​I think I may have made a thread with the same title in the past, but I feel like I've been able to think of a more up to date version of my thoughts on an Empire 2.

I will say that, despite Sega's stupid interference with all that Hyenas nonsense, I don't think that CA or their TW games are 100% going to die and all that stuff, but I do think that they need to be allowed to actually climb back up from the hole that Sega allowed them fall into. But I'm not going to dwell on that stuff too much, as it just gets me angry.

But I don't think that an Empire 2 is the only TW game that could help CA get back on more stable ground and stay in business, I think that the only other full blown TW game that could be just as great would be what I like to call a Total war Antiquity.

And to be abundantly clear, I am NOT talking about about CA making a "Rome 3", but actually a TW game that eventually gets a bunch of different campaigns that are added that span from the rise of Cyrus the Great's Persian Empire to the Fall of Rome, but not purely have all but one of the campaigns be solely focused around the Romans alone.

I won't go on about TW: Antiquity too much more, but I will say that where as that game would work out well in part because it would have multiple separate campaigns like in Rome 2, but again, not solely having them all have the same exact factions in many of them. Mix that in with most the nice little additions that CA has added to the TW games in recent years, then we'd probably have a solid recipe for a great TW game.

But where as a TW: Antiquity would have a lot of different campaigns, I would say that an Empire 2's greatest strength would probably come from CA focusing on giving us a nice sized grand campaign to start with, and then expanding it to be a nearly global scale campaign map and having a ton of playable factions to choose from, and not just the European ones either.

But I'll just break the OP up into sections so it's easier to follow. And they are

Stats

Time Period and Technology

Level Scale and Faction Variety

Battles and Battle Maps

Naval and Coastal Battles

Stats​

I just wanted to get this part out of the way first, since what I have to say about it is fairly simple.

I think that CA should completely do away with the idea of background stats, like having a background MA behind the MA you see on a unit's stat card, like if a unit card says the unit has 25 MA, but they have like 25 background MA as well, for a total of 50 MA. And I just feel like that's incredibly stupid and makes things more complicated than they need to be.

Because while I could kind of understand the desire to have background stats in the TW: Warhammer games, as there's all manner of abilities and outright debuffs that can be placed on units, but I still think it's stupid and really has no place in the more historical, but especially not an Empire 2.

I say that because of how relatively few heavily armored units there would be in an Empire 2, even with all the possible units that could be added in with DLCs, and it's not like there'd be tons of abilities and such that would grant giant debuffs on the scale of those of the Warhammer games.

Unless they keep the background stats really small, like no more than 10 or 15 at most, I just do not like the very idea of the devs adding more stats than the game actually needs to properly work.

Time Period and Technology Level

I would say the best overall time period in which an Empire 2 should take place in would be from about 1684, basically right after the Great Siege of Vienna in 1683 and span to no more than 1820 at the latest, which has to do with the overall military technology level that was commonly used during the 1700s.

I just think that having the 1700s be the main period the campaign take place in would allow for a great use of firearms and artillery and all that that the warfare of 1700s was known for, but it could still allow for the use of "old school" things like melee and such still stay useful in a TW game, which has shown to work best for many TW games, that is, having a nice balance of options for ranged, cavalry, melee, and such things are still kept viable.

For while I know things like line infantry and such became quite popular in most European nations, I also know that if that stuff is all there is for options, in a general sense, the game will end up becoming quite boring quite fast.

Now, I'm not saying that things should remain static or anything, just that it should be more varied than say Native American armies being almost nothing but melee infantry rush armies that will almost always get mauled in every battle. 

But I'm sure you guys get what I mean, and we can discuss it at greater length in the comments.

Scale and Faction Variety

This is a think one of the most important parts of what could make an Empire 2 truly great. It could possibly even make or break the game if not handled right.

But I feel like what CA should do in terms of scale is to have the game launch with a nice Rome 2 or Attila sized map set in the overall same area, and then, through campaign expansion pack DLCs, well, expand the map to include more and more parts of the world and include a good number of playable factions with each one, to the point where it's the majority of our world, but not all of it.

And that kind of has to do with with the factions as well.

I think that one of the biggest advantages that an Empire 2 set in mainly the 1700s has is not only the benefit from there being many kingdoms or empires that would no doubt help with lessening the number of overall factions, but also allow for the playable factions to feel more unique in comparison with each other.

Now, I won't get too into all the possible playable factions, but I will say that there's more variety of factions  to play around with than just the European ones and maybe the Ottomans, as there's stuff like the Mughal Empire in India, the Qing Dynasty in China, not to mention the various major Native American tribal groups/confederations in North America, as well as others.

The point is simply that if handled right, CA could eventually truly give us a lot of playable factions to choose from and grant us a a truly grand scale campaign that allows for all the factions to have a chance to advance and become more powerful.

But we can get into all this stuff in the comments.

Battles and Battle Maps

Well, to be fair, I think that all CA needs to do is to update much of the stuff from back in Napoleon and Shogun 2: FotS, along with the stat levels and layout of Rome 2 and I guess the Pharaoh games now, and they could probably go from there in terms of expanding it.

Honestly, I just think that they need to give most unit types at least some viability if they're used right, like even a seemingly old school things like horse archers that might be fielded by factions like the Mughal Empire and Qing Dynasty should still be useful, but just not pack quite as much punch per shot as firearm units.

One thing I will say is that I think that the vast majority of melee infantry should probably have shields, even if it's a bit unhistorical in some cases, such as with the Native American warriors. Now, I'm not saying they should give Native American warriors giant scutum tower shields, but rather just smaller wooden or those rawhide shields, that are meant to give more MD than armor.

I do think that CA can manage to make the units feel really varied without trying to make things too overly crazy.

As for battle maps, I would say that they should absolutely make use of a lot of things from the newer TW games, such as the more varied terrain and even possible weather effects from Pharaoh, among other things, which could actually play a huge part in giving some factions more of an edge in certain situations.

And I will say, that if they bring the newer larger sized battles maps like they have in Pharaoh: Dynasties, then oh boy, that will open up the tactical possibilities for players to play around with.

But we can get into all that stuff in future comments.

​Naval and Coastal Battles

I do feel a bit on the fence about this subject.

I will say that I wasn't really the biggest fan of the naval battles in Empire and Napoleon, though I will give part of that to the fact that I was younger and didn't appreciate the whole of the TW games quite as much as I do now.

But I would say that CA could probably just update the stuff from Empire through Shogun 2, with just a bit of Rome 2 and Attila's naval battles, and probably make it work well enough.

I would think that it'd be kind of cool if they brought back coastal and port battles as well, because I would love to be able to land troops in an enemy's city and such from the water, but I can understand some of the problems that could come from that as well.

But I will also say that I think that some factions, mainly the Native Americans and various factions in Africa, probably wouldn't have anything in terms of real naval units, as they aren't exactly known for having the mightiest navies in the world, especially during the 1700s.

I think it could be done if, as you said, the more exotic factions outside of europe were through dlc. I'd like to see how factions that emerged between 1684 and 1820 (like the United States and the sikh empire) would play out, seeing as a lot of new nations appeared in that time span.

Having said that, I think the end date could be pushed closer to like the 1850s and starting earlier like the late 16th century, past the time of the rennaissance. or just before the advent of the gatling guns and trench warfare. The armies between that did not appear to change much, other than the obsolescence of heavy cavalry and smoothbores.

​

Dracuraptor#4511 wrote:

I think it could be done if, as you said, the more exotic factions outside of europe were through dlc. I'd like to see how factions that emerged between 1684 and 1820 (like the United States and the sikh empire) would play out, seeing as a lot of new nations appeared in that time span.

Having said that, I think the end date could be pushed closer to like the 1850s and starting earlier like the late 16th century, past the time of the rennaissance. or just before the advent of the gatling guns and trench warfare. The armies between that did not appear to change much, other than the obsolescence of heavy cavalry and smoothbores.

Yeah, I'm not against the inclusion of the Thirteen Colonies or the beginnings of the Maratha Empire in India and such, but I think that some of the existing factions and such shouldn't just automatically be on their way out, like the Mughal Empire and the Qing Dynasty, who should be able to advance and not always have to be in decline and all.

But I do think that going beyond 1820 could open the door for some problems.

I just feel like keeping it within the century of smoothbore muskets and such, with rifles being limited to skirmisher weapons, would allow for things like melee infantry and cavalry still be able to stay useful if used smartly. Because I remember how OP the "modern" firearm units were back in FotS, and I would much prefer for it to be kept at least a little more balanced for gameplay's sake.

Although one faction I would love to see, and would actually make for an easy pre-order bonus would be Scotland/Ireland.

​

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

​

Dracuraptor#4511 wrote:

I think it could be done if, as you said, the more exotic factions outside of europe were through dlc. I'd like to see how factions that emerged between 1684 and 1820 (like the United States and the sikh empire) would play out, seeing as a lot of new nations appeared in that time span.

Having said that, I think the end date could be pushed closer to like the 1850s and starting earlier like the late 16th century, past the time of the rennaissance. or just before the advent of the gatling guns and trench warfare. The armies between that did not appear to change much, other than the obsolescence of heavy cavalry and smoothbores.

Yeah, I'm not against the inclusion of the Thirteen Colonies or the beginnings of the Maratha Empire in India and such, but I think that some of the existing factions and such shouldn't just automatically be on their way out, like the Mughal Empire and the Qing Dynasty, who should be able to advance and not always have to be in decline and all.

But I do think that going beyond 1820 could open the door for some problems.

I just feel like keeping it within the century of smoothbore muskets and such, with rifles being limited to skirmisher weapons, would allow for things like melee infantry and cavalry still be able to stay useful if used smartly. Because I remember how OP the "modern" firearm units were back in FotS, and I would much prefer for it to be kept at least a little more balanced for gameplay's sake.

Although one faction I would love to see, and would actually make for an easy pre-order bonus would be Scotland/Ireland.

Wholeheartedly agree with factions not starting already being over, although some people find it fun to start in major decline and come back stronger. That was why I was thinking of setting the start date earlier because Mughals and Ming were already in decline by the 1680s. Now that you mention it though, 1820s sounds more reasonable than the 1850s for an end date.

I don't think that Scotland or Ireland would be good pre-order factions. A pre-order faction sounds like a less popular faction but still have an appeal to a large part of the audience, like Portugal, the Mamlukes or Denmark. Though playing as scotland or Ireland would be fun.

​

Dracuraptor#4511 wrote:

​

Wholeheartedly agree with factions not starting already being over, although some people find it fun to start in major decline and come back stronger. That was why I was thinking of setting the start date earlier because Mughals and Ming were already in decline by the 1680s. Now that you mention it though, 1820s sounds more reasonable than the 1850s for an end date.

I don't think that Scotland or Ireland would be good pre-order factions. A pre-order faction sounds like a less popular faction but still have an appeal to a large part of the audience, like Portugal, the Mamlukes or Denmark. Though playing as scotland or Ireland would be fun.

Also got to remember the turn time when looking at start-end dates. Most campaigns according to the last metrics CA shared end around 200 turns at the latest so that's where the main focus is and it helps to at least have two turns a year. Plus the Revolution does make sense as the late game "threat" and did historically change balance of power at that point.

Agree Ireland/Scotland makes no sense as pre-order factions, even as their own factions. They were both subservient in the time frame to England and the king there. It's a kin to having each and every colony be an independent faction. It also runs the issue of lack of content for them and them just being a reskin of existing factions which isn't an interesting choice, especially for pre-order.

Speaking from sales perspective, Empire 2 has to feature the far east in order to have a global appeal. If it follows the same formula as Empire 1, I dont see any reason to buy the game at all. Graphic probably will not change much esp considering how little SEGA is willing to invest in their games (from CoH3 to TWW3, I barely see any leap in graphic fidelity).

Troy & Pharaoh is the testament of overused culture & geo in TW games. We can blame SEGA but devs over at CA needs to get out of their Euro-centric bubble.

​

Dracuraptor#4511 wrote:

​Wholeheartedly agree with factions not starting already being over, although some people find it fun to start in major decline and come back stronger. That was why I was thinking of setting the start date earlier because Mughals and Ming were already in decline by the 1680s. Now that you mention it though, 1820s sounds more reasonable than the 1850s for an end date.

I don't think that Scotland or Ireland would be good pre-order factions. A pre-order faction sounds like a less popular faction but still have an appeal to a large part of the audience, like Portugal, the Mamlukes or Denmark. Though playing as scotland or Ireland would be fun.

Oh, I totally get what you mean, I know that there can certainly be some enjoyment from the challenge of bringing an empire back from the brink and all, but I just don't want it to be in such a place where by the time you've just stabilized China as the Qing, there's like 20 full 20 stack European armies showing up on your doorstep, that's all. But I'm sure you know what I mean.

And the only reason I picked Scotland and Ireland as the idea for pre-orders was because they weren't strictly the biggest players during the 1700s, at least from what I can remember. And the Mamluk Sultanate, at least as its own faction, was destroyed and Egypt was taken over by the Ottomans back in 1516-1517. And wasn't Denmark still at least a major trading power during the 1700s? I'm just not sure about Denmark.

I just now realized an almost perfect candidate for an Empire 2's pre-order bonus. And that is the Knights of Saint John, aka, the Knights Hospitaller.

I think they could probably give them some fairly unique units without making them the really old school crusader knights and all, as well as maybe having bonuses for naval units.

But I will say that I would love for at least Scotland to be playable, as I really want to be able to not only use their fierce highland clansmen, but also be able to improve them to be more than just purely fierce shock melee infantry and that's it. And maybe they could have bonuses and such for Irish troops as well.

I only don't mention Ireland as it's own faction because of how fragmented the Irish clans were, even back in the 1500s, so I'm just not too sure about them on their own, as it could end up being like you're just one out of a dozen Irish factions and most of your starting 3rd or so of your campaign would be taken up by fully taking over the whole of Ireland, which might allow other factions to get a large lead on you.

​

Commisar#2307 wrote:

​Also got to remember the turn time when looking at start-end dates. Most campaigns according to the last metrics CA shared end around 200 turns at the latest so that's where the main focus is and it helps to at least have two turns a year. Plus the Revolution does make sense as the late game "threat" and did historically change balance of power at that point.

Agree Ireland/Scotland makes no sense as pre-order factions, even as their own factions. They were both subservient in the time frame to England and the king there. It's a kin to having each and every colony be an independent faction. It also runs the issue of lack of content for them and them just being a reskin of existing factions which isn't an interesting choice, especially for pre-order.

Well, I don't know if it's limited to only 200 turn now, as Pharaoh Dynasties does have a customization option for giving up to 12 turns per year, and I haven't heard anyone mention turn limits still being the same.

But as for Scotland and Ireland.

I would say that, in Scotland's case at least,  it'd be no different than starting a campaign as the Thirteen Colonies, who would probably start as a vassal of sorts of Great Britain. And maybe Ireland could have a pro British and an anti British Clans as playable sub factions, but even then, with how fragmented Ireland has been known to be over the centuries, it's kind of hard for me to believe that CA can just start Ireland off as a unified land and all.

But I would still say that both could offer some fun unique flavor units in the form of their various clan units, that could help them stand out from the other European factions.

​

united84#8186 wrote:

Speaking from sales perspective, Empire 2 has to feature the far east in order to have a global appeal. If it follows the same formula as Empire 1, I dont see any reason to buy the game at all. Graphic probably will not change much esp considering how little SEGA is willing to invest in their games (from CoH3 to TWW3, I barely see any leap in graphic fidelity).

Troy & Pharaoh is the testament of overused culture & geo in TW games. We can blame SEGA but devs over at CA needs to get out of their Euro-centric bubble.

I can mostly understand that, but I feel like trying to force in too much too quickly could end up hurting the game more than helping it.

I only say that because I would like to see CA give us a solid game from the start, but one that can be expanded from.

And I hate to get political or anything at all, but I think that with the Qing Dynasty being the last real Chinese dynasty before the rise of the communist regime, I don't know how well the leaders in China would take to the Qing being the major represented Chinese faction in the game.

I just feel like as much as I would like to see an Empire 2 be released a mostly complete game and all, I feel like that CA would ​have to take a lot more time to develop the game to give it the scale it could get eventually get via DLCs and such. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

​

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

Well, I don't know if it's limited to only 200 turn now, as Pharaoh Dynasties does have a customization option for giving up to 12 turns per year, and I haven't heard anyone mention turn limits still being the same.

But as for Scotland and Ireland.

I would say that, in Scotland's case at least,  it'd be no different than starting a campaign as the Thirteen Colonies, who would probably start as a vassal of sorts of Great Britain. And maybe Ireland could have a pro British and an anti British Clans as playable sub factions, but even then, with how fragmented Ireland has been known to be over the centuries, it's kind of hard for me to believe that CA can just start Ireland off as a unified land and all.

But I would still say that both could offer some fun unique flavor units in the form of their various clan units, that could help them stand out from the other European factions.

The change in TPY isn't linked to anything else directly, so it's mostly just changing how quickly or slowly characters age. So gamewise it's the same rate of movement, research and building.

It is quite different to starting as them. Firstly it'd be breaking the 13 colonies up in to their individual colonies and then also forgetting that they in the time period have history to draw upon. Scotland doesn't. It's rather poor at the start and quickly was taken over directly by the act of Union.

Ireland, I'd doubt they'd have the settlement count to do multiple factions there, especially if you want the map to spread to the globe.

The clan units weren't their military units those are at best local militia, as can be seen by the military engagements they took part in in the time frame, they followed the same formation as the English for their armies mostly because that's where it was made.

​

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

Maybe, but I still think that it probably has some effect on just how many turns can be in a campaign.

And well, I think that the 13 Colonies could probably work as a single faction, but with maybe some inner workings that have to do with thirteen colonies, or something like that.

But as for Scotland, I would say it's more about trying to give a European faction some different things to play around with as compared to other ones. And no, I'm not saying they should magically be given some giant monetary bonus or something, just that they shouldn't just be hemorrhaging money at the start of a campaign either.

And about the Scottish and Irish clan units. It's in large part about having flavor to some units.

Because let's be real Commisar, if it weren't for flavor, most of the units in TW would be incredibly bland and boring in comparison to what we do have. We'd really only have Scutarii and Iberian Cavalry units for the Arevaci back in Rome2, or slightly differently named men at arms and such back in Medieval 2. But you know what I mean.

I think that there's differences that could be made between the Scottish and Irish clan units and such, just so they're not entirely all the same as each other, but also so that they'd add a bit of flavor to English or other European factions' armies who might take over those lands.

By design it doesn't. It's just the number of turns per year. You can still conquer just as quickly, research and build up just as quick. You can change them as well with other settings, can even make them faster, can of course also make them slower if you do play longer campaigns. But even then most don't play up to the victory conditions.

But that is pretty much the issue of Scotland and why they were reliant and joined to form Great Britain. They had a very poor economy and lost what little they had on a colonial venture and were bankrupt. It's very much a waste of a playable slot and especially as a pre-order faction it's a terrible fit. 13 colonies would seem a better fit.

It still wouldn't really work that way for them. They are still the bottom tier units, quite literally a limited group of armed citizenry. If they were to make them it'd make more sense as a militia tier regional unit for anyone who controlled the region, like how Ghoorkas were in E1.  Like most of the bottom tier units though it's not really adding that much flavour. You don't want to recruit them outside of them being the cheapest unit to use as a port garrison back n E1/Napoleon.

I don't care one bit about the Empire time period. Overrated trash period where all the interesting stuff happened at the end and Old Fritz is the only interesting character in-between.

Give me the 17th century already. Thirty/Eighty Years War, English Civil War, the golden age of piracy, the gradual shift in military tactics, big names like the Sun King Louis XIV, Wallenstein, Richelieu, Tilly and Chromwell, that's what I want. 

I once heard someone theorize the reason CA skipped this time period is because it had first Spanish and then the French, traditional rivals to the English, dominate Europe and  hence why they refuse to portray it.

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

I don't care one bit about the Empire time period. Overrated trash period where all the interesting stuff happened at the end and Old Fritz is the only interesting character in-between.

Well, that shows how unimaginative you are. 

But there is in fact a LOT of stuff that CA can play around with for an Empire 2 set in mainly the 1700s, which could really help give different, mostly no European factions, different options to play around with, so they're not just nothing but copy cat line infantry and such.

And while I know some people like the idea of a pike and shot TW game, I feel like there's far too much potential for that time period and style of warfare to end up being either quickly become pretty boring and or exploitable.

​

Commisar#2307 wrote:

​But that is pretty much the issue of Scotland and why they were reliant and joined to form Great Britain. They had a very poor economy and lost what little they had on a colonial venture and were bankrupt. It's very much a waste of a playable slot and especially as a pre-order faction it's a terrible fit. 13 colonies would seem a better fit.

It still wouldn't really work that way for them. They are still the bottom tier units, quite literally a limited group of armed citizenry. If they were to make them it'd make more sense as a militia tier regional unit for anyone who controlled the region, like how Ghoorkas were in E1.  Like most of the bottom tier units though it's not really adding that much flavour. You don't want to recruit them outside of them being the cheapest unit to use as a port garrison back n E1/Napoleon.

*sigh*

You're missing the point Commisar.

It's not about making the game a 1 for 1 recreation of historical events, which the TW games have never been anyway, it's about giving players options in these sandbox strategy and tactics games. So just stop treating this as if it automatically means all such factions are off the table.

And they could simply expand the Scottish clan units to have a bit more variety, so that they're far more useful to play as. It could be as simple as

Clansmen: Tier 2 Melee infantry armed with simple maces and axes and targe shields.

Clan Warriors: Tier 3 clansmen who are armed with axes or swords and targe shields.

Veteran Clansmen: Tier 4 veteran clansmen who are not only armed with swords and targe shields, but also wear steel breastplates which help make them tankier in melee.

And boom, there you go. And that's the overly simplified version. As I could easily come up with a few more units if I wanted to.

But the point is that there's more that can be done with such factions and groups that could easily allow for some nice flavor units and so on.

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

I don't care one bit about the Empire time period. Overrated trash period where all the interesting stuff happened at the end and Old Fritz is the only interesting character in-between.

Give me the 17th century already. Thirty/Eighty Years War, English Civil War, the golden age of piracy, the gradual shift in military tactics, big names like the Sun King Louis XIV, Wallenstein, Richelieu, Tilly and Chromwell, that's what I want. 

I once heard someone theorize the reason CA skipped this time period is because it had first Spanish and then the French, traditional rivals to the English, dominate Europe and  hence why they refuse to portray it.

Would disagree on the trash period and all that.

Although a 17thC game might be the next one, there was the weapons expert shown off in their motion capture studio whos area of interest is late medieval to early renaissance.

Considering it's a time frame that England also took part in trashing Spain and France in some fights, that's really not an issue to them. Not like England ended up doing well vs France and Spain in the Medieval period yet they've covered that.

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

*sigh*

You're missing the point Commisar.

It's not about making the game a 1 for 1 recreation of historical events, which the TW games have never been anyway, it's about giving players options in these sandbox strategy and tactics games. So just stop treating this as if it automatically means all such factions are off the table.

And they could simply expand the Scottish clan units to have a bit more variety, so that they're far more useful to play as. It could be as simple as

Clansmen: Tier 2 Melee infantry armed with simple maces and axes and targe shields.

Clan Warriors: Tier 3 clansmen who are armed with axes or swords and targe shields.

Veteran Clansmen: Tier 4 veteran clansmen who are not only armed with swords and targe shields, but also wear steel breastplates which help make them tankier in melee.

And boom, there you go. And that's the overly simplified version. As I could easily come up with a few more units if I wanted to.

But the point is that there's more that can be done with such factions and groups that could easily allow for some nice flavor units and so on.

Neither am I, but it's akin to saying in R2 they don't upgrade to Legionaries and using older units for their flavour. This isn't making it sandbox, this is ignoring a regions history for the sake of it. These weren't high tier units, these weren't units they wanted these weren't even the weapons they themselves wanted to use. Wasting time on bad units for a faction isn't flavour it's bad choice.

​

Commisar#2307 wrote:

​

Would disagree on the trash period and all that.

Although a 17thC game might be the next one, there was the weapons expert shown off in their motion capture studio whos area of interest is late medieval to early renaissance.

Considering it's a time frame that England also took part in trashing Spain and France in some fights, that's really not an issue to them. Not like England ended up doing well vs France and Spain in the Medieval period yet they've covered that.

The Medieval period has the Hundred Years War and the English can't stop gushing all over themselves for Agincourt, Poitiers and Crecy even when they were ulimately defeated by a French peasant girl so that's where that comes from. The Empire period I don't care about. That's the period of the "civilised" cabinet wars and mostly dynastic conflicts wedged in-between the bloody religious conflicts of the 16-17th century and the even bloodier nationalistic wars following the French Revolution. Not to speak that we already had a TW portrayal of that period but still nothing for the pike&shot era.

​

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

And while I know some people like the idea of a pike and shot TW game, I feel like there's far too much potential for that time period and style of warfare to end up being either quickly become pretty boring and or exploitable.

Buddy, the pike&shot era starts with Spanish Tercio style formations dominating the battlefield and ends with the line formations that would be the norm up to the American Civil War. You have no such major shift for the Empire period where fighting was largely homogenized. You are talking plain ignorance. In the east you also have the war between the crumbling Ming empire, their Korean vassals and the invading Manchu whereas those very same Manchu were firmly entrenched in China as the Qing dynasty throughout the 18th century and had their own golden age. Golden Ages are great for countries, BAD for wargames.

A Pike&Shot TW would blow any Empire 2 out of the water.

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

​

The Medieval period has the Hundred Years War and the English can't stop gushing all over themselves for Agincourt, Poitiers and Crecy even when they were ulimately defeated by a French peasant girl so that's where that comes from. The Empire period I don't care about. That's the period of the "civilised" cabinet wars and mostly dynastic conflicts wedged in-between the bloody religious conflicts of the 16-17th century and the even bloodier nationalistic wars following the French Revolution. Not to speak that we already had a TW portrayal of that period but still nothing for the pike&shot era.

And the 17th has the Spanish Armada which again they have a habit of idolizing.

They've also done the Medieval, Roman and Shogunate period twice over it, so they have got form for doing so. I would still like a P&S TW but that doesn't mean other time periods are bad.

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

​

Except that you know all too well that the difference between the Legionaries and Legionary Cohorts in Rome 2 was only a little bit of armor, which isn't much a change.

Seriously Commisar, you're the one who's trying to overly restrict things for the sake of "historical accuracy" when you know that the TW games have never and will never be 100% historically accurate.

You need to just accept that and let go of this ridiculous obsession with historical accuracy.

This video

Highland Charge

actually presents some good examples of how effective the tactic of the Highland Charge could be, regardless of the nonuniformity of the ones who employed it.

So they're not bad units just because you say so Commisar.

For them yes, higher tier of the same units, in Empire same way there's little difference between regular line infantry and elite tiers. In R2 there is quite a big difference between the the pre and post Marian reform Romans.

No, I'm saying don't ignore the history. If you have to ignore history and racially stereotype nations to "add flavour" to them, they aren't good nations to have as playables.

Melee charges were common through out the time period, the highland charge wasn't actually anything special about it. It's part of the basic infantry combat before and after just better with a line unit.

No History shows they are bad units, the nations involved tell us they are bad units and the gameplay has already shown these are bad units.