Rome Total War

[solypsist]

With the announcement of RTW, I figured this thread might be a good way to cut down on repeat threads, or at least have a more centralized location for discussions about it. It also will maximize exposure to certain themes, hopefully eliminating threads with only 1 or 2 replies that don't get seen because of the high volume of posts here already; also it's easier for the devs to access rather than 50 short threads.
Since an RTW forum is still in the far future (remember we still have the Viking expansion coming out) discussions about RTW gameplay should be kept in the Main Hall.

[The Marcher Lord]

Well, they did mention beach landings in the PC Gamer article so i'm going to remain optimistic and hope that means we get some 3d ships and potentially some sea battles too.

I'd like to see the full range of commonly used artillery and perhaps artillery mounted on siege towers.

Any chance of having the historically correct legions represented on banners for each period or are we going to have generic units and standards across the Republic and Empire.

Any chance of a Jewish War campaign with the Masada siege ? come to think of it - will there be siege ramps ?

It sounds like pretty much everything else I could have hoped for will be in there........

[Stephen Hummell]

Will we get to play as celts or germans or huns
Thats it

FORZA ROMA

[Vertigo10]

In all honesty, as long as they stick to the promises claimed in the PC Gamer UK article, I'll be in heaven. Really. I'll stay in my room for 4 months, and I'll only stop because I'll have died of starvation. Then my parents can sue CA. Huzzah

-Vert

[King James I]

Probably not much apart from what they promised in the PC Gamer magazine, the main thing I want more of is more information. . Such as what factions are in the game, what the trade mechanics are in the game, how naval combat will be handled, what the A.I. is like, its nice to have flashy graphics in the game, but the most important aspect of computer games is the A.I, at least in the SP, that brings another thought, the article doesn't mention any thing about multiplayer campaigns and you would have thought they would have mentioned that, if it is going to be in the game, unless CA are being sneaky buggers again,(I HOPE), another thing they don't mention is how long the game last i.e how many years the game lasts, and when it actually starts starts, how units/armarments are recruited, what resources are going to be used e.t.c. I hope we find out more information soon, its bad enough waiting for the game, its even worse waiting for more information from the devs. Ok there are a few things I would like that aren't mention such as, ability to make ditches, palisades, caltrops, and other dastardly obstacles on the tactical map, ramps for storming fortresses would be cool too(Romans never went through a siege or castle assault without building these and moles and causeways for assaulting castles that are protected by water and a population limit, say each civilization has a set amount of population in their territory and they reproduce depending on their general health, happiness, lack of hunger e.t.c. Say if peoples health and happiness drops and they go hungry cos of hunger through famines or bad management then the population and reproduction would drop. So then people would have to watch how the population is managed (some people are recruited in the army, so that would mean there would be less people to work the farms which would mean there would be less food for the popultation to eat, meaning population and reproduction would drop) For more ideas read Darkmoor Dragon's article on his website And yeah its just like reading Darkmoor Dragons article on the fourbelow zero website. If you guys want to read it,go to www.fourbelowzero.com/games/strategy/MTW/AAR.htm

[Cardinal]

I mentiomed this in another string, but to get it all in one place, (good idea) I'll do it again.

Improve the siege/castle assult with moats, ability to assult with ladders, and fighting on the rampards (and not the two armies marching in the castle doing battle as they were in the field.

Sea battles I am not too sure about though. I don't think the romans had that many either, and having big boats ramming eachother has a rather limited appeal in my books.

[Alrowan]

i want them to finnish it o thier word in the article overnight, then release it the next day...

i cant wait for a year

[Basileus]

I just hope we get some greek factions in the game

and that we get the game as soon as possible hehe

[Knight_Yellow]

i wish for an early release like tommorow I KNOW

YO CA DUDES, I WANNA BE A BETA TESTER.

[Lord Romulous]

If all the elements in the PC Gamer article make it into the game i will be very happy.

some additional cool things to add would be

Diplomacy.
devs please check out diplomacy thread for other good ideas by other forum goers.diplomacy thread
- enable factions to be under the yoke of larger more powerful factions. eg the larger faction demands not only tribute but can order to faction under yoke to attack another factions units or supply forces to your army etc or vote a certain way in large multiple faction alliance meetings (see below)
edit - i beleive the word i was looking for was vassals

- have alliances or leagues involving many factions like the Hellenic league etc (wrong time period but you know what i mean) These alliances are made up of multiple nations and could be of the same race for example the Greeks or the Carthaginians etc. there might be 10 nations in the league all with their own interests.
eg some factions might want to attack the enemy, some pursue trading with enemy etc. If your faction has other factions under its yoke you can direct them to vote with you in the decision making body of the league. each faction gets one vote. once the vote has been taken the entire alliance has to follow the chosen course of action eg make war or pursue peace etc. if a nation decides not to follow the alliance decision all other alliance members declare war on it.

- how to decide what influence a faction has. I do not like that in MTW the sole determining factor on influence is how often you attack other factions. Attack often influence goes up, attack less influence goes down.
IMO influence should be a combination of how large your empire is, how large your army is, how close your borders are to the factions you want to influence, how important trade with your empire is to other factions.
eg a small faction should not be that influenced by a large empire on the other side of Europe.(unless that small nation sole source of trade is the large empire ) however a small faction sharing a border with that large empire would be very influenced.

- if you allow an ally to pass through your land you can specify which route the ally has to take. so you can have appropriate guard forces in the area to prevent ally betraying you and going on destruction spree. eg I don’t want to have an ally taking a trek across my key farming and gold provinces in order to get to a battle on the other side of my empire.

Battles
- the 3d battles look great and i love how whole cities have been included in the battle map (which is also the strat map - v cool)
I was greatly encouraged to see raiding included. I hope this is extensively developed
Eg raids for slaves, raids for destruction, raids under false colours eg you raid wearing another factions colours and the faction you raided blames the wrong guy (of course if the raid is resisted and some of your men are taken prisoner then they will be interrogated and reveal your deception. So you will now have two faction pissed off at you. The faction you raided and the faction you tired to pin the blame on. Risk vs reward.

- A never ending battle map would be great. Eg no borders so you cant camp on the edge of the map anymore. (although this cheap trick is one I use often and despair of getting victories with out it )

The AI
- now that you have added so many new elements into the game please also put a major effort into the ai. So many great games have fallen into a mediocrity because there was not a solid ai to back up the bells and whistles. No resting on laurels , the ai in mtw was quite good but for rtw it needs to be much better.


Sieges
- a minor thing but allow the gate house to collapse when hit with siege weapons. The doors only get forced inwards if you are using a a battering ram or aim the siege weapons directly at the door. Otherwise the whole gatehouse just comes down like any other section of wall.

- if a attacking ai can cope allow us to direct the defensive weapons on the castle walls as defender eg we decide what the catapults and arrows and boiling oil will fire at. With units on walls I assume this is already implemented ?

Vices and Virtues.
some more work needs to be done here. they are a good idea but the contradicting vices need to be fixed. once you get a vice or a virture you need to keep doing the things that got you that vice eg win battles or constantly run from field in case of good runner.
please no more run from battlefield once due to overwhealming odds and then you have bad vice for life.
eg the vices and virtues should keep up with the what the unit is currently doing.

Mod-ability
Please make this game extensivly modable.
i would love if everything was modable.
- put in menu like in half life where you get o choose the mod. so you dont have to install and reinstall etc to play different mods or revert to orginal version.

Ok thats it for now

[Jango Fett]

I WISH that they will make an option in rtw that will allow you to turn off labels in battle so that you do not know what units u are fighting but only know your own.

[Jango Fett]

oh and also i hope CA have the brains to make men hide behind their shields when arrows are fired at them, unlike in stw and mtw where they are so doofy and just get pounded by arrows when they have shields its stupidity

[Leet Eriksson]

SYRIAN ARCHERSthat is my only wish,what would romans do without them?especially against the persian scum

[Lord Romulous]

something that shadeflanders mentioned in another thread has me concerned.

he said it looks like it could be a full rts in the strat map rather than a turn based like it is now.

i hate full rts's. i love the turn based style of mtw and am hoping it will continue with rtw.

the problem with full rts IMHO is that they become click fests.
with more emphasis on how fast you can move the mouse and clck (click build buttom more times and move armies faster) than proper strategy. .

i dont just want a pause button where everything freezes like in current rts's. i want to be able to stop the running of time, look over all the information available to me, consider my moves, give orders and then press go.

this could be the biggest disapointment ever if it is true.

can a ca devloper please confirm that rome total war will not be a full rts please.

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (Stephen Hummell @ Jan. 11 2003,18:41)]Get to play as celts & germans ...
Thats it

yup, I'm with ya

[Pretz]

I would like the Persians and the various Greek city states to be included I also hope that Celts are not represented as one unified nation as this would be historically inaccurate, the Romans played different Celtic tribes off against one another. In fact I'd rather all Celts were represented as rebels in a similar way to MTW than as one unified faction.

[PSYCHO]

Quote[/b] (Pretz @ Jan. 12 2003,08:21)]In fact I'd rather all Celts were represented as rebels in a similar way to MTW than as one unified faction.

Well you'd still have problem there as well. They have to change the mechanics so that unlike STW/MTW when you go to war with one rebel faction you don't go to war with all.

What they could do however is have the Celts and Germans played by one or two of the main respective tribes. eg. The Helvetii or Belgae for Gauls (Continental Celts)and Suevi or Ubii for Germans. You then embark on conquering the other tribes / rebels in that area (who would have the same culture /type of untis etc)to bring them under your benevolent control


Cheers

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Quote[/b] (Lord Romulous @ Jan. 12 2003,11:48)]i dont just want a pause button where everything freezes like in current rts's. i want to be able to stop the running of time, look over all the information available to me, consider my moves, give orders and then press go.

can a ca devloper please confirm that rome total war will not be a full rts please.

No, it's not a 'full' RTS - it's much much more...

Rest assured, the campaign map is still turnbased. Also on the battlefield you can now pause the game, give orders, even queue them - all orders are now queue-able, not just movement ones - and then unpause and let it roll.

[Kraxis]

Thanks Jerome, you put my fears to rest.

But now I have to ask, PC Gamer must be wrong in that March 2003 right (you can answer that can't you)?

So, now we know it is 'something more' I wonder how far troops can travel, I mean since there won't be border anymore we can't just travel one province at a time, and if often travel patch will become roads... So many things... so much time (or is there?).

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 12 2003,14:57)]But now I have to ask, PC Gamer must be wrong in that March 2003 right (you can answer that can't you)?

We're still waiting on the official announcement, and so I'm keeping my posts to a minimum, but, yes, March 2003 is a typo. I can't say exactly when it will be ready, but end of '03 is a decent rough estimate...

[Kraxis]

Thanks... you actually answered more than I expected.

[Lord Romulous]

Quote[/b] (JeromeGrasdyke @ Jan. 12 2003,09:42)]

Quote[/b] (Lord Romulous @ Jan. 12 2003,11:48)]i dont just want a pause button where everything freezes like in current rts's. i want to be able to stop the running of time, look over all the information available to me, consider my moves, give orders and then press go.

can a ca devloper please confirm that rome total war will not be a full rts please.

No, it's not a 'full' RTS - it's much much more...

Rest assured, the campaign map is still turnbased. Also on the battlefield you can now pause the game, give orders, even queue them - all orders are now queue-able, not just movement ones - and then unpause and let it roll.

many thanks jerome. i was quite worried.

the great thing about ca is that you guys appear committed to making serious strat games (as well as games that are heaps of fun )

i am very pleased that with the ever increasing profile of the company you are not attempting to go mass market with a game that is catered to the 13 - 17 year old market. of course a 16 year old can have a blast with the game they just need a little patience

thanks for the added info on the queue-able feature. that will definitly come in handy when attempting to negoticate cities. in castle battles in mtw i had long wanted a function where i could say umit x moves to point z then it should attack enemy knight unit. . (if i have what you mean by queue-able understood)

[FasT]

i have only one wish...This should cover most things...

More than one patch......2 maybe 3 or 4 or 5

All i can say is dont lets us down this time.....

[Catiline]

I want an avoid combat option. missile units can be set to automatically fall back, I want to see others, especially cavalry able to do the same, i'm sick of horse not avoiding spear on their own if you don't see them get caught.

[Stormer]

well all my questions we awnserd in the pc gamer but what size units will they have will they cut down cause of such good graphics.

[Jagger]

I am really looking forward to this game

One aspect that I would like to see is morale variable dependent on why they are fighting.

For example, units fighting for their own Kings and defending their own country would have higher moral. Rebellions against foreign occupying troops would have higher morale since they are trying to overthrow tyranny. If I conquer a province and immediately start raising troops, those troops should have lower morale, should have a greater chance of desertion or even switching sides during battle because they have no loyalty to me. I just destroyed their King, raped, pillaged and looted their homes and now he wants me to fight for him?

It would also be nice to have troops identified by region. Spearmen raise from Genoa would be identified as Genoese Spearmen. Horsemen from Rome would be identified as Roman horsemen. Or the unit could be identified by leader such as Paul's Genoese Spearmen.

I always find it easier to identify with my troops if they aren't just generic spearmen or generic cavalry. Of course, similiar types could still be joined but perhaps with a loss of morale for the troops losing their unit identity.

Thanks for listening and I can't wait to see this game.

[solypsist]

I would like to see different combat characteristics with some armies. Right now, in MTW, each army pretty much acts the same: marching in square formation, engaging from frontal charges, etc.

It would be a good reflection to have Roman factions behave in a disciplined order while, say, Germanic tribes behave more in a mob or guerilla mode. The game mechanics would still be the same, but there would be advantages and disadvantages with each style.

[spiffy_scimitar]

I had already stated this in another thread but since this is a compilation thread, here it is again.

In Shogun and Medieval, individual soldier animation is completely in sync with he rest of his unit. When they march or run, every single soldier in that unit will step at the same time, hold their weapon at the same angle, and basically look like a bunch of clone soldiers from Star Wars Ep2. In RTW pics, it looks to be the same. It would be nice to have the animations offsetted, making the armies move in a much more organic and less syncronized fashion.

Also, I want blood a la Myth series.

And, I want battle cries that don't sound Japanese.

I'd rather see generals and kings mortal rather than superheros. Let people mod in Achilles and Hercules if they will, but historically I've never heard of a single man fighting off 300 enemies.

Bridge battles: How realistic where they? Historically, would a general charge across a narrow bridge to the slaughter, or ford it at a farther and shallower point? Perhaps in Rtw allow an attacker at a bridge to allow cavalry to start on the opposite side to simulate them having crossed at another point where infantry could not.

And, I wonder, will the Colosseum be able to train gladiators ?

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (spiffy_scimitar @ Jan. 12 2003,22:49)]Bridge battles: How realistic where they? Historically, would a general charge across a narrow bridge to the slaughter, or ford it at a farther and shallower point? Perhaps in Rtw allow an attacker at a bridge to allow cavalry to start on the opposite side to simulate them having crossed at another point where infantry could not.

I read somewhere (possibly at ezboard) that there will be fording of rivers.

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (spiffy_scimitar @ Jan. 12 2003,22:49)]I had already stated this in another thread but since this is a compilation thread, here it is again.

In Shogun and Medieval, individual soldier animation is completely in sync with he rest of his unit. When they march or run, every single soldier in that unit will step at the same time, hold their weapon at the same angle, and basically look like a bunch of clone soldiers from Star Wars Ep2. In RTW pics, it looks to be the same. It would be nice to have the animations offsetted, making the armies move in a much more organic and less syncronized fashion.

Also, I want blood a la Myth series.

And, I want battle cries that don't sound Japanese.

I'd rather see generals and kings mortal rather than superheros. Let people mod in Achilles and Hercules if they will, but historically I've never heard of a single man fighting off 300 enemies.

Bridge battles: How realistic where they? Historically, would a general charge across a narrow bridge to the slaughter, or ford it at a farther and shallower point? Perhaps in Rtw allow an attacker at a bridge to allow cavalry to start on the opposite side to simulate them having crossed at another point where infantry could not.

And, I wonder, will the Colosseum be able to train gladiators ?

Another thing to add to your mortal generals paragraph would be that generals should die after such a period, much like MTW's kings do, I think it would totaly unbalance the game in Rome and maybe Carthage's favour with their really good generals(imagine what would would have happened if Hannibal and Julius Caesar were immortal, all civilizations in the world would have been ripped apart and divided between Carthage and Rome). An option to change this would of course be need for those of whom don't agree with me of course.