PC Zone Preview of RTW:Barbarian Invasion

[Spartiate]

Just a few tid-bits i have just finished reading about for the Expansion Pack.

1.The Roman Empire is split into two parts.The Eastern and Western Empires.

2.The Persian Sasanid Dynasty is now a playable faction.

3.Attila the Hun and his merry men will start the campaign with 15 full armies and no settlements.They have the ability to recruit mercs and re-inforcements for plunder(sounds like the Mongols in Shogun)

4.The Saxons will specialize in coastal landing and raiding by sea.

5. The Vandals are a playable faction......no info on them.

6. The Roman Empire(both halves) are huge but rebellious and in dire straits.

7.Light troops including cavalry can now swim across rivers on the battle-field making it possible to flank units guarding a bridge.

8.Night battles are now options for experienced commanders and affect morale accordingly.

9.Composite bows available with a longer range and armour piercing early model of the x-bow.

10.Many new units and formations(couple of fantasy units as well unfortunately).

[Rodion Romanovich]

Sounds good, except no. 10b. I'm not sure about no. 7 and no. 8, but the rest sounds great.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Could i just ask, but what is the address for PC Zone? I must read this!!

[Brutus]

Sounds nice. I'm curious what all the factions will be. So far it seems there will be:

-the Western Roman Empire
-the Eastern Roman Empire
-the Sassanid Empire
-the Huns
-the Vandals
-the Saxons

Who else will be put in? The Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Franks, the Alans, the Suebi, the Lombards, the Burgundians, the Angles, Arab tribes...?

[Conqueror]

2.The Persian Sasanid Dynasty is now a playable faction.

Cool ~:cool:


3.Attila the Hun and his merry men will start the campaign with 15 full armies and no settlements.They have the ability to recruit mercs and re-inforcements for plunder(sounds like the Mongols in Shogun)

Modders are going to love this new way to handle a faction.


7.Light troops including cavalry can now swim across rivers on the battle-field making it possible to flank units guarding a bridge.

There better be some serious disadvantages to trying this though. It should take time to get across and they should be vulnerable if the enemy is prepared to attack them. Maybe have some % of the troops drown along the way. Otherwise, more options = good.


8.Night battles are now options for experienced commanders and affect morale accordingly.

I wonder if you can make a proper night raids, attacking an enemy army's camp during night when they're unprepared. If it's just like any field battle but with darkness and morale modifiers then it's not that much of an improvement.


9.Composite bows available with a longer range and armour piercing early model of the x-bow.

I think I will find good use for those, yes I will :devilish:

[Es Arkajae]

"According to PC Zone Magazine Creative Assembly is working of an expansion for Rome: Total War named Barbarian Invasion add-on which will be spanning the years 364AD to 476AD.
The expansion will offer you the chance to 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 PC Zone article states: "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".
Beside the new features the game will come with a new distributor as Creative Assembly was bought by Sega last year and this is the first game developed under the new management."

So its only light troops can swim across rivers which make sense.

So I doubt we'll see legionairres, noble cavalry or chosen swordsmen swimming across a river anytime soon.;-) .

I'm also betting they would do it slowly and would be at a significant disadvantage (easy to panic) whilst doing so.

As for the expansion, if they don't improve the battlefield AI then its all moot, lets hope they fix that before releasing anything.

[Brutus]

So I doubt we'll see legionairres, noble cavalry or chosen swordsmen swimming across a river anytime soon.;-) .

I assume there will be no legionaries as they weren't used anymore at the time... Although, fantasy units... :help:

[Spartiate]

@ Mikeus Caesar ............ www.pczone.co.uk...........i read it in their magazine however.

About the penalty on troops swimming across rivers.They will do so very slowly apparently and will be at the mercy of missile units.

[runes]

"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."

pulled that from the website...

but..


"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 Ass"

anyone with the mag wanna scan some pics?!

[SpencerH]

"anyone with the mag wanna scan some pics?!

Mods here have already said no to that since it's copyright infringement

[Jacque Schtrapp]

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.



~:eek: ~:eek: ~:eek:

I'll believe it when I see it

~:handball:

[Es Arkajae]

I assume there will be no legionaries as they weren't used anymore at the time... Although, fantasy units... :help:


The feature will almost certainly be added to the current main campaign mate.

So you'll be able to play the expansion campaign or the original campaign with the new features such as night battles and river crossings in both.

The expansion should be as much about improving the original campaign as it is adding a new one.

As for the AI I echo Jacque's sentiment.:bobby2:

[Barbarossa82]

I'm all in favour of new fantasy units. no doubt there will be some RTR or EB-style mods of the x-pack for those who wish to play the game as a historical re-enactment.

Bring on the saxon steam-powered pillage-o-matic and the Eastern Roman pegasus regiment!!

[_Aetius_]

I assume there will be no legionaries as they weren't used anymore at the time

Legionaries still existed in this time period, the expansion begins before the Battle of Adrianople a time when the Legionaries were still in full usage, though its around this time that the balance between Legionaries and Auxillaries begins to rapidly disintegrate once the Eastern Roman army is annihilated at Adrianople and the Wests situation becomes terminal and beyond recovery.

The expansion sounds brilliant, id of preferred this kind of time period instead of the one in RTW originally.

[Wishazu]

the Vandals ~:) ACE!!!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

[Angry strategy gamer]You have to remember that all game reviewers are terrible at real strategy and tactics. If they aren't playing a shooter, then even the simplest actions require much thought, and flanking an enemy is a rare and great accomplishment for them.[/Angry strategy gamer]

Seriously, CA had better improve AI and modding capabilities - remove the limits to things like factions and units! There doesn't seem to be any defensible reason for them!

[_Aetius_]

I am scared that the expansion will be all looks and no depth (crap AI etc) abit like RTW itself, theres no excuse for the mistakes made in RTW, im sick of games being released and the makers clearly not testing it enough, thus forcing us, the gamer to wait months for a patch. Any idiot could surely have spotted the fact that before patch v1.2 for RTW when on bridge battles men that rout on the bridge just die as if all suddenly having a heart attack.

I have a horrible feeling the expansion will be great! until you really start playing it and all the daft idiotic bugs etc start surfacing, and then the inevitable seemingly never ending wait for a patch will begin.

:dizzy2:

[Kushan]

"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"

Improved AI???? Why couldnt they just release it in the patch???? There still might be hope for the AI yet.......

Kushan

[Bhruic]

They didn't say anything about "improved" AI. They just made some generic AI statements. And they are right - it directs the battles like a true general. A true incompetent general, but a true one nonetheless.

Bh

[Crazed Rabbit]

Seriously, CA had better improve AI and modding capabilities - remove the limits to things like factions and units! There doesn't seem to be any defensible reason for them!

So they can force us to buy the expansion if we want to play mods that aren't severly limited (not to say that there aren't good ones now, but they could be even better.) of course.

Crazed Rabbit

[hrvojej]

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.
Oh yeah, it's mind-boggling all right, and a unique exercise in tactics too. Just not in a positive way for the most part....

[Marquis of Roland]

[Angry strategy gamer]You have to remember that all game reviewers are terrible at real strategy and tactics. If they aren't playing a shooter, then even the simplest actions require much thought, and flanking an enemy is a rare and great accomplishment for them.[/Angry strategy gamer]

Seriously, CA had better improve AI and modding capabilities - remove the limits to things like factions and units! There doesn't seem to be any defensible reason for them!

LOL I totally agree Alexander. I've been trying to introduce this game to my first-person shooter friends and they have a hard time winning battles on EASY. Its pretty amazing, all they want to do is frontal assaults. Most of the time they turn off every single realism setting so that their haveily armored infantry are chasing down skirmishers without getting tired, or imagine this - urban cohorts with unlimited pilas!!!

Even dedicated RTS(warcraft/starcraft) players have difficulty (at least they have a hard time on MEDIUM). They expect units to turn and face a cavalry charge on their flank INSTANTANEOUSLY (and playing on huge unit size you can imagine their consternation when it takes a few seconds for that to happen, not to mention they expect their units to turn WHILE ENGAGED).

Its funny, the only people I can talk about this game to are in this forum, and from what I've seen, TW players are more intelligent and knowledgeable on average than other gamers.

As for the new expansion:
1. river crossing by light troops now available - probably won't work very well tactically. If the enemy army has any kind of cav and if your troops do indeed incur morale penalties while crossing, your light troops will never make it. They'll be charged by cav as soon as they are on the other side (I'm assuming all missile units are by the bridge defending) and because of the morale penalty, will almost certainly break and drown in the river.

2. night battles - I agree with whoever said that an encampment should be included because if its just a regular field battle in the dark with morale penalties, there's really no point.

3. If the Huns are playable, the cost of those 15 full stack armies will bankrupt you VERY VERY SOON (a la the mongols in MTW) unless you capture about as many provinces in about 5 turns or so, unless they start you with a ridiculous cash reserve.

4. They brought back the Persians. COOL

[Puzz3D]

I have a horrible feeling the expansion will be great! until you really start playing it and all the daft idiotic bugs etc start surfacing, and then the inevitable seemingly never ending wait for a patch will begin.
This won't impact sales very much as long as the first impression is good and it gets a 90%+ rating from the magazine reviews. The majority of gamers don't care about daft idiotic bugs.

[Viking]

the Vandals ~:) ACE!!!
`
Me too looking forward to the Vandals, though probably with other reasons than yours.. ~;)

The Vandals fulfilled the dream the carthaginians had: chrushing the romans and use Carhago as capital.
Will the Vandals have elephants, be semi-civilized or just be the bloodthirsty barbarians they originally were?

[Orda Khan]

Neither the Vandals nor the Goths were simply bloodthirsty barbarians, they were cultured civilisations. For so called savages the Vandals produced some very ornate, intricate jewellery and the Goths went on to build some very impressive structures. These peoples were just different to the Romans and by this time the Romans, especially militarily, were heavily influenced by the Germanic nations.
Opposing armies during this period were very often quite similar in their composition. Aetius commanded an army almost entirely Hunnic to suppress the Visigoths before he commanded his Romano/Visigoth army against the Huns. This was a time of mercenaries and I hope this will be reflected in the game. Ideally (IMO) each faction should have its unique units but all/most factions should have the mercenary equivalent choice. That would not only be historically accurate but extremely interesting for both SP and MP battles.

I think I would prefer to see the Huns start WITH a settled area, as indeed they should since they settled the Hungarian plains circa 370 c.e. but we shall have to wait and see. I am looking forward to this Expansion far more than the original game and I hope CA can manage to portray the turmoil of the time. It certainly sounds a lot more interesting than a campaign adventure with Alexander, who was afterall, nothing to do with Rome

........Orda

[_Aetius_]

Neither the Vandals nor the Goths were simply bloodthirsty barbarians, they were cultured civilisations. For so called savages the Vandals produced some very ornate, intricate jewellery and the Goths went on to build some very impressive structures. These peoples were just different to the Romans and by this time the Romans, especially militarily, were heavily influenced by the Germanic nations.
Opposing armies during this period were very often quite similar in their composition. Aetius commanded an army almost entirely Hunnic to suppress the Visigoths before he commanded his Romano/Visigoth army against the Huns. This was a time of mercenaries and I hope this will be reflected in the game. Ideally (IMO) each faction should have its unique units but all/most factions should have the mercenary equivalent choice. That would not only be historically accurate but extremely interesting for both SP and MP battles.

I think I would prefer to see the Huns start WITH a settled area, as indeed they should since they settled the Hungarian plains circa 370 c.e. but we shall have to wait and see. I am looking forward to this Expansion far more than the original game and I hope CA can manage to portray the turmoil of the time. It certainly sounds a lot more interesting than a campaign adventure with Alexander, who was afterall, nothing to do with Rome

........Orda

It is a shame alot of the best sources from the period are Roman ones and as usual totally biased except a few, the Romans just seemed to fail to understand that the *barbarians* didnt want the empire destroyed they just wanted a piece of the action. The Germans depicted as lunatics who wore barely any clothes and thought of nothing but blood rape and plunder :charge: bah!

Anyway back to the expansion, im not sure if theyve chosen the best period to make a game in, I mean in the late 4th century the empires in big trouble but the situation is far from terminal. I know Adrianople is on the horizon and the situation for the empire has been much better, but if they make the expansion and the Romans are on the verge of collapse and weak then its inaccurate because the empire wasnt on the verge of collapse and if they make them really weak then itll obviously be just so its harder for the romans.

If they are relatively strong as they were in reality then, the situation is easily salvagable aslong as the player is competant. I hope they get the balance right. As 40 years or so later the empire was in real dire straits and it may have been better to set in this part of the empires history and experience the full transition of power from west to east. Maybe thatd of been a better time to set it.

A string of strong Emperors around this time could very well have salvaged the empire from the brink of destruction, its only because decent emperors were few and far between in this period that the empire sank as fast as it did. There are other factors but it was shown earlier in roman history that one man can make all the difference no matter what the situation.

I think a further expansion would be good but set in the late 5th century until say the early 7th and focus more on the rise of Byzantine empire in the wake of the wests collapse. :duel: Infact you could make an entirely new game based on the rise of the Byzantine empire until the beginning of the Medieval Total war period.

[Mongoose]

Im worried that despite the time period playing as the romans will be made painfully easy.


And the whole thing will be a total flop if they don't make the ai less timid.



"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." = False

"misdirecting everything like a true monkey is Creative Assembly's less then capable combat AI system, which ensures that every battle is a repetitive exercise in chasing down peltasts and killing thousands of hapless soliders" = True

This do's not hold true if they plan on changing the ai, but at this point it is most likely just talking about the current ai. Which is a shame because other then that the game is pretty solid

[avesta]

are there any details on the persian sassanid faction?

[Mongoose]

Nope, maybe in afew months.


Keep in mind the fact that this game has not even been announced yet.

[pezhetairoi]

Y'know, about what somebody posted up there about those who play FPS trying to play RTW... it's hilarious, but i know precisely what you mean. And about us forumers being more intelligent than most others, well, but of course. :-) Partially it's because some of us here are history buffs who've done enough research here (as I've read on some other threads) to be academics in their own right, and partially because what we are doing is intellectual activity, those that play FPS are just shooting shooting shooting like mindless automatons. So we hone our minds, they dull theirs. In an ethic where courage is everything, and daring to attack in the face of the enemy is the key, no wonder they can't survive in ours where there are so many things to balance, and where they're not controlling one person, but thousands, and where not every person is armed with combat knife, pistol, assault rifle, and knowledge of urban warfare.

RTW rocks as a strategy game, and BI looks to improve that experience. I am straight-facedly pretending there is no such thing as AI, because that would spoil the whole thing.

The Huns with 15 full stacks now... isn't that a little too overpowered for them? I mean, firstly the Huns only had about 200000 warriors when they poured into modern-day Hungary, and they had to get allies along the way. That translates, if the RTW scale is full-stack = 40000 men IRL, into only 5 full-stacks?

[Viking]

Y'know, about what somebody posted up there about those who play FPS trying to play RTW...

I started out my pc career with FPS, but I don`t think I`ve missed the strategic part of RTW nonetheless.. ~;)




Nope, maybe in afew months.


Keep in mind the fact that this game has not even been announced yet.

I thought BI was due to be anounced at E3, gotta be my mistake. :embarassed:


Sounds nice. I'm curious what all the factions will be. So far it seems there will be:

-the Western Roman Empire
-the Eastern Roman Empire
-the Sassanid Empire
-the Huns
-the Vandals
-the Saxons

Who else will be put in? The Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Franks, the Alans, the Suebi, the Lombards, the Burgundians, the Angles, Arab tribes...?

Perhaps of all them who are in your list? ~;)
I just read something about history in Africa at that time, perhaps the Berbers will be a own faction?

[Mongoose]

newbie question: When is E3?

[Viking]

E3 conferences start may 17., the expo 18.

I`m also a newbie regarding E3, not even completely sure what it is..

Anyway, BI is probably not due to be be announced there, it`s probaly just me misunderstanding something I read in another thread.

For more info: http://www.e3expo.com/

[Nelson]

Y'know, about what somebody posted up there about those who play FPS trying to play RTW... it's hilarious, but i know precisely what you mean. And about us forumers being more intelligent than most others, well, but of course. :-) Partially it's because some of us here are history buffs who've done enough research here (as I've read on some other threads) to be academics in their own right, and partially because what we are doing is intellectual activity, those that play FPS are just shooting shooting shooting like mindless automatons. So we hone our minds, they dull theirs. In an ethic where courage is everything, and daring to attack in the face of the enemy is the key, no wonder they can't survive in ours where there are so many things to balance, and where they're not controlling one person, but thousands, and where not every person is armed with combat knife, pistol, assault rifle, and knowledge of urban warfare.



I totally disagree.

An FPS fan could just as easily say “While we think quick, act decisively and exhibit real tactical expertise, the Total War guys ponderously command groups of soldiers to fight the battle, dulling their combat skills and capacity to think on their feet. No wonder TW players can’t survive in a 3D environment from a first person perspective. They can’t look down on a whole army like a god and order them to do their biding. They don’t have the skills to operate alone or with teammates in a snap decision quick death situation where you can’t know what’s around the corner. Oh, and their aim is miserable!”

Even arcade type shooters are fun in their own right. Quick reflexes are just one more skill to hone while playing certain games for fun. These are games for entertainment after all. How much brains does it take to play golf? Or to go bowling? Different skill sets. That’s all it is.

One’s choice of gaming genre is hardly a reliable predictor of intelligence. Bear in mind that most gamers have interests that span more than just FPS, RPG or RTS alone. Like many patrons around here, I play them all.

[Orda Khan]

All this is off topic

......Orda

[Mongoose]

"E3 conferences start may 17., the expo 18.

I`m also a newbie regarding E3, not even completely sure what it is..

Anyway, BI is probably not due to be be announced there, it`s probaly just me misunderstanding something I read in another thread.

For more info: http://www.e3expo.com/"

Thanks ~:)

"I totally disagree.

An FPS fan could just as easily say “While we think quick, act decisively and exhibit real tactical expertise, the Total War guys ponderously command groups of soldiers to fight the battle, dulling their combat skills and capacity to think on their feet. No wonder TW players can’t survive in a 3D environment from a first person perspective. They can’t look down on a whole army like a god and order them to do their biding. They don’t have the skills to operate alone or with teammates in a snap decision quick death situation where you can’t know what’s around the corner. Oh, and their aim is miserable!”

Even arcade type shooters are fun in their own right. Quick reflexes are just one more skill to hone while playing certain games for fun. These are games for entertainment after all. How much brains does it take to play golf? Or to go bowling? Different skill sets. That’s all it is.

One’s choice of gaming genre is hardly a reliable predictor of intelligence. Bear in mind that most gamers have interests that span more than just FPS, RPG or RTS alone. Like many patrons around here, I play them all."

I totally disagree. fps games are more reflexs and automatic reactions then quick thinking. Infact, there is almost no thinking at all.They can make for some good mindless fun though ~:) But they get boring after awhile :huh:

Anyway, i think the main point of that post was to point out the fact that most people who reveiw these games have very little tactical knowledge.


Back on topic:

It would be neat if they announced it at E3. I wouldn't count on it though.
I also wonder how hard it will be, hopefully it won't be as easy as RTW.

[Craterus]

Welcome to the org mongoose ~:wave:

E3 is in UK, right, or is it in US ?

[_Aetius_]

The Huns with 15 full stacks now... isn't that a little too overpowered for them? I mean, firstly the Huns only had about 200000 warriors when they poured into modern-day Hungary, and they had to get allies along the way. That translates, if the RTW scale is full-stack = 40000 men IRL, into only 5 full-stacks?

It does sound ridiculously overpowered, I mean with that many men I cant imagine what could possibly stop a player just rushing there nearest enemies without any difficulty? unless the player is so incompetant they cant use horse archers well.



Originally Posted by Brutus
Sounds nice. I'm curious what all the factions will be. So far it seems there will be:

-the Western Roman Empire
-the Eastern Roman Empire
-the Sassanid Empire
-the Huns
-the Vandals
-the Saxons

Who else will be put in? The Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Franks, the Alans, the Suebi, the Lombards, the Burgundians, the Angles, Arab tribes...?


I think they have to put in the smaller tribes, the main reason the Germanic tribes didnt destroy rome earlier is because there were lots of warring tribes fighting each other, if its just Vandals, Saxons and Visigoths, that gives them plenty of room and only one real target the romans, if there are other tribes like the Ostrogoths, Gepids, Alans, Alemanni (sp?) Burgundians etc, and various other smaller tribes itd make it ar more realistic and interesting.

I think a good addition to the game would be enlisting tribes into your army, the perfect example is the battle of Chalons, the Romans and Huns enlisting tribes from all over to make up the bulk of their army, instead of like in RTW asking factions to help you (which seldom works) or making them protectorates (which has very few advantages to it) you could incorporate these tribes etc into your empire, theyd have relative autonomy and act abit like Mercenaries as you go through their land enlisting them in the Legions or as Auxillaries or whatever.

Its silly the way on RTW when you defeat say the Germans they just vanished, as if the entire tribe that would number in reality hundreds of thousands if not millions throughout Germany was destroyed leaving no trace.

Also recruitment should be improved, enlisting entire cities into your army or groups of people within your empire in times of crisis, if abit annoying when you desperately need men and all you can do is train one measly unit of men per turn per city.

What I know atleast is that realism could be dramatically improved.

[Mongoose]

"Welcome to the org mongoose ~:wave:

E3 is in UK, right, or is it in US ?"

HI ~:wave:


I think it's in the US.

[pezhetairoi]

I like the idea of the factions being able to enlist other factions into your own... maybe it'd be something like a 'become protectorate', but instead of that you can build their units with your buildings, and that faction's territories become yours. It's almost like a surrender, but it's got benefits that are way more tangible than what you see in the current RTW.

I also rather like the bridge-battle swimming idea... Light or perhaps simply non-metal-armoured troops swimming across rivers at the mercy of missile troops is a very real danger that armies ought to be able to contend with. For example, at the battle of Strasbourg, the Germanic army that got defeated by the Roman legions tried to swim across a river to make their escape, and all that time they were being pelted by arrows and javelins, which killed thousands of them, so their bodies kept washing up downriver for weeks afterwards. It's something we don't see very often, and should see in RTW, so good job CA!

On a sidenote, it would be nice that bodies in the river get washed away, that allowance be made for current in troops swimming across, and rivers actually -reflect- their actual width, e.g. the Nile vs the Danube vs the comparatively much narrower Loire. As of now they're all of the same size, they can be crossed on foot (enigmatically) and you can fight battles across them because they're all only about two hundred metres across.

Here's a dream. If only they made it so that crossings became important military operations too, like Alexander's Hydaspes crossing-cum-battle. That way, too, to invade Egypt or Dacia would become more difficult as you would have to cross their guardian rivers, perhaps with a movement point penalty for that turn proportionate to the width of the river or something like that. It also makes it much more challenging for a player as it's no more just-build-forts-in-front-of-every-ford-and-bridge by way of guarding the frontier, since the enemy can cross anywhere. Also makes for a new trait--i don't know, 'Swimmer', or 'Boat Builder', or something, such that the general who has it can reduce movement point penalties for crossing a river (i.e. reduces penalty by 30-40% etc), just like Alexander, whose logistics managed to get his army over the Danube uncontested in two days flat, and the rain-swollen Jhelum (with Porus' and his son's armies waiting on the other side) in 18 hours or so. It'd be a nice touch. But guess we won't be seeing that in RTW.

[Hold Steady]

The Huns with 15 full stacks now... isn't that a little too overpowered for them? I mean, firstly the Huns only had about 200000 warriors when they poured into modern-day Hungary, and they had to get allies along the way. That translates, if the RTW scale is full-stack = 40000 men IRL, into only 5 full-stacks?

Hmm, 5 stacks could be mildly challeging for a human Hun player, 15 stacks of Huns is quite challeging for a Roman or other native tribe player.. Allthough I'm not especially looking forward to tons of Horse archers, which the majority will probably be.. Where did the Huns originate by the way, anyone knows?

[Hold Steady]

woops, got the answer allready:

'Of course they ended up in Hungary (from whence the country gets its modern name). It is rather inappropriate to ask (note from HS: sorry..) where peoples originate because geopolitical boundaries were not then of the same substance as they are today - we live in a world of nation states, they didn't. As a more or less nomadic tribe, the Huns cannot be ascribed a territory of origin. The best one can do is to give an idea of the area where they settled and became non-nomadic. The Steppe region of Russia, and further east, was (and still is to some extent) a no-mans land brimming with many shades of tribal existence. This was the world of the Huns. They traversed vast territories including Hungary. Hungary is on the frontier of the Russian plains and provided the Huns with the resources (geographical and climatological) to settle.'

So from eastern Ukraine, Oezbekistan, Krygistan, Whateverstan.. Ancesters of the Turks and other Turkic folks..

[The Stranger]

sounds good, a bit like a mod i'm working on.

it has
Saxons
Anglo-saxons
Picts
East and Western roman Empire
Visigoths
Ostrogoths
Macromanni
Alamanni
Nomad Tribes
Huns
Sasasid Empire
Parthian Empire
and some more

[Little Legioner]

What about battlefields? Howlong they will be big? How it will be? I hope 2kX2k big maps and i hope better environmet :charge:

[Azi Tohak]

Possible fantasy units...lets see...

Hunnic blood eaters: they have a huge attack, but tend to lose discipline and start munching on their fallen foes.

Persian zoroastrian fire bringers: think onagers that can aim

Vandals thugs from the south side of LA: packin' and waitin' to bust a cap in some po' fools' head. Wait...Vandals are a tribe you say?

Roman bishops: can go talk to barbarian armies, bribe them with huge amounts of gold, and then thank God for the miracle of the barbarians realizing they have better things to do. (Think emissaries with HUGE egos.)

Goths suicide girls: the name kind of tells it all doesn't it?

Well, those are my guesses. The sad thing is, after seeing the head-chuckers and @#$*@# !@#!@#$ doggie units, I might not be that far off.

Azi

[Viking]

Well, those head hurlers were not a real unit, but the brittons were known for throwing the heads of fallen enemies in battles, so it wasn`t a completely fantasy unit.

But say, the Huns weren`t cannibals??

[Rodion Romanovich]

Regarding huns having 15 stacks: I had hoped they'd have 10 stacks, so I'm overjoyed they'll have 15 stacks. That'll make my games as the factions close to the hunnic starting position much more challenging and interesting. I probably won't play the huns, as my first planned campaign in EB will be the sarmatians :). If the huns have 15 stacks, then I'll finally be forced to use all my general skills to stop them - using every chance of a defensive bridge battle, using every city defense battle as clever as I can etc etc. Just for fun, I think I'm gonna let my first campaign in BI (when I buy it - I'll probably wait until siege bugs and similar have been discovered) be as the ostrogoths and I'll try to NOT move my tribe west, to see if I can actually kill off the huns singlehandedly in the northern Balkans to Kiev area... Then I'll go kill those damn romans after they've had plenty of time and chances to grow strong again because they didn't have to face me or the huns... Then I'll sack Rome and destroy it more than the vandals did... I don't know what to do then, but the sassanids, hopefully strong with plenty of horse archers and heavy cavs, would be fun to kill with my barbarian swordsmen units...

[Mongoose]

"it has
Saxons
Anglo-saxons
Picts
East and Western roman Empire
Visigoths
Ostrogoths
Macromanni
Alamanni
Nomad Tribes
Huns
Sasasid Empire
Parthian Empire
and some more"

Are you a member of the fall of rome team or are you working on our own project? sound neat ~:) .

[Aegisthis The Infantryman]

Sounds good but it'll be bad to see two roman factions go, most probably the Brutii and the Scipii and the SPQR may not be called the senate any more. Probably the West or East Roman empire. But it's good to know anyway. Thanks. ~D

[_Aetius_]

Where did the Huns originate by the way, anyone knows?

The Huns as far as im aware didnt leave any written records therefore nothing that refers to their original homeland, but its highly likely they originated from around the region of Mongolia, just one of many nomadic tribes who gradually emigrated further and further west.


Regarding huns having 15 stacks: I had hoped they'd have 10 stacks, so I'm overjoyed they'll have 15 stacks. That'll make my games as the factions close to the hunnic starting position much more challenging and interesting. I probably won't play the huns, as my first planned campaign in EB will be the sarmatians :). If the huns have 15 stacks, then I'll finally be forced to use all my general skills to stop them - using every chance of a defensive bridge battle, using every city defense battle as clever as I can etc etc. Just for fun, I think I'm gonna let my first campaign in BI (when I buy it - I'll probably wait until siege bugs and similar have been discovered) be as the ostrogoths and I'll try to NOT move my tribe west, to see if I can actually kill off the huns singlehandedly in the northern Balkans to Kiev area... Then I'll go kill those damn romans after they've had plenty of time and chances to grow strong again because they didn't have to face me or the huns... Then I'll sack Rome and destroy it more than the vandals did... I don't know what to do then, but the sassanids, hopefully strong with plenty of horse archers and heavy cavs, would be fun to kill with my barbarian swordsmen units...

Arent you jumping the gun just a tiny bit? lol, your making strategies about a game you know practically nothing about, that wont be released until September (assuming theres no delays) I especially like the bit were you say youll get rid of the huns then sack Rome Lol :charge: good luck!

The Vandal sack of Rome wasnt even half as bad as the Romans made out, there was no mass slaughter, no widespread destruction of buildings, it was really a systematic stripping of all of Romes wealth, not half bad for apparently mindless barbarians.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Arent you jumping the gun just a tiny bit? lol, your making strategies about a game you know practically nothing about, that wont be released until September (assuming theres no delays)


I always plan how I'm going to play games before I get them ~:). It usually goes well - for R:TW I had planned in advance to play Scipii, Gauls, Carthage and Scythia first, and I ended up playing almost exactly that way...



I especially like the bit were you say youll get rid of the huns then sack Rome Lol :charge: good luck!

Thanks for wishing me good luck - I and my ostrogothic warriors will need it!



The Vandal sack of Rome wasnt even half as bad as the Romans made out

No, but the ostrogothic sack of Rome will be more than twice as bad as the Roman description of the vandal sack of Rome! ~D

[Browning]

(...)
Hungary is on the frontier of the Russian plains (...)
Pardon?

[Es Arkajae]

Pardon?

Didn't the Russians tell you? ~D

[professorspatula]

One of my concerns about the addon, as nice as it looks, is if they haven't updated the ridiculously fast battles, everyone who prefers slower battles has a load more modding do from the moment its installed.

Some of the features mentioned were already partially done beforehand - night battles, shield walls etc are all mentioned in various text files, and voices for certain 'new' orders are already there. Same old story really: leave stuff out of the main game, then add them for the expansion and put the emphasis on these 'new features'.

What amuses me about PC Zone's coverage of RTW is their utter lack of criticism. I found their review of RTW itself to be nothing more than a glorified press release with a generous rating bolted on at the end. And they still talk like it's the perfect game. Then again, games journalism seems to shy away from any hint of criticism when previewing games.

I'm actually looking forward to the add-on, although really I'm not entirely sure why.

[Mongoose]

One of my concerns about the addon, as nice as it looks, is if they haven't updated the ridiculously fast battles, everyone who prefers slower battles has a load more modding do from the moment its installed.

Some of the features mentioned were already partially done beforehand - night battles, shield walls etc are all mentioned in various text files, and voices for certain 'new' orders are already there. Same old story really: leave stuff out of the main game, then add them for the expansion and put the emphasis on these 'new features'.

What amuses me about PC Zone's coverage of RTW is their utter lack of criticism. I found their review of RTW itself to be nothing more than a glorified press release with a generous rating bolted on at the end. And they still talk like it's the perfect game. Then again, games journalism seems to shy away from any hint of criticism when previewing games.

I'm actually looking forward to the add-on, although really I'm not entirely sure why.

I agree. All the big game companys like gamespy do is advertise stuff.

I find *some* of the reviews on amazon to be much better.

[_Aetius_]

Im sick of people reviewing games giving it 95% etc then when you buy the game it is riddled with ridiculous bugs and clearly not deservant of the near perfect picture the review sent out.

I struggle to understand how the game testers could miss such blatent bugs as what have been found in RTW, if it was an obscure bug that didnt totally ruin the game or irritate the hell out of you then you could say it could of been missed somehow, but RTW pre-patches was a mess. Even after the patches its still nowhere near as good as it should be, how they could think battles that last about 30 seconds would satisfy players is beyond me.

Medieval total war is far more enjoyable because battles actually have longevity, the AI may not be amazing but it not totally idiotic like in RTW. If the game had been even a fraction as good as we'd seen on Time Commanders then Id of been happy.

So despite the encouraging and exciting news about BI im not getting to excited about it. I think itll be what we'd of expected RTW to be originally to a large extent but I bet that the AI is still mediocre and the battles short and uninspiring.

One thing id like to see is generals acting as their traits dictate and experience to add some variety to generals, for example why would a cautious General an expert at defence lead a risky attack? Why would the king of a country let a known coward go into an important battle? and why would a General knowing very well charging head on into Phalanxs is a bad BAD move do just that every single time?

Makes sense to me otherwise traits just seem rather pointless really.

[Craterus]

If reviewers and testers were to mark games more harshly when giving a percentage, you would necer get any 90% ! No game is perfect and I challenge you to find/make one that is.

[HolsteinCow]

I'm going to get flamed for... saying... this.

I'm actually looking forward to the 'fantasy' units. I'm not the kind of person that wants a game that won't let you do anything because it's not 'historically accurate'. ~:cheers:

[professorspatula]

Fantasy units are ok - if they look good at least. The Arcani are silly though. There's a very small and early pic of them somewhere where they look like something from a cyberpunk adventure.

[Spartiate]

I'm actually just after reading PCGamers review(advertisment)for the RTW:BI and it also gives absolutely no hint of criticism.However it does mention that the AI is being tweeked...........i would have prefered the phrase "the AI is being over-hauled" but what can you do. ~D

[Mongoose]

"I'm going to get flamed for... saying... this.

I'm actually looking forward to the 'fantasy' units. I'm not the kind of person that wants a game that won't let you do anything because it's not 'historically accurate'. "

*BEGINS FLAMING*

No one want's that. Not even RTR.
You can still do what ever the hell you want with out having uints like "wardogs" which are unbalanced.

Look at it this way:

In RTW 1.2 you charge a unit of cavalry head first into a phalanx.

Result: The phalanx is routed

In RTR 5.4 you charge a unit of cavalry head first into a phalanx.

Result: The enemy have horse kabobs for dinner.

For me, having screeching women in short skirts subtracts from the atmosphere.

Just my humble opinion.

[Azi Tohak]

All I can say is thank God for RTR. If you want to play with fantasy units, so be it, but I wish that they could be modded in, not have to be modded out.

That being said, I hope the units in BI won't be unbalanced.

Azi

[Viking]

Look at it this way:

In RTW 1.2 you charge a unit of cavalry head first into a phalanx.

Result: The phalanx is routed

In RTR 5.4 you charge a unit of cavalry head first into a phalanx.

Result: The enemy have horse kabobs for dinner.

No that can`t be right.
With single horse units the phalanxes will only take a few casualties while the horse unit flees.
Wich is quite realistic.

[Mongoose]

Well, okay.

Still, cavalry when massed are way to strong in vanillla.

[Bhruic]

If reviewers and testers were to mark games more harshly when giving a percentage, you would necer get any 90% ! No game is perfect and I challenge you to find/make one that is.

Er, yes, they aren't perfect. But as perfect is 100%, I'm not sure how that is relevant. There are quite a few games that would get 90+%, although not so many of the recent games. But there would also be a lot less games get 90+% that clearly don't deserve it.

Problem is, people have been taught to view the scale badly. A 70% is looked on as a "bad" game. 70% means that it's better than half the games out there. That should be looked at as a "good" game. Instead, every game seems to have to be packed into the 70%-100% range, which makes the whole point of using percentages pointless.

Bh

[Mongoose]

Is it just me or are all the ratings just slowly getting inflated?

[Craterus]

Problem is, people have been taught to view the scale badly. A 70% is looked on as a "bad" game. 70% means that it's better than half the games out there. That should be looked at as a "good" game. Instead, every game seems to have to be packed into the 70%-100% range, which makes the whole point of using percentages pointless.

Bh

I agree with you there. I have rarely seen a percentage less than 50 and the ones I have seen were terrible games but they still got 37% .

Some magazines do things fairly, and I've seen 5% ratings beeing given out in there but they hype up the good games and give 97% out.

I don't understand how you can give a percentage out when you don't know what 100% is.

All game reviewers will have a different opinion as to what the "perfect" game is.

[BDC]

Is it just me or are all the ratings just slowly getting inflated?
Well games are getting better overall... Regardless of what people say. Lots more money and processing power about now.

[Dutch_guy]

I don't understand how you can give a percentage out when you don't know what 100% is.

yes good point Craterus, I personnaly have never seen a game get rated 100 percent, but even if there are games out there rated 100 % it's all about perception - what the guy reviewing the game - thinks about that game, as Craterus said in his post.

And I sometimes catch myself thinking ; what [ insert reviewer name ] are you thinking ! that game deserves a 70 % insted of a 92 %, and sometiomes vice versa as well.
And I als o think that game ratings are indeed being inlfated, some games deserve it in my opinion, some don't.

But then again , these game magazines are made for the masses, just like Vanilla RTW . I would say lot's of people would definatley rate RTW as high as it has been rated in the magazines, I mean the 10 year old kid who bought RTW doesn't care about the save / load bug... nor about any other inbalance in the game. Hell I didn't even know there was a save / load bug, untill it was written in the posts in these forums.
Those who don't rate the game as high as the magazines ,who are perhaps a little more critical, come to forums just like these or play the major mods.
now don't take me wrong I would rate RTW very high, I just wanted to point out that the reviewers only give a global image of the game, not the info you get after playing hundreds of hours of RTW...

And to finally get on topic ; I am looking forward to the XP, it looks like it;s gonna be a whole new game...

[Mammut]

I have lately starting to get the feeling that RTW was not made to be a complete game, more a platform for players to mod their own version of the time period. Of course the vanilla version is playble but you get a feeling of wanting more when playing.

Now with RTW:BI I only interprets it was a addon to expand the modding possibilities. Now I dont know what the time limits in RTW is right now but the addon is clearly showing that the time limit is considerbly extended. Also new types of units are added and I guess that the limit here is lifted. When it comes to nations new possiblities is added and I guess the limit here is also extended.

I look forward to this expansion not as a game, more as new possibilites to make better mods. I have a feeling that CA's intension was to make a platform not a game otherwise they wouldn't release such a lacking game.

[Virtute71]

Well, okay.

Still, cavalry when massed are way to strong in vanillla.


I always thought the cavalry ratio in vanilla was way too high, about 67.5%. Every 100 men unit, a cavalry would be 67-68 horses. I would think it's about 15% for a Roman legion with its auxiliaries. So it's moddable to reduce the cavalry numbers and sustain the same recruitment price and upkeep. It makes the game much harder actually especially if you rely heavily on cavalry.