View Full Version : Creative Assembly Rome:TW campaign

01-11-2003, 11:01
Has anyone heard the word on R:TW campaign? I'm thinking CA will stay with their traditional formula but maybe they'll at least give us the option for real time. Maybe it would make online campiagning possible.

01-11-2003, 11:40
hmm not sire about SP camapgin but there is suppose to be a multi camagin i think http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif dont quote me on that one.

01-11-2003, 13:22
A real time strategy mode would be almost unplayable unless you had a variety of speed settings (as in Imperium Galactica). It always strikes me as a bit gimmicky, if the speed is constantly changing it isn't 'real time' anyway.

01-12-2003, 19:36
i wouldnt mind the campagin to become what i thought it was in the first place where u start of in a city and slowly build up to a world super power and u march across lands and not look at a map man that would be fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif but the campagin map would have to be huge im talking it take su an hour to scroll to one side too the other. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

01-12-2003, 20:33
Stormer, if you mean presenting a TW game in the style of Warcraft, I must emphatically disagree with you. Nothing would put me off more than to start the game with 3 farms and a barracks and slowly work my way outwards, capturing enemy villages five footsteps away from my own.
What makes the TW game great is it's massive sense of scope and grandeur. Now, although I, in theory, like the RTW concept of being able to zoom into the battlefield from the strat map, I'm leery of whether this is possible without resorting to simplifying the world's provinces into city war factories clustered on the map close enough to allow for reasonable army marching time between them. All sense of real world size and scope will be lost if they simplify the game to this extent; as the game stands, it all makes sense because Ive always considered a province to hold several cities/villages which contain the building upgrades, the contents distributed amongst its many lands and borders.
Furthermore I can't begin to fathom how they can allow you to set up ambushes anywhere, hold any mountain, etc on a fully continuous map without the player getting all his units hopelessly lost. Imagine spreading 20 units of horse archers across 40 km of forest and plain to intercept raiding parties, then trying to coordinate their movements. Tedious...

01-12-2003, 20:37
speculative questions should be placed in an existing rtw thread.

02-09-2003, 01:58
This one too...

02-09-2003, 16:08
Just to clarify: the Rome campaign game plays in a turn-based fashion, and that's not likely to change (read: so unlikely as to resemble the probability of a turnip winning Best Actor at the Oscars). Multiplayer campaign... well, the jury is still out. Technically it's not impossible, but don't hold your breath. We know that there are quite a few people on the forums who want it, and we're still bouncing around ideas, but look at what happened to Civ: Play the World. A great success it was not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

The challenge is making it play well and still fit in with the style of the SP game. So in the end, who knows...

Toda Nebuchadnezzar
02-09-2003, 16:29
If the map was bigger, like Stormer said. Not like Warcraft (which was crap) but like the same style of map, but just zoomed in a bit so you have a hell of a lot more provinces. This would make it more real-life. Instead of armies marching from the top of Italy to the bottom in month fighting loads of battles and so on. They would have to pass through say 12 provinces to get there, each taking a week to move through (a week being each turn.) naturally with MTW's way of doing maps, you could have as many provinces as you liked to any degree of zoom.

Multi-Campaign would also go down a treat. It could be something that small groups of players played. You could have up to 8 players, but say 3-5 would be the recommended. All the other factions would be played by the computer, on the hosts machine.

Championship manager has this available and a few of us have got quite addicted to it. The only problem is the lag. Every move you make has to go through the hosts machine. It can seriously affect the game.

Broadband users would be happiest with this possibility, or 5 players with T1 connection, and a hell of a lot of time. Now that would be legendary.

02-09-2003, 16:33
Jerome Shogun was a rule maker.

It created a new standard.
Medieval follows humbly in STW footsteps. A much improved game. RTW should really set another standard once again.

I hope to see RTW break totally new ground and shock the "RTS" community. From what we hear so far it should achieve this objective. For a multiplay campaign to feature in RTW would certainly make this a first. Naturally it has to work very well, no CTD, disconnected messages etc.

02-09-2003, 19:13
Thanks for the update on the multiplayer campaign...I guess it is one of those insurmountable challenges ...oh well.

But staying on the multiplayer subject: We all know that for a game to stay alive and selling for a considerable period of time it must have a solid multiplayer mode. I'm not saying that Medieval online is crap - far from it - but it just has too many nuisances - long logging on times, disconnections, crashes, playerlist bugged, gamelist bugged - please try to solve these little things that often make the online experience a nightmare. MTW 1.0 was even worse - and 1.1 just took too long to be released. There should have been an early patch for foyer fixes and a later one/s for unit balancing. One patch per game is mind-blowingly crap really

If we don't have a multiplayer strategy mode, we at least want a near-perfect MP battle mode. And you've got enough experience for that I guess

Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Toda Nebuchadnezzar
02-09-2003, 20:39
I have to agree with Tera.

There have been 2 attempts at a foyer. One was/is run by EA and was relatively ok. Although connections seemed very hard to master in WE/MI. Many people were having problems.

Naturally, that was EA's fault not CA's.

Haven't played MTW ever, so I'm not sure about Gamespy. Is it better than the EA server? or should there be another new server inside the game that works perfectly?

patches are the things that make a great game even greater Lets not forget that one.

02-11-2003, 22:56
The problem with multiplayer campaigns is the length of time involved. I know for myself a single player campaign can easily last 20-40 hours of play. It would seem the solution is to create a simpler multi player campaign or create a way to ensure that the game can continue without the participation of all the players at the same time. A combination of play by mail and real time tools would probably be the answer.

Multiplayer campaigns might be more viable if there was a web based strategic map. That way players could logon from work or anyplace and be able to manage their kingdoms. If players have the ability to que up building and training then they don't need to participate for every turn. A properly managed kingdom should be able to run itself for a few turns as long as the player can still have units being trained and maybe even assign territories for them to automatically move to after completion.

The tricky part is still organizing the real time battles. You could resort to auto-resolving a lot of the battles if the players couldn't meet up in real time. Or each player could assign surrogate generals in real life to jump in and command those battles when they arise. Maybe some auto emails could be sent to those you pick and whoever jumps in can lead the battle. The regular multiplayer battle interface could even show campaign battles that were waiting on generals. That way an entire kingdom could be run by a Clan or group of friends instead of the burden resting entirely on one person.

The games could basically run 24/7 with each player making strategic decisions as their schedule allows. You could even use the multiplayer campaign as a more sophisticated way for clans to battle it out.

02-12-2003, 07:56
Let me start by saying I too would love to have Strategy MP, even if you can only have two people in. The battles are time consuming which is the principal drawback.

A two player limit would be fine, and so would an option for "quick and dirty" battles. Allow you to direct your men in "God View" format with a smaller map, lower rez and a conclusion in under 5 minutes.

I don't trust the AI with my men.

I keep hearing the Rome campaign has a mission based element, can anyone clarify?

I really don't like those types of games, and don't buy them. If they are mini campaigns then that is one thing, but....