View Full Version : The Rome Total War Expansion? What do we want?
The Sword of Cao Cao
09-28-2004, 20:38
Well we've all been talking about what we want for the next TW.. But the expansion is much closer. Here lets talk about what we want for the expansion. Naturally something about the Huns and Fall of Rome seems inevaitble. But does the majority of players really want that? I dont... Anyways lets get some ideas here nad maybe show CA.
I want an ancient Middle East type thing. like Babylon and Assyria, the Rome of thier times. Plus it would be great for the Rome expansion since Egypt and Numidia is in there! Why not concentrate on thier story? Factions and units would be awesome as hell. Here are some factions for the campaign.
Assyria
Israel
Nubia
Egypt
Babylon
The Phillistines/Sea Peoples
Moab
The Caananites
The Hyksos
Now it's sounding a bit too much like a full blown game. >.< Anyone wanna improve on the idea to make it more of an expansion? Or does anyone have any other ideas?
Meneldil
09-28-2004, 20:51
Well, I'm rather thinking about something with -as you said- Huns or Goths or other barbarian invaders, or an addon that takes place in Gaul, with Francs, Gauls tribes and the first of the caesars. We could even get a super asterix unit.
Extension of the game into the Imperial Roman age. Either a continuation of it after you win the civil war, or a new 'campaign' starting as Caesar. Plenty of upgrades to units, new factions, new structures, etc. that can be put in for that.
Greece would also be a logical expansion.
Well, since CA is (loosely) sticking to history, there's not much choice. In order for there to be interesting warfare, the factions have to be at least somewhat civilized. A mob-with-clubs vs another-mob-with-clubs fight has limited tactical possibilities :-)
I think there are two interesting expansions that could be made.
One is pre-Romans, focusing on the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians and the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean crowd. Historically interesting, but probably not all that exciting from the point of view tactical warfare.
One is post-Romans, focusing on the Islamic conquest (basically, VIII century AD). The major players would involve the Arabs boiling out of the Arabian peninsula, Byzantium, Egypt, various tribes in North Africa, and dark-ages Europeans.
The Islamic Conquest expansion would tie in very well with the "invasion" theme of Totalwar expansions, would be a nice bridge between RTW and MTW, and would be tactically interesting as people will try to counter the presumably all-powerful Arab cavalry...
Fey
Merlin271
09-28-2004, 21:56
I've yet to get the game but from what I've read about the nature of it, perhaps a Third Century Crisis expansion could work.
A time when rival emperors were appearing with ridiculous speed all over the empire. Gordian for example had already been overthrown and killed by the time the Egyptians heard of his proclamation as Emperor. The player could choose from 3 rival potential Emperors (and so make use of the 3 faction system we have already)
The expansion could start in 235 AD At the end of the reign of Severus Alexander and end in 285 with accession of Diocletion and the establishment of the tetrarchy.
Each player would have their base in a seperate part of the Empire perhaps Gaul, Africa and the East. The object would be to capture Rome and eliminate your opponents while fending off increasing 'barbarian' attacks from those bordering the fragmented empire. The establishment of the Sassanid dynasty in Persia presented a dramatic threat to the eastern provinces. (This could take care of the invasion theme) This problem would be augmented by the fact that the loyalty of generals and their soldiers would be almost non-existent.
The utter chaos of the period meant that few ancient authors dealt with the period, this means that historical assertion over this period is hazy at best and so would give CA some flexibility if they have to ignore some inconvenient historical information as all information about the time can be undermined because nothing is absolutly supported.
The factions could be:
The 3 Roman rival factions
Various Germanian tribes
The Sassanid Persians
Northern British Tribes
And perhaps some Asiatic tribes from the far side of the Black Sea
Doug-Thompson
09-28-2004, 21:57
Either Alexander and the conquest of Persia, or Darius and the conquest of Greece.
Also, I'm sure CA will make more factions playable and give those factions more units, as they did in the last game.
Orvis Tertia
09-28-2004, 23:07
Wow, I'd like to see all of these ideas. How about just making them all into the biggest expansion pack known to mankind.
Another possibility would be the conquest of the British Isles. I always thought it was pretty interesting that the Romans stopped halfway and built the wall. Zooming in on the British Isles might be a neat campaign.
Thoros of Myr
09-28-2004, 23:32
Wouldent invading the British isles feel a bit like VI all over again though?
I would like to see something like fey's proposition of post-Roman era that bridges the gap from RTW to MTW.
The Sword of Cao Cao
09-28-2004, 23:41
Wouldent invading the British isles feel a bit like VI all over again though?
EXACTLY!
Me? I still love an ancient Middle East thing. After all Assyria, Babylon and Egypt were the Roman Empires of thier time...
I kind of like the Dark Ages idea, but that would be too much like Medieval again.. Then again, we could get a Medieval Total War 2, with that kind of expansion, and thus not get a SEQUEL for a new game! Leaving room for China- Ooh! sorry shameless adveritising almost got me! Hehe..
Orda Khan
09-28-2004, 23:51
Fall of Rome and the Huns
We saw them already on Time Commanders....and I feel obliged to do a better job than those pathetic Cadet Officers
....Orda
Lonewarrior
09-29-2004, 00:18
A continuation until the fall of the Roman empire will be good, but first I must buy rtw. and play it.
Apollonius
09-29-2004, 00:42
Famous last words: "We just need to get up on top of this hill! Then we'll dominate the battlefield!" ~:rolleyes: Those Cadet officers were one of the worst teams one the show (with the Telamon and Marathon folks running close behind), but at least they would have some excuse for lack of some basic tactical knowledge.
I especially like Merlin's idea for a Third Century Crisis expansion mod. This was certainly a decisive era in Roman history. The empire was quite literally brought to the brink of destruction during this period and was only brought back under control after many battles and great bloodshed. There was rampant inflation, plagues.. Emperors were being replaced at the rate of about one every two or three years (Emperor Valerian, after being captured by King Shapur of Persia, was said to have been stuffed - his body used as a throne-room trophy).. The legions were under serious pressure on the frontiers, and they lost just about as many battles as they won. Goths crossed over the black sea into Asia Minor and Greece, sacking several cities, Franks invaded Gaul and pushed all the way into Hispania before being dispersed. Dacia was completely abandoned. Breakaway provinces asserted their own authority and became semi-independent, or directly challenged Rome - like the western "Gallic Empire", or Palmyra.
Of course, all these ideas sound wonderful.. Whatever CA comes up with, I will certainly be interested in playing it.
I'd like to have actual Sea Battles in the expansion. To be able to play them out on the Battlefield.
Lord Angelus
09-29-2004, 02:31
I'd like to see the expansion focus on the switch from Rome to Constantinople during Constantine the Greats reign.
The expansion could focus on the fall of the western empire and all the religious,military and political reforms that went with it.This would also cover the rise and fall of different factions including the Persians,normans,venetians and the eventual arrival of new factions such as the arabs in Syria and the Russians in the North and the wars and to hang on to their land in the Balkans.
Recreating the struggles of the empire after the timeframe of Rome and trying to reinvigorate the ailing empire and return it to its former glory in the Byzantine era would be pretty exciting to me.
Samurai Waki
09-29-2004, 04:01
I wouldn't mind seeing a fall of rome expansion at all, I want to play as Belisarius taking back Rome and slaughering the Visigoths...and then seeing it all crumble with the invasion of the Longobards. :2thumbsup:
The Sword of Cao Cao
09-29-2004, 04:10
I'd like to have actual Sea Battles in the expansion. To be able to play them out on the Battlefield.
Possibly the best idea ever. Cept mine. :P
I would think that the two most likely options would be either an Alexander the Great mod or one centered in 200-450 AD dealing with all the eastern forces coming in such as the Goths, Visigoths, Huns and so on. Although all those troop types would be pretty similar. I guess the question is would an expansion involve a new map like Viking did for MTW? Since they did it that way last time I expect they would this time.
Well following CA previous logic for making an expansion pack campaign. It will probably be the persian invasion of greece with the miracle of marathon and the battle of thermoply and all that. That logic being
Mongol invasion (STW)- takes the start date back 250 years (1520-1270= 250)to the mongol invasion of japan under the Hojos.
Viking invasion (MTW)-takes the start date back in time almost 300 years (1087-791=296) and reduces the map to just the british ilses and makes a campagin about the pagan norse men raids into late dark age britain.
So applying similar logic to RTW 270 BC-250 years= 520 BC. This date corrisponds quite nicely to the persian invaison of the greek states. So a new camp map that focuses on the aegean and asia minor with more cities on it would not be out of the question and new factions consisting of the various greek cities as well. Another aspect of their X-pack logic is to choose a time when a completely different culture invades another. Like the Mongols in Japan or the pagan norse in britain.
The Blind King of Bohemia
09-29-2004, 16:35
A Fall of Rome and/or Alexander add on/s would make sense. I'd prefer the former though.
DisruptorX
09-29-2004, 19:02
Nubia
Nubian spearmen were my favourite unit in MTW (haven't used them yet in Rome), because they are like normal spearmen...but they are black. How cool is that?
ShadesWolf
09-29-2004, 19:29
Erm...... Sorry Guys, but this seems to be a quite silly thread ~;)
Rome is about the Rise of Rome, so the expansion will PROBABLY be about the fall of rome.
DisruptorX
09-29-2004, 19:31
Erm...... Sorry Guys, but this seems to be a quite silly thread ~;)
Rome is about the Rise of Rome, so the expansion will PROBABLY be about the fall of rome.
So visigoths it is? ~;)
haha i'm sure titles like Arab invasion and Islamic invasion would fly real well over in the marketing department.
Samurai Waki
09-29-2004, 21:14
Rome was already well done by the Time the Arabs arrived, I think the Arab invasion was around 600 AD the Fall of Rome was around 300AD to maybe near the end of the campaign you might see Arabs. I think it would more focus on the various nomads and semi nomads that moved into the area, I.E. Huns, Magyars(?), Visigoths, Goths, Berbers, Longobards, Franks, Saxons...and then the already disintegrated Western Roman Empire, would mostly be just Rome because by the time the Goths arrived Italy was just a bunch of city states vying for power. The Byzantine Empire would be the largest civilized contender...from Egypt to Constantinople. Also, a part of the expansion could focus on Charlemagne and the rise of the Holy Roman Empire ~D
Silver Rusher
09-29-2004, 21:22
I think that the most likely one will be a Hunnic Invasion... basically around the fall of Rome, with many different factions and events, as well as many new units and a catholic rome.
Fall of Rome would be fun - I like turtling and having a game where one of the challenges was merely to survive, rather than conquer the world, would be fun for me. Of course, the competing barbarian factions would have more conventional strategic goals.
There was an old Wargames Research Group board game called Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and it was great fun. It was best multiplayer though, as the barbarians had to collude to break through the frontier but then fight over the spoils. The Romans had to hang tight and try to sow division amongst their enemies. They also had a predetermined event for the East vs West Empire schism.
(a) Imperial Rome (The Caesars) to the Fall of Rome
(b) Hellenic Total War (Greeks vs persians, greeks vs greeks, alexander vs everyone, etc)
(c) Medieval Total War 2 :)
DisruptorX
09-29-2004, 22:04
(c) Medieval Total War 2 :)
Why? MTW was perfect, there is no reason for another one. ~;)
I just want MTW battles on the RTW graphics engine :D
Lord Angelus
09-29-2004, 22:17
Rome was already well done by the Time the Arabs arrived, I think the Arab invasion was around 600 AD the Fall of Rome was around 300AD to maybe near the end of the campaign you might see Arabs. I think it would more focus on the various nomads and semi nomads that moved into the area, I.E. Huns, Magyars(?), Visigoths, Goths, Berbers, Longobards, Franks, Saxons...and then the already disintegrated Western Roman Empire, would mostly be just Rome because by the time the Goths arrived Italy was just a bunch of city states vying for power. The Byzantine Empire would be the largest civilized contender...from Egypt to Constantinople. Also, a part of the expansion could focus on Charlemagne and the rise of the Holy Roman Empire ~D
The western half of the empire had fallen before the arrival of the Arabs but the term 'Byzantine' was just a term of convenience.The Eastern portion of the empire was still undeniably Roman and that did not fall until 1453.
The fact that the capitol of the empire was moved to the east was due largely to the fact that the western half had become of secondary importance to that of the East although under Justinian attempts were made to reunite the two halves.
In my opinion this would create a great basis for an expansion pack as this period is both rich in history and potential as well as keeping the Roman theme.
A campaign to both hold onto their territory in the East and the Balkans as well as the potential to reunite both East and West halves would provide a great challenge.
Regards..
Lord Angelus
09-29-2004, 22:20
Why? MTW was perfect, there is no reason for another one. ~;)
If you compare RTW with MTW then it cannot be said to be perfect.
The medieval period is the best setting for this type of game and with the addition of the new campaign map and diplomacy it would be near as dammit perfect in my eyes.
I would love to see a Medieval 2.
The Greek one would be cool against the Persians. Although the thing would be variety of units. The Greek city states really didn't have a ton of variety.
But I think the person who said Fall of Rome has it right. This game is about Rome so it would be weird not to have Rome in it. So it should be either early Rome (700-400) or the fall of Rome (200-500). Each has its advantages.
Early Rome would be the taking of Italy. You'd have Greek colonies on the coast, the Etruscans would still be powerful, Sicily would definately be under control of Greek tyrants. There are also other Italy nations such as the Samnites and such.
But I think the Fall of Rome is the most likely since it has the Huns, Goths, Visigoths and so on. Those names just have a lot more impressive a sound I think than the early one. Hence it would be easier to market. As well I would be interested in seeing how they handicap a Rome that has a lot of land and power but is decaying. Obviously that will have to be done somehow, since Rome with all its land there and under the control of a human player should be able to trample outsiders. Well I guess they could give you massive corruption and squalor problems. Have all your cities revolting and rebelling as you try to defend an invasion from multiple sides. Ouch.
Anyways either would be fun, but I think the Fall of Rome is what the expansion will be about.
Orvis Tertia
09-29-2004, 23:04
If you compare RTW with MTW then it cannot be said to be perfect.
The medieval period is the best setting for this type of game and with the addition of the new campaign map and diplomacy it would be near as dammit perfect in my eyes.
I would love to see a Medieval 2.
I second that. A Medieval 2 would be incredible. Seiges would rock. If they wanted to kick in some new features to raise the bar (as they certainly will want to do, at least a little) then they could add tactical naval combat and the ability to design your own castles and fortifications.
Well we've all been talking about what we want for the next TW.. But the expansion is much closer. Here lets talk about what we want for the expansion. Naturally something about the Huns and Fall of Rome seems inevaitble. But does the majority of players really want that? I dont... Anyways lets get some ideas here nad maybe show CA.
I want an ancient Middle East type thing. like Babylon and Assyria, the Rome of thier times. Plus it would be great for the Rome expansion since Egypt and Numidia is in there! Why not concentrate on thier story? Factions and units would be awesome as hell. Here are some factions for the campaign.
Assyria
Israel
Nubia
Egypt
Babylon
The Phillistines/Sea Peoples
Moab
The Caananites
The Hyksos
Now it's sounding a bit too much like a full blown game. >.< Anyone wanna improve on the idea to make it more of an expansion? Or does anyone have any other ideas?
this is an easy one it should address the late roman empire the split between east and west byzantium, cataphracts,Belsarius, and the retaking of the west from the barbarians such as in justinians time
this is an easy one it should address the late roman empire the split between east and west byzantium, cataphracts,Belsarius, and the retaking of the west from the barbarians such as in justinians time
you should also be able to hire pirates to affect another nations trade and just as a general nuiscence
Empedocles
09-30-2004, 18:00
Ok, here is my opinion about an expansion.
I believe we should look at a number of factors that will take part in the expansion.
First of all, past games history. In STW the expansion came as a different "Era" to play in the same map with almost the same units and graphics. Of course it added campaings, battles and lots of mongol units, but we didn't see that much of an improvement.
In MTW we saw nearly the opposite, a new map set in another time that also focused on a foreign invasion! The units where different (at least some) and it added new buildins (many), but programmers didn't change the graphics of the game that much.
The possibility of having a RTW expansion in ancient middle east or even Greece I believe isn't going to happen because it would mean the dissapearence of all those roman and barbarians units and building. Remember that in STW and in MTW we mantained most of the units!
I believe that the expansion of RTW will come between three major possibilities:
1) A Fall of Rome Expansion: set maybe after 395 AD when great migrations happened and ending in 500 AD when the feudal system have been around for many years.
2) A "Third century" crisis with many troubles in the frontiers, some migrations and many (really many) so called emperors. It could began at the death of Caracalla and last as long as diocletian and the reunification fo the empire.
3) Some map like in Viking Expansion focusing on the conquests of Trajan in Dacia and ending in Mesopotamia. It may consist of few shorter and separate campaings with the maps of the conquests of the Emperor, ending in the siege of the Persians Capital!
Of these trhee options i would discard number one because it will need of many and many changes in the unit graphics and they don't seem willing to give us the pleasure of holding the frontiers with Limitanei units!
The second one should be a nice expansion and will require of some unit changing but will use the same map and may seem a little more of the same!
I believe the winner will be option number three because it will allow you fight for glory in distant parts of the Empire, linking one campaing after the other (you should not start the Persian campaing after you have completed the Dacian campaing or the previous ones). It will not require of many changes in the graphics or the game.
Of course this could be applied to many generals being one of the most succesful that fought in every corner of the empire, the Emprero Aurelian (270-275) that reconquered Galia from the Rebeles, and the entire "Palmyran Empire" that arose in the east at the middle of the third century.
Ok, i have to work and leave discussion to other players.
Hope someone finds useful this reply.
Bye
Diego, from Argentina
PS: Justinian and other Byzantine emperors are too far away from the game to even be included.
PS: Justinian and other Byzantine emperors are too far away from the game to even be included.[/QUOTE]
the Roman Army was still much the same during thier period and the enemies had a completely different dynamic there was plenty of conquest diplomacy and battles in that Era
i would like a fall of rome/rise of eastern roman empire expansion.
Well what about the greeks? We could have a whole trojan horse thing going on, or the batlte of thermopolye, sorry if this time period already corresponds with rome but I dont think it does.
Empedocles
10-01-2004, 16:04
PS: Justinian and other Byzantine emperors are too far away from the game to even be included.
the Roman Army was still much the same during thier period and the enemies had a completely different dynamic there was plenty of conquest diplomacy and battles in that Era[/QUOTE]
I'm not a master of Byzantine warfare, but I believe your opinion is'nt correct. For example I remember that the army of Belisarius consisted mainly of some kind of personal guards of BElisarius that didn't make an oath to the Emperor or the city. Their number reached the thousands and were fierce warriors in the battlefield.
That's just an example of the problem of converting RTW to Bizantium Total War Expansion Pack.
Another one would be the organization that the "barbarians" were achiving in their armies and their semi advanced system of armouring that led to Medieval Warfare.
Diego, from Argentina
Samurai Waki
10-01-2004, 16:59
In the case of a Hunnic Invasion then the Eastern Roman Empire would probably be largely discluded, however if you are talking about the visigoths and the Longobards, as well as the Berbers than the Eastern Roman Empire would be very much involved. Remember An entire Byzantine Army(As well as the Emperor) was crushed by the Visigoths at Adrianople. Belisarius was loyal to the Emperor, not because of rank in society, but because he was within Royal Family...and his army (like all Eastern Armies) swore fealty to the emperor, I don't think a general disloyal to the Emperor would defend Rome when he was outnumbered 4 to 1.
Empedocles
10-01-2004, 18:26
I didn't say Belisarius was disloyal to the emperor. I said his bodyguards (who were the ones who won the battles) only swore loyalty to him. I have no doubt that if belisarius wanted to usurp the throne he could do it without much opossition.
And in Rome he was outnumbered but he had better troops. If one roman general would retreat from battle when he was outnumbered then we will not remember even the name of Rome!!!
Diego
DisruptorX
10-01-2004, 19:41
Well what about the greeks? We could have a whole trojan horse thing going on, or the batlte of thermopolye, sorry if this time period already corresponds with rome but I dont think it does.
That's a legend. If it was based upon a real war, it would have taken place a *really* long time before the roman empire, so it would work with RTW.
Samurai Waki
10-01-2004, 19:49
Most of Belisarius' troops were mercenaries that he had picked up from campaign-to-campaign, Although his core retained most of it's home grown troops, Belisarius was one of the first Byzantine Generals to realize the importance of mounted archers. However, I doubt he could've usurped the thrown, maybe at the beginning of his campaigns, but by the end his position in Italy was weak...and he wasn't that good of an administrator, thats why the emperor retired him. Belisarius knew his strengths, he knew he was an able commander on the battlefield but he also knew that if he attempted to Usurp the throne it would weaken Byzantium's borders substantially. As a Roman he also knew his first loyalty was the emperor...and the Emperor always held Belisarius under his direct sway considering he was his finest general...Belisarius was sort of the Rommel of his day, and although both probably desired power he also knew a coup' would be crushed immediatly.
Problem with doing it about the greeks and such is that I really don't know how well this goes with the idea of Rome Total War. If they are considering things like that, than I think the Persian invasion has a pretty good chance of being chosen. That or the campaigns of Alexander. Thing is vikings showed a lot of different factions. What period can we find that also has a lot of diverse factions? Fall of Rome I think fits it best with the Huns, Goths, Visigoths and so on. But not sure how diverse they all are.
I would say, there is no real fitting theme for an Expansion of RTW. Because it basically covers it all.
Some scenarios I could Imagine:
set a bit later:
1.) Fall of Rome: Quarrels between Western and Eastern Rome, Barbarian Invasions.
somewhat earlier:
2.) Alexander the Great: The name says it all. :)
and finally:
3.) Medieval II: Total War
An upgraded Medieval based on the RTW engine.
As Cavalry is way to go in the TW series somehow, even in the Roman Era as we just noticed...
I think the Middle Ages is simply the perfect and most fitting setting for this engine and kind of game, as some other posters already mentioned.
I think MTW2 would be cool, but I don't think it is going to happen. I think it is because people here just want the MTW time period again. But it doesn't really make sense for CA to make an expansion basically the same as a game they just made. Too close in time.
Empedocles
10-02-2004, 03:15
Wazikashi
You probably are right! In my defence I said that I was no master of Byzantium history. :bow:
Bye
Diego, from Argentina
DisruptorX
10-02-2004, 03:19
Ewwww.....no MTW 2.
*If* they fix the goofy way that units move, the unresponsive controls, units randomly ignoring you, "school of fish" cavalry, killing speeds.....or rather if they just put it back the way it was before and only putting in the new graphics that would be great.
Otherwise we will just get a medieval game that is worse than the original. I don't know why anyone would want that...
In the case of a Hunnic Invasion then the Eastern Roman Empire would probably be largely discluded, however if you are talking about the visigoths and the Longobards, as well as the Berbers than the Eastern Roman Empire would be very much involved. Remember An entire Byzantine Army(As well as the Emperor) was crushed by the Visigoths at Adrianople. Belisarius was loyal to the Emperor, not because of rank in society, but because he was within Royal Family...and his army (like all Eastern Armies) swore fealty to the emperor, I don't think a general disloyal to the Emperor would defend Rome when he was outnumbered 4 to 1.
Why would Huns disclude East Empire? Balamir extracted tribute from them in 4th C and Adrianople was a direct result of Huns. The Visigoths ran from them and were sheltered by East Empire but rebelled after bad treatment. The East Empire saw plenty of Huns and by time of Attila had lost great chunks of land to the Huns as well as lots of gold
Samurai Waki
10-02-2004, 05:59
I said the Byzantine's shouldn't be included!?!?! oops made a typing error...The Huns didn't affect the Byzantines so much as the Visigoths did...seeing as the Emperor payed Attila tribute to not invade the Balkans. However, the Byzantine's did spawn Alaric...who although sacked Rome ended up preserving Roman Culture when his subordinates moved into Spain...Alaric is probably responsible for Catholic Spain the way we know it. However, in the Early Barbarian Invasions Byzantium did little, by the time the Barbarians were comfortable...and the Huns gone, thats when they acted. The core of the Byzantine Army was almost always made up of Barbarian Mercenaries...especially the Avars.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.