A new RTW [Archive]

ArtistofWarfare

03-06-2008, 20:01

For a couple of years now I've considered R2TW a very real possibility. Although this may seem rather illogical to some, the development and planned release of Empire:TW only leads me to believe that R2TW is a realistic possibility.

There really isn't much farther to go beyond Empire before you start going back in time again. Empires covers the time period right through the American Revolutionary War. Realistically, there really isn't much more they can do after Empire other than covering the American Civil War (and I don't think this would be entirely fair...considering that it would exclude pretty much everything except the Eastern Americas). I just don't see them going into the Civil War.

Empires will come...a Napoleonic Expansion pack and maybe even an expansion pack that focuses entirely on the American Revolution will follow. After this, I'd imagine that CA/Sega backtracks and revisits the classical Era. It does make sense considering that they did this with Medieval.

That makes more logical sense to me than continuing to move the period forward into the Civil War and then beyond (what's beyond? WW1?...I don't see how they'll enter WW1 with Total War). Once you get past the mid 1850's (even then) you're working too far into industrialization IMO to make a TW game.

They could pop out R2TW using the new Empire engine and include new diplomacy and the Naval Battles as well. I think this would be far more exciting to the TW community than informing them that we're moving full speed ahead right into full blown industrialism. Further, this age (1850-1950+) would require revamping the engine again to reflect mobilization and technology. Seems like too much to me when you could revisit a period like Rome's antiquity.

The Wandering Scholar

03-07-2008, 18:02

I'll start I suppose.
I'd like to see more famous ancient citys, like Troy and many more playable factions, like spain and dacia.

Of course I would like better graphics and all that suff pluss the ability to name and create new towns, but only in a wide non-inhabited area and of course to make sure you dont create a huge region, the computer will decide good borders for your settlement.

It would also be good to name the type of ruler you want for your country like Emperor or High King.

O.of.A:2thumbsup:

Hmm, having cities like that would not be historically accurate and only fun for a few players like yourself.

Spain and Dacia aer infact playable. Plus you can also change the names of your vanquished states.

I would stick with a map that is already created - the mungdus magnus map. Quite adequate.

For my idea I wish that they would work with what they have got, make it more historical and basically do what many mods have done...

Emperor Mithdrates

03-07-2008, 18:26

Spain and Dacia aer infact playable. Plus you can also change the names of your vanquished states.

really? I didnt know. how do you play as them? is it a cheat or something?
:unitedkingdom:

Globe

03-07-2008, 18:35

No, go to C:Program Files: The Creative Assembly: Rome Total War:data:world:maps:campaign:imperial campaign: descr.strat and then change what is standing there into this:
campaign imperial_campaign
playable
romans_julii
romans_brutii
romans_scipii
egypt
seleucid
carthage
parthia
gauls
germans
britons
macedon
pontus
armenia
dacia
numidia
scythia
spain
thrace
greek_cities
end
unlockable

end
nonplayable
romans_senate
slave
end

Emperor Mithdrates

03-07-2008, 20:20

Emperor Mithdrates

03-07-2008, 20:23

Back, to the point. I want to know what you think can be improved, if anything.
What about new factions.
I like Troy (Turkey) and phonecia (Israel)

ArtistofWarfare

03-07-2008, 21:02

Well of course, the realism could be improved. I mean top to bottom...not just provinces/resources. I mean units, factions, great leaders, tech trees.

This is partially why RTW was a disappointment for many. You simply cannot visit the age of antiquity with a strategy game like this and not go all out on the realism factor. The "period" being accurately reflected in game is a large portion of the appeal to a lot of people.

So, for now...realism across the board.

Quintus.JC

03-07-2008, 21:08

I'd definitely like to see some new historical factions. Get rid of the three familis, only SPQR should exit. The Samnites in Italy should be the first big rivals to the player for superiorty in Italia. The Attaliads in the Asian minors along with Pontus. Kingdom of Sheba in Arabia. Picts in modern Scotland. Dalmatia and the Illyrians in Croatia. Bactria in the East end. The break-up of Germania (Marcommanii, Teutones..…..) , Gaul (Aeudi, Helvetii…..) , Briton (Iceni, Cantiaci……..) and Spain in favour of smaller tribes, although this might complicate the map too much . and some more faction if they can find it.
The map should also be improved, I’d like to see it extend to India, like in Rome:TW realism. More historical cities should be added.
Better graphics is a definite. I though Medieval II’s graphic was quit superb, each solider has an individual face, unlike in Rome with the army of clones. I’d also like to see more units, espically for barbarian factions, in Rome:TW; Briton has got no more than 15 units in total. I’m sure they can find more than that.
Next is historical faction members, people like Caesar, Hannibal, Marius………… with special traits and abilities, like heroes in Crusade campaign in Medieval II.
More builds such as Warehouse, Courthouse etc,etc.
And of course Naval battles.
Also Intro video for all different factions, with historical event seting in time.
I know I could think of more, but I’m busy today. I’ll publish my theories anther time.

The Wandering Scholar

03-07-2008, 21:17

Yes, well said

ArtistofWarfare

03-07-2008, 22:02

I don't know why, for sure, but the more we discuss this the more I can't imagine R2TW being made at some point.

It ...I don't know...just makes sense.

Or maybe this is just wishful thinking. I don't think so though...I think we'll see this in action some day.

Emperor Mithdrates

03-07-2008, 22:03

Charge

03-07-2008, 22:05

Very much exceeded hardcore limits on everything in the first place.

The New Che Guevara

03-07-2008, 22:09

Quintus.JC

03-07-2008, 22:23

I tried this, but when I selected a faction such as Scythia, RTW just closed on it's own accord. Can I get some help?

This has happened to me as well, only if I make too many changes, like changing starting money, starting date, family member traits…………….. I had no problem just readjusting factions into Playable. Maybe we need some patches or something like that?

Quintus.JC

03-07-2008, 22:25

Yeah. I like historical rivals.
I know i keep stressing it but wouldnt it be really cool if macedons arch rivals were Troy.
That films mint.
:yes:

Depending on the time period, but by the game time (270BC) Troy was long gone, burned to the ground. So it’s impossible for this to happen.

TruePraetorian

03-07-2008, 22:41

Coming from a semi-modders standpoint, I think there should be more then 20 factions...possibly hundreds. This would allow different Roman familys or other cultures, and could simulate a son of the king founding a new nation.

I also think that the idea of creating cities should be introduced. Based on the population level of the city, the said territory should be allowed to increase borders at a small fee. If these borders crossed into enemy territories, diplomatic disputes should occur. If you are the stronger...then they may submit. but if you are the smaller, then war is inevitable. This would make for unique maps. Also population sizes should be more realistic...with millions instead of 20,000.

I think there should be more battle-features..such as a formation editor for those who dont know how to mod files. More formations, such as the roman wedge formation, the greek hoplite needs to be fixed, and cavalry is too overpowered. Also, some sort of movie editor to allow uploads of battles, which can be mafe "cinematic".

Diplomacy needs to be fixed, along with naval battles (including them in the game of course!)

Emperor Mithdrates

03-07-2008, 22:44

Depending on the time period, but by the game time (270BC) Troy was long gone, burned to the ground. So it’s impossible for this to happen.

The new game could be set earlier than rtw and go on for longer. This would allow earlier factions to come into the game and later new factions and enemys to spring up.

ArtistofWarfare

03-07-2008, 22:48

True brings up a good point regarding populations...

Indeed- Constantinople, Rome, Carthage and Egypt provinces (among others) cannot have 25,000 people living in them 100+ years into the campaign. It's just silly, and I don't see any reason for it.

We're just talking about a number. I don't see why in the first RTW they specifically made it as fictional as possible. No difference between showing 25,000 or 2.5 million in my mind except that one makes sense and is historically accurate, and the other one just doesn't have even one reason for it's existence.

Emperor Mithdrates

03-07-2008, 22:48

Coming from a semi-modders standpoint, I think there should be more then 20 factions...possibly hundreds. This would allow different Roman familys or other cultures, and could simulate a son of the king founding a new nation.

I also think that the idea of creating cities should be introduced. Based on the population level of the city, the said territory should be allowed to increase borders at a small fee. If these borders crossed into enemy territories, diplomatic disputes should occur. If you are the stronger...then they may submit. but if you are the smaller, then war is inevitable. This would make for unique maps. Also population sizes should be more realistic...with millions instead of 20,000.

Now this guy knows what i'm talking about.
I love your idea for creating a new city depending on population, and many more factions sound great.
:smg:

Quintus.JC

03-07-2008, 23:15

For my ideal Rome : Total War. I think we should divide the game into different time period. A total of 4 different time periods should do, with different factions to be present.

Period One.
Rise of Rome 300BC-108BC:
Playable factions:
SPQR. (Faction shield: legionary eagle with purple back round):
Strong infantry, weaker cavalry compared to other factions, good range units, average navy
Carthage (Faction shield: same as original):
Excellent militia, Superb Cavalry, powerful elephants, able to recruit diverse mercenaries, best navy in the west Mediterranean.
Macedon (Faction shield: same as Macedon in Alexander expansion. Black back round)
Reliable infantry supplemented by terrific cavalry, excellent pikemen.
Seleucid (Faction shield: Crown with silver back round)
Weak early units, superb later tier units. With Macedonian style infantry + cavalry and eastern style cavalry, able to recruit elephants.
Ptolemic Egypt (Faction shield: Same as original)
Mixed army consisting desert dwellers and Macedon style pikemen, powerful chariots with excellent archers, able to recruit elephants but not to the highest level (armoured elephants). Very good navy.

Non-Playable Factions:
Celts (Faction shield: well decorated traditional Celtic shield. Brown back round)
Gaul (split between different tribes)
Germania (split between different tribes)
Dacia (split between different tribes)
Briton (split between different tribes)
Iberia (split between different tribes)
Thrace (Faction shield: same as original)
Scythia (Faction shield: arrows flying to an target. Orange back round)
Parthia (Faction shield: Eastern Bow with arrow [similar to Huns]. Pink back round)
Numidia (Faction shield: same)
Epirus (Faction shield: hoplite helmet [same as the original Seleucid] white back round)
Illyria (Faction shield: random barbarian shield pattern)
Sparta (Faction shield: Up side down V, the sign of Laconia. Red back round)
Athens (Faction shield: Acropolis. White back round)
Armenia (faction shield: shield + spear. Some kind of greenish back round)
Bactria (faction shield: camel. Sand back round)
Pontus (faction shield: back round: same as original)
Sheba (Faction shield: crescent [no star] with green back round)
Attalid (Faction shield: cavalry helmet. Grey back round)
Samnites (Faction shield: Sword with Green back round [same as Brutii])

The Romans start with few settlement in central Italy, having to compete with the neighbouring Samnite (In the south) for Supremacy in Italy, Tarentum is an rebel city with Greek culture. Tribes of Gaul occupies northern Italy, with the possibility of assaulting Rome itself. The SPQR could only train the traditional maniple. With few elite unit, but all unit are well disciplined and could hold their line even when losing.
Tribes of barbarians occupies western Europe, constantly at war with each other.
The Diadochi are still hostile to each other, the free Greek city states constantly create trouble for Macedon. The Seleucid are huge but surrounded by enemies, the Parthians are migrating south, they start around the Caspian area, they will be at war with the Seleucids almost straight away. Pontus and the Attalids will be trying to grab as much land as possible in the Asian minors. With Egypt controlling Palestine and looking for a way north.
Carthage are in no hurry for war, starting quite comfortably with no enemies, although their cities are under-developed it should take long for them to get going. Sicilia and Iberia are good choice for invasion, as they did historically.

New faction will appear in period two, and some faction will disappear (destroyed)
Period two is coming soon………………………
if i forget anyone please correct me.

TruePraetorian

03-07-2008, 23:17

More turns per year and Multiplayer campaign of some sort (thanks to Myrddraal for making it possible in RTW). Possibly something to change the names of Family members, a system of voluntary adoption and marriage (you choose who and when), possibly even a system to choose when to attempt to have children.

More Senate offices for the Romans...hell even a system for EVERY faction that allows you to create a unique social structure that would give influence bonuses.

More options for Client Kingdoms...like telling them where to attack and when. Also, you should be able to give units to other factions to represent mercenarys or gifts.

On the battlemap, you should be able to see the caravans and night tents, even fight from them.

CAVALRY THAT CAN FALL OFF THEIR MOUNTS!! Its kinda un-realistic when both horse and rider fall. All units should be given some sort of option to become/un-become cavalry. Imagine a general falling off his horse, and all of your men rushing to save him.

Also, more men on the battlefield ..as much as can fit without casuing computer difficulty..id like Legions of 6,000 men each myself..and massive fights with over 30,000 men.

Quintus.JC

03-07-2008, 23:34

some of Pretorian's suggestion will definetly taken into account

Quintus.JC

03-07-2008, 23:35

Period Two.
Second Punic War 230BC-108BC

Playable Factions:
SPQR. (Faction shield: legionary eagle with purple back round):
Strong infantry, weaker cavalry compared to other factions, good range units, good navy
Carthage (Faction shield: same as original):
Excellent militia, Superb Cavalry, powerful elephants, able to recruit diverse mercenaries, best navy in the west Mediterranean.
Seleucid (Faction shield: Crown with silver back round)
Weak early units, superb later tier units. With Macedonian style infantry + cavalry and eastern style cavalry, able to recruit elephants.
Greece (Faction shield: same as original)
Super Hoplites, able to recruit Spartans (only in Sparta), weak but varied cavalry, good ranged units, excellent navy.
Parthia (Faction shield: Eastern Bow with arrow [similar to Huns]. Pink back round)
Useless infantry, excellent cavalry, few options, crap navy.

Non-Playable factions:
Celts (Faction shield: well decorated traditional Celtic shield. Brown back round)
Gaul (split between different tribes)
Germania (split between different tribes)
Dacia (split between different tribes)
Briton (split between different tribes)
Thrace (Faction shield: same as original)
Scythia (Faction shield: arrows flying to an target. Orange back round)
Sarmatia (Faction shield: horse head with white back round)
Numidia (Faction shield: same)
Armenia (faction shield: shield + spear. Some kind of greenish back round)
Bactria (faction shield: camel. Sand back round)
Pontus (faction shield: back round: same as original)
Sheba (Faction shield: crescent [no star] with green back round)
Attalid (Faction shield: cavalry helmet. Grey back round)
Macedon (Faction shield: same as Macedon in Alexander expansion. Black back round)
Ptolemic Egypt (Faction shield: Same as original)

This time Rome controls all Italy plus Sardinia and part of Sicily. They’re in an direct war with Carthage, although at the start the game it is ceasefire, but both sides will attack given the chance. Carthage lost control on the Mediterranean, but gained new colonies in Spain, with Iberia destroyed. Carthage under the inspirational Hannibal, who is available at the start of the game, will take them to new heights.
The War in the Middle East also intensifies, with Antiochus III taking charge of the Seleucids, war and alliance is already on the brink. No battle is ever easy and it’s gonna be the end to one of these super powers.
The Parthians are migrating ever more, at war with the Seleucids right at the start, their king will be looking for new land for his people, they is also Bactria to content with in the East.
Macedon faces trouble as the Greeks unites. The Scythian also finds an enemy in the newly risen Sarmatians.

Period Three coming soon………….

Quintus.JC

03-07-2008, 23:57

Period Three.
Marian Reforms 107BC-1AD

Playable Factions:
Julii (Faction shield: same as original)
Excellent infantry in legionaries. Cavalry is also much improved after the reforms. Ranged units is also top-notch, able to recruit regional mercenaries (Gallic cavalry, Iberian mercenaries) directly in cities.
Pontus (Faction shield: same as original)
Macedonian style pikemen with any combination of Eastern Heavy Cavalry, the only faction strong enough to contend with SPQR in the East.
Gaul (Faction shield: same as original)
Excellent swords men supplemented by good cavalry, very good archers
Germania (Faction shield: same as original)
Crazy infantry (no phalanx for warbands), including the ever frightening Berserkers, very good cavalry and archers who can fight in melee.
Parthia (Faction shield: Eastern Bow with arrow [similar to Huns]. Pink back round)
Improved but still rubbish infantry, excellent cavalry, able to recruit elephants, navy is catching up.

Non-Playable Factions:
SPQR. (Faction shield: legionary eagle with purple back round)
Celts (Faction shield: well decorated traditional Celtic shield. Brown back round)
Dacia (Faction shields: same as original)
Briton (Faction shields: same as original)
Sarmatia (Faction shield: horse head with white back round)
Numidia (Faction shield: same)
Armenia (faction shield: shield + spear. Some kind of greenish back round)
Bactria (faction shield: camel. Sand back round)
Sheba (Faction shield: crescent [no star] with green back round)
Ptolemic Egypt (Faction shield: Same as original)
Seleucid (Faction shield: Crown with silver back round)

Now Rome is the unquestionable master of the Mediterranean. Engulfing so many factions in the process. With so many factions destroyed. A new enemy lies within. This time period is flood with Historical characters, Marius, Sulla, Cicero, Caesar…….
The House of Julii, led by Gaius Marius will have to complete a series of mission by the Senate. After the destruction of Gaul, will trigger the civil war. With Julii directly going against the Senate, eventually achieving imperial status.
Many barbarian factions have united, and bring trouble to Rome. The Gaul have united and looking for more land, The Scythians are destroyed by an combined effort of Pontus and Sarmatia. The Seleucids are reduced to their last cities, no more than a mere client kingdom but capable of defending themselves if it comes down to it.
Parthia rules the East, expanding further west. Egypt is also losing their armed forces, despite their wealth. Pontus are in an aggressive war with SPQR in the Asian Minors, under their King Mithradates IV the war seems to be going well. The Numidians have replaced Carthage as the power in Africa, constantly looking for opportunities for land and money……………..

Last part coming soon………………..

Emperor Mithdrates

03-07-2008, 23:57

CAVALRY THAT CAN FALL OFF THEIR MOUNTS!! Its kinda un-realistic when both horse and rider fall. All units should be given some sort of option to become/un-become cavalry. Imagine a general falling off his horse, and all of your men rushing to save him.

Also, more men on the battlefield ..as much as can fit without casuing computer difficulty..id like Legions of 6,000 men each myself..and massive fights with over 30,000 men.

I like the cavalry idea. another idea would be an improved graphics chip.
When you zoom in on fighting the sword slashes are slow and it takes ages to kill someone.
Kills should be instant, unless blocked, with plenty of blood and even limbs falling off, there should also be the ability so that if you destroy every bulding in a city the city gets eradicated and the neibouring provinces get extra land and that means you could create a whole new possitioned city.

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 00:06

I’m not sure about the graphics. We’re not creating an first player action game here. You are talking Spartan Total Warrior.

The Wandering Scholar

03-08-2008, 00:19

I cannot wait for your final installment!

ArtistofWarfare

03-08-2008, 02:26

I’m not sure about the graphics. We’re not creating an first player action game here. You are talking Spartan Total Warrior.

yeah I don't even know where to begin hissing at his suggestion...

Instant Kills? Limbs just flying across the screen? Running the army around destroying all the buildings in cities? ....:whip:

<shudder>

TruePraetorian

03-08-2008, 02:43

ArtistofWarfare

03-08-2008, 02:49

I think the cities should be larger. Last time i checked, Rome was not THAT small. You should also be able to design city walls and where the buildings go. This way, each city is unique, and you can prepare defensive structures.
I guess im suggesting a "sim city" thing.

Well, this should be accomplished long before R2TW, as Empires will have every constructed building in a settlement, visible on the campaign map :yes:

Or so they say...

But just the thought of this gets me quite excited. Throw in a constantly changing, "life like" campaign map (weather effects, clouds, destruction to buildings and agriculture etc visible...some farm life, show both naval land trade etc...caravans around armies, showing the army not just a figure of it's unit etc etc lol).

You could easily be talking about by far and away the greatest strategy game ever made...

You could throw in also things like devestation being shown (not just agriculture or buildings etc..). I mean, instead of seeing a message that says "Volcano in wherever" and seeing a little 3D volcano and hearing voices of citizens screaming (looped)- actually show the volcano's eruption and effect on the province...and make it viewable over and over like they do with assassinations in M2TW. Same with storms...and try to find a way to show something for a famine/plague etc. It could be extremely interesting.

edit: Maybe also, let's say you have an agent bomb a building or start a fire for example...instead of just seeing some smoke pour out of the campaign map for a little bit, we should see the effects of that for as long as it takes. As in, if they're repairing the building and it's going to take 3 or 4 years, we should see it being addressed with an emergency crew/engineers etc as well as it's progress (all on the campaign map). Of course we're starting to talk about the requirements for the game getting jacked up considerably.

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 11:26

The producers seriously should of put more effort into the original game. I wasn't perticularly happy about factions intros, faction shares the same intro if they have the same culture, everyone should have their own intro. Also in BI they didn't even have any.
I think graphics is going to be as good as it gets in the New R:TW. Seeing what CA have accomplished in MII:TW really impressed me alot.

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 11:29

[QUOTE=ArtistofWarfare]

You could throw in also things like devestation being shown (not just agriculture or buildings etc..). I mean, instead of seeing a message that says "Volcano in wherever" and seeing a little 3D volcano and hearing voices of citizens screaming (looped)- actually show the volcano's eruption and effect on the province...and make it viewable over and over like they do with assassinations in M2TW. Same with storms...and try to find a way to show something for a famine/plague etc. It could be extremely interesting.

[QUOTE]

There should be a short film showing each historical event, like volcano eruptions, horde invasion, sack of blah blah cities. Artist's ideas are great.

Emperor Mithdrates

03-08-2008, 12:01

yeah I don't even know where to begin hissing at his suggestion...

Instant Kills? Limbs just flying across the screen? Running the army around destroying all the buildings in cities? ....:whip:

<shudder>

Hey, I think its you whos always talking about realism and in real figting, cities could be destroyed, take troy and ephesus. great cities burned to the ground.

realism is a big part of this game and i still think even though what i said b4 was a bit stupid the graphics could be improved.
:hmg:

Emperor Mithdrates

03-08-2008, 12:04

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 12:07

After capturing an city you should be given 4 options:
Occupy
Enslave
Exterimenate
Sack

Emperor Mithdrates

03-08-2008, 12:11

After capturing an city you should be given 4 options:
Occupy
Enslave
Exterimenate
Sack

thats a great idea. if anyone needs money you can just sack a rebel town.
you should be able to also destroy them like TruePraetorian.

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 13:02

The option of sacking is what the Romans often did, unlike sack in BI. The Romans relied on pure brutality to pressure the opposition into submission, as the Roman rule; once the battering ram had reached the gate/wall, no mercy shall be shown to any inhabitant inside. Carthage and Corinth and good example, of course you can start a new from the ruins of the old city.

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 13:04

Can anyone think of historical factions that should be added to new R:TW Beside the ones I already named, and they must be big/important enough to make an impact.

Spartan198

03-08-2008, 13:07

After capturing an city you should be given 4 options:
Occupy
Enslave
Exterimenate
Sack

Extermination is ahistorical and just plain unethical.
Replace it with "Suppression". Far more gainful to the player.
And the "Sacking" option should be accessible whether the faction is a horde or not.

The Etruscans should be a faction for the Rise of Rome campaign.

M2TW's Merchant and Princess mechanics would make good additions,except the "princesses" would have to be labeled as "Hetaerae" (courtesans) to be somewhat historical.

All units should be historically-named,not rosters full of fantasy units!

Last and most important: No lorica segmentata (really,what is wrong with chainmail?) or Praetorian Guard before their historical introduction!

Other than those tidbits,QuintusJulius-Cicero and TruePraetorian both have the right ideas for R2TW.

Emperor Mithdrates

03-08-2008, 13:11

Can anyone think of historical factions that should be added to new R:TW Beside the ones I already named, and they must be big/important enough to make an impact.

I know i keep stressing it but the trojans are mint, they had a huge empire that stretched all over turkey.
Another civilisation was the ephesians. These live on the cost of south-western turkey and were eventually conquered by the romans. I've been there and seen the ruins. its amazing. unlike modern rome and carthage they havent rebuilt over the top of it so its a huge ruined city in the middle of some mountains. ITS GREAT!

:2thumbsup:

O.of.A :unitedkingdom:

Spartan198

03-08-2008, 13:36

I know i keep stressing it but the trojans are mint, they had a huge empire that stretched all over turkey.
Really? I always thought they were just an incredibly tenacious independent city that managed to avoid the yoke of the Hittites?

Emperor Mithdrates

03-08-2008, 13:41

Really? I always thought they were just an incredibly tenacious independent city that managed to avoid the yoke of the Hittites?

Maybe your right, the guide said that it governed about 6 other provinces and that was the capital but you sure are an expert in these things.
:thinking2:

Spartan198

03-08-2008, 13:56

Maybe your right, the guide said that it governed about 6 other provinces and that was the capital but you sure are an expert in these things.
:thinking2:
Side note: You spelled Ithaca wrong in your signature. Just thought I'd point that out (no offense).

The Wandering Scholar

03-08-2008, 13:56

A campaign map which has the ability to change is a very good idea.

Spartan198

03-08-2008, 14:00

A campaign map which has the ability to change is a very good idea.
Hey,yeah! To reflect the changing of historical borders (ie,southern Greece into the Roman Province of Achaea).

ArtistofWarfare

03-08-2008, 14:45

Spartan198

03-08-2008, 14:48

Spartan198

03-08-2008, 14:51

You could throw in also things like devestation being shown (not just agriculture or buildings etc..). I mean, instead of seeing a message that says "Volcano in wherever" and seeing a little 3D volcano and hearing voices of citizens screaming (looped)- actually show the volcano's eruption and effect on the province...and make it viewable over and over like they do with assassinations in M2TW. Same with storms...and try to find a way to show something for a famine/plague etc. It could be extremely interesting.
Interesting,but maybe a little too fun to watch...

But I do enjoy the sound of citizens screaming after a volcano or flood,lol.

ArtistofWarfare

03-08-2008, 14:52

I once cheated a city's population to over 20 million people,but after that I got a CTD.

Never really thought about why,tell you the truth.

RTW is hard coded to CTD any time something that resembles historical reality occurs.

:clown:

Spartan198

03-08-2008, 14:58

RTW is hard coded to CTD any time something that resembles historical reality occurs.

:clown:
Ain't that the truth.

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 15:01

Thanks to people’s suggestions I have got brand new factions to add to the new R: TW
Etruscans (thanks to SpartanGlory), Galatia, Palmyra, Corinth, Jewish kingdom, Indus (I can’t think of a particular fitting name), Han Chinese (they don’t have settlement or army, but have diplomats that are able to make trade agreements and stuff, hugely profitable for anyone have a border with them), also…………….
Tribes of Gaul before their unification:
Helvetii, Pictones, Veneti, Arverni, Aeudi, Sequani, Belgae, Lemonvici.
Tribes of Britons:
Iceni, Cornovii, Corieltae
Tribes of Germanians:
Chauci, Ubii, Frissi, Cherusci, Vindeici, Marcomanni, Chatii, Cimbri, Teutones.
Spanish Tribes:
Iberians, Celtiberians, Taraconese, Canterberians

Horseman

03-08-2008, 15:11

ThePianist

03-08-2008, 15:18

It would be really exciting to see a sequel of Rome Total War. Some of my suggestions would be:

An even more detailed map than the current RTW map, with several cities per province (rather than one city per province as it is now). That means, say, the province containing Ariminum would be several times larger, with a few cities, Ariminum being the main city. This would more fully reflect the number of cities and make the game feel more "real".

With this more detailed map, make the option of provincial campaigns (so there could be variety in playing different campaign maps, even if it's only a portion of the overall map). In other words, in the current RTW, the short campaign and the long campaign both happen on the entire world map. In the new RTW, the short campaign, since it's limited to only one or a few factions, should be on a provincial map (maybe with even more detail and even more cities?). The long campaign should be on the entire world map. This would provide variety in maps, and a better/more appropriate focus. So each faction would have a world-map campaign and a provincial campaign. For example, Rome's long campaign would be on the world map, short campaign would be on a map of Western Europe.

This next idea was mentioned by some other people already but I don't remember exactly where I read it. The proposal was making a 3D modeling of actual cities (i.e. Rome would look like Rome, Athens would look like Athens, etc.), rather than all the "City"s all have the same streets and walls, and all the "Large Town"s all have the same streets and walls.

When armies march through streets and city gates and bridges and especially when units have to run in the city square, the representation is not very realistic and looks "videogame", I don't know how to better describe it.

It'd be great if the next RTW was 12 turns per year rather than only 2, one month per turn makes time less rushed and would be more accurate in portraying the marching distance of the armies (and the traveling distance of the ships). Also, the in-game characters would live longer, and it'd be more worth it and easier to upgrade generals with ancillaries.

In the current RTW, ports would not trade if more than some map distance away (I don't know what's the actual distance limit on the map). But in antiquity sea trade could go very long distances. So suggest that even if trade right was granted with a faction very far on the map, the ports would still be able to trade.

Make the world map extend till China, through the entire silk road, since there was trade with Rome at that time as well. So ancient China could be the easternmost faction.

Make rivers navigable.

In the current RTW, say I have 10 units of Hastati in a stack. Without them being grouped (with Ctrl+1), I can select all 10 units and hold left-click and deploy them in different rectagular shapes, depending on how I move the mouse. However, after I group these units (select them all and Ctrl+1), it's no longer possible to select all 10 and left-click-mouse-drag deploy. I'd have to select less than all of the group, then I'd be able to do the different formations. Anyone who played RTW would know what I am talking about, and that defeats the whole purpose of grouping units.

In the historical battles, make it possible to have tens of thousands of soldiers on the (in-game) battlefield.

In the unit descriptions, I've often read about how one of the functions of the pilum and other javelins is to be embedded into a shield and the metal front of the pilum/javelin would bend, so as to render the shield inusable. It'd be great if this could be implemented in the new RTW, to see the graphics depict a volley of javelins hitting shields and some javelins sticking unto shields, and those shields have to be discarded (and in-game, the shield-stat would go to zero for that unit). It'd also be great to see shields being cloven in battle (and also, in-game, the shield-stat would go to zero for that unit), because in the units descriptions, the Greek Thureophoroi carries a shield of wood and leather, and some barbarian units carry shields of wood as well, and some of these would be cloven in battle.

And since the game's focus is Rome, make the maximum number of units 60 rather than 20, so that the maximum number of troops in one stack is 60 centuries. Maybe even slightly more than 60 units, so that auxiliary cavalry could be included. In other words, the maximum stack should be an entire legion.

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 15:30

If you're having Etruscans as a faction why not some of the other Italian tribes?

Samnites
Apuians (not sure id spelling is right on this one!)
Campanians
Brutians

EDIT - And interestinly enough the 6 Italian factions (including Rome and Etrusca) couold all have slightly different unit rosters

Read my previous posts carefully you shall see Samnites already, I don’t feel like apart from Etruscans and Samnites the rest of them makes too much impact. Different unit roster is a definite

Emperor Mithdrates

03-08-2008, 15:32

If you're having Etruscans as a faction why not some of the other Italian tribes?

Samnites
Apuians (not sure id spelling is right on this one!)
Campanians
Brutians

EDIT - And interestinly enough the 6 Italian factions (including Rome and Etrusca) couold all have slightly different unit rosters

yeah, i would totally play as the Samnites.
There must be a way to tell "Total war" what we think
:duel:

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 15:33

Period One.
Rise of Rome 300BC-108BC:
Period Two.
Second Punic War 230BC-108BC
Period Three.
Marian Reforms 107BC-1AD

………………..The Last instalment

Period Four
Imperial Rome 27BC-117AD

Playable Factions:
Imperial Rome (Faction shield: A combination of Julii and Senate eagle with red back round) Win condition: Control 100 province, out last Dacia & Briton. Difficulty: estimated Easy.
Awesome army, you can imagine all the units, only this time they are able to recruit regional axuilia each with different stats and capabilities.
Parthia (Faction shield: Eastern Bow with arrow [similar to Huns]. Pink back round)
Win condition: control 50 province, out last Armenia, control Antioch and Alexandria.
Difficulty: estimated normal.
Improved but still rubbish infantry, excellent cavalry, able to recruit elephants, navy can fight now.
Germania (Faction shield: same as original) Win condition: control 40 province
Difficulty: estimated normal
Crazy infantry (no phalanx for warbands), including the ever frightening Berserkers, very good cavalry and archers who can fight in melee.
Briton (Faction shields: same as original) Win condition: control 40 province
Difficulty: estimated hard
Excellent swordsmen, noted for their heavy use of chariots,
Dacia (Faction shields: same as original) Win condition: control 40 province
Difficulty: estimated hard
As good as any barbarian faction, but that’s about it.

Non-Playable factions:
Celts (Faction shield: well decorated traditional Celtic shield. Brown back round)
Picts (Faction shield: single-handed Axe, blue back round)
Sarmatia (Faction shield: horse head with white back round)
Armenia (faction shield: shield + spear. Some kind of greenish back round)
Sheba (Faction shield: crescent [no star] with green back round)
Palmyra (Faction shield: not sure)

Rome had just been ravaged by civil war; at least it’s over. Augustus now is the leader of Rome, with some very capable generals under his command. The Britons remain unconquered but poses no threats. The Germans on the other hand are opportunists, raiding weak cities and blocking trade. The Dacians also poses threat to all the province south of it. The Parthians are the only civilised faction strong enough to compete with Rome, they are also in an position to bag bucks of money with the silk road linking them to the Chinese. The two great powers have many client kingdoms as buffer zone to them. Rome now the dominate faction will settle for no more than complete domination of the map, but can any other faction stop them…………….
By building Ludus Magma you can train governors, while building military academies allows you to train generals. Only royal family can ascend the throne, although adoption is available. Sarmatia occupies the steppes……..

I’m already thinking about a new Barbarian Invasion expansion pact, dividing it into three period:
1. Decline of the Roman Empire 312AD-476AD
The Roman empire is split, with Constantine trying to unify what was once the greatest empire on earth. Many individual barbarian tribes have also united and are capable of invading the weaken empire. The Goths had also migrated from Sweden into modern Romania, posing direct threat to the Balkan provinces. The Parthians had been replaced by the stronger Sassanid, who longs to revive the ever great Persian empire. Also a storm is arriving from the far east………………..
2. Barbarian Invasion 395AD-476AD
The last emperor of an unified Rome is dead, his heir now rules an divide empire. The Huns have arrived and with Attila as their leader (not right at the start) they pose the biggest threat to Roman civilisation. The Goths under Alaric is also an big threat. The Sassanids and ERE’s war intensifies as one of them tries to get on the top. The Saxons raids leaves Britain unprotected……………………
3. Byzantine Revival 476AD-565 AD
The Western Roman empire no longer exists, its empire divide between barbarian invaders. The royal insignia is send from Rome to Constantinople. As the barbarians states are fighting among themselves the Byzantine empire endeavours to regain it’s former empire in the west………………

Emperor Mithdrates

03-08-2008, 15:39

You have hundreds of great ideas.
if only someone who worked for ACTIVISION was listening in.

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 15:42

I’m sure we can get to them somehow, why don’t we make a list of things we want first.

Horseman

03-08-2008, 16:02

This thread has given me an idea for my next modding project....the rise of Rome, will have to wait a while though!!!!!!

ArtistofWarfare

03-08-2008, 16:02

I LOVE the multiple starting periods...

Great idea

Emperor Mithdrates

03-08-2008, 16:08

This thread has given me an idea for my next modding project....the rise of Rome, will have to wait a while though!!!!!!

Sounds good. I'm a patient guy.
:unitedkingdom:

Quintus.JC

03-08-2008, 16:15

This thread has given me an idea for my next modding project....the rise of Rome, will have to wait a while though!!!!!!

The idea is good, but the all battles are rather small scaled, only limited to the Italian peninsular. I’d prefer Period two, recreating Canne and Trebia would be great.

Omanes Alexandrapolites

03-08-2008, 16:36

This thread has given me an idea for my next modding project....the rise of Rome, will have to wait a while though!!!!!!There already is a similar, as of yet unreleased, mod like that if you're interested. You can find their forums here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=216). I'm not sure if they're recruiting though.

~:)

Horseman

03-08-2008, 16:55

That mod looks awesome!!!!!!!!

Spartan198

03-09-2008, 04:58

I definitely like the 60-unit army idea. I hate having to balance armies out and omit units like light cavalry (a very important unit in my book) in favor of elephants and proper artillery support,and such.

Also,the map extending to China is a good idea,as well,but why not extend it as far as Japan and Indonesia,making naval activity much more important,as well as to have one or two unique Southeast Asian factions.

Kinda combine Shogun and Rome into one game,you know?

Edit: I'm not trying to break from the subject,but as much as I,too,would like the ability to have 10,000+ soldiers on the battlefield at any given time,but wouldn't that require major computer system overhauls on our part? I know that when I play on my notebook's recommended power plan,it can handle about 1,400 men,but when I put it on the high performance setting,the system can handle just over 2,400.

TruePraetorian

03-09-2008, 05:46

I still say you should only start with maybe 1 or two cities per faction. You can then found new cities all over the map and change borders.

Again, i think there should be an infinite number of factions. This could simulate Heirs settling new lands, or something like that. More customization would allow you to arm your troops, design your flags, name your cities, build your cities, etc. Imagine a RTW where instead of the strict limits, YOU controled YOUR world. You could start off with, say, two sons. One is to be your heir, so you let the other go settle a city somewhere far from your territory (you should also be able to migrate populations). After fiddling around with the terriory you have given him, you settle it and name it. Based on its location it would grow (oceans for trade to make it rich, etc.). You now fight off the rebels of the land you claimed in the middle of nowhere, representing the struggles of settling.

Maybe this son becomes angry or lonely, or possibly you let him do it...but he seperates into a new faction of his own, with his own flag, religeon, culture, troops, alliances, etc. Now for this to work, you would have to be able to "re-adopt" your son into your faction..if he liked his dad then the city becomes yours again. If you left the city there for a long time, and tried to get it back, it might not want to...seeing that it has no more ties to you (saying father and son are dead or something).

This would provide and endless game...something that you could have one campaign on..and conquest forever..which simulates real-life.

I also think that for walls, you should be able to destroy any part of it...no more fixed entrys.

And i wouldnt mind if all my RAM was used to power the diplomacy portion of the game :laugh4:

EDIT: Id also like to see 60 unit armies, but the cool thing would be if you could specify how many units per block (480 for a chort), again backing up my desperate want for a military customizer where you could equip armys, design formations, etc.

eddy_purpus

03-09-2008, 06:24

yeah that would be cool .
with famous ancient cities like TROY and heros like HECTOR and AQUILES , AGAMEMNON . LEONIDAS , PELEUS ALEXANDER etc . ( i know they already did a version of ALEXANDER . but i want to play him on a campaign like from RTW ) . . . .
yeah they need to make a new RTW but now with more cities .
more factions from the south of africa to the far east in ASIA .
they need to make a game with more FAMOUS BATTLES too . . .
THE SIEGE OF TROY the battles between PERSIA and SPARTA and GREEKS . THE PUNIC WARS .
make a bigger CAMPAIGN MAP .
make heros appear on the game and give them special abilities like increase of morale and that ( kinda like M2TWk but more realistic , not like freezeeing enemies and that )
make civilians apear on the battlefield :P:tongue:
burn buildings with archers and flaming arrows :dizzy2:
KINGs like AGAMEMNON who wanted to conquest the whole world no matter what . .use more armies ( like M2TWk but more sophisticated )
make bigger battles .
....
yeah it would be cool. but i think that they are not going to make another RTW yeah i know its sad :furious: :dizzy2:
but WE ( what i mean is some guys like the fans and guys who can mod and stuff ( i dont know how to mod ) )
can mod the game :tongue:
and make more things and skins and stuff and battlefields .:dizzy2:

this was my opinion .
so if you want to say something to me that you didnt like or you thought it was dumb :P :tongue:
tell me :P:tongue:

:leo: :unitedstates: :us-texas:

Edvard0

Spartan198

03-09-2008, 06:53

R2TW is shaping up to be an awesome game,but too bad it's only wishful thinking at the moment.

Let's hope someone from Sega or CA finds this thread. :yes:

Quintus.JC

03-09-2008, 12:15

I don't personally favours the idea of the map extending to China and south Africa. I think it should only be Rome and the factions that it had contact with, not China, not South Africa, that's a different game.
People such as Achilles and Hector were around 1250 B.C that's 700 hundreds years before Rome became a republic. So unfountunely I'll have to say no way they're gonna be in R:TW, but they could make a separeat game called Troy:Total war, I bet that's gonna be awesome.
I think the game should be more flexible, loyaties have to be added to Rome like in BI, with titles and way to keep your generals happy, or make them cross, different traits such as Loyal and Ambitious should play a big role in whether they stay loyal or not. Faction leaders have authority traits........
More historical battles no doubt. and also historical faction members appearing.
If they could combine R:TW and Civilization IV. That would be one heck of a game.

Paradox

03-09-2008, 12:52

Horseman

03-09-2008, 13:58

I think they should add an ability to "copy" other factions units when you meet them

Historical examples:

Rome used hoplites as their main fighting force, then started switching to Pila (probably copied from the Etruscans) they also used a "class system" to define thier troops, 1st - 5th The 1st being heavily armoured elite and degrading in equiptment and quiality and the 5th class being unarmoured skirmishers. This eventually evolved into the Legion (Possibly copied form the Samnites) And of course in later years after fighting many good cavalry foes the Romans also switched to using far more cavalry than they ever used too.

The Seleucids are a typical succesor army heavy on pikes, then they meet the Romans and start rearming thier Agrysipids (sp?) in Roman fashion (pila and Scutam)

Same goes for Ptomely (sp?) After meeting the Romans they requip some of their phalngites in Roman fashion

Macedon (and the sucessor states!) fight the Indians and start using Elephants in battle

The Greek city states using Hoplites get trounced by Macedon using Pikes, they eventually mostly adopt the Pike Phalanx for their main infantry line (Though most states also went through a phase using Theropori (sp?) as their main infantry line as well)

I'm sure there are many more examples but as you can see alot of nations copied ideas from others for their military.

Another thing I'd like is the abilty to use subject troops from conquered cities. So for example if you take a Greek city you can recruit Hoplites their (not as good as the "real deal" and maybe only until the city is fully assimilated

Well anyway just a couple of things I'd like to see

Quintus.JC

03-09-2008, 14:29

There's already a great mod called Troy: Total War, I'm sure it's based on the movie. Anyway, I think by now they should start considering adding research to TW games. Like in M2TW, instead of waiting for the right time period, it would be best if you could research firearms and other material.

Have anybody played Civilization IV. It's not as good as the Total War series but they do have lots of bright ideas that TW could learn. Like more detailed tech tree, research in materials and weaponary, better graded armour and gun powder and the ability to make new settlements.

Quirinus

03-09-2008, 17:25

I disagree with the 'map-stretching-to-China' bit, as I think that'd detract from Rome a lot-- I think the eastern border of the map should stop at about India, so that the depiction of the struggle of the Diadochi won't be limp like in vanilla RTW. Not that I think China and Japan don't have potential for a game (I actually enquired about a Warring States mod a while back), but I just think that depicting them on the same map as Rome is an unneccesary drain on resources (of the developers or the computer) better spent on something else.

I agree that more realism would be nice, but I wouldn't say that total realism is a good thing-- a game also has to be accessible to lay history buffs-- for example, calling Carthage "Kart-hadast" or Epirus "Epeiros" might be strictly historically accurate, but the average gamer isn't going to know that, and it makes the learning curve so much steeper.

I'd like to see the barbarian factions revamped-- with the fluid campaign map, it would be interesting to have the barbarians being able to recruit troops based on regions instead of cities-- meaning, the Romans could found a city there, but that doesn't mean the barbarians can't recruit from the countryside. That makes the conquest of Spain, for example, more historically accurate. It would also better represent trading outposts such as Massilia or Carthago Nova. The barbarians could also have several stacks spawn at regular intervals of decades, to represent the barbarian invasions, that would cease or reduce once the barbarian lands are pacified, giving the Romans great incentive to subdue the barbarian lands. Another interesting feature would be to have barbarian recruitment based on prestige (i.e. influence). It could be like the Orks in Dawn of War-- elite units are only avaliable once you have recruited a certain number of troops-- no more full stacks of chosen swordsmen and chosen archers!

Another area of RTW I found woefully inadequete is the handling of family members and generals. I'd like to see generals that are not neccesarily related to each other-- being in a faction doesn't neccesarily mean you're in a royal family. Generals and administrators should be distinct-- if there are two family members in a city, only the general should get a general's unit-- the other should only have some lictors with stats equivalent to town watch, definitely not mounted. This is so that we do not get ridiculous armies with a powerful arm of cheap, easily replaced heavy cavalry (two hitpoints!). No more full stacks with five general's bodyguards! :whip:

Also, I'd like to see defection unpinned from money. Sometimes generals defect out of principle or expedience. It's annoying, espeically since the description for the diplomats' traits seem to imply that reason helps in bribery. Generals should be able to initiate diplomacy, while specially-recruited agents would be able to engage in diplomacy as well as spy, sabotage and assassinate.

Morale on the campaign map should also be instituted. Historically, there were many campaigns that were lost because of lousy army morale, or a general forced to fight a field battle because his troops are getting demoralised. Also, it's annoying to see the broken remnants of an army you just soundly trumped and chased around fight with the ordinary gutso and stamina in a follow-up battle.

I agree with Overlord of Achaea that destroying a city completely should be an option, preferably with a significant penalty (monetary?). For example, Lucullus took the Armenian capital of Tigranocirta apart to the last brick during his war against Mithradates in the East.

And I agree with Horseman, the ability to 'copy' other faction's and culture's units would be cool-- maybe each faction can be given a varying number of slots for adaptation-- more to historically more adaptable factions like Carthage, Seleucids or the Romans. Units can be taken off to free the 'slots' at a high price. For example, you might be able to 'untag' scutarii for 500d per unit of scutarii on the map in favour of, say, Numidian javelinmen. Obviously, there has to be some modification-- Romans adapting a Gallic cavalry would be able to recruit "Ligurian auxillaries" or something like that. That's a lot of extra skins, but R2TW vanilla doesn't have to do everything, only commonplace ones like Roman-style legionaries for Numidia or something. We have a very active mod community to take care of outlandish ones like cataphracts for the Germans or whatever.

I'm pretty sure I thought of a few more, but I forgot them now. :sweatdrop:

ThePianist

03-09-2008, 18:53

When I wrote extending the map to China, I didn't mean all or even most of China (and I'd agree that adding Asia and Africa would totally detract from the game). What I was thinking was a few cities to the East of Baktria. So that China could be the easternmost faction. Currently in all the mods, Baktria is the easternmost faction. Considering that China is the easternmost nation/people that had contact with Romans, it'd be great to have a Chinese or Chinese-ish faction of a few towns at the easternmost edge of the map. In other words, take the Mundus Magnus map, and extend it to the east by a few map squares. But it's optional really. Since aside from the silk road, China wasn't important in Roman or Greek history at all.

ThePianist

03-09-2008, 19:13

I couldn't find the "edit post" button on the user interface. So I post again to add this (I had to think for a bit on how to write it in the most simple way possible):

Since in antiquity as well as now, not all the people in a province/state lived in that one city, I propose several cities per province, with the additional feature that some population live in the cities and some in the countryside. And that it'd be made possible to reduce squalor in the cities by moving population from the cities into the countryside of the province, that it'd be possible to have population growth in the countryside without increasing the squalor in the cities, and that it'd be made possible to upgrade the agriculture of the entire province without affecting the squalor in the cities (after all, crops don't grow in the cities, they grow in the countryside).

Also suggest that the trade buildings in each province be made more specific, as to provide even more learning and realism about the historical province. For instance, in provinces where there is metal to be mined, one of the buildings that could be built was mines. But metal is only one out of many natural resources. If you look at the settlement details and then trade info, you'd see pottery, spice, glass, timber, textiles, fur, wine, marble, olive oil, ivory, etc. Suggest a specific building upgrade for each or perhaps most of these items, just as mine upgrade could be built for metals.

Quintus.JC

03-09-2008, 20:38

The Chinese should have ambassetors in the game, as they did historically, they were friends with the Parthians. Having People living in the countryside could be the solution to the squlor problem. That problem needs to be solved somehow. I always end up with 10 rats icon even with the highest graded health buildings.

ArtistofWarfare

03-09-2008, 21:34

What about getting away from the black and white policy of "if you control the province, you control it's resources"?

How about leaving the resources that would NOT be protected within the castle's walls by garrison, open to "struggle" over?

Example: Gold mines in Serbia. If I have the castle under siege, there are no enemy units in the countryside, and the enemy does not sally etc- Then I should be getting credit for controlling the gold mines every turn that my army is controlling the countryside.

I mean, you could take it a step further and remove the castle necessarily being under siege. Perhaps I don't care about besieging or assaulting the castle. Or perhaps I want to goad the garrison out. I should be able to control as much of the provincial resources/cash flow as I physically have control over. The same with farming and trade in that province...

I should be able to specifically target an attack or offensive on resources, not just enemy armies or land holdings/forts/castles.

Likewise with ports. I shouldn't have to control the province entirely to be controlling the port. If the enemy navy is destroyed or rendered impotent, there's a blockade in place, and I have an army stationed inside the naval port- That's all it should require. Many sea-borne empires in history continually took control of ports...never worrying about the countryside of said port.

Quintus.JC

03-09-2008, 23:06

They should do that.

ArtistofWarfare

03-10-2008, 00:29

They should do that.

Again though Quintus, this is a bridge we'll cross before any official mention of R2TW. The suggestion in the last post of mine applies to Empire:TW as well. Not only that, but it applies significantly more in the time period of Empire than it does in classical warfare.

It still applies to classical warfare as well though...and for the point of this thread- needed to be mentioned.

TruePraetorian

03-10-2008, 00:29

That is where my thinking of changeable borders comes in. You could "settle" forts, and put the mines in your territoy. Usually, as i said before, this would lead to border disputes. But, if you are already besieging someone's city they cant really claim those borders.

ArtistofWarfare

03-10-2008, 00:37

Love it...

border disputes, treaties/settlements and the obvious changeable borders to reflect holdings that would go along with this. Throw in refugees and nomadic peoples as well as the acceptance/refusal of these peoples...and a corresponding cultural effect this would have on neighbors, allies, and enemies.

Would obviously require a totally and completely new diplomatic engine but once again, this is where we're supposedly at with Empire. So hopefully we're not stretching this too far at all...

I'll just add because it crossed my mind as I finished writing the above: You could have changing loyalties on the campaign map/grand strategy level...as well as on the battle map. Just for example (many, many possibilities): I'm the Republic of Rome. I have an army on campaign comprised of 7000 men and 1500 of them are mercenaries of the Hellenic culture. My neighbor back home (due to any number of reasons) winds up scattering 1.5 million refugees into my most profitable agricultural province. These happen to be Hellenic peoples. I decide to go out into the fields and slaughter the refugees...or begin enslaving them and conscripting them or selling them/using them for slavery (etc etc...anything). This should be having some effect on my 1500 Hellenic mercenaries. They could either abandon my army right on the campaign map, or have their loyalties raised due to fear/intimidation/coercion. Perhaps they do nothing...and I use this army for an attack that turn...or later turns, whatever. Maybe I'm expecting high loyalty from them...and what I get in the end is my flank comprised of them backstabbing me at a crucial moment on the battlefield, collapsing onto my center. Or maybe they back stab me on the campaign map outright...and switch allegiance to the enemy army. Or trade intelligence to the enemy and then detach themselves from the conflict. Perhaps they even seem to detach themselves from it, and they wind up attaching themselves to the refugees and helping to equip/train them as I try to enslave them from the same pool?

The possibilities are obviously limitless and this further...only expands to even other ideas.

added w/ edit: Just on a sidenote- this is why I don't agree w/ any "watering down" of Total War games. I don't believe it's as clear cut as "water down and alienate the hardcore" or "keep it complex and lose the casual". I think these things we're discussing would accommodate both audiences.

TruePraetorian

03-10-2008, 02:15

ArtistofWarfare

03-10-2008, 02:20

That was a great paragraph :2thumbsup:

Anyway, with the whole army loyalty thing, it brings me back to my point of infinite factions. Say they betray you and help the 1.5million people. Some wise man steps forwards, you fail to repel them, and boom, they become a full blown new hellenic faction. They settle a territory, build a city, and stretch their borders into yours. You send in multiple legions to no avail, and each time you fail they grow bolder and expand their territory more. They then found new cities, equip there men in a new fashion (custom weapons maybe), new religeons, new everything...

Imagine how great THAT would be..

Yeah...I mean as many ideas as I said that last post of mine leads to additionally, the first one that was in my mind was what you just said: How this leads to emerging factions.

It really all ties in and really all makes sense. Then we tie in that emerging faction's relationship with everyone else on the map etc...and indeed, it's starting to get some meat on it's bones.

Quirinus

03-10-2008, 09:29

Just on a sidenote- this is why I don't agree w/ any "watering down" of Total War games. I don't believe it's as clear cut as "water down and alienate the hardcore" or "keep it complex and lose the casual". I think these things we're discussing would accommodate both audiences.
I agree, I was actually referring to superficial nitpicking such as the insistence on the settlements' native names, and such. Doing that does make the learning curve much steeper while not providing much of an improvement in immersion of the game (at least from my point of view).

I particularly agree with the resources not being pinned to the cities and such-- I don't mean merchants like in M2TW, I don't think it's relevant to antiquity, but more like your example of armies sitting on them. It's so much more realistic and diverse than simply "devastation", and could add a whole new dimension to maneuvering on the campaign map.

By the way, one thing I forgot to mention taht I'd like to see is a revamping of how influence/prestige works. In vanilla RTW, the only thing it does is to provide a bonus to public order and sometimes to improve diplomatic negotiations. Which is pretty lame. I think, exploited properly, an expanded prestige engine could have vast applications-- for one thing, the interaction of the Senate and the People of Rome could be depicted more realistically. Recruitment should also be linked to prestige-- the higher the prestige, the more troops you can levy in a turn. This would have major repercussions in depicting the Roman civil wars or barbarians' petty tribal wars.

About the Chinese and the Silk Road, I think it's pretty well depicted by the "trade caravan" line of 'buildings' buildable by Eastern factions in vanilla RTW. An alternative would be to simply make the Chinese as some sort of 'phantom faction' with only diplomats and stuff, as QuintusJulius-Cicero suggested. Giving them actual territories, in my opinion, would complicated a problem like that of the limp Diadochi wars in vanilla RTW which expanding the map eastwards was supposed to solve in the first place. Besides, I doubt that the factions relevant to R2TW had any direct military confrontation with the Chinese in that timeframe.

Quintus.JC

03-10-2008, 17:21

They should make army morale or loyalty thing, mutinies during that time was common, many famous genearls were even killed by it. While it was the army morale that prevented Alexander from going further east. Many Roman Auxilias also rebel once deployed far away from home, like the Sarmatian horsemen in Britain.

ThePianist

03-10-2008, 18:23

OK I agree with Quirinus that ancient China was not relevant to ancient Rome, and the easternmost border should be the easternmost Hellenic/Greek kingdom (baktria).
------------
I have a suggestion, and again it has to do with the interface within cities. Forming a phalanx in a city street is exceedingly difficult. Even though a phalanx unit is already standing in rectangular formation, pressing the form phalanx button would result in the unit shuffling and even walking in circle or half-circle, resulting in the phalanx not formed in time and a melee that negates the advantage of forming a phalanx. So it'd be great if the movement of troops in city street be better implemented in the next RTW.
------------
Now comment on things people said indirectly, and not related to RTW game.
-when someone is not a citizen or given the privilege of being citizen or given the basic rights of being citizen, a country has no business asking loyalty from that person, because loyalty is within the citizen-country relation. Someone who is not a citizen of a country can feel love towards the country, because he likes the people (both the looks and the culture), the freedom and the opportunity of living life there. But the country has no business asking loyalty when someone isn't a citizen, no more than an army can ask for loyalty when someone isn't a soldier. Plus, if certain organizations of a country (and abetted by many people) deliberatedly treats a person very badly (like accusing him of being a criminal in a thousand different way, day after day after day and try to force him to give what he hasn't -including positive views of morally horrible things-), utterly negating all the qualities that makes the country lovely to the person in the first place, the country then has even less business to ask or compel a person to act as if he was a conscripted soldier -which is fun to pretend doing after watching patriotic movies but not fun anymore when people representing the flag start doing rather unimaginable things to you-, and the country has no business compelling the person to consistently lavish the country with positive views that not even citizens would be required to do. If the country would like to demand loyalty of wannabe citizens, it should be fair as its textbooks teaches about it.

Another thing, it's difficult to exclude a people group when you believe in a Savior who is the king of "every tribe, every tongue, every nation", when every person is made in His image and attaining the best satisfaction in life, regardless of people group, is to live like how He created that person to be, and the more you get to know Him and become like Him, the more you find satisfaction in your individual qualities, of how you were made to be.

And it is customary to use "the [people group]" or "the [nationality]" to not refer to the actual people at all, but to the national leader, or the political views ruling the people group. In the world of advertising and politics, there is a wrong way of one slight connection = the whole thing. It's a by-product of decades of developing the art of putting down people. In other words, when people need to put down someone in politics, they'd look for the slightest connection to anything bad, even a 1% connection, and then make a 100% equivalence between that and the person.

For instance, look at this:
-X person is playing Rome Total War
-All people who play Rome Total War know how to use a computer
-Therefore, X person knows how to use a computer

That is a valid connection.

Here is an invalid one:
-X person wears pants
-All Nazi (or substitute any kind of political term) people wear pants
-Therefore X person is a Nazi

Now, it may seem ridiculous, but this kind of reasoning (with slightly less obvious twist) has been used to compare the current President with Hitler.

And, in politics, because people rarely think these days, most polemics are full of invalid associations like these. Find the slightest association with anything bad, even very very slightest association, and then, make 100% equivalence between the person and the bad thing.

-There is someway of associating person X with *that*, even in the most irrelevant way
-*that* is bad
-therefore person X is 100% the total incarnation of that bad thing

Also, in advertising, most languages are also full of invalid associations like these. Take the examples of cigarette ads containing happy or even fit-looking people.

-Person in ad smokes
-Person in ad is happy
-Therefore all smokers are happy
(and the advertisements has an addition: if you smoke, you can be part of "all smokers" and that'd make you happy)

That is the written out reasoning behind a cigarette ad, and of course written out reveals how ridiculous and false it is. That is why advertisements are never written out, but depend on sly ways of deceiving people with irrelevant associations.

Take some millions of people who grew up watching advertisements their entire life, in other words, millions of people who think using irrelevant associations to make conclusions is OK, and use the same irrelevant-association way of advertising other things, and you can easily sway people into believing anything.

Since April of last year, I can write out all the irrelevant reasoning (or should I say lack of reasoning) that some people have applied to me, and if written out, all of them are of this type.

One of the funniest is:
-This person saves money
-rich people save money (I've no idea how the person thought this way)
-therefore this person is rich

(replace "saves" with "spend" and you'd get the same thing)
(replace "rich" with "poor" and you'd get the same thing)

ArtistofWarfare

03-10-2008, 18:35

Besides, I doubt that the factions relevant to R2TW had any direct military confrontation with the Chinese in that timeframe.

I have absolutely nothing to back this up right now...but I'm sure I could dig for a link or something: Relating to that last line, as it crossed my mind as soon as I finished reading your post- Some historians have actually found evidence (not that loose either) that the Roman Republic's Legions indeed did make their way as far east as China. Quite a ways into the region as well. From what I recall, they gathered evidence that indicated the Roman Empire was either flat out on campaign there (looking to expand) or they were on a large scale reconaissance mission through there. Whichever it was, recon or conquest, it looks as if the Romans who traveled there never returned. In fact, it looks as if they made contact with hostile units and were defeated completely. Roman equipment and Roman remains have been uncovered in a large massing where evidence would indicate that their journey ceased.

Apparently, they've also found Denarii (sp?) in the ground all throughout western and central China. This has led to further research on what the relationship was between Rome and China at that time. Clearly though, there was some sort of relationship.

Here's a google search for "Romans in China": http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=romans+in+china

Yields numerous results...

Quintus.JC

03-10-2008, 20:00

I heard that some surviver legionaries from the battle of carrhae was the first European to have had any contact with the Chinese. However, i still do not support the idea of the map stretching all way to China. That's an different game. The Warring states period could be made into an total war game, also three kingdoms period is quite terbulant as well.

Good Ship Chuckle

03-10-2008, 22:28

I'd like to see more famous ancient citys, like Troy

They actually do have Troy, its just that it has the name of Pergamum. I know that in Virgil's Aeneid, Troy is refered to as Pergamum.

Ibn-Khaldun

03-10-2008, 22:32

A new RTW could have some aspects from EU: Rome ..
I found this accidentally and I'm just amazed of it ..
I like EU3.. so EU:Rome is perfect for me .. Just need to find out from where I can get it :inquisitive:
Imagine .. Rome Total War + Europa Universalis = Perfect Game!!!! :2thumbsup:

ThePianist

03-11-2008, 00:20

In actual history, there were some Romans who were in China. There was an article about it some time, one of the western provinces of China. There are people in one town who have Anglo type of features like blue eyes and high stature. The ancient name of the city meant something related to Roman legions, and there was a battle narrative of that time referring to the town as having double row of palisades (only Roman soldiers used double row of palisades) and that the soldiers in the town used a never-before seen "fish scale" shield formation. (lol, testudo) And yes, the article said that it was Roman soldiers from the battle of Carrae moved through Parthia and Central Asia. The article even mentioned a Chinese guy from that town (in the present day) named Luo-ma, which is Roma/Rome in Chinese. (Chinese transliterates all "r" sounds as "l" sound, so even Florida is Fu-lo-li-da)

ThePianist

03-11-2008, 00:26

ArtistofWarfare

03-11-2008, 03:00

Is there an edit post button on the user interface, if so, could someone describe where it is, so I can add something to a post without making a new post? Anyway, I just wanted to add one comment: you can find money or ancient coins in on any land in any country, it doesn't mean people from that country are rich. That's all.

Good post on the last one...although regarding this one: I wasn't under the impression it meant either Rome or China were rich because they found Roman money in China. I was just saying- Some historians claim they've found Roman Denarii there.

Still, this is indeed an interesting subject. Romans in China brings all sorts of other historical implications with it. Just the fact that they were there, as early as it seems they were, is remarkable. Chalking up China as another territory with Roman connections really puts their (the Romans) Imperial influence in perspective. I mean- pretty clearly the entire known world at the time. With little to no exception.

Related- I saw something (briefly) the other night saying that the Romans and Greeks also used some sort of actual "computers" powered by the sun and other means as a navigational tool when sailing at sea. Once again, just jawdropping achievement.

Nebuchadnezzar

03-11-2008, 03:56

The page you open from the above link has a trojan

Trojan.JS.Redirector.e

Spartan198

03-11-2008, 09:36

This is an excerpt,regarding China's military relevance to Rome,from an article I found somewhere a while back:

It made a deep impression on (Homer Hasenpflug) Dubs that the Chinese recorded that they found palisades of tree trunks,and that the enemy had used a previously unseen battle formation at the gates of the city,namely a testudo of selected warriors forming a cover of overlapping shields in front of their bodies in the first row and over the heads in the following rows. These facts are reported in the biography of Chen Tang,one of the victorious Chinese generals,written by the historian Ban Gu (32 – 92)
Many prisoners were taken during this battle and it appears that the Chinese were so struck by the military skills of those warriors that they moved them,after enlisting,further east,in a place that by imperial decree was named Li-Jien (which sounds in Chinese as the word “legion” and is the name by which the Chinese called Rome) in Gansu province. The legionaries numbered 145,and formed a garrison protecting the inhabitants from Tibetan raids. It was uncommon for Chinese to name their cities after barbarian names: the only two other known cases,Kucha and Wen-Siu,occurred where large colonies of foreigners had settled..
Edit: If anyone wants to read the entire article,tell me in your post and I'll paste it to a thread in the Monestary.

Quirinus

03-11-2008, 10:27

I have absolutely nothing to back this up right now...but I'm sure I could dig for a link or something: Relating to that last line, as it crossed my mind as soon as I finished reading your post- Some historians have actually found evidence (not that loose either) that the Roman Republic's Legions indeed did make their way as far east as China. Quite a ways into the region as well. From what I recall, they gathered evidence that indicated the Roman Empire was either flat out on campaign there (looking to expand) or they were on a large scale reconaissance mission through there. Whichever it was, recon or conquest, it looks as if the Romans who traveled there never returned. In fact, it looks as if they made contact with hostile units and were defeated completely. Roman equipment and Roman remains have been uncovered in a large massing where evidence would indicate that their journey ceased.
The links seem to suggest that the Romans fought as mercenaries under a Hun chieftain, not as representatives of the Senatus Populesque Romanus. ~:) Besides, it was an isolated incident of a small number of survivors from one army-- that of Marcus Licinus Crassus.

Apparently, they've also found Denarii (sp?) in the ground all throughout western and central China. This has led to further research on what the relationship was between Rome and China at that time. Clearly though, there was some sort of relationship.
Trade between the Romans and the Chinese is certainly documented and a well-known fact. For example, in two decades or so following the birth of Christ, the Han usurper Wang Mang hoarded gold, the strain of which was felt even in Rome-- Tiberius forbade the wearing of silk because they cost gold. It's even represented in vanilla with the "trade caravan" line of buildings.

ArtistofWarfare

03-11-2008, 17:24

Trade between the Romans and the Chinese is certainly documented and a well-known fact. For example, in two decades or so following the birth of Christ, the Han usurper Wang Mang hoarded gold, the strain of which was felt even in Rome-- Tiberius forbade the wearing of silk because they cost gold. It's even represented in vanilla with the "trade caravan" line of buildings.

I have to stress again how this kind of history interests me...especially when going as far back as we are here.

It's one thing to look at a map and see how far of a distance we're talking about these trade routes extending- It's another thing to begin adding up the total distance we're talking about here. It's just amazing.

Spartan198

03-11-2008, 22:39

The ability to capture enemy armies would be nice,with some influence or command bonuses to result.

They actually do have Troy, its just that it has the name of Pergamum. I know that in Virgil's Aeneid, Troy is refered to as Pergamum.
Troy and Pergamum being the same site is highly unlikely. Reason being that the location of Pergamum in vanilla Rome is wrong. It is actualy some distance southeast of Troy's accepted location.
Furthermore,below are historical facts for my believing that the Aeneid is entirely fictional,in both inspiration and events:
Troy fell in the 1100 - 1200 BC range.
Rome was founded in 753 BC,at least 400 years after.
Carthage was founded in the mid-500s BC.
How can Aeneas wander the Mediterranean for 400 years following the fall of Troy,sail to Carthage before the city even existed,then go to Italy and found a city that already existed before Carthage.

And don't get me started on the whole "Troy in Britain" issue that's recently risen. I can give you a list of facts that disproves it.
...well,okay,maybe not a full list,but --
Sorry,I'll stop ranting now.

Remember,I wanna capture enemy armies in R2TW!

Quirinus

03-12-2008, 03:32

Spartan198

03-12-2008, 12:11

Adding to that, one can hardly pretend that the Iliad is historical.... that's like saying Ivanhoe or Dracula is historical. They certainly have roots in historical figures and/or events, but to say that they are therefore historical is fanciful.
I know that the Iliad is fictional,too (I believe the Trojan War happened,but not how the Iliad portrays it),but the proposed timeline for the fall of Troy,and the foundings of Rome and Carthage (ie,Aeneas going to Carthage before it existed,then founding Rome when it already existed) just make any historical events behind the Aeneid impossible.

And Dracula is real! Believing in vampires is what protects me from them!!!!

Emperor Mithdrates

03-13-2008, 20:33

The ability to capture enemy armies would be nice,with some influence or command bonuses to result.

Troy and Pergamum being the same site is highly unlikely. Reasons as follows:
Troy fell in the 1100 - 1200 BC range.
Rome was founded in 753 BC,at least 400 years after.
Carthage was founded in the mid-500s BC.

How can Aeneas wander the Mediterranean for 400 years following the fall of Troy,sail to Carthage before the city even existed,then go to Italy and found a city that already existed before Carthage!

Oh dammit!
just when I was getting my hopes up. I've just thought of something good. You should be able to rename your faction and design your own faction symbol to add a personel touch.
Also changing the names of cities like in BI would be good. :yes:

Spartan198

03-13-2008, 20:56

Oh dammit!
just when I was getting my hopes up. I've just thought of something good. You should be able to rename your faction and design your own faction symbol to add a personel touch.
Also changing the names of cities like in BI would be good. :yes:
You can already do that. Go to imperial_campaign_regions_and_settlement_names and change the proper text on the right hand side of the file.

{Thessalonica} Pella
{Byzantium} Byzantium
{Nicomedia} Nicomedia
For example,I changed Thessalonica to Pella.
As long as you leave the text within "{ }" alone,you'll be alright. But I've noticed that the file won't seem to recognize multiple-worded names no matter what I do.

Omanes Alexandrapolites

03-13-2008, 21:44

You can also enable the temporary name changing of settlements you own in your "preferences.txt" file.

By temporary, I mean that it lasts for the current game only and names are reset in all new campaigns. Modifying the settlement names in the text files is permanent and can be a pain to undo.

Enabling this function allows you to double click on a settlement's name on its information screen, and, from there, type a new name in its place.

You can usually find the function, in either:
"C:\Program Files\Activision\Rome - Total War\preferences\preferences.txt"
should you have a standard version of R:TW - not Gold, or:
"C:\Program Files\The Creative Assembly\Rome - Total War\preferences\preferences.txt"
should you have the Gold edition.

For BI, which works in the same way, you will find the file in either:
"C:\Program Files\Activision\Rome - Total War\BI\preferences\preferences.txt"
should you have a standard version of R:TW - not Gold, or:
"C:\Program Files\The Creative Assembly\Rome - Total War\BI\preferences\preferences.txt"
should you have the Gold edition.

If you selected a custom location on installation, you may have to use to search function to find the file.

Once the file is opened, locate the line which states:
"EDIT_SETTLEMENT_NAMES: FALSE"

Change it to:
"EDIT_SETTLEMENT_NAMES: TRUE"

This is a very fun feature to play around with. In a Carthaginian campaign I re-named Rome after the general who captured it. I also did the same with several other settlements which had very un-Carthaginian names. It certainly adds to the fun/immersion in the game.

Back on topic:

Some very interesting ideas have cropped up here. I especially like TruePraetorian's suggestion regarding colonies and Horseman's regarding reforms based upon enemies you encounter.

I was also thinking of the addition of the separation of the populace into "classes" - "Lower class", "Middle class" and "Upper class". Each class has different needs requirements (e.g. the lower class require the most basic of goods, while the upper class will only be happy with the finest of luxuries).

This also brings in an idea regarding control and production of trade. Rather than simply saying to a faction "we want to trade with you" you must say exactly what you want to trade.

Two types of trade goods could exist - secondary products and primary products. Primary products are cheap and can be made into more expensive secondary products (e.g. clay into pottery) if certain infrastructure is built. Secondary products are what is used by your populace.

A faction exporting plenty of secondary products and importing primary products to manufacture these secondary goods with will be rich and prosperous. A faction exporting primary goods and importing secondary will suffer financially.

If a certain class is unhappy, they revolt. A lower class uprising will simply spawn basic peasants and militia, while upper class uprisings will spawn a smaller number of angry elite units. While a peasant uprising will probably be contained to the province it started in, peasant being mostly inexperienced and disorganised, an upper class uprising will probably result in a splinter faction being formed and possibly full on civil war.

Generals in the settlement are more likely to support the upper class rather than the lower class in revolts. This may be different for generals who have lower/middle class ancestry though.

Riots/revolts could show weakness and trigger descent in neighbouring towns if the settlement is not recaptured/suppressed soon. This would make controlling the populace in one settlement key to maintaining support from the populace empire wide.

A feature to exterminate the populace without conquest may also be useful. It may improve "happiness" elsewhere also, demonstrating what happens to rule breakers.

More minor features on my wish-list would probably be the removal/the lessening of the effects of squalor and dramatic improvement in unit balancing and battle speed over R:TW.

~:)

Spartan198

03-13-2008, 22:12

I just recently searched through my RTW diectory and didn't find a preferences file.

Renaming a settlement after the general who conquers it... That never dawned on me before. :idea2: It definitely adds realism. That's also a good option if your general dies during the siege,and the leaderless army captures it afterward.

Omanes Alexandrapolites

03-13-2008, 22:28

Spartan198

03-13-2008, 23:34

Hmm, I've noticed the disappearing "preferences.txt" file also. It may be related to Vista, since it existed on my old XP based machine. Since applications need to be run with administrator privileges to write to the Program Files area in Vista, I'm inclined to blame user account control. I always thought that applications could write to the directory they were stored in though - quite odd.

~:)
Seems likely. I am running Vista,after all (can't stand XP,personally). But I haven't played vanilla Rome since I got XGM,so I'm somewhat on my own concerning file modding right now,unless somebody who knows the mod inside and out stands up here.

Brave

03-13-2008, 23:56

XGM, I have that somewhere on my comp, i'll tinker around with it. What do you want to know, the location of the preferences text?

Spartan198

03-14-2008, 00:19

XGM, I have that somewhere on my comp, i'll tinker around with it. What do you want to know, the location of the preferences text?
Nothing at the moment,but do you mind if I PM you when something comes up?

BTW,Roman Legionary Cohorts with shield_wall are far more effective than they are with testudo. I suggest trying it out yourself to see if you like it.

Brave

03-14-2008, 10:26

Thanks I will be sure to try that. Usually with XGM I use a Greek faction but I do like the Romans.

Spartan198

03-14-2008, 21:51

Usually with XGM I use a Greek faction...
With that Spartan Royal Guard,how can you not? :yes: I routed an entire Macedonian army with them in a sandbox battle last night,including Foot Companions. I need to find a Thermopylae Pass battle map to put in there,then it'd be full circle!
But the Romans' victory conditions...? Yikes!!! That'll be a looooong campaign.

Brave

03-14-2008, 22:16

I like the idea of 0 turn recruitment (is that Roma Surrectum) maybe it could be optional if you want this on R2TW.

Emperor Mithdrates

03-14-2008, 22:54

I like the idea of 0 turn recruitment (is that Roma Surrectum) maybe it could be optional if you want this on R2TW.

Neat idea, but you must have it optinal or not.
For some people that could destroy some of the games objective, just creating huge armies instantly. what would the world come too........:end:

Quintus.JC

03-14-2008, 22:57

optional time per turn:
1. Quick. half a year per turn
2. normal. one season per turn
3. Epic. one month per turn.

Omanes Alexandrapolites

03-14-2008, 23:16

I generally like the idea of being able to simply turn off 0 turn recruitment if you wish.

This could be extended to other features, turning on or off more advanced forms of them. Players that enjoy more micromanagement will be able to enable every last little feature, while those prefering more simplified gameplay could only enable the basic core features rather than the more advanced stuff.

~:)

Brave

03-14-2008, 23:18

With 0 turn recruitment and epic campaign length you can train 6 legions in a year, ahistorical?

guineawolf

03-15-2008, 03:35

RM=Raw Materials
PO=Public Order

Good post on the last one...although regarding this one: I wasn't under the impression it meant either Rome or China were rich because they found Roman money in China. I was just saying- Some historians claim they've found Roman Denarii there.

Still, this is indeed an interesting subject. Romans in China brings all sorts of other historical implications with it. Just the fact that they were there, as early as it seems they were, is remarkable. Chalking up China as another territory with Roman connections really puts their (the Romans) Imperial influence in perspective. I mean- pretty clearly the entire known world at the time. With little to no exception.

Related- I saw something (briefly) the other night saying that the Romans and Greeks also used some sort of actual "computers" powered by the sun and other means as a navigational tool when sailing at sea. Once again, just jawdropping achievement.
If you must say,then i can tell you that Romans do have connection in commerce with China at Tang Dynasty about 700 A.D,they called it "the silk road"!

Oh dammit!
just when I was getting my hopes up. I've just thought of something good. You should be able to rename your faction and design your own faction symbol to add a personel touch.
Also changing the names of cities like in BI would be good. :yes:

i rather that we can choose the war gear and outfit for our own troops(just like you can choose large round shield or large square shield for your hero in DIABLO 2,if we can, i hope we can choose the logo for our shields and banners too!Of coz the color will not be change coz it is for specified you team!) in new RTW.Or we can just use the default units.except the troop class,they are default:etc heavy infantry, light infantry,spearman or archers.If for light infantry,you can only equip them leather to chain armor below 8 armor and simple weapon

Back on topic:

Some very interesting ideas have cropped up here. I especially like TruePraetorian's suggestion regarding colonies and Horseman's regarding reforms based upon enemies you encounter.

This also brings in an idea regarding control and production of trade. Rather than simply saying to a faction "we want to trade with you" you must say exactly what you want to trade.

Two types of trade goods could exist - secondary products and primary products. Primary products are cheap and can be made into more expensive secondary products (e.g. clay into pottery) if certain infrastructure is built. Secondary products are what is used by your populace.

A faction exporting plenty of secondary products and importing primary products to manufacture these secondary goods with will be rich and prosperous. A faction exporting primary goods and importing secondary will suffer financially.

that means you want to bring in the features of CAESER 3=trading,then must add the feature to enable us to choose our trade route and choose the goods we want to trade,when the list of goods is choosen,then it will be shown at your city,so are the other city(of other faction).It will be better if we can control the price of our goods.But still,the conditions of roads(dirt road,paved roadand highways) will decide the amount of trade.

And the 2 types of trade goods should be the raw materials and the manufactured goods then,then even like the poor province like Arabia can gain good income by exporting manufactured goods,it will be test our management skills by doing business then.We can enjoying building up our empire and running the economy at the peace time.
We also can control our population by importing grains to increase population growth or reduce the satisfaction(satisfactions=happiness that will effect the PO and attract the immigrations) by stockpile those high class manufactured goods like:olive oil(RM= olive),furniture(RM=wood)or pottery(RM=clay),so it won't meet the needs of high class citizens and reduce the happiness.

Since you want to produce the manufactured goods,then you must have the building to produce them.Here i want compliment the use of your populations,1 of the workers=the "builders",the size of your population will decide how fast your building will be done,and hope that we can build multiple buildings at the same time,it just depend on how many builder that we assign to specific building,then that building will be able to complete sooner or later.And we can assign workers for buildings like city plumbing,hospital and farms that increase populations growth and reduce the spread of desease,why need workers?So we can control the populations growth cause by health buildings by resigning them rather than destroy those buildings that cost our empire time and denarii.And the RM that needed to build certain buildings like temple require marble,stone walls require stone.

Granary=stockpile the food or provisions you need to hold any siege.
warehouse=your tradeable goods store here,that will become spoils of war when your enemy or your army capture it!
Farms=variety type of farms:olive farm(oil),wheat farms(grain),grape farm(wine),cattle farm(meat,and leather=RM for leather armor)
Mines=variety of mines:Diamond gold and silver mines(can tranfer to denarii),iron copper and tin mines(making war gear)

Trade caravan and Merchant ships:Trade caravan and Merchant ships that will carry certain amount of goods(each caravan and ships have its limits of capacity),ongoing and returning from trading cities in turns depending the conditions of trade route(for ships,storm that reduce the speed it arrive its destination).

Trade route:trade route can be create not just with neighbouring cities,it can be create with distant cities(cities that crossing the border of your neighbouring cities).This way,we can get spice(goods for high class citizens) and silk from the far east!

Raiding system=trade caravans and merchant ships can be raid(still,the spoils of war,mostly the income for barbarian factions),that the trade caravans and merchants ships can be raid by brigands and pirate ships that will cause certain losses,so those brigands and pirates will become so "important" to be clean!Extended the use of your mighty army!

Immigration system=we can immigrates our population to another city by just immigrate them,with some cost of coz!Rather than recruit peasant and peasant to immigrates them.This will be useful if we want to prevent our population to be exterminate in the frontal city.

Extra entertainment=hold festival,holding festival to satisfying their gods,increasing happiness and PO at the sametime.And festival needs wine,same as the roman pay for games and races,except that this can be own by every culture.

CG movie event=use CG movies to describe the events instead(like CAESER 3),better than reading text and watching pictures!

Quirinus

03-15-2008, 06:59

With 0 turn recruitment and epic campaign length you can train 6 legions in a year, ahistorical?
Not so..... IIRC Marius raised his army against the Cimbri and Teutones in a year or two, for example. His army was, what, six, eight legions?

Omanes Alexandrapolites

03-15-2008, 08:19

That was exactly what I was thinking of guineawolf. There's some very nice additional developments to the idea in there also :bow:
Not so..... IIRC Marius raised his army against the Cimbri and Teutones in a year or two, for example. His army was, what, six, eight legions?This mass recruitment could possibly be represented in several ways.

There could be an option to conscript the populace to war, allowing the player to recruit a vast number of troops each turn for a limited number of turns. This could have some damaging effects though - with the men away crops won't get harvested and trade will be slowed down.

It could also be done by having each turn represent a shorter length of time (e.g. a month or half a month for example). If single turn recruitment is kept, then it would take a lot shorter in the game to recruit a decent force. In real time, though, it would be pretty much kept the same as it is now.

This somehow makes me think of an idea that is going to be inputted into E:TW - units, rather than being recruited in a settlement, rally around/are trained by a general standing in one of the player's provinces. Perhaps disloyal provinces could have men be willing to rally around enemies, particularly ones which have controlled them in the past and given them great prosperity.

~:)

guineawolf

03-15-2008, 11:32

and 1 most important features that i forget to add=multiplayer in campaign mode!

Brave

03-15-2008, 14:10

Guineawolf, I understand that a lot of thougnt went into your trade explanation and I agree that with that implemented in R2TW it would be great but my concern is that it is too much for both CA and and the majority of people who will but the game.

As for multiplayer in the campaign mode I personally would only like that from some sort of cable link where you have to be in the same room or something. ie me on my desktop playing my friend on a laptop where the two computers have a direct link. Over the internet games would take far too long. Plus hotseat campaigns could be improved to incorporate battles. But again over the internet it would be too much to ask to agree times over different time zones and hence the campaign would be slow moving boring.

Quintus.JC

03-15-2008, 14:19

As for multiplayer in the campaign mode I personally would only like that from some sort of cable link where you have to be in the same room or something. ie me on my desktop playing my friend on a laptop where the two computers have a direct link. Over the internet games would take far too long. Plus hotseat campaigns could be improved to incorporate battles. But again over the internet it would be too much to ask to agree times over different time zones and hence the campaign would be slow moving boring.

True true. if 10 players playing the campaign and 2 are engaged in battle then the rest will have to wait................:no:

Quirinus

03-15-2008, 15:05

This mass recruitment could possibly be represented in several ways.

There could be an option to conscript the populace to war, allowing the player to recruit a vast number of troops each turn for a limited number of turns. This could have some damaging effects though - with the men away crops won't get harvested and trade will be slowed down.

It could also be done by having each turn represent a shorter length of time (e.g. a month or half a month for example). If single turn recruitment is kept, then it would take a lot shorter in the game to recruit a decent force. In real time, though, it would be pretty much kept the same as it is now.

This somehow makes me think of an idea that is going to be inputted into E:TW - units, rather than being recruited in a settlement, rally around/are trained by a general standing in one of the player's provinces. Perhaps disloyal provinces could have men be willing to rally around enemies, particularly ones which have controlled them in the past and given them great prosperity.
I agree. There should also be a flip side to this-- if you disband/bribe away a large army, armies of brigands/mercenaries should appear in the countryside. Having each turn represent a shorter length of time wouldn't be such a good idea though, IMO. It would encourage blitzing and make the game even more unrealistically skewed towards fast games-- in vanilla, Gaul is most of the time gone by 200BC, but if a turn was, say, two or three months, Gaul could be gone by 250BC. Egypt, for example, would also dominate the East in ten years-- highly unrealistic. Another net effect would be an over-abundance of ten-star generals and the sort.

guineawolf

03-17-2008, 03:45

add a new bulding=bordello to enable us to recruit mercenaries inside city too,it is suitable for faction like carthage that use lot of mercenaries

Grimmy

03-17-2008, 04:34

Things I'd like to see changed for an R2:TW.

General's skill and ability having a real effect on the battlefield. By that I mean:

Limits to types of formations;
Limits to command authority;
Limits to effectiveness or even ability to rally attempt;
and that sort of thing.

My reasoning is that an army lead by an unschooled newbie or idiot of a general would suffer when trying to execute complex maneuvers and units any real distance from the general would possibly be motivated to screw the plan and look out for themselves.

I don't mean that any sort of formation or pre-battle setup would be not allowed, but that a general would have a set of pre planned formations available in the interface according to his skill level. Going outside those would give penalties to morale, cohesion and such.

Also a common sense and manageable education/development system for the nobles.

It should be possible to create a system of noble development that really lends itself to immersion and rp for those that enjoy that while also having options to streamline and reduce player management chore work for those that dont enjoy it as much.

Options, options, options. The more *functional options available to either use or not use according to the players' whim means more folk happy and a better market share of the genre.

Also, I'd like to see an option to give up player micro managed pursuit of routing enemy. With this option, when a player decides that the enemy is broken and routing, he has to release his men to pursue. That means give up all control of his units.

This would free up the units to chase at full speed, rather than at maneuver speed required for formation cohesion.

This also means that, possibly, the enemy only feigned retreat and then turns around and start hammering into the player's forces. The player would then have to attempt to regain control (much like the rally function) and continue the fight.

In this way, there would always be that little bit of edge to a battle, no matter how well it seemed to be going. It might really be going fantastic... or it might be a set up.

I'd also like to see a need for control of provinces or acquisition through trade of materials necessary to develop some units and/or buildings. Iron, coal, etc for smithies to make better weapons and armor, for example.

I'd also like to see the build tree simultaneously simplified and complexed. By simplified, I mean, one single line of buildings that trains all land battle units. Horses, archers, infantry. A barracks line that does it all with one building type to upgrade as the city grows.
By complexed I mean, that the single barracks line of building only builds the most basic, unenhanced, lowest quality morale/armor/weapon level of that unit. All effectiveness gained through the building from a wide variety of "buff buildings" such as various weapon smithies, various armor smithies, pastures, boyers, carpenters, assemblers, etc etc. Many, much and various. Make it very difficult to be "best of breed" in more than a small set of things. Give the player the ability to choose his strengths and weaknesses by where he invests in time and coin to build better gear.

What I am not much interested in seeing in a new RTW is more glossy graphicy prettiness. Enough time has been spent on that with the latest engines. Now, please, focus on function and game play. Even if none of my silly ideas are worth a second thought, please please please just make whatever comes next be functional and working as advertised out of the box.

Oh, yeah... also... make it easier to mod. And by easier to mod, I mean easier to install mods, since I dont write them. I'd like to see an option at game load on which mods I want to run that session. Please, also, make it so we don't have to have huge gulps of our HDs all glopped up with various copies of the dang data folder for all the mods and patchifying.

*functional meaning works well as a game design and also actually works as in not bugged all to hell.

Quirinus

03-17-2008, 10:03

Good point about the ability to chase routers at full speed instead of at maneuver speed. I've lost count of how many times I wanted to scream at that cavalry unit chasing a routing general: "Drop your shields and run faster, you morons!! You don't need shields against routing troops!" :whip:

I'd also like to see events on the campaign map affect troop morale and stamina at the beginning of the battle. For example, there should be an option for 'force march', which gives more movement points per turn, but if you're caught in a battle, your troops will be "Winded" or "Tired" (instead of "Fresh"), as well as having lower morale. Previous battles should also be taken into account. If a side has been trounced many times before, it should come into a battle feeling uncertain and fearful, and vice versa, with victorious armies.

The effect of the general on morale should also be tweaked-- the greater the general, the higher the morale boost of a particular unit when the general is near, distinct from the overall morale boost that command stars confer to the entire battlefield. If the general dies, not only should the effect on morale be removed, there should also be a proportionate morale penalty. For example, if General Quintus gives a +8 morale boost to his troops and he goes and impale himself on a Macedonian pike, there should be an immediate -8 morale penalty (or maybe -4) applied to the whole army. This way, the effect of great generals on their troops can be (IMO) more correctly represented. Surely, for example, Alexander's army would have despaired if Megas Alexandros fell at the field of Gaugamela. The death of lesser generals would not have such big effect.

EDIT: Another nitpick that I would like to see corrected is the general on the sandbox mode (custom battle) always being a captain. Is it so hard to have a randomly generated general's portrait (and name) whenever a general's bodyguard is used in the "general's unit" slot? I think it would improve the flavour of the custom battles a lot.

Brave

03-17-2008, 12:14

What I am not much interested in seeing in a new RTW is more glossy graphicy prettiness. Enough time has been spent on that with the latest engines. Now, please, focus on function and game play. Even if none of my silly ideas are worth a second thought, please please please just make whatever comes next be functional and working as advertised out of the box.

Well said. We have good graphics, they maybe need to tweak the sprites models but the main improvements should by the map, the factions, the unit roster etc.

Oh, yeah... also... make it easier to mod. And by easier to mod, I mean easier to install mods, since I dont write them. I'd like to see an option at game load on which mods I want to run that session. Please, also, make it so we don't have to have huge gulps of our HDs all glopped up with various copies of the dang data folder for all the mods and patchifying.

This IMO is not too important, just make a game which you do not need to mod to enjoy.

RLucid

03-20-2008, 20:07

Most suggestions have been strategy map related, there an improved AI should be highest priority. As it's turn based it ought to be much stronger and on H & VH and not need financial donations.

More scripted training battles for "starters", to introduce ideas gradually. RTW really takes quite a lot of effort to control well larger armies and not having to deal with the strategy area at same time as learning battles would be less overwhelming.

Variety of smaller campaigns as well as the "Grand Imperial" game, offering variety not just a "Prologue" and "Imperial". Managing 30+ settlements and several campaign armies, tends to get boring (you know you're going to win but each turn takes longer and longer due to all the commitments). So far I've never seen it through to the Marian reforms.

Less micro-managing, so options to forbid AI building of say stables, and restrict recruitment of certain units to make the auto-manage options more usable.

Most of my wishes are Battle Map related :

More tactical orders, trained units ought to be able to hold, fighting withdrawl slowly giving ground (eg) like Philip of Macedon & Alexander at Chaeronea), and make determined attacks as well as standard attack, and defend themselves. Similarly losing disciplined units ought to be able to fall back on 2nd line.

3 movement speeds, with light troops like Velites being able to run. Similarly routing HI dumping it's weapons and armour in exchange for speed. In my games often the Heavy Infantry units all amoured up, climb the hill and are suffering less than the unarmoured light troops. They really should be the ones that are tired and winded, before the Light units.

Cavalry that tires more realistically. Historical accounts Cav couldn't steam around all over place and charge repeatedly over and over. Light Cavalry should also like infrantry be faster and tire slower when climbing.

Fixing units mingling into each other in close order, rather than maneuvring around. Open order does allow space for units to pass through so then it does make more sense.

Skirmish mode should retreat troops, back to the center of mass, rather than away from the onrushing cavalry. "Safety" is felt with the main mass of men. As is, skirmishers tend to run to spots where they're unsupported, and are effectively routed. I also don't like having my archers wander off out of formation, attempting to close with a unit I wanted attacked, becoming cavalry fodder if I fail to see it happening. So some "Fire on if In range" as well as "Fire & Maneuver" option would be useful.

Similarly defeated units tried to retreat back into their own lines, which sometimes disrupted the 2nd line formations. Or for instance at Zama, Hannibals 1st line skirmishers and 2nd line were refused admission into the next line, causing them to actually fight against their own side in indignation. The Quincunx formation provided space for retreating skirmishers and maneuver, without disorganising the fresh units.

Ground effects, like fallen bodies tripping others, slippery soft muddy ground, broken ground like dry river beds. "Crowd" problems, probably caused huge number of casualties at battles, like Carrhae, Crecy & Agincourt. Mobs squeezed together, and pushing and shoving each other, can't fight effectively. Similarly it's bizarre that my General's Cavalry can gallop through friend and foe alike on a bridge, without causing anyone to fall into river, or horse coming to grief.

Cavalry & Chariots that suffer injured horse, refusals, dismounted riders, horses refusing to charge headlong into blocks of spearmen, falls due to hidden obstacles like streams requiring a jump etc. Also doubt if horses really like stopping when flanked by javelin, slinger or archers, taking fire whilst their riders engage in stationary melee. The injured animals would tend to panic the others. All to often in RTW they seem more like tanks, than rather nervous herbivorous animals who had to be used with understanding. Flank/rear charges into stationary cavalry ought to cause victim unit to become confused and need to retreat and regroup.

Improved Battle AI, it's depressing how easy it is to charge into flank of AI cavalry without them reacting to threat. Similarly the blind stupidity, having units in open order stand under fire from walls in sieges, when it could be easily avoided.

Being able to issue general orders like (manuever and attack enemy left flank, or occupy this area of town), especially to ally units countrolled by the AI. This would cause some annoyances caused by AI control of reinforcements to be reduced.

The battle time-limit ought also be a certain time without fighting, with a longer initial period for pre-battle maneuvers. Nothing worse than being just a bit too slow in a big siege, having your cavalry and infrantry in the square mopping up routing units, but have the seconds counter down too low so lose the battle against 4 or 5 survivors, who magically get reinforced next turn, whilst you get to keep your losses.

Quintus.JC

04-08-2008, 13:57

Here’s an idea. How about giving the Generals’ bodyguards the option of mounted and dismounted. The General’s HitPoints should be reduced to one. Mounted Generals has more mobility but has fewer men and are less powerful (for most factions, with exceptions). While Dismounted Generals’ bodyguard has more men and fights better (e.g. Rome, Greece), but have the obvious disadvantage of being unhorsed. The Generals should have the option of being mounted or dismounted right before a battle occurs. This way a lot of problems could be solved for Factions that have generals that have better infantry than cavalry or vis-versa.

Example 1
Roman Republican Cavalry General.
heavy cavalry 12 Men
Elite
Disciplined
Hardy
Inspires Friendly Units

Primary Weapon Spear
Type melee Attack 10
Charge Bonus: 7 Missile Type: 0
Secondary Weapon Sword
Type melee Attack 12
Charge Bonus: 4 Missile Type: no

Defense
Hit Points: 1 Mount Hit Points: 0
Armor:4 Shield: 4 Skill: 5

Mental
Moral: 10 Training: highly trained
Discipline: disciplined

Roman Republican Infantry General
Heavy infantry 20 Men
Elite
Hardy
Disciplined
Sapping Ability
Inspires Friendly Units

Primary Weapon Sword
Type melee Attack 10
Charge Bonus: 4 Missile Type: 0

Defence
Hit Points: 1 Mount Hit Points: 0
Armor: 7 Shield: 5 Skill: 8

Mental
Moral: 10 Training: highly trained
Discipline: disciplined

Example 2

Greek Cavalry General
Heavy Cavalry 12 Men
Elite
Disciplined
Hardy
Inspires Friendly Units

Primary Weapon Spear
Type melee Attack 11
Charge Bonus: 7 Missile Type: 0

Defence
Hit Points: 1 Mount Hit Points: 0
Armor: 5 Shield: 0 Skill: 5

Mental
Moral: 10 Training: highly trained
Discipline: disciplined

Greek Infantry General's Bodyguards
Spearmen infantry 20 Men
Elite
Hardy
Can Form Phalanx
Bonus V.S Cavalry
Sapping Ability
Inspires Friendly Units

Primary Weapon Spear
Type melee Attack: 12
Charge Bonus: 4 Missile Type: 0
Attributes: spear
Secondary Weapon sword
Type melee Attack 8
Charge Bonus: 3 Missile Type: no

Defence
Hit Points: 1 Mount Hit Points: 0
Armor: 9 Shield: 4 Skill: 9

Mental
Moral: 10 Training: highly trained
Discipline: Disciplined

And this can be done to every faction in the game. except some faction that have generals that don't fight on foot at all. Like the Parthians and Scythians, so they don't get the options of dismounting.

Praetor Rick

04-08-2008, 15:41

Most suggestions have been strategy map related, there an improved AI should be highest priority. As it's turn based it ought to be much stronger and on H & VH and not need financial donations.

Yeah, there are many threads on the astonishing cluelessness of the AI in RTW, it really needs fixed. THey should go into cooperation with Stardock on this one, the AI in Galactic Civilizations II is extraordinary, and is constantly being updated. I'd say it's easily the single strongest feature of the game. Failing that, at least use that AI as a goal - as proof that a scary and effective strategy game AI is possible. Most turn based strategy game AI's have been rather limited, but the RTW AI stands out below all but the worst of them.

Quirinus

04-08-2008, 15:50

I second that-- prior to RTW, GalCiv was the one game that I kept playing again and again and again. It was slightly jarring to see the broken AI/diplomacy-- when I first started playing RTW I kept trying to read hidden meanings in their nonsensical actions where there was none. :laugh4:

wumpus

04-24-2008, 04:58

Wow. All of what you people are saying sounds very attractive: improved gameplays, playable factions, more realistic weapons and tactics, etc. But what I think is this: it depends really on what the suit-wearing people at CA (or maybe SEGA) are thinking about the idea. If they think it will sell, then R2TW is go; if not, then not. If these people (or people like them) had previously rejected the beautiful ideas of the Europa Barbarorum team, for reasons only they understand--I'll let them keep their own opinions--then there's the possibility that they wouldn't launch R2TW, or even start doing the project. Otherwise, then otherwise. But, like you, I also dream your dreams about this thing. Hawooh.

Livy

04-24-2008, 13:30

A new Rome:Total War.. what can they possibly do apart from just take what they have already and tinker with it? We already have mods which have done this so we would basically be paying for a mod which has been given to us free of charge. EB is what Rome:Total War 2 could have been. Personally I cannot wait for EB2 for Medieval: Total War 2, I do not see how CA/Sega can make Rome:Total War 2 any better than what that is going to be like.

RLucid

04-24-2008, 13:59

There are a whole load of engine based things, that need improving that mods cannot change. Looking at the M2TW forum, there's not much real progress over RTW, and there are issues which really limit long term enjoyment of the game.

Having tried EB, I cannot see a game like it succeeding in commercial market. I'm much more than averagely interested in the history of period, but I failed to persevere with EB despite really liking what I'd heard before trying it out.

Anyway if you want Realism, the whole turn-based strategy game is broken; it seems to me a fairly standard formula empire building game to generate the battles and give them a context so you have more invested in the outcomes.

Actually what shocks me, is how such flawed games as RTW & M2TW got such high ratings eg) 96% by game reviewers, and high placings on those "All Time Lists" that get posted on game sites for the genre. I'm not saying they're any worse than other commercial games, but really how can you fail to notice the AI limitations if you have good familiarity with the game?

Quirinus

04-24-2008, 14:16

True, the AI (and some of the game mechanics) is flawed and/or incompletely developed, but IMO RTW is still deeply engaging-- I've played vanilla RTW on and off for something like two years, and I've only recently begun to explore full conversion mods. The intrinsic appeal of the period is undeniable, and it is a great leap over other games I've played (before and since) in terms of intergrating the strategic and tactical aspects, and battle map.

But yeah, I do agree with you: the most major problems of RTW are hardcoded, and not something that mods can change. Hopefully, if R2TW does come out, it will be a remake of the engine and not just based off the current RTW engine like M2 and the upcoming Empires are. :no:

Having tried EB, I cannot see a game like it succeeding in commercial market. I'm much more than averagely interested in the history of period, but I failed to persevere with EB despite really liking what I'd heard before trying it out.
Exactly so. It just feels more like studying for a university thesis than playing an entertaining game to me, but what really put me off were the convulted unit names. Sometimes a warband is a warband is a warband.

One of the cooler concepts that I've recently encountered is expanding the concept of protectorates, rather than the glorified alliance it is now.

I've always thought that protectorates should be comparable to the senate to Roman faction relationship. The protecting faction could be able to set (realistic) missions with rewards or penalties. Also the protecting faction should be able to demand alliances to end or, even more strictly, force them to have the same diplomatic status' as themselves.

Oh, my, that would be cool.... the rewards should possibly be set, though-- for example, maybe if the Greeks are a protectorate, and the Roman player asks them to, say, take Athens, there should be three options: a direct cash reward, an exotic/advanced unit reward (say, maybe Armoured Hoplite in this example) or just a 'consideration' reward (analogous to raising 'Senate approval'), like "You have the thanks and gratitude of the Senate and People of Rome. Your service will not be forgotten." which is free for now but means that future missions will be more expensive, or something. Of course the difficulty of the mission should also be taking into account-- taking a hostile faction capital would obviously be more costly to 'purchase' than a simple 'blockade port'.

And don't forget, if your client is *TOO* successful, they may start to reevaluate whether they want to be your client any more - and turning those juicy mission rewards you've given them against you could be painful.

RLucid

04-24-2008, 15:04

True, the AI (and some of the game mechanics) is flawed and/or incompletely developed, but IMO RTW is still deeply engaging-- I've played vanilla RTW on and off for something like two years, and I've only recently begun to explore full conversion mods. The intrinsic appeal of the period is undeniable, and it is a great leap over other games I've played (before and since) in terms of intergrating the strategic and tactical aspects, and battle map.

The way I look at it is, that the game is very entertaining and engrossing for a few months, whilst you're learning it. And I found learning to control armies in battle effectively took quite a long time, even the "simple" system is hard to control rapidly enough without lots of practice (nevermind to master the best usage of all the toggles Fire-at-Will/Special Abilities etc), and I think I'm often just attacking, rather than charging and so on, even now.

Possibly that's commercial success as you're meant to yearn for the novelty of an update, different units blah blah blah; once the initial entertainment factor wears off. I agree the period is interesting, as there's more variety than in later medieval period, and they can take liberties telescoping hundred's of ancient years together rather than forced into matching contempories strictly as they would have to in later eras.

But actually, it is really solid game play and function, as Grimmy & Brave said that is more important. It really hacks me off that battle difficulty is so crude that VH turns a Peasant unit into decentish early infantry (compared to weak trained units like Samnites & Spear WB's). I actually want realistic unit strengths, but to be faced by more of them and higher quality on harder settings.

Whilst I'm interested, I'm also very frustrated by the limitations. I don't have that sense of completeness you get when a topics been well covered and you're done with it. Perhaps remember Time Commanders, gave me unrealistic expectations; my theory now is that the "Enemy Commander" was probably some practiced gamer dude, given a script of the historic battle, but with some lee-way to exploit the Team's mistakes and slow response to events.

Wonder how some kind of intelligent agent based, battles would work ie. Troops are more or less disciplined and trained; but do have some command intelligence, to attempt say a flanking maneuver (rather than micro-manage; move to this spot, now attack); also realise when they cannot safely maneuver because flanks or rear would be exposed.

The 3D battles and graphics are important for immersion reasons, yet the fun in game for many must be the chance to act as General. Some games like the Napoleonic Fields of Glory IIRC attempted to model subordinates, but as I never actually played it, I don't have personal experience how that worked in practice. Directing almost everything, almost exactly; rather than having some general "plan of battle" (which may be as simple for Barbs as mass a huge mob & charge, don't stop until they're all dead or routed off field), makes it more like an arcade game, than a realistic battle simultation.

My impression from this forum section, is most regulars are actually interested in the Empire level strategy side of game, building a force (gaining power-ups like new units, or enhancements for them), tasking it, fighting a battle and gaining the city; really fairly simple strategy rewarded by a steady progression. As opposed to subtle strategic play of posed threats and maneuver like in chess, or the marches of Napoleonic warfare (including Marlborough). There's a subset interested in unit details, and the look of stuff, which motivates much modding, which can come over a bit like lining up "toy soldiers".

Quirinus

04-25-2008, 14:11

But actually, it is really solid game play and function, as Grimmy & Brave said that is more important. It really hacks me off that battle difficulty is so crude that VH turns a Peasant unit into decentish early infantry (compared to weak trained units like Samnites & Spear WB's). I actually want realistic unit strengths, but to be faced by more of them and higher quality on harder settings.
Ugh, yes. That's why I still play on M/M. I don't want to see my principes being beaten up by some Punic town militia punks: that's just plain unrealistic. Same applies for campaign map difficulty I suppose: fighting three stacks at once every turn is just..... no.

Wonder how some kind of intelligent agent based, battles would work ie. Troops are more or less disciplined and trained; but do have some command intelligence, to attempt say a flanking maneuver (rather than micro-manage; move to this spot, now attack); also realise when they cannot safely maneuver because flanks or rear would be exposed.
I agree. Currently even the skirmish mode is flawed, and outright broken in siege battles. One thing I'd also like to see is, the discipline and training a unit recieves shouldn't only be reflected in morale and stamina, but also in gaming penalties/bonuses. For example, a peasant unit or barbarian warband may have, say a one-second (or even two or three) delay from when you place an order to when it actually starts moving. So a unit of, say, Spartans, are good not only because of their superior fighting ability, but also because they'd react to orders instantly. Their individual 'command intelligence' may also choose to disobey, as happened in actual battles. Once in a melee, it should be difficult to pull back, and doing so should more frequently result in rout.

The 3D battles and graphics are important for immersion reasons, yet the fun in game for many must be the chance to act as General. Some games like the Napoleonic Fields of Glory IIRC attempted to model subordinates, but as I never actually played it, I don't have personal experience how that worked in practice. Directing almost everything, almost exactly; rather than having some general "plan of battle" (which may be as simple for Barbs as mass a huge mob & charge, don't stop until they're all dead or routed off field), makes it more like an arcade game, than a realistic battle simultation.
Though it would have been more realistic, I think it would also have made the game a lot less appealing. It could be done, but the options would have to be extremely varied, and even then it becomes more like a turn-based game: one of the appeals of the TW series is the ability to actually command the armies on the tactical map. There has to be a balance between realism and fun, IMO. They do sometimes complement one another, but where it's either realism or fun, I'd pick the latter.

But yeah, it would have been cool as an intermediate option between autoresolve and playing the whole 'full' battle yourself. Or even as a replacement to the autoresolve.

My impression from this forum section, is most regulars are actually interested in the Empire level strategy side of game, building a force (gaining power-ups like new units, or enhancements for them), tasking it, fighting a battle and gaining the city; really fairly simple strategy rewarded by a steady progression. As opposed to subtle strategic play of posed threats and maneuver like in chess, or the marches of Napoleonic warfare (including Marlborough). There's a subset interested in unit details, and the look of stuff, which motivates much modding, which can come over a bit like lining up "toy soldiers".
Exactly. That's because the game doesn't reward subtlety and cunning. Instead, sledgehammer tactics are almost always the most effective, removing any incentive to be creative. To add to that, diplomacy is broken, which removes the realistic inter-faction interaction (ooh, alliteration :laugh4: ). I suppose this is besides the point in a game subtitled 'Total War', but it would have vastly enhanced the game with not a lot more effort on the developers' part. (As compared with what went into the tactical battles and units, for example.)

Personally, a large reason for playing the game is the family tree. It's satisfying to watch the family tree grow, or to watch a promising young son progress, fighting battles, administrating cities, gaining personality quirks on the way..... even ascending to leadership of the faction, maybe. By the time they reach fifty, they almost have a definite personality, which fascinates me. True, it's not flawless, but it's my favourite part of the game.

RLucid

04-25-2008, 16:04

That's because the game doesn't reward subtlety and cunning. Instead, sledgehammer tactics are almost always the most effective, removing any incentive to be creative.
I think it does, but when it's aggressive subtlety & cunning. But the more obvious brute force approach is going to work to, just perhaps with heavier losses and a little slower.

There's no need to do anything more subtle than brute force, because the AI is not strong enough to compete with that approach. It also is lower risk than sophisticated feints and misdirection plans which can result in temporary set backs, when the plan doesn't come off due to guessing wrongly the AI responses.

Livy

04-25-2008, 16:27

The Quirinus and RLucid show or what :beam:

You are not actually saying much for CA to improve here. Realism has already been stated and all that has been happening for the last few posts is repetition, I am sure that no matter how many times you say something you are not drilling it into CA's head. If you get my meaning. Please move onto something different and stop repeating yourselves.

RLucid

04-26-2008, 09:06

Please just ignore posts, if you're not interested in the discussion.

There's been a large number of points for CA to do, I disagree with you strongly. No one is really expecting CA to take anything on board, that does not mean it's not interesting for some to exchange views, and you should be tolerant of that, rather than lecturing people. If you don't like ppl disagreeing with you, tough! Just get used to it.

Quirinus

04-26-2008, 14:24

Omanes Alexandrapolites

04-26-2008, 14:54

Going slightly off-topic is fine - if it goes too far away from the original discussion, I can easily spit it off into a new thread anyhow ~:)

RLucid

04-26-2008, 16:27

Has RLucid's 'overall battle plan' thing been suggested before? I don't recall having seen it, and thought it was a pretty neat idea, so I commented on it, even though CA isn't likely to actually implement anything here. :shrug: Same with Omanes' protectorate thingy.

New RTW, seems like reasonable spot to exchange views on improved game features.

A DOS game called "Caesar" featured city management, something like Sim city, but with some fighting to. You could plan out patrols in city, fortificatins in province, and every now and again would have barb. invasion or rebellion and have to recruit extra forces for battle.

The pre-battle input, was choosing a plan; bit like 1 traditional partly card based wargame I saw played by others in a club (not by me however), where you could choose to flank, refuse-flank, frontal assualt etc. Of course you got the chance to use the mighty "Testudo" to (surprise surprise) which was good choice against enemy archer type armies.

Caesar II featured improvements, ran under windows, and had attempt at real time battles, where you could maneuver the units making up your legion. Problem was the control was very difficult, I never could manage the army fast enough, so I gave up on that, and used the auto-resolve feature. The issue that made this a worse game IMHO than Caesar was that it would freeze up the computer (despite patches), so I never got far up on the levels beyond the basic provinces. Overall a big disappointment, RTW succeeds for most part.

They way I was thinking, was that the General would have observation and control oversight role, with an advisor providing feedback where units, had difficulty with orders or completed them. I'm really thinking in terms of civilised factions who had trained armies, rather than bands of warrior levees thrown into action who were good 1:1, but not "articulated" ie. became a mob, once the action starts. Retreating in order, would probably be impractical for barbarian factions, unless they were falling back behind lines. Even Hannibal had difficulties at Zama, exacerbated by unbroken lines refusing to admit defeated forces through them. Units ought to be able to do self preservation things like stopping & bracing to receive a cavalry charge, or go into Testudo when approaching at march under missile fire (unless specifically having ability forbidden).

There have been games where units, attack within a zone of control, so will attack but then go back on guard against further threats.

So the idea is pre-battle to develop a sketch battle plan, then for the General to make changes, add input and commit reserves as the situation develops. But I'm seeing barbarian factions, that weren't capable (like most Medieval armies) of much command & control once battle started, as AI rather than attractive player factions.

Anyway having some useable AI control, would help offload some of the fast pointing & clicking & scanning needed, and let the General enjoy the battle a bit more. They really aren't doing things right if they're involved in heavy fighting...

Titus Flaminius

08-27-2008, 03:20

I read on the net that the creative essembly said that they are working on a new Rome and Medieval Total Wars

Emperor Mithdrates

08-29-2008, 14:37

I read on the net that the creative essembly said that they are working on a new Rome and Medieval Total Wars

woah! this thread must be so out of date now if your saying that they're thinking of creating a new MTW. they already have.
Didnt know about rome though. They are creating an EMPIRE, total war set around the British Empire time period.

Quintus.JC

08-29-2008, 19:11

I read on the net that the creative essembly said that they are working on a new Rome and Medieval Total Wars

No offense to the creative assemblely, but if they're thinking about making another Medieval then all I've got to say is 'Not again'. I could wait a decade for another Medieval to come out, I got ideas that's better than Medieval III: Total War.

Emperor Mithdrates

08-29-2008, 19:56

No offense to the creative assemblely, but if they're thinking about making another Medieval then all I've got to say is 'Not again'. I could wait a decade for another Medieval to come out, I got ideas that's better than Medieval III: Total War.

Like what?

Quintus.JC

08-29-2008, 20:43

Like what?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=106871

Notices how Medieval III was missing from the poll. ~;)

guineawolf

09-02-2008, 06:03

when i was playing RTW,i remember that in the history the city governor can draft the citizens inside the city to equip them as militia to help defence the city while there is enemy surrounding the city(that means they have been siege!)

This happen in Age of Empire 2,that while enemy attacking the town center,you can ring the bell to gather those citizens(workers or peasant etc) to garrison the town center,firing arrows from town center.

I wonder if the RTW can do this,since it takes 1 turn to build the siege engine,then the enemy can only attack you after they build those siege engine,in that period(the turn that enemy surrounding your city) that enemy building those siege engine,that we will be allow to draft the citizens to fill the garrisons space as militia(like militia hoplites,town militia,town watch or eastern infantry???) only(coz they aren't trained).Of coz,to do that "draft",you need certain amount of money,should it cost more than usual?

example:if we got 4 units of garrison troops inside the city,then we can draft 16 more units militia into garrisons,that way it happens that citizens loyal to that factions help defense that city!But we can't allow to draft those militias while there is riots inside the city!Coz unhappy people won't help to defense the city!

eAnd it should be limited to do this "draft" while being siege only,or i will or can spend all the city populations as militia to against any enemy,then there will be no "SPOILS OF WAR!"(nothing to loot!or plunder!)

True true. if 10 players playing the campaign and 2 are engaged in battle then the rest will have to wait................:no:
i can accept this 1.....

True, the AI (and some of the game mechanics) is flawed and/or incompletely developed................:no:
this is my only concern in the new RTW.....

Guyus Germanicus

09-03-2008, 03:58

I would love to see them upgrade RTW in a few ways, but I like the basic game as it is for the most part. I think video/computer game designers can get carried away trying to outdo themselves from a previous release or previous game. RTW is really nothing but an automated board game. Parker Brothers' game Monopoly has been hugely popular for generations, which proves to me that you don't need to be constantly innovating to have good market success for your product.

If I had my druthers, I think I would like to see CA improve the graphics just a bit and upgrade the designs of some units (like the Spartan hoplite - it's much too plain to suit me.) The guys who designed Extended Greek Mod did a wonderful job on the unit design/art graphics. It would be neat to see some of those unit images adopted in a CA upgrade. Also, the XGM game board is much larger extending deep into central asia, and farther down the Nile and Sahara regions. There are a few more cities as well. I like the larger game map in XGM. That was another nice feature of their mod. I think it would be neat if CA could adopt something like that to RTW.

I would also like to see some better infantry units for Parthia, some better cavalry units for the Greek cities, and more options for mercenary recruitment for all the factions. Maybe have them design more of the factions for 'unlockable' rather than having so many as 'unplayable.' Perhaps they could design a feature whereby if a faction conquere certain factions, then make it so that this faction can adopt some of the other factions' unit types. Some of that idea is in RTW now (the Seleucids, for example, can recruit a Roman legionaire type unit.) Say, if your Roman faction encounters a Parthian army, then maybe within a certain number of turns after that encounter the Romans can 'adapt' and suddenly have in their schedule of recruitable units, a cataphract. Just a thought. But truly successful armies in the ancient era learned from their enemies. The Romans adopted the pilum and gladius from Spain, and in later eras, the cataphract. The Seleucids adapted, as did Philip II when he developed the Macedonian fighting machine.

By the same token, maybe multiple temple development within a city's schedule of building options.

Maybe add one or two more factions - an Indian faction, maybe one more barbarian faction AKA make the Scythians more viable as a playable faction, or even subdivide the Gauls into the Aedui, Belgae, or something (that might be overkill, I guess, just a thought though.)

The RTW combat phase 'fluidness' I think is much better than M2TW. I like the added buildings and units of M2TW but I have never enjoyed the combat phase of the game. It just seemed to be more uncontrollable and awkward. RTW's combat phase is more fun, and I returned to RTW after playing around with M2TW because I didn't enjoy that feature even though the graphics were supposedly an improvement.

My only concern is - if you change too much, it's no longer RTW, but something completely different. I wouldn't want to see that. I love RTW for what it basically is. I think the modest improvements I've mentioned above could be done without changing the basic character of the game too much.
At least, I would hope. Interesting thread topic.