Rome Total War 2?

I wish they would re-do Rome Total War and improve on it. I loved Rome Total war but there are a lot of things about it I disliked. For example the need to conquer all enemies by the sword without the ability to force them to capitulate with diplomacy. Protectorates were a joke. I thought of protectorates like client states completely subordinate to the patron nation. This is not true in RTW. Protectorates are no different than having a trade and military pact. The protectorate nations can choose to break the pact at anytime and still forge alliences with your enemies making them a serious threat to leave the nation in tact.

Another thing I disliked was the fact that when faced with two armies my army always seemed to only know the position of the smaller force. As we all know Equites were used mostly as scouts since the primary killing arm of the Roman military was the infantry. My Equites would have surely spotted the larger force and informed me of its position before I drew up my forces for combat considering how close they must be to enter the field and take up arms against me.
Caesar said "Time spent on intellegence is never time wasted."

One thing that always bothered me about Rome Total war was the power of the Phalanx. The Phalanx is no match for the Roman Maniple. We all know Phalanxes when faced against the Roman Maniple were virtually immobile by comparison. The maniples and the later cohorts were the most manuverable infantry formations the world had ever seen to that point. The cohort was far, far superior in killing power to the phalanx. I wish I could have given CA a few books to read before they created the formations of the Romans. Romans were the first military force to rely mostly on the sword instead of the spear(the Gladius killed more people than any weapon until the invention of the firearm). What really made the Roman formation so powerful was the tactical flexibility it offered. It allowed each member in formation to move freely over 5 square yards of ground to seek and destroy targets. 100 yards seperates each line of infantry from the other and they lined up in checkerboard formation. This way if the first rank can not break the enemy it can retire in ordered formation without showing its back to the enemy and allow the second rank to advance. By doing this there was always a fresh line fighting in the first rank. This manuver was repeated over and over again with the result of wearing down and destroying any infantry force stupid enough to engage them.

Where are my combat engineers?? The Roman Cavalry was always the weakest force of the Roman army. If the Cavalry was stronger there would have been less need for combat engineers because the Cav could provide good flank protection. The Romans however, knowing the weakness of the Roman cavalry, employed combat engineers to dig ditches and construct camps to protect the flank and rear. So obsessed were the Romans with flank security that they built a camp(mini Roman town that was always lined up the same way)every night when within enemy territory. When they formed up for battle the Romans dug ditches and build fortifications on the flanks and rear to protect them from cavalry charges.

So in closing if CA were to redo rome total war I would suggest that they improve on diplomacy, Roman infantry formations, scouts and add some combat engineers unique to the Roman army. I think this would improve the game 100%.

"Danger knows full well, that Caesar is more dangerous than he" Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, ii. 2

Interesting post Rayven but probably more suited to the Colosseum

Hence, moved

ichi :bow:

Sorry was'nt sure where it should go. Thank you for moving it instead of closing it.

I agree with you entirely. However, I think that the likelihood of CA redoing the game so soon after its release (relatively speaking) is unlikely.

I also think that armies should be able to move much faster. It can take years to get an army from A to B in the game, when armies (well, Roman armies at least) were very mobile and could move very quickly.

Good point! The Romans could move very swiftly because they had built roads that cris-crossed the Roman Empire. On unpaved roads the Roman Legion could move no more than 8 miles per day however, on paved roads a Legion could move twenty to thirty miles per day. The Romans achieved strategic ranges as large as armies of the 1800s.

"The strategic range of the Roman army was 3,800 miles by 1,500 miles." Great Battles of Antiquity by Richard A. Gabriel and Donald W. Boose Jr.(in collaberation with the US war college)


Odd part of my post is cut off... Maybe adding this will show the rest?..

From the bits and pieces of unused game that exist hidden away here and there, I believe the focus of the game changed in the past year or so before release, and we were given a more simplified game. The stuff you suggested might not have been included, but regardless, it would be nice if there was a lot more to RTW, but it's unlikely they'll be a RTW2 before another game in the TW series. I think after the expansion pack, it'll be safe to leave the Roman world for something new.

Or maybe something set after the Roman world collapsed. 500 AD onwards. I can't remember a game being set in that timeline.

A post-western Roman Empire game could be very interesting. Perhaps as a second expansion pack, playing as the Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantines) trying to re-conquer the west whilst keeping like the East in check (like Justinian did). That would be cool ~:cool:

Well lets just hope they improve the AI for whatever future TW title they bring out.

Currently the AI is only really suited to a WWI trench warfare simulator where men hide in trenches, then run out on mass in suicidal charges against machine guns and die horribly.

another rome? Are you kidding? If anything they need to remake Shogun. Imagine the epic battles with samurai slashing each other. Pure magic ~:cheers:

I personally find Rome much more interesting. The organization of the Roman army would not be matched again until the armies of the late 1800s. First military force to employ combat engineers as a perminate attachment of the army. They had field doctors, the start of a banking system for the Roman Legions, a strategic range almost matching that of modern Armies, improved on greek artiliery weapons and developed the first rapid fire anti-personel weapon(smaller version of the Onager that fired iron-tipped bolts and were designed like a crossbow.) Infact, when Rome fell siegecraft almost disappeared with it except in Byzantium where through combat with the armies of Islam the art was passed to them.

Ninjas and Sumari might be kind of cool but they did not conquer most of the world, the Gladius did. From Brittan to Syria all found themselves under Roman rule. When the Empire finally fell Rome re-conquered the world through Christianity. The USAs government can find its roots in the indirect democracy of the Roman Repubic, Latin is still taught in school, the monthes July and August are named for Caesar and Caesar Augustus having previously been called Quintilis and Sextilis. Rome had a lasting effect on the world that can still seen to this day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayven1

developed the first rapid fire anti-personel weapon(smaller version of the Onager that fired iron-tipped bolts and were designed like a crossbow.)

---

Scorpion?

Quote:

---

The Phalanx is no match for the Roman Maniple.

---

That is a very situational arguement.

Quote:

---

We all know Phalanxes when faced against the Roman Maniple were virtually immobile by comparison.

---

Exactly. But watch how quickly a phalanx folds when hit on one or both flanks by a unit of Equites. A phalanx forms a pretty formidable wall of points when faced front on. Which is why a short burst of javelin fire, followed by a holding move(guard area) while you get your flank attacks into position is a must. Also a continued barrage by arrows usually does wonders.
I don't believe it's overly unbalanced.

Bleah.... A new Rome?! NOOOO Way.....CA is going to the dogs if they're gonna do a new Rome....

I personally want a Medieval Total War 2... Much better than ROME!!!

And I wont refuse a Shogun Total War 2 either....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

I personally want a Medieval Total War 2...And I wont refuse a Shogun Total War 2 either

---

It would make sense to remake Medieval or Shogun first, since they are much older and (graphically speaking, at least) much more in need of an update.

I'm going to have to disagree.

I really with RTW was better, I really do - but I'd much rather they remade STW or MTW.

To go back to the phalanx question. May I refer you to the battle at Kynoskephalae, where the phalanx was more than a match for the maniple in combat until a young tribune led 20 maniples into the rear. So okay, conceded hands-down that manoeuvrability is a plus plus for maniples, but phalanxes were always impenetrable in real life.

May I also refer you to the battle at Pydna, wher 25000 out of 32000 phalangites were slaughtered by Roman maniples, but only when the phalanx went onto uneven ground (a tactical vulnerability that you never see in RTW making the phalanx overpowered), and before the Romans retreated onto unever ground, the phalanxes had already inflicted thousands of casualties on the Romans and their allies.

My point, the phalanx is not inferior to the maniple. It's just a pity that the battles that the phalanxes fought against maniples happened to be defeats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

the phalanxes had already inflicted thousands of casualties on the Romans and their allies

---

The book I have (In the Name of Rome, A. Goldsworthy) says that the Romans had only about one hundred dead and a greater number wounded, compared to 20,000 Macedonian dead and 6000 captured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pezhetairoi

May I also refer you to the battle at Pydna, wher 25000 out of 32000 phalangites were slaughtered by Roman maniples, but only when the phalanx went onto uneven ground

---

This is precisely why the phalanx lost to the maniple. The maniple was very flexible and the phalanx wasn't. As soon as the phalanx was fighting in non-ideal situations (i.e. anything that wasn't flat land protected on either side by hills), the maniple outmanouvered the phalanx and slaughtered them. Also, due to the unwieldy nature of the Sarissa, the Phalanx wasn't very good as an offensive unit - it could only really hold ground.

Why do you want RTW2, when there is such a good Darth Mod for RTW, it gives almost a new life to vannila RTW ("This mod uses unique ideas and greatly accepted techniques for a competitive AI behavior especially in the tactical battlefield. With the contribution of many great skinners, it evolutes to a true enhancement of RTW vanilla version game").
Check it out here http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=71
You'll love it ~:cool: It made me addictive to RTW almost like once to MTW ~D Enjoy ~:cheers:

As far as I understood from game is that producers could make battles harder, I mean - to act AI like normal oponent and general with battle plan etc. Also diplomacy.

Speaking about Roman formations etc. there are still lots of discussions what where exact Roman formation in battle with lot of speculations, therefore it looks that producers did what they could. With other countries situation are even worth.

Rayven1's suggestions are all limited enough to be handled by the expansion improving the original game.

I haven't used a protectorate yet- are there surveillance advantages as well as revenue? It should be easy to make protectorates more closely under the control of their overlords. Build limits?

I'm not sure about scouts, as the player already gets much more tactical information then he should, even playing on restricted view. A keyboard shortcut allowing grouped Roman units to change position could represent Rayven1's formations idea.

To represent engineers, forts could be adapted to become Roman camps, with the Romans allowed the the advantages of a 'lesser fort' if defending and on level ground.

If you get these ideas into the addon, then you have your Rome 2 without having to wait for it, and if there was one easy improvement I could ask for as well as the campaign fixes, I'd like an option to turn off the highlighting of the selected unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayven1

I personally find Rome much more interesting. The organization of the Roman army would not be matched again until the armies of the late 1800s. First military force to employ combat engineers as a perminate attachment of the army. They had field doctors, the start of a banking system for the Roman Legions, a strategic range almost matching that of modern Armies, improved on greek artiliery weapons and developed the first rapid fire anti-personel weapon(smaller version of the Onager that fired iron-tipped bolts and were designed like a crossbow.) Infact, when Rome fell siegecraft almost disappeared with it except in Byzantium where through combat with the armies of Islam the art was passed to them.

---

Actually, with the introduction of the division as a level of organization, the organization of armies surpassed the Romans well before the 19th century. Combat engineers as a permanent attachment of an army were commonplace by the 16th century, and most armies had some degree of field doctors by the 17th century. With regards to siege weapons, the Romans still preferred direct assault and that's why most of the siege weapons they used were anti-personnel. By the 13th century medieval European armies regularly carried a baggage train of anti-fortification weapons, including the mighty counter-weight trebuchet.

By the middle of the period, the armies of Sengoku Jidai Japan were extremely well organized and coordinated, and boasted among other things corps of battlefield messangers. The fortifications they built were also among the strongest and most clever in history. In 1945 at the battle of Okinawa, a 16th century Japanese castle resisted the heavy guns of American battle ships.

I would also like to see MTW2 rather than STW2, because of two basic reasons:

MTW could certainly use a graphical enhancement, since it uses the old fahioned, and not so beautiful sprites (i mean all the time, i know RTW uses sprites as well, but its only in the distance).

Now, you could say STW would take the same advantage as medieval, right?... well, that leads me to the second reason for why Medieval and not shogun, which is i feel there would be much more variety in the MTW context. IIRC, shogun is only about japan, which means all the factions get almost the very same troops. In medieval, eastern europen troops are not the same as the western (szekely come to mind). Steppes warfare is very different of middle european warfare, and lets not forget the orthodox and musilm faction, which would add a lot more color, and i feel that could take more advantage of the engine. I mean, the visual difference between saracens and italians(or russians and nubians, or mongols and french...) is greater than the one that could be between two japanese factions. I just feel there would be more variety(visual,strategy and terrain-wise) here than in a STW remake.


Plus, i would really love to see JHI and lancers in action :charge: :charge: :charge:

Personaly i will love a Crusader:Total War.....(1000-1300 AD) when the europeans armies attacked the muslim cities to save the Jesus grave from the them...i think it will be a great idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coldfish

Personaly i will love a Crusader:Total War

---

The only trouble with this is that it could be too similar to MTW (same time period, same place, similar units etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodidley

Actually, with the introduction of the division as a level of organization, the organization of armies surpassed the Romans well before the 19th century. Combat engineers as a permanent attachment of an army were commonplace by the 16th century, and most armies had some degree of field doctors by the 17th century. With regards to siege weapons, the Romans still preferred direct assault and that's why most of the siege weapons they used were anti-personnel. By the 13th century medieval European armies regularly carried a baggage train of anti-fortification weapons, including the mighty counter-weight trebuchet.

By the middle of the period, the armies of Sengoku Jidai Japan were extremely well organized and coordinated, and boasted among other things corps of battlefield messangers. The fortifications they built were also among the strongest and most clever in history. In 1945 at the battle of Okinawa, a 16th century Japanese castle resisted the heavy guns of American battle ships.

---

________________________________________________________________

According to the book, "Great Battles of Antiquity" by Richard A. Gabriel and Donald W. Boose, in collaboration with the US War College, "The degree of sophistication and organization evident in the army of Rome was not achieved again until at least the armies of the American Civil War."
Roman armies had officers with administrative staffs for paperwork; each soldier had his own admin file, with everything from physical examinations to leave and retirement status. The Romans did not just have one of the items you listed above but all of them. True the Romans never quite formed divisions but you can consider any Roman force of more than 3 legions a division since each legion would be considered by our standards a brigade. It had all the characteristics of a brigade since it has:
1) A large body of troops
2) A tactical and administrative unit
3) Headquarters
4) Supporting units (alae, equities, auxilla)

(actually, before the civil war you could consider the legions of Pompi in Spain a division, or the legions of Gaul a division. A division is just 3-5 brigades)

"With regards to siege weapons, the Romans still preferred direct assault and that's why most of the siege weapons they used were anti-personnel."

Not sure who told you this. It all depended on the situation. Caesar required that each legion carry 10 Onagers and 30 smaller versions of the device. Josephus tells us that the Roman devices could hurl 100lb stones over 400 yards. 100lb stones are not used against troops, they are used against walls. Evidence of the destructive power of Roman siege equipment can be seen by examining the details of the siege of Jerusalem. Also the Romans built siege towers to attack fortified cities like Caesar did to the Aduatuci. The Roman battle ram was a highly feared device in ancient times. Usually if an opponent surrendered before the battle ram hit the gates he could expect mercy. If he did not surrender in time all bets were off. If need be the Romans were prepared to lay siege to cities for months if not years. The Romans were the un-disputed masters of siege warfare in the ancient world.

I will really like, if they launch MTW 2, and including a crusade campaing. But i agree with Rayven 1, romans are the best. They make in ancient what we make in modern times. In fact, the same way who lead us, from feudal, monarchy and finally democracy, have past the ancient peaplo, with agricutural cultures, then monarchys, and at least, the republic with rome. Like my sociologist teacher said, we live in a helicoidal history.

Well, and about RTW2, we dont need this. We can do by ourself, making the developments like RTR, Darthmod, etc...

People just find better ways of satisfying the same needs, always have, always will.


I personally want the movie back. ~D I'd like to see my troops marching through Rome when you take it. I'd like to see better battle physics.

Heck take a few pointers from the company that did the Lord of the Ring battles. Every soldier had their own AI. Though... cinematics and games are very different animals, it's all good.

Personally, what I would like to see is a timeline sim from prehistory to today. That'd be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rayven1

"The degree of sophistication and organization evident in the army of Rome was not achieved again until at least the armies of the American Civil War."

---

Well, I would hardly be insolent enough to disagree with the mighty Richard A. Gabriel and Donald W. Boose, but by 1812 Napoleon had developed a level of organization called the Army Group to organize a force of 600,000 men.

The larger projectiles found at Masada were the size of grapefruits. The first Roman attempt to storm Jerusalem used battering rams to break down the wall and was followed by a direct assault. The second attempt used fire to destroy the walls, like the final assault on Massada.

Hey guys...about the speed of armies...

THAT you can change, and easily too. For me, that pathway was:

C:\Program Files\Activision\Rome - Total War\Data

Then open up descr_character and change the starting action points. I changed mine from 80 to 250. Guess how much faster EVERYONE moves?

Heck, even the AI uses it (sometimes...)

Azi

A remake of Rome is, I think, highly unlikely. A re-make of Medieval or Shogun, or even another era (perhaps China?) would be great, but all I'd really like to see is a vastly improved AI, irrespective of what era is chosen.

A Spring and Autumn or Warring States Period game would be awesome ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodidley

Well, I would hardly be insolent enough to disagree with the mighty Richard A. Gabriel and Donald W. Boose, but by 1812 Napoleon had developed a level of organization called the Army Group to organize a force of 600,000 men.

The larger projectiles found at Masada were the size of grapefruits. The first Roman attempt to storm Jerusalem used battering rams to break down the wall and was followed by a direct assault. The second attempt used fire to destroy the walls, like the final assault on Massada.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than one source states that the level of organization found in the Roman army would not be seen again till the period of the American civil war. The organization we are talking about is not just surface deep with the Romans. They were organized almost as well as a modern military force. When the US war college agrees, and I think they know more about the military then both of us, I take that as the truth.

I also take Josephus at his word that the larger artillery pieces of the Romans would regularly hurl 100 pound stones 400 yards. Those are big rocks. Bigger than a grapefruit, that’s for sure.

You need only to look at the appendix in the book "The Gallic wars" to see some of the siege equipment that I'm talking about. Caesar made excellent use of siege equipment.

After the fall of Rome Europe spent centuries re-inventing military technology lost with the fall of the empire.