Empire 2 > a Victorian TW

VikingHuscal1066#5774

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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd4C78JQE6s
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?

VikingHuscal1066#5774

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.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

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#5774

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#5774

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#5774

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#5774

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,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPcxxxttIcs&t=1s
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.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

I know it's been a while, but it just took me a while to think of one more major thing that I wanted to add to this.

And calm down guys, this isn't a necro thread or anything, it's only been about a month since I last commented here, not like a year or more.


Campaign Scale
I really think that an Empire 2 could possibly do something better than almost any other historical TW game.

And that in the scale of the grand campaign.

I mean, I think that CA could certainly start out with an updated version of the Rome 2/Attila "Mediterranean" map, but maybe a little bitter, and through DLCs, they could slowly but surely expand the grand campaign map to include most of the known world, from North America in the west to Japan and the Philippines at most in the east.

I think CA could manage this as they'll just be dealing with human factions instead of all the crazy races and such from the TW: Warhammer games. So a lot of that same effort could be put into making the campaign map all the larger and having the DLCs add onto the map without sacrificing too much either.

Now, I know what I'm about to say may sound a bit contradictory to what I just said, but please hear me out.

I kind of hope that CA wouldn't go fully global in scale for the campaign map, as I do think that some factions, such as the Hawaiians and Maori would be utterly unable to stand up to most other factions, even the non European ones.

I only say that because if you stop and think about those sorts of factions, you can't really bend the history too much and have them magically have tons of firearms and such right off the bat. Even the Native Americans would have to do various things to acquire "modern" firearms and such, like trading or beating European armies in battle. And just with how far away Hawaii and New Zealand are from even mainland Asia, let alone Europe, it's kind of hard to imagine their natives being able to hold their own with just melee infantry and a few archers alone.

But I still think that CA could make the grand campaign feel massive, even if it's not fully global.

#95814

I think the time period should include Victorian era, as a core part but should go beyond that. 1848 to 1908 should be the years we set it in. And it would be called 'Imperialism Total War' set in the age of imperialism which ended up leading us into ww1.

It would include concepts such as the rise of nations. The american civil war. Independence wars of latin america. Scramble for Africa. The Taiping civil war, India, Meiji Japan, colonialism in south east asia and much much more. Other themes going on would be industrialisation and 'the spectre of communism haunting europe' hehe. It would be the greatest Total War in scope, diversity and size. Bigger than Warhammer Total War 3 and a lot deeper and more complex in the mechanics.

It will probably also need a modern PC to run properly, and a new engine.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

#95814 said:

I think the time period should include Victorian era, as a core part but should go beyond that. 1848 to 1908 should be the years we set it in. And it would be called 'Imperialism Total War' set in the age of imperialism which ended up leading us into ww2.

It would include concepts such as the rise of nations. The american civil war. Independence wars of latin america. Scramble for Africa. The Taiping civil war, India, Meiji Japan, colonialism in south east asia and much much more. Other themes going on would be industrialisation and 'the spectre of communism haunting europe' hehe. It would be the greatest Total War in scope, diversity and size. Bigger than Warhammer Total War 3 and a lot deeper and more complex in the mechanics.

It will probably also need a modern PC to run properly, and a new engine.

I have to disagree with that, mainly because the technology of that period would make certain factions really overpowered and make others all but pointless no matter how well someone plays.

I mean, at least with an Empire 2 taking place in mainly the 1700s up to 1820 or so, you could have a ton of factions that have different playstyles for their armies still be viable throughout a whole campaign.

I mean, when muskets are still the main firearm weapon, that can allow other factions to shine without too much trouble.

I'm not saying that the European factions should be overly weak or anything, but that they shouldn't be super overpowered either.

#95814

To be honest i'm in the camp that would favour historical accuracy and realism over balancing. And multiplayer is just a secondary to me. Though i still think it's viable because both players would have the same amount of points, more primitive armies would have a larger potential unit cap. And their units would be cheaper. But regarding the single player, think of playing one of the less advanced civilizations/nations/cultures as playing 'hard mode'. Like in Europa Universalis games if you choose to start as the Byzantines at Constantinople, it's going to be a heck of a challenge, compared to if you chose to play as the Ottoman Empire.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

#95814 said:

To be honest i'm in the camp that would favour historical accuracy and realism over balancing. And multiplayer is just a secondary to me. Though i still think it's viable because both players would have the same amount of points, more primitive armies would have a larger potential unit cap. And their units would be cheaper. But regarding the single player, think of playing one of the less advanced civilizations/nations/cultures as playing 'hard mode'. Like in Europa Universalis games if you choose to start as the Byzantines at Constantinople, it's going to be a heck of a challenge, compared to if you chose to play as the Ottoman Empire.

No offense dude, but historical accuracy and realism aren't all that important if they hinder a game from being fun and interesting to play.

And that's exactly why an Empire 2 should be set in mainly the 1700s.

Because if you actually think about it, the realism and all that can meet with the balancing of the game in a nice middle ground where the technology of that period wouldn't make many factions' armies nothing but melee spam or whatever.

I'll give an example or two.


The Native Americans are the perfect example of what you call a "hard mode" group of factions, as their whole thing would revolve around various ways in which to ultimately try to drive out the various European factions from North America.

They would probably start out with a lot of "basic" but still deadly melee cav and infantry units, along with archers, but through a mechanic or two, they could acquire the ability to stockpile "modern" weapons, be it through alliances, trade, or even defeating European armies and or capturing their settlements.

And you could upgrade your units with such weapons, turning stuff like the old Warrior Society units from melee infantry into light infantry.

The idea is to have the Native Americans be able to adapt and change their ways of war to suit how they changed historically while not just having them start using nothing but line infantry and such.


And then there's the Qing Dynasty.

While the Qing certainly wouldn't be the least technologically advanced faction, as they apparently had access to a decent amount of artillery, I think that they shouldn't just be subject to being nothing but a melee rush faction either.

I think that the Qing should have a well rounded roster, but maybe a little more limited in the firearm units, mainly just having some light infantry and skirmisher units. But they should be able to make up for it with their powerful Mongolian and Manchu cavalry units, but especially their horse archers.

The idea for the Qing is to have them not just fall to all the apparent corruption and such that historically happen to their government, but be able to become quite the far eastern power in their own right if left unchecked or in the hands of a decent player.

But the idea with them is to give a faction that actually had potential to be powerful to actually become powerful in the game.

davedave1124#4773

#95814 said:

To be honest i'm in the camp that would favour historical accuracy and realism over balancing. And multiplayer is just a secondary to me. Though i still think it's viable because both players would have the same amount of points, more primitive armies would have a larger potential unit cap. And their units would be cheaper. But regarding the single player, think of playing one of the less advanced civilizations/nations/cultures as playing 'hard mode'. Like in Europa Universalis games if you choose to start as the Byzantines at Constantinople, it's going to be a heck of a challenge, compared to if you chose to play as the Ottoman Empire.

A lack of balance isn’t always a bad thing. If you consider Ikit Claw to Tretch you that tells you everything you need to know. In the historical sense look at the huge Empires of the West and Eastern Roman Empires compared to small civilisations you find in Rome 2 and Atilla DLC. I think it’s actually an advantage. When it comes to the much smaller powers you could play then as DLC within a narrative or allow systems that balance out the forces. A huge Empire like Britain doesn’t send the entire army to Africa, they are financed up to a small army to test for results or benefits. Add to that CA can balance the game how they like so usually, not a real problem.

The fact is there’s some who prefer Victoria, Empire or even Bronze Age eras.. we like what we like, which isn’t an issue.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

A lack of balance isn’t always a bad thing. If you consider Ikit Claw to Tretch you that tells you everything you need to know. In the historical sense look at the huge Empires of the West and Eastern Roman Empires compared to small civilisations you find in Rome 2 and Atilla DLC. I think it’s actually an advantage. When it comes to the much smaller powers you could play then as DLC within a narrative or allow systems that balance out the forces. A huge Empire like Britain doesn’t send the entire army to Africa, they are financed up to a small army to test for results or benefits. Add to that CA can balance the game how they like so usually, not a real problem.

The fact is there’s some who prefer Victoria, Empire or even Bronze Age eras.. we like what we like, which isn’t an issue.

I kind of only half agree with that sentiment.

With a setting like Warhammer, there shouldn't be as much focus on balance as the different races should have their own strengths and weaknesses due to the inherent asymmetrical balance, but with historical settings, it's a little different.

You can't go too crazy with historical period setting, but there is still a need for some balance so that all the factions can at least be viable, or you'll just be stuck playing a few power factions that always dominate every campaign and battle.

What I mean is that if Rome 2 or Attila weren't allowed to be sandbox games but with almost no balance in them, they'd probably just end up with far fewer options to play around with. It would all most likely play out as the historical events happened.

That's kind of why I want to see an Empire 2 mainly take place in the 1700s and only go up to 1820 or so at most, because the technology of that period would actually allow for a lot of different possible factions to be playable without all being one trick pony factions or armies.

I mean, if you do just a little research, you'll find that there were quite a lot of nations and kingdoms doing a lot of stuff during the 1700s, a lot of which could make for interesting playable factions in an Empire 2.

davedave1124#4773

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

davedave1124#4773 said:

A lack of balance isn’t always a bad thing. If you consider Ikit Claw to Tretch you that tells you everything you need to know. In the historical sense look at the huge Empires of the West and Eastern Roman Empires compared to small civilisations you find in Rome 2 and Atilla DLC. I think it’s actually an advantage. When it comes to the much smaller powers you could play then as DLC within a narrative or allow systems that balance out the forces. A huge Empire like Britain doesn’t send the entire army to Africa, they are financed up to a small army to test for results or benefits. Add to that CA can balance the game how they like so usually, not a real problem.

The fact is there’s some who prefer Victoria, Empire or even Bronze Age eras.. we like what we like, which isn’t an issue.

I kind of only half agree with that sentiment.

With a setting like Warhammer, there shouldn't be as much focus on balance as the different races should have their own strengths and weaknesses due to the inherent asymmetrical balance, but with historical settings, it's a little different.

You can't go too crazy with historical period setting, but there is still a need for some balance so that all the factions can at least be viable, or you'll just be stuck playing a few power factions that always dominate every campaign and battle.

What I mean is that if Rome 2 or Attila weren't allowed to be sandbox games but with almost no balance in them, they'd probably just end up with far fewer options to play around with. It would all most likely play out as the historical events happened.

That's kind of why I want to see an Empire 2 mainly take place in the 1700s and only go up to 1820 or so at most, because the technology of that period would actually allow for a lot of different possible factions to be playable without all being one trick pony factions or armies.

I mean, if you do just a little research, you'll find that there were quite a lot of nations and kingdoms doing a lot of stuff during the 1700s, a lot of which could make for interesting playable factions in an Empire 2.

I’m not saying they should be different, as tgat goes without saying. I’m saying they can have varying power levels as that offers different play styles as in looking after a global empire compared to being a regional power, it offers varying play styles. The fact that you can take over the world with a small faction is absolutely fine, I took over India with Sweden or I could’ve taken over the British Empire with an Indian state, it’s all possible and viable.

The fact is CA can create any game and add in engineered balance where required, so, this is more to do with what hasn’t been fully explored yet and what do individuals want to be explored? I’d like to see Victoria and you’d like to see Empire.. it’s all about individuals wants, nothing more and nothing less.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

I’m not saying they should be different, as tgat goes without saying. I’m saying they can have varying power levels as that offers different play styles as in looking after a global empire compared to being a regional power, it offers varying play styles. The fact that you can take over the world with a small faction is absolutely fine, I took over India with Sweden or I could’ve taken over the British Empire with an Indian state, it’s all possible and viable.

The fact is CA can create any game and add in engineered balance where required, so, this is more to do with what hasn’t been fully explored yet and what do individuals want to be explored? I’d like to see Victoria and you’d like to see Empire.. it’s all about individuals wants, nothing more and nothing less.

That's actually kind of what I want for the most part, for all factions to be viable in their own ways.

But what else I want is for the best possible TW game overall, and not just purely bases on my own tastes.


I think that that can easily be done in part by their rosters being unique in their own ways, for the most part anyway.

The roster for a faction like the Qing could be pretty well rounded, but I think that some of their standout units could be their Mongolian and Manchu cavalry, especially their horse archers, the elite of which could also be pretty good in melee.

That's just one simple example, and I'm sure you get the idea what can be done with other cultures and factions with them.


But what makes an Empire 2 set from 1696 or so to 1820 objectively better than one set in the Victorian era can be summed up in one word.

Technology.

The thing is, that when you stop and think about it, the level of technology in the Victorian era is quite a bit more advanced than in the 1700s, or it certainly gets to that point. I mean, all you have to do is think of major wars from the Victorian era to see what I'm talking about.

My point is that the 1700s were a time when smoothbore muskets were still the mainstay weapons of most European armies, which would still allow many other armies to be able to stand a chance against them, even if they have artillery.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like the European line infantry and such wouldn't have their own strengths and all, but the time period would just make things a lot more of a level playing field.

davedave1124#4773

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

davedave1124#4773 said:

I’m not saying they should be different, as tgat goes without saying. I’m saying they can have varying power levels as that offers different play styles as in looking after a global empire compared to being a regional power, it offers varying play styles. The fact that you can take over the world with a small faction is absolutely fine, I took over India with Sweden or I could’ve taken over the British Empire with an Indian state, it’s all possible and viable.

The fact is CA can create any game and add in engineered balance where required, so, this is more to do with what hasn’t been fully explored yet and what do individuals want to be explored? I’d like to see Victoria and you’d like to see Empire.. it’s all about individuals wants, nothing more and nothing less.

That's actually kind of what I want for the most part, for all factions to be viable in their own ways.

But what else I want is for the best possible TW game overall, and not just purely bases on my own tastes.


I think that that can easily be done in part by their rosters being unique in their own ways, for the most part anyway.

The roster for a faction like the Qing could be pretty well rounded, but I think that some of their standout units could be their Mongolian and Manchu cavalry, especially their horse archers, the elite of which could also be pretty good in melee.

That's just one simple example, and I'm sure you get the idea what can be done with other cultures and factions with them.


But what makes an Empire 2 set from 1696 or so to 1820 objectively better than one set in the Victorian era can be summed up in one word.

Technology.

The thing is, that when you stop and think about it, the level of technology in the Victorian era is quite a bit more advanced than in the 1700s, or it certainly gets to that point. I mean, all you have to do is think of major wars from the Victorian era to see what I'm talking about.

My point is that the 1700s were a time when smoothbore muskets were still the mainstay weapons of most European armies, which would still allow many other armies to be able to stand a chance against them, even if they have artillery.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like the European line infantry and such wouldn't have their own strengths and all, but the time period would just make things a lot more of a level playing field.

The issue is that you see tech as something bad and others see Victorian tech as an advantage, in so much as it offers new units, so, in that sense it is subjective because again, people have different views on the the subject. The Gatling Gun in FotS was an immensely popular unit.

Even in the Victorian period European infantry had disadvantages to native infantry, that is why the Zulu tribes and other militaries around the world won battles.

Again, this will always come down to personal taste.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

The issue is that you see tech as something bad and others see Victorian tech as an advantage, in so much as it offers new units, so, in that sense it is subjective because again, people have different views on the the subject. The Gatling Gun in FotS was an immensely popular unit.

Even in the Victorian period European infantry had disadvantages to native infantry, that is why the Zulu tribes and other militaries around the world won battles.

Again, this will always come down to personal taste.

Well, I kind of hate to break it to you, but as someone who has 2,729 hours of playtime on Shogun 2, I can safely say that the having more "modern" technology from the Victorian era really unbalanced the battles. The firearms were such a drastic jump in technology that you could literally just spam line infantry at most problems and you'd be able to win.

And while the Zulu could certainly win battles against their fellow native type peoples, their army at Isandlwana had to outnumber the British by like 10 to 1 to crush them.

I'm certainly not saying the Zulu weren't brave or capable warriors by any means, but that their limited firepower and all compared to the British made it almost impossible for them to win against the British or other Europeans in open battle.

My point is that during the 1700s, you could have a LOT more factions be viable without having it lead to just a bunch of cheese spamming and such.

I'd rather just have CA go with an option that doesn't make the Europeans the easy mode factions while the rest of the the major playable factions are nearly a Souls games level of hard mode factions.

davedave1124#4773

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

davedave1124#4773 said:

The issue is that you see tech as something bad and others see Victorian tech as an advantage, in so much as it offers new units, so, in that sense it is subjective because again, people have different views on the the subject. The Gatling Gun in FotS was an immensely popular unit.

Even in the Victorian period European infantry had disadvantages to native infantry, that is why the Zulu tribes and other militaries around the world won battles.

Again, this will always come down to personal taste.

Well, I kind of hate to break it to you, but as someone who has 2,729 hours of playtime on Shogun 2, I can safely say that the having more "modern" technology from the Victorian era really unbalanced the battles. The firearms were such a drastic jump in technology that you could literally just spam line infantry at most problems and you'd be able to win.

And while the Zulu could certainly win battles against their fellow native type peoples, their army at Isandlwana had to outnumber the British by like 10 to 1 to crush them.

I'm certainly not saying the Zulu weren't brave or capable warriors by any means, but that their limited firepower and all compared to the British made it almost impossible for them to win against the British or other Europeans in open battle.

My point is that during the 1700s, you could have a LOT more factions be viable without having it lead to just a bunch of cheese spamming and such.

I'd rather just have CA go with an option that doesn't make the Europeans the easy mode factions while the rest of the the major playable factions are nearly a Souls games level of hard mode factions.

I hate to break it to you that I’m not impressed by how much you’ve played whichever game. I’ve been here since Shogun 1 so don’t think for a second you have higher qualifications in what’s good or bad in terms of this game. Again, the game will never be perfectly balanced, nothing like and that’s not what’s important, what’s important is how enjoyable it is and FotS is considered and enjoyable game, whether you think this is true or not is rather irrelevant to everyone else’s experience. The firearms weren’t a huge jump due to the fact the stats weren’t crazy in anyway.

Yep, the Zulus will have much larger regiment sizes than European troops in the game.. good idea. The Zulus were intelligent fighters and the reason they lost certain fights was not listening to their leaders and attacking fortified areas, something the player needn’t do.

It doesn’t matter, these faction in the 1700 to 1800s were still overall vastly inferior to Western arms and tactics, that’s why Europe started to dominate the global sphere during this period, that’s why Empire TW only featured factions that used European tactics apart from DLC narrative campaigns.

I’d rather CA go for a period they haven’t fully explored rather than doing a repeat. Victorian TW has been tested and enjoyed, even if individuals don’t approve.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

And I don't care if you've played since Shogun 1 dave, as I've played since Rome 1, the first true and proper 3D TW game, so you don't really have much if any seniority over me.

And the reason I mention the hours I have on Shogun 2 was pretty simple, it was to point out how I actually know how unbalanced FotS was, which is a fact you can't just dismiss.


For you see, there's a funny little irony in all this

Most of my time on Napoleon through Rome 2 was spent in multiplayer, which does matter.

For you see, when you play against actually people, you can see quite a lot more of the balance or imbalance in the games than you can if you just play SP. And that's why my experience does matter more than yours in this regard.

The FotS "Victorian era" weapons and all were incredibly overpowered for a TW games that was originally about getting back to the proper TW formula of melee and ranged playing more of a part with cavalry, infantry, and skirmishers.

My point is dave, that while the Victorian era is plenty interesting, it's battles and wars don't really make for the best TW battles, which is a major part of any TW game.


And just increasing the numbers per unit for factions like the Zulu and such is just a really lazy route for the devs to take.

At least I want CA to actually do something smart with the games than just giving one faction sheer numbers or something.

And don't try to just diminish other cultures and such just because they didn't all just copy the European style of warfare.

Just watch the video I posted above about the Battle of Monongahela.

Yeah, "inferior" my foot.


And I'd rather have CA do something that WILL work within the formula of the TW games rather than try to waste time trying to deal with an era that's "new".

davedave1124#4773

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

davedave1124#4773 said:

And I don't care if you've played since Shogun 1 dave, as I've played since Rome 1, the first true and proper 3D TW game, so you don't really have much if any seniority over me.

And the reason I mention the hours I have on Shogun 2 was pretty simple, it was to point out how I actually know how unbalanced FotS was, which is a fact you can't just dismiss.


For you see, there's a funny little irony in all this

Most of my time on Napoleon through Rome 2 was spent in multiplayer, which does matter.

For you see, when you play against actually people, you can see quite a lot more of the balance or imbalance in the games than you can if you just play SP. And that's why my experience does matter more than yours in this regard.

The FotS "Victorian era" weapons and all were incredibly overpowered for a TW games that was originally about getting back to the proper TW formula of melee and ranged playing more of a part with cavalry, infantry, and skirmishers.

My point is dave, that while the Victorian era is plenty interesting, it's battles and wars don't really make for the best TW battles, which is a major part of any TW game.


And just increasing the numbers per unit for factions like the Zulu and such is just a really lazy route for the devs to take.

At least I want CA to actually do something smart with the games than just giving one faction sheer numbers or something.

And don't try to just diminish other cultures and such just because they didn't all just copy the European style of warfare.

Just watch the video I posted above about the Battle of Monongahela.

Yeah, "inferior" my foot.


And I'd rather have CA do something that WILL work within the formula of the TW games rather than try to waste time trying to deal with an era that's "new".

There’s no such thing as seniority, that’s my point, so you playing a game for a certain amount of hours means nothing. I’m glad we’ve sorted that out. No, you do not know how much or if at all FotS is unbalanced compared to any other and add to that, unbalance isn’t an issue, it’s usually considered an advantage. Also, all TW games are played in 3D, S1 to M2 weren’t 2D games.

How can a set of weapons that everyone owns be unbalanced? Also, how is it that there are lots of videos showing the effectiveness of mostly melee builds? I remain unconvinced that this idea that you are in a position to know the balance of anyone game.

The fact that you have 0 evidence that objectively proves Victorian era battles don’t suit TW beyond ‘I personally prefer..’ tells me what I need to know. Please, just show some evidence rather than simply getting angry.

My evidence is as follows:

-Reviews for FotS are generally high
-Personal player reviews are high with none if few mentioning an issue with balance
-Numerous videos showing a balance between melee and range builds

The above is objective evidence.. where’s yours?

I’ll ge honest, I don’t care about single battles as that proves nothing. There are singular examples of the Mongolians being beaten.. so what? Doesn’t mean they weren’t dominant and superior globally.

I’d rather CA do Victorian as that’s what I’d like, you’d rather they did Empire.. let’s not pretend Empire is an objectively better option just because you’d like it to be.

dge1

Posts removed.

The two folks involved need to be more tolerant of differing opinions, a problem both have had before. This was a good discussion until the digression of these two. If it happens again the thread will be closed.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

Well dave, I have given evidence, you just don't want to accept it.

You see, just because the evidence I give isn't just the reviews and such of FotS, which was just an expansion for Shogun 2 and not truly its own standalone game, doesn't mean it's not valid.

But I'm going give you a very simple but meaningful argument.


It's like this

You want what COULD work in a TW game, while I want what CAN work in a TW game.


You see, I want a an Empire 2 to be set in mainly the 1700s because that's a period that CAN allow for the effective use of melee, ranged, and cavalry in battles.

It's kind of like how everyone had guns in Napoleon but melee and such could still be useful tactics when needed.

Again, while the Victorian era is certainly interesting for some, most of it's most notable wars were at a time where "rifled musket" weapons were in wide use, such as they Franco-Prussian War and the Anglo Zulu War.

My point about that is, that there's far, far too much of a chance that the battles in a Victorian era TW game, be it a full or saga title, would devolve into little more than a lot of pew pews and that's it, no matter how well designed the maps are.

At least the 1700s still offer some chances for melee to work effectively.


And I know it's not exactly tied to an Empire 2, but I do think that what I'm about to say fits in with the overall argument I'm making.

You see, there's also the possible problem limiting a full TW game to a certain era or time period which just wouldn't be all that popular, or at least not as popular as the game could be.

For instance, my idea for a TW: Antiquity doesn't equal just a Rome 3, or at least not ultimately.

It should be a TW game that offer multiple different campaigns that span from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome periods of Antiquity.

My point is that it's not the opposite of an Empire 2 or anything, but rather the taking of what CA has done or wanted to do in the past but doing it better this time around, giving us a truly great TW game rather than trying some new fangled era that could easily ruin the battles in a game.

davedave1124#4773

Let’s take the emotion out of this and apply the facts.

I think Victoria can work well as a TW game, the facts I use to back that up is the following:

- CA have already created a Victorian era game.
- The game is popular receiving both good reviews from journalists and good reviews from other players

Your counter to this is, because you played a certain amount of hours, you know what does and doesn’t make a good game and all those people who enjoyed the game are wrong while you, on your own, is correct.

Can you see the problem? If you can’t, that’s fine but, I simply don’t find your argument convincing.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

- CA have already created a Victorian era game.
- The game is popular receiving both good reviews from journalists and good reviews from other players

I'm sorry, but no, just no dave.

CA did not make a FULL Victorian era TW game, they made an EXPANSION for Shogun 2 that happened to take place in the Bosin War, which was in the overall Victorian era.

I'm tired of people trying to act as if FotS was a full standalone TW game, when it was really just an expansion that was LATER sold separately.

Most of its animations and other assets were taken from Napoleon and Shogun 2. Not truly its own unique game.


But quit trying to dismiss my evidence just because you don't like it dave.

I've pointed out several times now about how the level of technology and all does matter, but you try to ignore it because it undermines your argument and helps mine.

Again, you want what COULD work in a TW game's battles, while I want what CAN work in a TW game's battles.

So do stop trying to dismiss someone else's valid points just because you don't like them.


Seriously. The 1700s just offers more options for tactics and such than the Victorian era, where it just becomes guns guns and more guns.

davedave1124#4773

The fact that it was or wasn’t a stand alone is meaningless. The fact is, we had Victorian tech (The best of the era trains, Gatling Guns, modern rifles, torpedoes etc) which can be distributed into a major release. There’s no evidence to say otherwise. The animations were the same as Napoleon and Shogun? I’m not sure what that proves beyond CA may or may not update some animations.

Rounding that section up, I’m not convinced by the idea that because FotS was an update to S2, that automatically means it’s not proof that a Victorian era game would work.

You’ve said ‘that tech won’t work’ (statement without evidence) and I’ve said, that the tech (trains, Gatling Guns, modern rifles etc.) has worked, they simply move the stats from one game to another. You haven’t offered any opinion as to why this can’t be done.

I disagree that it would, due to a lack of convincing evidence.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

The fact that it was or wasn’t a stand alone is meaningless.

It's not meaningless just because YOU don't like it dave.

This is what I'm talking about when I say you're trying to dismiss someone else's valid points. That's what you're doing.

And don't try twisting my words around dave, it's not a good look to have.

I never said that "Victorian tech wouldn't work", I said that the 1700s offer a better range of options in terms of a level playing field, because the technology of that time was just limited enough to where those other non European factions and their armies could stand a chance in their own ways.

It was pretty obvious.


I mean, did you even read any of the explanatory comments I previously posted before we started talking?

Because I did explain quite a lot in those on just how a Empire 2, set in mainly the 1700s could and would work.

davedave1124#4773

I don’t know what your argument is.

You argue on one side that because FotS is an update to S2 it doesn’t count as evidence that a Victorian game can be successful without explaining why.

You then argue that European powers could be beaten by non Europeans in the period of Empire but ignoring the fact that these same factions were able to beat Euro factions in the Victorian period.

I fully read your comments but, they’re not convincing.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

I don’t know what your argument is.

You argue on one side that because FotS is an update to S2 it doesn’t count as evidence that a Victorian game can be successful without explaining why.

You then argue that European powers could be beaten by non Europeans in the period of Empire but ignoring the fact that these same factions were able to beat Euro factions in the Victorian period.

I fully read your comments but, they’re not convincing.

*facepalm*

Seriously dave. What is with you and trying to twist my words around? Seriously?


1. I pointed out that FotS was NOT it's own stand alone TW game, not that it wasn't technically set in the Victorian era.

2. I pointed out how the level of technology of the 1700s IS better for the TW battle formula, as the firearm of that period still had fairly limited range, thus, making the possibilities for non European factions to stand a chance against the European ones.

3. I was clearly talking about the first 7 or 8 comments in this thread, which were explanatory comments talking about various ways in which an Empire 2, mainly set in the 1700s, could work.


Look dave, all I've been trying to get you to understand is that the FACT that the level of military technology during the 1700s is kind of in that perfect place for how the TW battles work best, with ranged and melee being viable options when mixed in with infantry, cavalry, and skirmishers and all that.

And despite what you might ASSUME, the non European factions wouldn't have just banzai charging their enemies as their only options for tactics.

davedave1124#4773

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

davedave1124#4773 said:

I don’t know what your argument is.

You argue on one side that because FotS is an update to S2 it doesn’t count as evidence that a Victorian game can be successful without explaining why.

You then argue that European powers could be beaten by non Europeans in the period of Empire but ignoring the fact that these same factions were able to beat Euro factions in the Victorian period.

I fully read your comments but, they’re not convincing.

*facepalm*

Seriously dave. What is with you and trying to twist my words around? Seriously?


1. I pointed out that FotS was NOT it's own stand alone TW game, not that it wasn't technically set in the Victorian era.

2. I pointed out how the level of technology of the 1700s IS better for the TW battle formula, as the firearm of that period still had fairly limited range, thus, making the possibilities for non European factions to stand a chance against the European ones.

3. I was clearly talking about the first 7 or 8 comments in this thread, which were explanatory comments talking about various ways in which an Empire 2, mainly set in the 1700s, could work.


Look dave, all I've been trying to get you to understand is that the FACT that the level of military technology during the 1700s is kind of in that perfect place for how the TW battles work best, with ranged and melee being viable options when mixed in with infantry, cavalry, and skirmishers and all that.

And despite what you might ASSUME, the non European factions wouldn't have just banzai charging their enemies as their only options for tactics.

1. And I pointed out that it’s irrelevant. Whether it’s a standalone game or not doesn’t take away the fact that a Victorian era game, that uses Victorian era tech and narrative exists and worked well.
2. I pointed out that non Europeans were still beating Europeans well into the Victorian era. This was a tactical issue rather than range issue.
3. No one argued that Empire 2 wouldn’t work, the point is a Victoria game would also work.

And I disagree, there’s no such thing as perfection in a TW game because I remember numerous people complaining about Empire, if it was objectively perfect everyone would agree with you.

No one argued or believes banzai charges are the only things open to non Europeans.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

1. And I pointed out that it’s irrelevant. Whether it’s a standalone game or not doesn’t take away the fact that a Victorian era game, that uses Victorian era tech and narrative exists and worked well.
2. I pointed out that non Europeans were still beating Europeans well into the Victorian era. This was a tactical issue rather than range issue.
3. No one argued that Empire 2 wouldn’t work, the point is a Victoria game would also work.

And I disagree, there’s no such thing as perfection in a TW game because I remember numerous people complaining about Empire, if it was objectively perfect everyone would agree with you.

No one argued or believes banzai charges are the only things open to non Europeans.

Seriously dave. You're starting to really annoy me with this "Because I say so" crap.

Something isn't irrelevant just because YOU don't like it dave. End of story.

And no matter who much you say it, FotS was NOT truly its own TW game, but an expansion of Shogun 2.


You're deliberately trying to avoid the obvious points I make just because you like the silly Victorian era more.

Though I can use your own logic of your personal feelings against you.

You shouldn't let your own personal feelings distract you from the valid points someone else makes concerning another time period.

Just because FotS took place in the Victorian era doesn't actually mean it was a full blown Victorian era game, as it was just an expansion that used a lot of assets from both Shogun 2 and Napoleon. You can say it's technically a Victorian expansion, but not its own game.

Not to mention that lovely phrase you used, that the natives could win battles but not wars.


But like it or not dave, the 1700s do offer a lot more options for factions than you want to admit.

The FACT that smoothbore muskets were still the mainstay firearm weapons makes it a lot more of a level playing field for non European factions. That's not to say that bows should be ten times better, but rather that it allows for melee to be viable option if used right.

My point is dave, that the 1700s can offer an objectively wider variety of tactical options for non European factions and their armies as compared to the Victorian era, where the Europeans could easily play defensively and blast the crap out of their enemies.