Osage2017 | 17 Sep 2017 2:22 p.m. PST |
Hi Friends, I just watched several videos on Youtube and noticed the infantry line is 5- , 6- and 7-rank deep and firing musket volleys. But the deep lines were abandoned one or two centuries before Napoleon. Why such serious mistake in so popular game ? There is plenty of info on the net about such basic stuff like troop formation. Why not make it right in the game ? |
Henry Martini | 17 Sep 2017 2:23 p.m. PST |
On Saturday, along with some other items, I bought a box of Warlord TYW Swedish infantry from our FSGS (Friendly State Gaming Shop) to add to the box of Imperial infantry I'd previously acquired from the same establishment (for neither the ECW nor the TYW… but that's another story). I'm curious as to whether ECW gamers buy the ECW infantry set or the TYW sets. The TYW sets contain the same plastic components as the ECW set, plus a generous bag of metal extras, for a very small additional cost when paying the RRP. The Swedish set comes with five metal figures, 40 metal helmets, and 16 swine-feathers. The metal figures appear to be sculpted by the same sculptor who did the plastics, so they're sculpted in the same style and depicted in the same style of costume (I suppose they have to be so that they blend with the plastics). I probably don't have a use for the swine-feathers (unless I convert them into boarding pikes; there's a clue to my intended use :- ), but the figures will fill out the ranks, and the helmets will probably all find a wearer. Averaging out the generous discount I received as usual over all my purchases I'd say the Swedes probably cost me about AUD$40. I'd estimate the value of the metal bits as at least AUD$20, so the plastics work out at about 50c each – which to my mind is a reasonable price for figures made from this material. Both these sets sat on the shop shelf for a long time, passed over in favour of ECW branded sets. My question is: why would ECW gamers happily pay almost the same price as is charged for the TYW sets for a box containing only the plastic sprues that you get in the TYW sets, but none of the metal extras? Is it for the ECW flags you get with that set, or is it only naive neophytes who buy the ECW box in preference to the TYW sets because of the 'branding'? |
Henry Martini | 17 Sep 2017 2:24 p.m. PST |
The bug strikes again. The thread title I actually typed and entered is: ECW Gamers: Warlord ECW or TYW Sets? |
Gunfreak | 17 Sep 2017 2:30 p.m. PST |
In total war you simply drag the unit to change formation. So it's up to the player how to make units. But don't worry there are plenty of other mistakes in the game. Lots of wrong uniforms. Up to 10 battalions standing in a lump firing wildly. Howitzers that got magical forward observers. Dragoons firing of volleys from horse back. |
MajorB | 17 Sep 2017 2:33 p.m. PST |
|
Daniel S | 17 Sep 2017 2:35 p.m. PST |
Osage, Because the game engine can not handle proper tactics. Napoleon was built using the flawed "Empire Total War" enginge which was designed to do both 17th Century and 18th Century warfare but in the end only did 18th C rather badly. Formation depths and so on is a legacy of that. And the Total war style is at heart built to do medieval and ancient "historical fantasy" games with armies that are only a fraction of the historical size. Historical accuracy is not high on their agenda. |
Gunfreak | 17 Sep 2017 2:45 p.m. PST |
The games have generally gone less and less realistic. Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 were both in a different league when it came to realism. Then came Rome 1 and medieval 2. Good games quite arcadey but had some realism. But than came Empire and all games after uses the Warscape engine made with good graphic in mind. Models 18th and 19th century warfare badly. And models ancient and medieval battles even worse. They now make warhammer games witch suit their fantasy/arcade style much better. |
4th Cuirassier | 18 Sep 2017 3:01 a.m. PST |
I found Rome: Total War hugely entertaining and 14 years on I still play it. that said, I don't confuse it with an accurate simulation. |
Gunfreak | 18 Sep 2017 3:32 a.m. PST |
Rome total was is still the game with most modifications. Rome total realism does a fantastic job of adding realism and good gameplay (no longer does the hastati look like imperial Romans) |
Edwulf | 18 Sep 2017 5:03 a.m. PST |
Rome and medieval were fun. Empire failed for me and I avoided Napoleon. Far to much hand to hand combat….. |
davbenbak | 18 Sep 2017 6:01 a.m. PST |
I have to admit that the sound effects of canon fire bring me back to Nap TW. It's the artillery action that I enjoy most (light infantry with Swedish Feathers the least) p.s. If I didn't already have so many 1/72 TYW and ECW figures I would definitely be checking out the Warlord Plastics. |
FatherOfAllLogic | 18 Sep 2017 6:44 a.m. PST |
Accuracy aside, the Total War games are a fast and easy fix for your wargaming itch. Boot up, play, turn off. No digging thru boxes, no terrain to set out, etc. |
Gunfreak | 18 Sep 2017 6:53 a.m. PST |
Empire is possibility that laziest game ever made by a major developer. Every single uniform for every single European nation was the same fantasy uniform. The uniform it self is some sort of hybrid of warrant 1768 and continental. And they decided to give it to all nations over a 99 year period from 1700-1799. It's so lazy. In medieval 2 you actually see armor evolve. From spearmen having just padded armor in 1066 to partial plate by 1400. It would be super easy to simply say once you've upgraded this building uniforms change. You'd need 3 changes. Early 1700 to mid 1700. From mid to AWI (since most of the effort Seend to have gone into that war) and last year into the French revolution. They did it for medieval 2 they did it for rome 2. But not for empire (they seemed to have used most of their budget on those sea battles everyone just ended up auto resolving anyway. |
4th Cuirassier | 18 Sep 2017 8:50 a.m. PST |
@ FoaL That is exactly right, although the drawback is that unlike minis, after five hours of playing RTW, you have absolutely literally totally nothing to show for it. |
Shagnasty | 18 Sep 2017 5:35 p.m. PST |
|