Printable View
CA's Kieran Brigden (communications person, I think?) has started posting an AAR style account of his ongoing Prussian campaign. It is quite compelling, and I'm awaiting the next installment almost as eagerly as the release itself. Okay, not that much, but do take a look: http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic...gn-Report.html
Indeed.
We've made mention to this in various threads now but it's nice to have its own. Part 3 should be up within the next few days. He has stated he is trying to play to a finish before release day hits. :2thumbsup:
If anyone hasn't read this I highly recommend it. He's about as far as Jack was when he stopped for Q+A, but Kieran's taken much more notes and it seems has had a much more eventful campaign. Prussia will not be an easy game by any stretch of the imagination, if his experiences are anything to go by!
I've very much enjoyed reading his report.
I can't help but wonder, however, how much of his campaign is actual gameplay features and how much is literary flourish. He's clearly a great writer, but it makes it hard to discern the core game mechanics churning beneath it.
Your location sounds vaguely familiar...
I doubt he made anything up. For the most part, he simply RPs the other factions.
He made a post around page ten clarifying some things, can't find it atm will look a little later. Most of what he says appears to be actual game events. He's run a really diplomacy heavy game and it's very entertaining to read, to be honest it only reinforces the confidence that Jack's game gave me. In that ETW will have a very fun campaign game. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Adequate
Ah, I didn't even realize the similarity:sweatdrop:.Quote:
Your location sounds vaguely familiar...
I can change it if you'd like
Actually I believe Papewaio, one of our resident Moderators, has a similar location as well. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Adequate
ANYWAY! :laugh4:
Yes. Prussian Campaign! Read it!
I have to admit, this campaign has me heavily considering my choice of Russia for a first go. I may have to check out Prussia just for the intense diplomatic area they are in. But then, Russia is right there too. Gah! So many choices.
Eh, its alright, I don't really care
Back on-topic:
Where is the second part of the campaign report? I can't seem to find it..
He actually added the second report to the original post. It was orriginally on page 7, might also still be there, but parts 1 and 2 are both in post 1 now. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
D'oh! Thanks...
I really liked his battle descriptions; he actually times the firing, it makes battles look very promising.
I wish we had a "fire" button though, like Cossacks; turning "fire at will" on and off seems vaguely counter-intuitive.
I think he's updated the campaign again, so initial wars, one with venice which intrigues me and a rebellion.
It's worth a read if you have time...which we all do as we wait one more day :P
All this is doing is making me jealous of him. :P
And I don't see no update!:furious3::clown:
That's what I was afraid of: Spain and France being one province each, such nonsense events like Dutch conquering both giants by merely taking their capitals. Such grand decisive affairs were impossible for that time and wars were fought with little impact on national borders. If I see that happen so quick into the campaign, I'm going to lose a lot of interest in this game.
Actually by all indications that seems to have happened at a pretty advanced state in the campaign, a lot had happened by the time France was destroyed. The player reported he's around 1750 currently (turn 100), it's not like they were taken out at turn 12, it seems much more close to 60-70.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
That's a long time.
Well if you read the first post. He keeps editing and updating it. The day before it ended at The world turns part, so he added in People's Prussia, Hungarian war and Venetian War.
I must say, the part where France falls, unnerves me slightly. Only because I remeber that the danes of MTW2 pretty well conquered all of europe if you let them. This goes back to not demanding everything be a historical but at least some historical relevance.
I have no desire to see Central Europe controlled by one faction. Not even my faction. I'd rather see England, Spain, France and the other new world powers Pol-Lith, Russia, Prussia remain and us duke it out in small rebel provinces or minor factions.
My assumption is that France will have alot of rebellions and without aid they will most likely either lose a rebellion, or be trampled on after one. The fact the United Provinces, who only control United provinces march on Paris is upsetting.
I can only hope this was due to odd circumstances, as the other reports had none of the major factions taken out.
I would much rather see more vigorous colony warfare, and less european ones.
60 or 70 turns... Dutch conquering the whole of France and Spain? You got to be kidding me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
Well, actually he said 100 turns, 1750, since the game only goes 200 turns that means half.
This is one of the downside of limited number of cities and places. If you look at the map, other then one or two duchies, the only city in france, is Paris. This isn't MTW2 where you have to take Paris, Djon, Antwerp, and Marsellies to beat back the french, the french only have Paris and one or two german provinces.
They do hold land in New France, and the Carribean, but i'm sure if your focus was to steamroll them you could if you waited long enough.
Judging by the fact in the swedish campaign the danes capital held 4500, i'd assume denmark took a fairly good force down with it. Which probably means they had suceeded in other theatres, India, America, Carribean, for the past 50 years.
Guess it just means you'll have to watch your opponents closely. Honestly though, it took the Dutch longer to conquer half of europe then it took Napolean to conquer most of Europe. So in contrast it makes sense.
Just think of a dutch version of napolean.
I prefer to take my countries piece by piece. I want to gain a foothold and slowly take cities and provinces as my forces creep forwards. Getting the entire of France in one turn seems kind of... empty. Like I didn't have to work very hard at all for it.
Mods will be fixing this of course, adding provinces back into countries like France which lost them. I'll probably enjoy the game enough to last until someone comes along and makes the map truly epic. :2thumbsup:
I have read this and it is a very interesting read indeed. Seems much more indepth than Medieval 2 campaigns. I do hope he was not exaggerating or getting carried away though, hopefully everything he said actually happened.
I'm almost surprised they can't keep thier colonies when the home city falls.
Or even better i'd prefer more of a napolean situation, where they make other nations become protectorates.
While tactically wiping out a nation makes sense, gameplay wise it usually takes away a fair bit.
Some of it may be AAR-style exaggeration designed for story telling purposes. I'd expect a bit of embelishment here and there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander XXI
It was something he saw as a video also. It is not unlikely the Dutch had other allies.
He seems to be having enough trouble. I don’t think this is exactly a winning campaign he has here.
Well I think in general when your entire nation rebels and you side with the loyalists you in a uphill battle.
Just comparing the Prussian to the Swedish campaign, it seems easier to side with the rebels then the loyalists. Probably do to fact rebels spawn with a large army and your army does not.
He went with a mainly diplomatic strategy. Nothing wrong with that, but he lacked the muscle he needed to hold hungary and convince the other nations to back off. When his army starts to grow he seems to do better.
Just my thoughts.
CA have probably geared it so revolutions favor the revolutionaries, because social change is sort of a theme of Empire's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemists
Have we had any news yet of a Revolution of the upper class aimed at putting a monarchy on the throne? That actully interests me more than Republican Revolutionaries.
It will probably be like a republican revolution just with more advanced troops (they are rich after all).
It seems you can only go half way backwards. If I read it right here is how it works.
The way up
Monarchy-Parlimental Monarchy-Middle Class Revolt
Parlimental Monarchy-Republic-Lower class revolt
The way back
Republic-Parlimental Monarchy-Middle Class revolt
Parlimental Monarchy-Monarchy-Upper class revolt
To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to skip a rung of the ladder. The lower class won't revolt until after the middle, the upper won't revolt until after they've stepped back from a republic.
The only way you may be able to go from one to another quickly is if there was a war of sucession, but once you are a repubic to best of my knowledge there is no war of sucession.
From most of what we read it seems the people are far more happy in a republic, so it seems less likely it will revolt. Though as you can tax different classes, I assume if you are a republic and want to go back the quickestway is to tax the heck out of the nobility. :2thumbsup:
He said all the events were real and that only the description was embelished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Adequate
His Quote: "Wars of succesion are in Empire as a feature, whilst I have added spice for the telling there are no artificial ingredients in this story."
No wonder they cut out the part after 1800! :idea2:
Bonaparte trashed the whole system! Took a republic and made himself Emperor…:oops:
:laugh4:
Oh I know wars of sucession are in, I just think they only occur if you are a monarchy and lose your king.
Though I suppose one could happen if you went from Parlimental Monarchy to Monarchy. The idea being that your nomiating your own king to rule and another nation may try to claim the throne.
It's all pretty interesting and I can't wait to try it out in a couple days :2thumbsup:
Surely if you have a parlimental monarchy you are just making the monarch more powerful not choosing him. The issue would only come up when you went from republic to constituational monarchy as you have no king/queen. Or am I mis-understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemists
Napoleon's conquest was in the 1800's and not 1700's... the game ends in 1799 and 1700's were a different time with different limitations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemists
The problem with CA games is that they are pseudo historical... if you want to feel somewhere remotely close to the challenges of the time, then play Europa Universalis where you would at least have to setup for yourself the "cause of war" before going into a war and achieve a point system for annexation of a province or nation before you can call any slab of land your own... TW games are child's play on the other hand.... it doesn't even consider the fact that the biggest enemy of any army is the nature and diseases it plagues them with; more men were lost to diseases than anything else. It's fun, however, battles are stunning... It's fun till you find out AI pattern and how stupid it is and discover all kinds of bugs which CA games are plagued with..... again though the graphics are amazing, it pushes technology, so you end up using a lot imaginations to find excuses to continue playing this game.
The fall of France to the Dutch is quite disturbing, but I guess we really need to know more about the situation. I assume that the Dutch and British were allies and at war with France and Spain. Any number of other factions could also have been involved. France may have been weakened by a large revolt or some other event. I do hope that the Dutch are quickly sent packing by the good citoyens of Paris, because if the Dutch can hold down France and Spain for more than a few turns, this will require some modding.
I think it would be better if the Major Western Factions all had a few Border Regions added so that they would have some strategic depth. This would also create more Regions that could be haggled over during a Peace negotiation. With those additions, I would personally like for the Capital Region to be made non-annexable; if possible. No Major Faction should ever be completely annexed for even a short time. Also add in Seasonal turns and I think ETW will be a near perfect game which I will play for years.:2thumbsup:
Very interesting. Not sure about the UP taking all of Western Europe, but at least he's having a tough time.
My favorite bit:
Very Prussian! :2thumbsup:Quote:
The screams of the dead and dying do not bother me, they would have had my throne and my head. There will be order.
Don't understand your point? Constitutional monarchies can nominate their own (constitutional) monarchs. That's the point, Parliament is asserting its supremacy, we gave you the job, we can take it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polemists
Britain starts off with a monarch who got the job by invitation, William of Orange, and later those weirdo Germans the Hanovers. i suppose someone else might have objected tot he apparent creation of a political block England + Holland, or Britain + Hanover?
Not sure what you meant though.
Oh, yes. Seasonal turns..... *Drools
I am quite surprised that France fell to the Dutch. Presumably, after 70 years of war with them, its completely possible. However, can the AI actually keep order in France? If not, it will only be a matter of years before the French simply rise up again.
EU is a game that is for a different kind of player, personally I don't like it when I need to tranche through huge tutorials(I think II had like 6, by the time i was done with them I had forgotten the material in the first) that cover vast amounts of gameplay just to be able to enjoy a game. The depth and learning curve are intense, some people like that but it's not for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
The weakness in CA's games has always been the AI going back to RTW, the AI seems improved this go around, we'll see in two days.
As for the Dutch, since there is literally zero details on how they conquered the French, who was aiding them, or how it happened there's no way for me to comment one way or another. I honestly find it hard to be either disappointed or impressed by a faction succeeding over another when I don't know the circumstances of it. :no:
European nations just didn't annex other European nations then. And if I remember correctly, the Dutch also conquered Spain as they were "threatening Portugal". Um, okay....:book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
So would you rather have a game where you cannot defeat your enemy and take their provinces? I'm genuinely curious what sort of system you prefer.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
Personally I don't mind that I can crush other nations if I want to. After all the entire concept of a game where you can take the world is fairly ahistoric anyway, so why not let you take factions out? All I ask is that it isn't easy to do.
The Dutch could threaten Portugal without taking out Spain. Especially if they had a treaty with Spain. They could both march through Spain and also use a naval invasion to attack Portugal.
*cough* Napoleon *cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
Poland was.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
No you fight to expand your territory in the New World as it were for the time, or fight wars in Europe to topple foreign government to replace it with ones that favors yours and not to annex or occupy a whole nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
The problem is that CA made it too easy, especially with their one province system for France and Spain. Peoples fear of this have been made evident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
True... but I doubt it... If I know CA's campaign AI, it is most likely set out for Nazi like objective of world domination.
First, Nap's conquest was in 1800's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Didn't he setup puppet, tributary governments? annexation is another story.
You got me there... but that's probably the only example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichigo
Plently of nations annexed in and around those years as has been said. To add a few, Ireland, Scotland, Portugal, etc...
The point is that it is a game, not a simulator. If you don't want to annex other nations don't. If you think it is wrong then you will have to fight against some AI Napoleon on some crazy, megalomaniac, annexing, power trip - like in real life a few years after the end of this game.
Also, we're not deaf No need to bolden your type!
eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
Typelexia!:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
What's the point of playing the game if everything will happen the same as it did in history?
Besides, just because Napoleon came a century later doesn't mean that it was impossible to do that during the game's century. It just means that Napoleon wasn't born yet. There were plenty of other conquerors before this as well, from Rome to the Mongols to the Ottomans. Those were very quick land grabs, where they conquered huge swaths of land in what is only a few turns gameplay wise.
I don't see the problem with removing the uninteresting parts of history that wouldn't make good gameplay. I certainly don't want to run out of gunpowder in battle if I didn't assign enough people to collect horse/bird shit.
I understood what you typed... I was wondering where you got the idea that Scotland, Ireland, and Portugal was annexed in 1700's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
I did end up conquering the whole of Iberian peninsula and half of France in EU as the Dutch (my favorite faction btw). But it took me a month of playing before I was able to achieve this.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewt
I bet you anything that I can achieve this in few days with ETW.
More challenge anyone?
If you were to ask, many Scots would categorise the Act of Union as de facto annexation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
Portugal had fought its way out of subjugation in the 1640s. Bit of of scope, I'll give you that, but not by miles
The Battle of the Boyne marks, at the Irish level, another de facto annexation. It established the Protestand hegemony and reaffirmed the exclusion of Catolics (locals) from positions of power and legitimised the seizures of catholic lands. Pretty much an annexation if you ask me.
Marlborough's success in the early 1700s ensured the Spanish Netherlands became the Austrian Netherlands, to stop the process of annexation that France had long been carrying out in Flanders and Wallonia.
The whole of French speaking Canada passed under British rule, or was annexed, in the middle of our period.
I don't really have a month or more to waste on one campaign, but I do have a couple of days. And I know there are people out there with much less time than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
If Empire is as difficult as MTW it will be challenging enough for me I think. If I wanted to be really challanged I would attempt to go annex France in real life :2thumbsup::clown:.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
It took me many campaign attempts to do what I did with EUII as Dutch... The starting time was in the 1500's and I had to fight for my independence from Spain, which was the hardest part.
Oh yeah, the United Provinces conquering all of western Europe :dizzy2:
When will they decide to fix the whole 'a country conquer half the world' flaw? It's already annoying enough that the player can do it so easily, leading to a bi or tripolarized world most of the time.
You make an interesting point... And you also made my point, above examples were processes of hundreds of years complex political and religious policies. They didn't all come about of meat head like "I march my soldiers to your capital and..." all of a sudden "you're part of UK".Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
Well I think that if it becomes like that then I'm going to have to spend time keeping expansionists in check each game to keep it worth playing.
Ironic that the British were essentially keeping the europeans from taking over their neigbours, at the time, aswell... even if it was to stop them from attacking Britain instead of keeping it all fun.
That's less of a flaw and more like the premise of the game really. The clue is in the title, Total War. The aim of the game is to conquer the world. I don't mind if they make it a little harder to do so, but I don't think the game would be as good if you couldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
I doubt they will ever 'fix' that paticular part of the game, because there are many people who don't regard it as a problem.
The game starts in 1700 after hundreds of years of complex political and religious policies....surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
Nonetheless, lands were politically annexed in the timespan coverd by the game. The raison d'etre of the grand alliances that characterise this era was to prevent wholsale annexation of lands by a "superpower", namely in this case most of Europe against France at some point or the other.
If these alliances had not been so sucessful there is little doubt in my mind that more (most?) of Europe would be speaking French now. If Britain had succumbed to the Jacobites and become a client state of France, how long would Prussia, Austria and others have been able to resist?
Yeah!Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Never mind that lousy little Corsican did it once and tried a second time!
None of those other little countries should be able to do THAT!
Right?
:laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
I don't see anything wrong with it. I think 1-2 weeks of heavy playing is how long a long campaign in ETW should last. It's long enough to be immersive without being too long that it becomes bogged down in drudgery. There's 12 factions after all, plenty of other games out there and an inevitable expansion a year down the road.
Besides, accomplishing it in a few days in ETW doesn't mean that it's not challenging. Before he was nerfed, the M'uru fight in World of Warcraft was less than 10 minutes long. It took my guild (top 250 US) roughly 500 attempts spread out over around 14 weeks before we finally beat it.
Actually, I always found the "conquer the world" the least interesting part of the TW games. Except maybe Shogun, where unification of Japan really was the goal of all the daimyo. And playing as the Romans, I suppose, where a certain amount of crazy land-grabbing felt in character.
I'm glad that annexing all of Europe isn't the only path to glory in Empire.
I prefer to take ove a small, realistic area of a territory. Like the reconquista or uniting Britian. But I still think being able to take over the whole word is a reasonable goal, it is a game after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm really looking forward to being able to win in more ways than just a landgrab. I want to win because of trade and my superbly cultured citizenry, not just because I had a bigger army than the next guy.
Having a bigger army helps though:yes:
Allthough I think I will be more interested in quality of troops than quantity; a mob is nice and threatening but they break easily.
Me to. I prefer a small, organised force of elite experienced units to a mob. Its also more fun to fight outnumbered, and more satisfying when you win. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And thanks to the greater moral the last-stands, should I ever have to fight them, are even more satisfying as your troops are "fighting to the last" not running around like headless chickens.
So did these alliance go to the point of waging a total war to overthrow the French monarch or to occupy and annex the entire nation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
And there is no process of political annexation in ETW, you simply march your men and grab all their lands, which is now further simplified by making Spain and France one province each.
I think revolutionary France felt itself threatened, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeSting
In any event the aim of the alliances, as far as the paymaster, Britain was concerned anyway, was to maintain the status quo. Keep the continental powers from becoming too powerful. The others in the alliances probably felt their national existnece under threat from France, yes.
And this checks and balance of power is reflected in the game? Please.... We'll see but, out of 40 factions, you will end up with 20 halfway through the game, if you're lucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
The United Provinces were allied with the once mighty Austrian Empire. I guess that also Britain helped quite a bit in the beginning as it was initially a foe of France. With such a constellation a defeat of France should be not impossible, especially as the sea might of the allies could have destroyed the french colonies.
There is of course a lot of roleplaying in this AAR
It's been updated!
Link, man, link!Quote:
Originally Posted by quadalpha
Glorious. :2thumbsup: :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It was updated on the first post. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Bah, it sounds like I could do a much better job. :clown:
I am disappointed that he only won the battle at the end to some rather suspiciuos sounding artillery. Whether it was the kind of "silly" unit that needs to be modded out waits to be seen...
Kinda wish he would have elaborated further, the ending is just a very bland wrap up of the tactical situation. The Dutch are obviously down from the capture of their capital but I find it hard to believe they're out. Most likely he stopped due to release being so close. :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I'm not sure if it was due to the power of the artillery or just the fact he had bottle-necked the entire dutch force in the breach and it contributed to massive casualties. I hope the latter, either that or it was a "late game" unit that can be swiftly hit with a nerf bat. :yes:
If I play a game with a whole lot of factions (how many are announced for ETW? 40 or 50 right?), it's not to end up fighting the 3 same ones in every campaign I play, or to have half of them destroyed in the first 20 turns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
In MTW, every campaign was doomed to end up in a clash between the player, who owned half the world, and another faction (Egypt, Byzantium, France, the Almohads or Britain) who owned the other half.
In RTW, it was Rome, the Seleukids or Egypt.
I have never played a whole campaign of M2TW (for reasons explained in other topics), but from what I heard, the powerhouses were France, Egypt, Byzantium and Poland.
Things got even worse in RTW and M2TW because of the lack of reemerging faction and of the poor AI.
So yeah. I understand that, for the player, the perspective of conquering the known world might be entertaining. But for god's sake, I don't want to have to fight the same 3 factions in every game because all other ones have been annexed in less than 20 turns.
Furthermore, given how warfare evolved after the middle age, I think it would be about time to have peace treaties a la Europa Universalis.
Right, except for a few points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Like:
- Napoleon never ruled personally over most of the territories he conquered, but rather installed puppet/allied governments
- the territory of France itself did not increase that much
- these conquests took part during a completely different era. The French Revolution, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, human rights, the idea of nation and all these universal claims that did not exist one century earlier. Napoleon would never have gotten that much support without these ideas.
So even though Napoleon conquered most of Europe, it wasn't done in a Total War 'I took your cities so you don't exist anymore' way, far from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
I can support not having to fight the same few factions over and over again. Hopefully the fact that the AI is less dubious about alliances will go someway to stopping one faction rolling over the entire map.
I would hope that half way through the game the majority of the starting factions are still around, I like my map to have variety. :2thumbsup:
Med 2 wasn't so bad for having one paticular faction always win. Most campaigns did end with very few factions left, but usally because of the player rather than the AI.
I'm reasonably confident that factions won't disappear too easily in ETW. Especially given the ablity of factions to re-appear in loyalist rebellions. We shall have to wait and see I think.