Screenshot

[Incitatus]

I think the small increments of speed and a max of 6x are a Kingdoms feature. Regular M2 has the standard pause/1x/2x/3x.

[Fisherking]

How?

Excellent question!

Let me see if I can reach him.

[Sir Beane]

How?

Like Sol Invictus said, you hold down shift while clicking the buttons in order to adjust time in increments of .1 rather than 1. Slow-mo cavalry charges are fun, as are massed volleys using rocket launchers.

You need Kingdoms in order for this to work however.

[Fisherking]

Like Sol Invictus said, you hold down shift while clicking the buttons in order to adjust time in increments of .1 rather than 1. Slow-mo cavalry charges are fun, as are massed volleys using rocket launchers.

You need Kingdoms in order for this to work however.

Sure! The one I didn’t/haven’t get/gotten because of issues I won’t discuss here…

[Tomisama]

I was just thinking that. Those mini-maps cover a huge area.

Maybe not when you consider the possibility of four armies per side in multi-partner multiplayer?

I hope that this release will be fully playable multiplayer online (eight players).
Our Clan vs. Clan team competitions had to drop to 3v3 with Rome (from Medieval and Viking games), and have never been able to recover the lofty status of the truly “ultimate game contest” of 4v4.

[CBR]

Our Clan vs. Clan team competitions had to drop to 3v3 with Rome (from Medieval and Viking games), and have never been able to recover the lofty status of the truly “ultimate game contest” of 4v4.

I can imagine that. 80 units on each side with just 800 meters versus MTW large maps of 1000 meters for just 64 units. That is 10 meters/unit versus 15.5 meters per unit while ETW will have 17.5 meters so at least there is improvement there.

The other problem is missile range with MTW having 100-120 meters while RTW/M2TW boosted that up to 160-180 max. ETW will now have lots of artillery and from the few vids I have seen musket range still seems quite high.


CBR

[Sir Beane]

I can imagine that. 80 units on each side with just 800 meters versus MTW large maps of 1000 meters for just 64 units. That is 10 meters/unit versus 15.5 meters per unit while ETW will have 17.5 meters so at least there is improvement there.

The other problem is missile range with MTW having 100-120 meters while RTW/M2TW boosted that up to 160-180 max. ETW will now have lots of artillery and from the few vids I have seen musket range still seems quite high.


CBR

With the predominance of ranged weaponry on the battlefield I think we will probably have to seriously recalculate what's big enough for a battle or not.

Units can now engage each other at distances of several hundrerd metres (further for snipers and skirmisher units). I'm hoping we will see longer battle lines and a more spaced out feeling to battles.

In previous games units all tended to end up in a big mob somewhere in the middle of the map (in A.I battles at least) because it was usually the best way to win.

I guess we will have to wait for the demo to really get a feel for the flow of the new battles.

[CBR]

Well yes, players would most likely want to use units in 2-4 ranks but there is little reason to spread out and have big gaps between individual units. There might be some kind of assault column formation in ETW so you still gonna see big mobs heh.

AFAIK we still don't know how the game handles armies of more than 20 units but singleplayers will no doubt feel they have a lot more room. I fear those of us remembering old MTW 4v4 MP with large custom maps might not be as happy.

I have never understood why CA decided to boost up missile ranges as all it did was to make battlefields feel smaller with less room for maneuver. I certainly do hope we don't see yet another boost in ETW.


CBR

[Sir Beane]

Well yes, players would most likely want to use units in 2-4 ranks but there is little reason to spread out and have big gaps between individual units. There might be some kind of assault column formation in ETW so you still gonna see big mobs heh.

AFAIK we still don't know how the game handles armies of more than 20 units but singleplayers will no doubt feel they have a lot more room. I fear those of us remembering old MTW 4v4 MP with large custom maps might not be as happy.

I have never understood why CA decided to boost up missile ranges as all it did was to make battlefields feel smaller with less room for maneuver. I certainly do hope we don't see yet another boost in ETW.


CBR

I think we will see a another boost to missile ranges simply because it's historically accurate, especially so for artillery of the time period.

ETW is all about ranged combat. Instead of positioning units for a flank or a charge we will be positioning them for maximum field of fire, or to be able toperform enfilade fire. Cover and height should give units a significant advantage this time around.

Melee won't disappear completely of course. A bayonet charge is still the best way of breaking an enemy army. But missile fire will be the main show, rather than the prelude as it was in Med, Rome or Med 2.

Hopefully the increased range will be counteracted by the increased size of the maps and the new emphasis on being able to use cover.

Another benefit to the ranged combat centric system is that you can't just run your troops wherever you want, or they will get shot to bits. Instead it encourages thoughtful, careful deployment and manouvering. Massed charge tactics (a surefire way to beat the A.I) will hopefully be a thing of the past.

[Fisherking]

There also seems to be a lot of dead space in the battle fields portrayed in the screen shots.

Areas where troop movement is unobserved and covered from direct fire weapons.

Who knows maybe some units like Native Americans and Rangers can low crawl into position.

That could spoil your flank security!

There is so much we don’t know! The vast ignorance we posses is astounding.

[CBR]

I think we will see a another boost to missile ranges simply because it's historically accurate, especially so for artillery of the time period.

Yes but realistic compared to what? Individual soldiers, units, overall army size or size of terrain features and battlefields? The armies in ETW will even at huge scale be similar to less than a real life brigade.

If we focus purely on the soldier scale then we still have unrealistic space taken up by soldiers as ETW cannot handle close shoulder to shoulder formation. And Total War games have always had units marching faster than real life. Now obviously I don't know if ETW has improved but earlier games never had a realistic difference between max range and point blank kills either.

If we can accept such unrealistic elements then why focus too much on what realistic missile range should be based on soldier scale.

Cover and firepower will certainly play a big role in ETW and it will be nice addition to Total War games if done properly. But for 4v4 MP we are very much depending on room for maneuver because if not enough room it will just be frontal fighting the whole way.

Just to use some historical examples:

Even assuming a rather long max range for artillery of 1500+ meters some 18th century battlefields were 5+ such artillery shots wide. In M2TW I think some artillery had 500+ meters range. ETW could be perhaps 600 or 700 meters which would make battlefields 2-2.5 shots wide.

An infantry battalion might be around 140 meters wide. ETW infantry units on huge scale in 3 ranks could be perhaps 60-70 meters wide. Since infantry could start firing at 200+ meters (although not very effective fire) then by giving muskets a max range of 100 or 120 meters and you have each ETW unit representing a battalion.

That is really all it takes when looking at battlefield and units for scale instead of individual soldiers.


CBR

[Jack Lusted]

Now obviously I don't know if ETW has improved but earlier games never had a realistic difference between max range and point blank kills either.

We do model firing cones for guns so yes close range fire is more deadly.

Muskets in Empire have ranges of 70-80m, rifles 125m, cannons 400m.

[CBR]

We do model firing cones for guns so yes close range fire is more deadly.

Muskets in Empire have ranges of 70-80m, rifles 125m, cannons 400m.

Now that is good news indeed!

Please tell me you guys have also taken a hard look at movement rates for these lower missile ranges


CBR

[Fisherking]

We do model firing cones for guns so yes close range fire is more deadly.

Muskets in Empire have ranges of 70-80m, rifles 125m, cannons 400m.

Just guessing that that is not the maximum range but more like primary effective ranges for those weapons.

Yes? No?

[Jack Lusted]

No that is the maximum range, and yes we are fully aware they are not accurate.

[Sir Beane]

Muskets weren't terribly effective at long ranges anyway, so it's no great loss that the range has been shortened. I fully support historical innacuracy if it means better gameplay.

It looks like you got your wish CBR.

[Fisherking]

Well thank for the speedy reply Sir!

And I am sure we will live with it!

Develop tactics to fit and go with what you have got!

Thanks again Jack

[Sol Invictus]

Realizing that completely accurate ranges are not possible, my only quibbles are that I would like Rifles to have a tad longer range and for Artillery to have a moderately longer range. Maybe 150m for Rifles and 600-800m for Artillery.

[Fisherking]

But there isn’t much to be done about it at this point

I am sure it can be moded later by someone.


Edit: I am sure it is a balance issue. The 125 is half again the 70. The cannon doesn’t shoot from side to side of the battle field and so on.

[CBR]

It looks like you got your wish CBR.

Indeed. This is IMO a very important design decision for both gameplay reasons as well as the correct feel of this era. And that goes for SP as well as MP.


CBR

[Sir Beane]

Indeed. This is IMO a very important design decision for both gameplay reasons as well as the correct feel of this era. And that goes for SP as well as MP.


CBR

I can understand why it would be important to MP, given the larger number of armies in the field compared to SP (although I know very little about competetive MP in general.)

I'll be waiting for the demo to really give us a feel how the new style of combat will work.

[CBR]

Yes there are still several things I'm concerned about. The demo should hopefully provide some answers.


CBR

[AussieGiant]

Interesting information from JL. Thanks for that mate.

While not accurate, it is "indiciative" and within the feel for what is needed for game play.

Rifles being double the range of muskets is excellent, but artillery being only 4x greater than a rifle...hmmm.

Interesting stuff this.

[Sol Invictus]

Yes, the short Artillery range is the most glaring fudge. It should at least be 600m. Not a huge thing in any event.

[Belgolas]

How?

Hold down shift and then click on either the raise game speed or lower game speed button. Very easy to do.


I hope ETW has the same thing but we can only be sure in a DEMO!

[Incongruous]

No that is the maximum range, and yes we are fully aware they are not accurate.

No they are not, however this decision will, I believe, lead to more accurate and historically sound tactics being used by players in both SP and MP. Now that units will have to be so close in order to be effective it will allow us to illustrate the complexity of battlefield manoeuvre in the 18th cen. Clearly it will not be good enough to simply line 'em up and ait till the shooting match is over, what with the low range of muskets and the unmlimeted ammo of artillery in ETW. Staning ound looking pretty in a line will, I suspect, lead to unwanted outcomes.

Oh, the return of battkefield manoeuvre to TW!

[AussieGiant]

Yes, the short Artillery range is the most glaring fudge. It should at least be 600m. Not a huge thing in any event.

Yes that would seem better, but I think it might have something to do with the scale issue and map size as CBR has outlined.

It's going to be very important to be able to maneuver without getting your cheeks shot to pieces. If the arty range is too great and the map not big enough then this will be a large problem.

Kind of like have a Rottweiler on leash in which he can reach the whole 10 square meter room except the outside 30 centimeters.

Then you're stuck up against the wall trying to skirt around the outside.

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah, nobody wants to have to contend with being bombarded from the word go.

[Tomisama]

Hahah! Don't get too carried away with that though, or we could be seeing some interesting newspaper headlines.

"Local Man Leaves Wife For Videogame!"

The best thing to do is try and get her into the game as well, that way she'll understand.

Of course then she might end up taking over your laptop and ignoring you for the game.

The self-accepted legacy-title for the women who love men, who love Total War games is; “Shogun Widow”.

They are a proud and stalwart spirited lot indeed, and I am as honored to have one at my side.

I only hope your are all as fortunate as I

[Polemists]

Yes there are still several things I'm concerned about. The demo should hopefully provide some answers.


CBR

mWhahahah....hahahaha..........hahahahaha.............


On to topic....


I'm not sure artillery fire will really be that big a factor range wise so much as accuracy wise.

I would like to accurracy improved.

For instance, in MTW2 your cannons had plenty of range and fire power, I mean as soon as you were deployed you could almost aim at the enemy.

What it lacked was a crew with any sort of skill. Hopefully after a few centuries of using canons there is more reliability to them.