PDA

View Full Version : Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!



brokguitar
11-18-2007, 23:36
Seeing how Empire has already been in the making and is at least 50-60% done, we should make a list of things we don't want to see in this game. The devs most likely have implemented their ideas for the base of the game and are not going to change this.

Please everyone add to this list all the things that made you disappointed in previous total war games.

Based on what i disliked about MTW2:

1) No more map units for merchants and diplomats.

2) Predictable AI battles. Poor siege AI.

3) Sloppy cohesion of units in battles.

4) Non compliant AI diplomacy. AI starting wars they cannot win when not necessary.

5) A campaign map that is more graphical than functional.

6) poorly written Vice and Virtues.

7) Scattered computer selection of heirs to the throne.

8) Weak animations that limit ability of units.
Missile unit animations that limit the ability of them to react. They won't retreat until they volley. Gunpowder units have problem shooting and just stand there not firing.

9) Artillery reloading every time they move.

10) Auto resolve not calculating defenses properly.

Templar Knight
11-18-2007, 23:47
Sega are the publishers, CA are the developers, but yea hopefully they will address these issues :sweatdrop:

brokguitar
11-18-2007, 23:51
My mistake, I meant CA but, SEGA owns CA so i guess it doesn't matter.
You should have added to they list because there is has to be something you felt could have been better or should have not been in the games at all.

Templar Knight
11-18-2007, 23:55
My mistake, I meant CA. You should have added to they list because there is has to be something you felt could have been better or should have not been in the games at all.

My list is endless... :beam:

But seriously, I don’t wont adoptions, totally unrealistic and spoils the feel.

brokguitar
11-19-2007, 05:13
Couple more things i thought about.

11) Rebels not being able to recruit forces within cities.

12) Rebels not playing a more of a active part in the campaign maps besides randomly appearing in regions.

13) Assassin and siege unit AI spam.

14) No negatives about sacking a city and destroying all the buildings for cash.

15) No choice for a medium length campaign.

Hound of Ulster
11-19-2007, 06:04
less graphics-heavy in battle map. (I can't play Med 2 because they threw everything but the kitchen sink into it graphically speaking)

Furious Mental
11-19-2007, 11:03
Then turn the graphical settings down. Do you really expect the developers to take the game backwards in terms of graphics?

ICantSpellDawg
11-19-2007, 15:31
Who said we don't want map diplomats?
I want map diplomats!!!
No map merchants though.

Rodion Romanovich
11-19-2007, 17:18
16) 99% of all battles result in the total destruction of either of the two armies. City battles are always fights to the death.
My wish: please add mechanics that make less battles be to the death. Give the player the option to surrender during a city defense, and give him a popularity penalty if he doesn't surrender when needed. Also give the attacker the option to accept the surrender (within some given amount of time, say 10 seconds) or keep fighting, with effects to rumor and diplomacy. In field battles, give the same options of surrender/accepting plea for surrender if either army gets encircled. In field battles, also make it easier to withdraw with the army intact. Make so each war circulates around fewer, larger armies (to avoid the many small, pointless engagements with brigands etc), and make cities more likely to surrender without a fight, be abandoned (if small villages) or handed over in a peace treaty, rather than having the game circulate around 100 sieges to conquer 100 cities. But in doing so, also make the big, important battles less decisive - make it a difficult campaign with difficulties pressuring the enemy into encirclement rather than escape etc.

Sheogorath
11-19-2007, 17:31
I'd say that randomly spawned rebels should be ditched entirly, at least in 'civilized' areas. You didnt get massive forces of brigands wandering about with grenadiers, or even organized forces, in Europe during the 18th century. They couldnt get enough men or arms together to fend off the state-run army.
Rebels should be an event, or at least a sort of 'mini-event' IE: Unannounced spawning of a rebel stack somewhere or other instead of five units of well trained line infantry suddenly appearing next to your capitol.

And please guys, dont give us another Portugese Pamplona (in the entirly wrong place too >_>). I realize that states in Europe might not be their full historical sizes to allow for a bit of expansion prior to getting started, but really, dont give England Brittany or Switzerland to France. %100 historical accuracy isnt required, but a little logic is always good :P

Generals should probably be removed from the battlemap at this point. Yeah, some generals DID actually go INTO the battle itself (Peter the Great, for instance, manned an artillery battery in an early battle of the Great Northern War.), but most of the time they selected a convineint hill far enough from the action to avoid stray shots and watched this unfold. I dont think ANY general of the era would've ridden into battle, sword swining and charged the enemy lines himself.
If a 'general' unit is required, make it a 'captain' or something similar, to provide a moral boost while alive and a hit when killed and all that.

PxR
11-20-2007, 00:07
Rather than what I don't want, here's what I do:

1. Results other than complete destruction. Romanov is right, Armies retreat well before they are completely destroyed. The Withdrawal option shouldn't just be a panicky run for the boarder. Hit it, and you're allowed to fight your way off the side you came in on.
2. Better sea battles and amphibious operations. Way out of scale and unreal in practical terms. Getting enough carrying capacity, loading and moving and army is insanely difficult. Putting them ashore on unfamiliar or hostile ground is hard even today. Limit it to small units along major sea lanes.
3. Diplomacy that makes sense.
4. Standing army...If you have one, they cost a lot if they are on your property. Armies foraged until recently and there was a huge advantage to operating on the enemies land.
5. Cities loose money over time. As I still play RTR - this bugs me no end. Cities would never loose money. They provided little if any social services and the costs were essentially salaries and construction costs. If cities lost money, no one would occupy them. I think it's designed to force players to act. I don't know but I don't get it.
6. Add 10x more provinces. seems we can't choose exactly where we fight our battles, but the scale for the armies to the provinces is still 1000 times too big.

Thanks for listening. :laugh4:

brokguitar
11-20-2007, 01:38
Welcome PXR to the forums :2thumbsup:
Thanks for your ideas

Frederick the Great
11-20-2007, 12:44
17. Don't want the deployment area on the battle map.I want to encounter enemies on the campaign map with cavalry scouts giving you a percentage of information on your enemy.The more cavalry you put out to scout the better the percentage on getting the facts right.
Then you can decide to give battle or not.....few battles were encounters and usually one side fighting a defensive battle choosing the best defensive position and making use of the terrain while the attacker looked for weaknesses in your line or tried to outmanoeuvre you.
Providing on the information gathered from scouting while on the campaign map and given the choice to give battle or not...you could then decide to defend or attack whichever was in your best interest...if both choose to attack then it's an encounter battle and both sides march onto the battle map
...if one side picks defence and the other attack then the defender chooses where he wishes to deploy first and then the attacker marches onto the battle map and again depending on the amount of cavalry he has to the amount of gathered information on the enemy dispositions from which to plan a attack.....just an idea :idea2:

Kalle
11-21-2007, 18:55
(Peter the Great, for instance, manned an artillery battery in an early battle of the Great Northern War.),

Its kind of funny you mention Peter as the example. What battle was this? It most certanly was not Narva because he fled Narva and left command of his 40000 entrenched men to Croy as soon as he heard a starving small Swedish relief force was on its way. Maybe he fired the cannon at the fortress while the Swedes were still in Denmark.

Better to name his opponent Charles XII who personally led the charges into melee, scouted enemy positions in dangerous positions (led both to his footwound before Poltava and his death in Norway 1718) fought the turkish army with a handful of men at Bender and so on. Brave beyond belief on the brink of selfdestructive, he did this both because he thought it was fun (or so i have come to belive) and that God was with him but also to show the troopers he did not ask for more then he was willing to do himself.

Kalle

Sheogorath
11-21-2007, 20:26
Its kind of funny you mention Peter as the example. What battle was this? It most certanly was not Narva because he fled Narva and left command of his 40000 entrenched men to Croy as soon as he heard a starving small Swedish relief force was on its way. Maybe he fired the cannon at the fortress while the Swedes were still in Denmark.

Better to name his opponent Charles XII who personally led the charges into melee, scouted enemy positions in dangerous positions (led both to his footwound before Poltava and his death in Norway 1718) fought the turkish army with a handful of men at Bender and so on. Brave beyond belief on the brink of selfdestructive, he did this both because he thought it was fun (or so i have come to belive) and that God was with him but also to show the troopers he did not ask for more then he was willing to do himself.

Kalle

Peter left Narva several days before news of Swedish relief arrived. I believe he had to deal with yet another Streltsy uprising.
As to when he manned an artillery battery, it was indeed during a battle which he lost. It MAY have been during the Azov Campaign, though. Hell if I remember every single detail of every Tsar's life.

As to Charles...well, he may have been brave, but he was also a stubborn fool, and it cost him the war. There were so many times when he could've gained peace on very good terms for Sweden, but he was determined to wipe Russia out. Then came Poltava, and I'm sure we all know how things went after that.
Not saying he was better or worse than Peter, because Peter had his own share of personality issues, especially later in his life (Ah, the curse of the great Tsars...beating your own son to death.)

Regardless, Russia won and Peter created a world power that lasted for a few hundred years, which spawned another world power that lasted the better part of a century. And now Russia's starting to get antsy again...who knows.

anders
11-21-2007, 21:45
I totally agree battles shouldnt be massacres like they are in RTW and M2TW now, the point should be to drive the enemy from the field, not slaughter them to a man.

on-map agents are not a good thing, they require a lot of work just keeping track of where they are on the map, the way EUIII handles it is way better.

Discoman
11-22-2007, 16:18
Prisoners in the game should be used as political tools and we shouldn't have to immeaditly kill them, release them, or ransom them after a battle. We should be able to use it as a bargaining chip to end wars and what not. Also we should be allowed to choose for what price we ransom and for who do we give away.

Askthepizzaguy
11-22-2007, 17:19
1) No more map units for merchants and diplomats.

2) Predictable AI battles. Poor siege AI.

3) Sloppy cohesion of units in battles.

4) Non compliant AI diplomacy. AI starting wars they cannot win when not necessary.

5) A campaign map that is more graphical than functional.

6) poorly written Vice and Virtues.

7) Scattered computer selection of heirs to the throne.

8) Weak animations that limit ability of units.
Missile unit animations that limit the ability of them to react. They won't retreat until they volley. Gunpowder units have problem shooting and just stand there not firing.

9) Artillery reloading every time they move.

10) Auto resolve not calculating defenses properly


1. I liked map units for merchants and diplomats. It makes sense.
The diplomat should be able to agree to an exchange of ambassadors so that you never have to send another diplomat. And the ambassadors can be expelled if you annoy them/they annoy you/war breaks out.

2. Only solution to that is to have different Ai "personalities". A set of standard AIs with slightly modified variables. Some more aggressive, some more financial, some more militant but defensively strong, some passive but has great alliances and diplomatic relations with others.

Depending on what the AI values, it will behave differently. Granted, this is a pain in the buttocks to program and design, but it should be worth it.

Battle AI- theres only so much you can do to write a program that behaves almost human-like in battles. You're just going to have to compensate elsewhere, like more starting money, more kings purse, troop morale advantages, etc. You can't hardwire the computer to react to everything a strategic general could come up with, in real time. That's too complex, in my opinion. Unless you think you can do it. Then by all means try.

3. Not sure what you mean, except with M2TW gunpowder units and mounted charges. You need to make sure giant errors like that dont happen. It completely ruined gunpowder units and mounts in my opinion. I rarely used them. And ps, it was a medieval war game. Ouch.

4. I prefer an aggressive AI. Make the AI more truthful, honorable, and passive (the way the OP suggested) in EASY mode.

5. I have complaints about the campaign map. Mostly good opinions, but there needs to be better functionality and less bugginess. How about no more moving en route and getting stuck every turn without even attempting to reroute. How about not rerouting 150 years all the way AROUND the mediterranean by foot instead of waiting to see what I want him to do?

I hate moving into enemy ZOC without the unit stopping outside of it to let me decide what I want to do. There should be a toggle "prompt before moving into Zone Of Control except when clicking on target to attack" in the game options. Other suggestions?

6. Not sure what OP means.

However, I notice my generals pick up negative traits far too often. No matter what, they ALWAYS seem to pick up something that kills their piety. There's always a sorcerer or a heretic in my retinue, an alchemist or some evil person.

I NEED TO BE ABLE TO TRANSFER MY RETINUE AGAIN! PUT IT BACK! PUT IT BACK!

If you MUST, how about only family members rather than generals be able to move their retinue. I need my king and prince to be able to move their retinue. No more alchemists and evil stepmothers for my heirs, please. If the prince can't get rid of their evil hangabouts by ordering them off to live with Frank the One-eyed inbred cousin of the prince, then what good is it to be royalty?

Frankly, The King should be able to order the execution of anyone in anyone's retinue, for extra dread. LOL

7. Need to be able to select the heirs again. Dang it, I am the King, you know.
My eldest son, the inbred moron who never bathes and is terrified of imaginary pink elephants :elephant: IS NOT GOING TO BE KING. Someone will kill him before he takes the crown. If they don't, I will.

So let's spare us the aggravation. Give me my ability to choose an heir again.

THANK YOU. That's my biggest complaint other than charges completely wasting mounted units in M2tw.

8. Agreed. Units need to respond to my orders quicker. Stop animations mid-stream needs to be an option. It may not look as authentic up close, but it provides for smoother control of battle. Those who don't likey that can simply play by house rules which say dont order units around like an omniscient hovering godlike entity, and play from generals camera only.

9. Artillery? What's that?

I honestly hate gunpowder units. Too slow, too inaccurate. Give me a good old fasioned trebuchet, catapult, or ballista. I use those infrequently too, but at least the defending units have a CHANCE. The AI never has proper gunpowder units.

They are at once too sloppy for medieval battle, and too powerful in seiges. They are almost useless on the field, and they almost guarantee a win in seiges. Granted, maybe thats realistic... I dont know. Ignore me on this one. I just hate them. They arent my style. I just choose to play without them.

Oops! I think I just gave away one of my weaknesses.

Hates machinery
-50% when commanding gunpowder units
-25% when commanding artillery

Hellenic_Hoplite
11-22-2007, 18:11
1. Make the upkeep and recruitment costs on units a bit higher, it seems unrealistic for a nation to have 5 or 6 full stacks running around the map unless they are a horde. this would also make it more challenging for the player since the player woulden't always be the strongest faction on the map.

2. Make the game playable from the start. what I mean by this is don't release the game in beta stages, make it so that we don't need to patch the game before we play it for it to seem "acceptable".

3. NO MORE UNPLAYABLE FACTIONS!!! this is the thing that frustrates me more than any of them, if you can easily make a faction playable than please do it. I am so sick of having to get into the "descr_strat" folder and do this my self and when I say make all factions playable I really mean all factions, evan senate type factions and emergent ones. (I'm sure you could figure it out but implementing them into a provincial campaign.)

4. Please give us provincial troops/AOE's. I know this is not that hard to do (I know because I've modded my game to do it) so can you please give us this cool and well needed feature?

5. Bring back the ability to assissnate generals/charcters.

6. Bring back civil wars/rebellious generals.

7. An easy to use Campaign map editor would be nice, maybe something similar to the map editors from games like rise of nations and age of empires. I would also like to see a faction editor and a "unit editor" (if that would all be possible)

Mikeus Caesar
11-22-2007, 23:18
I agree with all the points here except the 'every battle being a massacre' one.

The only times i've ever lost large amounts of units is when i've not paid attention to my cavalry and left them doing hand to hand combat.

As long as you pay attention to what you're doing, battles are only massacres for the AI, while you lose maybe 100 men at the most.

Jasper The Builder
11-23-2007, 05:57
Seeing how Empire has already been in the making and is at least 50-60% done, we should make a list of things we don't want to see in this game. The devs most likely have implemented their ideas for the base of the game and are not going to change this.

Please everyone add to this list all the things that made you disappointed in previous total war games.

Based on what i disliked about MTW2:

1) No more map units for merchants and diplomats.

2) Predictable AI battles. Poor siege AI.

3) Sloppy cohesion of units in battles.

4) Non compliant AI diplomacy. AI starting wars they cannot win when not necessary.

5) A campaign map that is more graphical than functional.

6) poorly written Vice and Virtues.

7) Scattered computer selection of heirs to the throne.

8) Weak animations that limit ability of units.
Missile unit animations that limit the ability of them to react. They won't retreat until they volley. Gunpowder units have problem shooting and just stand there not firing.

9) Artillery reloading every time they move.

10) Auto resolve not calculating defenses properly.

Hmmm disagree with 99.9% of that..

Sega will do a great job, Better than you and me, So just button it eh?

Askthepizzaguy
11-23-2007, 06:01
Hmmm disagree with 99.9% of that..

Sega will do a great job, Better than you and me, So just button it eh?

You know, I believe discussing the pros and cons of the game is precisely one of the fundamental purposes of this forum.

If one were to disagree with someone else, perhaps a more specific or detailed bit of reasoning would be in order.

I'm not sure telling someone to "button it" will even come close to working. But, we agree to disagree here.

Jasper The Builder
11-23-2007, 06:13
Don't you even try to discriminant me

:daisy: Trying to tell Sega, What to and what not to do, Its not about "discussing" its about his views and his views only, What he wants to see in the game.

If we had majority rule, Games such as TW would be in development for like 5 years due to :daisy: disagreeing all the time...

Askthepizzaguy
11-23-2007, 06:25
Don't you even try to discriminant me

The guy is clearly out of his depth here, Trying to tell Sega, What to and what not to do, Its not about "discussing" its about his views and his views only, What he wants to see in the game.

If we had majority rule, Games such as TW would be in development for like 5 years due to tools disagreeing all the time...

Well I think you've made your point. Nothing so eloquently put could possibly be wrong.

In the meantime, the rest of us would like to discuss the game and what we'd like to see in it.

Jasper The Builder
11-23-2007, 06:43
How come you can edit your posts but we cannot?

All you bells are the same on here, We are masters of this forum, Anything anyone says against us, We send them warnings or bans, Pathetic!

:daisy:

Sheogorath
11-23-2007, 07:31
I'm a bell? And he's in Florida. He ain't a yank.

And just to further enrage you, I'm going to edit. Its 'cause youre a junior member that you cant edit. See the title just under your name?

Anyway, you'll note that there are a couple of people with "CA STAFF" as their title. Guess who they are? Theyre CA staff! HOMG I NO! ITS LIEK, MAAZIGN AN STUF.
They do, in fact, listen to people. Maybe not on ALL matters, but, heres an interesting story:
Back when I first heard about RTW, I was quite excited. I went to the totalwar.com forums, signed up and started posting around on the forums.
One thing I suggested was temporary forts that could be built anywhere, isntead of just castles and all that.
Now, MAYBE they were planning on those before I said anything, maybe they werent. Can you say? Are YOU a CA/Sega employee?

Jasper The Builder
11-23-2007, 07:44
You want me to believe that you made such a big change due to one post on a forum, whatever, Taxi..That guy says "listen sega, i want this, i want that" Well, what about people like me who are 100% behind Sega and CA to create a game based on their expertise


:daisy:

Kekvit Irae
11-23-2007, 07:53
Who is this "we" you speak of? You don't speak for the rest of us. Or, at least, not me anyway. :tongueg:

Jasper The Builder
11-23-2007, 08:03
I speak up for the silent majority of people who had enough of all the people around here, Giving out stick unfairly to Sega and CA, Trust me there is alot of us, I know that for Sure..It seems as if most of these guys have something in common; they are all poor at making computer games, thus why most of them failed to land good jobs in that arena. So just leave it to the professionals as they know what they are doing, :daisy:~:argue:

Sheogorath
11-23-2007, 08:23
You want me to believe that you made such a big change due to one post on a forum, whatever, Taxi..That guy says "listen sega, i want this, i want that" Well, what about people like me who are 100% behind Sega and CA to create a game based on their expertise

:daisy:


I call Godwins Law! Automatic victory -> Me

Seriously though...
Sega and CA do occasionaly partake of the act known as 'listening'. I'm not a hundred percent sure it was me, but it may well have been, considering I made that post a long time before RTW came out and the topic got quite a bit of interest.
As for 'expertise'...I have two words for you:
Portugese Pamploma.
And a whole host of assorted technical errors, which brokguitar mentioned. Which is not to say that CA and Sega have produced excellent games in the TW series, theyre just not as good as they could be. Listening to customers is what helps people improve thier products. No customer feedback = no change = a boring game, see? MTW2 could've been RTW dressed up with fancy graphics. It isnt. The pikemen will attest to that.

And he'd be a 'southerner'. 'Less he just moved there from the north.

And DEAD GOD man, flaming is one thing, but flaming a moderator? Enjoy your B&. You deserve it.

Kekvit Irae
11-23-2007, 08:26
Please do not feed the trolls.

Jasper The Builder
11-23-2007, 08:36
I call Godwins Law! Automatic victory -> Me

Seriously though...
Sega and CA do occasionaly partake of the act known as 'listening'. I'm not a hundred percent sure it was me, but it may well have been, considering I made that post a long time before RTW came out and the topic got quite a bit of interest.
As for 'expertise'...I have two words for you:
Portugese Pamploma.
And a whole host of assorted technical errors, which brokguitar mentioned. Which is not to say that CA and Sega have produced excellent games in the TW series, theyre just not as good as they could be. Listening to customers is what helps people improve thier products. No customer feedback = no change = a boring game, see? MTW2 could've been RTW dressed up with fancy graphics. It isnt. The pikemen will attest to that.

And he'd be a 'southerner'. 'Less he just moved there from the north.

And DEAD GOD man, flaming is one thing, but flaming a moderator? Enjoy your B&. You deserve it.

Oh give me a break, Bla, Bla, Bla...Pamplona isn't Portuguese you know?

Even big men make big mistakes u know, Big Deal, But come on, Portugal was a world power during the middle medieval age, Their empire was one of the largest, Just going to give them Lisboa? Personality i was hoping for Oporto but it wasn't to be, Wasn't my choice, Just got on with it me, No questions asked! I thought it was a superb game though and ive played all TW games and its the Best one Yet, By a clean mile!

Why don't make a mod yourself if you're are so good?

Jasper The Builder
11-23-2007, 08:47
Please do not feed the trolls.

Why you call me a troll :huh2:

Thats really offensive you know, :daisy:

Matty
11-23-2007, 09:15
Dude, if you don't like the content either don't read it or go somewhere else.

Jasper The Builder
11-23-2007, 09:21
Dude, if you don't like the content in empire total war then either don't buy it or go play something else.

Yeah i totally agree, They should stop banging on about Sega around here!

People like me and you are like behind this project 100%

Lets not let these people dictate to us eh!!

marrow
11-23-2007, 12:48
Mate, calm down. You're getting carried away and exposing yourself as a complete fool, no need for that mate, we're all friends here and if you're unhappy about it just leave.

As for your rather sad argument - it's SEGA and CA's business to listen to what players expect from their games because they make money selling games to players. Don't know how better to explain it, they make games so that we buy them and the more we like them the more copies of the game will be sold - does that make things any clearer?

Mikeus Caesar
11-23-2007, 15:31
i lol'd

He clearly does not like people to be allowed to voice their opinion, unless it's his opinion.

Kekvit Irae
11-23-2007, 15:45
He's already been banned. Back to the topic at hand.

anders
11-23-2007, 18:16
I agree with all the points here except the 'every battle being a massacre' one.

The only times i've ever lost large amounts of units is when i've not paid attention to my cavalry and left them doing hand to hand combat.

As long as you pay attention to what you're doing, battles are only massacres for the AI, while you lose maybe 100 men at the most.


thats what I mean, every battle I fight is a massacre in which I kill 99% (and Im probably a mediocre tactical player) or so of the foe, now that may be only natural in a game with a somewhat incompetent tactical AI, but in my limited understanding of history, Napoleonic era armies didnt usually get vanquished in single engagements, but rather stayed alive for another engagement, and that shouldnt happen regularly in the game either. the massacres should be the exceptions not the rule.

Matt_Lane
11-23-2007, 19:07
thats what I mean, every battle I fight is a massacre in which I kill 99% (and Im probably a mediocre tactical player) or so of the foe, now that may be only natural in a game with a somewhat incompetent tactical AI, but in my limited understanding of history, Napoleonic era armies didnt usually get vanquished in single engagements, but rather stayed alive for another engagement, and that shouldnt happen regularly in the game either. the massacres should be the exceptions not the rule.

I find a lot of the causalities occur during the rout when the fleeing troops are hunted down. Perhaps as well as routing the game should allow an ordered retreat which would be more representational of the period. Troops would retire in formation or a battalion could form a rear guard whilst the rest of the army moved back to the next defensible position. The route would still eventually kick in if the morale threshold was breached.

Askthepizzaguy
11-23-2007, 20:43
How come you can edit your posts but we cannot?

All you bells are the same on here, We are masters of this forum, Anything anyone says against us, We send them warnings or bans, Pathetic!

:daisy:

I know he's been gibbed, but I felt it deserved a response.

Bell? Not sure what that means. I'm not a forum moderator, and I did not report, warn, or ban you.

You probably got warned or banned because of the generally unfriendly and non-contributing posts. And the moderators are the ones who do that, not the other forum members. There's nothing most of us can say or do to ban someone. But we can remind you, in a friendly way, not to be unfriendly, or contribute something positive and constructive, or not at all.

Should you ever come back, keep that stuff to a minimum, and you should be fine. Try to keep it mature, that's all.

Even I got warned once for responding to a flamer in kind. Just watch yourself and it won't happen.

Those of us who have been a contributing member for a while can edit our posts.

Sheogorath
11-23-2007, 22:27
Speaking to a Scottish friend of mine, apparently 'bell' is a slang term refering to certain portions of the male reproductive anatomy in the UK. Just thought I'd toss that out there for clarification.

Sheogorath
11-23-2007, 22:34
Looking at the 'sea battle interface' in the sticky, I have to say, its completly as-expected. They've gone for the generic option and basically copied IG's interface.

Listen, guys, having to micromanage ALL of your ships is no fun. Massive naval battles with twenty ships are NOT going to be managable.
And the generic 'roundshot, chainshot, grapeshot' damage-type dealy isnt anything impressive. I dont mean to sound overly flamish here, but come ON, its been done a MILLION times, since Sea Dogs at least. Give us something new and interesting!

Caius
11-24-2007, 01:24
Battles who become repetitive.

Kekvit Irae
11-24-2007, 04:13
Bell? Not sure what that means. I'm not a forum moderator, and I did not report, warn, or ban you.

Bell = Incorrect way of spelling "Belle", which means Southern woman.

Askthepizzaguy
11-24-2007, 04:44
Bell = Incorrect way of spelling "Belle", which means Southern woman.
I'd prefer to be called that than what Sheogorath said it meant.

:beam:

Mikeus Caesar
11-24-2007, 10:52
I'd prefer to be called that than what Sheogorath said it meant.

:beam:

Tragically Sheogorath is more correct than Kekvit. I'll go with Kekvit's suggestion anyway, it's more cheerful.

Sheogorath
11-25-2007, 00:15
Ouch, that hurts. What did I do to you? :embarassed:

MStumm
11-25-2007, 02:07
I am going to suggest to remove terrible voice acting. If CA can't find good voice actors that can do decent accents, I'll be very happy with just one guy doing everything in normal English.

Sheogorath
11-25-2007, 03:22
I am going to suggest to remove terrible voice acting. If CA can't find good voice actors that can do decent accents, I'll be very happy with just one guy doing everything in normal English.
Ach! Yer rioght thar me chappie! Ze SHEEEEEEGA peeersons clearly ha'ent e'n 'eard zer propper haccent hov many countries.[/ItalianAccent]

Galain_Ironhide
11-25-2007, 04:03
SecureRom

Invar
11-25-2007, 04:32
There does need to be an option to surrender in sieges. Often, the "honors of war" were granted, where the surrendering garrison was immediately paroled back to their own side (possibly with an agreement not to take up arms again for a specified period, although I may be confused with the American Civil War).

If a siege battle is resolved using auto-combat, the results are similar to a field battle. The defender seems to get little credit for being behind stone walls. This is how I cheat to win sieges when I have poor infantry.

I dragged out a siege battle much longer than I should've due to poor AI. I had a full-strength Town Militia and some archers in my center square. The enemy had a decent cavalry unit and a bunch of badly beat-up infantry. So what does he do? The cavalry unit guarded the gate while he sent his infantry up one unit at a time. They'd get close to me and panic. Eventually I think he massed his infantry and that worked, but it took over 15 minutes for him to do that.

I have a kick-butt computer (AMD 4800+ with TWO GeForce 7800GTX in SLI) and using the biggest unit size the game won't let there be more than two full stacks on the battle map at once, giving me a graphics-related notice. What gives? RTW didn't have this problem.

I've fought numerous field battles on Medium and Hard. I always end the battle at the first opportunity. The AI has usually lost 60-70% of his strength at that point, not 99%. The same thing happens when a besieged army successfully defeats the AI besiegers. One thing has changed from RTW, and that is the usual casualty ratio. In RTW, 8:1 casualties were not uncommon (maybe a Roman racial advantage?). In M2TW, 2:1 or less is usual. You can still kick butt in M2TW, but you'll pay for it.

I agree with transferring retinues, although in RTW some of the negative ones couldn't be transferred. I personally feed idiot heirs to the Inquisition.

Animation-related problems and the spearmen issue desperately need to be fixed. Maybe the upcoming patch will address these.

For whatever reasons (smaller cities?), income is much less than in RTW. But maybe that's a play-balancing move.

The voice acting definitely needs to be fixed. The Italian/Greek accents made me ill as the Byzantine Empire. It seems like an annoying caricature.

Sorry to seem like I'm just critiquing M2TW, but these are all things I'd like to see addressed in Empire.

Kekvit Irae
11-25-2007, 05:57
Ach! Yer rioght thar me chappie! Ze SHEEEEEEGA peeersons clearly ha'ent e'n 'eard zer propper haccent hov many countries.[/ItalianAccent]

I wouldn't mind if they did what Microsoft/Ensemble Studios did when you select individual units in Age of Empires 2; using the native language of each faction (Japanese for Japan, English for the...English, and etc). Just add in some subtitles for the pre-battle speeches, and you've got a thumbs up by me.

Sheogorath
11-25-2007, 07:47
I wouldn't mind if they did what Microsoft/Ensemble Studios did when you select individual units in Age of Empires 2; using the native language of each faction (Japanese for Japan, English for the...English, and etc). Just add in some subtitles for the pre-battle speeches, and you've got a thumbs up by me.

But that would entail going out and finding actual people who can speak the language! Its much easier to make some random intern do all the voice acting.

brokguitar
11-25-2007, 09:24
You want me to believe that you made such a big change due to one post on a forum, whatever, Taxi..That guy says "listen sega, i want this, i want that" Well, what about people like me who are 100% behind Sega and CA to create a game based on their expertise


:daisy:

I have been gone for a couple of days and I say this because if I was home I would tell you "thank you for your opinion and unless you have something to say about what you dislike about the previous total war games I request you adventure your way to somewhere else"

Askthepizzaguy
11-25-2007, 09:31
I have been gone for a couple of days and I say this because if I was home I would tell you "thank you for your opinion and unless you have something to say about what you dislike about the previous total war games I request you adventure your way to somewhere else"

He's adventured his way into the wrath of Kekvit Irae and her flaming moderator's wand of death.

He's been smashed like a bug, gibbed, banned, and the door hath smackethed his petite hindquarters upon his noble departure.

Sometimes, it pays to be in law enforcement! :beam:

Kekvit Irae
11-25-2007, 09:53
But that would entail going out and finding actual people who can speak the language! Its much easier to make some random intern do all the voice acting.

Simple! Take out an ad in the local newspaper (especially if you are in a large city), and visit the local Universities with good Liberal Arts sections. You'll find native speakers easy enough.

Geoffrey S
11-25-2007, 11:29
But that would entail going out and finding actual people who can speak the language! Its much easier to make some random intern do all the voice acting.
Europa Barbarorum managed to find people to speak Latin, ancient Greek (more than one person), and Celtic languages; I'm pretty sure a major company like CA could find native speakers of non-dead languages.

Furious Mental
11-25-2007, 17:57
No doubt they could, but unlike a mod team a large company usually can't get people to work for it for free.

Sheogorath
11-25-2007, 20:47
Simple! Take out an ad in the local newspaper (especially if you are in a large city), and visit the local Universities with good Liberal Arts sections. You'll find native speakers easy enough.
Interns would do it for free, though.

-Geoffry
What Furious Mental said

Also, anybody know why the multiquote function doesnt work on this forum?

Csargo
11-25-2007, 21:01
Interns would do it for free, though.

-Geoffry
What Furious Mental said

Also, anybody know why the multiquote function doesnt work on this forum?

hmm?


No doubt they could, but unlike a mod team a large company usually can't get people to work for it for free.

Geoffrey S
11-26-2007, 18:11
No doubt they could, but unlike a mod team a large company usually can't get people to work for it for free.
Like Kekvit Irae said, there are always university departments and students looking to gain experience by doing this kind of work; maybe not for free, but no more expensive than the local voice-acting that's usually done. As far as I know, that's the way EB went about it too.

TosaInu
11-26-2007, 21:29
Also, anybody know why the multiquote function doesnt work on this forum?

Hello Sheogorath,

It does work as far as I can see. Toggle the multiquotes for all posts except the last, then hit the quote button for the last post.

It does however mix up the order.

Sheogorath
11-27-2007, 00:06
Hello Sheogorath,

It does work as far as I can see. Toggle the multiquotes for all posts except the last, then hit the quote button for the last post.

It does however mix up the order.
Must just be something for me then. Hitting the multiquote button sends me to the bottom of the page.

Viking
11-27-2007, 12:28
I am going to suggest to remove terrible voice acting. If CA can't find good voice actors that can do decent accents, I'll be very happy with just one guy doing everything in normal English.


I dunno how all of medieval Europe would sound when trying to speak modern day English, but I felt that the Norwegian faction in Kingdoms, at least, was slightly off. :thinking:

TosaInu
11-27-2007, 20:03
Must just be something for me then. Hitting the multiquote button sends me to the bottom of the page.

That sounds what the quickreply button should do.

Sheogorath
11-28-2007, 00:29
That sounds what the quickreply button should do.
Yes, however, it doesnt add quotes, nor does it give any indication that it does so. Over on the Jolt forums (same setup as this) they turn orange and such when you click 'em.
Bleh.

Emperor[1G]
11-28-2007, 14:24
Personally, what I and many of the people in my clan have discussed for sometime (since RTW 1.0) is a decent, stand-alone Multiplayer format and matching system. Im sure most of you are aware of Battle.net and what Blizzard does with it. I have always felt that the TW series is superior in its game play and 'feel' to the recent additions of Blizzard RTS games, and if put on equal footing I think they would garner far more players then TW MP currently yields.

Am I asking for a complete copy of Bnet? In a perfect world, sure. But Id be happy with ANYTHING that was stable compared to the garbage that is Gamespy. Games crashing because 1 person doesnt load, the kick option rarely working to remove someone from it. Even when it does work, the game is literally ruined by the AI taking over and mass charging the closest enemy. A ranking system or ladder system, some kind of match making program, ANYTHING of the sort. Games bugging out or unable to be seen after a set number of players join (but not full). Id also like to see matching systems/clan support for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 etc.

Id also like to see some MP standards in the game for, say, starting money/use of units etc. I cant tell you how endlessly frustrating to join a game and be told "no ele/no art" or my personal favorite last night "no art, no spartans." That and the MP games that give you unlimited cash to make your army. All that does is equal out the damned game! Everyone upgrades their troops to the max, by doing so its as equal as if you did nothing! Or when I create a game and put a money cap in of, say, 12.5k I get constant complaining about "too little money."

Having a standard money/rule set for Multi-player I think would go along way in correcting the problems of the previous titles in the series. Its the one aspect Ive always felt was lacking and seemed to be thrown in as an afterthought. For me, the challenge of the game is pitting myself against thinking human opponents, not a weak AI that provides little challenge or entertainment in crushing.

Get away from Gamespy.

One small addition. I would like to see a better replay system implemented, again one similar to Warcraft 3 or Dawn Of War. Options to pause, back up, slow down etc. Watching game replays is another thing I personally enjoy, not just to add audio commentary to, but to study other players ideas and tactics in a game. Is that more in depth then most people? Probably. But I still like doing it ;)

TosaInu
11-29-2007, 16:26
Yes, however, it doesnt add quotes, nor does it give any indication that it does so. Over on the Jolt forums (same setup as this) they turn orange and such when you click 'em.
Bleh.

Hello Sheogorath,

This is the button you need to push: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/rtw/misc/mq_img_off.gif then it changes to https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/rtw/misc/mq_img_on.gif

The last post you want to quote should just be quoted.

Example: you want to quote post #3, # 6 and #8, use the multiquote button https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/rtw/misc/mq_img_off.gif on #3 and #6 and quote #8.

Does this work?

Sheogorath
11-29-2007, 20:08
Oh damn, I was clicking the wrong button!
The 'quick reply' button has the same icon as the multiquote button on Jolt! :dizzy2:

RoadKill
11-30-2007, 20:32
One thing I dont want in empire. Fighting to the death in cities!

Why can't there be an option of surrendering.

Matt_Lane
11-30-2007, 21:21
One thing I dont want in empire. Fighting to the death in cities!

Why can't there be an option of surrendering.

At the beginning of the siege their should be the option to parley. If terms aren't agreed by the time the walls are breached then the defenders should fight to the death.

GFX707
12-01-2007, 06:37
I hope it won't still take 20 years to sail a ship from one side of the Mediterranean to the other....or 40 years to walk across Europe.

7Bear7Bottom
12-01-2007, 10:39
Cool thread,

I would not like to see this fighting to the death in cities aswell.

To me why couldn't they transfer the capture prisoners and intergrate it into the empire for a slave market and become part of the economic side, what you can't ransome goes to your slave market.

Dump the rebel stacks and replace them with slave up-risings.

Slaves could also impact how fast you build your empire aswell.

Food for thought.

Copperknickers
12-01-2007, 11:17
'9) Artillery reloading every time they move.'

Well i doubt you would be rumbling along the ground over huge hills with some highly volatile substance at the best of times loaded into your cannon.

Matt_Lane
12-01-2007, 18:14
Cool thread,

I would not like to see this fighting to the death in cities aswell.

To me why couldn't they transfer the capture prisoners and intergrate it into the empire for a slave market and become part of the economic side, what you can't ransome goes to your slave market.

Dump the rebel stacks and replace them with slave up-risings.

Slaves could also impact how fast you build your empire aswell.

Food for thought.

I understand from the CA interviews I've read that slavery might play a minor part in ETW economics but it is unlikely that it is to be highlighted in this way. Besides hadn't the taking of slaves from a defeated army died out in the Medieval era? I know fighting to the death in cities is a gaming pain and the final stand in the square would not seem historically realistic. However sacking the city if terms aren't met is historically accurate. I would much prefer the focus of the defense be moved from the square to the breach, ie the timer counts down once the attacking forces inside the cities inner defenses out number the defenders. As a compromise I would concede that routing defenders should be able to flee the city rather than just head to the square.

7Bear7Bottom
12-01-2007, 19:14
The British and French Empires were built upon slavery up to nepolionic times.
Anyways, not just slavery for the army, also the populace.

It will be interesting to see how they will impliment it in Empires, CA won't do too much on it as it's not politically correct.:beam:

Matt_Lane
12-01-2007, 19:38
The British and French Empires were built upon slavery up to nepolionic times.
Anyways, not just slavery for the army, also the populace.

It will be interesting to see how they will impliment it in Empires, CA won't do too much on it as it's not politically correct.:beam:

Your quiet right, slavery played an important part of the colonial economies but the slaves were from Africa. I don't know of any European power taking slaves from another European powers defeated army in the 18th Century.

The slavery issue was mentioned in a few earlier threads. They main consensus was that CA should not hide from it but that is was too sensitive a subject to incorperate fully into the game.

7Bear7Bottom
12-01-2007, 20:07
I don't know of any European power taking slaves from another European powers defeated army in the 18th Century.

Yes that part is true, but they did attack each others slave ships and claimed property of them.

But a Slave Foundry or what ever you want to call it could be like an upgradable build for an empire. As you go through the era's, you would be able to uprade the Slave Foundry to that era or make it system event and hardwire the economic change.

I like the idea, but as you said, they are too chicken to do it.:whip:

Ozzman1O1
12-02-2007, 15:31
im sure this game will be fine,think about the peaple at ca reading this thread when the games already halfway done scratching there heads....but i could use them giving the name george washington instead of peorge kashington like in rtw,HIS NAMES HANNIBAL,HASDURBAL IS HIS BROTHER!Give there real namebut im sure that will be taken care of in rtw2 wich ca has already confirmed there making

GFX707
12-04-2007, 06:38
Actually Britain had outlawed slavery throughout its Empire by the game's time period and during the war of 1812 refused to hand back slaves to the USA from captured towns/plantations/whatever.

Furious Mental
12-04-2007, 12:48
No, slavery was still legal in the English/ British empire in 1700 and for some time thereafter.

GFX707
12-05-2007, 06:23
No, slavery was still legal in the English/ British empire in 1700 and for some time thereafter.

If you are going to insist on such accuracy with respects to time then I am afraid I am going to have to insist myself that you get the name correct. There was no "english empire".

abdecken5
12-11-2007, 17:44
how naive...

ca do listen to their customers. just not you.

they do their own market reasearch and focus testing with their main 12-15 year old market who get their parents to buy the game for them on release for top dollar as long as it looks cool. they will have more say then any of you, just look at the results of the launcher poll

still carry on i like reading you pie in the sky ideas every time a total war game comes out lol

Incongruous
12-11-2007, 21:48
how naive...

ca do listen to their customers. just not you.

they do their own market reasearch and focus testing with their main 12-15 year old market who get their parents to buy the game for them on release for top dollar as long as it looks cool. they will have more say then any of you, just look at the results of the launcher poll

still carry on i like reading you pie in the sky ideas every time a total war game comes out lol

Oh dear.

Why the not-so-well-hidden anger?

Sheogorath
12-12-2007, 00:43
Oh dear.

Why the not-so-well-hidden anger?

He's sad because he wanted Andorra: Total War.

caravel
12-12-2007, 23:35
how naive...

ca do listen to their customers. just not you.

they do their own market reasearch and focus testing with their main 12-15 year old market who get their parents to buy the game for them on release for top dollar as long as it looks cool. they will have more say then any of you, just look at the results of the launcher poll

still carry on i like reading you pie in the sky ideas every time a total war game comes out lol
Sadly I agree with you in part, though unlike you I won't worry too much about it. I simply won't buy any more TW games until I see a shift back to good strategic battles and a major improvement in AI and diplomacy. That's my choice. If others want to still go out and buy the game and try to influence the next game by posting their ideas I won't post needlessly here to heckle them for it.

:bow:

Mete Han
12-17-2007, 17:20
16) ... In field battles, also make it easier to withdraw with the army intact...

I read that some of you guys are complaining about withdrawing the armies from the battles. Are you guys referring to the AI retreating in total confusion? I guess that can be improved. However, if it is your own armies you are having problems with withdrawing intact then there is not much CA can do about it in field battles. Isn't it really upto you to withdraw your armies with minimum casualties? On the other hand I totally agree with Romanovich on the fact that in sieges you should have more choices, you might even have the chance to retreat with your army out of a siege if you can break through.. I hate losing great generals in some expandable towns siege!!!

Mete Han
12-17-2007, 17:32
[SPOIL]
9. Artillery? What's that?

I honestly hate gunpowder units. Too slow, too inaccurate. Give me a good old fasioned trebuchet, catapult, or ballista. I use those infrequently too, but at least the defending units have a CHANCE. The AI never has proper gunpowder units.

They are at once too sloppy for medieval battle, and too powerful in seiges. They are almost useless on the field, and they almost guarantee a win in seiges. Granted, maybe thats realistic... I dont know. Ignore me on this one. I just hate them. They arent my style. I just choose to play without them.

Oops! I think I just gave away one of my weaknesses.

Hates machinery
-50% when commanding gunpowder units
-25% when commanding artillery

First of all Pizza Guy if you remmember you advised me a few months ago that it was possible to conquer the whole old world in about 60 turns, in the light of my recent experiences I totally agree with you and respect you for achieving it. Anyway how come such a great player like yourself totally hate gunpowder units. I mean I would expect you to mention how effective serpentines are even though other gunpowder units (including the gunpowder infantry) are really crap in field battles. The thing is I happened to wipe out entire full stacks with my serpentines in some field battles. It is like using a sniper rifle in medieval times. Though you have to develop the whole stack according to it.

Still gunpowder units must be improved and I guess they will be since the Empires' timeline is 1700's onwards.

Askthepizzaguy
12-17-2007, 17:58
First of all Pizza Guy if you remmember you advised me a few months ago that it was possible to conquer the whole old world in about 60 turns, in the light of my recent experiences I totally agree with you and respect you for achieving it. Anyway how come such a great player like yourself totally hate gunpowder units. I mean I would expect you to mention how effective serpentines are even though other gunpowder units (including the gunpowder infantry) are really crap in field battles. The thing is I happened to wipe out entire full stacks with my serpentines in some field battles. It is like using a sniper rifle in medieval times. Though you have to develop the whole stack according to it.

Still gunpowder units must be improved and I guess they will be since the Empires' timeline is 1700's onwards.

If they hand out awards for exploiting game weaknesses, then yes, I am a great player.

First of all, as a mad, mad, mad, mad (frothing mad) berserking blitzer, I do not ever, and I mean EVER make it to the gunpowder era. Not even in Lands to Conquer. Nope, not even in The Long Road.

I've only ever used gunpowder units in custom battles.

Some poor fellow actually sat around and made Denmark survive until the gunpowder era just to he could send me the save file and I could tinker with powdered units. Snore. That's right up there with waiting forever and ever just so you can sail to the Americas and face the worthless and pathetic Aztecs. That's my big reward???

I'd rather face the entire Chinese army with only a wooden club than trample over defenseless Aztecs with my armoured horsemen wielding rifles. One is more honourable than the other.

I want to be able to blitz and blitz and blitz until finally a real Mongol horde shows up and counter-blitzes me. For reals.

Like 20 stacks, all at once, heading directly for the heart of my empire. I want the HORDE banging on my door steps not hanging around on the eastern steppes.

I want all 20 stacks to be plated in gold armour, wielding giant eastern blades, firing cannons, and I'm not allowed to have gunpowder. That would be like repelling the Borg from their invasion of the Federation. I live and breathe on that kind of impossible pressure.

And I want the Invasion to happen within 30 turns, not 75, and all at once, not scattered. And I want the Timurids to attack from the South simultaneously.

Not historically accurate, but I want the Europeans who feared and hated me for brutally conquering them to declare me their savior after I rescue their expletive deleted from the Horde Of Death. So long as I don't exterminate them, I should make a better leader than some Mongol occupier.

The reason why I hate gunpowder units:

1. They take too long to get. I could have conquered Asia by the time they brought the horde to bear upon me.
2. They are boring (except for cannons)
3. They are cowardly. I prefer a straight fight to firing on people from far away, especially if they are armed with swords and armour.
4. They are totally unnecessary to winning the game. Just as assassins and merchants are, if you're a blitzer. Those florins could be spent on proper soldiers. As for merchants, I'm far too busy conquering merchant empires to try to compete with them. I'd rather do hostile takeovers of the military kind.

Back to guns... inaccurate, cheap, takes forever to fire, worthless in close combat, cowardly, and totally worthless to a blitzer who rolls up the entire map before you can say Mongol.

That is why I hate gunpowder units.


_________________________
New stats for Askthepizzaguy

Openly loathes and despises gunpowder units
-3 command when commanding gunpowder units

Desires to humilate cowards who use gunpowder
+4 command when attacking gunpowder units

Wishes there was a "Nightmare" difficulty level
Only plays on VeryHard/VeryHard

Mete Han
12-17-2007, 21:21
If they hand out awards for exploiting game weaknesses, then yes, I am a great player.

First of all, as a mad, mad, mad, mad (frothing mad) berserking blitzer, I do not ever, and I mean EVER make it to the gunpowder era. Not even in Lands to Conquer. Nope, not even in The Long Road.

I've only ever used gunpowder units in custom battles.

Some poor fellow actually sat around and made Denmark survive until the gunpowder era just to he could send me the save file and I could tinker with powdered units. Snore. That's right up there with waiting forever and ever just so you can sail to the Americas and face the worthless and pathetic Aztecs. That's my big reward???

I'd rather face the entire Chinese army with only a wooden club than trample over defenseless Aztecs with my armoured horsemen wielding rifles. One is more honourable than the other.

I want to be able to blitz and blitz and blitz until finally a real Mongol horde shows up and counter-blitzes me. For reals.

Like 20 stacks, all at once, heading directly for the heart of my empire. I want the HORDE banging on my door steps not hanging around on the eastern steppes.

I want all 20 stacks to be plated in gold armour, wielding giant eastern blades, firing cannons, and I'm not allowed to have gunpowder. That would be like repelling the Borg from their invasion of the Federation. I live and breathe on that kind of impossible pressure.

And I want the Invasion to happen within 30 turns, not 75, and all at once, not scattered. And I want the Timurids to attack from the South simultaneously.

Not historically accurate, but I want the Europeans who feared and hated me for brutally conquering them to declare me their savior after I rescue their expletive deleted from the Horde Of Death. So long as I don't exterminate them, I should make a better leader than some Mongol occupier.

The reason why I hate gunpowder units:

1. They take too long to get. I could have conquered Asia by the time they brought the horde to bear upon me.
2. They are boring (except for cannons)
3. They are cowardly. I prefer a straight fight to firing on people from far away, especially if they are armed with swords and armour.
4. They are totally unnecessary to winning the game. Just as assassins and merchants are, if you're a blitzer. Those florins could be spent on proper soldiers. As for merchants, I'm far too busy conquering merchant empires to try to compete with them. I'd rather do hostile takeovers of the military kind.

Back to guns... inaccurate, cheap, takes forever to fire, worthless in close combat, cowardly, and totally worthless to a blitzer who rolls up the entire map before you can say Mongol.

That is why I hate gunpowder units.


_________________________
New stats for Askthepizzaguy

Openly loathes and despises gunpowder units
-3 command when commanding gunpowder units

Desires to humilate cowards who use gunpowder
+4 command when attacking gunpowder units

Wishes there was a "Nightmare" difficulty level
Only plays on VeryHard/VeryHard

Ok so it goes like this: first of all it is obvious that one can complete the game in vh/vh before mongols start their conquest like in turn 75 that's quite straightforward. Since I'm really into all missile cavalry armies and cavalry armies I can do that without missing much of the game.

However the problem with me is that I was serving in a battery unit as a soldier about a year ago complying (obeying) to the concription law in Turkey (every able man has to serve) and we had 155mm howitzer self propelled artilleries and I developed some kind of obsession with gunpowder units because of this. So while playing Totalwar I try to lengthen the game as much as I can in order to create scenarios where to gunpowder unit flooded armies face each other. But I am not a coward for using gunpowder. Cavalry has always been my favorite.

Askthepizzaguy
12-18-2007, 00:17
Ok so it goes like this: first of all it is obvious that one can complete the game in vh/vh before mongols start their conquest like in turn 75 that's quite straightforward. Since I'm really into all missile cavalry armies and cavalry armies I can do that without missing much of the game.

However the problem with me is that I was serving in a battery unit as a soldier about a year ago complying (obeying) to the concription law in Turkey (every able man has to serve) and we had 155mm howitzer self propelled artilleries and I developed some kind of obsession with gunpowder units because of this. So while playing Totalwar I try to lengthen the game as much as I can in order to create scenarios where to gunpowder unit flooded armies face each other. But I am not a coward for using gunpowder. Cavalry has always been my favorite.

No offense meant to you personally. I was speaking 'in character'.

In real life, I am a radically different person. I wouldn't pick up a gun OR a sword.

I do feel however that a person can kill others with guns and bombs without ever having to look his enemy in the eye first. That is cowardly compared to a swordfight.

In a swordfight, you face each other with strength, speed, and skill. You must work to kill your opponent. With artillery you can just point and fire.

Again, no offense meant to you as a real-life artilleryman. But I feel that warfare was more honorable before the advent of gunpowder and bombs. A small band of rogues or a single swordsman could not cause the kind of devastation that a band of gunman or a single suicide bomber or gunman can. And one does not need to be particularly skilled to kill someone with a bomb or a gun, nor do they have to look people in the eye first.

I'm a relic. If there is going to be warfare, there should be rules and honor and legitimate uses of force.

If you are a paid, fully trained, and loyal armed soldier of a particular nation, then you are yourself an instrument of warfare and thusly a valid target by any opposing military who has declared war on you. Therefore killing you is different from killing an innocent civilian.

However, in an era of gunpowder, bombs, artillery, and other inaccurate and imprecise weapons of mass destruction, every single able bodied person could be a threat. Every single person can be armed with a weapon that can kill thousands of people. Every single person aligned with a hostile government is considered a threat. This means that there are no more civilians, except those who are far too young to use a weapon. And even there, children are being forced to use arms in many countries.

I detest guns as tools of warfare. In my opinion, there are only two legitimate uses for guns: Defending your home, your family, or the borders of your country from a hostile invader, and hunting animals to eat. But that is not what guns are used for most of the time.

But this is rather besides the point. I am thankful your life was not taken from you during your forced conscription.

More on topic, when I say 'roll up the map' I don't mean finish the campaign. I mean own the entire map. That is significantly more difficult than owning some 45-35 provinces, especially under such dire time constraints.

And now, I do the pink elephant dance for you to lighten the mood.

:elephant:

Mete Han
12-18-2007, 09:26
More on topic, when I say 'roll up the map' I don't mean finish the campaign. I mean own the entire map. That is significantly more difficult than owning some 45-35 provinces, especially under such dire time constraints.

And now, I do the pink elephant dance for you to lighten the mood.



after some point you must be using ballistas and spys for capturing settlements otherwise it would be nigh impossible to capture the whole map in less than 60 turns.

by the way, I think you are going to hate the Empire because most of the warfare will depend on gunpowder. :duel:

Axel JD
12-18-2007, 16:40
I'm sorry askthepizzaguy, but I really fail to see how the act of killing others could ever be considered honourable. A sad fact of life endured by many throughout the ages, and sometimes even necessary, but honourable?

Besides, I very much doubt that close combat before the advent of more modern warfare was very fair either. A greatly skilled mounted warrior would still be crushed underneath the body of his falling horse, which just got killed by a lucky blow from an infantryman. And the infantryman could just as easily stumble over some poor dead sod's entrails and get cut down, or loose his footing and get trampled to death by his own comrades.

Violence ain't nice, it's bloody, tragic and despicable. Games and films are often violent, but are also fun, simply because IT'S NOT REAL. And that makes all the difference. I know I'm ranting, but I just get annoyed by the romantic view of war many people tend to display. No offence meant.

LadyAnn
12-18-2007, 22:22
I would lament the loss of honor than the increase of violence.

Annie

Askthepizzaguy
12-19-2007, 02:54
after some point you must be using ballistas and spys for capturing settlements otherwise it would be nigh impossible to capture the whole map in less than 60 turns.

by the way, I think you are going to hate the Empire because most of the warfare will depend on gunpowder. :duel:

Actually I did it myself in 57 turns with France and 58 turns with England.

I think I used a ballista to take Paris and marseilles in one turn, and even then only because it was adjacent to Caen. Then I disbanded it. They are too slow to carry around. I would definitley carry them if they didn't slow down my crusading armies.

The trouble with spies is that in that version they were actually slower than my generals. So on crusades, my rampaging armies would outrun my agents.

So spies didn't make things any faster.

But I can refer you to my England thread, it verifies the strategy I used was not based upon catapults, ballistae, or spies. But I think I've posted the link like wayyy too many times already in various threads and people are starting to think all I ever talk about is my England thread.

So unless you want an actual link, I refer you to clicking on my name and selecting "find all threads started by askthepizzaguy", you'll find it.

And yeah, you are correct. I'm not even going to buy Empire. What's the point? The worst era of warfare is the era of Empire total war.

Pizza guy no play Empire. Bad. Guns. No likey guns.

Elmo J Muppet
12-19-2007, 16:05
The one thing I don't want to see in Empire is factions you have friendly relations with starting a war by blockading your port for one turn, then stubbornly refusing to ever accept peace so you have to conquer their entire empire.
I don't necessarily want the diplomacy to be made too complicated, but one boat sailing into your port and starting a war for no reason seems strange (not do mention irritating), although it happens all the time on M2TW. Similarly I don't like it when enemy factions consistently refuse peace no matter the odds, and even when you haven't fought them for years.

JR-
12-20-2007, 13:05
What i don't want:
The R:TW/M2:TW campaign map.

after seriously loving the first Medieval: Total War and replaying it for thousands of hours on its brilliant chess style map, i totally hated the realtime campaign map found in later games.

I bought both Rome and M2 out of loyalty, but i can't say i have ever managed to get into them, they sit dusty on my shelf.

Marcus Caelius
12-31-2007, 02:38
One thing that has bothered me a lot, since STW even, is the nature of the Fog of War system.

I don't like the fact that you do not know where cities are and who owns them. Even without spies and armies, travellers and merchants reports would give every major monarch a broadly accurate view of the world within a few months, which is to say, within one game turn.

In it's most egregious form, this manifested itself in RTW-BI when the Eastern Roman Empire started the game without even knowing where Rome is! Ridiculous!

Unfortunately, toggle_fow is no use, because this gives way too much information, showing the precise location of all armies.

So please, please, something in between :beam:

Apart from that, i second the idea of being able to retreat from battle in good order,

I also think that the unlimited morale bonus of the central square of city defence needs rethinking. The temptation to set up my entire defence in the centre is just too great for me to resist. i need help to play properly.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-31-2007, 04:53
I think all capital cities, important landmarks, major military centres, and major trade hubs should be visible from the beginning to all factions that historically had knowledge of each other. For example, the Mughal Empire may not be able to know the exact location of, say, Brugges or Antwerp, but all the European factions should.

Boyar Son
12-31-2007, 06:02
I dont want the AI to decline a ceasefire. Ever.

Askthepizzaguy
01-01-2008, 01:45
I'm sorry askthepizzaguy, but I really fail to see how the act of killing others could ever be considered honourable. A sad fact of life endured by many throughout the ages, and sometimes even necessary, but honourable?

Besides, I very much doubt that close combat before the advent of more modern warfare was very fair either. A greatly skilled mounted warrior would still be crushed underneath the body of his falling horse, which just got killed by a lucky blow from an infantryman. And the infantryman could just as easily stumble over some poor dead sod's entrails and get cut down, or loose his footing and get trampled to death by his own comrades.

Violence ain't nice, it's bloody, tragic and despicable. Games and films are often violent, but are also fun, simply because IT'S NOT REAL. And that makes all the difference. I know I'm ranting, but I just get annoyed by the romantic view of war many people tend to display. No offence meant.

And my response:


If a nation rallies their troops to defend against the invasion of brutal conquerors like the Mongols, the Nazis, and other scum of the earth rapers, pillagers, those who slay civilians, those who use biochemical or nuclear weaponry in an offensive war, those who use terrorism (targeting non-military or non-government persons or buildings, i.e. completely uninvolved with political or military struggle) etc...
...and those troops merely extinguish the threat and keep the peace afterward, that is an HONOURABLE usage of violence.

When a police sharpshooter takes down a terrorist with a gun to a civilian's head, a bomb strapped to his chest, and death threats against hostages, that is an HONOURABLE usage of violence.

When a man defends his home from an armed intruder by firing his legally-owned weapon at the criminal, that is an honourable usage of violence.

When a man sees a group of thugs in a dark alley raping someone, and he uses his legally-owned firearm to scare them off, failing that, opening fire... that is an honourable usage of violence.

Violence is not in and of itself wrong. Aggressive violence against innocent people is in and of itself wrong. When violence is used like a tool to prevent an injustice, stop one from happening, or prevent it from happening again, then it is a tool properly used.

The ideal of total pacifism means not only surrendering to an armed assailant, but watching passively as they brutally murder your family, raising not one arm in their defense. It means allowing murderous invaders to rape and pillage your homeland, killing women, children, and innocents, and doing nothing to stop them.

Pacifism is a passive form of violence, because it allows evil to continue to do it's work unhindered. The fate of the lamb is to be led to slaughter.

One does not therefore need to be a wolf, but having claws and teeth and using them defensively is called a survival strategy. One can use violence, even fight a war, with honour.

If one can fight a DIShonourable war, then CLEARLY, there is such a thing as an honourable war. Therefore I completely disagree with your irrational position.

Guns, an effective tool yes, but unlike a lone man armed with a sword, it is not a simple matter for unarmed civilians to stop a man armed with a gun. A person armed with a gun is a person armed with a weapon of great destruction, even more destructive than a pipe bomb if used correctly.

In ancient times men had to learn to fight for the defense of their nation, and were often conscripted or forced into battle against their will, just as they do today. However, it took an army of men with weapons to pose a serious threat to a civilian population.

Now, a single gunman can terrorize an entire town until an armed police guard stops him.
That is why guns have enlisted civilians into battle, just as bombs dropped from the sky and terrorist activity has also enlisted peaceful civilians into the conflict of war.

Before gunpowder, a single person was no threat. That is why I dislike guns, even if I respect their proper and legal usage.

Marcus Caelius
01-01-2008, 03:40
Maybe the Pizza Guy could take his issues to some other forum, fascinating as his insights are?

Askthepizzaguy
01-01-2008, 03:57
Only responding to someone who challenged me, sir. Apologies.

:focus:

Boyar Son
01-01-2008, 05:58
Askthepizzaguy hasnt anyone told you not to bring a spear to a gun fight?

Askthepizzaguy
01-01-2008, 08:21
Of course. But if you conquer the world before the discovery of gunpowder, what's the point of guns?

guineawolf
01-06-2008, 05:40
the diplomacy AI of Imperialism 2:Age of Exploration is good,i suggest CA use them,they even got non aggression pact ...:book:

locked_thread
01-26-2008, 01:40
edit

Earl of Surrey
01-26-2008, 16:11
Seeing how Empire has already been in the making and is at least 50-60% done, we should make a list of things we don't want to see in this game. The devs most likely have implemented their ideas for the base of the game and are not going to change this.

Please everyone add to this list all the things that made you disappointed in previous total war games.

Based on what i disliked about MTW2:

1) No more map units for merchants and diplomats.

2) Predictable AI battles. Poor siege AI.

3) Sloppy cohesion of units in battles.

4) Non compliant AI diplomacy. AI starting wars they cannot win when not necessary.

5) A campaign map that is more graphical than functional.

6) poorly written Vice and Virtues.

7) Scattered computer selection of heirs to the throne.

8) Weak animations that limit ability of units.
Missile unit animations that limit the ability of them to react. They won't retreat until they volley. Gunpowder units have problem shooting and just stand there not firing.

9) Artillery reloading every time they move.

10) Auto resolve not calculating defenses properly.

I firmly agree on every point there ESPECIALLY unit cohesion and animations. Call me a Shogun fan boy but everything was so much more robust on the it's campaign and battle map. Units charged when you wanted them to, they never simply stopped 5 metres short, they went hell for leather. This isn't to say Shogun was without fault, it just felt as if you were in control.

A step back in graphics would be a good thing for TW in my opinion, as proposterous as it may sound, I really couldn't give a toss if I can zoom into ground level, that gets boring after 2 minutes.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-26-2008, 18:03
I'd like to see a diplomacy system similar to EUIII, not in terms of looks and such, but in terms of that you have to pick your wars. If you fight too many, you will be attacked and overwhelmed. Also, the peace negotiation system would be a great addon to a game that, right now, more or less says you have to annex or return to status quo.

Csargo
01-26-2008, 21:04
Me too. I think a EUIII-esque style diplomatic system would fit in quite well with TW.

Bellum
01-27-2008, 04:05
The RTW map was designed for quick action, and little strategy or history. The diplomacy system should be smartened up. I agree that diplomat units are silly, but characters with influence/traits are not.

Also, the family system is absurd. Generals were not always members of the royal family. Bring back the MTW system where every unit has a general. Also allow modders to keep track of specific characters.

Modding in general. If Empire is out awhile and people say it's hard to mod and limits modders too much, I probably just wont buy it. I've never played a M2TW campaign to it's completion, and yet I broke down and bought Kingdoms (which I played for about three hours and uninstalled it). I play Total War for the mods, and unless the quality of Empire raises the bar considerably, this wont change. If the arbitrary limitations are due to poor memory optimization, you really should start flogging your programmers.

Also note, I'm really hoping for an EBIII (I'm worried about EBII, as from what I've seen the M2TW 'updated' engine is inferior, though I'm no modder, so we'll see). There is no reason why it shouldn't be possible for hand to hand combat for modders.

More civil options. I like building empires, not just fighting battles. You have to understand that's probably true with the majority of your fan base. Stop building your games around just fighting, and start building fighting around your strategy. I'd like civil options, complex and dynamic social options, breakdowns in civic opinion, all that good stuff. The more detail, the better.

Battles:

Soldiers, no matter what the time period, weren't suicidal. Stop making yours. Casualties should be slowish, and moddable. Obviously, casualties with guns would be higher than with spears, but these weren't exactly weapons on pinpoint accuracy. Interesting terrain features should be emphasized, with cliff faces, mountain passes, that sort of thing. Ambushes should just be from forests, covert actions should amount to 'hiding in the grass'. That's just silly.

I agree with earlier posts about scouts. Put some of the logistics in the hands of the player. Instead of having a clear gage of numbers and either knowing or not knowing an enemies units, spies/scouts/whatever should give an approximate number of units (with a tendency to over exaggerate) divided between infantry, cavalry, and machinery.

Sieges:

The majority of sieges should be just that, sieges. If the (hopefully substantially smarter) AI or the player feels that he is destined to loose the engagement, they should be able to negotiate terms of surrender, which would generally, but not always, mean the defending army could leave unharmed.

I know this was fixed somewhat in M2TW, but small fences where not impenetrable barriers. Humans can climb, though not as well as some other animals. Buildings should be more important, pathing in cities should preferably not be crappy, and if the invaders aren't popular enough (remember the better strategy element?) the populace should fight. Urban warfare wasn't easy. That's why people try to avoid it.

As for navies, lets just say I'm hopeful. You can't possibly mess it up, it's one of the primary features of Empire. Right?

Matt_Lane
01-27-2008, 14:54
I know this was fixed somewhat in M2TW, but small fences where not impenetrable barriers. Humans can climb, though not as well as some other animals. Buildings should be more important, pathing in cities should preferably not be crappy, and if the invaders aren't popular enough (remember the better strategy element?) the populace should fight. Urban warfare wasn't easy. That's why people try to avoid it. Right?

I agree. Breaching walls in M2TW required the wall to be obliterated enough to wheel artillery through. I would prefer to see a more realistic breach where a Forlorn Hope has to fight its way up the ramp formed from the shattered walls. I'm not sure about a populace defending itself however. Those not already in the towns militia would have little chance of defending themselves. A city or town resisting a siege was laying itself open to massacre if its defenses fell.

Bellum
01-27-2008, 17:44
Any person with a gun could fortify his house. The main problem, I think, is the inability to recruit militia during seige. In the event of a seige, anyone with arms would be able to fight.

And not every city that fell to an assault was massacred. I haven't read many accounts of battles in this period, but I imagine more professional armies would abstain from sacking the city, except at the order of the general. That's why I think it's important popularity be factored in. If people would rather the invader be their ruler, they are less likley to fight for the defender.

Matt_Lane
01-27-2008, 20:26
Any person with a gun could fortify his house. The main problem, I think, is the inability to recruit militia during seige. In the event of a seige, anyone with arms would be able to fight.

And not every city that fell to an assault was massacred. I haven't read many accounts of battles in this period, but I imagine more professional armies would abstain from sacking the city, except at the order of the general. That's why I think it's important popularity be factored in. If people would rather the invader be their ruler, they are less likley to fight for the defender.

I agree that the game would benefit from having the available populace pool being mobilised as playable militia units in the event of a siege. Also we already have the ability for disloyal troops to rebel against a faction and perhaps this could be allowed to take place during a siege, such as in Seringpatam in 1799.

There were set rules to siege warfare however and it was regarded as honorable to surrender a fortification once the walls had been breached. Failure to do so was on the understanding that no further quarter would be given. This was partly due to the enormous cost in men and time a siege cost. Letting the attacking force run amok for a while was often seen as the safest way of bringing them back in order after the terrible ordeal of attacking the breach. Sacking a town after a siege was also psychological as it prevented future towns from holding out. Some notable sieges in this era that resulted in a massacre of the defenders after they failed to capitulate are Magdeburg 1631, Drogheda 1649, Wexford 1639, Cuidad Rodrigo 1810, Badjoz 1812 and the Third Siege of Messolonghi 1826.

It should be noted that there were no such things as war crimes during this time and clemency was at the discression of the victor. There were no guarantees that surrender would secure safety as the massacre at Fort William Henry in 1757 shows. Also although there are many instances of all hope being lost once the walls had been taken there are instances such as the Second Siege of Saragossa 1809 and the Siege of Geron 1809 where the army and civilians alike continued the fight long after the enemy was in the city.

Russia_CCCP
02-10-2008, 18:31
Four simple things:

1) Foreign Languages (so stupid hearing all of Europe speak in english)

2) Less rebel cities. For example: so stupid when in MTW2 the city Moscow or York were in Rebel control.

3) Let the player build cities on ground.

4) More turn accuracy. Each turn consists of 2.5 or 2 years (can't remember). For that time, surely units have to march 3 times more than they do

Marius Dynamite
02-10-2008, 21:28
I want Wars to be done properly in this game. They should not begin because two armies decide to start fighting. They should be declared properly and sides should be taken. If France declares War on Russia and France is already at war with Britain, it should be possible for Britian and Russia to negotiate an alliance. Also when they are allies they should be working together.

An alliance should include clauses aswell, like what will happen after the war in terms of territory. Also the Nations should be sharing their resources better. Britain should give Russia a loan for the war which must be paid back upon victory, or it could even give Russia command of some ships or instead of loaning money, Britain could sell weapons which must be paid for after the war.

xseabrookx
02-18-2008, 23:11
A few annoying things from previuos TW games I can't stand.

1. 50 year old generals popping up and asking to marry your 16 year old princess. If we have any 16+ year old princess, new option available "Marry princess". Pop up showing a few generals your princess can marry. The generals changes every 5-10 turns.

2. Better agent (spy, assasin, merchant, priest, princess) and army management. New icons in campaign map, Next Spy with movement left, next spy, icons for each agent type. Next army with movement left, next family member, next army in city, next navy, etc. The agent list and next army/agent/city all in ONE icon from RTW just doesn't cut it after your empire has 30+ provinces with many armies and agents.

Flying Pig
02-19-2008, 20:54
Masive armies running away because the general has died or one bloke on a horse pinning a hopeless army to a bloody death.

Master Young Phoenix
02-22-2008, 02:17
Looking at the 'sea battle interface' in the sticky, I have to say, its completly as-expected. They've gone for the generic option and basically copied IG's interface.

Listen, guys, having to micromanage ALL of your ships is no fun. Massive naval battles with twenty ships are NOT going to be managable.
And the generic 'roundshot, chainshot, grapeshot' damage-type dealy isnt anything impressive. I dont mean to sound overly flamish here, but come ON, its been done a MILLION times, since Sea Dogs at least. Give us something new and interesting!

I too am curious about how mass-naval combat would go smoothly... In Rome and Medieval, I never had fleets greater than 4-6 ships mostly though...

But the naval combat Empire is gonna have... It makes me think of this game called Corsairs I played a demo version of in the late 90's (or allready 2000 maybe...). It was an RTS Pirate's Game and the naval combat was great. The boarding actions were nice too and were on a seperate map while the big map froze in time. those different munitions did take micromanagement but made the game both more interesting and realistic. I'd rather not sink ships, I wanted to take them to expand my fleet (or to rob their holds for trade goods), so the rigging (chainshot) and crew (grapshot) are the targets for the guns. The hull better stay whole... I only used roundshot on coastal forts if I wanted to conquer a new port...

so I hope Empire will allow the capture of ships, rather than it's sinking. It's more "art of war" too.

Also, I'm very curious about siege battles in this era. The fortifications of the time are completely different from medieval times and earlier. Those angle bastions needed a whole new approach to siege warfare. Sieging an 17th+ century fortress took at least a month in preparation and that featured trenches, artillery emplacements and was generally a science in itself... I wonder how that would be implemented in this game... would a siege battle give the besieger the option to actually have a unit dig trenches or construct a battery emplacement?

If sieges are important, they'd better do it a little accurate...

xseabrookx
02-23-2008, 03:37
Forgot to post this. More flexible and friendly options in game/video and when starting a new game. People have to unpack files and mod, make batch (*.bat) files and/or start Medieval2.exe with other commands. All of the above can be quite complicated for the novice computer user who is a gamer.


New options when starting a new game:

1. Unit scale: Small, Medium, Large, Huge

2. Battle length: Short, Normal, Long, Epic (All units get a morale bonus including + morale from harder difficulties by the AI. -2 for Short, +2 for Long, +4 for Epic.) Length affects unit kill speed also?

3. Brigard spawn rate: Low, Medium, High, Very high

4. Pirate spawn rate: Low, Medium, High, Very High

5. Timescale: Slow, Normal, Fast, Faster
(0.75 for slow, 1.0 for normal, 1.5 for fast, 2.0 for faster, number of years for 1 turn. Or some other game turn modifier)


New in game options:
Allow unlimited men in battle: Have a pop up saying player might experience slowdown. Not sure if this should be in the new game options as players can take advantage.


Seperate AI scipts for each faction in battle and on the campaign map. Ex. If one faction has strong cavalry their script would have different many modifiers than a faction who is strong in naval and infantry units.


New options in main menu:
"Use/load Mod"
"New Mod Game"

Say I have a RTW mod for M2 in /Games/Medieval2/RTW with all the moded files, I just select that directory and it loads the files. Pick "New Mod Game" next.


I'm sure there are many more options to put in Empires that doesn't require the user to mess around with the game files and having to reinstall.

Rhyfelwyr
02-26-2008, 22:27
2. Battle length: Short, Normal, Long, Epic (All units get a morale bonus including + morale from harder difficulties by the AI. -2 for Short, +2 for Long, +4 for Epic.) Length affects unit kill speed also?

3. Brigard spawn rate: Low, Medium, High, Very high

4. Pirate spawn rate: Low, Medium, High, Very High

5. Timescale: Slow, Normal, Fast, Faster
(0.75 for slow, 1.0 for normal, 1.5 for fast, 2.0 for faster, number of years for 1 turn. Or some other game turn modifier)

I love those ideas, especially no.2 on battle length. The difficulty though would be getting the AI to cope with the different unit stats.

Since gunpowder, artillery, and pikes were all pretty much bugged off the battlefield in M2TW, especially the latter, these really have to be fixed.

PBI
02-27-2008, 01:27
Since gunpowder, artillery, and pikes were all pretty much bugged off the battlefield in M2TW, especially the latter, these really have to be fixed.

Agreed.

Artillery wasn't too important in M2TW so it wasn't such a problem that it was only good against walls, but it would be criminal if they weren't any good in ETW. It would be as if knights were rubbish in M2TW.

Personally I don't want to see an Autoresolve function that consistently squanders my best units. I want to be able to tell my captains "the militia are expendable, but keep the heavy cavalry in reserve. And don't order the artillery crews to engage the enemy peasants in melee."

Or maybe it could be based on dread/chivalry, if ETW has such a system. So a high dread general would send the peasants in to be massacred, while a high chivalry character would personally lead the elite units into the fray.