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 > a Victorian TW

VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,427
edited December 2022 in Total War General Chat
I decided to just rework this thread a bit rather than make a new one that's super similar thread that goes over much of the same things. And this kind of goes for the idea of a WW1 or WW2 TW game as well, but that would've just been too long of a title.

But I'm gonna be blunt guys.

I care most about CA making a good TW game. Not a Paradox game. Not some other strategy game. A freaking TW game!


Now I don't think there's absolutely nothing at all that the Victorian era could do in a TW game, but I'm also not naïve enough to ignore some huge problems either.

I know enough about the period to know that the level of technology in the mid to late 1800s advanced quite quickly and would make the battles pretty much one dimensional, with stuff like melee charges and such all but meaningless in a gameplay sense.

I just want to see CA play to the strengths of the TW games, which is the mixuture of ranged, melee, cavalry, and other such troops, rather than go and take some ridiculously needless risk with a time period that WILL limit the tactical options of the battles.

And that's why I can safely say that an Empire 2 is far superior to a TW game set in Victorian or later periods.


The following is just an example of what I'm talking about.

After watching this

and it's other 4 parts, it really made me realize all the possibilities CA could have to work with in terms of possible playable factions and how unique their armies could be in an Empire 2 who's campaign should stretch from 1695 or so to 1800 at most.

CA could and should make a lot of stuff like melee troops and so on work effectively so that there's more to melee troops than just mass melee rush tactics, but we can talk about that stuff in future comments.


I think that one of the biggest things CA would absolutely NEED to do is to change how they would make DLC for this game.

They should make the DLC packs almost more akin to expansion packs of old, both literally and figuratively, rather than giving out comparably smaller DLC packs for other TW games, mainly adding more to the main grand campaign rather than being a bunch of smaller campaigns.

Though I'd like to see CA not to try to make the grand campaign fully global in scale, as that would lead a lot of repeat factions for some cultures or some cultures pretty much being completely isolated from pretty much everyone else.


I'm mainly thinking of cultures such as the Hawaiians, Maori of New Zealand, and all the Native American tribes west of the Mississippi River.

Now, it's not that I don't think that any of those cultures or possible factions couldn't have ANY interesting possibilities to them, but I just think that it would kind of end up being similar to the whole Aztecs vs Spanish type of things, where they would pretty much be at the mercy of all other factions.

I think the problem with having ALL of North America alone with all those native tribes would basically make it impossible to have actually unique takes on all of them.

I mean, how much fun would it really be to play as the Hawaiians or Maori, who at this time don't have guns, cavalry, or ships possible of going toe to toe with even your basic European ships armed with cannons?

Maybe some of those cultures could get their own smaller campaigns once the grand campaign was fleshed out all the way, but I just can't see them being balanced into the campaign or MP.


Now, I don't want this OP to become ridiculously long, so I won't say too much more as it is.

Though I will say that an Empire 2 could easily be one of the greatest TW games if the scale and eventual variety of the grand campaign is done right, but we can talk about that in future comments.

And maybe I'll make a couple of comments explaining other major things they could implement in a Empire 2, like I did with my TW: Antiquity thread.


But what do you think?

What kind of stuff do you think CA could bring to an Empire 2 to make it a great TW game?
Post edited by VikingHuscal1066#5774 on

Comments

  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,427
    edited January 24
    I'm probably only going to make a few of these explanatory comments compared to the TW: Antiquity thread, as I would hope and kind of expect CA to add in some of the things I mentioned in that thread, such as proper unit tiers and weapon ranges and such, though it would obviously be a little different for the era an Empire 2 would be set in.

    But I'll start off with something fairly simple but meaningful.


    Unit Roles
    Now, this is something I think could easily be within almost any TW game, but I do think that it could be a little more meaningful if properly introduced in an Empire 2.

    And what I mean by unit roles is more so wanting ALL unit types to be useful in some way or another rather than some units always dominating every fight unless its a hard counter to them.

    For instance, I don't want to see all cavalry armed with spears or lances having anti cavalry damage just because, as I remember how ridiculous stuff could be in Shogun 2, with the Yari vs Katana Cavalry.

    You see, in that game, the Yari Cav had much higher charge bonus, but pitiful melee defense compared to the Katana Cav, but the Katana Cav would constantly lose fights to the Yari Cav because they had spears.

    I would greatly prefer it if the dedicated melee cavalry armed with swords and such may not have the very high impact that lancers have, but they should absolutely make up for it in a prolonged melee fight with their higher overall skill in melee as shown through their stats.

    There could be a few exceptions, such as the Polish Wing Hussars, who should be like Cataphracts in that they use long lances and switch to swords after the charge, but be quite good at using them.


    But I guess I should put it in a bit more simple terms so that this comment doesn't get super long.


    Line Infantry: These guys should be, well, your main line infantry who wield muskets and bayonets, and who can use a few different formations to increase their firepower and effectiveness.

    Light Infantry: Light Infantry should be mainly units armed with muskets who should be somewhat of a in between of line infantry and skirmishers, being able to skirmish with enemies more effectively while still being fairly decent in melee as well.

    Skirmishers: These guys should be dedicated to skirmishing with their enemies with weapons such as muskets, rifles, and bows and are best kept out of melee.

    Melee Infantry: These guys should be dedicated melee fighters who are armed with swords, spears, axes, and other such types of melee weapons who are very deadly if they close the distance, with even lower tier variants being dangerous to lower tier line infantry and such.

    Melee Cavalry: These guys should be cavalry who are dedicated to melee combat, as most of them are armed with swords and other such melee weapons that can be wielded from horseback.

    The professional and elite of them should REALLY excel at prolonged melee fights and be very deadly to most other units, except maybe for direct fights with the heaviest melee infantry.

    Lancer Cavalry: Most of these guys should be your typical high impact cycle charging cavalry who are mostly good at charging an enemy and then pulling back to charge again, though the elite lancer cavalry could be pretty good in melee as well, but just not as good as their sword wielding melee cousins.

    Missile Cavalry: These guys should range from everything from classical steppe horse archers to more "modern" firearm equipped light cavalry, but they should excel at weakening an enemy before charging in to finish them off.

    Elephants
    From what I've learned in recent years, there were some armies in the far east in Asia still used elephants during the 1700s, so I figured they might be worth mentioning as well.

    I mean, they're elephants, and we've seen elephants in other TW games before, but I think that it would be awesome to not only see elephants that have your basic gunners or archers, but also a few other variations as well, such as the infamous Mughal Armored Elephants. Just google them and you'll see why they should be added in.

    But I would like to see elite elephant units, armored or not have smaller cannons in their little towers. Not quite the super OP things from Medieval 2, but more so anti troop canons that can still do a lot amount of damage as well.

    But if elephants do get into melee range, they should be extremely deadly.

    Artillery
    I think that the different types of artillery should also be refined a bit, so that they can really fulfill the roles they're supposed to more effectively.

    Cannons should be you basic 6, 8, and 12lb type artillery that just shoots straight at the enemies, has really long range, and is good for shoot at most walls.

    Howitzers should be, well, howitzer cannons that lob shells and such at the enemies, but can do it more safely over your own units as well. Though I would like to see more than just like 2 or something variations of them as well.

    Mortars should really be all about bombarding their enemies from a VERY long distance, while still having pretty decent accuracy.

    I could see there being either light and heavy mortars, with the light ones being moveable and the heavy ones being stationary, but VERY powerful.

    I think that other more specialized artillery could work much as it has in the past, but maybe just be refined a fair bit more.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066#5774 on
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,427
    I was going to make a comment about how all the playable factions should all be viable, not just in MP but also the campaigns overall, but I decided to do something a bit simpler instead.

    Formations
    Now I know, there doesn't seem like there's all that much to talk about when it comes to formations for the era of an Empire 2, but you'd be wrong. And while it's not the biggest aspect of the era, I do think that there's a fair bit that can be done with the unit formations of the era to make them all useful in the game.

    I think that they could kind of take some of the formations and such from FotS of all games, but reintroduce some of the formations from Empire and Napoleon, but do them all better.

    But I'll just list off the different formations and what each of them could do.


    Loose Formation
    My thoughts on the basic loose formation are pretty simple.

    Almost all units should have loose formation, aside from line infantry and artillery obviously.

    It should be the formations they use to try to lessen the effect that ranged fire has on units, but what I'd actually see be done with the loose formation is for it to actually lessen the charge bonus of the unit and not just supposedly lessening it.

    The weaknesses of loose formation should be pretty obvious as well. Not only should it lessen the charge bonus of a unit, it should also have it's usual weaknesses to getting charged, especially by cavalry, but otherwise, it's just the loose formation we've seen before.

    Square Formations
    I think that there should be two types of square formations, but they should almost function the same way.

    I want to see both a Square and "Spear" Square formations basically work just like Rome 2's square formation, with the units forming a square formation, but the difference between the two types of formations is that the one used by line and light infantry equipped with muskets and bayonets can shoot in all directions.

    Though I think both should give a decent buff of +5 MD to the units that form them.

    The Spear Square formation should just basically be an anti cavalry and defensive formation for melee infantry armed with spears and such weapons.

    Though I do think that the square formation for line and light infantry should increase the unit's range by 25, as it does force them to stay stationary.


    Rank Fire Formation
    This formation should work pretty simply.

    The formation forces the line infantry or light infantry unit into 4 ranks deep and each rank aiming and firing at the enemy in pretty quick succession.

    The formation should also force the unit to stay stationary and increase range by 25 and their reload skill by 20 as well.


    Mass Fire Formation
    The Mass Fire formation should basically be like the Kneel Fire formation from FotS, but doubled up.

    It should also force the unit into 4 ranks deep, but in a tighter formation, with the first 2 ranks kneeling and and back 2 ranks standing, but they all present and fire at the same time, creating a shotgun like effect.

    Now the weaknesses of this formation should be quite obvious.

    It makes the units much more susceptible to getting flanked as well as a easier target for units that outrange them, such as elite archers, riflemen, and artillery, as well as greatly lessening the unit's reload skill, as the unit is firing all their guns at once.

    And while being another stationary formation, it should increase the unit's range by a whopping 50 for line infantry but only 25 for light infantry, but also increase the unit's MD by +5 as well, as the unit would be able to basically form a spear wall of sorts with their bayonets.


    "Skirmish" Formation
    This is should basically be the updated version of the Light Infantry Tactics from Empire 1 and Napoleon.

    It should basically be the same sort of spread out formation that allows the light infantry and skirmishers to fire at least one big initial volley and then skirmish fire from then on out, if the player just has them stay and continue to fire that is.

    It should be weak to cavalry in a similar vane as the loose formation, but not much needs to be changed about this one.


    Cavalry Formations
    In a similar manner, the cavalry formations, those being the Wedge and Diamond formations don't really need to be changed all that much as much as they maybe need to be refined.

    Though I would be 100% ok with the cavalry wedge formation basically being the flying wedge from Rome 2.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,427
    Proper Faction Balance
    This one's pretty simple.

    I want CA to put in the little bit of extra effort to make sure that ALL the eventual playable factions can stand toe to toe with each other and not have a stupid repeat of Rome 2 and the like again, where a handful of power factions ALWAYS being the best choices, be it for the campaigns or MP.

    And before ANYONE says anything, I'm not saying that all the factions have to be so carefully balanced that they're all the same or that CA should basically turn each major playable faction or culture into a standalone Warhammer race in terms of tons of mechanics and so on either.

    I just want all the playable non European factions to be viable against other factions and not just their local rebels or whatever. I want to see the likes of the Safavids, the Qing Dynasty, the Native American Tribes, and others to be able to stand up to the likes of the European powers if they get fully going and advance their faction.

    The point is that they should all have their own general strengths and weaknesses rather than just being overshadowed by the European factions.

    And a major part of that could come from the next section.


    Unit Ranges
    This is going to be really simple, as I'm just going to list off the different ranges units for an Empire 2.

    And this is just the idea of the basic unaltered ranges.

    Line Infantry Muskets: 100
    Light Infantry Muskets: 125
    Bows and Rifles: 150
    Elite Bows: 175
    Light Guns: 225-300
    Light Howitzers: 350-375
    "Light" Cannons: 400-450
    Medium Howitzers: 400-450
    "Medium" Cannons: 450
    Heavy Howitzers: 500-600
    "Heavy" Cannons: 600-700
    Light Mortars: 550-650
    Heavy Mortars: 800-1,000

    Now, for those who don't know, the numbers I'm using for the artillery might seem pretty high, but I'm going off of Empire and mainly Napoleon's ranges for that, as they had pretty darn long ranges, and I do think that things like your 12lber heavy cannons and heavy mortars should have very great range and pretty good accuracy, for the mortars at least.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,427
    Mechanics
    I haven't mentioned mechanics and the like in this thread's OP, as I while I do think that mechanics would and should mean something in an Empire 2, I don't quit want CA to turn such a game into another Warhammer 3 when it comes to cultural and such mechanics and such.

    I think that they could possibly give some playable factions a unique mechanic or two at most, but I'd much rather see CA do some stuff like refining and improving the diplomacy from 3K and have the mechanics be somewhat universal rather than hyper specific for a single faction.

    I guess I could maybe see some mechanics like the Kingdom of Ethiopia having the unique ability to pick which of three religions their faction follows, which I think should at least give a a number of units for each choice instead of only being a relations modifier for certain factions.

    I just don't want to see the game be so overloaded with mechanics for every single playable faction that it becomes hard to get into or becomes limited in just what some factions can do. But I'm sure you guys know what I mean.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,427
    Faction Uniqueness
    This is kind of related to the whole Proper Faction Balance topic, but I thought it would be worth mentioning on its own.

    You see, I don't want the likes of the European factions to be incredibly underpowered or anything, but I just don't want to see them be so ridiculously powerful that they can win against pretty much every other faction by spamming nothing but line infantry at their best armies.

    But I'm sure y'all understand what I mean. I just want all playable factions and their armies to be viable.


    But as far as unique things go, I do think that there are plenty of things that the devs could give to many playable factions, even in the base game that could help change how a particular faction may use their armies, or at least give some different options.

    I mean, from Europe you could have factions like Sweden or even Scotland have a good number of special units that are pretty much completely unique to their faction alone.

    You could have Scotland have a number of Highland units that maybe be rather old fashion in how they fight for the most part, but give them a shared special ability and give them proper stats, and they could certainly be a nasty foe to face.

    Now for Sweden, they could have their rather famous Caroleans be up to 7 types of units. They could be something this

    Carolean Infantry: Highly trained line Infantry who are armed with swords instead of bayonets, which allows them to excel in melee combat.

    Carolean Light Infantry: Highly trained light infantry who can skirmish well enough, but also excel in melee combat.

    Carolean Halberdiers: Carolean soldiers who are armed with halberds instead of firearms, so they can support the other Caroleans.

    Royal Caroleans: Elite Carolean line infantry who are even more effective in melee than their professional counterparts.

    Royal Carolean Light Infantry: Elite Carolean Light Infantry.

    King's Halberdiers: Elite Carolean Halberdiers.

    Royal Carolean Bodyguards: Elite Caroleans who are armed with pistols and swords, and who fire their pistols before they charge.

    Now, from what I've learned historically, the Swedish Caroleans were known to be trained to use a number of different melee weapons, such as swords and the like, but even pikes.

    But I thought that making them halberdiers similar to those of the Empire in the TW Warhammer games, but with a basic formation, could allow them to be more flexible than pike units reasonably could be.

    And yes, I know, I basically want the Carolean Bodyguards to be an elite version of the Free Company Militia from the TW Warhammer games. I just think that that would be a way to give Sweden a unique general's bodyguard unit.


    But kind of halfway back onto the topic of faction balancing, I think that some of the unique things some factions in an Empire 2 could have could really factor into helping them level the playing field against other factions.

    Whereas a factions like the Qing Dynasty in China may not have tons of line infantry and may only have a comparably few types of firearm equipped light infantry, they could certainly have strengths in other areas of their military. They could and should be able to make use of powerful Manchu and Mongolian cavalry units, especially high quality horse archers.

    But the idea isn't to make them only able to do nothing but spam cavalry at every enemy either, as I do think the Qing should have a pretty good roster all around, but they should certainly have their strengths that good players should be able to learn to maximize to their fullest.

    Because things like the European cavalry should be much like what it was in Empire 1 and Napoleon, with lancers, melee, and light cav, some who have guns. But they would and SHOULD still be outranged by troops with decent bows, such as the various kinds of horse archers the Qing could recruit.

    I mean, what are your highly trained cuirassiers and or lancers going to do if they face off against even basic Manchu or Mughal horse archers who can pepper them with arrows, even while running away, when most of them have comparably little armor?

    I mean, if the enemy can tie down your artillery in a artillery duel, armies like the Qing and such can more easily play to the strengths of their troops.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,427
    I know it's been a while, but it took me a little while to think of some of these things.

    But bear with me, this might be a long one.

    Faction Goals
    Well, this is something that I think is both a bit more nuanced and in some ways a bit simpler than some of us might think.

    I mean, for most playable factions in an Empire 2, their goal should be to conquer and grow in power until they reach the campaign goals and all that the players have set, which should include a short, medium, long, and domination options.

    But I think that it should be a fair bit different for the Native Americans at least, as they would already have a fair amount of challenges to deal with compared to the other possible playable factions.

    Because after watching this particular part of a documentary about the French and Indian War,

    it made me realize that the Native Americans could actually hold their own against European style armies and such.

    I think that the Native American factions should be more focused on driving the various European powers out of North America and maybe solidifying their hold over it so that they can drive back any attempts the Europeans and such may try to retake territory in North America.

    And I think that the Grand Campaign map for an Empire 2, at least the North American part of it, should only go as far west as the Mississippi River and from there North into Canada, but not quite to the arctic circle area, but I digress.

    The point I'm trying to get at is that while that may not seem like all that far for us today, back in the 1700s, where an Empire 2 should be set in, that was a HUGE area, which it should be in game, and more than enough for the Native American factions.

    My point is that playing as the Native Americans SHOULD feel like a different experience to playing most other factions.


    Siege Redesigns and Reworks
    Well, I would like to see sieges be improved upon a bit in an Empire 2, or at the very least for the map designs to feel fairly unique and reworked in such a way that they're relatively balanced for both sides, within reason.

    I think that while it'd be more than ok to see some pretty crazy stuff like star forts and so on, but I don't want to see the maps be like some of the super crazy stuff that will put even Thrones' siege maps to shame without impossible some of them are to attack.

    To get an idea of what I mean, go check out a YouTube Channel called SandRhoman History, specifically his Staggering Siege videos.

    The point is that I certainly want the most improved and upgraded fortresses to be very powerful, but not so much that they ALWAYS force players to starve them out because they're impossible to actually attack.

    But I would also like to see the fortresses of non European fortresses be their own unique things as well as be challenging in their own right, with some making more interesting use of terrain than just a big old star fort on flat ground or whatever.

    I could see factions like the Native Americans maybe not making giant star forts, but maybe fortifications that make far more use of different types of terrain, such as swamps and forests, to force their enemies to attack certain ways rather than how they may want to.

    Likewise, I could see some forts and fortresses from areas like Burma and such areas that may have lots of jungle, forests, or even mountains making a lot of use of those features so that they're more than all the same basic square forts or whatever.


    As far as reworks to how sieges work go, I could see some maps, depending on where they are and such, not having a complete 360 deployment zones around the fortress, which could be because of terrain and so on. Because I would like to see the terrain and such matter a bit more for sieges than just having the standard 360 deployment zones for EVERY map.

    Maybe they could allow the 360 deployment zone around all siege maps after a turn or two of besieging the place, to reflect the use of scouts or something like that.
Sign In or Register to comment.