Org Mobile Site
Thread: New Gameplay Video (16th Feb)
guys obviously this is a human vs human. No AI or scripting invloved except for the explosion of the powder. This is most likely a battle that you would see on the histroy chanel or something like that. Don't get freaked out.
Originally Posted by Belgolas:
guys obviously this is a human vs human. No AI or scripting invloved except for the explosion of the powder. This is most likely a battle that you would see on the histroy chanel or something like that. Don't get freaked out.
I have to agree, this looks very much like Human vs Human while they reenact a historical battle. CA seems to be going for a pure "visual" show off here, though I'm not sure they wouldn't have been better served by picking a much more bloody battle to do that.guys obviously this is a human vs human. No AI or scripting invloved except for the explosion of the powder. This is most likely a battle that you would see on the histroy chanel or something like that. Don't get freaked out.
Didn't want to show off the shoddy hand to hand anims most likely.
Originally Posted by Spino:
Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.
I hate to break it to you but that was a widely accepted fact at the time. Thanks to its much greater depth in rows a column had a much greater chance of charging and beating an enemy deployed in line or square formation. Line formations were only good for maximizing firepower, their main drawbacks being lack of maneuverability, slower travel speed and extreme vulnerability to disruption and flanking maneuvers. Historically speaking deeper formations provide greater offensive melee strength, this same logic allowed the Thebans to beat the Spartans at Leuctra.
Columns may be more vulnerable to artillery and musket fire but they move much faster than line formations and can change direction and deploy into various formations must faster. Traveling long distances over a battlefield whilst deployed in line formation and under fire often left a unit disrupted and in disarray by the time it reached its destination.
Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.
I hate to break it to you but that was a widely accepted fact at the time. Thanks to its much greater depth in rows a column had a much greater chance of charging and beating an enemy deployed in line or square formation. Line formations were only good for maximizing firepower, their main drawbacks being lack of maneuverability, slower travel speed and extreme vulnerability to disruption and flanking maneuvers. Historically speaking deeper formations provide greater offensive melee strength, this same logic allowed the Thebans to beat the Spartans at Leuctra.
Columns may be more vulnerable to artillery and musket fire but they move much faster than line formations and can change direction and deploy into various formations must faster. Traveling long distances over a battlefield whilst deployed in line formation and under fire often left a unit disrupted and in disarray by the time it reached its destination.
The French only started experimenting with Attack Columns after the Seven Years War 1756-63. Armies almost exclusively advanced to the attack in the Line formation until the French started using Attack Columns fairly frequently after the start of the Revolution.
Originally Posted by Sol Invictus:
The French only started experimenting with Attack Columns after the Seven Years War 1756-63. Armies almost exclusively advanced to the attack in the Line formation until the French started using Attack Columns fairly frequently after the start of the Revolution.
Indeed, this is true, but this is Valmy.The French only started experimenting with Attack Columns after the Seven Years War 1756-63. Armies almost exclusively advanced to the attack in the Line formation until the French started using Attack Columns fairly frequently after the start of the Revolution.
And that is still the army that Der Alte Fritz nurtured. I don't even think the sources are any more specific than the word "columns" so that could mean a lot of things.
If I was to take a guess then it was Brigade columns which means each battalion was still in line then half or full distance behind it came next battalion. But even if they had used battalion columns it was still not meant to charge the French line, only to move closer and then deploy in line. Anything else does not sound very pre 1806 Prussian to me AFAIK.
CBR
If I was to take a guess then it was Brigade columns which means each battalion was still in line then half or full distance behind it came next battalion. But even if they had used battalion columns it was still not meant to charge the French line, only to move closer and then deploy in line. Anything else does not sound very pre 1806 Prussian to me AFAIK.
CBR
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar:
Indeed, this is true, but this is Valmy.
Indeed, this is true, but this is Valmy.
The Prussians didn't use Attack Columns at Valmy, but it is difficult to really gauge the actual formations sometimes in the game because the scale is so skewed. Those may have been meant to be some sort of Maneuver Column advancing to the attack because you can see one start to deploy into Line, but it soon starts to withdraw before the deployment is complete.
Originally Posted by Sol Invictus:
The Prussians didn't use Attack Columns at Valmy, but it is difficult to really gauge the actual formations sometimes in the game because the scale is so skewed. Those may have been meant to be some sort of Maneuver Column advancing to the attack because you can see one start to deploy into Line, but it soon starts to withdraw before the deployment is complete.
They are manouver columns, at least they do not look like attack columns, I wonder if their use gives an increase in speed?The Prussians didn't use Attack Columns at Valmy, but it is difficult to really gauge the actual formations sometimes in the game because the scale is so skewed. Those may have been meant to be some sort of Maneuver Column advancing to the attack because you can see one start to deploy into Line, but it soon starts to withdraw before the deployment is complete.
Manoeuvre column:
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
Attack column composed of 3 units (be it a single company, 2 companies or even a battallion on a single line):
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Spacing was needed to manouevre easier and to avoid large casualities by artillery. Spacing could be reduced to increase morale in which it would like this (very rare):
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As you can see the attack column always has more men wide than deep! A military tactic is bringing enfilading fire onto the enemy which means firing along its length. Attacking in manoeuvre column means that the enemy can do this just by standing in front of the formation, no flanking required.
Portraying attack columns like this is just plain Hollywood.
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
::::::
Attack column composed of 3 units (be it a single company, 2 companies or even a battallion on a single line):
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Spacing was needed to manouevre easier and to avoid large casualities by artillery. Spacing could be reduced to increase morale in which it would like this (very rare):
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As you can see the attack column always has more men wide than deep! A military tactic is bringing enfilading fire onto the enemy which means firing along its length. Attacking in manoeuvre column means that the enemy can do this just by standing in front of the formation, no flanking required.
Portraying attack columns like this is just plain Hollywood.
Originally Posted by hoom:
Yeah, it would be pretty cool if the ammo can blow up like that very occasionally/if someone is stupid with their cannon.
CA said they've got a "stress" factor where reloading takes longer and artillery is more likely to misfire and explode (it can do that, at least)Yeah, it would be pretty cool if the ammo can blow up like that very occasionally/if someone is stupid with their cannon.
Hello Duke John! 
Good to see you still lurking.
Good to see you still lurking.
Wow, that one unit of Cavalry got completely destroyed within one volley 
So no one need speak from memory, here is a link to a battle graphic.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DN
This is a decisive battle in history but it is barely a battle in most regards.
A peevish General marches a part of his force to face the French because his King says they will over awe the rabble.
He never makes a serious effort to close. Brunswick is only making a point to his King as I see it.
French losses were almost double what the Prussians suffered. There was no real maneuver. One failed charge by the French and two half-hearted advances by the Prussians.
The video was likely more interesting than the battle. In my opinion Brunswick set out to loose.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DN
This is a decisive battle in history but it is barely a battle in most regards.
A peevish General marches a part of his force to face the French because his King says they will over awe the rabble.
He never makes a serious effort to close. Brunswick is only making a point to his King as I see it.
French losses were almost double what the Prussians suffered. There was no real maneuver. One failed charge by the French and two half-hearted advances by the Prussians.
The video was likely more interesting than the battle. In my opinion Brunswick set out to loose.
i also wounder why CA would release a video on youtube instead of there own homepage.
Probably download speed, Youtube has always been better for downloads then most sites.
Originally Posted by Merak:
i also wounder why CA would release a video on youtube instead of there own homepage.
More people will see it on YouTube. It has a massive user base, allowing more prople to stumble on the video and go 'this looks cool, I think I'll look out for more info on it'.i also wounder why CA would release a video on youtube instead of there own homepage.
Don't know how much this video was intended to be seen. When I follow that link it says the video was taken down by SEGA Europe due to copyright infringements. Would have loved to see it. Well, only two more weeks! 
I'm hoping for new etw gameplay videos this evening
Taken by fraps
involving the demo :P
Taken by fraps
involving the demo :P
Originally Posted by Polemists:
I'm hoping for new etw gameplay videos this evening
Taken by fraps
involving the demo :P
Doubt we will see a demo today.I'm hoping for new etw gameplay videos this evening
Taken by fraps
involving the demo :P
Next week probably.
Originally Posted by TB666:
Doubt we will see a demo today.
Next week probably.
If the Demo comes out next week you have to wonder what the point is really. The game will be out in two weeks.Doubt we will see a demo today.
Next week probably.
Originally Posted by Sir Beane:
If the Demo comes out next week you have to wonder what the point is really. The game will be out in two weeks.
Still released before the real deal If the Demo comes out next week you have to wonder what the point is really. The game will be out in two weeks.
.Unless SEGA is taking the Sony approach and release the demo after the game has been released.
IIRC for both RTW and M2TW they managed to send out a demo about 4 weeks before the game was released. Now we are looking at 2 weeks or less. Does not bode well IMO.
CBR
CBR
and the official home page say it will be released in march not a date in march (but i could be wrong on this one)
it seem that i was wrong it say on the preorder page that it will be released in 3th of march (through steam)
http://www.totalwar.com/empire/gameinfo/pre_order.php
it seem that i was wrong it say on the preorder page that it will be released in 3th of march (through steam)
http://www.totalwar.com/empire/gameinfo/pre_order.php
Originally Posted by CBR:
IIRC for both RTW and M2TW they managed to send out a demo about 4 weeks before the game was released. Now we are looking at 2 weeks or less. Does not bode well IMO.
CBR
Yeah I can't really understand why they are dragging it out like this.IIRC for both RTW and M2TW they managed to send out a demo about 4 weeks before the game was released. Now we are looking at 2 weeks or less. Does not bode well IMO.
CBR
By this point we usually have several mods already for the demo alone.
Anyway, there is plenty of games out there to enjoy while you wait
Oh I'm pretty sure I understand why. Call me pessimistic or a cynic but based on the vids seen so far they are still busy getting battles to work properly. Remember how the first M2TW demo had bugged movements and CA actually released a second demo some time after that with some fixes.
It seems to me that the release delay was not done to make it more polished but it was simply time needed just to get it sorta OK.
But all that is of course guesswork and we will be a lot wiser in 2 weeks time.
CBR
It seems to me that the release delay was not done to make it more polished but it was simply time needed just to get it sorta OK.
But all that is of course guesswork and we will be a lot wiser in 2 weeks time.
CBR
Originally Posted by CBR:
Oh I'm pretty sure I understand why. Call me pessimistic or a cynic but based on the vids seen so far they are still busy getting battles to work properly. Remember how the first M2TW demo had bugged movements and CA actually released a second demo some time after that with some fixes.
It seems to me that the release delay was not done to make it more polished but it was simply time needed just to get it sorta OK.
But all that is of course guesswork and we will be a lot wiser in 2 weeks time.
CBR
Yes and at this rate we will be downloading the changes to the manual and last minute code changes to the game….and the demo will be out in May…Oh I'm pretty sure I understand why. Call me pessimistic or a cynic but based on the vids seen so far they are still busy getting battles to work properly. Remember how the first M2TW demo had bugged movements and CA actually released a second demo some time after that with some fixes.
It seems to me that the release delay was not done to make it more polished but it was simply time needed just to get it sorta OK.
But all that is of course guesswork and we will be a lot wiser in 2 weeks time.
CBR
The video is down, removed due to a copyright claim by Sega. Looks like we weren't meant to see it. Odd.
Originally Posted by CBR:
Oh I'm pretty sure I understand why. Call me pessimistic or a cynic but based on the vids seen so far they are still busy getting battles to work properly. Remember how the first M2TW demo had bugged movements and CA actually released a second demo some time after that with some fixes.
It seems to me that the release delay was not done to make it more polished but it was simply time needed just to get it sorta OK.
But all that is of course guesswork and we will be a lot wiser in 2 weeks time.
CBR
You may be correct, but I just find it hard to believe that there wasn't some type of go/no go meeting in late January and they took a look at the remaining items list/bug list*** and figured that they needed to delay a couple of weeks until March 4th to finish/polish and squash the bugs. I mean, how can experienced game developers not know that their baby is far from ready?Oh I'm pretty sure I understand why. Call me pessimistic or a cynic but based on the vids seen so far they are still busy getting battles to work properly. Remember how the first M2TW demo had bugged movements and CA actually released a second demo some time after that with some fixes.
It seems to me that the release delay was not done to make it more polished but it was simply time needed just to get it sorta OK.
But all that is of course guesswork and we will be a lot wiser in 2 weeks time.
CBR
And could they really think that getting it, "sorta OK" would be acceptable?
***But then again, I am always kind of shocked that what must be major known bugs are allowed to slide by. And how do we know that these bugs are known? Because it takes the gaming public all of about 1 day to identify them.
Originally Posted by Sir Beane:
The video is down, removed due to a copyright claim by Sega. Looks like we weren't meant to see it. Odd.
The video is down, removed due to a copyright claim by Sega. Looks like we weren't meant to see it. Odd.
Not so odd really as it wasn't at all an authorized release and SEGA is well within their rights to remove it. Happens on Youtube all the time.
I am going to be an optimist here (
) and think the following until shown wrong:- All of the vids we've seen so far have featured old code so they are not remotely close to the finished product
- The delay from mid Feb until March 4th was needed to get some extra polish time in there and the game ships on the 4th as a finished and polished product
- The demo was delayed to incorporate the latest gold code and when we see it later this week we will be astounded by how good it is.
(...and that's all I have to say about that!)
Originally Posted by Barkhorn1x:
I mean, how can experienced game developers not know that their baby is far from ready?
We all experienced RTW didn't we? The battle engine was basically a beta: memory leak, bugged group movement etc etc, oh and the primary/secondary weapon stat bug that took a few months before modders spotted that (but nonetheless a quite serious bug) MP was of course screwed with replays not working and at first did not even have a server that could handle more than 30 people.I mean, how can experienced game developers not know that their baby is far from ready?
After such a debacle it was clear someone saw terms like "ready" and "acceptable" in a very different light than others.
I certainly hope ETW will not be the same, actually I doubt it can be that bad. But can anyone be blamed for being pessimistic?
CBR
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO