What do yall want? [Archive]

Sand

01-21-2006, 23:04

Hmmm, No map clutter pieces like Princess and Diplomat. A strategic AI that works. Seriously, the TW series has terrible diplomacy - I cant believe theyre unable to devote some time to making it work in a satisfactory fashion. If Im beating the absolute tar out of an opponent, I want them to recognise that and sue for peace not repeat mindlessly "We see no reason to bring an end to the war - even though you outnumber us 10-1 and are laying seige to our capital". Theres optimism, and theres lunacy.

Boost the campaign map speeds - Im talking triple or quadruple. Armies should be slowed by having to fight battles, not the fact they march about 2 miles a day. Id also like to see the style of army recruitment reflecting feudalism rather than 19th century standing proffessional armies. I already mentioned it in the "M2 -dissapointed" thread, but standing troops/mercenaries should have very, very high upkeep to keep them small. To flesh out the Kings army for campaigns vassals are recruited like mercenaries in RTW, but they auto-disband after the spring/summer campaining season. Vassal quality should depend on the provinces/regions theyre from. You shouldnt be able to recruit Welsh Longbowmen as vassals in Sicilly though, the culture of a region should be reflected in the vassals available.

Ive got a dislike for the 100% map conquest wins. It just kills the immersion and plays up how bad the AI is that its even possible to conquer 100% of the map. GA style conditions should be the focus, with the option to play on for those who want to.

Discourage castle seiges - I much prefer field battles to seiges, and I want the AI to play its part in giving me field battles, rather than hiding in a castle, dying of dysentry. Give them "free" troops to give me a good fight if thats what it takes to get them to stand and die like men. Also, please allow settlements to auto-surrender when faced with hopeless odds rather than waste everyones time. More castles have surrendered or been betrayed by realists than have ever been stormed.

And when it comes to field battles, to stop the "find and hill and sit on it" battle AI that means playing TW is a route to a qualification in mountain climbing, place objective flags on the map that determine victory. Simple enough, one each at either end to represent the various camps/baggage trains. 2 neutral ones on features in "no mans land" to encourage the battles to be fought there and not halfway up Everest. Whoever holds the majority of them at the end of the time limit wins. The camp ones are worth more than the no mans land to reflect if they enemy has grabbed it, theyve overrun and sacked the baggage train. Basically derived from the city squares in RTW seiges, and the likes of Combat Mission.

A bit of a wish list, and Im quite sure none of it will happen despite it not being all that intensive to do. I love the TW series, but Im a tad cynical about non-eye candy aspects being improved or considered all that much when it comes to design.

Geoffrey S

01-21-2006, 23:14

Four seasons, speeded-up campaign movement, slower battles, improved AI on both battlemap and campaign map (or at least AI capable of keeping a formation), and most importantly more importance for terrain on the battlefield and larger battlefields with more varied heights.

Aside from the AI, all things I'd consider a natural evolution from the RTW template.

It'd be very nice if the hardcoded limits were more flexible, particularly with regards to the amount of factions.

Heading into more wishful territory, I'd particularly like to see more complex sieges and some inclusion of supplylines; neither is entirely necessary, but could add a lot.

ajaxfetish

01-21-2006, 23:18

Of course historically the middle ages was a period of siege warfare (compare the number of sieges during the era to the number of field battles). Anyway sieges could be great if a lot of focus is put into them, such as:

A full range of siege options
-starvation
-escalade (scaling ladders and/or towers)
-battering rams
-missile engines (catapults, trebuchets, cannon, etc.)
-sapping and mining
-treachery
-surrender (with terms?) in the face of certain defeat
-effective sallying options for the defender

and a more realistic approach to castles
-customizable castle defenses, such as
--layout options (concentric, linear, etc.)
--placement and size options for towers and walls
--creative use of moats, bridges, and barbicans
--intensive gatehouse construction (machicolations, portcullises, etc.)
--incorporation of terrain in defense
--hoardings and such temporary wartime additions
(or if fully customizable castles is too much to ask for, then at least a few optional layouts to choose from when building it, or else historically based castles for each province based on a historically influential castle in that area)

-defense with your own troops manning walls and towers instead of autodefended castles

-more chance of the AI actually actively besieging a castle (and having the intelligence to do it well) so you can defend them instead of just assault.

So far total war games seem more geared to field battles, which is fine, but if they shift the emphasis to sieges it should be accompanied by as much attention to realism, options, and fun as their battles are.

Ajax

Sand

01-21-2006, 23:46

Of course historically the middle ages was a period of siege warfare (compare the number of sieges during the era to the number of field battles).

Castles dominated strategic thinking, in that seige warfare had decreased dramatically from the ancient era so it was very tough to take them by force, until primitive cannons arrived. But seiges were drawn out, starving the defenders into submission was the only consistently successful approach. Storming the walls was very rarely done because it inflicted hideous casualities on the attackers. If seiges were resolved by battles, it was more often the defeat of a relieving force making it clear to the defenders that no help was coming, leading to surrender. The realistic style of starving them out is quite boring, and its not much more fun to storm the walls when youre only facing minimal opposition - the outcome is never in doubt but it still takes 10-20 minutes to breach the walls, march to the central square and kill the 2-3 defending units. IMO, field battles are more fun and dramatic. Heroic last stands and waves of men at arms climbing the walls as rocks are dropped on their heads should be the exception, not the rule as it is currently in TW. IMO anyway.

Mithrandir

01-21-2006, 23:54

Should I really be the first to say this ?

...Multiplayer Campaign ~:D

Martok

01-21-2006, 23:58

Wow, I think the rest of you guys have already covered just about everything I could've thought of. I can't really think of anything else to add here that hasn't already been mentioned. Let's hope that CA heeds us on at least the big stuff: AI, diplomacy, better battle-pacing, less agent clutter, etc.

Templar Knight

01-22-2006, 00:02

A choice between 'Global Domination' and 'Glorious Achievements'. I am not really a fan of 'Conquer all', I prefer to build up and manage with small expansion when it suits, so the return of something similar to the Glorious Achievements would be nice.

Martok

01-22-2006, 00:07

Should I really be the first to say this ?

...Multiplayer Campaign ~:D

Heh. I'd love to see that too, but I think we're going to have to keep dreaming on that one. As I put it in the offical forums, I can't see CA implementing a multiplayer campaign; I have a feeling it would probably get used only a small percentage of the time (and therefore wouldn't be worth the resources needed to put it in). ~:(

TinCow

01-22-2006, 00:36

I want an AI that can at least beat me 10% of the time when I'm outnumbered 3:1 and have inferior troops.

Rilder

01-22-2006, 00:44

I want the game to be fun like RTW is.

ajaxfetish

01-22-2006, 01:00

Storming the walls was very rarely done because it inflicted hideous casualities on the attackers. If seiges were resolved by battles, it was more often the defeat of a relieving force making it clear to the defenders that no help was coming, leading to surrender. The realistic style of starving them out is quite boring, and its not much more fun to storm the walls when youre only facing minimal opposition - the outcome is never in doubt but it still takes 10-20 minutes to breach the walls, march to the central square and kill the 2-3 defending units.
No argument here. I just think if they do focus on sieges they should lean toward active assault (even though less common) for the funness aspect, since sitting and waiting is of course a boring way to go about it. I'm for either field battles as the central action, or sieges with enough action and variety to rival the entertainment value of a battle.

Ajax

Zatoichi

01-22-2006, 01:22

Bring back the MTW battle speed slider! Return the battles to the pace of MTW - reduce the movement and kill speeds back from RTW levels (like a majority of the mods did anyway) - I'm not interested in Medieval: Total Clickfest - I want to see the new eye candy upclose and personal but not lose my entire left flank in the process without freezing the action via the pause button.

I'd also like the battle maps scaled to unit size, so the more and/or larger units you have, the more room you have to manouvre in.

Oh, and bring back archers and crossbows firing in ranks. Did I mention better battle AI and diplomacy yet?

Blimey - I don't want much do I? All I want is a perfect game, is that so much to ask? ~:)

I am a lot more excited about this than a fellow of my years has any right to be!

Alexander the Pretty Good

01-22-2006, 02:52

Multiple Campaigns.

Don't force me to start at 1080 all the time; bring back MTW's staggered campaign dates.

And just about everything else in this thread. :juggle2:

And a new PC to play with 10,000 soldiers with no slowdown! :sweatdrop:

Lazul

01-22-2006, 03:17

Swedish Faction!

.... just give me that! nothing ells! :book:

SirGrotius

01-22-2006, 04:08

:idea2: Top ten things I'd like to see (in no particular order):

1) Slower, more immersive battles such as MTW
2) Extremely thorough playtesting (reduce bugs)
3) Excellent programming (to make the game playable on 6800 Geforce-type machines, but with an extremely high ceiling of course for cutting-edge systems)
4) Increased functionality for agents (increase their quality, not particulary their quantity--we don't want to micromanage too much)
5) Yes, the battle slider is beloved. Perhaps milestones can be incorporated as well, for those who want to choose between normal, fast, and very fast.
6) CA programmers/representatives reading this thread (or others of a similar vein)
7) Another deal with network television (gotta love the marketing for RTW)
8) New strategy guide contract (the Prima guides for RTW and BI were awful)
9) Terrain-sensitive battle maps as in RTW
10) More transparency in how cities work--aspects such as squalor and public order shouldn't require so many threads to explain. This perhaps can be improved with increasing the level of detail provided in the city comparison tabs.

In essence, gameplay, marketing, and support.

Crazed Rabbit

01-22-2006, 06:58

Custom Designed Castles.

None of the stupid squalor crap destroying your city like in RTW (Heh-they added more micromanagement to city building and took away some control over battles).

A dynamic campaign map: building stuff that doesn't start out on the map, destroying stuff, etc. Sowing salt in my enemies field's.

Deep diplomacy.

More atmosphere, less cartoon inspired graphics.

Loads of buildings and options from medieval, the ability to actually build cities.

Crazed Rabbit

Mooks

01-22-2006, 07:37

Diplomacy...I want really complex diplomacy, and make it so alliances actually "Work". Yes I know this a fairly new concept for CA. But it CAN work :dizzy2:

Insigna

01-22-2006, 09:46

Midnight

01-22-2006, 09:58

Pretty much everything that's already been said, plus a somewhat unpredictable campaign: in MTW, for example, you'd sometimes get unlikely empires which stretched across vast tracts of land, or empires which had been completely uprooted (Almohads residing in England and Scandinavia, Egyptians in Russia...); in RTW, the most unusual thing I ever saw was the Macedonians not getting crushed. I'd also like to see some variation in who wins various battles (eg, in RTW, the Seleucids and Carthage always get pounded, while Egypt and the Romans are always able to come out on top). In MTW, the French usually kicked the English, but not always; the Spanish usually kicked the Almohads, but sometimes it went the other way; and the Byz\Egypt\Turk war seemed reasonably even. Maybe it's not so historically accurate to 'balance' like this, but I think it makes for a more interesting game if there's a chance unexpected things can happen.

I'd also like to see castles both attached to cities, and independent!

Hambut_bulge

01-22-2006, 11:36

Mentioned this in the announcement thread in the entrance hall, but is probably a better place, keep RTW family tree system so that distant relatives or even Princess's can become faction leader. Though obviously having a woman on the throne should send the risk of civil war rocketing skywards.

Whilst I'm thinking about the family tree it would be nice if you could remarry them, in the event of an untimely death, or even allow the faction leader to petition the Pope for a divorce should the marriage prove unproductive. Of course if its a foreign Princess you're trying to get rid of that wouldn't go down to well with her family.

And since we're going all the way up to 1530 in the main campaign, I'd like the Reformation to be included. All those religious conflicts.

boastj

01-22-2006, 13:08

City’s astride rivers with bridges and things like London

Towns growing from castles

Beirut

01-22-2006, 14:42

The gameplay M:TW had.
The graphics R:TW had (and that the screenies promise!).

The AI and diplomacy model that both games should have had.

Ajax

What he said. :yes:

lancelot

01-22-2006, 15:23

Crusades that dont go from france- to moscow- back to france-to spain- on the way to egypt!! MTW crusade paths made zero sense.

Get rid of annoying squalor.

Constantinople to be reflected as the premiere city of the world...ie- much bigger and grand than any other city/castle etc.

MTW Ai had suicidal tendencies..a one province power would often declare war on me (the largest power)....makes no sense.

The Darkhorn

01-22-2006, 15:33

I didn't play RTW, so this may be fixed.

I'd like a clearer family tree than what was in MTW. Also, nephews and even grandsons should be able to inherit if you have no (a) living son or (b) living brother (in that order is the way it works). This is realistic and history is full of examples of it.

Dutch_guy

01-22-2006, 16:11

Campaign battle replays !

How come everyone forgot about that !

:balloon2:

TinCow

01-22-2006, 16:24

Campaign battle replays !

How come everyone forgot about that !

:balloon2:

Oh please yes.

Antiochius

01-22-2006, 17:56

i wish me better aims. something like the senate for all factions. that would be nice, also four season would be good

lancelot

01-22-2006, 18:17

Oh yea, I forgot, the return of GA mode!

doc_bean

01-22-2006, 18:20

-no squalor, limited distance to capital effects etc. I don't want to build sewers and public baths, or even roads, I want to build armies ! (Well civ building is fun, but it was too contrived in RTW)

-borders, crossing them would be an immediate declaration of war

-better diplomacy

-better move options in the campaign map, a confirm option after I click a destination would be nice, maybe instead of the speed up option, make everything move at increased speed (on the campaign map)

-disloyal generals

-area specific units like in MTW

-No more loyalist rebellions that have more elite units than there where people in the cities, make raiding tactics (conquering and pillaging, then leaving) a viable option

-areas of control for armies and keeps, no sneaking past armies like in RTW please

-no 1337 units, urban cohorts were no fun

-more units per faction, even if it means making several factions more similar, I want swordmen guarding the sides of my pikemen damnit !

-a little slower combat speed (than in RTW), less routing at first contact (happened all the time when I was conquering Gaul as the Julii)

-More interaction with the campaign map, building defensive castles like forts is one thing, but new towns emerging randomly at, for instance, important trade routes would be awesome.

-A more realistic depiction on the battle map of what is on the campaign map (and vice versa)

-Brigands would often form near armies as they pillaged the country side and the weaker castles, make them an actual threat instead of just an annoyance

-mobile infantry

-realistic physics, I want to see cannonballs bounce, I want to see people crushed by horses !

-I want to tell my arches to 'target the horses' !

-BLOOD !

I'll probably add some more points when i think of them :2thumbsup:

Steppe Merc

01-22-2006, 18:28

Extremely moddable, because the base game will not be good enough on its own.

Martok

01-22-2006, 18:58

Extremely moddable, because the base game will not be good enough on its own.

Aw, c'mon; even I'm not *that* pessimistic! ~:rolleyes: I don't care for how Rome turned out either, but I still have faith that CA can pull this off. For all the comments they'd gotten from us since Rome was released, I think they know what could use improving. And CA does listen to us, even if they can't implement everything we want.

boastj

01-22-2006, 19:03

moats

Steppe Merc

01-22-2006, 19:06

Aw, c'mon; even I'm not *that* pessimistic! ~:rolleyes: I don't care for how Rome turned out either, but I still have faith that CA can pull this off. For all the comments they'd gotten from us since Rome was released, I think they know what could use improving. And CA does listen to us, even if they can't implement everything we want.
I am a pessemist.

But it doesn't really matter, becuase like I said my only intrest is in modding it to make it historical.

boastj

01-22-2006, 19:32

ships moving down rivers

Scurvy

01-22-2006, 21:11

naval battles

Mithrandir

01-22-2006, 21:11

I want the game for free.

..sorry :)

ShadesWolf

01-22-2006, 21:42

I would like to ability to place where a castle should be.
castles were stategic items to protect an empire, so having the ability to place a castle where u want it and not having the AI decide its wants it over there would be nice.

I guess most cities will already be in place, so you wont be able to create a new city from scatch. But it would be nice to have more than one city in a province. You decide which one grows by what buildings are built etc. This way you get over having too few or too many provinces.

I would also like either seasons per years, A min of 4 please, or better still months. This would allow for armies to march from one location to another, instead of appearing the other side of a map in one turn. This way two armies could play cat and mouse along a river to select the best location for battle.

Finally, (these are initial thoughts only) I would like to be able to build more that one army in a city each turn (if I want) and be able to decide on the size of the unit myself not have it hardcoded to 60, 80 or 100 men. If I want two units of 50 instead of one of 100, I want two units of 50.

Steppe Merc

01-22-2006, 22:09

I agree that their should be seasons and castles wherever you want. I'm not as sure about the multiple units and the sizes, though it would probably more realistic, since there were seldom exactly identical groups of units in armies of the time.

Sarethi

01-22-2006, 22:46

Better battle and campaign A.I, everything else comes second in my book.

Midnight

01-23-2006, 00:36

Maybe the occasional Queen? It might screw up the Princess\diplomatic marriage system, though...

Templar Knight

01-23-2006, 00:50

I would also like either seasons per years, A min of 4 please, or better still months. This would allow for armies to march from one location to another, instead of appearing the other side of a map in one turn. This way two armies could play cat and mouse along a river to select the best location for battle.

I hope so too, also invading a province knowing that military operations will have to be done before winter sets in. It would be nice if you could hold up invading armies until winter time buying time before the next campaigning season.

I hope its not a year per turn, it is too big a leap. With two or more turns per year it adds more strategic options.

Steppe Merc

01-23-2006, 01:04

Yeah, I agree. I know this can be done, since we did it to a limited extent in EB (restricting movement in winter and in summer for arid regions).

Salazar

01-23-2006, 01:19

Having Women on Thrones (at least in the appropiate countries where it was historically possible). It was relatively rare but it happened, so why not.

boastj

01-23-2006, 02:06

An actual town watch but not a fighting unit something to keep the city safe while your solders are out a pillaging

The Darkhorn

01-23-2006, 02:09

Seasons would be interesting! But what about the Mongols. Historically, they campaigned in the winter, while resting and fattening up their horses during the warmer months. Perhaps they should have some morale and/or valour bonuses for winter battles!

Herakleitos

01-23-2006, 02:31

Should I really be the first to say this ?

...Multiplayer Campaign ~:D

Oh yes, ofcourse! ~:cheers:

However, CA's reply is always: It would take around a millenium to finish a game... Therefore I propose a SMALL multiplayer campaign; something like the size of the VI campaign compared to the MTW campaign. It would be very nice if players could choose from variety of campaign maps such as England, France, Spain, Anatolia / Greece. Or better even, scenario's such as the 100 year's war (:oops: long game) or the reconquista (even a longer game I suppose...).

Still it's never going to happen I'm afraid...

Kraxis

01-23-2006, 03:06

I would love seasons, but at the same time I perfectly understand that we can't have the game being over in 1120... That is just not fun as well.

So now I wonder if the game will be like RTW with two seasons or like MTW with one season... The game has more years than either, and MTW is long enough. So I think we will be looking at yearly turns.

But perhaps CA has come up with some nice idea to keep expansion slow... Perhaps something like real campaigning in the countryside or something. One can only hope.

My wishes are anything but special:

An AI that can offer resistance at both tactical and strategic levels. In short: Make it better than in RTW. Fix ranged AI.

The possibility for battles to sway one way or the other. Meaning, no more 30 second battles. Meaning slower killrates (BI was a step in the right direction, but reintroduce the need for iron to make weaponupgrades to top it off) and likely also slower movement (though I'm rather indifferent to that one).

Stacking units on top of each other gives penalties to fighting ability. Thus no more trampling the enemy at bridges and in streets. Make the AI know this (which it didn't in MTW).

Fatigue as in MTW.

Ranged units as in MTW (archery so-so, javelins good).

Civil Wars where you select the side once more.

Crusades for every damn catholic faction!!!! No more leaving Denmark out!
People's crusades would be a nice addition to this. Non-factional crusades with peasants and the like. A pain to have around...

Regional titles an selectable offices once more.

Alliances that actually work.

Peasants NOT trainable!!!! Make them solely for rebellions, other non-factional armies and popular uprising (loyalists). I hate facing factional armies with 50-80% Peasants, or even a few of them. They make it worse for the enemy that has them.

Claudius the God

01-23-2006, 05:46

if you have an agent next to a battle without your faction in it, you should have the option to view the battle on the battle map even if you don't have anything to fight with... it makes far away battles something worth caring about... and that that battle should be reflected in the campaign map, not the quick auto-calculating that we usually have...

maybe an improved naval battle system with 3D battles (I know, I'm asking a lot...)

the ability to build and raid other things in a settlement besides the capitol city... such as villages (which should generate automatically according to population, but should be able to upgrade a little bit... increasing the development of villages much like upgrading mines...), mines, trade routes, ports (naval raids would be awesome - think vikings!), and even a secondary/independant minor castle outside of the capital city (like the crusader castles) or for rebel nobles to escape to (but only if that province is at the highest level of government I think... otherwise a second fortress in a province would be too much...)

an improved diplomacy system - better than RTW (at least something like a "get off my turf" option is one important thing needed in diplomacy)

i want to see the campaign map expanded South further into Africa, North further into Scandinavia, Russia and maybe even Iceland (at least as far as the Faroe Islands), and East past the Caspian Sea as far as the Ural Mountains, the Aral Sea, and the Arabian Sea...

rivers should be more realistic - not right angles...

units should clearly show fatigue and advantages/disadvantages like the original MTW...

special river boats for crossing rivers (slowly of course...)

to capture slaves in battle!!!

glorious achievements!!!

some unique major city landscapes (Rome, Constantinople, Paris, Madrid, Alexandria, etc...)

Improved AI of course...

Queens, and a family tree system that includes foreign marriages to know how to prevent the loss of territories through marriage, or to ensure the acquisition of foreign territories through marriage...

the ability to create moats...

lots more historical campaigns and historical battles

I want to have more control over what I bribe and what i want to disband. I may just be bribing an enemy army for their settlement, I may be bribing them for their siege equipment and siege engineers.

I want to be able to pollute/poison the water supply of an enemy city as i besiege them... and other dirty tactics when sieging them...

if I use an assassin on an army with more than one general/prince/king, I want to select exactly who it is that I want to assassinate (not necessarily the highest ranking character)

in diplomacy, i want to threaten to reveal the secret of a character (perhaps as an incentive when bribing them - but with a similar function as "threaten to attack" in RTW), and I want to have the option of doing exactly that somehow, and resulting in appropriate changes in character traits...

I want to send retinue from one character to another without bringing them into contact (maybe have a generic retinue agent... without any abilities except to join a royal or general)

I want news of glorious battles from distant lands... If my ally or enemy has suffered a severe loss, then I want to know about it...

i want universities and related structures to have an impact on things like public health, and maybe even technological development...

coastal provinces should be able to build a fishing industry in addition to naval industry and naval trade...

I also want more control over population... instead of producing peasants and moving them from province to province... I want to upgrade rural villages to prevent overpopulation in my cities... even if it costs more to maintain such a widespread population...

I want region specific resources for some regions (and region specific units like MTW as well)

I want papal civil wars, and 'popes in exile' maybe staying with foreign nations

I want to damage/destroy bridges to slow down enemy forces (but only if there is that river-boat option mentioned before)

I want agents and generals/nobles to appear in the family tree window even if they are not related to the royal family. (and maybe a movement points indicator for everyone that can move) it makes organizing characters easier...

I want RTW style towers (not MTW style towers)

I want different time preiods like MTW (Early, Middle and Late game)

I want monetary or military or popularity rewards for glorious achievements...

okay, I think that's enough for now...

Hurin_Rules

01-23-2006, 06:53

A 'realism' option, alongside the 'arcade battles' option.

Clicking on this option would make for slower battles, slower kill speeds, and would eliminate fantasy units like flaming pigs, wardogs and screaming women, so that battles are more realistic for those who want them that way.

In short, if they just keep the gameplay of MTW and added the graphical splendour and strategic map of RTW, it would be perfect.

pyradyn

01-23-2006, 07:48

I want alot of what has already said but about the Diplomacy Alliances that the AI actualy keeps unless you push them to far. Plus I dont want to be at war the whole time if they are going to declare war on me at least have a better reason than im not at war with anyone. Why cant you let me be the nice little country that stays out of all the bloodshed. Plus i agree bring Sweeden and Norway in but dont make them catholic they were never really catholic and some Pagan nations and like BI the option to just leave the religion all together but have a state religion insted of individual citys being their own. I want to play as the Germans and blow off the pope and convert back the Paganism. I dont ask much and as for graphics dont make them uber RTW has good enough graphics so i guess make them a little better? but not so most people cant play it. Im already buying Oblivion i dont think my comp can handle another with graphics like that.

Divinus Arma

01-23-2006, 08:28

well....

(1) Better diplomacy. It's the only think that napoleonic POS TW knock-off got halfway right.

(2) Expand the map or contract it. I dont care. I'm sick of seein the same friggin mediteranean-northafrican-blah.

(3) traits... hmmm. Think outside the box. Deliver something new to reflect the personality of individual generals. The current trait system needs a new engine. vrrooom

(4) Well. The rest depends. Are you engaged in customer oriented marketing? Or are you in the sellers mindset?

Duke John

01-23-2006, 08:49

I would like to have official modding tools and expanded (as in addition to the old commands) scripting possibilities. And of course an AI that can handle missile wars and fight as an army.

Zatoichi

01-23-2006, 09:32

I'd like to see the return of weather effects on archery - rain decreases distance and accuracy for bows, and stops muskets from firing. I also prefer the way rain was shown in MTW over RTW - espicially really heavy rain/thunderstorms.

Also, heavily armoured troops suffering more in the snow and heat a la MTW - there was some heat penalties in RTW but no so much that I ever noticed - not like trying to take Jerusalem with knights who practically passed out after 5 minutes walking! (Which was always annoying, but in a good way...)

Subedei

01-23-2006, 10:24

Extremely moddable, because the base game will not be good enough on its own.

Yeah, the people from the Steppes know how to bring it to the point! Modding possibillieties should be gooood!

VikingHorde

01-23-2006, 13:53

What I want? Era's like in MTW1, so that we don't have gothic knights too early ~;) . More factions than 21, say maybe 30 or so (or making the game modable so we kan add more factions like in MTW1).

jean_s

01-23-2006, 14:51

It would be very cool to have the possibility to get in the commander's skin an fight like in an RPG :D ...

That's for sure after you finished to give the orders for attack or defense.

Or, like some people do, to have a fight at the beggining between commanders which could decide the battles ...or not ... :)

But that's possibly to happen in another installment. At least I hope...

Ludens

01-23-2006, 16:57

However, CA's reply is always: It would take around a millenium to finish a game... Therefore I propose a SMALL multiplayer campaign; something like the size of the VI campaign compared to the MTW campaign. It would be very nice if players could choose from variety of campaign maps such as England, France, Spain, Anatolia / Greece. Or better even, scenario's such as the 100 year's war (:oops: long game) or the reconquista (even a longer game I suppose...).
Smaller campaigns might be a good idea independent of an MP game. Though they were scrapped for R:TW, I would still have like to play a smaller, more focused scenario like Ceasar in Gaul. However, for this to reach its full potential, the diplomatic and economic systems become more advanced.

Ulair

01-23-2006, 17:54

I dunno, you go away from the Org for a couple of weeks and they come along and announce MTW-2 behind your back :laugh4:

What can I say? Way to be cool. And what should it have? ajaxfetish has it neatly:

The gameplay M:TW had.
The graphics R:TW had (and that the screenies promise!).
The AI and diplomacy model that both games should have had.

And one from me:
- a rational naval combat system. Doesn't have to be detailed, just has to produce reasonable results...

Crikey, I bet I'll need a new PC. Well, the kids can do without shoes for a wee while, surely...

~:cheers:
Ulair

Satyr

01-23-2006, 18:04

I want a speed slider on both halves of the game. I like watching troops and agents move on the strategic map, but not too slow or so fast you can't see where they are going like in RTW. Just give me control and I will find a speed my old brain and eyes can handle.

I want a GREAT AI! This has to be the dominant aspect of the game. The graphics are good enough, now make the AI that they can be proud of. The AI in MTW was the best ever produced, make sure MTW2 is even better.

Much better diplomacy. Look to CIV4 for how to do it.

Realistic battlefield behavior. The way cavalry wheeled around before charging in MTW was beautiful, it sucked in RTW, some work here would be great. Same goes for watching an infantry line getting hit, collapsing, breaking and routing. It was great in MTW but sucked in RTW. I would like to see that kind of detail again.

And I want to see a reasonable patch policy. That means "as many patches as it takes"!

boastj

01-23-2006, 18:53

Lots of settlements per province then you could pillage villages and draw the enemy out.

Templar Knight

01-23-2006, 19:23

I remember in Lords of the Realm you could burn villages and fields, it would be a nice addition. It could be used to draw your enemy out, force him to sue for peace or just lower relations for the badness of it :)

VikingHorde

01-23-2006, 22:29

I just thought of something, I also want this game on DVD. Having 3+ CD-roms is not cool, specially with most people having a DVD drive in their computer. I know a lot of cool games on DVD and it makes the install more easy'er.

Justiciar

01-24-2006, 02:42

*takes a deep breath*

More mod-friendly.

Custom castles/city building would be great fun, but isn't really in line with the general theme of Total War.

More villages/towns/cities per province.

Less predictable campaigns.

More factions. Lots more. I'm talking bucket loads.

Slower battles.

Slower campaigns (4 seasons works wonders imho).

Female characters to do more than bear children, add traits, and make alliances.

Civil wars that allow you to choose a side.

More individuality for characters. I want my heir to be a drooling and incompetent whoremongerer ffs!

MTW style automatic inherritance (as opposed to choosing the best family member in RTW).

More realism.. I don't want to wait three years for a good mod to do this for me.

Generals to look more individual on the battle field.

RTW style campaign movement; as opposed to dropping stacks on a province.

Random events to make my campaign more interesting; "Your king is caught naked with his squire!", "Your heir fell on a scythe!", "Your illegitimate brother has declared himself the true king!", "Mercenaries in your pay have turned rogue and captured city X", "Your queen commited scuicide" etc.

A more involved economy.

hrvojej

01-24-2006, 07:07

First and foremost, a good AI. Second, a good AI. Etc....

Also more depth on all levels, especially diplomacy. Which wouldn't be possible to have without a good AI behind enemy factions, of course. Ever since STW I was dreaming about a game which would involve a complex diplomatic and economic model, while at the same time also sport challeging hands-on battles, so maybe this time around I'll be in luck.

I hope that the current state of the graphics, as evident from the screenshots, will be deemed sufficient to sell the game to casual players, so that more time ahead can be spent on the development of deep and challenging gameplay.

pyradyn

01-24-2006, 10:27

I also want the ability to just sack a settlement insted of having to take it over. Like Hordes in BI but with all armies. Like when i got to war with a nation i dont want to expand into. I dont want to just pick off a few feild armies i want to devistate their econemy and show them that im stronger they can keep the left over. This could also grant what most wars were fought for MONEY, not land money you sack plunder have a jolly time and go home with a full pocket and belly. This would add more Intrests into wars and make it more realistic. Plus if your in debt go steal it from some one else then they are in debt and you are out. Only problem would be the AI's use of this and when they sack and when they occupy. This way you can fight the nations army go in destroy the army and pull out with out leaving the HUGE garrisons. But insted of the prevoius owner losing the city like BI they keep but the horrors of being sack still there.
Dono I have just always wanted to War with the country not take them over. Being the bully of the world :P that way you can get to close to the end of the game before beating it half way through

Satyr reminded me what ever happend to taking the routing enemies hostage and either slaughtering the mass to make yourself feel good and scare the crap out of your enemy or making a buck or two randsoming them back

boastj

01-24-2006, 16:03

I agree with Justiciar, suicidal queens
O and pillaging of defeated armies

Leet Eriksson

01-24-2006, 16:28

All i ask for is bite-sized mini campaigns for that 30 minute fix.

There is alot to go with, i mean, the hussite rebellion, the crusades, Timurs rampage, byzantinium... etc they can all be reduced to a smaller map, with a few factions and you are set.

Nelson

01-24-2006, 16:30

Moats and draw bridges

Tricky maybe, but there has to be a way. Field fortifications would be neat too.

boastj

01-24-2006, 16:38

Temporary fortifications like spikes in the ground that last only 10 turns for if you are in immediate danger of being attacked

City walls

01-24-2006, 18:08

Be able to deploy troops outside the settlement before the siege begins

Ironside

01-24-2006, 18:16

A great AI, ofcourse. Most important thing ever.

MTW speed on the battles and MTW importance of terrain.

Better balance between auto-calc and a played battle, being "forced" to play all battles in RTW, due to horrendious losses isn't fun.

And a very important thing considering that the camp-map will probably be based on the RTW map. The abillity to have epic battles, instead of that wave after wave style that happens in RTW.
Although the comp should be better that MTW to handle the reinforcements (well 10000 vs 10000 at the same time is probably too much to handle, so to get epic battles reinforments is needed). I can accept AI handled allied armies, as long as he isn't incompetent and most importly, doesn't suecide the general.

Realistic units, and if you need to have other units for balance, make them sencible. Some fun units is ok, but not as extreme as RTW.

If having random rebel stacks, make them fewer but stronger and more dangerous. True rebellions instead of a small annoyance. Linked to province loyalty to.

Better balance between city growth and loyalty. Having to occationally exterminate your own cities doesn't feel right.

Vassalage or simular for defeated enemies. But although some sencible tendencies to rebel should be there.

More in a province than just a city. AKA towns and castles placed around there, preferbly by you.

Reappearing factions has to come back.

Good modability, doing light mods by yourself or playing mods is keeping the interest up quite a bit and improves the game.

I'm sure that it's more, but I think I've covered most stuff I want in there.

Nobunaga

01-24-2006, 18:28

Well I want the following:

1-Slower Battles
2-Well Balanced Units
3-Bring back the hold formation/engage at will button
4-The old control system, it will be nice the game had an option in which it switches between the MTW/STW control system and the RTW control system.
5-Realistic units

Meneldil

01-24-2006, 22:38

Already been mentioned, but

MTW-like battles (much slower and harder than RTW)
A working diplomacy system (I was so happy when I discovered what was planned for RTW, but so disappointed when I tested it in game)
A much harder campaign map, where you can't play with the darnest smallest faction and conquer half of europe in 10 years. Something like EU II would actually be awesome.

hrvojej

01-24-2006, 23:51

Two more things which would be really nice to have IMHO:

1. Different starting periods (as in MTW). The campaign is often most interesting at its start, and to be able to have a fairly advanced army from the get-go would alleviate the problem that everything is over by the time you are able to build some more interesting units. It would also give the AI a better fighting chance, as it could start with more developed armies.

2. The ability to mod morale modifiers. So instead of just upping the general morale for the units (for those of us who are inclined to do so) which may fix some things but breaks the other, you could finely tune the situation on the battlefield to avoid too frequent chain routs and the associated anticlimactic battles.

In short, more options for everything (coupled with a good AI, of course)...

Cheers,

boastj

01-24-2006, 23:54

pilliging!!

Baeksen

01-25-2006, 00:10

1) Improvement of the campaign AI so that it will be capable of composing an army in a reasonable way. Meaning that you would have to fight armies composed of a range of different unit types that complement each other and no longer fight armies completely missing a type of units, like ranged units.

2) No more incompetent rebel factions that do not put up resistance or ally and therefore turns the first years of a campaign into an expansion race, where the game doesn't really start until all nearby rebel provinces are occupied by a faction.

3) A town guard that can be summoned to protect a city under siege, but not leave the city. This would make siege battles more exciting, as you would be able to man the walls properly. This town guard size and quality could be dependent on factors such as city size, buildings in the city, culture and loyalty towards the faction leader and the local feudal lord.

And many other things mentioned in this thread, but most of all I wish that MTW2 is not just eye candy, but a strategy game worth playing.

And last, perhaps the ability to customize your king and commanders with personal banners.

boastj

01-25-2006, 17:53

The ability to move several stacks at the same time on the campaign map by clicking and dragging (I was just playing as the Huns in BI and it was getting annoying moving them individually)
:furious3:

boastj

01-25-2006, 19:27

Unique buildings like the tower of London, Vatican and Notre darm (French cathedral in paris)

Kraxis

01-26-2006, 00:08

I want a return of green replacements!!!

Yes I mean troops you get nothing but the bonusses gained in that particular settlement.
Didn't they already do that? No!

In Rome if you retrain a three golden chevron unit of a single man, you will get replacements of equal ability for the cost of what totally green troops are worth (in fact tested a very similar instance). This makes it far too easy to get superb troops. I want to be forced to merge my experienced troops, I want to feel a certain amount of 'love' for my Valour 2 troops which I will have very few of.

Satyr

01-26-2006, 01:02

We need to be able to rally any troops on the battlefield. In reality the king/general would never fight anyway so tying rallying to a general makes no sense. Besides, there are subordinates! This ability is part of what made MTW so good. Remember all those long battles where you could finally rally a few of your routing troops, bring them together in the woods and then counter attack? That was bliss! To be able to turn the tides of war at the last moment was seriously missing in Rome. How many battles have I sat in terror that my troops would break yet again before his? I want this back!!!!!

And please CA, make the AI smart enough to use the same bloody tactics that any 8th grader would. Without a good AI you might as well not even bother. Having moved on to play CIV 4 lately, it is amazing what a good AI adds to the game. And which game was 'Game of the Year' last year? A strategy game! If Firaxis can do it so can CA.

PS. Ditch the stupid family system.

CrownOfSwords

01-26-2006, 06:55

Alright ive been thinking about this a lot to how in the Total war game system how it would be possible to really accurately depict battle. Also I didn't read all the posts before this so im sorry if I say something someone has already said. Battles for the most part back then were basically a countries full strength or just about thrown against each other, in RTW you must recruit units etc which is completely unrealistic. A lord or a king would call down through the feudal system to raise an army, at this point immediately an army would be raised, the proffesionalism would be accounted for by how many nobles/fighting men are within the army and how many peasants. Now at this point of time in real warfare there would be no peasant units afield, even the poorest unit would have scraps of armor and weapons. I hope for a system where at any given time an army can be raised out of the male citizens of a city, and possibly there can be some sort of system to reflect the social classes amount of nobles amount of middle class and amount of peasants and the units created would reflect this. I think bare population should be exchanged for men/women population and then men of "fighting age" say 16?-40? would be able to put to arms, and women of the same age could be of "breeding" age and the amount of these women could reflect population growth. Perhaps these units could be sort of like horde units and can be returned and settled back into the population maybe even be considered veteran citizens of some sort, and only the most proffesional soldiers would remain in garrison such as knights. So in essense the recruitment system can be kept yet hordes can be raised easily, this would create MUCH larger battles that would be more significant. Also I said no peasant units? Perhaps when a city is being assaulted some sort of men at arms can be formed by the remaining men of age population or percantage of them due to loyalty of the settlement. I know this is a lot to swallow, but a better population system could really help the realism of the game.

Apart from that complicatedness :P id like to see crusades again, improvements to seige battles, HOPEFULLY A WORTHWHILE AI! I decided the problem with the AI in RTW is they try to run their infantry around all the time and they dont stay together supporting their flanks, I find myself waiting at the back of the map letting their troops tire out for easy pickings. Nonetheless I am very excited about the new game I can always replay the medieval age! PS sorry for any grammar or spelling errors -CoS

Weebeast

01-26-2006, 07:27

Martok

01-26-2006, 10:09

I don't know how people would respond to this but I got bunch of positive replies a while ago. I'd love to continue playing even if my king dies without a heir. Just because a line dies doesn't mean everything becomes non-existing. Let one hi-rank general lead the population to carry on as if it was a civil war and let me play it.

I know this is not a very important thing to put into the game but why not go big?

I like this idea a lot, Weebeast. :bow: There's only thing I would add: When such an event happens (where a general takes over should the first royal line die out), your kingdom/empire should automatically fall into civil war. That way you still suffer a penalty (although hopefully not a fatal one); plus it would be fairly historically accurate as well.

Kraxis

01-26-2006, 14:22

I don't know how people would respond to this but I got bunch of positive replies a while ago. I'd love to continue playing even if my king dies without a heir. Just because a line dies doesn't mean everything becomes non-existing. Let one hi-rank general lead the population to carry on as if it was a civil war and let me play it.

I know this is not a very important thing to put into the game but why not go big?
Can you say MTW?
That is exactly what happened in MTW. Though you would need to have at least a single royal person around. Then he would fight a civil war with a top general and you could chose which one to back (you would then become that faction).

lancelot

01-26-2006, 17:38

Templar Knight

01-26-2006, 17:45

I hope the alliance system is linked to the influence rating - similar to MTW. If you break an alliance your influence goes down... etc

Spino

01-26-2006, 19:14

1) VASTLY IMPROVED A.I.! Rome is simply not a challenging game to anyone with a modicum of strategy gaming experience under their belt. The fact that Rome's tactical and strategic elements are less challenging than those of its predecessors (even on Hard or Expert difficulty) is a sad commentary on a game that took several years to develop. In the absence of actually making MTW2's AI play better at Hard or Expert levels I would love to see CA incorporate 'Advanced' difficulty options that can provide veteran strategy gamers with a more effective AI opponent while not discouraging the average gamer.

2) Bring back Glorious Achievements campaigns!

3) Increase the hard coded faction limit to 30 or more (thankfully this is currently under consideration at CA).

4) Bring back Medieval's three seperate Eras and create Glorious Achievement goals for each of them.

5) Recordable battle replays for campaign game battles.

6) Instantaneous movement of all diplomats, priests, princesses, spies & assassins from one unblockaded port to the other. I think it's silly that these units should be dependent on military fleets for transportation as they are in RTW. During times of war simply factor in the chance that these units can be intercepted and/or eliminated by an enemy fleet within a certain distance of either port whenever they attempt to travel overseas.

(here's yet another wish...)

7) Princesses Revisited - If the diplomatic model is to be improved bring back the marriage system. However this time make marriages carry far greater weight than they did in Medieval and better yet, provide for the possiblity (however small) that both factions can actually combine into one with the more powerful of the two effectively absorbing the lesser and incorporating it's family members into it's own family tree.

Ryanus

01-26-2006, 23:00

Bar Kochba

01-26-2006, 23:14

i want dosent get

Prince Cobra

01-26-2006, 23:58

As I explained in other topic it'll be good to be included the Bulgarian faction
(there is a decent map and interesting info in '30 factions topic') full stop.
I have some suggestion
it is really good idea to change the system of the heirs
there are some examples in history for female heirs to the throne (both of them are from the byzantine history):
1) empress Irina (797-802) (called herself emperor) (she wasn't exactly a heir because she blinded her son in order to take over the power)
2)empress Teodora(1055-1056)(called herself emperor)- the younger daughter of Constantine VIII (who had no male children (while his brother emp.Basil II even refused to get married- he hated the women))
However Byzantium is an exception (that option should only exist for the empire and may be Spain (queen Izabel )) and of course the existence female monarch should lead to very low loyalty (and if the empress didn't marry (look how many years the empress ruled) mass rebellion and end of the game! :no:
But I am wondering why ther were no children-monarchs (and this did not lead to the end of the dinasty)- Louis IX of France, some byzantine rulers and many other example. Yes, ther should be a drop of loyalty but not so fatal as the previous example. And by the time the monarch grew up , the vice and virtues of the regent( why not a woman- the mother of the king) are vital for the country
And it is also very good idea to be improved the diplomacy (esp. the part with allies who attack the enemy together)

Cesare diBorja

01-27-2006, 02:31

I want a game that eventually in a succession of expansion-packs takes us all the way up to the First World War. Plain and simple. No more back-tracking. Maybe a game that eventually gets more virtual as you can be a personality within the game. Now, wouldn't that be exciting? Imagine you are the king of Yak-country and you lead your armies into battle from a first person view and you have to plan out all your battles to the best of your knowledge, wit and from the best intelligence on maps and from field reports and then ask your generals to deliver you a victory. All the while you direct from your position as you can see the battle. Pray you don't come under coup to see an early death or worse, capture. Diplomacy?, don't get me started!

Pipe-dreams are great!

diBorgia

hrvojej

01-27-2006, 06:43

One thing that must go into MTW2...a diplomacy and alliance system that actually means something...

too often, allies would stab you in the back for no apparent reason, sometimes the turn after accepting an alliance, it made no sense and was ultimately pointless...(and frustrating)

A penalty should be applied for oath-breaking...a big one to!

Something like, a cumulative unseen penalty is applied to your faction making any future alliances less likely to be accepted...repeated offences will ultimately mean your total exclusion from an alliance, possibly include trade as well to make it really sting... plus a population loyalty decrease also perhaps?
This could be done with the ability to see the stance of other factions towards your own, and with the AI that will act in accordance to those stances. If you have friendly relations with a faction, you should be able to have some feedback about that (the more detailed the better IMHO), and then you would know that they are less likely to backstab you etc. This doesn't mean that friendships should be easy or cheap to gain, but it should add a whole new dimension to the campmap strategy and gameplay. This should make diplomacy much less of a haphazard guessing game that it was in the previous TW games, which basically meant that I would just not bother to use it at all.

edit
p.s. dammit, somebody also took my avatar...

fallen851

01-27-2006, 07:43

All I want is a good game, not another half baked [insult deleted]

Thus I won't buy MTW2...

Moderator comment: constructive criticism only, please.

Ludens

01-27-2006, 21:48

This could be done with the ability to see the stance of other factions towards your own, and with the AI that will act in accordance to those stances. If you have friendly relations with a faction, you should be able to have some feedback about that (the more detailed the better IMHO), and then you would know that they are less likely to backstab you etc. This doesn't mean that friendships should be easy or cheap to gain, but it should add a whole new dimension to the campmap strategy and gameplay. This should make diplomacy much less of a haphazard guessing game that it was in the previous TW games, which basically meant that I would just not bother to use it at all.
Agreed. What also would help is to make the responses of the diplomats more indicative of the computers attitude. My offers were often refused, but I never was sure why. Sometimes I even managed to (apparently) insult the A.I. Some more variety (and more connection with the situation) would go a long way.

Martok

01-27-2006, 22:07

Agreed. What also would help is to make the responses of the diplomats more indicative of the computers attitude. My offers were often refused, but I never was sure why. Sometimes I even managed to (apparently) insult the A.I. Some more variety (and more connection with the situation) would go a long way.

I second that as well. Whenever my emissary would return to court to tell me my alliance proposal with [faction X] had been rejected, I was never sure if the "flavor" of the rejection actually meant anything, or if it was just a randomly-picked message. For example: "The English King wanted to assure that he harbors no hostility towards you, but feels that an alliance would put him in a difficult position at this time;" as opposed to "The French King has refused your offer of alliance. I received the impression that it was only his good mood that allowed me to leave with my head still attached."

Would this mean the English actually like me, but are simply reluctant to entangle themselves, and that the only reason the French haven't attacked me yet is because they don't feel strong enough? Or do all the messages basically say the same thing, i.e. "we're not interested so go away"? It would be really nice if diplomacy in Medieval 2 was at least dynamic enough that the tone of diplomatic messages actually gave you a clue as to how a particular faction feels towards you.

Cesare diBorja

01-27-2006, 23:20

Slightly larger unit sizes.

diBorgia

Sarmatian

01-28-2006, 00:16

Did anyone here played imperial glory? It has great diplomacy, which I would like to see in medievel II. Actually, I think it was better than rtw in all aspects, except the battle of course which is probably the most important. If they could make medievel II as a mixture of imperial glory and rtw, I think it would be a great game.

Zatoichi

01-28-2006, 01:04

One simple thing that would help out the campaign map IMO would be to have large movement ranges in your own territory and much smaller ones than that of your enemies , this would do two things 1.) you could cross your empire in a relatively small amount of time (no more taking 20 years to get from Italy to Spain) without allowing you to blitzkrieg the middle east from france. 2.) The disparity between the mobility of the attacker and defenders would allow defenders to intercept attacking armies before they lay siege to the city, allowing for more field battles. If they did this in RTW it was a big of enough difference.

I really like that idea Ryanus! It doesn't even have to be a huge difference in movement points between home turf and neutral/enemy lands before it makes a whole new raft of strategies available, and is a good way of introducing the concept of supply without getting over complicated.

Dead Moroz

01-28-2006, 15:23

I WANT NO BUGS!

I don't want second BI that was buried on my shelf after several days of playing.

I want reasonable diplomacy AI and real alliances. I want smart tactics AI and real AI armies - not just a mix of independently acting stupid units.

I want AI to much better care about its generals on both battle and strategy levels.

I don't want lots of small groups of enemies wandering through my lands - it's not fun to easily kill those enemies with my large army.

I want human speed of battles. I'm too stupid to play RTW battles with AI without constant pressing on pause button.

I want computer-controlled reinforcements to be real help for me in battle. Every time I used computer-controlled reinforcements in RTW they were just intervene for my battle plans and waste of my troops. It need at least simple coordination between human and computer-controlled armies, like you say to your helpers: "Hold on", "Start skirmish", Attack!", etc.

I want the option for besieged garrisons to surrender, on various terms.

I want to demand besieged city in peace treaty conditions (it was impossible in RTW).

I want army that siege a city won't always go away (or disappear) after unsuccessful assault, but keep siege if it still have enough forces for it. Afaik, it was good and historically correct feature in MTW1, but was strangely missed in RTW.

I want loser armies to retreat on reasonable distance on strategy map - not to perform fantastic marathon abilities. I also want that army trapped into deadlock on strategy map won't perform Copperfield's tricks after defeat and escape right through my army.

I want to retreat from battle as much times as I have movement points for it (in RTW it's possible to retreat just once).

I want brigands or retreating rival army to not be able to cross river via ford or bridge where my fort stands. It also would be nice to have on river battle map a fort if it presents on strategy map. In RTW it was very disappointed to block a river with fort and don't have it in battle.

I want historically correct units. I don't want hordes of weird hysterical wifes and alive mummies.

I want old units to be upgradable when new types of troops are discovered. It's stupid that you have to build your army from the scratches each time you reach new technology level.

I want weather and climate to make more impact on troops in battle, like it was in MTW1. It would be nice to add special mountain bonus for some units.

I want region specific units like in MTW1.

I want culture-oriented army building system. I think it's better to be able to build troops in settlement only if it's enough loyal and colonized by you. So you won't be able to build troops in recently conquered city of different civilization.

I don't want 21 factions limit. Impossibility to create any new factions was the worst modding feature in RTW. And I want more factions in MTW2: I'd like to see there Burgundia, Serbia, Bohemia, Aragon, Lithuania, Sweden, Georgia, Switzerland, Khwarazm (if the map spreads that far in Asia - I guess it will because of promised Tumurids). Plus add several Russian principalities: initial united Russia with capital in Kiev and then emerging of Vladimir principality and Novgorod republic would be nice, but it would be great to have emerging Chernigov and Galich-Volhynia principalities too.

I want initial positions of factions to present on strategy mini-map on startup - Medieval cartography was developed enough. It also would be nice to get occasional map updates of regions which you trading with - because merchants were the real scouts in all times.

I don't want acid faction colors. It's right to set distinctive colors for factions, but let it be "eyes friendly".

I want historically correct symbols of factions. All symbols in RTW were just pure fantasy.

I don't want total conquest - it's too monotonous and boring. Gimme back Glorious Achievements of MTW! And let it be fully moddable.

I want several eras like in MTW1. It would be nice to change the appearance of units on strategy map, portraits of generals and maybe GUI when you pass from one era to another.

I want culture specific appearance of strategy level units (diplomats, assassins, etc.). It was strange to have one kind of these units for every civilizations in RTW.

I want civil wars and rebellions. But I don't want hordes of rebelling peasants appearing in small town - the number of rebels should not be bigger that number of population in settlement. And I don't want annoying armies of brigands appearing almost every turn in multiple regions - in RTW I had much more battles (boring battles!) with brigands than with other factions.

I want trade via rivers. The economical advantage of rivers is totally neglected in TW games.

I don't want to care about squalor as much as in RTW.

I want special non-combat colonists unit - just for moving population from one city to another.

I want to be able to destroy ALL buildings in city. In RTW there were some types of undestroyable buildings, e.g. city walls. But it's weird that you can't demolish the walls in game - it always was common practice during war. Also it would be nice to destroy farms, mines and the like while you are sieging settlement or just standing in rival region (e.g. like it made in "Civilization" games - when you step onto some tile and destroy its improvements).

I want all major heresies to appear in appropriate times and territories and be real threats (in MTW1 it was not real danger when about 25% of heretical moods were quickly annihilated by several priests and religious buildings). It would be nice if some regions will "suddenly" break away from you and some generals betray you because of spreading of heresy.

I want naval units on strategy map to represent the type of ship that it is - not to be just a common image of ship.

I want naval battles.

I want developers who care about their fans, not just about amount of game copies sold.

I want too much?

boastj

01-28-2006, 15:25

I wish to claim another’s crown and when he refuses go to war with him

Dead Moroz

01-28-2006, 15:32

I second this all:

the ability to create moats...

I want news of glorious battles from distant lands... If my ally or enemy has suffered a severe loss, then I want to know about it...

coastal provinces should be able to build a fishing industry in addition to naval industry and naval trade...

Reappearing factions has to come back.

Improvement of the campaign AI so that it will be capable of composing an army in a reasonable way. Meaning that you would have to fight armies composed of a range of different unit types that complement each other and no longer fight armies completely missing a type of units, like ranged units.

A town guard that can be summoned to protect a city under siege, but not leave the city. This would make siege battles more exciting, as you would be able to man the walls properly. This town guard size and quality could be dependent on factors such as city size, buildings in the city, culture and loyalty towards the faction leader and the local feudal lord.

The ability to move several stacks at the same time on the campaign map by clicking and dragging (I was just playing as the Huns in BI and it was getting annoying moving them individually)

I'd love to continue playing even if my king dies without a heir. Just because a line dies doesn't mean everything becomes non-existing. Let one hi-rank general lead the population to carry on as if it was a civil war and let me play it.

Instantaneous movement of all diplomats, priests, princesses, spies & assassins from one unblockaded port to the other. I think it's silly that these units should be dependent on military fleets for transportation as they are in RTW. During times of war simply factor in the chance that these units can be intercepted and/or eliminated by an enemy fleet within a certain distance of either port whenever they attempt to travel overseas.

This could be done with the ability to see the stance of other factions towards your own, and with the AI that will act in accordance to those stances. If you have friendly relations with a faction, you should be able to have some feedback about that (the more detailed the better IMHO), and then you would know that they are less likely to backstab you etc. This doesn't mean that friendships should be easy or cheap to gain, but it should add a whole new dimension to the campmap strategy and gameplay. This should make diplomacy much less of a haphazard guessing game that it was in the previous TW games, which basically meant that I would just not bother to use it at all.

boastj

01-28-2006, 17:51

An about turn button where they just turn around and don’t reform

crab

01-28-2006, 18:13

1) Civil wars take place more than MTW. for example, when a king died, a war should begin among princes to become a king. when the king died, player may choose a prince to go on.

2) Princes should request for political refuge from the other empires.

3) There are only two options before the battle, manuel and automatic. There may be another option for tactics. Fighting manually sometimes may be difficult to control all soldiers. There may determine a tactic like this before the battle. something like this:
https://img453.imageshack.us/img453/5596/tactic1xx.th.gif (https://img453.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tactic1xx.gif)

4) New settlements can be built.

5) City's population should determine how many turns take establishing a building. And also in a turn more than a group of soldier may establish according to the city's population and wealth.

andrewt

01-28-2006, 18:47

Nerf cavalry especially and charges in general.

This is really one of the biggest reasons why RTW was a disappointment to me. I liked the new campaign map but the tactical system lacked historical accuracy, game balance, strategy and tactics. It boiled down to circling around with cav, charge, disengage, circle around then charging again. Most battles are also over after the initial charge, even including infantry battles. For an infantry dominated era, cav and archers were the dominant forces in RTW. Cav is much more powerful during Medieval's era but they were never as powerful as they were in RTW. There were problems with AI and fast attack resolutions as well but I think the charges, especially cavalry charges ruined the tactical game for me.

econ21

01-28-2006, 19:43

Nerf cavalry especially and charges in general.

Um, I agree cavalry were OTT in RTW 1.0. But they got better in BI and are pretty easy to mod - I like both the representations in RTR and EB. I would like to see heavy cavalry a smidgeon more powerful in M2TW than they were in MTW. Maybe I was not using them right, but I found they very much a secondary arm in that game. There was no way I would have thought of massing knights and using them as the decisive arm of my army, which I believe was done in many Catholic medieval armies. Pitching mounted knights at the level of Samartian Auxiliaries or Clibanaari (depending on the armour) in BI would be about right, IMO.

Conversely, I'd really like to see dismounting knights make sense in M2TW; in MTW, the knights units were too small and expensive for this to be a key part of your battle plan. Yet this is what English and French ended up doing in the HYW.

ajaxfetish

01-28-2006, 22:00

I want old units to be upgradable when new types of troops are discovered. It's stupid that you have to build your army from the scratches each time you reach new technology level.

I agree with almost everything you list, but this was actually something I really liked in MTW1 and that set it apart from games like AoE for me. It doesn't make sense to me that once you can train better troops all your old ones suddenly become better. You should still be able to field lesser quality troops and use both new and old together on the field. I could accept an option to upgrade outmoded troops by retraining them (eg. feudal knights turn into chivalric knights if retrained), but in some cases older units have at least some advantages over higher-tech ones, and having the option to use both is something I love about total war.

Ajax

Claudius the God

01-28-2006, 23:08

I want to be able to produce "emergency peasants" from the population of my city when under siege... (sort of like emergency conscriptions, but unskilled, barely armoured troops for city defense only, which should go back into the population at the end of the battle, and this option should only be available for the higher level cities

sharrukin

01-28-2006, 23:52

I won't be buying MTW2 at the first opportunity but will wait to see if it is as disastrous as RTW was!

Slower battles; if it is as bad as RTW in this regard, then I will spend my money elsewhere!

Don't do something stupid like force everyone to play ONE particular faction in order to unlock the other factions. To this day I have no idea what the logic behind that was!

No suicide generals.

More factions, or the ability to swap out playable factions of your own choosing.

MTW start dates with separate Era's.

Region and faction specific units.

Civil wars, peasant rebellions, and disloyal nobles should be more common and MAKE SENSE. Re-emergent faction leaders with uber armies never made much sense to me. Too cheesy and too much like a game mechanism.

Fewer mini-armies.

Four turns/seasons.

Ryanus had a very good idea. Armies should be slowed by having to forage for supplies in hostile territory and this would also reflect harassment of local garrisons and warlords. That said, they do need to increase the base speed of strategic map movement. In their own territory they should be able to move much faster.

Martok

01-29-2006, 01:56

sapi

01-29-2006, 08:40

This idea has already been brought up, both here and at the Org. I really want to see this as well!
I remember writing a topic on this back when rtw came out, asking if it was moddable. It would be fantastic if this was in, as it's something that i've always wanted to see.

I think that the peasants should gain in stats for every turn the city is under siege, as they are being trained by the professional soldiers..:idea2:

doc_bean

01-29-2006, 12:05

Don't do something stupid like force everyone to play ONE particular faction in order to unlock the other factions. To this day I have no idea what the logic behind that was!

Rome just had a different design from Medieval, it was meant to be played as the Romans, first and foremost, the other factions were more or less an extra.
Since Medieval Europe didn't have such a dominating faction I don't see why they won't use the MTW system.

Martok

01-29-2006, 21:04

Rome just had a different design from Medieval, it was meant to be played as the Romans, first and foremost, the other factions were more or less an extra.
Since Medieval Europe didn't have such a dominating faction I don't see why they won't use the MTW system.

Agreed. There's no reason to not have every faction available right away. It was also not a very good design decision to force the player to play as a certain faction before unlocking the others, and I think CA knows that now.

Gazi Husrev-Beg

01-29-2006, 21:24

Well,u guys got pretty picture of what i want and some said that in good detail.

Better diplomacy would be good start.Oh and more factions...much more factions and regions.I like thought of ACUALLY having vassal kingdoms-hence better/deeper developed diplomacy.

What we dont see in M2TW i belive a mod will fix eventually ;)

fester

01-29-2006, 22:20

The gameplay M:TW had.
The graphics R:TW had (and that the screenies promise!).

The AI and diplomacy model that both games should have had.

Ajax
totaly agree

boastj

01-29-2006, 23:16

The ability to shout at a small neutral armies in my province and say “Get Of My Land” to them.
Imagine a Wiltshire farmers accent, its funnier.

Dutch_guy

02-06-2006, 17:50

While reading the ''History of MTW'' thread another idea came to mind;

Why don't they add the pre set hero units they had in Medieval total war, and which were sadly missing in Rome.

Those units always added some hostorical accuracy to the game, and that can't be a bad thing now can it ~;)

:balloon2:

Yoyoma1910

02-06-2006, 19:09

I think that since this is going to be a transatlantic campaign, the Naval system must be an important development from past TW series. Personally, as mentioned earlier, I wouldn't mind naval battles. But more so, in the original MTW the naval system was senseless for the most part, and barley even there. I realize that the argument between the importance of land control vs. sea control is as old as sea faring, for instance Sparta vs. Athens or the British vs. the French (in Napoleonic times especially, what with the Continental system), but I feel that I should be able to address this argument more thoroughly myself as the player.

I hope that some of these new units are of the aquatic persuasion. And I insist on the naval system being more enjoyable, and in some cases viable as a means of control.

The development of navies was an integral part in the development of some of the greatest empires in history.

Further more, I would like to see rebel factions have a developed naval AI, based on the concept of piracy. And perhaps for factions privatiering, in which players ship could be hired to attack the enemy. Or perhaps hijacking of other factions ships, since this was a common practice for increasing ones navy. But perhaps that's asking too much.

:captain: :2cents: