Needed for Expansion: Roman Gladiator



  • @Wingy:

    About spartan vs legionaire:

    Spartan ingame: he has access to a selection of spears, with different lengths and speed. He can throw this spear to soften his opponents before charging in, leaving him with a shortwsword+shield as his remaining weapons.

    How legionaires would work ingame: They have a primary shortsword+shield. In their secondary slot, they get small javelins that can be used to soften their opponents before charging in. One of his weapon choices is a one handed spear, that replaces his javelins.

    Sounds pretty similar to me. As I said, gameplay wise.

    Sorry friend, but you’re seeing the side to play alone, suppose a group of friends bought the game they’re going to be able to do with Spartan phalanx, vain power to a horde of Vikings, vain power to an army of samurai, what do you think more account of a group of gladiators … o_o or a platoon of Roman legionaries walking by massacring all the game in strategic positions, the secret is not to have varieties of gun and yes, strategies, fun and adrenaline … trust me if you see a squad in the game that you would freak out, fear or happiness because you could be part of it …



  • @EmperorAntares:

    trust me if you see a squad in the game that you would freak out, fear or happiness because you could be part of it …

    Ahahaha this. In some games when I joined with 4 other friends, we managed to strong arm the rest of the team into our legion. All Knights with tower shields in formation, people just did not know what to do. In last team standing it was like a steamroller, i’m sure another organised group could defeat it but against a pub, it’s just… funny.

    And then you go all slings…



  • The thing is that organization is very hard to pull off and not very useful in this game. The maps need to be larger and more designed for teamplay as opposed to rushing at the objective and damaging it. Also, classes need to depend more eon one another, instead of slight differences in weaponry.



  • @EmperorAntares:

    @Wingy:

    About spartan vs legionaire:

    Spartan ingame: he has access to a selection of spears, with different lengths and speed. He can throw this spear to soften his opponents before charging in, leaving him with a shortwsword+shield as his remaining weapons.

    How legionaires would work ingame: They have a primary shortsword+shield. In their secondary slot, they get small javelins that can be used to soften their opponents before charging in. One of his weapon choices is a one handed spear, that replaces his javelins.

    Sounds pretty similar to me. As I said, gameplay wise.

    Sorry friend, but you’re seeing the side to play alone, suppose a group of friends bought the game they’re going to be able to do with Spartan phalanx, vain power to a horde of Vikings, vain power to an army of samurai, what do you think more account of a group of gladiators … o_o or a platoon of Roman legionaries walking by massacring all the game in strategic positions, the secret is not to have varieties of gun and yes, strategies, fun and adrenaline … trust me if you see a squad in the game that you would freak out, fear or happiness because you could be part of it …

    How does playing with friends change the gameplay mechanics of a class? Wether its 1 or 10 people, spartans and legionaires are practically the same gameplay wise.



  • i would love to see the spear, dagger, net set of weapons. that is such a funny loudout that was actually used, both realistic and fantastic, awesome.



  • @Wingy:

    @Dr:

    So we shouldn’t have Knights and Samurais then? Because from what I can tell they’re pretty much the same thing but look a bit different.

    Both have two handed swords, polearms and are armoured.

    Romans would have a shortsword as primary and no stabbing spear whereas Spartans have stabbing spear as a primary.

    Ok lets go point by point.

    The european knight and the samurai are in fact quite different.

    The knight is more heavily armored on average, and favors weapons that can pierce armor, such as maces, flails or spears, and even his poor armor piercing weapons such as the sword are adapted to be as effective against armor as possible. He usually carries a shield with him too, and many of his weapons are onehanded.

    The samurai has less variety of weaponry. His trademark katana is actualy a cavalry sword that is severely damaged when it hits armor, but is really effective at cutting unarmored opponents. Apart from thet, he also use two handed spears and bows. In fact, the bow is actually his primary weapon, followed by the spear. The katana was more of a sidearm, relegated to a secondary position due to its shorter range and inefectiveness against armor. It was also a popular dueling sword. Most of his weapons are two handed, and he doesnt use a shield.

    From a gameplay point of view, wich was what I was talking about, the knight and the samurai play pretty different, and their selection of weapons is unique for each of them.

    About spartan vs legionaire:

    Spartan ingame: he has access to a selection of spears, with different lengths and speed. He can throw this spear to soften his opponents before charging in, leaving him with a shortwsword+shield as his remaining weapons.

    How legionaires would work ingame: They have a primary shortsword+shield. In their secondary slot, they get small javelins that can be used to soften their opponents before charging in. One of his weapon choices is a one handed spear, that replaces his javelins.

    Sounds pretty similar to me. As I said, gameplay wise.

    Well obviously you know little about Roman weaponry and strategy, because you talk in depth about Samurai and Knight weaponry in an effort to emphasize the differences between the two and reduce the entire Roman military to just “They have a primary shortsword+shield…and some javelins…”

    Romans could have bows and slings, longer swords such as Spatha and the Pilum should disable the enemies shield. EDIT: I could go on and on about variations in Roman weaponry.

    Anyway the point I was making is that it’s easy to say “Spartans look like Romans” but that’s a massive assumption without much understanding of the nuances of historical reality. One could do the same and say “Knights are just like Samurai” however when you look closely they are quite different.

    How they work in gameplay is another matter which is really up to the developers. There are plenty of ways to make Spartans and Romans different; give them different weapons and abilities same as every other class.



  • @Dr:

    Well obviously you know little about Roman weaponry and strategy, because you talk in depth about Samurai and Knight weaponry in an effort to emphasize the differences between the two and reduce the entire Roman military to just “They have a primary shortsword+shield…and some javelins…”

    Romans could have bows and slings, longer swords such as Spatha and the Pilum should disable the enemies shield. EDIT: I could go on and on about variations in Roman weaponry.

    Anyway the point I was making is that it’s easy to say “Spartans look like Romans” but that’s a massive assumption without much understanding of the nuances of historical reality. One could do the same and say “Knights are just like Samurai” however when you look closely they are quite different.

    How they work in gameplay is another matter which is really up to the developers. There are plenty of ways to make Spartans and Romans different; give them different weapons and abilities same as every other class.

    Again and again you miss the point of my posts. In the knight vs samurai section, I was comparing them in general terms, then stating reasons why this results in different gameplay mechanics. In the spartan vs legionary section I was merely comparing the core gameplay of both classes.

    Of course you can give them different weapons, but whats the point of having the class in in the first place then? you can give the samurai a spear and a nodachi only, then whats the point of having him in the game? You gotta give them their trademark weapons, their primary weapons through history, otherwise you dont have the class you want.

    Gameplay wise:
    Roman with shortsword= spartan with shortsword
    Roman with one handed spear= spartan with one handed spear
    Roman with shield+longsword= very similar to knight with a boradsword.
    Bows= the samurai already use bows
    Slings= the only unique adition, and you could just give it to the spartan, as greeks were sling users as well.



  • @Wingy:

    Gameplay wise:
    Roman with shortsword= spartan with shortsword
    Roman with one handed spear= spartan with one handed spear
    Roman with shield+longsword= very similar to knight with a boradsword.
    Bows= the samurai already use bows
    Slings= the only unique adition, and you could just give it to the spartan, as greeks were sling users as well.

    Knight with two-handed sword = Samurai with two-handed sword
    Knight with polearm = Samurai with polearm
    Viking with spear = Samurai with spear
    Knight being able to have effective ranged weapon and deadly melee weapon at the same time = Samurai being able to have effective ranged weapon and deadly melee weapon at the same time

    Stupid comparing things like this. Knight and Samurai can be very very similar or very very different, depends on how you look at them. Just like a Roman and Spartan can be very similar or different.

    I think a Roman should be a very defensive tank class, with unique special abilities like disabling other people’s shields with his javelin throw, that was a good idea. And being able to use his gladius or spatha from behind his big shield which hides him completely without lowering the shield too much between blows. The shield should be able to come up fast again. You can also switch weapons behind the shield, too. A few romans advancing at you with their shields up would be slower than Spartans (or any other class) with shields up, but the scutum covers the entire Roman (except their little feet and the top of their helmet) so archers will hardly get them. Romans should be all about their shield, about their defense. They could probably get a lower stamina drain for blocking blows with the shield and such bonuses.

    It would be so cool to play Roman with a couple of friends and just advance at people in formation like that.



  • Romans didn’t use phalanxes much, they used testudos, which means your shield doesn’t additionally protect the guy on your left, but instead the guy to your front. because they typically used tower shields instead of large round shields, and 2 meter long spears (if they used stabbing spears at all). they outfitted melee troops with additionally 2 or 3 smaller throwing spears. they usually wore iron hauberks or laminar.
    pretty different from bronze cuirass Spartan phalanx experts with 2.5 to 3 meter long spears, that were obsessively averse to innovasion.



  • So, Im comparing the classes by their gameplay mechanics and people keep making replies based on the coolness of the legionaries or other factors.

    I still want someone to explain how a spartan with a shield and a shortsword is different, gameplay wise, coolness aside, formations or whatever tactices they used aside too, how are those 2 guys any different?



  • well, i don’t think we know much yet, but it looks like the Spartan will have a single long spear that it can throw and retreive (though i’m sure Spartans never actually threw their spears), while the Roman might not even have a stabbing spear, but might get a small amount of pila to throw.

    that should be a start. now hope they think of something nice for a difference between the round shield and the tower shield. like better leg protection from the tower shield, but better shield bash with round shield, oslt. different armor and speed stats is also possible.



  • But I did say a lot of gameplay related things that would place them apart from eachother, and not just stuff for being cool. Like how the Roman could be all about using the shield defensively a lot, while the Spartan uses it more in an agressive manner, in combos and such.

    Ok, so yeah, if the Spartan has lost his main weapon and has resorted to his falcata, and he meets a Roman soldier who is using either a gladius or a spatha, then… there’s not that much difference. The Spartan’s sword is better at hacking, as it behaves similarily to an axe, while the Roman is better at stabbing and cutting, and the Spartan shield is better at punching people, while the Roman shield is covering his own body much better. Those are the differences if you take away most of their weapons. Shall we also compare this setup with, say, the Viking? The Viking sword is the same as the Roman spatha, and the viking has a center gripped round shield, which is also good for punching.



  • The viking can dual wield a variety of weapons, has fuckhuge ridiculous two handed weapons that he can carry while he carries his sword+shield, and he can also throw weapons at his enemies. And shields. Dunno if thats a feature for every class or even a bug but he is capable of doing it.

    Im not saying they are carbon copies of each other, but the spartan and legionary are too similar imo. Like, if you wanted to introduce X gameplay mechanic you could just give it to the spartan and it would fit, instead of creating a whole new class for it.



  • so the Spartan short sword is better vs armor, while the Roman vs light armor. perhaps.

    i’d also suggest maybe the Spartan would simply fight better, well he’s stronger, but have weaker armor. that in addition to more aggressive shield vs coverage, could be plenty of difference even without the spears. tank vs aggressor, oslt.



  • @Deadpan:

    so the Spartan short sword is better vs armor, while the Roman vs light armor. perhaps.

    i’d also suggest maybe the Spartan would simply fight better, well he’s stronger, but have weaker armor. that in addition to more aggressive shield vs coverage, could be plenty of difference even without the spears. tank vs aggressor, oslt.

    Spartans got a wide selection of long and short spears, longer shortswords that are really good at chopping like axes and more agressive fighting style including the shield in combos. But he has less armour and doesn’t hide behind the shield.

    Romans got a couple of throwing spears or half-dozen of throwing darts, shorter shortswords best for stabbing and slashing, a more defensive fighting style hiding behind the giant shield and better armour (they still didn’t know how to cover their legs, though.)

    So yeah, it’s an aggressive tank with quite the range VS a rather defensive tank with short range. Roman should get his perks in defense and the Spartan his perks in offense.



  • @lemonater47:

    No.

    Roman legionary.

    Continue the fight!



  • Wouldn’t mind seeing a high speed Aztec Jaguar/Eagle knight or a Celtic warrior.
    Aztec’s had really interesting weaponry, but Celt’s had the height of mustache fashion.



  • There needs to be a Roman Legionary. I don’t care if it’s similar to the Spartan, it can be an ‘alternate’ version of the Spartan.


Log in to reply