How do you represent the transformation of armies/cities/culture in R2TW?

**ray243** · November 01, 2009, 09:23 AM

One of the few things that is suprising to many people who might not be familar with the History of the classical era is the fact that almost everything is constantly evolving during that time, from the evolution of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire to the changes army in the late Republic to the army in the late Principate era.

This transformation is an ongoing process, and even the units during that time is constantly being reformed, and new kinds of weapons and units are forged. For example, auxiliary units hired by the Romans would became their standard units ( example, Cataphrats) , as well as the demographics of the Roman army, where the amount of recruits from Italy steadily declined, while more and more recruits for the Roman army came from the outer provinces in Gaul for example.

Additionally, armour worn by the same units can change within the span of a century, and legions became more and more adapted to fighting different kind of enemies. Equipment from different cultures and different fighting styles are adopted by everyone, and everyone is constantly learning from each other. New kind of castles and fortress are build, when there is a need for it, and new kind of tribes rise to power to create an empire for themselves.

So I was wondering, is there anyway to represent the on-going changes that almost every faction in that time is experiencing?

**Lord Dakier** · November 01, 2009, 09:34 AM

War changes, weapons of war change.

Someone researches better armor against arrows > Shield is redefined
Shields become too protective against arrows > Melee weapons are redefined
Melee causes loss of soldiers > Missiles are then reused

You bring a unit of bowmen into the 18th Century and then have them fight against a unit of French Middle Guard. With no armour due to the common use of the bullets piercing armour. You would find that the archers would most likely win. War changes constantly. There are always people redefining the ways of war. We have gone from the days of the great war where trenches was the key element to WW2 where sheer numbers and strategic locations would decided a battle to now small squads trainned much, much better than previous ages.

EDIT - To go with your question I presume you could use somekind of Marian Reform script where weapons would change along with the date.

**ray243** · November 01, 2009, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Lord Dakier

War changes, weapons of war change.

Someone researches better armor against arrows > Shield is redefined
Shields become too protective against arrows > Melee weapons are redefined
Melee causes loss of soldiers > Missiles are then reused

You bring a unit of bowmen into the 18th Century and then have them fight against a unit of French Middle Guard. With no armour due to the common use of the bullets piercing armour. You would find that the archers would most likely win. War changes constantly. There are always people redefining the ways of war. We have gone from the days of the great war where trenches was the key element to WW2 where sheer numbers and strategic locations would decided a battle to now small squads trainned much, much better than previous ages.

EDIT - To go with your question I presume you could use somekind of Marian Reform script where weapons would change along with the date.

However, trying to set a arbitrary date which a reform occurs isn't really wise in my opinion, nor could it even be called a Historically accurate.

Mainly because the changes didn't occur due to the Senate suddenly looking up at the calender and decides that they need to reform the army. The Marian reforms occur because the social and military problems faced by the Romans demanded such a reform. If those problems were solved by other methods, then the Marian reform might not even occur.

Allowing the player to adapt his faction and choose what kind of reforms he should take will make the game more fun in my opinion. What happens if the Romans choose to invade Dacia before invading Gaul? Would the Helmets and armour worn by the legions reflect a Dacian influnce?

**Jack-El** · November 01, 2009, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by ray243

Allowing the player to adapt his faction and choose what kind of reforms he should take will make the game more fun in my opinion. What happens if the Romans choose to invade Dacia before invading Gaul? Would the Helmets and armour worn by the legions reflect a Dacian influnce?

I agree. The static cultures in TW have bothered me for some time. It's "historical accuracy" that doesn't reflect the fact history has changed. Personally, I like to imagine the lack of progress is due to super ultra conservatives that would put even the most stubborn priests of the time to shame.

**ray243** · November 01, 2009, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by Jack-El

I agree. The static cultures in TW have bothered me for some time. It's "historical accuracy" that doesn't reflect the fact history has changed. Personally, I like to imagine the lack of progress is due to super ultra conservatives that would put even the most stubborn priests of the time to shame.

The very fact that there is still a level of progress being made in spite of the ultra conservatives trying to stop it really shows how hard it is to stop progress.

**Jack-El** · November 04, 2009, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by ray243

The very fact that there is still a level of progress being made in spite of the ultra conservatives trying to stop it really shows how hard it is to stop progress.

Really? Because I'm still wondering why, for example, the Gauls would refuse to build superior Roman-style roads several generations after conquering them. Generally there's some kind of assimilation when different cultures meet through conquest.

**Doctor** · November 01, 2009, 10:46 AM

That much in depth change would be relatively impossible to do. So it would be in the developers best interests to handle that change in large changes. If you want to see what I mean play the EB mod as the Romani. In that mod there are a multitude of military reforms regarding the army that adequately reflects the change in weapons and armor. So if I was to give CA any advice it would be to take a look at EB.

**|Sith| Max** · November 03, 2009, 09:00 AM

as an ultra conservative that has seen ETW and MTW2 i am convinced that RTW doesn't deserve to be dragged trough the mud with a

sequel. let em do STW2 first and if they get some common sense after that they can try to make a game like RTW with better historical accuracy and more in-depth campaign featuring a similar engine as RTW 1 due to its great maneuverability compared to its sequels, with the addition of combo finishers and slow motion, and a downloadable skin for undead cataphracts that breathe fire.

**ssmarine** · November 03, 2009, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by |Sith|Count_Max

as an ultra conservative that has seen ETW and MTW2 i am convinced that RTW doesn't deserve to be dragged trough the mud with a

sequel. let em do STW2 first and if they get some common sense after that they can try to make a game like RTW with better historical accuracy and more in-depth campaign featuring a similar engine as RTW 1 due to its great maneuverability compared to its sequels, with the addition of combo finishers and slow motion, and a downloadable skin for undead cataphracts that breathe fire.

Man this is full of truth right here.

Ive been saying for a while on these forums that Im not sure CA wants to risk a RTW2 and honestly I really dont wanna see them mess it up.

**|Sith| Max** · November 04, 2009, 11:00 AM

Hell yeah brother!

**Deux** · November 04, 2009, 04:36 PM

Discovering/ researching technologies has worked for generations on war games, why can't it work for the totalwar series? It would either require a change to the construction queue with a secondary technology queue if that is possible with the engine or a reworking of the effects of say a blacksmith, level three gives you new units instead of +3 or what ever. Still, doesn't the +3 already show advancements in technology?

**Fireright** · November 05, 2009, 07:52 AM

The 'researching stuff' routine has often struck me as a feeble gameplay mechanic in historical war games, as players are thousands of years ahead of the games time period, and therefore know with certainty what is required.

Somewhat ridiculous that an abstract unheard of concept would produce the required result.

Caveman bored of fighting with sticks and stones?. Another caveguy announces ''I have no idea what this stuff means but lets go research metallurgy and hard plate..trust me on this one..we'll get metal-tipped spears, swords, suits of armour and loads of cool stuff.''

Players engaged in 'abstract miracle' researching (which we know in-game will never fail) seems pointless mouse-clicking

**|Sith| Max** · November 05, 2009, 01:11 PM

thats nonsense if i could make my own weapons armenia would never lose a battle. still marching on egypt with a load of Tiger II tanks seems a bit unfair.

**Fireright** · November 07, 2009, 06:01 AM

??? Even more nonsensical is the thought of the Roman Senate gathered in total bewilderment as they hear some guy announce...''trust me on this one, no idea what it means, but lets pour all our resources into researching tanks"

Meanwhile the Egyptian Pharoah stuns his citizens with the proclamation.."quit with the pyramid building, we're going to research anti-tank mines".

An interesting interpretation of a history-based war gameplay research... to expect WW2 vehicles in a Rome-based game.

Players know with certainty what research is required to produce a given result, but they sure didnt, and pointless mouse-clicking in an abstract miracle research environment seems a feeble gameplay mechanic and a tedious process.

I recall AOE2 (a game with no tanks) which required seemingly endless 'miracle researching' in order to produce top-grade troops....Zzzzz

**ray243** · November 08, 2009, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Fireright

??? Even more nonsensical is the thought of the Roman Senate gathered in total bewilderment as they hear some guy announce...''trust me on this one, no idea what it means, but lets pour all our resources into researching tanks"

Meanwhile the Egyptian Pharoah stuns his citizens with the proclamation.."quit with the pyramid building, we're going to research anti-tank mines".

An interesting interpretation of a history-based war gameplay research... to expect WW2 vehicles in a Rome-based game.

Players know with certainty what research is required to produce a given result, but they sure didnt, and pointless mouse-clicking in an abstract miracle research environment seems a feeble gameplay mechanic and a tedious process.

I recall AOE2 (a game with no tanks) which required seemingly endless 'miracle researching' in order to produce top-grade troops....Zzzzz

Exactly! The transformation of armies occurs because the external and internal pressures. Without those pressure, there won't be any desire for a reform.

Take for example, the transformation of the Roman army from a Hoplite based army to a Manipular army is due to the Romans finding out that a hoplite army might not be that flexible when they are fighting the gauls.

Same can be said in regards to the Marian reforms, where the constant wars waged by Romans that resulted in men being unable to return home and tend to their lands required a change.

**Fireright** · November 10, 2009, 03:16 AM

A simple option to reflect the various changes/transformations might be to add different start times as per mtw1..early, high, late etc. Different start positions and military units available and all that.

**Deux** · November 10, 2009, 03:53 AM

Or just encompass the transformations in reforms which were on the original RTW if you don't like the technologies idea. No need to start suggesting tanks and such like unrealistic weapons.