Campaign Idea

[Gerula]

someone's idea(ME 6373) of the campaign posted on http://forums.totalwar.com

To understand my idea for this game, you must read all from beginning to the end.
Edited: I do not know if you've already read this post but I'll add more and what is with blue I added after

If you could create two types of campaign. The first option for the campaign, the classical and well known to all, that one we have used so far. For the second one, comes my ideas.

I want to start a campaign in which I will not have the power and control from the beginning for my chosen faction, let's say Rome. I want to start from down and gradually climb up to the last step and to become the Emperor of Rome or apparently to control the entire Empire. I want to choose my own destiny not directly with the control of a future empire.

1. For the start I should have 1,2 or even 3 units stationed in my own town chosen by me from the beginning of the game. Maybe not an entire city, but rather a villa. Would be nice if here in time with my help to construct, will become a big city. Here there should be two kinds of constructional:
-some for the whole empire, public
-other private and personal where I can develop my own business
If I build just the personal ones that are only in my interest population will revolt and if i build only the public ones, I could go without my will in a financial collapse.

Two things should have great value in the entire game system: money and slaves obtained through the looting of some towns, villas and especialy from ports filled with slaves and other goods.
I could have my own gladiator school, my own workshop or a house selling slaves, all obtained from lotting.

2. Suppose I already have 3 units in my order stationed at my villa.
One unit has my marks, the other two wearing SPQR marks. So there will be two types of the same units for recruitment
-the ones recruited in my name, units that will be very loyal to me, but very expensive
-and the ones recruited in the SPQR name, less loyal to me but very cheap, also in a battle against the Roman Senate, would turn against me

-A single type of units to recruit
-After quite many laps around the 20/30 (or times the other number) units surviving after such a big number of turns, should increase their loyalty to a point near the maximum, and also slightly lowering costs for these units (or not), would be a bonus to you for your units that have survived

So to recap with what I could start so far in this game is:
-My own family name tree(for continuity)
-My own Villa(Where I can build in time, my own city)
-A title and a rank, maybe a Centurion and already have three units of 40(I hope that the maximum number of units in an army to be 40, even 30)

What can happen now at the start of the game or with what I could begin.
-There will be few or could be lots of rebellions to suppress from small towns
-Small barbarian tribes or groups put on robbery to defeat
-or missions received from the Roman Senate
No matter what I start, after my presumed success must be a reward
-increasing in rank and once with it, the amount money obtained from my own business or various activities as compensation for my new title that I now own.

What can I do during this time:
-to develop my own villa in a small town to a huge city
-to rob cities of other factions, thus attracting their wrath on Rome(even damaging the relations between the Senate and me- eventually I the one who get money and they receive only a war)
-to recruit private units, units of mercenaries, Rome units or SQPR and also
-I want to be able to hire units of mercenaries from local tribes, to rob and loot others cities from rival families against which I fight for power and control of Rome, but these units in a way, to be rented only. I will not have control over them, and they will not fight in my name! Rampage units
-opportunity to hire my personal orator so it can be send in any corner of the empire to speak in my name as I wish, with a choice list for example;
-in my name, increasing the plebeians sympathy, but dropping that of the Roman Senate and vice versa
-or speaking against any other rival family from ROME
-or speaking against the Roman Senate
-opportunity to buy honorific titles or my next rank, but very expensive with lots of money
-to buy senators to be on my side
-and be able to use assassins to kill senators that cannot be corrupted and they are my adversaries or they support other rival families to me
-If staying on peaceful path and be liked by the Roman senate as a bonus or as a reward, to get other cities to be administered by me
-even the governor of an entire province
-in some province will make good money, while in others you will desire that you won't be borned and play this game:p
-or to try like Caesar or Pompey, my own campaign for conquering another faction something that is not always pleasing by ROME

Enable/Disable Button for attacking my ally in battles.
-for online battles to have an activation button that everyone agree with this, but who will choose to betray their team will suffer serious consequences to the detriment of his rank or be rewarded with various and ugly retainers.
-for multiplayer campaign, things will be completely different

Suppose that in multiplayer campaign will be possible up to 4 players to play the game
-Opportunity for 2 players to choose to play in the same faction!(the other two if they can, they will play as they want!)
-2 players in the same faction, each building a name(family tree) for themselves, each with their own settlement (villa), each with their small business, each with their own army, each with their own assassin's, diplomats, orators or merchants.
-of course they will help each other, with money or armed forces, etc,ect, but both players will target the same objective: "there can be only one" sound like highlander :)
-they will sabotage each other, and they will have all the means necessary to shoot down each other's family
-Suppose that in the end of fight me and my ally friend, after we defeated a powerful German army that seriously threaten our well-being of our small kingdom or empire to be a brief(10 seconds maybe) respite before the battle to end completely in which to choose separately and without the knowledge of other to attack units of our former ally.
I really want to attack my friend and also my former ally in order to bring him to silence and also will be the beginning of his elimination from game.
-but this will attract some very serious consequences from the Roman Senate and will be considered a betrayal
-Now I'll have to fight against my friend's family and against other families who will represent the Roman Senate, so this decision will not be a random, but will be very pleasant by many players.

3. Finally I get to eliminate the Senate, and to have control of empire, but not fully control. There is still the risk of a revolt from other families and they can remove my dominance only by taking the capital city of Rome and we go back from where we started.
So I must keep and guard well ROME or all may be lost.

To note that all the time whenever I can choose what I want as I think and can choose a more direct option to become Emperor of Rome by begining a direct attack upon the Roman senate and its allies, becoming a rebel army and not subject to Rome, but, as said an old Romanian proverb ,better make yourself brother with the devil till you pass the lake than to fight with him at first!

This system can be easily used by other factions as well
-For example, I want to play with the Gauls so I click on the icon that show the Gaul faction and below there should be a list of Gaul sub-factions to choose like: Aedui, Boii, Arverni, Belgae,Helvetii, Suebi, ect
-Same for Germans: Marcomani, Alamanni, Suebi, Cimbri(this 2 last tribes could be of Celtic origin-they say toda) Chatti, Batavi, ect,ect
-if I want to paly with the Greeks, there are ancient Greek City-States, like: Sparta, Athens, Corinth, Thebes, ect,ect
-in this way can be create something similar to idea of 'FREE PEOPLE' used by modders in their mods, only this time will be true small tribes that they even existed.

Again I repeat myself. It would be very nice if the game can be played in 4 multiplayer campaign. Just think how many possibilities and many plots can be between the 4 players.
-imagine me and another friend, each of us controlling one Greek city-state, the other two players may hold that they would like, but suppose they are with Rome(each controlling their own family), main goal for everyone will be to make their faction an empire and win campaign.
-I myself, I will betray my Greek friend and ally(city-state) with Romans help, and throw him out off the map and I in return I will be cheated by the Romans, who will not keep the word given.

4.About Units who route far to EASY such as those from Shogun2!
-certain types of warriors should not have this 'idea' in their 'scheme' to flee from the battlefield like, Berserker or Spartans
How I think that they should do it
-for example, I have one unit of 320 soldiers and my enemy it overwhelms me, now the white flag appeared over my unit, would be nice if it would not run all at once, but gradually as a timer, every 10 to 20 soldiers in a certain time and, the final, in each unit must be between 10 and 30 soldiers would not run for anything in the world.
In every gang or group of fighters or how you want to tell them, there are cowards, but also there are some very brave and crazy people.

5.About gladiators - Gladiatorial Games
I would like to recruit again units of gladiators but with a very small number of soldiers per unit and serve with a different purpose than the first units from the old RTW game.
Suppose that I will build my own school of gladiators and the possibility to choose between a number of units of gladiators powerful gladiators units compared to the classic fighting units in the game but very few in number of soldiers and very expensive
-if a unit of Roman Legionaries would have a total of 400 soldiers a unit of gladiators, not to exceed a total of 20/30 of men.
-In the table for recruitment of units, gladiators should have a little special place of their own

Let's say, I recruited after a much longer waiting period maximum of 10 units accepted of gladiators and I want to participate with them in annual or monthly Gladiatorial Games held by every big or huge city.
Only two of the leading families in Rome, only if the leader of your family is in the first two major families of Rome or if it has one of the 2 most meaningful degrees available you can participate in these games and if not, it will remain to do something else with this gladiators such as looting your rivalsvillas, even attacking some units of them, and if these units of gladiators, will be caught in the fact, there should be consequences. Other families may require a huge compensation, and unpaid on time would result in draws the senate anger on me.
Here game should ask us if we have any connection with them, or if they are rebellious gladiators. If we choose that we have no contact with them, these small units of gladiators will become rebel units and we will not have any control over them. Eventually they will become a small problem, even for myself so If they are left too much free time on the map they could increase their number And become something like Spartacus.

How actually we use these units of gladiators trained for a long time
-This will be done in exactly the same way as a normal Battle, only that by pressing a button located in the city, loading screen will bring us in a huge amphitheater maybe one just like, Colosseum.
-Here we assume that we have between 3 and 10 small units of different types of gladiators. The rest is known. We just need to participate in a fight on a map representing an amphitheater in the Crowd cheering. Also if you already have created elephants, horses and pigs, why not for these gladiatorial games some lions and tigers (this is really madness)
It could be fun.


NOTE: Please, this time to keep for yourselves the part as it related to SF and fantasy stuff like: magic wind, second wind, arrow rain and whatever you already have in your mind now, for your Shogun. For this we have games like Diablo 3
We don't need a real strategy, a game of war, to become a strategy filled with fantasies, again!
-if you have special animation created with help from martial arts masters for the fight game system in Shogun2
-I think you guys already think now to use at least four different types of animation for the fight in game...you know, Barbarians and Greeks dont had the same fighting style, Romans, Africans or Eastern Civilizations. Or call the specialists in ancient fight melee, or just look at the TV show Deadliest Warrior :p

P.S: I apologize and I am very sorry for my horrible English. I hope that I have not given headaches to you guys and hope that you will understand at least the essential part.

Now come all and throw with stones in my ideas :) :P

[ReluctantSamurai]

I want to start a campaign in which I will not have the power and control from the beginning for my chosen faction, let's say Rome. I want to start from down and gradually climb up to the last step and to become the Emperor of Rome or apparently to control the entire Empire. I want to choose my own destiny not directly with the control of a future empire.

This would be a refreshing change from the original. One would have to assume that the major campaign will be from the Roman pov, so starting out as a minor landholder would be a nice touch.


-opportunity to buy honorific titles or my next rank, but very expensive with lots of money
-to buy senators to be on my side
-and be able to use assassins to kill senators that cannot be corrupted and they are my adversaries or they support other rival families to me

I'm sure this went on in reality, so would be a nice intrigue touch to a campaign.


Two things should have great value in the entire game system: money and slaves obtained through the looting of some towns, villas and especialy from ports filled with slaves and other goods.
I could have my own gladiator school, my own workshop or a house selling slaves, all obtained from lotting.

I know that many cultures of the time used slave labor, or marketed them for sale, but....was it really that big of an issue to base the economics of a faction on the buying/selling/using of slaves?

[quadalpha]

The slaves have never gotten past the PC department, and I don't imagine SEGA would sanction anything like that now.

It sounds like an interesting game you describe, but it's not really a Total War game by that point. The set-up is also probably too historically implausible to be considered. For one thing, private citizens could not and did not keep armies, nor could they simply hire other citizens as soldiers. This is why, in contemporaneous rhetoric, the fact that Octavian used his own money (privata impensa) to equip his army was such a big deal. I mean, I suppose, if you wanted to realistically simulate a family's rise to power, you can make a business sim and a legal speechmaking sim, but again, that's not a Total War game. Now if you moved the setting away from Rome and set it in a fantasy land, however, those problems would go away.

[Gerula]

The slaves have never gotten past the PC department, and I don't imagine SEGA would sanction anything like that now.

It sounds like an interesting game you describe, but it's not really a Total War game by that point. The set-up is also probably too historically implausible to be considered. For one thing, private citizens could not and did not keep armies, nor could they simply hire other citizens as soldiers. This is why, in contemporaneous rhetoric, the fact that Octavian used his own money (privata impensa) to equip his army was such a big deal. I mean, I suppose, if you wanted to realistically simulate a family's rise to power, you can make a business sim and a legal speechmaking sim, but again, that's not a Total War game. Now if you moved the setting away from Rome and set it in a fantasy land, however, those problems would go away.

And what really mean a Total War game for you and anyone else?
Only that part where we start the game, and already we have full control of our faction, and we just got in huge battles, build stuff in cities and that's it!?
I think I already played this part in the latest editions.

A small beautiful short story to better understand what happens in the Roman Empire.

Gaius Julius Caesar was born on 12 July 100 BC in Rome to patrician parents but not into a position of wealth and power.
Caesar grew up in a period of unrest and civil war in Rome. The increased size of the empire had led to cheap slave labour flooding into the country which in turned made many Roman workers unemployed. The Social Wars created turmoil all over Italy and Marius and Sulla were the great leaders of the time.

As a member of an old aristocratic family Julius was expected, at the completion of his education, to assume a modest office on the lower end of the long ladder of the Roman political career. However, Caesar was not like other Romans. Already at a young age he had realized that money was the key to Roman politics as the system had by his time long been corrupt.

His first step was to marry into a yet more distinguished family. He spent a few years making a name for himself in the military and then got married, to a woman named Cornelia, who was the daughter of an important man.
Things changed when Sulla ruled the Roman government as dictator. For one thing, Sulla ordered Julius to divorce Cornelia since she was from the family of one Sulla's enemies,. Caesar refused to obey the dictator's wishes.
Julius continued to grow as a soldier, distinguishing himself in battle against Rome's many enemies.

He was elected military tribune in 72 B.C. He was also making a name for himself as a lawyer and public speaker. He was elected quaestor in 68 B.C. and, therefore, got a seat in the Senate. He also married Pompeia, Sulla's granddaughter.
Caesar continued to rise in the rankings of government, being elected pontifex maximus (chief priest) and then praetor. He also continued his military successes and was elected consul, in 60 B.C.
The consulship was the top job in government at the time, but Caesar wasn't the only consul. In fact, Rome already had two consuls, Crassus and Pompey.
See my friend, everyone fought for power in Rome. Nobody was born direct dictator or emperor in that period in Rome

[ReluctantSamurai]

I mean, I suppose, if you wanted to realistically simulate a family's rise to power, you can make a business sim and a legal speechmaking sim, but again, that's not a Total War game.

I don't think this negates the idea of starting out as a vassal of some sorts, and rising up through the ranks to positions of power. History is fraught with such situations, and our very own Shogun TW is a perfect example. Toyotomi Hideyoshi anyone?

I rather like the idea of not repeating the same role as the original...that of head of a family or faction. The possibilities of making alliances with other factions against the SPQR, and then later back-stabbing your ally makes for good role-playing intrigue IMHO...:shrug:

[quadalpha]

And what really mean a Total War game for you and anyone else?
Only that part where we start the game, and already we have full control of our faction, and we just got in huge battles, build stuff in cities and that's it!?
I think I already played this part in the latest editions.

A small beautiful short story to better understand what happens in the Roman Empire.

Gaius Julius Caesar was born on 12 July 100 BC in Rome to patrician parents but not into a position of wealth and power.
Caesar grew up in a period of unrest and civil war in Rome. The increased size of the empire had led to cheap slave labour flooding into the country which in turned made many Roman workers unemployed. The Social Wars created turmoil all over Italy and Marius and Sulla were the great leaders of the time.

As a member of an old aristocratic family Julius was expected, at the completion of his education, to assume a modest office on the lower end of the long ladder of the Roman political career. However, Caesar was not like other Romans. Already at a young age he had realized that money was the key to Roman politics as the system had by his time long been corrupt.

His first step was to marry into a yet more distinguished family. He spent a few years making a name for himself in the military and then got married, to a woman named Cornelia, who was the daughter of an important man.
Things changed when Sulla ruled the Roman government as dictator. For one thing, Sulla ordered Julius to divorce Cornelia since she was from the family of one Sulla's enemies,. Caesar refused to obey the dictator's wishes.
Julius continued to grow as a soldier, distinguishing himself in battle against Rome's many enemies.

He was elected military tribune in 72 B.C. He was also making a name for himself as a lawyer and public speaker. He was elected quaestor in 68 B.C. and, therefore, got a seat in the Senate. He also married Pompeia, Sulla's granddaughter.
Caesar continued to rise in the rankings of government, being elected pontifex maximus (chief priest) and then praetor. He also continued his military successes and was elected consul, in 60 B.C.
The consulship was the top job in government at the time, but Caesar wasn't the only consul. In fact, Rome already had two consuls, Crassus and Pompey.
See my friend, everyone fought for power in Rome. Nobody was born direct dictator or emperor in that period in Rome


A Total War game, for me or anyone else, means a campaign map with a decent economic system, a touch of grand strategy, coupled with real-time battles. The ideas presented in the OP change the perspective of the game quite dramatically, as Total War has only ever made more or less token gestures towards RPGs.

I am afraid that I am not quite sophisticated enough to see the method in your colour schemes, nor do I see how a small beautiful, etc., story about the rise of Caesar works against my assertion that Roman citizens did not have private armies or that Roman citizens advanced through money and politics, of which latter point, in fact, the story of Caesar is a prime example. As for the moral you draw from the story, that 'nobody was born direct dictator or emperor in that period in Rome,' that is quite true (up to a certain point), but seems irrelevant to the current discussion, especially as you are never playing as an emperor or a dictator in a Total War game, but as a faction. You might note that playing as a faction, or some kind of 'guiding spirit' of a nation, though implausible, has been the fundamental conceit of every significant strategy franchise on the TW scale.

[quadalpha]

I don't think this negates the idea of starting out as a vassal of some sorts, and rising up through the ranks to positions of power. History is fraught with such situations, and our very own Shogun TW is a perfect example. Toyotomi Hideyoshi anyone?

I rather like the idea of not repeating the same role as the original...that of head of a family or faction. The possibilities of making alliances with other factions against the SPQR, and then later back-stabbing your ally makes for good role-playing intrigue IMHO...:shrug:

Shogun, yes. Rome, no. There was simply no system of vassalage in Rome in any feudal sense. Yes, the especially rich and prominent were patrons and had clients, but that relationship was never formal in any legalistic sense.

I agree there is a chance that factions within an empire could work well (in fact, aren't they doing something like this already?), and there are examples of Roman citizens plotting coups with foreign assistance (though to call it plotting against 'SPQR' is probably anachronistic; the conspirators were always working within the Roman political system rather than against it). I suppose my point about the OP, aside from ahistoricity and general silliness, is it would amount to feature creep on a massive scale if it ever came to pass.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I must agree with Quadalpha. By itself, perhaps that could be an interesting idea for a game (I'm sure there is probably some game akin to it, not necessarily in the same time period though), but it is simply not Total War. I do not believe I have to restate his point; Total War is, at its core, a grand strategy game. Not a "family rising to power" simulator. It is made for controlling a faction, not a person, and many factions do still have to start from humble beginnings.

The Total War formula has worked thus far, and in all honesty it has been changed enough each time to keep it fresh. I'm perfectly happy with it as it is, and would rather they put more time into improving it rather than creating some small-scale unrealistic political simulator.

[Gerula]

My ideas are only an addition to the old game, who have macro, grand scale campaign + is presented in general terms!
All other 'things' from the old TW series should be included, just not going to be boss of your entire empire from the beginning. You and other family will fight with other enemies of your nations, but also between you. I do not understand why you think it is so totally differen when is very similar with the first game ROME TW and if you only remember the first RomeTW and the campaign with Romans. There you had to choose between three Roman factions, the AI already was in control of other 2 Roman faction+ SQPR with his senate, so what I say is exactly the Rome Total War concept!

How were the first years of the city of Rome?
I do not think there was already a lot of very important political and military functions. So should be in this game. Suppose that in addition to the Roman Senate, will be there some families about 5/6-10 and even only 3/4 are sufficient. Some of them should be highly rich, others poor, some very loyal to Rome, others would betray Rome at any time, but for everyone the main goal is to become supreme leader of that unborn Empire. You could even arrange alliances with some of them for power in Rome, against other families. If they do make from Rome(or any other faction) a great empire together or separately, that it remains to be seen and that would be icing on the cake of this game. Basically, you should be the main actor for faction you choose. The other family, could create various problems to you in game like , but it could also help you.

In those days, very well-known Civilizations, had a lot of internal struggle as much as external, maybe even more. Examples can be given as:
-Greek with their city-states, fought each other like crazy
-Gauls tribes fought each other long enough
-Getae, who always had to 'share' something with their cousins ​​Thracians, where Getae was a tribes of Thracian origin, same as Dacians, or when after the death of Burebista in the former Dacian kingdom was given heavy fights between 4/5 leaders of various tribes of Dacian origins for who will be the new king for a long - long time.
-in general, all known tribes led fight each other, even if they were the same origin

And all this only as an addition + have already mentioned in the OP
"If you could create two types of campaign. The first option for the campaign, the classical and well known to all, that one we have used so far. For the second one, comes my ideas"

[mini]

Meh, what u r proposing just isnt tw to me


Sent from my iPhone.

[quadalpha]

I think the objections to these ideas have already been well explained, and none of your points raised later substantially answer those objections. I have only to add that to think of, say, 'the Greeks' as a single empire with lots of internal factions is rather anachronistic.

[Gerula]

I think the objections to these ideas have already been well explained, and none of your points raised later substantially answer those objections.
But you are very poor in explanations and arguments and just keep repeating to infinity that you don't like it. One thing is very sure related to your anachronistic problem, this game can not be done just as well as a history book, because free will in the game.
I just told you sir, in big terms, this idea it was already used it in first ROME TW, if you have played!
P.S: Are you jealous on my ideas ?6375

[quadalpha]

But you are very poor in explanations and arguments and just keep repeating to infinity that you don't like it. One thing is very sure related to your anachronistic problem, this game can not be done just as well as a history book, because free will in the game.
I just told you sir, in big terms, this idea it was already used it in first ROME TW, if you have played!
P.S: Are you jealous on my ideas ?6375

There is a not-so-fine distinction between a poor explanation on my part and an inability or unwillingness to read on your part. Perhaps bullet points will help:

1. Having private armies is silly.

2. Without private armies, your idea turns into a mass of new features that overcomplicate the economic and political systems, without a clear way of seguing into the current, faction-based models.

I won't patronise by quoting back in detail what you've written. You asked for comments, and you have mine to do with as you please. Kindly be assured there is no jealousy on your ideas for my part. I wish you the best of luck with them, though I personally would prefer if they did not show up in a Total War game.

[Gerula]

There is a not-so-fine distinction between a poor explanation on my part and an inability or unwillingness to read on your part. Perhaps bullet points will help:

1. Having private armies is silly.

2. Without private armies, your idea turns into a mass of new features that overcomplicate the economic and political systems, without a clear way of seguing into the current, faction-based models.


You know very well that there were legions or units that they were very loayle only to certain commanders, and would have not agreed to fight under command of others or other leaders for anything in the world and this is already in history books.

In my Idea, there will be two types of the same units for recruitment both similar and having the same balance, little different in color and loyalty, loyalty that will affect their cost. You want a very loyal unit, will be very expensive
-the ones recruited in my name, units that will be very loyal to me, but very expensive
-and the ones recruited in the SPQR name, less loyal to me but very cheap, also in a battle against the Roman Senate, would turn against me

I really like you, because you bother so much to find spots in the sun:yes:
P.S: They are not privet armies!!!

Edited:I understand that, do you hate my ideas so please allow others to express their opinions without being influenced by your continued negativity about my ideas, you already have yours. You made ​​very understandable and clear you dont like them.
I wish you a good day and move one

[quadalpha]

I have faith that other members of the ORG have wit enough to come to their own conclusions without being unduly influenced by my negativity. It would be a pleasure to take leave of this increasingly pointless and juvenile conversation, but professional interest compels me to make one last effort to clarify that Roman citizens did not recruit armies to command, either in their name or in the name of the republic. If you tried to recruit and arm other citizens, you would have been laughed at or thought mad. If you tried to arm Latin allies or slaves, you would have been declared an outlaw and tried for treason. Command of Romans and allies (the power of imperium) is vested in a commander by Senatorial appointment as an exercise of sovereignty. The loyalty of Caesar's troops was due to his military success, personal charisma, and promises of plunder, not because he paid extra to recruit them.

[Gerula]

I have faith that other members of the ORG have wit enough to come to their own conclusions without being unduly influenced by my negativity. It would be a pleasure to take leave of this increasingly pointless and juvenile conversation, but professional interest compels me to make one last effort to clarify that Roman citizens did not recruit armies to command, either in their name or in the name of the republic. If you tried to recruit and arm other citizens, you would have been laughed at or thought mad. If you tried to arm Latin allies or slaves, you would have been declared an outlaw and tried for treason. Command of Romans and allies (the power of imperium) is vested in a commander by Senatorial appointment as an exercise of sovereignty. The loyalty of Caesar's troops was due to his military success, personal charisma, and promises of plunder, not because he paid extra to recruit them.

You read all the OP or just read between the lines?
You seem like one of those who, for whatever reasons, they try only to destroy others ideas.
Lord have mercy, but to you Sir, I have to explain like to a little child so that you understand something from what I saying.

First of all draw a line in your head, between ROME TW GAME and HISTORY. Again this game can not and will not repeat all steps as your dear history!!!

Roman citizens did not recruit armies to command
Second, you confuse the game character with the player himself. Recruitment of units on your behalf, you take it too literally!
Recruitment of units can be done: On behalf of your family who leading the Rome, in the name of your rank title or your status that allows you to do that, or already an dictator or... who cares as long as, you the one in front of your computer, you have somehow to recruit those units! Comprende Mi Amigo ?
And where I say that "One unit has my marks" dont take it so literally again. Its the only way to distinguish between units who are more loyal to you, than they are for the Empire X.

Again I repeat like to a child who not pay any attention to what I say here. I have already specified that all this can come only as an alternative to the old and very known boring way to play a game from the TW series.
If you could create two types of campaign. The first option for the campaign, the classical and well known to all, that one we have used so far. For the second one, comes my ideas.

You already bored me with your nonsense.

[mini]

Recruitment of units can be done: On behalf of your family who leading the Rome, in the name of your rank title or your status that allows you to do that, or already an dictator or..
Such bs

À private person was never allowed to command troops.
And imperium was only bestowed for à limited amount of time



Sent from my iPhone.

[ReluctantSamurai]

However you might view the particular's of Gerula's ideas, I think the kernal (if I read it right) is to have a campaign other than what we had in RTWI...that is, you start the game as head of a faction and begin by conquering nearby provinces, etc., etc., etc., and in the case of a Roman faction, you take orders from the SPQR.

This would be a boring rehash, IMHO, and something new and refreshing is called for. Starting out as a minor faction among other minor factions gives plenty of room for interesting gameplay. Injecting a bit of role-playing is a good thing, IMHO...note I stress "a bit" and not overdone.

The Romans and the Greeks probably present the greatest possibilities for this, but the fractious Gallic tribes are not to be overlooked either.

As a quick example, off the top of my head, let's say you start as a minor landholder under Roman rule. You have smithy skills and one of your neighbors is a shipping mandate, and another has extensive farm holdings. You set up trade with those holdings, with the express intent of taking them over at some point. So the beginning of your campaign is rather quiet while you build up your army(s) and acquire money to finance a war. Your faction leader (and let's have a young man this time instead of one that's ready to croak:laugh4:) has certain traits or skills that help (or hinder) your ambitions and he can acquire new ones as the campaign progresses. At some point you begin to attract the attention of the Senate (can be both good and bad), and so the intrigue deepens. Bribery, assassination, and all of those kinds of things that went on are afoot. Perhaps you seek marriage into a powerful political family...thereby raising your faction's strength and prestige, etc.......

Something along these lines (not necessarily the way I described it) would be much preferable to me than the-same-old-same-old....

[Prussian to the Iron]

You read all the OP or just read between the lines?
You seem like one of those who, for whatever reasons, they try only to destroy others ideas.
Lord have mercy, but to you Sir, I have to explain like to a little child so that you understand something from what I saying.

First of all draw a line in your head, between ROME TW GAME and HISTORY. Again this game can not and will not repeat all steps as your dear history!!!

Second, you confuse the game character with the player himself. Recruitment of units on your behalf, you take it too literally!
Recruitment of units can be done: On behalf of your family who leading the Rome, in the name of your rank title or your status that allows you to do that, or already an dictator or... who cares as long as, you the one in front of your computer, you have somehow to recruit those units! Comprende Mi Amigo ?
And where I say that "One unit has my marks" dont take it so literally again. Its the only way to distinguish between units who are more loyal to you, than they are for the Empire X.

Again I repeat like to a child who not pay any attention to what I say here. I have already specified that all this can come only as an alternative to the old and very known boring way to play a game from the TW series.
If you could create two types of campaign. The first option for the campaign, the classical and well known to all, that one we have used so far. For the second one, comes my ideas.

You already bored me with your nonsense.

The fallacy in this comment, is too damn high!

Seriously though. It's both non-total war, and a bad idea by itself. Even if it was a good idea, I assure you that the developers would not risk wasting their time on it rather than make the grand campaign the best it can possibly be. It simply will not happen.


If you want to do something like this, Mount and Blade: Warband would be good for you. A large part of it is recruiting private armies and riding around, possibly joining kingdoms as Lords or Mercenaries, or simply staying independent. There is also some city management. Mods should allow you to play this out in a Roman era if you so wish.

[quadalpha]

As a quick example, off the top of my head, let's say you start as a minor landholder under Roman rule. You have smithy skills and one of your neighbors is a shipping mandate, and another has extensive farm holdings. You set up trade with those holdings, with the express intent of taking them over at some point. So the beginning of your campaign is rather quiet while you build up your army(s) and acquire money to finance a war. Your faction leader (and let's have a young man this time instead of one that's ready to croak:laugh4:) has certain traits or skills that help (or hinder) your ambitions and he can acquire new ones as the campaign progresses. At some point you begin to attract the attention of the Senate (can be both good and bad), and so the intrigue deepens. Bribery, assassination, and all of those kinds of things that went on are afoot. Perhaps you seek marriage into a powerful political family...thereby raising your faction's strength and prestige, etc.......

I do agree there is a great potential for more role-playing and more depth to the characters, but I think it would have to be done carefully and within, more or less, the current Total War framework. It's a question of game design and the perspective from which the game is played. Currently, the game is played from the perspective of a nebulous 'guiding spirit' of a faction, and it makes sense to spend money to recruit troops and build things. That can be abstracted easily. But as soon as you change the perspective to that of a family, then you have to consider if it's historically plausible. If your game is set in mediaeval Europe and your man is a minor feudal lord, then it would make perfect sense to spend money for your own troops, or, better, to spend money to increase your levy pool (see Crusader Kings). If your game is set in republican Rome, then it wouldn't make much sense, and it would make more sense if you had a mechanic to actually simulate the politics and business side (which you did suggest). The problem that arises then is how to incorporate this into the current game, and how to make the smaller scale business side relevant when you have control of a large empire. Personally, I think the closer focus on a family is a better fit for a game set in a feudal system, and I'd love to see a cross between Crusader Kings and Total War :2thumbsup:

Perhaps this thread can be turned to more constructive uses. How would you increase the depth of the campaign game while keeping in mind CA's stated objective of reducing late-game micromanagement?

[ReluctantSamurai]

How would you increase the depth of the campaign game while keeping in mind CA's stated objective of reducing late-game micromanagement?

Much depends on what the campaign requirements for victory are. As an analogy, I play a lot of GalCiv2. There are several different ways to win a campaign: by military might (conquer all other civs); by diplomacy (have alliances with all civs that are still standing); by technological superiority (reach the end of a very long tech tree); and by influence (have your civ garner the most galaxy-wide cultural influence).

Not that RTW2 has to have any of these, but an example of multiple ways to win a game.

I think the first discussion has to be of campaign parameters:shrug:


I do agree there is a great potential for more role-playing and more depth to the characters, but I think it would have to be done carefully and within, more or less, the current Total War framework.

I think that something to promote immersion into the game where you actually care about what happens to your people, and not just stand-up fighting, would go a long ways towards replayability and enjoyment....at least for me it would. I play mostly horse-archer factions in the original so I love my cavalry commanders. But in all honesty, if one of my Cavalry Genius commanders dies from old age, or gets killed in battle....meh, I can get another....and another....and another. There's nothing really unique about any of them except that they are good at commanding my cat armies. Now....if I were to have a once-in-a-lifetime general on whose horse I could build the foundation of my empire upon, well that would make me pray for the day he's born, and do my damnest to nurture his career to full bloom.

Just my 2denarii

[quadalpha]

The victory conditions question is really about what do you call victory in a grand strategy game. Paradox games tend to throw their hands up and say it's all up to the player, and in a sense Total War is equally unimaginative with its 'just conquer x percent of the map,' but diplomatic and other victory conditions are just as arbitrary. I think MTW's great achievements victory was a great idea, adding in more historical flavour, putting the player more immersively in the time period, and providing a direction to the campaign.

I think CA are trying to address your second point by trying to make the characters have more personality. I really liked MTW's system where a historical general might (or might not) show up if you recruit a certain unit in a certain province around a certain time. It made each general an event, and they are further individuated by the titles you can bestow. There was a series of buildings at the end of the tech tree whose only purpose was to make available titles and their concomitant benefits to a general you choose. And of course, you have a special place in your heart for the idiot savant prince born after a few decades of other factions' princesses not wanting to marry into your house ...

[ReluctantSamurai]

more historical flavour, putting the player more immersively in the time period, and providing a direction to the campaign.

Aye...providing direction is certainly key. Hopefully, CA gets away from the "conquer x provinces" condition. I still play a modified version of vanilla, and I don't ever finish a campaign anymore because it gets to be such a chore after conquering 30-35 provinces. You pretty much have to bull-rush the remaining provinces exterminating populace along the way because the distance-to-capital and cultural penalties will make the cities hard to control.

As to personalities...I dearly hope they get away from the twisted traits system as implemented. I always liked the idea but hated the gross extremes to which it was taken.

All that said...I can't see any reason why multiple victory requirements can't be set. (and btw, the diplo victory in GalCiv2 is quite clear...you must have an alliance with every major civilization remaining in the game).

[Gerula]

The loyalty of Caesar's troops was due to his military success, personal charisma, and promises of plunder, not because he paid extra to recruit them.

Yes, exactly, but this is just a game, where no one can create for AI a love system at the moment :yes: that's why my idea is more easily to complete.
You could very easily come with a better idea, not only harsh mines. :rtwno:
Maybe this one much simpler and more accurate, perhaps more to your liking.
-A single type of units to recruit
-After quite many laps around the 20/30 (or times the other number) units surviving after such a big number of turns, should increase their loyalty to a point near the maximum. Would be a bonus to you for your units that have survived a period so long. Even colors should be changed a bit, from dusty colors to much more strong colors.

[andrewt]

This is just a terrible idea. It sounds like adding an entire game of Second Life on top of the basic Total War game and then adding a minigame for just about any action a player undertakes.

[truth1337]

I like the idea of not being a God over the empire, who single-handledly controls finance, war, diplomacy etc. The extra depth of adding characters within the faction, and having limited own influence, could make the game so much deeper and more interesting. As for how to carry that out, that's another matter.

But I'd love to be e.g. a general and be unlucky to get a hedonist king who doesn't care about the security of the realm, so that suddenly you face a situation where you have improper supplies to fight an ongoing war, so you're forced to overthrow him, but in the following intrigue you get new challenges of all sorts from the different noble families that supported you, who demand all sorts of monetary rewards that kill your treasury. Maybe interest groups force you to fight a war that isn't optimal from a military and diplomatic point of view, as well.

The truth is, most nations weren't 100% optimal expansionist machines every year every century in history. Few nations have more than one or two major conqueror kings in their history. So sometimes playing as the general who has to fight for a careless hedonist king who only cares about his women, might add more depth, realism, and frustration (of the good kind!) to the campaign.

[quadalpha]

Sounds like an interesting game, but (here it comes again) it doesn't really sound like Total War, for most of the reasons rehashed above. Crusader Kings II is probably your best bet there.