Org Mobile Site
I've been fighting the Cherokee as the British, and while I'm winning on the whole the amount of casualities I've been sustaining has been a bit frustrating. Why develop guns if bows have longer range and kill more effectively? In particular, the native cavalry is ridiculously powerful, I have to swarm them with everything I've got, their stats are way above those of my own Horse Regiments.
I know there needs to be balance for the sake of gameplay, but this feels a bit silly.
I know there needs to be balance for the sake of gameplay, but this feels a bit silly.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
I've been fighting the Cherokee as the British, and while I'm winning on the whole the amount of casualities I've been sustaining has been a bit frustrating. Why develop guns if bows have longer range and kill more effectively? In particular, the native cavalry is ridiculously powerful, I have to swarm them with everything I've got, their stats are way above those of my own Horse Regiments.
I know there needs to be balance for the sake of gameplay, but this feels a bit silly.
Hmm.. I've been doing rather well against the Cherokee. I'm using Native Skirmishers and Colonial Line, mostly lining up and shooting the Native troops as they come forwards. I've been fighting the Cherokee as the British, and while I'm winning on the whole the amount of casualities I've been sustaining has been a bit frustrating. Why develop guns if bows have longer range and kill more effectively? In particular, the native cavalry is ridiculously powerful, I have to swarm them with everything I've got, their stats are way above those of my own Horse Regiments.
I know there needs to be balance for the sake of gameplay, but this feels a bit silly.
I have noticed that they can do a lot of damage if they get up close and personal however. Native archers are also utterly useless when shooting at troops behind cover or garrissoned, try that if you get the opportunity
.Defences do help a lot when they're available, but you seem to only be able to get them in battles where you are the defender, which is sensible I suppose. The cavalry really are a nightmare to deal with, I'm going to start using those anti-cavalry defences rather than the anti-bullet logs in future whenever possible.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Defences do help a lot when they're available, but you seem to only be able to get them in battles where you are the defender, which is sensible I suppose. The cavalry really are a nightmare to deal with, I'm going to start using those anti-cavalry defences rather than the anti-bullet logs in future whenever possible.
Have you got square formation researched? That + socket or ring bayonets can stop cavalry dead. If you haven't try hiding near walls or fences. It's a bit of an exploit, becaue cavalry have some pathfinding issues when it comes to fences. Unless they hit them dead on they have to realign themselves before they can jump them.Defences do help a lot when they're available, but you seem to only be able to get them in battles where you are the defender, which is sensible I suppose. The cavalry really are a nightmare to deal with, I'm going to start using those anti-cavalry defences rather than the anti-bullet logs in future whenever possible.
I would expect that bayonets would be a precursor for square formation. Forming square without them would be VERY disappointing to say the least!
Originally Posted by Nelson:
I would expect that bayonets would be a precursor for square formation. Forming square without them would be VERY disappointing to say the least!
They might be actually. Square formation is an early tech but so are ring bayonets...I would expect that bayonets would be a precursor for square formation. Forming square without them would be VERY disappointing to say the least!
Originally Posted by Sir Beane:
They might be actually. Square formation is an early tech but so are ring bayonets...
I love how research directly ties into battle mechanics. That's hyper realistic, and a first for the TW series.They might be actually. Square formation is an early tech but so are ring bayonets...
GREAT addition.
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke:
I love how research directly ties into battle mechanics. That's hyper realistic, and a first for the TW series.
GREAT addition.
It really makes teching up seem worthwhile I love how research directly ties into battle mechanics. That's hyper realistic, and a first for the TW series.
GREAT addition.
. I loved it when I first researched fire by rank. I was attacked by a huge army of Cherokee. I only once because of the fire by rank ability my soldiers now had 
.Originally Posted by Sir Beane:
It really makes teching up seem worthwhile. I loved it when I first researched fire by rank. I was attacked by a huge army of Cherokee. I only once because of the fire by rank ability my soldiers now had .
Let me ask you, since it's my FIRST concern: Is the AI tech'ing up as well? It really makes teching up seem worthwhile
. I loved it when I first researched fire by rank. I was attacked by a huge army of Cherokee. I only once because of the fire by rank ability my soldiers now had .If it is, this is indeed Total War.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
I've been fighting the Cherokee as the British, and while I'm winning on the whole the amount of casualities I've been sustaining has been a bit frustrating. Why develop guns if bows have longer range and kill more effectively? In particular, the native cavalry is ridiculously powerful, I have to swarm them with everything I've got, their stats are way above those of my own Horse Regiments.
I know there needs to be balance for the sake of gameplay, but this feels a bit silly.
archers always did better against muskets. they are more accurate and can go further. but as rifles got better, archers stopped. I've been fighting the Cherokee as the British, and while I'm winning on the whole the amount of casualities I've been sustaining has been a bit frustrating. Why develop guns if bows have longer range and kill more effectively? In particular, the native cavalry is ridiculously powerful, I have to swarm them with everything I've got, their stats are way above those of my own Horse Regiments.
I know there needs to be balance for the sake of gameplay, but this feels a bit silly.
ive been to the archery range a few times, and i will say, its not too difficult to hit a human-sized target from a pretty long distance. i hit one target at about 50 yards away. now try that with a musket....
The Cherokee are a little over powered, especially if you are just expecting what would be normal rebels in MTW. I got my arse kicked the first time I went up against them, and I had to laugh when the next time they used my own cannon (previously captured) on me.
More unexpected than poor gaming. Just make sure you are a full stack or two when you go up against them and wipe them out quick, they seem to spawn like rabbits and I couldn't finish them off until around turn 20 - which was much later than I thought it would take.
More unexpected than poor gaming. Just make sure you are a full stack or two when you go up against them and wipe them out quick, they seem to spawn like rabbits and I couldn't finish them off until around turn 20 - which was much later than I thought it would take.
I wish people would stop being surprised at how awesome the Native Americans are. There's a reason why we still to this day name our weapons things like Tomahawk and Apache. It's because they are a race of warrior badasses!
I too have been fighting the Cherokee. Line Infantry in Square Formation is indeed the answer to their lancers.
I too have been fighting the Cherokee. Line Infantry in Square Formation is indeed the answer to their lancers.
Originally Posted by Malkut:
I wish people would stop being surprised at how awesome the Native Americans are. There's a reason why we still to this day name our weapons things like Tomahawk and Apache. It's because they are a race of warrior badasses!
I too have been fighting the Cherokee. Line Infantry in Square Formation is indeed the answer to their lancers.
The Natives were no joke. People have to realize, they were combating basically an imperial invasion by several European Empires.I wish people would stop being surprised at how awesome the Native Americans are. There's a reason why we still to this day name our weapons things like Tomahawk and Apache. It's because they are a race of warrior badasses!
I too have been fighting the Cherokee. Line Infantry in Square Formation is indeed the answer to their lancers.
Don't you realize how many of the tactics used to beat the British where devised from the Natives?
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke:
The Natives were no joke. People have to realize, they were combating basically an imperial invasion by several European Empires.
Don't you realize how many of the tactics used to beat the British where devised from the Natives?
People have probably gotten too used to the crappy 'rebels' in previous games. Now the natives can fight back properly it seems pretty scary The Natives were no joke. People have to realize, they were combating basically an imperial invasion by several European Empires.
Don't you realize how many of the tactics used to beat the British where devised from the Natives?
.Nah, you guys are just unsuited to fighting them.
IRL..... well.... search it up.
IRL..... well.... search it up.
Originally Posted by Sir Beane:
People have probably gotten too used to the crappy 'rebels' in previous games. Now the natives can fight back properly it seems pretty scary.
They probably have a moral boost, which they should. People have probably gotten too used to the crappy 'rebels' in previous games. Now the natives can fight back properly it seems pretty scary
.If you were an invading European Empire, you had every chance to just withdraw from a battle or region and forget about it.
The Native Americans were fighting for their existence. There was no retreat and there was no "going home". That was their home.
It's like the Vietnam effect. Millions don't pack up and give up. Look at Stalingrad.
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke:
Let me ask you, since it's my FIRST concern: Is the AI tech'ing up as well?
If it is, this is indeed Total War.
short answer yes.Let me ask you, since it's my FIRST concern: Is the AI tech'ing up as well?
If it is, this is indeed Total War.
long answer - yes :P if u go to trade tech with them u can get a rough idea of what they are teching up etc :) whether theres any sense behind their tech decisions i dont know :)
Well as a matter of fact the more successfull native tribes ditched their bows very fast for muskets and later rifles. The supply with guns and ammo was a most decisive factor in the various wars between the various native and European coalitions. Yet people seem to continue to believe that bows are inherently superior. 
In an open battle there was hardly a contest between Europeans and Natives. Then again open battles were only a small part of the spectrum of warfare. The tactics employed were often innovative for the theater of war but already in use in quite some parts of Europe. What do guys think what Jaegers, Dragoons and Hussars were for?
And "Moving Home" was indeed a major and sensible strategy for Native tribes as they tried to flee a superior enemy.
I understand CA that they wanted to give the Natives due but hopefully they didn't overshoot.
BTW: Units only armed with melee weapons should be outgunned easily. Even the Scottish fielded only a small percentage of their units with their "typical" melee weapons at Culladon.
In an open battle there was hardly a contest between Europeans and Natives. Then again open battles were only a small part of the spectrum of warfare. The tactics employed were often innovative for the theater of war but already in use in quite some parts of Europe. What do guys think what Jaegers, Dragoons and Hussars were for?
And "Moving Home" was indeed a major and sensible strategy for Native tribes as they tried to flee a superior enemy.
I understand CA that they wanted to give the Natives due but hopefully they didn't overshoot.
BTW: Units only armed with melee weapons should be outgunned easily. Even the Scottish fielded only a small percentage of their units with their "typical" melee weapons at Culladon.
Remember, smallpox killed far more Indians than battle. Without that they may have survived far longer....
The Native Americans weren't pushovers, they had managed to beat the young U.S. on several occasions (Chickamagua wars). There was also leaders like Tecumseh who wanted to unite the Indian tribes, which ultimately failed.
Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens:
BTW: Units only armed with melee weapons should be outgunned easily. Even the Scottish fielded only a small percentage of their units with their "typical" melee weapons at Culladon.
BTW: Units only armed with melee weapons should be outgunned easily. Even the Scottish fielded only a small percentage of their units with their "typical" melee weapons at Culladon.
I've started wondering about this ever since I started playing Empire. It seems units only get a few shots off before melee starts if one side decides to charge. I was wondering how pure, melee units got obsolete if that was the case since a guy with sword/shield/armor should have an advantage against the earlier infantry. Perhaps range is lower in Empire compared to what it was historically as a balancing mechanism.
Originally Posted by andrewt:
I've started wondering about this ever since I started playing Empire.
How long has it been? I've started wondering about this ever since I started playing Empire.
Originally Posted by Sir Beane:
People have probably gotten too used to the crappy 'rebels' in previous games. Now the natives can fight back properly it seems pretty scary.
People have probably gotten too used to the crappy 'rebels' in previous games. Now the natives can fight back properly it seems pretty scary
.I think it's because people are expecting rebels and certain minor factions to be much further behind in tech compared to the ones in previous games.
Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke:
How long has it been?
Since yesterday! But yeah, it seems you can close pretty fast to melee range.How long has it been?
Also, the natives are only slightly weaker in firepower but a lot weaker in melee, at least in the RTI campaign. I've taken to rushing them in melee.
I've also had frustrations against the American natives. I had an entire army, including 3 sets of 12 iber cannons, dragoons, line infantry and all the auxiliaries that go with them, completely wiped out when i was ambushed by some tribe in north-west Canada. I started with 1,200 men, they had double that amount, i killed 300 of them, they killed 1,123 of mine... all that escaped was a unit of native indian musket mercenaries. The irony!
Don't forget, these people are savage in melee combat and will go through any musket infantry you put in front of them. I've watched them charge at units of British line infantry, take a volley, lose 1/6 of their men, clash with the line infantry and wipe them out in under 15 seconds.
Their archers are also a pain... longer range than anything you have, save cannons, and inflict massive casualties. That's where your rangers come in, or even better, cavalry.
Don't forget, these people are savage in melee combat and will go through any musket infantry you put in front of them. I've watched them charge at units of British line infantry, take a volley, lose 1/6 of their men, clash with the line infantry and wipe them out in under 15 seconds.
Their archers are also a pain... longer range than anything you have, save cannons, and inflict massive casualties. That's where your rangers come in, or even better, cavalry.
Screenshots requested!
What kind of bayonets did you have? With solid ring long boyonet a well trained unit has a long spear with which they should be able to hold more than their own against lightly armored foes.
It is sad that archers seem to do overly well given that Indians tried to get muskets instead as fast as possible.
BTW: This comes from somebody who was quite decent with a heavy bow.
What kind of bayonets did you have? With solid ring long boyonet a well trained unit has a long spear with which they should be able to hold more than their own against lightly armored foes.
It is sad that archers seem to do overly well given that Indians tried to get muskets instead as fast as possible.
BTW: This comes from somebody who was quite decent with a heavy bow.
Originally Posted by Dayve:
I've also had frustrations against the American natives. I had an entire army, including 3 sets of 12 iber cannons, dragoons, line infantry and all the auxiliaries that go with them, completely wiped out when i was ambushed by some tribe in north-west Canada. I started with 1,200 men, they had double that amount, i killed 300 of them, they killed 1,123 of mine... all that escaped was a unit of native indian musket mercenaries. The irony!
Don't forget, these people are savage in melee combat and will go through any musket infantry you put in front of them. I've watched them charge at units of British line infantry, take a volley, lose 1/6 of their men, clash with the line infantry and wipe them out in under 15 seconds.
Their archers are also a pain... longer range than anything you have, save cannons, and inflict massive casualties. That's where your rangers come in, or even better, cavalry.
LOL...you got worked by Native Americans.I've also had frustrations against the American natives. I had an entire army, including 3 sets of 12 iber cannons, dragoons, line infantry and all the auxiliaries that go with them, completely wiped out when i was ambushed by some tribe in north-west Canada. I started with 1,200 men, they had double that amount, i killed 300 of them, they killed 1,123 of mine... all that escaped was a unit of native indian musket mercenaries. The irony!
Don't forget, these people are savage in melee combat and will go through any musket infantry you put in front of them. I've watched them charge at units of British line infantry, take a volley, lose 1/6 of their men, clash with the line infantry and wipe them out in under 15 seconds.
Their archers are also a pain... longer range than anything you have, save cannons, and inflict massive casualties. That's where your rangers come in, or even better, cavalry.
J/K, but seriously ...it's good that I'm seeing so many reports of people getting beat. M2TW was a cakewalk for everyone day 1.
That's kinda what happened, right? A huge army would march off into the woods of North America, only to disappear, and never be seen again.
In my Campaign as USA, I notice I had a massive disadvantage to everyone in terms of technology, structure, economy, etc, untill I poured like 10-20 turns into turning myself into a power house. Problem with that, people built up their armies so I always been on the lower end of the army spectrum.
In my Confederate campaign, I had to blitz India due to Muhul just making sure I got no money and Mysore attacking me. In the end, when I unified it, I turned it into a powerhouse akin to modern India, I am getting profits of around 50,000 per turn, which I used to buy Riga and Ruperts Town for staging grounds in America and Europe. Also to buy technology from everyone.
In my Confederate campaign, I had to blitz India due to Muhul just making sure I got no money and Mysore attacking me. In the end, when I unified it, I turned it into a powerhouse akin to modern India, I am getting profits of around 50,000 per turn, which I used to buy Riga and Ruperts Town for staging grounds in America and Europe. Also to buy technology from everyone.
Originally Posted by TiberiusBeskar:
In my Campaign as USA, I notice I had a massive disadvantage to everyone in terms of technology, structure, economy, etc, untill I poured like 10-20 turns into turning myself into a power house. Problem with that, people built up their armies so I always been on the lower end of the army spectrum.
In my Confederate campaign, I had to blitz India due to Muhul just making sure I got no money and Mysore attacking me. In the end, when I unified it, I turned it into a powerhouse akin to modern India, I am getting profits of around 50,000 per turn, which I used to buy Riga and Ruperts Town for staging grounds in America and Europe. Also to buy technology from everyone.
India starts off tough, at war with the Moghuls, and with Mysore and Portugal attacking you after a few turns. Once you get the ball rolling though, and unify India, its money central. I had too much money to spend by the end.In my Campaign as USA, I notice I had a massive disadvantage to everyone in terms of technology, structure, economy, etc, untill I poured like 10-20 turns into turning myself into a power house. Problem with that, people built up their armies so I always been on the lower end of the army spectrum.
In my Confederate campaign, I had to blitz India due to Muhul just making sure I got no money and Mysore attacking me. In the end, when I unified it, I turned it into a powerhouse akin to modern India, I am getting profits of around 50,000 per turn, which I used to buy Riga and Ruperts Town for staging grounds in America and Europe. Also to buy technology from everyone.
As for native americans, I found that the 17th century militias you get in the beginning are very useful, being equipped with plate armor and swords. They win fairly easily in melee unless flanked. I never really had much trouble with the natives.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO