EPTTotal War: Rome II - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On February 09 2013 01:33 andrewlt wrote: I, too, am glad that they put in more effort on the "barbarian" factions this time around compared to Rome 1. The Rome 1 ones were too generic. That said, the Egypt reveal is the one I'm anticipating the most. I'm interested to see if they will make it historical or if they will completely butcher it again. Haha! I suppose that wouldn't include removing chariot archers, would it? I always hated fighting those.... They fought like Marauders kiting my troops with Conc. Shells. ;_; Or perhaps you had a larger issue with the historical background rather than their warring capacities? | ||
|
Seri
England86 Posts
On February 09 2013 01:01 cLAN.Anax wrote: + Show Spoiler + Oml, I was so close to beating you to it, Seri. Like, less than 5 minutes away. X-D Guess I was wrong about the next one being Egypt. Glad the barbs are more fleshed out history-wise than they were in Rome I. I still like my Greeks over them, though. :-> XD Ya, I get the updates on my facebook. ^^ I think the last 3 will include Egypt, maybe Parthia as well. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On February 09 2013 01:47 cLAN.Anax wrote: Haha! I suppose that wouldn't include removing chariot archers, would it? I always hated fighting those.... They fought like Marauders kiting my troops with Conc. Shells. ;_; Or perhaps you had a larger issue with the historical background rather than their warring capacities? Both. I play mostly single player and they are in the running for the most powerful AI faction. They would dominate their region if the human player is not in the vicinity. The Egyptian faction in Rome 1 was based on Egypt during the Biblical exodus era. Egypt during the time of Rome was ruled by Greeks and fought like Greeks. Having a faction dominate continuously using obsolete tactics and outdated equipment just broke the immersion. It's like creating a WW2 game and having British longbowmen and French chevaliers dominate. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On February 09 2013 03:45 andrewlt wrote: Both. I play mostly single player and they are in the running for the most powerful AI faction. They would dominate their region if the human player is not in the vicinity. The Egyptian faction in Rome 1 was based on Egypt during the Biblical exodus era. Egypt during the time of Rome was ruled by Greeks and fought like Greeks. Having a faction dominate continuously using obsolete tactics and outdated equipment just broke the immersion. It's like creating a WW2 game and having British longbowmen and French chevaliers dominate. Huh. So, would they be more similar to the Seleucid Empire around this time, which incorporated Greek cavalry and phalanxes? But also retain some Eastern influence? Or maybe the Seleucids were completely off too, lol. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Oleo
Netherlands280 Posts
Both should have strong phalanxes and cavalry with good skirmishing type light and heavy troops, as well as some mercenaries like gallic swordsman. Then Seleucids should have some eastern influences, while egypt should have some local african influences. Refer to http://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_arche-seleukeia_units.html and http://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_ptolemaioi_units.html for a historic accurate portrayal of both factions, by the best mod Ive ever played for any game. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On February 09 2013 03:57 cLAN.Anax wrote: Huh. So, would they be more similar to the Seleucid Empire around this time, which incorporated Greek cavalry and phalanxes? But also retain some Eastern influence? Or maybe the Seleucids were completely off too, lol. Yeah, the Seleucids were far more accurately portrayed, though I'm sure history buffs would find problems there too. They were accurate enough for me. The difference would be that the Seleucids had more Eastern influences while the Ptolemies would have more African influences. At the time of the game, Egypt, Macedon, the Seleucids and a few other areas were ruled by Alexander's generals and their successors. The bulk of their army would fight like Alexander's army, with some local influences mixed in. | ||
|
Seri
England86 Posts
http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Total_War:_Rome_II_-_Suebi_Faction | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
I should probably stop guessing these. I've been wrong at least twice now, lol. Yet another "barbarian" faction? O_o I mean, I can see its plausibility. I'm just sick of seeing nothing but "barbarians" for more than a month, lolol. What do you think? Should Iberia be a faction all its own too? Or will CA move on to the eastern civilizations next week? | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
Yeah, the Seleucids were far more accurately portrayed, though I'm sure history buffs would find problems there too. They were accurate enough for me. The difference would be that the Seleucids had more Eastern influences while the Ptolemies would have more African influences. The imitation legionnaires of the Seleucid roster were a bit strange. While Polybius does describe, among the successor states, troops that were equipped and fought "in the roman style", its been argued that he's referring to spearmen that carried celtic-based oval shields, swords, spears, and threw javelins (thureophoroi, and the more heavily armored thorakitai), which were independently developed by the Greeks. That seems to me to be a more reasonable explanation than the Seleucids copying the Roman infantry. Hopefully the barbarian factions will be much more differentiated. Though they could do a lot worse (from an accuracy/gameplay standpoint) than simply ripping off the Europa Barbarorum roster. I wonder if they will integrate area-of-recruitment a lot more heavily into the game as well. One of the charms of EB, for example, was choosing places to conquer based on what troops they would offer (thracian peltasts, the celtic galatians in asia minor, etc. etc.). | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On February 16 2013 06:54 andrewlt wrote: Faction page only has two open slots remaining. In terms of importance to the period, we still have three major factions (Egypt, Seleucids, Parthians). It's going to suck having one of these be cut. Yeah, it feels like they're sacrificing the East for the sake of Northwestern civilizations. :-\ On February 16 2013 07:00 419 wrote: I wonder if they will integrate area-of-recruitment a lot more heavily into the game as well. One of the charms of EB, for example, was choosing places to conquer based on what troops they would offer (thracian peltasts, the celtic galatians in asia minor, etc. etc.). That sounds like what you do in Mount & Blade. Villages of a certain locale will generate recruits only of that area, even if it gets captured by a different nation. Heck, they did that with Sparta in Rome I, lol. You could only recruit Spartan hoplites form that town, if I remember correctly (pretty sure you had to be Greek too). It's definitely plausible. Would throw a little more complexity into the mix at least. Gallic-controlled camels and Roman phalanxes, for example? Whoa.... :-o | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On February 16 2013 07:00 419 wrote: Hopefully the barbarian factions will be much more differentiated. Though they could do a lot worse (from an accuracy/gameplay standpoint) than simply ripping off the Europa Barbarorum roster. I wonder if they will integrate area-of-recruitment a lot more heavily into the game as well. One of the charms of EB, for example, was choosing places to conquer based on what troops they would offer (thracian peltasts, the celtic galatians in asia minor, etc. etc.). I missed some of those special type of troops from Medieval:Total War as well. One of the consequences, however, of going from a Risk-style campaign map to what we had Rome onwards was how many turns it took units to go from one place to another. I never played EB, but if units are only available on the special province that unlocked them, campaigns could get repetitive if you are using a similar roster in the same area over and over again. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
| ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On February 16 2013 07:26 andrewlt wrote: I missed some of those special type of troops from Medieval:Total War as well. One of the consequences, however, of going from a Risk-style campaign map to what we had Rome onwards was how many turns it took units to go from one place to another. I never played EB, but if units are only available on the special province that unlocked them, campaigns could get repetitive if you are using a similar roster in the same area over and over again. EB uses a set of "factional" troops, and a set of "regional" troops. If you combine the two, you can get very different armies in a region. A Pahlava (proto-Parthian) army that uses the regional Persian archer-spearmen to supplement a horse-archer based army (and by supplement, I mean soak all the enemy missile fire, because horse archers are far more valuable) will play far differently from one that uses the archer-spearmen for support with a Baktrian phalanx based army (in this case, using the flexible archer spearmen to either fire at the sides of the enemy once they are engaged, or having them bog down enemy cavalry so you can countercharge with your own). EB also has a system which forces you to make a trade-off between factional and regionals - a government system that allows you to access the best factionals will only allow access to low-tier regionals, and vice-versa. | ||
|
Seri
England86 Posts
http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Factions yay parthia XD | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
So they're the steed kings. Egypt should be the last one, though they'll probably rename it like they did for Europa Barbaroum to something "Ptolemaic"-ish. + Show Spoiler [What.] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QzQ3b5a.jpg) I saw that and thought it was the outside cover to an old fire alarm, or water drain, lolol. X-D | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
| ||
| ||
