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

Why does everyone want Medieval 3?

2

Comments

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Commisar said:


    I do, but they don't seem to do that for minors which in the time period Scotland is. Same reason why Spain hasn't been split up or all the different small states across the world, many of which had more independent impact on history.

    I'm not wrong there, I am right. The clans men were rebels attacking the British governments forces, which I did mention in the post. It's also after the point that Scotland had joined England and become the nation of Great Britain.

    Maybe after Culloden the Scots join with the British more regularly, but before that, it was hardly like they just came and joined them in droves.


    And I care about having more unique factions where they could be.

    And I'll give you that, that maybe Scotland isn't the biggest player in Europe in the late 1600s, but I still think they'd be a nice change of pace for a European faction, rather than all of them playing pretty much the same.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 361
    I would say, that even the whole history of warfare is more or less interesting, generally the most popular "historical environments" are Medieval and Ancient Roman era,

    If You interesting in military history, medieval era included the most fascinating military campaigns - Mongol conquest, Viking raids, Crusade middle east/baltic, Hundred Years' War, Hussite Wars, Reconquista, etc

    "Sword and arrow" perfectly fit Total War game design

    And very important - the Medieval II is "obsolete" in multiple ways, there is huge technological and gameplay gap between Medieval II (!2006!) and latter "historical" TW games
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 361

    I cant think of a better historical period for ca to do than med 3. Perhaps American civil war but there just isn't enough factions likely.

    It is about individual preferences and interests - for example I would to play Total War game in European "pike and shot era" from 15th to17th century , the era between medieval and empire, or something exotic like "rise of khmer empire"

    the American civil war is not interesting for me (yes, I am European), but I am sure that "Total War Saga: American civil war" would be very successful in the USA , and probably will come sooner and later - I guess
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706

    Maybe after Culloden the Scots join with the British more regularly, but before that, it was hardly like they just came and joined them in droves.

    And I care about having more unique factions where they could be.

    And I'll give you that, that maybe Scotland isn't the biggest player in Europe in the late 1600s, but I still think they'd be a nice change of pace for a European faction, rather than all of them playing pretty much the same.

    Nope, the Scots joined just as much as before. They were deployed and merged with units that were sent to deal with different issues. For example Culloden saw 4 Scottish regiments fighting in the British army.

    But they wouldn't be unique as I've said without ignoring history and adding units they didn't use...which then you can do the exact same thing to other nations that had more history to draw upon and events to add.
    Lotor12 said:

    It is about individual preferences and interests - for example I would to play Total War game in European "pike and shot era" from 15th to17th century , the era between medieval and empire, or something exotic like "rise of khmer empire"

    the American civil war is not interesting for me (yes, I am European), but I am sure that "Total War Saga: American civil war" would be very successful in the USA , and probably will come sooner and later - I guess

    P&S is the big "gap" in the TW timeline and does have a following, think it would be popular if added having a bit of the best of both worlds being sword and arrow and gunpowder.

    I am interested in the ACW but I don't expect to ever see a TW game just about it, it's too limited for the game. DLC/mini campaign for an 19thC game sure though.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Lotor12 said:

    I would say, that even the whole history of warfare is more or less interesting, generally the most popular "historical environments" are Medieval and Ancient Roman era,

    If You interesting in military history, medieval era included the most fascinating military campaigns - Mongol conquest, Viking raids, Crusade middle east/baltic, Hundred Years' War, Hussite Wars, Reconquista, etc

    "Sword and arrow" perfectly fit Total War game design

    And very important - the Medieval II is "obsolete" in multiple ways, there is huge technological and gameplay gap between Medieval II (!2006!) and latter "historical" TW games

    That's kind of why I think it'd be a better idea for CA do either do an Empire 2 or Rome 3 than a Medieval 3.

    It's not that I don't like the medieval period or anything, nor do I think it would strictly be a bad game or anything.

    I'm just worried that a Medieval 3 might end up being little more than a remake of Medieval 2 with a shiny new paint job, and a few little bells and whistles.

    So like I said, I just think there's a few more options that the time periods of an Empire 2 or Rome 3 could offer.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Commisar said:


    Nope, the Scots joined just as much as before. They were deployed and merged with units that were sent to deal with different issues. For example Culloden saw 4 Scottish regiments fighting in the British army.

    But they wouldn't be unique as I've said without ignoring history and adding units they didn't use...which then you can do the exact same thing to other nations that had more history to draw upon and events to add.

    Well, it'd be a lot better than just making all the factions the same like you want.


    Seriously. I find that kind of hilarious about people like you.

    You want to try to keep the games as historically accurate as possible, even at the cost of more interesting gameplay, but not understanding that the TW games in general aren't ever going to be 100% historically accurate.

    They're sandbox strategy games for crying out loud.


    So yeah. I'd rather bend the history a little and do something to make at least one European faction different from the others.

    I'll take more interesting factions over rigidly sticking to historical accuracy any day.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,662
    Things I want for Medieval 3.

    Massive improvement on Battles.
    *Impact on collision
    *Diverse look on knights depend on which nation they belong to
    *Kiev and Novgorod instead of Russia
    *Terrains affecting battles
    *Walls play a part on battle and not just platform

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    edited March 7
    jamreal18 said:

    Things I want for Medieval 3.

    Massive improvement on Battles.
    *Impact on collision
    *Diverse look on knights depend on which nation they belong to
    *Kiev and Novgorod instead of Russia
    *Terrains affecting battles
    *Walls play a part on battle and not just platform

    Well, terrain does effect battles, it's just that a lot of maps don't have tons of super varied terrain, depending on which TW game you play.

    But I will agree, battle maps should be more varied and not always start the players only a few hundred yards from the other army.

    And there is impact on collision, it's just not super pronounced so that guys aren't going flying through the sky.


    I'm honestly just worried that most of the European factions will have super similar armies, with only rather superficial things like England's Longbows and such being what makes their armies unique.

    Basically with the factions being little different than what they were in Medieval 2.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706


    Well, it'd be a lot better than just making all the factions the same like you want.

    Seriously. I find that kind of hilarious about people like you.

    You want to try to keep the games as historically accurate as possible, even at the cost of more interesting gameplay, but not understanding that the TW games in general aren't ever going to be 100% historically accurate.

    They're sandbox strategy games for crying out loud.

    So yeah. I'd rather bend the history a little and do something to make at least one European faction different from the others.

    I'll take more interesting factions over rigidly sticking to historical accuracy any day.

    I don't, I think they should get the unique units that they historically used and some that make sense for later addition for nations that historically didn't survive. It's quite different to actively give them units that only saw combat in the period against their forces.

    I don't expect them to be 100% accurate, but that's not a reason to add bad units to make a faction "interesting". Same way I wouldn't expect them to add Longbow men and full plated polearm infantry to England.

    Sandbox means things can change, doesn't mean we have to go back a few hundred years to make a faction have anything new.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Commisar said:


    I don't, I think they should get the unique units that they historically used and some that make sense for later addition for nations that historically didn't survive. It's quite different to actively give them units that only saw combat in the period against their forces.

    I don't expect them to be 100% accurate, but that's not a reason to add bad units to make a faction "interesting". Same way I wouldn't expect them to add Longbow men and full plated polearm infantry to England.

    Sandbox means things can change, doesn't mean we have to go back a few hundred years to make a faction have anything new.

    Well, you're certainly making it seem like you expect it to be 100% accurate.

    But the funny irony to that is that the Scottish highlanders did fight like that in the battles of Prestonpans and Culloden, in freaking 1744-45. So it's not making them up or anything.


    And they're not just bad units because YOU say they are Commisar.

    Because that's pretty much what you're trying to do here.

    You think that just because you don't like something and say it's bad, that it's just automatically so and no one can say otherwise.

    Well, I hate to break it to you, though not really, but that's not the case. Your word isn't law pal. Get over it.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706

    Well, you're certainly making it seem like you expect it to be 100% accurate.

    But the funny irony to that is that the Scottish highlanders did fight like that in the battles of Prestonpans and Culloden, in freaking 1744-45. So it's not making them up or anything.

    And they're not just bad units because YOU say they are Commisar.

    Because that's pretty much what you're trying to do here.

    You think that just because you don't like something and say it's bad, that it's just automatically so and no one can say otherwise.

    Well, I hate to break it to you, though not really, but that's not the case. Your word isn't law pal. Get over it.

    Yeah I don't want to see things like the British building a USS Constitution, which is a good equivalent to the example of your suggestion for Scotland.

    The Jacobite rebels did, the Highlanders on the side of the Scottish Government fought as line infantry with musket and bayonet.

    No they are bad because they were bad, that's why the Scottish government didn't use them as you've said and instead went with pike and shot with the pikes then being phased out.

    And it's rather funny that this period where you claim it has such a wide range of units compared to the Medieval period you have to rip units straight from there to flesh out the forces.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Commisar said:


    Yeah I don't want to see things like the British building a USS Constitution, which is a good equivalent to the example of your suggestion for Scotland.

    The Jacobite rebels did, the Highlanders on the side of the Scottish Government fought as line infantry with musket and bayonet.

    No they are bad because they were bad, that's why the Scottish government didn't use them as you've said and instead went with pike and shot with the pikes then being phased out.

    And it's rather funny that this period where you claim it has such a wide range of units compared to the Medieval period you have to rip units straight from there to flesh out the forces.

    I'm pretty sure you mean the US Constitution, not USS.

    And I'm not ripping anything from anywhere.

    I'm simply saying they could expand a faction's roster in a way that was historical to the time period.

    I don't really care about all the little details and such, as I care more about giving a faction some units that might make them feel different from all the other factions in Europe.

    And regardless of what you think, the highlander units would add some flavor to Scotland's unit roster, instead of them just being like every other European faction, but with Scottish accents.


    But what's actually hilarious is how you outright ignore the fact that I've stated many times that I'm not trying to recreate the wheel of TW armies, but trying to give different factions either slightly or very different playstyles to what is usually associated with that time period.

    Like what I've explained about the Mongols.


    By your logic, or lack there of, the Mongols in an Empire 2 would all just abandon their horses and all fight as line infantry.

    But what you don't seem to realize is that no one picks the Mongols for their masses of infantry, they pick them for their powerful cavalry legacy.

    That's not to say they should have no infantry units, but their main strength should lay in their cavalry.


    But of course, you'll just ignore that fact and try to act like they just couldn't be a playable faction because they weren't using tons of line infantry or something.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706

    I'm pretty sure you mean the US Constitution, not USS.

    And I'm not ripping anything from anywhere.

    I'm simply saying they could expand a faction's roster in a way that was historical to the time period.

    I don't really care about all the little details and such, as I care more about giving a faction some units that might make them feel different from all the other factions in Europe.

    And regardless of what you think, the highlander units would add some flavor to Scotland's unit roster, instead of them just being like every other European faction, but with Scottish accents.


    But what's actually hilarious is how you outright ignore the fact that I've stated many times that I'm not trying to recreate the wheel of TW armies, but trying to give different factions either slightly or very different playstyles to what is usually associated with that time period.

    Like what I've explained about the Mongols.


    By your logic, or lack there of, the Mongols in an Empire 2 would all just abandon their horses and all fight as line infantry.

    But what you don't seem to realize is that no one picks the Mongols for their masses of infantry, they pick them for their powerful cavalry legacy.

    That's not to say they should have no infantry units, but their main strength should lay in their cavalry.


    But of course, you'll just ignore that fact and try to act like they just couldn't be a playable faction because they weren't using tons of line infantry or something.

    Nope it is named the USS Constitution, USS is the modifier like the HMS.

    It is, these units weren't used by the Scottish Government during this time period, they were during the Medieval period though.

    Then it's an inferior setting to ones where you don't need to do that and every time period and location becomes possible as you can add units they didn't use.

    Yeah they would, a different skinned line infantry as we already have in Empire. The units suggested would be obsolete at the start just like the pikemen.

    Why I didn't mention the Mongols, we didn't have them in Empire 1 so yeah covering that area will open up new gameplay simply by having it exist.

    No they wouldn't as historically they didn't. You don't need to have tons of infantry to be playable, odds are they wouldn't be more due to not being of note during the time period and there being far better choices to use instead as we get limited playable factions these days.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Commisar said:


    Nope it is named the USS Constitution, USS is the modifier like the HMS.

    It is, these units weren't used by the Scottish Government during this time period, they were during the Medieval period though.

    Then it's an inferior setting to ones where you don't need to do that and every time period and location becomes possible as you can add units they didn't use.

    Yeah they would, a different skinned line infantry as we already have in Empire. The units suggested would be obsolete at the start just like the pikemen.

    Why I didn't mention the Mongols, we didn't have them in Empire 1 so yeah covering that area will open up new gameplay simply by having it exist.

    No they wouldn't as historically they didn't. You don't need to have tons of infantry to be playable, odds are they wouldn't be more due to not being of note during the time period and there being far better choices to use instead as we get limited playable factions these days.

    Like I said, I don't really give a crap if the highlanders were or weren't used by whoever, they're something that would give the Scottish roster some flavor that would keep them from just being like every other European faction.

    And understand for once that I'm saying the European armies would be the ones who would be mostly similar to each other.


    And you're somewhat wrong about them being completely obsolete.

    The highlanders actually won a number of battles of the years, one of their biggest wins was the Battle of Prestonpans, where they managed to flank the British army, who even when rushed to turn and face them, lost the battle.


    And I wouldn't worry too much about "limited factions", since making factions for a historical game would probably be considerably easier than making a new race for Warhammer. Since they're all just human factions.

    So I could easily see the Mongols being a more minor side factions that has a slightly harder start, but could still be a good worthwhile faction.

    I mean, there'd need to be other playable factions in far east Asia other than the Qing or maybe Japan after all.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706

    Like I said, I don't really give a crap if the highlanders were or weren't used by whoever, they're something that would give the Scottish roster some flavor that would keep them from just being like every other European faction.

    And understand for once that I'm saying the European armies would be the ones who would be mostly similar to each other.

    And you're somewhat wrong about them being completely obsolete.

    The highlanders actually won a number of battles of the years, one of their biggest wins was the Battle of Prestonpans, where they managed to flank the British army, who even when rushed to turn and face them, lost the battle.

    And I wouldn't worry too much about "limited factions", since making factions for a historical game would probably be considerably easier than making a new race for Warhammer. Since they're all just human factions.

    So I could easily see the Mongols being a more minor side factions that has a slightly harder start, but could still be a good worthwhile faction.

    I mean, there'd need to be other playable factions in far east Asia other than the Qing or maybe Japan after all.

    It does matter in the setting and development. Otherwise you open it up as I said to adding tons of none historical units which don't fit the setting and make it look more like a meme.

    They are obsolete, yes they could still kill but it doesn't mean it was their first choice. If they had had more guns they would of been much more effective.

    Oh I'm not worried about it, but I don't expect factions such as Mongolia to make the cut for Empire 2. If the maps covering that far over there's other factions which will get the developers attention instead. Would expect modders might expand it. Guess that might be one thing from Paradox studios you might like huh? All nations playable? lol

    I'd expect if they expanded to the Pacific that most factions would be more in south east asia. Would really hope they'd get their own tech tree this time, although not been that impressed with them since Empire tbh, 3K reform tree is nice but generic over nearly all factions of course. R2/A was too simplistic and rather the same.

    Also did think of one of the additions from Troy which could be interesting, their Amazon hordes have a unit upgrade mechanics where once they get enough experience they can be upgraded. I think that could be a nice mechanic for unit titles such as Guards for Empire 2. Perhaps tying the limit to size of the empire or prestige?
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Commisar said:


    It does matter in the setting and development. Otherwise you open it up as I said to adding tons of none historical units which don't fit the setting and make it look more like a meme.

    They are obsolete, yes they could still kill but it doesn't mean it was their first choice. If they had had more guns they would of been much more effective.

    Oh I'm not worried about it, but I don't expect factions such as Mongolia to make the cut for Empire 2. If the maps covering that far over there's other factions which will get the developers attention instead. Would expect modders might expand it. Guess that might be one thing from Paradox studios you might like huh? All nations playable? lol

    I'd expect if they expanded to the Pacific that most factions would be more in south east asia. Would really hope they'd get their own tech tree this time, although not been that impressed with them since Empire tbh, 3K reform tree is nice but generic over nearly all factions of course. R2/A was too simplistic and rather the same.

    Also did think of one of the additions from Troy which could be interesting, their Amazon hordes have a unit upgrade mechanics where once they get enough experience they can be upgraded. I think that could be a nice mechanic for unit titles such as Guards for Empire 2. Perhaps tying the limit to size of the empire or prestige?

    It's would not lead to tons of non historical units being added in.

    So quit being such a drama queen about it.


    I will agree with you, that having a mechanic that allows units to be upgraded to higher levels would certainly be a nice improvement, though I don't think it would need to be only in Empire 2.


    But melee units in an Empire 2 time period wouldn't exactly be obsolete.

    I mean, line infantry, aside from the elite guards and guard grenadiers, shouldn't be super great in melee, at least compared to dedicated melee infantry units.

    I mean, yeah, the tactic of just charging head long at the enemy line infantry didn't always work, but you obviously wouldn't HAVE to resort to nothing but that with them.

    I mean, you could hold back the melee infantry until you've broken a hole in the enemy's walls during a siege battle.

    Then you can send them into the breach or to clear out a garrisoned building, since swords and such melee weapons are pretty useful in such close quarters areas.

    So I don't think it's fair to say that melee infantry would be obsolete in an Empire 2.

    Especially since it wouldn't just be Scotland that would have a good amount of melee infantry units.


    And while I do somewhat agree with you about tech tree, I do think that maybe the tech trees could work if they were all mostly similar to each other.

    I think that each playable faction should have a off shoot part of the tech trees, at least when it comes to their military technologies, that really effects the types of units that they have or specialize in.

    Because I think that having a slightly simplified military tech tree would be doable because they could mostly just be general little buffs to all your units in general which all stack over time, as it were.

    Though I'll explain that in the next comment, so this one won't be super long.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 967
    Medieval II has its fair share of problems, but in comparison to the games that followed, which I personally find very boring and shallow, it's a great game. It's not a coincidence that I still play the vanilla version of Medieval II, while I haven't touched Shogun II, Rome II or Warhammer for years. For Empire, the vanilla is utterly unplayable.

    That being said, I'm not a huge fan of the medieval era, so I'd prefer a 18th century setting. After all, what make Medieval II and Rome I so much more immersive than their successors was their features, not their setting.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457

    Medieval II has its fair share of problems, but in comparison to the games that followed, which I personally find very boring and shallow, it's a great game. It's not a coincidence that I still play the vanilla version of Medieval II, while I haven't touched Shogun II, Rome II or Warhammer for years. For Empire, the vanilla is utterly unplayable.

    That being said, I'm not a huge fan of the medieval era, so I'd prefer a 18th century setting. After all, what make Medieval II and Rome I so much more immersive than their successors was their features, not their setting.

    I don't know if I fully agree with that, because as immersive as the older TW games supposedly are, they have, like you said, their fair share of problems and limitations.

    Do you remember how limited the unit rosters for vanilla Rome 1 were?


    And you missed out on Shogun 2 and the Warhammer TW games.

    Because while I wasn't that into the Shogun 2 campaigns, I can't say that they didn't have their moments. Especially if you knew what things to build.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 967
    I didn't miss them, I played them and I found them pretty bad. Especially Shogun. I guess it depends on our personal criteria and priorities. I never cared much about rosters, but I sorely miss the distance from capital mechanic, the old traits system, while I despite automatic replenishment, Zoom diplomacy and over-powered agents. It's not nostalgia, just my personal preferences. Each on his, I guess.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457

    I didn't miss them, I played them and I found them pretty bad. Especially Shogun. I guess it depends on our personal criteria and priorities. I never cared much about rosters, but I sorely miss the distance from capital mechanic, the old traits system, while I despite automatic replenishment, Zoom diplomacy and over-powered agents. It's not nostalgia, just my personal preferences. Each on his, I guess.

    To be fully honest, I found Shogun 2's campaign to be rather similar to the older campaigns that I managed to play in the past.

    Though I don't know about the agents being overpowered in either Shogun 2 or the Warhammer TW games, but there was a exploit in Shogun 2 that allowed you to get level 4 ninjas right off the bat.

    And I honestly think the old system of really random traits and such was dumb.

    Because, from what I remember, some times, all it took was a bad trait or something, and a character could be either useless or not very effective at much.

    So I think that the addition of skill trees and more streamlined traits is far better than it all just being super random.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 967
    Fair enough, but I prefer randomness (although it wasn't completely random, getting a cuckold general, for example, depended on the traits of the princess he married) and character development, because of his career and upbringing, because they are more realistic.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457

    Fair enough, but I prefer randomness (although it wasn't completely random, getting a cuckold general, for example, depended on the traits of the princess he married) and character development, because of his career and upbringing, because they are more realistic.

    I disagree.

    Because the idea of skill trees and such isn't completely unrealistic either.

    I mean, you don't just start out being good at something, you have to actually learn something before you can do it without many problems.

    And really feel like if the TW games continued with such randomly general traits and such alone, it might've ended up being little more than a mass of RNG nonsense.

    And you know how much everyone just loves RNG.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706

    It's would not lead to tons of non historical units being added in.

    So quit being such a drama queen about it.


    I will agree with you, that having a mechanic that allows units to be upgraded to higher levels would certainly be a nice improvement, though I don't think it would need to be only in Empire 2.


    But melee units in an Empire 2 time period wouldn't exactly be obsolete.

    I mean, line infantry, aside from the elite guards and guard grenadiers, shouldn't be super great in melee, at least compared to dedicated melee infantry units.

    I mean, yeah, the tactic of just charging head long at the enemy line infantry didn't always work, but you obviously wouldn't HAVE to resort to nothing but that with them.

    I mean, you could hold back the melee infantry until you've broken a hole in the enemy's walls during a siege battle.

    Then you can send them into the breach or to clear out a garrisoned building, since swords and such melee weapons are pretty useful in such close quarters areas.

    So I don't think it's fair to say that melee infantry would be obsolete in an Empire 2.

    Especially since it wouldn't just be Scotland that would have a good amount of melee infantry units.


    And while I do somewhat agree with you about tech tree, I do think that maybe the tech trees could work if they were all mostly similar to each other.

    I think that each playable faction should have a off shoot part of the tech trees, at least when it comes to their military technologies, that really effects the types of units that they have or specialize in.

    Because I think that having a slightly simplified military tech tree would be doable because they could mostly just be general little buffs to all your units in general which all stack over time, as it were.

    Though I'll explain that in the next comment, so this one won't be super long.

    It would if you want those units added for Scotland. When they end up with more of their roster being none historical it is an issue to me. If you treat one nation like that why not others?

    Oh it wouldn't but would be more fitting for such units. Units could be promoted to regiments of note due to their service in the period so it is fitting and the base mechanic has been made in Troy.

    While not great in melee the melee tends to break down to numbers and having the advantage of being a ranged troop gives them the ability to lower enemy numbers before engaging, saving their stamina and morale. Why we see the melee troops being replaced with muskets in the mid 1600s and rather phased out by the 1700s, mostly being around to save cash.

    Flanking should always be effective, but again a gun unit can still do it really effectively and help defend its self from the general counters of light infantry and cavalry - wait till they are close and squad formation.

    Would need to see a great improvement to the sieges than we have currently. They are still a joke. Also reminds me of another issues from Empire - Artillery infinite ammo or should it have a limit? very little need to assault a fort if you have howitzers.

    Guessing you want to see garrison-able buildings again then? Think they really failed in Empire and just not enough reason to use them other than countering cavalry.

    True, but I quite liked the tech tree being techs. Nice to see it add new abilities to units and such which would give an advantage in battle.

    Oooh yeah the terrible agent spam and issues that came up @TheGreatPamphlet ! Wasn't too bad for me in Shogun 2 but R2 and Atilla it became a pain and a bit of a broken element. Elite army with 0 combat thanks to agents and then some guy pays a unit to disband -.-
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Commisar said:


    It would if you want those units added for Scotland. When they end up with more of their roster being none historical it is an issue to me. If you treat one nation like that why not others?

    Oh it wouldn't but would be more fitting for such units. Units could be promoted to regiments of note due to their service in the period so it is fitting and the base mechanic has been made in Troy.

    While not great in melee the melee tends to break down to numbers and having the advantage of being a ranged troop gives them the ability to lower enemy numbers before engaging, saving their stamina and morale. Why we see the melee troops being replaced with muskets in the mid 1600s and rather phased out by the 1700s, mostly being around to save cash.

    Flanking should always be effective, but again a gun unit can still do it really effectively and help defend its self from the general counters of light infantry and cavalry - wait till they are close and squad formation.

    Would need to see a great improvement to the sieges than we have currently. They are still a joke. Also reminds me of another issues from Empire - Artillery infinite ammo or should it have a limit? very little need to assault a fort if you have howitzers.

    Guessing you want to see garrison-able buildings again then? Think they really failed in Empire and just not enough reason to use them other than countering cavalry.

    True, but I quite liked the tech tree being techs. Nice to see it add new abilities to units and such which would give an advantage in battle.

    Oooh yeah the terrible agent spam and issues that came up @TheGreatPamphlet ! Wasn't too bad for me in Shogun 2 but R2 and Atilla it became a pain and a bit of a broken element. Elite army with 0 combat thanks to agents and then some guy pays a unit to disband -.-

    Ok dude.

    I hate to be a grammar Nazi. But you mean NON historical, not none.


    And I can understand the idea that the line infantry would certainly have an advantage with their muskets but it wouldn't be a absolute.

    I mean, they would only have 100 range and probably not that great of melee stats compared to dedicated melee units of a similar level.

    For instance, a Highland Militia unit could see off levy and irregular level line infantry units. But they would be beat by and standard professional line infantry.

    The idea is that melee infantry should be able to beat line infantry of the same rank, as they are dedicated melee fighters.

    I guess the best comparison of existing units would be to say that the Foot Guard and Guard Grenadier units should be akin to, at best, the Galatian Legionaries in Rome 2, while most elite melee infantry should be Oathsworn.

    So there should be a nice little gap in between their melee capabilities.


    And I think that the problem with garrison-able buildings was that there were too many kinds.

    They should've only been those bigger type of buildings that could actually make a difference.

    When you had all those dumb little houses that could barely fit a unit of line infantry in them, that's when it got really dumb.

    The buildings you should be able to put units into should be villas, town halls, or something bigger with a lot of window they can shoot out of.

    Because there were some nice buildings in both Empire and Napoleon that you could put your troops into.

    They just didn't always place them very well on the map.


    But I did have that happen to me once in an Egypt campaign on Napoleon.

    A Bedouin army showed up just over a turn's worth of movement away from one of my towns, and I could only recruit like 3 units of infantry before they closed in.

    I basically put them each into a building, while the enemy cav could do nothing but get shot and think angry thoughts.


    But I think that artillery in an Empire 2 should certainly have a good amount of ammo, but not endless ammo like in Empire and Napoleon.


    But I do think that melee units could and should still have a part in an Empire 2 because while guns could certainly be powerful, they could be outplayed and their weaknesses exploited.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706


    Ok dude.

    I hate to be a grammar Nazi. But you mean NON historical, not none.


    And I can understand the idea that the line infantry would certainly have an advantage with their muskets but it wouldn't be a absolute.

    I mean, they would only have 100 range and probably not that great of melee stats compared to dedicated melee units of a similar level.

    For instance, a Highland Militia unit could see off levy and irregular level line infantry units. But they would be beat by and standard professional line infantry.

    The idea is that melee infantry should be able to beat line infantry of the same rank, as they are dedicated melee fighters.

    I guess the best comparison of existing units would be to say that the Foot Guard and Guard Grenadier units should be akin to, at best, the Galatian Legionaries in Rome 2, while most elite melee infantry should be Oathsworn.

    So there should be a nice little gap in between their melee capabilities.


    And I think that the problem with garrison-able buildings was that there were too many kinds.

    They should've only been those bigger type of buildings that could actually make a difference.

    When you had all those dumb little houses that could barely fit a unit of line infantry in them, that's when it got really dumb.

    The buildings you should be able to put units into should be villas, town halls, or something bigger with a lot of window they can shoot out of.

    Because there were some nice buildings in both Empire and Napoleon that you could put your troops into.

    They just didn't always place them very well on the map.


    But I did have that happen to me once in an Egypt campaign on Napoleon.

    A Bedouin army showed up just over a turn's worth of movement away from one of my towns, and I could only recruit like 3 units of infantry before they closed in.

    I basically put them each into a building, while the enemy cav could do nothing but get shot and think angry thoughts.


    But I think that artillery in an Empire 2 should certainly have a good amount of ammo, but not endless ammo like in Empire and Napoleon.


    But I do think that melee units could and should still have a part in an Empire 2 because while guns could certainly be powerful, they could be outplayed and their weaknesses exploited.

    Yeah sorry late night typing not always at it's best lol.

    But there isn't going to be a similar level melee unit in Europe, by the start date they are out dated. Line infantry will be above them. They will be like the Pikemen a militia tier unit.

    For me it just had too little use and provided effectively no reason other than countering cavalry. With so few positions to fire it reduces your offensive ability and as a result enemy infantry can easily walk up and melee attack in to it and often seemed to give them a melee advantage. Against artillery it was a deathtrap.

    Big buildings are more limited, not quite as common even town halls aren't often that big during the time frame.

    Yeah cavalry being unable dismount did make it rather easy to counter which seemed to be it's main feature. I'd expect they will have dismount and possibly some will get the pillage ability where they can set fire to buildings near them like we've got in recent games.

    Checking out a French 12 pounder it lists it as taking 77 shots split over round and canister.

    Melee specialization would be something that happens in the rest of the world and where they are set up more to exploit it and use it as a method of combat.
  • AmadieusAmadieus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 138
    Well to put it very simply. M2 is very outdated so the time period needs a new instalment with the graphics and features of today. I mean M2 was on the previous engine and still had that dreaded diplomacy AI that just declares war on you when you turn your back to it. Just that alone is enough reason for M3.
    The Bikkel Shogunate
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 361



    I'm honestly just worried that most of the European factions will have super similar armies, with only rather superficial things like England's Longbows and such being what makes their armies unique.

    Basically with the factions being little different than what they were in Medieval 2.

    Well, this can be issue in Empire II , "Pike and Shot", Shogun III, and every possible future TW game except Warhammer, it would depend on game design,

    @VikingHuscal1066 with no offense, I saw Your posts around forum , You simple do not want Medieval III, and advocate for different setting for next historical game,

    It is fine, if You do not want medieval, but You can not "manipulate" other people same way :smiley:

    As Amadieus noticed /\ above /\ - it is fact that M2 is very outdated,
    medieval is popular setting with huge potential, You can not ignore it


  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Commisar said:


    Yeah sorry late night typing not always at it's best lol.

    But there isn't going to be a similar level melee unit in Europe, by the start date they are out dated. Line infantry will be above them. They will be like the Pikemen a militia tier unit.

    For me it just had too little use and provided effectively no reason other than countering cavalry. With so few positions to fire it reduces your offensive ability and as a result enemy infantry can easily walk up and melee attack in to it and often seemed to give them a melee advantage. Against artillery it was a deathtrap.

    Big buildings are more limited, not quite as common even town halls aren't often that big during the time frame.

    Yeah cavalry being unable dismount did make it rather easy to counter which seemed to be it's main feature. I'd expect they will have dismount and possibly some will get the pillage ability where they can set fire to buildings near them like we've got in recent games.

    Checking out a French 12 pounder it lists it as taking 77 shots split over round and canister.

    Melee specialization would be something that happens in the rest of the world and where they are set up more to exploit it and use it as a method of combat.

    It's not biggie. I do the same thing some times when I'm tired.


    But I'm thinking more along the lines of balance and such, so that melee units used by other factions would be able to excel in some form or another over all the line infantry from Europe.

    And I don't think that all melee infantry units should be necessarily reliant on attacking in frontal attacks.

    I could see things like Vietnamese or Native American infantry units relying more on stealth or use of terrain to get the upper hand on line infantry.

    So don't think that melee infantry couldn't work within an Empire 2, they would just have to be used a little more carefully than just banzai charging the enemy army.


    I agree, but I just found the bigger buildings to be more interesting and useful. I mean, there were a few smaller buildings that were good, but they were rare and there were only so many of them.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Amadieus said:

    Well to put it very simply. M2 is very outdated so the time period needs a new instalment with the graphics and features of today. I mean M2 was on the previous engine and still had that dreaded diplomacy AI that just declares war on you when you turn your back to it. Just that alone is enough reason for M3.

    I agree, M2 is pretty dang outdated now.

    And while I think the medieval setting could certainly work, I just think that there are other time periods that could just work better than it.

    And I am worried that they armies of most of the factions will end up feeling extremely similar to each other.

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 457
    Lotor12 said:


    Well, this can be issue in Empire II , "Pike and Shot", Shogun III, and every possible future TW game except Warhammer, it would depend on game design,

    @VikingHuscal1066 with no offense, I saw Your posts around forum , You simple do not want Medieval III, and advocate for different setting for next historical game,

    It is fine, if You do not want medieval, but You can not "manipulate" other people same way :smiley:

    As Amadieus noticed /\ above /\ - it is fact that M2 is very outdated,
    medieval is popular setting with huge potential, You can not ignore it

    Well, I do think that CA's historical team would need to pick a time period where there's the most possible options for at least different playstyles in a TW game.

    And I'm not "manipulating" anything or anyone, I'm trying to get people to stop being blinded by nostalgia for Medieval 2 and look at things from a different perspective or a different angle.

    And as much as some people try to act like the medieval setting would have so many possibilities and such, they seem to forget that most nations in Europe focused around heavy cavalry and infantry for the most part when it came to their armies.

    And even if you took some factions, such as the Swiss Confederation, who adopted pikes and halberds much earlier than the rest of Europe, they wouldn't end up being as unique, since everyone would start to use pikes and such in the late game.


    And yeah, I think that an Empire 2 or Rome 3 could in fact offer more in the terms of actually different armies and such

    And I maybe you should go actually read the OP of the discussions I posted about Empire 2 or Rome 3.

    The Rome 3 one I went in depth about when making the OP.
Sign In or Register to comment.