Features the EB team wants to see in R2TW

[Tellos Athenaios]

Quite. The latter one tends to be much easier; less hand-wavy black magic and secret voodoo rituals involved you know.

[Krusader]

I doubt it. Modding and programming are different ball-games.

What he said

[Skullheadhq]

Quite. The latter one tends to be much easier; less hand-wavy black magic and secret voodoo rituals involved you know.

Then CA sucks at being wizard

[John the Mad]

Another thing i wouldn't mind CA/Sega doing for the next TW game..trying to find a way that every game doesn't turn into a tedious,repetitive,and un-fun siege fest.

At least in MTW you had a chance to have as many field battles as siege battles.Though unless they increase region sizes,rework the time per turn,and redo the AI so it doesn't use more units for garrison then in the field i don't have much hope.

The constant take the walls/gateway,reorder your troops,enemies fall back on square,enemies become supermen on square(in MTW2 its worse than RTW),1/2 a dozen enemies cause double their number of casulties on square,battle ends 20 minutes after it was actually over..is getting old.

Also allow the defender during a sally to posistion their units.The default postioning is crap to say the least.

[The General]

I want Europa Civilizationis: Total War*, with as little hardcoded stuff as possible. >.>

A working diplomacy system with AIs willing to (and capable of) engage in diplomacy, a multitude of choices and ability to trade/lend/borrow maps/money/units. The ability to both control and own provinces. The ability to move borders (representing the area now taken to control) by winning battles, and, also, to cash in with loot (or re-equip own troops?). The ability change the form of government and make other political decisions affecting your realm. And so on.



(Used the games from the franchies which I've played the most, ie. EUII, Civ3 & EB)

[Cartaphilus]

I just want a game like Empire TW but finished.

[kaptainplanet]

Hello people and 1000 thanks and bravos to the creators or EB.It helped me learn a tone of stuff about my country too, since I am greek.
SO, the thinks I would like to see and come to my mind m\now are 2:

1: sometimes for various reasons you remain with e.g. 2 unites of Phalaggites, at about 40 soldiers one of them, 20 the other one, so pretty much useless. It would be cool if you could merge them in one unit, of 60 soldiers so u can use them. It makes sence, armies could easily reform their units.

2: I would like to be able to create new towns at strategic places. think of that, the uses are limitless. The population would be 0 (or 1, the governor) and you could move people from the other cities, in which case I d like an easier way that creating peasant units and disembanding them again at the new town. Maybe a free unit called settlers? also the option to move population from freshly captured town to the settlements you choose, not disperse to all settlements.
Thank you guys!!!!

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hello people and 1000 thanks and bravos to the creators or EB.It helped me learn a tone of stuff about my country too, since I am greek.
SO, the thinks I would like to see and come to my mind m\now are 2:

1: sometimes for various reasons you remain with e.g. 2 unites of Phalaggites, at about 40 soldiers one of them, 20 the other one, so pretty much useless. It would be cool if you could merge them in one unit, of 60 soldiers so u can use them. It makes sence, armies could easily reform their units.

It's already there, has been for a while too: try drag-dropping a unit card onto another of the same unit type (name)... Or just press Ctrl + M.

[the unique joe]

not sure if it has been mentioned before but these are some ideas i would like to see implemented: supply lines, along with what others have said and intigrating the natural death per turn while on campaign, why not have movement points along with natural death play along the lines with how far you are from the nearest friendly (ally, owned, or even trade rights neutral?) settlement, the longer your supply line the more the elements take their tax on your troops, including movement points, morale, death, desertion, ect.

military aid/borrowing: if you are in good standing with another country who is more powerful than you and someone invades you, you have a good economy but your recruitment tech is sub par, ask for military aid? say borrowing troops, rent a hoplite so to speak. or you dont want to get directly involved in a conflict so your rep doesent go down and you want a side to have the edge, loan them an army, they pay the wages of the troops plus tax.

peaceful annexation: i know kind of defeats the purpose of "total war" but why not have perfect rep with someone and you marry your son into their royal family, when his turn comes around smack damn you just annexed the small kingdom of "genericovia" into your empire, they are happy your happy and nobody (except royalty) dies. you could even be a foul man marry your royal families together and eliminate the other possible rulers in their tree with a few "oh happy dagger"s

[A Very Super Market]

Total war is not a state of constant warfare, but the idea that a nation could invest its entire economy into fighting one. Please, don't mix it up.

[the unique joe]

i know what it is, i was refering to the game itself, there is no way to peacefuly annex a country thus the only way to expand is war. or an incredibly large bribe...

[Azathoth]

Total war is not a state of constant warfare, but the idea that a nation could invest its entire economy into fighting one. Please, don't mix it up.

"a dump for victory..."

[A Very Super Market]

i know what it is, i was refering to the game itself, there is no way to peacefuly annex a country thus the only way to expand is war. or an incredibly large bribe...

How does changing an aspect of the game defeat the purpose of it?

"a dump for victory..."

I.... uh.... don't follow. Is it a quote?

[the unique joe]

[QUOTE=A Very Super Market;2312984]How does changing an aspect of the game defeat the purpose of it? QUOTE]

before you could conquer the world with the edge of a sword, and from my understanding that was the idea of the game. now you would be able to through other means (that is if that idea was added in)

[Azathoth]

I.... uh.... don't follow. Is it a quote?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You've heard the expression "total war"; it's pretty common throughout human
history. Every generation or so, some gasbag likes to spout about how his people
have declared "total war" against an enemy, meaning that
every man, woman, and child within his nation was committing every second of
their lives to victory. That is [BS] on two basic levels. First of all, no country or
group is ever 100 percent committed to war; it's just not physically possible. You
can have a high percentage, so many people working so hard for so long, but all of
the people, all of the time? What about the malingerers, or the conscientious
objectors? What about the sick, the injured, the very old, the very young? What
about when you're sleeping, eating, taking a shower, or taking a dump? Is that a
"dump for victory"?

Yes.

[Ibrahim]

quoting some "famous writer"

that's dead funny.

(mostly because its dead true).

and here's a balloon for using it

and now for sometihng constructive: I would like to see desertion, disease, and natural wastage simulated on an army; not just the morale penalties, but manpower penalties. I also want more flexible options for dealing with captured towns, beyong what RTW and EB have come up, to simulate the full spectrum of ways conquerors dealt with cities.

another thing: we live in the year 2009. its about time these fellows come up with more efficient ways of packing s*** into a smaller space (i.e more features and realism in less memory). 15GB for what is barely considered a beta by my standards? I can't even run it at full speed due to its size, and I have 2GB on XP.

lastly, better diplomatic thinking from the AI