Clearly N:TW's creators have not read War and Peace

[dub stepper]

Anybody who has will know what I mean...the very idea of commanding an army from the Napoleonic days is nonsense, they simply weren't commandable...battles were so large and smoky that it could take half a day to discover what is happening on a flank...I'd much rather M3TW personally

"Napoleon has special "warcry" ability that boosts nearby allied troops morale"

Wuuuut? Napoleon spent his battles sitting at a table half a mile away sipping tea, waiting for adjutants to emerge from the smog, not warcrying! grrr

[johncage]

they're making the battles smaller so that they can be manageable. it's been this way with all total war games.

why don't you read up about ntw first before spewing vitriol from the colon? thanks.

[dub stepper]

Excuse my poorly colon, I thought I was discussing a computer game simulating the Napoleonic age of European history. Whoopsadaisy

[Teutonic Joe]

feel free to play histwar then. However, they are sticking with the same formula they always use for battles so yes napolean will be on the battlefield as part of the generals bodyguard. if they wanted to have him in a tent far away, who would be part of the bodyguard? some no name? that doesnt seem fun for people who would like to have their favorite general on the battlefield.

again play histwar if you want 100k soldiers on the battlefield.

[Bose]

Anybody who has will know what I mean...the very idea of commanding an army from the Napoleonic days is nonsense, they simply weren't commandable...battles were so large and smoky that it could take half a day to discover what is happening on a flank...I'd much rather M3TW personally

"Napoleon has special "warcry" ability that boosts nearby allied troops morale"

Wuuuut? Napoleon spent his battles sitting at a table half a mile away sipping tea, waiting for adjutants to emerge from the smog, not warcrying! grrr

first of all,forgive my english,second of all,war and peace is hardly what you would call historicly acurate.in fact it is based on the rather wrong opinion of war that tolsty had.I have proof to back this claim of mine.also,Kutosov(I thunk i got his name wrong,the one that commaned russian troops during borodino)was nothing more than a fat fool,stealing all the glory and takeing all the creadit for himself.His underofficer,a man of baltic german origin actualy was the hero of russia.Kutozov's incompetence shows in his failure to destroy napoleon in russia altogether,which he had numerous chances to do so.he hesitated and failed.he is a fraud,and war and peace is not to be taken on it's claim that war is uncontrollebel and is pure confusion.in fact battlefield commanders made all the differnce.

[trk]

Actually in most cases, those in command typically laid a framework within which lower level commanders actually worked. Good overall commanders made their work easier. Admittedly there were cases where a commander such as napoleon, wellington,lee,grant, jackson,caesar,patton,etc made a tactical difference but their work was generally at a different level. kutozov set up a situation that napoleon arrogantly walked into. kutusov did manage to evade napoleons attempts to engage him earlier.

[Mathias]

Anybody who has will know what I mean...the very idea of commanding an army from the Napoleonic days is nonsense, they simply weren't commandable...battles were so large and smoky that it could take half a day to discover what is happening on a flank...I'd much rather M3TW personally

"Napoleon has special "warcry" ability that boosts nearby allied troops morale"

Wuuuut? Napoleon spent his battles sitting at a table half a mile away sipping tea, waiting for adjutants to emerge from the smog, not warcrying! grrr

Please tell me how Napoleon managed to get 10-18 horses killed under him in battle (one of them actually blown to pieces while he was sitting on it!) and actually getting stabbed in the thigh in one battle, if all he did was sitting at a table far away?

Obviously you have not picked up on the fact that while Tolstoj is one of the greatest writers ever, he is no historian.

Edit: in several battles, especially in the post 1812 campaigns, the battles were saved by Napoleons mere presence, as wavering french soldiers quickly picked regained heart and fought with greater vigour as soon as Napoleon showed up to push them/lead them on.

If you want to learn about Napoleon and Napoleonic warfare, please find another book than War and Peace. I'd recommend something like David G. Chandler's "Campaings of Napoleon". He is a brit, I think, so you know he can't be biased in Napoleons favour In all sincerety though, he seems very objective.

[matt will]

Excuse my poorly colon, I thought I was discussing a computer game simulating the Napoleonic age of European history. Whoopsadaisy

You do realise that if NTW was a simulator then it would be very repetative, get boring very quickly and be extremely hard to get the hang of due to the fact that it would so historically accurate and real that you would have to follow what happened in the Napoleonic wars and the game would be way too complicated to understand because it will have too many factors to make it fun.

[Space Wolves]

Its a game, nothing can be perfect. Go make a game yourself before complaining honestly i'm getting tired of these BASH ON CA CAUSE ITS NOT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. You want historically accurate, fine have fun spending 10 hours trying to manage to find your troops.

Napoleon never always sat sipping tea x miles away, you need to brush up on your history before making such blatant responses.

[General_Meevious]

Wellington claimed that Napoleon's presence on the battlefield was worth several divisions of men. This is not simply because he was a brilliant strategist, it is largely because the troops under his command would have felt that though they were mortal cogs, they were at the heart of an invincible machine.

TW is not about the player being a general, E:TW is about a player commanding every man on the battlefield with the ability to order other men.

[♔GrinningManiac♔]

I'm sorry, but where the HELL did you get "sitting in a tent with tea" from?

Not to be aggresive towards you, but that's complete jack. He was famous for leading his men at the front, putting himself in constant mortal danger.

Really, it's a huge miracle he survived all the actions he led

[S-te-Fan]

omg just put the multiplier at 10x . There are your epic battles.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Anybody who has will know what I mean...the very idea of commanding an army from the Napoleonic days is nonsense, they simply weren't commandable...battles were so large and smoky that it could take half a day to discover what is happening on a flank...I'd much rather M3TW personally

Ok at Borodino and Waterloo he sat his ass at the back because he wasn't feeling good. At Borodino he sat on a folding chair and a snare drum, not a tent. He watched the battle at about the same distance Kutuzov did, its just Napoleon didn't issue any orders. At Waterloo he left the battle but other than that was almost always in harms way (he just couldn't get on his horse long because of his hurting anus).

Napoleon led from the front all the time. Maybe he didn't lead any charges like his marshals may have, but he certainly was always at risk of being killed.

Anyways you think commanders had better control of what was going on the Medeival times? That is a huge mistake, maneuvres were far more easier to make in Napoleonic times, and the commanders knew what was going on more in Napoleonic times as well. Napoleon's presence on the field was "worth 40,000 soldiers", so I think a warcry multiplier to morale is a little better than that...lol

[MehemtAli_Pasha]

Anybody who has will know what I mean...the very idea of commanding an army from the Napoleonic days is nonsense, they simply weren't commandable...battles were so large and smoky that it could take half a day to discover what is happening on a flank...I'd much rather M3TW personally

yes yes, because generals in the Medieval ages where able to fly, see and command there army from up high, just like the TW series portray battles. of course, that was not present in the Napoleonic era, because of the smoke

"Napoleon has special "warcry" ability that boosts nearby allied troops morale"

Wuuuut? Napoleon spent his battles sitting at a table half a mile away sipping tea, waiting for adjutants to emerge from the smog, not warcrying! grrr

Napoleon did have a morale boost for the soldiers. you should throw the book (whatever it is) you are reading, and read some of his speeches for a change.

[Didz]

"Napoleon has special "warcry" ability that boosts nearby allied troops morale"

Your joking...I hope.

[Abspara]

CA's not in the business of creating a historical simulator and as such, gameplay will always take priority over historical relevance or accuracy.

The upcoming "Sniper Sloops O' War" in patch 1.4 are a clear example of that.

[Didz]

And that of course is where they are going wrong.

[matt will]

No its not. If you make a game 'historically accurate' then:
1. It will be repetative because you can only do manuvers that were done during that time period.
2. The game would be too complicated to play.
3. You would only be able to control troops that were near your soveriegn due to him/her not being able to know what's going on elsewhere.
4. The same as #3 but with cities.
They are only a few of the reasons and also do you think the average gamer would go buy a game that has:
Its so historicaly accurate you can only control the area around your leader!
on the front?
I know I wouldn't.

[Didz]

Nonesense, I've played plenty of historically accurate games that have none of those problems. What you list is the result of poor game design not historical accuracy. Most of the problems with ETW can be tracked back directly to CA ignoring the historical background applicable to the period they set the game.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Nonesense, I've played plenty of historically accurate games that have none of those problems. What you list is the result of poor game design not historical accuracy. Most of the problems with ETW can be tracked back directly to CA ignoring the historical background applicable to the period they set the game.

Then they aren't historically accurate then, because most of what he said is completely true.