Rome Totalwar

[Swoosh So]

Over the years playing the totalwar series ive enjoyed some really nice tactical games, some nice games that have lasted over an hour, recently in VI ive noticed some of the younger clans are taking 16 combat units even in tournament games like the cwc :\ Now these games are just a case of rushing forward and using your extra combat troops to over power the enemy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif In shogun this wasent a problem the effectivness of the musket and the archer, In viking invasion this happens all too often games have just become a case of picking the strongest army and charging your opponent and click click click win :\

EVERY single video ive seen for rome shows me a rush based system with not many anti rush units, no decent missles like the musket and i see archer kills 1-3 per volley, the cwb limits this somewhat with the 2 max rule for units and i find 1v1 games there to be of a better standard, for me this game has taken a serious nose dive.

The games i mostly enjoy are actually with old shogun vets people who like to play the old way and take a good varied selection of units. There seems to be no movement any more no counter play and unlocking defences unless you play with people who believe there is honor left in the game.

Will it come to the point where all tournament should have minimum missle requirements or do we want rome to be the 20 unit rush game? Things im thinking of for tournaments are along the lines of the cwb where you must attack and defend with the same army with a good amount of unit restrictions to make the player actually play

Im sure im not the only one who has these concerns regarding rome, alot of old vets say they are coming back for rome, i wonder how long they will stay if it turns out to be the rush based game im expecting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[CrackedAxe]

I'm not too sure about it being a rush game. Maybe i'm being silly using Time Commanders to base this on, but having watched the entire series, combine arms and varied units look like the key to success at this game.

[Aelwyn]

Not to mention that some factions might not even have archers, but only slingers. So those factions will almost have to be rush factions, unless you play on a map with a good amount of tree cover. Now I could be wrong, maybe each faction has some sort of longer range non-artillery missle unit, but I don't think so. You're right Swoosh, the game will definitely change with RTW. It could still be a fun change, but unfortunately I feel you're right, eventhough more people will be playing it might not be smart to play games with just anyone.

[TosaInu]

Hello Swoosh,

I recall that many people complained about the monkrush in the original STW?

There are (also) other means to prevent rushing, we'll have to see which made it into off the box RTW. Think about deployment zones with sufficient no mans land.
It will differ a lot which faction is used: armoured Roman or Barbarians?

I guess many are already bored by the statement that proper modsupport (custom stats) is important. Off the box settings aren't as important as the possibility to create and the ease to distribute and use them.

It will also be good to have advanced hostsettings (allowed factions, categories of units required, disabling units, upgrades yes/no/how many, deploy type, speed...). This without the need to do a full stat mod. So, you can 'hardcopy' tourney/ladder rules.

You could think of interaction with an official/fan server to check for proper versions and sending data/results for ladders. PHP scripts and SQL can make life easy.

[Beelzebub]

Seems to me like hoplites (and various other pike/spearmen clones) will be very prominent in this game. These strong defensive units should do a good job of holding swarms of rushers while the hammer comes down from other units. Seems like it wouldn't be hard to replicate the great persian/greek battles if someone just tried to load up on attacking units and overwhelm their opponents with numbers (just ask xerxes or darius). Also, with larger battlefields, there should be more room for maneuvering.

[Jango Fett]

in those days the enemies allways rushed lol...check out gladiator..look the barbarians no tactics just chiiiiiaaarge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif but the romans used tactics..

[Steppe Merc]

The Parthians and Sarmatians shouldn't just charge. In fact, it would be a lot of fun to insure the horse archers in the perfect positions, to slaughter the enemy. Of course, once you charge with you lancers, I suppose that could be considered 'rush', but it would take a while to do it properly, and you'd have to wait for the troops to be weakened by arrows.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Jango Fett @ July 12 2004,16:49)]in those days the enemies allways rushed lol...check out gladiator..look the barbarians no tactics just chiiiiiaaarge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif but the romans used tactics..
Did you know that Gladiator isn't a good example of Historical accuracy? In fact, if CA is taking hints from that film, we're in trouble...

-Charging cavalry through the trees???
-"Rome started as a Republic" ???
-German all-out frontal atack against a practically fortified Roman army???
-The "Gladiator" helm...

Need I say more? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[DemonArchangel]

the archers have insane range, thus probably precluding insane rushes/.

[econ21]

I haven't done MP, so I should not really comment but I recall CA saying that they have increased the penalties for being charged in the flank etc. They point out that in TW to date, spears can be charged by cav in the flank and after initial contact will fairly quickly re-orientate to face the cav, recovering their disadvantage. In RTW, such a flank charge will be much more devastating. I would have thought this change might make tactics more important?

[barocca]

Legionaries are (supposedly) vulnerable on their flanks,
depth is also important to them,

so while the romans preferred to bulldoze their way through at a steady pace they were often defeated when their enemy let them do exactly that and folded them up from the flanks and rear.

the Hopolites were also vulnerable on flanks and rear,
it takes time to swing a 20 foot pike around to attack the enemy behind you.

elephants have a counter - javelins
but get the elephants stuck into heavy infantry and you have carnage

cavalry seem that they will be good for hit and run,
but die quickly if they get bogged down in an infantry style mellee

as first glance at some of the video clips it seems rushing may get you exactly where you dont want to be
- vulnerabilities exposed for enemy advantage.

we will have to wait and see.

[Aelwyn]

Quote[/b] (barocca @ July 12 2004,20:19)]Legionaries are (supposedly) vulnerable on their flanks,
depth is also important to them,

so while the romans preferred to bulldoze their way through at a steady pace they were often defeated when their enemy let them do exactly that and folded them up from the flanks and rear.
Watching the Bibactrae (if i spelled that right) Time Commanders episode, you would think different. So lets see if it ends up that way. Still, all factions won't be feasible for all MP games as I see it atm. It could be worse, but like its already been mentioned, archers seem to have great range. You compare that range to slingers and javelin units, and you have an obvious discrepancy. Another problem to me is artillery, but thats easily dealt with. Not being able to use a certain amount (maybe its 1-10 factions, who knows) in a multi-functional way will definitely limit the way MP games are played.

[Puzz3D]

It's not only ranged units that prevents rushing. The rate of fatigue and the morale level are factors as well. The morale level is very important in team games in this regard because it determines the ability of the anvil army to hold against a 2 on 1 attack long enough for the hammer army to strike. If overall morale level is too low, the hammer will never strike before the anvil routs due to the outnumbered morale penalty. However, we all know that if fatigue rate is too high or morale too high the effectiveness of maneuver tactics is greatly reduced. So, to get good gameplay there is a balancing required of ranged unit effectiveness, fatigue rate and morale level along with the speed of units and the speed with which combat between units is resolved. If you depend only on highly effective ranged units to stop the rush, you end up with PTW: Projectile Total War.

[Oaty]

As far as the archers having a long range, thats not so true and that depends on your faction some archers only have a range of 100 meters.

As far as ranged units help preventing a rush I think that is quite the opposite. Mainly due to the fact that once you are in range of being hit it is time to charge not just stand there or march at them slowly.

Of course legionaires could have something going for them here with the tortouse shell, march in under cover and then charge. Hopefully it wo'nt be to fatiging of a maneuver.

[ah_dut]

hello people, i'mnot flaming anybody but slings if historically accurate and with lead bullets will beat the rear end of archer units. so, with an increase in flanking power, rushers are screwed because they will lose a good few units to the slings, and spear inf can hold the line frontally, after that sword or axe inf go round the side and beat the crap out of the rusher, or send in the elephants https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Puzz3D]

The combat system is rather simple, and is not capable of modelling reality. I don't think you can have historically accurate units except in a rather coarse sense. For instance, loss of kinetic energy of a projectile due to drag is not modelled. This is one reason it's so hard to properly balance ranged units.


oaty,

Projectile units alone can stop a rush if they are made strong enough. What I'm saying is that it would be a mistake to make projectile units that strong, and it's not necessary either since there are other factors that work against rushing.


ah_dut,

The rusher has the same number of units as the defender, and doesn't necessarily have a tactical flanking disadvantage. Rushing is not always carried out by new players who bunch up their units and leave their flanks open. The fear is that, if the game doesn't provide enough defensive capability, then experienced players will resort to rush tactics and drive the gameplay in that direction. On the other hand, if the game offers too much defensive capability, then camping will dominate and attackers will have very little chance of winning. It's really another balance issue just like unit to unit balance is an issue and faction to faction balance is an issue. After all, the online game is presented by CA as a strictly tactical game, and therefore tactical playbalance is important. Imbalance robs the game of tactical richness.

[Spino]

I believe the developers have said on numerous occasions that they are taking greater pains to balance the armies in RTW than they did in STW and MTW. Hopefully this will eliminate the preponderance of 'rush' armies and those damn battles dominated by 'elite killer' units like Pavise Arbalesters.

Furthermore I thought RTW's battlefields were supposed to be substantially larger than those found in MTW. If true, this should be especially good news to people seeking to control of the horse heavy factions (Parthia, Numidia, Scythia, etc.) in RTW's MP games. Good luck rushing an army of horse archers and mounted javelin throwers when they have vast expanses of real estate at their disposal.