US on factions list

[batemonkey]

It seems that the US is in the process of being put up at mo (currently it's greyed out)


http://www.totalwar.com/empire/gameinfo/factions.php

[Sir Beane]

It seems that the US is in the process of being put up at mo (currently it's greyed out)


http://www.totalwar.com/empire/gameinfo/factions.php

Nice find! *Sigh* 'twas the US all along. So long Portugal, apparently your overseas colonies count for nothing in the face of marketing. :shame:

[batemonkey]

Fuunny really the US starts the century as part of the empire, by the end the portugeese are defacto a part of the empire

[Monk]

Hah! Take that Portugal! :laugh4:

Seriously now. I can't say I'm surprised to see the US get in. It will be a huge marketing ploy to get a lot of American gamers, who may not be particularly interested in this period, on board with ETW.

Being an American gamer who is really interested in this period, however, I must confess I'm not looking forward to playing my home nation. I'm much more interested in giants of the era: France, Russia, Prussia, Sweden. ect.

I'll give the US a spin, no doubt, but not until I've had my fill of the European theatre.

[Sir Beane]

Here we go:

United States of America

The United States of America is a nation forged in the fires of revolution and rebellion against a British monarch seen as distant, foreign and tyrannical.

After the French and Indian Wars, the British government took an entirely unreasonable line: the American colonists should pay taxes to contribute to the navy and army that helped defend them. After all, those colonial fellows enjoyed the benefits of peace, protected by Britain’s expensive soldiers and sailors. The colonists had other views. The British responded with political stupidity and military ineptitude.

Aided, once they had rebelled, by the French Bourbons (who, for reasons of their own, had every wish to see Britain pre-occupied with war and then humiliated by seditious rebels), the Americans faced down Britain. The struggle split counties, cities, towns, even families, but it united the nation.

In its wake, the revolution left a new kind of nation, a republic where men choose their own destinies, and are not subject to the whims of kings. This spirit of independence is a source of strength: it is an idea worth defending! It is also a source of weakness, for Americans cherish the right to do as they think best. This is not necessarily a good thing in an army.

America now has a future of boundless possibilities. A continent stretches away to the West, and no one is entirely sure what is to be found there. The Atlantic swell washes against the eastern seaboard, and beckons American seamen onwards: trade and adventure lie that way too. There may still be scores to settle with the British in Canada, or ambitious nations from Europe to discourage. There is much to do, if this newest and boldest of nations is to survive and prosper!

[Nelson]

The USA was bound to be in the game without any regard to North American marketing. How could it not be? The War for Independence involved several world powers and was one of the watershed events of the 18th century!

[BeeSting]

The USA was bound to be in the game without any regard to North American marketing. How could it not be? The War for Independence involved several world powers and was one of the watershed events of the 18th century!

Netherlands also jumped on the side of France.

[Sir Beane]

The USA was bound to be in the game without any regard to North American marketing. How could it not be? The War for Independence involved several world powers and was one of the watershed events of the 18th century!

I have no problem with it being in the game, indeed it should be an emergent faction. The fact that it is playable is extremely odd however given that there are only 12 playable factions. Consider, in 1700 Portugal was a world power, had an overseas Empire to rival most other factions, and was a strong naval and trading presence. And the US... didn't exist.

I think the decision to make them playable was probably motivated by a desire to reach out to the American market.

I wouldn't mind that the US was playable at all if Portugal was as well, or if CA had gone with a greater number of playable factions. It's just that they grabbed quite a coveted spot away from a nation which more than deserves it.

[KozaK13]

Are the Mughals not also playable from what we have seen in the demo files?

[crazyviking03]

While I must admit that giving 1 of 12 slots to a nation that will only exist in the last qaurter of the game's time frame is odd, I gotta say AMURICA!!

[Nelson]

I think the decision to make them playable was probably motivated by a desire to reach out to the American market.


That could certainly be the case.

I think the USA is playable because a lot of people will want to play it. Americans to be sure but plenty of other folks too. Defeating the UK could be a real challenge for the rebels.

True, the colonies were British until 1776. That’s still 25 years of the century that the USA was a separate entity with a role to play on the world stage. The war was 8 years long.

Meanwhile, the Portuguese Empire was declining during the 18th century. They still made money via trade but fought no wars with any Europeans during this time of which I’m aware.

Perhaps Portugal will be playable in a Napoleon Expansion. They were definitely a player in the Peninsula War.

[PanzerJaeger]

Isn't this all unimportant anyway, as the factions will be easily unlocked within an hour of the game's release?

I guess the playables will get a little bit more attention and specialized events and such, though...

[Sir Beane]

Isn't this all unimportant anyway, as the factions will be easily unlocked within an hour of the game's release?

I guess the playables will get a little bit more attention and specialized events and such, though...

Thats the biscuit. They'll get better voice acting, special units, a better rounded unit roster etc.

But yeah it is pretty much pointless since mods will probably bring every faction up to the same level. It's just the principle of the thing :tongue:.

[knoddy]

look at it on the bright side, now we can stick it to the americans :D

[Sheogorath]

How many of you really, I mean really, deep in the pits of your blackened little hearts, doubted for a moment that the US wasn't going to be on the high-end faction list?

I can understand it, though. It gives CA another 'fun' faction that they can play around a little with and not get yelled at for ZOMG HISTORI. Plus, as mentioned, it appeals to the US market.

[/shrug]

I still fully intend to invade England as the Marathas and force them to grow tea.

[Beskar]

The thing about US though, weren't they already in the game with the whole Road to Independence anyway? There was no need to make it the last one, all it served was dashing the hopes of people wanting a different faction.

Anyway, the mod teams will most likely be adding the other factions.

[Sir Beane]

look at it on the bright side, now we can stick it to the americans :D

There shall be sweet, sweet revenge for the neglected people of Portugal :laugh4:. Not that I wouldn't have beaten the US up anyway. :laugh4:

What I really want to know is if the US will appear on the campaign map at the start, and if they do I want to know what CA were smoking.

[batemonkey]

THe thing is they've done all thw work with voice actors etc for the road to independence, so instead of 11 playble factions they can (with little extra expense) say wow look 12 playable factions

[Rufus]

According to a thread on the totalwar.com forums citing a PM from a CA person, the United States will only be playable in the mini-grand campaign that comprises the 4th chapter of the Road to Independence, running from 1783-1810. It will not be playable in the main grand campaign from 1700-1799.

I wanted to comment about the faction preview:
After the French and Indian Wars, the British government took an entirely unreasonable line: the American colonists should pay taxes to contribute to the navy and army that helped defend them. After all, those colonial fellows enjoyed the benefits of peace, protected by Britain’s expensive soldiers and sailors. The colonists had other views. The British responded with political stupidity and military ineptitude.

The sarcastic part about "an entirely unreasonable line" is such a typically myopic view often seen in British historical texts' commentary on the Revolution. The objection, as any American 8th grader should know, was not to paying taxes at all but having no representation in the Parliament that levied those taxes. The slogan was "no taxation without representation," not "no taxation."

Most American colonists didn't even necessarily want independence at first (except for a few hotheads), just equal rights and representation as the Englishmen they perceived themselves to be. When it became clear the Crown and the majority in Parliament would refuse to grant that representation, second-class citizenship seemed permanent, and any effort to return to some semblence of the self-governance the colonies enjoyed pre-1763 seemed futile without independence, thus moving even conservatives and moderates like John Adams to support independence reluctantly.

Moreover, while I grant the indispensible role of the Royal Army and Navy in protecting colonists from the French and Indians, the view in the faction preview and many British history texts overlooks the key role of colonial militia in the French & Indian War, militia paid for and manned by colonists.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree with the faction preview when it says, "The British responded with political stupidity and military ineptitude," both of which were vital to American victory! :laugh4:

[quadalpha]

One might say, without taking sides, that the 8th grader view is just as myopic (well, it would have to be at least a little simplified for 8th graders). Perhaps we can tentatively say that the problem was that the inadequate British constitutional framework for the governance of colonies, in conjunction with new ideas of "nationhood", allowed differing interpretations of the legal issues, which enabled both simplified interpretations ("pay for navy, etc." and "no tax without representation") to be used as soapboxes.

[Sol Invictus]

"No taxation without representation" was simply a rabble-rousing slogan. The last thing the Colonies wanted was representation in Parliament, since that would have removed the issue as a rallying cry and Parliament would have steamrolled over any Colonial tax objections. The Colonies simply wanted to be left alone to go about their business. The reason the Colonists came to America in the first place was to get away from England because of poverty, religious freedom, and a chance at a fresh start. Some of the same reasons people still want to come to the United States. It remains; to a large degree; the last frontier.

[A Very Super Market]

Explain the loyalists presence in the colonies then? Generally, the population was 1/5 patriots 1/5 loyalists and the rest were ambivalent.

[quadalpha]

Explain the loyalists presence in the colonies then? Generally, the population was 1/5 patriots 1/5 loyalists and the rest were ambivalent.
I'm not quite sure who that was addressed to.

[A Very Super Market]

Sol Invictus. My understanding of his post was that he was claiming the colonies to have been separatist from the beginning.

[quadalpha]

Sol Invictus. My understanding of his post was that he was claiming the colonies to have been separatist from the beginning.
Oh, my understanding of it was that the Americans were acting out of enlightened self interest: to have all the benefits of being "British" in name, to have the freedoms they claimed, and to bear as little of the cost as possible.

[crazyviking03]

Sorry to come back on topic, but I wonder how the U.S. naval tech will work. If you take a historical approach, they shouldn't be able to build 1st and 2nd rates as these were rare in the US navy even in the 19th century. I think it would add "faction flavor" if you will, if they can only make frigates, and thus the only way to obtain a larger vessel of war would be to capture it (but not obtain the tech).

[Mailman653]

The RtI ends in 1810? That makes it longer than the full campaign, weird. Although I suppose thats to compensate the fact that had it been included in the full campaign, the US would only be playable late in the game and only have 20 or so years before the game officially ends.

They could of at least extended it to 1812 to include the first year of the War of 1812:shame:
Although that brings up an interesting question, if you can start at the 4th chapter of the RtI from 1783-1810, then every nation would have their historical situation presented at the time which could in theory leave the door open for Republican France to emgerge during the game and Napoleon. It would be amusing to be allied with England or France during this time and send an army to help out. Only in a video game would you ever see an American army fighting with Napoleon on European soil or fighting alongside the English. :charge:

In regards to the "an entirely unreasonable line" seems like a strech meant to appeal to the popular view many people have about the war. I think it was perfectly logical that a goverment in debt would raise taxes in order to pay that debt.