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

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

My money is on that this game will be all fluff and no substance just like last 2 (4 if you count the exp.)

[Sol Invictus]

I am fairly confident that the Strategic gameplay will be more solid than earlier games, but I am far less confident about the tactical gameplay. I just don't feel like the game will present battles that really feel like 18th century Linear warfare very well. We will see. The demo, if is is ever released, should answer many questions.

[NagatsukaShumi]

To be honest, the fact that the strategy/campaign part looks to be fantastic is very exicting for me as building empires, getting my own memorable characters etc are what makes me get the most enjoyment from the game.

[tibilicus]

Well it's not meant to be entirely historical is it?

How boring would it be just playing through historical events without getting the chance to do thinks your own way. For example maybe as Britain I don't want to be at war with France, maybe we could ally and destroy the world.

This is just speaking for me but I like a game that revolves around history, not one which forces me to play history.

[Husar]

Well it's not meant to be entirely historical is it?

How boring would it be just playing through historical events without getting the chance to do thinks your own way. For example maybe as Britain I don't want to be at war with France, maybe we could ally and destroy the world.

This is just speaking for me but I like a game that revolves around history, not one which forces me to play history.

I agree, too much history and I can just as well buy a movie.
player: "Oh, look, the battle of soandso, let's move that unit here...why doesn't it work?"
advisor: "Sorry, you cannot move that unit around the left flank as historically it moved around the right flank..."

[Sol Invictus]

To be honest, the fact that the strategy/campaign part looks to be fantastic is very exicting for me as building empires, getting my own memorable characters etc are what makes me get the most enjoyment from the game.

Agreed, I am much more intererested in the Strategic gameplay than the battles and ETW sounds like the deepest TW game to date by far.

[ByzanKing]

Well it's not meant to be entirely historical is it?

How boring would it be just playing through historical events without getting the chance to do thinks your own way. For example maybe as Britain I don't want to be at war with France, maybe we could ally and destroy the world.

This is just speaking for me but I like a game that revolves around history, not one which forces me to play history.

I totally agree with this point. How boring would it be if everything was scripted to happen the same as it did in real life. The replay to me would not be there if things always happened historically accurate. After all this is a game and we need to forge our own EMPIRES.

[ArtillerySmoke]

Yeah if things were scripted like that, especially from the start of the game, this just wouldn't be a Total War game.

The entire point of TW is to establish the global situation the way it was right at the start time of the campaign, but add nothing that automatically (linearly) leads to the same events over and over.

You'll start the campaign and have your typical faction starting position, strengths and weaknesses, etc. What you do from that point forward is all rewriting history...and creating your own. The game doesn't automatically establish wars and alliances because that's going to happen on it's own during the course of a campaign, and a different way almost every time. That's the true meat and potatoes of Total War: Giving you total control and freedom to build your Empire as you see fit.

[Kalle]

I think some of the last posters are putting words in my mouth that I did not say with my initial post.

The last poster even manages to contradict himself in those few lines he write, so eager to critisize me that he does not see what we ask for is the absolute same thing, I.E.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

global situation as it was and then freedom of action!

I did not ask for everything to be scripted, not anything at all actually exept from the startingpositions which should correspond to the real historical situation imo and that was confirmed to at least partially be that way by Jack. Thank you!

For those who think I wanted the entire timephrame of the game to be scripted, I do not! However I would like to see for instance that playing lets say Russia you should get awarded extra prestigepoints when/if you accomplish things that this particular faction did accomplish in history. You do not have to do these things but if you do you get bonus prestige. An example could be to conquer Ingria (St:Petersburg) as that is what the entire Great northern was was about and the most important objective for Peter (the Great).

This is almost exactly corresponding to the golden achievements of original medieval total war I just wish it was even more developed then it was in MTW I.

Again, that does NOT mean you HAVE to do those things. You can earn your prestigepoints in other ways, trade, conquer and so on, whatever the criteria for earning prestige will be, which is the same for each and every faction but to add some specific objectives to the diffrent factions would only add flavour and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

is also in line with total war tradition from mtw I.

These special objectives that I would like to see would have to be based on what the faction did historically or what else would they be based on? Having a special objective for France to capture Crimea would make no sense. Having an objective for the French to throw Britain out of North America would make sense. Still that would not stop a player from taking Crimea with the French, it only means that does not constitute any further prestige then normal conquest maybe will.

The above is my wish and hope for the TW-game. It takes nothing away from your freedom to do what you want. It adds soul and meaning to playing each faction. Basically this exist in rtw and mtwII as well as you recieve missions from the senate and nobles in those games. However that system did not really satisfye me and the missons were basically the same whatever faction you played.

Kalle

[ArtillerySmoke]

I think some of the last posters are putting words in my mouth that I did not say with my initial post.

The last poster even manages to contradict himself in those few lines he write, so eager to critisize me that he does not see what we ask for is the absolute same thing, I.E.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

global situation as it was and then freedom of action!

I did not ask for everything to be scripted, not anything at all actually exept from the startingpositions which should correspond to the real historical situation imo and that was confirmed to at least partially be that way by Jack. Thank you!

For those who think I wanted the entire timephrame of the game to be scripted, I do not! However I would like to see for instance that playing lets say Russia you should get awarded extra prestigepoints when/if you accomplish things that this particular faction did accomplish in history. You do not have to do these things but if you do you get bonus prestige. An example could be to conquer Ingria (St:Petersburg) as that is what the entire Great northern was was about and the most important objective for Peter (the Great).

This is almost exactly corresponding to the golden achievements of original medieval total war I just wish it was even more developed then it was in MTW I.

Again, that does NOT mean you HAVE to do those things. You can earn your prestigepoints in other ways, trade, conquer and so on, whatever the criteria for earning prestige will be, which is the same for each and every faction but to add some specific objectives to the diffrent factions would only add flavour and

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

is also in line with total war tradition from mtw I.

These special objectives that I would like to see would have to be based on what the faction did historically or what else would they be based on? Having a special objective for France to capture Crimea would make no sense. Having an objective for the French to throw Britain out of North America would make sense. Still that would not stop a player from taking Crimea with the French, it only means that does not constitute any further prestige then normal conquest maybe will.

The above is my wish and hope for the TW-game. It takes nothing away from your freedom to do what you want. It adds soul and meaning to playing each faction. Basically this exist in rtw and mtwII as well as you recieve missions from the senate and nobles in those games. However that system did not really satisfye me and the missons were basically the same whatever faction you played.

Kalle

1) Relax...nobody's attacking you or criticising you.

2) You're describing a game that goes against everything that is Total War for the past 7+ years. The game you are describing is NOT a Total War game. That's why nobody is really agreeing with you.

Have you played Total War titles before?

[KozaK13]

I agree with Kalle because if you read what he has typed it makes sense. If you ever played Europa Barbarorum, he is basically saying the start should kind of be like that, all the alliances etc. from the start.

Plus i would like a system rewarding historic objectives, but the freedom to choose whether to do it, as Kalle has kinda said.

[Megas Methuselah]

2) You're describing a game that goes against everything that is Total War for the past 7+ years. The game you are describing is NOT a Total War game. That's why nobody is really agreeing with you.

No, he isn't. Every faction had different win conditions in M2TW and RTW, too. Also, there were preset diplomatic relations at the start of each game in the other TW titles.

1) Relax...nobody's attacking you or criticising you.

Uh... Yes, you are. Deliberate sarcasm, see below:

Have you played Total War titles before?

[ArtillerySmoke]

No, he isn't. Every faction had different win conditions in M2TW and RTW, too. Also, there were preset diplomatic relations at the start of each game in the other TW titles.



Uh... Yes, you are. Deliberate sarcasm, see below:

He made the statement that people were attacking him before I made my statement. So, no...nobody was.

I wasn't being sarcastic either. I was honestly wondering if he was a new player or not.

Different win conditions are one thing. Deliberately forcing certain factions to have certain relations with other factions (especially neighbors) and have certain wars (which is then determining the fate of at least 2 factions) preset as events...just isn't Total War imo.

edit: I still want preset events...I mean, hey those are a staple of the franchise. What I don't want is, for example, in M2TW if I pick France ALWAYS being at war with the Milenese because a preset event triggers that war. What about everything else I'm involved in and planning? In a game with too many preset conditions, the strategy we all know would go out the window. It would be about repeatedly preparing for the same events every campaign.

[Sir Beane]

Keep calm everyone. By all means discuss and disagree on talking points, but don't make any personal comments. There is no problem at the moment, but one might develop.

Just a friendly warning to not get too heated.

[Kalle]

I didnt really claim I was attacked. I felt people thought I had said things that I hadnt said. At least they answered to things I had not claimed in my original post. That could be an attack or it could be a case of misunderstanding. No matter what of the above I wanted to clarify my first post and I did so.

But again I have not made myself clear it seems. At least not to you Artillery Smoke.

The things you write about - preset this and that for the entire game - is not what I said nor wanted. I dont want the entire game preset year after year. But the starting position and stances should be historical imo. (Why else have the historical context at all?)

And again, Jack Lusted has confirmed this will at least partially be so and im happy with that and then you can feel free to think that this is not "total war" if you want to.

If you would care to read my posts you would see it is quite clear I have been around a while since i refer to things happening in medieval total war I. If you have not heard of golden achievements then maybe ask yourself how long you have played total war?

You could also take a look at the joindate at the org. For me it says 2003 for you it says 2009.... That does not meen I think you were born in 2009 but it should make it very clear to you that I have been familiar with the concept of total war games at least from 2003.

Now im off to sleep.

Kalle

[ArtillerySmoke]

I didnt really claim I was attacked. I felt people thought I had said things that I hadnt said. At least they answered to things I had not claimed in my original post. That could be an attack or it could be a case of misunderstanding. No matter what of the above I wanted to clarify my first post and I did so.

But again I have not made myself clear it seems. At least not to you Artillery Smoke.

The things you write about - preset this and that for the entire game - is not what I said nor wanted. I dont want the entire game preset year after year. But the starting position and stances should be historical imo. (Why else have the historical context at all?)

And again, Jack Lusted has confirmed this will at least partially be so and im happy with that and then you can feel free to think that this is not "total war" if you want to.

If you would care to read my posts you would see it is quite clear I have been around a while since i refer to things happening in medieval total war I. If you have not heard of golden achievements then maybe ask yourself how long you have played total war?

You could also take a look at the joindate at the org. For me it says 2003 for you it says 2009.... That does not meen I think you were born in 2009 but it should make it very clear to you that I have been familiar with the concept of total war games at least from 2003.

Now im off to sleep.

Kalle

Honestly? This post you've made is more about defending your experience as a player than defending your point. All you say is "I don't want the entire campaign to be preset".

I mean, it's your idea. It's your job to make people understand if they don't. Not get testy with them when they don't jump up and down and say "GREAT idea". I still just don't think it really is. A fragment of what you're saying? Sure...and that's what Jack confirmed. Every faction, every game, all the time? Absolutely not. I'm not playing the same starting 50+ years every time I use the same faction. It's my opinion, it's not a personal strike against you, it's just what it is. This isn't even mentioning the knowledge you would gain (above what we already know) about every other faction on the map. You'll literally be able to read where their troops are going to move to and fog of war will become more irrelevant.

I have read your ideas. Again...some minor implementation of this. But definitely not the entirety of what you've proposed.

[pyradyn]

.......How bout them Red socks??

Now that the universal (Ok just American, we Like to feel big and bad....) calm down statement has been said. I do Agree a little with what Kalle has said, we need things to be set as they were at the beginning of the game. The Alliance should be how they are and Tech should be how they are. Luckily Jack ended a long debate with his quick posting (got to love CA they do take care of their fans WAY more than any Company) That is all in the game. As for Sweden being attacked at the very very beginning of the game it could unbalance the game. Say the player lose the battle they would be left high and dry. Not saying it wouldn't be cool in a Swedish mod or something. Yes the player could recover but for most of the market they would not like it. I do like the fact that each unit is represented by the quality, based of history. Prussia fielded the most disciplined and combat ready troops. To bad Prussia as I have said before did not have the resources to full a long war until the uniting of Germany out of game period. Just my two cents (Patients the phrase) yes I am looking at you Sire Beane :P

[Kalle]

Honestly, my experience with Totalwar is what you questioned and doubted, a thing Megas also noticed, this is what you wrote;

----------------------------------------
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke
Have you played Total War titles before?

Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke
You're describing a game that goes against everything that is Total War for the past 7+ years. The game you are describing is NOT a Total War game. That's why nobody is really agreeing with you.

------------------------------------------------------

I simply answered to that.

For the rest I have tried explain myself as best I can and people are free to agree or disagree and I should be free to answer those answers as long as I keep myself within the rules of the forums.

Now the demo is here in a matter of hours and the game within a a couple of weeks so there is really no point in continuing this debate or thread. Let any further issues instead be resolved on the battlefield of the game :)

Again thanks to Jack for taking the time to come here and the very quick response.

Kalle

[ConnMon]

Well then.
I do agree with Kalle most heartily. I think everybody being neutral/friendly to everyone else is ridiculous. Isn't that how it was in M2TW? Blech. I think that countries such as France and England should at least be unfriendly to each other, if not at war or otherwise.

[Sir Beane]

Well then.
I do agree with Kalle most heartily. I think everybody being neutral/friendly to everyone else is ridiculous. Isn't that how it was in M2TW? Blech. I think that countries such as France and England should at least be unfriendly to each other, if not at war or otherwise.

Jack Lusted has pointed out that some factions do start out at war with each other, and some are friendlier with others.

Everyone being neutral would indeed be silly.

[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