View Full Version : Creative Assembly Gamespy E3 coverage of Barbarian Invasion
edyzmedieval
05-20-2005, 20:41
pc.gamespy.com/pc/rome-to...349p1.html
Check this....Short report of the Barbarian Invasion
Thank God!!! News about the expansion!!!
Direct link please!! :bow:
Mikeus Caesar
05-20-2005, 21:03
T3h link!! (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/rome-total-war-expansion/617349p1.html)
w00t!!
Vikings!!!??!
What the heck??
The_Doctor
05-20-2005, 21:19
Oh God :embarassed:
Vikings?
Battle priests?
Mikeus Caesar
05-20-2005, 21:20
That's what i was thinking. My initial thoughts of 'w00t' suddenly crashed into a brick wall when i read the words 'priests' and 'vikings'. Well, at least we now know that the fantasy units are going to be as ridiculous as possible.
Well, actually the vikings are not more fantasy than Thrace in RTW.
But vikings??!!? They`re at least 300 years too early.
Mikeus Caesar
05-20-2005, 21:26
Actually, (i think) Thrace was supposedly around then, but was such a minor little kingdom, it didn't matter much.
According to the magasin I`m reading, Thrace was occupied by the macedonians 400 bc.
No screenshots? :embarassed:
But at least, BI is now official. :balloon2:
Tigranes
05-20-2005, 21:36
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It'll be war dogs, druids, warrior women, Egyptian Chariots, head throwers, and other such units all over again!
Why, CA, why have you diverged from reality and history? WHY!?!?!?!?! :furious3:
Mikeus Caesar
05-20-2005, 21:40
Because main stream gamers don't give a toss about reality. As long as they can win easily while killing thousands of people along the way, they're happy.
Epistolary Richard
05-20-2005, 21:45
I was more interested in this:
On the strategic map, many barbarian tribes have the "Hording" ability. This allows them to pack up an existing settlement and move the whole thing to another province.
Now currently, the one settlement a province concept makes such a thing impossible, so could this mean a separation of the two which would finally allow the representation of more settlements without having to cram the map with provinces?
Possibly, however, this is just going to be a spin on forts/watchtowers by providing a new brand of 'barbarian villages'.
Hambut_bulge
05-21-2005, 00:51
Of course the mention of Vikings could just be an ignorant games journalist randomly spewing off any 'barbarian' culture he can think of!
The priests don't sound too bad in my opinion. The Gamespy article states that they stop units from routing. As I recall, priest/holy men often held a great deal of power over Pagan tribes (much as Catholic priests did over Christian ones), so if thats their purpose in game, then OK. Besides you've got to give the Barbarian armies a decent chance against the legions, even if they represent the twilight of Roman power.
Spartiate
05-21-2005, 01:04
I hope/think that the Vikings are infact Saxons who will have a specialist coastal raiding ability in RTW:BI.Many films and books depict early Saxons as horn-helmed barbarians.Lets hope this is what this is.
The_Doctor
05-21-2005, 09:31
Anglos(Anglii I think the Romans called them) come from Denmark and so do the some of the Vikings, maybe this is what caused the confusion.
If priests can stop units routing that means they are on the battlefield, which means they must some find of combat skills. Therefore we battle priests.
If priests can stop units routing that means they are on the battlefield, which means they must some find of combat skills. Therefore we battle priests.
Battle Priests = Chritsian version of Druids.
Simple consistency thing.
And hardly unrelistic.
Medieval armies had priest in their armies.
But they were called "battle-priests", beacuse they were in army, to keep up morale (and give last confessions for moraly wounded), not becues they "fought" in battle.
Hambut_bulge
05-21-2005, 10:41
If priests can stop units routing that means they are on the battlefield, which means they must some find of combat skills. Therefore we battle priests.
Not necessarily. If we get a unit, 200 hundred strong, of ninja warrior priests complete with 'super-kewl finishing moves', then yes we've got a problem. If (and I really suspect this is more likely) its a single priest with a bodyguard of 20 or so tough warriors (non-priest), then its no different to a secondary generals unit.
Rodion Romanovich
05-21-2005, 10:49
500 AD? :bigcry: I want to start around 300 or 400 AD with Adrianople, Huns and so on! Or, alternatively, a game starting in around 650 AD with muslims, byzantines, franks and so on.
Vikings?!!! :bigcry: Why not add samurai, zulu warriors, mongols and moonpeople while you're at it?!
Priest unit?!!! :bigcry:
Swimming?!! :bigcry:
Night attacks that lower morale even more?!! :bigcry:
The features I do like are: moveable city population, as well as the fact that it would be fun with a game having vandals, goths, huns etc.
Hopefully CA realize soon that targetting the 12years old players market will make them lose their regular customers...
Hopefully CA realize soon that targetting the 12years old players market will make them lose their regular customers...
Erm how exactly are they doing this? They are trying to accommodate everybody in this new expansion pack. Night battles, they always exsited in RTW they just hardly rarely ever happened, and its adding a new twist to the game. The priests, i dont really see them as a fantasy unit, im not an histroical expert but im pretty sure at some points in time, priests did fight, Vikings? you mean the Saxons, who will specialise in sea raids. Swimming? well yes archer units, light units would have been able to swim, and it solves the bridge of death problem and allows you to flank you enemy at a bridge.
If you going to critise please think things through first.
The_Doctor
05-21-2005, 11:50
Medieval armies had priest in their armies.
But this is not medieval.
its a single priest with a bodyguard of 20 or so tough warriors
But the priest would still have to fight.
I am hoping it will be a retinue person that increases morale.
Hopefully CA realize soon that targetting the 12years old players market will make them lose their regular customers...
I think they know that.
Conqueror
05-21-2005, 14:18
Nope, one of the screenshots in ImageShack shows a unit full of robed priests ready to whack pagans over the head with clubs ~:handball:
Nope, one of the screenshots in ImageShack shows a unit full of robed priests ready to whack pagans over the head with clubs ~:handball:
Aka, not different then current Druid unit, so I don't mind.
They are moral boosters anyway, using them in combat to fight would probably be waste of resources.
cunctator
05-21-2005, 16:35
Swimming? well yes archer units, light units would have been able to swim, and it solves the bridge of death problem and allows you to flank you enemy at a bridge.
It`s a very bad idea to bring a composite bow in contact with water. I doubt that CA will decide between different types of archers.
The_Doctor
05-21-2005, 16:48
I hope the RTR team fix it. ~D
well maybe not archers then, but auxilla, spearmen etc etc
Mongoose
05-21-2005, 19:04
*SIGH*
I think i'll buy once there is a BITR mod :uneasy:
Colovion
05-21-2005, 20:08
these tidings are not at all inspiring
and CA will, most likely, neglect to speak with us Orgers who are unsatisfied about their motives for such debauchery
sad sad sad >:(
as much as this expansion seems to be a bonanza of ca fantasy crap. there is a silver lining.
having had a look at what has been achieved by the modding community in under a year, they have been complaining about things that are hard coded like faction and province limits.
'10 new factions' now they may have just renamed a few, but this could mean oppotunities for more detailed modding.
hoarding may allow the modders to depict a nomadic tribe properly.
The expansion itself may not be worth much, but it opens up the game for more modding!
sweet.
'10 new factions' now they may have just renamed a few, but this could mean oppotunities for more detailed modding. Sorry, what this means is that they've created units for 10 "new" factions. It does not mean that modders can ADD 10 new factions.
So far, as a modder, I see nothing of interest, except possibly the ability to pick up and move a settlement. We'll see how it works.
Im guessing the aren't lowering the kill rates...
This is it, im moving my belives of a realistic battle and empire game to slitherine software, legion 2
There isn't a single feature in the expansion which makes one truly excited and wait with enthusiasm. Some are alright, like being able to move settlements etc., but they haven't included anything revolutionary, such as 3D sea battles and such. Even a little feature such as Campaign Battle replays is not going to be added. I wonder what happened to CA and their will to bring true new features forward in the expansion.
With MTW:VI, there was one feature which made it worth buying even for existing MTW players of the main campaign, i.e., the reinforcements organisation etc. It didn't work till the patch to VI, so I only got VI after the patch, but it was really a must have feature. I couldn't care for Arab infantry etc., was nothing special.
Anyhow, I am still hoping for atleast ONE more such exciting feature in the expansion. Some excuse for buying it apart from perhaps a last hope of a save/load bug fix (which I won't as by then i wouldn't have played RTW in ages and probably won't care enough for it to have the bug fixed by paying for it).
Intrepid Sidekick
05-23-2005, 09:44
Just to clear up some mis-information in the news releases about BI.
There are no Vikings - The reporter must have got mixed up with Saxons.
The Saxons do not have horns on their helmets ~;)
The Romans dont have a chariot, its a Carrobalista.
The Priests are about as effective in a fight as a peasant but they can bolster the morale of nearby troops.
The game starts in 363 AD and finishes in 476 AD. Each faction has its own victory conditions, unless you want to win by world domination in which case just keep playing.
Playing the Western Empire will be rather tricky as you will have to deal with barbarian hordes, a lot of disloyalty and corruption, as well as an empty coffer and some Christian unrest.
INTREPID SIDEKICK
#C.A. Staff#
Myrddraal
05-23-2005, 10:05
I must say at first glance I thought the Carrobalista was a fantasy unit (no offence :wink:) But I ran a quick search on the net and found:
WEAPONS
The legions had two types of spring operated artillery. A light field gun (carrobalista) was mounted on a small cart. Ten men operated the weapon. One such piece was issued to each century. This means that about sixty field guns of this type could lay down a barrage of arrows or bolts nine inches long (often tarred & set ablaze). In addition, one large catapult (onager) was issued for each cohort. This was a very powerful instrument, throwing large boulders weighing two hundred-weights for four or five hundred yards. Ten such weapons were present in each legion.
From http://legvi.tripod.com/id25.html
In fact, you can even see one on Trajans column
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/Images/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/Trajans_Column/John_Pollen/13*.gif
Fig. 13.
The engine (of which this figure is from Vitruvius) is of the same nature as the last, but the motive power is different, and it is on a scale large enough to allow it to rank as a piece of artillery, and will be seen frequently sculptured on the column. When required for field artillery, or as a moveable piece to be handled in action and manoeuvred about during an engagement, these pieces are seen mounted on wheels. They are set on rectangular platforms, resembling in form the modern London water-cart, and of about the same size. They were called Carrobalistae. The arrows were discharged over the heads of the mules or horses that drew the piece as in No. XXVIII. When on walls or entrenchments, as in the wooden rampart represented in No. LI, or on the walls of a town, as in the same number, they were mounted on a turntable, supported by a massive column of wood.
What I wonder is, how did it work? Surely the recoil from a balista would start doing nasty things to the horses legs, unless they get out and put wedges under the wheels or something....
As for the priests, well they could look a liiitle less evil :smile:
edyzmedieval
05-23-2005, 10:13
Finally, a member of the CA staff replying to our desperate calls for more info!!!!!!! Long live CA!!!!!!! And thanks for the info!!!! Finally, some light shed!!!
Captain Fishpants
05-23-2005, 11:28
Finally, a member of the CA staff replying to our desperate calls for more info!!!!!!! Long live CA!!!!!!! And thanks for the info!!!! Finally, some light shed!!!
But now we have to kill him for revealing Inner Secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know Just Yet.
Tiny fool, he will pay with his soul! ~:)
cunctator
05-23-2005, 11:36
http://www.stoa.org/trajan/images/med/1.12.m.jpg
from http://www.stoa.org/trajan/
PseRamesses
05-23-2005, 11:38
There are no Vikings - The reporter must have got mixed up with Saxons. The Saxons do not have horns on their helmets ~;)
The viking didn´t either! ~;) Thanks foe the additional info though. We do appreciate the occasional drop-by from you semi-deities. ~:cheers:
Playing the Western Empire will be rather tricky as you will have to deal with barbarian hordes, a lot of disloyalty and corruption, as well as an empty coffer and some Christian unrest.
This is the most interesting thing I've heard about the expansion. I wonder if it will be viable to play the Empire defensively? Almost Total War games so far have been about expansion - to win, you have to occupy more provinces [1]. But I like the idea of just trying to hold on to your lands against the odds. Oda in STW and HRE in MTW were fun examples of large factions struggling to hold their frontiers; I am looking forward to the Western Empire being similar.
[1] The only real exception was the Japanese in MI
But now we have to kill him for revealing Inner Secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know Just Yet.
Tiny fool, he will pay with his soul! ~:)
BUAHAHAHAHA!!! :devilish:
This is the most interesting thing I've heard about the expansion. I wonder if it will be viable to play the Empire defensively? Almost Total War games so far have been about expansion - to win, you have to occupy more provinces [1]. But I like the idea of just trying to hold on to your lands against the odds. Oda in STW and HRE in MTW were fun examples of large factions struggling to hold their frontiers; I am looking forward to the Western Empire being similar.
[1] The only real exception was the Japanese in MI
Well, I guess that oversized army support (that is necesarry to keep borders not revolting), in combination with money deficit and several other factors would really make empire stagnant. Then add several good but old governors, which when die would add even more unrest (loss of influence and managment potential).
Basicly, you would need to reform your finances, and in same time watch from barbarian invasion (which could lead to even more deficit).
Mongoose
05-23-2005, 12:10
"Just to clear up some mis-information in the news releases about BI.
There are no Vikings - The reporter must have got mixed up with Saxons.
The Saxons do not have horns on their helmets
The Romans dont have a chariot, its a Carrobalista.
The Priests are about as effective in a fight as a peasant but they can bolster the morale of nearby troops.
The game starts in 363 AD and finishes in 476 AD. Each faction has its own victory conditions, unless you want to win by world domination in which case just keep playing.
Playing the Western Empire will be rather tricky as you will have to deal with barbarian hordes, a lot of disloyalty and corruption, as well as an empty coffer and some Christian unrest.
INTREPID SIDEKICK
#C.A. Staff#"
Thanks for clearing that up ~:cheers: Just two questions:
1: are there any plans to add civil wars to the game?
2: how hard will playing the roman factions be compared to RTW?
Rodion Romanovich
05-23-2005, 13:10
Just to clear up some mis-information in the news releases about BI.
There are no Vikings - The reporter must have got mixed up with Saxons.
The Saxons do not have horns on their helmets ~;)
The Romans dont have a chariot, its a Carrobalista.
The Priests are about as effective in a fight as a peasant but they can bolster the morale of nearby troops.
The game starts in 363 AD and finishes in 476 AD. Each faction has its own victory conditions, unless you want to win by world domination in which case just keep playing.
Playing the Western Empire will be rather tricky as you will have to deal with barbarian hordes, a lot of disloyalty and corruption, as well as an empty coffer and some Christian unrest.
INTREPID SIDEKICK
#C.A. Staff#
Nice! That means most of the points I disliked were only false rumours. Now I dislike gamespy instead... I hope you fix the siege bug in the expansion though, and limit AI usage of swimming over rivers and limit swimming speed a lot so it can't be overexploited by the player... I can imagine letting all my light/medium cavalry swimming over the river at the edge of the battle map and then come and crush the Ai opponents defending the brigde in the middle of the map without any problems... Anyway, apart from those worries it all seems very nice. So I can continue making my plans for how my ostrogothic warriors are going to kill the huns by themselves and then go and sack Rome... And I also like the news about faction specific objectives rather than only the number of provinces goal. A little like M:TW glory goals perhaps?
Just to clear up some mis-information in the news releases about BI.
There are no Vikings - The reporter must have got mixed up with Saxons.
The Saxons do not have horns on their helmets ~;)
The Romans dont have a chariot, its a Carrobalista.
The Priests are about as effective in a fight as a peasant but they can bolster the morale of nearby troops.
The game starts in 363 AD and finishes in 476 AD. Each faction has its own victory conditions, unless you want to win by world domination in which case just keep playing.
Playing the Western Empire will be rather tricky as you will have to deal with barbarian hordes, a lot of disloyalty and corruption, as well as an empty coffer and some Christian unrest.
INTREPID SIDEKICK
#C.A. Staff#
All this is good news indeed! ~:)
And individual victory conditions will make different campaigns more fun to conclude. ~:cool:
Thanks for dropping by CA guys! :bow:
By the way, I was looking forward to the vikings.. :dizzy2:
Finally an unofficial official anouncement
Barbarossa82
05-23-2005, 18:30
Each faction has its own victory conditions, unless you want to win by world domination in which case just keep playing.
INTREPID SIDEKICK
#C.A. Staff#
This was the most interesting part of the post to me. Does this mean we are going to see something along the lines of Glorious Achievement mode as in MTW, I wonder? I hope so, and that it will apply retropsectively to the Imperial campaign too ~:)
Rodion Romanovich
05-23-2005, 18:36
This was the most interesting part of the post to me. Does this mean we are going to see something along the lines of Glorious Achievement mode as in MTW, I wonder? I hope so, and that it will apply retropsectively to the Imperial campaign too ~:)
Either glorious achievements, or a list of objectives where you need to complete all of them to win independently of what the other faction do. Either way, I'm happy about the feature.
scorillo
05-23-2005, 19:47
It would be cool BI to start from 161 AD when Marcus Aurelius is the emperor of Rome....to 379 when the Roman Empire is separated
Colovion
05-23-2005, 19:47
Finally an unofficial official anouncement
~:)
Strongsword
05-23-2005, 20:37
It's interesting what was left unsaid by Intrepid Sidekick. Notably, there was no mention about the Eastern Empire, which survived the barbarian invasions that sacked Rome regularly and evolved into the formidable Byzantine Empire.
I take from this that, at the start, the Eastern Empire will be in a better position, both strategically and financially, than the Western Empire.
antisocialmunky
05-24-2005, 03:26
I must say at first glance I thought the Carrobalista was a fantasy unit (no offence :wink:) But I ran a quick search on the net and found:
From http://legvi.tripod.com/id25.html
In fact, you can even see one on Trajans column
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/Images/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/Trajans_Column/John_Pollen/13*.gif
Fig. 13.
The engine (of which this figure is from Vitruvius) is of the same nature as the last, but the motive power is different, and it is on a scale large enough to allow it to rank as a piece of artillery, and will be seen frequently sculptured on the column. When required for field artillery, or as a moveable piece to be handled in action and manoeuvred about during an engagement, these pieces are seen mounted on wheels. They are set on rectangular platforms, resembling in form the modern London water-cart, and of about the same size. They were called Carrobalistae. The arrows were discharged over the heads of the mules or horses that drew the piece as in No. XXVIII. When on walls or entrenchments, as in the wooden rampart represented in No. LI, or on the walls of a town, as in the same number, they were mounted on a turntable, supported by a massive column of wood.
What I wonder is, how did it work? Surely the recoil from a balista would start doing nasty things to the horses legs, unless they get out and put wedges under the wheels or something....
As for the priests, well they could look a liiitle less evil :smile:
Recoil off of a light portable ballista isn't going to be too much of a problem much like how getting shot in the chest doesn't make you fly 5 feet back. There's just not enough mass in the missile to contribute to an inertia caused recoil.
P.S. It worked with a chain system, crack it backwards to load a round from the hopper and after it reaches the back, the bow string is released, the projectile is shot, then you crank forwards(or backwards depending on the design) so you rehook the bow string and pull back to reload and shoot, etc.
It's pretty ingenious.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.