Let's hope CA use Europa Barbarorum units

[Lord Tomyris]

In an official statement on modding*, CA called Europa Barbarorum 'breathtaking', acknowledging that they have themselves played this excellent conversion modification for RTW. Now, I'm thinking that the amount of historical research the EB team did should be drawn upon by CA for Rome's sequel...the units in EB are historical and therefore should be cribbed as directly as possible for CA's new game (and I'm sure the EB team won't have any problem with that, as the reason they created the mod in the first place was because these units weren't included in the actual game!). Do we think that we'll see a much more realistic unit selection for all factions this time around, folks?




*http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/01/to...s-for-modders/

[Senchiro]

And again a historical accuracy thread.

Here it's what i just wrote in a previous thread since few minutes

I'm get bored of all those historical accufan's... Guys if you're so frustrated, build your own studio and made a game accurate as you wish to be.

Rome II it's first a game and not an historical documentary...

So i have an idea, lets release EB in 2013 and call it Rome II. You gonna be happy like that and stop spam with historical accuracy thread...

[Lord Tomyris]

And again a historical accuracy thread.

Here it's what i just wrote in a previous thread since few minutes




So i have an idea, lets release EB in 2013 and call it Rome II. You gonna be happy like that and stop spam with historical accuracy thread...

Wait, you think this would be a bad idea? You think that having 'Spear warbands' and 'Chosen swordsmen', rather than more accurate and historical Gallic units, will add more depth and fun to the game?

[Senchiro]

Wait, you think this would be a bad idea? You think that having 'Spear warbands' and 'Chosen swordsmen', rather than more accurate and historical Gallic units, will add more depth and fun to the game?

The idea its let CA make their own job. They get enough experience and they know how important is that license. They not gonna take risk to miss that one. And most important we are still a year before any release and we still didn't see any anything at all so chill..

[Lord Tomyris]

The idea its let CA make their own job. They get enough experience and they know how important is that license. They not gonna take risk to miss that one. And most important we are still a year before any release and we still didn't see any anything at all so chill..

I suppose you're right...we should sit tight and wait to be told what's best for us. How dare we suggest that we would like to see something in a game we're going to spend our money on...pesky fans that we are.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I suppose you're right...we should sit tight and wait to be told what's best for us. How dare we suggest that we would like to see something in a game we're going to spend our money on...pesky fans that we are.

It's not that, really, it's that you guys keep posting thread after thread after thread of the same things, over and over and over. It gets a bit tiresome.

Seriously, can you guys keep it to just a couple of threads?

[Senchiro]

pesky fans that we are.

That you are. And that's maybe the problem. I enjoy Tota wars for many many years now but i don't considering myself a fan wich act always too much.. You also made a thread wich the same subject have been made on another one...pesky fans...

[UghUghUgh]

The idea its let CA make their own job. They get enough experience and they know how important is that license. They not gonna take risk to miss that one. And most important we are still a year before any release and we still didn't see any anything at all so chill..

Hey Senchiro, what kind of units do you want to see in the game, since history doesn't really matter for a game called Rome? I asked the very same question in another thread, because you keep repeating yourself over and over again without any detail, but the general notion that historicity is BS.

[Senchiro]

Hey Senchiro, what kind of units do you want to see in the game, since history doesn't really matter for a game called Rome? I asked the very same question in another thread, because you keep repeating yourself over and over again without any detail, but the general notion that historicity is BS.

I don't say that history doens't really matter because it's one of the essential part of the game, but not the most essential as many would like.

To get a good gameplay the develloper have to balance between all those aspect and try to catch in their radar player who sleep with a historical book under their pillow as the guys who play cod for 2 hours get bored and whant to switch to Rome II.

So CA have to deal with all people taste and it's not an easy task to get this balance.

I repeating myself over and over again because historical accufan like you are repeating thread over and over again. Simple as it is..

[Destraex]

The idea its let CA make their own job. They get enough experience and they know how important is that license. They not gonna take risk to miss that one. And most important we are still a year before any release and we still didn't see any anything at all so chill..

Are you familiar with the way game development happens?
Ask for something just before release and guess what? Its impossible to implement. Ask now when the development cycle is in its earlier stages and you have a better chance.

Better to be safe than sorry.

[Adufka]

And again a historical accuracy thread.

Here it's what i just wrote in a previous thread since few minutes




So i have an idea, lets release EB in 2013 and call it Rome II. You gonna be happy like that and stop spam with historical accuracy thread...

I agree...stop to be worrying guys about anything from Rome 2...CA knows what they doing,they know exactly what they want to do...they will do their best....first play rome 2 when released and then u can write what u didn't like in the game.now is too early

[Smerka]

I agree...stop to be worrying guys about anything from Rome 2...CA knows what they doing,they know exactly what they want to do...they will do their best....first play rome 2 when released and then u can write what u didn't like in the game.now is too early

So whats the point of this forum? just to look? I mean praising is allowed but why is criticism not?

[AngryTitusPullo]

So whats the point of this forum? just to look? I mean praising is allowed but why is criticism not?

To criticisize about something that is not even out yet makes no sense.

[Smerka]

To criticisize about something that is not even out yet makes no sense.

But praising something you have yet played is fine? nice double standards there

[Scutarii]

And again a historical accuracy thread.

Here it's what i just wrote in a previous thread since few minutes




So i have an idea, lets release EB in 2013 and call it Rome II. You gonna be happy like that and stop spam with historical accuracy thread...

Problem with this is... Its a video game based in history. Many players of the Total War series are history enthusiasts, and immersion is a huge part of every video game. Immersion in a historically based game, means a good blend of balance, historical accuracy, and engaging gameplay mechanics. I don't think any of us would take R:TW vanilla and compare it to mods like EB and call it better (barring what little multiplayer scene there was) and/or having more depth.

Historical accuracy is intertwined with the Total War games, as a history major, the closer to EB (historical accuracy wise), the better. That said, the slow pace of EB isn't for everyone, but I feel the historical portion of the immersion taken to a slightly lesser degree would do justice to a very complex and interesting period of history.

[johnny_b_good]

If Rome 2 be modable, you can make Eb...

[MathiasOfAthens]

If Rome 2 be modable, you can make Eb...

All it needs is enough regions to add in new factions.

[dheta]

Historical accuracy isent = fun. plz stop pretending it is if you want such documentary games go play EB and not rome.

[dom385]

It's not so much the actual unit models that I object to, in fact most of them look pretty cool. It's the unit names, because while the people that made EB might know what they mean, no body else does. This is fine in a mod made for uber history fans but not a retail game, most people would like to be to actually pronounce and understand unit names etc.So yes I would rahter have units called "spear warband" or "chosen swordsmen".

[Lord Tomyris]

It's not so much the actual unit models that I object to, in fact most of them look pretty cool. It's the unit names, because while the people that made EB might know what they mean, no body else does. This is fine in a mod made for uber history fans but not a retail game, most people would like to be to actually pronounce and understand unit names etc.So yes I would rahter have units called "spear warband" or "chosen swordsmen".

I agree - a little Anglicization of names, that wouldn't hurt, in the same way that we refer to the basic Roman unit as 'Legionary cohort'. I still think 'chosen swordsmen' sounds bland and generic, however.

To get a good gameplay the develloper have to balance between all those aspect and try to catch in their radar player who sleep with a historical book under their pillow as the guys who play cod for 2 hours get bored and whant to switch to Rome II.

You haven't explained why making a more accurate and historically-based selection of units - reflecting the diverse cultures in-game - will detract from gameplay.

You can bet their professional pride will not let them produce units of lower quality They will be on their mettle.

I certainly hope so - in fact, I can almost imagine the pep-talk in the CA offices: 'Come on chaps, we want to create the best Total War game yet...we want to create a game that exceeds even the greatest modification of Rome: Total War to deliver the most rewarding experience of classical warfare ever...'