Total War: Rome II - Battle of the Nile

[frostsid]

Here you go, the Gamespot interview and campaign gameplay here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R9N0etShQ4) :beam:

Not the best quality though, but it was the only video I found so far.

EDIT: Here (http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/06/12/total-war-rome-2-approaching-beta-watch-our-e3-sega-booth-tour/) is the PC GAMER interview.

[Vuk]

Thanks. I gotta say, those control points in battles really suck.

[Hooahguy]

Thanks. I gotta say, those control points in battles really suck.

Yeah, Im hoping that because it was a historical battle it had them and that the average battle wont have those control points (though having them for siege battles makes sense).

Also I did not like how fast paced the battle was. I felt it was over way too fast. I wish we could have seen the results of the artillery as it seemed that projectile from the ballista took out an entire unit, which is cheap, but Im hoping that only a few died but the rest just got knocked off their feet or something. Same with the rolling bales of hay that were on fire.

Though the naval battles seem really cool, looking forward to ramming everything.

[B-Wing]

I'm also hoping control points won't be feature in campaign battles. Doesn't really make sense. I've yet to play a naval battle in a TW game, and I'm hoping I can easily avoid these land+sea battles it in R2TW.

[Barkhorn1x]

"Quote Originally Posted by Vuk View Post
Thanks. I gotta say, those control points in battles really suck."

Agreed. And, is it just me of was the battle a bit too cartoony with these uber weapons simply devastating whole units?

Oh and I HATE the unit cards !!

[Rhyfelwyr]

It looks like control points won't just be for historical battles, since that battle was on the campaign map, and from what the guy said it sounds like they are a standard battle feature.

And yeah, unit cards looked horrible.

And I think that entire unit did get destroyed by that catapult shot.

And lol at the scythed chariots ploughing right through an entire unit of heavy infantry.

All in all it looks far too gamey to me.

[Barkhorn1x]

Check out the Gamespot vid towards the end in this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?144533-Total-War-Rome-II-Battle-of-the-Nile&p=2053532768#post2053532768

Control points in battle are in huh? This sucks.

Leave it to CA to keep pushing arcady like BS. Couldn't leave well enough alone because; "we want to entertain you."

Well you ain't entertaining me with this artificial mechanic. Oh, and this explains the earlier piece about;"...losing your baggage train means you lose the battle". Yup, the train is the Control Point.

Sigh.

Just hope it can be toggled off - just like those awful banners.

[frostsid]

Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJTTsDiqDeY) is the Gamespot official upload, you can see the complete video with better quality.

Anyway, I really don't think that capture points will be featured on historical battles only. I mean, I understand the use to them in siege battles, but I don't see the point in open battles.

Other than that, the campaign map looks gorgeous.

[Barkhorn1x]

Here's another interview w/ a new group using the same footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEDASzfHPtM

- This basically confirms capture points are the baggage train and will be in for all battles as - I quote loosely; "If they loose their baggage they'll lose the battle because they won't be able to supply their army. Huh? The army may be hungry after the battle but I'm pretty sure they will be OK for a few hours!
(Excuse me CA but I don't recall the clamor for inclusion fo this nonesense. Why did you have to do this? VERY disappointed)

- Units gain experience not post battle - but DURING the battle. More arcady power up BS.

This thing is going to need a DarthMod on day one of release.

[Hooahguy]

- Units gain experience not post battle - but DURING the battle. More arcady power up BS.

This thing is going to need a DarthMod on day one of release.
Actually AFAIK in at least the last two TW games they did that, if not also in Rome and M2TW.

[Spoonska]

Here is a replay of the IGN interview incase you missed it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJkeDMYtmJ0)

[Barkhorn1x]

Actually AFAIK in at least the last two TW games they did that, if not also in Rome and M2TW.

Yes you are correct. So I just didn't like the flying chevrons. Too arcady.

[andrewt]

I guess this is a true sequel to R:TW, which was the most arcadey game of the entire series. Hopefully, it won't break the immersion by a ridiculous degree.

[Hooahguy]

Yes you are correct. So I just didn't like the flying chevrons. Too arcady.

Yeah I hear you. I just hope there will be some modding available, as Darthmod retired for good this time, I hear, which saddens me as his mods are fantastic.

Someone also pointed out that maybe control points would be a good thing, as it forces you to think tactically. Look at the demo video- the control point was at the top of the hill, tactically an important point. Being forced to play for it would force you to change the age old tactics that we have been using for ages. Though if they really were put strategically for each battle Im not sure how that would be implemented as that implies that each map is pre-planned, which is what they said they wouldnt do. Man this is confusing.

[Arjos]

- This basically confirms capture points are the baggage train and will be in for all battles as - I quote loosely; "If they loose their baggage they'll lose the battle because they won't be able to supply their army. Huh? The army may be hungry after the battle but I'm pretty sure they will be OK for a few hours!

Close your eyes and think that it's all during the Diadochoi wars, soon as the baggages are taken, the Makedonian vets simply said: "That's it, I'm out!" :P

It would've been so cool if the army, who lost the supply train, started to suffer casualties in the campaign map and had to fight for it or go foraging. Fingers crossed for mods or an update down the line...

[Hooahguy]

Close your eyes and think that it's all during the Diadochoi wars, soon as the baggages are taken, the Makedonian vets simply said: "That's it, I'm out!" :P

Thats valid, maybe because they know that their supplies are gone then they fight with less morale?

[Arjos]

Thats valid, maybe because they know that their supplies are gone then they fight with less morale?

In the particular case I mentioned, their families and all their possessions were with the baggages. So they would've literally lost everything they owned...
But armies cut off from supplies, either pillaged, fought their way out, ate roots, resorted to cannibalism: whatever they could think to survive and then succeeded or died...

Those Makedones, were already in a civil war and just didn't see the point, since the other commander was more than pleased to enlist them ^^

[Hooahguy]

Well if thats the case then I would be surprised if they didnt get demoralized.

[Barkhorn1x]

Thats valid, maybe because they know that their supplies are gone then they fight with less morale?

The Macedonians had their baggage train looted at Gaugemela and they went on to win the battle.

Of course then they had the - much larger/richer - Persian baggage train in their possession. :yes:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Units gained experience during battles as far back as RTW - they glowed and sparkled for a few seconds after it happened. I don't have a major problem with that.

But the baggage train thing is ridiculous, it's painfully arcady. As if the men would just lay down and die as soon as their camp was looted, lol. There's plenty of solutions for them to survive - most obviously going on to win the battle and taking the enemies supplies. And even if they lost, they could always loot the local area.

[B-Wing]

Thinking more about the baggage train as a capture point, I'm guessing there will be a timer associated with it, similar to capturing city squares. Otherwise it would be Game Over as soon as an enemy unit marched over to one. Still, I think losing your baggage train during battle should simply cause a moral penalty to all your units rather than directly costing you the battle. That way there would still be a strong incentive to protect/recover the baggage camp.

The only good thing I see about the baggage train camp dynamic is that, as Hooahguy pointed out already, it will force players to take a different approach to defense than in previous TW games. Whenever I was on defense before, I would just position my men on the most favorable terrain possible. With the baggage train camp being automatically positioned on the battle map, it will force the defender to position his troops with protecting it in mind.

Do we know if baggage camps are only applicable to defenders? That is, will attacking armies also have baggage trains?

[Barkhorn1x]

Whenever I was on defense before, I would just position my men on the most favorable terrain possible. With the baggage train camp being automatically positioned on the battle map, it will force the defender to position his troops with protecting it in mind.

...and what? Any general remotely competent wouldn't position his baggage train on - or behind - the most favorable terrain possible?
IMO, it's a gimmic that we never had before and don't need now.

Who the EFF does CA think it's audience is anway? Why are they pushing this crap?

[B-Wing]

I was specifically referring to situations where I would use the borders of the battle map (the red lines) to cover my flanks. Or situations where I would place my entire army on an extremely steep slope with unreachable terrain behind me. With the baggage train camp being a capture point, I can't abuse the limitations of the game to gain an upper hand to the same degree as before. That's what I was referring to.

I'm not in favor of the baggage train being captured. Just looking on the bright side.

[Arjos]

Who the EFF does CA think it's audience is anway? Why are they pushing this crap?

Yappy kids WILL get money from stressed out 21st century mothers: fact :P

[Barkhorn1x]

Just looking on the bright side.

Oh, I get it but...:sweatdrop:

[Hooahguy]

...and what? Any general remotely competent wouldn't position his baggage train on - or behind - the most favorable terrain possible?
IMO, it's a gimmic that we never had before and don't need now.

Well, depending on the type of battle, like an ambush, it might not be on the most favorable terrain. But I agree, You should be able to place the baggage train.

I feel like the baggage train could be really well implemented. First off it would give you something to look after like in real life they had to. I think its status at the end of the battle should determine the rate of recovered injured. For instance, if you have 1,000 injured in a battle, preventing the enemy from destroying the baggage train means that 900 of them make a full recovery, but if you lose the baggage train then only 400 recover from their wounds.

[Barkhorn1x]

You bring up some good points Hooahguy. I am skeptical that CA thought of all that tho'. Let's see what happens then.

[Hooahguy]

Ha, yeah, thats why I said could.

[B-Wing]

Hooah, I'm feeling you on the baggage train's status having more effect on the aftermath of the battle than on the battle itself. But my extremely limited understanding of how baggage trains (and military logistics in general) functioned in ancient times brings one particular question to mind: is it actually possible for an army to win a battle yet lose their baggage train? I can't realistically imagine a retreating army carrying off all their enemies' supplies while running for their lives. Mounted troops would perhaps be more capable of doing so, but it still seems far-fetched that the army who wins the battle could have the majority of their supplies and/or retainers carried off with the losers.

This is another reason I personally would like to see the baggage camp function strictly as a morale shifter.

[Hooahguy]

They dont necessarily have to take the baggage, they could also destroy the baggage as they retreat. Heres how I see it going down:

Situation 1: You lose the baggage, then lose the battle.

While fighting an enemy cavalry contingent rides around and takes out your baggage train. Your morale takes a hit, not as serious as losing a general, but you still take a hit. You lose the battle and retreat. Of an army of 3000, you take 2000 casualties. Of those 2000 casualties, only 500-700 make a full recovery as you lost most of your medical capability.

Situation 2: You lose the baggage, but win the battle.

Same as before, but you win. You take 1000 casualties, but you only get 300 of them back.

Situation 3: You either dont lose the baggage or you capture the enemy baggage.

If they took your baggage, no extra loss of life since you took their baggage so you are fine.

[dge1]

Three things so far that I have come across that I don't like

The unit cards, the army cap and the capture points.

This baggage train thing looks like a candidate for number four. Folks over on the development and design sign should have paid a little more attention to some actual Roman campaign, particularly those of Julius Caesar.

Game looks great other-wise.

[TinCow]

Capturing a baggage train alone definitely should not result in a victory. There have been many examples in history where an army has lost a battle, because they captured the enemy baggage train. In those situations, the portion of the army that captured the train typically gets so absorbed in looting the thing that they forget to help out the rest of the army in the actual fighting resulting in a defeat of the main force, or are too disorganized to defend themselves when the enemy turns around and attacks them. An army that is routed typically loses most of their train to the enemy anyway, so even if you'd lost your own if you subsequently won the battle it's entirely possible that you'd be able to recover enough supplies to continue advancing.

[SalmonSoil]

I just hope that it takes quite a while to capture a capture point. Long enough that you have time to move some units back if your entire army has already crossed the map. That way you prevent player camping without forcing battles to revolve around defending capture points.

[Mongoose]

Involving supplies during battle is an awesome idea. Previous Total War games never represented logistics that well; the best examples I can think of are the Stainless Steel mod for M2TW and Shogun 2, and both failed to fully represent the tactical and strategic importance of baggage.

Making the capture of the baggage train completely win the battle is rather arcadey and weird. It might actually led to more interesting battles, though, even if the concept is divorced from reality.

The "win/lose" mechanics have always been arcade. In Total War games, unless you're fighting an infantry army with a mostly cavalry army, there is no such thing as a strategic retreat off the map, or fighting to secure and better position without necessarily wiping out the opposition. In most cases, one army kills the other, and the defeated stragglers are either mopped up later or meet up with a new army. The process of withdrawing from combat usually kills most of the retreating troops, even if they are disciplined soldiers retreating under orders, and the survivors suffer penalties on the campaign map while the winning army recoups many of its wounded.

In my opinion, armies in battle should be able to actually change their position on the campaign map by moving around the battle field, and it should be possible to call in nearby, but not quite adjacent, troops under other commanders, with a hefty time cost, of course. The trouble is, when do figure out when to end the battle? Perhaps have an "end engagement" button, and when all commanders involved press it, it ends. Events like night coming could also be a trigger. Along with this, I would also like harsher exhaustion penalties in combat, with troops who are tired enough not able to fight.

The separate campaign and battle spheres worked great for previous Total War games and made them fun, innovative, and perhaps even a little addicting. Yet as much of an innovation as it was, the degree they're separated is starting to feel conventional and limiting lately. On a more positive note, I was glad to see shore bombardments and Fall of the Samurai, and with the combined fleet and land battles, it seems like it's an issue they've at least thought about for Rome II.

[quadalpha]

This is where I jump in and trumpet my solution of an operational layer between strategic and tactical. It would solve the problem of gamey battles divorced from all reality.

[Hooahguy]

You guys do realize that baggage trains will only be in battles when one army was in the forced march stance, right?

And that capture points are just in siege battles?

[B-Wing]

That info was released after the video, but yes, I am very much relieved to learn it. :yes:

[quadalpha]

I think this is new. The same battle from the Roman side:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e27MtFbxK4k

Not sure why they censored the guy's T-shirt.

[hoom]

I like baggage trains.
CA have said that they won't be in every battle though.
I believe will only show up if the army was in Forced March mode.

As others have suggested arguably a morale/aftermath effect would be better than a win/lose.