About destructible buildings, do you think the building will have to be destroyed to kill the occupants (as is common in World in Conflict), or that the individuals will be *easier* to kill in order to reoccupy the building yourself (a la Company of Heroes).

I also wonder how building garrisons will function with the ideally large armies. Will a squad of 60 try to garrison in a small hamlet? If then, will only the select few at windows or doors be able to shoot?

It will interesting to see how they use the buildings.

This will probably get me back into the world of TW again.

Empire Total War is going to be a great game. Interesting historical period with lots of new technology and tactics. Like the sound of some of the features. I am looking forward to naval battles. Complete list of factions so far is as follows:
* The British Empire
* The Kingdom of France
* The Ottoman Empire
* The Kingdom of Prussia
* The Spanish Empire
* The United Provinces (Dutch Republic)
* The Swedish Empire
* The Russian Empire
* Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
* Thirteen colonies

[This message has been edited by TacticaImperia19 (edited 02-26-2008 @ 04:44 AM).]

i wonder if they're going to include dragoons..
that would be an interesting addition to land battles.
then again, i know very little about historical battle tactics and have probably got completely the wrong time period.. ha

I really hope they've sorted out pathfinding. It was infuriating when fighting in a mountain pass in M2TW because the enemy would always hide at the top of a hill and it was simply impossible to get everyone up there. I always had to give all of my units individual orders.
bah..
i cant wait!

Here are some... images from a thread at IGN (http://boards.ign.com/empire_total_war/b23907/160925082/p1/. Apparently these are from a magazine.

http://recensioni-videogiochi.dvd.it/images/Empire_Total_War/empire-total-war-05-m.jpg

http://recensioni-videogiochi.dvd.it/images/Empire_Total_War/empire-total-war-06-m.jpg

They look like renders of in-game action. It seems similar to what you see in Company of Heroes and World in Conflict: some images were run through a filter to hide, perhaps, early graphics bugs.

If the latter image is what a fort battle looks like... wow.

I reckon it's concept art rather than in-game shots but they still look awesome. Now unfortunately we won't be newsing them because magazine pictures are covered by copyright.

This is still most awesome, especially the fort battle.

If the latter image is what a fort battle looks like... wow.

I think they are fighting over the Hoover Dam (still under construction). Either that or they are reenacting a scene from the Transformers movie.

But seriously, that looks pretty cool.

I presume sector 7 will be a playable faction then?

I was thinking about morale...

(1) In that era armies didn't rout, they withdrew when they saw they couldn't win.
(2) There was greater distance between the armies, so less ability to chase them down.
(3) Elite troops still had the best weapons and training, but were no longer defined by the best armour. What made units like Napoleon's Old Guard feared was their high morale, and their unwillingness to flee. At Waterloo the Old Guard refused to surrender and died instead.

Do you think armies will still rout as in other TW games? Or will they surrender instead and be captured?

In that case the most elite troops will never surrender and always die. This is both a strength and a weakness. Napoleon and Frederick the Great only sent forward the Old Guard and the Giants when they were certain of victory.

Discuss.

Individual units and sometimes whole armies did rout during the game’s time period (the Spanish at Talavera, for example, or the chaotic flight of the Austrians over the Satchen ponds at Austerlitz). Certainly people who fear immediate death often don’t obey orders. As such, I imagine that units and armies will still continue to rout just as they’ve always done in TW games.

I agree about elite units and morale, though, although I imagine they’ll also shoot faster and more accurately and be better in hand-to-hand combat. And most of us here seem to want some sort of surrender option in the game, even if it’s only something similar to the system used in MTW.

I was thinking about morale...

(1) In that era armies didn't rout, they withdrew when they saw they couldn't win.

Incorrect. If anything, with the professional core of the army slowly dissolving and being replaced a national levy element, routs became more frequent during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. A larger percentage of the army was non-professional in 1800 than there had been in 1700, when regiments were basically sub-contractors in government employ who recruited and drilled their men. By 1800, however, countries started to draft men in large numbers to keep their army sizes up. There were only few exceptions to this (most notably the UK).

(2) There was greater distance between the armies, so less ability to chase them down.

The armies were larger, but to come to effective grips the armies did have to move very close to each other. The effective range for musketfire was described by contemporaries as being the distance where you could see the white of the eyes of your opponent, and it was best not to shoot before the enemy was that close. I don't know the exact distance, which will of course depend on your own eyesight also, but if you walk through the streets and observe those approaching you, and then realise how short this distance really is, you'll come to see that the distance between armies was not that big.
Despite having muskets and cannon, the armies were still a close quarters affair, and the bayonet or the butt of the musket were still frequently employed during battle.

(3) Elite troops still had the best weapons and training, but were no longer defined by the best armour. What made units like Napoleon's Old Guard feared was their high morale, and their unwillingness to flee. At Waterloo the Old Guard refused to surrender and died instead.

That's a nice legend reinforced by 19th century French nationalist sentiment, and while the guard didn't really surrender, they didn't die either; they escorted Napoleon off the field.
Certainly, guard units fled less easily, but they would flee just the same in the wrong situation. They could pack more of a punch, however, and it was the strength of Napoleon's guards that eventually got him out of Russia.

I stand corrected!

Perhaps I was thinking of a slightly earlier era, when armies were smaller and more professional. Eg English Civil War (Discounting the early Parliamentary army) If I'm still wrong feel free to crush me into the dirt again.

[This message has been edited by Andalus (edited 04-11-2008 @ 03:40 PM).]

Well, routs are pretty much inevitable with any army, given the right conditions; seeing as even the quite professional mercenary armies were often supplemented with draftees and regiments replenished with inexperienced youth or even people pressed into service against their will, discipline was often relative and restricted to the truly elite regiments (and even there it could falter and lead to a rout).

The few battles where no rout took place (such as Lafelt in 1747) went that way because one or both sides did not fully commit, in stead concentrating on a small patch. At Lafelt for example the fighting only really happened in and around Lafelt, a village on a ridge with a hedge around it. The Austrians defended the place (the Dutch and British were also present, but holding a line stretching kilometres) while the Irish regiments of the French army charged the village and captured it, lost it and retook it, at which point the allied army just quit the field. An English cavalry commander then led what was basically a suicide run against the French to keep them from chasing.
This can be seen as a typical example of an ordered withdrawal, but it was caused primarily by both sides being unwilling to give it their all, a strategical problem of the time (cautious campaigning) rather than a reflection of high discipline among the troops.

It's going to be interesting to see how people handle the British Empire. Will it be like the WRE in BI? lots of land but hard to control?

In 1700, the British Empire barely existed. For one thing, it was the English Empire at that point, and was pretty much just some American holdings.

The period Empire covers is when the British Empire started to expand.

Forgot what time period the game started. so it's pretty much England in M2Tw with some American territories?

I imagine it will be England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland plus the American holdings. Depending on when exactly the game starts, they might get Gibraltar and Minorca (if such territories exists).

i need this game. this is one of my favorite time periods. this game would probaly destroy my computer so im goin to try and get a new computer. i cant wait to play as the swedes or russians

I just can't wait the Empire to come, woth thrills me most are the naval battles nice to imagine See Dogs and TW combined in one expirence, as I sad, I just can't wait another thing exiting is the cover option is as like in Company of heros and hosuing idea is preaty good too I reacon that is some kind of trend in gaming but i expect it with my arms wide opend,,just can't wait the fall/winter 2008 to come!!! And this hot summer to end too and to get started sailing towords the New Worlds...

Quick note, 6 smilies per post does NOT make you automatically awesome, contrary to popular belief.

But yes, I'm looking forward to it as well, but it won't be out till spring 09.

"I imagine it will be England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland plus the American holdings. Depending on when exactly the game starts, they might get Gibraltar and Minorca (if such territories exists)."

Probably also a few outposts in India and the West Indies (Jamaica etc.).

i will play as the thirteen collonies because im ameriacan of course. it will be fun to manage a small power into an empire.

I was wondering how CA will do the British military.

I mean, during this period we put a strong emphasis on our navy, so we'll probably get all sorts of uber-naval units. But I hope this means that we aren't landed with rubbish land forces. Maybe a good way to balance the game would be to make Britain's military units more expensive than those of other nations, which would accurately reflect the fact that Britain's army was quite small during this period.

I suspect that fans of the redcoats have nothing to fear in terms of them being nerfed. Expect them to be strong, if not quite as strong as French infantry.