Printable View
Hi everybody!!
I read that the game will cover 18th and early 19th century, but nothing referring to the napoleonic wars...does someone know if we'll be able to play them, or maybe they're planning the expansion EMPIRE:NAPOLEON such as RTW:ALEXANDER?
I'd imagine they'd be included in some historical battles, or possibly a regional campaign like in Kingdoms.
Are we already talking about expansion? heh heh. I agree with Geoffrey, you'll either see some of the famous battles in the historical battle section, or maybe something regional.
We might get a pop up during the game that states the French revolution has started etc etc, but wouldn't that add pressure on the player if they are playing with France and ready or not, after a certain date, all hell breaks loose? Thats my opinion.
The point is: this period is full of historical events (french revolution, american revolution, 7 years war). But, as in M2TW 100 yrs war never begins, in the grand campaign i fear there won't be those events, maybe only the revolutions. The answer is: theme campaigns that differ from the Grand Campaign? I think i can't wait till the next year!
Hmm the French revolution mechanic will be an interesting one. Will it be a MTW type one where you choose to either fight alongside the revolutionaries or crush them using the royalist forces.
They should probably do the same thing for the 13 colonies.
If not, I'm absolutely certain someone will mod these major wars.
The events should be conditional, it is rather daft if events like a Revolution occurs if your actions the previous few years would prevent it from occurring, you shouldn't have events forced upon you when you have created a a-historical scenario, on the same token, a revolution should be possible at any point dependant on how you play, so maybe if you restrict freedom too much early on they occur etc.
Like I say, forced events in a arena where its non-sensical for them to occur isn't the way forward imo.
But they should always occur for the AI factions.
When you mean play Nap Wars, do you mean the time frame? Or like, a special Era thing where it goes into strong detail? I know for a fact the game goes from 1700 to 1820.
i read in some preview that the Napoleonic wars might not feature cos theyre sort of at the end of the timeline. expansion in my guess they make more money that way
Both things: the game will cover the first years of 19th century? If yes, will we have a campaign about Napoleon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warluster
Even if the timeline is 1700\1820, i think they won't lose the opportunity to sell a Napoleon: Total War, as they didn't included Alexander in RTW.
Well, if the game goes on to 1820 they'd still be well within the timeline. I mean, certainly so if they're planning on going on to the Industrial 'Revolution'. In RTW they included Teutoburg Forest as an historical battle, right on the last year of the campaign game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjahboy
They should occur if the AI plays a certain way, if its all about politcs now, political unrest due to harsh dictatorial like polices should awaken a revolution, basically meaning that should the AI go down that route then it will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Europe Universalis II does it alot, dependant on choices in events and policy setting events may or may not happen, though I'd like to see it go a step further and not be date driven.
I know its cool to see all the events but, you are playing ahistory from the moment you move your troops around, because the AI won't let you play historical games.
I do want to see big events, but they should be implemented in a bit more imaginative ways than simply date drive, which CA are more than capable of doing.
I'd imagine it working in a similar way to Roman civil wars in RTW, in the sense that when it happens is dependant on what the player or other factions do, not on dates. Much like the EB team often says, their aim is provide accuracy at the starting date, and allow for a plausible alternate history after the first turn.
Probably; that's why the same period was saved for an expansion by Paradox for EUIII as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjahboy
Napoleonic wars will be one of the campaigns in the first expansion pack of Empire TW. Just a guess.
Count me in as another person expecting it as an expansion in the same vein as Alexander.
I cant see the napoleonic wars fitting into a 'standard' campaign, because you'd have to force a state of war on players at a certain point every game, which would seriously limit replayability. Also, playing france, and were halfway through a game, would the game suddenly force you to go to war with everyone for the next 15 years? That would be incredibly annoying. As has already been mentioned, while the game's starting point is historical, the rest of the game is unlikely to play out in the same way as the real world. At least, I don't recall portugal conquering all of europe from my history lessons.
I could see the french getting napoleon as a historical leader though, starting at the end of the french revolution, and coming with a really good set of stats. Then, if you wanted to use him to go to war with everybody, you could. Similarly, the british could get wellington, nelson, and so on.
As for the french revolution itself, this could either be a fixed event or a more flexible one (a la marian reforms). I imagine it would involve several years of unrest in the french home territories.
Alternatively, the game could become more civ-like and allow the player to change between different government types at will (although you'd probably need to meet certain preconditions, and the cost would be several years of severe unrest which your opponents could exploit). The different govt types would need to give different benefits though. Also Sid Meier might slap CA with a lawsuit :grin:
if it inst included (but i hope it is) itll be modded in a matter of weeks :P
They haven't got Paradox yet :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
One word guys
Skirmishers.
Very important in Napoleonic times and they have to be very hard to model in a TW engine. Each guy acted as a guy not as a unit.
I'd certainly hope that ETW will have skirmishers rather than just line infantry.
I expect that figures and units from the Napoleonic Wars will appear. However, I do not expect that the campaign will, irrespective of its state, be interrupted and distorted to accomodate the Napoleonic Wars, much as MTW 2 does not generally force the factions to engage in wars which happened historically even if it makes reference to them (e.g. England and France are not compelled to have the Hundred Years War but soldiers such as the Scots Guard and Free Company Men-at-Arms are obviously taken from that period).
You can also have a look at our game for Napoleonic warfare.:duel:
LZ :laugh4:
I got that email from the Lordz modding site admin. Knowing the full situation suffice to say I was not impressed. No I will not be buying your game under any circumstances due to above comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Zimoa of Flanders
Mind my mouth, but I have to say, quite... a random and unwanted comment if you'll permit me to say. If you have such problems, then PM Lord Zimoa or email.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkarbiter
What 'full situation' is that? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkarbiter
Very well put, you can always contact me. My door is open to anyone.Quote:
PM Lord Zimoa or email.
LZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkarbiter
He is right about skirmishers! If the game is going to play in North America during this period there will have to be loads of these types of units. Indians, Rangers, various Militias, as well as a British Regiment of snipers. But that has little to do with strictly Napoleonic Wars.
Light (its a weekend and im chilaxing) units were already being used by the war of Austrian succession, so they should be done well in ETW anyway.
lite
hehe. It's like American beer.
I have to say that how skirmishers work currently would probably fulfill the requirements. While they did act as individuals, they were 'created' for the purpose of
1. Shielding the leading battalions
2. Harassing artillery positions
3. Ambushing or flanking enemy soldiers
While the Green Jackets might be different, unfortunately the
pikemen didn't switch to swords after impact,
gunners were supposed to fire from within the pikemen formations,
Portuguese didn't conquer Spain and half of France.
but that's how it worked out in M2TW.
I also have to disagree with the marketing of the Lordz game, for personal reasons. It is a Napoleonic thread and with the Lordz post, I feel I should respond. It's my opinion and I'll state it.
Ok, I don't really get that post but.
Skirmishers as they were in the 18th century were a rather new concept in large scale battles. They need to be able to work well in all terrain areas, not simply standing in a line within a forest as they wood in a field. That would be sad.
I'm saying that skirmishers in general (voltiguers from the top of my head) were there to simply to harass the enemy formations and artillery pieces. While rangers and Green Jackets would indeed require a better AI to control them, I would inquire as to when and where they should be used. If you have Rangers, what use are they against 3 battalions of regulars? If you can break them up or disorganize them, then great, now you can use the 2 battalions that you held in reserve to destroy the battalions...unless you only brought the rangers to work on the enemy.
Don't woods already provide a defense bonus to those inside? If the soldiers are in the woods, then they could have a formation similar to those in 'hidden' or 'stealthy' position, but even if they fire, they don't reveal themselves.
The examples are intended to state that while pikemen aren't supposed to switch to swords, the gunners are supposed to be able to mingle in the pikemen and fire, and the Portuguese aren't supposed to conquer spain and half of France, but they didn't, and it was disappointing.
No, Skirmishers were not simply for marching forward in large groups as cover.
In America especially they were used (first by the French then British) to move out of formation through dens forests and engage the enemy in a very fluid fire fight. If you should hide a battalion of Skirmishers within a tree line and have them fire at opposing troops of the line, they would be a very hard thing to overcome without the use of similar troops. Something that Austria's enemies learnt in the Seven Years War.
Because troops can't go out and melee every single little skirmisher. If they do you've effectively temporarily taken out of action 60(or whatever) soldiers with one person. Same goes for if they decide to fire a volley at them.
?
A single skirmisher is not a worry, but a battalion is. Going after them with you're own skirmishers is the way battles were fought. So it might take them a while to decide the fight, thats what its all about.
Oh! yes what about firing in the prone position and units remaining concealed longer in the fight!
Front ranks kneel and two ranks fire! Staggered loading...complex routines or not?
there are forced firing controls for those micromanagers. Not sure if there is a specific button but i know that the human player can execute the FIRE!! order whenever he likes providing they're reloaded
I'm not sure how you want light troops to fight like? Normally they moved in open order, but more or less as a unit and fired individually at the enemy. This can be achieved with a skirmishing function similar to the actual. And the importance of light troops should not be exaggerated. They had their merits but were not decisive in the most situations.
Theoretically, the best way to counter a skirmisher ambush is to immediately launch an attack. If you don't you end up like Braddock. Dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa
Skirmishers are probably the only thing that CA has gotten correct with RTW and M2TW. They can be stealthy, harass from short range (peltasts) or long range (archers) hide in the trees.
Personally, they've got it correct so far.