PDA

View Full Version : preview at gamespy



Leet Eriksson
05-19-2003, 08:37
the preview is here (http://www.gamespy.com/e32003/preview/pc/1002776/)

they are also talking about elephants http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

EDIT:there are 21 playable factions in RTW

Shahed
05-19-2003, 09:49
Thx Faiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

This is the first I heard of the Gamespy Preview. Check this:

"We saw a rough-draft of the diplomatic menu, which looked very much like Civilization 3: Your faction is on the left, and the faction you're negotiating with is on the right. You drag demands and offers into the center of the screen, as does your opponent, until you reach an arrangement you both can agree on and sign a treaty."

Stormer
05-19-2003, 13:17
heh i was about to post the link ok i go read it now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Nowake
05-19-2003, 13:34
A kind, gentler TotalWar


I liked MTW being hardcore ...


Anyway, thx faisal ...

Knight_Yellow
05-19-2003, 14:00
i noticed the bit where he said

"stoically awaiting the horrifying charge of fifty or sixty tank-like armored elephants."


sigh

if there will be 50 nor 60 elephants in an army guess witch army will always get picked and always win.

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

Shahed
05-19-2003, 14:16
Nah

You know in South Africa, you can buy canned elephant meat.

Nowake
05-19-2003, 14:23
lol, and is it ... juicy? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Mithrandir
05-19-2003, 14:35
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ May 19 2003,08:00)]i noticed the bit where he said

"stoically awaiting the horrifying charge of fifty or sixty tank-like armored elephants."


sigh

if there will be 50 nor 60 elephants in an army guess witch army will always get picked and always win.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
let's not get ahead of things, remember, just buy 60 pigs and set them alight http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif (old thread joke-nm).

Thanks for the link, nice pictures too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.

Shahed
05-19-2003, 14:37
I'm glad there will be some diplomacy improvements, many are required.

Spino
05-19-2003, 15:18
Quote[/b] ]they are also talking about elephants

EDIT:there are 21 playable factions in RTW

Faisal, it doesn't say anywhere in that article that there will be 21 playable factions. It only says "To that end, they're aiming for about 21 factions to appear in the game..." I think it's safe to say that many of those will be the non-playable minor factions... but one can always hope. In fact, one can only pray there will be 21 playable factions in addition to the non-playable minor factions that are sure to be present as well. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Quote[/b] ]"stoically awaiting the horrifying charge of fifty or sixty tank-like armored elephants."

sigh

if there will be 50 nor 60 elephants in an army guess witch army will always get picked and always win.

50 to 60 elephants is a positively obscene figure when you consider that RTW may only sport several thousand men per army on the field Wasn't the actual ratio of elephants to men much lower than that? Anyway, those beasties better be ridiculously expensive to hire and maintain or the counters to those beasts more varied and plentiful than packs of squealing pigs covered in burning pitch Since elephants can rip right through pre and post Marius reform Legions will phalangites with their 16 foot plus sarissas fare any better against them? And where are the torches? I thought the Romans learned to use torches against elephants after their initial engagements with the beast.

I've said it before but I'll say it again...

I need videos, lots of large, high resolution in-game videos CA, WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Leet Eriksson
05-19-2003, 17:45
i saw that seljuk,it appears the diplomacy is much better in RTW hopefully there will be alliances with gallic tribes to make them turn on other tribes in northern europe(roman style Divide and Conquer&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Spino:i was hyped for a moment and probably misread it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif but if the arabs are in consider them the second faction i will pick after rome(this time i will make sure Khalid bin Sagr succesfully takes over the fort http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif).

Hakonarson
05-19-2003, 22:30
Elephant Ratios depend upong time, place and army. IIRC some successor armies fielded 200 elephants in forces of 50-60,000 men, while Hannibal had 1 left by the time he crossed the alps.

The Romans at Magensia had 16 they didn't use for an army of about 30,000, while their 60-70,000 Seleucid opponents had 64.

Alexanders pike men suffered their heaviest casualties in battle vs Poros' Indian elephants - 187 dead according to Arrian, but they were not broken.

Conversely at Bagradas (1st Punic War) a Roman general decided to put his legions deep to try to absorb the elephant charge - unfortunately this backfired - the Roman infantry were no more effective deep than in their normal formations. However the Roman infantry did not break until attacked in the rear by hte Carthaginian cavalry.

Vs Phyruss's elephants (275-270BC IIRC) the Romans paniced the first time they faced them, but not subsequently.

I guess elephants throwing soldiers in the air is a "fun" graphic, but it's rather nonsense historicaly. Elephants are much more intelligent than horses, they actually have no instinct to trample men, and IMO many or even most of the casualties caused by them are from the archers and javelinmen they carry on their backs.

Also armoured elephants were very few and far between and IIRC not used at all by any "Europeans" nations - cloth hangings were about as much as they used.

Basileus
05-19-2003, 22:46
Gonna read it now, hakonarson thanks for another history lesson http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Shahed
05-19-2003, 23:33
Here is what it says about the 21 factions:


Quote[/b] ]You'll be able to play the 21 factions against each other in interesting ways, since the diplomatic model will be even more advanced than what was available in Medieval.

Elephants are intelligent but they can be made to trample on anything. They are controlled using a spearhead, driven into the top of the head, that pain makes them controllable when they do wish to go against instructions of the drivers. It works in the same way as a whip or spiked stirrup for a horse.

That screenshot is obviously more for eye candy, and game play. They won't be reaching down and tusking men about, as shown in the screenshot, wihtout reason. They can be trained to do so, since they are intelligent.

In the part of the world where I am from, elephants are trained for different purposes. An elephant used for transport, is trained to pick up heavy weights with it's trunk. In a more extreme example, has anyone heard of the Elephant Orchestra in Thailand ?.

Well it exists and they managed to teach them how to play instruments in conjunction. Unbelievable as it is , those huge beasts are more than a just a hunk of flesh, are highly intelligent and clearly they were trained for war in history.

Knight_Yellow
05-20-2003, 00:10
well as long as an army can field 3 max and it takes up more than 8 elite unit amount of florins or coins etc.

Hakonarson
05-20-2003, 01:08
The main effect of elephants' intelligence in battle was to cause them to flee when they started suffering pain - this is why skirmishing with them was so effective - it didn't kill them very often but would drive them off.

And why majouts carry (and carried) spikes and hammers to kill the beasts with a blow to the back of their skull if they ran out of control.

Elephants were normally used against cavalry by placingthem on the wings by the Hellenistic successor states - probablybecause they'd be fairly useless against teh long pikes of the phalanxes that normally occupied the centre.

Against Romans however various people tried ti use them as battering rams in the centre as I mentioned above.

Hakonarson
05-20-2003, 01:17
I've jsut read the review and noticed that the elephants are "Persian" - but...but....but....... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

The Persians in this era barely used elephants at all - they were the Parthian dynasty that eventually overthrew the Greek Successors in the area - perhaps they mean Seleucid??

RisingSun
05-20-2003, 01:22
Is it me, or did they say that everything will be based around provinces, just you can place armies anywhee in them??? That sucks I wan the more fluentmap promised earlier that centers around cities, not provinces http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Shahed
05-20-2003, 01:26
I mentioned some of points in another historical post on Sipahi, to a friend today. I think he gave me a good suggestion:

"Where are the immortals when you need them ? LOL"

What is irking me, is the way you put your comments forward as if everyone is wrong except you, without any supporting evidence. I hate for every thread to become an argument, so I'd appreciate if you could post your thoughts in a less personal, more rational and scholarly way.

Lord Romulous
05-20-2003, 01:56
" Then they're populated with people; As you pan around the city, you'll see things going on, such as gladiators fighting in the arena "

i liked the sound of this. Being able to pan the camera around a living city will be very cool. I hope this includes walking in the streets and markets and such.


I was also a little concerned by the comment that RTW was being made more accessible. As far as im concerned the deeper the strategy the better.

I want lots of different options on how to play a given faction. eg military conquest, diplomacy and intrigue, trade and culture. There should be multiple ways of winning the game. not just via military conquest.

I am all for improving the interface but it should be along the lines of getting rid of the annoying parts of MTW like the placing and dropping of strategic agents which were hard to line up with the target meaning u would often accidentally drop your assassin on the wrong guy. or the fact that armies and strat agents got hidden behind each other etc etc.

Making lists of armies and other units/agents that are sort able is a good idea.

Of course we dont no what the stat map will look like for RTW. the board game style may disappear altogether.

THe area that the total war series is strongest is its replay ability. I have been playing this game for months.
I just hope that in the bid to make the game more assessable to less hardcore strat fans, the game does not end up being all bells and whistles but little depth becoming repetitive after the first month.

Complicated games are good It means that once you master the game you can spend months exploring different options and strategies. Please dont simplify the game.

But im pretty confident from reading their comments that the programmers are focused on making RTW more indepth and offering more options and various ways of playing the game. If they can do that and make the interface more intuitive so less hardcore strat fans dont feel overwhelmed at first then im all for it.

RisingSun
05-20-2003, 02:02
Quote[/b] ]What is irking me, is the way you put your comments forward as if everyone is wrong except you, without any supporting evidence. I hate for every thread to become an argument, so I'd appreciate if you could post your thoughts in a less personal, more rational and scholarly way.

Who, me??? If so, i really dont know what you mean... It clearly states that it will have provinces, albeit muc more fluent, but provinces nonetheless. This is a disappointmnt for me.I hope these will be only cosetic, aka- for appointing governors to, which the city governors report to. Otherwise that means the money will still be coming from the provinces, not the cities...

Hakonarson
05-20-2003, 02:07
Who me?

I've repreatedly quoted the most common and easily available of my sources, and frequently post links to web sites where yo ucan buy the books.

I'll repeat it all again if you want - here's the books you want:

Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, Duncan Head
Armies and enemies of Imperial Rome, Phil Barker
Armies of the Dark ages 600-1066, Ian Heath
Armies of Feudal Europe 1066-1300, Ian Heath
Armies and Enemies of the Crusades, Ian Heath
Armies of the Middle Ages (2 volumes), Ian Heath

All published by WRG, some are now rather old (esp the Imperial Roman one) and/or out of print but are still good sources and you can often find them 2nd hand.

The full range of the ones still in print can be got from Essex Miniatures in the UK, or possibly from Brookhurst Models in the USA, both of whom have extensive web sites.

In addition there are volumes like Arrian's "Order of Battle vs teh Alans", Vegetius (title I've forgotten),

Penguin books also publish a nice range of classic histories that are readily available in places like university bookshops or by mail order - I'b bet a dollar or 2 that Amazon will ahve them:

Livy's wonderful works on the History of Rome published in Penguin especially
- The Early History of Rome (up until about 280BC IIRC),
- Rome and Hannibal (the 2nd Punic War),
- Rome and the Mediterranian (post Punic War expansion including the battles of Pydna, Cynocehpalae, Magnesia, etc),

Tacitus has a few histories around mostly about the 1st century AD IIRC,

Caesar's own works "The Gallic War" and The Civil War",

Greek authors available in Penguin include Herodotus' "Histories" of the Persian wars, Thucydides "The Peloponesian War", Xenephon's "Anabasis" and Hellenica (titled "A history of my times).

Plutarch wrote a series of "lives" comparing Greek heros to Romans, and there's a range of them in Pengiun too covering lives of luminaries such as Mark Anthony, Crassus and other's who's names escape me at the moment.

There's Polybius available in Loeb edition, and other authors such as Dio Cassius and Sextus Julius Frontinus.

One work I haven't got yet is a bit later and it is a history by Ammianus Marcellinus who was an eye witness to a later roman invasion of Sassanid Persia.

All of these are original works in translation - which can be problematic in itself but I find they are normally excellent reading and if I want to check up something specifically I normally read them in conjunction with a modern interpretation of teh relevant battle or "fact".

Does that help?

Knight_Yellow
05-20-2003, 02:11
ummm it wasnt me was it?


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

Sinan the problem with ur posts r that they make every1 feel guilty

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

Spino
05-20-2003, 02:31
Quote[/b] ]Elephant Ratios depend upong time, place and army. IIRC some successor armies fielded 200 elephants in forces of 50-60,000 men, while Hannibal had 1 left by the time he crossed the alps.

The Romans at Magensia had 16 they didn't use for an army of about 30,000, while their 60-70,000 Seleucid opponents had 64.

Thanks Hak Your scholarly efforts can now illuminate the CA staff as to the proper pachyderm to simian ratio needed to prevent prospective anal retentive RTW MP junkies from blowing a mental gasket over 'balance issues' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif


Quote[/b] ]Alexanders pike men suffered their heaviest casualties in battle vs Poros' Indian elephants - 187 dead according to Arrian, but they were not broken.

While I certainly give Alexander and his elite troops credit where credit is due I do not believe those ultra low casualty figures for a moment. The original source of those army and casualty lists was Alexander's own historians and I have no doubt that they often fudged the numbers to make the young king's impressive exploits seem even more incredible. Food for thought to conquered peoples (i.e. disgruntled Greek city states) looking for any excuse to rebel against their Macedonian masters. Anyway I think I recall reading that despite the formidable wall of sarissas of it was Alexander's skirmishers who did the most damage to Porus' elephants.


Quote[/b] ]What is irking me, is the way you put your comments forward as if everyone is wrong except you, without any supporting evidence. I hate for every thread to become an argument, so I'd appreciate if you could post your thoughts in a less personal, more rational and scholarly way.

Where did this come from? Maybe I have a bad memory but I've been on this forum since last September and I cannot recall a single time when Hakonarson engaged in personal attacks. If you don't like what he's posting or question the validity of his historical references then by all means, call him on it but keep in mind snobbery, whether it be actual or perceived, is well within the rules of these forums.

Hakonarson
05-20-2003, 03:34
Yes I believe most of the damage TO the elephants was done by light troops, but consider that 187 dead is not an insignificant number - it would presumably be accompanied by a larger number of wounded, and all of it from a force of only about 12,000 pikemen IIRC (he had 15,000 Macedonians of which at least 2000 were cavalry).

So if you allow 600 total casualties including wounded (about 2 wounded per killed) that's 5% of the pike as casualties for a victorious army. Conceivably the ratio of wounded could be a fiar bit more - maybe up to 5-6:1, so possibly 1000 casualties total, or 8.5%.

Diodorus mentions 280 Macedonian cavalry and 700 infantry as being killed - but not all the infantry were pikemen, as much of the fighting was done by the light troops.

redrooster
05-20-2003, 07:49
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ May 20 2003,10:07)]Who me?

I've repreatedly quoted the most common and easily available of my sources, and frequently post links to web sites where yo ucan buy the books.

I'll repeat it all again if you want - here's the books you want:

Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, Duncan Head
Armies and enemies of Imperial Rome, Phil Barker
Armies of the Dark ages 600-1066, Ian Heath
Armies of Feudal Europe 1066-1300, Ian Heath
Armies and Enemies of the Crusades, Ian Heath
Armies of the Middle Ages (2 volumes), Ian Heath

All published by WRG, some are now rather old (esp the Imperial Roman one) and/or out of print but are still good sources and you can often find them 2nd hand.

The full range of the ones still in print can be got from Essex Miniatures in the UK, or possibly from Brookhurst Models in the USA, both of whom have extensive web sites.

In addition there are volumes like Arrian's "Order of Battle vs teh Alans", Vegetius (title I've forgotten),

Penguin books also publish a nice range of classic histories that are readily available in places like university bookshops or by mail order - I'b bet a dollar or 2 that Amazon will ahve them:

Livy's wonderful works on the History of Rome published in Penguin especially
- The Early History of Rome (up until about 280BC IIRC),
- Rome and Hannibal (the 2nd Punic War),
- Rome and the Mediterranian (post Punic War expansion including the battles of Pydna, Cynocehpalae, Magnesia, etc),

Tacitus has a few histories around mostly about the 1st century AD IIRC,

Caesar's own works "The Gallic War" and The Civil War",

Greek authors available in Penguin include Herodotus' "Histories" of the Persian wars, Thucydides "The Peloponesian War", Xenephon's "Anabasis" and Hellenica (titled "A history of my times).

Plutarch wrote a series of "lives" comparing Greek heros to Romans, and there's a range of them in Pengiun too covering lives of luminaries such as Mark Anthony, Crassus and other's who's names escape me at the moment.

There's Polybius available in Loeb edition, and other authors such as Dio Cassius and Sextus Julius Frontinus.

One work I haven't got yet is a bit later and it is a history by Ammianus Marcellinus who was an eye witness to a later roman invasion of Sassanid Persia.

All of these are original works in translation - which can be problematic in itself but I find they are normally excellent reading and if I want to check up something specifically I normally read them in conjunction with a modern interpretation of teh relevant battle or "fact".

Does that help?
you forgot Asterix and Obelix

Shahed
05-20-2003, 08:55
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ May 20 2003,02:11)]Sinan the problem with ur posts r that they make every1 feel guilty

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

That post was not meant to be addressed to everyone. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Rosacrux
05-20-2003, 10:11
Hello Hakonarson, I like the way you back your arguments.

Interesting facts from 21st century military history experts about hoplite and phalanx armies casualty rates:

- In hoplite warfare an acceptable casualty rate for the winning side would be 3-5% (dead and wounded). The loser would suffer losses from 5-12%. 90% of those losses would occur during the pursuit phase (after the one of the two hoplite phalanxes had broken). There is only one major battle in the hellenic world which does not comply with those rates, a post-pelloponesian war battle in which Athens and allies fought against Pelloponesian and allies: The winners (pelloponesian) have lost (dead and wounded) about 7% of their strength and the loosing side more than 22%. But that's the only noticable exception in a large-scale hoplite battle.

- In macedonian phalanx warfare (combined arms and such, Alexander and succesors alike) the acceptable casualty rates for the winner wouldn't exceed 5% but in rare occasions, even though the looser (if another phalanx) could suffer relatively higher casualty rates - 10-25% - due to the aboundance of light infantry and cavalry. That meaning the pursuit phase could be extremely lethal and bloody.

Sjakihata
05-21-2003, 20:33
I believe that Hannibal carried about 50 elephants when he set off, and only 16 when he arrived.

RisingSun
05-21-2003, 22:26
Didn't ANYBODY notice they said there will still be provinces? thoughts?

Nowake
05-22-2003, 06:13
There will be no provinces ... nobody said that; just some journalist that don't get their facts straight.

RisingSun
05-22-2003, 21:58
I seriously hope so...

Sir Robin
05-22-2003, 22:30
If I recall correctly the preview stated that there were still provinces. Only that you could now fight and move to anywhere within them.

This could mean that provinces are now merely ways of keeping the map from getting to confusing. Even though it is thousands of battlefields placed side by side. It would help to say you are in macedonia or anatolia instead of location 145x321.

Of course they may not be just map divisions. They could be actual provinces with whoever controls its capitol city used to determine ownership.

If the provinces are small there may only be one city per province. So you still might manage production thru a provincial build que.

If the provinces are large ownership might be determined by whoever controls the most cities within the province. In this case you may be managing the individual cities.

The reason I suspect this is because of the danger of overwhelming the player. If there are several hundred cities spread across the map it would become very difficult to micromanage them all.

While RTW will have a mission tree I am sure the old standby of domination mode will also be available.

It is hard enough to manage MTW when you control over thirty provinces. Imagine how confusing it could be to manage over a hundred cities.

Still having provinces could also simplify the diplomatic coding. By having provincial borders forming international boundaries it might be easier for the AI to keep a handle on things than by trying to determine urban and unit zones of control.

Of course I doubt anything has been finalized until the game is sitting on the store shelf.

Hakonarson
05-22-2003, 22:35
Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ May 20 2003,04:11)]Hello Hakonarson, I like the way you back your arguments.

Interesting facts from 21st century military history experts about hoplite and phalanx armies casualty rates:

- In hoplite warfare an acceptable casualty rate for the winning side would be 3-5% (dead and wounded). The loser would suffer losses from 5-12%.



- In macedonian phalanx warfare (combined arms and such, Alexander and succesors alike) the acceptable casualty rates for the winner wouldn't exceed 5% but in rare occasions, even though the looser (if another phalanx) could suffer relatively higher casualty rates - 10-25% - due to the aboundance of light infantry and cavalry. That meaning the pursuit phase could be extremely lethal and bloody.
thanks - and I obviously need to go buy more Asterix books now my kids are possibly old enough to get teh humour http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Greek hoplite phalanx casualties were an exception I noted in teh thread on "realistic casualty rates". Unfortunately I haven't unpacked my main source for the successor wars yet, but IIRC they could be a little odd.

For example whole phalanxes occasionally surrendered, while vicotrious cavalry occasionally pursued so far as to be removed from the battlefield entirely, and often 1 wing woudl lose and teh other would win.

For example at Raphia in 217 Antiochus defeated Ptolemy's left wing but pursued too far. Ptolemy's phalanx drove in Antiochus's smaller one to win the battle.

But the "losing" side still had all its cavalry from both wings - Antiochus lost 10,000 of about 32,000 pikemen (55,000 foot total) in the battle and immediate pursuit when they broke, but only 300 cavalry, while Ptolemy lost about 1500 pike and 700 cavalry.

Shahed
05-25-2003, 07:34
Here's some more on the playable factions (guess you guys must have seen this):


Quote[/b] ]With 21 playable factions from all over Europe, the Middle East and the Mediterranean, there's no shortage of strategy, diplomacy and politics to keep wannabe Caesars engrossed for hours.

From:
GAMESPY E3 AWARDS (http://gamespy.com/e32003/awards/index15.shtml)

FesterShinetop
05-25-2003, 09:14
I might be sounding really stupid now, but I just have to ask:

What does IIRC mean???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Can't make anything out of it and it seems to be Hakonarson's favorite abbreviation http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Catiline
05-25-2003, 09:51
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly

FesterShinetop
05-25-2003, 10:50
Thanks Catiline, this post makes a lot more sense now.

Catiline
05-25-2003, 10:52
All part of the service...

Catiline
05-25-2003, 10:59
The Romans were capable of inflicting massive casualties on phalanxes they broke. They were also capable of claiming naivety of the customs of Hellenistic warfare. On at least one occasion (Cynoscephalae I htink, htough I could be wrong) they slaughtered a pike phalanx that raised it's pikes in surrender with the rather flimsy excuse that they didn't realise that's what the Macedonians were doing. Something of hte order of 8000 Macedonians died.

FesterShinetop
05-25-2003, 12:40
I finally watched the RTW trailer.....

....

.....

Speechless...

Downloaded it from worthplaying.com if there are more slow people like me, though I wouldn't recommend watching this... bad for patience
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

RisingSun
05-26-2003, 06:57
You said a mouthful. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Red Peasant
05-26-2003, 21:52
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ May 20 2003,01:07)]One work I haven't got yet is a bit later and it is a history by Ammianus Marcellinus who was an eye witness to a later roman invasion of Sassanid Persia.
You're in for a treat if you ain't read this, it is a criminally neglected text. The descriptions of military exploits on the Persian front in the reigns of Constantius II and Julian are exceptionally vivid, and are close run by Julian's Rhine campaigns. A new scholarly book by Robin Seager is also due out in the near future based on Ammianus' work.

Kongamato
05-26-2003, 22:37
I see the provinces on the strat map as necessary for building and improving certain sectors of the empire. Improving public works like roads, aqueducts, and farmland* should be done on a provincial level for simplicity's sake. With that, I hope we get to destroy bridges. It would absolutely KILL the surrounding economy, but would help on a tactical level.

Building things like training centers and colosseums/ampitheaters ought to be done to individual cities. I imagine an info parchment listing all of the villages and cities per province that you can build in.

*did the Romans really improve farmland? They could not harness the power of the horse(no padded collar), and their slave-based society did not lend itself to much development of capital goods.