The slaves have never gotten past the PC department, and I don't imagine SEGA would sanction anything like that now.
It sounds like an interesting game you describe, but it's not really a Total War game by that point. The set-up is also probably too historically implausible to be considered. For one thing, private citizens could not and did not keep armies, nor could they simply hire other citizens as soldiers. This is why, in contemporaneous rhetoric, the fact that Octavian used his own money (privata impensa) to equip his army was such a big deal. I mean, I suppose, if you wanted to realistically simulate a family's rise to power, you can make a business sim and a legal speechmaking sim, but again, that's not a Total War game. Now if you moved the setting away from Rome and set it in a fantasy land, however, those problems would go away.
The slaves have never gotten past the PC department, and I don't imagine SEGA would sanction anything like that now.
It sounds like an interesting game you describe, but it's not really a Total War game by that point. The set-up is also probably too historically implausible to be considered. For one thing, private citizens could not and did not keep armies, nor could they simply hire other citizens as soldiers. This is why, in contemporaneous rhetoric, the fact that Octavian used his own money (privata impensa) to equip his army was such a big deal. I mean, I suppose, if you wanted to realistically simulate a family's rise to power, you can make a business sim and a legal speechmaking sim, but again, that's not a Total War game. Now if you moved the setting away from Rome and set it in a fantasy land, however, those problems would go away.
And what really mean a Total War game for you and anyone else?
Only that part where we start the game, and already we have full control of our faction, and we just got in huge battles, build stuff in cities and that's it!?
I think I already played this part in the latest editions.
A small beautiful short story to better understand what happens in the Roman Empire.
Gaius Julius Caesar was born on 12 July 100 BC in Rome to patrician parents but not into a position of wealth and power.
Caesar grew up in a period of unrest and civil war in Rome. The increased size of the empire had led to cheap slave labour flooding into the country which in turned made many Roman workers unemployed. The Social Wars created turmoil all over Italy and Marius and Sulla were the great leaders of the time.
As a member of an old aristocratic family Julius was expected, at the completion of his education, to assume a modest office on the lower end of the long ladder of the Roman political career. However, Caesar was not like other Romans. Already at a young age he had realized that money was the key to Roman politics as the system had by his time long been corrupt.
His first step was to marry into a yet more distinguished family. He spent a few years making a name for himself in the military and then got married, to a woman named Cornelia, who was the daughter of an important man.
Things changed when Sulla ruled the Roman government as dictator. For one thing, Sulla ordered Julius to divorce Cornelia since she was from the family of one Sulla's enemies,. Caesar refused to obey the dictator's wishes.
Julius continued to grow as a soldier, distinguishing himself in battle against Rome's many enemies.
He was elected military tribune in 72 B.C. He was also making a name for himself as a lawyer and public speaker. He was elected quaestor in 68 B.C. and, therefore, got a seat in the Senate. He also married Pompeia, Sulla's granddaughter.
Caesar continued to rise in the rankings of government, being elected pontifex maximus (chief priest) and then praetor. He also continued his military successes and was elected consul, in 60 B.C.
The consulship was the top job in government at the time, but Caesar wasn't the only consul. In fact, Rome already had two consuls, Crassus and Pompey.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
See my friend, everyone fought for power in Rome. Nobody was born direct dictator or emperor in that period in Rome
I mean, I suppose, if you wanted to realistically simulate a family's rise to power, you can make a business sim and a legal speechmaking sim, but again, that's not a Total War game.
I don't think this negates the idea of starting out as a vassal of some sorts, and rising up through the ranks to positions of power. History is fraught with such situations, and our very own Shogun TW is a perfect example. Toyotomi Hideyoshi anyone?
I rather like the idea of not repeating the same role as the original...that of head of a family or faction. The possibilities of making alliances with other factions against the SPQR, and then later back-stabbing your ally makes for good role-playing intrigue IMHO...
Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 07-21-2012 at 13:56.
I don't think this negates the idea of starting out as a vassal of some sorts, and rising up through the ranks to positions of power. History is fraught with such situations, and our very own Shogun TW is a perfect example. Toyotomi Hideyoshi anyone?
I rather like the idea of not repeating the same role as the original...that of head of a family or faction. The possibilities of making alliances with other factions against the SPQR, and then later back-stabbing your ally makes for good role-playing intrigue IMHO...
Shogun, yes. Rome, no. There was simply no system of vassalage in Rome in any feudal sense. Yes, the especially rich and prominent were patrons and had clients, but that relationship was never formal in any legalistic sense.
I agree there is a chance that factions within an empire could work well (in fact, aren't they doing something like this already?), and there are examples of Roman citizens plotting coups with foreign assistance (though to call it plotting against 'SPQR' is probably anachronistic; the conspirators were always working within the Roman political system rather than against it). I suppose my point about the OP, aside from ahistoricity and general silliness, is it would amount to feature creep on a massive scale if it ever came to pass.
Out too long in the midnight sea. Oh what's becoming of me?
Posts
3,404
Re: Campaign Idea
I must agree with Quadalpha. By itself, perhaps that could be an interesting idea for a game (I'm sure there is probably some game akin to it, not necessarily in the same time period though), but it is simply not Total War. I do not believe I have to restate his point; Total War is, at its core, a grand strategy game. Not a "family rising to power" simulator. It is made for controlling a faction, not a person, and many factions do still have to start from humble beginnings.
The Total War formula has worked thus far, and in all honesty it has been changed enough each time to keep it fresh. I'm perfectly happy with it as it is, and would rather they put more time into improving it rather than creating some small-scale unrealistic political simulator.
My ideas are only an addition to the old game, who have macro, grand scale campaign + is presented in general terms!
All other 'things' from the old TW series should be included, just not going to be boss of your entire empire from the beginning. You and other family will fight with other enemies of your nations, but also between you. I do not understand why you think it is so totally differen when is very similar with the first game ROME TW and if you only remember the first RomeTW and the campaign with Romans. There you had to choose between three Roman factions, the AI already was in control of other 2 Roman faction+ SQPR with his senate, so what I say is exactly the Rome Total War concept!
How were the first years of the city of Rome?
I do not think there was already a lot of very important political and military functions. So should be in this game. Suppose that in addition to the Roman Senate, will be there some families about 5/6-10 and even only 3/4 are sufficient. Some of them should be highly rich, others poor, some very loyal to Rome, others would betray Rome at any time, but for everyone the main goal is to become supreme leader of that unborn Empire. You could even arrange alliances with some of them for power in Rome, against other families. If they do make from Rome(or any other faction) a great empire together or separately, that it remains to be seen and that would be icing on the cake of this game. Basically, you should be the main actor for faction you choose. The other family, could create various problems to you in game like , but it could also help you.
In those days, very well-known Civilizations, had a lot of internal struggle as much as external, maybe even more. Examples can be given as:
-Greek with their city-states, fought each other like crazy
-Gauls tribes fought each other long enough
-Getae, who always had to 'share' something with their cousins Thracians, where Getae was a tribes of Thracian origin, same as Dacians, or when after the death of Burebista in the former Dacian kingdom was given heavy fights between 4/5 leaders of various tribes of Dacian origins for who will be the new king for a long - long time.
-in general, all known tribes led fight each other, even if they were the same origin
And all this only as an addition + have already mentioned in the OP "If you could create two types of campaign. The first option for the campaign, the classical and well known to all, that one we have used so far. For the second one, comes my ideas"
I think the objections to these ideas have already been well explained, and none of your points raised later substantially answer those objections. I have only to add that to think of, say, 'the Greeks' as a single empire with lots of internal factions is rather anachronistic.
And what really mean a Total War game for you and anyone else?
Only that part where we start the game, and already we have full control of our faction, and we just got in huge battles, build stuff in cities and that's it!?
I think I already played this part in the latest editions.
A small beautiful short story to better understand what happens in the Roman Empire.
Gaius Julius Caesar was born on 12 July 100 BC in Rome to patrician parents but not into a position of wealth and power.
Caesar grew up in a period of unrest and civil war in Rome. The increased size of the empire had led to cheap slave labour flooding into the country which in turned made many Roman workers unemployed. The Social Wars created turmoil all over Italy and Marius and Sulla were the great leaders of the time.
As a member of an old aristocratic family Julius was expected, at the completion of his education, to assume a modest office on the lower end of the long ladder of the Roman political career. However, Caesar was not like other Romans. Already at a young age he had realized that money was the key to Roman politics as the system had by his time long been corrupt.
His first step was to marry into a yet more distinguished family. He spent a few years making a name for himself in the military and then got married, to a woman named Cornelia, who was the daughter of an important man.
Things changed when Sulla ruled the Roman government as dictator. For one thing, Sulla ordered Julius to divorce Cornelia since she was from the family of one Sulla's enemies,. Caesar refused to obey the dictator's wishes.
Julius continued to grow as a soldier, distinguishing himself in battle against Rome's many enemies.
He was elected military tribune in 72 B.C. He was also making a name for himself as a lawyer and public speaker. He was elected quaestor in 68 B.C. and, therefore, got a seat in the Senate. He also married Pompeia, Sulla's granddaughter.
Caesar continued to rise in the rankings of government, being elected pontifex maximus (chief priest) and then praetor. He also continued his military successes and was elected consul, in 60 B.C.
The consulship was the top job in government at the time, but Caesar wasn't the only consul. In fact, Rome already had two consuls, Crassus and Pompey.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
See my friend, everyone fought for power in Rome. Nobody was born direct dictator or emperor in that period in Rome
A Total War game, for me or anyone else, means a campaign map with a decent economic system, a touch of grand strategy, coupled with real-time battles. The ideas presented in the OP change the perspective of the game quite dramatically, as Total War has only ever made more or less token gestures towards RPGs.
I am afraid that I am not quite sophisticated enough to see the method in your colour schemes, nor do I see how a small beautiful, etc., story about the rise of Caesar works against my assertion that Roman citizens did not have private armies or that Roman citizens advanced through money and politics, of which latter point, in fact, the story of Caesar is a prime example. As for the moral you draw from the story, that 'nobody was born direct dictator or emperor in that period in Rome,' that is quite true (up to a certain point), but seems irrelevant to the current discussion, especially as you are never playing as an emperor or a dictator in a Total War game, but as a faction. You might note that playing as a faction, or some kind of 'guiding spirit' of a nation, though implausible, has been the fundamental conceit of every significant strategy franchise on the TW scale.
Re: Campaign Idea
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by quadalpha
Bookmarks