Printable View
I started out my pc career with FPS, but I don`t think I`ve missed the strategic part of RTW nonetheless.. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
I thought BI was due to be anounced at E3, gotta be my mistake. :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
Perhaps of all them who are in your list? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutus
I just read something about history in Africa at that time, perhaps the Berbers will be a own faction?
newbie question: When is E3?
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/
I totally disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
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.
All this is off topic
......Orda
"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.
Welcome to the org mongoose ~:wave:
E3 is in UK, right, or is it in US ?
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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 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.
"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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
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..
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
What about battlefields? Howlong they will be big? How it will be? I hope 2kX2k big maps and i hope better environmet :charge:
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
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??
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...
"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 ~:) .
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
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.Quote:
Where did the Huns originate by the way, anyone knows?
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!Quote:
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...
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
Thanks for wishing me good luck - I and my ostrogothic warriors will need it!Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
No, but the ostrogothic sack of Rome will be more than twice as bad as the Roman description of the vandal sack of Rome! ~DQuote:
The Vandal sack of Rome wasnt even half as bad as the Romans made out
Pardon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hold Steady
Didn't the Russians tell you? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Browning
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorspatula
I find *some* of the reviews on amazon to be much better.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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