Q: How many factions will there be in the game? And will [insert name of home country here] be included?
A: These two related questions are two of the most popular, particularly the "Will my country..." bit. People also wondered how we end up with the faction list. Surprisingly, nationalism and irrational prejudice do not drive our choices. If they did, then Yorkshire, Dorking, the Kingdom of Bognor, Chicken Madras and the Democratic Workers' Republic of Woking would automatically be factions. In every game.
Naturally, not all factions are equal. This has always been the case; it is far harder to win as the Western Romans, big though the faction is, than the Saxons in R:TW Barbarian Invasion. We tend to define factions as being potentially playable (or not), by their culture, whether they are major or minor, and whether they might be "emergent" when we look at the candidate list. We then look at getting a good mix in terms of culture, national unit and army lists, and gameplay potential.
Naturalmente non tutte le fazioni sono uguali, è sempre stato così; è molto più difficile vincere con l'Impero Romano d'occidente, nonostante sia grande, che con i sassoni in Rome
arbarian Invasion. Tendiamo a definire le fazioni potenzialmente giocabili ( o no) dalla loro cultura, sia che sono piccole o grandi, e sia che potrebbero essere "emergenti" quando guardiamo la lista delle possibili fazioni. Poi cerchiamo di creare un buon mix fra cultura, unità nazionali e lista delle armi, e anche il potenziale gameplay.
We use "culture" as a way of collecting similar factions together and sharing resources: you'll find Western European nations all share a lot of the same cultural baggage, so it make sense to have a common set of game resources for them. Sometimes this means we can sneak in extra factions because they are similar to something we have already done (hurrah!): it is relatively easy to add Mysore if the material for the Mughals and the Maharattas already exists.
The major/minor split is our take on whether a faction starts the game with more than one region (e.g. France = major; Hanover = minor). When we are considering who to include a minor faction is less likely to make the cut than a major one. Some potential factions end up as rebels early on because the nation in question simply did not go anywhere during Empire's historical period. Often these were considered for full faction status before they were assigned to the rebel category: it is not sensible, for example, to do a full faction work up on the Republic of Genoa.
Emergent factions (these, you might remember, were in RTWBI) are those nations that did, or might, come into being during a game's historical period, or could have come into being. The most obvious one in the Empire period is the United States of America. There are no guarantees that the USA will appear, but if there is a rebellion in the right sort of area, at the right sort of time and other factors are appropriate, then rather than seeing rebels, you will see the Continental Army marching off to war.
So, the Empire: Total War factions have yet to be finalised. There will be at least 10 playable factions in the game, but we're currently engaged in a free and frank exchange of views about the candidates for inclusion on that list. Some, like France and Prussia, have guaranteed places as playable factions because they were significant in the wars and politics of the time. The powers that changed status (waxing and waning) are the ones that cause us problems! The full faction list is much longer, and it includes all the AI-controlled factions that we don't think are that rewarding for a human to play.
So, we are currently looking at around 50 factions and scratching our heads to decide which ones make the cut as being interesting both historically and in terms of game play. The final point is that what we'd like to do with the factions and what's practical are not always the same thing. Often we'll have to exclude a faction for time reasons. If we're going to have to create a completely new set of buildings, units, animations and on-screen messages for a minor (and therefore relatively obscure) faction, the chances are that it won't make it into the game. And sometimes more does not automatically equal better. It can mean that the development marmalade is spread too thinly over too many slices of conceptual toast.
TRADUZIONE: Quante fazioni saranno presenti nel gioco??? E ci sarà [nome paese] fra queste??
Q: Will famous characters such as Wellington make an appearance in the game, and will they have special abilities to reflect their historical importance? What new character traits are there?
A: Famous and some not-so-famous characters are present in the game, yes. However, because the unfolding of a TW game isn't a fixed path, there is not going to be a guarantee that an Arthur Wellesley (the Duke of Wellington eventually), a Napoleon Bonaparte, a George Washington or anyone else will *always* appear when the game is played. If they did, then camping on their spawn points until the right date would not make for a very interesting game. This, by the way, is all part of the larger counterfactual-historical debate in Total War games: history probably won't repeat itself exactly as you play.
We're having to be quite disciplined about the famous people that we include as characters and ancillaries, simply because there could be thousands of them, all with their own claim to a place in the game. Should we include Mozart as a famous composer, Thomas Slade, a naval architect of some genius, Lancelot "Capability" Brown, the man who completely reshaped the English countryside, Jethro Tull, the folk rock band and agriculturalist, or Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, a right royal pain in the neck? They're all interesting people, and made their contribution.
The traits system is being revised for Empire: Total War; the Rome/M2TW system could "spam" traits sometimes and we need to address that. We're not going to give you a list of the new character traits because it (a) would be a bit boring done like that; and (b) the list isn't finalised, so that if we tell you there's a trait called "Sausage" might not ever make it into the finished game. There is a trait called Sausage, by the way, but it's not really the kind of thing you want to talk about in polite company. However, just to whet your appetites there are two interesting traits: "American General" and "Indian General" that have potentially interesting effects. These are gained by Europeans fighting in the relevant parts of the world and represent "going native" in terms of skills and attitudes. If everything goes to plan, the American General trait will even give a general and his unit some stealth ability on the battlefield. It's also possible for generals to develop a complete dislike of the two continents too - not everyone likes curry or burgers, after all.
When the list has firmed up at beta, we'll return to the subject of traits and historical characters in another FAQ or as a developer diary.
Q: The bayonet was invented in this period, so how will the various types be used on the battlefield? Will key technological inventions like this be events on the campaign map?
A: The bayonet is quite an interesting technology that directly impacts on battlefield behaviour in units. Before it arrives, musketeers have to reverse their muskets and use them as crude clubs to beat down opponents. The plug bayonet is a big step in the right direction, but once it is fitted (like a cork in a bottle neck) it prevents a man from firing and reloading his gun. It does give a musketeer a short "pike" for hand-to-hand fighting, and that's useful. Incidentally, the bayonet was seen as a substitute pike and accordingly pike drill was used after its introduction. The ring bayonet allows fire and slow reloading, but isn't very secure in its fixing to a musket; it's better in a fight, but not that much better.
Finally the socket bayonet slides onto the musket and then locks on a barrel lug. The blade is offset, so that the musket can be loaded and fired easily, and it won't come loose when thrust into an enemy's guts. This kind of practical, brutal weapon made it possible to introduce "modern" bayonet fighting as a drill.
And no, we're not handling technological advances as set historical events. We're giving you more control over the game than that, but as to how -that's for another day.
Q: Won't the rampant expansion of European powers over less developed countries unbalance things in Empire? Won't players be able to simply sweep aside native populations and establish colonies?
A: No, not necessarily. This is where the art of the game designer comes in, at least in our opinion. It's our job to make sure that the game isn't just a predictable rush for colonies. The question also ignores the number of wars that went on across Europe during the 18th Century as well.
There was "rampant" European expansion during the Empire period, but the European nations and their trading companies weren't guaranteed to have things their own way at all. In India, for example, the Europeans fought against each other and used proxies in a series of vicious little wars that could have seen the Europeans driven out on several occasions. That they weren't is more a tribute to cunning diplomacy, bribes, and the fact that some local princeling was always willing to cut a deal.
Interestingly, native populations weren't always swept aside. At least part of the sense of grievance felt by the American Colonials towards the British government was fuelled by the agreements that London had struck with the native tribes to restrain their colonisation efforts. In India the Europeans were in no position to sweeo "the natives" aside. Instead, they mounted a "hostile takeover" and left the senior and middle management in place; the poor old peasants at the bottom of the heap probably never realised that they were now farming "colonial" land.
TRADUZIONE:La sfrenata espansione delle potenze europee non schiaccerà i paesi meno sviluppati e sbilancerà le cose in Empire? I giocatori non potranno semplicemente spazzare via le popolazioni indigene e stabilire colonie?
No, non necessariamente. Qui è dove entra in gioco l'arte del game designer, almeno secondo noi. E' nostro compito assicurare che il gioco non sia solamente una prevedibile corsa alle colonie. La domanda, inoltre, trascura anche il gran numero di guerre che attraversarono l'Europa nel corso del diciottesimo secolo.
C'è stato uno sfrenato sviluppo in Europa durante il periodo storico di Empire, ma le nazioni europee e le loro compagnie commerciali non avevano la garanzie che tutto andasse come esse avevano previsto. In India, per esempio, gli europei combatterono gli uni contro gli altri e usarono i propri mandati in una serie di piccole e sbagliate guerre che portarono alla cacciata degli europei stessi in diverse occasioni. Nei casi in cui non fu così, fu merito di un'abile diplomazia, della corruzione e il fatto che alcuni dei governanti locali erano disposti a fare un affare.
Stranamente, le popolazioni indigene non furono sempre spazzate via. Almeno parte del rancore provato dai coloni americani verso il governo britannico fu alimentato dagli accordi che Londra prese con le tribù indigene per contenere i loro sforzi di colonizzazione. In India gli europei non erano nella posizione per travolgere i ''nativi''. Invece, costruirono un ''insediamento ostile'' e lasciarono il governante e l'amministrazione centrale al loro posto; probabilmente i vecchi contadini all'ultima posizione della piramide sociale non si accorsero nemmeno che stavano coltivando terre ''coloniali''.
[Translation by LordDragon89]
Q: Will the game be totally different from M2TW?
A: Firstly, Medieval 2: Total War was a development of the Rome: Total War engine. For Empire: Total War we've started again with new game and graphics engines. Apart from anything else, we needed to do this for the naval combat system. This follows our revolution-evolution pattern of game development at The Creative Assembly: a new game engine, an evolved version of it, rinse and repeat.
Secondly, the Empire period requires a different approach to the medieval era. Warfare, politics, and technology have moved on. We have a "palette" of game mechanics that we can use to bring these to life, and we must pick and choose the right ones for the subject matter. Naturally, some aspects of a Total War game are "givens": a turn based strategy game and real time battles. We won't - and wouldn't want to - change that. Within that broad constraint, though, we hope to use mechanics that are appropriate to the period. Papal sanctions are important in the medieval world, but they don't matter so much during the Enlightenment. Therefore, the Pope doesn't need to be simulated in detail in Empire. The choreography of musket fire is important, so that gets a lot of attention. And then there's the naval game: not to blow our own trumpets too much, but some developers would publish that as a separate game in its own right!
And finally, the development team on Empire is not the M2TW group. The Empire people did Rome: Total War, and some of the core team have been on TW games since Shogun: Total War. Chrysler don't just have one team working on all their different car models, you know!
TRADUZIONE:Il gioco sarà completamente differente da Medieval II Total War?
Prima di tutto, Medieval II è stata un'evoluzione dell'engine di Rome-Total War. Per Empire abbiamo cominciato con un gioco e un motore grafico totalmente nuovo. Lasciando da parte gli altri motivi, abbiamo dovuto farlo principalmente per la presenza dei combattimenti navali. Tutto questo segue la nostra strategia di rivoluzione/evoluzione di sviluppo di nuovi giochi alla Creative Assembly: un nuovo engine di gioco, una versione evoluta di quest'ultimo, rinnovata e riproposta.
In secondo luogo, il periodo storico di Empire richiede un approccio diverso rispetto all'era medioevale. Le guerre, la politica e la tecnologia sono cambiate. Abbiamo una ''tavolozza'' di meccaniche di gioco che possiamo usare per portare queste cose alla vita, e dobbiamo selezionare e scegliere quelle giuste per ogni tema. Naturalmente, alcuni aspetti di un Total War sono offerti e sono imprescindibili: un turno basato sul gioco strategico e sulle battaglie in tempo reale. Noi non vogliamo e non abbiamo cambiato questi aspetti All'interno di questo vasto vincolo, noi speriamo, però, di usare meccaniche appropriate al periodo. Le sanzioni papali sono importanti nel mondo medioevale, ma non hanno molto peso durante l'Illuminismo. Per questo, non c'è bisogno che il papa venga simulato così dettagliatamente in Empire. La coreografia del fuoco dei moschetti è importante, quindi prestatele attenzione. E poi c'è il gioco navale: non per darci troppe arie, ma qualche sviluppatore vorrebbe pubblicarlo come gioco separato!
Ed infine, il team di sviluppo di Empire non è lo stesso che ha lavorato su Medieval II. Coloro che ora stanno sviluppando Empire hanno sviluppato Rome-Total War, e alcuni del team più importante ne fanno parte sin da Shogun-Total War.
La Chrysler non ha un solo team che lavora per tutte le sue opere come vedete!
[Translation by LordDragon89]
Q: Will we see the Jacobite Rebellions? And will the game pick Presidents correctly after the Constitution is ratified?
A: Both of these questions assume that Empire: Total War will run on tram lines of historical inevitability. TW games don't do that. We set up a historical situation and create game rules that follow the pattern of history, but once that is done the game is on its own!
So, no, there's no guarantee that there will be a '15 or '45 Jacobite rising in Britain. If there is a rebellion, then there's a chance that it will be Jacobite in nature, that much is true, but there were other (potential) rebels during the period. You might get Luddites instead, intent on frame-breaking and similar industrial sabotage (a word that owes its origins to French workers throwing their wooden shoes - sabot - into machinery to ruin it). The Jacobites were, from one perspective, (un)witting dupes of the French who financed and supported them as a way of causing troublesome distractions for the British.
As to American presidents, there's no guarantee that the game will throw up a "revolution" during play if the rulers of North America are canny enough to keep the colonists onside!
TRADUZIONE:Vedremo le ribellioni giacobine? E il gioco sceglierà i Presidenti correttamente dopo la ratificazione della Costituzione?
Entrambe le domande presumono che "Empire:Total War" si baserà sulla linea dell'inevitabilità storica. I Total War non fanno questo. Noi diamo inizio ad una situazione storica e creiamo delle regole di gioco che seguono la falsariga della storia, ma una volta fatto questo il gioco va da sé!
Così, no, non è garantito che ci saranno le rivolte giacobine del '15 o del '45 in Gran Bretagna. Se ci sarà una ribellione, allora c'è una possibilità che essa sia nata come giacobina, il che è quasi vero, ma ci sono state altre (potenziali) ribellioni durante quel periodo. Si potrà incorrere nei luddisti invece, intenti a distruggere strutture o coinvolti in qualche altro sabotaggio industriale ( parola che prende origine dai lavoratori francesi che lanciavano le loro scarpe di legno – i sabot – nei macchinari, per rovinarli). I giacobini erano, da un altro punto di vista, dei babbei (in)consapevoli, appartenenti alla Francia, che li finanziava e li supportava, poiché causavano qualche grattacapo agli Inglesi.
Così per i presidenti americani, non è garantito che questo titolo farà emergere una ''rivoluzione'' durante l'esperienza di gioco se i governanti del nord America saranno abbastanza furbi da tenere i coloni dalla loro parte!
[Translation by LordDragon89]
Úvaldon92
