Peek at RTW:BI

[Camp Freddie]

Someone posted this link at the COM:

EDIT - NO SCANS - Cat

It's not much but still...

I think it sounds good. I like the 'new historical events'. Moving population around could be cool too.
MTW:VI seemed way too generic, simply, "Off you go, here's some Vikings to beat up if you want".

I guess religion will play more of a part too, since the Roman Catholic Church had been set up by the time of the barbarian invasions. It'll be interesting to see how this is handled.

[Dark_Magician]

Death to the capita.. err roman pigs! Rob the robbers! All barbarians - unite!

a missed a "mongol invasion" to stir things up in the middle. Yeah, some 12 full stacks of units appearing in the middle would definitly offer a challenge

[econ21]

Sounds excellent - from the subject matter, this must surely be a much more substantial expansion than MI and even VI. If we get to playout the decline and fall of Rome on the RTW strategic map, it would be more like a new game than an expansion.

[marcusbrutus]

Looks like they'll be tieing up a few loose ends and completing unfinished work with the expansion pack.

[sunsmountain]

Grrrr. Night battles. That should have been a default feature in the main game. Oh well. If they make the AI moddable, or they can prove the AI is better, i'll perhaps buy it.

[Puzz3D]

I wonder what kind of machine you need to get 10 fps for that picture.

[tibilicus]

Looks good. I wonder if Romw will actually be able to do anything other thand die i.e actually win in this game......

[Conqueror]

I hope they fix the big bugs we have now, so it might actually be worth buying. The whole barbarian invasion thing just sounds boring, I would have much preferred a campaign for Alexander's conquests and/or the following wars of his successors :sleeping:

And it doesn't matter if the romans can't win, they've turned christian so they've lost most of their appeal anyway :devil:

[Red Harvest]

Sounds excellent - from the subject matter, this must surely be a much more substantial expansion than MI and even VI. If we get to playout the decline and fall of Rome on the RTW strategic map, it would be more like a new game than an expansion.

Considering that the base RTW has a single campaign/period, BI has a lot of ground to make up. And the problems with RTW run deeper as well. This looks more like the missing half or RTW than an expansion pack to me. VI had a completely new campaign map and campaign in addition to its updates of other three campaigns on the normal map.

I have to agree with others that the barbarian invasion phase historically is less interesting to me than Alexander, etc.

[Craterus]

Look's good, but Alexander would have been cool too but remember Alexander died 60 years before Roman Empire and it kinda loses the theme if you were to add him in. Unless you are talking about a historical campaign? ~D

[tibilicus]

Ye bring back the historical campaigns! C.A people if your there bring them back please !

[econ21]

Considering that the base RTW has a single campaign/period, BI has a lot of ground to make up. And the problems with RTW run deeper as well. This looks more like the missing half or RTW than an expansion pack to me. VI had a completely new campaign map and campaign in addition to its updates of other three campaigns on the normal map.

I think the single period deficiency for RTW is offset by the fact that the different factions in RTW have more character than those in MTW - especially in terms of army styles. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect the rise and fall of Rome to be covered in a single game (esp. with half-yearly turns!). I don't feel short-changed by the scope of RTW - certainly it covers much more ground than STW. I'm hoping CA do smuggle in some different starting periods to RTW, as they did to STW in the MI add-on. But I rather suspect what I'll value most in the expansion is the patch to the existing Imperial campaign. That was certainly for me of MI and VI. I can hope though.


I have to agree with others that the barbarian invasion phase historically is less interesting to me than Alexander, etc.

Well, tastes differ but personally I find the fall of Rome fascinating. Did anyone here ever try the old boardgame "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by the Wargames Research Group? It was multi-player, but was fun with the barbarians colluding to break through the frontiers and then squabbling over the gains. I'm a rather defensive player and really like it when the AI comes gunning for me, so if they were to make trying to hold the Empire a real challenge, it would be awesome. A big if, I admit, as the Vikings in VI and the Mongols in STW were not as scarey as they could have been. The huge stacks of Mongols in MTW were pretty neat though.

[Puzz3D]

Considering that the base RTW has a single campaign/period, BI has a lot of ground to make up. And the problems with RTW run deeper as well. This looks more like the missing half or RTW than an expansion pack to me. VI had a completely new campaign map and campaign in addition to its updates of other three campaigns on the normal map.

I have to agree with others that the barbarian invasion phase historically is less interesting to me than Alexander, etc.
I would have prefered Alexander as well. However, CA can't seem to figure out how to make the phalanx work effectively with this battle engine, so an add-on based on Alexander's campaigns would be quite problematic. Also, CA would have to go to turns of much shorter duration for a game about Alexander's campaigns, and there is no way the game engine could handle even a small fraction of the number of troops involved in Alexander's battles.

[Divinus Arma]

Great job on posting his. Thank you!

[Bhruic]

I wonder what kind of machine you need to get 10 fps for that picture.

Probably almost any machine will do, as that's likely part of the new intro movie. I mean, how psyched were you when you saw the opening to RTW, only to find out you'd never actually have that many units in a battle?

Bh

[Red Harvest]

I think the single period deficiency for RTW is offset by the fact that the different factions in RTW have more character than those in MTW - especially in terms of army styles. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect the rise and fall of Rome to be covered in a single game (esp. with half-yearly turns!). I don't feel short-changed by the scope of RTW - certainly it covers much more ground than STW.



I do feel short changed in RTW with respect to periods. In RTW we effectively have one period vs. three in MTW. I don't see the variety of units, because everything is happening in the earliest phase. The game is effectively over before signature units take the field even in the early period. I don't see much difference in terms of army composition style between RTW and MTW--in both you have major "culture types" with shared units. In MTW you have more region & culture specific units, rather than just culture/religion specific ones.

How could CA miss out on doing a detailed "early Rome" period and map with Etruscans, Samnites, etc.? A rise of Epirus (ala Switzerland or the Mongols) as a regional force would be interesting. It is just a shame. Looks like CA got limited by the number of factions, etc. I can understand not wanting to step back all the way to Alexander, but making a more regional map about the time of the Samnite wars seems obvious. RTW screams out for at least three major campaigns before the barbarian invasion: early Roman expansion into all of the italian peninsula, Rome of the Punic Wars, Rome around the time of Marius.

[Diadochoi]

there is no way the game engine could handle even a small fraction of the number of troops involved in Alexander's battles.


Other than some artificially inflated Persian armies at Guagamela and Issus, I'd say the army sizes aren't significantly different than what the Romans dealt with (and thus what is represented in the game)

[Rubber Ducky]

There is a simliar at topic at twcenter with a few more screenshots :

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28530

Note the original post with the link to the source. It was pulled down very quickly. Personally, after been bitten by CA, I am very cautious where others are proclaiming (and assumed) it would fix the current bugs.

I suspect it is a hoax by some crazy goon to spread misinformation and raise false hopes. That's why the source site is pulled down so quickly, by CA I presume. The screenshots can be edited with existing RTW, and the campaign map (terribly blurred) with the UI looks exactly like what we have now.

Well I wouldn't want to leave out the possibility that it is legit, since it looks good on paper. From now on I'll be keeping a close eye on CA's promises/features for BI, if when I need proof and decided to be the next "boycott" campaign leader against CA's products ~D Anyone care to join me?

[screwtype]

Mr Simpson did not mention the three magic words I'm waiting to hear: "Improved battle AI".

I have a sense we're not going to get it. They are going to fiddle around the edges and add a new map and campaign - which any modder could achieve - along with yet more chrome. "New traits"! Oh yeah, I'm so hanging out for more V&V's.

They're not going to fix the battle AI because most of the schlubs who bought RTW think the game is great already, so they won't be wasting their time trying to please the more demanding gamers.

But if they've taken the easy way out again and just resprayed the paintwork instead of fixing the engine, I might have to start looking for a new means of locomotion.

[Puzz3D]

Probably almost any machine will do, as that's likely part of the new intro movie. I mean, how psyched were you when you saw the opening to RTW, only to find out you'd never actually have that many units in a battle?

Bh
And how many people do you think are going to believe that's a picture of the intro movie? Come on, most are going to think it's playable, and that's what CA's marketing department is counting on. I want to know what kind of machine is needed to get 10 fps, 20 fps and 30 fps for the scenario pictured when actually playing the game.

[Puzz3D]

Other than some artificially inflated Persian armies at Guagamela and Issus, I'd say the army sizes aren't significantly different than what the Romans dealt with (and thus what is represented in the game)
Take away the inflated figures, and the game still can't handle it. Alexander had about 40,000 troops. The game can't handle it. The game can't handle the battle of Cannae which was the subject of a History Channel Decisive Battles Program using the RTW engine. There is clearly a conscious effort being made to make the game appear to be able to do things that it can't.

[lars573]

Well on RTW heaven I saw what looked like someone leaking info and screens of B.I. It was a link to another forum and it was gone in 3 hours. This leak named new factions, new features, new units, and had some screens to back it up.

[Brutus]

And it doesn't matter if the romans can't win, they've turned christian so they've lost most of their appeal anyway :devil:
Maybe it's contrary to popular belief, but many of the invading Barbarians were Christians too...

[Marcus Maxentius]

I think some of those pix are scanned from materials handed out at business conventions, thus are not for the general public to see until they go in a regular magazine or you read about it on gamespy.

[lars573]

Yeah the screens I saw looked like scans. And they had some kind of logo plastered all over them. But what came through clearly was the western (red) and eastern (senate purple) Roman empires. Plus the Saxons, Franks, Alemanii, Vandals, Goths, and Sassanids.

[Colovion]

I've said it and I"ll say it again.

That picture blows. It looks like peasants showing up to see fireworks, not a savage tribe of foreign conquerers raping Rome.

I mean I know I"m supposed to suspend my disbelief when I play games, but don't show me a square and tell me it's a cube.

[Viking]

The link at top says that ALL factions will be given new units and tech trees. ~:eek:

I would really liked to see that in real life! ~:cool:

@Colovion

True enough. It looked like those peasants came from Carthage, not germania.

[lismore]

Hi

What happens if you have modded the original game?

:dizzy2:

[Diadochoi]

Take away the inflated figures, and the game still can't handle it. Alexander had about 40,000 troops. The game can't handle it. The game can't handle the battle of Cannae which was the subject of a History Channel Decisive Battles Program using the RTW engine. There is clearly a conscious effort being made to make the game appear to be able to do things that it can't.

You don't want to handle 40,000 troops in this type of game, you'd be using the pause button so much it would cease to be RTS. Not to mention the camera would be impossible to use on a battle line miles long.

I'm perfectly fine with the way they scaled it down to maybe a 30,000-40000 large historical army being represented by 2000 in game units (at least on huge unit size mode).

[Suraknar]

I guess religion will play more of a part too, since the Roman Catholic Church had been set up by the time of the barbarian invasions.

Ahem, The Roman Catholic Church as we know it only got established at 1023 AD.

Hardly existing by the Hun Invasions.

The First Established Church of Christiandom was the Christian Orthodox Church, which was established after Emperor Constantine made the Christian Faith the Official Religion of the Empire at 327 AD.

All the way up to the Event which is known as the "Great Schism" of 1023, and separated the Catholic Sect from the Orthodox Church and made it a Church of its own based in Rome.

The Orthodox Church of Constantinopole continued on with the Patriarch as part of the Byzantine Empire and most of the Eastern Christian World until Constantinopole fell to the Ottoman Turks in the 1300's, and the Orthodox Church became fragmented as the Patriarch seat was transfered to Russia, and the remaining Nations answering to Constantinopole became Autocephale, (self Governing) until today...

Of Cource, the Roman Catholic Church has enjoyed Unity up to today, except Protestantism and Anglicanism which themselvs separated from its authority.

So If we even see anything Catholic in this expansion it would be highly anachronistic and ahistorical.

Thank you

[Diadochoi]

Ahem, The Roman Catholic Church as we know it only got established at 1023 AD.

Hardly existing by the Hun Invasions.

The First Established Church of Christiandom was the Christian Orthodox Church, which was established after Emperor Constantine made the Christian Faith the Official Religion of the Empire at 327 AD.

All the way up to the Event which is known as the "Great Schism" of 1023, and separated the Catholic Sect from the Orthodox Church and made it a Church of its own based in Rome.

The Orthodox Church of Constantinopole continued on with the Patriarch as part of the Byzantine Empire and most of the Eastern Christian World until Constantinopole fell to the Ottoman Turks in the 1300's, and the Orthodox Church became fragmented as the Patriarch seat was transfered to Russia, and the remaining Nations answering to Constantinopole became Autocephale, (self Governing) until today...

Of Cource, the Roman Catholic Church has enjoyed Unity up to today, except Protestantism and Anglicanism which themselvs separated from its authority.

So If we even see anything Catholic in this expansion it would be highly anachronistic and ahistorical.

Thank you

This is splitting hairs. The christian church certainly had a good deal of power in the late and post roman period, regardless of the particular label.

[pezhetairoi]

eh? where'd the link go? It doesn't load now, only says EDIT-NO SCANS. What's that mean?

[Catiline]

It's quite straight forward. Scans are an infringement of a magazine's copyright. As such their notionally no different to pirated or warez games, and we don't allow links to them.

[The Storyteller]

How could CA miss out on doing a detailed "early Rome" period and map with Etruscans, Samnites, etc.? A rise of Epirus (ala Switzerland or the Mongols) as a regional force would be interesting. It is just a shame. Looks like CA got limited by the number of factions, etc. I can understand not wanting to step back all the way to Alexander, but making a more regional map about the time of the Samnite wars seems obvious. RTW screams out for at least three major campaigns before the barbarian invasion: early Roman expansion into all of the italian peninsula, Rome of the Punic Wars, Rome around the time of Marius.

Agreed. The game is boring because the enemies of Rome are never allowed to become the threat they actually were in those days. There are so many possible time periods to play in, and Rome's position would still be essentially unchanged. In most times, it would be broke.

In the Marian period alone there are several options:

Rome in its war against Numidia

Rome in its war against the Germans

Rome in its war against the Italians

Rome in it's war against Pontus

Rome in its civil war between Lucius Cornelius and Marius

Rome in its war against Spain


I really dislike having to sit through years of pre Marian shuffling around.

[Camp Freddie]

Some quick apologies:

1) Sorry for the scan, Cat. Didn't realise it was against the rules.

2) Yeah, I should have said orthodox church. For some reason I thought it was the roman catholic church first, that split into orth/RC rather than the orthodox first. Guess I was just thinking Roman empire = Roman Catholic. D'oh!

I wonder what bonuses the Christian churches will give, and what other effects they might have. I'd guess it's law and hapiness, since the slaves were placated by the Christian version of heaven (where they wouldn't still serve their Roman masters in the afterlife) and Chrisitanity was used to unite the Roman people.

Perhaps you can recruit a battlefield Jeebus at pantheon level. He can walk across rivers for a sneaky ambush and gives a Lazarus bonus to healed casualties after a battle!

Seriously though, I expect we'll have some sort of Christian missionaries for spreading dissent among enemies and acting as a kind of super-spy. I think battlefield priests would be a bit much!

[Romeus Petrus]

Ahem, The Roman Catholic Church as we know it only got established at 1023 AD.

Hardly existing by the Hun Invasions.

The First Established Church of Christiandom was the Christian Orthodox Church, which was established after Emperor Constantine made the Christian Faith the Official Religion of the Empire at 327 AD.

All the way up to the Event which is known as the "Great Schism" of 1023, and separated the Catholic Sect from the Orthodox Church and made it a Church of its own based in Rome.

The Orthodox Church of Constantinopole continued on with the Patriarch as part of the Byzantine Empire and most of the Eastern Christian World until Constantinopole fell to the Ottoman Turks in the 1300's, and the Orthodox Church became fragmented as the Patriarch seat was transfered to Russia, and the remaining Nations answering to Constantinopole became Autocephale, (self Governing) until today...

Of Cource, the Roman Catholic Church has enjoyed Unity up to today, except Protestantism and Anglicanism which themselvs separated from its authority.

So If we even see anything Catholic in this expansion it would be highly anachronistic and ahistorical.

Thank you
Byzantium fell in 1453 to the Turks. The Patriarch of Constantinople still exists and has his followers of the Orthodox faith, he is very separate from the Russian Orthodox Patriarch in Russia.

[Brutus]

Ahem, The Roman Catholic Church as we know it only got established at 1023 AD.

Hardly existing by the Hun Invasions.

The First Established Church of Christiandom was the Christian Orthodox Church, which was established after Emperor Constantine made the Christian Faith the Official Religion of the Empire at 327 AD.

All the way up to the Event which is known as the "Great Schism" of 1023, and separated the Catholic Sect from the Orthodox Church and made it a Church of its own based in Rome.

The Orthodox Church of Constantinopole continued on with the Patriarch as part of the Byzantine Empire and most of the Eastern Christian World until Constantinopole fell to the Ottoman Turks in the 1300's, and the Orthodox Church became fragmented as the Patriarch seat was transfered to Russia, and the remaining Nations answering to Constantinopole became Autocephale, (self Governing) until today...

Of Cource, the Roman Catholic Church has enjoyed Unity up to today, except Protestantism and Anglicanism which themselvs separated from its authority.

So If we even see anything Catholic in this expansion it would be highly anachronistic and ahistorical.

Thank you
Both Roman Catholic church and Orthodox church would be wrong. Just 'Christian' would be better, although one could call the main church either 'orthodox' or 'catholic' to represent it's universal claims and set it apart from several other (heretical) churches at the time, such as the Arianic (to which many Germanics belonged, including the Goths and the Vandals) and the Pelagianic church. The name would have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches as we call them today.

By the way, if I'm correct, the Great Schism did 'officially' occur in 1054, not in 1023.

[lars573]

Both Roman Catholic church and Orthodox church would be wrong. Just 'Christian' would be better, although one could call the main church either 'orthodox' or 'catholic' to represent it's universal claims and set it apart from several other (heretical) churches at the time, such as the Arianic (to which many Germanics belonged, including the Goths and the Vandals) and the Pelagianic church. The name would have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches as we call them today.

By the way, if I'm correct, the Great Schism did 'officially' occur in 1054, not in 1023.

Actually they would be better off naming them after the 5 patriachates of the early church. You see in the time frame BI inhabits there were 5 orthodox christian uhh, systems that's a good way to put it, and just as many or more heterodox beleifs. So they could keep the different tmeples give different bonuses by having 5 different churches that do different things.

The 5 heads of the early church were,
The Patriarch of Rome (survives today as the Catholic church)
The Patriarch of Constantinople ( " " Greek orthodox church)
The Patriarch of Antioch ( " " Syrian orthdox)
The Patriarch of Jerusalem
The Patriarch of Alexandria (" " Coptic christians)

The Patriarch of Rome was generally regarded as the head of the church.

[Kraxis]

Actually they would be better off naming them after the 5 patriachates of the early church. You see in the time frame BI inhabits there were 5 orthodox christian uhh, systems that's a good way to put it, and just as many or more heterodox beleifs. So they could keep the different tmeples give different bonuses by having 5 different churches that do different things.

The 5 heads of the early church were,
The Patriarch of Rome (survives today as the Catholic church)
The Patriarch of Constantinople ( " " Greek orthodox church)
The Patriarch of Antioch ( " " Syrian orthdox)
The Patriarch of Jerusalem
The Patriarch of Alexandria (" " Coptic christians)

The Patriarch of Rome was generally regarded as the head of the church.
Hmmm... What I had understood was that the Pope was 'merely' archbishop of Rome and thus a level lower, and effectively nothing special at all. He only entered the important political scene when he crowned Charlemagne and 'granted' him the title of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

[lars573]

Hmmm... What I had understood was that the Pope was 'merely' archbishop of Rome and thus a level lower, and effectively nothing special at all. He only entered the important political scene when he crowned Charlemagne and 'granted' him the title of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

I'm sure they all did start out as arch-bishops. But as the church grew in size higher levels of orginazation would be required. Also Pope comes from Patriarch. And anyone who says that the Pope is "merely" the arch bishop of Rome is down on the Papacy in general. And your very right the Pope as a political figure was highest when he made Chuckles the best Emperor. But it started when Pepin donated the exchartate from Rome to Ravenna to the Papacy to rule, the territory of the Papacy from MTW is the land I'm speaking of.

[SwordsMaster]

Actually they would be better off naming them after the 5 patriachates of the early church. You see in the time frame BI inhabits there were 5 orthodox christian uhh, systems that's a good way to put it, and just as many or more heterodox beleifs. So they could keep the different tmeples give different bonuses by having 5 different churches that do different things.

The 5 heads of the early church were,
The Patriarch of Rome (survives today as the Catholic church)
The Patriarch of Constantinople ( " " Greek orthodox church)
The Patriarch of Antioch ( " " Syrian orthdox)
The Patriarch of Jerusalem
The Patriarch of Alexandria (" " Coptic christians)

The Patriarch of Rome was generally regarded as the head of the church.


Well, technically, when the cism occurred and a pope appeared in Avignon, Constantinople was the last remainder of the Roman Empire. And as the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized a Patriarch in Moskow, then technically, after the fall of Constantinople, Moskow was the Heir of the Roman Empire´s church. So when the westerners restored the pope, they just picked one to have their own pope.

[Kraxis]

I'm sure they all did start out as arch-bishops. But as the church grew in size higher levels of orginazation would be required. Also Pope comes from Patriarch. And anyone who says that the Pope is "merely" the arch bishop of Rome is down on the Papacy in general. And your very right the Pope as a political figure was highest when he made Chuckles the best Emperor. But it started when Pepin donated the exchartate from Rome to Ravenna to the Papacy to rule, the territory of the Papacy from MTW is the land I'm speaking of.
I never said the Pope IS merely an arch-bishop, he is one but that is not all, I said he WAS. And Pope comes not from Patriarch but Father (Papa in latin). And Father is the title and was the title of clergy.
And Pepin only got those lands to give because the Lombards had been encroaching on Papal lands or should we say lands of the church. So he just gave back what had been theirs from the start. But obviously his rescue of a place somewhat far away put the interest into people, "what kind of place is that? It must be important and its leader equally important."

[pezhetairoi]

man, i'm learning more about my own religion here than my catechism ever taught me. Keep going people!

[lars573]

I never said the Pope IS merely an arch-bishop, he is one but that is not all, I said he WAS. And Pope comes not from Patriarch but Father (Papa in latin). And Father is the title and was the title of clergy.
And Pepin only got those lands to give because the Lombards had been encroaching on Papal lands or should we say lands of the church. So he just gave back what had been theirs from the start. But obviously his rescue of a place somewhat far away put the interest into people, "what kind of place is that? It must be important and its leader equally important."

What do you think Patriarch derives from, why father that's what. Father in latin is Pater IIRC. I found a couple paragraphs to illustrate my point better, They come from an execllent history site (provided you can live with the authors hardcore conservatism) http://www.friesian.com/philhist.htm (to find my quote scroll down till you find patriarch of Antioch)


The antiquity of the Papacy is perhaps often forgotten when it comes to the monuments of Rome. The mediaeval Popes did not live in the Vatican, but in the Lateran Palace, which had been seized from its private owners by, of all people, the Emperor Nero. Constantine then donated it to the Bishop of Rome and built adjacent to it the church of San Giovanni in Laterno, which has remained ever since the actual episcopal church of Rome (not St. Peter's). Most of the mediaeval Church councils in Rome are thus "Lateran" Councils, held at the Pope's residence (as the last two Councils have been "Vatican" Councils). Later, while the Popes were in Avignon, the Palace burned twice, in 1307 and 1361. Although the Palace was rebuilt, when the Popes returned, they never lived there again, settling at Santa Maria in Trastevere, then at Santa Maria Maggiore (also ancient; built in 432), and finally, as we all know, at the Vatican. What was left of the ancient Lateran Palace was removed by Sixtus V, who then built the smaller existing building.

Although the Pope had been the de facto governor of Rome for a few years, the Donation of Pepin in 754 begins the formal history of the Papacy as a territorial power. This would last until 1870, giving the Papal States a run of 1116 years. The original terms of the grant were for the "Exarchate of Ravenna," i.e. the Roman Imperial territory that was preserved across central Italy after the invasion of Lombards in 568. The most important parts of this were, of course, Rome itself and the area of Romagna around Ravenna in the north, with a narrow salient connecting them.

The ability of the Popes to control the outlying territories, or even Rome itself, was, however, very uneven. Rome was often under the control of turbulent local aristocrats, and one reason for the Papal relocation to Avignon was to escape them. After the return of the Popes to Rome, it was some time before the territorial fortunes could be restored. The son of Alexander VI, Cesare Borgia, then conquered Romagna. This was for his own benefit; but the deaths of him and his father (who was perhaps trying to poison someone else) and the accession of the warrior Pope Julius II resulted in its being secured for the Papacy. Avignon was still a Papal possession, and there were some outlying holdings in Italy, like Benevento. This arrangement was then fairly stable until the French Revolution, when Avignon was lost, the Papal States temporarily annexed, and the Pope himself eventually imprisoned by Napoleon. The restorations of 1815 returned the Papal Italian territories, until the period of the unification of Italy, 1859-1870. This formally ended the political independence of the Papacy until the Concordat with Mussolini in 1929 recognized the sovereignty of the Vatican City.

The Donation of Pepin and the subsequent crowning of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor gave the Popes ideas. A document was manufactured, the "Donation of Constantine," whereby secular authority over the entire Western Roman Empire had been given to the Pope by Constantine the Great. This became the basis of Mediaeval Papal claims of authority over all secular rulers in Francia. Papal claims were occasionally enforced with some success, against the Emperors and even against the Kings of France and England; but they came to a bad end when Boniface VIII had to face the ruthlessness of King Philip IV of France. The subsequent Babylonian Captivity and Great Schism, not to mention the Reformation and the exposure of the Donation of Constantine as a forgery, put the Papacy at such disadvantages that it never again had as much leverage as before over secular rulers.

[Suraknar]

How interesting to see this topic take off ;)

Lets take this backwards now...

Well the Patriarch of Constantinopole was the Head of the Church and over the other Patriarchs, in the west, a patriarch was refered to as Pope, a more litinised version.

When Constantinopole Fell, the Patriarch actually fled to Russia and continued there the Byzantine Orthodox Church, the new Patriarch that remained in Constantinopole became the head of the newly formed Greek Orthodox Church under Ottoman domination...

I did mention in my first reply that the Orthodox Church got fragmented and every region of its influence became autocephale, just like the Greek Orthodox Church became its own Church no longer linked with the Byzantine that moved its seat in Russia and the rest.

Prior to the fall of the Orthodox Church...

There were Ecoumenic Missions where Patriarchs from different places would meet and lay down what is "Church Cannon", anyone not adhering to this thereafter declared a Heretic.

Such a mission happened in Nicea at 1023, and this time there was big argument, the Patriarch of Rome (aka Pope) and followers wanted to push for the Pope to be considered as the Representative of God Upon Earth, the Patriarch of Constantinopole and followers would not accept this, another point of disagreement was to consider Mary, mother of Jesus equally divine in nature... amongst other things.

The disagreements of this Ecoumenic Mission led to the Great Shism, in which the western Patriarchies separated themselves from the Leadership of Constantinopole, and established the Roman Catholic Church...

I agree that when Emperor Constantine converted to the Christian faith, it was established as simply the Christian Church, it touk many Ecoumenic Missions and effort to evolve to the Orthodox Church, but Orthodox Church it was and Catholic came much later.

So, back to our topic on the expansion, yes the Christian faith should indeed play an Important Role.

Albeit it may play a role that you are not expecting... ;)

The Irony of it all you see is that the Christian Faith would not have been present today, if Constantine, had not been Victorious over the Tetrarchy that Dioclitian put in place.

Even Licinius, who was allied to Constantine and helped in defeating Maximinus, started persecuting Christians shortly thereafter, which forced Constantine to go again in to war, making him thus the sole Emperor of Rome once more.

And as this Sole Emperor, Constantine the Great, moved the Empire's Capital from Latium to Byzantium, and the new Capital was no longer Rome, but rather Constantinopole.

Only fitting for the Head of the newly forming Christian Church to seat in that Capital...

[Kraxis]

Ah yes, Pater... Father, that is true.
But given that the translation of Pater Familias is Patriarch (of the family) it begs the question why the Pope is named differently. Pater qould easily have been retained.

And I'm far from convinced that the Pope was from day 1 considered superior to the others, especially given that Constantine and his successors wanted to concentrate power with themselves as well as prestige. You can't do that if you let a guy in a far away city be the leading religious figure, you do that by getting him to sit at your feet, and that was what they did to the Patriarch of Constantinople.
As time went on and the power of the east waned and thus couldn't protect the west the Pope of course needed to step out of the darkness and take the reigns, even if at first only locally.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Depicting Christians as one eastern and one western part isn't entirely wrong, as the church had its first schisms already during the fall of rome period, and was partly used as a power tool. There were many conflicts within the church already by 400 AD. However, if you want a visual/nominal kind of realism it would be wrong to officially label these as orthodox and catholics, but game technology-wise I wouldn't consider it entirely wrong, as it would take part in making the public order lower (due to religious disagreements) if one roman faction conquered cities of the other faction.

[Bhruic]

Here's what he passed along, based on a preview in their current issue:

The expansion pack's called Rome: Total War - Barbarian Invasion and is set well after Rome: Total War spanning the years 364AD to 476AD. You can play as one of the Barbarian factions (including the Vandals, Saxons and Huns) and take revenge against the Roman Empire, or as the Western and Eastern Roman empires attempting to drive back the Barbarians. The big new feature is the addition of night-time battles, but lighter troops - including cavalry - can now also swim across rivers. There are also a load of new units to look forward to.

That's from PC Zone.

Bh

[Colovion]

Arg. If Rivers can be swam across now - that makes it so that rivers like the Danube can be swam across in 1 minute?

I hope they do something about the actual size of rivers as that would be really lame - just swim across the Nile in half a minute and flank the enemy holding the other side.

CA? what's up?

[Kraxis]

Colovion can you not imagine the AI actually acting as in a normal battle? It will screen your infantry and cavalry trying to swim across and beat them up as they come out. I doubt it will be effective, at least not that much.

[Puzz3D]

"The big new feature is the addition of night-time battles"

So this is the big new feature of the add-on? That's great!

[metatron]

man, i'm learning more about my own religion here than my catechism ever taught me. Keep going people!Yeah, about half of these "facts" are lies or embellishments, so don't put too much stock in it.

[Colovion]

Colovion can you not imagine the AI actually acting as in a normal battle? It will screen your infantry and cavalry trying to swim across and beat them up as they come out. I doubt it will be effective, at least not that much.

regardless, rivers were basically mountains as to the ability that commanders had of ferrying troops back and forth along their banks

however, I believe that rivers should be able to be forded in say... a turn. You would set up your "river crossing" as a siege-like aspect, and then the following year you would be across the river. Of course a flood could wash away your whole army, so that would have to be factored in as well.

[Colovion]

Yeah, about half of these "facts" are lies or embellishments, so don't put too much stock in it.

then please, don't keep your facts to yourself

you only sound pompous and closed to intelligent debate when you make bold statements such as those

[Quietus]

Here's an interesting RTW: BI blip. Note the comment I put on bold and italics. Does this mean the AI has been reworked somehow? ~:confused:
(source: Computer And Video Games website (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=117976) )

Tuesday 3rd May 2005
ROME: TOTAL WAR EXPANDS - FIRST OFFICIAL INFO

Barbarian Invasion expansion pack pushes Creative Assembly's empire to the limits

16:43 Mouse-wielding historical strategy fans got a shot in the arm last week when a listing for a Rome: Total War expansion pack popped up on US retailer websites.

Thanks to the latest issue of PC Zone magazine we can now reveal that the expansion pack will be called Rome: Total War - Barbarian Invasion and focus on the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of the rampaging hordes.

The action of Barbarian Invasion is set after the final stages of Rome: Total War, during the period 364AD to 476AD. The once great Roman Empire is teetering on the brink of anarchy. The Eastern and Western fringes of the Empire have split and internal ructions threaten to tear it apart

Amidst this chaos the restless barbarian tribes of Europe and the Middle East smell blood. It's time for them to rise up and reclaim the land taken from them in the name of the Emperor - or invade Europe and establish a glorious empire of their own.

Barbarian Invasion will let you take control of either the struggling Roman Empire or one of a horde of barbarian forces. If you choose Rome you'll have to repel attacks on all fronts, reunite your armies, and hold the Empire together. If you choose a barbarian force you'll have to protect your homeland while invading the territory of Rome before enemy tribes can snatch it.

Barbarian tribes such as the Vandals, the Huns and the Saxons will be playable. Each will offer a different play experience and require different tactics to succeed. The Huns, for instance, are large in number and nomadic, letting them attack quickly; while the Vandals require rapid expansion from early settlements to succeed.

All new historically-accurate units and weapons are promised for every faction, as well as the addition of morale-sapping moonlight attacks. And directing everything like a true general is Creative Assembly's awesome combat AI system, which ensures that every battle is a unique exercise in brain-boggling military tactics.

The latest issue of PC Zone has much more information on Rome: Total War - Barbarian Invasion, including brand new screenshots and an interview with the expansion pack's producer at Creative Assembly. It's on sale now, so flank the newsagent at will.

Graeme Boyd

[Conqueror]

I think it's just advertisement BS and the AI will be dumb as usual. What I find confusing is how it mentions you can control the roman empire. Does this mean it's represented as single faction instead of east & west being separate?

[Colovion]

did we not recieve the, seemingly patented, Creative Assembly's awesome combat AI system or yes I reiterate that question - has something been reworked?

helooooo

[Rodion Romanovich]

I think it's just advertisement BS and the AI will be dumb as usual. What I find confusing is how it mentions you can control the roman empire. Does this mean it's represented as single faction instead of east & west being separate?

A little further up it says something like: "and the roman empire is divided in two parts bla bla.". I think that means it'll be west and east rome.

[Puzz3D]

Originally Posted by Computer And Video Games website
Tuesday 3rd May 2005
ROME: TOTAL WAR EXPANDS - FIRST OFFICIAL INFO

"All new historically-accurate units and weapons are promised for every faction, as well as the addition of morale-sapping moonlight attacks. And directing everything like a true general is Creative Assembly's awesome combat AI system, which ensures that every battle is a unique exercise in brain-boggling military tactics."

Creative Assembly has already stated on several occasions that they don't make units in the game historically accurate. They also take the position that players who want historical accuracy are "hardcore" gamers and not their target market. Whatever historical elements there are in the game are intentionally tailored to popular misconceptions of history which is why you can't get CA to make any changes by arguing that it would make the game more historically accurate.

[Spino]

Originally Posted by Computer And Video Games website
Tuesday 3rd May 2005
ROME: TOTAL WAR EXPANDS - FIRST OFFICIAL INFO

"All new historically-accurate units and weapons are promised for every faction, as well as the addition of morale-sapping moonlight attacks. And directing everything like a true general is Creative Assembly's awesome combat AI system, which ensures that every battle is a unique exercise in brain-boggling military tactics."
~:confused:

Brain boggling indeed. Each time I fight the AI my mind is truly boggled by the depths of its incompetency.

Someone smack the gimp who wrote that blurb! :furious3:

[Paul Peru]

morale-sapping moonlight attacks
:dizzy2:
Morale is whey-hey-hey too low in vanilla as it is.
(Having lovely battles in SPQR mod, though the brain still boggles some ~:cheers: )

[Leet Eriksson]

Was Belisarius in this time period?

I want to trash barbarians ~;p

100 years is not alot, it would have been cooler to extend it to the Arab conquests, that would make my day.

[Grifman]

I do feel short changed in RTW with respect to periods.

How were you shortchanged? Did you willingly buy the game knowing what it was like or did CA fool you in some way, or twist your arm into buying the game? Did you sign a contract with them for them to develop the game to your specifications?


In RTW we effectively have one period vs. three in MTW.

The periods are irrelevant and artificial. I could also add that we have two periods in RTW, pre-Marian and post-Marian. Two periods make sense in a game about Rome. A third logical period would be the Hellenistic one before Rome, but well, that wouldn't be about Rome so it kind of defeats the purpose of the game :)


I don't see the variety of units, because everything is happening in the earliest phase.

What do you mean? You clearly have variety among factions, and pre- and post-Marian for the Romans.


The game is effectively over before signature units take the field even in the early period.

You have the game won in the pre-Marian timeframe? Maybe so, but that was true to the same extent in MTW if not more.


I don't see much difference in terms of army composition style between RTW and MTW--in both you have major "culture types" with shared units.

So now you are complaining the RTW is inferior to MTW because you don't see a difference? I guess they can't win :)


In MTW you have more region & culture specific units, rather than just culture/religion specific ones.

I disagree. The various factions in RTW are far more different than those in MTW. MTW generally had W European factions with a few different units, the unique Russian and Byzantine factions, and the Muslim factions with a few different units. Oh, and the Mongols.

RTW has the Romans, the Hellenistic factions, the Egyptians, the Parthians, the W Barbarians (Gauls, Spanish, Germans, Britons) and the E Barbarians (Dacians, Sythians), and semi-Hellenized factions such as the Pontites and Armenians. And then you have the Seleucids which have access to almost everything - if they live that long :)


How could CA miss out on doing a detailed "early Rome" period and map with Etruscans, Samnites, etc.?

Quite easily, it doesn't fit the map scale very well. You could just as well ask why did MTW miss out on the uniting of France under the Franks. Or the uniting of France and Germany under Charlemagne. Both games deal with large scale maps of roughly the W Europe/Med world, not single regions.


A rise of Epirus (ala Switzerland or the Mongols) as a regional force would be interesting.

Same problem. The MTW expansion did this to an extent - it gave you the unting of England - but it wasn't part of the basic game. And Epirus didn't rise all that much really - they just got famous because of the Romans, after all :)


It is just a shame. Looks like CA got limited by the number of factions, etc.

No, it looks like they wanted a game with a different focus than you did. They wanted an epic game about the rise of the Roman Empire, not a series of small campaigns about single factions that the majority of people don't care about.


I can understand not wanting to step back all the way to Alexander, but making a more regional map about the time of the Samnite wars seems obvious.

No, it's not obvious at all. I would not be interested in your game at all. You would not get my gaming dollar. Is that obvious? :)


RTW screams out for at least three major campaigns before the barbarian invasion: early Roman expansion into all of the italian peninsula, Rome of the Punic Wars, Rome around the time of Marius.

Funny, I thought we got the last two of those - just in one campaign. Again, the game is epic in nature - an early Roman expansion fits more into an expansion pack like Viking Invasions, not the main focus of the game.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion, naturally. But all this talk of this being "obvious" or the game "screams" for feature x gets to me. No, it's not "obvious" or even wanted by many people, maybe even most. I certainly haven't read of an outcry for smaller scenarios such as you have proposed. They may be what you would want - which is fine - but they're not "obvious" by any means - and to me the reasons that they aren't "obvious" are . . . well, "obvious" :)

Best wishes . . .

[Grifman]

Ahem, The Roman Catholic Church as we know it only got established at 1023 AD.

Hardly existing by the Hun Invasions.

The First Established Church of Christiandom was the Christian Orthodox Church, which was established after Emperor Constantine made the Christian Faith the Official Religion of the Empire at 327 AD.

All the way up to the Event which is known as the "Great Schism" of 1023, and separated the Catholic Sect from the Orthodox Church and made it a Church of its own based in Rome.

The Orthodox Church of Constantinopole continued on with the Patriarch as part of the Byzantine Empire and most of the Eastern Christian World until Constantinopole fell to the Ottoman Turks in the 1300's, and the Orthodox Church became fragmented as the Patriarch seat was transfered to Russia, and the remaining Nations answering to Constantinopole became Autocephale, (self Governing) until today...

Of Cource, the Roman Catholic Church has enjoyed Unity up to today, except Protestantism and Anglicanism which themselvs separated from its authority.

So If we even see anything Catholic in this expansion it would be highly anachronistic and ahistorical.

Thank you

I think alot of Catholics would disagree with your version of history - it seems rather Orthodox-centric - Catholics after all, call this the "Eastern Schism" :) The idea that the Catholic Church was only established in 1023 seems a bit much. The Pope existed well before then, and his authority was recognized in the West, if not the East, well before then. And wasn't the Great Schism in 1054, not 1023?

Of course, I'm only a Protestant, what do I know? :)

[The Hun]

Barbarian Invasion is logical next step and I look forward to it. Alexander, Samnites, whatever is backward steps and a different subject anyway.

[Brutus]

I think alot of Catholics would disagree with your version of history - it seems rather Orthodox-centric - Catholics after all, call this the "Eastern Schism" :) The idea that the Catholic Church was only established in 1023 seems a bit much. The Pope existed well before then, and his authority was recognized in the West, if not the East, well before then. And wasn't the Great Schism in 1054, not 1023?

Of course, I'm only a Protestant, what do I know? :)
I agree completely, just as I said before. Also, the idea of the Catholic or Orthodox church getting consiously established as seperate branches of Christianity seems nonsense to me. This idea is historically inaccurate simply because you are looking backwards: "the Catholic and Orthodox church exist now, so they existed back then and since then."
History, however, should always be looked upon from the time itself, not from its future, and some phenomena just simply 'come into existence' over time, whitout anybody ever thinking of them before. Now, we see the Schism of 1054 as defenitive. Back then, however, this was absolutely not the case.

[Red Harvest]

Grifman,

Not sure why you chose to reply to a post that was over two weeks old... ~:confused: but I stand by everything I wrote. I rebuilt my system a few weeks ago to migrate to XP. All of the TW games are installed, except RTW, just wasn't worth the effort. I will probably get around to installing it at some point, but as a game it is too easy and therefore dull. Yes, I was shortchanged by RTW. It came up far short of its potential and was left in a broken state. That is of course subjective, but there is a large body of players (largely former players) who feel the same way. Waiting for an expansion pack to fix the major problems? If that isn't shortchanged, then you don't what it means.

If you can play the game without having won by the time you reach the reforms, then you are doing something very wrong... In effect, we have one time period in the campaign. You seem to have missed the flippin' obvious point that MTW's different campaign dates neatly worked around "short" campaign issues. And unlike the other TW games, this one is decided sooner, with fewer surprises. The decisive part of the game is played with crap troops on both sides. MTW had more depth in the armies: levels of spearmen, levels of swordsmen, levels of missile units, levels of cav. Most of these could be used in various campaigns (unlike RTW where about half the units never see the field.) The differences between Eastern, Western, Byzantine, Muslim, Northern, Mongol factions is at least as much as we have in major divisions in RTW. And I should remind you that we had 3 periods in MTW with new units becoming available as the periods changed. Signature units are available within the decisive periods of the campaigns...

There was a lot more that could have and should have been done to flesh out combat and the RTW campaigns. What we got was an unfinished product that was then not properly patched--lots of potential, but delivering less than its predecessors. The lack of campaigns and periods is just one more indicator of the unfinished state.

Going back to lurk mode...I check the .org once in awhile to see if anything is happening. About the last revelation (after the save game issues) was the bizarre charge behaviour...since then it seems fairly dull.

[Colovion]

Hey guys I just bought the best car!

Oh crap there's problems with it!

"Don't worry" say those who sold it to me. "We have a new model coming out next year, just buy that and it'll be better!"

"what about fixing the problems it has now?"

"Sorry, that's against policy"

"So you're just too lazy?"

"Prettymuch, plus we're already working on this - it'll get us money - fixing the problems for free doesn't"

"Wow, that's great for you, what about me?"

"BUY OUR NEW MODEL!"

:embarassed:

[Mongoose]

Hey guys I just bought the best car!

Oh crap there's problems with it!

"Don't worry" say those who sold it to me. "We have a new model coming out next year, just buy that and it'll be better!"

"what about fixing the problems it has now?"

"Sorry, that's against policy"

"So you're just too lazy?"

"Prettymuch, plus we're already working on this - it'll get us money - fixing the problems for free doesn't"

"Wow, that's great for you, what about me?"

"BUY OUR NEW MODEL!"


I plan on waiting until it starts selling for 10-15 dollars. That way it dosen't feel like a rip-off.

Ofcourse, they might improve the ai and add 35 dollars worth gameplay ~:) in which case i would just buy it.


Wait, isn't the vi xpac still selling for twenty dollars?

[HarunTaiwan]

Yes, I will be waiting 3 months before considering purchase. Anything before then is really beta version.

Also, I will be posting a review or two on Amazon counseling caution.

Caveat Emptor!

[Mongoose]

It took four months for 1.2... and then it took months to find out why the ai did not expand.

wait at least 6 months, then you'll know if there are still issues after two patchs.
The two patch rule is still in place :shocked:

And why can't i edit my posts? :help:

[Craterus]

Junior Members are unable to edit their posts. That "ability" comes with youor promotion to membership.

I will wait a week maybe, find out some reviews, if I like what I hear, I'll buy the xp.

[Mongoose]

IMHO, one week is not enough to find game breaking bugs. I will just download the fall of rome mod in the mean time (when it is released).


Thanks for the help BTW ~:) .

[pezhetairoi]

...i like your nick. Very much. ^_^ Sadly, though, I play vanilla because the last time I tried RTR the damned game wouldn't even load. :-( Had to reinstall vanilla and never returned RTR to my harddrive again because IT illiterate as I am I never figured out what went wrong.

[Mongoose]

"...i like your nick. Very much. ^_^ Sadly, though, I play vanilla because the last time I tried RTR the damned game wouldn't even load. :-( Had to reinstall vanilla and never returned RTR to my harddrive again because IT illiterate as I am I never figured out what went wrong."

Hmm, perhaps you could provide more details? such as what RTR and RTW version you used? What folder you installed to, etc.


Back on topic:



BI will have much better mods then RTW, adding factions is a BIG plus when you plan on extending the map

[tai4ji2x]

pezhetairoi: why are you so afraid of trying RTR again? if you have the hard drive space, you can keep more than one installation of RTW at the same time. without the need for complete re-install, this gives you the option of playing the vanilla version in case the modded ones don't work out.

[Soviet_AK-47]

yay i use vanilla version tooo what joy we must be having... :charge: :help:

[amazon77]

Constantinople fell to the turks in 1453, not in the 1300s. Also Constantine, who made Constantinople the capital of his empire wasn't a christian. I think he became during his last hour, or he simply asked a priest for his confession. Also, at the time the christians of the roman empire were only 1 or 2 % of the population of the empire as well.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Constantinople fell to the turks in 1453, not in the 1300s. Also Constantine, who made Constantinople the capital of his empire wasn't a christian. I think he became during his last hour, or he simply asked a priest for his confession. Also, at the time the christians of the roman empire were only 1 or 2 % of the population of the empire as well.

As far as I know, I think 10% of the population was Christian when Constantine converted on his deathbed. And Constantinople DID fall in the 13th century, in 1204 AD to be exact, to the fourth crusade. A short-lived Byzantine empire was founded again, and that's the empire that fell to the ottomans in 1453 AD.

[_Aetius_]

So If we even see anything Catholic in this expansion it would be highly anachronistic and ahistorical.

Thats not entirely the case there is a reference in John Julius Norwichs book Byzantium the early centuries which states that the Emperor Theodosius The Great in 380AD issued an edict which said;

"that only those who professed the consubstantiality of the Trinity (in other words the Nicene Creed) could be considered Catholic Christians" and that all other are heretics.

Another reference later on states "in 381, the impeccably orthodox Theodosius the great had confirmed the findings of Nicaea and had promulgated several subsequent edicts designed to enforce what he called Catholicism on his subjects."



Constantinople fell to the turks in 1453, not in the 1300s. Also Constantine, who made Constantinople the capital of his empire wasn't a christian. I think he became during his last hour, or he simply asked a priest for his confession. Also, at the time the christians of the roman empire were only 1 or 2 % of the population of the empire as well.

Constantines original motive for converting may not of been because he genuinely believed in the Christian god, to begin with. Constantine even by his days standards was extremely superstitious and for awhile kept his options open.

There are examples of coins with Constantine depicted with the god Helios "the unconquered sun" but there are also examples of Constantine condemning members of his court for their apparent impiety to the one God (christian god).

Constantine at whatever point be it just before the battle of the Milvian bridge like history remembers it or just gradually over time, was a Christian and not just on his deathbed, he was baptised on his deathbed but that would become common practise. Baptism being seen as washing away all sin was used to cleanse the soul as a Christian was dying so he/she would go into the afterlife cleansed of sin. It doesnt mean he was only a Christian on that day, Constantine for the last few years of his life had also used the title Isapostolos "equal of the apostles".

If anything though, Constantine experienced more and more during his reign a sense of religious megalomania. That much is certain.


The Pope existed well before then, and his authority was recognized in the West, if not the East, well before then. And wasn't the Great Schism in 1054, not 1023?

Theres an example were Emperor Theodosius the Great did penence for his sins (ordering troops to quell rioting in Thessalonica which resulted in a whole sale massacre) Bishop Ambrose of Milan told the Emperor he would be forced to refuse him communion until he did penence. Ambrose was much more influential than the Pope at the time, but it is the first example of a minister of the gospel who had stood up to an Emperor in this way and suceeded, a Christian Emperor recognising an authority greater than his own, the authority of God and his representatives (the church), its an example of the Christian church exercising its authority.

[tibilicus]

Why have the C.A made no oficial anouncement yet if it is on the way. Or was it meant to be a secret.

[_Aetius_]

Was Belisarius in this time period?

I want to trash barbarians

100 years is not alot, it would have been cooler to extend it to the Arab conquests, that would make my day.

I agree, infact i think Barbarian invasion leading upto say the end of Justinians reign and the time of Belisarius, is deservant of an entirely new full game. Its odd howd theyd limit themselves to a period were the Roman empire was in the first stages of major terminal decline and not expand to the aftermath and eastern empire.

[sunsmountain]

I plan on waiting until it starts selling for 10-15 dollars. That way it dosen't feel like a rip-off.

Edited prior to reopening thread.

[Kekvit Irae]

Until appropriate moderator action can be taken, I deem this discussion closed.
The reason? Downloading copyrighted material is illegal. Encouragement of said activities is illegal. We will NOT tolerate these kinds of discussions.

[Kekvit Irae]

All clean again ~:cheers:

[sunsmountain]

And apologies made. I got angered thinking about the dream Rome: Total War promised, and the many months of anticipation. Night battles. A significant better AI (with levels). Multiple editors.

As a sidenote, while illegal upload-sources persist, the legal downloading of these files will continue. I find it too industry loving to edit that out as well. The law is clear-cut in this respect, in the Netherlands at least.

And as for the expansion, i am probably better off without it: Who can fulfill my dream but myself? The men working @ the Creative Assembly are hard-working individuals, simply trying to make a living, not, trying to please everybody.

I hope it's all for the better.

[Es Arkajae]

No it isn't okay.


You must immediately sacrifice an albino goat to the spirit of a Drunk Winston Churchill and then commit Sepukku with an egg lifter with a blue handle.

Then it will be okay.

[antisocialmunky]

BI sounds nice, I like the idea of night battles and such, but I really hope that BI will polish up RTW. The Fall of Rome doesn't really interest me as much as Rome in its prime, so I'll probably be getting BI to fix up RTW. After all of the bugs, glitches, and below par AI issues, I really hope that under all that new new paint, it isn't just the same old pinto they billed as a corvette.

-I'm just curious, why is half this thread seem like Christiandom Total War: Religion Buff Invasion? '.'

[cunctator]

A few news:
ten new factions, babarians can move settlements (or the buildings in it?) to other regions and it`s sheduled for august.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/rome-total-war-expansion/617349p1.html

[Rodion Romanovich]

The new units alter gameplay with their own quirks. Some units are capable of swimming, allowing you to slip across a river to flank the enemy. New Priest units can stop troops from routing.


:bigcry:

[Mongoose]

There's always BITR mod ~;)

But yeah, im getting sick of having to get rid of all these fantasy units :tired:

[Orda Khan]

Personally I am really looking forward to this. Being able to break camp and move your settlement sounds great. Let's wait and see how it turns out before we condemn it eh?

......Orda

[CrackedAxe]

Lots of screenshots in this months PC Zone and they all look amazing. Looks like the Huns are going to be a major faction, which is fine by me. I remember posting here a few months back and predicting that the expansion pack would be RTW: Hunnic invasion. Well, I wasn't quite right but looks close enought to keep me happy.

[Viking]

Lots of screenshots in this months PC Zone and they all look amazing.
Any to be found on the web?

They`re adding 10 new factions in BI, but that`s not many.
Will some of the RTW factions still be playable, or have the romans swallowed so much land that there`s no room for more factions?