RTW2 upcoming?

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2007-07-30 03:36am

Anyhow, back to the topic as indicated by the headline here. Steinberg seems to confirm that Rome Total War 2 is on the way:

“…We’ve got the Creative Assembly guys doing Medieval and the follow along to Rome which we haven’t announced yet.”

There is a chance that he could be another expansion pack, I suppose, but I think we’re talking full-fledged sequel here.

A Sega rep didn't immediately return calls to confirm Steinberg's comments.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2007-07-30 04:55am

While new TW is good I'd prefer a remake of Shogun or something completely new.

atg · Post by **atg** » 2007-07-30 05:58am

I wouldn't mind a TW game set in Napoleonic-era.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2007-07-30 06:19am

Fuck, rome again? I want NAPOLEONIC TOTAL WAR

Darth Tanner · Post by **Darth Tanner** » 2007-07-30 06:53am

You'd think with a world history of constant war they could find more than three eras to make a game about. The total war engine would probably work up until the first world war without much change to it.

It had better be a bit better than just an upgrade of the graphics from the original Rome Total war though, I liked M2TW enough to tolerate that but doing it twice and I'll be pissed off at them for their greed.

Some competent AI would be nice.

Laughing Mechanicus · Post by **Laughing Mechanicus** » 2007-07-30 07:10am

Yeah, can't really see the reason for another Rome right now. The original game is still pretty fresh as it is. Why do they hate Shogun?

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2007-07-30 07:14am

I'd be satisfied with a Rome: Total War that had better AI in both a strategic and tactical sense.

Right now I don't even play R:TW despite it being cool because getting a "clear victory" is considered a bad defeat for a player against the AI.

IMO the Total War series needs more realism in the command chain, with units panicing more and doing their own thing. And more confusion, I shouldn't be able to command troops omnisciently- easier than real life, yes, or it'd be annoying, but...

That would cut down on how not getting a 10:1 kill ratio is considered wasteful losses and a disaster in Rome.

Post by **Vympel** » 2007-07-30 07:28am

Right now I don't even play R:TW despite it being cool because getting a "clear victory" is considered a bad defeat for a player against the AI.

In whoose opinion? You don't need to tell anyone how you did.

What's above "Clear Victory", anyway? "Heroic" - IIRC that applies to when you're big time outnumbered, doesn't it?

As to Shogun .. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. No. The variety of units was ass in the original game, and it'd be ass in any sequel.

Napoleonic-era Total War would be cool, though. I used to hate the idea, but then I watched a shitload of Sharpe.

Raesene · Post by **Raesene** » 2007-07-30 08:12am

I hope they'll include playable naval battles this time - the roman era should be easier for that. I want to storm a carthaginian galley by corvus

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2007-07-30 08:24am

Vympel wrote:
Right now I don't even play R:TW despite it being cool because getting a "clear victory" is considered a bad defeat for a player against the AI.
In whoose opinion? You don't need to tell anyone how you did.

Because in a Total War Game, you'd have to be functionally disabled or out grabbing a bite to eat and forgot to hit pause or something to get less than a 3:1 kill ratio and a victory.
Losing is essentially impossible, even on the hardest settings, outside of extremely stacked odds or making a hillarious mistake like selecting your cavalry instead of your infantry when making the initial head on engagement.

Post by **Vympel** » 2007-07-30 08:48am

MRDOD wrote: Because in a Total War Game, you'd have to be functionally disabled or out grabbing a bite to eat and forgot to hit pause or something to get less than a 3:1 kill ratio and a victory.

Well, except when you're facing the Mongols or Timurids on open ground in M2TW. They hurt.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2007-07-30 09:33am

Honestly, all they need to do to make RTW2 is look at what the RTR team did and copy it. Apply relevant graphics upgrades, bump the size of the armies up (maybe), and you've got a great sequel.

Post by **Vympel** » 2007-07-30 10:38am

I'd like some new features. For example - how about individual cowards in your units, as oppose to the unit fighting cohesively and routing cohesively, you'll have just some opportunists bugger off? I mean, it seems realistic to me. Might not be.

Speaking of running off - they've really got to have in the next game the soldiers throwing their shield and weapons away. That's definitely more realistic, and would complicate the issue of routing units reforming and going back into battle immensely.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-07-30 11:31am

I would like for starters, some tweaking to the heir and adoptee system because I can have tonnes of adoptees but no heirs and this is ridiculous.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2007-07-30 11:36am

I'd like to see an expanded character system, maybe some RPGish elements. For me, I probably tend to have more fun managing my generals and internal faction politics than I do actually fighting battles.

Of course, it's important not to make them too much more complex than they currently are. But perhaps some kind of feature wherein you can customize or "genetically engineer" a custom patriarch for a part of your family tree, perhaps even his ancestors to some degree. Maybe some dialogue options, "events" that crop up from time to time wherein you must choose and it affects the general in some way. (e.g., "The river's current is strong and the water is 2.1m deep. Your wagon and oxen can safely ford 1.5m. A) Try to ford the river. B) Wait.")

And I'm sure there's plenty of other things they could do. Whatever it is, I'd like to see generals become a little more valuable in a more personal way. As it is I tend to think of my generals as fairly expendable "bonus leaders" for an army or "efficiency boosters" for a city, even if I am careful with them in battle losing them doesn't really faze me the way I think it should.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2007-07-30 01:40pm

A way to increase the perceived value of your generals would be to have their sons crop up as problematic later in the game. Say you send a general to manage some backwater province or you send him to his death because he's annoying. His son could quietly swear vengeance on you and rebel, causing you to lose whatever army/city he's in command of. Same deal if he has brothers. In that way, if you don't treat your generals appropriately, you'll have to deal with their sons, thus further reducing the total count of generals you have at your command. Something like that might be worth adding.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2007-07-30 01:57pm

RTW was the game that killed Wong's Reign of Terror, hence I hate this franchise, but I wouldn't mind a second RTW game

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2007-07-30 02:46pm

As Vympel said earlier, I too would like a Napoleonic war game. Sharpe and Hornblower have spoiled me, and I wish to recreate some scenes.

Darth Tanner · Post by **Darth Tanner** » 2007-07-30 07:16pm

I'd imagine the problem with a Napoleonic Total war would be the current games reliance on siege battles as the dominant factor of the game. The sweeping and decisive field battles of the Napoleonic era wouldn't really work that well.

Also balance would be a bugger, when France is actually supposed to smash all the other powers in the first place.

The suggestion with individual soldiers running away is interesting however, especially as if I remember correctly each soldiers experience is worked out individually. A unit that has been restocked several times could have half the unit fight to the death while the other half leg it the first sign of the enemy cannon.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-07-30 07:24pm

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:I'd like to see an expanded character system, maybe some RPGish elements. For me, I probably tend to have more fun managing my generals and internal faction politics than I do actually fighting battles.

Of course, it's important not to make them too much more complex than they currently are. But perhaps some kind of feature wherein you can customize or "genetically engineer" a custom patriarch for a part of your family tree, perhaps even his ancestors to some degree. Maybe some dialogue options, "events" that crop up from time to time wherein you must choose and it affects the general in some way. (e.g., "The river's current is strong and the water is 2.1m deep. Your wagon and oxen can safely ford 1.5m. A) Try to ford the river. B) Wait.")

And I'm sure there's plenty of other things they could do. Whatever it is, I'd like to see generals become a little more valuable in a more personal way. As it is I tend to think of my generals as fairly expendable "bonus leaders" for an army or "efficiency boosters" for a city, even if I am careful with them in battle losing them doesn't really faze me the way I think it should.

Rather than turn the game into Choose Your Own Adventure (which CA would 100% do, since they have no concerns for history already

) I'd just like to see characters and diplomacy represented better. The Rome dip system was utterly retarded 1991-style stuff. If there's no conniving and plotting and manipulation and concessions and oaths of fealty what's the damn point.

A more involved faction government would allow proper diplomacy to work. If you can't inculate betrayal in the enemy camp what's the damn point!

Exmoor Cat · Post by **Exmoor Cat** » 2007-07-30 08:27pm

I thought there were mods that addressed some of these points?

RazorOutlaw · Post by **RazorOutlaw** » 2007-07-31 12:21pm

Mods for RTW addressed, many, many points. Thing is there's something better (nay, right!) about the company getting it right the first time rather than the community waiting on modders (who sometimes don't get along or see their projects die off due to too few members).

And I think a good diplomacy system could only be implemented by CA because they have the code. Modders were frequently blocked out if I remember correctly, that was a constant complaint at TWC.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2007-07-31 12:54pm

Vympel wrote:
Right now I don't even play R:TW despite it being cool because getting a "clear victory" is considered a bad defeat for a player against the AI.
As to Shogun .. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. No. The variety of units was ass in the original game, and it'd be ass in any sequel.

Napoleonic-era Total War would be cool, though. I used to hate the idea, but then I watched a shitload of Sharpe.

Won't a Napoleonic-era have the same issue of low variety as well? But then again, it's an interesting age to combine with sea warfare as well.

I won't mind a RTW2 anyway. I always preferred the classical age over medieval times.

GuppyShark · Post by **GuppyShark** » 2007-07-31 06:28pm

I personally don't see the point, RTW is essentially the same game as MTW2. I'd rather see STW2.

For starters, you could make a Legend of the Five Rings mod out of it.

Also, they need a longer difficulty scale, VH/VH isn't hard enough.

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2007-08-01 07:34am

Personally I'd like to see an ability to customise your faction leader from the start, rather than just having it modded by winning battles.