Why not making romans 1st? , than medieval or other

[LusitanoMaster]

Romans 1st pls , than maybe Alexander the great, Hanibbal, ---» lets stay in Shogun era 1 st .
Medieval age shoud come after, than napoleon and others.

[vangersonm]

after the romans the next game they are going to come out with game about "MARS"..and how the wars on mars got out of control only to destroy the whole planet.

[Alastair]

I'd like that too, but alas, the company is against us...

[HATAMOTOKILL]

Mars!!!!!oh no "dont say that!"
think we got anothe space stuff on market!!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
Hato!!!
genie of the lands!!!
http://www.contrabandent.com/pez/contrib/legionxs/ninja1.gif

[BakaGaijin]

"Shogun era" IS the Middle Ages, FYI. Well, more like the Rennaissance, but the ending part of the Middle Ages. Romans are the turn of the BC-AD era, baby. So, by your logic, it's perfectly okay for the next TW to be about the Crusades, while the Romans would be right out!

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[Vlad]

There are MANY "Roman games" and no one of the middle ages or the Crusades.

Quote Originally posted by Vlad:
There are MANY "Roman games" and no one of the middle ages or the Crusades.[/QUOTE]

I agree perfectly.

A game has to be original and too many games are Roman.



------------------
Honour to Clan No Fear.

Visit my resource centre here! (http://terazawa.totalwar.org)
Evil is within us... http://terazawa.totalwar.org/emo.gif

[KumaRatta Yamamoto]

Crusaders suits me fine

[Tachikaze]

My problem with the crusades or other medieval is not the era, but they don't seem prime for mass battlefield tactics and manuevering. I would prefer situations where wars were fought as a discipline, science, or art.

Examples? Alexander or Greek/Persian Wars, Chinese Spring-and-Autumn period, Thirty Years War. The Carthaginians vs Romans provides good tactical possibilities, but since Gladiator I'm tired of Romans (Carthaginians are cool, though).

Napoleonic is perfect for tactics, but the world doesn't need another Napoleonic game. Same for the American Civil War.

[NinjaKilla]

I think the main problem with Napoleonic and Roman is that there isn't enough variation between the units.

Crusaders sounds excellent to me: loads of different weapons and units.

[Bohemond]

For a TW game to be as interesting as Shogun, there has to be a good balance between tactic and strategic level, for interesting startegic play there has to be a lot of small factions, in a complicated situation. Napoleonic era would not do because it was basically France against Europe. I don't even think the Mongol Invasion will be suited but we'll see. Eras that are very suited are both the Ancient Romans and Greeks and the many conflicts between the 1.Crusade (1099) and the Fall of Constantinopel (1453) that will be probably covered by CTW. So I guess I wouldn't mind TW3: Romans.
By the way, what about the 30-years-war in Germany (1618-1648), or the Conquest of the New World. I would also like Colonial Wars (British against Zulu etc..)

[Muneyoshi]

The crusades should add a lot of depth to the game as there are a lot of leaders. As for the 30 years war, I dont think that it would be long enough period of time.

[The Scourge]

Well I was hopeing for either the crusades or ancient China,so big yippie.
I would have gone for rome,but I agree with NinjaKill.The Shogun engine is better suited to the crusades.
BTW,Bohemond ya bastard.I wanted that name http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Bohemond]

LOL
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[HATAMOTOKILL]

Well crusaders will be in our shops like it or,buy it or not?

------------------
Hato!!!
genie of the lands!!!
http://www.contrabandent.com/pez/contrib/legionxs/ninja1.gif

[Nelson]

I agree with Tachikaze. It's as though CA developed this great battle code for professional armies fighting in formation and then proceeded to use it in places and times where people didn't fight that way! Except for the (very important)strategic game, the Crusades does not favor the S:TW engine at all! It would be best with armies that used homogeneous formations say 500bc to 400ad and then 1500ad forward, give or take. Medieval infantry rarely fought in a formation.

I like the Middle Ages too and there have been games in the period. AoK, like it or not, is a gigantic hit. Lords of the Realm 1 and 2, Castles, and others I can't remember. Stronghold will appear before long. I was rooting for Rome because I wanted sword and pike military tactics to be reflected in the game properly. In Shogun they are not. If the engine isn't changed then 13th century men at arms will be marching and fighting like Romans anyway just like the Japanese do now. What should happen in Crusades is that formations should be very restricted and the melees wild and pretty much uncontrolled.

[Alastair]

Medieval = mob. Period. No discussion needed.

Napoleonic era, on the other hand, has formations. Someone mentioned lack of variance in unit types. You are most mistaken. Grenadiers, Ligne (line infantry), light (skirmisher) infantry, voltigeurs, cuirassiers, dragoons, carabiniers, horse artillery of four and six pounders, foot artillery of eight and twelve pounders, light cavalry, just to name a few. And not to differentiate between the different powers.

Someone mentioned the era being France vs. Europe. While at the most basic level, this is true, it is also far more complex than that. There were many tensions between the Allied powers. Russia was a Napoleonic ally for a while. So was Austria. Prussia and Spain too. Every major power except France and England switched sides at least once. Even when Russia was an Allied power, it had many tensions with England and Austria. It sometimes promised reinforcements and then went back on its word.

As you can see, it would be a very interesting period to have a game in, but for the numbers...

Rome, on the other hand, is almost the exact right scale for the STW engine. One legion was 1000 men, just the same as half an army in Shogun (with 120 man units, of course).


[This message has been edited by Alastair (edited 08-05-2001).]

[Vlad]

In the Middle Ages, the armies GOT FORMATIONS, they LACK DISCIPLINE.

In the BRAVEHEART film, both armies use formations and tactics. Once in fight, the units involve only can continue fight or RUN, but the other units can move.

[Laertes]

If they're serious about the Medieval setting, I hope that they're taking a good, long look at the siege rules. Many a fortified town could only be taken (if at all) by a LONG siege; one might expect them to be pretty common.

On Napoleonic era: any _Empires in Arms_ player knows that diplomacy is important. Austria, given its long borders with powerful neighbors, BADLY needs friends, and even France would like help (especially Prussia, Austria... or even Spain, for the navy, to help balance Admiral Nelson). Possibly the only major power in that game that can afford to be staunchly isolationist is Russia; I've seen a combined Prussian-Austrian-Turkish invasion of Russia fail due to the logistics difficulties.

------------------
He is justly served; It is a poison temper'd by himself.

[BakaGaijin]

Forget the damned Romans. I've seen two other GREAT suggestions for time periods which would match perfectly with the Total War engine's design.

The conquests of Alexander the Great provide good opportunities for mass armies such as Shogun's, along with, if not dimplomacy, wide strategic variety. After all, Alexander didn't START as a dominating power. He had to fight his way past a number of enemies to get there.

The other would be the Ancient Greece period. The tactical situation there would be very much the same as Romans, but Greece provides the added bonus of a rich strategic playing field, what with all the warring city-states. Not to mention the Persian threat. =)

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[The Black Ship]

Sounds to me as if CA just decided to see if they could steal the thunder of the AOK crowd. It's not that appealing of an era to me, and considering that most of the games out there are not related to the Classical era, it seems an over-saturated market http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

To be accurate they'll have to make the Muslim armies/nations more advanced than the Europeans'....are all the Europhiles in the Dojo ready for that?

Ah well, sour grapes on my part I guess...I was so looking forward to the Punic Wars, the Triumvirate, the Barbarian invasions.

Sigh http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by The Black Ship (edited 08-06-2001).]

[Augustus]

I agree with those who think that the Romans would be a better use of the game engine. Don't get me wrong--when Crusaders comes out, I'll probably buy it. But I think that CA picked Crusaders simply because it will be different.

Someone has suggested the wars of Alexander the Great and ancient Greece. But that's practically the same game as the Romans.

I mean, if for Crusaders they can have 10 nations and 60 unique units, they can do the same for the ancient world: Romans, Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, Gauls, Persians etc. etc. Heck, they could even expand the game to cover the Huns.

I just think that there's more they could do with the ancient world than with the crusades. Like I said, I'll probably buy Crusades, but that just mean I'll have to wait longer for "Empires: Total War 3" or whatever they'd call it.

[Marco Polo]

How about going way back in time, to the anciant middle east, where civilizations like the assiryians, Hittites, Egyptians, and various others fought for domininace in the ancient middle east? i think that would be interesting to play.

[CeltiberoSkullXIII]

Quote Originally posted by LusitanoMaster:
Romans 1st pls , than maybe Alexander the great, Hanibbal, ---» lets stay in Shogun era 1 st .
Medieval age shoud come after, than napoleon and others.[/QUOTE]

WELCOME LUSITANO ... ta todo bem?...jajaja BEMVINDO no SHOGUN TOTALWAR... O JOGO CRUSADER TOTALWAR é muito melhor por el momento que um jogo da roma antiga... mas eu espero que tambem a EA e a CREATIVE ASSEMBLY faz o posivel pra fazer um jogo da roma antiga...

visita-nos en CLAN DA ESPANHA EU CREO QUE PODEMOS ENTENDE-NOS...



------------------
"It's better to let the enemy alive as to kill it ... To TORTURE it!" http://gifanimados.ya.com/terror/calaveras_banderas/flag_wht_blkbns_clr.gif

[vangersonm]

They should make a WWII game......

------------------
http://www.plauder-smilies.de/person/ninja.gif If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.

Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

[Alastair]

I do agree that the ancient Greece might have a better strategic setting. However, BakaGaijin, you are wrong in thinking that Rome "started" as a dominating power. Rome was initially a city-state, like the Greek ones. Then it was conquered by the Etruscans, threw them off, and started expanding. I'm sure the first battle with the first city-state would be quite interesting. The Punic Wars also pitted two quite balanced powers against each other. (except for the third one, but that didn't count...) Also, Rome did eventually lose, so it's not like the whole game would be imbalanced towards the Romans.

[FwSeal]

I think I have to agree with the guys who commented on the STW engine being a little out of place for the Crusades. It was a bit out of the place for the Sengoku Period to begin with. I would wager that a major factor in their decision (since the Crusades are not exactly 'all the rage with the kids') was the possibility of units, units, and more units. Their promise of 60 units for Crusades seems to validate that theory. Not even CA could dream up 60 units for the Roman era (or so one would assume - they certainly pulled some out of their backsides for STW). Don't get me wrong, I find the Crusades as interesting as the next guy, but I was sort of hoping for Rome. I wasn't sure how they would have done it (the idea of playing Partha, for example, just doesn't do much for me) but it seemed a logical step.
I don't see the market as being somehow bogged down by Roman titles (I can't think of any of note from the past few years outside Caesar III) - if anything, the whole medieval thing has been done to death since Lords of the Realm.

[BakaGaijin]

I suppose you could base it on early Rome... but then it would be Total War: Ancient Italy or Total War: The Mediterranean or something of that description, rather than Total War: Rome.

Which, frankly, I would have no argument with.

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[edRonin]

FwSeal is absolutely right. The big appeal of doing Crusades is all the different units. A big part of why AOK did so well is all the different sides with unique units and technologies. It added a tremendous amount of playability to that game. By choosing the Crusades period CA knows they will appeal to the AOK crowd while still retaining the current group of gamers.

Is the Roman time period more accurate for the game engine? For the Roman side yes, but not for some of the barbaric tribes they conquered. A Punic war era would be accurate, but I doubt they would limit us to that geographic area.

I wonder if they will employ a historical expert for the Crusades era like the did with Dr. Turnbull for Shogun?

Ultimately the choice of Crusades came down to the fact that it would sell better than a Roman era game. I assume we will eventually get a Roman game, but not for awhile.

------------------
All your base are belong to us

[Nelson]

I'm hoping the engine will be modified somewhat. The hold formation command need not be available for all units. In fact for very few. Stand ground is OK but impetuousity (for knights) and cowardice (for peasants) should be a big factor in whether a unit obeys. Even in lines or columns the units could be made to appear a bit more disorganized and not so regimented as in Shogun. Open order should also be restricted.

As for all of the unit types, well, bring them on. They do help to sell the game. I just hope there aren't any goofy ones i.e. Robin Hood types. I bet Saladin's army will get Naptha Grenadiers. And at least crossbows will belong as will early bombards.

I'm looking forward to Crusaders. The additions to the strategic game as well as better siege action bodes well for a lot of good combat.

[Tachikaze]

I wrote this yesterday, but couldn't post it:

I like the ancient stuff (Hittites, Egyptians, etc.) for the esthetics, but I don't think it was organized enough for the Total War tactical game format. Even though there was a wide variety of troop types among the civilizations, within each nation, there wasn't much variety until you get to the later big empires. Maybe a game centered on the time of the Assyrians would work.

But esthetics are important to me. That's why I chose ancient China. The warfare was very organized (at least that's the popular conception), and they had everything from poleaxemen, to horse archers, to crossbowmen, to chariots. And their armor looked cool.

450 BC to 300 BC Hellenic/Persian Empire conflicts would be great. I would love to command Immortals, cataphracti, elephants, Darius' chariots, peltasts, and hoplites. And no Battlefield Ninjas!

I said "30 years war" in my earlier post, but I was trying to specify a period in European history between the medieval times and the later dominance of gunpowder. Call it "the late (or post) renaissance" then. Warfare was becoming more refined, and there was quite a variety of troop/weapon types. There was early artillery, pikemen, skirmishers, cavaliers, dragoons, musketeers, etc. Perhaps too similar to Shogun, though. It's the era of the English Civil War and the Three Musketeers.

The Napoloenic era is very good for the tactical engine, but I would rather see earlier stuff that isn't well represented among computer games.

I'll be happy with the crusades, though. Not a bad choice.

[Maltz]

I really don't like designing a lot of different units because it only makes a historical game more unreal.

But I believe most gamers like to have more units because modern people get bored fast and they didn't like their history class. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif So here we go! 100 units to choose from, and secretly there are some superman units and great cheat codes to satisfy your thirst of invincibility.

[This message has been edited by Maltz (edited 08-07-2001).]

[Vlad]

I like the 60 different units, but is historical.

The Saladin´s army got Mameluks cavalry, Sirian cavalry, archers, yihad volunteers, Egiptian levy, etc.

The Crusader´s army got Heavy cavalry, Military Orders, Heavy infantery, Christians from Lebanom, Crossbowmen, etc.

And other nations got other units.

[FwSeal]

Since it does seem to take dozens and dozens of units to attract the attention of buyers (at least, of the jaded Starcraft and AOK variety), then I propose a unit for the upcoming title, with a solid basis in reality...

Children Crusaders
Advantages: Cheap to build. Cost nothing to maintain.
Disadvantages: Tend to all die en route to the Holy Land.

[Tachikaze]

Having a wide variety of units is not just for commercial appeal; it offers a greater number of tactical and strategic options and possibilities.

[Nelson]

Realistic, historically modeled units are fine regardless of their number. Units that exist only for "balance", "diversity", or "razzle dazzle" despite having little or no accurate foundation are not fine. Hearing about large numbers of unit types alarms some of us who desire the former and dislike the latter.

[This message has been edited by Nelson (edited 08-08-2001).]

[Vlad]

There is enough historical units for a very diverse game.

A question ¿the 60 units are with the estrategical units inclusive?

FwSeal, ¿Do you know the "Children´s Crusade"? In 1212 thousand youngs ship in Marsella and the ships take to Alejandría and sold as slaves.

[Tachikaze]

Nelson,

That's why I suggest eras/civilizations, like the Persian Empire, that accurately feature a large variety of units, and why I tend away from Rome.

[Yoritomo]

Quote Originally posted by The Scourge:
Well I was hopeing for either the crusades or ancient China,so big yippie.
I would have gone for rome,but I agree with NinjaKill.The Shogun engine is better suited to the crusades.
BTW,Bohemond ya bastard.I wanted that name http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif[/QUOTE]
Heh, im not surprised someone hasn't taken Tancred DeHauteville.....


------------------
"I found Rome paved in brick and left it Marble" - Caesar Octavian Augutus

[A Nerd]

There is another game about the romans coming out that isimilar to shogun. I saw it mentioned in an older thread. I like the crusades idea, but Greece sounds quite tasty as well! Perhaps three or four?

[Forward Observer]

I was really hoping for either the Hatfields vrs. the McCoys, Army vrs. Navy, or shirts vrs. skins, but I'll settle for whatever they give us.

Cheers

------------------
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.

[Tenchimuyo]

Then why not just start with the Egyptians or Greeks?

------------------
A great warrior rarely reveal his true skills....

[russianman]

What too many roman games?? name three and ill agree!

[Anssi Hakkinen]

IIRC both AoE and AoK have Romans.

There's a game named Caesar III ('nuff said).

And then there's the Great Battles of Hannibal, which has Romans (and also a STW-like unit system).

Let's see, that's six...

[Ghost1]

I still like the idea of using the provinces of China. I would think that there would be a great deal of possible tactical situations available during the long history of china.

-------------------------------------------
Best Wishes to all

[This message has been edited by Ghost1 (edited 09-28-2001).]

[Papewaio]

Why not have an Epic version; civilisation strategy and tech tree, combined with STW tactics...
the morale on the battlefied is what really sets STW (MI sort of) from the rest of the games of fight to the death armies...

can you imagine playing civilisation out like that... roman legion meets riflemen on the battlefield with STW style gaming... the biggest drawback would be the inate imbalances...

STWs other triumph apart from the morale is the Paper/Sissor/Stones approach where no unit completely out trumps all others (again the largest failing of MI is that it doesn't keep to that as well as STW).

------------------
Victory first, Battle last.

[Tenchimuyo]

I think the era of Roman civil war woul be a nice setting. Legions fighting against legions, now that should be a balance.
Plus I also propose the Chinese periods. Throughout Chinese history there has been countless uprisings, revolutions and conflicts among the people the warlords and the ruling dynasties. Ten times the Sengoku Jidai than in Japan history. Brings much more diversities in strategies, fighting units and weaponries. Such as the Spring and Autum era, the warlord's kingdoms era, the eastern Han dynasty era leading into the Three Kingdom era. The five dynasty and ten kingdoms era. Do't forget, Japan is not the first one to deal with the Mongols, so there could be a MI Chinese version.


------------------
A great warrior rarely reveal his true skills....

[Target]

The Mongols did a fair job of heading towards the west side of Europe as well...



------------------
Quote MagyarKhans Cham:
i even suspect Target is coming here to hype things up.[/QUOTE]

[Hirosito]

i don't think that there too many games covering romans and napoleonic stuff too well. in the end it doesn't matter how often it has been done just if TW is ten times better than what has come before. they have the capability, the engine and the right ideas (most of the times) as long as ca aims high they will deliver a great game.

------------------
Hirosito Mori

A warrior's wisdom is shown in the treating of his defeated opponent http://cgi.tripod.com/smilecwm/cgi-bin/s/owen/sid.gif

[procian]

i think a game based on the punic wars or even the roman civil wars would be good.also the wars of the roses and perhaps the english civil war also.and its about time there was a decent strategy game about the american civil war too

[SlackerXS]

Quote Originally posted by Ghost1:
I still like the idea of using the provinces of China. I would think that there would be a great deal of possible tactical situations available during the long history of china.

[/QUOTE]

When the first time I see shogun before it came out, I fall in love w/ its 3D battle system and its AI in battle, using the ideas of Sun Tsu War theories...

It would be a great hit I bet if they use shogun's engine and produce a game upon the series of "Romance of Three Kingdoms"... (in case you don't know, RTK is very popular among asian nations... KOEI, a big Japanese software company, has been making great deal of money from RTK series...)

Fate of the Dragons, is a big disappointment for me when it just appears to be another AOK in Chinese story background...

------------------
SlackER ~ Extreme

[Scotticus TheGreat]

I like the idea of going to China and more with the Mongol Hordes. I'd love to have a theoretical battle with the great wall, just the sight of it in the graphics of Shogun would be pretty cool to see.

------------------
Life doesn't seem through bad with Led Zepplin floating through the ears

[Strategy]

FYI, the Roman period contains tons of more various units than either Shogun or the Medieval period does (much of the variety in western warfare dissappeared during this period). So giving a lack of units in this period as a reason why it wouldn't make a good game simply shows a lack of knowledge of the period - we currently have more than 80 different units in Imperium, and that is after cutting down considerably on the potential ones.

------------------
Fenrir Strategy
Imperium - Rise of Rome (http://www.fenrir.dk/)

[Khan7]

Well, another factor with the Romans is that it really would force CA to get bogged down in programming a whole bunch of stuff they don't have time for, like some sort of command and control rendering, simulation of discipline and tactical procedure and doctrine, etc., because these were all unignorable components of warfare at the time. For instance if they wanted to deal with pre-Marian legions-- without somehow holding the player to the make-three-lines-chuck-pila-and-charge-straight-forward-in-sequence tactics of the Romans at the time, they would not be simulating jack squat of what really happened. Even when you get into armies with more flexible tactical doctrines, it would really be hard to get away with doing anything.

What do you want them to do? Abandon their model-each-individual-guy angle? Or expand the engine to model 20-30 thousand little individual guys? So it can only run on a quad G4 with 2.6 gigs of SDRAM?

In order to do it RIGHT they'd have to pull some crazy stuff out of who knows where. And to not do it right would be a waste. Legions and Phalanxes and all the battles of the Greeks and Romans are too well known to butcher like they'd have to. Another disadvantage is that there really is not the same level of fractialization, to make a real, dynamic and flexible strategic game. I suppose you could mess around with the Peloponnesian war and the Persian wars.. but again there's not the fractialization of flexibility for strategy...

I suppose if you're going realllly die-hard for the whole Mediterranean thing you could make a Early Rome - Total War, MAYBE a Sparta - Total War, or even a Troy - Total War. This last one, the epic clash between the Achaeans and the Trojans, would have oodles of units, and possibilities.. they would have an excellent excuse to throw in Gods and so forth..

But really you have to think about "what is the scale and scope of these conflicts?", and "do I REALLY want to play it? I mean, would I REALLY choose this over the Middle Ages?". I know I wouldn't, I mean c'mon.

But if they do Medieval times, anything goes. Most of the battles were small and obscure, even your average historian is pretty ignorant on most of the large number of big ones (I know I am), so you can pretty much get away with "hey, ho, spears, cavalry, march, charge, fight" without having to do any of the AI or complex coding to get a real simulation of command and control or any of these issues. Plus the fact that the Middle Ages were fractalized and tumultuous like none of these earlier eras is a point I will reassert yet again. It's perfect for the strategy aspect, and it lets them off the hook as far as their tactical engine.

It is also worth noting that during the period they are covering, denouncing warfare as mass-mob action is really ignorant. By this point people were starting to develop some tactical doctrines and methods.. for examples we need look no further than the Hundred Years War. Or we can look to Englands escapades in Scotland circa William Wallace, and see that even the wild, rough and ragged Scotlanders had developed a habit of employing disciplined and sturdy pike formations.

Also I think it is deceptive to imagine melee as wild and uncontrolled, whether with Legionaires or Barbarians. I think perhaps people get this image alot from Braveheart, when in reality Braveheart is not a good simulation of medieval warfare in general and the melee scenes suck specifically, simply because wild, cataclysmic bloodbaths coming to a quick climax make for a mass-media movie. If you look at actual accounts you'll see that even melees involving poorly-armored rabble last take a whiiile (barring an uncannily quick rout by one side or the other). The problem with almost all warmovies is they have to speed attrition up by many times in order to keep the audience's attention. Same goes for Saving Private Ryan and the lot.

Actually, I really like Shogun in this aspect, it appears to be one thing they nailed headon.

Oh well, I have rambled. But that's my 2 cents. Or rather perhaps my 2 quarters.. or 2 dollars..

Matt

P.S.: I suppose if you're going realllly die-hard for the whole Mediterranean thing you could make a Early Rome - Total War, MAYBE a Sparta - Total War, or even a Troy - Total War. This last one, the epic clash between the Achaeans and the Trojans, would have oodles of units, and possibilities.. plus they would have an excellent excuse to throw in Gods and so forth, or at least the epic heroes.. imagine ordering Achilles, or Apollo, or somesuch dudes around the battle map..

But really you have to think about "what is the scale and scope of these conflicts?", and "do I REALLY want to play it? I mean, would I REALLY choose this over the Middle Ages?". I know I wouldn't, I mean c'mon.