RTW's Timeline

[Longshanks]

Odd that the the game "officially" ends so early in the Roman Empire's history. I belive it officially ends in 10 A.D....the Roman Empire would live for another 400 yrs, and it doesn't reach its height until roughly 117 A.D.

I know nothing like that is announced, but it seems like room has intentionally been left for an expansion pack.

What do you all think?

[econ21]

It's probably a good thing. The full Roman period covers far more than MTW. There is a danger of covering too much and getting either a flawed or woefully ahistorical game. Plus if a "decline and fall" add-on (or add-ons) gives more money to CA to fund developing these amazing games, I won't object.

[Spino]

I suppose the expansion could include the time period after 14 AD but would it make much sense? With the exception of Persia all of Rome's most dangerous and civilized enemies had been beaten by the end of the first century BC Plenty of history but would the game be challenging?

As far as expansions go I would like to see one of three avenues explored:

1) Stay within the current timeline and simply add more campaigns, units, major & minor factions, etc.

2) Go back even further in time to when the Roman republic was at odds with the Etruscans, Samnites, Celts, various Greek colonies and other inhabitants and invaders of the Italian peninsula. This would also give us the opportunity to witness the rise of Carthage, Alexander's incredible campaigns, Celtic supremancy north of the Mediterranean, etc.

3) Have CA fast forward to the decline of the Roman Empire, when the empire was split into two parts and barbarians and Asiatic factions were knocking at either Imperial door.

[Galestrum]

I pick number #3

Start before the battle of Adrianople (376ish) and go thru the Islamic invasions

[JANOSIK007]

I would like it to be until the fall of Rome, or even beyound that.

Maybe RTW could be somehow connected to MTW with an expansion pack.

[JANOSIK007]

700 or 500 B.C.. You'll get a kick out of playin other nations that were much more powerful than Rome. ( Etruria, Carthage, Greeks, Egypt, Phoenecia, Persia )

That's all I can think of right now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Jacque Schtrapp]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 17 2003,05:52)]Odd that the the game "officially" ends so early in the Roman Empire's history. I belive it officially ends in 10 A.D....the Roman Empire would live for another 400 yrs, and it doesn't reach its height until roughly 117 A.D.

I know nothing like that is announced, but it seems like room has intentionally been left for an expansion pack.

What do you all think?
I thought the Roman empire (eastern half but still Roman) didn't officially end until the Turks captured Constantinople... er Istanbul http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Elwe]

As far as I understand, the RTW game covers the period of the Roman Republic... which ended in 14 AD when Rome gained it's first Emperor and became an Empire.

Yes, you're correct Jacque. The Roman Empire lasted from it's first Emperor in 14 AD to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD.

Cheers.

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

Yeah I agree there will be an expansion pack for later.

HUNS INVASION EXPANSION PACK
BARBARIAN INVASION EXPANSION PACK

which ever, it will happen, they are squeezing time together to get more money. Which is ok, as long as the games are damn good. I dont mind paying £50 for the two games together if they are legendary and do screw over my computer.

Also MP has to be of a higher standard than ever before. Otherwise I'm not sure its all worth it.

Maybe i'm being pessimistic, but have we come to expect too much from CA because of what they deliver and so what we expect them to deliver later?

[king steven]

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 17 2003,05:52)]I know nothing like that is announced, but it seems like room has intentionally been left for an expansion pack.

What do you all think?
ex-pak is good
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

[Rosacrux]

I think - even though it's quite premature and nothing more than an educated guess - that CA-Activision shall milk this cow for more milk than they did for the previous installments of the game.

Meaning, in simple English, that there will be more than one expansions to this game.

Me, I would be happy to see a back-in-time expansion, featuring Alex and his campaigns, or even the Persian wars.

But I am really afraid of what the masterminds of CAs Frankestein Workshop of the Horrors shall come up with as units for those periods... maybe Alexander's gay companions, Persian sizzling women, Phoenician Semitic Merchants, killer crabs, maybe the - omnipotent - pink flamingos shall feature an appearance http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]I think - even though it's quite premature and nothing more than an educated guess - that CA-Activision shall milk this cow for more milk than they did for the previous installments of the game.

Meaning, in simple English, that there will be more than one expansions to this game.

I completely agree. The impression I get from CA is that Activision is looking to seriously exploit the Total War property. If RTW does as well as everyone believes it will then the demand for more than one expansion pack will be huge.

I still maintain a pre-RTW era expansion would provide more varied and balanced gameplay and interesting campaigns than one which would cover the decline of Rome. But I'll gladly take both http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] ]The impression I get from CA is that Activision is looking to seriously exploit the Total War property


To be sure, I think it's better for CA to stay its franchises a while.

[The Wizard]

They make it end at the death of Augustus Octavianus Caesar because, simply, that is when the game becomes real boring because of the Pax Romana...

The only factions would be: Rome, Parthia, and the assorted Germanic tribes which don't become a danger until the Marcomanni...



~Wiz

[ah_dut]

I agree give us the fall of rome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Jacque Schtrapp @ Feb. 22 2003,22:54)]I thought the Roman empire (eastern half but still Roman) didn't officially end until the Turks captured Constantinople... er Istanbul
It would be called Byzantium in RTWs timeframe... and yes your right the Empire didn't end until then, but after Rome itself was lost I think it is a bit silly to still refer to them as still being "Roman" (especially as over the centuries it became more of a Greek empire)

For an expansion? Give me the fall of Rome baby

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I posted this a few months ago (before the CA's Marketing Horror Show was revealed):

-Shogun: Total War (7 factions: build --> conquer)
-The Mongol Invasion expansion (1 suplemental faction: pillage --> conquer)

-Medieval: Total War (14 factions: build --> conquer)
-The Viking Invasion expansion (New map + 6 suplemental factions: build --> conquer + 1 suplemental faction: pillage --> conquer)

So, IMHO, according to me, it should have been (before CA's Marketing Horror Show was revealed):

-Rome: Total War (10 factions: build --> conquer)
-The Great Invasions expansion
(8 suplemental factions: Huns, Goths, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Angles, Suevi, Burgundians, Longobards, etc... : pillage --> conquer)

[The_Emperor]

Shouldn't the vandals be in that list as well?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 16 2004,15:04)]Shouldn't the vandals be in that list as well?
It's edited. But you did notice the etc, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 16 2004,22:00)]
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 16 2004,15:04)]Shouldn't the vandals be in that list as well?
It's edited. But you did notice the etc, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif
I know I'm just messin with ya http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 16 2004,16:02)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ June 16 2004,22:00)]
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 16 2004,15:04)]Shouldn't the vandals be in that list as well?
It's edited. But you did notice the etc, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif
I know I'm just messin with ya http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-speechless.gif Naughty, naughty http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif

[andrewt]

CA's expansion packs for both TW games have been simpler, feature less factions, occur much earlier and are more battle-oriented. They focus more on conquering instead of empire building. Something like the founding of Rome and Alexander's wars might be it.

The reason the Pax Romana isn't included in the timeline is because a time of peace isn't really suitable in a total war.

[shakaka36]

my dad once grounded me for a week for calling istanbul: istanbul, beign a proud half greek he insists it be called Constantinople

[kataphraktoi]

Quote[/b] ]my dad once grounded me for a week for calling istanbul: istanbul, beign a proud half greek he insists it be called Constantinople

hahahahahaha

sorry...

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

Constantinople has a nice ring to it doesn't it than Istanbul?

[andrewt]

That's ...... really disturbing. And he's only half greek.

[Xiphias]

Of course we many see the roman invasion and occupation of britain, hadrians wall and all that. 400-odd years and a smallish map.

[The Wizard]

Note that it was the republic of Mustafa Kemal who called it Istanbul, if memory serves..


~Wiz

[shakaka36]

my father's father's family had left istanbul/constantinople after the greek loss in the greek turkish war just after WW1, prior to this, they had lived in the city since atleast the 11th century

[shakaka36]

it was mustafa Kemals, republic which officially changed the name, but the local turks had referred to it as Istanbul even before the fall in 1453

[Rosacrux]

Istanbul is the Turkish adoption of the Greek expression "eis thn polhn" (meaning "in/to the city" - where city is of course "The City" as the Romioi called Constantinople) and it was used by the Turkish speaking people long before the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople.

No Greek ever calls the place "Istanbul", we call it "Constanople" or just "Polh" (city).

[shakaka36]

and after growing up with my dad, i do now always use constantinople as opposed to istanbul, have been known to scold my firneds for using istanbul (even one of my lecturers dropped using istanbul in favour of constantinople after talking to em about it)