Some concerns about the campaign report

[Kalle]

I am most grateful for Jacks report and the answers. They do raise some concerns though I think;

One conclusion from this seems to be that none of the historical diplomatic, military relations and so on exist from the start of the game. The alliance Russia/Denmark/Sachsen-Poland is not an alliance and not ready to go to war with Sweden and Sweden does not posess any advantages in military development compared to its neighbours (Jack talks about having to research military tech right from the start to take on only one foe).

Same seems to go for the other major conflict - War of Spanish succession. I.e. it is probably not there at all as a historical event. Successionwars can happen but the startingpositions are all neutral it seems - no alliences and or wars from start and thus litte connection to history and the real challenges these countries faced at the time the game starts.

Like it or not but it seems that is the way it is.

No change of governmentstyle without revolution either. That doesnt not seem right but is not really important to me.

Hakkapeliita and no Sweden in northern Germany and no say about famous Swedish commanders. Charles XII is confirmed though so that should prolly be ok. However all this also add to taking away from the feel of the period and basic history. I cant see what would be the negative aspect of creating a map and diplomatic and military situation that comes more close to how the real situation of europe/world at the time was. Perhaps hiring a real historian, if this was not done, would help with this.

Creating the real situation gives every faction a uniqe feel. Creating a situation where each faction has to go through all the same steps, on the other hand, means every faction plays basically the same way with only starting locations and first potential allies and/or enemies are diffrent ones.

Dont know if I make my point clear but lets say the game starts in the year 1700 and alliances and territories and so on are based on real history. That would let you play diffrently with each nation;

Sweden would have to fend off a major attacking alliance.

Poland would have to do something drastic about its political and military situation to stay independent.

Russia would need to modernise her army and so on for every faction

Each nation would thus face diffrent challenges and could have diffrent goals that give them prestigepoints;

Russia for instance would get prestige when taking Ingria and founding their new capital

Sweden would get prestige if they could get peace with the entire attacking alliance without loosing land. (basicly the achievement system of original medieval but more developed) and so on for every faction

Please correct me if im wrong but as it is now it seems all factions start from scratch in all areas. Sure this gives some freedom how to act at once but it gives the same freedom to each and every faction and each and every faction will thus play the same way. Develop, conquer, trade in whatever order that soon will show to be the best one.

I dont mean that each faction should have to follow their history all the way but starting situation and many of the prestigegiving goals should follow history to give uniqe flavor to each and every faction.

The dreamstart when playing the Swedish faction for instance would be to directly having to fight the battle of Narva after a cinematic introduction and then work from the military and diplomatic existing situation from there.

Kalle

[Jack Lusted]

One conclusion from this seems to be that none of the historical diplomatic, military relations and so on exist from the start of the game. The alliance Russia/Denmark/Sachsen-Poland is not an alliance and not ready to go to war with Sweden and Sweden does not posess any advantages in military development compared to its neighbours (Jack talks about having to research military tech right from the start to take on only one foe).

Incorrect, there are alliances and some factions are at war form campaign start as well as diplomatic relations set up.

Same seems to go for the other major conflict - War of Spanish succession. I.e. it is probably not there at all as a historical event. Successionwars can happen but the startingpositions are all neutral it seems - no alliences and or wars from start and thus litte connection to history and the real challenges these countries faced at the time the game starts.

See above.

As for research, factions start out with a few techs in areas they historically were good in. So Britain with some naval tech etc.

[Sir Beane]

Thanks for the info Jack .

[Kalle]

Thanks Jack! Sounds very good!!

Kalle

ps. kudos on being so quick also

[Monk]

The only concerns I still have about ETW come from the tactical side. Jack's campaign report really sold me on the strategic side, considering he was on Normal difficulty.

Unfortunately, I think most fans who have concerns about the tactical AI will not have their nagging doubts put to rest until they get their hands on the product itself. I know I'm in that boat, it's not a knock against the PR it's just that speculating on videos released hasn't gotten us anywhere.

[Kalle]

Yes, the battles are what matters most to me aswell and especially and above all else the multiplayer ones. Please please make me happy with the whole mp-aspect.

Kalle

[Khaled]

correct me if im wrong but as it is now it seems all factions start from scratch in all areas. Sure this gives some freedom how to act at once but it gives the same freedom to each and every faction and each and every faction will thus play the same way. Develop, conquer, trade in whatever order that soon will show to be the best one.

I dont mean that each faction should have to follow their history all the way but starting situation and many of the prestigegiving goals should follow history to give uniqe flavor to each and every faction.

The dreamstart when playing the Swedish faction for instance would be to directly having to fight the battle of Narva after a cinematic introduction