Printable View
If you're saying the 18th century is that then thats like saying the time of the romans was just charging and stabbing at each other. Play the Napoleonic Total War mod for rome, since it was online only tactics were fantastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
a bit early but will the game ram for the game be bigger than mtw2 as i don't really like the idea of buying a new pc for the game as i will lose all the campagian i have allready done
sounds good though
Im just relieved that the "viking total warrior" or whatever it was called that was mentioned in norwegian media yesterday wasnt the big news CA promised us...
but the scope of this empire game is alarmingly big, lots of room for historical-accuracy cockups and lack of depth in the portrayal of factions.
I have been wanting navel battles sins i first played mt, So i hope they make something cool out of it. But for this specific total war i hope the main factor of the game wil be trade, like it was religion in m2t. Cause most wars fought during that time are about controling trade
PIRATES :7pirate:
Rebel pirate ships will now actually be awesome :laugh4:
On a serious note, if the sea battles are anything like Sid Meier's Pirates I'll be in heaven.
I hope they keep nations' relative strength as historically accurate as possible. This time period is when some nations became way more advanced than others and met with people who are so far behind them technologically. I'd rather not have them make certain nations stronger for PC crap reasons.
Since the map will be much bigger, one hopes that it will no longer take 25 years to cross the Atlantic....
Thought of a few more things besides the return of titles...
1. I'm going to assume most of the playable factions will still be governed by a monarchic form of goverment...so I hope CA brings back the option to change your faction heir.
2. Making alliances actually worth something. Have an diplo-option similar to Europa Universalis wherein if you go to war, your ally(-ies) immediately must choose to honor your alliance and fight alongside you (or subsequently back out and lose a tremendous amount of respect). Likewise, if your ally goes to war with faction neutral to you, you have the option to support your ally or take a big hit against your reputation/prestige by stiffing them.
I've always dreamed of seeing campaign battles with one or more allies fighting along side you against one of more opponents. Have never come close to seeing that happen in any campaign going all the way back to MTW.
Implementing multi-faction battles would truly make alliances so much more worthwhile and the battles themsselves so much more epic.
:beam:
I doubt that I have anything to look forward to. I can still just barely run Europa Barbaroum and Medieval Total War 2! :furious3:
Two words:
!!-NAVAL BATTLES-!!
:2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
I'm hoping that u will have the ability to make your own custom ship.
just one, the one that leads the navy
Well I WAS looking forward too the American civil War but I guess mow I will have to look forward too The American Revolution.
As BoyarPunk's said, please fix the succession. I hate how in MTW2 that for some strage reason the new Prince is totally unrelated to the previous king. It makes roleplaying very difficult to say the least(especially in AAR's).
I'm looking forward to a game that not just looks, but plays like the era it takes place in. I'm looking forward to real armies led by competent generals making a campaign at my lands, and not just dozens of rag-tag suicide squads milling about without a purpose. I'm looking forward to cohesive, organized lines of men doing battle with my troops as though they were a part of one large unit, as opposed to a mess of overlapping fools shooting diagonally and disregarding their comrades. I'm looking forward to a game where diplomacy has more meaning than "trading rights".
Finally, I'm looking forward to a game where conquering a far away city of an entirely different culture and religion does not enable me to immediately begin producing the best crack soldiers of my own nation just because that city had some buildings of equivalent tech level.
The good thing about the time period is that it might force CA to have realistic speeds on the battlefield. All units will have to move slower to make set piece battles that really look nice. If infantry can hustle like they do in M2 (and worse in Rome) then battles would quickly degenerate into melee, I imagine.
CA, will units on board ships be present in naval battles?
I mean, if you have a couple of units of musketeers on your fleet when it gets attacked, will they actually be on board the ships and be able to fight during the battle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaFe
I think it is a tactical era. Its the time of Frederick the Great, king of Prussia. In the battle of Rossbach in the seven years war he won a brilliant victory. He was outnumbered 1:2 (22000 prussians against 42000 austrians. The austrians also held the better position on a ridge. By a brilliant flanking manoeuvre he managed to defeat the austrians, losing only 550 man. The austrian losses where 10000 (including prisoners)
This battle is not widely known, but in my opinion it stands besides more famous battles as Gaugamela, Canae, Agincourt and Austerlitz.
Another battle of interest is the battle of the Narva. The Swedes with a little more than 10000 men where 3:1 outnumbered by the russians. With the loss of only 700 men the complete russian army was destroyed. This victory was achieved by tactical, technical and disciplinal superiority.
I think that this era has a lot possibilities for tactical warfare. Ok, technical superiority is a nice thing, but a commander has to use the right tactics to win a battle. And well, didn`t the romans have technical and discipline superiority (their legions) at Alesia and Zama
(References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach
Or the battle of Fraustadt, smaller army surrounds and completely destroys a larger one.
I look forward to my Thin Red Line routing the barbaric Frenchies.
I mean really, that's what TW is all about isn't it? Defeating the French?
Naturally Mount Suribachi, only now I have those troublesome Yanks to get too :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi
Theres as much room to get them correct too.Quote:
Originally Posted by anders
Of course, one should never sacrifice gameplay on the altar of realism too.
I'm looking forward to fighting the American Revolution and to naval battles in general.
This would be one where it would be especially nice to have the Rebels as a playable faction! Build your pirate empire!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramela
I'm going to play as UK since they own parts of Canada :P... Canada = kick ass... Hockey is our sport :whip: and UK has the red coats :2thumbsup:
I personally would love to know is China in the game. It must be, if you have the entire world, you just can't miss one third of the global population. And if it is in, well it would be fun. Taking China out to globally conquest, and putting the world under the rule of the emperor will be great. And bices, China become tehnologicly bad only after 17-18 century.
Certainly by the 17th century they would've been hard pressed to compete navally. thorughout the 18th century they were moribond and playing wouldn't be nuch fun if it was made accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iavorios
Of course there is always the danger that CA will use China as the joker in the pack. A sort of fantasy faction. I was watching a programme the other day on the History Channel and there were still people insisting that mystic powers had made the Chinese the scourge of the battlefield:wall: I think that's what the poor saps believed during the Boxer rebellions - bullets would never touch them. That was until a lump of lead with no knowledge of Eastern mysticism decided otherwise:idea2:
No they don't, Canada=French. Until 1760. Well after the game will probably start.Quote:
Originally Posted by iblewafuse14
I'm sure most of it will be French BUT, the English speaking settlers who went to what is now New York did move north and settle in Southern Ontario.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Yeah, but they gave up their great power status in the 15th century when they abandoned their war fleet. That's what I think that the game should actually require quite alot of investment in buildings and such before you are able to have a war fleet, and then when you do ships should be relatively expensive and be able to really make a difference, in this era having a (functional) war fleet was the staple mark of a great power, it's basically why they were great.Quote:
China become tehnologicly bad only after 17-18 century.
The power of the Qing dynasty peaked in 18th century. They had some great emperors at the time.Quote:
thorughout the 18th century they were moribond and playing wouldn't be nuch fun if it was made accurate.
I agree, I think you should be forced to make tough decisions here. Where do you spend your money? Do you play for money (money) or hegemony (France)? Do you need a large fleet to protect your trade routes (and win some) or do yo need a large army to invade and impose your will?Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
About the navy- there is, and there will never be a nation destined or not for a naval power. All technologically superiority is temporary. What is important is economy and leadership. Rome had no war ships before the first war whith Carthage, Sparta build huge fleet against Athens, England in early 16th century was far back from Spain and Portugal, and even Netherlands. Peter Russia, USA after the civil war, USSR after WW II.... As a mather of fact USSR had much bigger and bether navy then UK after the 70, less then 30 years after Britain looked undisputed ruler of the seas.
Do i have to continue?
Yes, but you can't deny that the aqquisition of a war fleet does sort of make a state more of a power. What I was saying was simply that it should require a lot of money to be able to field one and that it should be very important in the game, and a heavy blow if it is wrecked (yes, the Ottomans rebuilt theirs after Lepanto, but it undoubtedly cost alot of money). China gave up their war fleets and their expeditions in the 1430s, and this was a huge war fleet with nine-masted, cannon-armed ships, because the expenses proved too great together with the fact that they also maintained a huge army guarding the borders to the north. With this China no longer was able to impose their will on nations (or just be able to demonstrate their power) overseas and was reduced to a regional power.
Anyway, do you think Rome would have been able to defeat Carthage in the punic war if they had not built a navy? Do you think Greece would have remained independent if the Athenians had not had one of the best navies in the mediterranean?