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

Make an Empire Total War II

2»

Comments

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949

    These games should not just be what was an empire. They should be what could be an empire. What I find more important is what year do we start at to build off from. Waiting for empire 2 (being empire one diplomacy makes me cry), I began EU4, which is a tricky and tedious battle. Suppose I can have the historic opportunity with my flair of conquest and strategic might that. That would be what I want from total war empire two. The size should not be too hard nowadays, with games and trade being a simple but essential feature.

    yeah it is a bit of a necro, especially with the recent and active thread on the same topic...

    Focus would still be on the same regions as Empire, it's the setting for the period. It greatly needs more detail to it and they have gotten to the point they could improve it.

    Timewise for the setting is again rather well set with the focus of the period.

    Same way we can look at the other sequels: Shogun, Rome, Medieval & Attila. Not looking at large changes in the region covered or time period for it.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,503
    We just had Empire 1 on the same game engine though.

    Prefer to see another period first like Medieval, Mongols, Renaissance, etc...
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949
    As I think this was lost in the other one:

    The Remaster for Empire thread had me look up the Rome Remaster, gave me a few other ideas that an Empire 2 could use to maintain some of the E1 elements in the new set up.

    RR brought in the Merchant as a new agent type, I guess Empire 2 could get them as well to set up trade with the trade nodes. Keeps in line with the army/navy cap which doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

    Also figured the port defences in FotS could make a comeback for the ports to avoid the issue of garrisons for them. Higher level more damage and health, so more/stronger ships would be needed to subdue the defences before they could disable or invade via it. Could have bomb ketches & Rocket ships get bonuses to port attacks.

    Additionally though, not sure if the typical 3 options post battle of what to do with the prisoners would still be fitting.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,503
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    I've said this before and I'll say it again.

    I think that an Empire 2 might work best if it starts in 1680 or so and only goes to 1800. As I think that there'd be more potential for more interesting and varied playable factions than just making them all focus on guns, guns, and more guns for every army.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949
    Even with a slightly earlier start date, it will still be about guns and factions rushing to get their hands on guns.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Commisar said:

    Even with a slightly earlier start date, it will still be about guns and factions rushing to get their hands on guns.

    Maybe, but there would still be room for units, such as foot and horse archers to be useful in the game.

    So it wouldn't end up being being like back in Empire 1, where muskets outranged guns. That was so dumb.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949

    Maybe, but there would still be room for units, such as foot and horse archers to be useful in the game.

    So it wouldn't end up being being like back in Empire 1, where muskets outranged guns. That was so dumb.

    No more than they would of been in Empire 1, the nations that were gun heavy were gun heavy at that point as well. Pikes would be more common place however.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    edited August 28
    Commisar said:


    No more than they would of been in Empire 1, the nations that were gun heavy were gun heavy at that point as well. Pikes would be more common place however.

    Comments removed.


    The facts are, that bows and arrows could shoot further and far more accurately than smoothbore muskets.

    And it was incredibly stupid for CA to make bows have shorter range than muskets in Empire 1. It was so inaccurate.


    But I was very obviously talking about non European factions not relying solely on guns for all their units.

    And if the game could take place from 1680 to 1800, bows would still outrange muskets and would still be a viable counter to them.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949
    More accurately yes they could, range wise depends on the bow and the person using it. Advantage of the musket was a person could be trained to use it to combat levels in a day while a bow would take decades to build up the strength and skill to use full war bows.

    Not all factions do rely on firearms already.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,112
    Commisar said:

    More accurately yes they could, range wise depends on the bow and the person using it. Advantage of the musket was a person could be trained to use it to combat levels in a day while a bow would take decades to build up the strength and skill to use full war bows.

    Not all factions do rely on firearms already.

    Yep, those Longbowmen charged top dollar for their services.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Commisar said:

    More accurately yes they could, range wise depends on the bow and the person using it. Advantage of the musket was a person could be trained to use it to combat levels in a day while a bow would take decades to build up the strength and skill to use full war bows.

    Not all factions do rely on firearms already.

    Now you're just trying to use the English Longbowmen as the rule and such.

    I expected better from you than this.


    And I'm talking about actually having factions that may have some firearm units, but rely more on other aspects of their armies.

    I'm also talking about factions and such outside of Europe alone.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949

    Now you're just trying to use the English Longbowmen as the rule and such.

    I expected better from you than this.


    And I'm talking about actually having factions that may have some firearm units, but rely more on other aspects of their armies.

    I'm also talking about factions and such outside of Europe alone.

    No I'm not, that's just the best generally know example but it's applying the same principle that the human body has limitations that can be expanded but that takes time.

    And again it is the factions outside of Europe and some on the edge having a range of other units than gun equipped.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    edited August 30
    Commisar said:

    No I'm not, that's just the best generally know example but it's applying the same principle that the human body has limitations that can be expanded but that takes time.

    And again it is the factions outside of Europe and some on the edge having a range of other units than gun equipped.

    You kinda were dude, just admit it.


    But not all bows that weren't longbows had crap range dude.

    Most bows in groups could outrange muskets.


    Though I think there could easily be an Janissary variant that has bows and swords for the Ottomans.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949


    You kinda were dude, just admit it.


    But not all bows that weren't longbows had crap range dude.

    Most bows in groups could outrange muskets.


    Though I think there could easily be an Janissary variant that has bows and swords for the Ottomans.

    No it's a general requirement for all war bows.

    Not all had amazing range either and neither did all muskets have bad range or accuracy. With weapons there's a lot more variables than just what category it falls in to.

    Yeah would expect them to expand and change rosters with a second iteration like they did for R2.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Commisar said:


    No it's a general requirement for all war bows.

    Not all had amazing range either and neither did all muskets have bad range or accuracy. With weapons there's a lot more variables than just what category it falls in to.

    Yeah would expect them to expand and change rosters with a second iteration like they did for R2.

    This is what I was talking about dude.

    You're trying to use war bows as if every single bow has to be one to be useful as a weapon.

    And that is ridiculous.


    Your basic self bows could still out range muskets, let alone when you get into composite bows used in a lot of eastern nations.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949


    This is what I was talking about dude.

    You're trying to use war bows as if every single bow has to be one to be useful as a weapon.

    And that is ridiculous.


    Your basic self bows could still out range muskets, let alone when you get into composite bows used in a lot of eastern nations.

    Yes because if it's designed for use in war it would be a war bow over a hunting bow. They have very different roles and uses. A hunting bow will have less power and range as it doesn't need it.

    No they couldn't. A musket ball can go far further than an arrow, the issue becomes the accuracy. It's the element of effective range and again that will vary hugely on a large range of things than Bow has more range than guns.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Commisar said:


    Yes because if it's designed for use in war it would be a war bow over a hunting bow. They have very different roles and uses. A hunting bow will have less power and range as it doesn't need it.

    No they couldn't. A musket ball can go far further than an arrow, the issue becomes the accuracy. It's the element of effective range and again that will vary hugely on a large range of things than Bow has more range than guns.

    Yeah, they could dude. Get over it.


    You're just trying to continuously use a single exception as the rule in order to try to make your argument sound more more credible.

    Not all bows have to be full blown English war bows to actually be used in a battle effectively.

    The Native Americans didn't exactly have war bows, but their bows were effective against most enemies they used them against.

    So you trying to hold on the idea that only war bows could outrange smoothbore muskets is pretty ridiculous.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,503
    edited August 31
    Guys, in which timeline should Empire 2 be set?
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949

    Yeah, they could dude. Get over it.


    You're just trying to continuously use a single exception as the rule in order to try to make your argument sound more more credible.

    Not all bows have to be full blown English war bows to actually be used in a battle effectively.

    The Native Americans didn't exactly have war bows, but their bows were effective against most enemies they used them against.

    So you trying to hold on the idea that only war bows could outrange smoothbore muskets is pretty ridiculous.

    No I'm not.

    Yes Native American bows are one of the examples I've based my statements on. They had much lower draw weights likely due to not facing enemies with any real armour before Europeans. This meant that they also had shorter effective ranges than many guns of the period. However it's still worth noting it took years for them to train up to their skill level for use of the weapon.
    jamreal18 said:

    Guys, in which timeline should Empire 2 be set?

    Same period as it's a sequel. Could have DLC that covers/expands on some elements from before and after it, although I do prefer content that builds up the grand campaign than spinoff mini titles.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    jamreal18 said:

    Guys, in which timeline should Empire 2 be set?

    I think it should be set in 1680 or so to 1800.

    That way, we could have the most range of possible playable factions beyond just European factions.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    edited August 31
    Commisar said:


    No I'm not.

    Yes Native American bows are one of the examples I've based my statements on. They had much lower draw weights likely due to not facing enemies with any real armour before Europeans. This meant that they also had shorter effective ranges than many guns of the period. However it's still worth noting it took years for them to train up to their skill level for use of the weapon.

    Yes you are Commisar.

    Inappropriate Comment removed.

    Inappropriate Comment removed.

    Inappropriate Comment removed.


    And a funny thing you're of course leaving out, is that by 1680 or so, most infantry didn't wear a ton of armor compared to a century or so before. And they would continue to use less as firearm technology progressed.

    Yeah, cavalry still wore armor, but even that was half plate armor, not full plate.


    So bows would be pretty effective against your standard line infantry, who only wore uniforms, which were certainly not armor.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,503
    edited August 31

    I think it should be set in 1680 or so to 1800.

    Does it mean Rennaissance should be made as well?

    What Battles happened during this time period?

    The interesting wars I know during this time period were:

    Nine Years War
    Great Northern War
    Seven Years War


  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    jamreal18 said:


    Does it mean Rennaissance should be made as well?

    What Battles happened during this time period?

    Well kind of.

    The time period I want an Empire 2 to take place in would be similar to Empire 1's where they start off just before stuff like line infantry really became a thing, and there were the most possible options for playable factions beyond just the European ones.

    I say it should start at 1680 or so, so that we might be able to see a famous battle or two, like the Siege of Vienna in 1683.

    But I just think that it would allow for a lot more factions to be playable instead of just some minor faction.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,503
    Weren't Siege of Vienna part of Renaissance?
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    jamreal18 said:

    Weren't Siege of Vienna part of Renaissance?

    I don't know exactly when the Renaissance began and ended, but the Siege of Vienna was in 1683.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,722
    edited September 1

    Commisar said:


    No I'm not.

    Yes Native American bows are one of the examples I've based my statements on. They had much lower draw weights likely due to not facing enemies with any real armour before Europeans. This meant that they also had shorter effective ranges than many guns of the period. However it's still worth noting it took years for them to train up to their skill level for use of the weapon.

    Yes you are Commisar.

    Inappropriate Comment removed.
    Inappropriate Comment removed.

    Inappropriate Comment removed.


    And a funny thing you're of course leaving out, is that by 1680 or so, most infantry didn't wear a ton of armor compared to a century or so before. And they would continue to use less as firearm technology progressed.

    Yeah, cavalry still wore armor, but even that was half plate armor, not full plate.


    So bows would be pretty effective against your standard line infantry, who only wore uniforms, which were certainly not armor.
    Commissar said:
    (1) More accurately yes they could, (2) range wise depends on the bow and the person using it. (3) Advantage of the musket was a person could be trained to use it to combat levels in a day while a bow would take decades to build up the strength and skill to use full war bows.
    To reiterate, he said:

    (1) Bows were more accurate than guns.
    (2) Some bows effectively shot further than guns and some didn’t.
    (3) It took more time to train with a bow used in warfare than it did a firearm.

    He never mentioned English long bows. That was a different poster.
    He never said all war bows are longbows.
    He never said bows needed to be English long bows to be effective in combat.

    I’m not sure if this is a non-native speaker issue or a you not paying attention issue, but if you are going to make a habit of starting annoying arguments in every topic in which you post, you could at least do your interlocutor the courtesy of trying to follow what is being discussed.
    Post edited by Warlocke on
    ò_ó
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Warlocke said:


    To reiterate, he said:

    (1) Bows were more accurate than guns.
    (2) Some bows effectively shot further than guns and some didn’t.
    (3) It took less time to train with a bow used in warfare than it did a firearm.

    He never mentioned English long bows. That was a different poster.
    He never said all war bows are longbows.
    He never said bows needed to be English long bows to be effective in combat.

    I’m not sure if this is a non-native speaker issue or a you not paying attention issue, but if you are going to make a habit of starting annoying arguments in every topic in which you post, you could at least do your interlocutor the courtesy of trying to follow what is being discussed.

    If you actually went back and looked at the recent comments he made, you'll see that he was focusing on war bows, which are usually associated with English longbows.

    And you'll also see that he was clearly trying to use war bows as the complete standard by which all bows are to be measured.

    As if all other bows have no range compared to English war bows. Not taking into account things like composite bows.


    The point I have made is that your standard bows could outrange your smoothbore muskets.

    Because if muskets were actually accurate at range, then armies wouldn't have had to march their lines of infantry within like 40 or 50 feet of each other.

    Most bows, not just war bows could actually be used to reach out at at least 100 yards. Because things like English longbows and eastern composite bows are said to be able to reach out and be deadly in volleys up to 300 yards.

    So it's pretty safe to say that even hunting bows could outrange muskets.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949
    edited August 31


    Yes you are Commisar.

    Inappropriate Comment removed.
    Inappropriate Comment removed.
    Inappropriate Comment removed.


    And a funny thing you're of course leaving out, is that by 1680 or so, most infantry didn't wear a ton of armor compared to a century or so before. And they would continue to use less as firearm technology progressed.

    Yeah, cavalry still wore armor, but even that was half plate armor, not full plate.


    So bows would be pretty effective against your standard line infantry, who only wore uniforms, which were certainly not armor.

    Again no I'm not. Stop trying to be psychic you can't manage it.

    I was talking of all bows which is why I didn't name any types and did point out that the "bow" as a category is a very large group with a very large range of stats but nearly all requiring long periods of training for use in combat.

    Yes in the 1680s the Europeans wore less armour, but when they first arrived in the New world they wore a lot of it. By the time period the game covers it's far more limited as the tactics had changed. However the power doesn't seem to have changed much but the native population had been drawn to getting fire arms of their own and did become highly skilled with them, same with the horses they captured.

    Yes they can be effective but in general the native bows had shorter range than the guns which put them at a disadvantage in straight up combat. Quite possibly why guns became so valued in the Native tribes and they would on a number of occasions end up with better quality small-arms than the European based forces.



    If you actually went back and looked at the recent comments he made, you'll see that he was focusing on war bows, which are usually associated with English longbows.

    And you'll also see that he was clearly trying to use war bows as the complete standard by which all bows are to be measured.

    As if all other bows have no range compared to English war bows. Not taking into account things like composite bows.


    The point I have made is that your standard bows could outrange your smoothbore muskets.

    Because if muskets were actually accurate at range, then armies wouldn't have had to march their lines of infantry within like 40 or 50 feet of each other.

    Most bows, not just war bows could actually be used to reach out at at least 100 yards. Because things like English longbows and eastern composite bows are said to be able to reach out and be deadly in volleys up to 300 yards.

    So it's pretty safe to say that even hunting bows could outrange muskets.

    A war bow is also a bow intended for use in war. You are the one who decided it meant the Longbow when it didn't.

    Yes the bows that are used in warfare is the comparison I'm making for the use of weapons in combat.

    That again is you. I didn't mention a specific bow and have repeatedly pointed out that the category is very large with a range of different stats. Not all bows have the same range.

    They still would as it's part of the tactics. A lot of nations still went to the bayonet to finish the fight, same way in all the other periods there's still melee forces. There is of course issues with the quality of training during the period, quite often soldiers wouldn't get much training in shooting but would practise the other elements which weren't as wasteful. Light infantry and skirmishers were able to become better shots and did have more effective range and accuracy force it, so did other cultures including the native Americans. Knowing and training with your weapon does let you get the best out of it.

    There's period tests of weapons at range, they got roughly 20% of hits at 300M on a formation target although after a volley of a few hundred muskets good luck seeing any target at that range or taking advantage of any disorganisation or movement it causes. It's also worth noting the theoretical lethal range of these weapons is over 1000M but yeah their dispersion is too much for accuracy although there was bolt-ation rifles in the late 1800s to early 1900s that were designed for that type of fire lol I think the British did try it a few times in the Boer war.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 22,312
    Posts edited. Avoid the personal remarks in post content.......
    "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.

Sign In or Register to comment.