What we would like to see in ETW.....

[fenir]

This thread, I hope will present ideas on the various items we would like to see included from previous TW games, and maybe some new ideas?
Lusted, any chance you could complie the list and send to CA for us please?

Please use Point form, and try and think of how CA could best implement these ideas. Be reasonable!!

exempli gratia:

1. Titles.
I would like to see these re introduced. The abililty to raise and award in succession Knight(sir), Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marques, Duke and maybe the odd prince.
And have this included in the name as in MTW.
To award titles, click on the unit card to which a button on this card will allow you to award/view and or other things the unit in question.

2. Succession.
Can we please make it primus genetia (first born) as in salic law. With the abilitly to change heirs if we want to.

3. Lords.
Can we please have families occupie titles and succeed by their son's primus genetia. This would give great immersion.

4. Please take away adoption.

5. Keep the generals, but intergrate this with the lords function.

6. increase in the number of trabe goods. and the ability to mod more types.

7. The increase of provinces. but not so we can race from town to town.

8. Please include the "get of my land or suffer" diplomacy.

9. Please, Limit the V and V.
Most people in life aspire to achieve good V&V, and therefore we need something to represent this. And can we limit these to 8. And perhaps 6 ancillaries. And have some traits run in families with the ability of certain types of ancihllies being passed father to son?

10. This is a wish....to enable the recruitment of units to represent the units that were recruitable in there areas.
Does not have to be exact, we can make it that later. just if you could put that in game, like the legion names.

exempli gratia: London, can recruit foot regiments of the following names.
Unit of 100 foot. 57th regiment of foot Middlesex regiment.
Unit of 100 foot, 3rd Regiment of foot Royal Kent Regiment.
Unit of 100 foot, 35th Regiment of Foot, Royal Sussex regiment.
Unit of 40 Cavalry, say the 1st Dragoon Guards.
Or the Life Guards and so on. that would mean unit and region specific identification.
et cetera...

Workabilitly.
We would also need to be able to retrain these units in all other regions, we just can reproduce that number regiment in other areas. So once destoryed. We will have to recruit another.
So perhaps, on the recruitment screen, we choose recruit Foot Regiment. and have either buttons to which regiment we want it to be. Or just include all the regiments under foot, and allow the recruiting as per individual cards? EG: Just choose 3rd Foot Regiment Royal Kent. Or 57th Middlesex, et cetera...

Yes I know Kent had the 3rd and the 50th Foot, but that can be condensed to their almagamation regiments as with Sussex, Kent and many others.
Heck I will even send you the list, with foot and cavalry.

Most nations had Regiments recruitable by area, and would be fantastic immerision factor.
But like i said, it's a wish.

11. PLEASE. make spies and assinians live on unless killed. As in MTW. It removes the micromanage and headache of replacing these units in your towns. Which is really annoying. I would rather micromanage the economy or industrial out put than have to keep replacing spies et cetera...

Anyway I can't think of anything else at the moment.

sincerely,

fenir

[mor dan]

please limit the amount of the game that is hard coded. the true gold in the series is the ability to mod the game. the more that is hard coded, the harder it is to do that in a complete fashion. we DO respect the work of those programming the game, but we also want to make the game live on through multiple mods. M2TW was the most moddable yet, but there were still many things hard coded that we couldn't touch. i would really like to see everything be open range...

[Furious Mental]

Bizillions of troops on the field at the same time!

[Eng]

Bizillions of troops on the field at the same time!

U can already do that in M2TW...

I will like to have the ability to create your own flag ship you know the one that leads the navy....
that will be so awesome!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship

[Warluster]

I'd like to see the thing from M2K, Heroes. Y'know, have Frederick the Great leading your troops...

[GFX707]

A redesigned campaign....maybe even real-time....at the very least, with all the micromanagement taken out and a more realistic recruitment system. Then maybe a focus on realism (CA! Your precious kiddie demographic doesn't play the campaign anyway!) to make the movement rates make a bit of sense, and not have newly recruited diplomats dying of old age before they can reach Russia from France.

Basically I want 90% of the changes to be to the campaign.

[anders]

maybe at bit more formalized approach to entering war, ie not being able to cross borders without prior declaration of war, or border crossing being an act of war. would eliminate need of "get of my land" too.

[iblewafuse14]

like to see more events.. Like Death of Lord Nelson maybe, Trafalgar, Exile of Napolean...etc

also would love to see a very detailed battle log where you could see how many enemy troops you have killed in the whole corse of the campaign, maybe biggest battles you've fought, most troops killed from a single faction etc... would be great.

[BoyarPunk]

Besides all the good points touched on here and the other threads, how about faction-specific music (set of tunes for each playable faction)?

Even more so: how about, besides original compositions, adding some of the best of the best of the era including but not limited to: Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, Wagner, Tchiakovsky? :music:

If CA needs help funding the acquisition of these works, let me know :beam:

[Praxil]

I don't know about "we" but I would like to see, less battles.

Every single battle should mean something from strategic perspective. Enough of the TW where you see "oh, one more weak horde coming at me" type of behavior. Loosing battle or you elite troops should actually mean something. You can't recruit good units right away, only militia which is no good against real troops. That's why you can't loose or you will be in a strategic situation where you need to stop your advantage (in case), or send other troops to reinforce that front where you lost your battle.

This also comes to where AI builds smaller amounts of stacks and when they build, those stacks should look like real armies or divisions to. I mean some sense in them, real historical variety of troops in the stack would be ideal approach if possible. Nothing has bored and frustrated me in Total Wars as much as the knowledge that after this battle there will be new one in that same place, just after few turns with same like stack trying the suicide trick.

[Fate]

Immersed diplomacy; including the idea of coalitions, instead of just allies.
The return of titles. The removal of adoption, to be changed to "Rising from the ranks"(Sharpe style!! :D) The use of cover in combat, and ill add more when i can think of them :P

[The Stranger]

Artillery that actually works, extensive melee with the use of bayonets. Generals longer present on the battlefield as a fighting unit. coalitions, defensive alliances, military aid. transgression option for personplayers.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

11. PLEASE. make spies and assassins live on unless killed.
AMEN! It's micromanagement I could live without. For those saying it's unrealistic: View your spy not as a single spy but as aspy-ring. You can consider the dying off of old spies and recruiting of young blood into the ring as abstracted. Just like it is now for troops. You can park them in a corner of the map for a billion years and unless some accident befalls them they won't die off either.



On a completely different note, I hope that they get rid of exploding shells for ordinary cannons. It's rare field pieces shoot explosive shot (Around 1500 many were 2-3 pound field pieces anyway, completely feeble) Explosive shells for howitzers and mortars? Fine.
If CA throws in grapeshot/cannister in exchange, that would be terrific.

[hoom]

-Uniquely identified units (STW had them!) so we can keep better track of our favourite/much abused units.
I don't think quite as rigid a method as fenir suggests but more like each city has a list of locally recruited regiment/unit names & just sequentially numbers them as built.
Merged units would keep the more senior number (lower/by experience) unless the unit had been nearly destroyed, in which case they get absorbed into the younger unit.

That way, you could have the 33rd Regiment of Foot, Royal Sussex regiment being much more famous than the 35th (who were tragically slaughtered to the last during a minor skirmish on their first deployment)
The roleplayers can carefully nurture specific units to be closer to history while those who don't care won't need to be troubled by extra complexity & just ignore the names, merging as they see fit.

-Definitely not a realtime campaign (thankfully info to date specifies turn-based).

-Classical/Medieval period formations/animations & walls being in the data-files even if not actually used by the game so that modders for other periods can do their thing without too much issue.
-Dismountable cavalry/mountable infantry (in the same vein)

-city/army view (though, reading between the lines, I suspect we may have a fully dynamic zoom from campaign to battle/city like Supreme Commander so this may well be implicit already)

-Lots of bizzare hats! :)

-The ability for the AI to actually accept peace at times that would be good for it (implied by change/merge of AI but its still a Want)

-Ability to have cities actually be ports without needing a separate port & for cities to be on islands/peninsulas with up to 3 sides being wall into sea/river or even 4 sides with a bridge.

-Sea vs. shore-battery battles.

-Easier ability to mod custom cities.

[GFX707]

-The ability for the AI to actually accept peace at times that would be good for it (implied by change/merge of AI but its still a Want)


Presumably you meant "The ability for the AI to actually accept peace at times that would be good for it (and then not declare war on you again the very next turn)"

Hope that makes it a bit more clear.

[Patriote]

- Making the game a REAL turn-based game. IN RTW and M2TW, it is possible to move a little at the time to spot things or try sneaking stuff.

- Having more options like in STW and MTW when one of your territories was invaded. This way it would be possible to react to an invasion or maybe instead remain in your city and fortified it

- Reduce as much as possible micromanagement because of agents. It was fine with STW and then MTW also but the huge map of RTW and M2TW really makes this headache.

- Come back to 4 TPY system but one turn income like in STW. Was very challenging to budget your money (because fields were being taxed only in fall right) although if proven to be the case, trade could bring income every turn.

- Make commanding armies more realistic, where you virtually decided a battle plan with troops placed under subordinate commanders (not dumb ones this time please!) where it is possible to given them specific orders (eg. when signal X is given, move to point A, turn your forces facing left and envelop the enemy army's flank)

- When new order must be given to troops, use a system of couriers and reports which would take time, might be misinterpreted by the subordinate commander or even intercepted by the enemy ! No more of this god all-mighty flying all-viewing camera.

A better morale/cohesion system for units and their organization (a cohesion system such as in Waterloo, Napoleon's Last Battle would be simple and nice) Because having 100 horsemen running through 200 infantrymen without anybody being hurt or any formation messed up is completely stupid and impossible.

More realistic political governments with titles such as ministers, generals, dukes/barons/counts, royal families, important religious characters, with historical succession laws for kingdoms and fiefdoms. Thus a governor could be named for a specific region instead of having to allocated a family for every town (cities could probably be ruled by lesser administrators I guess)

A more realistic way of constituing armies where units where raised to be part of of sub-unit itself part of the main army. Also include OOB (Orders of battle) for army instead of a stack with 20 units in without any specified functions between units.

As well as developing cities with buildings, new technologies or social/military/politic improvement should become available after specific buildings are build or events happened (time required could be hidden to the player and would depend on various factors) Such as the Marian reforms in RTW but on a much larger scale and subjects.

An historically inspired logistic system and possible negative effects if armies get out of supply (desertion, disorganization, illness, etc)

Much deeper diplomatic system and strategic agents (spy network, religious agents, princesses and royal marriages, etc)

[NagatsukaShumi]

1) PIRATES! I am talking about proper Pirates here, not just rebellious ships, I want annoying little fella's who hound my trade routes (maybe not attacking trade ships if they don't feature, but causing a disruption of your trade route instead) and require my attention, the grand age of Piracy is in the timeframe, so I want Blackbeard to blow some holes in please. Hiring your own privateers would also be quite good, maybe if your hire them they only disrupt other countries trade and not yours, who knows, but I was rum drinking swashbucklers!

2) Ability to rename ships, it's nothing huge but I liked naming my ships in Sid Meier's Pirates and let me add my own touch to the game.

3) As has been touched on, do not make the games so rigid that nobody can make mods about anything but gunpowder era, allow hands weapons to still work well enough to equip lots with them etc

4) Increase the diplomatic options and re-work it. It's certainly improved but a similar base as the one in EU would be quite good, where viewing your reputation is quite simple, if needs be for immersion just make it avasilable through an advisor who is mointoring relations with other factions. In EU, people don't just attack you, they usually do it because you have a poor reputation world wide or you've been rude to them, it works very well (though can be improved) but is a good base.

5) More than one start date, let me fight the Napoleonic Wars and Wars of Independance, rather than waiting for them, by which time the world will be completely different.

6) Glorious Achievements, let me win by conquering everything, but don't force me to do that. Alot of players like to sit and play realistically, MTW's GA's allowed you to win without going nuts, this was a great feature.

7) Stick to the turn baded campaign, it works very well.

[Polemists]

Charges.

No i'm not talking about calvary, I am talking about infantry. Proper Bayonet charges. With how long it takes to reload the musket it was not uncommon to have your side charge the other while they were reloading. I want to see them be, brutal, bloody, and useful.

Other then that I will be happy.

[Furious Mental]

- Ability to send ships to support land armies in battles around coastal forts, or along major rivers, etc.

- For the love of God, the ability to dismount cavalry during a battle! With the addition of the ability to garrison buildings on the battlefield, place troops behind cover, etc, it would make dragoons actually useful since they could ride out to seize strong points and then defend them on foot.

[pevergreen]

Group unit AI and enemy AI

If you group units together, let them form walls etc

[Rodion Romanovich]

I would like to see:

TACTICAL MAP:
- most important thing is AI and a base consisting of a stable, simple, well balanced, and well working battle system, like in STW. The required game skills should be about being a good tactician, not about knowing much about the special abilities of strange exotic units with warcries, shieldwalls and phalanx formation.

- to this, only make one major addition that wasn't in STW/MTW1: field fortifications. They are the only major feature of warfare that was not yet introduced in STW/MTW1. Stakes, caltrops, trenches, barricades etc. Add this, in combination with bringing back the STW and MTW importance of taking advantage of the terrain, and the result is a game where both the natural and artifical terrain become crucial elements of the battles. I would also like to see larger battle maps with adding the camp of each army, important roads, river crossings and villages, and a necessity to protect the camp during the battle in order to not lose supplies etc., and a need to control the road to be able to advance and be able to receive reinforcements (using a similar reinforcement feature as in RTW). During deployment, you could select an area where you wish to set up camp, and another area for where to deploy your troops.

- make sure most defeated armies can retreat mostly intact, so battles mostly end with casualty ratios such as 2%-5% except in more crucial battles with 5-40% or similar, and only an occasional slaughter with 10%-80%. Armies should be worn down more by supply problems than combat casualties! NOTE: if an orderly retreating army and a half-routing one don't look too much different, this can also be used to finally allow the player to use fake retreats.

- make the AI capable of using cavalry properly for harassing, just as good as a human player can do it. Let the AI very seldom use cavalry for pure charges.

- obviously: assaults on star fort cities! :idea2: A good element of this would be moats, which one can choose to fill with stones and earth on the strategy map, in order to be able to approach the fort from more directions than just the gate. Also add so navies camped outside a coastal fort can take part in pounding it!

- lift the limit on number of units in an army to perhaps 100 instead of 20! Make players able to go to battle with 100 units as long as they can afford to muster them! In RTW and MTW2, most battles are 20 units vs 20 units - not much variety there. I would like to see a lot of variation in strength and almost never see armies full to the limit the game makes. Handling around 100 units should be not problem in battle (just make 5 rows with 20 in each on the bottom of the screen, or 3 rows with 30 or something), especially if there are good group formations available so you can command them as groups instead of individual units!

- IMPORTANT! make it possible to activate and deactivate "fire at will" for all selected ranged units even if also some non-ranged units are included in the current selection. Example: I want the entire left flank to open fire, but I have 4 pike and 1 cavalry unit there that I manually have to deselect after drawing a selection around the rest, before I can press the 'A' key. With RTW, this was the case, and in multiplayer this was immensely annoying and could sometimes lose a battle! And in a ranged combat game, it will become even more important than in RTW!


STRATEGY MAP:

- add desertion, attrition and supply lines. Add a system where a connected line of small forts must be controlled up to very close behind the army if it is to be supplied that turn. It shouldn't be possible to march straight into Russia without dropping off garrisons along the way and having severe trouble keeping the supply routes and roads covered properly.

- add so that armies with low supply and deep in foreign lands are somewhat understrength when going to battle. Some units will not be able to take part in it but instead be in their camp. Also make those troops that do fight be a bit tired from start if they have marched far.

- create an impressive diplomacy system where you don't fully control and can tax conquered land until either your enemy has signed a peace treaty with you (or you've controlled and garrisoned the province for at least 10 years). This way there won't be unhistorical conflicts with attempts to conquer entire countries: something that very seldom happened in this period. Also make sure a strong alliance is almost always formed against anyone trying to conquer an entire country, that refuses to accept a peace treaty after conquering about 1/3rd or 2/3rds of the country (unless the country is very small that is).

- add "casus belli", without which you get a reputation penalty for attacking another country.

- make it extremely difficult to maintain a good enough economy to keep large armies mustered even in peace time. Make sure the AI too decommissions ships and disbands regiments in peace time!

[Empirate]

Dear CA, take a look at the Europa Universalis series. You've probably done so before, but do it again. Play EU for a while. Play it again. After that you'll have a pretty good idea what I want added to your otherwise fantastic game(s). Thank you.

[BoyarPunk]

Dear CA, take a look at the Europa Universalis series. You've probably done so before, but do it again. Play EU for a while. Play it again. After that you'll have a pretty good idea what I want added to your otherwise fantastic game(s). Thank you.

As a faithful player of EU, I'm curious as to what features of that series would you like to see CA emulate exactly?

Personally, if I had to implement anything from Europa Univeralis into a Total War title it would be the almost limitless diplomacy options. One of EU's strengths.

[icek]

Will Poland have a real husars that were officially disbanded in 1776?
http://www.husaria.jest.pl/br1.jpg
If yes then world beware because againts them musket tactics are useless.

[NagatsukaShumi]

As a faithful player of EU, I'm curious as to what features of that series would you like to see CA emulate exactly?

Personally, if I had to implement anything from Europa Univeralis into a Total War title it would be the almost limitless diplomacy options. One of EU's strengths.

Really apart from maybe attriton and diplomacy, theres not much they could learn from it, its a different engine after all, but its diplomacy is fantastic and something that would defiantely improve TW.

[Hoplite7]

I don't know about "we" but I would like to see, less battles.

Every single battle should mean something from strategic perspective. Enough of the TW where you see "oh, one more weak horde coming at me" type of behavior. Loosing battle or you elite troops should actually mean something. You can't recruit good units right away, only militia which is no good against real troops. That's why you can't loose or you will be in a strategic situation where you need to stop your advantage (in case), or send other troops to reinforce that front where you lost your battle.

This also comes to where AI builds smaller amounts of stacks and when they build, those stacks should look like real armies or divisions to. I mean some sense in them, real historical variety of troops in the stack would be ideal approach if possible. Nothing has bored and frustrated me in Total Wars as much as the knowledge that after this battle there will be new one in that same place, just after few turns with same like stack trying the suicide trick.

Best suggestion I've seen so far. Way too many battles in current games, they feel like chores after a while.

[IsItStillThere]

1. Titles. I would like to see these re introduced.

No way. Too much micromanagement. With all the fleets and transports running around in this era you can be sure there will be plenty as is.



8. Please include the "get of my land or suffer" diplomacy.


Here, here!:yes:




11. PLEASE. make spies and assinians live on unless killed. As in MTW. It removes the micromanage and headache of replacing these units in your towns.


Great idea, have spies represent not individuals who live then die, but networks that live on as long as you keep them funded.:whip:

[fenir]

Some good thoughts coming, keep it up guys.

fenir

[Abokasee]

Some how discourage having a mass heavy cavalry for web battles

Various changes in weapons and units throughout the game, so at first units will be equipted with feeble muskets and mainy troops having pikes, then all musket be replaced by better rifles, and pikes be completely obsalete.

When a factions becomes conquered, if a former ally comes to "liberate" this means that all the regions the faction orginally had, which have been conquered by you, are given back to the spainish, this will massively improve relations with that faction, and you will get a good amount of support from local troops filling in gaps in your army ranks, of course you can choose if your liberating, or just "Taking it over"

Have various different TYPES of assaination atempts, so for example you can choose between poisoning, stabing, etc

Ships be distructable, so that bits will fall off, instead of it suddenly sinking

When Infantry shoot, they shoot in ranks, but one row shooting after the over, or maybe even the front row croatches, and the other 2 ranks fire along with the front.

NO DAM SHEILD BUG

Agent able to aquire aprentices, these will help the agent, and when the agent dies, he will be replaced by his aprentice

Regional troops would be pretty nice

[uanime5]

8. Please include the "get of my land or suffer" diplomacy.

Pity there isn't this option in M2TW (several crusading armies remained on my lands for years).


11. PLEASE. make spies and assinians live on unless killed. As in MTW. It removes the micromanage and headache of replacing these units in your towns. Which is really annoying. I would rather micromanage the economy or industrial out put than have to keep replacing spies et cetera...


This makes no sense. A spy / assassins killed during a mission has to be replaced just like one that dies of old age. If you allow them to live forever all the factions will end up with super elite spies / assassins with hundreds of years experience.



-The ability for the AI to actually accept peace at times that would be good for it (implied by change/merge of AI but its still a Want)


Do you mean the AI will offer a cease fire benifical to the faction crushing it? In M2TW the only cease fires I got involved me having to pay the faction I was crushing hundreds of florins for several turns (I rejected them and usually crushed the faction in a few turns).


When a factions becomes conquered, if a former ally comes to "liberate" this means that all the regions the faction orginally had, which have been conquered by you, are given back to the spainish, this will massively improve relations with that faction, and you will get a good amount of support from local troops filling in gaps in your army ranks, of course you can choose if your liberating, or just "Taking it over"

By 'factions becomes conquered' do you mean that some regions of a faction has been conquered or that the faction has been destroyed? In the latter case there is no one to give the regions back to because the leaders of the faction have probably been executed. Though the former case may be an interesting way to improve your reputation and attack another faction 'for morally correct reasons'.

However it would also be fun to have the people of a region support the attacking army because they hate the leader of their faction and want them overthrown (so you have to keep the population happy).


Personally I'd like the ability to repress the population if they demand more freedom (military dictatorship, with regular executions). Trying to subjugate the population could be interesting, especially if they try to revolt.

[Orb]

I'd like to see a lot more difficult customisation.

Something like:

Land battles autoresolve, land battles battlemap, sea battles autoresolve, sea battles battlemap, campaign finances, campaign AI strength, campaign missions, campaign starting situation.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Pity there isn't this option in M2TW (several crusading armies remained on my lands for years).



This makes no sense. A spy / assassins killed during a mission has to be replaced just like one that dies of old age. If you allow them to live forever all the factions will end up with super elite spies / assassins with hundreds of years experience.

Not really, because they would inevitably be killed anyway. Sooner or later their luck will run out and that minimum 5% chance to die on operations will come and bite them in the ass.

The way it is now it's just too much micromanagement to build and maintain an adequate spy/assasin/diplomat network.

[IsItStillThere]

If you allow them to live forever all the factions will end up with super elite spies / assassins with hundreds of years experience.

I think ideally the spy network would be abstract, not actual characters moving around the map. The more money you put in, the more effective it is. Cut off funding, it goes away.

Its just a way of allieviating some micromanagement and getting a few less characters off of the (now very crowded) map.

[Lord Winter]

A few civ advisor type screens would be nice, so you can see all the empires information and perhasp change things like tax rates and the like.

Echoing Leigo's call for Field fortifacations, sieges here can't really be done without trenches. Also it would be nice that when Sailing the defender is around the entire forces instead of just the gate. Then it really will make the player have to draw the oppenent out into battle until he has the numbers to strongly surround the fortress.

[Abokasee]

By 'factions becomes conquered' do you mean that some regions of a faction has been conquered or that the faction has been destroyed? In the latter case there is no one to give the regions back to because the leaders of the faction have probably been executed. Though the former case may be an interesting way to improve your reputation and attack another faction 'for morally correct reasons'.

However it would also be fun to have the people of a region support the attacking army because they hate the leader of their faction and want them overthrown (so you have to keep the population happy).


When i say a "faction becomes conqured" I mean it be destroyed, but they didnt always excute the leaders, they exliled neapolean, also, maybe a heir or relitive might of escaped the Axe/Guillitine/Noose etc

[hoom]

if a former ally comes to "liberate" this means that all the regions the faction orginally had, which have been conquered by you, are given back to the spainish
I like this idea but um, would result in an awfully easy campaign for the Spanish :clown:

[IrishArmenian]

Above all: AI meaning Artificial INTELLIGENCE
Unique cities!
More differences between factions (though this won't be as much of a problem as Knights have died out)
Regional troops

[Abokasee]

I like this idea but um, would result in an awfully easy campaign for the Spanish :clown:


thats was just an example, so it could go for any faction, not just spain

[Daveybaby]

Custom difficulty levels!

Give us the ability to tweak the difficulty level of the game in various independant ways, e.g. AI hostility to the player, AI aggressiveness levels in general, AI economic bonuses, AI unrest bonuses, AI troop morale/accuracy/etc bonuses. etc etc.

Obviously have Easy/Medium/Hard/V.Hard presets as before, but at least give us the option of ramping up the difficulty (M2TW is just too easy to win, even on VH/VH) in a way that suits us individually as players.

[woad&fangs]

Custom difficulty levels!

Give us the ability to tweak the difficulty level of the game in various independant ways, e.g. AI hostility to the player, AI aggressiveness levels in general, AI economic bonuses, AI unrest bonuses, AI troop morale/accuracy/etc bonuses. etc etc.

Obviously have Easy/Medium/Hard/V.Hard presets as before, but at least give us the option of ramping up the difficulty (M2TW is just too easy to win, even on VH/VH) in a way that suits us individually as players.

I second that motion. Plus it would would be nice if harder difficulty levels made the enemy smarter instead of giving them combat bonuses.

[Daveybaby]

Plus it would would be nice if harder difficulty levels made the enemy smarter instead of giving them combat bonuses.
It would indeed be nice. But making a smart ai is a very tough problem for a game of this complexity - so i want the ability to give the AI loads of other bonuses 'just in case' we find the ai too easy to beat on a level playing field.

[zerathule]

Will Poland have a real husars that were officially disbanded in 1776?
If yes then world beware because againts them musket tactics are useless.
Yeah watch out, Polish horses are meaner and more brutal than your average joe's elephant, their knights can dodge bullets, and they fire lazer beams from their eyes.

My main wish would be that minor factions wont be able to conquer the world like Milan in M2TW for exemple :)
If they fix the AI and all the glitches we've seen in previous TW games, it will be perfect :)

[TosaInu]

[QUOTE=zerathule]
My main wish would be that minor factions wont be able to conquer the world like Milan in M2TW for exemple :)
QUOTE]

Maybe, but didn't the Roman empire start with seven small villages? Who could phantom that rivalling tribes in the Mongol steppe would conquer so much, including huge fortified Chinese cities?

[Chimp]

After mature reflection, here's my personal wishlist:

- Start-Up Formations Should Be Savable. I'm tired of waiting for people taking up the better part of my evening to set up their phalanx- or stake-circles, manipular formations and whatnot. Why not allow us to save and load our formations so we can set up armies instantaneously? :idea2:

- Hotkeys & Macros. I'd love to be able to reassign hotkeys in the game, and to record macros. Escape should go back a page rather than asking if you want to exit the game while you're at it.

- Fix the Replays. Nothing is worse than having the battle of your life only to have the replay make you lose big time so you can't relive the thrill. I'm also sick of the incompatibility between different patches: at least save the version number along with the replay and have it appear visually on the loading screen so we don't get a CTD if we try to load an obsolete replay.

Lastly, I think it's high time to allow us to save replays from campaign games and historical battles already.

- More Distinct Faction Color-Schemes. RTR started an unfortunate trend in the modding community where suddenly every army in virtually every mod had to be a mass of brownish-grey units fighting other brownish-grey units. I flat out refuse to play a campaign if I can't even distinguish my troops from the enemy's, and sadly it's creeping into M2TW - Sicily vs Rebels anyone? Here's a hint: if you have to make a button just to make the player's army BLINK on the battlefield just so that he can tell which units are his then you have a usability problem on your hands. I frankly prefer the gay-pride parade that was Parthia to that... :yes:

- Ditch the Rebel Lands. It's much more fun to fight a real faction than some non-descript rebels who rebel because they're into, uh, grey. I'd much prefer to play on maps where only 2-3 cities around the player's capital were rebels from the outset, and every other city on the map was occupied by a genuine faction. Blue Lotus at least made rebels into a visually unique and appealing faction, but that's the exception.

- Bring Back The Fun Units. There's a certain loudmouthed breed of gamers out there who has been throwing hissy fits over the Wardogs, the Headhurlers, the Screeching Women, the Scythed Chariots, Berserkers, the Armored Elephants, and the whole gamut of anachronisms that's been part and parcel of this series. But I love 'em to pieces and think it's part of the particular charm and humor of the series. Keep them out of historical battles, but in the game, please. :charge:

- More Battlefield Tactics. The series has taken a turn for the worse insofar as field battles are concerned. RTW's Phalanx had unlimited tactical use that brought up a lot of creativity and excitement to how battles were fought out which unfortunately has been completely lost - the shieldwall doesn't even come close. The Scythed Chariots created options vis-a-vis cavalry, as did Camel Cavalry. Javelin Skirmishers made rush attacks varied as they were much better than archers in that role. Chariot Ballistas were a blast to experiment with; Screeching Women inspired entire army compositions to take advantage of their ability; in BI we had swimming units that changed the way bridge battles were fought; schiltroms added pizzazz to sieges etc.

I was thrilled to get archer stakes and naffatun, and sieges have been greatly improved, but by and large the game is much poorer on the battlefield than RTW.

And no folks, I don't give a hoot about the "it's not historical" and "it's not realistic" excuses people shore up anytime the topic is brought up. This series has been one long historical and realistic FARCE, and dammit that's what I LOVE about it. :belly:

- More Diversified Factions. In M2TW it seems that every faction has killer cavalry, infantry, crossbowmen/archers, horse archers, siege equipment, and whatnot. But good faction design isn't just predicated on what a faction can do and the token unit that sets it apart: it's also defined by its limitations, something few factions presently lack. :egypt:

Parthia was interesting because you didn't have a solid infantry to hold the line any more. Greek was interesting because you couldn't rely on cavalry. Britannia didn't have archers. Gaul didn't have onagers (AFAIR).

Factions were even diversified on a more fundamental level: Barbarians had bad-ass infantry. Romans had legionnaires chucking pila and capable of testudo. Greek-inspired nations had phalanges. Easterns had horse-archers and gimps.

I also like extremes in the campaign like the broke-ass WRE in BI, the one-city Russia in M2TW, Hungary that has to rush like mad to survive, Carthage starting between a rock and a hard place, Germania with ample opportunity for rigging ambushes, the Romans starting as allies and then breaking out in a civil war etc.

I've played full campaigns with virtually every faction in RTW, but less so in BI, and even less in M2TW. There's simply not incentive enough to try something different because every faction can do everything once you're past Christianity vs Islam.

- Keep the Speed. Slowing down battles to a screeching halt is all the rage in the mod-community. Personally I'd rather watch paint dry so please keep the battle-speed at its current velocity - I think it's perfect. :ahh:

- Ditch the 4-Unit Limit. I see no point whatsoever in having to pay a fine if I pick more than 4 units of a type: now I can't control-double click a given type anymore in order to pick, say, all of my horse archers. I don't need 4 types of knights in an army with the same stats - it's utterly pointless. I couldn't care less that so many people have bizzare rules for online games like that - they're STILL saying that every stinking unit in the game is overpowered...

- The Forest & Jungle Battlemaps Have Got To GO! Huzzah - I picked the wrong map in multiplayer and now none of us can see our units anywhere on the field! "CHAAARGE - uuuh, left!". :thumbsdown:

- 3 Words: Barbary Coast Pirates! If I could get just one wish for ETW that would be it.

- Shanghai Hoggy & DarthVader Before Your Competitors. 'Nuff said.

[pevergreen]

In M2TW the spacebar flashes your and your enemies units.

[Chimp]

There's also a big button that flashes only your own units on the non-minimal gui. It's the one smack in the center with all the ability buttons surrounding it, if I recall correctly.

[Fisherking]

I don't know how everyone else feels but once you have a city maxed out on troops it should not rebel unless there is some drastic problem. Riot maybe but not rebel!

Of course in the period of this game that may be more of a nonissue...revolutions! well maybe not...

[SimonB1er]

A rock solid diplomacy system ala EUIII and I would like to see some of the europeen capital look like their real life counterpart.(Paris with les tuileries, notre-dame, la seine, etc.)the ability to build national wonder(arc de triomphe)

[Fisherking]

If the U.S. is going to be a playable faction then there will have to be something like Eras. If not then there will be a large number of p/o-ed non-buyers of the game.

I hope it includes the trade and diplomacy that went on with the European Powers and the Native American tribal groups and allows alliances (with troops) from the various groups.

I don't know how many of you know that the 7 years war lasted 9 years and started in North America. It began over Indian trade and who controlled it. Most historians leave out what happened in the southern area and the tribes there were more numerous there than in the north.

The tribes themselves were powers to be reckoned with, particularly those termed the civilised tribes, well past this period in history.

After the 7 years war the Pennsylvania Rifle came into use on the frontier and by the Revolution was widely in civilian use. While the Brown Bess had an effective range of 80 yards and had no provisions for aimed fire, rifled arms could hit a man at 200 yards and a horse at 400 yards. It lacked a bayonet though and loaded slower so it was used by skirmishers and some militias. The British did have two Regiments of rifles, at least one with breechloaders and were used as snipes to good effect but they never made more rifles or replenished their ranks for what ever reason.

North America was a unique theater of war and I am sure there were similar issues in India...It would be nice to see in the game.

[ratbarf]

Gimmee a freaking gatling and I'll be happy.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

BTW, some very interesting suggestions can be located within this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=84286). Sadly, they were created prior to the announcement of E:TW, so they are a little generic and may be unsuitable for the selected time period. Sorry about that.

[Divinus Arma]

Amphibious Assaults: Ships acting like seige equipment at sea, firing upon positions on the ground, with men storming advanced seabases.

Historically accurate in every sense for the period!

How to do it:

(1) Create Campaign map icons that are "seigable/assaultable", much like settlements.

(2) Ships should be manned by more than one unit (Sailors and Marines). Basically like seige equipment that require multiple units to man it. Allow certain units to leave the "Seige equipment" (Ship), and when they do so, they automatically man small boats. These small boats can be manipulated just like any other seige equipment, and must be unmanned in very shallow water.

(3) Require a certain number of units for gunning efficiency on the ships. For example, let us assume that only five ships may be taken in for a seige of a dock, port town, or seabase. Each ship is comprsed of four "infantry" units: 3 of sailors, 1 of Marines. This would equal a total of 20 units in the battle from the player's perspective. Marines would man no guns and thus not effect the ability of the ship to fire cannons. Each group of sailors would man 1/3 of the ships guns, so if they were to leave the ship for a land assault, it would diminish supporting fire power. This would force a tactical decision on the part of the player to weigh his options in deciding on how many troops to send forth.


I dream of British and Continental Marines and the amphibious assault!

Edit:
Furthmore, advances in cannon and and technology would alter the distance that ships and land-based cannon would be from each other. Of course, it is to be expected that the heavier land cannon would typically launch further, giving another advantage to the defender and retaining some element of the "seige and assault" that makes TW so excellent.

Imagine, if you will, the following:

You, the assaulting player, have lined your ships against the enemy guns, and have taken a beating coming in against the wind. You detach your small boats to allow your Marines and a small supporting contingent of sailors to row forth and assault the port. As they head through the rough seas, cannon balls fly by and splash in the water around them. You focus on your Marine Captain's boat, as your admiral watches from his flagship. He leads nine other boats towards the shore as both land and sea trade cannon fire. To the right, the distracting amphibious force is taking heavy fire and you see a small boat or two sunk by cannon fire in one shot! To the left, the main effort heads towards the safety of the small beach at the cliffs below the cannons. Rifle fire rains down on the crew of the force, as cannons continue to roar overhead.

You reach the safety of land and are met by an opposing force of rifles fortified in defense positions. You call for fire support from the ships behind and light up your enemy, meters away as your Marines charge the battlements with bayonets in hand!

[Divinus Arma]

Sticky this thread please? It's bound to be repeated many many times.

[imnothere]

would be interested to see the Indian (i.e. Battle of Assaye)

[Jeroen Hill]

1 other thing, landmarks on the campaign map of famous battles please:2thumbsup:

[Snite]

The only thing off the top of my head would be to have the capability to order your men to advance as they fire. First rank fires, takes knee to reload, and the next rank moves up in front of them, and doing this they advance across the battlefield.


Snite

[DisruptorX]

I think abstracting the spy system is a great idea. I love micromanaging my cities and armies, getting them just perfect. But micromanaging agents is so dull.

[geala]

Lot's of differing wishes, poor CA.:laugh4:

Beneath some other important things (less battles, field fortifications, diplomacy...) I wish a cavalry and artillery as close as possible to the history.

I have read in some posts that cavalry should only harass and don't make so much charges. Perhaps it depends of the different nations (I know a bit mainly about the Prussian, British and French cavalry) but that sounds odd to me. The only way cavalry really can decide a battle (and it decided many battles before the Napoleonic wars when things became a bit more problematic for the cavalry) is the charge in close order. There were many occasions when cavalry charges broke and swept away cavalry and infantry formations and there were also many occasions when it failed totally. It seems very difficult to me to do it historically correctly with the common TW system.

With artillery it should be more easy with the TW system as it is now. The different mobility of the cannons according to weight should be accurately depicted. A problem is the space on the battlefield and ground conditions. The use of granates should be diminished, perhaps restricted to howitzers, and grape is a must for cannons, later shrapnells also. Horse artillery should be in the game.

I'm one of those who don't want too much arcade in the game and as much history as possible. I've seen that some people like it the other way round. So a good compromise should be found.

[sassbarman]

Really apart from maybe attriton and diplomacy, theres not much they could learn from it, its a different engine after all, but its diplomacy is fantastic and something that would defiantely improve TW.


They should incorporate the national manpower rating from EU 2 it's a great feature and very realistic. They could also have ways to increase this number with upgrades like recruitment centers like they have in EU.
Great game by the way haven't played it in years.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I played a demo of EU and it seemed incredibly dull, although that is just my opinion and to be fair I didn't play it for long. I really hope TW doesn't go down the EU road. While I want TW games to be more historically accurate and have more detailed management in general of factions, I think the reason the TW series is so popular is that it does offer so many interesting and unique factions and units. Although not to the extent of mods like EB though.

[ChaosLord]

If anything at all changes in terms of siege battle mechanics let it be this: Give the defender the option to meet on the field to prevent/counter the beginning of a siege. This would make the 1 unit besieging a city with an entire army in it alot less annoying, since it could be dealt with. Retreating behind the walls or meeting on the field should be the options. Not to mention this would also eliminate most of the annoying sally forth battles that are one-sided slaughters, but a pain to manage due to the city/castle.

[Riadach]

Will it be against total war mechanics to have a build your own fort or city and delimit your own province option? Could also allow provinces to be eaten away from the edges through creating military outposts and trenches that are not destroyed by your enemy. Or is that a bit too civilisation?

[specsy1]

I'd like to see:

-A complete refurbish on the field construction system, so instead of just watchtowers and forts, we should have simple wall boundaries, maybe to defend a mountain pass, rather than having the forts in RTW and M2 that in real life could easily be sidestepped. I'd love to see garrison-able watchtowers, beacons that would serve a similar purpose, and gates to let certain characters (like diplomats) and factions through!

-Fully customizable city layouts. Ive played castle strike, which is nowhere near as good as Total war games, but it lets you customize the castle (though not very well). It would be fantastic to be able to create custom layouts, save them, and use them in the campaign, then add a wide range of defences (like towers and ring walls), that can be build via a separate construction queue to the regular one.

-Placing settlements anywhere (or numerous ones in a region, the main being its 'capital'), such as merging into ports or on top of hills, would be an added bonus

-Highly improved choreography for battles, so that the soldiers are truly brutal and merciless, slashing anywhere they want and spraying blood as opposed to slashing or blocking every 5 seconds in slow motion, as it appears in M2TW

-In battles, soldiers should be able to SWITCH WEAPONS!!! It would be great to see an archer get a net out and throw it over horse in a cavalry charge, then wrench the spear out of the dislodged rider's hand and stab him with it. It'd also make elephants a bit easier to kill. And after the battle, a warrior might acquire a high-quality rifle from the body of an enemy, and use it thereafter.

-Cooler still would be soldiers in a unit actually using co-ordinated moves and working together to bring down the enemy. Fights should be much quicker and crueller, with people using all the skills and weapons they've got. If you ever get to see 300, when they're fighting the immortals, you'll see what i mean.

-An interesting concept would be to customize the units themselves, based on armour. So would give them armour as you would in a custom battle, but in the campaign only some levels would be accessible, and would require an armoury to use heavier armour. So when recruiting a unit, the armour value would affect the cost. The same goes for weapons.

-I'd like to see negotiation - on the battlefield. To see a diplomat, or a general come with a party of guards to discuss matters before the battle, or play out the traditional method of bringing up the most powerful soldier from each army and having them fight, the winner getting to settle diplomatic agreements on his general's terms. (That's shown in troy)

-Generals really should appear on the battlefield as the do in their portraits. Then you can tell which is your faction leader!

-On the campaign map, there should be patrols along trade routes, and if some caravans are looted, this should affect the income.

-Sieges still have a long way to go, with garrison-able towers (and combat within), deadly gatehouses and more sturdy battering rams. As i said before, customizing the city's defence would add an extra depth to sieges, because if you found a certain section vulnerable in one siege, you could add towers to it for the next. And buildings should certainly be fully-destructible when the attackers breach the walls, whether it be by artillery fire or - regular fire.

-To really make it interesting, why not add townspeople and helpless citizens who can run around screaming in despair when a tower collapses? Then we can be told when something's destroyed in a way other than a video talking about THE WALLS OF JERICHO!!!

I'm sure there are more, i just can't remember them...

[Daithi MacGuillaCathair]

god white dont we just ask them to build us a working holodeck so we can re-entact our wildest fantasys (cause some of them posted here are pretty out there) :dizzy2:

[locked_thread]

edit

[Zoring]

Multiplayer Campaign.

Nameable Regiments, would love to name my regiments 54th Foote, 1st Co. or whatever

Huge variety in units on a national scale, no more Blue Tunic+Chainmaille = France and Black Tunic+Chainmaille = Germany

Revolutions! it was quite the fashion of the time.

Redcoats hats changing from different time periods :P

When we are having multi-army battles i dont want some vague Attack/Defend/Shoot mode for them, because they still act like gits, just make it so that i can push an arrow ----> and my 20 unit cards slides over and shows me that armies 20 unit cards, magic! With the PAUSE button we can then organise them splendidly and on a massive scale.

[Rodion Romanovich]

This gave me a new good idea for a request: add reforms instead of pure army building upgrades as the main way of changing your army over time, as in EB. This way, the early game won't be all militia units vs another, and the late game all professionals against each other. I like how EB does it, so that the player has some capability of affecting when the reforms will happen, but a lot of them will be difficult to work towards getting, and appear semi-random.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Daithi MacGuillaCathair]

- Bigger, more decisive battles. Fewer useless skirmishes.

- Introduce simple logistical considerations on the strategic map. Ex: armies in hostile territory would need access to forage or supply trains, or begin starving.

.

Do the two of these not conflict, supply trains and foraging would naturaly lead to more skirmishs, trying to raid opponents supply train, farm lands,etc.

[Shifty_GMH]

IMO......

-Ability to bombard city/fort from sea and/or land without launching an assault

-Better pathfinding

-Improved diplomacy. Including, but not limited to: AI that actually keeps alliances. Huge penalties/consequences for ai and player that break alliances without just cause. Formation of lasting and meaningful coalitions. Ability to perform multiple diplomacy per diplomat per turn (ie rtw). AI that will actively seek or readily agree to accept cease-fire/client kingdom instead of being killed off. A "get off my land" option.

-Named units that also mention where recruited. ie Legio I Italia, Legio II Spanish, etc.. Records kept for each named unit. ie. # of battles fought, total casualties, regions fought in, etc....

-Everything on a battle map is destroyable.

-An option to select 4tpy or Xtpy at startup so those of us that want to play 4tpy and have a long and slower game can and those that want a faster game can pick the Xtpy.

-Default show year and not turns. Could make it an option to select as well.

-Realistic troop movements. No more of this takes a year to move a province or two.

-Show a family members ability to govern too.

-Titles. BBB for MTW2 is a good example. Titles given to those that govern a city for at least a turn. When that character dies it goes to the next character that governs there for a turn.

-Ability to select an heir if desired...otherwise default to eldest son. If no son or no son of age then perhaps we could have a queen that could rule in son's name till he is of age or line of succession passes to eldest daughter if there is no son at all. Succession must stay in particular family branch by default unless player is forced/chooses to change that.

-How about another option to select if fantasy units are to be included in campaign or not? Would mean an increase in amount of unit slots available, but would satisfy those of us that want only historical units and those that want the flaming pigs or war dog type units.

-Family names are past down....even if only as a trait.

-Better logistical system for armies. Generals can gain a "understanding of logistics" from a academy or through successful campaigning. Without trait you get a "rationing," "belts tightened," "starving" type of trait for commanding general with comparable desertion rates per trait. See EB for example.

-Recruitable governors and generals that aren't part of your family tree. Each should have decent ability in their respective field upon recruitment. Recruited governors should have 0 movement ability. Loyalty of recruited generals should be good at start but can get lower if not actively used. Both should be able to be disbanded at will. Maybe to occasionally pop up again as a rebel general.

-Different governments able to be built with different game effects with the ability to change government types if desired. ie Homeland (limited to specific regions), merchant colony, military colony, allied colony, etc... See EB for example.

Anyway, that is my :2cents:

[locked_thread]

edit

[Zoring]

I would also love to see small towns, villages, ports and all being represented on the Strategic map, as garrisonable, so that you can occupy a rural town and use its buildings as a strategic defense on the battlemap.

Ports should also act as cities in there own right not just an extension of cities.

[Freedom Onanist]

Do the two of these not conflict, supply trains and foraging would naturaly lead to more skirmishs, trying to raid opponents supply train, farm lands,etc.But also it would represent some historical fact. French armies of the later part of the game were renowned for their ability to live off the land. Probably because their logistics were rubbish, but anyway, it was a positive for as long as they were still moving but once they stopped living off the land becasme ravaging the land and turned the inhabitants against them. A good example of this would be Spain and Portugal where they were never going to win a popularity contest but stripping an already poor land of resources lost them many of the friends they had made. Wellington was able to impede the French armiy in Portugal by a policyu of scorched earth. The French came, saw his army in their entrenchments and had to leave becasue of a lack of supplies. Whereas Wellington's army didn't have these problems in Spain and virtually none in France because he insisted on paying(ish) for supplies and had somewhat efficient Quatermaster's system.

[Daithi MacGuillaCathair]

i know its historical accurate to have baggage trains and living of the land etc. i was just pointing out that your request for the inclusion of this feature is some what opposed to your wish for less skirmishes. as the raids and counter raids would be conducted on a small scale.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Freedom Onanist]

I've attempted to brainstorm a simple logistic system...

- Armies draw forage automatically, leading to indirect competition for food.

- Each soldier and horse strips a tiny amount of forage from a nearby farm (5 square radius? 10?). Large stacks of men and horses can rapidly deplete the countryside. Richer farmlands provide more forage per turn and recover faster.

- As farmlands are depleted, they provide less food/income to the regional capital, and are depicted darker on the campaign map (green->yellow->brown->gray->black). Thus a fully depleted farmland would provide nothing to the capital. This is similar to "devastation" in existing TW games.

- If a port is within an army's foraging radius, forage can be redirected through that port.

- If all local supplies are exhausted, forage is automatically redirected to any unblockaded port within forage range. This will transfer farm depletion to other controlled provinces that are not themselves blockaded. If troops cannot obtain supplies locally or through a port, they are considered "unsupplied". If a stack contains a mix of supplied and unsupplied troops, the stack as a whole is assigned a supply%.

- 100% supplied armies operate at 100% mobility and combat strength. Armies below 100% move proportionately slower on the campaign map, and fight under a handicap, ie reduced morale / attack / defence / speed. Thus an army at 80% supply moves at 80% speed and fights at 80% effectiveness in battles. Armies below 25% supply are also considered to be starving, and lose troops each turn.

- Besieged troops cannot forage. They are considered "in supply" until they consume the city/fort's food stockpiles. If the city has an attached port, they can trace supply unless the port is blockaded.


Why a logistic system? Because historical military campaigns make no sense when viewed outside a logistical context. Why did they build navies? Why did Napoleon split his armies into separate columns? Why were generals forced to attack strong positions instead of waiting it out?
1) Standing armies cost food, not just cash.
2) Large armies eat alot, impacting population growth and economy wherever they go.
2) Moving an army into foreign territory lets your troops dine at enemy expense.
3) The size of a standing garrison is limited by local forage.
4) To march a vast army into enemy lands you probably have to control nearby ports.
5) You'll normally want to divide large armies into separate columns for better foraging.
6) Large armies must keep moving or eventually starve, unless supplied through a nearby port.
What about the situation where a concerted effort was made not forage? Wellington put a lot of effort into creating a semi efficient supply train. Part of the reason was to avoid (as much as possible) pillaging the allied Spanish and Portuguese contrysides, and avoid local antagonisms. When he got into France he experienced none of the problems with the local population the French had in Iberia becasue he paid(ish) for what he took.

I do like your ideas though. You could add an option to use scorched earth tactics as well, like the russians in front of Napoleon, or Wellington in Portugal. An enemy has to move on even faster. Or you could have resource raiding, where you rob and devastate an opponent's resources.

The only problem is that in game terms logistics might get pretty tedious with the expanded map. I took out the supply side of things from the Stainless Steel mod in M2TW, good, but not for me.

[Mersk]

One thing I’d like to see is realistic close order movement in battles. in MTW2 groups sort of flow through turns. As someone who has been subjected to close order drill, I can safely say the entire unit can turn any direction and stay in formation with ease and moving along at a pretty good pace or turn in an orderly fashion by rank or file to navigate tighter spaces.

Perhaps there can be a button on the UI, and this toggle button turns on/off close order movement. When on, units, elements in close order speak, stay tight and turn tight, march etc in a very orderly almost mechanical fashion. When the button is off, they move more loosely, more along the lines of MTW2 unit movement.

The purpose being that a unit needs to be able to stop and deliver a volley in unison and in short order. This may require CA allow stragglers to “walk through walls” on occasion. But that would be preferable to having a unit standing there getting shot up waiting on a straggler that got hung up on some battle map obstacle.

[RoadKill]

I really hope CA read this stuff, because if they take our advice they can make one heck of a good game.

Well what I'm really looking forawrd to see is more intense and detailed Diplomacy.

For example: If you are able to capture prisoners from battles, maybe make it so you are able to build jail cells in the cities so you can place the prisoners there in the jail cells, then in diplomacy you could ask them to give you a region or make them get off your land for the prisoners.

Maybe even add a Non-Agressional-Pact option for diplomacy.

For infantary battles it would be better if the battles used more of land advantage and stuff like that, more tatical planning then like the MTW 2 strategies where you just shot arrows then throw your whole army at them. What I'm trying to say is it would be cool if the battles could work like Company of Heroes, where tatics are the most important.

I also wouldn't mind a campaign with a better story line to it. Like I dont want to spend half my time playing a game then end up only having a pop up telling me I won, I want better prizes for my winnings, and even devastations for losing. A optional storyline is even better, so the game can flow with a story line in all diffrent directions.

[anders]

i know its historical accurate to have baggage trains and living of the land etc. i was just pointing out that your request for the inclusion of this feature is some what opposed to your wish for less skirmishes. as the raids and counter raids would be conducted on a small scale.

the board game "empires in arms"( fantastic napoleon era game if you have the time) handles supply routes by forcing you to be able to pull an uncontested ( ie not broken by enemy units) straight line between the supplied force and a depot, it doesnt cause to mant skirmishes, but makes cossaks and freikorps very valuable.

[Colonel-Commissar Gaunt]

god white dont we just ask them to build us a working holodeck so we can re-entact our wildest fantasys (cause some of them posted here are pretty out there) :dizzy2:

oh, yes, pretty please!

[sassbarman]

Something small and easy to implament how about the ability to see your armies that you have so lovingly and meticulously created and assembled viewable on the battle map.

As you form your army stack and send them off to some distant battlefield have the cityview option like in rome to see them on the march.

Nothing like the sound of thousands of marching boots, creaking cannon wheels and fluttering flags to get the blood pumping Eh!

[Zoring]

Like 'view a city' mode but your soldiers are assembled in the city and you can march them around and such :P

[babumbumching]

i wonder if slavery will be present as that was a major earner for the UK in those times.

main things id like to see :idea2:

1.Arkwright, Cadbury etc.. economic as well as military figures (i always think the TW never focus too greatly on economy)
2.A big focus on the industrial revo if you are playing as the UK (i dont know how much it affected other nations but if wikipedia :book: is correct it certainly made the Uk top of the tree in the 19th and early 20th century)
3.Basically a much bigger focus on economy but also (for players who just like the war) the ability to turn micromanagement of ur economy off
4.The ability to make laws and change ethics. this has been mentioned somewhere but id like to be micromanageable (with the option to turn it off of course) and for instance with laws the ability to pass health and safety acts for instance that would help the public to like you :smash:
5.Railroad
6.Major trade interface overhaul, with a much higher importance being placed on trading
7.Exploitation of the West Indies and Carribean for sugar, cocoa beans etc
8. And finally something i've always wanted to see in TW, when there is a riot i want there to be the option to go down to ground and control your troops against the rioters. i think it would be a nice novelty device to have within the game and probably wouldnt take too much effort

[babumbumching]

one thing i forgot to add.....

conscript-diddly-iption!! this would integrate with the logistics systems ppl have been talking about and also with my railroad point. never mind the fact you could raise armies of millions if needs be. :beam: :beam:

[sassbarman]

Like 'view a city' mode but your soldiers are assembled in the city and you can march them around and such :P

Not in a city per say but anywhere you have a stack moving. just click on it and you enter the battle map where you can see your army marching in column formation. It could be sorta similiar to the city view button in rome where you could look but not touch. You often see what I mean in the promotional cutscenes for Rome And Med 2 of armies on the march, long columns of men stretching from horizon to horizon. I always find those scenes rather riveting.

[Prodigal]

2 things

1. The ability to access building, unit windows, even if you have selected or seen an event screen that you've now closed. Its fo annoying & has been in since Rome

2. The ability to move (drag n drop) troops around in your army so you can more readily see the troop types you have

[Defender]

Apart from (most of) the things mentioned above, I would like them to (re-)add the View Settlement option.

Only this time with a more "detailed" city life. I.E. actually seeing people practice at the barracks, people loading and unloading ships. The usual activity.

I loved the view settlement option in Rome (mainly for the purpose of showing of to my friends ;))

[SenecaTheYounger]

I want to see Political Agents in Empire. When your country is a republic you can send agents to another country to spread the idea of democracy like the imams and priests does it with the religion. So you can start a revolution in another lands.

The next good idea is that when there is a riot in one of your regions, you can give the order to execute some of the citizens to show them who is the boss. But there also should be the possibility that this fails and the citizens then becomes really angry.

[Frederick the Great]

I'd like to see deployment area's disappear from the battle map and your forces have to actually march to position themselves in their order of battle.
With reinforcements arriving during the battle at various points on the map be it being preplanned or not,maybe the chance of a flank march with the better general's.
General's ability to motivate his troop's on and off the field of battle
e.g. not all troop formation's march at the same pace so with a General he could spur them on to march a bit quicker.
A better moral system where troop's could waver or even break on seeing friend's close-by rout.Maybe each troop type could have their own moral status e.g. Guards would be Elite,Grenadiers would be Veteran,Common line troops would be Trained and Concripts and the like would be Raw.
Really looking forward to this game because this was the era when nation's were uniforming their armies in specific colour's.
I wonder if they'll include pirates on the high sea's??? Could be nasty!!!

[Sheogorath]

Everybody asking for bigger battles:
That would conflict with any request for 'historical accuracy', around the 16th century, armies as a whole got REALLY small. Why?
Because the state started supplying equipment to many people, you started seeing the concept of a 'standing army' come into wide use. All that equipment and all those supplies are EXPENSIVE.
Armies didnt start getting BIG until the Napoleonic Wars, which is apparently about the time ETW's campaign ends.
Basically, almost every battle (with a few exceptions) was a 'useless skirmish', the two sides manuvered around each other, maybe fired a few volleys, then the one who was in the worst tactical situation was 'beaten'. Nobody wanted mass casualties because soldiers were EXPENSIVE.
The 18th century saw a bit of a decline in this, with events like the Great Northern War, but still, few commanders were willing to field huge armies in decisive battles.

My personal suggestions...

More emphasis on trade. This is the colonial era and all, before people were just nabbing colonies for the sake of getting colonies (Partition of Africa, anybody?), people were out looking for USEFUL areas. Trade with your colonies should be vital to keeping your nation operable, or at least make things much easier.

Less AI use of troops moved via ship. From what I can gather, only two nations seriously considered Marines to be an important part of the armed forces, the Russians and the British. Prior to the 1600's they had an important role, IE: Fending off ship-to-ship boarding attacks, but once the British introduced long range fire and people more or less stopped boarding each other in the midst of battle, dedicated marines on ships vanished except in those two nations (again, as far as I can tell)
Both the Russians and British used marine landings and, in fact, launched one of three invasions of Italy from the South, when they landed in Naples during the Napoleonic Wars.
If possible, the AI should only land troops in territory it owns.

More interaction with cities. This may've been mentioned, but I'd like to see more customization in cities, maybe more detail too. Cities of this era got pretty huge, and places like London and Paris would've been daunting to attack simply because of the huge number of alleyways, passages and backroads that they contained. Including paths like these, and making them traversable, would add a fun element to city combat.
Oh, and make it so soldiers can garrison buildings on the battlemap. Maybe add things like blockhouses (Small wooden forts, or large, short, towers, basically.) to the city defences.

If youre going to make differences between sides, PLEASE dont do like Imperial Glory and simply say, "Well, the British are better than everybody else, so we'll give them great starting stats for everything! Huzzah!"
British infantry were good, yes, but they didnt have many men, as most of their forces went into the navy to sail their rather massive fleet (Something like two HUNDRED Ships of the Line total around 1800, and thats not counting all their other ships). Of course, those ships tended to be rather shoddily built, and at the time the French were the recognized masters of ship construction. They just didnt get many chances to show it since the Royal Navy basically blocaded the entire French coast throughout the Napoleonic wars, and those few battles that did take place were, as we all know, rather nasty defeats for the French.
Anyway...just make sure that if one side gets an advantage, the others do too. EX: The Russians would have quite cheap infantry, after all, they managed to raise a force comprable in size to the Grand Armee, even if many of them were armed with pitchforks >_>

[muzz]

I would like to see more battle-options in the game as far as reactions to the AI's moves, much like ChaosLord said above. If, when an enemy army sieges a town, you make that initiate a battle-map and then give the player the choice to resolve it there, or abandon the city, burn the town and have his army scurry off, withdraw behind the defences, or enter into the diplomacy screen. That seems more realistic. The more options the better, but the diplomacy screen seems like a good step in resolving disputes.

[Frederick the Great]

Everybody asking for bigger battles:
That would conflict with any request for 'historical accuracy', around the 16th century, armies as a whole got REALLY small. Why?
Because the state started supplying equipment to many people, you started seeing the concept of a 'standing army' come into wide use. All that equipment and all those supplies are EXPENSIVE.
Armies didnt start getting BIG until the Napoleonic Wars, which is apparently about the time ETW's campaign ends.
Basically, almost every battle (with a few exceptions) was a 'useless skirmish', the two sides manuvered around each other, maybe fired a few volleys, then the one who was in the worst tactical situation was 'beaten'. Nobody wanted mass casualties because soldiers were EXPENSIVE.
The 18th century saw a bit of a decline in this, with events like the Great Northern War, but still, few commanders were willing to field huge armies in decisive battles.>_>This maybe true of the 16th century,but ETW will be taking part in the 18th century when armies were BIG!!! e.g. The Battle of Narva 1700 the Swedes had 10,500men against the Russians 37,000.
The Battle of Poltava 1709 the Swedes 14,000 against the Russians 45,000.
The Battle of Blenheim 1704 the British/Allied army of 52,000 with 60 guns against the French and Bavarian army of 56,000 and 90 guns.
The Battle of Ramillies 1706 62,000 against 60,000 and the list of battles goe's on and on......yes there was some smaller battles,but most of the major europeon nations had massive standing armies and at one battle the Ottoman turks numbered 250,000 what is this if not BIG!!!

[Furious Mental]

"That would conflict with any request for 'historical accuracy', around the 16th century, armies as a whole got REALLY small. Why?"

It may cost more to maintain a standing army (which in any case was not done by every country in Europe) but by maintaining a standing army a state was able to intimidate the population and raise far more in terms of taxes than it could in the middle ages. Having a standing army also meant superior logistical organisation and dispensing with the need to rely on political connections with noble retainers, making it much easier to bring a huge army to the field. The new power of artillery also meant that the sort of warfare which actually predominated in the Middle Ages- raiding from castles and other strongholds- declined because fortifications were much less effective; the incentive to meet an invading enemy in the field was much greater. For instance the Italian Wars lasted about half as long as the Hundred Years War and there were more large scale battles.

[Sheogorath]

-Frederick the Great
As I said in my post:
"The 18th century saw a bit of a decline in this, with events like the Great Northern War"

-Furious Mental
And a lot of states were more keen to use that cash to build palaces, found colonies and trade with the Chinese. And armies were REALLY expensive, until, as noted, the late 18th century.
Butter before guns and suchlike.

[Furious Mental]

Well you say that but the battles that occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries suggest otherwise. It also ignores the fact that it was only England, France, Holland, Spain and Portugal that were heavily involved in overseas colonisation and global trade. States such as Denmark, Sweden, Poland-Lithuania, Russia, the Ottoman empire and those on the Italian peninsula and in the Holy Roman Empire had little to no involvement in that sort of thing and continued trying to expand or defend their territory on the continent. And, furthermore, it fails to recognise that colonialism and international trade are not ends in themselves; their purpose is to enrich the metropole and secure it against its neighbours. That is why, to take one example, Spain converted the plunder of the Americas into the army which it fielded in the Thirty Years War.

[Sheogorath]

But again, big wars were not common, except in the case of revolutions, internal squabbles and so forth, in which case the armies were basically a load of peasants equipped with whatever came to hand, supplmented by mercenaries.
Yeah, armies did get big sometimes, but they never STAYED big until the late 1700's. They rarely engaged in pitched, decisive battles resulting in mass casualties such as occured in the Napoleonic Wars.
As for Spain, we all know what happened to them, ya? A fine example of an excellent method of bankrupting yourself.

Sweden was trying VERY hard to establish itself as a colonial power in this era. Great Northern War, much? And they even established a couple of overeseas colonies with plans to build from there. Denmark tried the same thing, although to a much lesser extent.
Sweden was famous for not having a large army anyway. It relied on extensive training, good equipment and its brilliant leadership.

By the time of this game Poland is a failing power, losing territory rather rapidly. I guess thats what you get when the up-and-coming neighborhood power has a rather large chip on its shoulder with regards to certain events involving, say, a large invasion.

Russia and the Ottoman Empire both had professional warrior classes, the Russians until the late 1600's and the Ottomans all the way until the 1850's. That let them have larger armies than other states, but both the Streltsy and Janissaries proved almost totaly ineffective against the 'modern' armies of the era. The Russians replaced their professional warriors with a 'modern' army and went on to become a great power. The Ottomans failed to modernize until it was too late and went on to get themselves repeatedly trounced until the 1850's when, for a brief period, they had a good army.
Out of the scope of the game though. For the duration of the game, the Ottomans are going to be relying on the lovely Janissary corps, with its corruption, incompetence and generaly uselesness that comes with the period. Four Sultans a year, huzzah!

Basically:
Yeah, there are exceptions, but theyre rarely effective and most of them are likely not going to be in playable nations.

[Frederick the Great]

Sorry if I hit a nerve Sheogorath,but you don't seem to know what your talking about in your post.You said that during the 18th century armies were small in number and on the decline and most battles were little more than skirmishes which is completly wrong.Most nations were looking to expand their borders and colonise new territories for this they needed large standing armies to compete with other countries.
Do I really have to list all the battles of the 1700's with each nations army strengthes that took part........I hope not!!!:wall:

[Sheogorath]

Eh? I just come of as irritable sometimes when I'm not feeling well.
Anyway...
I said armies were small, yes, compared to Napoleonic armies, IE: Several hundred thousand men. And by the same scale, many battles of the 18th century were little more than skirmishes.
To repeat...
Soldiers were expensive, good soliders moreso. People may have been interested in expanding their borders, but few of them were going to take the risk of raising a big, expensive, army and commiting it to a battle in which it might well be totaly destroyed. Napoleon himself showed us what happens when you overcommit when he marched into Russia.
And, YET AGAIN, I know that there are exceptions. A few 18th century wars saw quite large armies commited into giant battles with horrific casualties, but compared to the Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic era, these were rare. Things like the Industrial Revolution and so forth greatly reduced the cost of soldiers.
If you plan on listing all the battles of the 18th century with the number of participants, go ahead and list all the battles of the 19th century and the number of participants. Otherwise, dont bother.

[Frederick the Great]

O.K. we're gone off track a bit with this arguement so to prove my point....What was the largest battle of the Napoleonic Wars......that's right Borodino 1812 with a total of 250,000 French and Russian troops.
What was the largest during the 18th Century.............how about during the Russo-Turkish war at the battle of Kagul 1770 with a total of 267,000 Russian and Turkish troops..............
I rest my case.:logic:

[Sheogorath]

*sigh*
Somebody still isnt getting the point.
I've said there were exceptions. And, you'll note the distrubution of forces and the casualties at the battle of Kagul.
Number of Men:
17,000 Russians
~250,000 Turks, half of which were Cossacks or Tatars.
Golly gee, looks like you've proved my point. The Turks, with their medieval style army, and tribal allies, had a large army, which was rather ineffective against the Russians troops.
Casualties:
1,000 Russians, 20,000 Turks.

Whereas at Borodino some 50,000 were killed, 22,000 wounded and 1,000 captured on all sides.

Think before you condescend.

EDIT:
To further my case:
Casualties of the Napoleonic War (NOT number of troops raised):
Somewhere between 2,500,000 and 6,500,000
Napoleons 'Grand Armee' alone consisted of more than 550,000 troops though.

Number of troops raised for the Crimean War:
Crimean War:
400,000 French
250,000 British
10,000 Sardinian
50,000(?) Ottoman
2,200,000 Russian
4,000 Bulgarians

War of Spanish Succession:
232,000 Habsburgs, England, Dutch, Portugal, Aragon, Savoy, Denmark-Norway
373,000 France (Most populous nation in Europe at that point, FYI)

30 Years War
150,000 Swedes
20,000 Danes
75,000 Dutch
~300,000 Germans (From various states)
150,000 French
450,000 Spanish

Great Northern War:
110,000 Swedes
100-200,000 Ottomans
170,000 Russians
40,000 Danes
100,000 Poles/saxons

And those are some of the largest wars of the period.
As you can see, numbers rarely rise above about 100,000 even for very large nations, the excpetion being desperate circumstances.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Sheogorath]

That IS more realistic though, even if its something most people would rather avoid. I'd be willing to be that %90 of battles in human history have been a patrols bumping into each other, firing a few shots/arrow volleys, then retreating.
I agree though, that its not exactly entertaining.

The issue with increasing unit size is the ability of computers. More units = Laaaaaaaaaag, without a hit in the graphics department. The CPU/GPU can only handle so many moving objects at once, hence the 'Well, each guy actually represents ten guys' arguement put forth by the guys that did Imperial Glory.
I can understand not having as many men on the field as would historically be present.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Sheogorath]

Now consider that in TW terms, 100,000 is a HUGE number of casualties, representing the complete destruction of 100(!) army stacks.

Simply to attain campaign casualties of this magnitude will be a severe stretch under the current TW approach. And, based on previous TW titles, I think we can expect that population & casualty counts will increase over the course of a campaign. This is good, because it matches our historical expectations.

...But how can the game possibly reflect the much bigger battles of the later period? This will take substantial rework, for example the stack size increase and reinforcements change I suggested earlier. And, if the engine can support it, larger unit sizes would be nice.

100,000 was the total number raised for the whole war. As I've said, BATTLES usually involved much smaller numbers of troops, few casualties, etc. etc., its all up there anyway.

And yeah, thats why I'm more and more starting to think that the Napoleonic Wars will be part of an expansion or something. The tactical shift is simply too great to achieve with the 17th/18th century model of warfare.
Unless CA goes with the early-19th century style right from the start and disregards history.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Furious Mental]

I did not say armies did not get progressively bigger in the 18th and 19th centuries. I simply disagree with the assertion that armies were huge in the middle ages and became tiny in the Renaissance, because it is wrong.

Back to the original gist of the argument, I consider huge armies to be a must for the game. Managing such forces across wide areas and long battles was part and parcel of fighting; if the armies are only a fraction of their real size then that removes a whole dimension of strategy. With computing technology advancing we are entitled either to bigger battles or more detailed graphics, and I'd rather have the former.

[Sheogorath]

I did not say armies did not get progressively bigger in the 18th and 19th centuries. I simply disagree with the assertion that armies were huge in the middle ages and became tiny in the Renaissance, because it is wrong.

Back to the original gist of the argument, I consider huge armies to be a must for the game. Managing such forces across wide areas and long battles was part and parcel of fighting; if the armies are only a fraction of their real size then that removes a whole dimension of strategy. With computing technology advancing we are entitled either to bigger battles or more detailed graphics, and I'd rather have the former.
I never SAID armies were huge in the middle ages. I said they got SMALLER, not that they got TINY. As was shown, about 100,000 was what a nation might commit to an war, thats hardly 'tiny'.
However, army size, as was demonstrated, exploded with the Industrial Revolution, the ability to mass produce guns and the general increase in human resources.
On the subject of the subject change...

As to 'huge armies', that depends on how you define 'huge'. 'Huge' in RTW/MTW2 is about 10,000 men, which is pretty much the upper limit of what a computer can process without exploding without returning to sprites. If you want giant 100,000 man armies (which would be highly unrealistic because NOBODY commits their ENTIRE army to every battle), then ETW is going to have to have MTW-style graphics.
Personally, I think that 'large' battles by MTW2 standard would be acceptable as an average engagement in ETW, that'd be 2,000-4,000 men to a side, because I seriously doubt that anybody is going to be able to smoothly run a 40,000-man battle, which is Napoleonic-era stuff anyway, as has been shown.
It would also be more representative of the style of fighting in the era. The whole army wasnt engaged at once, except in rare cases, but rather small portions of the larger force would engage each other in battles more managable by the generals present. The two sides exchanged a bit of fire, manuvered a bit, then the one who took more casualties or got outmanuvered retreated.
That'd be boring in a TW game, though, since the main target audience wants Napoleonic-style warfare, which is apparently what youre going for.

So, why not just call the game 'Napoleon Total War' and set it between 1790 and 1815? Short, but its the period youre going for.

[muzz]

That IS more realistic though, even if its something most people would rather avoid. I'd be willing to be that %90 of battles in human history have been a patrols bumping into each other, firing a few shots/arrow volleys, then retreating.

Right, but do those minor engagements play a decisive role in the exchanging of huge swathes of territory? There's too much micro-management as it is.

What if a huge battle could be reduced to sectors or wings? Three battles at once could be taking place at 10,000 per side for a battle of 60,000 units. If one side wins a flank that army can enter the other battles as reserves. Perhaps in the background you can see the routing army scurrying off, reducing the morale of the center, etc.

Too be honest the whole idea of having the AI generate the battlefield has always been irksome. The engagement should begin with me choosing between a few landscapes that I have the movement points to make use of. I'd rather bail than start a fight at the bottom of a ravine.

The scale that the red square represents in relation to the battle front needs to be increased.

[Sheogorath]

Like I pointed out above, each 'battle' could be considered representantive of a part of a battle, rather than the whole thing. Its a bit arbitrary, but winning that one engagement could be the 'victory' for the whole battle, with your total casualties calculated somehow by the casualties you took in your own fight.

And yeah, AI generated maps and weather are a pain.
Remember back in MTW when it would ALWAYS start raining if you had gunpowder units? That was fun, wasnt it? ;)

[Frederick the Great]

OMG I proved my point and still you go on......your becoming boring now.......so I'll go over again with you each quote in your post.
Everybody asking for bigger battles:
That would conflict with any request for 'historical accuracy', around the 16th century, armies as a whole got REALLY small. Why?
Because the state started supplying equipment to many people, you started seeing the concept of a 'standing army' come into wide use. All that equipment and all those supplies are EXPENSIVE.
Armies didnt start getting BIG until the Napoleonic Wars, which is apparently about the time ETW's campaign ends.
Basically, almost every battle (with a few exceptions) was a 'useless skirmish', the two sides manuvered around each other, maybe fired a few volleys, then the one who was in the worst tactical situation was 'beaten'. Nobody wanted mass casualties because soldiers were EXPENSIVE.
The 18th century saw a bit of a decline in this, with events like the Great Northern War, but still, few commanders were willing to field huge armies in decisive battles.Why would asking for bigger battles conflict with historical accuracy??? As I've proved battles in the 1700's were just as big in troop's fielded as they were in the Napoleonic War's and I'm not interested in the casualties.Around the 16th century,armies as a whole got really small.....
why mention this when ETW is taking place in the 1700's.
Armies didn't start getting BIG until the Napoleonic Wars....WRONG!!! which is apparently about the time ETW end's...finally something you got right.....will probably include French Revolution Wars.
Basically,almost every battle (with a few exceptions) was a "useless skirmish"
WRONG AGAIN!!! Few commanders were willing to field huge armies in decisive battles.....BUT THEY DID!!! so please now let this lie :Zzzz:

[Sheogorath]

OMG I proved my point and still you go on......your becoming boring now.......so I'll go over again with you each quote in your post.
OMG K LOL!


Why would asking for bigger battles conflict with historical accuracy???
Been argued and proven. See above.


As I've proved battles in the 1700's were just as big in troop's fielded as they were in the Napoleonic War's
No, you havent. You've just stated your arguement. Several times.


and I'm not interested in the casualties.
So the fact that the Napoleonic Wars had more military casualties than any previous European war had SOLDIERS makes no nevermind to you?


Around the 16th century,armies as a whole got really small.....
why mention this when ETW is taking place in the 1700's.
k.


Armies didn't start getting BIG until the Napoleonic Wars....WRONG!!!
Point dismissed. Been argued, proven wrong. kthnxbai.


which is apparently about the time ETW end's...finally something you got right.....will probably include French Revolution Wars.
IE: The time armies started getting really big, OMG, the LATE 18th CENTURY! WOW! D:


Basically,almost every battle (with a few exceptions) was a "useless skirmish"
WRONG AGAIN!!! Few commanders were willing to field huge armies in decisive battles.....BUT THEY DID!!!
Really? Do you KNOW how many battles have involved a few hundred men, and were ignored by history simply because they werent worth mentioning? Just because it doesnt show up in your history textbook doesnt mean it didnt happen. According to my 'History of Western Civilization' the Crimean War was a conflict between France, the UK and Russia. No mention of Ottomans or Sardinians anywhere.


so please now let this lie :Zzzz:
As soon as youre ready.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Sheogorath]

This could work but I would hate to EVER rely on the AI to extrapolate losses.
Quite, but then, they DID say that they were gonna give us some amazingly awesome AI upgrades ;)


It's odd to call 100,000 man fights unrealistic when you concur that 250,000 Turks were present at Kagul. It doesn't matter whether this was atypical. Remember, nobody cares about little tiny skirmishes that history doesn't bother to record. A huge battle is what people remember, and that's why we are eager to see a few epic battles to punctuate a TW campaign.
The Turks didnt have a Western-style army either, and, again, half their army was made up of Cossacks and Tatars, IE: Tribal people who dont have an economy back home to support and are more or less capable of living off the land. 100,000 would be an 'epic' battle anyway.



I propose it could be addressed by increasing unit sizes, and/or by improving sub-army commander interfaces - which is something I requested earlier in the thread. Having said that, I agree there could be a performance issue. In my opinion, the designers are wasting time putting detail on troops instead of figuring out how to cram more onto the screen. Only in replays do we have time to enjoy such detail... ahem.
Quite.


According to the sticky, the early 1800s ARE part of the target period.
I was under the impression that the game was running 1700-1800(ish).


Easy, the answer is zero, because a few hundred men constitutes a "skirmish", not a "battle". :laugh4:
A skirmish is still a battle. Any military engagement is a battle.

[Csargo]

I'd like to see some sort of military mobilization incorporated in the game.

[TosaInu]

:fishbowl:

[Sheogorath]

Fishy!
*Feeds it*

[locked_thread]

edit

[Sheogorath]

To me, that's an overly broad definition of the word 'battle' in this context....

In any case, are we agreed that small encounters (below 200 troops) aren't worth modeling in the game?
No, the broad definition of 'battle' is any conflict between two or more individuals, human or ootherwise.

As to the second part, it depends on the scale of the game. If we end up taking the 1::10 approach in terms of manpower, then 200 men would represent a 2,000 man engagement. And, IMO, its not likely that CA is going to let us have 1::1 ratio with manpower, since that would mean a graphical hit which would alienate the mainstream who want PRETTY GRAPHICS.

[Csargo]

Oops didn't realize there was a debate raging here.

Sheogorath you over use the word "exception". If you throw everything out as an exception the only things you have left is what you want to be there.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Something I miss about the old TW titles - they allowed you to fight a single decisive battle to conquer a given region.

Starting in RTW, 90% of battles became downgraded to skirmishes between tiny forces (1000 per side). There is no longer any mechanism for deciding territorial disputes in one epic confrontation.

I don't mean to imply that all battles should be big. The game should aim toward historical accuracy, while allowing for at least the POSSIBILITY of decisive battles. The only way to accomplish this currently, is by drastically increasing the number of units allowed within a stack. It would also help to increase the radius within which friendly armies are drawn as reinforcements into a fight. Players should be allowed to mark armies as "won't be called for reinforcements".

And I do feel that a primitive logistic system could subtly discourage excessive massing of troops, while allowing for big battles when the time comes.
I agree, I would like to see the wars consist of a lot of large battles, but most of them indecisive or seeing action only along a small part of the battle field, but with the potential of completely destroying the opponent. Large forces from each side should be involved each time in theory (i.e. large stacks on the strat map), but in practise the AI should realize when to retreat, while fighting a rearguard operation with some troops. :yes: Combining this with a difficulty in ever completely destroying an enemy army would create a very realistic and fun game!

[Sheogorath]

Oops didn't realize there was a debate raging here.

Sheogorath you over use the word "exception". If you throw everything out as an exception the only things you have left is what you want to be there.
The problem is that there ARE exceptions to everything we've been debating. If I had said "No battle in the 18th century had more than 40,000 men in it." that would've been a lie. I'm fairly confident that 40,000 was an large-ish number for the era (seems like it from what I've read) but its hardly the maximum, even for Western-style armies of the era. Saying no battle had fewer than 40,000 men is, likewise, wrong.
You cant rely on absolute facts when talking about this sort of thing, there are simply too many variables, too many different battles, commanders and styles of warfare, even within the Western set of tactics and logistics that ETW will apparently center on.
Unless, of course, youre willing to find me the statistics from EVERY battle of the 18th century, then average the number of men. Then we certainly could say "18th century battles had an average of (random number) of men."
I dont know about you, but thats rather a lot of work.

[Csargo]

The fact that you're comparing the Napoleonic battles to 18th century battles I don't think should be done. With the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution) beginning in the late 1700's plus levee en masse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levee_en_masse) during the French revolution armies were bound to get larger during the time period.

[Sheogorath]

The reason we're comparing the two periods is that the game apparently starts in 1700 and ends some time around the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Hence the comparisons.

[Csargo]

Comparing them would be almost like comparing the Napoleonic Wars to WWI. Even if it is part of the game there's no basis between the two. Completely different IMHO.

[LadyAnn]

i want to see the baggage train and the camp followers! :D

Annie

[Sheogorath]

Comparing them would be almost like comparing the Napoleonic Wars to WWI. Even if it is part of the game there's no basis between the two. Completely different IMHO.

Theyre going to be in the same game. Thats basis for comparsion, because I'm willing to bet CA is either going to go one way or another, Napoleonic combat or 18th century combat.
On another note, its nice to see SOMEBODY here who doesnt seem to think that Napoleonic era warfare was no different than 18th century warfare.

-Lady Ann
Huzzah! I demand accuratly modeled 18/19thth century prostitutes! And a looting minigame.

[Csargo]

Theyre going to be in the same game. Thats basis for comparsion, because I'm willing to bet CA is either going to go one way or another, Napoleonic combat or 18th century combat.
On another note, its nice to see SOMEBODY here who doesnt seem to think that Napoleonic era warfare was no different than 18th century warfare.

-Lady Ann
Huzzah! I demand accuratly modeled 18/19thth century prostitutes! And a looting minigame.

Well, I think they could probably incorporate both into the game. By the possibility of events that center around the French Revolution+ events that represent the Industrialization and military conscription of the late 18th century and early 19th century. I would think that it would be possible, though maybe not actually as large as they were historically.

I don't think it's very fair to compare the two, though you do have a valid point as both aspects will probably be incorporated in the game.

[Sheogorath]

The problem is, most people think that its all just standing in lines and blasting away with muskets, and CA has to appeal to the mainstream. It would be a bit much to expect the average gamer to switch tactics mid-way, and considering the shift in tactics in the 1790's was a bit more complex than the Marian Reforms, you cant just say, "Well, we add a few new units and now its the Napoleonic era! Huzzah and so forth!"
Like I said, I think CA'll go one way or the other, most likely the entire game will be focused on the Napoleonic style, which isnt such a bad thing I suppose, certainly it would be a bit more fast-paced than typical 18th century combat.

[Csargo]

I don't know much about Napoleonic tactics other then what I've stated here. Other than Napoleon started making separate artillery battalions, which worked well for him.

[Sheogorath]

Although things had been shifting earlier, Napoleon forced everybody to change quickly. The sheer size of his armies was one factor in this, along with a more active use of cavalry, grand batteries and so on.
Its difficult to list out everything, and the differences arent as exaggerated as, say, the difference between World War One and Two, but they're there. Its one of the reasons it would be so hard to model, you cant just have an event pop up, change the unit models and say, "new era lol!"

[Matt_Lane]

Although things had been shifting earlier, Napoleon forced everybody to change quickly. The sheer size of his armies was one factor in this, along with a more active use of cavalry, grand batteries and so on.
Its difficult to list out everything, and the differences arent as exaggerated as, say, the difference between World War One and Two, but they're there. Its one of the reasons it would be so hard to model, you cant just have an event pop up, change the unit models and say, "new era lol!"

Now you sound like you know your onions so please feel free to educate me here but I thought the Napoleans era ushered a revision in tactics and strategy, partly made possible by the troops and equipment available at the time. If this is so isn't this something that should be possible to follow in the game?

From what I've read :study: the 18th century was dominated by seiges and strategic engagements meant to protect precious armies where as Napolean went for annihilation of the enemy. Isn't this something the player could choose to adopt on the campaign map? Play like Fredrick the Great and probe in mass at the enemies weak points or go for it like Napoleon and cut the enemies line of communications, bringing them onto you?

Like you say the size of armies was another factor. I thought armies at the beginning of the period were smaller because nations had formed standing armies to deal with the long drawn out sieges and these troops where expensive to maintain (plus with revolution in the air they where a little worried about their troops allegiances). The Industrial Revolution brought the cost of equipment down whilst the later mass conscription in France after their Revolution forced everyone else to increase the size of their armies. Couldn't this be dealt with by varying unit cost, type and availability through the period in much the way MTW2 does now?

Lastly their is Napoleons new tactics which as you mention above were based around the maneuverability of his poorly trained infantry in column, his use of massed cavalry and his favorite, his artillery batteries. This made him much more dynamic than the commanders proceeding him but again isn't this something that the individual player could choose to adopt during their battles?

Being a historical strategy game I think TW is unable to dictate the strategy and tactics a player employs other than influencing them by the units it makes available. As you mentioned in an earlier thread I do think the players will be playing in a more Napolean style, mainly because it is more exciting and it will offer a greater opportunity of success (Just take greater care invading Russia)

[Frederick the Great]

The problem is, most people think that its all just standing in lines and blasting away with muskets, and CA has to appeal to the mainstream.Sorry to quote you yet again Sheogorath,but this was the mainstream of 18th century european battles with usually the better dicipline troops winning the day.It was not until near the end on the century with Napoleon's reform that armies became more flexable and tactic's changed.The infantry square although dating back to Roman times didn't appear on the european battlefield until the late 18th century and one of Napoleon's reform's was the infantry attack column which was able to attack a small area of a line formation and thus suffered less casualties from musket fire.
It's possible that CA will keep Napoleon's Wars for another game with only the French Revolutionary Wars included in this game.
At the end of the day CA will probably put in or leave out what they feel is historically accurate........it's sale's that count.

[Furious Mental]

The information released by the developers implies that the Napoleonic Wars or that general era are in the game.

[Frederick the Great]

Yeah,but everyone's saying Napoleon,Napoleon,Napoleon this game wont be about Napoleon....think 1700's and Louis XlV.Think some infantry still using pikes.You can't think 19th century tactic's as you would 18th century tactic's it just wasn't the same.Napoleon and his reform's only came in at the very end of this era.I don't know how or even if this will be included in the same game.We'll just have to wait and see.

[Sheogorath]

Now you sound like you know your onions so please feel free to educate me here but I thought the Napoleans era ushered a revision in tactics and strategy, partly made possible by the troops and equipment available at the time. If this is so isn't this something that should be possible to follow in the game?
(etc. etc.)

What you say is accurate, the problem comes from getting the AI and player to act in the correct manner. As you said, you cant really FORCE a player to take a pre-Napoleonic line in battle, and in a battle, pre-Napoleonic tactics almost always lose to Napoleonic ones. Of course, the AI could be made equally incompetent in both settings, and be made to change tactics, but we still have the 'video game' issue, in that there is only so much you can do in code without having to spend another year writing a detailed 'strategic shift' code which makes the goal of combat gradually shift away from capturing strategic points to defeating your enemy.
Its just not practical, if its even possible.
It would have to be an event like the Marian Reforms in RTW, which wouldnt work too well IMO.

So, basically, yes, we'd have to go pre-Napoleon or Napoleon.



-Frederick
Way to paraphrase what I said. Its nice that you agree with me, though.

And no Western army was using pikes in the 18th century. Some people still issued halberds to their NCO's, but spears were limited to cavalry by this era. The bayonette made pikes obsolete.

[Furious Mental]

The game ends around 1820, and the developers make obvious references to him (unless you know of another famous "Corsican artillery officer" from the late 18th century who had absolutely nothing to do with the Napoleonic Wars).

"Napoleon and his reform's only came in at the very end of this era."

Yeah that would be the whole idea. Just like pike and guns being introduced at the end of MTW 2. That way the last 25 years are not just more of the same.

[Frederick the Great]

I checked my book's on this period and sorry to prove myself right again in what I said,but pikes admittedly in small numbers were still being used in the 18th century.....please read on End of the pike era
After the mid-seventeenth century, armies that adopted the flintlock musket began to abandon the pike altogether, or to greatly decrease their numbers. The invention of the bayonet provided an anti-cavalry solution, and the musket's firepower was now so deadly that combat was often decided by shooting alone.

In such an environment, pikemen grew to intensely dislike their own weapon, as they were forced to stand inactive as the combat went on around them as the opposing musketeers duelled, feeling that they were mere targets rather than soldiers, and that they were adding nothing to the battle raging around them. There are examples of pikemen throwing their weapons down and seizing muskets from fallen comrades, a sign that the pike was on the wane as a weapon.

A common end date for the use of the pike in infantry formations is 1700, although such armies as the Prussian and Austrian had already abandoned the pike by that date, whereas others such as the Swedish and the Russian continued to use it for several decades afterward – the Swedes of King Charles XII in particular using it to great effect until the 1720s.

Even later, the obsolete pike would still find a use in such countries as Ireland, Russia and China, generally in the hands of desperate peasant rebels who did not have access to firearms. John Brown planned to arm a rebel slave army in America largely with pikes.

One attempt to resurrect the pike as a primary infantry weapon occurred during the American Civil War when the Confederate States of America planned to recruit twenty regiments of pikemen in 1862. In April 1862 it was authorised that every Confederate infantry regiment would include two companies of pikemen, a plan supported by Robert E. Lee. Many pikes were produced but were never used in battle and the plan to include pikemen in the army was abandoned.

Shorter versions of pikes called boarding pikes were also used on warships – typically to repel boarding parties – as late as the third quarter of the 19th century.

It is to be noted that the great Hawaiian warrior king Kamehameha I had an elite force of men armed with very long spears who seem to have fought in a manner identical to European pikemen, despite the usual conception of his people's general disposition for individualistic duelling as their method of close combat. It is not known whether Kamehameha himself introduced this tactic, or if it was a traditional Hawaiian weapons-usage.

Pikes live on today only in traditional roles, being used to carry the colours of an infantry regiment.

Oh and sorry to prove you wrong too Furious Mental I suggest you read the Total War web page on ETW The game is set in the years 1700 to the early 1800’s, a turbulent age of gunpowder, revolution, discovery and Empire Building. This period has all the ingredients for a great Total War title: fascinating changes in warfare and its technology, a large number of competing factions hungry for power, and gloriously exciting and colourful battles. This is a time when an old world is being swept away at a tremendous rate by the juggernaut of the industrial age. Revolutionary ideas are in the air, and at least one monarch meets a bloody end! No mention of 1820 here or maybe your mates "The Developers" got this wrong.
Against a backdrop of key historical themes such as the French Revolution and the American War Of Independence, the player’s aim is to create the greatest Republic or Empire the world has known, spanning not just a continent but the world! Can you hold on to lands in the New World, or establish a rich trading empire in the Indies? Still no mention of the man himself or the Napoleonic wars!!!
Empire: Total War contains a revolutionised Total War campaign spanning 3 continents and featuring new, enhanced systems for Trade, Diplomacy, Missions and Espionage. There will be an all-new fully animated campaign map with all buildings and upgrades visible. The campaign will also feature a huge cast of historical figures including Peter The Great, Malborough and Charles XII of Sweden. The game will include 10 playable factions including Britain, Prussia, France, Spain, America and the massive Ottoman Empire. Have you seen Napoleon mentioned yet???
Empire: Total War’s revolutionised graphics engine will be put to work on land battles that will feature heavy artillery in the form of cannons, mortar and early rocket launchers, with bouncing cannonballs slicing through drifting gunsmoke to tear up lines of infantry. Bagpipes, drummers, flautists and trumpeters will fill the air with play out over the crack of musket fire, the boom of artillery and the thunderous charge of cavalry. Generals will bark out orders to their regiments as the player orchestrates the battle utilizing formations, unit abilities and drills. Weapons will jam and misfire, cannons will seize up and explode as the field of conflict becomes strewn with the bodies of wounded and dying men, lacerated and dismembered by pike, bayonet and shot. Oh look there's those "Pikes" mentioned.

[Furious Mental]

The veiled reference to Napoleon was in an interview. I did not say that they said "Napoleon". They said you might get a certain Corsican artillery officer as a general in the late 18th century. Unless you'd care to name some other famous Corsican artillery officers, I'll continue to take that as a veiled reference to Napoleon.

"No mention of 1820 here or maybe your mates "The Developers" got this wrong."

I didn't say 1820, I said around 1820, which is the same as "early 1800's anyway, which is when the Napoleonic Wars occurred.

[TosaInu]

Hello,

Napoleon was roaring his tail already well before 1800. So, if the game ends early 1800's (which is early 19th century the way I understand it), Napoleon should be included.

There may be the ambition to make a switch in the game (i.e. Napoleon changing the face of warfare again in the 19th century: France unlocks a techtree and starts building special units and other countries react/copy). That's easy put in one sentence, but to make that happen properly on campaignlevel, code the required changes in the battlefieldAI, prevent code of eras to conflict with each other, create an entertaining game and so on, is quite a different story.

There is already the huge problem of naval battles. Does the player need to learn the sea, or not? Worst that can happen in MTW when I ask too much of the cannoncrew is that I blow up a cannon; now I can destroy a whole fleet because I didn't see the seagul telling me that a storm was closing in or I'm too late/early because of some tide only experienced sailers know about. Too detailed? When is it too much, when too little? When convincing enough to drag you in the game, when too complex to quit in despair?

Customers have to wait at least a year to purchase ETW, but the whole project is years old. The decision to include or not include Napoleonic warfare may already have been made. People speculating about whether it's included or not is advertising.

There's also a year to go, maybe (most) bits are there. How well everything can be put together decides whether early 1800's is 1801, 1815 or something in between.

[Templar Knight]

Oh look there's those "Pikes" mentioned.

Could also mean the polearms carried by sergeants and officers.

[Frederick the Great]

Thank you for your reply and common sense input TosaInu and your right there are far to many people speculating what's going to be included or excluded in this game.
The french revolutionary wars did not end until 1799 and I do know that General Napoleon fought a campaign against the Italians from 1796 to 1797 and then lead the egyptian expedition from 1798 to 1799.
It was not until 1804 that Napoleon crowned himself Emperor so wether or not ETW goe's on after this is anyone's guess!
Don't get me wrong I would love ETW to go upto "Waterloo" being my favourite land battle and having been to Belgium and done the battlefield tour and climbed all those step's up the Lion mound.
Your also right about all of us having to become sailor's and learning how to Tack and for those who don't know what that is, it's using the wind to sail your ship as sailing into the wind was a no no as your ship became dead in the water.I wonder if Trafalgar will be included???Wow imagine sailing H.M.S. Victory with it's 104 guns against the Huge Spanish Santisima Trinidad with it's 136 guns.
Role on next year when the game comes out:2thumbsup:

[Frederick the Great]

Could also mean the polearms carried by sergeants and officers.
OMG not someone else who doesn't know there history.This polearm you mentioned was called the Spontoon and it was issued to sergeants and officer's.This was not a pike,but simular to the halberd!!!And if you read my post more carefully it states that King Charles Xll of sweden was still using "Pikes" successfully upto 1720 and the Russian's even later than that.
I suggust you wait until next year when the game comes out before arguing the point.

[TosaInu]

[B]
there are far to many people speculating what's going to be included or excluded in this game.


Discussion and speculation are fine.

[Templar Knight]

OMG not someone else who doesn't know there history.This polearm you mentioned was called the Spontoon and it was issued to sergeants and officer's.This was not a pike,but simular to the halberd!!!And if you read my post more carefully it states that King Charles Xll of sweden was still using "Pikes" successfully upto 1720 and the Russian's even later than that.
I suggust you wait until next year when the game comes out before arguing the point.

It can still be classified as a pike, or a 'European Short Pike' as it was also known. I was only suggesting what they (CA) could mean.

[Sheogorath]

-Freddy, again
Russia's army wasnt 'western' until the 1720's when the last Streltsy regiment was fully integrated into the proper army. Tsar Peter might not have liked it, but he had to keep using less modern soldiers
The Swedes were in desperate straits by that point too, considering the asskicking they were getting in the Great Northern War. When the Russians have captured all of your guns, then its no suprise they started handing out pikes. Much like the Russians handed out Napoleonic era muskets in the Crimean War to arm all two million of their soliders.

-TosaInu
So, basically, a Marian Reforms type event, yes?

-Freddy, yet again
Do stop condescending to people about your 'superior knowledge of history' or their 'not knowing about history'. It only gets people irritated.

[Furious Mental]

And do you have to write in bold font?

"learning how to Tack and for those who don't know what that is, it's using the wind to sail your ship as sailing into the wind"

Err no, actually it's not. The term for sailing upwind is "beat". "Tack" is to turn into the wind and then continuing turning away from the wind about 45 degrees so that the wind is coming across the other side of the boat to what it was before. If you are going to talk in a condescending way to everyone you might as well get your facts straight first.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Sheogorath]

-CyanCentaur
Yeah, and RTW's AI boiled it all down to one simple strategy:
BANZAIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!

Which is why I'm saying they'll most likely just go with Napoleonic strategy for the whole thing instead of dealing with all the bother of integrating the boring 18th century stuff that nobody'll want to play anyway, 'cause its boring.

[locked_thread]

edit

[Sheogorath]

These rarely show up though. I've seen it, yes, but most of the time the AI happily hurls its entire force at you or stands around like an idiot (passive AI lol). A fine example was in RTW when Carthage repeatedly attacked my Sicilian cities with full stacks, which I easily held off with three units of Roman infantry. They could have easily destroyed me simply by going around the back way with three units, but instead chose to funnel their entire force into the direct attack. It was easer to defend your TC than the walls themselves.
MTW2 IS a little better though, I'll admit.

EDIT:
And, I've noted, the AI's defensive strategy tends to revolve around almost always having a terrain advantage. I mean, count the times you've ended up facing the AI across a ravine or on top of a hill that you cant get on top of without fighting it.

[Blotski]

As people have said before I would like the terrain to play a role in the battles and the units should have names such as the 95th Rifles and things of that sort. If theres gonna be Bagpipes we have to have kilts and to have wing commands as mentioned before so theres not so much micromanagement during a battle.

[TosaInu]

-TosaInu
So, basically, a Marian Reforms type event, yes?


Yes, but a Napoleonic reform would be more involving I think. If only because it has to be pulled of in a very short time (you clearly want to see the effect within a decade, in RTW it happened early on and then you had the whole game to use it). Maybe the time should be slowed after the Napoleonic reform? Say 2-4 turns per year in 1700-1800 and 4+ after the reform? That way the game has some extra 'time' to transform and the player to enjoy the toys (totalwar bullettime).

[Frederick the Great]

O.K. FIRST OF ALL I'LL TYPE USING WHATEVER FONT I LIKE AND I DO APOLOGISE IF I COME ON IN A CONDESCENDING MANNER SOMETIMES, BUT MAYBE I WOULDN'T NEED TO IF PEOPLE GOT THEIR FACTS RIGHT.
THANK YOU ALSO FOR CORRECTING ME ON THE TERM "TACKING" AND THE SAILING LESSON, SORRY I'M A LAND LOVER, BUT I HAD HEARD OF THE TERM BEFORE.
Are you now finally agreeing with me Sheogorath that "Pikes" were still in small use during the 18th century.:wall: Phew it's taken a while to get though to some people,but as everyone can read in the CA write up for ETW the Pike will be one of the hand to hand weapon's used in the game ammittedly probably only in the early stage.I don't think they would mention this if they were only talking about the NCO's and Officer's spontoon.

[Csargo]

Didn't realize it was a crime to be wrong. :shrug:

[TosaInu]

The topic title is: What we would like to see in ETW.....

This is broad and side discussions are fine, but keep it friendly please.

[Csargo]

Of course. I agree with you Tosa, I think they'll have some sort of events that will change the warfare in the game. Probably won't be an easy switch but it would be the right thing IMHO

[Bravedude]

I honestly think that they have put into Empire everything I would really ask for:

1. Better AI (hopefully when they say thier redoing the whole AI they mean the [U]whole[U] AI.)

2. Tons of factions

3. Naval battles

Oh but I would really like for the modding of the game to be simpler and easier then M2 was, although I doubt im gonna have enough time to be modding when theres so many other great games coming out this and next year.

[cannon_fodder]

Most of this is won't happen, but what the hell:

-Simultaneously decided turns. Discrete Igo-yougo stuff is unrealistic, and most importantly enables one (human or AI) to force battles too easily. It's also nice to have to seriously consider your opponent's next move.
-Easier reinforcement of existing units, the details of which I can't be bothered to think about. There should be a way to call up the right amount of men to return any number of under-strength units to full strength.
-Attrition of armies through weather, disease, malnutrition... not gonna happen.
-Consideration of supply lines.
-Rifles. Probably been discussed, but they definitely have a part to play in the latter half of the game's timeline.

EDIT- forgot:
-The ability to, infrastructure allowing, train more than one unit and build multiple buildings at once.
-Resources that are more essential and less general than money. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many wars were started (not necessarily in the 18th century) to secure specific and vital resources. For example, ships should require lumber, muskets need lumber and steel, uniforms require wool/cotton, everyone needs food, and so on.

[Matt_Lane]

-Easier reinforcement of existing units, the details of which I can't be bothered to think about. There should be a way to call up the right amount of men to return any number of under-strength units to full strength.

I disagree, I would prefer that when an army operates far from home that regular units are only replenished from their home barracks. In this way cutting a supply line should choke an army of new recruits. Barracks created in an established colony should not be able to train that factions regular units but should create colonial troops local to that region such as Indian Sepoys or Algerian Zouaves. This will also allow greater diversification and troops better suited to the local region.

[cannon_fodder]

^ That's what I meant: the replacements are recruited and trained at the home barracks, then have to be shipped over to their appropriate positions (that could be partially automated as well). But at present in TW games there is no way to recruit a non-unit sized group of men short of retraining.

Yeah, you should be able to integrate natives as well.

[rajpoot]

-Simultaneously decided turns. Discrete Igo-yougo stuff is unrealistic, and most importantly enables one (human or AI) to force battles too easily. It's also nice to have to seriously consider your opponent's next move.


How do you think that'll be working out?
I mean, there will ALWAYS be a turn, for example even if you want to get out of a battle the AI forced on you, first you'll have to wait for it to attack and you will in your turn withdraw or act accordingly........
You can't have all the units moving at the same time or there won't be a game at all.

Furthermore if the turn system problem is ever solved I think CA'll be hitting gold, considering that is the major thing hindering an online playable campaigne.

[Matt_Lane]

-Attrition of armies through weather, disease, malnutrition... not gonna happen.

I'm with you on this one. European armies campaigning close to home in good weather should not suffer any losses to the environment. However take your army to the field in winter in the Baltic or to the Indies at any time and your losses to mother nature should factor as great a threat as your enemy.

I feel that food should depend on your supply situation. Are you living off the land, if so then stay in one place too long and the local populace should first turn against you. Continue to loiter and the food should run short, increasing the chance of rebellion and decreasing your number to disease and malnutrition. You could avoid this by being supplied from home but allow your your supply line to be broken and your back to living off the land.


-Consideration of supply lines.

As above the supply routes should not just be critical for trade but also for supplying an army. Light troops should be used to locate the enemy then placing your own units on their supply lines should force them to engage you or withdraw.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As above the supply routes should not just be critical for trade but also for supplying an army. Light troops should be used to locate the enemy then placing your own units on their supply lines should force them to engage you or withdraw.

It would be interesting to have three maps - a strategic map, a combat map, and a new one, a tactical map. From there you could maneuver your armies into a better position to cut off the enemy, etc., and then actually enter the battle menu. It would portray this era of warfare very well, but you'd actually need an AI that sent out at least 3/4 stacks, or it would quickly become boring.

[Matt_Lane]

It would be interesting to have three maps - a strategic map, a combat map, and a new one, a tactical map. From there you could maneuver your armies into a better position to cut off the enemy, etc., and then actually enter the battle menu. It would portray this era of warfare very well, but you'd actually need an AI that sent out at least 3/4 stacks, or it would quickly become boring.

I'd love to see light cavalry take up their predominate roll in this era, finding the enemy and concealing your forces from him. Maybe when you commit to arms the battle map starts up 'zoomed out' . You can then use appropriate units to locate and probe the enemy and maneuver your fella's accordingly. When you are ready to engage you can then zoom back to the traditional battle map.