Trait: Dislikes Gunpowder

[Warmaster Horus]

I actually agree. Gunpowder equals Martok's description of two lines opposing each other and shooting.
But I think it's an oft-asked period, can really help for future/third party development, and will be different than just seeing better-looking models everytime.
And of course, at the beginning melee still dominates the battlefields. Mods will probably soon come out moving the timeline back to the Medieval ages. Without gunpowder, that is.

[Sol Invictus]

If CA depicts the tactics of the era with any degree of accuracy I think Empires will be great fun on the battlefield. This was the Age of Battles, between powerful nation-states all in the search for supremacy. Sure, there will be alot of opposing Lines of men shooting each other into oblivion, but there will also be the need to time bayonet charges, launching Cavalry charges, forming Squares when threatened by Cavalry, deploying Skirmishers, threatening Cavalry charges so as to create nice opposing Squares to blast with Artillery, and eventually using Columns to attempt to bull your way through the enmy Lines. It should be quite entertaining.

[PBI]

I actually feel that gunpowder combat will be more interesting than medieval melee-oriented combat, both as a spectacle (guns make cool booms) and on a tactical level. Here are a few reasons why:

* Lots of gunpowder means a lot less sieges and more field battles. You're worried that gunpowder battles will be a tactic-free mindless shootout? You feel that gunpowder makes combat random, cruel and impersonal? Well, tell me how exactly that does not apply to, say, trying to take a well-defended Citadel using only masses of spear militia? A situation where the only strategy available is a hopeless WWI style frontal charge into certain death, with victory achieved only by wearing the defenders down in mindless, tedious attrition. I personally feel that if the advent of gunpowder reduces the frequency of sieges to roughly the same frequency as bridge battles, that would be a big plus for gunpowder right off the bat whatever the battles are like.

* It is important to remember that in M2TW, gunpowder existed in the game primarily to show that the old ways of warfare were obsolete. As such their use was always going to be one-dimensional; musket tactics consist of Zulu-style blasting away at masses of armoured melee infantry until they are all dead or they close the distance, while cannon tactics consist of coolly blasting a single cannonball through a vastly expensive but outdated stone fortification and bringing the entire pompous edifice crashing down. There was almost no gunpowder vs gunpowder combat since the AI would simply spam masses of militia to send into the meat grinder, never teching up enough to train gunners, and since pikes were useless, cannons were useless on the field and cavalry were ridiculously powerful there was no chance of any meaningful tactical interplay between pikes, muskets, cannon and cavalry.

In ETW meanwhile, gunpowder will take center stage. True, one of the methods you can use to fight musketeers with musketeers is to line up at 50 paces and keep blasting away until one side breaks. But even with that one tactical option, there is a whole plethora of tactics you can use to ensure that it is your side that is left standing. There is just as much emphasis on the benefits of flanking as ever (which lets face it, is the only real trick in the bag in melee combat), to gain enfilade fire on the enemy gunners. Terrain is even more important than ever; in M2TW, a wall or farmhouse is battlefield decoration. In ETW, it will be a massive force multiplier and a key tactical feature of the battlefield. Rather than every battle being a straightforward head-to-head charge to melee combat followed by the usual scramble to the flanks, we will have longer, more thoughtful affairs, both sides skirmishing and maneuvering for some time in order to gain the upper hand in the ensuing musket exchange.

To boil down the two previous paragraphs, gunpowder combat will be better than pure melee because gunpowder gives two options: Stand off and fire, or charge to melee. Neither is dominant and the chances of success of each varies independently. Melee has only one option: Charge to melee. All the other tactics in melee battle are essentially just ways of improving the odds of success of that one option.

* Gunpowder is democratic. In medieval warfare, the nobles on their heavy chargers dominate all. The peasants are essentially driven to the field against their will with worthless weapons and no armour and hurled in to do the jobs the knights can't be bothered with or don't deem glorious enough. They have next to no chance of defending themselves against a knight on horseback coated in lavishly expensive armour.

In the age of gunpowder, the field is more even. No longer can the spoiled noble wade through the more lowly troops with impunity; instead, the cavalry must accept some humility, yield to the superiority of the infantry and wait for their moment. A musket ball will kill a baron just as easily as a peasant. The nobleman must treat his underlings with respect, because if he does not, the masses can rise against him en masse, bring his pompous cavalry charge crashing down with an efficient, democratic volley of musket fire, and send him to the guillotine. Vive la revolucion!

[Askthepizzaguy]

I will cede the points:

1. Objects on the battlefield now have tactical value.
2. Noblemen deserve to get their royal buttocks kicked if they think they are better than the masses.

However, I am stubborn and I don't get any thrill from the cool booms. I like the arch of archery, I dislike the linear nature of firing directly forward. I hate shootout battles because standing in a line being shot at is how the british lost the revolutionary war versus the 13 colonies. I'd like to see some guerrilla warfare.

I think after a few hours of hearing constant gunfire, I'll be getting a headache. Turning sound off now.

[Sheogorath]

I will cede the points:

1. Objects on the battlefield now have tactical value.
2. Noblemen deserve to get their royal buttocks kicked if they think they are better than the masses.

However, I am stubborn and I don't get any thrill from the cool booms. I like the arch of archery, I dislike the linear nature of firing directly forward. I hate shootout battles because standing in a line being shot at is how the british lost the revolutionary war versus the 13 colonies. I'd like to see some guerrilla warfare.

I think after a few hours of hearing constant gunfire, I'll be getting a headache. Turning sound off now.

I must admit, the constant booming of cannons DOES drown out the screams of the dying ;)

[PBI]

If your objection to gunpowder warfare is that you dislike it on an aesthetic level then that's fair enough; I would respectfully disagree since I happen to think huge explosions are cool as all whereas if I want to watch big scrum in the middle of a muddy field I will put on the rugby, but it is a matter of personal tastes and discussion isn't going to change any minds.

The point I would dispute very strongly is the idea that ranged combat is inherently less interesting than melee on a tactical level. I strongly hope the battles in Empire will be the most tactically varied and rich yet, both because of the reasons laid out in my previous post, and because CA at least seem to be placing a big emphasis on the AI this time around. Basically all of the previews so far have been along the lines of either "the naval battles will be really cool" or "the battle AI will be fantastic". Frankly, if the AI is anything like as good as they are making it out to be, then the armies could consist of nothing but twenty of a single generic "Infantry" unit for all factions and they would still be more exciting than the M2TW battles.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Askthepizzaguy continues being a party pooper, being the contrarian that he is.

Just re-enact everything that could possibly happen in Empire on your M2TW engine. Take two armies of mostly gunpowder units, say, France versus the HRE, and have them fire at one another for a while.

Use some decent cavalry, and their best cannons.

There. Now I just saved you a bunch of money!

[PBI]

Sounds pretty much like the Battle of Pavia in the Historical Battles section.

As a matter of fact, I quite enjoyed it (see CR's Historical Battles thread in the Citadel from a few months back if you're interested). More please!

Though I restate me earlier assertion: Gunpowder is relatively one-dimensional in M2TW because it a high-end technology designed to upset the balance of power. It is the same reason why the Muslim factions in M2TW are relatively generic and uninteresting; they are merely making cameo appearances in a game primarily about Europe. In ETW gunpowder will take center stage and the combat mechanics will be specifically built around making gunpowder combat interesting. The same way that because Broken Crescent has the Muslim factions as it's main focus, they are far more interesting, individual and well balanced than they are in vanilla.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Askthepizzaguy continues being a party pooper, being the contrarian that he is.

Just re-enact everything that could possibly happen in Empire on your M2TW engine. Take two armies of mostly gunpowder units, say, France versus the HRE, and have them fire at one another for a while.

Use some decent cavalry, and their best cannons.

There. Now I just saved you a bunch of money!

I think you're going to be pretty disappointed in Empire. This is a new era of warfare, where gunpowder is a major factor - not a side show.

You may "like" medieval warfare better, but I don't think your preference has any impact on the direction the developers will go with Empire. There's a lot of other gamers they're worried about pleasing.

Do a little research on the time period. It really does not resemble medieval warfare at all. Further, your "arch" of arrows, probably won't be seen too much either.

Looks like you'll be spending time modding M2TW while we play Empire. For the record, Empire looks like the best total war yet imo.

[Belgolas]

I personally think a group of 100 archers with longbows would be more deadly then a 100 guys with muskets. Think about it. They line up in a very very tight formation and don't wear armor.

[Warmaster Horus]

Uh... Thinking about it I don't see why.

A musket bullet will pierce armor. Arrows don't necessarily. Pit an archer against a musketeer, and I reckon the musketeer will win.

[Sheogorath]

It depends on the situation. In an open field, I'd say the musketeers have an advantage. Its where they're supposed to fight.
In woods or broken ground, though, I'd say the archers have a strong advantage.

But the muskets main advantage over the bow is numbers. You can train a man to fire a musket without shooting his own foot off in a day. Training an archer takes a looooooooooot longer. And a longbow is probably quite a bit more difficult and time consuming to make than a musket.
So really, its not a question of 100 men with bows vs. 100 men with muskets, but 100 men with bows vs. 1000 men with muskets.

Muskets have other advantages as well. Bayonets, the ability to fire prone (although reloading is a different matter), durability, and getting wet wont permanently damage them.

[Martok]

Both are good points gentlemen, but we're getting a little off-topic here.

I actually agree. Gunpowder equals Martok's description of two lines opposing each other and shooting.
But I think it's an oft-asked period, can really help for future/third party development, and will be different than just seeing better-looking models everytime.
And of course, at the beginning melee still dominates the battlefields. Mods will probably soon come out moving the timeline back to the Medieval ages. Without gunpowder, that is.

True, although I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen -- mods do take time, after all.

What's odd is that despite my general dislike of gunpowder being used in land battles, I'm actually looking forward to trying out the naval combat (so long as it's not too shallow & simplistic). I'm not really sure why, my enjoyment of the film Master and Commander notwithstanding.... Actually, never mind, that probably *is* the main reason why.