Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: When do we get to play past the death of Augustus?

  1. #1
    Member Member AvramL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Calgary,AB,Canada
    Posts
    261

    Default

    From the RTW Faq I learned that the game will end with the death of Augustus in 14 AD, although this topic has probably been touched upon before, I just wanted to know what people's responses to this were. Personaly I definately hope that the Imperial period will be covered more in an expansion or something, there was a lot of good warring in later years

  2. #2
    Senior Member Senior Member Hakonarson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    I think the most sought after/popular idea for expansion was actualy a prior era - Alexander adn the Greks vs Persians, perhaps from 500 BC right up to the beginning of Roman interference in the eastern Med just after the 2nd Punic War.

  3. #3
    Swarthylicious Member Spino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I think the most sought after/popular idea for expansion was actualy a prior era - Alexander adn the Greks vs Persians, perhaps from 500 BC right up to the beginning of Roman interference in the eastern Med just after the 2nd Punic War.
    Count me in. I also think that particular time period would provide the most challenging gameplay because from 500BC to 300BC Europe, North Africa and to a lesser extent, Western Asia, was still anybody's game. An expansion pack that features a post Augustus, Roman dominated world wouldn't have the same sort of thrills as Rome was already established as the de facto power in the western world. Besides, who the hell wouldn't want a crack at recreating the astounding feats of Alexander the Great?
    "Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?" - Theodore Roosevelt

    Idealism is masturbation, but unlike real masturbation idealism actually makes one blind. - Fragony

    Though Adrian did a brilliant job of defending the great man that is Hugo Chavez, I decided to post this anyway.. - JAG (who else?)

  4. #4
    AKA Leif 3000 TURBO Senior Member Leet Eriksson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    n0rg3
    Posts
    3,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Spino @ May 20 2003,21:31)]
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I think the most sought after/popular idea for expansion was actualy a prior era - Alexander adn the Greks vs Persians, perhaps from 500 BC right up to the beginning of Roman interference in the eastern Med just after the 2nd Punic War.
    Count me in. I also think that particular time period would provide the most challenging gameplay because from 500BC to 300BC Europe, North Africa and to a lesser extent, Western Asia, was still anybody's game. An expansion pack that features a post Augustus, Roman dominated world wouldn't have the same sort of thrills as Rome was already established as the de facto power in the western world. Besides, who the hell wouldn't want a crack at recreating the astounding feats of Alexander the Great?
    Here Here
    Texas is Gods country! - SFTS
    SFTS = The rest =


  5. #5
    Member Member some_totalwar_dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Flanders, vlaardingen
    Posts
    705

    Default

    I read somewhere in one of the many previews (some months ago) that CA is considering a option so you can play on after 14BC. but I don't think that will hapen so lets go for an expension based around Alexanders conquest.
    theKyl: so I shoot some_totalwar_dude for hinting at my m8 sinan
    theKyl shoots totalwar_dude for spamming
    Demon of Light shoots some_totalwar_dude.
    Demon of Light shoots some_totalwar_dude for misspelling Chihuahua.

    (image comming soon )

  6. #6
    Member Member Nowake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Bucharest
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    We don't know all the factions and how are they going to implement them, we didn't catch even a glimpse from the campaign map, we have no clue's about religion and fleet, they haven't said anything about that cursed decimation, and yet ... we plan the expansion pack ...

    Anyway, I am for a barbarian invasion instead of Alexander's odiseea, but I'd go with both if I really had an option


  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member Longshanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,484

    Default

    An Imperial Rome expansion pack would be feasible so long as some factions are divided into true tribal factions. For example, Suebi, Cimbri ect. instead of just Germans. The Dacians, Sarmatians, Britons, Picts, Arabs, and Hiberni could also be broken down into many different factions. And you would still have the Parthian Empire(later Sassanid Persians) and the Armenians(depending on time period) in the East. Depending on the size of the map, you could also have Scythians and the Yueh-chi confederation.(enemies of Parthia, included the Huns)

  8. #8
    Senior Member Senior Member econ21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9,651

    Default

    Maybe Imperial Rome at it's prime would be a little dull, strategically. But the decline of Rome would be a great expansion pack - would make the Mongol and Viking Invasions look like school excursions. Tactically, it would be interesting with the rise of heavy cavalry. Strategically, it could be great fun if done well (so some decline is inevitable for the Romans) - I'm thinking of the old WRG boardgame Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which had an initially strong Roman empire facing numerous growing barbarian threats.

  9. #9
    Swarthylicious Member Spino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Maybe Imperial Rome at it's prime would be a little dull, strategically. But the decline of Rome would be a great expansion pack - would make the Mongol and Viking Invasions look like school excursions. Tactically, it would be interesting with the rise of heavy cavalry. Strategically, it could be great fun if done well (so some decline is inevitable for the Romans) - I'm thinking of the old WRG boardgame Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which had an initially strong Roman empire facing numerous growing barbarian threats.
    While I agree that decline of Rome is a far more exciting era than when Rome ruled supreme I disagree that the onset of the Dark ages would be more exciting than the Hellenic/Persian era that preceded the rise of Rome as depicted in RTW. What you propose implies either selecting the Romans, Sassanid Persians, other minor factions of note or one of the many entries in the 'Barbarian of the Month club'. On the other hand if CA simply turned back the clock a hundred years or so they could show us the rise of Carthage, Macedonia and Rome and both the peaks and declines of Persia and Greece's major city states

    However, given the main focus of the Vikings Invasion expansion you have to wonder whether CA is considering another 'tight focus' style expansion for RTW. It is conceivable that CA might decide to limit us to the Italian peninsula and Sicily and roll back the clock to when the Romans, Samnites, Etruscans, Neopolitans, Syracusans, the Celtic 'hordes', etc. all vied for control of those regions. Personally I hope this doesn't happen as I feel the huge popularity of Hellenic/Persian era expansion would be too great for CA to ignore.

    Not that I would find a decline of Rome era expansion to be unwelcome though...

    And who says there only has to be one expansion pack for RTW? If the game is as great and wildly successful as people believe it will be then what would be the logic in not milking the title for all it's worth? Look at the wild success of Morrowind; less than a year after its release and a very successful expansion pack Bethesda is now ready to release another expansion, and one that greatly exceeds the content and scope of the first More of a good thing is definitely not a bad thing
    "Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?" - Theodore Roosevelt

    Idealism is masturbation, but unlike real masturbation idealism actually makes one blind. - Fragony

    Though Adrian did a brilliant job of defending the great man that is Hugo Chavez, I decided to post this anyway.. - JAG (who else?)

  10. #10
    Member Member RectalDamage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    19

    Angry

    It ends with the death of Augustus? No Parthians, Visigoths or Huns? I was hoping to fight off new factions for centuries.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Senior Member Longshanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,484

    Default

    Parthians should make the cut. Crassus' failed invasion of Parthia takes place during the Republican period. Trajan and Septimus Severus' victories against the Parthians would be after the game's time period.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Senior Member Hakonarson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,442

    Default

    Parthians should definitely be in - as you say there's Crassus, and also Mark Anthony's huge invasion of Parthia soon after (which saw no major battles, but a long series of skirmishes, defection of the Roman Armenian ally & destruction of the 2 legions guarding the baggage), then the Parthian counter-invasions of 39 & 39 BC (IIRC) defeated by an otherwise unknown Roman general Vendetius (sp??) in which they rekied more upon cataphracts than horse archers & were twice defeated in open battle.

    Before then there's wars between the Seleucids and Parthians too, but I don't know if the campaign map will go so far.

  13. #13
    Member Member Herodotus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    165

    Default

    I think the ultimate aim of the developers should be to create Eurasia Total War with the Rome TW engine (or even a further improvement). Just imagine battling from Britain to Japan with everything that lies imbetween. Perhaps Africa aswell for the hell of it. I would set it from ancient Greek times to the end of the Medieval Period. It would be alot more realistic as it would not be plausible to rule the entire map and you would always encounter a new enemy (as Alexander did). This would make it alot harder to rule a large empire and would make possible a true representation of the fall of the Romans by the emigrating barbarians. Also you would come into contact with even wierder factions than the Muslims in MTW (wierd as in different from the Catholics).

    To the subject at hand now; I also think the classical period is a much more exciting prospect than the imperial/downfall period.

  14. #14
    I need to change my armor Member Sir Robin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    549

    Default

    The classical period would be nice but I expect that CA will go the "Barbarian Invasions" route. Both VI amd MI dealt with invasions.

    Though if they are going a new route with RTW the inevitable expansion could go into new directions as well.
    Sir Robin the Not-quite-so-brave-as-Sir-Lancelot,
    who had nearly fought the Dragon of Agnor,
    who had nearly stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol,
    and who had personally wet himself at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  15. #15
    Provost Senior Member Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    2,762

    Default

    I think you're right, Sir Robin.

    Mongol Invasion

    Viking Invasion

    Barbarian Invasion
    Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas.

  16. #16
    Member Member lonewolf371's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Perhaps Rome is a step-up to something like oh say... Classical: Total War? And after that they can have Macedonian Invasion.

  17. #17
    Member Member Nowake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Bucharest
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    I definitely agree with the Barbarian Invasion


  18. #18

    Default

    Actually, just Viking Invasion, you could do a more limited expansion pack. Use a map of Britain, Gaul, Italy, and Illycrium for the Western Roman Empire, and an undefined area of Eastern Europe and have to try and fight off repeated barbarian invasions. The basic goal is, as the Romans, to try and preserve the Western Empire, while you could play various barbarian tribes - Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, Huns, Alans, etc. Since the emperor was really a puppet of the various Roman and barbarian generals, this could follow the way Rome: Total War works, with emphasis on the factions. Various factions, including barbarians could control the Emperor at times, representing the "empire" and get certain advantages. So basically, you have one Roman faction amongst a number of barbarian factions, all seeking control in the West. Could have a bunch of political shenanigans - assassinations (as happened with Aetius and Stilcho), shifting alliances, etc. Would be alot of fun.

    Grifman

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO