View Full Version : Features the EB team wants to see in R2TW
Despite the fact that there are many mods around that change the gameplay, there are still some gameplay features and hardcoded stuff that cannot be modded in without changing the exe file.
I feel that it will be interesting to hear stuff from the perspective of modders. Would you guys want to see features like being able to push ladders off the wall? Being able to have a region of interception in the campaign map?
Being able to recruit AOR units, that is able to change its AOR region? Meaning you can set up the base camp or HQ for a legion, and recruit units directly in the field as opposed to recruiting units in the city?
A campaign governing system that allows you to change from a republic into a monarchy?
A supply line system, where armies can be destroyed by cutting them off their supplies?
Door to door fighting in siege battles?
What features need to be added in by CA as part of the game engine to ensure that the next Rome total war game will be more reflective of the Roman era?
Krusader
03-21-2009, 09:21
Unlimited provinces, cities, factions etc. With a clear warning that adding too much will make the game unstable
But other than what you described, I'd love to see:
Option to give minor skin alterations to units recruited from specific province or provinces. Like Rhodian motifs for hoplites from Rhodes and Athenian for hoplites recruited from Attika.
Rivers can be customized for width (the Nile river looked like a stream, well all rivers did).
Cities can be placed on top of a river, with city area on both sides (Memphis for example) or just one.
Coastal cities that are besieged will have no turns to surrender if their harbour is not blocked and there is a nearby friendly city trading with them (representing food being shipped in).
Think there are many more features I'd like to see, but this is what I can think off right now,.
I know I'm not in the EB team, but maybe this thread should be a wider range.
I'd like to see the ability to scout the battlefield, would be nice. Actually taking a first hand look at the terrain tiles to find the best place to fight a pitched battle. Like you can take a look at cities and stuff with people wandering around.
Supply lines is another thing I'd like to see; wagons, etc. Armies can cut of supplies or raid them if unprotected.
More villages...theres very few of these, especially random ones on the battle maps.
More will come, I'm sure.
SwissBarbar
03-21-2009, 17:09
Option to give minor skin alterations to units recruited from specific province or provinces. Like Rhodian motifs for hoplites from Rhodes and Athenian for hoplites recruited from Attika.
Yes, and the most cool thing about it would be, that when you retrain a unit in another town, the new guys have the skin from the region they've been recruited from ;-)
BozosLiveHere
03-21-2009, 19:04
An SDK. by the time of the game release or soon after. With M2TW, by the time peple finally cracked the model and animations files, a good sized portion of potential modders had already moved on to other platforms.
antisocialmunky
03-21-2009, 19:39
Yeah, I'veh eard M2:TW modding in the early days was rough. Atleast the ETW team is giving the modders stuff like this to help them out:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114757
And an afformentioned mod development kit.
oudysseos
03-21-2009, 23:05
Number One wish: ability to create new settlements during the game.
Number One wish: ability to create new settlements during the game.
oudyssea, oudysseopolis, oudysseum, etc. The oudysseos empire. :P
Cambyses
03-22-2009, 02:47
You know I actually rather liked the gaming board concepts of the original MTW or shogun, where the defender always has the option of fighting a field battle before hiding in their fortress. I would love to see that option returned, ideally with the defender chosing the ground for the fight.
Also, if the game's concepts were to change and develop, I would like to see some kind of cultural border control /influence along the lines of how its done in Civ 4.
Temporary forts, the defender should be given the option to leave before the seige, ie without getting stuck with the choice of having to sally or starve!
Lastly, would want the bigger rivers to be more of an obstacle and various tactical options for crossing them made available, possibly in the same sort of format as a seige
chairman
03-22-2009, 11:19
So many...
Confederacy: the function of having several mini-factions (think city states or tribes) work together under an umbrella faction (Koinon Hellenon, tribal confederations, etc.). Each would be autonomous from each other, but would have similar or unified foriegn policy and such.
The ability to command allied armies or units in battle. For example, Achaian and KH forces gather in battle against the Maks, and the highest ranking general takes charge, all allied forces under his command.
A realistic representation of nomadic factions, without the need for settlements. Nomad "camps" would move with migrating populations, adding "buildings" and loot, with the ability to found a new city if they choose to settle down in one place.
As mentioned above, actual supply lines and the importance of foraging and looting.
An improved mercanary system. (no clear ideas)
I wholeheartedly second Krusader's idea for region recruitment based unit skins!
The ability to have multiple family member trees, with intermarriage between them. Also, the ability to intermerry with other factions.
Adding a new character class between family members and agents: beaurocrat/military officer. These characters are professionals in their fields, serving as city and provincial governors, government ministers, captains, generals, admirals, tax/agriculture overseers. They allow your "family members" to carry the important business of politics, dynastic continuation and overall military strategy without the burden of dealing with the bothersome masses.
The ability to have mixed-units: sword, spear, and axe tribal forces in Europe; shield-bearers and archers in Persia. This would include allowing individual stats for each soldier in a unit, so that if one soldier has more armor than another, he has more armor defence points.
The ability to construct walls on the campaign map (eg. Hadrian's Wall or the Long Walls of Athens). These would range from simple moat/dyke combos ala Offa's Dyke to masterpiece defensive fortications complete with supporting towers and forts like the aforementioned Hadrian's Wall.
Sorry for the long post, but there are so many possibilities when you ask this kind of question.
Chairman
Number One wish: ability to create new settlements during the game.
I would like to see some kind of cultural border control /influence along the lines of how its done in Civ 4.
I second both of these along with the option to destroy a city as well, even the abilty to just sack cities like in BI would be welcome.
Also perhaps make resorces more important/valuable to your economy as with the exculsion of mines and elephants they don't seem to effect the gameplay much. You could invade a neighbouring region and capture the part of it that contains the resorces you want without having to conquer the whole.
The ability to coordinate with AI on a strategy in the campaign map will be nice as well.
SwissBarbar
03-22-2009, 17:54
Nomad "camps" would move with migrating populations, adding "buildings" and loot, with the ability to found a new city if they choose to settle down in one place.
Seconded. Actually it would be nice to have 1 great steppe-region, with several spots which would be good to build a town/settlement/village. If you do, a part of the region becomes a new "region" , which is controlled from this new settlement. If you build settlements on all spots, you have many regions to govern...not populated territory is nomansland. And you could abandon your settlement...
These are big ones:
Men die while marching/on campaign, to starvation, sickness, desertion, raids, disease, etc.
After too much of this, units can abandon you for the enemy, just abandon you (dissolve), and maybe even kill the general of the army
Units can be bribed to assassinate their general or side with the enemy (as opposed to whole armies)
If you defeat an enemy in battle, and certain criteria are met (like maybe many of the survivors are mercenaries), then some of the remaining enemy troops can join you (big with elephants and successors and maybe Romans in the Social Wars and civil wars)
Much more siege variety, especially with siege times
Cambyses
03-23-2009, 00:04
Men die while marching/on campaign, to starvation, sickness, desertion, raids, disease, etc.
I think if you did this, then in EB at least (due to AOR system) you would also have to look closely at travel times and re-training abilities. Attrition works great in a game like Victoria because you can retrain troops in any friendly territory. But if its going to take several years to recover from two seasons' campaigning in hostile territory, it might be more difficult to implement.
Would be great to have supply issues implemented in the game in a realistic manner though.:2thumbsup:
But in EB, things are artificially time-consuming. Distances that take turns to cover in reality would only take weeks. And it doesn't take a season to recruit a few hundred men. All this can easily be solved by
a. Increasing movement rates by two or threefold AT LEAST
OR
b. Making a year = 8 turns/12 turns
c. Making use of 0-turn recruitment times (which is already being done in EB II).
Owen Glyndwr
03-23-2009, 01:14
I would love to see realistic city layouts (I know, people are working on this for EB II), but this is something I've really wanted to see since M2 come out. What would be cooler than marching through the actual Jerusalem of Rome. If CA doesn't do this, I hope they at least make it easier to mod in.
I just noticed that I put "disease" and "sickness" in the same line. :shame:
Cambyses
03-23-2009, 02:24
I just noticed that I put "disease" and "sickness" in the same line. :shame:
Heh, dont worry, they are two different things really. Sickness is where you would get ill from eating or drinking something bad. Disease is, well, nastier in the most part, and includes things like cancer etc
Nice ideas already. I would support more or less all. But some should be done only if it could be done rightly. Otherwise it could be a great annoyance.
For example the "desease and die" feature. Realistic. But not in all circumstances. It should be connected with the faction, the area, the supply lines, the time frame. I don't think that a Roman army in the 1st c. BC with good supply lines should face the same rate of non-fight casualties than, lets say, a Germanic or even Greek army on a longer campaign. (That is just a crude example, I don't want to start a "best medicine" discussion.) So, please no simple percent norm of soldiers that will die each turn regardless of the circumstances.
Or supply lines. That would be the feature that I would desire the most. It would allow small scale warfare and would bring light troops really to shine. It's a shame that ETW has it not although 18th c. warfare was totally connected to magazins and supply. Ancient warfare less so imho but it would still be an important feature. But it should not affect every army type the same. A nomad horde for example should be less affected than an army of a conventional faction. Unless the horde perhaps moves in areas where fodder is not easily obtained. A supply route on a river should have other results than one on land. Roads should matter. Supply performance should be affected by a form of tech tree and by the numbers of units you are able or willing to attach to supplying. And so on.
So I would like to have such more realistic micromanage features only in the case that they were realistic and differentiated in itself. Otherwise I would prefer not to have it in the game.
A feature I would like to have: it should be possible to supply towns and fortresses under siege by force. It could be a small fight on a map or just automatically calculated. If successful the siege would last f.e. a turn longer. That would imply also a different model for sieges. It should f.e. not be possible to surround a big city with (too) few units. If the supply lines of an attacker were cut by a release army the attacker should also suffer casualties.
Seige battles need to be reworked from scratch, such as allowing the troops on the wall to pour oil onto people climibing up the walls, or push troops down from their ladders and etc.
It will really make seige battles harder for the attackers, and the attackers having a need to bring more men than the defenders to properly win a seige battle.
Which reminds me, the need to remove the unit stack limit. With a 20 unit limit, the attacker would easily lose a seige battle due to both sides having an equal amount of men, and additional troops can only be controlled by the AI.
Allowing a player to form a stack of 60 units stack(although logistic issues like supply lines, movement points and the amount of money needed to maintain that army for several seasons ) will change the gameplay by a lot.
Other than that, you can finally have an exciting battle with an AI if it outnumbers your army. Rather than giving the AI bonus, if the AI managed to outnumber you in a field battle, and can be commanded decently, you will have a pretty challenging game.
Think just how big your computer would have to be if several armies each with 60 units joined in a battle...
Think just how big your computer would have to be if several armies each with 60 units joined in a battle...
Unit size settings? Or even a optional limit on units in a stack. Bear in mind that modders who has mod ETW manage to run the game smoothly, even when he is commanding over 20 units.
Feyr Tehl
03-23-2009, 20:11
Still... Imangine real sized battles! I would be in heaven, drooling about how much could be done.
Siege battles should cost money per turn. Small sorties and such should also be allowed (ie. cavalry raids, etc.)
This would be a huge incentive for keeping a siege train. Of course, the economy needs to be reworked, because at the moment you need an empire just to maintain 2 guns. And instead of firing on the battle map, stone throwers should damage walls over time.
And wall size should be variable. And so should build times (if you allot more workers to the project, the workers are motivated). Also, you should be able to build several things at once.
I'm confused. Did CA announce that they were making an R2TW, or is this thread about what the features of R2TW would be if it were to be made?
The latter, well more precisely what features people want there to be in R2TW.
Feyr Tehl
03-24-2009, 01:06
If it is made.
The latter, well more precisely what features people want there to be in R2TW.
Okay then, I guess I would love, in addition to what everyone else has said, real succession crises. For example, if the younger, more capable son is the heir, then the older son might stage a revolt and perhaps even start a civil war. Non-succession related civil wars and rebellions would be great too, like if the Seleukid king is campaigning in the west an imposter might set himself up as king of the east, or something like that.
Realistic Familly trees and succession isn't asking too much is it? Meaning brothers and sisters marry in Egypt, and normally in most factions, the eldest son of the Faction Leader gets automatic choice as Faction Heir. That way, we don't get dozens of disenherited throughout the game.
roadrunner
03-24-2009, 04:37
Along with supply lines, the change I would most like to see is the ability of an army in enemy territory to affect the loyalty of nearby cities if another army is not present to face it or if that army has been defeated (think Hannibal in Italy or Alexander in the Near East). This would get rid of the need to endlessly lay siege to enemy cities after a major victory (which is not entirely realistic).
I think the reason why many people are dissapointed with RTW vanilla is due to the fact that CA decided to go with the popular history mindset when designing the game.
If the EB team are the one designing the next R2TW from scratch, the gameplay of RTW and R2TW will be totally different.
Cute Wolf
03-24-2009, 11:57
@ray 243
auto select heir as M2TW do? nope... better to remove disinherited trait. I got annoyed in my British Island English campaign, since Edward decide to give the Throne to his firstborn son, a noob with 0 stars, 0 chivalry, and 0 management, but 7 loyalty... instead of choose his second son, a battle-tested general with 8 command, 9 dread, and 7 management, still have 6 loyalty.
Actually I just want to see the fort are capable to produce some levies and mercs... not only act as empty defensive structures.
Which reminds me of another thing, you should be able to recruit a unit, and choose the amount of training they shall recieve.
If you have no enemies near your borders for several years and wish to save more money, you may want to lower the cost of your army by lowering the training. In a way, it creates a scenario where the performance of your army varies, not because of experience alone, but training as well.
This means some armies can be said to be a professional army, taking a long time to train, with you allocating a decent amount of resources and time for the unit's training. In case of emergency, you can raise a conscript army with less training.
Basically, for some units of Roman legionnaires, you can divert them more training and resources, while for other Roman legionnaire units, they will have less resources and less training. They are still the same units, but their unit attributes can vary.
Other than that, being able to orgainse the list scrolls helps alot, if you want to keep track of 20 over armies.
@ray 243
auto select heir as M2TW do? nope... better to remove disinherited trait. I got annoyed in my British Island English campaign, since Edward decide to give the Throne to his firstborn son, a noob with 0 stars, 0 chivalry, and 0 management, but 7 loyalty... instead of choose his second son, a battle-tested general with 8 command, 9 dread, and 7 management, still have 6 loyalty.
Actually I just want to see the fort are capable to produce some levies and mercs... not only act as empty defensive structures.
Its what Edward would do. Picking a younger son in Real Life would often lead to Civil War, since it was the right of the eldest to succeed, despite his abilities.
@ray 243
auto select heir as M2TW do? nope... better to remove disinherited trait. I got annoyed in my British Island English campaign, since Edward decide to give the Throne to his firstborn son, a noob with 0 stars, 0 chivalry, and 0 management, but 7 loyalty... instead of choose his second son, a battle-tested general with 8 command, 9 dread, and 7 management, still have 6 loyalty.
Actually I just want to see the fort are capable to produce some levies and mercs... not only act as empty defensive structures.
see to it that his regn is cut short before he has issue-that will do it (hopefully).
Cambyses
03-24-2009, 15:46
Which reminds me of another thing, you should be able to recruit a unit, and choose the amount of training they shall recieve.
If you have no enemies near your borders for several years and wish to save more money, you may want to lower the cost of your army by lowering the training. In a way, it creates a scenario where the performance of your army varies, not because of experience alone, but training as well.
This means some armies can be said to be a professional army, taking a long time to train, with you allocating a decent amount of resources and time for the unit's training. In case of emergency, you can raise a conscript army with less training.
Basically, for some units of Roman legionnaires, you can divert them more training and resources, while for other Roman legionnaire units, they will have less resources and less training. They are still the same units, but their unit attributes can vary.
Other than that, being able to orgainse the list scrolls helps alot, if you want to keep track of 20 over armies.
I think these are great ideas. Maybe you could extend the training one by making some eilte units only available as an "upgrade" to units that had a certain level of experience/training. Which has the dual effect of giving elites real meaningful value and of stopping the AI (and the player) of spamming them. This system could also encourage the idea of a "training resource" that determines how many units can be trained at one time and how quickly - even maybe at an empire wide level, with just "militia", local or the lowest tier troops available from individual settlements.
Cute Wolf
03-25-2009, 07:41
Its what Edward would do. Picking a younger son in Real Life would often lead to Civil War, since it was the right of the eldest to succeed, despite his abilities.
And the very same Edward then tell his oldest son... Go with 4 groups of English Knights, 5 longbowmen, and 6 armoured sergeants (looks like a decent army)... give a punch to William Wallace... but remember son, to show your bravery and worth,... you must lead the charge right onto scot's william wallace's personally... when wallace was move in front of their pike formation... and edward secretly order some of his knights to stop... letting his son die "Heroically - with killing Willam Wallace"
That sounds a nice roleplay, since the other nobility will perceive that his firstborn son was a real hero...
Atraphoenix
03-25-2009, 12:29
NO HARDCODES! ~:angry::smg:
NO HARDCODES! ~:angry::smg:
a near impossability: hardcodes are needed to establish basic parameters for the executable to run on (unit limit, size limit, etc). the best that can be done, is to reduce the hardcoded material to a minimum level. I'm not saying it can't be done, but the number of .txt files to run the parameters an executable RTW''s size is too much, not to mention the time it takes to process it all..:dizzy2:
Atraphoenix
03-25-2009, 17:05
unfortunately yes even the best language even c++ cannot recognize the range of the creativity of the human ... :shame:
no rebel cities
it would be cool when all or most settlements belong to a faction, even if it was only a small and totally unimportant one! and when people revolt, then the rebel leader will form a new faction/ or after a while a leader with a desire to create his own faction could show up
or there's a chance a destroyed faction returns like it was in M-TW
Atraphoenix
03-25-2009, 18:09
MTW my first love, it was good days :shame: I still miss the scrolls :embarassed:
Tellos Athenaios
03-26-2009, 08:06
I'd like a unified approach to scripting and data files (text files). On top of that I'd like support for a proper language such as JavaScript. A reasonably well documented and extensive API...
And of course most of the suggestions (I don't know about the game-board-thing-of-Shogun) already mentioned are on the wishlist.
Some concept of upkeep and disrepair for buildings (SimCity-esque even). Its all well and good to build roads (or anything else for that matter) but they don't just sit there without washing away. Hopefully this would simulate economic cycles and prevent the terrible all-my-cities-are-huge syndrome suffered at the end of the game.
NIKOMAHOS
03-26-2009, 18:42
Before writing my ought to see and not wish to see list i would like to remind you all a few numbers from our beloved RTW box:
Minimum system requirements: 1GHZ pentium III, 256RAM, 64MB graphic card.
In 2-3 years when R2TW will(if) be relased we will have the succesor of Intel's i7 ,6GHz DDR5 RAM and 2GHZ graphics card common in most PC's....
So hopping that sega's CEO will put his programmers to work they will give us 40 units per army( i think 40 is a reallistic number. You all remember a consul army with 2 legions-20 cohorts- plus cavalry plus auxilliary). We will also have a greater number of men per unit 600 would be great for the first types of cohorts but in case this was a problem 300 would cover most units including late cohorts and phalanx regiments(16x16=256men).
Also 40 pictures of buildings per city because the nowdays 20 do not allow you to see everything in a city.
100 playable factions(many more celts,greeks,iberians,nomads.....)
The abillity to destoy cities(see Carthage and Korinth in 146BC from the Romans) and built new ones( i think Caesar built them both).
The reallistic GLOBAL map (see google earth's ancient Rome) with all those you already mentioned. Rivers, unique cities etc etc...
The monthly turn would give realistic moving points to armies but it would be really late for a game to be developed so maybe the non-campaigning general winter(there were few wars this period in winter i think..)would solve it.
The realistic representation of the population and economy of that period would not need a huge processor, i think. Just a few numbers would be changed and you all have the 1,000,000 Alexandreia and small villages in the north.
I already asked from segas CEO many thinks so asking for a political system or new thinks we all see in other games (see civil series) would really make his programers tired .
But imagive the eternal develpment of civil in R2TW.....
Maybe i'm a dreamer but i'm not the only one,
I hope Sega will join us and gamers would play one(game-R2TW).....
PS sorry JOhn for imagine's use her....
I like to see a more rise and fall of empires approach; certain factions gain upper hand, then lose it again. Most of the time this doesnt happen in EB with the RTW engine, and you get, by 200BC, if left unchecked, like, 6-7 factions left, covering all Europe. This could also be helped with other ideas already mentioned: civil war, rise of smaller factions, reintroduction of dead factions...
A bunch of these requests or reasonably close approximations are present in ETW :)
Still a bunch of great ideas here.
Some not mentioned yet:
*Proper coastal cities -related to cities on rivers/unique layouts
*Sea battles! -Galleys are in ETW but ramming doesn't do much (may be doing some that isn't represented on the hull strength bars though?) I wanna see some 15s & 30s etc :D
*A new Manoeuvre layer for when armies approach. -This would give say several days/weeks of turns (or 'real time'?) where you can attempt to escape battle/scout the enemy position?/choose your ground/perform large turning movements/circumvallation/bombardment/sapping etc.
This would have your army visible in marching order which is something currently not visible & would satisfy my desires for 'army view'.
Spearman
04-01-2009, 20:47
I'd like to see a recruitment tab for the schools. It would allow you the ability to recruit ancillary characters for whatever General/Governor, or family member is in the settlement (i.e. tax farmer, mathmatician, philosopher). This idea could also be expanded to the City Garrison, the player could upgrade the type of guards (i.e. town militia >>urban cohort) which would give more public order %points.
Also a related concept, you could train and procure characters for different levels of government, public health officials, construction, traders. Allow a slot system based on city size (3 slots for a large city) which would allow the player to recruit a NPC with a specialization such as control city growth, recruit more experienced armies, trade more efficiently. Lots of options for more or less aggressive play styles and rebellious regions :whip: .
HunGeneral
04-02-2009, 23:10
Well I'm no EB team member but I think Nomad fans might like this idea: Nomad faction could have the possibility to build "camp" like building a fort or a watchtower on the campaign map: there would be a limit of 2 camps per province. These "camps" would be like some mini cities that serve the nomads as recruiting centers - it would have 3 levels and some buildings could be built in them like:
Level 1 (smal camp)
- camp placement
- bow makers (required to train simple horse archers)
- organized Hunts (gives extra exp to units trained in camp)
- nobles herds (requirement for next level)
Level2 (medium camp)
- temporary camp organisation
- nobles court (enables training of noble cavalry - no cataphracts yet)
- practice fields (give extra xp to the units trained in the camp)
- nobles large herds (requirement for next level)
level 3 (large camp)
- permanent camp organisation
- warlords court with armourers (enables the training of the best cavalry units - enough skilled craftsman who can make first class armor + enough nobles who are rich enough to equip themselfs and there retinue as cataphracts)
- war training and large organized hunts (gives exp to units trained in camp)
In the provinces capital the player can decide wether he will seetle his own people in the town (like pastoralism) or make it an allied kingdom (type 4 goverment). The camps can only be built in provinces you already own, besides recruitment they give a public order bonus to the province there in (the bigger they are the bigger the bonus they give).
All I want is actual :fainting:AI:fainting:
All I want is actual :fainting:AI:fainting:
So how should the AI be designed?
delablake
04-22-2009, 08:31
1) No more "bells ringing" when marriages take place ( no Christendom back then)
2) a feature that allows you to spot cities with more than 1 FM (a pain when you manage a huge empire and keep looking for those young runanway scoundrels)
3) a possibility to check out how many more kills a unit has to accomplish to reach the next experience level
4) more than just 8 retinue/ancillaries per FM
5) bigger building tree if possible - but that's not a priority
6) the AI should become a bit more "realistic" - especially concerning allied nations - if CA hardcoding allows it
7) some sort of "kill sheet" for the army-commanding FMs and appropriate traits/bonuses
I would be very happy if any of my wishes were considered, though I am quite content with the game as it is now
athanaric
04-22-2009, 13:41
No more Sequoia trees in Hyrkania.
272 BC - The Whole World
A record system which records basic facts such as which general conquered what city, how many battles they fought, the traits they had etc . . . This way at the end of a game you could write an alternate history of sorts.
eddy_purpus
04-22-2009, 23:03
The ability for armies to use spies / scouts instead of having an line of sight...
that be awesome ...
Not knowing that you are marching towards a big enemy army and then bam!
A big war !
Spartiaths
04-22-2009, 23:13
Naval Battles?? Perhaps?? They've done it once they can do it again
The auto resolve system is clearly unfair to the player (odds 5:1 in favour of the player and you suddenly lose!!!!!!!!! OMG!!! )
And a much more challenging AI at least on the higher levels not just extra bonuses to make things difficult ... and still not enough
Forgot to mention, the ability to record battles fought in the campaign, that would be awesome, as well as very useful for testing the game.
I wish they could have a system that depicts or centralised or de-centralised your nation is. For example, some babarian faction can always be more de-centralised, while some factions are far more centrailsed.
Charles the hammer
04-24-2009, 15:55
Id like to see the ability to reform your military by copying other militaries and what not. or the ability to change your existing units equipment. I mean thats what made rome so great they realized when their equipment just wasnt the best.
I would like to see the no diplomats and technology tree like in Empire. The way that could be modded would be terrefic.
Leão magno
04-26-2009, 19:38
All the modifications already stated plus an A.I. that would treat the eleutheroi as real independent cities, city states, kingdons, so forth. This way we would be able to simulate smaller factions without modding them all!!! They would ally and wage war for themselves!!!! This I would love to see
Marcus-Aurelius
04-28-2009, 13:46
This is probably totally implausable and/or impossible but what about the taking of prisoners after a victorius battle and the choice to pardon them or enslave them? Forgive my ignorance if this has been suggested already but i think this would make for more historically accurate gameplay, and provide scope for further development.
Tellos Athenaios
04-28-2009, 14:04
It's a feature of M2TW and M2TW-K already. ~;)
Marcus-Aurelius
04-28-2009, 14:10
So will it be in EBII? :juggle2:
will there be decapitation/dismemberment animations?:clown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nas01Yr0kEY
I can't find the post, but Foot said that decapitations are out. I assume the same goes for dismemberment.
Scrapping "Turns" alltogether, and play the game in pausable real-time, like in Europa Universalis. Then you could manouver your army in pre-battlet to get the best position, and armies could march in realistic speed. :juggle2:
I would love an extende diplomacy, with more different treaties too.
Maybe actual artifical intelligence is asking to much....
DeathFinger
05-07-2009, 20:35
- A real diplomacy. Something like the Universalis games.
- No Rebel faction
- Possibility to manage the population of an area and not just of the capital of this one; and so the possibility to create cities, force moving population, etc....
Uh, sweet dreams :beam:
Cute Wolf
05-08-2009, 07:32
Global Map:
No more Rome please (SPQR just mere a faction, not the centerpoint of the game)..... Create Alexander that invade Aztec empire!!!
Krusader
05-08-2009, 09:35
Global Map:
No more Rome please (SPQR just mere a faction, not the centerpoint of the game)..... Create Alexander that invade Aztec empire!!!
Galleys and triremes on the Atlantic? Oarsmen willing to sit by the oars that long? Enough ships to carry supplies in addition to men & equipment, like tons of freshwater?
DeathFinger
05-08-2009, 19:44
Galleys and triremes on the Atlantic? Oarsmen willing to sit by the oars that long? Enough ships to carry supplies in addition to men & equipment, like tons of freshwater?
I forgot: The Atlantis! :beam:
Galleys and triremes on the Atlantic? Oarsmen willing to sit by the oars that long? Enough ships to carry supplies in addition to men & equipment, like tons of freshwater?
Hell, asking the Romans or Chinese to invade each other is far more plausible and more fun.
Cute Wolf
05-10-2009, 14:34
LOL!!! only huge poliremes could pass the atlantis!!! Greeks did allready find distillation tech... and Kardasthim ships could sail for 2 years without ressuplying... forgot where I hear it...
BTW, how did human could land in America?
LOL!!! only huge poliremes could pass the atlantis!!! Greeks did allready find distillation tech... and Kardasthim ships could sail for 2 years without ressuplying... forgot where I hear it...
BTW, how did human could land in America?
Why would huge poliremes be able to cross the Atlantic? I imagine they would be even more unstable than their smaller brethren. Definitely not something you want to be on when an Atlantic storm hits. I also doubt that story of sailing 2 years without resupplying. Even it were true, they probably sailed on a skeleton crew: with a contingent of soldiers on board they would run out of supplies in two weeks.
What does your last question mean?
Cute Wolf
05-12-2009, 03:51
Did the first american really come with only small boats?
DeathFinger
05-12-2009, 10:05
Did the first american really come with only small boats?
With drakkars, isn't it? :laugh4:
oudysseos
05-12-2009, 11:09
The Greeks and Romans (and the Classical world in general) had more ship types than the long narrow warships such as triremes etc. They also had ocean-going merchant vessels that were more suitable for longer voyages. So the argument that the Atlantic was impassable on those grounds is specious.
Did the first american really come with only small boats?
If you mean the first humans in the amercia's they came across a land bridge between siberia and alaska during the last ice age.
bill2505
05-12-2009, 15:55
rome total war is my favorite game (with mods of course) because it rans smoothly even at quality setting in eb for example. first i would like how many things you could change without making the game more heavy.
what i would like to see.first to remove as much as possible the hardcodet parts.second to be able to represent city states philosophy .units that are a bit different .to many states in a faction or tribes.and some technology researching in akademias for example
bill2505
05-12-2009, 16:02
Id like to see the ability to reform your military by copying other militaries and what not. or the ability to change your existing units equipment. I mean thats what made rome so great they realized when their equipment just wasnt the best.
me too.plus allies except for serius reason dont attack you
Basically work with Paradox to make the ultimate Rome era game with interactive battles, character development, and realistic politics. But that isnt going to happen so...
-the possibility to have more than 2 weapons for each soldier
-being able to have a variable unit limit for slower PCs (maybe have a scrollbar so it is harder to keep track of them in battle if you have too many, ie 20+)
Andronikos
05-16-2009, 20:00
Something that would allow to make city states and tribes realistic. And improved diplomacy. I am sure this has been mentioned many times, but it is crucial.
And some details about battles like suplies, raiding and so on.
hellenes
05-16-2009, 21:33
will there be decapitation/dismemberment animations?:clown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nas01Yr0kEY
Can someone PLEAAAAASEEEEE give a link to a mod that does this?
Cute Wolf
05-17-2009, 06:06
Cool.... Decapitations.....
BTW, what about a body explode when stomped by elephants?
athanaric
05-18-2009, 17:58
A possibility for factions to merge would be interesting, especially for Hellenic poleis.
ziegenpeter
05-18-2009, 19:29
More plausible recruitement system: You enable a certain amounts of certain troops with your buildings and when it comes to war you can recruite them at once wich costs you only per turn and can cause unrest (less men to control the cities, less men harvesting).
Buildings cost also per turn so your economy is less "wave like".
EDIT: When "Coming of age" non roman and non hellenic factions can chose their bodyguard units among some elite units. For Casse you would have Remi Mairepos, Calwre and Cidainh f.e.
If only CA adopts the Valve model and allow the modders a chance to mod the .exe files!
To be able to inherit other factions, ie like if two faction leaders are married their heir will rule both territories.
To be able to inherit other factions, ie like if two faction leaders are married their heir will rule both territories.
I remember something similar in MTW.
One thing R2TW would need is a real and robust scripting language. One in which you can create functions, use true if,then,else statements etc. As it is the EB script has to be huge and can cause all kinds of slowdown issues.
Second would be event handling, with custom event handlers that stay resident in memory and don't require crazy endless do while loops to keep them running. :dizzy2:
I am actually amazed at what the EB team accomplished using the very limited tool set that RTW has.
A good campaign A.I. ( Which for once will include SERIOUS DIPLOMACY for its factions ) and a tough battle A.I. would be enough for me . Is it that difficult ? Can anyone answer responsibly this question guys ? How tough would it be to develop a serious ( as opposed to "silly") A.I. behavior ( + diplomacy ) for a RTW/MTW/ETW game ?
EB 1 would be the best game in the multiverse if those two conditions were not hardcoded and could be at least moded by the team .
Satyros
AI isn't the easiest thing to program, it's usually expensive and time consuming to get it right. Goodlooking models by a pro however can be made at a fast, stable and expectable rate. Hence the evolution in the game industry, I guess.
So I take it that for complex games like the new generation ( after MTW1 ) of the TW series we will have to wait many more years to see an actual competent ( not demonicaly brilliant mind you , just not absolutely stupid inadequate and incapable of the most basic of things - say to accept a ceasefire when down to one province , not charging a horse general head on at a wall of pikes as an opening move for an offensive for ****'s sake ) A.I. .
Do you believe this is a hardware issue , and by that I mean the availability of hardware of a certain quality to the average player/buyer , or they just can't be arsed to get down and make a good A.I. and instead throw ever better eye-candy ?
If only this game had actually an A.I. ....
Oh well , one can only hope , besides they did have to start from somewhere , it's just that I don't see them moving the whole A.I. thing forward at any acceptable rate . Haven't played ETW though .
And don't get me wrong , I am a great fan of the series because ( for example ) I wouldn't be able to play EB if there was not a RTW . I am not happy however with the lack of progress in the A.I. department over the course of 9 titles of the TW series . Hell , come to think of it MTW had better battle A.I. ( still crappy diplomacy ) .
/Rant mode off
Satyros
Do you believe this is a hardware issue , and by that I mean the availability of hardware of a certain quality to the average player/buyer , or they just can't be arsed to get down and make a good A.I. and instead throw ever better eye-candy ?
It's partly that: creating a good A.I. is more difficult than creating good-looking graphics, and there are more skilled artists than A.I. programmers. Both of them are resource intensive, so it's hard to have both will keeping system requirements down. The poor A.I. from R:TW may well have come from the decision to have only slightly higher system requirement compared to M:TW, while massively improving the graphics.
However, it is mainly because good-looking games sell better. The mainstream player is not going to play the game for long and doesn't like steep learning curves, so he prefers graphics to a really advanced A.I. It also generally takes a week or so of playing for the exploits in the A.I. to arise, so reviewers, especially if they are not very familiar with the game and it's community, don't initially catch on. Also, graphics are by their nature very visible in the advertising; a fantastic A.I. on the other hand is at best a bullet-point.
I guess you're right .
But I still remember barely being able to restrain myself in anticipation of RTW ( well , part of this was because of the graphics I admit it ) , and the disappointment as soon as I played seriously the game .
Honestly , if it wasn't for EB and an overactive imagination ( plus various submods , addons etc e.g. Force diplomacy minimod ) I would have stopped playing years ago , and even though I bought the MTW2 I must say that after a while I got extremely bored and returned to the seemingly "worse" game of RTW ( --> EB ) . I haven;t found a mod like EB for MTW2 , hopefully EB2 will come and chamge that .
So right now I am hesitant to buy ETW , and still nag to fellow forum members about the A.I. occasionaly . Pitiful of my part , thanks for putting up with this , heh .
Well , the thing is that one less ETW copy sold isn't going to scare anyone ( and we all know that I will buy the game eventually don't we ? ) but I'm somewhat bitter about the fact that the minority of " hardcore " players' opinions is brushed aside , after all it is them among all customers that would point out any flaws in the game more accurately .
Off the box I enjoyed much more MTW and Shogun than MTW2 honestly . And I know I'm not alone .
Ok , ok I'll stop now .
And just to be on topic : RTW2 please come with a better A.I.
Satyros
I guess you're right .
But I still remember barely being able to restrain myself in anticipation of RTW ( well , part of this was because of the graphics I admit it ) , and the disappointment as soon as I played seriously the game .
Honestly , if it wasn't for EB and an overactive imagination ( plus various submods , addons etc e.g. Force diplomacy minimod ) I would have stopped playing years ago , and even though I bought the MTW2 I must say that after a while I got extremely bored and returned to the seemingly "worse" game of RTW ( --> EB ) . I haven;t found a mod like EB for MTW2 , hopefully EB2 will come and chamge that .
So right now I am hesitant to buy ETW , and still nag to fellow forum members about the A.I. occasionaly . Pitiful of my part , thanks for putting up with this , heh .
Well , the thing is that one less ETW copy sold isn't going to scare anyone ( and we all know that I will buy the game eventually don't we ? ) but I'm somewhat bitter about the fact that the minority of " hardcore " players' opinions is brushed aside , after all it is them among all customers that would point out any flaws in the game more accurately .
Off the box I enjoyed much more MTW and Shogun than MTW2 honestly . And I know I'm not alone .
Ok , ok I'll stop now .
And just to be on topic : RTW2 please come with a better A.I.
Satyros'
Agreed.
Thank you for agreeing but this wasn't the purpose of my nagging , although appreciated . I seriously hope that someone will take notice of me and others like me and perhaps in future releases we would see ( at least ) more modable games ( if not awesome out of the box games ) . Because mods made by fans for fans often give to the above mentioned minority a better gaming experience ( " better " according to what is desired by the minority ) , so in a way everyone is happy ( or at least happier ) . To fortify my position in this I will point to the EB mod .
After all , the basic concept of STW and MTW was absolutely great for its time , took the whole genre leaps forward ( just compare it to other contemporary strategy games and see the abysmal difference in quality ) with the RTW and MTW2 titles giving us ( only ) the new campaign map ( other new features were more or less enhancements on previously existent features e.g. sieges ). So to me it seems that the series lost momentum , after the truly ground breaking first titles of the series which made possible the development of a hard core of dedicated fans along the years .
Perhaps this is why I complain , because I have had very high expectations .
.... and I just can't shut up about it eh ?
Sorry folks .
Satyros
P.S. : Is it that important ? Hell yeah ! "Gaming" for me means the TW series and Paradox games ( and the DoW titles for rather sentimental reasons ) over the past years . The super " kewl graphics " of the FPS genre ( for example ) don't mean anything to me , and good CRPG's are dead , long dead . So , yeah , it is that important . I love gaming .
Wow, big rant.
The AI is incredibly stupid, those romans charged sraight into the front of my phalanxes with no flanking! If the EB team with CA made R2TW, I would buy it, no hesitiation. EB is the best mod, id rather say game that I ever had. Imagine EB with no limits due to CA's Capacity... The AI would (hopefully) be much better and historically orientated.. I can just dream and drool of the finished product....
The best thing that would make tons of fans happy is CA allowing the fans to modify the AI code.
Phalanx300
06-27-2009, 19:08
A good Hoplite shieldwall, and an option to link units to eachother so you can have a continious line which isn't breaking up in several pieces to attack individual units. This way Hoplites can turn around openings and flanks etc.
The best thing that would make tons of fans happy is CA allowing the fans to modify the AI code.
That isn't up to CA. SEGA makes that decision. And SEGA, nor any other publisher, is going to allow fans to tamper with code, because would essentially give their programming techniques away to the competition. Apart from the potentially detrimental impact on sales, obviously.
Krusader
06-27-2009, 23:35
The best thing that would make tons of fans happy is CA allowing the fans to modify the AI code.
Nah...they'll release improved AI in a DLC... :laugh4:
Joking. That would be a PR disaster move by CA
LAST.MAN.STANDING
06-28-2009, 03:24
This is probably totally implausable and/or impossible but what about the taking of prisoners after a victorius battle and the choice to pardon them or enslave them? Forgive my ignorance if this has been suggested already but i think this would make for more historically accurate gameplay, and provide scope for further development.
Wow, big rant.
The AI is incredibly stupid, those romans charged sraight into the front of my phalanxes with no flanking! If the EB team with CA made R2TW, I would buy it, no hesitiation. EB is the best mod, id rather say game that I ever had. Imagine EB with no limits due to CA's Capacity... The AI would (hopefully) be much better and historically orientated.. I can just dream and drool of the finished product....
I second these motions, and add a request for the ability to plunder the battlefield for weapons/armor and loot the baggage train. Currently there is no influx of funds as a direct result of field victories. Historically armies on campaign funded/supplied themselves largely through looting the bodies of their dead enemies and capturing baggage.
As far as the AI goes...at least for armies which historically fought using conventional tactics, I'd like to see them HOLD A FREAKING BATTLE LINE. Flanking was the classic means of victory in pitched battles for centuries, with every effort made to defend the flanks and overpower the enemy counterpart. It's hard to think of a famous battle of the Greco-Roman era that was not won/lost via a flank attack/envelopment of some sort. So I'd like to see the AI put a premium of effort into attacking/defending flanks, and of course, the way this was done historically was to vigorously maintain battle formation and deploy mobile contingents on the flanks in order to both counter enemy attacks and to threaten the enemy flank/rear. Some AI ingenuity in this area would be nice, but that's an oxymoron.
The AI could be better strategically as well...in hundreds of ways...but to name a couple, STOP marching tiny armies around the campaign map aimlessly and without leadership. AI armies should concentrate under leadership of generals and march on the enemy with some sort of cohesion. If I invade an AI nation, it should respond with all its ability to expel me rather than sending small forces every few turns. Or, it should avoid battle until it has massed enough forces and/or has me in a position that is to its advantage. Again, maybe asking too much, but hopeful.
Let us all pray and hope CA is actually listening. We ARE all their potential (or rather guaranteed) customers. And good customer service = sales = $$$ (in most cases).
Let us just pray (or hope beg, etc.)
Btw, welcome to the forum LAST.MAN.STANDING.
It's partly that: creating a good A.I. is more difficult than creating good-looking graphics, and there are more skilled artists than A.I. programmers. Both of them are resource intensive, so it's hard to have both will keeping system requirements down. The poor A.I. from R:TW may well have come from the decision to have only slightly higher system requirement compared to M:TW, while massively improving the graphics.
I agree with you there but really how hard is to program that cavarly units don't attack head on spear/phalanx units and especialy the general unit which in RTW the AI did this a lot. The AI in TW games(the MTW one was ok though) is a piece of crap, they improved it little by little but not enough to make it at least a little chalenging were you are outnumbered 2:1.
John the Mad
07-18-2009, 19:51
As a fan i would like to see them bring back the sane unit speeds and the devestating effects of exhaustion from the first game.It at least kept you honest in keeping a fresh reserve,and units were not flying all over the battlefield at top speed the entire time like a bunch of mini Usain Bolts on meth.
Moosemanmoo
07-19-2009, 15:05
I'd love it if the conquest of key (large/capital) cities had greater impact on the war, like other nearby cities being abandoned or coming under your rule
Or if you annihilate the enemies' army, perhaps some local regions succumb to you also?
I just thought that if Hannibal had taken Rome, would Capua/Arpi/Arretium/Ariminum/etc all keep going? Obviously it would mess up gameplay if this caused factions to be easily wiped out but it's just an idea :idea2:
After reading alot about Alexander it's pretty clear he destroyed Persia by winning key battles in the field (Granicus/Issus/Guagamela), not by taking a million years besieging each an every settlement :wall:
Heh, I like the idea of taking out the Yellow Fever with a single stroke...
This could be scripted into EBII, well... I Think.
Skullheadhq
07-20-2009, 18:19
They could, just like HoI 3 script their AI in lud so everybody can edit it to what they want.
El_Nino_Abandonado
07-21-2009, 22:41
I think that there should include an overthrowing trait, for factions such as Rome and Carthage, it would be exciting to see King Hannibal
I think they should also include a feature in which if two family members from different factions marry than the child they create will have respect from both factions, as an example the relationship between Alexander and his uncle, the king of Epirus
Also factions should be able to build colonies and trade posts
and being able to ally your faction w/ rebels
El_Nino_Abandonado
07-21-2009, 22:42
rebel settlements should be autonomous and be able to have it's own diplomacy
rebel settlements should be autonomous and be able to have it's own diplomacy
Empire already has that. They are the "minor" factions. They piss me off alot because you cannot expand recklessly without angering one of the greater powers.
Teleklos Archelaou
07-22-2009, 00:33
There's absolutely zero use in asking for anything, so you're just tormenting yourselves.
I seee. CA will do nothing about it (as you have said on another topic). All they want is MONEY! MONEY! MONEY!
This is just pure suggestion and opinion. (I doubt it would change anything)
Teleklos Archelaou
07-22-2009, 01:10
Please, let the words stand for themselves - don't put any in our mouths. I understand this is a "fun" exercise, but it's also a masochistic one. :grin:
Skullheadhq
07-22-2009, 18:12
Just give the EB team the source code of M2TW and let the gamers play the best game ever.
Can someone get inside CA, and feed us information from inside? They may get fired, but it would be well worth it! I'd pay for them to eat for a few weeks.
Just give the EB team the source code of M2TW and let the gamers play the best game ever.
I doubt it. Modding and programming are different ball-games.
Tellos Athenaios
07-23-2009, 17:03
Quite. The latter one tends to be much easier; less hand-wavy black magic and secret voodoo rituals involved you know. :help:
Krusader
07-23-2009, 18:35
I doubt it. Modding and programming are different ball-games.
What he said
Skullheadhq
07-23-2009, 18:39
Quite. The latter one tends to be much easier; less hand-wavy black magic and secret voodoo rituals involved you know. :help:
Then CA sucks at being wizard
John the Mad
07-24-2009, 06:12
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
07-24-2009, 16:28
I want Europa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa Universalis II) Civilizationis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization III): Total War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa Barbarorum)*, 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
07-26-2009, 12:05
I just want a game like Empire TW but finished.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
kaptainplanet
08-12-2009, 11:41
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
08-12-2009, 14:15
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. :juggle2:
the unique joe
08-13-2009, 00:51
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
08-13-2009, 01:44
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
08-13-2009, 01:50
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
08-13-2009, 02:04
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
08-13-2009, 02:30
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
08-13-2009, 04:48
[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
08-13-2009, 06:41
I.... uh.... don't follow. Is it a quote?
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.
quoting some "famous writer"
:laugh4::laugh4:
that's dead funny.:laugh4:
(mostly because its dead true).
and here's a balloon for using it :balloon2:
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 :yes:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.