Take The Walls!

Which are which?

300!

Wow thats alot of people for such a narrow passage. I'd be scared to death fighting like that.How'd they get up there? Did they come through the doorways in single file? lol

@EarthboundX The guys not wearing much are the egyptians

The green are the Brutii (their Roman, and also the ones I'm playing). The yellow/orange/gold/whatever-you-want-to-call-that are Egyptians, and they are the ones defending their city while I'm the invader.

My Romans got up there via ladders, and the Egyptians started with a couple groups of soldiers on the walls. Most of the towers (except corner ones) have stairwells that, while you can't actually see them, they'll use them to get from the walls to the ground.

If you look to the top left, you can see the remainder of my army waiting for my wall teams to capture the gate towers, at which point I may control when the gate opens and closes, therefore can invade with the bulk of my army.

Top right you can see, in the far distance, my other wall team beating back yet another Egyptian contingent.

Actually, the Egyptians should be arrayed as Macedonian phalanxes, wearing Linothoraxes and Konos, although on the walls, they'd probably not wield Sarissas, but shorter javelins or swords.

Essentially they should be using the same basic kit that Alexander brought with him from greece.

Again, people playing Rome:TW are looking for a history-BASED rts, not a history lesson. I guarantee you 99.99999999% of the players not only don't know that, but don't care. >.>; And, ironically, need a dictionary for half of your post lol.

But for sake of conversation, they do use a phalanx when they've the room. On walls, they're unable.

@TheTot thats what happens all the time here lol

@dowekeller You know way too much about nothing, haha.

@EarthboundX That's not completely fair to say. I think knowing what happened before us, from immediate history to ancient history, is incredibly important and should be respected and well studied.

Just... not when you're trying to enjoy a game, lol.

I actually know quite well why they vary from history, by the Roman period, Greece, Persia, Egypt, essentially everything from the Eastern Mediterranean to well within India was ruled by descendants of Alexander's officers. All the soldiers fought with essentially the same kit and tactics as were developed by Philip of Macedon.

Historically, that's very important, but for a game, it would be redundant, and players would feel cheated, "Yay, I get to conquer another generic Hellenistic nation. Wheee."

I do realize that it's only a game, and my tongue is firmly in cheek, as I type it, but I DO have to say something because I'm a history geek, and that's how we roll.

@dowekeller Oh no no no, tactic and army wise the kingdoms are very historically accurate. I was referring to your dismissal of their apparel, haha.

But yeah, Macedon, the Greeks, Pontus, and the Seleucid Empire are all very heavily based on phalanxes, which would be why in the screen shot above I have very few cavalry in my invading army. =) Horses + Phalanx = massacre >.<;

I know how it goes I'm a huge history buff too, and war buff. I adore the logic on strategic war, love studying important battles and the strategies used.

I would love to travel the world someday and visit many of the legendary spots of battles... Omaha Beach, Little Boghorn, Yorktown, Chibi, Malta, Jerusalem, Thermopylae... just to name some very few!

I know tons about nothing as well, ask me anything about the Simpsons. Or Silent Hill, or the Zelda series.

Do the Simpsons climb Silent Hill in the Zelda series?

@LordXenophon Man, I'd love for the Simpsons to do a Silent Hill parody in a Halloween ep, not that will ever happen.

It might. They've done City of Heroes.

@EarthboundX I am not certain knowing what kit each culture and civilisation had is really that useless of knowledge. But then, I am not one of those people who can run out of space for knowledge and "need" to forget something to fit new knowledge in my head. So, I may be slightly wrong here.
@TheTot I must admit, that if I were to play a History-Based RTS or TBS, and they ended up not be able to get a history lesson from it--I would prolly be more than a little disappointed in the game. Potentially robed.

I mean, I suppose that due to the shifts in the player's tactics the enemy forces may change their weapons to accommodate--but then, we start to head into the realm of alternative history. Which is fun in its own right.

@LordXenophon When did they do COH? I don't remember that.

@KatrinaTheLamia, Re: yeah, can't wait until computers are powerful enough that gameplay events will alter game history, culture and technology in a realistic way. Thinking about what could have been IS fun.

@dowekeller Well--Sid Meir's Civilisation series and the FlOSS Freeciv do try to do this. That is mostly what they are based around.

However, yeah--this would be a wonderful type of game to consider. But then, I would not consider an Alternative History a real form of History Based game. I mean, and game, where you could have Steam Punk Lincoln face off with the Cybernetic Mogel Hordes kind of removes it from the idea of a "History Game".

@KatrinaTheLamia, Haven't played Sid Meir's Civ, but I have played Freeciv a bunch, and I find it to easy to just concentrate on getting to the more powerful units first and steamroll over the poor savages who were a bit slower getting the necissary tech.

That's not really what I had in mind, but more of a what if Persia hadn't conquered Egypt? How would the interior and exterior forces have shaped Egyptian culture and warfare if the old kingdom had survived into the 1st century, what would an authentic Egyptian 1st century military look like?

That sort of thing.

BTW, good to see you posting here again.

Some people have a hard time imagining that far off the path. Like for example, games like Rome:TW are still in an essence rewriting history. For example, I may be conquering all that Rome did but I can choose how and when. And after your first game, you can replay it as any other faction. For awhile I had an Egyptian file going, and I was well into Persia before I unfortunately lost my save file. Pontus and Armenia are two others I enjoy playing as.

@dowekeller it is nice to be back. I do admit, that from the stories I heard, Sid Meir's Civ does try to answer those topics.

I mean, maybe if we mixed in some of the theory of Spore (not what ended up being released btw), some of the concepts of The Sims and Sim City in with most of the current Civilisation code base, we may be able to get something close to that.

It would be nice, if with these sorts of games that are done to explore human nature did not require any sort of requirement of immediate return. I suppose it would be possible to get some of university backing on this, in the categories of art, literature and programming I guess.

However, yes, that would be a wonderful game to play.

@TheTot well--the idea would not to have the game designer be forced to imagine. Instead, get the computer AI at the level that _it_ could imagine this.

But then, I mostly lament, that the state of the art AI of today tends to be scripts that send me questions asking if I need a bigger pen15.

It would be nice if the level of AI and other game-play elements kept pace with Graphics processing and rendering power. I hate the fact that all-too-often, AI is nearly as stupid today as it was in the late eighties. Just one of my many pet peeves, and peeves do make lovely pets, and quite a bit easier to care for than gerbils or budgies.

Heeeey, Spore is awesome. I think I'll go play some right now, in fact. =)

@TheTot well--yeah, Spore is pretty good... but... it really was not what they were advertising it as. It is rather obvious that a large amount had to be cut so that it would beat Duke Nukem Forever in release date.

Wow, forgot about DNF, I hear it's gonna be released any decade now.