This thread has given me an idea for my next modding project....the rise of Rome, will have to wait a while though!!!!!!
Printable View
This thread has given me an idea for my next modding project....the rise of Rome, will have to wait a while though!!!!!!
I LOVE the multiple starting periods...
Great idea
Sounds good. I'm a patient guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horseman
:unitedkingdom:
The idea is good, but the all battles are rather small scaled, only limited to the Italian peninsular. I’d prefer Period two, recreating Canne and Trebia would be great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horseman
There already is a similar, as of yet unreleased, mod like that if you're interested. You can find their forums here. I'm not sure if they're recruiting though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horseman
~:)
That mod looks awesome!!!!!!!!
I definitely like the 60-unit army idea. I hate having to balance armies out and omit units like light cavalry (a very important unit in my book) in favor of elephants and proper artillery support,and such.
Also,the map extending to China is a good idea,as well,but why not extend it as far as Japan and Indonesia,making naval activity much more important,as well as to have one or two unique Southeast Asian factions.
Kinda combine Shogun and Rome into one game,you know?
Edit: I'm not trying to break from the subject,but as much as I,too,would like the ability to have 10,000+ soldiers on the battlefield at any given time,but wouldn't that require major computer system overhauls on our part? I know that when I play on my notebook's recommended power plan,it can handle about 1,400 men,but when I put it on the high performance setting,the system can handle just over 2,400.
I still say you should only start with maybe 1 or two cities per faction. You can then found new cities all over the map and change borders.
Again, i think there should be an infinite number of factions. This could simulate Heirs settling new lands, or something like that. More customization would allow you to arm your troops, design your flags, name your cities, build your cities, etc. Imagine a RTW where instead of the strict limits, YOU controled YOUR world. You could start off with, say, two sons. One is to be your heir, so you let the other go settle a city somewhere far from your territory (you should also be able to migrate populations). After fiddling around with the terriory you have given him, you settle it and name it. Based on its location it would grow (oceans for trade to make it rich, etc.). You now fight off the rebels of the land you claimed in the middle of nowhere, representing the struggles of settling.
Maybe this son becomes angry or lonely, or possibly you let him do it...but he seperates into a new faction of his own, with his own flag, religeon, culture, troops, alliances, etc. Now for this to work, you would have to be able to "re-adopt" your son into your faction..if he liked his dad then the city becomes yours again. If you left the city there for a long time, and tried to get it back, it might not want to...seeing that it has no more ties to you (saying father and son are dead or something).
This would provide and endless game...something that you could have one campaign on..and conquest forever..which simulates real-life.
I also think that for walls, you should be able to destroy any part of it...no more fixed entrys.
And i wouldnt mind if all my RAM was used to power the diplomacy portion of the game :laugh4:
EDIT: Id also like to see 60 unit armies, but the cool thing would be if you could specify how many units per block (480 for a chort), again backing up my desperate want for a military customizer where you could equip armys, design formations, etc.
yeah that would be cool .
with famous ancient cities like TROY and heros like HECTOR and AQUILES , AGAMEMNON . LEONIDAS , PELEUS ALEXANDER etc . ( i know they already did a version of ALEXANDER . but i want to play him on a campaign like from RTW ) . . . .
yeah they need to make a new RTW but now with more cities .
more factions from the south of africa to the far east in ASIA .
they need to make a game with more FAMOUS BATTLES too . . .
THE SIEGE OF TROY the battles between PERSIA and SPARTA and GREEKS . THE PUNIC WARS .
make a bigger CAMPAIGN MAP .
make heros appear on the game and give them special abilities like increase of morale and that ( kinda like M2TWk but more realistic , not like freezeeing enemies and that )
make civilians apear on the battlefield :P:tongue:
burn buildings with archers and flaming arrows :dizzy2:
KINGs like AGAMEMNON who wanted to conquest the whole world no matter what . .use more armies ( like M2TWk but more sophisticated )
make bigger battles .
....
yeah it would be cool. but i think that they are not going to make another RTW yeah i know its sad :furious: :dizzy2:
but WE ( what i mean is some guys like the fans and guys who can mod and stuff ( i dont know how to mod ) )
can mod the game :tongue:
and make more things and skins and stuff and battlefields .:dizzy2:
this was my opinion .
so if you want to say something to me that you didnt like or you thought it was dumb :P :tongue:
tell me :P:tongue:
:leo: :unitedstates: :us-texas:
Edvard0
R2TW is shaping up to be an awesome game,but too bad it's only wishful thinking at the moment.
Let's hope someone from Sega or CA finds this thread. :yes:
I don't personally favours the idea of the map extending to China and south Africa. I think it should only be Rome and the factions that it had contact with, not China, not South Africa, that's a different game.
People such as Achilles and Hector were around 1250 B.C that's 700 hundreds years before Rome became a republic. So unfountunely I'll have to say no way they're gonna be in R:TW, but they could make a separeat game called Troy:Total war, I bet that's gonna be awesome.
I think the game should be more flexible, loyaties have to be added to Rome like in BI, with titles and way to keep your generals happy, or make them cross, different traits such as Loyal and Ambitious should play a big role in whether they stay loyal or not. Faction leaders have authority traits........
More historical battles no doubt. and also historical faction members appearing.
If they could combine R:TW and Civilization IV. That would be one heck of a game.
There's already a great mod called Troy: Total War, I'm sure it's based on the movie. Anyway, I think by now they should start considering adding research to TW games. Like in M2TW, instead of waiting for the right time period, it would be best if you could research firearms and other material.
I think they should add an ability to "copy" other factions units when you meet them
Historical examples:
Rome used hoplites as their main fighting force, then started switching to Pila (probably copied from the Etruscans) they also used a "class system" to define thier troops, 1st - 5th The 1st being heavily armoured elite and degrading in equiptment and quiality and the 5th class being unarmoured skirmishers. This eventually evolved into the Legion (Possibly copied form the Samnites) And of course in later years after fighting many good cavalry foes the Romans also switched to using far more cavalry than they ever used too.
The Seleucids are a typical succesor army heavy on pikes, then they meet the Romans and start rearming thier Agrysipids (sp?) in Roman fashion (pila and Scutam)
Same goes for Ptomely (sp?) After meeting the Romans they requip some of their phalngites in Roman fashion
Macedon (and the sucessor states!) fight the Indians and start using Elephants in battle
The Greek city states using Hoplites get trounced by Macedon using Pikes, they eventually mostly adopt the Pike Phalanx for their main infantry line (Though most states also went through a phase using Theropori (sp?) as their main infantry line as well)
I'm sure there are many more examples but as you can see alot of nations copied ideas from others for their military.
Another thing I'd like is the abilty to use subject troops from conquered cities. So for example if you take a Greek city you can recruit Hoplites their (not as good as the "real deal" and maybe only until the city is fully assimilated
Well anyway just a couple of things I'd like to see
Have anybody played Civilization IV. It's not as good as the Total War series but they do have lots of bright ideas that TW could learn. Like more detailed tech tree, research in materials and weaponary, better graded armour and gun powder and the ability to make new settlements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
I disagree with the 'map-stretching-to-China' bit, as I think that'd detract from Rome a lot-- I think the eastern border of the map should stop at about India, so that the depiction of the struggle of the Diadochi won't be limp like in vanilla RTW. Not that I think China and Japan don't have potential for a game (I actually enquired about a Warring States mod a while back), but I just think that depicting them on the same map as Rome is an unneccesary drain on resources (of the developers or the computer) better spent on something else.
I agree that more realism would be nice, but I wouldn't say that total realism is a good thing-- a game also has to be accessible to lay history buffs-- for example, calling Carthage "Kart-hadast" or Epirus "Epeiros" might be strictly historically accurate, but the average gamer isn't going to know that, and it makes the learning curve so much steeper.
I'd like to see the barbarian factions revamped-- with the fluid campaign map, it would be interesting to have the barbarians being able to recruit troops based on regions instead of cities-- meaning, the Romans could found a city there, but that doesn't mean the barbarians can't recruit from the countryside. That makes the conquest of Spain, for example, more historically accurate. It would also better represent trading outposts such as Massilia or Carthago Nova. The barbarians could also have several stacks spawn at regular intervals of decades, to represent the barbarian invasions, that would cease or reduce once the barbarian lands are pacified, giving the Romans great incentive to subdue the barbarian lands. Another interesting feature would be to have barbarian recruitment based on prestige (i.e. influence). It could be like the Orks in Dawn of War-- elite units are only avaliable once you have recruited a certain number of troops-- no more full stacks of chosen swordsmen and chosen archers!
Another area of RTW I found woefully inadequete is the handling of family members and generals. I'd like to see generals that are not neccesarily related to each other-- being in a faction doesn't neccesarily mean you're in a royal family. Generals and administrators should be distinct-- if there are two family members in a city, only the general should get a general's unit-- the other should only have some lictors with stats equivalent to town watch, definitely not mounted. This is so that we do not get ridiculous armies with a powerful arm of cheap, easily replaced heavy cavalry (two hitpoints!). No more full stacks with five general's bodyguards! :whip:
Also, I'd like to see defection unpinned from money. Sometimes generals defect out of principle or expedience. It's annoying, espeically since the description for the diplomats' traits seem to imply that reason helps in bribery. Generals should be able to initiate diplomacy, while specially-recruited agents would be able to engage in diplomacy as well as spy, sabotage and assassinate.
Morale on the campaign map should also be instituted. Historically, there were many campaigns that were lost because of lousy army morale, or a general forced to fight a field battle because his troops are getting demoralised. Also, it's annoying to see the broken remnants of an army you just soundly trumped and chased around fight with the ordinary gutso and stamina in a follow-up battle.
I agree with Overlord of Achaea that destroying a city completely should be an option, preferably with a significant penalty (monetary?). For example, Lucullus took the Armenian capital of Tigranocirta apart to the last brick during his war against Mithradates in the East.
And I agree with Horseman, the ability to 'copy' other faction's and culture's units would be cool-- maybe each faction can be given a varying number of slots for adaptation-- more to historically more adaptable factions like Carthage, Seleucids or the Romans. Units can be taken off to free the 'slots' at a high price. For example, you might be able to 'untag' scutarii for 500d per unit of scutarii on the map in favour of, say, Numidian javelinmen. Obviously, there has to be some modification-- Romans adapting a Gallic cavalry would be able to recruit "Ligurian auxillaries" or something like that. That's a lot of extra skins, but R2TW vanilla doesn't have to do everything, only commonplace ones like Roman-style legionaries for Numidia or something. We have a very active mod community to take care of outlandish ones like cataphracts for the Germans or whatever.
I'm pretty sure I thought of a few more, but I forgot them now. :sweatdrop:
When I wrote extending the map to China, I didn't mean all or even most of China (and I'd agree that adding Asia and Africa would totally detract from the game). What I was thinking was a few cities to the East of Baktria. So that China could be the easternmost faction. Currently in all the mods, Baktria is the easternmost faction. Considering that China is the easternmost nation/people that had contact with Romans, it'd be great to have a Chinese or Chinese-ish faction of a few towns at the easternmost edge of the map. In other words, take the Mundus Magnus map, and extend it to the east by a few map squares. But it's optional really. Since aside from the silk road, China wasn't important in Roman or Greek history at all.
I couldn't find the "edit post" button on the user interface. So I post again to add this (I had to think for a bit on how to write it in the most simple way possible):
Since in antiquity as well as now, not all the people in a province/state lived in that one city, I propose several cities per province, with the additional feature that some population live in the cities and some in the countryside. And that it'd be made possible to reduce squalor in the cities by moving population from the cities into the countryside of the province, that it'd be possible to have population growth in the countryside without increasing the squalor in the cities, and that it'd be made possible to upgrade the agriculture of the entire province without affecting the squalor in the cities (after all, crops don't grow in the cities, they grow in the countryside).
Also suggest that the trade buildings in each province be made more specific, as to provide even more learning and realism about the historical province. For instance, in provinces where there is metal to be mined, one of the buildings that could be built was mines. But metal is only one out of many natural resources. If you look at the settlement details and then trade info, you'd see pottery, spice, glass, timber, textiles, fur, wine, marble, olive oil, ivory, etc. Suggest a specific building upgrade for each or perhaps most of these items, just as mine upgrade could be built for metals.
The Chinese should have ambassetors in the game, as they did historically, they were friends with the Parthians. Having People living in the countryside could be the solution to the squlor problem. That problem needs to be solved somehow. I always end up with 10 rats icon even with the highest graded health buildings.
What about getting away from the black and white policy of "if you control the province, you control it's resources"?
How about leaving the resources that would NOT be protected within the castle's walls by garrison, open to "struggle" over?
Example: Gold mines in Serbia. If I have the castle under siege, there are no enemy units in the countryside, and the enemy does not sally etc- Then I should be getting credit for controlling the gold mines every turn that my army is controlling the countryside.
I mean, you could take it a step further and remove the castle necessarily being under siege. Perhaps I don't care about besieging or assaulting the castle. Or perhaps I want to goad the garrison out. I should be able to control as much of the provincial resources/cash flow as I physically have control over. The same with farming and trade in that province...
I should be able to specifically target an attack or offensive on resources, not just enemy armies or land holdings/forts/castles.
Likewise with ports. I shouldn't have to control the province entirely to be controlling the port. If the enemy navy is destroyed or rendered impotent, there's a blockade in place, and I have an army stationed inside the naval port- That's all it should require. Many sea-borne empires in history continually took control of ports...never worrying about the countryside of said port.
They should do that.
Again though Quintus, this is a bridge we'll cross before any official mention of R2TW. The suggestion in the last post of mine applies to Empire:TW as well. Not only that, but it applies significantly more in the time period of Empire than it does in classical warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
It still applies to classical warfare as well though...and for the point of this thread- needed to be mentioned.
That is where my thinking of changeable borders comes in. You could "settle" forts, and put the mines in your territoy. Usually, as i said before, this would lead to border disputes. But, if you are already besieging someone's city they cant really claim those borders.
Love it...
border disputes, treaties/settlements and the obvious changeable borders to reflect holdings that would go along with this. Throw in refugees and nomadic peoples as well as the acceptance/refusal of these peoples...and a corresponding cultural effect this would have on neighbors, allies, and enemies.
Would obviously require a totally and completely new diplomatic engine but once again, this is where we're supposedly at with Empire. So hopefully we're not stretching this too far at all...
I'll just add because it crossed my mind as I finished writing the above: You could have changing loyalties on the campaign map/grand strategy level...as well as on the battle map. Just for example (many, many possibilities): I'm the Republic of Rome. I have an army on campaign comprised of 7000 men and 1500 of them are mercenaries of the Hellenic culture. My neighbor back home (due to any number of reasons) winds up scattering 1.5 million refugees into my most profitable agricultural province. These happen to be Hellenic peoples. I decide to go out into the fields and slaughter the refugees...or begin enslaving them and conscripting them or selling them/using them for slavery (etc etc...anything). This should be having some effect on my 1500 Hellenic mercenaries. They could either abandon my army right on the campaign map, or have their loyalties raised due to fear/intimidation/coercion. Perhaps they do nothing...and I use this army for an attack that turn...or later turns, whatever. Maybe I'm expecting high loyalty from them...and what I get in the end is my flank comprised of them backstabbing me at a crucial moment on the battlefield, collapsing onto my center. Or maybe they back stab me on the campaign map outright...and switch allegiance to the enemy army. Or trade intelligence to the enemy and then detach themselves from the conflict. Perhaps they even seem to detach themselves from it, and they wind up attaching themselves to the refugees and helping to equip/train them as I try to enslave them from the same pool?
The possibilities are obviously limitless and this further...only expands to even other ideas.
added w/ edit: Just on a sidenote- this is why I don't agree w/ any "watering down" of Total War games. I don't believe it's as clear cut as "water down and alienate the hardcore" or "keep it complex and lose the casual". I think these things we're discussing would accommodate both audiences.
That was a great paragraph :2thumbsup:
Anyway, with the whole army loyalty thing, it brings me back to my point of infinite factions. Say they betray you and help the 1.5million people. Some wise man steps forwards, you fail to repel them, and boom, they become a full blown new hellenic faction. They settle a territory, build a city, and stretch their borders into yours. You send in multiple legions to no avail, and each time you fail they grow bolder and expand their territory more. They then found new cities, equip there men in a new fashion (custom weapons maybe), new religeons, new everything...
Imagine how great THAT would be..
Yeah...I mean as many ideas as I said that last post of mine leads to additionally, the first one that was in my mind was what you just said: How this leads to emerging factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by TruePraetorian
It really all ties in and really all makes sense. Then we tie in that emerging faction's relationship with everyone else on the map etc...and indeed, it's starting to get some meat on it's bones.
I agree, I was actually referring to superficial nitpicking such as the insistence on the settlements' native names, and such. Doing that does make the learning curve much steeper while not providing much of an improvement in immersion of the game (at least from my point of view).Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare
I particularly agree with the resources not being pinned to the cities and such-- I don't mean merchants like in M2TW, I don't think it's relevant to antiquity, but more like your example of armies sitting on them. It's so much more realistic and diverse than simply "devastation", and could add a whole new dimension to maneuvering on the campaign map.
By the way, one thing I forgot to mention taht I'd like to see is a revamping of how influence/prestige works. In vanilla RTW, the only thing it does is to provide a bonus to public order and sometimes to improve diplomatic negotiations. Which is pretty lame. I think, exploited properly, an expanded prestige engine could have vast applications-- for one thing, the interaction of the Senate and the People of Rome could be depicted more realistically. Recruitment should also be linked to prestige-- the higher the prestige, the more troops you can levy in a turn. This would have major repercussions in depicting the Roman civil wars or barbarians' petty tribal wars.
About the Chinese and the Silk Road, I think it's pretty well depicted by the "trade caravan" line of 'buildings' buildable by Eastern factions in vanilla RTW. An alternative would be to simply make the Chinese as some sort of 'phantom faction' with only diplomats and stuff, as QuintusJulius-Cicero suggested. Giving them actual territories, in my opinion, would complicated a problem like that of the limp Diadochi wars in vanilla RTW which expanding the map eastwards was supposed to solve in the first place. Besides, I doubt that the factions relevant to R2TW had any direct military confrontation with the Chinese in that timeframe.
They should make army morale or loyalty thing, mutinies during that time was common, many famous genearls were even killed by it. While it was the army morale that prevented Alexander from going further east. Many Roman Auxilias also rebel once deployed far away from home, like the Sarmatian horsemen in Britain.
OK I agree with Quirinus that ancient China was not relevant to ancient Rome, and the easternmost border should be the easternmost Hellenic/Greek kingdom (baktria).
------------
I have a suggestion, and again it has to do with the interface within cities. Forming a phalanx in a city street is exceedingly difficult. Even though a phalanx unit is already standing in rectangular formation, pressing the form phalanx button would result in the unit shuffling and even walking in circle or half-circle, resulting in the phalanx not formed in time and a melee that negates the advantage of forming a phalanx. So it'd be great if the movement of troops in city street be better implemented in the next RTW.
------------
Now comment on things people said indirectly, and not related to RTW game.
-when someone is not a citizen or given the privilege of being citizen or given the basic rights of being citizen, a country has no business asking loyalty from that person, because loyalty is within the citizen-country relation. Someone who is not a citizen of a country can feel love towards the country, because he likes the people (both the looks and the culture), the freedom and the opportunity of living life there. But the country has no business asking loyalty when someone isn't a citizen, no more than an army can ask for loyalty when someone isn't a soldier. Plus, if certain organizations of a country (and abetted by many people) deliberatedly treats a person very badly (like accusing him of being a criminal in a thousand different way, day after day after day and try to force him to give what he hasn't -including positive views of morally horrible things-), utterly negating all the qualities that makes the country lovely to the person in the first place, the country then has even less business to ask or compel a person to act as if he was a conscripted soldier -which is fun to pretend doing after watching patriotic movies but not fun anymore when people representing the flag start doing rather unimaginable things to you-, and the country has no business compelling the person to consistently lavish the country with positive views that not even citizens would be required to do. If the country would like to demand loyalty of wannabe citizens, it should be fair as its textbooks teaches about it.
Another thing, it's difficult to exclude a people group when you believe in a Savior who is the king of "every tribe, every tongue, every nation", when every person is made in His image and attaining the best satisfaction in life, regardless of people group, is to live like how He created that person to be, and the more you get to know Him and become like Him, the more you find satisfaction in your individual qualities, of how you were made to be.
And it is customary to use "the [people group]" or "the [nationality]" to not refer to the actual people at all, but to the national leader, or the political views ruling the people group. In the world of advertising and politics, there is a wrong way of one slight connection = the whole thing. It's a by-product of decades of developing the art of putting down people. In other words, when people need to put down someone in politics, they'd look for the slightest connection to anything bad, even a 1% connection, and then make a 100% equivalence between that and the person.
For instance, look at this:
-X person is playing Rome Total War
-All people who play Rome Total War know how to use a computer
-Therefore, X person knows how to use a computer
That is a valid connection.
Here is an invalid one:
-X person wears pants
-All Nazi (or substitute any kind of political term) people wear pants
-Therefore X person is a Nazi
Now, it may seem ridiculous, but this kind of reasoning (with slightly less obvious twist) has been used to compare the current President with Hitler.
And, in politics, because people rarely think these days, most polemics are full of invalid associations like these. Find the slightest association with anything bad, even very very slightest association, and then, make 100% equivalence between the person and the bad thing.
-There is someway of associating person X with *that*, even in the most irrelevant way
-*that* is bad
-therefore person X is 100% the total incarnation of that bad thing
Also, in advertising, most languages are also full of invalid associations like these. Take the examples of cigarette ads containing happy or even fit-looking people.
-Person in ad smokes
-Person in ad is happy
-Therefore all smokers are happy
(and the advertisements has an addition: if you smoke, you can be part of "all smokers" and that'd make you happy)
That is the written out reasoning behind a cigarette ad, and of course written out reveals how ridiculous and false it is. That is why advertisements are never written out, but depend on sly ways of deceiving people with irrelevant associations.
Take some millions of people who grew up watching advertisements their entire life, in other words, millions of people who think using irrelevant associations to make conclusions is OK, and use the same irrelevant-association way of advertising other things, and you can easily sway people into believing anything.
Since April of last year, I can write out all the irrelevant reasoning (or should I say lack of reasoning) that some people have applied to me, and if written out, all of them are of this type.
One of the funniest is:
-This person saves money
-rich people save money (I've no idea how the person thought this way)
-therefore this person is rich
(replace "saves" with "spend" and you'd get the same thing)
(replace "rich" with "poor" and you'd get the same thing)
I have absolutely nothing to back this up right now...but I'm sure I could dig for a link or something: Relating to that last line, as it crossed my mind as soon as I finished reading your post- Some historians have actually found evidence (not that loose either) that the Roman Republic's Legions indeed did make their way as far east as China. Quite a ways into the region as well. From what I recall, they gathered evidence that indicated the Roman Empire was either flat out on campaign there (looking to expand) or they were on a large scale reconaissance mission through there. Whichever it was, recon or conquest, it looks as if the Romans who traveled there never returned. In fact, it looks as if they made contact with hostile units and were defeated completely. Roman equipment and Roman remains have been uncovered in a large massing where evidence would indicate that their journey ceased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Apparently, they've also found Denarii (sp?) in the ground all throughout western and central China. This has led to further research on what the relationship was between Rome and China at that time. Clearly though, there was some sort of relationship.
Here's a google search for "Romans in China": http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...omans+in+china
Yields numerous results...
I heard that some surviver legionaries from the battle of carrhae was the first European to have had any contact with the Chinese. However, i still do not support the idea of the map stretching all way to China. That's an different game. The Warring states period could be made into an total war game, also three kingdoms period is quite terbulant as well.