The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.

Empire: Total War - More indepth 1700's information than you can imagine! [NSF56K]

145791062

Posts

  • CronusCronus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    You're thinking of Russia. Prussia is German, known for their well disciplined and trained men. :P

    I liked Mongols for horse archery, which won't be in this period. I'm not actually a big fan of melee cavalry, I would field a few just to give my army some hitting power on the flanks, but I'm more a defensive infantry commander.

    Ah right, silly me.

    Well, if they go all out on the historical accuracy (don't know if they will) there should be units on horseback with muskets. They generally wouldn't fire from horseback, but they'd use their horses to rapidly re-deploy around the battlefield.

    I hope it's accurate but it needs to be fun to. It can be tough to find the balance between accuracy and fun. You don't want to play the Americans and get rolled all the time without the French backing you up.

    Cronus on
    camo_sig.png
    "Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
  • DisruptorX2DisruptorX2 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    MTW 1 and 2 do a pretty good job of balancing the factors. Sure, alot of the faction names are anachronisms (I think that term is right, can something be an anachronism if your applying a modern name to something that existed before it?), but they are close to reality. Sure, you can use some cheesy game tactics, but real tactics that were used during the time can be actually used to win.

    Rome swung to far down the arcade route to me. The Egyptian faction alone would probably be more realistic if they had units of mummies and skeleton archers.

    Gameplay comes first, but the game play should be built around the simulation of the era's combat. Historical accuracy can be waived in favour of making the game work, but should be included whenever possible.

    DisruptorX2 on
    1208768734831.jpg
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cronus wrote: »
    I hope it's accurate but it needs to be fun to. It can be tough to find the balance between accuracy and fun. You don't want to play the Americans and get rolled all the time without the French backing you up.

    Certainly. I used to play a napoleonic mod for rome total war that strove for realism as much as possible given the limits of the engine and it was incredibly fun. The tactics of this time period are amazingly strategic, quick, and lethal. It's odd going from a game where everyone is wearing plate armor to a game wear everyone has no armor and guns.

    That said, most of the big imbalances by country could probably be addressed simply by starting off all the countries on a somewhat equal footing. I mean, after all, the game isn't about recreating the course of history exactly, but, I'd love for them to make the combat and the tactics as historic as possible.

    Inquisitor on
  • DisruptorX2DisruptorX2 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Cronus wrote: »
    I hope it's accurate but it needs to be fun to. It can be tough to find the balance between accuracy and fun. You don't want to play the Americans and get rolled all the time without the French backing you up.

    Certainly. I used to play a napoleonic mod for rome total war that strove for realism as much as possible given the limits of the engine and it was incredibly fun. The tactics of this time period are amazingly strategic, quick, and lethal. It's odd going from a game where everyone is wearing plate armor to a game wear everyone has no armor and guns.

    That said, most of the big imbalances by country could probably be addressed simply by starting off all the countries on a somewhat equal footing. I mean, after all, the game isn't about recreating the course of history exactly, but, I'd love for them to make the combat and the tactics as historic as possible.

    The "what if?" aspect was one of the best things about the series, and one that has been lost. In MTW 1, you never knew which AI faction would become a huge empire you would have to deal with (though it was never France, they always got curb stomped).

    In Rome, you knew that Carthage would be crushed instantly, Egypt would dominate its entire area, and obviously Rome would be there. In MTW 2, only the Eastern Factions expand much. Though at least the French are fiercer than they are in 1. If you feed the Pope money, he'll sometimes go off conquering half of Europe, though, which is awesome.

    DisruptorX2 on
    1208768734831.jpg
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cronus wrote: »
    I hope it's accurate but it needs to be fun to. It can be tough to find the balance between accuracy and fun. You don't want to play the Americans and get rolled all the time without the French backing you up.

    American military at the time, if I remember my history right, was basicly a core of trained volenteer regulars(no US draft/conscription untill the American Civil War) with a bunch of millita, a few being elite (the almost legendary rifle-bearing frontier hunters come to mind) while most ranging from compent to lead bait. Still manage to win the Mexican-American War though.

    To make it fun, you'd probably emphisise the elite frontier millita, dampen the lead bait, and probably have most regular units have extra morale, as a showing of the fact they were all crazy enough to do this willingly...


    The American Navy (once it became a country) was much better off, as most sailors had experince in combat fighting Barbary Corsairs ever since Thomas Jefferson refused to bribe them off(which was what everyone else did), and the shipyard in New England were some of the best in the world.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • DisruptorX2DisruptorX2 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Still manage to win the Mexican-American War though.
    .

    The Mexican army has such a dismal record that it makes jokes about the French seem pointless. Well, except that the Mexicans actually defeated a French invasion of Mexico. So nevermind. :lol:

    DisruptorX2 on
    1208768734831.jpg
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Still manage to win the Mexican-American War though.
    .

    The Mexican army has such a dismal record that it makes jokes about the French seem pointless. Well, except that the Mexicans actually defeated a French invasion of Mexico. So nevermind. :lol:

    It was kind of funny, because at the time of the war, The Mexican Army was, to all outside observers, identical in form and disipline to European armies at the time, and the American army was pretty much the same mismash of Millita and soldiers it was in the war of 1812, where they nearly lost to a traditional European military...

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I'm going to have fun stomping people as France in this game, because, they should by all means be a complete powerhouse in this game. And beating people as France is always worth a good laugh.

    Inquisitor on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Do you think that the natives or opponents of Europeans during this time period thought, "Goddamn these bastards are killing us and taking our land but my God they look good while they do it! Such a snappy uniform, I forgot to resist I was so impressed by the fashion."

    All I know is that Sharpe is the Dr Manhattan of the Napoleonic era.

    He will fuck your shit up, make no mistake.

    In fact, the very reason I will play as the English in this game is to name my star general Sharpe and romp all over the world picking off insignificant civilizations under my leather boot of justice.

    Seriously, Prussia, France.. Spain. You. Are. Fucked.

    The_Scarab on
  • widowsonwidowson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Oh I'm gonna look forward to doing this to the rebel colonial peasants!

    'Fraid as children!


    What, throwing away your best troops fighting rebels because you didn't lower your tax rate from "Very High" to "Normal" when your outlying cities were showing signs of unrest? :P

    It took me 15 seconds to figure out that if I lower my taxes, the little head turns from red to blue or yellow pretty quick. Georgie III eveidently never quite figured that out....

    If he had, the United Kingdom would have met the "World Conquest" victory conditons.

    widowson on
    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • widowsonwidowson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    MTW 1 and 2 do a pretty good job of balancing the factors. Sure, alot of the faction names are anachronisms (I think that term is right, can something be an anachronism if your applying a modern name to something that existed before it?), but they are close to reality. Sure, you can use some cheesy game tactics, but real tactics that were used during the time can be actually used to win.

    Rome swung to far down the arcade route to me. The Egyptian faction alone would probably be more realistic if they had units of mummies and skeleton archers.

    Gameplay comes first, but the game play should be built around the simulation of the era's combat. Historical accuracy can be waived in favour of making the game work, but should be included whenever possible.


    Google Rome:Total Realism.

    Heck, I'll do it for you:

    http://www.rometotalrealism.org/index-2.html

    widowson on
    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • scootchscootch Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    widowson wrote: »
    MTW 1 and 2 do a pretty good job of balancing the factors. Sure, alot of the faction names are anachronisms (I think that term is right, can something be an anachronism if your applying a modern name to something that existed before it?), but they are close to reality. Sure, you can use some cheesy game tactics, but real tactics that were used during the time can be actually used to win.

    Rome swung to far down the arcade route to me. The Egyptian faction alone would probably be more realistic if they had units of mummies and skeleton archers.

    Gameplay comes first, but the game play should be built around the simulation of the era's combat. Historical accuracy can be waived in favour of making the game work, but should be included whenever possible.


    Google Rome:Total Realism.

    Heck, I'll do it for you:

    http://www.rometotalrealism.org/index-2.html


    oh rome is definately the most interesting setting for me. I should get this game and mod. I haven't dug into a total war game in a while.


    this new setting isn't grabbing me. not that interesting to me.

    scootch on
    TF2 stats
    PSN: super_emu
    Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    widowson wrote: »
    MTW 1 and 2 do a pretty good job of balancing the factors. Sure, alot of the faction names are anachronisms (I think that term is right, can something be an anachronism if your applying a modern name to something that existed before it?), but they are close to reality. Sure, you can use some cheesy game tactics, but real tactics that were used during the time can be actually used to win.

    Rome swung to far down the arcade route to me. The Egyptian faction alone would probably be more realistic if they had units of mummies and skeleton archers.

    Gameplay comes first, but the game play should be built around the simulation of the era's combat. Historical accuracy can be waived in favour of making the game work, but should be included whenever possible.


    Google Rome:Total Realism.

    Heck, I'll do it for you:

    http://www.rometotalrealism.org/index-2.html

    Many of my friends swear by this mod, and, while I don't have Rome myself, I clearly get the point that I should get this soon after I ever get Rome, if not the very next site I go to.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • Flippy_DFlippy_D Digital Conquistador LondonRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Heh, the collapse of Empire didn't have much to do with tax.

    Flippy_D on
    p8fnsZD.png
  • widowsonwidowson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Flippy_D wrote: »
    Heh, the collapse of Empire didn't have much to do with tax.


    No, but imagine the British Empire at it's height with the 13 colonies (which would have expanded westward) attached to it as well.

    Brittania doesn't rule the waves, it rules the Earth.

    widowson on
    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    scootch wrote: »
    this new setting isn't grabbing me. not that interesting to me.

    Honestly, I thought this setting sucked till I played a mod for rome total war that was based in the setting.

    It is just so strategically rewarding that it is amazing.

    Inquisitor on
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    widowson wrote: »
    Flippy_D wrote: »
    Heh, the collapse of Empire didn't have much to do with tax.


    No, but imagine the British Empire at it's height with the 13 colonies (which would have expanded westward) attached to it as well.

    Brittania doesn't rule the waves, it rules the Earth.

    No, losing the 13 American colonies had less to do with tax, and more because most of the religous and political extremists in the British Empire, along with a bunch of other people who could be labeled "nonconformists," all moved to the same place, which is now known as the United States. :D

    Edit: seriously though, it had less to do with high taxes, and more to do with the fact they were pretty much independent already, with the British Empire taking a hands off aproach to them, when all of a sudden King George III was telling them what to do without so much as a "would you kindly"

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The answer you were looking for was 'We didn't want America anyways, you can have it'

    The_Scarab on
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I have to say that I'm the most interested in the ship combat. Seriously, an option to play as an pirate would be awesome. To be the scourge of mighty empires everywhere...they may rule the lands, but I would be the master of seas. <insert a pirate smilie here>

    DarkCrawler on
  • DisruptorX2DisruptorX2 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    widowson wrote: »
    MTW 1 and 2 do a pretty good job of balancing the factors. Sure, alot of the faction names are anachronisms (I think that term is right, can something be an anachronism if your applying a modern name to something that existed before it?), but they are close to reality. Sure, you can use some cheesy game tactics, but real tactics that were used during the time can be actually used to win.

    Rome swung to far down the arcade route to me. The Egyptian faction alone would probably be more realistic if they had units of mummies and skeleton archers.

    Gameplay comes first, but the game play should be built around the simulation of the era's combat. Historical accuracy can be waived in favour of making the game work, but should be included whenever possible.


    Google Rome:Total Realism.

    Heck, I'll do it for you:

    http://www.rometotalrealism.org/index-2.html

    How does that stack up against EB, which I have played?

    DisruptorX2 on
    1208768734831.jpg
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Food wrote: »
    I bought Medieval II Gold at Walmart for 10 bucks, so you might want to hold off on Steam. (Actually it might have been Circuit City where I bought it, it's been a while).
    That's one hell of a deal.
    Vic wrote: »
    What I really have a craving for is a game with huge scale country management, including both war and conflict. Something like Europa Universalis 3, only not as infuriating.
    I see Medieval II and EU3 as two sides of a fantastic coin. A fusion of them would be spectacular.

    However, there are two things in EU that get me butthurt... declaring peace to control territories and having to deal with civil wars due to the screwed up succession tree, especially if you're playing one of the nations in the Americas. I had taken over the entirety of North America and in one turn the entire place just goes apeshit because my guy died of dysentery or something. EUR managed to be a step backwords in terms of annexation and vassalage.

    Total War really just needs a strong diplomacy engine to really satisfy my wants. And maybe be a little less punishment if I decide that I don't have time for a two hour battle so I choose not to command personally. I liked the changes to sieges in Kingdoms, so I'm fine with continuing on that road... and those changes were mostly AI-based.
    I have to say that I'm the most interested in the ship combat. Seriously, an option to play as an pirate would be awesome. To be the scourge of mighty empires everywhere...they may rule the lands, but I would be the master of seas. <insert a pirate smilie here>
    That's one thing that a lot of the "grand strategy" games don't seem to let you do. Because you start out as a national leader, they don't really give you the opportunity to break away and become a rebel faction. Afterall, if you're already soverign, you can't defy yourself. Some of the scenarios in Civilization will simulate this, but unfortunately, it's not really what I was going for. I'd like to be able to start out as a rebel or even become a rebel during the course of a campaign and through force of steel and diplomacy, win over my former countrymen. I don't mind that I'd start off on the edge of disaster.

    GungHo on
  • EbfanEbfan Wimmy Wam Wam Wozzle! Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I was already pretty interested in this game but once I found out that a pre-order came with Rome: Total War for free (which I never got around to buying because of a lack of money when it came out at the time) I bought the package right away. That is just too much value to pass up.

    Ebfan on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    Total War really just needs a strong diplomacy engine to really satisfy my wants. And maybe be a little less punishment if I decide that I don't have time for a two hour battle so I choose not to command personally. I liked the changes to sieges in Kingdoms, so I'm fine with continuing on that road... and those changes were mostly AI-based.

    I believe one of the load screen quotes in Medieval 2 goes something like "It is better to be present to command ten men than to be absent in command of a thousand."

    BubbaT on
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    BubbaT wrote: »
    I believe one of the load screen quotes in Medieval 2 goes something like "It is better to be present to command ten men than to be absent in command of a thousand."
    No, it's better to present and getting my brains screwed out on my date for showing up on time than to be absent and stuck with a case of the blue balls at home playing a video game.

    GungHo on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    I believe one of the load screen quotes in Medieval 2 goes something like "It is better to be present to command ten men than to be absent in command of a thousand."
    No, it's better to present and getting my brains screwed out on my date for showing up on time than to be absent and stuck with a case of the blue balls at home playing a video game.

    Um, save?

    BubbaT on
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    What I REALLY want is a French and Indian war campaign. It would be awesome, commanding British, American and Iroquoi troops against the dastardly French and their allies.

    I find that war interesting, since so many of those allies would be at each other throats later on. It was sort of a 'better days' sort of thing even if it took a war to bring them together.

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • MalaysianShrewMalaysianShrew Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    You can't save mid battle! And if you exit, you always lose.

    But I can't recommend Rome:Total Realism mod enough. The whole auxiliary zones of recruitment thing was great and I don't know why it wasn't added to M2:TW. To explain it, the world is divided into zones and territories in those zones produce basic units unique to that zone. So let's say you are Rome and quickly pave your way up to the English channel. Maybe your legions are worn down a bit. In your new territories, your basic units are celtic warbands. So you are forced to use your faction's best units as an elite core of your armies while using local forces to pad your numbers. ALSO! The factions! The east is divided up into Hellenic kingdoms. Egypt is Ptolemic Egypt and has Greek influenced units. Nubian spearmen fight in phalanx formation. And the German tribes have real units, not just men without shirts throwing heads.

    EDIT: Holy shit, they are still updating R:TR?! I need to get my cds back from my cousin.

    MalaysianShrew on
    Never trust a big butt and a smile.
  • PolloDiabloPolloDiablo Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    That's one thing that a lot of the "grand strategy" games don't seem to let you do. Because you start out as a national leader, they don't really give you the opportunity to break away and become a rebel faction. Afterall, if you're already soverign, you can't defy yourself. Some of the scenarios in Civilization will simulate this, but unfortunately, it's not really what I was going for. I'd like to be able to start out as a rebel or even become a rebel during the course of a campaign and through force of steel and diplomacy, win over my former countrymen. I don't mind that I'd start off on the edge of disaster.

    In MTW1, when things got bad enough your kingdom could break out in civil war. You would have to choose to side with the rebels or loyalists. It was really rare, since you practically had to intentionally drive your kingdom into the ground for it to happen, but it was awesome.

    PolloDiablo on
  • DisruptorX2DisruptorX2 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    That's one thing that a lot of the "grand strategy" games don't seem to let you do. Because you start out as a national leader, they don't really give you the opportunity to break away and become a rebel faction. Afterall, if you're already soverign, you can't defy yourself. Some of the scenarios in Civilization will simulate this, but unfortunately, it's not really what I was going for. I'd like to be able to start out as a rebel or even become a rebel during the course of a campaign and through force of steel and diplomacy, win over my former countrymen. I don't mind that I'd start off on the edge of disaster.

    In MTW1, when things got bad enough your kingdom could break out in civil war. You would have to choose to side with the rebels or loyalists. It was really rare, since you practically had to intentionally drive your kingdom into the ground for it to happen, but it was awesome.

    I had it happen once in MTW 1 as the Polish, when my family line died out. Apparantly one of my generals was a distant relative, so I didn't get a game over. Instead a civil war happened and I took over half.

    DisruptorX2 on
    1208768734831.jpg
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    You can't save mid battle! And if you exit, you always lose.

    Oh, I thought he was talking about the Auto-Resolve option before you enter the battle.

    Yeah, there should be a way to save mid-battle. They can have the save file delete itself after loading to prevent reload abuse (though they don't seem to mind the potential for that in agent missions).

    What I REALLY want is a French and Indian war campaign. It would be awesome, commanding British, American and Iroquoi troops against the dastardly French and their allies.

    I find that war interesting, since so many of those allies would be at each other throats later on. It was sort of a 'better days' sort of thing even if it took a war to bring them together.

    You're in luck, that will be the 2nd part of E:TW's Road to Indpendence campaign.

    BubbaT on
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    You can just bring up the menu by hitting "Escape" and leave and come back later. Not a "save," exactly, but a pause, which allows you to alt+tab out and such.

    Jragghen on
  • RohanRohan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    That's one thing that a lot of the "grand strategy" games don't seem to let you do. Because you start out as a national leader, they don't really give you the opportunity to break away and become a rebel faction. Afterall, if you're already soverign, you can't defy yourself. Some of the scenarios in Civilization will simulate this, but unfortunately, it's not really what I was going for. I'd like to be able to start out as a rebel or even become a rebel during the course of a campaign and through force of steel and diplomacy, win over my former countrymen. I don't mind that I'd start off on the edge of disaster.

    In MTW1, when things got bad enough your kingdom could break out in civil war. You would have to choose to side with the rebels or loyalists. It was really rare, since you practically had to intentionally drive your kingdom into the ground for it to happen, but it was awesome.

    I had it happen once in MTW 1 as the Polish, when my family line died out. Apparantly one of my generals was a distant relative, so I didn't get a game over. Instead a civil war happened and I took over half.

    Yeah, that was great. Shame they didn't keep that for MT2.

    Rohan on
    ...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.

    Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    BubbaT wrote: »
    You can't save mid battle! And if you exit, you always lose.

    Oh, I thought he was talking about the Auto-Resolve option before you enter the battle.

    Yeah, there should be a way to save mid-battle. They can have the save file delete itself after loading to prevent reload abuse (though they don't seem to mind the potential for that in agent missions).

    What I REALLY want is a French and Indian war campaign. It would be awesome, commanding British, American and Iroquoi troops against the dastardly French and their allies.

    I find that war interesting, since so many of those allies would be at each other throats later on. It was sort of a 'better days' sort of thing even if it took a war to bring them together.

    You're in luck, that will be the 2nd part of E:TW's Road to Indpendence campaign.

    Kick... ass.

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Jragghen wrote: »
    You can just bring up the menu by hitting "Escape" and leave and come back later. Not a "save," exactly, but a pause, which allows you to alt+tab out and such.

    I wonder if the computer would save it if you put it in Hibernate mode.

    BubbaT on
  • AntiQuoAntiQuo Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    You can just bring up the menu by hitting "Escape" and leave and come back later. Not a "save," exactly, but a pause, which allows you to alt+tab out and such.

    I wonder if the computer would save it if you put it in Hibernate mode.

    You don't even need to go into this, just alt+tab out and the game automatically pauses the action right where it is. When you come back in you will see the game loading back up and it will start right where you left it. At least, that is what is happening on my computer.

    AntiQuo on
    1e276.png
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    AntiQuo wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Jragghen wrote: »
    You can just bring up the menu by hitting "Escape" and leave and come back later. Not a "save," exactly, but a pause, which allows you to alt+tab out and such.

    I wonder if the computer would save it if you put it in Hibernate mode.

    You don't even need to go into this, just alt+tab out and the game automatically pauses the action right where it is. When you come back in you will see the game loading back up and it will start right where you left it. At least, that is what is happening on my computer.

    I was thinking if you were going to be away for an extended while and you didn't want your computer racking up the electric bill the whole time.

    BubbaT on
  • widowsonwidowson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    widowson wrote: »
    MTW 1 and 2 do a pretty good job of balancing the factors. Sure, alot of the faction names are anachronisms (I think that term is right, can something be an anachronism if your applying a modern name to something that existed before it?), but they are close to reality. Sure, you can use some cheesy game tactics, but real tactics that were used during the time can be actually used to win.

    Rome swung to far down the arcade route to me. The Egyptian faction alone would probably be more realistic if they had units of mummies and skeleton archers.

    Gameplay comes first, but the game play should be built around the simulation of the era's combat. Historical accuracy can be waived in favour of making the game work, but should be included whenever possible.


    Google Rome:Total Realism.

    Heck, I'll do it for you:

    http://www.rometotalrealism.org/index-2.html

    How does that stack up against EB, which I have played?


    From what I've heard RTR > EB, though I haven't played EB.

    Imagine Vanilla Rome:Total War only the map extends aaaaall the way to the indus, you've got like 3x the cities, the units are historically accurate, and the game makes you "romanize" cities before you can recruit legionaires from them.

    No mroe of this slaughter a city one day and having the citizens happily enlisting in your ranks the next.

    widowson on
    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • widowsonwidowson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Foefaller wrote: »
    widowson wrote: »
    Flippy_D wrote: »
    Heh, the collapse of Empire didn't have much to do with tax.


    No, but imagine the British Empire at it's height with the 13 colonies (which would have expanded westward) attached to it as well.

    Brittania doesn't rule the waves, it rules the Earth.

    No, losing the 13 American colonies had less to do with tax, and more because most of the religous and political extremists in the British Empire, along with a bunch of other people who could be labeled "nonconformists," all moved to the same place, which is now known as the United States. :D

    Edit: seriously though, it had less to do with high taxes, and more to do with the fact they were pretty much independent already, with the British Empire taking a hands off aproach to them, when all of a sudden King George III was telling them what to do without so much as a "would you kindly"


    Religious and political "extremeists" who then founded a government calling for the seperation of church and state and an elected legislature accountable to the people while "enlightened" europe had state religions, kings, and tossed millions of their kids into the meatgrinder of numerous stupid, worldwide wars, in some insane quest to reunify the Western Roman Empire, well into the 20th century.

    There's good reasons why some people left Europe; it's really only been debatably "enlightened" for a few decades. :P

    Napoleon marched about as many of his own soldiers to death in Russia over one campaignas we lost in our civil war; we lost 50,000+ in Vietnam over more that 6 years, while 50,000 was a bad *week* during World War I.

    I mean, think about what we're really simulating here; Europeans conquering the world through vicious wars of agression, which is what they did for centuries.

    Yeah, it's just a game, but when I was playing Rome:Total War Barbarian Invasion I won as the Western Roman Empire by landing a force in the undefended rear of the Eastern Empire and slaughtered/plundered pretty much all of Egypt, Judaea, Syria, and Asia Minor causing their economy to collapse.

    Now I imagined what if that really happened; how much death that would be; how many corpses are piled up in real "Total War".

    Makes you think....

    widowson on
    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • LamoidLamoid Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I've played total realism and EB and I enjoy EB a hell of alot more. Total realism is still a fantastic mod, but I love the mind-bogggling amount of detail that went into EB. It is super hard to play the greek cities in EB though, which sucks because they were my favourite faction in Rome.

    Lamoid on
    Laymoid.gif
  • DisruptorX2DisruptorX2 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Combat in EB seemed kind of wierd though. It was like MTW 1 combat, but in 3d, in that its really abstract. I was never quite able to gauge who was winning or supposed to be winning and it seemed a bit slow.

    Overall a cool mod though. I started up a game as Macedon, and turned out my homeboy Pyrrhus started off with a hugeass army right next to my cities. Kind of fun, actually.

    DisruptorX2 on
    1208768734831.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.