chariots and such.

[Inhuman One]

While waiting for stainless steel 6.0 to come out I reinstalled rome for the good old times.

The graphics look a bit simple now that I got used to medieval 2, especially regarding the enviroment.

However, there are a lot of tactical things here, more than in medieval 2 I believe.

Chariots, warcries, sapping, universities, slingers, infantry that throw a few spears before a melee, cavalry armed with spears only, phalanxes, elephants in playable factions, and I might still be missing a few things.

Did all of these things really become useless in the medieval period? Where there no chariots or any other kind of wagons used in battle? where there no schools? wouldnt pike infantry be better protected with shields, using a phalanx formation? did the timurids have a monopoly on elephants?

I just think a lot more depth could be added here, this would add far more than a new faction could, unless it contains such units.

[Vulpex]

Hussites used wains like pioneers in western movies, i think.

[Laconian]

I know for sure that there were war wagons. They were just normal wagons mounted arqubuses and used to form a defensive circle. The Hussite rebels famously used them against the HRE in the Hussite Wars.

Chariots fell out of use in the Roman ages as by 100 A.D, they were pretty much only used by the British tribes. Wikipedia says that the pike phalanx was revived in the form of the Socttish schiltron and the Swiss pike wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_formation#Revival

[Vulpex]

Hmm, i never knew Charlemagne had one too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_elephant
Do we need knights on war elephants?

Well, seems Frederic II of HRE used one in siege of Cremona in 1214
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ants_in_Europe

[Echad]

Almughavars threw javelins before engaging in melee similar to legionairres, countries with poorly developed archery and little-to-no crossbows still seldom used slings, like the Scots inside the shiltrons... Warcries were mostly with fictional units in Rome, and even with real - by Medieval times they were not enought to make the enemy fear. Universities/schools would be in SS 6.0 AFAIK and spies for opening the gates are there in place of sacking... Chariots became nearly useless in warfare as soon as horse riding appeared, and became absolutely obsolete with the introduction of stirrup. What else? Cavalry armed with spears only can be done, but it would be inferior to the ones with sidearms - (early) light cavalry can be like that, as most of them were not much of nobles to carry swords for fights.

[evenflowjimbo]

Yeah, ahaha. I remember going back to Rome after playing Medieval 2. It was oddly more enjoyable than Medieval... then I found SS 5.1.

However, I probably enjoyed it soo much because I was watching the whole series of Rome on HBO.

[Inhuman One]

I find it odd that no chariots at all where used, only in the east the armies had profficient horse archers, wouldnt it make sense that in the west some would use charts or such to put archers on so they can focus on just archery?

And how could there not be a use anymore for chariots like those of the Seleucids? they would massacre the enemy with the knives at the sides. Also my own forces when rampaging but thats another point.

[JMSlayer]

I find it odd that no chariots at all where used, only in the east the armies had profficient horse archers, wouldnt it make sense that in the west some would use charts or such to put archers on so they can focus on just archery?

Horse-drawn chariots don't just move by the will of the 'driver'. Having two horses pull you and your chariot (and it would need to be two, to make it worthwhile, otherwise your speed would suffer greatly) is hardly a simple task. I imagine it would be easier to ride on the back of a horse and shoot arrows than standing in a chariot, managing the reins of TWO horses, keeping yourself from falling off, making certain that the horses didn't lead your chariot into a ditch, ect.

[Inhuman One]

well one man would handle the horses and several archers could shoot arrows and would have to worry about anything else but just that.

Theres just so many things removed from rome total war and there arent that many things to replace it.

I personly wouldnt mind some slightly unrealistic things to deepen gameplay though. I like to have options.

[JMSlayer]

well one man would handle the horses and several archers could shoot arrows and would have to worry about anything else but just that.

Theres just so many things removed from rome total war and there arent that many things to replace it.

I personly wouldnt mind some slightly unrealistic things to deepen gameplay though. I like to have options.

Wow, this thread got a lot more replies.

Anyway, you have a good point, primarily about the gameplay>realism factor (like, why do money scripts make a minor faction on the iberian peninsula, Aragon, as strong a power as the AI's Venice?), however, most of the other stretches of realism are arguably plausible.

That said, the whole concepts of chariot-mounted archers is rather anathema to the Western Empires we see in this game. They're heavily armored juggernauts, rather like European swordplay, particularly, French fencing. They are a focused implement designed to rip through the enemy. Their archers are foot-mounted units, designed to weaken the enemy while still remaining out of dedicated combat (akin to feints, disengages, the like) however, that is balanced with the fact that, once the army 'lunges' forward, the archers are extremely vulnerable to cavalry charges.

The middle-eastern factions, however, are the very embodiment of horse archery. They attack swiftly, picking at the weaker elements, before retreating. They wear lighter armor, so that they may tire their foes. And once the enemy loses heart, the cavalry crush into the vulnerable flanks, falling back whilst raining arrows and crushing into them again.

That, and, the east is east, the west is west, and never the twain shall meet.

Forgive me if that was a bit ranty, it's rather early in the morning, and my brain works differently at later/earlier hours.

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of chariot archers is brilliant, but...it is just so anathema to the Western Medieval military philosophy that I cannot see anyone making it work. Just my opinion, of naturally.

[Lord_Calidor]

Chariots were useful in flat desert or steppe terrain, but in Europe's broken terrain with many forrests, ditches, mountains etc... they would be their own biggest enemy.
Also, any cav unit would easily outmanuver & flank chariots - min. 2 horses, which were required to pull, would be far more useful in a cav unit.

[biohaker]

I find ancient warfare much more fascinating than the medieval one.
I would prefer medieval2 graphics on ancient period.

[Willor]

Just a tip for thoose who play Rome, try EB

[spanish_emperor]

wat about EB2 when it comes out...though that might be a few years

[igotballsofsteel]

wat about EB2 when it comes out...though that might be a few years

gonna be the best thing ever made for m2tw for sure ...

[Inhuman One]

I hated EB, its boring. It takes forever to accomplish anything.

I am using Darthmod for rome total war, which I used before medieval 2 as well.

Its kind of a similar improvement as stainless steel, it makes the games harder and improves the skins but it doesnt get dull and boring like EB.

A shame that it rapes the Barbarian invasion campaign though. Where the skins in the original campaign are of far greater quality than the originals, in barbarian invasion they replaced them with hideous models and textures that make the originals look great in comparisson.

Good thing I never cared much for barbarian invasion though, the only good thing about it is that it has the Goths playable, which are one of my favorite people through history.

[Willor]

I hated EB, its boring. It takes forever to accomplish anything.

I am using Darthmod for rome total war, which I used before medieval 2 as well.

Its kind of a similar improvement as stainless steel, it makes the games harder and improves the skins but it doesnt get dull and boring like EB.

A shame that it rapes the Barbarian invasion campaign though. Where the skins in the original campaign are of far greater quality than the originals, in barbarian invasion they replaced them with hideous models and textures that make the originals look great in comparisson.

Good thing I never cared much for barbarian invasion though, the only good thing about it is that it has the Goths playable, which are one of my favorite people through history.

Its also called "realistic"
Did you try 1.0 btw? You shall not use Barbarian Invasion if you want to play EB

This is How EB 1.0 looks like now

[Inhuman One]

I was talking about darthmod, not EB with barbarian invasion.

you may call it "realistic", I simply call it "not fun anymore"

[Space Voyager]

I think EB is phenomenal. And I can hardly wait for EB2. I can still remember the thrill when both my army and the opponent's army were slaughtered to like 80% before they routed.

[Inhuman One]

well I am not saing that chariots would need to be in, I just want more diversity in tacktics to use, many where removed and few where added.