Alexander Total War to be included in Total War Eras

[pyj99]

Follow that link
http://www.game.co.uk/ViewProduct.as...403&mid=328495

It is confirmed both in the text and in the picture.

One more reason to get that Total War Eras thing

Supposed to be out June 30th

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I posted about this a while back but that is the first time I've seen a pic of the set and I must say it looks great. Are Alexander and BI going to be on the same disc, because I only count 6 there when there probably should be 7. (Shogun, Mongol, Medieval, Viking, Rome, Barbarian and Alexander). It could however just be a standalone disc with the games being on the 3 on the left and the other two on the right being the soundtrack and bonus stuff like the Medieval 2 trailer. Maybe.

[manbaps]

The front disc on the right says Rome Total War: Alexander, suggesting that is the only thing on the CD. Other things such as the DVD documentary arent in the picture either, so me thinks the picture is for illustrative purposes only.

[Lorenzo_H]

Will this include the Rome technology tree and map? I missed out on the map + tech tree because I only have the Gold Edition.

[edyzmedieval]

OM*G!!!!

I'm buying this prontoooo!!!!

[Lorenzo_H]

Don't wet yourself over it!

When is this baby coming out anyway? Why do they keep moving the release date further back?

[edyzmedieval]

30th of June. Just 24 days away man.

Heck, I need a new set of MTW CD's. The original ones are too scratched!!!

Plus, the promotional material sounds great.

[lars573]

I'll be getting it too. My STW Warlord CD's are borked. The only way I can paly the game is to that which cannot be said.

[Lorenzo_H]

Ahhh I think I'll get it anyway.

[Mooks]

Total War has become the leader in the PC RTS field, becoming the leader in key features such as scale, historical accuracy and depth of challenge.

I guess they do advertise the historical accuracy of the game....

Anyway, this pack should be interesting. How much does it cost?

[Lorenzo_H]

It is historically accurate what are you on?

[InsaneApache]

It is historically accurate what are you on?

Haha...I'd love to reply, alas this is not the backroom.

[Lorenzo_H]

Haha...I'd love to reply, alas this is not the backroom.

gimme yo best shot! give it to me!

Seriously...PM me if you must. Show me how it isn't historically accurate.

[Mount Suribachi]

Historical accuracy in a computer game can only ever be relative, not absolute.

Anyway, the minute you play your first turn all "accuracy" goes out the window cos you've deviated from the original time-line.

[Lorenzo_H]

Yeah but that doesn't make it historically inaccurate! The units and descriptions and their roles are all true to history.

[Mount Suribachi]

Well, I don't know about all of them. There are lots of comprimises for the sake of gameplay and marketing. I think by and large the TW series strikes a good comprimise.

*wonders how long before someone goes on a Flaming Pigs and Screeching Women rant*

[Lorenzo_H]

which did exist.

[Ludens]

It is historically accurate what are you on?

You know, I do think that a lot of the flak R:TW gets for being ahistorical is undeserved, since previous TW games were only an aproximation of history, and a lot of the errors are just details. However, saying that it is historically accurate is just incorrect. For example, have a look at this thread. The most obvious mistake is off course the representation of Ptolemeic Egypt. It is depicted as the Middle Kingdom, while in fact it was a Successor state, and fought like one. The barbarians are only roughly historical. There were huge differences between the Spanish, Celts, Germans, Thracian and Scyths, yet the game puts them in one culture and makes them all wear colour-variations on the same trousers. Their unit rosters tend to be very simplistic compared to other factions. Anyway, why were the Iberians called the Spanish? Nobody uses that term for the tribes that inhabited the Iberian peninsula. While we are speaking of tribes, how come the barbarians be so united? Gaul was wrecked by a debilitating civil war with multiple sides, the British islands were completely disunited, and the same applied to the Germans. The Greeks cities weren't a political union either. The Scyths were only a shadow of their former power and were being slowly absorbed or exterminated by the Sarmatians. For Rome the situation is reversed: there were several (i.e. more than three) families competing for power, but they didn't own the land they conquered and they didn't have private armies until quite late into the Republic.

Oh, and Head Hurlers?

[edyzmedieval]

Idem Ludens.

RTW has horrible historical inaccuracies, but it's the only game of this kind on the market, unfortunately.

[Lorenzo_H]

You know, I do think that a lot of the flak R:TW gets for being ahistorical is undeserved, since previous TW games were only an aproximation of history, and a lot of the errors are just details. However, saying that it is historically accurate is just incorrect. For example, have a look at this thread. The most obvious mistake is off course the representation of Ptolemeic Egypt. It is depicted as the Middle Kingdom, while in fact it was a Successor state, and fought like one. The barbarians are only roughly historical. There were huge differences between the Spanish, Celts, Germans, Thracian and Scyths, yet the game puts them in one culture and makes them all wear colour-variations on the same trousers. Their unit rosters tend to be very simplistic compared to other factions. Anyway, why were the Iberians called the Spanish? Nobody uses that term for the tribes that inhabited the Iberian peninsula. While we are speaking of tribes, how come the barbarians be so united? Gaul was wrecked by a debilitating civil war with multiple sides, the British islands were completely disunited, and the same applied to the Germans. The Greeks cities weren't a political union either. The Scyths were only a shadow of their former power and were being slowly absorbed or exterminated by the Sarmatians. For Rome the situation is reversed: there were several (i.e. more than three) families competing for power, but they didn't own the land they conquered and they didn't have private armies until quite late into the Republic.

Oh, and Head Hurlers?

Ludens I agree. What I am saying is that if you take those factor away the game would cease to be fun! One thing is for sure, the Romans would be OVER-POWERED hugely!

Head Hurlers are completely realistic Celts were known to collect the heads of their enemies. The only thing that worries me is how far and high they can throw the heads!

[Ludens]

What I am saying is that if you take those factor away the game would cease to be fun!

I don't think I can agree with that either. Realism does not necessarily improve gameplay, but it needs not detract from it either.

Head Hurlers are completely realistic Celts were known to collect the heads of their enemies.

1) Head hurling was used as scare tactic, but not as weapon.
2) This "tactic" was practiced by a wide range of non-Celtic people. Even the Romans have on one occasion suprised Hannibal with the severed head of his brother. So, accepting that the Celts did it, why is limited to just one Celtic area?
3) However, the Celts were far less likely to do so, becasue, like you said, they were headhunters. They believed that a man's soul resided in his head, and that possession of his head meant possession of his soul. Ergo, it is not something you throw at an enemy.

So it did happen, but making a specialized unit of head hurlers (never mind giving it to the Britons) is not accurate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

in RTW many of the units are based on mythology rather that archaeology, i.e the "Hounds of Culain."

[Lorenzo_H]

in RTW many of the units are based on mythology rather that archaeology, i.e the "Hounds of Culain."

What are they?
Also, are the Roxoli virgin cavalry and women bowmen, the scythian maidens hunters and the amazon chariots real?

[Ludens]

What are they?
Also, are the Roxoli virgin cavalry and women bowmen, the scythian maidens hunters and the amazon chariots real?

The Hound of Culain is the nickname of the hero of a Celtic myth. Some Irish warriors have been known to actively induce "battle rage", but IIRC this hero was not one of them, so why his name came to be associated with berserkers I do not know. I am not entirely sure about the virgin cavalry either, but I do know that Sarmatian (which includes the Roxolani) and Scythian females fought in battles aside their menfolk. Whether virginity was a requirement for this I do not know. The Amazons are just an easter egg. Archeologists have long sought for them because Herodotes mentions their existence, but it's most likely a Greek myth inspired by abovementioned Scythian women.

[Kralizec]

Looks like I'll be getting Alexander:TW afterall ;D I'll definitely buy this if it ends up in stores here. All I own now is RTW bland, I lost my MTW and VI discs...maybe I'll give away my old RTW copy.

[Monarch]

Ludens I agree. What I am saying is that if you take those factor away the game would cease to be fun!

Play Rome Total Realism or Europa Barbarorum and then try and tell me realism isn't fun.

[x-dANGEr]

Play Rome Total Realism or Europa Barbarorum and then try and tell me realism isn't fun.

It isn't that hard you know.. All you need to say is 'realism isn't fun' after you play them.

[Lorenzo_H]

What is RTR anyway?

[econ21]

What is RTR anyway?

Rome Total Realism:

http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/

It's probably the most popular RTW mod (although not strangely not discussed much by Org members despite the endless grognard grumbling about vanilla RTW).

It started off getting rid of the "fantasy" units of RTW and gradually replaced virtually all the vanilla models with more authentic (and arguably better looking) ones.

It also slowed the movement speed and kill rates, and raised morale, so that the battles "feel" more like those in MTW.

It rebalanced the combat arms. Cavalry & missiles were somewhat downgraded in power (& cavalry raised in price), making heavy infantry more dominant than in vanilla. Peltasts and javelins in general arguably have more of a role in RTR than RTW.

It implemented a nice recruitment system whereby it takes years to train units in captured settlements. This acts as a break on player expansion.

There are also some changes to the strategic map: more provinces, more realistic starting dates and changes to the faction line ups (unified Rome, no British faction).

Naval combat was tweaked to be more decisive.

The main version is RTR Gold but it has recently been ported to 1.5 (RTR Platinum) so players don't have to put up with the save/reload bug, bugged charge stats and can control bandit/pirate spawn rates.

If you want to see what it is like, have a look at the "Will of the Senate" PBM in the Throne Room, e.g. the battle reports thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65721

To be honest, I got very disillusioned with vanilla RTW - no challenge, didn't feel very realistic. But after finding RTR, I've become a fan of the engine.

[gmjapan]

I dont think I'll get R:TW:Alexander because I dont like the idea of being rushed to do things within a set amount of time. Having a time-limit and a defined sense of pupose can work great but if it is 100 turns to do a massive amount of stuff then I would just get frustrated.