Exclusive Content for TWC Discussion Thread (Updated 29th May)

[Predalien50]

I think Mount&Blades does a very good job in terms of combat. CA should learn from them when trying to get rid of the 1 v 1 problem.

Bro your sig made me hit my computer screen

PS. Thanks taking time to answer the communities questions.

[Auran]

Will Rome II be released with most bugs/glitches fixed and few but usefull DLC's to come later?

Don't let it be another Empire bug-wise.

Take your time.

[stradar1]

Yes I am disapointed that there still useing the useless 1v1 animation for battles

[alex_shields]

take it easy people! Sheesh, you're already reviewing a game that won't be released for another 18 months. It's a *modified* Warscape engine. Therefore the battle animations will also be modified (dare I say, "improvments"?) of the S2/Warscape engine. No one thought the modifications to the Rome 1 engine seen in M2:TW were a step in the wrong direction. Now look, CA knows that Romans fought in formation. They already said they're going to show formations with mass and battles that are more fluid and massive. Have a little faith! The Romans will fight as a cohesive unit behind thier shieldwall and you can sit back an watch thier little faces change expression in relation to what's going on. The barbarians will probably fight 1v1. Wouldn't it make sense if they somehow got the engine to recognize a Roman unit (i.e a 'century', or just the front line of the century) as 1 and make sure they stay close together against the individual attackers? And since the entire front line is treated as one unit, they could rotate the entire line at the same time to keep the fresh guys up front... relax. Breathe.

*Edited with some suggestions for Mr. Lusted.*

A lot of people are against "Phaoronic" Egyptians and prefer the Ptolemaic Phalanxes. I'm a Classical History student and I understand the cry for historical accuracy, but I also like the idea of the '10 Commandments Egyptians' and thier chariots fighting the legions. It adds diversity to an otherwise totally Hellenic Middle-East.
Here's what I say: I don't mind anachronisms, as long as the final product is done right. Legionaries in Segmentata in 150 BC? Sure, as long as the armor has the right number of shoulder girdles and is thus accurately represented. Neon Gauls? NO! Keep it visually accurate. We can mess up the timeline but still eliminate 'fantasy units' for a great play experience.

I'd like to see the (re)implementation of the City View and perhaps have the ability to "drill' troops in the fields outside the city. No combat, just march them around (good for machinimas, or just to view/appreciate the details you wont have time to notice in combat).

Has anyone played Bungie's "Myth: The Fallen Lords"? Remember how you could select Geometric formations for your troops by pressing 1-9? "Circle, Vanguard, Vee', etc. Total War could do this with single units. Instead of having an animation (like Testudo or Phalanx), a single unit would stand in a circle facing out to make a last stand; or your could form the center unit into a Wedge to break the enemy charge. The advantage is that the tactical options would be greater because instead of having to use two or more units to form an anvil or a curved front, single units could now be formed. If not something simple, then units should have more formation options (testude, orbis, and wedge for example).

And, like "Myth", it would be cool if the ground under a hotly contested frontline turned red. After say, 60 seconds of battle, or fifty casualties, the game starts to show bloody ground. It wouldn't take up much graphical memory and we don't necessarily have to show random limbs and heads laying around, just 'red earth'.

[Petroniu]

Well the timeline is already messed up because you influence it but the units definitely shouldn't be made up or "twisted".

[Hannibal Baca]

Are we (Players) be able to train local units (AOR) ?
Will Rome2 have goverment buildings like Rome 1 modifications ?

[Jarvisimo]

As lead unit designer, is there any chance you could show/tell us any of the sources you've been using for the Carthaginian unit roster?
Research-wise.

P.S Jack, I love your hat.

[Ahmad al-Fareed]

uhhhhhw noooo 1v1 animatioooonnss
the game gonna b so baaad
uu zooo laazyy

[Korporal]

uhhhhhw noooo 1v1 animatioooonnss
the game gonna b so baaad
uu zooo laazyy

I admire your supreme eloquence.

[Ahmad al-Fareed]

@ Unit Cards [amount]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=553186

i always felt that 20 cards were pretty restrictive especially when it comes to formations.
judging by the amount of the participants the results may not be statistically all too relyable but they r still quite illustrative.
its UR game u r making but its also for ur customers.

the legion system might influence the flow of how these single unit segments will b handled anyway.
but the unit card system may stay for its quite handy functionality in multiplayer. at least i assume so


y not start a poll on ur official website. and mbe do a seperate investiagtion for the community/multiplayer veterans. they might even give u some relyable pro/contra arguments.
as for multiplayer i believe that many of those veterans will tend to the 20 card system (for, i think, obvious reasons ^^). but at the other hand, more unit cards will open more options, maneuvres, the ability to concentrate specific types (elites, skirmishers, heavy cavalry) or distribute those consistent all along the battling line, also new approaches to army compositions, deployments and tactics. u could arrange more refined formations. or just place all 6 archer contingents on one spot. u could build up ur infantry in 2 proper lines without doing a major commitment into infantry type army builds. this would not shift things to the extremes but u can rather refine ur resources more gradually to ur likings. u could also play around with delaying tactics; - without the almost inevitable challange of ur detachement getting swarm rushed and being massacred by the opposite bulk and everything remaining getting too late into action or alternatively both armies ending up just charging; - and instead play a game of attrition.


to higher the amount of seperate contongents can b a risky task but made well it can lead to a more complex and deeper gameplay, at least some like me do believe.
and instead lock the unit sizes of each contingent (in multiplayer) to 1 uniform scale (120 men or 150 men) as the variation of unit sizes r more prone to exploits (gameplay shift from missile/matchlock to melee rush) than the increase of unit cards (spam vs quality). and besides that will not split the multiplayer community even further into medium size / large size / ultra size units. only funds varying

a good communication between playerbase and developer-team/company can add some fruitful contribution to the outcome. there r indeed some examples of content relevant polls. 1 being [i dont know if im allowed to name another company with their product for illustration] >http://worldoftanks.com/polls/#wot< - with like 8 pages of polls listed

salve

[MonkeyD]

I'd like to know what agents for the campaign map are going to be available. Will something like the foreign veteran in Fall of the Samurai make a return like a hardened legionnaire? I found it incredibly useful to have an agent that gives experience to units even in peace time.

[Lockcaps]

I heard they were going for Scotland to Bactria(Afghanistan) in one of the newer interviews.

I heard they were going for Scotland to Bactria(Afghanistan) in one of the newer interviews.

Also when is update 5 coming? It's been more than 2 weeks!!!

[TheSwordofRome]

I heard they were going for Scotland to Bactria(Afghanistan) in one of the newer interviews.

Could I please have a link? Thanks

[Kahvipannu]

I have a rather simple question Jack, AI. When compared to older titles, what was your aproach by improving it to this title bearing in mind what you have learned from older games? I'm not asking for details, but has there been a central focus in the AI department for this particular title that your aiming to improve, or your happy that you have improved it?

[Altimis]

wait.... WHAT!?!?!

1 vs 1 still exist? what if you fight elephant unit? you just pick up spear and fight elephant alone!?!?! no support?

What da fag!?!?

[DisgruntledGoat]

wait.... WHAT!?!?!

1 vs 1 still exist? what if you fight elephant unit? you just pick up spear and fight elephant alone!?!?! no support?

What da fag!?!?

So misinformed that I am just gonna let you wallow in ignorance and stupidity. Particularly for that offensive last sentence.

[General Maximus]

Seeing from the screenshots, I am wondering how great the sieges are going to be.

What kind of siege equipment do you guys like? I like ladders, they make casualties but get the job done.

[Altimis]

So misinformed that I am just gonna let you wallow in ignorance and stupidity. Particularly for that offensive last sentence.

no no no, I means no offense at all! still love what CA will thrown at me

and why I'm misinformed?

-regards

[Mincecraft]

I prefer towers. Helps ya get a beachhead with twenty men goin' in at once. Normally, my ladders just got slaughtered in Rome 1 (its a man at a time for crissake).

[dom385]

If i don't have artillery, I'll send towers at the front and send a few ladders down either side to try their luck.