conquests and rebellions until at the start of the 18th Century Ireland became part of Great Britain.

Mailman653
08-23-2007, 23:33
Wooooo....! Continental army finally. My guess for special units would be tons of militia for the Americans and don't forget Hessian troops for England.

Zenicetus
08-23-2007, 23:53
Speaking of special units... I'm wondering how they'll handle Marine-type units for boarding actions in naval combat. Will it be a regular infantry unit, or a special Marine unit that can only be used on ships? I'm guessing a special unit to keep the numbers down. You can't have a regular stack with thousands of soldiers on a single ship, but maybe they'll have a single stack spread out among the fleet or something, if they use regular infantry. Will you recruit Marines separately, or will you get an automatic number related to the size of the ship, the way it's done in the abstract in RTW and M2TW? It will be interesting to see how they handle this.

NagatsukaShumi
08-24-2007, 01:14
I'm wondering if that will be true with this one though, unless you just ignore sea power and the western side of the map. The choice of playable factions seems to be based on who had major force projection with navies during the period (with the curious omission of the Dutch??). That makes sense, as a showcase for the new naval combat engine, and it's probably why Russia didn't make the list.

It will be interesting to see if those other unlockable factions can actually get access to the shipyards, navigation tech, and ship types that the playable factions have, or if they're blocked out of advancement due to the tech tree... something like the situation with M2TW with the Byzantines or Scotland in the late game, with respect to gunpowder.

If they are blocked from major sea power, then maybe the modders can try their hand at an alternate history mod, where these other factions can get their ships. Or maybe the game is winnable as, say, Russia if you just ignore sea power.

Depends if theres anything like Glorious Achievements mode, in which case playing a small nation with no real navy power would still be winnable on land.

Either way, I can't see CA not giving them ships because even if your not them, you'll need to fight them for it to be anywhere enar sensible imo, even if they are weak ships in comparison, they should be able to defend themselves someway or another.

If not, the modders will undoubtedly help out.

Polemists
08-24-2007, 04:08
I just hope I don't have to do the win as one of the five factions to unlock other factions thing again.

I am more curious about the Factions that can occur during the game. I mean obviously American and India are british colonies but what if one of the other colonies beats back it's Colonial Overlord.

Personally I look forward to the major euro powers and Russia, still I wonder how they plan to make Napolean as powerful as he was in real life. I mean I can't see the AI being that tactical. Maybe it will be like Mongols, huge stacks of musketmen just keep popping up in france haha.:laugh4:

Zenicetus
08-24-2007, 07:31
Personally I look forward to the major euro powers and Russia, still I wonder how they plan to make Napolean as powerful as he was in real life. I mean I can't see the AI being that tactical. Maybe it will be like Mongols, huge stacks of musketmen just keep popping up in france haha.:laugh4:

Well, none of the TW games have been historical re-enactment games. There are some scripted events like the Mongols, and the discovery of gunpowder. But the design has always been something of a sandbox, where anything can happen depending on interaction between the AI factions and the player. It begins as a "snapshot" that's more or less accurate for the starting point, and then it evolves from there in unexpected directions.... like the Pope going on a rampage sometimes in M2TW, conquering vast territory.

So I don't think we need to see Napoleon pop up in every Empire campaign game. That would be boring.

Lord Winter
08-25-2007, 00:45
Were the Dutch not in a union with Britain in 1700?

Yes, but William of Orange dies in a year so it's preaty useless. From their they each go their seperate ways although they are still allied.

IsItStillThere
08-25-2007, 00:54
I'm surprised america would be in. the time period is supposed to be early 1700's to 1800's, so the game starts well before there was a USA.

A lot of the early game would be colonizing the americas. What if France got the vast majority of what is now the eastern US rather than England? Would there have been an American Revolution?

This would all have to be handled very carefully and circumspectly to avoid laughably unhistorical situations.

Now, I'm happy they choose this era, it has great possibilities both on land AND at sea. I just hope CA gives this title some serious thought.:book:

pevergreen
08-25-2007, 01:05
Mughals are in. :beam:

Mailman653
08-25-2007, 02:16
I'm surprised america would be in. the time period is supposed to be early 1700's to 1800's, so the game starts well before there was a USA.

A lot of the early game would be colonizing the americas. What if France got the vast majority of what is now the eastern US rather than England? Would there have been an American Revolution?

This would all have to be handled very carefully and circumspectly to avoid laughably unhistorical situations.

Now, I'm happy they choose this era, it has great possibilities both on land AND at sea. I just hope CA gives this title some serious thought.:book:

Yeah, but TW isn't 100% about historical accuracy, it gives you the tools and the situations but it doesn't always follow history. It's like a puzzle, you get the pieces but its up to you to make the picture.

http://www.shacknews.com/images/image-o-matic.x?/images/sshots/Screenshot/8169/8169_46cc3b294bd3a.jpg
Anyone else noticed the tripple decker US ship? :laugh4: Must be for ballencing issues since the US never had first rate ships, more like Frigates and Corvettes.

IsItStillThere
08-25-2007, 02:25
Anyone else noticed the tripple decker US ship? Must be for ballencing issues since the US never had first rate ships, more like Frigates and Corvettes.

This is the kind of thing I was referring to earlier. The USA was never a first rate naval power until the 20th century. Nor was it ever an empire (it did have imperialistic tendencies, but again that wasn't until after the era the game covers).

I think it might be better to have the game cover 1650-1770 or thereabouts and eliminate the need to deal with the tricky american revolution thing. It just seems like they are asking for trouble otherwise.

This is supposed to be a total war game, not civilization (where the souix can build a nuke or sent a spaceship to alpha centauri!). That kind of thing has its place in the civ series, no need to bring it into the total war games. As far as I know, all the previous TW games the units available to each faction were available (or at least close to what was available) historically.

Elmar Bijlsma
08-25-2007, 02:52
Fact is, there is a large market of American gamers out there. They are dying to play as Americans and they do not want to be told that in reality their navy was a lightweight and their army would be no more then a speed bump for just about any other army. Thus reality needs to be altered a fair bit.

Uh-oh, I'm going to get flamed for saying that. :help:

Mailman653
08-25-2007, 04:14
Fact is, there is a large market of American gamers out there. They are dying to play as Americans and they do not want to be told that in reality their navy was a lightweight and their army would be no more then a speed bump for just about any other army. Thus reality needs to be altered a fair bit.

Uh-oh, I'm going to get flamed for saying that. :help:

:laugh4: Maybe, maybe not. The US army had its moments of brilliance, but overall they suffered from disunity at times and poor leadership/lack of discipline in some occasions. Just look at some of the battles that occured during the War of 1812. Though I believe this topic should go in another part of the forum.:book:

BadGenome
08-25-2007, 04:23
As far as I know, all the previous TW games the units available to each faction were available (or at least close to what was available) historically.

/throws bees at you :laugh4:

pevergreen
08-25-2007, 04:49
There will be no flaming. :stare:

Tratorix
08-25-2007, 04:52
I have to agree with Elmar. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the americans have a lot of elite troops when historically they only really had militia troops (at the time). This would have to be done for balancing issues as well. Unless they really improve the AI, I don't see it beating back the British empire with rag-tag bands of militia.

pevergreen
08-25-2007, 05:01
Thats the point isnt it? Every campaign is different. Total War lets you create your own history, not follow it.

andrewt
08-25-2007, 05:38
It's 1700-1850, so all units from 1700-1850 are available. Then, you can change history and gets units earlier. It's like the Marian reforms in RTW, they could happen earlier based on how hard the player teched. By around 1850, America had some decent units. They'll probably be crappy versions of civil war era units to reflect being a decade earlier.

Zenicetus
08-25-2007, 05:50
Fact is, there is a large market of American gamers out there. They are dying to play as Americans and they do not want to be told that in reality their navy was a lightweight and their army would be no more then a speed bump for just about any other army. Thus reality needs to be altered a fair bit.

Uh-oh, I'm going to get flamed for saying that. :help:

Not from me, and I'm an American gamer. I know my history... that's somewhat rare over here in the general population (not to mention our Fearless Leader), but hopefully a knowledge of history is a little more common with our TW players. :beam:

I'm just curious about how they'll handle this, since I haven't seen any indication that the game has more than one choice of starting period. The game can't handicap an American player with a late start vs. the other factions, so how does that work? If you choose America, do you start as a British colony faction on good terms with the crown (which is another faction), and then you can rebel whenever you want? You won't have as many resources to start with (especially military), but you'll have HUGE potential for economic expansion based on trade and local resources. So maybe that's what they're doing.

The TW series has always mixed history with the idea of a sandbox game where you can move in non-historical directions from the starting conditions. So if the player has enough time before rebelling from Britain, they can probably build up a strong army and navy. In other words, the revolution doesn't necessarily have to occur in 1775. It can be earlier if you're ready, or later if you want to build up more strength (again, just guessing here that they might doing it that way). The relative strength of the actual, historic army and navy in the colonies are not all that relevant with that type of game design.

Matt_Lane
08-25-2007, 10:00
I'm just curious about how they'll handle this, since I haven't seen any indication that the game has more than one choice of starting period. The game can't handicap an American player with a late start vs. the other factions, so how does that work? If you choose America, do you start as a British colony faction on good terms with the crown (which is another faction), and then you can rebel whenever you want?

Quote from CA (many thanks ICEK for the link);

"CA are going to enable players to play as the newly colonised Americas, fighting for their independence from the British. The revolutionary war began in 1775 and continued on until 1783 - the tail end of Empire's period, but that doesn't matter. "

So it does look as if the player can decide the timing of the American revolution.

A Norseman
08-25-2007, 11:17
Yea, Anyway back to the 10 factions, I understand it so that many people thinks that the 10 factions ingame will be the only factions..
Thats wrong, there will be around 50 factions ingame, 10 are playable..
Alto fear for my homeland beeing unplayable, i am shure it is ingame. so that when i am finished with my campain as the Britts, ill mod Denmark - Norway into the game..

pevergreen
08-25-2007, 11:26
Undoubtably, as in the last two games, you will be able to mod factions in easily.

IsItStillThere
08-25-2007, 13:16
Fact is, there is a large market of American gamers out there. They are dying to play as Americans and they do not want to be told that in reality their navy was a lightweight and their army would be no more then a speed bump for just about any other army. Thus reality needs to be altered a fair bit.

No, you're not getting any flames from me :beam:

I would just remind CA about how well TW shogun did. No american units in there! Ditto with the medieval games.

Wouldn't it be funny if the americans were treated like rebels (which they were!). In other words, they just pop up around 1775 (ala the mongols in M2TW), non-player controllable.

Look out, its the Yankee horde!!!!:help:

woad&fangs
08-25-2007, 13:57
The Americans will be like the barbarians from Rome: Total War. They will be good at using cover, hiding, ambushing, and they will have some strong units that might attack without orders. The U.S. didn't have much of a navy until about 1800 and even then it wasn't anything special.

Mailman653
08-25-2007, 18:02
It just occured to me that another special unit that England should have is Torie militia. This unit should only be avaiable when the English are in North America.

kambiz
08-25-2007, 21:35
Iran under Zand Dynasty ???

IrishArmenian
08-25-2007, 21:45
Weren't Tories Irish highwaymen who robbed English nationals?
That wouldn't be a bad unit for rebel stacks in Eire.

IsItStillThere
08-25-2007, 22:33
It just occured to me that another special unit that England should have is Torie militia.

There were definitely loyalist units raised by the Brits in the revolution. I forget if they were called tories or something else, but I know what you mean.

I believe that the estimate as to the general feeling of the colonists when the war broke out was that about a third of them were revolutionaries, a third were loyalists, and a third were indifferent either way.

Given that, its absolutely amazing the revolution succeeded.

hoom
08-26-2007, 07:43
USA never had 3 deck, first rate ships? How about Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pennsylvania_%281837%29)
Started in 1916 but delayed by budget till 1837 & never actually used as a ship of the line. :balloon2:

Mailman653
08-26-2007, 08:00
USA never had 3 deck, first rate ships? How about Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pennsylvania_%281837%29)
Started in 1916 but delayed by budget till 1837 & never actually used as a ship of the line. :balloon2:

Quite a find there, she's a beauty from that picture.:yes:

Incongruous
08-27-2007, 05:50
Weren't Tories Irish highwaymen who robbed English nationals?
That wouldn't be a bad unit for rebel stacks in Eire.
:laugh4:
Sorry, I just read that and laughed.

SimonB1er
08-27-2007, 06:09
Yea, Anyway back to the 10 factions, I understand it so that many people thinks that the 10 factions ingame will be the only factions..
Thats wrong, there will be around 50 factions ingame, 10 are playable..
Alto fear for my homeland beeing unplayable, i am shure it is ingame. so that when i am finished with my campain as the Britts, ill mod Denmark - Norway into the game..
Yeah, I read that in a another thread but I didn't saw that confirmed in any previews. Where did you read that?? Anyone else heard about it??

pevergreen
08-27-2007, 07:18
Read the Summary Thread. That has all the confirmed infomation.

Warluster
08-27-2007, 10:04
I really wish they had a Australia. They might, as they are including South East Asia, but...

ninjahboy
08-27-2007, 10:08
native americans are bound to be in there as NPCs probably so the French and Indian War can take palce

pevergreen
08-27-2007, 10:38
:laugh4:

Australia hasnt had a decent war. No need for any part of Australia.

ninjahboy
08-27-2007, 11:10
:laugh4:

Australia hasnt had a decent war. No need for any part of Australia.
lol but it is an important colonization country! Then again this could cause controveersy with the whole slavery thing as well you cant say the brits were very nice to the aboriginals

pevergreen
08-27-2007, 11:16
Not really a fought over part of the world, I'm sorry to say.

lobo76
08-27-2007, 17:16
In the Empire period, everyone is supposed to be using muskets, lining up in rows , shoot a few volleys then charge? There's calvary too.. but I don't know how they are going to introduce elements of tactics as in Medieval times when there are more types of troops to throw around.

e.g infantry (pikes, spears, swordsman -heavy and light varieties for all), range units (archers, crossbow with AP bolts, gunpoder with AP and moral effect), calvary (light and heavy), range calvary, artillery and so on.

Empire is just muskets, calvary (light), and artillery.

Are there supposed to be castles since walls are pretty much an obselete thing by then? Then no siege?

zerathule
08-27-2007, 17:30
Forts where determinent for ground control up to WW1 and even sometimes in WW2, so definately there should be forts.

Cavalry could exist in 3 types : cuirassiers (heavy cavalry), hussars (light cavalry), dragoons (missile cavalry).
Infantry in a few types : Line infantry(heavy infantry), Grenadier(shock infantry), Fusiliers(range expert), Chasseur(light infantry)
Artillery would be maybe : Mortars/Howitzers, Obusiers, Canon, horse artillery.
In M2TW you dont have much more types of troops.
Each type will have countless variations like in medieval :)

Iavorios
08-27-2007, 18:00
In this period there where a huge number of unit types. The cav only was at least 3 types- light (hussars like), heavy(kirasirs) and dragoons like. About try magor types of artillery systems (guns, hovitchers and mortars), and a lot of infatry. And this is only in Europe. What about Asia? Napoleon fight a huge HA army in Egypt, and the Mongols where tread for Russia up until the end of 18 century (and the russian army was capable to give to any of the magor European powers army a pretty hard time). The forts not only did't disapire but become huge and expensive, made out of earth and ditches to counter the guns. In fact the trenches started to appear in the late medieval times in Italy. So there is really historically point of a lot of unit types and god sieges.

woad&fangs
08-27-2007, 23:15
Okay, based on what I've been reading about the game and warfare at this time it seems the basic Rock, Paper, Scissors matchup goes something like this.

Infantry square beats cavalry, cavalry beats infantry column, infantry column beats infantry line, infantry line beats infantry square.

Obviously it will be more complicated then that but that seems to be the equivelant of the Archers, Cavalry, Pikes trinity from RTW.

The only thing I know about the ship battles is that if you point your ship straight upwind your :furious3: d

Incongruous
08-28-2007, 03:52
Hmm, I'm slightly worried about their wanting to reduce sieges, and increase battles. Basically the opposite of this era (discounting the latter 18th cen.)
I hope that they decide to make sieges vastly more important than battles, which were often indecisive. If one could trap an army in a city then it has no where to go, and is effectively put out of action. It also means that you can be sure of making gains upon you're victory.

Warluster
08-28-2007, 08:15
:laugh4:

Australia hasnt had a decent war. No need for any part of Australia.

Oh, I just remebered Aussie wasn't around (Y'know, Empire style) until 1900. lol.

geala
08-28-2007, 08:45
Okay, based on what I've been reading about the game and warfare at this time it seems the basic Rock, Paper, Scissors matchup goes something like this.

Infantry square beats cavalry, cavalry beats infantry column, infantry column beats infantry line, infantry line beats infantry square.

Obviously it will be more complicated then that but that seems to be the equivelant of the Archers, Cavalry, Pikes trinity from RTW.

The only thing I know about the ship battles is that if you point your ship straight upwind your :furious3: d


Possibly they will make it exactly like you said, but that would be a pity and make the game ridiculous. Warfare in this time was not so easy. Only three examples: Infantry carrees were beaten not seldomly by cavalry charges (mostly when shattered before with fire). In the Prussian army of Frederic II. in the 18. c. the making of carrees was forbidden, the Prussian infantry had to face cavalry charges in line. Well trained Infantry in line often beat attacking columns.
An rps approach would be a bad method to deal with black powder warfare.

woad&fangs
08-28-2007, 18:18
Geala, it turns out you are quite right about well trained lines beating columns.:bow: And as I said in the last post this is just the basic RPS like Cav, Archers, Pikes. There will be countless variations just like in the other total wars. Some basic naval tactics I have found are to aim your broadside at either the enemies front or back. This minimzes the number of cannons the enemy can aim at you and your cannons can fire the length of the enemy ship killing all of the enemy cannon crew in one shot if you are lucky. Also lining your large ships up in a straight line lessons the likely hood of them getting in each others way. This was why large ships were often called ships of the line. I just saw a map of Europe in 1700 and the thing I was most surprised by was the sheer size of Poland/Lithuania.

El-Wrongo
08-29-2007, 09:49
I don't exactly have much confidence in CA getting the game mechanics right.

My guesses is that:

1. They will not get infantry tactics right, ie. units attacking enemies for close combat will rarely falter meaning it will have to be resolved in CC.

2. Ship combat will be all about running battles of ships all intermingled instead of the way it actually worked ie. ship lines, raking, breaching, isolation, boarding etc.

3. There will still be horrible bugs that breaks the game. f.x. the 2 years per turn turns VS. .5 years per turn character ageing (I once saw only three popes in the game between 1080 and 1520)

Fisherking
08-29-2007, 11:13
This is a short time span and who knows, they could put in monthly turns...which would be good from a weather stand point. You would need something like that with a world wide map...it should not take years to cross the sea! Maybe a world voyage but that is all.

I could be wrong but I expect some of it to be broken up into scenarios with America included.

That said this has the potential to be a really epic game!
In the past Naval War and Land War have been handled by sacrificing one area or the other! Ship to Ship combat requires small unit scale, particularly with prize ships and Marines. Battery and Company scale seems best for something like this...On land as well this could be fun. Regiments of the time may have had only a few hundred men in them so a few companies of a hundred men would work for most of the world outside Europe. As it is a new engine they could also allow more units into the battles to make up the larger battles.

This is a very complex undertaking and CA deserves praise just for taking it on...It could be that they have taken on too much and what ever comes out will disappoint many, but I for one can't wait to see what they will give us.

Besides with this engine it will open the way for RTW2, MTW3 etc as well as loads of others.

Darkarbiter
08-30-2007, 09:26
I'm pretty sure at the start of the 17th century they were still using pikes too. Don't forget about them.

Castles were mainly in the shape of forts.

pevergreen
08-30-2007, 09:27
Take a look at the Tactics thread. Pikes are there :grin:

Furious Mental
08-30-2007, 09:35
Doesn't seem to me that tactics get more basic simply because equipment was relatively standard. If anything the fact that almost every soldier could both shoot and fight in melee and was trained to maneuver in a variety of formations made them much more flexible and opened up whole new possibilities in terms of strategy.

Pikes are probably a unit used early in the campaign, like town militia. I can't imagine they will be very important.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus
08-30-2007, 20:52
Infantry carrees were beaten not seldomly by cavalry charges (mostly when shattered before with fire). In the Prussian army of Frederic II. in the 18. c. the making of carrees was forbidden, the Prussian infantry had to face cavalry charges in line. Well trained Infantry in line often beat attacking columns.
I agree. If they fight in the classical two men deep line formation, the whole batallion could fire at the enemy at once. It would be suicide for the enemy to attack in a column where most of the soldiers can't do anything.

Iirc the column formation was a french invention of the post-revolution coalition-wars of the 1790's. It wasn't so much about fighting, it was about moving. The french invented the levée en masse and had the advantage of soldiers being more willing to fight for their country which made this new formation possible and so gave the French the advantage of increased tactical flexibility. The mercenary armies of the absolute monarchies were bound to a much more rigid formation. They had to start the battle advancing in line-formation because otherwise the mercenaries would have most likely broken up the formation because of them trying to flee from the battlefield.

imnothere
08-31-2007, 01:26
I really wish they had a Australia. They might, as they are including South East Asia, but...

hmm, mass spamming Ned Kelly and his Gang of Invincible Armoured Bush- Rangers against some local natives with spears and boomerang would be overkill :)

I of the Storm
09-01-2007, 11:45
It just dawned on me that we probably won't see the almighty camel in this TW game. :sad: And even if they include it with the ottomans, it won't be almighty anymore.

That said, I'm really curious about the ottoman roster and how they will play. I suspect something similar to HRE/Seleucids from previous games, i.e. huge empire with everybody gnawing at them right from the start. But - depending on the design of the economy - they could and should be a powerhouse in the hands of the skilled player.

Master of Puppets
09-01-2007, 19:08
I'm an American, and I am psyched that finally the US gets a chance to whoop some European ass for once.

I do think that early American forces should be lower in quality/ability than that of their European counterparts, which only makes sense.

*HOWEVER*

The US should be able to develop into a colonial power after upgrading buildings, expansion, etc. just to make the game a little more interesting and not just a re-telling of history. Afterall, half the fun is changing history when you play, not just playing the same thing over again. Afterall, a US invasion of Portugal would be ridiculous, but who knows, it would probably be really fun building up the US like that and taking the fight to Europe.

When it comes to units, I think American forces should start out more like militia and minutemen with some regulars here and there. Also, I think a form of frontiersmen would be cool also, where they can maybe hide on the battlefield or excel in hand to hand combat from contact with the native americans. Who knows, just some ideas.

Mailman653
09-01-2007, 19:22
It just dawned on me that we probably won't see the almighty camel in this TW game.

Don't forget the almighty elephant :laugh4:

Incongruous
09-02-2007, 05:09
Merc armies?
First I have heard of them. The Lin was used in order to maximize firepower. It also meant that infantry was less likely to be destroyed by artillery.
Most armies fought three lines deep (the Prussian only changed to two due to heavy casualties), the British officially two by '59.

Marshal Murat
09-02-2007, 05:43
I dislike having to drag the infantry into lines. Every single time. I would rather just a simple CTRL+L for line, CTRL+C for column of march. Simple.

Platoon fire? Yes. Especially for the Dutch

I also hope that veteran battalions should be able to fire more quickly than newbie battalions from Sussex.

Personally, I hope that they have more interesting names. For example
2 regiments from Sussex? On the campaign screen, they are now the 1st and 2nd Sussex, instead of just 2 regiments.

Incongruous
09-02-2007, 09:58
I believe you can name you're units.

Fisherking
09-02-2007, 10:36
I am unclear on what it is they have planed with sieges. What I read said buildings were not confined to cities etc. forcing more open field battles to protect infrastructure.

So far as special units go, I am hoping for the option to land most of a ships crew to assault towns, small garrisons etc. That is how it worked in some areas, though they were usually raids and they didn't try to hold the area. But it is loot for the treasury:idea2: .

I wonder if they will make Indian troops (Native American) colonial militias or allied armies? I know they were treated as allies and often had to be handled with kid gloves to get them into action but their presence could be devastating under the right conditions.

I don't know too much about what was going on in Africa and India at the time but I am sure there would be some cool situations to manage as the Colonial Powers.

The mechanics for colonial rebellion will also be important as the Napoleonic Wars also brought on colonial revolts almost everywhere.

Thinking about it I am wondering if only 50 factions is enough:laugh4:

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-06-2007, 12:51
i will be very dissapointed if all the playable factions are European)western

it will be too much of the same thing.

i never understood why they cant make most factions playable, even if they have little chance of success.

Rodion Romanovich
09-06-2007, 12:57
I believe you can name you're units.
666th Guards Brigade :2thumbsup:
Nappy's finest :2thumbsup:
1st Cannonfodder Brigade :2thumbsup:

Master of Puppets
09-09-2007, 13:44
i will be very dissapointed if all the playable factions are European)western

it will be too much of the same thing.

i never understood why they cant make most factions playable, even if they have little chance of success.


CA is a company, and companies like money. That is why Great Britain, France, etc. get the lime light while other nations from say eastern europe or the balkans get shafted. CA's audience is more western european and american, so of course that will be reflected in the game's semi-neglect of certain parts of the world.

but i could be wrong.

Zenicetus
09-09-2007, 21:31
i never understood why they cant make most factions playable, even if they have little chance of success.

It probably comes down to two reasons:

1) Special touches and "localization" for the major playable factions, like battle speeches that are appropriate for the faction, architectural details for the buildings, and historical names for family members, agents, advisors, etc. The developers don't have the resources to localize every faction to the same degree, especially for things like voice acting and the 3D building models.

2) Playtesting resources are probably also limited. It's easier (and you get the game sooner) if most of the player testing is done with a few major factions. You might have noticed when unlocking some of the "non-player" factions in RTW and M2TW, that they aren't always as well-balanced as the main player factions.

Just my opinion, but I'd rather have a few factions with more attention paid to them, than having limited resources spread out among all the factions. Later on, modders can take up the slack and do any tweaking needed for balancing the "lesser" factions, although apparently some things like the voice acting are still determined by the core design.

It makes sense to me that since Empire is showcasing naval battles (and big ones!), that their main focus for initial player factions are the major seafaring powers. I know that upsets people who want to see, say, the Swiss as a major playable faction. :inquisitive: But that seems reasonable to me.
:hide:

IrishArmenian
09-09-2007, 22:24
i will be very dissapointed if all the playable factions are European)western

it will be too much of the same thing.

i never understood why they cant make most factions playable, even if they have little chance of success.
Exactly!

Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-09-2007, 22:26
I'd like to see ships to have more and more movement points as they get better. I also hope it doesn't take years to cross the Atlantic.

Trax
09-10-2007, 11:27
i never understood why they cant make most factions playable, even if they have little chance of success.

Because
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2094179&postcount=57
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2094179&postcount=57

Mikhal
09-13-2007, 12:18
now Russia will be totally awesome to play with in this time period, but how far to the east can you get? I wonder what the map is gonna be like, and thanks to the new engine there probably won't be nomore of those huge provinces we got in the russian region in medieval and rome

DisruptorX
09-14-2007, 05:46
Because
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2094179&postcount=57
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2094179&postcount=57

Thats not a good excuse. In the last game with unplayable factions, the most challenging and fun faction (Numidia) was unplayable. And I believe the Arabs in Barbarian Invasion were, too.

Well, as long as the old text file change works, no use complaining about it. Pretty easy fix.

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-18-2007, 19:03
lets just hope they are as easy to make playable as in the last games.