How about something else for a change???

[General Malaise]

Doubt I'll find many sympathizers with this judging from the attitudes of most people here, but is anyone else tired of ALWAYS being forced to play the conquerors in virtually every strategy game? How about letting us play the rebels or defenders fighting for their freedom for a switch instead of the soulless powermongers? heh. In RTW for instance I'd MUCH rather play the wild, free Celts or the proud, noble Germanic tribes than the decadent, imperialistic Romans. Might be simplifying the two groups a bit, but practically everyone is guilty of similiar stereotypes depending on their disposition. Moreover, it would actually give you almost two games in one since playing the two sides should be vastly different (i.e. economic structure/means and military units/tactics). I hope they already plan on doing this, but so far I've only seen the game described with the goal of becoming Imperator of Rome and subduing the barbarians, like how it was with becoming the Daimyo in Shogun and conquering the Ronin (though it made a bit more sense in STW). How about a campaign playing as Vercingetorix rebelling against Caesar? Or even Alaric sacking Rome? Playing against the invaders should be just as detailed and interesting as playing them as well. Also, I don't mean barbarians that are just as imperialistic and despotic as the primary faction, like the Mongols in Shogun.

[The_Emperor]

You could always play the GA mode in MTW... that does nto require domination of the whole map. And some GA factions like the French and the Holy Roman Empire have some interesting Glorious Achievement objectives.

Anyway if you feel like having a defensive game, try playing a Russian SP Game in the High Period, The Golden Horde is the ultimate defensive test

I think that conquering the world appeals to a lot of people, I mean we all would like to rule the world won't we? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Still you should be able to play as any faction you wish when RTW comes out... thankfully we won't be limited to the Romans.

[General Malaise]

The Emperor,

You could always play the GA mode in MTW... that does nto require domination of the whole map. And some GA factions like the French and the Holy Roman Empire have some interesting Glorious Achievement objectives.

This is pretty much all I play, lol. Even in STW I was at peace most of the time and used a defensive-offense, except with Takeda. Though playing as the Mongols was great fun too, but they were built to be on the offensive (and watching barbarian hordes mow down national armies is fun... and cathartic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif) .

Anyway if you feel like having a defensive game, try playing a Russian SP Game in the High Period, The Golden Horde is the ultimate defensive test

I do like a 'defensive' game on occasion but in this case I was just referring to who I was playing (and how they would be played style-wise) not necassarily being on attack or defense constantly. It would be fun to play the Gauls or the Goths invading Rome to me too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif. It's just rare that empires themselves get invaded is all.

I think that conquering the world appeals to a lot of people, I mean we all would like to rule the world won't we?

No, because then you have to manage it, heh... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

Still you should be able to play as any faction you wish when RTW comes out... thankfully we won't be limited to the Romans.

Well, then they had better update their description on the RTW homepage. I really don't have much desire to become Imperator of Rome. I'd rather kill him. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

- The General

[Kraellin]

isnt there a cheat code or a mod for playing as the rebels? run a search.

K.

[General Malaise]

Eh, yeah. There is a cheat code, but I meant something more along the lines of an actual, unified faction (that plays very differently from the main faction) not just some small, scattered groups (that play pretty much the same). Playing as the rebels isn't really fair either because factions keep reappearing, heh.

[Kraellin]

well, being that mtw/vi are pretty much global domination type games, yer gonna find it a bit hard to set up what yer talkin about. i suppose you could make a mod with one faction being quite the underdog, struggling to stay alive. you'd be a minor faction in a low income province with the big boys constantly picking on you, but i think that's about as close as yer gonna get with this game.

the one thing i find missing along these lines is winning through being peaceful. by peaceful i dont mean being a door mat. i mean aggressively seeking peace, defending when necessary and trying to unite the world through diplomacy, economics and so on.

sounds boring, doesnt it. we're so used to blowing up our enemies, overrunning their territories, conquering by force and guile. there's certainly a lot more randomity in war than in peace, but still and all, at least one path/goal might include in a GA type game, a means through winning by not forcefully conquering, but rather through diplomacy, economics and alliances.

i suppose it would be more like playing the referree rather than the player on the field, but still, someone shld offer these options once in a while, at least an an alternative.

K.

[General Malaise]

well, being that mtw/vi are pretty much global domination type games, yer gonna find it a bit hard to set up what yer talkin about. i suppose you could make a mod with one faction being quite the underdog, struggling to stay alive. you'd be a minor faction in a low income province with the big boys constantly picking on you, but i think that's about as close as yer gonna get with this game.

Basically what I'm really complaining about is that all these strategy games almost always force you to play primarily as the imperial conquerors (Empire Earth, Age of Empires, Civilization, MTW/RTW, etc.) I just want more games where you have the option of playing as the savages/barbarians/whatever and repelling the invaders OR sacking and pillaging them. The only RTS I've seen so far where you have the option of playing either was a neat little game called Celtic Kings: Rage of War, if anyone has heard of it. This is basically what I mean. Imperial faction plays and looks much differently than the barbaric faction, and they both have different goals and means, but both are equally viable. When most games do (if they do, which is rare) give you this option it's not nearly as well developed or as in-depth as the main campaign game (i.e. The Mongol Invasions in STW). Like I said earlier, I think I should have the option of playing the Gauls and fighting Rome in RTW. So far, I haven't seen this. Only being able to recruit them once you've subdued them. Bah

[Knight_Yellow]

the best defence is a strong offence.

[Duke John]

Some interesting thinking MG. I think I get your main point and I agree totally. All the factions play more or less the same. You can however roleplay a bit using the GA's but that might not be enough.

I'm a member of the Middle Earth: Total War - Team which deals making a mod focusing on the books of Tolkien. We have the idea of giving each faction a very different feel. We try to accomplish this by doing the following things:

Graphics
Each faction will get their own set of unit graphics with a very characteric look. When playing with the units you should immediately get the feel of the faction.

Army selection
We also look for different army compositions; Rohan focusses on cavalry, Isengard on technology, Gondor on infantry, Mordor on huge numbers of cowardly Orcs and the Elves are elite but very few.

Campaign
On a even larger scale the different factions will get their own tech tree. Also in the future we will try to create campaign specifically designed for a faction to provide maximum challenge. In the campaign you will notice the large dark country Mordor of Sauron, the small enclaves of Elves and the numerous Orcish Tribes.


Your idea?
What's your vision on how MTW campgains can be altered to give a different feel to the playing style? I understand your main theory but how do you think it could be translated to MTW? How did they accomplish the two different factions in Celtic Kings?

I'm curious to your thoughts

Cheers, Duke John

[General Malaise]

What's your vision on how MTW campgains can be altered to give a different feel to the playing style? I understand your main theory but how do you think it could be translated to MTW? How did they accomplish the two different factions in Celtic Kings?

Well, it was probably alot easier in Celtic Kings because there were only two playable factions to begin with: The Gauls and The Romans. The Teutons were there, but could only be used as mercenaries.

However, the simple dichotomy of barbarians vs imperials works (even if it is a stereotype). Celtic Kings didn't just give the two factions different units and appearances, the entire technology tree was different. This meant that not only did the economy work differently for the two (Gauls could produce food easy but not gold, vice versa for the Romans for example) the battlefield strategy for each was unique (Gauls had to raid chaotically, Romans had to fight in ordered battles to win) because the units had different stats and strengths.

In MTW the economy works the same for everyone, most units and looks are shared, and the same strategies will work regardless of who you are playing. There are only minor differences in unit types and technologies. On top of that, the objectives for the two factions in CK were different. I don't mean just to win the game, I mean in terms of gameplay it was more important for Gaul to protect their supply lines and spread out nomadically, whereas it was more important for Rome to focus on their gold production and the protection of their forts.

However, what really (to me) gave the feel of the two was the religious aspect of the two factions. Gauls with their Druids and nature spells performed by sacrificial rituals, the Romans with their priests petitioning and prostrating to deities for miracles. Again, In MTW there isn't a vast difference between the religions and how they operate and pagans are sorely lacking.

Basically, Celtic Kings was part role-playing game (heroes would lead armies and could use special objects) so I could really feel like I was playing a Gaul repelling the Romans. The little things also made a difference, like the accent and language of two groups when speaking and the backstory for the two groups.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the role-playing aspect. For me, what is fun is getting into the part of a warrior or commander or ruler or whatnot, not just figuring out how I can exploit holes in the AI to trounce everything around me, and this means it's important that the conflict feels PERSONAL so I actually give a damn about my men dying or not.

[|OCS|Virus]

{those annoying rebels that for no reason rebel agianst you}

EDITED: on closer look at the previous posts i need to add a little more LoL i just wanted to get the thought down, and here was a handy little button called add reply LoL anyways..

the idea between the game you were talking about {dont remember name and have never played it} is it is totaly not right historicly, although I do agree that the tech trees are in dire need of change from faction to faction, but the two you have are basicly totaly opposite, witch most were very different, but the opposit they have is systematic, not like in real life, what they did in this game is made a list of attributes and reversed them basicly, but in real life they had way different customs that the others never even thought about, like {were going back in history a little bear with me} when the spanish met the aztecs, they were horrified at the thought of throwing someone down a huge flight of stair after ripping there hearts our, they wouldnt even have had an inkaling untill they actualy saw it, therefore they would not be able to be so spacific before hand like, it was not writen that throwing someone off a huge flight of stairs after ripping there hearts out is wrong but of course the spanish knew it was totaly wrong to them, but the aztecs were fine with it and considered it just part of there lives, you see whayt I'm getting at here? they need to have a basic sence that there the same, but they are realy different because they have different beliefs, so they should have some things be totaly different, but some things should still be the same {going back to aztecs agian} for instance both aztecs and spanish knew that it was wrong to steal from someone else, thats what i mean by they were basicly the same but very different. sry if that was a little hard to follow LoL. but general over head is this ->

they need to make it so that the people have different factors and expences that some factions would have to pay for and other factions wouldnt need to pay for or even think about, and they should base the tech tree around this kind of thinking, so that the waring factions arn't to much alike, or to opposit of eachother, the aztec thing was just an example there are many expamles that i could have picked that would relate more to MTW but i didnt use them because this one just popped into my head http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

EDITED AGIAN: dangit the first half of my post was deleted for some reason that kind of you know... EXPLAINS THIS HALF OF THE POST bah things are so earitating sometimes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif is there any way an admin can retrieve that?

[General Malaise]

Virus,

I know that game is perfect historically, but neither is MTW, I was just giving it as an example of what I was talking about since there really isn't any other.

[|OCS|Virus]

i think you missed the point i was trying to make, my point {if the other half of my post was here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif } was that I agree that the game should be less about taking over the world but the direction I went in was trying to give it a more personal feel part of my post if i remember correctly was taking it so that you have heir training before you can be king were you have to do certain things and make decisions, which would be added to you vices and virtues screen. then i said something like maybe they could make it so you can walk around in whatever province you king was in {[i} if [/I] you chose to do so and that would also add to V&V's and might explain why your people were revolting. and it went something like that I dont remember, dangit I realy wish I hadnt accidently deleted that other half of my post, that realy burns me up everything would have made sence if it were here, i just wanted to clarify =}

[Kraellin]

oh, ok. i think i get it. you want a barbaric raiding, pillaging, avoid the legions, guerrilla warfare, viking raiding type faction, braveheart, rob roy type of thing. one that doesnt just set up on opposite sides of the field and march into battle. you want to raid villages and get out, burn the women and rape the livestock type of thing and maybe even burn down a fort or two. interesting idea.

the tw engine would have to be re-worked and you'd almost have to have one contiguous map to play on and not the split campaign and tactical maps to make it work right, but i like it. barbaric faction would have smaller, more chaotic raiding type units whereas the empire would be ordered units in rows and columns. yeah. it could work.

K.

[General Malaise]

Quote[/b] (Kraellin @ Aug. 24 2003,20:34)]oh, ok. i think i get it. you want a barbaric raiding, pillaging, avoid the legions, guerrilla warfare, viking raiding type faction, braveheart, rob roy type of thing. one that doesnt just set up on opposite sides of the field and march into battle. you want to raid villages and get out, burn the women and rape the livestock type of thing and maybe even burn down a fort or two. interesting idea.

the tw engine would have to be re-worked and you'd almost have to have one contiguous map to play on and not the split campaign and tactical maps to make it work right, but i like it. barbaric faction would have smaller, more chaotic raiding type units whereas the empire would be ordered units in rows and columns. yeah. it could work.

K.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I want. It was excusable that this aspect was ignored in STW, and even MTW (but only because when people think middle ages they tend to think knights and chivalry). But considering how huge a part barbarians played during the ancient times, and the new technology available for RTW, I think it would a crime to not make them as big a part of the game as the Romans.

One of the things that irked me about the other two games is that it is sorely biased towards conventional strategies. For instance, one of my favorite raiding tactics is to invade a province and just kill as many quality enemy troops as I can and then get the hell out before a full battle ensues to wear the enemy down (or just make him garrison more troops there so another area is weaker). However if you do this in TW your general will suffer a loss for it and his rating will drop, even if the plan went off perfectly Not only that, structures are destroyed when you invade. I should have the option of capturing them OR razing them A nomadic type strategy is useless otherwise, because there is no way to build up an infrastructure in TW unless you centralize, bah

There are more than enough strategy games out there about building and managing an empire. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif How about one about slapping on some warpaint and charging across a field half-naked trying to bring one down? There are plenty of options for RTW like I said before: Vercingetorix, Alaric, Spartacus, Boudica, (to a lesser extent) Attila, etc...

I think it wouldn't hurt to toss in some role-playing aspects to, wherein you actually feel you are said person trying to lead your people against those filthy Romans. Not only will different economies and militaries for the barbaric do this, differentiating the religious and cultural parts(a lot) more and giving them a much more tangible effect on the game (toss in some artifacts, temples, rituals, etc). I've seen something about woad raiders inflicting a morale penalty when attacking because their belief that their paint magically shields them from harm causes them to fight even more savagely is a start. The strength and glory of the individual vs the might and discipline of the empire. Makes things a bit more interesting to me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Gregoshi]

Interesting idea General. It is almost like setting an objective prior to the battle to determine if you win: kill enemy general, burn down buildings (raid), inflict 50% casualties, hold out for 3/4 of a day (delay), etc. This would allow a general to lose in the traditional TW sense but win based on his pre-battle objective.

[Duke John]

Good ideas about the guerilla warfare, but did you think about the other side? Playing as the Romans the game would be extremely irritating and boring since you can't a grip onto the Barbarians, constantly burning down your houses without a fight, doing some hit-and-runs before withdrawing from the battlefield.
Sure there will be some pitched battles in the case a barbaric village is attacked, but the guerilla warfare affect both factions. I would suggest having small options beside pitched battles. Perhaps the option to ambush a marching Roman column.

[General Malaise]

Good ideas about the guerilla warfare, but did you think about the other side? Playing as the Romans the game would be extremely irritating and boring since you can't a grip onto the Barbarians, constantly burning down your houses without a fight, doing some hit-and-runs before withdrawing from the battlefield.

This is exactly the point though. That it's extremely irritating and frustrating. It lowers the morale of your enemy as well as distracts him. The Romans should be forced to do what they had to do in the real world, rely on their numbers. Perhaps some sort of population level could come into account, where Romans are able to recruit more troops and devote more people to the workforce because their cities are able to hold and support more individuals. Maybe this could balance it out (though it's probably already ridiculously biased towards Rome).

Sure there will be some pitched battles in the case a barbaric village is attacked, but the guerilla warfare affect both factions. I would suggest having small options beside pitched battles. Perhaps the option to ambush a marching Roman column.

Well, that IS guerilla warfare. There will no point in going to all the trouble of adding in the barbarians as full, separate factions if they don't have a realistic chance of resisting Roman expansion, and things like that are one of the only ways they can do it. The Romans strategy should be to lure or force the barbarians into a proper battle, and there should be ways in which they can do this as well, though I'm too tired to think of any right now.

[Kraellin]

well, i think you make a good case of it, malaise. the question always boils down to this, however; how much time and resources do CA have to put into such things, or, if this was included as part of their overall game plan, will it meet your same ideas?

i think it's an excellent idea. and the first thing that comes to mind as a counter to raiding and guerilla type actions, is that the romans might well tend to do 'sweeps' of the population. these were extremely annoying to the populace and tended to cause dissent, thus adding to the rebel cause and sentiment.

and i fully agree that guerilla war is VERY frustrating and annoying and that that is exactly the point. one of the ways to counter it was the old bait and ambush tactic. you make it known through various channels that there's this very tempting target for the rebels to hit. you lay an ambush and spring it when the rebels show up. tricky to do in a computer game, but shld be possible.

another tactic is widespread patrols and this one is costly, but does tend to limit the rebels.

another is a good intelligence network, spies, informers and all that sort of thing. also a bit costly, but rewarding at times.

lots of stuff you can on both sides. i think it's a very good idea. you might ask the game devs if any of this sort of thing has been incorporated into the new rtw engine.

K.

[Gregoshi]

This is a razor's edge issue. As Duke John pointed out, it might make for a very boring game even if it is realistic.

On the flip side, it would make conquering the whole map harder (realistic). No more formulaic conquering, i.e., keep 200 men in province*, lower taxes and keep loyalty above 130% to prevent rebellions. The General's ideas could allow for infiltration by another (barbarian) faction and have two armies co-exist in the same region.

I think playability will win out unless some form of fun factor can be injected into equation.

* I know RTW will not have provinces.

[Kraellin]

greg,

i think you may be right about harder to conquer the world, and it occurs to me that a game like this shld be scaled to maybe one or two main provinces, or a small empire, and then some surrounding areas for the rebels, rather than an entrire large region like western europe.

K.

[KukriKhan]

Ya know, we get the best ideas/discussions here in the Entrance Hall. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Excellent ideas here. IMO what's being batted about here is the concept of winning. Playing the straight game script requires 'total domination' via your flag flying over every contestable area, be it province, city, whatever.

I really (really) like the idea of making the win parameters selectable; kind of an expanded GA mode. Even better (IMO) would be a user-defined set of criteria. Since the whole concept of a strategic war-fighting game is What if... different factors prevailed, instead of the ones that did in history, why not also make the victory conditions flexible?

What if Hitler weren't a crackpot military leader? What if Idi Amin 'got religion'? What if Ghengis Khan stayed a shepherd? What if 'Ug' decided that the fermenting brew she nursed in the cave tasted terrible and beer was never invented?

THAT'S what this humble player wants: a way to explore (and interact with) history's twists and turns, to see how things might have worked out otherwise.

[General Malaise]

greg,

i think you may be right about harder to conquer the world, and it occurs to me that a game like this shld be scaled to maybe one or two main provinces, or a small empire, and then some surrounding areas for the rebels, rather than an entrire large region like western europe.

K.

This is easy enough to solve. Break larger barbarian groups (Celts for example) down into smaller tribes (Averni, Iceni, etc.) that operately independently and may even war with each other. Fixes the problem and doesn't sacrifice realism. Actually adds to it. Though I don't understand the notion it would be too hard. I see people complain constantly this game is too easy or predictable...

[Old Bald Guy]

Very good discussion, all. Enjoyed reading all the various ideas. Some would make a very good game.

I wish GA had been more diversified. Unfortunately, it still comes down to conquering the world. One of the only things that made Civ3 an improvement was the more than one way to skin a cat winning the game. I've had a couple of games where I was either trying to dominate the world or build the spaceship and suddenly got a screen telling me I'd won a cultural victory. A pleasant surprise, to say the least.

Surely the Catholic factions had different goals than the Muslim factions, and the goals for different Catholic factions most likely were different as well. While I enjoyed the conquer game, I haven't played one in a long time. GA adds more flavors to the game, and I don't need a screen telling me I've won. I know when I've won, so I can go on to another game.

Had I my wish, I would add a lot to the GA portion of the game and completely drop the fly the flag over the world mode. I like having options. They add to longevity and replay value. Who hasn't gotten bored with playing conquer mode? Good discussion. Thanks.

OBG

[mosborne]

This is a wonderful thread and I've gained a lot from the thinking provided by all. I have played MTW for 1 year, all SP, and have never used total domnination. I always play GA, but I do think the achievements need to be modified/upgraded/increased. Through GA you define victory for each faction, and so it seems that GA would provide the vehicle for what General Malaise is talking about. I would certainly enjoy the kind of game GM seeks. It might be be difficult to model a smaller rebellious faction, if you will, and it probably wouldn't produce a very enjoyable (sale-able) game. But through careful adaption of the GA system it would seem entirely possible to incorporate 2nd tier kingdoms whose goals were independence and simply surviving, rather than total domination, and whose strategies and tactics derived from that difference in basic objectives.

[Degtyarev14.5]

I haven't yet read this thread in its entirety, so I hope this hasn't been said already, but this idea has passed through my head many times now, with regard to first-person shooters.

Note that, almost without exception, in a first-person shooter you are the super-armoured-and-armed, one-hundred-hitpoints tank fighting against hordes of weaklings. These weaklings are usually the subordinates of some über-being, who ultimately makes an appearance at the end of the game. Archetypal example: Jedi Knight II.

I have always wished for a game in which the player could be just one of the masses, rather than a demigod-like killing machine. Enter Battlefield 1942. I love this game soooo much, and the Desert Combat mod is simply awesome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif I've just learned to fly the Apache, so stay outta the desert http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Of course, this issue is not restricted to computer games. Who here recalls the board game Hero Quest? Talk about useless monsters http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif My dear siblings would happily work together to conquer their foes (i.e. me) with nary a selfish thought for personal wealth and glory. While this obviously makes for a successful game, it also ensures a very boring one, especially as they would take the greatest care to face only one creature at any point in time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif And, getting back to my point, each monster, taken individually, was so completely, utterly useless.

Which is why I tend to hold my tongue when die-hard Diablo II fans go off about those naughty PKers who so ruin the gaming experience. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

A.

[Gregoshi]

Welcome Welcome to the Org http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Greetings to the one named mosborne. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Welcome to the Lame Poetry forum mosborne... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Sorry, I'm confusing this with another forum. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif