Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

"Rome 3" for next historical TW game

VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
And I just put Rome 3 in quotes because I don't know what it'd actually be called. Call it Total War: Antiquity or whatever, but calling it Rome 3 would be easier for the sake of the discussion.

But I'm really sorry it's so long. Please bear with me.


But this is a topic and setting I can really go in more in depth about what a Rome 3 could bring to the table compared a Medieval 3.

I really want to see a Rome 3 take a lot of inspiration from not just vanilla Rome 1 & 2, but also some of the bigger mods for either like Europa Barbarorum and DEI, but especially from Europa Barbarorum, but I can get into that later.


But I'm just going to cut to the chase and get right into this.


Now, I'm going to try to break this up into a few sections, so that it's easier for everyone to keep track of what they're reading.

The main sections will be

Graphics
Units
Unit Formations
Unit Mechanics
Unit Weight Classes
Unit Tiers
Campaign Mechanics
Battle Map design


Graphics
This will probably be the shortest of the sections. So I just wanted to get it out of the way first.

But I honestly think that CA should make a Rome 3 with a Rome 2 level of graphics.

I just say that because if the graphics were kept at a fairly good level without trying to push them too far, we could actually get a larger scale to our battles due to more varied numbers per unit, without causing most people's PCs to majorly slow down.


Units
This will be about mainly just about units.

But I honestly think CA should take a LOT of inspiration from EB's units for what they should do with Rome 3's units, at least on the per faction scale for the most part.

I mean, just look here at the units from the original EB
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/EB1/factions.html

They could do so much with the units from this mod.

And while I respect people for giving units more historical names and all that, I would be completely ok with them being given more standard sounding names. I mean, Oathsworn sounds pretty awesome if you ask me.


But as much as I want CA to take a lot of inspiration from EB, I would like them to do a few things differently.

I want to see most of the playable factions sort of represent the culture they come from, such as the Arverni representing the Gallic Tribes, the Nervii representing the Belgae Tribes, and the Suebi representing the Germanic Tribes. But you get the idea.

But I just want the factions and their cultures to feel unique in their own ways.

And I think that if CA could take lessons from the EB units, but expand upon them, they'd be able to make the different playable factions' armies feel at least a little different while still being from similar cultures.

But I can explain more of what they could do with units in some of the other sections.


Unit Formations
This one is pretty simple.

I do like most of the unit formations in Rome 2, since most of them work pretty well for what they're supposed to be.

The ones that I hate and have a problem with are the shield screen, phalanx, hoplite wall, and testudo formations.

I just think the shield screen formation should have all the guys in their unit raise their shields when in formation.

But the other formations I mentioned are complete crap.

CA really needs to return and properly rework the phalanxes and testudo formations.

This
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/1693877728805889283/6749C5CA2C743240D73672C3CF975522209DF01D/
is Rome 2's "pike phalanx"

This however
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/775110033173700787/5EBD60A9AFF80FE932017D49DEF3F7D58E1F7017/
Is a proper Macedonian phalanx.

5 rows of pikes.

And this
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/775109684574484311/B459C9F512CFEFE384B938C6B799E191207E6871/
is a basic idea of a hoplite phalanx.

And yeah I know, the hoplite phalanx wasn't exactly like that, but you get the idea. 3 rows of long spears.

And this
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/771732957672885669/F873FEA14D2CE66E4913391A5A059FEB5D4E5090/
is a proper Roman Testudo.

But CA seriously NEEDS to go back and make these formations more like what they were back in Rome 1 to properly make them the formations they're supposed to be.


But one unique unit that could possibly make for not only a great unit, but also an exception to pike infantry sucking out of formation would be to turn the Helvetii Mori Gaesum unit, into a full blown elite pike unit that's actually good out of formation.


I would talk about how some units could be turned into hybrid units, but that's getting into Unit Mechanics.


Unit Mechanics
I think that one of the mechanics CA could bring in would be that kind of silly weapon "stance" mechanic from Troy.

It's the one where some elite units can switch between using spear and shield or wielding their spears with both hands.


Yeah, in Troy, it's pretty silly. But in a Rome 3, it could be changed a bit to be a much better mechanic.


You see, they could make it to where you could actually have some units be hybrid units that carry a number of different weapons.

Look at some of the EB units' descriptions to see what I mean, the Antesignani unit in the Romani unit roster is a good example.


But I think that giving some units the ability to switch between different weapons beyond just switching from a ranged weapon would give a lot of potential to some units, especially some elite ones.

The could make units such as Hoplites and a few others only use their spears while in phalanx formation, but switch to using swords when out of formation, turning them into spear and melee infantry hybrid units.

That would be the perfect thing for units like the Spartan Hoplites and even things like the Celtic Oathsworn.

That could work because units like Celtic noble warriors and such were known to be quite heavily armed for back in those days. Carrying javelins, spears, and swords, with shields as well.

But some other units, such as the equivalent of Germanic Sword Masters should just be able to switch between sword and spear rather than having their spears be tied to a formation.

I say this because it would make sense that the Gallic/Celtic noble warriors were known to some times fight in phalanx like formations, but the Germanic nobles warriors, not so much.

But I think that there's a lot they could do with the idea of a "switching weapons" type of mechanic for some units.


Unit Weight Classes
I know most of us have heard about what CA did in Troy with the different weight classes of units.

Those being Light, Medium, and Heavy.

While I'm sure that has some meaning in Troy, I think it could have a little more meaning in a Rome 3, while not being gimmicky.

I think that they could expand the different weight classes for units and make them mean a little bit more than just skirmishers being nothing but light units.


I think that it could stay the same in a lot of ways, with most basic skirmishers and such being light units, while things like Imperial Legionary Cohorts or most Hellenic Phalangites would count as heavy units.

But I do think that in the Classical/Roman period, there would be some notable exceptions to what roles units could play due to their weight class.

Things like Germanic Berserkers and Celtic Gaesatae and such units could be pretty deadly despite being classified as light units. And the same could go for many stealth units as well.

But I do think that there could be some other exceptions to things like this, depending on the faction and culture the unit may come from.

Things like elite skirmishers who have good armor might only be classified as medium units rather than heavy ones.


But I can expand on this more in others comments. This is long enough as it is.


Unit Tiers
I think that Rome 2 did a pretty good job of this, but they didn't do it in any full blown ways.

What I mean is that the units should not just be divided by tiers by their quality, but also by their numbers as well.

The different unit tiers should be Levy, Irregular, Professional, and Elite units.

To put it in to context, the here's some units to represent the four tiers.

Levy = Vigiles or Levy Freemen
Irregular = Hastati of Celtic Warriors
Professional = Legionary Cohorts or Chosen Swordsmen
Elite = Evocati Cohorts or Oathsworn


But the idea is that the lower the tier, the less quality troops they are. Pretty obvious.

But the lower tier units should also have considerably bigger numbers.

The tier numbers should look something like this. And I'm just going to be using the basic infantry numbers to give the idea.

Levy: 240 men per unit.
Irregular: 200 men per unit
Professional: 160 men per unit
Elite: 160 men per unit with some having unit caps.

But like I said, the different tiers of units should have their differences be in their numbers, but especially their quality.


Professional and Elite units should be able to chew through levy and irregular units pretty easily, especially easy for elite units.

But I think that not only should the overall unit quality be the only way that they're different from each other, but also by the sorts of abilities they can get.


But I can also explain what I mean in future comments. This is getting long enough as it is.


Campaign Mechanics

I think that while there could be things like expanded diplomatic options and such, I think that there's one possible mechanic that could make a HUGE difference in how you could play a Rome 3.

And that mechanic should be called Reputation.


Reputation should work somewhat like a RPG morality choice type of thing, but a little different than just picking a number of choices.

The reputation mechanic should effect things based on what you choose to do with your faction and how you interact with other factions.

If you come in as a bloody handed tyrant and butcher town after town, some factions might either give up and either join you or become your vassal or something, others might hear about you and decide to fight to the end against you.


And I think that there could be a lot of different things that could be factored into how the mechanic would work.


I think that it could depend on what different cultures are involved, as well as what actions are taken by one side or another, and other things like that.

But I just think that such a mechanic could help make the campaigns more dynamic rather than just another campaign that we've played a thousand times before.


Battle Map Design

I honestly just want the battle maps to be fairly well designed. Especially the siege maps.

I don't mind bigger cities having a citadel or anything, but they really need to NOT be as unbeatable as some of them are in Rome 2.

I don't mind a challenge, but I don't like how many citadels can only ever be attacked in a single way with no other options.

Most citadels should be able to be attacked from different angles or areas and not be these ridiculously unbeatable siege maps.




Again guys, I'm really sorry this was so long.

I hope you guys can still put up with it and tell me what you think.

Because I can expand upon some parts in separate comments. Just please ask about what section you want to know about.
Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on

Comments

  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 365
    Medieval III will come first, there is higher demand for it and bigger gap from Medieval II, and Rome II had a new content in 2018

    Anyway I would like Rome III more Medieval III too
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,695
    I don't want it to be splitted into several games like WH though.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    Lotor12 said:

    Medieval III will come first, there is higher demand for it and bigger gap from Medieval II, and Rome II had a new content in 2018

    Anyway I would like Rome III more Medieval III too

    I honestly don't see why so many people want Medieval 3 so badly.


    Because the more and more I think about the setting, the more and more I don't want it.

    And that's because I can't really see CA being able to do that much with the setting.

    Aside from maybe a Russian factions and the Middle Eastern Muslim factions, I think that most of the European factions would end up fielding pretty much all the same kinds of units, and it would pretty much be Medieval 2 all over again.


    I would just rather have a TW game set in a time period where most of the armies won't all be the same.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    jamreal18 said:

    I don't want it to be splitted into several games like WH though.

    I think that CA could probably make the historical TW games in single games rather than three games.

    I say that because going from dealing with over a dozen different races in a fantasy setting back to a historical setting where there's just humans would probably make creating the game far easier.

    So I don't think that a Rome 3 or whatever would be separated into three games.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 365
    jamreal18 said:

    I don't want it to be splitted into several games like WH though.

    It would be nonsense

    I expect Medieval III to have "chapters" like in 3K,
    so same campaign map, base game starts 1066, DLC chapter 1 starts 1200 , DLC 2 starts 1350 etc
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    Lotor12 said:


    It would be nonsense

    I expect Medieval III to have "chapters" like in 3K,
    so same campaign map, base game starts 1066, DLC chapter 1 starts 1200 , DLC 2 starts 1350 etc

    Meh, I think that a Rome 3 or Empire 2 would work far better.

    They could actually give armies that would be different from each other rather than the vast majority of them being incredibly similar to each other.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,325
    edited February 28
    We had "Chapters" in Medieval I. It was a great game. I have it installed now, and play it every few months. That said, I personally do not want a III in either Medieval or in Empire. I do want a Guns & Powder historical game, mostly set in the latter part of the 1800's - the Victorian Era if a name has to be put on it.

    There has been a lot of improvement in the TW games, across all the various areas and eras they have issues. Elements from all those games would be fantastic if incorporated in a G&P game. (Remembering the three sections have Empire to start.)
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,797
    Rome2 is still being played and I occasionally start it up myself. I don't see any reason to have a Rome3 right now. The Middle Ages or the Pike and Shot era should definitely be the next subject of TW.

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    edited February 28
    dge1 said:

    We had "Chapters" in Medieval I. It was a great game. I have it installed now, and play it every few months. That said, I personally do not want a III in either Medieval or in Empire. I do want a Guns & Powder historical game, mostly set in the latter part of the 1800's - the Victorian Era if a name has to be put on it.

    There has been a lot of improvement in the TW games, across all the various areas and eras they have issues. Elements from all those games would be fantastic if incorporated in a G&P game. (Remembering the three sections have Empire to start.)

    Oh hell no!

    Anything but the Victorian era.


    We don't need a TW game that ends up with spamming guns being the best strategy that can conquer everything.

    Fall of the Samurai already showed just how braindead guns could make the TW battles, we don't need a repeat of that.


    I'd take anything, literally ANYTHING over going forward in time with the settings for a TW games.


    The formula for TW battles works best when there's the ability for many options for tactical choices.

    And just bringing in more and more guns would kill most of those options.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    edited February 28

    Rome2 is still being played and I occasionally start it up myself. I don't see any reason to have a Rome3 right now. The Middle Ages or the Pike and Shot era should definitely be the next subject of TW.

    I know it's still played and all, but CA's B team dropped the ball in a lot of respects with Rome 2.


    Hoplites were just spear infantry.

    Sparta had ZERO melee infantry, which wouldn't have been that big of an issue if hoplites were done right.

    Most infantry have EXTREMELY short range javelins.


    But I just want to see the Classical/Roman period be done right, and done right all the way.


    And I honestly think that the middle ages are extremely overrated for a setting for a TW game.

    I just think it's a lot of M2 fanboys overhyping the time period because many of them are still thinking that it's the best TW game ever.


    But just read the different sections of I laid out in the OP.

    There's quite a lot more that the Classical/Roman Period could possibly do than the medieval one could.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 487
    I wanted to continue talking about the various sorts of things they could bring in with a Rome 3.

    So I wanted to talk about another possible mechanic that I didn't mention in the OP because it was getting too long.

    And I may do this for other things that they could do with particular factions or mechanics in a Rome 3.


    Population Mechanic

    Now this is something they CA should really take from the DEI mod for Rome 2.

    In the mod, the population of cities and settlements are divided into four main groupings, which are something like

    Lower class
    Middle Class
    Nobles
    Foreigners

    In the mod, they're called different things for different cultures.

    But one way the population worked was that you could units from certain population groups.

    Like most cavalry would be drawn from the Noble population, so they'd be rarer, whereas basic low tier infantry units would be drawn from the lower class population.

    But I honestly think that such a population mechanic would be a nice addition to the TW games, and while I will admit that it could be useful in a Medieval 3, I think that it would just have more room to be more flexible in a Rome 3.


    Though I think that there should be one big exception to the 4 population types thing.

    And that would be, Sparta.

    That's not to say that they should only have three population types, such as the Helots and Perioikoi, no.

    What I would expect Sparta to have is a 5th population type, called Spartans or something like that.


    What I could see that population type being is really where Sparta would draw it's elite Spartans units from.

    I could see this because the Spartans aren't exactly ones for the "noble life", so while Sparta might have a lower than average noble population, they could have a population of Spartan trained men who could fulfil as similar role.


    But that's one thing I don't want to see, and that is that I don't want to see the Spartan units only be relegated coming from Sparta itself, nor do I want to see them just be able to be recruited everywhere conquer.

    I think that while most playable factions should have a generic cultural tech tree, they should have a little offshoot tech tree that's only for their specific faction.

    Sparta's personal technologies should have a very powerful be specific technology to them.

    I don't know exactly what it should be called, but it could be something like a "Agoge Hellas" or something.

    It would basically be a state/empire ran Agoge program, though I would think that it would be voluntary, since even the Spartans would be smart enough not to try to just take children from the other Greeks they may have just recently conquered.

    But what it should do is allow you to start building up Spartan population in all the cities across Greece proper.

    And I would think that that would mean from Sparta in the south, to Epirus and Macedon in the north.

    I just think that it should be in a big enough area that you can draw a lot more Spartans from rather than just have it be from just Sparta or just being able to recruit them everywhere either.



Sign In or Register to comment.