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

Total War Empire 2

24

Comments

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Warlocke said:

    “More guns would not make the game better” is a qualitative statement. It is categorically a subjective opinion.

    I'm sorry, but it's not.

    I'm actually basing my statement off of historical facts.

    And those are that the further ahead with firearm technology you go, the less and less tactical options there would be if you translated it into a TW game.


    No matter what you guys say, if it's not line infantry having at least 200 range and being able to fire super quickly, or light infantry being able to spread out and able to take less fire while being able to unleash all their firepower, it'll really limit the tactical options in a TW game
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,086

    That kind of also feeds into my point about how more guns would dumb down the tactics for a TW game.

    With such things as Gatling guns and such long range rifles and artillery, it would pretty much just make spamming guns as a problem always the best option, when it comes to military stuff that is.


    I honestly think that an Empire 2 would work far better if it was from 1680 to 1800.

    Not only would that give a huge range for possible factions, but also possible playstyles for their armies.

    You could actually still have things like horse archers still actually matter, while not having guns be the more absolute overpowered thing.

    That's pretty much how combat goes from 1600 onwards for Europe and then spreads to the rest of the world where they have contact.

    That game would have the same issues, hell for a large part they are still using the same guns and will just continue where Empire leaves off with spamming gun line infantry and heavier artillery.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    The issue here is the over simplification of terms like ‘spamming guns’. Nothing on the different types of fire arms, positioning and real time tactics.

    I’ve never heard a historian claim that warfare got a lot simpler thanks to ‘gun spam’.

    The Greeks used hoplite spam.. 🤷🏻‍♂️
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,083

    Warlocke said:

    “More guns would not make the game better” is a qualitative statement. It is categorically a subjective opinion.

    I'm sorry, but it's not.

    I'm actually basing my statement off of historical facts.

    And those are that the further ahead with firearm technology you go, the less and less tactical options there would be if you translated it into a TW game.


    No matter what you guys say, if it's not line infantry having at least 200 range and being able to fire super quickly, or light infantry being able to spread out and able to take less fire while being able to unleash all their firepower, it'll really limit the tactical options in a TW game
    The issue is not whether there are fewer tactical options or not. The question is whether or not that is better. Hypothetically, some people prefer simple, straight forward tactics. Most of the instances when people use the word better, that is in the expression of an opinion. This is one of those times.
    ò_ó
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Commisar said:


    That's pretty much how combat goes from 1600 onwards for Europe and then spreads to the rest of the world where they have contact.

    That game would have the same issues, hell for a large part they are still using the same guns and will just continue where Empire leaves off with spamming gun line infantry and heavier artillery.

    Well, that's kind of my point. To diversify the tactical options a little, without doing completely ridiculously unhistorical things within the game. Especially for the non European factions.


    Try to think about it in this way.

    Things like bows should still outrange most basic firearms aside from rifles, which should be dedicated skirmisher weapons.

    The ranges for non artillery units should be something like this.

    Elite Bows: 175 range.
    Bows and Rifles: 150 range.
    Light Infantry Muskets: 125 range.
    Line Infantry Muskets: 100 range.
    Pistols or other firearms: 75 range.

    And elite bows are supposed to represent units that might not just be elite archers, but also use weapons like composite bows, which have been shown historically to be able to launch their arrows farther than your standard self bows.

    My point is, that units such as Mongol Horse Archers and such should have that elite bow stat so that they can really be able to reach out and hit their enemies and actually have some sort of advantage over more "modern" troops.


    And I could go into how some factions could make use of a fair number of stealth troops that could help them close the distance with European style armies. But I don't want this comment to get too long.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,086

    Well, that's kind of my point. To diversify the tactical options a little, without doing completely ridiculously unhistorical things within the game. Especially for the non European factions.


    Try to think about it in this way.

    Things like bows should still outrange most basic firearms aside from rifles, which should be dedicated skirmisher weapons.

    The ranges for non artillery units should be something like this.

    Elite Bows: 175 range.
    Bows and Rifles: 150 range.
    Light Infantry Muskets: 125 range.
    Line Infantry Muskets: 100 range.
    Pistols or other firearms: 75 range.

    And elite bows are supposed to represent units that might not just be elite archers, but also use weapons like composite bows, which have been shown historically to be able to launch their arrows farther than your standard self bows.

    My point is, that units such as Mongol Horse Archers and such should have that elite bow stat so that they can really be able to reach out and hit their enemies and actually have some sort of advantage over more "modern" troops.


    And I could go into how some factions could make use of a fair number of stealth troops that could help them close the distance with European style armies. But I don't want this comment to get too long.

    As others said that doesn't mean guns don't have tactics. What you want is different weapon systems, which still exist in the 1800s. In general it's the opposite with the 1800s opening the door to new technologies and ideas that Europeans deployed and brought in that allowed even more tactical choices for their forces over that of the 1700s.

    Second still doesn't prevent it becoming gun spam and is how historically they will go as that is how they historically went.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    Well, I still believe CA can create a relatively engaging game based in the Victorian era as they did with FotS
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,086

    I don’t think we have any idea, the only issue is they have simply picked other things as in 3K was created to open up the Chinese market so in that sense it’s a better choice.

    In reference to tech I think they passed that with the implementation of game 3 of the WH trilogy. I can’t see cost being any different to any other game although there will always be an ongoing higher cost per major release.

    We can. To get the map the size of the grand campaign has required 3 games being made and you owning them to allow access to it as far as I'm aware. So effectively if you bought at release each game that would be £150 for the game...which seems a bit steep without counting DLCs as well. For a Victorian period, it really wouldn't make sense to split it up in to three games to produce the expanding map.

    While they wont have to make as many outlandish creatures, doing such a large map with such a wide time frame would mean a lot of different regions of research and design which also means a higher cost in development and production.

    On tech even with the predictions of the scale of the WH3 combined campaign is still a long way off being able to do the Victorian period in both number and depth. Which means unless there's claims that CA is deliberately holding back their development/designs even in games like 3K and WH...they don't have the ability to do it effectively.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    Commisar said:

    I don’t think we have any idea, the only issue is they have simply picked other things as in 3K was created to open up the Chinese market so in that sense it’s a better choice.

    In reference to tech I think they passed that with the implementation of game 3 of the WH trilogy. I can’t see cost being any different to any other game although there will always be an ongoing higher cost per major release.

    We can. To get the map the size of the grand campaign has required 3 games being made and you owning them to allow access to it as far as I'm aware. So effectively if you bought at release each game that would be £150 for the game...which seems a bit steep without counting DLCs as well. For a Victorian period, it really wouldn't make sense to split it up in to three games to produce the expanding map.

    While they wont have to make as many outlandish creatures, doing such a large map with such a wide time frame would mean a lot of different regions of research and design which also means a higher cost in development and production.

    On tech even with the predictions of the scale of the WH3 combined campaign is still a long way off being able to do the Victorian period in both number and depth. Which means unless there's claims that CA is deliberately holding back their development/designs even in games like 3K and WH...they don't have the ability to do it effectively.
    Yep and why? Because all the factions are totally different with a huge variety of expensive varying units, which must be paid for. Remember, a single unit/model development shares a budget with a minor historical game as CA states. With that in mind I don’t think it’s sensible to compare a fantasy and historical game.

    In reference to design and geography, not really an issue, this is CA’s bread and butter and they could quite easily add nations through DLC in a similar way Paradox do. They can have a basic outline of a nation and then add complexity later.

    In reference to the complexity of the almost entire WH world compared to the Victorian world I’m not convinced of your argument. They managed Empire TW 10 years ago so I’m pretty sure they can do Victoria now.

    On this point I’ve never felt convinced by your arguments and that’s not changed.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,083
    Opinions can’t be wrong. That’s part of what makes them opinions.
    ò_ó
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,135
    Never thought I would have to do this in this area of the forum but here it is. One person can't seem to keep their personal bias out of the conversation and has to ridicule or denigrate the opinions and members expressing differing ideas or opinions. I suggest they lighten up 'quite a bit'.

    Fourteen posts removed, mostly from the offending party, but also some others quoting in a response.
    "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.

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,086

    Yep and why? Because all the factions are totally different with a huge variety of expensive varying units, which must be paid for. Remember, a single unit/model development shares a budget with a minor historical game as CA states. With that in mind I don’t think it’s sensible to compare a fantasy and historical game.

    In reference to design and geography, not really an issue, this is CA’s bread and butter and they could quite easily add nations through DLC in a similar way Paradox do. They can have a basic outline of a nation and then add complexity later.

    In reference to the complexity of the almost entire WH world compared to the Victorian world I’m not convinced of your argument. They managed Empire TW 10 years ago so I’m pretty sure they can do Victoria now.

    On this point I’ve never felt convinced by your arguments and that’s not changed.

    It is when it comes to scale and the big difference is the animations between them. Design and such of each still would be applied to a historical game as everyone still isn't looking the same and they don't all fight the same. With the different cultures in the world during the 1800s there are large differences in how they fight and how they run their nation. While portions can be expanded on it still costs money to do so and still costs money to research, which is actually a lot higher than the fantasy line which has their forces, equipment and styles mostly fully shown and is easily accessed.

    Paradox doesn't tend to add new lands to their games, the land and geography already exists they just split provinces. CA has done that a bit with 3K but not quite to the same extent. They'd still need to have covered most of the planet in the base game which is still a very large area. Yeah they can do culture/faction DLCs like they have for a long time, but they'd still need to have made the base and given them enough depth to be a valid enemy.

    Empire didn't cover that large amount of the world, it left a lot of details of the area it did cover and many, many nations were missed out. The new system they have moved to also loses a lot of the depth and detail that Empire was able to make. So unless you think CA is deliberately holding the new games back...they haven't shown they have the ability to do it effectively.

    Also for both Empire 2 and Victorian era, what do we all think about the army/fleet limits?

    P.s. shame I missed the rants! lol
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,045
    Lotor12 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    What is the difference of Empire 2 and Victorian Era?

    Will their gameplay unique towards each other?

    Empire 2 - 18th century
    Victoria - 19th century (second half?)

    I mean the difference in gameplay.
    Or shouldn't it be made in the same game?
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    Commisar said:

    Yep and why? Because all the factions are totally different with a huge variety of expensive varying units, which must be paid for. Remember, a single unit/model development shares a budget with a minor historical game as CA states. With that in mind I don’t think it’s sensible to compare a fantasy and historical game.

    In reference to design and geography, not really an issue, this is CA’s bread and butter and they could quite easily add nations through DLC in a similar way Paradox do. They can have a basic outline of a nation and then add complexity later.

    In reference to the complexity of the almost entire WH world compared to the Victorian world I’m not convinced of your argument. They managed Empire TW 10 years ago so I’m pretty sure they can do Victoria now.

    On this point I’ve never felt convinced by your arguments and that’s not changed.

    It is when it comes to scale and the big difference is the animations between them. Design and such of each still would be applied to a historical game as everyone still isn't looking the same and they don't all fight the same. With the different cultures in the world during the 1800s there are large differences in how they fight and how they run their nation. While portions can be expanded on it still costs money to do so and still costs money to research, which is actually a lot higher than the fantasy line which has their forces, equipment and styles mostly fully shown and is easily accessed.

    Paradox doesn't tend to add new lands to their games, the land and geography already exists they just split provinces. CA has done that a bit with 3K but not quite to the same extent. They'd still need to have covered most of the planet in the base game which is still a very large area. Yeah they can do culture/faction DLCs like they have for a long time, but they'd still need to have made the base and given them enough depth to be a valid enemy.

    Empire didn't cover that large amount of the world, it left a lot of details of the area it did cover and many, many nations were missed out. The new system they have moved to also loses a lot of the depth and detail that Empire was able to make. So unless you think CA is deliberately holding the new games back...they haven't shown they have the ability to do it effectively.

    Also for both Empire 2 and Victorian era, what do we all think about the army/fleet limits?

    P.s. shame I missed the rants! lol
    I’d say in reference to work done basic human movements is a lot easier than considering the movement of non humans. Take the WE’s for example, the animators had to research ‘material dancing’ just to get basic movements (for a WE humanoid) and that’s not including huge and difficult animations for various monsters. Human and horse animations in comparison are easy, as they have every type of human and horse animations stored. This is why a single monster costs the same as an entire standard game.

    Paradox do however create basic interpretations of cultures and factions until they add further detail via DLC. CA themselves are more likely to add new areas if they feel the need to. In reference to detail the northern barbarians were painfully basic.

    Empire looked after a huge chunk of the world and that was 12 years ago, considering the size of ME I’d say it’d be fine. There’s more than enough ability to do a Victorian map. Whether they have to add Australasia on a later date (I doubt they’d need to though).

    Again I don’t think army and fleet limits are worth discussing as we have no idea. To me ME shows CA’s current abilities and it’s clear they’d improve in the next game.

    The only issue that can stop Victoria is a simple decision based on preference.

    I’m sure there’ll be more!
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    edited August 2021
    Warlocke said:

    Opinions can’t be wrong. That’s part of what makes them opinions.

    Well, I guess that Nazis weren't wrong for doing the terrible things they did because they had their own opinions on them.

    That's basically what you're trying to say with that logic.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    It’s just not getting through..

    -You’re convinced that your personal experience of FotS is everyone else’s **it isn't**
    -I was able to have tactical battle in FotS
    -The term gun spam is meaningless. As there are multiple gun units, rifles, air rifles (harder to locate), pistols, revolver, shotgun/blunderbuss, explosives, shock cavalry, ranged cavalry, famous regiments (unique skills), non-Euro armies etc.
    -Advanced tactics, abilities, strategies etc.

    You’re making problems that don’t exist.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,083

    Warlocke said:

    Opinions can’t be wrong. That’s part of what makes them opinions.

    Well, I guess that Nazis weren't wrong for doing the terrible things they did because they had their own opinions on them.

    That's basically what you're trying to say with that logic.
    I think that is the most absurd example of Godwin’s law I’ve ever seen.

    1) Opinions aren’t actions. Saying opinions cannot be wrong does not imply all actions are morally justified. At all. That’s ridiculous.

    2) Opinions aren’t beliefs. Opinions are subjective preferences. They can be neither right or wrong because they are simply the preference of the subject. Facts are objective reality. People can disagree over facts, but there is still some theoretically knowable truth. A belief is either a objectively stated claim that simply cannot be proven (i.e., there is a God) or an objectively stated claim that is just poorly predicated and wrong (i.e., the Earth is flat).

    The crimes of the Nazi’s were predicated on beliefs, not opinions.
    ò_ó
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089

    It’s just not getting through..

    -You’re convinced that your personal experience of FotS is everyone else’s **it isn't**
    -I was able to have tactical battle in FotS
    -The term gun spam is meaningless. As there are multiple gun units, rifles, air rifles (harder to locate), pistols, revolver, shotgun/blunderbuss, explosives, shock cavalry, ranged cavalry, famous regiments (unique skills), non-Euro armies etc.
    -Advanced tactics, abilities, strategies etc.

    You’re making problems that don’t exist.

    It's not meaningless just because YOU say it is.

    You throw around YOUR opinions like they're set in stone facts, yet disregard the historical facts that someone else brings up.

    Amazing.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259

    It’s just not getting through..

    -You’re convinced that your personal experience of FotS is everyone else’s **it isn't**
    -I was able to have tactical battle in FotS
    -The term gun spam is meaningless. As there are multiple gun units, rifles, air rifles (harder to locate), pistols, revolver, shotgun/blunderbuss, explosives, shock cavalry, ranged cavalry, famous regiments (unique skills), non-Euro armies etc.
    -Advanced tactics, abilities, strategies etc.

    You’re making problems that don’t exist.

    It's not meaningless just because YOU say it is.

    You throw around YOUR opinions like they're set in stone facts, yet disregard the historical facts that someone else brings up.

    Amazing.
    Let me explain the differences:

    FotS was reviewed in the late 80 meaning the majority of people liked the game. It got review bombed because of a concern about the price. There are few people in the reviews complaining about ‘gun spam’, which tells me that’s a personal opinion which other people do not share. Hence, it’s a fact that’s backed up with evidence.

    I stated that there’s no real evidence that people agree with you on mass. That’s obviously true thanks to clear evidence.

    Not amazing.. just cold hard facts.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Warlocke said:


    I think that is the most absurd example of Godwin’s law I’ve ever seen.

    1) Opinions aren’t actions. Saying opinions cannot be wrong does not imply all actions are morally justified. At all. That’s ridiculous.

    2) Opinions aren’t beliefs. Opinions are subjective preferences. They can be neither right or wrong because they are simply the preference of the subject. Facts are objective reality. People can disagree over facts, but there is still some theoretically knowable truth. A belief is either a objectively stated claim that simply cannot be proven (i.e., there is a God) or an objectively stated claim that is just poorly predicated and wrong (i.e., the Earth is flat).

    The crimes of the Nazi’s were predicated on beliefs, not opinions.

    Sure they were pal.


    But you guys are trying to act like opinions trump historical facts. And don't try to lie and say you're not, because you are.

    And I'm not going to just let you guys do that.


    You guys clearly don't want to acknowledge the fact that there are flaws in your arguments and truth in what the opposition says.


    Like how I point out how in a Victorian era TW the long ranges and quick reloading times of "modern" firearms would make pretty much all other tactics useless. And that's just factoring in your standard line infantry.

    Because if some accounts are to be believed, standard firearms like the British Martini Henry Rifles were supposed to be accurate up to 800 meters or yards, at least in volleys anyway.

    Yeah, 800 meters or yards.

    Unless you're able to use LOTS of sneaky stealth troops, you won't be able to get near such units without losing pretty much all your units.


    But that's the kind of stuff you guys aren't thinking about when you blindly want more and more guns.

    At least what I want for an Empire 2 would offer some more options beyond just guns, guns, and more guns.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259

    Warlocke said:


    I think that is the most absurd example of Godwin’s law I’ve ever seen.

    1) Opinions aren’t actions. Saying opinions cannot be wrong does not imply all actions are morally justified. At all. That’s ridiculous.

    2) Opinions aren’t beliefs. Opinions are subjective preferences. They can be neither right or wrong because they are simply the preference of the subject. Facts are objective reality. People can disagree over facts, but there is still some theoretically knowable truth. A belief is either a objectively stated claim that simply cannot be proven (i.e., there is a God) or an objectively stated claim that is just poorly predicated and wrong (i.e., the Earth is flat).

    The crimes of the Nazi’s were predicated on beliefs, not opinions.

    Sure they were pal.


    But you guys are trying to act like opinions trump historical facts. And don't try to lie and say you're not, because you are.

    And I'm not going to just let you guys do that.


    You guys clearly don't want to acknowledge the fact that there are flaws in your arguments and truth in what the opposition says.


    Like how I point out how in a Victorian era TW the long ranges and quick reloading times of "modern" firearms would make pretty much all other tactics useless. And that's just factoring in your standard line infantry.

    Because if some accounts are to be believed, standard firearms like the British Martini Henry Rifles were supposed to be accurate up to 800 meters or yards, at least in volleys anyway.

    Yeah, 800 meters or yards.

    Unless you're able to use LOTS of sneaky stealth troops, you won't be able to get near such units without losing pretty much all your units.


    But that's the kind of stuff you guys aren't thinking about when you blindly want more and more guns.

    At least what I want for an Empire 2 would offer some more options beyond just guns, guns, and more guns.
    Here’s a historical fact. Warfare didn’t get simple and less tactical because of the mass use of guns.

    Who’s ignoring historical facts?
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,083
    The projection is strong. The reading, less so.

    For the record, I’ve never advocated a setting with more guns in Empire 2. I’d actually rather CA make something set earlier.
    ò_ó
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    Warlocke said:

    The projection is strong. The reading, less so.

    For the record, I’ve never advocated a setting with more guns in Empire 2. I’d actually rather CA make something set earlier.

    I’m happy with either, Bronze would be just as good for me.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089


    Is this a joke? Please reference a professional historian stating that more modern warfare is more simple and less tactically rich.

    I'm basing what I say off of various documentaries as well as what I can tell such warfare would be like translated into a TW game based on my experience with FotS.

    And I've come to the conclusion that based on such things, trying to make a Empire 2 that takes place during the years you guys have mentioned, or going full Victorian era TW, that such a game would be a really boring mess where spamming guns at an enemy would be the easiest way to deal with them.


    And the funniest thing about all this would be the fact that a lot of what would be added into such a game wouldn't really be anything brand new. It would mostly all just be reused things from Empire 1 and Napoleon.

    Things like Light Infantry Tactics formations and such would all just be refurbished things from those two games.


    I on the other hand would like to see an Empire 2 be more than just repeating the same exact things as the past games.

    Though I do think that in some ways that wouldn't be so bad.


    What I mean is that I think that some factions, such as the Mongols and Mughal Empire could have different playstyles we may have seen before in TW games, but mixing that in with the time period would help make a lot of that still feel unique and interesting.

    And having the Native Americans be able to not just banzai charge their enemies would be pretty nice too.

    Them being able to steal more guns and horses to fight back against the European and other nations would actually make sense, but they wouldn't just be turning themselves into a European style army either.

    And something like a Vietnamese faction having a focus on stealth jungle fighters would also make sense, since historically having so much jungle and rough terrain would make pitched battles a lot harder to do in such lands.


    See, I'm just looking at how to make a good game while still sticking to the time period that offers to most options to players.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Warlocke said:

    For the record, I’ve never advocated a setting with more guns in Empire 2. I’d actually rather CA make something set earlier.

    Good, because FotS taught me one thing.

    And that was that TW games are best when there's room more tactical options, including melee units.

    FotS made melee armies all but useless, unless it was under extremely specific circumstances.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259


    Is this a joke? Please reference a professional historian stating that more modern warfare is more simple and less tactically rich.

    I'm basing what I say off of various documentaries as well as what I can tell such warfare would be like translated into a TW game based on my experience with FotS.

    And I've come to the conclusion that based on such things, trying to make a Empire 2 that takes place during the years you guys have mentioned, or going full Victorian era TW, that such a game would be a really boring mess where spamming guns at an enemy would be the easiest way to deal with them.


    And the funniest thing about all this would be the fact that a lot of what would be added into such a game wouldn't really be anything brand new. It would mostly all just be reused things from Empire 1 and Napoleon.

    Things like Light Infantry Tactics formations and such would all just be refurbished things from those two games.


    I on the other hand would like to see an Empire 2 be more than just repeating the same exact things as the past games.

    Though I do think that in some ways that wouldn't be so bad.


    What I mean is that I think that some factions, such as the Mongols and Mughal Empire could have different playstyles we may have seen before in TW games, but mixing that in with the time period would help make a lot of that still feel unique and interesting.

    And having the Native Americans be able to not just banzai charge their enemies would be pretty nice too.

    Them being able to steal more guns and horses to fight back against the European and other nations would actually make sense, but they wouldn't just be turning themselves into a European style army either.

    And something like a Vietnamese faction having a focus on stealth jungle fighters would also make sense, since historically having so much jungle and rough terrain would make pitched battles a lot harder to do in such lands.


    See, I'm just looking at how to make a good game while still sticking to the time period that offers to most options to players.
    Are you a professional historian? If it’s true and that sort of warfare is considered simple compared to ancient/medieval warfare you’ll find at least one quote to back up your claim.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,083

    Warlocke said:

    For the record, I’ve never advocated a setting with more guns in Empire 2. I’d actually rather CA make something set earlier.

    Good, because FotS taught me one thing.

    And that was that TW games are best when there's room more tactical options, including melee units.

    FotS made melee armies all but useless, unless it was under extremely specific circumstances.
    I wasn’t agreeing with you. I was drawing attention to how poorly you’ve followed the discussion.

    I’m hardly a historian, but the introduction of firearms shifted warfare from long ranks of men standing in rows stabbing each other to long rows of men shooting each other. That’s a general oversimplification of warfare, but in either circumstance you are worried about the same things: numerical advantage, suitable terrain, protection against flanking maneuvers, and so on. I don’t see either of those as being inherently and exceptionally more tactical than the other.
    ò_ó
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089


    Are you a professional historian? If it’s true and that sort of warfare is considered simple compared to ancient/medieval warfare you’ll find at least one quote to back up your claim.

    I know you're not either.

    But it doesn't take being a professional historian to understand how that sort of warfare would translate into a TW game.

    And that's what I'm able to do, and understand how it would actually work.

    If FotS is any indication, the game would in fact end up with all the "modern" armies just spam guns at each other and the tactics boiling down to who has more men or artillery or Gatling guns.

    And that's what this all boils down to, how the GAME would work and such.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,089
    Warlocke said:


    I wasn’t agreeing with you. I was drawing attention to how poorly you’ve followed the discussion.

    I’m hardly a historian, but the introduction of firearms shifted warfare from long ranks of men standing in rows stabbing each other to long rows of men shooting each other. That’s a general oversimplification of warfare, but in either circumstance you are worried about the same things: numerical advantage, suitable terrain, protection against flanking maneuvers, and so on. I don’t see either of those as being inherently and exceptionally more tactical than the other.

    That's one of the first things you've said that actually makes some sense.


    Though armies did kind of switch to standing in rows shooting at each other dude.

    That's not an oversimplification, it's just kind of what happened for a while. I mean, guns weren't always super accurate, so they needed to mass their guns pretty close to their enemy for them to be effective.

    But what you see doesn't matter compared to historical facts dude.



    I find it pretty funny that you and davedave blatantly ignored the historical examples I gave of the Anglo Zulu War and the Maori/New Zealand Wars and some of the things that happened in them.

    It's almost like you guys are trying to pretend that the other guy can't possibly make any arguments that might counter yours.


    But my point is that going any further forward in time than maybe Napoleon would obviously be a bad idea.

    And I would even go so far as to challenge you to go back and play a campaign on FotS and see how easy it can be.

    And I'm talking going full blown "modern" armies and not trying to just stick to old fashion stuff.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,259
    ‘Due to my lack of knowledge of games and mechanics CA can’t balance a game’

    A company of CA’s ability can make the Zulus or Maori’s challenging. Be it quality light infantry abilities, home turf advantages, ambush, high melee ability etc.

    Problems that can be dealt with by a skilled dev team.
This discussion has been closed.