Empire: Total War

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Warlight]

Yea I beat it on very hard/ very hard with prussia.  Prussia is nice if you want to completly ignore the naval aspect and roll people with the best infantry in the game.  (I understand redcoats are good but the computer britain never researched bayonets...)  I am kinda disappointed in the AI still though.  I rolled the entire Venetian defence forces with two units of Guards with Platoon firing, and mortars.

I was wondering if making the campaign setting to very hard makes the comptuers ignore diplomacy.  I mean as was pointd out, they never trade techs, 4 units of angry mob will not surrender a city to a full army, The netherlands and Denmark, will not accept peace after they declare war on you for no reason, (not to mention never attacking you), my ally Hannover would not give me military passage rights to go to denmark even after gving them jewlery three turns in a row (Leaving me no choice but to end them).


I think that perhaps setting everything for very hard makes the AI nations force you to do everything the hard way.  Research yuor own stuff.  Finish all the wars the hard way and so on.

Thoug why spain though New Mexico was an even trade for the Rhineland is beyond me.  (And they expected me to pay them too!).  I was tempted to accep tht edeal, then war dec and tack back the rhinlands, but I couldn see any reason to get involved in the new world. 

Anyway.

[Prydain]

Hardest difficulty, as the British, I had all of India, France, Sweden, Gibraltar, three quarters of the Russian regions and half of north America by 1750 and had taken the last province in the world (Anatolia which was Russian by that time) in 1783.

I shell now be known as Binpop Mohammed Sha King Sultan Jesus Prydain I. And I would own your pathetic opportunistic land grabbing soon to be colony nations.

I then hop-scotched to the Pub and downed your mother.

[Unkn0wn]

Can't wait for the multiplayer campaign so I can kick prydain's sorry ass.

[Mysthalin]

1v1 of the noob OP factions... When the factions are one and the same...
Civil war?

[Unkn0wn]

Flanders you mean, Belgium was only founded in 1830.

[BigDick]

...unless I play as another nation, but no nation as as awesome as GB.

Preußen (pussia) is da shit

best faction ever...it has one of the interesting starting positions...you can anihilate an other faction in first round advancing captuering half europe

[Schultz]

How's France ?

[Prydain]

Flanders you mean, Belgium was only founded in 1830.

What you say thats what I mean. And by my post being deleted I was obviously taken the wrong way which has now interrupted my cynical monging around so I must troll somewhere else.

OFF TO MILPICS!!!!

[Draken]

lol... have fun mods...

[Baine]

Playing on Normal here, and the problem with 4 angry mobs not surrendering to two full armies is kind of disturbing :/


Oh and btw Warlight:
If you go on the tab where you can trade with other nations, then click on your nation and hover your mouse over another nation, you can see why they are angry with you.

And for example you can max. get +100 points for a gift. That means, it will only be useful once to give them jewelry.

[31stPzGren]

Doesn't it disturb anyone that no real actual strategy is used?

That the infantry square is not a REAL infantry square? That the bayonet is actually already developed by 1700? That even if you successfully "broke up" the infantry square with a well executed charge, your cavalry will still be killed by the "bonuses" offered by the infantry square?

Or how the "regiment of horse" is really pathetic except for killing artillery and light infantry? They can't even rout line infantry when charging them from the rear/flanks.

Or the implementation of Naval Warfare? There's a reason why the commander of a vessel is equal to a captain where as on land, a captain is a company commander. The scale of "management" is always difficult to implement on the seas.

etc etc etc. This game simply doesn't offer sufficient tactical depth in engagements or non-intuitive controls.

[salan]

i dislike the sea combat personally ;(... i suck at it!

[Malevolence]

Doesn't it disturb anyone that no real actual strategy is used?

I use plenty of historical strategy that becomes very apparent as gameplay goes on.

That the infantry square is not a REAL infantry square? That the bayonet is actually already developed by 1700? That even if you successfully "broke up" the infantry square with a well executed charge, your cavalry will still be killed by the "bonuses" offered by the infantry square?

Actually the bonuses lessen significantly as the square loses cohesion, and half the bonus is the fact that it is, indeed, a square. Cavalry don't do particularly well in prolonged fighting against bayoneted infantrymen, but then again they do well before bayonets, and in fact they do well after the "advent" of heavier cavalry to counter bayonets - the charge itself does most of the damage, however...

Or how the "regiment of horse" is really pathetic except for killing artillery and light infantry? They can't even rout line infantry when charging them from the rear/flanks.

You'll note a man with a giant pointy stick is usually a match for a guy on a horse with a shorter, but also very pointy, stick throughout much of history. The one on foot is cheaper to employ, but a lot less mobile than his equestrian equivalent.

Or the implementation of Naval Warfare? There's a reason why the commander of a vessel is equal to a captain where as on land, a captain is a company commander. The scale of "management" is always difficult to implement on the seas.

And managing your vessels on water is in fact a lot tougher than managing your soldiers on land. Tada.

etc etc etc. This game simply doesn't offer sufficient tactical depth in engagements or non-intuitive controls.

Your version of "tactical depth" appears to involve "WHAY CAV BLOB NO WORK?!" unless you can come up with any more specific instances that aren't related to cavalry being poor at charging people with giant pointy death cannons, which is kind of a given.

[Nevyen]

Ok


so PZ lets look at a few things to consider. 

LAND COMBAT

The War of Spanish Succession 1701 -1714 where we pick up the begining of the game is where we see the inclusion of the bayonet but we still see the use of Pike  in some cases in the french catholic formations.

The actual drill and use of Impetus charges with bayonet don't start to take real form until we see the middle of the period.  The french are instrimental in the development of impetus charges but its the dutch who develop the effective firing techniques the rules infantry drill right up to the french revolution.

So at 1700 while you could argue that the bayonet was in use its effective use is null until military theorists start to develop efective drill. given that we see evidence since 1640 that the bayonet was in use it was not universally accepted as a standard form until 1703.

it still annoys me that that i have the plug bayonet at 1725 but im ok with that in terms of gameplay.



As to tactics, key thing here is that a well executed charge against a square would not usually happen and was fraught with danger.

In napoleonic History and this 1790- 1815 there are only approx 5 example in 25 years of warfare where squares where broken by cavalry charges.  These being in the polish/russian campaigns by the french from 1806-1807 and the Peninsualr war in 1812.  The Determined charges only broke the square by the pure fact that a horse fell on one side the square and thus allowed cavalry to swarm through and break the intergrity of the formation.  Horse would not charge a hedge of bayonets nor attempt to jump the line.  the Disaster of french cavalry charges at waterloo are the perfect example of what happens with well executed mass cav charges.

At Eylau when Murat took the Guard Cav division and his cav corp through the lines of the russian positions the russians did not form square and where thus ridden down, or lay down in the snow and arose after the cav had passed through.

The accepted tactics was to advance cavalry and force a formation to form sqaure and the with supporting galloper guns canister shot the formation. Slow in some cases but very very effective. 

There are also cases at dennowitz and the battle of the Rossbach in fredricks time where we even see determined charges by cavalry against line infantry being repulsed.  So again the use of artillery to punch a position and then flood infantry through is the standard tactic.

You will find also by adopting tactics such a double lines of units, having a cavalry reserve and positioning artillery in the centre of the line effective.

Additionally a regiment of horse was used to counter other horse, in this period infantry fight infantry and more so horse fight horse, bear in mind that this the reformation and as such this a distinct nature in which warfare was fought.   Horse also in this period not reflected well from what i can see did not charge headlong in a flight of fancy, drill was important and shock of impact critical.  The charge would usually only be effected at full gallop from about 150 paces, the remainder was at trot or canter.  If you micro you can reflect that but the engine does lack there.

To give an example in Naval war a 3rd rate up would never fire or engage and 5th rate down as it was accepted that such engagments where unfair. Additionally once colours where struck all general action ceased and the ship was honour bound not to fight on.



NAVAL WARFARE

As to sea warfare, a captain my dear sir according to the articles of war was the primary pinicle of command.  Thier ship was home to from anywhere 100-400 men and was the extenstion of power of nations.  the power that was extended by a 2nd rate or even 3rd rate in areas such as the dutch east indes or the carribian is extreme and was the forbear of the carrier group the US use now.

Critically the use of line of battle was the practicle means in which to fight becasue the confusion and smoke created from close action meant that captains had limited view of there compatriots.  Neslon before trafalgar and also the Nile is remaked to say "no captain can do less worse than placing his ship along side the enemy"  Im pretty sure thats at the battle of the Nile. 

Nelson understood as much as the spanish did in the 1760's that once close action was begun communication, which was by flags BTW was near impossible. 

Another classic example is when I think a Commodore who was sending messages to Nelson at the nile,  Nelson not wishing to follow the orders placed his Glass to his Damaged eye and remaked he could not see the colours thus he "according to the articles" did not have to comply.

So a Captain in the Royal Navy or any nation was not equvilent to a captain in the army, they would be more close to a Colonel or Brigadier General.  A commodore would be General and Admiral would be C-in-C.  Liutenants in the navy would be close to a captain in an infantry battalion as they would command gun companies in the firing decks while the captiain was concerned with the management and command of the ships movements in battle.


Additionally as far as the royal navy and the pre revolutionary french navy officer corp is concerned, all where highly educated, bearing in mind thier education started when they would have joined the ship at the age of 12 as a midshipman and thier understanding of writing, music, navigation and tactics including mathematics begun then.  Unlike in the army where you could buy your commission the navy board approved the appointment of captains and they needed to have at least 4 reconmendations from other captions commanding a 3rd rate or higher.  They sat for exams to rise in rank as well unlike in the army.

So you can see the nature of warfare is very different.  Also use the wind and understand the term weather guage when fighting, having the wind and understanding how a ship reacts and how to navigate to place your ships in the right postion is important.  There is allot of tactical depth and nuance here that actually reflects naval combat.

I don't exactly agree that its all historical and I think there are things lacking as placing restrictions on players that actual commanders faced, but sir your arguments are not well founded to begin with here.

[Malevolence]

Horse also in this period not reflected well from what i can see did not charge headlong in a flight of fancy, drill was important and shock of impact critical.  The charge would usually only be effected at full gallop from about 150 paces, the remainder was at trot or canter.  If you micro you can reflect that but the engine does lack there.

Actually this is shown in pretty good effect: horses at a run in this game tire themselves out REALLY fast and take a long time to recover... you get one shot to do it right, and it's best to walk them wherever you want them to start rather than run them as level of exhaustion affects combat and morale DRASTICALLY, especially among cavalry.

[stumpster]

Words words words.

Nevyen is just angry he lost to Mortarspam. 

[Nevyen]

Mal, i didn't consider that ill look it more closely, 

You know what i would love though is command radius and that you need to have generals command wings and when a unit advances beyond command its suffers a heap of negatives, That would really add some flavour to force players to group in "wings or brigades"  Maybe one day or someone will mod it .....

And im ignoring stumpster on this point.

[Malevolence]

Also to consider is the INCREDIBLE amount of morale plusses and minuses that can come up. Being under fire is bad, being under enfilading fire is atrocious for morale. Being attacked in melee? Bad for morale. Being attacked from two sides? REALLY bad for morale. Being attacked from ALL sides? Near instant break if it's a low morale unit.

Et c.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The Sea combat could really use the 'place group under AI supervision' button that previous TW games had. It was useless for land fights, which is presumably why it was removed.  But there's a lot going on in a sea fight...  I would sure like the AI to keep my line of battle fighting while I micro a couple ships.  The AI couldn't foul up worse than I have on a couple of occasions. 

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

Nev, I had the socket bayonet for i don't know how long... i only fought one battle with the plug one, they thing with this game is that it allows you to make history what you want it.

Anyway, Line infantry are well disciplined men who's job it is to stand and face another battalion of muskets and just stand there, fire standing up, and reload standing up (or crouched if you have rank fire). I would expect them to not rout that easily, and they don't. But the lethality of muskets are very ify, a wall of lead hits their lines and 5 men die, but that is for the sake of game play i guess. Other wise whoever fires first would win.