Total War Returns to Rome

[RandV80]

Still haven't gotten around to playing my steam copy of Shogun 2, but it now sounds like a wise choice to have set it on a smaller more focused campaign. Now that they have all that fine tuning finished, they can focus on putting it into a much larger game which is what I really want.

I'm still wondering though if they're ever going to open up some sort of map editor for the game. That's the one thing I've never liked about the series, it's great to start on a historically accurate map but it really cuts down on re-playability. I wish it was like the Civilization series where you can start a game on a variety of randomly generated maps.

And before anyone goes into historical accuracy there's nothing historical about Scotland conquering all of medieval Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.

 

[JaceArveduin]

Friends
Romans
Country men
Lend me your pro-tips!

Your general has hidden stats that secretly make it the best unit in the game.

To activate them, run your general straight into a formation of at least three spearmen, without any support of other troops.

You will win much honor and victory!

OT: Please them them port it too mac.

lol, as long as it's straight into the flanks, you're general's going to win XD

Cavalry was so OP in that game, to be honest.

 

[MrBoBo]

My body is ready.

 

[senordesol]

Eghhh...I love Total War...I really do, but can we...you know...kick it up another era. Seriously is there going to be a Total World War?

 

[Legiondude]

Whoever wrote this article has an awful grasp of Ancient history.

I don't see anything that's particularly wrong in it. At least nothing that can't be excused by Rule of Entertainment.

Then you also have an awful grasp of Ancient History.

The only facts discussed in the article are that the Eastern Roman Empire was Byzantium, and that the first Rome: Total War had a campaign involving Alexander. Both of these are true. Then all the latin at the end which seems to me to be a joke.

So, what are you harping on?

Edit: Maybe you're reading it as the author saying that Alexander was Roman? That's not what I get from the text at all. He's just saying that there was an Alexander campaign in the original Rome: Total War. Which is true.

What and where is Byzantium, dear genius?

You're just nitpicking now

 

[Yureina]

omgomgomgomgomgomgomg!

Yaaaaaaaaay!

I can't wait to play this! ^_^

 

[Quazimofo]

Whoever wrote this article has an awful grasp of Ancient history.

I don't see anything that's particularly wrong in it. At least nothing that can't be excused by Rule of Entertainment.

Then you also have an awful grasp of Ancient History.

The only facts discussed in the article are that the Eastern Roman Empire was Byzantium, and that the first Rome: Total War had a campaign involving Alexander. Both of these are true. Then all the latin at the end which seems to me to be a joke.

So, what are you harping on?

Edit: Maybe you're reading it as the author saying that Alexander was Roman? That's not what I get from the text at all. He's just saying that there was an Alexander campaign in the original Rome: Total War. Which is true.

What and where is Byzantium, dear genius?

ah yes i see the error now. as far as i know, byzantium was the original name of the city taken by the romans before it was constantinople, and it was a fairly important city in the original rome total war as far as i remember, so the similarity of the names (byzantine empire vs byzantium) makes the mistake understandable.

as wrong as this likely is, it is not so important a fact that it is worth arguing over. so lets all let it go

 

[Quazimofo]

Eghhh...I love Total War...I really do, but can we...you know...kick it up another era. Seriously is there going to be a Total World War?

i feel this is inappropriate for total war because of 2 things. 1, the combat would have to be completely different, except for ww1 maybe, but that was a big stalemate so it wouldnt be that fun.

and 2, the world wars have been done to death. the only ww2 games i play anymore are company of heroes, which would be difficult to beat as an rts.

besides, where else can you get this kind of quality and freedom in a turn based/rts game, for the rich historical periods it has covered? why should they stop what they do best now?

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

Whoever wrote this article has an awful grasp of Ancient history.

I don't see anything that's particularly wrong in it. At least nothing that can't be excused by Rule of Entertainment.

Then you also have an awful grasp of Ancient History.

The only facts discussed in the article are that the Eastern Roman Empire was Byzantium, and that the first Rome: Total War had a campaign involving Alexander. Both of these are true. Then all the latin at the end which seems to me to be a joke.

So, what are you harping on?

Edit: Maybe you're reading it as the author saying that Alexander was Roman? That's not what I get from the text at all. He's just saying that there was an Alexander campaign in the original Rome: Total War. Which is true.

What and where is Byzantium, dear genius?

Byzantium was the original name (well, the latinized name of its original Greek name Byzantion) of the city that was renamed Nova Roma by the emperor Constantine, which led to its popular and later formal name Constantinople. It was the eastern jewel of the Roman Empire, and after the fall of Rome in the West, became the capital of the Byzantine empire, also known as the Eastern Roman Empire.

Any questions?

 

[Albino Boo]

What and where is Byzantium, dear genius?

Its the eastern half roman empire. What is known in English as the Byzantine empire was called by itself the Roman empire. The name came about in west largely because of utterly spurious claims of the Holy Roman Empire claims to be the successor to to the classical roman empire. In the catholic west the Holy Roman Empire was the Roman empire and the eastern Christian Roman empire was a heretical state falsely using the title of Roman empire. If you want to continue medieval catholic bigotry by denying the eastern empire's true heritage thats up to you.

 

[One of Many]

I can't wait!

I love Rome and its expansions. Been dreaming of Rome 2 ever since I got caught a rumor of Shogun 2. I'm a very happy man now.

 

[maninahat]

Oh for fuck sake. Rome still stands up even in this day and age. It doesn't need a remake.

I was looking forward to what new ideas they would come up with next. Does this mean they'll remake Medieval 2 after this one?

 

[Little Duck]

Can we pretty please have a mythology total war.

 

[FFHAuthor]

I loved Rome, it was a definitive design shift in Total War gameplay, but it's still retreading. I was under the impression that Medieval and Shogun remakes were so they could give players a superior engine to play their loved games. While I love the increased scope of the new game, sadly I don't think they'll be going for a 'whole world' game, which I would love to see.

If they would give a Worldwide scope to a game and give you the ability to play any major historical power, ala Europa Universalis, or Civ, it would be amazing. They've made steps in that direction with a tech-tree for research. But if they had a civ game where I could play as the Maya or the Iriquios or the Amadan tribes in North America, or Play as Ethiopia, or the Mughals, or one of the Chinese warlords, or as the Japanese, and have the ability to develop Civ style and come into Conflict with Alexander, or Rome, or Medieval Europe that would be fantastic...

A Civilization style research/development Campaign Map with Total War battles would be a dream come true for me.

Or failing that, give Total war a move into the Victorian Setting, global empires, a time period stretching from the 1800's to the first World War, a tech tree that really allowed for diversity and a truly world spanning campaign map, not just India, North America and Europe, something that really makes it a world conquest game. They've proved they can do the weaponry and battles with Fall of the Samurai, so giving Victorian Powers a fair play wouldn't be too hard, especially since the detractors said that Napoleonic combat was impossible in a Total War game.

 

[loch belthadd]

I think I'm going to stir up your argument some.
It's named Istanbul.

 

[Albino Boo]

Or failing that, give Total war a move into the Victorian Setting, global empires, a time period stretching from the 1800's to the first World War, a tech tree that really allowed for diversity and a truly world spanning campaign map, not just India, North America and Europe, something that really makes it a world conquest game. They've proved they can do the weaponry and battles with Fall of the Samurai, so giving Victorian Powers a fair play wouldn't be too hard, especially since the detractors said that Napoleonic combat was impossible in a Total War game.

I was expecting and American civil war game. As you say with Fall of the Samurai they have all the weaponry in place for it. It would be just a simple thing to make the maps for it. That said a full Victorian setting would have to depart fairly majorly from history to make it playable for anyone other than UK or Russia to have chance to win.

 

[FFHAuthor]

Or failing that, give Total war a move into the Victorian Setting, global empires, a time period stretching from the 1800's to the first World War, a tech tree that really allowed for diversity and a truly world spanning campaign map, not just India, North America and Europe, something that really makes it a world conquest game. They've proved they can do the weaponry and battles with Fall of the Samurai, so giving Victorian Powers a fair play wouldn't be too hard, especially since the detractors said that Napoleonic combat was impossible in a Total War game.

I was expecting and American civil war game. As you say with Fall of the Samurai they have all the weaponry in place for it. It would be just a simple thing to make the maps for it. That said a full Victorian setting would have to depart fairly majorly from history to make it playable for anyone other than UK or Russia to have chance to win.

Balance would be an issue, but not as much as we might think. Russia and England are powerful when it comes to size, but Prussia and France are still viable Portugal, the Netherlands and Spain still have overseas posessions, America is an up and comer, plus there's the possibility of playing as Japan, or China which would be incredible. And those would be the challenges, like playing as the Iroquis in Europa Universalis III, the challenge is part of the fun.

Besides...if we just go by the historical Record, far too many Total War games would have error messages stating 'I'm sorry, that's not historically accurate'.

 

[Albino Boo]

Or failing that, give Total war a move into the Victorian Setting, global empires, a time period stretching from the 1800's to the first World War, a tech tree that really allowed for diversity and a truly world spanning campaign map, not just India, North America and Europe, something that really makes it a world conquest game. They've proved they can do the weaponry and battles with Fall of the Samurai, so giving Victorian Powers a fair play wouldn't be too hard, especially since the detractors said that Napoleonic combat was impossible in a Total War game.

I was expecting and American civil war game. As you say with Fall of the Samurai they have all the weaponry in place for it. It would be just a simple thing to make the maps for it. That said a full Victorian setting would have to depart fairly majorly from history to make it playable for anyone other than UK or Russia to have chance to win.

Balance would be an issue, but not as much as we might think. Russia and England are powerful when it comes to size, but Prussia and France are still viable Portugal, the Netherlands and Spain still have overseas posessions, America is an up and comer, plus there's the possibility of playing as Japan, or China which would be incredible. And those would be the challenges, like playing as the Iroquis in Europa Universalis III, the challenge is part of the fun.

Besides...if we just go by the historical Record, far too many Total War games would have error messages stating 'I'm sorry, that's not historically accurate'.

Its not just size being the problem. in 1850 50% of worlds machine made goods came out of UK factories, the UK had the largest merchant marine fleet on top that. So even if its was made somewhere else its most likely end up going sailing on UK merchant ship. To make the game work you would have to remove all the advantages that UK possessed and without them I doubt the UK could be winnable

You could have the Europa Universalis III style of play for small nations, but that would require radical shift in victory conditions from the earlier total war games.

 

[Steve Dark]

Annnndd... yep, there it is. I'm EXCITED.

Like most other commentors, Rome TW holds a special place in my heart, and probably a special place on my top ten of all time games too.

EQUITES! ONUS!

 

[Bill Nye the Zombie]

Eghhh...I love Total War...I really do, but can we...you know...kick it up another era. Seriously is there going to be a Total World War?

i feel this is inappropriate for total war because of 2 things. 1, the combat would have to be completely different, except for ww1 maybe, but that was a big stalemate so it wouldnt be that fun.

For about a month there were huge battles between armies not in trenches across France, Prussia and Austria that set up the trench warfare. So they could replicate that.

Also YESSSS! Rome was the third TW game I played (I played Empire and Medieval II first) and the only one that I still remember a lot of my battles, like the one that came down to my archers against a greek phalanx (I won).