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.
You’re missing the point, let me explain so there’s no confusion:
-I say that there’s a game that exists within the Victorian era. -You say that the game in question is an update of S2.
My point is, your statement has 0 effect on my statement. Whether it’s an add on, original or DLC means nothing - there still exists a game involving the Victorian period that people like and nothing in your statement changes that or stops it from being a full game.
The amount of options that a game of the 1700s offers is irrelevant to me. I imagine that Shogun 2 offered less options than other games like medieval 2 and more importantly Medieval 3, they still created Shogun 2 though didn’t they? So, again, amount of options is irrelevant to whether one should be selected over another.
I used completely different tactics in Bictoria, be it standard gun lines, cavalry, pistols, Gatling/Maxim guns, the use of anti cav tactics against light infantry like Zulus, naval bombardments, use of terrain etc.
Your main difference is bows.. and I have to tell you, bows weren’t a huge part of Empire 1, apart from the DLC that included natives which would still be exactly the same if there was a DLC that put the player up against Native Americans, Zulus or Amazons in a similar DLC.
I’m just not convinced Empire would be any better than Victoria.
dave, you can't just pretend that someone else's statement doesn't matter just because you don't like or want to agree with it.
FotS was and still is just an expansion for Shogun 2 and isn't actually a proper Victorian TW game.
It may take place during the Victorian era, but it's not truly its own full game, as it uses a lot of assets and animations from both Shogun 2 and even Napoleon.
I mean, I played around with some mods made for FotS, and some of them were able to bring in formations and abilities straight from Napoleon and they worked perfectly in Shogun 2 from what I remember.
All I'm saying is that there has not been a proper full TW game set in the Victorian era.
And here's the thing you're also trying to ignore dave.
You're trying to ignore my points about muskets still having limited range compared to later rifles and such.
Yeah, bows weren't a big deal back in Empire 1, but that game was also far more limited in what it could do compared to what an Empire 2 could do.
I'm not saying that bows should be the main weapon for every army or anything like that, as I do agree that firearms should be the mainstay for most armies, but I still think that bows could still have some use in some units for some factions.
Bows in an Empire 2 should basically be, well, bows vs guns in a lot of ways, having faster firing speed and being pretty good against lighter targets and such things, as well as having better default range than most guns outside of rifles.
The point is that basic bows should have like 150 range, while the line infantry without any formations should have 100 range.
But unlike guns, which could have ways of increasing their range, mainly through formations, bows would be kind of just bows in a lot of ways and that'd be it. Of course there'd be stuff like horse archers having 360 firing arcs and such, but bows wouldn't really have tons of ways of increasing their range and such, outside of a special ability or two maybe.
My point is dave, that the 1700s are a pretty unique time, as you could have a lot of different forms of warfare and such all be present through different factions' armies, and you'd be able to have a much larger sandbox to play in, without any of them being pointless in the end.
I still have no idea, as to why, a Victorian TW game doesn’t count as a ‘proper’ Victorian game. You seriously need to explain that, you can’t just keep repeating an assertion over and over as if it helps your argument. This is how you explain it:
FotS does not count as a ‘proper’ Victorian game and would would not work in a ‘proper’ Victorian TW game because.. *insert answer here*
I have no idea what proper means and I have no idea why the formations and tech from FotS cannot be transferred to a full Victorian game, I simply don’t understand what angle you’re coming from here apart from repeating the word ‘proper’ or ‘full’ game.
Again, with muskets and more modern rifles we simply use the updated stats from FotS, it’s not an issue.
In reference to Empire being limited and your particular vision of the game in the guise of Empire 2 as imagined by you, Empire the original was a great game and I imagine that CA didn’t see the inclusion of bows as a massive issue, I wasn’t fussed either tbf.
What did work was the Native American DLC that introduced factions that used bows which could easily be done in a Victoria game.
Yes, very interesting, you’re creating ideas that you think is good but, I don’t agree and others may or may not agree. This idea that you’ve come up with an objectively interesting system that everyone will love is for the birds.
In the 1700s war was still standardised with minor nods towards light infantry. I just don’t think bows with 150 range with minor differences between musket and bow will have the massive impact you think it will. This is my point and always has been - people have differing wants or needs and I don’t think your very particular vision for Empire 2 will change that.
You know exactly what I mean dave, so cut the crap!
You're literally trying to just dance around the truth that no matter what you say, FotS was NOT truly its own stand alone TW game, but a glorified expansion for Shogun 2 that was later sold separately.
It's not even on the same level of content as Rome 2 or Attila.
Though it's kind of hilarious how you think that that's a good hill to die on, as it were.
And you know damn well what I mean about Empire 1 as well.
I'm talking about the limited ability that CA had back when they first made Empire 1 and what it could do overall, not the quality of the game, so again, quit trying to twist my words around.
An Empire 2 would be able to do a lot more in terms of more effective application of how the units work and all as compared to old Empire 1.
And the whole difference between ranges is simply based on how many tests have been done over the decades which show that bows can fire further and more accurately than muskets, be it individually or in massed volleys.
I thought that was pretty obvious.
And don't talk like you speak for anyone but yourself either dave, because you don't.
But you need to just accept the fact that I do in fact have the better overall time period for a TW game than you.
Because unlike you, I actually do think about the bigger picture as well as other TW games to see what worked, and because of that, I'm able to think about what does work within the TW formula.
Again, everyone had guns in Empire and Napoleon, but things like melee were still viable tactics, and not just as a hail marry type of thing.
Yes, I’m aware that FotS is an updated version of S2, I’m not arguing against that. I’m just confused about how you think that effects the viability of it.
A Victorian game is possible because a Victorian game exists, that’s a clear and strong argument and I, like others have pointed out, have no idea how that fact diminishes my original point. All TW games work off, pretty much the same engine
CA had limited ability? Ok, so now they’re not limited.. that makes it easier surely. Your argument is unfathomable.
Any game can make improvements on the original, as in M2 made a lot of improvements over M1 and the same with R1 and R2, that doesn’t make Empire a better option than Victoria. Simply means all games improve over time.
I’m sure there have been lots of tests done about ranges.. not sure how it makes a more interesting game, it’s something CA are already good at.
This is your issue, you are frustrated that I don’t agree with your personal opinion. I’m not frustrated you don’t agree with mine because I realise we are all different in terms of what we want. If someone says ‘I think the Bronze Age will make a good TW game’ I’m not going to disagree with them but, if someone says ‘my personal image of Empire 2 is the greatest idea for a game ever’ I’ll have some questions.
Ah yes, because there were no melee in the ACW, the Unification Wars of Italy and Germany, the Dano-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War etc. considering there was a lot of melee in WW1 I’d say you are wrong here.
Well, I'm kind more so arguing that it wasn't quite as faithful to the period as you might think.
I mean, if you were to go back and check out FotS next to Empire 1 and Napoleon, you'd probably see quite a lot of things that were simply just ported over to FotS from both games.
Stuff like the artillery was basically just the Howitzers from either game, while even the Gatling Gun was just basically just a sped up Puckle Gun that didn't have to reload.
And from what I understand of many of the proper rifles of the Victorian era, if some accounts are to be believed, some of them could be accurate up to 200 yards or so, and I'm somewhat certain that that was individually. And I would probably translate a properly implemented unit of "modern" rifle armed line infantry to having 200 range, which is kind of ridiculous.
And the limitations I'm talking about was what CA was capable of doing back with Empire 1 as compared to what they're able to do now.
Because a lot of people, myself included, tend to look at Empire 1 as almost an unfinished dream game of CA's. In that they aimed higher than what they could ultimately do back then, but are more than capable of doing now. Bigger budgets and so on kind of stuff.
And I'm not saying that there was never ANY melee combat during the Victorian era, but that it was the era that started the death of melee combat being a major part of many battles, maybe outside of sieges.
And to kind of reference back to my point about unit ranges, when a unit of line infantry armed with breach loading rifles have 200 range, unless they're ambushed and not given a chance to actually turn and shoot, they'll be able to get off several volleys on their enemies or just be able to form squares if it's enemy cavalry. But I'm sure you get the point.
And no, I'm more frustrated that you ignore and or dismiss all the points I make and then try to push your opinions as superior.
Because I don't think I have the better idea, I know I do because I am thinking of the bigger picture of what can work best for a TW game overall rather than just saying "this period would be cool!".
I'm sure CA could make a good saga game out of the Anglo Zulu War or Franco Prussian War, but I know that they could make a truly great game that people would play for years out of an Empire 2 that spans from 1696 to 1820.
See dave, you may not like me saying this, but I will.
I think of what CAN work with the TW games, especially the battles, even if it means repeating a time period they've done before. But they can do it better this time around.
Did you see mass complaints about how the Gatling Gun was used? Did you see any major complaints about how they did the rifles, torpedoes, cannons, pistols? I didn’t, because generally people were quite happy how they were represented, the Gatling Gun was a favourite and was a lot more effective than the Puckle Gun.
Yes, welcome to Total War, where weapons are ported over from one game to the next and weapons do not represent their historical counterpart. The weapons in FotS fired faster and had a longer range than those in Napoleon which is generally how CA have always done things. Please never expect them to study real life firing distances and then directly applying them to the game, they simply won’t.
So, in essence, it’s reasonable for them to use the same stats as the hey did in FotS because.. they worked.
Yes, but the issue is you are thinking about what you personally would like and you are trying to apply that to every other player. Can you understand that other people would prefer Victoria over Empire for their own reasons? While you would prefer your own vision of Empire, we are all different and that’s my point.
The issue is you cannot possibly know the formula for the perfect TW game because you don’t know what other people want. I know, like many others I enjoyed playing the Victorian period over the Empire period and just because you were unable to design tactics via those weapons doesn’t mean the rest of us are so limited. Just because you believe that the difference between bows and rifles makes for huge tactical differences others don’t (including CA).
And I know they could make an epic Victoria game (do you see the issue?)
It’s not that I don’t like what you’re saying, it’s more to do with disagreeing with what you’re saying. I don’t think you have all the answers to what makes a good game beyond your own personal needs and wants.
I know what I like and it doesn’t involve a lot of your personal ideas.
Comments
-I say that there’s a game that exists within the Victorian era.
-You say that the game in question is an update of S2.
My point is, your statement has 0 effect on my statement. Whether it’s an add on, original or DLC means nothing - there still exists a game involving the Victorian period that people like and nothing in your statement changes that or stops it from being a full game.
The amount of options that a game of the 1700s offers is irrelevant to me. I imagine that Shogun 2 offered less options than other games like medieval 2 and more importantly Medieval 3, they still created Shogun 2 though didn’t they? So, again, amount of options is irrelevant to whether one should be selected over another.
I used completely different tactics in Bictoria, be it standard gun lines, cavalry, pistols, Gatling/Maxim guns, the use of anti cav tactics against light infantry like Zulus, naval bombardments, use of terrain etc.
Your main difference is bows.. and I have to tell you, bows weren’t a huge part of Empire 1, apart from the DLC that included natives which would still be exactly the same if there was a DLC that put the player up against Native Americans, Zulus or Amazons in a similar DLC.
I’m just not convinced Empire would be any better than Victoria.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agreedave, you can't just pretend that someone else's statement doesn't matter just because you don't like or want to agree with it.
FotS was and still is just an expansion for Shogun 2 and isn't actually a proper Victorian TW game.
It may take place during the Victorian era, but it's not truly its own full game, as it uses a lot of assets and animations from both Shogun 2 and even Napoleon.
I mean, I played around with some mods made for FotS, and some of them were able to bring in formations and abilities straight from Napoleon and they worked perfectly in Shogun 2 from what I remember.
All I'm saying is that there has not been a proper full TW game set in the Victorian era.
And here's the thing you're also trying to ignore dave.
You're trying to ignore my points about muskets still having limited range compared to later rifles and such.
Yeah, bows weren't a big deal back in Empire 1, but that game was also far more limited in what it could do compared to what an Empire 2 could do.
I'm not saying that bows should be the main weapon for every army or anything like that, as I do agree that firearms should be the mainstay for most armies, but I still think that bows could still have some use in some units for some factions.
Bows in an Empire 2 should basically be, well, bows vs guns in a lot of ways, having faster firing speed and being pretty good against lighter targets and such things, as well as having better default range than most guns outside of rifles.
The point is that basic bows should have like 150 range, while the line infantry without any formations should have 100 range.
But unlike guns, which could have ways of increasing their range, mainly through formations, bows would be kind of just bows in a lot of ways and that'd be it. Of course there'd be stuff like horse archers having 360 firing arcs and such, but bows wouldn't really have tons of ways of increasing their range and such, outside of a special ability or two maybe.
My point is dave, that the 1700s are a pretty unique time, as you could have a lot of different forms of warfare and such all be present through different factions' armies, and you'd be able to have a much larger sandbox to play in, without any of them being pointless in the end.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeFotS does not count as a ‘proper’ Victorian game and would would not work in a ‘proper’ Victorian TW game because.. *insert answer here*
I have no idea what proper means and I have no idea why the formations and tech from FotS cannot be transferred to a full Victorian game, I simply don’t understand what angle you’re coming from here apart from repeating the word ‘proper’ or ‘full’ game.
Again, with muskets and more modern rifles we simply use the updated stats from FotS, it’s not an issue.
In reference to Empire being limited and your particular vision of the game in the guise of Empire 2 as imagined by you, Empire the original was a great game and I imagine that CA didn’t see the inclusion of bows as a massive issue, I wasn’t fussed either tbf.
What did work was the Native American DLC that introduced factions that used bows which could easily be done in a Victoria game.
Yes, very interesting, you’re creating ideas that you think is good but, I don’t agree and others may or may not agree. This idea that you’ve come up with an objectively interesting system that everyone will love is for the birds.
In the 1700s war was still standardised with minor nods towards light infantry. I just don’t think bows with 150 range with minor differences between musket and bow will have the massive impact you think it will. This is my point and always has been - people have differing wants or needs and I don’t think your very particular vision for Empire 2 will change that.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeYou're literally trying to just dance around the truth that no matter what you say, FotS was NOT truly its own stand alone TW game, but a glorified expansion for Shogun 2 that was later sold separately.
It's not even on the same level of content as Rome 2 or Attila.
Though it's kind of hilarious how you think that that's a good hill to die on, as it were.
And you know damn well what I mean about Empire 1 as well.
I'm talking about the limited ability that CA had back when they first made Empire 1 and what it could do overall, not the quality of the game, so again, quit trying to twist my words around.
An Empire 2 would be able to do a lot more in terms of more effective application of how the units work and all as compared to old Empire 1.
And the whole difference between ranges is simply based on how many tests have been done over the decades which show that bows can fire further and more accurately than muskets, be it individually or in massed volleys.
I thought that was pretty obvious.
And don't talk like you speak for anyone but yourself either dave, because you don't.
But you need to just accept the fact that I do in fact have the better overall time period for a TW game than you.
Because unlike you, I actually do think about the bigger picture as well as other TW games to see what worked, and because of that, I'm able to think about what does work within the TW formula.
Again, everyone had guns in Empire and Napoleon, but things like melee were still viable tactics, and not just as a hail marry type of thing.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeA Victorian game is possible because a Victorian game exists, that’s a clear and strong argument and I, like others have pointed out, have no idea how that fact diminishes my original point. All TW games work off, pretty much the same engine
CA had limited ability? Ok, so now they’re not limited.. that makes it easier surely. Your argument is unfathomable.
Any game can make improvements on the original, as in M2 made a lot of improvements over M1 and the same with R1 and R2, that doesn’t make Empire a better option than Victoria. Simply means all games improve over time.
I’m sure there have been lots of tests done about ranges.. not sure how it makes a more interesting game, it’s something CA are already good at.
This is your issue, you are frustrated that I don’t agree with your personal opinion. I’m not frustrated you don’t agree with mine because I realise we are all different in terms of what we want. If someone says ‘I think the Bronze Age will make a good TW game’ I’m not going to disagree with them but, if someone says ‘my personal image of Empire 2 is the greatest idea for a game ever’ I’ll have some questions.
Ah yes, because there were no melee in the ACW, the Unification Wars of Italy and Germany, the Dano-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War etc. considering there was a lot of melee in WW1 I’d say you are wrong here.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeI mean, if you were to go back and check out FotS next to Empire 1 and Napoleon, you'd probably see quite a lot of things that were simply just ported over to FotS from both games.
Stuff like the artillery was basically just the Howitzers from either game, while even the Gatling Gun was just basically just a sped up Puckle Gun that didn't have to reload.
And from what I understand of many of the proper rifles of the Victorian era, if some accounts are to be believed, some of them could be accurate up to 200 yards or so, and I'm somewhat certain that that was individually. And I would probably translate a properly implemented unit of "modern" rifle armed line infantry to having 200 range, which is kind of ridiculous.
And the limitations I'm talking about was what CA was capable of doing back with Empire 1 as compared to what they're able to do now.
Because a lot of people, myself included, tend to look at Empire 1 as almost an unfinished dream game of CA's. In that they aimed higher than what they could ultimately do back then, but are more than capable of doing now. Bigger budgets and so on kind of stuff.
And I'm not saying that there was never ANY melee combat during the Victorian era, but that it was the era that started the death of melee combat being a major part of many battles, maybe outside of sieges.
And to kind of reference back to my point about unit ranges, when a unit of line infantry armed with breach loading rifles have 200 range, unless they're ambushed and not given a chance to actually turn and shoot, they'll be able to get off several volleys on their enemies or just be able to form squares if it's enemy cavalry. But I'm sure you get the point.
And no, I'm more frustrated that you ignore and or dismiss all the points I make and then try to push your opinions as superior.
Because I don't think I have the better idea, I know I do because I am thinking of the bigger picture of what can work best for a TW game overall rather than just saying "this period would be cool!".
I'm sure CA could make a good saga game out of the Anglo Zulu War or Franco Prussian War, but I know that they could make a truly great game that people would play for years out of an Empire 2 that spans from 1696 to 1820.
See dave, you may not like me saying this, but I will.
I think of what CAN work with the TW games, especially the battles, even if it means repeating a time period they've done before. But they can do it better this time around.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeYes, welcome to Total War, where weapons are ported over from one game to the next and weapons do not represent their historical counterpart. The weapons in FotS fired faster and had a longer range than those in Napoleon which is generally how CA have always done things. Please never expect them to study real life firing distances and then directly applying them to the game, they simply won’t.
So, in essence, it’s reasonable for them to use the same stats as the hey did in FotS because.. they worked.
Yes, but the issue is you are thinking about what you personally would like and you are trying to apply that to every other player. Can you understand that other people would prefer Victoria over Empire for their own reasons? While you would prefer your own vision of Empire, we are all different and that’s my point.
The issue is you cannot possibly know the formula for the perfect TW game because you don’t know what other people want. I know, like many others I enjoyed playing the Victorian period over the Empire period and just because you were unable to design tactics via those weapons doesn’t mean the rest of us are so limited. Just because you believe that the difference between bows and rifles makes for huge tactical differences others don’t (including CA).
And I know they could make an epic Victoria game (do you see the issue?)
It’s not that I don’t like what you’re saying, it’s more to do with disagreeing with what you’re saying. I don’t think you have all the answers to what makes a good game beyond your own personal needs and wants.
I know what I like and it doesn’t involve a lot of your personal ideas.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree