http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=86091
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=86091
"The campaigns are pretty impressive affairs as well, with the Roman senate acting as a sort of narrative structure to everything, issuing mission orders and opening the doors to the diplomatic and trade options of the game."
(From the review)
Wonder what that means? That you have to go through the Senate to get diplomatic and trade options? "Mission orders"?
Yours was not at first a criminal nature. At 10 you stole sugar,at 15 you stole money,at 25 you committed arson. At 30,hardened in crime,you became an editor. Worse yet is in store for you. You will be sent to Congress,then to the penitentiary. But,all will be well. You will be hanged.
-Mark Twain
When playing as Rome I'm going to guess so.
From what I gather, when you choose Rome, you're choosing a relatively small force which must then also compete (probably more politically then militarily) with other Roman forces. Sounds like a good way of evening things out to me.
in MTW terms => the senate is the pope, if you chose to play as one of the roman generals (my guess) you are like a cathelic country in MTW. So if you invade a fellow roman teritory,or piss of the senate, it will urge other romans to kill you. And if a fellow roman has trouble with a barbarian naber the senate will call for a "crusade" against that tribe.
That's the way i see it.
MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.
MILLER: Now, that would be pretty good.
Asmodeus has a good idea there, if the AI learned from every battle, and adapted to every tactic that was thrown at them the game would be very fun,As for using my tactics against me...that'd be awesome. i dont think i'd be able to defeat them if that happened. good idea asmo
yeah an ai that learns like in ut2003 would be sweet.
British Army: be the best
The main problem with a learning A.I. is the length and complexity programming it.
Considering how vast R:TW is going to be, with a large variety of units and factions, the various battle types (head to head, siege, possibly others) and then all of the different influencing factors (terrain, weather, time of day etc.), I simply don't think a learning A.I. would be feasible to program in.
What I think would work better is if CA released a script based A.I. editor. This would allow the entire modding community to attack any weaknesses they find within default A.I., and then consistantly update it.
Faster, better, cheaper.
Thats a good solution, but what about thee people who don't mod.
"talking poo is where I draw the line"-Eric Cartman
Long live the resistance.
extra wishs for Seiges.
i have noticed in all screenshots displayed so far that their is no scenes of troops being shot off seige ladders or seige ladders being pushed back by defenders. i do hope this is implemented.
i would like to be able to choose where the cauldrons of boiling water are placed.
I would like special balista units on the wall that specialise in shooting ropes at seige towers with the aim of causing them to topple over before they reach the wall.
work out some incentive to use the seige ladders and seige towers. otherwise everyone will just use the cats and magonels cause u wont take huge losses when trying to breach a wall like you would if you are using ladders.
suggustions include
increase the time it takes to batter down the wall with the cats, trebs and magonels. and because of this greater length of time a releving force may appear etc. or atleast a raiding force that destoys the cats, trebs and mags.
force the attacking force to ring the castle with forces to prevent food etc from being smuggled in etc. this way with the attacking forces thinly spread the beseiged could mount a raiding party from the walls and smash the attackers seige engines and retreat before attackers had enough forces in postion to oppose them.
if the attackers do not ring the castle with their forces
then the castle holds out forever because it constantly gets food and other supplies smuggled in at night.
Lord Romulous
Secret Vice
Sick, Bitter and Twisted.
+3 pervisity +4 cursing +7 to chance of wearing purple pants.
Great idea.
just as long as we don't have the phantom bows. By that i mean That walls and towers shoot without people garrisond
which mean that if there is 1 person in the castle it will be a slaugter regardless cause he is never going to starve and he will operate like 1000 bows and 8 ballistas at once even while being surrounded by troops.
"talking poo is where I draw the line"-Eric Cartman
Long live the resistance.
For people who don't mod they simply download the customised A.I. scripts.
I don't think the game should allow the player to much choice in the design of castles. There's enough to do already without doing so, especially when you have several large fortresses.
I do agree there should be a benefit to using seige ladders and rams as oppossed to catapults. My suggestion is that catapults would have a more limited amount of ammo then they do now, plus they'd be considerably more expensive then rams and ladders (which would be dirt cheap). Perhaps they could even slow down your armies progress on the strategy map?
One more suggestion. I don't really like how if the defender can keep at least one unit on the field until time runs out, they win. I think instead the winner should be decided based on strength of remaining army and kill ratio.
i know somthing id like to see,(well its really a matter of common sence) since we're talking about City Sieges here atleast put in more than one gate, that way i could take Calvery out the back door andd slaughter those poor fools using unprotected artillary
1.Many players do not even know about the online community let alone care.Originally Posted by [b
2.That is waht it was historically though it can be abused. The battle was over when the lights went out. It should be if you can get your entire army at the edge of the map you win, though there like changing the mao completly so who knows.
"talking poo is where I draw the line"-Eric Cartman
Long live the resistance.
I'm not sure that's what I said, and if it was, it certainly isn't what I meant to say. The context was a modding thread which made an incorrect assertion, didn't get a response from CA, and then leapt to conclusions, including "silence speaks volumes", when in fact we simply hadn't read that thread.
The original Medieval team certainly isn't reading the forums like it used to, because we're mostly doing other things. But if you're under the impression that CA is now totally ignoring the .org, we should correct that. CaptainFishpants is representing for Viking Invasion, and members of the Rome team are paying attention.
That doesn't necessarily mean that any idea mooted for Vikings or Rome will be acknowledged or discussed, and it certainly doesn't mean they all will. We've had a lot of ideas already, but we discard many because they aren't right for the game, and entering into discussion about every single one would waste everyone's time.
Basically, feel free to come up with ideas; they may be good ones, and CA staff may find it useful to discuss them with you or to acknowledge ones which are worth lifting for the game. But I fear it needs to be said that you do not have the automatic right to a response, a confirmation, or a denial. Please don't take that personally, but also please don't take it for anything other than what it is: the impossibility of reading and responding to every single post on this forum, and the consequent selective nature of our responses.
Believe me, I've tried reading and responding to everything, and it ate my life :)
Gil ~ CA
This Panda
The only time a player would need customisable A.I. is if they are playing an online multiplayer campaign, where they need their generals to fight some of their battles for them. Most people who do this I think would know about an included (and emphasised) feature like downloading A.I. scripts. People who play single player probably wouldn't know much about it, but they wouldn't have to.
The problem with simply bringing your army to the map edge is that there is lots of room for abuse there as well. The first thing that comes to mind is using a small number of light cavalry to avoid the enemy and then park them somewhere on the large border.
No I mean if they are there at the end of the time limit.
"talking poo is where I draw the line"-Eric Cartman
Long live the resistance.
I'm not following.
If the attacker brings his forces to the edge of the map at the end of the time limit he wins?
How much of his army would he need there?
What happens if his forces aren't at the edge when the time runs out?
What happens if he has them there before the time runs out?
I think a simply strength/kill ratio is much more simple and less prone to cheese tactics.
1. about 60% or more and no defenders in the same area.
2. If the bulk of his forces isn't at the border when the time runs out and other victory cnditions haven't been met, ie killing everyone, then he loses.
3.nothingcause the defender can still attack him.
"talking poo is where I draw the line"-Eric Cartman
Long live the resistance.
I think perhaps the answer to the lone hiding assasin unit winning the game is a bit simpler - have all units rout at a pre-determined level of losses.
Regardless of morale.
Or something like that - perhaps instead award the victory even if the game goes on.
I'd sugest that if the "army destroyed" morale penalty is invoked for one side then the battle should automatically be considered finished at that point and either auto resolved or perhaps allowed to play on.
Historically armies broke and ran en masse - occasionally a unit or 2 might remain formed to cover the retreat/rout, but such brave souls rarely did anything other than inspire poems and preserve themselves.
After reading your response Efrem, your idea has definite validity.
The only thing I would fix would be no defenders in the area. If you get 60% of your army there (starting or remaining?) and time runs out, then it shouldn't matter if there are a couple of light cav defenders buzzing around.
How about no defenders not in battle.
"talking poo is where I draw the line"-Eric Cartman
Long live the resistance.
I think that would work quite well.
Just something I thought of that I'd like to add here.
Looting the battlefield.
I'd like to see where "lesser" armies (barbarians etc.) would be able to seize the higher quality equipment of fallen enemies if they win a battle.
Ideally it'd lead to an armor and weapon quality increase for the equivelant amount of troops, but I'd settle for instant cash.
The cool thing would be is to plant explosives underground below a city and watch all the buildings collapse
Do you live on Drury Lane?
'Boondock Saint'
I WANT my viagra
No explosives, but mining was practiced.
Instead of explosives they used woode beams to hold up the roof of the mine, then set fire to them - the roof would collapse and hopefully the wall or tower above it would collapse too.
Another trick of seiges was building huge ramps up to teh level of walls - eg as at Massada. A counter to this was mining underneath such a ramp and taking earth from the bottom of it Some ramps were made of logs as a frame filled with earth - these logs could be set afire and if the fire burned into the earth it would be difficult to put out, could cause the earth to slump when hte logs burned awy, and made working very difficult due to heat and smoke.
While those were good siege techniques, I doubt they would work in this environment during the real time combat.
However, it could be implemented if they gave us the option of aggressive vs. passive siege as well as direct frontal assault.
In passive siege, it would work as is it does now with your forces slowly starving the enemy out. It would also remain the same for assault.
In aggressive siege your forces would do things like build mines and ramps. The advantage to this is that certain parts of the castle would heavily damaged, making it easier to launch a frontal assault. The downside would be the additional casualties you would incur while doing so.
Goreat idea.
"talking poo is where I draw the line"-Eric Cartman
Long live the resistance.
Well, I'd like to see several cities in every province. In that case conquering the province becomes more real. May be some of CA programmers remember the game called "Legions for Windows". There were several big cities in the country and a lot of villages around them. The key to win was to deprive your enemy with any kind of supply, which were produced by the villages. It is histoircally correct.
And may be guns and gots as playable factions.
Also several time periods (like in MTW). Rome expansion was not the only one: before them there were Egypt and Greece.
The possibility to place troops on the walls during the sieges and to garrison them inside city buidings.
Roads must play not only esthetical role but vital one (fast moving, supply etc.)
And of course AI. It must be improved immensely.
Hey, just wondered: can any programmer here hint at the time span of RTW? Will it go back to the earliest times of Latin's building the Rome or will it start with the Republic? Do we get to fight celts, greeks and etrusks in Italy? Will it takes us to the time of hunn and vandal invasions? just a restless soul here...
Kristaps aka Kurlander
A Livonian Rebel
I’d like to say a word or two about Roman religion and how it might be manifest in the game.
Many Romans would not have comprehended the concept separation of church and state. The thought would seem silly if not downright blasphemous. High magistrates were often priests. Caesar was for a time the flamen dialis, the high priest of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, a position laden with taboos. He later became a pontiff.
Romans could be very superstitious. Or maybe religious would be a better term. While they did not proselytize like later Christians and Moslems, this should not be seen as evidence of disaffection for religion. Ritual and sacrifice were important to them. They could become very worried over omens and such. Priests and augers were important components of Roman life, including military campaigns. Prayers, sacrifices and augury would often precede important decisions like when to fight a battle. A stumble or accident by the commander may have been cause for alarm. Some leaders were more pious than others but few would dare to publicly ignore the concerns of the rank and file legionaries.
It might be a neat idea to include the possibility of intervention by an auger or an omen to spoil ones plans before a battle or an invasion, possibly depending on the piety of Roman generals. Not a frequent event, but a slight chance that when you want to launch an attack, the auspices could be so fearsome that you can’t proceed.
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks