Screenshot

[Nelson]

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.

I'm with you , Polemists. The MTW guns were good for siege work but little else as is appropriate for the period. In the 18th century artillery was an established big time anti-personnel weapon. The wildness of field guns should disappear in ETW. Not that a battery should behave like snipers. But they should be a real hazard with round shot out to 400m.

[Sir Beane]

I'm with you , Polemists. The MTW guns were good for siege work but little else as is appropriate for the period. In the 18th century artillery was an established big time anti-personnel weapon. The wildness of field guns should disappear in ETW. Not that a battery should behave like snipers. But they should be a real hazard with round shot out to 400m.

Agreed. Cannons were no longer experimental technology by 1700. like ballista in Med 2 they had been around for a long time and artillery crews of the day should know exactly how to use them. In fact a level of accuracy around that of the ballista in Med 2 would probably be quite good.

On a similar note I really hope muskets are more deadly than archers in Med 2. Because if they aren't virtually every battle is going to be decided with a bayonet charge.

[CBR]

I wonder if bouncing roundshot might be able to hit something beyond 400 meters


CBR

[Polemists]

On a similar note I really hope muskets are more deadly than archers in Med 2. Because if they aren't virtually every battle is going to be decided with a bayonet charge.

I agree bayonet charges are fun and should be useful but, musket fire should hold the day when two infantry units go at it.

Unfourtnately almost all the videos I see have charges lol

I wonder though if they will have ammo similiar to archers and slingers in rtw, where there is a decent supply but they will run out if they go to long.

If you run out of ammo, or if you greatly out number the enemy, bayonet charges are useful.

I just don't think they should dominate all things.

[Nelson]

The bayonet charge was the dominating tactic for infantry assaults for over 200 years.

From what I’ve read, every serious infantry assault made by any modern power from 1700 to at least 1920 was supposed to culminate in a bayonet charge. The only question was how much firing, if any, would be done by the attackers on the way in. In most cases one side or the other broke before actual contact was made. Very close range shoot-outs were more likely than a brawling melee.

Gunfire did all of the injury but the charge was how you pushed the other guys back.

[Sir Beane]

The bayonet charge was the dominating tactic for infantry assaults for over 200 years.

From what I’ve read, every serious infantry assault made by any modern power from 1700 to at least 1920 was supposed to culminate in a bayonet charge. The only question was how much firing, if any, would be done by the attackers on the way in. In most cases one side or the other broke before actual contact was made. Very close range shoot-outs were more likely than a brawling melee.

Gunfire did all of the injury but the charge was how you pushed the other guys back.

Exactly! Which is why I'd like CA confirmation that guns are deadlier and more accurate than archers were in Med 2. Because if they aren't then bayonet charges are going to end up being neccesary to get kills.

Gunfire should cause the damage and get the kills, the bayonet charge should then be used to break the enemy line.

[ClaymanVTW]

Awesome! 2 of em i havnt seen before, thanks! what site ya get these from?

PS-

omg i can juggle!

[Polemists]

Well so far from what i've seen, it's a trade off.


For instance, in the one video you see the charging unit of muskteers/riflemen and vice versa you see the guys firing on the charging unit.

The defender, gets a clear line of fire, takes down quite a few of the enemy, even a drummer (who knows how much morale value hit that is).

The charger on the other hand, gets to hit the enemy with swords and riflebutts while they are still reloading.

So I don't know.

Sure if your in close quaters, I get the point, but I just don't see infantry charging over 400 yards or something, against musket fire.

If the two units are close enough that you can engage quickly then yes, but why charge your men and let the enemy put 5 or 6 rounds in them before they can even engage?

I mean it's pretty clear from videos, your men can't fire while running forward for the charge, other then the officer who has a pistol.

[Fisherking]

Lets remember that artillery is going to have canister and bursting bombs, at least at some point.

400m is a quarter mile. Your poor marching infantry is going to be under fire for a while.
It may take some inventive tactics to close with the enemy’s line.

By the time you are ready to charge you my find that the only thing your army is good for is sausage stuffing.

[Polemists]

Yes I mean once your in range, sure a charge seems valid but assuming your armies will be same distance apart as in mtw 2, it will at least be a few volleys, cannon fire, and a trench or two before you hit the enemy line.

[Sir Beane]

Well so far from what i've seen, it's a trade off.


For instance, in the one video you see the charging unit of muskteers/riflemen and vice versa you see the guys firing on the charging unit.

The defender, gets a clear line of fire, takes down quite a few of the enemy, even a drummer (who knows how much morale value hit that is).

The charger on the other hand, gets to hit the enemy with swords and riflebutts while they are still reloading.

So I don't know.

Sure if your in close quaters, I get the point, but I just don't see infantry charging over 400 yards or something, against musket fire.

If the two units are close enough that you can engage quickly then yes, but why charge your men and let the enemy put 5 or 6 rounds in them before they can even engage?

I mean it's pretty clear from videos, your men can't fire while running forward for the charge, other then the officer who has a pistol.

This all assumes of course that artillery and musket fire are deadly. In Med2 I would be fairly happy to charge over four hundred metres at a combination of cannon artillery and archers or musket troops. Because you don't suffer anywhere near the level of casualties that you probably should.

I'm just hoping CA has fixed that for Empire.

[Polemists]

I'm just hoping CA has fixed that for Empire.

...........THE DEMO


I see your point, but musketfire had a amazing morale power in MTW2, I mean a few canon shots and you could make the enemy run pretty often.

Which raises another question regarding morale, I havn't heard anything about morale really, better, worse, indifferent.

I mean this is the revoultion part of CA I think, so hopefully morale makes a bit more sense. I'm all for breaking the lines, but one calavary charge should not send hundreds of professional soldiers into a dither....you know...unless it's elephants....in a demo

[Sir Beane]

...........THE DEMO


I see your point, but musketfire had a amazing morale power in MTW2, I mean a few canon shots and you could make the enemy run pretty often.

Which raises another question regarding morale, I havn't heard anything about morale really, better, worse, indifferent.

I mean this is the revoultion part of CA I think, so hopefully morale makes a bit more sense. I'm all for breaking the lines, but one calavary charge should not send hundreds of professional soldiers into a dither....you know...unless it's elephants....in a demo

I think the morale penalties thing has been reversed this time around. In ETW musket fire won't have a huge morale effect (people had had time to get used to guns) melee combat however is much scarier now.

And who wouldn't break when they saw elephants heading for them? Especially if they were aware how unbeliavably powerful they are in TW games. I'd be running before the battle even started

[Polemists]

Your probably right, as Clansmen charging is much scarier then say a bunch of redcoats.

Still if a cannon takes out eight men next to you, i'd expect some level of, hey maybe we should leave this area.....you know....in my demo anyway...

[Sir Beane]

Your probably right, as Clansmen charging is much scarier then say a bunch of redcoats.

Still if a cannon takes out eight men next to you, i'd expect some level of, hey maybe we should leave this area.....you know....in my demo anyway...

If you'd been properly trained you would shurug off that cannonball like a soldier and get back to the complicated business of marching forwards towards the heavily fortified and defended cannon emplacement!

Namby pamby soldiers these days, worrying about massive friendly casualties and little things like 'certain death'. (These days being the 1700's, I'm in character )

I'll not have my soldiers routing because of 95% allied losses!

[Polemists]

Yes, why do that when the other 5% can still be slaughtered...

I mean sure you can come back

Maybe the only thing you have is minutemen and militia, and maybe they have hundreds of dragoons and redcoats, but I saw patriot...

all you need is mel gibson with a big flag pole with a spike...and your set

[Fisherking]

I had relatives at Cowpens and they never said anything about an Australian with a flag!

The tactics used there might be possible in the game though. Drawing the enemy over a hill…then again if we have physic AI like last time that won’t work…

[Polemists]

what are you taking about the psychic AI was fannnntastic


"Yes men, we charge into the spikes, they will never see it coming"

[Sir Beane]

what are you taking about the psychic AI was fannnntastic


"Yes men, we charge into the spikes, they will never see it coming"

Charging your best cavalry unit headlong into stakes along with your King and both of your princes is a perfectly sound tactic. Let's face it, the enemy will never expect it.

In fact it's almost as sneaky and unexpected as sitting your 10 star 10 Dread Timurid warlord in front of a rocket launcher as it fires at the advancing English forces.

[Fisherking]

Charging your best cavalry unit headlong into stakes along with your King and both of your princes is a perfectly sound tactic. Let's face it, the enemy will never expect it.

In fact it's almost as sneaky and unexpected as sitting your 10 star 10 Dread Timurid warlord in front of a rocket launcher as it fires at the advancing English forces.

Did I ever claim the AI was smart?

No certainly not! Most of the time it would loose to an eight year old girl. But they did know every unit they were facing and no hiding spot was safe.

That is a lot different than competent, but if AI has been improved so much then it becomes a problem. It makes ambushes difficult. It makes the kill sack ineffective. Turn around and run like hell is not going to draw a rush. It just takes all the fun out of it…

At that rate I’ll have to upgrade and just pick on Humans. The trouble with that is that humans learn about their enemy…then there is no one to play!

Besides I had the AI walk through the stakes a lot of times…especially with the darned Super Elephants!

I like employing tactics (particularly sneaky ones) to defeat the enemy. Not having my men ground up for dog food because there is no surprising the enemy. It makes it sort of like loosing three modern tanks to that hoplite in Civ…just not fun…

[Sir Beane]

Did I ever claim the AI was smart?

No certainly not! Most of the time it would loose to an eight year old girl. But they did know every unit they were facing and no hiding spot was safe.

That is a lot different than competent, but if AI has been improved so much then it becomes a problem. It makes ambushes difficult. It makes the kill sack ineffective. Turn around and run like hell is not going to draw a rush. It just takes all the fun out of it…

At that rate I’ll have to upgrade and just pick on Humans. The trouble with that is that humans learn about their enemy…then there is no one to play!

Besides I had the AI walk through the stakes a lot of times…especially with the darned Super Elephants!

I like employing tactics (particularly sneaky ones) to defeat the enemy. Not having my men ground up for dog food because there is no surprising the enemy. It makes it sort of like loosing three modern tanks to that hoplite in Civ…just not fun…

Actually the fact that the enemy knows exactly where you are all the time is explained in game in the form of traits.

For instance I know that almost all of my generals acquired a 'Pagan Magician'. I bet he has a crystal ball that lets him know whats what on the battlemap. After all the generals must like hanging out with him for some reason right?

[Polemists]

Yea those pagan magicians got annoying :P


The AI was never overly clever and I'm not asking it to be a genius, but i'd just like to be compotent. There is a difference.

I mean if AI outsmarts us everytime that's to much, but if we build a fort and it just stands there and gets shot cause it lost the one cannon it brought...that gets dull fast.


So a balance...

and maybe this balance could be demonstrated


in a

DEMO

[Oleander Ardens]

First thanks to Jack for his infos and Tosa for the screenshots

a) That distances matters for accuracy is a fundamental factor for realistic and fun gameplay. Great to see it included.

b) The ranges of the three most important weapons seem to be sound, although I too would have liked a somewhat greater range for rifles and especially cannons.

c) The effectivness of weapons are a complex combination of overall accuracy, change of accuracy in relation to range, damage, rates of fire and the movement speeds. To see this package we must await the demo.

d) The graphics are astonishing and bring the period's battles back to live. Kudos to the team in question.

e) I like the looks of the UI very much, it has style and seems to offer the necessary informations. Especially the mini map with the detailed map and the new symbols are great.

f) We have four symbols so far: Star (General), Horse (cavalry), Soldier (Infantry), Cannon (Artillery). Would it be possible to add two more for two important types, skirmishers and melee infantry? The first ones could be a soldier wich holds a rifle diagonally, the other could be hold a pike overhead, ready to strike. This would make the identification a lot easier, especially in large battles with plenty of infantry.

g) While I will switch off the flags I would also implement a clearer distinction between the unit types on the little flags over them. You can already see if it's an artillery unit or not, but why shoudn't you put the symbols of the mini map into the unit flags?

h) It would be great if you could use than the same or a similar system for seabattles. Already a distinction between flagship, SOL, 4th rate and 5th rate would add much clearity.

j) Regarding c) I too would like somewhat slower movement in general. But of course to make an educated critique I must await the demo.

OA

P.S: Could somebody perhaps explain the blue symbol with a downward pointing arrow in the upper left corner of two ships in the second screeenshot?

[drewthehuter]

WHO ARE THESE GUYS????

[Haxorsist]

I think the little icon means that the boat is taking in water and going down.