View Full Version : New screenshots from Brabarian Invasion
Here is the link http://media.pc.gamespy.com/media/744/744459/imgs_1.html
eadingas
05-24-2005, 11:59
Wow, cool! An army of Wookies! :)
Lord Tomyris Reloaded
05-24-2005, 12:01
I see the old dragon flag of Germania has returned; but now it's become blue. *evil grin*
I'm afraid to look. nothing but dissapointment awaits me there. Will CA stop the hard-coding crap? if not, i'm refusing to buy it
Dux Corvanus
05-24-2005, 15:17
Will CA stop the hard-coding crap?
Last interviews don't give fair expectations... and with SEGA in the rudder, I doubt this tendence will stop, but get worse.
damn, whats could EB possible do with 10 faction slots...bastards
cunobelinus
05-24-2005, 19:39
im not sure if i wont to buy it wat time period is it i am confused i thought it was still 250bc kind of time but i aint sure no more coz they dont look right are they improving the babrian factions or are they extending the map and adding factions!!!!?!?
Lord Tomyris Reloaded
05-24-2005, 19:46
250 BC? Oh no no no; Barbarian Invasion is set during the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 4 and 5th centuries AD.
Check here and scroll down (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=47508)
Mongoose
05-24-2005, 20:28
OMFGZ!!!!!1!!!! DA ADDED TEH NIHT BATTLEs!1!!!!!! TEH XPAC RUXXXORZZZ!!1!1 HAHAHAHAHA TEH OWNED TEH ROMINS !!1111!!11!!!!1
I hope they have improved more then just the eye candy...eye candy makes people buy, gameplay makes them keep playing......
wel, it seems CA is more inetresseted in the buying part then in the keep playing part
you`re right, they are doing this game only for money.
I care very little if the expansion is fun or not. I just hope it opens up new development pathways for mods like EB.
you`re right, they are doing this game only for money.
It is their job to be fair to them.
eadingas
05-25-2005, 18:12
Well, maybe they've decided they can't compete with us in historical realism, so they will go for total fantasy this time ;)
you`re right...
I hear this so rarely I feel like quoting the people that do
Lord Tomyris Reloaded
05-25-2005, 21:33
You're right, it is a rare occurance.
metatron
05-26-2005, 07:38
Wow, cool! An army of Wookies! :)http://www.wordforge.net/forum/images/smilies/roflx.gif
sharrukin
05-26-2005, 07:59
Well I don't see why CA couldn't do just as well as EB has done! It's not like we are getting paid a lot for this. In fact most of us have yet to see our first paycheck. Most of us would have done the same thing for CA at one time (in the far distant past) for free.
BTW are those actual screenshots or are they touched up? They kinda look like mat paintings or something.
You're right, it is a rare occurance.
TWO In a row. i'm getting good :wall:
you right Jerby you're right!
your so right! man you're right!
(now you gotta say thank you! jerby!)
anyway it was my pleasure! :p
i'm putting you in my sig too :'D
Wikingus
05-27-2005, 12:54
Priest units...swimming units, moving settlements from one province to another....WTF? ~:confused: :furious3:
Steppe Merc
05-27-2005, 12:57
Are those supposed to be Huns??? What's with that General with the squished face?
One thing i like in this game are torches and nightbattles but the rest will be one big shit.Merc, i think that one of the priests smashed him with a cross ~;)
Dux Corvanus
05-27-2005, 19:29
Are those supposed to be Huns??? What's with that General with the squished face?
It seems that some Homo Erectus were still alive and serving in Eastern armies. Awesome discovery! ~:eek:
Idomeneas
05-27-2005, 20:57
CA commits suicide
CA comitting suicide? maybe if we all sign a motion..the like the bureaucratic stuff dont they?
bodidley
05-28-2005, 09:24
Are those supposed to be Huns??? What's with that General with the squished face?
I've pretty much given up expecting historical accuracy from CA, but I sure wasn't expecting a whole unit that looked like a bunch of gawddamn EUNICHS!!
Personally, i couldn't care less about the period. I'm a greek-lover. I'm just Hoping EB will make itself compatible with the X-pac. I'm looking forward too the river-battle. using Trebia tactics. Night attacks look nice as well.
But first: AI. Hundreds of games have come out advertising: extraordianry AI. Ai is good for cash-flow ass well. But damn CA doesnt realize it.
I ahve never had the luck to play MTW, But by some things in RTW you can see CA has the Know-how to make the AI better
bodidley
05-28-2005, 10:48
Personally, i couldn't care less about the period. I'm a greek-lover. I'm just Hoping EB will make itself compatible with the X-pac.
I think phalanxs, or at least hoplites, need some real overhaul. What's your take? In some of the screenshots of BI there were soldiers wielding spears overhand, so troops in a phalanx could potentially continue to wield their spears at close range with the X-Pac. I don't know if the phalanx movement behavior is hard-coded, that kind of bugs me as well.
well, as far as i know. the phalanx formation was extinct at that time. and RTW/RTR/EB phalanxes will always be better than none at all.
eadingas
05-28-2005, 13:34
There's supposed to be shield walls and walls of spear formations available...
bodidley
05-28-2005, 17:31
well, as far as i know. the phalanx formation was extinct at that time. and RTW/RTR/EB phalanxes will always be better than none at all.
The phalanx wasn't extinct during the time of Roman expansion, though the Romans certainly helped get it there. In RTW hoplites fight in an extremely slow formation, and when they reach their enemy they stop and take of few pokes. On the contrary, hoplites generally charged their enemy when they reached close range, and used their tight formation to make the men in back push the men in front, pushing the enemy back so that they would be killed while they were off balance.
Marcus Maxentius
05-28-2005, 20:22
Actually, in RTW what they do is make hoplites and pike phalanxs attack the same way when they were different. I wish they had added an animation where hoplites charge(getting their bonus by the way) into the opposing ranks and then begin stabbing at weak points.
I don't think the phalanx was extinct at this time considering it survived into the medieval period.
Ok, so phalanxes need overhaul. I somehow i think RWT messed up this period. and in steda of makeing it better. the move forward and (probably) mess up another period. i stead of inventing they should be enhancing...
I think we can more accurately display shieldwalls (or so I was told, can't confirm) without the phalanx ability, by making a unit hold a tight, dense formation. It'd allow them to charge and such as normal.
well, then the formation would be tight. and teh sheidlwall will be there, but as soon as hand to hand combat begins the formation would disintergrate since the dumb AI-soldiers all want teh first kill. take a look at Legionairs in RTW: they stand very dence but as soon as they hit the enemy unit they break apart. Maybe this can be modded out with guard mode, but i'm not sure.
then again, what are all the effect of guard mode?
antiochus epiphanes
06-01-2005, 16:58
religious fanatics! with clubs! sweet!
forget the boycott im getting this
I sure am glad that TWC imploded......:rolleyes:
Big_John
06-01-2005, 17:27
I sure am glad that TWC imploded......:rolleyes:i warned you guys.. ~;)
KingOfTheIsles
06-01-2005, 17:44
Are those over-hand spears, or just throwing javelins?
Big_John
06-01-2005, 18:41
afaik, that's the overhand spear animation, and it works (i think they adapted the javelin animation to make it).
yeah, finally. shows that even CA listens to the modding society.
Big_John
06-01-2005, 18:58
oops i got confused, i thought you were asking about EB. i have no idea whether overhand spears are in BI.. frankly, i'd be surprised if they were.
On the main page, the title of this thread in the 'new posts' section reads:
'New screenshots from..."
Damn you for making me think EB's weekly update was here.
Big_John
06-01-2005, 19:06
ha
well, in the future, remember that the previews have recently begun with "EB - Countdown to Open Beta" or something like that. ~;)
Aymar de Bois Mauri
06-01-2005, 22:48
then again, what are all the effect of guard mode?Guard Mode is preciselly designed to keep a steady formation. Disable it and the formation breaks.
Mackaaan
06-01-2005, 23:52
Well for you guys who don't want to buy BI, you should support or help Fall of Rome mod!
Check this out http://www.3dgamers.com/games/romebi/screenshots/
eadingas
06-07-2005, 08:22
I'm getting sick of those flaming arrows showing up everywhere. It's like that's the only thing they really like to show off.
I'm getting sick of those flaming arrows showing up everywhere. It's like that's the only thing they really like to show off.
Maybe because, that's the only thing they have to show? ~:eek:
~;)
OMG, that they put in a fantasy game liek "spartan total warrior' ok, i cant live with that. btu this is just sick!
http://www.totalwar.com/community/rtwbi.htm some info on BI.After reading this i have changed my mind on this game.There will be shield wall, schilltron and throwing axes!
looks like they're shaping up. adding some more "medieval" featyres
civil wars look like they'll be lime mtw, where you chose a general to side with (that part could always be devestating in mtw)
religion, with (i dont know what the religious figures would be called, cardinals? monks) and such, ala mtw. there's an EB (not the mod ;)) review floating around somewhere which mentions christianity, zoroastor and i guess islam. sending (monks??) around to other cities/your own cities to convert or keep people happy, like in mtw
plus... shield wall!
bodidley
06-07-2005, 18:07
Some great features that were in previous games, and some new ones. Would I pay $35 for this when there is more intriguing competion? Probably not. I'll wait for the modders to get a hold of this one before I make up my mind ~:)
On a side note: Am I mistaken or are they about 850 or so years off with the schiltron?
Religion we may be able to use to an extent; I could anyway. The Romans tried to exterminate much of the Celtic religion (since it reinforced a lot of ideals that encouraged rebellion), and destroy the priest caste. That may be a bit interesting. Shield walls would be nice, a number of units would use them. I also like the concept of choosing sides in a civil war again, I missed that.
cunctator
06-07-2005, 19:12
The "new factions can emerge when circumstances are right" feature sounds good. I hope this brings more alternation to advanced campaigns. Also I hope EB can use it, so that we can see a the judaen state emerging from rebelious jerusalem.
Steppe Merc
06-07-2005, 20:23
But it may mean less faction spots availabe... and Judea is not more important than any of our starting factions.
well with the "factions emerging" parthia can be done right.
Greek_fire19
06-07-2005, 22:15
Combined with 5-10 more faction slots (come on, how hard can it be?) the features of this would clinch it for me.
See, the thing is, I would pay way more than £20 for EB, or pretty much any good mod in development. What I'm gonna go is buy BI, copy another data file and use it as just another quality mod (cus thats the way i'm looking at it, just another mod) if it has features that lead other mods to incorporate it, Ill have it so i'll be set. it's all good.
Steppe Merc
06-07-2005, 23:09
well with the "factions emerging" parthia can be done right.
But I wouldn't be able to play as them. And they are done more or less correctly in EB, more than how CA did it.
Sounds like BI will give you guys a lot to work with. I look forward to it!
And the solution is easy: just buy it! The expansion will only make EB and other mods better, so why boycott it or do any of that silly stuff? Its not like it hurts the developer/publisher if one person(ok, i'll give it to you: 10 people) decide not to buy their new product... :dizzy2:
The shield wall and faction emerging sound very cool, but i hope they remove the faction and unit limits as well.
The decision to move onto BI will depend purely on what BI has to offer, as determined post-release. We want to make our mod the best it can be, and if BI offers us very attractive ways to do that, fans will have to make individual decisions about whether or not they wish to buy BI and continue receiving updates to EB.
Big_John
06-08-2005, 04:32
But I wouldn't be able to play as them. And they are done more or less correctly in EB, more than how CA did it.maybe he means that EB would be able to represent parthia 'emerging' from seleukid rule better with the BI functionality.
moving EB onto Barbarian Invasion would somewhat alienate the many of us who are boycotting the Expansion pack.i think EB has already stated somewhere that they feel no need to boycott the expansion, so the boycotters will need to take that into consideration. we'll have to wait and see whether the expansion will even offer much of use to EB. however, there will most likely be a more-or-less complete version of EB for the non-expansion RTW anyway.
edit: err.. what khelvan said. :blank2:
The decision to move onto BI will depend purely on what BI has to offer, as determined post-release. We want to make our mod the best it can be, and if BI offers us very attractive ways to do that, fans will have to make individual decisions about whether or not they wish to buy BI and continue receiving updates to EB.
does this mean that even with IB we(EB) wil still play the same timeframe? 280BC-10AC?
I would suspect so. Though I know many of our team would like to do other periods as well, especially the fall of Rome, and others have plans for mods such as c. 300 BC British Isles, we have only so much time and so many resources.
Samurai Waki
06-08-2005, 08:11
Well if I remember correctly MTW was lacking many things in the form of AI and stability until VI came out... so I see no reason to boycott an expansion that we don't know anything about in terms of modability. Thats why I think many modders have remained aloof in such affairs that many in the TW community have been pushing.
cunctator
06-08-2005, 08:18
I believe the petition was well over 1000 people. They have already said they have no plans to softcode any more of the game. Hardcode limits will be exactly the same--if not worse, considering BI has less factions.
They will have to raise some of the hardcoded limits to make BI working with the current imperial campaign in one game.
I don`t really understand why so many people have definetly decided to boycot the expansion before it is released. If it`s not worth the money for you than ok, but it sounds unfair to judge an unfinished product.
Big_John
06-08-2005, 08:50
It's been that way throughout history. And, to the person above who said something about moddability: They've said in interviews already that they have no plans to raise hardcaps.while the theory behind the boycott is sound (though one may disagree with the premise), we won't know for sure what avenues the expansion will open up for modders. if the expansion truly does not improve the modability of the game, then i doubt EB (or other mods) will adopt it.
Big_John
06-08-2005, 09:36
...They've already said they don't plan to make the game more moddable. I've said this about three times now.keeping model/skin/etc limits in place does not mean the expansion won't open up new avenues for modders (e.g. new formations, civil wars, emerging factions, etc).
so, i'll repeat: "we won't know for sure what avenues the expansion will open up for modders. if the expansion truly does not improve the modability of the game, then i doubt EB (or other mods) will adopt it."
Over a thousand of us would appreciate it if at least one of your works remained free of CA's latest cash-cow.
The other thousands and thousands of the rest of us who don't give three-sevenths of a flying flip about the boycott (in addition to the 70% of the petition-signers who you and I both know will buy the xpak anyway) would appreciate it if EB examined every option to make the mod better.
While I share some of your frustration with RTW's shortcomings and I understand the reasoning behind your actions, asking EB to deny the best possible mod to those of us who choose not to participate in your boycott is nothing short of selfish. Well, asking is not really selfish, but continuing to press them on the issue even after they have said no... that is. And it is not appreciated by the rest of us or the EB team itself, believe me.
...They've already said they don't plan to make the game more moddable. I've said this about three times now.
Well they will HAVE to raise the faction limit to add ~20 factions that aren't in vanilla. And I bet they will have to raise the model and unit limits as well, to accomodate twice as many factions. If (if) EB can take the existing 20 faction spots from vanilla and use the 20 new faction spots in the BI campaign (are they going to be the same 20 spots? I highly doubt it) and combine them into one campaign, that will give them 40 factions to work with. If they only end up using like 28 factions, that will give them an extra 12 factions worth of units and models they can use. Now, province and building limits, I am not sure if there will be a necessity to raise those but we shall see.
So, it seems to me, CA WILL be raising hardcoded limits just to accomodate their new additions, regardless of whether or not it makes the game more moddable. It may not be as good as softcoding, but that is space we can use. In addition, who knows what other cool features will be added in the expansion that can be incorporated into EB (civil wars, senate removal, shieldwall, I am looking at you).
Steppe Merc
06-08-2005, 13:18
Well I hope that it will help us. I have no love for CA, but I hope that it will help our mod. If it doesn't, then we won't use it. One thing is for sure, I will have no intrest in playing the unmodded version of that game.
Considering the major changes that took place in military and economic organisation in the Late Classis and Early medieval time period, there's bound to be more features than only the ones listed, too. What about the foederati? The Byzantine Themes and Tagmata? I'm looking forward to it.
Malrubius
06-08-2005, 15:35
Well they will HAVE to raise the faction limit to add ~20 factions that aren't in vanilla. And I bet they will have to raise the model and unit limits as well, to accomodate twice as many factions. If (if) EB can take the existing 20 faction spots from vanilla and use the 20 new faction spots in the BI campaign (are they going to be the same 20 spots? I highly doubt it) and combine them into one campaign, that will give them 40 factions to work with. If they only end up using like 28 factions, that will give them an extra 12 factions worth of units and models they can use. Now, province and building limits, I am not sure if there will be a necessity to raise those but we shall see.
So, it seems to me, CA WILL be raising hardcoded limits just to accomodate their new additions, regardless of whether or not it makes the game more moddable. It may not be as good as softcoding, but that is space we can use. In addition, who knows what other cool features will be added in the expansion that can be incorporated into EB (civil wars, senate removal, shieldwall, I am looking at you).
So BI is going to have 40 factions in it? From what I've read, it's going to have 10 different factions that weren't in RTW. Unless they're retaining every faction from RTW, I don't see why they'd have to change the current limit. I think they'd actually just replace some of the old factions with new ones. New units, new buildings, etc, just means that they'll be different from the ones already in RTW, and probably replacing out-of-date ones.
I guess we'll know in a few months. ~:handball:
Trainix of Knights:
:charge: :duel: :charge:
eadingas
06-08-2005, 15:44
I can imagine them not even having to move cultures around too much. Barbarians would become Germans (Franks, Saxons, Goths, Vandals...), Easterners become Steppe (Huns and Sarmatians), etc.
So far there's been very little shown in regards to non-battle engine changes. Hordes and civil wars, that's all...
The Wizard
06-08-2005, 16:48
Considering the major changes that took place in military and economic organisation in the Late Classis and Early medieval time period, there's bound to be more features than only the ones listed, too. What about the foederati? The Byzantine Themes and Tagmata? I'm looking forward to it.
No themes or tagmata until Heraklios in the 7th century AD. The Eastern Roman army of the day was basically a more Sassanid-oriented version of the Western army. Germanic mercenaries were wholly purged from the army in the 5th century by Theodosius II, IIRC. They also used more Hunnic mercenaries as well, since several civil wars between the Eastern and Western emperors were won by the Eastern augustus because of his more mobile horse archers. A notable exception is the Battle of the Frigid River, where large volumes of Germanic mercenaries fought each other, the 'Visigoths' (which is an incorrect term for the day) on Eastern emperor Theodosius I's side.
~Wiz
No themes or tagmata until Heraklios in the 7th century AD. The Eastern Roman army of the day was basically a more Sassanid-oriented version of the Western army. Germanic mercenaries were wholly purged from the army in the 5th century by Theodosius II, IIRC. They also used more Hunnic mercenaries as well, since several civil wars between the Eastern and Western emperors were won by the Eastern augustus because of his more mobile horse archers. A notable exception is the Battle of the Frigid River, where large volumes of Germanic mercenaries fought each other, the 'Visigoths' (which is an incorrect term for the day) on Eastern emperor Theodosius I's side.
~Wiz
I am aware of the time period in which Constans II made the Themes & Tagmata reforms; I guess I'm assuming the game will have a suffeciently long time span to cover the early 7th century too. It starts out in the late 4th century, right? Then why not?
The Wizard
06-08-2005, 22:37
I'm guessing ol' CA will choose either the date of Atilla's death or the relatively unimportant event of Romulus Augustulus' deposition as end date.
~Wiz
I'm guessing ol' CA will choose either the date of Atilla's death or the relatively unimportant event of Romulus Augustulus' deposition as end date.
~Wiz
Let's hope not, that's before all the interesting stuff happened... I mean, no Arab conquests 'n all? Bah.
cunctator
06-09-2005, 13:30
From official homepage: BI campaign will start 363ad and end 476ad. (End of Romolus Augustulus reign)
eadingas
06-09-2005, 13:39
I hope they make it 4 turns/year this time, or it will be awfully short...
WTF, things started to get interesting AFTER the fall of Rome...
From official homepage: BI campaign will start 363ad and end 476ad. (Death of Romolus Augustulus)
LIES! Romolus Augustulus didn't die then, he was only dethroned. Alvarik didn't see him as a big enough threat to kill.
Also: yeah, a lot of interesting stuff happens after the fall of Rome too. M'key, perhaps I overstated it before, but still... I mean, especially in the East it's going to be relatively quiet...
cunctator
06-09-2005, 14:40
Of course you`re right jebus. He died after 511 ad. Corrected that.
I'll let it go... This time.
Next time I won't be so forgiving!
Tremble! Tremble, mortal!
The Wizard
06-09-2005, 15:39
I mean, especially in the East it's going to be relatively quiet...
I don't think Shapur I or II would agree with you on that fact :]
~Wiz
I don't think Shapur I or II would agree with you on that fact :]
~Wiz
Well yeah, the Sassanids. That's only one nation :D
Still nowhere nere the fun-potential the Arab invasions have, though.
eadingas
06-09-2005, 18:01
I don't know, the Byzantine-Sassanid wars were quite epic, and if it weren't for them, the Sassanids would never get so much weakened, making them easy prey for Arabs...
Still, the expansion should at least end with Justinian gaining the throne in Byzantium, that was the really important event in those days, not dethroning some peculiar little local italian ruler...
They need to make a giant game that covers the whole world and goes all the way from Alexander to Napoleon (in stages so you can play different eras, a la Medieval). Then everyone will be happy.
Preferably with every nation/tribe/conderation/etc... that has ever existed, and those that could hypothetically have existed, if the player takes a piss for a minute and alters the course of history.
Now we're getting somewhere!
Preferably with every nation/tribe/conderation/etc... that has ever existed, and those that could hypothetically have existed, if the player takes a piss for a minute and alters the course of history.
Hopefully they will have an animation of the player actually pissing on the time-space continuum and if the wind isn't blowing the piss in a historically-accurate direction for that time and place... oh man, watch out. I will be mad. You don't even know.
Still, the expansion should at least end with Justinian gaining the throne in Byzantium, that was the really important event in those days, not dethroning some peculiar little local italian ruler...
I thinik CA is trying to focus this expansion on what can be agreed on as the "fall of Rome". Even though Rome as a culture or even as a political entity didn't "fall" until the 15th century, 476AD is a set date that many historians refer to as the beginning of the Dark Ages.
And what does it tell you when a game ends at the beginning of the Dark Ages? That the next game will be focused on that time period. Or if not the next game, they will at least have that period of history to fall back on in the future.
It's all market strategy. Don't make a game that encompasses too many time periods (ESPECIALLY not an expansion pack), or you'll run out of material to make games about.
And to the person who's boycotting the expansion pack...
99.9% of the people who will buy this product don't give a rat's ass about historical accuracy. It's a game, and most casual gamers treat it as such. Don't get me wrong, I love historical accuracy as I am a bit of a history buff myself, but you can't blame a company who's goal it is to make money (its sole purpose for existance) for trying to make a game that appeals to a broad audience (IE people who don't know much about history but enjoy playing games).
I honestly don't think that 1 person boycotting a game, or even 1,000 will make any difference at all. RTW sold millions, and the expansion will likely sell very well with or without your money.
I honestly don't think that 1 person boycotting a game, or even 1,000 will make any difference at all. RTW sold millions, and the expansion will likely sell very well with or without your money.
I think the same thing, and I'm pretty sure the boycotters realize it too, but it's the statement of principle that matters, not the effects. I'm sure word of it has gotten back to CA even if they don't do anything about it.
Spacemonk
06-13-2005, 11:30
And what does it tell you when a game ends at the beginning of the Dark Ages? That the next game will be focused on that time period. Or if not the next game, they will at least have that period of history to fall back on in the future.
didn't they already made that game?? Medival total war? ~;)
It's a game, and most casual gamers treat it as such. Don't get me wrong, I love historical accuracy as I am a bit of a history buff myself, but you can't blame a company who's goal it is to make money (its sole purpose for existance) for trying to make a game that appeals to a broad audience (IE people who don't know much about history but enjoy playing games).
to be honest, i enjoyed RTW, untill i read stuff about the period. after that it sucked.
IMHO i think that making money is indeed the priority. but if you want to make money, you need to appeal to al laegrer audience. RTW apealed to game players, not to history buff's. A historical RTW will appeal to both: and its good advertisement:'just like it really happened'
The Wizard
06-13-2005, 14:04
And to the person who's boycotting the expansion pack...
99.9% of the people who will buy this product don't give a rat's ass about historical accuracy. It's a game, and most casual gamers treat it as such. Don't get me wrong, I love historical accuracy as I am a bit of a history buff myself, but you can't blame a company who's goal it is to make money (its sole purpose for existance) for trying to make a game that appeals to a broad audience (IE people who don't know much about history but enjoy playing games).
I honestly don't think that 1 person boycotting a game, or even 1,000 will make any difference at all. RTW sold millions, and the expansion will likely sell very well with or without your money.
Ah, but that isn't my biggest gripe with the game, and I'm sure my fellow EB members will agree with me. If they had made a game with a good AI and all its new features working, but it was historically abominable, I would have loved it (like I did MTW).
Plus it would have made our job a helluva lot easier! ~D
Okay, enough hijacking this thread, thank you. Debating about the game, its gameplay, its accuracy and/or if it is useful to boycot CA for being a very unsupportive developer is for the Colosseum.
~Wiz
eadingas
06-13-2005, 14:11
Some poor quality screens from E3:
http://img46.echo.cx/my.php?image=17ik.jpg
http://img46.echo.cx/my.php?image=22mo.jpg
http://img46.echo.cx/my.php?image=31vk.jpg
http://img46.echo.cx/my.php?image=40ac.jpg
http://img46.echo.cx/my.php?image=62sj.jpg
I seriously hope this is all just a work in progress... if you look at the map, it's even uglier and worse (fewer, larger provinces) than in vanilla...
damn, the same map. not even larger! Less factions that RTW. this proves teh screenies sene before are just Movie-shots. Still hate teh damn scorpion-chariots...
Mongoose
06-13-2005, 23:01
So..fewer units..fewer factions...fewer provinces...WTH?!
Dux Corvanus
06-13-2005, 23:15
More than a expansion, it looks like an implosion...
But, at least, one good thing may arise: the chance to have mod folders instead of overwrite all in a separated full copy of the game... :inquisitive:
Mongoose
06-13-2005, 23:19
More than a expansion, it looks like an implosion...
But, at least, one good thing may arise: the chance to have mod folders instead of overwrite all in a separated full copy of the game... :inquisitive:
Don't count on it...CA said the [/B]RTW[B] would be "The most moddable game ever" And yet they have released no editor's and have put many strange hard coded limits into the game... :furious3:
shifty157
06-13-2005, 23:29
Remember though that those are only the 'playable' factions. Vanilla had very few playable factions as well and was then modded so all factions were playable.
Byzantine Prince
06-14-2005, 00:02
What the devil?!?! Fewer factions?!?! Come on!!! They should have put like a million little factions for tribes. They better make the game more fluid and with less bugs or else I'm not buying. :embarassed:
Mongoose
06-14-2005, 00:31
Remember though that those are only the 'playable' factions. Vanilla had very few playable factions as well and was then modded so all factions were playable.
I'm pretty sure that vanilla listed the unplayable factions after listing the playable ones.
I see no reason what so ever to belive that there are factions other then the ones they have listed.
EDIT: woops..they did say that there would be other factions :embarassed:
But what if there are not very many? There might only be 2-3 "nonplayable" factions. :end:
And why the hell are there fewer provinces!?
Don't counton it...CA said the [/B]RTW[B] would be "The most moddable game ever" And yet they have released no editor's and have put many strange hard coded limits into the game... :furious3:
R:TW is, for sure, the most moddable game I've ever seen. Heck, even I, about as computerilliterate as a 90-year-old female letuce farmer, can mod it.
You people are just ingratefull. Stop whining, you babies.
Jebus, just out of curiosity, how many games have you modded? I can tell you that this game is accessable to newbie modders but is definitely not the most moddable game ever, in fact it is way down the list. Sure, you can play around with the text files, but if we didn't have someone hacking their archive code and making tools we wouldn't be able to do anything at all other than shallow edits. This game is not even close to what it was supposed to be in terms of moddability.
Jebus, just out of curiosity, how many games have you modded? I can tell you that this game is accessable to newbie modders but is definitely not the most moddable game ever, in fact it is way down the list. Sure, you can play around with the text files, but if we didn't have someone hacking their archive code and making tools we wouldn't be able to do anything at all other than shallow edits. This game is not even close to what it was supposed to be in terms of moddability.
Well, as I said, I'm not really a modder. I've tried to help out with a Fallout 2 and a Jagged Alliance 2 project a bit, and compared to those this game is incredibly easy to mod. You can't mod everything, agreed, but you can't really expect the guys to release the source code with their game, can you now?
I mean, just look at what you guys did, for instance. And in such a short time, no less.
Also, please ignore the typo's in my previous post. I was still only half-awake when I wrote that...
eadingas
06-14-2005, 10:49
We did it because of non-supported tools, released by Vercingetorix etc, and hours and hours of work, stumbling through files, even CRACKING the exe to get a list of possible tweaks. CA never released anything to help us mod. Not even a manual. Without fan support, the only modding we could do would be changing txt files, and map. That means no new units, no new buildings, no new graphics. The only mods you'd have would be various mini-campaigns based in vanilla RTW world and settings. Think about it.
Contrast against another game I have modded, Battlefield 1942. They released a Mod Development Kit (upgraded at least three times with new features), which contained packing/unpacking tools, mod tutorials, map editors, and various other things (all of which we had to hack and create ourselves for RTW); they set up an online modding support site, where all of the in-game values and parameters were explained to modders (nothing exists for RTW); Most of the mechanics for the entire game were accessable (very little for RTW). I believe they even provided their own conversion tool to send models into 3DSMax and GMax, as well as an unwrapping tool. NONE of the modding tools for BF1942 were fan created, though I think a fan created an alternate map editor (not liking the released one). Not a single appreciative parameter was hard-coded (or if they were, they had limits near infinity, as no modder has run into it yet).
The modding support for RTW consists of: Occasional, infrequent (though valuable) posts by an RTW developer in a fan forum. Everything else is fan-created, from the tools to the tutorials. And, of course, we're stymied by hard code everywhere.
Compared to my experience modding BF1942, which WAS very simple, a breeze really, modding RTW has been a frustrating, tedious experience that I would never have continued if I didn't like this project so much.
Mongoose
06-14-2005, 18:12
R:TW is, for sure, the most moddable game I've ever seen. Heck, even I, about as computerilliterate as a 90-year-old female letuce farmer, can mod it.
You people are just ingratefull. Stop whining, you babies.
*SHOWS TEETH*
Stop raving, you fanboys. :tongue:
1:240 unitmodel limit.
2:No modding tools.
3:province limit.
And the list goes on and on...
Sorry...i am not usully one to flame but "You people are just ingratefull. Stop whining, you babies" was asking for it...
Maybe it's because i'm this http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/jekylhyde.htm
:laugh4:
Well, compared to BF1942 (whatever game that may be), R:TW lacks a bit then, yes. Yet, compared to the other games I've tried to mod (like Fallout 2 or Jagged Alliance 2), it's at least above par.
And who knows, perhaps they'll release their tools with BI. And I think I also heard that the map editor wasn't released by CA because a fan had already created a better one, etc.
But hey, I'm in no way trying to take away any glory from your modding efforts, EB people. It's still great work.
eadingas
06-14-2005, 18:36
Note that CA didn't say it will be "more moddable than Jagged Alliance". They said it will be "most moddable ever". Strategy games generally are very moddable, because that increases their playability and repeatability well, which is their main purpose of existence. Vanilla RTW, without any fan input, is nowhere near "very moddable". It's hardly moddable at all.
And it doesn't really say well about CA if, knowing the engine and code, and getting paid for it, the couldn't whip out something better than MrHide's free tool.
In terms of overall moddability, RTW may not even beat MTW, much less other -contemporary- games (Fallout 2 and Jagged Alliance 2 are much older).
What are those pink guys in your sig?
On topic : if they reduce number of provinces it will be awful
eadingas
06-14-2005, 18:44
They are the Hellenes answer to Gasaetae :D
Mongoose
06-14-2005, 18:47
They were an april fools joke... ~:cheers:
They are the Hellenes answer to Gasaetae :D
:laugh4:
Best joke ever, although I can't help but feeling like a nerd for getting it...
And well, perhaps I overestimated the modding possibilities with R:TW then. At the least, the changes I wanted to make were relatively easily implemented... Yet of course, I wouldn't know how 'easy' a full modification would be.
So hey, hugs 'n kisses.
Byzantine Mercenary
06-23-2005, 08:37
Is there any way you get hold of any of this modding software?
I would quite like to have a go at modding but can even work out how to change the map.
I have 6 new screenshots http://games.tiscali.cz/clanek/screen_detail.asp?id=9140&img=bog1.jpg.They look realy poor, this is so sad... :bigcry: .Look carefuly at picture 6. :dizzy2:
King Ragnar
07-03-2005, 16:13
How do hey look poor?
Steppe Merc
07-03-2005, 16:17
Very very very a historical.
I particullary hate the group of random monks that they decided to have as battle units, and the Huns are pathetic looking, as are the Sassanids.
hmm...doesn't look too good...but i think, i'm going to buy it (I'm sure, there will be new skins, etc....for the add-on too^^)
Hope the new skins aren't the final ones...
ScionTheWorm
07-05-2005, 07:22
they were of poor quality indeed... but nice light effects, looks like my pirate themepark in rollercoaster tycoon 3. the wookie-skins looks seriously influenced by the mods. and notice the round black line above the center of the shield, made that one too quick?
Look on the screen nr6 they are hoolding spears and swords at the same time.
The Wizard
07-05-2005, 14:46
You have a good eye! Did not notice that.
~Wiz
Orda Khan
07-05-2005, 16:45
the Huns are pathetic looking.
This looks like just the General's Bodyguard unit. I think we are getting a little too fussy? Limited archaeological evidence and historical reference means that very little is actually known about their appearance. Most sources merely mention rags or skins of marmots. I will reserve my opinion until I see the whole selection
.........Orda
Steppe Merc
07-05-2005, 17:20
I know that archealgocial evidence is scarce. However, the general is decked out in the finest armor, while wearing a furred hood. Wouldn't he have at least a helm, if his body guards do? In addition, weren't the elite of the Huns spear armed horsemen?
And I know it's picky, the facial hair is just wierd to me...
edit: But when they say stuff like this, I'm not holding my breath:
Huns - When Roman envoys finally met Attila the Hun they were horrified - the Huns were a new breed of warrior who live in the saddle and could ride and fight all day!
Goths - An ancient people from the Baltic, the Goths struck fear into their enemies thanks to their habit of sacrificing captives to Tyz, the war god. They may now be nominally Christian, but they haven’t forgotten all their old ways!
Vandals - Their name is still a byword for wanton destruction! Driven from their ancestral lands, the Vandals carved their way across Gaul and Spain, eventually marching through North Africa to settle around Carthage.
Sarmatians - A fierce warrior people from the steppes, the ‘Syrmatae’ rule the lands to the north of the Black Sea. Their women-folk are supposedly as savage as the men, but as horsemen they are almost without equal - which is why they can be found as mercenaries in Roman armies.
Sassanid Empire - The Persian Empire has waxed and waned over the centuries, but in the Sassanid dynasty its rulers are vigorous and strong. At loggerheads with the Eastern Roman Empire over the Sassanids’ persecution of Christians, they are a power to be reckoned with in the East.
Orda Khan
07-05-2005, 21:16
The reports from Roman envoys would have us believe the Huns ate their elderly. Weaponry included the composite bow, lassoe, straight sword, spear.
As for the armour, it could be argued that every faction should wear the same since it generally came from the same source.
It's a weird anomally that Hun finds are almost non existant. It's almost as if they simply vanished.
I will be disappointed if Huns have limited units with no access to Goths, Gepids, Alans, Franks but I will wait to see their inventory before I complain
Things have been rather low for too long, a serious dose of optimism is long overdue. I really would love to see CA turn this game around
....Orda
Steppe Merc
07-05-2005, 22:08
Regardless, the Huns were by no means a new type of warrior. They fought just like the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans before them, with only few differences...
The Wizard
07-05-2005, 23:40
This looks like just the General's Bodyguard unit. I think we are getting a little too fussy? Limited archaeological evidence and historical reference means that very little is actually known about their appearance. Most sources merely mention rags or skins of marmots. I will reserve my opinion until I see the whole selection
.........Orda
Yes, but they have the equipment of Golden Horde cavalry, what with the medallion strapped over their chests.
~Wiz
Orda Khan
07-06-2005, 21:59
The Scythian bow was drawn and used in a totally different way to that of the Huns
.....Orda
bodidley
07-06-2005, 22:16
Did the Scythians use the index+middle finger grip rather than the thumb+index finger grip of most steppe peoples?
Orda Khan
07-07-2005, 16:51
Not a reported fact though it has been suggested there is every likelyhood that the 'Flemish' or 'Mediterranean' grip was used. The bow was used with a short draw, with the drawing arm braced against the rib cage. The string is drawn to roughly mid chest level and explains the relatively short arrows that have been reported.
By comparison, the Hun bow is not so short a weapon and it features asymmetrical limbs, the upper being a few inches longer. The draw is longer and the cast longer. There is a suggestion that the piercing quality of Hun arrows was much greater than those of the Scythians and that Scythians needed to close on their enemies to a greater extent, which of course makes them more vulnerable.
The Alans only really adopted the bow as a primary weapon once the Huns had so convincingly defeated them. Until that point they relied more on skirmshing with javelins
.......Orda
The Alans only really adopted the bow as a primary weapon once the Huns had so convincingly defeated them. Until that point they relied more on skirmshing with javelins
Hmmm... that sounds like an echo of Bachrach's theory from his 1973 book "A History of the Alans in the West". However, Alan graves even of I AD (e.g. Porohy tomb), well in advance their defeat by the huns (third quarter of IV AD), have already yielded the large bone laths corresponding to large composite bows over 1 m long (unstrung). Similar findings have come also, for example, from Nijni Baskountchak and Kalinovka. Also, the Chinese sources (Hou-Han-Shou) speaking of the Alans of I-II AD describe them as similar to the other nomads in customs and dress and measures their military strength in numbers of horse archers.
Additionally, "Hun" or "Hunnic" bow is a bit of a misnomer. The weapon had reached the Pontic steppe well before the Huns did. Besides the grave finds cited above, a large "Hunnic" composite bow (with two connected cylindrical quivers, rather than a typical gorytos) appears in the Bosporan funerary stele of Athenaios son of Melos also of I AD,
Steppe Merc
07-07-2005, 20:52
I thought that the Alans whole javilen thing was just a mistranslation of the fact that they used lances...
I thought that the Alans whole javilen thing was just a mistranslation of the fact that they used lances...
That is my understanding as well. Certainly, the evidence (some of it is post 1973), does not seem to bear out the idea of predominantly javelin-chucking Alans.
Steppe Merc
07-08-2005, 00:32
And it's not like they wouldn't have used javilens, since almost all steppe cultures did, but I don't think they did so exclusivley.
Someone saying that were should be grateful for the moddability for this game is HILARIOUS. Probably one of the funniest things i've ever heard.
First he mentions it is more moddable than FO2 or JA2, which if funny. Both being RPGs and RPGs are RARELY if ever moddable.
I've been a part of mod teams in Quake 1, Halflife, Civilization 2, Galactic Civilizations, Alpha Centauri, ALL are FAR more moddable than this game. They ALL released tools and had practically nothing hardcoded and you say we should be grateful?
They said it would be the most moddable game ever, which is not only a lie but is false advertising. I would think that a game like Freespace 2, and Quake would take that being that they released an SDK. SDK = a kid so you can make an entirely new game out of it if you wanted to, can you say that about rome?
Another thing is its not that easy to mod as well, it has text files... Unreal Tourhnament 2004 is far easier since its all in one easy to use program. Also Civilization 3 is easier as well because of the same reasons.
Seriously if you want to flame us for saying that RTW didn't give what it promised you should leave RIGHT NOW. Its not only entirely wrong on your part to do such a thing for a petty lie that CA gave us but its not very smart as well because of how easily you are proven wrong.
Steppe Merc
07-08-2005, 00:53
What about Morrowind? That's a RPG...
Someone saying that were should be grateful for the moddability for this game is HILARIOUS. Probably one of the funniest things i've ever heard.
First he mentions it is more moddable than FO2 or JA2, which if funny. Both being RPGs and RPGs are RARELY if ever moddable.
I've been a part of mod teams in Quake 1, Halflife, Civilization 2, Galactic Civilizations, Alpha Centauri, ALL are FAR more moddable than this game. They ALL released tools and had practically nothing hardcoded and you say we should be grateful?
They said it would be the most moddable game ever, which is not only a lie but is false advertising. I would think that a game like Freespace 2, and Quake would take that being that they released an SDK. SDK = a kid so you can make an entirely new game out of it if you wanted to, can you say that about rome?
Another thing is its not that easy to mod as well, it has text files... Unreal Tourhnament 2004 is far easier since its all in one easy to use program. Also Civilization 3 is easier as well because of the same reasons.
Seriously if you want to flame us for saying that RTW didn't give what it promised you should leave RIGHT NOW. Its not only entirely wrong on your part to do such a thing for a petty lie that CA gave us but its not very smart as well because of how easily you are proven wrong.
Sjeesh, someone's got sand in his vagina.
Also, try not to flame people for remarks which they have retracted weeks ago. That's kinda silly.
Ianofsmeg16
07-08-2005, 08:23
right, I heard somewhere there's going to be emerging factions e.g. ostrogoths and romano-britons. so if they're emerging, will you be able to play them? or will it go like MTW and have eras so you can play as all factions on a camp map? hmmm the choices
Steppe Merc
07-08-2005, 19:16
I doubt their will be eras, which is really stupid IMO, since you'd never be able to play as some of the factions...
Orda Khan
07-11-2005, 16:59
So the Huns used a weapon that had been in use in the area for 200 years or more?
Composite bows existed in the area but Hun bows were of different design and this design was copied and various forms, of similar design, persisted among the steppe nomads including the Mongols.
It was a weapon of around 52-54 inches in length, with a greater draw length and fired arrows reported to be able to pierce armour ( exactly which armour is not mentioned )
........Orda
Mr Frost
07-24-2005, 02:37
...straight sword...
This would imply that there was such a thing as an homosexual sword , and that the Huns eschewed said weapon ?
no this would imply that they weren't curved, I guess.
Byzantine Mercenary
09-21-2005, 15:38
I think that they will change at least the faction limit, because the review i read said that rebels and unhappy roman generals will form their own factions, they probably left faction limits hardcoded untill the expansion to make it more apealing.
And remember with all this CA bashing, while vannilla rome is a-historical and biased towards rome, its a darn sight more tactical than its contempery's such as Empire Earth which has soldiers apearing on the battlefield outside barracks and much less realistic battles.
Steppe Merc
09-21-2005, 18:33
No. The rebelling Romans count as a faction, and they are part of the 21 factions.
I think that they will change at least the faction limit, because the review i read said that rebels and unhappy roman generals will form their own factions, they probably left faction limits hardcoded untill the expansion to make it more apealing.
And remember with all this CA bashing, while vannilla rome is a-historical and biased towards rome, its a darn sight more tactical than its contempery's such as Empire Earth which has soldiers apearing on the battlefield outside barracks and much less realistic battles.
that's true. it's the only RTS that actually employs tactics. But comparing it to their MTW-AI etc...
but your right, we shouldn't be bashing CA, it's made a game we play, and can mod (to some extend). EB is just spoiling us..
and Cossacks? I never played it but i heard people saying that it was a verry good tactic rts
Byzantine Mercenary
09-22-2005, 14:28
cossacks is a good game and has more tactics than age of empires and command and conquer. but all these rts's allow you to build troops in the game, making troops just pop out of your buildings, this isn't the way that wars were fought.
I am sad to hear that the rebelling romans just join an extra rebel roman faction, thats probably worse than just making them rebels.
I'm sick and tired of everyone complaining about RTW and BI! I guess you wish that RTW never had been made or at least that you never played it, since it ruined your lives. It can't be easy to be constantly angry with CA because they made such a crappy game, and now they are making an even crappier expansion... they're just fueling the hatred!
Come on! RTW is a great game (although I must admin there are some things in the game that annoys me) and BI will not make it less good. Perhaps BI will not change RTW as we want it to do, but there will still be improvements and fixes!
Perhaps we wanted CA to make RTW and BI different in one way or another, but we should at least be happy they made them at all!
Well... now you know. ~:cool:
Edit: Also, the EB team seem to be doing alot of good things with the original game and that is great! Keep up the good work! ... So you don't even have to play vanilla RTW... just play a mod instead. It will ease the hatred against CA.
The question is about balance, there can't be unconditional love for CA because without "constructive criticism" CA won't know what are the players dream, wishes, desires and dislikes to improve the game, and unconditional "hate" won't do anyone any good, you can bash CA, RTW, BI all day long and it won't change anything for the better.
If everybody is angry with CA, what you CAN do is send them a petition, flood them with complaint e-mails, make a riot right in front of their HQ's wherever they are, as long as you are transmitting "constructive criticism", as it's pointless to shout and cry for nothing throwing insults and empty words at the wind.
:furious3: ~:handball:
lysarin, I agree with you that there has been too much CA bashing. However, I would also like to point out that the release of R:TW has been coupled to a number of PR mistakes on CA's part, which can explain for a lot of the resentment. For some time after the release, part of the community at the Org felt that CA did not take them serious.
and Cossacks? I never played it but i heard people saying that it was a verry good tactic rts
I bought it recently after my dissappointment with R:TW, but I was dissappointed yet again. The game was far too fast for my taste. A group of cavalry ran through my village and killed all my peasants in seconds. You can decrease the speed, but then building up your settlement/army becomes a very boring affair.
It feels like Age of Empires with a slightly more advanced economical model, and a far more advanced tactical model. Though I didn't play it extensively, the speed of the battles left me feeling even more overwhelmed than R:TW ever did. I found it not a good substitute for R:TW. I hear Cossack 2 had added morale and fatigue, but I don't think that's enough for me to like.
Off course, this is my opinion. If you liked Age of Empires or Rise of Nations as well as R:TW, I think it worth a try.
Byzantine Mercenary
09-23-2005, 08:50
American conquest, the sequel to cossacks is better, it has added moral so that your units run away from the enemy when things look bad. However it is full of weird bugs, mainly in the campaign.
cossacks 2 is ok but i found that the enemy just builds huge armys and wipes you out very quickly, its at least at fast as cossacks.
what i meant when i said that they were less tactical was that in most RTS's when you lose troops in a fight you can just produce more at the click of a button, these games become a who can build the most troops fastest competition, thats what happens in cossacks and it gets a bit boring after a while.
In rome when you fight a battle you can't replace lost troops during the battle, this makes every decision count more.
There are a lot of good RTS games, i recommend dawn of war, it has moral systems and more realistic fighting, but only the total war games make every soldier count during a battle.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.