They have clearly said the game will set from somewhere around 1700 to the early 1800s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper The Builder
Also, Finland belonged to Sweden and Norway belonged to Denmark.
Printable View
They have clearly said the game will set from somewhere around 1700 to the early 1800s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper The Builder
Also, Finland belonged to Sweden and Norway belonged to Denmark.
It'd be nice to see how much of the world map is included, and how they will implement it, i woulden't want the scale to get any bigger then regular Medieval2, just so you have enough provinces and dont end up with armies zipping from France to Italy in one turn.
Need to be able to match Britian's colonial aspirations after all. Imagine how much work they would have to do to include the whole world, British soldiers to Australian aborigines and New Zealand Maori, hm.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
I probably shouldn't laugh at that, but that was too good to miss.
Azi
I think Zenicitus made a lot of good points. I'm not up for making any african factions part of the main faction list. I figure this game is supposed to be about people who actually conquered or tried to conquer the New World. However, there is no reason they cannot be included as some of the factions you encounter. No african powers (north or sub saharan) ever developed anything resembling ships of the line. And none of them colonized any part of the new world (unless Haiti counts...which it shouldn't).
But as you Z-man brought up, it doesn't make sense to include the Swiss either. But they will make it into the game before an empire like Asante or the kingdom of Morocco.
The HRE didn't conquer anything in the New World and I can't recall any major sea battles between them and the main colonizing powers of Europe
Same goes for Austria in as much as colonizing the New World is concerned.
And what the hell is Lithuiana doing in here?
My opinion...
7 Main factions
English
French
Spanish
Russians
Danes
Dutch
Portuguese
13 peripheral european factions (since the region was so important)
Austrians
Prussians
Italians
Swedes
Swiss
Ottomans
Poles
Fins
Norwegians
5 peripheral North American factions
Colonilsts (United States)
Seminole
Iroquios
Inuit
Mexicans
5 peripheral South American factions
Tupinamba
Guarani
Tamoyo
Inca
Maroons
5 peripheral African factions
Moroccans
Tripolitanians
Ethiopians
Asante
Oyo-Yoruba
5 peripheral Near East factions
(not that knowledgible about this time period but im sure there are at least 5)
5 peripheral Far East Factions
(not that knowledgible about this time period but im sure there are at least 5)
i figure peripheral factions will be ones you run into while conquering the map. Navies aren't that important if the faction is an inland power (like a lot of the native american factions i suggested). But all should be able to make ports and raiding vessels.
Oh and the navies in africa definately made their own ships. Pretty sure the same goes for native americans. i doubt i'd be speaking english today if the europeans had just given/sold ship building technology to everyone, lol. And i not all the european powers made their own guns and ammo either.:furious3:
Considering Germany as we know it today wasn't a state until 1871 (being divided into smaller states when the Holy Roman Empire fell, and even it had little control in the last few years of it's time, except in Austria), I doubt it will be in. At least, it would be a grave historical inaccuracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichigo
what about rebels?will they be in the game.:feedback:
As one of the "rascist [sic] jerks" I deeply resent that remark. You, Sir, have no reason to come to such a lazy conclusion. In point of fact, I think you'll find that most of the design staff are what Americans would pejoratively term "liberal" (but with a small 'L'), not racists. In the UK, this isn't a bad thing to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by MansaSakura
However, if that's the standard of discourse we can expect around here, I can't see much point in any of us bothering to read these forums.
One point: we put in factions because (a) they are interesting to play and/or (b) are historically interesting and/or have an impact in the period of the game. No other criteria are used.
I am sure most of us don't feel that way Fishpants.
i cant see how he came to the conclusion that racial prejudice of any sort could have been responsible for the faction decisions. simple fact of the period were none of the big powers which shaped the period existed in that region.
I for one have never seen any form of racial prejudice reflected in any of the TW games, cant see why they would suddenly decide to become racist now. its a unfounded acusation.
:focus: back on track from racial peaple,how bout we discuss factions we want to see in etw!on
I appreciate the CA people reading these forums, and hope they aren't scared off by the occasional jerks such as above :bow:
About African factions, the only one of possibly larger impact at this time would be Morrocco (which I think I had on my previous list). They were, IIRC, the first faction to recognize the USA after the independence war, or something like that, and also a difficult opponent for Spain's attempts to reclaim control over both sides of the Gibraltar Straits.
There were no significant native American nations in South America by this time. The Spanish did a pretty good job of reducing them to a state where it was pretty much impossible for them to take over from the colonists. Wiping out %90 of the population does that, y'know.
As to African states, I believe that there were several states in Africa which were quite powerful, the Songhai Empire was still around (sort of), there was the Kaabu Empire...quite a few others really. Europeans didnt really take a lot of direct interest in Africa until they ran out of other places to take over.
It'll be interesting to see what the starting positions of each faction are. I'm betting they wont be giving them their historical territory. Russia'll most likely be confined to the area around St. Petersburg and Moscow, with no holdings in the Ukraine or Belarus at all.
I find myself wondering about islands as well. People fought some wars over tiny islands which held a big strategic value. But CA doesnt seem to mind islands so much, y'know?
i still say a tw completely about native north americans would be sweat!tribal total war!!!:clown:
Although the Dutch are generally regarded to have been the first (famous flag incident at the Dutch Caribbean island of St. Eustatius on 16 November 1776), it was more likely the Danes (St. Croix, October 1776).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
Wiki said:
"Morocco was the first nation, in 1777, to recognize the fledgling United States as an independent nation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco...6.E2.80.931912
The other incidents may have occured earlier, but neither were full, official recognitions, but only actions by independent commanders. Morocco gave the first official recognition.
Wow, I did not know that. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
The odd thing is, the US seem to think it was the Dutch, judging by F.D. Roosevelts visit to St. Eustatius in 1939, where he revealed a plaque commemorating the flag incident, and the large celebration of the "bicentennial" of American-Dutch relations in 1976.
There are around fifty factions ingame, according to CA. 50. That means all major powers of Europe can be represented, with plenty of room for lesser factions. Frankly that's a lot more than I'd ever have expected (must be a helluva lot of work) and look forward to the (presumably) many mods which will add in whichever nationality feels to have been left out.
MansaSakura, I suggest you mind your manners, particularly if you still want CA members to feel welcome here. Your implications went over the line.
if asia is on the etw map,will they have british peaple in australia
The 'flag incident' was the first case of a group of people recognizing the US. The Dutch government didnt officially recognize the US until later. St. Eustatius was kinda semi-independant from the Dutch homeland, Wiki says they had a reputation for selling arms to just about anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo
you just dont like to :inquisitive: anwer the questions above your post do you?
I like to answer interesting questions. Your question wasnt.
However, as the Australian aboriginals dont appear much in popular culture, I strongly doubt that they'll get their own faction.
If you mean will there be colonists, I doubt it. The first British convicts sent to Australia left in 1787, and the game is supposed to start in the early 1700's or something.
well the guild isnt here to tell and give geography questions is it?
okay 'mate' as you say on that island,you know the org was made to talk about ca right?
No, I wasn't aware of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
I'm a bit confused Ozzman101?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
Don't worry, you're not the only one. Completely random posting. Maybe it was late at night?Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
Anyway, back to who's in and who's not. Someone somewhere (org?) has made the case for both Morocco and the Barbary States to be in. I like the Barbary states as a kind of random brake on Mediterranean development. How much effort and resource did they deflect away from empire building?. Als, if they had taken a different tack they might have had a much wider impact on the world scene.
:no: I make posts when i come home from shcool,when im still (half smart).....
I think the Barbary states (Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis) will be in the game. They have to put SOMETHING down there along the coast of North Africa, and they did have a strong local impact on shipping. But they should be independent rebel factions (IMO) -- the non-expanding type, instead of a single faction. They never united politically, and they were only nominally part of the Ottoman Empire. If they were folded into the Ottoman Empire it would make that faction too strong at the start of the game.
As for potential impact in a "what if" scenario... I don't think the Barbary coast states had the economic base to be a big player on the world stage. They were basically raiders, living off what the major countries were shipping through the Med, or extorting payments for safe passage, and making some side money in the slave trade. I just don't see them having the economic or population base to support big fleets and armies pushing up into Europe, or fighting for territory in the New World.
I think the main "what if" scenario for the Muslims will focus on the Ottoman Empire, which did have a strong navy, economic base and large population for recruitment. History might be different if the Ottomans had managed to contest the European powers for territory in the New World, instead of being bottled up in the Mediterranean.
That's one of the things I'm looking forward to in Empire (assuming it has the kind of DRM I can live with, and can actually buy it).... can the Ottomans hold their power in the East and still manage to do something in the New World? I've tried doing that with the Turks in M2TW but it's not easy due to their starting position, and the Mongols/Timurids right at your back door. It encourages cheese strategies like hopping over to Iberia as a home base right away. The Ottomans should have a better start in Empire, especially if they can quickly take over the "Barbary Coast" provinces.
Agree completely with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
My "what if" scenario was more about what if they (Barbary States) hadn't raided? How much did they hold the Mediterranean factions like France, Spain and Italian states back? Would they have expanded quicker and more effectively into the "colonial" world?
knock,knock.the british and dutch had africa,seen the movie zulu?any way at that time the ottomans where poor and the most defenselis peaple,the russians invaded them....
That's a good question. I read up some more on this, and the Berber/Arab pirates did have a stronger impact on the Med than I thought. Apparently whole stretches of the Spanish coast (and some parts of the Italian and Sicilian coast) were deserted... basically cleaned out by Berber slave raids. On the other hand, Spain was still able to run colonies in the New World and fight wars with the other European powers during that time, so it's hard to say how much stronger Spain and Italy might have been, if they didn't have that to deal with. I still tend to think it was in the nuisance category, or they would have done what the American Navy did later.... just send a fleet of warships in to bombard the pirates' coastal cities into submission. Or maybe it was just easier to pay tribute since Spain was fairly wealthy during this period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
Another thing... Napoleon drove the Templars out of Malta in 1798, and they had been a strong damper on pirate activity in the Med. My understanding is that this led to the expansion of piracy and the slave trade, so it would be interesting to see if they show up as one of the lesser factions in the game. If you could play as Spain and then ally with and support the Templars, piracy might not be such a big deal.
The battle in that movie happened in 1879, well after the period this game will cover (I think it ends in 1820?). I know some people might want South Africa or other sub-Saharan countries included for nationalistic reasons, but historically, it just wasn't a major player on the world stage, and wasn't even that economically important as a colony until much later on. Same reason not to include Australia, basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
With respect, I think you're wrong about the Ottomans during this period being "poor and defenseless." It's true that the period covered by the game is when they were starting to decline from the height of power, but that's what makes them interesting as a main player faction. What if you could engineer a revival of the Empire, expand into Europe, fight for territory and riches in the New World? Given their prior history, it's not an impossible scenario, especially if they had been a little more open to technological advances.Quote:
any way at that time the ottomans where poor and the most defenselis peaple,the russians invaded them....
The Ottomans are the only major non-Western faction we'll get to play, and for many of us they'll be a nice change from the European factions. I think it's great that they're including the Ottoman Empire in the game.
Actually, although Ozzman101 appears to be completely confused:dizzy2: , the Dutch established a colony in South Africa in 1652. It was actually crucial in allowing ships to revictual and as a choke point to control trade lanes to and from the East.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
They should have a world map, Like Victoria; An Empire under the Sun.
http://a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/5462/...9954_pc_10.jpg
Then again that game maybe to intellectual for SEGA, They tend to market more towards Children.
How many provinces?!!!!!
63,hows that for confused,(im not crazy,im 10 years old,and already learnig this stuff,i bet you guys are in high school!)
Hello Ozzman101,
10 years? Nice that you are interested in this.
Quite some are way past highschool already.
I think CA shouldn't add a lot of provinces, that would took an hour for just one turn.
It's really probably 15-?? I don't expect many younger children playing this game but that's my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper The Builder
.
They were pretty much pirating themselves. ~;) Not that the major powers weren't, or not using pirates against each other...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
.
In 1700 the most powerful nation on Earth was China. Indeed China was strong enough and far enough away to fend off the European imperial powers with mixed success until the 1840's
Talk about "What if" What if China had, in 1700 done what the Japanese did in the Meji revolution in 1850? What if the Chinese had said "You know what, those guys over there can teach us something." and begun modernizing there army and tactics? China in that regard is like the Ottomans; an Empire past its peak but one that if pulled together by a strong emperor or a political revolution of some kind could still be revived, survive and prosper. Especially since in 1700 China was about the size it is now and so was the largest most populous nation on Earth.
I don't see any way they couldn't put China in this game.
I completely agree with that. If theres no CHina, I'll eat my hat.
And Ozzman, I am certian there is to be no Australian Faction. They are a bloody interesting culture, but their involvment in world affairs at this time was very low. No ships, etc. They will probably be represented by a rebel faction.
Though they could put ion a event where it is settleed and is a race between France, England and Holland. Then we Aussies could be speaking French or Dutch...
Well, it all depends on how far you push "what if". What if the Martians had landed? No, china should not be included. Also, although "what if" is what the game ios potentially about it should remain in the general context of the faction you play. So, in M2TW the Mongols are largely horse archers, the English concentrate on Longbowmen etc... If China is included it should be in its proper historical context, ie no access to advanced military techonology and tactics etc... China fended off the West till the 1840s mainly becasue the West didn't turn up in numbers till then as they were busy elsewhere. The inlcusion of China (and others) would just lead to BS units and abilities.
Australia didn't happen till 1788, so I don't think it will be in the game at all.Quote:
And Ozzman, I am certian there is to be no Australian Faction. They are a bloody interesting culture, but their involvment in world affairs at this time was very low. No ships, etc. They will probably be represented by a rebel faction.
To Ozziman, if you're 10, then you are a lot less confused than I was when I was (how long ago wsa that.....).
China won't be included because they made an intentional decision to scrap their ocean-going fleet, and abandon exploration/external conquest. They were very insular and inward-focused during this period (see my other post here about that). To the extent that this game will involve major powers contesting each other on land AND sea, it doesn't make sense to include them.
I like "what if" scenarios, but they're better (IMO) if they're at least somewhat grounded in history. The Ottomans did have a serious, fairly modern navy during this period. They were starting to go into decline, but they're a much better choice for a "what if" scenario of some non-European faction taking over territory in the New World, than the Chinese would be.
I mean, yeah... it might be fun to see some imagined evolution of the medieval Chinese fleets, with monster-sized junks loaded with cannon and rockets. But that's getting a little too close to fantasy for me. If we're going to have a game with China, let's make it a Three Kingdoms game where it be both exciting and historical.
The chinese must have some useful formation,like macedon and the phalanx,like the romans and the testudo...since they created gunpowder
However, it has been pointed out that the Ming Emperors made it illigal to build ocean going ships and destroyed all the ones that had been built. The Qing werent that interested in overseas conquest and spent most of their time putting down rebellions or trying to take back Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
:wall: What i meant was,the chinese are the most experienced with gunpowder so their probably going to have a useful formation,like that one when the front line shoots and then the peaple behind them get in front of them and shoot,whats it called again??:wall:
I would like to see the option for Norway to rebel against Denmark, and so to have Norway as playable faction. :2thumbsup:
(just kidding)
norway did have there own army,like in the story of the battle of hastings,the norwegians?but i personaly think scandanavian peaple will not be in the game,they had nothing with the 1700 empires
You're a little early there, the Battle of Hastings was in 1066.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
Denmark and NorwayQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
Age of Liberty/Great Northern War
Swedish Colonies
Swedish Empire
I'd say they deserve to be included. ~:)
Ya'll are forgetting the Aragon and Castille... , dude did anybody think of El Cid
They invented it, but they never developed its use like the West did. In fact, by the time the West got to China (1500-1600's) they were far that behind in its use they had to hire European gunners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
An interesting theory I read about China inventing lots of things but not really using them. Part of the problem could have been that printing in Chinese is incredibly complex due to the number of characters involved. So, although they may have invented (?) the printing press they couldn't use to disseminate ideas anywhere near as fast as in Europe.
Anyway, back to thread.
Yes, around 1700 was the peak of Sweden's geographical extent, and one of the 2 largest wars of the first half of that century (together with the war of Spanish succession) was the Great Northern war, which was basically Sweden vs everybody else in the Baltic region including Russia, Poland, and Denmark-Norway. As for Denmark-Norway, it had probably at least the 4th or 5th most powerful navy in Europe at the time, and as I have said before, they were a very powerful faction, whose lack of greater impact at the time mostly had to do with very bad luck in diplomacy (the involvements in both the 30 years war and Napoleonic wars probably went as unlucky as they could get). With the allowing the player to create alternate history as the basis of the game, Denmark-Norway must therefore also be a given player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Rotating volleys?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
yes,that was it,if you guys wanted to see what a 1700 hundred battle was like you should watch the last of the mohecians,ausome movie!:2thumbsup:
Ozz, the Chinese never really developed gunpowder in a useful way so were actually inexperienced in its use.
The Japanese used rotating volleys.
The Chinese used some interesting gunpowder weapons, including bombs and rockets. Not sure about serious/large scale application of muskets though.
Maybe the huge scale of the battles made it less relevant/cost effective to equip soldiers with a primitive gun? It took at least 30 seconds to reload (in trained hands, one minute or more are figures for the average soldier).
If you can shoot a well armoured nobleman in a European medievil battle you achieve something. But what when 100,000 swords/spears close in? Shoot or start running away already?
the asain countrys are good firearm specalists,the japanese seemed to be adapt to fire arms in world war 2
The japanese employed first worldwide firearms in large scale supported by pikes and cavalry quite some time before the pike and musket era kickstarted in Europe. That was the norm in Japanese warfare during the period of the civil wars (Sengoku Jidai), in late 16th century (from 1570+ to 1615 that the era came to a definite close). Firearms were used also before but in smaller scale and with less coordination.
The rotating volley system is allegedly credited to Oda Nobunaga who was the first to notice that the main disadvantage of guns was the long reloading times.
Nobunaga was unusual as he was thinking more in term of time rather than space (classical tactics) throughout his reign - this was the reason why he employed peasants in his armies as professionals - the other clans were employing them in the basis of the feudal system which had the severe disadvantage to deny a warlord troops during the harvest periods. Nobunaga's army could fight continuously.
On top of this, the professional soldiers were taking orders directly from Nobunaga making the army act as a whole - most rival clans armies were mixes of various other smaller clans that owed allegiance to a greater Daimiyo (warlord). This meant that orders were transfered first to their heads and then to the soldiers. In many cases the smaller daimiyos were thinking the survival of their troops in light of their political/military position and also considerable time was lost in carrying out orders even if they were happy to obey.
Noir
I hope CA are still reading this thread, but whats the word on playable minor factions?
Can we unlock them or something?
Also i'm really hoping to see Oman in this, although they weren't really imperialistic they did drive portugal out of some of their colonies and being the only faction in the entire peninsula to have some sort of mini-empire that has colonies in India, Africa and parts of Baluchistan, i'd be seriously dissapointed if they don't make an appearance.
Thanks much in advance.
I don't believe it is known for sure that the Japanese employed the countermarch. The main basis for the claim is usually Nagashino but actually it appears that Nobunaga and Ieyasu had 1,500 soldiers aiming and firing arquebuses, with two loaders for each. Which would help explain why companies of arquebusiers always contained a group of longbowmen who fired at approaching enemies in between the volleys. Also why Nobunaga didn't just rely on rate of fire to hold off the Takeda but put plenty of obstacles in front of his army to keep them at bay for as long as possible.
Guns would actually have been perfectly suited to China- after all what made them useful is that they required no individual skill, just basic instructions on use plus group drill. The missile weapon of choice, the crossbow, was already very slow firing (with the exception of the chu ko . With its huge central government it would have been able to exploit guns and and artillery far better than smaller and more dysfunctional states in Europe. Guns were used and you can tell from contemporary illustrations that they knew a thing or two about tactics- in the late Ming era there are depictions of soldiers with serpentine style matchlock muskets, firing by rank or employing a countermarch, along with technical innovations like wheel locks, breech loading, and bayonets. I don't know why they didn't go ahead and develop European style armies. They weren't the only ones to refrain from doing so- the Mughal and Safavid empires continued to use lances and bows along with muskets for one. Some accounts from China at the time comment that Chinese firearms were inferior to Ottoman and Japanese.
Nothing is known for sure Furious Mental - and the main basis of the claim has its beginning in Nagashino and continues in many other battles after that including the culminating struggle in Sekigahara. By the time of the siege of Osaka, mass firearms and even artillery were the order of the day.
Nobunaga had good reasons to make fire as continuous as possible by introducing archers to aid the teppos as you say - and also place obstacles. Mikata Ga Hara had supposedly proved the fierceness and effectiveness of the Takeda cavalry charge. Again there are theories that debate that as well, saying that the breed of horses available at the time in Japan were too small to make up for sweeping charges and that the Takeda cavalry charge is yet another myth.
Nagashino was certainly not decided by firearms alone - almost all sources mention fierce melee in the palisades and considerable casualties for the Oda-Tokugawa army (although less than the Takeda and spread between the two).
If i was Oda, and assuming that the cavalry charge was as devastating as is mentioned in Mikata Ga Hara, i would try to ensure that the Takeda charge would not succeed by whatever means possible, that is by choosing the terrain, errecting loose palisades, placing continuous fire (that would be disastrous during charges but even more during the retreat of attacking waves) as well as pike phalanxes rather than relying solely on one of the above especially if so much was at stake; i doubt that Oda had in mind that firepower alone would defeat the Takeda or anyone for that matter. It seems to me though that he reckognised its potential within a combined arms approach.
Noir
the undoing of danish/norwegian ability to play an important role around the napoleonic wars was picking sides against the english and subsequently having most of our navy blown to bits while it was lying at port in Denmark, reducing our naval presence to norwegian gunboats built privately. those gunboats did down a few english warships, but a fleet of coastal small boats kind of lacks force projection ability, especially going up against english men-of-war..Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
will all factions be playable on the campaigne or will we have to get some with game editing....i hope not
If CA follows the previous designs, we'll be able to unlock all but the rebels and any "special" factions like the Mongols and Timurids in M2TW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
I'm okay with that, but I hope the tech trees won't be the same for everyone, especially the shipbuilding tech and any related soldier units like Marines. It might be fun to play one of the smaller factions and see what you could achieve with land conquest, but it would be insane (IMO) to give a full seafaring history and shipbuilding tech tree to a faction like, say, the Swiss.
An inland faction like that should be locked out of building ships that can seriously compete with the major seafaring European powers, like the way it's done now with the native American factions in M2TW and Kingdoms. Otherwise it's drifting a bit too close to fantasy, since it takes centuries of actual experience to develop and use that technology, and there isn't that much timespan in this game. But that's just my opinion. I know some folks like the wilder "what if" scenarios. And this might be altered with modding, if it isn't in the stock game.
i beg to differ, the Mongols who came from the Eurasian steps launched fleets against japan, granted there probably weren't any Mongol sailors but their subject people did the sailing, equally the ottoman turks went from nomadic steps warriors to having fleets of their own, they just used local talent in their new territory's.
i don't see why if Switzerland managed to conquered a significant shore line it would not be able to also use ships.
WRT the Mongols, that's not an ocean-crossing voyage, and the ships would not have been able to compete with what Europe was building in the 1700's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daithi MacGuillaCathair
WRT the Ottomans, they'll be in the game (as I understand it) with capable ships, and that's appropriate because they had a long history of shipbuilding and naval warfare. This just doesn't happen overnight.
Again, it's about the timeframe. If your faction has zero experience building ships, manning ships, and navigating the ocean (let alone learning how to fight effectively at sea), you don't just achieve all that overnight... or in 20 years, or even 100 years. Japan was able to ramp up fairly quickly to a world-competitive navy once everyone transitioned to ships made from riveted steel plate and driven by engines. However, that's an order of magnitude simpler a technology than knowing how to build a square-rigged sailing ship, with a thousand unique parts, all with obscure names (ever read a Patrick O'Brian novel?), and requiring experienced sailors to operate it.Quote:
i don't see why if Switzerland managed to conquered a significant shore line it would not be able to also use ships.
The European powers that were able to project force overseas had deep experience behind them, prior to the 1700's. The time period covered by Empire is simply too short for a landlocked faction to acquire that technology and experience, if CA wants to keep this fairly realistic and not a fantasy game. A faction like Switzerland might be able to hire mercenaries here and there as privateers, and that should probably be in the game (IMO). But they shouldn't be able to compete on an evenly matched basis with a major sea power like Britain, France, or Spain. Not unless we're going to completely ignore why Britain, France, and Spain were historically able to do what they did on the world stage in the 1700's and early 1800's, instead of some landlocked faction.
BTW, this is just my personal opinion and preferences I'm tossing out here. Who knows what CA will actually do? It wouldn't completely surprise me if they give every faction the same endpoint for shipbuilding in the tech tree.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daithi MacGuillaCathair
OT but Ottomans being steppe nomads is a great misconception. Their ancestors were, for sure, but the Kayı clan, to which they belong, had been in the vicinity for around three centuries and had already become an urban middle-eastern people. :bow:
.
"that's an order of magnitude simpler a technology than knowing how to build a square-rigged sailing ship"
No the exact opposite actually. How can a machine with a zillion moving parts that requires a huge pre-existing industrial base to manufacture be easier to construct than something made of wood and driven by wind. Are you going to tell us it takes less skill and money to build and maintain a horse drawn carriage than a car? Huge, expensive and complex a sailing ship may have been, there is no way it was harder to build and operate than an iron clad battleship.
No! Not Good!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
Peter the Great did exactly that for Russia just as the game time begins. All that northern coast that is today Russia etc… was Swedish. Peter wanted a fleet and went to Holland and England and learned how to build ships. Then he hired Danes and Dutch skippers to sail them.
I have always thought that factions should be able to pick up technologies from other factions. But I do agree that nothing should be exactly like everyone else’s.
He may have done, but he didn't create a useful force. The russian navy, though at times numerous, was not the most effective force in the game time. No offence but it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
The Japanese managed to do it. But there are vast cultural differences between Japan and Russia, and for that matter Japan and China. As for the Japanese picking up the use of guns and pikes before the "pike and musket" era in Europe, when exactly do you place that?
I am torn here.
1. The game stays close to history, countries specialise in what they did. You can have countries like Russia deciding to play the maritime game - but at a serious effeciency deficit.
2. It is a game with various factions. What is the point of a game called "empire" set in the 18th if Prussia, for example, is limited to continuous land battles in continental Europe? Yes, Prussia became important, but in truth it never had the diplomatic weight of France, Britain, Spain. That is, until it annexed the rest of Germany and invaded France much later. WW1 was after all a bit about Germany (Prussia) wanting a piece of the colonial action. So, anyone can build a maritime empire as long as they can get access to the oceans.
?
Early steamship or internal combustion ship: point the rudder in the direction you want to go, use the engine telegraph to set "full ahead", ignore wind direction. Boom... you're moving. There's a lot to know about navigation and dealing with extreme sea conditions, but you or I could step into that scenario and get the ship moving. It's not rocket science, on an operational level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Now try getting a square-rigged ship of the line moving in that same desired direction. I'm a pretty good sailor (certified for bareboat charter), and I'm not sure I'd even know where to start on a square rigger.
"Uh... unfurl the sails... no I mean sheets... which one? Uh, that top thingie up there... no wait, the other one! What do you mean it's blowing too hard for that one? Just do it! CRAAACK!"
That's where having centuries of seafaring experience, handed-down knowledge, and specialized marine vocabulary is critical. You don't just fire up the engine, point it in any direction you want, and get moving.
i am well aware that the turks were not just step nomads nor were the Mongols but they settled down and adopted the technology's of the people the conqoured. and even if the Russian navy wasn't the most effective , they still were able to construct one despite having no experience.
i was just suggesting that given the right circumstances a previously land locked country or one which concentrated mainly on land (e.g Prussia, Russia etc) could develop a navy. maybe not a skilled as other sea fairing country's, but still have some ability to move at sea.
at the same time other European nations which were sea faring nations didn't develop ocean going fleets, such as the Italians who contained themselves mainly to the Mediterranean
but it would be realistic that if a nation such as prussia were able to capture some where such as holland and make it an integral part of their empire, they would gain access to some of their sea faring skills and ability's
I think Portugal should be added at the expense of Poland-Lithuania or Sweden (no offense to people of those ethnicities, lol)
Although I am an American with Brazilian heritage and Portuguese lineage, I think that Portugal is key, especially because this game is based around colonization. Portugal was huge in Brazil, as in parts of Africa, India, and the East Indies, not to mention they were hardcore with the slave trade and sea-faring. Idk, I'm trying to not be biased, but Portugal seems a lot more relevant with colonization, despite its small size on the European continent.
.
It usually happens so that the newcomers gradually learn the technologies and skills of the relatively native ones. I'm not too well read about the naval practice during the time of the Selchuqis (Saltanatu'r-Rum) but the petty princedoms appearing during their decline, among which the Ottomans were one, acquired the necessary knowledge and skills of seamanship from the Greeks and Italian colonists. By the late 15th century, Ottomans were capable of building and maintaining their own powerful navy, which remained a major actor until the mid-18th century, when a Russian navy ambushed and burned virtually the entire Mediterranean armada.
So, yes, technologies can be, and are, learned. But it takes much time and effort, determination notwithstanding.
.
I think most of you people are underestimating the international people of europe. If a country wated to build a navy, they hire people to show them how to build boats, hire people to be captains on the ships, and hire people with marine warfare experience. And after some time (maby 20 years, not 100) you got yourself ships and a vell drilled crew. Altho it is not to come by the natural experience of navies hailing from maretime countries. Like the british, french, spanjards and the Norwegians. You culd build a perfectly able navy from scrach if you had the time and money.
Same goes for wapons, if you want a good army, hire prussian officers to drill the soldiers.
As goes for countries, china, japan and any other south asian cuntry wont be in, at all. The map goes as far as india.
The way I think it should work is that anyone who has a coast can have a navy, but with varying amounts of time and work to build one. For example, Prussia could build a navy to rival other European powers, but it would take a very long time and be very expensive compared to powers such as Britain, who already had a well-equipped navy, and would only need to spend the money to upgrade it as needed. This allows you to take the "historical" route when you like, and the "ahistorical" another time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
I like this idea very much. It seems like a good way to do it. The game would be no fun if you couldn't take a small European power and turn it into a superpower. That's basically what TW has been all about right?:grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
The seafaring warfare experience of England, Spain, and France goes back to the 15th and 16th centuries. That's a 300 year head start in technology and tactics, for the time period of this game. England beat the French at sea largely due to experience (a merit-promotion system, plus long merchant trade experience), not better ships. The French ships were better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
The new game runs for just a little over 100 years... 1700 to 1820. Think about it. Does it really make sense that a landlocked faction like Prussia or Switzerland should be able to fight huge naval battles against the British in this game? Are we looking for something based on a logical "what if" extrapolation of history, or a fantasy game?
I can believe the Ottomans might have settled the New World and driven out the Christian nations, if a few things had gone a little differently. They did have an actual competitive navy. That's a cool scenario, and not too far-fetched. Switzerland, Prussia, Austria doing that... eh, not so much. If I want to play a game where all factions start on the same footing, I'll play GalCiv2, not something constrained by history... which can be very interesting, if it's done right.