View Full Version : Can you suggest an improvement for STW ?
Whether playing online or campaigns at home do you have a suggestion on how the game could be improved ? If so then type away. Perhaps the best suggestions could be considered for future upgrades or patches. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
theforce
05-23-2001, 18:43
Better graphics. Well the 3D environments are looking awesome but l wish that the units could look a bit better.
Also a powerful editor in the expansion pack which must be also easy for more and better maps and the damn honour of the guy l am fighting with.
------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://darksideclan.fateback.com
Enter the Darkside...
candidgamera
05-23-2001, 20:46
See my post under mods/patches section, this forum for breaking the 16 unit army battle limit, bigger playing areas. Wouldn't mind some feedback.
Er... I recall from the old board game you could hire ronin to join your army for a turn, thus beefing it up in time for that crucial battle. Could give you good warriors at a time when your army is mostly made up of rabble, thus adding quality as well as quantity. Ronins could then be enemies or neutral as well as mercenaries for hire -- an interesting twist, given Sun Tzu/Machiavelli's discourses on mercenaries vs regular army soldiers...
I'd like to see that capability added...
[This message has been edited by Vanya (edited 05-23-2001).]
Great idea, hiring ronin armies to beef up your own. Definitely would add a new dimension to the game.
In the tactical area (battlefeild) I would like to have the ability to give a unit(s) multiple (a string of 3 or 4) commands to follow.
An example would be to send cav or cav archers to enemy flank, engage, break off, move back, re-engage, draw enemy units away from main force, etc... The purpose would be to keep the enemy busy while I set up or prepare my main assualt, draw the enemy unit into an ambush, and or take advantage of the now weakened flank.
I am able to do this by micromanagement of the unit(s), but this also takes away from concentrating on the overall scheme/tactic that I am trying to employ.
------------------
The only thing you have to regret are the chances not taken.
Expect the unexpected and take in air.
Random ideas, utterly unordered:
* More granularity in the game board. It's very reminiscent of _Axis and Allies_.
* More strategic flexibility. There WERE commanders smart enough to cross rivers without pre-announcing which bridge they were using. Bridges could be burnt or built, rafts could be made, multiple landings... Clausewitz makes a pretty good case as to why rivers don't often provide quite the immediate direct defensive advantage that one might think.
* Fixed simultaneous movement. One idea that occurred to me was interleaving at the level of generals, rather than clans; the worst generals have to declare their moves first, and the best generals get to react last. Break ties with cavalry-only armies declaring later, followed by breaking ties with smaller armies declaring later, followed by coin flip. This would thus allow reactions, but within limits.
* More meaningful diplomacy. It seems that the devs have been working on this. Incidentally, perhaps a killed Emissary might yield paperwork related to his mission.
* An option to remove Geishas. I'd prefer the possibility of a stalemate over the inclusion of an IMHO very silly superweapon. I suspect that WMs should also be toned down; this could be arranged via text configuration files.
* Better endgame than the all-Ronin opposition. Thankfully, it looks like they're changing this.
* Better army management. Letting me choose the first 16 units to go in would be helpful. So would a way to rapidly allocate units between armies.
* Possibly, readiness/morale at the strategic level. A army that's shattered one season may need to recover for the next, but that's highly debatable since it's only at the season level, not months.
* Attrition. One place is post-battle pursuit/desertion losses, which should take into account honor, terrain (rivers in particular would be a problem), and cavalry... for instance, it should be highly unlikely that an inexperienced mob of 20,000 ashigaru would be able to retreat in good order over a river if broken by waves of Takeda cavalry. Many of the survivors will likely be separated, voluntarily or involuntarily.
* Attrition at the strategic level tied to logistics. In particular, sieging armies should have difficulties, as should those campaigning far away from friendly provinces.
* Combine the above with less blatant cheating by the AIs. It should be damaging to conquer valuable provinces, and not just for the dojo destruction, but it isn't nearly as much when they're allowed to deficit spend.
* Saner rebellions. The 'free Samurai army' is a bit cheesy, especially when said province lacks dojos and the free army is comparable to the early forces of a clan. For that matter, I'm not convinced that upon a clan death, many of the ashis won't take the opportunity to go home back to a civillian life.
* Better heir handling. At the very least, they probably shouldn't be Ashigaru. They shouldn't teleport when promoted. An underage heir should, perhaps, be present on the map as a strategic unit (primarily useful as a target for capturing or killing), and they perhaps shouldn't vaporize immediately if the clan daimyo dies w/o of-age heirs.
* Maybe, hide the opponent's banners in combat. ;-) The Daimyo can be made into less of a super soldier if it's not immediately obvious who it is, and the honor-at-a-glance bit is slightly odd.
* Shouldn't *most* cavalry know how to use a bow? ISTR that samurai were expected to be competent with the bow as well as the katana. Not even Daimyos use bows here. Seems strange to me...
* Pillaging, as long as it was historical. It could, for instance, perhaps supply some koku to the invaders, and impact the next harvest.
* Maybe, the ability to upgrade armor and weapons on existing troops. If it were abstracted, so an armory could supply a certain amount of improved gear per season, and equipping units elsewhere with the armor/weapons could be done at a higher price... but I don't know whether this was historical. It seems odd the way it is now. *shrug*
* A running tally of how much the current build orders will cost this season, for those of us who don't like to resort to manual bookkeeping.
* Greater compatibility with nVidia cards, which they've been working on they say.
* Fewer "huh?" bits, like the appearance of "besieged" troops arriving as reinforcements behind the besieger (which is odd, although it COULD be intended as a flanking sortie ?!); port invasions (which are debatable, given that the AI doesn't seem to use armies that way. A ruling on legitimacy would be nice.); and firearms reliably missing at point-blank range when firing into a castle gate (yes, there are reasons (to simulate the castle defenses) but it LOOKS really odd).
------------------
He is justly served; It is a poison temper'd by himself.
A few more --
* Maybe *some* deployment choice for the attacker, besides the army formations.
* Quick way to find out the group number of a unit.
* An option to show current orders, vaguely CM-style (definitely strategic, tactical if possible).
* Another timer option: time elapsed since last kill, which could allow for a decent amount of manuevering time before engaging but still puts SOME pressure on the attacker.
* And related: automatic adjudication rather than time_up = defender_wins...
------------------
He is justly served; It is a poison temper'd by himself.
RaZoRstrike
05-24-2001, 00:53
I would like to see the AI take over for a dropped player on MP. The AI may not be comparable to another player, but it beats the current system. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
The most important points?
-kill cheaters in mp games
-harder AI in battle mode
-why does the AI get the possibility to move reinforcements on attacked provinces the same season I attack that province while I don't get that option as well? The AI cheats then http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
------------------
Honour to Clan No Fear.
Visit my resource centre at: http://terazawa.totalwar.org
Bridges
Japan had few roads and fewer bridges. No wheeled trafic at all. They had many fording spots. Many ferry/barge crossings. It should be easy to cross the rivers with an all men/horse army. Where bridges aren't during a whole three month time span. Bridges could be burnt anyways. Far fewer river crosing battles than in STW.
Traianvs
05-24-2001, 02:30
I'd really like if armies would be formed by a maximun of 16 units + the general, represented in the way the daymio use to be in campaign mode.
I think charging ashigaru generals are not much realistic...
bye.
ShaiHulud
05-24-2001, 02:41
It would be interesting if small groups could be assigned raiding tasks that inflicted loss to harvest, production, etc. These could be countered only by actual garrisons in castles. Hence, the larger the castle, the more secure a province would be (instead of being used ONLY as the source of improvements). It would better reflect the real need of castles for securing a province and supply lines.
------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks
Kraellin
05-24-2001, 03:12
1. i've already mentioned this in another post so i wont post the whole thing here again, but macros and scripting...this game begs for it in battle mode.
2. not only fords, but shallow water is needed.
3. water at levels other than sea level. this has a ton of uses.
4. more textures and a FULL set of mix and match textures.
5. bigger playfield is supposed to be coming with expansion pack. so ok.
6. units of 40 or even 20 men. one could still play a good battle but maybe not lag so much, particularly on lower end computers and modems. along with this, it might then be possible to add more players into a battle due to smaller unit sizes. in fact, this could even be something that players could set as options...you want a 10 player game, well ok, just make your unit size 40 instead of 60..want 12 players? fine, make the unit size 20.
7. multiple castles on a map. i mean, wouldnt it be cool to be able to skirmish each other in multi if each player had a home base of a castle?
8. siege engines. this has been mentioned in other threads also.
9. layered textures. the current system uses a set texture such that if you want trees you also have to take the 'ground' texture that comes with it. why not split this up to give more flexibility to maps. or, and this one would cost in resources a bit, do more models that could be placed on the map as separate items. there is currently a feature in the editor to allow for showing bridges and even changing their size but you cant save it onto the map; let's add this into the game and do it with other models as well. and where are the city models?
10. diff starting postions for armies. this could be done several ways. the editor could be given the capability of allowing several option starting postions. these could be fixed points or even a multiple of fixed points. in the game start for battles one could either pick his starting location based on which side he was on given the points the map allows or just have it chosen randomly from the multiple starting points on a map.
11. also as a starting parameter for multi battles, why not allow for differing koku amounts? and not only the two opposing teams but between all players involved? perhaps a newbie is playing a vet and the vet wishes to give the newbie a handicap advantage. this would be an easy way to do it.
12. a better foyer in multi. specifically, wipe out that background and use the entire screen as the foyer. more info could be displayed. allow the private msg/public msg windows to be altered in size. same for the games displayed.
13. show more about the starting parameters a host picks in the foyer game display, particularly the season and as a sub-display option to a game, who is currently signed up in the game.
K.
RageFury
05-24-2001, 03:51
*Eyes glazed over*
[unable to post due to bein dazed from Kraellins essay]
[This message has been edited by RageFury (edited 05-23-2001).]
Quote 7. multiple castles on a map. i mean, wouldnt it be cool to be able to skirmish each other in multi if each player had a home base of a castle?[/QUOTE]
I could see the above coming down to -- on occasion -- having two players sitting in their castles immobile waiting for the other to cave in and attack... is that fort-camping?!? But the view would be nice!
Wow! Lotsa good ideas here! I even recall reading about a few elsewhere!
Stazbumpa
05-24-2001, 07:20
But is anyone important taking any notice of what you are saying here, despite these being the best ideas ever????
------------------
Above all things, to thine own-self be true.
the one thing that annoys me the most about this game is the fact that your view of the battlefield is far too limited. you sould be able to pan out more and be able to issue more complex commands to your men such as facing direction and ammunition conservation.
Catiline
05-24-2001, 18:06
THe hope htat they're more likely to read thisa in here, combined with the fact you'll get more responses in GD are hte soul reasons this topic is still here, else it would have gone to editing and Mods ages ago.
The main htings I want have already been mentioned
1 Fording rivers
2 adjustable starting unit sizes
the Ronin army idea sounds good, especially if the mercenaries refused to fight or changed sides. THat'd teach you http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
It's not a bug, it's a feature
Battlefield betrayal (esp. by mercenaries) might be interesting, although I don't know much at all about medieval Japanese history so I can't say that it actually happened.
Hiring ronin also seemingly makes sense, although the board game was sometimes referred to as "Hire the Ronin" because that option was VERY powerful. I'm not sure why, but it may have had to do with being able to nearly double the normal maximum army size -- and they attacked as well as... sword samurai, if memory serves.
------------------
He is justly served; It is a poison temper'd by himself.
Quote ...sword samurai, if memory serves.[/QUOTE]
Your memory serves you well...
Winter Weather
Someone once mentioned winter freezing rivers. I would just like to state this is Japan. Far south surrounded by warm waters. The only thing freezing would be things way up in the moutains. Not many big rivers up there. Not much room for large armies up thier either.
At this time Hokkido is not even included in Japan. The whole snow thing would be less likely than the game seems to suggest. Snow as wet rain perhaps but not as fluffy stuff on the ground.
Catiline
05-24-2001, 22:43
Wet rain? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
It's not a bug, it's a feature
Wet Rain to those from the UK.
Snow that never reaches the ground. Or at least not in large quantities.
It's slushing outside today. May be an expression unique to us northern residents.
Darrin
A canadian living in sweden married to a Japanese women.
We could add freezing rain, sleet, hail and sandstorms too...
Hail! Now that would be interesting... would it indiscriminantly kill men from all armies present? Like arrows from Buddha himself?!?
A minimum number of attackers around casltes to obtain the seige losses. Blockade force must be sizeable.
Seige loses seeem to be percentage. Maybe a set number of men per season would be more accuate. Otherwise why put more than 100 men even in bigger castles. They aren't going to be reincarnated.
Kraellin
05-26-2001, 02:26
one other thing to add to my list: ships and ship zones. this also has been covered in another topic, but i thought i'd elaborate a bit. change seasons to months, since ships move faster at times. use the same zones of control for ships that land troops use. if yer in the zone, it's yours. ports then become more than 'bugs'. troops move zone to zone across the sea per month. sea zones would be bigger than land zones to also allow for 'faster movement on sea'. provinces with sea borders would be designated as 'landable or not', meaning that any province with a landable sea border wouldnt need a port to be invaded by sea. keep the ships simple. 1 type fits all, but do allow for honor increases. ships could only be built at ports with a ship building capacity...a tech tree item. troop limitations per ship. troops may embark or disembark at any landable sea border, but with a 1 month penalty. sea battles are always decided on a calculated basis rather than in battle mode (that can come later, perhaps). any unit, including ninjas, shinobi, geishas and so on that wants to move by sea must take passage on a ship. however, perhaps shinobi, ninjas and geishas could 'sneak' aboard a neutral or even enemy ship, but also have a chance of being detected when doing so. in so doing, though, they would have to accept the destination of the ship, regardless of where it's going. ships could be captured and taken intact in battleto be used by your own forces, and perhaps even by shinobi or ninjas or geishas while the ship was in port or while the respective unit was traveling aboard it. ships may flee, just like any other unit. ships in port are exactly opposite from troops in castles; they are more vulnerable to attack, not less. ships in sea zones with ports must be disposed of before attacking the port. one has the option of letting other ships pass through a zone in which you have ships already. ships must dock periodically for supplies and repair. ships require a koku maintenance fee, just like troops.
add fishing. did the japanese suddenly quit eating fish in this game? i mean, come on, this is japan. fishing fleets would also be subject to attack, taxes, maintainence and so on. some provinces would get a bonus of koku due to better fishing grounds.
whenever elmarko or ragefury play in multi campaign, make sure they start on a remote island...with no women.
K.
Catiline
05-26-2001, 05:58
THat'll be wet snow, or sleet then.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kraellin:
[B]one other thing to add to my list: ships and ship zones.
Interesting, you could add storms etc. The food supply situation is what I want to see included.
In Nobunaga's Ambition 11 you had to attack and have sufficient food to feed your army(number of men determined food consumption rate per day). This is realistic and the defenders needed food, otherwise they fled to a friendly province. Having all the food production in STW but no consumption seems odd to me. Don't armies march on their grog?
In N.A. 11 you could also hire ronin and try to buy strong enemy soldiers and generals. Others in this Post have already spoken of this feature. You could also rearrange the troop numbers eg. give any infantry in a province to a stronger infantry unit there to boost them to their exact numerical limit. Their skill level was then adjusted (mixed so all ended up the same) but they would fight so much better under a good soldier or the general. Thus you could train up troops under one soldier and then transfer them to a different soldier who had been busy doing other things.
N.A. 11 also give generals (you could select and demote them instantly) and soldiers certain traits and abilities according to historical data. They came into the game in the correct timeframe as well.
I think the ship,port and food issues really need addressing. I agree with most of the other points raised in this Post. ADMINISTRATORS are you listening ??? Can you please refer this Post to the appropriate persons when it closes? There are lots and lots of sensible ideas that need consideration.
[This message has been edited by Shuko (edited 05-26-2001).]
The disbanding at the campaign(Battle or more). Espesially the part-time soldier i.e. Ashi.Then so no Koku, and then you can use the Dojo.So are adminstation can use a Roster it would be a roster says 1,000 Ashigaru Province Awaji, maybe even you can call-to-arm.Maybe the mobilize the whole Army,that makes alot of Koku too..If you want to war then you need to ration your self..You says "himmm..Maybe it will take more time 3 season...I need the money" What do you think.
EasyCo
[This message has been edited by EasyCo (edited 05-26-2001).]
[This message has been edited by EasyCo (edited 05-26-2001).]
[This message has been edited by EasyCo (edited 05-26-2001).]
Kraellin
05-26-2001, 12:19
one little item i'd like to see in the campaign game is if you click on a province you would see what is being built without having to also click on the build building icon. i mean, just display it the same way it is currently done under the build building item (shaded),but show it this way (shaded) also in the group of icons for what is already built. the same would go for enemy buildings being built (if you have spies in the province).
and one other little bug i've noticed, if a province rebels you cannot tell, except by the little red thermometer markings, how many men are in the new rebel army, regardless of having spies or watchtowers.
K.
Anssi Hakkinen
05-26-2001, 17:42
Kraellin-san, you can see what is being built by right-clicking on the province - not the level of completion, though. It's the maximum extent to which your spies can provide information, I reckon.
The latter thing is not a bug, but a feature; you can't click on the army because it doesn't exist yet, it's only forming. You have one "reaction turn" to reinforce the province with whatever troops are available, and only have a rough estimate of the rebel army's size; once the rebels are fully formed, combat ensues immediately.
------------------
"No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by the force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power governments, and tyrants, and armies can not stand. The Centauri learned this lesson once. We will teach it to them again. Though it take a thousand years, we will be free."
- G'Kar in Babylon 5:"The Long, Twilight Struggle"
Kraellin
05-26-2001, 20:33
anssi,
i'm well aware of the right click feature, but that's not what i'm asking for.
as for the rebels forming, ok. i can see that for the first immediate turn, but it doesnt change. even after the army is 'formed' and has fought, i still cant click on it to find out the exact size if the battle didnt ccompletely resolve who won. i mean, how long is this bloody army going to take to form?
K.
Shuko
I think STW does take away kuko at year end. 1 for every soilder you have I think.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darrin:
I think STW does take away kuko at year end. 1 for every soilder you have I think.
Don't think that is true as some provinces have half upkeep rates for certain unit types. Perhaps someone else knows the full details.
What I was referring to before is when you send your army to attack an enemy provence ie. you don't need to allocate how much food /koku they are taking with them. I think this feature needs to be included in STW. Obviously they would also need to calculate how much food and koku there is in each province.
Kraellin
05-27-2001, 11:48
allow for more than 3 bridges on a map.
allow bridges to run east and west as well as north and south.
more textures and ability to edit them or create new ones.
editable map sizes...and shapes, with no particular limit to map sizes.
free standing water that doesnt have to go edge to edge.
editable starting positions for multi games.
options, options, options.
K.
i think the whole diplomacy thing needs improving, allys cant be asked to co-ordinate attacks against mutual enemies and the cease-fire 'mode' is no different to allied really.
I also think that somehow including ships would be a great idea.
the ai alsoneeds tobe changed, without it cheating on expert
------------------
stw is fun as it is but there are several slight problems with it. Such as the Ronin at the end and the tratorous alliances you make thayt are broken a turn latter.
Kraellin
06-04-2001, 14:01
how bout adding some fantasy campaign maps? and the ability to edit your own camp maps. maybe even an import map file ability where you could make maps in a paint program and have the game convert them to camp maps.
K.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.