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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichigo

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.

---

The problem is that there ARE exceptions to everything we've been debating. If I had said "No battle in the 18th century had more than 40,000 men in it." that would've been a lie. I'm fairly confident that 40,000 was an large-ish number for the era (seems like it from what I've read) but its hardly the maximum, even for Western-style armies of the era. Saying no battle had fewer than 40,000 men is, likewise, wrong.
You cant rely on absolute facts when talking about this sort of thing, there are simply too many variables, too many different battles, commanders and styles of warfare, even within the Western set of tactics and logistics that ETW will apparently center on.
Unless, of course, youre willing to find me the statistics from EVERY battle of the 18th century, then average the number of men. Then we certainly could say "18th century battles had an average of (random number) of men."
I dont know about you, but thats rather a lot of work.

The fact that you're comparing the Napoleonic battles to 18th century battles I don't think should be done. With the Industrial Revolution beginning in the late 1700's plus levee en masse during the French revolution armies were bound to get larger during the time period.

The reason we're comparing the two periods is that the game apparently starts in 1700 and ends some time around the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Hence the comparisons.

Comparing them would be almost like comparing the Napoleonic Wars to WWI. Even if it is part of the game there's no basis between the two. Completely different IMHO.

i want to see the baggage train and the camp followers! :D

Annie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichigo

Comparing them would be almost like comparing the Napoleonic Wars to WWI. Even if it is part of the game there's no basis between the two. Completely different IMHO.

---

Theyre going to be in the same game. Thats basis for comparsion, because I'm willing to bet CA is either going to go one way or another, Napoleonic combat or 18th century combat.
On another note, its nice to see SOMEBODY here who doesnt seem to think that Napoleonic era warfare was no different than 18th century warfare.

-Lady Ann
Huzzah! I demand accuratly modeled 18/19thth century prostitutes! And a looting minigame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Theyre going to be in the same game. Thats basis for comparsion, because I'm willing to bet CA is either going to go one way or another, Napoleonic combat or 18th century combat.
On another note, its nice to see SOMEBODY here who doesnt seem to think that Napoleonic era warfare was no different than 18th century warfare.

-Lady Ann
Huzzah! I demand accuratly modeled 18/19thth century prostitutes! And a looting minigame.

---

Well, I think they could probably incorporate both into the game. By the possibility of events that center around the French Revolution+ events that represent the Industrialization and military conscription of the late 18th century and early 19th century. I would think that it would be possible, though maybe not actually as large as they were historically.

I don't think it's very fair to compare the two, though you do have a valid point as both aspects will probably be incorporated in the game.

The problem is, most people think that its all just standing in lines and blasting away with muskets, and CA has to appeal to the mainstream. It would be a bit much to expect the average gamer to switch tactics mid-way, and considering the shift in tactics in the 1790's was a bit more complex than the Marian Reforms, you cant just say, "Well, we add a few new units and now its the Napoleonic era! Huzzah and so forth!"
Like I said, I think CA'll go one way or the other, most likely the entire game will be focused on the Napoleonic style, which isnt such a bad thing I suppose, certainly it would be a bit more fast-paced than typical 18th century combat.

I don't know much about Napoleonic tactics other then what I've stated here. Other than Napoleon started making separate artillery battalions, which worked well for him.

Although things had been shifting earlier, Napoleon forced everybody to change quickly. The sheer size of his armies was one factor in this, along with a more active use of cavalry, grand batteries and so on.
Its difficult to list out everything, and the differences arent as exaggerated as, say, the difference between World War One and Two, but they're there. Its one of the reasons it would be so hard to model, you cant just have an event pop up, change the unit models and say, "new era lol!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Although things had been shifting earlier, Napoleon forced everybody to change quickly. The sheer size of his armies was one factor in this, along with a more active use of cavalry, grand batteries and so on.
Its difficult to list out everything, and the differences arent as exaggerated as, say, the difference between World War One and Two, but they're there. Its one of the reasons it would be so hard to model, you cant just have an event pop up, change the unit models and say, "new era lol!"

---

Now you sound like you know your onions so please feel free to educate me here but I thought the Napoleans era ushered a revision in tactics and strategy, partly made possible by the troops and equipment available at the time. If this is so isn't this something that should be possible to follow in the game?

From what I've read :study: the 18th century was dominated by seiges and strategic engagements meant to protect precious armies where as Napolean went for annihilation of the enemy. Isn't this something the player could choose to adopt on the campaign map? Play like Fredrick the Great and probe in mass at the enemies weak points or go for it like Napoleon and cut the enemies line of communications, bringing them onto you?

Like you say the size of armies was another factor. I thought armies at the beginning of the period were smaller because nations had formed standing armies to deal with the long drawn out sieges and these troops where expensive to maintain (plus with revolution in the air they where a little worried about their troops allegiances). The Industrial Revolution brought the cost of equipment down whilst the later mass conscription in France after their Revolution forced everyone else to increase the size of their armies. Couldn't this be dealt with by varying unit cost, type and availability through the period in much the way MTW2 does now?

Lastly their is Napoleons new tactics which as you mention above were based around the maneuverability of his poorly trained infantry in column, his use of massed cavalry and his favorite, his artillery batteries. This made him much more dynamic than the commanders proceeding him but again isn't this something that the individual player could choose to adopt during their battles?

Being a historical strategy game I think TW is unable to dictate the strategy and tactics a player employs other than influencing them by the units it makes available. As you mentioned in an earlier thread I do think the players will be playing in a more Napolean style, mainly because it is more exciting and it will offer a greater opportunity of success (Just take greater care invading Russia)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

The problem is, most people think that its all just standing in lines and blasting away with muskets, and CA has to appeal to the mainstream.

---

Sorry to quote you yet again Sheogorath,but this was the mainstream of 18th century european battles with usually the better dicipline troops winning the day.It was not until near the end on the century with Napoleon's reform that armies became more flexable and tactic's changed.The infantry square although dating back to Roman times didn't appear on the european battlefield until the late 18th century and one of Napoleon's reform's was the infantry attack column which was able to attack a small area of a line formation and thus suffered less casualties from musket fire.
It's possible that CA will keep Napoleon's Wars for another game with only the French Revolutionary Wars included in this game.
At the end of the day CA will probably put in or leave out what they feel is historically accurate........it's sale's that count.

The information released by the developers implies that the Napoleonic Wars or that general era are in the game.

Yeah,but everyone's saying Napoleon,Napoleon,Napoleon this game wont be about Napoleon....think 1700's and Louis XlV.Think some infantry still using pikes.You can't think 19th century tactic's as you would 18th century tactic's it just wasn't the same.Napoleon and his reform's only came in at the very end of this era.I don't know how or even if this will be included in the same game.We'll just have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt_Lane

Now you sound like you know your onions so please feel free to educate me here but I thought the Napoleans era ushered a revision in tactics and strategy, partly made possible by the troops and equipment available at the time. If this is so isn't this something that should be possible to follow in the game?
(etc. etc.)

---

What you say is accurate, the problem comes from getting the AI and player to act in the correct manner. As you said, you cant really FORCE a player to take a pre-Napoleonic line in battle, and in a battle, pre-Napoleonic tactics almost always lose to Napoleonic ones. Of course, the AI could be made equally incompetent in both settings, and be made to change tactics, but we still have the 'video game' issue, in that there is only so much you can do in code without having to spend another year writing a detailed 'strategic shift' code which makes the goal of combat gradually shift away from capturing strategic points to defeating your enemy.
Its just not practical, if its even possible.
It would have to be an event like the Marian Reforms in RTW, which wouldnt work too well IMO.

So, basically, yes, we'd have to go pre-Napoleon or Napoleon.



-Frederick
Way to paraphrase what I said. Its nice that you agree with me, though.

And no Western army was using pikes in the 18th century. Some people still issued halberds to their NCO's, but spears were limited to cavalry by this era. The bayonette made pikes obsolete.

The game ends around 1820, and the developers make obvious references to him (unless you know of another famous "Corsican artillery officer" from the late 18th century who had absolutely nothing to do with the Napoleonic Wars).

"Napoleon and his reform's only came in at the very end of this era."

Yeah that would be the whole idea. Just like pike and guns being introduced at the end of MTW 2. That way the last 25 years are not just more of the same.

I checked my book's on this period and sorry to prove myself right again in what I said,but pikes admittedly in small numbers were still being used in the 18th century.....please read on End of the pike era
After the mid-seventeenth century, armies that adopted the flintlock musket began to abandon the pike altogether, or to greatly decrease their numbers. The invention of the bayonet provided an anti-cavalry solution, and the musket's firepower was now so deadly that combat was often decided by shooting alone.

In such an environment, pikemen grew to intensely dislike their own weapon, as they were forced to stand inactive as the combat went on around them as the opposing musketeers duelled, feeling that they were mere targets rather than soldiers, and that they were adding nothing to the battle raging around them. There are examples of pikemen throwing their weapons down and seizing muskets from fallen comrades, a sign that the pike was on the wane as a weapon.

A common end date for the use of the pike in infantry formations is 1700, although such armies as the Prussian and Austrian had already abandoned the pike by that date, whereas others such as the Swedish and the Russian continued to use it for several decades afterward – the Swedes of King Charles XII in particular using it to great effect until the 1720s.

Even later, the obsolete pike would still find a use in such countries as Ireland, Russia and China, generally in the hands of desperate peasant rebels who did not have access to firearms. John Brown planned to arm a rebel slave army in America largely with pikes.

One attempt to resurrect the pike as a primary infantry weapon occurred during the American Civil War when the Confederate States of America planned to recruit twenty regiments of pikemen in 1862. In April 1862 it was authorised that every Confederate infantry regiment would include two companies of pikemen, a plan supported by Robert E. Lee. Many pikes were produced but were never used in battle and the plan to include pikemen in the army was abandoned.

Shorter versions of pikes called boarding pikes were also used on warships – typically to repel boarding parties – as late as the third quarter of the 19th century.

It is to be noted that the great Hawaiian warrior king Kamehameha I had an elite force of men armed with very long spears who seem to have fought in a manner identical to European pikemen, despite the usual conception of his people's general disposition for individualistic duelling as their method of close combat. It is not known whether Kamehameha himself introduced this tactic, or if it was a traditional Hawaiian weapons-usage.

Pikes live on today only in traditional roles, being used to carry the colours of an infantry regiment.

Oh and sorry to prove you wrong too Furious Mental I suggest you read the Total War web page on ETW The game is set in the years 1700 to the early 1800’s, a turbulent age of gunpowder, revolution, discovery and Empire Building. This period has all the ingredients for a great Total War title: fascinating changes in warfare and its technology, a large number of competing factions hungry for power, and gloriously exciting and colourful battles. This is a time when an old world is being swept away at a tremendous rate by the juggernaut of the industrial age. Revolutionary ideas are in the air, and at least one monarch meets a bloody end! No mention of 1820 here or maybe your mates "The Developers" got this wrong.
Against a backdrop of key historical themes such as the French Revolution and the American War Of Independence, the player’s aim is to create the greatest Republic or Empire the world has known, spanning not just a continent but the world! Can you hold on to lands in the New World, or establish a rich trading empire in the Indies? Still no mention of the man himself or the Napoleonic wars!!!
Empire: Total War contains a revolutionised Total War campaign spanning 3 continents and featuring new, enhanced systems for Trade, Diplomacy, Missions and Espionage. There will be an all-new fully animated campaign map with all buildings and upgrades visible. The campaign will also feature a huge cast of historical figures including Peter The Great, Malborough and Charles XII of Sweden. The game will include 10 playable factions including Britain, Prussia, France, Spain, America and the massive Ottoman Empire. Have you seen Napoleon mentioned yet???
Empire: Total War’s revolutionised graphics engine will be put to work on land battles that will feature heavy artillery in the form of cannons, mortar and early rocket launchers, with bouncing cannonballs slicing through drifting gunsmoke to tear up lines of infantry. Bagpipes, drummers, flautists and trumpeters will fill the air with play out over the crack of musket fire, the boom of artillery and the thunderous charge of cavalry. Generals will bark out orders to their regiments as the player orchestrates the battle utilizing formations, unit abilities and drills. Weapons will jam and misfire, cannons will seize up and explode as the field of conflict becomes strewn with the bodies of wounded and dying men, lacerated and dismembered by pike, bayonet and shot. Oh look there's those "Pikes" mentioned.

The veiled reference to Napoleon was in an interview. I did not say that they said "Napoleon". They said you might get a certain Corsican artillery officer as a general in the late 18th century. Unless you'd care to name some other famous Corsican artillery officers, I'll continue to take that as a veiled reference to Napoleon.

"No mention of 1820 here or maybe your mates "The Developers" got this wrong."

I didn't say 1820, I said around 1820, which is the same as "early 1800's anyway, which is when the Napoleonic Wars occurred.

Hello,

Napoleon was roaring his tail already well before 1800. So, if the game ends early 1800's (which is early 19th century the way I understand it), Napoleon should be included.

There may be the ambition to make a switch in the game (i.e. Napoleon changing the face of warfare again in the 19th century: France unlocks a techtree and starts building special units and other countries react/copy). That's easy put in one sentence, but to make that happen properly on campaignlevel, code the required changes in the battlefieldAI, prevent code of eras to conflict with each other, create an entertaining game and so on, is quite a different story.

There is already the huge problem of naval battles. Does the player need to learn the sea, or not? Worst that can happen in MTW when I ask too much of the cannoncrew is that I blow up a cannon; now I can destroy a whole fleet because I didn't see the seagul telling me that a storm was closing in or I'm too late/early because of some tide only experienced sailers know about. Too detailed? When is it too much, when too little? When convincing enough to drag you in the game, when too complex to quit in despair?

Customers have to wait at least a year to purchase ETW, but the whole project is years old. The decision to include or not include Napoleonic warfare may already have been made. People speculating about whether it's included or not is advertising.

There's also a year to go, maybe (most) bits are there. How well everything can be put together decides whether early 1800's is 1801, 1815 or something in between.

Quote:

---

Oh look there's those "Pikes" mentioned.

---

Could also mean the polearms carried by sergeants and officers.

Thank you for your reply and common sense input TosaInu and your right there are far to many people speculating what's going to be included or excluded in this game.
The french revolutionary wars did not end until 1799 and I do know that General Napoleon fought a campaign against the Italians from 1796 to 1797 and then lead the egyptian expedition from 1798 to 1799.
It was not until 1804 that Napoleon crowned himself Emperor so wether or not ETW goe's on after this is anyone's guess!
Don't get me wrong I would love ETW to go upto "Waterloo" being my favourite land battle and having been to Belgium and done the battlefield tour and climbed all those step's up the Lion mound.
Your also right about all of us having to become sailor's and learning how to Tack and for those who don't know what that is, it's using the wind to sail your ship as sailing into the wind was a no no as your ship became dead in the water.I wonder if Trafalgar will be included???Wow imagine sailing H.M.S. Victory with it's 104 guns against the Huge Spanish Santisima Trinidad with it's 136 guns.
Role on next year when the game comes out:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Templar Knight

Could also mean the polearms carried by sergeants and officers.

---

OMG not someone else who doesn't know there history.This polearm you mentioned was called the Spontoon and it was issued to sergeants and officer's.This was not a pike,but simular to the halberd!!!And if you read my post more carefully it states that King Charles Xll of sweden was still using "Pikes" successfully upto 1720 and the Russian's even later than that.
I suggust you wait until next year when the game comes out before arguing the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick the Great

[B]
there are far to many people speculating what's going to be included or excluded in this game.

---

Discussion and speculation are fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick the Great

OMG not someone else who doesn't know there history.This polearm you mentioned was called the Spontoon and it was issued to sergeants and officer's.This was not a pike,but simular to the halberd!!!And if you read my post more carefully it states that King Charles Xll of sweden was still using "Pikes" successfully upto 1720 and the Russian's even later than that.
I suggust you wait until next year when the game comes out before arguing the point.

---

It can still be classified as a pike, or a 'European Short Pike' as it was also known. I was only suggesting what they (CA) could mean.

-Freddy, again
Russia's army wasnt 'western' until the 1720's when the last Streltsy regiment was fully integrated into the proper army. Tsar Peter might not have liked it, but he had to keep using less modern soldiers
The Swedes were in desperate straits by that point too, considering the asskicking they were getting in the Great Northern War. When the Russians have captured all of your guns, then its no suprise they started handing out pikes. Much like the Russians handed out Napoleonic era muskets in the Crimean War to arm all two million of their soliders.

-TosaInu
So, basically, a Marian Reforms type event, yes?

-Freddy, yet again
Do stop condescending to people about your 'superior knowledge of history' or their 'not knowing about history'. It only gets people irritated.

And do you have to write in bold font?

"learning how to Tack and for those who don't know what that is, it's using the wind to sail your ship as sailing into the wind"

Err no, actually it's not. The term for sailing upwind is "beat". "Tack" is to turn into the wind and then continuing turning away from the wind about 45 degrees so that the wind is coming across the other side of the boat to what it was before. If you are going to talk in a condescending way to everyone you might as well get your facts straight first.

edit

-CyanCentaur
Yeah, and RTW's AI boiled it all down to one simple strategy:
BANZAIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!

Which is why I'm saying they'll most likely just go with Napoleonic strategy for the whole thing instead of dealing with all the bother of integrating the boring 18th century stuff that nobody'll want to play anyway, 'cause its boring.

edit

These rarely show up though. I've seen it, yes, but most of the time the AI happily hurls its entire force at you or stands around like an idiot (passive AI lol). A fine example was in RTW when Carthage repeatedly attacked my Sicilian cities with full stacks, which I easily held off with three units of Roman infantry. They could have easily destroyed me simply by going around the back way with three units, but instead chose to funnel their entire force into the direct attack. It was easer to defend your TC than the walls themselves.
MTW2 IS a little better though, I'll admit.

EDIT:
And, I've noted, the AI's defensive strategy tends to revolve around almost always having a terrain advantage. I mean, count the times you've ended up facing the AI across a ravine or on top of a hill that you cant get on top of without fighting it.