RTW:???

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

STW + MI
MTW + VIK

RTW + ???


What'll it be? What would you like it to be?

Came up with this question a few weeks ago, of course it's difficult to say without knowing what's in RTW already, but assuming it'd be an "invasion" does that mean Hannibal? Wouldn't that be a big thing to miss in the first place, just a way to claw some more money? Would you buy RTW if Hannibal didn't appear, and wait for the add-on?

I'll probably move this to the Colosseum but I'll let you History guys speculate first.

[Hakonarson]

Depends what time frame RTW covers, but I'd bet on a "Barbarian Invasion" addition covering about 250AD onwards with the additiona of Vandals, Goths, Franks, Burgundi, Alamanni and various other Germanic tribes, plus Huns.

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Maybe........

......Maybe you play Byzantium from like 400 a.d. until M:TW starts up?

[deejayvee]

I would like to see Persian Wars and/or Peloponesian Wars add-on. And I'm sure I'm not the only one

[Wellington]

Depends on exactly what period RTW inrtends covering. I thought Carthaginians were already in RTW, therefore you're talking 2nd Punic War (220BC) up to what? 100AD? 200AD?

If that is the case I would suggest "The Campaigns of Alexander" or "The Birth of Macedon" would be a logical prequel/add-on. Only problem is time scale.

Perhaps even a bit further back? "The Greek/Persian war" or even "The Peloponesian War"?

There would appear to be more potential going back intimne rather than trying to produce an add-on for a period that covers the fall of Rome and the Dark Ages.

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

The Roman Empire spanned so long in time it'd be quite possible the Roman themed Total War could last a good few years, meaning they'd be able to bring add-ons out for different events. Either that or the Dungeoneers will be able to bring out their own customised versions.

[Alrowan]

well considering the following trend is to head back before the original game started (shogun was 1500's, mongol was 1200's, MTW was 1100-> and vi will be 700->) i gues rome will follow in the same trend... since rome starts at the beginning of the punic wars, i guess we have to look before then....

[Rosacrux]

Good call Alrowan. They don't seem likely to abandon the trend. If they follow it, and still wish to keep the focus on Rome, and taking into account that the speculated time frame for RTW would be 264 BC - 10 AD (so all three Punic wars are in) the only think I can think of is "the birth of Rome", uniting the latin tribes, first Gaul invasion, establishment of the Republic etc.

If they shift the focus from Rome to other nations-periods, there are some interesting opportunities. If they pick the Greeks, we could see a Pelloponesian war expansion. Or even Persian wars. Or, why not, an Alexander the Great campaign...

Gee, why haven't I thought of it? Yes, that's it.

The expansion shall be about Alexander and his conquest.

[Alrowan]

heh.. i tihnk it will surpass 10AD.. more like 250AD will be the end date... or somewhere arround there

[BlackWatch McKenna]

I have to go along with the Alexander: Total War line of thought.

Start back in the day with Salamis - fight some Athens/Sparta - Bust up some Persians - then take over the world.

Alex' army was very interesting (light/med/hvy infantry and light/med cav, etc.) - so it would be fun fun fun.

~BW

[71-hour Ahmed]

But then you are going away from Rome...

Fall of the Roman Empire more likely..

[Hakonarson]

I think Alexanders army will be too complicated for the current TW tactical engine to cope with accurately

Rather if there's a significant pike-based enemy (eg Seleucids, Macedonians, Epirots?) they'll be the later "wall o'pike" lacking tactical finnesse, and if there's any kind of unit limit who on earth is going to bring 1 unit of unarmoured light javelinmen (Agriannes) that Alex always used??

[chilliwilli]

I think focus on The Eastern Empire might be nice. could go from the end of RTW to maybe Manzikert?

[Hakonarson]

If Carthaginians are in it hten it does sem like RTW might END about 0CE - ie it'd be about the building of the Roman empire, not the maintenance and downfall.

The next 200 years aren't all that interesting from a TW point of view - the Roman enmpire is already huge, and all it does is add Britain and Dacia & scrap over Asia with the Parthians every now and then - plus the occasional revolt/civil war of course.

So a "pre" RTW expansion sems more likely - as others have pointed out there's plenty of room for Greek & Persians from about 500BC.

Go back 300 more years and it's Assyria vs Babylon & Egypt, wiht Persia rising at the end of the period and various relatively unknown peoples from various parts of the mid-east on the outskirts - elamites, Urartu (?), Mitanni (maybe too late for them), Kassites, etc.

A Chariot Total Wars would be cool http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

But I reckon the Greeks & Persians are the best bet for sure.

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Peltasts and kin are great fun.

~You can flank a unit with em -
~you can use em to support your cav -
~you can use em stand in front of enemy cavalry so that the enemy gets all tired stabbing them and stepping on them.

I would love to see that level of detail; but I have to agree that it would take to much finesse to represent the interactions. I don't know that the engine could handle it.

Of course, they could always ask us how to do it muahahahhahahaha

~BW

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Chariots: Total War.

Ancient Egyptian Chariots, with their arrow shooting drivers, and boat loads of sword and bow armed foot would be fun. Those armies would be super-colorful, too.

A line of hoplites with impressive their shield markings would look fierce and be a nice compliment to those froofy persian horsemen.

~~~~~~~ I hope they get the function of cavalry correct in R:TW.

[Alrowan]

ahh.. rome HAS chariohts... i read in an interview how they were saying that doing the motion capture on the chariots wheels was a doozey...

[Hakonarson]

Rome NEVER used chariots in war - they were for ceremonial and personal transport only - victorius generals rode in one during triumps (victory parades back in Rome).

[BlackWatch McKenna]

and in races: Ben Hur.

[Hakonarson]

That qualifies as personal transport - there was no faster way to get around a race track when you really needed to http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Did the pit crews change the wheels AND the horses' shoes...

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

Chariots:Total War.

The Roman equivalent of Death Race 2000?

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (BlackWatch McKenna @ Feb. 20 2003,17:27)]Did the pit crews change the wheels AND the horses' shoes...
Dunno that there was much tiem to do any changes at all in 2 laps of theHippodrome

There's a great board little game out called..."Chariot Racing" - proly available on eth web somewhere - tyou get to whip your opponents & drive them into the walls, wreck racing around corners to fast and generally create mayhem - I thoroughly recommend it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[JANOSIK007]

Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Feb. 19 2003,06:19)]well considering the following trend is to head back before the original game started (shogun was 1500's, mongol was 1200's, MTW was 1100-> and vi will be 700->) i gues rome will follow in the same trend... since rome starts at the beginning of the punic wars, i guess we have to look before then....
But Vi doesn't really go totally into European history in 700s. Just the English Isles.

[JANOSIK007]

I think the best thing to do is to go both ways.
Extending the timeline from500 B.C. to 800 A.D.
If they did that they'd satisfy me in more ways they could ever imagine. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Longshanks]

RTW apparently deals mostly with the Roman Republic, and ends not long after its transition to monarchy.(Empire) The game officialy ends in 10 A.D. I believe. That was still during the reign of Emperor Augustus, who was the first Emperor of Rome.

Considering that I think any expansion would most likely encompass the entire lifespan of the Empire, or possibily two expansions...one dealing with the rise of the Empire through its height, the other its decline and fall.

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (JANOSIK007 @ Feb. 20 2003,22:11)]But Vi doesn't really go totally into European history in 700s. Just the English Isles.
Yep - so a similar "prequel" might cover just the Greek wars (mainland, maybe Sicily, the Agean and the Asian coast opposite Greece), or perhaps just Asia for Alexander, or perhaps just Italy for the rise of Rome.....

[Teutonic Knight]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Feb. 18 2003,18:52)]Depends what time frame RTW covers, but I'd bet on a "Barbarian Invasion" addition covering about 250AD onwards with the additiona of Vandals, s, Franks, Burgundi, Alamanni and various other Germanic tribes, plus Huns.
definitly................

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Feb. 21 2003,21:09)]so a similar "prequel" might cover just the Greek wars (mainland, maybe Sicily, the Agean and the Asian coast opposite Greece), or perhaps just Asia for Alexander
Those two are my dream scenarios. But... shouldn't we first get the main game? I know CA wants to start planning the expansion right away, but we want the game.

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (JANOSIK007 @ Feb. 20 2003,22:17)]I think the best thing to do is to go both ways.

If they did that they'd satisfy me in more ways they could ever imagine.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Please don't take this personally, it's just your choice of words made me laugh.

[econ21]

Did anyone ever play the board wargame "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"? It was by the Wargames Research Group, the same folks as published those helpful books on ancient and medieval armies.

It was great fun: basically, the Romans started of with an "iron curtain" stretching across Germany down to Constantinople while 3 factions (Goths, Vandals and Huns) were to the East, scheming to break through. Bascially, the barbarians would sooner or later break through but rivalries between the barbarian players could help the Romans survive after that. There were some events in the game, eg the East/West schism of the Empire.

I suspect that the period of Rome's decline would be a fascinating one for a SP game (with the player as Rome), probably more compelling for me than managing it's rise. But it could be a little depressing and hard to market

[troymclure]

aye i just about choked on a pretzel when i read that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Feb. 24 2003,09:26)]Did anyone ever play the board wargame "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"? It was by the Wargames Research Group, the same folks as published those helpful books on ancient and medieval armies.
Yep - many, many years ago - I even saw it mentioned on a warggaming e-mail list in the lst couple of weeks and a lot of ppl remembered it.

Basic strategy for the Romans was to dismantle the "wall of iron" 'cos it was too easy to penetrate, hold all the cities and fortify Ravenna and Constantinople then launch raids as time and money permitted while encouraging the various Barbar's to fight among themselves.