PDA

View Full Version : not enough civilizations



despothes
23rd Feb 2003, 23:28
wow, this game is fun, it lets you get right into the action and start massing troops and damn its fun to lead your armies around. I just played the mp demo from 1 am to 8 am and had fun the whole time. I love the units and i love the way the roman legions look wow! i liked the way the units moved, good ai it seemd. nice music, i like the environments. this game is a good game!!

ok bad stuff: i am dissappointed in only having 3 civilizations.. if it had lets say 6-10 i would have given this game a 9.3 but these 3 civilizations are going to get really boring after a while!

why did the developers stop at 3! they could have had such a "great" game and now its just going to be stuck at "good" b/c thers not enough content..


:confused: why

curtlegion
24th Feb 2003, 00:37
They will have more with an add on probably.....

Dharkbayne
24th Feb 2003, 02:26
because if they had a bunch, then the civs would be bland , and would be all the same, like AOE , where the civs just have about 1 different troop and everthing else is the same, 3 is perfect, look at starcraft , if they did have more, I would want about 5 civs max, BUT there werent really any other civs that rome fought I think, dont get mad at me, I dont know alot about roman history, what I would want in an addon is more troops, and more variety, even though there is alot in the game already, but I wouldnt really want more civs, its kinda like a game with 140 levels vs a game like halo, the 140 levels might last longer, but they are all the same, not like halo where each level is very different from the last, its the same with civilizations, ok thanks for reading this VERY long post, I hope it helped you, ok, Dharkbayne, out

despothes
24th Feb 2003, 06:52
ok i understand what you are trying to say but AoE has resource management (which is more simple in praetorians so why cant they add the extra civs for more content) PLUS AoE 2 has 13 civilizations, now i said 6-10.. why not 8 or or 7? i am sure they could think of ways to make 7 or 8 unique civilizations b/c they could compare with AoE and AoE 2 and look at its successes and faults. etc


Dharkbayne: "not like halo where each level is very different from the last"

uhm if i remember right (i passed halo 2 times but it was a long time ago) halo had like 2 repeat levels i think? and that library level was like the same stuff over and over and over again.. so i dont think that was a very good comparision :D , but i understand what you are tryin to say ;)

quality over quanity?.. of course but maybe 3 is to far over on the quality side...

Twitten
24th Feb 2003, 07:20
Well, from an historical point of view, you can hardly add more civilizations... Egyptians, Celts and Romans were the only military powers involved at that time.

They could have added the Macedonians though (Alexander the great with phalanxes as a special troop maybe). But this will probably be in an add-on.

RedLegg
24th Feb 2003, 17:41
Originally posted by Twitten
Well, from an historical point of view, you can hardly add more civilizations... Egyptians, Celts and Romans were the only military powers involved at that time.

They could have added the Macedonians though (Alexander the great with phalanxes as a special troop maybe). But this will probably be in an add-on.

The Greek Empire under Alexander the Great was long gone by the time of the period the game occurs. Though it might be nice to see how the Roman Legions stood up to the Greek Phalanx.

Cicero
24th Feb 2003, 18:22
The game is so good as it is now stands. Let's remember that the makers tried very much to stick with the historical timeline.

The game is supposed to be set during Rome's late Republic, when the Republic was crumbling to give way to the Empire and the ambitions of men who built it.

Rome was expanding fast and it continued for centuries. Perhaps, subject to the correct historical facts, we could have Rome's conquest of bigger or entire territories in Spain, Macedonia, Britain, Carthage, Judea...etc including war versus the Parthians. Then.....with tears, but we can save Rome...the sacking and fall of the Roman Empire (now the West part) dealth with by hordes of barbarians.

So relax...but brace yourself....this games gonna take us to the farthest reaches of the Roman Empire with its future sequels that we may bathe in the blood of Rome's enemies to our satisfaction.

Of course, with the correct historical timeline to give us superb game realism.

If we can't wait, then there can be add ons, mission packs, or mods from the mod makers out there.

Dharkbayne
24th Feb 2003, 19:44
You know what would be cool? If they had an expansion pack/sequel that took place in a different time in roman history, so they could add the other battles, and stuff, but thats about the only thing they could add on, I think they followed history pretty closely on this one, :):) :D

John Carter
25th Feb 2003, 02:16
Given the timeline of this game, the civs they have are enough, I think.

It would be interesting to see future campaigns from the Imperial period, against the Parthians, etc, but since I haven't played the first three yet, I can wait a while. :D

Twitten
25th Feb 2003, 07:12
Punic Wars against Carthage would be great, Hannibal and his Elephants crossing the Alps seems interesting to me.

Dharkbayne
26th Feb 2003, 02:28
yeah, I agree with you , this game is perfect, the only thing you could add is more missions, but we havent even played the real game yet.

shmem
28th Feb 2003, 21:44
What about the persians? the romans where fighting them all along (never won though), but they had cool units (elephents)
hope they will have them in an expension pack
:D

superdroideka
28th Feb 2003, 22:25
The Persian were defeated by Alexander the Great, a few hundred years before the Romans went to Persia.
But they met the Parthians, and could never defeat them.
The punic wars were long before Julius Ceasar.
They could add Macedonians or more Barbarians (Celts, Gauls, Germans, ...)

LongShen
3rd Mar 2003, 00:05
ooooo how about attila the hun O.o, he owned....literally :)

shmem
3rd Mar 2003, 14:04
superdroideka - not quit true, though alexander the great the conquer some of persia, i don't think you realize the size of it (the persian empire), the person to finally take care of the persian was mustly Ginges Khan,
the romans had huge wars with the persian, even years after ceaser, for exmple Julian the Apostate found his death in a was with persia in 480BC, and i don't remmeber other names, but more then a couple emperors died fighting persia.

LongShen
4th Mar 2003, 00:02
Genghis :D

ATILLA THE HUN OWNAGE ROME!!!!!! :)

shmem
4th Mar 2003, 14:06
I still like the parsian better, think they where more intresting then the huns :D

Lt_Kerensky
4th Mar 2003, 14:23
Actually, you get to fight the parthians (persians, different ruling clan, basically the same cultere and origins) and their dammed parthian calvalry. The mission is set just after the battle of Carrhae (I hope i get the spelling right).

And yep, I completly agree in that the greeks (macedonian army) would be a very good addition.

shmem
4th Mar 2003, 14:53
I want elephents :D

TheNegotiate
8th Mar 2003, 05:25
Just to set the record straight this is when Crassus, Pompey and Julius Caesar ruled Rome. Julius Caesar lived approximately 45 B.C. During this times the Persians had taken an @$$ kicking and weren't exactly a threat to Rome. Julius Caesar's claim to fame besides helping form Imperial Rome was his conquest of Gaul. During his life he fought little elsewhere. Places other then Gaul where Rome in general fought were Spain, France(Gaul), Germany, North Africa, Egypt, Britain and Greece. Greece was under Caesars control so there isn't much of a chance of him warring on his own people.

TheNegotiate-Leetfoo

TheNegotiate
8th Mar 2003, 05:28
Oh, and Alexander the Great conquered all of Persia. He also took over Egypt and India and consolidated all the Greeks except the Spartans under his leadership. He had his sights set on Saudi Arabia when his men wanted to go home and he died of Malarya. Im in Ancient Civilizations in high school i gotta know this $h1t.

Outcast_Rebel
8th Mar 2003, 10:48
BUT there werent really any other civs that rome fought I think, dont get mad at me, I dont know alot about roman history,

This is not a swipe at you my friend, I just wanted to point out
some of Rome's enemys.

Greek's Tarantine's, Macedonian's Seleucid's Thracian's
Bithanian's Illyrian's Scythian's Sarmation's Parthian's
Carthaginian's, Numidian's Spanish, celtic, Samnite's ect ect

my point is they would have lot's of civ's to chose from. ;)

TheNegotiate
8th Mar 2003, 22:32
Thats all well and good but this game is based during the reign of Julius Caesar and he was mainly fighting the Gauls.

G-diddy
9th Mar 2003, 00:17
The Gauls were a faction of Celt, stop asking for Celts.

:)

Outcast_Rebel
9th Mar 2003, 10:25
Originally posted by TheNegotiate
Thats all well and good but this game is based during the reign of Julius Caesar and he was mainly fighting the Gauls.

Yes that's true, and the Gaul's in the game reprecent the celt's
you've got Ancient British celt's, Gaulish celts, and Galation's ;)