Rome Total War

[solypsist]

With the announcement of RTW, I figured this thread might be a good way to cut down on repeat threads, or at least have a more centralized location for discussions about it. It also will maximize exposure to certain themes, hopefully eliminating threads with only 1 or 2 replies that don't get seen because of the high volume of posts here already; also it's easier for the devs to access rather than 50 short threads.
Since an RTW forum is still in the far future (remember we still have the Viking expansion coming out) discussions about RTW gameplay should be kept in the Main Hall.

[The Marcher Lord]

Well, they did mention beach landings in the PC Gamer article so i'm going to remain optimistic and hope that means we get some 3d ships and potentially some sea battles too.

I'd like to see the full range of commonly used artillery and perhaps artillery mounted on siege towers.

Any chance of having the historically correct legions represented on banners for each period or are we going to have generic units and standards across the Republic and Empire.

Any chance of a Jewish War campaign with the Masada siege ? come to think of it - will there be siege ramps ?

It sounds like pretty much everything else I could have hoped for will be in there........

[Stephen Hummell]

Will we get to play as celts or germans or huns
Thats it

FORZA ROMA

[Vertigo10]

In all honesty, as long as they stick to the promises claimed in the PC Gamer UK article, I'll be in heaven. Really. I'll stay in my room for 4 months, and I'll only stop because I'll have died of starvation. Then my parents can sue CA. Huzzah

-Vert

[King James I]

Probably not much apart from what they promised in the PC Gamer magazine, the main thing I want more of is more information. . Such as what factions are in the game, what the trade mechanics are in the game, how naval combat will be handled, what the A.I. is like, its nice to have flashy graphics in the game, but the most important aspect of computer games is the A.I, at least in the SP, that brings another thought, the article doesn't mention any thing about multiplayer campaigns and you would have thought they would have mentioned that, if it is going to be in the game, unless CA are being sneaky buggers again,(I HOPE), another thing they don't mention is how long the game last i.e how many years the game lasts, and when it actually starts starts, how units/armarments are recruited, what resources are going to be used e.t.c. I hope we find out more information soon, its bad enough waiting for the game, its even worse waiting for more information from the devs. Ok there are a few things I would like that aren't mention such as, ability to make ditches, palisades, caltrops, and other dastardly obstacles on the tactical map, ramps for storming fortresses would be cool too(Romans never went through a siege or castle assault without building these and moles and causeways for assaulting castles that are protected by water and a population limit, say each civilization has a set amount of population in their territory and they reproduce depending on their general health, happiness, lack of hunger e.t.c. Say if peoples health and happiness drops and they go hungry cos of hunger through famines or bad management then the population and reproduction would drop. So then people would have to watch how the population is managed (some people are recruited in the army, so that would mean there would be less people to work the farms which would mean there would be less food for the popultation to eat, meaning population and reproduction would drop) For more ideas read Darkmoor Dragon's article on his website And yeah its just like reading Darkmoor Dragons article on the fourbelow zero website. If you guys want to read it,go to www.fourbelowzero.com/games/strategy/MTW/AAR.htm

[Cardinal]

I mentiomed this in another string, but to get it all in one place, (good idea) I'll do it again.

Improve the siege/castle assult with moats, ability to assult with ladders, and fighting on the rampards (and not the two armies marching in the castle doing battle as they were in the field.

Sea battles I am not too sure about though. I don't think the romans had that many either, and having big boats ramming eachother has a rather limited appeal in my books. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Alrowan]

i want them to finnish it o thier word in the article overnight, then release it the next day...

i cant wait for a year http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[Basileus]

I just hope we get some greek factions in the game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

and that we get the game as soon as possible hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

i wish for an early release like tommorow I KNOW

YO CA DUDES, I WANNA BE A BETA TESTER.

[Lord Romulous]

If all the elements in the PC Gamer article make it into the game i will be very happy.

some additional cool things to add would be

Diplomacy.
devs please check out diplomacy thread for other good ideas by other forum goers.diplomacy thread (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=4535)
- enable factions to be under the yoke of larger more powerful factions. eg the larger faction demands not only tribute but can order to faction under yoke to attack another factions units or supply forces to your army etc or vote a certain way in large multiple faction alliance meetings (see below)
edit - i beleive the word i was looking for was vassals

- have alliances or leagues involving many factions like the Hellenic league etc (wrong time period but you know what i mean) These alliances are made up of multiple nations and could be of the same race for example the Greeks or the Carthaginians etc. there might be 10 nations in the league all with their own interests.
eg some factions might want to attack the enemy, some pursue trading with enemy etc. If your faction has other factions under its yoke you can direct them to vote with you in the decision making body of the league. each faction gets one vote. once the vote has been taken the entire alliance has to follow the chosen course of action eg make war or pursue peace etc. if a nation decides not to follow the alliance decision all other alliance members declare war on it.

- how to decide what influence a faction has. I do not like that in MTW the sole determining factor on influence is how often you attack other factions. Attack often influence goes up, attack less influence goes down.
IMO influence should be a combination of how large your empire is, how large your army is, how close your borders are to the factions you want to influence, how important trade with your empire is to other factions.
eg a small faction should not be that influenced by a large empire on the other side of Europe.(unless that small nation sole source of trade is the large empire ) however a small faction sharing a border with that large empire would be very influenced.

- if you allow an ally to pass through your land you can specify which route the ally has to take. so you can have appropriate guard forces in the area to prevent ally betraying you and going on destruction spree. eg I don’t want to have an ally taking a trek across my key farming and gold provinces in order to get to a battle on the other side of my empire.

Battles
- the 3d battles look great and i love how whole cities have been included in the battle map (which is also the strat map - v cool)
I was greatly encouraged to see raiding included. I hope this is extensively developed
Eg raids for slaves, raids for destruction, raids under false colours eg you raid wearing another factions colours and the faction you raided blames the wrong guy (of course if the raid is resisted and some of your men are taken prisoner then they will be interrogated and reveal your deception. So you will now have two faction pissed off at you. The faction you raided and the faction you tired to pin the blame on. Risk vs reward. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

- A never ending battle map would be great. Eg no borders so you cant camp on the edge of the map anymore. (although this cheap trick is one I use often and despair of getting victories with out it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )

The AI
- now that you have added so many new elements into the game please also put a major effort into the ai. So many great games have fallen into a mediocrity because there was not a solid ai to back up the bells and whistles. No resting on laurels http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif , the ai in mtw was quite good but for rtw it needs to be much better.


Sieges
- a minor thing but allow the gate house to collapse when hit with siege weapons. The doors only get forced inwards if you are using a a battering ram or aim the siege weapons directly at the door. Otherwise the whole gatehouse just comes down like any other section of wall.

- if a attacking ai can cope allow us to direct the defensive weapons on the castle walls as defender eg we decide what the catapults and arrows and boiling oil will fire at. With units on walls I assume this is already implemented ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Vices and Virtues.
some more work needs to be done here. they are a good idea but the contradicting vices need to be fixed. once you get a vice or a virture you need to keep doing the things that got you that vice eg win battles or constantly run from field in case of good runner.
please no more run from battlefield once due to overwhealming odds and then you have bad vice for life.
eg the vices and virtues should keep up with the what the unit is currently doing.

Mod-ability
Please make this game extensivly modable.
i would love if everything was modable.
- put in menu like in half life where you get o choose the mod. so you dont have to install and reinstall etc to play different mods or revert to orginal version.

Ok thats it for now

[Jango Fett]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif I WISH that they will make an option in rtw that will allow you to turn off labels in battle so that you do not know what units u are fighting but only know your own. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Jango Fett]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/redface.gif oh and also i hope CA have the brains to make men hide behind their shields when arrows are fired at them, unlike in stw and mtw where they are so doofy and just get pounded by arrows when they have shields its stupidity http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

SYRIAN ARCHERSthat is my only wish,what would romans do without them?especially against the persian scum

[Lord Romulous]

something that shadeflanders mentioned in another thread has me concerned.

he said it looks like it could be a full rts in the strat map rather than a turn based like it is now.

i hate full rts's. i love the turn based style of mtw and am hoping it will continue with rtw.

the problem with full rts IMHO is that they become click fests.
with more emphasis on how fast you can move the mouse and clck (click build buttom more times and move armies faster) than proper strategy. .

i dont just want a pause button where everything freezes like in current rts's. i want to be able to stop the running of time, look over all the information available to me, consider my moves, give orders and then press go.

this could be the biggest disapointment ever if it is true.

can a ca devloper please confirm that rome total war will not be a full rts please.

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (Stephen Hummell @ Jan. 11 2003,18:41)]Get to play as celts & germans ...
Thats it
yup, I'm with ya

[Pretz]

I would like the Persians and the various Greek city states to be included I also hope that Celts are not represented as one unified nation as this would be historically inaccurate, the Romans played different Celtic tribes off against one another. In fact I'd rather all Celts were represented as rebels in a similar way to MTW than as one unified faction.

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (Pretz @ Jan. 12 2003,08:21)]In fact I'd rather all Celts were represented as rebels in a similar way to MTW than as one unified faction.
Well you'd still have problem there as well. They have to change the mechanics so that unlike STW/MTW when you go to war with one rebel faction you don't go to war with all.

What they could do however is have the Celts and Germans played by one or two of the main respective tribes. eg. The Helvetii or Belgae for Gauls (Continental Celts)and Suevi or Ubii for Germans. You then embark on conquering the other tribes / rebels in that area (who would have the same culture /type of untis etc)to bring them under your benevolent control


Cheers

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Quote[/b] (Lord Romulous @ Jan. 12 2003,11:48)]i dont just want a pause button where everything freezes like in current rts's. i want to be able to stop the running of time, look over all the information available to me, consider my moves, give orders and then press go.

can a ca devloper please confirm that rome total war will not be a full rts please.
No, it's not a 'full' RTS - it's much much more... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Rest assured, the campaign map is still turnbased. Also on the battlefield you can now pause the game, give orders, even queue them - all orders are now queue-able, not just movement ones - and then unpause and let it roll.

[Kraxis]

Thanks Jerome, you put my fears to rest.

But now I have to ask, PC Gamer must be wrong in that March 2003 right (you can answer that can't you)?

So, now we know it is 'something more' I wonder how far troops can travel, I mean since there won't be border anymore we can't just travel one province at a time, and if often travel patch will become roads... So many things... so much time (or is there?).

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 12 2003,14:57)]But now I have to ask, PC Gamer must be wrong in that March 2003 right (you can answer that can't you)?
We're still waiting on the official announcement, and so I'm keeping my posts to a minimum, but, yes, March 2003 is a typo. I can't say exactly when it will be ready, but end of '03 is a decent rough estimate...

[Kraxis]

Thanks... you actually answered more than I expected. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Lord Romulous]

Quote[/b] (JeromeGrasdyke @ Jan. 12 2003,09:42)]
Quote[/b] (Lord Romulous @ Jan. 12 2003,11:48)]i dont just want a pause button where everything freezes like in current rts's. i want to be able to stop the running of time, look over all the information available to me, consider my moves, give orders and then press go.

can a ca devloper please confirm that rome total war will not be a full rts please.
No, it's not a 'full' RTS - it's much much more... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Rest assured, the campaign map is still turnbased. Also on the battlefield you can now pause the game, give orders, even queue them - all orders are now queue-able, not just movement ones - and then unpause and let it roll.
many thanks jerome. i was quite worried.

the great thing about ca is that you guys appear committed to making serious strat games (as well as games that are heaps of fun )

i am very pleased that with the ever increasing profile of the company you are not attempting to go mass market with a game that is catered to the 13 - 17 year old market. of course a 16 year old can have a blast with the game they just need a little patience http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

thanks for the added info on the queue-able feature. that will definitly come in handy when attempting to negoticate cities. in castle battles in mtw i had long wanted a function where i could say umit x moves to point z then it should attack enemy knight unit. . (if i have what you mean by queue-able understood)

[FasT]

i have only one wish...This should cover most things...

More than one patch......2 maybe 3 or 4 or 5 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

All i can say is dont lets us down this time..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Catiline]

I want an avoid combat option. missile units can be set to automatically fall back, I want to see others, especially cavalry able to do the same, i'm sick of horse not avoiding spear on their own if you don't see them get caught.

[Stormer]

well all my questions we awnserd in the pc gamer but what size units will they have will they cut down cause of such good graphics.

[Jagger]

I am really looking forward to this game

One aspect that I would like to see is morale variable dependent on why they are fighting.

For example, units fighting for their own Kings and defending their own country would have higher moral. Rebellions against foreign occupying troops would have higher morale since they are trying to overthrow tyranny. If I conquer a province and immediately start raising troops, those troops should have lower morale, should have a greater chance of desertion or even switching sides during battle because they have no loyalty to me. I just destroyed their King, raped, pillaged and looted their homes and now he wants me to fight for him?

It would also be nice to have troops identified by region. Spearmen raise from Genoa would be identified as Genoese Spearmen. Horsemen from Rome would be identified as Roman horsemen. Or the unit could be identified by leader such as Paul's Genoese Spearmen.

I always find it easier to identify with my troops if they aren't just generic spearmen or generic cavalry. Of course, similiar types could still be joined but perhaps with a loss of morale for the troops losing their unit identity.

Thanks for listening and I can't wait to see this game.

[solypsist]

I would like to see different combat characteristics with some armies. Right now, in MTW, each army pretty much acts the same: marching in square formation, engaging from frontal charges, etc.

It would be a good reflection to have Roman factions behave in a disciplined order while, say, Germanic tribes behave more in a mob or guerilla mode. The game mechanics would still be the same, but there would be advantages and disadvantages with each style.

[spiffy_scimitar]

I had already stated this in another thread but since this is a compilation thread, here it is again.

In Shogun and Medieval, individual soldier animation is completely in sync with he rest of his unit. When they march or run, every single soldier in that unit will step at the same time, hold their weapon at the same angle, and basically look like a bunch of clone soldiers from Star Wars Ep2. In RTW pics, it looks to be the same. It would be nice to have the animations offsetted, making the armies move in a much more organic and less syncronized fashion.

Also, I want blood a la Myth series.

And, I want battle cries that don't sound Japanese.

I'd rather see generals and kings mortal rather than superheros. Let people mod in Achilles and Hercules if they will, but historically I've never heard of a single man fighting off 300 enemies.

Bridge battles: How realistic where they? Historically, would a general charge across a narrow bridge to the slaughter, or ford it at a farther and shallower point? Perhaps in Rtw allow an attacker at a bridge to allow cavalry to start on the opposite side to simulate them having crossed at another point where infantry could not.

And, I wonder, will the Colosseum be able to train gladiators ?

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (spiffy_scimitar @ Jan. 12 2003,22:49)]Bridge battles: How realistic where they? Historically, would a general charge across a narrow bridge to the slaughter, or ford it at a farther and shallower point? Perhaps in Rtw allow an attacker at a bridge to allow cavalry to start on the opposite side to simulate them having crossed at another point where infantry could not.
I read somewhere (possibly at ezboard) that there will be fording of rivers.

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (spiffy_scimitar @ Jan. 12 2003,22:49)]I had already stated this in another thread but since this is a compilation thread, here it is again.

In Shogun and Medieval, individual soldier animation is completely in sync with he rest of his unit. When they march or run, every single soldier in that unit will step at the same time, hold their weapon at the same angle, and basically look like a bunch of clone soldiers from Star Wars Ep2. In RTW pics, it looks to be the same. It would be nice to have the animations offsetted, making the armies move in a much more organic and less syncronized fashion.

Also, I want blood a la Myth series.

And, I want battle cries that don't sound Japanese.

I'd rather see generals and kings mortal rather than superheros. Let people mod in Achilles and Hercules if they will, but historically I've never heard of a single man fighting off 300 enemies.

Bridge battles: How realistic where they? Historically, would a general charge across a narrow bridge to the slaughter, or ford it at a farther and shallower point? Perhaps in Rtw allow an attacker at a bridge to allow cavalry to start on the opposite side to simulate them having crossed at another point where infantry could not.

And, I wonder, will the Colosseum be able to train gladiators ?
Another thing to add to your mortal generals paragraph would be that generals should die after such a period, much like MTW's kings do, I think it would totaly unbalance the game in Rome and maybe Carthage's favour with their really good generals(imagine what would would have happened if Hannibal and Julius Caesar were immortal, all civilizations in the world would have been ripped apart and divided between Carthage and Rome). An option to change this would of course be need for those of whom don't agree with me of course.

[King James I]

A new stat to add would be a organization stat. The unit would have defense penalties with such factors as, when moving over rough ground, moving through water, over marshes, when under fire from skirmishers, when hit from the flanks or rear. e.t.c., the organization penalties should work like this if a unit suffers come under these conditions it would receive a org penalty and a corresponding defense penalty. I think it should depend on factors such as morale, armour rating e.t.c.) Because historically units such as the Greek phalanx were especially vulnurable from the left side, and later the Successor Phalangalists were so heavily armoured they could hardly do an about face, and they were especailly vulnurable when moving over rough ground, where they would be more easily disorganized.

[King James I]

Sorry I double posted, but I was having trouble with my internet connection and only just now learned you can edit my post.

[A.Saturnus]

I would like to see individual unit AI. In MTW, each unit just does what you told them (except impetious charging), but each unit has a leader. Spearmen units should automatically build a line with each other, cav should roam the flanks and heavy inf should help their dudes that get slaughtered 20 meters away.

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (spiffy_scimitar @ Jan. 12 2003,22:49)]When they march or run, every single soldier in that unit will step at the same time, hold their weapon at the same angle, and basically look like a bunch of clone soldiers from Star Wars Ep2. In RTW pics, it looks to be the same. It would be nice to have the animations offsetted, making the armies move in a much more organic and less syncronized fashion.

Also, I want blood.

And, I want battle cries that don't sound Japanese.
Have another look at the preview movie ..in slow mo if need be. They have
done a great job at offsetting step etc. I wondered the same thing and
noticed how good it looked. Seems every soldier is a fraction different to
all others.


yes ..it's just a little too clinical.


yes ..No more of the high pitch Ohhooo. I do hope they have the authentic
dialect (to the best of Historical knowledge)for each faction with
appropriate accent. eg. none of the Ok ta tee in English Cockney for all
Latin troops like the French etc. I wanna hear Germans, Gauls, Romans,
Egyptians etc etc call out in their native tongues It would be great if the
Germans and Gauls would do a bit of the yelling around the battle field
before battle. Either to distract the enemy from a hidden ambush or just for
fear and general intimidation.

Imagine marching your legions through thick woods coming on dusk with a
slight fog. All is quite but for the trudge of your men. You hear a lone
German yell some curse.....it echos over the landscape and woods...your men
get edgy. Several minutes pass and there seems to be a general din abrupting
all around you. Countless tribesman appear from the shadows nashing teeth
and screaming in a primeval animalistic tongue ...you hear a voice
"Quinctilius Varus, give me back my legions" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif Oh NO you have
stumbled into the Teutoberger Wald

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Cheers

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ Jan. 13 2003,17:26)]Oh NO you have
stumbled into the Teutoberger Wald
Then it is good to know you are named Arminius.

[PSYCHO]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Was having a discussion with my fiancee last night. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif "If we have a boy...how bout we name him Arminius?" .........(*evil glare*) .... "ok ...Vercingetrix?" ...."arr..." ...

[Catiline]

I managed to get a kitten named Diomedes. Wouldn't want to try the argument with a baby http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ Jan. 13 2003,18:59)]http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Was having a discussion with my fiancee last night. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif "If we have a boy...how bout we name him Arminius?" .........(*evil glare*) .... "ok ...Vercingetrix?" ...."arr..." ...
Were you watching the Lost Legions of Varus thing on SBS on the weekend Psycho??

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (Catiline @ Jan. 13 2003,19:09)]I managed to get a kitten named Diomedes. Wouldn't want to try the argument with a baby http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Well friend...a cat's a start. You've got further than I. I'm not even allowed to name parts of my person http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Hmmm...what about Bicuss Dicuss for a boy?


Cheers
Woderwick

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (deejayvee @ Jan. 13 2003,19:11)]Were you watching the Lost Legions of Varus thing on SBS on the weekend Psycho??
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif yup Was meant to go out with the boys. I was doing the 'I'm bored' flicking thing with tele just before I was heading out and stumbled on the "coming up next" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Have always been fascinated by it....that and Alesia. What a contrast.

Did you get to see it. I was amazed that they have actually found the exact site of the last stand ...and the Germans had built field fortifications Stuff the MBA...I'm off to do Archaeology ......"sorry what was that dear?" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif


Cheers

[deejayvee]

Yeah, I saw it. I saw the adds for it last Tuesday when watching the Teutons, Vandals, Goths and Huns series (Tuesday 7:30pm SBS - last week was the first of a 6 part series). Between the two, I'd say that The Lost Legions of Varus was better.

[Dionysus9]

Quote[/b] (Catiline @ Jan. 13 2003,19:09)]I managed to get a kitten named Diomedes. Wouldn't want to try the argument with a baby http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Best I could manage out of my wife was Alexander. She vetoed Xerxes and Darius...

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (King James I @ Jan. 13 2003,03:09)]Legionaries
These guys should be very well trained and discipline with high morale and should be able to assume various formations that I will detail below.
Well the Tortoise was a formation used solely when approaching walls in a seige, the "saw" and "orb" I've never heard of, but I have heard of eth hare - IIRC it's referenced in an ancient text known as Asterx and Ceasar or somethign like that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif


The standard formation for receiving cavalry by legionaries was for the front 2 ranks to double up and present their pila like spears, the rear ranks would throw their pila as the cavalry came close then lean into the front two to take the shock - the pila was a lousy spear and a line of its "glittering spearpoints" was apparently not anything like sufficient to stop cavalry charging

Not all legionaries were well trained and high morale by any means - troops stationed in the East for long periods were considered "soft" compared to those stationed in Germany, while from time to time raw recruit legions were used in combat without anything like sufficient training. A few Legions also broke en masse - famously Legio XXI Rapax during the Dacian wars - and were disbanded in toto.

I can see there's going to be a whole heap of myths that will need disposing of when RTW comes out...just like longbows for MTW. Oh well....I'd better start dusting off the texts already http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (deejayvee @ Jan. 13 2003,21:59)]Yeah, I saw it. I saw the adds for it last Tuesday when watching the Teutons, Vandals, Goths and Huns series (Tuesday 7:30pm SBS - last week was the first of a 6 part series). Between the two, I'd say that The Lost Legions of Varus was better.
deejayvee ..what's on tonight? Is it worth me giving up all this fun I'm having at work and getting home to see it?

Cheers

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Jan. 13 2003,22:25)]
Quote[/b] (King James I @ Jan. 13 2003,03:09)]Legionaries
These guys should be very well trained and discipline with high morale and should be able to assume various formations that I will detail below.
Well the Tortoise was a formation used solely when approaching walls in a seige, the "saw" and "orb" I've never heard of, but I have heard of eth hare - IIRC it's referenced in an ancient text known as Asterx and Ceasar or somethign like that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif


The standard formation for receiving cavalry by legionaries was for the front 2 ranks to double up and present their pila like spears, the rear ranks would throw their pila as the cavalry came close then lean into the front two to take the shock - the pila was a lousy spear and a line of its "glittering spearpoints" was apparently not anything like sufficient to stop cavalry charging

Not all legionaries were well trained and high morale by any means - troops stationed in the East for long periods were considered "soft" compared to those stationed in Germany, while from time to time raw recruit legions were used in combat without anything like sufficient training. A few Legions also broke en masse - famously Legio XXI Rapax during the Dacian wars - and were disbanded in toto.

I can see there's going to be a whole heap of myths that will need disposing of when RTW comes out...just like longbows for MTW. Oh well....I'd better start dusting off the texts already http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Yeah it is hard to know everything, especially when the information is almost 2,000 years old, you can't expect to have read every book on Roman wafare. But yea I'm willing to admit that my sources could be wrong as some of their information might of been written by people who weren't even there or maybe through second, third, or even fourth hand accounts. I assume that thing about the hare was scarcastic, LOL. How affective was the standard anti-cavalry formation? . Yes I do realise the tortoise formation was primarily used in fortress assaults, but there would have been times when the Romans would have had to face large numbers of archers, such as in their Parthian campaigns where they had to adopt new tactics,(especailly Antony's, who found a way to survive the Parthians highly penetrating arrows, by having standing legionares hold their shields in front of those who were kneeling, thus the overlapping shields gave the necessary double or even treble thickening).I'm pretty sure my post didn't say that the spears stopped the cavalry charge, but the it was the shield wall that stopped it. Thats what I got from it, and also weren't the trinarii armed with a hastus or thrusting spear, and not only the gladius and pilum?


PS.
Apparently the Parthian composite bows were powerful enough to launch their arrows, so that they would staple the shields to their enemy's arms or their feet to the ground. As I have said above nobody could know everything about the Roman military and their campaigns, and since the books I have read barely mentions Rome's Dacian campaigns, could you recommend some source material.

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ Jan. 14 2003,01:08)]deejayvee ..what's on tonight? Is it worth me giving up all this fun I'm having at work and getting home to see it?

Cheers
Psycho, unfortunately I have no idea who tonight's show is about. I was almost going to miss it too. I'm heading off to go see "Bowling for Columbine" tonight and my friends wanted to see it at 6:30 Luckily they're history-minded people too and didn't want to miss it either.


Edit: By the way, it's worth watching compared to everything else that's on tv. But seeing as though you seem to be having so much fun at work, you're probably better off forgetting it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[MotorskillsSan]

I would like to be able to call up a list of leaders by Acumen, Dread and Piety (etc) ratings, as well as by Geography (and Leadership ratings) as is the case now.

I would like army banners to reflect the fact that they contain Princes (or the RTW equivalent), ideally provincial leaders also.

I would also like to be able to set Loyalty levels (say 150%), and have the taxes automatically set across the Empire, and by individual province. Pop-ups would then...er...pop up when the tax needed to be changed to bring the Loyalty back to its intended limit.


I would like to be able to program units (especially damaged ones) to travel to such and such a province, enter such and such a castle, and be repaired / upgraded.

[lafayette]

To play Roman tactics you need new formation types.

Rome used to set up its army in three lines mostly in a checkerboard formation.

The youngest soldiers (hastati) formed the front line. Often strenghtened with skimishers (velites). Behind them come the slightly older men (principes). In the rear were the older veterans (triarii). All had their pilum (spear) and gladius (sword), except for the triarri, they still had the long hoplite spear

Each of the three lines was divided into ten maniples, those of hastati and principes (mostly costiting of 120 to 160 men), with triarrii in the 3rd line (mostly in maniples of 60 men). (Napolean was pretty much inspired by this, with the imperial guard always in rear and often only waiting for some action. And even the Imperial guard was formed in the young, middle, and old guard).

The checkerboard formation was set up in such a way that between every maniple there was a gap. The second line was place behind the first line in such a way that it covered the gaps of the first line. The third line, in the same way positioned to cover the second line, mostly set up a strong defensive stand, often kneeled, shields on the ground and spears up.

A typical Roman battle would be that the first line would check the enemy and hold them. The second line would move in when the first line was getting realy tired. Mostly this was enough to give the tired enemy a devastating blow. If that did not work the veterans would come in for a 'coup de grace". Cavalry was put up on the flanks and there main task was checking the enemies cavalry, flanking the enemy line and pursuit of a routing enemy.

If the battle continued for a long time. The tired first line could slipp through the gaps of the second line, while the second line moves in and takes over. When the battle went bad, the veterans would be the last barrier to rally behind. But it was rare that Romans had to withdraw to a line behind. Mostly all the lines were sent in during the battle. Though sending in the triarrii meant that the battle was not easy or even going bad.

A lot of Roman battles started with a frontal attack. Often the collapsing enemy would give the Romans possablities to encircle the fighting enemy line. Though the maniple/checkerboard system gave great flexablity, most of Romes enemies were more mobile. Parths, Huns, wild Celts. In the late centuries Rome increased the number of (heavy) cavalry drastically.

Well. It would be interesting to see if it is possible to have these formations in RTW. Especially when selecting group formations. The checkerboard, the triple lines (triplex acies), a inward and outward bending formation.

The Germanic formations should be much more simple. Dense masses of fierce warriors. But in later stages they too adapted some Roman tactics. Never that disciplined though.
The Greek Phalanx would be great. Actually they hold their ground at Magnesia.

Ofcourse there are formation types for the maniples like the famous "turtle', a loose formation, a closed round defensive formation, and more. Roman unit formations were never very deep, but never very stretched too. A Roman army would consist of many similar maniples that could form a stretched line when in contact with the enemy.

As for the units, just some thoughts:
Hastati - pilum and gladius
Principes - pilum and gladius, heavy
Triarri - spear, heavy
Velites - skirmish
Auxilia infantry
Auxilia archers
Limitanei (Roman local security/police force)
Praetorians
Carthaginian infantry.
Gallic infantry
Spanish infantry
Galatians
Phalagites
Seleucid chariots
Seleucid light infantry
Cataphracts
Numidian archers and light cav
Celtic and Spanish heavy cav
Elephants
Parthian archers
Parthian Cataphracts, light cav, and horse archers.
Persian cav
Saracen nomads
Celtic tribesmen
Picts
Hun horse archers and cav



By the way, about the threat of cavalry. There are quite some theories on that.
One of them says that the Romans were quite able to repulse cavalry. An attacked formation would be formed 8 ranks deep. The first 4 rows were armed with pilum, the rest with lancea (a lighter javalin). The front rank held their pilum at 45degrees, with the butts placed on the ground. When attacked the next tree rows would throw there pila and brace against the front row. Then the rest of the ranks would throw their lancea. The 9th rank would be foot-archers, a tenth rank of horse archers and even some artillery would have added to the barrage. It seems to have worked many times. Though the flanks could have been dangerously exposed. In the early days cavalry hardly charged into a densely packed formation.
The pila was gradually replaced by the lancea (4 or 5 per soldier) in later centuries.



Cheers,

Lafayette

[RangerLee]

I dont know if anyone posted this yet, but here is a link to RTW trailer: http://www.gamer.tv/watch

[lafayette]

Nice movie.

Though I think that the typical Roman battle would be in a even more pitched and dense space. The Roman short Gladius was at its greatest advantage in a limited space over the long Germanic swords. You would see legionaires packed together stabbing and thrusting behind their shields instead of swinging around with their swords.

Am I going too far?

[Nelson]

lafayette, you’re not going too far. You’re are right about the spacing. These guys were mostly stabbers not hackers.

I hope the game models the differences between the manipular and Marian legions. I doubt it though because it’s a matter of deployment as much as troop and weapon types.

Cavalry without stirrups should be less effective than in Shogun or Medieval. This is partly responsible for the Romans managing so well without much of their own.

[Jagger]

I remember reading that the Romans rotated troops within their cohorts. As the first rank tired, they would retreat to the back rank to rest while the second rank would move up. This rotation of ranks kept the front ranks at peak physical level. I don't believe the barbarians did this at an organized level. So I would think the barbarians, regardless of their enthusiasm, would tend to run out of steam faster than the Romans. I don't know if any non-Roman troops were this organized.

[Lord Krazy]

Quote[/b] ]Cavalry without stirrups should be less effective than in Shogun or Medieval

From what I'v seen of roman cavalry saddles
the more than make up for stirups.
It would be quite difficult to fall from such a saddle
as your legs are well secured under the hornes
and the back support stops you falling backwards.

So do you have another reason why this should
be the case?

LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Acronym]

http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/enemies-of-rome.html

If CA can model the armies close to what this URL shows then I'll be a happy camper

[lafayette]

Great url
Thx.

[Nelson]

Lord Crazy, I don't believe falling off is the issue. My understanding is that without stirrups one can't stand and reach in the saddle so well to deliver a powerful blow.

I am not a rider but the wholesale move to stirrups after their advent suggests that something is much better about them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Maybe just getting on and off the horse is a lot easier.

http://www.sportingcollection.com/stirrups/historystirrups.html

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (Nelson @ Jan. 14 2003,17:50)]Lord Crazy, I don't believe falling off is the issue. My understanding is that without stirrups one can't stand and reach in the saddle so well to deliver a powerful blow.

I am not a rider but the wholesale move to stirrups after their advent suggests that something is much better about them. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Maybe just getting on and off the horse is a lot easier.
Certainly yuo can't stand in the saddle without stirrups, but the only time you need to stand in the saddle is if you are delivering a downward blow close in.

For using a lance stirrups are a non-entity - they neither help nor inhibit, while they DO inhibit using a bow if you're trying to shoot all around your horse.

What they do enable is simpler control of the horse through the legs. Non-stirruped cavalry had rather savage loking "prickers" - pieces of the bit outside teh horses mouth on both sides, and these were the primary means of controlling the horse's direction. A riders legs weer used mainly for hanging on

IIRC adopting sturrups meant that riders could have a smoother ride, so they didn't need to hang on withtheir legs so much, and that meant their legs were available to direct the horse.

Ann Hyland's book "Training the Roman Cavalry" is THE authority on roman era cavalry, their training and what have you - it's an absolute MUST HAVE if you're going into a discussion like this

I feel an urge to get it out of my shelf and have anotehr read http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

On the Gladius:
the Gladius Hispanicus was NOT a purely stabbing weapon, and legionaries were not purely stabbers the sword is very nicely balanced for cutting and slashing also.

what sets it appart from other swords it was opposed by was that it _could_ be used for stabbing - especially in contrast to long Gallic swords that were useless for stabbing.

However the Gladius Hispanicus was adopted from the Spanish, as the name suggests, who used it long before Rome.

The classic Roman infantry sword play of punching a shield into the opponents face then stabbing underneath it is often quoted, but it was only one of many sword drills, and was only ever specifically mentioned in battle histories as being used against Gauls.

There were other stabbing swords in use in ancient times - especially by Greeks of the Hoplite Era (a few years before Rome tho) that actually lacked edges entirly as an edge would be too hard to use in a hoplite "scrum".

Of course towards the end of Rome's time the Gladius was replaced by the Spatha - a longer sword still able to be stabbed but not as short and handy as the Gladius. The reasons for this replacment probably involved the increasing complexity and competence of opposing infantry IMO, but AFAIK there's no definitive reason known.

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Jan. 14 2003,20:05)]Certainly yuo can't stand in the saddle without stirrups, but the only time you need to stand in the saddle is if you are delivering a downward blow close in.

For using a lance stirrups are a non-entity - they neither help nor inhibit, while they DO inhibit using a bow if you're trying to shoot all around your horse.
I disagree about stirrups being a non-entity when using a lance. As far as I understand it, stirrups allowed the lance to be cradled under the rider's arm. Before stirrups, there was a good chance that cradling the lance would knock you off when you hit something solid.

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (deejayvee @ Jan. 14 2003,01:57)]I was almost going to miss it too. I'm heading off to go see "Bowling for Columbine" tonight and my friends wanted to see it at 6:30 Luckily they're history-minded people too and didn't want to miss it either.


Edit: By the way, it's worth watching compared to everything else that's on tv. But seeing as though you seem to be having so much fun at work, you're probably better off forgetting it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Hehe ... I made the sacrifice for the greater good ... and went home to see it.

Was quite good I thought. Whilst not as good as the other, I still found it interesting the Gothic settlements in the Crimea mountains..carving out homes in the rock.

So, you didn't get to see "Bowling for Columbine"? Jens' been dying to see it for awhile. If you haven't seen it yet, how would you feel about catching up to go and see it? ... now there's a scary proposition http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Where abouts from Sydney are you from?

Cheers

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (deejayvee @ Jan. 14 2003,21:25)]
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Jan. 14 2003,20:05)]Certainly yuo can't stand in the saddle without stirrups, but the only time you need to stand in the saddle is if you are delivering a downward blow close in.

For using a lance stirrups are a non-entity - they neither help nor inhibit, while they DO inhibit using a bow if you're trying to shoot all around your horse.
I disagree about stirrups being a non-entity when using a lance. As far as I understand it, stirrups allowed the lance to be cradled under the rider's arm. Before stirrups, there was a good chance that cradling the lance would knock you off when you hit something solid.
What keeps you in the saddle is the saddle horns or cantles - the high front and rear.

Roman saddles had 4 horns - 1 at each corner, and the rider was virtually squeezed into these - they apparently provide an excellent brace against impact.

You are right that stirrups allowd a lance to be couched, but what that means is that a shield can be used - lancers prior to stirrups used 2 hands to steady the lance and bent forwards to brace for impact with the force being transfered to the horse through the saddle.

With stirrups tehy could stay upright and brace the lance against their body - the backward impulse of the strike on the riders upper body would then be transfered to his legs which would tend to tip forward but could transfer teh energy to the horse through stirrups.

There's ample evidence that either method was more than adequate as a means of spitting enemy, but with stirrups it was easier to train and become competent and there aer undoubted advantages to having a shield

But the efficacy of the lance itself was probably unchanged.

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ Jan. 14 2003,21:46)]Hehe ... I made the sacrifice for the greater good ... and went home to see it.

Was quite good I thought. Whilst not as good as the other, I still found it interesting the Gothic settlements in the Crimea mountains..carving out homes in the rock.

So, you didn't get to see "Bowling for Columbine"? Jens' been dying to see it for awhile. If you haven't seen it yet, how would you feel about catching up to go and see it? ... now there's a scary proposition http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Where abouts from Sydney are you from?

Cheers
Psycho,

Yeah I found last night's to be a bit better than last week (although I think I missed the connection between the Goths and Varus's legions).

We went and saw it at a later session. It just meant that one of my mates didn't get his full quota of z's. Well worth checking out, especially if you've read Stupid White Men.

We should go out for a beer or something sometime, though. I live and work within spitting distance of the cbd.

Hakonarson,

Cheers for clearing that up. But, with stirrups, wouldn't you lose less force at impact because there is no movement in the arms? Although thinking about it, that's more due to the locking of the lance on to the breast plate.

[Lord Romulous]

Quote[/b] (deejayvee @ Jan. 14 2003,22:18)]Psycho,.....

We should go out for a beer or something ....
You want to meet up with someone called the Psycho ?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif




just fooling...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (Lord Romulous @ Jan. 14 2003,23:59)]You want to meet up with someone called the Psycho ?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
He's an Aussie, how bad can he be?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Actually, come to think of it....

[PSYCHO]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif pretty bad ... but thanks for the vouch nontheless deejayvee http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I work on Macquarie ... wanna catch a beer one night after work? ...though you won't get to meet the beautiful Jen that way. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

So the flick is worth the dosh? I still have chuckles when I think of ole Pistol Pete

Cheers

[Efrem Da King]

They should make the sword able to slach as well as stab cause the bttles would get boring http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif You don't getmuch gore from a stab http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (PSYCHO @ Jan. 15 2003,04:01)]I work on Macquarie ... wanna catch a beer one night after work? ...though you won't get to meet the beautiful Jen that way. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

So the flick is worth the dosh? I still have chuckles when I think of ole Pistol Pete
One night after work sounds good. Perhaps next week or the week after.

The movie is definitely worth it. It's heaps funny for the first half, and then gets a bit serious in the second half. The Brief History of America cartoon is a classic

[King James I]

Hey any moderaters out there could you please please delete the two posts before my last one, cos I want to alter some of the things I have said in it and because my internet connection was playing up and I didn't realise I had posted. If you possibly could I would be very grateful.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

It would be nice to have fully modelled towns-so if you're besieging Rome you can torch the colleseum, and so on. How about garrisonable buildings, as well?

[Efrem Da King]

Bump.
MY only Wish is no jedi generals\kings. Which is my pet peeve http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif .

[starkhorn]

Hi all,

Well I've read the official RTW page and also read the PC Gamer review that was posted earlier (prior to the moderator getting rid of it) and I still have a doubt/question.

I've seen all of the comments solely based on the Roman faction with the odd comments about Carthage. I've got a horrible feeling that the only playable faction will be Rome. Is this true ? I hope not as I'm really looking to pillaging Rome.

Also has anyone seen or heard anything about the period ? Will it last throughout the entire history of the western Empire ? i,e, 273BC -> 470A.D. ?
Again I have not seen anything about this yet.

Sorry if this has already been answered.....I hope you lot hate repeating yourself.

Cheers
Starkhorn

[muffinman14]

U got it wrong stark... There is going to be Egypt, Carthage, Greece, Celts, and other factions but I forgot where I found this info from.

[David]

Check this site on stirrups:
http://www.uh.edu/admin/engines/epi476.htm

Stirrups did make mounted soldiers better. "Stirrups put the full momentum of a horse behind a lance." And without stirrups "they couldn't fight on horseback. Swing a sword, or run a lance, and you fall off your horse. You could get into position quickly on a horse. But then, unless you were crazy, you got off and fought on foot."

[Brighdaasa]

I'm not sure if this has been covered already, but now in MTW the standards (the flags) for each unit are magically floating above the ground, isn't it time in RTW to change that? Like have a flag carrier in each unit? i think i still saw floating flags in the screenshots they released so far.

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (David @ Jan. 20 2003,13:09)]Check this site on stirrups:
http://www.uh.edu/admin/engines/epi476.htm

Stirrups did make mounted soldiers better. "Stirrups put the full momentum of a horse behind a lance." And without stirrups "they couldn't fight on horseback. Swing a sword, or run a lance, and you fall off your horse. You could get into position quickly on a horse. But then, unless you were crazy, you got off and fought on foot."
Which clearly shows how much rubbish the site is since people were quite able to do all those things for 100-1500 years in Europe & the mid-east before stirrups became available

[cugel]

I would like to see a couple of changes for TW:ROME:

1. Improved strategic AI in the following areas:
a. trade AI. If the "line of ships" concept is kept for trade, then the AI factions should be programmed to handle it better. In MTW only the player generally attempts this.
b. As higher tech units become available, the AI should prefer them and DISMISS its previously built units to reduce maintenance costs so that it can afford them. FEWER AI armies in the "late" game with only peasants and spear units.
c. AI SHORTSIGHTEDNESS. The AI should consider the ENTIRE picture, including the total balance of forces between factions in considering whether and where to attack. No more "I've got 2 ships to your 1 in a given sea zone, so I attack" NOT CONSIDERING that the player has a 10-1 or 20-1 overall advantage in ships and will certainly wipe out the AI's navy in a few turns. The same is true of land battles. The AI should consider carefully whether the attack it's making on a province will generate a devastating reprisal the next turn, not just whether it can seize that one province.

2. Reinforcements. When the player has units of reinforcements available, he should be able to SELECT which ones to bring up when room becomes available. No more - I really want more archers to replace the ones that I've withdrawn when their ammo ran out, but instead another spear unit appears.

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (cugel @ Jan. 20 2003,21:29)]2. Reinforcements. When the player has units of reinforcements available, he should be able to SELECT which ones to bring up when room becomes available. No more - I really want more archers to replace the ones that I've withdrawn when their ammo ran out, but instead another spear unit appears.
As this is going to be one of the improvements for VI, I'd imagine it will be in RTW too.

[Mr Frost]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Jan. 20 2003,15:24)]
Quote[/b] (David @ Jan. 20 2003,13:09)]Check this site on stirrups:
http://www.uh.edu/admin/engines/epi476.htm

Stirrups did make mounted soldiers better. "Stirrups put the full momentum of a horse behind a lance." And without stirrups "they couldn't fight on horseback. Swing a sword, or run a lance, and you fall off your horse. You could get into position quickly on a horse. But then, unless you were crazy, you got off and fought on foot."
Which clearly shows how much rubbish the site is since people were quite able to do all those things for 100-1500 years in Europe & the mid-east before stirrups became available
Hakonarson is right about that : The Sarnations I believe {I can't find the dammed book I'm looking for} were one pre-sturrup heavy cavalry famed in their day {Roman Republic} for their devistating charges with lance and swords and wore full suits of armour made from scales of bone on a leather backing . Their nobles fought exclusivly from horse back .
There are many missconceptions abound which many think are facts .

I theorise that the main reason for the lack of heavy cavalry for much of history is more to do with the great effort required to actually breed suitable mounts . You see , horses suitable for melee combat {specifically : shock tatics} need to be rather larger and both more robust and more agressive than standard wild stock {mustangs of North America are actually decended from Spanish mounts which became ferral and thus are decended from specifically bred war mounts . Though they have since evolved smaller in size , they are still larger than the wild stock which their ancestors were bred/developed from} which takes a lot of consistant effort over many generations and likely was not realised possible by most cultures untill either some genius figured it out and convinced his people to give it a shot for the hundred years or so it would have required to produce the desired results {basically , equine eugenics} or some culture chanced to breed suitable warmounts by serendipity then figured out what they had actually accomplished .

If your interested in what a Later Medievil Period Destrier might have looked like , note the famous Andalusian Horses {there are usually some place in each first-world country which keeps these for shows ; the one I am familiar with here in Australia is Andalusia Park , though I think they closed down years ago http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif} , though the very best will undoubtably be found in Andalusia {Spain} its' self . Now note just how magnificently athletic and spirited {and by equine standards , brave ; all horses are easily spooked by nature , but these are rather more likely to confront a fear} then consider just how much concerted and consistant effort was required over many centuries to produce them The Nazis {and others for far longer though on a rather lesser scale} tried the same thing with humans using knowledge and technology that the Romans would have concidered only gods could possess yet managed precisely zero desired result The development of the melee war horse was probebly more by luck than design {what we here call "more arse than class" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif} .

[Kraxis]

Good heavy cavalry pre-stirrup:

Companion Cavalry (Alexander and perhaps the best of the lot)
Persian Heavies (the strongarm of the army opposing Alexander)
Parthian Cataphrakts
Early Roman Cataphrakts (300s)
Goth Heavy Cavalry (the reason the Romans were so soundly defeated at Adrianople)

So clearly the stirrup made cavalry much easier to maintain and train. Also horse archery became a much easier task.

[Asmodeus]

One feature I'd like to see in RTW is an AI that learns from it's mistakes (perhaps influenced also by the command and or accumen level of the AI generals).

This isnt as difficult to do as it sounds.

An old DOS based game, XCOM Appocalypse had a similar (albeit more primitive) system to MTW. A campaign strategy mode and a realtime tactical combat mode.

The AI would analyze the results of each battle and store the statistics for which units/tactics were effective and which werent. After a few battles you began to notice it get smarter as it was adjusting to your method of warfare. After a lot of battles it becomes quite frighteningly smart, even copying your tactics and using them against you.

Some examples applied to RTW: if you find a nice safe spot on a hill to defend and then send a couple of units to lure the enemy into a suicidal charge, you wont be able to keep doing it, after the first few attempts it will realise that this tactic doesnt work (or that it may work but only if it charges you with it's whole army). Or if you keep attacking it with cavalry it will train more spearmen or other units that are more effective.

It would encourage you to rethink your tactics and be less predictable in battle. It also means that if you fight a whole series of battles over one valuable province that after each battle BOTH sides will be honing their skills and trying something new.

The really nice thing about this is you dont need to 'preprogram' so much of the 'intelligence' but rather give it the basics and let it improve by itself and also learn from the Human playing it. This would also mean the campaigns would play out very differently, especially if each faction had to learn individually and not all share one collective AI intelligence. (i.e. The factions that fight more battles will have more experience to draw upon).

Another thing that occurs to me is that, if implemented well, it would also be fairly well tailored to each player - real expert players who know the best tactics will unwittingly be teaching the AI how to fight very well, novice players will not encourage such rapid improvement in the AI.

Any thoughts/comments?

[Acronym]

One feature I'd like to see in RTW is an AI that learns from it's mistakes

Even starcraft does this. I don't know about learning from it's own mistakes, but the sc AI learns from the players. After playing for several months against AI on a network, it got much better.

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 21 2003,10:01)]Good heavy cavalry pre-stirrup:

Companion Cavalry (Alexander and perhaps the best of the lot)
Persian Heavies (the strongarm of the army opposing Alexander)
Parthian Cataphrakts
Early Roman Cataphrakts (300s)
Goth Heavy Cavalry (the reason the Romans were so soundly defeated at Adrianople)

So clearly the stirrup made cavalry much easier to maintain and train. Also horse archery became a much easier task.
yiou mean the Parthian cataphracts that existed from about 200BC to 227 AD, and the Ssassanid cataphracts that were the same troops fighting for a new master fo anotehr few decades? That would be almost 500 years of ancient heavy cavalry there alone.

roman cataphracts were first used in hte 1st century AD - being essentially ordinary equites rearmed with lance (kontos) and losing their shield.

Roman Clibanarii (full armoured cavalry) weer mostly supplied by eastern client stats such as Palmyra, which rebelled against Rome in 270 AD with an army that featured then in large numbers.

Gothic heavy cavalry had little to do with the defeat at Adrianople - the Roman army was fighting to its front having pushed back the Goth infantry to their wagon laager (camp) when a force returned from foraging or similar and struck them in the rear - no army on earth could've survived that shock, and it didn't realy matter what the gothic troops were

Gothic cavalry were apparently mounted on rather small horses, used javelins and lacked armour. But they charged straight into close combat rather than using their javelins as distant missile weapons.

Roman cavalry are recorded as charging simlarly a few times in the early centuries BC - I forget teh term but it means "letting go their bridles" - ie spurring hte horse on and making no attempt to control them - such charges are recorded as breaking opposing infantry a couple of times in Livy - not the greatest source but the only one we have for most of the period prior to the Punic Wars.

Lydian cavalry were famous for their charge in the 6th century BC.

Persia had good bad and indifferent cavalry from about 700 BC until it was defeated by Alexander, while at Magnesia Seleucic Cataphracts and Clibanarii roled over 1 flank of the Roman army.

[Kraxis]

Ok, I should perhaps rename the Goth Heavies to Alan Heavy Cavalry. Those were the heavy part of the Goth cavalry at Adrianople.

[Hakonarson]

No - you shouldn't do that - most alan cavalry at the time were horse archers, and they were a minority in the army anyway - there weer Huns, Alans, and Taifali supplying hte cavalry - of which the Taifali probably supplied more "heavy" cavalry than the alans.

And such Gothic cavalry as there was (and some gothic "nations" weer almost exclusivly cavalry&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif weer stil pretty "mean" mounted.

[Acronym]

One thing I would like to see is the ability to prep the battlefield with traps. So if you're defending, having some spiked traps for cav would be nice, or cover the ground with tar and shoot flaming arrows. It should be up to the attacker to survey the battlefield and find the optimal deployment.

This happened back in the days of rome and greece. I read that at Gaugamela Alexander and Parmenio checked out the battlefield the day prior to look at Darius's army and check for traps, but I don't recall if there were any.

And not just traps, but you should be able to have slaves or peasants clear a field that you want to fight in. So if there's bushes and tree's scattered about, you should be able to clear them(just as Darius did at Gaugamela).

[AvramL]

I have no idea wether or not this question has been answereed but can you play as one/many of the Germanic tribes/groups or will they just be represented by rebel factions?

Man would I like to witness a band of warriors screaming the "Barritus" before flinging themselves at the enemy.

Also, I sure hope Roman legionarries will be equipped with Pila as well as a gladius.

[USMCNJ]

Quote[/b] (Acronym @ Jan. 22 2003,00:23)]One thing I would like to see is the ability to prep the battlefield with traps. So if you're defending, having some spiked traps for cav would be nice, or cover the ground with tar and shoot flaming arrows. It should be up to the attacker to survey the battlefield and find the optimal deployment.
sounds like braveheart.
But it would make the battles even more fun to play

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Asmodeus @ Jan. 21 2003,11:42)]One feature I'd like to see in RTW is an AI that learns from it's mistakes (perhaps influenced also by the command and or accumen level of the AI generals).

This isnt as difficult to do as it sounds.

An old DOS based game, XCOM Appocalypse had a similar (albeit more primitive) system to MTW. A campaign strategy mode and a realtime tactical combat mode.

The AI would analyze the results of each battle and store the statistics for which units/tactics were effective and which werent. After a few battles you began to notice it get smarter as it was adjusting to your method of warfare. After a lot of battles it becomes quite frighteningly smart, even copying your tactics and using them against you.

Some examples applied to RTW: if you find a nice safe spot on a hill to defend and then send a couple of units to lure the enemy into a suicidal charge, you wont be able to keep doing it, after the first few attempts it will realise that this tactic doesnt work (or that it may work but only if it charges you with it's whole army). Or if you keep attacking it with cavalry it will train more spearmen or other units that are more effective.

It would encourage you to rethink your tactics and be less predictable in battle. It also means that if you fight a whole series of battles over one valuable province that after each battle BOTH sides will be honing their skills and trying something new.

The really nice thing about this is you dont need to 'preprogram' so much of the 'intelligence' but rather give it the basics and let it improve by itself and also learn from the Human playing it. This would also mean the campaigns would play out very differently, especially if each faction had to learn individually and not all share one collective AI intelligence. (i.e. The factions that fight more battles will have more experience to draw upon).

Another thing that occurs to me is that, if implemented well, it would also be fairly well tailored to each player - real expert players who know the best tactics will unwittingly be teaching the AI how to fight very well, novice players will not encourage such rapid improvement in the AI.

Any thoughts/comments?
Great idea http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

[USMCNJ]

Asmodeus, that's a pretty good idea.
you can use this in the campaign mode as well, and eliminate the difficulty setting. This way the game is just as advanced as you are, and everytime you replayit(the whole game) it gets better, cause you are better.

[Hakonarson]

Hopefully it'll be a little better than X-Com was tho - it was good at the time, but I don';t think that particular system would cut it these days - a good starting pint tho' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[cugel]

"One feature I'd like to see in RTW is an AI that learns from it's mistakes (perhaps influenced also by the command and or accumen level of the AI generals)."

I think this is the best idea I've heard yet If implemented properly, it would make a quantum leap in the battlefield AI. After a while, you would, in effect, be fighting yourself I wonder if it could be implemented for the strategic AI as well? If you build a lot of ships, the AI counters, if you start building lots of heavy cavalry, it responds by building spear units, before there's even a battle (by which time it's generally too late for the AI). Once the war starts, it most likely will have to fight with (basically) the army it already has, since there won't be time to train a new one before the player whips the AI.

Unfortunately, CA will probably never do it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif Since they are not checking the forum anymore (according to Giljay), do you think anyone from CA will ever read these posts, let alone respond to them?

[Jacque Schtrapp]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=86091

[cugel]

"The campaigns are pretty impressive affairs as well, with the Roman senate acting as a sort of narrative structure to everything, issuing mission orders and opening the doors to the diplomatic and trade options of the game."

(From the review)
Wonder what that means? That you have to go through the Senate to get diplomatic and trade options? "Mission orders"? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Oberiko]

When playing as Rome I'm going to guess so.

From what I gather, when you choose Rome, you're choosing a relatively small force which must then also compete (probably more politically then militarily) with other Roman forces. Sounds like a good way of evening things out to me.

[USMCNJ]

in MTW terms => the senate is the pope, if you chose to play as one of the roman generals (my guess) you are like a cathelic country in MTW. So if you invade a fellow roman teritory,or piss of the senate, it will urge other romans to kill you. And if a fellow roman has trouble with a barbarian naber the senate will call for a "crusade" against that tribe.

That's the way i see it.

[Monk]

Asmodeus has a good idea there, if the AI learned from every battle, and adapted to every tactic that was thrown at them the game would be very fun,As for using my tactics against me...that'd be awesome. i dont think i'd be able to defeat them if that happened http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif. good idea asmo

[Knight_Yellow]

yeah an ai that learns like in ut2003 would be sweet.

[Oberiko]

The main problem with a learning A.I. is the length and complexity programming it.

Considering how vast R:TW is going to be, with a large variety of units and factions, the various battle types (head to head, siege, possibly others) and then all of the different influencing factors (terrain, weather, time of day etc.), I simply don't think a learning A.I. would be feasible to program in.

What I think would work better is if CA released a script based A.I. editor. This would allow the entire modding community to attack any weaknesses they find within default A.I., and then consistantly update it.

Faster, better, cheaper.

[Efrem Da King]

Thats a good solution, but what about thee people who don't mod.

[Lord Romulous]

extra wishs for Seiges.

i have noticed in all screenshots displayed so far that their is no scenes of troops being shot off seige ladders or seige ladders being pushed back by defenders. i do hope this is implemented.

i would like to be able to choose where the cauldrons of boiling water are placed.

I would like special balista units on the wall that specialise in shooting ropes at seige towers with the aim of causing them to topple over before they reach the wall.

work out some incentive to use the seige ladders and seige towers. otherwise everyone will just use the cats and magonels cause u wont take huge losses when trying to breach a wall like you would if you are using ladders.

suggustions include
increase the time it takes to batter down the wall with the cats, trebs and magonels. and because of this greater length of time a releving force may appear etc. or atleast a raiding force that destoys the cats, trebs and mags.

force the attacking force to ring the castle with forces to prevent food etc from being smuggled in etc. this way with the attacking forces thinly spread the beseiged could mount a raiding party from the walls and smash the attackers seige engines and retreat before attackers had enough forces in postion to oppose them.


if the attackers do not ring the castle with their forces
then the castle holds out forever because it constantly gets food and other supplies smuggled in at night.

[Efrem Da King]

Great idea http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .
just as long as we don't have the phantom bows. By that i mean That walls and towers shoot without people garrisond
which mean that if there is 1 person in the castle it will be a slaugter regardless cause he is never going to starve and he will operate like 1000 bows and 8 ballistas at once even while being surrounded by troops http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif .

[Oberiko]

For people who don't mod they simply download the customised A.I. scripts.

I don't think the game should allow the player to much choice in the design of castles. There's enough to do already without doing so, especially when you have several large fortresses.

I do agree there should be a benefit to using seige ladders and rams as oppossed to catapults. My suggestion is that catapults would have a more limited amount of ammo then they do now, plus they'd be considerably more expensive then rams and ladders (which would be dirt cheap). Perhaps they could even slow down your armies progress on the strategy map?

One more suggestion. I don't really like how if the defender can keep at least one unit on the field until time runs out, they win. I think instead the winner should be decided based on strength of remaining army and kill ratio.

[Monk]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif i know somthing id like to see,(well its really a matter of common sence) since we're talking about City Sieges here atleast put in more than one gate, that way i could take Calvery out the back door andd slaughter those poor fools using unprotected artillary http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif . good times i'd say

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Oberiko @ Jan. 31 2003,21:33)]For people who don't mod they simply download the customised A.I. scripts.

I don't think the game should allow the player to much choice in the design of castles. There's enough to do already without doing so, especially when you have several large fortresses.

I do agree there should be a benefit to using seige ladders and rams as oppossed to catapults. My suggestion is that catapults would have a more limited amount of ammo then they do now, plus they'd be considerably more expensive then rams and ladders (which would be dirt cheap). Perhaps they could even slow down your armies progress on the strategy map?

One more suggestion. I don't really like how if the defender can keep at least one unit on the field until time runs out, they win. I think instead the winner should be decided based on strength of remaining army and kill ratio.
1.Many players do not even know about the online community let alone care.

2.That is waht it was historically though it can be abused. The battle was over when the lights went out. It should be if you can get your entire army at the edge of the map you win, though there like changing the mao completly so who knows.

[GilJaysmith]

Quote[/b] (cugel @ Jan. 24 2003,22:26)]Unfortunately, CA will probably never do it. :mecry: Since they are not checking the forum anymore (according to Giljay), do you think anyone from CA will ever read these posts, let alone respond to them?
I'm not sure that's what I said, and if it was, it certainly isn't what I meant to say. The context was a modding thread which made an incorrect assertion, didn't get a response from CA, and then leapt to conclusions, including "silence speaks volumes", when in fact we simply hadn't read that thread.

The original Medieval team certainly isn't reading the forums like it used to, because we're mostly doing other things. But if you're under the impression that CA is now totally ignoring the .org, we should correct that. CaptainFishpants is representing for Viking Invasion, and members of the Rome team are paying attention.

That doesn't necessarily mean that any idea mooted for Vikings or Rome will be acknowledged or discussed, and it certainly doesn't mean they all will. We've had a lot of ideas already, but we discard many because they aren't right for the game, and entering into discussion about every single one would waste everyone's time.

Basically, feel free to come up with ideas; they may be good ones, and CA staff may find it useful to discuss them with you or to acknowledge ones which are worth lifting for the game. But I fear it needs to be said that you do not have the automatic right to a response, a confirmation, or a denial. Please don't take that personally, but also please don't take it for anything other than what it is: the impossibility of reading and responding to every single post on this forum, and the consequent selective nature of our responses.

Believe me, I've tried reading and responding to everything, and it ate my life :)

[Oberiko]

The only time a player would need customisable A.I. is if they are playing an online multiplayer campaign, where they need their generals to fight some of their battles for them. Most people who do this I think would know about an included (and emphasised) feature like downloading A.I. scripts. People who play single player probably wouldn't know much about it, but they wouldn't have to.

The problem with simply bringing your army to the map edge is that there is lots of room for abuse there as well. The first thing that comes to mind is using a small number of light cavalry to avoid the enemy and then park them somewhere on the large border.

[Efrem Da King]

No I mean if they are there at the end of the time limit.

[Oberiko]

I'm not following.

If the attacker brings his forces to the edge of the map at the end of the time limit he wins?

How much of his army would he need there?

What happens if his forces aren't at the edge when the time runs out?

What happens if he has them there before the time runs out?

I think a simply strength/kill ratio is much more simple and less prone to cheese tactics.

[Efrem Da King]

1. about 60% or more and no defenders in the same area.
2. If the bulk of his forces isn't at the border when the time runs out and other victory cnditions haven't been met, ie killing everyone, then he loses.
3.nothingcause the defender can still attack him.

[Hakonarson]

I think perhaps the answer to the lone hiding assasin unit winning the game is a bit simpler - have all units rout at a pre-determined level of losses.

Regardless of morale.

Or something like that - perhaps instead award the victory even if the game goes on.

I'd sugest that if the "army destroyed" morale penalty is invoked for one side then the battle should automatically be considered finished at that point and either auto resolved or perhaps allowed to play on.

Historically armies broke and ran en masse - occasionally a unit or 2 might remain formed to cover the retreat/rout, but such brave souls rarely did anything other than inspire poems and preserve themselves.

[Oberiko]

After reading your response Efrem, your idea has definite validity.

The only thing I would fix would be no defenders in the area. If you get 60% of your army there (starting or remaining?) and time runs out, then it shouldn't matter if there are a couple of light cav defenders buzzing around.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Oberiko @ Feb. 02 2003,16:10)]After reading your response Efrem, your idea has definite validity.

The only thing I would fix would be no defenders in the area. If you get 60% of your army there (starting or remaining?) and time runs out, then it shouldn't matter if there are a couple of light cav defenders buzzing around.
How about no defenders not in battle.

[Oberiko]

I think that would work quite well.

[Oberiko]

Just something I thought of that I'd like to add here.

Looting the battlefield.

I'd like to see where "lesser" armies (barbarians etc.) would be able to seize the higher quality equipment of fallen enemies if they win a battle.

Ideally it'd lead to an armor and weapon quality increase for the equivelant amount of troops, but I'd settle for instant cash.

[muffinman14]

The cool thing would be is to plant explosives underground below a city and watch all the buildings collapse http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Hakonarson]

No explosives, but mining was practiced.

Instead of explosives they used woode beams to hold up the roof of the mine, then set fire to them - the roof would collapse and hopefully the wall or tower above it would collapse too.

Another trick of seiges was building huge ramps up to teh level of walls - eg as at Massada. A counter to this was mining underneath such a ramp and taking earth from the bottom of it Some ramps were made of logs as a frame filled with earth - these logs could be set afire and if the fire burned into the earth it would be difficult to put out, could cause the earth to slump when hte logs burned awy, and made working very difficult due to heat and smoke.

[Oberiko]

While those were good siege techniques, I doubt they would work in this environment during the real time combat.

However, it could be implemented if they gave us the option of aggressive vs. passive siege as well as direct frontal assault.

In passive siege, it would work as is it does now with your forces slowly starving the enemy out. It would also remain the same for assault.

In aggressive siege your forces would do things like build mines and ramps. The advantage to this is that certain parts of the castle would heavily damaged, making it easier to launch a frontal assault. The downside would be the additional casualties you would incur while doing so.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] (Oberiko @ Feb. 05 2003,07:57)]While those were good siege techniques, I doubt they would work in this environment during the real time combat.

However, it could be implemented if they gave us the option of aggressive vs. passive siege as well as direct frontal assault.

In passive siege, it would work as is it does now with your forces slowly starving the enemy out. It would also remain the same for assault.

In aggressive siege your forces would do things like build mines and ramps. The advantage to this is that certain parts of the castle would heavily damaged, making it easier to launch a frontal assault. The downside would be the additional casualties you would incur while doing so.
Goreat idea http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

[Sainika]

Well, I'd like to see several cities in every province. In that case conquering the province becomes more real. May be some of CA programmers remember the game called "Legions for Windows". There were several big cities in the country and a lot of villages around them. The key to win was to deprive your enemy with any kind of supply, which were produced by the villages. It is histoircally correct.
And may be guns and gots as playable factions.
Also several time periods (like in MTW). Rome expansion was not the only one: before them there were Egypt and Greece.
The possibility to place troops on the walls during the sieges and to garrison them inside city buidings.
Roads must play not only esthetical role but vital one (fast moving, supply etc.)
And of course AI. It must be improved immensely.

[Kristaps]

Hey, just wondered: can any programmer here hint at the time span of RTW? Will it go back to the earliest times of Latin's building the Rome or will it start with the Republic? Do we get to fight celts, greeks and etrusks in Italy? Will it takes us to the time of hunn and vandal invasions? just a restless soul here...

[Nelson]

I’d like to say a word or two about Roman religion and how it might be manifest in the game.

Many Romans would not have comprehended the concept separation of church and state. The thought would seem silly if not downright blasphemous. High magistrates were often priests. Caesar was for a time the flamen dialis, the high priest of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, a position laden with taboos. He later became a pontiff.

Romans could be very superstitious. Or maybe religious would be a better term. While they did not proselytize like later Christians and Moslems, this should not be seen as evidence of disaffection for religion. Ritual and sacrifice were important to them. They could become very worried over omens and such. Priests and augers were important components of Roman life, including military campaigns. Prayers, sacrifices and augury would often precede important decisions like when to fight a battle. A stumble or accident by the commander may have been cause for alarm. Some leaders were more pious than others but few would dare to publicly ignore the concerns of the rank and file legionaries.

It might be a neat idea to include the possibility of intervention by an auger or an omen to spoil ones plans before a battle or an invasion, possibly depending on the piety of Roman generals. Not a frequent event, but a slight chance that when you want to launch an attack, the auspices could be so fearsome that you can’t proceed.

[cugel]

"I'm not sure that's what I said, and if it was, it certainly isn't what I meant to say. The context was a modding thread which made an incorrect assertion, didn't get a response from CA, and then leapt to conclusions, including "silence speaks volumes", when in fact we simply hadn't read that thread.

The original Medieval team certainly isn't reading the forums like it used to, because we're mostly doing other things. But if you're under the impression that CA is now totally ignoring the .org, we should correct that. CaptainFishpants is representing for Viking Invasion, and members of the Rome team are paying attention.

That doesn't necessarily mean that any idea mooted for Vikings or Rome will be acknowledged or discussed, and it certainly doesn't mean they all will. We've had a lot of ideas already, but we discard many because they aren't right for the game, and entering into discussion about every single one would waste everyone's time.

Basically, feel free to come up with ideas; they may be good ones, and CA staff may find it useful to discuss them with you or to acknowledge ones which are worth lifting for the game. But I fear it needs to be said that you do not have the automatic right to a response, a confirmation, or a denial. Please don't take that personally, but also please don't take it for anything other than what it is: the impossibility of reading and responding to every single post on this forum, and the consequent selective nature of our responses.

Believe me, I've tried reading and responding to everything, and it ate my life http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif"

Well, Giljay, nice to see you here again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

I wasn't trying to attack you or CA BTW: I imagine everyone from CA is busy as hell trying to produce new and interesting games and I never expected you or people from CA to read everything or comment on everything people suggest. It would take forever.

What you actually said was "true at the time in question, not now." And you added that you hadn't checked the board in several weeks and that the only reason you saw that particular thread was because you were checking on some wish lists for MP and happened to stumble on it. When I posted that response, I hadn't noted Captain Fishpants's presence and assumed everyone from CA was simply too busy to read these posts. Forgive me if I drew the wrong conclusion -- I'm glad to have been incorrect. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

That said: What did you think of the original point of the post -- about AI that learns from the player (if you'd care to comment). This would be extraordinary if it could be implemented. No-one could then complain that SP didn't provide a sufficient challenge or that the AI was insufficient in some area. It has been done before (as with Black/White), although I don't think that the AI has to be NEARLY that adaptive. I'm not a professional programmer so I have no idea how difficult that would be to program.

[Maedhros]

with regardto TW Rome, my only question is would like my money now, or do I have to wait?

Eagerly anticipating.

[asturianknight]

One feature I'd like to have in RTW is the ability to slow down the battles and the replays.

[USMCNJ]

sorry if this was mentioned before.

Am i the only one that isn't a big fan of the huge tech tree in MTW. It would be nice if in RTW we could just select the unit we want to build and the buildings are automaticly put into the building list. Or at least have a utility that does it on the side. I'm a little sick of have the crusade_unit file open while playing the game.

[The One Wraith]

GREETINGS

My only problem (that hasn't been discussed already):

Please pLEASE PLEASE
Be careful with morale
See the tears streaming from my eyes? (not to be confused with drool streaming from my mouth, thanks to the screenies and trailer)
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
SEE what you have dONE to me???
The children would stick out a battle longer than my soldiers
And the death of ONE man will not send an army that COMPLETELY outclasses, outtechs, and outnumbers (ATLEAST 4:1) screaming like 2 year old girls who have just been shot in the arm
tHISssss issss how I won and lost most battlessssssss.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
Okay...I'm okay now.
I'm done with my daily whining.

[Monk]

CA, many games that sounded great were released to early and therefore had alote of flaws in them. (Tribes 2 comes to mind) I would rather wait, and find that all the promises came true. then it be released unfinished and 3/4 of the promises broken.

All i ask is take all the time you need on Rome: TW. Dont do what Sierra did to Tribes 2, release it in its beta state and issue 5 patches to the community.

[ElmarkOFear]

My wish for Multiplayer:

1. Allow for the turning off of certain weapons. Similar to Rainbow Six where you could turn off any wep in the game if you were the host.

2. Make sure that font for chat lobby is legible even when in all capital letters.

3. Keep the kick, ban and ignore functions for the game and lobby.

4. Make sure game will run using the latest video cards for laptops. (I currently have an Radeon 9000, XP, P4 2.8 GIG Intel Motherboard.) If you need a tester for the laptop, let me know. I will be willing to test to see if works.

5. Separate the Morale upgrade from the wep and armor upgrade when upgrading valour. At least for multiplayer.

6. Separate the SP and MP statistics so you can change stats for MP without messing up SP.

7. Make sure that entire armies do not rout without at least making contact with the enemy. I believe the routing friends morale penalty is too high and is the cause of massive chain routs in MP.

8. Do not worry as much about realism and historical accuracy for MP and adjust the units to make all factions equally viable. Doesn't mean same units etc. . but balance out the overall makeup of the armies.

9. Eliminate the ceiling on valour for MP. The cost penalty of having over 4 units and the cost of arm and wep upgrades will take care of this without making units have a ceiling on thier power.

10. Allow for 6 digit money for big games. That way if people want they can have a 4v4 with 50000 going to each player. Now the ceiling on a 4v4 is 25000.

11. Allow adjustment for each stat in the MP game when hosting such as: amount of ammo, severity and speed of fatigue, speed of game, effect of hill bonuses.

12. Allow for private rooms in game lobby.

13. Fix bug that drops people to desktop during and after games.

That is good for now, I am off to bed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Thanks for reading.

[Major Robert Dump]

Elm, why do u want to ban the ignore function?

I would prefer, however, that it resets everytime you relog on on (assuming we had a reliable server) because sometimes there are people i want to ignore just for a little while http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Catiline]

he doesn't want to lose ignore , he wants kick, ignore AND ban

[youssof_Toda]

There are going to be more units in RTW than MTW.

My guess:

60% of units will be useless.
10% will be overpowered.
30% will be used.

Are they adopting the 'more-is-better' approach?

STW-->MI: more units, did the game get better?
MI-->MTW: more units, again did it get better?
MTW-->RTW: more units, will it get better? I sure hope so.

I don't want to be too cynical I saw a few screenshots and in fact I think they look great. My critisizm is that I got the idea they are jst adding units for the bulk so they can put 'over 200 different and unique troops' on the box when they sell the game and not because of the tactical usefullness of them.

Maybe a possible way is to move the units more into different categories. For instance: Heavy cav stats almost all the same for the different factions. Faction's X heavy cav gets a little more speed and a little less armour etc., etc. You can give em different names and get ur 'over 200 different and unique troops' on the box and we'll get our game.

Possible list of diff categories:

1. Heavy cav
2. Light cav
3. Arch cav
4. Heavy Inf
5. Medium Inf
6. Light Inf
7. Archers
8. Siege weapons

*Copied this from a threat in the jousting fields. So my wish is more uniformity in unitstats and costs.

[Mithrandir]

I don't agree youssof,
I like it as it is now, units may not be balanced, but overall most factions are reasonably. What I like about MTW is the diversity, if you'd use your system, you'd get a game alot like Warcraft 1&2, exactly the same units, but with different looks.

I like the idea of specialised factions, which _can_ beat eachother. Spanish-Byz, to give the ultimate example (2 'overpowered' factions), byz inf can beat most things, but lancers beat byz inf.

I'd like to see the same amount of diversity, but with at least one patch foccused on the feedback of the community considering the unitstats, (Like VI will do now).Or ofcourse, even better let the devs do much more playtesting and balance things themselves http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

[Rosacrux]

I have only two wishes:

a)read the community boards and take our wishes into consideration

b)take your time, don't rush it out.Playtest it, polish it, playtest it thorougly, repolish it, playtest it again, do some additional fixes... and only then release it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (lafayette @ Jan. 14 2003,08:35)]As for the units, just some thoughts:
Saracen nomads
These are arab nomads,saracens never existed before islam.the word saracen itself is of crusader origin that means any muslim who is fighting them(correct me if i'm wrong).the arabs in jordan and iraq(souther parts)fought for both the greek and persians,the Ghasanids who where allied to the greeks(mainly archers),and another tribe wich i don't remember their name,who where compromised mainly of light cavalry.

[youssof_Toda]

Mith the main point is that when they use over 200 diff units they'll start saying it's impossible to properly balance them and they don't have the time and recources to do so. In fact they are right: it is inefficient. So why include all these units? Because it looks nice on the box of the game: "over X unique units and factions" This will result in one faction being weaker than the other.

We already saw what happened in MI: mongols were never used.
We see what happens in MTW: muslims are worthless.

Even within the limited amount of factions which are used 4 units dominate: Chiv Knights, Chiv MAA, Footsoldiers and Arbalesters.

Although STW had less units than MTW has factions the tactical diversity in that game was much bigger (imho).

So where's the diversity? When ppl realy want to win a game the only factions you'll see are spanish byz and germans.

A solution could be what I suggested or what Tosa suggested in a different threat: give us the ability to turn certain faction and units off. But what is the point in adding so many units in a game when most wont be used cuz they are either worthless or overpowered?

The ultimate solution would be to do some serious testing and balancing (by both comm and dev) but after playing total war series for almost 2,5 years it would realy surprise me if that option would be taken.

[LittleGrizzly]

if they just gave the multiplayer stats to (for example) the guys who worked on 1.03 for mi 3/4 months in advance im sure the game would be balanced

Edit: agree with youssof although i wish it aint ever gonna happen....

[ElmarkOFear]

LOL Dump I said I want them to make sure that they keep those commands in. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I have over 200 on my ban and ignore list right now and it works great http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Magyar Khan]

i agree with u youssof

in a way of compromising i would go for 90% of units are available in every faction but the graphics are different. 10% specialised units, just add a button which allows them to be left out in a game.

i would heva been content with teh STW units wearing medieval looks clothing, and just some little tweaking left and right for the few added units.

chess has as well limited numbers and options and the variety in the game is enormous. its just our lives are run by marketeers and the need to get more and more.

now lets bomb iraq

[Tera]

I would like to see diversity like that found in MTW between Catholic factions, Byzantines and Muslim ones. Except for a few troublesome imbalances (Byz Inf and Lancers standing out here), I like the system.

There has to be place for every or almost every unit. The puzzle must fit well. The cavalry balance in MI was amazingly good for example. It needs time. Patches. Enough of them for the game to be fine tuned...

And we definetely must remove the nuisance of "can't change that stat because it would disrupt SP". We need different stats for SP and MP.

Tera

[Nelson]

Unit stats and availability should mirror history. Some factions had better armies. Some units types were good all around, others good in specific circumstances, and still others were usually lousy. If they existed they should be in the game regardless of their effectiveness. The rulers of the day fought with what they had, for better or worse. We are expected pick a side and do the same.

I hear ya, Tera. Separate MP stats would seem to be the answer but CA could never satisfy the old timers around here even if they tested for years. The result will be the same bitchin' over unit balance by the same people, for the third time in a row.

[TosaInu]

Seperate SP and MP stats are defenitely a good thing. But probably not enough, since there are very different requirements. None worse or better than the other.

Basically, the text stats in MI and MTW are a huge leap forward, since they allow to play how you like. The original STW had one fixed hardcoded stat, you had to swallow it.

MI still had the problem of many hardwired stuff, MTW allows to change almost anything, there are just a few hardwired 'annoyances' (fatigue being the most important one).

Some people have a good time with custom stats/startpos files online (Mongols, Swiss, better archers, slow turning mangonels, more morale, better spears, 'extra units', era specific units). So, CA already opened the game to be played like you want.

What the TW games still need, is the ease to use those custom things (together with some sliders instead of simple on/off toggles). Many people are struggling with setting it up.

But really, not being able to play MTW how you like is not (just) CA's fault anymore.

[Nelson]

Plug-ins like Morrowind has would be great. They are very easy to install and subsequently turn on and off.

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (faisal @ Feb. 10 2003,10:08)]
Quote[/b] (lafayette @ Jan. 14 2003,08:35)]As for the units, just some thoughts:
Saracen nomads
These are arab nomads,saracens never existed before islam.the word saracen itself is of crusader origin that means any muslim who is fighting them(correct me if i'm wrong).the arabs in jordan and iraq(souther parts)fought for both the greek and persians,the Ghasanids who where allied to the greeks(mainly archers),and another tribe wich i don't remember their name,who where compromised mainly of light cavalry.
Not so - Saracens of Crusader times were named after the Roman term for them - Saraceni - people of the tents.

There were any number of Arab tribal and city states using a wide variety of troop types.

Perhaps most famous is Palmyra, whose cataphracts formed the bulk of that troop type in Roman service and who's rebellion in 273AD is well documented.

They used lots of bow and javelin armed cavalry. Horses were prefered to camels as having higher status, but poorer tribes could often field large numbers of camel-borne warriors too.

Some of the city states had regular troops along the Roman model towards teh end of the proposed period and supplied Auxilia to the regular Roman army.

[Spino]

I would like to have more game options, the kind one would find after clicking on an 'Advanced' type button on the Options sceen. I would especially like to have more control over the difficulty levels. Separate slider bars for the AI and enemy Morale would be wonderful.

I definitely want to see mortal generals, spies, assassins and the like. It's nice to have a 9 star general live several hundred years but let's be real folks... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[spmetla]

I've been thinking about it, and seen it mentioned on and off but there is one gigantic thing that is missing in the entire total war system.

Population

Now this wouldn't be too hard to manage or implement at all seeing how it was done really well into the Lords of the Realm series.

Have recruiting mass armies all of a suden affect loyalty. If you develop only technology with no economic and cultural things your population will suffer.

Actually the more that I think about the Lords of the Realm series brought you more into the game than Total War. And it's a real old game too.

I don't want it copied, but there is nothing wrong with learning from a good game to make another game better.

Another game I used to love was Caeser II, I like the trade system, and fortifications and fort placement in that game too.

And please don't tell me to just play those games, I have them and liked them, but the antiquity is just overwhelming. And the battles suck when compard to Total War.


Comments please http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Heraclius]

you were a Caesar fan too, Spmelta? Sorry to say I only got on board with Caesar III. Dug it out a few weeks ago and had a great time.
Rest assured I have definitely heard that population will be a factor (what kind I'm not sure) in RTW.

[spmetla]

I have Caeser II and III, Caeser III lets you make better cities but Caeser II had better battles (Sorta), and I like managing a provice over just a city-state.

[spmetla]

Another idea. Upgradeable troops. Like upgrade my spearmen to feudal sergeants, then from there to chivalric sergeatns.

It would be nice to keep my veteran units at the cutting edge instead of just becoming outdated and then useless.

[Leet Eriksson]

Ceasar II is better than Ceasar III imo.