Printable View
I am sure I am going to be booed out of here, but I've never been a fan of the gunpowder era of warfare.
Can anyone give me a pep talk to get me enthusiastic about Empire? Or am I just going to be miserable until Rome 2, Shogun 2, or Medieval 3 come out?
Booo! :grin:
Anyway... Apparently it's not all about gunpowder. Melee is still important.
And why do you dislike gunpowder?
Gunpowder renders obsolete the sword, the shield, non-gunpowder cavalry, armor, archers, most kinds of walls, castles, catapults, trebuchets, billmen, and all other of my beloved units from medieval times.
I personally dislike gunpowder for a number of reasons. With a sword, killing innocent people is an act of murder. With gunpowder-based weapons, cannons, and other explosive weapons, killing innocent people is called collateral damage.
But that's besides the point. When I played Medieval, I found battlefield tactics useful. Then gunpowder shows up and it gets reduced to (more or less) standing in a line and firing at the enemy until they are all dead. That, and "who has the most cannons".
Granted, I am oversimplifying. But I'm just describing where the distaste comes from, not writing a professional argument.
Weee-eelll, in the early part of the game, pikes and polearms were still in use. In fact, many nations still issued NCO's with halberds up until the Napoleonic wars (although it was more for beating men into line than actually fighting the enemy).
Anyway, melee will be a big feature of ETW. Judging by the interviews, they're probably going to put even more emphasis on it than they should, which makes sense, from a gameplay standpoint. Its sort of boring (to most people) to just watch your dudes stand in a line firing and reloading over and over until one side runs away.
Even IF they go %100 historical, there was plenty of melee fighting in the games time period. Huge bayonet charges, cavalry, that sort of thing.
Just play as the Russians. If CA has any sense, they'll be the kings of melee :P
I'm guessing for much the same reasons I don't like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
In many ways, the introduction of gunpowder (and its subsequent increasing use) heralded the beginning of the mechanization/modernization of land combat. While fascination to read about and/or watch on the History Channel, it has never interested me that much from a gameplay standpoint. I like to see men killing each other with good old-fashioned metal & wood implements crafted by weaponsmiths, not shooting each other with with some....contraption made possible by (relatively) modern technology. :whip:
Also, I -- along with many people, I suspect -- have a hard time dismissing my long-held impressions that warfare in the time period covered by Empire almost always consists of men simply lining up and shooting each other. (Which you have to admit, sounds pretty boring on the face of it.) Intellectually, I realize this is an unfair assessment, and that combat during the era was actually quite a bit more complex than that, but it's difficult to internalize to the point where I truly *believe* it.
My interest in ETW isn't because of the land battles. It's because of everything else that CA has promised.
Reads Martok's post
:yes: in approval.
Martok is a man after my own girlish heart.
Coughs up a half-eaten spleen
______________________
EDIT: Basically I don't like the idea of gunpowder warfare. When it comes around in M2TW, limited though it may be, I just lose interest.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Yay melee!
I just imagine... what if Medieval 2 total war consisted of nothing but peasant archers, a few generals, and some cannons.
Shoot, reload, shoot, reload, charge, kill general, fire cannon. Oh, ok, some of the peasant archers have little blades on the end of their bows to spear each other with.
Meh.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Ouch. That must've hurt. ~;p
Ditto that. When playing MTW, I almost never start a campaign in the Late period, primarily because I don't like the prevalence of gunpowder units. Much better to start in the Early or High period, when it's still mostly swords, spears, bows, etc. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Well, try NTW2 for a preview of what I HOPE ETW will play like. Sure, the INITIAL phase of the battle consists of lining up and shooting at each other, but thats just in the center. On the flanks you've got cavalry and light infantry trying to flank. You've got artillery in the background (or foreground, if you like to play it dangerous). You've got light cavalry hidden in the woods waiting for the moment to charge if your opponent overextends. All kinds of stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Yeah, Napoleonic combat IS slower than the previous era OVERALL, but it generally consists of more localized action. You get to focus on smaller parts of the overall battle more.
Plus, once your enemy is getting low on moral, you can pull the 'ol hammer and anvil. A simultaneous cuirasser charge from the rear followed up with bayonets to the front.
It really just depends on how you play it.
I actually agree. Gunpowder equals Martok's description of two lines opposing each other and shooting.
But I think it's an oft-asked period, can really help for future/third party development, and will be different than just seeing better-looking models everytime.
And of course, at the beginning melee still dominates the battlefields. Mods will probably soon come out moving the timeline back to the Medieval ages. Without gunpowder, that is.
If CA depicts the tactics of the era with any degree of accuracy I think Empires will be great fun on the battlefield. This was the Age of Battles, between powerful nation-states all in the search for supremacy. Sure, there will be alot of opposing Lines of men shooting each other into oblivion, but there will also be the need to time bayonet charges, launching Cavalry charges, forming Squares when threatened by Cavalry, deploying Skirmishers, threatening Cavalry charges so as to create nice opposing Squares to blast with Artillery, and eventually using Columns to attempt to bull your way through the enmy Lines. It should be quite entertaining.:charge:
I personally think a group of 100 archers with longbows would be more deadly then a 100 guys with muskets. Think about it. They line up in a very very tight formation and don't wear armor.
Uh... Thinking about it I don't see why.
A musket bullet will pierce armor. Arrows don't necessarily. Pit an archer against a musketeer, and I reckon the musketeer will win.
It depends on the situation. In an open field, I'd say the musketeers have an advantage. Its where they're supposed to fight.
In woods or broken ground, though, I'd say the archers have a strong advantage.
But the muskets main advantage over the bow is numbers. You can train a man to fire a musket without shooting his own foot off in a day. Training an archer takes a looooooooooot longer. And a longbow is probably quite a bit more difficult and time consuming to make than a musket.
So really, its not a question of 100 men with bows vs. 100 men with muskets, but 100 men with bows vs. 1000 men with muskets.
Muskets have other advantages as well. Bayonets, the ability to fire prone (although reloading is a different matter), durability, and getting wet wont permanently damage them.
Both are good points gentlemen, but we're getting a little off-topic here. ~:)
True, although I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen -- mods do take time, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
What's odd is that despite my general dislike of gunpowder being used in land battles, I'm actually looking forward to trying out the naval combat (so long as it's not too shallow & simplistic). I'm not really sure why, my enjoyment of the film Master and Commander notwithstanding.... Actually, never mind, that probably *is* the main reason why. ~;p
I actually feel that gunpowder combat will be more interesting than medieval melee-oriented combat, both as a spectacle (guns make cool booms) and on a tactical level. Here are a few reasons why:
* Lots of gunpowder means a lot less sieges and more field battles. You're worried that gunpowder battles will be a tactic-free mindless shootout? You feel that gunpowder makes combat random, cruel and impersonal? Well, tell me how exactly that does not apply to, say, trying to take a well-defended Citadel using only masses of spear militia? A situation where the only strategy available is a hopeless WWI style frontal charge into certain death, with victory achieved only by wearing the defenders down in mindless, tedious attrition. I personally feel that if the advent of gunpowder reduces the frequency of sieges to roughly the same frequency as bridge battles, that would be a big plus for gunpowder right off the bat whatever the battles are like.
* It is important to remember that in M2TW, gunpowder existed in the game primarily to show that the old ways of warfare were obsolete. As such their use was always going to be one-dimensional; musket tactics consist of Zulu-style blasting away at masses of armoured melee infantry until they are all dead or they close the distance, while cannon tactics consist of coolly blasting a single cannonball through a vastly expensive but outdated stone fortification and bringing the entire pompous edifice crashing down. There was almost no gunpowder vs gunpowder combat since the AI would simply spam masses of militia to send into the meat grinder, never teching up enough to train gunners, and since pikes were useless, cannons were useless on the field and cavalry were ridiculously powerful there was no chance of any meaningful tactical interplay between pikes, muskets, cannon and cavalry.
In ETW meanwhile, gunpowder will take center stage. True, one of the methods you can use to fight musketeers with musketeers is to line up at 50 paces and keep blasting away until one side breaks. But even with that one tactical option, there is a whole plethora of tactics you can use to ensure that it is your side that is left standing. There is just as much emphasis on the benefits of flanking as ever (which lets face it, is the only real trick in the bag in melee combat), to gain enfilade fire on the enemy gunners. Terrain is even more important than ever; in M2TW, a wall or farmhouse is battlefield decoration. In ETW, it will be a massive force multiplier and a key tactical feature of the battlefield. Rather than every battle being a straightforward head-to-head charge to melee combat followed by the usual scramble to the flanks, we will have longer, more thoughtful affairs, both sides skirmishing and maneuvering for some time in order to gain the upper hand in the ensuing musket exchange.
To boil down the two previous paragraphs, gunpowder combat will be better than pure melee because gunpowder gives two options: Stand off and fire, or charge to melee. Neither is dominant and the chances of success of each varies independently. Melee has only one option: Charge to melee. All the other tactics in melee battle are essentially just ways of improving the odds of success of that one option.
* Gunpowder is democratic. In medieval warfare, the nobles on their heavy chargers dominate all. The peasants are essentially driven to the field against their will with worthless weapons and no armour and hurled in to do the jobs the knights can't be bothered with or don't deem glorious enough. They have next to no chance of defending themselves against a knight on horseback coated in lavishly expensive armour.
In the age of gunpowder, the field is more even. No longer can the spoiled noble wade through the more lowly troops with impunity; instead, the cavalry must accept some humility, yield to the superiority of the infantry and wait for their moment. A musket ball will kill a baron just as easily as a peasant. The nobleman must treat his underlings with respect, because if he does not, the masses can rise against him en masse, bring his pompous cavalry charge crashing down with an efficient, democratic volley of musket fire, and send him to the guillotine. Vive la revolucion!
I will cede the points:
1. Objects on the battlefield now have tactical value.
2. Noblemen deserve to get their royal buttocks kicked if they think they are better than the masses.
However, I am stubborn and I don't get any thrill from the cool booms. I like the arch of archery, I dislike the linear nature of firing directly forward. I hate shootout battles because standing in a line being shot at is how the british lost the revolutionary war versus the 13 colonies. I'd like to see some guerrilla warfare.
I think after a few hours of hearing constant gunfire, I'll be getting a headache. Turning sound off now.
I must admit, the constant booming of cannons DOES drown out the screams of the dying ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
If your objection to gunpowder warfare is that you dislike it on an aesthetic level then that's fair enough; I would respectfully disagree since I happen to think huge explosions are cool as all :daisy: whereas if I want to watch big scrum in the middle of a muddy field I will put on the rugby, but it is a matter of personal tastes and discussion isn't going to change any minds.
The point I would dispute very strongly is the idea that ranged combat is inherently less interesting than melee on a tactical level. I strongly hope the battles in Empire will be the most tactically varied and rich yet, both because of the reasons laid out in my previous post, and because CA at least seem to be placing a big emphasis on the AI this time around. Basically all of the previews so far have been along the lines of either "the naval battles will be really cool" or "the battle AI will be fantastic". Frankly, if the AI is anything like as good as they are making it out to be, then the armies could consist of nothing but twenty of a single generic "Infantry" unit for all factions and they would still be more exciting than the M2TW battles.
Askthepizzaguy continues being a party pooper, being the contrarian that he is.
Just re-enact everything that could possibly happen in Empire on your M2TW engine. Take two armies of mostly gunpowder units, say, France versus the HRE, and have them fire at one another for a while.
Use some decent cavalry, and their best cannons.
There. Now I just saved you a bunch of money! :laugh2:
Sounds pretty much like the Battle of Pavia in the Historical Battles section.
As a matter of fact, I quite enjoyed it (see CR's Historical Battles thread in the Citadel from a few months back if you're interested). More please!
Though I restate me earlier assertion: Gunpowder is relatively one-dimensional in M2TW because it a high-end technology designed to upset the balance of power. It is the same reason why the Muslim factions in M2TW are relatively generic and uninteresting; they are merely making cameo appearances in a game primarily about Europe. In ETW gunpowder will take center stage and the combat mechanics will be specifically built around making gunpowder combat interesting. The same way that because Broken Crescent has the Muslim factions as it's main focus, they are far more interesting, individual and well balanced than they are in vanilla.
I think you're going to be pretty disappointed in Empire. This is a new era of warfare, where gunpowder is a major factor - not a side show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
You may "like" medieval warfare better, but I don't think your preference has any impact on the direction the developers will go with Empire. There's a lot of other gamers they're worried about pleasing.
Do a little research on the time period. It really does not resemble medieval warfare at all. Further, your "arch" of arrows, probably won't be seen too much either.
Looks like you'll be spending time modding M2TW while we play Empire. For the record, Empire looks like the best total war yet imo.
I personally feel that the battlefield strategy in Empire will eclipse anything we've seen in Total War to date, including perhaps even MTW:VI.
Thinking about all of the different types of gunpowder units and types of gunpowder weapons is exciting. Things like reliability, range, reload time - should all add a level of strategic depth to the game that will be different, but possibly even better than what we've come to know.
Combine this with the fact that melee still plays a role (and an important one at that) as well as cavalry and I think you're looking at the ultimate culmination of battlefield strategy, prior to full blown mobilization and mechanization.
On top of this, we have real time naval battles now. It really should be good.
Of course, if you want to avoid gunpowder entirely, Medieval warfare isn't even your flavor- Ancient warfare is.
Personally, adding the crackle and boom and "punch" of gunpowder armies onto my PC's Total War collection is something I can't wait for. January/February/whenever this game comes out - I anticipate my jaw hitting the floor during the first custom battle.
All of this said: I have a special interest in medieval warfare and always have. It's difficult for me to actually say "well this is my favorite era, then this era, then this one" because I just have a passion for military history as a whole. In other words - I'll be getting Empire unless CA really drops the ball. Even when I have it installed on my computer, I'll still play M2TW and MTW at times just because I like the era so much. On different days, I have different urges. Sometimes I would want to play out something like the Battle of Waterloo...other days? Agincourt. Just depends on my mood. But I do not specifically dislike any style of warfare. They're all part of an evolutionary process that continues today.
@AoW: :beam:
I mostly agree with AoW. I don't agree, however that this will be the most tactical. It does look like the best, as to what they promise, but I am the same as Martok, ingrained beliefs that there are no tactics besides stand and shoot.
Hey, I fully understand your reservations...as well as Martok's. They're well founded. That said, you can certainly see the potential, as you've indicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
I'm not the developer. I have no idea what they're really going to give us in the end. But you've seen my previous thoughts/ideas and if they're executed in game as they should be, even the skeptics should be pleasantly surprised.
Again: The potential is certainly there. We'll see where things go from here. In the meantime, it's an outstanding discussion to be having as we await the release.
edit: Look at Waterloo. Look at the various stages of that battle. The strategic level is...intense to say the least. Further, I think this battle clearly demonstrates the complexity of a battle with melee/artillery/gunpowder/hybrid units all working in a concerted effort. It's not just about rock/paper/scissor anymore - it's about timing and quick decision making.
Can you give a link for that AoW? I'm afraid I know nothing of this period of time. I know there was a battle at Waterloo, but not much beyond that. (not wikipedia please)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Waterloo: This is what I could come up with quickly - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...erloo_01.shtml
It's one of the most important battles in history. You would definitely find the facts surrounding it as well as the tactics used within it, beyond interesting.
Wow, it seems that the squares and columns mean more than I thought. I can imagine the level of feinting with troops that will go on in MP. :laugh4:
Thanks for the link AoW.Quote:
The battle was closely fought and either side could have won, but mistakes in communication, leadership and judgement led, ultimately, to French defeat.
All right. Let's see if we can actually stick to the topic at hand now. If not, I will immediately close the thread down again, this time for good.
I would genuinely hate to do so, as I've been finding this to be a very interesting read so far. Some of you have made some good points about the complexity & variety of gunpowder warfare, and I'd very much like to hear more about what you guys have to say on the subject. So let's get back in there and discuss. :yes:
Honestly I have never had a great interest in the period, but it is one that intrigues me, if only for the fact that it is the period of history i know the least about. Perhaps that is why I am not very excited about gunpowder warfare, I'm largely ignorant in regards to it.
On the other hand, it's a new kind of warfare that is nearly completely alien, one that needs tactics that I have never even thought of attempting before. The word from CA is the AI is greatly improved, and the very fact that Jack Lusted is on board was enough to get be very excited to see what CA can do. Faced with an AI who can use the period's warfare to it's advantage, in an alien time period and lacking complete understanding of tactics - it should provide the greatest challenge of any TW game I've played since STW.
I'd be lying if I said i wasn't anticipating that. Of course there's always the chance my hopes will be crushed, but a man can dream yes?
Indeed. "Perchance to dream, to sleep...." Okay, I'll stop now. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Monk
My glibly paraphrasing Shakespeare notwithstanding, you have a fair point. Setting aside my little more than basic knowledge of the American Revolution, I too am pretty ignorant of the time period overall. Oh sure, I know of some of the general events -- the Jacobite rebellions, the Great Northern War, the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, etc. -- but almost nothing of how they were conducted, or the tactics & strategies used. I'm not really sure why my knowledge of this era is so scanty, but there it is.
So yes, I guess I am interested (in a way), if only because I hope that maybe I'll learn a little bit more about it. Still, it's not entirely unlike trying to get a kid to eat a vegetable or other strange new food s/he's never eaten before -- they may like it once they actually eat it, but it's getting them to take that first bite that's usually the most difficult part. ~;)
As a child I enjoyed standing broccoli up and then "cutting it down" with my fork. It was satisfying to see that self-indulged mockery of a tree put in its place once and for all just before I ate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Who knows maybe ETW will be the best thing since sliced bread, (well maybe not, there's been some pretty cool stuff since sliced bread) but there's a little voice in me that just can't help but feel optimistic about it even if for the tiniest bit. I'm curious about the AI improvements and the diplomacy model. What can I say? :beam:
I had an immediate negative reaction to the game announcement for the same reason. It's not so much the use of gunpowder per se, but the way gunpowder armies lack the diversity of units that we had in the earlier periods. Vastly different ways of outfitting soldiers with melee weapons, armor, and minimal ranged weapons in close-range combat means more possible tactics, more interesting ways to play the game, compared to the "level field" of gunpowder combat. I know that armies in this period had some degree of diversity in the units. But unless CA is going into the a-historical fantasy zone, they're going to be less diverse in style of combat than we had in the pre-gunpowder era. As a strategy gamer, that's just less attractive to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Gunpowder armies might be more attractive if the game included a maneuver phase before combat... i.e. use of terrain and positioning of forces in the day or two before the battle. That's something I always missed with the earlier games. But I haven't read anything that indicates there is anything like this on the strategic map before combat.
For a while I thought the saving grace would be the new naval combat engine, until I saw the latest in-game clips with ships sailing directly upwind (sigh). Maybe it will be better than it looks, so far. If CA has massively improved the strategic map level, I can enjoy a game that isn't everything I want it to be on the tactical level. Maybe.
You're confusing the gunpowder age, which started hundreds of years ago with the modern age of euphemisms and propaganda, which started less than 100 years ago. Much less on the former.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Think of it the other way. What do imperial age soldiers always fix to their muskets? Long pointy blades. What do officers wave around, and cavalry wield? Swords. Whats the pirate's stereotypical weapon? A cutlass.
I found the manoeuvrings of Pike blocks, muskets, and cavalry to be one of the high points of MTW 2, and in that game it always involved lots of good old fashioned melee after the muskets and canons have weakened the enemy.
In most portrayals of the time period of Empire: Total War, melee is very prominent. Hell, even up to and including the American Civil War, 50 years after the time period of the game ends. Now, experts on this forum will debate the actual use of melee, but I'm sure CA will be leaning towards the romanticized portrayal of the era as far as swords and bayonets goes.
To be fair, Shogun also had only a relatively small number of distinct unit types, but that was sufficient to make for fantastic battles thanks to the good AI. If Empire goes down a similar route I actually think it would be a good thing; ETW is in some ways a proof-of-concept both for the new naval engine and to show that CA can still make good battle AI, so perhaps it is best if they don't overcomplicate things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
Regarding those who fear gunpowder combat will be nothing but "stand and shoot"; if you think about it you could equally well argue that melee combat is nothing more than "stand and chop". On some level it's true, but the whole point of tactics is trying to engineer it so that when it comes time to do the chopping, it's your guys who are left standing afterwards.
My thoughts exactly. It is of course much a matter of taste. You might prefer clashing long swords and the medieval feel rather than canon balls plowing through the lines and men dropping from thundering salvos. The issue of tactics and complexity though is not. The time frame of ETW enables new tactics, giving more depth than any of the previous games. Even though there is less variety in units we will hopefully have more variety in winning the battles and being forced to think in new ways to defeat our enemy. Standing an shooting until rout is a poor way of winning because it will lead to alot of casualties on both sides. Assaulting a disciplined infantry formation in order will also be risky. A good combination of several ways of attack might be needed. For those of you who like melee Sweden should be your faction in the game. In the early 18th century the Swedish king Charles XII employed very successfully aggressive tactics where he minimized ranged combat striving for quick decisive blows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry
However, in all previous TW games you could win almost every battle against the AI with the same tactic and never needing any ranged unit. You just lined up the infantry with strong cav on both sides and then executed a frontal assault combined with flanking maneuvers. I will be quite disappointed if this works as easily in ETW. I wish for more complexity.:juggle2:
G
I never liked gunpowder until I played NTW 2. After that I realised just how much tactic there was in that warfare. A lot of it is based on movement, positioning, troop quality and just making tough calls in a battle.
Example: If he has longer range artillery and camera is restricted you have to use the terrain to screen your troops. The poor trajectory of cannons would mean hiding behind a large hill was common tactic while the enemy slowly but surely tries to reposition. This could mean a long march round the side of a defensive position which he has to do carefully because of our hidden skirmishers.
Or one could deliberatly leave some weaker militia units in the open for the cannons leaving the elite units untouched.
Then comes the engagement. Which units are up against which? Who has better ground? How many shots do we anticipate we will fire before we charge? Will the enemy rout if we charge so soon, so late? Does the terrain between the lines prevent a charge? Why did we manouver to this muddy section of the field which will hinder our charge? Is the enemy cavalry waiting in those trees to cut down our routers? The enemy are closing in, do we shoot now and get 3 shots or wait for better accuracy but only get 2?
Its these tactical decisions which make the gunpowder warfare better than the sword and shield of previous TW games which I found to be too dependent on the cavalry getting round the back of the enemy and routing them instantly. I would hope in this game that is not possible.
Also for these tactics to be effective depends on some key factors for me. The first would be army size. If the armies are small then I believe battles will not play out correctly. Also the battle maps are key. Too many tree, too small maps, awkward hills will all make the battles silly. Take note of NTW 2maps and army sizes.
Im hoping Multiplayer battles in this game will be epic also as was NTW2. 4v4s on huge maps with several defensive positions was just way waaay too awesome :yes:
How boring: Men with pointy sticks lining up and smashing into each other until one side runs away.
I think we shall all be pleasantly surprised. Pre WWI gunpowder warfare is every bit as compelling from a gameplay standpoint, and is just simply DIFERENT.
While previously we loved the sight of catapults launching flaming stones at random into a settlement (I will NEVER forget my first RTW seige), we will now be awed by rows of men dying enmasse at a well timed volley combined with a well placed cannon barrage.
I think the pace is something that is of concern to the worried. But I believe that we shall find the slow steady death march of musket fire and the success of victory after to be just as rewarding. Again, just different. It begins with a march up to the volley, moments of fear as men in the front ranks collapse under fire and as cannonballs spear through the ranks, continues with the charge into the defensive line, and ends with the route. The suspense from this new pace should be splendid!
I can't wait. :beam:
I am certainly waiting for the land battles even more now. Even though I somehow think that my entire army will just either stand and shoot for the entire battle, or charge in, depending on how much I dislike that faction and/or if they have ANY relation to Milan. I hate that faction.
It certainly depends on how ETW will handle it.
IMO battles of this era has more strategy than early eras. The main reason is artillery really. It makes maneuver and terrain much more important.
For ETW to really shine we need bigger battlefields, a good way of controlling your other armies and better fog of war.
Realistic maps with data provided by NASA is nice but it would have to be compressed somewhat, as there would be little point in playing in 1:1 terrain when we are not gonna anywhere near 1:1 sized armies nor are we most likely gonna get 1:1 artillery range.
CBR
I fail to understand why so many of you are worried about the era combat being "stand and shoot" when earlier combat were wery much "run against each other and hack away"?
Read descriptions of battles from the napoleonic wars, seven years wart, war of austrian successions etc( wikipedia is a easily accessible source, and its faults doesnt really matter or this purpose) and youll see how much manouvering and "tactickery" often went into these clashes.
Why I think Gunpowder wouldn't be a to big impact
Btw I just noticed that a mist a couple of posts so if some stuff is already said my apologiesfor not quoting :sorry2:
Muskets etc::duel:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
I think most of you see the muskets as modern weapons which they are not. The reloading of the old muskets at the beginning of the game will take about a minute to reload, the distance of shooting is close only accurate at about 60m (70yards), you could hit a man’s torso from about 200m (218yards).
This was improved massively around the 1800, but still they remained in accurate, the major plusses about these weapons came around the Crimean War and during the American civil war (which are not included but hopefully will be with the first expansion)
Most of the time they only shot Twice, and then did a charge, the bayonet was only invented somewhere in the 17 hundreds so depending when the game actually starts there was still a huge need of Pikemen, they would stop (or try to stop) the cavalry charges. Before the bayonet they had a dagger as extra weapon, some still had them even with the bayonet.
In the beginning of the game they’ll probably be a minor part of your forces wouldn’t make sense to have an entire army filled with musketiers. Major upgrade’s would probably the invention of the flintlock, and then rifling. (Plus some others)
I know there are more rifle types then muskets but this is the most known one and over the entire period the mostly used
Cavalry :charge:
Light Cavalry
At this point cavalry was light, most army leaders preferred to have big horses for a prestige. The main role of cavalry was as shock troops, charge the enemy and frighten them so that they get into disarray. As defense the where used to harass the enemy. And offcourse to brake the enemy so that the infantry would come in ( more or less the same as in the middle ages)
Cavalry was most effective against infantry when they were on the move or in a single line formation (consisting of less than 4 lines)
Dragoons
Dragoons where the most common type. They rode horses as an extra, to get from one place to the other quickly. Because of the difficult way to fire the muskets they mostly got of the horse to fire. They were mostly equipped with a sabre, axe and a musket. But didn’t have much chance against through cavalry.
later they changed the equipment and became more like cavalry men this was around the Napoleonic wars. These Dragoons rode larger horses than the light cavalry and wielded straight, rather than curved swords. Napoleon was a master with his dragoons, later it was turned against him at the battle of Waterloo, (also because the general of the dragoons made a wild charge into fresh troops)
later the dragoons where converted to Hussars and Lancers
Cuirassiers,
Equipped with armour and firearms, they were the successors of the medieval knights, I’m not certain if they had a huge benefit against rifle infantry (the plating a mean) but they had a major benefit against other types of cavalry
By the end of the 19th century the Cuirassiers where fading and become more as heavy Dragoons (or the Dragoons became more like them)
Light Lancers
Basic cavalry but had a lance and sword ;)
Especially useful against infantry static or moving but they were less and less used because of the advantages of gunpowder especially after the French revolution.
there are some others but these I think where the most used
hmm what else ah off course Canons in brief I could go on and on about this
Artillery :tnt:
You got cannons howitzers limbers Mortars and then off course the several ship types and differences in the artillery. Some of them would be early in the game others only at the very end.
But depending on the type the shots vary some of them would bounce over the ground making them really drastic, others explode etc… etc. But you have to imagine that is only if the ground is good meaning not moist, or shot in to pieces from before. If the ground is a mess these babies won’t do much harm. (that is one of the other reasons why Napoleon lost his O so major Artillery did nothing at all because it rained that night almost all the shots fired got stuck in the mud)
that all said (over 800 words) :D, this will vary the gameplay a lot, and will have a lot of differences when playing the battle’s, will you what before doing the attack until the weather clears, or if you’re attacking a highly better army with more artillery wait some more hoping that it will rain.
I think the spectacle will be the same why not even better than before because the uncertainty is greater as well, I’ve played all the Total war games and they always make it better the battle’s a mean. Some aspects as rebellions that where gone from medieval I mist that in Rome and MTW2 (but its back yippee)
:trytofly:
Muskets would be 95% of the infantry by 1700. Bayonettes were developed in the later 17th centruy. The French army made a plug type bayonette standard issue for all their infantry in 1688. Pike units might still be around. But their usefulness on battle would be very small. For rifles of the 18th century would be even slower firing than muskets. As the rifling in those days would let the explosive gasses escape if you didn't wrap the ball in leather, so I've been told.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dradem
Hussars came into central europe from Hungary in the late 17th century. The only nation who converted a (light) Dragoon unit into a Hussar or lancer unit was Britian. They would generaly have a light sabre (curved and thus more for cutting), a carbine musket (although Cossacks 2 gave them blunderbusses), spikes (for driving down the touch hole of a cannon). They'd be riding smaller but faster horses. Cuirassiers would be large men (to wear the armour and swing the sword) on large horses (to carry all that weight and charge). At the begining of the game they might still have open faced steel helms and steel gauntlets. By the mid game those will be gone, replaced with leather gauntlets and a bicorn hat. In the end game helmets of brass and leather (or brass and steel) will be the style, with fancy plums. Their equippment would be a heavy cavalry sabre (straight blade for cut and thrust), and pistols (1 or 2). Dragoons were originally mounted infantry (16th-17th century). That is they rode to battle or to a position then fought on foot. In the 18th century their infantry role dimished. They were still issued carbines. But some nations would equip some like heavy cavalry (big guy on big horse with a heavy straight sabre), and some in like light cavalry (smaller horse, light cavalry sabre). Other cavalry types would be Ulhans (although that's a German name). These are polish style light lancers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dradem
hmm what else ah off course Canons in brief I could go on and on about this
Cannons in this period were only of two types (angled howitzers and flat cannons). The main difference would be size. Which would be based on the weight of the ball. Anywhere from 2 pounds to 12 were normal for land use. Ships might have a gun heavier than 12 pounds but that's not common. Shot types would be round shot, cannister (a tin can full of pistol or musket balls that turned the cannon into a giant shotgun, would rip infantry shreds at short range), chainshot (two balls with up to 6 feet of chain between them, anti-personell or anti-sail). Explosive shells were also used but generally in howitzers for air bursting. There was also a cynlinder shaped shot for use against buildings. Those are just the ones I know about. I'm sure there are more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dradem
Some good points, but it should be pointed out that:
A) Flintlocks were developed and used throughout most of Europe in the 1600's
and
B) Bayonets may have been 'invented' in 13th century China :P
But they were in widespread use in 17th century Europe. I believe the French were the first to actually issue them on a standardized basis.
Of course, they were the plug-type that CA has gone on about quite a bit, and as such, would make it impossible to fire while in place. Unless you wanted to, first, launch a very large, very inaccurate, very short ranged, projectile at somebody and, second, cause your musket to explode :P
I think you might also be off on the reloading time. Its my understanding that earlier muskets could be fired faster because they usually featured a flared muzzle. That reduced muzzle velocity (and thus accuracy, range, etc.), but allowed for easier reloading. I'm not sure when that type fell out of use, though...
EDIT:
Curses! Lars beat me to it.
However, it should be pointed out, there were several 'non-standard' cannon types around. The Russians used Unicorns/Licorns, which were a sort of mixed howtizer/cannon and could (so I understand) be used in both roles. The Ottomans had a godawful mess of an arsenal which included cannons from the days of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Rather amusingly, several guns apparently commissioned for the Siege of Constantinople (which were later mounted in the batteries guarding the Bosporus/Hellespont) were used in the Napoleonic Wars, and apparently were sufficiently scary that the British and Russians only tried to take the straits once. Considering they had a bore of about 30 inches or something, I'd be pretty scared too :P
Sure, gunpowder-era armies might potentially be that interesting, if the AI is good enough, and the terrain is challenging. All we have to go on is the tactical AI programming and battlefield layout in earlier CA games like RTW and M2TW. So they'll have to raise the bar considerably, if smart tactical maneuver is what makes gunpowder combat more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by anders
Smart AI tactical maneuver will also be critical in naval combat... working with the wind direction instead of terrain. Otherwise it's just a game of who is bringing the most cannon to the party.
Yes. This is the era of the Jacobite Rebellions, the Highland Charge at the battles of Prestonpans, Falkirk and Culloden in 1745 and Sherrifmuir in 1715. This is also the era of the United Irishmen and the Irish rising of 1798 when the rebels fought with Pikes! Not forgetting the great age of the pirates like Blackbeard, who fought with cutlasses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
Still a lot of Melee!
I personally didn't rush to buy Medieval Only In Name, because of gunpowder. but now that im hearing that it really wont be, line up and shoot each other to peices im a bit more interested. I fear however the guerrilla tactics of the American Revolution won't be depicted well.
Well there are of course battles that from a war/strategy gamer point of view were rather boring straight ahead affairs like the battle of Mollwitz. There is the classic army deployment seen in most Total War games of an infantry center and cavalry on the wings.Quote:
Originally Posted by anders
The socket bayonet had more or less become the standard for most armies around the turn of the century but seems CA wants a tech race in that department.
As Total War has always used turns representing several months or even a few years and has no real logistics the whole guerrilla/petit guerre element is difficult to do in other ways but revolts or damage to buildings/armies in a province. And there was nothing special about the American Revolutionary War. The British had some trouble supplying outposts in the South but that's it really.
CBR
that's correct but they made improvements to them, there where various types of flintlocks in use in the 1600. de la Chaumette made a few changes to the standard design in 1704 or 05 can't remember exactly. This design was improved around the 1770's by Colonel Furguson, a Brit and they where first used in the American Revolution. They were still called Flintlocks but weren’t the same as in the 1600.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
Attaching a spear or sword/dagger to a Arquebus/musket is hardly an actual Bayonet ;) but indeed correct they where first seen in chinaQuote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
Sorry was a bit out of the time line apparently :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
But they were still used by the Swedish until the 1720 and even longer by the Russians, Swiss. and off course for Rebellions (less costly)
The muskets became faster after the invention of the paper cartridges that was about 3 times a minute, the first rifles where indeed slower, but more accurate. (this changed when the loading happened from the back not the front) Plus they could shoot more then 4 to 5 times (not in the same time off course)Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
for the moment i'm at work so I can't respond to everything :oops:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I will cede the points:
1. Objects on the battlefield now have tactical value.
2. Noblemen deserve to get their royal buttocks kicked if they think they are better than the masses.
us Nobles are better than the great unwashed. We don't rely on the history channel, or believe the crap they spin. :D
fenir
Personally, I love this period of warefare. Admittedly, I may not be in possesion of much information on battle tactics and so forth, but the period in history and its conflicts spanning worldwide fascinate me! As a Canadian, I'm anxious to see the wars in North America fought. I want to see James Wolfe (or an alternate-reality character of similar appearance :clown:) witness his victory upon the plains of Abraham before taking his last breath, with the opposite situation being witness by his dying opponent, le Marquis de Montcalm!
:egypt:
That is soooo true! Those peasant dogs don't know the difference between a piss bucket and a musket! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by fenir
THe Bayonets, Was Common in all European armies by 1650 AD.
Made in china, Sheo u r naughty.
Dradem,
Actually the offical Kill can be achieved in 60 meters. Roughly
Combat Effective confirmed for the muskets of the era, was 50 meters. Hence when you see old paintings, both lines are almost on top of each other. Brown Bess is a little bit longer ranged.
See; British Imperial Museum, Victoria and Albert, early tactics.
BUT,
THe British Musketeers in this time period, could fire, 4 times a minute. Because the British musketeers where trained, longer and harder, and they trained with live rounds. They could not enter most regiments, until they could achieve 4 rounds per mins, On a target.
They where/ are today, considered the best musketeers on their time(1700 to 1800). Espeically when the brown Bess came out in 1722AD
Whereas, the french, with their conscript armies, could hardly manage twice a minute.
No, not a joke, is fact.
The British where the only nation/ state in the world, to train their musketeers, from about 1680 onwards. Hence their fantastic reputation. And their by Company fire proceedure.
And of COurse The Swedish King was impressed by this, Copied the system, and then you had Fantastic Sewdish Musketeers.
At 200 Meters, the musket did not fire 200 meters full stop. At 150 Meters it hardly even stings when you are hit.
There are far to many stories of getting "plettered with shot, too which we gave no concern to it's usefulness".
A muskets power decreses rapidly. And even worse is their accuracy. A musket cannot hit a target, individually over 80 meters. And, you are lucky at 50 meters. Hence the normal combat range for a musket is 30 meters. Yes, now that made you sit up didn't it.
By 1700's the Pike was dead. the British and Germans having Banned it in the 1680's or 1690's
LIght Cavalry.
Big horses? Depends what you mean by big? 10 Hands? 15 hands? 20 Hands?
The point where this falls over, is that a large part of cavalry was a self provide. In otherwords, people planned on living afterwards, and therefore obtained horses that where suitable to their needs.
ANd most horses where mares, or geldings. Not stallions.
So the lessons from the medieval times had been well nd truely learned. And draft horses, or Warhorses, where not part of the 1700 cavalry mix.
The Main role of Light cavalry, was mainly harassment. Then chasing down, and flank covering. Not usually used for front charges. True Cavalry period was between ~1500 to 1680's.
The English Civil War proved this as well.
Dragoons.
Mounted Infantry. sometimes cavalry, mostly fast moving Infantry.
Cuirassiers,
Heavy cavalry, Sometimes with brestplate, with it being disgarded as time went on. Usually armoured to a limited Degree. And usually a melee Cavalry and Shock troop. One of only two shock cavalry in the time period. And did not charge frontally with out support.
Sometimes used for frontal attack, usually on a depleted enemy, or broken formation.
Light Lancers? Or lancers?
Lancers could have armour, or not. These are not always shock cavalry either. Most commonly used against loose formation or moving infantry units. Just the same as most cavalry.
Sometimes used for frontal attack, usually on a depleted enemy, or broken formation.
All cavalry have several fundamental jobs.
1. Harassment.
2. Flank Protection.
3. Covering force, eg: for retreats et cetera...
4. Chasing down enemy forces.
5. Force in being.
6. Fast movement of forces.
Generally, the golden age of cavalry had passed by 1700. ANd to a large degree. I maybe wrong, but i remember by the 1700's; the massed infantry, made cavalry nothing more than a supporting arm.
I don't remember, a cavalry charge against mass infantry in 1700 to 1800, that did not end in failure. Unless, cannons had broken the infantry first.
The only time I would suggest charging frontally against infantry. Is when the cannons have broken them up. Otherwise, look to being smacked around and losing your cavalry fast.
AND, no cavalry charges without support, thats just nuts.
So if you are to charge, as in Real life time period, for god sake make sure you break the enemy infantry formation first.
Artillery.
Not really true. It would be more Correct to say, for half the battle, the French Couldn't bring their cannon to bear.Quote:
that is one of the other reasons why Napoleon lost his O so major Artillery did nothing at all because it rained that night almost all the shots fired got stuck in the mud
Whereas the British where able to range over.
Because if the british Cannons where successful, then it goes with out saying, the french must be too. But you say they had problems.
Well both had roblems. It was just that the Frech had problems bringing their ones into combat range. And then where made ineffective because of the trenches the British Dug to protect them selves.
The Wet ground din't really have much of an effect. Reading the million other battles of the same conditions will tel you that.
Please, do not quote the history channel version. Its more of a lie than the bismark sorry.
FOr the love of god, history channel and discovery channel should be charge with geneoicde. Historical geneocide.
Sincerely
fenir
some curiosa; regarding british infantry being able to load and fire twice as fast as most enemies, this is a tradition they kept up into the early stages of ww1, when the british army, being denied funds to get all the machine guns they felt they needed, drilled infantry to load and fire so rapidly that the germans in instances falsely thought they were facing MG nests, when infact it was only rifle teams.
I agree - There was probably nothing more glorious then hacking up men left and right until your arm got tired and wanted to fall off. Then soon as you took an extra breath you got hit over the head and were killed yourself. Melee weapons are up close and personal, gunpowder isn't.
I'm still looking forward to it though just as a change of pace
It will definitely be a completely different style of play than the last instalments. There'll be a heck of a lot less units in this game, what with spearmen completely eliminated from the equasion, and there's only so many different ways you can dress up a musket, to be fair. Cavalry will probably include gun-armed and sabre-armed versions.
I reckon it'll be an interesting diversion of the series, though I reckon there's nowhere forward you can go after this. WW1 would be a woeful thing to try to RTS-ify, and WW2 has been milked so hard that the cow's udders are little more than rotten necrotic stumps. But I digress. I think the only way they can go after this is backward. Shogun or Rome 2, or perhaps try and find a new place to have the wars. Perhaps Persia and India?
I'm looking forward to whatever happens tho. :)
Combat should be very rich and diverse given the formations which will trade off close combat defence vs. firepower vs. mobility; and potential for fire by rank and for volley fire.Then there are the cannon to be taken into account. Hexplosives, you know. In this game, wopping them over the head should be truly a counsel of despair, a recourse to the last resort for die-hard bitterenders. as for where next, well there is back in time to the 17th century (perhaps the tutorial will cover this) and have i mentioned SteamPUNK:TW somewhere else? Don't let Jack Half-A-Prayer get to your lines, now.
How about an 'Everywhere but Europe: Total War'? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcana
They can set it in some sort of 'Years of Rice and Salt'-esque universe where all the filthy Christians got wiped out by plague.
I hate the lining up and shoot at each other gameplay as well. I love having guns when the other guy doesn't, though. I loved the Spanish campaign in Kingdoms, especially when Dragoons started appearing.
You won't see people line up to shoot. There will be a 30 min where people hide behind hills and have an artillery duel. Then one side decides they brought too little big barrels, so they charge. Meanwhile exploding shells and flying limbs lag the hell out of the battle.
Anniep
If you believe combat in the 18th century was just two armies dueling, Id say you've seen too many movies made in Hollywood. First of all, strategy and tactics played a huge role in warfare at that time. It all starts out with who can get to the choice piece of real-estate first (i.e. high ground, etc). In this age warfare was more about who could cut who's supply lines, block the only road to an area or out of an area, etc. Then, once you've forced the enemy to battle on ground of your own choosing, the real fun begins. Usually skirmishers are sent out first to probe the enemy lines and to inflict casualties. The skirmishers would usually fight by spreading out and taking cover, "sniping" at the enemy and trying to force them into making mistakes. Cavalry would be sent out for the same reasons, and also to gather information on enemy movements and numbers. Of course the artillery would also keep up a good harassing fire, or would participate in counter battery fire (an artillery dual). Then, when the line companies would get close enough, thats when the dueling would start up. But even this isnt as easy as it sounds. You have to worry about flanking maneuvers, cavalry, and so on (I hope you can form square against cavalry). Now, if you like melee, then all you need do is soften the enemy up with two or three volleys of musket fire, then have your troops fix bayonets and charge. This pretty much resembles pike or spear combat, and officers of course carry swords. Then, once you have the enemy running, chase them down with your cavalry which will use lance or sword to decimate the retreating soldiers (during the Napoleonic war some countries, including France, were still using lancers). Well, thats it, if I havent changed your mind then I guess you'll have to stick with MIITW :laugh4:
P.S. I havent even touched on sieges of forts or shore batteries. I sure hope to be able to land Marines and Sailors against an imposing shore battery. Or sending a Forlorn hope into the breach, I get all happy just thinking about it. If your looking for a good reason to like this time period, then read Bernard Cornwell's "Sharpe" series. Great books, and they single handedly coverted me from American Civil War to Napoleonic War.
im with ATPG.
never was a big fan of the guns in the total war games.
all the great sword fighting was part of what made the battles different than other games.
guns kind of ruin it.
i told my brother about the game.
and he goes: "isnt that the stand in a line and shoot era"?
and i go "yea..."
hopefully empire will still be really great tho.
To me this period is one of the most unique in history when it comes to armed conflict.
It really was a transition period between ancient and modern based forms of warfare.
Cavalry was still relevant and a key component of any army. They were certainly not the dominant force of the past but in the right circumstances still devastating. Infantry in loose order or simply not deployed in a "square formation" are vulnerable to cavalry.
Light Cav had a massive role in scouting and screening movement while heavy cav and lancer regiments would still wreck havoc on infantry that were unprepared.
In fact the period was one of them most clear paper, rock, scissors equations ever.
Infantry were vulnerable to cavalry unless in cover or in square formation.
In square formation, infantry were immobile and extremely vulnerable to cannon and musket fire.
Cannon's without cavalry or infantry support were vulnerable to fast moving counter cavalry.
etc etc
In addition gunpowder, while effective, had not reduced all engagements to purely ranged combat. The need for sword skills and the ability to fight effectively in hand to hand combat was still an essential and common part of warfare.
I've read so many accounts of commanders having to make very tough decisions in order to survive and win in a variety of situations. It really is excellent.
The combined arms of cavalry, infantry and cannon gave any commander the best chance of success.
That is not to say this was an absolute but if one side had all units at it's disposal it would have an excellent advantage.
I'm greatly looking forward to the game and really excited about how this time period will translate in the Total War series.
If you saw the recent land battle trailer I think you can see there will be plenty of exciting hand to hand combat going on. Plus even the naval simulation side has boarding action. So there's no reason you can't see lots of sword fight, and from what the trailer showed the sword fighting looks far better then MTW2, so there you go :laugh4:
I do hope that after this they will redo shogun or rome, but sadly I fear they may go the way of the mainstream into WW 1 or WW 2. *Sigh*
I think I have to disagree here. I very much doubt CA will ever try for WW1 or WW2. The market is over saturated, whereas their current market has almost no competition. Added to that is the fact that CA's game mechanics will not translate well to a game featuring artillery with ranges of several miles, fighter planes and huge wings of bombers, armoured vehicles etc....Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemists
How would CA model a battle like the Somme? Millions on each side, everyone spending days and days in trenches and occasionally making a run into no man's land just to be shot dead instantly by a machine gun nest? WW1 and WW2 were wars of attrition featuring numbers of soldiers CA will not get close to being able to represent for years.
So good luck for those of us who want them to go back in time and give us another Rome I guess.:laugh4: I wouldn't worry about WW1 or WW2. Personally I think the next game might either head for Asia or head into the realms of fantasy or steampunk sci-fi. Or Medieval 3. :sweatdrop:
havnt read all the posts, but im a def disliker of gun powder too, i was not paying any attention to ETW, cos i didnt like the time period, BUT having looked at the screenies and watched the movies, im loving it now and def gunna have to get me a copy :)
Hopefully not fantasy or sci-fi
Rome can be made again, with more detail. The imperial time between 14AD and 363AD were skipped, so was the time between 476AD and 1453AD.
There is also all the land between the China and Caspian Sea, which is several times the size of Europe. Central Asia, India, Persia, Arabia and Caucasus. There was plenty of history going on between 550BC and 1914AD in that region.
There is also the time between 1453AD (generally taken as the end of medieval era) and 1700, the start of ETW. There is also plenty of history in between.
Yes, but if you read any of the interviews they've hinted at wanting to try something *New* with the empire total war engine. (Meaning Modern, Sci Fi, or fantasy)
Of course maybe we will get lucky and they will just let another company buy the engine and divert that money into Shogun 2 :P
ive never been keen on guns in other total war games because...well there quite useless, however, with most land warfare beening based around gunpowder we can only hope the CA have made gunpowder more lethal and awe-aspiring to watch...
Unless Gatling guns are going to be ridiculously easy to acquire in v1.0, I don't see the problem.
Personally, I don't think CA will do a Sci-fi game. Simply because it's not their market.
Most of CA's customers are not sci-fi people. We enjoy a period of history, that we have the ability to replay, and change to our own liking.
However, I do not believe that CA will not take the game into the WWI or WWII era. There will of course be lots of changes, but there is not reason the game cannot or should not go there.
Sincerely
fenir
WW2 games have been done to death. A game based on WW1 would be a cool diversion, however. Fantasy, though, yuck. Unless they get their hands on the Warhammer license or something, generic fantasy is anything but fantastic. Sci-fi is even more boring.
At first I wasn't too impressed with the choice of era apart from the naval battles which I think will be great, but after thinking about it I fail to see how this era can be any more or less tactical than others as all the same components are there like range, melee, mobility, artillery the only thing that changes is the use of each. I don't believe this will be just stand and shoot any more than M2TW was just charge and hack. Even the strategic level will remain similar although with different aims and goals, hopefully logistics will play a bigger part in this game as an army shouldn't be allowed to be kept in the field indefinately.
As for the next game after ETW, fantasy would be cool if done right but if they follow the pattern it'll be M3TW.