And the next Total War game is....

**econ21** · 08-22-2007, 11:59

Fantastic! The Napoleonic and prior period is perfect for Total War. Both at a strategic level (multiple great powers, lots of expansion and conflict) and at a tactical level (interesting cavalry, infantry and artillery interactions).

**phred** · 08-22-2007, 13:44

here's a nice preview

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...70570&skip=yes

**naut** · 08-22-2007, 14:08

Please, please, please make the diplomacy very, very solid, as it was such an integral part of the era.

If their's anything I'd like more than anything, it would be atmosphere. What I mean is the game adding a sense of immersion; lightening and thunder in battles, battlefields full of natural and human features, and that awesome fog from STW.

Good Luck in the development.

**Stuperman** · 08-22-2007, 14:08

I hope that all the gunpowder units don't ruin the battle's.

I'm very worried that they will

**Trax** · 08-22-2007, 14:22

I hope that all the gunpowder units don't ruin the battle's.

I'm very worried that they will

How can they?
After all this was an era of epic battles and great generals.

**Stuperman** · 08-22-2007, 14:39

Originally Posted by Trax

How can they?
After all this was an era of epic battles and great generals.

I'm not talking in terms of thier epic-ness, More all the tactics learned in all previous TW games are useless. And have been simplified to (quoting the CVG article) whoever has more muskets pointed at the enemy wins.

It sounds like Company of Heros or Command and Conquor style of control on the battle map, forget laying traps with hidden units or deploying troops in an intelegent manner to execute flanking manouvers.

They way it's described in the artile your troops can form a square, column or line. A line is used to kill troops, square to fend off cav (who've been nerfed big time it says) and column to advance on the enemy.

I always liked the TW series cause there was more strategy than "mass carriers/mutalisks/battleships/mamoth tanks". I hope that this aspect stays with the game.

**lars573** · 08-22-2007, 15:10

You just don't know enough about the era's combat. Everything listed in the article, the nerfing of cavarly and the getting the most guns pointed at the enemy is all historical for the era. Guns nerfed cavalry, it happened. Look it up if you don't believe me. The bayonette and the flintlock made infantry superior to cavalry, although Napoleon made them more important again they were ever after second banana to foot. And it's what made those formations so important.

**Stuperman** · 08-22-2007, 16:07

Originally Posted by lars573

You just don't know enough about the era's combat. Everything listed in the article, the nerfing of cavarly and the getting the most guns pointed at the enemy is all historical for the era. Guns nerfed cavalry, it happened. Look it up if you don't believe me. The bayonette and the flintlock made infantry superior to cavalry, although Napoleon made them more important again they were ever after second banana to foot. And it's what made those formations so important.

I'm not disputing the historical accuracy of what they are trying to do, I know that the gun changed warfare forever. I'm just saying that firearm warfare, and the combat system that I've grown to love in RTW and M2TW are ill suited for each other.

No more flanking, no more hammer and anvil, no more hiding units in the woods to charge thier 6 and make them route, None of the more elaborate tactics that have served all of us well apply any more.

To me (and this is only my impression) it sounds like all you will do is line your men up against the edge of the map, and wait for the enemy to get in range.