Prussian campaign

[Freedom Onanist]

You make an interesting point... And you also made my point, above examples were processes of hundreds of years complex political and religious policies. They didn't all come about of meat head like "I march my soldiers to your capital and..." all of a sudden "you're part of UK".

The game starts in 1700 after hundreds of years of complex political and religious policies....surely?

Nonetheless, lands were politically annexed in the timespan coverd by the game. The raison d'etre of the grand alliances that characterise this era was to prevent wholsale annexation of lands by a "superpower", namely in this case most of Europe against France at some point or the other.

If these alliances had not been so sucessful there is little doubt in my mind that more (most?) of Europe would be speaking French now. If Britain had succumbed to the Jacobites and become a client state of France, how long would Prussia, Austria and others have been able to resist?

[Fisherking]

Oh yeah, the United Provinces conquering all of western Europe


When will they decide to fix the whole 'a country conquer half the world' flaw? It's already annoying enough that the player can do it so easily, leading to a bi or tripolarized world most of the time.

Yeah!

Never mind that lousy little Corsican did it once and tried a second time!

None of those other little countries should be able to do THAT!

Right?

[andrewt]

I did end up conquering the whole of Iberian peninsula and half of France in EU as the Dutch (my favorite faction btw). But it took me a month of playing before I was able to achieve this.

I bet you anything that I can achieve this in few days with ETW.

More challenge anyone?

I don't see anything wrong with it. I think 1-2 weeks of heavy playing is how long a long campaign in ETW should last. It's long enough to be immersive without being too long that it becomes bogged down in drudgery. There's 12 factions after all, plenty of other games out there and an inevitable expansion a year down the road.

Besides, accomplishing it in a few days in ETW doesn't mean that it's not challenging. Before he was nerfed, the M'uru fight in World of Warcraft was less than 10 minutes long. It took my guild (top 250 US) roughly 500 attempts spread out over around 14 weeks before we finally beat it.

[Lemur]

Actually, I always found the "conquer the world" the least interesting part of the TW games. Except maybe Shogun, where unification of Japan really was the goal of all the daimyo. And playing as the Romans, I suppose, where a certain amount of crazy land-grabbing felt in character.

I'm glad that annexing all of Europe isn't the only path to glory in Empire.

[Sir Beane]

Actually, I always found the "conquer the world" the least interesting part of the TW games. Except maybe Shogun, where unification of Japan really was the goal of all the daimyo. And playing as the Romans, I suppose, where a certain amount of crazy land-grabbing felt in character.

I'm glad that annexing all of Europe isn't the only path to glory in Empire.

I prefer to take ove a small, realistic area of a territory. Like the reconquista or uniting Britian. But I still think being able to take over the whole word is a reasonable goal, it is a game after all.

I'm really looking forward to being able to win in more ways than just a landgrab. I want to win because of trade and my superbly cultured citizenry, not just because I had a bigger army than the next guy.

[Greyblades]

Having a bigger army helps though
Allthough I think I will be more interested in quality of troops than quantity; a mob is nice and threatening but they break easily.

[Sir Beane]

Having a bigger army helps though
Allthough I think I will be more interested in quality of troops than quantity; a mob is nice and threatening but they break easily.

Me to. I prefer a small, organised force of elite experienced units to a mob. Its also more fun to fight outnumbered, and more satisfying when you win.

[Greyblades]

And thanks to the greater moral the last-stands, should I ever have to fight them, are even more satisfying as your troops are "fighting to the last" not running around like headless chickens.

[BeeSting]

The game starts in 1700 after hundreds of years of complex political and religious policies....surely?

Nonetheless, lands were politically annexed in the timespan coverd by the game. The raison d'etre of the grand alliances that characterise this era was to prevent wholsale annexation of lands by a "superpower", namely in this case most of Europe against France at some point or the other.

If these alliances had not been so sucessful there is little doubt in my mind that more (most?) of Europe would be speaking French now. If Britain had succumbed to the Jacobites and become a client state of France, how long would Prussia, Austria and others have been able to resist?

So did these alliance go to the point of waging a total war to overthrow the French monarch or to occupy and annex the entire nation?

And there is no process of political annexation in ETW, you simply march your men and grab all their lands, which is now further simplified by making Spain and France one province each.

[Freedom Onanist]

So did these alliance go to the point of waging a total war to overthrow the French monarch or to occupy and annex the entire nation?

And there is no process of political annexation in ETW, you simply march your men and grab all their lands, which is now further simplified by making Spain and France one province each.

I think revolutionary France felt itself threatened, yes.

In any event the aim of the alliances, as far as the paymaster, Britain was concerned anyway, was to maintain the status quo. Keep the continental powers from becoming too powerful. The others in the alliances probably felt their national existnece under threat from France, yes.

[BeeSting]

I think revolutionary France felt itself threatened, yes.

In any event the aim of the alliances, as far as the paymaster, Britain was concerned anyway, was to maintain the status quo. Keep the continental powers from becoming too powerful. The others in the alliances probably felt their national existnece under threat from France, yes.

And this checks and balance of power is reflected in the game? Please.... We'll see but, out of 40 factions, you will end up with 20 halfway through the game, if you're lucky.

[Oleander Ardens]

The United Provinces were allied with the once mighty Austrian Empire. I guess that also Britain helped quite a bit in the beginning as it was initially a foe of France. With such a constellation a defeat of France should be not impossible, especially as the sea might of the allies could have destroyed the french colonies.

There is of course a lot of roleplaying in this AAR

[quadalpha]

It's been updated!

[Lemur]

It's been updated!

Link, man, link!

[Monk]

Link, man, link!

Glorious.

[quadalpha]

Link, man, link!

It was updated on the first post. :)

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Bah, it sounds like I could do a much better job.

I am disappointed that he only won the battle at the end to some rather suspiciuos sounding artillery. Whether it was the kind of "silly" unit that needs to be modded out waits to be seen...

[Monk]

Bah, it sounds like I could do a much better job.

I am disappointed that he only won the battle at the end to some rather suspiciuos sounding artillery. Whether it was the kind of "silly" unit that needs to be modded out waits to be seen...

Kinda wish he would have elaborated further, the ending is just a very bland wrap up of the tactical situation. The Dutch are obviously down from the capture of their capital but I find it hard to believe they're out. Most likely he stopped due to release being so close.

I'm not sure if it was due to the power of the artillery or just the fact he had bottle-necked the entire dutch force in the breach and it contributed to massive casualties. I hope the latter, either that or it was a "late game" unit that can be swiftly hit with a nerf bat.

[Meneldil]

That's less of a flaw and more like the premise of the game really. The clue is in the title, Total War. The aim of the game is to conquer the world. I don't mind if they make it a little harder to do so, but I don't think the game would be as good if you couldn't.

I doubt they will ever 'fix' that paticular part of the game, because there are many people who don't regard it as a problem.

If I play a game with a whole lot of factions (how many are announced for ETW? 40 or 50 right?), it's not to end up fighting the 3 same ones in every campaign I play, or to have half of them destroyed in the first 20 turns.

In MTW, every campaign was doomed to end up in a clash between the player, who owned half the world, and another faction (Egypt, Byzantium, France, the Almohads or Britain) who owned the other half.
In RTW, it was Rome, the Seleukids or Egypt.
I have never played a whole campaign of M2TW (for reasons explained in other topics), but from what I heard, the powerhouses were France, Egypt, Byzantium and Poland.

Things got even worse in RTW and M2TW because of the lack of reemerging faction and of the poor AI.

So yeah. I understand that, for the player, the perspective of conquering the known world might be entertaining. But for god's sake, I don't want to have to fight the same 3 factions in every game because all other ones have been annexed in less than 20 turns.

Furthermore, given how warfare evolved after the middle age, I think it would be about time to have peace treaties a la Europa Universalis.

Yeah!

Never mind that lousy little Corsican did it once and tried a second time!

None of those other little countries should be able to do THAT!

Right?

Right, except for a few points.
Like:
- Napoleon never ruled personally over most of the territories he conquered, but rather installed puppet/allied governments
- the territory of France itself did not increase that much
- these conquests took part during a completely different era. The French Revolution, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, human rights, the idea of nation and all these universal claims that did not exist one century earlier. Napoleon would never have gotten that much support without these ideas.

So even though Napoleon conquered most of Europe, it wasn't done in a Total War 'I took your cities so you don't exist anymore' way, far from it.

[Sir Beane]

If I play a game with a whole lot of factions (how many are announced for ETW? 40 or 50 right?), it's not to end up fighting the 3 same ones in every campaign I play, or to have half of them destroyed in the first 20 turns.

In MTW, every campaign was doomed to end up in a clash between the player, who owned half the world, and another faction (Egypt, Byzantium, France, the Almohads or Britain) who owned the other half.
In RTW, it was Rome, the Seleukids or Egypt.
I have never played a whole campaign of M2TW (for reasons explained in other topics), but from what I heard, the powerhouses were France, Egypt, Byzantium and Poland.

Things got even worse in RTW and M2TW because of the lack of reemerging faction and of the poor AI.

So yeah. I understand that, for the player, the perspective of conquering the known world might be entertaining. But for god's sake, I don't want to have to fight the same 3 factions in every game because all other ones have been annexed in less than 20 turns.

Furthermore, given how warfare evolved after the middle age, I think it would be about time to have peace treaties a la Europa Universalis.

I can support not having to fight the same few factions over and over again. Hopefully the fact that the AI is less dubious about alliances will go someway to stopping one faction rolling over the entire map.

I would hope that half way through the game the majority of the starting factions are still around, I like my map to have variety.

Med 2 wasn't so bad for having one paticular faction always win. Most campaigns did end with very few factions left, but usally because of the player rather than the AI.

I'm reasonably confident that factions won't disappear too easily in ETW. Especially given the ablity of factions to re-appear in loyalist rebellions. We shall have to wait and see I think.

[A Very Super Market]

Hopefully, it will be diplomacy that determines what nations succeed, and not coded aggresiveness. Milan

[Monk]

Hopefully, it will be diplomacy that determines what nations succeed, and not coded aggresiveness. Milan

I can practically feel the hatred in this post.

Here here!

[Polemists]

Well....this was interesting...but it's sad that those of us who don't get the game on day one now get two days of zero info....le sigh

[A Very Super Market]

I think most of us won't get the game on the first day.

Simply too much traffic, though a few connections will be able to get away with it.

[Polemists]

Yes

but I know some 8 year old with a t-1 connection and a 8k alienware computer is going to be posting his screens today going

I got the game, it's awesome

It saddens me

[A Very Super Market]

Beat him up. If you can't, steal his game. If you can't, call him a butt-face. Then kick him.

[Sir Beane]

Yes

but I know some 8 year old with a t-1 connection and a 8k alienware computer is going to be posting his screens today going

I got the game, it's awesome

It saddens me

Do what I do, and refuse to read any thread that looks like it might contain spoilers. Take a break from the internet if you have to. That way when you ge tthe game you can enjoy all the fun suprises, and not have to murder small children out of envy .

[Hooahguy]

I've very much enjoyed reading his report.

I can't help but wonder, however, how much of his campaign is actual gameplay features and how much is literary flourish. He's clearly a great writer, but it makes it hard to discern the core game mechanics churning beneath it.

to quote the man himself:

Wars of succesion are in Empire as a feature, whilst I have added spice for the telling there are no artificial ingredients in this story.

[Melvish]

That's what I was afraid of: Spain and France being one province each, such nonsense events like Dutch conquering both giants by merely taking their capitals. Such grand decisive affairs were impossible for that time and wars were fought with little impact on national borders. If I see that happen so quick into the campaign, I'm going to lose a lot of interest in this game.

As a matter of fact the Seventh Coalition (Prussia, United Kingdom, United Netherlands, Hanover, Nassau, Brunswick) did conquer France piecemeal after defeating Napoleon in Waterloo and marching into Paris.

Napoleon did re-conquer Spain piecemeal after razing a few forts and villages, winning a few field battles and marching into Madrid.Ditto for Portugal.

True the coalition forces didn't annex France but in the game there always a high probability that a faction re-emerge when you conquer a different culture type.

The root of the problem IMHO is that the AI have problem to position here big armies to use the zone of control. Note: Napoleon actually outmaneuvered a British army to retake Madrid so i see no reason why a the descendant of Maurice of Nassau could not do the same to some half wit, blue-blood French general.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OT: I really enjoyed this AAR while waiting for ETW to be available in America. It made the waiting time less a burden.

[Melvish]

As a matter of fact the Seventh Coalition (Prussia, United Kingdom, United Netherlands, Hanover, Nassau, Brunswick) did conquer France piecemeal after defeating Napoleon in Waterloo and marching into Paris.

Napoleon did re-conquer Spain piecemeal after razing a few forts and villages, winning a few field battles and marching into Madrid.Ditto for Portugal.

True the coalition forces didn't annex France but in the game there always a high probability that a faction re-emerge when you conquer a different culture type.

The root of the problem IMHO is that the AI have problem to position here big armies to use the zone of control. Note: Napoleon actually outmaneuvered a British army to retake Madrid so i see no reason why a the descendant of Maurice of Nassau could not do the same to some half wit, blue-blood French general.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OT: I really enjoyed this AAR while waiting for ETW to be available in America. It made the waiting time less a burden.

GAAAAAAARRRR!!!
Can't Edit my post, my use of English expression is still somewhat lacking.
I did not meant piecemeal as in multiple piece but more like one piece.


My first campaign as Prussia was interesting, i was very aggressive and attacked Poland at turn 3. It went well because Poland did not had the time to build up and i managed to convince Russia to back out of the war, they were ally to Poland and me. They broke alliance with me and declare war but accepted a white peace on the same turn. I had to do some hard fought battle (1vs2) but it seem that my experience with other gunfight era game (Eastern Front II) help me get the better on the AI. Hint: high slope are wonderful defensive position to make ALL your rank fire. Also don't be afraid to assault an enemy in strong defensive position. An obstacle not covered by fire is a null obstacle.

Cortland was submitted into protectora, Saxony was annexed, Poland lost Danzig and Warsaw but did not want to accept a peace deal. Then all hell got loose and Austria and all Germans OPM declare war on me and Sweden cancel alliance. I conquer Silesia after an heroic battle where i charged Austrian strong defensive position with a quarter of my army while the rest take position in good firing position(flank and rear).

It was getting late (or early): 5am, so it was time to get some shut eye. Next day i open my saves games and.......... CTD. I've also tried after that a game with France (actually managed to get a revolution in 1707!!) but it ended the same way .....CTD.