rome TW 2

[SPQR]

any one know if there willl be a 2nd rome TW?

[dithyrambos]

any one know if there willl be a 2nd rome TW?

If there is, I hope it's actually an improvement of more than just content. I was so disappointed with M2:TW. I hope that if they make a R2:TW, it will be much more content oriented. That's why I love Slitherine games, they are so content oriented.

[coldknight]

I thought that mtw2:tw was actually pretty good, but of course slitherine games go along with history a lot better than does mtw2.

[sum1won]

I thought that mtw2:tw was actually pretty good, but of course slitherine games go along with history a lot better than does mtw2.

Aye. MTW2 was a gamer's game, not a history gamer's game. It was fun, well made with great graphical effects, and switched some historical/rational aspects to make the game play more like a game and less like empire-role-playing.

[SPQR]

the only thing i didnt like about rome is all the bug like going into thestudo and out would destroy a preatrian cohort. and soldiers getting stuck in the seigetowers.

plus... the romans. they charged in and just started to stab. you never saw any of there great combat skills. that i hope that you may se more of roman tactics instead of just running in stabing and dieing in rome TW2.

[borsook79]

the only thing i didnt like about rome is all the bug like going into thestudo and out would destroy a preatrian cohort. and soldiers getting stuck in the seigetowers.

plus... the romans. they charged in and just started to stab. you never saw any of there great combat skills. that i hope that you may se more of roman tactics instead of just running in stabing and dieing in rome TW2.

These were your main complaints about RTW? How about brain dead AI? seriously strategic AI in RTW was one of the worst ever, esp diplomatic aspect. Seriously instead of RTW2 I hope we will see Legion II.

[irishmafia2020]

I enjoyed RTW, but I believe that legion two would have greater depth, and I hope that Slitherine eventually makes it, because I have waited for several years to see if this company develops a turn based empire building game that includes true RTS style battles. I always thought that the empire buildidng and city management aspects of Spartan were superior to Rome Total War, but unfortunately the ability to control your forces in battle was severly limited. Rome TW 2 would surely be just eye candy, and my guess is that an Asian theater will recieve the Total war treatment next (in several years).

[durin]

It already discussed.

http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/30 ... tions.html

[donkeyoti]

Maybe the next Commander after Napoleon could be Commander - Caesar in Gaul?

[irishmafia2020]

I doubt that we will be so lucky... this company needs to make money, and the classical era is well covered by other games... it is a shame, as there were real innovations with the original Spartan game... I have not tried the commander series though, perhaps I am underestimating the attractiveness of the proposed game...

[donkeyoti]

Has anyone considered a game set in WW1? I have hardly seen any games set in this period.

[Redpossum]

Has anyone considered a game set in WW1? I have hardly seen any games set in this period.

There was an old Avalon Hill game called 1914, and much more recently a game called Guns of August, which title I believe they stole from a book.

The problem is that it wasn't a very interesting war. The first year was surprisingly mobile, but by 1915 the trench systems were dug and for the next 2 and a half years it was a slaughterhouse in the mud. Gains were measured in hundreds of yards (meters, if you prefer), and casualties in tens of thousands. The British lost 60,000 men in one day at Passchendaele.

Gah, Passchendaele, let me just quote briefly from wikipedia -

"After three months of fierce fighting the Canadian Corps took Passchendaele on 6 November 1917, ending the battle, but in the meantime the Allied Powers had sustained almost half a million casualties and the Germans just over a quarter of a million. The Allies had captured a mere five miles of new front at a cost of 140,000 lives, a ratio of roughly 2 dead soldiers per inch gained."

Things got interesting again at the end, with the german stosstruppen using the new doctrine that was at the time called "infiltration tactics", and the Allies introducing the early tanks. In the next war, of course, Germany would combine those two elements and the blitzkrieg would be born.

And overseas there were some interesting elements to the war. In Africa von Lettow-Vorbeck led the Allies a merry chase, and indeed commanded the only undefeated German army still in the field at war's end.

But overall, no, the First World War isn't very good potential for an exciting game. Both players would fall asleep somewhere in the middle of 1916...

[honvedseg]

Since the heavy use of machineguns turned any venture out of the safety of the trenches into a suicide proposition, the only commanders who fared WELL in "The Great War" were those who were extremely cautious or lazy, since they didn't suffer the same horrifying losses as the more "dynamic" leaders. Those "successful" leaders were promoted to higher ranks in the victorious allied armies, leading to a serious lack of initiative during onset of the next war. France, in particular, was paralyzed by almost complete lack of direction from the top during the invasion by Germany during WWII. The fighting units themselves performed credibly well.

The one flaw in MTW that irritated me most was that defeated factions would suddenly "reappear" with all of the latest unit types, and LOTS of them, concentrated into one location and ready to tear through the surrounding "established" powers with ease. A peasant uprising from nowhere, I can understand; a fully trained and superbly equipped army of massive proportions materializing out of thin air in a ravaged and battle-weary province seems more fantasy than history to me. Light infantry outrunning cavalry was also a little difficult to swallow.

I eagerly await Slitherine's merging of its "empire building" and "tactical" games into one unified product.

[Redpossum]

As usual, honvedseg, you are right on the money.

RTW was one more lame exercise in hollywood fantasy.

[donkeyoti]

Has anyone considered a game set in WW1? I have hardly seen any games set in this period.

There was an old Avalon Hill game called 1914, and much more recently a game called Guns of August, which title I believe they stole from a book.

The problem is that it wasn't a very interesting war. The first year was surprisingly mobile, but by 1915 the trench systems were dug and for the next 2 and a half years it was a slaughterhouse in the mud. Gains were measured in hundreds of yards (meters, if you prefer), and casualties in tens of thousands. The British lost 60,000 men in one day at Passchendaele.

Gah, Passchendaele, let me just quote briefly from wikipedia -

"After three months of fierce fighting the Canadian Corps took Passchendaele on 6 November 1917, ending

the battle, but in the meantime the Allied Powers had sustained almost half a million casualties and the Germans just over a quarter of a million. The Allies had captured a mere five miles of new front at a cost of 140,000 lives, a ratio of roughly 2 dead soldiers per inch gained."

Things got interesting again at the end, with the german stosstruppen using the new doctrine that was at the time called "infiltration tactics", and the Allies introducing the early tanks. In the next war, of course, Germany would combine those two elements and the blitzkrieg would be born.

And overseas there were some interesting elements to the war. In Africa von Lettow-Vorbeck led the Allies a merry chase, and indeed commanded the only undefeated German army still in the field at war's end.

But overall, no, the First World War isn't very good potential for an exciting game. Both players would fall asleep somewhere in the middle of 1916...

Oh well there goes me moving my drinks cabinet 18 inches nearer Berlin.

[robindavies]

Has anyone considered a game set in WW1? I have hardly seen any games set in this period.

I don't know if you have heard of the Blitzkrieg series by Russian publisher Nival Interactive but their game engine was used by 1CGames to make a World War I game (PC not Mac so I have not tried it myself) so you are in luck. I have to say i enjoyed Blitzkrieg so this title might be good. I bought Rise of Nations due to what seemed to be WWI era combat. What i found was WW1 graphics do not amount to WW1 tactics and that game was far from satisfying but the game in question features trenches, sappers, artilley support, air power... the list goes on so it could be good.

See more details here:
http://www.bkportal.com/default.asp?content=11

As a footnote, it is unfair to characterize ALL of the generals of WW1 as spineless indifferent buffoons miles from the front. By some accounts, there were some very talented commanders who put themselves right in the thick of it. You don't hear much about them because they got their heads blown off by snipers most of the time and thus never went on to illustrious careers post war. The biggest problem with WW1 was the lack of co-ordination between units, and this is hardly surprising given the size of the fronts and the armies involved at the time. Warfare had gone from an art form (which had changed little for centuries) to a science of slaughter overnight and most of the old guard were incapable of understanding how the rules of warfare had changed in such a short period of time. Those that understood that they needed to be closer to the action to maintain some semblance of control quite often paid for the dedication with their lives.

So go easy on those generals... as they say, "War is the last thing to go to plan"... just ask George W. Bush... ostensibly that's why he went into Iraq without one.

Just a different view for you...

[robindavies]

Has anyone considered a game set in WW1? I have hardly seen any games set in this period.

I don't know if you have heard of the Blitzkrieg series by Russian publisher Nival Interactive but their game engine was used by 1CGames to make a World War I game (PC not Mac so I have not tried it myself) so you are in luck. I have to say i enjoyed Blitzkrieg so this title might be good. I bought Rise of Nations due to what seemed to be WWI era combat. What i found was WW1 graphics do not amount to WW1 tactics and that game was far from satisfying but the game in question features trenches, sappers, artilley support, air power... the list goes on so it could be good.

See more details here:
http://www.bkportal.com/default.asp?content=11

As a footnote, it is unfair to characterize ALL of the generals of WW1 as spineless indifferent buffoons miles from the front. By some accounts, there were some very talented commanders who put themselves right in the thick of it. You don't hear much about them because they got their heads blown off by snipers most of the time and thus never went on to illustrious careers post war. The biggest problem with WW1 was the lack of co-ordination between units, and this is hardly surprising given the size of the fronts and the armies involved at the time. Warfare had gone from an art form (which had changed little for centuries) to a science of slaughter overnight and most of the old guard were incapable of understanding how the rules of warfare had changed in such a short period of time. Those that understood that they needed to be closer to the action to maintain some semblance of control quite often paid for the dedication with their lives.

So go easy on those generals... as they say, "War is the last thing to go to plan"... just ask George W. Bush... ostensibly that's why he went into Iraq without one.

Just a different view for you...

[joerock22]

For those who didn't like Rome: TW or want to try something different on the Roman era, I would recommend Rome: Total Realism (an RTW mod). The biggest change is that you can't recruit new units in conquered cities until you spend many turns building up infrastructure there. This means the Romans can't magically recruit legionary troops in every city the capture. Emphasis is on sending large armies from the homeland, sending reinforcements from the homeland, protecting the homeland at all costs, and limiting casualties to a bare minimum (because you can't retrain units away from the homelaned, either). This is far more historical than the original RTW (hence, the name Realism), and it makes for a more authentic feel.

[MrVegas]

I enjoyed RTW, but I believe that legion two would have greater depth, and I hope that Slitherine eventually makes it, because I have waited for several years to see if this company develops a turn based empire building game that includes true RTS style battles. I always thought that the empire buildidng and city management aspects of Spartan were superior to Rome Total War, but unfortunately the ability to control your forces in battle was severly limited. Rome TW 2 would surely be just eye candy, and my guess is that an Asian theater will recieve the Total war treatment next (in several years).

Me too. I found Rome TW boring. And Empire Total War is the same. Sega did a survey for the next game, and Rome 2 came out top. That's my guess that they'll do Rome 2 next, but there has been big opposition to their use of 'Steam'.. online snoop engine. I installed Empire and was unable to play the game, as the Steam server was too busy.. to i am going to sell the game on.. and i havn't bothered trying to play it. Medieval Total War was the best, but that was let down by the continuous seiges, which was totally tedious. The map graphic was better than the new Empire, which looks very basic and flat. That's what i love about the Slitherine series, the maps are so well done.
I prefer the battle system in the Slitherine games. I cannot play the TW battles, they are all over the place.