cRPG
Other Games => M&B Napoleonic Wars => Topic started by: Tavuk_Bey on April 25, 2012, 08:30:47 pm
-
anyone tried this dlc?
-
No
Atleast none of the GK's anyway...
-
Unfortunately a lot of hospitallers got sucked in.
I never was a fan of mount and musket...I got warband specifically for the medieval combat system...not to stand in a row as meat shields and shoot primitive firearms at people.
The American's won the revolutionary war largely because they didn't play dat shit when it came to "gentlemanly" conduct. Having a large group firing from one position is good for offense. Having all of your people bunched up in a ball makes hitting targets very easy for the enemy however (just aim for the center). Guerilla tactics FTW...history can teach you stuff.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Honor gets you killed. "Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory." - General Douglas MacArthur.
-
It's like doing a shieldwall... without the shields
-
It's like doing a shieldwall... without the shields
Yeah and the worst thing is: the engagement in melee is even more prolonged than with a shieldwall :D
-
No
Atleast none of the GK's anyway...
Wrong.
I've seen a couple of your lot on. :D
Not a bad game, I've taken a break from cRPG and I play this because the whole pressure of upkeep and playing for a multiplier is a breath of fresh air tbh. Also being a sapper is fun, it's like using construction stuff in cRPG except a little bit more polished, team-oriented, and generally accepted by the community as a supporting role in the game.
-
Its just the melee combat is just SOOOO slow. Granted the vast majority have no idea what to do with a chamber lol.
-
I never tried out MM but NW is super fun, so many memorable moments in just a few days and servers have 200+ people all the time. The kinks are still being worked out but it's got tons of potential. I'm going to make a boat vs boat sea battle map and a siege map where you have to take small boats to assault a harbour fort.
Any other NA 104th people playing after 10pm PST? I ran into, or I should say "ran through" another 104th the other night but that's the only one I've seen so far. I'm going to be playing this a lot and want to stand in line and be told what to do! :)
The American's won the revolutionary war largely because they didn't play dat shit when it came to "gentlemanly" conduct. Having a large group firing from one position is good for offense. Having all of your people bunched up in a ball makes hitting targets very easy for the enemy however (just aim for the center). Guerilla tactics FTW...history can teach you stuff.
There's actually a thread somewhere on the taleworlds forum where people were complaining about the spread out command on the commander mode and wanted it taken out or limited, reminded me of this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Riflemen_at_Saratoga.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Riflemen_at_Saratoga.jpg)
-
is it worth the money?
-
knute that's specifically what I was talking about. Funny how one armies idea of "warfare" was to stand on the open ground waiting for the enemy to form up into ranks so they could volley at each other. And when the other army decides to hit and run from the forest the only thing you can do is either A) form some sort of counter-tactic or B) talk shit about how dishonorable the enemy is.
-
For now? yes, comletely, definitively.
Siege with destructive wall are fun, commander battle too (a little slow although), and conquest also.
knute that's specifically what I was talking about. Funny how one armies idea of "warfare" was to stand on the open ground waiting for the enemy to form up into ranks so they could volley at each other. And when the other army decides to hit and run from the forest the only thing you can do is either A) form some sort of counter-tactic or B) talk shit about how dishonorable the enemy is.
It's not only about Warfare, it's also about saying 'hey man, I got balls so big that I have difficulty to walk', beside, forming rank is also one of the best tactic for not being rape by cavalry.
-
The American's won the revolutionary war largely because they didn't play dat shit when it came to "gentlemanly" conduct. Having a large group firing from one position is good for offense. Having all of your people bunched up in a ball makes hitting targets very easy for the enemy however (just aim for the center). Guerilla tactics FTW...history can teach you stuff.
Erm, hate to break this to you, but the North American's of the 13 colonies won their revolution because England didn't oppose them. The king at time was insane (EDIT: I mean, he was INSANE, he had no connection with reality whatsoever and was dieing of syphylis), his cabinet was in disarray, and no serious attempt was made to supress the revolution. I'm not English, or British, this isn't propaganda of any sort, but you really should do some research before swallowing the shit you were taught in school. I was in the US for a short period and what the education system tried to teach me shocked me with its vast distance from any fact or reality.
-
For cavalry defense, sure. It's also the easiest way to get gunned down from one volley from the enemy. For cavalry defense having static defensive items like long pointy sticks or spikes in the ground is good. Also being on terrain that isn't suited for cavalry is also a good tactic.
Once gunpowder was heavily used by armies, forming into large masses (aka a large target) for the enemy was one of the dumbest things that armies conformed to (IMO). Maybe that's an argument for the historical discussion sub-section.
-
The Americans won the revolutionary war because it cost a lot of money, was unpopular in England, a large portion of the English army was surronded and was going to be captured (being captured usually meant dieing in a prison camp, which were worse than chocolate chip cookie concentration camps) or killed if England didnt make peace, and most of all because France and Spain were making plans to invade Great Britian and conquer the whole country.
Not that any of this has anything to do with the game, but ya you dont have to stand in lines and fight in the game its a FPS you run around and do whatever you want. And cavalry in the game is easy to defend against everyone has a gun/spear and cav inst strong to begin with, cav really isnt a threat. Its interesting though they make their rifle cav stop to reload but xbow cav in crpg can run around and reload at the same time.
-
For cavalry defense, sure. It's also the easiest way to get gunned down from one volley from the enemy. For cavalry defense having static defensive items like long pointy sticks or spikes in the ground is good. Also being on terrain that isn't suited for cavalry is also a good tactic.
Terrain not suited for cavalry? In Eu where we've cut down forest for the wood? ^^ Beside, static defensive items need to be set before the battle, and even if they're set, you're troupe will hide behind them and if you want most of you're troup to shoot... They have to form rank.
Once gunpowder was heavily used by armies, forming into large masses (aka a large target) for the enemy was one of the dumbest things that armies conformed to (IMO). Maybe that's an argument for the historical discussion sub-section.
We used these kind of tactic until WW1 (and with shinning uniform, so it was a shinning large mass :mrgreen:) and the invention of the machine gun, so most of the general (even the American one, during the Civil War) must have think that gunpowder weren't That effective, and made an expensive use of the bayonet, cavalry (with saber, and lance...)
-
Extensive and expensive are 2 different words....just saying :D
Oh and:
The Americans won the revolutionary war because it cost a lot of money, was unpopular in England, a large portion of the English army was surronded and was going to be captured (being captured usually meant dieing in a prison camp, which were worse than chocolate chip cookie concentration camps) or killed if England didnt make peace, and most of all because France and Spain were making plans to invade Great Britian and conquer the whole country.
Im sorry to say but: On what planet? The English army was never in North America, as I stated before, there was NOONE to send them.
-
No
Atleast none of the GK's anyway...
You've clearly not been on TS in a while. I think we had 5-6 of us on last night :P
Erm, hate to break this to you, but the North American's of the 13 colonies won their revolution because England didn't oppose them. The king at time was insane (EDIT: I mean, he was INSANE, he had no connection with reality whatsoever and was dieing of syphylis), his cabinet was in disarray, and no serious attempt was made to supress the revolution. I'm not English, or British, this isn't propaganda of any sort, but you really should do some research before swallowing the shit you were taught in school. I was in the US for a short period and what the education system tried to teach me shocked me with its vast distance from any fact or reality.
Pretty much this. The only reason there was any opposing force in America was simply as damage control. Britain at the time had very limited interest in America. In comparison to other colonies it wasn't particularly wealthy, the Caribbean (primarily Jamaica)/India and eventually South Africa were vastly more important. Whilst losing America was a slight embarrassment for Britain, it wasn't really damaging in any way to the Empire. As evidenced by almost another 200 years of successful rule of the colonies.
I'm British and we don't even learn about this at school. It's not really considered important to us. All that I've learnt about it has come from wide reading so I'm not even particularly biased. America has a tendency to overplay the victory of the revolutionary war when concerned with Britain. During the period it really wasn't very major.
-
Double post.
-
http://www.cracked.com/article_18442_5-reasons-founding-fathers-were-kind-dicks.html
-
This thread is full of british people talking about the revolutionary war after admitting that they were never taught about it in school. And America was the wealthiest and most valuable colony the british had.
-
Goretooth and some other KUTT members talked me into buying it tonight.
First off, I don't really complain often about wasting $10, but WOW. WHAT A WASTE OF $10.
First round, 27-2. That shouldn't happen in a "new" game, even if it is DLC. Shitty shitty shitty. No reason to play it either, no levels that I saw in the servers I was in, no means to drive people to improve. Just a bunch of people talking shit when they've -5 in KD ratios and bitching about people who use melee instead of shoot, reload for 10 seconds, and shoot again.
Though I will admit, it may be worth the $10 just to get the Howlitzers and Rockets and play those classes, but if you want to rape face, just hop on a Heavy Cavalry and drive-by 1hand everyone. Half of them don't even know how to tap x to switch to melee mode so it's easy as shit.
-
This thread is full of british people talking about the revolutionary war after admitting that they were never taught about it in school. And America was the wealthiest and most valuable colony the british had.
lolwut
I would have thought the Caribbean and Asia would have been more valuable.
-
Goretooth and some other KUTT members talked me into buying it tonight.
First off, I don't really complain often about wasting $10, but WOW. WHAT A WASTE OF $10.
First round, 27-2. That shouldn't happen in a "new" game, even if it is DLC. Shitty shitty shitty. No reason to play it either, no levels that I saw in the servers I was in, no means to drive people to improve. Just a bunch of people talking shit when they've -5 in KD ratios and bitching about people who use melee instead of shoot, reload for 10 seconds, and shoot again.
Though I will admit, it may be worth the $10 just to get the Howlitzers and Rockets and play those classes, but if you want to rape face, just hop on a Heavy Cavalry and drive-by 1hand everyone. Half of them don't even know how to tap x to switch to melee mode so it's easy as shit.
Sounds like the NA servers are once again shamefur dispray.
-
Well if you want to play the game with a cRPG-attitude, DONT BUY IT. It's not about one person running to the front and killing all with a bayonet. Its much slower, as reloading guns takes ages, reloading cannons takes its time. But its much fun if you like the mood. It feels kinda real, esp. commander battle is so much fun. I usually take artillery there as you have your own cannon and don't need to distribute it with others 8-)
And battles with nearly 500 ppl (ok, 90% are commanded bots) and lines of fire are really intense. I love it.
Theres more in this thread: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,29013.0.html
-
This thread is full of british people talking about the revolutionary war after admitting that they were never taught about it in school. And America was the wealthiest and most valuable colony the british had.
There's a reason why India was called the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. America was a colony of farmers and lowly merchants in comparison to the wealth and prestige that India, Africa and Caribbean brought.
And as I stated...I've read a lot of books about it. Most Americans have just been listening to some teacher spiel crap from an appalling curriculum. I wonder which one is more likely to be factual :rolleyes:
If you've been to University or College you will understand that a lot of what you learn at school is crap. One of the first things a lot of lecturers tell you is 'immediately forget everything youve learnt at school because its wrong'.
-
There's a reason why India was called the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. America was a colony of farmers and lowly merchants in comparison to the wealth and prestige that India, Africa and Caribbean brought.
And as I stated...I've read a lot of books about it. Most Americans have just been listening to some teacher spiel crap from an appalling curriculum. I wonder which one is more likely to be factual :rolleyes:
If you've been to University or College you will understand that a lot of what you learn at school is crap. One of the first things a lot of lecturers tell you is 'immediately forget everything youve learnt at school because its wrong'.
Ya, India is so much wealthier than the USA. Which is why we live in big houses and eat lots of mcdonalds and people in India live in the street and dont eat anything.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Ya, India is so much wealthier than the USA. Which is why we live in big houses and eat lots of mcdonalds and people in India live in the street and dont eat anything.
But you aren't a colony anymore...
-
Ya, India is so much wealthier than the USA. Which is why we live in big houses and eat lots of mcdonalds and people in India live in the street and dont eat anything.
:lol:
Not even going to ask if you know where India is on a world map.
-
This argument can only be settled by a howitzer duel.
Also, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ5FRbdoOSQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ5FRbdoOSQ) OFF THE BOAT!
-
Ya, India is so much wealthier than the USA. Which is why we live in big houses and eat lots of mcdonalds and people in India live in the street and dont eat anything.
Superior american intelligence. Just LOL.
-
where the fuck is out 104th recruitment thread?
-
And America was the wealthiest and most valuable colony the british had.
Wealth does not make somewhere important. India, Canada and Jamaica all had military/tactical significance either through their location or through the essential resources that they produced. For instance, without the high quality saltpeter coming from India the British army/navy would not have been able to afford regular training with live ammunition and would not have been the fighting force that they were.
The American Colonies mostly produced luxury goods, such as Tobacco and Cotton, that were traded privately. This generated tax income for the British Crown/Government but not much more and once the Revolution was over, traders still brought these goods to British ports so the Bristish Crown/Government still got their money.
All in all, with the exception of a few wealthy land owning individuals, the British lost very little at the time due to the Revolution.
-
Unfortunately a lot of hospitallers got sucked in.
I never was a fan of mount and musket...I got warband specifically for the medieval combat system...not to stand in a row as meat shields and shoot primitive firearms at people.
The American's won the revolutionary war largely because they didn't play dat shit when it came to "gentlemanly" conduct. Having a large group firing from one position is good for offense. Having all of your people bunched up in a ball makes hitting targets very easy for the enemy however (just aim for the center). Guerilla tactics FTW...history can teach you stuff.
Honor gets you killed. "Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory." - General Douglas MacArthur.
Lol stupid propaganda.
http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/tactics.html
"The traditional enemy of the colonists was the Indian. The tactics used to fight the Indians were quite different from those of massed European armies. Our use of Indian tactics inflicted numerous casualties upon the British, but it did not win battles.
It wasn't until the Continental Army, and to a lesser degree, the militia, mastered the art of 18th century warfare - - - standing in ranks and trading volleys and finally capturing the battle field at bayonet point, did we start winning battles."
Europeans didn't fight that way because they thought it was gentlemanly or fair. Only a complete fucktard with zero understanding of the development of musket warfare would even suggest something like that. Most of the battles and skirmishes of the Rev war were set-piece battles no different than those fought all over the world in the same period. It's not like Euro armies had never run into fucking guerilla warfare before, especially the British. History can teach you stuff. Try looking into it instead of regurgitating what some two bit hollywood flic taught you.
-
Byzantium have a NW server up, Commander battle mode. 104th_Weeaboo Fukushima space Regiement, we play under 104th tag.
You can join our team speak and move down to the channel we on under same name, we mainly play commander battle mode and some times play on NW eu_1 battle server.
-
Ya, India is so much wealthier than the USA. Which is why we live in big houses and eat lots of mcdonalds and people in India live in the street and dont eat anything.
Has to be a troll, not one can be this retarded ?
-
Has to be a troll, not one can be this retarded ?
We have a winner!Lol ur probably the first to spot this.Much props. Here have a cookie. :D
Back to topic: 1st Maltese has a NW command battle server up. I Love the game modes they added to NW and I think it was worth the 10 dollars.
-
Lol stupid propaganda.
http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/tactics.html
"The traditional enemy of the colonists was the Indian. The tactics used to fight the Indians were quite different from those of massed European armies. Our use of Indian tactics inflicted numerous casualties upon the British, but it did not win battles.
It wasn't until the Continental Army, and to a lesser degree, the militia, mastered the art of 18th century warfare - - - standing in ranks and trading volleys and finally capturing the battle field at bayonet point, did we start winning battles."
Europeans didn't fight that way because they thought it was gentlemanly or fair. Only a complete fucktard with zero understanding of the development of musket warfare would even suggest something like that. Most of the battles and skirmishes of the Rev war were set-piece battles no different than those fought all over the world in the same period. It's not like Euro armies had never run into fucking guerilla warfare before, especially the British. History can teach you stuff. Try looking into it instead of regurgitating what some two bit hollywood flic taught you.
I read the whole article and nowhere does it explain why forming lines of men 3 deep to fire is good for tactics. It explains how it's good for firing large volleys into the enemy, but how does that offset the fact that your army is one big target? I question the validity of this tactic on a common sense standing, not on the little historic knowledge I have of the era.
-
Well if you want to play the game with a cRPG-attitude, DONT BUY IT. It's not about one person running to the front and killing all with a bayonet. Its much slower, as reloading guns takes ages, reloading cannons takes its time. But its much fun if you like the mood. It feels kinda real, esp. commander battle is so much fun. I usually take artillery there as you have your own cannon and don't need to distribute it with others 8-)
And battles with nearly 500 ppl (ok, 90% are commanded bots) and lines of fire are really intense. I love it.
Theres more in this thread: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,29013.0.html
I actualy played a game with 1200 players and bots.
It was an epic game, but my biggest complait is that when playing commader battles, ALMOST ALL servers use those horrible "random maps" They are sooo boring, and most of them are so unrealstic, huge hills just right into the air, no real tatical options.
I don't understand why they want to play on those maps, when you have good realistic looking maps, with lots of tactical optinos, you have fields, hedges, rivers, bridges, houses, walls ect. NO they want to play on these random barren maps, they looks ugly and looks like they are from sci fi game.
But when you get a good map, and good server and good players it's fantastic.
I was playing Prussian line infantry, and got charged by british heavy dragoons, I held my fire, then 30 yards from me, I opend up a volley with 40 troops, only 3 dragoons surived and they were easy to take out with the bayonet.
-
I read the whole article and nowhere does it explain why forming lines of men 3 deep to fire is good for tactics. It explains how it's good for firing large volleys into the enemy, but how does that offset the fact that your army is one big target? I question the validity of this tactic on a common sense standing, not on the little historic knowledge I have of the era.
Maybe you should read it again. It's not about firing much, it's about firing often. If there's constant bullets raining at you, you think twice about charging. Ofc firing in ranks sounds stupid from our point of view, but the muskets back then where so inaccurate, that it's more a psychological factor then a tactic. Also standing in groups makes it much easier to receive commandsand it raises moral. I think the chance to be hit while in a line was still quite low.
-
So I guess you're not going to withdraw your retarded "this is why Americans won the Revolutionary War" statement, or even aknowledge that it was retardedly wrong in the first place.
Seriously though, the English had been facing guerilla warfare the world over, pretending that Americans were the first to attempt such tactics is beyond moronic. "Omg, they're not standing in lines and shooting at us, whatever shall we do?!". It's not like they had dealt with 75 fucking years of it just from the French and Indian wars, not even counting the sporadic resistence in other parts of their empire.
Just fucking ask George Washington I guess, who had been trying to craft an actual army ever since his experiences in those Wars. He was a fan of the Continental ARMY, and thought the militia were practically worthless. I guess that's not as easy to craft a superiority myth out of, though, so it got conveniently left out of all those Hollywood movies.
-
The british and americans during the revolution formed 2 deep lines, not 3, they also were spaced out in longer more open lines, so the british didn't stand around in 3 deep close formations and get shot at.
-
We used these kind of tactic until WW1 (and with shinning uniform, so it was a shinning large mass :mrgreen:) and the invention of the machine gun, so most of the general (even the American one, during the Civil War) must have think that gunpowder weren't That effective, and made an expensive use of the bayonet, cavalry (with saber, and lance...)
indeed. The only country that changed that tactic in ww1 was, ironically, not any of the great powers but instead Greece that removed all the flashy stuff from officers so they couldn't be identified and shot at.
At first it was to save cash, then it worked better and we kept it and later adopted by Britain and the rest.
-
just bought it tonight, kinda like it, nice change if you think c-rpg has no longer any secrets for you.
However, it feels very arcade like, so its good for a short period, not for countless days like crpg
-
just bought it tonight, kinda like it, nice change if you think c-rpg has no longer any secrets for you.
However, it feels very arcade like, so its good for a short period, not for countless days like crpg
Project asinus is crpg for NW.
Infa 100%
-
Ya, India is so much wealthier than the USA. Which is why we live in big houses and eat lots of mcdonalds and people in India live in the street and dont eat anything.
The Stupidity is strong in this one..
-
The Stupidity is strong in this one..
*Cough* believes Sweden is anything else than shit. *Cough*
-
*Cough* believes Sweden is anything else than shit. *Cough*
What?
-
Napoleonic wars sux
-
Played it 2 hours, was like meh, got a regiment, was like, yeh.
-
.
-
Being in a regiment does make the game a lot more fun. Gives you a tiny sense of progression, at the very least.
-
I love how tense line battles can be, and then going on the bayonet charge is awesome :D
-
line battles are nice and all, but I would assume get quite stale. Is there any urban type fighting, say like US Revolutionary War or French-Indian war type forest skirmishing?
-
I've never had it get stale. Nothing like the suspense of standing in those lines for me. There are some maps that are in cities, so yes to urban type fighting. Also, on the public servers, its pretty much one big skirmish, with small lines, maybe 5 guys, but most everyone goes rambo. One map as I recall has a ridge with some woods, and players would hide in there and take shot at the enemy as they attempt to cross a river. You won't see a decent line battle unless you join a regiment.
-
Join the 90th :mrgreen:
-
Wouldn't your team be better off shooting in volleys, but have everyone spread out 10 feet apart? You still can concentrate all your fire into one area (the enemies condensed line), but now you're no longer one big target?
Is there a valuable reason to cluster fuck your team into one giant ball (aka one giant target) rather than having 20 small targets?
M&B is way better than M&M, they had a revolutionary mod in half-life for probably 10 years, I don't find anything special or fun about shooting terrible firearms.
-
Wouldn't your team be better off shooting in volleys, but have everyone spread out 10 feet apart? You still can concentrate all your fire into one area (the enemies condensed line), but now you're no longer one big target?
Is there a valuable reason to cluster fuck your team into one giant ball (aka one giant target) rather than having 20 small targets?
M&B is way better than M&M, they had a revolutionary mod in half-life for probably 10 years, I don't find anything special or fun about shooting terrible firearms.
The weapons they used back then were not very accurate, so they fired volleys in groups to make up for inaccuracy, slow rate of fire, and limited range, and to create a maximum effect. The rifles in this mod I think are fairly accurate, so yes it would probably be better. But some people like to play line battles just because thats how it was back then, and the thrill of surviving a volley. Its personnel preference. But as I said, in the public servers you won't find a line battle. In modern times the use of volley fire is limited, since automatic weapons can devastate massed infantry.
-
Plus being close together makes it loads easier for the regimental leaders to co-ordinate the squad's movements and to issue orders. Hard to march out, stop and form 2 lines when you're miles apart.
-
We do it mostly for roleplay, of course cannons destroy lines but if you do it right you can kick ass and have fun.