Shogun II Total War

[caravel]

I really think the size of the map and the tech tree were the main problem with medieval. I started playing a campaign as the welsh in the viking campaign and it's working out very well. Without the giant map and the endless tech tree, the focus is on fighting and conquering.

Played about 45 turns (11 years shogun time). Just have the scots, picts, irish and vikings left (though they seem to have faded after I killed three of their heirs in one battle). One improvement over shogun is that I don't have a massively superior army yet (no monks or heavy cav type troops). Though that just might be because I don't know the tech tree

The Viking campaign is a better map with less redundant units, but the rosters are still very imbalanced and income is messed up due to the abbeys. The Vikings, Mercians, Northumbrians and Saxons get super vikings that can kill pretty much anything even when well outnumbered. Apart from that it's a good campaign and is well worth the effort modding - unlike the main campaign which isn't really worth it.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The Vikings, Mercians, Northumbrians and Saxons get super vikings that can kill pretty much anything even when well outnumbered.

Yes, Saxons, Vikings and to a lesser extent the Mercians are too easy to play with due to the Huscarles they get. Way overpowered, especially the Viking ones as they act as Bodyguards and benefit from relative v'n'vs.

The Viking Invasion had more focus and was more balanced than the main game.

Certain game mechanics detract from the strategic purity of Shogun however, like the influence mechanic which is a killer for the AI. Often he attempts to conquer provinces however he retreats when he thinks that he cannot hold them; this in STW does not have any disadvantage, but do it enough times in MTW and it can land you with a civil war pretty easily. The AI does not seem to count the consequences of his actions in terms of influence.

Originally posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I really think the size of the map and the tech tree were the main problem with medieval.

I am not so sure about the size of teh map (it had about 30 more provinces - 1/3 approx. more - than STW iirc to accomodate more than double the factions in STW which sounds about right), but the tech tree was definitely a factor.

Basically all CA could do with that engine is to give out more buildings and dependencies between them as unlocking requirements, however the AI was not really fine-tuned in what buildings he needed to get the "useful" units of his roster.

At the same time he would spent fortunes on building up especially so for certain AI personalities (like Catholic_Trader that was assigned to the Italians predictably) neglecting to even build adequate garrisons in his provinces. The "complexity" served to give the impression of complexity to the player, and not to add depth to the game as CA was clearly indifferent as to how well the AI could use/cope with all these optons.

In this way he was acting basically as a piggy bank for the player who could benefit either by razing or by conquering and using his ex-build up provinces. Again the manual pillaging option acted as an AI exlpoit and one that CA was keen on, as it was even mentioned as a "strategy" in teh MTW manual.

In addition the long campaign and the weapon/armor/morale upgades forced CA to make late era units far more powerful than early era units, introducing redundancies because the early era units were not substituted, but left floating about as possible builds, and also making the playerVSAI stack composition difference even larger as teh AI was not really competent in getting the new units without tweaking/fine tuning with the rosters, the AI preferences and teh build requirements.

In that sense MTW is like an overweight cousin of STW - CA really stuffed the engine with a multitude of features to give "depth" in the campaign - however in reality all they added was complexity and little games within the game (that the AI can't cope with) that added value to the game for SP fans that liked a Civilazation type of SP game rather than an old school well thought out and strategically challenging board game which is what STW was.

CA made no effort to hide it as they often said that "players who dont want to play the battles can lpay the campaign only". This was the beginning of a long series of compromising moves and alteration of focus from an intense and dynamic conquest oriented game that had the battles at is core to an overbloated hybrid of TW and Civilisation that was won or lost on the campaign map.

The trend culminated with Rome that was almost a re-birth, and TW has never been the same since. Although they will call all this "broadening the appeal", "taking the next step", "improving across the board" etc in actuality what they did was sell-out in cold blood, as they moved where the (commercial) wind was blowing insted of forging a following by following their own rules, gameplay and aesthetically wise, that they had set with STW.

MTW has however a perfected battle engine, by 2.01 there was no (significant) bug left as far as i know, and all intended features are working as such.

[caravel]

Yes, Saxons, Vikings and to a lesser extent the Mercians are too easy to play with due to the Huscarles they get. Way overpowered, especially the Viking ones as they act as Bodyguards and benefit from relative v'n'vs.

The Mercians - in the sky blue? They are by far the easiest faction in the VI campaign. Stupendously easy in fact.

Certain game mechanics detract from the strategic purity of Shogun however, like the influence mechanic which is a killer for the AI. Often he attempts to conquer provinces however he retreats when he thinks that he cannot hold them; this in STW does not have any disadvantage, but do it enough times in MTW and it can land you with a civil war pretty easily. The AI does not seem to count the consequences of his actions in terms of influence.

The influence mechanic is what made me throw down MTW in disgust when I first bought it. The idea of fighting a battle winning a good tactical victory and then withdrawing but losing influence and the loyalty of generals for doing so is absurd. IMHO it was removed from RTW, because it would have been too difficult to get working correctly with the new campaign map design (many more non decisive battles being fought etc) and would have hit the AI hard.

I am not so sure about the size of teh map (it had about 30 more provinces - 1/3 approx. more - than STW iirc to accomodate more than double the factions in STW which sounds about right), but the tech tree was definitely a factor.

The pixel/province size of the map is not the issue, but more so the scale that the map seeks to represent. I don't see a problem with a bigger map and more provinces, the issue is when that map is a "world map" and those province become "countries".

The 1 year per turn is another game breaker - STW's 4 seasons per turn is the best model.

Personally I think, and though I know many will disagree, that it started to go wrong in the MI expansion. MI is enjoyable to play but some of the changes were unnecessary as were the "novelty" units such as Kensai and Battlefield Ninja... but it added many improvements also and removed a lot of annoyances. It seems to me though that MI gave us a small inlking of what was to come (retrospect is a fine thing).

If STW was re made on the latest generation TW engine it is my (very negative) feeling that due to deviation away from the original STW style campaign map and the MTW battles... well that it'd be a load of rubbish.



-Edit: Another big exploit in MTW was the capturing of enemy troops thing. The AI could not execute on the battelfield so you were always offered your men back. The player on the other hand could choose to kill the AI's best captured units on the battlefield or ransom back all of his peasants etc, forcing him to pay for them and support them - thus not being able to train new ones. To make matters worse the AI cannot disband/destroy either. In a nutshell the features in MTW give the player new toys, but the AI is still playing the same game it was playing back in STW.

[gollum]

Orginally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The Mercians - in the sky blue? They are by far the easiest faction in the VI campaign. Stupendously easy in fact.

Easier than the Vikings? I'm glad i never gave them a try then. I based my assessment from their initial position that seems to be between the rock of the Saxons and the hard place of the Vikings, but then again, i can picture it; the Vikings raid the rebels in East Anglia and the Saxons are taken out in 10 turns = game over

I didn't confuse them with the Scotts (or was it the Picts) up north in their navy blue that are far more challenging, i meant them, the sky blue good old southern Mercians.

The influence mechanic is what made me throw down MTW in disgust when I first bought it. The idea of fighting a battle winning a good tactical victory and then withdrawing but losing influence and the loyalty of generals for doing so is absurd. IMHO it was removed from RTW, because it would have been too difficult to get working correctly with the new campaign map design (many more non decisive battles being fought etc) and would have hit the AI hard.

Indeed. They actually re-introduced loaylty in BI (roman factions only), but i am absolutely certain that territories lost have no effect whatsoever on it.

The pixel/province size of the map is not the issue, but more so the scale that the map seeks to represent. I don't see a problem with a bigger map and more provinces, the issue is when that map is a "world map" and those province become "countries".

Agreed on the representation - its the wrong scale. However although implausible it doesnt hinder gameplay directly. Dont get me wrong, i dislike it too.

If STW was re made on the latest generation TW engine it is my (very negative) feeling that due to deviation away from the original STW style campaign map and the MTW battles... well that it'd be a load of rubbish.

I dont think that anyone who loves STW needs to worry - CA wont touch it again - they are most likely on to Rome2 as we speak which is the right commercial move.

[caravel]

Easier than the Vikings? I'm glad i never gave them a try then. I based my assessment from their initial position that seems to be between the rock of the Saxons and the hard place of the Vikings, but then again, i can picture it; the Vikings raid the rebels in East Anglia and the Saxons are taken out in 10 turns = game over

The Mercians are close enough to the Saxon as to place you in a position where you can a) curb their expansion and b) get to them before they start training huscarles. It's then simply a case of chewing your way north and crossing to ireland and you're done. The Vikings aren't really a threat if you get your navy up and running fast. With the richest lands on the map the Mercians have no trouble with this either.

I dont think that anyone who loves STW needs to worry - CA wont touch it again - they are most likely on to Rome2 as we speak which is the right commercial move.

Most likely.

[Yesugey]

The thing amazed us in STW is the athmosphere.

Did you guys read the STW Html manual? ts not a game manual, its like a history book taking you to these ages. The guys created STW are knows everything about Sengoku Jidai age, made lots of researches, not as a job but as a fanatics.

I see the same spirit in MTW as well, but after RTW, things get changed, become professional which kills the spirit.

Only changing everyone's voices to English is a huge gap on TW spirit...

So there is a danger in creating S2TW, it would be like M2TW. I cant stand to see Samurai talking in English.

[Wishazu]

I seriously doubt it is ever going to happen, so don`t fret over it.

[G. Septimus]

Well, I never played STW before, and maybe I never will. Cause my Likeness to the Samurai are gone, and Japan is too small to be a campaign. Japan is a Nation with unending Conflict. and has never had a unified Shogun (until the Meiji Restoration, where the emperor rules all)and when is there a Shogun, there is War

[ReluctantSamurai]

and Japan is too small to be a campaign.

Not sure what you mean by that.....compared to maps later in the TW series it may look like Japan's too small to conduct a campaign, but I welcome you to try it before passing such a verdict. I think you'll find that STW will give you all that you can handle and more............

[Rahwana]

Maybe I'll consider to bought it if it was relased, but I hope that Shogun will be modelled more like battle realms

[Wasp]

I don't know if a new STW is the right thing to do. At the moment, I only have half a computer left which can actually play it, so mostly I rely on good memories from the game and the powerful Uesugi clan. Yet if they make a new one, it'll probably be in the same vein as RTW, MTW2 and ETW and that's just not my cup of tea (or sake). I just don't see that work, really.

[Thermal]

This topic has age but I thought I'd add, for rome BOA (Battles of asia) received a campaign map from someone and they incorporated it with the mod, so its the japanese battles and campaign, pretty much shogun 2 in itself.

I really anticipated Ran no Jidai, but if they don't add a campaign map I can't see me downloading it.

[A Nerd]

The BOA mod is quite entertaining. I have it installed in my computer. I had lots of fun till it crashed. Probably random but I haven't tried it again. Though I prefer the campaign map of STW vs. BOA, perhaps just for the fond memories. The campaign map in BOA seems a little desolate, there is little going on outside of the cities. Old STW seemed to be alive with armies and field battles, not to mention sieges after a battle was won or lost.

[caravel]

The problem with the RTW engine is not just the poor battle AI, but also the attrocious campaign map AI and diplomacy. This also effects any mods or games based on RTW. The game consists mainly of either endless sieges or pointless field battles that have no real tactical value. In STW every battle was important as you were fighting for the province.

Personally I think that in order to be a success, a "Shogun 2" would have to be taken on by another developer that would be prepared to return to the risk style map of the earlier games.

[Kagemusha]

To me the current totalwar engine is just not capable of challenging AI. If there would be a game that would combine the totalwar battle engine, with something aking to EU III strategic game.I would be in heaven. It is simple fact that ever since the strategy map turned into what RTW introduced.The AI has not been able to handle a coordinated attack or defence against the human player.

[A Nerd]

I agree. Too bad there isn't some way to 'tile' the current campaign map of TW games. So you don't move along those meandering lines but rather along certain tiles that could be countered by the player or ai similar to the provinces in STW and MTW. Just a vague and illinformed suggestion.

edit: Tiles being conducive to the map, ie. restricted by terrain. Impassible mountains, rivers, towns, forts, armies and other like obstacles. Perhaps even figure out a way to measure tile movement to allow for realistic army movments based on perhaps supplies, general or captain attributes and weather. These vague suggestions might make it more chess-like while maintaining the look and feel of the current, more expansive campaign maps.

[caravel]

To me the current totalwar engine is just not capable of challenging AI. If there would be a game that would combine the totalwar battle engine, with something aking to EU III strategic game.I would be in heaven. It is simple fact that ever since the strategy map turned into what RTW introduced.The AI has not been able to handle a coordinated attack or defence against the human player.

Precisely how it should have been, but CA went all "movement points". This was the worst decision as though in theory the map allows for unrestricted movement (well almost unrestricted if you count walking the giants along the roads as unrestricted), it introduces a whole new game that the AI cannot handle. With the risk map this was a whole layer of AI that the developer didn't actually have to worry about. in fact leaving the risk map in place and concentrating on the battles and diplomacy would have been a smarter move. Unfortunately CA went for what was essentially the "marketing approach".

I agree. Too bad there isn't some way to 'tile' the current campaign map of TW games. So you don't move along those meandering lines but rather along certain tiles that could be countered by the player or ai similar to the provinces in STW and MTW. Just a vague and illinformed suggestion.

I know what you mean, but in all honesty the AI still wouldn't be able to handle it. We've all seen those RTS basebuilding games, where the pixies are fighting the trolls? The trolls build away like mad, as do the pixies, until their infrastructure is in place, then they start training more trolls and better trolls with upgrades etc. Then once there are about 10 trolls standing around in the "muster area" in the troll base, the trolls all rush off to the pixie camp, kill the lot and raze it to the ground. It's a very simple AI, and unfortunately that's the sort of AI that is controlling army stacks (and ships) in RTW/M2TW. It builds an army and simply sends it off to besiege a nearby settlement. Same as the pixies and trolls - just turn based.

STW/MTW are different because an army stack makes one move (like chess) and a good balanced AI can make the most of that one move. It's simple enough for the AI to handle and the AI can decide there and then if it has a chance of taking province X instead of dumbly sending out hordes of fragmented armies on suicide missions that are easily isolated and picked off by the human player.

The only time I found RTW remotely challenging was when the campaign difficulty was ramped up and the AI mindlessly spams army stacks at you, non stop - but that's not the kind of "challenging" I like.

[A Nerd]

Perhaps cities as the trigger to cause a province to go from one faction to another should be scrapped. I always did like the way in older TW's where the armies first met on the field and the loser would retreat to the nearest castle (or city?) to weather a siege and then the province was taken. The problem is that the AI doesn't know how to properly defend or attack. In the past it seemed to recognize in a bordering province, at least the size of the enemy army. It would then make its move and attack. On defense, it sometimes lacked, usually only mounting good defensive armies when in the beginning, with few provinces, in the end, with few provinces, or when it was quite large and generally only had one front to defend. It seemed not to dicern between wealthy valuable provinces and the poorer ones. Developing strange things in strange places even when it had the money. Though I ramble. As far as updating, perhaps provinces should be taken when armies are destroyed. Primarily on the field, and remnants can retreat to castles or such. If the army is taken on the field with no surviors, despite the city the province should be taken. Some rigid form of movement is necessary to allow the AI ease of movement. Paths must be in straigt lines no longer round about. The AI seems to think better in terms of mathematics versus philosophy. The reason for garrisons has always primarially to improve to a degree the chance of rebellion. Why does that army need to be in the city to accomplish this? The advanced diplomacy, build tree and the like should accomplish that. I think the AI need to forcebly be placed on the feild and stop hiding behind the walls. I am now at a loss, I'm not going to proof read this so I hope it makes some sense. Though ways to make new TW like the old is indeed an entertaining topic.

[caravel]

The reason for garrisons has always primarially to improve to a degree the chance of rebellion. Why does that army need to be in the city to accomplish this?

That's one of the fundamental flaws of the newer TW games. You can have a 1000 men traipsing around the province, but if they're not actually inside the walls of the settlement, the place can rebel and the enemy can walk into your lands unhindered and take up residence.

This, and may of the reasons above, is why I personally would not want to see an S2TW. CA will not go back to the risk map now as they would lose more sales by doing so. Most of the current consumerbase prefer the new map. I also don't think CA will do S2TW because it would be moving away from the "Europe and North American centric" setting of the latest games. There is also the fact that the map would be considered "too small" and factions too alike in terms of unit rosters, etc. (etc, etc, etc)

[A Nerd]

I agree. The fact that STW is considered such a classic by many TW fans and the fact that many people haven't been as pleased by everything that followed MTW, especially the old-timers who have been playing since STW, STW2 would probably be very bad. Especially when compared to STW. Some would probably feel that they got a M2TW based in Japan. I've heared people talking about a far east TW that included Japan, China, Mongolia and Korea, but that, like you said, would move away from Europe, not to mention away from the gunpowder and naval battles that has been developing thru ETW to NTW (thru all the patches and onward). Hence, us purists can dream about STW2 but until some campaign map flaws and the poor way in which the AI reacts to them are somehow fixed and/or changed STW2 would probably be rather poorly received. That doesn't even touch upon all the complaints the battlefield AI has received. Though personally, I have never been too upset with that AI, though it does seem to get alittle confused from time to time. It can't seem to decide a strategy. It runs around seemeing planning a text book counter as the human player continually evolves it tactic to make the win. Hence, the AI runs around stupidly. My observation anyway, I tend not to be the best strategest either though.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I tend to think STWII will never be done, and perhaps, given recent trends, this is for the best. CA will want an era where they can use their naval AI, and feudal Japan/China doesn't have much to offer in that respect.

I rather like the RTW-style map, but I also understand the problems it creates for the AI. If one reads through some of the early playtesting done, a lot of the problems stem from pathfinding problems more than anything else. I also think that if the designers hadn't ignored one of the basic 'rules of engagement' for international diplomacy, some things could have been a little better. Imagine if any country in the world sends a military force traipsing through another country uninvited and that doesn't result in an ugly DOW? What were they thinking???

Much of the 'siege mentality' could have been avoided if some other basic 'rules of engagement' were observed. A minimum size force should have been required to siege a particular sized city....the larger the city, the larger the force required. And a port city will require it's port to be blockaded in order for the garrison to take losses. Otherwise a direct assault is required, as the garrison cannot be starved out.

I recall the first time I saw the Scipii siege Syracuse (a walled city) with a general, 2 Hastati, and 2 Velite, and take it by direct assault after 3 or 4 turns. Didn't anyone play-testing this find that just a bit too much bending of reality?

If a provinces resources had been put outside the city (like the farmlands), then a siege isn't necessary to cripple a province, and eventually the garrison will have to come and attempt to drive off the occupying army or continue to suffer the loss of resources.

As has been posted before, too much emphasis was placed on roads. Nearly all combat occurs on, or near roads which might be more true for modern warfare because of the need to supply large armies with ammo and fuel, but not for the live-off-the-land type of movement for that era.

One often overlooked change for the worse, IMHO, was the change to two seasons per calender year from four and the paying of taxes and income every turn instead of every year. Not only does this make the movement of armies highly unrealistic( for instance, it does not take 2-3 years to march an army from say, Mazaka to Pergamum), it allows for much too rapid building of infrastructure, as opposed to something more carefully planned if you get income once per year.

Anyways....I've rambled too long on a subject that is probably moot.......

[A Nerd]

I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more! The game does move too quickly and the movement on the 3D maps tends to be unrealistic. More turns per year and building times depending on the complexity of building use and construction would definately be a plus. It seems that spaces between points on the map, mainly cities, are rather equal to one another despite distances perhaps represented in real life. Perhaps this is because the developers wanted a uniform map to fit the game and decreasing map distances make things more uniform and accessable. Perhaps fewer major cities or smaller less important cities are needed to conquer a region? In other words, conquer smaller cites in a large province where a large city is the focal point of conquering the province on the move to take said region. Not cities like in ETW and NTW where taking them only results in a financial hit, but rather strategic positions of both economic and military importance. Move times might seem shorter (or longer ?) but a more asymetical map might provide more realism to movement and region conquering. A different time scale would help development based on tax collection as well. Though I too ramble, hopfully this jumble of words makes some sense or provides some interest in which to read.

[Kagemusha]

I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more! The game does move too quickly and the movement on the 3D maps tends to be unrealistic. More turns per year and building times depending on the complexity of building use and construction would definately be a plus. It seems that spaces between points on the map, mainly cities, are rather equal to one another despite distances perhaps represented in real life. Perhaps this is because the developers wanted a uniform map to fit the game and decreasing map distances make things more uniform and accessable. Perhaps fewer major cities or smaller less important cities are needed to conquer a region? In other words, conquer smaller cites in a large province where a large city is the focal point of conquering the province on the move to take said region. Not cities like in ETW and NTW where taking them only results in a financial hit, but rather strategic positions of both economic and military importance. Move times might seem shorter (or longer ?) but a more asymetical map might provide more realism to movement and region conquering. A different time scale would help development based on tax collection as well. Though I too ramble, hopfully this jumble of words makes some sense or provides some interest in which to read.

There is potential for such map in Sengoku period Japan. The provinces of STW in reality were made of sometimes more then 20 or so districts, which each usually consisted of atleast one or more Yamashiro´s. Ofcourse there were also provinces with only two or three districts.So a huge map could be done of feodal Japan if there would be an interest.

[A Nerd]

That would be great as long as the AI didn't camp in the cities and rather moved around with field armies for aggressive expansion like in STW. I enjoyed M2TW but the late campaign was full of auto resolves because I got tired of sieging citadels with full stack garrisons after awhile. It would be a shame if the magic of original STW fell to this low standard.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more!

I have plenty of ideas for RTW, none of which actually matter, both because I lack the programming skills, and because some would require the game code.

[A Nerd]

They may not bear fruit but still provide for stimulating conversation!

[ReluctantSamurai]

Alright, to perhaps generate a little bit of discussion, I’ll put out a few of my ideas. And so as not to raise the eyebrows of the mods, my ideas will address a 3D-style map like RTW/M2TW as it might pertain to a Shogun II, rather than how it is handled in those games….so bear with. Also, some of these might have been implemented since RTW....I haven't played anything past that. M2TW was on my HD for about a week before I got rid of it. Won't buy ETW or NTW, but that's a whole different story.............

First order of business would be to restore the seasonal turns. This has the effect of making unit movement across the map more realistic. I would also restore the original concept of income from farming and taxes coming only at harvest time, but other commodities can present income during other seasons, as will be explained.

Next would be to observe some basic rules of engagement that were totally ignored in RTW and M2TW.

1. Any faction, player or AI, that moves an army into another, non-allied, faction’s territory, is immediately at war with that faction. In addition, the offending army must come to a stop and can then continue its’ movement next turn. This means no short-cuts or aimless wandering, and applies to armies that are forced to retreat from combat.

2. Any defending army that is attacked by an army with more mobility (and the AI is already keeping track of this in it’s movement calculations for units) cannot retreat and must fight. This puts a stop to those foolish scenes of a rebel army continually backing up two steps and forcing the AI-led army to keep attacking them ad-nausea. The exception might be where terrain such as forest, for instance, favors disengagement. In that case, a dice roll is made to see if the defenders can retreat.

3. All units, naval or land, must observe enemy or neutral Zones of Control. Any retreating unit that cannot avoid ZOC or obstacles like impassable mountains or rivers, is destroyed.

Provinces and Cities

1. Provincial resources are kept outside the city, so that an invading army can deprive a faction of those resources without having to besiege a city. For every turn an invading army occupies, there is a 16.5% loss of income from those resources. After 6 turns, the occupied province no longer provides those resources to its owner. The occupying army must be driven off to regain control of those resources again. Note that the resources are not reallocated to the invading faction, they are just rendered unavailable to the original owner. This type of system might go a long ways towards eliminating many of the annoying sieges that have occurred before because it isn’t necessary to take a provincial city to damage an opponent, and eventually the city garrison will have to come out and fight to regain the resources.

2. Certain sized cities require a minimum sized army to besiege. Small towns might require smaller forces than, say, a huge, walled city which might require 20 units or more to besiege. Any city with a port, must be taken by assault if the port is not blockaded, as the defending garrison cannot be starved out and they do not suffer attrition.

Traits

This is one pain in the butt, AFAIAK, for RTW, etc. For god’s sake how many gay, axe-bitten, abstemtious, hooting drunkards, with falling sickness, who are hiding from the world while they partake in their ‘flutters’, can a player have? Honestly, how many traits could you say defines a person? Surely not the extensive list of lecherous, corrupt, downright miserly bunch of crap laid out for us in these games. If I had to devise as system it might look something like this:

1. Upon coming of age, a family member will have 3-4 traits, depending on faction and heritage. A ‘type A’ or ‘type B’ personality that goes towards determining whether that member is more inclined to field generalship or city government. A player can certainly make whatever they will with a family member, but the initial inclinations will be easier to work with. Religious inclinations (or anti-) usually has a major influence in teens, as does attitude toward money and wealth. Are they more likely to blow their money on ‘wine, women, and song’ or save for future prospects? Attitudes towards women would also be a trait that often defines a teen. Will they make a good husband and more likely to settle and raise a family, or just the playboy type?

2. Other traits will be picked up, with time, and whether they be good/bad/neutral depends on the success’s or failure’s of that individual, up to a maximum of 8 traits.

3. Ancillaries should be able to be discarded, rather than have unwanted ones foisted upon the player. Nothing worse than having a city governor all set up to control and manage a high-growth populace only to have ‘Grain Merchant’ , “Overseer’ or even worse, both of those, forced into empty ancillary slots.

Open Market

Borrowing an idea from Paradox’s Hearts of Iron, and several other such games, trading between partners is done at an open market. Each year as grain, textiles, timber, ore, and other commodities are brought in, the player goes to a trading screen with trading partners to negotiate prices and set deliveries. The faction leader does the negotiation, so high influence is a must.

1. Roadbuilding and city walls require a great deal of stone, so quarries are important. Population growth will require grain for food, textiles for clothing, and wood and stone for housing, making farms, sheep herding, lumber, and stone necessary. Iron is necessary for creating weapons and making better armor, making iron mines critical for black-smithing. Ship-building will require timber for hulls and masts, and textile for sails.

2. Non-essential items like wines, glass, dyes, etc, can become more important as societies gain affluence.

3. Any province lacking particular resources can trade for them with trading partners, either overland, or port-to-port. Port-to-port trading will require both factions to have at least one fleet in existence.

4. An ally can be contracted to build paved roads or stone walls, if they have that capability, at an agreed upon price.

All these types of things might go a long ways to stop the spamming of useless or insidious fleets, for instance. Each fleet unit costs x-number of timber and y-number of textile to build. If you don’t have it, and can’t afford to trade for it, you, or an AI faction, goes without. Makes for more realistic development, and perhaps more fun, than the tedious bore that it currently is.

Get rid of those ersatz spies…..errrr…. I mean diplomats, and have a diplomacy screen like ETW. Of course if you like having enough sheets to outfit an entire fleet hanging around your capital……be my guest…..

Have an algorithm that determines what units an AI-led faction produces. Say a survey of how many cities (and of what size) a faction owns, how many ports are in existence, etc. Something to help prevent those idiotic situations where a faction is losing city after city for lack of ground forces, yet they continue to churn out one useless new fleet after another while their cities are defenseless.

Anyways…..a long ramble on a topic I’ve thought a lot about. Hope it’s non-specific enough to please the mods, and has something in it for discussion.

[A Nerd]

Great ideas. Your rules of engagement have seem to have been met in ETW as far as I know but I haven't played NTW yet, I assume it's the same. Number 3 however, I don't beleive has. The AI has only retreated from a battle I initiated when he lost said battle and what was left of his army made its way to a safer place. I think it would often meander around unpassable object to a safe spot (often behind my lines into my lightly defended interior much to my dismay!).

Number 1 in provinces and cities is great. In ETW you can attack fiscal nodes and the like in his provice while he camps in the city, but they can just be repaired quite inexpensively while you move on to the next one. What they make him must be quite nill because he seldom sallies to remove you if you sit in one too long (so what's the point of staying there?). He does at times sally to rescue a school though. A 'degredation of control' meter might be nice, ie. hold the contryside and its infrastructure for awhile and take the provice and mabey the city without fighting? Mabey, that's dumb, but just something to mobilize the AI garrison. He would probably be quite content to lose all his money as long as the city was secure.
Number 2 could also vary turns until the city falls depending on army size as well. I don't quite understand what you mean by ports though.

Traits are good. ETW has toned down the number of traits per character as far as I know. I do agree that in RTW and M2TW there were way too many. They were also repetitive and sometimes contradictory as well. Why do all my assassins have 'catimites' following them around?

Open market sounds like a great idea. I love micromanagement and another screen to adjust the detail of the economy would be great. Diplomatic devices and the like being all that controls your economy seem to be a little bland. More micromanagement could possible provide a means in which to make more (or less) based on diplomatic deals and resorces than just a flat rate as controlled by the AI. Perhaps random events could affect finances much like they do in todays fiscal situations.
Number 1 is great. Make resorces more important (strategically and economically) such as to build and expand your empire. Though you might have to watch out for certain factions that don't like you hording materials you may need (like princesses in MTW). Though these resources might make good bartering material and good reasons to go to war. Resouces (in some situations) should be exhaustible.
Number 2, as a city grows more powerful so does some of its citizens become more wealthy making these commodities more valuable and desireable
Number 3, more micromanagement! Specifically tading with someone for items they need would seem to be more profitable than trading them for some items that they do not. Certain factions should be willing or unwilling depending on what the case may be to pay more for certain items. Especially if the populace his a high demand for them, or it is needed like a province that has no good stone and needs to build a wall.
Number 4, great idea! Nice specific way to help out an ally who is poor when he needs to defend himself from an aggressive mutual enemy. Or, overcharge an enemy, bankrupt someone you want to attack, etc. The possiblities of financial warfare are endless with this one.
AI definately need to learn to priorotize and become more efficiently aggressive. He also has to become more devious other than the attack an ally because you share a border routine. He should know how to combine all these methods, military, economic, naval, black arts methods by which to achieve victory conditions even if some would think it ahistorical. The game is TW, the meat and potatos is the combat.
I've always like the TW series. The battles in STW were great, but the diplomacy etc. was lacking. They have been attempting to solve these issues with more micromanagement and the like, better diplomacy, 3D map etc. Though some might complain that with the tediously slow and unimpressive improvement of these issues the battles have slowly started to pale when compared to STW. They should look back at what has worked in the past and stop trying to improve things that don't need it, or add things that are unneccesary or unready for release. A nice meld with these strategy games that lack 3D battles and the flavor of STW combat would make a perfect additon to the TW series in my opinion.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Your rules of engagement have seem to have been met in ETW as far as I know

As I said, I haven't, and won't play anything past RTW unless a better product is produced. As to ZOC, that's been a feature of nearly every wargame I've played since pushing markers around on an Avalon Hill board game.

He would probably be quite content to lose all his money as long as the city was secure.

Loss of provincial income could be tied to unrest. The more income a province loses to an occupying army, the more likely they are to rebel. If the garrison won't go out to fight voluntarily, the people will throw them out to do it.

I don't quite understand what you mean by ports though.

A garrison under siege in a port city takes no losses due to the siege unless the port is blockaded. There was a famous siege by Alexander the Great of the Persian city of Miletus on the Anatolian coast where much of the struggle consisted of Alexander trying to prevent supplies reaching the city by sea from arriving. That's the sort of thing I was referring to.

Perhaps random events could affect finances much like they do in today's fiscal situations.

Excellent idea. Not only poor harvests, but floods, earthquakes, plagues, and the like can affect local prices. Also the presence of rebel or brigand armies can affect the price for local commodities, not just the amount that gets delivered.

Nice specific way to help out an ally who is poor when he needs to defend himself from an aggressive mutual enemy. Or, overcharge an enemy, bankrupt someone you want to attack, etc. The possiblities of financial warfare are endless with this one.

People tend to forget that the major reason for the Japanese to go to war with the US in 1941 was the oil and scrap iron embargo along with the freezing of Japanese financial assets in June of that same year by FDR. And think of all the other examples down through history where financial warfare was just as viable as sending in the troops....

Anyway, I figured a few of those ideas might have come about since RTW, so that's good to hear.

[A Nerd]

I've never really tried the Civilization series, I'd miss the 3D battles of the TW series. That's what got me to but STW way back when in the first place. I saw it in one of those large warehouse stores once, (opted for Delta Force FPS over STW the week before :P), but I bought it, and my first siege was amazing. Watching my first wave of WMs suffer arrow casualties as the approached the gate, I was hooked from then on forward. The Diplomacy since M2TW has been greatly improved. Despite it's flaws, I spent many an entertaining hour managing my empire in ETW. We shouldn't count out CA just yet, I do believe they are making a concious effort to improve the game based on customer request (mods, steam, 'crappy' Battlefield AI :( ) . If they could take a few tips from Civ (without infringing) and perhaps simplify the battles more along the lines of STW, I think the next title might be something others are more satisfied with. Perhaps even you reluctant one :). I'm not trying to be a 'fan boy', but always was realatively satisfied with my purchase, and will probably invest in the next title. It's all about going back to the basics, improving where necessary and not reaching beyond what the game is capeable of. Some philisopichal mathematical coding would also be nice if their team of programmers were up to the task too! :D