Faction Leader in ETW

[Cute Wolf]

Just curious, How about faction Leader and family trees on the ETW...

Some nations had a queen (which was impossible to get in M2TW).... If someone had a queen, and that queen is attacked, how did she fight?

And what about George Washington?

[Polemists]

Okay one step at a time



Just curious, How about faction Leader and family trees on the ETW...

To best we know if you choose monarchy, you get a family tree. If you choose republic, you will have elected officials.






Some nations had a queen (which was impossible to get in M2TW).... If someone had a queen, and that queen is attacked, how did she fight?

Your faction leader and generals/admirals are two seperate groups now. Generals are no longer leaders (though no one knows if they can become ministers or presidents, etc when they retire.

Your general/admiral is still a battlefield unit, your king/queen though will not appear on battlefield but will simply be a ruler. Though they will still have traits, and influence in politics, they are no longer on the battlefield.









And what about George Washington?

He does appear in the Road to Independence campaign, beyond that I don't know.

Though i'm hopeful to see him

in

A DEMO

[Fisherking]

Okay one step at a time


To best we know if you choose monarchy, you get a family tree. If you choose republic, you will have elected officials.



Your faction leader and generals/admirals are two seperate groups now. Generals are no longer leaders (though no one knows if they can become ministers or presidents, etc when they retire.

Your general/admiral is still a battlefield unit, your king/queen though will not appear on battlefield but will simply be a ruler. Though they will still have traits, and influence in politics, they are no longer on the battlefield.



He does appear in the Road to Independence campaign, beyond that I don't know.

Though i'm hopeful to see him

in

A DEMO

Except Sweden!

Sweden gets Charles XII as king and battle field leader in the old medieval style.

It could be a random event sort of thing that allows some king to be a leader, but if Brittan gets one they are in trouble…:laugh4:

[Polemists]

Except Sweden!

Sweden gets Charles XII as king and battle field leader in the old medieval style.

It could be a random event sort of thing that allows some king to be a leader, but if Brittan gets one they are in trouble…

So Fisherking, we meet...........again, I have you now...

:wizard:


lol


I didn't know that but that would be interesting. Of course not sure you want your king on the battlefield if he gets killed by a canon shot in round one.

The kings, to best of my knowledge, are going to be entirely a portrait, with traits, stats, and little hanger ons this time. Similiar to ministers.

There may be unique ones who enter the battlefield, maybe in a event or some such...


of course if we see a queen riding into battle in the demo, then we know for certain
:laugh4:

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Perhaps there is a button that allows you to change your king from 'portrait' to 'general' and back if you want?
That would be a really good option. :2thumbsup:

[ArtillerySmoke]

Okay one step at a time




To best we know if you choose monarchy, you get a family tree. If you choose republic, you will have elected officials.







Your faction leader and generals/admirals are two seperate groups now. Generals are no longer leaders (though no one knows if they can become ministers or presidents, etc when they retire.

Your general/admiral is still a battlefield unit, your king/queen though will not appear on battlefield but will simply be a ruler. Though they will still have traits, and influence in politics, they are no longer on the battlefield.










He does appear in the Road to Independence campaign, beyond that I don't know.

Though i'm hopeful to see him

in

A DEMO

Any other information on elected officials? This intrigues me.

I'm wondering how much of a role they play, and if the player has any sort of interaction with them ...similar to the Papal elections in M2TW.

Thanks

[Fisherking]

Any other information on elected officials? This intrigues me.

I'm wondering how much of a role they play, and if the player has any sort of interaction with them ...similar to the Papal elections in M2TW.

Thanks

I think he would tell you what I am going to say.

We don’t know yet…maybe in a demo…

Washington was a General first and later a political leader…We will have to see how that all works.


Okay P,…in a demo

[ArtillerySmoke]

Yeah, we're weeks away from release.

We need to see a demo soon.

:yes:

[Polemists]

Any other information on elected officials? This intrigues me.

I'm wondering how much of a role they play, and if the player has any sort of interaction with them ...similar to the Papal elections in M2TW.

Fisherking does speak true, we do have a nice summary thread up top that lists some minor details on Ministers but we don't know much about them.

We know they get elected every 4 years.

We know they change based on elections and whether your people like them or not.

We know the head of your colony is a Govenor and can be appointed, but whether later on if he is elected or not is still a bit hazy.

We don't know if you nominate ministers to enter the elections, or if it's just random people and you have to hope for the best.

I'd assume the trade off is that when you build more universities, and schools you get better ministers, but on flip side your people become harder to please.

We know they have traits and whatever it is, similiar to generals of mtw 2 where they'd get special items and retinue members, like knights of hosptallier in mtw2 or great commander trait.

It's assumed they can be assinated, but no one knows.


Of course as fisherking stated.

The only way to truly know anything

is with

a

DEMO

[Sir Beane]

Some nations had a queen (which was impossible to get in M2TW).... If someone had a queen, and that queen is attacked, how did she fight?


She probably fought with a small pistol. Queen Victora (slightly out of the games time period) was rumored to carry round a small revolver and a dagger in order to suprise would- be assasins.

If the Queen was attacked by an entire army however you can't really expect them to do much. :laugh4:

[ArtillerySmoke]

Fisherking does speak true, we do have a nice summary thread up top that lists some minor details on Ministers but we don't know much about them.

We know they get elected every 4 years.

We know they change based on elections and whether your people like them or not.

We know the head of your colony is a Govenor and can be appointed, but whether later on if he is elected or not is still a bit hazy.

We don't know if you nominate ministers to enter the elections, or if it's just random people and you have to hope for the best.

I'd assume the trade off is that when you build more universities, and schools you get better ministers, but on flip side your people become harder to please.

We know they have traits and whatever it is, similiar to generals of mtw 2 where they'd get special items and retinue members, like knights of hosptallier in mtw2 or great commander trait.

It's assumed they can be assinated, but no one knows.


Of course as fisherking stated.

The only way to truly know anything

is with

a

DEMO

lol

Thanks for all of that information - that's plenty for me to digest right now. Empire really sounds phenomenal.

[Polemists]

we'd be digesting alot more...

if we had....


a


DEMO

[Sheogorath]

It should be interesting. This was the era of powerful women, with some of the most directly influential women in the world taking positions. Catherine the Great of Russia was, quite possibly, the most directly powerful woman in the history of the world.

Rather ironic considering how brutally repressive and conservative the Russians were normally.

Anyway, I recall it being mentioned that historical figures would be present, which means that Sweden and Russia should start out with Charles and Peter, while the Brits have William III (Or William II if you're Scottish :tongueg:).

The Prussians should be interesting, given they start out two monarchs away from Frederick the Great, probably their greatest military leader up until the late 1800's.

[fenir]

Catherine the Great of Russia was, quite possibly, the most directly powerful woman in the history of the world.


But the Most powerful Queen in history, Was

Empress Queen Victoria.

The Largest Empire, the Largest Military. And the Best Trained and equiped for a large force of it's size.
She was also the most influential woman in history. She was also the Last Monarch of the Anglo Celtics to have power to Reign and Rule.
Her word carried the World.

She also has the most living relations in positions of power, both then and now.

Every monarchy of Europe, is a Great Grand Child of Empress Queen Victoria of The British & Indian Empire.


She is certainly the most powerful woman in the history of the world, given Relevance, even to today



Sincerely


fenir

[Polemists]

But the Most powerful Queen in history, Was

Clearly I will decide this

by whichever Queen

shows up

in the

DEMO


I think it is good CA is expanding your rulership. I always felt leaders and govt was a area that Total War games had less options then say Europa or Civ 4, now that ETW has more features AND great battle, i'm set...

[Sheogorath]

But the Most powerful Queen in history, Was

Empress Queen Victoria.

The Largest Empire, the Largest Military. And the Best Trained and equiped for a large force of it's size.
She was also the most influential woman in history. She was also the Last Monarch of the Anglo Celtics to have power to Reign and Rule.
Her word carried the World.

She also has the most living relations in positions of power, both then and now.

Every monarchy of Europe, is a Great Grand Child of Empress Queen Victoria of The British & Indian Empire.


She is certainly the most powerful woman in the history of the world, given Relevance, even to today



Sincerely


fenir

She was also a constitutional monarchy with, compared to the office of the Tsar, minimal direct power. Being head of state does not equate to having power.
While Victoria was certainly not powerless, she was far from the most powerful female ruler.

Polemists, I think the Spanish had a queen at this point. Maybe they'll be in the DEMO :loveg:

[KozaK13]

Queen Vic had no power in the british system of government, except royal assent of parliament approved bills, but this is a formality, monarchs can't say no.

Catherine the great was the strongest woman nation wise.

I hope they allow kings to fight battles, but what about heirs? They often commanded armies, such as Prince William of England, who won the battle of culloden, though he was a younger sibling and never became king.

[Sheogorath]

I wouldn't say Victoria had NO power. The British monarch did still have a little pull left over in her era, even moreso because Victoria herself was a highly influential woman.

But there is no comparison between her personal power and the power of Catherine II. William III (as mentioned, the 'current' British monarch) held more tangible power than Victoria.

As to kings fighting battles, I dont think that ever happened in this era. Certainly heads of state sometimes attended a battle, but they never actually took part in the fighting as far as I know. For example, Alexander, Francis and Napoleon were all at Austerlitz (Hence, 'The Battle of the Three Emperors'), but none of them personally rode out.

I think that, by now, the probability of being killed by a random bullet was too high to warrant such actions. And nobility had started to value their own skin more too, possibly :tongueg:

[Fisherking]

@ Sheogorath :oops:

You forgot the exception which proves the rule! :inquisitive:

Charles the XII

Come on…you know he fought…just say it….come on….

:laugh4::laugh4:

[Sheogorath]

@ Sheogorath :oops:

You forgot the exception which proves the rule! :inquisitive:

Charles the XII

Come on…you know he fought…just say it….come on….

:laugh4::laugh4:

I think he's the REASON kings stopped leading their men into battle :gring:

[Nelson]

I believe Frederick the Great had several horses shot from under him. He must have been somewhere near the battle!

[ArtillerySmoke]

I will admit...this is one thing that will keep me playing M2 and it's mods. There's just something about the medieval and before time periods, with faction leaders in epic battles, that makes things that much more awe inspriring.

[Sheogorath]

I believe Frederick the Great had several horses shot from under him. He must have been somewhere near the battle!

Certainly leaders got CLOSE to the battle. Peter the Great had himself assigned to artillery batteries generally. I just don't believe I've ever heard of them actually in the melee with the infantry or cavalry.

[Roka]

I wouldn't say Victoria had NO power. The British monarch did still have a little pull left over in her era, even moreso because Victoria herself was a highly influential woman.

But there is no comparison between her personal power and the power of Catherine II. William III (as mentioned, the 'current' British monarch) held more tangible power than Victoria.

As to kings fighting battles, I dont think that ever happened in this era. Certainly heads of state sometimes attended a battle, but they never actually took part in the fighting as far as I know. For example, Alexander, Francis and Napoleon were all at Austerlitz (Hence, 'The Battle of the Three Emperors'), but none of them personally rode out.

I think that, by now, the probability of being killed by a random bullet was too high to warrant such actions. And nobility had started to value their own skin more too, possibly :tongueg:

only ten years before the games start date, king william II and king james VII were both present at the battle of the boyne

[Sheogorath]

As I said, royalty were certainly AT battles (I even cited Austerlitz), however, they were not WITH the troops, generally. The rare exceptions (like Charles) tended to prove the point that putting your leader in the front line is a bad idea.

[Megas Methuselah]

Your arguments are for naught, Sheo. :clown: We all now know that generals of any sort will not play a large part, if any, in battles now, other than be spectators, as well as direct and inspire the troops.

[Sheogorath]

Your arguments are for naught, Sheo. :clown: We all now know that generals of any sort will not play a large part, if any, in battles now, other than be spectators, as well as direct and inspire the troops.

I was arguing against leaders (and generals, to a lesser degree) being in battles :blankg:

Although it seems a bit odd, I'm pretty sure a number of generals DID lead from the front. Even up until WWI. Look up Douglas MacArthur. He's a man that could have given Andrew Jackson a run for his money.

[knoddy]

perhaps elected officials will be former generals that didnt die?

its a possibility that after a certain age generals will retire and go into politics, to become Governors and politicians.

EDIT: we know that Generals ARE in game, but they are trained units, whereas monarchs and family members appear to not be in game as generals, just as monarchs and family members.

[pyradyn]

Fredrick was by all means near battles. Just like all monarchs, but just like Generals of the time they did like Fisher said did not actually fight. Fredrick was a lover....that is until him and a General tried to flee to England so he could become a painter and his Father had the General killed in front of Fredrick and he gave up the arts to a degree and became Prussia's best military mind whose letter's to his generals were used in Germany at least up till ww1.

On leaders leading from the front I do recall an instance where General Gorge S Paton rode in on the lead tank shooting and Panzer's and Infantry with a pistol. Brilliant General, probably not all there in the head though.

As for elected officials I hope they can be moved from city to city maybe but that would be a lot of agents if they were on the field the is if they were represented as agents on the map. I believe they are trying to less the clutter. But nothing can ever be more agent cluttered than the Original Medieval, way to many diplomats crunched up I couldn't even get my own. Then again I trained my assassins on my own diplomats and later bishops when they got better.

[Fisherking]

You will certainly find officers leading for the front all the way into WWII. Some Generals did lead from the front, especially in a charge but these were not always the field commander but suburbanite Generals.

Benedict Arnold lead from the front and he turned the tide and won the battle of Saratoga but was seriously wounded. Gates got the credit for the win, even though he was in the trenches and actually didn’t do much in the battle.

General Anthony Wayne also did. He even had his men carry him inside the fort at Stony Point, after he suffered wounds, so he could die in glory…he was rather lightly wounded actually…This may have been when he picked up the sobriquet Mad Anthony Wayne…

There are other generals of other nations also.

Marquis de Montcalm and General Wolfe died in the same battle.

Faction leaders might have been Generals and have great military knowledge and a few took the field.

Maria Theresia was no slouch when it came to military matters but I never heard that she took to the field in command.

That may be a random ability. We will have to wait and see.

[ArtillerySmoke]

You will certainly find officers leading for the front all the way into WWII. Some Generals did lead from the front, especially in a charge but these were not always the field commander but suburbanite Generals.

Benedict Arnold lead from the front and he turned the tide and won the battle of Saratoga but was seriously wounded. Gates got the credit for the win, even though he was in the trenches and actually didn’t do much in the battle.

General Anthony Wayne also did. He even had his men carry him inside the fort at Stony Point, after he suffered wounds, so he could die in glory…he was rather lightly wounded actually…This may have been when he picked up the sobriquet Mad Anthony Wayne…

There are other generals of other nations also.

Marquis de Montcalm and General Wolfe died in the same battle.

Faction leaders might have been Generals and have great military knowledge and a few took the field.

Maria Theresia was no slouch when it came to military matters but I never heard that she took to the field in command.

That may be a random ability. We will have to wait and see.

Hopefully it's how the "night fighter" trait worked in previous titles after Rome.

It would be cool if certain leaders either came "out of the box" with the ability to command battles from the front and others learned the ability over time.

An example would be a situation where your army was ambushed...and your leader got stuck in the battle but wound up winning. They would then learn the ability to command battles from that point forward.

Something along those lines would add an extra layer of depth and realism.

[Sheogorath]

It should, however, be noted that, while there are many examples, one must keep in mind that there were probably hundreds of thousands of generals in the era, many of whom were aristocratic dandies with formal titles who had nothing to do with their command whenever possible.

Read up on the British officer system prior to the Crimean War. Many officers bought titles, then went on half pay and had nothing to do with their regiment. Or were simply idiots. The only people who (briefly) solved this problem were the French, and that's only because they executed half the nobility and drove the rest into exile. And even that didn't work out all too well, since they ended up killing most of their experienced naval officers and getting their butts whooped by the English every time they so much as put a paper boat on a puddle.

(Seriously. The English airdropped small children with rocks into France whenever a French child made a paper boat. This is %100 historical :tongueg:)

Anyway...maybe having a 'Lead from the Front' general should give a nice morale bonus. I mean, those generals that DID lead from the front tended to be well liked by their troops. Even after the point that they stopped doing so due to age or whatnot.

[Pinxit]

I think he's the REASON kings stopped leading their men into battle :gring:

Actually, what he did was remarkable. Not only did he participate and lead his forces into every battle and fought with his men, he did so without getting killed. And he did that for 21 years. I respect that a lot more than e.g. Peter the Silly of Russia who most likely never even spotted a Swede or any of his enemies.

[Subotan]

George II was the last King of the UK to lead his forces into battle.

[Pinxit]

George II was the last King of the UK to lead his forces into battle.

Someone stated earlier that CA said that Charles XII of Sweden would be the only faction leader also able to join in battles as a general. I cant use him. :inquisitive:

Still. In my campaign he is 82 years old (still alive at 1964), so I am not quite sure I want to use him now :laugh4:

[Subotan]

1964?
Wow :D

[Pinxit]

1964?
Wow :D

Haha! Well. 1764. Ofcourse. But still, remarkable. In real life he died in 1721. But that was due to a bullet piercing through his skull.

Does anyone know if CA changed their mind letting Charles XII function as a general as well as a monarch?

[Subotan]

If he dies on the field, does he die as your FL?