Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rome: Total War

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Does anyone around here play it? I just started a couple days ago and haven't put it online yet, but have been enjoying the strategic game play and great visual arts. I might endorse in my Total War games soon enough.

I picked it up a couple of weeks ago. I've found it rather addicting with a great mix of real-time and turn-based strategy.

My only complaint (which I have with most of these games) is that I find most of the units available unnecessary, and never bother to use them. I have the feeling the designers wanted variety, but didn't work to really give units strengths and weaknesses that force the player to come up with good working combinations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
Not that this thread ever went anywhere, but wondering if anyone has purchased the new Total War?

I have Empire: Total War - which is pretty fun actually. The Naval battles take a lot of skill I find, but are fairly rewarding once you figure them out. The lack of variety in the units is actually nice, making battles and production more purposeful. There is more geography, naval battles, and lots of region management. It was also interesting to play a Total War game based primarily on firearms. Many people didn't like it though.

IF you meant Napoleon: Total War, I'm downloading it via Steam right now, but my connection makes that sort of thing take a week. Is that what you wanted to hear about?

Oh, this might be a good thread to ask: what should come next for Total War?

I'd like to see an epic "Imperialism: Total War". I know, it's silly considering there is "Empire" already. But "Imperialism" would cover the time from the American Civil War to WWI. It would be ambitious but awesome. You would have to include most of the world's map in the game, and just let people march anywhere. Creating colonies, and managing trade a la Railroad Tycoon would be the big 'management' part of the game (oh, with real railroads - wouldn't it be cool if they just sprung up, but you could subsidize at high cost certain kinds you needed/wanted for military/strategic reasons - ie Prussia/America transcon). Navies would start with mostly wooden steamers but quite a few ironclads - until you have dreadnoughts and U-boats. You could reenact the charge of the light brigade, the opium war, the russo-japanese war, spanish american, etc. After this period, you could only make a 'cold war' total war game with proxy wars and a lot of espionage. Basically, it's the last historical game you could make in the series. WWII could be a total war game, but it would have to be very focused - like Napoleon Total War - so it might be a good follow up to "Imperialism". Hmm, tank warfare would work in Total War, maybe even infantry squads. Airplanes would have to work like the old navies though, real-time control of bomber groups doesn't make sense. Nah.

What about the past? There's been no Oriental Total War. We have some 18th century indian factions, and there's "Shogun" of course, but what about Sun Tzu? The Mongols show up in Medieval. I think MII:TW expansion had Aztecs - it def had indians, and Empire had the "Warpath" campaign that let you play as the 18th century North American indian factions. There was Rome, and Alexander. Two medievals. There has not been an "Antiquity" total war: pellopenesian war, Persians, Akkadians, Solomon, I don't know, those guys. I guess you could make "Greece: Total War". Otherwise you just have fantasy left for you: "Atlantis Total War" "Mythology Total War". You could do that, but I wouldn't like it. You could do "Star Wars: Total War". I would love Gundam: Total War - that would be awesome! Wasted landscapes with tanks and things, and then throw in different mobile suits. Nah. What do you think?

Wow, a little more than what was asked, but I'd love to discuss the future of the franchise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have played Rome total war, and other strategy and simulation games. I would like to see a game developed that has more realistic economic consequences. In rome total war I found it that once you have a few cities under you control, its always in my advatage to murder the population of the new city I conquer. You get the most money and the populance is subdued. Once I got really huge, people in big cities would get unhappy and revenue would drop in those cities or even go negative. I found the solution to that was to remove the army, let the militia or whatever their called take over. Then re-conquer them, and murder them again. That would give me a lump sum, subdue the people, make them happier then before they where murder, and return the city to a positve revenue. I think thats ridiculous .

Edited by avgleandt
Link to post
Share on other sites

As Far as Subduing the Populace, the best move I found was to Romanize (or Hellenize, for my favorite Faction was the Greek Cities) the City as quickly as Possible. That means replacing all the buildings with the Roman Equivalent, and tearing down the buildings without them (this means Temples and certain faction specific ones, though the happiness faction buildings are generally neutral). Thus planting Roman Temples, (especially the Law and Order Gods, like Jupiter) and bringing running water, that uniquely civilizing feature that reduces squalor and thus unrest, are key to the long term health of the empire.

As far as the Garrisons go I would levy a bunch of the population into Peasants, the highest population unit in the game, and they would be enough of a check to keep the city in order, for its "boots on the ground" that matter, not the quality of the soliders. Also queuing more peasants to be built reduces the population thus that makes the city more manageable.

Generals with high Influence helped, along with keeping your capitial more or less in the middle of your empire, and not expanding too far from the Mediterranean, for many Barbarian Cities just aren't really economically worth it.

I have to admit a few of my offensives stalled when pacifying a huge city I conquered, but with some TLC, it was soon a new shining jewel for the empire, without resorting to Mass Murder.

But if the population is too high to begin with that even your army plus a whole suite of peasants cannot keep it under control, you can "Enslave the Populace" that is send half of them in chains back to cities that you have a general in, this both increases their population, and decreases the population on the frontier. And historically, it was a very Roman thing to do, for after some time slaves could be made Roman Citizens, thus assimilating them into the culture.

So long story short, Imperialism takes some creativity, and doesn't have to be done via exterimination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played Napoleon Total War, and it is execellent. Long story short:

Campaign mode = more focused. You play as Napoleon, and there are history-centered campaigns. First Italy, then Egypt, then all Europe. Finally there is a larger European campaign where you can play as any of the factions that opposed Napoleon. The style is very similar to Empire, but the building types for towns make more sense: for example you can build 'supply warehouses' which basically replenish your troops. A 'turn' lasts 2 weeks rather than 6 months, so the campaign focuses much more on the tactical gameplay.

Tactical Gameplay mode = more hard hitting. When artillery fire hits a block of units, the ground literally shakes and 10-25% of those troops die. Also, when an infantry line fires the screen shakes if you are near them. Units have 'morale' bars now, which is effectively their HP considering that the goal is to get them to retreat. Basically, it's Empire sans Empire's flaws. Very refined gameplay and very very enjoyable.

Other differences from Empire: Online Campaign Mode! You can play turn-based multiplayer campaigns (naturally, cooperatively or competitively). During the other players' turns you can review your buildings and the like. You can also fight as the other side for your enemy's battles, even if he isn't fighting your faction in particular. For the regular single-player campaign, there is also 'drop-in' mode which sometimes pulls players from online to fight in the place of the AI during any given battle. If you turn it on, the game may ask from time to time "Do you want to save this campaign and drop in on another player's battle?" You get the point.

Finally, the game is much more well-produced in terms of its narrative qualities. It has abundant cinematics, and a really focused historical context. The 'feel' or 'look' of the map is a lot more beautiful than in Empire, I'd call it 'classical'. The music is also more stirring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...