Unit Variety

[fhaggis]

Why are people still moaning about the "lack" of unit variety?We have what they had pretty much, do people really want fantasy units? lets have giant chickens that throw exploding eggs...what aint that a grenadier in a funny uniform? The reason I didn't play RTW BI for long was the fantasy unit. What do you actually want?

[DMC-Ice]

Well there were enough other regiments unique to nations which aren't included. Check out the mods forum if u want to know more about that.

I also don't want fantasy units, but a bit more diversity amongst the ranks would make things more interesting to me. As in my current game I really want to auto-resolve but don't cuz of the casualties so I play em anyway and a turn can take up to an hour now. But I don't really enjoy them anymore.

I look forward to having the unique units (tho limited to 6) in my armies to spice things up. So more unique units would have the same effect.

[Henry707]

Why are people still moaning about the "lack" of unit variety?We have what they had pretty much, do people really want fantasy units? lets have giant chickens that throw exploding eggs...what aint that a grenadier in a funny uniform? The reason I didn't play RTW BI for long was the fantasy unit. What do you actually want?

Mmm - is the giant chicken a downloadable extra unit? I like the sound of that. As the British you can recruit Celtic Trooser Troopers who are angry scots who run into combat, then explode their own trousers with pockets full of lead balls...

Seriously, the variety is not great - they all look the same but I'm sure the modding crew is hard at work as we write..

Henri

[fhaggis]

I understand the variety ain't great but thats how it was. The one thing i would like to see change is tht they all look the same , give a few soldiers different hair colours, no hats etc

[Homeros]

The 18th century was the era of the 'universal' soldier. They all used exactly the same equipment. And that's a good thing, the 18th was the age of the General. Generals could and did win battles, not because they used 'super units', but because of superior battle tactics.

I agree that CA could have done more to give factions a more distinctive look, uniforms were different, weaponry was not.

[Dayman]

Vanilla TW games never have amazing unit variety.

[pnokey]

Vanilla TW games never have amazing unit variety.

I thought Rome had excellent variety.

[anonymous_joe]

If you look back at Rome or Medieval, one thing that's important is the range of warfare styles.

In the North you've got your Danes who lean more towards heavy axe-wielding infantry, England relies on longbowmen, France has glorious cavalry and amazing everything if you hold them together, and so on. Then you've got horse-archer armies from Mongolia, the various Islamic factions, and so on.

Each has slightly different styles of warfare, which makes for a lot more variation.

In Empire's time frame, as has been said countless times, one specific style of warfare was becoming universal, so everyone had universal units. There were odd variants, but little more than that.

What might have made more sense would have been a greater timeframe, if anyone remembers Cossacks from years ago, you had two centuries, one which had lots of Grenadiers, Musketeers and the paraphenalia of the 18th Century, while the previous century was made up of different style troops.

That might have given us a more varied game experience, but c'est la vie.

[Homeros]

If you look back at Rome or Medieval, one thing that's important is the range of warfare styles.

In the North you've got your Danes who lean more towards heavy axe-wielding infantry, England relies on longbowmen, France has glorious cavalry and amazing everything if you hold them together, and so on. Then you've got horse-archer armies from Mongolia, the various Islamic factions, and so on.

Each has slightly different styles of warfare, which makes for a lot more variation.

In Empire's time frame, as has been said countless times, one specific style of warfare was becoming universal, so everyone had universal units. There were odd variants, but little more than that.

What might have made more sense would have been a greater timeframe, if anyone remembers Cossacks from years ago, you had two centuries, one which had lots of Grenadiers, Musketeers and the paraphenalia of the 18th Century, while the previous century was made up of different style troops.

That might have given us a more varied game experience, but c'est la vie.

It is a great time frame (18th century) - lets hope CA will add the far East through an expansion pack.

China, the most powerful state during the 18th century, used a great variation of troops; gunpowder infantry & artillery, different types of close combat troops and huge numbers of cavalry, especially against Mongol factions like the Dsungars.

Japan developed really accurate small arms, far better than those used in Europe. But after the unification of Japan firearms were gradually banned. But even without firearms the Samurai should not be underestimated!

Korea was the first nation using armored ships against the Japanese with devastating effect. The Korean ironclads destroyed a huge Japanese fleet (1592 Hansan Bay).

Burma and Siam were powerful states in South-East Asia. The struggle between the two powers was among the most bitter conflicts of the 18th century.

[Guvnor1990]

The game lacks unit variety indeed. Once you've played one European faction, you've played them all. I'm going to begin trying to find new ways to spice the battles up, at the expense of effectivity I expect.

[TeutonicKnight]

I find Empire gameplay fascinating not because of the trooper variety, but because of the strategic situation that every faction finds itself. The battles are certainly fun, but there is something far more deeply satisfying about fighting a huge Huron war party with few Hessians and native auxiliaries in Fort Rupert where your very survival in the New World is challenged.

Basically, I agree the units are all the same to a large extent, but if feel far more involved and exited about the results than I did in previous games where I felt the armies felt more expendable.

[Gomer_Pyle]

I agree we basically got what they had at the time... But adding more elite units/companies where you can only recruit 1 unit like roger rangers ect. is the way to go really...

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

Well, sure each country had, say, Grenadiers. But they were not the EXACT same models with a different RGB value colour on their jackets, which is what we get here. Even the unit cards are the same. Also, the unique units are either useless variants of light infantry, or elite units you can only recruit one of.

I understand that the whole of Europe used line infantry, but the same uniforms for all cultures? The same faces? The same body? Apart from Britain, virtually the same stats? That's just poor. They even have the same unit card, for Christ's sake!

[ThePianist]

Well, sure each country had, say, Grenadiers. But they were not the EXACT same models with a different RGB value colour on their jackets, which is what we get here. Even the unit cards are the same. Also, the unique units are either useless variants of light infantry, or elite units you can only recruit one of.

I understand that the whole of Europe used line infantry, but the same uniforms for all cultures? The same faces? The same body? Apart from Britain, virtually the same stats? That's just poor. They even have the same unit card, for Christ's sake!

Wow, until reading this, I was neutral about this game.
After reading this, I think I'd start recommending people to not get it (unless they add skins in a patch)

It's obvious that line infantry has different uniforms from country to country.

I think the devs were:
1. over-pressured by the profit-ists at Sega, who saw the game production as an gap filler in their huge revenue/expenditure equation, a mathematical entity and not as a work of art. So they pressured the devs to release it early when they didn't even finish making it.
2. a bit mistaken about modding. They saw that RTW had all those mods and people played a lot of mods, so perhaps some of them thought: it doesn't matter if certain details or a lot of details are sloppy, those can be added by the mods.
That's wrong, because, PC games are so much more refined than (most) console games, a bit like the difference between a meal of people and a meal of squirrels. The latter mostly don't think, and would take just about anything. The former can actually distinguish taste, texture, etc. So if details are missing in a PC game, it can easily be distinguished, especially in a series/franchise.
Also, perhaps the devs thought: there are so many mods, they aren't interested in playing the original version (dev's product), they are interested in their own versions. So why bother putting so much labor into the original version (dev's product) when they are going to modify and add to it anyway and ignore the original version?

Well, first of all, it's not that people ignore the original version, it's because you can't play the same game over and over again without losing interest, and the mods keep up the interest. It's like custom-made expansion packs.
Secondly, you need to make the original game well and detailed, in order to interest enough people (and among them, the smaller fraction of talented people) to mod it. A game that is not made to good enough of quality just won't attract that many modders. The mods are there to add variety, they aren't there to complete missing portions in game development. If that were the case, then you won't even have many modders.

So for all these reasons, game developers should develop their games to be modding-friendly/accessible, but also to do as good and as detailed of a work as they can, rather than expecting to leave things missing for modding to fill up.
Modding is for extra imagination, to think of things that devs didn't think of, even while doing a detailed work. Modding is *not* for finishing a partially finished job from the devs, who thought of certain things but left them undone for modding to do.

ETW may be the first game where this kind of expecting-mods-to-save-labor thought occurred to the devs, perhaps because of the massive playing of RTW mods. Well, that doesn't do well at all.

I'll name two games and one franchise that did their developments as well and as detailed as they could. As a result, there were many mods, because the base product was well done without such labor-saving expectations:

Half-Life I&II
Mount and Blade
Battlefield series

If any of these games, during development, cut back on details and quality in expectation that modders would fill in the rest, the game would not have done well and there wouldn't have been many modders either.

So, again, modding is for people, over long hours of gaming, adding in unexpected extra creativity, things that even devs didn't think of. Modding is not for filling in gaps that devs actually thought of, but decide to leave it undone. Having a partially done product also severely curtails the creativity of modding. Because energy would have to be expended on fixing the game first, then adding extra imagination.

Modding, also, is for PC games only. As long as there are computers, there will be PC games. If not by large companies, then by independent teams (Mount and Blade... so well done!) PC users are very much active thinkers compared to console users (the mass produced things on console shelves is almost like rehashed gruel), so PC games cannot be made at the console quality (approximately there = OK).

Sega shouldn't have pressured the devs for early release of the product. They can certainly make a patch, and perhaps an expansion for the next 50 years ? (1800-1850)

[ThePianist]

Prussian Grenadiers of Frederick "the Great"



Austrian Grenadiers


Spanish Grenadiers



Russian Grenadiers

Russian Grenadiers in 1799 (in Napoleonic Wars some 10 years later they had different hats, more like a very short cylinder)


French Grenadiers during the French and Indian War


British Grenadiers during the American Revolution


Mounted Grenadiers 1705, no idea what faction

So those are Grenadier uniforms I found for the 1700-1799 era. They had different uniforms. And they certainly had different faces.
For more info, read this short article:

http://warandgame.blogspot.com/2007/...705.html#links


some more:

Russian Dragoon, 1709


For the Napoleonic era, they had even more different uniforms (and better looking ones). I don't know why in the 1700s, they look like they are wearing Catholic hats, like cardinals. But in the 1800s, they start wearing the cylindrical ones.

i think the devs weren't given, and/or didn't take, the time of doing as much research as they did before making MTW, RTW and M2TW. The 1700s and 1800s had a lot of paintings.

[Theoo]

whatr youe talking about. thers bunche. variety. what you e gotta do. first. GO to technoleky. research the book. then youe can make barracks an myore units! thankyoue for this question

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

whatr youe talking about. thers bunche. variety. what you e gotta do. first. GO to technoleky. research the book. then youe can make barracks an myore units! thankyoue for this question

That's a joke, right? Please, tell me that was a joke...?

[Theoo]

That's a joke, right? Please, tell me that was a joke...?

mabye for youe it is a joke. meby in your country yu not help other human beign. this is serios for me. human in danger theo in helper.

[PLEI]

mabye for youe it is a joke. meby in your country yu not help other human beign. this is serios for me. human in danger theo in helper.

Haha!!
Troll 1
Serious poster 0

[Rhaegor]

I, too, would like a downloadable giant chicken.