Questions about Empire for CA?

[Trax]

What made you decide on 1820 as the end date for the game?

Hmmm, Napoleon died 1821

[Rodion Romanovich]

1820 seems good to me. 1815 was the end of the Napoleonic era, and this gives the player 5 years more of gameplay if he doesn't manage to achieve his goals by 1815, or to play a bit of cleaning up and experience the consequences of these wars. IMO start dates should be tied to interesting historical events but end dates don't need to

[Incongruous]

How are they going to recreate the seriously different mode of warfare during the Napoleonic Wars? I know there are unit reforms but there' more to it then that.
A seperate campaign would be better.

[Darkarbiter]

How are they going to recreate the seriously different mode of warfare during the Napoleonic Wars? I know there are unit reforms but there' more to it then that.
A seperate campaign would be better.

Napoleonic changes just like any other reform will probably be dynamic or random. Due to the fact that they are dynamic they might just skip Napoleonic wars if needs be... after all historical dates aren't enacted exactly when playing TW games.

[Adrian II]

Napoleonic changes just like any other reform will probably be dynamic or random. Due to the fact that they are dynamic they might just skip Napoleonic wars if needs be... after all historical dates aren't enacted exactly when playing TW games.

Skip. the. Napoleonic. Wars?

My friend, I believe you seriously underestimate the likes of Captain Fishpants and their prepossession for historic detail and accuracy. Of course Sid Meier's motto still holds -- "When fun and realism clash, fun wins" -- but playing for or against Nappy is precisely the sort of fun that no TW player or developer would be deprived of. Timelines may be mixed up, borders may be totally different from 1796-1815. Heck, Bonaparte might even be British for all we know, and he may meet his 'Waterloo' somewhere in Spain whilst Nelson meets his 'Trafalgar' somewhere off Sicily. But the Napoleonic Wars are going to be part and parcel of this game or my name is Doofus Dietermeyer.

[pevergreen]

Australia wont be in this game. They said 3 continents. America, Europe, N Africa. part of Asia.

Australia is too far out of the way

[Bijo]

Australia wont be in this game. They said 3 continents. America, Europe, N Africa. part of Asia.

Australia is too far out of the way

I don't find that too bad, though if it would be included I wouldn't mind either.

[TosaInu]

Australia wont be in this game. They said 3 continents. America, Europe, N Africa. part of Asia.

Australia is too far out of the way

Hello pevergreen,

Wasn't Australia 'just' a British penal colony during those days? That and Aboriginals living their lives in a huge continent. Sorry, I don't know that much.

[Fisherking]

@ Bopa the Magyar
Do you think so?

Formations have always been controllable and always had an effect on the outcome of combat.

Most of the weapons themselves go back to the 15 or 1600s and it was just discovering novel way to use them...combined arms and better command and control. The use of field artillery in support of infantry assault... We have been doing it since Rome.

The socket bayonet began to be issued about 1704 in British units and German ones but was later for the French.

These things come along over time and then just all get put together in an innovative way by someone. It is not so much the units as the way of using them. It ultimately wound up in trench warfare and was countered by the tank...the tank developed blitzkrieg warfare which is just heavy cavalry in a new form...with combined arms support.

The thing I have been missing so long in these games is mounted infantry. You were not able to dismount hobblers to act as a spear wall and move like cavalry. We will see if you can hide your dragoons in the woods to ambush an infantry column or fight dismounted in combat but move like horse.

[Incongruous]

Ok.
The weapons in use were not from the 1600's, you wouldn't call a rifle from today the same as one in WW1/2.

The way warfare was conducted was a direct result of the French Revolution. It was just that, revolutionary. The levee en masse, wiped the floor with its opponents. Warfare was re-born.
I know about the bayonet, as you can see from my posts in the What is this game? thread.

It just seems like such a waste of a good opportunity for the expansion.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Of course such things can always be done with scripted events... Otherwise there's the option of making it develop as a consequence of political decisions that the player makes. Well, tbh I hadn't thought about that when I suggested 1820...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

How are they going to recreate the seriously different mode of warfare during the Napoleonic Wars?

Make new units recruitable: Post-Revolution Infantry and Post-Revolution Tirailleurs and what not... with higher morale and the ability to form columns and regroup as lines. But they already stated "columns beat lines", what will royally screw battle tactics I guess.

[ratbarf]

Mr. CA guy. Will there be gatling guns? Oh please let there be gatling guns.

[Fisherking]

That is just a bit beyond the scope and time line of this game.

They are ending it just short of the percussion cap and revolvers. The fixed cartridge comes a bit after that.

In this game it is still flintlocks and not fighting in the rain.

[Nobunaga]

Nice to see CA active in the forum again

[Daveybaby]

Mr. CA guy. Will there be gatling guns? Oh please let there be gatling guns.

And nukes!

[Vuk]

As far as modabillity, not so much a question as a request. Will support for Medieval mods or flying creatures/machines by implemented?

Thanks much,
General Vukahltor