What Factions would you like to see in Empire Total War

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Austria, through her imperial vassals, did have a competitive Mediterranean navy. (Part of today's Italy remained Austrian domain until the unification.)

But your point is valid.
.

[Furious Mental]

It shouldn't make any difference if a faction is landlocked. If you capture a huge port that has been used to build navies that gives you the labour and capital needed to build your own, simple. Any state which has acquired the resources to build a navy should be able to do so immediately. It is not like building a navy requires teaching marine engineering and naval warfare to the entire population.

[Zenicetus]

It shouldn't make any difference if a faction is landlocked. If you capture a huge port that has been used to build navies that gives you the labour and capital needed to build your own, simple.

No, it's not simple. You don't just capture a port with zero seafaring experience, and then compete on an even footing with a nation that's been doing it for 300+ years. You won't even know how to FIND the New World, let alone fight for it on blue water.

For that period of history, it was like the space race to the moon between the USA and the Soviet Union. That's what the "big boys" were doing with their economic power and technology. No small powers need apply. If Empire isn't actually set up this way, as a platform to play out alternate histories between the powers that actually could project power overseas, then I'm not going to be interested in it. I don't want to play a game where Switzerland can conquer the New World and drive out the other European powers. Just personal opinion... but that's over my "crazy scenario" threshold.

Any state which has acquired the resources to build a navy should be able to do so immediately. It is not like building a navy requires teaching marine engineering and naval warfare to the entire population.

Not the entire population no, just the ones who have to man the ships. Read history, and tell me why the Swiss and the Austrians didn't set up colonies in America, India, Australia, or the South Pacific. Why was it the countries that had deep experience in seafaring? You don't achieve that in just 100 years from scratch.

[Furious Mental]

Yes, it is that simple. People here talk about Britain, France, and Spain as "sea faring nations" as though nationality has anything to do with knowing how to build and sail a ship. What a nonsensical concept. All the 300+ years of experience to which you refer was concentrated in the port cities of these countries- with the exception of a tiny minority the national population was as ignorant about building and sailing ships as any landlubbing Austrian, Prussian, Russian, etc. Capture coastal provinces with shipbuilding and naval infrastructure without destroying them and exterminating their population and reason dictates that they should be able to be used to create a navy without a huge delay. After all that is what numerous states with no experience of shipbuilding or naval warfare have done down through history. The only qualification of this should be the need to spend more for foreign officers and to keep fleets happy.

"tell me why the Swiss and the Austrians didn't set up colonies in America, India, Australia, or the South Pacific. Why was it the countries that had deep experience in seafaring? You don't achieve that in just 100 years from scratch."

Could it be that they didn't possess any of the large ports upon which naval power was based, as I pointed out above? If, by chance, they had conquered Holland, or England or some other country with big Atlantic ports and plenty of ships there is no reason why they could not have.

[Fisherking]

Well since this is about factions you would like to see… I would like to see some of the west African kingdoms put in…even if it is just some place to go. I think some of their Amazon storm troops that inspire fear would be a wonderful addition.

As for excluding the Swedish that is plane ridiculous…In 1700 they my have been the greatest power in Europe. They just made some very bad military moves. Not only that but when they were home the army had 0 upkeep due to their recruiting and garrisoning policy. The whole kingdom (which included Finland and much of the Baltic Nations at the time) was divided into groups of about 10 family groups who sponsored and trained their infantry. If a solder died a new one was selected by the group and started his training. Their downfall was arrogance in taking on Russia with an expeditionary force much too small for what they had in mind. Even that almost worked except for some tactical errors and not withdrawing when the handwriting was on the wall. Had that not happened then Russia my never have had that Navy.

As I said before I think that technologies should be able to be acquired but as to penalties etc. I don’t know how to implement that…just have not thought about it in such depth but most of that comes with experience.

From what I understand the English had the best crews for their ships though the Dutch may have had the best ships. Later the Americans had the best crews but the English also had numbers that no one could match on their own. But that was a matter of National priorities. Remember this is about a game and not a Historical Simulations. Not everything should be set in stone.

Also Austria had a navy. We all know that the Turks had a very good navy but the Russians gave them a run for their money once they got ports and built ships in the black sea. Sure they had Danish and Dutch captains and maybe even some Scots so higher upkeeps may be in order.

The factions shouldn’t all have a group of vanilla units but there shouldn’t be areas of total exclusions either.

[anders]

I agree countries such as the british has maritime traditions wich should give them a definitive edge against countries lacking those traditions in developing and using navies, but, as has been said here, this is the 1800s, foreign shipbuilders can be hired, other nations wharfs may be annexed, ships can be bought and you can hire entire mercenary crews of dutch, norwegian or any other nationality of top notch seamen, plus british ex-officers to drill them. so theres no need to make an advanced navy unavailable to say the prussians, it should just be hard and expensive to get.

[Ozzman1O1]

I think the anwer to "who has better ships,the english or french,the britons or gauls"will never be anwered..

[Matt_Lane]

I think the anwer to "who has better ships,the english or french,the britons or gauls"will never be anwered..

The French, but the British had better trained sailors

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The seafaring warfare experience of England, Spain, and France goes back to the 15th and 16th centuries. That's a 300 year head start in technology and tactics, for the time period of this game. England beat the French at sea largely due to experience (a merit-promotion system, plus long merchant trade experience), not better ships. The French ships were better.

The new game runs for just a little over 100 years... 1700 to 1820. Think about it. Does it really make sense that a landlocked faction like Prussia or Switzerland should be able to fight huge naval battles against the British in this game? Are we looking for something based on a logical "what if" extrapolation of history, or a fantasy game?

Switzerland could maybe get the technology for a small fleet if they conquered certain provinces, but nothing close to a massive fleet the size of Britain's. Prussia, the Ottomans, and other places, on the other hand, would have the opportunity to spend on a navy, just with varying costs. If you're spending 70% of your income on naval issues, then why shouldn't you be able to have a decent navy? Besides, since the naval battles are playable now, you can turn the tide as an admiral. If you manage to sink some of Britain's navy with a handful of ships, then why shouldn't you be able to build a navy of your own, since you can clearly be a naval power? And what about gathering techniques from other nations in the world? That is possible, though, as I said before, it would take a lot of time and money.

[Zenicetus]

As for excluding the Swedish that is plane ridiculous…

To be clear, I wasn't arguing for excluding the Swiss as a faction, even a main player faction. What I said is that I hope they don't get the same tech tree for naval tech that an experienced seafaring nation gets. I will have a hard time believing this isn't just a fantasy game, if I'm adventuring in the New World as the French and I'm suddenly attacked in the Caribbean by huge fleets of Swiss ships of the line.

Is that actually making sense to anyone here?

Sure, let's give the player the option of seeing how far you could go in a land war playing the Swiss. Even hire whatever ships you need as transport to the New World for land battles there. It's the actual building and crewing of big naval fleets that are on par with what Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and (arguably) the Ottomans can produce, that I'm questioning, considering the relatively short 120 year time period of this game.

Allowing a faction like the Swiss to acquire serious naval power by hiring "mercenaries" would be a cop-out (IMO), unless it's done on a relatively small scale for harassing enemy shipping. Privateers during this period always targeted merchants, not military ships.

As I said before I think that technologies should be able to be acquired but as to penalties etc. I don’t know how to implement that…just have not thought about it in such depth but most of that comes with experience.

It's easy, just give each faction a different tech tree. The TW games already do this. In M2TW, IIRC the Spanish and Portuguese get the best end-game ships, although it doesn't have much impact on the game. By the end-game, anyone close to winning has a big enough economy to pump out whatever number of ships are needed, and the Spanish/Portuguese ships are only marginally better. That's accurate for the medieval period; the differences in naval tech should be much greater in the Empire period, if it's at all historically accurate. Another example of tech tree differences is the way the Byzantines lag behind in gunpowder units at the late game, reflecting the way the Western European factions were starting to make better use of the new technology. People who play the Byzantines gripe about that, but I think it adds an interesting flavor to that faction.

If CA is already doing this "handicapping" with the current TW games, then I don't see why they'd suddenly drop it with Empire. You'll be encouraged to pursue naval force projection with some factions, and land dominance with others. If you manage to beat a faction with a much stronger naval tech, it will be a more rewarding victory compared to just automatically receiving a magic navy if you capture a port city. We're always griping about how the game isn't challenging enough, right? So why shouldn't it be hard for a faction like the Swiss to take on Spain or France, with their much stronger naval power, anywhere but on the land?

Also Austria had a navy. We all know that the Turks had a very good navy but the Russians gave them a run for their money once they got ports and built ships in the black sea. Sure they had Danish and Dutch captains and maybe even some Scots so higher upkeeps may be in order.

The Turks yes, but I'm not sure about Austria. Didn't they only start serious naval development after the 18th Century? We have a very narrow historical window in this new game, compared to previous TW titles.

The factions shouldn’t all have a group of vanilla units but there shouldn’t be areas of total exclusions either.

I don't think anyone is arguing for total exclusion. I'm arguing for handicapping the tech tree, and the unit building tree if Marines are units on ships. The handicapping should be fairly heavy (IMO) for landlocked factions, or factions that weren't doing much on blue water before 1800, which is where Austria might fit in (not sure about that... haven't read up on it enough).

[Brian Mc]

Sorry if this was dealt with already, I stopped reading at page 5 or so.

I think Canada could work well in an expansion pack as BNA colonies, along the same lines as Denmark in the Britannia campaign. Confederation could work like some sort of take on electing a new pope, your colony can decide on if they want to join or not. Trying to play Upper Canada and fight off the Yanks while hoping for the colonies to come together could be a great challange. I doubt CA will make it happen, but I can dream.

[Anonymous II]

I would like to see a non-playable rebellion state of Flanders.

The Flemish cities should be owned by Netherlands, and become Flanders if a rebellion uprising ends with success for the rebels. Meaning: instead of becoming a rebel settlement like in Medieval II, they should become Flanders. If similar to M2TW, Flemish cities would be Antwerp and Bruges.

[Sheogorath]

Not the entire population no, just the ones who have to man the ships. Read history, and tell me why the Swiss and the Austrians didn't set up colonies in America, India, Australia, or the South Pacific. Why was it the countries that had deep experience in seafaring? You don't achieve that in just 100 years from scratch.

*coughcough*
*further fits of coughing*
Pretty much every European nation with access to an ocean or sea had overseas colonies to a greater or lesser extent.. 'Sept the Italians, but really, Italy has sort of been the military laughingstock of Europe since Rome fell.

[Freedom Onanist]

*coughcough*
*further fits of coughing*
Pretty much every European nation with access to an ocean or sea had overseas colonies to a greater or lesser extent.. 'Sept the Italians, but really, Italy has sort of been the military laughingstock of Europe since Rome fell.

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.

[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.

[Zenicetus]

I am a bit surprised that the American Revolution is making it into the next one.

Well, the game period runs to 1820 or thereabouts. Many people (not just the American audience) would think it was strange if that part of the world remained a British colony all the way through the game. Also, the Revolution keeps England from being too much of a powerhouse faction, with all those extra resources in place.

The alternative, of just leaving it wilderness and Indians wouldn't be historically accurate because the British had been there since, what, 1607? And the Spanish even sooner. Sure, it will help sell more games if the U.S. audience can play as America, but I see that as basically a side-effect from maintaining a semblance of historical accuracy, and keeping the brakes on England in the game.

The Spanish colonies are another question. Will Spain have its colonies in place at the start of the game, and keep them throughout? IIRC, the wars of independence for Mexico and Peru happened right at the end of the ETW game period, so I guess Spain will keep them unless they're taken by another faction.

[Anonymous II]

I would like to see a non-playable rebellion state of Flanders.

The Flemish cities should be owned by Netherlands, and become Flanders if a rebellion uprising ends with success for the rebels. Meaning: instead of becoming a rebel settlement like in Medieval II, they should become Flanders. If similar to M2TW, Flemish cities would be Antwerp and Bruges.

Any views on this?

[Alexander: The hellenic empire]

Definitely could see the first expansion being an collection of "struggles for independence" wherein you could fight your way to establishing any one of the following countries that "finally gained" their indepedent status in the 19th century:

Italy
Germany
Mexico
Belgium
Canada

That would be great, however you must add one more:

Greece.


[I just picture the units in a Greek-ottoman struggle, awesome!]

[Ozzman1O1]

What about the thirteen colonies?america,home of the free and the brave!and the battle of lexington and concord,french indian war,western explorations,and the seminole wars!!!(seminoles rule!FSU(american college footbal team)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, the game period runs to 1820 or thereabouts. Many people (not just the American audience) would think it was strange if that part of the world remained a British colony all the way through the game. Also, the Revolution keeps England from being too much of a powerhouse faction, with all those extra resources in place.

It'll probably work like the emerging Briton faction in BI, where they emerged if your happiness level was too low. I'm hoping they make events for it, but I don't think that a British player should be punished if they keep their colonies really happy.

[woad&fangs]

In the early 1800s, Aaron Burr(a former vice president who killed the secretary of treasury in a duel) plotted to claim territory acquired in the Louisana Purchase as his own personal country. The Sultanates of the Barbary Coast Pirates should also be in.

[SenecaTheYounger]

By the way. It would be great when all 50 factions could be playable in the multiplayer part. And i hope that the 10 factons are just starting factions. It would be really great to make nations like the Muhgal empire or the Sawafid persia playable. To win the Campaign with this factions you just have to survie the other empires