special campaigns ???

**Marcus Furius Camillus** · 11-18-2007, 10:28

Some days ago, I was searching in my RTW game-files and Idiscoverd 2 special maps: Caesar in gaul - campaign and scipio - campaign.
At first sight, these 2 campaigns had different factions and different map's.
First, my opinion was that those were files from my uninstalled EB file, but the files were in the standard battle map.
My question: are these campaignes playable and when ?

**Omanes Alexandrapolites** · 11-18-2007, 10:41

Hi Marcus Furius Camillus,
These campaigns are leftovers from an original CA plan to include several provincial campaigns along with R:TW. I think the original plan was to include Hannibal Crossing the Alps (probably the Scipio campaign) and Caesar's Conquest of Gaul.

In the end, these campaigns were abandoned due to a lack of time for implementation. Fragments of them do exist in the R:TW installation, as you have seen, but, without modding, nothing much can be done with them.

Hope this is of use to you!

**Fate** · 11-18-2007, 12:53

Am i right in believing that theres a version of RTR with these campaigns modded in? Maybe a Craterus (SP?) campaign in as well?

Might be worth checking out...

**Senatus Populusque Romanus** · 11-27-2007, 22:57

CA simply decided not to continue with the "special" campaign maps that you found :( We can not play with those maps.

**the greek** · 12-04-2007, 17:16

i never heard that, its a pity that CA didnt finish the special campaigns

**Charge** · 12-04-2007, 17:26

Originally Posted by the greek

its a pity that CA didnt finish the special campaigns

Campaigns? They give up making whole game and released beta-something crap. Those screens, other stuff, meh.. like from different game (directX as well)

**Shieldmaiden** · 12-04-2007, 17:56

Originally Posted by Charge

Campaigns? They give up making whole game and released beta-something crap. Those screens, other stuff, meh.. like from different game (directX as well)

Thats not constructive criticism, its just flaming CA

Be constructive or don't bother posting.

To the other posters: It is a pity, I would've liked to see different Period Campaigns a la MTW/STW too, it makes you wonder what RTW might have included had CA been given more time...

**Charge** · 12-04-2007, 18:04

You didn't seen them?
Well not crap of course, but crap compared to what it can be.

**Omanes Alexandrapolites** · 12-04-2007, 18:10

Lets keep it nice, friendly and constructive please guys - if the thread deteriorates too much, then I will have to take the unfortunate steps of closing it down.

**CrazyGuy** · 12-04-2007, 20:49

Ok then, to clean things up a bit, and touching on what was said earlier,
What should R:TW have included/what should it have been like?

Personally, and at the risk of alienating myself, I prefer the 'new style' strategic map. It was nonsense in MTW that sooner or later, chokepoints and 'auto bridges' forced you to fight a battle at a disadvantage.

There is much wrong with R:TW but I don't think this is it. What does everybody else think?

**Shieldmaiden** · 12-04-2007, 22:25

Originally Posted by CrazyGuy

Ok then, to clean things up a bit, and touching on what was said earlier,
What should R:TW have included/what should it have been like?

Personally, and at the risk of alienating myself, I prefer the 'new style' strategic map. It was nonsense in MTW that sooner or later, chokepoints and 'auto bridges' forced you to fight a battle at a disadvantage.

There is much wrong with R:TW but I don't think this is it. What does everybody else think?

Engine aside, I found it disappointing that RTW didn't have different Campaigns to pick like the earlier TW games (might have helped rid RTW of its grosser historical inaccuracies).

And! No female Characters like MTW's Princesses...

I don't know which map I prefer - realistically I'd find it difficult going back to the 'risk' map though.

Historical Battles are nice, but the Campaign is more important for replayability, and I believe RTW would've benefited from more Campaigns.

But the time to balance 2 or more Campaigns (with different Factions and Maps, etc) using a new TW engine? I can understand CA's decision.

**Caius** · 12-04-2007, 23:27

We could do two things:

one, ask CA for those campaigns

two, doing those campaigns by ourselves.

**Hound of Ulster** · 12-05-2007, 23:14

It would have been fun to use the Parthians in a later era campaign (say, 66 A.D to 220 A.D), but CA decieded against for some silly reason. RTW vanilla is a good game, but it only really shines when it has the following changes implemented...

1. bigger map. The ralatively smaller map of RTW vanilla greatly reduces the survivability of two of the most important factions, the Seleucids and Parthia. The best mods add proviences to the east, greatly enhancing the game play experience of both Parthia and the Seleucid empire.

2. removal of fantasy units. While the druids that both Britannia and Gaul can recruit are technically historically accurate, they don't add much to the army they are a part. war dogs are useless anyway.

As most mods add these to vital changes (especially the bigger maps), RTW modded (RTR or SPQR. EB has potential if they can work the bugs out) is a great game, far better than its basic configuration. I would like to see a mod that adds some special campaigns though.

**Jedi Bruno** · 12-06-2007, 17:37

2. removal of fantasy units. While the druids that both Britannia and Gaul can recruit are technically historically accurate, they don't add much to the army they are a part. war dogs are useless anyway.

Well, Round of Ulster, I agree with you that using druids to fight in a troop would never happen, but from the sources I have, dogs were used by Iulius Caesar during the invasion of Britain.
I don't find they useless at all, in VH difficulty, they are very good to use in tandem with cavaly or to disrupt tight enemy formations like the phalanx before a infantry or. cavalary charge. They are suberb support troops. I think. And VERY FUNNY too!