Rome Total War: How to take a great design and ruin it

[Anrhydeddu]

I know this belongs in the Game forum but no one goes there.

Here is a preview from a thread that a good friend of mine wrote. Like him and myself, as well as Chief Rum and others here, we are big fans of Medieval Total War. Here's how they have changed the engine (for the worse, imo) for Rome Total War.

Preview of Rome: Total War
by Lord Tigger


When news of Rome: Total War first leaked to the forums at The Org, it was met with much speculation. It didn't help that the promotional video looked completely unreal, or that RTW was rumored to be out in the fall while the Medieval Total War Viking Invasion expansion was expected in spring. There was no way Creative Assembly could crank out a game with a totally different engine the same year it was still adding on to MTW, was there? I remember reading one disgruntled gamer's post at The Org, saying the video was a fake and he would bet money on it. I wish I had taken his bet. *

The game is real, and it's slated for sometime this fall. Creative Assembly has been secretly developing RTW for over two years, much of that time being spent on the all new Total War™ engine capable of rendering fully polygonal characters and scenery. That's right, Total War is finally going total 3D. The soldiers will now be animated with the assistance of motion capture and the fleshed out horses will sprint through fields of tall wheat to their targets waiting with individual swords and shields. The biggest product of the new engine, however, will be the disposal of the old campaign map for the fully zoomable gameworld. Zoom in for the battles; zoom out for the management.

From North Africa to northern Gaul, you can literally watch your armies march every foot of the trip on the fully rendered map. This does not mean that the turn-based-strategy campaign trademark of the Total War games is gone because the map is too huge to be fully real-time-strategy, although PC Gamer (UK) does allude to there being an option to making the gameplay "a more standard RTS system" (PC Gamer 2/2003). What the new map style does offer is a chance to literally change the gameworld. The buildings you build, the farms you plant, and the cities you create in the campaign will be there for you to zoom in on and play a role in the strategy of whatever battle should break out there. This means street fighting and razing crops and other important enemy buildings. The ability to view the territory lets you plan ahead whether you really want to risk another gut-wrenching bridge crossing or find a better way to cross the river. Mountain passes can be guarded with garrisons and watchtowers can be placed at key locations. Open ground can be either hot desert, snowy glades, or green pastures dotted with farmhouses. Rumor has it that Mt. Vesuvius will be visible. There is no word yet on a fog of war.

The standard gameplay qualities of any Total War game are still there. You begin by playing one of twenty factions and fortify what territory you have and begin scheming about how you're going to take over the remaining factions. Those available include the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, Carthaginians, and assorted barbarian hordes and lesser-known tribes. The improvements on the campaign traits developed in MTW will further be expounded upon. You can still raise armies and levy taxes, but if micromanagement isn't your thing, then you assign governors to the territories and decide what level of control you want them to have. Instead of just conquering your neighbor, you can threaten him to pay a tribute for you not destroying him, or set treaties and pacts. Allies will have the option to march their men through your territories rather than risk war or pick the long way around. Playing as the Romans brings about its own political issues as you have the great Senate to answer to and, much like the Pope in MTW, obey or face consequences.

As usual in any Total War game, someone's feelings will get hurt and war breaks out. RTW promises over 100 different troop types, and the new engine allows for weaponry we could only dream of in the earlier games. Scythe charioteers will race ahead of massive war elephants! Gladiators will join the ranks of the praetorians and auxilia. Sieges will be conducted with not just catapults, but with siege towers, battering rams, ladders for the men to take the walls, and sappers to dig under the walls and cause them to collapse. Troops will now be able to man the walls to defend their land with flaming arrows and boiling oil! The sky overhead will cycle through day and night, giving the option of night raids. Everything from a massive assault on a city to a skirmish at a river crossing to a raid on a farming community is available at your command.

Still, it sounds too good to be true. I know I've said it and I've heard the same from many others: there is no way my system can run this. Blues News cited Tim Ansell of Creative Assembly saying, "Even before final optimizations the engine performance and the system specs are already very competitive." (Blues News, Jan 2003) Seeing how that was said before with MTW and many were ultimately satisfied, despite a patch here and there, the future does look promising.

Other gameplay features will include eight-player multiplay and mini-campaigns involving Hannibal and Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Considering map tools and modding capabilities are the standard in Total War games, it may be safe to say that they will be in RTW as well.

Creative Assembly never ceases to amaze us. Three years ago we marveled at the magnitude of Shogun; three years later we are at a loss for words with Rome. Download the trailer here, view the screenshots, and visit the links already popping up. Take it all in, and believe that it will happen soon. Rome will set a new standard of Total War gaming.

-Lord Tigger 01/25/03

Sources Cited:

"Activision and the Creative Assembly Confirms Development of Rome: Total War" Blues News. 2003.
http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?show=521 (2003)

Gillen, Kieron. "Rome Total War" PC Gamer (UK) Feb 2003: 46-53.

Here was my reply and his follow up reply:

I read this at the Tavern and I have to say I am dismayed. Once again they took a brilliant design and feel they have to ruin it by becoming an AoE clone. There was nothing wrong at all with the current engine of having a turn-based campaign map and a real-time battle. In my wildest dream, I had hope for a Civil War or a Revolutionary War game using this engine. I believe either of these time periods would have been perfect for it. I also would throw in the Napoleonic campaigns or even WW1/WW2. I believe even though that the scale would be different, it could have been easily adaptable. But alas, I had no interest in the Roman time period and now with the new snazzy engine, I'll just stick with Medieval and the Vikings.

It seems like almost all games are turning to this. The good thing is troops movement will be on the same time scale as building and production, so you won't be able to feed the perpetual war outside your gates by cranking out more troops at the same time. Like Patrician, if you let it run at the slowest speed, the game will take forever, so you fight battles in real time, then speed things up when waiting on productions and moving men across the field. At least that's how I understand it.

But I'm right with you. I find myself more excited about the Viking expansion than RTW.

[WSUCougar]

Well, that really sucks. Mess with success.

*sigh*

[Bee]

Why does everyone want to make a RTS game? I like turn based games much better.

[Alf]

me too

[WSUCougar]

ditto

[wbonnell]

I can see why you might be disappointed, but I think the design is brilliant! While I enjoy turn-based games, I prefer games played in real time- feels more "realistic". Hopefully, though, they'll provide the ability to pause to assuage you turn-based bigots! ;-)

Anyway, I'm eagerly anticipating Rome: Total War!

[WSUCougar]

dola

Speaking of turn-based wargames, anyone had a look at Uncommon Valor, the World War II South Pacific wargame? Looks very interesting.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
ditto

Imagine that: members of a text-based, turn-based sports simulation forum preferring turn-based strategy over real time! Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective), the turn-based player is decidedly in the minority. If I'm going to create a game, I'm going to target the largest possible audience. Why do I want to build a game that will only sell to 10,000 when I can build a similar, but more accessible game that will sell to 100,000?

[oykib]

I like turn-based better, too. With all the micro-management that you have to do with these games RTS eventually gets to be too much to keep track of.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
dola

Speaking of turn-based wargames, anyone had a look at Uncommon Valor, the World War II South Pacific wargame? Looks very interesting.

Yea. After patches it is a good game. Questions?

[primelord]

I guess I don't have the patience to enjoy a turn based strategy game. Although maybe thats because with this genre of games I prefer multiplayer to playing the missions. And a multiplayer game if Civ etc just takes too damn long.

[Anrhydeddu]

Which is why I thought a hybrid was the best solution, if the scale works. By the way, they did the same thing with Gangsters. The original was one of the first to have this hybrid (turn-based planning screen, real-time action screen). They could have improved that considerable but instead for Gangsters 2, they went all real time.

[Fritz]

like hybrid games? want realism?

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/Decisive_Action/decisive_action.html

[Tarkus]

Actually I'm glad they are doing something different. I love Medieval: Total War but I was not going to get RTW. Why? Because to me it was just going to be the same thing over and over. I want something different in my games. Is this going to be any better? Who knows? But I for one am glad they are making some changes. At least now I'll look at it.

Tarkus

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Which is why I thought a hybrid was the best solution, if the scale works. By the way, they did the same thing with Gangsters. The original was one of the first to have this hybrid (turn-based planning screen, real-time action screen). They could have improved that considerable but instead for Gangsters 2, they went all real time.

Not to divert attention but should I just avoid Gangsters 2 or is it worth getting into? It was just installed and I have been considering whether or not to start the tutorial or give it a pass.

[sabotai]

I don't think this sounds like an AoE clone at all. All it sounds liek to me is that they are taking out the turn-based decisions and making them real-time decisions, but on a slow-paced.

I think it's great. Now we can strategically place fortresses, outposts, armies, etc. No more being handed a field and place your armies. Now where ever your armies are is where the fight happens.

I honestly don't think the change will have a bad effect on the game. It sounds 100x better to me. More strategy and planning is always a good thing for me.

Either way, let's not make decisions on the game 9 or more months before it's going to be released.

[Anrhydeddu]

couriers: I have no opinion other than the design. I did not bother getting it.

sabotai: Some will love it - some will hate it and that's fine. Right now based off of the preview, it sounds 100x worse to me.

Thanks anyhow.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
couriers: I have no opinion other than the design. I did not bother getting it.

sabotai: Some will love it - some will hate it and that's fine. Right now based off of the preview, it sounds 100x worse to me.

wow! I can't imagine why you think the design is profoundly worse. I eagerly await this game. If they can pull this- real-time zooming in to that level of detail- off and maintain the flavor and style of STW/MTW, they will have a bestseller (not to mention an impressive feat of engineering). A game world with this type of interactivity would feel very lifelike. IMO, moving pieces on a static map is nothing more than a glorified board game. With the processing power of the computer, we can and should move beyond that. If you need time to think, PAUSE the darn thing! ;-)

One day, you will control vast empires from a lifelike representation of the Earth. You will pan around and zoom into any region that catches your fancy. How is that not compelling?

[Airhog]

Originally posted by couriers
Not to divert attention but should I just avoid Gangsters 2 or is it worth getting into? It was just installed and I have been considering whether or not to start the tutorial or give it a pass.

Did you play the original? Talk about butchering a fine strategy game. My only complaint about Gangsters was it was a bit hard. But gangsters 2 totally changed the game, making it real time. It seemed rather shallow for my tastes.

[Anrhydeddu]

More posts talking about RTW in another forum.

This was my thought as well, Steve [in response to ruining a brilliant design]. I think we need to learn more before we pass judgement however. It sounds in many ways like a totally unique game design, but to pull it off and remain totally unique it sounds like the specs will be astronomical. I don't know what he meant by saying the specs will be "competitive". That's a highly relative term. But we shall see.

Explain something to me: we will be able to pan down on ANY part of the vastness of Europe and the Middle East that we want? That would seem to tell me nothing in this game (like AOE) will be in true scale. The land will be smaller and the buildings and ships will be larger. Will the battlefields still be big enough to accomodate all those troops? My thoughts now drift somewhere between excitement and Steve's caution. Again, we shall see.

Oh I agree, there is definitely a call for caution with this game. They can very well screw it all up and go total RTS with pretty graphics but no gameplay.

The map is about the same area as MTW is now, and graphically it's laid out in small squares where if two armies hit the same square, a fight ensues. This helps with avoiding/engaging armies, sneaking past the enemy, and probably influences the diplomacy. They've been pretty adamant so far that the time is constant and in proper keeping with the Total War games, so let's hope they stick with it.

LT

[my reply]
Question. Do you think that this is a product of the time period where you have just one major power and many smaller tribes? The current engine seems to work well with MTW because of its defined provinces and principalities. The Roman period seems to suggest more chaos and less kingdoms.