Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Do we need different starting periods?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Do we need different starting periods?

    It appears to me that if I want to play the later unit types in a meaningful way, I need to have later campaigns. Perhaps we should have a post Punic War map as a "Late" campaign. Also, a new post Alexander "Early Republic" map with different Roman army types (hoplite at the start) and perhaps an expanded Italian map scale with all sorts of new non-Roman factions.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  2. #2
    War Story Recorder Senior Member Maltz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,760

    Default Re: Do we need different starting periods?

    That will be an excellent expansion pack feature. It will be fun to play some weaklings in the late stage, and challenge the great Roman empire, too.

  3. #3
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Do we need different starting periods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maltz
    That will be an excellent expansion pack feature. It will be fun to play some weaklings in the late stage, and challenge the great Roman empire, too.
    I agree.

    I'm intrigued about the idea of building up the tiny Roman republic when it is just gaining traction as well. The Punic Wars "made" Rome, but the wars against the former Etruscan states, Gauls, Magna Grecia, Samnites, Lucanians, and such are fertile ground for a campaign. The nature of the Roman army of the time is speculative and it morphed from hoplite to the early Republican pre-Polybian form during this time. I'm not sure how to handle the Macedonian powerhouse on the next block with such a campaign though. That's why I've opted for calling it "post" Alexander. If the map was more limited to primarily Italy the time period could be extended back to the time of the Gaul's sack of Rome.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  4. #4
    Member Member Mazoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Going to bed soon, just need to finish one more turn...
    Posts
    23

    Default Re: Do we need different starting periods?

    The marius reform might be a good point for starting a 'late' campaign. If combined with a few changes to what regions beolng to who and more buildings in cities this would allow a campaign to focus much more on the late units of the game without breaking with realism

  5. #5

    Default Re: Do we need different starting periods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mazoch
    The marius reform might be a good point for starting a 'late' campaign.
    According to CA, the coming patch will delay the Marius Reform to give players more time to use units like Triarii, so I believe this change will fit in well. Here's another vote to have different starting periods and to use the Reform as one of them.

    Perhaps at a later period, we could keep the effectiveness of archers as they are currently. Would still like to see them toned down during an earlier period.

  6. #6
    Typing from the Saddle Senior Member Doug-Thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    2,455

    Default Re: Do we need different starting periods?

    I like this thread's idea a lot. What I really want, though, is "decline and fall" campaigns: Civil Wars, barbarian invasions, and Huns.
    "In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns."

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