STW 2 instead of MTW 2

**kburkert** · 05-29-2006, 08:33

I hate modern warfare (with guns), theres less tacticts to it, but when you have a sheild and sword theres more tactics. Bows cannot be used as a gun like weapon because it does not just go through anything. So really thers no arguement, some people might injoy a later version of warfare.

CA should make games that hit mytholgical areas like elves and so on. What do you think?

**Duke John** · 05-29-2006, 09:18

Instead of writing a lengthly post about how Napoleonic warfare was more tactically interesting than Medieval warfare let me show 2 diagrams of army layouts.

Battle of Austerlitz

Battle of Poitiers

And let me add this quote:

He also said CA does not like the Napoleonic Era, not because of the tactics and stuff, but of the implementation of those tactics. Its too hard to code, but if the hardware gets better it would be possible.

From: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=51538

You may not like the Napoleonic wars, but saying that they were tactically less interesting only shows you still got a lot of reading to do

**Lord Adherbal** · 05-29-2006, 09:27

What I don't like is the Napoleonic period (or my possibly mistaken view of it)... the idea of two armies marching towards each other in rigid formation... then the front rank fires in unison, and falls. Then the next rank fires, and falls. Gahhhh... and all at fairly long range. Doesn't seem like that much fun.

that's like claiming tank battles involve tanks lining up and shooting eachother to bits. Both are far from the truth.

Nap battles were a fine balance of shooting, charging and artillery bombardement. On top of that good use of terrain on a much larger scale then medieval/ancient battles was vital.

**R'as al Ghul** · 05-29-2006, 13:49

I've asked this question last week and the thread was spammed to death after CA made a "statement".

Anyway, rest assured. There'll be a Shogun mod for M2:TW.
And I'm pretty enthusiastic about the possibilities this new engine will provide.
At least graphic wise. Let's hope that it'll be a game that's actually worth playing, not only looking at.

**AwesomeArcher** · 05-29-2006, 19:02

Well you all have pretty much convinced me that MTW 2 would be better, but i would like to have a vote so moderators, would it be alright if i made a poll in the MTW 2 section or should i put it somewhere else.

**Duke John** · 05-29-2006, 19:58

while Nap era battles may be more interesting when it comes to tactics, the uneducated masses of mainstream gamers don't care. They want shiny graphics and large epic clashes, not 1000 men standing in lines facing each other shooting for two hours.

But that is NOT how those battles were fought. The reason I showed those diagrams is because it clearly shows that a Napoleonic general had more tactical units to command which expanded his choice of tactics (and no, that is not limited to which unit shoots which unit). That is in stark contrast with the medieval general who generally commanded only 3 units (the 3 battles). I like the medieval period but not because of the tactics used during those times. From what I have read it was mostly lining up and a missile exchange which forced one side to charge. The TW series make it seem interesting with 16 to 20 units but that is something medieval commanders could only dream of.

**Husar** · 05-29-2006, 20:22

Originally Posted by Duke John

But that is NOT how those battles were fought. The reason I showed those diagrams is because it clearly shows that a Napoleonic general had more tactical units to command which expanded his choice of tactics (and no, that is not limited to which unit shoots which unit). That is in stark contrast with the medieval general who generally commanded only 3 units (the 3 battles). I like the medieval period but not because of the tactics used during those times. From what I have read it was mostly lining up and a missile exchange which forced one side to charge. The TW series make it seem interesting with 16 to 20 units but that is something medieval commanders could only dream of.

Capturing the whole mediterranean are is something most countries could only dream of, yet it can be done in the TW series...

**IrishArmenian** · 06-09-2006, 22:58

There might have been more strategically interesting battles for Napoleon, but we are not Napoleon. It is much easier to make an interesting, challenging, and a I-won-I-am-so-happy feeling in the medeival period as apposed to the age of Napoleon. Sure, people were still vicious (we always will be), but I agree with Zenicetus. Rows of men carrying early firearms marching, shooting and dying in unison is nothing near the fast paced rush of a mixed calvary/infantry charge laying waste to some stationary soldiers who, noticing the charge, sh** themselves. I think it just is more of a rush.
But backe to why I think it should be Medeival as opposed to Shogun is because the extreme cultural differences, the fanatics from all sorts of religeons (though mostly Western Christians), and the beleif that God had chosen the royalty personally. Also, the sheer cruelty that the Europeans treated their enemies with was unbeleivable. In Japan, honour was showed even to ones enemies, which makes for less backstabbing.

**econ21** · 06-10-2006, 00:17

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

It is much easier to make an interesting, challenging, and a I-won-I-am-so-happy feeling in the medeival period as apposed to the age of Napoleon. Sure, people were still vicious (we always will be), but I agree with Zenicetus. Rows of men carrying early firearms marching, shooting and dying in unison is nothing near the fast paced rush of a mixed calvary/infantry charge laying waste to some stationary soldiers who, noticing the charge, sh** themselves. I think it just is more of a rush.

If you were talking of the American Civil War or the period between that and the advent of the tank, I might agree with you. But Napoleonic warfare was not just rows of men carrying guns.

The French revolution led to an emphasis on shock combat - initially, the French had big armies of patriotic but hastily raised troops. They initially triumphed over the linear tactics of their opponents by sheer elan. This French emphasis on the bayonet was to linger until WW1. But it was not unique to them. The British tended to fight by holding fire until they saw the whites of their eyes and then afterwards charge a disordered enemy. The interaction between these different kinds of tactics is rather dramatic. Later on the Prussians and others started abandoning their strict linear tactics and adopted more flexible French tactics.

In addition, shock cavalry was a key element of Napoleonic battles. Massed charges of heavy cavalry could sometimes wreck an enemy or, if the targets got into square in time, wreck the cavalry.

Most casualties were caused by fire, but IIRC more often by artillery than the lines of men with guns. The placement of artillery could be rather interesting - with horse artillery being able to unload right next to enemies (but also be very exposed to counter-fire) while troops might try to use reverse slopes or other cover to escape terrible mass bombardments.

Infantry fire tactics also evolved with heavy use of skirmishers. By the time of Waterloo, massed formations appeared so vulnerable to enemy fire, most of the day was probably spent skirmishing until critical moments when assaults were attempted.

So I think Napoleonic battles have as many interesting elements as ancient or medieval ones. If done right, it might produce even more of a rush and be more challenging than existing TW games. I certainly respect AI arbalesters in MTW and fiery onagers in RTW.