Colonies and Revolution: Total War

**Divinus Arma** · 07-31-2005, 19:08

Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1

its oke, but it still has limitations. i mean the "colonisation slots" could be anywhere.

That is the point!

provinces/regions werent really anywhere but in europe.

But yet we have borders/regions in MTW and RTW? I mean that was all vague and irrelevant anyway. The real point is to establish an area from where the settlement draws its resources and to define the borders of whom own the land: The city is the central point of the region. Hell, you could make borders an eventuality, say when the city hits a certain size. That isn't a bad idea. That way the controlling faction doesn't get the benefit of borders until then (and borders need to be more important anyway. Their is little consequence for crossing a border at this point).

how would you display germany and italy.

Wasn't germany divided into smaller nations anyway: prussia and austria as an example, or something else?

spain was already powerfull at that time with colonies around the world.i think the date should be from around 1480 to 1780 (columbus to american revolution)

Works for me.

**Gaius Magnus** · 07-31-2005, 19:26

I think a TW version of the game 1503 AD without all of the micromanagement that is present in that game would be very cool.

...Although I doubt we will see a TW game that has undefined territories, which is what we would need for a game set in the 'Age of Discovery'.

**Divinus Arma** · 07-31-2005, 20:22

Originally Posted by Gaius Magnus

...Although I doubt we will see a TW game that has undefined territories, which is what we would need for a game set in the 'Age of Discovery'.

I see your point, but you are wrong on this my friend. The territories ARE defined, but they are unrevealed until a certain event, be it colonization or city size, etc.

Why this? I'll elaborate:

Imagine landing your small army in South Africa or elsewhere. You see no borders, there is no territory ownership, but you DO see some of things the land has to offer: Iron, gold, amazing new resources that will make your faction rich! But wait, are all of these resources in one territory? You push inland and discover two different "colonization slots" or whatever they will be named. You know it is expensive as hell to colonize, so you leave your army there to defend your new found spot while you wait for your colonists to arrive. When they do, you pick a spot and set it up. One of two options then happen, depending on which direction the developers take the game:
(1) your land claim is made and the boundaries of the region are revealed. You now know the limits to your land and its benefits. You also have a greater understanding of what that neighboring colonization spot has to offer, encouraging you to continue your expansion.
(2) Your land claim is made and you begin recieving the fruits of the land (gold, tradeable goods, whatever). But you do not have borders yet, because the future of the colony is uncertain and their is insufficient political clout to establish borders. Once your city reaches a certain size, it's future is assured unless it is conquered. But either way, at this point your borders are revealed and you get the bonuses that having borders grant (such as a diplomacy option to demand invaders get out or else, or an option to grant a right of passage).

Either way, there are great benefits to this, especially for huge land claims. It make it harder to pinpoint the perfect spot to form a colony becasue you have to find it (and you have no borders to help outline the region).

Any CA developers have time to comment on this? Is this even a possibility or are there severe coding restrictions?

**Gaius Magnus** · 07-31-2005, 20:35

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I see your point, but you are wrong on this my friend. The territories ARE defined, but they are unrevealed until a certain event, be it colonization or city size, etc.

Wait a second. I'm not wrong. We're discussing what we would like in a TW series based in the age of discovery.

Your idea was pre-defined territories, mine is open-ended.

Personally, the idea of having pre-defined territories in a game where the whole point is to strike out and found civilizations based on Western Culture where none have ever existed would seem very unrealistic to me.

The best way to go IMHO would be to allow you to establish new settlements, and your horizons would broaden as your settlements expanded. As long as I don't have to chop wood and catch fish, of course.

**Divinus Arma** · 08-01-2005, 00:16

Originally Posted by Gaius Magnus

The best way to go IMHO would be to allow you to establish new settlements, and your horizons would broaden as your settlements expanded. As long as I don't have to chop wood and catch fish, of course.

I agree with you. This would be excellent. There are inherent problems with this though. First of all, consider the AI. It just might park his colony right next to yours. What happens to the region border then? And what is to stop you from doing the same thing? The preplanned colony space prevents this and allows the current engine to be used. I strongly suspect that RTW is practice for the next TW game. It is safe to assume that we will see one more game and expansion before CA decides to change the engine. They did the same thing with STW and MTW, making most of the modifications to units, AI, the map, and so on. Bu the engine was the same.

You are essentially arguing a TW/Civilization/Rise of Nations type mix here. It would be cool, but don't expect it in the next game since it requires excessive coding.

Would any mighty CA reps like to comment, please?

**marcus aquila** · 08-01-2005, 00:31

On a completely different note....what about......warring state dynasty in ancient china? You have all the corruption and internecine warfare you want, people are destroyed just to rise again, plus you have master strategists as well. Oh yes, did i forget that basically every one of the main states has the same technology? Makes or some exciting play!
just a thought....

**Divinus Arma** · 08-01-2005, 00:49

Uhm. Welcome to the Org. Thanks for posting. But what do you think about THIS idea. THIS one. Not yours. THIS one.

Yararraghghhhhhhhh!!!!

YES THIS ONE.

My FIRST SENTENCE was:

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I was going to post a poll on what Total War should be next, but this has been done recently.

So what do you think about THIS idea?

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 08-01-2005, 00:53

Originally Posted by marcus aquila

On a completely different note....what about......warring state dynasty in ancient china? You have all the corruption and internecine warfare you want, people are destroyed just to rise again, plus you have master strategists as well. Oh yes, did i forget that basically every one of the main states has the same technology? Makes or some exciting play!
just a thought....

I've already played this and loved it. Romance of the Three Kingdoms (c. 1988), set in Han China. Played it on my brand new "Turbo" XT with the 30 MB hard drive.

I suspect a TW version would be a bit more "developed." Though, to be fair, it was a pretty good strategy game, even if the battles were a bit limited. Seemed incredible to an AH wargamer though.

You're right, it makes a wonderful "natural" setting for this kind of game.

**Divinus Arma** · 07-31-2005, 20:25

Originally Posted by Gaius Magnus

I think a TW version of the game 1503 AD without all of the micromanagement that is present in that game would be very cool.

The micro management is one of the best parts, mainstreamer.

**Gaius Magnus** · 07-31-2005, 20:30

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

The micro management is one of the best parts, mainstreamer.

Well, I quite enjoyed playing that game for a while (1503 A.D.).

But there's only so much wood chopping, stone cutting, and hide tanning I care to do.

In the end it is like a version of Sim City where you get to shoot cannons and attack other ships.