Empire's Expansion

[Relic]

I was wondering what you guys would like it to be?

Personally I'd like a scenario type thing like in Kingdoms:
The Napoleonic Wars
The American Civil War
The Opium Wars


Relic
:egypt:

[Feanaro]

I'd like to see something like Viking Invasion, expanded the timeline and gameplay. Include a new scenario or two but focus on those. Expand the timeline to the 1850-60's. Expand the map of America sometime in the start of the 1800's. Stuff like that.

[FesterShinetop]

I was wondering what you guys would like it to be?

Personally I'd like a scenario type thing like in Kingdoms:
The Napoleonic Wars
The American Civil War
The Opium Wars


Relic
:egypt:

I agree. I just hope they are going to do something with the American Civil war... :yes:

[Lemur]

I expect I am the only Orgah on Earth rooting for the Opium Wars ...

[Polemists]

I doubt it, alot of Orgahs want to see Asia added and I certainly do as well but I think it'd serve better as a new TW rather then just a small expansion.

[therifleman]

I would like to see Civil War, but the ACW didn't revolve around line combat, Like 18th century warfare did. There was a whole lot of trench fighting, and other forms of cover based combat, which I do not think the current engine is molded for. I'd say a Napoleanic is much more likely just because of the engine. (And it involved the whole of Europe and US (1812)), not just the US.

[Polemists]

As much as I like the idea of just adding areas and extending the time frame 50 years, i'm not sure that'd work quite as well. Espically for people who want to play certain nations who fall in power greatly during the 1700-1800 span. So I think a small focused campaign, with individual theatres as mentioned, similiar to Kingdoms is best.

The engine is mostly made for line fighting and fort battles (even if forts are broken) along with massive naval engagements.

Civil War has alot of naval engagements (i know it surprised me) and Napolean has that big one (With nelson). I don't know if other wars, such as african theatres or asian ones would let the naval engine use itself well.

[Hax]

No American Civil War please. Instead expand the map to include China, the South-East Indies with settlements as well as Japan.

[Bob the Insane]

I'd like to see something like Viking Invasion, expanded the timeline and gameplay. Include a new scenario or two but focus on those. Expand the timeline to the 1850-60's. Expand the map of America sometime in the start of the 1800's. Stuff like that.


Agreed...

In my opinion we could go all the way up to 1900. Other than the intorduction of rail ways there was no real change in how the world worked up to that point. Everything they had was just an evolved version of what you see in ETW.. To make it even more fun they could add africa to to map. The Battle of Isandlwana!! They could also expand the US map west. The new design of theatres allows for this, the individual campign maps do not have ot be bigger, they could simply add more...

The 19th century is packed full of conflict all over the globe...

The potential mod I am looking forward to the most would the age of discovery. Shot and Pike, early artillery, collonization races...

[crazyviking03]

Napoleonic expansion, with a little button that says Click for Preview. Upon clicking, we are givin a 30 second teaser trailor for Shogun 2 Total War

w000000000000000000t :applause::applause:

[Galapagos]

Napoleonic expansion, with a little button that says Click for Preview. Upon clicking, we are givin a 30 second teaser trailor for Shogun 2 Total War

w000000000000000000t :applause::applause:

Hope a TW that doesn't include Europe will not come in the future......

[Lusitani]

I think that the period between 1800-1914 would be the most interesting to cover.It is ,however, huge. The XIX is the century of Napoleon, of liberalism, of the emmergence of many modern nations; like Greece, Italy and Germany among others; its also during this century that most countries turn their attention to Africa, its the century of the 1812 War, the American Civil War, of the Opium Wars and many other conflicts in Africa and the Far East. Also in the beggining of the XX century thereare plenty of conflicts to be covered and specifically the North African Theatre becomes increasingly an arena for Britain, France, Italia, the Otoman Empire, etc...

So, basically this period gives plenty of opportunities for CA to embark upon...and if they regularly add contents to ETW piece by piece I find it quite possible to achieve. As a whole I believe it would become very incomplete.

V.

[ROFLMAO]

It's probably going to be Napolean, or at the very least CA will expand the map, perfect certain features and include a Napolean campaign. An Opium Wars campaign would be awesome, but it lacks market appeal. TBH, how many people actually know what the Opium Wars were? On the other hand, everyone knows Napolean and everyone knows the American Civil War. But still, the combat in the American Civil War is drastically different from the 18th century, and I don't think the Civil War will get the expansion (the ACW will get something, either now or later, though).

But yeah, I think it'll be Napolean. The Napoleanic Wars are more spread out, you can have campaigns in Turkey (Anglo-Russo-Turkish wars), Russia (Napolean's invasion of Russia) and even Haiti during their revolution, that way they don't have to scrap the whole map and start anew.

Personally, I'd enjoy an Eastern European campaign (the Serbs, Ottomans, etc.), a Zulu Kingdom campaign (not only the war with the British though), and a campaign about the South American Wars of Independence.

[Wausser]

I think that the period between 1800-1914 would be the most interesting to cover.It is ,however, huge. The XIX is the century of Napoleon, of liberalism, of the emmergence of many modern nations; like Greece, Italy and Germany among others; its also during this century that most countries turn their attention to Africa, its the century of the 1812 War, the American Civil War, of the Opium Wars and many other conflicts in Africa and the Far East. Also in the beggining of the XX century thereare plenty of conflicts to be covered and specifically the North African Theatre becomes increasingly an arena for Britain, France, Italia, the Otoman Empire, etc...

So, basically this period gives plenty of opportunities for CA to embark upon...and if they regularly add contents to ETW piece by piece I find it quite possible to achieve. As a whole I believe it would become very incomplete.

V.

But wars like the ACW, Crimean war and the Franco-German war are really different then the Napoleonic wars, and not really suitable for the ETW engine

[Skott]

I'm thinking that the Napoleananic War (1799-1815) is the next logical step but we'll see what CA does. I wouldnt be surprised if the modding community does it first and does it better though. It'll depend on how easy this new game engine is to mod.

[NimitsTexan]

Texas War for Independence and Mexican American war would be a great little add-on. [One of] The last true Horse and Musket wars, and the scale of the battles would readily lend themselves to Empire.

[Darth Venom]

But wars like the ACW, Crimean war and the Franco-German war are really different then the Napoleonic wars, and not really suitable for the ETW engine

Agreed, the Total War system of strategic army movements and pitched battles didn't really exist anymore after Waterloo.
Which imho means an Napoleon expansion is the most likely.

[miniwally]

As much as I like the idea of just adding areas and extending the time frame 50 years, i'm not sure that'd work quite as well. Espically for people who want to play certain nations who fall in power greatly during the 1700-1800 span. So I think a small focused campaign, with individual theatres as mentioned, similiar to Kingdoms is best.

The engine is mostly made for line fighting and fort battles (even if forts are broken) along with massive naval engagements.

Civil War has alot of naval engagements (i know it surprised me) and Napolean has that big one (With nelson). I don't know if other wars, such as african theatres or asian ones would let the naval engine use itself well.

you mean the battle of trafalgar?

[Monarch]

Anyone else think it would be kinda a waste to us one of the most well know/important/fascinating periods of warfare on just an expansion pack? (of course I'm refering to the Napoleonic Wars).

I'd rather they save it for a future game. They remade Medieval, a return to the line-style warfare but this time in the Napoleonic era would be cool.

[disamen]

Great Northen wars and Napoleon wars

[NimitsTexan]

The Napoleonic Wars, by themselves, are too short of a time span for a whole TW game. Plus, the end game tech level is pretty much equivalent to Napoleonic tactics. In fact, the last few years of the Grand Campaign could, the first few years of what are generally considered the Napoleonic Wars era, in as much as Napoleon, though not in charge of France as a whole, was have significant success as a field commander.

Certainly, the Napoleonic Wars would work much better as a natural continution of ETW than as their own seperate game.

[Marquis of Roland]

This is not hard. Add another 100 years, add Africa, Asia, and South America. Add some new tech, units, events, etc.

I really want to see Africa, I don't know why, maybe its because I've been fighting too many natives :smash:

[Eusebius86]

The Napoleonic Wars. No questions asked.

[Monarch]

The Napoleonic Wars, by themselves, are too short of a time span for a whole TW game.

Amount of time really doesn't matter. Empire lasts 100 years, Medieval lasted 450. That's a huge difference and yet it's really not too noticable.

[Graphic]

I agree with the OP. Kingdoms style with at least Napoleon and US Civil War, those two are mandatory.

-OR-

An expansion of the main campaign that introduces Africa and/or East Asia.

[NimitsTexan]

Amount of time really doesn't matter. Empire lasts 100 years, Medieval lasted 450. That's a huge difference and yet it's really not too noticable.

According to CA, it does. They have established that the criteria for a Total War game includes it must cover an "epic" period where significant social, techological, and tactical evolution is plausible. Napoleonic wars do not really offer that (for a new game; for an expansion, Napoleonics would be great, and I'd wager CA already something along those lines planned, if not in the works.)

[Warluster]

The ACW as a expansion; probably not going to happen. THe amount of work that would require. They would have to modify al of the weapons, all of the tactics, the map (which wouldn't have enough factions) plus the tactics in the ACW (The second half at least) are more similar to modern warfare then 18th Century massed formations. It would be very hard to simulate Petersburg, or even the three day battle at Gettysburg. The campaign map is much more suited for the ACW now; maybe the next game.

I think we're looking forward. THe 19th Century has so much potential that it deserves its own game. A high chance is going backwards. The religious wars of the 17th Century pose so much content, and the tactics used are very similar to those in E:TW, if not the same. In fact it also deserves its own game, but I can see CA expanding to 1650 or 1600, giving you the chance to colonize the Americas and India, or beat off the invaders.

THe most likely is a theatre expansion. Adding Africa, more of Asia is such a obvious choice they'll probably do it no matter what time frame they choose. Imagine the factions which could be added; a African nation fighting off European invaders, or playing as the Japanese Empire?

[Callahan9119]

Like someone said up there, maybe both of those wars are in too small a timeframe for an expansion campaign. With Napoleon all you would really be doing is changing some start positions and who starts at war with one another.

Personally I hope they take time and make the Expansion another Shogun...

[Julius_Nepos]

Though I'm quite familiar with the Thirty Years War in terms of its geopolitical and religious implications, I'm less familiar with HOW war was fought then, in the early 17th century, versus the 18th. Would that era in warfare terms be too different to be a part of Empire? I tend to agree a small scale Napoleonic expansion to at least 1815 is likely, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'd rather enjoy seeing a map chalk full of little known and transient states, like the Kingdom of Italy, Etruria, the Confederation of the Rhine and the Duchy of Warsaw. And if we want to keep things away from the era of the Wars of Religion, one could still make use of some of the 17th century. Perhaps going back to 1683 and the defeat the Ottoman Empire at Vienna. Just food for thought anyway.

[A Very Super Market]

The Duchy of Warsaw is about the size of any of the one-province factions in ETW. Not much change. Same with the other ones you mentioned.

[GabrielExea]

New theatres! New theatres by FAR. :D

Have South America opened up with stacks (And I mean STACKS) of Aztecs/Incas (Or whoever was around at that point) and loads of wealth to be had. Bring open Asia, China and Japan could be the key features there. Most importantly they should get around to opening up Africa, it's weird that it's there on the European theatre but you can't go down!

Eventually I'd like to see the whole world represented, so we can really sandbox and do what we want.

Mmm.. World Total War.

:D

[Hollerbach]

I'm almost certain the expansion will revolve around Neopolean in some way (or at least if it is M2TW:Kingdom's style, part will feature Neopolean). It just seems the simplest extension of the engine, and has a marketing zing. I think at lot of the suggestions in this thread would be more likely as the next game, rather than expansion, although who knows what that will be.

[Furunculus]

add asia and expand the timeline by 50 years.

[Polemists]

If they ever wanted to build a whole world total war game they certainly have the means and a interesting time period, along with a nice set of factions.

So if they wanted to extend the timetable 50 years and add in other areas I'd be fine with that. Though I did enjoy kingdoms style of cinematic gameplay.

I'm actually thinking it would be far more likely they would add other smaller regions in or even years as part of Downloadable Content rather then a expansion, but that's just me.

[Quillan]

I've been thinking Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, and perhaps a step back in time with the English Civil War.

[Harlequeen]

How about the English Civil War? Or is that too M2:TW?

[A Very Super Market]

Good lord, 5 years and only 5 posts?

No, I don't think the English Civil war would be an acceptable expansion. With Alexander and Rome, you at least have the familiar units, but the 17th and 18th centuries were remarkably different.

[Relic]

Good lord, 5 years and only 5 posts?

No, I don't think the English Civil war would be an acceptable expansion. With Alexander and Rome, you at least have the familiar units, but the 17th and 18th centuries were remarkably different.

5 posts? There's another page y'know. I'm confuddled. :dizzy2:

[Wausser]

He was referring to Harlequeen's postcount

[Rufus]

I agree with those talking about Napoleon and other major conflicts of the first half of the 19th century, but I don't think it should be split into mini-campaigns like Kingdoms. Napoleon's campaigns had transatlantic implications, as did British efforts to impede American trade at that time, leading to the War of 1812. All of these things would be lost if you had a Napoleonic expansion that covered only Europe and the Middle East/North Africa.

Imagine: What if you're Napoleon, and you decide not to sell Louisiana to Jefferson? What if you decide invading Russia isn't such a good idea, but maybe a 2nd try in the Middle East and beyond toward India looks better?

They could even expand the campaign map to include all of South America, more of Africa and Asia. Imagine playing as Spain and trying to retain your South American colonies, or trying to win independence playing as Simon Bolivar.

And then there's the American West. I agree that the Civil War is a bridge too far because warfare had evolved too much by then, but what if we take things out to about 1850 and cover the Mexican War and other real or potential conflicts related to "Manifest Destiny"? The U.S. and U.K. nearly came to blows again over border disputes in that timeframe. I could also see a player as Russia experimenting with a more bold posture expanding into the Pacific Northwest ...

That period would involve innovations like railroads and ironclads, making it different economically if not too much tactically from Empire. Maybe that's a whole new game in itself .. :dizzy2:

Then ... the next full game could cover 1850-1900: Global Total War. The whole world covered in one big map, like EU. The beginnings of modern tactics. They'd have to go even deeper on the political, diplomatic and economic fronts. Major regional conflicts/issues like the American Civil War and the unification of Germany and Italy could be covered through mission-based mini-campaigns like RTI (but hopefully deeper and more accurate than RTI).

[magnum]

I'd say (and with the current engine would like to see) a new campaign from 1800 - 1860 or abouts.

[Daevyll]

Well the smart money is on the Revolution/Napoleonic wars obviously.

The historical-precedent money however is on something with an invasion by a loud, barbaric people.... maybe a US-invades-europe scenario? ;)

[Rufus]

Well the smart money is on the Revolution/Napoleonic wars obviously.

The historical-precedent money however is on something with an invasion by a loud, barbaric people.... maybe a US-invades-europe scenario? ;)

You imply that Napoleon's expansion across Europe wasn't "an invasion by a loud, barbaric people"? ;)

[A Very Super Market]

Well, the French are more quiet and sneering...

[Ordani]

I think that the period between 1800-1914 would be the most interesting to cover.It is ,however, huge. .

I highly doubt we'll ever see anything past the Crimean War with the TW battle model; the 1860s were the bookend to the days of close order drill, cavalry, close-support artillery, and set piece battles. While none of those things ever fell entirely out of the equation, by the mid 19th century:

The defensive infantry doctrines were coming into dominance (even if they weren't fully understood until the carnage of WWI made them impossible to ignore); Cavalry ceased to be a meaningful element of tactics and simply a means of getting infantry around faster; Rifled, precision artillery made the guns both immensely long-ranged and terribly powerful; command decisions were moved ever more steadily towards front-line officers and away from the field staff, changing major battles into a morass of tiny engagements between companies and regiments instead of a grandly architected movement of armies.

Not to say I wouldn't mind seeing them try, but the basic battle model hasn't changed since Shogun.

[massimorocca]

Napoleonic is an obvious path and the engine could go toward the ACW, (infantry fought shoulder to shoulder and in line much more than one could imagine,the attackers always to be honest). But I'll see also a step back to cover the gap from the end of MTW2. You had a lot of very interesting war, with increasing development of weapons and tactics in land and sea warfare. From the pike and arquebuses of the Renaissance (Melegnano, Pavia) to the caracole and leather guns of Gustavus Adolphus (Breitenberg, Lutzen, Nordlingen) the siege masterworks of Duke of Alba or Spinola, the Grand Condè's Cavalry charge at Rocroi, the strategic laces of Turenne, Cromwell against Rupert, Drake and the Invincible Armada, Monck and De Ruyter, Iberville, Doria, Don Juan or Kheirredin.

[Darth Venom]

I highly doubt we'll ever see anything past the Crimean War with the TW battle model; the 1860s were the bookend to the days of close order drill, cavalry, close-support artillery, and set piece battles. While none of those things ever fell entirely out of the equation, by the mid 19th century:
...
Not to say I wouldn't mind seeing them try, but the basic battle model hasn't changed since Shogun.

Couldn't agree more. And since CA probably does now all of that as well, I'd say it's highly unlikely that there will be another TW game covering the decades after ~1860. Which implies that the Napoleonic period can only be done as an expansion (to ETW).

Personally I'd like to see MTW like starting years / different scenarios on the current (or larger map).

[Zoring]

The absolute dream would be to have map area plug ins, to gradually fill the world with the map, Asia, the Pacific and so on, then extend the game into the Napoleonic era, and hopefully extend past that until 1900 (fingers crossed)

Also the 1860+ period could easily be done, just with a much larger emphasis on loose order troops, units of 60 men spread out with single shot bolt actions and the ability to go prone and make even more use of cover would be easily possible and awesomely fun.

Furthermore, towards the end of the period it's entirely possible to have the emphasis shift within the game from cavalry to infantry just like real life, we have technology research and everything and having the game shift in this way would just add more flavour to the game rather then ruining it. Even in the late ETW game i find cavalry easier to destroy with long range riflemen becoming available.

Also i desperatly want to see pickelhaubes in a game :P So we have to go 1842-71 at least!

[antisocialmunky]

1800 - 1900 :-)

I can even see tanks working pretty good in this engine :-)

[PBI]

I guess Napoleonic is the obvious candidate, but the thing is it's hard to see how it would be very different to the Empire GC; it just seems like the GC with a maxed-out tech tree, and a few shifts in territory and government type. I think it would fit in better with Zoring's idea of having multiple plug-ins downloadable from Steam rather than a single £20 expansion; it would simply be a new starting date for the Grand Campaign.

Actually, I think the idea of smaller plug-ins is a good one; there seem to be a lot of possible settings which would be interesting but a bit too focussed or close to the GC to make up a full expansion. There could also be plug-ins to simply extend the GC in area or period.

I think they should probably steer clear of anything pre-1700, simply because my second favourite setting for the next full game (after a Far East setting) would be 1500-1700. Similarly, I still hold out faint hopes that one day we will reach the point where the TW engine can do the period 1860-1920 justice; certainly not in the next game, probably not the one after that, but one day. I'd hate to see them try it too soon and thus mess it up though, so I'd prefer they leave that period untapped for now.

[Meneldil]

I love these topics in which everybody gives his opinion without reading other people's posts, thus quickly creating a loop of
" - Napoleonic War is the obvious choice. The ACW saw significant improvement in the art of warfare and wouldn't translate well with ETW gameplay.
- ACW would be awesome, machinguns, armored steamships and what not! Napoleon is boring.
- I can't see CA going farther than the mid-19th century. Warfare evolved quite a lot by then, and the rank and file battles of ETW mostly disappeared.
- CA should add more territories: all of the Americas (with Maya), Africa (with Ape-riding black fighters of death) and Asia (mongols, samurais, kung-fu monks!) and extend the timeline to at least 1945!!!"

[Relic]

I love these topics in which everybody gives his opinion without reading other people's posts, thus quickly creating a loop of
" - Napoleonic War is the obvious choice. The ACW saw significant improvement in the art of warfare and wouldn't translate well with ETW gameplay.
- ACW would be awesome, machinguns, armored steamships and what not! Napoleon is boring.
- I can't see CA going farther than the mid-19th century. Warfare evolved quite a lot by then, and the rank and file battles of ETW mostly disappeared.
- CA should add more territories: all of the Americas (with Maya), Africa (with Ape-riding black fighters of death) and Asia (mongols, samurais, kung-fu monks!) and extend the timeline to at least 1945!!!"

Ape-riding black fighters of death...
what the heck have you been smoking? :skull:

[seireikhaan]

No American Civil War please. Instead expand the map to include China, the South-East Indies with settlements as well as Japan.
Hax 4 teh win

[Mister V]

To be perfect it has to have the following:
- map extended to include the whole world
- timeline extended to 1899
- tech tree extended to include everything up to the Dreadnought, radio and other major achievements

Then the Grand Campaign would make a perfect TW game, even in its vanilla state. Mods would probably make it godlike.

[Poncho400]

I was thinking it would be cool to do a campaign playing as the Native Americans. They could add a lot more of the tribes and cover the North, Central, and Southern Americas. You could then turn the tide and force the Europeans out of the Americas.

Only problem is the engine may not support native tactics. It's hilarious in ETW to play against natives who are forming lines and riding in formation.:laugh4:

[Callahan9119]

Good lord, 5 years and only 5 posts?

900 in 2 months is more shocking to me :laugh4:

Unless they come packaged with a ton of other mods, they better not just shove a civil war or Napoleon down our throats.

Outside of America, nobody cares to see American civil war included...or many inside like myself. I really cant justify to myself napoleon, for the same reason they didnt make "Rome Total War: Hannibal". The napoleon Empire was very short lived anyway.

Like others I would like to see asia explored....revisit Japan.

[Rufus]

Outside of America, nobody cares to see American civil war included...or many inside like myself. I really cant justify to myself napoleon, for the same reason they didnt make "Rome Total War: Hannibal". The napoleon Empire was very short lived anyway.

Like others I would like to see asia explored....revisit Japan.

FWIW, at the AGEOD forums there are a lot of non-Americans who play their American Civil War game and comment in the forums. They say it holds their interest because of the high stakes involved in preserving the Union and big moral storyline of abolishing slavery, and because it's one of the first major examples of the shift toward "modern" total war.

In the case of the Total War franchise, the U.S. Civil War could work as either part of a larger campaign covering early/mid century or a mission-based mini-campaign like RTI (Objective 1: win enough battles in the first two years to keep Britain and France out. Objective 2: close off all CSA trade with a naval blockade and by taking the Mississippi River ports, etc.). But hopefully they wouldn't start off with Lee's army in Tennessee, as they started RTI Episode 3 with General Howe's army in Maine instead of New York ...

As for Napoleon, it would seem to require an even more in-depth Europe map with shorter turns (1 month), but still including the other theaters because they were still relevant.

[Konig Prasatko]

Agreed...

In my opinion we could go all the way up to 1900. Other than the intorduction of rail ways there was no real change in how the world worked up to that point. Everything they had was just an evolved version of what you see in ETW.. To make it even more fun they could add africa to to map. The Battle of Isandlwana!! They could also expand the US map west. The new design of theatres allows for this, the individual campign maps do not have ot be bigger, they could simply add more...

The 19th century is packed full of conflict all over the globe...

The potential mod I am looking forward to the most would the age of discovery. Shot and Pike, early artillery, collonization races...

This would be ideal, a total world map running up to the year 1900 (Total World War can be the release after that followed by Total World War 2) All we need is periodic changes in units uniforms and equipment which could be handled like the Marian reforms in Rome games etc and an expanded tech/resource tree. That way the game could be much more free flowing and allow for endless scenarios. If CA wanted to supplement this grand endeavour with conflict specific add ons then that would be ok too.

PS hope we never get to the stage of 'SPACE 1999 TOTAL WAR' lol:beam:

[Subotan]

Bartix Total War?

Maybe?

[massimorocca]

Hmm Could I respectfully but absolutely disagree to the idea that the ACW wasn't fought in line formation? Certainly not line on the whole battlefront, (but this is true starting, at last, from the refused wing of Frederik the Great) but "every" single unit from regiment to division fought and fired, or tried it, shoulder to shoulder with colonel, brigadier and above always struggling, and so many times with no result, to have advance exactly in time and tempo with the side units. BTW if you see how the units in the Madminutegames "take Command" series (the best tactical ACW wargame on the market) move and fight you'll see that is identical to ETW!

[antisocialmunky]

It would be nice to introduce East Asia as a theatre and expand the American theatre westward to Alaska as well as extend the grand campaign to 1860+. That would make Empire feel so much more complete. More playable native factions would be great such as China, Japan, some factions in Africa and some in America.

[joe4iz]

- CA should add more territories: all of the Americas (with Maya), Africa (with Ape-riding black fighters of death) and Asia (mongols, samurais, kung-fu monks!) and extend the timeline to at least 1945!!!"

Man, I spit coffee all over my keyboard when I read that!

If they put a pucklegun on top of the ape's back and had him manned by a group of three pygmy gunners, that would be in line with past add-ons. The ape could be armoured like the apes in the Planet of the Apes. :2thumbsup:

[geala]

Or perhaps it could be an ETW with a time machine, so you can visit RTW and M2TW time, see old friends, hear their speeches and kill them afterwards with your muskets.

[joe4iz]

Or perhaps it could be an ETW with a time machine, so you can visit RTW and M2TW time, see old friends, hear their speeches and kill them afterwards with your muskets.

Or the apes could turn on their masters and you would have another faction to emerge.:turtle:

Sorry, I don't mean to be highjacking the thread or anything......

[Relic]

Or the apes could turn on their masters and you would have another faction to emerge.:turtle:

Sorry, I don't mean to be highjacking the thread or anything......

Lol, don't worry. It made me laugh. :laugh4:

[joe4iz]

Glad to ablidge...is that spelled right?

Anyway, I hope for an Opium war expansion. I think they purposely left the Chinese trade routes out just for that purpose.

ACW is kind of overdone, but for them to ignore Napoleon would be like making a WW2 FPS without Nazis. So yeah,I'd like to see something with Napoleon in it also.

[Warluster]

ACW is kind of overdone, but for them to ignore Napoleon would be like making a WW2 FPS without Nazis. So yeah,I'd like to see something with Napoleon in it also.
Easy, make a WWII FPS about the Pacific Theatre :grin3:

I actually don't own the game yet... (:bigcry:) But it seems lots of people are seriously considering ACW and further timelines; can the E:TW engine actually do fast RPM machine guns and fast reload rifles? Can it emulate the defensive warfare of the late 19th century? I can imagine wars like the Boer War would be easy, but what about late ACW, and the Franco Prussian War? So many questions, but I am insanely curious.

[Graphic]

ACW is kind of overdone

How is it overdone? I can't think of an ACW game that isn't one of those really cheap strategy titles that third rate publishers churn out from an assembly line. And I certainly have never played an ACW game before. It needs the CA touch.

[Meneldil]

Honestly, as an European, an expansion focused on the Americas would actually be quite interesting.
What I'm having a problem with is an ACW-focused one. I mean, we have the south, the north, and that's about it, right? You could throw in Canada, just for the sake of it, and yeah, we're done.

Now, an expension covering the history of Texas, the ACW and Southern America's struggle for independance and the war of 1812 would be quite neat.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't see why the American Civil War gameplay would clash with the engine. As it has been said, dismounted cavalry has been written in, Monitor/Merrimac battles and other conventional naval battles would we fun, and artillery was pretty similar. The civil war line combat would be perfect. I don't see the incredible distinction in battle strategy between the middle part of the 18th and the middle part of the 20th century. Successful revolutions during the later 17th century didn't rely too heavily on fighting big field line battles.

Was Rome-Barbarian an easy port?

I want new maps and for the expansion to span from napoleon to the American civil war - maybe to africa. It is key to release more maps and more units for modders to play with.

[antisocialmunky]

It could go like Kingdoms and have lots of little mini-campaigns like the Crimean War(mid-1800s), American Civil War and Indian Wars (late 1800s), but mostly focused on the Napoleonic Wars(early 1800s). Then CA could string the techs together and create a generic 1800 - 1900 Grand Campaign.

[Swoosh So]

Im not really familiar with the wars in this time period so not really bothered as long as the fully functional multiplayer campaigns in before the expansion im happy, and if not id like to see the mp campaign as an expansion. Really hope ca stick to their promises on this one and deliver.

[Maleficus]

I definitely think a Kingdoms-style expansion is the way to go. As for which wars to include, I think it should be:


7 Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_years_war)

Peninsular War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_war)

Great Northern War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War)

English Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War)




I honestly think the American Civil War would be absolutely awful. I mean, there's only two factions, the weapons are far too advanced for Total War to still be Total War, and it's just not as interesting as you probably think.




Besides which, they'd struggle to convince Kevin Costner to do a voiceover for it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I honestly think the American Civil War would be absolutely awful. I mean, there's only two factions, the weapons are far too advanced for Total War to still be Total War, and it's just not as interesting as you probably think.



I don't know why people keep saying that the style of warfare had so radically changed since the turn of the century. I don't understand why weapons had become "sooo" advanced.

Can we use examples? Rifling became popular during the civil war, but troops still predominantly used smoothbore muskets. Additionally, rifling was around way before the revolution.

If you are talking about the gattling gun, it only saw limited use during the ACW. Line combat was still predominant.

We are talking out of our hats if we think that the Civil war was lightyears ahead of 18th century warfare.




PS - we could have numerous factions and countless units. This would be a unit heavy expansion. Mexico was around, various native tribes were still vibrant, Canada was irritating at that time, the UK was fence sitting - waiting to throw its hat into the ring, The Spanish were still in the Americas, France was still in the Americas, etc. Sounds like a similar expansion to viking invasion with endlessly varied units. Uniforms were at their peak at this time.


Napoleon to the American Civil war would be a beautiful expansion with huge potential. polar opposite campaign maps.

[crazyviking03]

I don't know why people keep saying that the style of warfare had so radically changed since the turn of the century. I don't understand why weapons had become "sooo" advanced.

Can we use examples? Rifling became popular during the civil war, but troops still predominantly used smoothbore muskets. Additionally, rifling was around way before the revolution.

If you are talking about the gattling gun, it only saw limited use during the ACW. Line combat was still predominant.

We are talking out of our hats if we think that the Civil war was lightyears ahead of 18th century warfare.


I think what most people are talking about is not the core concept of linear warfare but the changes around them. An ACW expansion would have to include trains, telegraphs, semi automatic weapons (pistols and carbines, yes I know they still had to thumb the hammer at this time, but still), plus battlefield balance would also be changed since cavalry by this time was only useful for skirmishing and raiding and no longer really had any place on the main battlefield. You would also have to make rivers large enough to facilitate naval combat, and the engine would need EXTREME makeover to facilitate the kind of intrenchments and defensive works used in this war.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see an ACW total war game, but it would have to be a new title or a HEAVILY modded ETW.

[NimitsTexan]

They mean that:

(a) ACW saw widespread use of rifles, to the almost complete exclusion of smoothbores by 1863-1864, expanding the range of combat and ensuring fire, rather than melee (mainstay of TW), decided almost all combats.

(b) Cavalry (specifically, heavy cavalry, lancers, and the like) saw minimal use on the battlefield, instead being relegated to heavy infantry status, and removing one of the arms of the combined arms triad in use to that date

(c) That, give the two points above, Civil War combat is somehow less "exciting" than Horse and Musket period engagements. Personally, I disagree, as I find fire an maneuver by infantry heavy units just as exciting and dislike melee combat, but that is me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

They mean that:

(a) ACW saw widespread use of rifles, to the almost complete exclusion of smoothbores by 1863-1864, expanding the range of combat and ensuring fire, rather than melee (mainstay of TW), decided almost all combats.

(b) Cavalry (specifically, heavy cavalry, lancers, and the like) saw minimal use on the battlefield, instead being relegated to heavy infantry status, and removing one of the arms of the combined arms triad in use to that date

(c) That, give the two points above, Civil War combat is somehow less "exciting" than Horse and Musket period engagements. Personally, I disagree, as I find fire an maneuver by infantry heavy units just as exciting and dislike melee combat, but that is me.



I think that Napoleonic/American Civil War would be a great 19th century evolutionary title. If you are worried about the expansion being too similar to the full title, this will cure what ales you.

Accuracy of rounds isn't more than a change in a few coded numbers, right? Muskets looked like muskets - total war hasn't become so advanced that we can look down the barrel just yet.

Carbines/Repeaters would add a new element of gameplay. I think that the advance in the Use of Cavalry would be awesome, and since dismountable are already in game, again the switch would be easy.

Some units would be a late unlock - like gattling guns, bolt actions, Ironclads, rudimentary subs would be funny, All black regiments, etc. So much to do, so many external factions that could have gotten involved in the American war, or were involved for the most part.

We'll see, but unless they plan on doing a Civil War Total war, (which I think would be a waste of a title and wouldn't fit in to the series), now is their opportunity. Napoleon, Nelson, Wellesly, Pitt, Lee, Grant, Jackson, Sherman, Meade, Longstreet, Lincoln, etc. There is enough variance in heroes.

[antisocialmunky]

You know, there's also the German and Italian Wars of unification. If they were going to make a WWI Total War game, it would be a good way to segway into it.

[Warhammer3025]

I rather wished for ETW they covered the end period of M2:TW up to height of the pike and musket era say about 1650-1700 ish. My favorite units and time period for M2 were always at the end of the tech tree so i'd spend hundreds of turns babying the AI (IE not kill them and drop off HUGE monetary gifts) so that they'd tech up and i get to rip em apart with my new shiny toys.

Then for E2:TW they could go to the era we have now, it woulda been a relatively streamless transition, but i guess they wanted to shake things up more to draw in more fans.

[antisocialmunky]

A 1500-1800 game would ahve been pretty fun but take a long time. I think they tried to incorporate some parts of late medieval with pike units and stuff.

[janjacobsv]

My vote is on opium wars, Opium as tradegood nice for some diplomatic repercussions and wrecking other countries economies by addicting their population with contraband!
oh and then afganistan will finally be a usefull province to obtain...

[Durandal]

The Napoleonic Wars have everything to make the perfect expansion, with 3 month turns at least.

[Chimpyang]

The ACW could work, but it is VERY different to the Napoleonic style...sure...lots of things were similar, but rifles were a lot more commonplace than found in Napoleonic times. There were more casualties than found pre Napoleon. The concepts of mass production also made it more likely that a state could give this weaponary to its soldiers.

The best option would be to have a Napoleonic era campaign with many scenario battles from the era....there are lots and lots of potenital for people to play out the historical battles from the time and across the theaters. The main change from the era ETW has captured now is that the fact that lives were more expendable than before. The pre Napoleonic strategy was more like a game of chess, where states could not afford to lose an army - something that ETW hasn't portrayed well IMO. Thus tactics mostly circulated round strategic maneouvering around each other with very well drilled infantry.

Then the revolutionary govt in france changed all of that, they didn't have time to train everyone to the brutal standards of the old monarchy army, so they use their huge numbers - the battles of the new republic were won by numbers smashing through a line - they didn't even give proper muskets to many of the soldiers - instead gonig back to cleavers etc... One battle against Prussia ended up with Prussian soldiers shooting a lot of enemy, but having to retreat due to weight of numbers. Napoleon carried on in this manner, with perfection of artillery tactics and strategic manouevering - check the almost non battle of Ulm and also his campagin against the prussians. You can make the natural progression to this by linknig the end of empires to the new era - maybe a new starting date? A differenyt tech tree for republics would be better as well, a reflection of a newborn state that has rejected the institutions of the old one and has to struggle to set up its own would be very nice to play. However, I would like to see more management of provinces and towns, more issues of crowd control and a richers micromanagement than what we have currently, in which the factors for me are diluted down too much to accruately represent the struggles of states to keep their monopoly of power.

The ACW tried to use Napoleonic tactics, but with huge losses due to the improved weaponary...to an extent, Europe had moved on, but the commanders who had been trained at West Point had mostly been taught to idolise Napolic style tactics, which when given the new weapons systems - broke down catastrophically.

The ACW would also require CA to master cavalry only battles, something that I believe it has never managed to do. The western battlegrounds were more cavalry only based affairs, with raids and counterfoil efforts showing the vastness of the battlegrounds whereas Inf were able to move the shorter distances between the more populous east coast more easily. The Appalachian battleground was also important Cav only areas, where many battles were more cavalry skirmishes for local control.

[MikeV]

I was wondering what you guys would like it to be?

Personally I'd like a scenario type thing like in Kingdoms:
The Napoleonic Wars
The American Civil War
The Opium Wars


Relic
:egypt:
Well, chronologically, they're up to the early Industrial era. So, the Napoleonic period seems logical, followed by American Civil War. Both are hugely popular with military history buffs. :rtwyes:

But, given the overall downward trend in their software quality, maybe a wiser choice would be for them to just take the $$$ and retire. :laugh4:

[MikeV]

But wars like the ACW, Crimean war and the Franco-German war are really different then the Napoleonic wars, and not really suitable for the ETW engine
Looks like Empire:Total War isn't really suitable for this engine! :laugh4:

[Graphic]

So, the Napoleonic period seems logical, followed by American Civil War. Both are hugely popular with military history buffs. :rtwyes:

Damn skippy. Technical issues aside, Napoleon and the ACW are both just too damn epic to not do.

War & Peace, Gods & Generals, The Killer Angels, etc. It makes me tingly inside. They're both close enough to what the Empire engine does that it'd just be a real shame if they weren't in an expansion.

[crazyviking03]

I honestly wonder if they arnt going to forgo an expansion, and just flood us with downloadable content?

I still would love an attempt at an ACW expansion, it could be a very emotional piece.

[Gerle]

I don't see the incredible distinction in battle strategy between the middle part of the 18th and the middle part of the 20th century.

Besides the airplanes, tanks and nuclear weapons I don't really either. :clown: Sorry, couldn't resist!

[antisocialmunky]

Zepplins and Observation balloons would be pretty easy to mod in. Someone modded in Nazgul and Bradley IFVs into RTW. Not sure how fixed winged aircraft would work though... we could just replace rakes with them and make them only strategic pieces. Instead of coaching houses, you build airstrips and each has an 'air wing' that you can move around, engage other similar pieces and do raids on cities.

[Graphic]

Besides the airplanes, tanks and nuclear weapons I don't really either. :clown: Sorry, couldn't resist!

Yeah that was a weird comment. I mean even just from WW1 > WW2 was completely different.

[antisocialmunky]

It would have been really interesting if someone had nuclear weapons during the Napoleonic Wars.

[Tully Bascombe]

Don't forget, they still haven't done the "Musket and Pike" era - 1500 to 1700. I think they should release a mod for that era. During that era European armies began to adopt various tactical formations, some of which really aren't found in earlier or later times.

I'd like to see them do a "Victoria" mod, to span from 1830 to 1914. It would require adding at least the Far East and Africa, not to mention new units, technologies and rules to cover the political volatility of the era. Heck, they could even do "Unification of Germany", "Unification of Italy" and "Race for Africa".

[Meneldil]

Then the revolutionary govt in france changed all of that, they didn't have time to train everyone to the brutal standards of the old monarchy army, so they use their huge numbers - the battles of the new republic were won by numbers smashing through a line - they didn't even give proper muskets to many of the soldiers - instead gonig back to cleavers etc... One battle against Prussia ended up with Prussian soldiers shooting a lot of enemy, but having to retreat due to weight of numbers.

Actually, not really. The French Republic outnumbered its opponent only on a global level (having around 15 standing armies in 1794). Most battles of the revolutionary era were in fact fought with even numbers on both side (most of the time, between 20.000 and 40.000 men). The French armies even won when outnumbered on several occasions, and as far as I know, men were decently equiped, even though they obviously didn't have the training of Prussian or British professional soldiers.
And casualties weren't that huge either (on average, between 5% and 10% of the men).

In short, the revolutionary campaigns did not oppose disciplined armies and a bunch of untrained and poorly equiped peasants used as canonfodder.

Knowing that the game was originally planed to go as far as 1830, I seriously can't see how they wouldn't make a Napoleonic era extansion. I'd go as far as saying they changed the end date just to be able to have new content entirely based on it.

[Chimpyang]

I know wiki isn't a great place to link to but in the absence of having my history notes with me at uni. it will have to do for now. the notable battles it's listed from the revolutionary era:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jemappes - twice as many deployed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wattignies_(1793) - twice as many men deployed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hondshoote_(1793) - vastly outnumbered the enemy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fleurus_(1794) - around 30k more men than the enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Loano - fewer men, French won via superior tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caldiero_(1796) - roughly equal, France lost.

The trend is that later on, when the fighting was less for survival, the French adopted better infantry drills, without hte pressing need of defence of the new republic. But the early battles of the republic were the essense of shock and awe. Once the economy had restarted, with a garden form of mass production in place, they were able to mass produce the weapons needed to supply the army.


I never said that the Napoleonic wars incurred high casualties as a matter of course. I mentioned that the ACW had horrific casualty numbers due to better weaponary but outdated strategy and tactics.

[antisocialmunky]

Don't forget about the crappy leadership on the Union side. :)

[Furunculus]

If they put a pucklegun on top of the ape's back and had him manned by a group of three pygmy gunners, that would be in line with past add-ons. The ape could be armoured like the apes in the Planet of the Apes. :2thumbsup:

roflmao

i am still big on the idea of adding Asia/Australasia , more trade zones, and increasing the time period to 1850.

i am really not fussed by the idea of lots of mini-campaigns, total war is all about the sandbox to me.

[ratbarf]

Or even better, use Australia to lower the unrest in a population. Send some of the bastards to the prison colony and all of a suddent the rest will seem quite amiable. Though this could also be used to represent colonialism. So to raise the disposition of the local populace transplant some ofyour citizens to south africa or Mozambique, the like.

Personally I thing a race for africa would be the best or possibly just Colonial Total War. The 19th century is my favorite one for British History, with a Dark Ages britain comign in a very close second. But we shall see. Personally I would love to see a True Viking Invasion II instead of the mod.

As to the Napoleanic expansion, I could see this being panned out like the Alexander expansion with the possible inclusion of a storyline for Wellington as well that at Waterloo lets you decide who you want to control.

[lugh]

I'd rather see an expansion of the current game and map rather than a series of new maps etc. So yes, Africa, East Asia, N + S America, but as part of a contiguous campaign rather than seperate mini-campaigns.

[Relic]

After seeing the film Glory, I'd love to recreate the Battle of Ft. Wagner, with a happier ending of course.

[JRCDave]

My Guess. Napoleonic Wars until 1825 or 1830. Starting a new campaign from 1789 to 1825-30 with turns a quarter of a year. I would like the turns now to be a quarter of a year. It should not take a fleet of ships 2 years to cross the Atlantic. Increase build and tech time to keep the same feel of game play but more opportunity to battle or grow. I would like a GC for the Napoleonic years. The ACW would be nice but rifled muskets or repeaters would wreck havoc on current battlefields. Nice against natives though. Imagine setting up line troops with rifled muskets or dragoons with Spencers behind some entrenchments and volley firing at 500 yards. It would be great!

[PseRamesses]

First off, the different trade maps could easily include provinces and factions in a future expansion. I do hope they decide to open up a new map with China and Japan, drooool! American civil war scenario and Napoleon campaign, like Road to Independence, would be really cool.