Printable View
That was 5 marines leading a massive mercenary army that they ended not paying because Jefferson signed peace with the Barbary States. I think 1 died and the other 4 snuck off in a little boat during the night with the exiled Royal they were going to replace the Leader of the Barbary States with.
They did, however, exist. I think it was 7 marines, btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Anyway, I recall they saw some action during the Revolution, 1812 and so on. I recall some mention of them taking part in the Battle of New Orleans.
Eh, the point is that they were around, and make a good excuse to give the US something like the European elite infantry.
I'm fully aware the US Marines existed since the Revolutionary war, the point though is that they weren't as revered as they are today. I couldn't imagine too many European nations feeling awe when it came to the Marines of the US.
Maybe they want more US marines to buy the game? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Discoman
Well, I can see the new units in the custom battle screen but they don't show up in the campaign recruitment screen - is this the "problem" Kieran is talking about? Or do I have to start a new, post patch, campaign to get them? :inquisitive:Quote:
Dear All,
We've been aware since early this morning that some of you are missing units having purchased / updated via Steam.
As far as we can currently tell this may be to do with the Steam client update issued last night, and is seperate from Empire.
We are urgently talking to Valve to identify the source of the problem, so those of you who are trying to use new units will have these all fixed as soon as possible.
We are aware of the issue and are looking into it now, we hope to have it fixed for you as soon as possible.
Regards,
Kieran
Gee, this ETW it's the most confusing TW title of all...
Yeah, ??? -> profit fail.
I thought you were trying to make a point that they were fairly pronounced. My bad and I do agree its not really a bad thing to include more variety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
Well, they were somewhat distinct from the regular US army, better trained as I recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
I, personally, want to see other nations Marines as well. Both the Russians and British had a fairly well developed 'naval infantry' arm.
Historical factoid: One of (I believe) three instances where Italy was invaded from the South was the joint Anglo-Russian invasion of Sicily during the Napoleonic Wars.
Naval Crew modQuote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
This really seems like a shameless way to make up revenue more than anything else. I'm certainly not adverse to paying for additions to the game, but a bunch of units that are barely differentiated from the ones I already don't use due to cost, deep prerequisites, or pointlessness(who is recruiting most of the cavalry variations AT ALL?), is more a chafing case of nickel-and-diming than anything else.
At least the Russian and Prussian guards get a repression bonus, but seriously, who is recruiting the most expensive infantry to serve the same purpose as the cheap Dragoons you've had since the beginning? If there was some realistic limit on overall army size I could kind of see it. After that you've basically got filler in MP or custom battles, and they either a) can't be used in MP or b) are a potentially unfair advantage against anyone who didn't pay for them, which is even worse. Given the ETW MP playerbase isn't huge, segmenting it further is insipid.
If CA reads this, presuming you eventually fix the AI, here's what I'd be happy to pay you for:
Additional campaign map segments, even RTI style limited ones. The lists here are endless but Asian colonial theatres, in-depth western Europe Napoleanic campaigns with denser provinces, etc, sure, I'd pay $5-15 for something along those lines. Something that extends the game to be more than what it was. A new map set with all kinds of forts, nifty custom battles (like 20 new ones in a pack). Sure, I'd throw $5 out on that.
So, um, thanks for the window dressing on the window that's spending most of its time closed. Heck, if you're short on cash, why not just make the new units available and throw up a "donate with Paypal to our artist's retirement fund" or "send us 50c to vote for your favorite new unit" because that's less silly than this.
They got a bit of fame from the Barbary escapades but yes, not exactly the same name-recognition that you'd get from the various expatriate units. I like the idea, particularly in the era of officer-owned or sponsored units being in a sense unique and separate organizations within an army, or displaced units fighting for a sympathetic foreign power, but the Marines don't fit that at all.Quote:
I'm fully aware the US Marines existed since the Revolutionary war, the point though is that they weren't as revered as they are today. I couldn't imagine too many European nations feeling awe when it came to the Marines of the US.
Not to menttion they are wearing blue instead of green :thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordani
I must repeat here that I think the goal of the marines was to give the US something similar to the European elite units. If anything it's the 'Guards' unit that doesn't belong in the US roster. Unless there was, at some point, an elite unit of presidential guards who dressed like European royal guards :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Ordani
When the current Marine corp was formed in 1798 they were given infantry uniforms, and those infantry uniforms had blue coats.Quote:
Not to menttion they are wearing blue instead of green
Oh, it's clear why they're there, but doesn't keep with the theme of the others. The USofA already has really good light infantry but most of the period troops would probably fall more in line with that. Neither of the US units really fit, but hey, semper fi and on to Tripoli. No reason you can't run the revolutionaries as an Absolute Monarchy anyway!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
Indeed, by the War of 1812 they had blue uniforms with shakos. I think the pants were either blue or white, I forget. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lusted
Yes! The problem is that The Barbary Wars didn't kick off till 1801 which is nominally outside the timeline of ETW. The Unites States Marine Corps itselt was not raised until 11 July 1798, and so barely squeezes under the timeline wire, and it only consisted of a single battalion of 500 men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
The Colonial Marine Corps was something different and was formed on 10 November 1775 although it to only consisted of five companies of men and was disbanded in 1783. At most it consisted of 2,000 men at its peak. Nevertheless, the US Marine Corps does consider its founding day to be the 10 November 1775, rather than the date it was actually raised.
The uniform of the Continental Marines was green with white facings, similar to riflemen of the period though they did not carry rifles but muskets.
https://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3522...talmarines.jpg
[Enactors wearing Continental Marine Uniforms]
The nickname 'Leathernecks' originates from this period as a result of the high leather stock worn by them.
Since this is the US we are talking about, doesn't the last chapter of the RTI end in 1825?
It has been a while since I played it...could be 1810 but I don't see what is wrong with the later uniform as it is after the founding and that is when the last chapter starts. If it shows up in the previous chapter, then the green is more correct, no?
Well 1798 is within the timeline anyway so its a moot point, I think the main isuse would be to limit to number of battalions you can have to one, and treat it as a special unit.
If you started a new campaign before you purchased the DLC you have to start a new campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad Tzepes
Thank you, Wausser.
Gotta say that I like the dlc very much, its quality work and I've got no problem paying a small fee for it and while I can understand the wish to get this for free, its absolutely not necessary to have them in order to enjoy the game.
If you could play as the US in the grand campaign, I would have bought the DLC in a heartbeat.
Marines are a nice addition.
But since you can't I'm still undecided.
You can play the United States in the full campaign just by completing the Road to Independence.
yes but he meant in the GRAND CAMPAIGN as a playable faction, instead of just being stuck on america, he could take the fight back to george and liberate england! I don't see why they cant put in multiple grand campaign variations, they did it in M2TW with a official mod and have one where the game starts later and the yanks can mess around for a bit. Although thatll probably happen with a napoleonic expansion which would be fun.
Why can't you just invade England in the full American campaign?
IMO, I think its because some might feel cheated that the GC has 99 years of play while Ch.4 of the RTI has less than half that #.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland
Generally speaking would a player prefer 99 years to take over the world or 26?
The history of the United States Marine Corps begins with the founding of the Continental Marines in 1775 to conduct ship-to-ship fighting, provide shipboard security and assist in landing forces. Its mission evolved with changing military doctrine and foreign policy of the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
So they shouldnt be available before that - historically speaking.
But then usually the USA 'appears' in-game' by around 1705-10 when a helplful Cherokee unit occupies Savannah for a turn and then wanders off.
I have got to 1750 and there is only one of the colonies left, the rest are US (well were, they sent 3 units to raid one of my 'towns', (me playing as GB), in Cherokee Nation - so I took Savannah & Charleston in one turn :laugh4: )
I will roll them up along the coast - I suspect they will be history before I get to 1775 :smash:
One day my sig will come.. (I spend too much time reading the forums and playing the games to bother messing about with sigs ) :shame:
You can. I didn't when I played it but I did have a world wide trade network and my ships did sail into the English Channel, so I could quite easily have transported an Army to England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Durallan
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
[The US Fleet guards the approaches to Bristol Harbour, having disembarked Nathaniel Greene's Invasion force for its victorious march on London.]
I'm really puzzled why so many people think this isn't possible, is there more than one version of the game or something?
It does, but only because the USMC choose to ignore the fact that the Colonial Marines were disbanded 1783, along with the Continental Navy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Verenus
There was then a gap of fifteen years between the termination of the Continental Marine Corps and the formation of the US Marine Corps in 1798. Although, small detachments of Marines had actually been recruited for ship board duties in 1797.
Its quite common for Regiments to ignore these gaps and make such leaps of logic in order to claim an earlier foundation date. British Lancer Regiments have not only done this routinely to claim an 18th Century rather than 19th Century ancestry but also ignore the fact that the regiments they claim to be descended from are not even lancers but privately raised regiments of dragoons.
Both points true and well taken :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I would love some GB Lancers all the same - if the Amerinds can have em why not GB ? - not that the Amerinds are much of a challenge post-patch, they were definately tougher with all units before.
Though I find the heavy Dragoons in-game are sufficent for my cav needs, except when they decide to run right in front of my arty, which blithely fires anyway, wiping half of them out :furious3:
My Sig :)
Unfortunately, the first British Lancer Regiment was not formed until 1816, which is a bit outside the timeline for ETW. You might be able to recruit some sepoy lancers in India, not really sure as I didn't bother with India in my British campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius Verenus