Jump to content

Medieval: Total War


Guest Grayfox
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

YeaH, Rome:Total War looks sweet, and, finally, it seems like they are going to incorporate actual geographical location when factoring where armies fight, i.e., meeting in the alps, or on the banks of the danube, or in rome itself...no more set "maps" for a certain area, now the maps are rolling and constantly variable. Plus with true 3D soldiers, it'll be sweet

*********As far as a War story***********

In M:TW I've been the Byzantines for quite some time, set up a monopoly on world trade, got mad rich, built massive armies, sent an Expeditionary force to the south of France, raped and piliaged the French country side, then low and behold, the sicilians and hungarians decide to destory my fleet, then do so, cutting off my expeditionary force in France and eliminating all my income from trade. (Oh Believe Me, Nobody Crosses the Byzantine Emperor and gets away with it; Hungary was suppresed into a third rate power, and the sicilians, after failed attempts at invading Greece and North Africa, blew themselves out and eventually were eliminated by rebels!)Having then over extended myself and quickly going into debt (the income from my colonies without being able to trade was not enough to provide for all my troops) eventually I ran up a debt of 200000 credits, which took 200+ years to pay down!. So, seeing my Emperor and several main armies were now stuck in France, and seeing my homeland dangerously understaffed, I decide to purge the territory I had gained in France and northern Spain, burning and piliging everything in my path, and beat a path across europe, across the alps and the north of Italy, into the area of Hungary, burning all in my path and ensuring the the area I had left behind would be infertile and unproducive for centurys after I had left, which held true! Leaving a vacuum in my path, Rebels took control of most of my abandoned colonys, with the French fighting over other scraps I had left behind. Once my empire had contracted and gained security, I expanded accross the north of Africa, ultimately holding Cordoba in the south of Spain. My standing armies fought and won many battles over decades and decades of existance without replenishment or recruiting (thanks to the foresight and wisdom of the Byzantine Emperors of old, who invested in Large Armies, before the loss of income), extended the borders of our Empire to the south of Poland and as far west as Spain, and persisted for centuries, maintaining knowledge and valor gained from years and years of campaigning. With persistent and slow progress, suppressing the odd rebellion here and there, and constantly fighting, my soldiers numbers were reduced but never broken, and eventually, through fiscal discipline and the reduction, through battle casualtys, of my armed forces, (From 20,000+ at the peak of my power to now roughly 14,000 total troops throughout the Empire, now outclassed by the french in numbers and modernity) my revenue yeilded a profit, and in 100 years I had dug my self out of debt, and now, in 1370, I stand poised to assert my dominance over the remainder of Europe, and I intend to enrich the agricultural output of all my colonies before expanding the army and our borders in the great tradition of the Byzantium Emperors of the Past...

********************************

My only complaint is the limit on how large a single army can be, as I know at times the Romans had 30+ legions in existance at times, roughly 150000+ men plus allies. Battles of two armies with 2000 men each is impressive, but I can only imagine the difficulty involved with more then that, not to mention the computing power needed...

Ahhh, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this, and shogun total war, are my favorite games of all time (thats right, even over BCM! Sorry!), and have captured literally hundreds of hours of my life in the mock conquest of Japan and Europe.

If you like strategy games and large scale battle action, then the TOTAL WAR games are for you...I'm limited in the amount of time I can spend on this game only by the need to sleep and maintain my life (eating and such). The satisfaction of building and commanding YOUR troops in battle, seeing them gain experiance, seeing great generals rise and fall, well it just doesn't get any better in my book

[ 02-16-2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: GoalieJerry ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

quote:

Battles of two armies with 2000 men each is impressive, but I can only imagine the difficulty involved with more then that

as sun tzu once said "Command a large army as you would a small one"

i love having both sides maxed out with troops, and i definitely cant wait for rome to come out. i remember seeing something about it using just a bit more comp power than MTW, which is sweet, cause MTW runs seamless on my rig... so i should get pretty decent performance on RTW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rtoolooze

Quote from GrayFox,

"from hannibal and his war elephants to sparticus. didnt say wether or not it has Scipio Africanus"

Hopefully the timeline will include the greatest commander of all time, Alexander the Great. I mean come on, if the Greeks are in there, Alexander should be. He only took over most of the then known world, and NEVER lost a battle. Ever!

One things for sure, I'm REALLY looking forward to this one. Looks too good to be true. Can't wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rtoolooze

Thats what it is. That way, when someone comes back into the forum, they see a new post in that thread since last time. It just brings it to their attention, and keeps it from getting lost.

Which reminds me, I bumped that thread back to the top so I could get a response from GrayFox on Alexander the Great.

(static)"GrayFox, come in,"(static)"you there GrayFox"(static)"Come in GrayFox"(static)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

no way... scipio was the man. alexander nevsky (???)was very good for someone so young, but there are no battle formations named for him... unlike scipios defense

i would think they would have alexander the great though... it would be cool to play as one of the greatest military leaders in history... im still stuck on scipio africanus though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rtoolooze

Alexander Nevsky (1220-1263) Prince of Novgorod in 1236-1251. Grand Prince of Vladimir since 1252.

Obviously Alexander Nevsky would not be in there, as the time frame is way off. And your right, he cannot compare to Scipio. (A great commander for sure). However Alexander the Great, (Alexander III of Macedonia, Son of Philip II, 356-323 BC) has no equal imo. He conquered most of the then known world with a camparably small army. The biggest army he ever commanded was at Gaugamela, where it is estimated he had 40,000 infanty, and 7,000 horse. Compared to the Persians, where some historians put at close to a million men.

Also, Alexander alway's shared every danger with his men. When it was time to use the Companions, (his elite royal cavalry) He always led the charge.

Not to say Scipio was a coward. In 218 BC, and only 17 at the time, while commanding an elite body of cavalry, he saw his father wounded and cut off by the enemy, he urged his squadron to rescue his father, but they refused because of the overwhelming numbers of the enemy. Scipio then galloped toward the enemy alone. Shamed by his courage, the horsemen followed, and his father was saved. However, Scipio never again exposed himself to danger in battle. (you know all of this, of course)

Scipio also defeated the Great Hannibal on numerous occasions, which is amazing. And I have alot of respect for him, putting him just behind Alexander.

Also remember, Rome was a dominate world power when Scipio was in command. At the time of Alexander, Persia was the world power. Even the Bible prophecied about Alexander the Great.

If you get a chance, pick up a copy of "Alexander the Great and his time", by Agnes Savill. You'd think you were reading about some super hero or something. The feats he did were just amazing. One example was when he was in pursuit of Darius III, he chose 500 men for their strength and endurance, and rode all night thru a desert to catch up to him. At dawn, with only 60 men left, (the rest fell out, exhausted) he led the charge against thousands of Persians. Of course they thought he was at the head of a large force, so they fled. Still, what courage!

Anyway, I'm rambling. I just love history. Mabe when Rome gets released, you and I could go at it, you as Scipio, and me as, well, you know, lol.

Be cool, rtoolooze out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

sure thing. when i get my cable line hooked back up... hopefully i will by then...

i just enjoy the fact of there being so many soldiers on the battlefield...organized chaos... and when you think of rome, you think of that... i mean 10 to 12 roman legions lining the field... i feel like pavlovs dog here.

and ill be sure to check out that book next time i head to the library

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rtoolooze

Cool. Can't wait. Also, you will probably find that book at Barnes and Noble. I paid only $6.98 for it. Its hard back, with 300 pages. And since you don't live very far from me, (I live in Missouri) I'm sure there's a Barnes and Noble near you.

I know what you mean about cable. When I moved here from Kansas city, (I live in Eldon Mo, very close to Jefferson City) they did'nt even have cable or DSL, and I almost went mad! Cable finaly arrived, and of course I was their first customer, lol. (Still might be the only customer, Freakin country bumkin town! )

You might also check out "Battles of the Great Commanders" by Anthony Livesey. Lots of nice pics and drawings. Its one of those big table top type books, and focuses on the most famous battle for each great commander. (For Scipio, it was the battle of Zama, of course.) There are twenty Great commanders in this book. And you know, its funny how they start off with Alexander the Great, and then Scipio, then Genghis Khan, and so forth. You should check it out.

All this battle talk makes me want to get on Battlefield 1942, and wipe out a few guys, so be cool , and have a good day man, cya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

"Even the Bible prophecied about Alexander the Great."

Could you elaborate? Alexander lived from 356-323 BC and obviously the New Testament was written after that. Do you mean he is referanced in the old testament, and if so, how?

Quote:

"i mean 10 to 12 roman legions lining the field"

For the sake of historical accuracy, and of course this is trivial, I don't believe that the romans every fielded, at one time under unifed command, any more the 8 legions at once, and this was done in 216BC to counter Hannibles incursions. At Zama Scipio had about 34,000 troops and 9000 calvary, and keeping in mind that Roman allies typically composed half of the Romans total strength, I speculate (I'm not sure of this number however) that Scipio had 3 or four legions in action at the battle. A little more indepth research could pin down that number more accurately, but I don't want to do that right now

I know fair amount about Roman history, and it's interesting what they learned about administration from Alexander. Alexander was able to set up such a large Empire not by domination but through a relitivly hands off approch. When he'd conquer new territory, he would leave the established government in place and now it would simply pay homage to him. The Romans used this client/patron relationship generally for the boarder provinces when it reached its height of power, whereby the local governers would have to pay an annual fee to Rome while the Romans allowed the establishment to remain in place. So its not like the Romans or Alexander would swoop in, eradicate the local government and impose a new order; that causes upheaval and is just counterproductive. Rather they would fight the locals until they realized fighting was futile, then the Romans would negotiate a client/patron deal and that would be that. These client provinces would be responsible for much of their own defense and well being, however Rome would get involved on occasion as warrented. The point here is that locals were not forced to adapt the "Roman" way of life, and that made the new Roman overseers much more palatable then if peoples customs and laws and way of life are dictated by Rome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rtoolooze

The prophecy regarding him can be found in (Daniel 8:5,7,20,21) An interesting side note to this prophecy is one concerning the city of Tyre. Eze 26:4,12 says, " And your [Tyre's] dust they will place in the very midst of the water." In July of 332 B.C, after Alexander defeated the Persians first at the Granicus river, then on the plains of Issus, (before his famous victory at Gaugamela) he came up against the city of Tyre. He then used the rubble of the old mainland city, (which Neduchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed years before) and built a causeway to the island city, which he destroyed.

The prophesy also said his life would be cut short, which it was, that four horns would come up after him, but not with his power, (four of his generals split the kingdom), and that "not to his posterity" would his empire be left. So it was that all of Alexander's family and heirs were done away with after his death. (The ambitious Cassander killed both Roxana, his wife, and his son, also named Alexander. Also Heracles, his illegitimate son by Barsine, were also killed)

And yes, Alexander would leave the existing government in place to appease the people. But he even went further than that. He would also sacrifice in their temple's according to their religious rituals. In some cases he went so far as to expand their lands, setup building projects, and even have his men take foreign wives. However, even tho he would leave most officials in their posts, they would still be under Macedonian supervision, with a

Macedonian Viceroy and garrison there. (In some cases, such as in the case of the Persian commander Mazaeus, he would appoint a local as a Viceroy, if they were worthy. And even left kings such as King Porus from India in his position after defeating him in the battle of the Hydaspes, even becoming his friend.

Alexander the Great changed the world. He was ahead of his time. His famous speech at Opis proves he wanted to unite the world. Even tho no one there really understood his vast dreams. He was also intent on finding the Earths bounderies, it was only his men who made him turn back after 10 years and 21,000 miles at the river Hyphasis.

Well, I could go on and on, but as it is, I'm starving and dinner is waiting for me. I love discussing history, but for now I better eat.

Be cool, rtoolooze out. (For now)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

well, before the numidians arrived in zama to back him, scipio had about 3-4k in cavalry and about 30k troops.

hannibals failure to intercept the numidian reinforcements, meant that scipio now had 9000 cav, and about 34,000 men...

apparently scipio did his homework on hannibal, and rearranged his infantry formations so that when the war elephants charged, the ranks of infantry shifted so there were "alleyways" between the colums and the elephants were diverted into the alleyways where they were fired upon by archers.

the elephants freaked, and stampeded the first line of hannibals infantry, while the roman/numidian cav chased off hannibals cavalry. the vaunted elephant charge kinda backfired on hannibal.

the best part i liked was when scipios ground forces were engaging hannibals ground forces, and the roman cavalry returned from chasing hannibals cav off the field and just rammed into the cartaginian flanks and rear (ala cannae tactic) just crushing them...

the battle earned him the name (cognomen) africanus... the dude just rocked.

and i absoloutely love how this topic got blown completely off course... lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a book called 100 Decisive Battles - From Ancient Times to the Present, by Paul Davis. If your a fan of warfare and enjoy details about actual battles this book is for you. It starts in 1479BC with the Battle of Megiddo, an eqyption battle, where the Pharaoh's power was solidifed all the way to discussing the Gulf War. The reason I love this book is because of it's format - about 2-3 pages of history as to why the opposing armies are meeting where they did, then it details what each side hoped to accomplish through their battle configuration, and then details, with nice little maps, what happened, then discusses the significance of the victory. All the greats are here: Zama, Hastings, Saratoga, Yorktown, Mexico City, Antietam, Verdun, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Isreal war of Independence, Tet Offensive. Top notch book with digestable chucks which make for a good casual or long time sit down read. Top Notch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rtoolooze

Sounds like a very good book! I'll be picking that one up. Its good to discuss military history with you guys. Most of my friends think I'm weird for my interest in all this. O well, they just don't understand. Shoot, I remember being in grade school reading fighter pilot stories, carrier battles, and ancient warfare.

Its nice to know I'm not the only "weird one", lol.

Come on Rome:Total War!!! I'm chomping at the bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

*bump*

on a side note, has anyone tried the historical battles yet??? i just got done with bannockburn, and sterling bridge yesterday.

man talk about fighting the odds... at bannockburn the scots were outnumbered more than 2-1 and still managed to rout the enemy (probably because the english king ran off). reinacting that one was very nice.

stirling bridge was just a plain slaughterhouse... i had about 300-400 highlanders and used them as a stop gap on the bridge. when the english would come across, id jam them up at the friendly side of the bridge out of british longbow range (i know better) and just commence to fightin... then id loose some arrows into the mass of humanity. every now and again id fall back to my side of the bridge and let their cav run right into my wall of pikesmen lol. then id smash into them again with my highlanders.

this battle was tough seeing as how i was badly outnumbered in all aspects (cav/archers/groundtroops) but at the end, i killed the king and routed the english army... good thing i did too cause i was down to about 80 highlanders, 40 archers, 40 pikesmen, 20 spearmen, and 20 cav... they still had about 600 men left... the bridge was just littered with bodies and dead horses... im surprised the bridge didnt collapse with all the weight that was on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another top notch aspect that I just love about this game is the whole "valour" concept, whereby troops with experiance (or certain building upgrades where they orginate) gain valour, which directly affects their attack, defend, and morale figures (use F1 to see these figures). And when a decent general is in command, through different vices/virtues as well as his command rating, he can turn a fearful, timid, and apprehensive low valor army of commoners into a gritty and determined fighting force, who will never back down from a fight. I think this more then anything is what makes this game so real; the reputation of the general is a huge factor, just like real life. (ex. Alexander fighting Darius who had something like 200,000 men, compared to Alexanders 40,000 or so professional battle hardened soldiers; Darius fled the field, leaving his family and his riches; Alexander showed mercy and allowed his family to live I believe. Upon capturing the royal jewels, Alexander said something akin to "look at me, now I can live like a king!" -- Classic!" In this way the game accounts for great generals, and as a result, you can win battles of 2-1 or even 3-1 odds; your soldiers morale will be so high that they will fight and die to the last man. Talk about badasses!

In contrast, a mediocre general will find it hard to motivate his troops in battle, and not only will they be less effective fighters, and therefore die easier without taking as many men with them, they will be more prone to turn tail and run at the first sign of trouble; "I'm not dying for this jackass cowardly general, I'm out!" And seeing your commander flee, as Darius's troops did, well there goes all hope of success. Keep the general safe and centralized and he'll be better able to command his troops. And if he dies in battle against a realitively high valor foe, well get ready to watch your line disintgrate. God I seriously will NEVER get sick of this game! If this game could birth children, I'd want it to have mine, no question about it!

P.S. GreyFox, I believe the quote is actually "Ahh Kettle chips...the perfect sidedish...for Revenge!" I believe so, but I'm not absolutly positive, however I do love the simpsons too! It's on here in East lansing 3 times a day! 1700, 1830, and 2300! I watch them all and they NEVER get old! HA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

*bump*

heres a book you can check out (if you havent already) rtoolooze. its called "The Generalship of Alexander the Great" its by JFC Fuller. its really good. it starts out with how the society was in greece back in the day, and how the athenians held the barberous macedonians in contempt.

it then moves on to talk about alexanders father philip, and how he came to power, and how he was not only a brilliant general, but also a brilliant diplomat often either using bribes, or diplomacy to win over allies and such. it covers his life briefly from the time he took over as king of macedonia, to the time the congress of corinth was formed, to when he was assassinated at his daughters wedding.

from there it goes on to describe the macedonian and greek military strategy at the time of philip, then it moves on to describe alexander. after that it gets into the meat and potatoes... the battles.

after seeing what kind of ruler and general his father was, i can now see where alexander got his influence from (alexander was 18 and commanded his fathers left flank, when his father engaed the theban and athenian army at Chaeronea during the second sacred war).

its very well written, about 350 pages long... just short enough to keep the attention of the lowborws , yet well written enough to interest the hardcores. It comes with well done foot notes, and has maps of the area at the time, as well as maps of the battlefields including troop formations and emplacements.

a very interesting read that i highly suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...