So what would you like to see in S2TW?

[Nelson]

I want to see the Rome style map, not the Risk style. The original map was one region, same battlefield every time. That would be a huge step backward.

I want castles (with ditches or motes) to besiege.

I want the idea of “rock, paper, and scissors” discarded. Units should behave correctly. If a unit was strong in a particular role it need not be artificially weakened in order to enhance the role of some other unit. If yari troops are strong against cavalry they need not be weak versus sword wielding troops. Not all troops are especially useful in particular situations. Designers must not say, for example “Since this unit is really strong in melee we had better make it especially vulnerable to missile fire” or “When the attack strength goes up the defense strength must come down”.

I would like to see units of samurai using all sorts of weapons, not just one. These guys used whatever they liked. They were warriors.

I want alliances to be important and battlefield treachery a possibility.

Is there any evidence of a geisha ever assassinating a daimyo? I do not believe they were so good they left no evidence. But if there is evidence, I’d like to hear it.

[Kagemusha]

I personally wouldnt want to see any other mainly sword unit rather then the mandatory Nodachi samurais who really were a rare instance as individual samurais on the battlefield never operating as units, but i am quite sure that a Nodachi unit cant be avoided. Other then that Katana was only a sidearm for samurai and cheaper mass produced versions or wakizashi´s were used by Ashigaru´s, so please no katana units. Sidearm for many units, yes, but not the main weapon.

[caravel]

I want to see the Rome style map, not the Risk style. The original map was one region, same battlefield every time. That would be a huge step backward.

Minor correction, the last incarnation of the risk map (MTW), had as many battlefields as there were borders and a random factor - so in theory there could be many random maps. The 3D RTS map first seen in RTW had set, flat maps, per map tile usually based around the roads.

I fully understand that we will be getting the 3D map, and I'm not opposed to that as such (I like the idea of fighting countless battles in diverse terrain types), but the original map design is not as limited as some like to make out. It's apples and oranges, the original risk map was good, but it's gone and I can't see CA bringing it back.

I want the idea of “rock, paper, and scissors” discarded. Units should behave correctly. If a unit was strong in a particular role it need not be artificially weakened in order to enhance the role of some other unit. If yari troops are strong against cavalry they need not be weak versus sword wielding troops. Not all troops are especially useful in particular situations. Designers must not say, for example “Since this unit is really strong in melee we had better make it especially vulnerable to missile fire” or “When the attack strength goes up the defense strength must come down”.

I think the RPS element is a strength. An entirely historically accurate experience does not necessarily make a good game and would lead to unit redundancy (as is the case in the newer titles).

I would like to see units of samurai using all sorts of weapons, not just one. These guys used whatever they liked. They were warriors.

I think the Yari was the weapon of choice at the time? The idea of massed units of katana wielding Samurai rushing each other is a myth.

-Edit: In essence what Kagemusha just posted.

I want alliances to be important and battlefield treachery a possibility.

I like the idea of battlefield treachery. This was discussed countless times, even before RTW's time, but has never been implimented.

Is there any evidence of a geisha ever assassinating a daimyo? I do not believe they were so good they left no evidence. But if there is evidence, I’d like to hear it.

The geisha in STW is fantasy. I think there is evidence of female ninja, but they were not geisha - I forget the name.

[ReluctantSamurai]

A return to unit balance and a strong CAI that is capable of beating you. In the original, battles were for provincial control, not just skirmishing for the rights to siege the local city. Even though I rather like the 3D-style of map, the AI just didn't seem to know how to make it work so if a more "Risk" type of map is done, so be it. I miss the excitement of your entire empire hinging on the outcome of a single battle.

[Vladimir]

Lots of contemporary art and influences. Great music too.

[Terazawa]

In all honesty, the closer the Battle Mode of STW2 is to STW1, the better. 3D Visuals, and that's it. Any of you think it needs anything else???

Campaign Mode is a different story as STW1 was way too basic to even compare to the later TW games. Really looking forward to see how they are going to approach the campaign map, resources and all that. Japan is not Europe - it's much smaller, fewer zones. I think going back to Risk-style map isn't a bad idea in the case of STW since it's so compact.

[AussieGiant]

I really don't think they are going to go backwards on the map technology. I would not expect a Risk style map.

Historical unit accuracy would be highly desirable and I hope they implement that. I think an important aspect of their games were lost when they tried to "balance" the units rather than replicate the historical accuracy of what happened. There is a real opportunity to educate and inform people about the time periods they pick. But it will be our multiplayer brethren who potentially spoil that with their desire to have a meaning full multiplayer experience. They do not coexist in the same unit roster as far as I'm concerned.

[Discoman]

I want to see good Battle AI and Campaign AI. I want to see the AI, if on the brink of destruction, be more willing to become a Vassal or an ally, or give something to me. I want what they promised in ETW, I want to see the AI determine the importance of a battle and actually RETREAT if things aren't going their way.

I want a different experience if I'm playing a different faction. Also don't balance the single player/multiplayer together. It makes it really lame that the game gets changed because someone is using an exploit online for their own ego. I don't mass mortars and quicklime, okay? I don't see why the unit accuracy should go down because people respond too slowly.

[Terazawa]

I really don't think they are going to go backwards on the map technology. I would not expect a Risk style map.

Historical unit accuracy would be highly desirable and I hope they implement that. I think an important aspect of their games were lost when they tried to "balance" the units rather than replicate the historical accuracy of what happened. There is a real opportunity to educate and inform people about the time periods they pick. But it will be our multiplayer brethren who potentially spoil that with their desire to have a meaning full multiplayer experience. They do not coexist in the same unit roster as far as I'm concerned.

You are correct in your assessment that often historical accuracy/single-player experience gets in direct conflict with unit balance/multiplayer experience. This is especially true when the game has only a few units and most armies look the same.

That is exactly why back in the day, 10 years ago, we used to insist with CA to make a seperate unit stat table for multiplayer only. That way you can get a historically-correct and fun campaign experience in single player while multiplayer addicts who don't give a flying crap about history can enjoy their fully balanced units and armies. ;-)

Maybe they can finally do this in STW2 - in the wish list :)

[AussieGiant]

You are correct in your assessment that often historical accuracy/single-player experience gets in direct conflict with unit balance/multiplayer experience. This is especially true when the game has only a few units and most armies look the same.

That is exactly why back in the day, 10 years ago, we used to insist with CA to make a seperate unit stat table for multiplayer only. That way you can get a historically-correct and fun campaign experience in single player while multiplayer addicts who don't give a flying crap about history can enjoy their fully balanced units and armies. ;-)

Maybe they can finally do this in STW2 - in the wish list :)

Well I really hope so Terazawa. if they try and fudge the damn thing I'm going to have to throw something at CA for being less than informed about their own game style.

[hoom]

I don't want to return to what is essentially to just an even more Japanese version of Dice Wars.
If you don't want flexibility, than by all means return to playing STW I.

Actually I'm loving that Dice Wars

I guess its not 'Flexibility' that is the problem, its that we are talking about different flexibilities.
The Shogun/Risk style gives flexibility to retreat properly & to give/recieve allied aid but doesn't have manoeuvre.
The Rome style has Theatre level flexibility of manoeuvre but makes it nearly impossible to ever retreat or have allied reinforcement.

I prefer the strategic withdrawal & allied gameplay.
Which is not to say that Theatre level manoeuvre needs to be sacrificed.

What is really needed (& I now remember pointing this out in the build up to Empire) is a 3rd, Theatre level of the game.
My proposal is this:

• Risk style turn-based at the Strategic level.
• Real-time 3d battles at the Tactical level.
• A new Theatre level so that when two armies are in the same province, you get a zoomed in Rome style map of the province & either a period of real-time or several turns of Rome type army manoeuvre per Strategic map turn.

When armies meet on the Theatre level you'd have a Real-time battle on that territory like how we have in the existing Rome style Strategic level.

Could even allow two armies to be in the same province without a battle, standing off/manoeuvring across multiple Strategic turns.

Raiding villages would also work better since there would be time for a defender to react. Could even allow for proper dispersed/concentrated army gameplay.

Allied support would happen Shogun style on the Strategic level & then the allied force would be present on the Theatre level as a separate army (under the control of the player?).
Would be best to have some sort of ability for the two forces to join & manoeuvre together as allies, an AI that would try to do that & on the opposing side, attempt to keep the allied forces separated & defeat them in detail.

I want to see the AI determine the importance of a battle and actually RETREAT if things aren't going their way.

This is a big part of the problem with the Rome style strategic map, its virtually impossible to successfully strategically retreat.
In Shogun you can retreat at the strategic level with no harm to your army (unless the fall-back province is taken by the enemy in the same turn!)
You can also retreat in-battle and your army/remnants will withdraw to a different province.
The AI could & did do this.

Two of my alltime favourite Total War battles were:

• Shogun: My 'pissing around' army consisting entirely of high honour, fully upgraded Kensai & battle ninja went on assault vs a near full stack of mostly Ashigaru.
  The Strategic AI saw only a handful of enemy & told the garrison to fight. The Battle AI took one look at those super-elite guys & ran the hell away!
• Medieval: The Golden Horde attacked a vastly outnumbered (like 10:1 or worse), infantry heavy army that I'd carefully setup hidden in a small forest.
  The Horde had a couple units of cavalry severely mauled probing my front & flanks, seems to have realised it was not going to be able to do much damage with the big 'cav in forest vs infantry' & 'units in forest vs arrows' penalties and that I wasn't going to be lured out of my forest (I clamped down hard on chasing), turned around & decided to attack something easier next turn.

The AI used to do these tactical retreats even in Rome (haven't played enough M2:TW to know if its still happening there) but often the retreat is not to a safe area due to the movement restrictions, so they normally still lose, just in a 2nd battle.
Also the default unit balancing was done with values that meant the AI rarely realised when it was at a disadvantage.
Various mods improve this amongst other balancing issues.

------------------
A separate suggestion I'd like to see would be Diplomacy level gifting of units between Allies. This would have interesting game-play effects & could enable Allies to be actually useful.

[Monk]

A separate suggestion I'd like to see would be Diplomacy level gifting of units between Allies. This would have interesting game-play effects & could enable Allies to be .

Victoria allowed something just like that, and it provided a really interesting way to boost an ally's chances. Of course, half the time they'd totally mismanage your resources - but i always loved the idea of giving troops to other nations and having them gain experience to return home as veterens, ready to fight for you.

If there was a way to instantly recall such gifts, (say because someone declared war on you while your units were gifted. Perhaps impose turn limits on their reappearance to simulate them journeying home) and have them return to your capital? That'd be a great addition to the diplomatic model. Provided the AI could handle it of course.

[hoom]

I seem to have failed to finish the sentence
Should have ended "actually useful".

Agree on them being returned under certain circumstances, that'd be an important aspect

[Seyavash]

I always thought the 3d map was an improvement and each CA game has made it better. It allows for a more in depth campaign within each region that simply adding more regions cannot do so I hope they continue to move forward on this.

However STW had the best atmosphere of all of the game so I hope this will be just as immersive.

One thing I would like to see return is the army formations. I know I can set up my own but I always enjoyed playing around with the preset formations.

[hoom]

However STW had the best atmosphere of all of the game so I hope this will be just as immersive.

And part of that immersion is the subtle hints that the campaign map is a piece of paper on the floor of your campaigning tent, covered with tokens indicating friendly & enemy forces and that you're the Daimyo sitting there puzzling your options before sending off messengers to deliver your orders by pushing 'end turn'.

The Rome type map doesn't really give that sort of immersion in implementations so-far.
Its not impossible to do though, you get some hints of it in Empire & the beta for R.U.S.E. (WWII RTS) had a wider than strictly necessary max zoom out which showed the map as sitting in the middle of a command bunker (think Battle of Britain) with people sitting around it all WWII style & bits of command style background noises coming more prominent as you zoom out.
At full zoom in R.U.S.E. goes about as close as you get in Shogun/Medieval but you spend most of the time about the same zoom as you do in the Rome type 3D map.

[InsaneApache]

I know that there's no chance but a bloody battlefield was a great atmospheric trait. Real red blood. Everywhere. It just made the whole battle seem, I dunno, worthwhile in a twisted sort of way.

[antisocialmunky]

Korea/Asia Expansion. I would honestly buy it if it doesn't come out in mod form first.

[Swoosh So]

A multiplayer foyer for chat! i like napoleon totalwar but cant get into it at all due to the lack of a foyer.

[Beskar]

Victoria allowed something just like that, and it provided a really interesting way to boost an ally's chances. Of course, half the time they'd totally mismanage your resources - but i always loved the idea of giving troops to other nations and having them gain experience to return home as veterens, ready to fight for you.

If there was a way to instantly recall such gifts, (say because someone declared war on you while your units were gifted. Perhaps impose turn limits on their reappearance to simulate them journeying home) and have them return to your capital? That'd be a great addition to the diplomatic model. Provided the AI could handle it of course.

They should do it so you loan a general with the units, similar to the Crusade system which the computer would use (and you would use when you recieved some).

It should also affect relations if you just kamakazi with another players units as well, and other factors.

[Yoshitsune]

I would love a campaign that starts in the 12th century "Horse and Bow" era and allows the player to progress right up to the 16th/17th Centuries. Could also include the Yuan/Mongol invasions of the 13th Century...

And please NO risk-like strategic map - that was my biggest peeve with the original. Japan is a rugged, mountainous country and armies were usually confined to roads for a reason

Oh and YAH!

[Prince Cobra]

A really good AI on the battlefield and on the campaign map. That's it.

[bobbin]

Little concerned about the engine, are they going to use the empire engine if so how are they going to make that work. And if there making a new engine I hope they can make it stable enough with the first instalment , not having the expansion deliver what the first one should have.

They will most likely use the Empire one as it will follow their established pattern of getting two games out of each engine.

[General Malaise]

I haven't posted here in forever, mostly because I stopped following TW after Medieval 1, but I saw they were re-making STW recently so I popped on back.

Anyway, one thing I'd like to see is this time around to have the Yari Ashigaru carry nagae yari (longspears) and function as pikeman/phalanx and the yari samurai carry the shorter version and function more as elite spearmen. That's always bothered me from the first one, where yari ashigaru were just cheap junk troops (until they become cheap overpowered units in MP later, heh) when historically they had their own tactical role on the battlefield.

Although this brings up another point which concerns me now, as I saw they claimed to be making 30-40 units (which will no doubt increase with the obligatory expansion). Give the japanese only really used about 10 weapons at the time period tops I'm not seeing how they are getting that number. There's the long and short yari, nodachi which were rare, katanas which were not carried alone but with another weapon, teppo which *could* be split into arquebus/musket again, naginata, nagamaki which were also not common, and daikyu and hankyu (yumi, bows) which too were not carried alone. For instance cavalry often carried a bow and a spear.

I'm really only seeing a way to get about 8 distinct unit types here:
Yari Ashigaru (longspear, nagae yari)
Teppo Ashigaru (arquebus, teppo)
Yari Samurai (shortspear, yari)
Nodachi Samurai (longsword, odachi)
Naginata Samurai (naginata)
Yumi Samurai (longbow, daikyu & katana)
"Light Cavalry" (shortbow, hankyu & shortspear, yari)
"Heavy Cavalry" (nagamaki or long tachi sword maybe)

...all of which is a long, round-a-bout way of saying what I definitely do *not* want to see, and that's more fantasy BS units like battlefield ninja and kensei. Better it would be to take those 8 basic types and have them have slightly different stats based on training in different martial arts schools and slight variations in weapon/armor style (like fork yaris vs straight yaris) by region. Given this stuff about "hero units" though I suspect we're going to be getting hokum. Hopefully then, which is another thing I *do* want to see, it will at least be easily moddable this time around.

[Kagemusha]

I haven't posted here in forever, mostly because I stopped following TW after Medieval 1, but I saw they were re-making STW recently so I popped on back.

Anyway, one thing I'd like to see is this time around to have the Yari Ashigaru carry nagae yari (longspears) and function as pikeman/phalanx and the yari samurai carry the shorter version and function more as elite spearmen. That's always bothered me from the first one, where yari ashigaru were just cheap junk troops (until they become cheap overpowered units in MP later, heh) when historically they had their own tactical role on the battlefield.

Although this brings up another point which concerns me now, as I saw they claimed to be making 30-40 units (which will no doubt increase with the obligatory expansion). Give the japanese only really used about 10 weapons at the time period tops I'm not seeing how they are getting that number. There's the long and short yari, nodachi which were rare, katanas which were not carried alone but with another weapon, teppo which *could* be split into arquebus/musket again, naginata, nagamaki which were also not common, and daikyu and hankyu (yumi, bows) which too were not carried alone. For instance cavalry often carried a bow and a spear.

I'm really only seeing a way to get about 8 distinct unit types here:
Yari Ashigaru (longspear, nagae yari)
Teppo Ashigaru (arquebus, teppo)
Yari Samurai (shortspear, yari)
Nodachi Samurai (longsword, odachi)
Naginata Samurai (naginata)
Yumi Samurai (longbow, daikyu & katana)
"Light Cavalry" (shortbow, hankyu & shortspear, yari)
"Heavy Cavalry" (nagamaki or long tachi sword maybe)

...all of which is a long, round-a-bout way of saying what I definitely do *not* want to see, and that's more fantasy BS units like battlefield ninja and kensei. Better it would be to take those 8 basic types and have them have slightly different stats based on training in different martial arts schools and slight variations in weapon/armor style (like fork yaris vs straight yaris) by region. Given this stuff about "hero units" though I suspect we're going to be getting hokum. Hopefully then, which is another thing I *do* want to see, it will at least be easily moddable this time around.

You could add Yumi Ashigaru there as well as Ashigaru bowmen became more and more widespread from very early on. Some say that it was infact the grouped Ashigaru bowmen that made the mounted samurai more or less to change their weapon of choice from Yumi to Yari. During the latter part of the era, mixed Ashigaru units pretty much were the mainstay of armies. You had teppo Ashigarus, supported by Yumi Ashigaru´s when they were reloading, while Yari Ashigaru´s would protect both from mounted and enemy foot soldiers. Or the first two would give support fire, while the spearmen would engage in hand to hand fighting. Also during the latter part of the era many Kachi/ Samurai carried Teppo´s as some Daimyos even wanted that most if not all men should carry firearms, while discarding most other weapons.

[Sp00n]

Totomi, a multiplayer public chat room.

The Battle Field birds.

[caravel]

The Battle Field birds.

I doubt they'll have quite the same charm as the simple origami birds of STW.

[A Nerd]

Perhaps if birds would roost on the fallen to be startled away when units approached, that might carry some appeal and reveal the charm of the origninal? Or would that be a little to morbid? A nice touch to the 'settling down' affect after a battle has been fought.

[Peasant Phill]

I would like to see:

More tactical depth and a BAI that can handle that:
- weather effects with noticeable effects on weapons, fatigue, field of vision, ...
- interesting battlefields that are more than a few rolling hills and a tree here and there like in ETW

Strategical depth and the SAI that can handle that:
- AI armies avoiding battles on unfavorable terrain and defending on choke points
- allied armies that actually join forces and fight together

It seems to me that most of my battles in ETW are very similar and thus not as memorable this in contrast to a lot of battles in MTW (I joined the TW train just after STW)

[General Malaise]

You could add Yumi Ashigaru there as well as Ashigaru bowmen became more and more widespread from very early on. Some say that it was infact the grouped Ashigaru bowmen that made the mounted samurai more or less to change their weapon of choice from Yumi to Yari. During the latter part of the era, mixed Ashigaru units pretty much were the mainstay of armies. You had teppo Ashigarus, supported by Yumi Ashigaru´s when they were reloading, while Yari Ashigaru´s would protect both from mounted and enemy foot soldiers. Or the first two would give support fire, while the spearmen would engage in hand to hand fighting. Also during the latter part of the era many Kachi/ Samurai carried Teppo´s as some Daimyos even wanted that most if not all men should carry firearms, while discarding most other weapons.

True, but the point is more that they'd all just be variations on the same basic thing since there were few weapon types in common use, particularly because you're looking at one culture here. One way I could see them realistically doing unit variation that would still retain a tactical "tightness" is to split units up by "caste" or "class". So you'd have your conscript ashigaru, retainer samurai, and temple-affililated sohei. That'd give something like: (nagae) yari ashigaru, teppo ashigaru, yumi ashigaru (with katana or other sword for melee) and naginata ashigaru. Then mounted and unmounted versions of essentially the same for samurai, except switching out teppo for nodachi/odachi and then again for sohei (except maybe with a kanabo in place of nodachi this time). Still, that's only about 20 units total, and that's treating mounted and unmounted units as different types rather than just letting mounted units dismount. They said about 40 units total and there's bound to be more with DLCs and expansions. So, whereas others seem to be complaining about the lack of "scope" I'm much more hesitant about pointless bloat.

[Kagemusha]

True, but the point is more that they'd all just be variations on the same basic thing since there were few weapon types in common use, particularly because you're looking at one culture here. One way I could see them realistically doing unit variation that would still retain a tactical "tightness" is to split units up by "caste" or "class". So you'd have your conscript ashigaru, retainer samurai, and temple-affililated sohei. That'd give something like: (nagae) yari ashigaru, teppo ashigaru, yumi ashigaru (with katana or other sword for melee) and naginata ashigaru. Then mounted and unmounted versions of essentially the same for samurai, except switching out teppo for nodachi/odachi and then again for sohei (except maybe with a kanabo in place of nodachi this time). Still, that's only about 20 units total, and that's treating mounted and unmounted units as different types rather than just letting mounted units dismount. They said about 40 units total and there's bound to be more with DLCs and expansions. So, whereas others seem to be complaining about the lack of "scope" I'm much more hesitant about pointless bloat.

I completely agree that more then 20 units per faction would mean entering the realm of fantasy.