Horse archers : oh, come on...

[antisocialmunky]

That's a little harsh isn't it? I rather have ETW than not and getting all bent out of shape over no move shoot on HA is kinda silly. Its understandable if not disappointing that they didn't bother implementing move fire for like 2-3 units.

[Beskar]

I think dragoons are quite realistic in many ways. If you don't think so, try reloading your muskets ontop of a horse and getting shot at. It is far more difficult than if you are on foot.

The reason Dragoons went out of favour is exactly that, the line infantry are far superior in terms of firepower and damage and with the advent of the machine gun, they became very expensive cannon fodder.

[Didz]

That's a little harsh isn't it? I rather have ETW than not and getting all bent out of shape over no move shoot on HA is kinda silly. Its understandable if not disappointing that they didn't bother implementing move fire for like 2-3 units.

Perhaps, but it true nevertheless.

There is no requirement on Creative Assembly to produce a game based on real world history. They could just go to town with something like Command and Conquer Red Alert. Instead they chose deliberately to target a market with people like me in it, who have an interest in military history and thus will buy their game simply because its based on actual historical facts.

Having targetted a market that is looking for authenticity, it seems only reasonable to expect that designers bother to do some research and actually produce what they promise. Had ETW featured Orc's and Goblins I might still have bought it, but would really be annoyed if the goblins couldn't fire from the back of their wolves, but the fact is horse archers could and did fire whilst moving. I actually have video footage should how it was done and exactly how accurate it was.

Incidently, just for the record I consider the same rules apply to film makers, and TV producers. Basically, if you can't be bothered to get it right then just don't bother in the first place, would be my message

[gollum]

Originally posted by Didz
Perhaps, but it true nevertheless.

There is no requirement on Creative Assembly to produce a game based on real world history. They could just go to town with something like Command and Conquer Red Alert. Instead they chose deliberately to target a market with people like me in it, who have an interest in military history and thus will buy their game simply because its based on actual historical facts.

Having targetted a market that is looking for authenticity, it seems only reasonable to expect that designers bother to do some research and actually produce what they promise. Had ETW featured Orc's and Goblins I might still have bought it, but would really be annoyed if the goblins couldn't fire from the back of their wolves, but the fact is horse archers could and did fire whilst moving. I actually have video footage should how it was done and exactly how accurate it was.

Incidently, just for the record I consider the same rules apply to film makers, and TV producers. Basically, if you can't be bothered to get it right then just don't bother in the first place, would be my message

From the point of view of the history *buff*, you are exactly right. But its not a secret that TW games arent hardcore games in any of the fields they touch. They are not hardcore wargames, not hardcore historical simulations and not fully mainstream pc games although they are partly all of those. From the point of view of CA its hardly worth it to fully satisfy a part of the fanbase at the cost of not satisfying the others and i dont think that anyone has a right to blame them for their approach. On the other hand fans of one or the other element will always bother to post blaming them, which in a way goes to show how much they are addicted to the game.

[Didz]

From the point of view of the history *buff*, you are exactly right. But its not a secret that TW games arent hardcore games in any of the fields they touch. They are not hardcore wargames, not hardcore historical simulations and not fully mainstream pc games although they are partly all of those. From the point of view of CA its hardly worth it to fully satisfy a part of the fanbase at the cost of not satisfying the others and i dont think that anyone has a right to blame them for their approach. On the other hand fans of one or the other element will always bother to post blaming them, which in a way goes to show how much they are addicted to the game.

True and I still watch 'Sharpe' even though its a load of rubbish. But if you are going to produce something deliberately for sale to people with an interest in history, you better expect to get criticsed when you get it wrong.

[PBI]

One could argue that the role and effectiveness of horse archers is about right even if the implementation is inaccurate - i.e. horse archers by this point have been rendered obsolete by gunpowder weapons. It would be far worse if the game were filled with horse archers wheeling around in circles with line infantry unable to hit them, rendering them overpowered.

It's a little unfair to argue horse archers being unable to fire when moving is down to a lack of research on CA's part, since they have had this ability in previous games; I suspect it has more to do with not wanting to spend too much time making essentially cosmetic changes to what is at best a niche unit and at worst an obsolete curiosity by this stage.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Didz
But if you are going to produce something deliberately for sale to people with an interest in history, you better expect to get criticsed when you get it wrong.

I am sure that counting the sales money of ETW prepares one well for criticism.

[al Roumi]

One could argue that the role and effectiveness of horse archers is about right even if the implementation is inaccurate - i.e. horse archers by this point have been rendered obsolete by gunpowder weapons. It would be far worse if the game were filled with horse archers wheeling around in circles with line infantry unable to hit them, rendering them overpowered.

It's a little unfair to argue horse archers being unable to fire when moving is down to a lack of research on CA's part, since they have had this ability in previous games; I suspect it has more to do with not wanting to spend too much time making essentially cosmetic changes to what is at best a niche unit and at worst an obsolete curiosity by this stage.

Maybe, but it begs the question as to why bother putting them in the first place?

It feels like the balance and implementation of units in ETW is worse than it was in MTW2. Now obviously I'm talking about MTW2:Kingdoms with a multitude of patches, but ETW just doesn't feel anywhere near as polished.

I hope that the vaunted series of planned updates will address the many niggles and annoyances currently experienced. I can't even list the number of work arounds I've had to come up with to deal with buggy AI and unit "features".

Pain in the ass. I'll not even mention the North American Indian armies.

[Feanaro]

Playing as Martha, those Camel gunners are quite nice units... except they won't reload unless there's an enemy in range. Rather defeats the whole purpose of shoot and scoot, which is all they can do. They are plain useless most of the time, except that their range sometimes allows them to shoot out garrisoned troops.

[Kobal2fr]

Playing as Martha, those Camel gunners are quite nice units... except they won't reload unless there's an enemy in range. Rather defeats the whole purpose of shoot and scoot, which is all they can do.

That's also a problem with artillery. They'll only reload if they're in shooting mode. If you have them shoot, then stop for half an hour, then shoot again, they'll only start reloading when you give them the second shooting order. Lazy bums.

[miotas]

That's also a problem with artillery. They'll only reload if they're in shooting mode. If you have them shoot, then stop for half an hour, then shoot again, they'll only start reloading when you give them the second shooting order. Lazy bums.

sounds right to me. How can they anticipate how much powder they will need for the order you're going to give them in half and hour?

On the subject of mounted gunners, i think they should be able to fire one pre-loaded shot in any direction while on the move, but need to stop again to reload. I just don't see how it would be possible to measure powder and load a musket on the move, and of course horse archers should be able to fire constantly even while on the move and in all directions. I haven't used them myself but what's been explained sound pretty silly.

[Feanaro]

That's also a problem with artillery. They'll only reload if they're in shooting mode. If you have them shoot, then stop for half an hour, then shoot again, they'll only start reloading when you give them the second shooting order. Lazy bums.

My artillery don't seem to suffer from this problem. They will happily reload at any time. Hit enemies? "No, senior, we cannot do that but we reload just fine."

[Daevyll]

Had ETW featured Orc's and Goblins I might still have bought it, but would really be annoyed if the goblins couldn't fire from the back of their wolves, but the fact is horse archers could and did fire whilst moving. I actually have video footage should how it was done and exactly how accurate it was.

I have it on good authority that, historically, Goblins didnt really ride wolves but preferred bad tempered poodles instead. With video footage as well.

[quadalpha]

Instead they chose deliberately to target a market with people like me in it

That was their first mistake.

Most of the time my ranged cavalry are set to skirmish and do a nice job of luring one wing of the enemy to the other edge of the map (where they get slaughtered unless I remember to move them).

[Didz]

Sorry mispost.