Ideas about ETW (AI, city ancillaries, universities, parallel building, civic virtue)

[ConnMon]

I'm glad to hear that militia is actually a militia this time around. Just wondering, will militia vary from faction to faction? Like Italian Militia compared to Spear Militia?

[Sheogorath]

>Sir Beane

Probably not...it really wasn't a significant thing until some time after the games end. Too bad, though. If TW games had a proper logistics system it could have a major influence on the game. As it is...it would be hard to show the effects of such a technology.

>Sol

I'm pretty sure by Napoleon III's time canned food was fairly common. The Republic of France (the original one) offered a reward to whoever could come up with a process to quickly and efficiently can food. Nobody came up with one, but the French did get some food in cans, just not a whole lot, and eventually they idea went out of favor until the development of proper canning machinery.


As to militia, one would hope they would be different. As has been mentioned, different states had very different practices in regards to their militia. The Dutch, for example, had what was an almost professional army for a militia, very well trained and equipped by the standards of the day, while most states 'militia' were basically just guys who got a uniform (if they were lucky) a gun, and were thrown onto the field with a bare minimum of training. The Russian militia were lucky if they had uniforms at all, since all the state provided was a cap to mark the men as militia.

During the Napoleonic wars, the Russians got so desperate that they started handing out pikes (the Swedes did this as well, if I recall). This did lead to some interesting developments, like the 'shotgun' column (it has a proper name, but I cant remember it), where two columns of professional troops would march on either side of a group of pike-armed militia, channeling them to the enemy and supporting them (or shooting them in the back :P) once engaged.

[Fisherking]

=Sheogorath;2103552
As to militia, one would hope they would be different. As has been mentioned, different states had very different practices in regards to their militia. The Dutch, for example, had what was an almost professional army for a militia, very well trained and equipped by the standards of the day, while most states 'militia' were basically just guys who got a uniform (if they were lucky) a gun, and were thrown onto the field with a bare minimum of training. The Russian militia were lucky if they had uniforms at all, since all the state provided was a cap to mark the men as militia.

During the Napoleonic wars, the Russians got so desperate that they started handing out pikes (the Swedes did this as well, if I recall). This did lead to some interesting developments, like the 'shotgun' column (it has a proper name, but I cant remember it), where two columns of professional troops would march on either side of a group of pike-armed militia, channeling them to the enemy and supporting them (or shooting them in the back :P) once engaged.

I think the American Colonial Militia was in the same boat as the other bottom of the barrel types. If they had a uniform it was provided out of pocket by their leader. If they had a gun, they brought it. If they had a hat, it was an old one from home.

That is why most of the early militias were armed with rifles and not muskets. Later the Continual Congress provided some funds to give them muskets with bayonets.

After Valley Forge, they my have received some School of the Solider, but before that it is very doubtful that they did more than show up and fight. Given who they were up against it shows what shear tenacity they must have had. Especially when you consider how few battles they actually won.
I think the physiological shock of losing to them in those few major battles was what really won the war for the Americans. Briton was just not sending more money down that empty hole.

[Sol Invictus]

Sheogorath, yes, I did some searching and it does seem that canning was around during the Napoleonic Wars. I was certain that I had read several years ago that the armies of Napoleon III were the first to use canned food in the field.

[Oleander Ardens]

Milita should look scrambled. Here we have some impressions of how diverse the tyrolean milita looked.










Markswoman

[Fisherking]

Since we are on such a broad topic, one of the things about cities that has always galled me is only being able to work on one improvement at a time. Size of the settlement plays a part but only working on a church for instance and not being able to improve a stable, school, or what ever else is a game convention that has always frustrated me a bit. This has been especially true when the building takes so many years to complete.

In real time whole castles were built in less time than it takes to complete some of these buildings.
Harlech Castle took only seven years from start to finish to build! And as building techniques improved so did the speed and strength in building. Except for truly monumental projects most should be finished in under a year or two and you should be allowed to start other projects in the mean time.

I know it has been designed so as to never run short of building projects and so on, but still…
It is only a small point in the end, but I would like to make more improvements than just the one, and have times not so unrealistic.

[Zoring]

Great ideas, particularily in regards to Iron and horses, made me think of a few one's of my own. It needs to be harder to maintain far flung colonies, for example, the upkeep idea is one good step for that, although the snowball effect of having many many provinces means the game gets easier and easier as your Empire swells whilst it should become a bit more unmanagble.

However for our forces in the fields, the nation description has this little tidbit

"One thing that Russia does have is endless space, and the lack of apparently defensible frontiers actually becomes a defence in itself. Invaders can be lured deep into the steppes, and left to the mercies of “General Winter” and Russia’s endless, empty lands."

Our field armies need to have difficulty staying together in far away countries, historically the greatest difficulties faced by Generals have been logistics, morale and disease. We need a system where the Armies need to be supplied.

Perhaps have armies very likely to splinter and disappear if without a good General, say depending on how good a General is the further you can take an Army away from your lands or capital, the unrest in the army should grow. In this way your captains will be good for police actions within your own lines but cant leave your borders. Whilst your 10 star general can go all the way to India.

Also, give us the ability to name Units and groups of units. It will give us a great sense of identity to be ordering around the '2nd Garde Infantarie Regiment' instead of every generic unit being 'Prussian Infantry'