Is the future... Rome: Total War?

[DBAse]

No RTS PC-game has ever made me worry more about the future of my lead collection than Rome: Total War.

I'd recommend even the most dedicated table top gamer to have a look. At its best you can have 500 indiividualy animated soldiers running around on screen (that's many more than the 40 or so miniatures which make up a DBA army).

Unit types, unit behviour (impetuous-ness, flanking, panic), enemy AI all seem very varied and pretty reasonable. Played online you can even play real people.

DBAse

[<DyslexicLegume>]

Beautiful Game.

I've enjoyed every minute of it.

[Nixalsverdrus]

PC games will get even better than this.

This development might endager the species of tin-pushers (that's us) or it might be the dawn of a new aera of wargaming.

In my area so far nobody did quit tabletop gaming because of computer games, but there are newbies that has been indroduced to wargaming by Rome: Total War.

I think the future is ours to make.

[Odious Asparagus]

i agree with Nix. although i had a spark of interest in dba some ten years ago, it wasn't until playing RTW that i actually got more into dba and bought seven freakin' armies before even fighting my first battle!!!

kurt

[Cremorn]

Originally posted by DBAse:
No RTS PC-game has ever made me worry more about the future of my lead collection than Rome: Total War.

Yes, it's very good. But I'm too busy painting to look at computers.

I actually packed away my computer on the weekend. Now I will just use my wife's.

I needed the space to play wargames :)

Woo hoo!

[Dave Crowell]

For me, Rome Total War holds very little interest. I do not as a rule enjoy computer games, no matter how pretty. I like the modeling and painting aspects of the hobby. Better even than playing some days. I can't get that from a computer.

If however any of you are inspired to give up miniatures in favor of the computer I am sure I can help find a good home for them...

[rudynelson]

I like more slow play strategic level games the real-time games are a pain and geared toward the youth.

The system will have some followers but computer games like board gaming is a different animal than mini games.

[ March 08, 2005, 09:40: Message edited by: rudynelson ]

[derek]

Hullo
It is difficult to envisage pc games replacing figure gaming. Some of us like collecting figures. The sheer output of new figures from multiple (including new) manufacturers in all scales and especially including 1/72 plastics suggests that there is a very large collector market. HaT set themselves a target of 100 sets for their first ten years. While these where split mainly between Napoleonics and Ancients, other periods were also planned for. Collector demand has driven the production of new Ancients sets. Similarly with lead/pewter. The number of new manufacturers of 28mm figures is surely only justified by demand for figures?
While pc games will continue to improve I cannot see them replacing figure gaming which also has a social aspect to it.
Finally in seeking to usurp DBx, computer programmers face an almost insurmountable challenge: "Barkerese" :D
Kind Regards
Derek

[Nixalsverdrus]

There are two more observation that I would like to share:

One: Over the last year our local chess club (that boring tabletop with very restricted armylists, but nice, quick to paint miniatures) and others in the area have found an increasing interest - both in press, media and also in young players joining the club. Maybe the computer game hype is overrated?

Second: There is a player in the market that increases the demand for historic miniatures: Warhamer Ancients Battle. I see an impressive number of WFB or Spacemarine players finding a liking in historic wargaming - and I think this is a good thing.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by Dave Crowell:
I like the modeling and painting aspects of the hobby. Better even than playing some days. I can't get that from a computer.

If however any of you are inspired to give up miniatures in favor of the computer I am sure I can help find a good home for them... I'm with Dave here.

During my University years one of my freinds who was a computer wiz (and is now quite wealthy from the proceeds of his computer game creations) tried to pick my brains about what it was in miniatures gaming that was missing from computer games so that he could simulate it.

I said that the greatest appeal was to buy, research and paint the figures and when it was all done to put them on a table and say "MINE!". :D

You can't simulate that kind of enjoyment on a PC or the inner peace that comes from sitting quietly painting. On the other hand, you can't install that human software into someone who is not compatible with it.

I am also willing to adopt any figures that are surplus to requirements from a new convert to the Total War cult. :D

Cheers

[ March 08, 2005, 16:50: Message edited by: Macbeth ]

[Vytis]

To me it's more than just the asthetics, the tradition and the hobby aspects of painting and collecting the miniatures.

One reason that hasn't been mentioned is the visual display limitations of desktop computer technology. The Total War series allows you to pan and zoom, etc., but this is not as asthetically satisfying and user-friendly to many people (myself included) as standing up and leaning over your wargames table. It's a different experience, and a different view.

Computers today only give us a 14 to 20 inch window into a virtual world. It's a pretty window with lots of detail and movement and some sound to boot, but it's still a window. A miniatures table is a crude representation of many of the details of reality in comparison, but it is a more tangible representation because it has three dimensions and you can interact with it effortlessly.

In another example of the limitations of computer displays, there is a big push by some "military transformation" gurus to put a complete end to paper maps in favor of electronic products in all headquarters. These guys have no understanding of practicality or how people can best take in information, and they don't understand that paper maps are still better for many purposes. I have yet to see a desktop electronic product that can beat a paper map with properly done overlays for allowing people to see the "big picture" while still being able to look at details.

The eye simply can only take in so much from a little screen, while panning and zooming manually is a cumbersome subsititute for the flick of an eye or for leaning in closer. The only thing that comes close to a paper map for many applications is from vast increases in the size of the display, and most people cannot afford 10 foot square "knowledge walls" to display their computer wargames.

Technologically, we simply aren't there yet. Maybe ten or twenty years from now, I'll be able to strap on my VR goggles and get a virtual battlefield that I can use like a miniatures table. But not anytime soon.

[Bacchus]

Originally posted by derek:
Hullo
It is difficult to envisage pc games replacing figure gaming. While pc games will continue to improve I cannot see them replacing figure gaming which also has a social aspect to it.

Kind Regards
Derek I feel the same way, you cannot intereact with the computer during the battle and discuss the game over a pint of beer afterwards, which is exactly what got me from DBAOnline to playing DBM at a local club.

[SunTzu]

I don't think table top gaming is going away because of computer gaming. Playing DBAOL re-ignited my dormant interest in table top gaming. What I feel will help promote table top gaming is games like RTW and even the recent crop period movies. What happens is they generate interest which can then be transferred to gaming with miniatures.

What I have given some thought to is to take clips of movie battle scenes and play them on a monitor while having the miniature representation of the battle on the table. Start the game and then try to get any bystander who shows interest in the game to pick up a command.

I set up scenarios at the local gaming club and then with a friend start a game with multiple commands. If I see a kid who shows interest I ask them if they want a command and get them involved with the game. I explain the game, illustrate the situation, provide them some possible courses of action and then let them make command decisions.

I usually get two to three new players this way (some who actually come back to play again!). I figure if I had a video of the Hollywood verion of the battle playing and then a similar reprentation on the table top it would generate even more interest in the game.

Sincerely,

Trey

[Chris Jones]

I think Rome Total War is a splendid representation of ancient warfare. You can set up custom battles between any of the main forces around at the time. Also the campaign aspect is now so much better then Medieval TW in that you move your armies around the map and can use rivers, passes, etc. to block the enemy. You can even spring strategic level ambushes a la Trasimene! The campaign aspect is just like a map campaign in a real wargame. Also in the version I have you can play British, Gauls, Persians, Greeks, Seleucids and Germans as well as three brands of Romans. Really good.

[hammurabi70]

Originally posted by Bacchus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by derek:
Hullo
It is difficult to envisage pc games replacing figure gaming. While pc games will continue to improve I cannot see them replacing figure gaming which also has a social aspect to it.

Kind Regards
Derek I feel the same way, you cannot intereact with the computer during the battle and discuss the game over a pint of beer afterwards, which is exactly what got me from DBAOnline to playing DBM at a local club. </font>[/QUOTE]I think this is the most vital point. However if you can link two screens and sit across the table you might have a viable gaming system that gives you speed of play with the social aspects.