What Factions would you like to see in Empire Total War

[Sheogorath]

You are wrong about the Italians.

They had Libya. They also tried very hard to take over what is now mostly Ethiopia.

But in general, I think that a game called "empire", with a map that is pretty much global should focus pretty heavily on the oceans one way or another. But it is a game so a faction, like Austria, or Prussia should be able to expand to a sea port and grab itself a piece of the action. After all, when Prussia had annexed/united the rest of Germany the Kaiser's jealousy of his British cousin's empire was a not inconsiderable motivator for WW1. He always blathered on about wanting an empire on which the sun never set as well.

I think such countries should be at a disadvantage interms of cost and initial experience of naval units.

And Libya. They sort of failed it though. Like I said...the Italians are a bit of a military joke.
The Austrian navy was actually moderatly well equipped and trained, just very, very, small, something like 2-3 ships of the line at most. They and the Italians actually fought the first major engagement between ironclad warships in some more or less pointless war in the Adriatic.

But 'empire' isnt measured strictly by naval power. Russia had a decent navy, but it probably wouldnt have done too well against France or the UK. Russia wasnt too big into overseas possessions either, they had Alaska, but that was pretty much the most useless colony ever.
However, denying that Russia had a major influence on pretty much every period of history since Peter the Great took power, and before that here and there. Of course, most of Russia's empire will most likely get cut out of the map, since trekking across Siberia to get that last Russian city would be kinda boring.

[Kalle]

Naval power was not so exclusive to a few nations that some seem to think.

1703 Tsar Peter founds AND CREATES FROM SCRATCH the new Russian capitol, ST. Petersburg, on what was still officially Swedish land. A few years later the russians have created a navy that dominates the baltic in spite of long Swedish naval tradition. (and for that matter Danish but danes and Russians worked together this time)

They also came up with a kind of fleet adapted to baltic coastal regions that Sweden had no immidiate answer to. (skärgårdsflottan)

Later in the end of the 18th century Sweden had created an answer and in the second battle at Svensksund scored the greatest naval triumph in Swedish history, hundreds of ships were involved in that battle.

Apart from the Russians we can use the Romans as an example. From virtually nada they created a navy that managed to wrestle naval dominance from a naval power with great tradition in the field, i.e. Carthage.

Many so called small nations could rival the big nations during this time. Sweden and Denmark for instance both must count as major naval powers during the 17th and early 18th century, even at Napoleonic times the Danish navy was such a threat that Britain went to Copenhagen and made sure it could not be used by Nappy.

It might look strange so scarcely populated countries such as Sweden and Denmark could field powerful navies but indeed they could. Even stranger I think it is they could field armies that could rival the "big nations" on land but they did in both number and quality. In the case of Sweden the land forces were actually worlds best and strongest at some points in history (the years1700-1709 for instance).

The Swedish ship Wasa set to sea in 1628 if memory serves me right. It was the biggest warship in existance in that day and it was not the only Swedish ship either. It suffered a construction error though so it sank on it maiden voyage.

Also remember that these small countries, in spite of fighting land wars against almost all neighbouring countries, had spare resources to compete for colonies. Sweden had Cabo Corso in Africa and New Sweden in America. So it is not a to big step from history to let these countries get involved in the struggle for colonies.

/Kalle

[Sheogorath]

Quite. Small nations dont nessecarily have small navies. Look at the Dutch, they probably had the largest navy in the world, even bigger than the Royal Navy, although more geared towards protection of their trade than imperial conquest, 'though the Dutch did have a pretty large empire at one point.

Few people realize that Spain was still a major power in the 18th century as well. The Spanish Armada wasnt such a major loss, it coincided with the start of the decline of the Empire, but the war between the Spanish and British mostly ended because both sides got bored. Spain's power lasted up until the 1760's or 70's if I remember, which is when the British clearly surpassed them in naval power.
Spain also had the biggest ship of the line ever built during the Napoleonic Wars. I cant remember the name, but I believe it had 130 guns. Of course, it was basically useless because its top speed was something approaching a fast walk and apparently its captain thought it handled like a drunken cow.

Dont tell the British that though, 'cause the Royal Navy has ALWAYS been the single greatest power with uncontested control of the oceans.
*winkwinknodnod*

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Russia had a decent navy, but it probably wouldnt have done too well against France or the UK. Russia wasnt too big into overseas possessions either, they had Alaska, but that was pretty much the most useless colony ever.

If only they'd kept it. It's a treasure trove nowadays, with all the oil, water, and forests.

[Csargo]

If I'm not mistaken Russia made a good profit off of the seals and such from Alaska.

[Sheogorath]

-Evil Maniac
Its probably a good thing. The Soviets would've strip mined it, at least with the US there is opposition to tearing the top off to get at the oil and gold.

-Ichigo
The Russian Empire and the Russian America Company never turned a profit from Alaska. Some individuals did though. The problem was shipping, the RAC bought from the individual trappers, then the Russian Empire had to ship the furs across Siberia, which mean that by the time they got to Europe they were either more expensive than the competition or selling at a loss.
Meanwhile, those trappers made a good bit of cash selling to the RAC.

[Fisherking]

Point 1
What is more amazing is in the claiming of Alaska they had to travel all that distance, build infrastructure and build ships before they even found Alaska. It was a three year mission but it took five. I suppose you could say that the Russians colonized half a continent just by exploring what lay east of the Urals. After all, they had to map it as they went.
During the time of Catherine the Great they built Sevastopol and Odessa to name but two cities, but at the start of the game in 1700 Russia was no where near that size, though it had tremendous manpower…mostly slave labor…but then everyone still had slavery at this point.

Point 2
Ships built by the English were notoriously bad. It was not their design but the cheep and slipshod construction and it cost the lives of the men using them. It later became customary for the yet to be built ship to receive its Captain and crew first as to supervise the construction, and still after taking possession of the ship there was major rework to be done. It has been said that the famous Captain Cook lost his life ultimately from having to put in for repairs from shoddy construction. The American Civil Service was initially brought into being to have government workers build ships rather than trust the work to contractors, what they saw as the English error.


Point 3
As to factions I would like to see…and it would sure make it interesting…The Jacobites!
In 1700 Scotland was still a separate country. Only in 1714 after bribery and cajoling the Scottish assembly (by Queen Ann) into passing the act of union did it become Brittan. I won’t go into the Dutch invasion of 1688 that was glossed over as the Great Revolution because of Parliament and the lack of an army, or Billy holding a parliament at gunpoint. Ben Franklin actually had talks with the Stuarts, so if the U.S. had decided on a monarch guess who it would have been. Who knows, when Scotland is done devolving perhaps they will invite them as there figureheads just to tweak the English’s nose one last time.

I am sure someone has some thoughts on these and might share them.

[Sheogorath]

Point 1
What is more amazing is in the claiming of Alaska they had to travel all that distance, build infrastructure and build ships before they even found Alaska. It was a three year mission but it took five. I suppose you could say that the Russians colonized half a continent just by exploring what lay east of the Urals. After all, they had to map it as they went.
During the time of Catherine the Great they built Sevastopol and Odessa to name but two cities, but at the start of the game in 1700 Russia was no where near that size, though it had tremendous manpower…mostly slave labor…but then everyone still had slavery at this point.

Mmmmh, Russia was still pretty big in 1700, most of its expansion across Siberia took place under Ivan IV. Peter the Great, I believe, got them Alaska, Kamchatka and a few other little details they forgot the first time around. Catherine snagged the south of Ukraine and the Crimea.
And you have to remember, the Russian population of Alaska was about 300 at its height. Most of the 'colonists' were native people.
Still, Bering's exploration is definitly underappreciated, I agree. Trekking across Siberia, BUILDING his own port (and ship) THEN sailing to Alaska. I dont think any other explorer had that particular issue.
And there were a few European states that had outlawed slavery. Contrary to the British opinion that they were the first to outlaw it, the Danes (or Finland? I cant remember) outlawed slavery in the 1400's.

Point 2
(snip)

Point 3
(snip snip)
I am sure someone has some thoughts on these and might share them.

While its a lovely thought that somebody might take issue with the British view of history, I doubt it will happen in this case. This is a video game, which means it will most likely go with the standard British-leaning view of hisotry. To do otherwise invites criticism and might alienate the mainstream.

[Fisherking]

You may have a point there. These TW games always avoid seminal points in English History…like 1066 or 1688... I am a bit surprised that the American Revolution is making it into the next one. So unless some enterprising moder does a make over then we are stuck with Norman kings or the same old Georges. But you have to admit that an ever present Jacobite threat was there until the end of the century and a couple of times it made a difference at least for a while. It isn’t a good idea to script in events of such uprisings as they get planed for. The English faction came out the winner in reality but if events had been just a little different…as in a game…what might have happened? It is a game and it is to some extent about what ifs.