Peek at RTW:BI

Quote:

---

morale-sapping moonlight attacks

---

:dizzy2:
Morale is whey-hey-hey too low in vanilla as it is.
(Having lovely battles in SPQR mod, though the brain still boggles some ~:cheers: )

Was Belisarius in this time period?

I want to trash barbarians ~;p

100 years is not alot, it would have been cooler to extend it to the Arab conquests, that would make my day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I do feel short changed in RTW with respect to periods.

---

How were you shortchanged? Did you willingly buy the game knowing what it was like or did CA fool you in some way, or twist your arm into buying the game? Did you sign a contract with them for them to develop the game to your specifications?

Quote:

---

In RTW we effectively have one period vs. three in MTW.

---

The periods are irrelevant and artificial. I could also add that we have two periods in RTW, pre-Marian and post-Marian. Two periods make sense in a game about Rome. A third logical period would be the Hellenistic one before Rome, but well, that wouldn't be about Rome so it kind of defeats the purpose of the game :)

Quote:

---

I don't see the variety of units, because everything is happening in the earliest phase.

---

What do you mean? You clearly have variety among factions, and pre- and post-Marian for the Romans.

Quote:

---

The game is effectively over before signature units take the field even in the early period.

---

You have the game won in the pre-Marian timeframe? Maybe so, but that was true to the same extent in MTW if not more.

Quote:

---

I don't see much difference in terms of army composition style between RTW and MTW--in both you have major "culture types" with shared units.

---

So now you are complaining the RTW is inferior to MTW because you don't see a difference? I guess they can't win :)

Quote:

---

In MTW you have more region & culture specific units, rather than just culture/religion specific ones.

---

I disagree. The various factions in RTW are far more different than those in MTW. MTW generally had W European factions with a few different units, the unique Russian and Byzantine factions, and the Muslim factions with a few different units. Oh, and the Mongols.

RTW has the Romans, the Hellenistic factions, the Egyptians, the Parthians, the W Barbarians (Gauls, Spanish, Germans, Britons) and the E Barbarians (Dacians, Sythians), and semi-Hellenized factions such as the Pontites and Armenians. And then you have the Seleucids which have access to almost everything - if they live that long :)

Quote:

---

How could CA miss out on doing a detailed "early Rome" period and map with Etruscans, Samnites, etc.?

---

Quite easily, it doesn't fit the map scale very well. You could just as well ask why did MTW miss out on the uniting of France under the Franks. Or the uniting of France and Germany under Charlemagne. Both games deal with large scale maps of roughly the W Europe/Med world, not single regions.

Quote:

---

A rise of Epirus (ala Switzerland or the Mongols) as a regional force would be interesting.

---

Same problem. The MTW expansion did this to an extent - it gave you the unting of England - but it wasn't part of the basic game. And Epirus didn't rise all that much really - they just got famous because of the Romans, after all :)

Quote:

---

It is just a shame. Looks like CA got limited by the number of factions, etc.

---

No, it looks like they wanted a game with a different focus than you did. They wanted an epic game about the rise of the Roman Empire, not a series of small campaigns about single factions that the majority of people don't care about.

Quote:

---

I can understand not wanting to step back all the way to Alexander, but making a more regional map about the time of the Samnite wars seems obvious.

---

No, it's not obvious at all. I would not be interested in your game at all. You would not get my gaming dollar. Is that obvious? :)

Quote:

---

RTW screams out for at least three major campaigns before the barbarian invasion: early Roman expansion into all of the italian peninsula, Rome of the Punic Wars, Rome around the time of Marius.

---

Funny, I thought we got the last two of those - just in one campaign. Again, the game is epic in nature - an early Roman expansion fits more into an expansion pack like Viking Invasions, not the main focus of the game.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion, naturally. But all this talk of this being "obvious" or the game "screams" for feature x gets to me. No, it's not "obvious" or even wanted by many people, maybe even most. I certainly haven't read of an outcry for smaller scenarios such as you have proposed. They may be what you would want - which is fine - but they're not "obvious" by any means - and to me the reasons that they aren't "obvious" are . . . well, "obvious" :)

Best wishes . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suraknar

Ahem, The Roman Catholic Church as we know it only got established at 1023 AD.

Hardly existing by the Hun Invasions.

The First Established Church of Christiandom was the Christian Orthodox Church, which was established after Emperor Constantine made the Christian Faith the Official Religion of the Empire at 327 AD.

All the way up to the Event which is known as the "Great Schism" of 1023, and separated the Catholic Sect from the Orthodox Church and made it a Church of its own based in Rome.

The Orthodox Church of Constantinopole continued on with the Patriarch as part of the Byzantine Empire and most of the Eastern Christian World until Constantinopole fell to the Ottoman Turks in the 1300's, and the Orthodox Church became fragmented as the Patriarch seat was transfered to Russia, and the remaining Nations answering to Constantinopole became Autocephale, (self Governing) until today...

Of Cource, the Roman Catholic Church has enjoyed Unity up to today, except Protestantism and Anglicanism which themselvs separated from its authority.

So If we even see anything Catholic in this expansion it would be highly anachronistic and ahistorical.

Thank you

---

I think alot of Catholics would disagree with your version of history - it seems rather Orthodox-centric - Catholics after all, call this the "Eastern Schism" :) The idea that the Catholic Church was only established in 1023 seems a bit much. The Pope existed well before then, and his authority was recognized in the West, if not the East, well before then. And wasn't the Great Schism in 1054, not 1023?

Of course, I'm only a Protestant, what do I know? :)

Barbarian Invasion is logical next step and I look forward to it. Alexander, Samnites, whatever is backward steps and a different subject anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grifman

I think alot of Catholics would disagree with your version of history - it seems rather Orthodox-centric - Catholics after all, call this the "Eastern Schism" :) The idea that the Catholic Church was only established in 1023 seems a bit much. The Pope existed well before then, and his authority was recognized in the West, if not the East, well before then. And wasn't the Great Schism in 1054, not 1023?

Of course, I'm only a Protestant, what do I know? :)

---

I agree completely, just as I said before. Also, the idea of the Catholic or Orthodox church getting consiously established as seperate branches of Christianity seems nonsense to me. This idea is historically inaccurate simply because you are looking backwards: "the Catholic and Orthodox church exist now, so they existed back then and since then."
History, however, should always be looked upon from the time itself, not from its future, and some phenomena just simply 'come into existence' over time, whitout anybody ever thinking of them before. Now, we see the Schism of 1054 as defenitive. Back then, however, this was absolutely not the case.

Grifman,

Not sure why you chose to reply to a post that was over two weeks old... ~:confused: but I stand by everything I wrote. I rebuilt my system a few weeks ago to migrate to XP. All of the TW games are installed, except RTW, just wasn't worth the effort. I will probably get around to installing it at some point, but as a game it is too easy and therefore dull. Yes, I was shortchanged by RTW. It came up far short of its potential and was left in a broken state. That is of course subjective, but there is a large body of players (largely former players) who feel the same way. Waiting for an expansion pack to fix the major problems? If that isn't shortchanged, then you don't what it means.

If you can play the game without having won by the time you reach the reforms, then you are doing something very wrong... In effect, we have one time period in the campaign. You seem to have missed the flippin' obvious point that MTW's different campaign dates neatly worked around "short" campaign issues. And unlike the other TW games, this one is decided sooner, with fewer surprises. The decisive part of the game is played with crap troops on both sides. MTW had more depth in the armies: levels of spearmen, levels of swordsmen, levels of missile units, levels of cav. Most of these could be used in various campaigns (unlike RTW where about half the units never see the field.) The differences between Eastern, Western, Byzantine, Muslim, Northern, Mongol factions is at least as much as we have in major divisions in RTW. And I should remind you that we had 3 periods in MTW with new units becoming available as the periods changed. Signature units are available within the decisive periods of the campaigns...

There was a lot more that could have and should have been done to flesh out combat and the RTW campaigns. What we got was an unfinished product that was then not properly patched--lots of potential, but delivering less than its predecessors. The lack of campaigns and periods is just one more indicator of the unfinished state.

Going back to lurk mode...I check the .org once in awhile to see if anything is happening. About the last revelation (after the save game issues) was the bizarre charge behaviour...since then it seems fairly dull.

Hey guys I just bought the best car!

Oh crap there's problems with it!

"Don't worry" say those who sold it to me. "We have a new model coming out next year, just buy that and it'll be better!"

"what about fixing the problems it has now?"

"Sorry, that's against policy"

"So you're just too lazy?"

"Prettymuch, plus we're already working on this - it'll get us money - fixing the problems for free doesn't"

"Wow, that's great for you, what about me?"

"BUY OUR NEW MODEL!"

:embarassed:

Hey guys I just bought the best car!

Oh crap there's problems with it!

"Don't worry" say those who sold it to me. "We have a new model coming out next year, just buy that and it'll be better!"

"what about fixing the problems it has now?"

"Sorry, that's against policy"

"So you're just too lazy?"

"Prettymuch, plus we're already working on this - it'll get us money - fixing the problems for free doesn't"

"Wow, that's great for you, what about me?"

"BUY OUR NEW MODEL!"


I plan on waiting until it starts selling for 10-15 dollars. That way it dosen't feel like a rip-off.

Ofcourse, they might improve the ai and add 35 dollars worth gameplay ~:) in which case i would just buy it.


Wait, isn't the vi xpac still selling for twenty dollars?

Yes, I will be waiting 3 months before considering purchase. Anything before then is really beta version.

Also, I will be posting a review or two on Amazon counseling caution.

Caveat Emptor!

It took four months for 1.2... and then it took months to find out why the ai did not expand.

wait at least 6 months, then you'll know if there are still issues after two patchs.
The two patch rule is still in place :shocked:

And why can't i edit my posts? :help:

Junior Members are unable to edit their posts. That "ability" comes with youor promotion to membership.

I will wait a week maybe, find out some reviews, if I like what I hear, I'll buy the xp.

IMHO, one week is not enough to find game breaking bugs. I will just download the fall of rome mod in the mean time (when it is released).


Thanks for the help BTW ~:) .

...i like your nick. Very much. ^_^ Sadly, though, I play vanilla because the last time I tried RTR the damned game wouldn't even load. :-( Had to reinstall vanilla and never returned RTR to my harddrive again because IT illiterate as I am I never figured out what went wrong.

"...i like your nick. Very much. ^_^ Sadly, though, I play vanilla because the last time I tried RTR the damned game wouldn't even load. :-( Had to reinstall vanilla and never returned RTR to my harddrive again because IT illiterate as I am I never figured out what went wrong."

Hmm, perhaps you could provide more details? such as what RTR and RTW version you used? What folder you installed to, etc.


Back on topic:



BI will have much better mods then RTW, adding factions is a BIG plus when you plan on extending the map

pezhetairoi: why are you so afraid of trying RTR again? if you have the hard drive space, you can keep more than one installation of RTW at the same time. without the need for complete re-install, this gives you the option of playing the vanilla version in case the modded ones don't work out.

yay i use vanilla version tooo what joy we must be having... :charge: :help:

Constantinople fell to the turks in 1453, not in the 1300s. Also Constantine, who made Constantinople the capital of his empire wasn't a christian. I think he became during his last hour, or he simply asked a priest for his confession. Also, at the time the christians of the roman empire were only 1 or 2 % of the population of the empire as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amazon77

Constantinople fell to the turks in 1453, not in the 1300s. Also Constantine, who made Constantinople the capital of his empire wasn't a christian. I think he became during his last hour, or he simply asked a priest for his confession. Also, at the time the christians of the roman empire were only 1 or 2 % of the population of the empire as well.

---

As far as I know, I think 10% of the population was Christian when Constantine converted on his deathbed. And Constantinople DID fall in the 13th century, in 1204 AD to be exact, to the fourth crusade. A short-lived Byzantine empire was founded again, and that's the empire that fell to the ottomans in 1453 AD.

Quote:

---

So If we even see anything Catholic in this expansion it would be highly anachronistic and ahistorical.

---

Thats not entirely the case there is a reference in John Julius Norwichs book Byzantium the early centuries which states that the Emperor Theodosius The Great in 380AD issued an edict which said;

"that only those who professed the consubstantiality of the Trinity (in other words the Nicene Creed) could be considered Catholic Christians" and that all other are heretics.

Another reference later on states "in 381, the impeccably orthodox Theodosius the great had confirmed the findings of Nicaea and had promulgated several subsequent edicts designed to enforce what he called Catholicism on his subjects."

Quote:

---

Constantinople fell to the turks in 1453, not in the 1300s. Also Constantine, who made Constantinople the capital of his empire wasn't a christian. I think he became during his last hour, or he simply asked a priest for his confession. Also, at the time the christians of the roman empire were only 1 or 2 % of the population of the empire as well.

---

Constantines original motive for converting may not of been because he genuinely believed in the Christian god, to begin with. Constantine even by his days standards was extremely superstitious and for awhile kept his options open.

There are examples of coins with Constantine depicted with the god Helios "the unconquered sun" but there are also examples of Constantine condemning members of his court for their apparent impiety to the one God (christian god).

Constantine at whatever point be it just before the battle of the Milvian bridge like history remembers it or just gradually over time, was a Christian and not just on his deathbed, he was baptised on his deathbed but that would become common practise. Baptism being seen as washing away all sin was used to cleanse the soul as a Christian was dying so he/she would go into the afterlife cleansed of sin. It doesnt mean he was only a Christian on that day, Constantine for the last few years of his life had also used the title Isapostolos "equal of the apostles".

If anything though, Constantine experienced more and more during his reign a sense of religious megalomania. That much is certain.

Quote:

---

The Pope existed well before then, and his authority was recognized in the West, if not the East, well before then. And wasn't the Great Schism in 1054, not 1023?

---

Theres an example were Emperor Theodosius the Great did penence for his sins (ordering troops to quell rioting in Thessalonica which resulted in a whole sale massacre) Bishop Ambrose of Milan told the Emperor he would be forced to refuse him communion until he did penence. Ambrose was much more influential than the Pope at the time, but it is the first example of a minister of the gospel who had stood up to an Emperor in this way and suceeded, a Christian Emperor recognising an authority greater than his own, the authority of God and his representatives (the church), its an example of the Christian church exercising its authority.

Why have the C.A made no oficial anouncement yet if it is on the way. Or was it meant to be a secret.

Quote:

---

Was Belisarius in this time period?

I want to trash barbarians

100 years is not alot, it would have been cooler to extend it to the Arab conquests, that would make my day.

---

I agree, infact i think Barbarian invasion leading upto say the end of Justinians reign and the time of Belisarius, is deservant of an entirely new full game. Its odd howd theyd limit themselves to a period were the Roman empire was in the first stages of major terminal decline and not expand to the aftermath and eastern empire.

Quote:

---

I plan on waiting until it starts selling for 10-15 dollars. That way it dosen't feel like a rip-off.

---

Edited prior to reopening thread.

Until appropriate moderator action can be taken, I deem this discussion closed.
The reason? Downloading copyrighted material is illegal. Encouragement of said activities is illegal. We will NOT tolerate these kinds of discussions.

All clean again ~:cheers:

And apologies made. I got angered thinking about the dream Rome: Total War promised, and the many months of anticipation. Night battles. A significant better AI (with levels). Multiple editors.

As a sidenote, while illegal upload-sources persist, the legal downloading of these files will continue. I find it too industry loving to edit that out as well. The law is clear-cut in this respect, in the Netherlands at least.

And as for the expansion, i am probably better off without it: Who can fulfill my dream but myself? The men working @ the Creative Assembly are hard-working individuals, simply trying to make a living, not, trying to please everybody.

I hope it's all for the better.

No it isn't okay.


You must immediately sacrifice an albino goat to the spirit of a Drunk Winston Churchill and then commit Sepukku with an egg lifter with a blue handle.

Then it will be okay.

BI sounds nice, I like the idea of night battles and such, but I really hope that BI will polish up RTW. The Fall of Rome doesn't really interest me as much as Rome in its prime, so I'll probably be getting BI to fix up RTW. After all of the bugs, glitches, and below par AI issues, I really hope that under all that new new paint, it isn't just the same old pinto they billed as a corvette.

-I'm just curious, why is half this thread seem like Christiandom Total War: Religion Buff Invasion? '.'

A few news:
ten new factions, babarians can move settlements (or the buildings in it?) to other regions and it`s sheduled for august.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/rome-total-.../617349p1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamespy

The new units alter gameplay with their own quirks. Some units are capable of swimming, allowing you to slip across a river to flank the enemy. New Priest units can stop troops from routing.

---

:bigcry: