View Full Version : Creative Assembly I have some serious concerns about RTW
After ignoring this community for a few months I've started to read TW forums again, RTW looks very promising, however...
In this (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=19;t=8622) thread developers state not only that certain factions may not speak in their native tongue (this would be fair enough, I don't expect every single Germanic barbarian tribe to be linguistically accurate) but that the global tongue might be English. I'm sorry but Persians speaking English is completely unacceptable to me, worse still this raises the ugly prospect of the global tongue being American English This would be absolutely catastrophic and if it were the case I'd never buy the game.
To my utter dismay in this (http://pub133.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=1101.topic) thread people refer to a video in which 'wardogs' are featured, again if any animals other than actual animals that were used in war such as horses, camels and elephants are used I will not under any circumstances buy this game. I'm sick to the death of military games using stupid animals such as giant squid, huge packs of attack dogs and other infantile creations. Thankfully CA have steered clear of this thus far, I'm afraid that now they're straying from their previous good record.
I don’t care if it’s ‘cute’ to have a suicide pig, if you want that kind of game play then I suggest you go and play Red Alert 2 where you can attack aircraft carriers with ‘attack squid’ to your heart’s content.
Also, if we are to look at VI as the example of quite how much of a role historical accuracy will play then I'll continue to be concerned about RTW. Vikings with horns ffs, initially we were told that they'd only have horns on the box of the game and we were lied to.
I can only hope my concerns are not well founded.
Oh, and... while I find the inclusion of war elephants endearing, perhaps because I'm currently reading India: A history, I certainly hope elephants won't be used on a mass scale and I better not be able to recruit them in Northumberland.
Knight_Yellow
07-21-2003, 17:59
amount of people who buy TW games who know english is higher than the amount who dont.
thus english is the main language.
who realy cares if a guy isnt talking right? i dont have a clue what any unit in MTW says and it doesnt bother me.
and for the anmimals, oh well u wont buy it but animals where used in war.
Sasaki Kojiro
07-21-2003, 18:38
Well...I must say that those are the least of my concerns. The only thing I'm worried about is that CA won't spend enough time developing the tactical battle portion. Graphics and strategy map are nice, but for me the battles are really the heart of the game.
frogbeastegg
07-21-2003, 18:49
Gotta be quick, I'm in a hurry
There has been a lot of discussion on the org about the war dogs and flaming pigs. To try and cut a long topic short there is evidence that both were used historically.
On flaming pigs.
Take a look at this thread (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=19;t=5768), it has more on the authenticity of flaming pigs. To quote Hakonarson:
Squealing pigs were a tactic used by Romans against Phyruss's elephants (275BC-ish), and also by Megarans against Antogonos Gonatos, with the added refinement of covering the poor animal in tar and setting it alight to ensure adequate squealing, and probably the flames would upset the elephants too since most animals shy away from fire
On war dogs
War dogs were occasionally used by the barbarians, mostly Germanic tribes. The Anglo Saxons used war dogs; they probably inherited this tactic from their Roman era ancestors. I have seen references to this in various history books; unfortunately I can't remember which ones off the top of my head. I will try to find the book. If you look at the bottom of the thread there is a list of historical references of war dogs e.g. Molossid war dogs mentioned in Roman sources.
Animals were used in war; it's a fact plain and simple. It was never 'cute'. Those mine detecting dolphins sound like a bad science fiction movie but they do exist, why shouldn't our ancestors have trained animals to help them in battle?
On language
Well I've already said my bit on the language thread but basically they can't reconstruct a bunch of dead languages because there is next to nothing to go on. I would rather they didn't put in a fake 'reconstruction' because it would make a mockery out of any accuracy the game claims to have. I don't think they are going to have nothing but English speech. I think the unit orders etc will be in an Latin or Greek, with only the movie speech in English. This would be similar to Medieval and Shogun when it is on the English setting.
I'm much more bothered about the game than the accuracy. Simply put a game cannot be 100% accurate, expecting a high degree of accuracy is asking to be disappointed. Instead just sit back and ignore the details. Judge the accuracy when the game is out. Rest assured that I will be amongst the hordes of angry players if Rome commits too many gaffs.
frogbeastegg
07-21-2003, 20:40
Now I've finished my dinner I can take a look around. Here is a site (http://http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/elephants-war-greek.htm) with tonnes about war elephants, backed up by the appropriate sources. I'll quote the paragraph on pigs:
The ancient sources are very clear in indicating that pigs were used to deter elephants in battle. Pliny writes “elephants are scared by the smallest squeal of a pig; and when wounded and frightened, they always give ground (VIII, 1.27).” Aelian says that “it was by these squealing pigs, they say, that the Romans turned to flight the elephants of Pyrrhus and won a glorious victory (1,38).” The most frequently told tale concerning pigs as a counter weapon to elephants may be represented by Aelian and Polyaenus: when Antigonas Gonatas was besieging Megara, the Megarians succeeded in routing the besiegers’ elephants by dousing pigs in oil and igniting them and then turning them loose against the elephants. One might object that this is hardly a fair test of the elephant’s reaction to pigs per se; but both authors specifically state that the beasts were startled by the squeal rather than by the fire. The flames were simply a means of guaranteeing a satisfactory squeal. As a final instance of the effect of pigs on elephants in battle, it is feasible to examine Procopius’ account of events at Edessa. The city was being besieged by Chosroes, and an elephant with many soldiers on its back was driven up to the city wall and towered over it. The resourceful inhabitants thrust a squealing pig over the wall and into the face of the looming elephant. The result was panic and retreat.19 Altogether the pig seems to have been quite an effective weapon against the elephant, although its use does not appear to have been widespread in the ancient world.
Anyone who wants more on elephants should really look at this site, it is very interesting. Also it gives it sources Thank heaven at least one of these sites is following basic historians principles
More on war dogs:
-I found this posted on many sites, I've no idea who originally wrote it and which sites plagiarised it, so I will post the first site I found as my source (http://www.scoutdogpages.com/facts.htm) WAR DOGS are as old as war itself. The Ancient Romans deployed huge mastiff-like hounds called Molossus, which were capable of knocking a man off a galloping horse and disemboweling him. However, turnabout was fair play, as in the case of the Roman General Gaius Marius, who was routed at the battle of Vercellae in Gaul by a team of snarling, snapping hounds under the command of women handlers None of the sites quote the Roman texts for this. There are also mentions of dogs in armour with spiked collars, but again the authors don't include the source making this less than useful.
-This site (http://aura.sehnerova.cz/stranky/killer_dogs_1.html) has interesting articles on various animals in ancient warfare. Specifically on dogs:
In battles where tens of thousands of soldiers fought on either side, a few hundred dogs made no difference at all. That is why dogs seem to have been spared the major battles and no sources testify to their exploitation in them. Dogs could only be used to bother the cavalry troops of smaller armies, and only until an effective countermeasure was found - nets Anyone skilled enough to catch a lion, a tiger or a cheetah to serve as a circus animal, could just as well catch a dog - a job so common to every village knacker The site also mentions that the evidence for fighting dogs is often exaggerated but it doesn't give specific examples of exaggeration :sigh:.
- There is also this site (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pds/dog/srvce_hstry/servhstry02_e.htm) but the only relevant part is
Early day combat dogs often wore spiked collars and suits of mail and were turned loose against onrushing cavalry. The knifelike spikes were designed to play havoc with the horse's legs and bring about and abrupt enemy retreat. These tactics were often successful. Roman legions took dogs on their expeditions into various parts of the world. Again no sources :grrr:
Oh well, that's enough research for one night. I found plenty on war dogs, I found 113,000 sites with sections on the Roman era, and obviously I only looked at about 30. Not a single one gave their sources, unbelievably bad practise. You can't just say that the Romans mentioned something frequently in their writing without giving at least one example :sigh: If anyone finds a proper reference I will be interested to hear it.
clovenhoof
07-22-2003, 00:50
This is a great topic as I am a k-9 fanatic. Without doing years of research into hundreds of ancient obscure texts written in several different languages, it is difficult to come up with much text-proof that dogs were used universaly as effective combatents in war.
Suffice to say that modern breeds of the same ancestry most associated with the war-dog (the molosser) weigh up to 250 lbs, are extremely muscular, and are bred and trained to follow fairly complex commands. Properly bred and trained, they can easily distinguish between freind and foe when presented with multiple targets in a chaotic, frentic situation, will continue to fight until they suffer a brain or heart wound or until they bleed out, can crush a femur into tiny peices with one bite and are no single unarmed man can match them. A gun or a knife is the best weapon to use against them, as the dogs DO parry with their bodies and can easily and quickly get within a 2' radius of a person before the person has time to swing a larger weapon. Such a dog in two bounds can easily knock a man over and rip his throat out in a bite. In three bites a head can be severed clean from the body.
Head to toe armor sufficient to fully protect against a bite would be so heavy that the additional strain of a 250 pound dog pulling at your sword arm or shield with all its might will make you unable to defend yourself against another enemy, person or dog. The target would likely be pulled along almost helplessly by the dog unless he was able to strike heart or head blow.
Dogs can be trained to pull armor (especially a helmet) off and rip at the soft flesh beneath. Two such dogs against a man in full plate armor carrying a broadsword would be more than the man could handle. One such dog against a man in anything but head to toe armor would have any exposed areas destroyed by the dog. An unarmored man carrying only a shield would be dispatched in a matter of seconds by the dog. I would wager that several such men would fall to each dog.
As far back as the Assyrians, people had the ability to breed and train such dogs. There is no technology involved but only a craft which is no more advanced than that of sword smithing.
Historians who claim that dogs would be unmanagable on the battlefield and would behave like a pack of berserk animals have failed to properly research the subject of dogs. The evidence is plain and clear in police dogs today who have the ability to work as a team and manage to remain focused on their commands even in the midst of extreme chaos- say a riot.
So, did they have war-dogs as combatents? Again, its hard to say with exact precision unless one wishes to devote a few years to the study. But given that such dogs would be highly effective and the means to produce them was available then it is only logical to assume they did.
It is a pretty basic principle to apply logical thought when absolute evidence is lacking. Without going through years of study, there are many other depictions of dogs in combat- carvings, drawings etc.
There is also cynology- the study of the origins of dogs and dog breeds. Cynologists and historians agree that the Roman 11th legion brought Mollosers along with them and some of these were left in what is now Rottweil Germany- there is the origin of Rottweilers. Some people say the dogs were war dogs, other say there were only beasts of burden. However, when a breed has a carefully bred physiology and set of drives that make it ideal for combat, it is not entirely sensable to say that it was purely a beast of burden. The Rottweiler is only one example. There are plenty of others.
well...thats my two cents
Portuguese Rebel
07-22-2003, 02:38
They will all be speaking english? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Thats a major disapointment. Could they go with genneric stuff like they did in MTW. They don't need to reconstruct all the languages, just some basic latin greek, a germanic sounding language... Having a roman centurion screaming attack at the troops ain't all that fun IMO.
Quote[/b] ]Properly bred and trained, they can easily distinguish between freind and foe when presented with multiple targets in a chaotic, frentic situation
Just to put a little more detail into this some war dogs were trained to attack a specific uniform. And who had the most distingushing uniforms, the Romans or at least thats the way films make it look.
They will all be speaking english?
yep, i can just see it now, John Wayne leading the legions of Rome on a bloody rampage around the Med, or the Greeks being told to attack by Pee-Wee Herman
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
karmastray
07-22-2003, 05:31
I think it was a Gore Vidal book in which the protaganist is traveling the world in the 4th Century BC. He is in India and writes about the huge elephants which they use in battle and considers that they would be quite a threat if the Indians ever tried invading Persia (the protaganists homeland) ... well, then he realizes that the common field mouse will frighten the elephant so he hatches a plan... As the elephants charge the Persian army there will a few dozen soldiers armed with big boxes of mice, when the elephants get close enough, the soldiers will open the boxes and release the mice, thus frightening the elephants and causing them to run amok among their own army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif to quote the guy from the A-Team I love it when a plan comes together
You can cite as much infantile fiction or obscure historical facts as you like about the use of animals.
In real life you cannot command a pack of dogs or pigs to keep formation and attack, I can see it now... 12 pig units fending off 12 peasant units....
*sigh*
Pdifolco
07-22-2003, 09:59
Well, in fact right from the start the TW series wasn't that historical
Shoggy had a nice japanese feel, but in fact there never was naginata or No Dachi units, Horse archers didn't exist anymore by 1500, and Warrior Monks never fought for the daimyos ... Same for strat game : it's a nice boardgame with an historical basis, but that's all
So having some funkier units such as pigs or dogs doesn't bother me that much - as long as they are specialized enough so that Rome won't field a pig army http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
And do you think you can command even men to adopt formation 4-ranks deep from point A to point B in 10 seconds as allowed by the game ?? Naaaahh ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
About language/speech, even in Medieval it was just impossible to have 20+ nations speaking in their native medieval tongue - that we don't know anymore for many of them How spoke Byzantines ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
For Ancient period it's worse. Ok we still can write latin and Greek, but if I hear Latin speech in the game I will feel to be at Mass rather than on the field http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
In fact it's the same for movies : Ben Hur speaks English ..
Maybe you should have doubt about RTW historicity, but I don't think the points you stressed are the good ones
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Captain Fishpants
07-22-2003, 10:04
Quote[/b] (Pretz @ July 22 2003,03:45)]You can cite as much infantile fiction or obscure historical facts as you like about the use of animals.
In real life you cannot command a pack of dogs or pigs to keep formation and attack, I can see it now... 12 pig units fending off 12 peasant units....
*sigh*
Ah, but who ever said that you could command a herd of pigs? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Leaping to conclusions/making assumptions is not necessarily the best way to go... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
There are incendiary pigs in the game. There are also wardogs. These units are not available to every faction, but they do add a certain something: they were used and they are flavoursome in game terms.
And I think you'll all find the pig command issue has been handled in an interesting way.
MikeB ~ CA
Uh huh... flavoursome in the same way that vikings with horns are flavoursome?
Why not go all the way and include suicide bombing sheep instead of more orthodox assassins? That sounds flavoursome to me.
http://pub133.ezboard.com/fshogun....5.topic (http://pub133.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=1115.topic)
As this lad said..
Quote[/b] ] It seems to me like the desire for realism and accuracy got thrown out before Viking Invasion. Don't kid yourselves. CA wants gimmicks that will sell.
Quote[/b] (Pdifolco @ July 22 2003,09:59)]in fact there never was naginata or No Dachi units,
There were Nanigata, specially in the dwellings of the samurai, wielded by their women. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Well IMO in STW the units are representative, and they are accurate enough. There are obvious changes, as one samurai may be Yari and No Dachi armed, it would be easy to sling a No Dachi over your back, and hold a Yari in formation, until the sword is needed, however unlikely in practice. Anyway each samurai had the mandatory Katana set. Due to the engine restraints all men were given uniform weapons in the same unit.
Quote[/b] ]Warrior Monks never fought for the daimyos
Usesugi Kenshi (among others) was a samurai but really for all practical puposes, his pursuit of Zen made him nothing short of a warrior monk. He was al so a Daimyo, as you know. A warrior monk daimyo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Quote[/b] ] 20+ nations speaking in their native medieval tongue
Well at least it would be nice to have Turks speaking Turkish, not Arabic. The Byzantines speaking Russian, well that sure sounds funny. The factions could have been better split into more accurate language groups.
Hi Pretz,
I do not share your concerns, I just hope RTW really becomes what most fans expect - and that is QUITE A LOT...
The problem is, wounded Persians screaming in... what language? Nobody can still speak that tongue, you have only half-reconstructed writings and the language did change a bit over centuries.
Finally, find a speaker that can actually then speak in that language...
I think we must be happy with some Germans crying Donar, Odin, blubb...) and the Carthaginians stating their belief in Hannibal or whatever.
As Captain Fishpants said, perhaps are those War Animals more a special counter unit for other units with little else fighting value, not encouraging players to have an army mainly consisting of dogs or elephants. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
e.g. Flaming pig counter for elephants
War dogs making peasant troops panicking
or whatever - use your imagination.
The things I care about: Working Quicksave feature, Emperor not dying at 56... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
and hopefully a somewhat upgraded campaign map. Still think that the build order of provinces should be easier.
If I build in all provinces, but do not have enough money, always the most northern in MTW build while the southern ones never start at all.
Perhaps will there be a build queue so that such things no longer need manual managing.
frogbeastegg
07-22-2003, 13:22
Quote[/b] (Pretz @ July 22 2003,09:45)]You can cite as much infantile fiction or obscure historical facts as you like about the use of animals.*sigh*
Firstly Pliny and the others I quoted are not obscure, they are major sources for the Roman era.
Secondly the key words in that quote are 'Historical fact'. If something is historical fact then there is proof it happened. Therefore it is quite correct to put it in a game that claims to have accuracy.
Thirdly you asked a question. Don't insult the people who tried to answer it.
Fourthly RTW is not out yet. It is not going to be out for a long time. There is not much information about it available to players. There is also a lot of time for features to change. Wait for it to come out and complain then, instead of jumping to conclusions and getting worked up over things you have probably misinterpreted. You assumed that you will be ordering the animals around, but Captain Fishpants answered to say this is not the case. So why not just wait instead of getting angry over details that you don't know for certain?
First you complain that animals aren't historical. This is proved otherwise and you ridicule the evidence.
Then you complain that you can command the animals. CA have confirmed otherwise. You insult them, accusing CA of being gimmicky.
Now you are complaining about 'flavoursome'. Will you ever be happy? Why not just calm down?
DrHaphazard
07-22-2003, 16:27
*high five for frog* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Well since i think all the arguments have been made on both sides I'll remain silent except to say that I like how yall have been using well thought out and researched arguments to make your points.
Quote[/b] ]they were used and they are flavoursome in game terms.
They are also flavousome in dinner terms ( :
About ridiculing the CA informant on this board yep thats really good. Now we don't have to worry about Creative Assembly visiting this board and giving up to date information on RTW
Sorry Captainfishpants that some people on this board can be very rude.
kawligia
07-23-2003, 03:58
Some people are just impossable to please. I think the game looks cooler than anything I've ever seen before http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
clovenhoof
07-23-2003, 05:17
Quote[/b] (Pretz @ July 22 2003,03:45)]You can cite as much infantile fiction or obscure historical facts as you like about the use of animals.
In real life you cannot command a pack of dogs or pigs to keep formation and attack, I can see it now... 12 pig units fending off 12 peasant units....
*sigh*
Pretz,
Infantile and fictional? Beh, you fail to substanciate these statements with either logic or fact and so they are baseless. My points were substanciated by logic. Dogs have been used as combatents in war for thousands of years.
Want proof? Read Gratius Falsicus' Cinegetica. According to Gratius the English dogs, then named pugnaces (ready for battle), were used by the celts as combatents.
Want proof? Read the history of Sir Peer Legh's role in the Battle of Agincourt. Legh, after being severely injured, was protected and defended by his Mastiff dog and he owed his life exclusively to her. Protected- in battle.
Want proof? Check out this picture of a Heavy Mastini found in Birs Nimrd (Ninive)- used by an Assyrian in battle. http://www.mastiffgilardi.com/inglese/razza_sub/img_storia/storia_4.jpg
Want proof? Marco Polo wrote in 1296 that Kubla Kahn kept 5000 Mastiffs for war and for hunting.
Want proof? Bartolomé de las Casas account of Columbus' conquest of Native Americans that Columbus took with him 250 pound Mastiffs which in one battle in 1495, killed 100 Natives apeice.
Want Proof? Read Poggio S. Lorenzo's UPON THE SALSO-MARZIALE, a battle in which Cane Corso's (Molossers) caused a massacre of the enemy and forced the rebels to flee their strong hold in the Castle Triburco.
Want proof? Check out these ancient depictions of dogs in battle, but especially check out this one:
It is a Wood block print of a Greek Mastiff,
The Celebrated Dog of Marathon
(approx 500 B.C.) IN BATTLE:
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Hahnsflyboys/pics/mara5.jpg
http://community-2.webtv.net/Hahn-50thAP-K9/K9History23/
I can come up with dozens of more examples of proof, but I provided just enough here to make my case without going overboard. Can you come up with ONE documented fact supporting your argument or your feeling that dogs don't belong in the game?
There is so much PROOF of the fact that for thousands of years dogs have been effectively used as combatents in battle. Obscure? Perhaps, but the nature of the issue its self being obscure, you cannot possibly hope to find a non-obscure, conventional or obvious source. Fiction? Absolutely not.
While dogs can and could be trained to fight in formation, that would not be the most practical or effective use for them. Men fight in formation because it makes the best use of their weapons and shields. The most practical place for a dog is at the side of a soldier to aid him in battle. If you want to say that there shoulden't be formations of dogs, I'd even agree.
As for the capability of trained dogs, I suggest you read the following books-
The Dogs Mind
Pitbulls and Tenacious Guard-dogs
Koehlers Training Methods
K-9 Body Guards
The Wolf Within
Fighting Dogs
Here are some websites along the same lines
http://www.moloss.com/
http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/protect.htm
http://www.protectiondog.com/
http://www.mindspring.com/~anableps/fila.html
http://www.angelfire.com/tn/hillcountrydogs/
Again, it would take several years to complete a comprehensive study nescessary to prove that dogs were used universaly in battle. However, in just an evening of casual on and off web-surfing and browsing some of my books I have provided sufficient documented information to prove that dogs were used effectively in battle. And to a degree- especially by the celts, gauls, Romans and later the english, to be included in a reasonably historicaly accurate computer game concerning medeival times and/or roman times.
Ignorance is really irritating and doesn't help anyone so please learn about a subject before you voice a strong opinion about it. So please do post a single good reason why attack dogs should not be a part of the game.
Gregoshi
07-23-2003, 06:57
Yeah, and Because I like cats better is not a good reason. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Interesting discussion, but let's not get too excitable defending our views.
Pdifolco
07-23-2003, 13:19
I'm even more amused by this post since I reinstalled STW...
Can someone point me links to historical occurences during the period of 15-feet tall katana-wielding-Terminators and groups of camoed SEALS-type guys assaulting generals to kill them in battle ? 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/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Some pics of flaming pigs would be cool too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
BigJtheGreatBear
07-24-2003, 04:00
Hallo all I'm new to the 'Org, longtime TW player. Jus' sayin' hi.
I'm going to look up a bunch of historical facts now and point out the reality flaws in this VIDEO GAME now so that all the women will just think I rule.
Entaro Adun, Org
Gregoshi
07-24-2003, 06:41
Welcome to the Org BigJ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I have to wonder about those women you are speaking about. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Duraz_asks
07-24-2003, 07:48
sry if im a little late to this topic but it seems pretz needs to be a historian not a mtw player.. the fact is the game is made by english speaking people its easy to make it that way and if they put all the files required to have an individual language they might have to boot out another cool quality.. and it seems though u speek good english so stop quacking.. also just because elephants naturally come from africa or india area doesnt mean they cant be braught and bread in another country (zoos world wide for instance, animal preservation camps or parks, and animal safe houses)
BigJtheGreatBear
08-03-2003, 18:14
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Well now
Lemmie' see if I have this straight...the language in this game is being put to the question? Okayyy.
Ahem. Anyway, moving on.
I havent gotten around to playing the Byzantium in the expansion yet. How are the Lancers and when do you get those different V-Gaurds? Are they better or just different?
And also, has anyone used the new Steppe Heavy Calvary?
Allrightythen, see ya.
BigJtheGreatBear
08-03-2003, 18:22
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Sorry Gregoshi, I really don't know anything about women you see, I'm married.
(Oh yeah, If you really want to get on your wife's good side, make sure you play Medieval TW nonstop everyday for about six months She'll be putty in your hands!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I am soo funny
BigJtheGreatBear
08-03-2003, 18:27
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Duraz. Please check your spelling. (bread?)
Also check your Rage lyric sheet.
Animal safe houses? What are you talking about? That's crazy talk Duraz. Your crazy. Really. Crazy.
Prince Lom
08-03-2003, 21:02
I wholeheartedly look forwards to Elephants, War Dogs and especially Flaming Pigs I'm a little ashamed to admit that I laughed for a minute solid when I read that piece on them earlier up-thread
I'd even like to see a whole army of Incendiary Porcine Devices, just for the fun of it. Of course, the game is a serious one, and so I imagine this is unlikely to happen...
...without any modding Please Developer dude, if you're reading, make it possible for the game to be modded so that pigs can be used in insanely unrealisitic but amusing massive hordes
haha omg, pigs? i never knew they were used http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
anyways, im guessing the wardogs would be used only in castle defence....lol suicide pigs, i mean just imagine these flaming...things coming right at you, wtf are you gonna do to it? maybe impale it and then just eat it O.o...lol. ahh i see maybe thats their role in RTW..ok i stay quiet now >_
Assuming the number of units are 20:
- 4 Flaming Pigs Units
- 4 Wardogs units
- 4 Catapults
- 4 Elephants
- 4 Pretorian Guards (description seems great, but I suspect they suck in real battle).
I predict there will be a number of variations of these, until someone put on the rules: no flaming dogs please
Annie
Demon of Light
08-03-2003, 23:56
I can see myself quoting Shakespeare whenever I let slip the dogs of war (errm... I meant wardogs)
units and languages isnt what will trouble my head. its how many bugs there will be and if activision and/or ca will support the game with patches or if we have to buy them also.
thats things to be concern about. IMO anyway
I just hope the wardogs and elephants are not handled as an 'uber'weapon like the c&c:generals BAH nuke. Don't want R:TW to become a tech race. IF they include the strategic map in multiplay this could seriously damage the game.
About the language, nobody knows how latin or ancient german was pronounced, so they would do good not to touch it.
Portuguese Rebel
08-04-2003, 13:07
Quote[/b] (LadyAnn @ Aug. 03 2003,17:26)]Assuming the number of units are 20:
- 4 Flaming Pigs Units
- 4 Wardogs units
- 4 Catapults
- 4 Elephants
- 4 Pretorian Guards (description seems great, but I suspect they suck in real battle).
I predict there will be a number of variations of these, until someone put on the rules: no flaming dogs please
Annie
4 pretorian guards?
Hehehe, i guess they are hard to breed like elephants...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.