The resaon why Rome 2 wont be CA's next game

[bakat8]

While Rome 2 would be great, they do need to come up with something more original. What? I don't know. The only era that they havent covered that would fit the TW format is WWI

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

While Rome 2 would be great, they do need to come up with something more original. What? I don't know. The only era that they havent covered that would fit the TW format is WWI

And everything in Asia, and the 15-1600's, etc.

[Matte]

Currently however covering WWI would be pretty dumb the formations trenches how the war was fought bolt rifles machine guns artillery airplanes etc etc.

[jumong]

Rome wont be CA's next game because it will be CA's next next game. as for the new original setting, dont ask me for ideas i already got shot twice on another thread.

[Syntax Error]

While Rome 2 would be great, they do need to come up with something more original. What? I don't know. The only era that they havent covered that would fit the TW format is WWI

There's a bunch of eras where CA hasn't touched, but I think the most glaring is a 19th-century themed game that takes place on the entire world map. There were enough conflicts and wars during that time period where traditional line-and-formation TW style battles would be doable, but there's the additional benefit of rapid technological change in that century where the tactics and weapons of the 1820s would be very different from the 1880s/1890s.

[Xenos]

Well, id like to see a 1900-1950 game myself. Could be kinda cool! Maybe a bit to Civ though, as there were huge tech advances in that time.

[Drtad]

Really? What mod is this?

I can't remember where I found it off the top of my head. I'll check around. It didn't perfectly fix the sliding (I really hate the sliding) but it reduced it by completely removing one particularly long-winded death animation.

And, I get what you're saying. But cuirassiers in Empire (And NTW) looked far worse on the charge, then cuirassiers did in M2TW.

I think a little more realistic. I think charges like that were becoming less and less feasible by the start of Empire's timeframe.

Shogun has made it look good, but it doesn't feel as good. I'll just have to wait and see how it handles armored cavalry (And infantry, too...) Because as of yet, we have not seen real armored cavalry on the Warscape.

I suppose so.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I think a little more realistic. I think charges like that were becoming less and less feasible by the start of Empire's timeframe.

I don't see why it would have to look like crap, though...

[KERA_AK]

WW1 wouldnt been dumb in anyway "Matte" They would implant alot of new things into it, and yes they used kind of napoleon formations still... With new tech and units of diff land units Sea and Air it would been very fun and new thinking. The Strategi map would look nice at start... later on we see tranches and destroyed infrastructure... Taken lands and retake.. rebuild a new frontline from one point to another.. Same as Train stations are build out in FOTS... and behind the frontline we will use Trains alot... Espionas...steeling tech.. Intelliegenc reports... Maskered units movments... keep divisions etc etc hidden.. before lunching a frontal assault on a front section on turn 4 spring seasion etc etc...

Seeing Fighter airplanes escorting bombers over a frontline tranches sector... were we fight in a 3D battle... if having a airfield close by.. they will join in and cover the land artillery and soldiers... and to shoot down bombers and air escort fighters... The WW1 World map will be huge... lots of Trade and bigger dipolomaty impact and newer nations.. U-Boats... Huge Battleships and smaller once... First armored tanks and other armored units... The game will perhaps not look like of what we are used of a TW game... Just because we controll 20+ units 160-240 in each in formations? It does not mean in full that it will or MUST be like that in a WW1 world with a Total War series game? :-s... Cmon use your own maginations... Ohhh and just because the wepaons become exstreme to kill faster.. does not mean a army is to become 2000-3000--- Am more over thinking

That we recruite up Divisions sizes... if we have a mixed up units holding a tranch section in there area.. around 15000 or 20000. And if unit size are set to ULTRA... then ofc we will controll around 2000-3000 like we have done in the previos TW games... but we will see a list and a energy bar.. of wish units bricks are dead or trashed wounded... missing... in reserve... resupply... regrouping... and so on... The more soldiers die.. the more reserves join in.. a bet typical as reinforcment system perhaps...

Dont ask me.. i know nothing Am just using simple and alot of ides since long time back and i have even more stuffs on my mind

Have fun out there everyone and goodnight! ^.^

BR AN.

[Anibal at portas]

For all of you anti-ETW and Rome fanboys here is something for you.
According to Metacritic
Shogun has a rating of 84
Medieval I has a rating of 88
Rome has a rating of 92
Medieval II has a rating of 88
Empire has a rating of 90
Napoleon has a rating of 81
Shogun II has a rating of 90
So by that, Empire is not the worst game. It is not the best, but it isn't the worst.

On to my other thing.
How many of you Rome fanboys would play a Rome II that is not moddable, has ETW CAI and ETW BAI and is about as historically accurate as ETW? Answer this question if you want to be taken seriously. How many of you Rome fanboys who honestly think TWRII is next, play an unmodded Rome?

my rating as veteran player since 2000 with shogun.

shogun I 40.
medieval I 40.
rome 50.
medieval II 40.
empire 20,horrible,bored and antihistorical generalist campaign,with the worse AI of all games totalwar and clone units.
napoleon 40.
shogun II 60.
fall of the samurai 70,the best game of all totalwar serie with very good focused campaing in a historical period,with nice units,historical events and the best AI and diplomacy.

[wolfbane751]

my rating as veteran player since 2000 with shogun.

shogun I 40.
medieval I 40.
rome 50. 20
medieval II 40.
empire 20,horrible,bored and antihistorical generalist campaign,with the worse AI of all games totalwar and clone units. 35
napoleon 40.
shogun II 60.
fall of the samurai 70,the best game of all totalwar serie with very good focused campaing in a historical period,with nice units,historical events and the best AI and diplomacy.

fixed
rome was the worst i generally didnt like romes campaign because i couldnt have any fun with it it was just a drag for me.

i could actually have fun with ETW's campaign because it was large and varied and i dont mind the clone units just the fact that there are to many unit types that are same except for different stats -.-

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

How can you fix someone's opinion?

I think Rome was.... Fourth, I'd say.

M2TW
FotS
Shogun 2
Rome
NTW
ETW
Medieval
Shogun.

That's my list.

[Ferdiad]

Rome>Everything

[Matte]

If i would rate the games Non modded it would be

FoTS
Shogun 2
Medieval 2
Rome
Napoleon (did not like the small map)
Empire

With Mods however it would look more like this
Rome
Empire
Medieval 2
Shogun 2
Napoleon
FoTS (have not tested any mods yet)

[CallMeHarry]

Hmm, since we're making lists:

Napoleon
FoTS
Empire
M2TW
Rome (but I have to admit I came late to that one)

Haven't played shogun 2 yet, yes shame on me ;P

Really, I don't understand all the hate against Empire. I loved it. Yes, it wasn't perfect. And a year waiting before the battle AI can march it's troops in a single line is stupid. But god I had fun with it. And in the end that what's counts.

Also, why is the diplomatic system stupid? I absolutely hated using diplomats. They where on the move for a great deal of turns, and when they finally arived they sometimes died of old age...

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Hmm, since we're making lists:

Napoleon
FoTS
Empire
M2TW
Rome (but I have to admit I came late to that one)

Haven't played shogun 2 yet, yes shame on me ;P

Really, I don't understand all the hate against Empire. I loved it. Yes, it wasn't perfect. And a year waiting before the battle AI can march it's troops in a single line is stupid. But god I had fun with it. And in the end that what's counts.

Also, why is the diplomatic system stupid? I absolutely hated using diplomats. They where on the move for a great deal of turns, and when they finally arived they sometimes died of old age...

It's stupid because all factions can communicate instantly across the entire world. So, the Plain's Nations can be allied to Persia, even if they've never encountered each other before.


They didn't have the internet in the 1700's.

[Normandymaster]

my rating as veteran player since 2000 with shogun.

shogun I 40.
medieval I 40.
rome 50.
medieval II 40.
empire 20,horrible,bored and antihistorical generalist campaign,with the worse AI of all games totalwar and clone units.
napoleon 40.
shogun II 60.
fall of the samurai 70,the best game of all totalwar serie with very good focused campaing in a historical period,with nice units,historical events and the best AI and diplomacy.

my question why are you still playing tw games with such ratings you're either a,paradox guy or command and conquer guy you're on the wrong forum good bye!

my ratings :

shogun 85
medieval 80
rome 95
medieval 2 90
empire 90
napoleon 80
shogun 2 85
fots 90

[Humble Warrior]

It's stupid because all factions can communicate instantly across the entire world. So, the Plain's Nations can be allied to Persia, even if they've never encountered each other before.


They didn't have the internet in the 1700's.

Yea that bugs me too. Bugs me in STW2 as well somewhat. A lot of games twist history upside down for `gameplay`, but I saw nothing at all wrong with the MTW2 system where you had to send Agents to start diplomacy. In fact it was of great strategic use too. Sometimes if I didn`t want peace with a certain faction, I would assassinate the Diplomat on his way to me so he couldn`t try to make peace. It allowed me to deny them a chance at a negotiated peace and still look like the good guy. I used to also assasinate them too to stop them talking to the Pope against me!

Now it`s worse than if they had the mobile phone or internet. You can`t avoid them contacting you.

[Lazarus]

I think Shogun 2 was a step in the right direction, in that you had to encounter a clan in order to open negotiations with them, though I agree. My Shimazu diplomats shouldn't be able to undergo negotiations with Date at my whim.

At the same time, I was also slightly annoyed by the Diplomats of Med 2. It seemed like an extra unnecessary layer and a little bit fiddley for my likings.

Perhaps if Generals and other agents could enter diplomacy as well (I've always thought a Priest/Monk would be a great and slightly less biased mediator) it would fix the problem.

[CallMeHarry]

It's stupid because all factions can communicate instantly across the entire world. So, the Plain's Nations can be allied to Persia, even if they've never encountered each other before.


They didn't have the internet in the 1700's.

Well, turns do take half a year. So the negotiations could take a couple of months in "real" time.

As for communicating around half the globe without encountering each other. You could opt for diplomatics or the FoTS system where you can only negotiate with clans you have encountered. But this is also illogical in the world in Empire. You would get the following situation: Im a dutch ruler and, surprise, there is a country called Russia in the east and it's capitol is Moscow.

What I mean is, by 1700 nations where aware of the world players and had networks to deal with diplomatics. And in game time, they still have half a year to carry out the negotiations. Ofcourse indians negotiating with persians is illogical. But I don't see how to prevent that. It is still a game after all