Trait: Dislikes Gunpowder

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am sure I am going to be booed out of here, but I've never been a fan of the gunpowder era of warfare.

Can anyone give me a pep talk to get me enthusiastic about Empire? Or am I just going to be miserable until Rome 2, Shogun 2, or Medieval 3 come out?

[Warmaster Horus]

Booo!

Anyway... Apparently it's not all about gunpowder. Melee is still important.
And why do you dislike gunpowder?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Gunpowder renders obsolete the sword, the shield, non-gunpowder cavalry, armor, archers, most kinds of walls, castles, catapults, trebuchets, billmen, and all other of my beloved units from medieval times.

I personally dislike gunpowder for a number of reasons. With a sword, killing innocent people is an act of murder. With gunpowder-based weapons, cannons, and other explosive weapons, killing innocent people is called collateral damage.

But that's besides the point. When I played Medieval, I found battlefield tactics useful. Then gunpowder shows up and it gets reduced to (more or less) standing in a line and firing at the enemy until they are all dead. That, and "who has the most cannons".

Granted, I am oversimplifying. But I'm just describing where the distaste comes from, not writing a professional argument.

[Sheogorath]

Weee-eelll, in the early part of the game, pikes and polearms were still in use. In fact, many nations still issued NCO's with halberds up until the Napoleonic wars (although it was more for beating men into line than actually fighting the enemy).

Anyway, melee will be a big feature of ETW. Judging by the interviews, they're probably going to put even more emphasis on it than they should, which makes sense, from a gameplay standpoint. Its sort of boring (to most people) to just watch your dudes stand in a line firing and reloading over and over until one side runs away.
Even IF they go %100 historical, there was plenty of melee fighting in the games time period. Huge bayonet charges, cavalry, that sort of thing.
Just play as the Russians. If CA has any sense, they'll be the kings of melee :P

[Martok]

And why do you dislike gunpowder?

I'm guessing for much the same reasons I don't like it.

In many ways, the introduction of gunpowder (and its subsequent increasing use) heralded the beginning of the mechanization/modernization of land combat. While fascination to read about and/or watch on the History Channel, it has never interested me that much from a gameplay standpoint. I like to see men killing each other with good old-fashioned metal & wood implements crafted by weaponsmiths, not shooting each other with with some....contraption made possible by (relatively) modern technology.

Also, I -- along with many people, I suspect -- have a hard time dismissing my long-held impressions that warfare in the time period covered by Empire almost always consists of men simply lining up and shooting each other. (Which you have to admit, sounds pretty boring on the face of it.) Intellectually, I realize this is an unfair assessment, and that combat during the era was actually quite a bit more complex than that, but it's difficult to internalize to the point where I truly *believe* it.


My interest in ETW isn't because of the land battles. It's because of everything else that CA has promised.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Reads Martok's post

in approval.

Martok is a man after my own girlish heart.





Coughs up a half-eaten spleen

______________________

EDIT: Basically I don't like the idea of gunpowder warfare. When it comes around in M2TW, limited though it may be, I just lose interest.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Weee-eelll, in the early part of the game, pikes and polearms were still in use. In fact, many nations still issued NCO's with halberds up until the Napoleonic wars (although it was more for beating men into line than actually fighting the enemy).

Anyway, melee will be a big feature of ETW. Judging by the interviews, they're probably going to put even more emphasis on it than they should, which makes sense, from a gameplay standpoint. Its sort of boring (to most people) to just watch your dudes stand in a line firing and reloading over and over until one side runs away.
Even IF they go %100 historical, there was plenty of melee fighting in the games time period. Huge bayonet charges, cavalry, that sort of thing.
Just play as the Russians. If CA has any sense, they'll be the kings of melee :P

Yay melee!

I just imagine... what if Medieval 2 total war consisted of nothing but peasant archers, a few generals, and some cannons.

Shoot, reload, shoot, reload, charge, kill general, fire cannon. Oh, ok, some of the peasant archers have little blades on the end of their bows to spear each other with.

Meh.

[Martok]

Reads Martok's post

in approval.

Martok is a man after my own girlish heart.





Coughs up a half-eaten spleen

Ouch. That must've hurt.

EDIT: Basically I don't like the idea of gunpowder warfare. When it comes around in M2TW, limited though it may be, I just lose interest.

Ditto that. When playing MTW, I almost never start a campaign in the Late period, primarily because I don't like the prevalence of gunpowder units. Much better to start in the Early or High period, when it's still mostly swords, spears, bows, etc.

[Sheogorath]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yay melee!

I just imagine... what if Medieval 2 total war consisted of nothing but peasant archers, a few generals, and some cannons.

Shoot, reload, shoot, reload, charge, kill general, fire cannon. Oh, ok, some of the peasant archers have little blades on the end of their bows to spear each other with.

Meh.

Well, try NTW2 for a preview of what I HOPE ETW will play like. Sure, the INITIAL phase of the battle consists of lining up and shooting at each other, but thats just in the center. On the flanks you've got cavalry and light infantry trying to flank. You've got artillery in the background (or foreground, if you like to play it dangerous). You've got light cavalry hidden in the woods waiting for the moment to charge if your opponent overextends. All kinds of stuff.

Yeah, Napoleonic combat IS slower than the previous era OVERALL, but it generally consists of more localized action. You get to focus on smaller parts of the overall battle more.
Plus, once your enemy is getting low on moral, you can pull the 'ol hammer and anvil. A simultaneous cuirasser charge from the rear followed up with bayonets to the front.

It really just depends on how you play it.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ArtistofWarfare]

I personally feel that the battlefield strategy in Empire will eclipse anything we've seen in Total War to date, including perhaps even MTW:VI.

Thinking about all of the different types of gunpowder units and types of gunpowder weapons is exciting. Things like reliability, range, reload time - should all add a level of strategic depth to the game that will be different, but possibly even better than what we've come to know.

Combine this with the fact that melee still plays a role (and an important one at that) as well as cavalry and I think you're looking at the ultimate culmination of battlefield strategy, prior to full blown mobilization and mechanization.

On top of this, we have real time naval battles now. It really should be good.

Of course, if you want to avoid gunpowder entirely, Medieval warfare isn't even your flavor- Ancient warfare is.

Personally, adding the crackle and boom and "punch" of gunpowder armies onto my PC's Total War collection is something I can't wait for. January/February/whenever this game comes out - I anticipate my jaw hitting the floor during the first custom battle.

All of this said: I have a special interest in medieval warfare and always have. It's difficult for me to actually say "well this is my favorite era, then this era, then this one" because I just have a passion for military history as a whole. In other words - I'll be getting Empire unless CA really drops the ball. Even when I have it installed on my computer, I'll still play M2TW and MTW at times just because I like the era so much. On different days, I have different urges. Sometimes I would want to play out something like the Battle of Waterloo...other days? Agincourt. Just depends on my mood. But I do not specifically dislike any style of warfare. They're all part of an evolutionary process that continues today.

[pevergreen]

@AoW:

I mostly agree with AoW. I don't agree, however that this will be the most tactical. It does look like the best, as to what they promise, but I am the same as Martok, ingrained beliefs that there are no tactics besides stand and shoot.

[ArtistofWarfare]

@AoW:

I mostly agree with AoW. I don't agree, however that this will be the most tactical. It does look like the best, as to what they promise, but I am the same as Martok, ingrained beliefs that there are no tactics besides stand and shoot.

Hey, I fully understand your reservations...as well as Martok's. They're well founded. That said, you can certainly see the potential, as you've indicated.

I'm not the developer. I have no idea what they're really going to give us in the end. But you've seen my previous thoughts/ideas and if they're executed in game as they should be, even the skeptics should be pleasantly surprised.

Again: The potential is certainly there. We'll see where things go from here. In the meantime, it's an outstanding discussion to be having as we await the release.

edit: Look at Waterloo. Look at the various stages of that battle. The strategic level is...intense to say the least. Further, I think this battle clearly demonstrates the complexity of a battle with melee/artillery/gunpowder/hybrid units all working in a concerted effort. It's not just about rock/paper/scissor anymore - it's about timing and quick decision making.

[pevergreen]

Can you give a link for that AoW? I'm afraid I know nothing of this period of time. I know there was a battle at Waterloo, but not much beyond that. (not wikipedia please)

[ArtistofWarfare]

Can you give a link for that AoW? I'm afraid I know nothing of this period of time. I know there was a battle at Waterloo, but not much beyond that. (not wikipedia please)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you want to talk off topic, please PM me. I respect Martok, and how he moderates, lets not make him do any work.

Waterloo: This is what I could come up with quickly - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...erloo_01.shtml

It's one of the most important battles in history. You would definitely find the facts surrounding it as well as the tactics used within it, beyond interesting.

[pevergreen]

Wow, it seems that the squares and columns mean more than I thought. I can imagine the level of feinting with troops that will go on in MP.

The battle was closely fought and either side could have won, but mistakes in communication, leadership and judgement led, ultimately, to French defeat.

Thanks for the link AoW.

[Martok]

All right. Let's see if we can actually stick to the topic at hand now. If not, I will immediately close the thread down again, this time for good.

I would genuinely hate to do so, as I've been finding this to be a very interesting read so far. Some of you have made some good points about the complexity & variety of gunpowder warfare, and I'd very much like to hear more about what you guys have to say on the subject. So let's get back in there and discuss.

[Monk]

Honestly I have never had a great interest in the period, but it is one that intrigues me, if only for the fact that it is the period of history i know the least about. Perhaps that is why I am not very excited about gunpowder warfare, I'm largely ignorant in regards to it.

On the other hand, it's a new kind of warfare that is nearly completely alien, one that needs tactics that I have never even thought of attempting before. The word from CA is the AI is greatly improved, and the very fact that Jack Lusted is on board was enough to get be very excited to see what CA can do. Faced with an AI who can use the period's warfare to it's advantage, in an alien time period and lacking complete understanding of tactics - it should provide the greatest challenge of any TW game I've played since STW.

I'd be lying if I said i wasn't anticipating that. Of course there's always the chance my hopes will be crushed, but a man can dream yes?