PDA

View Full Version : Legionnaire faction?



Nehcrum
18-07-2006, 02:28
(Ok, before anyone says anything. YES, I have been playing a bit too much Rome: Total War the last few days...)

Anyways, there are factions in WHFB from a lot of fantasy factions, like dwarves, elves (high, dark and wood), lizardmen, orcs and gobbos, vampires, chaos...as well as some historical factions Bretonnians, Empire, Tilea (DoW), Kislev, Tomb Kings.

I want a old roman faction, based on legionnaire infantry as a heavily armored core, with some supporting auxilia. The heavy infantry cored supported by weaker auxilary troops, and some specialised engineer troops with some "fun" warmachines.
No special magic, instead maybe some special rules for the legions....

Tragically, they run the risk of becoming weaker dwarves with some cavalry...

Anyways, something like this (feel free to help out).

Core

Legionnaire Infantry Cohort
Cost: 7 or 8 points (Empire swordsmen cost 7, got same stats but LA instead of HA, and 1 more in I, dwarf warriors with HA+shield costs 9, with better T and LD).
Stats: Basic human stats, with WS 4 (they are legionnaires) and a LD 8 (or possibly 9, highly disciplined infantry legion).
Gear: Heavy armor, shield, hand weapon (the heavy armor is the key).
Options: Javelins +1 or 2 points (probably 2p, but wanna encourage them, hopefully will not be abused if they are cheap, since not too many can throw if you want a nice rank bonues.
Unit size:10-30
Special Rules: Testudo formation (Just because they are romans...+2 armor vs missile attacks when not engaged, can only choose Hold reaction if charged when in Testudo formation (no stand and shoot if they got javelins, reason to have cheap javelins), can "break" testudo formation whenever you want in your own movement phase.
(A way for them to move up the field against range heavy armies like WE.)


Infantry Auxilia
Cost: 6 points (same as for empire spearmen without shield, noone seems to use spears much anyways...just for holding flanks, just like IRL historically, fighting is best done by the legionnaires).
Stats: Basic human stats
Gear: Light armor, hand weapon, spear, shield.
Option: none
Unit size: 10+
Special Rules: none


Archer Auxilia
Cost: 8 points
Stats: basic human stats
Gear: bow, light armor, hand weapon
Option: none
Unit size: 10+
Special Rules: none


Cavalry Auxilia
Cost: 15 points?
Stats: basic human stats, basic horse stats
Gear: Horse, shield, hand weapon, javelin
Option: none
Unit size: 5-20
Special Rules: Fast Cavalry
(15p might be too cheap, should be a little on the expensive side, they are not supposed to be cavalry based, just as support and harass).


Specials


0-1 First Legionnaire Cohort
Cost: 14 points
Stats: WS 5, BS4, I 4, LD 9, rest basic human stats.
Gear: Heavy armor, shield, hand weapon, javelin
Option: None
Unit size: 10+
Special Rules: Testudo Formation (see above).
MUST TAKE FULL COMMAND.
Eagle Standard (works a little like a BSB for legions. As long as it is in-game, gives +1 LD for all your own legions (first legion, legionnari infantry and legionnaire cavalry) and +1 to their CR. If the standard is captured by the enemy, all your own legions will have -1 LD until recaptured (when recaptured, it disappears, no bonus or penalty), if lost but not captured, the bonus disappears and no penalty is incurred).


Velites
Cost: 8 points
Stats: basic human stats
Gear: Light armor, shield, hand weapons, javelins
Option: none
Unit size: 10+
Special Rules: Skirmishers
0-1 may be upgraded to get Scouts ability, for +2 p apiece
(there to do a bit of harassing ahead of the main force)


Legionnaire Cavalry
Cost: 19 points
Stats: basic human stats, WS 4 since they are legionnaires. Basic stats for horse.
Gear: Spear, hand weapon, shield and Heavy Armour
Option: none (not even barding...this is really medium cavalry, there for shock on the flanks, not to fight battles on their own).
Unit size: 5+
Special Rules: none


Ballistas
Cost: 45 points
Stats: Basic human stats (possibly BS 4, for being crewed by siege engineers?)
Gear: Light armor, hand weapon.
Option: none
Unit size:
Special Rules: Boltthrower. May take 2 for 1 special slot.


Rare


Onager
Cost: 85 points
Stats: Basic human stats (again, BS 4 for being siege engineers, in this case it doesn't really matter tho).
Gear: Light armour, hand weapon
Option: none
Unit size:
Special Rules: Stone Thrower


Scorpion
Cost: 60 points
Stats: Basic human stats (BS 4 for being siege engineers?)
Gear: Light armour, hand weapon.
Option: none
Unit size:
Special Rules: Ballista-like, may take 2 for 1 rare slot
(Works permanently kinda like Volley on HE repeater bolt thrower, firing 3 shots at S5 AP with 36" range.)


My chances of ever seeing this as a real faction in WH is slim to none, just wanted to throw it out there. Whaddyall think? Anything you wanna add, change or remove?
Give me some input.
Just toy with the idea.

Heroes would of course be a Centurion...the Lord a Senator. Mage lord a Oracle? Mage hero a Augur?

gorenut
18-07-2006, 02:35
Without getting too deep into it, the first thing that popped into my head that really bugs me is the leadership. No matter how you stretch it, they are still humans. I don't think their leadership should rival dwarfs or elfs who are generally way more experienced. Leadership 8 at most. Definitely no 9s. Maybe just have all the Legionaire troops have leadership 8 all across, but you can add other things such as stubborn or something.

Nehcrum
18-07-2006, 03:09
Very true.
Ld8 for the legion infantry and cavalry (being legionnaires). Ld 9 for the first legion (the only true Elite they have).
Ld 7 for the rest. Maybe even with ld 6 for the warmachine crews, as a way of making up for the BS 4...they're siege engineers, not really used to being toe to toe with an enemy.

Stubborn is a really nice ability for a good armoured grinding unit, but it would also be overpowered here, and would probably require a point increase if they did have it.

Stouty
18-07-2006, 03:24
Okay, assuming you want to make a new rmy list this should be in rules developement. I'm really sorry to sound like an ass.

But you could have a crack at this using the armybooks currently available and the ever useful DoW list.

Height of Rome (Dwarfs+DoW)

(core)Long beards+warriors=Legionaires
(special)Iron breakers+thane bsb= First legionaires/praetorian guard (not being historically accurate but then again when was RTW historically accurate:p )
(special)Grudge thrower+engineer(for kinder missfires)=onager
(special)Bolt thrower+engineer (for BS 4)=ballistae
(special)Quarrelers=Archers auxilia (just make sure they look like longbows)
(rarel)Duelists with throwing knives/pistols=Velites with javalins
(rare)Heavy cavalry without barding=Legionairy cavalry
(rare)Light cavalry with spears and shields= Cavalry Auxilia

Or we could do late romans

Fall of Rome (High Elves)
(core)Spearmen/lothern sea guard(to represent the fact they did have javalins)=Limitanei/legio lanciarii
(core)Silver helms=Scholae palatinae/equites auxilia
(special)Dragon princes=Equites catafractarii
(special)Ellyrian reaver=Hippo-toxotai
(rare) Repeating bolt throwers= I have no idea:rolleyes:

Back to your ideas for a list.

Ld9 for a human unit? It just feels wrong to me, it's the domain of human characters. Make the legionaires stubborn for the first round of combat, it would mean frontal heavy cavalry charges wouldn't cut it unless they didn't need the lances. Now bump them up to 10pts and throw javalins into the entry whether they want have them or not. It forces the player to think when using their legionaires and use their mobility a bit more, stopping the immediate comparisons between dwarfs and legionaires.

Make the first legion immune to panic (as well as first turn stubborn). Lose the eagle thing, make it the domain of BSBs (fascii as a magic standard? +1 ld for all legionairs within 6"). Ws-5 feels a bit out, strength 4 feels more human. Costing roughly 16pts. Chaos warriors cost 17pts with shields+mark of slaanesh and have WS-5, T-4. You have testudo and javalins. This I feel is fair. You can make yourself immune to shooting, come on smaller bases and get stubborn for the first round of combat.

Include all the legion specific stuff under the general special rule of legionaire. This includes testudo, and first turn stubborn. It lets you be more concise when you want legionaire only stuff.

6pts for base humans with hand weapon, shield and light armour? You know no one is ever going to use the spears so what you've got is a nice reliable horde block of infantry.Not inherently a bad thing I just don't think that's what you were aiming for.

Testudo:
Additional +2 to armour save versus shooting. May not march whilst in testudo. May not charge in testudo. May not break testudo till your next movement phase. If charged whilst in testudo it is broken but you may not attack that round of combat, you may only hold and the charger is awarded +1 combat resolution.

You don't want to be charged in testudo.
EDIT: obvious spelling.

Nehcrum
18-07-2006, 04:24
Okay, assuming you want to make a new rmy list this should be in rules developement. I'm really sorry to sound like an ass.
Not really trying to make a new army list. As I said, the chances of them ever being seen is slim to none, and I see no reason in spending way too much time dabbling in a rules development about something that will never be adopted anyways.

This was just thrown out for me to have a little fun, and see what others thought.



Ld9 for a human unit? It just feels wrong to me, it's the domain of human characters. Make the legionaires stubborn for the first round of combat, it would mean frontal heavy cavalry charges wouldn't cut it unless they didn't need the lances. Now bump them up to 10pts and throw javalins into the entry whether they want have them or not. It forces the player to think when using their legionaires and use their mobility a bit more, stopping the immediate comparisons between dwarfs and legionaires.
Thought about giving them javelins permanently. Just felt that javelins in WH ain't exactly what they are IRL...
And why not a high Ld human unit? Why are humans for some reason inherently more cowardly than elves and dwarves?
There has been numerous human units in history that has had no problem fighting against hard odds to the very end. Semi-fanatical (without being either unbreakable or stubborn).


Make the first legion immune to panic (as well as first turn stubborn). Lose the eagle thing, make it the domain of BSBs (fascii as a magic standard? +1 ld for all legionairs within 6"). Ws-5 feels a bit out, strength 4 feels more human. Costing roughly 16pts. Chaos warriors cost 17pts with shields+mark of slaanesh and have WS-5, T-4. You have testudo and javalins. This I feel is fair. You can make yourself immune to shooting, come on smaller bases and get stubborn for the first round of combat.
The eagle thing was a very big deal for the roman legions, it was the pride of the legions, losing it was an extreme disgrace. I just wanted to make a near mandatory special unit, everyone would take it for the eagle and the effect it has on the legions. At the same time forcing them to make a big block of the after all semi-expensive elite infantry.
This due to the enemy of course wanting to nail that unit hard to not only remove the eagle bonus, but also to get that -1 to their Ld by capturing it (consider putting in that the legions would HATE the unit that captured the eagle).
Making them stubborn or unbreakable would mean that the enemy would have a near impossible job in capturing that eagle, especially since it's highly likely that the "roman" will place a character in that unit, and quite possibly also a BSB.

Chaos warriors can come in smaller units, due to the importance of the eagle, you are almost forced to make this a large block, just to protect it. Make a unit with that costly troopers more than 5x4 and you'll see the points just running away.


6pts for base humans with hand weapon, shield and light armour? You know no one is ever going to use the spears so what you've got is a nice reliable horde block of infantry.Not inherently a bad thing I just don't think that's what you were aiming for.
You are right, I just ripped the cost and stats right out of the empire armybook, didn't pay much heed to the spear infantry, thinking they would just be taken for cheap troops. There is no real way in removing the handweapon, and yeah, as I said, noone seems to use spears. They should probably be increased 1 point to make them less cost effective, especially since the infantry legion was planned to be heavily armoured and cost effective (and others not, only for support). The cost-effective part was the reason I did not want to make Javelins mandatory.

That and I was still thinking about spears in the form that they are in R:TW, cavalry-stoppers, in WH they are just cheaper swordsmen with a worthless spear...



Testudo:
Additional +2 to armour save versus shooting. May not march whilst in testudo. May not charge in testudo. May not break testudo till your next movement phase. If charged whilst in testudo it is broken but you may not attack that round of combat, you may only hold and the charger is awarded +1 combat resolution.

You don't want to be charged in testudo.

+2 armour....good good (gives them a 2+ armour save vs shooting while in testudo). May not march, good idea, should've thought of that myself.
May not charge in Testudo, may not break til your next movement phase. Means they will break testudo first thing, then charge (unless they must declare charges before any formation changes, in which case they will change testudo in the turn before, which is probably what you mean).
If charged, Testudo is broken. Naturally.
But you may not attack that round of combat, you may only hold and the charger is awarded +1 combat resolution. Too harsh, means awarding enemies with long-charging cavalry a bit too much power. The fact that they cannot charge, and cannot stand and shoot with their javelins, should be enough of a factor to only use Testudo to walk to the enemy lines and then drop it.
Should of course also be, No shooting while you are Testudo.

gorenut
18-07-2006, 05:07
And why not a high Ld human unit? Why are humans for some reason inherently more cowardly than elves and dwarves?
There has been numerous human units in history that has had no problem fighting against hard odds to the very end. Semi-fanatical (without being either unbreakable or stubborn).




Because they didn't face giants, superhumans, daemons, etc. They were facing other humans. The Warhammer world is more harsh than the real world. I see Chaos Warriors about as brave as "humans" come. Leadership 7 is not cowardly. That's the leadership for disciplined/brave troops. I would hardly call battle hungry Orcs cowardly. Look at beastmen and ghouls, they would be example of something that is tough and probably willingly bash their foes in, but they will totally crack under pressure. Anything above is about the bravest the realm has to offer. Goblins and such are what true cowardice is about.

Nehcrum
18-07-2006, 05:29
I'm taking the Empire armybook as an example of "typical" humans.

Their state troops has Ld 7, DoW basic human units also have Ld 7.
So Ld 7 seems normal for trained troops.
Paymaster bodyguard, heavy cavalry, greatswords and knights all have Ld 8, which I can then take to be the norm for human "elite" troops.

So far, Ld 7 for Auxilia and Ld 8 for legionnaires seems to fit the human profile fine.
The "extreme elite and veteran" first legion really should be near superhuman when it comes to morale and discipline. Ld 9 is not too high for them, they should be capable of being equals with standard dwarven infantry when it comes to morale.

As far as monsters go...you seem to forget war elephants...Romans saw quite a few of those...

Varath- Lord Impaler
18-07-2006, 07:05
There are a couple of things missing which would make it better and more fluffy.

Burning ranged weapons of course

Tortiseshell formation should be much better, it was VERY powerful and hard to beat. Just Limit it somehow like a unit has to take a Ld test every turn to stay in formation.

Eniac
18-07-2006, 08:28
Or if playing a Roman army was really that much of an issue you could just start playing WAB instead. Actually the army lists for WAB can be used in WHFB very adequetly. Obviously they are no good for WHFB tourneys but in friendlys I dont see why not.

I'd quite like to see the Roman Empire go toe to toe with the forces of Chaos. This is fantasy after all. (Btw, Rome would PwNzORZ those dirty Chaos boyz :D)

gorenut
18-07-2006, 08:34
I'm taking the Empire armybook as an example of "typical" humans.

Their state troops has Ld 7, DoW basic human units also have Ld 7.
So Ld 7 seems normal for trained troops.
Paymaster bodyguard, heavy cavalry, greatswords and knights all have Ld 8, which I can then take to be the norm for human "elite" troops.

So far, Ld 7 for Auxilia and Ld 8 for legionnaires seems to fit the human profile fine.
The "extreme elite and veteran" first legion really should be near superhuman when it comes to morale and discipline. Ld 9 is not too high for them, they should be capable of being equals with standard dwarven infantry when it comes to morale.

As far as monsters go...you seem to forget war elephants...Romans saw quite a few of those...

I would rank Dragons, Daemons, and Giants much more terrifying than a war elephant.

I have no problems with them having 8 as standard. However, you have to remember.. for humans.. 9 is above and beyond. Thats the leadership given to generals and such. I don't think rank and file troops would have the same leadership as an army general, no matter how disciplined they are, unless ofcourse they weren't human and have had centuries of action. I think the solution would be to have some kind of suppliment for their leadership to represent something between 8 and 9 for the elite troops. Someone already suggested something like immune to panic. Look at the Bret book for examples.

Gen.Steiner
18-07-2006, 09:47
I think this'd work well for the Tilean State Army (Lorenzo Lupo, anyone?). Fun idea, actually, but check out Warhammer Ancient Battles - as has been suggested - for an army list that'll work fine with a little bit of tweaking (it uses 5th Ed rules, not 6th Ed), rather than having to create the entire thing from scratch.

I think the 1st Cohort (legion's elite troops) would be Ld 8, Stubborn. Aquilifiers and other officers/NCOs would probably be Ld 9.

Varath- Lord Impaler
18-07-2006, 11:18
Well did you mention generals?

I think Caesar should be there. Make him a weak(ish) fighter for a lord type general (like the hero choice of the legionairres is stronger) but give him a couple of benefits for the army.

Namely the Praetorian Guard. Make them dead 'ard and stubborn and that every model counts as a unit champion for challenging purposes (they would sooner die before their leader)

Then a few more conventional Heros (I FIGHTS! and I DONTS!)

Caesar- Ws- 5, Bs-4, S4, T- 4, W-3, I- 5, A- 3, Ld- 10
Caesar is equipped with heavy armour and may take a shield. He may also be joined by the Praetorian guard. He may never leave the unit.

Praetorian guard. Ws- 5, bs- 3, S-4, T- 3, W- 1, I 4, A- 3, Ld- 8
each Praetorian Guard is equipped with a Gladius and a roman Shield. all normal rules for these apply. (see below)

'My allegience is with him'

When Caesar is still alive each Praetorian guard counts as a unit champion for Challenging purposes.




Gladius: The Roman Legion is taught to fight using a Gladius which is a broad bladed short sword. These weapons are used with brutal efficiency cuting through the stomach to take down and opponent quickly while the Roman soldier uses his shield to block blows. Due to its unweildy nature the Gladius may never take advantage of the 'parry' rule in the warhammer rule book but it does force an extra -1 to an opponents armour save in combat. ( i made this to make men with spears actually USE their spears)

Roman Shield: The Romans fight with large tower shields covering the majority of their body. These shields can be fitted together to create a tortiseshell formation. The shields are ranked and cover the unit completly making a great defensive formation but a very weak offensive one.

In game terms any unit equipped with Roman shields may choose to take the formation. the unit takes an unmodified Ld Test. This makes each model in the unit count as Toughness 4 and gives a +2 to their armour save from shooting. at the end of every turn (At the end of your assault phase but before your opponents movement phase) the Legionarres must take another Ld test to remain in formation. If it is failed the Romans have been spooked by enemies and have broken formation. If the enemy is within 6 inches the unit incurs a -1 to this Ld test.

If the unit is charged while in formation they may only hit on 6's due to the unprepared assault.


sound good?

Eniac
18-07-2006, 11:35
Gladius: The Roman Legion is taught to fight using a Gladius which is a broad bladed short sword. These weapons are used with brutal efficiency cuting through the stomach to take down and opponent quickly while the Roman soldier uses his shield to block blows.
I dont want to go off topic but your wording is a little unclear. The Gladius was not intended to cut but instead to stab, primarily in the abdomen but a skilled legionary could insert the blade between the ribs of an opponent to puncture the lungs. Maybe I'm just being anal but I like to make the distinction. A lot of people still think the weapon was a hacking blade. ;)


Roman Shield: The Romans fight with large tower shields covering the majority of their body. These shields can be fitted together to create a tortiseshell formation
AKA a "Testudo" :D

The shield is known as a "Scutum" and was more than a mere defensive shield. In the centre was an iron protrusion known as an umbo which would have been used to smash into the face of an enemy. The legionary would thrust with the Gladius, then punch with the Scutum and so on.
I liken it to the Lizardmen saurus shields. It would probably grant an extra attack but then again, even the WAB lists dont really do this so feel free to ignore me. (WAB lists a "large shield" as having an extra point of armour but one less inch of movement)


As far as the "spears" go, the only weapon in the fantasy arsenal which even remotely fits the bill for the roman "Pilum" would be the javelin. Typically used to throw at charging enemy before combat was engaged. It certainly wasnt a defensive weapon as it was too heavy and lacked penetrative power unless thrown (it was weighted)

Varath- Lord Impaler
18-07-2006, 12:33
hey hey hey, i know all this, im knee deep in a report about Pompeii and i do know my Roman stuff, im just trying to finish and not kill myself of boredom. (i meant that the Gladius was used to stab through the stomach of course, hard to hurt people with a blunt sided blade)

Eniac
18-07-2006, 13:17
hard to hurt people with a blunt sided blade)
But not impossible :D

generulpoleaxe
18-07-2006, 13:31
why don't you use the ancients army lists for warhammer?

Eniac
18-07-2006, 13:39
why don't you use the ancients army lists for warhammer?
I suggested this but on later reflection I reliased that there are no Fantasy rules for "large shields" and "Heavy throwing spears"

So maybe he could just use the base statlines and improvise the weapons. Javelins standing in for Pila and Claim heavy armour for the large shield. (then again, what about the heavier segmentata compared to chainmail?)

Chiron
18-07-2006, 14:02
theres a fantastic roman army using the empire here

http://www.remanlegions.com/

Chuffy
18-07-2006, 15:09
(Ok, before anyone says anything. YES, I have been playing a bit too much Rome: Total War the last few days...)

You'd be better off playing a good game for a start.

Cpt. Drill
18-07-2006, 15:15
You missed viatl elements of the roman army.... like DOGS and FLAMING PIGS........

Griefbringer
18-07-2006, 15:17
I suggested this but on later reflection I reliased that there are no Fantasy rules for "large shields" and "Heavy throwing spears"


Well, the WAB rules for those would probably translate over pretty well into WHFB.

As for the idea of a Roman Legion in a fantasy world, may I recommend the "Legion of Videssos" series of novels by Harry Turtledove? There a Roman unit gets magically shipped into a fantasy world where they end up facing real magic.

Chiron
18-07-2006, 15:23
You'd be better off playing a good game for a start.


explain how R:TW isnt any good as a game? without moaning about weaponlengths and how every greek army should be exactly the same instead of having differences (like the egyptians) or the exotic units that lend a bit character to an army instead of them being made up of just peasants/spearmen/swordsmen


and I'll give you a cookie

Stouty
18-07-2006, 16:07
explain how R:TW isnt any good as a game? without moaning about weaponlengths and how every greek army should be exactly the same instead of having differences (like the egyptians) or the exotic units that lend a bit character to an army instead of them being made up of just peasants/spearmen/swordsmen


and I'll give you a cookie

It's a good game, nay, a great game.

Historically accurate, it is not; for many and varied reasons. The most anal being things like weapon lengths. The most obvious being the unification of greece under one ruler :wtf:

It gives a nice feel of playing ancient battle but it is not anything like the real thing, some may say this is a good thing; all the "barbarians" would play the same and all the eastern and african cultures would play the same (to a large extent).

It's just not what some people wanted.

Chiron
18-07-2006, 16:49
It's a good game, nay, a great game.

Historically accurate, it is not; for many and varied reasons. The most anal being things like weapon lengths. The most obvious being the unification of greece under one ruler :wtf:

It gives a nice feel of playing ancient battle but it is not anything like the real thing, some may say this is a good thing; all the "barbarians" would play the same and all the eastern and african cultures would play the same (to a large extent).

It's just not what some people wanted.


what some people seem to want is a completely accurate simulation of antiquity, which is impossible due just how little we really know for sure about the period, it does however succeed as a game, its pretty unique (only dark omen is similar to it tbh...) and a lot of fun trying to conquer the world as pontus or some other little nation

and representing polictics in an interesting way in a game is insanely hard, only SMAC has done it well and that was with a lot few factions

just grows tiresome listening to people hark on about how historically inaccurate it is as there main gripe...

and besides, its gets people interested in history and does tell you a few basic things which is rather nice

Chiron
18-07-2006, 16:52
double post

Stouty
18-07-2006, 17:02
I'm not disagreeing with you, just stating others point of view, personally I love RTW as I do dabble in a little bit of millitary history and I can see inaccuracies but no one moaned about Rise of Nations or Age of Empires, people just accepted it was a game, you'd have to be a fool to think otherwise.

And hell, now people know what I'm talking about when I say Hastati so it can't be all bad can it?

Do I still get that cookie?

Chiron
18-07-2006, 19:52
yes, yes you do, but it'll have to look like cheese :cheese: ;)

try going to the totalwar forums, you'll see why I get so irate about the subject

Chuffy
18-07-2006, 20:28
Or maybe RTW is bad because of the crippling bugs, abysmal AI, the rushed natire of the game, late game staleness and badly thought out campaign map? Not to mention complete and utter lack of depth, immersion and character.

Or the neon skins and insulting portrayal of the 'barbarians' and 'egyptians'.

MTW ---> RTW

Stouty
18-07-2006, 21:03
There are a fair few bugs, the game does get stale once you start winning and the AI does bug me from time to time, but that's why God gave us multi-player.

And I fail to see what's so insulting about the portrayal of the barbarians and egyptians. Neon skins?

Chiron
18-07-2006, 21:47
Or maybe RTW is bad because of the crippling bugs, abysmal AI, the rushed natire of the game, late game staleness and badly thought out campaign map? Not to mention complete and utter lack of depth, immersion and character.

Or the neon skins and insulting portrayal of the 'barbarians' and 'egyptians'.

insulting portrayl?

crippling bugs? theres a fair few bugs but thats true of every game, the only really bad one I find is pathfinding in cities and skirmish mode

the late game is stale, but thats very true of all RTS and TBS games, once you reach a certain point in every level you know you'll win without a doubt, it'd have been nice to have those rebellions that so many complained about in M:TW to keep your empire on your toes

the neon skins are purely to make it easier for people to get an idea of what units theres in a melee, you can always replace them with modded skins

the map of europe is badly thought out? erm... ok then, you prefer the risk style one where your fighting on one or two battlefields then fair enough

you do get a cookie though :cheese:



anyway, this is way way off topic so lets finish up there

Eniac
18-07-2006, 22:07
theres a fantastic roman army using the empire here

http://www.remanlegions.com/


Very nice, excpet for the conga line formations. Get them 10 across and 8 deep.

Nehcrum
19-07-2006, 05:07
I'm not disagreeing with you, just stating others point of view, personally I love RTW as I do dabble in a little bit of millitary history and I can see inaccuracies but no one moaned about Rise of Nations or Age of Empires, people just accepted it was a game, you'd have to be a fool to think otherwise.

And hell, now people know what I'm talking about when I say Hastati so it can't be all bad can it?

Do I still get that cookie?
Actually, I think that the more people moan and bitch about historically inaccuracies, the more accurate it actually is.

If it's worthless in being historically correct, all the little anal know-it-all whiners won't even look at it, and the more accurate it is, the more know-it-alls it attracts.

If there'd been a near perfect game, tons of people would complain about the spear actually being 2 inches shorter on the barbarian spearmen compared to their roman counterparts, which is not correctly portrayed.
And the tattooes on some of them are not exactly as they were and the Lorica Segmentata has one "band" of armor too much.


So the fact that so many people complain about so "little" things means that the game overall is very good in being historically accurate.

And then what people seem to fail to grasp is that they do have to change and simplify a few things to make it into a viable game.
Sure, the greek city states should not have been a united into a single kingdom like they are in the game, but if they had all been independant, they would've portrayed as too weak....and so on and so on.


As for M:TW being better, some things are, and some things are not. The sieges are a lot worse for example, and it's really annoying when the enemy just keeps sending thousand upon thousand of peasants into the field, instead of at least a semblance of trained troops...