Printable View
I've been fighting the Cherokee as the British, and while I'm winning on the whole the amount of casualities I've been sustaining has been a bit frustrating. Why develop guns if bows have longer range and kill more effectively? In particular, the native cavalry is ridiculously powerful, I have to swarm them with everything I've got, their stats are way above those of my own Horse Regiments.
I know there needs to be balance for the sake of gameplay, but this feels a bit silly.
Hmm.. I've been doing rather well against the Cherokee. I'm using Native Skirmishers and Colonial Line, mostly lining up and shooting the Native troops as they come forwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I have noticed that they can do a lot of damage if they get up close and personal however. Native archers are also utterly useless when shooting at troops behind cover or garrissoned, try that if you get the opportunity :2thumbsup:.
Defences do help a lot when they're available, but you seem to only be able to get them in battles where you are the defender, which is sensible I suppose. The cavalry really are a nightmare to deal with, I'm going to start using those anti-cavalry defences rather than the anti-bullet logs in future whenever possible.
Have you got square formation researched? That + socket or ring bayonets can stop cavalry dead. If you haven't try hiding near walls or fences. It's a bit of an exploit, becaue cavalry have some pathfinding issues when it comes to fences. Unless they hit them dead on they have to realign themselves before they can jump them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I would expect that bayonets would be a precursor for square formation. Forming square without them would be VERY disappointing to say the least!
They might be actually. Square formation is an early tech but so are ring bayonets...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
I love how research directly ties into battle mechanics. That's hyper realistic, and a first for the TW series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
GREAT addition.
It really makes teching up seem worthwhile :2thumbsup:. I loved it when I first researched fire by rank. I was attacked by a huge army of Cherokee. I only once because of the fire by rank ability my soldiers now had :laugh4:.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke
Let me ask you, since it's my FIRST concern: Is the AI tech'ing up as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
If it is, this is indeed Total War.
archers always did better against muskets. they are more accurate and can go further. but as rifles got better, archers stopped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
ive been to the archery range a few times, and i will say, its not too difficult to hit a human-sized target from a pretty long distance. i hit one target at about 50 yards away. now try that with a musket....
The Cherokee are a little over powered, especially if you are just expecting what would be normal rebels in MTW. I got my arse kicked the first time I went up against them, and I had to laugh when the next time they used my own cannon (previously captured) on me.
More unexpected than poor gaming. Just make sure you are a full stack or two when you go up against them and wipe them out quick, they seem to spawn like rabbits and I couldn't finish them off until around turn 20 - which was much later than I thought it would take.
I wish people would stop being surprised at how awesome the Native Americans are. There's a reason why we still to this day name our weapons things like Tomahawk and Apache. It's because they are a race of warrior badasses!
I too have been fighting the Cherokee. Line Infantry in Square Formation is indeed the answer to their lancers.
The Natives were no joke. People have to realize, they were combating basically an imperial invasion by several European Empires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut
Don't you realize how many of the tactics used to beat the British where devised from the Natives?
People have probably gotten too used to the crappy 'rebels' in previous games. Now the natives can fight back properly it seems pretty scary :laugh4:.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke
Nah, you guys are just unsuited to fighting them.
IRL..... well.... search it up.
They probably have a moral boost, which they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
If you were an invading European Empire, you had every chance to just withdraw from a battle or region and forget about it.
The Native Americans were fighting for their existence. There was no retreat and there was no "going home". That was their home.
It's like the Vietnam effect. Millions don't pack up and give up. Look at Stalingrad.
short answer yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke
long answer - yes :P if u go to trade tech with them u can get a rough idea of what they are teching up etc :) whether theres any sense behind their tech decisions i dont know :)
Well as a matter of fact the more successfull native tribes ditched their bows very fast for muskets and later rifles. The supply with guns and ammo was a most decisive factor in the various wars between the various native and European coalitions. Yet people seem to continue to believe that bows are inherently superior. :sweatdrop:
In an open battle there was hardly a contest between Europeans and Natives. Then again open battles were only a small part of the spectrum of warfare. The tactics employed were often innovative for the theater of war but already in use in quite some parts of Europe. What do guys think what Jaegers, Dragoons and Hussars were for?
And "Moving Home" was indeed a major and sensible strategy for Native tribes as they tried to flee a superior enemy.
I understand CA that they wanted to give the Natives due but hopefully they didn't overshoot.
BTW: Units only armed with melee weapons should be outgunned easily. Even the Scottish fielded only a small percentage of their units with their "typical" melee weapons at Culladon.
Remember, smallpox killed far more Indians than battle. Without that they may have survived far longer....
The Native Americans weren't pushovers, they had managed to beat the young U.S. on several occasions (Chickamagua wars). There was also leaders like Tecumseh who wanted to unite the Indian tribes, which ultimately failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens
I've started wondering about this ever since I started playing Empire. It seems units only get a few shots off before melee starts if one side decides to charge. I was wondering how pure, melee units got obsolete if that was the case since a guy with sword/shield/armor should have an advantage against the earlier infantry. Perhaps range is lower in Empire compared to what it was historically as a balancing mechanism.
How long has it been? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
I think it's because people are expecting rebels and certain minor factions to be much further behind in tech compared to the ones in previous games.
Since yesterday! But yeah, it seems you can close pretty fast to melee range.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke
Also, the natives are only slightly weaker in firepower but a lot weaker in melee, at least in the RTI campaign. I've taken to rushing them in melee.
I've also had frustrations against the American natives. I had an entire army, including 3 sets of 12 iber cannons, dragoons, line infantry and all the auxiliaries that go with them, completely wiped out when i was ambushed by some tribe in north-west Canada. I started with 1,200 men, they had double that amount, i killed 300 of them, they killed 1,123 of mine... all that escaped was a unit of native indian musket mercenaries. The irony!
Don't forget, these people are savage in melee combat and will go through any musket infantry you put in front of them. I've watched them charge at units of British line infantry, take a volley, lose 1/6 of their men, clash with the line infantry and wipe them out in under 15 seconds.
Their archers are also a pain... longer range than anything you have, save cannons, and inflict massive casualties. That's where your rangers come in, or even better, cavalry.
Screenshots requested!
What kind of bayonets did you have? With solid ring long boyonet a well trained unit has a long spear with which they should be able to hold more than their own against lightly armored foes.
It is sad that archers seem to do overly well given that Indians tried to get muskets instead as fast as possible.
BTW: This comes from somebody who was quite decent with a heavy bow.
LOL...you got worked by Native Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
J/K, but seriously ...it's good that I'm seeing so many reports of people getting beat. M2TW was a cakewalk for everyone day 1.
That's kinda what happened, right? A huge army would march off into the woods of North America, only to disappear, and never be seen again.
In my Campaign as USA, I notice I had a massive disadvantage to everyone in terms of technology, structure, economy, etc, untill I poured like 10-20 turns into turning myself into a power house. Problem with that, people built up their armies so I always been on the lower end of the army spectrum.
In my Confederate campaign, I had to blitz India due to Muhul just making sure I got no money and Mysore attacking me. In the end, when I unified it, I turned it into a powerhouse akin to modern India, I am getting profits of around 50,000 per turn, which I used to buy Riga and Ruperts Town for staging grounds in America and Europe. Also to buy technology from everyone.
India starts off tough, at war with the Moghuls, and with Mysore and Portugal attacking you after a few turns. Once you get the ball rolling though, and unify India, its money central. I had too much money to spend by the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by TiberiusBeskar
As for native americans, I found that the 17th century militias you get in the beginning are very useful, being equipped with plate armor and swords. They win fairly easily in melee unless flanked. I never really had much trouble with the natives.
Well it did happen at least three time dealing with the Shawnee and Miami that I can think of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
French & Indians vs. Braddock and twice with Americans. Anthony Wayne finally won at Fallen Timbers. (Indian camp hit by tornado)
His was the third expedition with the first being whipped, the punitive expedition being wiped out and him training his force for more than a year before taking them on. He also made sure he took the Choctaw with him. He may have been Mad Anthony but he was no fool. :laugh4:
There is more to it of course, but that is the thumbnail.:yes:
LOL yeah I just fought that battle in RTI myself the other day. They probably killed you when half their army jumped out of the bushes opposite the other half right? :laugh4: Fortunately for me I had units of line infantry as my 2nd line and so I simply about faced and opened fire point blank. I also still had my cavalry uncommitted so they had a chance to roll up their flank. Still took about 400 or so casualties though :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayve
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Lmao, this thread makes me proud. I hope someone quickly gets an unpacker for ETW soon, I can't wait to play as all the minor factions, especially the Native Americans!
:crowngrin:
Fine, take your sick pleasure from the christians, but my Ottomans have taken over Malta and are now looking over the Atlantic.... :D
Oh we have unpackers. We just can't mod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
Elaborations on that statement would be much appreciated. :yes:
something that is better discussed in the mod forum or in private (PM me or on my wall thingo)
:focus:
Native American factions are tough stuff. :yes:
It seems several minor factions are rather overpowered.
In my Russian campaign, both Dagestan and Georgia are fielding much larger armies than me, and pumping troops out at a rather silly rate. Thus far only my superior strategery has saved me from losing my southern territories.
I've only played the first Episode of RtI and about 2 dozen play now battles (I'm just in love with learning the new mechanics) but so far, I find the Native Americans to be a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
The first thing they try to do is fight guerilla warfare (which is great...that's what they should do)...and they do it rather well. Hidden troops, mass maneuvering at the opening stage of battle, etc. The problem comes into play when your troops finally get in range, the Indians stand off, and you start opening fire on them. It's not a "problem", it's just that they have no prayer. They try to reform after being riddled with bullets, and then charge you in melee. By that point though, you've taken down enough of them that they route rather quickly when you get into said melee.
They're definitely working as intended, but the last thing I would call them is over powered. I'm sure with gunpowder they're a bit better...although on all different difficulties I'm not having much of a problem now. I generally work with a 3-4 line system and just keep pushing my enemies back across the map.
Don't know about the rest of you but i think they are conquering Russia was far easier then conquering the Inuit nations True i had twice the number of troops pitted against the Russian but still losing 3 stacks versus their 2 and i might add one of those were real veterans level 2 and 3 from my campaign against Denmark (i was playing as Sweden).
What I've learned from this is. I'll fight any European nations but if you see any native Americans run like hell! Thank god they got no fleet or Europe would have surely fallen by now.:2thumbsup:
I have yet to conquer them ( conquered Russia Prussia Denmark Poland Courland Georgia Daghestan and i am fighting the ottomans and Austria). I have lost 3 expeditionary forces so far,even though they did not outnumber me we were roughly equal i lost every single battle with the inuits quite badly.
My cavalry is virtually useless against them one of my heavy cavalry units got their carbine cavalry down to six after a charge then proceeded in dying(got down to 15 and fleeing the 5 remaining Indians:whip:
I could in my game swamp them with 5 stacks but i wouldn't be realistic would it i mean European armies in the new world were quite small i don't remember any 10-20 thousand men expedition sent by Europe to crush the natives.
My experience tells me they are seriously overpowered an army of lancers,axeman,bowmen and some 2 units of mounted carbines cold not have beaten an experienced European army of line infantry heavy cavalry,dragoons,cannon and grenadiers in an open battle.
On M/M, I conquered most of India with a augmented brigade (about 6 units), and took out the Prussian army with a Division (full stack) . .. but of the two divisions I sent into Cherokee territory, no one ever returned to tell the tale.
I am not saying American Indian tribes should be pushovers; but they should have some disadvantges when using lances and bows against muskets and cannon. Certainly, the appearent superiority of the bow-armed troops over European line infantry, even when fighting out in the open, seems a bit overdone.
I believe they are more prone to morale shocks by those weapons.
I generally find it's a numbers issue more then anything else. Most of the time if you fight them on even footing you are fine.
Yet most of the pc enemies you have probably fought till this point only bring one or half stacks to the fight.
The cheeroke and even Pueblo can and sometimes will send multiple stacks against you. Even with 500 guys and a set of cannons 4000 of anything is alot. So the old tactics of keeping two units of colonial militia and relying on armed mob dosn't quick work as well.
I generally find in large battles it comes down to whether the line holds or not. So I find in battles against them since they charge the line it's better to stall them with a formation like this
_____ ______ _______
_____ ______ _______
Then say this
______ _______ ________ _______ _______ _______
In the second formation you may feel you are getting more shots off, but in long run you'll end up getting less do to natives instantly coming at you in melee.
They also bring alot of calvary to the fight, which is also different then most euro factions you fight.
To dissuade the charge, you could also bring along some light infantry and deploy stakes in front of your lines as well. If you want to wait until the Light Infantry Doctrine tech is researched that is...just fight against europeans until then. :beam:
stakes work well, I would say don't use trenches. I had them when I fought the NA, basically the Native American factions and other AI don't know how to manuever around the trenches which makes it just a turkey shoot.
you cursed me ᏣᎳᎩ! -King of Britain to Cherokees, after losing the battle
Natives are rightfully balanced the way they are. They held the balance of Power back in the early 18th century.
I think what some maybe neglecting here is the Technology, once you develop it, then you see your armies getting the upper hand, but in the beginning non native powers do not have the upper hand over the natives and it is as it should be, and as it was historically too.
From what I've read the problem seems to be twofold, stragical and tactical. First the native nations are able to amass far too many warriors and second the same warriors are rather powerful. When people write that they have more troubles conquering Russia or Europe than the Inuit tribes than something is quite rotten. The various Indian wars or better the wars of European powers against Indians were small affairs compared to campaigns in Europe, with task forces perhaps the tenth of size than in Europe.
Anyway I really keen to play ETW now :beam:
I don't know that, man for man, the Cherokee or Huron should be grossly inferior to British or French (though let's face it, the Europeans were using firearms over bows for a reason, namely firearms, even muskets, are generally superior to bows across a wide variety of tactical applications), but when the whole Spanish army is, say, maybe two and a half stacks, and the Cherokee have 3 or 4 full stacks . . . that is a bit unbalanced. The American Indians, at least by the 1700s, simply did not have the sort of manpower to support that kind of war effort. The Iroquois, for example, in the decade leading up to the French and Indian War, probably did not have more than 1000-2000 effective warriors. So yes, the Indians handed the British some defeats, but these rarely involved more than 5000 men combined. Given the general scale of TW battles, a fight like the Ambush of Braddock should probably be about around 1-3 units per side, not stacks of 15-20. Yet in the game, I can conquer Spain with 15 units, but I need 30-40 to manage the Cherokee. It should be the other way around. If a Eurpean nation had ever committed a 40,000 man force against a single Indian tribe or confederation, it would have been quickly overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
I find the natives balanced in some way. I had two battles against them (Pueblo and Iroquois) and beat them with relative ease. It was however only on h and rather late (1750's), so my military tech was well developed. I will try the Cherokee soon.
I think early in the 18th century when the flintstone muskets (fusils) fired about two times a minute (compared to one shoot a minute with a matchlock) the bow armed natives should have had rather good chances. With the better fire drills in the second half of the century musket fire started to rule the battlefield, but earlier also major European players favored melee and cold steel, especially the French and the Swedish. After most armies had followed the Prussians and introduced iron ramrods and Prussian fire drill the rate of fire increased considerably. After 1780, when the Prussians had the iron ramrod with equal ends and the conical hole for ignition they could fire 6 times a minute (not over a longer time however). Others could not fire that fast but 3 to 4 shots a minute were possible.
Nevertheless a bow armed unit could beat a musket armed unit because of even faster and longranged "fire". In reality the Europeans won because of far better organisation, disciplin and logistics and not greater fire power. The natives were at most times not uniform but divided in groups hostile to each other and could be and were used against each other by the Europeans.
Why did the Europeans abandon the bow and started to use only firearms? Because firearms did not need such well trained soldiers, were relatively cheap and powerful (could pierce normal plate armor). Why didn't they reintroduce bows after plate armor (which was in the 17th c. often proof against pistols at point blank and muskets at about 50 m, and of course proof against most bow shots) had been abandoned in the later stages of the Thirty Years War? Because you need specialists for the bow, constant training and certain social circumstances for bow armed armies. It was not possible to use the bow as a military weapon when you have to feed armies of about 40000 combatants and more. And after the introduction of the ring bajonet for the musket there was the possibility of an uniform army with uniform weapons and uniform tatics. You can do nothing with the bow alone against cavalry attacks, so pikes had to be used ever on reducing the overall ranged power of an army. With the bow excaustion, a constant feature for the soldiers in the prolonged wars after 1500, is a far greater problem than with muskets, reducing the performance dramatically. The question of arquebuse or bow was discussed intensively in England in the late 16th century. You can take many arguments for both sides from that discussion.
Why did many Indians try everything to get muskets instead of bows? Mostly a matter of prestige imho. But a fusil had also some advantages for the individual. It is ready to shoot at any time and has not to be strung first. The first shot is in the weapon and has not to be taken from a quiver. You can fire almost immediatly instead of having to draw the bow first. It did not need the same maintenance than a composite bow. It is far more robust than a bow. It throws a projectile of far greater energy than a bow, important for some hunting situations. It throws it with the same energy each time wether you were tired or not. You could hit a person with a musket from about 40 to 50 m, enough in the woods theatre. You can use a gun from cover far better than a bow. If I were an Indian general with undisputed command I would have ordered my Indian soldiers to use the bow and train controlled shooting together. But the decisions were made by the individual Indian soldier. No chance to stand against professional European full-time-soldiers on the longer run. The weapons used were of minor importance. Praerie indians use of better rifles did not help them against the US army a century later, too.
What is not realistic with ETW natives is the fact that they come in huge numbers. That was often not the case. The lone small bunch of heroic white soldiers facing huge hordes of natives is more often than not an artistic convention.
I've not yet found a way to kill off huge parts of the population by importing diseases, and neither does there seem to be an option for subverting whole tribes through alcoholism.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
LOL That’s what beat them!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daevyll
The Iroquois fielded some war parties of 3000 and more, and this was not using every able body, but volunteers for the expeditions. The Mohawk put more than 1000 in the field a few times and they were only one of 5 or 6 Iroquois tribes, depending on the time frame.
The provinces that make up the Cherokee are a whole lot of tribes, and most were hostile to the British and later the Americans. They fought it out for well over 50 years before disease and technology finally won.
It makes for an interesting part of the game, even if it is not absolutely historic, it rightly makes control of North America difficult to achieve.
There are quite a few things that are far from perfect in this game but this is one I so far have no difficulty with.
My English army consisting of homeland Line Infantry, some heavy cav and 12-lber artillery units has been completely obliterated by several native armies on Hard (even if they killed around three quesrters of the enemy and died to the last man, and I haven't got a lot of tech advances), so yes, I think they're overpowered (I'll lower the setting to Medium and try again later). What's with them having musket line infantry that is actually somewhat effective? Sheesh. They also seem more than capable of destroying the Thirteen Colonies.
Although I agree that this is at least some challenge... would be boring if they were another pushover.
The only thing I don't like, with considered thought (instead of the massive hate-on I get playing the game), is that the Native American factions get their own version of line infantry, and their cavalry is hilariously overpowered. They shouldn't have entire units of musket infantry, those units should just be flat out removed. Second, their cavalry completely destroys the European cavalry forces they'll realistically be facing, which is...nonsensical.
I can certainly see why your losing to the Native American factions on Hard or Very Hard difficulties. On Medium (normal?) it is a hard fight between British Line Infantry and Native Warriors and will the bonuses seen in Hard and Very Hard individually your units stand little chance.
I decided to take this one step further and tried to play the natives with the new unlock er chose the Iroquois and new France fell in 4 turns Louisiana 2 later, their troops are very very cheap i don't know if it's so for the ai but at 150 for tribesmen and 200 for warriors hell i'll take 20000 and swamp the colonies might even get a dhow fleet up and invade England.
Also their melee is incredible +14 for tribesmen for the attack.
I beat a french army at Quebec they had 3 militia 3 cannons 2 prov cavalry and 1 chassseur de blois i had 4 bowmen the chief 2 tribesmen and 2 warriors, lost around 10% i got close real fast and afterward there was no contest , so maybe their melee should be toned down a little and units made a bit more expensive.
Teching seems like such a cop out. I have managed to beat Native armies through good deployment and unit selection. Especially if said region is heavily forested, draw them in with a sacrificial bait unit then when they are in range shoot them from the trees and then close with cold steel and run them down with cavalry.
In other words, adopt the tactics of your enemies and crush them.
It's really a matter of your tech. Until you get Fire By Rank, your unit typically fires one massive volley, then spends the next 20-30 seconds reloading. That gives plenty of time for the target to recover from the volley, charge, and get into melee combat. With Fire By Rank, you should get the front rank to fire, then the second rank, then the third, each a couple of seconds later. This should keep the shock effect rolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewt
I don't know why some children here think NA warriors sucked in history. As for the overpowered cavalry, yes, the cavalry is overpowered, I think. CA based the cavalry units off the tribes that lived in the grasslands, who were superb cavalrymen. That being so, I think only the Plains Nations should have the cavalry, while the eastern tribes should focus more on infantry. I was surprised they actually made the general's bodyguard a cavalry unit.
:gah:
LOL, ouch! :laugh4:Quote:
I've not yet found a way to kill off huge parts of the population by importing diseases, and neither does there seem to be an option for subverting whole tribes through alcoholism.
Arrows leave straight forward wounds--it does not have the same impact as high velocity lead musket balls that pierce armors--and do not cause horrific wounds either. There's a reason why Europeans abandoned arrows for fire arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
And, yes, the American Indians are on steroids and they need nerfing.
error - double post
Nobody said they sucked. Fact is, even though on individual basis they might have been better fighters than Europeans, they were simply outmatched on a strategic and technological level.
And they'd never have had the manpower to face the smallest European nation.
Right now what happens in game is that native americans are spawning like rabbits (they have 4-5 stacks when any large european nation has 2-3) and they are arguably overpowered. Not too much of a trouble, you have to get used to it I guess.
I absolutely agree. The problem is they spawn men like rabbits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Problem is, you SHOULD face this sort of challenge when fighting the European armies. If you go into an Indian war the way most Europeans did historically (mabye 1-2 Infantry units and 1-2 Cavalry/artillery) then yes, you should stand a decent chance of gettin wiped out. But if you can find the men and resources to put 2-3 stacks into Indian territory, the American Indians should struggle based on weight of numbers alone. On the other hand, going to war with Spain, Austria, France, etc. should require 2-3 stacks, minium. Assuming the stacks represent somthing in the order of a small corps or large division, most of the European powers should be able to field 3-5 on a more or less permanent basis, but one full stack should, at the most, represent the upper limit of American Indian manpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister V
Arrows have arrowheads. That's really what they have going for them, since to pull them out, you would need to rip out a lot of flesh. In NA, that would simply be asking for infection.