Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Empire 2 > Medieval 3

VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
edited February 23 in Total War General Chat
I wasn't sure what to title the discussion.

And I'm sorry it's such a long thread. Please bear with me on it.


But what I wanted to talk about is why a few settings would be far better TW games than the overly demanded Medieval 3.

Because I never really got why so many people drool over the idea of a Medieval 3 so much.

Because to me, there really doesn't seem to be all that much in the line of unique mechanics and such that CA could with the medieval period in a TW game.

But, I digress.


I really think that there's just so much that a TW game set in around a similar time period as Empire TW could offer to one set in the medieval period.

I say this because, I'm not just thinking about the main European factions that were in Empire TW, but of all the other possible factions that that time period could bring to the table.

Because I think that the game's campaign should start around 1650 or so, so that there's the most possible options for maximum amount of playable factions being spread across the map.

And with Warhammer 3's main campaign map going to be pretty much global in scale, it could potentially be much easier to do something like that for a game where it's just human factions.


I especially got interested in the idea of an Empire 2 after watching this.

Koxinga - The Pirate King of China - By Kings and Generals
https://youtube.com/watch?v=STXXtuoohXE

Especially at 4:20 of the video.

I mean, the hold video is pretty interesting and all, but it really made me think that this guy's faction would make for a rather interesting one in a TW game.

This faction could be somewhat of a Carthage of Asia, making use of all sorts of various mercenary units from all over Asian lands.


But I think that it was just that video in particular that made me realize just how many options there could really be for factions in an Empire 2 TW game.

I mean, I can think of a good number of different factions they could potentially bring into the game with expansion packs and so on. Because I do think that trying to bring in a full blown global map right off the bat could be kind of tricky for even CA to do.

But to keep it simple, I'll just list the more unique factions I think they could make based on the continent they come from.


Europe
Scotland

Africa
The Mali Kingdom/Empire
The Kingdom of Ethiopia (or whatever it was called at the time)

North America
Several of the major Native American tribes

Asia
The declining Chinese Ming Dynasty
The beginnings of the Chinese Qing Dynasty
Japan under the Tokugawa Shogunate
The House or Clan of Zheng in Taiwan (as mentioned in the video above)
A Vietnamese Kingdom (or whatever it was called at the time)
The Joseon Kingdom of Korea.
Tibet
The Mughal Empire
The early Maratha Kingdom/Confederacy
The Mongol Khanate


I would like to say things like the factions like Siam, Laos, Cambodia, or some nations or tribes in Southern Africa but I don't really know about what sorts of militaries they had or anything like that that they had during that time period.

So if anyone happens to know about what sort of militaries and such they had or anything like that, please feel free to saying something about it in a comment.


But that's just a list of factions they could possibly make unique in their own ways, at least in a unit roster way anyway.
Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on
«134

Comments

  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,583
    I chose not to reply last time, but I find it very well "lazy" to claim that M3 doesn't the option for unique mechanics.

    The HRE alone could have a ton.

    You could do Castle design if CA really wants to.

    China and more important perhaps Mongols in the medieval era also allow unique mechanics.

    Byzantine

    "Russia" (or better say Nowgorod and other russian factions)

    The crusader orders and the crusades itself could be basis for mechanics.


    To claim that an M3 lacks potential for mechanics is either ignorant of the Medieval period, TW developments since M2 or seriously lacks fantasy.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,754
    edited February 23
    If extending the map all the way to China, you're likely to only see Koxinga as a single pirate fleet.

    You name factions but no more unique mechanics for them. Forgetting as well most will end up looking and playing the same during the time period and become more uniform as time progresses due to the shared tech and combat styles. Yeah your suggestion has more cultures but the same could be applied for Medieval 3, just now with more diverse styles.

    Not forgetting the other elements such as recruitment systems being different in the Medieval period compared to the later ones and the lord system that's more defined.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    SiWI said:

    I chose not to reply last time, but I find it very well "lazy" to claim that M3 doesn't the option for unique mechanics.

    The HRE alone could have a ton.

    You could do Castle design if CA really wants to.

    China and more important perhaps Mongols in the medieval era also allow unique mechanics.

    Byzantine

    "Russia" (or better say Nowgorod and other russian factions)

    The crusader orders and the crusades itself could be basis for mechanics.


    To claim that an M3 lacks potential for mechanics is either ignorant of the Medieval period, TW developments since M2 or seriously lacks fantasy.

    Well, I meant more so that there wasn't really that many options for mechanics and such that haven't been done before. That wouldn't just be a redoing of what was already done in M2.

    And I really don't want that.

    I'd rather have a more unique TW game that could give a lot of options without just trying to repeat what has been done before.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,798

    And I really don't want that.

    Don't you know how many people are waiting for Medieval 3?
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    Commisar said:

    If extending the map all the way to China, you're likely to only see Koxinga as a single pirate fleet.

    You name factions but no more unique mechanics for them. Forgetting as well most will end up looking and playing the same during the time period and become more uniform as time progresses due to the shared tech and combat styles. Yeah your suggestion has more cultures but the same could be applied for Medieval 3, just now with more diverse styles.

    Not forgetting the other elements such as recruitment systems being different in the Medieval period compared to the later ones and the lord system that's more defined.

    I don't know dude.

    For so many people loving the idea of a Medieval 3, they seem to not remember that a lot of factions during the middle ages fought in very similar manners.

    Yeah, back in Medieval 2, there were a few factions that had slightly different playstyles, but they were the exceptions.


    And I would think that that map would be similar to Warhammer 3's "Immortal Empires" map or something, and stretch from parts of North America to Japan in the east.

    Now I feel dumb for leaving out Japan when first posting the discussion.


    And the reason I didn't try to name a bunch of unique mechanics for each factions is because they might not need them, but offer their own unique playstyle, at least when it comes to armies anyway.

    Because, well. This isn't Warhammer we're talking about, they're all just human factions. So I find it a little hard to think that they'd all "need" super unique mechanics.

    I can think of a few unique mechanics for a few of them, but if you applied those to other factions, they wouldn't really be unique anymore.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    edited February 23
    jamreal18 said:


    Don't you know how many people are waiting for Medieval 3?

    I know just how many are. I've seen the poll that was posted.

    But I don't care.

    I think that for everyone drooling over Medieval 3, they miss several key problems the setting would most likely have.

    And those would be.


    1. Most of the factions would end up playing in a very similar manner.

    Yeah, not literally every faction in M2 was nothing but the European Heavy Infantry and Cavalry, but most of them were.

    And aside from a few exceptions like Russia and kind of Sicily, most of the European factions had that focus on heavy infantry and cavalry.

    And yeah, there was Egypt and the Turks and Mongols and Timurids, but two of those weren't playable.


    2. What unique things can they make for the time period that aren't just recreating what they did in Medieval 2?

    That's kind of what I'd most worried about with the idea of a Medieval 3.

    What can they really do with a Medieval 3 as far as mechanics and such that wouldn't turn it into those EU4 type games.

    Because I really don't ever want the TW games to become like those boring games.


    3. I think that the over hyping of the setting would lead to disappointment.

    I think that as much as people want a Medieval 3, many of them have hyped themselves up over Medieval 2 and except the same exact thing to happen, that they'll most likely be disappointed when Medieval 3 isn't the greatest TW game ever.

    And I personally think Medieval 2 is really overrated, mainly because if you look back at it without rose tinted glasses, you'll see that it's lacking a lot of things that make the more modern TW games much more functional.


    But those are just three of the biggest problems with the setting that I could think of right off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's probably more I could think of given a little time.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,583
    edited February 23

    SiWI said:

    I chose not to reply last time, but I find it very well "lazy" to claim that M3 doesn't the option for unique mechanics.

    The HRE alone could have a ton.

    You could do Castle design if CA really wants to.

    China and more important perhaps Mongols in the medieval era also allow unique mechanics.

    Byzantine

    "Russia" (or better say Nowgorod and other russian factions)

    The crusader orders and the crusades itself could be basis for mechanics.


    To claim that an M3 lacks potential for mechanics is either ignorant of the Medieval period, TW developments since M2 or seriously lacks fantasy.

    Well, I meant more so that there wasn't really that many options for mechanics and such that haven't been done before. That wouldn't just be a redoing of what was already done in M2.

    And I really don't want that.

    I'd rather have a more unique TW game that could give a lot of options without just trying to repeat what has been done before.
    there is alot of M2 didn't do in terms of mechanics.

    And you don't really give example where an Empire 2 would have "new" mechanics while a M3 would have old mechanics.

    The HRE alone would give plenty of room for mechanics that neither M2 or TW at all, had.
    Post edited by SiWI on
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    edited February 23
    SiWI said:


    there is alot of M2 didn't do in terms of mechanics.

    And you don't really give example where an Empire 3 would have "new" mechanics while a M3 would have old mechanics.

    The HRE alone would give plenty of room for mechanics that neither M2 or TW at all, had.

    I think you mean an Empire 2.

    I know that M2 was lacking in a lot of ways.

    And I didn't really try to list a million different mechanics and such for each factions because of two main reason.

    1. This isn't Warhammer and they're all just human factions.

    I don't think that each faction necessarily needs a ton of unique mechanics to be interesting to play.

    That kind of leads into


    2. The Empire 2 factions could have a more unique playstyle with how them make their armies.

    I say that because as much as some people believe that the heart of the TW games is the campaigns, they don't really understand that it's the battles that are the real heart and soul of the TW games.


    So I'm thinking of the human factions in an Empire 2 a little more from a battles perspective than a campaign's mechanic one.


    But I do think there's a mechanic or two that they could give a few of the factions.


    Like the Kingdom of Ethiopia (or whatever it was called at the time) could have a choose their religion mechanic, where they could choose between three different religions that could not just grant bonuses to relations with factions of similar faiths, but maybe even grant a number of special units for each one.

    I just think that such a mechanic could work for them because their lands are in a bit of a strange place as far as religions are concerned. They were historically mainly Orthodox Christian, but there were Islamic beliefs all around them. And I'm sure in some more rural areas that there might've been some old tribal beliefs still around.


    But if they stayed Christian, they could maybe get access to some units like "Ethiopian Knights" or something that are modeled after the European heavy cavalry of the time, with a regular and a Royal versions of the knights.

    I would think that they regular Ethiopian Knights would be armored in mostly mail or scale armor, while the Royal Ethiopian Knights would have half plate armor, similar to that used by the Polish Winged Hussars, but without the wings obviously.

    But I also think that they could potentially get bonuses to diplomatic relations with other Christian factions.


    If they chose to go Muslim, they could maybe gain access to some Muslim style horse archers or something and gain bonuses to diplomatic relations with other Muslim factions.


    If they chose to follow the "Old Ways" of a more tribal religion, they could get access to units like a Disciples of Apedemak from Rome 2 or some other things like that, and get bonuses to most of their unit's morale and such.

    But they wouldn't really have the best relations with either Christian or Muslim factions, as they would be going "pagan".


    See, there are things I could think of as faction mechanics, but I wouldn't want to see such a mechanic be for too many factions, or it wouldn't be unique anymore.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    edited February 23
    And pardon me guys, but I don't see any of you guys explaining any of these mechanics that you think a Medieval 3 could have.

    I might take the idea of a Medieval 3 more seriously if some people would explain what sorts of mechanics CA could implement that wasn't in Medieval 2.

    Without turning the game into boring EU4.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,583
    So you say that because they are humans they don't need different mechanics that much but then also say that Empire 2 would have more then M3.

    And to illustrate that you take a mechanic which could easily made for M3.


    Call me unconvinced.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    SiWI said:

    So you say that because they are humans they don't need different mechanics that much but then also say that Empire 2 would have more then M3.

    And to illustrate that you take a mechanic which could easily made for M3.


    Call me unconvinced.

    Quit trying to put words in my mouth dude.

    I said that it was more that I don't think every faction or culture needs a million unique mechanics since they are all human and wouldn't need as many mechanics as a standalone race in Warhammer.

    And unlike in a Medieval 3, the religious mechanic for Ethiopia would not only be a little more realistic, but would be far more impactful if it was just done for just them.

    Because if you just make a religious mechanic for EVERYONE it isn't unique anymore.


    But yeah, in a sense, since they'd all just be humans, they wouldn't need tons of mechanics for every single playable faction.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,583
    you still trying to split the between claiming, at the same time, that unique mechanics are not important but also that Empire 2 would have more then M3.

    And why a religious mechanic in E2 would be "more" realistic and more impact in M3, stays your secret.

    Why would be the same choice for lets say Denmark, minus Muslim option of course, would be less impact in M3 then having that choice in E2 for Ethiopia?

    Besides the fact that your claim that you can make more unique mechanics for E2, which are not so important according to you, then M3 still remains absolutely hollow.

    You can do religious mechanics you can election mechanics you can make feudal mechanics you can do special siege mechanics, you can diplomatic mechanics... so many options.

    In fact the simple fact that M2 has more mechanics of that sort then Empire should be your first clue.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,583
    edited February 23

    And pardon me guys, but I don't see any of you guys explaining any of these mechanics that you think a Medieval 3 could have.

    I might take the idea of a Medieval 3 more seriously if some people would explain what sorts of mechanics CA could implement that wasn't in Medieval 2.

    Without turning the game into boring EU4.

    Actually I named a few.
    More then you have for Empire 2.

    Also I quite honestly don't see the value of describing a HRE voting system to someone who doesn't seem to know what the HRE is or think that M2 already did it and hence there is nothing to add.

    Its also funny that you claim to want more mechanics but all everything complex is suppose to be "boring EU4".
    How your suppose E2 mechanics are not doing that is your secret as always.
    Post edited by SiWI on
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    SiWI said:

    you still trying to split the between claiming, at the same time, that unique mechanics are not important but also that Empire 2 would have more then M3.

    And why a religious mechanic in E2 would be "more" realistic and more impact in M3, stays your secret.

    Why would be the same choice for lets say Denmark, minus Muslim option of course, would be less impact in M3 then having that choice in E2 for Ethiopia?

    Besides the fact that your claim that you can make more unique mechanics for E2, which are not so important according to you, then M3 still remains absolutely hollow.

    You can do religious mechanics you can election mechanics you can make feudal mechanics you can do special siege mechanics, you can diplomatic mechanics... so many options.

    In fact the simple fact that M2 has more mechanics of that sort then Empire should be your first clue.

    Actually, I do think that only Denmark could have such a mechanic, but they'd really be the only factions that could do that in a Medieval 3. None of the other factions would reasonably go "pagan" or change religions.

    And it should be a unique mechanic for Ethiopia in an Empire 2 because by that time, most other factions would be pretty damn set in their religions.


    And I'm more so talking about how Medieval 3 can't really come up with its own unique things, and not just take mechanics that have already been done before, in 3K or Attila for you diplomatic and siege mechanics.


    And just commenting more times doesn't make you right, just because you talk more.


    And I'm more so caring about the heart and soul of the TW games, and that would be about the battles.

    Because if even they can come up with a lot of different campaign mechanics for a M3, they would struggle to make the factions' armies actually feel different from each other, and I mean more than just England having Longbows and such.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    SiWI said:


    Actually I named a view.
    More then you have for Empire 2.

    Also I quite honestly don't see the value of describing a HRE voting system to someone who doesn't seem to know what the HRE is or think that M2 already did it and hence there is nothing to add.

    Its also funny that you claim to want more mechanics but all everything complex is suppose to be "boring EU4".
    How your suppose E2 mechanics are not doing that is your secret as always.

    I know what the Holy Roman Empire is you dignus. Quit assuming things just because someone doesn't mention them.

    And you haven't really explained crap about how your mechanics would work. You just said that they'd exist.

    At least I explained how a religious mechanic could work for the Kingdom of Ethiopia in an Empire 2. Unlike you.


    And it's not very fair to expect someone to explain every possible mechanic for like 15 or more factions in one comment.


    And it's "I named a few" not view.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,754


    I don't know dude.

    For so many people loving the idea of a Medieval 3, they seem to not remember that a lot of factions during the middle ages fought in very similar manners.

    Yeah, back in Medieval 2, there were a few factions that had slightly different playstyles, but they were the exceptions.


    And I would think that that map would be similar to Warhammer 3's "Immortal Empires" map or something, and stretch from parts of North America to Japan in the east.

    Now I feel dumb for leaving out Japan when first posting the discussion.


    And the reason I didn't try to name a bunch of unique mechanics for each factions is because they might not need them, but offer their own unique playstyle, at least when it comes to armies anyway.

    Because, well. This isn't Warhammer we're talking about, they're all just human factions. So I find it a little hard to think that they'd all "need" super unique mechanics.

    I can think of a few unique mechanics for a few of them, but if you applied those to other factions, they wouldn't really be unique anymore.

    Well yeah a spear works pretty much the same no matter the nationality of the man holding it. But it's still more varied in style and equipment than we see during the later period as it all moves down to the line tactic. Why Empire had to go with named regiments which I do love but was more due to having easily recognized units over the copy paste of the standard.

    Still means less special mechanics with the less focused map and WH3s combined map will be made from 3 games + all their DLCs to enrich it.

    Same can apply to Medieval then, there's far more to separate many groups there and their internal targets.

    I think that for everyone drooling over Medieval 3, they miss several key problems the setting would most likely have.

    And those would be.


    1. Most of the factions would end up playing in a very similar manner.


    2. What unique things can they make for the time period that aren't just recreating what they did in Medieval 2?


    3. I think that the over hyping of the setting would lead to disappointment.

    *snipped to try and avoid wall of text*
    1. Far less than in Empire, there's far more standardisation during that time frame compared to the earlier ones.


    2. Far more than they could for Empire. Recrutiment system, internal mechanics, in depth religious elements and issues from the diseases of the time. Plus the new mechanics that have been added since Empire such as the research tree for technologies.


    3. I do agree here, I think a lot of people look back on M2 with rose tinted glasses.


    1. This isn't Warhammer and they're all just human factions.

    I don't think that each faction necessarily needs a ton of unique mechanics to be interesting to play.


    2. The Empire 2 factions could have a more unique playstyle with how them make their armies.

    So I'm thinking of the human factions in an Empire 2 a little more from a battles perspective than a campaign's mechanic one.

    1. You are complaining about the lack of mechanics for M3.

    2. Not compared to the Medieval period. There's far more changes and differences in how armies and units were raised and the types and variety of these units during that period.

    Again more differences in the Medieval period thanks to the range of items they used for battles.


  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,583

    SiWI said:


    Actually I named a view.
    More then you have for Empire 2.

    Also I quite honestly don't see the value of describing a HRE voting system to someone who doesn't seem to know what the HRE is or think that M2 already did it and hence there is nothing to add.

    Its also funny that you claim to want more mechanics but all everything complex is suppose to be "boring EU4".
    How your suppose E2 mechanics are not doing that is your secret as always.

    I know what the Holy Roman Empire is you dignus. Quit assuming things just because someone doesn't mention them.

    And you haven't really explained crap about how your mechanics would work. You just said that they'd exist.

    At least I explained how a religious mechanic could work for the Kingdom of Ethiopia in an Empire 2. Unlike you.


    And it's not very fair to expect someone to explain every possible mechanic for like 15 or more factions in one comment.


    And it's "I named a few" not view.
    I don't mean if you know what HRE stands for but what feature a HRE could have, like the elections of the Emperor for example.

    How much do I need to explain by the word "castle designer"? Again, I won't write design essays on potential features for someone who can't imagine mechanics for M3.

    And I showed that it easily work in M3 if not better. If anything alot of the "features" of your mechanic existed in Babrian Invasion and to some extend in M2 even.

    And for mister gramma NAZI, how about you go **** yourself?
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,583

    SiWI said:

    you still trying to split the between claiming, at the same time, that unique mechanics are not important but also that Empire 2 would have more then M3.

    And why a religious mechanic in E2 would be "more" realistic and more impact in M3, stays your secret.

    Why would be the same choice for lets say Denmark, minus Muslim option of course, would be less impact in M3 then having that choice in E2 for Ethiopia?

    Besides the fact that your claim that you can make more unique mechanics for E2, which are not so important according to you, then M3 still remains absolutely hollow.

    You can do religious mechanics you can election mechanics you can make feudal mechanics you can do special siege mechanics, you can diplomatic mechanics... so many options.

    In fact the simple fact that M2 has more mechanics of that sort then Empire should be your first clue.

    Actually, I do think that only Denmark could have such a mechanic,
    for someone playing the Gramma Nazi you are quite terrible yourself.

    but they'd really be the only factions that could do that in a Medieval 3. None of the other factions would reasonably go "pagan" or change religions.

    Didn't you not just claimed before that you don't want a mechnic for all faction but a "unique" one for some factions?

    Besides:
    Sweden
    Byzatine
    HRE later with the Reformation if the game goes that far

    All of them could, if CA wants to, give them region change mechanics.

    And it should be a unique mechanic for Ethiopia in an Empire 2 because by that time, most other factions would be pretty damn set in their religions.



    And I'm more so talking about how Medieval 3 can't really come up with its own unique things, and not just take mechanics that have already been done before, in 3K or Attila for you diplomatic and siege mechanics.

    the best you came up with for E2 was "lets remake the feature of Babarian Invasion".
    Sorry but if anything you have proven that E2 would be worse in terms of unique mechanics.


    And just commenting more times doesn't make you right, just because you talk more.


    And I'm more so caring about the heart and soul of the TW games, and that would be about the battles.

    Thats funny coming from you.

    except you have nothing to actually offer there.
    What exactly did you offen when pressed for an mechanic? A Campaign mechanic.

    An "Castle designer" for example would have battle impact.
    So do other things that CA could do.
    Because if even they can come up with a lot of different campaign mechanics for a M3, they would struggle to make the factions' armies actually feel different from each other, and I mean more than just England having Longbows and such.

    Compare M2 to Empire and you easily would find out that M2 was more diverse in its armies hen Empire was.
    And M3 could do the same if not more.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    edited February 23
    Commisar said:


    Well yeah a spear works pretty much the same no matter the nationality of the man holding it. But it's still more varied in style and equipment than we see during the later period as it all moves down to the line tactic. Why Empire had to go with named regiments which I do love but was more due to having easily recognized units over the copy paste of the standard.

    Still means less special mechanics with the less focused map and WH3s combined map will be made from 3 games + all their DLCs to enrich it.

    Same can apply to Medieval then, there's far more to separate many groups there and their internal targets.

    I'm sorry, but that first part seems to be coming off like you're trying to be a smartass. But maybe I'm just looking too deeply into it.


    And it the idea isn't that all the factions will end up all spamming nothing but line infantry at each other, but for most factions or cultures to have their own playstyle to them.

    I'll use the Mongol Khanate and Mughal Empire as some examples of what I mean.


    The Mongol Khanate should be, well, a mostly traditional Mongol army in a lot of ways.

    And while they should certainly have some access to gunpowder firearms and such , but their biggest strengths would still be their cavalry and archers.


    Now, I would like to explain how I think archers and such should work in an Empire 2, because it shouldn't be like the nonsense in Empire 1, with bows having less range than muskets.

    Your basic range for most non artillery units should look something like this

    Line Infantry Muskets: 100 range without formations or anything.
    Light Infantry Muskets: 125 range
    Rifles: 150 range
    Basic Bows: 150 range
    Elite Rifle Troops: 175 range
    Elite Bows: 175 range

    I just put the Elite Rifles as their own thing, because despite rifles being a rather rare and more of a later game weapon, I just thought it would be fair to at least put the possibility of there being at least one elite rifle unit.

    But back to the point.


    A lot of Mongol units and the like would have the Elite Bows stats, as they use a lot of composite bows that would give them better range than your basic self bows.

    And it would be criminal to not give the Mongol and related horse archers the equivalent of Parthian Shot, or a 360 firing arc.

    So what would make the Mongol Khanate different would be its army's ability to keep out of range of most small arms that any other factions could bring to the table, aside from other elite bows and artillery for the most part.

    And I think that the Mongols also getting some "Mongol Infantry" wouldn't hurt either. That is to say that they're good archers and all, but they'd also be pretty decent in melee as well.


    And then there's the Mughal Empire in India.

    I honestly think that what would make their armies feel unique is that they'd be kind of like a mixture of Mongol and Indian in not just their culture, but in what kinds of units they could field.

    They could have Mongol style cavalry and archers, as well as guns and artillery, and even those crazy armored elephants as a high tier unit.

    I think that the Mughal Empire could be a very well rounded army that can do a lot of things without being too overpowered.


    Sorry for the wall of text, but I wanted to try to properly explain what I was talking about.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    SiWI said:


    I don't mean if you know what HRE stands for but what feature a HRE could have, like the elections of the Emperor for example.

    How much do I need to explain by the word "castle designer"? Again, I won't write design essays on potential features for someone who can't imagine mechanics for M3.

    And I showed that it easily work in M3 if not better. If anything alot of the "features" of your mechanic existed in Babrian Invasion and to some extend in M2 even.

    And for mister gramma NAZI, how about you go **** yourself?

    I know about that stuff too, you're just assuming that I don't.

    And you didn't say castle designer before, so that's your fault.

    But I will say that being a system or something in the game would certainly make for an good addition.


    And don't start trying to be rude pal, or I will report you.


    Though it's kind of funny that you talk about not writing essays and such, but you pretty much expect me to write essays about ever little facet of Empire 2.

    Which I just kind of did.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,583

    SiWI said:


    I don't mean if you know what HRE stands for but what feature a HRE could have, like the elections of the Emperor for example.

    How much do I need to explain by the word "castle designer"? Again, I won't write design essays on potential features for someone who can't imagine mechanics for M3.

    And I showed that it easily work in M3 if not better. If anything alot of the "features" of your mechanic existed in Babrian Invasion and to some extend in M2 even.

    And for mister gramma NAZI, how about you go **** yourself?

    I know about that stuff too, you're just assuming that I don't.

    And you didn't say castle designer before, so that's your fault.

    But I will say that being a system or something in the game would certainly make for an good addition.


    And don't start trying to be rude pal, or I will report you.


    Though it's kind of funny that you talk about not writing essays and such, but you pretty much expect me to write essays about ever little facet of Empire 2.

    Which I just kind of did.

    top quote my first comment of this thread:

    "You could do Castle design if CA really wants to."
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,754

    And it the idea isn't that all the factions will end up all spamming nothing but line infantry at each other, but for most factions or cultures to have their own playstyle to them.

    I'll use the Mongol Khanate and Mughal Empire as some examples of what I mean.

    The Mongol Khanate should be, well, a mostly traditional Mongol army in a lot of ways.

    And while they should certainly have some access to gunpowder firearms and such , but their biggest strengths would still be their cavalry and archers.

    Mongol army during the Medieval period when it reached the height of it's power? It's still going to have the cavalry heavy forces that separate it to the European, Middle Eastern and Asian factions and give different gameplay. But the other regions also have their own forces that will split them apart from each other.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,583
    Also I expect from you that if you claim that E2 has better potential for mechanics, especially as you like to claim battle mechanics, you can come up with better examples as "the feature BI" had...
    let alone something that really wouldn't work in M3.

    That doesn't need an essay that would need an idea what you are actually talking about.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    Commisar said:


    Mongol army during the Medieval period when it reached the height of it's power? It's still going to have the cavalry heavy forces that separate it to the European, Middle Eastern and Asian factions and give different gameplay. But the other regions also have their own forces that will split them apart from each other.


    Well, not exactly.

    I would think that some factions, such as the Mongols, Ming Dynasty, and the Mali Empire would be factions that are somewhat in decline, because those three factions were having trouble around the 1650s or so, which is roughly the years I would hope the campaign would start in.

    The idea is to give an experience somewhat similar to the Western Roman Empire in Attila.

    That being that your particular faction, especially the for the Ming, would be hard pressed to survive and regain your power and glory and all that stuff of an empire.

    In the case of the Mongol Khanate, the idea would be something like this

    "You're the descendants of Genghis Khan, but look how far you've fallen."

    "But now is the time for the tribes of the Steppe to rise up again, and crush all who opposed us."


    That's a really simplified version of it, but I didn't want to make it overly long.


    But the idea is that some of the factions, such as the Mongols proper or the Mali Empire aren't the biggest powers anymore, but they could be once again.


    That's not to say that they should each have the equivalent of the Huns baring down on them, but that they really do have to rise from their declining state if they want to be as mighty as they once were.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    SiWI said:

    Also I expect from you that if you claim that E2 has better potential for mechanics, especially as you like to claim battle mechanics, you can come up with better examples as "the feature BI" had...
    let alone something that really wouldn't work in M3.

    That doesn't need an essay that would need an idea what you are actually talking about.

    And I said that this isn't Warhammer, and that not every faction needs a dozen unique mechanics for each of them for the game to be good. And that a lot of them could work just off of a more unique playstyle of their armies.

    And I really don't get why some of you people almost expect the TW games to become the stupid Crusader Kings or EU4 games.

    Because if you guys flood the TW games with endless amounts of mechanics, they'll probably end up becoming something like that. Dumb and boring with so many bloated mechanics, when it's the battles that draw people to the TW games, not the campaign alone.


    And I did explain some stuff in that big reply comment I made to Commissar.

    The one having to do with the Mongols and Mughal Empire.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,754
    Which again there's plenty of nations in the Medieval period who have that. Early on of course you still have the remains of the Eastern Roman Empire and their threats. You have the Mongol invasions across Europe and Asia to have nations have to hold out like in Attila. China has a lot of internal wars over history which apply during the Medieval period as well.

    You know it's fine to say you'd prefer an Empire 2 over Medieval 3.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,583
    ah... the "but I also say that special mechanics are actually not important so you can't blame me if I can't provide anything for my claim that E2 would have more special mechanics".
    Yeah totally waterproof case here.

    Many people do like the "stupid" games, mind you that you are the guy you claimed that E2 would have "all the mechanics" and M3 wouldn't.
    But then you also say that mechanics are not so important.
    So your "matersplan" to hold all the different believes at the same time "pays" off.

    There you say that the mongols, which high point was during Medieval times, should have horse archer base army, like they did in M2 and that Mughal Empire which would be mongul units mixed with gunpowder (which would make them the timurids in M2 btw) and now you think you have hit the hight of diverse armies, despite that M2 had all of this already.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    Commisar said:

    Which again there's plenty of nations in the Medieval period who have that. Early on of course you still have the remains of the Eastern Roman Empire and their threats. You have the Mongol invasions across Europe and Asia to have nations have to hold out like in Attila. China has a lot of internal wars over history which apply during the Medieval period as well.

    You know it's fine to say you'd prefer an Empire 2 over Medieval 3.

    It's not that I hate the idea of a Medieval 3 or anything, it's just that I realize that going back to just humans in historical settings can present a lot of challenges.

    And I can't really think of that many mechanics that would be unique to any one factions that haven't been done before.

    And yeah, sure, bring in a lot of the different things that have been done in 3K, Thrones, and even a few things from Troy, and it could work pretty well.

    But I just can't really think of that many mechanics that could just be that faction's thing in M3 alone, aside from maybe a religious choice mechanic for whichever of the Scandinavian factions would be the playable faction.


    I just think that the opportunities that an Empire 2 could offer would be more rewarding, because most of the playable factions would have their own unique armies to play around with.

    That's not to say that they couldn't implement some of the diplomatic mechanics from 3K or anything, I just don't think that with so many possible factions, that every one of them would need a bunch of different faction mechanics to make them interesting.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    SiWI said:

    ah... the "but I also say that special mechanics are actually not important so you can't blame me if I can't provide anything for my claim that E2 would have more special mechanics".
    Yeah totally waterproof case here.

    Many people do like the "stupid" games, mind you that you are the guy you claimed that E2 would have "all the mechanics" and M3 wouldn't.
    But then you also say that mechanics are not so important.
    So your "matersplan" to hold all the different believes at the same time "pays" off.

    There you say that the mongols, which high point was during Medieval times, should have horse archer base army, like they did in M2 and that Mughal Empire which would be mongul units mixed with gunpowder (which would make them the timurids in M2 btw) and now you think you have hit the hight of diverse armies, despite that M2 had all of this already.


    Now you're just lying.

    I never said that Empire 2 would have "all the mechanics" that M3 wouldn't, I said that there was more options for more interesting things in Empire 2.

    And if anything, I'm talking about talking about fully unique mechanics that a Medieval 3 would lack. Like things that are brought firstly in Medieval 3.

    Because most of the mechanics that you want them to bring in have already been done in another TW game in some form or another.


    And when you go back to just having only human factions in a TW game, mechanics don't mean as much genius.


    It logically becomes more about how you can make the factions different from each other rather than making sure that each of them has a dozen mechanics each.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 654
    edited February 24
    Commisar said:

    SiWI said:

    Just think of it kinda like this guys.

    Because a historical TW game like an Empire 2 would just be human factions, there wouldn't be the same need for each playable factions to necessarily have like a dozen mechanics.

    I mean, it would be kind of silly if every faction in Empire 2 had some form of the WAAAGH! mechanic from Warhammer 2, because then it wouldn't be a unique mechanic if everyone had it.

    And I'm just using the WAAAGH mechanics as an example.

    I just think that maybe a simplified outlook toward faction mechanics would allow for the playable factions to stand out more due to their armies rather then some gimmick mechanic.


    And while I certainly do think that some mechanics could certainly help enhance some factions' playstyle and ability to interact with different factions, such as with what I said about Ethiopia, I think that maybe the way some factions could make their armies could be their gimmick in a sense.


    I do however think that maybe CA could potentially use some mechanics from other TW games enhance the campaigns, such as slightly deeper diplomatic options and such things like that from 3K.

    That way the mechanics and such in the game are more universal and the factions would stand out more based on their armies rather than specific faction mechanics.
Sign In or Register to comment.