Romani ate domini!

[Rosacrux]

Rome: Total War is prolly what I and many other TW fans wished for - an ancient TW. We are happy to see it coming true.

Fact is, though, that this game seems very Rome-oriented. I mean, we've read some stuff by the devs (not here... they still seem absent) and all they do is talking about Rome - how Rome will do that, this and the other, how you get to fight against other Roman factions and have a pain upon your arse that is the Senate...

...what about the other factions? I for one care at least equally about the other factions in the game, I want to have something more about them too.

Yes, they've already said there will be plenty'o'playable factions, but the details are ...where? Any senate-like institution for those? Other details about the non-Roman factions seems absent too.

I know this is too early to start yamming, but I think you know what I mean http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I believe, both from reading the PCG article and looking on the net, that the main-or imperial-campaign is only playable as the Romans. I believe that this is because the main campaign is very Senate-mission oriented, and this wouldn't make any sense as, say, the Visigoths. However, ther will be mini campaigns-such as Hannibal crossing the Alps-which feature other civilisations. They will also be playable in multiplayer. I'm not sure whether it's a step backwards or forwards. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Monk]

they do say that there are a wide range of Factions to play as. When i first heard about this game i imediatly thought about controling the Greeks and raising an army to defy the might of Rome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif . i only hope the other factios are given enough attention when it comes to their campaign.

[Galestrum]

The game is pretty far off, and i doubt CA would be so dumb as to only allow us to play as rome in the main campaign.

The reason they focus on Rome, is purely marketing i think, most everyone has heard of rome and all the images that the name conjurs, while the others are less widely known, and may in fact not elicit much more than celts chopping heads off http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

Take viking invasion, its focus or theme is the vikings, but you can play many others factions.

If we were just allowed to play as Rome, the replay value would be greatly diminshed

[Monk]

just found a page that lists playable factions (whether they actually 100% know these are gonna be in the game or guessing i dont know but i thought id report it to u)

Rome
Gual
Greek
Egypt
Carthage
Barbarians (doesnt specify)
Visigoths.

now those are my findings whether this is all True or not i do not know. but either way we now have somthing to look forward to.

[Nelson]

I recalled reading somewhere that Carthage had an oligarchy of sorts that elected leaders. So I found this site:

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/carthage-government.htm

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Not to worry, you will be able to play the Imperial Campaign as other factions besides the Romans. The Senate just won't be active in that case. It would be a little silly to remove all of that ... after all, those factions have their own troops, tech trees, etc. That's a lot of work if nobody's going to play them ;-)

Nice to see a forum on Rome, by the way http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Stormer]

yea i hope 12 faction minimum http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]Not to worry, you will be able to play the Imperial Campaign as other factions besides the Romans. The Senate just won't be active in that case. It would be a little silly to remove all of that ... after all, those factions have their own troops, tech trees, etc. That's a lot of work if nobody's going to play them ;-)

That's good news to our ears Jerome. I just hope that some attention will be paid to the respective histories of the other major factions in the game. It would be nice to have a few mini and or historical campaigns that do not involve Rome. Will we also be able to play as Rome with the option of disabling the Senate?

I also hope there will be a healthy assortment of unique mercenary units available in the game. After all, the overwhelming majority of Carthage's armies were comprised of mercenary units.

Well here's my two cents on the factions we can expect to find in RTW...

Major Factions:

- Rome (there will be three in all; 1 for the days of the Republic and two more to depict the civil wars?)
- Carthage
- Macedonia
- Athens
- Achaean League - Corinth et al.
- Aetolian League - (minor faction?)
- Ptolemaic Empire (Egypt)- (Successor Kingdom) Egypt, N. Africa and parts of W. Asia
- Seleucid Empire - (Successor Kingdom) W. Asia & Asia Minor. Eventually overwhelmed by...
- Parthia - (If RTW is to span 270BC-10BC then the Parthians have to be present as a major, playable faction)... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
- Gaul

Minor Factions:

- Pergamene Monarchy - (Successor Kingdom), W. Asia Minor
- Syracuse - Major player in Punic wars, controlled eastern Sicily
- Saguntum - Iberian city state.
- Massilia - Greek city state in S. France, eventually became known as 'Marseilles'.
- Sparta
- Epirus
- Thrace
- Illryia
- Armenia
- Cappadocia
- Galatia
- Bythnia
- Pontius

That's about as concise a list as I could make regarding the major and minor players of the time period represented in RTW. I suppose a few more barbarian factions from the north could be added but other than the Gauls when they were united to confront Julius Caesar there isn't much up there, so to speak.

[Galestrum]

Hey Jerome any chance you can let us know the general timeline of the game? is it just the republic age of rome, or can we play all the way to 476 AD (the end of rome) and beyond?

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

Nice ideas, but surely RTW is gonna span longer than 260 years.

Lets not forget Dacians, Iberians, Huns.

The Visigoths are also in it, you have not mentioned them.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]Nice ideas, but surely RTW is gonna span longer than 260 years.

Lets not forget Dacians, Iberians, Huns.

The Visigoths are also in it, you have not mentioned them.

RTW is not going to cover the period that saw Visigoth, Hun or Dacian encroachment on Imperial territory. Where did you read that the Visigoths were going to be in RTW? Although I suppose the Dacians could get squeezed into a 'late era' campaign as they were fairly advanced and a major trading partner to Rome in the second half of the 1st century BC. As far as the Iberians are concerned Saguntum was about the most developed city state that had a predominantly Iberian population. Most barbarian peoples were too tribal for their own good and simply didn't have the bureacratic or economic infrastructure necessary to create a self-perpetuating civilization, the kind that I would consider to be listed as a Major or Minor faction. Looking at my original list of Minor factions I think maybe I should remove the Illryians.

On the time period covered by RTW JeromeGrasDyke posted the following in this thread:

http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=6259 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=19;t=6259)


Quote[/b] ]"On to content... we've said in the PC Zone UK preview that it will be more or less 260 BCE to 10 CE - the main campaign will be the rise of the Empire from the Republic, including Civil Wars and the various reforms of the Roman army - Velites/Triarii/Hastati vs Marius' mules and so on. We'll probably include an option to play on after you've won, but that's where the artists' time ran out."

Roughly 250 years in a nutshell.

The unofficial word is that RTW will have seasonal turns. So unless we hear otherwise we can look forward to roughly 1000 turns in the grand campaign game instead of ~250.

[Monk]

seasonal turns reminds me of STW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ICantSpellDawg]

WOW a programmer actually reads a fan forum AND commented thats good new

Jerome, you just increased creative assembly's image 10 fold in my eyes

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (JeromeGrasdyke @ Feb. 09 2003,08:40)]Not to worry, you will be able to play the Imperial Campaign as other factions besides the Romans. The Senate just won't be active in that case. It would be a little silly to remove all of that ... after all, those factions have their own troops, tech trees, etc. That's a lot of work if nobody's going to play them ;-)

Nice to see a forum on Rome, by the way http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Nice to see one of the Rome devs around - good to know that the fine tradition of the MTW devs being close to the community is being continued with RTW devs as well. *thumbs up*


To the point: I wasn't asking wether there were other playable factions in the grand campaign or not - frankly, I was darn sure more than one faction would be fully playable.

I was asking wether or not a similar institution as the Senate would be introduced for those other factions. If not, I can see playing the Romans the only way to fully utilize the game mechanics (and take the best out of it). I hope you won't let the other factions down... they need their own "senate" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Kristaps]

Hehe, well, the Romans basically "rolled over" the rest of the known world: at times, by attrition and persistence though. I feel, it's only historically fair to give them an 'edge' like senate in the game.

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

I would enjoy playing as the Celts. I know they weren't really an organized nation like Rome, but I hope it's an option anyway.

[The Black Ship]

Well, early on the Italian tribes need to be represented. Rome's many wars with the Etruscans and Samnites are what made Rome a military power.

[Tempiic]

Aye... plus adding the celts living on the italian side of the alps as well as Magna Graecia and the Umbriens

Ahh i really should go to library to fetch warfare in the classical world... pity its soo cold outside http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Beelzebub]

Weren't the phoenicians and persians pretty big?

[Spino]

Technically the Carthaginians were Phoenicians, at least the upper classes were. Carthage was Phoenicia's most successful colony. The Phoenicians were the preminent mercantile power in the Western world way before Rome became a powerful state, back in the days when the Myceneans, Ionians, Minoans, etc. were around and nobody referred to them collectively as 'Greeks'. When Alexander the Great sieged and razed the coastal city of Tyre, he effectively closed the chapter on the 'original' Phoenicians and their civilization. However, the Phoenician legacy would carry on in Carthage.

The Persians were quite powerful in their day but their empire was never as great as when Xerxes and Darius invaded Greece. Alexander the Great's conquest of W. Asia made sure that Persia would never again become a world winning 'superpower'. Technically speaking, given the timeframe of RTW (270BC-14AD) we really shouldn't see the Persians make an appearance but we should see the Parthians. The Parthians were a nomadic steppe people from the region of Parthava in NE Persia (they were referred to as the Scythians by the Greeks) who took control over Persia and W. Asia from the Seleucid Empire (one of Alexander's Successor kingdoms) during the 2nd and 1st century AD. Over time the Parthians became more and more 'Persian' until the Sasanid dynasty overthrew the last Parthian ruler in 224AD. In a nutshell the Parthian empire was one of Rome's most formidable and civilized enemies. CA simply must include the Parthians in RTW. The good news is much like the Seleucids who preceded them, the Parthian unit mix should be varied and quite exotic... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Here's a few maps of the Parthian empire to give you an idea of its beginnings and high point:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/csr/nnc/parthia/images/pamabe.jpg

http://americanhistory.si.edu/csr/nnc/parthia/images/pamap.gif

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

http://americanhistory.si.edu/csr/nnc/parthia/images/rpwars.jpg

[Rosacrux]

Everything well, Spino, besides this little bit


Quote[/b] ]they were referred to as the Scythians by the Greeks

Nope, the Parthians were called "Parnii" or "Parnians" by the Greeks. Check some historians of the relevant timeframe. The Skythes were a completely different thing altogether (actually, the Skythes lived in the part of the world we now call Ukraine and parts of todays Georgia). The Parnii lived in the area east of the Caspian sea. Hardly the same people.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Monk @ Feb. 08 2003,22:52)]just found a page that lists playable factions (whether they actually 100% know these are gonna be in the game or guessing i dont know but i thought id report it to u)

Rome
Gual
Greek
Egypt
Carthage
Barbarians (doesnt specify)
Visigoths.

now those are my findings whether this is all True or not i do not know. but either way we now have somthing to look forward to.
How do you get Visigoths in there when the time frame is till around 10 A.D.? ( birth of imperial Rome)
And aren't Visigoths barbarians? To me there barbaric by all means and so are the Gauls ( from Roman point-of-view of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).

BTW, it's Gaul not Gual.

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (JANOSIK007 @ Feb. 16 2003,23:06)]
Quote[/b] (Monk @ Feb. 08 2003,22:52)]just found a page that lists playable factions (whether they actually 100% know these are gonna be in the game or guessing i dont know but i thought id report it to u)

Rome
Gual
Greek
Egypt
Carthage
Barbarians (doesnt specify)
Visigoths.

now those are my findings whether this is all True or not i do not know. but either way we now have somthing to look forward to.
How do you get Visigoths in there when the time frame is till around 10 A.D.? ( birth of imperial Rome)
And aren't Visigoths barbarians? To me there barbaric by all means and so are the Gauls ( from Roman point-of-view of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).

BTW, it's Gaul not Gual.
Visigoths shouldn't be included if we are talking Republic and Early Empire.

The most powerful German tribes during that period were the Teutones, the Suebi, the Cimbri, the Quadi and the Marcomanni. Visgoths were not even a blip on the radar yet. They should only be present if the game is taking place in the late Empire.

I suppose this is due to lack of homework, or wanting to choose more recognizable factions. Everyone has heard of the Goths...but most wouldn't know the Suebi.

Barbarians are a strange faction as well. The Romans would have considered everyone except maybe Greeks as Barbarians. This is especially true for the more primitive tribal nations throughout Western and Northern Europe...i.e. collectively the Germans, Britons, Gauls and Dacians.

[Monk]

dont get pissed at me im just goin on what ive read... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif not a big deal. all u got to say is "i dont think the Visigoths will be included." and thats it. no need for this huge Historical look on how i typed somthing wrong.




Quote[/b] ]BTW, it's Gaul not Gual.

it was late when i wrote this and i was tired... heh i screwed spelling up i suppose.

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ Feb. 09 2003,14:56)]Major Factions:

- Rome (there will be three in all; 1 for the days of the Republic and two more to depict the civil wars?)
- Carthage
- Macedonia
- Athens
- Achaean League - Corinth et al.
- Aetolian League - (minor faction?)
- Ptolemaic Empire (Egypt)- (Successor Kingdom) Egypt, N. Africa and parts of W. Asia
- Seleucid Empire - (Successor Kingdom) W. Asia & Asia Minor. Eventually overwhelmed by...
- Parthia - (If RTW is to span 270BC-10BC then the Parthians have to be present as a major, playable faction)... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
- Gaul

Minor Factions:

- Pergamene Monarchy - (Successor Kingdom), W. Asia Minor
- Syracuse - Major player in Punic wars, controlled eastern Sicily
- Saguntum - Iberian city state.
- Massilia - Greek city state in S. France, eventually became known as 'Marseilles'.
- Sparta
- Epirus
- Thrace
- Illryia
- Armenia
- Cappadocia
- Galatia
- Bythnia
- Pontius

That's about as concise a list as I could make regarding the major and minor players of the time period represented in RTW. I suppose a few more barbarian factions from the north could be added but other than the Gauls when they were united to confront Julius Caesar there isn't much up there, so to speak.
Wasn't Sparta heading the Achaean league and Athens heading the Aetolian league?

[Spino]

Well I imagine that barbarian peoples will be represented as unusually unpredictable, non-playable factions. Something more 'tangible' than Rebels but not nearly as organized as a Minor Factions. The exception to this would be the Celtic peoples of Gaul who, for the most part, united under one banner during Caesar's campaigns.

I am reluctant to include Dacians in the barbarian group because they had become rather civilized by the first century BC and enjoyed considerable trade with other Mediterranean powers (Rome included) until they were eventually conquered by Rome.

I think the list of Major factions from my earlier post is right on the money. Take away any of those and CA would be overlooking some seriously influential and powerful factions of the time.

JANOSIK007, the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues were two confederations of minor city-states in Greece. Neither Sparta or Athens were members of either league. There was a movement in Sparta led by Cleomenes III around 235BC to restore the old Lycurgian constitution and bring back the 'glory days'. After pummeling the Aetolian league in several battles a resurgent Sparta was eventually defeated by an Aetolian-Macedonian alliance.

The Achaean League was the more powerful of the two confederations. The Achaean league eventually grew to include Corinth and Megara, the former a sizeable city state and naval power in the Peloponneseus that was liberated from tyranny by Aratus of Sicyon. Aratus was the Achaean League's most successful general or 'strategos'. He was a man of many talents and strove to defeat despots and incorporate free peoples into the League. I imagine Aratus is going to have some fantastic ratings and V&Vs in RTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

In the long run, Athens' decision to not lend its economic and military might to the Achaean league definitely gave Rome an easier time of conquering the Hellenes. After Macedonia was defeated it was only a matter of time before the divided Greek city states were swallowed up by Rome.

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ Feb. 17 2003,15:48)]Well I imagine that barbarian peoples will be represented as unusually unpredictable, non-playable factions. Something more 'tangible' than Rebels but not nearly as organized as a Minor Factions. The exception to this would be the Celtic peoples of Gaul who, for the most part, united under one banner during Caesar's campaigns.

I am reluctant to include Dacians in the barbarian group because they had become rather civilized by the first century BC and enjoyed considerable trade with other Mediterranean powers (Rome included) until they were eventually conquered by Rome.

I think the list of Major factions from my earlier post is right on the money. Take away any of those and CA would be overlooking some seriously influential and powerful factions of the time.

JANOSIK007, the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues were two confederations of minor city-states in Greece. Neither Sparta or Athens were members of either league. There was a movement in Sparta led by Cleomenes III around 235BC to restore the old Lycurgian constitution and bring back the 'glory days'. After pummeling the Aetolian league in several battles a resurgent Sparta was eventually defeated by an Aetolian-Macedonian alliance.

The Achaean League was the more powerful of the two confederations. The Achaean league eventually grew to include Corinth and Megara, the former a sizeable city state and naval power in the Peloponneseus that was liberated from tyranny by Aratus of Sicyon. Aratus was the Achaean League's most successful general or 'strategos'. He was a man of many talents and strove to defeat despots and incorporate free peoples into the League. I imagine Aratus is going to have some fantastic ratings and V&Vs in RTW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

In the long run, Athens' decision to not lend its economic and military might to the Achaean league definitely gave Rome an easier time of conquering the Hellenes. After Macedonia was defeated it was only a matter of time before the divided Greek city states were swallowed up by Rome.
I think it is a bit unfair to class the Celts as barbarians, as they had their own currency, they had major towns and even cities, they were master metalsmiths, craftsmen, and miners, and I believe that their language, religion, and culture were basically homogueous as well.
So whats the difference between them and the Greeks for example? Yea they fought amoungst one another, but so did the Greeks.

The actual concept comes from the Roman/Greek arrogant cultural bias against those not of their own people. The word barbarian comes from the arrogant thought that all other peoples could only say Ba-Ba.

[Hakonarson]

The difference between Greeks and Barbarians was precisely that barbarians weren't Greek

Greeks invented the word barbarian, and it refers to foreign languages that sound like "bar bar" to the Greeks

Even Romans were technically barbarians, simply because they weren't Greek http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Rosacrux]

It is completely ludicrous to compare the ancient Greeks to the ancient Celts. The Celts had a distinct culture and that's it. The Greeks were the civilization that laid the foundation in all sorts of sciences, politics, social issues etc. etc. etc.

Could you mention a couple of things the Celts invented or came up with? I could - from the top of my head - mention a thousand the Greeks invented or came up with.

Revisionist history is fun, but is usually innacurate as hell. The diferences are there, visible and huge. There is no need to try to refute those, instead accept them and carry on.

[Heraclius]

well said, Rosacrux. Compared to the Greeks the Celts really were barbarians.

[rasoforos]

As Harkonanson said the word barbarian is a linguistic aproxximation. Everyone who cannot speak greek was a barbarian. And of course the romans were barbarians too before they came in contact with the hellenic civilisation.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GREEKS AND CELTS :there is a plethora of differences , philosophy , technology , politics , athletics , biology , physics , strategy and tactics , democracy , ideology , mechanics , organisation , theatre ( with comedies , tragedies, dramas , satyres ) , history , chemistry , economics , and the list goes on. In parallel i hope that the above are sufficient criteria to emphasize the politismical differences between the two races. I hope i do not sound ironic or sarcastic when i say that this text also provides a basic analysis as to why we do nor use the world 'barbarian' to describe the non-hellenes anymore. You guys can now speak greek http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Hakonarson]

Hmm...well the main reason we don't know what the Celts contributed to our current cultuer is mainly that they didn't have a written language (which the Greeks did not invent).

But hink of this - Ever wonder where the hanging of mistletoe arose as a Christmas tradition? How about Santa Claus? Why do we celebrate New Year's at the end of December instead of in April as we once did? Why are Holly and Ivy so important to the season? Why do we put up a Christmas Tree in our house? Why are gifts exchanged at Christmas? Why is ham traditionally eaten during the Christmas feast? Guess what -- all of these traditions stem from the barbarian festival of Jul (Yule); the festival of the Winter Solstice. A Celtic festival

Celts certainly contributed massively to Roman civilisation - architecture, language, weaponry and armour (mail was a celtic invention) aer all known to have been taken from Celtic culture for roman use, however the Romans usually didn't acknowledge Celtic contributions whereas they usually did acknowledge Greek ones.

the reasons for this are, IMO, relatively straightforward - Greece has long been seen as the bulwark against hte Asian hordes, and therefore to be admired - stretching back to Homer. Whereas the Celts were seen as dangerous barbarians who were nothing but a threat - especially after they burned Rome in 390.

I'd hope that most ppl these days could put that particular defeat and predjudice behind them...I mean it was 2400 yrs ago http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Heraclius]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Mar. 18 2003,16:42)]Hmm...well the main reason we don't know what the Celts contributed to our current cultuer is mainly that they didn't have a written language (which the Greeks did not invent).
We Greeks just can't help it. thievery and craftiness are in our blood. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif And anyway maybe we did steal the Phoenician's written language but look who got the credit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[rasoforos]

concerning the 'phoenician' alphabet. This theory came out more than 80 years ago and at a time when grammic B ( the mycenian language) was considered to be etruscan. At this point the archaiologist though that the greek civilisation started at 800-900 bc and that troy was a myth. However as it was discovered the grammic B was translated and it was greek. Considering that many letters of the grammic B appear on the alphabet and also considering the fact that the alphabets developed near phoenicia had some serious 'primitivisms' and dissimilarities ( For example there are no vowels ) makes the possibility of the alphabet being phoenician quite distant. Anyhows even the grammic A is not ancient enough ( not even near) to be considered as the first written language , so we didnt invent writing. We only invented the best writting system up to today http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Hakonarson many of the 'customs' who mention as celtic can be traced to the roman saturnalia and the greek dionysia , i am sure that the celts had some influence but i think you exagerate it. Moreover i cannot accept that the celts had a civilisation comparable to the greek one but they were overshadowed because of a roman prejudice. Only mentioning architecture and language can give some proof of the opposite , nowadays practically more than 40% of the celtic and germanic languages are made by latin and greek words. I doubt that if the celts had a linguistic plethora that they would adopt so many words. Architecture...well what can i say....with greek collumns and roman arcs there is not a lot of space for celtic architecture. And lets not forget who created the first real city in celtic france , they even put it in their national anthem http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Heraclius]

it seems you know your stuff better than I do, rasoforos. I'll take your word for it. nicely said. you were also very subtle in your last comment http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Hakonarson]

I'm surprised anyone would equate culture to cities - what a narrow viewpoint.

Celtic culture is evident in many ways - churches in England are tall and have doors in the sides becajuse that's the Celtic pattern (Roman ones were shorted and had doors in the ends) - despite the Roman church rites displacing the Celtic ones, the architecture remained.

Celtic metal working methods on the middle La Tene period (about 300-100BC) were considerably more advanced than roman or Greek ones - some of their jewelery is absolutely amazing and their chariot axles are a marvel of casting.

I'm surprised that only 40% of what you call celtic languages aer Latin or Greek derived, since Latin displaced Gallic in France almost universally, and of course French isn't Celtic at all - it's roots are Germanic (Franks) and Latin.

There's not nearly as much Latin in Welsh and Irish Gaelic as there is in French or English.

And of course don't forget Whiskey - a Gaelic word http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Hakonarson]

I wonder if there will be factions in cultures other than Rome?

For example Hannibal's family, the Barca's, were a faction in Carthage, and hand their enemies and disputes with htem even at the height of the 2nd Punic War. However they were quite dominant of course, supplying all the main Carthaginian generals (Hannibal, Hasdrubal & Mago were brothers).

[Heraclius]

just a question. I have heard Hamilcar Barca referred to as Hannibal's father and grandfather. Which one was he?

[Hakonarson]

I don't know if Hannibal's grandfather was a Hamilcar, but his father certainly was. Hamilcar was a common name in the Barca clan.

Another Hamilcar Barca was killed in battle with the Greeks in Sicily in 480 BC, and HIS grandson was also Hannibal and noted chiefly for sacking Acragas (modern Agrigento) in 406 B.C.

[Oberiko]

Though perhaps not quite historically accurate, I believe that game wise the factions should be broken up by culture.

Culturally speaking, I doubt there were a great many significant differences between the various Greek city states, especially in comparing them to rival factions like the Germans or Rome. What differences there are can most likely be shown in provincial attributes (Sparta gets hoplites with extra valor etc.).

Asides, dividing the Greeks into 4+ mini factions would force you to do the same with others, many of whom were even more divided. Personally, I think if we represent the major barbarian tribes (German, Celtic/Gaul, etc.) along with the more dominant civilizations, we should be alright. The only reason why, IMO, we divide Rome is:

1 - They're the main faction (add more excitement with both interior and exterior conflict)

2 - To somewhat limit their power and prevent them from simply steamrolling over the others. (1 Roman faction will probably be the rough equivelant of 1 non-Roman faction)

Considering M:TW has about 12 major factions (plus a few with the expansion), I don't think we'd really want to go over 16 in total for this game.

[Galestrum]

I want as many factions as there were in history, as feaible as it can be within the game.

The rebel provinces worked well in STW, where rebel provinces made sense in the terms of a kingdom.

Having huge numbers of provinces as rebels in MTW was very lame. Many kingdoms were left out, and there was just no need.

Serbia, bulgaria, coratia, lithuainia, scots, flemish, welsh, khazars, armenians, among others were countries of signifiance, not to mention much of what was considered france and the HRE was in reality separate factions as well.

Rebels just sit there in MTW, waiting to be bribed, or wanting to run to another province, they generally pose little to no threat, and that just isnt realistic.

Rebel factions should only ever be a result of a rebellion.

And regarding civil wars, anytime there is a civil war, the other side of the civil war should become a faction as well, not just sit around like other rebels waiting to be picked off. Why have a civil war if you arent trying to win against the other side? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Osbot]

I find it rather ironic that people dismiss other cultures so easily.

Yes, the greeks by and large founded "western" civilization in terms of how we look at it today. The celts had a rich culture and a rather advanced one. Where they lost out, is to the romans and to the victor goes the spoils so to speak. You can re-write history however you please.

Let us take China for example. China was arguably the most advanced culture on earth in this time period. Had Alexander been able to convince his troops to continue on towards China, well, Alexander wouldnt have turned out to be so "Great", he would have marched his sick and ailing army of, assuming most of them survived the journey, 90,000 into China and promply run into PROVINCIAL armies of 200k+. However, China was extremely isolationist and largely pre-occupied with itself. The fact Chinas culture did not become the foundation of western civilization does not mean you can discount it as inferior. No more than you can discount the Celts.

The Romans were no fools, they were highly adept at the art of propaganda, they systematically covered up and destroyed any remnents of culture that could rival their own. I don't need to give specific examples, if you are as well informed as you appear to be, you can probably think of several instances in which the Romans did just that, or later the Byzantines.

The Greeks were a great and afluent civilization the foundation of western civilization today. The Romans were also a greak and afluent civilization, that conquered most of the western world ensuring that their civilization endured. Just because less is known about the Celtic and other cultures does not diminish them. In recent years and decades many new things are being discovered about Celtic civilization.

The tale of Excaliber is very likely about the legendary celtic sword Lug. I think that the most famous tale in western culture being based off of Celtic lore is rather impressive don't you?

[Oberiko]

I do agree that some rebels should go on the offensive, and I definitely agree that during a civil war the other side should be very aggressive.

I think the main reason why they left the small factions as either rebels or absorbed into larger ones is simply cost vs. benefit.

Most of those little mini-factions don't have much in the way of special bonuses or unique troops (with a few exceptions). Taking the time to differentiate them simply isn't worth it. Not to mention the added musics and voice recordings needed.

[Galestrum]

I dont need added music (itd be nice) but the drag on game play caused by "rebels" in MTW was depressing

[Oberiko]

I still think the problem of differentiation prevents the creation of to many factions.

In M:TW, most factions shared a large number of units, each of them not very visually distinctive from each other. Adding extra factions wouldn't be that hard, creating a generic unit like that probably takes the guys at CA about 8 minutes a pop.

In R:TW, it looks like each faction is going to be very graphically distinctive. That leaves us with a few options: Either create new models and textures for units of all the smaller factions, or give them the current ones.

I personally don't think the resources are best spent doing the prior (I'd much rather the A.I. was that much more refined or a MP campaign was implemented), and I don't think there's much point with the later. If it looks, sounds and acts like a Gaul, I'd be alright with just calling it one.

[LadyAnn]

OK, the thread went long enough so I could hijack it now... What does the title means? "The Romans eat sundays?"

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

[Shahed]

Ahh lunchtime http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Yumm Yumm and even a siesta after hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (LadyAnn @ Mar. 22 2003,18:32)]OK, the thread went long enough so I could hijack it now... What does the title means? "The Romans eat sundays?"
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Haven't you watched "life of Brian"? There is this hilarious scene, when Brian (on his way to become a member of the "People front of Judaea") tries to do some graffiti with the phrase "Romans go Home" in Latin on some wall, and then a Roman soldier comes along and tries to... teach him correct Latin (at the tip of a gladius http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) , to spell it the way it is supposed to be.

"Romani ate domini": Romans go home http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif