Rome Total War

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Rome Total War

ice
This post was updated on .
Rome Total War
v1.0.4






-2 extra nations, Galia (green) and Bosporus (Brown), both antiroman
-Rome goes first
-This map simulates the expansion of the roman empire unlike 270 BC ROME WILL GROW LARGE HERE
-Map at 200%
-More units and different stats
-4 ship classes
-hopefully a more diverse map
-oh yeah, there are no capitals!


THERE ARE SOME THINGS I COULD USE HELP WITH!


-The black spot, would be nice to have a great unitstats overlay there like 270BC, now i think simply a nice pictue with maybe the alliances in it would suffice, so that if i need to cange any unit stat this picture cant be wrong.

-I think the 200% map is much better then the 100% mapsize, but 150%/175% would be the perfect ballance i think, no idea what it takes to do this

-Unit pics, i did my best but im no expert. theres allot of room for improvement to the unit pictures

-I would like to create a few more units that would fit into this era, but i need the miniaures, example phallanx unit

changelog v 1.0.4
deleted connection sz 61 --- sz 64
deleted connection sz 53 --- Cydonia
deleted connection sz 71 --- Pergamum
fixed placement spots: Melita, Larissa, Athens, Rhodes (Frostion)
adjusted start income to production (rome +3 gaul +2 greece +4)
changed value of territorys:
Veldidena from 1 to 3
Aemona from 1 to 2
Genua from 4 to 5
Massilia is now GREECE, added units city and fort
Unit setup:
+1 slinger Pergamum (greece)
-1 bireme +1 quinquereme sz 50 (greece)
-1 archer 1- hoplite Corinth (macadonia)
+1 archer Dodona (macadonia)
+1 hoplite Larissa (macadonia)
+1 axeman Jerusalem (egypt)
-1 archer -1 hoplite Edessa (selucia)
+1 onager Persepolis (parthia)
-2 bireme -1 trireme +1 quinquereme sz 32 (cartage)
-1 trireme sz 36 (cartage)
+1 bireme sz 31 (cartage)
+2 cavalry Carthago (cartage)
+1 warelephant Hispatis (cartage)
-1 archer Mediolanum (gaul)
-2 archers Aemona (neutral)
-2 swordman Veldidena (neutral)
+2 axeman Athens (neutral)
-3 cavalry -3 spearman Palmyra (neutral)

changelog v 1.0.3

fixed connection: sz 70 --- Nicaea
fixed elephant repair at end of round
added 5 production to italian territorys (2 in gaul and 3 in rome provinces)
added bireme to sz 35 (greece) and sz 28 (rome)
changed trireme to quinquereme sz 65 (greece)
added 2 forts to: Antioch
added 1 fort to: Jerusalem, Alexandria, Tarsus
Legionaire changed to 3-2 att-def no support
added 2 archers to Sardis (selucid)
added 1 archer and 1 slinger to rhodes (greece)

updated to V 1.0.2

changelog v 1.0.2
added 1 velites to all roman territorys
deleted city in Castulo (gaul)
reduced Jerusalem to 8 production
Egypt starting income adjusted accordingly
added archer to Lilybaeum (cartage)

ice

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

hepster
Sounds great already.

I like that there is a reason to pursue other outlying areas on the map other than as a PU grab.

Looking forward to seeing all the details.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

Cernel
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by ice


Since "Rome: Total War" is a copyrighted name; and 270BC itself calls the City as "Roma" I very much advice you to change the name to:

"Roma Total War"

(which, imo, sounds better)

I will probably check it out and report; anyway, you already know that I don't like the idea of adding more players to 270BC, cause I think 8 players are already more than enough; although I see you've limited it to only +2.

If possible, I very much suggest to make this fully compatible with TAW; so to have a single download from depot.

A thing I see it may be a problem, playwise, is that Bosphorian kingdom up there, having basically nothing but neutrals to kill for a lot of time; which I think will do for a bad and hard to balance game dynamic (and I don't get why there is that Parthia territory in the high-right corner).

Is the territory ownership exactly the same as the one of the videogame?

edit: 1 think I would immediately recomend, expecially since this is a 1v1, is to remove Numidia and give it partially to Cartage and partially neutral (the Numidians were just part of the cartaginians force, if submitted, under Cartaginians generals; not a sort of side ally or vassal state).
History plays dice
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

ice
thanks,

at the moment im still working on the unit setup and initial playballance. also on the unit stats. its very difficult to find various good stats on a D6 so i might change to D12 at some point. Also try to keep things simple close to 270 BC.

 also having dificulties getting a working zip for some unknown reason, when opening the console i get 0 errors ?

to adress some of cernels concerns, im not so worried about copyright since we also have maps like diplomacy

about the compatabilaty, thats never gona happen, that map is so complex and different to myne that it can never be compatable imo, and my goal is to make this map so that it will be found in the playable part of the depot

i will think about bosphorus, but they do have indeed the parthia territory to look for, (wich is also a parthia territory in the pc game RTW, but maybe i can somehow put em closer to the action. i yust need to find the right ballance in the 4 vs 6 setup, so atm not so worried about 1 slow nation.

territory ownerships is as close as it can get to the pc game, exept bosporus. in the pcgame the territory from bosporus is part of much bigger scythia iirc, and i think bosporus fits better here.

its not because i wanna dismis all ur ideas/vieuws but i like the numidia nation, and its also a nation in the pc game like this.


Hepps talked about having multiple units and what not for 270bc on an old pc, hope you can dig em up and i would love to use part of that, or work together on it. whatever makes u happy

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

Cernel
what about Roma Punic War

in my MEAD I've almost surely settled with this:

infantrymen: att 1, def 2, cost 3
shieldsmen: att 2, def 3, cost 4
guardsmen: att 1, def 4, cost 4
marksmen: att 2, def 2, cost 4, support above units
raiders: att 1, def 3, cost 4, mov 2
knights: att 4, def 4, cost 6, mov 2

just fyi

But yeah, on a second thought, since this map can't possibly be historical; just because at 270BC Parthia didn't even exist inside the map bonduaries, my new advice is to keep it as close as possible to the videogame. This may also help popularity. So, yay Numidia.
Btw, whas Pontus on his own there in the vidja game? What about Pontus vs Shitya? I guess you can use the armenians for representing some Shitya.

edit: That Parthia corner in the NE will just be like a neutral, you know: people will just put their TUV in the main Parthiene block and abandon that.
History plays dice
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

Cernel
I'd suggest adding Majar, Albana, Heraclea Pontica, Sinope, Tavium, Melitene and Tyras to Pontus, then.

Also, what about this turn order: Parthia, Pontus, Seleucid, Ptolemy, Macedonia, Greece, Roma, Gauls, Cartago, Numidia?

edit: And other territories are clearly to different owners in the videogame; for example, Babylon should be Parthia
History plays dice
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

ice
manual download in first post
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

hepster
Just took my first look at your new creation.
Map size is awesome!  Great improvement on its own.

Didn't play it thoroughly, but I noticed you can't withdraw from a battle at all.  That's definitely a departure from the norm.

I'll look at it more later.

Congrats on putting a game together though.

Cheers
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

ice
thats weird, are u sure you wherent attacking amphibious? for me it works fine, and not to mention i wouldnt have a clue how to turn that off

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

Cernel
In reply to this post by ice
First, I suggest all 1/2 fodder units being able to receive support.

If the fodder can't receive support, the support lose much of its meaning, since there is not the main dynamic of the supporting units losing power pretty soon with casualties taken. This way, there will be almost no difference between giving the support and giving just a +1 bonus to the attack, since the supporting units will have the bonus granted for most of the battle.

We find a similar issue also when the supporting units are higly priced over the supported ones, like in NWO, in which with inf at 2 and artillery at 3.5 (instead of the original 3 and 4), you buy a lot of infantry and few artillery, so there would be almost no difference with artillery just being att/def 3/2 with no support (so, having the support becomes almost the same thing as just having a plain +1 stat increase in attack, making an unit at 3/2 noSupport almost the same thing as an unit 2/2 giveSupport) (which makes the whole thing of giving support, instead of just giving +1 attack stats mostly pointless).

Regarding warelephant... You gave it 2 hitpoints

This is not the ice I knew

Btw, I got an idea bout that; what about making it:

Att 2 dice at 4; Def 2 dice at 4; Mov 1; 2 hitpoints; Cost *high*

But needing two turns to be built, with the same dinamic as the battleships in TWW (in which you would need to place an hull first, then upgrade it to a battleship). So, you would need to place a (useless; destroyed upon capture) "babyelephant" at half cost; then, upgrading it to a "warelephant" in the following turn.

Think about this.

And, btw, just fyi, Carthage, Macedonia, Egypt, Seleucid, Parthia and Numidia all had elephants (the first time the Romans met elephants was vs Pyrrhus, ruler of more and less modern day Albania).

Cheers
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

hepster
In reply to this post by ice
ice wrote
thats weird, are u sure you wherent attacking amphibious? for me it works fine, and not to mention i wouldnt have a clue how to turn that off

ice
LOL that's probably what I did.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

hepster


“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

ice



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

hepster
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

Cernel
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by ice
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
History plays dice
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

ice
updated to V 1.0.2

changelog v 1.0.2
added 1 velites to all roman territorys
deleted city in Castulo (gaul)
reduced Jerusalem to 8 production
Egypt starting income adjusted accordingly
added archer to Lilybaeum (cartage)


https://www.mediafire.com/?8r1d25lv0vdr6uy


ice
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

ice
updatet main post with things i could use help with

would be much appriciated,

ice
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

ice
changelog v 1.0.3

fixed connection: sz 70 --- Nicaea
fixed elephant repair at end of round
added 5 production to italian territorys (2 in gaul and 3 in rome provinces)
added bireme to sz 35 (greece) and sz 28 (rome)
changed trireme to quinquereme sz 65 (greece)
added 2 forts to: Antioch
added 1 fort to: Jerusalem, Alexandria, Tarsus
Legionaire changed to 3-2 att-def no support
added 2 archers to Sardis (selucid)
added 1 archer and 1 slinger to rhodes (greece)


some grafic support would be much much appreciated!! first post is a small list of my wishes

ice
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Rome Total War

ice
Im thinking about the next update, here are my thoughts so far:

-Marsillia from 4 to 6 production
-disable the selucia city option with minimal changes
-strenghten greece somewhere, but this is my biggest questionmark at the moment, i wanna give them a little more room to choose strategical options, but not make them too strong to beat
-fixing 2 connections that shouldnt exist : 61-64 and 53-cydonia
-add a egypt unit or 2, so that egypt doesnt get overrun in the earlyest of rounds by selucia
-correct starting incomes with production

feel free to post ur oppinions here, and they will be conciddered

ice


ah, and PLZZZZ someone with the skillz, look at first post. theres some stuff i really could use help with, as im yust a basic coder i cant figuer out some stuff. i think for the correct people these might be relativly easy and fast improvements for this game, and i would be extreemly gratefull
12
Loading...