Printable View
It would be nice to introduce East Asia as a theatre and expand the American theatre westward to Alaska as well as extend the grand campaign to 1860+. That would make Empire feel so much more complete. More playable native factions would be great such as China, Japan, some factions in Africa and some in America.
Man, I spit coffee all over my keyboard when I read that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
If they put a pucklegun on top of the ape's back and had him manned by a group of three pygmy gunners, that would be in line with past add-ons. The ape could be armoured like the apes in the Planet of the Apes. :2thumbsup:
Or perhaps it could be an ETW with a time machine, so you can visit RTW and M2TW time, see old friends, hear their speeches and kill them afterwards with your muskets.
Or the apes could turn on their masters and you would have another faction to emerge.:turtle:Quote:
Originally Posted by geala
Sorry, I don't mean to be highjacking the thread or anything......
Lol, don't worry. It made me laugh. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by joe4iz
Glad to ablidge...is that spelled right?
Anyway, I hope for an Opium war expansion. I think they purposely left the Chinese trade routes out just for that purpose.
ACW is kind of overdone, but for them to ignore Napoleon would be like making a WW2 FPS without Nazis. So yeah,I'd like to see something with Napoleon in it also.
Easy, make a WWII FPS about the Pacific Theatre :grin3:Quote:
Originally Posted by joe4iz
I actually don't own the game yet... (:bigcry:) But it seems lots of people are seriously considering ACW and further timelines; can the E:TW engine actually do fast RPM machine guns and fast reload rifles? Can it emulate the defensive warfare of the late 19th century? I can imagine wars like the Boer War would be easy, but what about late ACW, and the Franco Prussian War? So many questions, but I am insanely curious.
How is it overdone? I can't think of an ACW game that isn't one of those really cheap strategy titles that third rate publishers churn out from an assembly line. And I certainly have never played an ACW game before. It needs the CA touch.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe4iz
Honestly, as an European, an expansion focused on the Americas would actually be quite interesting.
What I'm having a problem with is an ACW-focused one. I mean, we have the south, the north, and that's about it, right? You could throw in Canada, just for the sake of it, and yeah, we're done.
Now, an expension covering the history of Texas, the ACW and Southern America's struggle for independance and the war of 1812 would be quite neat.
I don't see why the American Civil War gameplay would clash with the engine. As it has been said, dismounted cavalry has been written in, Monitor/Merrimac battles and other conventional naval battles would we fun, and artillery was pretty similar. The civil war line combat would be perfect. I don't see the incredible distinction in battle strategy between the middle part of the 18th and the middle part of the 20th century. Successful revolutions during the later 17th century didn't rely too heavily on fighting big field line battles.
Was Rome-Barbarian an easy port?
I want new maps and for the expansion to span from napoleon to the American civil war - maybe to africa. It is key to release more maps and more units for modders to play with.
It could go like Kingdoms and have lots of little mini-campaigns like the Crimean War(mid-1800s), American Civil War and Indian Wars (late 1800s), but mostly focused on the Napoleonic Wars(early 1800s). Then CA could string the techs together and create a generic 1800 - 1900 Grand Campaign.
Im not really familiar with the wars in this time period so not really bothered as long as the fully functional multiplayer campaigns in before the expansion im happy, and if not id like to see the mp campaign as an expansion. Really hope ca stick to their promises on this one and deliver.
I definitely think a Kingdoms-style expansion is the way to go. As for which wars to include, I think it should be:
7 Years War
Peninsular War
Great Northern War
English Civil War
I honestly think the American Civil War would be absolutely awful. I mean, there's only two factions, the weapons are far too advanced for Total War to still be Total War, and it's just not as interesting as you probably think.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maleficus
I don't know why people keep saying that the style of warfare had so radically changed since the turn of the century. I don't understand why weapons had become "sooo" advanced.
Can we use examples? Rifling became popular during the civil war, but troops still predominantly used smoothbore muskets. Additionally, rifling was around way before the revolution.
If you are talking about the gattling gun, it only saw limited use during the ACW. Line combat was still predominant.
We are talking out of our hats if we think that the Civil war was lightyears ahead of 18th century warfare.
PS - we could have numerous factions and countless units. This would be a unit heavy expansion. Mexico was around, various native tribes were still vibrant, Canada was irritating at that time, the UK was fence sitting - waiting to throw its hat into the ring, The Spanish were still in the Americas, France was still in the Americas, etc. Sounds like a similar expansion to viking invasion with endlessly varied units. Uniforms were at their peak at this time.
Napoleon to the American Civil war would be a beautiful expansion with huge potential. polar opposite campaign maps.
I think what most people are talking about is not the core concept of linear warfare but the changes around them. An ACW expansion would have to include trains, telegraphs, semi automatic weapons (pistols and carbines, yes I know they still had to thumb the hammer at this time, but still), plus battlefield balance would also be changed since cavalry by this time was only useful for skirmishing and raiding and no longer really had any place on the main battlefield. You would also have to make rivers large enough to facilitate naval combat, and the engine would need EXTREME makeover to facilitate the kind of intrenchments and defensive works used in this war.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see an ACW total war game, but it would have to be a new title or a HEAVILY modded ETW.
They mean that:
(a) ACW saw widespread use of rifles, to the almost complete exclusion of smoothbores by 1863-1864, expanding the range of combat and ensuring fire, rather than melee (mainstay of TW), decided almost all combats.
(b) Cavalry (specifically, heavy cavalry, lancers, and the like) saw minimal use on the battlefield, instead being relegated to heavy infantry status, and removing one of the arms of the combined arms triad in use to that date
(c) That, give the two points above, Civil War combat is somehow less "exciting" than Horse and Musket period engagements. Personally, I disagree, as I find fire an maneuver by infantry heavy units just as exciting and dislike melee combat, but that is me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NimitsTexan
I think that Napoleonic/American Civil War would be a great 19th century evolutionary title. If you are worried about the expansion being too similar to the full title, this will cure what ales you.
Accuracy of rounds isn't more than a change in a few coded numbers, right? Muskets looked like muskets - total war hasn't become so advanced that we can look down the barrel just yet.
Carbines/Repeaters would add a new element of gameplay. I think that the advance in the Use of Cavalry would be awesome, and since dismountable are already in game, again the switch would be easy.
Some units would be a late unlock - like gattling guns, bolt actions, Ironclads, rudimentary subs would be funny, All black regiments, etc. So much to do, so many external factions that could have gotten involved in the American war, or were involved for the most part.
We'll see, but unless they plan on doing a Civil War Total war, (which I think would be a waste of a title and wouldn't fit in to the series), now is their opportunity. Napoleon, Nelson, Wellesly, Pitt, Lee, Grant, Jackson, Sherman, Meade, Longstreet, Lincoln, etc. There is enough variance in heroes.
You know, there's also the German and Italian Wars of unification. If they were going to make a WWI Total War game, it would be a good way to segway into it.
I rather wished for ETW they covered the end period of M2:TW up to height of the pike and musket era say about 1650-1700 ish. My favorite units and time period for M2 were always at the end of the tech tree so i'd spend hundreds of turns babying the AI (IE not kill them and drop off HUGE monetary gifts) so that they'd tech up and i get to rip em apart with my new shiny toys.
Then for E2:TW they could go to the era we have now, it woulda been a relatively streamless transition, but i guess they wanted to shake things up more to draw in more fans.
A 1500-1800 game would ahve been pretty fun but take a long time. I think they tried to incorporate some parts of late medieval with pike units and stuff.
My vote is on opium wars, Opium as tradegood nice for some diplomatic repercussions and wrecking other countries economies by addicting their population with contraband!
oh and then afganistan will finally be a usefull province to obtain...
The Napoleonic Wars have everything to make the perfect expansion, with 3 month turns at least.
The ACW could work, but it is VERY different to the Napoleonic style...sure...lots of things were similar, but rifles were a lot more commonplace than found in Napoleonic times. There were more casualties than found pre Napoleon. The concepts of mass production also made it more likely that a state could give this weaponary to its soldiers.
The best option would be to have a Napoleonic era campaign with many scenario battles from the era....there are lots and lots of potenital for people to play out the historical battles from the time and across the theaters. The main change from the era ETW has captured now is that the fact that lives were more expendable than before. The pre Napoleonic strategy was more like a game of chess, where states could not afford to lose an army - something that ETW hasn't portrayed well IMO. Thus tactics mostly circulated round strategic maneouvering around each other with very well drilled infantry.
Then the revolutionary govt in france changed all of that, they didn't have time to train everyone to the brutal standards of the old monarchy army, so they use their huge numbers - the battles of the new republic were won by numbers smashing through a line - they didn't even give proper muskets to many of the soldiers - instead gonig back to cleavers etc... One battle against Prussia ended up with Prussian soldiers shooting a lot of enemy, but having to retreat due to weight of numbers. Napoleon carried on in this manner, with perfection of artillery tactics and strategic manouevering - check the almost non battle of Ulm and also his campagin against the prussians. You can make the natural progression to this by linknig the end of empires to the new era - maybe a new starting date? A differenyt tech tree for republics would be better as well, a reflection of a newborn state that has rejected the institutions of the old one and has to struggle to set up its own would be very nice to play. However, I would like to see more management of provinces and towns, more issues of crowd control and a richers micromanagement than what we have currently, in which the factors for me are diluted down too much to accruately represent the struggles of states to keep their monopoly of power.
The ACW tried to use Napoleonic tactics, but with huge losses due to the improved weaponary...to an extent, Europe had moved on, but the commanders who had been trained at West Point had mostly been taught to idolise Napolic style tactics, which when given the new weapons systems - broke down catastrophically.
The ACW would also require CA to master cavalry only battles, something that I believe it has never managed to do. The western battlegrounds were more cavalry only based affairs, with raids and counterfoil efforts showing the vastness of the battlegrounds whereas Inf were able to move the shorter distances between the more populous east coast more easily. The Appalachian battleground was also important Cav only areas, where many battles were more cavalry skirmishes for local control.
Well, chronologically, they're up to the early Industrial era. So, the Napoleonic period seems logical, followed by American Civil War. Both are hugely popular with military history buffs. :rtwyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
But, given the overall downward trend in their software quality, maybe a wiser choice would be for them to just take the $$$ and retire. :laugh4:
Looks like Empire:Total War isn't really suitable for this engine! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wausser
Damn skippy. Technical issues aside, Napoleon and the ACW are both just too damn epic to not do.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeV
War & Peace, Gods & Generals, The Killer Angels, etc. It makes me tingly inside. They're both close enough to what the Empire engine does that it'd just be a real shame if they weren't in an expansion.
I honestly wonder if they arnt going to forgo an expansion, and just flood us with downloadable content?
I still would love an attempt at an ACW expansion, it could be a very emotional piece.
Besides the airplanes, tanks and nuclear weapons I don't really either. :clown: Sorry, couldn't resist!Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Zepplins and Observation balloons would be pretty easy to mod in. Someone modded in Nazgul and Bradley IFVs into RTW. Not sure how fixed winged aircraft would work though... we could just replace rakes with them and make them only strategic pieces. Instead of coaching houses, you build airstrips and each has an 'air wing' that you can move around, engage other similar pieces and do raids on cities.
Yeah that was a weird comment. I mean even just from WW1 > WW2 was completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerle