Login

07-22-2003, 11:15 AM

Greating Mariko, Im sorry I dont rememebre the name, so many people have come and gone. 
 
I beleive Obake has left the forums but Cat is still around and is a fellow mod at the Org with me. 
 
As for CA Captain Fishpants might be the man to talk with I beleive he is one of the Developers, best way to talk to him is via our Personnel message system over at the Org. 
 
Speak to u soon <img src=http://www.shadesmtw.com/SWsigy1.gif>
 
 
Proud member of :

Clan Shades -
<a href=http://www.geocities.com/shadesofshogun>Enter The Darkness
 
OOOO - <a href=http://oooo.freewebspace.com/> The Order
 
MY homepage - <a href=http://www.shadesmtw.com>Wolfs medieval info site 
and moderator at Totalwar.Org
<a href=http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi>Ye olde Org

07-25-2003, 04:44 PM

More units on the Units Page; 
 
www.totalwar.com/community/unit1.htm 
 
The last 5 are pretty solid from a historical perspective so there is hope that the fantasy units will be limited to 3-5 out of approx 120. I can certainly live w/ that. 
 
There is also a "buildings" thread here that sounds pretty good; 
pub133.ezboard.com/fshogu...=921.topic 
 
Finally, I am still awaiting the unvieling of the Strategy map as until we see this item we won't have a very clear idea of how this sucker is going to actually work. 
 
Barkhorn.

StrategyM · 07-25-2003, 09:26 PM

Must admit I find it hard to get too excited by some of the stuff there from a historical point of view. 
 
The most notorious beefs from my POV: 
1) Barbarian archers - almost non-existent in reality, will probably be a vital unit in the game (firepower always rules RT games). 
2) Phalangites vulnerable to missile attacks... uhm; where did they get that titbit? 
3) The town watch description is pure fantasy. God knows how they got that idea. 
4) Greek archers - the same problem as with Barbarian archers. But at least it seems like we'll see Cretan archers. 
5) Gladiators - 'nuff said. 
6) Spartan Hoplites - yes, they DID still exist in 230, BUT were so few as to be practically unusable (only 700 citizens soldiers available in 250 BCE) and their fighting qualities was no better than that of other Hellenistic troops in the post-Leuktran age. Part of the move to the phalanx was a huge reform including massive citizen enfranchisement. So Yes (to JRS) this is very much a fantasy unit type to include. 
7) Praetorians - will as usual live off their popular reputation instead of being modelled correctly. And it seems that we will see them even in the early Republic, to judge from this wildly erroneous statement: "Historically, Scipio Africanus created the Praetorians from his most trusted troops, and exempted them from all duties except that of guarding his person." 
Woad warriors... belong to another age, if they existed at all. 
 
Hopefully we won't have Roman archers *groan*. 
 
It's nice to see them including Triarii, though (though if we're to go into equipment - his shield is all wrong). 
 
The buildings look fairly standard, though I fail to see what a vomitorium has to do in a Strategy game. 
 
Note: for you fans of R:TW, this is not intended to be a put-down of the game. I lost most of my interest in the TW games during the never-ending patching of S:TW, but I still consider it and M:TW to be very good games. 
 
I'm sure R:TW will look good as well, and I look forward to enjoying the visual feast and hopefully fun gameplay. I don't expect a game that caters to the mainstream market to be historically correct except in the most general facts, and it obviously won't be much more than that. 
 
However as JRS says - much can be forgiven if the gameplay is good and the battles are fun. Setting up a triplex acies with Cornelius Scipio in command can only be good fun. I just hope it isn't so much fun that it cuts too much into my development work on Imperium. 
 
As long as no one comes to the Imperium forum (or here) later and claims to know a lot of Roman history or ancient warfare after having played Rome:Total War, then I'm happy. 
 
(Though I shouldn't laugh - it happened with Shogun ) Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of RomeEdited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 7/25/03 11:41 pm

07-27-2003, 10:05 AM

Hi StrategyM, I just thought I would explain what is meant by Barbarians archers, Greek archers etc. 
 
The game will have a number of different cultures, these will be : ROMAN, GREEK, EGYPTIAN, CARTHAGINIAN and BARBARIAN. Each culture will have a number of units allocated to them. 
 
For example the Romans will have (to name but a few) 
- Triarii (Pre-Marian Roman Legionary) 
- Roman Legionaries 
- Praetorian Cohort 
they will also have a number of BASIC units, such as archers, cavalry etc. IMHO, having played all current CA total war games, that is all that is meant by Greek archer, it is a peasant unit that has a bow etc.... 
 
In medieval total war as a comparision the English faction has a number of unique units 
- Longbowmen 
- Billmen 
but it all has basic units 
- archer 
- spearmen 
- crossbows 
- Peasants 
etc.... 
 
 
<img src=http://www.shadesmtw.com/SWsigy1.gif>
 
 
Proud member of :

Clan Shades -
<a href=http://www.geocities.com/shadesofshogun>Enter The Darkness
 
OOOO - <a href=http://oooo.freewebspace.com/> The Order
 
MY homepage - <a href=http://www.shadesmtw.com>Wolfs medieval info site 
and moderator at Totalwar.Org
<a href=http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi>Ye olde Org

StrategyM · 07-27-2003, 10:40 AM

they will also have a number of BASIC units, such as archers, cavalry etc. IMHO, having played all current CA total war games, that is all that is meant by Greek archer, it is a peasant unit that has a bow etc.... 
 
Which means we will see Roman archers? Groan. 
 
My problem with the archers is not the presence of archers as such (though certain cultures - e.g., the Roman - had no use of archers in war); it's more that since RTS games always exaggerate the effect of missile fire, archery is going to play a completely unhistorical role in the game. 
 
In Reality: Archery was ineffective, except when carried out by horse archers (who had the speed to escape and had the morale to return to the fight) AND combined with a resupply train. 
In RTS Games: Archery units are always the key to winning battles through their long distance ability to weaken enemy units. 
 
But as I said, these are just beefs with the historical side of the game. I'm sure it's going to be fun to play despite that. Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

07-27-2003, 12:57 PM

Strategy wrote; 
 
"My problem with the archers is not the presence of archers as such (though certain cultures - e.g., the Roman - had no use of archers in war); it's more that since RTS games always exaggerate the effect of missile fire, archery is going to play a completely unhistorical role in the game." 
 
Admittedly, I am not familiar w/ any RTS games outside of the TW series as I loathe the genre. That being said I can state that in the TW series archers are not at all decisive. Sure they will take their toll on units that just stand there and "take it" but that's about it - and I would expect no change in the Rome iteration. 
 
"Which means we will see Roman archers? Groan." 
 
Not necessarily as the Roman's did not raise units of archer's but relied on auxilliary units for this purpose. I agree that a "Roman" archer unit would be lame -but a Syrian archer unit employed by the Roman's would be fine. 
 
Barkhorn.

StrategyM · 07-27-2003, 07:37 PM

"Admittedly, I am not familiar w/ any RTS games outside of the TW series as I loathe the genre. That being said I can state that in the TW series archers are not at all decisive. " 
 
I have admittedly never bothered to get M:TW, but in Shogun archers were definitely a vital element of the army. Which was fine for that period - however this is not the case in the ancient period where archers were irrelevant. 
 
"I agree that a "Roman" archer unit would be lame -but a Syrian archer unit employed by the Roman's would be fine." 
 
But we're not in the Imperial period... 
 
Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

JRSCline · 07-28-2003, 05:49 AM

Strategy, who also has a long .Org history, always was very annoying to debate! 
 
Let's give CA some credit as it appears they are trying to do the right thing, whatever the quibbles we have. 
 
Barkhorn, specialists are very demanding, so don't feel forced to defend R:TW. I will agree that if there are Roman-uniformed archers in the Republican period this will be an incorrect depiction on the graphic artists' part. However, playing the devil's advocate, Cat said to me that it "isn't an animated PhD thesis," and I think this is true. 
 
More specific comments will, I suppose, be reserved for debut time. Until then we really know very little, and that is exactly how any sensible developer sells product: tease, tease, show them enough skin to make them want it/buy it. It's impossible to say on this basis whether R:TW is going to suck or be wonderful, because we are still in the tease stage. 
 
Cheers 
Jenny

07-28-2003, 02:39 PM

"Barkhorn, specialists are very demanding, so don't feel forced to defend R:TW. I will agree that if there are Roman-uniformed archers in the Republican period this will be an incorrect depiction on the graphic artists'." 
 
Hi Jenny - I wasn't defending R:TW so much as pointing out that the "fantasy" units should be few in number (acceptable to me) and - in truth - I too would be disappointed if there is a "Roman archer" unit. 
 
Finally, you are right on target when you state that, "It's impossible to say on this basis whether R:TW is going to suck or be wonderful, because we are still in the tease stage." 
 
Time will tell. 
 
Barkhorn.

07-29-2003, 12:13 AM

StrategyM wrote: 
 
"7) Praetorians - will as usual live off their popular reputation instead of being modelled correctly. And it seems that we will see them even in the early Republic, to judge from this wildly erroneous statement: "Historically, Scipio Africanus created the Praetorians from his most trusted troops, and exempted them from all duties except that of guarding his person." 
Woad warriors... belong to another age, if they existed at all." 
 
What do you mean "modelled correctly"? 
 
Praetorian units were used by Scipio - indeed by pretty much every Roman general, since they are headquarters guards - that's what Praetorian means - headquarters - every Roman camp had one! 
 
Augustus raised the Praetorian GUARD in 31BC, which puts it firmly within the RTW era. they were the best of the veteran legionaries from the previous civil wars - from both sides, and should have a considerable fightign ability at that time. Their degeneracy came much later, but was still mainly political rather than being a problem on the battlefield - they fought well enough at Milvan Bridge although tye weer defeated, their last battle after which Constantine disbanded them. 
 
"Woad warriors" - well there were certainly warriors who wore lots of Woad - Picts, Britons and Gauls all spring to mind. Perhaps this unit is supposed to be their standard warbgand?

JRSCline · 07-29-2003, 05:14 AM

Just don't let them be wearing purple with attic crests! To be modelled correctly, they should be in contemporary legionary kit, and a Praetorian unit's principal distinguishing marks should be the use of scorpion motifs on their shields and standards, as well as stars/crescent moons. 
 
Praetorian cohorts do go back as far as Scipio, although not in a formalized sense, and you are right, they were "founded" by Augustus. As far as "exempting from duties," kind of a broad-brushed statement, the sort we love to hate from CA. 
 
I suppose "woad warriors" is a nice term for yet another group of ethnic barbarians, although if this is supposed to be some kind of elite super unit for the Celtic factions, that will be groan-worthy. 
 
Cheers 
Jenny

07-29-2003, 09:47 PM

Indeed - CA do manage quite a high "groan factor" in many of their unit descriptions - although I think it's been decreasing lately.

StrategyM · 07-29-2003, 11:07 PM

JRSCline wrote: 
Quote:<hr>Strategy, who also has a long .Org history, always was very annoying to debate! <hr> 
 
Annoying? What DO you mean? 
 
Just because I require references to archeological and original sources, rather than accepting words out of the encyclopaedia? 
 
Stickers wrote: 
Quote:<hr>What do you mean "modelled correctly"? Praetorian units were used by Scipio - indeed by pretty much every Roman general, since they are headquarters guards - that's what Praetorian means - headquarters - every Roman camp had one!<hr> 
 
Oh dear ... you can't imagine how much I was tempted to be nasty. Just for the record - this kind of statement is exactly the kind of things that I hate to read. Nevertheless, I shall try to be gentle... 
 
First of all, examine the plentiful evidence which clearly indicates that the headquarters of a Roman official were always organized on an ad-hoc basis, in whichever way the man on the spot felt like it. 
 
Yes - Scipio the younger did create a bodyguard unit for himself during the siege of Numantia. No - this is not the same as creating a Praetorian guard. The exigencies of sieges necessiated the use of foot troops to protect the General from missile attacks and enemy sorties (e.g., check a similar episode in Scipio the Elder's siege of Kartagenea). 
 
However, every Roman general would have had the privilege of choosing whatever suitable method he liked for officiating his headquarters - and they did so entirely on the needs of the moment. 
 
E.g., I'd point you to the famous episode of Julius Caesar meeting with Ariovistus --- if Caesar's army already possessed a Praetorian cohort, why would he feel the need to make up an ad-hoc bodyguard unit from troops of the Xth Legion? 
 
Again, one can consider Polybius Book VI which explicitly spells out the system by which the Praetorium is guarded, namely: 
Quote:<hr>each maniple in its turn mounts guard round the consul's tent to protect him from plots and at the same time to add splendour to the dignity of his office.<hr> 
 
What evidence we do have for the bodyguard of Roman generals shows that it was invariably drawn from allied/auxiliary troops; the Extraordinarii (picked cavalry and foot of the allies) during the Republic up to the "reforms" of Marius (and they did not guard the Praetorium), and the allied cavalry during the late Republic (Caesar starts the civil war with a bodyguard unit of 900 cavalry - no praetorians here). In general, cavalry were much more useful as a bodyguard than infantry, and it is probably no coincidence that when the Praetorians actually begin to see serious active service under the Flavians, we immediately see the creation of a cavalry arm for the Guard. 
 
In other words: no, Praetorians did not exist until the abolishment of a citizen army and assumption of despotic powers made it necesarry during the civil wars as a form of reward for veteran service. 
 
Of course, if you (or anyone else for that matter) knows of a single shred of evidence for the use of "praetorian cohorts" between the siege of Numantia and the time of Caesar, I'd be happy to hear of it. 
 
Quote:<hr>Their degeneracy came much later, but was still mainly political rather than being a problem on the battlefield <hr> 
 
For most of its history, except when a new Emperor effectively re-established it from his veterans the Guard or under the warrior emperors (Trajan+Marcus Aurelius) the quality of the Guard would have been lower than that of the ordinary legion. 
 
The Guard was primarily recruited from native Italians who enrolled in it because they expected NOT to have to do any fighting. I'm curious as to how one can believe that troops who served for a shorter time (16 as opposed to 25 years), for more pay, saw less active service, and who were probably rarely in the forefront of the fighting even when they were on campaign to be superior to battle-hardened troops who had served up to 25 years on the frontier. 
 
It is probably no coincidence that in the few instances we know of where Praetorian units get to do a stand-up fight with "real" legionaries, they invariably lost... 
 
Though perhaps there is some hope in this respect; I do notice that the description also adds: "but not always used to the rigours of campaigning." 
 
So, sorry to get annoying, but I do hate the propagation of popular myth. 
 
I still look forward to R:TW, though. Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of RomeEdited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 7/30/03 1:38 am

StrategyM · 07-29-2003, 11:10 PM

Re Woad: I do not believe I've ever read of any references to woad using by the "mainland" Celts. You are of course right that it was used by the Britons (although apparently dying out at the time) during Caesar's invasion; I had forgotten that there is a reference to this in BGallica. Otherwise, I believe it is mostly a Pictish thing (Picti = the painted ones). Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

StrategyM · 07-29-2003, 11:41 PM

Quote:<hr>More specific comments will, I suppose, be reserved for debut time. Until then we really know very little, and that is exactly how any sensible developer sells product: tease, tease, show them enough skin to make them want it/buy it. It's impossible to say on this basis whether R:TW is going to suck or be wonderful, because we are still in the tease stage.<hr> 
 
I would be very surprised if the game isn't stunning. It's not the historical correctness I'll buy the game for. 
Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Latest Rome Total War Updates	Anonymous	15	2,933	07-31-2004, 03:13 AM Last Post: Octavianvs