07-25-2003, 09:26 PM
Must admit I find it hard to get too excited by some of the stuff there from a historical point of view.<br>
<br>
The most notorious beefs from my POV:<br>
1) Barbarian archers - almost non-existent in reality, will probably be a vital unit in the game (firepower always rules RT games).<br>
2) Phalangites vulnerable to missile attacks... uhm; where did they get that titbit?<br>
3) The town watch description is pure fantasy. God knows how they got that idea.<br>
4) Greek archers - the same problem as with Barbarian archers. But at least it seems like we'll see Cretan archers.<br>
5) Gladiators - 'nuff said.<br>
6) Spartan Hoplites - yes, they DID still exist in 230, BUT were so few as to be practically unusable (only 700 citizens soldiers available in 250 BCE) and their fighting qualities was no better than that of other Hellenistic troops in the post-Leuktran age. Part of the move to the phalanx was a huge reform including massive citizen enfranchisement. So Yes (to JRS) this is very much a fantasy unit type to include.<br>
7) Praetorians - will as usual live off their popular reputation instead of being modelled correctly. And it seems that we will see them even in the early Republic, to judge from this wildly erroneous statement: "Historically, Scipio Africanus created the Praetorians from his most trusted troops, and exempted them from all duties except that of guarding his person."<br>
Woad warriors... belong to another age, if they existed at all.<br>
<br>
Hopefully we won't have Roman archers *groan*.<br>
<br>
It's nice to see them including Triarii, though (though if we're to go into equipment - his shield is all wrong).<br>
<br>
The buildings look fairly standard, though I fail to see what a vomitorium has to do in a Strategy game.<br>
<br>
Note: for you fans of R:TW, this is not intended to be a put-down of the game. I lost most of my interest in the TW games during the never-ending patching of S:TW, but I still consider it and M:TW to be very good games.<br>
<br>
I'm sure R:TW will look good as well, and I look forward to enjoying the visual feast and hopefully fun gameplay. I don't expect a game that caters to the mainstream market to be historically correct except in the most general facts, and it obviously won't be much more than that.<br>
<br>
However as JRS says - much can be forgiven if the gameplay is good and the battles are fun. Setting up a triplex acies with Cornelius Scipio in command can only be good fun. I just hope it isn't so much fun that it cuts too much into my development work on Imperium.<br>
<br>
As long as no one comes to the Imperium forum (or here) later and claims to know a lot of Roman history or ancient warfare after having played Rome:Total War, then I'm happy. <br>
<br>
(Though I shouldn't laugh - it happened with Shogun ) <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 7/25/03 11:41 pm<br></i>
<br>
The most notorious beefs from my POV:<br>
1) Barbarian archers - almost non-existent in reality, will probably be a vital unit in the game (firepower always rules RT games).<br>
2) Phalangites vulnerable to missile attacks... uhm; where did they get that titbit?<br>
3) The town watch description is pure fantasy. God knows how they got that idea.<br>
4) Greek archers - the same problem as with Barbarian archers. But at least it seems like we'll see Cretan archers.<br>
5) Gladiators - 'nuff said.<br>
6) Spartan Hoplites - yes, they DID still exist in 230, BUT were so few as to be practically unusable (only 700 citizens soldiers available in 250 BCE) and their fighting qualities was no better than that of other Hellenistic troops in the post-Leuktran age. Part of the move to the phalanx was a huge reform including massive citizen enfranchisement. So Yes (to JRS) this is very much a fantasy unit type to include.<br>
7) Praetorians - will as usual live off their popular reputation instead of being modelled correctly. And it seems that we will see them even in the early Republic, to judge from this wildly erroneous statement: "Historically, Scipio Africanus created the Praetorians from his most trusted troops, and exempted them from all duties except that of guarding his person."<br>
Woad warriors... belong to another age, if they existed at all.<br>
<br>
Hopefully we won't have Roman archers *groan*.<br>
<br>
It's nice to see them including Triarii, though (though if we're to go into equipment - his shield is all wrong).<br>
<br>
The buildings look fairly standard, though I fail to see what a vomitorium has to do in a Strategy game.<br>
<br>
Note: for you fans of R:TW, this is not intended to be a put-down of the game. I lost most of my interest in the TW games during the never-ending patching of S:TW, but I still consider it and M:TW to be very good games.<br>
<br>
I'm sure R:TW will look good as well, and I look forward to enjoying the visual feast and hopefully fun gameplay. I don't expect a game that caters to the mainstream market to be historically correct except in the most general facts, and it obviously won't be much more than that.<br>
<br>
However as JRS says - much can be forgiven if the gameplay is good and the battles are fun. Setting up a triplex acies with Cornelius Scipio in command can only be good fun. I just hope it isn't so much fun that it cuts too much into my development work on Imperium.<br>
<br>
As long as no one comes to the Imperium forum (or here) later and claims to know a lot of Roman history or ancient warfare after having played Rome:Total War, then I'm happy. <br>
<br>
(Though I shouldn't laugh - it happened with Shogun ) <p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=strategym>StrategyM</A> at: 7/25/03 11:41 pm<br></i>
