AnimeSuki Forum - View Single Post

risingstar3110 · 2012-12-16, 01:21

Rome Total War is probably one of the best game i ever played. But i hope that Creative Assembly are not digging their heel again this time, with their flagship game, RTW finally is revived for their 25th year Anniversary

What i means is: since RTW, every game after that has almost the case of same game with different skins. Medieval 2, admittedly i didn't play much, but Empire and Shogun 2..... almost all units was the same without historical feature that make them special in the first place. And hence you can easily pick out a game breaker selection to roll through the map without oppositions. Empire was by massing large number with cannon. Shogun was by having medium-size archer groups and hole into castles to lure enemy into eliminating themselves.

I really hopes that they will consider these 3 points for this new RTW2, and actually evolve the Total War Series, rather than just another RTW with more stunning graphic skins:

the availability of historical units: And i'm not talking about those super elite Urban Coholt. What i'm saying here is archer and other ranged units. Archers supposed to hard to train, hard to keep up, and almost have no melee fight when it comes to hand to hand combat (the early unit at least). Number of range unit in an army supposed to be 10% max, and not effective enough to actually annihilate their enemy. They support to be there for skimirsh battle, to reduce opponent morale from a far, and cause morale shock in the middle of battle. If i can bring an army with 70% of them archers, and clear the whole maps against any opponent.... surely that means AC did something wrong.
training vs experiences: We all know how we rarely have professional army numbered by ten thousands in the past, even in Rome, so experienced unit supposed to be the cutting edge from the rest, and likely the best unit available on the field. IF Gaul spearman, 3 golden stars with 10 years of fighting experiences being defeated by a fresh newly recruited legion in pitch fight, surely that does not do history any justice
different fighting culture affect unit behaviour once again, RTW can get away with Gaul spearman fighting the same way withthe Egyptain's or Rome coholt. But then Medieval? Empire? Shogun 2? All the unit across the world in those series, in different period, have been behaving the same, with slightly different skins (and sometime different one time used 'ability'). So I want this RTW to have clear distinction. For example, Romans to be more organised, more compact but prone to shock and chaotic situation. While the Gaul can get much more flexible with much stronger rush, but may in disadvantage after being hole down and fight in tight spot

2012-12-16, 01:21	Link #38
risingstar3110 ✘˵╹◡╹˶✘ Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Australia	Rome Total War is probably one of the best game i ever played. But i hope that Creative Assembly are not digging their heel again this time, with their flagship game, RTW finally is revived for their 25th year Anniversary What i means is: since RTW, every game after that has almost the case of same game with different skins. Medieval 2, admittedly i didn't play much, but Empire and Shogun 2..... almost all units was the same without historical feature that make them special in the first place. And hence you can easily pick out a game breaker selection to roll through the map without oppositions. Empire was by massing large number with cannon. Shogun was by having medium-size archer groups and hole into castles to lure enemy into eliminating themselves. I really hopes that they will consider these 3 points for this new RTW2, and actually evolve the Total War Series, rather than just another RTW with more stunning graphic skins: the availability of historical units: And i'm not talking about those super elite Urban Coholt. What i'm saying here is archer and other ranged units. Archers supposed to hard to train, hard to keep up, and almost have no melee fight when it comes to hand to hand combat (the early unit at least). Number of range unit in an army supposed to be 10% max, and not effective enough to actually annihilate their enemy. They support to be there for skimirsh battle, to reduce opponent morale from a far, and cause morale shock in the middle of battle. If i can bring an army with 70% of them archers, and clear the whole maps against any opponent.... surely that means AC did something wrong. training vs experiences: We all know how we rarely have professional army numbered by ten thousands in the past, even in Rome, so experienced unit supposed to be the cutting edge from the rest, and likely the best unit available on the field. IF Gaul spearman, 3 golden stars with 10 years of fighting experiences being defeated by a fresh newly recruited legion in pitch fight, surely that does not do history any justice different fighting culture affect unit behaviour once again, RTW can get away with Gaul spearman fighting the same way withthe Egyptain's or Rome coholt. But then Medieval? Empire? Shogun 2? All the unit across the world in those series, in different period, have been behaving the same, with slightly different skins (and sometime different one time used 'ability'). So I want this RTW to have clear distinction. For example, Romans to be more organised, more compact but prone to shock and chaotic situation. While the Gaul can get much more flexible with much stronger rush, but may in disadvantage after being hole down and fight in tight spot __________________