PDA

View Full Version : To few Empires?



Branko
21st Jul 2004, 10:38
Hi to all,

I'm a newby, just found this forum by accident. I believe that will be a great game. Can't wait...

Have just one question: why just five empires? What about Turkey or Sweden...?

Best Regards

Kazarian
21st Jul 2004, 17:09
I think they chose to only use 5 empires because that way they can go into much more detail. This way, each empire can have an unique art set from the uniforms to the flags to the weaponry. I prefer 5 very unique empires to 10 relatively similar empires because I prefer real diversity (art and gameplay) as opposed to less deep diversity (mostly text). I assume that they thought that 5 would be a realistic goal, not to mention that the 5 given really are the major empires at the time (at least in my admittedly small pool of historical knowledge).

Arctic_Wolf
21st Jul 2004, 23:19
While the 5 empires playable in the game were the major Super Powers of the time, smaller nations such as Sweden and Holland(don't know much about Turkey) were still important factors. Sweden had one of the best trained armies in the world and Holland, being the only nation allowed to trade with Japan(I think.), was a wealthy mercantile nation with a great navy to boot.

I think that these smaller nations and empires will still be in the game but are just not available to play as, like the Arragonese or Swiss in Medieval: Total War.


EDIT: Grammar.

sick
21st Jul 2004, 23:42
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
Sweden had one of the best trained armies in the world and Holland, being the only nation allowed to trade with Japan(I think) was a wealthy mercantile nation with a great navy to boot. I'm not sure about.

We (I'm Dutch, so I say we;)) had a trading monopoly with Indonesia. We where really ruling the trading market with the VOC (Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) that time.
It was like this for decenia, untill Japan kicked our arses in WW2 and took Indonesia, our last colony, from us.

So I doubt that we ever had a trading monopoly with Japen.
Oh, and we are a small country. We are good in trading, but our army wasn't too big.

Note: last time I had history lessons at school is 2 years ago, so I can be wrong about some things.
One thing I do know: we where in Indonesia for decenia, we told those people to drive at the right side of the road. When our Asian friends took our colony for just a few years they told the Indonesian people to drive at the left side. Now they still do.:o

Arctic_Wolf
22nd Jul 2004, 00:04
I'm not surprised, driving on the left is the right way to do it :D

Anyway, didn't Holland get their colonies back after WWII, I think I remember something about after British troops took back some of their own colonies they held dutch ones in trust until they came back.

sick
22nd Jul 2004, 00:39
Not a single clue.
I believe we didn't get it back, but took it.
When WW2 was over there was some guy (can't remember his name) who wanted an independend Indonesia. Ofcourse, everyone agreed, because there was no trust in the Dutch army anymore, since they where whipped out by the Japaneese in a short time.
Our government didn't agree, ofcourse. They said Indonesia wasn't ready yet to take care of themselfs. So there was a situation like this:

Indonesia: We want to be independend.
Netherlands: You can't.
Indonesia: Yes
Neterlands: No
Indonesia: Yes
etc, etc, so forth and so on.

So we tried to get Indonesia back by war. Untill the the American president (Churchill?:confused: ) or some European countries forced us to stop it and make Indonesia an independend country.
So we did, but I believe we did stay for a few more years though. *gna gna gna*:p

Willmore
22nd Jul 2004, 02:00
Just to get history straight, there was no Turkey, it was called the Ottoman Empire, and it was in such a decline, that there would be no point in including it.

On the other hand, I am surprised that Spain is not included, they played a major part in Napoleonic wars, simply by the fact of losing every single battle :-) but seriously, their partisan movement against the occupying french armies was very successful, and helped Wellington, as well as keeping armies from focusing on Russia in 1812.

And don't forget that 1/3 of the ships at Trafalgar were Spanish, allied with French.



Btw, I was wondering, what kind of material did the developers use for historic accuracy ? I assume it was something beyond an encyclopedia and a 7th grade history book.




As long as we're talking international politics, I don't remember if I asked it before, but what part will colonies play in the game ? British dominance of the era was greately advanced due to the vast colonies, and as such - trading partners, giving them economical dominance, greatly helped by their control of the high seas, of course.

Arctic_Wolf
22nd Jul 2004, 05:39
Originally posted by sick
So we tried to get Indonesia back by war. Untill the the American president (Churchill?:confused: ) or some European countries forced us to stop it and make Indonesia an independend country.
So we did, but I believe we did stay for a few more years though. *gna gna gna*:p

You're lack of historical knowledge apalls me :D

Churchill, British Prime Minister. "We'll fight them on the beaches..."

Now read this, you may learn something. ;)

Indonesia was taken back from the Japenese and held by the British, in trust for the Dutch until their return. But immediatly after the surrender of the Japenese in 1945, Sukarno and Muhammad Hatta, nationalist political figures, proclaimed Indonesia an independent republic. The Dutch bitterly resisted the nationalists, and four years of intermittent and sometimes heavy fighting followed. Under UN pressure, an agreement was finally reached in 1949 for the creation of an independent republic of Indonesia. Sukarno was elected as its first leader.


Speaking of colonies, will they be actual map territories? I haven't really seen much on this topic anywhere but is the game world(i.e strategic map) euro-centred, like Medieval: Total War, or will it be the world map?

And about spain, pretty much since the defeat of the spanish Armada, the english war of privateering on them and the loss of their colonies, spain was crippled and ceased to play the role as a major world power, which is probably why they were easily defeated, which is also probably why you can't play as them.

Willmore
22nd Jul 2004, 06:16
all the screenshots of the map I saw were europe-only, which is what worries me, as I want the game to be influenced by occurennces outside of Europe.

Arctic_Wolf
22nd Jul 2004, 06:32
Well this image prooves the existance of the smaller nations,

http://www.imperialglory.com/screenshots/10.jpg

If you look near the centre you can see two units, one bearing the flag of Holland/the Netherlands and the other bearing the flag of Denmark.

And this unfortuantely, looks like the end of the map at the Iberian peninsula. Unless of course the map just curves around that, but I'm doutbful;

http://www.imperialglory.com/screenshots/11.jpg

sick
22nd Jul 2004, 13:31
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
You're lack of historical knowledge apalls me :D

Churchill, British Prime Minister. "We'll fight them on the beaches..."


I'm not good with names, that's my excuse (pfew, got away from that one pretty easy. :D)
I was pretty right about Sukarno though. I only couldn't remember his name (see my excuse above.;))

Kai-Arne
23rd Jul 2004, 21:44
... are you from Sweden? I´m half Norwegian, so we could post something on "svensk eller norsk"! Yesterday I came back from my yearly-norway-2 weeks-holidays!
PS: I hope you`re really from sweden, otherwise I would feel a bit stupid telling you all this.

Arctic_Wolf
23rd Jul 2004, 23:04
No, I'm from England, though I was born in Russia. Sorry to dissapoint you, Sweden is a nice place though. :D

I'm curious, what made you think Ii was Swedish?


Don't feel stupid, just a few weeks ago I thought someone bulgarian was from the USA. :rolleyes:

Willmore
23rd Jul 2004, 23:54
I'm from the US, born in Russia :-)

I also live in England for a year , which part of England/Russia are you from ?

Arctic_Wolf
24th Jul 2004, 00:58
I was born on in the middle of Siberia, on the trans-siberian line going at around 50mph. :D

I used to live in south london but have since moved up to the North Yorkshire/Durham area, where the houses are slightly cheaper. :rolleyes:

Willmore
24th Jul 2004, 02:23
I was born in Saratov (and once took the trans-siberian) but lived in Moscow most of my life.

When I lived in England, I lived first in Uckfield in the south(small town) and near Ipswich the second time I was there. Both times at boarding schools.

Kai-Arne
24th Jul 2004, 12:49
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
No, I'm from England, though I was born in Russia. Sorry to dissapoint you, Sweden is a nice place though. :D

I'm curious, what made you think Ii was Swedish?



I thought that, because you said, the swedish army was one of the best trained in the world. That sounds a bit swedish, don`t you think? ;)

Arctic_Wolf
25th Jul 2004, 14:12
Heh, well I said that because it was true, or was that Denmark :p

Anyway, I'll say this, the British had, and possibly still do have, the best trained army in the world. Does that make me sound British? :D

Kai-Arne
25th Jul 2004, 18:28
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
Heh, well I said that because it was true, or was that Denmark :p

Anyway, I'll say this, the British had, and possibly still do have, the best trained army in the world. Does that make me sound British? :D

Oh no, Sir, that sounds just true! I would exactly say the same! But I don't know if the swedish army was so well trained. In the 'thirty-years-war', of course, but in the napoleonic wars?

Do you know, if there will be differences in musket-fire-efficiency between the 5 nations in the game? That would be absolutely historically! British=Most deadly musket-fire in whole europe (world), therefor prefering fire-battles in a defensive position; frogs (french) and russians=extremely poor fire-power, therefor prefering bayonett-assaults! Prussia and Austria=?

What do you think?

Willmore
25th Jul 2004, 19:54
yeah, but Russian bayonet assaults were the deadliest of the bunch ..... CHARGE !

Arctic_Wolf
26th Jul 2004, 20:47
I think Sweden maintained a well trained army until the 'just-as-well-trained-yet-more-numerous' Germans conquered them in WWII.


I think to be Historically accurate the Devs are going to have to give the Advantages and Disadvantages that the nations had at the time, they will of course be balancing so that all the nations have an equal chance of taking the player to success.

Willmore
27th Jul 2004, 00:12
I'd say they were good right until Peter the Great crushed 'em :-)

Vic Flange
27th Jul 2004, 14:27
Hi all,

The five Empires were chosen as they were the main ones of the period. There are however, many more smaller countries in the game which you can invade, trade with, conduct diplomacy with etc - that is, everything you can do with the other Empires. The principal difference between the Empires and the independent states, principalities etc is that the Empires will be your 'rivals' in the game.

About the map - it covers the whole of Europe and down into North Africa.

With regard to colonies, I mentioned a while back that they will feature. However, they will be in a specific area of the game.

Branko
28th Jul 2004, 12:21
Thanks Vic for Your answer.

Best Regards from Branko

Branko
28th Jul 2004, 12:26
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
I think Sweden maintained a well trained army until the 'just-as-well-trained-yet-more-numerous' Germans conquered them in WWII.]


As far as I know Sweden was neutral during WWII. You should read more books regarding the subject.

Regards

Branko

Arctic_Wolf
28th Jul 2004, 23:34
Ooh, handbags at dawn! :p

Although sweden was neutral and didn't get invaded after all, Holland, Belgium and Luxumbourg where also neutral, they were invaded. Maybe you should read up :p Hitler invaded Russia and they were allies, he abandonned the invasion of the United Kingdom, his enemy, in order to do it. Diplomatic stances obviously meant nought to his plans, just like everyone in Medieval: Total War then. :D

So, the mystery continues, what happened to Sweden's millitary might?

Willmore
29th Jul 2004, 05:30
Russia and Germany were not allies, they had a non-agression pact signed, which is a very different thing.


And can you state everything more clearly, because "conquering" and "never got around to actually doing it" is very different.


Sweden has had a long standing history of neutrality since the Napoleonic wars, in which they were severelly shallacked, and lost much territory to the Russians (Finland).

In any case, Sweden's loss of military might can be traced to pre-WW2 de-militarisation. In 1936, however, I believe the Swedes saw that they needed to mobilize in order to protect themselves against a growing threat of war. This all ended in sweden having an armed neutrality during the war. Making them a less appealing target. I mean, what would be a reason of going against an armed and ready opponent, who has no strategic value whatsoever ? Hitler would rather have gone after the nort-african territories, as being the gate to middle eastern oil. Which he did in Rommel's campaign.

Nizze
29th Jul 2004, 10:50
I think it will be a problem whit the swe-rus war when swe lost finland, I belive that rusian will anex the hole country, becuse what i can se on the screnis sweden is one big provins.

Arctic_Wolf
29th Jul 2004, 16:56
Willmore, why must you knit-pick at me? It doesn't change the point, you don't attack allies and you don't attack people you've signed a pact that you won't attack, unless you are Medieval Totlal War, of course. But hitler did, he still therefore, did not care about the diplomatic stance of a nation when considering to invade it or not.

Anyway, wasn't Finland taken by russia in WWII aswell, I remember there was an unexpected four month campeign there. It most be like England and Scotland, you here about all the campeigns and wars between the two but neither conquered the other.

Nizze
29th Jul 2004, 17:15
Finland were a free country 1939 they got ther freedome during the rusianrevultion. And Russia never manage to conquer the hole country.
If finland is just one big povinse Russia only have to win two battles and the sweden dose not exist enimore.

Willmore
30th Jul 2004, 00:27
Sorry to nit-pick, that's just my nature.

mayflower1
2nd Aug 2004, 17:02
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
I think Sweden maintained a well trained army until the 'just-as-well-trained-yet-more-numerous' Germans conquered them in WWII.


I think to be Historically accurate the Devs are going to have to give the Advantages and Disadvantages that the nations had at the time, they will of course be balancing so that all the nations have an equal chance of taking the player to success.

Arctic_Wolf:

I think that people from Sweden would be very surprised to learn that they were conquered during WWII. Sweden, in fact manage to stay "neutral" during the conflict (unlike its neighbors) and was never attacked be Germany

Walter
6th Aug 2004, 08:27
Well now, let´s take a really good look here about the empires. Swedens blooming days as an nordic empire, ended before this game takes it place. While we:rolleyes: were at most strengh, we fought, Russia, Polen, England and German nations (Prussia) at the same time (not sure about England though:D ). Our population was only of 3 million, but still we fought bravely against the other powers of Europe (me bragging?) Until, and here it comes gentlemen:mad: , we lost against Russia in a war I dont remember the name of. We lost the entire Finland, because the swedish army got caugth in winter storms. Oh boo hoo you, fighting multiple nations at the same time, but still they cant take some cold. I dont pity them. For other matters, yes Sweden was neutral during WW2, but we let german forces mobilise through our country, and we sold iron to Germany, which made the US complain our actions as a "neutral country", and we supported Finland during the Winter war against the Sovjet Union, so that word "neutral" I think we can take away from the history books.

If Pyro studios cam out with an expansion or, someone does a mod, we could experience the battles with smaller nations.

Frederick the Great
8th Aug 2004, 23:29
At LEAST let us play as the Ottomans! They where the largest Empire at that time, save only to Great Britian.

Willmore
9th Aug 2004, 02:01
But they were far from a military or political power.

The individual provinces were far too independant. They would pose no threat whatsoever to any of the major empires of the time.

They had inferior technology, inferior leaders, inferior strategy, inferior economy, they were INFERIOR.

Frederick the Great
9th Aug 2004, 15:05
Not to mention in the 1740's and even in the 1750's they won major engagements with the Austrians, who tried to reconquer Hungary. But still, that was 40 years before this game starts anyhow :D .

Willmore
9th Aug 2004, 15:57
You're forgetting that the Austrians conquered all of Hungary from the Ottoman Empire by 1700.

You might also be reminded of Mohmet Ali of Egypt. Would any empiure allow a part of it be just taken from it, unless it was too weak to even defeat a province ?

The fact is that Ottoman has not been a factor in European military or diplomatic relations since the late 1600s.

Particularly after the Battle of Vienna.

McLeod
10th Aug 2004, 11:03
ottoman empire was weak, but not unimportant for europe. espacially in the mediteranien sea. imo, they helped nelson to conquor neaples.

for the too few empires, imo it would be good to have more or the possibility to create them, by importing new uniforms and flags.

Arctic_Wolf
12th Aug 2004, 13:14
Originally posted by mayflower1
Arctic_Wolf:

I think that people from Sweden would be very surprised to learn that they were conquered during WWII. Sweden, in fact manage to stay "neutral" during the conflict (unlike its neighbors) and was never attacked be Germany

Wow, you're slow, we already spent the week previous to your post acknowledging that.

Sorry to get my responce in a week later but my modem died and I had to order a new one.

Walter
16th Aug 2004, 06:42
Dude this message has come in the wrong plays, how can I delete it?:o

Willmore
16th Aug 2004, 07:43
Well if Paradox games is able to allow you to control every single european county as you own in Crusader Kings, I'm sure it would be possible to include what 10-12 european countries of the time ?


However when given a choice of a well-polished game, vs. some new countries, I'd take the well-polished game any day.

Besides, there will always be an expansion or a sequel ... the money-grabbers at eidos just won't be able to keep away from them :-)

Walter
16th Aug 2004, 08:53
Got that right!
Wonder what the theme would be in the sequel/expansion?

Willmore
17th Aug 2004, 02:09
I would think either
a) Crimean War period
b) American wars of the 19th century, including about 2 dozen independance wars in S. America.
c) A Global game, involving colonies, and other major nations of the time, including possible Japanese and US involvement.

Walter
17th Aug 2004, 08:37
Please let there be some Zulu war in it:rolleyes:

Hey wonder if the Crimwar 1853-56 will be in the game...

Kai-Arne
17th Aug 2004, 15:27
Expansion? What for? The Crimean War-period is already in the game, if the timeframe is 1780-1890, or not?

Walter
17th Aug 2004, 19:20
Yes I was reffering to the game not the non existing expansion...

Willmore
18th Aug 2004, 01:13
The timeframe still isn't set in stone, but we won't be going as far as 1890. And we're still balancing the turn-length to get the playthrough time and general pacing correct.

That's from the horse's mouth.

Lonewulf44
24th Aug 2004, 17:43
Thought I would throw some support behind those who wish for more playable countries. If there remain only 5, then I'll be happy with that...although via Expansion packs...I would like to see Ottomans, Americans, and others added. Again, in agreeance with others, the Turks were not a military power, but they did have a big position on the actions of the other powers in europe. Also, if added, I dont think it would be such a bad thing if their miitary units are somehow lesser than the others. Let the player take control and give them the liberty of trying to establish an expanded Ottoman empire. Maybe a player through tactics or diplomacy could accomplish for the Turks what sheer military might could not. I just like giving the player options.

Long live Prussia

Walter
25th Aug 2004, 10:48
Sounds like a good idea:D However I still don´t think they will put in this game, but then again, maybe the sequel...

AcceptGrits
5th Sep 2004, 21:39
Hey all,

How many countries are there in the game in general aside from the playable ones? Does anyone know how to conquer a province/city/region?

:)

jonte
5th Sep 2004, 23:57
My first post here. :)

I just wanted to add a funny side note regarding Sweden during the Napoleonic era. One of Napoleons Generals became king of Sweden. Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte. King Charles XIII was childless and ill and Sweden in a bad political shape after the catastophic war against Russia. Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte was aproached and asked if he would be interested in becoming adopted by the Swedish king, hence becoming Crown Prince and later King.

Since this was during Napoleons prime time Sweden thought it might gain some political favour with Napoleon by getting one of his generals as king. Maybe even some help in getting Finland and the baltic states back from Russia.

To make a long story short, after Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte became "King Charles XIV" he joined the enemies of Napoleon, totally ignored Finland and instead headed west to invade Norway. God knows what would have happened if he had sided with Napoleon and attacked Russia. Might not be a Sweden today then. :)

Willmore
6th Sep 2004, 04:25
I would assume that all the european countries would be represented in the game, perhaps the smaller germanic states will be ommited .. just because they are too small to really matter, but other then that, I assume everything will be there.

Lonewulf44
7th Sep 2004, 16:31
Long as my Prussia is in there, I'm happy, but I would not think it a bad thing if they let you play as some of the "smaller" powers. Swedan, would be quite fun to play as their location gives them a wide range of points of attack, as long as they get accross the baltic of course...


I liked that history tidbit though....so many quirks in history!

Long Live Prussia!

Arctic_Wolf
7th Sep 2004, 19:53
You know there is a small island in the British Isles, it might be the scilly isles, I don't know, that is ruled by a King, King Dave who is the local painter and decorator. :D


I wouldn't mind seeing the option to play as some of the smaller nations but if its going to delay the game somewhat then perhaps they could just be unlocked via patches, or if there's an editor, maybe it'll let you do it.

Willmore
8th Sep 2004, 05:24
Isle of Man ?

ode1299
5th Aug 2005, 02:45
OK Guys just stop, I am Turk. If anyone does not know much thing about the Turkish and especially Ottomans he do not know anything about history.
Turkey means,The Ottoman Empire

In this time although losing Battle of Vienna we were advanced and power from Russia and Austria. And we have good relations with England and before Napoleon with France, too. One must not remember that Battle of Vienna is a Siege. In the mids of 1700's we can tried to conquer whole Austria with her capital. But they didnt go far after the conquest of Hungary.

Even Russia took some northern territory of us they dont even think to capture Istanbul(constantinepole) or capture our motherland. Because they didnt have enough power!

Napoleon couldnt take Egypt from us even he tried.In the mentioned era The Ottoman Empire had still large and important territories in three continent; Europe, Asia, Africa.

The Rebellion of Kavalali Mahmud of Egpyt is completely a political mistake of the Empire and not related with Ottoman's power.An it was held in the second part of the 1800's.

Finally, The Ottoman Empire (or Turkey) must be in this game.

John Carter
5th Aug 2005, 03:40
I think Sweden maintained a well trained army until the 'just-as-well-trained-yet-more-numerous' Germans conquered them in WWII.




Sweden was neutral in WW2 and played no military role, although sales of iron ore to the Germans and anti-aircraft guns to both sides (Flak 88 was originally a Swedish design, Oerlikon and Bofors AA guns very popular with UK and US) made the Swedes rather well off.

monkeytart
5th Aug 2005, 09:51
DUDE!!!!!!!!! ppl! this thread died like last year! stop posting in it!

theenglishdude
5th Aug 2005, 10:57
Personally (from an un-experienced point of view)I think having the smaller nations gives way to better expansion (cant wait to conquer those derivishes ;) :p
It would be nice to play as them though.

I think an expansion pack would have to expand the map (more of africa)
I would say america+caribean islands but this would just allow americans to rule there own little part of the map(not good)and if theres food supply lines (I dunno i need to enhance my comp to play)then it would be hard for european nations (hell for us brits fighting in america over 3000 miles from home was a logistical nightmare and THATS why we lost)
Hitler made the non-aggresion pact to catch stalin of his guard in Mein Kamp he said the russian communists are 'petty thiefs........scum of the earth' i cant remember the whole thing but the last bit is 100%. However Stalin saw through this facade and he knew an invasion was coming.

p.s to whoever said you cant play aragonese on MTW you can with the expansion :thumbsup: