Total War Returns to Rome

[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.

 

[Vrach]

Well, on one hand, awesome, Rome was by far the best game in the series. On the other, doing two reboots one after another is a little disappointing. I'd rather see them do another timeline and get inevitably closer to doing a modern day Total War.

 

[Albino Boo]

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.

Well I thought they could do;

era of warring states china 470-221 BC.

Late bronze age middle east

Renaissance Italy

Dark age Europe, like they did with expansion for medieval 1

 

[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?

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.

Oh, I'm sure the remakes will improve upon the original game, it just chaps my ass to have to wait another year or two to find out if they'll have an original setting.

As for original settings, they could do:
* China/Indo-China (any Dynasty, really)
* Africa, around the colonial period
* Dark age Russia

And probably many more, if they just set the game in an unfamiliar continent. Then again, that is probably why they are reluctant to set them in "exotic" locales: there hasn't been a big recent movie about those eras for the marketing team to latch onto.

 

[Exocet]

I'm a bit disappointed...Rome was a great game, I'll never contest that, but I never felt it was the most exciting. In fact, I find every Total War game based on melee somewhat boring on the RTS battles. I just don't feel that sense of awe as I see entire rows of bullets, muzzle flashes and fog of war ( the real one, made 50% out of gun smoke, and 50% manliness), and the great booming sound of cannons firing.

I'm still expecting a very solid game, and very enjoyable, just not as enjoyable as Napoleon and Fall of the Samurai for me.

As for other settings, let's assume everything past 1899 is off limits, as it changes way too many things.
That still leaves Caveman: Total War
You can use the mighty Urbduk clan with wooden armor, or the Opzegr clan with tamed saber-toothed kitties! I wonder how the publishers would react to the lead designer showing off that idea!

They could also venture into fantasy. I know some people would murder me and my first-born for this, but it could be more fun then rehashing every previous settings over and over again.

 

[Edible Avatar]

Hmph, the last good total war was empire. The last 2, napoleon and shogun 2, had no unit variety, arcade-ish gameplay, and limited scope. I hope Rome 2 will be more like medieval 1+2, Rome, and empire, but i'll be holding my breath.

 

[tsb247]

I will definately give this a try when it is released. Shogun 2 was my first Total War game, and I absolutely LOVE it! Since I have never played the original Rome: Total War games, I may go a snag them on Steam if they are cheap enough.

I would also hope to see them go a little farther forward in time with a future release. The game mechanics in Fall of the Samurai look VERY interesting.

 

[Li Mu]

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.

Indeed you are correct.

Hookah was just trying to be a smartass and ended up showing that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Well, you would assume. He just posted consecutive posts saying "you're wrong" and then mumbled something about "Byzantine".