Yeah, I read that in a another thread but I didn't saw that confirmed in any previews. Where did you read that?? Anyone else heard about it??Quote:
Originally Posted by A Norseman
Printable View
Yeah, I read that in a another thread but I didn't saw that confirmed in any previews. Where did you read that?? Anyone else heard about it??Quote:
Originally Posted by A Norseman
Read the Summary Thread. That has all the confirmed infomation.
I really wish they had a Australia. They might, as they are including South East Asia, but...
native americans are bound to be in there as NPCs probably so the French and Indian War can take palce
:laugh4:
Australia hasnt had a decent war. No need for any part of Australia.
lol but it is an important colonization country! Then again this could cause controveersy with the whole slavery thing as well you cant say the brits were very nice to the aboriginalsQuote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Not really a fought over part of the world, I'm sorry to say.
In the Empire period, everyone is supposed to be using muskets, lining up in rows , shoot a few volleys then charge? There's calvary too.. but I don't know how they are going to introduce elements of tactics as in Medieval times when there are more types of troops to throw around.
e.g infantry (pikes, spears, swordsman -heavy and light varieties for all), range units (archers, crossbow with AP bolts, gunpoder with AP and moral effect), calvary (light and heavy), range calvary, artillery and so on.
Empire is just muskets, calvary (light), and artillery.
Are there supposed to be castles since walls are pretty much an obselete thing by then? Then no siege?
Forts where determinent for ground control up to WW1 and even sometimes in WW2, so definately there should be forts.
Cavalry could exist in 3 types : cuirassiers (heavy cavalry), hussars (light cavalry), dragoons (missile cavalry).
Infantry in a few types : Line infantry(heavy infantry), Grenadier(shock infantry), Fusiliers(range expert), Chasseur(light infantry)
Artillery would be maybe : Mortars/Howitzers, Obusiers, Canon, horse artillery.
In M2TW you dont have much more types of troops.
Each type will have countless variations like in medieval :)
In this period there where a huge number of unit types. The cav only was at least 3 types- light (hussars like), heavy(kirasirs) and dragoons like. About try magor types of artillery systems (guns, hovitchers and mortars), and a lot of infatry. And this is only in Europe. What about Asia? Napoleon fight a huge HA army in Egypt, and the Mongols where tread for Russia up until the end of 18 century (and the russian army was capable to give to any of the magor European powers army a pretty hard time). The forts not only did't disapire but become huge and expensive, made out of earth and ditches to counter the guns. In fact the trenches started to appear in the late medieval times in Italy. So there is really historically point of a lot of unit types and god sieges.
Okay, based on what I've been reading about the game and warfare at this time it seems the basic Rock, Paper, Scissors matchup goes something like this.
Infantry square beats cavalry, cavalry beats infantry column, infantry column beats infantry line, infantry line beats infantry square.
Obviously it will be more complicated then that but that seems to be the equivelant of the Archers, Cavalry, Pikes trinity from RTW.
The only thing I know about the ship battles is that if you point your ship straight upwind your :furious3: d
Hmm, I'm slightly worried about their wanting to reduce sieges, and increase battles. Basically the opposite of this era (discounting the latter 18th cen.)
I hope that they decide to make sieges vastly more important than battles, which were often indecisive. If one could trap an army in a city then it has no where to go, and is effectively put out of action. It also means that you can be sure of making gains upon you're victory.
Oh, I just remebered Aussie wasn't around (Y'know, Empire style) until 1900. lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Quote:
Originally Posted by woad&fangs
Possibly they will make it exactly like you said, but that would be a pity and make the game ridiculous. Warfare in this time was not so easy. Only three examples: Infantry carrees were beaten not seldomly by cavalry charges (mostly when shattered before with fire). In the Prussian army of Frederic II. in the 18. c. the making of carrees was forbidden, the Prussian infantry had to face cavalry charges in line. Well trained Infantry in line often beat attacking columns.
An rps approach would be a bad method to deal with black powder warfare.
Geala, it turns out you are quite right about well trained lines beating columns.:bow: And as I said in the last post this is just the basic RPS like Cav, Archers, Pikes. There will be countless variations just like in the other total wars. Some basic naval tactics I have found are to aim your broadside at either the enemies front or back. This minimzes the number of cannons the enemy can aim at you and your cannons can fire the length of the enemy ship killing all of the enemy cannon crew in one shot if you are lucky. Also lining your large ships up in a straight line lessons the likely hood of them getting in each others way. This was why large ships were often called ships of the line. I just saw a map of Europe in 1700 and the thing I was most surprised by was the sheer size of Poland/Lithuania.
I don't exactly have much confidence in CA getting the game mechanics right.
My guesses is that:
1. They will not get infantry tactics right, ie. units attacking enemies for close combat will rarely falter meaning it will have to be resolved in CC.
2. Ship combat will be all about running battles of ships all intermingled instead of the way it actually worked ie. ship lines, raking, breaching, isolation, boarding etc.
3. There will still be horrible bugs that breaks the game. f.x. the 2 years per turn turns VS. .5 years per turn character ageing (I once saw only three popes in the game between 1080 and 1520)
This is a short time span and who knows, they could put in monthly turns...which would be good from a weather stand point. You would need something like that with a world wide map...it should not take years to cross the sea! Maybe a world voyage but that is all.
I could be wrong but I expect some of it to be broken up into scenarios with America included.
That said this has the potential to be a really epic game!
In the past Naval War and Land War have been handled by sacrificing one area or the other! Ship to Ship combat requires small unit scale, particularly with prize ships and Marines. Battery and Company scale seems best for something like this...On land as well this could be fun. Regiments of the time may have had only a few hundred men in them so a few companies of a hundred men would work for most of the world outside Europe. As it is a new engine they could also allow more units into the battles to make up the larger battles.
This is a very complex undertaking and CA deserves praise just for taking it on...It could be that they have taken on too much and what ever comes out will disappoint many, but I for one can't wait to see what they will give us.
Besides with this engine it will open the way for RTW2, MTW3 etc as well as loads of others.
I'm pretty sure at the start of the 17th century they were still using pikes too. Don't forget about them.
Castles were mainly in the shape of forts.
Take a look at the Tactics thread. Pikes are there :grin:
Doesn't seem to me that tactics get more basic simply because equipment was relatively standard. If anything the fact that almost every soldier could both shoot and fight in melee and was trained to maneuver in a variety of formations made them much more flexible and opened up whole new possibilities in terms of strategy.
Pikes are probably a unit used early in the campaign, like town militia. I can't imagine they will be very important.
I agree. If they fight in the classical two men deep line formation, the whole batallion could fire at the enemy at once. It would be suicide for the enemy to attack in a column where most of the soldiers can't do anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by geala
Iirc the column formation was a french invention of the post-revolution coalition-wars of the 1790's. It wasn't so much about fighting, it was about moving. The french invented the levée en masse and had the advantage of soldiers being more willing to fight for their country which made this new formation possible and so gave the French the advantage of increased tactical flexibility. The mercenary armies of the absolute monarchies were bound to a much more rigid formation. They had to start the battle advancing in line-formation because otherwise the mercenaries would have most likely broken up the formation because of them trying to flee from the battlefield.
hmm, mass spamming Ned Kelly and his Gang of Invincible Armoured Bush- Rangers against some local natives with spears and boomerang would be overkill :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Warluster
It just dawned on me that we probably won't see the almighty camel in this TW game. :sad: And even if they include it with the ottomans, it won't be almighty anymore.
That said, I'm really curious about the ottoman roster and how they will play. I suspect something similar to HRE/Seleucids from previous games, i.e. huge empire with everybody gnawing at them right from the start. But - depending on the design of the economy - they could and should be a powerhouse in the hands of the skilled player.
I'm an American, and I am psyched that finally the US gets a chance to whoop some European ass for once.
I do think that early American forces should be lower in quality/ability than that of their European counterparts, which only makes sense.
*HOWEVER*
The US should be able to develop into a colonial power after upgrading buildings, expansion, etc. just to make the game a little more interesting and not just a re-telling of history. Afterall, half the fun is changing history when you play, not just playing the same thing over again. Afterall, a US invasion of Portugal would be ridiculous, but who knows, it would probably be really fun building up the US like that and taking the fight to Europe.
When it comes to units, I think American forces should start out more like militia and minutemen with some regulars here and there. Also, I think a form of frontiersmen would be cool also, where they can maybe hide on the battlefield or excel in hand to hand combat from contact with the native americans. Who knows, just some ideas.
Don't forget the almighty elephant :laugh4:Quote:
It just dawned on me that we probably won't see the almighty camel in this TW game.
Merc armies?
First I have heard of them. The Lin was used in order to maximize firepower. It also meant that infantry was less likely to be destroyed by artillery.
Most armies fought three lines deep (the Prussian only changed to two due to heavy casualties), the British officially two by '59.
I dislike having to drag the infantry into lines. Every single time. I would rather just a simple CTRL+L for line, CTRL+C for column of march. Simple.
Platoon fire? Yes. Especially for the Dutch
I also hope that veteran battalions should be able to fire more quickly than newbie battalions from Sussex.
Personally, I hope that they have more interesting names. For example
2 regiments from Sussex? On the campaign screen, they are now the 1st and 2nd Sussex, instead of just 2 regiments.
I believe you can name you're units.
I am unclear on what it is they have planed with sieges. What I read said buildings were not confined to cities etc. forcing more open field battles to protect infrastructure.
So far as special units go, I am hoping for the option to land most of a ships crew to assault towns, small garrisons etc. That is how it worked in some areas, though they were usually raids and they didn't try to hold the area. But it is loot for the treasury:idea2: .
I wonder if they will make Indian troops (Native American) colonial militias or allied armies? I know they were treated as allies and often had to be handled with kid gloves to get them into action but their presence could be devastating under the right conditions.
I don't know too much about what was going on in Africa and India at the time but I am sure there would be some cool situations to manage as the Colonial Powers.
The mechanics for colonial rebellion will also be important as the Napoleonic Wars also brought on colonial revolts almost everywhere.
Thinking about it I am wondering if only 50 factions is enough:laugh4:
i will be very dissapointed if all the playable factions are European)western
it will be too much of the same thing.
i never understood why they cant make most factions playable, even if they have little chance of success.