Looks like they have some more DLC a campaign this time.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/10606/Quote:
Originally Posted by SenseiTW
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic...-revealed.html
Printable View
Looks like they have some more DLC a campaign this time.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/10606/Quote:
Originally Posted by SenseiTW
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic...-revealed.html
Well, that is interesting...
Is the release tomorrow with the patch?
A whole campaign and Native American at that...
You'd reckon they would announce the release of patch 1.4 a bit sooner. What do I care about a DLC, I'm gonna test 1.4 first thing after work.
:no: I, for my part, couldn't care less about some new North American Indian wars (those wars were won mostly by measle-infected blankets not major military confrontation anyway). I'd much rather prefer CA expanded the GC map to include Africa and South-East Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerg
And they should give us slave trade while they're at it... What's an XVIII century plantation economy without slaves!? On that note, they should include Berbery Pirates (and the like) enslaving coastal Europeans and selling them off in African slave markets. This was still happening in the XIX century.
The new detailed map might be used for mods......and the DLC does look interesting but I think I'll pass.
I've read the links now and it actually says 'Official expansion".
So CA actually made an expansion with nothing more (They don't mention anything more at least) than a map and and some units from a conflict that was uninteresting any way you look at it.
Please confort me and tell me there will be more expansions coming.
I'm dissapointed with this new DLC.
Instead of giving us "ETW Kingdoms," they're just going to sell the campaigns individually for a low price. Expect more mini-campaigns in the future. This is the reality of the modern gaming industry. Full-on expansions are dead. Everything is sold cheap and in small pieces as DLC. The end result is basically the same, though, except you can save money by cherry-picking only the stuff you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill
Personally, I think this looks awesome.
I'm glad patch 1.4 is coming out tomorrow.
As for the DLC, I think I'll pass. I hope I can say this without offending any Native Americans who may be reading, but I'm not interested in an expansion that focuses on them. For an expansion, the game must get bigger. IMO, the best way for ETW to get bigger is to expand the playable map (Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, etc.)
Of course, as always, the AI needs to be fixed first. I'll not spend any more money on this game until the DAI and CAI are fixed and start making rational decisions.
It does seem like an odd choice for an expansion. Empire brings more advanced artillery, naval combat, more complex world trade and technologies than we had in previous games. I don't see where Native Indian warfare fits into this... unless it's just a way to do a quick 'n dirty expansion that will work precisely because it doesn't have to integrate into the rest of the world for diplomacy and trade.
They're probably looking at recent games like Fallout 3 as a model, but the Fallout 3 DLC's were popular (well, at least two of them were) because the main game was solid, with no major flaws. We're still waiting for an Empire:TW engine that isn't a disaster at the level of the campaign map. Offering up an expansion that doesn't really interact with that map (if that's what they're doing), isn't going to cut it.
I hope it doesn't end up being too much like the Americas campaign in Kingdoms. I'm surprised they aren't actually adding any new factions or settlements in the Midwest.
This does look exciting to me, Hopefully it means the North American Map is expanded in the Grand Campaign, otherwise I'm giving this a miss because that is the only reason i would buy any DLC... for more Grand Campaign Territory and factions...
for example something I would pay an Expansion price for ( 50 bucks Australian) is them Finishing off the West coast of America, Adding South America, Creating a new Pacific Region, and Adding Africa, hell I might even pay 90 bucks australian for all that if they included australia too!
Looking at the minimap of that campaign suggests regions were simply blown up a bit. Same area as vanilla ETW.
The sheer number of anachronisms in that trailer made my brain hurt.
A campaign aimed to the american market and players. Why am I not surprised?
Not that I care about it really, I've played ETW 3 times, but this is kind of silly, given they were much more important events back then than this. As said, native nations were defeated by blankets more than by firearms. French revolution? Beginning of colonisation? China?
It looks like they went for the easy way: add a new tech tree, a few new units and nations, a few provinces and there you go. No new gameplay feature, no nothing. And they're gonna sell this 'expansion' not even worthy of being called an amateur mod for 20€, fallout-3 style.
I'm not even going to complain about the historical accuracy of it (hopefully, indian nations won't be able to field elite armies larger than those of France, Spain or even Westphalia) and the new silly indian tech tree, because well, a game has to have gamey mechanics.
The trailer narrator might as well have said:
White man came across the sea, he brought us pain and misery
This doesn't work at all for me. If they're aiming for the American market, wouldn't the civil war be much more interesting? I don't know much about it, but it feels like it would suit the engine better as well. Getting states to commit to your side in the conflict could make for some interesting gameplay, but I guess they don't want to work on that, just throw out a mini campaign and cash in.
looks like crap; the campaign map hasnt even been expanded! all that happens for $10 is that the indians get more units and buildings!
I'd much rather have either a full campaign of north and south america starting when john smith arrived, or the american civil war. that i'd pay 10 bucks for, but not a couple of units.
heres hoping they come out with a kingdoms-like expansion with all the campaign DLC's in it in a year or 2.
bzzzzzp. I'm giving this one a pass.
sameQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I might get it some time after its out but as I play slow I have other campaigns in Empire I think ill play first.
Speaking as someone in the American market, I wouldn't like to see a Civil War expansion, for many reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Guy
1) It's been done before, many times, and in ways that don't require jerking around a game engine that was designed to cover a much larger part of the world with more factions. A good Civil War game really needs a more focused approach, with much more local detail than we see on the campaign map.
2) What I've enjoyed the most about the Total War series are the battles between dissimilar armies. For me, it's just more interesting to see something like barbarians vs. Roman troops, or desert horse archers vs. armored European soldiers. It's tactically interesting, in the earlier eras where gunpowder didn't level the playing field and make armies nearly identical. ETW is already a much less varied game; in many battles you're fighting an army that looks just like yours except for the color of the uniform. The U.S. Civil War is like that, only more so. You have two armies fielding the same units with only very small variations. It doesn't matter which side you choose to fight, it's just a different colored uniform.
3) By the time of the U.S. Civil War they were using rifled weapons, which means much longer engagement distances. The game engine would have to be re-worked to handle that, and the battlefields should also be larger. I don't see CA making that big a change. And it would be ludicrous to have troops with rifled weapons just plopped into the current engine, where they can't fire until they're right on top of the enemy.
4) The Civil War was the start of a shift away from Napoleonic tactics (disciplined ranks in open field warfare) and towards the start of trench warfare, fighting from heavy fortifications, sappers to undermine those fortifications, etc. The game engine doesn't support this type of combat.
5) It doesn't bring anything interesting to the naval combat side of the game, other than eye candy (Monitor, Merrimac, etc.). The South didn't have a real navy, and the North blockaded the Confederate ports for the duration of the war. A Confederate navy would only be interesting if it was completely a-historical and much stronger than it was in reality.
The "natural" expansion for ETW was into the Napoleonic wars in Europe which is better suited to the game engine. Unfortunately, they decided to spin that off into what sounds like a heavily scripted, episodic game like the Road to Independence in ETW, instead of incorporating it into the main campaign as a seamless expansion. Bah, humbug. At this point, I just hope the 1.4 patch gives some new life to the main game, and I'm going to pass on both the expansion and the Napoleon game.
I believe you are wrong on several fronts:
really? I haven't seen any recently, or at least not RTS's about it. and it's not like nothing has been done about warpaths setting or time. AoE and empire earth are 2 notable examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
I have a big beef with this. They did not have the same units in any way. Confederate soldiers were generally less trained, and worse at ranges, but better in a melee. they also had worse weapons (many had muskets) and more patriotic fervor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
No. just no. every single soldier did not use rifles, in fact far fewer than generally thought. most rifles were given to the more elite units, and even then that was almost exclusively in the north. cannons mostly had rifling though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
this has never stopped TW from portraying native american units as well-organized, professional military units (see M2 kingdoms americas campaign and ETW american theatres)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
while that may be true, lots of people have complained about the naval combat in the game. I honestly wouldn't mind having the option to take it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
Regarding American Civil War, check out "Take Command: 2nd Manassas". Arguably, the battle AI is way better there than in ETW. Graphics are sub-par though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
I thought, at least at the beginning of the war, the Confederates had the bulk of the American pre-war officers. I wonder how did that translate in them having the less trained soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
Hmm, just a few years ago, the community believed the naval battles would NEVER be even considered by CA... Now, we have them and I find, in that department, CA has done a pretty good job actually. So, no, I, for example, would not want the naval battles to be removed.Quote:
while that may be true, lots of people have complained about the naval combat in the game. I honestly wouldn't mind having the option to take it out.
I would not base everything on the trailer just yet. They do have some time to go before it comes out so there may be more changes made.
Picking the Native Americans vs. Europeans is not shooting at the American Market. There is world wide interest in Native Americans and it should have some broader appeal.
Most of us are feeling pretty jaded after the last couple of patches. If the game is vastly improved then this campaign may look more interesting in a week or two.
As to the War Between the States; the CSA started with better trained troop than the Union. That was because most of the veterans of the Mexican War were Southerners and the south had a much stronger military tradition than the northern states.
What they lacked was manufacturing and infrastructure. They also had a much smaller population to draw from.
maybe they started out with better guys, but they ended up recruiting old men and young boys to fight a war against a technologically superior foe.
In game terms, you're talking about differences in unit stats (range, morale, melee attack), but the technology and tactics were essentially the same on both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
It was a civil war within one country, that shared the same military culture and technology until the outbreak of the war. Civil wars always have the most similar armies on each side, unless it's something like a peasant revolt where one side vastly outclasses the other. It's different from clashes between countries where the military hardware and culture evolved in different ways.
I didn't say that every soldier had rifles, that's not the point. If rifles are in the game at all, then it changes the engagement distance, and that means a major change in the game engine... especially the AI's ability to deal with it.Quote:
No. just no. every single soldier did not use rifles, in fact far fewer than generally thought. most rifles were given to the more elite units, and even then that was almost exclusively in the north. cannons mostly had rifling though.
No, it wasn't a technologically superior foe, that's ridiculous. The Confederacy developed the first submarine in the world that successfully sank a ship, in an effort to beat the blockades. They had some very smart engineers and inventors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
The North was industrially superior, with an economic base built on factories, iron works, and shipyards. The South had agriculture as the main economic base, which was badly hurt by the naval blockade, and far fewer factories to support their armies. That was the difference, not a difference in technology.
from wikipedia. no tehy were not first to build submarines, and they were technologically inferior. fewer factories=technological inferiority.Quote:
Submarines in the American Civil War
During the American Civil War, the Union was the first to field a submarine. The French-designed Alligator was the first U.S. Navy sub and the first to feature compressed air (for air supply) and an air filtration system. Initially hand-powered by oars, it was converted after 6 months to a screw propeller powered by a hand crank. With a crew of 20, it was larger than Confederate submarines. Alligator was 47 feet (14.3 m) long and about 4 feet (1.2 m) in diameter. It was lost in a storm off Cape Hatteras on April 1, 1863 with no crew and under tow to its first combat deployment at Charleston.
The Confederate States of America fielded several human-powered submarines. The first Confederate submarine was the 30-foot (9 m) long Pioneer which sank a target schooner using a towed mine during tests on Lake Pontchartrain, but was not used in combat. It was scuttled after New Orleans was captured and in 1868 was sold for scrap. The Bayou St. John Confederate Submarine was also scuttled without seeing combat, and is now on display at the Louisiana State Museum.
The Confederate submarine H. L. Hunley (named for one of its financiers, Horace Lawson Hunley) was intended for attacking the North's ships, which were blockading the South's seaports. The submarine had a long pole with an explosive charge in the bow, called a spar torpedo. The sub had to approach an enemy vessel, attach an explosive, move away, and then detonate it. The sub was extremely hazardous to operate, and had no air supply other than what was contained inside the main compartment. On two occasions, the sub sank; on the first occasion half the crew died and on the second, the entire eight-man crew (including Hunley himself) drowned. On February 17, 1864 Hunley sank USS Housatonic off Charleston Harbor, the first time a submarine successfully sank another ship, though it sank in the same engagement shortly after signaling its success. Submarines did not have a major impact on the outcome of the war, but did portend their coming importance to naval warfare and increased interest in their use in naval warfare.
The Confederates built the first Ironclad I think.
The Confederates had the better generals, and they had the better soldiers. Even if they aren't war vet, I'm sure alot of Southern boys knew how to handle a musket from hunting and what not.
The Confederates did obtain rifles during the war, and that was mainly because they took them off of dead Yankees.
No, I didn't say the South was the first to build submarines, I said they were the first to sink a ship in combat with a submarine. It's about technological parity, which is a different from the industrial power to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
These weren't two countries in conflict, it was the same country, with the same military traditions and technology divided against itself. Fewer factories does not mean technological inferiority.
The Spaniards arriving in the New World with horses, plate armor and firearms and going up against the Aztecs... that's a case of technological inferiority. It's ridiculous to apply that phrase to the U.S. Civil War (IMO).
:oops:
We may want to get back on topic now.
If you want to re-fight the American Civil War then the Monastery or the Back Room would be good places.
:laugh4:
:focus:
:indian_chief:
OK back on topic :)
I don't see the problem people have with a Native American campaign. North America was the most active theater outside of Europe in this time period, and Natives were a constant nuisance to "the white man" and a very important aspect to consider when it came to strategy and politics. This is not out of place in an 18th century war game by any stretch of the imagination. For those that don't feel like playing as the Natives, chances are GB, France, Spain and the U.S. will be playable too.
Anyway I just think it's really cool. I always thought it'd be cool to play as Natives in any kind of game, especially Total War. They gave us a little taste with the Apache in Kingdoms: Americas but this is the ultimate gift.
And yes this probably does resonate with most American fans, and I'm sure that's not a coincidence :laugh4: With Steam involved its hard to get accurate sales numbers, but ETW was #1 on the North American PC charts, I get the feeling it sold a lot here.
like the fact of the new DLC, won't buy it the first day though (I'm on holliday at that point :laugh4:)
just wondering about the map if it is a seprate campaign why didn't they include the Western part of North America?
and will there be parts of the map and factions included in the grand campaign?
it is just the standard america map from the GC, with some different provinces (I think), so there'd be no point in adding it to the GC map.
honestly, I would prefer an add-on that adds the new buildings, units, factions, etc. to the GC, ratehr than a sepeerate campaign.
It fills in the empty space in North America with lots of provinces. I'd be surprised if those weren't added to the GC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
oh? well I didn't look at the provinces much; my main concern is that california is nowhere to be found.
Yeah. CA really needs to get on the map updates. I don't think I've seen anybody say "Gee, I really wish there was a campaign focusing on native americans."Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
I've seen LOTS of people saying "Gee, it'd be really nice of the America/Asia map was extended" or "Gee, it'd be really nice if Africa/South America existed."
Except Africa and East Asia weren't active theaters in the 18th century. South America would be pointless and boring because all it would be is a bunch of Spanish and Portuguese colonies.
North America was the most active theater outside of Europe in Empire's time period. That's a fact.
Some people want a WW2 Total War, but that wouldn't fit with Empire; same concept. Africa would fit better in NTW depending on how far it goes.
This is neat.
So when will the alpha version I bought be upgraded to a beta?
You know, I bought Mount & Blade four years ago for $12 dollars. And for four years the handful (as in, less than six) developers kept on updating and improving it. And I never had to pay more for it. Now the feature list is far expanded beyond what was dreamed of four years ago. All for $12 - heck, I even got into the closed beta for the multiplayer (!) expansion.
And I will buy that expansion the day it comes out, whatever it costs. That's how loyal I feel to Taleworlds, the developers behind M&B. They gave me a great product for a great price and continuous improvement.
And then...we have CA and E:TW. A game that was in the alpha state when it shipped. Where nations couldn't even do amphibious attacks! And the game still isn't fixed!
So, I find myself asking, what is this? They're slapping together a few new things, even though they haven't fixed the original.
And I'm expected to pay for this?! I'm supposed to pay for an update that may improve the game I bought for $50, like a chump, to a decent state!?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!
CR
I second CR
I see no merit in buying something a modder could do as well. It's the same reason I didn't buy special forces or elites of the West. Now if the expansion would involve improved gameplay or additional features, that would be something else. Now we'regettingpaying for a new map and some extra units (for a campaign I most likely won't be playing more than twice).
why would putting in africa south america and those regions not be related to empire? its hard enough getting enough room to expand without having some fun extra areas for that extra bit of income, it would be nice to have more regions that the AI and player could use for more territory and as a result more battles, World War 2 didn't cover the entire entire globe anyway, whats the difference in adding some regions so that I can haves more fun? What Peasant Phil above said, why pay for something a modder can do, what a modder can't do is add whole new region zones or a world map, theyve already got a good half of the world done already whats so hard about the rest? they don't have to add every single part its not like the himalayas were thoroughly colonised.
It's because Europe didn't really kick African colonization into high gear until the 1880s. Large scale of colonization of East Asia didn't start until the latter half of the 19th century as well. This all took place during "new imperialism" (look it up) which is way out of Empire's league. I would love to explore these areas in a Total War game too, but the fact is if they added them to Empire it would be pure fantasy in it's very inception, and then they just piss off the "realism first" crowd. They're always going to piss off some crowd or another, so I can see why they'd play it safe here. Warpath fits the engine, the period, and history (by Total War standards), has lots of factions with relatively equal territory to begin with all setting out to conquer everyone else - it's the essence of Total War. And to be blunt, since they're selling it for the change in your couch, it makes sense to build on existing content.
Nonsense Empire was not an alpha when it came out and nor was it a beta yes it had problems but most people can run the game and the have improved it a lot over the months with patches, four so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
No your not expected to pay for the update the update (1.4) was free and came out on Tuesday. What you are expected to pay £6 for is an optional add-on campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
well it might be the change in your couch in the US UK or EU, but things cost a little bit more over here in Australia, at any rate I'm rather tired of Realism first (can get a mod for it if one must have complete realism), Empire never claimed to be completely historically correct, obviously it wants to get as much right as possible, (war elephants in scotland doesn't really work out so well) and the Game goes up to 1800, why not extend the grand campaign in that case and then add new areas for people to mess around with, I only ever play the grand campaign, I didn't really find 4 different campaigns fun in kingdoms because I want the whole map to interact with, so I play the Grand Campaign. I realise that we want the starting point to be historically accurate, but what if my empire discovers Australia before Holland? or someone finds something before the Dutch, I also happen to like alternate realities, because if I just wanted to replay history I'd go through all the historical battles and try to play them out like they happened in real life. No nation would become a super power and no one would win the game because europe is still a bunch of different nations today. Even if most of the areas were barren but still just had enough that they were worth fighting for and it would give minor nations a chance? maybe, at any rate
its not like what I want to happen is what is going to happen but I would be willing to pay around 50 bucks australian for another nice expansion of the global campaign, possible different time starts, expanded map, etc rather than a seperate campaign, because I just figure where is the point? you don't get to interact with europe which seems a bit of a waste and you might as well buy Civ 4: Colonization in that case lol
I doubt that they will add new regions or theaters to the game as it stands.
I am guessing of course, but it was limited because of system requirement as I understand it. That is why we have blank spaces on the map. If it were not than we would have Switzerland and who knows what else.
Now I do expect that there are more regions in the DLC Campaign. As most of the world won’t be there it should not be a problem. There will also likely be other factions but not playable it would seem.
Whether the units and technologies make it in to the Grand Campaign is anyone’s guess. Also who is to say there won't be more DLC Campaigns.
1.4 has fixed a lot and made the game fun again (IMO) so Warpath is something I might consider...we can talk about NTW in a few months and see what has been added to ETW and how it is working.
What's up with that province number limitation? Take Europa Universalis, for example, they have the whole world covered with their map and the number of provinces is definitely much higher than in ETW. So, technically, it's doable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I got a question.
They are expanding the North America terrorities, right? Does this mean all of North America is now avaible, or did they just put regions in the empty spaces?
Will the new regions/expanded areas be put into the normal grand campaign area? (if you own the dlc, at least)
Yep, and even if it's not a strict RAM limit, adding more regions/factions means more CPU cycles. So another way of saying it is -- "How long does everyone want to wait for the AI moves to process between turns?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
There is also a question of how additional regions and factions might affect diplomacy. It's taken this long, and some false starts with early patches, for diplomacy to be even remotely predictable. Adding more factions might upset whatever balance they've been able to achieve in the 1.4 patch.
It would only be "technically doable" if they bought and used EU's code base. ETW is a different game, and the AI is crunching different data between moves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
From what I've seen (someone correct me if it's wrong) this is a standalone mini-campaign on a separate map, and doesn't plug into the grand campaign. That's what they did with the M2TW expansion too: standalone mini-campaigns. For a small-scale DLC like this, it means CA doesn't have to spend the additional balancing and play-testing time to fold it into the main campaign without breaking it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The Warpath teaser video shows Indians charging with lances and tomahawks right into European rifle fire. They probably have firearms too (and I bet that's one reason why guns can now be fired and loaded on horseback in the 1.4 patch, yay Hollywood movies!), but it seems pretty melee-intensive. The new native tech tree probably has some mumbo jumbo to beef up their melee and native ranged weapons, so they can compete on a more level ground with the European colonists... maybe drive them off the continent, if that's the campaign goal.
If that's actually what the mini-expansion is like, then I'm not sure we'd want those Indians added to the grand campaign. They're annoying enough as it is. :)
I saw US Marines fighting in the trailer. So is CA giving as part of the new DLC?
seriously! Hellz yah! Can't wait to spam the hell out of them and own some noobs!
too bad we can't fight the barbarys...
I be honest, it would be pretty amazing if the Native American "Indians" came to power and threw out the Europeans aided by the Indians (from India).
It depends on if the player is India or not :).
The teaser video seems to suggest that kicking out the Europeans is the goal. Or maybe it's just a "last stand" thing where you consolidate and hold X number of territories until the campaign clock runs out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It might be fun, but I don't know how they could take back the continent without either becoming fantasy units with superhuman powers (which is sort of what the video clip looks like), or being co-opted as allies of European nations, like those units with Indians toting muskets and wearing uniforms.
It could be semi-realistic if they set the clock back far enough to the 16th and 17th Century, before the big towns were settled on the Eastern seaboard and industries supporting big colonial armies kicked into gear. The Calusa and other aggressive tribes made most of Florida uninhabitable for the Europeans until they died out from disease or economic displacement. They were never actually conquered; they were too tough for even the Conquistadors to mess with. That could be a model for the rest of North America, but only if the tribes get organized early enough.
guerilla warfare and not accepting blankets from your enemies are 2 time-proven methods of fighting a superior enemy.
I personally choose the M2 americas campaign over this. more indian factions instead of europeans, less guns, warpath crusades. i like the age of gunpowder, but a few factions with it is enough.
honestly, i think the only way to really effectively beat the europeans is to send some archers as far as you can from them, then as they are about to shoot, flank with cavalry. once they make squares, charge in with infantry and youve won.
Florida wasn't very appealing to Europeans as there was little wealth or valuable land to use. The Spanish had many other more profitable places to settle and exploit in the New World. So I doubt that the locals were too tough to handle. They just weren't worth the trouble when easier pickings were available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
I think the best course for Native Americans would have been to immediately bushwhack and wipe out every group of Europeans that showed up. Pretend to be friendly then get the drop on them without letting anyone get back to Europe. Burn the ships and let the English and Spanish etc. wonder what happened. With hindsight, it was their only chance.
Or just not breathing the same air as the Europeans. I'm pretty sure most of the infections that killed off a vast majority of the amerindians were simply accidental and that the blankets only were given in a few cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
Well the Native Americans also didn't really realize the intent of the Europeans and were too decimated later on to drive them into the sea. It wasn't like Amerindians didn't have the power, they just didn't have any concept of what was going on and let the Europeans get entrenched. A similar thing happened in Mexico when all those tribes destroyed the Aztecs - they didn't realize that the strangers who got them to do it were going to come enmasse and enslave them all. South America was decimated by civil war so they weren't able to do too much against dick Spaniards killing their king.
It's an alpha when fundamental game features are not implemented - that is, sea invasions by the AI, and when the whole AI is a mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerg
The United States fought three wars with the Seminoles (1817 to 1818; 1835 to 1842; and 1855 to 1858) and even at the end of that they weren't able to get them out of Florida. So I think in that case the locals may indeed have been to tough to handle.Quote:
Florida wasn't very appealing to Europeans as there was little wealth or valuable land to use. The Spanish had many other more profitable places to settle and exploit in the New World. So I doubt that the locals were too tough to handle.
CR
To be fair, Florida completely sucks for combat and basically the Americans just pushed them into more and more inhospitable territory whenever hostilites arose.
Exactly. The Seminoles fought hard but had they been in Iowa instead of Florida they would have had a much harder time surviving. Or if gold had been found in their homeland.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Its really too bad that the Natives were at a complete nadir when white people showed it. It would have made for a slightly more entertaining time period. Still would have lost but would have been less one sided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
The "Indian Wars" were not as one sided as some on here may think. There are many more variables than diseased blankets and what not. The natives were hardcore warriors and guerrilla fighters. But the fighting wasnt continuous. Due to treaties, agreements, etc. fighting was usually short and intense, then there would be a period of peace. In regards to the U.S. Army vs the native tribes, the Army didnt always get the upper hand (Custer's last stand), nor did they always outnumber or outgun the "Indians". Also, the Natives werent stupid. They knew what the "white man" wanted. Most people agree that if the tribes had been able to ally, they may have been able to outfight the Americans (this is just opinion, of course). Remember that modern (for that time) weapons were availble to them and used by them quite often. The only problem was that the tribes would not, could not ally. Many times the U.S. Army would use other indians, either from an opposing tribe or from the same tribe (but from a different clan within that tribe) to help fight them. Then, of course, the U.S. would turn on that "allied" tribe. This happened time and again. Anyways, check out this site....some of the wars lasted for 30-40 years (such as the Apache Wars). Good movies on the subject (historical fiction) is "Geronimo: An American Legend" and "Dances With Wolves".
No, I didnt use these movies as sources. And no, I didnt get this off of Wikipedia.
I remember reading, when the game first came out, quite a few people saying they wished they could play as the natives (I was one of them). Im still not sure if I want to buy this, though. Im still hoping CA will release modding tools like they promised.....not that i can mod or anything. I can understand why some may not be interested in this mod, but my two older sisters are half Navajo (my Mom's first marriage), and I had a few good "native" friends in the Corps, one was Tsimshian from Alaska, and the other was a guy named "Yellowhair" from New Mexico (he had black hair, of course). Not that you guys care, but there it is.
you know you can easily get a mod allowing you to play as the natives for vanilla right?
Well I am no longer able to edit any Native American units without weird side effects... I hope it's only me having this problem:dizzy2:
C'mon C.A., if you're gonna try to milk every last penny out of your fans, at least make it for something more than 2 of them actually want to play. IMO this is arguably the most ill-advised expansion since Germany's last foray into Poland :laugh4:
I won't be buying this. Hell, after the shambles Empire has turned out to be, I'm not even sure I'm going to buy Napoleon. I have to actually make an effort to earn my money, y'know... :inquisitive:
What's up with this so called "expansion"!??? If anything it's just a "cut-out" of the existing game...
Where is the promised "new map"? The map that's in the expansion is exactly the same Americas map that's used in the main campaign. At least, in the Kingdoms expansion for MTW2, the maps for the new campaigns contained more detailed of the relevant, more focused areas.
Even the roaster is not much different from the one available in the main campaign. I checked the building browser for Plains Indidans and only ONE unit appeared to be new... WTF!? If anything, this expansion just could have been a switch on the main campaign making the tribes available for playing as was already achieved by several mods before the DLC campaign.
:furious3:
Probably a way of making you buy the dlc to be able to use native troops. People have gotten around other such restrictions imposed by CA during the patch cycles by just creating a new version of the same unit and using that as a mod.Quote:
Originally Posted by A1_Unit