http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...w_6131834.html
And 3 posts to my 500 :charge:
Printable View
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...w_6131834.html
And 3 posts to my 500 :charge:
Nothing really new or interesting there though. The odd nice screenshot but not much else. CA were just as loath as ever to give out indepth details.
Well this sounds good
Quote:
The AI has been improved on all fronts. Both the battle AI and the campaign AI have benefited. AI improvements are a constant and ongoing process with our games.
Quote:
GS: Are there any major improvements in the core gameplay of the original game? For example, will Barbarian Invasion address any lingering bugs or issues in Rome: Total War? Were there any popular fan-requested changes that made it into the expansion?
IR: The expansion makes significant changes to the core gameplay, effectively bringing the AI in both the battles and campaign map up to par with Barbarian Invasion. As far as bugs go, there are actually more fixes included in the expansion than in the previous 1.2 patch. Together, these changes will hopefully address many of the issues raised by the fan base.
You know, I've stuck with CA more than many posters in the disputes in this forum over history.
Sometimes, that's hard.
For instance:
Ian Roxburgh: "There were few references to significant naval battles in the period at all--the threats to the Roman world were exclusively land-based."
Now I'm going to be charitable here and recognize the fact that he's talking about naval battles, not land raiders travelling by sea. Still, the remark that "threats to the Roman world were exclusively land-based" is a bit much.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Vandals sack Rome, then take to sea, cross the Mediterranean and establish a Vandal kingdom in North Africa during this time period?
Before that, didn't the Goths in current-day Ukraine take to sea, cross the Black Sea and fall like a storm on Asia Minor and Greece?
Also, didn't the Saxons invade Britain, which can't be reached by any means other than the sea?
[Edited P.S. and correction: I went and read what's been posted about BI more carefully tonight. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the Saxons are already established in Britain and the Vandals in North Africa before the game's time period begins. So Mr. Roxburgh had more of a point than I gave him credit for.]
To add to this:
Were not the Pirates a huge annoyance in the Mediterranean area? Did not Pompeius himself achieve most of his fame by getting rid of the Pirate threat (which must have been considerable, given that its removal gave birth to such a glory)?
Was not Carthage, an ancient sea power, the main threat to the aspiring Roman republic in the 3rd century BC? Did not Carthage destroy the Roman fleet several times in the 1st Punic war alone, almost forcing the Romans into a humiliating peace?
Was it not possible for the Romans to effectively establish their rule in Greece only after having crushed the famed Greek fleet, manned with a crew whose members were among the most respected citizens of the Greek city states, especially Athens?
admittedly, this is pre-empire history, but still it stands against disregarding sea warfare that way since BI also adresses numerous RTW issues.
Si Ian tacuisset, philosophus mansisset.
Maritime warfare would be nice indeed, as would the ability to fight out these battles with ships instead of units, in real time. I feel that this is expecting rather too much from an Expansion and from what I have read about the fixes included, I think we should be more positive
.......Orda
Point taken, Orda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
After all, I agree with Roxburgh that naval warfare should not be a priority in BI. Those voyages by the barbarians were largely unopposed during this time period. I'm not aware of any major naval battles being involved.
I was just grousing at the idea that all the threats to the empire were land-based.
The way I see it, sea battles are not a real issue in BI's era, so no point implementing them there. Whereas the sea battles were important in original RTW's era, the question comes down to finances, and making a choice between producing a spectacular land battles engine, a spectacular sea battles engine, or some sort of mutilated compromise between the two, ala Imperial Glory, thus producing a game that fails on both fronts. It took CA 4 years to develop the game as it is now, and would take at least a year more to implement a proper real time battle system for ships. There is no magic pill here, no magic hat out of which game producers can instantly pull out fully formed perfect core game features, and everything is always a matter of money, money, money. I would imagine CA plainly ran out of it after being a small little studio, and developing a game for many years without being to profit from it in the process.
And as for the historical argument that Vandals took to the ships after sacking Rome, my understanding is different, and I believe they went Westward, to Spain, crossing the Pillars of Hercules and then travelling East into Carthage. Whatever use of ships there was at the crossing of the Gibraltar, it was little, and very short lived. The same goes for the Saxon invasion of Britain -- there were no great naval battles between the Celts and the Saxons, there was no awesome clash of naval armies, no Salamis. Saxons just loaded up on boats, sailed over, unloaded on the other side, and went to it.
So, if CA only fixes some bugs and annoying features of naval battles on the campaign map (ping pong fights), I will be satisfied.
Hey guys: it's a GAME. I know that because it says so on the box. In my opinion the point of the game is not to make history as it happened, but as it may have happened or could have happened. If your world includes more sea battles than is true to the history books, more power to you, go get em. I am just glad that CA gave us the ability to create our own unique history and the tools to mod to our hearts content if we want. As for me I am having too much fun playing the game to notice the few flaws that crop up in any game. (and btw I am a programmer and have written games and know what is involved.)
But after the Vandals successfully established themselves in North Africa, they became one of the masters of the Mediterranean. In fact, Geiseric (sp?) was among the most dangerous threats to both Roman Empires for a long time. He (or his Vandals) continuously raided the shores of Italy, Sicily, and probably even Greece. His fleet even crushed the combined Roman fleet raised by Leo of the Eastern Empire in conjunction with the West with the mission of destroying him, leaving the Eastern empire bankrupt and devoid of force for quite some time. He was probably the very man whose legacy gave the meaning of "vandalism" in our vocabulary...through the sea ~D
But yeah, I'd rather have CA spending time fixing the AI and all the bugs rather than implementing manually-controlled naval battles for BI. Considering CA's past history with good expansions, I have high hopes. :bow:
See the edited-in P.S. and correction in my earlier post. It appears that I groused about Mr. Roxburgh's point too hastily. For those who don't want to backtrack, the gyst of it is that the Vandals are already in North Africa and the Saxons in Britain when this game begins.
Actually the vandals are starting without settlements and are in a horde.
Check out the screens on this page https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=53095
Yeah, I don't think the Vandals or the Saxons are really in control of a settled state at the beggining of the game. Same is almost certainly true for other Barbarian factions as well. It should really make the geo-political situation quite fluid and chaotic, as it should be.
No the saxons got land at the start.
They control the area that covers Sweden, Danmark and Norway.