Peek at RTW:BI

[Camp Freddie]

Someone posted this link at the COM:

EDIT - NO SCANS - Cat

It's not much but still...

I think it sounds good. I like the 'new historical events'. Moving population around could be cool too.
MTW:VI seemed way too generic, simply, "Off you go, here's some Vikings to beat up if you want".

I guess religion will play more of a part too, since the Roman Catholic Church had been set up by the time of the barbarian invasions. It'll be interesting to see how this is handled.

[Dark_Magician]

Death to the capita.. err roman pigs! Rob the robbers! All barbarians - unite!

a missed a "mongol invasion" to stir things up in the middle. Yeah, some 12 full stacks of units appearing in the middle would definitly offer a challenge

[econ21]

Sounds excellent - from the subject matter, this must surely be a much more substantial expansion than MI and even VI. If we get to playout the decline and fall of Rome on the RTW strategic map, it would be more like a new game than an expansion.

[marcusbrutus]

Looks like they'll be tieing up a few loose ends and completing unfinished work with the expansion pack.

[sunsmountain]

Grrrr. Night battles. That should have been a default feature in the main game. Oh well. If they make the AI moddable, or they can prove the AI is better, i'll perhaps buy it.

[Puzz3D]

I wonder what kind of machine you need to get 10 fps for that picture.

[Red Harvest]

Sounds excellent - from the subject matter, this must surely be a much more substantial expansion than MI and even VI. If we get to playout the decline and fall of Rome on the RTW strategic map, it would be more like a new game than an expansion.

Considering that the base RTW has a single campaign/period, BI has a lot of ground to make up. And the problems with RTW run deeper as well. This looks more like the missing half or RTW than an expansion pack to me. VI had a completely new campaign map and campaign in addition to its updates of other three campaigns on the normal map.

I have to agree with others that the barbarian invasion phase historically is less interesting to me than Alexander, etc.

[Craterus]

Look's good, but Alexander would have been cool too but remember Alexander died 60 years before Roman Empire and it kinda loses the theme if you were to add him in. Unless you are talking about a historical campaign?

[tibilicus]

Ye bring back the historical campaigns! C.A people if your there bring them back please !

[econ21]

Considering that the base RTW has a single campaign/period, BI has a lot of ground to make up. And the problems with RTW run deeper as well. This looks more like the missing half or RTW than an expansion pack to me. VI had a completely new campaign map and campaign in addition to its updates of other three campaigns on the normal map.

I think the single period deficiency for RTW is offset by the fact that the different factions in RTW have more character than those in MTW - especially in terms of army styles. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect the rise and fall of Rome to be covered in a single game (esp. with half-yearly turns!). I don't feel short-changed by the scope of RTW - certainly it covers much more ground than STW. I'm hoping CA do smuggle in some different starting periods to RTW, as they did to STW in the MI add-on. But I rather suspect what I'll value most in the expansion is the patch to the existing Imperial campaign. That was certainly for me of MI and VI. I can hope though.

I have to agree with others that the barbarian invasion phase historically is less interesting to me than Alexander, etc.

Well, tastes differ but personally I find the fall of Rome fascinating. Did anyone here ever try the old boardgame "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by the Wargames Research Group? It was multi-player, but was fun with the barbarians colluding to break through the frontiers and then squabbling over the gains. I'm a rather defensive player and really like it when the AI comes gunning for me, so if they were to make trying to hold the Empire a real challenge, it would be awesome. A big if, I admit, as the Vikings in VI and the Mongols in STW were not as scarey as they could have been. The huge stacks of Mongols in MTW were pretty neat though.

[Red Harvest]

I think the single period deficiency for RTW is offset by the fact that the different factions in RTW have more character than those in MTW - especially in terms of army styles. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect the rise and fall of Rome to be covered in a single game (esp. with half-yearly turns!). I don't feel short-changed by the scope of RTW - certainly it covers much more ground than STW.

I do feel short changed in RTW with respect to periods. In RTW we effectively have one period vs. three in MTW. I don't see the variety of units, because everything is happening in the earliest phase. The game is effectively over before signature units take the field even in the early period. 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. In MTW you have more region & culture specific units, rather than just culture/religion specific ones.

How could CA miss out on doing a detailed "early Rome" period and map with Etruscans, Samnites, etc.? A rise of Epirus (ala Switzerland or the Mongols) as a regional force would be interesting. It is just a shame. Looks like CA got limited by the number of factions, etc. 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. 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.

[Puzz3D]

Considering that the base RTW has a single campaign/period, BI has a lot of ground to make up. And the problems with RTW run deeper as well. This looks more like the missing half or RTW than an expansion pack to me. VI had a completely new campaign map and campaign in addition to its updates of other three campaigns on the normal map.

I have to agree with others that the barbarian invasion phase historically is less interesting to me than Alexander, etc.

I would have prefered Alexander as well. However, CA can't seem to figure out how to make the phalanx work effectively with this battle engine, so an add-on based on Alexander's campaigns would be quite problematic. Also, CA would have to go to turns of much shorter duration for a game about Alexander's campaigns, and there is no way the game engine could handle even a small fraction of the number of troops involved in Alexander's battles.

[Divinus Arma]

Great job on posting his. Thank you!

[Diadochoi]

there is no way the game engine could handle even a small fraction of the number of troops involved in Alexander's battles.

Other than some artificially inflated Persian armies at Guagamela and Issus, I'd say the army sizes aren't significantly different than what the Romans dealt with (and thus what is represented in the game)

[lismore]

Hi

What happens if you have modded the original game?