Battlefield: Legions of Rome

If it were made by DICE, you know you'd buy it.

But how would a game like this work? Let's come up with an imaginary blueprint for Battlefield: Legions of Rome.

I would imagine combat working in a similar system to Oblivion, but with much more realistic damage levels of course. Also, there needs to be some inherentbenefit from fighting in formations, considering the nature of ancient warfare. Unfortunately it would be difficult to depict set-piece battles on open plains, therefore limiting the map design to small, tribal villages and large urban centers. Player count should probably be raised to 64 again for best results.

Classes (feel free to suggest something better):

Romans

Legionnaire - The assault class. Medium armor/health, average running speed, a huge shield (the Scutum), a short range stabbing sword (the Gladius), and two throwing javlins (the Pilum).

Auxiliary Archer - The recon class. Light armor/health, fast on the run, slow when aiming bow. Can spot more rapidly than other classes.

Praetorian - The engineer class. Heavy armor/health, slow moving, same Scutum as assualt, a medium sized broadsword, acts as a "tank" in confined areas (doorways, gates, etc.) where they can take a powerful defensive stance.

Centurion - The medic class. Same traits at Legionnaire, with no shield or Pila. Gives a hand up/pulls people to their feet in order to revive (let's think of something more clever than this please, k thx)

Now here's where it get's tricky.

Obviously the Romans battled multiple civilizations, so picking the proper opposing forces (OpFor) is difficult.The Gauls, Germans, Greeks, and Carthaginians, to name a few. So, this begs the question, would it be wise to implement different fighting classes along with each playable faction? Like Hoplites for Greece, and Berserkers for Germans?

I'll leave that question to be pondered on by you guys.

Have fun with this idea. Crazy suggestions encouraged. We still need to figure out how Elephants will work, remember.

It would be impossible to do as Roman soldiers where trained to fight in Formations under strict discipline. And your set up is 100% historicly inaccurate.

Centurians are the Captains of the Cohorts, a cohort had 82 soldiers. All legionaires.

Praetorians are The Emperors Body Guard, so Wouldn't attend common battles unless the Emperor was there.

Auxilery Archers woudl shoot in vollys, as the was the effective tactic at the time. SO they would have to be in Blocks.

EDIT: I see what you mean with it being Urban, but they still fought in formation.

More to think about: The best moments in Battlefield come when you are surrounded by teammates working together to attack or defend a position.

So, naturally, maps for this game would need to be designed around chokepoints. Without guns or bombs, it's not as bad an idea to stick together, effortlessly encouraging team play.

The game mode Rush would be replaced by "Seige" where players take turns attacking and defending settlement. This could range from a small barbarian village in a remote part of Gaul, or a fictional "fall of Rome" scenario, where the battle starts on the city streets and winds up all the way in the halls of the Imperial Palace.

Conquest wouldn't need to be changed at all, it's literally the perfect game mode regardless of setting.

Would probably be a roman version of Mount and Blade :)

To be honest I was thinking of a more FPS (First-person-slasher) like Oblivion, with the gore really turned up a notch. First-person close combat games always have a very satisfying feel to them that I don't think is utilized in enough good games today.

I would not buy anything that focuses on melee from DICE until they fix their horrible netcode.

I've never seen a game that has done mass melee combat well. It's just far to complex to simulate with keyboard/mouse. It would be nice to see/play though.

To be honest I was thinking of a more FPS (First-person-slasher) like Oblivion, with the gore really turned up a notch. First-person close combat games always have a very satisfying feel to them that I don't think is utilized in enough good games today.

Uncle_Uzi

I actually downloaded the mount and blade demo, and yes it is kinda what I'm talking about, except the graphics :roll:

I'ts gotta be all multiplayer, and yes combat needs to be a primary focus of the game. M&B seems to have a lot going on, with the combat being somehwhat lackluster. A Battlefield game would be more fulfulling IMO

[QUOTE="Uncle_Uzi"]

To be honest I was thinking of a more FPS (First-person-slasher) like Oblivion, with the gore really turned up a notch. First-person close combat games always have a very satisfying feel to them that I don't think is utilized in enough good games today.

ColdfireTrilogy

I love M&B but I agree with Uncle_Uzi. For instance, in Mount and Blade the animations a very poor and there's no feeling of force or power. In Oblivion if you strike a shield there's more impact and it feels a lot more realistic.

Anyways I think the overall idea is great, and if they could pull it off with a really great combat system, great physics, blood and dismemberment, and some other cool feature I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Here would be my wishes for such a game:

-Great realistic melee combat

-Use of physics in combat as well as environmental

-Destructable environments for sieges (burnable structures, ect)

-Siege weapons (oil pots, scorpio turret, ect)

-Boat combat?

-Horse combat?

-Formats and squad command (maybe every unit has a commander, and when a commander give the formation order, for instance, it shows a green mark where you should stand)

-Ranks for multiplayer

-Historical maps/battlefields

-Multiple historical factions (other than just romans)

-Maybe have one historical hero character per team?

-Arena battles!

I think there's a lot that cen been done with this comcept, and with the proper monetary investment from a big developer it could be fantastic.

Mount & Blade would work a lot better for this.

-Hores combat?

Renevent42

Well wouldn't you rather just pay her????

LOL JK!

You got the right idea man, we're on the same page it seems. It's a grand, ambitious title that would really require a good developer with proven abilities. The only problem I see with the things you suggested is boat and horse combat. I'm guessing that really nailing infantry combat would be hard enough, so I'll excuse devs if they are unable to squeeze in those as well. Would be nice though.

But yeah, there is this relatively under produced genre of First-person slashers just begging to be made. We have shooters galore, set in all different time periods. It makes sense that slashers would naturally have a great pool of historical settings virutally untouched by any other game in existence today.

M&B seems to have a lot going on, with the combat being somehwhat lackluster.Uncle_Uzi

I'd say Dark Messiah has better melee combat, especially with it's use of physics, dismemberment, and just the general feeling and power it portrays. Mount and Blade certainly does horse combat the best though...but that's not saying much considering there hasn't been much competition. They are both a bit different though, Dark Messiah goes for more exciting while M&B is more realistic.

The point of the thread anyways is for a new game, with better production values. If you think M&B's combat is the apex of what's achievable you are wrong...it can DEFINITELY be improved.

For what it's worth, Zeno Clash was actually the most fun I've had with first-person swordplay. Not many people played that one though...

I actually downloaded the mount and blade demo, and yes it is kinda what I'm talking about, except the graphics :roll:

I'ts gotta be all multiplayer, and yes combat needs to be a primary focus of the game. M&B seems to have a lot going on, with the combat being somehwhat lackluster. A Battlefield game would be more fulfulling IMO

Uncle_Uzi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7LbtHBP-Ro

Theres a duel compilation (Just 1v1 and not mine) I can't say how anyone can call that combat lackluster, its probably the most indepth medieval combat system in a game. it puts oblivions block-slash-slash to shame.(not that its very hard to do so).

and here's a big battle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt5AmqA3STc

You would never in a million years get people online to fight in formation.

[QUOTE="Uncle_Uzi"]

I actually downloaded the mount and blade demo, and yes it is kinda what I'm talking about, except the graphics :roll:

I'ts gotta be all multiplayer, and yes combat needs to be a primary focus of the game. M&B seems to have a lot going on, with the combat being somehwhat lackluster. A Battlefield game would be more fulfulling IMO

jon2jon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7LbtHBP-Ro

Theres a duel compilation (Just 1v1 and not mine) I can't say how anyone can call that combat lackluster, its probably the most indepth medieval combat system in a game. it puts oblivions block-slash-slash to shame.(not that its very hard to do so).

and here's a big battle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt5AmqA3STc

It is lackluster in certain aspects...even if it's one of the best (at least from a realistic point of view) representation done so far. Animations, hit response, hit detection, impact handling, ect...there's tons of things that can be improved even the folks over at Talewords have spoken in length about what they would improve. There's also things that could be added to make it more exciting like dismemberment, better physics, ect ect. You guys need to get off M&B nuts like it's the best melee combat that can ever be in a game...it's not. This is coming from someone who loves M&B and has owned it since like version .6XX way back when.

You would never in a million years get people online to fight in formation.

StormtrooprDave

I disagree...BC2 does a pretty good job giving incentives for working as a team...the same could be done for this game were it to ever be made.