PC Gamer's R2TW preview

[Basileos Leandros I]

http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/tota...emblys-latest/

The doors of Creative Assembly’s Total War development fortress creaked open a little wider today with the release of a new trailer for Rome II’s Battle of the Teutoburg Forest scenario. I saw this mission being played live a few months ago while visiting CA for the lead feature in PC Gamer issue 250. It was the first time I’d seen the game being played properly rather than running as a pre-scripted demo (or while dressed up in black spandex and dancing around like a moron.)

There was a lot to take in, and you’ll be able to read my full impressions in the preview feature which will be going up next week. Now that we’re allowed to talk about it, however, I thought I’d rattle off a few of the key changes to the Total War formula that were shown off – or discussed – while I was there.

...

Dynasty Warriors

We still haven’t seen the new campaign map, but a few details crept out. When selecting a faction you’ll also choose which political power you belong to – in the case of the Romans, these are the Junii, Julii and Cornelii. You are still playing as Rome, effectively, but the presence of other interest groups within your faction gives you something to consider at home as well as abroad. The designers I spoke to described this as a substantially expanded version of Shogun 2’s loyalty mechanic.
...

Dynamic Line of Sight

In a first for the series, you are now only able to see what your men can see – no more abstraction of certain battlefield elements, no more always-visible generals represented by a star. This has the effect of making battles much more reactive – in the dense Teutoburg Forest, with its winding forest paths and multiple elevated ridge-lines, units could appear from the treeline or from around corners demanding an immediate tactical shift. According to the designers I spoke to, making this change has allowed them to fiddle with the pace and balance of battle in ways that will hopefully do away with some of the series’ long-standing problems. Heavy cavalry units, for example, will now be limited by the fact that wearing a lot of armour means that they’re not very maneuverable and they can’t see very much. They’ll need to be accompanied by light auxiliaries or scouts to be effective, and this in turn keeps lighter and faster units tactically relevant when a faction has the resources to afford more powerful troops. A modern analogy would be the relationship between a piece of heavy artillery and the advance spotters that mean it can actually hit something.

PC Gamer is very impressed with R2TW. For good reason IMHO, I definitely appreciate the new video because it shows a fluid game engine and the possibility of some good battles. (except for those Wardogs, gah)

[vaknyuszi]

everyone wanted wardogs! wardogs are cool i hope we get gameplay also soon, but i would be happier with a release date

[total relism]

best part was right here



In a first for the series, you are now only able to see what your men can see – no more abstraction of certain battlefield elements, no more always-visible generals represented by a star. This has the effect of making battles much more reactive – in the dense Teutoburg Forest, with its winding forest paths and multiple elevated ridge-lines, units could appear from the treeline or from around corners demanding an immediate tactical shift. According to the designers I spoke to, making this change has allowed them to fiddle with the pace and balance of battle in ways that will hopefully do away with some of the series’ long-standing problems. Heavy cavalry units, for example, will now be limited by the fact that wearing a lot of armour means that they’re not very maneuverable and they can’t see very much. They’ll need to be accompanied by light auxiliaries or scouts to be effective, and this in turn keeps lighter and faster units tactically relevant when a faction has the resources to afford more powerful troops. A modern analogy would be the relationship between a piece of heavy artillery and the advance spotters that mean it can actually hit something.

[total relism]

I still worry about the victory conditions on battles, i dont like the idea at all.

[The Glorious Nationalist]

I still worry about the victory conditions on battles, i dont like the idea at all.

This

They say taking a settlement wont be just "Standing around in the central plaza" yet on the battlefield its the exact same thing!

Couldnt they atleast have 3 victory conditions?
1.Route the enemy
2.Take capture points
3.Kill the last man

[Jack Lusted]

Couldnt they atleast have 3 victory conditions?
1.Route the enemy
2.Take capture points
3.Kill the last man

The capture point, if implemented as i posted in another thread, would be another victory condition, not the sole one for battles. You will still be able to route all units or kill everyone, the capture point would just be another way.

[Bethencourt]

Dislike, I need more information.

Looks like this video.

[Ahiga]

I like the idea, but I admit I have some trepidation. For instance if the capture point were a particular hill on the battlefield it'd become a mad rush to take it - and if faction A were to take the hill control point but not ever engage faction B, it'd be weird for faction B to then lose a lot of troops (Having them 'lose' and be pushed back without troops would make sense given how much of a campaign was positioning). But it might be the control point concept would apply to non field battles but also non sieges, where it'd make sense? Such as a battle for some village or some such.

I like the two accounts in the original post. The dynastic intrigue (it should allow for a greater mid to end game experience if you have to fear large scale civil wars, not just individual provinces) and the line of sight. It'll be great to have lighter troops now be useful and for guerilla factions like the Iberians or Germans to have a strong advantage over Greco-Roman troops in the right terrain.


Oh duh. Baggage trains. That's actually a great point - though it ought to be a massive moral penalty rather than lose outright (given Gaugamela as a good example - taking it really strained Alexander's army to the breaking point but they didn't lose outright).

[nuclearaddict]

Really cool info regarding the political power. I hope politics play a bigger role then ever in the campaign. Not enough micromanagement outside of battles, in my opinion! Allow us to really run Rome.

[Basileos Leandros I]

I'm excited about the line of sight because skirmishing/light units are going to be quite important now.

[Asgaroth]

Cool

[Emperor Domitianus]

The capture point, if implemented as i posted in another thread, would be another victory condition, not the sole one for battles. You will still be able to route all units or kill everyone, the capture point would just be another way.

Faith in you and all CA staff.

[Halie Satanus]

I like the idea, but I admit I have some trepidation. For instance if the capture point were a particular hill on the battlefield it'd become a mad rush to take it - and if faction A were to take the hill control point but not ever engage faction B, it'd be weird for faction B to then lose a lot of troops (Having them 'lose' and be pushed back without troops would make sense given how much of a campaign was positioning). But it might be the control point concept would apply to non field battles but also non sieges, where it'd make sense? Such as a battle for some village or some such.

With LOS in effect you might not be able to see the enemy capture point, presuming it's not going to be a neutral area of the map ie; it will be behind enemy lines. I really like the idea, though hoping it's represented as a baggage train with/or a small command post and not just a flag with a radar indicator around it.. I get what you're saying though, one of the most disappointing things as a modder was to see people treat battles/campaigns as a dash to secure the win conditions..

Line of sight; I think I'd rather this was optional. I can imagine it being great looking across gentle sloping hills while commanding Rome's finest legion and the spearhead of your expanding conquests. Might be a bit frustrating as that same legion is massacred in the forests of Germania or Gaul because you can't see what's happening around you..

[Bethencourt]

In those times there were not Geneve Convention so, would you surrender just because your baggage is taken? what is on that hill that makes you surrender? within a city I can understand some psychological important places like the emperor/king palace, temple, capitol, but in a battle field...? I all previous games being attacked from the rear has a good moral penalty so what else do we need?

[Halie Satanus]

In those times there were not Geneve Convention so, would you surrender just because your baggage is taken? what is on that hill that makes you surrender? within a city I can understand some psychological important places like the emperor/king palace, temple, capitol, but in a battle field...? I all previous games being attacked from the rear has a good moral penalty so what else do we need?

Barbarian factions were known to bring the family along to battles and leave them in the encampment. A captured baggage train would represent a massive loss and huge leverage. For the more professional armies a loss of their supply train would probably mean the battle was lost any way, even fighting a rear guard/retreat action would need supplies, without them you starve..

[Bethencourt]

The information given about this feature is for any faction when defending, not only barbarians. Not always barbarians moved to battle with their families, this was only in migrations. I doubt you get to starve in some hours battle. In some battles like Platea due to some specific conditions there where some places which control was important but not definitive. I understand that some moral penalty can be given to some baggage loss or the general dying or routing but not as a victory contidion by itself.

[Nicolaos]

Baggage trains!

Creative Assembly were still experimenting with the inclusion of optional objectives for regular battles when I spoke to them, but one example that was mentioned was the presence of an army’s baggage train as a static encampment behind the lines of each engagement. Capturing or destroying supplies would be a way for a clever, maneuverable army to get the better of a larger one. Again – the way this works as a part of a regular campaign is still being worked on. But it’s great that they’re working to provide ways to win besides ‘bringing more dudes.’


Now that sounds interesting

[Nicolaos]

Baggage trains!

Creative Assembly were still experimenting with the inclusion of optional objectives for regular battles when I spoke to them, but one example that was mentioned was the presence of an army’s baggage train as a static encampment behind the lines of each engagement. Capturing or destroying supplies would be a way for a clever, maneuverable army to get the better of a larger one. Again – the way this works as a part of a regular campaign is still being worked on. But it’s great that they’re working to provide ways to win besides ‘bringing more dudes.’


Now that sounds interesting

[Bethencourt]

The capture point, if implemented as i posted in another thread, would be another victory condition, not the sole one for battles. You will still be able to route all units or kill everyone, the capture point would just be another way.

Reading this, apart from campaign effects that it would may have that could be smart, I get to the conclusion that " the capture point would just be another way" of getting victory. What worries me is that this being enough to defeat you enemy is not historical realistic, and due to the previous history of the AI this could ruin the gameplay. Please if you implement it, do it because you have really tested and find it really well done so the AI can deal with it in not a definitive way to win battles, not just as a marketing self imposed feature.

If destroying the enemy's baggage has any effect in attrition of the enemy surviving army and in yours in campaign I think it is a good idea. And vice versa.

[Modestus]

The capture point, if implemented as i posted in another thread, would be another victory condition, not the sole one for battles. You will still be able to route all units or kill everyone, the capture point would just be another way.