Ideas about ETW (AI, city ancillaries, universities, parallel building, civic virtue)

[Sheogorath]

The complex economy and resource management that this sort of idea hints at is actually something I wouldn't mind Total War games experimenting with. Actually having to have iron deposits to build iron weaponry, needing horse stock for certain units etc.. it's the sort of thing that could really enhance the campaign map experience if done well, and also make the game more of a challenge.

It would be nice if these resources were geographically linked, rather than for factions. So if France took over parts of Russia they could eventually train Russian super-endurance ponies as well as European fast-but-easily-spent chargers. That way you could mix and match horsies for enhanced equine combat. Or create some kind of uberhorse bred from both .

What we need to do is crossbreed Civilization and Total War, for Civilization: Total War.

But yes, that sort of thing would enable factions to be represented better than before. But poor implementation could hurt the game badly. Remember Imperial Glory? Ugh.

Now, good implimentation (such as in Civ IV, where you just had to POSSES the resource and not worry about the whole 'I NEED 200 IRONS TO MAKE A CANNON DURR') would be excellent, and the basics are already in place for such a system. It would probably be possible to make it happen fairly simply, since they already had it in place for elephant and camel units, way back in RTW.

I like Sir Beane's point on how units shouldn't be faction specific, but more of a region specific make. In M2TW, it doesnt make sense that I can take over a town that was training a set of totally different set of units before, but somehow the facilities change to accomadate my units. This might make retraining a bit tricky though...

A mix would be appropriate, I think. Your factions line infantry, for example, should be able to be built anywhere. After all, linemen are linemen, they're supposed to be generic. Chuck 'em in a uniform, hand 'em a gun and send 'em into battle. Other units, yes, should be regional, like Finnish Jaegers, or Quantum Elephants

[Stinger123]

What we need to do is crossbreed Civilization and Total War, for Civilization: Total War.

But yes, that sort of thing would enable factions to be represented better than before. But poor implementation could hurt the game badly. Remember Imperial Glory? Ugh.

...but I LOVE Imperial Glory, and would love to play it if it wasnt for the freaking dog whom ate the disc before we could get a computer capable of playing it (our computer was stuck in the Warcraft 2 era, when Warcraft 2 was thought to have awesome graphics). Now, i would love to go back and play it, now that I am old enough to KNOW what im doing. FREAKING DOG

back to subject.... It would be nice to see militias in their traditional use.... last call infantrymen.
Such as if a loyal province is attacked, then a certain amount of peasants/militia will join in glorius battle for their King, their country, their family, their lives......
Or if the enemy attacks a province that has been near the edge of rebellion, and supports the enemy that is attacking, they would join the enemy, for the greater good, but in the end... the fools will be but a pebble in the path of your War Machine. (AD/DC Black Ice pun completely intended)

[Sir Beane]

back to subject.... It would be nice to see militias in their traditional use.... last call infantrymen.
Such as if a loyal province is attacked, then a certain amount of peasants/militia will join in glorius battle for their King, their country, their family, their lives......
Or if the enemy attacks a province that has been near the edge of rebellion, and supports the enemy that is attacking, they would join the enemy, for the greater good, but in the end... the fools will be but a pebble in the path of your War Machine. (AD/DC Black Ice pun completely intended)

Militia will pop up in any city not garrisoned by proper soldiers, but will not be able to be moved outside of the city they appear in. For the first time we will truly have a militia unit, and not just a soldier that happened to be trained in a city.

[Stinger123]

ahh, thanks, I wasnt quite sure.... now that thats clarified :)

[ConnMon]

I'm glad to hear that militia is actually a militia this time around. Just wondering, will militia vary from faction to faction? Like Italian Militia compared to Spear Militia?

[Sheogorath]

>Sir Beane

Probably not...it really wasn't a significant thing until some time after the games end. Too bad, though. If TW games had a proper logistics system it could have a major influence on the game. As it is...it would be hard to show the effects of such a technology.

>Sol

I'm pretty sure by Napoleon III's time canned food was fairly common. The Republic of France (the original one) offered a reward to whoever could come up with a process to quickly and efficiently can food. Nobody came up with one, but the French did get some food in cans, just not a whole lot, and eventually they idea went out of favor until the development of proper canning machinery.


As to militia, one would hope they would be different. As has been mentioned, different states had very different practices in regards to their militia. The Dutch, for example, had what was an almost professional army for a militia, very well trained and equipped by the standards of the day, while most states 'militia' were basically just guys who got a uniform (if they were lucky) a gun, and were thrown onto the field with a bare minimum of training. The Russian militia were lucky if they had uniforms at all, since all the state provided was a cap to mark the men as militia.

During the Napoleonic wars, the Russians got so desperate that they started handing out pikes (the Swedes did this as well, if I recall). This did lead to some interesting developments, like the 'shotgun' column (it has a proper name, but I cant remember it), where two columns of professional troops would march on either side of a group of pike-armed militia, channeling them to the enemy and supporting them (or shooting them in the back :P) once engaged.

[Fisherking]

=Sheogorath;2103552
As to militia, one would hope they would be different. As has been mentioned, different states had very different practices in regards to their militia. The Dutch, for example, had what was an almost professional army for a militia, very well trained and equipped by the standards of the day, while most states 'militia' were basically just guys who got a uniform (if they were lucky) a gun, and were thrown onto the field with a bare minimum of training. The Russian militia were lucky if they had uniforms at all, since all the state provided was a cap to mark the men as militia.

During the Napoleonic wars, the Russians got so desperate that they started handing out pikes (the Swedes did this as well, if I recall). This did lead to some interesting developments, like the 'shotgun' column (it has a proper name, but I cant remember it), where two columns of professional troops would march on either side of a group of pike-armed militia, channeling them to the enemy and supporting them (or shooting them in the back :P) once engaged.

I think the American Colonial Militia was in the same boat as the other bottom of the barrel types. If they had a uniform it was provided out of pocket by their leader. If they had a gun, they brought it. If they had a hat, it was an old one from home.

That is why most of the early militias were armed with rifles and not muskets. Later the Continual Congress provided some funds to give them muskets with bayonets.

After Valley Forge, they my have received some School of the Solider, but before that it is very doubtful that they did more than show up and fight. Given who they were up against it shows what shear tenacity they must have had. Especially when you consider how few battles they actually won.
I think the physiological shock of losing to them in those few major battles was what really won the war for the Americans. Briton was just not sending more money down that empty hole.