Peek at RTW:BI

[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.

[Rubber Ducky]

There is a simliar at topic at twcenter with a few more screenshots :

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...howtopic=28530

Note the original post with the link to the source. It was pulled down very quickly. Personally, after been bitten by CA, I am very cautious where others are proclaiming (and assumed) it would fix the current bugs.

I suspect it is a hoax by some crazy goon to spread misinformation and raise false hopes. That's why the source site is pulled down so quickly, by CA I presume. The screenshots can be edited with existing RTW, and the campaign map (terribly blurred) with the UI looks exactly like what we have now.

Well I wouldn't want to leave out the possibility that it is legit, since it looks good on paper. From now on I'll be keeping a close eye on CA's promises/features for BI, if when I need proof and decided to be the next "boycott" campaign leader against CA's products Anyone care to join me?

[screwtype]

Mr Simpson did not mention the three magic words I'm waiting to hear: "Improved battle AI".

I have a sense we're not going to get it. They are going to fiddle around the edges and add a new map and campaign - which any modder could achieve - along with yet more chrome. "New traits"! Oh yeah, I'm so hanging out for more V&V's.

They're not going to fix the battle AI because most of the schlubs who bought RTW think the game is great already, so they won't be wasting their time trying to please the more demanding gamers.

But if they've taken the easy way out again and just resprayed the paintwork instead of fixing the engine, I might have to start looking for a new means of locomotion.

[The Storyteller]

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.

Agreed. The game is boring because the enemies of Rome are never allowed to become the threat they actually were in those days. There are so many possible time periods to play in, and Rome's position would still be essentially unchanged. In most times, it would be broke.

In the Marian period alone there are several options:

Rome in its war against Numidia

Rome in its war against the Germans

Rome in its war against the Italians

Rome in it's war against Pontus

Rome in its civil war between Lucius Cornelius and Marius

Rome in its war against Spain


I really dislike having to sit through years of pre Marian shuffling around.

[Grifman]

I do feel short changed in RTW with respect to periods.

How were you shortchanged? Did you willingly buy the game knowing what it was like or did CA fool you in some way, or twist your arm into buying the game? Did you sign a contract with them for them to develop the game to your specifications?

In RTW we effectively have one period vs. three in MTW.

The periods are irrelevant and artificial. I could also add that we have two periods in RTW, pre-Marian and post-Marian. Two periods make sense in a game about Rome. A third logical period would be the Hellenistic one before Rome, but well, that wouldn't be about Rome so it kind of defeats the purpose of the game :)

I don't see the variety of units, because everything is happening in the earliest phase.

What do you mean? You clearly have variety among factions, and pre- and post-Marian for the Romans.

The game is effectively over before signature units take the field even in the early period.

You have the game won in the pre-Marian timeframe? Maybe so, but that was true to the same extent in MTW if not more.

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.

So now you are complaining the RTW is inferior to MTW because you don't see a difference? I guess they can't win :)

In MTW you have more region & culture specific units, rather than just culture/religion specific ones.

I disagree. The various factions in RTW are far more different than those in MTW. MTW generally had W European factions with a few different units, the unique Russian and Byzantine factions, and the Muslim factions with a few different units. Oh, and the Mongols.

RTW has the Romans, the Hellenistic factions, the Egyptians, the Parthians, the W Barbarians (Gauls, Spanish, Germans, Britons) and the E Barbarians (Dacians, Sythians), and semi-Hellenized factions such as the Pontites and Armenians. And then you have the Seleucids which have access to almost everything - if they live that long :)

How could CA miss out on doing a detailed "early Rome" period and map with Etruscans, Samnites, etc.?

Quite easily, it doesn't fit the map scale very well. You could just as well ask why did MTW miss out on the uniting of France under the Franks. Or the uniting of France and Germany under Charlemagne. Both games deal with large scale maps of roughly the W Europe/Med world, not single regions.

A rise of Epirus (ala Switzerland or the Mongols) as a regional force would be interesting.

Same problem. The MTW expansion did this to an extent - it gave you the unting of England - but it wasn't part of the basic game. And Epirus didn't rise all that much really - they just got famous because of the Romans, after all :)

It is just a shame. Looks like CA got limited by the number of factions, etc.

No, it looks like they wanted a game with a different focus than you did. They wanted an epic game about the rise of the Roman Empire, not a series of small campaigns about single factions that the majority of people don't care about.

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.

No, it's not obvious at all. I would not be interested in your game at all. You would not get my gaming dollar. Is that 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.

Funny, I thought we got the last two of those - just in one campaign. Again, the game is epic in nature - an early Roman expansion fits more into an expansion pack like Viking Invasions, not the main focus of the game.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion, naturally. But all this talk of this being "obvious" or the game "screams" for feature x gets to me. No, it's not "obvious" or even wanted by many people, maybe even most. I certainly haven't read of an outcry for smaller scenarios such as you have proposed. They may be what you would want - which is fine - but they're not "obvious" by any means - and to me the reasons that they aren't "obvious" are . . . well, "obvious" :)

Best wishes . . .