Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

The Case for Empire II

VivaHistoryIIVivaHistoryII Registered Users Posts: 3
This thread is another dedicated to encouraging CA to produce an Empire Total War sequel. The fanbase here, and the continuing popularity of franchises like Europa Universalis, suggest that there would be an eager market for such a sequel. The period’s flexibility and global reach offers plenty of opportunities for lucrative expansions once the core game is established.

Specifically, this sequel should aim for 1618-1715 timeframe (30 years war to death of louis xiv), as it has the following advantages for a total war game:

1) Global flux. This is the period of: the height of Europe's religious wars; the fall of the Ming dynasty and birth of the Qing; the height and fall of the Mughal empire; the second siege of Vienna, the klein and gros Turkish wars and rise of the Safavids; the anglo-dutch wars and birth of the East Indies trading companies; the Swedish Vasa empire and baltic wars; the last period of military parity between indigenous amerindians and european settlers in the americas, ending in the Pueblo Revolt, King Phillips War and the Arauco War; the beginning of the ‘second hundred years war’ between france and england; the end of the hapsburg-valois wars and the dutch revolt; the Tokugawa shogunate; the height of pirate and privateers in the Caribbean.

2) World-wide mechanics: this period sees the birth of global trade, which for the first time in history overtakes agriculture (in some countries) in terms of gross value; global weather effects, with the onset of the ‘little ice age’ after the ‘long’ 16th century; significant religious influences and conversions, but also the birth of secular institutions.

3) Tactical diversity: this is the era of europe’s famous ‘military revolution’, the further development of the islamic ‘gunpowder empires,’ and military consolidation in East Asia, which means there is a unique mix of military tactics and technology. On the one hand, you see the birth of light artillery, the clash of Tericos and Dutch shot, the trace italienne, the russian strelytsi regiments, louis xiii’s musketeers and cromwell’s new model army. But on the other hand, feudal forms of combat are still effective: tartar light horse in the crimea and the balklands, with polish hussars and russian cossacks; manchu banner formations defeat ming armies equipped with limited artillery and firearms; jacobite highlanders overwhelmed redcoats as late as the 18th century; the knights hospitaller fight ottomans in Crete. And of course, this period continues the 16th century’s naval revolution, from galleys to galleons to ships of the line; and not just in Europe and the Caribbean - this is the period of the wako lords, the southern Ming and the sultanate of aceh.

4) Political diversity and transition. There are (increasingly less) powerful city states, in Venice/Genoa, the german principalities, and merchant leagues like the Hansa; there are republics in the Netherlands and (arguable) Switzerland; there are blended governments, like the holy roman empire, parliamentary England, or the polish elective monarchy. And then of course you have varying degrees of monarchy, from bureaucratic empires to despotisms.

5) DLC potential. Once you have this engine, you could create a host of mods & sequels for specific campaigns or eras. Go 16th century: rise of ottomans (belgrade, rhodes, vienna, malta), religious wars (hussite rebellion, knights revolt, english reformation, etc), conquests (mughal india, spanish america, polish commonwealth, etc). Or go late, and you can reprise Empire I and Napoleon.

I think after Troy, Three Kingdoms, Rome 2, Medieval 2, CA has maxed out the sword-and-shield genre. Warhammer im sure brought in some new fans, but 3 warhammers in what, 4 years? Throw a bone to your historical fan base.
«1

Comments

  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,464
    I think "Empire 2" doesn't quite fit as name, since it basically a TW "Pike and shot" for the most time.
    And neither plays during the same time frame as Empire or is an "sequel" like TW "Victoria", but rather a prequel.

    Name "issues" aside, I would like the idea.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    I totally agree, an Empire 2 could really make for an interesting TW game.


    Though I think that one of the big draws could come from all the potential non European factions.

    Because while I do think the base Empire 2 should start around Europe and the Mediterranean Sea, I think that CA could possibly make Expansion Pack DLCs rather than race or lord packs, and add on parts to the grand campaign map as they go.

    I even made my own thread about a possibly Empire 2.

    It's called Empire 2 > Medieval 3.

    Just look at the OP of it, because I listed a bunch of different factions that could potentially be their own playable faction in the game.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    SiWI said:

    I think "Empire 2" doesn't quite fit as name, since it basically a TW "Pike and shot" for the most time.
    And neither plays during the same time frame as Empire or is an "sequel" like TW "Victoria", but rather a prequel.

    Name "issues" aside, I would like the idea.

    I'm just going to say it.


    Screw Pike & Shot and the Victorian Era!


    I don't get why so many people are obsessed with eras that limit the tactical options for a TW game.

    Because while I know there were tactics used during the Pike & Shot era, it just kind of feels like it would be limited even compared to a Medieval 3.

    And the Victorian era would be even worse.


    That era would pretty much be nothing but gun spamming and more gun spamming.

    There'd be very few factions indeed during that time period that wouldn't rely solely on guns.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,464

    SiWI said:

    I think "Empire 2" doesn't quite fit as name, since it basically a TW "Pike and shot" for the most time.
    And neither plays during the same time frame as Empire or is an "sequel" like TW "Victoria", but rather a prequel.

    Name "issues" aside, I would like the idea.

    I'm just going to say it.


    Screw Pike & Shot and the Victorian Era!


    I don't get why so many people are obsessed with eras that limit the tactical options for a TW game.

    Because while I know there were tactics used during the Pike & Shot era, it just kind of feels like it would be limited even compared to a Medieval 3.

    And the Victorian era would be even worse.


    That era would pretty much be nothing but gun spamming and more gun spamming.

    There'd be very few factions indeed during that time period that wouldn't rely solely on guns.
    well you don't get alot of things hence I'm not surprise that you don't get this either.

    Its also no surprise that you assume it to be tactical limiting while champion an title which would be at least as limiting if not more so, then "pike&shot" and "Victoria".
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,690
    In what era was Gret Northern War?
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    SiWI said:


    well you don't get alot of things hence I'm not surprise that you don't get this either.

    Its also no surprise that you assume it to be tactical limiting while champion an title which would be at least as limiting if not more so, then "pike&shot" and "Victoria".

    No, it's really just you not wanting to admit that an Empire 2 wouldn't just have to be nothing but line infantry and such.

    That's exactly what you did in my thread about Empire 2.

    And in the end, you just try to make it into a no win discussion by saying that all the settings would be just as limited as each other.


    And I'm not just assuming they're limiting, I actually understand a bit about military history, and I've actually played the TW games for a long time, so I know what some things might have to offer the games.

    And I know from experience with FotS, that the Victorian era would be little better than spamming as many guns as you can and steamrollering everything else.


    Though I'd take Pike & Shot or Medieval 3 a hundred times over the Victorian era.

    Because at least either of those would have a LOT more room for tactical options.


    But I don't see what the big deal is with Pike & Shot. It's basically just the late Medieval warfare.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,464
    jamreal18 said:

    In what era was Gret Northern War?

    why don't you google it?

    (started 1700 ended 1721)
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    SiWI said:

    I replied to you SiWi, but you probably missed it when you were commenting to jamreal18.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,783

    <

    I don't get why so many people are obsessed with eras that limit the tactical options for a TW game.

    Because while I know there were tactics used during the Pike & Shot era, it just kind of feels like it would be limited even compared to a Medieval 3.

    And the Victorian era would be even worse.


    Ironic considering you praise the era that had the most limited wars in human history thanks to the cabinet war system.


  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485


    Ironic considering you praise the era that had the most limited wars in human history thanks to the cabinet war system.

    And have you or SiWi ever considered that an Empire 2 wouldn't be solely focused on Europe?

    That's the real hilarious irony.

    That many of you just assuming that every faction in an Empire 2 will automatically be the same.


    Go look at my Empire 2 > Medieval 3 thread, and you'll see that I've explained how they could do a number of factions differently.

    Because there's actually plenty of room to make many of the factions I either listed in the OP, or explained about in other comments have their own playstyle, at least when it comes to armies.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710
    In general the earlier time frame is better fitted for a different game. Pike & shot is generally what it's called around here, a game focusing on filling in the time between the end of Medieval and the start of Empire, representation more of the religious conflicts and mixed tactics of the period than the Empire building we see in Empire. Also with how most of the player base go, there's quite likely to be only a minority would reach the time that Empire 1 started.

    Plus it has issues with the gap between their Medieval games and the Empire games.

    That said I would still like Empire 2 covering the same period. The improved diplomacy would be great. But there is also a lot of issues that have came up with the game series development that push away from Empire. The new general/admiral army/navy system the province system are big ones. Also the removal of trade nodes is a pain for such a setting.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,690
    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    In what era was Gret Northern War?

    why don't you google it?

    (started 1700 ended 1721)
    Actually I like that War. I don't know if would be part of Empire 2 or to be made as Saga.
  • VivaHistoryIIVivaHistoryII Registered Users Posts: 3
    That's interesting. Even if you were to narrow your focus purely to Western Europe, I think 1618-1715 is actually a historical 'sweet spot,' in the sense that its the transition away from ‘pike and shot’ tericos towards dutch and swedish drill; its the introduction of battlefield artillery; and its the beginning of the transition away from war by siege - as it had been since the high middle ages - and towards pitched-battles a la brietenfeld and Lutzen . Any earlier and you lose artillery, you lose any nuance in naval combat, you lose gunpowder infantry (yes, there are stray arquebuses in the 15th and 16th century, but it doesnt become institutional outside burgundy and ottoman empire until small-caliber muskets in the 17th century). Any later and you get the sort of standardized line infantry that can leave a game a little stale, and you lose those interesting feudal remnants that keep hand-combat a plausible alternative. CA has always excelled with that sort of unit diversity and clash-of-eras transitions - thats was what made FoTS so interesting.

    And of course, the moment you step outside Western Europe, the diversity explodes as gunpowder is incorporated in very different ways in very different societies.

    The period is also rich in ‘empire making’, to Commissar’s comment. This is the century when Russia conquered all of Siberia and even fought the Qing in the Amur valley; when the Qing conquered China; when Tokugawa japan decided against reinvading korea; when the Mughals consolidated India; when the Ottomans fought on three continents; when the polish commonwealth was at its apogee; when sweden emerged as an empire; when spain reached its greatest extent; when England became Britain; when most of europe fought over the new world. Its a signature of this transitionary time that this occurred in the same century as religious conflict and economic change. Lots for CA to work with.


  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    Commisar said:

    In general the earlier time frame is better fitted for a different game. Pike & shot is generally what it's called around here, a game focusing on filling in the time between the end of Medieval and the start of Empire, representation more of the religious conflicts and mixed tactics of the period than the Empire building we see in Empire. Also with how most of the player base go, there's quite likely to be only a minority would reach the time that Empire 1 started.

    Plus it has issues with the gap between their Medieval games and the Empire games.

    That said I would still like Empire 2 covering the same period. The improved diplomacy would be great. But there is also a lot of issues that have came up with the game series development that push away from Empire. The new general/admiral army/navy system the province system are big ones. Also the removal of trade nodes is a pain for such a setting.

    Well, I think there's a lot of things they could do with the factions' armies in an Empire 2.

    Though I will agree, I think it would be better if they returned or remade a few mechanics and such, such as trade hubs and such.

    But why would the province system be a big issue?
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710

    But why would the province system be a big issue?

    Ports have to be in towns/cities now. So you'd need to add multiple provinces to England to let them have the number of key ports like they do in Empire 1. All cities easily become the exact same over all value in the games since Napoleon with the same number of slots for the most part. Colonies of course then run in to the issue of resource production being in the town chain so you don't have multiple plantations that you can switch up on a single Caribbean island or the mining and towns.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    Commisar said:


    Ports have to be in towns/cities now. So you'd need to add multiple provinces to England to let them have the number of key ports like they do in Empire 1. All cities easily become the exact same over all value in the games since Napoleon with the same number of slots for the most part. Colonies of course then run in to the issue of resource production being in the town chain so you don't have multiple plantations that you can switch up on a single Caribbean island or the mining and towns.

    I see what you mean.

    I guess that's the tricky part of it.

    Just how do you make the provinces all work without making all of them be too big or too small?
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,464
    edited March 4

    That's interesting. Even if you were to narrow your focus purely to Western Europe, I think 1618-1715 is actually a historical 'sweet spot,' in the sense that its the transition away from ‘pike and shot’ tericos towards dutch and swedish drill; its the introduction of battlefield artillery; and its the beginning of the transition away from war by siege - as it had been since the high middle ages - and towards pitched-battles a la brietenfeld and Lutzen . Any earlier and you lose artillery, you lose any nuance in naval combat, you lose gunpowder infantry (yes, there are stray arquebuses in the 15th and 16th century, but it doesnt become institutional outside burgundy and ottoman empire until small-caliber muskets in the 17th century). Any later and you get the sort of standardized line infantry that can leave a game a little stale, and you lose those interesting feudal remnants that keep hand-combat a plausible alternative. CA has always excelled with that sort of unit diversity and clash-of-eras transitions - thats was what made FoTS so interesting.

    And of course, the moment you step outside Western Europe, the diversity explodes as gunpowder is incorporated in very different ways in very different societies.

    The period is also rich in ‘empire making’, to Commissar’s comment. This is the century when Russia conquered all of Siberia and even fought the Qing in the Amur valley; when the Qing conquered China; when Tokugawa japan decided against reinvading korea; when the Mughals consolidated India; when the Ottomans fought on three continents; when the polish commonwealth was at its apogee; when sweden emerged as an empire; when spain reached its greatest extent; when England became Britain; when most of europe fought over the new world. Its a signature of this transitionary time that this occurred in the same century as religious conflict and economic change. Lots for CA to work with.


    the thing is simple:
    Empire played from 1700 to 1799.
    Your proposal goes to 1715.
    Hence why I don't think "Empire 2" is the right name for your proposal.

    As scenario itself the timeframe you propose has alot to offer in terms of changes and CA could, if they wanted to, to make it the first truly "global" TW (unless WH3 combine map will be the first "global" TW), which would extend its potential.
    [thou technically, most scenarios get "better" when you include more parts of the world]
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710


    I see what you mean.

    I guess that's the tricky part of it.

    Just how do you make the provinces all work without making all of them be too big or too small?

    It's more how it works and how they want to represent the map. The size of provinces isn't really the issue due to buildings but the concentration would. If they add more settlements to old regions of Empire you will have less to expand the map.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    Commisar said:


    It's more how it works and how they want to represent the map. The size of provinces isn't really the issue due to buildings but the concentration would. If they add more settlements to old regions of Empire you will have less to expand the map.

    Sorry, I was tired at the time I made that last comment.

    I guess that that's the actually tricky part of it.

    How do you balance making the campaign map big while also trying to make the provinces work more effectively?

    Because I'd really would like to see, not every province have a port attached to them, but to see ports play a bit more of a role rather than just a small increase of income and where you can possibly build boats.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710

    Sorry, I was tired at the time I made that last comment.

    I guess that that's the actually tricky part of it.

    How do you balance making the campaign map big while also trying to make the provinces work more effectively?

    Because I'd really would like to see, not every province have a port attached to them, but to see ports play a bit more of a role rather than just a small increase of income and where you can possibly build boats.

    The easiest way would be go back to the Empire type provinces but have it all handled by the settlement UI and not have the towns on their own. So effectively as the town and province grow it can open up new slots. Could also then advance the tech tree to unlock other slots over the time frame that have shown new resources.

    Well back in Empire the ports did have a role, you could increase wealth, population growth and tax revenue as a result, go for trade or go for military.

    Would also be interesting if it brought back the port defences that were in FotS.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    Commisar said:


    The easiest way would be go back to the Empire type provinces but have it all handled by the settlement UI and not have the towns on their own. So effectively as the town and province grow it can open up new slots. Could also then advance the tech tree to unlock other slots over the time frame that have shown new resources.

    Well back in Empire the ports did have a role, you could increase wealth, population growth and tax revenue as a result, go for trade or go for military.

    Would also be interesting if it brought back the port defences that were in FotS.

    But how do you think they could they work in the ports into the provinces effectively without making them kind of lack luster like in Warhammer?

    I mean, not all ports would be the same, especially if they controlled a key bottleneck like Gibraltar or whichever city/port that controls the Red Sea canal.

    I think that those port cities should probably be separate provinces.


    Maybe they could make some costal regions their own provinces, stretching along the coast for a little while, like having the province be two to three port towns/cities.

    That way, getting some ports could mean a little more if you can secure all of a coastal province.


    But then again, they could make ports kind of rare and fix the UI for cities and not limit the cities from growing beyond a certain level.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710


    But how do you think they could they work in the ports into the provinces effectively without making them kind of lack luster like in Warhammer?

    I mean, not all ports would be the same, especially if they controlled a key bottleneck like Gibraltar or whichever city/port that controls the Red Sea canal.

    I think that those port cities should probably be separate provinces.


    Maybe they could make some costal regions their own provinces, stretching along the coast for a little while, like having the province be two to three port towns/cities.

    That way, getting some ports could mean a little more if you can secure all of a coastal province.


    But then again, they could make ports kind of rare and fix the UI for cities and not limit the cities from growing beyond a certain level.

    As long as the provinces work as they currently do they will always be lack luster as will every building options and pretty much every settlement.

    Gibraltar if they brought back the FotS style defences could cause attrition to hostile forces that try to get through the gap or blockade the port without assaulting it. Red sea during the time frame isn't really an issue, the Suez canal didn't get built till the mid 1800s and not sure the TW engine can handle map changes like a construction of such an item. I guess it could use the FotS train system for fleets across it.

    Currently they have to be under the settlement system. They will be either a city on the coast or a settlement with only a port. Multiple ports close together doesn't really provide much of an option, unless you have different chains that provide different units or bonuses.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    Commisar said:


    As long as the provinces work as they currently do they will always be lack luster as will every building options and pretty much every settlement.

    Gibraltar if they brought back the FotS style defences could cause attrition to hostile forces that try to get through the gap or blockade the port without assaulting it. Red sea during the time frame isn't really an issue, the Suez canal didn't get built till the mid 1800s and not sure the TW engine can handle map changes like a construction of such an item. I guess it could use the FotS train system for fleets across it.

    Currently they have to be under the settlement system. They will be either a city on the coast or a settlement with only a port. Multiple ports close together doesn't really provide much of an option, unless you have different chains that provide different units or bonuses.

    Oh darn. I was hoping that there could a fort or something you'd have to assault to take control over it.

    Because I thought the Suez canal started out as a super basic canal back in the times or Rome or something.


    Though I think two things they could do to help provinces not be so limited would be to change the UI for when you're managing them on the campaign map.

    Like instead of showing all however many settlements there are, they could have a tab with the names of the settlements on them, and you could simply click the name and it will open that settlements panel for you where you can choose to the buildings and so on.

    And the second thing would simply let the cities be able to all go beyond just a set level.


    But I think that they could possibly pull off some maps like that if they expanded some of the parameters to how some siege battle maps work.

    Because they've had a few maps that had rivers running through them, so I'm sure they could possibly figure something out.


    Heck, maybe they could make the taking of something like that a two part siege battle or something. Like maybe having two forts on either side of the canal.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,710

    Oh darn. I was hoping that there could a fort or something you'd have to assault to take control over it.

    Because I thought the Suez canal started out as a super basic canal back in the times or Rome or something.

    Though I think two things they could do to help provinces not be so limited would be to change the UI for when you're managing them on the campaign map.

    Like instead of showing all however many settlements there are, they could have a tab with the names of the settlements on them, and you could simply click the name and it will open that settlements panel for you where you can choose to the buildings and so on.

    And the second thing would simply let the cities be able to all go beyond just a set level.


    But I think that they could possibly pull off some maps like that if they expanded some of the parameters to how some siege battle maps work.

    Because they've had a few maps that had rivers running through them, so I'm sure they could possibly figure something out.


    Heck, maybe they could make the taking of something like that a two part siege battle or something. Like maybe having two forts on either side of the canal.

    Well Gibraltar was fortified, it is a town as well as a port and has been besieged a few times including the period Empire covers.

    There is evidence of an old Egyptian canal system, but that was just left as archeology at the point of Empire. I think currently even by Romes period it's believed to have been lost. Napoleon is the first to consider trying to rebuild/build a new one. I doubt the original canal was large enough for the modern ships.

    There has been multiple assault sieges, was a unique ability for the city of Rome in Rise of the Republic. It's not really much special, generally if you win the first battle the second is even easier.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    Commisar said:


    Well Gibraltar was fortified, it is a town as well as a port and has been besieged a few times including the period Empire covers.

    There is evidence of an old Egyptian canal system, but that was just left as archeology at the point of Empire. I think currently even by Romes period it's believed to have been lost. Napoleon is the first to consider trying to rebuild/build a new one. I doubt the original canal was large enough for the modern ships.

    There has been multiple assault sieges, was a unique ability for the city of Rome in Rise of the Republic. It's not really much special, generally if you win the first battle the second is even easier.

    Well, I was more so thinking of there being two forts, with one on either side of the canal, basically controlling it.

    Like you would have to take both forts before you could move your fleets and trade through the canal.


    Though I would like to see something in sieges where if you're facing a multilevel city or fortress, you could do something like capture a victory point or something within the first level, and then end the battle.

    That way, you could start fresh the next time, while maybe wearing down your enemy in the process.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,314
    Folks, you have a little more flexibility on post content in the Off Topic areas but, insulting personal/derogatory references are still not allowed. Seven posts removed
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    dge1 said:

    Folks, you have a little more flexibility on post content in the Off Topic areas but, insulting personal/derogatory references are still not allowed. Seven posts removed

    Why'd you delete 7 posts?

    We only argued over maybe 4, two comments each, that I know of anyway.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 365
    potential Empire II game should start in 1700 - like the first game

    with the 17th century (1600 - 1699) , there need to be "pike and shot" game
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 485
    Lotor12 said:

    potential Empire II game should start in 1700 - like the first game

    with the 17th century (1600 - 1699) , there need to be "pike and shot" game

    I don't want to sound super picky or anything, but I think the game should start in either 1650 or 1690 or so.

    And that's just because I'd like to see the most options for possible playable factions and all.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 365
    edited March 12


    And that's just because I'd like to see the most options for possible playable factions and all.

    This is irrelevant, every era offers many possible playable (and interesting) factions

    The point is, that 17th and 18th are 2 different 'warfare era",
    sorry I do not know proper English terms


    this is 18th century - fully gunpowder era , the soldiers are in coats, almost no melee fight





    and this 17th century, pike and shot, soldiers still wear metal armor, still lot of melee fight





Sign In or Register to comment.