Questions about Empire for CA?

I followed the development of another game keenly a couple of years ago, and one of the things we did on the forum for that game was make a thread containing serious/sensible questions for the developers. Every now and then These questions would be sent/provided to the devs and they would make an effort to answer questions, in something like a monthly "Fan Interview", although they would only answer questions they wanted or didn't mind people knowing at the time. That particular company was very fan-friendly during development.

Maybe we could start something similar here?

One thing i'd like to know, for example, is that with the new engine for Empire, will they make a specific effort to improve the AI for it, or are they happy with M2TW AI?

Another would be Rebels.... At this time in history there were not many "rebel" provinces left in the known world. Are rebels in this game going to be Rebels as we know them, or more intelligent, non-playable pseudo-factions?

There is another thread like this, but I can answer the AI question.

They are totally redoing the AI. In M2TW, Military and Diplomacy were apart. They would not communicate, bringing treaties then attacking you the next turn. There will be a major overhaul.

There is a thread over at the official forums where you can post your Empire questions: http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/22498

Bear in mind that this early on there is only so much we can tell you, more will be revelead over time.

Gah, he isnt revealing anything! I tried via PM as well :tongue:

You'll find out more in the due course of time as we reveal more and more about the game.

Completely understandable.

However, is there any information now about the ability to mod this game?

None as of yet, but we are aiming for it to be quite moddable, exact details are not known yet given the early stage of development the game is in.

Awsome. :grin2:

Will supply and attrition losses be included in the game (at least as an enable/disable feature)?

are we able to block supplies etc into cities by seizing goods etc on the roads effecting their economy?

With it covering the 7 Years War (French & Indian War for the Amys) will we get to see some of the unconventional tactics used on that front, as well as Indians and Rangers?

This really gets my hopes up to have Sir William Johnson as a General!

And...Are we looking at Seasonal turns or Monthly turns?
from the gamers stand point the more turns the better and who cares if you get to 1820 in less than a month of play time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Lusted

You'll find out more in the due course of time as we reveal more and more about the game.

---

And woe betide those who reveal the wrong things in the wrong order at the wrong time! They will be "dancing the Tyburn Jig!" :laugh4:

Development, by definition, includes "develop" and that means things change over time. Something that is true one week might not necessarily be the case a week later. When features are locked down they can be spoken of with some certainty, but until then we can accidentally fuel speculation by revealing information that is true when the remark is made, but isn't true once the development group has mulled, considered and otherwise thought about stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants

And woe betide those who reveal the wrong things in the wrong order at the wrong time! They will be "dancing the Tyburn Jig!" :laugh4:

---

:sweatdrop:

I see Fishpants is an agent of the CA SECRETS DEATH SQUAD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I see Fishpants is an agent of the CA SECRETS DEATH SQUAD.

---

Smert' Shpionam!:skull:

:laugh4:

Well, if it is that early in the development perhaps some of the things we are asking about might just work there way into the game if they have not been included already.

Maybe the 1820 date is not set in stone as most of South America was in revolt as was Mexico for another year or so.

I understand to some extent the need to cut it off at about this point because of technological change etc.:juggle2:

But just the same, I'll ask the question.

What made you decide on 1820 as the end date for the game?

Quote:

---

What made you decide on 1820 as the end date for the game?

---

Hmmm, Napoleon died 1821

1820 seems good to me. 1815 was the end of the Napoleonic era, and this gives the player 5 years more of gameplay if he doesn't manage to achieve his goals by 1815, or to play a bit of cleaning up and experience the consequences of these wars. IMO start dates should be tied to interesting historical events but end dates don't need to ~:)

How are they going to recreate the seriously different mode of warfare during the Napoleonic Wars? I know there are unit reforms but there' more to it then that.
A seperate campaign would be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

How are they going to recreate the seriously different mode of warfare during the Napoleonic Wars? I know there are unit reforms but there' more to it then that.
A seperate campaign would be better.

---

Napoleonic changes just like any other reform will probably be dynamic or random. Due to the fact that they are dynamic they might just skip Napoleonic wars if needs be... after all historical dates aren't enacted exactly when playing TW games.

@ Bopa the Magyar
Do you think so?

Formations have always been controllable and always had an effect on the outcome of combat.

Most of the weapons themselves go back to the 15 or 1600s and it was just discovering novel way to use them...combined arms and better command and control. The use of field artillery in support of infantry assault... We have been doing it since Rome.

The socket bayonet began to be issued about 1704 in British units and German ones but was later for the French.

These things come along over time and then just all get put together in an innovative way by someone. It is not so much the units as the way of using them. It ultimately wound up in trench warfare and was countered by the tank...the tank developed blitzkrieg warfare which is just heavy cavalry in a new form...with combined arms support.

The thing I have been missing so long in these games is mounted infantry. You were not able to dismount hobblers to act as a spear wall and move like cavalry. We will see if you can hide your dragoons in the woods to ambush an infantry column or fight dismounted in combat but move like horse.

Ok.
The weapons in use were not from the 1600's, you wouldn't call a rifle from today the same as one in WW1/2.

The way warfare was conducted was a direct result of the French Revolution. It was just that, revolutionary. The levee en masse, wiped the floor with its opponents. Warfare was re-born.
I know about the bayonet, as you can see from my posts in the What is this game? thread.

It just seems like such a waste of a good opportunity for the expansion.

Of course such things can always be done with scripted events... Otherwise there's the option of making it develop as a consequence of political decisions that the player makes. Well, tbh I hadn't thought about that when I suggested 1820... :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

How are they going to recreate the seriously different mode of warfare during the Napoleonic Wars?

---

Make new units recruitable: Post-Revolution Infantry and Post-Revolution Tirailleurs and what not... with higher morale and the ability to form columns and regroup as lines. But they already stated "columns beat lines", what will royally screw battle tactics I guess.

Mr. CA guy. Will there be gatling guns? Oh please let there be gatling guns.

That is just a bit beyond the scope and time line of this game.

They are ending it just short of the percussion cap and revolvers. The fixed cartridge comes a bit after that.

In this game it is still flintlocks and not fighting in the rain.

Nice to see CA active in the forum again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratbarf

Mr. CA guy. Will there be gatling guns? Oh please let there be gatling guns.

---

And nukes! :grin:

As far as modabillity, not so much a question as a request. Will support for Medieval mods or flying creatures/machines by implemented?

Thanks much,
General Vukahltor

I would like to know if field music will play a larger role in Empire than it has in former Total War offerings. I’m talking fifes and drums while the men move about or advance with the musicians portrayed in the unit. There were many military bandsmen in the 18th century and it would be great to hear pieces like the “pas de charge” at the outset of a bayonet assault. Perhaps a band could be a unit itself that adds to morale when ordered to play in much the same way as a commander’s rally ability is used currently. Much of the actual music still exists for the nations depicted in the game. The atmosphere and emersion during a battle couldn’t help but be enhanced with the sound of “British Grenadiers”!

Yes, check the summary thread. :bow:

Will Australia be in? I have seen nothing confirming that it will, but also nothing confirming that it won't. Australia is kinda important to the whole colonising thing. ;)

Vuk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson

I would like to know if field music will play a larger role in Empire than it has in former Total War offerings. I’m talking fifes and drums while the men move about or advance with the musicians portrayed in the unit. There were many military bandsmen in the 18th century and it would be great to hear pieces like the “pas de charge” at the outset of a bayonet assault. Perhaps a band could be a unit itself that adds to morale when ordered to play in much the same way as a commander’s rally ability is used currently. Much of the actual music still exists for the nations depicted in the game. The atmosphere and emersion during a battle couldn’t help but be enhanced with the sound of “British Grenadiers”!

---

Great Question. I second that and would expound upon it:

More of a request than a question- CA, please, will you expand the music score beyond previous titles? This period, more than any you have covered thus far, was filled with some of the most glorious music in human history. The Campaign Map could be filled with classics, whilst the battle map could be filled with the sounds of real battle music as Nelson has suggested.

Perhaps a combination of the two on the battlefield is possible, whereby the outset of battle is injected with a tension-building soundtrack and replaced by the sounds of battle and the traditional field music of the day?

This I Pray. Please make it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Great Question. I second that and would expound upon it:

More of a request than a question- CA, please, will you expand the music score beyond previous titles? This period, more than any you have covered thus far, was filled with some of the most glorious music in human history. The Campaign Map could be filled with classics, whilst the battle map could be filled with the sounds of real battle music as Nelson has suggested.

Perhaps a combination of the two on the battlefield is possible, whereby the outset of battle is injected with a tension-building soundtrack and replaced by the sounds of battle and the traditional field music of the day?

This I Pray. Please make it so.

---

I believe that is already confirmed.

Vuk

I want to have planes to make a WII mod.

Sorry for dp, but it wont let me add that.

Will be have planes?Althoguh(sp?) it wont have due to timeframe?

And actually, even though we may not answer your questions in the thread online, it's good for us to know what you're interested in... it certainly increases the chances of the information turning up in magazines or webchats or developer diaries ;) So by all means ask away.

A few things i'd like to know regarding the campaign :
- While i'm sure ETW will include a "Get out of my lands !" feature (or even better a "If you cross my border it's war"), will ETW deptict the post Westphalian treaty international politics ? Will we see actual declaration of wars, consequences for breaking truces or alliances, and the need of a peace treaty to actually resolve the war and gain anything from it ?
- Since we'll have a new campaign map system, that doesnt work with tiles, does that mean a come back to a risk style map that made the success of MTW and Shogun ?
- Will manpower have importance ? Or will we keep seeing factions like Milan sending waves after waves of full stack armies ? :)
- Will strategic ressources have an importance in the campaign ? For exemple Iron and coal come into my mind, but horses or even food would be also interesting to have to run an empire.
- Will we have a new system for prisonners ? Or will we keep having battles ending Benn-hill style ?

I hope those questions might sound agressive and pointing out the major flaws of M2TW, but dont get me wrong, TW is in my opinion one of the best wargames.

My question is here.

How will the diplomacy be handled? I've already heard that you will revamp it, and I wonder about the Interface. In the previous games you could only talk to one faction at a time, but I think in the ETW-era big conferences were very common. I'd love the idea of having everybody at the table, like in Vienna 1815. One could make a suggestion and the others could "think" about it and then accept it or make their own suggestion. This way multiple-state alliances could would be possible, like the various coalitions against Napoleon.

I agree. It's time for a diplomacy overhaul.

I was wondering if you were overhauling the faction succession.
Obviously for places like Britain it is vital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkarbiter

Napoleonic changes just like any other reform will probably be dynamic or random. Due to the fact that they are dynamic they might just skip Napoleonic wars if needs be... after all historical dates aren't enacted exactly when playing TW games.

---

Skip. the. Napoleonic. Wars?

My friend, I believe you seriously underestimate the likes of Captain Fishpants and their prepossession for historic detail and accuracy. Of course Sid Meier's motto still holds -- "When fun and realism clash, fun wins" -- but playing for or against Nappy is precisely the sort of fun that no TW player or developer would be deprived of. Timelines may be mixed up, borders may be totally different from 1796-1815. Heck, Bonaparte might even be British for all we know, and he may meet his 'Waterloo' somewhere in Spain whilst Nelson meets his 'Trafalgar' somewhere off Sicily. But the Napoleonic Wars are going to be part and parcel of this game or my name is Doofus Dietermeyer.

Australia wont be in this game. They said 3 continents. America, Europe, N Africa. part of Asia.

Australia is too far out of the way :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Australia wont be in this game. They said 3 continents. America, Europe, N Africa. part of Asia.

Australia is too far out of the way :no:

---

I don't find that too bad, though if it would be included I wouldn't mind either.

will there be like a drummer corps or what ever theyre called?
a drumline would be cool leading the troops to battle - the sound of the snare drum and piccolo :D

An impudent question: will cavalry combat be like real cavalry combat or similar as in the previous TW games? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke

And actually, even though we may not answer your questions in the thread online, it's good for us to know what you're interested in... it certainly increases the chances of the information turning up in magazines or webchats or developer diaries ;) So by all means ask away.

---

If you check the forums, Jerome, we always wanted a World War mod. Now that there will be a new engine game, I (Garcilaso de la Vega el Inca), want planes.

Well i have one question about CA...................Will you make a World War game?

The ability to mod in flying creature/machines would be extremely desirable....I wants me some dragons. :dizzy2:

I second (or third, or whatever) this request.

I like more information about the Rankings for Mutiplayer Please :yes:

I really don't understand why there will not be a full world map at this point. Several factors unraveling in North and South America would alone create an entire North/South span so why only include North Africa? I guess I could understand the cutting of most of Asia except for the fact Russia plays a prominent role in the era and spans east all the way to Alaska. So to include prevelant areas you would have to have West to East 360 and North to South 360.

Is it going to be dynamic? (The name Empire) That is, when the Kingdom of England aquires an Empire, will it then by called the British Empire?
And if an Empire loses its foriegn holdings, will it cease to be called an Empire?

Will it be part of your goals to control an Empire?

Thanks,
Vuk

(1) Will the THRONE ROOM, or something similar, be included?

(2) Will the ability to grant TITLES make a return?

(3) Will units be granted NAME and LOCATION OF ORIGIN? And, as a dream, will UNIT AWARDS be made available, similar to TITLES?



I've got high hopes CA!

Am I going to be able to mod the game to make the bands play "The Trooper" by Iron Maiden. I am 100% serious by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk Brankovic

Is it going to be dynamic? (The name Empire) That is, when the Kingdom of England aquires an Empire, will it then by called the British Empire?
And if an Empire loses its foriegn holdings, will it cease to be called an Empire?

Will it be part of your goals to control an Empire?

Thanks,
Vuk

---

Id appreciate something like that- its the little things like that which can really have a nice effect. For example in Paradox's Victoria game, your flag changes based on your government type.

Add to this the transition of England into the British Empire for example would be great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Id appreciate something like that- its the little things like that which can really have a nice effect. For example in Paradox's Victoria game, your flag changes based on your government type.

Add to this the transition of England into the British Empire for example would be great.

---

Yeah, and it is really important when you consider that the name of the game is "Empire". :P
I too hope that CA will do this.

Vuk

Are shields, armour and such still present, or at least possible for modding, in melee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Australia wont be in this game. They said 3 continents. America, Europe, N Africa. part of Asia.

Australia is too far out of the way :no:

---

Hello pevergreen,

Wasn't Australia 'just' a British penal colony during those days? That and Aboriginals living their lives in a huge continent. Sorry, I don't know that much.

Yes. Pretty pointless really.

Hey,
Got some questions/suggestions that I really don't think E:TW could be a worthy game w/out. :)

Since naval combat was such an important part of Imperial warfare, it would be treason not to fully encompass the dynamic of naval strategy...that is, to leave essential things out, like the ability to bombard cities and forts with your warships during a land battle, and the inclusion of marines.

Marines may not have been as heavy as line infantry, but they had a darned good reputation. It would be awesome to (as you attack with your main land force) strategically land Marines in key locations.

This was the main way of warfare in several Imperial Wars, including the War of 1812.

One way I was thinking that you could include the ability to commad both naval and land units at the same time is to allow the player to scroll through different panels (you know, the panel that the unit cards are on). This way he could "command reinforcement armies" just like regular ones, and could command both naval and land units.
Hope you take some of this into consideration.
Vuk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

Hello pevergreen,

Wasn't Australia 'just' a British penal colony during those days? That and Aboriginals living their lives in a huge continent. Sorry, I don't know that much.

---

Despite the fact that it was just used as a penal colony, the brits found it a really good place to get rescources and really really really really cheap labor and of course more resources. it wouldnt exactly have a very important role in terms of the military (may can be used as a staging area for an invasion of Indonesia) but it would definitely be a place with economic benefits.
Then again, Australia isnt in it anyways so meh
i wish is was though :(

Hello ninjahboy,

Which resources? Was it a resupply base in the Empire?

Yes. Australia often had British Warships stationed. Even now, it is a resupply base for the Americans and British. During that time a British fleet was nearly always present on the East Coast of Australia.

Flax was a important, as well as wool, mutton and beef. Sugar Cane grows well up north. (the largest amount in the world)

I have to agree with the person that asked for a whole map. Chances are, if I am playing Russia (which I like to do quite often), the player would need to expereince Eastern expansion as well as the Great Game in Central Asia. In addition, I would like a much more comprehensive strategic map. On the example of the Great Game, Russian and British intelligence services were highly active, inciting coups, and cohersing khans to join their side. Your spies could be one of their generals for example.

Look at Knights of Honor game, baisically a embryonic form of the TW concept, they however do a good job with the campaign map.

Also, please dont change it back to risk style map. It is good to control the route of your army in detail as opposed to vague notions of region.

Again, it would be nice if you could actually found cities in the new world.

Also, I almost forgot.

Assaulting cities is rather bland in TW games. It is like I am always assaulting the same city every time. For example, some cities should be edited to what they are actually like.
IE, attacking Istanbul you will be attacking a heavily fortified peninsula, attacking St. Petersburg you will have to probablly storm Petropavovskaya Fortress, and London and Vienna will have rivers running through the cities, making it an urban bridge battle. Of coarse you are not able to do this with every city, but with important ones such as London, Paris, Vienna, Rome, St. Petersburg, Istanbul, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YuriVII

Also, I almost forgot.

Assaulting cities is rather bland in TW games. It is like I am always assaulting the same city every time. For example, some cities should be edited to what they are actually like.
IE, attacking Istanbul you will be attacking a heavily fortified peninsula, attacking St. Petersburg you will have to probablly storm Petropavovskaya Fortress, and London and Vienna will have rivers running through the cities, making it an urban bridge battle. Of coarse you are not able to do this with every city, but with important ones such as London, Paris, Vienna, Rome, St. Petersburg, Istanbul, etc.

---

That's a good idea. Hopefully C.A will do something to eliminate the repetitiveness of city battles

Do you plan to make the graphics more feasible this time or are they still to be outrageously demanding?

Will Empire have an improved Auto-Resolve feature?

One of the great things about the Total War series is that you have strategic and tactical games running in parallel.

The strategic game can generate a very large number of battles. Most of us don't want to play every last skirmish, but if we raise the difficulty to give us a challenging game, then Auto-Resolve becomes just another form of suicide.

Please give Auto-Resolve an independent difficulty level (i.e. separate from the campaign and battle difficulties) - at present some of us have to rely on the auto-win cheat, but this is not really a satisfactory solution.

Oh yeah, good point. The graphics in M2TW were way to demanding. I know great graphics are good and all, but at the end of the day, I think everyone would agree that it is the game experience that is most important. You can't have good game experience when your computer lags the ever-loving-taff out of the game. :P

Vuk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YuriVII

Also, I almost forgot.

Assaulting cities is rather bland in TW games. It is like I am always assaulting the same city every time. For example, some cities should be edited to what they are actually like.
IE, attacking Istanbul you will be attacking a heavily fortified peninsula, attacking St. Petersburg you will have to probablly storm Petropavovskaya Fortress, and London and Vienna will have rivers running through the cities, making it an urban bridge battle. Of coarse you are not able to do this with every city, but with important ones such as London, Paris, Vienna, Rome, St. Petersburg, Istanbul, etc.

---

.
:2thumbsup:
.

I, too, agree with YuriVII! Make the variety both graphical, and tactical. Also, please add the option for enemies to surrender. In a hopeless city defense during this period, it wouldn't be common for the garrison to fight to the death. Surrender at the latest when half the defenders are dead. Maybe this can be incorporated into the engine in some clever way. Say, let the player too choose to surrender when needed. The surrendered garrison can then be ransomed back or handed back as part of the next peace treaty, or the victor can choose to execute the prisoners. If the winner executes them, the city defenders in later battles will not surrender during battle (but possibly more prone to surrender before it begins, if they think they can't win).

By the way, as I said in some earlier post: I'd like to see added mechanics to make the majority of troops in a losing army be able to retreat in most battles, rather than all battles ending in the wiping out of the losing army, and you then have to fight an entirely new army. This would add some more interesting dynamics and logistics, and above all - more realism. Second, the AI should, as you advance deeper into enemy territory after victories, pull back plenty of garrisons from the first lines, so that their army may grow or remain of constant strength, while the advancing army decreases due to losses and logistical trouble. For example if you hold a first line, and the enemy decides to break through by capturing key cities in the middle, and wins, the AI retreats much of the garrisons on the flanks, and merges them with their retreating main army, which now makes a stand with stronger or equal force as in the last battle, while the attacker has been worn down a bit. This would simulate realistic needs for careful logistical planning and reinforcement of the army used at the initial stage of the invasion, as casualties pile up. It's also how many defensive wars have been won, against an attacker that failed to win a decisive enough early victory, and is gradually worn down without capability of reinforcing properly. Wounded soldiers would also be a great feature. Perhaps wounded soldiers could require that they can be safely brought to the nearest province where you have a hospital building, and they need to remain in it for x turns before they are healed. A random number of casualties could fail to heal, and become cripples that need pensions, which draw money from your treasury in many years to come. There should also be a loyalty and morale penalty among other troops if you aren't able to bring back injured men to healing (if its an offensive war).

Some questions are:

How many provinces there will be?
Will there be forts?
What about mercenaries?
Are you CA workers adding bombers and planes?