GS Preview

[hoom]

only if they have had a turn to prepare them.

As in, the army has to have been static for a turn? I like that.

On the other side, will there be sap mines (wall breaching big bang type) available to some units on siege attack?

[rajpoot]

As in, the army has to have been static for a turn? I like that.

I think by 'defending forces 'Intrepid meant defence of forts and cities, i.e seige battles only, not in regular ones. Like placing mines outside the walls while enemy prepares his attack (in a turn).

Wouldn't make much sense for two hostile armies sitting face to face in the field for one whole turn would it.

[Intrepid Sidekick]

I can neither confirm nor deny anything more about prepared positions and fougasse.

Dont worry about the Constitutional vs Democratic thing too much. Its a legal definition. There are very distinct differences but they are a bit dry and dull to go in to. Wikipedia has a reasonably good article on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Monarchy

[Ignoramus]

Well considering they the gunpowder mines were used in the Leipzig battle, which involved a settlement, I'd say it probably does only apply to siege not field battles.

[seireikhaan]

I have to admit, I very well might consider buying ETW( assuming it indeed can run on my computer), if Gamespy is indeed accurate in that the AI is vastly improved in these areas. My only question now is whether or not the campaign AI can, as a whole, manage to NOT backstab me every 10 turns just for kicks like it seems to do in M2.

[Vuk]

I can neither confirm nor deny anything more about prepared positions and fougasse.

Dont worry about the Constitutional vs Democratic thing too much. Its a legal definition. There are very distinct differences but they are a bit dry and dull to go in to. Wikipedia has a reasonably good article on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Monarchy

Gunpowder mines were also used in battles in India that did not involve "settlements" of fortifications. If an army is not ambushed and has resonable time to set up defensive positions before the enemy is upon them, I do not see why they could not be used in regular battles. Of course that could be hard for you guys to implement as that would only work in a situation in which you had prior knowledge of an enemy position and had time to set them up before the enemy came within range. (which will be a hard thing to implement with a turn based campaign map)
Just my thoughts on the matter. :D

EDIT: Just saw those campaign map shots. Intrepid, I gotta say...man...your campaign map artists should be boiled in butter! :P The naval and land battles look positively beautiful, but the campaign map is a work of horror. I hope it is just a throw-together to show people, and not indicitave as to the final project. Sorry if I am too hard, but those arcade graphics scare me. I hope you understand

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Those shots are stills and not the final product.

What can't be seen is the richness of the terrain and the rippling oceans and lapping waves. Also the clouds scudding across the terrain and the trees slowly swaying in the breeze. Or any of the other animations and effects that are present.

[PBI]

Also the clouds scudding across the terrain and the trees slowly swaying in the breeze.

I wonder whether the weather effects visible on the campaign map will influence the likely conditions present in naval battles?

[Vuk]

Those shots are stills and not the final product.

What can't be seen is the richness of the terrain and the rippling oceans and lapping waves. Also the clouds scudding across the terrain and the trees slowly swaying in the breeze. Or any of the other animations and effects that are present.

I understand that Intrepid, and understand that you cannot really say more on the matter. I have no doubts that you guys will deliver fantastically on the special effects, but it is the general style that really turns me off. I may just be being picky, but it really seamed to cheapen the atmosphere and kill the mood to me. Esp the little 3rd buildings. Shots of cities on the battle map I saw seemed to have this same low-scale arcadish look. Kind of like not enough texture and too much colour. And the scale seemed very wrong too. You guys have always managed to put mindblowingly fantastic games out, and I have no doubt that you will this time, I am just getting a little scared now that the game is coming together. :P Could you tell me one thing though Intrepid? Is the whole bright colours/funny portraits/arcadish design/lack of texture/lack of scale thing a fill-in, or a design/style choice? I doubt it will effect gameplay very much, but I prefer the deeper, more realistic feel to games, so that is why I ask.

Thanks again,
Vuk

[Khazar_Dahvos]

regardless of what the final game looks like for the colors of buildings and such!!! You have my guarantee that it will be moddible and modded within the first 3 months of release. As long as the tools are available. So in reality it is one of the least concerns that I have for the game. The citys do look a bit to gaudy for my tastes. Looks abit like candyland

[Martok]

What can't be seen is the richness of the terrain and the rippling oceans and lapping waves. Also the clouds scudding across the terrain and the trees slowly swaying in the breeze.

Okay, even I have to admit that sounds pretty cool. Can't wait to see it in action.

Vis-a-vis the campaign map (on looking cartoonish/unrealistic): Again, how it looks doesn't matter as much to me, so long as it *works* well. Granted, I can understand some people's objections/concerns about the map looking somewhat cartoonish -- goodness knows I made the same complaints with Rome's -- but I've realized that I've become more concerned with function than form.