Printable View
Hi guys,
A whole day early (surprise!), I am pleased to announce that our next game is Empire: Total War. Head over to TotalWar.com now for full details and the very first screenshot! image
Stay tuned for all the latest information and screenshots!
Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)
lol, we knew the name and yesterday someone here solved the riddle of era behind this title so its not such big suprise. age of empires 3 : total war :oops:
Do not just focus on Naval Combat
That is the only advice I can give. We, the average gamer, want far, far more than that.
There is another screenshot here.
Looks like ingame graphics to me.:2thumbsup:
I really hope that there is more to Empire Total war than just graphics.
Although i like nice looking water and the idea of ships it should not be focussed on ship warfare.
Also the time era is a perfect example for clone-looking soldiers:-(
I would be happier if they said the have at least a functional hotseat or multiplayer, where both players could play battles.
The diplomacy during the 18th century is very important, so here is the point if the game is a success or not.
I still hope that the land battles are not just a "every line shoot their muskets, than the cavalry charges the routers" tactic experience.
i want some info about map because if they plan to add japan, india in it then this time we should have a round map
More info coming soon...
Fantastic! The Napoleonic and prior period is perfect for Total War. Both at a strategic level (multiple great powers, lots of expansion and conflict) and at a tactical level (interesting cavalry, infantry and artillery interactions).
here's a nice preview
http://www.computerandvideogames.com...70570&skip=yes
Please, please, please make the diplomacy very, very solid, as it was such an integral part of the era.
If their's anything I'd like more than anything, it would be atmosphere. What I mean is the game adding a sense of immersion; lightening and thunder in battles, battlefields full of natural and human features, and that awesome fog from STW.
Good Luck in the development.
I hope that all the gunpowder units don't ruin the battle's.
I'm very worried that they will
How can they?Quote:
I hope that all the gunpowder units don't ruin the battle's.
I'm very worried that they will
After all this was an era of epic battles and great generals.
:beam:
Arrrrggh! Stupid at-work internet filter blocking anything game-related! :furious3:
Anyway, I assume by the discussion here that Empire: TW is set in the colonial/imperial era. Nice surprised...but also not entirely enthralled. :shame:
I'm not talking in terms of thier epic-ness, More all the tactics learned in all previous TW games are useless. And have been simplified to (quoting the CVG article) whoever has more muskets pointed at the enemy wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trax
It sounds like Company of Heros or Command and Conquor style of control on the battle map, forget laying traps with hidden units or deploying troops in an intelegent manner to execute flanking manouvers.
They way it's described in the artile your troops can form a square, column or line. A line is used to kill troops, square to fend off cav (who've been nerfed big time it says) and column to advance on the enemy.
I always liked the TW series cause there was more strategy than "mass carriers/mutalisks/battleships/mamoth tanks". I hope that this aspect stays with the game.
You just don't know enough about the era's combat. Everything listed in the article, the nerfing of cavarly and the getting the most guns pointed at the enemy is all historical for the era. Guns nerfed cavalry, it happened. Look it up if you don't believe me. The bayonette and the flintlock made infantry superior to cavalry, although Napoleon made them more important again they were ever after second banana to foot. And it's what made those formations so important.
I'm not disputing the historical accuracy of what they are trying to do, I know that the gun changed warfare forever. I'm just saying that firearm warfare, and the combat system that I've grown to love in RTW and M2TW are ill suited for each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
No more flanking, no more hammer and anvil, no more hiding units in the woods to charge thier 6 and make them route, None of the more elaborate tactics that have served all of us well apply any more.
To me (and this is only my impression) it sounds like all you will do is line your men up against the edge of the map, and wait for the enemy to get in range.
If they keep it hisorical it won't be whoever has the most guns on the field. Combat will be simmler to the other TW's except "Skrimishing will make a bigger difference. Most armies at that time exanged a few vollys then the attacker charged, making the battle in the end decided by hand to hand. The fact that you need to charge into missles will make sure that you need to carefully plan your attacks so you either have overwhelming local supporiority or flank them out.
Take a look at some of the battles in the 7 years war, War of Spanish Succesion and the Great Northern war to get an idea about the battles and tactics of the era.
CA will the map include Europe? or just the colonies?
The map will include Europe, India and America. More than that i cannot say yet.
Thanks :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lusted
I've got a bad feeling about this, though the preview helped somewhat. Since Wikiman said CA can't work on two things at once without destroying the company they're probably not going to release a 1.4 patch for M2TW. So I guess the Grand Campaign will be left unfinished except by modders. On top of that the preview (which doesn't seem to be loading for me anymore) seems to say total war is no longer a part of the Total War series.
But on the plus side they say they're working on the campaign AI, and that there'll be a reduced focus on sieges and more focus on siege battles. That's good, as they were two of the factors that prevented M2TW from being better than MTW.
Of course, since they article says they work on games two at a time I might just skip Empire and wait until the next game, which should come out in 2010 if CA keeps making a new game every two years like they've been doing. Or maybe I'll wait until two years after Empire's come out to buy it, like I did with Rome.
Oh, and don't worry Stuperman. If Empire is anything like Dragoon than all those tactics will still be in there.
Like a Better MutiplayerQuote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
:inquisitive:Quote:
No more flanking, no more hammer and anvil,
Flanking is the extremly important in any era of warfare I can imagine.
I imagine it would be hard to flank with a bullet in your chest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trax
We are talking of Muskets no M1 Abrams!! Anyone tried Napoleonic Total War? I'm flanking all the time!!
I suspect the very linear tactics of the period made flanking more important at a tactical level than in many other periods. That was why the square formation became important - because infantry in line could not be relied upon to repel a cavalry charge, as the cavalry could get round the flanks or rear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuperman
Remember, in this period, guns - smoothbore muskets - are still short range, inaccurate and have a slow reload. This allows for quite a bit of tactics even with lines of rifles - often you want to goad the enemy into firing first and save your volley for when you see the whites of their eyes. But you needed good troops for that. Artillery was the bigger killer than musketry in Napoleonic battles and cavalry could sometimes be used to striking effect.
I might agree with you if you were talking late American Civil War - by that time rifles were getting so long range, accurate and even rapid reloading that we saw the evolution of trench warfare.
All those manuvers, cept maybe hammer and anvil, are still valid. Cavalry in this time is used for flanking and rear attacks. With light cavalry and light infantry for skirmishing, disrupting formations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuperman
And then there is the enfilade fire, which is basicly flanking with fire.Quote:
I suspect the very linear tactics of the period made flanking more important at a tactical level than in many other periods. That was why the square formation became important - because infantry in line could not be relied upon to repel a cavalry charge, as the cavalry could get round the flanks or rear.
Positioning your men and your guns to achieve this will be the main goal on the tactical level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Isn't almost everything "light" in this time period? Not an expert, but from what I understand, cav only wore armor as parade dress. They ditched the armor when actually fighting.
I think hammer and anvil will still be useful. You can pin down soldiers with musket fire just as sure as you can in melee.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewt
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/ca...bodyprotection
Quote:
The cuirass was notoriously burdensome to wear, and demanded a strong man. In summer it was unbearably hot, which "might cause dehydration and heat exhaustion." (in "Kurze Beschreinbung und Heilungsart der Kranckheiten welche am oftersten in dm Feldlager Beobachet werden") The young cavalrymen thought much about their comfort rather than utility and purpose. During the Napoleonic Wars some cuirassiers even discarded their armor, for example in 1809. (Such things occured already long before the Napoleonic Wars. "So unpopular had it become by 1638 that in that year, Louis XIII had to order aristorcratic officers to wear their armor or risk losing their noble rank. Louis XIV issued a similar command in 1675, demanding all officers to wear cuirasses, but the law was widely disobeyed. The only entire regiment still wearing any armor ... was the Royal Cuirassiers." (Lynn - "Giant of the Grand Siecle" p 490)
The veterans however knew very well why they carry the armor. They claimed that the cuirass saved them from "many a bullet and many a thrust." It protected against musket and pistol shots fired at longer range, generally above 30-60 paces. (The term bullet proof came from actually shooting them with a musket and marking the dent as ‘proof’ of the quality of the armor.) The armor protected the torso leaving open to attack only the neck, arms and face. This is harder to nail someone in a specific and small place than to simply waiting for any good opportunity to hit at large area.