PDA

View Full Version : Creative Assembly What Factions would you like to see in Empire Total War



Pages : [1] 2

Lanfire
08-23-2007, 16:34
No official word of course but what factions would you like to see in Empire total war. For me i would die for a Dutch faction. Because they had the best boats in that time.

BoyarPunk
08-23-2007, 16:37
All the usual bunch of misfits:

English/British
French
HRE
Spain
Ottoman Empire
Russian Empire
Austria
Prussia
Sweden
Denmark
Lithuiana
Dutch
Portugal
(probably forgetting others)

Conradus
08-23-2007, 18:58
I'd love to see some playable factions in the America's /India's/wherever you're going to colonize and repell the European invaders. Like the Monghol empire in India in the 17th c and such.

Lord Winter
08-23-2007, 19:49
Please CA, don't make the mistake and have a HRE faction. Their power was broken in the 30 years war and would best be repersented as each indivuial state or strong rebels.

As for factions I would like to see

England/British
The Netherlands aka the dutch
France
Spain
Sweden
Denmark/Norway
Saxony/Poland
Baveria
Austria
Russia
Brandenburg
Pourtagal
Savoy

An Creimian Khanite could also be fun to play.

Rhyfelwyr
08-23-2007, 20:03
Don't worry about the HRE, we already know Prussia are going to be included. So far the official factions are:

Britain
France
Prussia
Spain
Ottoman Empire
America (emergent?)

My ideal faction list would be:



01. The United Kingdom
02. The Kingdom of France
03. The Crown of Castile
04. The Crown of Aragon
05. The Kingdom of Portugal
06. The Kingdom of Sweden
07. The Kingdom of Denmark
08. Prussia
09. The Electorate of Hanover
10. The Electorate of Saxony
11. The Electorate of Bavaria
12. The Austrian Monarchy
13. The Swiss Confederation
14. The Duchy of Savoy
15. The Republic of Venice
16. The Viceroyalty of the Two Sicilies
17. The Papal States

18. The Commonwealth of Lithuania and Poland
19. The Tzardom of Muscovy

20. The Moroccan Empire
21. The Ottoman Empire
22. The Crimean Khanate

Kraggenmor
08-23-2007, 20:12
I have nothing to add to the choices I'm seeing so far. It's unfortunate that the timeline just misses Mexico's struggles for independance and declaration as a republic.


Maybe as the first expansion or bonus campaign? :yes:

BoyarPunk
08-23-2007, 20:26
I have nothing to add to the choices I'm seeing so far. It's unfortunate that the timeline just misses Mexico's struggles for independance and declaration as a republic.


Maybe as the first expansion or bonus campaign? :yes:

Definitely could see the first expansion being an collection of "struggles for independence" wherein you could fight your way to establishing any one of the following countries that "finally gained" their indepedent status in the 19th century:

Italy
Germany
Mexico
Belgium
Canada

Kraggenmor
08-23-2007, 21:18
Definitely could see the first expansion being an collection of "struggles for independence" wherein you could fight your way to establishing any one of the following countries that "finally gained" their indepedent status in the 19th century:

Italy
Germany
Mexico
Belgium
Canada

That would be an excellent expansion!

Cornwallis
08-23-2007, 21:22
how could Canada fight for Independence. UK past a law saying Canada had the right to declare independence.

Bijo
08-23-2007, 21:53
The Netherlands should be in it certainly. It would be nice if its descriptions of units would be very short and to the point to save space. Also, prices of units and buildings should be cheap. It should be the best ration of price/effectivity. The units should also be very poor-looking. All of these kinds of things just to emphasize Dutch greediness :burnout:

Incongruous
08-23-2007, 23:11
The Netherlands should be in it certainly. It would be nice if its descriptions of units would be very short and to the point to save space. Also, prices of units and buildings should be cheap. It should be the best ration of price/effectivity. The units should also be very poor-looking. All of these kinds of things just to emphasize Dutch greediness :burnout:
:laugh4: :2thumbsup:
Nice!

Patriote
08-24-2007, 00:15
How could Prussia be in the game if IIRC, it was Napoleon you dismantle the HRE ??:inquisitive: What will be the time period of ETW ??

Any hint on that someone ?

Matt_Lane
08-24-2007, 00:21
How could Prussia be in the game if IIRC, it was Napoleon you dismantle the HRE ??:inquisitive: What will be the time period of ETW ??

Any hint on that someone ?

I've heard its to be 1700 to 1820.

bozkirsovalyesi
08-24-2007, 01:05
.... and:

İran-
İndia-
China-
Japan-
USA-
Afghanistan-
Siyam-
Burma-
Uzbek khans-
Fergana khans-
Habeshistan-

Fate
08-24-2007, 02:16
How could Prussia be in the game if IIRC, it was Napoleon you dismantle the HRE ??:inquisitive: What will be the time period of ETW ??

Any hint on that someone ?

I have an awful memorey, but if i remember correctly, the revolutions start in 1784, and napoleon came to power in 1799, and the napoleonic wars finished in about 1815-1820, so these states would exist.

Though regardless of that fact, prussian forces were at waterloo if i remember correctly.

Mailman653
08-24-2007, 02:36
I have an awful memorey, but if i remember correctly, the revolutions start in 1784, and napoleon came to power in 1799, and the napoleonic wars finished in about 1815-1820, so these states would exist.

Though regardless of that fact, prussian forces were at waterloo if i remember correctly.

Yeah they were at Waterloo, I'm sure this will be some kind of factor in the historical battles, assuming the game goes up to 1815. Although it might since the article in another thread states that the American revolution is at the tail end of Empires, and in the official website, it states that the French Revolution is included also.

Of course that opens up another topic which will be saved for another thread, War of 1812 units, US and English soldiers looked quite different from the American Revolution and the War of 1812.

andrewt
08-24-2007, 02:43
I remember seeing somewhere there'll only be ten playable factions. Or maybe that's ten playable factions at the start.

Atalus
08-24-2007, 05:02
Just because my ancestry is Prussian I need to give some imput here.

Prussia was a Monarchy before Napoleon founded by Great Elector King Frederick William the first who came to power in 1713.We'll skip a bit of history and goto Napoleon. They lost the war to him and then were "Vassalized". Napoleon did put down the equivalent of the treaty of Versailles on them though and they had to cutback their army size. Prussia spent this time remodeling it's army to the French standards and tactics of the time. In 1805 Britain convinced Austria and Russia to join a Third Coalition against Napoleon Prussia joined as well. Enough boring history here.

Needless to say Prussia was around since 1713

rosscoliosis
08-24-2007, 07:39
I'm hoping (but not too optimistically) for some Asian factions... :shame:

Warluster
08-24-2007, 09:00
I have an awful memorey, but if i remember correctly, the revolutions start in 1784, and napoleon came to power in 1799, and the napoleonic wars finished in about 1815-1820, so these states would exist.

Though regardless of that fact, prussian forces were at waterloo if i remember correctly.

The Frenchie Revoulution started in 1789 and went until 1794. Nap became a General and blew the rebs away. His campaigns into Italy started in 1796, and he kept going, conquering Italy, until he reached Egypt. THen the whole Nelson thing, etc,etc.

Jack Lusted
08-24-2007, 09:11
Confirmed factions so far in Empire:

Britain
America
Sweden
United Provinces(Netherlands)
Poland-Lithuania
Russia
Prussia
Venice
Spain
France
Ottoman Empire

And there will be around 50 factions in Empire.

pevergreen
08-24-2007, 09:52
Brilliant!

Posted to Summary thread.

Simmons
08-24-2007, 11:59
Just because my ancestry is Prussian I need to give some imput here.

Prussia was a Monarchy before Napoleon founded by Great Elector King Frederick William the first who came to power in 1713.We'll skip a bit of history and goto Napoleon. They lost the war to him and then were "Vassalized". Napoleon did put down the equivalent of the treaty of Versailles on them though and they had to cutback their army size. Prussia spent this time remodeling it's army to the French standards and tactics of the time. In 1805 Britain convinced Austria and Russia to join a Third Coalition against Napoleon Prussia joined as well. Enough boring history here.

Needless to say Prussia was around since 1713Being a fan of EU3 I know that its more complicated than that and for anyone else who is interested here's a brief overview from Wikipedia treat it with as much caution as you deem appropriate.

King in Prussia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_in_Prussia)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

King in Prussia (German: König in Preussen) was a title used by the Electors of Brandenburg from 1701 to 1772. Subsequently they used the title King of Prussia.

The Prince-Elector of Brandenburg was a subject of the Holy Roman Emperor. In addition to his electorate which was part of the Holy Roman Empire, he also ruled the Duchy of Prussia which lay outside of the Empire. In 1701 Elector Frederick III wanted to show his greatness by adopting the title king. At the time there were only three royal titles within the Empire: "King of the Germans" (a title held by the Emperor), "King of Bohemia" (often held by the Emperor as well), and "King of the Romans" (held by the Emperor's heir).

In return for Hohenzollern assistance in the War of the Spanish Succession, Emperor Leopold I allowed Frederick to crown himself "King in Prussia", not "King of Prussia"; Frederick was only an elector in his domains within the borders of the Empire, not a king. Even so, his move was controversial, and only became widely accepted after the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The title "King of Prussia" implied lordship over the entire Prussian region, not simply the Duchy of Prussia, and the assumption of such a title by the Hohenzollern margraves would have threatened neighboring Poland; because the province of Royal Prussia was part of the Kingdom of Poland, the Kings of Poland titled themselves Kings of Prussia until 1742.

Throughout the 18th century the power of the Kings in Prussia continued to increase. They were victorious over the Austrian Habsburg Monarchy in the three Silesian Wars, greatly increasing their power through the acquisition of Silesia. King Frederick II adopted the title King of Prussia in 1772, the same year he annexed most of Royal Prussia in the First Partition of Poland.

As for my faction I would choose a free Hamburg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/jared_simmons/Hamburg-small.jpg
That would sure be a challenge! :beam:

BadGenome
08-24-2007, 12:25
My most desired faction is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, so now that it's officially in... :2thumbsup:

Lord Zimoa of Flanders
08-24-2007, 13:06
As long as the diversity of the factions is maintained, the actual faction list is of less importance. The big players are in and the game is still in full development.

It will be a very nice game, no doubt. A real revolution and style break is very welcome.

LZ

pevergreen
08-24-2007, 13:23
Very true. Although M2TW had diversity, it lacked more than a few different names, and one or two unique units per faction. But it looked great.

Philip of Massalia
08-24-2007, 13:34
20 factions :
Great Britain
Low countries
France
Spain
Portugal
Savoy-Piedmont-Sardinia
2 Sicilies
Papal States
Prussia
Bavaria
Austria
Saxony
Russia
Sweden
Ottoman Empire
Mamluk Egypt
Mahratta India
Imperial China
American States
Iroquois Confederacy

Patriote
08-24-2007, 13:38
I have an awful memorey, but if i remember correctly, the revolutions start in 1784, and napoleon came to power in 1799, and the napoleonic wars finished in about 1815-1820, so these states would exist.

Though regardless of that fact, prussian forces were at waterloo if i remember correctly.


Yes indeed Princer Blütcher was their commander. Since the last Holy Roman Emperor was "abdicated" by Napoleon and the Empire itself dissolve in 1806. Although after reading a little on the subject, there seems that Prussia and Austria were already "powers" inside the HRE but would they be included as Emerging factions, the HRE players having to decided which kingdoms he wants to rule from now on ? :inquisitive:

Trax
08-24-2007, 14:33
The HRE is a rather pointless concept by 1700. The different states within the HRE took opposite sides in the great coalition wars.

Bavaria vs Austria (and the Emperor) in the War of the Spanish Succession.
Prussia and Hannover vs Austria and Saxony in Seven Years War

etc, etc.

Subedei
08-24-2007, 14:44
Bavaria! Bavaria! Bavaria!:cheerleader: :dancing: :cheerleader:

Looking for a rebellious, constantly wrong-side choosing faction????

U found it!!!

Trax
08-24-2007, 14:54
Bavaria! Bavaria! Bavaria!:cheerleader: :dancing: :cheerleader:

Looking for a rebellious, constantly wrong-side choosing faction????

U found it!!!

Yeah, if they are a faction in ETW I will surely play them.
Screw Prussia, Bavaria will be the true power in Germany when I'm in charge.

Tellos Athenaios
08-24-2007, 14:56
I am all rather amazed at the wishlist: The Netherlands?! The Dutch were broke by 1700; the continuous Merc employment due to all the wars (with England, and with local powers in Indonesia most notably) coupled with the bankruptcy of the VOC had just killed Dutch economy.

And what do the Netherlands actually have:
1) Close to modern day The Netherlands. However, the province of Limburg was only partially under Dutch control and the southern border ran a bit differently.
2) Parts of Java were occupied by VOC garrisons. Only recently did the Dutch state take them over; the Staten Generaal assumed responsibility for the immense debt the VOC had built up.
3) Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and parts of Suriname.

----------

Oh and:

4) Social Unrest on a major scale. By 1795, following a period of continuous riots and uprisings, a double coup d' etat ensured that the Batavian Republic was found. And even then, the social discomfort did not cease; struggles continued in earnest till 1848 (New consitution), and were finally settled in 1919. (Voting rights for women.)
Note that all sorts of social legislation only came into being very late; and that indeed the entire Industrial Revolution took very long to reach the Netherlands in earnest (in fact, it reached the Netherlands only after spying on the English) mostly due to the political, and social unrest fuelled by a crap economy. (1840-1848 are also known as the Black Years in Dutch, due to the successive failures to yield sufficient argricultural production.)
5) Being the political playground of all major European powers. England, France and Prussia all tried to influence the course of events as much as possible; going as far as to fund rebellious groups.

----------------------

Gah, and how is CA going to represent that in a TW game accurately; without sacrificing considerably on game-play?

EDIT: Oh and to clear things up:
The Dutch employed mostly foreigners (mercenaries from Hessia and Switzerland mostly) as their soldiers. However, due to the continuous poor economy - the Dutch started to field more and more Burgerwachten; basically a town miliitia. (Due to the insufficient maintainance of public order, the Patriotten (Patriots, but with a slightly different meaning in this context) started to field such guards. Not to think that it was much of show, really: when the Prussians invaded they more or less decided not to fight at all - allowing the Prussians to restore the Stadhouder into his position.

Trax
08-24-2007, 15:10
Hmm, the Dutch could fight bravely enough according to this description (http://www.battlefieldanomalies.com/malplaquet/05_battle.htm).


Away on the allied left the Prince of Orange began his attack at around 9.00 am. Riding at the head of his 30 Dutch, Swiss and Scottish battalions the prince's main effort was aimed at the French works along the edge of the Wood of Lanieres, defended by General d'Artagnan's regiments which included amongst them such illustrious names as Lorraine, Piémont, Royal Roussillon and the Gardes Francaise. At 90 meters the hidden French battery of twenty cannon that had been positioned in the re-entrant of the d'Artagnan's fieldworks, let fly with a tremendous belch and roar of flame, which swept away whole ranks, leaving the ground littered with mangled and torn bodies. Still the battalions pressed on, receiving yet another awful raking fire from the French guns, and now also the massed volleys of over three thousand muskets as the French front line erupted in a hail of fire. General Oxenstiern was killed, and over two thirds of the Prince of Orange's staff fell around their leader. Down went the prince's horse; shot through by a shower of missiles, but the gallant young man himself remained unharmed and advanced on foot. The ground became so choked with the bodies of the dead and writhing wounded that all attempts to form a coordinated firing line became impossible. Half an hour after starting their advance the Dutch, Swiss and Scottish battalions had suffered some 5,000 casualties. But even this did not prevent the prince from pulling back to reform his battle lines, and once again advancing into the hurricane of lead and iron. In a repeat performance of their previous courageous, but futile endeavours to close with their opponents the allied battalions melted away in the face of the massive concentration of French fire. The Dutch Blue Guards left over half their strength on the field together with Generals Spaar and Hamilton, and the attack petered out and retired, still in good order, leaving the ground carpeted with even more dead and wounded. The Farm of Blairon, which had been captured during the advance, had to be abandoned and was now once again in French hands.

Tellos Athenaios
08-24-2007, 19:07
True. The Dutch did have some really good soldiers. But not many. (They did not maintain entire armies of them, that is.)

Also, consider that this is about:
1) A strong leader - with a certain charisma.
2) People who (at least the Dutch under his command) didn't exactly agree with the French overlordship of the Netherlands. In fact, we are talking about the Orangists (Orangisten, named so after the family of which all Stadhouders (Sterwards) were descedants - Oranje) or Oranjeklanten. And those people were people who ended up in the army and navy (having no other way of earning money, being the lowest social class). Add to this that the Oranjes (the family) had the reputation of defenders of the masses (as opposed to the rich merchants who would exploit them).

So I would say that they had a rather strong incentive to fight for the Prince - and to keep fighting at all odds. Especially since the Netherlands were now officially under French overlordship - which hadn't exactly gone down well with the upper and middle classes either, even though their revolution had been supported by the French and they had relied on French foreign policies to remain in power since 1794. (Most notably because the Dutch had to pay taxes to finance the French military.) So there you are: 1) a feeling of having the opportunity to aid your country & fellows 2) a feeling of power by being united under the banner of a strong & determined leader.

Elmar Bijlsma
08-24-2007, 21:16
You are being overly hard on the Dutch there, Tellos.
When the game begins (1700) the Dutch are still quite powerful and the British only recently managed to catch up to them on the world stage. Yes, the Dutch were on their way down. But principally that was because they were at the centre of a European power struggle where they managed to hold their own for a long time before finally being exhausted. As such they were involved in just about every war in Western Europe. That merits them a seat at the ETW table, surely?
The Dutch didn't have a large standing army, true, but neither did Britain. Both managed to be major players on the European stage anyway, and major empire builders. As for the quality of that army: few nations had to fight so many large nations in their history for so long. You'd be hard pressed not to end up with some of the most experienced soldiery of Europe. The Dutch had some of the finest infantry and cavalry of the age, and the coin and good relations to acquire more as they desired. Certainly early on. It was only during the fourth Anglo-Dutch Wars (1780-1784) that the Dutch lost most of their power, with the final deathblow coming in 1794 with the French invasion. So for well over half of the time depicted in the game the Dutch were still a major world power.

Rodion Romanovich
08-24-2007, 21:33
Confirmed factions so far in Empire:

Britain
America
Sweden
United Provinces(Netherlands)
Poland-Lithuania
Russia
Prussia
Venice
Spain
France
Ottoman Empire

And there will be around 50 factions in Empire.
:jumping: This sounds promising! Beer to CA! ~:cheers:

The Celt
08-24-2007, 22:05
Here's my wishlist.(Just going to put up the 10 announced factions plus maybe 11 more.)

1.British Empire
2.Kingdom of France
3.Spanish Empire
4.Prussia
5.Austria(-Hungary?)
6.Poland-Lithuania
7.Russian Empire
8.Ottoman Empire
9.Republic Of Venice
10.United States of America
11.Kingdom of Portugal
12.Saxony
13.United Netherlands
14.Kingdom of Sweden
15.Iroquois Confederacy
16.Mughal Empire
17.Maharata Confederacy
18.Safavid Empire(Persia)
19.Kingdom of Mysore
20.Kingdom of Denmark
21.Afsharid Afghans(Nader Shah)
22.Moroccan Empire

Whew! Lots of big players there! If CA can include most of that list I'll be a happy camper!:2thumbsup:

Tellos Athenaios
08-24-2007, 22:52
You are being overly hard on the Dutch there, Tellos.
When the game begins (1700) the Dutch are still quite powerful and the British only recently managed to catch up to them on the world stage. Yes, the Dutch were on their way down. But principally that was because they were at the centre of a European power struggle where they managed to hold their own for a long time before finally being exhausted. As such they were involved in just about every war in Western Europe. That merits them a seat at the ETW table, surely?
The Dutch didn't have a large standing army, true, but neither did Britain. Both managed to be major players on the European stage anyway, and major empire builders. As for the quality of that army: few nations had to fight so many large nations in their history for so long. You'd be hard pressed not to end up with some of the most experienced soldiery of Europe. The Dutch had some of the finest infantry and cavalry of the age, and the coin and good relations to acquire more as they desired. Certainly early on. It was only during the fourth Anglo-Dutch Wars (1780-1784) that the Dutch lost most of their power, with the final deathblow coming in 1794 with the French invasion. So for well over half of the time depicted in the game the Dutch were still a major world power.

1794 actually stabalizes things considerably, and is way before the French invasion. It lays out the table for the next 20 years to come, so to speak. And from 1700 onwards the Dutch STATE did not have the money to finance significant armies. The period you're looking for is the Golden Age; about 1620 - 1670; a period in which the Dutch were dominant in all Europe-Asia trade, acquiring a monopoly on spices. And even then, the Dutch STATE did not finace the warfare: merchants did - assembled in what's probably the first real Multinational, and one of the most powerful ones at that: the VOC. (It had the right to do diplomacy, enforce treaties, do war, build forts, maintain armies...)

But by 1700 the VOC had just gone broke, and the debts were passed on to the State (the Staten Generaal assumed responsibility to pay for them). At that point the Dutch economy is virtually broke. It managed to revive itself a bit and did indeed see better days; however the lower classes never fully recovered during the period.

The only people who profited significantly from Dutch economy were the upper classes - both the Kleine Burgerij; and (most of all) the Regenten. This last group dictated everything, and financed everything - hence the Dutch involvement in anything as remote as the American Independence War. (Rich Dutch merchants provided the Americans with supplies (most notably weapons and ammunition) and money which amounted to a loan of some 16 milion guilders! Why do you think the English decided to go to war with the Dutch yet again? Their last conflict had been ended as far back as 1674! For close to a century, the Dutch interference with English policies & commerce had been little enough to allow for a 'peaceful' co-existence!)

Yes, the Dutch were involved in every major conflict - but then again, the major Dutch merchants had spread themselves all over the world some 80 - 50 years before the timeframe. The Dutch Regenten class was involved in all sorts of smuggling business; and couldn't be persecuted: they controlled the Dutch government, and remained at home most of the time.

Oh well, :focus: :
The Dutch state & economy in general wasn't of much significance; heck the English started the Industrial revolution during the timeframe! The Dutch would, just like the French continue to focus on farming & trading till about 1850. And even then did the revolution not progress as fast or as smoothly.

Something to keep in mind:
-big states (England, France etc.) 'invent' protectionism. It cripples Dutch economy; which is mostly depot work & agricultural export + fish. The former is what made the Dutch rich in the Golden Age (Gouden Eeuw); the latter is what the emphasis of Dutch economy had shifted too. Obviously, the new invention stings badly.
-the entire idea of Enlightment is starting to take shape. Great and all that; but the Kleine Burgerij (Civilians, middle class without voting rights) discovers that it wants a piece of the cake as well. And it doesn't get it. You may wonder why there are lot's of organisations in modern day Netherlands called "Maatschappij": well, that is because it refers to the Enlightment ideals of "together we can make something out of it". Community efforts and all that.
Anyway, this entire Enlightment project coupled to the declining economy leads the Kleine Burgerij to beleave they deserve better. And that they should take matters in their own hands. Social & Political discomfort (unrest) continues to exist for a long period. 1848 eases some of it; but it requires the economy to sort itself out first (by 1870) and then it requires the Schoolstrijd & Voting Rights to be settled on as well (by 1917 & 1919 respectively).

My opinion remains: the Dutch are not a faction a la TW to be considered. Dutch merchants did play a significant role; but the Dutch state became the political playground of the real Euorpean Powers (England, France, and Prussia) culminating in the insitution of the puppet state known by the name of The Batavian Republic in January 19 of 1795 after the revolts in 1794. And the Dutch did not fight any really significant wars in those ages: the fourth Anglo-Dutch war you speak of merely reaffirmed the position of the Dutch since about 1700.

Lord Winter
08-25-2007, 00:29
@ Tellos, yes I agree with you in saying that Dutch were in segnificant decline on the world stage and their power in the collonies is being threatened by england. But until the end of the War of Spanish Succesion, (1714) they were still able to play a fairly major part in european affairs.

There is also the fact that part of total war is about changing history not reliving it. Perhasp the dutch could have rose again given the right conditions.

IsItStillThere
08-25-2007, 02:33
I'm beginning to think the 1700's-1800's era might be a little too late.

How about 1650-1770?

That would let the Dutch in with a fighting chance, and eliminate the complications that would arise from the USA suddenly appearing in 1780-something (I still can't imagine how CA will handle that. I can think of a lot of very stupid ways to do it. I hope they find a clever one or avoid it altogether.)

Tellos Athenaios
08-25-2007, 03:14
Perhasp the dutch could have rose again given the right conditions.

I don't think so... that's my whole gripe with having the Dutch in as a faction. They never ever could have risen on their own again; and historically, they never did so on their own again. From 1870 onwards the Dutch experience a revival in global importance, but only by the mercy of the English. And of course the complex/tense political situation Bismarck had just put Europe in.

I do not think CA will incorporate diplomacy that complex that it'll be a tool the AI ever will use as the English historically did. And that is exactly what I would define as the right circumstances: other major powers - that is the AI - allowing you to rise to power. And remaining carefully peaceful with you whilst you have to seek every way of accomplishing your aims without hurting the AI too bad: otherwise they'll wipe your powerbase (colonies) off the face of the earth altogether.

Hence, I do think that "Empire: Total War" is a rather poor name for the time period it covers. "Empires" in conjunction with the Industrial Revolution and globe spanning politics (which is what the current sneak-peeks suggest this game is all about, as far as the strat-map goes) only came into being a good 70 years after this time frame... In fact, the only faction which experienced an Industrial Revolution during this time frame is 'England'.

BadGenome
08-25-2007, 03:58
I'm beginning to think the 1700's-1800's era might be a little too late.

How about 1650-1770?

That would let the Dutch in with a fighting chance, and eliminate the complications that would arise from the USA suddenly appearing in 1780-something (I still can't imagine how CA will handle that. I can think of a lot of very stupid ways to do it. I hope they find a clever one or avoid it altogether.)

The time frame they've chosen strikes me as odd, but I suppose they're too far along to change that now.

Re: American independence, I've been wondering how it can possibly be worked out. Maybe something similar to the Lithuanian choice between Paganism/Catholicism in the Teutonic campaign from Kingdoms? Declare independence and watch the British Empire go all Mongol/Timurid on you!

Er... but in exchange, you get access to the Minuteman super unit! :laugh4: :clown:

IsItStillThere
08-25-2007, 13:23
British Empire go all Mongol/Timurid on you!

Except in this case, the american rebels ARE the mongols/timurids!!

In other words, in a grand campaign from 1700 on, the americans would be rebel units that are not player controllable. This is the only way I see to do it. Otherwise, how does the american player jump into a grand campaign in the middle? The yanks would have to be a non playable faction.

SaFe
08-25-2007, 13:33
I fear they will include U.S. as playable faction for purely marketing reasons.
Same goes for Poland to give the east-europeans something to play with.

I welcome those nations as unplayable factions for sure, but to give them 2 of ten starting spots would be:wall: .

Lorenzo_H
08-25-2007, 13:59
The British being the dominant power by the end of the era are guaranteed. And with the British come the French and the Spanish. I would also assume we will see the Dutch, the Portuguese, one or more German factions such as Prussia, Russia, Austria and perhaps a few Italian nations.

BadGenome
08-25-2007, 14:35
Except in this case, the american rebels ARE the mongols/timurids!!

In other words, in a grand campaign from 1700 on, the americans would be rebel units that are not player controllable. This is the only way I see to do it. Otherwise, how does the american player jump into a grand campaign in the middle? The yanks would have to be a non playable faction.

Well, I agree that they should be an emergent non-playable faction, but I think SaFe is right that it's entirely for marketing purposes that they're going to be made playable. So I have to think the colonists start off weak and with some sort of vassalhood/protectorate agreement with the British, and then they will be able to break the deal when they feel strong enough. At the risk of incurring the Empire's wrath, of course.

Shaka_Khan
08-25-2007, 15:21
I'd like to see the pirates. I liked the Pirates of the Caribbean 1 movie.

NagatsukaShumi
08-25-2007, 15:22
I don't think so... that's my whole gripe with having the Dutch in as a faction. They never ever could have risen on their own again; and historically, they never did so on their own again. From 1870 onwards the Dutch experience a revival in global importance, but only by the mercy of the English. And of course the complex/tense political situation Bismarck had just put Europe in.

I do not think CA will incorporate diplomacy that complex that it'll be a tool the AI ever will use as the English historically did. And that is exactly what I would define as the right circumstances: other major powers - that is the AI - allowing you to rise to power. And remaining carefully peaceful with you whilst you have to seek every way of accomplishing your aims without hurting the AI too bad: otherwise they'll wipe your powerbase (colonies) off the face of the earth altogether.

Hence, I do think that "Empire: Total War" is a rather poor name for the time period it covers. "Empires" in conjunction with the Industrial Revolution and globe spanning politics (which is what the current sneak-peeks suggest this game is all about, as far as the strat-map goes) only came into being a good 70 years after this time frame... In fact, the only faction which experienced an Industrial Revolution during this time frame is 'England'.

Judging by the list thus far not all of them did make "Empires" TA, I think the name stems from the fact that some people didn't become massive outside of Europe doesn't mean they should be ommitted or we should remove Prussia for example.

I would imagine the Dutch are there for a reason, and to be frank, it's boring just playing the factions that made empires, it is nice to take a faction on the decline and turn it around, however a-historical this may prove to be dependant on how they do it, it still doesn't matter, TW's are about being a-historical, all games are, you do not follow history exactly.

Kingdoms rise and fall for all sorts of reason, there is nothing suggesting that with the right leader, the Dutch couldn't have turned things around, it may be unlikely and never happened but in games terms it is not impossible.

Of course I see your reasons for a bit of a questioning as to why they are there, but I do believe Lusted said somewhere there will be 50 factions in the game, so its not like they are taking up tons of space.

Abokasee
08-25-2007, 15:51
1: UK
2: France
3: Spain
3: Portugal
4: Russia
5: Dutch
6: Germany (or what ever they were called in this period of time)
7/6: Prussia (Was this germany)
7: Italy
8: USA (Emegent, will depend on time when game starts) *
9: Various African Tribes *
10: | read above
11: | read above
12: | read above
13: | read above
14: Denmark
15: Poland
16: Greeks
19: Ottaman Empire
20: India *
21: Chinese Dynastys *
22: Japan *
23: @ *
24: @ *
25: @ *
26: @ *
27: @ *
28: @ *
29: @ *
30: @ *
31: @ *
32: @ *

* Depends on if the campain map will be larger than just europe
@ Various Colonlian Emegent Factions, Like mexico, Peru, Columbia, etc

Tellos Athenaios
08-25-2007, 16:23
But I do think, frankly, that the faction will end up considerably "dumbed down". Otherwise the player is going to have more than just a hard time with them.

Anyway, I would want the Yuan Empire & The Shogunate in. They don't have to be playable; just want to see them in.

@Abokasee: it appears that at least the America's; Europe & Asia will make it into the game. Don't know how many provinces there will be; but still.

Tellos Athenaios
08-25-2007, 16:35
Judging by the list thus far not all of them did make "Empires" TA, I think the name stems from the fact that some people didn't become massive outside of Europe doesn't mean they should be ommitted or we should remove Prussia for example.

I would imagine the Dutch are there for a reason, and to be frank, it's boring just playing the factions that made empires, it is nice to take a faction on the decline and turn it around, however a-historical this may prove to be dependant on how they do it, it still doesn't matter, TW's are about being a-historical, all games are, you do not follow history exactly.

Kingdoms rise and fall for all sorts of reason, there is nothing suggesting that with the right leader, the Dutch couldn't have turned things around, it may be unlikely and never happened but in games terms it is not impossible.

Of course I see your reasons for a bit of a questioning as to why they are there, but I do believe Lusted said somewhere there will be 50 factions in the game, so its not like they are taking up tons of space.

Which, is one of the major issues: the Dutch lived in a Federation in which each member was like France in the EU. One leader? One?!

Oh really: only the army & foreign policy belonged under the Staaten Generaal. And that Staaten Generaal did do politics in pretty much the same way as the EU does today.

FYI: the USA Government was set up according to the Dutch template + some new Enlightment ideals. (Which coupled to the facts that Dutch merchants were the first to support the USA (financially, and through supplies) and that the Dutch were the first to recognise them as an independent state, is why the USA & the Netherlands always maintained more than just a political cordial relationship.)

Zenicetus
08-25-2007, 19:58
Judging by the list thus far not all of them did make "Empires" TA, I think the name stems from the fact that some people didn't become massive outside of Europe doesn't mean they should be ommitted or we should remove Prussia for example.

I would imagine the Dutch are there for a reason, and to be frank, it's boring just playing the factions that made empires, it is nice to take a faction on the decline and turn it around, however a-historical this may prove to be dependant on how they do it, it still doesn't matter, TW's are about being a-historical, all games are, you do not follow history exactly.

True, but I think it's a little more complicated now that we have naval combat. This will probably be a big focus of the game, as it was historically for the "Empire" powers. You'll probably need to project a very strong naval presence to win the game, unless you just ignore the western side of the map and stick to land combat in Europe.

I like the "sandbox game" idea of taking any of the 50 factions and seeing what you can do with it, but I'm not sure it makes sense that every faction should get the naval tech tree available to a historically strong sea power like Spain or Britain. Especially historically landlocked factions.

OTOH, domination by a few strong sea powers like Spain and Britain shouldn't be automatic either. I hope CA is striking a good balance between that, and giving all factions equal naval power, which might not feel very authentic. Sandbox-type games work best (IMO) when the conditions aren't too unbelievable.

The Celt
08-25-2007, 23:16
1: UK
2: France
3: Spain
3: Portugal
4: Russia
5: Dutch
6: Germany (or what ever they were called in this period of time)
7/6: Prussia (Was this germany)
7: Italy
8: USA (Emegent, will depend on time when game starts) *
9: Various African Tribes *
10: | read above
11: | read above
12: | read above
13: | read above
14: Denmark
15: Poland
16: Greeks
19: Ottaman Empire
20: India *
21: Chinese Dynastys *
22: Japan *
23: @ *
24: @ *
25: @ *
26: @ *
27: @ *
28: @ *
29: @ *
30: @ *
31: @ *
32: @ *

* Depends on if the campain map will be larger than just europe
@ Various Colonlian Emegent Factions, Like mexico, Peru, Columbia, etc
Ermm theirs a problem or two with that list.

Japan? I'm pretty sure CA would've mentioned Japan, same goes for China. If they had factions like that they would've put them on the 10 playable.
Germany doesn't exist yet.(Neither does Italy.)
The Greeks were conquered by the Ottomans.(1453 ring a bell?)
Also, CA hasn't made any sign that they're going to include enough of Africa to have 5 tribes. And even if they did, thats a bit too many tribes for an area they would likely put just a few big provinces in the middle of.(See Timbuktu in MTW2)
"@ Various Cololian Emegent Factions, Like mexico, Peru Columbia, etc"
Most of those nations didn't show up until quite some time after the end of the 18th century. And so far none of the press releases for Empire have stated that the game goes beyond that. Also, India was quite a few factions not just one.


PS:Where the hell is Persia on your list!?!:whip: (J/k)

Zarky
08-26-2007, 13:47
Personally i´d say every single nation that had leader should be made a faction (All German states, Finland :D :D and African tribes, India) until conquered, but that doesn´t mean they should be made playable.
Since they weren´t rebels, but a weak and overwhelmed nation.

ninjahboy
08-26-2007, 14:45
they should make Australia availiable :D its perfect timing smack bang in the middle of Empire's timeline but somehow i dont think that this will happen :(

For some reason i wont want to play as the US - not saying that they shouldnt be in there - they definitely should but i just think meh .
FOR KING AND COUNTRY!

A Norseman
08-26-2007, 16:05
I want Denmark/Norway.
Honestly, CA, you Shuld not include sweden and Not Denmark/Norway as those are natural enemies. Now i am comfident that denamrk/norway will be in on the 50 list. But i hope that you will also make it playable. The country had one of the best navies in the time period, and played our part in the great northern war, the Norwegian fleet making the life hard for both the Brittish and the Sweeds. A sugestion to a hero shuld be Admiral Peder Tordenskjold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peder_Tordenskjold)

Centurio Nixalsverdrus
08-26-2007, 18:24
I fear they will include U.S. as playable faction for purely marketing reasons.
Same goes for Poland to give the east-europeans something to play with.

I welcome those nations as unplayable factions for sure, but to give them 2 of ten starting spots would be:wall: .
I can't say how much I agree. I hope for at least Austria has to be playable. Everything else I'd consider a bad joke.

Bavaria and Saxony I want to see as well, at least as non-playable factions.

I wonder how they want to manage "America"? They just weren't around at 1700.~:confused:

What about Personal Unions btw? E. g. England was in a Personal Union with Hannover, meaning the King of Hannover was the King of England. Iirc these type of reign was quite common in this era. How will they depict that? I guess they won't...

This game is already bought though.:charge:

Rodion Romanovich
08-26-2007, 18:45
I want Denmark/Norway.
Honestly, CA, you Shuld not include sweden and Not Denmark/Norway as those are natural enemies. Now i am comfident that denamrk/norway will be in on the 50 list. But i hope that you will also make it playable. The country had one of the best navies in the time period, and played our part in the great northern war, the Norwegian fleet making the life hard for both the Brittish and the Sweeds. A sugestion to a hero shuld be Admiral Peder Tordenskjold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peder_Tordenskjold)
I agree, Denmark-Norway, and Portugal, are the two most important of the factions that have not yet been added to the confirmed list.

I'd guess they're both certain to be included if there are 50 factions!

Beefy187
08-27-2007, 02:41
there better be some asian countries.. :inquisitive:
Im not gonan buy it unless theres some samurais in it:laugh4:

Soo far its looking great. Im looking foward to the naval battles:yes:

Hooahguy
08-27-2007, 02:51
i didnt really read through this thread, but i think there should be an arab faction, if not a confederation....

Caius
08-27-2007, 02:52
Argentina.

Zenicetus
08-27-2007, 03:27
i didnt really read through this thread, but i think there should be an arab faction, if not a confederation....

The Ottoman Empire is in, as one of the main player factions I think. It will be interesting to see what their ships look like at the end of the tech tree, although (IIRC) their navy was similar to European naval tech and didn't look much different, at least for the late ships of the line. I think at one point they had the largest ship in the world, or maybe it had the most cannon, I can't remember.

(searching)... oh, here it is, the "Mahmudiye", 128 cannons. That's gotta hurt in a broadside:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mahmudiye_%281829%29.jpg

Incongruous
08-27-2007, 03:28
Bavaria, Saxony, Austria. Perhaps also a mechanic whereby the minor German states (most notably, Hesse, Brunswick and Saxe-Gotha), could still play a role in diplomacy, i.e providing much needed troops. If this was used, then invading and knocking them out of the war would be decisive for a nation such as Prussia.

Oh this will be such fun.

zerathule
08-27-2007, 15:33
1) France
2) UK
3) Spain
4) Portugal
5) United Provinces
6) Switzerland
7) Savoie
8) Lombardy
9) Venice
10) Papal States
11) Sicily - Napoli
12) Bavaria
13) Austria
14) Saxony
15) Prussia
16) Lituania/Poland
17) Sweden
18) Denmark
19) Russia
20) Ottoman Empire
21) Mameluke Egypt(Vassal State at start)
22) Maroco
23) Mali (Bambara kingdom of Ségou)
24) Siam
25) Mataran Kingdom (Indonesia)
26) Sultanate of Brunei
27) Sultanate of Sulu
28) Mughal Empire
29) Kingdom of Vijayanâgara
30) USA (Vassal State at start)
31) Iroquois Confederation
32) Cherokee
33) New Spain (Mexico, Vassal State)
34) Persan Empire (Afsharid)
35) Kingdom of Mysore

These of course are just speculation.
This would be quite an extensive list, and you could add 15 factions to the list.
The thing is, maybe revolutionary factions are counted as different factions (like kingdom of france and republic of France would be different factions ?)

Geoffrey S
08-27-2007, 16:21
Tellos Athenaios, no, the Dutch didn't regain their full power of their Golden Age. But that's not to say they were completely out for the count by the start of ETW. They'd be a challenging faction to play, certainly, but isn't part of the point of the TW series to be given a chance for what-if situations? By your logic, RTW should have excluded Carthage, the Successor States, the Iberians, because they all lost to the Romans anyway.

Besides the fact that the Dutch would be a great what-if faction, I think you're being overly harsh on their situation in the eighteenth century. They were going through significant civil strife, but in general the states weren't significantly less well-off than in the Golden Age; in fact, the population was still better off than most elsewhere. Even their later 'decline' was only such relative to industrialising nations, and even then the standard of life was generally higher in the Netherlands (have a look for the article Achterlijk, achter of anders? by Griffiths). No, realistically they couldn't and didn't regain their full power, but that's exactly what the TW games are for. Nothing stops CA from labeling them as a 'Very Hard' faction.

I'm interested in how CA represents their form of state, but there are the three types of policies they've mentioned; perhaps they'd have a more in-depth effect on the game. The same problems would apply for the fledling US, and I'm sure they won't be left underdeveloped.

hooahguy14, Arabia (and Egypt) of this time was under Ottoman control. However, there's a chance of another Muslim faction in the form of the Safavids, although they didn't last long into the eighteenth century.

CaesarAugustus
08-27-2007, 16:35
I hope at least the major asian and african factions are playable, and not too much focus is on the europeans.....

snorky
08-27-2007, 16:36
Even after the glory days of the dutch they stille played an importent role, they even fought at Waterloo, and they were given control over Belgiem to be able to stop france from becoming powerfull again.

And yes i am dutch myself, does it show?:sweatdrop:

Akeichi Mitsuhide
08-27-2007, 16:46
A campaign-playable Japan. One of the big powers at that time(even though they only had the main island and that southern one.

Geoffrey S
08-27-2007, 16:58
Even after the glory days of the dutch they stille played an importent role, they even fought at Waterloo, and they were given control over Belgiem to be able to stop france from becoming powerfull again.

And yes i am dutch myself, does it show?:sweatdrop:
Meh, at Waterloo they were little more than a vassal state of England, with the King utterly reliant on British support.

andrewt
08-27-2007, 20:47
A campaign-playable Japan. One of the big powers at that time(even though they only had the main island and that southern one.

They weren't a power at all. The game is from 1700-1850. Meiji became emperor in 1868.

During this time period, there weren't really any major powers that were non-Western. The US is western and didn't "officially" become a superpower until years after the time period of the game ends. Russia is western. The Ottoman empire was declining, and even they are heavily influenced by the western world. China was in one of its weaker periods. India wasn't that strong either during this time.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus
08-27-2007, 21:01
Confirmed factions so far in Empire:

Britain
America
Sweden
United Provinces(Netherlands)
Poland-Lithuania
Russia
Prussia
Venice
Spain
France
Ottoman Empire

And there will be around 50 factions in Empire.
Question to CA:

Is there any chance to see the Austrian Habsburg Monarchy in the game?

I don't know if you know much history, but I tell you that they were very important in this era. They were THE major opposing power to France, THE major central european power, THE major opponent of the Turks, THE major opponent of Brandenburg-Prussia. They fought three big wars against Prussia for Silesia. They fought the war for the Spanish succession. They fought against Napoleon. The list goes on and on and on. They were NOT an operetta state as you propably know them from the Sissi-Movies - Sissi is from the late 19th century. Hell they even had a navy!

Including of Poland I thoroughly consider as a joke of CA. What happened? Did the Kazcinski (honestly sp) brothers intervene? But that's more or less irrelevant to me as long as you please be not so foolish to exclude Austria. Really, I'd like to kiss your feet for making an 18th century:TW (Imperial Glory was a giant disappointment), but if you exclude the major continental player for obvious reasons like marketing and perhaps the feeling of "one german power is enough", than I will surely NOT buy your game.:rtwno: :rtwno: :rtwno:

shlin28
08-27-2007, 22:26
They weren't a power at all. The game is from 1700-1850. Meiji became emperor in 1868.

During this time period, there weren't really any major powers that were non-Western. The US is western and didn't "officially" become a superpower until years after the time period of the game ends. Russia is western. The Ottoman empire was declining, and even they are heavily influenced by the western world. China was in one of its weaker periods. India wasn't that strong either during this time.

During the 18th Century China was at the height of its power, even managing to defeat Russia in some border raids, I think...

SaFe
08-28-2007, 07:08
Question to CA:

Is there any chance to see the Austrian Habsburg Monarchy in the game?

I don't know if you know much history, but I tell you that they were very important in this era. They were THE major opposing power to France, THE major central european power, THE major opponent of the Turks, THE major opponent of Brandenburg-Prussia. They fought three big wars against Prussia for Silesia. They fought the war for the Spanish succession. They fought against Napoleon. The list goes on and on and on. They were NOT an operetta state as you propably know them from the Sissi-Movies - Sissi is from the late 19th century. Hell they even had a navy!

Including of Poland I thoroughly consider as a joke of CA. What happened? Did the Kazcinski (honestly sp) brothers intervene? But that's more or less irrelevant to me as long as you please be not so foolish to exclude Austria. Really, I'd like to kiss your feet for making an 18th century:TW (Imperial Glory was a giant disappointment), but if you exclude the major continental player for obvious reasons like marketing and perhaps the feeling of "one german power is enough", than I will surely NOT buy your game.:rtwno: :rtwno: :rtwno:

Well, naturally the Austrian Empire should be included as playable faction, but i think for marketing reasons the U.S. and Poland will get their position as one of the mysterious 10.
You know US is important as we have many potential american buyers and the polish members will start a crusade again, if their country is not included.
Perhaps a petition again?:smash:

As this seems to be working i want to include the absolute unimportant princedom of Baden, because this is my home. (sarcasm)

To be honest TotalWar should have nothing to do with nationalism or patriotism, because it is a game with the premise to be a historical one.
So, no U.S. at the start of the game and definately no Poland as playable faction.

zerathule
08-28-2007, 10:17
I hope the Polish Inquisition (No one ever expects it) wont kick Austria out of the 10 playable factions.
While i could disagree on Austria being the first european continental power (i'd put france at that place), definately they where a key player of that time.
Who'll fight the Ottomans ?
Who'll keep Prussia at bay ?
Who'll be between France and Russia ?

Besides, even if i hate Talleyrand for his treason, i'd love to make a what if senario : instead of France waring on Austria, i'd like to have France allied to austria during the napoleonic wars.

Jack Lusted
08-28-2007, 10:31
The full faction list has not been revealed yet, there will be more than the factions i mentioned earlier ingame.

pevergreen
08-28-2007, 10:58
An estimate on number of playable factions?

or

Will there be more than 10 playable factions at the start?

Is the game made in mind that you can modify all the factions to make them playable easily? (Akin to RTW)

FrauGloer
08-28-2007, 13:19
Apart from the obvious factions (UK, France, Russia, etc.), I'd like to see:
Italian States (Venice, Genoa)
Duchy/Kingdom of Wuerttemberg
Grand Duchy of Baden
Kingdom of Saxony
Kingdom of Bavaria
Swiss Confederation
Kingdom of Denmark/Norway
Barbary Pirates (possibly as emerging faction?):pirate2:
several Native American tribes (Iroquois, Hurons, Shawnee)

andrewt
08-28-2007, 16:48
During the 18th Century China was at the height of its power, even managing to defeat Russia in some border raids, I think...


If I remember my Chinese history from college right, the golden age of China was around the 11th century during the Song dynasty. They were arguably the strongest nation in the world during this time. They were the first to use gunpowder and paper currency.

During the early 18th century, the Qing dynasty was at its height. It's a foreign dynasty, however, and by this time, China was lagging in technology already. Its economic and political systems were antiquated. Also, since the Qing is a foreign dynasty, they had to deal with quite a few revolts from native Han Chinese.

russia almighty
08-28-2007, 23:55
The U.S as an emergent faction would be cool . Your playing the Brits then 1775 hits and BAM huge ass rebellion in the 13 colonies .

Rodion Romanovich
08-29-2007, 20:22
My guess and hope for minimum playable factions list is:

Confirmed ones (rearranged alphabetically):
* America
* Britain
* France
* Ottoman Empire
* Poland-Lithuania
* Prussia
* Russia
* Spain
* Sweden
* United Provinces(Netherlands)
* Venice

Not yet confirmed ones (most important ones in bold):
* Austrian Habsburg monarchy (obvious choice, since Austria was one of the absolute major continental powers of the era - it's as given as France or GB)
* China (only way it could be not included would be if the map doesn't cover this area...)
* Denmark-Norway (had one of the largest fleets of European countries at the time, and was actually a more dangerous opponent to Sweden in the Great Northern war than it might seem. Especially their fleet made the Great Northern war a lot more difficult for Sweden. They were a major power until the Napoleonic wars, when they suffered a mix of bad luck and bad diplomacy)
* Durrani Empire/The Pashtuns (the Durrani empire was a large but short-lived empire that took chunks off the mughal lands when they declined in power, while the British advanced from the other direction. Alternatively the faction could be called The Pashtuns. The Durrani empire spanned Afghanistan, Pakistan and Khorasan at the time of this game. They were almost impossible for Ottomans, Safavid persians, Mughals and British to conquer due to their remote heartlands located far up in the mountains, and with being near impossible to completely subjugate and keep control over, they would be an important gameplay aspect for making India difficult to conquer and hold: making it near impossible to clear your back unless you really put in a tremendous effort and substantial forces to be able to reach their heartlands and maintain permanent, strong garrisoned there)
* Mughals (they were at the peak of territorial expansion around year 1700. At the beginning of this period they could be well represented with low public order, a few rebel armies inside their lands, old-fashioned troops and low troop building upgrades in all their cities, so it would be a challenge to prevent their decline. It would be a very challenging and interesting faction for the player - trying to root our corruption - at the risk of civil wars, improve the technology and quality of the armies, and simultaneously fight European colonists and the Pashtuns!)
* Portugal (absolutely necessary: peninsular war, one of Europe's largest fleets, major colonial power etc etc. Like Austria, it would be pretty much impossible to exclude them...)
* Safavid Persia (would, just like Durrani empire and Mughals, be necessary to accurately represent the political-military situation of India and the Eastern Middle East)
* some African factions, the largest one could be playable
* some more Italian faction(s)

Edit: I forgot Morocco! Crimean Tatar Khanate might be interesting as well, even though they were of declining importance at this time.

Rodion Romanovich
08-29-2007, 20:35
The U.S as an emergent faction would be cool . Your playing the Brits then 1775 hits and BAM huge ass rebellion in the 13 colonies .
I agree, they shouldn't be playable from 1700. If there are eras, 1775 could be a good starting date, and they could be playable in the 1775 and 1789 scenarios! :2thumbsup:

pevergreen
08-29-2007, 22:18
The Mughals are in, whether or not they are a playable faction...:shrug:

Centurio Nixalsverdrus
08-30-2007, 00:01
* China (only way it could be not included would be if the map doesn't cover this area...)
The map doesn't cover this area...~:0

Furious Mental
08-30-2007, 06:17
Oh jesus people have started whining because their country might not be in the game. Happens every time.

Sarmatian
08-30-2007, 06:42
Oh jesus people have started whining because their country might not be in the game. Happens every time.

Think of it this way - judging by the increase in faction slots with each TW game, we should hit the number of existing countries in the world in about ten years. So you'll only have to put up with it for a decade... :laugh4:

Durallan
08-30-2007, 12:38
I want a pirate king faction! must have a pirate faction.....

xsintergalactic
09-04-2007, 07:12
Question to CA:

Is there any chance to see the Austrian Habsburg Monarchy in the game?

I don't know if you know much history, but I tell you that they were very important in this era. They were THE major opposing power to France, THE major central european power, THE major opponent of the Turks, THE major opponent of Brandenburg-Prussia. They fought three big wars against Prussia for Silesia. They fought the war for the Spanish succession. They fought against Napoleon. The list goes on and on and on. They were NOT an operetta state as you propably know them from the Sissi-Movies - Sissi is from the late 19th century. Hell they even had a navy!

Including of Poland I thoroughly consider as a joke of CA. What happened? Did the Kazcinski (honestly sp) brothers intervene? But that's more or less irrelevant to me as long as you please be not so foolish to exclude Austria. Really, I'd like to kiss your feet for making an 18th century:TW (Imperial Glory was a giant disappointment), but if you exclude the major continental player for obvious reasons like marketing and perhaps the feeling of "one german power is enough", than I will surely NOT buy your game.:rtwno: :rtwno: :rtwno:
Message for SaFe

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1700.htm

:smash:

Well, since you think putting Poland-Lithuania in the game is a joke, I suggest that you go and study some history... :shame: :book: :thumbsdown: click on the link, Poland is this tiny light blue country that was the biggest European country at that time (excluding Ottoman Empire, and Tsardom of Muscovy - today's Russia).

History is not marketing my friend. If you think Poland-Lithuania was a minor player in European history, check out the Battle of Vienna of 1683 when Jan III Sobieski saved the Austrian from Ottoman Empire invasion. I must agree with you that Austria-Hungary should be in the game, as it was a major player at that time, Poland is not a substitution. For future please educate yourself before posting, I assure you there is no involvement from the Kaczynski brothers.

I couldn't stand that Sid Meier forgot about Poland in his newest expansion, I did respect him a lot before. I like that Creative Assembly's team really do their homework on history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Thanks,

Vlad The Impaler
09-04-2007, 07:58
I don't agree with the fact that Poland (Rzeczpospolita to be more specific) should be a major faction in the timespawn of this game . see maps from the left :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth


By the 18th century, the Commonwealth was facing many internal problems and was vulnerable to foreign influences. The destabilization of the political system brought it to the brink of anarchy. Attempts at reform, such as those made by the Four-Year Sejm of 1788–92, which culminated in the May 3rd Constitution of 1791, came too late, and the country was partitioned in three stages by the neighboring Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia, and the Habsburg Monarchy. By 1795 the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth had been completely erased from the map of Europe. Poland and Lithuania re-established their independence, as separate countries, only in 1918.

SaFe
09-04-2007, 09:12
Message for SaFe

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1700.htm

:smash:

Well, since you think putting Poland-Lithuania in the game is a joke, I suggest that you go and study some history... :shame: :book: :thumbsdown: click on the link, Poland is this tiny light blue country that was the biggest European country at that time (excluding Ottoman Empire, and Tsardom of Muscovy - today's Russia).

History is not marketing my friend. If you think Poland-Lithuania was a minor player in European history, check out the Battle of Vienna of 1683 when Jan III Sobieski saved the Austrian from Ottoman Empire invasion. I must agree with you that Austria-Hungary should be in the game, as it was a major player at that time, Poland is not a substitution. For future please educate yourself before posting, I assure you there is no involvement from the Kaczynski brothers.

I couldn't stand that Sid Meier forgot about Poland in his newest expansion, I did respect him a lot before. I like that Creative Assembly's team really do their homework on history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Thanks,


The siege of vienna is out of time-frame - simple as that and Sobieski is probably dead by the start of the game.
I never said Poland should not be in the 50 faction slot, but it was a minor player in the 1700 - 1800.
The importance of a nation is not the land mass it posesses.
In the furture please do not imply others should educate themselves - this is a discussion and should not be on a personal level.
Also if you quote Centurio Nixalsverdrus you should adress him directly.
Thank you.

Rodion Romanovich
09-04-2007, 12:29
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would at least look odd as rebels, seeing as the entire large landmass - despite its smaller influence at this time - was formally controlled by a single leader. Whether to make it a playable faction or not it's another thing. IMO it would be a nice strategical challenge to try and fight the decline and somehow reestablish a strong Poland - I always enjoyed the difficult factions in previous TW games, West Rome in BI being one of the nicest examples. Difficult of course, considering the often destructive influence the nobility held, and considering the diplomatic problems caused by both previous wars, and being challenged by new, ambitious enemies, such as Prussia.

derfinsterling
09-04-2007, 17:49
In the current issue of German magazine GameStar, China and Japan were confirmed as not being in the game.
Japan, because it went through one of its isolationists bouts and China because "nothing much happened there during the era of E:TW".

Oh and yes, I'd love to have an Austrian faction playable ;-)

Rodion Romanovich
09-04-2007, 18:34
Ok, fair enough no China and Japan, but India confirmed I suppose? I hope the East Indies and some territories east of India will be on the map as well, because I don't really like it when the gameplay is affected by the map edge, i.e. you always have your back free if you conquer everything up to the "map edge" in the game. Please include supply losses and include the East Indies/Indonesia/Bangladesh area as provinces, but almost impossible to conquer from the rebel faction, so there's at least a theoretical threat from east of India, apart from those from the north and west caused by other factions, so defensive forces for this purpose are needed!

Centurio Nixalsverdrus
09-05-2007, 01:50
Well, since you think putting Poland-Lithuania in the game is a joke, I suggest that you go and study some history... :shame: :book: :thumbsdown: click on the link, Poland is this tiny light blue country that was the biggest European country at that time (excluding Ottoman Empire, and Tsardom of Muscovy - today's Russia).

History is not marketing my friend. If you think Poland-Lithuania was a minor player in European history, check out the Battle of Vienna of 1683 when Jan III Sobieski saved the Austrian from Ottoman Empire invasion. I must agree with you that Austria-Hungary should be in the game, as it was a major player at that time, Poland is not a substitution. For future please educate yourself before posting, I assure you there is no involvement from the Kaczynski brothers.
Errm, to whom is your post directed?

Well, in case it was adressed to me:

1. History is not marketing, but marketing is the main reason behind the decisions being made by CA of which factions putting in and which not. If CA wouldn't care about marketing, they'd 1) let Poland and the U.S. out of the game and 2) be bancrupt because of a severe lack of buyers.

2. I know about the battle of Vienna and I am glad it turned out as it did in history, thanks to the Polish King.

3. Regarding history, Jan Sobieski's saving of Vienna was something like Polands last heroic deed. The Polish-Lithuanian Confederacy was rotten from within, and as SaFe stated, territorial expansion is not the key factor in judging a country's importance in a timeframe.

4. We all should educate ourselves, but talking this way is rather offending.

5. I am not your friend if you think I should educate myself.

6. Glad to hear the Kaczynski brothers are not involved.

Centurio Nixalsverdrus
09-05-2007, 01:54
Ok, fair enough no China and Japan, but India confirmed I suppose? I hope the East Indies and some territories east of India will be on the map as well, because I don't really like it when the gameplay is affected by the map edge, i.e. you always have your back free if you conquer everything up to the "map edge" in the game. Please include supply losses and include the East Indies/Indonesia/Bangladesh area as provinces, but almost impossible to conquer from the rebel faction, so there's at least a theoretical threat from east of India, apart from those from the north and west caused by other factions, so defensive forces for this purpose are needed!
I made a little world map with the territories supposed to be in the game, it's in the stickied thread. It looks a bit weird though.

Rodion Romanovich
09-05-2007, 15:47
Nice, I looked at it! The weirdness could be fixed by fog of war, somewhat like in EUII, where the visible parts of the map also has a non-rectangular shape.

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-05-2007, 21:55
Maybe there should be an emerging irish faction as well, that would be great, armys of peasent hordes armed with sythes and pikes , driving cattle infront of them to coverthemselves from the english musket and cannon fire :)

Seriously though poland might make a good addition it covred a large area at the begining of the game period and preventing its historical demise would be a fun challange. but it was not very importnat during this time period.

i think america should also be left out, it played a minor role in this period (appart from the war of independance and the effect it had on france)

Alos why are factions unplayable? even if its too hard it could still be fun.

id like to see a few non european facxtions , perhaps startong off inferior but given the chance to develop.

(sorry for weird words spelling i am in hungary at the moment trying to use a hungarian keyboard with the letters faded off)

Azi Tohak
09-06-2007, 12:10
I want the Poland-Lithuania commonwealth included! Other than that, you can count on the usual suspects. I'm rather curious about Italy though. How many factions did they have at that point?

Azi

geala
09-06-2007, 13:45
TW games are not about history as it went. They are about hypothetical history. Poland and the Dutch provinces were there in the beginning of the game and would offer some diversity to game play. If USA is in the game they had every right to be in too.

Of course Austria and Hungary should also be in the game as a playable faction. Perhaps also HREGN, the imperial troops from the Reichskreise played an imminent but often overlooked part in the succession wars against the French. Why not crush Prussia and Austria and remain as an empire after kicking the Habsburg emperor from the throne?

To have only 10 playable factions would be a big drawback. F.e. it would be a pity if the Ottomans would be the only non-western playable faction. If Indians or North Africans or Native Americans would have united (it's up to us to achieve this) history would have been different. And please, ever heard of the Scots dominating Europe (in M2TW)?

Everything would be possible, only the historically correct starting points and the economic and military mechanics should be there, CA should let us do the rest.

SaFe
09-06-2007, 14:09
TW games are not about history as it went. They are about hypothetical history. Poland and the Dutch provinces were there in the beginning of the game and would offer some diversity to game play. If USA is in the game they had every right to be in too.

Of course Austria and Hungary should also be in the game as a playable faction. Perhaps also HREGN, the imperial troops from the Reichskreise played an imminent but often overlooked part in the succession wars against the French. Why not crush Prussia and Austria and remain as an empire after kicking the Habsburg emperor from the throne?

To have only 10 playable factions would be a big drawback. F.e. it would be a pity if the Ottomans would be the only non-western playable faction. If Indians or North Africans or Native Americans would have united (it's up to us to achieve this) history would have been different. And please, ever heard of the Scots dominating Europe (in M2TW)?

Everything would be possible, only the historically correct starting points and the economic and military mechanics should be there, CA should let us do the rest.

What rights have the U.S. to be in the game, even if i agree with you about the game is not history replaying.
At the start date of the game the U.S. simply is a colony of the British, so we should atleast start with a historical correct view of the nations.
If the U.S. is playxable in a expansion about rebellion i'm more than happy to try them out myself, but if i have to choose about for example a playable Austria or Portugal instead of U.S. in the main programm there should be no question.

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-06-2007, 15:46
Yes the purpose of the game is not to be conpletely in line with history (there would be no fun) but to take a nation from a historicaly accurate period and change the outcome. with this in mind i wouldnt mind if america and loads of other nations could be possibly playable, but with only 1ö player nations i would rather see a more powerfull one.

and if are going with the changing a nations destiny line why not include someone like china, they would have a vastly different style of play from the european (and american ) nations. plus were potentionaly a lot more powerful than america. i know they were highly isolationist at the time, but the purpose of the game is to rewrite history yourself.

I think america was only put in for marketing reasons (i am sure many americans would love the idea of playing there own faction)

Furious Mental
09-06-2007, 17:22
Personally I think that China, Japan, Africa and South America are being saved for an expansion pack to cover things like the Opium Wars, the Scramble for Africa, and the wars of independence (and War of the Triple Alliance) in Latin America.

Riadach
09-06-2007, 20:39
The age of revolution would make a nice expansion too.

Quid
09-07-2007, 11:41
Swiss Confederation


Has to be in, of course, for obvious reasons...:yes:

Quid

Denali
09-08-2007, 22:14
ye the swiss, its about time to include them as a faction. :juggle2:

Per Ole
09-10-2007, 00:19
Denmark-Norway, definatly

Caius
09-10-2007, 02:11
The Independance countries. If you know what Im refering to.

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-10-2007, 17:41
norway and denamerk, plus switzerland participation in these periods were as piddling as my own countrys (ireland), mere side shows to the games of the big powers.

it would be nice to see some non european states to try and hold off the european expasion.

your probably right the bigger asian nations are being left for some expansion, well at least i hope so.

i just hope the styles of play between the various factions is otably different.

thats one f the main reason i like to see different cultures in the game for different styles of play.

Rodion Romanovich
09-10-2007, 19:24
norway and denamerk, plus switzerland participation in these periods were as piddling as my own countrys (ireland), mere side shows to the games of the big powers.

The Swiss were perhaps not important, and Ireland wasn't a faction at this time, but Denmark-Norway was a power of major importance at the time. The fact they were overrun so quickly in the early Great northern war, and the Napoleonic wars, may hide this fact to some. But first of all they had one of the strongest fleets in Europe at the time - their theoretical ability to ally with the Dutch or Spanish or other possible competitors with Britain was a major factor in politics of the entire 18th century: also in the Napoleonic wars. Although they had lost a lot of land strength after losing Scania (and thereby the Sound straits toll for all trade entering the Baltic), they were not by far an insignificant power even after this. Had they successfully retaken Scania in one of their many wars with Sweden, they could have reestablished it. Or if they had chosen a different diplomatic policy (since most nations opposed the Sound straits toll, attempting to retake Scania and reestablish it would not give them much support, but instead more enemies than they had resources to handle). They also had a chance for exploits and expansion of influence in the northern HRE, and the Swedish army lost plenty of men thanks to the Danish ability to block and harass any troop transports over the Baltic. Had they found a diplomatic method of expanding their influence there, for example, and/or improve their relations with the Dutch, who knows what had happened.

TevashSzat
09-11-2007, 00:08
Personally I think that China, Japan, Africa and South America are being saved for an expansion pack to cover things like the Opium Wars, the Scramble for Africa, and the wars of independence (and War of the Triple Alliance) in Latin America.

I would think that the Opium Wars would be a bit one sided.

On one side: Chinese with.........imperial infantry with outdated technology

On the other side: European powers with.........all of the latest technology and more economically powerful

Quid
09-11-2007, 10:45
The Swiss were perhaps not important...

You are right, of course, we did bugger all until 1842, but I still can't get over the fact that we weren't included in Medievil...Tragic, that. So a little compensation is in order...

Quid

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-11-2007, 17:42
What about Russia, its a relativly big place, or is it not included in the map, it be a strange one to leave out considering its size.

Csargo
09-12-2007, 00:04
I'd expect Russia to be in the game.

Rodion Romanovich
09-12-2007, 15:22
Russia has already been confirmed to be in :bow:

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-12-2007, 20:38
sorry missed that , dont know how

The Outsider
09-12-2007, 22:53
ye the swiss, its about time to include them as a faction. :juggle2:

But u can still play them in medieval total war there in the late era and u just need to unlock them, i must admit they were pretty good.:pirate2:

Derfasciti
09-13-2007, 01:03
I agree with those who've said that HRE should not be a single state. It's just horribly inaccurate. Instead, make several factions out of it and if need be make the rest rebels.

joe4iz
09-13-2007, 02:17
This might sound silly, but I would like to see the Iroquois put in the game. Probably as an non playable faction. Had they not allied with the British, I might be speaking French now. I have enough problems with enuciation as it is:embarassed: .

ninjahboy
09-13-2007, 11:32
french and indian war will definitely feature (i hope) :P

highlandclansman
09-14-2007, 08:03
I would like to see the Jacobite Rebellion in like a historic campaign or something because the last battle on British soil was fought in that rebellion.
And in the middle of the game they could make the Scots or Irish rebel or somethin like that.

Geoffrey S
09-14-2007, 14:27
french and indian war will definitely feature (i hope) :P
Heh, I hope due emphasis is placed on the European part of the conflict. It'd be great as a mini campaign, with at least Prussia, Russians and the Austrians, with French and English intervention to boot.

Galapagos
09-14-2007, 14:46
Is Prussia the only german nation which will be present in game?

Omanes Alexandrapolites
09-14-2007, 15:45
Hi Galapagos,

Is Prussia the only german nation which will be present in game?It's currently the only confirmed German faction, although I, at least, expect there to be a few more in that region than just Prussia. You can read more about the confirmed factions here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1648827#post1648827).
Hope this helps, cheers!

Csargo
09-14-2007, 15:48
Is Prussia the only german nation which will be present in game?

I'd be willing to bet that Austria will be in the game, but other than Prussia and Austria I don't remember any other major German nations during the time.

Galapagos
09-14-2007, 15:49
This is a stupid question...Will Prussia be playable?







P.S. I have this feeling that you are haunting me Omanes.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: (no offense)

Csargo
09-14-2007, 15:53
This is a stupid question...Will Prussia be playable?







P.S. I have this feeling that you are haunting me Omanes.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: (no offense)

I would guess so, I think the list that CA put out is of playable factions.

geala
09-14-2007, 15:57
It is very probable that Prussia will be playable. At least in Gamestar magazin the information is given that England, France, Prussia, Russia and the Sublime Porte will be among the 10 playable nations. I hope still for more playable factions than just 10.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-17-2007, 02:07
I'd be willing to bet that Austria will be in the game, but other than Prussia and Austria I don't remember any other major German nations during the time.
I'm hoping Bavaria will be in too.

Sean
09-17-2007, 20:42
it needs a scotland for jacobites

IvarrWolfsong
09-17-2007, 21:48
England
France
Hapsburg Empire (Austria)
Spain
Netherlands
Russia
Ottoman Empire
Germany
Italy
Sweden

Those are the basic powers ( even though some are not really unified countries). I think these would be large enough to support a nice variety of units with special units for regional flavor (Prussian Musketeers, Croat Cavalry, Sicillian Skirmishers, Dutch Musketeer Militia, Scots Grenadiers, etc).

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-17-2007, 22:06
2 german factions would be a bit much when there are so many different cultures to choose from

SaFe
09-18-2007, 09:08
2 german factions would be a bit much when there are so many different cultures to choose from

I think CA want to create a game based on historical reality.
Naturally Austria and Prussia were very important nations during this era, so why should we include a nation that was not so important?
Just for cultural diversity?
What is a different culture for you? The Japanese, the Chinese?
Even the French had culturally so much in common with Austria and Prussia except of the colour of the uniforms and the names of their units you will be dissapointed if you looking for big differences..
If CA goes this way the can dig their own grave...
Just imagine Austria as "rebels"? The whole diplomacy net and conflicts between Russia, France, Prussia, Britain and Austria would be absent.

The historian
09-18-2007, 14:58
If you think about it they could include all european nations at the time well apart from most of the 360 so german states of the hre the rest of europe could be fully covered by playable nationas some 25-30 i think:2thumbsup:

The historian
09-18-2007, 15:02
This map should tell you what i'm talking about. http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1600.htmOf course we could unite some nations like the ones in ireland into the irish clans per say.
Since i don;t know the starting date here's a map of europe in 1700 still i think most nations could be represented.http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1700.htm

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-18-2007, 18:43
sorry by more than two german factions i didnt include Austria as that, Austria is more of a multi ethnic empire (albeit german i agree) ,

what i was syaing that another german faction in adition to prussia (and austria) would be too much as a player faction, if there are only ten slots i would like to see it used else where. 3 germanic player factions would be too much, i would rather see an non european faction added.

Riadach
09-18-2007, 19:21
I don't think you could include the Irish as a faction except perhaps as an emerging rebellious one. However we should be represented in the troop roster, the British Irish brigades, as well as the French, Spanish, Austria-Hungarian etc ones.

Shahed
09-18-2007, 19:53
THE MUGHALS!

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-18-2007, 22:38
an irish faction? that would be daft. apart from some rebellions and that we didnt play any independant role at this time, of course i personaly would be happy with irish rebels and regiments or even an emerging faction, but there are many other nations and peoples who i would prefer to see.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-18-2007, 22:39
sorry by more than two german factions i didnt include Austria as that, Austria is more of a multi ethnic empire (albeit german i agree) ,

what i was syaing that another german faction in adition to prussia (and austria) would be too much as a player faction, if there are only ten slots i would like to see it used else where. 3 germanic player factions would be too much, i would rather see an non european faction added.
It seemed to me like CA meant "playable from the beginning" for the ten faction limit. I wouldn't mind if Bavaria was unplayable, but they were historically involved in a number of wars in that timeframe.

SaFe
09-19-2007, 08:59
Well, i can't imagine to exclude Austria from the mysterious 10 spot factions.
They were much to important.
Naturally Bavaria or Hessen should be also in the game, though not as playable from beginning. I really hope as some kind of "patriotism" a faction named Baden, but my hope is not too high as the Prussians and Wuerttembergers kickes us around a lot:-)

With playable CA means (Inteprid Sidekick mentioned it) unique faction movies, historical events, etc...

So, definately not the U.S. as starting faction please. Give this spot Austria or the Dutch.

I really like to play a expansion about the american revolution or even the cicil war, but not in the vanilla game.

MansaSakura
09-20-2007, 06:16
I think this would be a great opportunity to put a couple of African factions in. Slavery pretty much made the colonization of the Americas possible (US, Brazil, Caribbean). All the important european powers dealth with African states during this period (1700-1800). I read that there will be like 50 additional factions, so there is no reason you can't have a handful of factions in Africa. I recommend just 6. All fought with guns, all had coastal navies and most importantly they were all empires...

Morocco (in Morocco of course, premier north african state)
Tripolitania (in Libya, fought the USA)
Kaabu (in Guinea, sold lots of slaves to french)
Asanteman (in Ghana, sold lots of slaves and gold to English and Dutch)
Benin (in Nigeria, sold some slaves and textiles to Portuguese and Dutch)
Aro (spanned Nigeria and Cameroon, sold lots of slaves to English)

I'd also expect to see some Native American factions, especially in New England and Canada.

The Celt
09-20-2007, 22:06
an irish faction? that would be daft. apart from some rebellions and that we didnt play any independant role at this time, of course i personaly would be happy with irish rebels and regiments or even an emerging faction, but there are many other nations and peoples who i would prefer to see.
Yeah before the 1500s I wouldn't mind an Irish faction but this is smack dab in the middle of the British Empire so.....not this time....:idea2:
Likewise, if Scotland is faction someone's head will be on the floor.....

Zenicetus
09-21-2007, 01:54
With playable CA means (Inteprid Sidekick mentioned it) unique faction movies, historical events, etc...

So, definately not the U.S. as starting faction please. Give this spot Austria or the Dutch.

I really like to play a expansion about the american revolution or even the cicil war, but not in the vanilla game.

Well, we know America is in as a faction, from the naval combat screenshots CA has posted. They haven't said for sure that it's playable as a "main" faction, but I think they'd be nuts to limit the appeal of the game to the huge U.S. gamer market.

More importantly, the game is more interesting (IMO) if that's one of the major playable factions. It wouldn't be the first faction I'd try... I'd probably start with one of the major European powers, but it would be a nice change of pace after that. It really flips the strategic and logistic thinking when you're operating from the west side of the map. It's the only faction that would be trying to expand and conquer from the west side of the map towards the East, instead of the other way around. Or at least, hold the European powers at bay, while consolidating an empire in the New World. So, nationalistic impulses aside, I think it makes sense just as a fun strategic challenge.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-23-2007, 05:30
I probably won't end up playing the campaign as the Americans, mostly because there are so many other factions I want to play in so little time. However, I hope that it doesn't end up being like playing America in Hearts of Iron II, where you can just sit around because nobody can touch you.

Kekvit Irae
09-23-2007, 12:55
I'm not buying this game unless it has BARTIX :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge:

Rodion Romanovich
09-23-2007, 13:13
we cann maek a BARTIXX modd if jo liek iam moder i ave make manni mod bifoer and know how too modill stickman :charge: ~:lightbulb: ~:lightbulb: ~:lightbulb: ~:lightbulb: ~:lightbulb: ~:lightbulb: ~:lightbulb: ~:lightbulb: ~:lightbulb: ~:lightbulb: ~:lightbulb:

Ozzman1O1
09-23-2007, 22:43
im hoping maybe british and dutch peaple in africa,dindt they have armies in africa too?:wall:

Ozzman1O1
09-23-2007, 22:47
i dont think the american natives will be an option,they dont have any big warships do they?:wizard:

Boyar Son
09-24-2007, 00:47
that tiny country between France and Spain

Ozzman1O1
09-24-2007, 20:16
you mean portugal?:pokemon:

Matt_Lane
09-24-2007, 21:43
Aquitaine, Aragon?

caravel
09-24-2007, 22:36
that tiny country between France and Spain
Andorra?

Boyar Son
09-24-2007, 23:24
Andorra?

is that what that tiny place is?

I bet the combined wealth of some of the richest people in the US could buy that place....

SesostrisVIII
09-25-2007, 02:40
I would like to see an African Empire. Maybe Morocco.

MansaSakura
09-25-2007, 15:00
I think its pretty obvious CA will put every insignificant faction in Europe, Asia and the Americas in before they add an African empire. It goes beyond market sensibilities, now. They (and a lot of other game developers) simply ignore the continent and frankly i'm tired of bringin it up. I definately won't buy the game if Africa (especially sub saharan africa) :daisy:

Jasper The Builder
09-25-2007, 16:58
Great Britain
Russia
France
Germany (deepening on year start)
Austria-Hungary (deepening on year start)
Italy (deepening on year start)
Spain
Portugal
Holland
Belgium (The dutch wars be good)
Sweden
Denmark
Norway (deepening on year start)
Finland (deepening on year start)
Poland (deepening on year start)

Ottoman (turks)
Persia
Oman
Afghanistan
British India
China
Japan

United States of America
Confederate States of America (deepening on year start)
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Colombia
Venezuela
Peru
Paraguay


Im not sure what the map is going to be like, The "first world war" was really fought during the 18th Century, So i believe that we should see a world map, And im not clear when this game is going to start, What year?? Well if its from around 1812 onwards, That'll be my list.

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-25-2007, 19:22
, And im not clear when this game is going to start, What year?? Well if its from around 1812 onwards, That'll be my list.


Does anyone read about the game before they post?

Zenicetus
09-25-2007, 19:29
I think its pretty obvious CA will put every insignificant faction in Europe, Asia and the Americas in before they add an African empire. It goes beyond market sensibilities, now. They (and a lot of other game developers) simply ignore the continent and frankly i'm tired of bringin it up. I definately won't buy the game if Africa (especially sub saharan africa) :daisy:

I don't think racism has anything to do with it. The game is about a period in history where empires were established and supported by big ocean-going navies, and it has a new 3D tactical naval combat engine to show off. It makes sense to me that the main playable factions would be those that did, in fact, have a seagoing history and the ability to build something as complex as an ocean-crossing ship of the line. That was the peak of technology at the time; it was the equivalent of the race to the moon between the Soviets and the USA. Only the most economically well-developed and technologically advanced nations were able to fight over the spoils of the New World, while still maintaining power in Europe.

So it's not a question of racism (IMO). Including an African empire as a main playable faction would make about as much sense as including Switzerland (oooh, there I've gone and upset the Swiss ~;p ).

I like alternate "what if" scenarios, but they work best if they're at least a little grounded in reality. I could see an alternate world where the Ottomans conquered the New World because they were technologically fairly well advanced, and located at a cross-roads for the flow of ideas and technology. They had a pretty decent navy at the time. But the idea of an African kingdom figuring out how to build ships of the line and contest the major European powers for territory in the New World, is just too big a stretch (IMO).

If you haven't read it, I recommend a book called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" about the reasons why Europeans counquered the New World and Africa, instead of it happening the other way around. It's actually a very strong argument against racism as a way to explain why history turned out the way it did.

Ozzman1O1
09-25-2007, 22:26
guys,forget about africa unless you mean dutch and british peaple in africa,natives in africa and america didnt even make there own guns,or ships:furious3:

ixidor
09-25-2007, 23:06
If you haven't read it, I recommend a book called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" about the reasons why Europeans counquered the New World and Africa, instead of it happening the other way around. It's actually a very strong argument against racism as a way to explain why history turned out the way it did.

I think the title pretty much explains why europeans conquered the new world :laugh4:

Csargo
09-26-2007, 00:26
Great Britain
Russia
France
Germany (deepening on year start)
Austria-Hungary (deepening on year start)
Italy (deepening on year start)
Spain
Portugal
Holland
Belgium (The dutch wars be good)
Sweden
Denmark
Norway (deepening on year start)
Finland (deepening on year start)
Poland (deepening on year start)

Ottoman (turks)
Persia
Oman
Afghanistan
British India
China
Japan

United States of America
Confederate States of America (deepening on year start)
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Colombia
Venezuela
Peru
Paraguay


Im not sure what the map is going to be like, The "first world war" was really fought during the 18th Century, So i believe that we should see a world map, And im not clear when this game is going to start, What year?? Well if its from around 1812 onwards, That'll be my list.

Not sure why Germany and Italy is on that list and Norway and Finland cause I'm pretty sure they were in existence at the time.

Zapp
09-26-2007, 12:56
And im not clear when this game is going to start, What year?? Well if its from around 1812 onwards, That'll be my list.
They have clearly said the game will set from somewhere around 1700 to the early 1800s.

Also, Finland belonged to Sweden and Norway belonged to Denmark.

Zoring
09-26-2007, 13:42
It'd be nice to see how much of the world map is included, and how they will implement it, i woulden't want the scale to get any bigger then regular Medieval2, just so you have enough provinces and dont end up with armies zipping from France to Italy in one turn.

Need to be able to match Britian's colonial aspirations after all. Imagine how much work they would have to do to include the whole world, British soldiers to Australian aborigines and New Zealand Maori, hm.

Azi Tohak
09-26-2007, 15:18
I'm not buying this game unless it has BARTIX :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge:

:laugh4:

I probably shouldn't laugh at that, but that was too good to miss.

Azi

MansaSakura
09-26-2007, 17:52
I think Zenicitus made a lot of good points. I'm not up for making any african factions part of the main faction list. I figure this game is supposed to be about people who actually conquered or tried to conquer the New World. However, there is no reason they cannot be included as some of the factions you encounter. No african powers (north or sub saharan) ever developed anything resembling ships of the line. And none of them colonized any part of the new world (unless Haiti counts...which it shouldn't).

But as you Z-man brought up, it doesn't make sense to include the Swiss either. But they will make it into the game before an empire like Asante or the kingdom of Morocco.

The HRE didn't conquer anything in the New World and I can't recall any major sea battles between them and the main colonizing powers of Europe
Same goes for Austria in as much as colonizing the New World is concerned.
And what the hell is Lithuiana doing in here?

My opinion...

7 Main factions
English
French
Spanish
Russians
Danes
Dutch
Portuguese

13 peripheral european factions (since the region was so important)
Austrians
Prussians
Italians
Swedes
Swiss
Ottomans
Poles
Fins
Norwegians

5 peripheral North American factions
Colonilsts (United States)
Seminole
Iroquios
Inuit
Mexicans

5 peripheral South American factions
Tupinamba
Guarani
Tamoyo
Inca
Maroons

5 peripheral African factions
Moroccans
Tripolitanians
Ethiopians
Asante
Oyo-Yoruba

5 peripheral Near East factions
(not that knowledgible about this time period but im sure there are at least 5)

5 peripheral Far East Factions
(not that knowledgible about this time period but im sure there are at least 5)

i figure peripheral factions will be ones you run into while conquering the map. Navies aren't that important if the faction is an inland power (like a lot of the native american factions i suggested). But all should be able to make ports and raiding vessels.

Oh and the navies in africa definately made their own ships. Pretty sure the same goes for native americans. i doubt i'd be speaking english today if the europeans had just given/sold ship building technology to everyone, lol. And i not all the european powers made their own guns and ammo either.:furious3:

Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-26-2007, 21:50
Not sure why Germany and Italy is on that list and Norway and Finland cause I'm pretty sure they were in existence at the time.

Considering Germany as we know it today wasn't a state until 1871 (being divided into smaller states when the Holy Roman Empire fell, and even it had little control in the last few years of it's time, except in Austria), I doubt it will be in. At least, it would be a grave historical inaccuracy.

Ozzman1O1
09-27-2007, 00:37
what about rebels?will they be in the game.:feedback:

Captain Fishpants
09-27-2007, 14:44
I think its pretty obvious CA will put every insignificant faction in Europe, Asia and the Americas in before they add an African empire. It goes beyond market sensibilities, now. They (and a lot of other game developers) simply ignore the continent and frankly i'm tired of bringin it up. I definately won't buy the game if Africa (especially sub saharan africa) :daisy:

As one of the "rascist [sic] jerks" I deeply resent that remark. You, Sir, have no reason to come to such a lazy conclusion. In point of fact, I think you'll find that most of the design staff are what Americans would pejoratively term "liberal" (but with a small 'L'), not racists. In the UK, this isn't a bad thing to be.

However, if that's the standard of discourse we can expect around here, I can't see much point in any of us bothering to read these forums.

One point: we put in factions because (a) they are interesting to play and/or (b) are historically interesting and/or have an impact in the period of the game. No other criteria are used.

Csargo
09-27-2007, 19:24
I am sure most of us don't feel that way Fishpants.

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
09-27-2007, 19:46
i cant see how he came to the conclusion that racial prejudice of any sort could have been responsible for the faction decisions. simple fact of the period were none of the big powers which shaped the period existed in that region.

I for one have never seen any form of racial prejudice reflected in any of the TW games, cant see why they would suddenly decide to become racist now. its a unfounded acusation.

Ozzman1O1
09-27-2007, 20:36
:focus: back on track from racial peaple,how bout we discuss factions we want to see in etw!on

Rodion Romanovich
09-27-2007, 20:47
I appreciate the CA people reading these forums, and hope they aren't scared off by the occasional jerks such as above :bow:

About African factions, the only one of possibly larger impact at this time would be Morrocco (which I think I had on my previous list). They were, IIRC, the first faction to recognize the USA after the independence war, or something like that, and also a difficult opponent for Spain's attempts to reclaim control over both sides of the Gibraltar Straits.

Sheogorath
09-27-2007, 20:59
There were no significant native American nations in South America by this time. The Spanish did a pretty good job of reducing them to a state where it was pretty much impossible for them to take over from the colonists. Wiping out %90 of the population does that, y'know.

As to African states, I believe that there were several states in Africa which were quite powerful, the Songhai Empire was still around (sort of), there was the Kaabu Empire...quite a few others really. Europeans didnt really take a lot of direct interest in Africa until they ran out of other places to take over.

It'll be interesting to see what the starting positions of each faction are. I'm betting they wont be giving them their historical territory. Russia'll most likely be confined to the area around St. Petersburg and Moscow, with no holdings in the Ukraine or Belarus at all.
I find myself wondering about islands as well. People fought some wars over tiny islands which held a big strategic value. But CA doesnt seem to mind islands so much, y'know?

Ozzman1O1
09-27-2007, 21:00
i still say a tw completely about native north americans would be sweat!tribal total war!!!:clown:

Bobo
09-27-2007, 23:29
They were, IIRC, the first faction to recognize the USA after the independence war, or something like that,
Although the Dutch are generally regarded to have been the first (famous flag incident at the Dutch Caribbean island of St. Eustatius on 16 November 1776), it was more likely the Danes (St. Croix, October 1776).

Rodion Romanovich
09-28-2007, 08:47
Wiki said:
"Morocco was the first nation, in 1777, to recognize the fledgling United States as an independent nation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco#Alaouite_Dynasty_1666.E2.80.931912

The other incidents may have occured earlier, but neither were full, official recognitions, but only actions by independent commanders. Morocco gave the first official recognition.

Bobo
09-28-2007, 18:36
Wiki said:
"Morocco was the first nation, in 1777, to recognize the fledgling United States as an independent nation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco#Alaouite_Dynasty_1666.E2.80.931912

The other incidents may have occured earlier, but neither were full, official recognitions, but only actions by independent commanders. Morocco gave the first official recognition.
Wow, I did not know that. Thanks.
The odd thing is, the US seem to think it was the Dutch, judging by F.D. Roosevelts visit to St. Eustatius in 1939, where he revealed a plaque commemorating the flag incident, and the large celebration of the "bicentennial" of American-Dutch relations in 1976.

Geoffrey S
09-28-2007, 19:20
There are around fifty factions ingame, according to CA. 50. That means all major powers of Europe can be represented, with plenty of room for lesser factions. Frankly that's a lot more than I'd ever have expected (must be a helluva lot of work) and look forward to the (presumably) many mods which will add in whichever nationality feels to have been left out.

MansaSakura, I suggest you mind your manners, particularly if you still want CA members to feel welcome here. Your implications went over the line.

Ozzman1O1
09-28-2007, 20:03
if asia is on the etw map,will they have british peaple in australia

Sheogorath
09-28-2007, 22:50
Wow, I did not know that. Thanks.
The odd thing is, the US seem to think it was the Dutch, judging by F.D. Roosevelts visit to St. Eustatius in 1939, where he revealed a plaque commemorating the flag incident, and the large celebration of the "bicentennial" of American-Dutch relations in 1976.
The 'flag incident' was the first case of a group of people recognizing the US. The Dutch government didnt officially recognize the US until later. St. Eustatius was kinda semi-independant from the Dutch homeland, Wiki says they had a reputation for selling arms to just about anybody.

Ozzman1O1
09-29-2007, 13:27
you just dont like to :inquisitive: anwer the questions above your post do you?

Sheogorath
09-30-2007, 03:11
I like to answer interesting questions. Your question wasnt.
However, as the Australian aboriginals dont appear much in popular culture, I strongly doubt that they'll get their own faction.
If you mean will there be colonists, I doubt it. The first British convicts sent to Australia left in 1787, and the game is supposed to start in the early 1700's or something.

Ozzman1O1
09-30-2007, 13:05
well the guild isnt here to tell and give geography questions is it?

Csargo
09-30-2007, 15:31
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=76927

Ozzman1O1
10-01-2007, 20:41
okay 'mate' as you say on that island,you know the org was made to talk about ca right?

Csargo
10-01-2007, 20:55
No, I wasn't aware of that.

TosaInu
10-02-2007, 10:18
if asia is on the etw map,will they have british peaple in australia


you just dont like to :inquisitive: anwer the questions above your post do you?


well the guild isnt here to tell and give geography questions is it?


okay 'mate' as you say on that island,you know the org was made to talk about ca right?

I'm a bit confused Ozzman101?

Freedom Onanist
10-02-2007, 12:11
I'm a bit confused Ozzman101?
Don't worry, you're not the only one. Completely random posting. Maybe it was late at night?

Anyway, back to who's in and who's not. Someone somewhere (org?) has made the case for both Morocco and the Barbary States to be in. I like the Barbary states as a kind of random brake on Mediterranean development. How much effort and resource did they deflect away from empire building?. Als, if they had taken a different tack they might have had a much wider impact on the world scene.

Ozzman1O1
10-02-2007, 20:19
:no: I make posts when i come home from shcool,when im still (half smart).....

Zenicetus
10-02-2007, 22:42
I think the Barbary states (Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis) will be in the game. They have to put SOMETHING down there along the coast of North Africa, and they did have a strong local impact on shipping. But they should be independent rebel factions (IMO) -- the non-expanding type, instead of a single faction. They never united politically, and they were only nominally part of the Ottoman Empire. If they were folded into the Ottoman Empire it would make that faction too strong at the start of the game.

As for potential impact in a "what if" scenario... I don't think the Barbary coast states had the economic base to be a big player on the world stage. They were basically raiders, living off what the major countries were shipping through the Med, or extorting payments for safe passage, and making some side money in the slave trade. I just don't see them having the economic or population base to support big fleets and armies pushing up into Europe, or fighting for territory in the New World.

I think the main "what if" scenario for the Muslims will focus on the Ottoman Empire, which did have a strong navy, economic base and large population for recruitment. History might be different if the Ottomans had managed to contest the European powers for territory in the New World, instead of being bottled up in the Mediterranean.

That's one of the things I'm looking forward to in Empire (assuming it has the kind of DRM I can live with, and can actually buy it).... can the Ottomans hold their power in the East and still manage to do something in the New World? I've tried doing that with the Turks in M2TW but it's not easy due to their starting position, and the Mongols/Timurids right at your back door. It encourages cheese strategies like hopping over to Iberia as a home base right away. The Ottomans should have a better start in Empire, especially if they can quickly take over the "Barbary Coast" provinces.

Freedom Onanist
10-03-2007, 09:36
I think the Barbary states (Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis) will be in the game. They have to put SOMETHING down there along the coast of North Africa, and they did have a strong local impact on shipping. But they should be independent rebel factions (IMO) -- the non-expanding type, instead of a single faction. They never united politically, and they were only nominally part of the Ottoman Empire. If they were folded into the Ottoman Empire it would make that faction too strong at the start of the game.

As for potential impact in a "what if" scenario... I don't think the Barbary coast states had the economic base to be a big player on the world stage. They were basically raiders, living off what the major countries were shipping through the Med, or extorting payments for safe passage, and making some side money in the slave trade. I just don't see them having the economic or population base to support big fleets and armies pushing up into Europe, or fighting for territory in the New World.

I think the main "what if" scenario for the Muslims will focus on the Ottoman Empire, which did have a strong navy, economic base and large population for recruitment. History might be different if the Ottomans had managed to contest the European powers for territory in the New World, instead of being bottled up in the Mediterranean.

That's one of the things I'm looking forward to in Empire (assuming it has the kind of DRM I can live with, and can actually buy it).... can the Ottomans hold their power in the East and still manage to do something in the New World? I've tried doing that with the Turks in M2TW but it's not easy due to their starting position, and the Mongols/Timurids right at your back door. It encourages cheese strategies like hopping over to Iberia as a home base right away. The Ottomans should have a better start in Empire, especially if they can quickly take over the "Barbary Coast" provinces.
Agree completely with you.

My "what if" scenario was more about what if they (Barbary States) hadn't raided? How much did they hold the Mediterranean factions like France, Spain and Italian states back? Would they have expanded quicker and more effectively into the "colonial" world?

Ozzman1O1
10-03-2007, 20:36
knock,knock.the british and dutch had africa,seen the movie zulu?any way at that time the ottomans where poor and the most defenselis peaple,the russians invaded them....

Zenicetus
10-03-2007, 21:52
My "what if" scenario was more about what if they (Barbary States) hadn't raided? How much did they hold the Mediterranean factions like France, Spain and Italian states back? Would they have expanded quicker and more effectively into the "colonial" world?

That's a good question. I read up some more on this, and the Berber/Arab pirates did have a stronger impact on the Med than I thought. Apparently whole stretches of the Spanish coast (and some parts of the Italian and Sicilian coast) were deserted... basically cleaned out by Berber slave raids. On the other hand, Spain was still able to run colonies in the New World and fight wars with the other European powers during that time, so it's hard to say how much stronger Spain and Italy might have been, if they didn't have that to deal with. I still tend to think it was in the nuisance category, or they would have done what the American Navy did later.... just send a fleet of warships in to bombard the pirates' coastal cities into submission. Or maybe it was just easier to pay tribute since Spain was fairly wealthy during this period.

Another thing... Napoleon drove the Templars out of Malta in 1798, and they had been a strong damper on pirate activity in the Med. My understanding is that this led to the expansion of piracy and the slave trade, so it would be interesting to see if they show up as one of the lesser factions in the game. If you could play as Spain and then ally with and support the Templars, piracy might not be such a big deal.

Zenicetus
10-03-2007, 22:10
knock,knock.the british and dutch had africa,seen the movie zulu?

The battle in that movie happened in 1879, well after the period this game will cover (I think it ends in 1820?). I know some people might want South Africa or other sub-Saharan countries included for nationalistic reasons, but historically, it just wasn't a major player on the world stage, and wasn't even that economically important as a colony until much later on. Same reason not to include Australia, basically.


any way at that time the ottomans where poor and the most defenselis peaple,the russians invaded them....

With respect, I think you're wrong about the Ottomans during this period being "poor and defenseless." It's true that the period covered by the game is when they were starting to decline from the height of power, but that's what makes them interesting as a main player faction. What if you could engineer a revival of the Empire, expand into Europe, fight for territory and riches in the New World? Given their prior history, it's not an impossible scenario, especially if they had been a little more open to technological advances.

The Ottomans are the only major non-Western faction we'll get to play, and for many of us they'll be a nice change from the European factions. I think it's great that they're including the Ottoman Empire in the game.

Freedom Onanist
10-04-2007, 12:02
The battle in that movie happened in 1879, well after the period this game will cover (I think it ends in 1820?). I know some people might want South Africa or other sub-Saharan countries included for nationalistic reasons, but historically, it just wasn't a major player on the world stage, and wasn't even that economically important as a colony until much later on.Actually, although Ozzman101 appears to be completely confused:dizzy2: , the Dutch established a colony in South Africa in 1652. It was actually crucial in allowing ships to revictual and as a choke point to control trade lanes to and from the East.

Jasper The Builder
10-04-2007, 13:28
They should have a world map, Like Victoria; An Empire under the Sun.

http://a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/5462/2h/images.gamezone.com/screens/29/9/54/s29954_pc_10.jpg

Then again that game maybe to intellectual for SEGA, They tend to market more towards Children.

Freedom Onanist
10-04-2007, 13:50
How many provinces?!!!!!

Ozzman1O1
10-04-2007, 20:56
63,hows that for confused,(im not crazy,im 10 years old,and already learnig this stuff,i bet you guys are in high school!)

TosaInu
10-04-2007, 22:39
Hello Ozzman101,

10 years? Nice that you are interested in this.

Quite some are way past highschool already.

Caius
10-05-2007, 01:03
I think CA shouldn't add a lot of provinces, that would took an hour for just one turn.

Csargo
10-05-2007, 01:43
They should have a world map, Like Victoria; An Empire under the Sun.

http://a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/5462/2h/images.gamezone.com/screens/29/9/54/s29954_pc_10.jpg

Then again that game maybe to intellectual for SEGA, They tend to market more towards Children.

It's really probably 15-?? I don't expect many younger children playing this game but that's my opinion.

Mouzafphaerre
10-05-2007, 04:05
.

Another thing... Napoleon drove the Templars out of Malta in 1798, and they had been a strong damper on pirate activity in the Med. My understanding is that this led to the expansion of piracy and the slave trade, so it would be interesting to see if they show up as one of the lesser factions in the game. If you could play as Spain and then ally with and support the Templars, piracy might not be such a big deal.
They were pretty much pirating themselves. ~;) Not that the major powers weren't, or not using pirates against each other...
.

Gray Beard
10-05-2007, 07:13
In 1700 the most powerful nation on Earth was China. Indeed China was strong enough and far enough away to fend off the European imperial powers with mixed success until the 1840's

Talk about "What if" What if China had, in 1700 done what the Japanese did in the Meji revolution in 1850? What if the Chinese had said "You know what, those guys over there can teach us something." and begun modernizing there army and tactics? China in that regard is like the Ottomans; an Empire past its peak but one that if pulled together by a strong emperor or a political revolution of some kind could still be revived, survive and prosper. Especially since in 1700 China was about the size it is now and so was the largest most populous nation on Earth.

I don't see any way they couldn't put China in this game.

Warluster
10-05-2007, 10:06
I completely agree with that. If theres no CHina, I'll eat my hat.

And Ozzman, I am certian there is to be no Australian Faction. They are a bloody interesting culture, but their involvment in world affairs at this time was very low. No ships, etc. They will probably be represented by a rebel faction.

Though they could put ion a event where it is settleed and is a race between France, England and Holland. Then we Aussies could be speaking French or Dutch...

Freedom Onanist
10-05-2007, 10:47
Well, it all depends on how far you push "what if". What if the Martians had landed? No, china should not be included. Also, although "what if" is what the game ios potentially about it should remain in the general context of the faction you play. So, in M2TW the Mongols are largely horse archers, the English concentrate on Longbowmen etc... If China is included it should be in its proper historical context, ie no access to advanced military techonology and tactics etc... China fended off the West till the 1840s mainly becasue the West didn't turn up in numbers till then as they were busy elsewhere. The inlcusion of China (and others) would just lead to BS units and abilities.


And Ozzman, I am certian there is to be no Australian Faction. They are a bloody interesting culture, but their involvment in world affairs at this time was very low. No ships, etc. They will probably be represented by a rebel faction.Australia didn't happen till 1788, so I don't think it will be in the game at all.

To Ozziman, if you're 10, then you are a lot less confused than I was when I was (how long ago wsa that.....).

Zenicetus
10-05-2007, 19:38
China won't be included because they made an intentional decision to scrap their ocean-going fleet, and abandon exploration/external conquest. They were very insular and inward-focused during this period (see my other post here about that). To the extent that this game will involve major powers contesting each other on land AND sea, it doesn't make sense to include them.

I like "what if" scenarios, but they're better (IMO) if they're at least somewhat grounded in history. The Ottomans did have a serious, fairly modern navy during this period. They were starting to go into decline, but they're a much better choice for a "what if" scenario of some non-European faction taking over territory in the New World, than the Chinese would be.

I mean, yeah... it might be fun to see some imagined evolution of the medieval Chinese fleets, with monster-sized junks loaded with cannon and rockets. But that's getting a little too close to fantasy for me. If we're going to have a game with China, let's make it a Three Kingdoms game where it be both exciting and historical.

Ozzman1O1
10-05-2007, 20:25
The chinese must have some useful formation,like macedon and the phalanx,like the romans and the testudo...since they created gunpowder

Sheogorath
10-07-2007, 00:52
The chinese must have some useful formation,like macedon and the phalanx,like the romans and the testudo...since they created gunpowder
However, it has been pointed out that the Ming Emperors made it illigal to build ocean going ships and destroyed all the ones that had been built. The Qing werent that interested in overseas conquest and spent most of their time putting down rebellions or trying to take back Vietnam.

Ozzman1O1
10-07-2007, 02:17
:wall: What i meant was,the chinese are the most experienced with gunpowder so their probably going to have a useful formation,like that one when the front line shoots and then the peaple behind them get in front of them and shoot,whats it called again??:wall:

Viking
10-07-2007, 18:48
I would like to see the option for Norway to rebel against Denmark, and so to have Norway as playable faction. :2thumbsup:


(just kidding)

Ozzman1O1
10-07-2007, 19:17
norway did have there own army,like in the story of the battle of hastings,the norwegians?but i personaly think scandanavian peaple will not be in the game,they had nothing with the 1700 empires

Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-07-2007, 23:00
norway did have there own army,like in the story of the battle of hastings,the norwegians?
You're a little early there, the Battle of Hastings was in 1066.


but i personaly think scandanavian peaple will not be in the game,they had nothing with the 1700 empires
Denmark and Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark%E2%80%93Norway)

Age of Liberty/Great Northern War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_Great_Northern_War)

Swedish Colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_colonial_empire)

Swedish Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Empire)

I'd say they deserve to be included. ~:)

gaiusmarius8
10-08-2007, 05:35
Ya'll are forgetting the Aragon and Castille... , dude did anybody think of El Cid

Freedom Onanist
10-08-2007, 09:38
:wall: What i meant was,the Chinese are the most experienced with gunpowder so their probably going to have a useful formation,like that one when the front line shoots and then the peaple behind them get in front of them and shoot,whats it called again??:wall:They invented it, but they never developed its use like the West did. In fact, by the time the West got to China (1500-1600's) they were far that behind in its use they had to hire European gunners.

An interesting theory I read about China inventing lots of things but not really using them. Part of the problem could have been that printing in Chinese is incredibly complex due to the number of characters involved. So, although they may have invented (?) the printing press they couldn't use to disseminate ideas anywhere near as fast as in Europe.

Anyway, back to thread.

Rodion Romanovich
10-08-2007, 10:28
You're a little early there, the Battle of Hastings was in 1066.


Denmark and Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark%E2%80%93Norway)

Age of Liberty/Great Northern War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_Great_Northern_War)

Swedish Colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_colonial_empire)

Swedish Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Empire)

I'd say they deserve to be included. ~:)
Yes, around 1700 was the peak of Sweden's geographical extent, and one of the 2 largest wars of the first half of that century (together with the war of Spanish succession) was the Great Northern war, which was basically Sweden vs everybody else in the Baltic region including Russia, Poland, and Denmark-Norway. As for Denmark-Norway, it had probably at least the 4th or 5th most powerful navy in Europe at the time, and as I have said before, they were a very powerful faction, whose lack of greater impact at the time mostly had to do with very bad luck in diplomacy (the involvements in both the 30 years war and Napoleonic wars probably went as unlucky as they could get). With the allowing the player to create alternate history as the basis of the game, Denmark-Norway must therefore also be a given player.

TosaInu
10-08-2007, 12:08
:wall: What i meant was,the chinese are the most experienced with gunpowder so their probably going to have a useful formation,like that one when the front line shoots and then the peaple behind them get in front of them and shoot,whats it called again??:wall:

Rotating volleys?

Ozzman1O1
10-08-2007, 19:51
yes,that was it,if you guys wanted to see what a 1700 hundred battle was like you should watch the last of the mohecians,ausome movie!:2thumbsup:

Freedom Onanist
10-09-2007, 11:18
Ozz, the Chinese never really developed gunpowder in a useful way so were actually inexperienced in its use.

TosaInu
10-09-2007, 14:11
The Japanese used rotating volleys.

The Chinese used some interesting gunpowder weapons, including bombs and rockets. Not sure about serious/large scale application of muskets though.

Maybe the huge scale of the battles made it less relevant/cost effective to equip soldiers with a primitive gun? It took at least 30 seconds to reload (in trained hands, one minute or more are figures for the average soldier).

If you can shoot a well armoured nobleman in a European medievil battle you achieve something. But what when 100,000 swords/spears close in? Shoot or start running away already?

Ozzman1O1
10-09-2007, 21:54
the asain countrys are good firearm specalists,the japanese seemed to be adapt to fire arms in world war 2

Noir
10-09-2007, 22:32
The japanese employed first worldwide firearms in large scale supported by pikes and cavalry quite some time before the pike and musket era kickstarted in Europe. That was the norm in Japanese warfare during the period of the civil wars (Sengoku Jidai), in late 16th century (from 1570+ to 1615 that the era came to a definite close). Firearms were used also before but in smaller scale and with less coordination.

The rotating volley system is allegedly credited to Oda Nobunaga who was the first to notice that the main disadvantage of guns was the long reloading times.

Nobunaga was unusual as he was thinking more in term of time rather than space (classical tactics) throughout his reign - this was the reason why he employed peasants in his armies as professionals - the other clans were employing them in the basis of the feudal system which had the severe disadvantage to deny a warlord troops during the harvest periods. Nobunaga's army could fight continuously.

On top of this, the professional soldiers were taking orders directly from Nobunaga making the army act as a whole - most rival clans armies were mixes of various other smaller clans that owed allegiance to a greater Daimiyo (warlord). This meant that orders were transfered first to their heads and then to the soldiers. In many cases the smaller daimiyos were thinking the survival of their troops in light of their political/military position and also considerable time was lost in carrying out orders even if they were happy to obey.

Noir

Leet Eriksson
10-10-2007, 01:00
I hope CA are still reading this thread, but whats the word on playable minor factions?

Can we unlock them or something?

Also i'm really hoping to see Oman in this, although they weren't really imperialistic they did drive portugal out of some of their colonies and being the only faction in the entire peninsula to have some sort of mini-empire that has colonies in India, Africa and parts of Baluchistan, i'd be seriously dissapointed if they don't make an appearance.

Thanks much in advance.

Furious Mental
10-10-2007, 16:05
I don't believe it is known for sure that the Japanese employed the countermarch. The main basis for the claim is usually Nagashino but actually it appears that Nobunaga and Ieyasu had 1,500 soldiers aiming and firing arquebuses, with two loaders for each. Which would help explain why companies of arquebusiers always contained a group of longbowmen who fired at approaching enemies in between the volleys. Also why Nobunaga didn't just rely on rate of fire to hold off the Takeda but put plenty of obstacles in front of his army to keep them at bay for as long as possible.

Guns would actually have been perfectly suited to China- after all what made them useful is that they required no individual skill, just basic instructions on use plus group drill. The missile weapon of choice, the crossbow, was already very slow firing (with the exception of the chu ko . With its huge central government it would have been able to exploit guns and and artillery far better than smaller and more dysfunctional states in Europe. Guns were used and you can tell from contemporary illustrations that they knew a thing or two about tactics- in the late Ming era there are depictions of soldiers with serpentine style matchlock muskets, firing by rank or employing a countermarch, along with technical innovations like wheel locks, breech loading, and bayonets. I don't know why they didn't go ahead and develop European style armies. They weren't the only ones to refrain from doing so- the Mughal and Safavid empires continued to use lances and bows along with muskets for one. Some accounts from China at the time comment that Chinese firearms were inferior to Ottoman and Japanese.

Noir
10-10-2007, 17:00
Nothing is known for sure Furious Mental - and the main basis of the claim has its beginning in Nagashino and continues in many other battles after that including the culminating struggle in Sekigahara. By the time of the siege of Osaka, mass firearms and even artillery were the order of the day.

Nobunaga had good reasons to make fire as continuous as possible by introducing archers to aid the teppos as you say - and also place obstacles. Mikata Ga Hara had supposedly proved the fierceness and effectiveness of the Takeda cavalry charge. Again there are theories that debate that as well, saying that the breed of horses available at the time in Japan were too small to make up for sweeping charges and that the Takeda cavalry charge is yet another myth.

Nagashino was certainly not decided by firearms alone - almost all sources mention fierce melee in the palisades and considerable casualties for the Oda-Tokugawa army (although less than the Takeda and spread between the two).

If i was Oda, and assuming that the cavalry charge was as devastating as is mentioned in Mikata Ga Hara, i would try to ensure that the Takeda charge would not succeed by whatever means possible, that is by choosing the terrain, errecting loose palisades, placing continuous fire (that would be disastrous during charges but even more during the retreat of attacking waves) as well as pike phalanxes rather than relying solely on one of the above especially if so much was at stake; i doubt that Oda had in mind that firepower alone would defeat the Takeda or anyone for that matter. It seems to me though that he reckognised its potential within a combined arms approach.

Noir

anders
10-10-2007, 17:17
Yes, around 1700 was the peak of Sweden's geographical extent, and one of the 2 largest wars of the first half of that century (together with the war of Spanish succession) was the Great Northern war, which was basically Sweden vs everybody else in the Baltic region including Russia, Poland, and Denmark-Norway. As for Denmark-Norway, it had probably at least the 4th or 5th most powerful navy in Europe at the time, and as I have said before, they were a very powerful faction, whose lack of greater impact at the time mostly had to do with very bad luck in diplomacy (the involvements in both the 30 years war and Napoleonic wars probably went as unlucky as they could get). With the allowing the player to create alternate history as the basis of the game, Denmark-Norway must therefore also be a given player.

the undoing of danish/norwegian ability to play an important role around the napoleonic wars was picking sides against the english and subsequently having most of our navy blown to bits while it was lying at port in Denmark, reducing our naval presence to norwegian gunboats built privately. those gunboats did down a few english warships, but a fleet of coastal small boats kind of lacks force projection ability, especially going up against english men-of-war..

Ozzman1O1
10-10-2007, 21:03
will all factions be playable on the campaigne or will we have to get some with game editing....i hope not

Zenicetus
10-10-2007, 22:11
will all factions be playable on the campaigne or will we have to get some with game editing....i hope not

If CA follows the previous designs, we'll be able to unlock all but the rebels and any "special" factions like the Mongols and Timurids in M2TW.

I'm okay with that, but I hope the tech trees won't be the same for everyone, especially the shipbuilding tech and any related soldier units like Marines. It might be fun to play one of the smaller factions and see what you could achieve with land conquest, but it would be insane (IMO) to give a full seafaring history and shipbuilding tech tree to a faction like, say, the Swiss.

An inland faction like that should be locked out of building ships that can seriously compete with the major seafaring European powers, like the way it's done now with the native American factions in M2TW and Kingdoms. Otherwise it's drifting a bit too close to fantasy, since it takes centuries of actual experience to develop and use that technology, and there isn't that much timespan in this game. But that's just my opinion. I know some folks like the wilder "what if" scenarios. And this might be altered with modding, if it isn't in the stock game.

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
10-11-2007, 18:43
i beg to differ, the Mongols who came from the Eurasian steps launched fleets against japan, granted there probably weren't any Mongol sailors but their subject people did the sailing, equally the ottoman turks went from nomadic steps warriors to having fleets of their own, they just used local talent in their new territory's.

i don't see why if Switzerland managed to conquered a significant shore line it would not be able to also use ships.

Zenicetus
10-11-2007, 20:28
i beg to differ, the Mongols who came from the Eurasian steps launched fleets against japan, granted there probably weren't any Mongol sailors but their subject people did the sailing, equally the ottoman turks went from nomadic steps warriors to having fleets of their own, they just used local talent in their new territory's.

WRT the Mongols, that's not an ocean-crossing voyage, and the ships would not have been able to compete with what Europe was building in the 1700's.

WRT the Ottomans, they'll be in the game (as I understand it) with capable ships, and that's appropriate because they had a long history of shipbuilding and naval warfare. This just doesn't happen overnight.


i don't see why if Switzerland managed to conquered a significant shore line it would not be able to also use ships.

Again, it's about the timeframe. If your faction has zero experience building ships, manning ships, and navigating the ocean (let alone learning how to fight effectively at sea), you don't just achieve all that overnight... or in 20 years, or even 100 years. Japan was able to ramp up fairly quickly to a world-competitive navy once everyone transitioned to ships made from riveted steel plate and driven by engines. However, that's an order of magnitude simpler a technology than knowing how to build a square-rigged sailing ship, with a thousand unique parts, all with obscure names (ever read a Patrick O'Brian novel?), and requiring experienced sailors to operate it.

The European powers that were able to project force overseas had deep experience behind them, prior to the 1700's. The time period covered by Empire is simply too short for a landlocked faction to acquire that technology and experience, if CA wants to keep this fairly realistic and not a fantasy game. A faction like Switzerland might be able to hire mercenaries here and there as privateers, and that should probably be in the game (IMO). But they shouldn't be able to compete on an evenly matched basis with a major sea power like Britain, France, or Spain. Not unless we're going to completely ignore why Britain, France, and Spain were historically able to do what they did on the world stage in the 1700's and early 1800's, instead of some landlocked faction.

BTW, this is just my personal opinion and preferences I'm tossing out here. Who knows what CA will actually do? It wouldn't completely surprise me if they give every faction the same endpoint for shipbuilding in the tech tree.

Mouzafphaerre
10-12-2007, 04:16
i beg to differ, the Mongols who came from the Eurasian steps launched fleets against japan, granted there probably weren't any Mongol sailors but their subject people did the sailing, equally the ottoman turks went from nomadic steps warriors to having fleets of their own, they just used local talent in their new territory's.

i don't see why if Switzerland managed to conquered a significant shore line it would not be able to also use ships.
.
OT but Ottomans being steppe nomads is a great misconception. Their ancestors were, for sure, but the Kayı clan, to which they belong, had been in the vicinity for around three centuries and had already become an urban middle-eastern people. :bow:
.

Furious Mental
10-12-2007, 08:12
"that's an order of magnitude simpler a technology than knowing how to build a square-rigged sailing ship"

No the exact opposite actually. How can a machine with a zillion moving parts that requires a huge pre-existing industrial base to manufacture be easier to construct than something made of wood and driven by wind. Are you going to tell us it takes less skill and money to build and maintain a horse drawn carriage than a car? Huge, expensive and complex a sailing ship may have been, there is no way it was harder to build and operate than an iron clad battleship.

Fisherking
10-12-2007, 09:36
I'm okay with that, but I hope the tech trees won't be the same for everyone, especially the shipbuilding tech and any related soldier units like Marines. It might be fun to play one of the smaller factions and see what you could achieve with land conquest, but it would be insane (IMO) to give a full seafaring history and shipbuilding tech tree to a faction like, say, the Swiss.

An inland faction like that should be locked out of building ships that can seriously compete with the major seafaring European powers, like the way it's done now with the native American factions in M2TW and Kingdoms. Otherwise it's drifting a bit too close to fantasy, since it takes centuries of actual experience to develop and use that technology, and there isn't that much timespan in this game. But that's just my opinion. I know some folks like the wilder "what if" scenarios. And this might be altered with modding, if it isn't in the stock game.

No! Not Good!

Peter the Great did exactly that for Russia just as the game time begins. All that northern coast that is today Russia etc… was Swedish. Peter wanted a fleet and went to Holland and England and learned how to build ships. Then he hired Danes and Dutch skippers to sail them.

I have always thought that factions should be able to pick up technologies from other factions. But I do agree that nothing should be exactly like everyone else’s.

Freedom Onanist
10-12-2007, 11:56
No! Not Good!

Peter the Great did exactly that for Russia just as the game time begins. All that northern coast that is today Russia etc… was Swedish. Peter wanted a fleet and went to Holland and England and learned how to build ships. Then he hired Danes and Dutch skippers to sail them.

I have always thought that factions should be able to pick up technologies from other factions. But I do agree that nothing should be exactly like everyone else’s.He may have done, but he didn't create a useful force. The russian navy, though at times numerous, was not the most effective force in the game time. No offence but it wasn't.

The Japanese managed to do it. But there are vast cultural differences between Japan and Russia, and for that matter Japan and China. As for the Japanese picking up the use of guns and pikes before the "pike and musket" era in Europe, when exactly do you place that?

I am torn here.

1. The game stays close to history, countries specialise in what they did. You can have countries like Russia deciding to play the maritime game - but at a serious effeciency deficit.

2. It is a game with various factions. What is the point of a game called "empire" set in the 18th if Prussia, for example, is limited to continuous land battles in continental Europe? Yes, Prussia became important, but in truth it never had the diplomatic weight of France, Britain, Spain. That is, until it annexed the rest of Germany and invaded France much later. WW1 was after all a bit about Germany (Prussia) wanting a piece of the colonial action. So, anyone can build a maritime empire as long as they can get access to the oceans.

?

Zenicetus
10-12-2007, 18:49
Huge, expensive and complex a sailing ship may have been, there is no way it was harder to build and operate than an iron clad battleship.

Early steamship or internal combustion ship: point the rudder in the direction you want to go, use the engine telegraph to set "full ahead", ignore wind direction. Boom... you're moving. There's a lot to know about navigation and dealing with extreme sea conditions, but you or I could step into that scenario and get the ship moving. It's not rocket science, on an operational level.

Now try getting a square-rigged ship of the line moving in that same desired direction. I'm a pretty good sailor (certified for bareboat charter), and I'm not sure I'd even know where to start on a square rigger.

"Uh... unfurl the sails... no I mean sheets... which one? Uh, that top thingie up there... no wait, the other one! What do you mean it's blowing too hard for that one? Just do it! CRAAACK!"

That's where having centuries of seafaring experience, handed-down knowledge, and specialized marine vocabulary is critical. You don't just fire up the engine, point it in any direction you want, and get moving.

Daithi MacGuillaCathair
10-12-2007, 18:55
i am well aware that the turks were not just step nomads nor were the Mongols but they settled down and adopted the technology's of the people the conqoured. and even if the Russian navy wasn't the most effective , they still were able to construct one despite having no experience.

i was just suggesting that given the right circumstances a previously land locked country or one which concentrated mainly on land (e.g Prussia, Russia etc) could develop a navy. maybe not a skilled as other sea fairing country's, but still have some ability to move at sea.

at the same time other European nations which were sea faring nations didn't develop ocean going fleets, such as the Italians who contained themselves mainly to the Mediterranean

but it would be realistic that if a nation such as prussia were able to capture some where such as holland and make it an integral part of their empire, they would gain access to some of their sea faring skills and ability's

Master of Puppets
10-12-2007, 19:13
I think Portugal should be added at the expense of Poland-Lithuania or Sweden (no offense to people of those ethnicities, lol)

Although I am an American with Brazilian heritage and Portuguese lineage, I think that Portugal is key, especially because this game is based around colonization. Portugal was huge in Brazil, as in parts of Africa, India, and the East Indies, not to mention they were hardcore with the slave trade and sea-faring. Idk, I'm trying to not be biased, but Portugal seems a lot more relevant with colonization, despite its small size on the European continent.

Mouzafphaerre
10-12-2007, 20:48
.
It usually happens so that the newcomers gradually learn the technologies and skills of the relatively native ones. I'm not too well read about the naval practice during the time of the Selchuqis (Saltanatu'r-Rum) but the petty princedoms appearing during their decline, among which the Ottomans were one, acquired the necessary knowledge and skills of seamanship from the Greeks and Italian colonists. By the late 15th century, Ottomans were capable of building and maintaining their own powerful navy, which remained a major actor until the mid-18th century, when a Russian navy ambushed and burned virtually the entire Mediterranean armada.

So, yes, technologies can be, and are, learned. But it takes much time and effort, determination notwithstanding.
.

A Norseman
10-13-2007, 02:38
I think most of you people are underestimating the international people of europe. If a country wated to build a navy, they hire people to show them how to build boats, hire people to be captains on the ships, and hire people with marine warfare experience. And after some time (maby 20 years, not 100) you got yourself ships and a vell drilled crew. Altho it is not to come by the natural experience of navies hailing from maretime countries. Like the british, french, spanjards and the Norwegians. You culd build a perfectly able navy from scrach if you had the time and money.

Same goes for wapons, if you want a good army, hire prussian officers to drill the soldiers.

As goes for countries, china, japan and any other south asian cuntry wont be in, at all. The map goes as far as india.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-13-2007, 04:31
2. It is a game with various factions. What is the point of a game called "empire" set in the 18th if Prussia, for example, is limited to continuous land battles in continental Europe? Yes, Prussia became important, but in truth it never had the diplomatic weight of France, Britain, Spain. That is, until it annexed the rest of Germany and invaded France much later. WW1 was after all a bit about Germany (Prussia) wanting a piece of the colonial action. So, anyone can build a maritime empire as long as they can get access to the oceans.

The way I think it should work is that anyone who has a coast can have a navy, but with varying amounts of time and work to build one. For example, Prussia could build a navy to rival other European powers, but it would take a very long time and be very expensive compared to powers such as Britain, who already had a well-equipped navy, and would only need to spend the money to upgrade it as needed. This allows you to take the "historical" route when you like, and the "ahistorical" another time.

Csargo
10-13-2007, 04:37
The way I think it should work is that anyone who has a coast can have a navy, but with varing amounts of time and work to build one. For example, Prussia could build a navy to rival other European powers, but it would take a very long time and be very expensive compared to powers such as Britain, who already had a well-equipped navy, and would only need to spend the money to upgrade it as needed.. This allows you to take the "historical" route when you like, and the "ahistorical" another time.

I like this idea very much. It seems like a good way to do it. The game would be no fun if you couldn't take a small European power and turn it into a superpower. That's basically what TW has been all about right?:grin:

Zenicetus
10-13-2007, 08:30
The way I think it should work is that anyone who has a coast can have a navy, but with varing amounts of time and work to build one. For example, Prussia could build a navy to rival other European powers, but it would take a very long time and be very expensive compared to powers such as Britain, who already had a well-equipped navy, and would only need to spend the money to upgrade it as needed.. This allows you to take the "historical" route when you like, and the "ahistorical" another time.

The seafaring warfare experience of England, Spain, and France goes back to the 15th and 16th centuries. That's a 300 year head start in technology and tactics, for the time period of this game. England beat the French at sea largely due to experience (a merit-promotion system, plus long merchant trade experience), not better ships. The French ships were better.

The new game runs for just a little over 100 years... 1700 to 1820. Think about it. Does it really make sense that a landlocked faction like Prussia or Switzerland should be able to fight huge naval battles against the British in this game? Are we looking for something based on a logical "what if" extrapolation of history, or a fantasy game?

I can believe the Ottomans might have settled the New World and driven out the Christian nations, if a few things had gone a little differently. They did have an actual competitive navy. That's a cool scenario, and not too far-fetched. Switzerland, Prussia, Austria doing that... eh, not so much. If I want to play a game where all factions start on the same footing, I'll play GalCiv2, not something constrained by history... which can be very interesting, if it's done right.

Mouzafphaerre
10-13-2007, 08:48
.
Austria, through her imperial vassals, did have a competitive Mediterranean navy. (Part of today's Italy remained Austrian domain until the unification.)

But your point is valid. :yes:
.

Furious Mental
10-13-2007, 09:36
It shouldn't make any difference if a faction is landlocked. If you capture a huge port that has been used to build navies that gives you the labour and capital needed to build your own, simple. Any state which has acquired the resources to build a navy should be able to do so immediately. It is not like building a navy requires teaching marine engineering and naval warfare to the entire population.

Zenicetus
10-13-2007, 11:04
It shouldn't make any difference if a faction is landlocked. If you capture a huge port that has been used to build navies that gives you the labour and capital needed to build your own, simple.

No, it's not simple. You don't just capture a port with zero seafaring experience, and then compete on an even footing with a nation that's been doing it for 300+ years. You won't even know how to FIND the New World, let alone fight for it on blue water.

For that period of history, it was like the space race to the moon between the USA and the Soviet Union. That's what the "big boys" were doing with their economic power and technology. No small powers need apply. If Empire isn't actually set up this way, as a platform to play out alternate histories between the powers that actually could project power overseas, then I'm not going to be interested in it. I don't want to play a game where Switzerland can conquer the New World and drive out the other European powers. Just personal opinion... but that's over my "crazy scenario" threshold.


Any state which has acquired the resources to build a navy should be able to do so immediately. It is not like building a navy requires teaching marine engineering and naval warfare to the entire population.

Not the entire population no, just the ones who have to man the ships. Read history, and tell me why the Swiss and the Austrians didn't set up colonies in America, India, Australia, or the South Pacific. Why was it the countries that had deep experience in seafaring? You don't achieve that in just 100 years from scratch.

Furious Mental
10-13-2007, 12:19
Yes, it is that simple. People here talk about Britain, France, and Spain as "sea faring nations" as though nationality has anything to do with knowing how to build and sail a ship. What a nonsensical concept. All the 300+ years of experience to which you refer was concentrated in the port cities of these countries- with the exception of a tiny minority the national population was as ignorant about building and sailing ships as any landlubbing Austrian, Prussian, Russian, etc. Capture coastal provinces with shipbuilding and naval infrastructure without destroying them and exterminating their population and reason dictates that they should be able to be used to create a navy without a huge delay. After all that is what numerous states with no experience of shipbuilding or naval warfare have done down through history. The only qualification of this should be the need to spend more for foreign officers and to keep fleets happy.

"tell me why the Swiss and the Austrians didn't set up colonies in America, India, Australia, or the South Pacific. Why was it the countries that had deep experience in seafaring? You don't achieve that in just 100 years from scratch."

Could it be that they didn't possess any of the large ports upon which naval power was based, as I pointed out above? If, by chance, they had conquered Holland, or England or some other country with big Atlantic ports and plenty of ships there is no reason why they could not have.

Fisherking
10-14-2007, 09:34
Well since this is about factions you would like to see… I would like to see some of the west African kingdoms put in…even if it is just some place to go. I think some of their Amazon storm troops that inspire fear would be a wonderful addition.

As for excluding the Swedish that is plane ridiculous…In 1700 they my have been the greatest power in Europe. They just made some very bad military moves. Not only that but when they were home the army had 0 upkeep due to their recruiting and garrisoning policy. The whole kingdom (which included Finland and much of the Baltic Nations at the time) was divided into groups of about 10 family groups who sponsored and trained their infantry. If a solder died a new one was selected by the group and started his training. Their downfall was arrogance in taking on Russia with an expeditionary force much too small for what they had in mind. Even that almost worked except for some tactical errors and not withdrawing when the handwriting was on the wall. Had that not happened then Russia my never have had that Navy.

As I said before I think that technologies should be able to be acquired but as to penalties etc. I don’t know how to implement that…just have not thought about it in such depth but most of that comes with experience.

From what I understand the English had the best crews for their ships though the Dutch may have had the best ships. Later the Americans had the best crews but the English also had numbers that no one could match on their own. But that was a matter of National priorities. Remember this is about a game and not a Historical Simulations. Not everything should be set in stone.

Also Austria had a navy. We all know that the Turks had a very good navy but the Russians gave them a run for their money once they got ports and built ships in the black sea. Sure they had Danish and Dutch captains and maybe even some Scots so higher upkeeps may be in order.

The factions shouldn’t all have a group of vanilla units but there shouldn’t be areas of total exclusions either.

anders
10-14-2007, 16:05
I agree countries such as the british has maritime traditions wich should give them a definitive edge against countries lacking those traditions in developing and using navies, but, as has been said here, this is the 1800s, foreign shipbuilders can be hired, other nations wharfs may be annexed, ships can be bought and you can hire entire mercenary crews of dutch, norwegian or any other nationality of top notch seamen, plus british ex-officers to drill them. so theres no need to make an advanced navy unavailable to say the prussians, it should just be hard and expensive to get.

Ozzman1O1
10-14-2007, 16:29
:study: I think the anwer to "who has better ships,the english or french,the britons or gauls"will never be anwered..

Matt_Lane
10-14-2007, 17:20
:study: I think the anwer to "who has better ships,the english or french,the britons or gauls"will never be anwered..

The French, but the British had better trained sailors

Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-14-2007, 18:25
The seafaring warfare experience of England, Spain, and France goes back to the 15th and 16th centuries. That's a 300 year head start in technology and tactics, for the time period of this game. England beat the French at sea largely due to experience (a merit-promotion system, plus long merchant trade experience), not better ships. The French ships were better.

The new game runs for just a little over 100 years... 1700 to 1820. Think about it. Does it really make sense that a landlocked faction like Prussia or Switzerland should be able to fight huge naval battles against the British in this game? Are we looking for something based on a logical "what if" extrapolation of history, or a fantasy game?

Switzerland could maybe get the technology for a small fleet if they conquered certain provinces, but nothing close to a massive fleet the size of Britain's. Prussia, the Ottomans, and other places, on the other hand, would have the opportunity to spend on a navy, just with varying costs. If you're spending 70% of your income on naval issues, then why shouldn't you be able to have a decent navy? Besides, since the naval battles are playable now, you can turn the tide as an admiral. If you manage to sink some of Britain's navy with a handful of ships, then why shouldn't you be able to build a navy of your own, since you can clearly be a naval power? And what about gathering techniques from other nations in the world? That is possible, though, as I said before, it would take a lot of time and money.

Zenicetus
10-14-2007, 19:54
As for excluding the Swedish that is plane ridiculous…

To be clear, I wasn't arguing for excluding the Swiss as a faction, even a main player faction. What I said is that I hope they don't get the same tech tree for naval tech that an experienced seafaring nation gets. I will have a hard time believing this isn't just a fantasy game, if I'm adventuring in the New World as the French and I'm suddenly attacked in the Caribbean by huge fleets of Swiss ships of the line. :dizzy2:

Is that actually making sense to anyone here?

Sure, let's give the player the option of seeing how far you could go in a land war playing the Swiss. Even hire whatever ships you need as transport to the New World for land battles there. It's the actual building and crewing of big naval fleets that are on par with what Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and (arguably) the Ottomans can produce, that I'm questioning, considering the relatively short 120 year time period of this game.

Allowing a faction like the Swiss to acquire serious naval power by hiring "mercenaries" would be a cop-out (IMO), unless it's done on a relatively small scale for harassing enemy shipping. Privateers during this period always targeted merchants, not military ships.


As I said before I think that technologies should be able to be acquired but as to penalties etc. I don’t know how to implement that…just have not thought about it in such depth but most of that comes with experience.

It's easy, just give each faction a different tech tree. The TW games already do this. In M2TW, IIRC the Spanish and Portuguese get the best end-game ships, although it doesn't have much impact on the game. By the end-game, anyone close to winning has a big enough economy to pump out whatever number of ships are needed, and the Spanish/Portuguese ships are only marginally better. That's accurate for the medieval period; the differences in naval tech should be much greater in the Empire period, if it's at all historically accurate. Another example of tech tree differences is the way the Byzantines lag behind in gunpowder units at the late game, reflecting the way the Western European factions were starting to make better use of the new technology. People who play the Byzantines gripe about that, but I think it adds an interesting flavor to that faction.

If CA is already doing this "handicapping" with the current TW games, then I don't see why they'd suddenly drop it with Empire. You'll be encouraged to pursue naval force projection with some factions, and land dominance with others. If you manage to beat a faction with a much stronger naval tech, it will be a more rewarding victory compared to just automatically receiving a magic navy if you capture a port city. We're always griping about how the game isn't challenging enough, right? So why shouldn't it be hard for a faction like the Swiss to take on Spain or France, with their much stronger naval power, anywhere but on the land?


Also Austria had a navy. We all know that the Turks had a very good navy but the Russians gave them a run for their money once they got ports and built ships in the black sea. Sure they had Danish and Dutch captains and maybe even some Scots so higher upkeeps may be in order.

The Turks yes, but I'm not sure about Austria. Didn't they only start serious naval development after the 18th Century? We have a very narrow historical window in this new game, compared to previous TW titles.


The factions shouldn’t all have a group of vanilla units but there shouldn’t be areas of total exclusions either.

I don't think anyone is arguing for total exclusion. I'm arguing for handicapping the tech tree, and the unit building tree if Marines are units on ships. The handicapping should be fairly heavy (IMO) for landlocked factions, or factions that weren't doing much on blue water before 1800, which is where Austria might fit in (not sure about that... haven't read up on it enough).