Printable View
Something small and easy to implament how about the ability to see your armies that you have so lovingly and meticulously created and assembled viewable on the battle map.
As you form your army stack and send them off to some distant battlefield have the cityview option like in rome to see them on the march.
Nothing like the sound of thousands of marching boots, creaking cannon wheels and fluttering flags to get the blood pumping Eh!
Like 'view a city' mode but your soldiers are assembled in the city and you can march them around and such :P
i wonder if slavery will be present as that was a major earner for the UK in those times.
main things id like to see :idea2:
1.Arkwright, Cadbury etc.. economic as well as military figures (i always think the TW never focus too greatly on economy)
2.A big focus on the industrial revo if you are playing as the UK (i dont know how much it affected other nations but if wikipedia :book: is correct it certainly made the Uk top of the tree in the 19th and early 20th century)
3.Basically a much bigger focus on economy but also (for players who just like the war) the ability to turn micromanagement of ur economy off
4.The ability to make laws and change ethics. this has been mentioned somewhere but id like to be micromanageable (with the option to turn it off of course) and for instance with laws the ability to pass health and safety acts for instance that would help the public to like you :smash:
5.Railroad
6.Major trade interface overhaul, with a much higher importance being placed on trading
7.Exploitation of the West Indies and Carribean for sugar, cocoa beans etc
8. And finally something i've always wanted to see in TW, when there is a riot i want there to be the option to go down to ground and control your troops against the rioters. i think it would be a nice novelty device to have within the game and probably wouldnt take too much effort
one thing i forgot to add.....
conscript-diddly-iption!! this would integrate with the logistics systems ppl have been talking about and also with my railroad point. never mind the fact you could raise armies of millions if needs be. :beam: :beam:
Not in a city per say but anywhere you have a stack moving. just click on it and you enter the battle map where you can see your army marching in column formation. It could be sorta similiar to the city view button in rome where you could look but not touch. You often see what I mean in the promotional cutscenes for Rome And Med 2 of armies on the march, long columns of men stretching from horizon to horizon. I always find those scenes rather riveting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoring
2 things
1. The ability to access building, unit windows, even if you have selected or seen an event screen that you've now closed. Its fo annoying & has been in since Rome
2. The ability to move (drag n drop) troops around in your army so you can more readily see the troop types you have
Apart from (most of) the things mentioned above, I would like them to (re-)add the View Settlement option.
Only this time with a more "detailed" city life. I.E. actually seeing people practice at the barracks, people loading and unloading ships. The usual activity.
I loved the view settlement option in Rome (mainly for the purpose of showing of to my friends ;))
I want to see Political Agents in Empire. When your country is a republic you can send agents to another country to spread the idea of democracy like the imams and priests does it with the religion. So you can start a revolution in another lands.
The next good idea is that when there is a riot in one of your regions, you can give the order to execute some of the citizens to show them who is the boss. But there also should be the possibility that this fails and the citizens then becomes really angry.
I'd like to see deployment area's disappear from the battle map and your forces have to actually march to position themselves in their order of battle.
With reinforcements arriving during the battle at various points on the map be it being preplanned or not,maybe the chance of a flank march with the better general's.
General's ability to motivate his troop's on and off the field of battle
e.g. not all troop formation's march at the same pace so with a General he could spur them on to march a bit quicker.
A better moral system where troop's could waver or even break on seeing friend's close-by rout.Maybe each troop type could have their own moral status e.g. Guards would be Elite,Grenadiers would be Veteran,Common line troops would be Trained and Concripts and the like would be Raw.
Really looking forward to this game because this was the era when nation's were uniforming their armies in specific colour's.
I wonder if they'll include pirates on the high sea's??? Could be nasty!!!
Everybody asking for bigger battles:
That would conflict with any request for 'historical accuracy', around the 16th century, armies as a whole got REALLY small. Why?
Because the state started supplying equipment to many people, you started seeing the concept of a 'standing army' come into wide use. All that equipment and all those supplies are EXPENSIVE.
Armies didnt start getting BIG until the Napoleonic Wars, which is apparently about the time ETW's campaign ends.
Basically, almost every battle (with a few exceptions) was a 'useless skirmish', the two sides manuvered around each other, maybe fired a few volleys, then the one who was in the worst tactical situation was 'beaten'. Nobody wanted mass casualties because soldiers were EXPENSIVE.
The 18th century saw a bit of a decline in this, with events like the Great Northern War, but still, few commanders were willing to field huge armies in decisive battles.
My personal suggestions...
More emphasis on trade. This is the colonial era and all, before people were just nabbing colonies for the sake of getting colonies (Partition of Africa, anybody?), people were out looking for USEFUL areas. Trade with your colonies should be vital to keeping your nation operable, or at least make things much easier.
Less AI use of troops moved via ship. From what I can gather, only two nations seriously considered Marines to be an important part of the armed forces, the Russians and the British. Prior to the 1600's they had an important role, IE: Fending off ship-to-ship boarding attacks, but once the British introduced long range fire and people more or less stopped boarding each other in the midst of battle, dedicated marines on ships vanished except in those two nations (again, as far as I can tell)
Both the Russians and British used marine landings and, in fact, launched one of three invasions of Italy from the South, when they landed in Naples during the Napoleonic Wars.
If possible, the AI should only land troops in territory it owns.
More interaction with cities. This may've been mentioned, but I'd like to see more customization in cities, maybe more detail too. Cities of this era got pretty huge, and places like London and Paris would've been daunting to attack simply because of the huge number of alleyways, passages and backroads that they contained. Including paths like these, and making them traversable, would add a fun element to city combat.
Oh, and make it so soldiers can garrison buildings on the battlemap. Maybe add things like blockhouses (Small wooden forts, or large, short, towers, basically.) to the city defences.
If youre going to make differences between sides, PLEASE dont do like Imperial Glory and simply say, "Well, the British are better than everybody else, so we'll give them great starting stats for everything! Huzzah!"
British infantry were good, yes, but they didnt have many men, as most of their forces went into the navy to sail their rather massive fleet (Something like two HUNDRED Ships of the Line total around 1800, and thats not counting all their other ships). Of course, those ships tended to be rather shoddily built, and at the time the French were the recognized masters of ship construction. They just didnt get many chances to show it since the Royal Navy basically blocaded the entire French coast throughout the Napoleonic wars, and those few battles that did take place were, as we all know, rather nasty defeats for the French.
Anyway...just make sure that if one side gets an advantage, the others do too. EX: The Russians would have quite cheap infantry, after all, they managed to raise a force comprable in size to the Grand Armee, even if many of them were armed with pitchforks >_>
I would like to see more battle-options in the game as far as reactions to the AI's moves, much like ChaosLord said above. If, when an enemy army sieges a town, you make that initiate a battle-map and then give the player the choice to resolve it there, or abandon the city, burn the town and have his army scurry off, withdraw behind the defences, or enter into the diplomacy screen. That seems more realistic. The more options the better, but the diplomacy screen seems like a good step in resolving disputes.
This maybe true of the 16th century,but ETW will be taking part in the 18th century when armies were BIG!!! e.g. The Battle of Narva 1700 the Swedes had 10,500men against the Russians 37,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
The Battle of Poltava 1709 the Swedes 14,000 against the Russians 45,000.
The Battle of Blenheim 1704 the British/Allied army of 52,000 with 60 guns against the French and Bavarian army of 56,000 and 90 guns.
The Battle of Ramillies 1706 62,000 against 60,000 and the list of battles goe's on and on......yes there was some smaller battles,but most of the major europeon nations had massive standing armies and at one battle the Ottoman turks numbered 250,000 what is this if not BIG!!!
"That would conflict with any request for 'historical accuracy', around the 16th century, armies as a whole got REALLY small. Why?"
It may cost more to maintain a standing army (which in any case was not done by every country in Europe) but by maintaining a standing army a state was able to intimidate the population and raise far more in terms of taxes than it could in the middle ages. Having a standing army also meant superior logistical organisation and dispensing with the need to rely on political connections with noble retainers, making it much easier to bring a huge army to the field. The new power of artillery also meant that the sort of warfare which actually predominated in the Middle Ages- raiding from castles and other strongholds- declined because fortifications were much less effective; the incentive to meet an invading enemy in the field was much greater. For instance the Italian Wars lasted about half as long as the Hundred Years War and there were more large scale battles.
-Frederick the Great
As I said in my post:
"The 18th century saw a bit of a decline in this, with events like the Great Northern War"
-Furious Mental
And a lot of states were more keen to use that cash to build palaces, found colonies and trade with the Chinese. And armies were REALLY expensive, until, as noted, the late 18th century.
Butter before guns and suchlike.
Well you say that but the battles that occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries suggest otherwise. It also ignores the fact that it was only England, France, Holland, Spain and Portugal that were heavily involved in overseas colonisation and global trade. States such as Denmark, Sweden, Poland-Lithuania, Russia, the Ottoman empire and those on the Italian peninsula and in the Holy Roman Empire had little to no involvement in that sort of thing and continued trying to expand or defend their territory on the continent. And, furthermore, it fails to recognise that colonialism and international trade are not ends in themselves; their purpose is to enrich the metropole and secure it against its neighbours. That is why, to take one example, Spain converted the plunder of the Americas into the army which it fielded in the Thirty Years War.
But again, big wars were not common, except in the case of revolutions, internal squabbles and so forth, in which case the armies were basically a load of peasants equipped with whatever came to hand, supplmented by mercenaries.
Yeah, armies did get big sometimes, but they never STAYED big until the late 1700's. They rarely engaged in pitched, decisive battles resulting in mass casualties such as occured in the Napoleonic Wars.
As for Spain, we all know what happened to them, ya? A fine example of an excellent method of bankrupting yourself.
Sweden was trying VERY hard to establish itself as a colonial power in this era. Great Northern War, much? And they even established a couple of overeseas colonies with plans to build from there. Denmark tried the same thing, although to a much lesser extent.
Sweden was famous for not having a large army anyway. It relied on extensive training, good equipment and its brilliant leadership.
By the time of this game Poland is a failing power, losing territory rather rapidly. I guess thats what you get when the up-and-coming neighborhood power has a rather large chip on its shoulder with regards to certain events involving, say, a large invasion.
Russia and the Ottoman Empire both had professional warrior classes, the Russians until the late 1600's and the Ottomans all the way until the 1850's. That let them have larger armies than other states, but both the Streltsy and Janissaries proved almost totaly ineffective against the 'modern' armies of the era. The Russians replaced their professional warriors with a 'modern' army and went on to become a great power. The Ottomans failed to modernize until it was too late and went on to get themselves repeatedly trounced until the 1850's when, for a brief period, they had a good army.
Out of the scope of the game though. For the duration of the game, the Ottomans are going to be relying on the lovely Janissary corps, with its corruption, incompetence and generaly uselesness that comes with the period. Four Sultans a year, huzzah!
Basically:
Yeah, there are exceptions, but theyre rarely effective and most of them are likely not going to be in playable nations.
Sorry if I hit a nerve Sheogorath,but you don't seem to know what your talking about in your post.You said that during the 18th century armies were small in number and on the decline and most battles were little more than skirmishes which is completly wrong.Most nations were looking to expand their borders and colonise new territories for this they needed large standing armies to compete with other countries.
Do I really have to list all the battles of the 1700's with each nations army strengthes that took part........I hope not!!!:wall:
Eh? I just come of as irritable sometimes when I'm not feeling well.
Anyway...
I said armies were small, yes, compared to Napoleonic armies, IE: Several hundred thousand men. And by the same scale, many battles of the 18th century were little more than skirmishes.
To repeat...
Soldiers were expensive, good soliders moreso. People may have been interested in expanding their borders, but few of them were going to take the risk of raising a big, expensive, army and commiting it to a battle in which it might well be totaly destroyed. Napoleon himself showed us what happens when you overcommit when he marched into Russia.
And, YET AGAIN, I know that there are exceptions. A few 18th century wars saw quite large armies commited into giant battles with horrific casualties, but compared to the Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic era, these were rare. Things like the Industrial Revolution and so forth greatly reduced the cost of soldiers.
If you plan on listing all the battles of the 18th century with the number of participants, go ahead and list all the battles of the 19th century and the number of participants. Otherwise, dont bother.
O.K. we're gone off track a bit with this arguement so to prove my point....What was the largest battle of the Napoleonic Wars......that's right Borodino 1812 with a total of 250,000 French and Russian troops.
What was the largest during the 18th Century.............how about during the Russo-Turkish war at the battle of Kagul 1770 with a total of 267,000 Russian and Turkish troops..............
I rest my case.:logic:
*sigh*
Somebody still isnt getting the point.
I've said there were exceptions. And, you'll note the distrubution of forces and the casualties at the battle of Kagul.
Number of Men:
17,000 Russians
~250,000 Turks, half of which were Cossacks or Tatars.
Golly gee, looks like you've proved my point. The Turks, with their medieval style army, and tribal allies, had a large army, which was rather ineffective against the Russians troops.
Casualties:
1,000 Russians, 20,000 Turks.
Whereas at Borodino some 50,000 were killed, 22,000 wounded and 1,000 captured on all sides.
Think before you condescend.
EDIT:
To further my case:
Casualties of the Napoleonic War (NOT number of troops raised):
Somewhere between 2,500,000 and 6,500,000
Napoleons 'Grand Armee' alone consisted of more than 550,000 troops though.
Number of troops raised for the Crimean War:
Crimean War:
400,000 French
250,000 British
10,000 Sardinian
50,000(?) Ottoman
2,200,000 Russian
4,000 Bulgarians
War of Spanish Succession:
232,000 Habsburgs, England, Dutch, Portugal, Aragon, Savoy, Denmark-Norway
373,000 France (Most populous nation in Europe at that point, FYI)
30 Years War
150,000 Swedes
20,000 Danes
75,000 Dutch
~300,000 Germans (From various states)
150,000 French
450,000 Spanish
Great Northern War:
110,000 Swedes
100-200,000 Ottomans
170,000 Russians
40,000 Danes
100,000 Poles/saxons
And those are some of the largest wars of the period.
As you can see, numbers rarely rise above about 100,000 even for very large nations, the excpetion being desperate circumstances.
edit
That IS more realistic though, even if its something most people would rather avoid. I'd be willing to be that %90 of battles in human history have been a patrols bumping into each other, firing a few shots/arrow volleys, then retreating.
I agree though, that its not exactly entertaining.
The issue with increasing unit size is the ability of computers. More units = Laaaaaaaaaag, without a hit in the graphics department. The CPU/GPU can only handle so many moving objects at once, hence the 'Well, each guy actually represents ten guys' arguement put forth by the guys that did Imperial Glory.
I can understand not having as many men on the field as would historically be present.
edit
100,000 was the total number raised for the whole war. As I've said, BATTLES usually involved much smaller numbers of troops, few casualties, etc. etc., its all up there anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyanCentaur
And yeah, thats why I'm more and more starting to think that the Napoleonic Wars will be part of an expansion or something. The tactical shift is simply too great to achieve with the 17th/18th century model of warfare.
Unless CA goes with the early-19th century style right from the start and disregards history.
edit
I did not say armies did not get progressively bigger in the 18th and 19th centuries. I simply disagree with the assertion that armies were huge in the middle ages and became tiny in the Renaissance, because it is wrong.
Back to the original gist of the argument, I consider huge armies to be a must for the game. Managing such forces across wide areas and long battles was part and parcel of fighting; if the armies are only a fraction of their real size then that removes a whole dimension of strategy. With computing technology advancing we are entitled either to bigger battles or more detailed graphics, and I'd rather have the former.
I never SAID armies were huge in the middle ages. I said they got SMALLER, not that they got TINY. As was shown, about 100,000 was what a nation might commit to an war, thats hardly 'tiny'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
However, army size, as was demonstrated, exploded with the Industrial Revolution, the ability to mass produce guns and the general increase in human resources.
On the subject of the subject change...
As to 'huge armies', that depends on how you define 'huge'. 'Huge' in RTW/MTW2 is about 10,000 men, which is pretty much the upper limit of what a computer can process without exploding without returning to sprites. If you want giant 100,000 man armies (which would be highly unrealistic because NOBODY commits their ENTIRE army to every battle), then ETW is going to have to have MTW-style graphics.
Personally, I think that 'large' battles by MTW2 standard would be acceptable as an average engagement in ETW, that'd be 2,000-4,000 men to a side, because I seriously doubt that anybody is going to be able to smoothly run a 40,000-man battle, which is Napoleonic-era stuff anyway, as has been shown.
It would also be more representative of the style of fighting in the era. The whole army wasnt engaged at once, except in rare cases, but rather small portions of the larger force would engage each other in battles more managable by the generals present. The two sides exchanged a bit of fire, manuvered a bit, then the one who took more casualties or got outmanuvered retreated.
That'd be boring in a TW game, though, since the main target audience wants Napoleonic-style warfare, which is apparently what youre going for.
So, why not just call the game 'Napoleon Total War' and set it between 1790 and 1815? Short, but its the period youre going for.
Right, but do those minor engagements play a decisive role in the exchanging of huge swathes of territory? There's too much micro-management as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
What if a huge battle could be reduced to sectors or wings? Three battles at once could be taking place at 10,000 per side for a battle of 60,000 units. If one side wins a flank that army can enter the other battles as reserves. Perhaps in the background you can see the routing army scurrying off, reducing the morale of the center, etc.
Too be honest the whole idea of having the AI generate the battlefield has always been irksome. The engagement should begin with me choosing between a few landscapes that I have the movement points to make use of. I'd rather bail than start a fight at the bottom of a ravine.
The scale that the red square represents in relation to the battle front needs to be increased.
Like I pointed out above, each 'battle' could be considered representantive of a part of a battle, rather than the whole thing. Its a bit arbitrary, but winning that one engagement could be the 'victory' for the whole battle, with your total casualties calculated somehow by the casualties you took in your own fight.
And yeah, AI generated maps and weather are a pain.
Remember back in MTW when it would ALWAYS start raining if you had gunpowder units? That was fun, wasnt it? ;)
OMG I proved my point and still you go on......your becoming boring now.......so I'll go over again with you each quote in your post.Why would asking for bigger battles conflict with historical accuracy??? As I've proved battles in the 1700's were just as big in troop's fielded as they were in the Napoleonic War's and I'm not interested in the casualties.Around the 16th century,armies as a whole got really small.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
why mention this when ETW is taking place in the 1700's.
Armies didn't start getting BIG until the Napoleonic Wars....WRONG!!! which is apparently about the time ETW end's...finally something you got right.....will probably include French Revolution Wars.
Basically,almost every battle (with a few exceptions) was a "useless skirmish"
WRONG AGAIN!!! Few commanders were willing to field huge armies in decisive battles.....BUT THEY DID!!! so please now let this lie :Zzzz:
OMG K LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick the Great
Been argued and proven. See above.Quote:
Why would asking for bigger battles conflict with historical accuracy???
No, you havent. You've just stated your arguement. Several times.Quote:
As I've proved battles in the 1700's were just as big in troop's fielded as they were in the Napoleonic War's
So the fact that the Napoleonic Wars had more military casualties than any previous European war had SOLDIERS makes no nevermind to you?Quote:
and I'm not interested in the casualties.
k.Quote:
Around the 16th century,armies as a whole got really small.....
why mention this when ETW is taking place in the 1700's.
Point dismissed. Been argued, proven wrong. kthnxbai.Quote:
Armies didn't start getting BIG until the Napoleonic Wars....WRONG!!!
IE: The time armies started getting really big, OMG, the LATE 18th CENTURY! WOW! D:Quote:
which is apparently about the time ETW end's...finally something you got right.....will probably include French Revolution Wars.
Really? Do you KNOW how many battles have involved a few hundred men, and were ignored by history simply because they werent worth mentioning? Just because it doesnt show up in your history textbook doesnt mean it didnt happen. According to my 'History of Western Civilization' the Crimean War was a conflict between France, the UK and Russia. No mention of Ottomans or Sardinians anywhere.Quote:
Basically,almost every battle (with a few exceptions) was a "useless skirmish"
WRONG AGAIN!!! Few commanders were willing to field huge armies in decisive battles.....BUT THEY DID!!!
As soon as youre ready.Quote:
so please now let this lie :Zzzz:
edit
Quite, but then, they DID say that they were gonna give us some amazingly awesome AI upgrades ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CyanCentaur
The Turks didnt have a Western-style army either, and, again, half their army was made up of Cossacks and Tatars, IE: Tribal people who dont have an economy back home to support and are more or less capable of living off the land. 100,000 would be an 'epic' battle anyway.Quote:
It's odd to call 100,000 man fights unrealistic when you concur that 250,000 Turks were present at Kagul. It doesn't matter whether this was atypical. Remember, nobody cares about little tiny skirmishes that history doesn't bother to record. A huge battle is what people remember, and that's why we are eager to see a few epic battles to punctuate a TW campaign.
Quite.Quote:
I propose it could be addressed by increasing unit sizes, and/or by improving sub-army commander interfaces - which is something I requested earlier in the thread. Having said that, I agree there could be a performance issue. In my opinion, the designers are wasting time putting detail on troops instead of figuring out how to cram more onto the screen. Only in replays do we have time to enjoy such detail... ahem.
I was under the impression that the game was running 1700-1800(ish).Quote:
According to the sticky, the early 1800s ARE part of the target period.
A skirmish is still a battle. Any military engagement is a battle.Quote:
Easy, the answer is zero, because a few hundred men constitutes a "skirmish", not a "battle". :laugh4:
I'd like to see some sort of military mobilization incorporated in the game.
:fishbowl:
Fishy!
*Feeds it*
edit
No, the broad definition of 'battle' is any conflict between two or more individuals, human or ootherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyanCentaur
As to the second part, it depends on the scale of the game. If we end up taking the 1::10 approach in terms of manpower, then 200 men would represent a 2,000 man engagement. And, IMO, its not likely that CA is going to let us have 1::1 ratio with manpower, since that would mean a graphical hit which would alienate the mainstream who want PRETTY GRAPHICS.
Oops didn't realize there was a debate raging here.
Sheogorath you over use the word "exception". If you throw everything out as an exception the only things you have left is what you want to be there.
I agree, I would like to see the wars consist of a lot of large battles, but most of them indecisive or seeing action only along a small part of the battle field, but with the potential of completely destroying the opponent. Large forces from each side should be involved each time in theory (i.e. large stacks on the strat map), but in practise the AI should realize when to retreat, while fighting a rearguard operation with some troops. :yes: Combining this with a difficulty in ever completely destroying an enemy army would create a very realistic and fun game!Quote:
Originally Posted by CyanCentaur
The problem is that there ARE exceptions to everything we've been debating. If I had said "No battle in the 18th century had more than 40,000 men in it." that would've been a lie. I'm fairly confident that 40,000 was an large-ish number for the era (seems like it from what I've read) but its hardly the maximum, even for Western-style armies of the era. Saying no battle had fewer than 40,000 men is, likewise, wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichigo
You cant rely on absolute facts when talking about this sort of thing, there are simply too many variables, too many different battles, commanders and styles of warfare, even within the Western set of tactics and logistics that ETW will apparently center on.
Unless, of course, youre willing to find me the statistics from EVERY battle of the 18th century, then average the number of men. Then we certainly could say "18th century battles had an average of (random number) of men."
I dont know about you, but thats rather a lot of work.
The fact that you're comparing the Napoleonic battles to 18th century battles I don't think should be done. With the Industrial Revolution beginning in the late 1700's plus levee en masse during the French revolution armies were bound to get larger during the time period.
The reason we're comparing the two periods is that the game apparently starts in 1700 and ends some time around the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Hence the comparisons.
Comparing them would be almost like comparing the Napoleonic Wars to WWI. Even if it is part of the game there's no basis between the two. Completely different IMHO.
i want to see the baggage train and the camp followers! :D
Annie
Theyre going to be in the same game. Thats basis for comparsion, because I'm willing to bet CA is either going to go one way or another, Napoleonic combat or 18th century combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichigo
On another note, its nice to see SOMEBODY here who doesnt seem to think that Napoleonic era warfare was no different than 18th century warfare.
-Lady Ann
Huzzah! I demand accuratly modeled 18/19thth century prostitutes! And a looting minigame.
Well, I think they could probably incorporate both into the game. By the possibility of events that center around the French Revolution+ events that represent the Industrialization and military conscription of the late 18th century and early 19th century. I would think that it would be possible, though maybe not actually as large as they were historically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
I don't think it's very fair to compare the two, though you do have a valid point as both aspects will probably be incorporated in the game.
The problem is, most people think that its all just standing in lines and blasting away with muskets, and CA has to appeal to the mainstream. It would be a bit much to expect the average gamer to switch tactics mid-way, and considering the shift in tactics in the 1790's was a bit more complex than the Marian Reforms, you cant just say, "Well, we add a few new units and now its the Napoleonic era! Huzzah and so forth!"
Like I said, I think CA'll go one way or the other, most likely the entire game will be focused on the Napoleonic style, which isnt such a bad thing I suppose, certainly it would be a bit more fast-paced than typical 18th century combat.
I don't know much about Napoleonic tactics other then what I've stated here. Other than Napoleon started making separate artillery battalions, which worked well for him.
Although things had been shifting earlier, Napoleon forced everybody to change quickly. The sheer size of his armies was one factor in this, along with a more active use of cavalry, grand batteries and so on.
Its difficult to list out everything, and the differences arent as exaggerated as, say, the difference between World War One and Two, but they're there. Its one of the reasons it would be so hard to model, you cant just have an event pop up, change the unit models and say, "new era lol!"
Now you sound like you know your onions so please feel free to educate me here but I thought the Napoleans era ushered a revision in tactics and strategy, partly made possible by the troops and equipment available at the time. If this is so isn't this something that should be possible to follow in the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
From what I've read :study: the 18th century was dominated by seiges and strategic engagements meant to protect precious armies where as Napolean went for annihilation of the enemy. Isn't this something the player could choose to adopt on the campaign map? Play like Fredrick the Great and probe in mass at the enemies weak points or go for it like Napoleon and cut the enemies line of communications, bringing them onto you?
Like you say the size of armies was another factor. I thought armies at the beginning of the period were smaller because nations had formed standing armies to deal with the long drawn out sieges and these troops where expensive to maintain (plus with revolution in the air they where a little worried about their troops allegiances). The Industrial Revolution brought the cost of equipment down whilst the later mass conscription in France after their Revolution forced everyone else to increase the size of their armies. Couldn't this be dealt with by varying unit cost, type and availability through the period in much the way MTW2 does now?
Lastly their is Napoleons new tactics which as you mention above were based around the maneuverability of his poorly trained infantry in column, his use of massed cavalry and his favorite, his artillery batteries. This made him much more dynamic than the commanders proceeding him but again isn't this something that the individual player could choose to adopt during their battles?
Being a historical strategy game I think TW is unable to dictate the strategy and tactics a player employs other than influencing them by the units it makes available. As you mentioned in an earlier thread I do think the players will be playing in a more Napolean style, mainly because it is more exciting and it will offer a greater opportunity of success (Just take greater care invading Russia)
Sorry to quote you yet again Sheogorath,but this was the mainstream of 18th century european battles with usually the better dicipline troops winning the day.It was not until near the end on the century with Napoleon's reform that armies became more flexable and tactic's changed.The infantry square although dating back to Roman times didn't appear on the european battlefield until the late 18th century and one of Napoleon's reform's was the infantry attack column which was able to attack a small area of a line formation and thus suffered less casualties from musket fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
It's possible that CA will keep Napoleon's Wars for another game with only the French Revolutionary Wars included in this game.
At the end of the day CA will probably put in or leave out what they feel is historically accurate........it's sale's that count.
The information released by the developers implies that the Napoleonic Wars or that general era are in the game.
Yeah,but everyone's saying Napoleon,Napoleon,Napoleon this game wont be about Napoleon....think 1700's and Louis XlV.Think some infantry still using pikes.You can't think 19th century tactic's as you would 18th century tactic's it just wasn't the same.Napoleon and his reform's only came in at the very end of this era.I don't know how or even if this will be included in the same game.We'll just have to wait and see.
What you say is accurate, the problem comes from getting the AI and player to act in the correct manner. As you said, you cant really FORCE a player to take a pre-Napoleonic line in battle, and in a battle, pre-Napoleonic tactics almost always lose to Napoleonic ones. Of course, the AI could be made equally incompetent in both settings, and be made to change tactics, but we still have the 'video game' issue, in that there is only so much you can do in code without having to spend another year writing a detailed 'strategic shift' code which makes the goal of combat gradually shift away from capturing strategic points to defeating your enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Lane
Its just not practical, if its even possible.
It would have to be an event like the Marian Reforms in RTW, which wouldnt work too well IMO.
So, basically, yes, we'd have to go pre-Napoleon or Napoleon.
-Frederick
Way to paraphrase what I said. Its nice that you agree with me, though.
And no Western army was using pikes in the 18th century. Some people still issued halberds to their NCO's, but spears were limited to cavalry by this era. The bayonette made pikes obsolete.
The game ends around 1820, and the developers make obvious references to him (unless you know of another famous "Corsican artillery officer" from the late 18th century who had absolutely nothing to do with the Napoleonic Wars).
"Napoleon and his reform's only came in at the very end of this era."
Yeah that would be the whole idea. Just like pike and guns being introduced at the end of MTW 2. That way the last 25 years are not just more of the same.
I checked my book's on this period and sorry to prove myself right again in what I said,but pikes admittedly in small numbers were still being used in the 18th century.....please read on End of the pike era
After the mid-seventeenth century, armies that adopted the flintlock musket began to abandon the pike altogether, or to greatly decrease their numbers. The invention of the bayonet provided an anti-cavalry solution, and the musket's firepower was now so deadly that combat was often decided by shooting alone.
In such an environment, pikemen grew to intensely dislike their own weapon, as they were forced to stand inactive as the combat went on around them as the opposing musketeers duelled, feeling that they were mere targets rather than soldiers, and that they were adding nothing to the battle raging around them. There are examples of pikemen throwing their weapons down and seizing muskets from fallen comrades, a sign that the pike was on the wane as a weapon.
A common end date for the use of the pike in infantry formations is 1700, although such armies as the Prussian and Austrian had already abandoned the pike by that date, whereas others such as the Swedish and the Russian continued to use it for several decades afterward – the Swedes of King Charles XII in particular using it to great effect until the 1720s.
Even later, the obsolete pike would still find a use in such countries as Ireland, Russia and China, generally in the hands of desperate peasant rebels who did not have access to firearms. John Brown planned to arm a rebel slave army in America largely with pikes.
One attempt to resurrect the pike as a primary infantry weapon occurred during the American Civil War when the Confederate States of America planned to recruit twenty regiments of pikemen in 1862. In April 1862 it was authorised that every Confederate infantry regiment would include two companies of pikemen, a plan supported by Robert E. Lee. Many pikes were produced but were never used in battle and the plan to include pikemen in the army was abandoned.
Shorter versions of pikes called boarding pikes were also used on warships – typically to repel boarding parties – as late as the third quarter of the 19th century.
It is to be noted that the great Hawaiian warrior king Kamehameha I had an elite force of men armed with very long spears who seem to have fought in a manner identical to European pikemen, despite the usual conception of his people's general disposition for individualistic duelling as their method of close combat. It is not known whether Kamehameha himself introduced this tactic, or if it was a traditional Hawaiian weapons-usage.
Pikes live on today only in traditional roles, being used to carry the colours of an infantry regiment.
Oh and sorry to prove you wrong too Furious Mental I suggest you read the Total War web page on ETW The game is set in the years 1700 to the early 1800’s, a turbulent age of gunpowder, revolution, discovery and Empire Building. This period has all the ingredients for a great Total War title: fascinating changes in warfare and its technology, a large number of competing factions hungry for power, and gloriously exciting and colourful battles. This is a time when an old world is being swept away at a tremendous rate by the juggernaut of the industrial age. Revolutionary ideas are in the air, and at least one monarch meets a bloody end! No mention of 1820 here or maybe your mates "The Developers" got this wrong.
Against a backdrop of key historical themes such as the French Revolution and the American War Of Independence, the player’s aim is to create the greatest Republic or Empire the world has known, spanning not just a continent but the world! Can you hold on to lands in the New World, or establish a rich trading empire in the Indies? Still no mention of the man himself or the Napoleonic wars!!!
Empire: Total War contains a revolutionised Total War campaign spanning 3 continents and featuring new, enhanced systems for Trade, Diplomacy, Missions and Espionage. There will be an all-new fully animated campaign map with all buildings and upgrades visible. The campaign will also feature a huge cast of historical figures including Peter The Great, Malborough and Charles XII of Sweden. The game will include 10 playable factions including Britain, Prussia, France, Spain, America and the massive Ottoman Empire. Have you seen Napoleon mentioned yet???
Empire: Total War’s revolutionised graphics engine will be put to work on land battles that will feature heavy artillery in the form of cannons, mortar and early rocket launchers, with bouncing cannonballs slicing through drifting gunsmoke to tear up lines of infantry. Bagpipes, drummers, flautists and trumpeters will fill the air with play out over the crack of musket fire, the boom of artillery and the thunderous charge of cavalry. Generals will bark out orders to their regiments as the player orchestrates the battle utilizing formations, unit abilities and drills. Weapons will jam and misfire, cannons will seize up and explode as the field of conflict becomes strewn with the bodies of wounded and dying men, lacerated and dismembered by pike, bayonet and shot. Oh look there's those "Pikes" mentioned.
The veiled reference to Napoleon was in an interview. I did not say that they said "Napoleon". They said you might get a certain Corsican artillery officer as a general in the late 18th century. Unless you'd care to name some other famous Corsican artillery officers, I'll continue to take that as a veiled reference to Napoleon.
"No mention of 1820 here or maybe your mates "The Developers" got this wrong."
I didn't say 1820, I said around 1820, which is the same as "early 1800's anyway, which is when the Napoleonic Wars occurred.
Hello,
Napoleon was roaring his tail already well before 1800. So, if the game ends early 1800's (which is early 19th century the way I understand it), Napoleon should be included.
There may be the ambition to make a switch in the game (i.e. Napoleon changing the face of warfare again in the 19th century: France unlocks a techtree and starts building special units and other countries react/copy). That's easy put in one sentence, but to make that happen properly on campaignlevel, code the required changes in the battlefieldAI, prevent code of eras to conflict with each other, create an entertaining game and so on, is quite a different story.
There is already the huge problem of naval battles. Does the player need to learn the sea, or not? Worst that can happen in MTW when I ask too much of the cannoncrew is that I blow up a cannon; now I can destroy a whole fleet because I didn't see the seagul telling me that a storm was closing in or I'm too late/early because of some tide only experienced sailers know about. Too detailed? When is it too much, when too little? When convincing enough to drag you in the game, when too complex to quit in despair?
Customers have to wait at least a year to purchase ETW, but the whole project is years old. The decision to include or not include Napoleonic warfare may already have been made. People speculating about whether it's included or not is advertising.
There's also a year to go, maybe (most) bits are there. How well everything can be put together decides whether early 1800's is 1801, 1815 or something in between.
Could also mean the polearms carried by sergeants and officers.Quote:
Oh look there's those "Pikes" mentioned.
Thank you for your reply and common sense input TosaInu and your right there are far to many people speculating what's going to be included or excluded in this game.
The french revolutionary wars did not end until 1799 and I do know that General Napoleon fought a campaign against the Italians from 1796 to 1797 and then lead the egyptian expedition from 1798 to 1799.
It was not until 1804 that Napoleon crowned himself Emperor so wether or not ETW goe's on after this is anyone's guess!
Don't get me wrong I would love ETW to go upto "Waterloo" being my favourite land battle and having been to Belgium and done the battlefield tour and climbed all those step's up the Lion mound.
Your also right about all of us having to become sailor's and learning how to Tack and for those who don't know what that is, it's using the wind to sail your ship as sailing into the wind was a no no as your ship became dead in the water.I wonder if Trafalgar will be included???Wow imagine sailing H.M.S. Victory with it's 104 guns against the Huge Spanish Santisima Trinidad with it's 136 guns.
Role on next year when the game comes out:2thumbsup:
OMG not someone else who doesn't know there history.This polearm you mentioned was called the Spontoon and it was issued to sergeants and officer's.This was not a pike,but simular to the halberd!!!And if you read my post more carefully it states that King Charles Xll of sweden was still using "Pikes" successfully upto 1720 and the Russian's even later than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Templar Knight
I suggust you wait until next year when the game comes out before arguing the point.
Discussion and speculation are fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick the Great
It can still be classified as a pike, or a 'European Short Pike' as it was also known. I was only suggesting what they (CA) could mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick the Great
-Freddy, again
Russia's army wasnt 'western' until the 1720's when the last Streltsy regiment was fully integrated into the proper army. Tsar Peter might not have liked it, but he had to keep using less modern soldiers
The Swedes were in desperate straits by that point too, considering the asskicking they were getting in the Great Northern War. When the Russians have captured all of your guns, then its no suprise they started handing out pikes. Much like the Russians handed out Napoleonic era muskets in the Crimean War to arm all two million of their soliders.
-TosaInu
So, basically, a Marian Reforms type event, yes?
-Freddy, yet again
Do stop condescending to people about your 'superior knowledge of history' or their 'not knowing about history'. It only gets people irritated.
And do you have to write in bold font?
"learning how to Tack and for those who don't know what that is, it's using the wind to sail your ship as sailing into the wind"
Err no, actually it's not. The term for sailing upwind is "beat". "Tack" is to turn into the wind and then continuing turning away from the wind about 45 degrees so that the wind is coming across the other side of the boat to what it was before. If you are going to talk in a condescending way to everyone you might as well get your facts straight first.
edit
-CyanCentaur
Yeah, and RTW's AI boiled it all down to one simple strategy:
BANZAIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!
Which is why I'm saying they'll most likely just go with Napoleonic strategy for the whole thing instead of dealing with all the bother of integrating the boring 18th century stuff that nobody'll want to play anyway, 'cause its boring.
edit
These rarely show up though. I've seen it, yes, but most of the time the AI happily hurls its entire force at you or stands around like an idiot (passive AI lol). A fine example was in RTW when Carthage repeatedly attacked my Sicilian cities with full stacks, which I easily held off with three units of Roman infantry. They could have easily destroyed me simply by going around the back way with three units, but instead chose to funnel their entire force into the direct attack. It was easer to defend your TC than the walls themselves.
MTW2 IS a little better though, I'll admit.
EDIT:
And, I've noted, the AI's defensive strategy tends to revolve around almost always having a terrain advantage. I mean, count the times you've ended up facing the AI across a ravine or on top of a hill that you cant get on top of without fighting it.
As people have said before I would like the terrain to play a role in the battles and the units should have names such as the 95th Rifles and things of that sort. If theres gonna be Bagpipes we have to have kilts and to have wing commands as mentioned before so theres not so much micromanagement during a battle.
Yes, but a Napoleonic reform would be more involving I think. If only because it has to be pulled of in a very short time (you clearly want to see the effect within a decade, in RTW it happened early on and then you had the whole game to use it). Maybe the time should be slowed after the Napoleonic reform? Say 2-4 turns per year in 1700-1800 and 4+ after the reform? That way the game has some extra 'time' to transform and the player to enjoy the toys (totalwar bullettime).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
O.K. FIRST OF ALL I'LL TYPE USING WHATEVER FONT I LIKE AND I DO APOLOGISE IF I COME ON IN A CONDESCENDING MANNER SOMETIMES, BUT MAYBE I WOULDN'T NEED TO IF PEOPLE GOT THEIR FACTS RIGHT.
THANK YOU ALSO FOR CORRECTING ME ON THE TERM "TACKING" AND THE SAILING LESSON, SORRY I'M A LAND LOVER, BUT I HAD HEARD OF THE TERM BEFORE.
Are you now finally agreeing with me Sheogorath that "Pikes" were still in small use during the 18th century.:wall: Phew it's taken a while to get though to some people,but as everyone can read in the CA write up for ETW the Pike will be one of the hand to hand weapon's used in the game ammittedly probably only in the early stage.I don't think they would mention this if they were only talking about the NCO's and Officer's spontoon.
Didn't realize it was a crime to be wrong. :shrug:
The topic title is: What we would like to see in ETW.....
This is broad and side discussions are fine, but keep it friendly please.
Of course. I agree with you Tosa, I think they'll have some sort of events that will change the warfare in the game. Probably won't be an easy switch but it would be the right thing IMHO
I honestly think that they have put into Empire everything I would really ask for:
1. Better AI (hopefully when they say thier redoing the whole AI they mean the [U]whole[U] AI.)
2. Tons of factions
3. Naval battles
Oh but I would really like for the modding of the game to be simpler and easier then M2 was, although I doubt im gonna have enough time to be modding when theres so many other great games coming out this and next year.
Most of this is won't happen, but what the hell:
-Simultaneously decided turns. Discrete Igo-yougo stuff is unrealistic, and most importantly enables one (human or AI) to force battles too easily. It's also nice to have to seriously consider your opponent's next move.
-Easier reinforcement of existing units, the details of which I can't be bothered to think about. There should be a way to call up the right amount of men to return any number of under-strength units to full strength.
-Attrition of armies through weather, disease, malnutrition... not gonna happen.
-Consideration of supply lines.
-Rifles. Probably been discussed, but they definitely have a part to play in the latter half of the game's timeline.
EDIT- forgot:
-The ability to, infrastructure allowing, train more than one unit and build multiple buildings at once.
-Resources that are more essential and less general than money. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many wars were started (not necessarily in the 18th century) to secure specific and vital resources. For example, ships should require lumber, muskets need lumber and steel, uniforms require wool/cotton, everyone needs food, and so on.
I disagree, I would prefer that when an army operates far from home that regular units are only replenished from their home barracks. In this way cutting a supply line should choke an army of new recruits. Barracks created in an established colony should not be able to train that factions regular units but should create colonial troops local to that region such as Indian Sepoys or Algerian Zouaves. This will also allow greater diversification and troops better suited to the local region.Quote:
Originally Posted by cannon_fodder
^ That's what I meant: the replacements are recruited and trained at the home barracks, then have to be shipped over to their appropriate positions (that could be partially automated as well). But at present in TW games there is no way to recruit a non-unit sized group of men short of retraining.
Yeah, you should be able to integrate natives as well.