Over the past few days, I've been giving them something that passes for a major overhaul. I've just about done Pharsalus, and am a respectable way through Zama. I plan to do a lot more.
What I was thinking was this: Why bother to keep vanilla historical battles? They need a lot of work to get running. Virtually all of their environments (even the gallic and Greek ones) are in the desert, thanks to the new map. Many of them need totally new units as well.
Now, I don't mind sorting all that (in fact I intended to), but then I started to think: Who is going to want to play Vanilla historical battles, even within RSII? I don't know about anyone else, but I've played through all of them at least 2-3 times, and I just think it's pointless to keep them. I say it would be a much better use of time to ditch the old favourites like Raphia, Carrhae, Telamon, Sparta, etc and just implement new ones. I just can't see the logic in interspersing 5-6 new battles with a lot of old hat that it is unlikely anyone will play.
However, not wishing to act outside the remit of my authority, I thought I'd ask for a general opinion. I was rather under the opinion that the general consensus was that vanilla should usually go wherever possible, but I shall ask nonetheless.
Thanks.
PS: Except maybe the odd Punic War battle. It would be nice to keep Trasimene and Cannae, but also complete the picture with Seguntum, Zama, and even maybe the eventual fall of Carthage in 145 BC.





Reply With Quote











