Screenies

[Csargo]

The columns seem a little deep, but that may be how they wanted it. Other than that they look nice and I'm glad we've finally got some land battle screenies.

[Ulstan]

I mean, troops in column exchanging musket fire?

They did this right up to the American Civil War, then discovered that Napoleon era tactics with rifled muskets meant mass carnage.

Certainly for the time period the game covers massed infantry is entirely appropriate.

The british were really the only power that favored the long thin lines of troops - other nations would go for more heavily massed formations. See the endless debates over the british line vs french column formations during the napoleonic wars.

[Zenicetus]

i think they look totally sweet.

the formations can be adjusted as they've always been able to in the past.

Uh, yeah... but you can't adjust the enemy AI's formations. It will be a silly game if AI armies don't form up in at least some semblance of the way they actually fought at the time.

A deeper issue is that one of the major problems with the RTW/M2TW game engine, is the way an army tends to fight not as a cohesive whole, but as "every unit for itself," with no relation to the unit on each side or nearby. If there's anything I was looking forward to in this game (assuming the copy protection isn't too Draconian to be worth buying it), it's better cohesion and cooperation of units in the battle line. I'm not seeing it in that one screenie where they're all broken into separate deep-rank blocks, but maybe it's still too early to judge. Or maybe that was a dispersed battle line in the process of re-forming, or something. I'm trying to keep an open mind.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

While it looks pretty, I want a demo! Guilty before proven innocent! Grah rah grumble

[Csargo]

While it looks pretty, I want a demo! Guilty before proven innocent! Grah rah grumble

The game isn't scheduled for release until November. A demo will probably come out a couple of months before the release.

[CBR]

They did this right up to the American Civil War, then discovered that Napoleon era tactics with rifled muskets meant mass carnage.

Certainly for the time period the game covers massed infantry is entirely appropriate.

The british were really the only power that favored the long thin lines of troops - other nations would go for more heavily massed formations. See the endless debates over the british line vs french column formations during the napoleonic wars.

Uhm no. A battalion in column were not meant for exchanging fire. It was not used like that in Age of Reason, Napoleonic Wars nor American Civil War.

The Brits used lines and columns pretty much like everyone else did at the time of the Napoleonic Wars. The main difference was a more extensive use of 2 rank than 3 rank line.

For more general info:
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/in..._tactics_4.htm

And about line versus column
http://www.napoleon-series.org/milit...a/c_maida.html


CBR

[Furious Mental]

Yes. Up until the mid 17th century musketeers and arquebusiers typically fought in deep columns because it offered better defense both through depth and proximity to pikemen, and combined with rotating fire allowed them to keep up a steady barrage. However by the time Empire begins this mode of firing had been given up completely for the 4-2 rank line, which maximised battlefield coverage and the firepower of handier, faster reloading flintlocks; the ability to fire in units from platoon all the way up to battalion meant that they could choose constant fire or a massive devastating volley.

[PBI]

Well a developer said in TWC: 'Just they way they're deployed. Square is ingame, and line and column are just a matter of unit depth and width'

The way I interpret that comment is that there is no specific column or line formation. Frankly I find that quite disappointing because I very much doubt that they will have programmed a deeper formation to have many of the advantages of a dense column, to whit:
- It is very reassuring to be in a big group;
- It moves and manouevres much faster;
- It gets much more momentum behind it when charging;
- It is scary to have it charge at you;

I don't see why they wouldn't do this, it seems to me it would be easy enough to program a unit to have all these advantages (+morale, +charge bonus etc) when the formation is more than a certain number of men deep.

I'd be very surprised if a deep formation conferred no special advantages, it has in previous titles.

[Intrepid Sidekick]

I'm amazed that people think that they can tell what units are going to be capable of from a still shot. This is a relatively old shot of the game.

FYI There are intrinsic combat benefits to having units in different formation widths and depths. Those benefits alter according to the training of your units. As in our previous games we have different combat adjustments according to unit density and depths etc

An basic example of an intrinsic gameplay benefit is: A thin line provides greater fire power than a column. But a column is more useful for attacking a line unit in melee etc. There are a number of other gameplay effects but I'm not going to go in to those here.

[Africanvs]

I wonder what kind of beast will be needed to run this.

[Slyspy]

Battle damage looks nice on the sail combat views, but.... ugh, they're still showing ships sailing directly into the wind:

http://static.gamesradar.com/images/...screenshot.jpg

Either that, or the U.S. ship is in irons, which would be suicidal tactics at that range. It's also in the middle of a battle with most of its sails furled??

The blocks of soldiers in land combat look weird to me, too. Very RTW/M2TW-like, and not at all what I expected.

Generally speaking a ship in a fight of that nature would be under minimum sail in order to free up crewmen and in order to minimize the risk of fire. Going into irons, while extremely risky, could and did happen. Usually, of course, by accident.

[Furious Mental]

"I'm amazed that people think that they can tell what units are going to be capable of from a still shot. This is a relatively old shot of the game."

Actually I was going by what one of your fellow staff said.

[Intrepid Sidekick]

And they are getting a jolly good telling off for being very wrong. :)

Wasnt having a go at you furious. Sorry if you felt that way.

Whoever it was (from our side) isnt aware of some inbuilt stuff obviously. No big thing. This project is so huge that nobody can know it all. There is more than a visual difference between lines and columns.

[Furious Mental]

No worries. I don't mean to say we've been misled- I'm just saying I'm going by what little we know. If I'm wrong and there's more to it, good.

[Zenicetus]

Generally speaking a ship in a fight of that nature would be under minimum sail in order to free up crewmen and in order to minimize the risk of fire.

I disagree. I take your point about minimizing damage for sails that aren't actually needed, but the sails are the ship's "engine," and you'd want enough way on to maneuver under the prevailing sea and wind conditions. It might make sense to fight mostly reefed like that in a gale, but notice how the other ship has full sail on. That's what doesn't make sense.

Going into irons, while extremely risky, could and did happen. Usually, of course, by accident.

Arrrhhhh, not on MY fleet! Or I'll have the captain in a different sort of "irons." More to the point, I hope we won't be fighting AI captains that don't know how to tack in combat, and that there's a semi-realistic wind/sea model that actually requires it.

[Jack Lusted]

No worries. I don't mean to say we've been misled- I'm just saying I'm going by what little we know. If I'm wrong and there's more to it, good.

More a case of me not being very clear in my posts .

IS has elaborated on it a bit for now, but I'm sure we'll clear everything up later.

[YellowMelon]

Very impressive graphics...but im worried that this will impact lag on MP. I mean people can't even handle M2TW, what will happen with these pant-shrinking visuals!

Please, Jack, don't make me a sad melon!

Or I'll leak citric acid in everyone's eyes and they will share my sorrow!

[BeeSting]

It is a TOTAL revision of history to think that melee combat played much role in that era... most of the wounds were from musket fires and not bayonets. Generals of that time much preferred to exchange fires till one side broke and ran. Doesn't CA have any historians keeping their fantasy games "somewhat" in line with history?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I just hope the AI has been informed of the instrinsic benefits of varying depths of infantry.

[Jedi Bruno]

If those screens are old, I can't wait for the new ones!
I'm gonna love this game!

[BeeSting]

I'm amazed that people think that they can tell what units are going to be capable of from a still shot. This is a relatively old shot of the game.

FYI There are intrinsic combat benefits to having units in different formation widths and depths. Those benefits alter according to the training of your units. As in our previous games we have different combat adjustments according to unit density and depths etc

An basic example of an intrinsic gameplay benefit is: A thin line provides greater fire power than a column. But a column is more useful for attacking a line unit in melee etc. There are a number of other gameplay effects but I'm not going to go in to those here.

18th century european war was about firepower and blasting away the opponent, and best to achieve that per regiment was linear formation, a long line of two to four ranks deep. 90 percent of wounds at this time were from musket shots. your alluding to the benefit of depth of formation suggests to me that CA is still implementing RTW and MTW melee combat mechanics.... my suggestion: make things simple and limit formations to 2-4 lines deep for a unit/regiment, which i'm sure the AI will have much easier time applying.

If one desires added benefit of deeper ranks it should be of stacking said line units and not stretching a single unit to 4 plus ranks deep, for units behind it boost morale and confidence as having a back up, not unlike the mechanics applied by Sid Meier's civil war games.

[Furious Mental]

Actually that would not make much sense because movement and manouevres were frequently done in a column, and in the latter part of the century the attack column came into use. Also it would ignore the fact that everywhere else in the world plenty of people were still fighting with medieval weapons. Also it would totally constrain modding scenarios based on earlier periods. We should have the discretion to make deep columns (without having to commit a quarter of our infantry to one) or thin lines, provided they each offer worthwhile advantages.

But I think we'd all like to see some screenshots showing some lines and the effect of a volley too!

[Csargo]

Happy Birthday BeeSting!!!

[BeeSting]

Wow! Thank you, Ichigo.... can't believe i'm 35 already and have been playing Total War games for almost 8 years.

[BeeSting]

Actually that would not make much sense because movement and manouevres were frequently done in a column, and in the latter part of the century the attack column came into use. Also it would ignore the fact that everywhere else in the world plenty of people were still fighting with medieval weapons. Also it would totally constrain modding scenarios based on earlier periods. We should have the discretion to make deep columns (without having to commit a quarter of our infantry to one) or thin lines, provided they each offer worthwhile advantages.

But I think we'd all like to see some screenshots showing some lines and the effect of a volley too!

Good point. but movement and maneuvers are hardly represented in tw games because from the start of a battle, you have already set your units in line of battle.

And about deep columns, i'm mainly concerned with the AI not taking advantage of the revolution in fire power of 2-4 rank lines. I believe it's all in the modifiable scripting for battle formation so i didn't mean for it to be hard coded.

i think we are having a constructive discussion here so let's keep it going.

[Intrepid Sidekick]

The AI will be aware of the need for different formations and their benefits.
We aren't joking when we say we have an AI programmer working purely on land battle AI tactics. AI unit behaviour coding is, virtualy, a never ending task.

As I said its way to much to go in to here. Sadly I have work to do now

[Raz]

Oh, in some ways... I'd rather you just type how good this game will be, rather than you work on it... even if the result of that would be no game at all.

[Rick]

The columns seem a little deep, but that may be how they wanted it. Other than that they look nice and I'm glad we've finally got some land battle screenies.

Assuming that this game represents a historical period beginning with 1700 (the Marlboroughian era) and that each figure represents one to five men (dare to dream), historically between 1700 and 1750(ish) the French were still using a five rank line.

Of course, I am in the dark as to what the designers intentions are with respect to scale and formation innovations that will be programmed into the game to occur over time span of the game.

To that end, it be great if the designers, from time to time, could present us with a a more detailed developement diary and explain the nuances of the game as it gets closer to the actual release date.

[Ulstan]

Uhm no. A battalion in column were not meant for exchanging fire. It was not used like that in Age of Reason, Napoleonic Wars nor American Civil War.

The Brits used lines and columns pretty much like everyone else did at the time of the Napoleonic Wars. The main difference was a more extensive use of 2 rank than 3 rank line.

The formations pictured in the screenshots are not columns at all, but lines. Their depth is entirely appropriate for the period (early 1700's) depending on what the formation was trying to accomplish. Only the british, as I said, specialized in the very thin very long line to maximize fire power. Other nations went with much more massed formations which would be closer to squares in shape. And they did indeed exchange musketry fire while in these formations.

Of course, musketry fire was not very effective and was not the primary means of winning battle. Typically forces didn't advance solely for the purpose of exchanging fire at all, but rather to charge or repel the enemy and sieze a key piece of ground.

The napoleonic wars were not fought as a series of long thing lines of troops engaging in extended musketry duels, and it would be historically inaccurate to portray it as such.

[Ulstan]

It is a TOTAL revision of history to think that melee combat played much role in that era... most of the wounds were from musket fires and not bayonets. Generals of that time much preferred to exchange fires till one side broke and ran. Doesn't CA have any historians keeping their fantasy games "somewhat" in line with history?

I think that is mostly backwards. Lengthy fire fights are a product of the ACW, and not of the Napoleonic Wars (or any time period before). The primary form of attack up through the Napoleonic Wars was a charge to melee, often using a massed column of infantry (unless you were British). The French were best known for their extremely attack columns but after the the thrashing they received at French hands, even the Austrians adopted a similar formation when they revamped their army in 1809.

Extended firing back and forth was role of skirmishers, and they weren't all that lethal at it. Reading accounts of the battles in the NW, time after time after time the forces are described as advancing, firing a volley, then charging. Sometimes even the defenders wait until the attackers are in range, fire a volley, then launch their own counter charge.

The fact that often their enemies would break and run doesn't mean that bayonet charges were useless, it means they were even MORE feared than musketry fire, and thus likely correspondingly more dangerous. If a soldier is willing to stand and endure musketry fire, but gets the hell out of dodge when a bayonet charge comes his way, the only conclusion you can come to is that the bayonet was a more lethal killing weapon than the musket ball - which for that time period, was true. Muskets were terribly inaccurate, which is why most of the attacks didn't rely on musket fire to get the defenders to move, but rather closed for hand to hand fighting.