Got the game
- Thread starter Oruc
- Start date
BrendanM
Prince
If they put multiple campaigns in you could have both at the same time. Just like the Kingdoms expansion for M2TW. I would also support the wars of Louis XIV, the Northern Wars, and the War of Greek Independence/Russo-Turkish War of 1828-9.
Kan' Sharuminar
Fluffy
Aye, but if I want multiple screenies then I have to alt-tab between paint and the game to save them. Better to take lots of shots at once then delete the excess
I would think this is what they're going to do.
I just got this game too. It's the first time I play a Total War game, so I'm still a bit confused like a n00b. Never quite know if I'm overbuilding army and stuff. Never quite know if I should enter wars, never quite know how much army to bring somewhere or to keep on defense. I'm playing as England right now. My first objective is to destroy New France and my stupid French Canadians ancestors. No actually, they were awesome, but I'm still going to destroy them.
Edit: Game has not crashed yet for me. Only "problem" is that the frame rate in battles seems to be a little random and not dependent on my settings, hehe. Also, is there a way to make mouse scrolling faster? I only see a check mark in the options (yes I want mouse scrolling, or no, I don't want mouse scrolling).
Edit: Game has not crashed yet for me. Only "problem" is that the frame rate in battles seems to be a little random and not dependent on my settings, hehe. Also, is there a way to make mouse scrolling faster? I only see a check mark in the options (yes I want mouse scrolling, or no, I don't want mouse scrolling).
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Don't bother defending Britain, the AI is utterly incapable of using ships to transport troops. All you have to worry about are rebels.
Ugh... I wish I were happy about that.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Don't worry, apparently both UK and AU CAs screwed that up with both Rome and Medieval 2 and fixed it with patches.
germanicus12
First Citizen of Rome
And don't worry about how many wars you fight as Britain, I have 7 ongoing wars, against France, Spain, New France, Prussia, Cherokee Nation, Huron, and the Pirates.
The only thing you have to worry about with this, is your trade lines, with your Caribbean fleet you can easily cut off Spain's and France's trade routes while protecting your own. It is the European Trade routes that is the most cut throat... in my game as Great Britain, I had to fight off dozens of fleets just to protect my trade routes. So make sure to build up your navy first.
The only thing you have to worry about with this, is your trade lines, with your Caribbean fleet you can easily cut off Spain's and France's trade routes while protecting your own. It is the European Trade routes that is the most cut throat... in my game as Great Britain, I had to fight off dozens of fleets just to protect my trade routes. So make sure to build up your navy first.
BrendanM
Prince
Why do the Indians fight in line formations?
I didn't think they did that back in the day...
if anyone knows....?
I didn't think they did that back in the day...
if anyone knows....?
I killed the Inuits and was wondering the same thing. They basically sent 500 villagers running at my redcoats... but in lines.
EDIT: Oh wait, stupid me, you mean INDIANS, like, actual Indians? Congrats, you're not stupid like me
BurnEmDown
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,718
That's OK, I'm native Americans didn't fight in line formations as well 
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
The native americans did NOT fight in lines, nor DID THEY HAVE CAVALRY (except the plains tribes and they USA didn't deal with them until the 1800s for the most part), there were no horses in the americans until the Europeans broguht them over. The East Indians did fight in lines, as much as peopel in the middles ages did
Mostly, it's developer lazyness/being rushed, and the perfectly rectangular boxes are passable for most troops that wouldn't normally form a straight line/box.
But the native americans certainly did not fight the european way except in one or two instances I don't remember. Most of their warfare consisted of raids, which were used to great effect and indeed the Iroquis homeland villages and towns were burned to the ground by US troops late in the war in revenge for most of the iroquis siding with the British.
Mostly, it's developer lazyness/being rushed, and the perfectly rectangular boxes are passable for most troops that wouldn't normally form a straight line/box.
But the native americans certainly did not fight the european way except in one or two instances I don't remember. Most of their warfare consisted of raids, which were used to great effect and indeed the Iroquis homeland villages and towns were burned to the ground by US troops late in the war in revenge for most of the iroquis siding with the British.
BrendanM
Prince
The native americans did NOT fight in lines, nor DID THEY HAVE CAVALRY (except the plains tribes and they USA didn't deal with them until the 1800s for the most part), there were no horses in the americans until the Europeans broguht them over. The East Indians did fight in lines, as much as peopel in the middles ages did
Mostly, it's developer lazyness/being rushed, and the perfectly rectangular boxes are passable for most troops that wouldn't normally form a straight line/box.
But the native americans certainly did not fight the european way except in one or two instances I don't remember. Most of their warfare consisted of raids, which were used to great effect and indeed the Iroquis homeland villages and towns were burned to the ground by US troops late in the war in revenge for most of the iroquis siding with the British.
Sorry for the confusion, I did mean Native Americans.
What was emboldened seems the most likely reason.
I do understand the Native mercenaries under European control fighting in line formation though.
germanicus12
First Citizen of Rome
I really do not care if they charge in a line formation or some other formation, 1 unit of redcoats can easily rout 5 of them regardless of which formation they (they being Native Americans) are in.
Though surprisingly I spent so much time in America that I never even sent a ship much less a trade ship to India... I must do so at once. Please pardon me for a while.
Though surprisingly I spent so much time in America that I never even sent a ship much less a trade ship to India... I must do so at once. Please pardon me for a while.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
They still wouldn't have. They fought mostly independent in raids or as skirmishers.
BrendanM
Prince
Anyone figure out why when reinforcements come, ally or enemy, they never come in correspondingly on the map?
I've been flanked by multiple AI units on numerous occasions even though they are coming from the same direction as the main attacker.
Baffling.
I've been flanked by multiple AI units on numerous occasions even though they are coming from the same direction as the main attacker.
Baffling.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Reinforcements will enter from the direction they were in in relation to the stack that attacked you or you attacked. For example
A stack attacks you that is directly north, there is a 2nd stack to the south-west. That stack will count as reinforcements because it did not initiate the battle/attack but is next to you so it can still be used in the battle, and will enter the map from the south west.
A stack attacks you that is directly north, there is a 2nd stack to the south-west. That stack will count as reinforcements because it did not initiate the battle/attack but is next to you so it can still be used in the battle, and will enter the map from the south west.
_alphaBeta_
King
That explains a lot, thanks! Fairly realistic I guess, but it makes battles difficult sometimes. Then again, knowing this you could maneuver armies such that your reinforcements enter the battle map where you want them to (behind you or behind the enemy).
Big question I've had - how close does an army have to be to count as reinforcements? Do they have to be within the ambush radius of your army?
I don't understand, alphaBeta said "I've been flanked by multiple AI units on numerous occasions even though they are coming from the same direction as the main attacker."
And Princescamp you basically say "they should be coming from the direction they were on the map compared to the battle".
Um... That's what he said wasn't happening. Maybe I'm misreading. I have at least on 2 occasions had whatever you describe not happening. I explained one where I was say, south, I attacked a stack that was north of me, and there was a stack even further north that counted as reinforcements for them, yet it came up in my back.
Is there a compass thing on the battlefield that makes it so that the battlefield wasn't on the north-south axis that I thought it was? If that's the case, I wonder why the army would be considered to have walked in between the two enemy stacks before starting the battle. Ugh.
And Princescamp you basically say "they should be coming from the direction they were on the map compared to the battle".
Um... That's what he said wasn't happening. Maybe I'm misreading. I have at least on 2 occasions had whatever you describe not happening. I explained one where I was say, south, I attacked a stack that was north of me, and there was a stack even further north that counted as reinforcements for them, yet it came up in my back.
Is there a compass thing on the battlefield that makes it so that the battlefield wasn't on the north-south axis that I thought it was? If that's the case, I wonder why the army would be considered to have walked in between the two enemy stacks before starting the battle. Ugh.
Similar threads
