PDA

View Full Version : i hope to see in RomeTW



Monsta
02-26-2003, 01:42
Again from the non constructive poison pen of a Wolf is a poll..a wolf who is hoping that one day we can have some form of voting system that helps us offer our opinions to CA...what a terrible idea that would be..well what do you expect from Saddamwolf HuMonsta. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

tootee
02-26-2003, 03:51
Gladiators? Hmmm material for the Colosseum.

Topic moved.

Monk
02-27-2003, 00:27
you need another choice: All of the Above http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

LordKhaine
02-27-2003, 04:25
Quote[/b] (Monk @ Feb. 26 2003,17:27)]you need another choice: All of the Above http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
So more *and* less historic focus then eh? How does that work? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Monsta
02-27-2003, 14:59
you make it very historical but have the odd jet fighter flying past the Elephants who are invading the shopping mall

econ21
02-27-2003, 17:03
Just curious - the most popular choice is "more balance". What do people find imbalanced about MTW? Is it the MPers finding cav too strong, missiles too weak or something else?

Without the stirrup and couched lance, I suspect cav will be weaker in RTW and perhaps missiles a tad more powerful, given the lighter armour of their targets.

Catiline
02-27-2003, 17:38
if anything much of the armour was better, and there was more of it, and the missile units generally less powerful. You certainly don't hear stories like crecy and Agincourt in the Ancient world.

Longshanks
02-27-2003, 21:55
Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Feb. 27 2003,10:03)]Just curious - the most popular choice is "more balance". What do people find imbalanced about MTW? Is it the MPers finding cav too strong, missiles too weak or something else?

Without the stirrup and couched lance, I suspect cav will be weaker in RTW and perhaps missiles a tad more powerful, given the lighter armour of their targets.
That is one thing I'd like to see. Cavalry shouldn't be the dominating force that it was in MTW, for historical reasons.

Darkmoor_Dragon
02-28-2003, 00:56
aye - but remember in SP that faster moving mounted units can now play a strategic role... which simply wont be represented in the battles on in MP.

A fast moving cavalry force may not be up too much in pure combat, but strategically (on the strat map) it can race around a lot better than foot armies.

This may well induce a greater divide between the use of certian units between SP and MP - which may, or may not, be a good thing.

Certainly a "throw away" cavalry force who can simply delay an encroaching army has a strategic use that cant really be represented in either STW or MTE with their provincial campaign maps.

MP worth of cav may well be lower - SP worth may be quite different at the "bigger picture" level

LittleGrizzly
02-28-2003, 18:13
i think the more balanced system is mainly from ppl who play multiplayer or maybe thats me making assumptions...

econ21
03-01-2003, 02:25
Catiline, yes on reflection, you might be right about the lower importance of missiles in ancient warfare. My impression is that they were for softening up and skirmishing - not too different from what vanilla archers can do in MTW (lower morale more than cause a lot of deaths). I'd like to see the cavalry a little like the pre-patch MTW cav, but maybe even weaker. Not sure if there should be any big scarey kats lurking around - it may be just before their time.

I wonder what the distinguishing features of warfare in the age of the Roman period should be, compared to MTW or STW?
I guess partly it might be the contrast between "warriors" and trained Legions. I am not sure how this could be represented in the TW system, as I would expect a big factor to be that the Legions can pull off more complicated maneouvres. Maybe more use could be made of the kind of "impetuosity" flags and behaviour we see in MTW? I would quite like the Romans to have some speed or responsiveness to orders edge too. The warriors might have high "charge bonuses" but start to falter in sustained close combat. I guess if the human plays the Legions, then the AI might do a decent job of simulating the dumb warriors http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Rosacrux
03-01-2003, 07:12
To be precise, misiles were a dominant force in the eastern type warfare (Persian, mesopotamian, steppe) and a rather insignificant one in the Graeco-Roman world.

Just to hold things in perspective - for instance the "heavy" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif infantry of the Persian armies relied upon the arrow shower to demoralize and put in dissaray the enemy formation.

Of course, when they met the Greeks, they got their butt kicked pretty badly... actually, they got their butt handed to them in a paper bag http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Galestrum
03-02-2003, 00:54
Yes what we need is perspective in determining strengths and weakeness of units or classes of units.

Every unit type has situations where they excel or where they falter usually.

Kataphraktoi were around in roman times, in the east horse warfare was more important than in the west. In the later west when rome was falling, they adopted a field army that was mostly cavalry.

Armies adapt to the enemies they face and the situations they find themselves in, and to their own inherent strengths and weaknesses.

Cavalry was not weak in the middle ages or anciet times, but there are times where they were weak or should not be employed.

Agincourt was not a done deal, we hear of Agincourt not because it was what was suppossed to happen, but rather that it was a shocking event. Its not ho hum Agincourt, its remembered for the difference it made, Agincourt was not a standard even. Also remember the overral situation at agincourt, the defenses, the type of terrain, the strategies and leadership all these are important factors, not just "cavlary lost er go it sucked" that would be a very bad conclusion to make.

baz
03-02-2003, 16:12
a fun gaming system for SP and a well balanced sytem for MP would be ideal, whether they can accomplish both these objectives i do not know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

1dread1lahll
03-03-2003, 03:14
Most wanted.... the single map that was spoken of some time ago, seems its now to be simular to the current system (but thats not a for sure according to jerome)

Oberiko
03-05-2003, 15:30
They'll simply have to readjust unit values in SP vs. MP.

In SP you'll be paying for the unit in and of itself. In MP you'll probably have an additional penalty or discount depending on factors like unit mobility (heavy infantry and seige weapons would have a penalty, light cav a discount etc.).

As for what I would like, give me a multiplayer campaign and I'll be sailing.

MrJedi
03-05-2003, 16:23
i may be entirely unaccurate with this but heavy cavalry didn't exist or wasn't in wide function before the invention of the iron stirrup. The Romans had plenty of light cav but the Germanic tribes were the first to use heavy cav with much success and that wasn't until the decline of the Roman Empire.

Leet Eriksson
03-05-2003, 21:13
romans did'nt use heavy cavalry me thinks,they used scouts mostly...most of their units where infantry.

AND I HOPE TO SEE SYRIAN ARCHERSok guess your bored by now...

Hakonarson
03-07-2003, 03:37
Quote[/b] (MrJedi @ Mar. 05 2003,09:23)]i may be entirely unaccurate with this but heavy cavalry didn't exist or wasn't in wide function before the invention of the iron stirrup. The Romans had plenty of light cav but the Germanic tribes were the first to use heavy cav with much success and that wasn't until the decline of the Roman Empire.
Define heavy cavalry first

A lot of Ancient cavalry was "heavy" if you mean they wore armour and had a role fighting hand to hand - companions, Roman Equites, Cataphracts, etc. Much armoured cavalry also had a missile finctino with javelins or bows but they were not specialised skirmishers.

There was alos a lot of light cavalry armed with javelins and bows and functioning as skirmishers.

LeeJackson
03-21-2003, 03:57
For single player Iíd like to see more cultural buildings and public works. It would also be nice if cultural influence could spread beyond your borders. Much like Civ 3. Increasing the chance of rebellion in opposing regions. Though there probably should be some regional limitations as I donít think the Goths or Vandals cared much about high culture, but maybe they could cause fear in provinces near them.

Alastair II
03-23-2003, 08:13
I disagree. This series is called Total War because its main focus is battle and war. If you want a game with touchy-feely 'culture spreading,' then go play Civ 3. I dislike the whole culture/economy/call it what you like sort of thing, which is why I didn't buy Civ 3. In a Total War series, I want to fight, not spread my 'culture' 'Cultural buildings' are for peaceful games like Civ 3, not for fighting games.

Shahed
03-27-2003, 00:48
Nah CA are smart and they are going to give us a CIV3 MTW combo punch specially directed at Alastair II http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Personally I'd like the game to focus on more realism. So it should be a battle simulator when in tactical battle mode. Real strategy needed to win not just charge, except with cav etc. Also more realism in diplomatic arena, MTW AI isa bit undiplomatic since it loves to be at war without any benefit.

Shahed
03-27-2003, 00:49
What I'd really like to see is a game that is bug free 90%.
Our bug tolerance has been dramatically reduced by regular doses of MTW.

Magyar Khan
04-13-2003, 03:16
Monsta your signature is th best i have seen.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif

lonewolf371
04-15-2003, 06:04
Well adding cultural pursuits would also change the battle fields. This would make the game more interesting and realistic. So at the beginning of the game you fight across narrow fords which sometimes sweep your soldiers awaya and later you fight on wide and narrow bridges depending on provincial development. Adding sissy cultural stuff would make the battles more interesting as the time goes by. If all you're looking for is battling, I'd suggest always playing MP or Custom Battle. The main thing I'm looking for is increased battle field and strategic AI, that would be extremely interesting and make the game much more fun.

Maelstrom
04-29-2003, 11:54
Quote[/b] (SeljukSinan @ Mar. 26 2003,17:49)]What I'd really like to see is a game that is bug free 90%.
Our bug tolerance has been dramatically reduced by regular doses of MTW.
I second that - I would trade any/all of these for a game that was stable from the outset. Even post match MTW is still not good enough.

eXistenZi
04-29-2003, 13:11
I'd like to see a realistically modeled phalanx and I would like the Greeks to have a good faction with good units. I also would not mind seeing some archer chariots

Spino
04-30-2003, 03:14
Where's the bloody option for vastly improved AI? This poll is a fix I'VE BEEN CHEATED http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

OK, seriously kids, I'll take the very best AI the developers can come up with over any frivolous feature that makes the kiddies go 'ooooooh'. When you consider that we're going to be playing this game over and over, turn after turn for countless campaigns a challenging AI opponent is perhaps the single most important feature I can think of. As far as single player games are concerned it's been my experience that all 'gee whiz' features quickly lose their appeal after a few replays and once the party's over you're only left with what the AI can bring to the table.

And I want SEASONAL turns, as in Winter, Spring, Summer & Fall. Do any of you realize CA seems settled on using half year turns instead of seasons?

Leet Eriksson
04-30-2003, 09:01
I second Seljuks opinion tooBut the game will need a pretty complicated diplomacy system,especially since rome would be located directly at the center of the map,making it pretty easy to wipe out if all the nations ganged up on themALso the romans made good use of the "divide and conquer" method,much like they did with Aeduii and Helvetii tribes in Gual.

rory_20_uk
04-30-2003, 16:01
I have to say that the things that I think need altering the most are the following:
"Safe ports" where ships can be stored before being set out into the seas. Of course here they will have no effect, but they do allow fleets to be constructed so the phenominon of each ship being sunk in turn by the dominant sea power does not occur.
A sliding scale of dangers in the water: if one power gets on lousy dromon into the area that you have (just for example) 6 Caravels, should all trade and military activity through the sea be compromised? More than likely the single ship would have very little effect. Of course if the forces were more equally matched, it could be argued that a proportion of trade would get through, which leads on to my next point:
Definable ship orders. Nothing fancy, so that things do not get complicated. Broad categories such as "harry enemy trade military shipping" (reduces trade / ability to move military units, but shies away from naval confrontation if at all possible), "protect trade", "protect troop ships", "seek and destroy at will" for example. This would mean that if you are a naval power dependant on trade, by using all your ships to protect trade it would take far more than just the odd ship at strategic points to sever all trade links.
The ability to "share" a province if the battle is not resolved in the time - either the sides share the rescourses or neither side gets anything. This would mean that defenders for once need to repulse the attackers, and not sit there waiting to be attacked. One could argue that where rivers demark territory this would be different.
A point that has been raised elsewhere, but the raising of troops to be effected by the type of troop that is to be raised: raising more than 100 spearmen in one province in a year is possible (with increased costs as the number of units rises??), but raising large number of exceptionally elite troops (such as chivalric knights in MTW for example) would not be possible, as there are not that many individuals who can be trained in the time allowed.


And how could I forget: yes, a better AI that does not have masses of troops that spend eternity moving round its empire for no discernable reason, even when troops are needed at the front line or provinces are not quelled; another might be the sending spies and assassins for no apparent reason to territories that it should realise are heavily guarded against their ingress - a waste of money and a slot on the building cue that could be better spent. And don't get me onto the way that AI places its ships... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Hakonarson
05-01-2003, 01:38
[QUOTE=Quote (eXistenZi @ April 29 2003,07:11)]I also would not mind seeing some archer chariots

lonewolf371
05-01-2003, 03:02
Ya, try running you chariot into a Roman Legion, you'll soon find that you'll get pilummed pretty quick. If not gladiused.

rory_20_uk
05-01-2003, 14:26
Sythed chariots were considered out of date in Alexander of Macedonia's time (300 BC). When used against trained troops, they were pretty useless as the troops would first kill many of the horses / drivers with missile fire, then merely form paths for the remainder to take between the men (in case you think this far fetched, this happened when King Darius used sythed chariots in one battle). So bar the odd casualty of two, they can be thought of as a way of giving the opposition free horses.