Imperator Rome 2: Total War (A Creative Assembly/Paradox crossover)

[volbound1700]

This needs to happen. IMO, both companies compliment each other well. Paradox succeeds where Creative Assembly Fails (Diplomacy, AI functionality, Domestic game play) while Creative Assembly is dominate in the Combat focus parts of the game. For the sake of this exercise, I will compare both companies with their recent Rome titles (Rome Total War II and Imperator Rome) to show how a crossover could work. Let me first point out what they could carry over from each game to this new game:

1. The map of Imperator Rome should convert over with the epicness of it. I love especially Paradox detail with Greece including states such as Megara, Patras, Eubeo, etc. In fact, I think the map and scale of Imperator Rome is perfect for this exercise and can be copied and pasted over.

2. Character details - Both games are about even here. However, I think they should be more flexibility including the ability to assassinate internal characters that are disloyal. I also think that Generals who disobey orders in War-time should always be brought to trial. Perhaps Paradox could bring over ideas from other games like CK to really shine here.

3. Creative Assembly combat - Yes, I think the real-time battles should exist and would be amazing addition to a Paradox game. The unit roster would be interesting to create and I will explain how this can work in another post (basically, I think you need cultural military groups such as Persian, Punic, Latin, Greek, Celts, Iberians, Indian, Arab, Berber, German, and Scythian with a set unit stack of ~8 units such as what you see in the Paradox game that can be superimposed in the real battles. Meanwhile the major powers (Rome, Hellenic Empires, Carthage, etc.) can have other units as well to create additional flavor. You could also have fun with some minor civs such as Zealots for the Jews. Briton civs could have their special chariot units, etc.

4. Simplified armies similar to Rome Total War II - How often did you hate chasing around AI stacks of 2k - 3k men that snuck behind your lines to raid your lands. Was it fun to chase them down? Not really. Let's limit the # of armies similar to Rome Total War II. Let's focus the AI into creating large stacks to engage in major battles instead of the crazy wars that exist in IR. Unfortunately, with the real-time combat, the army stacks would have to be capped for the battles. However, I do think the stacks should be larger than Rome TW II stacks. The technology is there.

5. Simplified Navy - Rome Total War II had too many naval options. I suggest just using the ship types from Imperator Rome here.

6. Imperator Rome Diplomacy with tweaks - Let's be honest, TW series has terrible AI and Diplomacy. This is where Paradox can shine. Creating a robust diplomatic system including the famous war score process.

7. Building System - Rome Total War II has a slightly stronger building system than Paradox (granted the updates with Paradox have improved it). However, between the two, I would prefer a new building system that allows greater customization of cities. I do like the idea of non-city territories that are seen in Imperator Rome and have different building structures/expertise for the regions. I also like the option to build/destroy cities. Basically a hybrid of the two systems would be great.

Overall, I think the two could play off each other very well. Creative Assembly brings a superior combat system plus some other ideas worth considering such as the building systems and a better Financial system while Imperator Rome brings the stronger map, diplomatic process, and detailed character/civilization development process. It is a WIN/WIN. I would totally buy it.

[Defiant Squirrel]

If you had a time machine and could get Paradox and CA teams circa 2005-2012 then yes, they could have made the greatest grand strategy game with real time tactical elements imaginable.

But what you'd get if they teamed up today would be a very pretty, very shallow dumbed down bug ridden disaster of a campaign with epic looking low IQ AI battles that are over in three minutes, it would take years to be patched/DLC'd to an acceptable but still not great standard and end up costing hundreds of dollars.

[volbound1700]

Originally posted by Red Squirrel:

If you had a time machine and could get Paradox and CA teams circa 2005-2012 then yes, they could have made the greatest grand strategy game with real time tactical elements imaginable.

But what you'd get if they teamed up today would be a very pretty, very shallow dumbed down bug ridden disaster of a campaign with epic looking low IQ AI battles that are over in three minutes, it would take years to be patched/DLC'd to an acceptable but still not great standard and end up costing hundreds of dollars.

Depends on the flexibility that you give to the team. A classic Creative Assembly game that really could have used Paradox is Empire Total War. The game is fun from a unit/battle/game play perspective but the AI is so broken that it ruins the game. If it had a decent AI and diplomacy policy that Paradox could likely provide, Empire Total War could have been great.

I think a collaboration would be very effective.

[Spagetwin]

Bannerlord

[H. Guderian]

In a CA Total War game already there are plenty of battles. Getting to fight them all yourself won't make too much sense for the abstraction. For instance the most powerful weapon system of the ancient world was the Horse Archer. The confined, set piece battles of a Total War game prevent this.

CA's problem is they never trust the player, imo. You can't have diplomacy mean a damn if you hide everything from the player to 'keep it mysterious'. The best Paradox games tell you all the modifiers going into a peace deal, a trade, etc etc.

I've been playing both franchises for a long time. Since Shogun 1 and since HoI 1. By this logic every battle in HoI should go into a Post Scriptum match.

I dropped the CA Total Assembly games because at the end they really aren't expanding on what they have. I remember when castles always only had 1 door and the walls couldn't be knocked down. Then they went and made each missle weapon tracked in combat. I dunno, they just don't do 'enough'. I'll go back and play Shogun 2 here and there. They certainly do a better job than the Civ games.

[volbound1700]

Originally posted by H. Guderian:

In a CA Total War game already there are plenty of battles. Getting to fight them all yourself won't make too much sense for the abstraction. For instance the most powerful weapon system of the ancient world was the Horse Archer. The confined, set piece battles of a Total War game prevent this.

CA's problem is they never trust the player, imo. You can't have diplomacy mean a damn if you hide everything from the player to 'keep it mysterious'. The best Paradox games tell you all the modifiers going into a peace deal, a trade, etc etc.

I've been playing both franchises for a long time. Since Shogun 1 and since HoI 1. By this logic every battle in HoI should go into a Post Scriptum match.

I dropped the CA Total Assembly games because at the end they really aren't expanding on what they have. I remember when castles always only had 1 door and the walls couldn't be knocked down. Then they went and made each missle weapon tracked in combat. I dunno, they just don't do 'enough'. I'll go back and play Shogun 2 here and there. They certainly do a better job than the Civ games.

Not sure if I agree with the Horse Archer comment. From 400-200 BC I would say it was the Macedonian Phalanx. That was the core units that ruined Persia. Persia had no infantry that could stand up to them. Then from 200 BC - 300 AD, it was the Roman Legionnaire. I think around 300 AD the Roman Infantry declined and Rome focused more on Archer and Horseman units. The Huns dominated with Horse Archers but even they were stopped by Flavius Aetius and Rome at Chalon.

I would say in the Ancient World (especially the forum of this game), the Infantry Units were the most important. However, the Macedonian Hellenic Armies relied on Combined arms with the Phalanx Pikemen, Light Infantry, Macedonian Shock Cavalry, Persian Light Cavalry, War Elephants, Scythe Chariots, etc. The Macedonian Units were highly diverse but the bread and butter was still the Phalanx Pikemen. The Romans used Light Infantry and Cavalry in their armies as well but their main focus was the Legions. Both pretty much dominated the battlefield at the time.

[volbound1700]

To anticipate the Parthia comment, keep in mind that Parthia feasted on a Seleucid Empire that was in serious declined. Under Antiochus III, the Seleucid Empire brought the Parthians, Greek-Bactra, and the East to their knees as well as whooped the Ptolemies. Antiochus III was broken at Magnesia by the Romans. The Seleucid Empire that engaged the Parthians after Antiochus III was a shell of its former self having lost all of their Asian (Turkey) provinces in the Treaty of Apamea. Parthia was also beaten soundly by the Romans when a real engagement took place. Trajan took Ctesiphon and subjucated all of Parthia. The Palmyrenes even beat Parthia in the crisis of 200 AD. The Sassinids only became a threat in the later age of Rome when the quality of its armies had declined significantly and it had broken into two separate Empires. The Sassinids bread and butter was also its heavy Cataphact Cavalry and not the Horse Archers.