Possible Total War: Rome II Announcement Incoming!

[Kinthalis]

PC Powerplay Magazine teased their next issue with a screenshot of R:TW and a big fat "II" right on top. Creative Assembly also said they would be announcing a new Total War game in early July.

So it's very likely what we'll see is an upcoming Total War: Rome II.


Anyone exited?

I'm changing my underwear as we speak.

[Telperion]

I'm honestly not sure. I like the Total War games well enough, but Rome I wasn't that long ago and the engine hasn't changed too drastically since then, so I'd rather have seen them do something completely fresh, like ancient China or Egypt or something. There are only so many variations you can do on legionnaires, you know?

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Telperion

I'm honestly not sure. I like the Total War games well enough, but Rome I wasn't that long ago and the engine hasn't changed too drastically since then, so I'd rather have seen them do something completely fresh, like ancient China or Egypt or something. There are only so many variations you can do on legionnaires, you know?

I did think they might try something more modern in their next iteration, WWI, maybe?

But it might be to radical for fans of the series and the backlash, I'm sure, would fill forum boards and blogs for months.

Rome was probably my favorite of the TW game, followed by Medieval, so I'm happy to get either!


EDIT: I did just look up Rome Total War's release date though, It's been 8 years, probably 9 by the time the game actually comes out. I think that's long enough for a sequel.

They gotta do something about the load times though, and maybe tie DX 11 a little tighter into the engine. It should help when it comes to rendering thousands of troops!


Also.... 8 years! God I'm getting old.

[Telperion]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

EDIT: I did just look up Rome Total War's release date though, It's been 8 years, probably 9 by the time the game actually comes out. I think that's long enough for a sequel.

The second expansion was released in 2006, though, so it wasn't quite so long ago.

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Telperion

The second expansion was released in 2006, though, so it wasn't quite so long ago.

Ahh you're right, I forgot about the expansions. The game did seem a bit fresh in my brain.

I guess senility is kicking in too.

God damn it.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Telperion

I'm honestly not sure. I like the Total War games well enough, but Rome I wasn't that long ago and the engine hasn't changed too drastically since then, so I'd rather have seen them do something completely fresh, like ancient China or Egypt or something. There are only so many variations you can do on legionnaires, you know?

Heh, I was playing Shogun II a few days ago and wishing they'd update the Rome game to take advantages of the newer engine, naval battles, better strategic AI, etc. So I'm excited, and think there's been plenty of imporvement in the TW franchise in the last decade to warrant a new version.

[Terminus Est]

I rather had my hopes up for a Total War: Three Kingdoms. Still, a Total War: Rome with all the Shogun II improvements to the interface would kcik ass.

[Namkcalb]

Originally Posted by Telperion

so I'd rather have seen them do something completely fresh, like ancient China or Egypt or something. There are only so many variations you can do on legionnaires, you know?

Their last two games were set in Japan, so setting it in China might get a bit repetitive for American consumers. They had a timetravelling Ancient Egyptian faction in Rome Total War.

[MichaelEmouse]

WWI wouldn't work. The scale of a battle in WWI was just too large in terms of range and number of troops. Long range indirect artillery (which would have to be completely offscreen) came in, I think, in the late 19th century and that's the furthest they can go and still have a recognizable Total War game.

Since Rome shows they don't mind having one big faction that dwarfs all the others, I wonder how well a Mongolia game would work.

Do we know enough about the period in between 500 and 1000 to have a game? Would it be too much like Medieval war?

How about the period in between the Egyptians and the Romans?

Renaissance total war?

[Terminus Est]

They've shown that American Civil War style battles are possible with the Fall of the Samurai, so if they really wanted to cater to American consumers, Total War: North vs South would be the way to go.

They sort of covered the period between Egypt and Rome with the Alexander expansion to Rome Total War. The Viking Invasion expansion to Medieval Total War (that's the first game, not the sequel) covered AD 793-1066.

The Renaissance would be interesting with pike and shot formations, the Thirty Years' War, and the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire.

[Miller]

Not counting Empire, out of six games in the series, we've had a grand total of two different maps. Empire mixed it up by adding the New World and India, but the biggest map there was still Europe. Frankly, I'm getting sick of fighting over the same territory over and over. I really wish they'd go somewhere new with it.

[Simplicio]

A Victorian Age game with an American Civil War expansion (or vice-versa) seems like the last obvious place to go. Other settings seem like they'll either be less familiar and interesting to Western audiences (TW: China), are too similar to already existing efforts (TW: Renaissance would be pretty close to the endgame of Medieval II) or are past the age where large set piece battles were a major component of warfare (WWI or WWII).

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I am just finishing Napoleon after being re-introduced to the franchise by Empire (I played the original Shogun, but that was a couple of computers ago I reckon).

I never played the last Rome, and was just discussing with my gf looking into Shogun II. Looks interesting to me.

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

A Victorian Age game with an American Civil War expansion (or vice-versa) seems like the last obvious place to go. Other settings seem like they'll either be less familiar and interesting to Western audiences (TW: China), are too similar to already existing efforts (TW: Renaissance would be pretty close to the endgame of Medieval II) or are past the age where large set piece battles were a major component of warfare (WWI or WWII).

A game ranging from 1840 to 1900 would also offer the largest range of military technological development of any game. Think about it - in 1840, most armies used breech-loading muskets and wooden sailing ships; in 1900, they had Maxim guns and dreadnoughts. One of the reasons I loved Medieval 2 the most is that my armies and tactics at the beginning of the game were often completely different from those at the end. This would take that to the nth degree.

[Kinthalis]

I wonder if they are going to go with the traditional very loose narrative style for their campaign, or a more structured one like for Napoleon.

I prefer the former, but I wouldn't mind seeing the latter in a form of "Scenerio" to go through apart from the grand campaign.

Something more narrowly focused, with a stronger narrative, and with a lot more substance than the historical battle scenerios.

One could be the rise of Rome, for example. The earlier city states battling the Etruscans and each other to eventually found Rome. Perhaps having to deal with raids from Carthage and the Gauls, but limited to just the Italian peninsula.

Another scenario could be focused on greece and the various wars there with a focus on you conquering enough territory to withstand invasion from the Persian Empire!

Man, I want this game now!

[Kinthalis]

It's official guys:

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/07/02/to...to-pc-in-2013/

Coming out 2013.

They briefly mention a short demo of the Roman army besieging Carthage which involved using both ships and ground units in a coordinated effort, on the same strategic map. Something we haven't seen in a Total War game yet.

[Kinthalis]

More info:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...ng-it-up-to-xi

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...reens-go-live/

The budget for this title has increased by 40% over previous titles and the man power working on it is nearly doubled (I guess it's SEGA realizing it's smart to put this on a series that has sold so well in an increasingly digital market place!).

They mention a new engine in the promotional blurb, as well as huge battle maps the size of actual cities. Interesting.

I do like the idea of "province management" which is supposed to make managing a large empire less tedious. No details on this system though.

[Terminus Est]

The live action trailer is certainly different: http://youtu.be/oKglskMfyWA

[Kinthalis]

Ahhhh! So much awesome in that trailer. Makes me wish for another season of HBO's ROME.

[Gukumatz]

Between this, Company of Heroes 2 and C&C Generals 2 2013 looks like the year of the Seriously Good RTS. Hot damn, Carthage looks gorgeous. Makes me all nostalgic for Caesar III.

[Max the Immortal]

I'm so happy to hear this. I'm a big fan of the Total War series (you may have noticed that I'm more forgiving of its foibles than most players are), and Rome was my introduction to it.

Interesting that they seem to be trying to combine land and sea battles. Maybe they want to get some experience implementing naval landing operations before they attempt a World War II Total War.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

Maybe they want to get some experience implementing naval landing operations before they attempt a World War II Total War.

If they increase the land area especially as others mentioned the amount of built-up area in the fighting screens, that'll also be good work toward a WW2 Total War. I think that tactically it'd be pretty easy (all you'd have to do is allow artillery strikes and air support from a strategic square or so away), but strategically it'd be hard to allow blitzkriegs while at the same time allowing counter defenses.

[Kinthalis]

New screens over at Rock,Paper,Shotgun: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...me-ii-screens/

Man, this game looks EPIC!

[XT]

Yeah, I'm totally looking forward to this one. I kind of figured it would be Rome next. Hopefully the Total Realism team will be able to get it together and do a mod for the new game, but even the plain vanilla game looks good so far, and sounds like it's going to be a hell of a lot of fun to play.

[Max the Immortal]

I wonder if they're planning to do the Julii/Brutii/Scipii division again. I can see why they did it, but I'd rather be able to play as a united Rome right off the bat.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

I wonder if they're planning to do the Julii/Brutii/Scipii division again. I can see why they did it, but I'd rather be able to play as a united Rome right off the bat.

I admit - I'd rather go semi the other-way entirely.

Instead of playing a single, mighty unified empire, you'd play one family (as before). You build up some alliances, but the core of your mini-empire is trying to grab control of subsections of counties. (provinces. whatever.) Sure, you have troops and use them, but you're trying principally to build up your power base so you can take over the empire, peacefully or otherwise, from within. At the start, you couldn't even control a whole province or get taxes from it: you'd have to take missions, build up economic alliances and strongpoints, and then eventually declare yourself dictator.

War would be something relatively quick compared to previous games. In the early game you wouldn't even be able to afford a standing army (no taxes to pay for them). Instead, you'd have to save up, grab troops when you need them, and then disband them as soon as you could. In the meantime, you would hope to grab some more economic influence and wartime glory. If you wanted to keep a alrge army in the field for a while, you'd probably want to despoil a lot of territory...

...like, I don't know... Gaul might be a good choice.

This would also be a neat bit of self-balancing to challenge the player. If the Empire has given you a military mission, you'll probably get an army to use and can stack any troops you have as well. So the game can help out strggling players with a couple slowballs. On the other hand, if you try to expand you own power base, it can give you some tougher missions to occupy your time (as "The suspicious Senate is keeping you occupied/wants you to fail/whatever". And of course, any military actions for yourself will be entirely on your own, whereas the enemy has taxes to pay for their own ongoing defense and can probably outlast you. So you have to strike really hard and fast to bring them to their knees, possibly with an undermanned and underequipped force, and even then you probably aren't going to conquer a whole state.

In concept, you'd move up in rank. First you'd be a private citizen with a small powerbase. Then you'd get some lower ranking Roman titles and the chance to buy popularity. Eventually you'd want to become a Senator and form alliances with the power players in the Republic. Then you'd hopefully become Consul, and then ProConsul governor of a province or get a major military command. And then you might just be strong enough to take on the other factions of Rome and win.

Or at least, that's the crazy dream I have. Call it Europa Romesalis: Total War.

[Max the Immortal]

Funny, I've been trying out Crusader Kings II the past couple of days, and I can see the parallels in your post.

I'm reminded of a common refrain I saw on the WotC D&D forums back when I followed them. From time to time someone would come up with a radical suggestion to improve/alter the game system and start a thread with a long OP detailing it. A common response was/is: "That's a good idea for a hypothetical game system, but it's not D&D."

I feel the same way about your idea. Paradox could make it into a fine game, but it's not Total War.

[Kinthalis]

Reading through some posts on the TW forums I came across an idea I like a lot.

Factions with different victory conditions.

Right now the only was you lose a total war game is if/when the enemy wipes you out. It's the only way the enemy AI wins, hence the dev's cop out in Shogun 2 of having all factions join against you after a certain point in the game. It would be amazing if instead of this single goal, various factions had their own set of goals to win. The Greeks might have to own certain territory and research a particular technology. The carthaganians might need to establish a certain amount of trade and built a particular structure, etc.

It would be like bringing a little bit of civ V to the mix. It certainly would make for a more interesting grand strategy game, IMHO.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

I feel the same way about your idea. Paradox could make it into a fine game, but it's not Total War.

Meh, I knew that going in. The one real criticism I've ever had against the TW series is that, no matter how they do it, Empire management just seems bland. Sure, there's all kinds of stuff to build and it's fun to improve your cities. But I never really get any thrill out of it no matter what I do. If the economic and diplomatic aspects fo the game were as involving as the military, well..

Hmm... they should never attempt to do that. I wouldn't be able to leave home again. Ever.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

A common response was/is: "That's a good idea for a hypothetical game system, but it's not D&D."

I feel the same way about your idea. Paradox could make it into a fine game, but it's not Total War.

Heh, I've never read those boards, or many d+d boards at all for that matter, but I felt the exact same way about a lot of the changes in 4th Edition. Many of them were good changes. Many of them were even improvements to the existing system. But the result is not D+D. ETA: about the only coutnerexample I can think of is the increased HP at first level. Some may think differently than me, but having 1st level guys get whacked by blowing on them too hard isn't my idea of fun, and it doesn't turn it into a different RPG entirely.

[Kinthalis]

New trailer featuring some gameplay (supposedly - looks scripted to me).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OHV6...ture=plcp&hd=1

But still, so awesome!

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

Reading through some posts on the TW forums I came across an idea I like a lot.

Factions with different victory conditions.

Doesn't that harken back to the original MTW? Faction-specific non-world conquest victory conditions were one of the design choices I liked best about that game. I greatly lamented when it was dropped in later iterations. Glad to here they are thinking about bringing that back.

[Kinthalis]

An exclusive 9 minute gameplay walkthrough has being posted up on Gamespot!

http://www.gamespot.com/total-war-ro...arRomeIiGamepl

It's the battle of Carthage that some of the media got to play at E3 or PAX, one of those shows.

[XT]

That looks pretty good, especially for a pre-Alpha version. I'm pretty psyked about this one, even though it's not going to be out until around this time next year.

[Simplicio]

I don't think the ancient world had many amphibious assaults that were resisted on the beaches. But historical nitpickery aside, it certainly looks pretty cool.

[bump]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

A Victorian Age game with an American Civil War expansion (or vice-versa) seems like the last obvious place to go. Other settings seem like they'll either be less familiar and interesting to Western audiences (TW: China), are too similar to already existing efforts (TW: Renaissance would be pretty close to the endgame of Medieval II) or are past the age where large set piece battles were a major component of warfare (WWI or WWII).

Yeah, but they could accomplish that with an expansion to Empire:TW. Up through about 1890 or so (machine gun, indirect fire artillery), the only major differences would be range and rate of fire vs. the muskets and smoothbores of 1790's era Empire:TW.

All a Civil War game would really need would be a dig-in action, and adjusted weapon accuracies and range, along with Civil War uniforms.

[Kinthalis]

Yeah I think this franchise is going to forever be limited to Rome, Shogun, Medieval, and Empire/early 19th century warfare.

Which I'm fine with, I mean call of Duty manages yearly releases without such a broad spectrum, right?

Hmmm... Total War: Neanderthal!

What we are likely to see though, I think, is an off-shoot of the series that focuses on fantasy settings. I know I'd love to see a LOTR or Game of Thrones version of this game!

[Gukumatz]

There's lots of variation in those themes, though. And I wouldn't count CA out - there's dozens of good warfare locations yet. (I still want China.)

[Terminus Est]

That video looks pretty sweet. Sieges were one of the weakest parts of Total War series. Hopefully this time they'll have gotten it right.

Fall of the Samurai showed it's possible to do the American Civil War using the Total War engine. I don't know if we'll ever see that, though, since the ACW doesn't quite fit in with Total War's multi-faction strategic approach.

[straight man]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I don't think the ancient world had many amphibious assaults that were resisted on the beaches. But historical nitpickery aside, it certainly looks pretty cool.

Honestly, that was a little cheesy. Hopefully they won't give up too much on historical accuracy? I feel like that is a big part of what makes Total War games fun.

[Gukumatz]

It's just this generation's New Thing. They're making a big deal out of it because it's a evolution of a feature in the third generation. Empire & Napoleon added controlled fleet battles, Shogun 2 added fleets interacting with land-battles in terms of bombardment, now we're seeing contested army landings. To me that's an indication of a TW: World War game in the long term.

Heck, thinking about it, there's more. Artillery in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2 was developed to the point that cannonballs would deform terrain and had variable trajectory types for, say, normal cannons and mortars. Artillery would of course be a huge aspect of a World War TW game.

Firearms were of course added, and developed up to the point of gatling guns - not a great deal of work to do to get it up to WW1 standards. They've also added smoke shells, I seem to recall, which could dovetail into poison gas shells. Massive ironclads were added to Shogun 2, which also just requires a fairly short leap forward. Considering the massively important navy aspect of WW1 and WW2, this is a good indicator since it seems a lot of work was done on that aspect in Shogun 2 without quite being given the level of importance in the game that would merit that kind of work.

Rome 2 is supposedly adding customizable unit loadout on the cohort or century level. (One legion replacing the traditional unit stack "army", ten cohorts to a legion, six centuries of between 60 to 100 men in a cohort - normally 80.) Which makes sense in a Rome game, but it makes even more sense in a WW game where you might need to change a unit into a zigouilleur on short notice.

Some details are still missing, of course. Like the submarine warfare mechanism and countermechanism, engineers to create player-controlled terrain deformation like barbed wire or trenches, flamethrowers, aircraft observation and to some degree aircraft combat, tanks, mines, tunneling and more that I'm certainly forgetting.