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.


Total War Rome III

InNomineCaesarInNomineCaesar Junior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 5
I know this is ambitious at best while our dear developer teams are working on both A Total War Saga: Troy and Total War: Warhammer III, but I know that like myself there is a large community of people that are very hyped about the Roman era and the Roman Kingdom / Republic / Empire / Empires / Byzantium ;). I also know that CA feels like they have run out of ideas for a Rome game. Well let me tell you that (as a long-time fan of the series and a man who grew up playing Total War ever since I was in the third grade) - You haven't! The community is here to help give you new ideas, and I know that you have some more recent ideas for Total War games which were implemented in the newer games!

A Rome III game could be very similar to Rome II, which just needs to have some bug fixes and a more realistic political system, more army and nation options, more turns per year, and a free built-in Blood and Gore effect (which could be turned off for PG needs) and it will be every bit as good as we thought it was gonna be back at launch.
I get why CA doesn't keep updating and caring for Rome II as it has been so long since launch, but I think that Rome III (just like Rome I and Rome II) would be the best platform to usher in a new era of Total War, with better graphics and a slightly new system, making each battle have bigger and more noticeable consequences on the campaign itself, bringing back the building tree to Rome and so much more!

After all, Rome I was the Total War game that made Total War be as famous and popular as it is today - why not make Rome III the game that makes Total War be even better?
Here are just some of my ideas:
* You could make it possible to take up arms as one of the soldiers in your army as you play the replay of a battle, and fight as if you would in Ryse: Son of Rome, and thus making it possible for people to enjoy a whole new aspect of their gameplay, maybe even altering the course of the battle itself and changing its aftermath on the campaign map.
You could have it made possible for a single general and his army to usurp as they feel mistreated.
* You could add a new slaves mechanism - as we know historically, each army had slaves marching with it. You could make a mechanism that shows how many slaves there are in that army compared to the army of soldiers: have too many slaves and they would rise against their masters should they feel mistreated.
* You could change the public order mechanism and split it into a few different public order variables:
1. Troop order - How happy are the garrison troops in that region. Should the troop's order fall too short, they might defect or even take the region into their own hands and usurp the nation.
2. Citizen order - How happy are the citizens in that region. Pretty much the same as it is today, except if the citizens' order falls too short they would start to riot against the garrison forces and would try to claim independence from the nation as a whole.
3. Slave order - How happy are the slaves in that region. If the slaves' order falls too short they would start a slave revolt in that region.
You could have all of these affect each other, and make that as a new mechanism.
* You could implement a disease mechanism - Let us see for how long our armies or settlements are gonna be sick, let us know how we could shorten the amount of time that said army of settlement, and let us research new health-related technologies to be able to treat certain plagues and diseases.
* You could implement a new mechanism that makes every nation has a designated treasury location on the map for its treasury, and once that location is conquered have that nation lose its funds as it has no access to its treasury, and you could have it so that should you conquer a treasury region you would be able to empty it into your treasury.
* You could implement an army provisions mechanism - An army cannot march without food and water, you could have the player make it so that in order to march their armies beyond their nation's borders they would have to make sure that the army has supplies coming in from their nation to that army, or make sure that that army has been equipped with enough supplies to reach its destination and do as it was bid to do. Not having enough rations and supplies could cause the army to suffer fighting debuffs, or even suffer from attrition due to starvation deaths.
* You could make the characters more connectable to the player, and have every one of their traits affect the way they act on the battlefield and on the political frontier, much like it used to in Rome I. As well as bringing in more of a "cutscene" like speeches for each general. Each one of the accompanying important characters that the general has could appear on the battlefield, or in cutscenes caused by political actions.

Total War is the best game series I have ever played, and with over 6k hours of gameplay on Rome II and thousands of uncounted hours on Rome I (as it came out before the game was on Steam), I can truly and honestly say that the Rome "sub-series" was, and still is, my favorite.
So I write here to all whom it may concern, or to all who share my vision and wish to see another Rome game, a better one to correct that disappointment we had when Rome II came out and bring back the feelings we had while playing Rome I - do you think, as I do, that there is a room for another Rome game? What would you like to see in a new Rome game?

Dear CA developers, should you read this thread and wish to respond - don't you miss how hyped the community was about Rome I (and let me even say, still is as there are thousands who still play it to this day - and to those who do still play it, out most honorable of community members, why won't you release an update for Rome I making it compatible for modern systems)? Why not have a new historical, mythology free game, that occurs in the one era that made Total War as good as it is today?

I hope this thread would have people commenting on their ideas for future Total War games, and whether they do or do not agree with my wish to see a new Rome game :)


  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,748
    Really too soon for a R3. If a re-cover of a past title then Medieval and Empire are far more in need of it.

    Gore can't be done in the base game, it will be part of the rating for being in it. Yes you can turn it off but it is still there.

    Playing as a soldier isn't what TW is about and not fitting for a replay that would be more of a first person video.

    It's not that easy to have slaves in any noticeable % in Rome, so having any following the army would be lucky, having them out number them or get them in enough of a number to threaten the army isn't likely. Same issue with the integrity system, we can deal with it before it becomes a real threat.

    We've had different ranks of population in previous TWs so not a new mechanic. Again runs in to issues of being easily solved and often by the same methods.

    We do have plagues, although how long is the current pandemic going to last? Also the treatment systems during the period weren't notably effective. Rome was hit by a number of plagues that end up burning themselves out rather than being cured.

    Treasury is sort of covered already in looting provinces. It's quite common for them to be moved when the location is threatened unless it's a shock attack but then during the period there's a lot of delegation with the funds being dispersed. As we represent the entire state and not a single ruler the game includes that money as well.

    We have an army provisions system. Armies in 3K have supply ratings that you spend in hostile lands and restock in friendly ones.

    It's just too recent for the series to make Rome feel fresh again, not without not releasing another game for a very long time.
  • InNomineCaesarInNomineCaesar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5
    I get what you're saying, yet still, I know I am not alone waiting for a Rome III game...

    I know TW is not about first or third-person fighting, but I think adding it would add a whole new audience to the games, and would be a fresh and new feature for TW games that will be a lot of fun... As I stated "A new era"

    I don't think a new Rome game wouldn't feel fresh, and making the community wait for too long a time to have a new Rome game wouldn't be good as well (after all, I can't be the only one who thought "Damn I wish there would be a new Rome game" way before Rome II came out)...
    I know that many feel that Rome II was a bad imprint on the series at launch, but Rome II today is very VERY good, at least according to my opinion...

    I do think that a new Rome game would be the best platform to bring in some new features to the series, and maybe even a new engine some time down the road, but I do get it that it won't be happening any time soon (as much as I wish it did)... What I mainly am after here is getting to know if there are any others that share my desire for a new Rome game sometime in the future, in other words - don't let Rome II be the last Rome game TW makes...

    I think that if you read carefully all that I have written you could see that it is somewhat similar to what the series already has in Warhammer or in Three Kingdoms, but with some slight changes.

    As for the slaves - I tend to disagree with you, historically speaking armies needed people to do the work the soldiers wouldn't do - making food, taking care of the horses, etc. Yes - there wouldn't be many who would do that as the armies during that time period usually took care of the mundane work by putting the soldiers to work on those tasks, but should an army win a battle and take the captives as slaves, they would remain with that army until that army made its way to a settlement, where they would leave the slaves to be sold, and that is the main occasion in which you would have slaves in your army during that time period.

    As for diseases - yes, many plagues just burned themselves out during those days, but there is some concrete evidence that the Romans used to practice medicine and try to treat certain illnesses, and there is evidence they even used a certain flower (forgive me for not remembering its name) that had many medical properties, rumored to might even be able to treat modern illnesses should the Romans not use it to extinction. So I do think that adding a medical research tree could be a nice and appropriate addition to that said time period, let alone later time periods.

    About the treasury - I don't agree that raiding takes care of that issue as a whole, as there is no way to steal money from your opponents' treasuries, even once you take hold of every last settlement of theirs and defeat all of their armies, and so I do think that a feature allowing you to take hold of treasuries that used to belong to nations you defeated and destroyed would be a nice addition.

    About the blood and gore DLC - I myself, as well as many others, still think it should be an integral part of the game, as it goes without saying that if you kill someone on a battlefield - they will almost certainly bleed (unless you strangle them or something), and so I do think it should be a part of the base game and not a DLC.

    I think re-installing the different populations mechanism with some changes might make the game harder and more complex, but will be much more realistic, and cause the player to think more like a real-life ruler would have. Hence I do believe it could be a nice thing to add (you could add a feature that sets that off or even triggering that only at a certain difficulty level).

    But yes - I do understand that it might be too early for some people to have a new Rome game feel fresh again, even though it isn't too early for me. With that said, I just wish to know, as I have stated before if there would be a new Rome game at all and if CA doesn't feel like the time period has had enough of the spotlight, and so they would not like to re-address it later on...
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,748
    But there's also people waiting far longer for recovers of medieval and Empire plus other new periods not covered.

    Issue is it doesn't fit and means pulling development and changing the core game mechanics and doesn't fit the Historical line of the TW titles. Fighting in unit formations isn't what people want in First Person.

    It's been 7 years since Rome 2 came out, 14 years since Medieval 2 and 11 since Empire. Why should Rome get covered again so soon compared to these games? They would see far greater improvements and changes. We haven't had a Medieval game on this engine.

    You can't change engine mid-way through. It would need to be built off it from the ground up. It also means restarting development from scratch instead of using something that's had over a decade of development.

    It doesn't have to be, but rushing out R2.5 now would be a waste and make it unlikely to ever see a worthy successor to R2.

    Most of them are already in the series in some form or not exactly fitting.

    Yes I know they would take slaves, they also would ship them off at first chance to make the money and avoid them being a problem during battles. There's also the simple element that you'd need to fight and win against multiple stacks at a time to get enough captures to be an issue for your army OR lose so many men that they don't have the strength to resist them...which isn't a fun mechanic. Currently we just sell them around the empire.

    Yeah the period did have a range of medical schools and did have a number of effective treatments for many common issues, none have been shown effective for plagues though. Mostly it is more on the side of cleaning wounds and current evidence showing their use of honey being very effective as it has anti-microbial treatments. There's not something there to be a tech or be worthy of a tech, looking at best reduced squalor and a small boost to replenishment.

    You can feel like that about the gore, I'm fine with CA getting the game a lower classification and more possible sales as a result.

    It's previously not made the game any harder and not caused any new choices you have to make. You'd need to then "game" the system to make it work like that. I liked it in Empire as it was tied to other things than just public order. Region growth was maxed by the lower classes to unlock new towns and ports but the upper classes would generate more region wealth which would increase income. That was a nice core element, do you want quick cash or more long term?
  • greendolphingreendolphin Registered Users Posts: 53
    Middle ages and gunpowder eras must be the priority. Historical community is waiting for them for years and all we got was two fantasy-history hybrid games and thrones of britannia which is the worst total war game ever.

    I want a Rome 3 as well but only after at least two games covering these periods are released.
Sign In or Register to comment.