Printable View
Hi guys,
A whole day early (surprise!), I am pleased to announce that our next game is Empire: Total War. Head over to TotalWar.com now for full details and the very first screenshot! image
Stay tuned for all the latest information and screenshots!
Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)
lol, we knew the name and yesterday someone here solved the riddle of era behind this title so its not such big suprise. age of empires 3 : total war :oops:
Do not just focus on Naval Combat
That is the only advice I can give. We, the average gamer, want far, far more than that.
There is another screenshot here.
Looks like ingame graphics to me.:2thumbsup:
I really hope that there is more to Empire Total war than just graphics.
Although i like nice looking water and the idea of ships it should not be focussed on ship warfare.
Also the time era is a perfect example for clone-looking soldiers:-(
I would be happier if they said the have at least a functional hotseat or multiplayer, where both players could play battles.
The diplomacy during the 18th century is very important, so here is the point if the game is a success or not.
I still hope that the land battles are not just a "every line shoot their muskets, than the cavalry charges the routers" tactic experience.
i want some info about map because if they plan to add japan, india in it then this time we should have a round map
More info coming soon...
Fantastic! The Napoleonic and prior period is perfect for Total War. Both at a strategic level (multiple great powers, lots of expansion and conflict) and at a tactical level (interesting cavalry, infantry and artillery interactions).
here's a nice preview
http://www.computerandvideogames.com...70570&skip=yes
Please, please, please make the diplomacy very, very solid, as it was such an integral part of the era.
If their's anything I'd like more than anything, it would be atmosphere. What I mean is the game adding a sense of immersion; lightening and thunder in battles, battlefields full of natural and human features, and that awesome fog from STW.
Good Luck in the development.
I hope that all the gunpowder units don't ruin the battle's.
I'm very worried that they will
How can they?Quote:
I hope that all the gunpowder units don't ruin the battle's.
I'm very worried that they will
After all this was an era of epic battles and great generals.
:beam:
Arrrrggh! Stupid at-work internet filter blocking anything game-related! :furious3:
Anyway, I assume by the discussion here that Empire: TW is set in the colonial/imperial era. Nice surprised...but also not entirely enthralled. :shame:
I'm not talking in terms of thier epic-ness, More all the tactics learned in all previous TW games are useless. And have been simplified to (quoting the CVG article) whoever has more muskets pointed at the enemy wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trax
It sounds like Company of Heros or Command and Conquor style of control on the battle map, forget laying traps with hidden units or deploying troops in an intelegent manner to execute flanking manouvers.
They way it's described in the artile your troops can form a square, column or line. A line is used to kill troops, square to fend off cav (who've been nerfed big time it says) and column to advance on the enemy.
I always liked the TW series cause there was more strategy than "mass carriers/mutalisks/battleships/mamoth tanks". I hope that this aspect stays with the game.
You just don't know enough about the era's combat. Everything listed in the article, the nerfing of cavarly and the getting the most guns pointed at the enemy is all historical for the era. Guns nerfed cavalry, it happened. Look it up if you don't believe me. The bayonette and the flintlock made infantry superior to cavalry, although Napoleon made them more important again they were ever after second banana to foot. And it's what made those formations so important.
I'm not disputing the historical accuracy of what they are trying to do, I know that the gun changed warfare forever. I'm just saying that firearm warfare, and the combat system that I've grown to love in RTW and M2TW are ill suited for each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
No more flanking, no more hammer and anvil, no more hiding units in the woods to charge thier 6 and make them route, None of the more elaborate tactics that have served all of us well apply any more.
To me (and this is only my impression) it sounds like all you will do is line your men up against the edge of the map, and wait for the enemy to get in range.
If they keep it hisorical it won't be whoever has the most guns on the field. Combat will be simmler to the other TW's except "Skrimishing will make a bigger difference. Most armies at that time exanged a few vollys then the attacker charged, making the battle in the end decided by hand to hand. The fact that you need to charge into missles will make sure that you need to carefully plan your attacks so you either have overwhelming local supporiority or flank them out.
Take a look at some of the battles in the 7 years war, War of Spanish Succesion and the Great Northern war to get an idea about the battles and tactics of the era.
CA will the map include Europe? or just the colonies?
The map will include Europe, India and America. More than that i cannot say yet.
Thanks :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lusted
I've got a bad feeling about this, though the preview helped somewhat. Since Wikiman said CA can't work on two things at once without destroying the company they're probably not going to release a 1.4 patch for M2TW. So I guess the Grand Campaign will be left unfinished except by modders. On top of that the preview (which doesn't seem to be loading for me anymore) seems to say total war is no longer a part of the Total War series.
But on the plus side they say they're working on the campaign AI, and that there'll be a reduced focus on sieges and more focus on siege battles. That's good, as they were two of the factors that prevented M2TW from being better than MTW.
Of course, since they article says they work on games two at a time I might just skip Empire and wait until the next game, which should come out in 2010 if CA keeps making a new game every two years like they've been doing. Or maybe I'll wait until two years after Empire's come out to buy it, like I did with Rome.
Oh, and don't worry Stuperman. If Empire is anything like Dragoon than all those tactics will still be in there.
Like a Better MutiplayerQuote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
:inquisitive:Quote:
No more flanking, no more hammer and anvil,
Flanking is the extremly important in any era of warfare I can imagine.
I imagine it would be hard to flank with a bullet in your chest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trax
We are talking of Muskets no M1 Abrams!! Anyone tried Napoleonic Total War? I'm flanking all the time!!
I suspect the very linear tactics of the period made flanking more important at a tactical level than in many other periods. That was why the square formation became important - because infantry in line could not be relied upon to repel a cavalry charge, as the cavalry could get round the flanks or rear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuperman
Remember, in this period, guns - smoothbore muskets - are still short range, inaccurate and have a slow reload. This allows for quite a bit of tactics even with lines of rifles - often you want to goad the enemy into firing first and save your volley for when you see the whites of their eyes. But you needed good troops for that. Artillery was the bigger killer than musketry in Napoleonic battles and cavalry could sometimes be used to striking effect.
I might agree with you if you were talking late American Civil War - by that time rifles were getting so long range, accurate and even rapid reloading that we saw the evolution of trench warfare.
All those manuvers, cept maybe hammer and anvil, are still valid. Cavalry in this time is used for flanking and rear attacks. With light cavalry and light infantry for skirmishing, disrupting formations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuperman
And then there is the enfilade fire, which is basicly flanking with fire.Quote:
I suspect the very linear tactics of the period made flanking more important at a tactical level than in many other periods. That was why the square formation became important - because infantry in line could not be relied upon to repel a cavalry charge, as the cavalry could get round the flanks or rear.
Positioning your men and your guns to achieve this will be the main goal on the tactical level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Isn't almost everything "light" in this time period? Not an expert, but from what I understand, cav only wore armor as parade dress. They ditched the armor when actually fighting.
I think hammer and anvil will still be useful. You can pin down soldiers with musket fire just as sure as you can in melee.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewt
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/ca...bodyprotection
Quote:
The cuirass was notoriously burdensome to wear, and demanded a strong man. In summer it was unbearably hot, which "might cause dehydration and heat exhaustion." (in "Kurze Beschreinbung und Heilungsart der Kranckheiten welche am oftersten in dm Feldlager Beobachet werden") The young cavalrymen thought much about their comfort rather than utility and purpose. During the Napoleonic Wars some cuirassiers even discarded their armor, for example in 1809. (Such things occured already long before the Napoleonic Wars. "So unpopular had it become by 1638 that in that year, Louis XIII had to order aristorcratic officers to wear their armor or risk losing their noble rank. Louis XIV issued a similar command in 1675, demanding all officers to wear cuirasses, but the law was widely disobeyed. The only entire regiment still wearing any armor ... was the Royal Cuirassiers." (Lynn - "Giant of the Grand Siecle" p 490)
The veterans however knew very well why they carry the armor. They claimed that the cuirass saved them from "many a bullet and many a thrust." It protected against musket and pistol shots fired at longer range, generally above 30-60 paces. (The term bullet proof came from actually shooting them with a musket and marking the dent as ‘proof’ of the quality of the armor.) The armor protected the torso leaving open to attack only the neck, arms and face. This is harder to nail someone in a specific and small place than to simply waiting for any good opportunity to hit at large area.
Quite a few heavy cavalry used breastplates (cuirassiers). Heavy cavalry tended to ride heavier mounts and be reserved for shock action. Light cavalry would do more scouting and screening.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewt
Light infantry were specialised more for skirmishing - either a company in a battalion or entire regiments.
I don't think the functional differences were as pronounced as the nomenclature however. In a pitched battle, light cavalry would be expected to perform charges. And line infantry would sometimes fight in loose order.
Where as in times before the 18th century heavy and light refered to the weight of metal on a guys back, in the 18th century it mean't the actual guy. Men of average height (between 5'6" and 5'8") were shuffeled to the line units. Men of below average height (or average height and slight build) were sent to the light infantry units. The heavy infantry (grenadiers) went out of their way to get the largest guys (interms of height and build) that could be found. Originall this was done because of the way they fought and the gear they carried. Light infantry had to move quickly over any terrian. Grenadiers had to carry the full line kit and a sack of 20 cast iron grenades, and their fuses. Although by 1800 most times Greandiers wouldn't have carried the grenade sack all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewt
Now as for the decline of armour of horsemen.
In the early 17th century a cavalry man would have looked like this.
http://public.carnet.hr/husar/Imperi...ier%201640.jpg
This guy is from the HRE circa 1640 I beleive. Notice his leg armour has been mostly dropped for heavy leathers. However how much and how fast armour was dropped depended on where you were. An English heavy cavalryman of the same time would have looked like the guy below (google image Cromwell's Ironsides to see).
Later on this is what a cavalryman wore.
http://public.carnet.hr/husar/Heavy%...%201663%20.jpg
According to the site this comes from this guy is eastern european, heavy cavalryman of Count Zirnski 1663. You'll note that more metal has been dropped for heavy leathers. Only his head and torso are steel plated.
In the 18th century the heavy leathers and the steel helemt were dropped. Now Cuirassiers rode to battle with a steel breast plate over a unifrom made from the same materails as everyone elses.
http://public.carnet.hr/husar/Prussi...ier%201756.jpg
Prussian 10th Cuirassier 1756, Prussia tended to only have a front plate and not a back plate too.
EDIT: Also during the Napoleonic wars heavy cavalry helmets made a comback. Made of brass and leather.
Hi to all,
Its great to hear that CA are finally taking on this more modern era. The epic struggles that engulfed the world. New found countries are carved up by foreign powers vying for position in new markets.
Trade routes from the carribean to india makes the addition of real time sea battles essential, plus this will make the game well rounded, i was always disappointed with auto-calc method.
As for naopleonic/colonial battles being tacticless and boring, well i think you could argue that 'hammer and anvil' is one dimensional, but does that make it boring? i think not.
The fact is hammer and anvil will still be possible but it wont be the one move battle winner it has been in the past.
I think there is a lot of scope for battles in the upcoming game, as said previously there will of course be an extended 'skirmishing' phase, and timing your vollies will be essential for victory, and waiting for the right moment to charge their line, breaking their 'allies near' morale bonus, rushing a column of fusileers into the gap and opening up a close range volley into the closest enemy unit causing a cascade of panic in their lines, ah i can see it now.
Ok thats it im downloading NTW2 again, the mp community should get a revival with this news! Huzzah!
When does it come out?
They are saying 2008 but i wouldnt hold my breath.
I got my impression of "light" by reading the history of cuirassiers. They started dropping steel in their armor until only a cuirass was left and late in their development, a lot of them stopped wearing the cuirass as well.
Hooray!!! their site says improved AI and diplomacy. plus, that water looks very pretty. If my computer can run it(I doubt it:no: ) than I'm going to get it. Some things I am curious about though is how different the factions will be and how big of a role they will give the native americans. Oh, and I might lose a lot of battles because I'm looking at the pretty graphics.
Any clue about a start date?
I think i read somewhere 1700-1820ish, at 2 turns per year thats about the same as m2. I would love to see seasons implemented properly ie. campaigning in north african summer/russian winter next to suicidal.
I wonder will they try to revive the 'food' idea which was never fully realised in previous titles.
It looks like CA has finally found a solution to the turns/year problem.
In Rome, they had 2 turns per year covering approximately 280 years. The result was, that though it was more realistic having summer and winter seasons, people generally finished their campaigns by 200 B.C.
In Medieval 2, they went in the opposite direction by having two years per turn covering 450 years. The result was that "blitzing" became the dominant strategy, and immersion and roleplaying were effectively killed.
In Empires, they have decide to implement Rome's turn system, but only covering 120 years. This is probably the best way to work the turns.
Good point - I was rather alarmed to hear it was only 120 years (implicitly thinking 1 turn/year). But 240 turns sounds ok. In M2TW, I'm struggling to keep interest after 100 turns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
I am little more worried about the large scale map. I am a bit leery about covering America and India, for much the same reason people queried the Aztecs - the war with whom in M2TW is represented in a fun, but far from historical way.
I would have preferred a more in depth European focus. But maybe that will be the expansion. Napoleon Total War anyone?
I figure they want to simulate the situation Britain and France were in during the 7 years/French and Indian war. Where your forces are fighting in Europe, America, and India. And only territory in India/America changes hands.
Ye gods I hope they implement Sepoy-esque units for everyone in India. That would be most cool. :2thumbsup:
That's one reason to start the game in 1700. By 1700 the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, and Danes (yes Danes) all had control over Indian cities/settlements. And the Britsh, French, Spainish, Portuguese, and Dutch were well established in America. So it won't be much like M2TW and Aztecs at all. That was about establishing a foothold in the new world. By 1700 the footholds in America and India are already there.Quote:
I am little more worried about the large scale map. I am a bit leery about covering America and India, for much the same reason people queried the Aztecs - the war with whom in M2TW is represented in a fun, but far from historical way.
Awesome!Quote:
The map will include Europe, India and America. More than that i cannot say yet.
Same style of map as M2TW? Do you think you could give us a general gist as to how many factions?
It'd be hard to do this time period without including colonial areas. I'm looking forward to it, though I do hope that not too much emphasis is placed on "what-if" early steampower and the like. The end date seems to be just near when England went industrial, with the rest still lagging behind rather a lot. Looking forward to a Seven Years war, or seeing the US ingame!
I'm looking forward to painting the world pink.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
:chucks:Umm...: ~:angry: I'm continuing to wait RTW2. Not 5th but 6th TW! It MUST be RTW2. Do you hear me? RTW2 in 2010/11!!!
Take us back to this brave and epic times! How long can we see this annoying weakling times?? I hate Napoleon:viking:
But you doing this, :coffeenews: I think you should make more depth strategics; naval/land battles in 50/50 proportion. and please,make less battles, but more bigger and significant, player needn't waste time on small battles, make them not playable by player (auto-resolve)...
EDIT: O-o-o! Only now saw I'm member!
Weakling? :inquisitive:
Tell that to the men marching from France to Russia, to die in freezing cold and fight their way back; or the small Dutch United States, fighting off far larger powers; or American and French revolutionaries, risking everything in their fight for a new form of government by free men.
Long marches, days long battles with men facing guns together in line does not sound like the acts of weaklings to me.
Geoffrey S
Such things was in every era. This is war's obligatory events.Quote:
Weakling?
Tell that to the men marching from France to Russia, to die in freezing cold and fight their way back; or the small Dutch United States, fighting off far larger powers; or American and French revolutionaries, risking everything in their fight for a new form of government by free men.
Long marches, days long battles with men facing guns together in line does not sound like the acts of weaklings to me.
Do you want to say its more brave and heroic than Rome's?
Weakness in style; style of clothes, of warfare, of manners and other...
p.s.
BTW, what games CA can make further? Re-making existing ones? Or they will stuck with gunpowder ? (which is definately death of series for lots of fans)
Let's stick to the subject at hand, guys. :focus:
I'm not a big fan of the gunpowder age, but I think this could still be fun. I do confess to having a certain fascination with the naval battles of that era, so hopefully CA does a good job of representing them in Empire.
I'm less certain as to how exciting the land battles will be -- I'm among those who feel that army tactics from that period seem less than thrilling -- but I'm willing to be proven wrong. ~:)
I like the fact that, in theory, land battles will have to be slower paced than before due to the nature of the warfare and the importance of working with formations. Hopefully this will lead to more tactical battles in the new engine and a more capable AI.
Charge, I'm not suggesting that any period is per definition braver than the other. Only that by your posts, you're doing a pivotal era of humanity a disservice by claiming that it is somehow inherently weaker because of gunpowder weapons (don't forget that bayonet charges were frequent and bloody!). Really, find a book on the American Revolution or the wars of Napoleon, and you'll find that people in that period could be just as heroic or talented as in ancient times, and I believe that it provides an excellent basis for a new Total War game. It's different, sure, but dismissing it out of hand means you're missing out on a fascinating age.
I'm not holding my breath... but Wow... Simply said. If they can pull it off, this could very well be greatest title CA has ever implemented.
What Wakizashi said. :yes:
Accordingly to tradition of two games per engine, it's most likely after empire will be mtw3 or maybe something new, and rome after that with new engine... Just thoughts
Hi All,I am looking forward to this release,But there must be a real increase in unit size to make it look right.I want to see armies of 10000+fielded make it epic.As the game is a while away it should give most of us a chance to upgrade our comps.regards magpie.
Agree with magpie about the unit size, the new game will have to be able to display entire corps and will need much larger battlefields to cope with the huge numbers of troops. However, if this is done well (and I've no reason to think it won't be - a huge fan of all the previous games!) it could be an amazing experience. The diplomacy options are potentially very interesting and the sheer scale could blow everything else out of the water.
Unfortunately, I suspect that I need to start saving NOW for a new PC to run this on....
Important question to CA - are you planning to make RTW2 in the future?
And your answer is ....
As much as I love a bronze-age Spartan, I love the fashions of the 18th and 19th century just as much, if not more. Naval battles will be much more interesting now, but as has been said in this thread, I hope they don't make it one of the primary ingredients to the game.
I am intrigued to see how this new game measures up to all the rest.
Wow... It has been a while since I last visited.
This new game is definitely a must have.
The sea battles with raking and other tactics should be fun.
Colonies, naval battles, improved AI, hmmm. Can't wait to lay my hands on this one.
:2thumbsup:
*full schoolboy mode*
I hope this game encourages a change of tactics as time goes on. The introduction of guns in MTW was a good idea, but the result was that there were units available that did a good job of eliminating them. I would like to see something like the encouraged removal of pike men when they become too much of a nuisance to order around on the field.
As for the naval battles, I really have no idea what they will do. Personally, I think it will look something like Serpentine Guns firing at each other. Hopefully, it will be better than that.
Hey Adrian! Haven't seen you in this neck of the woods in a little while. Good to see you again! ~:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Oh, the foul camel stench. My friend, please take a long bath. Then we shall sit down in the shade of yonder palm tree and ruminate our glorious past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
So yeah, good to see you too. :laugh4: