STW 2 instead of MTW 2

[CBR]

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.

Actually you are mistaken The marching forward in rigid formations was something from 18th century warfare. Napoleonic warfare was a breakaway from the oldfashioned linear warfare with the newly introduced corps that had all three elements (cav, inf and art)


CBR

[Furious Mental]

I think what he's talking about is companies of musketeers firing volleys at each other, which I'm pretty sure was a feature of the Napoleonic era.

[De' Medici]

I would say no, no way, out of all the series, the one which had the best time period, setting, and case was medieval. The medieval era is the best era, and the lands surrounding the mediterranaen are the best for the game, due to many factors. Cultural clash, religious clash, racism, fundementalism, chivalry, honour, and utmost cruelty.

Same here.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Duke John - 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.

[AwesomeArcher]

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]

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]

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...

[Grifman]

Should the makers of the game have made a Shogun Total War II instead of a Medieval Total War II? I think they should have because Shogun was the first total war game to come out and it has a lot of room for improvement with all the new graphics and battle engines. What do you think?

It's irrelevant since they're not.

[sunsmountain]

Anyway, rest assured. There'll be a Shogun mod for M2:TW.

Just like there would be a Medieval mod for RomeTW, that i haven't found anywhere yet... (well, a good one anyway)

...by the time the modders fix the game, a new version is out. In essence, CA is just another good mod team. :)

[econ21]

In essence, CA is just another good mod team.

Please don't disparage CA. Good modders understand they can do nothing without the engines provided by CA. Standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.

[IrishArmenian]

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]

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.

[doc_bean]

Just like there would be a Medieval mod for RomeTW, that i haven't found anywhere yet... (well, a good one anyway)

...by the time the modders fix the game, a new version is out. In essence, CA is just another good mod team. :)

You don't like Chivalry TW ?

[Lord Adherbal]

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.

aye, all that is taken into account in NTW2.
close range musket fire is deadly and will rout or destroy units in a few volleys. So you can't just march your line in front of the enemy army and start shooting. Half your army will be dead before you get there. Terrain is very important (we're only using custom made battlemaps, not campaignmap locations) because it offers cover and bonuses to both the defender and attacker. Cavalry is deadly when it can catch isolated units, but will take severe casualties against solid bodies of infantry and close range musket fire. Artillery can decimate anything that isn't protected by hill or building, and close range cannister (basicly a huge shotgun) fire is deadly. But light infantry is difficult to hit and they can snipe your art crews if you place them in the front rank. Thus you need your own light infantry to keep the enemy's at bay. But light infantry is vulnerable to a quick cavalry charge, so you have to keep your own cavalry or line infantry close. But don't leave let them leave the protection of hills for too long or they will become a cannonball magnet.
I assure you, nap warfare is far from a simple "line up and fire"

[tutankamon]

Personally i would have loved to se a Bronce Age: Totalwar, Instead of STW 2 or MTW 2... but perhabs that'll come..

[IrishArmenian]

You got me there, econ. I had never actually realized all the details. I am not exactly an expert in Napoleonic warfare. In fact, I was just a little aware of Napoleon's tactics, seeing as I am closer to Russia, I am more knowledgeable about the incredible abandonement of Moscow and the great fire that caught Napoleon by suprise. But back to my original idea, I am not sure about this, but I think there is also less faction choice in Napoleon's time. Everyone consolidates power and there are very few (beside Prussia, but they were excellent fighters) small factions that are like buffer zones between two larger ones. I always like playing like that.

[econ21]

But back to my original idea, I am not sure about this, but I think there is also less faction choice in Napoleon's time. Everyone consolidates power and there are very few (beside Prussia, but they were excellent fighters) small factions that are like buffer zones between two larger ones. I always like playing like that.

But again, I think the Napoleonic period is rather suitable for Total War because unlike, say the American Civil War, there were quite a few Great Powers. Moreover while it did kind of end up with everyong ganging up on France, the alliances often broke down and some surprising if ephemeral ones emerged. (IIRC Napoleon got Austria to send troops with him into Russia; he also tried to get the other continental powers to unite against England).

Basically you would have:

1. France - having access to large nationalistic armies of good quality; initially the most powerful faction, if the one every one loves to hate.

2. England - loads amoney, implacable enemy of France, dominant navy; very good troops but few of them.

3. Austria - main land enemy of France; sizable armies of varied quality

4. Prussia - very interesting "tech tree" possibilties, as it switches from linear 18th century tactics to ones that match the French at their own game

5. Russia - potentially the most powerful rival of France; big armies of good quality; almost unconquerable hinterland

6. Spain - large navy; very interesting possibilities for guerilla warfare and attrition if conquered.

Plus some minor powers - e.g. Poland; Portugal; Denmark; Netherlands; minor German and Italian states etc. You could add Egypt and Turkey as well.

On the grand strategic level I think it would work brilliantly with MTW glorious achievements - goals that tended to pushethe French and the others into conflict, but still allowed flexibility and diplomacy.

[Furious Mental]

I think there would be just as much strategy in a Napoleonic game. It's true that practically all infantry were armed with flintlock muskets with bayonets, but I view that as an opportunity for more flexible tactics because (I don't know much about Napoleonic warfare so forgive any mistakes) you can adapt your musketeers to the situation by using different formations. For instance as I understand it the column was faster and had more morale so I figure you'd use it to charge or flank. The line obviously had the most firepower but was I suppose less mobile. Then there was the box, for defending against cavalry, but I imagine that it was rather static (and every account of the Battle of Waterloo that I've heard said it was vulnerable to artillery, so I'll assume it was), and because three quarters of the troops weren't facing forward could be wrecked by musket fire. Then you could have light infantry who could have the additional ability to skirmish, which in a game would I guess consist of dispersing into an open formation and firing, running back, and reloading as individuals. Obviously hard to hit with artillery and by other musketeers but suicide versus cavalry. Light infantry would also be faster and have more endurance I guess. You would also have rifle men who would be skirmishers par excellence, and perhaps because of their unusual accuracy might be specifically good for knocking off officers (reduce morale and cohesion) and other skirmishers.

I also now know that dragoons in the Napoleonic period didn't generally fight on foot but personally I'd be amenable to giving them that option, perhaps since it's an arcadey feature it could be switched on/ off. And perhaps the same with grenadiers chucking grenades in assaults, and the caracole (just as a way to shoot at and annoy enemy cavalry maybe). The other way to do it would be to have an earlier era when this sort of thing was actually done (at least as I understand).