Gamespy E3 coverage of Barbarian Invasion

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).

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#

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:

Quote:

---

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
[img]http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/Images/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/Trajans_Column/John_Pollen/13*.gif[/img]

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:

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!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

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! ~:)

http://www.stoa.org/trajan/images/med/1.12.m.jpg


from http://www.stoa.org/trajan/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

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).

"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick

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 ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa82

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oaty

Finally an unofficial official anouncement

---

~:)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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
[img]http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/Images/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/Trajans_Column/John_Pollen/13*.gif[/img]

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.