View Full Version : Total War III - Roman Empire?
Lord Nap
10-26-2002, 01:02
I'm sure this is a topic that circulates quite often, but as I'm new to the boards I'll toss it in the oven and see if it bakes.
I loved STW, and am currently enjoying MTW, and was curious about what a good third installment in the series would be. My vote would be for a Roman Empire theme. We've got Asia covered, we've got the middle ages covered, so really the only two options I can think of that would fit with the style of Total War would be Roman Empire era or Napoleonic warfare.
I think the Roman Empire would be great, because you have not only the Romans, but the Goths, Greeks, Carthaginians, etc. You could have Hannibal cross the Alps! You could recreate the battle of Thermopylae! You could build temples to all the different mythological gods!
And as far as battles go, you'd have entirely new troop types, weapons, and even animals (elephants, etc).
I think that the flavor of the game would be distinct enough to set it apart from the others. After all, part of what made Shogun so great was the unique flavor and atmosphere.
What do you guys think?
Dionysus9
10-26-2002, 01:08
I think they will go forward before going back. They've spent a lot of time on artillery, and that suggests the next step is Napoleonics. Hard to say though.
I'm waiting for US Civil War. Gonna be quite a wait, but it'll come eventually.
And (god forbid) the possibility of competition from another company might stir things up too...
chilliwilli
10-26-2002, 01:34
There is already a Roman Empire game coming out that is similar to TW its called Pax Romana.
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 03:11
Ancient period seems a real possibility. American Civil War is my favorite pick however. Hopefully they can come out with a super battle engine in which you can fight with like 100,000 guys on a gaint map and give orders etc. It would be real cool to do this with ACW. Plus they could do battles with naval too the game would be the ultimate wargame experience of all time.
vyanvotts
10-26-2002, 03:13
american civil war would be good but the lack of factions would dramatically limit the diplomacy and stratergy map...no alliances ect......kinda boring....
Papa Bear!
10-26-2002, 03:19
ya the u.s. civil war doesn't really fit the game engine at all, imo... (all these people are really looking for is a well done U.S. civil war game I think, which, though I'm not a fan of the genre, I'll agree doesn't exist)...
But for a third total war, I think they'd want a new map... which makes napaleonic era out...
Unless of course they were brave enough to do world version, (which could include the napaleonic wars and the u.s. civil war, and a whole host of organized blood spilling)...
I still have to say though, guns are lame, napaleonic era armies were lame, (practically the same across the board)....
Only wars where the factions involved didn't have a long history together are interesting to me, (cuss thats how u get camels vs knights, and other such curious pairings)..
Ergo, ancient era civil war would be the asbolute poop imo. it would be the biggest poop ever... I would play that game to no end.
I think ancient era won the polls on .com at least once...
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 03:21
Quote Originally posted by vyanvotts:
american civil war would be good but the lack of factions would dramatically limit the diplomacy and stratergy map...no alliances ect......kinda boring....[/QUOTE]
- If anything the lack of diplomacy would be a great thing, just go out and conquer each other. Who hear thinks diplomacy is lame as it is in its present state? lack of factions? its not like it matter anyway theres no MP. anyhow just some thoughts for total war 3
vyanvotts
10-26-2002, 03:23
2 factions would be boring, once youve one using both sides then what do you do? in the next total war im sure they will add multiplay campaign and im sure they will want to add better diplomacy, they cant really do this with american civil war.....also there would be lack of units..what u got....infantry, cav and artillery? not much hand to hand
[This message has been edited by vyanvotts (edited 10-25-2002).]
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 03:33
Yea i know, theres certain limitations. My only beef is that their going to make every total war version the same as the other one. Who cares about roman or ancient stuff if its just like the last one. And really Medieval is basically Shogun with a new map and more STUFF. I for one say they do something radically different. sure you only get 2 factions, but theres some Civil War games out there that have trouble tackling the strategic side of the war, let alone combat. Units would vary not according to troop type, but according to morale ratings and weapons - there were at least 10 diff types of small arms alone in the period. Anyhow I see your point but I just dont want to play another total war X game with a different map, and more units. Otherwise I'll just play Shogun over and over again.
Thane Talain MacDonald
10-26-2002, 03:37
Fantasy: Total War.
Goddamnit, they've got to try http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
TomThumbKOP
10-26-2002, 03:37
What about Total War: The High Seas. I bet the engine could handle naval battles with some addition to handle slightly different physics.
vyanvotts
10-26-2002, 03:41
but the main reason i want another total war with more then 2 factions is so they can implement campaign mplayer....... they MUST do it witht the next one......its the only way forward....i cant see them doing it if its civil war tho...although i see ur point about it being good.....i agree it would be good, but just not good enough. i remmber seeing a website with a game in progress of an american civil war game, looked really good, really good graphics too...didnt have strategy map as far as i know.....now....if i can just find that damn link!
Dionysus9
10-26-2002, 03:50
Well, I agree that a CivilWar SP campaign might not be as colorful as a game with lots of factions, but when you get down to it, lots of factions just means you are changing your flag color. The game engine is the same regardless of whether you are BYZ or French...
I don't really play SP anyway, I'm an MP person. So, SP issues dont really matter much to me. I'm not discounting SP players opinions--far from it.
I WOULD Like to see a MP Campaign...man that would be cool. Maybe a 2 faction conflict is the best place to start?
[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 10-25-2002).]
Papa Bear!
10-26-2002, 03:55
The problem with any tw 3 is that CA has, as of yet, to show much room for building on their initial originality.
I dunno who pointed this out, but their right I think. Its also true, of course, that if we cling to that fact, than any new tw, regardless of the period/area, would be the same.
With that attitude, at least, perhaps we should be petitioning for what we'd like to see in a new total war, rather than when/where we want it to be set.
(Of course, if you're like me, you're quite tired of offering up advice on how MTW should've been.)
vyanvotts
10-26-2002, 04:04
two faction mplayer.....nahh..u wanna be able to play with more then one other person so u can gang up...make alliances against people... and generally plot behind peoples back....wouldnt it be cool to have a secret alliance with someone but be pubically allied to somone else.....then suddenly turn on the pubicly allied one.... and assult him from both sides with ur secret allie....would be pretty fun dont ya think.....
.neway.....found that civil war game.....heres a link for a straight away screenshot.....look at the rest if ya want......not exaclty total war but looking very good so far ...just look at the scenery.......
tell me what ya think
http://www.walkerboystudio.com/Computer_Games/Screen_Shots/Screenshot_13/screenshot_13.html
TomThumbKOP
10-26-2002, 04:08
I like the wagon tracks. It shows attention to detail. If they put that much attention into the engine, it could be good.
Guys,
Do a search and you will find that this topic has been covered in detail over and over and over again.
But... as long as we're on the subject I'll take an ancient, pre-Roman empire sequel anyday. Say ~500BC to 100BC? It would be great to have a massive map that covers everything from Iberia to Northern India.
Keep in mind that the devs only want to cover periods and factions that have never been done before (or recently). This would pretty much nix a Roman Empire era game.
Do I sense a lockup from Solypsist coming? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
At least with the Napoleonic era, you could have several factions and the map would be different to some degree. Personally, I love the idea of going back to the Roman days. There would be lots of factions and tribes there.
Perhaps the era of 1760. France and England fighting for the new world. There are several types of Indian tribes that would make interesting units for gurellia warfare and local Militia. Still, I don't think you can get the diversity of units and factions going forward in time. For a better game, it's obvious we have to go back and whats wrong with that? Who says Total War has to progress forward through time? Lets have a prequel!
The ancient times of Alexander the great, the Caesars, etc, CA will have no trouble creating units and factions and even a larger world map to play them on.
[This message has been edited by Praylak (edited 10-25-2002).]
Papa Bear!
10-26-2002, 04:12
I could be wrong, but I think that a medieval era game has been made at least once or twice...
and uh, that civil war game looks like pure table top to me. Anybody else think that looked like a felt table top with painted minatures? Still, pretty in its way.
vyanvotts
10-26-2002, 04:14
Quote Originally posted by Papa Bear!:
and uh, that civil war game looks like pure table top to me. Anybody else think that looked like a felt table top with painted minatures? Still, pretty in its way.[/QUOTE]
sorry, but could ya go in to more detail by what u mean by table top?
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 04:23
Impressive. Just think, theres so many people in the world as soon as you come up with an idea somebody already got to it.
"So, I had taken all of L.A. with the Bloods, but there was this one little group of Crips left down in Anaheim. So I moved in my best general (Lenny Spain) and the battle turned out to be on the Disneyland map! Whoa. That was somethin'."
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 06:17
Quote Originally posted by dancho:
"So, I had taken all of L.A. with the Bloods, but there was this one little group of Crips left down in Anaheim. So I moved in my best general (Lenny Spain) and the battle turned out to be on the Disneyland map! Whoa. That was somethin'."[/QUOTE]
Cant wait to play total war: gangs
Lord Nap
10-26-2002, 07:02
Hey Thane, I think ya hit on something with Fantasy: Total War, but given the historical interest in the series, I doubt that's likely. Besides, we always have the Myth games for that.
I'll have to check out this "Pax Romana" game that was mentioned. As a genre, though, I don't think the Roman era has been entirely tapped in the gaming market, and a quality CA attempt might just corner that gaming interest.
Also, I see a lot of posts showing interest in the Civil War. I know nothing about the Civil War, but it seems to me that the lack of diplomacy could more than be made up for by adding more detailed elements such as recruiting, detailed morale, supply lines, naval warfare, political bribes, and of course, very detailed strategies.
Instead of breaking the map into states, you could have the option to break the U.S. up into smaller portions, such as counties or sights of major battles.
If CA wants to flirt with political correctness, they could shock everyone and come out with Total War: Native America, and include all the major Indian tribes of not only North America (pre-discovery), but also Central and South America. You would have the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, Apache, Arapaho, Sioux, Comanche, etc. Would be a blast! And I think CA would do an effective job of presenting it in a respectful, not demeaning, fashion.
Machu Picchu! Tenochtitlan! Mayan pyramids! Buffalo hunts! Spirit Warriors!
Lord Nap
10-26-2002, 07:04
Dammit, I almost forgot...
AMAZONS!!!
Papa Bear!
10-26-2002, 07:08
Quote Originally posted by vyanvotts:
sorry, but could ya go in to more detail by what u mean by table top?[/QUOTE]
Its hard to really explain if you don't know what I'm talking about, (unless of course there's just a language barrier here).
Basically, people get together and play strategy games, (that look quite a bit like MTW, with huge formations etc.), only they do it on the top of a table. Hence "table top."
Such games include the fantasy driven warhammer, the sci fi warhammer 40,000 (set in the year 40,000 or something), and a million others.
What I was referring to in particular were the historical scenario table top games people play, games published by a company named Avalon Hill. People have these little minatures, (the term used for all models used to represented individuals or units on the battlefield), and those minatures tend to be painted etc...
To represent grass green felt, (a kind of fuzzy velvet cloth stuff), is often used. As are little plastic trees, etc...
Basically I was saying that the bright colors and stark contrasts in this screenshots looked fake, and alot like stuff from a table top.
Katasaki Hirojima
10-26-2002, 10:12
LOL I like the gan idea, but in disneyland?? ;_;
Personally I would like to see the game Cossacks redone in Total War style. Cossacks was a great RTS. You needed supplys of lead and coal to keep your guns fireing, food to feed your men and gold to pay your mercenaires, throughout the game. Meaning if you stop farming, you can watch your food levels drop to nothing, and then people start dieing. The only thing was the actual tactical combat sucked.
GO PLAY COSSACKS. Tell me there wasn't plenty of diversity at that time, plus it would be the natural continuation from Medieval times to Rennaisance 15-1800's. Napolenic is a bit late, by the 1850's cavalry had lost much of its meaning. In the 15-1700's war was at a crossroads between old and new. You could have a innumerable many factions and perhaps a world map? A ton of provinces. You could make this game TRULLY epic in proportion. Infact that age was so diverse a X-pack or two might be needed to complete the picture *nudges CA's bean counters*Ey? SOund good huh?
I'd like that sooo much, and there is a whole cache of Cossacks players starving for something better...
------------------
"I maintain none the less that Yin-Yang Dualism can be overcome. With sufficent enlightment, we can give substance to any distinction: Mind without body, north without south, pleasure without pain. Renember, enlightment is a function of will power, not of physical strength."- Shang-ji Yang, essays on mind and matter.
Thane Talain MacDonald
10-26-2002, 11:57
My personally wet dream is for them to base Fantasy: Total War in Raymond Feist's Midkemia and Tsuranuanni http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Unfortunately we DON'T have the Myth games anymore, as Myth 3 for lack of a better word stank, and there won't be any more http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
I'd like to see a fantasy total war also. I think that they should team up with Gamesworkshop and make a Warrhammer Fantasy Total War. I mean theres tons of factions, each with different units, a huge world, and you can even throw in diplomacy. The only odd and weird thing would be the use of magic because the warhammer world has tons of magic. But I'd love to see a horde of Orcs charging a tiny band of dwarfs.
Papa Bear!
10-26-2002, 12:33
Quote Originally posted by Thane Talain MacDonald:
My personally wet dream is for them to base Fantasy: Total War in Raymond Feist's Midkemia and Tsuranuanni http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Unfortunately we DON'T have the Myth games anymore, as Myth 3 for lack of a better word stank, and there won't be any more http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif[/QUOTE]
there was myth 3? I thought myth 2 was the last release?
If a TW3 comes out ... if ever ... it MUST be a setting in ancient times. Napoleontic period (isn't there any official name for that historical period other than that?),though I wouldn't like it to start from the rise of Rome. I it should have like MTW some diferend eras to play. Maybe...
the Classical Era: From the Persian Wars to the Pelloponisian War
the Hellenistic Era: From Alexander the Great to the Rise of Rome and
the Roman Era: From the Roman dominance of Italian penissula to the rise of Konstantinoupoli.
Though it would be fun a Forgotten Realms : Total War
anyone rember the warhammer fantasy games on playstation? i have to agree that a fantasy TW would be great, regaurdless of its setting. it would be easier to use a setting already made than building one from scratch; Raymond Feist, Robert Jordan would be likely canidates. not only would the wiz kids not sell the lisence for D&D, but if you wanna RP go buy baldurs gate of neverwinter nights. D&D is set up as a character game, not an army game. i also doubt that games workshop would allow any warhammer lisences either, warhammer is more a full-time hobby than a computer game anyway.
heres one i havent seen yet:
Europe and the race for the Americas; say 1400's to 1900's. A bizillion and 12 indian nations(dont forget the mexican/south american mecca's and aztecs, they could still be around for it), spain, france and england. lots of supply micromanagement for the atlantic treck. bunches of faction specific units. rebels would be of a certain indian faction depending on location.mabey even naval combat. lots of room with this one.
i have to say that it still would TW unless they added some totally new elements.
the problem with a MP campaing is it would have to be able to be saved. preferable on on a "neutral" database to prevent tampering, which would make it a pseudo-MMORG in terms support required.if it wasnt, on the other hand, you could have MODed MP campaigns but it is still a lot of trust to put into your fellow gamers. not very feasable. i hate to concept of pay per play unless the game itself is free, however if there was a MMORG that incorperated unit-based tactical battle and stategic campaign elements i would probably pay for it. keep in mind that i donot mean anything like starcrap or warcrap, i cannot stand that type of resource management and combat.
ah, digression!
kudos to CA for the new trade and naval system tho, for a timely sequel it added a lot of elements.(now if i could just have my ships follow that one bastard ship, who is circiling my territory, to the next seazone i would be allright)
yea Postino you are probably right that GWS wouldnt lisence a Total War: Warhammer Fantasy because they are afraid of loosing their hobbiers, but I think they would gain a huge interest group from a well marketed and popular game as the Total War series. Hehe but its probably just a pipe dream of mine and will never happen. I still would LOVE to see it, because I still to this day sometimes play the Warhammer game for Playstation.
On another note I dont ever see Total War going to the Civil War or Naponleonic threaters because the scale would just be too huge and TOO much crap the manage. Most your Civil War and Naponleonice battles had somewhere up to 50 to 60 thousand soliders on average, and thats a small battle. I dont know about you all but I wouldnt want to control all that. Also the time periods would be too small. I mean what would the scale of the Civil War be? 1 turn equals 1 day? I mean the war was only 4 years long. The only resonable time frame I can think of would have to be the anceint world. or maybe a break off of MTW and doing like the war of the Rosies (kinda like the board game king maker). So if theres ever another Total War in my opinion it would be ancient and hopefully all encompussing from Alexander vs Darius to Rome and Carthage http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif and hell whilely their at it they can throw in Imperial Rome too http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif. hundreds of years of death and carnage.
[This message has been edited by Coug (edited 10-26-2002).]
Coeur De Lion
10-26-2002, 15:04
god damn roman totalwar it has to be made or we ransack CA offices!!!!
------------------
Coeur De Lion
Hey hey ... Emperor:TW ... Rome wasn't the only military power of the ancient times you Know...is it that easy to skip Alexander the Great, King Leonidas and the 300 Spartans and the battles of the Persian Wars?
the historical name for the napoleonic war was the Peninsular War i think. i reckon it could be quite fun to do. people bang on about the lack of factions during the Peninsular War but both STW and MTW have only been set quite loosely on the two time periods, why would Napoleon: Total War be any different? Just those directly involved were England, France, Spain, Russia, Prussia, Germany and Portugal. thats at least as many as were in STW. maybe there wouldn't be many units in it but in STW all the units were the same until MI, and in MTW only a few countries have radically different units to the standard.
my own preference though would be World War I. biplanes zooming through the air, machine gun fire ripping across the trenches etc.
Forward Observer
10-26-2002, 21:14
I got it. Spartacus Total War. If Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis are still alive, they could do the voice overs.
"Spartacuth, I wove you" (said with a slight lisp)
Ferocious Imbecile
10-26-2002, 23:16
Napoleonic War is interesting, but the preceeding era of the Guerre de Sept Ans is much better from a strategy point of view and the little wars of the Italian penisula between rival Italian aristocrats would be very colourful with dragoons, hussars, grenadiers etc etc, in the manner of the excellent cast soldiers sold by Prince Augusto in Europe. The Ancien Regime is fascinating in the same manner as 16th century Japan; they both have the aesthetic beauty of an aristocratic society at it's peak. The atmosphere that could be created by the music and costumes and architecture and even landscape characteristic of that era is not a small component to be considered.
Richard the Slayer
10-26-2002, 23:35
Let me enlighten you guys with your Roman variants of Ancient variants. You know whats going to happen right? All the units will change, the map will change, and more STUFF will be there. So guess what? Your paying 40 bucks every 2 years for the same damn total war game which is EXACTLY like the last one. I dont know about you guys but I think I'll enlighten myself and play Shogun total war over and over again - its no different than any other. If Activision will succeed with the total war series they need to try something FRESH and NEW such as the American Civil War. Otherwise the only sad lads buying their total war series games will be you guys - enjoy your forty bucks.
Lord Nap
10-26-2002, 23:49
When you consider how many hours I will put into such a game, even if it is just a rehash of the older ones with a new theme and new units, it will be well worth a measley $40. That's like one night at a decent restaurant.
Papa Bear!
10-27-2002, 01:29
I disagree in that I don't want them to do the same thing over again. (simply because the little things they add weren't added well imo)... They either really need to focus on a new production, and focus on its new features, all of them. Or they need to just leave us to play MTW, (if we can, I'm even starting to see bugs now... its like the code is degenerating!), I guess I can sympathize better with the other kids now. Some of my provinces are doing screwy things...
that all said, I would not even buy a total war u.s. civil war. And I'm a history major, and I live in the U.S. 1 civil war battle was even fought in my state, etc... It just isn't that interesting, or at least it wont allow for anything that incredible to be done imo.
Can't you run a poll with these forums? I'd like to see a poll to see what people want. I'll bet it splits nicely betwen roman, napaleonic, and fantasy... civil war and cossacks and more "specefic" areas pulling up the rear.
Lord Nap
10-27-2002, 01:48
Well I'm not saying that I WANT them to do the same thing all over, but if they DID incorporate the same basic gameplay and elements for a new Roman-themed game, I would get it, and I'd probably enjoy it.
I'm not enjoying MTW quite as much as I did with STW, mostly because much of the same elements are the same, but it's still a good value for me considering the time I have spent with it.
1dread1lahll
10-27-2002, 04:49
We want Rome!, We want Rome!; Civil War gah!
Papa Bear!
10-27-2002, 05:27
Quote Originally posted by Lord Nap:
Well I'm not saying that I WANT them to do the same thing all over, but if they DID incorporate the same basic gameplay and elements for a new Roman-themed game, I would get it, and I'd probably enjoy it.
I'm not enjoying MTW quite as much as I did with STW, mostly because much of the same elements are the same, but it's still a good value for me considering the time I have spent with it.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough...
I too would buy the TW roman version just for the glory of it. Sure I've played a few games with formations of the Roman Legion before... but Ca could do it so much better. The glory of the battle engine, (even if it were exactly the same), would be enough. But more than that I'd hope to see them do some features... Do the roman army as the ultimate battleifield engineers, (option to erect fortifications for the battlefield? that would be spectacular imo)...
Not to mention all the other glorys... who wouldn't love to rampage through the peninsula hannibal style? A war elephant definetely should be introduced, regardless of practicality!
Bam, that'd be the poop!
Here is a crazy idea how about
World Wars: Total War
Could be the time between
First, Second and the Vietnam War
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.