Campaign Idea

[ReluctantSamurai]

I mean, I suppose, if you wanted to realistically simulate a family's rise to power, you can make a business sim and a legal speechmaking sim, but again, that's not a Total War game.

I don't think this negates the idea of starting out as a vassal of some sorts, and rising up through the ranks to positions of power. History is fraught with such situations, and our very own Shogun TW is a perfect example. Toyotomi Hideyoshi anyone?

I rather like the idea of not repeating the same role as the original...that of head of a family or faction. The possibilities of making alliances with other factions against the SPQR, and then later back-stabbing your ally makes for good role-playing intrigue IMHO...

[quadalpha]

I don't think this negates the idea of starting out as a vassal of some sorts, and rising up through the ranks to positions of power. History is fraught with such situations, and our very own Shogun TW is a perfect example. Toyotomi Hideyoshi anyone?

I rather like the idea of not repeating the same role as the original...that of head of a family or faction. The possibilities of making alliances with other factions against the SPQR, and then later back-stabbing your ally makes for good role-playing intrigue IMHO...

Shogun, yes. Rome, no. There was simply no system of vassalage in Rome in any feudal sense. Yes, the especially rich and prominent were patrons and had clients, but that relationship was never formal in any legalistic sense.

I agree there is a chance that factions within an empire could work well (in fact, aren't they doing something like this already?), and there are examples of Roman citizens plotting coups with foreign assistance (though to call it plotting against 'SPQR' is probably anachronistic; the conspirators were always working within the Roman political system rather than against it). I suppose my point about the OP, aside from ahistoricity and general silliness, is it would amount to feature creep on a massive scale if it ever came to pass.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I must agree with Quadalpha. By itself, perhaps that could be an interesting idea for a game (I'm sure there is probably some game akin to it, not necessarily in the same time period though), but it is simply not Total War. I do not believe I have to restate his point; Total War is, at its core, a grand strategy game. Not a "family rising to power" simulator. It is made for controlling a faction, not a person, and many factions do still have to start from humble beginnings.

The Total War formula has worked thus far, and in all honesty it has been changed enough each time to keep it fresh. I'm perfectly happy with it as it is, and would rather they put more time into improving it rather than creating some small-scale unrealistic political simulator.

[Gerula]

My ideas are only an addition to the old game, who have macro, grand scale campaign + is presented in general terms!
All other 'things' from the old TW series should be included, just not going to be boss of your entire empire from the beginning. You and other family will fight with other enemies of your nations, but also between you. I do not understand why you think it is so totally differen when is very similar with the first game ROME TW and if you only remember the first RomeTW and the campaign with Romans. There you had to choose between three Roman factions, the AI already was in control of other 2 Roman faction+ SQPR with his senate, so what I say is exactly the Rome Total War concept!

How were the first years of the city of Rome?
I do not think there was already a lot of very important political and military functions. So should be in this game. Suppose that in addition to the Roman Senate, will be there some families about 5/6-10 and even only 3/4 are sufficient. Some of them should be highly rich, others poor, some very loyal to Rome, others would betray Rome at any time, but for everyone the main goal is to become supreme leader of that unborn Empire. You could even arrange alliances with some of them for power in Rome, against other families. If they do make from Rome(or any other faction) a great empire together or separately, that it remains to be seen and that would be icing on the cake of this game. Basically, you should be the main actor for faction you choose. The other family, could create various problems to you in game like , but it could also help you.

In those days, very well-known Civilizations, had a lot of internal struggle as much as external, maybe even more. Examples can be given as:
-Greek with their city-states, fought each other like crazy
-Gauls tribes fought each other long enough
-Getae, who always had to 'share' something with their cousins ​​Thracians, where Getae was a tribes of Thracian origin, same as Dacians, or when after the death of Burebista in the former Dacian kingdom was given heavy fights between 4/5 leaders of various tribes of Dacian origins for who will be the new king for a long - long time.
-in general, all known tribes led fight each other, even if they were the same origin

And all this only as an addition + have already mentioned in the OP
"If you could create two types of campaign. The first option for the campaign, the classical and well known to all, that one we have used so far. For the second one, comes my ideas"

[quadalpha]

I think the objections to these ideas have already been well explained, and none of your points raised later substantially answer those objections. I have only to add that to think of, say, 'the Greeks' as a single empire with lots of internal factions is rather anachronistic.

[Gerula]

I think the objections to these ideas have already been well explained, and none of your points raised later substantially answer those objections.

But you are very poor in explanations and arguments and just keep repeating to infinity that you don't like it. One thing is very sure related to your anachronistic problem, this game can not be done just as well as a history book, because free will in the game.
I just told you sir, in big terms, this idea it was already used it in first ROME TW, if you have played!
P.S: Are you jealous on my ideas ?

[quadalpha]

But you are very poor in explanations and arguments and just keep repeating to infinity that you don't like it. One thing is very sure related to your anachronistic problem, this game can not be done just as well as a history book, because free will in the game.
I just told you sir, in big terms, this idea it was already used it in first ROME TW, if you have played!
P.S: Are you jealous on my ideas ?

There is a not-so-fine distinction between a poor explanation on my part and an inability or unwillingness to read on your part. Perhaps bullet points will help:

1. Having private armies is silly.

2. Without private armies, your idea turns into a mass of new features that overcomplicate the economic and political systems, without a clear way of seguing into the current, faction-based models.

I won't patronise by quoting back in detail what you've written. You asked for comments, and you have mine to do with as you please. Kindly be assured there is no jealousy on your ideas for my part. I wish you the best of luck with them, though I personally would prefer if they did not show up in a Total War game.