The world's best army

[Arrowhead]

I thought about the BEST ARMY you could have, using any faction's units
I think:
Armoured Eles
Foresters
Spartan hoplites
Urban cohorts
Decres (Ships)
Can't think of anymore...carry this list on

[The_678]

also add cataphracts and cataphract archers

[Krusader]

Pharaoh's Bowmen

Maybe Sacred Band Cavalry too!

[KiOwA]

Heavy Onagers, too, if you fancy some real artillery.

[Didz]

Any Army commanded by me.

Or indeed any army commanded by a human player.

[Mikeus Caesar]

The worlds best army has to be my greek armies. They are the following: 1 general, 3 greek cavalry, 8 armoured hoplites, 4 spartan hoplites, 2 heavy onagers, 1 cretan archers and 1 team of elite gold chevron archers. I then proceed to run around the known world, plundering and pillaging as i go. I managed to conquer the whole of the eastern world and eastern europe with just two of these armies. The only problem is the massive build times. They take twenty years to make, and so that i have the spartans in them, they have to be made in sparta, so once the army is made, it takes years to get them to where i want them to kill and plunder. They're like civilized vikings!!

[Arrowhead]

The worlds best army has to be my greek armies. They are the following: 1 general, 3 greek cavalry, 8 armoured hoplites, 4 spartan hoplites, 2 heavy onagers, 1 cretan archers and 1 team of elite gold chevron archers. I then proceed to run around the known world, plundering and pillaging as i go. I managed to conquer the whole of the eastern world and eastern europe with just two of these armies. The only problem is the massive build times. They take twenty years to make, and so that i have the spartans in them, they have to be made in sparta, so once the army is made, it takes years to get them to where i want them to kill and plunder. They're like civilized vikings!!

Forester warbands are better than cretens and barb cav are better than greek cav.

[Sinner]

For open field battles I'd suggest the following, mostly Armenian with a little help from the Scythians and Seleucids, although they'd be troops of my glorious Roman empire ~:)...

Eastern general (the later cataphract version)
4 Cataphracts
4 Cataphract archers
6 Scythian noble archers
Armoured elephants

This gives 11 units of mounted archers of one form or another, that can follow up the arrow storm with a charge of 10 cataphract-style mounted units backed up by 6 heavy horse.

I'm in two minds as to whether a couple of the Scythian noble archers should be swapped out for plain horse archers so that I would have at least two units on light horses instead of heavy or cataphract horses. The combat stats of the latter are much worse, but there may be times when I need the speed or the ability to run around without suffering too much fatigue - a case of substituting a little firepower for some added flexibility.

As a cavalry army this does have a big weakness in that it sucks at city assaults, both attacking and defending. Attacking against wooden walled settlements the elephants do give the ability to batter down the gates while the cataphract archers whittle away at the enemy with missile fire before assaulting, but this would be much easier with some good solid heavy infantry and longer-ranged elite foot archers. Against stone walls the only option is to siege, and when defending the best option would be to sally.

If I was to add infantry, it'd have to be urban cohorts and forester warbands. Phalanx units are tempting, but I prefer not to have to worry about the shuffling bug. Using infantry I'd have this as my siege army...

Eastern general (the later cataphract version)
2 Cataphract archers
Armoured elephants
6 Urban cohorts
6 Forester warbands

The cataphract archers are just to add some flexibility and could instead be replaced by more forester warbands. Against wooden walls, this army would attack very much like the cavalry, using the archers to clear the defenders from near the gate which would be broken down by the elephants, before the urban cohorts charged through to close the deal. Against stone walls, siege towers would be used, with the archers clearing the walls of defenders first if possible to reduce the amount of fighting by the urban cohorts. Once inside, a pair of archers would be tasked with running around the entire city walls capturing all the towers and gates and providing fire support from above where possible.

For standard garrison troops I'd use a mix of Auxilia and Archer Auxilia, both acceptable and cheap units.

Naturally all my troops would be produced at ex-Gallic/Spanish cities with Roman-built pantheons of Epona (+5 starting experience), then all archery units would first be sent to retrain in cities with pantheons of Artemis (+5 upgrade to missiles) plus a foundry. After that the missile troops would join the melee-only units to be retrained in my coastal cities with pantheons of Neptune plus a foundry, before being carried off on my fleets of Deceres to go beat on some poor fool armed only with a sharpened slice of mango.

While we're grabbing the best from any faction, I'd be providing my generals with a retinue of a bodyguard, carnifex, chirugeon, drillmaster, famous warrior, intrepid explorer, mercenary captain, physician and quartermaster.

[Mikeus Caesar]

barb cav are better than greek cav.

That may be so, but it's the way you use the greeks that count. They are nice and quick, so if you go fast enough, you can quickly get them behind the enemy, smash into their rears, and before you know it, the enemy has routed and you win. And cretans are the best archers in the game, if you can get them a few bronze chevrons.

[Sinner]

Cretan archers are good, but are bettered by forester warbands, Ptolemaic archers and the various chosen archers, who all have superior stats than the Cretans. Those units also have the advantage of being buildable, unlike the mercenary Cretans, so that they can easily be retrained to replenish losses, plus they can take advantage of the various temples that give experience bonuses to newly built units.

Taking into account the Cretan's lack of armour, I'd also rate archer auxilia as an overall better unit, especially given the benefits of being buildable and their low cost.

The Cretans real strength is that they are mercenaries, making available an elite archer unit to those factions who would otherwise not have them.

Lots of cavalry can perform the same flanking tactic you use for your greek cavalry and they again have the advantage of superior stats.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Add companions, because they get a huge charge bonus! When you can make a frontal charge on Rome's finest and win imagine what happens when you flank them! Usually with me if I get one group of companions behind enemy infantry that is fighting my infantry I can route huge numbers of units and kill many with the first charge. They deal more damage than greek cavalry and can kill enemy cavalry a lot easier. Use the greeks to flank smaller groups of troops or to run down enemy cavalry, leave the companions to charge phalanxes, heavy infantry and enemy cavalry.

[edwardusbenedictus]

well at the moment i'm playing as the greek cities and the best army i can muster as a faction is as follows:
1- 6star general (Cleon of Sparta/Conquerer) ~:cool:
3- creten archers ~D
2- heavy onagers ~:eek:
4- spartan hoplites :duel:
4- armoured hoplites :duel:
4- hoplites :duel:
2- sarmatian merc cav (got them when i made an expeditionary invasion to province of Chernoseos; well medieval Crimea; they appear there more often than any other places) :charge:

[Arrowhead]

Add companions, because they get a huge charge bonus! When you can make a frontal charge on Rome's finest and win imagine what happens when you flank them! Usually with me if I get one group of companions behind enemy infantry that is fighting my infantry I can route huge numbers of units and kill many with the first charge. They deal more damage than greek cavalry and can kill enemy cavalry a lot easier. Use the greeks to flank smaller groups of troops or to run down enemy cavalry, leave the companions to charge phalanxes, heavy infantry and enemy cavalry.
But they are not as good as scytian nobles. Charge bonus more than Cats... in other words, 18.

[SwordsMaster]

Still, get companions, and watch.

Anyway, there is no such thing as "best army". You can roll around the world with an army of just 3 archers and the rest being roman legions or militia hoplites. It all depends on what you are facing. My northern armies are way heavier than the southern ones, just because fighting Germans is different from fighting numidians.

[Brighdaasa]

when allowed to use elephants:

2 or 3 elephants of any type
about 8 cavalry with decent charge bonus (5 or 6 will do)

tactic: charge your elephants into the most concentrated spots of enemys with your cav following close behind ready to charge in. The enemy will take a huge morale hit from the elephants and unit formations will be totally disordered, the impact of the cavalry will send those soldiers running for their lives. Works against all types of army setups. Horse archers will be your biggest problem, but keep your elephants chasing them, eventually your elephants will catch up.

without elephants:

2/3 of your army some type of horse archer
1/3 cavalry with decent charge bonus

use HA to rain arrows on the enemy and break up the opponents tactical plan and single out a few units, then charge them in the back with the cavalry.
If enemy formation doesn't get split up, get your avalry around the enemy and either charge in the back with the HA or the cav.

I've not played online, but i never take over 50 or 100 losses in any battle, whatever the numbers or composition of the opposing army.

[The_Mark]

2 or 3 elephants of any type
about 8 cavalry with decent charge bonus (5 or 6 will do)

What if they are using a Macedonian phalanx and have a unit or two of flaming pigs?

[Brighdaasa]

What if they are using a Macedonian phalanx and have a unit or two of flaming pigs?

i never encountered flaming pigs, but elphants plough right through phalanxes in my experiance, and when phalanxes are broken up the cavalry doesn't take (any) losses, after the cav charge the phalanxes will be running away anyway

[Arrowhead]

I know the Best Army!

As many foresters as you can.

Thats it! just deploy the in a box and watch the enemies run! ~:cheers:

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I have killed elephants with a phalanx as long as they are not armoured, I have even been able to bring down armoured elephants on occasion...

[Wrangel]

Any Army commanded by me.

Or indeed any army commanded by a human player.


I agree to the latter. Almost any army is usless when it's put in the hands of the AI.

[Wrangel]

I have killed elephants with a phalanx as long as they are not armoured, I have even been able to bring down armoured elephants on occasion...


A massive cavalry shock tends to stop any elephants... but it has to be REALLY massive...

[Shadow]

I agree with Brighdaasa that such a charge will definitely send those soldiers running (my Seleucids army is full cavalry with one empty slot for infantry to push the ram or sap)

My Army have 3 units of armoured elephants (to mop though those phalanx with little dead) then the rest are companions & Cataphracts.

Elephants always run amonk when ask to charge head on into a phalanx (and i don't mean armoured elephants) due to lots of dead elephants.

[Didz]

This really confirms my belief that RTW should have included some form of Army template for each nation which dictated the troop mix available to the players.

It should not be possible to field armies containing nothing but cavalry or elephants or whatever. Not in the SP game anyway, players should be encouraged to use a representative mix of units.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I like to use a mix, I use a group of heavy cavalry with phalanxes as Seluecids and occasionally armoured elephants. I once won a battle with militia hoplites and companions because any phalanxe takes a while to kill with a frontal assault and my companions have a huge charge bonus, recipe for routing!

[Zorn]

I don`t think that "army-templates" in single player would be a good idea.
If somebody has fun playing with full cav armies in singleplayer, let him have his fun. If somebody has fun winning with cheats in single player, let him cheat.
It is in everybodys own responsibility to play the game in the way he enjoys it the most.
Those of us who like to gather historical accurate armies can do that, and have the same chance of winning.

A little off topic, I can`t understand the people that scream "omg, I can exploit AI weaknesses so easily, this game is too easy, I don`t play it any more." Why do they exploit anyway? There is no competition with you PC, so they only take away their own fun.
i think it is easy enough not to use an abuse, instead of screaming for a patch to protect one from himself.

Pf course, multi-player is a whole different story. If I would get beaten by an all cav army, I would be pretty pissed.

[Didz]

I don`t think that "army-templates" in single player would be a good idea.
If somebody has fun playing with full cav armies in singleplayer, let him have his fun. If somebody has fun winning with cheats in single player, let him cheat.
It is in everybodys own responsibility to play the game in the way he enjoys it the most.
Those of us who like to gather historical accurate armies can do that, and have the same chance of winning.

I suppose I am coming from the angle that RTW is supposed to be a historical simulation, if not actually a wargame.

Whilst, I understand the point you are making, if one follows this line of reasoning to its full conclusion then why limit players to the a-historical options which are currently possible.

Why, not allow in the inclusion of Dragons, Wizards and Orc's in these armies if thats what a player finds fun, and why place restrictions of troop production, if the players wants to generate his army of dragons in one turn then let him.

In a way this is similar to my attitude to films. As far as I am concerned if you are going to make a historically based film like Braveheart or King Arthur then you ought to make it as historically accurate as you can.

To argue that changing or ignoring historical accuracy is justified in order to make the film more entertaining is a crap argument. Because, if your only object was to make a film entertaining then the sensible thing to do is to ignore history and make something like Star Wars or LOTR instead. That way you can do what you like without screwing up peoples knowledge of really happened.


A little off topic, I can`t understand the people that scream "omg, I can exploit AI weaknesses so easily, this game is too easy, I don`t play it any more." Why do they exploit anyway? There is no competition with you PC, so they only take away their own fun.
i think it is easy enough not to use an abuse, instead of screaming for a patch to protect one from himself.

Agreed. But it has always been the case.

There are certainly problems with some aspects of RTW, but the vast majority of complaint's seem to come from those who are deliberately trying to use a-historical techniques to undermine the AI and then complain when they succeed.

Basically, if you buy a historical game and then play it like Starcraft you are almost certainly going to discover some issues that the playtesters never stumbled over.


Pf course, multi-player is a whole different story. If I would get beaten by an all cav army, I would be pretty pissed.

I haven't played MP since STW as I basically got fed up with the gamey strategies that quickly became the norm. However, some of the debates were quite fun and once or twice I managed teach the gamers a lesson.

The general belief in STW was that Warrior Monks ruled all and so the fashion to field whole armies of Warrior monks became more or less standard. But they did have a weakness and if your opponent was complacent and thought that just fielding Warrior Monks was the key to victory he sometimes came unstuck.

The funniest example was when I fielded an army of peasant spearmen against a guy with Warrior Monks. He thought I was mad and was giving me all sorts of lip about being a noob etc. He was so complacent that he failed to notice that not only did I have more men than him (after all they were only peasants) but that my formations were festooned with honour flags.

In fact I had bumped up the honour status of these peasant to the maximum possible. These guys were Super-Peasants, much faster on their feet than his monks and damned deadly in the initial charge.

He came straight at me like an idiot and I wrapped my Super-peasants around him like blanket. Only this blanket was covered in viscious spearpoints. His WM's upon whom he had not wasted any honour points at all put up a token fight and then routed, except that they had nowhere to run and so died to a man. A brilliant victory, in my opinion, and one that ought to have taught my opponent a lesson.

It didn't, instead he accussed me of cheating, asserting that peasants shouldn't be able to beat Warrior Monks. :embarassed:

Another famous lesson teaching battle was against a guy who beleived in fielding nothing but Heavy Cavalry. He found out that horses in STW don't like muskets, but at least he found it funny.

[GFX707]

The worlds best army has to be my greek armies. They are the following: 1 general, 3 greek cavalry, 8 armoured hoplites, 4 spartan hoplites, 2 heavy onagers, 1 cretan archers and 1 team of elite gold chevron archers. I then proceed to run around the known world, plundering and pillaging as i go. I managed to conquer the whole of the eastern world and eastern europe with just two of these armies. The only problem is the massive build times. They take twenty years to make, and so that i have the spartans in them, they have to be made in sparta, so once the army is made, it takes years to get them to where i want them to kill and plunder. They're like civilized vikings!!

You should swap those spartan hoplites for 4 more units of archers....

[Uesugi Kenshin]

That is great and just proves my strategy of using versatile balanced armies. It does not matter so much what troop type your men are as how many different classes of unit you are using, using only spearmen in phalanxes is often suicide, fielding pure cavalry is too dependent on mobility if the cavalry become bogged down by phalanxes or large infantry formations you are in trouble. Fielding mixed unit type armies is usually better than just sending a horde of identical units against a mixed force.

[Didz]

In my current campaign Medium/Huge scale/No time limit/Egyptiain I actually found myself facing a massive army containing 3,000 Seleucid Hoplites and nothing else with my rather rag-tag army of Araby and Persian mercenaries.

The Seleucids certainly looked impressive with a massive wall of spearpoints that stretched almost right across the battlefield and my skirmishers, slingers, horse archers and chariots didn't look capable of beating them.

But once the battle opened it became apparent that they couldn't win simply because they were too slow to catch anything and they just ended up in a huge huddle being shot to peices until they fled and were ridden down.

[Fridge]

Didz - I understand your point about historical accuracy, but you must admit that since 100% historical accuracy is impossible, the consideration for game designers isn't a binary factual/fantasy decision, but just how far along a continuum from fantasy to reality do they place their game.

Even someone who wanted to create the most accurate historical simulation ever made is going to have to make compromises - many compromises - and many, many abstractions, neither is the AI ever going to be strong enough to create a 100% realistic historical environment.

Creating any 'historical simulation' is surely going to be the creation of a counter-factual historical simulation - giving the player control is necessarily going to create a historical situation different to that which actually happened. Arguing over the names and availability of a certain unit to a certain faction, when that faction has just conquered Rome and taken over the whole of Europe in 113 BC seems a bit, well, odd!

I suppose my point is that RTW can still be a hisotrical simulation, without having to be a slave to history. And I don't think the logical conclusion of Zorn's argument si that the designers should have allowed dragons - I don't think any reasonable person would struggle to draw a distinction between giving the Brits headhurlers (which, I guess, will have some basis in factual history, though maybe in an unrecognisable fashion to how they are portrayed in the game), and adding dragons. So I don't think the designers ever made a conscious decision to abandon the idea of RTW as a 'historical simulation', they just drew their line in the sand slightly further towards the counter-factual end than perhaps you'd like (and there's nothing wrong with that!)

I 'm guessing from your posts (and the way you've demolished some of my arguments and helped me see the light...) that you are, or have been, some sort of historical scholar - or just someone with a keen interest in military history. If this is true, then I'm sure you can understand that your opinions are probably slightly differen to the vast majority of gamers, and that CA are obviously going to be aiming for them, rather than the hardcore war-gaming historical experts. I suppose, ultimately, one person's 'historical simulation' is another's 'fantasy wargame', and yet another's 'erm, where's the shoot button?'

[Didz]

Didz - I understand your point about historical accuracy, but you must admit that since 100% historical accuracy is impossible, the consideration for game designers isn't a binary factual/fantasy decision, but just how far along a continuum from fantasy to reality do they place their game.

I accept your point. I rememeber one respected wargame designer making the point that historical accuracy in a wargame can only be achevied by issuing the players with pistols and telling them to try and kill each other.

The issue as you say is how far along that continuum the designers should go in trying to simulate history. My arguement is that in many instances in both games and films this is not far enough and the result is not only inaccurate but blatantly misleading.

I am a firm beleiver in the old adage that

'Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'

It therefore worries me when history is mispresented to those who are not willing or able to look beyond the smoke and mirrors. Particularly, when the marketing of these illussions is frequently based on the very accuracy of the historical content the product clearly doesn't contain.


Creating any 'historical simulation' is surely going to be the creation of a counter-factual historical simulation - giving the player control is necessarily going to create a historical situation different to that which actually happened. Arguing over the names and availability of a certain unit to a certain faction, when that faction has just conquered Rome and taken over the whole of Europe in 113 BC seems a bit, well, odd!

The role of a wargame is not to recreate the actual events which occurred in history but to model the factors that contributed to those events and to allow the player to expereince as far as possible the issues faced by the men of that era.


I suppose my point is that RTW can still be a hisotrical simulation, without having to be a slave to history.

Again we are talking about the point in the continuum at which the designers place their markers. My point is that if RTW does not place reasonable historical constraints upon the players options then it cannot claim to be a historical simulation.


And I don't think the logical conclusion of Zorn's argument si that the designers should have allowed dragons

My view is that if the excuse for allowing players a-historical options is that it increases the 'fun' of the player then that same excuse is equally valid for allowing them to use dragons. If one sets out with the avowed intent of producing a historical simulation then abandoning that goal in order to appeal to a wider audience is a self-defeating policy.


I 'm guessing from your posts (and the way you've demolished some of my arguments and helped me see the light...) that you are, or have been, some sort of historical scholar - or just someone with a keen interest in military history.

You flatter me, I would certainly not consider myself a military scholar, although I have been interested in military history since the age of 13 and have been wargaming for over 36 years.

It was certainly not my intention to demolish your arguements either and I apologise if it came across that way. I am merely trying to counter your arguements and make my own. I see it as a debate not a conflict. ~D


If this is true, then I'm sure you can understand that your opinions are probably slightly differen to the vast majority of gamers, and that CA are obviously going to be aiming for them, rather than the hardcore war-gaming historical experts. I suppose, ultimately, one person's 'historical simulation' is another's 'fantasy wargame', and yet another's 'erm, where's the shoot button?'

Actually I am of the opinion that there is a huge untapped gaming market out there for someone willing to make a playable and enjoyable computer wargame.

Wargaming and military history had a huge following when I was young. There were wargaming clubs in almost every town and people like Brigadier Peter Young were actually presenting TV programmes on wargaming on the BBC.

That all fell apart when fantasy wargaming came along and dragged all the young members away to play Warhammer and other such games. But now computers have evolved to the point where they can support games like RTW there is a potential to revitalise the wargaming market by presenting accurate historical wargames on a PC.

The problem is that most so-called PC wargames are actually nothing of the sort. The vast majority are actually computerised boardgames based on the old Avalon Hill hex grid system. Such games were never considered wargames in the past and have only been reclassified since they appeared in computer format.

To the vast majority of people these games are boring and tedious to play and have given computer wargaming a very bad image. But if a company could produce a true computer wargame which could recreate the excitment of tabletop gaming whilst still retaining the historical interest then I think they would find a much larger market out there than is attracted by those games that currently claim the wargaming market.

[Fridge]

When I say destroyed my arguments, I mean you enlightened me - I think I was trying to argue something (about archery IIRC) from common sense, you used actual historical knowledge to trump me. You bastard.

Talking of old wargames - did you ever run across a copy of UMS - the Universal Military Simulator on old 808x pcs - probably about 10-15 years ago? It was awful - but a reasonable idea, it gave you a basic wireframe grid and some basic units (all editable in the game, and all represented by a flag with a slightly different monochrome pattern) and that was it - make your own fun. It did include some historical battles, however - Gettysburg, Waterloo etc.

It was, I suppose, like a very moddable TW without the campaign. As I say, it was terrible; but as an idea, it had its charms.

[Didz]

When I say destroyed my arguments, I mean you enlightened me - I think I was trying to argue something (about archery IIRC) from common sense, you used actual historical knowledge to trump me. You bastard.

Sorry. Its a bit of habit. In fact I think I've just done it again.

I think I read too much :book:


Talking of old wargames - did you ever run across a copy of UMS - the Universal Military Simulator on old 808x pcs - probably about 10-15 years ago? It was awful - but a reasonable idea, it gave you a basic wireframe grid and some basic units (all editable in the game, and all represented by a flag with a slightly different monochrome pattern) and that was it - make your own fun. It did include some historical battles, however - Gettysburg, Waterloo etc.

It was, I suppose, like a very moddable TW without the campaign. As I say, it was terrible; but as an idea, it had its charms.

Yep! I still have it somewhere. There have been a few other attempts since then but as you say the ultimate would be something with the graphical qualities of RTW but the flexibility to be tailored to reproduce warfare in any time period.

However, as I recall, UMS was still very much a boardgame concept, as of course are all the Talonsoft games produced by Tiller and most of the current stuff being churned out by Matrix.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

You can never read to much, for knowledge is power and without power nothing is possible.

I think the main reason Rome is not 100% historically accurate is history is not accurate and basic marketing, they are working on a system that has not been working as soon as the are shown it is not the best way they may change. Another cause of change would be a loss of profits and a gain for hardcore true wargames.

[Didz]

I think the main reason Rome is not 100% historically accurate is history is not accurate and basic marketing, they are working on a system that has not been working as soon as the are shown it is not the best way they may change. Another cause of change would be a loss of profits and a gain for hardcore true wargames.

My concern is that by trying to be all things to all men they may actually end up becoming nothing to anybody.

In my opinion RTW (more than both STW & MTW) has strayed too far towards the fantasy version of history. Whilst as a wargamer I am prepared to accept some gimmicks to keep the 'kiddies' happy, some of the stuff in RTW sets my teeth on edge. Further drift in that direction, especially in a period I like such as Napoleonic's, would get CA crossed off my Xmas card list for further purchases.

On the other hand if CA are hoping to capture a slice of the LOTR/WC3 market then this drift is just not enough to cut the mustard. Both my 10 year old and my 21 year old have taken a look over my shoulder as I've been playing and turned their noses up.

The 10 year old is a keen WC3 player and basically expects hero's, wizards and cool monsters in his games. The 21 year old loved STW but walked away from the Totalwar genre at MTW because he considered that CA had betrayed him by not including the cut-scenes and cool movies of the Geisha's.

He also considers the musical score in MTW and STW to be uninspiring, a point I actually agree with, compared to STW, VI and MI the music of RTW is appallingly insipid.

The net result is that instead of selling two copies of RTW, CA only sold one into my family. The drift did not convert my 10 year old, merely lost my 21 year old, if it continues the next release might lose me too.

[rebelscum]

When I say destroyed my arguments, I mean you enlightened me - I think I was trying to argue something (about archery IIRC) from common sense, you used actual historical knowledge to trump me. You bastard.

Talking of old wargames - did you ever run across a copy of UMS - the Universal Military Simulator on old 808x pcs - probably about 10-15 years ago? It was awful - but a reasonable idea, it gave you a basic wireframe grid and some basic units (all editable in the game, and all represented by a flag with a slightly different monochrome pattern) and that was it - make your own fun. It did include some historical battles, however - Gettysburg, Waterloo etc.

It was, I suppose, like a very moddable TW without the campaign. As I say, it was terrible; but as an idea, it had its charms.
Wow Fridge, I used to have this or something similar on the atari 500. I spent ages trying to find it to download when I got an atari emulator on my PC, but for the life of me I couldn't remember the name. I edited a complete middle earth battle with dwarves elves orcs dragons etc. I loved this game a lot, it was as you say 'basic' but it was probably one of the first computer battle strategy games. Hail to the old school! (well 1985 anyways) :afro:

[Rosacrux redux]

Being the history freak I am, I can't but make my armies as historically accurate as possible. As City states or Macedonia, I would rely heavily on phalanxes, with some light and medium cavalry for the former and heavier cavalry for the latter in the mix, along with all the Cretan Archers and Rhodian slingers I can get my hands on.

When playing Seleucids, I go for mixed troops, tossing in an elephant too (although I think they are extremely overpowered). I don't play Egypt, of course (playing against the pharaonic abomination gives me the creeps, to play with them would cause instant stroke). With Parthia, I go for loads of horse archer types and almost no infantry (except for garisson). And so on.

Game is still fairly easy, but at least it doesn't smell fish.

Hey, if one wishes to play the game a-la Starcraft and enjoys it... be my guest. Use massed eles, eles and heavy cav, play with the Greeks with 15 units of Cretan Archers, or as the Egyptians only with pharaonic bowmen or whatever fishy combination you fancy, no problemo. I like my RTW heavy on history, that is fun for me.

Nice points Didz, btw.

[drone]

Nice points Didz, btw.
Definitely. There are lots of cases where a company decides to straddle a line to appease the hard-core fans and attract more casual players, and they usually end up doing neither. The hard-core consider it a sell-out, the casual don't think it goes far enough. And the game usually suffers from the compromises made.

I assume CA is planning on re-using/licensing the engine for this game, why not release a game based strictly on factual history, and another based in a fantasy world? There may even be cross-over, as players from both sides learn to appreciate the nuances of both games. Who knows, maybe kids might even learn a little bit of history on the way, although that might get the game banned here in the States. :dizzy2:

[Zorn]

I would like dragons. And elfes riding on unicorns and stuff.
I guess that makes me the boards fantasy-kiddy. :embarassed:

[Didz]

I would like dragons. And elfes riding on unicorns and stuff.
I guess that makes me the boards fantasy-kiddy. :embarassed:

I don't see anything wrong with that, I don't want anyone getting the impression I'm some sort of eliteist military history freak.

I played Starcraft, Command & Conquer Generals, and Zero Hour. My family actually bought three copies of 'Dawn of War' so we could play over the home network.

My point is merely that a game designer should decide up front what he is producing and not try to tip-toe down some imaginary path that will satisfy everybody.

It doesn't exist.

History or Fantasy make the choice and stick to it.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I agree, I myself own dawn of war and other fantasy games and FPS's like Operation Flashpoint and Rainbow Six for realism and Unreal 2 for some mindless fun. I agree that there should be less crossover, I was just trying to show some of the motives behind this problem. Licencing the engine is a good idea, but has not had much succes in RTS's that I know of. At least they did not stray extremely far off course, this seems more like a testing of the waters to see how much the more hardcore fans will tolerate. It would definately not be good for them to lose us because there is much more competition in the less realistic market and less tolerance of turn based games. Due to more competition fans of less realistic games seem to bounce back and forth more.

[Didz]

Well as a hardcore fan I would say that RTW is tetterring right on the edge.

If somebody sneezed it would dissappear off my hard drive. ~;)