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

24

Comments

  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,465
    So you tell me I'm lying when I say that you at the same time claim thatE2 has more options for mechanics at the same time doesn't need them because "its just humans".

    Only to write that very same thing twice.

    Let alone yet you yet to come up with an mechanic which actually only works in E2 and is actually combat related.

    Most embarrassingly the only thing you "name" as "unique" points have been a feature of BI and the army roster of 2 factions of M2.


    Besides the whole "its human hence they don't need so much mechanics" is missing the points of mechanics.

    The point is not "simulation" of difference but having more different game-play.
    So by constantly claiming that "humans don't need mechanic" you basically argue that "humans don't need to play interesting".
    I don't think CA would agree with that nor would I think many players would.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    SiWI said:


    So you tell me I'm lying when I say that you at the same time claim thatE2 has more options for mechanics at the same time doesn't need them because "its just humans".

    Only to write that very same thing twice.

    Let alone yet you yet to come up with an mechanic which actually only works in E2 and is actually combat related.

    Most embarrassingly the only thing you "name" as "unique" points have been a feature of BI and the army roster of 2 factions of M2.


    Besides the whole "its human hence they don't need so much mechanics" is missing the points of mechanics.

    The point is not "simulation" of difference but having more different game-play.
    So by constantly claiming that "humans don't need mechanic" you basically argue that "humans don't need to play interesting".
    I don't think CA would agree with that nor would I think many players would.

    Well it's true. You were trying to put words in my mouth to suit your "argument".

    I said that there Empire 2 had more potential for more options and more varied factions than a Medieval 3. That doesn't strictly mean just mechanics pal.


    And again you're trying to put words in my mouth.


    I simply pointed out how as a historical setting, with just humans, there wouldn't be a giant need for each playable faction to need a dozen unique mechanics for just them alone. A point you're trying to ignore.

    But you don't want to accept that fact.


    You don't want to accept that maybe instead of trying to give each factions needless gimmick mechanics, they could possibly give deeper options for diplomacy and such, without turning the game into EU4 or something and let the faction's armies stand out for them.


    And I remember that there wasn't really a choice to choose your religion in Barbarian Invasion, it was really just that you were of different religions and it effected your public order.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    edited February 24
    SiWI said:

    And I find you're hypocrisy rather disgusting.


    Because you talked about how you don't want to write an essay to explain stuff, but you expect the other person, me in this case, to explain every little detail about the factions we bring up and how they would work.

    And you complain even when I've explained just what they could do with at 3 factions.


    And what do you expect a Mongol factions to have you dingus?

    A giant focus on tons of melee infantry or artillery?


    I just think that you just don't like that I explained what they could do with those factions I mentioned and how I didn't talk about them having a ton of mechanics to bloat them with.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710

    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.

    Which would still be the same issue if they move the time period to Empires.

    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.

    Same for the Empire period.

    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.

    They wouldn't. They'd have a lot more copy and paste units than a Medieval period would have and those that start being different would end up going to inferior copy and paste units if they survive.

    We don't think they would need unique mechanics, you brought that up and suggested Empire would have more of them.

  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,465

    SiWI said:

    And I find you're hypocrisy rather disgusting.
    says the guy that at the same time tells is that E2 is suppose to be more varried (and that included in the past mechanics, like in your OP. for you, only after you couldn't name you changed the focus) but also says that because "its just humans" it doesn't matter,.


    Because you talked about how you don't want to write an essay to explain stuff, but you expect the other person, me in this case, to explain every little detail about the factions we bring up and how they would work.

    Liar.
    I don't expect you to write essays.
    Just that you can actually name anything unique to E2.

    I for example used two words to describe a potential unique feature.
    "castle designer".

    You know the one I named in the first response here and while you asked 10 comments later "why you don't name anything".

    You write hundreds of words to describe features/roster which already exist in M2 or BI.

    And you complain even when I've explained just what they could do with at 3 factions.

    And I have show that the premises of your argument, that it would be better then M3, is wrong.
    One has a feature that was in BI.

    The other two you copied, oh the irony, from M2.


    And what do you expect a Mongol factions to have you dingus?

    A giant focus on tons of melee infantry or artillery?

    I expect you to finally support your claim that E2 would have more and better unique mechanics (which you wrote in Op even thou you now act differently).

    I just think that you just don't like that I explained what they could do with those factions I mentioned and how I didn't talk about them having a ton of mechanics to bloat them with.

    Well thinking is not your strong suit then.
    I dislike that none of your example support your claims.
    Partly because you, who claims to dislike M3 because "it would have mostly copied mechanics from othet TW's", could only come up with copies of BI and M2.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    Commisar said:


    Which would still be the same issue if they move the time period to Empires.

    Same for the Empire period.


    They wouldn't. They'd have a lot more copy and paste units than a Medieval period would have and those that start being different would end up going to inferior copy and paste units if they survive.

    We don't think they would need unique mechanics, you brought that up and suggested Empire would have more of them.

    Actually, it wouldn't be. Because you could actually get more variety in what most of those factions' armies could do.


    And I really don't understand why you keep thinking all the units would be the same across all the playable factions.

    Because they wouldn't be.

    Do I really have to explain how different the different factions armies in Asia alone would be from each other?

    Because I already explained that about the Mongol Khanate and Mughal Empire.


    Though I do think it's kind of funny that you talk about copy and paste units, but don't see how that would also happen in a Medieval 3. Knights and such everywhere. Talk about copy and paste units.


    And I DID NOT bring up that factions would need more unique faction specific mechanics.

    That was SiWi.


    I honestly think that if all the playable factions have their own more unique armies and playstyles with them, they wouldn't need a bunch of mechanics to make them interesting to play.

    Because I think that instead of trying to give all the factions in an Empire 2 faction specific mechanics, that it would be overall better if CA just focused on making some more "universal" mechanics that would fit with the time period.

    Things like making trade and such a little more meaningful than just a trade agreement. Maybe making things like capturing key ports or something that lay in strategic areas and such

    Because there is other stuff that the devs can do instead of trying to just give every single playable faction a dozen faction specific mechanics.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,465
    edited February 24


    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.


    just an reminder
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,465



    And I DID NOT bring up that factions would need more unique faction specific mechanics.

    That was SiWi.

    Oh the irony of that timing...
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    SiWI said:


    says the guy that at the same time tells is that E2 is suppose to be more varried (and that included in the past mechanics, like in your OP. for you, only after you couldn't name you changed the focus) but also says that because "its just humans" it doesn't matter,.

    Liar.
    I don't expect you to write essays.
    Just that you can actually name anything unique to E2.

    I for example used two words to describe a potential unique feature.
    "castle designer".

    You know the one I named in the first response here and while you asked 10 comments later "why you don't name anything".

    You write hundreds of words to describe features/roster which already exist in M2 or BI.


    If anything, you were just assuming that I was talking about only about mechanics for factions SiWi. Which I wasn't.


    I think that instead of mostly just a bunch of knights beating the crap out of each other, it would be better if we could get a near global campaign map with many more playable factions with their own unique armies.


    And it's kind of funny that you talk about my talking about things that already existed in M2 and BI, but you're doing the exact same thing.

    You want factions to have mechanics that have probably already been done in some form or another. Be it from 3K, Rome 2, or even Troy.

    And yeah, the whole castle designer thing would certainly be somewhat new, but there have already been map creators for the TW games, they've just been connected with the workshop tools and such.

    Though it would be nice to have a map editor/creator that was easier to use.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,465
    another reminder:
    when first asked about mechanics, he replied with a region change mechanic for the campaign map.

    Which happens to be the opposite of what he now claims is actually important.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    SiWI said:

    And you're certainly making it feel like you expect me to explain every little facet of the game and how it would work.

    You should just ask me to explain a certain faction or culture and what I think they could do with them in the game.


    And you're trying to avoid answering my question.

    What do you expect the Mongols as a army to be?

    Seriously. What do you expect them to be?
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,465
    edited February 24

    SiWI said:


    says the guy that at the same time tells is that E2 is suppose to be more varried (and that included in the past mechanics, like in your OP. for you, only after you couldn't name you changed the focus) but also says that because "its just humans" it doesn't matter,.

    Liar.
    I don't expect you to write essays.
    Just that you can actually name anything unique to E2.

    I for example used two words to describe a potential unique feature.
    "castle designer".

    You know the one I named in the first response here and while you asked 10 comments later "why you don't name anything".

    You write hundreds of words to describe features/roster which already exist in M2 or BI.


    If anything, you were just assuming that I was talking about only about mechanics for factions SiWi. Which I wasn't.
    Predictable excuse.
    If true, why was the first thing you wrote when asked about more details then writing faction names was a unique faction mechanic to change the religion?
    because you are a liar, who tries to change the subject, after you realized you can't support any of your vast claims with facts.


    I think that instead of mostly just a bunch of knights beating the crap out of each other, it would be better if we could get a near global campaign map with many more playable factions with their own unique armies.

    You can do a "global" M3, if CA wants to.
    And that would have a lot more actual unique armies then an E2.

    And it's kind of funny that you talk about my talking about things that already existed in M2 and BI, but you're doing the exact same thing.

    You want factions to have mechanics that have probably already been done in some form or another. Be it from 3K, Rome 2, or even Troy.

    Frist:
    you are the one who acts as if that is a bad thing.
    Of course, because its you, only after so many mechanics have been pointed out to you what would work well in M3, that you have this change of "hearts".
    I don't have a problem with using fitting mechanics from other TW's in any TW game but I refused to let you act as if your "brand new unique mechanics/rosters" were anything but copies, just you can claim them for E2.

    Second:
    Castle Designer.
    Which TW did have that one?

    Or even HRE Elections.
    Which TW has that one?

    And yeah, the whole castle designer thing would certainly be somewhat new, but there have already been map creators for the TW games, they've just been connected with the workshop tools and such.

    Though it would be nice to have a map editor/creator that was easier to use.

    And it is one more unique feature I named more then you seem to be able for E2.
    Also so say that a map Editor would be equal to this, misses the point, as expected of you.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,465

    SiWI said:

    And you're certainly making it feel like you expect me to explain every little facet of the game and how it would work.

    You should just ask me to explain a certain faction or culture and what I think they could do with them in the game.
    your feelings are not my fault, nether are the mess you make with your contradictions of claims and arguments.


    And you're trying to avoid answering my question.

    What do you expect the Mongols as a army to be?

    Seriously. What do you expect them to be?

    Want to pay me a € for everything you avoid from me?
    Yes?
    No?
    I thought so.

    Besides:
    what has this to do with anything?

    You claim Mongols as example of a unique playstyle in E2. I showed that they already exist as such in M2.
    And let alone what M3 could do.

    Why would I need a counter blueprint for them?
    I don't.

    You just need to come up with SOMETHING that actually support your claims.

    Or admit that you can't but like muskets more.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710

    Actually, it wouldn't be. Because you could actually get more variety in what most of those factions' armies could do.

    They wouldn't. They'd generally have far less choice and roles of units as the period moved away from most of the range that previously existed.

    And I really don't understand why you keep thinking all the units would be the same across all the playable factions.

    Because they wouldn't be.

    Do I really have to explain how different the different factions armies in Asia alone would be from each other?

    Because I already explained that about the Mongol Khanate and Mughal Empire.

    Because there's far less variety. There's far more range of weapons and armour in use during the Medieval period.

    And they are more diverse then than in the medieval period?

    And as I pointed out and SiWi did, these nations or precursors existed in the Medieval period. So it's not going to be more diverse when they are on the decline.

    Though I do think it's kind of funny that you talk about copy and paste units, but don't see how that would also happen in a Medieval 3. Knights and such everywhere. Talk about copy and paste units.

    Really wouldn't be, the knights across Europe fought quite differently and varied in their own nations during the time period.

    And I DID NOT bring up that factions would need more unique faction specific mechanics.

    That was SiWi.

    No it is you. Feel free to read your thread message:

    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.

    I honestly think that if all the playable factions have their own more unique armies and playstyles with them, they wouldn't need a bunch of mechanics to make them interesting to play.

    Because I think that instead of trying to give all the factions in an Empire 2 faction specific mechanics, that it would be overall better if CA just focused on making some more "universal" mechanics that would fit with the time period.

    Things like making trade and such a little more meaningful than just a trade agreement. Maybe making things like capturing key ports or something that lay in strategic areas and such

    Again they will be far less unique than in the earlier periods. So it applies far more to the Medieval period than the Empire period.

    We already do have key locations in all the games time periods. Resources and geographical locations for example. But if you stretch the map across the globe this is far less of a thing due to the scaling of the map.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    SiWI said:

    Ok, I'm done being nice about this.

    You're full of **** SiWi.


    The whole Ethiopian religion mechanic was obviously just a case of how you could use ONE mechanic for a faction to make it have a little uniqueness to it. Not giving them a dozen mechanics.

    So you're clearly just trying to make it sound like I said that every faction should have a bunch of mechanics and that I'm suddenly just not changing my mind about it. Which isn't the case.

    I simply don't think that every faction in an Empire 2 would strictly NEED a bunch of mechanics to feel special.


    And I do find it hilarious that you are talking about stuff I've explained, but you guys haven't explained jack ****.

    You haven't explained ANYTHING about what Medieval 3 could bring over an Empire 2.

    So either put up or shut the hell up.

    Actually explain something or just shut your mouth about stuff you know nothing about.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    Commisar said:

    Why do you think that just because we set a game in the similar time period that Empire 1 was set in that all the armies would somehow be the same?

    Seriously.

    It really feels like you haven't played any of the other TW games, such as Napoleon or Rome 2 and think that this time period would just be completely empty of the different unit types meaning anything.


    I mean, not every faction would have all the same units dude. Every playable faction could easily have their own cultural unit roster, because they're not all the same.


    And again, I could actually say the same thing you're saying about Medieval 3, only I would actually have a point.

    Because aside from the early Ottomans, the Saracens in Egypt, Russia, and maybe the medieval Mongols, most of the possible playable factions' armies would be built around the idea of medieval knights and so on.


    So for all your talk about how Empire 2 would have no variety in units, I could easily say that it would be doubly so with Medieval 3.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    Commisar said:

    Look dude. Try thinking a little more like this.


    The different cultures that would be around in 1650 or so when the Empire 2 campaign would start would have their own units, and they wouldn't all be the same units as those of other cultures.

    Yeah, the Ming and early Qing Dynasties would have pretty much the same units, because they're both the playable Chinese factions.

    So it would make sense that those two factions would have pretty similar base unit rosters.

    But the playable Vietnamese faction wouldn't have the same kinds of units as the Ming and Qing factions.

    Yeah, they might both have melee infantry and other things, but they might be different in how they fulfil their roles and so on.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710

    Why do you think that just because we set a game in the similar time period that Empire 1 was set in that all the armies would somehow be the same?

    Seriously.

    It really feels like you haven't played any of the other TW games, such as Napoleon or Rome 2 and think that this time period would just be completely empty of the different unit types meaning anything.


    I mean, not every faction would have all the same units dude. Every playable faction could easily have their own cultural unit roster, because they're not all the same.


    And again, I could actually say the same thing you're saying about Medieval 3, only I would actually have a point.

    Because aside from the early Ottomans, the Saracens in Egypt, Russia, and maybe the medieval Mongols, most of the possible playable factions' armies would be built around the idea of medieval knights and so on.


    So for all your talk about how Empire 2 would have no variety in units, I could easily say that it would be doubly so with Medieval 3.

    I have played them, same can be said to you if you think Empire 2 would have more diversity than Medieval 3.

    Again that shows you don't know the time period. Most armies aren't built around knights and again knights fight very differently across Europe and over the period. So even in the knights there will be a huge diversity in how they perform. Compared to Empire time frame where most nations either have or are going to be moving towards massed ranks of guns, quite literally a copy and paste for large swathes of the world.

    And now you go putting words in peoples mouths. I didn't say they wouldn't have any variety, I said compared to the Medieval period they wouldn't.

    Commisar said:

    Look dude. Try thinking a little more like this.


    The different cultures that would be around in 1650 or so when the Empire 2 campaign would start would have their own units, and they wouldn't all be the same units as those of other cultures.

    Yeah, the Ming and early Qing Dynasties would have pretty much the same units, because they're both the playable Chinese factions.

    So it would make sense that those two factions would have pretty similar base unit rosters.

    But the playable Vietnamese faction wouldn't have the same kinds of units as the Ming and Qing factions.

    Yeah, they might both have melee infantry and other things, but they might be different in how they fulfil their roles and so on.
    Look at it during the Medieval period, these cultures will have their own units, there's actually more notable cultures during this time frame as well as there's fewer established empires. For example all the American empires that by 1650 have fallen and been wiped out and a lot of the native tribes in eastern edges and in the Caribbean have gone.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    edited February 24
    Commisar said:


    I have played them, same can be said to you if you think Empire 2 would have more diversity than Medieval 3.

    Again that shows you don't know the time period. Most armies aren't built around knights and again knights fight very differently across Europe and over the period. So even in the knights there will be a huge diversity in how they perform. Compared to Empire time frame where most nations either have or are going to be moving towards massed ranks of guns, quite literally a copy and paste for large swathes of the world.

    And now you go putting words in peoples mouths. I didn't say they wouldn't have any variety, I said compared to the Medieval period they wouldn't.


    Look at it during the Medieval period, these cultures will have their own units, there's actually more notable cultures during this time frame as well as there's fewer established empires. For example all the American empires that by 1650 have fallen and been wiped out and a lot of the native tribes in eastern edges and in the Caribbean have gone.

    Played what exactly?

    Because if you think that CA would just give the Empire 2 factions all the same number of units as in Empire 1, you're sadly mistaken. Nor would they all be the same style of units for every faction either.


    And cut the **** with this "I know you are but what am I?" crap. Because that's what you're doing now.

    You're trying to say that I that said there'd only be knights in those armies, but you know damn well what I meant.

    I meant that the styles of armies fore the European factions would be mostly focused around heavy cavalry and infantry, just like in Medieval 2.

    And yeah, I know fully well about things like English Longbowmen and such, but that's really just making some archer units better and only giving them to one faction than really making the faction fully unique.


    That's what you don't want to admit to.

    That most of the playable factions in a Medieval 3 would be little more than carbon copies of those in Medieval 2, only with a few more factions, which will probably be super similar to others as well.


    And you're seriously blind if you think that CA would just make all the factions in an Empire 2 all the same with the same styles of units.

    That would be the whole point, to not just make all the non European factions just like the European factions, to make them unique in their own ways.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    edited February 24
    Commisar said:

    Seriously. Answer me this separately.

    Do you want me to actually explain how a lot of the factions I mentioned before would work and how they would be unique in an Empire 2?


    Because I can if you really want me to, but I'm not going to bother if you keep up with all this nonsense of pretending that they would all be the same.


    And did you expect all the factions to be in the game right off the bat?

    CA would most likely make expansion pack DLCs for an Empire 2 that would bring in a lot of the different factions I'm talking about.

    I just think it's silly and funny that people don't think about things like DLC.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710

    Because if you think that CA would just give the Empire 2 factions all the same number of units as in Empire 1, you're sadly mistaken. Nor would they all be the same style of units for every faction either.


    And cut the **** with this "I know you are but what am I?" crap. Because that's what you're doing now.

    You're trying to say that I that said there'd only be knights in those armies, but you know damn well what I meant.

    I meant that the styles of armies fore the European factions would be mostly focused around heavy cavalry and infantry, just like in Medieval 2.

    And yeah, I know fully well about things like English Longbowmen and such, but that's really just making some archer units better and only giving them to one faction than really making the faction fully unique.


    That's what you don't want to admit to.

    That most of the playable factions in a Medieval 3 would be little more than carbon copies of those in Medieval 2, only with a few more factions, which will probably be super similar to others as well.


    And you're seriously blind if you think that CA would just make all the factions in an Empire 2 all the same with the same styles of units.

    That would be the whole point, to not just make all the non European factions just like the European factions, to make them unique in their own ways.

    Most of the factions wont have a huge range of extra units, without either A making more named historical units or inventing a lot of units for them. Most factions would have very similar units, far more similar than those of Medieval period.

    Pot kettle. You started it with both me and SiWi.

    Which is more diverse than the Line infantry spam that you'll get for Empire. Yeah some nations will get a buff to melee, to accuracy or rate of fire but their not unique.

    Again they would use the same units as that is history for you. You haven't shown any evidence that they would change it or what they could change it with.


    Seriously. Answer me this separately.

    Do you want me to actually explain how a lot of the factions I mentioned before would work and how they would be unique in an Empire 2?


    Because I can if you really want me to, but I'm not going to bother if you keep up with all this nonsense of pretending that they would all be the same.


    And did you expect all the factions to be in the game right off the bat?

    CA would most likely make expansion pack DLCs for an Empire 2 that would bring in a lot of the different factions I'm talking about.

    I just think it's silly and funny that people don't think about things like DLC.

    Yes, if you want to actually back up your point you should prove it.

    Again you make the same points that apply to Medieval period.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    edited February 24
    Commisar said:


    Which is more diverse than the Line infantry spam that you'll get for Empire. Yeah some nations will get a buff to melee, to accuracy or rate of fire but their not unique.

    Again they would use the same units as that is history for you. You haven't shown any evidence that they would change it or what they could change it with.

    *sigh*

    That's because you assume that all the factions will do nothing but spam line infantry.

    Yeah, I'll give you that there will be a lot of that in most of the European factions (with one possible exception), but not nearly as much with factions from other lands such as Asia.
    Commisar said:


    Yes, if you want to actually back up your point you should prove it.

    Again you make the same points that apply to Medieval period.

    Ok then.

    Just name two factions from the ones I listed before that you would like me to explain about.


    I just want you to do only two at a time because that would make for some REALLY long comments.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710

    *sigh*

    That's because you assume that all the factions will do nothing but spam line infantry.

    Yeah, I'll give you that there will be a lot of that in most of the European factions (with one possible exception), but not nearly as much with factions from other lands such as Asia.

    Ok then.

    Just name two factions from the ones I listed before that you would like me to explain about.


    I just want you to do only two at a time because that would make for some REALLY long comments.

    Same way you think they only spam the exact same knight? Line infantry is the standard infantry. So yeah expect it to be the main bulk of armies because it is the main fighting force of the armies and is the form that during the Empire period was copied by other regions.

    Yeah Asia would have a range of units still, same way they do in the Medieval period. But during the Empire period they did start to adopt the line tactics as part of their modernisation due to the older units running it to cost effectiveness issues.

    You choose, so far you haven't exactly given much of a list to choose from.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    edited February 25
    Commisar said:

    I said the focus on heavy cavalry and infantry, not just knights alone.


    Just do what I told you for once and name your two factions already.

    Just go back and look at the list, and pick two of them.


    I'll try to start my explanation first thing tomorrow morning.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,325
    Take it easy folks. Idle game speculation is OK but hard lines drawn in the sand are not. Understand?

    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,695
    edited February 25
    Difference in Gameplay...

    Medieval,
    Knights, Cavalry, Archers

    Empire,
    Muskets


    Anyways, what makes Empire better than Medieval? Both of those are composed of humans anyways.

    For Medieval, I want to see new city lay-outs. Imagine different looking castles, fortress and buildings per faction. Would be really nice.

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    dge1 said:


    Take it easy folks. Idle game speculation is OK but hard lines drawn in the sand are not. Understand?

    Understood.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    jamreal18 said:

    Difference in Gameplay...

    Medieval,
    Knights, Cavalry, Archers

    Empire,
    Muskets


    Anyways, what makes Empire better than Medieval? Both of those are composed of humans anyways.

    For Medieval, I want to see new city lay-outs. Imagine different looking castles, fortress and buildings per faction. Would be really nice.

    That's kind of a overly simplistic way to look at it.

    And what? They can't make new maps and such for an Empire 2?


    But I'll give you that most of the European factions would certainly be focused around using stuff we've seen in Empire 1 and Napoleon, that is line infantry, artillery, and cavalry to an extent.

    But I honestly think that there'd be a lot more options for unique armies across many of the other factions.

    I mean, if you look back in the discussion, or maybe at the OP, I listed a lot of different factions they could possibly add in to the game.

    And I already explained what they could possibly do with the Mongols and Mughal Empire in another comment.

    Though after some thought, I do think that while certainly having their differences, the Chinese Ming and early Qing Dynasties would have some stuff in common with the Mughal Empire in India. Like having a well rounded unit roster, aside from elephants.

    The only major difference I can think of there really being between the Ming and early Qing would be the Qing would have a few Chinese-Mongolian style horse archer units, as they did come from the lands of Manchuria which is pretty close to Mongolia.

    I could explain what they could possibly do with some of the other factions if you'd like.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710
    jamreal18 said:


    Anyways, what makes Empire better than Medieval? Both of those are composed of humans anyways.

    Yep, like I said earlier it's fine to want one setting over another but to claim it will have more diverse armies and mechanics is just wrong.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    Commisar said:


    Yep, like I said earlier it's fine to want one setting over another but to claim it will have more diverse armies and mechanics is just wrong.

    It's not wrong just because you don't agree with it.


    Seriously dude. Cut the crap.


    You have a super simple task to do.

    Pick two factions from the ones I listed in the OP, aside from the Mongol Khanate, the Mughal Empire, or the Ethiopian faction. Because I already did those ones.


    You're the one who wants me to explain what they could do with the factions, so just suck it up and choose two of them.
Sign In or Register to comment.