Total War Returns to Rome

[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).

 

[Albino Boo]

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).

The big problem even with the non trench battles is the power and range of indirect fire artillery. The guns firing would 5-10 miles away from the frontline, making the current total wars setup with a tactical and strategic map impossible to use. Even in the 1914 battles armies tried to form long continuous fronts of up to 200 hundred miles, again making the current TW tactical/strategic map unworkable.

 

[WineydeJacques]

Ancient/medieval combat to me is what makes a total war. The rock, paper, scissors of infantry, cavalry, and archers just doesn't work as well in the modern age. The battles themselves would become unwieldy with hundreds of thousands to millions of soldiers fighting each other in a single battle. Why not keep the same time period and just us a different location. I'm tried of looking at the same map of Europe in every game (with the exception of the Shogun games). Why not keep the same time period but in a different location. Like have a map of Asia and follow Genghis Khan. Or have a map of South Asia (from the Arabian Peninsula to Siam) and set it during the decline of the Gupta Empire. Rome is still a great game, why not try some new settings before your remake that one.

 

[FFHAuthor]

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.

Well, it was the industrial revolution as well, and if you merely state 'well, no matter what happens the people in the lead will always be in the lead' it just can't be a certainty. Empire Total War faced a previously out of balance play structure; The United States Campaign in Empire. From a historical standpoint, the US is grossly outclassed by Britain and France, industrially, population wise, and militarily, but your victory objectives put you in direct conflict with England and France if you want to achieve them, in a far shorter time period than a theoretical 'Victorian Total War' campaign would give you.

Now of course, there could be a Victoria II/Europa Universalis style of game play objectives, the 'I'll do what I want because I want to do it.' But you're right, England does enter the 18th Century with a substantial advantage, I'm just saying that historically, it doesn't always maintain substantial advantage, and other nations develop advantages of their own. American Immigration and growth, German/Prussian Military power, French Colonial Empires, etc. A Victoria Total War game would require a more multifaceted view of game play objectives, something that I think that Total War could benefit from.

Right now it's nigh impossible to negotiate with the AI for territory, AI War objectives and War Demands are usually outrageous (Here, we attacked, you sank our entire Navy, destroyed all our Armies and are occupying St. Petersburg, you Americans give us Georgia and we might end the war.) Refinement (Or the usual Total War player complaint) of a total overhaul of the AI would be needed, adding Economic, Territorial, Military, Cultural, and Political Victory conditions, not just 'Conquer the world, NOW! GO! GO! GO!'.

On another note, I agree with you about the difficulty in a WWI combat theme for a Total War Game, but I also remember detractors mocking the idea of Gunpowder and Napoleonic combat in a game because of the Artillery ranges. I've played the Great War mod for Napoleon Total War and it is a difficult way to fight using the current engine (Hell, Fall of the Samurai is a difficult way to fight with Armstrong Guns and Gattlings, let alone Maxim Guns and German Howitzers.)

 

[Vanitas likes Bubbles]

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.

Didn't Medieval 1 have a map editor?

OT: Is it me or are strategy games coming back in force? Not that I'm complaining.

 

[Furioso]

I really hope they fix the naval combat, I wanted the naval battles in the newer ones to turn out like this...

Spoiler: Pirates of the Caribbean 3 spoilers

but instead I got frustrating control that always devolved into a clusterfuck. Other than that, I can't wait

 

[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).

The big problem even with the non trench battles is the power and range of indirect fire artillery. The guns firing would 5-10 miles away from the frontline, making the current total wars setup with a tactical and strategic map impossible to use. Even in the 1914 battles armies tried to form long continuous fronts of up to 200 hundred miles, again making the current TW tactical/strategic map unworkable.

True, true, but they could work artillary like they did navies offshore in Fall of the Samuri, let you put artillary in a seperate tab in the army and then let you call it in when you needed it. The second one, well, you got me there. They would think of something. I really dont care where they go after Rome 2, as long as it's not WW2 or after.

 

[johnnnny guitar]

Oh My God yes please yes I still play ROME:Total War every now and again because of how good it was It could even be a day one buy for me.

 

[Sprinal]

YES YES YES YES!!!

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY DENARII!!!!!!!!

NOW!!!!!!!!


But for the moment excuse me while I re-install the first one

 

[Strazdas]

Id rather they continue the trend of each game going 100 years into the future of history than remake thier old games. But i cant complain much as the new shogun was awesome (and i loved the original too). If you need shiny graphics to attract new audiences then fine, do it, ill play it. But id rather they create more.

 

[Darks63]

ahhh dammit im gonna have to upgrade my comp either near the end of this year or the beginning of next damn you Rome Total war 2 and thief 4

 

[DTWolfwood]

Who didn't see this coming. It only make sense as Rome is the only series without a sequel. And if you say Empire TW doesn't you are wrong. Its the only game to get a direct sequel, Napoleon TW. (Yes you don't get world conquest as in ETW but NTW plays the same as ETW)

So it was either they take the series into the Modern age, i.e WWI+ or Make Rome2.

Glad they are going back to Rome tho. I'd like to be able to attack a besieging army from behind my own walls. Kinda sucked that you couldn't do that in Shogun2.

 

[IamQ]

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?

How would that work? In the second world war, there were no large armies, and even though there sorta were in WW1, it was all trench fighting, which I must admit, does not sound that fun.

 

[El Danny]

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?

Medieval 3? I hope so.

It's time they did those eras justice, there were many constraints with the engine that they don't have now, like only 20/30 factions? This wasn't so bad with Rome, but Medieval 2? No Aragon? Or Sweden? Flaws like that kind of destroyed the vanilla campaigns for me, but they still turned out to be two of my favourite games of all time, I'm so excited to see how CA builds upon what they've already done.

I'm trying to think of what new eras they could do,
American Civil War? lolna need more than 2 factions...
Victorian? Wouldn't that just be Empire with slightly different units?
1914++? Would need a completely different engine and isn't really what Total War is about anyway.