What we would like to see in ETW.....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

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.>_>

---

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.
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyanCentaur

Now consider that in TW terms, 100,000 is a HUGE number of casualties, representing the complete destruction of 100(!) army stacks.

Simply to attain campaign casualties of this magnitude will be a severe stretch under the current TW approach. And, based on previous TW titles, I think we can expect that population & casualty counts will increase over the course of a campaign. This is good, because it matches our historical expectations.

...But how can the game possibly reflect the much bigger battles of the later period? This will take substantial rework, for example the stack size increase and reinforcements change I suggested earlier. And, if the engine can support it, larger unit sizes would be nice.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

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'.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

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.

---

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.....
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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick the Great

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.

---

OMG K LOL!

Quote:

---

Why would asking for bigger battles conflict with historical accuracy???

---

Been argued and proven. See above.

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

---

No, you havent. You've just stated your arguement. Several times.

Quote:

---

and I'm not interested in the casualties.

---

So the fact that the Napoleonic Wars had more military casualties than any previous European war had SOLDIERS makes no nevermind to you?

Quote:

---

Around the 16th century,armies as a whole got really small.....
why mention this when ETW is taking place in the 1700's.

---

k.

Quote:

---

Armies didn't start getting BIG until the Napoleonic Wars....WRONG!!!

---

Point dismissed. Been argued, proven wrong. kthnxbai.

Quote:

---

which is apparently about the time ETW end's...finally something you got right.....will probably include French Revolution Wars.

---

IE: The time armies started getting really big, OMG, the LATE 18th CENTURY! WOW! D:

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!!!

---

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:

---

so please now let this lie :Zzzz:

---

As soon as youre ready.

edit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyanCentaur

This could work but I would hate to EVER rely on the AI to extrapolate losses.

---

Quite, but then, they DID say that they were gonna give us some amazingly awesome AI upgrades ;)

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Quite.

Quote:

---

According to the sticky, the early 1800s ARE part of the target period.

---

I was under the impression that the game was running 1700-1800(ish).

Quote:

---

Easy, the answer is zero, because a few hundred men constitutes a "skirmish", not a "battle". :laugh4:

---

A skirmish is still a battle. Any military engagement is a battle.

I'd like to see some sort of military mobilization incorporated in the game.

:fishbowl:

Fishy!
*Feeds it*

edit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyanCentaur

To me, that's an overly broad definition of the word 'battle' in this context....

In any case, are we agreed that small encounters (below 200 troops) aren't worth modeling in the game?

---

No, the broad definition of 'battle' is any conflict between two or more individuals, human or ootherwise.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyanCentaur

Something I miss about the old TW titles - they allowed you to fight a single decisive battle to conquer a given region.

Starting in RTW, 90% of battles became downgraded to skirmishes between tiny forces (1000 per side). There is no longer any mechanism for deciding territorial disputes in one epic confrontation.

I don't mean to imply that all battles should be big. The game should aim toward historical accuracy, while allowing for at least the POSSIBILITY of decisive battles. The only way to accomplish this currently, is by drastically increasing the number of units allowed within a stack. It would also help to increase the radius within which friendly armies are drawn as reinforcements into a fight. Players should be allowed to mark armies as "won't be called for reinforcements".

And I do feel that a primitive logistic system could subtly discourage excessive massing of troops, while allowing for big battles when the time comes.

---

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!