"What if..." Thread

[Intranetusa]

What if the Europa Barbarorum team suddenly decided to ditch the RTW/MTW engine and create their own game engine? :dizzy2:

[Onehandstan]

What if... The CA hired the whole EB team to make R2TW:2thumbsup:? They would get really rich and then they would forget all about us:thumbsdown:...

[anubis88]

What if this thread wasn't posted??? I wouldn't want to live in such a world:wall:

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

What if... The CA hired the whole EB team to make R2TW:2thumbsup:? They would get really rich and then they would forget all about us:thumbsdown:...
- "Boss, look what we did, we created that late Indo-Saka levy spearmen. The difference between this unit and the early Saka levy spearmen is..."

- "I said I want YUBTSEB ELEPHANTS LORICA SEGMENTATA!!!"

[SwissBarbar]

What if EB II becomes as awesome as I think?

- How would I spend the remaining 2-3 hours in which I don't play or sleep?
- Would my boss allow me to install EB II on my PC in the office? Will I have to call him Basileus if he did?

[Aemilius Paulus]

What if the Europa Barbarorum team suddenly decided to ditch the RTW/MTW engine and create their own game engine? :dizzy2:
Nothing shocking or unheard of here. 0 AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_AD). These chaps wanted to mod Age of Empires II, but then after getting frustrated by the limitations and harcodings of the engine, they went on to create their own game, from scratch. And the game is going to be entirely freeware.

Funny lads those are. I mean, I am just as glad that the game is going to be free as the next guy, but how is their project going to sustain itself?? Money would definitely help. Who knows, they might yet change... But fact is fact. Check out the Wikipedia link and perhaps do a Google Image search for the game. Very interesting.

[Aurgelmir]

Nothing shocking or unheard of here. 0 AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_AD). These chaps wanted to mod Age of Empires II, but then after getting frustrated by the limitations and harcodings of the engine, they went on to create their own game, from scratch. And the game is going to be entirely freeware.

Funny lads those are. I mean, I am just as glad that the game is going to be free as the next guy, but how is their project going to sustain itself?? Money would definitely help. Who knows, they might yet change... But fact is fact. Check out the Wikipedia link and perhaps do a Google Image search for the game. Very interesting.

Lol i checked the site....but when does it come out?lol i have found it

Any of have played Grand ages of rome?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Lol i checked the site....but when does it come out?

Hehehe. That is the great mystery. They have decided to take the Blizzard path of "it comes out when it comes out". Very wisely too. Deadlines are rotten. They have degraded the quality of innumerable games. Plus, this thing is freeware. People are not paid for it. They just get together and work whenever they can/feel like it.

Here is their official site (http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/). If you look at the screenshots of the units, they are almost as accurate as EB. Pretty splendid if you ask me.

EDIT: Oh, and here is their screenshot catalogue (http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/album_cat.php?cat_id=49&start=6). Most impressive.

[A Very Super Market]

Cool link!

As for money, I highly doubt that these guys don't have a job or something. Making a game engine from scratch is some pretty ballsy stuff, so I would expect at least a few of them would be programmers or something.

[satalexton]

perhaps in the (far) future they should world with the EB team to create the ultimate historically accurate game .-.
Their engine making specialties+EB historians and skinners=WIN

[Silence Hunter]

The largest problem I see in the gaming industry at the moment is oversiplifying and making "cool" games, instead of focusing on good and enjoyable gameplay, balance, historical accuracy and loads of other things which make a more mature gamer satisfied. Now their primary focus is to create cool game with uber graphics and sell it to 14 year olds (no offence here) to maximise their profits. More and more games are more like public betas after the release rather than a complete game. What is even more annoying that these "fixes" of the game are sold as expansion packs! And again everything is done for more money...

The only two companies I know off which doesn't follow this pattern are Blizzard and Bethesda. They have their large fan base and make games for them which take long to make, but are good and enjoyable to play.

This is why I think that the thing like merge of EB team into CA is as likely as the end of the world tomorrow... I just hope, well I know, that EBII will be awesome and worht waiting. Because EB team are even better then Blizzard or Bethesda as they don't seek any profit from what they are doing.

[Megas Methuselah]

What if I answer before Aemilius Paulus? It is a likely possibility, after all; he types so slow.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, it is true that Blizzard is indeed unique, as witnessed by their marvellous games (none of which I play, sadly) and the lack of deadlines in Blizzard.

But seriously guys, check out that 0 AD game. They are very concerned about their historical realism. They also use numerous sources for their units skins, including Osprey books, and their units resemble the EB ones greatly. Their Roman units all have lorica hamata (no LS in the game!). There are Hastati, Principes, Triarii, Pedites Extraordinarii, Velites, and numerous other historical Roman units in the game. The game developers also made note of the fact that the Carthiginian elephants will not have mahouts, as historically, they did not, because of their rather small size. Now that is historical realism!

They are indeed serious. Their game is an RTS equivalent to EB, and it is going to be open-source, with no unbreakable hardcodings. The game is also freeware. It is basically anyone's dream, especially for modders. Also, the developers are also planning the release of another RTS, plus an expansion to 0 AD.

Seeing what they have done, it does not seem unrealistic to me that the EB team might do the same. The two teams might even consider merging. Now, that would be splendid.

[Aemilius Paulus]

What if I answer before Aemilius Paulus? It is a likely possibility, after all; he types so slow.
Heh. You were pretty close there. Too close for comfort I daresay.

But anyway, lay off your humour. I am once again considering reporting your post. If you get another infraction, I know you will be banned. I have heard you yourself state that. Oh, and I type very quickly. My GWAM is over a 100. It is just that my posts are actually long and informative, unlike yours.

Well, I just had to respond, despite the fact that ignoring Micro Meth would have been wiser...

[Megas Methuselah]

Well, I just had to respond, despite the fact that ignoring Micro Meth would have been wiser...

You're such a spammer. :clown: Now, to bring us all back to the topic from which you so deliberately dragged us away:

It would be awesome to see the EB Team professionalized in such a way as Onehandstan describes. However, would not their skill be watered down by deadlines, in much the same way as ETW was? Be careful what you wish for, guys.

[Aemilius Paulus]

It would be awesome to see the EB Team professionalized in such a way as Intranetusa describes. However, would not their skill be watered down by deadlines, in much the same way as ETW was? Be careful what you wish for, guys.
Well, that is precisely why I praise Blizzard. *Hint, hint* EB team could follow the same code, by not releasing any deadlines or release dates.

[Megas Methuselah]

Well, that is precisely why I praise Blizzard. *Hint, hint* EB team could follow the same code, by not releasing any deadlines or release dates.

I agree, AP. However, I edited my post a bit, so it looks kind of odd misquoting me.

[Macilrille]

What if... World in Flames for Computers, which was first announced 13 years ago, finally keeps its deadline of July 2009...

[Macilrille]

The largest problem I see in the gaming industry at the moment is oversiplifying and making "cool" games, instead of focusing on good and enjoyable gameplay, balance, historical accuracy and loads of other things which make a more mature gamer satisfied. Now their primary focus is to create cool game with uber graphics and sell it to 14 year olds (no offence here) to maximise their profits. More and more games are more like public betas after the release rather than a complete game. What is even more annoying that these "fixes" of the game are sold as expansion packs! And again everything is done for more money...


Sounds familiar, can we say... "Windows"?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sounds familiar, can we say... "Windows"?
Nah, their problem is that of bloatware. Basically, to earn profit, they always have to release an OS, for instance, every 2-4 years. So, to make something that is different they add better, RAM-draining graphics, as Silence Hunter said, but then they also add a hundred new features that only 1% of the computer users will ever use. Vista was a good example of this. Windows 7 is different. It actually has quite a bit of useful features. But still, Microsoft is running out of features. IE is encountering similar problems, but it is not so bad, as IE still has parsecs to go before it will reach the security of Firefox or Chrome.

[Rilder]

Funny lads those are. I mean, I am just as glad that the game is going to be free as the next guy, but how is their project going to sustain itself??


If you make a good game people will pay for it even if its free. (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=29247.0)

[Olaf Blackeyes]

Well, that is precisely why I praise Blizzard. *Hint, hint* EB team could follow the same code, by not releasing any deadlines or release dates.

I simply CANNOT agree with this statement. Blizzard is doing nothing but feeding money into a walking corpse of a game. Theyve even abandoned Starcraft and Diablo for WoW.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Starcraft II is not abandoned. They are working on it. They are sensible people. WoW brings them money. Metric tonnes of it, since you have to pay monthly fee for WoW.

So Blizzard puts more effort into WoW. It brings profit after all. Compared to WoW, Starcraft II will bring them 1/200 of the profits. Seriously, a WoW user basically pays an equivalent of a new copy of WoW every two months. But with Starcraft, you buy once, and enjoy it for the rest of your life.

So they laid off Starcraft II for some WoW work. But now, Starcraft II is soon to be released. What is your problem then?

[Macilrille]

If you make a good game people will pay for it even if its free. (http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=29247.0)

Shrapnel Games, who is the latest developer of WiF for computers, has an excellent free Advanced Squad Leader level/complexity game called Steel Panthers (another company does as well, bot continued development on a framework provided by someone else for this free game), people still pay for the CD version and people still buy their other games.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

Well after i had heard that the axed or at least SIGNIFICANTLY slowed the development of Diablo 3, i assumed that Starcraft II got the same treatment.
Personally i have little against Blizzard. Its WoW that i hate with a passion. Its a lifeless corpse of a games that had destabilized the entire MMO genera. The games that are coming out of it now are either WoW clones, or from the few indie developers, an occasional great idea that is strangled to death by the "demand" for WoW clones.
Hell ive been able to play by ROLLING MY FACE ON THE KEYBOARD. Im NOT joking about that.
I HATE WoW!!!!!:furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::f urious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3:
:soapbox::soapbox::soapbox::soapbox::soapbox::soapbox:~:pissed:~:pissed:~:pissed:~:pissed:~:pissed:

[athanaric]

I HATE WoW!!!!!:furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::f urious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3:
:soapbox::soapbox::soapbox::soapbox::soapbox::soapbox:~:pissed:~:pissed:~:pissed:~:pissed:~:pissed:

I couldn't agree more. :2thumbsup:


I'd love to see EB as an independent game (and I'd pay for it).

[satalexton]

same here, both quote and above poster.

[Aemilius Paulus]

same here, both quote and above poster.
Well, I disagree. I actually like WoW. Now, I have never played it, but I have read so many guides and descriptions of it, including the WoW Wiki, that I am certain I will become instantly addicted to it the moment I start playing. Which is why I have never started playing it. And seriously, Olaf, lay off your smilies. The majority of your posts make you look/sound like a 14 year-old with difficulty controlling his emotions. One angry smilie is enough.

Not to mention, I do not have any time for MP/online playing in general. My gaming schedule is very fragmented and it for instance, just yesterday, I got two hours of EB, the first time I played it since Winter Break. I always wanted to do vanilla RTW MP, but never had time.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

Some things just inspire THAT kind of hate in me. WoW is one of them.
Yes it is addictive until your get your first character to the max lvl. I spent nearly a year getting to chars at once to lvl 70 (This was b4 WotLK).
Everyone kept telling me that once i hit 70 the boring part of the game (lvl grinding) would stop, hey ALWAYS said that. Once i finally got to 70, any actual POINT that the game had died. The Max lvl PvP is cheesy and lame, PvE is nothing but more grinding/pattern learning in the max lvl raid dungeons. City chat was a pure troll fest, RP was nonexistent, the guilds were full of ***holes and jerks, three of the one i joined were worthless or full of alts. Plus the gold-buying and power lvling offers were getting insane at that time on my server as well. And Blizz began to whore out their lore in order to increase content. It got old, FAST.
I quit a month after hitting the max. However i noticed something. Almost all of the other games out there were the SAME as WoW. This one game has been so successful that it has killed off all creativity and though processes within the MMORPG genera. Its really sad.:thumbsdown:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Did you at least sell your character and make tons of money :grin::grin:? Did you??

I like the grind and the money gaining. I like all those features in world of warcraft such as professions. The fighting, meh, but the rest is very much enticing. Especially the fact that money is so valuable in WoW.

[desert]

What do you think of Runescape, Olaf?

[Olaf Blackeyes]

I only played it for a few weeks when i was 12, i never really got into it.
For a free game it wasnt bad, not the GREATEST THING EVAR!!!!!!, no, but it wasnt bad. Really a good intro to the MMORPG genera.

To AP: NO i did not sell my char, no real reason to, it wasnt twinked out nor did it come with tons of gold, ect. And before you call me an idiot, let me say this. I AM A GAMER. I AM NOT OUT TO SCAM THE PEOPLE THAT PLAY GAMES, I AM A GAMER. All i want is a creative game that requires skill to play, has a good storyline and plot, has at LEAST people that arent all jack***es and or morons that do nothing but fill the chat with 1337 speak and isnt just a time sink. If you like games like that, go for it, but me NO.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I have my own tastes Olaf. I understand why you do not like WoW, and yes, some of the things you mentioned are noted weaknesses of WoW, but nevertheless I like it. Remember, I am not a battles guy. I love battles in TW, but still, the battles in my campaign are secondary to the campaign map, the micromanagement of empire, and of course the generals, specifically their traits.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

I do not mean to offend and i am sorry if i did. :shame:

[Aemilius Paulus]

I do not mean to offend and i am sorry if i did. :shame:
Oh, not at all :yes:. It is pretty difficult to offend me, especially online. Plus, you have not said anything that I might deem offensive. Your posts are very "colourful" though.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

WoW discussion is certainly off topic for an EB forum.
This thread was just asking for spam to begin with, though. I'm surprised it didn't disolve into spam immediately.
I won't lock it yet, but this is the warning.

[Aemilius Paulus]

WoW discussion is certainly off topic for an EB forum.
This thread was just asking for spam to begin with, though. I'm surprised it didn't disolve into spam immediately.
I won't lock it yet, but this is the warning.
Wait, so what we are doing right now, is it considered as spam? Or is it just off-topic? Seems more like off-topic to me.

Oh, and thanks for the warning MAA! It sure beats what the rest of the mods do. They always swoop down on us, sometimes unsuspecting Orghas and pounce on the thread, locking it. Warnings and deletions of off-topic/spam posts are so much more civilised and just better in general.

[Bucefalo]

edit: Just saw the MAA post, and removed the offtopic

[Atraphoenix]

What if someone managed to adapt EB to empire total war?

Plus, What if CA finally releases a total war game on a real time strategy map like "Knights of Honour" or EU?

P.S. I think I will die after thirst and hunger because of hours even days of playing on PC or I will be a mutant after taking so much radiation from the monitor :robot: :laugh4:

[V.T. Marvin]

Actually, I think that turn-based stratmap and real-time battles is a perfect combination. In realtime stratmap it would be clickfest just like in AoE and you woud miss all those beauties like watching your FMs developing new traits and acquiring the offices (:laugh4:), also balancing the progress speed so that you still manage to manage huge empires like AS whie not bore yourself to death with the tiny ones (like Casse at the beginning of the game) would be very delicate if not impossible. I am all to turn-based stratmaps! What I would love, however, if the engine would allow CAMPAIGN multiplayer (I know that there is a work-around, but I do not trust it much (my fault)).

Otherwise, as stated earlier - logistics is seriously missing in the engine and it should be designed to be easily moddable to allow for a broad faction-specfic customization/optimalization.
Attrition of campaignig armies, based on available supply, payment and general´s influence, plus some random factors like disease, local guerrilla, etc., would be nice.
Ability to set one or more provinces on its/their independent budget (including bulding costs, upkeep, etc.) to alow for easier role-playing of various (con)federations will also be great!

But certainly the biggest bulk of the effort should be put into vast improvement of AI - both campaign and battle one!!!
:2cents:

[Atraphoenix]

that is why we call it it "what if" if we can see that it was possible...
but I would like to see a monthly turn system and bigger maps or I play too much I need some fresh air :laugh4:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Actually, I think that turn-based stratmap and real-time battles is a perfect combination. In realtime stratmap it would be clickfest just like in AoE and you woud miss all those beauties like watching your FMs developing new traits and acquiring the offices (:laugh4:), also balancing the progress speed so that you still manage to manage huge empires like AS whie not bore yourself to death with the tiny ones (like Casse at the beginning of the game) would be very delicate if not impossible. I am all to turn-based stratmaps! What I would love, however, if the engine would allow CAMPAIGN multiplayer (I know that there is a work-around, but I do not trust it much (my fault)).

Otherwise, as stated earlier - logistics is seriously missing in the engine and it should be designed to be easily moddable to allow for a broad faction-specfic customization/optimalization.
Attrition of campaignig armies, based on available supply, payment and general´s influence, plus some random factors like disease, local guerrilla, etc., would be nice.
Ability to set one or more provinces on its/their independent budget (including bulding costs, upkeep, etc.) to alow for easier role-playing of various (con)federations will also be great!

But certainly the biggest bulk of the effort should be put into vast improvement of AI - both campaign and battle one!!!
:2cents:
Sounds like you could use some Rise of Nations! The game has much of what you say is missing, and it also has the strat map, although you do not really manage anything on it, just decide your moves mostly. Mostly.

[A Very Super Market]

RoN isn't really the best at the strat map, which is basic at best. But I don't understand why no sequel was made, since the game does an excellent job in the battles, however RTS-like they may be.

[Aemilius Paulus]

RoN isn't really the best at the strat map, which is basic at best. But I don't understand why no sequel was made, since the game does an excellent job in the battles, however RTS-like they may be.
Yeah, I did admit that in my previous post. RoN strat map is basically the same as Cossacks, except marginally more complex. Those rare resources, territory strengths, and bonus cards are pretty nice whoever. And the Cold War campaign is the ultimate experience with its nuclear warfare possibilities.

As for sequel, it is not necessary. A sequel on exact same topic is usually a failure. Just look at the history of computer gaming. Look at Empire Earth. They were basically like RoN. They made sequels that were basically the same. They came out with EEII (sort of rotten) and EEIII (no comment). The only good thing that came out of the series was EEI and Empires: Dawn of the Modern World.

Also, have you not heard of Rise of Legends?

[A Very Super Market]

EEII was made by a different company.

The expansion to EEI was made by another company.

If you did something right the first time, it is hard to screw up on adding to it. CA demonstrates this, although I know you hate ETW, plenty of people think it is a great step forward. Aside from bugs, but that isn't related to gameplay.

Empire Earth wasn't similar to RoN.... It lacked most of RoNs ability to emulate the real world, as well as encouraging "classic" RTS behaviour. With RoN, mods made it impeccable, EE barely changed, since it was made to simply be an RTS.

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

I just wish I had a :oops:load of money to throw at the EB team and some extra programmers to make this game. Hell, if you market it properly you can make it work in a financial sense. It might not be with all the sexy graphics, but it would rock!

[Aemilius Paulus]

EEII was made by a different company.

The expansion to EEI was made by another company.
Basically the same team however.



If you did something right the first time, it is hard to screw up on adding to it.
Someone please enlighten this poor deluded fella'. Most games go on a downward curve on ratings and even revenues. Most games start out with an original hit and then get worse every time. Ask veteran TW players. They agree. I hate ETW even more then MiNO



Empire Earth wasn't similar to RoN.... It lacked most of RoNs ability to emulate the real world, as well as encouraging "classic" RTS behaviour.
Look, you know better than criticising comparisons. Most players agree that EE, AoE, and RoN all go along the same lines. They are all very similar in their mechanics and the fact they have historical settings. RoN and EE are very similar in their time period, or specifically the fact that they encompass all (EE) or most (RoN) of the human history.

[A Very Super Market]

Rise of Legends sort of did it for me.

My point is, if you keep the same idea of the game, and not go through the stupid pre-release hype and all that, games only get better. I retract my comment on a sequel, but just change it to asking for another, more progressive expansion. No, scratch that, an entirely different game. I just screwed my own argument, forget it.

I agree that they are all RTS that use human history, but that's where it ends.

[Cyclops]

Lovely to imagine winning Mega Lotto (several billion would do) or inventing and patenting cold fusion, and funding a really mega mega Ancient battlefield/strategy game. I'm not a dev's eye-lash, but I'd want to take the EB tam on of course, and headhunt some back-up talent top put together a suite of truly magnificent games. I'd be askling for Rome of course, but also Middle Earth and Melnibonean games, and maybe some Horse and Musket period too.

Hard to fault the lovely work the team does, and would love to see more of it. I guess donatons is the way to go.

[desert]

Keep in mind that just because you hate a game it doesn't make it bad.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I agree that they are all RTS that use human history, but that's where it ends.
I disagree. They use basic same concepts and game mechanics. You look too mcuh into the small details and not enough into the large. Remember how varied the RTS games are. EE, AoE, RoN, AoM, RaF:CaW, etc all follow the same model.

Anyone else support me?

[A Very Super Market]

RTS's can only differ in small details, because changes to the large would not make them an RTS anymore. These small differences are incredibly influential. Neither EE or AoE takes into accounts actual shifting borders, the importance of supply, the strategic placing of cities, or the importance of on and off wars, not endless deathmatches. In the beginning, at least.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

I have played nearly ALL of the games that you guys are talking about.
EE was by far one of the greatest games EVAR!!!!!!!
RoN & RoL were both awesome as well, i really enjoyed the latter because of its fantasia settings.
AoE I & II were teh 1337!!!!!!! III was when it started the :thumbsdown: mode.
I will admit the EE and AoE models dont take into account for alot of the real world things, but these games were developed back in the 90s and they ****ing ruled so give them some credit.

[Ca Putt]

one big difference between AoE and EE is that sequels in AoE can take place in a different time setting whereas in EE the first part covered right about everything. if you wan't a success full sequel to a game that has the same setting you have to introduce a really important development (like highly improved graphics as in MTW-M2TW).
That's probably the reason why RoL was set in a world full of steampunk, magic and Divine Power.

EE2 on the other hand had many(partly useless and silly) small improvements which made the game too complex but did not add any depth to the game, but still had the same time line, and the graphics were just marginally better.

or you can take option B and add a storyline to the game like CnC and Starcraft.

[Abokasee]

What if I spelt "Bactria" correct first time...

[V.T. Marvin]

Wrong again, it is Baktria actually... :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Great to see you again, I missed you, really.:2thumbsup:

[Aemilius Paulus]

I have played nearly ALL of the games that you guys are talking about.
EE was by far one of the greatest games EVAR!!!!!!!
RoN awesome as well
AoE I & II were teh 1337!!!!!!! III was when it started the :thumbsdown: mode.
Yep. Absolutely agree. EE was probably my absolute favourite. And AoE III was a step backwards.

[Strategos Alexandros]

EB, with the option to fight battles Mount and Blade style, and no hardcodes. Nuff sed.

[antisocialmunky]

EE blew. It was a game of get to the next gen tech faster to win. That was it. CIV4 > AOE2 > AOE3 > EE.