View Full Version : Muskets ruined MI/WE? What say you of canons?
Dionysus9
05-04-2002, 03:46
I am a little bit worried about the new firepower that will be available in M:TW--mainly Canons. I'm not sure if the M:TW folks are taking the whole game-balance issue very seriously.
What made STW great was its focus on realistic battlefield tactics. But, of course, there were balance problems from the beginning(need we remember the monk rush?). The balance problems were only shifted in MI/WE.
It seems a little foolish to magnify the problems that exist with MI/WE by now introducing even more powerful ranged units.
No doubt we will hear from the "realists" who say "but cannons changed the face of warfare"...yeah...cannons took the fun out of it.
It used to be that a good warrior could face off against a half dozen green soldiers and cut them to shreds (absent a stray arrow of course). Today an quadraplegic can fire 'n forget a tomahawk missile and take out an entire C&C complex...(no offense to quadroplegics).
Is that the type of battlefield tactics that we want to explore as wargamers? Of course not.
So the designers will try to mitigate the "area of effect" of cannons, they will restrict the effective range to a good distance so cavalry can charge under the cannon fire, and then you have to defend your canons from the cavalry so again "tactics" return.
And all the while the shells are falling...
... and not a katana or a wakizashi to be found.
I just dont know about this M:TW thing.
I like to think of myself as a realist as it comes to these things - and because of this I am not too worried about their effect on the batlefield in this period of history, as to seiges - they come into their own, but in pitched battle they were tactically immovable in this period of history, so they had better be well placed or they'll be useless, at least this is how I hope they will be modelled, much after the Dark Omen system - and no-one complained that artillery unbalanced the game there...
I hope, for the sake of history, that cannons are expensive toys extremely usefull in seiges but of limited use unless deployed well on the battlefield.
Krasturak
05-04-2002, 07:46
Gah!
Cannons are not needed when your army has guns!
Guns are all you need!
Gah!
Of Course there should be cannons!
As I understand there will be different eras, which you can play. So if you like cannons, play 1400, if you don't go to 1250,
dead easy m8
As for saying that firearms take the fun out of war... bull. Cannon duels are not boring, however I would like to see them having 1000+1 tricks to operate, because guns in MI are represented unrealistically, I guess they wanted to enhance gameplay. Every musket should be able to get at least 1 kill on YC charge on ironing board. If that means killing off an entire unit, so be it.
Artillery can be used very efficiently, or it can become a burden for a weak commander.
""It used to be that a good warrior could face off against a half dozen green soldiers and cut them to shreds"" hm... your definition of a good warrior is a bit outdated. Real outdated in fact.
I do not see glamour in medival history, especially, the violent part of it, not european, nor japaneese. There was enough glory to go around but on the other hand, a kensaj taking out twenty peasants, or green soldiers, is lame. Is that the kind of tactics we want to explore? Yes if you are playing a beat-'em-up, Golden Axe 3 or something
Real glory in war can only come in the situations where there is a risk of defeat, or even death. Going in the kindergarden and taking on a bunch of 10 year olds isn't glamourous, doesn't matter that you even haven't got a weapon! "Fun" in war is measured by the risks you take. What fun possibly you can take out of that by giving everyone a handgun, well - a shotgun for me http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif? Makes things more challenging.
If you are firing a tomahawk missile from a command post than you can as easily expect another missile, (or a suicide bomber) come your way. Of course someone will always be the strongest, but everyone on the history of our planet has always been vunerable.
Game should be realistic. Eras must be carefully divided in terms of history, I have a few ideas of my own but I believe developers have looked into it deep enough and will come up with something sensitive.
As for cannons - the only problem that they can bring is ahistorical representaion - e.g. game could be ruined if:
- cannons are available at low cost
- guns are bought for the same currency as cold steel
- supply of cannons is unlimited, provided you have enough money (campaign)
- cannons do not have a 100+1 upgrade and 1000+1 trick to use them, so on the battlefield they are relatively identical
-and that's just the beginning of it.
But plz don't give others that "conservative" whining: - mummy, tell other kids to play lego, I am no good at video games!
If you feel like rewriting history - go ahead but be ready to be treated as somewhat deluded.
Regards, Ryurik
where canons even used in the middle ages?
Guns were not!
Dark Phoenix
05-04-2002, 18:03
There were guns in this period. It is over 400 years and includes the same period as STW where they got guns from Europeans.
On cannons wont it take a bit to load and fire them especially the early versions?
------------------
"DP is correct" - Shiro
-----------------------
We may have years, we may have hours,
but sooner or later, we push up flowers
Hirosito
05-04-2002, 20:00
Quote cannons do not have a 100+1 upgrade and 1000+1 trick to use them[/QUOTE]
sorry i don't get thiis what doesn this mean DOM
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
What I mean, Hirosito, is that not until wwI were the guns uniform and easy to predict.
In practice, each gun, no, each shot, was almost unique, especially in the early days of gunpower, so I would like to have the opportunity to customise each weapon individually. There were not that many in those armies, so the basic features that I'd like to see is the ability to buy as an upgrade:
- number of men servicing a siege weapon
(reload times, construction time, if needed, speed of movement etc)
- quality of ammunition. I'd like to be able to upgrade not only the quality but the type of ammunition. You'd probably be surprised to find what sort of stuff you can fire from a cannon (or catapult)!
- ammount of ammunition. Very important, as it costs money. Very nicely reflected in the game Cossacks, where you have to pay for each shot in gold and iron.
- gunpowder mixes. All cost money and very muc influence range, quantity you need to carry and last but not the least, cleaning times,(read reloading).
That's only the obvious ones but I am sure there are hundreds of ways of looking after the cannons and they could be simplified in, say 15 - 20 different upgrades, with 7-8 levels in each. I am sure its not hard for the programming and the ammount of time needed to look after cannons is justified, because this is the way it was back then.
As to the tricks these might include the range and accuracy denending on the "flattness" of the ground, maybe even what sort of ground it is, although that we will not see, yet. Then you might introduce manula aiming and ammo selection, as well as the ammount of powder, etc. Mind you cannons needed good looking after or they blew to bits, taking a lot of soldiers with them.
I am hoping to see gunpowder era very carefully planned and the unit structures reviewed, as I think that arquebusiers and musketeers are "freak" units in the game.
Archers are close to that category too, although it is more undrestandable.
I see 2 main weaknesses of having guns in MI.
1. Long Range. Musks should be allowed to fire at much higer range, provided they got their target in sights. Effectiveness should vary from 0-3% at long distances to 60-95% on that final volley when the Yari Cavs are closing in.
2. Close Combat. For some reason, loaded musks with cavs just 3 second away from hitting them, will not stand to fire, they'd rather WALK back hoping Cavs would change their mind and naturally get slaughtered.
I think this issue has been adresses, as on the screenshots units do not line up in square formations like in MI and are rather loose/realistic. Hopefully, game will have a proper balance.
Regards, Ryurik
Quote Originally posted by Dark Phoenix:
There were guns in this period. It is over 400 years and includes the same period as STW where they got guns from Europeans.
On cannons wont it take a bit to load and fire them especially the early versions?
[/QUOTE]
whoa,now i get it!!! but holy cow....what year will you be able to build cannons cause in....1230 or whatever(cant remember )the mongols only had,thunder bombers which killed most of thier own army than the enemy,thunder bombers compared to cannons are nothing!!
Quote in....1230 or whatever(cant remember )the mongols only had,thunder bombers which killed most of thier own army than the enemy,thunder bombers compared to cannons are nothing!!
[/B][/QUOTE]
was it really like that? I can imagine some casualties, but sure they must have been successful in some way... I doubt however they would stay in the mongol army if the enemy/frienly kill ratio was like that.
Regards, Ryurik.
Hirosito
05-05-2002, 18:05
yeah OK i see what you mean DOM although it won't feature in this incarnation i am sure.
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Quote Originally posted by Hirosito:
yeah OK i see what you mean DOM although it won't feature in this incarnation i am sure.
[/QUOTE]
*sigh*
Sir Kuma of The Org
05-05-2002, 19:54
It all depends of the cost, the reload time, accuracy and the number of shots.
For example, the thunderbombers reload time was awfully long, could only fire three shots and the accuracy...well, let's say they were the 3 stooges of WE.
By playing around with the thunderbombers stats, i did transformed them into cannons for fun, the key for me seemed to be the reload time. They we're easily overun by cav and useless once full melee has begun. To be effective, i also needed a good number of them, 2 or 3 were not worth the price.
------------------
Ils sont grands seulement parce que nous sommes à genoux. Alors levons-nous debout!!!
[This message has been edited by Sir Kuma of The Org (edited 05-05-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Dom:
I see 2 main weaknesses of having guns in MI.
1. Long Range. Musks should be allowed to fire at much higer range, provided they got their target in sights. Effectiveness should vary from 0-3% at long distances to 60-95% on that final volley when the Yari Cavs are closing in.
2. Close Combat. For some reason, loaded musks with cavs just 3 second away from hitting them, will not stand to fire, they'd rather WALK back hoping Cavs would change their mind and naturally get slaughtered.
I think this issue has been adresses, as on the screenshots units do not line up in square formations like in MI and are rather loose/realistic. Hopefully, game will have a proper balance.
Regards, Ryurik[/QUOTE]
I suppose by those, you mean the firepowers in STW are not as powerful as you want? Doesn't that contradict with you point of accurately portraying history? As muskets were not really that effective back then.
And as for the second "issue" you are talking about, maybe there is a cure for that, it's just a basic command from the game manual really.
------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://members.fortunecity.com/argus1000eyes/fighter.gif
Quote Originally posted by Gothmog:
I suppose by those, you mean the firepowers in STW are not as powerful as you want? Doesn't that contradict with you point of accurately portraying history? As muskets were not really that effective back then.
And as for the second "issue" you are talking about, maybe there is a cure for that, it's just a basic command from the game manual really.
[/QUOTE]
ok I guess reading the manual does help. Stand ground seems to do the trick. tnx
but on the first point it is not what I meant. I do not want to see guns more powerful. I want to see the firing range more flexible. Arrow firing range is as far as an arrow can fly. Why not make the same for the bullet? Let it be useless but when you fire at front row of guns, you seem to get some spears behind them, so why not be able to target those straight away but with less accuracy? As to effectiveness - let the history book determine this, I don't mind how powerful they are.
If you want to close in before shooting then don't let your troops fire before you feel like it.
Kraellin
05-06-2002, 11:03
while helping with the 1.02 patch, i did a little playing around with guns. i also did a little playing around with scales. when i figured i had the proper scale of the terrain, i did a little research on musket ranges and other musket properties. most folks prolly wouldnt like what i found, at least not if put in the game. muskets had a MUCH longer range than what is allowed in the game, and i'm not talking absolute maximum range, i'm talking killing range. true, they werent very accurate, but the range was much longer than what is allowed in the game currently. if you doubled the current range, you'd be close. we rejected using these guns for a number of reasons and tweaked them in other ways instead.
i suspect canons are going to be hotly debated also. but like others have already said, the game is in periods. frankly, i'd hate to see 50 different canons used and each with a possible varying loadout. it just gets too complex for game play. fixed canons, mobile, french, dutch, english, this forge, that forge, ball, shot, junk, ....too much. keep it simple. i wouldnt mind seeing maybe one or two, though. earliest canon were actually more like mortars. that's fine. hard to move. easy to break and pretty much were used only to bust up walls.
remember, this game is only going up to about 1400. that's pre-shogun, not post. canons are prolly still pretty primitive. it's not going to have civil war type canon. thus, my suspicion is these are only going to be fancy siege engines and not anti-troop weapons. call them long range thunder bombers with a bigger smashing effect and i think you'd be close to the mark.
K.
------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.
Quote Originally posted by Dom:
Of Course there should be cannons!
As I understand there will be different eras, which you can play. So if you like cannons, play 1400, if you don't go to 1250,
dead easy m8
As for saying that firearms take the fun out of war... bull. Cannon duels are not boring, however I would like to see them having 1000+1 tricks to operate, because guns in MI are represented unrealistically, I guess they wanted to enhance gameplay. Every musket should be able to get at least 1 kill on YC charge on ironing board. If that means killing off an entire unit, so be it.
[/QUOTE]
I agreed with a lot of what Dom had to say...especially his first paragraph.
However, I disagree that "Every musket should be able to get at least 1 kill on YC charge on ironing board.". Why is that? For each musket to kill one cavalry would require that :
1. There be no misfires
2. Every shot hits
3. Every shot is a lethal one
and most importantly
4. That every one of your musketeers targets a different person. This alone is absurd. Most likely you would have many people targetting the same person. If there are just two of you and two of them, you can easily say I'll take the one on the left...but how do you do that with 60-100 men? You don't.
Also, the degree of 'aiming' that went on is also debatable. From my understanding, some musket drills did not include aiming at a particular person at all, but firing straight into the enemy unit.
Anyway, just my 2 pence.
Jaguara
Well, Jaguara, those are fine points that you made, but that is half the story.
Lets take a 60 men unit 3 men deep, 20 men in a rank. Guns are pre-loaded. YC is coming in, say, 5 men deep. First volley at long range will claim up to 4 men, second volley 5, third volley 6. By now first line and then second line would have reloaded and Cavalry spread out with at least 10 men in front due to the terrain hassards, dead horses etc. So next 2 volleys take care of the at least 18 men so you have by now 28 YC left against 60 muskets.... hmm, I guess this does prove me wrong but it is not even close to the game. Oh well http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I quit playing comps and bring guns in game very rarely but when I do they are most likely 9h 3w 3a ones.
Just wondering... did musketeers have sidearms? If they did YC would be toast for sure.
Regards, Ryurik
the Count of Flanders
05-07-2002, 00:13
Actually muskets were terrible at aiming way up to the 19th century. With a 15th century musket you'd be lucky to hit an elephant at 30 yards. I for one would consider myself lucky if the damn thing wouldn't blow up in my face. So I doubt firearms will have a significant role besides sieges.
Exactly. You would be surprised to find the INACCURACY of even modern firearms.
------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://members.fortunecity.com/argus1000eyes/fighter.gif
Papewaio
05-07-2002, 06:00
Quote Originally posted by Dom:
Well, Jaguara, those are fine points that you made, but that is half the story.
Lets take a 60 men unit 3 men deep, 20 men in a rank. Guns are pre-loaded. YC is coming in, say, 5 men deep. First volley at long range will claim up to 4 men, second volley 5, third volley 6. By now first line and then second line would have reloaded and Cavalry spread out with at least 10 men in front due to the terrain hassards, dead horses etc. So next 2 volleys take care of the at least 18 men so you have by now 28 YC left against 60 muskets.... hmm, I guess this does prove me wrong but it is not even close to the game. Oh well http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I quit playing comps and bring guns in game very rarely but when I do they are most likely 9h 3w 3a ones.
Just wondering... did musketeers have sidearms? If they did YC would be toast for sure.
Regards, Ryurik[/QUOTE]
These are not The musketeers (musketeers being the elite bodyguard of the French King) or even muskets more like arqs.
So the rate of fire is probably too high.
Nor is the misfires modeled.
But the biggest problem I have is not the effectiveness. It is the sheer numbers of them.
Even Oda in his battles did not have more then about one in sixth of his forces as guns in the Nagashino battle. In fact it may have been closer to 8% at most. So in an army of 16 units only 1 or 2 should be guns, 3 max! Just to make it more historical.
Its not just about how effective they were, it was about how many could be supplied compared with other troops. Really muskets because of their rarity should take a year to build in SP, and should cost exponentially more for each unit above 2 in MP.
Quote Originally posted by Papewaio:
These are not The musketeers (musketeers being the elite bodyguard of the French King) or even muskets more like arqs.
So the rate of fire is probably too high.
Nor is the misfires modeled.
But the biggest problem I have is not the effectiveness. It is the sheer numbers of them.
Even Oda in his battles did not have more then about one in sixth of his forces as guns in the Nagashino battle. In fact it may have been closer to 8% at most. So in an army of 16 units only 1 or 2 should be guns, 3 max! Just to make it more historical.
Its not just about how effective they were, it was about how many could be supplied compared with other troops. Really muskets because of their rarity should take a year to build in SP, and should cost exponentially more for each unit above 2 in MP.[/QUOTE]
Alas, but they WERE cheap to make and field. So doing what you say would not be historical either...
Pachinko
05-07-2002, 22:36
BTW....this is from the book "Medievel Siege Warfare" Its from a Osprey publisher.
The words "gun" and "gunner" may derive from the mangon served by its "gynour". The earliest reference to a gun is in a Florentine ordinance of 1326.
This is cool too... I think anyway http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif...the name from "bombard" ("bombos"- a loud hum) is not seen until the mid 14th century.
Mortars appereared toward the end of the 14th century.
It has often been said the gunpowder sounded the death knell for the castle, but this is only partly true... Cannon had been used effectively from an early period; they were used with trebuchets to capture.
Its says too (the book http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif) the cannons are only the siege..Not the battlefield.
there it is........
P.
Hirosito
05-08-2002, 00:01
yeah sure at that time they were only used against castles. people didn't just lug huge siege weaponry around although it seems that's how it's going to be in MTW
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
I can't wait to field my army of doom...
16 bombards camped on a hill...muahhahahaha!
I certainly hope that Hiro's cynisism is misplaced and that siege weapons will not be effective against other units (except perhaps other siege weapons)
Really, what is a trebuchet or bombard going to do against charging cavalry?
Jaguara
Pachinko
05-08-2002, 04:33
Quote Really, what is a trebuchet or bombard going to do against charging cavalry?[/QUOTE]
I bet you the calvary will kill all of em'...easy I think! So I think I'll need the spears will guarding them.
Hmmm...I wonder..
P.
Papewaio
05-08-2002, 04:33
Quote Originally posted by Jaguara:
I can't wait to field my army of doom...
16 bombards camped on a hill...muahhahahaha!
I certainly hope that Hiro's cynisism is misplaced and that siege weapons will not be effective against other units (except perhaps other siege weapons)
Really, what is a trebuchet or bombard going to do against charging cavalry?
Jaguara
[/QUOTE]
'Sire, 12 mounted Knights attacking our emplaced bombards!'
'Well my scarlet surcoat will hide any tiny wound stains from these pests. What can little more then a dozen men do to us?'
'Sire, thats 12 units of Knights!'
'Well my Chestnut stead should hide that stain as well.'
Dionysus9
05-08-2002, 04:34
"Fire at the ground 150 yards in front of those Cav, boys!"
Papewaio
05-08-2002, 05:36
Quote Originally posted by Dionysus9:
"Fire at the ground 150 yards in front of those Cav, boys!"
[/QUOTE]
These are bombards not WWII artillery which used one of the first computers to compute tables of angles and ranges or even Napolean cannons.
The early bombards where not much better then catapults. Not a weapon to be used on the battlefield but in seiges.
So...
'Sire, they are 150 yards in front of us'
------------------
Victory First, Battle Last
the Count of Flanders
05-08-2002, 13:36
Quote Originally posted by Dionysus9:
"Fire at the ground 150 yards in front of those Cav, boys!"
[/QUOTE]
'Yes sir, now if they would only stand still for about half a day so we can get our aim right.'
Hirosito
05-08-2002, 23:53
lol@ count
i always hope my cynicism is misplaced but i cant see the basic model of shogun's units being changed to accomodate siege weapons. the simplest way could be to simply leave them out of the battle if it's a field battle and include them if there is a castle
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
lol@Pape, Count and myself.
Hey, if you got lucky, and the cav charged at the dangerous end of the bombard...you might just take out a couple of them before they skewer your sorry ass...
Jaguara
Bah! Enough of this total and utter ridiculousness!! All of y'alls armchair/confundled math pseudo-reasoning is giving me a rash!!
In real life, during the Napoleonic Era, when guns (a) went off reliably, (b) were easy to aim and more accurate, and (c) had much lower reload times... people still charged prepared and unbroken enemies and won! Not often, but it happened!
And we're talking now about hundreds of years before, using crappy firearms. Get real! All of these hypothetical scenarios, counting the number of men falling after each volley... what the heck? These have no basis in reality and no use in actual analysis!
Matt
Quote Originally posted by Khan7:
Bah! Enough of this total and utter ridiculousness!! All of y'alls armchair/confundled math pseudo-reasoning is giving me a rash!!
In real life, during the Napoleonic Era, when guns (a) went off reliably, (b) were easy to aim and more accurate, and (c) had much lower reload times... people still charged prepared and unbroken enemies and won! Not often, but it happened!
And we're talking now about hundreds of years before, using crappy firearms. Get real! All of these hypothetical scenarios, counting the number of men falling after each volley... what the heck? These have no basis in reality and no use in actual analysis!
Matt[/QUOTE]
Thank you Khan,
Perhaps you would like to make the same point in the history forum where there is a discussion of the impact of muskets against Takeda cavalry...
BlackWatch McKenna
06-06-2002, 02:43
This is an important topic. I hope that these Cannons don't unbalance the game.
As for accuracy, "Dont fire till you see the whites of their eyes!". That about sums it up.
Gustavus was the fellow who first started minting cannons in calibers; and it was that Bonaparte guy (following in Frederick's footsteps) who turned artillery into something to be reckoned with. Before them, cannons were mostly aimed at big forts, or at big blocks of slow moving pike men, not horses running at full gallop.
Will the cannon be fun? Heck yah! I will buy them just to have them out there, making noise and smoking up the joint (the cannon - not me). I just hope they are not 88mm's, cutting through anything they see.
Cool note:
The Turks used cannon balls made of marble! They fired them at the forts, and then when the marble ball smashed back off the wall and rolled down the hill to them, they fired the same ball again.
// blackwatch
Krasturak
06-06-2002, 04:13
The earliest historical use of artillery on the battlefield that I'm aware of is the army of Gustavus Adolphus in the late 1620's.
That would put cannon out of play except for sieges during the entire period.
Is the another case I'm not aware of?
BlackWatch McKenna
06-06-2002, 04:35
http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Library/SLTnoframes/history/warfare.html
Here's where they first show up. Will have to search for a good link to actual targets, though.
Dionysus9
06-06-2002, 05:11
Wow, I thought this topic was dead a long time ago. Great link there Blackwatch.
Something I have recently found very interesting is the fact that, oh say, round about 1453 the Muslims in general were the most scientifically advanced socio-ethnic group around. Slowly, slowly, they began to slip back into the stone-ages...and eventually were surpassed by both Western and Eastern cultures.
What is it that causes a religion to embrace science at times and shrink away from it at others?
Don't answer that here...its OT
BlackWatch McKenna
06-06-2002, 21:23
[I think Dion's question is very On Topic]
Actually - their decline is more recent than we would think:
The Ottoman Turks were rumbling around in World War One! That's the Turks, man - semi-muslim guys; a serious world power.
The decline? I attribute it to Merry old Britain who drew some nice arbitrary lines in the sand. Strength begins with a common focal point, and Britain split up those common tribes with the boundaries they drew after that war, and after WWII, too.
As for "going retro": I think that anytime things are going very bad for a people, that there will always be the want for the "Good Old Days" ... and that is what the Fundamentalists seem to offer. Remember, the Muslims/Arabs see themselves as the birth place of civilization (and they are pretty much on track with that) and they see the West treating them as unequals ... so I think that is why they are grasping at straws with this Fundamentalist attitude.
Jeez - with all that Oil you think they would rule the world ... looks like someone was planning ahead, eh. Maybe the Crusades were not so ancient in history as we think.
// blackwatch
p.s. There is a quote (from Frank Herbert?) that always freaks me out,
"Dont wage war on a people with nothing to lose."
"The Ottoman Turks were rumbling around in World War One! That's the Turks, man - semi-muslim guys; a serious world power."
Nope, Turkey was known as the "Sick Old Man of Europe" for decades prior to WWI. The Turks were not a world power by any means. They would have never been able to last as long as they did without German advisors and weapons. Turkey rapidly fell behind the West after their defeat at Vienna in the 1690's. They lost all of their Balkan provinces - Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece all from that time forward. Not the mark of a "world power".
"The decline? I attribute it to Merry old Britain who drew some nice arbitrary lines in the sand. Strength begins with a common focal point, and Britain split up those common tribes with the boundaries they drew after that war, and after WWII, too."
You aren't explaining their decline, you're explaining what happened AFTER they declined! How did they get so weak that the English were able to draw "some nice arbitrary lines in the desert"? The decline came BEFORE England started drawing lines.
Grifman
BlackWatch McKenna
06-07-2002, 05:11
With all due respect, I'm stickin' to my theory until you tell me your theory.
BlackWatch McKenna
06-07-2002, 05:20
This is a nice link:
http://www.globaled.org/nyworld/materials/ottoman/modernization.html
Those turks are tough http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/redface.gif
Also - as for the "pre-why", I leave that to the whole Gun,Germs&Steele Book Club to jump in on.
// black
BlackWatch McKenna
06-07-2002, 05:23
And another link about a nice place to put your feet (i.e., an ottoman)
http://i-cias.com/e.o/ottomans_3.htm
BlackWatch McKenna
06-07-2002, 05:31
Yoinks, I am glad Grif and I stay civilized in our discussions - this one at Turkey.com is out of control...
...still, it has a few objective points in there -- not for the faint of heart. http://www.turkey.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=1887&pagenumber=3
Here is a nice map o' the empire: http://www.saburchill.com/history/chapters/empires/0060.html
(Jeez - I paint up one Seljuk Turk army in 15mm, and now I am some kind of turkish freakin' ambassador of information). Still - we at the dojo like to be informed, yes?
// blackwatch
p.s. Jimminy - once MTW comes out, I hope we still have time to post here.
Uh, which theory exactly are you sticking to? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
As I said, the British (and other powers) did split up the Arab world, but your theory doesn't explain why that happened. As for my theory of what happened to the Islamic/Arab world, one thought is that is that Europe's lack of unity - which one might think of as a weakness - was instead a strength.
Look at the Chinese and Ottoman Empires at near the end of the Middle Ages. They were internally unified, with relatively few competitors - and they were arguably two of the most powerful states in the world. Yet Europe was a patchwork of states, all competing with one another. This competition led, especially in the military field, from one innovation to another. Siege artillery, muskets, field artillery, gunned warships, new types of fortification - it was the stress of competition between all those European states that forced them to adapt - or die. That same pressure just didn't exist against the Ottomans and Chinese. Both were relatively secure regimes - it's not that they didn't see a need to innovate - they just didn't feel the constant pressure that the Europeans did.
Lastly, I'd say that seapower is a key - it lead to European colonial expansion and all the riches that brought. It was the Europeans that moved from oar powered galleys built for ramming to tall, sail powered ships with rows of guns. That insured European dominance of the seas. With this development, they controlled the Mediterranean, and the trade routes across the Indian Ocean, eventually bypassing the Muslim lands beween India and Europe.
That's my take - and how the Europeans got powerful enough to draw those lines in the sand in the first place http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Grifman
I agree the british only became an empire when we had a huge navy that would be used to hammer less developed countries into submmission.
Without it perhaps Americans would speek french. India would be a true world power. France might be a superpower!
------------------
"A warriors death in battle should be bloody"
I think the greatest invansion since "greek fire" would be a submarine (U-boat in particular).
------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.
[This message has been edited by Prodigy (edited 06-07-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Prodigy (edited 06-07-2002).]
But lets get back to guns and cannons. I think they wont spoil game at all. First, they will only be available late in the game second, the more reality the marrier.
------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.
Caernarfon
06-15-2002, 15:55
argh... I had a whole long thing I wrote and lost it... but I'll sum it up.
The reality was that personal guns didn't really exist yet(some, but not effective, or overly useful). Cannons did, but they were limited in use and used only in sieges. Since this is medieval/middle-ages, people want it to really be entirely sword, arrow, catapult, etc. Keep the cannons for limited use(very few owned) against castles in the late, late part, but save any other type of personal firearm or anything for Imperial Europe: Total War(or whatever), when they would be useful, realistic, and not complications.
Orda Khan
06-16-2002, 06:46
I would rather see a 'Before gunpowder was invented Total War.
...............Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
Hirosito
06-17-2002, 00:40
that is pretty much what you are getting with the first two parts of the game.
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Orda Khan
06-17-2002, 02:32
I know this but how many online games will contain no guns?
.......Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
the Count of Flanders
06-17-2002, 02:47
I like the fact that cannons can misfire and kill the crew. They use the same system in Warhammer FB where cannons are really powerfull and I think it works well to balance them out. Since you can't really rely on them it's hard to build an entire army centered on artillery.
Hirosito
06-17-2002, 14:52
and surly the early cannons were quite slow, so a fast moving army could get the upper hand.
------------------
Hirosito Mori
Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.
Dionysus9
06-18-2002, 02:25
This topic is immortal! It keeps coming back from the dead.
I'm with Orda, I would have liked to see a "pre-gunpowder" TW. Perhaps they should make a Dark Ages Total War http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I think the reason I would prefer no gunpowder is that, for the vast majority of battles fought over the course of human history, there was no gunpowder. It follows that more people have met their death by a blade than by a bullet (although WWI and II probably evened the score a little).
So far we have only seen Total War games focusing around that "in between time" when armies were using BOTH gunpowder and ARROWS. I don't know why CA is so focused on the era of emerging gunpowder weapons-- perhaps they are trying to please everyone.
Some of you history buffs might be able to tell me just how long this "transition" from arrows to bullets took, but my guess is not very long-- maybe 3-4 hundred years at most.
For thousands of years it was all arrows and spears, then once gunpowder weapons became reliable (would you say flint-lock muskets?) there was no going back. Although the transitional period is interesting, I'm not sure if it makes sense to try to "balance" the combat in such a transitional era.
Balance issues would be much easier to resolve w/out the gunpowder (esp. w/o guns).
But as long as CA is dedicated to balancing MTW, I'm sure it will be fine.
Nice discussion on Europe vs. Middle East rise/decline. Griffman-- your theory re: the struggle of many groups for power in Europe (and the technological advancements that flow from it) is interesting. Have you ever heard of a book called "guns, germs, and steel"...the author (i cant remember his name) makes a similar argument. What suprises me though, is that the muslims were really the first socio-ethnic group to really exploit gunpowder. One would think they could 'ride' that advancement for quite awhile. Perhaps the trouble was an inability to expand territory without sparking a 'holy war' with the Christians. I mean, if Belguim wanted to start shit with Luxemborg, England could care less. If it was Muslims v. Christians, all of Europe would rally to the defense. Who knows?
[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 06-18-2002).]
Caernarfon
06-18-2002, 11:55
what exactly IS the gun situation in this game? There are NOT any personal guns, correct?
imo, cannons for siege would be fine, though.
DthB4Dishonor
06-18-2002, 22:03
Guys guns were only affective if you didnt have the manpower to rush or charge them. Charges were effective and commonly used all the way up until the American Civil War.
Napoleonic armis even had closed ranks when approaching an enemy position. It was till the American Civil War that guns took on the really dominating role in war. It was our bloodiest war because Napoleonic strategies were used in which guns were too advanced and decimated each others advancing or charging ranks (Gettysburg, Picketts Charge).
So if equal ranks were walking at one another with success all the way up until the 1860's then why cant a cav charge totally annihalte a unit of muskets. And Dom put your troops on hold position so they can get off that last volley before the get a hoof up their a%$#.
Also it is very hard to support infantry with artillary. Their have been large friendly fire casualties all the way up till recent day. 2 canadians killed after friendly artillary fire. So if someone wants to waste one of their 16 slots with them god bless. But practicallity will win out in the end. I dont think their will be many cannons in MP. The only time we might see them in MP is in seige battles which should be very interesting.
And Orda I'm sure just like in WE you can choose which era to fight in when playing on MP (Sengoku or Mongolian). I doubt we will see any guns in first 2 eras or any worth a lick at any rate.
Sir Kuma of The Org
06-23-2002, 08:03
This is what i found on the last gamespot preview on the subject:And every unit will have to be wary of artillery, especially cannons, whose powerful fire can scatter the ranks of most mounted and infantry soldiers. Cannonballs will not only smash through footmen but, as we saw firsthand, also actually kick up a cloud of dust and bounce through enemy ranks, taking down even more troops, and just as in the real battles of the Middle Ages, they'll become more accurate the longer they remain in place while firing on a single target. In other words, foolish warlords who attempt to cower in one place behind rows of halberdiers will receive a very rude awakening from the business end of their enemies' cannons, which will dash most infantry and cavalry units to pieces. Fortunately, cannons themselves are by no means an easy, no-risk means of doing battle, since they're extremely expensive to build and very slow to move--plus, they require lots of troops to man them and even more to sustain a decent rate of fire. And just like in the Middle Ages, cannons can and will misfire, explode, and take their cannoneers with them.
____________________________________________
Seems pretty well thought through and balanced if it works the way it is announced in the preview._
------------------
La vie est un don.
Darkmoor_Dragon
06-23-2002, 18:38
Cannons and catapults:
Ballista seem the most "balanced" on the seige engines in MTW as although they have range and power they aren't very fast loading and rarely kill more than one soldier. I did find them to be the prime long range "anti-Royal Knight" weapon in the Early period though - they are easy to kill though using an open order charge.
Catapults: The stone balls bounce around a lot - especially on hard terrain or if the shot bounces downhill - i've seen one bounce 5 times! They don't fire fast but have good range and can fire even quite close to themselves. Again susceptible to open order direct charges.
Mangonels, Trebs - not that useful at all in the open battlefiled due tot heir excessively slow firing rate and long minimum range.
Serpentine Cannons - a great little field cannon this - not very destructive but a relatively long range and fires quite quickly - only has a small cannon ball so damage isnt excessive.
Demi-culverins, culverins - rather deadly if they get you at long range and you attack en-mass - you really need to flank these guys and keep units in open order and seperated for as long as possible - use the cover of trees and depressions in the land - if you mount these on hills bear in mind that they can't fire downwards!!!!
Bouncing balls!
The bouncing balls are what makes all of these puppies dangerous in open ground - a ranked army trotting in column or massed formation is litterally cannon fodder - dont let yourself be caught along the line of fire of two or more of them as you will be in trouble.
Balancing factors:
Weather (the powder based ones cant fire in rain)
Placement: You cant move them and you don't always know where the enemy might be - using them in attacks can be very risky as its a total gamble as to whether you will get to use them or not.
ROF: their rate of fire isn't that high - once again, UNLESS its flat open land or they have a long-range long period sight on your army they probably wont get off more than one or two or three shots.
Minimum Crew: All engines ahve minimum crews - you dont need to kill them all of destroy the piece to disable them.
Explode: THey do and will explode themselves - if you have them set with defensive friendly units close by them expect to take major casualties.
Cost: This includes the development time and the cost of building required to produce them - catapults and ballista are cheap - most everything else and especially gunpowder based ones end up being very expensive - this isnt smething you are going to be making in anything other than one or maybe two provinces - so resuply of crew and replacements will be onerous.
Overall: My own opinion:
The Jury is out for me still. For SP I need to see how well the AI uses artillery aand how well it copes with it (from what i saw it did "OK" and the one time it did atrociously (walked right down my gunline) it was because the enemy general was stupid and inexperienced.
The AI did use Ballista well (Killed my King on no less than 2 occaisions when directly charging them [i only had Royal Knights as mounted units on both occaisions])
In HIlly and mountainous lands artillery was a bit useless as you never (rarely/lately) got a sight on the enemy - similar for very lush wooded areas.
Artillery (my own) wiped out an entire high honour unit of mine as i left it firing too long when i had attacked - it crashed into the middle of my billmen and routed them instantaneously killing about 15 in one go. You have to monitor it closely and watch for friendly fire (much higher in MTW than in STW it appears)
mmm
Artillery IS powerful when used properly, in open ground, with long range and against massed, stupid opposition. I "always" had 2 ballista even with attacking armies in the Early period as they are about the only thing (until longbows) that can hurt Royal Knights at range... any more than that though and the units they take up the room of became sorely missed.
Conclusions:
Well, in SP play it really down to how well the AI uses artillery and how well it copes with it (flanks it, encircles, uses cover).
In MP play it should be well balanced due to its effectiveness being more to how you use it.
I dont think this subject will ever be "resolved" as there will always be "lucky devastating shots" and equally terrible performances where you hit nothing at all.
NB; On placement for attacking armies:
You always get to place artillery pieces when attacking. THe "gamble" is where to place them to be effective - one two occaisions i risked placing them right at the front on the deployment area - by the time i had raced some cavalry forward to protect them the AI had wiped them out with a light cav charge. When placed back with my army they were out of range or out of sight of the enemy that withdraw almost immediately (or was trying to ambush me in any case hidden in trees).
It's promising actually - just depends on the AI capabilities in SP.
Emp. Conralius
07-03-2002, 00:06
Cannons were essential to the fall of the greatest city in Europe. You just can't have an RTS based around the Middle Ages and not include one of the times most pivital machines. Sure these thingsthrow honour out the window, but they renew the thrase "Total War!" And muskets din't spoil MI and WE, f i did anything, it made the game more flexible!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.