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

13

Comments

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706
    edited February 25

    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.

    It is wrong when it's maths. The Empire period has less choice, the other choices existed before the Empire period and hte unique units are generally replacing the multiple units that were used for similar effect in the earlier periods.

    And fine if you don't want to choose yourself for the best choice, Scotland and North American tribes.

    No I want you to prove that they have more unit choice than the entire medieval period. So far you've proven the opposite with your examples.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    edited February 25
    Commisar said:


    And fine if you don't want to choose yourself for the best choice, Scotland and North American tribes.

    No I want you to prove that they have more unit choice than the entire medieval period. So far you've proven the opposite with your examples.

    I'm giving you the choice to pick which factions you want me to explain. I'm doing you a courtesy.


    And I don't see you explaining how much more variety that the medieval time period would have either. You're just saying it does.


    But ok.


    Scotland

    I think that what could help Scotland stand out from the other European armies would be fairly simple, yet actually really historically accurate. And that would be in the form of Highland Clan units.

    And I know that the Highland Clans still fought in that "tribal", if you will, manner because they were fighting like that until the aftermath of the Battle of Culloden in 1746.

    Yeah, Scotland would be able to field a lot of other stuff that other European factions could, such as your standard line infantry, cavalry, and artillery, but it would be their mostly melee focused highland clan units that would help make their armies unique.

    Because the idea of these units is, in a sense, to somewhat harken back to their fierce Celtic ancestry. Being mostly fierce warriors who excel in melee fights.

    Here's a list of what the highland clan units should have in the ways of variety

    Highland/Clan Militia: Basic melee infantry armed with axes, clubs, and long knives who carry shields.
    Highland Archers: Just a basic archer unit with 150 range, and being "decent" melee combatants.
    Highland Spearmen: Just a basic spear and shield infantry unit.
    Lochaber Axemen: Two Handed Axe/Halberd unit that is decent at both attack and defense.
    (just google the lochaber axe, and you'll see what I mean)
    Highland Clansmen: Your standard melee infantry armed with swords, axes, and maces and shields.
    Highland Clan Nobles: Slightly older, more experienced clansmen who are armed with swords and shields, but actually have some armor, in the form of mail or scale shirts and more basic armor. Not making them knights, but considerably sturdier in a melee fight.
    Highland Clan Nobles (Claymores): Highland Clan Nobles armed with claymore two handed swords.
    Highland Light Infantry: A musket armed light infantry unit that can act as both light infantry skirmishers and as decent melee combatants.


    Now there is one more thing that most of these highland units could really use to spice them up.

    And that would be giving them an ability called Highland Charge.


    Now the ability should basically be very similar to Shogun 2's Banzai ability, in that it gives the unit that uses it a major boost to speed, charge bonus, and a slight buff to their melee attack, like maybe 5-10 maybe, but also makes the unit unbreakable.

    Basically, the Highland Charge ability should make it to where the Scottish highland units can not only get to their enemies more quickly, but also make their day all the worse when they close with them.


    But I think that one other thing that they could do (depending on just how they do unit recruitment and such), is possibly limit Scotland's ability to recruit the highland clan units to just Scotland at first, but through a unique technology or two, they could first expand it to the British Isles, and then to maybe only provinces where they have enough influence or something like that.


    But that's the basics of what I think they could do with Scotland as their own unique faction within an Empire 2.


    I'm going to make another comment explaining the Native American Tribes, because I have a lot to say about what they could do with them.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    edited February 25
    Commisar said:

    Oh boy!

    I'm actually kind of excited to talk about these guys.


    Native American Tribes Part 1

    Now, I think that the Native American factions would be best if they were introduced in an "Western Territories" or something expansion pack DLC.


    And just for the record, I would expect that for an Empire 2, there wouldn't just be race, lord, or even strictly culture packs when it comes to DLCs. They would need to be expansion packs that actually expand the map and add a bunch of new playable factions to the game.

    In the "Western Territories", I would think that it would expand the western parts of the map to roughly the Mississippi River or so, and just kind of stop there, while also going up into what is Canada and south into parts of South America.

    But back to the topic.


    But I do think that the Native America Tribes could have a shared cultural mechanic.

    But I would love to see the Native American Tribes have a sort of "Unite the Tribes" series of mechanics and objectives, that could be handled in a number of different ways.


    I think the mechanic part of it could be like a slightly different take on the Greenskin Confederation mechanic in Warhammer 2.

    It could allow you to either just beat up another tribe and force them to confederate with you, or there could be other options for a more peaceful solution.

    I do think that there could be some possible options about how you go about uniting the tribes against the new invaders.

    You could try to do these kinds of things by ending wars with other tribes and trying to start up trade and more friendly relations between the different tribes, or by showing that the white men and their guns can be defeated, or some stuff like that.

    I think that while it might take longer, the more peaceful route could be more beneficial in the long run, while if you just strong arm all the other tribes, you'll have to deal with the resentment that they feel toward your faction.


    But as far as units go, I do think that they could probably base a lot of the more generic Native American units off of those in Empire 1, but do them in a more refined and different manner.

    What I mean is that most of their units should make use of shields, at least small shields anyway, to help them in a melee fight.

    I would think that each playable tribe might get a few special units that would fit in with what that particular tribe was known for. Like giving the Comanche a few special cavalry units, as they were famous for their horse riding.

    But I think that they could possibly do some other things with the various tribal units, but I can only guess that they could be more varied than just being reskinned basic warriors like in Empire 1.

    But I would love to see if there be a Tribal Confederation faction in the custom and multiplayer battles that would be like if all the tribes were united as one big faction.

    But I would like to see the tribes also get some things like Tribal Spearmen or something that, so that they're not completely defenseless against cavalry.


    Though I think that at least in the case of at least some of their infantry units, their units should have an ability akin to TW Attila's Rapid Advance ability. Just something to help them either close with their enemies or to help them out maneuver them more quickly.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Commisar said:

    Native American Tribes Part 2

    But one other thing I would like to see the Native American tribes have would be the ability to loot weapons and such from the European powers.

    That's not to say they should get tons of line infantry and such, but at least that they can get their hands on muskets and some limited artillery. At least enough artillery to attack forts with anyway.

    But I would love to see that while muskets could be plentiful, artillery would be a pretty rare resource that you'd have to really be careful with when it comes to just how you might use them.

    Let's say you have 20-30 cannons after defeating several European armies.

    You could decide to just make them normal units of artillery, or you could have the possible option of putting them into forts you could build.

    And I would think that the forts you could build as the Native American Tribes would be considerably different from those in Europe.

    They obviously won't be those powerful star forts of Europe, so they should be placed in such a way that they're more simple defense can be make the attackers play the tribes' games, as it were, rather than just be purely a fort up on a hill.

    The forts should be akin to some castles and such in that the terrain around the forts should be just almost as much if not more of an problem to deal with than the forts themselves.

    Things like having a fort in or near a heavily forested region would all the tribes to sally out and possibly out maneuver their attackers.


    But that's some of the things I think they could do with the Native American t
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706
    And again run in to the same issue you've presented before. Most of those units pre-exist the time period of Empire and are used in the Medieval period, even using Medieval weapons.

    There's also the issue that they aren't use by the Scottish army in the time period from any source I can find, closest is use in other regions as mercenaries and a small use at the start of the War of Three Kingdoms. Mostly they work as a rebellion as that is where they seem to appear most in history such as the Jacobite revolts where they fought against the Scottish Government and army and used the weapons they had rather than those they would have liked to use.

    Highland charge wouldn't be unbreakable, maybe a morale buff but it was historically broken.

    The Native American mechanics is something that was sort of covered in M2 and Empire where they could get artillery, muskets and horses. Of course the Medieval period also can have these mechanics but also has a wider range of Native Americans plus the few known Empires in America around that were gone by 1650.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    edited February 25
    Commisar said:

    And again run in to the same issue you've presented before. Most of those units pre-exist the time period of Empire and are used in the Medieval period, even using Medieval weapons.

    It's hilarious how you say that, but I could easily say that doubly about Medieval 3.

    For all your talk about how the things I've said would be the same or have been done before, again, that could be said twice as much for a Medieval 3.


    And it's really about using different things within the time period pal.

    It's not about trying to create entirely new unit types that do stuff we've never seen before. but using what has been done before in different ways.


    But now it's your turn pal.


    You're going to explain just how they could make the medieval armies in a Medieval 3 different from each other.

    But I will not let you use the Turks or Egypt or a Russian factions, as they would be the only real Muslim or Eastern European factions in that period. And Poland or Hungry getting a mercenary unit of horse archers doesn't count.

    Because just making 6 Russian factions would be stupid and pointless, as they'd all really be the same thing.


    So, how would all the other European factions differ from each other in how they make their armies?

    And no, superficial things like Longbows and Crossbows don't count, as they're just doing Archers and Crossbowmen all over again.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    edited February 25
    Commisar said:

    What?

    Got nothing to say now that it's your turn to step up and explain some stuff?
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706



    What?

    Got nothing to say now that it's your turn to step up and explain some stuff?

    Not online 24/7.

    It's hilarious how you say that, but I could easily say that doubly about Medieval 3.

    For all your talk about how the things I've said would be the same or have been done before, again, that could be said twice as much for a Medieval 3.

    Not really, pre-Medieval is quite different to the Medieval period, advantage the Medieval period has is that it's around 1,000 years of time so alot changed just in that period.

    And it's really about using different things within the time period pal.

    It's not about trying to create entirely new unit types that do stuff we've never seen before. but using what has been done before in different ways.

    Then you wont get anything new in any game that is pre late 1900s. None of the units you've suggested would be new or used in new ways as we've seen sword, axe and gun units already.

    But I will not let you use the Turks or Egypt or a Russian factions, as they would be the only real Muslim or Eastern European factions in that period. And Poland or Hungry getting a mercenary unit of horse archers doesn't count.

    Strange how you are allowed to use multiple Mongol factions for your argument however.

    And no, superficial things like Longbows and Crossbows don't count, as they're just doing Archers and Crossbowmen all over again.

    Strange how you can use musket and sword troops as an example as well. They are just doing swords and muskets again.

    But now it's your turn pal.


    You're going to explain just how they could make the medieval armies in a Medieval 3 different from each other.

    But I will not let you use the Turks or Egypt or a Russian factions, as they would be the only real Muslim or Eastern European factions in that period. And Poland or Hungry getting a mercenary unit of horse archers doesn't count.


    So, how would all the other European factions differ from each other in how they make their armies?

    Ok High Middle Ages Anglo Saxons vs the Normans.

    Anglo Saxons elites are heavy axe infantry, very little in the way of cavalry. Reliance on Spear-walls to hold position and the axe units for their assault.

    Normans elites are lance cavalry backed with heavy spear infantry. Both sides did have archers but some source give the Normans crossbows as well and yes they are different units.

    Both have a range of different classes of these units going from the poorest with next to no armour to heavy armour for the period.

    Lack of siege artillery.

    Anglo-Saxon defences are walled towns and cities. Normans have the start of castles with the motte and bailey and keep the walled cities.

    Of course these forces end up merging historically and they again will switch up their roster and combat style. Heavier armour comes in and reliance on heavy cavalry becomes the norm. Shields start to lose popularity and more poll arms become used from billhooks to poleaxe. Crossbows never get much traction and use of standard bows expands a lot and you start to see the wide range of infantry guns appear.

    Siege artillery booms, from small catapults to the largest trebuchet in history and cannon start to be used.

    Castles go full scale with lots of large multi-walled castles being built.

    Main enemy is Scotland who go a different route, less reliance on cavalry and heavy armour and generally ignore polearms for pikes. Have generally economically poorer forces so less armour and range of weapons but had large numbers. Being lighter in equipment they would be faster and generally used to a harder life so less use of supplies. Range of their people as well from highlanders, lowlanders and Normans gives a range of different focuses for units.

    After the Norman invasion of England a number of lords did end up going to Scotland, they also started the castle building there.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    edited February 26
    Commisar said:

    I don't expect you to be on 24/7, but you were replying pretty regularly for a time, like in the early morning and such.


    But there's a hilarious irony to all the stuff you just said.


    It's all been done before.

    And none of it is new or isn't just some reskin or reusing of stuff that's already been done before.


    I mean, we had two handed axe units in Medieval 2, Attila, and Thrones, so that's one thing checked off.

    There have been plenty of archer and crossbow units in many of the TW games. Another checked box.

    And there have been tons of cavalry units, elite or otherwise. Yet another box checked.


    So for all your talk about adding new things that haven't been done before, you couldn't come up with anything at all.


    At least I'm trying to mix in different playstyles that can work into the Empire 2 time period/setting, so that it's not just the European factions and gun spamming.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    edited February 26
    Commisar said:

    Never mind this one.

    I thought the one above it was deleted or something at the time.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706
    edited February 26

    But there's a hilarious irony to all the stuff you just said.


    It's all been done before.

    And none of it is new or isn't just some reskin or reusing of stuff that's already been done before.

    I mean, we had two handed axe units in Medieval 2, Attila, and Thrones, so that's one thing checked off.

    There have been plenty of archer and crossbow units in many of the TW games. Another checked box.

    And there have been tons of cavalry units, elite or otherwise. Yet another box checked.

    So for all your talk about adding new things that haven't been done before, you couldn't come up with anything at all.

    At least I'm trying to mix in different playstyles that can work into the Empire 2 time period/setting, so that it's not just the European factions and gun spamming.

    So has everything in the Empire period. Unless they go to just before or post 1900s it is going to be old and seen before with reskins.

    I never said all the things would be new that we haven't seen before. I said there's enough changed since M2 that it would have a great improvement over it. I did say there would be a bigger range of units and there would be compared to the Empire period.

    Except you didn't, far less than I just have. You named forces that existed in the Medieval period and didn't give a single element that would be unique to them or would be new to the series.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Commisar said:


    So has everything in the Empire period. Unless they go to just before or post 1900s it is going to be old and seen before with reskins.

    I never said all the things would be new that we haven't seen before. I said there's enough changed since M2 that it would have a great improvement over it. I did say there would be a bigger range of units and there would be compared to the Empire period.

    Except you didn't, far less than I just have. You named forces that existed in the Medieval period and didn't give a single element that would be unique to them or would be new to the series.

    You're just talking out of your butt now Commisar.

    I explained how they could potentially make 5 factions interesting in an Empire 2, but YOU'RE the one who doesn't want to admit that you're wrong.

    And again, I'm not trying to recreate the wheel or anything, but do stuff that would work in the TW formula.


    All you've talked about is pretty much just repeating and recreating the same factions and armies from Medieval 2.

    At least I'm trying to mix different playstyles that have been in TW games before together to create a more interesting setting than what your precious Medieval 3 could ever hope to do.


    But what you don't want to admit is the fact that if they made an Empire 2, they could have a lot more options for different playstyles for many factions. And that they wouldn't all just be nothing but line infantry like you blindly assume they would be.


    Face it Commisar.

    Medieval 3 would pretty much just be a recreation of Medieval 2, but with a fancy new paint job.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 361
    edited February 27
    jamreal18 said:

    And I really don't want that.

    Don't you know how many people are waiting for Medieval 3?
    Actually , I consider, that the highest demand for new TW game has Medieval III
    Post edited by Lotor12 on
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706

    You're just talking out of your butt now Commisar.

    I explained how they could potentially make 5 factions interesting in an Empire 2, but YOU'RE the one who doesn't want to admit that you're wrong.

    And again, I'm not trying to recreate the wheel or anything, but do stuff that would work in the TW formula.


    All you've talked about is pretty much just repeating and recreating the same factions and armies from Medieval 2.

    At least I'm trying to mix different playstyles that have been in TW games before together to create a more interesting setting than what your precious Medieval 3 could ever hope to do.


    But what you don't want to admit is the fact that if they made an Empire 2, they could have a lot more options for different playstyles for many factions. And that they wouldn't all just be nothing but line infantry like you blindly assume they would be.


    Face it Commisar.

    Medieval 3 would pretty much just be a recreation of Medieval 2, but with a fancy new paint job.

    Again you didn't and as was pointed out to you those mechanics and units would be used by those factions/precursor factions that were in the Medieval period. I've gone on to explain the difference in the units and a number of mechanics for factions that you've admitted wouldn't have much difference in units and mechanics.

    And you've talked about doing the same armies from Empire.

    Again they have the same playstyles we've already got in Medieval 2 and Empire.

    No they don't. There's more playstyles in Medieval, as I pointed out just how much a single nations playstyle will change over the course of the game.

    Far less than Empire 2 would be a recreation of Empire 1 with new paint job.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,633
    I'm not interested in Empire 2. If it has to be a gunpowder title, I want a game set in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Pike and Shot era since that's one TW so far hasn't covered.

  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 361

    I want a game set in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Pike and Shot era since that's one TW so far hasn't covered.

    +1
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Lotor12 said:


    Actually , I consider, that the highest demand for new TW game has Medieval III

    DO you mean has to be Medieval 3?

    I honestly just think that Empire 2 could be a period that could offer different playstyles that we've might've seen before, but in a different setting where they could actually mean more.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Commisar said:


    Again you didn't and as was pointed out to you those mechanics and units would be used by those factions/precursor factions that were in the Medieval period. I've gone on to explain the difference in the units and a number of mechanics for factions that you've admitted wouldn't have much difference in units and mechanics.

    And you've talked about doing the same armies from Empire.

    Again they have the same playstyles we've already got in Medieval 2 and Empire.

    No they don't. There's more playstyles in Medieval, as I pointed out just how much a single nations playstyle will change over the course of the game.

    Far less than Empire 2 would be a recreation of Empire 1 with new paint job.

    You haven't explained jack **** Commisar.

    So get off your little high horse and accept the fact that you were wrong.


    All you're doing now is pretty much just trying to plug your ears and say "La la la la, I can't hear you!" at this point.

    And you're just be a colossal hypocrite about all this stuff.

    You talk about how I'm not doing anything new, but you can't come up with anything new for mechanics and such yourself, despite me mainly talking about armies. Which you can't even stick to.


    And I've explained several times now that I'm not trying to recreate the damn wheel as it were, I'm trying to talk about things they can do that'll work in the TW battles formula.

    An Empire 2 wouldn't just be recreating the Empire 1 you dingus.

    It would be taking all the ideas and such that CA wanted to do back with Empire 1, but not only being able to do them, but far more with them than they could've in the past.


    But you just don't want to admit that a Medieval 3 would be little more than Medieval 2 with a fancy paint job, and that an Empire 2 could offer a lot more in the terms or army playstyles and so on.

    I listed a bunch of different factions they could make pretty unique playable factions, while you just listed off factions we've already seen and would pretty much just be the same in a Medieval 3 as they were in Medieval 2.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458

    I'm not interested in Empire 2. If it has to be a gunpowder title, I want a game set in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Pike and Shot era since that's one TW so far hasn't covered.

    Well, I honest think that you should rethink about your position on an Empire 2.

    I just say that because, while I would agree that playing as the armies of the European factions, I would agree, they would just have a lot of focus on things like gunpowder and such.

    But I think that it's the other factions from across the world that would offer the most interesting army playstyles.


    Because I honestly think that the historical TW games should focus more on bring in different types of of more "universal" mechanics or refining existing mechanics rather than making sure that every single playable faction has a special mechanic or two.

    So I think that making the different playable factions' armies a little more unique would be better than trying to just recreate the same exact thing that a past TW game did
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,633
    I know very well what I want, thank you. The 18th century was the era of the "civilised" cabinet wars until the end of the century, so warfare was pretty limited in scope. The 16-17th century wars were still the wars of religion which were brutal and unforgiving. There was still melee infantry because guns weren't as reliable yet and also no bayonets, so more unit variety. You also had the beginnings of colonialism in those centuries, so a campaign map including the new world would be perfectly possible.

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458

    I know very well what I want, thank you. The 18th century was the era of the "civilised" cabinet wars until the end of the century, so warfare was pretty limited in scope. The 16-17th century wars were still the wars of religion which were brutal and unforgiving. There was still melee infantry because guns weren't as reliable yet and also no bayonets, so more unit variety. You also had the beginnings of colonialism in those centuries, so a campaign map including the new world would be perfectly possible.

    Well, I was more so thinking that an Empire 2 campaign would start in roughly around 1650 at the earliest or so, up to like 1780s or even 1800 maybe.

    I say those years in particular just because it seems to offer the most possibilities for playable factions in a nearly global campaign.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706
    edited February 27



    You haven't explained jack **** Commisar.

    So get off your little high horse and accept the fact that you were wrong.


    All you're doing now is pretty much just trying to plug your ears and say "La la la la, I can't hear you!" at this point.

    And you're just be a colossal hypocrite about all this stuff.

    You talk about how I'm not doing anything new, but you can't come up with anything new for mechanics and such yourself, despite me mainly talking about armies. Which you can't even stick to.

    And I've explained several times now that I'm not trying to recreate the damn wheel as it were, I'm trying to talk about things they can do that'll work in the TW battles formula.

    An Empire 2 wouldn't just be recreating the Empire 1 you dingus.

    It would be taking all the ideas and such that CA wanted to do back with Empire 1, but not only being able to do them, but far more with them than they could've in the past.

    But you just don't want to admit that a Medieval 3 would be little more than Medieval 2 with a fancy paint job, and that an Empire 2 could offer a lot more in the terms or army playstyles and so on.

    I listed a bunch of different factions they could make pretty unique playable factions, while you just listed off factions we've already seen and would pretty much just be the same in a Medieval 3 as they were in Medieval 2.

    I have, sorry if you haven't been able to understand it.

    We have, as SiWi mentioned there is multiple new mechanics which I would have otherwise. Internally in Europe you have the HRE which played a big role in Europe and made a lot of the impacts. You have multiple religious wars and changes in religion during the time frame, you have the new mechanics for the New World which was gone by the point of Empire. Previous Medieval titles haven't been able to represent these well within Europe and hasn't done any coverage of the Mongols other than their invasion of Europe and the Middle East. The rise and the development of castles and the differences that cultures had with their castles could also be handled. The centralization of power with the King/Government and the other forms of Government that rose during this period can also be handled which hasn't been done adding more internal issues.

    I'm not asking you to, you are the one claiming it would be brand new yet haven't mentioned any new mechanics and so far your examples apply to the Medieval period just as much which you claim wouldn't have new elements.

    I would be far more Empire 1 than Medieval 3 would be Medieval 2.

    But they aren't unique and they existed in the Medieval time period or had their precursors during that period which had a wider range of units.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Commisar said:


    I have, sorry if you haven't been able to understand it.

    We have, as SiWi mentioned there is multiple new mechanics which I would have otherwise. Internally in Europe you have the HRE which played a big role in Europe and made a lot of the impacts. You have multiple religious wars and changes in religion during the time frame, you have the new mechanics for the New World which was gone by the point of Empire. Previous Medieval titles haven't been able to represent these well within Europe and hasn't done any coverage of the Mongols other than their invasion of Europe and the Middle East. The rise and the development of castles and the differences that cultures had with their castles could also be handled. The centralization of power with the King/Government and the other forms of Government that rose during this period can also be handled which hasn't been done adding more internal issues.

    I'm not asking you to, you are the one claiming it would be brand new yet haven't mentioned any new mechanics and so far your examples apply to the Medieval period just as much which you claim wouldn't have new elements.

    I would be far more Empire 1 than Medieval 3 would be Medieval 2.

    But they aren't unique and they existed in the Medieval time period or had their precursors during that period which had a wider range of units.

    No, you haven't.

    You've pretty much just tried to mix mechanics that have been done before and call them new.


    And if you have your way with enhanced government and such things, the TW games will become more and more like the boring as hell EU4 and such games.

    And I sure as hell don't want the Total War games to become like those games.


    And you seem to not know that there were other tribes in North America that weren't the Aztecs and such that got wiped out by the Europeans in the late middle ages.

    CA literally made a mini campaign called the Warpath Campaign for Empire TW that was focused around the Native American tribes.

    Those are the tribes I'm talking about genius.


    And I also understand fully well something that you and SiWI never seemed to understand.

    And that is


    THIS ISN'T ****ING WARHAMMER!


    And I fully understand that there are limitations to what you can do with historical settings.

    And I know that trying to dress every faction up with a bunch of fancy mechanics will only hide the fact that the faction isn't that special or anything on its own.


    What I've done is try not to focus on trying to give every playable faction half a dozen mechanics each where they don't need it, and instead try to focus on giving them a more unique feel to their armies.

    Because I understand that there have been cavalry or other such focused factions in the past, but I can understand how using or putting them in slightly different settings might actually help make them feel more special.


    To use the Mongols again.


    They could be made interesting as an army in an Empire 2 because of their heavy reliance on cavalry and bow units, who could outrange even rifle troops by at least 25 range.

    And while they should certainly get some firearm and artillery units, it would be their ability to out maneuver their enemies with masses of cavalry that would be their greatest strength.

    Because if the Mongols can kill your artillery via an ambush or something, you would be completely at their mercy. Because they can outrange any riflemen you have by at least 25 paces or yards, let alone out ranging your basic line infantry by 75 paces or yards.

    And the fact that most of their units would be on horses wouldn't help you either. As they could just relocate, while still pouring arrows into your guys, if you got a little too close for their liking.


    And speaking of artillery.


    I honestly don't think that all factions should get the exact equivalent of European 12lbers or the really big cannons, but things more akin to 8lb cannons.

    But most factions should basically be able to at least advance their technology and such so that they can at least have artillery battles with the European factions.


    Because it's kind of hilarious that the Ming or Qing Dynasties never advanced their weapons technology to at least try to match that of the European nations.

    Because if they had, they might've actually stood a chance against the some of the European nations in a war.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    edited February 27
    Commisar said:

    And by the way.

    I posted a discussion about a possible Rome 3, which I renamed to "Rome 3" > Medieval 3.

    I figured I'd stick the a theme.


    But it's a LOT longer than this one was.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706


    No, you haven't.

    You've pretty much just tried to mix mechanics that have been done before and call them new.


    And if you have your way with enhanced government and such things, the TW games will become more and more like the boring as hell EU4 and such games.

    And I sure as hell don't want the Total War games to become like those games.


    And you seem to not know that there were other tribes in North America that weren't the Aztecs and such that got wiped out by the Europeans in the late middle ages.

    CA literally made a mini campaign called the Warpath Campaign for Empire TW that was focused around the Native American tribes.

    Those are the tribes I'm talking about genius.


    And I also understand fully well something that you and SiWI never seemed to understand.

    And that is


    THIS ISN'T ****ING WARHAMMER!


    And I fully understand that there are limitations to what you can do with historical settings.

    And I know that trying to dress every faction up with a bunch of fancy mechanics will only hide the fact that the faction isn't that special or anything on its own.


    What I've done is try not to focus on trying to give every playable faction half a dozen mechanics each where they don't need it, and instead try to focus on giving them a more unique feel to their armies.

    Because I understand that there have been cavalry or other such focused factions in the past, but I can understand how using or putting them in slightly different settings might actually help make them feel more special.


    To use the Mongols again.


    They could be made interesting as an army in an Empire 2 because of their heavy reliance on cavalry and bow units, who could outrange even rifle troops by at least 25 range.

    And while they should certainly get some firearm and artillery units, it would be their ability to out maneuver their enemies with masses of cavalry that would be their greatest strength.

    Because if the Mongols can kill your artillery via an ambush or something, you would be completely at their mercy. Because they can outrange any riflemen you have by at least 25 paces or yards, let alone out ranging your basic line infantry by 75 paces or yards.

    And the fact that most of their units would be on horses wouldn't help you either. As they could just relocate, while still pouring arrows into your guys, if you got a little too close for their liking.

    And speaking of artillery.

    I honestly don't think that all factions should get the exact equivalent of European 12lbers or the really big cannons, but things more akin to 8lb cannons.

    But most factions should basically be able to at least advance their technology and such so that they can at least have artillery battles with the European factions.

    Because it's kind of hilarious that the Ming or Qing Dynasties never advanced their weapons technology to at least try to match that of the European nations.

    Because if they had, they might've actually stood a chance against the some of the European nations in a war.

    They are, you might dislike them but it's still a mechanic that fits the period and is still more mechanics than you've suggested that would be unique to the Empire period.

    Aztecs weren't in North America. Yes there were many tribes that survived the early contact, there was also a lot of tribes that didn't that lived on the coast and many that were wiped out or displaced due to the spread of disease and movement of other groups caused.

    We don't expect it to be warhammer. We aren't expecting all the factions to be radically different which you seem to want. We're fine with factions having their historical units with their own strengths and weaknesses that cause them to play and handle differently on the smaller scale, rather than you expecting them to be radically different.

    But again you've failed to give them a unique feel. The units you've described you literally throw a tantrum at in the Medieval period claiming they are just another bow unit and such.

    And again, those same advantages the Mongols have in Empire would be more notable in the Medieval period when they, their equipment and their tactics were hugely effective and lead to the largest continuous land empire in history.

    Of course also forgot that updating to the new engine and style would bring other elements that haven't been covered by M1 and 2, possible real time naval battles and the tech tree. While not new to the series they would look and play differently to other titles and still be something not seen in the Medieval line.

    I know very well what I want, thank you. The 18th century was the era of the "civilised" cabinet wars until the end of the century, so warfare was pretty limited in scope. The 16-17th century wars were still the wars of religion which were brutal and unforgiving. There was still melee infantry because guns weren't as reliable yet and also no bayonets, so more unit variety. You also had the beginnings of colonialism in those centuries, so a campaign map including the new world would be perfectly possible.

    What time range would you expect? With CA being in the UK it's a bit of a strange one. I tend to view it as covering the period between Medieval and Empire. M2 ends in 1530 according to a quick google, which does seem fitting for the change to the Renaissance in England. So I can see it working 1530-1700. Easily get 2 turns per year in that time frame.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Commisar said:


    We don't expect it to be warhammer. We aren't expecting all the factions to be radically different which you seem to want. We're fine with factions having their historical units with their own strengths and weaknesses that cause them to play and handle differently on the smaller scale, rather than you expecting them to be radically different.

    I find that to be a hilariously ironic statement.

    You claim that you want the factions to be radically different from each other, but you're so blindly pushing for the medieval period, which had a lot of armies fighting in similar ways.

    Because, like I pointed out, aside from factions like Russia, the Turks, and Egypt, most of the medieval factions in Medieval 2, which would most likely be the basis of the Medieval 3 factions, do pretty much all have the same styles of armies.

    The only European Medieval 2 faction that I can see as actually being slightly, and I mean just SLIGHTLY, different would maybe be Sicily. And that's only because they have like a decent ranged unit in the form of the Muslim Archers unit.

    But that's about it.

    Most of the European factions would have a big focus on heavy infantry and cavalry.


    And it's also kind of funny how you and SiWi went on and on about mechanics and such, when you guys don't seem to realize that mechanics are not the only thing that makes a campaign, but that other things factor in too.


    But another thing you guys don't seem to realize that if all the factions' armies play really similarly to each other, they won't be unique or special.

    And trying to cover that up with mechanics will only make the factions be even more lack luster after that.

    Because for all the bells and whistles that different mechanics can possibly have, it's the armies that really matter the most, since it's those that you will be controlling in the battles.


    And that's another thing you and a lot of people don't realize.

    That for all the talk of how campaigns are so important and what not, it's really the battles that are the heart and soul of the Total War games.

    The campaigns in a lot of ways are just vehicles to get to the battles.


    So if most of the medieval factions' armies play the same, or very similarly to each other, the battles will suffer because of that.


    And before you even say it, the point of what I've explained and actually made a good point out of, is that not all the factions in a Empire 2 would either be the same or play the same.

    Whether you admit to that or not doesn't matter.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706

    I find that to be a hilariously ironic statement.

    You claim that you want the factions to be radically different from each other, but you're so blindly pushing for the medieval period, which had a lot of armies fighting in similar ways.

    Because, like I pointed out, aside from factions like Russia, the Turks, and Egypt, most of the medieval factions in Medieval 2, which would most likely be the basis of the Medieval 3 factions, do pretty much all have the same styles of armies.

    The only European Medieval 2 faction that I can see as actually being slightly, and I mean just SLIGHTLY, different would maybe be Sicily. And that's only because they have like a decent ranged unit in the form of the Muslim Archers unit.

    But that's about it.

    Most of the European factions would have a big focus on heavy infantry and cavalry.


    And it's also kind of funny how you and SiWi went on and on about mechanics and such, when you guys don't seem to realize that mechanics are not the only thing that makes a campaign, but that other things factor in too.


    But another thing you guys don't seem to realize that if all the factions' armies play really similarly to each other, they won't be unique or special.

    And trying to cover that up with mechanics will only make the factions be even more lack luster after that.

    Because for all the bells and whistles that different mechanics can possibly have, it's the armies that really matter the most, since it's those that you will be controlling in the battles.


    And that's another thing you and a lot of people don't realize.

    That for all the talk of how campaigns are so important and what not, it's really the battles that are the heart and soul of the Total War games.

    The campaigns in a lot of ways are just vehicles to get to the battles.


    So if most of the medieval factions' armies play the same, or very similarly to each other, the battles will suffer because of that.


    And before you even say it, the point of what I've explained and actually made a good point out of, is that not all the factions in a Empire 2 would either be the same or play the same.

    Whether you admit to that or not doesn't matter.

    I haven't claimed I want them to be radically different, again that is you. You are also the one who claims that the Medieval period has no differences and the armies are going to play identically across the globe and then use nations and their units from the Medieval period to claim Empire would be unique.

    Except they don't and I already showed that. They did fight differently and had different forces during the Medieval period, far different than in the Empire period which again you have failed to show how the main forces in Empire would play differently from what we saw in Empire 1. You can claim it's because the rest of the world....but that can be done with Medieval 3 then.

    Again you're the one who brought up mechanics and claimed Empire has more unique ones, we've proven you wrong and you then try to backpedal.

    I've shown they wont be in Medieval and that there's a wider range of playstyles not just across the globe but also across the time period.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,633
    Commisar said:



    What time range would you expect? With CA being in the UK it's a bit of a strange one. I tend to view it as covering the period between Medieval and Empire. M2 ends in 1530 according to a quick google, which does seem fitting for the change to the Renaissance in England. So I can see it working 1530-1700. Easily get 2 turns per year in that time frame.

    Reformation to War of Spanish Succession would be the natural choice IMHO. So it would start with events like the Hugeonot Wars, then shift to the Eighty/Thirty Years War and cap off with the wars of the Sun King, Louis XIV. You'd also have the Islamic "Gunpowder" Empires, Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals and the continued conquest of the Americas.

    The Pike and Shot Era would simply offer so much more to work with than the 18th century.

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458
    Commisar said:


    I haven't claimed I want them to be radically different, again that is you. You are also the one who claims that the Medieval period has no differences and the armies are going to play identically across the globe and then use nations and their units from the Medieval period to claim Empire would be unique.

    Except they don't and I already showed that. They did fight differently and had different forces during the Medieval period, far different than in the Empire period which again you have failed to show how the main forces in Empire would play differently from what we saw in Empire 1. You can claim it's because the rest of the world....but that can be done with Medieval 3 then.

    Again you're the one who brought up mechanics and claimed Empire has more unique ones, we've proven you wrong and you then try to backpedal.

    I've shown they wont be in Medieval and that there's a wider range of playstyles not just across the globe but also across the time period.

    It's not just a claim pal, it's an actual basic understanding of military history.

    And I understand that most medieval Europeans armies had a big focus on heavy cavalry and infantry, with most if any missile troops in a supporting role at best.

    But you clearly don't want to admit to those facts.


    And you haven't proven jack **** Commisar.

    All you've proven is that you ignore when the other person makes a point, like a petulant child.

    But it's pretty clear that you just don't like the fact that I don't jerk it to your precious medieval period and actually make a decent claim for something that's not Medieval 3.


    I've explained and admitted as to why the European armies wouldn't be that different. And part of that would be because it would be historically inaccurate in a dumb way.

    Giving the Mongols a heavy focus on cavalry wouldn't be. Because, they're the freaking Mongols after all, it's kind of their thing.

    And Scotland was a good example of a European faction that could be different while still being historically accurate.


    There's a little bit of stuff that the could possibly bring into a Medieval 3 to actually make the battles interesting and different, like a mechanic that let you create your own units in the campaign and such. But unless something like that happens, they would just end up being little more than just the same battles as in Medieval 2.

    And that's because most of the possible playable factions will all have similar armies to each other.


    And despite what someone like you thinks Commisar, the battles are indeed the heart and soul of the TW games.


    And I've also explained how your obsession with mechanics would probably just make most of the factions' armies feel really lack luster because most of them would be so similar to each other.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 458


    Reformation to War of Spanish Succession would be the natural choice IMHO. So it would start with events like the Hugeonot Wars, then shift to the Eighty/Thirty Years War and cap off with the wars of the Sun King, Louis XIV. You'd also have the Islamic "Gunpowder" Empires, Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals and the continued conquest of the Americas.

    The Pike and Shot Era would simply offer so much more to work with than the 18th century.

    That's what I've tried explaining to him, but what he constantly ignores.

    And the only reason I didn't mention the Ottomans and Safavids was because they did seem like pretty obvious choices for playable factions either right off the bat or in the first couple expansion pack DLCs.


    And I'm not just talking about the 18th century.

    I would hope that a Empire 2 campaign to start in 1650 at the earliest to roughly 1780 or so, just before the time when Napoleon showed up on the world scene.

    And like I said in the OP, I think that the fun of an Empire 2 for me personally would be in all the non European factions that they could introduce through expansion pack DLCs.


    And I just call the DLC for an Empire 2 expansion packs because with it just being a more historical game, they could expand the map as well as add in factions from the areas they add onto the map.
Sign In or Register to comment.