Creative Assembly Suggestions for the next TW game [Archive]

hoom

06-07-2011, 18:01

I think this request is not so much about the time/places we'd like to see but game features to make TW games better?

Game engine changes I'd like to see:

Bigger armies.
Historically TW games have tended to be scaled something like 10|1 in terms of number of soldiers on the field.
Partly thats about keeping unit counts controllable, partly about performance.
TW is so far ahead of any other game in terms of number of units on screen at once that there really is no competition but its still disappointing to find yourself playing a big historical battle like Cannae with only 3-6K rather than 30-60K soldiers.
Third Age gets decent numbers in some battles & its great fun to load up a custom battle with a super-elite elvish army vs 8 armies full of the lowest quality biggest number Ork units but it still rarely manages battles equivalent to Helms' Deep let alone the attack on Minas Tirith.
Keeping it controllable can be done by splitting armies into sections controlled by AI generals eg Left, Middle & Centre with the AI generals being orderable in some detail but the AI would have to be really making good use of terrain & units.

Fix unit pathfinding on walls & quit having it so that walls basically offer no restriction to enemy movement.
In Shogun, Empire & Napoleon all units can just walk up to walls and climb up them without hesitation. Typically the approach is done with few casualties contrary to history (& presumably at least in part due to the comparitively small army sizes).
This basically makes it impossible to emulate historical cases of small garrisons holding key fortresses against massive armies.
Even in Med2, Rome & Med1 it was always too easy to bring along a bunch of siege gear then blow so many holes in walls that they might as well not be there so you end up defending the central square instead.
Historically it was about making one or two entry points not 8.

3rd level of the game.
Currently Theatre level maneuvre is mixed in with the Strategic/Logistic level in a way that makes counter marching, allied actions & strategic retreat (which was one of the great things about Shogun & Med1) nearly impossible, while also unnecessarily cluttering up the Strategic/Logistic map.
I say bring back the Drag & Drop proper Strategic level, with maneuvre only occuring where opposing armies meet in a province (zoomed in province Theatre map) several Theatre turns per Strategic turn or a period of realtime maneuvre per Strategic turn.

A defending army needs to have a chance to counter the actions of an invading army.
In Empire for example a single unit can pop into a province, raid several villages & move back out of range of a much larger defensive force then do it again next turn inflicting an infeasably high economic toll.
Historically Leonidas had warning & opportunity to setup the delaying force at Thermopylae. If the Persians invaded in the current style they'd just come out of nowhere & sack Athens then plonk down outside Corinth before the Spartans could do anything.

Its also currently impossible to retreat in the face of a superior army most of the time.
Out of the fog of war comes a massive army, marches up to you & attacks. If you retreat you probably won't get away far enough & the enemy just marches up again, you have the non-choice: fight an unwinnable battle or lose the army outright without inflicting any casualties but now you are probably on weaker terrain than you were on before retreating.

In Shogun & Med1 in the face of superior invaders you could strategically abandon the province without loss of soldiers (adding to defense of the next province) or retreat to the castle then send in a relief force next turn or two.
This was to the advantage of the AI at least as much as the player.

Baggage train/camp.
A bunch of historical battles hinged around threats to, capture or successful defense of one armies' baggage train/camp, so I think it'd be a good thing to bring that into TW battles somehow.

Veteran & Avatar customisation in singleplayer campaigns.
I enjoy setting colour schemes & giving custom titles to units in the multiplayer of Shogun2 & its kinda disappointing being unable to do the same in singleplayer.
I guess its arguably a historical thing but I think its the sort of bending history to our will that is OK, plus some would really enjoy naming & colour scheming as close to historically as possible.

Bring back Town view & add Army view.
Town view in Rome was cool.
I also want to see my armies marching around in glory. Either a camp/town parade if they've been sitting around or marching along a road/track if they've been moving that turn.

Improve visual quality of the campaign map.
The battlemaps of Shogun2 are amazingly atmospheric but the Strategic map still looks like a tarted up version of the Rome strategic map & the Rome strategic map was already visually sub-par when it came out.
This incongruity breaks my immersion in a way the old parchment style never did (I could believe I'm sitting in a tent looking at a map).

Related to the above 2: Continuous zoom.
Play RUSE to see how cool this can be. At full zoom out you're in a command bunker looking down at a 3d war map with tokens representing your units.
You have background bunker visuals & audio but you can scroll in continuously down to a close-up view of individual tanks & soldiers in appropriate scale with properly proportioned & good looking towns etc.
At intermediate ranges the level of detail & the schematic/realness gets gradually changed in a way that feels just right.
Probably would be impossible to do on the scale of full TW campaign map but might be doable for individual provinces via Theatre mode.

More Python.

Most of all: Keep the scope to things you can implement in budget & time.

-----------------------------
But since others have mentioned time periods...
I agree with Warring States or Three Kingdoms.
Its an area that hasn't been previously covered, has wide variety of interesting weaponry & bunch of factions ie should be pretty ideal for a TW game.

I'd prefer a Successor/Helenistic period centered game over a direct Rome sequel.
See Rome Total Realism & Europa Barbarorum.
Doesn't mean Rome isn't involved but gives that wider historical flavour & context.
Plus polyreme naval battles :D
A Western Mediterranean focus like RTR VII would also be very cool while enabling the Punic wars to be covered in much better detail than in the bigger map of RTR6 & EB.
Could even be done in several parts with smaller campaign expansions adding more detail/provinces & start position/time periods: West (Carthage, Iberia, Rome & Gauls), East (Successors, Steppe & Indians), Greek peninsular (various Greek wars, Persian invasions, rise of Macedon), Italy (rise of Rome, Gallic invasions, threat of Carthaginian intervention).

You could buy the rights (hah! $$$) to LoTR & put Third Age: TW mod in a box.
I'd buy it no question as is but with extra possibilities provided by official rights (access to Weta art, designers etc) & being put out by the game engine devs it could be even better.
But a non-Tolkien based fantasy setting I wouldn't be interested in.

Daevyll

06-07-2011, 19:05

I'd like a game based on the 16th and 17th century European wars. 30 years' war, 80 years' war, reformation, inquisition, Ottoman expansion, the conquest dof the New World etcetera.

Religious strife would be a major factor strategically, as would the different dynastic relations and territorial claims.

Tactically it is interesting as well, with the shift from late-medieval warfare to early 'modern' combat.

Servius

06-07-2011, 19:44

In the TWC thread, Craig specifically said "features" so I'll leave the era and locale alone.

Regarding features...

1) If/when you return to the age of sail or beyond, I'd like to see coastal battles, with ships acting like off-map artillery. For example, if an army in Empire makes an amphibious landing, the army can land but uses all its movement points. So it can't move off the beach until the next turn. Well, if you're defending, and you attack an army on the beach in that situation, the battle should take place on a coastal map, with any neighboring ships displayed in the water, and you should be able to trigger a cannonade (like as a general special ability, on a timer) that brings up an AoE cursor to target the bombardment.

2) If/when you return to a colonial period, it would be nice if you included the entire globe, not just little trade theatres like the Ivory Coast. Even if it were just coastal provinces, I'd like to be able to land, take over or build a trade castle, and possibly have to defend those with regular army units. So, you wouldn't have to map out the interior of Africa, but at least have a string of colonial provinces along the coast instead of just those anchorages/trade nodes.

3) I really miss the ability to award titles to units, as you could in MTW. You've gone a long way to bringing that back, first in Empire (with the government ministers), and now even closer in Shogun 2 (with the ability to award up to 4 commissions to specific generals). I'd like maybe a few more commissions/titles for generals (for example, in MTW, you could award a province governorship AND a privy council title), and they titles were appropriately named for each faction (which won't apply in a game like Shogun but probably would if you return to Europe). But I'd also like the ability to award battle honors after particularly awesome victories. For example, right now in Shogun 2, if you have some kind (not sure if it's Heroic or Decisive, or something else) victory, a little gold monument appears on the campaign map, and you can hover over it to see who faught who, what year, what the name of the battle was, etc. Well, when you win a battle that triggers the creation of monument like that, I'd also like the ability to grant (or have automatically granted based on kill/death ratios) battle honors to specific, individual units. Battle honors would add something to the units stats (+2 morale or +1 Melee Attack). This would help distinguish individual units. I really liked how in Empire each unit was numbered and you could change their names. In Shogun 2 you can't do that. All units are anonymous, and except for experience, they're all the same. I find I don't care for my Shogun 2 units anywhere near as much as I did for my Empire units, and I'm sure it's because there's no way to distinguish one from another.

4) In Shogun 2, you named the prefecture capitals, but not the ports, farms, etc. In Empire, every building in a region had a name (Oxford, Lyon, etc.). Shogun 2 feels more anonymous because of this, and that decreases my engagement.

5) Be sure to retain the 4 season turn format, no matter what future games have as a start and end date. The number of turns between the arbitrary start and end dates is immaterial. The immersion and beauty that comes with 1 turn / season, and the added tactical variety it can add to battles, is just too good to give up again.

6) Significantly increase the default range of ships, and moderately increase the range of agents, and somewhat increase the range of armies on the campaign map. The first thing I do when I get a new TW game is see if there's a Darth Mod for it yet, because one of the usual improvements that mod makes is to increase the range of units, especially ships starting with Empire. The default ranges are always rediculously short, especially for ships, and it's SO frustrating. Please talk to Darth, figure out what methodology he uses to determine the ranges, and adopt something close to that as the default in future TW games.

7) Brainstorm some way of incorporating the Avatar system into the single-player game. As a diehard SP player, I'm never going to use MP, but I like where you were going with the customization and personalization of an avatar on the MP side. It would be great if the SP side could benefit from that too.

8) The Ninja movies are great. I'm so glad they're back. They're a lot more attractive than the ones in RTW and M2TW and more interesting in their settings, methods, etc. Please retain these in future TW games.

9) If multiple generals are present in the same stack, allow all of them to get experience from victories. Even if you set up a heirarchy, where the top guy gets 100%, and the 2nd highest ranking guy gets 80% and so on, that would be cool.

10) It would be even cooler if allied units on the same battlefield could benefit from the bonuses of their general. For example, in S2, you can develop your generals to be good with cavalry vs. infantry, offense vs. defense, etc. Let's say I have 2 stacks from my own faction one that's mostly infantry and led by a general with infantry bonuses, and another mostly cavalry with a general with cavalry bonuses. They both fight in the same battle, and since they're both from my faction, I control them on the battlefield. Well, I'd like the infantry to get the bonuses from their general and the cavalry to get the bonuses from THEIR general. Conversely, you could allow for all general bonuses to apply to all units in a stack if a stack has multiple generals. This would be similar to the way some of the Commissioner bonuses apply to all units while some apply only to units in a stack led by that particular general.

11) It would be cool if you could add in some kind of dedicated troop transport ship class. In Empire, it always felt a bit unfair that I could transport 20 units on a single Sloop, or in Shogun 2, on a bow kobaya.

edyzmedieval

06-08-2011, 00:09

Couple of features I'd like to see. :)

1. Mod Tools - by far the most important, it enables us to create a much better TW game experience and improve on the original. :bow:

2. Unit "character" - even with regiment names in NTW and experience, they still feel just like any other different unit. Bring on some ideas such as different uniforms, different "battlefield character" to make them more unique. (look at the Infanterie de Ligne "The Brave" from NTW, the name says it all). :book:

3. More economic options, the economy needs to be developed further.

4. Individual taxation, bring it back, every province must have it's own dedicated taxation system.

5. Allow more units in a single army, allow around a maximum of 40 units per army to make it much more representative to the battles of the periods.

6. Develop the skill tree - even if so far it makes the general/agent more "unique" once he dies I can make another one just as easily, the impact is not as profound as one might expect.

7. Supply chains are a must by now, they were somewhat represented in NTW but nothing too special, it was very easy to replenish your whole army in a province with a Supply Warehouse. Make it more complex so the attacking of supply chains and convoys will really have an impact.

8. Commissions/titles for generals. This is especially evident in the Medieval period and also in the Roman period where it was a must to give titles and concessions out.

9. Trade must be made more complex than just working your merchant ships in a trade node. Ability to control tariffs, imports and ensure protection of your own merchant fleets would be a nice touch to make it more interesting. ~:)

10. Develop the multiplayer. The first step with Shogun 2 has been excellent and I want you to keep this feature and improve on it, a great plus for CA. :yes:

:)

Graphic

06-08-2011, 03:56

Craig, please ask the developers on my behalf why they keep taking out good features for no reason :furious3:

Bring back the ability to tax each settlement differently.

Bring back the ability to make generals governors.

Bring back the additional general stats like dread/chivalry, acumen, piety, etc.

Bring back dueling the next time it fits the period.

Bring back the M2TW and RTW mercenary system.

Make it possible to trade individual resources.

Being back the ability to trade research and regions in diplomacy.

Bring back the ability to assassinate nearly anyone, including your own generals and family members.

Bring back the trade theaters the next time it fits with the game's setting.

Bring back the feature where when a unit has upgraded armor, their armor changes in battle too.

Make the character skill trees larger. Right now pretty much every general is identical until you get 3-4 stars.

Bring back admiral ships. Having to put a land general on a ship is weak.

Bring back the ability to demand the surrender of besieged troops.

Bring back the ability to capture units in battle and then ransom/execute/release them.

Old system for archers and horse archers, including the range advantage gained from being on high ground. The ETW/NTW cone of fire just doesn't work with arrows.

Bring back interception on the campaign map.

Change it back to where you had to wait a few turns when besieging to make ladders and battering rams. I thought the grappling hooks were lame, now they just climb 100 foot castle walls with their bare hands.

The battle reinforcement system of Kingdoms.

More random events on the campaign map like plagues and natural disasters.

GET RID OF PERSISTENT VETS IN MULTIPLAYER. It destroys game balance and the importance of tactics. The best build wins now, not the best tactician. Just keep the retainers and the avatar skill tree, and have matchmaking only match you to a similarly ranked avatar.

Monk

06-08-2011, 04:05

Seconding the micromanage tax request. The global tax sliders are fine for large empires, but the option of micromanaging each settlement would at least be nice. There's no reason why we can't just have a box that says "micromanage tax" that we can check and then set taxes city by city. Unless there's some kinda engine limitation.

Bring back the M2TW and RTW mercenary system.

Bring back the ability to assassinate nearly anyone, including your own generals and family members.

Make the character skill trees larger. Right now pretty much every general is identical until you get 3-4 stars.

All of these, 100% agreed with.

Character skill trees are a great addition to the game, but more diversification before the third star would be great. One or two extra talents in those early tiers would go a long way to making generals have a distinct feel from the very start of their career.

And yes, let me kill my own generals. The loyalty system is back, which means from time to time I have to deal with insurrections. Giving me the choice to force a seppuku only works for the Sengoku period - let me deal with trouble makers in other ways. :grin2:

HopAlongBunny

06-08-2011, 04:57

I'm stuck on China.

Warring States period you have changes happening in army composition and bureaucracy. The possibilities are endless for research options; much like MTW some research options would grant titles, capacities and offices.

If you can get that game to "feel" right, the market is enormous.

JeromeBaker

06-08-2011, 15:17

1. I liked how your units in ETW were numbered. Allow us to have the ability to name/customize units. It is not as much fun when all your units are generic like in S2TW.

2. Depending on the time period add in mercs.

3. I liked in previous TW titles where you could click and drag assistants from one General to another. It was neat to pass down a veteran advisor from a father to a son who is just getting started.

4. I liked in S2TW how you could appoint certain offices to your generals that would make them specialized. This would fit well into other TW games.

5. Some TW games had this, some did not. Have reinforcements come in from the direciton they are at on the game map, I like being able to set up the battle and know my reinforcements are comming from behind my army instead of to the front right.

6. Allow us more control of Vassals so it feels like they are an extension of our own empire.

7. Make the tech trees broader so it is harder to research all techs. This makes each faction more unique since there would be more options to choose from.

8. I liked when you could ransom, kill, or release captured enemy soldiers. You had to take into account how these choices would affect your general's traits and the ransom was nice when you need $.

9. Allow multiple generals in one stack to get experience instead of just the leading one. It doesnt have to be equal among all generals present, but at least something.

10. After individual units reach a certain ranking/veteran level allow us to customize them. The customization does not have to be that in depth, just allow us to make a simple choice between traits like a bonus to defense, attack, aim, replenishment rate, loyalty(would make it harder for them to waiver and retreat and/or bribe), or movement rate. This in a way goes along with my number 1 point. The more customizaiton we have with our units I beleive goes a long way in the replayability of the game. I invision putting together an army of my favorite units who have faught well for big missions or to accompany my favorite general. Then if we could make them have individual traits, units with better defense could hold the line, units with better attack ratings would flank, units that replinsh faster would be used in the front line where you have more casualties, and ones with better movement rate would chase routed armies that are retreating. The possiblities are wide open here and I think people would really dig the options. This would be particuarly awesome for R2TW. I would like to create monster legion units to mimic Ceaser's 12th legion (I beleive it was the 12th, can anyone confirm?). Units with identities also keep me more interested in fighting the battles as best I can and makes each battle important even if its just chasing a few rebels.

11. Rome 2

Nelson

06-08-2011, 17:25

I would like to see Rome 2.

I would also like to see a game with moats! Six Total War installments and still no moats!

edyzmedieval

06-09-2011, 11:10

As for the game, I vote for a Medieval 3 Total War. :yes:

A Nerd

06-09-2011, 16:38

Medieval 3, ancient China or ancient Greece! :D

jackie_fish

06-09-2011, 16:50

Muiltplayer has come leaps forward in shogun but I am not sure about you guy but I see it as a start to something. You guy should look at other successful muiltplayer games such as say starcraft with all the separate ladders ect and life a practise league would be cool to see.
Also whilst talking about starcraft when you go to see a battle replay you can throw up stats of all different thing and i think that would be really cool to see in the new Game.
As the next game I assuming wont be about civil war you will be able to play different faction with different build and troops. I would love to see the player pick a leader of a nation and lvl up that nation and your own leader. obviously you could keep people to only one faction but maybe give more benefits for winning with the faction they chose.
Jake

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

06-10-2011, 21:22

India total war.

China total war

Prodigal

06-14-2011, 07:17

ROME 2 please...

aimlesswanderer

06-14-2011, 12:54

Most definitely China - before the Qin unification till the Han, the decline of the Han (Rot3K), fall of the Tang and the Song-Jin-Mongol wars.

India - vast numbers of wars down there

Assyria, Egypt, Babylonians & the Hittites

Persia - the rise of the Achaemenids

The_Emperor

06-15-2011, 07:54

personally I have to agree it would be nice to cover an era or locale we have not had before.

China warring states.

Rise of the Mongols (with a map stretching across all that would become their empire would be very cool with many other factions and rival steppe clans to fight)

Arjos

06-15-2011, 08:07

Any new period...
No II version 'til technology is way ahead of the previous title...

Daveybaby

06-15-2011, 13:06

In terms of features:
Ability to control multiple armies on the battlefield, all we need is one key to cycle through the available armies. That's all.

In terms of setting:
A fantasy setting, something along the lines of master of magic (lots of wildly different races, lots of magic, lots of magical creatures). Like has already been said, this will really piss off a lot of people, so i suggest licensing out the engine to another devteam to produce it, while you do something historical in parallel (or vice versa).

As far as historical settings goes, my vote would also be for the warring states period - although there is an awful lot of chinese history that would also be very suitable (maybe one game with 2 or 3 completely separate campaigns, each in a different era? A lot of work i guess).

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

06-15-2011, 18:06

smooth_operator

06-15-2011, 19:03

I've posted a similar thread in Gamespot months before S2TW went out. And now, my best concept is...
World:Total War
-A worldwide conflict where nations all over the world(Asian,African,European,Native American) clash for continental(and possibly global) domination. I think It's exciting to see how different fighting tactics from different cultures meet together for an exhilarating war experience on a global scale.

Nikodil

06-16-2011, 07:24

- Realistic Spotting Rules

I think it would radically improve multiplayer battle game play if there's what-you-see-is-what-you-spot. Woods, buildings and hills should all block line-of-sight. With the right map, you would be able to sneak up your army and attack from a totally unexpected direction. Properly employed scouts would have a more important role, as knowledge of the enemy momevents could be the key to winning.

econ21

06-16-2011, 13:04

- Realistic Spotting Rules

While on the subject of realism, I would like to see some development of a more realistic treatment of attrition and supply on the campaign map. There's been progress in recent games - with attrition in winter in STW2, or in Spain/Russia in NTW. And with automatic replenishment of depleted units. However, in real wars, logistics and lines of communication were of crucial importance.

While not an obviously sexy feature to add on to a game, I don't think this would make it more dull as the computer could handle it "under the hood" as it does now with replenishment and attrition without the player having to worry about the tedious paperwork.

I think it could make the SP gameplay more challenging, as logistics are a particular constraint on the "blitz" type player strategies that work so well against the AI.

Modelling lines of communication on the campaign map engine could also add an interesting dimension to maneovuring on the campaign map, rather akin to the modelling of unit facing on the battle map engine.

seireikhaan

06-18-2011, 05:29

Feature wise, the big one for me is individual province taxing. It would give the player a lot more flexibility in handling province loyalty while still trying to squeeze enough tax money to support buildings and armies.

Titles, like they were done in MTW, are another thing I miss. Granting generals titles to improve loyalty and provincial prosperity was a great feature, in my opinion.

I would like to see a bit more differentiation in general's skill trees. Its pretty good right now, but as mentioned, I usually level generals up pretty much the same way if I have any plans of using them in combat.

Arjos

06-18-2011, 11:19

One vital feature imo is to have factions within factions: as vassals or confederations, able to make decisions on their own...
For example various tribes fighting eachother, but if a common enemy invade they could unite or split into two fronts...

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

06-18-2011, 13:27

I want Toal War: Asia for Whole Asia and bored set at Europe right now so will you see the Total War Asia after Rome 2.

Map it must be Asia exclude Middle East or maybe Include if add. They will be no Australia.

Period will be around 1450-1800

Problem is
Voice Actor must be Asian for speak their own Languages

Possible Nation in ATW
China(Maybe Song, Ming or Qing)
Jurchens(Manchus) (Qing if Seperate from Ming)
Korea
Japan
Siam(Known as Ayutthaya)
Vietnam(This Perios will be Divide as North "Trinh" and South "Nguyen")
Champa
Cambodia
Burma
Hanthawady Kingdom
Laos
Malacca
Acheh
Mongol Khanate
Majapahit

India:
Mughal
Delhi Sultanate
Vijayanagara
Mysore
Ceylon
Nepal
Persia(Timurid or Safavid)

European Nation:
Holland
Portugal
France
Spain
England

UglyJun

06-19-2011, 01:29

:daisy:

Moderator edit: Please read post #4

since when is stating a fact CA bashing ????

smooth_operator

06-24-2011, 06:37

Medieval 3, ancient China or ancient Greece! :D
Ancient China would be great. How about ancient Greece trying to fend off the Persian Invasion?

smooth_operator

06-24-2011, 06:44

Any new period...
No II version 'til technology is way ahead of the previous title...
Soon we will be seeing Total War 3D

Arjos

06-25-2011, 11:14

Damned 2000s society caring only for appearances, let's stick to gameplay, stability, AI, features and such...
Really all games based mostly or solely on graphics are awful, last for a day and are made just to steal money...

spicykorean

06-25-2011, 18:10

The lack of fog of war in this game is unfortunate.

Scouting was always a crucial part of armies, but in this game, all you have to worry about is things hiding in trees.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

06-25-2011, 18:13

I always thought off the 30 years war?Thats a great topic.

Voigtkampf

06-26-2011, 09:14

edyzmedieval

06-26-2011, 13:20

Ahem, what about Shogun 2: Mongol Invasion, or some similar themed expansion? Or is the notion of a TW title followed by an expansion a thing of past now? Not really aware if there is an (in)official policy to that issue now?

It kind of looks like it. I mean the Peninsular Campaign for NTW was of really good value, enjoyed it, but the one for ETW not so much...

Ja'chyra

06-26-2011, 15:29

Definately a fantasy setting, but not LOTR or George RR Martins world, both are way overated, and I don't like Martin, he's too lazy to finish the series and charges too much for his Kindle books.

If you want a book theme try Steven Eriksson or even Warhammer, oh, I'm not too keen on gunpowder either.

Aquitaine

06-26-2011, 19:24

Some tweaking of the campaign map functionality as it relates to movement as well as diplomatic/military action would be nice. For example:

- Military actions with more than one faction: I had a few matchlock ashigaru walking past a 1-province vassal that had a Christian rebellion going on (can't imagine why). The rebels attacked my ally. This was in a head-to-head MP campaign. My opponent chose 'play as AI,' and I chose 'decline attack' because I didn't want my ashigaru to help out my vassal. We were both brought to the battle map where neither one of us controlled anything. We watched the rebels walk around a castle and get shot at and then retreat, and then the game just sat there the siege animation on the campaign map. We dun broke it. In other words, it seems like a lot of the UI and logic in Shogun 2 is about faction A vs. faction B - but we had functionality in previous titles where you could have an army on the map that was nearby another engagement and decide in that engagement whether you wanted to get involved, even if it meant betraying an ally. Is this gone?

- Getting people on and off ships is a nightmare. Sometimes you capture a port and your army saunters off and can move and attack that turn. Other times you click to move your army and your fleet moves to a nearby beach, ignoring the port it captured, and lands the army on the beach, ending the turn for both the army and the fleet.

- It's not always clear exactly how far a unit can move on the campaign map, or how far its ambush/intercept radius is. Sometimes you think you're blocking a strategic point and the AI just walks right past you. Other times you think you have an ambush set up and the AI just walks right past it. I'm OK with ambushes being discovered, but that doesn't mean that they should be able to get past you without a fight - it just means that your ambush failed.

- Losing trade agreements because one side or the other lost a port isn't necessarily bad, but it's ridiculous that you take a hit for dishonoring treaties when this happens, even if it's the AI's port. Having a trade agreement should not require the actual capacity to trade - it's just an agreement that you will when you can. The game can either auto-balance who you actually trade with based on your profit, or it can give us a means to trade certain amounts with each clan. I'm fine with the KISS solution but I'm tired of re-negotiating trade deals every turn because one side or the other is at war and losing ports.

- Please bring back awarding titles. This was the single coolest thing about MTW and I've missed it ever since. I don't so much care about having a big impact on gameplay (as it did in MTW) but it really makes your generals stand out much more than 'commissioner for supply' does.

- Ship movement on the campaign map needs some attention. An all-too-frequent occurrence is that you obliterate a fleet on the battle map, but they then withdraw to an 'attrition' area where you don't want to chase them, and your choice is to either park your fleet there for a while to lock them up or else move on and then they all come back and harass your shipping. I think ship losses in naval battles need to be a lot more 'loss' and a lot less 'got away' unless you actually withdraw them successfully from the battle map. It makes no sense for galleons to blow up a whole opposing fleet with cannon and then run into them again on the next turn. And this is assuming you catch the enemy fleet at all -- the whole move / run away / move fight mechanic that sort-of works on land doesn't work well on sea and is very frustrating.

Still, S2TW is for the most part a fantastic step in the right direction. Keep it up!

Andres

06-28-2011, 09:29

Ahem, what about Shogun 2: Mongol Invasion, or some similar themed expansion? Or is the notion of a TW title followed by an expansion a thing of past now? Not really aware if there is an (in)official policy to that issue now?

:yes:

Don't know if this is still on topic, but I, for one, very much prefer a "real" big expansion pack à la Barbarian Invasion over DLC. Mongol Invasion sounds good, but the Japanese invasions of Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592–1598))under Toyotomi Hideyoshi might be fun too, for a change.

Like Voigtkampf, I'm also interested to know if "real" expansion packs for TW games will still happen in the future?

Craig, is it possible to shed a light on this?

Arjos

06-28-2011, 10:13

I agree for Korea, the Mongol invasion would have the Hojo killing diplomats, while Typhoons eliminate the invaders XD

TinCow

06-28-2011, 13:35

I also would like to see CA try their hand an original non-historical IP. Doing so would give infinite freedom to perfectly balance the campaign map and units, as there will be no need to replicate real geography or military units. Fantasy is one option, but why not simply do a fictional medieval-style setting? Medieval is clearly a very popular setting, and players are always keen on European-style castles, knights, etc. Why not do a fictional take on that with the objective being a perfected strategy gaming experience, freed from the constraints of historical realism?

If CA isn't willing to go fictional, I'd like to see the Warring States period. Though I have a feeling we'll be getting Rome 2 no matter what we say...

gollum

06-28-2011, 14:02

Doing so would give infinite freedom to perfectly balance the campaign map and units, as there will be no need to replicate real geography or military units.

Sounds right on paper, as say in Starcraft, and yet this is not the reason CA does not balance better the campaign and units.

For example the Napoleonic period is considered ideal for a perfect RPS game on the battlefield, and yet Napoleon did not really take advantage of that. On the other hand the original STW was very well balanced - only the WMs were slightly unbalanced in v1.12.

In reality it depends what sort of players the series wants to attract. If it is predominantly SPers that want to play sandbox games, then good graphics and immersion and lots of options will do, as in M2TW - the game did not need to be challenging or well balanced and it was not. It has a million exploits.
If it is though predominantly SPers that enjoy challenging strategy and MPers then things like gameplay calculations and unit recognisability take precedence over detailed 3D and zoom in mode. In Starcraft 2 the graphics, while clearly better than Starcraft 1 were not such a departure as to complicate unecessarily the gameplay as in what happened between MTW and RTW. Rather, they just made the core game look better and no more.

In reality the decision lies with those that determine towards what audience the game is to be marketed, rather than the setting. CA often have said that they "don't make the same game twice". For me - as a fan - this is a mistake. It makes for immediately better sales and reaching the mainstream, but it is responsible for many ills to anyone seriously interested from a gameplay perspective in TW, because it basically means that the engine and gameplay are always reset. So the developer behaves - intentionally - like an amnesiac: they forget the things they did right and the things they did wrong.

In any case, if CA policy makers decide to go down a certain route, members of the community can do little more than follow or drop out.

The other thing is that CA marketing strategy is a soup; they admit nothing in terms of what their games are and are not being clear on purpose in order not to exclude any potential buyer - of course they won;t admit to that either :) It would have been so much better for players - of course - if they could just come out and say what sort of gameplay and target audience they are aiming for in every release, although its also true that one can sort of make an educated guess.

TinCow

06-28-2011, 14:21

Sounds right on paper, as say in Starcraft, and yet this is not the reason CA does not balance better the campaign and units.

For example the Napoleonic period is considered ideal for a perfect RPS game on the battlefield, and yet Napoleon did not really take advantage of that. On the other hand the original STW was very well balanced - only the WMs were slightly unbalanced in v1.12.

Balancing certainly has a huge programing aspect to it, but there are limitations placed on CA by the historical settings. RTW is a good example: there are several factions (i.e. various Romans, Carthage, Seleucid) which have clearly superior unit trees. The other factions can win with numbers or with skill if controlled by a human, but factions like the Gauls and the Goths simply do not balance out against their 'technological superior' opponents. Similarly, while both Shogun games have had decently balanced factions, there was almost no unit variety to speak of. Shogun is generally balanced simply because the factions draw mainly from a common unit pool. While that works, it is boring and you're pretty much facing the same units in every battle, regardless of the faction you are fighting. Medieval does a better job with this because it has several different cultures represented, generally divided into Western European, Eastern European, Muslim, and Horde cultures, generally with a couple minor unique units per factions. However, due to the nature of the time period, there's not many other cultures that can be added to the game, so we're stuck with the same cultures every time they revisit the Medieval time period.

If they broke from reality and went fictional, CA could use the Medieval-style method of having different cultures without being bound to the limits of historical warfare. In addition to the cultures I just listed, we could also have Japanese-style armies, Roman style armies, Greek style armies, and pretty much any other type of cultural military you could conceivably think of. You could even add in a faction of steampunk dwarves riding mecha-camels if you wanted. It opens up a door to variety that simply doesn't exist with the historical timeperiod. When CA tries to shoe-horn variety into history, we get stuff like the head hurlers and screeching women. I'll take a dwarven camel rider any day over something like that.

gollum

06-28-2011, 14:42

When CA tries to shoe-horn variety into history, we get stuff like the head hurlers and screeching women. I'll take a dwarven camel rider any day over something like that.

I see the points you are making and there are certainly truths in them, but they are in part half truths. If the game is well balanced, regardless wether there is a single or more unit pools, gameplay isn't boring because the variety comes from the different armies you can build up as well as the terrain that dictates diferent army choices and different tactics.

Also the units you mention in RTW, as well as many others, had a clear impression effect, and i would argue that this was more important in their conception than unit variety.

As for the tech trees, CA did not had to choose a 300 year period of Roman warfare - they could use say only the 3rd Punic war, which would make an excellently balanced game both in the battlefield and the campaign (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/234/hannibal-rome-vs-carthage)

edit: i meant the 2nd Punic War, pardon me.

The long tech trees and large periods were chosen for the sake of faction variety ie to have a large map with too many difrent cultures. I mean starcraft has 3 unique ones and it took something like 3-4 years to really balance it out. It is impossible to expect that the number of factions added in TW games can be realistically and properly balanced in the short time frame between every new TW game relaese.

TinCow

06-28-2011, 15:04

The long tech trees and large periods were chosen for the sake of faction variety ie to have a large map with too many difrent cultures. I mean starcraft has 3 unique ones and it took something like 3-4 years to really balance it out. It is impossible to expect that the number of factions added in TW games can be realistically and properly balanced in the short time frame between a new TW game relaeses.

I don't think that's true. The balance in CA games is really about the unit types rather than the factions or units themselves. Swords -> Spears -> Cavalry -> Swords, with ranged as an independent group that always loses in melee. That's a very different balancing system than Starcraft. Blizzard created three completely different 'factions' which have almost completely different units and advantages/disadvantages. That kind of balancing has never existed in the TW games, because all TW units are designed to fit into one of the basic RPS categories. The main reason factions get unbalanced in the TW games are that they are stiffed in one or more of those basic categories. To keep balance, all CA has to do is ensure that the RPS nature of the unit distribution is still present, while using the cultures to create greater 'flavor.' Perhaps the Steampunk Dwarves focus on superior Camel Cavalry, but they would still be generally balanced as long as the had a couple units each of ranged, sword, and spear.

gollum

06-28-2011, 15:27

I don't think that's true. The balance in CA games is really about the unit types rather than the factions or units themselves. Swords -> Spears -> Cavalry -> Swords, with ranged as an independent group that always loses in melee. That's a very different balancing system than Starcraft. Blizzard created three completely different 'factions' which have almost completely different units and advantages/disadvantages. That kind of balancing has never existed in the TW games, because all TW units are designed to fit into one of the basic RPS categories. The main reason factions get unbalanced in the TW games are that they are stiffed in one or more of those basic categories. To keep balance, all CA has to do is ensure that the RPS nature of the unit distribution is still present, while using the cultures to create greater 'flavor.' Perhaps the Steampunk Dwarves focus on superior Camel Cavalry, but they would still be generally balanced as long as the had a couple units each of ranged, sword, and spear.

In fact, its not that simple, or actually it wasn't always. In the original STW, there are RPSs' within the main RPS. For example, there was an RPS within the cavalry units. Heavy cavalry would beat Cavalry Archers, yari cavalry would beat cavalry archers and tie to Heavy cavalry in melee but win in terms of cost, and cavalry archers would beat either if they had a chance to shoot them.

Similarly there was an RPS within swords; Naginata would beat No-dachi, as would WMs, but No-Dachi would be cheaper than either and would still beat spears, and also its high morale and speed made it good for flank attacks. WMs would tie with Naginata in melee but were faster and had better morale so other conditions in the battlefield would affect their match up.

There was also an RPS within range units - Musketeers would nearly tie with archers in a duel but they were cheaper yet the archers were having better melee and morale and could shoot in the rain while the muskets could not. Arquebusiers were toned down musketeers but they were cheaper and so could be used as a missile screen in order to purchase a better melee component in your army.

You also had two types of spears the Samurai and teh Ashigaru. The first were sturdier and more stadast and would beat the latter, but they were also costlier so they would take again ersources from your missile, sword or cavarly arm.

Then there were minor match up relationships in between categories ie in between swords and cavalry or missiles and swords. Hitting a Naginata with arrows was less efective than hitting a WM with the same. Attaching with cavalry WMs was less efctive than attacking No-Dachi.

All these relationships were unfolding within the general conditions (themselves changing constantly) of the battlefield and so were giving an interaction that was pretty complex. So was the types o armies you could make. They could be loaded in many ways and their use would vary accordingly.

The difference in starcraft is that with the unit management dimension the composition of army changes over time, while in TW it remains the same because there is no resources management and production. As far as match ups in battle though are concerned you have units of higher mobility and speed (cavalry), units of close quarter battle (melee and heavy pounders), and units that are best hitting their opponents from afar (artillery/missiles). And these need to be effectively coordinated in an RPS manner with one covering the weakness of the other to succeed. Of course there is not analogy 1 to 1 to TW, but the principle is basically the same.

Arjos

06-28-2011, 15:38

I really hope they don't go fictional and stay historical, or at least split into two projects and release both...

gollum

06-28-2011, 15:48

Just to explain myself; the whole argument i am trying to make is that balancing can be done in historical periods too. I do not have any problem though with TW going fantasy. In any case already good ground has been covered towards that direction :)

TinCow

06-28-2011, 16:26

In fact, its not that simple, or actually it wasn't always.

...

What you describe here still exists, and has existed in every TW game, simply because there are different units within each RPS category with different levels of 'quality.' Certainly, a higher quality unit will beat a lower quality unit of the same type, but generally they would still lose if properly countered with the right unit from the corresponding RPS category. That's why the imbalance mainly happens when factions are stiffed on an RPS category, not when they simply have differing levels of quality within the category. Faction A may have inferior swords units to Faction B, but that only makes Faction A unbalanced if it has no counter to Faction B's superior swords.

To be clear, I'm also only talking about SP balance here. MP balance is a totally different issue. Even Blizzard recognize that, as evidenced by the fact that many units in SC2 SP are not available for use in SC2 MP.

Just to explain myself; the whole argument i am trying to make is that balancing can be done in historical periods too.

I do agree with you on this. I just think it might be easier for CA to achieve that balance with a fictional IP than with some of their historical settings.

gollum

06-28-2011, 16:41

What you describe here still exists, and has existed in every TW game, simply because there are different units within each RPS category with different levels of 'quality.' Certainly, a higher quality unit will beat a lower quality unit of the same type, but generally they would still lose if properly countered with the right unit from the corresponding RPS category. That's why the imbalance mainly happens when factions are stiffed on an RPS category, not when they simply have differing levels of quality within the category. Faction A may have inferior swords units to Faction B, but that only makes Faction A unbalanced if it has no counter to Faction B's superior swords.

Certainly. I am not sure though if it was always as well thought out as in STW (with the exception of S2, which i haven't played). Not because CA became less competent. But because there were too many interactions (because of too many units) to balance out and also CA - my guess is - cared less about balance past STW. As i said, i do not know about S2.

To be clear, I'm also only talking about SP balance here. MP balance is a totally different issue. Even Blizzard recognize that, as evidenced by the fact that many units in SC2 SP are not available for use in SC2 MP.

I certainly agree. The price of a unit in MP is dictated only by battle use and by match ups relative to the other units available in its roster in combination and against the rosters it has to face. In SP, unit availability and investment in infrastructure also come into it, that make it very very different.

This is why it was - from very early on - suggested to have different stats and/or prices for units for SP and MP in TW. That's 11 years ago - and unless it has been implemented in S2TW, we are still waiting for it :)

I just think it might be easier for CA to achieve that balance with a fictional IP than with some of their historical settings.

Absolutely, there is no doubt, as they will have totally a free hand in shaping up the rosters :bow:

Nelson

06-28-2011, 18:25

I just think it might be easier for CA to achieve that balance with a fictional IP than with some of their historical settings.

It would indeed. Then people like myself couldn't come in and say "That's rubish!" when American light infantry are weak in melee as they are in Empire TW.

However, even in a fantasy setting I expect common sense to rule. Pike blocks should still resist cavalry for example. Whereas a melee unit that is excellent against cavalry but worthless against infantry wouldn't really make sense. It's the potential to make fantasy units using a min/max paradigm that could be annoying.

Noncommunist

06-29-2011, 05:40

What about a dark ages total war? Perhaps set shortly after the fall of the Roman Empire with various barbarian kingdoms set up in the area. There could be a arian/catholic divide as well as pagans and zoroastrians to the east. And at some point during the campaign, Islam would emerge, possibly wiping out several factions to the east. In the north, Viking attacks would become more common as time progressed. Throughout the campaign, different groups from the east such as the avars, the bulgars, and the magyars and perhaps others would show up. Also, there could be some mechanism to simulate the constant fracturing of the Frankish empire from internal strife.

Black Prince

06-29-2011, 20:40

How about something set in a more technologically advanced era? The engine would have to be quite different though I imagine to recreate WW1 or WW2 style battles, but I'm wondering if it could be possible - perhaps WW1 with its massed infantry charges might work better? Or would it be too dull and bloody for gamers to play?

TinCow

06-29-2011, 23:43

A game could also be built nicely around the Thirty Years War. Many, many different nations to play and an interesting combination of old and new (read: gunpowder) technologies.

phonicsmonkey

06-30-2011, 05:41

Whichever game they make next I hope it has a better multiplayer campaign where one person's turn can be played while others are offline - like the hotseat function in M2TW.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

06-30-2011, 14:08

A game could also be built nicely around the Thirty Years War. Many, many different nations to play and an interesting combination of old and new (read: gunpowder) technologies.

I agree,The 30 years wars is a great subject as it is catholic vs protestant.

TinCow

06-30-2011, 20:18

I agree,The 30 years wars is a great subject as it is catholic vs protestant.

It goes beyond that as well, as pretty much every nation in Europe took the opportunity to attack their rivals or make a territorial grab. Even the Ottomans would be included. Lots of factions, lots of unit variety, and several religions (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Orthodox, Muslim). Plus a combination of steel and gunpowder weaponry on the standard European map we've seen in so many TW titles.

Furunculus

07-03-2011, 14:35

Eurasia total war.

Four turns per year.

1200 - 1300

SpencerH

07-03-2011, 14:38

I'd like to see a version I can install without Steam so I'd be able to play TW again.

Assuming such happens (I'm not holding my breath), I'd like to see a fantasy game. I think it could be fun and there couldnt be any complaints about unit movement rates. How fast does an elf unit run anyway?

Jacobin

07-05-2011, 18:48

Korean invasion (i.e the Samurai invasion of Korea) would the obvious DLC.

The podcast interview with Jack Lusted of CA at least indicates that they are working on more content for STW2 so another DLC doesn't seem to be that unlikely.

Rome 2 is obviously going to be the next real game - I just hope that they resist the temptation to remake RTW including the Mummy Returns Egyptians and the fantasy barbarian units as next time we won't have the option of modding them out.

Personally I'd love to see a Renaissance/Reformation TW game that expanded to include the whole of Eurasia, North Africa and the bits of America worth conquering in this era (i.e. the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas).

Arjos

07-07-2011, 15:04

R2TW will be such a let down for me, as others mentioned there are so many periods left untouch: Renaissance/Reformation, Dark Ages/Charlemagne, Warring States, Rise of the Maurya or even a later period in India, rise of the Persian Empire, Archaic/Classical Greece, something in Mesopotamia maybe with Akkad...

Jacobin

07-07-2011, 20:39

What does surprise me is the lack of an American Civil War expansion - if Empire and NTW were moddable we'd probably already have one as the battles are still fairly similar.

Admittedly however good you make the Confederate troops and generals they can't possibly win if the resources available to the both sides are properly factored in.

But that could have been handled by giving the Confederates easier victory conditions (i.e. hold most of the South and take Washington DC).

The Age of Victoria total war could also have been a feasible expansion - start in 1861 with the whole globe as the campaign map (OK circumnavigation could be a problem), quarterly turns (obviously ships have to be able to move a lot faster) and a tech treeending in dreadnoughts, tanks and poison gas.

FasT

07-12-2011, 09:38

Any news on the next era?
I would like Vietnam war era but don't think that possible!
Would rather they stick with the stw2 era and just improve on wot we got now. If they wanna make more money just add a expansion pack to push this game forward and improve and remove the bugs issues we already got!
Won't hold my breathe though:p

Ash

07-12-2011, 18:07

What does surprise me is the lack of an American Civil War expansion
Admittedly however good you make the Confederate troops and generals they can't possibly win if the resources available to the both sides are properly factored in.

Rescources alone would've meant nothing. As James McPherson noted, there are several countries in world history who, despite the desperity of rescources, outlasted a foe with better rescources. The American Revolutionairy war is one example, or both Vietnam wars, or the Dutch and Swiss revolts against the Habsburgs.

The Confederacy came dangerously close to recognition after the 2nd Bull Run and the Trent Affair. Britain was very close to calling a cease fire and de facto recognizing the southern states. France wanted to recognize the Confederacy from the bat but were held back by waiting for the English.

The Confederacy would have different victory conditions, such as winning a diplomatic victory by getting a cease fire after winning enough battles and territory. Union would have to destroy all Confederate armies on the field. Would make for an interesting campaign. The real problem is of course that there are only 2 factions. That's probably the reason we won't see an official CA release on the theme.

Jacobin

07-12-2011, 19:21

So what about the Peninsula War DLC? - that only has two sides.

Noncommunist

07-14-2011, 01:41

What about a fertile crescent based total war? Starts off sometime in the thousands BC and goes till maybe 500ish BC when Persia conquered it all. So then you'd get factions like the Assyrians, the Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Israelites, Elamites, etc. Very slowly, you'd see technology crawl forward and I suppose there'd be a greater diversity of religions. Occasionally, you might see nomads from beyond the area interfering with everyone.

Tomisama

07-17-2011, 18:35

Total War: Dynasty

"Dynasty" would cover the Three Kingdoms period in Chinese history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_kingdoms

The movie Red Cliff shows what kind of action comes with this era!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMFquq8Dz-E

andrewt

07-18-2011, 22:12

I'm hoping they can change the way they handle experience and weapon/armor/accuracy upgrades. Getting units from upgraded buildings into the front lines is pretty tedious in SW2. It takes so many turns it feels like it's not worth it.

Vladimir

07-25-2011, 15:02

It's not worth it. Since retraining was done away with there is no way to infer those bonuses onto old units. This is worsened by the fact that it is a conquest game and your troop producing centers are increasingly separated from your front lines.

Seyavash

07-26-2011, 03:52

My #1 wish is probably not possible and that is to allow for far more feature customization by the player. This would allow the player to set up a campaign how they like. I am thinking something similar to game setting sliders in console sports games. that way players could turn on off fog of war, difficulty etc. allowing for a greater range between pure simulation to arcade style. However I realize this would probably not be possible and incredibly buggy even if it was.

Features I would like are:
Continue to expand the character development tree. This was a definite improvement over the old tech trees
Improve the importance of logistics. As others said, make supply lines/baggage trains critical to gameplay
Related to this is to make raiding more important to the game play. It has improved with each edition but still feels like an afterthought.

As far as periods go, there are so many to choose from, personally I would love a survey of Eurasia in 7th to 10th centuries. From Merovingian/Carolingian France to Tang China as well as the Arab conquests. however it might be interesting to do smaller scale games with more focused periods/settings like the peninsular war. the Thirty Years war definitely has potential.

Alexander the Pretty Good

07-26-2011, 05:11

Partner with Paradox, do the battles for Crusader Kings 2.

On a serious note, re-release Shogun 1 and Medieval 1 for modern graphics cards and operating systems. This is free money. Put 5 programmers in a room for a few weeks. You can even continue selling DLC for the newer games while you do this.

I'd pay full-price, $50 USD for a copy of Med1 working on my computer.

Stazi

07-26-2011, 10:37

I'd pay full-price, $50 USD for a copy of Med1 working on my computer.
You can buy an old card that will allow you to play STW1 and MTW1 for a half of this price or add another $50 and buy used laptop which allow you to play all sort of old games.

btw I'd like to see old, risk style map back. 3D maps are nice and colorful but I miss the feeling of being a king/general, sitting in a headquarter, planning campaigns and generally ruling my empire.

Lemur

07-29-2011, 00:15

Thirty Years War would be wonderful, wonderful. Rome 2 would also be good, although I hope there's a better way to manage the civil wars than the three-faction Rome thing.

As a dedicated SP Creative Assembly catamite, I'd like to see continued improvements to the strategic map. Many good ideas already in-thread.

CirdanDharix

07-29-2011, 03:12

Koga No Goshi

08-03-2011, 23:43

Dear Creative Assembly,

ANYTHING as long as you stay in Total War's strength, which is ancient and medieval warfare. Please no WWII Total War or anything past the era where guns and artillery were the norm. I panned Empires because of this and feel that Total War is not Total War unless it has spears and bows.

I'd love a feudal China game, to my knowledge no major game has ever covered this time or period outside of import games like Romance of the Three Kingdoms. But failing that, anything in the ancient or medieval era.

Vladimir

08-05-2011, 12:47

I just hope they bring back some classic TW controls that went away for no good reason. Things like alt-click to attack with the unit's secondary weapon or move while facing in the same direction; in earlier games the players had more control over our armies and needed less clicks, games like the first Medieval were simply more playable than Shogun 2. Compared to the control I had over my army in Medieval 1, Shogun 2 is almost like being a spectator :no:

While there are many brilliant improvements the battles are a step back. My main gripe is with the archers. Archers play a significant role in this game and they don't receive a height advantage. They tend to move when you assign them a target despite being told to hold.

However, a big improvement is that they don't have to finish their firing animation before moving. That's a huge plus.

aimlesswanderer

08-06-2011, 16:24

While there are many brilliant improvements the battles are a step back. My main gripe is with the archers. Archers play a significant role in this game and they don't receive a height advantage. They tend to move when you assign them a target despite being told to hold.

However, a big improvement is that they don't have to finish their firing animation before moving. That's a huge plus.

Not shooting right into messy melees killing mostly their own comrades, and actually responding to changes in commands would be nice too.

NightwindKing

08-10-2011, 13:15

Hmm...

For other games, I'd love to see something in the Archmenid (or however you spell it) dynasty.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms, duh. Why the hell hasn't anyone done this yet? They all afraid of Chinese communists being displeased?
The wars between the Khmer empire and its neighbors would be sweet, although no one knows much about them so you'd need a LOT of promotion.
I don't know that it would really fit the current model well but a game or expansion set in the Aztec/Maya/Inca/Olmec groups would be unique.
Something in the renaissance would be cool.
One thing that's always been an addition I think strategy games need: islanders! Like, Easter Islanders, Hawaiians, etc...! Come on, how cool would it be to have a legion of tiki-torch bearing, stone idol banner, poisoned fish-bone spears chanting in red warpaint as they charged down a volcano! Awesome! :-)

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

08-11-2011, 01:22

NightwindKing

08-11-2011, 12:21

I agree with Romance of the 3 kingdoms,But I hope for Shogun 3,30 years wars.This idea of Islanders seem to spoil the concept of total war,I wouldnt buy it,

lol well I wouldn't either. But what about as a mercenary unit ;-) I mean come on man...all those pork-and-pineapple pizzas havent given you a taste for the glory of kon-tiki? ;-)

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

08-11-2011, 12:49

lol well I wouldn't either. But what about as a mercenary unit ;-) I mean come on man...all those pork-and-pineapple pizzas havent given you a taste for the glory of kon-tiki? ;-)

Nope,they didnt have ambition.Total war is based on hisotrical events and thats whats make's it so popular.Date,you are of one the date,You should learn to respect before cruelty,

NightwindKing

08-11-2011, 15:43

Nope,they didnt have ambition.Total war is based on hisotrical events and thats whats make's it so popular.Date,you are of one the date,You should learn to respect before cruelty,

Dude, Im JOKING. Lighten up lol.
Yes, Total War is based on historical events. I love that fact. Historically, there WERE island nations like the Easter Islanders that had wars all their own. Honestly, I think a campaign based around island-to-island warfare, utilizing lots fo naval battles and beach invasions with jungle combat and massed poison-wielding troops would be cool.

Anyway. Is that quote from the Date campaign? Or are you talking to me directly? I'm confused.
Watashi no kokoro ga hana degasu. Ano hana wa katana ya, anata-san no shi degasu! ;-)

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

08-11-2011, 20:15

Dude, Im JOKING. Lighten up lol.
Yes, Total War is based on historical events. I love that fact. Historically, there WERE island nations like the Easter Islanders that had wars all their own. Honestly, I think a campaign based around island-to-island warfare, utilizing lots fo naval battles and beach invasions with jungle combat and massed poison-wielding troops would be cool.

Anyway. Is that quote from the Date campaign? Or are you talking to me directly? I'm confused.
Watashi no kokoro ga hana degasu. Ano hana wa katana ya, anata-san no shi degasu! ;-)

I'm talking to you in the historical way.

Islanders did not have any big ambitions.

knoddy

08-12-2011, 00:34

For me im hoping for Rome 2. I loved Rome for all its faults, and it was by far the TW game i played the most except maybe the original medieval. i think they could do alot in the rome period and also they can change the time period scope so that it is a little different from the orignal rome.

Id also love to see a Greek TW game. but as i think i put in the page linked on the first page, this presents problems of scale. How do u present Greece on a complex enough scale, and represent the likes of the persian empire. if you did Greece with the major city states your probably looking at 10 or so factions just in greece. which would make a map of greece very complex but then you go to the vastnass of the persian empire.

like i said in my other thread they would either have to do just greece, and make it extremely complex OR do greece with only 3-4 factions and have persia as the main focus of the game.

I would also love to see a mongol total war but this has the obvious problem of the fact that the mongols didnt have cities. a possible way to fix this would be to have the mongols setting up some1 to rule a city for them, which is historically acurate, but the player wud have limited control of the city and only recieve a tribute benifit from it. all recruiting for the mongol faction could be either units spawning over time from the armies themselves or recruiting units from armies on the march.

of course if they can overcome the minor problems of the mongols, the scope of the game is huge, it could stretch from hungary in the west all the way thru china and the middle east to india. a massive scope of possible factions and a units.

Hamata

08-12-2011, 00:41

ancient Greece! :D fixed and also please make it be greece

Noncommunist

08-15-2011, 04:30

I'm talking to you in the historical way.

Islanders did not have any big ambitions.

About as big as the ambitions as anyone else. Sure, there was less land to work with but what's the big difference between conquering an island chain in the middle of the Pacific and conquering some islands just off the coast of China?

From Captain Cook landing on Hawaii till the total conquest of Hawaii by Kamehameha is about 30 years. Certain enough time to make a good game. And the game could start beforehand and then later include the landing of Captain Cook as a scripted event. And from there, you would have several Hawaiian factions vying for power with possibly a few European NPC players trying to get an advantage. Christianity could be a major factor as the first missionaries showed up just a few years after Kamehameha died and they completely changed the religion of the islands. And the landing of Captain Cook seriously decreased the power of religion as many prohibitions had been violated without disaster occurring.

So there certainly could be enough to create a campaign out of the Hawaiian Islands during that time.

NightwindKing

08-15-2011, 13:28

About as big as the ambitions as anyone else. Sure, there was less land to work with but what's the big difference between conquering an island chain in the middle of the Pacific and conquering some islands just off the coast of China?

From Captain Cook landing on Hawaii till the total conquest of Hawaii by Kamehameha is about 30 years. Certain enough time to make a good game. And the game could start beforehand and then later include the landing of Captain Cook as a scripted event. And from there, you would have several Hawaiian factions vying for power with possibly a few European NPC players trying to get an advantage. Christianity could be a major factor as the first missionaries showed up just a few years after Kamehameha died and they completely changed the religion of the islands. And the landing of Captain Cook seriously decreased the power of religion as many prohibitions had been violated without disaster occurring.

So there certainly could be enough to create a campaign out of the Hawaiian Islands during that time.

I love you.

;-)

Noncommunist

08-16-2011, 01:39

I love you.

;-)

Thanks! I went to Hawaii earlier this year on a Spring Term where we did lots of snorkeling and scuba diving and on the way, learned a bit about Hawaii and its history.

NightwindKing

08-16-2011, 11:51

Thanks! I went to Hawaii earlier this year on a Spring Term where we did lots of snorkeling and scuba diving and on the way, learned a bit about Hawaii and its history.

Cool! Yeah I haven't actually studied Hawaiian history, but I studied Easter Island and Polynesia for my senior project. Really interesting stuff! It's a pity such rich cultures lived in such small areas with so few resources!

Vladimir

08-16-2011, 14:11

Yes, think of the fantasy units. Pineapple bombs. Bulletproof grass skirts. Lots of naked people. It would be...really pathetic.

econ21

08-16-2011, 14:17

From the fourth post in this thread:

... let's keep this thread clean - constructive comments only...

NightwindKing

08-16-2011, 14:18

Yes, think of the fantasy units. Pineapple bombs. Bulletproof grass skirts. Lots of naked people. It would be...really pathetic.

I can never tell whether or not you're joking.

On a side note (back to the original topic)...it occured to me, why hasn't CA done any Total War games set in ancient times, like Egypt, Greece, Persia, etc...? I mean, maybe the diversity of the races would be hard, but I'm sure you could do a Shogun-style game focused on just the Greek city-states, or during some of the middle kingdom wars in Egypt/etc...

I_damian

08-16-2011, 17:24

Someone in the thread said we wouldn't be able to mod out units if another Rome was made. Why is that? Because of STEAM?

NightwindKing

08-16-2011, 18:22

Someone in the thread said we wouldn't be able to mod out units if another Rome was made. Why is that? Because of STEAM?

Nothaving played RTW...why? What units do people frequently mod-out?

And yeah STEAM would likely hamper any sort of modding ability, especially if carried over multiplayer, as it would be checking files when logged-in or updating.

Arjos

08-16-2011, 18:23

I don't know about steam interfering, but from what I read around, TW games became less and less moddable with new releases...

I_damian

08-16-2011, 21:41

Nothaving played RTW...why? What units do people frequently mod-out?

And yeah STEAM would likely hamper any sort of modding ability, especially if carried over multiplayer, as it would be checking files when logged-in or updating.

Well, Rome takes place between 272 bc - 14 ad. There's an Egyptian faction that use chariots and units with names like "pharaoh's spearmen", the type of units you might have seen the Egyptian pharaoh's using around 1000 bc. There shouldn't even be an Egyptian faction in this period. It should have been a Greek faction called Ptolemaioi. The barbarian factions are all just bare chested savages, you can have the Roman infantry wearing the typical hollywood type armour (like the soldiers in Gladiator wore in the battle against the Germans) in 250 bc, even though that armour didn't appear until something like 100 ad. The original Rome: Total War was an absolute mess.

A mod called EB fixed all of this.

Also, Rome suffered from the lightning fast battles like Shogun 2 does, although in Rome they were about 100% quicker than in Shogun 2. You would literally have about 10 seconds of combat before the entire enemy line crumbled and ran. Generals kamikaze themselves in to your spearmen ahead of their entire army, killing themselves right at the start of the battle. Archers were completely lethal. In Shogun 2, a volley from a unit of even the best samurai archers against the poorest unit, ashigaru, will at absolute best kill 10 guys. In Rome, 2-3 volleys could wipe out an entire unit of the heaviest infantry. I've had battles where I've slaughtered an entire enemy army with about 4 units of archers, 2000 enemy killed to 1 of my own.

I could go on all day. Without mods that game wouldn't be worth $1.

edyzmedieval

08-17-2011, 01:01

And yet with all of the mods out there, RTW is still hot property on the market. Lots of people still play it.

Same goes with M2TW, a much improved engine allowing more modding.

I_damian

08-17-2011, 05:39

And yet with all of the mods out there, RTW is still hot property on the market. Lots of people still play it.

Same goes with M2TW, a much improved engine allowing more modding.

Of course, but EB is the only mod for Rome worth playing.

I'm going to buy M2 EB2 is released.

NightwindKing

08-17-2011, 12:43

Well, Rome takes place between 272 bc - 14 ad. There's an Egyptian faction that use chariots and units with names like "pharaoh's spearmen", the type of units you might have seen the Egyptian pharaoh's using around 1000 bc. There shouldn't even be an Egyptian faction in this period. It should have been a Greek faction called Ptolemaioi. The barbarian factions are all just bare chested savages, you can have the Roman infantry wearing the typical hollywood type armour (like the soldiers in Gladiator wore in the battle against the Germans) in 250 bc, even though that armour didn't appear until something like 100 ad. The original Rome: Total War was an absolute mess.

A mod called EB fixed all of this.

Also, Rome suffered from the lightning fast battles like Shogun 2 does, although in Rome they were about 100% quicker than in Shogun 2. You would literally have about 10 seconds of combat before the entire enemy line crumbled and ran. Generals kamikaze themselves in to your spearmen ahead of their entire army, killing themselves right at the start of the battle. Archers were completely lethal. In Shogun 2, a volley from a unit of even the best samurai archers against the poorest unit, ashigaru, will at absolute best kill 10 guys. In Rome, 2-3 volleys could wipe out an entire unit of the heaviest infantry. I've had battles where I've slaughtered an entire enemy army with about 4 units of archers, 2000 enemy killed to 1 of my own.

I could go on all day. Without mods that game wouldn't be worth $1.

Gotcha. Yeah that would be...frustrating.

I actually don't find the speed of battles in Shogun all that bad. I think the hour time limit is ridiculous, because no battle will ever go on that long, but whatever. It's there.

The only change I'd like to make is (and maybe this is because I've only played on Hard so far), the enemy AI stop falling for lure/pincer traps. So far Just about every battle that I've won, I have a 'weak' center and pull the enemy in, then flank their sides with anchoring units and crush them. Maybe they could like, scout a bit, or spread out more, or...I dunno. Not attach head-on?

edyzmedieval

08-17-2011, 16:36

I find the battles in S2TW only slightly fast, if the speed is toned down a bit then I think a suitable equilibrium is reached.

slashandburn

08-17-2011, 22:56

Mediterranean: Total War, Game starts 5000 BC with tribes founding cities in the fertile crescent, game continues until 1800 with full tech tree and culture trees. You would literally build your culture, religion ,and social structure from despotism to the industrial era. You would be able to develop your army and soldiers across the centuries from clubs and spears to rifled muskets and artillery. You could have any culture or units you wanted and control the civilization's progress. New civilizations would arise at certain points with certain technology and buildings limited by year to prevent clubmen fighting knights and other silly things. Game map would expand and at certain key years such as 3000 BC, 1000BC, 721BC,0 AD, 476 Ad, and more would be trigger years where the map and other things would change to represent the changes that have occurred.

Noncommunist

08-18-2011, 06:53

Yes, think of the fantasy units. Pineapple bombs. Bulletproof grass skirts. Lots of naked people. It would be...really pathetic.

While I suppose fantasy units could be an issue, I'd imagine that there would be enough real units to draw upon. After all, at that point, some of the Hawaiians were using European arms. So I suppose it would be a similar mechanic to Shogun where trade with Europeans gives some edges in combat at the cost of some social unrest, disease, and potentially actual involvement.(unlike Shogun)

NightwindKing

08-18-2011, 11:52

While I suppose fantasy units could be an issue, I'd imagine that there would be enough real units to draw upon. After all, at that point, some of the Hawaiians were using European arms. So I suppose it would be a similar mechanic to Shogun where trade with Europeans gives some edges in combat at the cost of some social unrest, disease, and potentially actual involvement.(unlike Shogun)

Definitely.

Actually I can see most of the unique units coming into play in the form of agents. You could add a healer-type unit that would increase the replenishment rate of the army they're in, etc...

Hamata

08-18-2011, 15:41

I say ancient greece imagine hoplites smashing into eachothers sheild walls and catapults and balistas on the warscape engine:yes:

Risasi

08-19-2011, 01:01

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

08-19-2011, 14:26

Islander total war would be a disaster.When Shogun 2 was in the making,many of you complained you didnt want shogun 2.Islander is nothing more than bad.A remake of NTW will be nice,because they made several mistakes in the game.French units dont carry the golden eagle.Lancers like chev ones were never used,and Curraisers were the main cavarly units of the french army.They did a lot of injustice,I mean come on,Napoleon just didn't those units,he used a whole vairtey of them.The Middle guard is missing,And ceratinaly I am not impressed.,and could have made russia a sepearte campaign,aslo the french fired in a different way.I would like to see these things refixed..And now they're making Dinosaur total war,which sounds bad.I am not buying it.I mena,its just so easy for CA to fix these little mistakes.

econ21

08-19-2011, 16:11

Lancers like chev ones were never used,...

Really? Tell that to the Scots Greys. What was wrong with the representation of the Chevaux Legers Lanciers in NTW?

and Curraisers were the main cavarly units of the french army.

Cuirassiers were the heavy cavalry and are represented in NTW, along with most of the other types of cavalry. I would not describe them as "main" - they were the most expensive to equip (needed the heaviest horses) so were sometimes scarce. They saw almost no action in Spain, for example.

And now they're making Dinosaur total war,which sounds bad.I am not buying it.I mena,its just so easy for CA to fix these little mistakes.

I think Dinosaur Total War was a joke (was it April 1)?

Gregoshi

08-19-2011, 16:21

I think Dinosaur Total War was a joke (was it April 1)?
Say it ain't so!! :laugh4:

NightwindKing

08-19-2011, 19:17

I've refrained from answering for a couple months...I couldn't really come up with anything in particular I want to see. But now having thought about it some more. It seems like CA has come to a branching point. They either need to focus on SP campaign or more focus on the MP aspect. Unit balancing for requisition points, diversity in units, perhaps some more polishing of a simplified campaign system for MP.

With that said, I think the money is in multiplayer. Honestly, I prefer a deep campaign system, and right now am having a blast playing a RTR hotseat campaign with a couple friends. Its slow but very rewarding for me. I'm a bit of a grognard though and realize I'm the exception to the rule. (I still play Close Combat, for instance) So because of that, I think advanced MP battles with a simpler (think the board game Risk) campaign system are where the money is. Because of this I would like to see CA embrace mobile devices. I think a client for iOS and Android would be awesome.

Sent from my iPhone...

No offense meant, but I think this is a terrible idea. Maybe Im misunderstanding you...I dont mean increased focus on multiplayer is bad, but that the PC is one of the few consoles that still A: caters to strategy gamers and B: caters to single-player gamers.
Look what's become of Age of Empires. The new online one seems to be getting bad reviews. In my mind making a game solely based around online play alienates most of the gamer base thats into strategy games.
Now I definitely think the next one should have BETTER multiplayer and more of a refined and focused system (esp multiplayer campaign mode), but I would hope that CA will not skimp on, ignore, or otherwise give the short end of the stick to multiplayer. Every game genre and every series has its focus, it's 'path' and type, if you will. And almost every time a series steps outside of that, it fails terribly, and appeals only to the most die-hard fans who like the series simply for the brand name.
I'm not really going to go into tons of explanation, but case in point: the Metroid series. The Age of Empires series. The Sims series. The Legend of Zelda series. The LEgacy of Kain series. Etc. I dont understand why developers keep taking these big leaps of faith and then being surprised when it doesnt work out: history shows plenty of examples...let's stick with what works please.

Better MP definitely. That would be good. But please, PLEASE CA do NOT make the next game multiplayer only, or make it so things like units and such are multiplayer only, or any of the terrible and much-hated design changes that Blizzard, Microsoft, etc... have made.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

08-20-2011, 14:21

Really? Tell that to the Scots Greys. What was wrong with the representation of the Chevaux Legers Lanciers in NTW?

Cuirassiers were the heavy cavalry and are represented in NTW, along with most of the other types of cavalry. I would not describe them as "main" - they were the most expensive to equip (needed the heaviest horses) so were sometimes scarce. They saw almost no action in Spain, for example.

I think Dinosaur Total War was a joke (was it April 1)?

They're doing it for real.

They were used in Napoleon's battles.But they were never represented as main units.When you acess the Napoleonic army,you only get those lancers.You cant make a full army with just one Currasier.In Napoleon's time,you would have masses of them as Main units.CA did a bad job of it.,

They were simply not used in history.It was the polish guard lancers along with the dutch.Sur ethey would have some action,but it is not the main units of the french lancers as well.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

08-20-2011, 14:24

No offense meant, but I think this is a terrible idea. Maybe Im misunderstanding you...I dont mean increased focus on multiplayer is bad, but that the PC is one of the few consoles that still A: caters to strategy gamers and B: caters to single-player gamers.
Look what's become of Age of Empires. The new online one seems to be getting bad reviews. In my mind making a game solely based around online play alienates most of the gamer base thats into strategy games.
Now I definitely think the next one should have BETTER multiplayer and more of a refined and focused system (esp multiplayer campaign mode), but I would hope that CA will not skimp on, ignore, or otherwise give the short end of the stick to multiplayer. Every game genre and every series has its focus, it's 'path' and type, if you will. And almost every time a series steps outside of that, it fails terribly, and appeals only to the most die-hard fans who like the series simply for the brand name.
I'm not really going to go into tons of explanation, but case in point: the Metroid series. The Age of Empires series. The Sims series. The Legend of Zelda series. The LEgacy of Kain series. Etc. I dont understand why developers keep taking these big leaps of faith and then being surprised when it doesnt work out: history shows plenty of examples...let's stick with what works please.

Better MP definitely. That would be good. But please, PLEASE CA do NOT make the next game multiplayer only, or make it so things like units and such are multiplayer only, or any of the terrible and much-hated design changes that Blizzard, Microsoft, etc... have made.

Age of Empires 2 ,the conqerues expanison was a good game,espcially with the custom campagins.I hate the new age of empirers,it seems a bad take.

Hamata

08-20-2011, 17:23

Age of empires online? more like age of empires the cartoon edition lol

NightwindKing

08-23-2011, 12:56

Definitely. What a terrible way for the series to die! Either shoot it and be merciful or let it live out its days in glory! Don't poison it! lol

But back to TW...

caspian

09-02-2011, 21:12

I would like the next total war game to be both historical and fantasy. So I thought why not base it on mythology, specifically Norse Mythology?
It could be called:
Myth: Total War
Asgard: Total War or
Runes: Total War or
Nine Worlds: Total War

There could be Nine Factions:
Asgard (greater gods)
Vanaheim (lesser gods)
Midgard (vikings)
Alfheim (elves)
Jotunheim (giants)
Svartalheim (dwarves)
Niflheim (people of myst)
Muspellheim (people of fire)
Helheim (demons)

The campaign map could be like the old Master of Magic game map. Normal World map but in different points you could travel to other worlds. For example in the Midgard Map, your army can move to a sacred grove and from there you can travel to Asgard, and there are twenty sacred groves scattered all over Midgard.

Of course in the battles you could have items, heroes, magic.
Imagine giving the Sword of Surtr to King Cnut as he leads the viking assault on Asgard to slay the All-Father!

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-03-2011, 15:17

Nah.I would love the 30 years war.

minishog

09-10-2011, 10:44

Anything I would buy i.e. (a) something that works (e.g. not like Rome); (b) not on Steam; (c) ideally something set in Ancient Greece (but don't really care so long as (a) and (b) are true).

TheLastDays

09-12-2011, 17:20

You can probably forget about (b) right away.

Madae

09-22-2011, 16:00

I think it should be Medieval 3. I was posting this in the Gamespot forum, too - Medieval 3 just makes more sense to me than Rome 2. Here's why;

1. Rome sacrifices sea battles. Sorry, but ramming ships isn't really that entertaining to me. Shogun is just barely tolerable - anything less than that and it would be boring.
2. Rome focuses only on Europe, where Medieval allows for exploration of other places (America/Asia).
3. Crusades/Jihads add an unstable element to the game that makes it compelling and unique.
4. More depth to the Medieval era (Many countries vs. Many countries, as opposed to Rome vs. Everyone because they don't like non-Romans and feel compelled to civilize them).
5. More opportunities for technological advancement, among other things. The only thing that really changed in the Roman era was the use of battle tactics. In Medieval europe, everything was changing, be it religion, techonology, various renegade factions, etc...
6. It wouldn't make any sense for a barbarian faction to be researching... well, anything really - so streamlined/general tech trees for all factions would be out. One of the major parts of the last few games (tech trees) would have to be altered or removed completely.

These are just a few of the things I can think of at the moment, but I think the trend is pretty clear. You can just do more with Medieval than you can with Rome. Sure, Rome TW2 would probably still be fun, and maybe just as good if;

1. Removal of sea battles let them focus on streamlining land battles?
2. The loss of tech trees allowed for more unique units?
3. More factions overall?
4. Unique gameplay elements that I can't think of?

It just seems to me that, with the way these games have been going, Rome would simply be a step backward for the series. You've built up all of these cool new ideas for the games, only to have them have to be changed or removed (not to mention one of the most anticipated things to be added, sea battles, would just not be feasible [or fun] in that age). Medieval is just more chaotic than Rome and allows for more wiggle room in terms of gameplay.

And the argument that "Rome is due for an update, so it has to be Rome" is a fallacious one. Medieval 2 was just an updated Rome, and all of these new gameplay implementations came from Empire. I don't want to say it was a new engine completely, as it could have just easily been a heavily modified Medieval 2, but Medieval 2 is just as deserving of a reboot as Rome, if not more because of what can be done. I really don't think CA should be developing new titles because "they need to be done because that's how we developed them and we only go in order".

Akka

09-23-2011, 15:16

Hi guys,

You might have noticed I posted up on TWC and our forums for suggestions as to what should be in the next TW game. Well you guys are included in that, too.

Please reply to this thread with any suggestions and I'll make sure they're all put into my report.

Thanks!

Craig.
First suggestion : NO STEAM ! I want to own my game and not require third-party malware to run it, especially considering how intrusive, abusive and restrictive it is, thanks.

Now for the game itself...

- Work on AI and diplomacy. I know it's what you hear every game, but seriously, it's always been the weak point of the serie. It should become an actual relevant part of the game.
- More developped "conquest" part. It's always bothered me how you can conquer a province and it's immediately added to your possessions and you can churn out units quickly from it. I think a rather long "assimilation" time should be required.
- In the same vein, manpower. The idea was here in RTW (though, again, the AI was prone to fail at it), and it would be nice if it could make a comeback. I always found it weird that huge stacks of units, thousands upon thousands of men, could be slaughtered without it being a big deal as long as you have money to replace the losses (and with STW2, money comes in such large sums I can easily afford to lose one full stack every two turns or so, which means I'm pretty much immune to attritional warfare).
- Speaking of it : ATTRITION ! Logistic lines and the like. It really makes the strategy much deeper and more interesting than having some kind of immortal stack that can walk in the far-away mountains for some centuries without problem.
- Immersion. You got it right with STW2, keep it up !
- Better mélée fighting. MTW2 was ATROCIOUS in this respect, STW2 is better but not perfect. It's a bit "weak" if you know what I mean, lacking in power and energy (RTW was the best by far in this domain, even though it caused the "blob" problem). Also it's just a collection of duel. Units should fight as unit, and you should NOT have five guys standing around a foe and doing nothing but looking at a sixth fighting alone. This make close-up fighting look ridiculous. It's nice to have these neat animations, but what is the point if their principle is defeated by making the hand-to-hand fighting disjointed.
- Harder sieges. Fortress in all the TW games are either easily assaultable (walls are barely able to slow down attackers, you wonder what's the point building them) or easily starvable. In history, fortress and castle were quite a big deal. MAKE them a big deal ! (again, it would require a better AI)

As for the setting...
I'd like either a RTW2, a very ambitiout "Civilization : Total War" (I guess you can imagine the idea) or maybe a "Fantasy : Total War", as long as it's light on fantasy and doesn't make standard soldiers look like peasants.
But please, NO GUNPOWDER ERA ! I hate, hate, hate it.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-24-2011, 13:30

No.The Gunpowder is excellent! I love that era! I only wish that CA could make the Korean expansion.

No fantasy total war.Stick to history.Otherwise I would never buy it.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-24-2011, 13:32

even though it caused the "blob" problem). Also it's just a collection of duel. Units should fight as unit, and you should NOT have five guys standing around a foe and doing nothing but looking at a sixth fighting alone. This make close-up fighting look ridiculous. It's nice to have these neat animations, but what is the point if their principle is defeated by making the hand-to-hand fighting disjointed.
Units should fight as unit

That's european style.Not Japanese.If you looked at it,the samurai came and fought like the old guard.One samurai vs one samurai,2 samurai vs 2 samurai.

Erm...This is Japan we're talking about.Samurai would never have always just faced one samurai,they would have faced manother samurai in battle.Shogun 2 has excellent combat.RTW has no combat at all.One slash at a enemy's shield and he;s dead.How is that real? You're making the total war series numb again.No way.CA has to move forward,

Madae

09-25-2011, 00:26

You know, I actually wouldn't mind seeing some sort of "fantasy" Total War. There was a game a few years ago called Warhammer Mark of Chaos, and it was almost like Total War, except it had a defined story and was strictly linear; you fought a battle, you moved on in the story to the next battle. It was actually a really good game - I enjoyed it a lot. If CA were to grab an IP like Warhammer, I could see a Total War game using that being somewhat interesting.

But still, I'm hoping for Medieval 3. I can't think of anything that should change or be added from what the series already has. Things like "work on diplomacy" are pretty much always going to be a work in progress, and should be a given.

I'll also agree with the post 2 posts above me - Gunpowder really isn't that bad. Empire was a really good game.

Hamata

09-25-2011, 02:40

Suggesstion/persinal prefrence

time frame:Germany world war 2
Factions: nazi germany with swastikas please, USSR france british empire nazi italy the republic of spain the ottoman empire sryia ukraine sweeden poland denmark all the other factions that took place in this war
emerging factions: afrika corps.

Faction leaders aldolf hitler stalin and the rest.

campaign should inclued diplomacy. goverment slider were you get to chose if you want to be more right or left. right means the nazis of the population will favor you more and left means all will be normal except a nazi revolt might happen,
air battles these will be basicaly played like shogun 2's naval battles but without the boarding just select the plane unit you want to controle right click on a enemey plain and it will attack atoumanicaley.
tanks should behave like tanks get hit in the rear a few times by another tank and boom.

battle map size should be about the size of napoliean battle maps basicaley wide open aeras but expect small squad sizes and fast paced battles

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-25-2011, 12:40

The only problem is that we have Hitler.Not many people like him.Otherwise I'm all for it.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-25-2011, 12:41

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-25-2011, 12:42

Has anyone watched Avatar:The Last Airbender? That would be perfect for a total war game.

Madae

09-25-2011, 20:57

The only problem is that we have Hitler.Not many people like him.Otherwise I'm all for it.

Some people need to get over that - it's all in the past. That generation has practically died off by now anyway, so you really can't blame anyone for any of that any more. Besides, I would argue that the Japanese had just as many comparable and downright dirty acts that could easily consider them just as bad, but no one seems to care about that anymore. It's war - dirty acts happen in war.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-25-2011, 21:48

Some people need to get over that - it's all in the past. That generation has practically died off by now anyway, so you really can't blame anyone for any of that any more. Besides, I would argue that the Japanese had just as many comparable and downright dirty acts that could easily consider them just as bad, but no one seems to care about that anymore. It's war - dirty acts happen in war.

Don't blame them.I think they were less brutal than the nazis.The Nazis killed anyone who didn't belong into their regin.The ''dirty '' acts are the Japanese's actions,You shouldn't have bought shogun 2,if you hate them that much.If you can't say I want a korean expansion of shogun 2,then don't ask for WW2 either.You must blame them.Thanks to Hitler,today many westerns compare themselves as superior(when they are not) There are Neo Nazi groups in all of Europe,and racsism is tolerant.If you want to make a game about killing jews and that stuff,good luck on you.Then maybe you will gain bad reception.I would never support it.WW2 seems good,but it won't work.Espcially in land battles.In Air,it could work,but it won't do.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-25-2011, 21:50

But to lighten the mood.I want CA to make the 30 years war,

Discoman

09-25-2011, 23:37

I would like to see the return of the Kingdoms reinforcement system. As it is in the default, the player is at a great disadvantage.

Realism/historical accuracy. I liked this for ETW and NTW as there were the smaller nations represented. If CA did Rome 2 I want to see only one Roman faction. Maybe several Gaul and Germanic tribes.

Expansion packs. Really like this 100x more than just DLC reskins. Also more mod support.

Unit names and titles and nicknames for Generals.

Duels! Scholars were a nice touch too.

Give the ability, if you are the defender, to pick the boundaries you start deployed in.

Maybe you can do a game based on the Dark Ages. Maybe something centered around Charlemagne. A Mediterranean war would be cool. You should be able to pick different types of government to reflect the different city states of Greece. IE Democracy, Militarism, Monarchy, Philosopher King, Oligarchy.

Also, Rome suffered from the lightning fast battles like Shogun 2 does, although in Rome they were about 100% quicker than in Shogun 2. You would literally have about 10 seconds of combat before the entire enemy line crumbled and ran. Generals kamikaze themselves in to your spearmen ahead of their entire army, killing themselves right at the start of the battle. Archers were completely lethal.
I'm sorry, did we play the same game? In Shogun it seems like units die out faster, rather than breaking. In Rome, battles could last a long while. Also, Archers were fairly useless. If you want to talk deadly than look at MTW2, those pavise crossbowman and longbowman would tear up an enemy army proper.

Gregoshi

09-26-2011, 03:39

I'm sorry, did we play the same game? In Shogun it seems like units die out faster, rather than breaking. In Rome, battles could last a long while.
Whether the units die out or break, the result in both games is the same - the battles are over way too fast. It has been a long time since I've played RTW, so I can't properly compare die vs routing between it and TWS2. But I do know that the fast movement and combat in RTW killed the game for me. Things seem a bit slower in TWS2, but not enough for my taste.

Also, I think we've had enough talk about Nazis. Thanks.

InsaneApache

09-26-2011, 07:12

Victorian total war.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-26-2011, 07:43

30 years total war.

Madae

09-26-2011, 17:41

With my recent jump into untested territory, I did come up with a good idea for the next Total War game, and that would be some way to direct your vassals. The last game I played, I made a vassal very early in the game (this is documented in the Hattori guide). They proved to be a major asset early on, but caused more problems than I could keep up with later in the game. Coupled with a few very poor decisions (attacking the enemy with a tattered army and losing everything they had) made me think "It would be really great if I could open the diplomacy screen and tell that nub to not be dumb".

I normally never have issues with vassals, but I also typically only make them when the game is well within my favor, and when all they can really do is provide more support for me in the late game, as well as trade agreements. Making one so early (turn 10'ish) showed me that, while they can be a great benefit, they can also be a hinderance without direction. Giving them free reign to go about their business would be okay if I could just interject at a few key moments and tell them to hold off until I can reinforce them - otherwise they just put themselves in unwinnable positions and lose their only means of defending their newly conquered land.

This could be something simple as opening the diplomacy screen and having a few options to discuss with them; be aggressive (openly attack your enemies), be defensive (only defend your territories), be passive (focus on your economy, or otherwise just sit and wait until told otherwise), or use your own judgement (do whatever you want to do). There could also be additional requests, such as; attack this town (in the case that I want them to take a certain province to expand their territory), defend this town (if I, or an ally, maybe have a undefended town that needs support and they're the only army nearby), follow this general (if I'm, or another vassal/ally general, is on a warpath and I want him to accompany me/them), etc...

I think these are probably the bare necessities, and covers just about everything I can think of that I would want my vassal to do. Additionally, you could extend a slightly modified and less in depth list of commands to allies, that could basically just consist of attack, defend or be passive, but they should also have more freedom to disobey and do what they want since they are not directly ruled by me (like a vassal is).

There should also be a return of the "give territory" diplomatic action. Sometimes a vassal will lose a piece of land, and I will regain it - sometimes I would actually prefer that it still be in control of my vassal, and they should also be fairly thankful to me for doing it for them. Historically, Tokugawa distributed land to the clans that followed him, and punished those that fought against him. There really should be a way to reward your vassals, because there's very few ways to keep them happy outside of direct interference with enemies close to them. Unless you just happen to be in the proper location, setting up a battle where you can assist them is a lot harder than it sounds. I often times have to reload a game after I see what my vassal will do so I can properly position myself to help him, when it would have just been easier and make more sense if I told him to do it. One of the funniest examples I've seen on more than one occasion is a province right next to my vassal that has little or no troops, with a modestly sized force of my units standing right next to the enemy castle, and my vassals' half-filled province just sitting around do nothing, or running in the opposite direction. I usually just give up and take it for myself, but still...

Another add; my vassals should automatically be extending trade agreements (if possible) between themselves, or interacting with eachother in a mutually beneficial way. I've seen my vassals not trading with eachother, which really doesn't make any sense. When their turn comes up, this is literally the first thing they should be checking to see if they can do or not.

King David X

09-26-2011, 20:08

Initially, I misread the title and thought the question was "what should be the next Total War game", to which I would have answered "Rome II." In terms of new or improved features, I definitely think Shogun 2 did many things right and would like CA to build from it. For example: keeping 4 turns per year (which allows CA to explore more limited periods of history), improving diplomacy (as always), improving battle AI in sieges (as always), and keeping the focus on smaller important areas instead of large swathes of land. Expand upon the region development system, the agent customizations, and the research. Allow regions to build on each others' strengths and weaknesses to create a balanced, unified empire (like the global food supply and province specialties). Besides that, I can't think of much else.

Gregoshi

09-27-2011, 04:22

Welcome to the Org King David. ~:wave:

You figured out what many haven't. ~;) I like your list, but I would suggest fewer seige battles - in fact, fewer, more significant battle overall.

I also like Madae's suggestions too. :2thumbsup:

Noncommunist

09-27-2011, 04:27

Populus Romanus

09-27-2011, 05:50

America del Sur Total War: Set in the years leading up to the War of the Triple Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Triple_Alliance), which was the peak of instability in South America and a time of violence, conquest, and TOTAL WAR.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-27-2011, 07:27

30 years total war! It must be made!

Akka

09-27-2011, 07:58

Yeah, we got it. :daisy:

Nowake

09-27-2011, 11:28

I am not sure how Akka’s initial post was phrased, but I would stop by just to note that the whole next Total War title debate is totally off-topic in a thread where the developers asked for community input on next Total War features. Now, considering the scarcity of replies -- on most gaming sites (I am not talking about Total War sites now) such a topic would get twenty pages in the first twenty four hours – we should at least make the effort for them to be relevant, revealing and, who knows, revelatory for our devs! As it stands now, two thirds of these posts are neither (including this one, I am aware of the my own quandary thank you very much).

And, ahem, a request to our moderators: perhaps you chaps could change Craig’s topic’s title to Features you’d like implemented in the next Total War game? Plus, you could move all the off-topic “I want the next X Total War” talk to THIS (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?133304-So-Whats-Next) thread, which dealt with the subject previously.
I know it’s a fifteen minutes, boring out of your mind task, yet you chaps get the clothed faces, what on earth could you possibly want more besides that incentive to toil away in our service?
Hmm?! :curtain:

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-27-2011, 15:10

Nowake

09-27-2011, 16:10

Oh, I'm just a very confused character with his mind all over the place, so what can you expect. But I venture to presume that until now the rest of the sound fellows reading this would've probably thought blokes would have the sense to figure it out after the first ten times they had pointed it out and edit themselves or return back on track without the need for my personal appeal.

Considering how that went, you're stuck with my belated brainwave :2thumbsup:

Ike marechal Davout! IKEEE!

econ21

09-27-2011, 16:15

And, ahem, a request to our moderators: perhaps you chaps could change Craig’s topic’s title to Features you’d like implemented in the next Total War game? Plus, you could move all the off-topic “I want the next X Total War” talk to THIS (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?133304-So-Whats-Next) thread, which dealt with the subject previously.

CraigTW chose his own title - I'd be loathe to amend it. His opening post is rather open - he does not mention the word features, just what "should be in" the next TW game. I think that means both the next TW title and the features are on-topic for this thread.

James7504

09-27-2011, 23:40

Supplies
An option in gameplay to turn supply on/off so it can be used or not.

Supplies - like cash - are created in your cities. Supplies are used by your soldiers and population. Supplies can be stockpiled in your cities, transferred between cities at need, supplies travel the roads/trade routes/sea lanes you have automatically.

An army will automatically request supplies from the nearest friendly town, only a certain amount of supplies can trvel down a road in a turn however. IE dirt road takes 8 supplies (can feed 8 units), so a larger army may need to be supplied via a second road aswell or be forced to pillage/forage for the remaining supplies needed. A paved road can take 10 supplies and so on. The player can create supply dumps on the campaign map the same way forts/watchtowers could be in rtw - though the best way would be to create a fort and make that the supply dump.

Enemies can cut the roads/sea lanes and deny your force supplies, as you can do to enemies also. Armies can carry a certain amount of supplies - modified by leader - tech. A caravan is a militairy unit consisting of 10 wagons loaded with supplies, each wagon carries 2-3 supplies so a single caravan can stockpile 20-30 supplies, adding extra caravans will slow the armys campaign movement and reduce the maximum soldiers in the army but add a greater stockpile of supplies - though caravans also USE supplies as they eat and drink etc. Extra supplies will arrive if the army is connected to a friendly city, but if they are not supplied they must use thier stockpile.

Foraging or pillaging makes the citizens of the area angry and rebelious, so if you take over its possible the locals will ambush your roads and reduce supply through-put.

doh have to go to work, any queries let me know and i can explain more but you get the jist of it.

Nowake

09-28-2011, 06:42

Oh econ, late reply incoming!
Though probably for the best to have missed it the evening before, you're totally making me feel like "the bad guy" now, would've ruined my dinner :stwshame:

And I can understand where you're coming from if you base your decision solely on the text. I suppose it could be seen as ambiguous. My own reply was sparked by the fact that I actually wanted to settle whether we're going too much off-track with all these "X Total War" posts and I checked the threads he made originally on their official forums and at that twc thingie -- the threads he writes in his original post that this topic is an echo of -- and those were titled specifically "Feature requests", with contributors rather focused on that.

Oh well, not that much of a big deal in the end, we can go on as we did before -- we'll file this exchange under "Nagging all the way to the bank" then and hope it will shame a few nonetheless into staying on topic!

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-29-2011, 23:02

Madae

09-29-2011, 23:22

For someone who won the pre battle speech contest,you seem very vauge,

I'm assuming you meant vague, and I don't know - the post you quoted made plenty of sense to me.

Quid

09-30-2011, 10:38

1. Rome 2: Total War
2. Greece: Total War
3. Mesopotamia: Total War
4. Persia: Total War

I would love something ancient. I am not a big fan of the gunpowder eras. Not too keen on another Southeast Asian game. We've just had one - perhaps later. Definitely not a fan of fantasy...One of the reasons I always liked this series is because it was (at least loosely) based on fact.

Quid

Madae

09-30-2011, 17:41

Not that it's my right to judge what someone else wants, but I always thought it was weird that someone would ask for "specific country: Total War". Seems like an idea reserved more for a (community) mod than an entire game based around one country... though, I suppose the Kingdoms expansion did a lot of that, but there were 4 of them, so that kind of made up for the small focus of each game.

Weirdest idea I've seen so far was Africa Total War. Not that I have anything against Africa, but with exception to Egypt and South Africa, the rest of it really doesn't strike me as Total War worthy. It's just a history not many people know (or, sadly, care) about - unless you live there, of course.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-30-2011, 18:53

30 years total war.

The 3 kingdoms total war

Madae

09-30-2011, 20:35

30 years total war.

The 3 kingdoms total war

I always thought off the 30 years war?Thats a great topic.

I agree,The 30 years wars is a great subject as it is catholic vs protestant.

I agree with Romance of the 3 kingdoms,But I hope for Shogun 3,30 years wars.This idea of Islanders seem to spoil the concept of total war,I wouldnt buy it,

Nah.I would love the 30 years war.

But to lighten the mood.I want CA to make the 30 years war,

30 years total war.

30 years total war! It must be made!

I hear that if you say it enough, it will eventually get made.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

10-01-2011, 23:44

I hear that if you say it enough, it will eventually get made.

Indeed,that is very true.

InsaneApache

10-02-2011, 00:58

Early Bronze Age.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

10-02-2011, 15:18

30 years total war

econ21

10-02-2011, 22:36

In my initial post in this thread, I originally stipulated one post per member but then edited it out to encourage debate. But let's not spam the thread, please.

Madae

10-06-2011, 07:03

So, I was reinstalling Medieval 2, and I was thinking about how much I liked the whole trait building feature of it with Princesses and Generals receiving random traits. I really enjoyed developing my princesses and marrying them to my generals to make them better because of the bonuses she gave him. If the new TW is Medieval 3, I would really like to see that developed more than it was. I treated it almost as a meta-game and found a lot of enjoyment in building good generals/princes/kings. Though, I would like to see the negative aspects of it reduced slightly. Nothing sucked more than having a great general with awesome bonuses lose them all because he suddenly developed an insanity trait that made him worthless and totally counteracted all the work I put into making him better... but then again, it did add a lot of unpredictability, which I guess is good on a whole, but still. The negative penalties of some of those were really harsh.

Here is something else I just thought up;

I know there was a move to make soldiers less "cookie-cutter" and have them each have their own style and feel with armor and such, but it would be neat that depending on how successful the group was and how much experience they gained, the units started upgrading themselves to make them better on a whole, like maybe an update from chain to plate. I guess the main issue is that, as you get farther in the game, you build up particular units in the early game to be really good soldiers, but then they start to get outclassed in the later game because you have better units to recruit.

This would really only work in a Medieval setting, since historically those soldiers outfitted themselves, where in Rome or Empire, they were made specifically and equipped by the army. Shogun could probably see some of this, but it doesn't work as well with them since there are less types of units.

So I guess what I'm trying to say here is; let the units upgrade themselves slightly and change their look over time, as well as increase their stats in a visual way (unlike Shogun where they just got better stats from experience).

gauch0

10-12-2011, 17:05

I am ready for the mechanics and graphics of Shogun 2 to be further developed into Medieval 3. I enjoyed Rome, but I'd happily skip another Rome game and jump right back to Medieval. I especially want to see Medieval 3 using the new retainer and skill trees system from S2, new diplomatic options, the unit replenishment system and IMPROVED CASTLE DEFENSE! Medieval is all about the sieges, and S2 really made some promising leaps forward in fort defense. More please!

One thing that would be great: I love the objectives that give bonuses in S2 multiplayer. I'd love to see this concept integrated into the single player game.

Akka

10-20-2011, 20:19

One important thing : bring back the battlefields which are created from the strategic map terrain.
It was a great option, allowing for huge amount of variety and a bit of strategic calculation. The STW2 repetitive battlefields that have little to do with the actual terrains have been a huge (and really ununderstandable, why remove such a nice feature ?) let-down.

Ludens

10-21-2011, 13:00

It's true S2:TW would benefit from a greater variety of battlemaps, but I am actually very happy that CA decided against generating the battlefields directly from the campaign map. The reason the current maps are so atmospheric is because they are "hand-made", not generated by an algorithm. In R:TW, on the other hand, the maps were based on the campaign map, and after a while they felt just as repetitive as the S2:TW ones. Yes, the engine would adjust the "background" on the basis of nearby map tiles, but the maps themselves were bland and dominated by a single feature (say a big forest or giant slope). There would have been a hundred "unique" forest maps, but after a campaign or two they all felt the same.

Admittedly M2:TW already did better than R:TW in generating interesting maps, and I haven't played E:TW/N:TW so I don't know how well they do it. But I do think a small number of well-made maps is better than a large number of computer-generated ones.

Vladimir

10-21-2011, 13:41

Couldn't disagree more. The battles from S2 are a real letdown from the prior series I played. The limited premade maps are part of the problem. It's similar to a problem I had with the MTW maps but it seems like even those had more variety.

If I park my army on a bridge, I want to be on the bridge when battles start. Total war is about the battles, not the atmospherics.

Sp4

10-22-2011, 07:52

Rome 2 kthxbai =P

Akka

10-22-2011, 13:33

It's true S2:TW would benefit from a greater variety of battlemaps, but I am actually very happy that CA decided against generating the battlefields directly from the campaign map. The reason the current maps are so atmospheric is because they are "hand-made", not generated by an algorithm.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree about the map being atmospheric to begin with. They have absolutely NOTHING "special" compared to the automatically-generated maps from the previous games.
The castle on a mountain with the nice waterfall is the one detail I'll concede. It was pretty gorgeous the first time I saw it.
For the rest, it was just bland battlemaps minus variety and minus relationship with the map. Hard to see what was gained.

Hamata

10-29-2011, 21:24

Early Bronze Age.This! +1

Furunculus

11-07-2011, 14:59

whatever they do, it must have more of an epic scale than S2:TW.

i appreciated the polish of S2, but it was too small.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

11-07-2011, 17:36

whatever they do, it must have more of an epic scale than S2:TW.

i appreciated the polish of S2, but it was too small.

Shogun 2 was on a massive scale.

Furunculus

11-08-2011, 18:52

i consider it differently.

the number of territories was reduced, the number of turns collapsed, and the variation obviously reduced.

this allowed for a very polished experience, and no doubt took just as much work, but was a more constrained TW experience.

Vladimir

11-09-2011, 15:49

I agree. I opted out of Empire but M2 encompassed a much grander scale. It feels more like an expansion than a full game.

Of course, there is only so much you can do on the Japanese islands. Not having other nations to interact with shrinks the scale.

Nelson

11-09-2011, 18:55

Nowake

11-12-2011, 07:50

A few major DLCs must still be probably incoming. Since normally they tended to make one game per year or so, they would've probably announced their next title already if not for plans for upcoming S2 content. Plus, this instalment in the series is the perfect time to introduce a longer break between titles.
I could be wrong of course, I have not followed the series after STW and MTW until S2 was released. But I believe they usually start to build up expectations quite early right?

MDPR

11-26-2011, 22:24

#6 suggested the following in which I agree. I have commented some of them.

Bigger armies

Fix unit path-finding on walls & quit having it so that walls basically offer no restriction to enemy movement.

3rd level of the game.

Baggage train/camp.

This would also create a new ambush opportunity, taking out the baggage train of an enemy army, thereby also giving both the AI and human player, a march-formation option, when moving an army on the strategic map. For instance as in the following march-formation example:

- Light Cav up front -

- Archers behind Light Cav -

- Light Cav on the left flank - Meele in the center - Light Cav on the right flank

- Baggage Train behind Meele -

- General behind Baggage Train -

- Archers behind General -

- Heavy Cav in Rear -

So by destroying the baggage train of an enemy army, the enemy should be forced to "live of the land", causing rebels to go against such enemy army. That also open up for the option of giving the provinces even more personality. For instances in some core faction-provinces, should an enemy army live of its land, the people will rebel in force, perhaps even add units to your army, while other more outskirts provinces will not even rebel, but simply bend the neck and hope the enemy army will leave the province soon.

Adding a baggage-train to the next TW-game, will make the otherwise usual 'move an army into enemy land' more complex. As it is so far, it is simply not challenging enough.

Bring back Town view & add Army view.

This would be nice, especially if the settlements are made customized, making it possible to actually form your settlement geographically. Like as the player decide to only wall-in a specific part of town (where the rich lives) and thus not where the poor live, basically dividing up the settlements in poor and rich as they have always been. Or like only having 1 wall-gate, or allowing only 1 out of x roads getting maintenance. It should also be possible to build small inner-city-castles or brigde-defenses, or to destroy a bridge.

My own suggestion are:

Multiplayer campaigning.

Total War has been out for so many years now. It has had a great focus on the graphical part of the game, but it is still the AI that is in focus. Dont worry, if you make a multiplayer-focused game next time. Regardless of a turn taking 30 minutes people will get used to it and still play the game, in-fact, over time the players will play it even more, since playing multiplayer-campaign is a unique experience every single time. That can sadly not be said with AI-campaigning.

Make modding more easy.

It should be more easy to mod. Personally I think the future of being a video-game company, lies more in advising the community. than in developing the game your self. Develop the frame for a highly moddable game and then focus on a new core-service; advising and helping.

This core-service should of course have a price, so the mod-team wanting to use the service pay an amount of money. The game-frame it self, however, should be cheap.

Less toonie - more realism

Essentially TW still have this cartoon-view over it, partly customizable now in Shogun 2, in regard to unit colours, but still as default cartoon-style. I think it is time TW focus even more on a realism-view, thus less focus on shiny colours and also less redundant sound-effects / voice-overs. The sound-side of Shogun 2 is a epic step in the right direction. Love they speak so much Japanese, they should in fact speak as little English as possible, since it destroy the reality feeling.

Paradox as example made that Hearts of Iron 3, really going in-depth. Any move in that direction in a future TW game, would be really nice - and new.

Keep focusing on individual conflicts.

When as in shogun 2 the game focus on a single nation, regardless of age or war, the game feels more realistic. Why not go all the way and focus on a single factions campaign in a specific age in a specific war. Then you could zoom really in-depth, both map-wise and game-mechanic-wise.

For instance as in the the Hundred Years War. Make an entire TW-game out of 1 year of Jean D'arcs 1429-campaign, splitting up the campaign-map in 200 areas, all in details and so forth. For instance the city of Orleans, split it up in sectors, so it takes several battles over several turns, to capture the entire city.

A new addition to the core game-plot

I think this game-review of Shogun 2 explain the problem very well; a too simple game-plot. In short as the review explains the game-plot is still today, even after 10 years of development, as follows: expand your empire. That's that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2er94e44EZ4&feature=related

A new addition to the game-plot; learning.

See, total war is a game about leadership, where you take tons of decisions, located on a variety of levels. But essentially that is what you do, making decisions. So why not emphasize a new plot in the game, focused on your own leadership style and leadership efficiency?

Such suggestion open up for new game-types; clan-multiplayer-campaign, where the human clan leader is in-fact the faction-leader, and where the factions generals and governors, are also human players, all playing their own complex part of the overall game. So for instance the faction-leader doesn't go to battle every turn, since his part of the game, primarily is to make plans, make budgets, hold meetings (chat/voice-over) and essentially keep the faction together as one. His generals and governors play other parts of the game, being either a sim-city-type of game with an economical emphasis, or a real-time total war battle-game, where you actually have to train your units, perhaps even training your captains also being human players skilled up in example flanking attacks.

So with this addition the game it self would evolve into a learning experience about how you as a player teamwork with others, how you learn, as well as how you fight your opponents, meaning the winning set-up could be optional before a campaign is launched, where the old setup as we know it today (dominance-focused) and the new setup (teamwork-focused).

It could also lead into another type of winning set-up, being to defend your territory, basically to survive the campaign against a dominance-focused faction. In this type of game, your objective would be to defend your own region and help allies against the dominance-focused faction /s.

Besieging settlements and ports

I would also like to see a new system of required amount of units, in order to siege anything on the map. It is still today so unrealistic that a single unit can besiege a city of 25000 inhabitants.

In TW a walled settlement in general have 4 walls. That should therefore mean that anyone wanting to lay siege should have a minimum of 4 full units, or perhaps 4 units with a maximum depletion of 20%.

Throughout the history of warfare it has been seldom that a tiny force has besieged a huge city. And when it has been like that, the siege-force has normally deployed it self in tiny fortifications around the city, in order to withstand any relief-force.

Any huge city on the map should not be possible to siege, unless the siege-force is big.

Laying siege to anything on the map shouldn't be something you just do in a few clicks. It should require a filled out siege-plan, thus new siege-options; how should your siege-force deploy? should all roads from the city be cut off? Should your siege-force build defensive structures, to withstand any relief-force?

It could be a dialogue-box, like the swapping army box, where you can drag units from one army to the other, however, in this case where you see a city-minimap in one of the two boxes, and simply deploy your units to different parts of the siege-line, by dragging them to an ouside-siege sector, of the city.

New types of starting a game

It could be an interesting feature to have some factions, where you for instance start out being a vassal to a huge faction, having to obey what they want you to do; produce units for it, send supporting armies, provide them with skill full characters and so on, making it really difficult for your self to have any standing regular army, or a pool of skill full characters or anything above survival-level really. Then at some point your master-faction gets attacked and begin to fall apart, meaning you are suddenly facing a new situation, where you finally can begin to raise an army your self, however, since this is later in a game, your opponents are all outclassing you, since you have to start from scratch.

Another type of start could be that you are attacked all over the place. First thing taking place on the screen, after start that is, is a battle you are forced to fight. A battle where you could easily loose. At the same time your settlements are besieged and so on. Essentially in such a type of game, your goal is not to become the leading faction, but a faction in peace with its neighbours.

Battle-rumour

Should the human player focus continuously winning battles against the AI, using ranged units to deplete the AI units, before engaging in full fight, a battle-rumour should be created, so the other enemy AI armies, has some foreknowledge about how the human player deploy and fight.

Bridges on the strategic map

It should be possible to destroy bridges, in order to 1) prevent your enemy from crossing, or 2) harassing his supply-lines. And for some TW games where you can produce monster-cannons, only certain types of bridges should be able to support such an weight, making some bridges more important than others.

AI battle-behaviour - ambush / hiding

In battles on AI enemy ground, thus within an AI province, a battle in general should be in the AI favour, supposed to know the terrain better than your army. Thus the AI should have more surprises up when fighting on own soil.

Fog of war

It should not be possible to literally view the size and composition of an enemy army, almost every single time you click on it, on the strategic map. A lot more fog of war here would be nice in any future TW game. Cause then you never really know what your facing. Same for the stats of enemy generals or characters, or even settlements / castles / forts, not letting foreigners inside just like that. Sure an agent should be able to provide information, but it should be more difficult.

Vanya

11-29-2011, 01:39

GAH!

Vanya wonders... whatever the period, is it possible to randomize the world? Thus, playing as any particular faction will never present the same initial position twice. The option to fight on the historical map should clearly be retained.

From a MP perspective, wouldn't it be nice if Vanya could take a Huron or Iroqoise army of tomahawk chukkas and send them, wave after wave, to take the scalps of Buddhist warrior monks while they play around with their little portable shrine, all while using ships taken from the British to bombard the beaches said monks are praying on while mercenary English Kinigits that smell of elderberries waddle in from the sea to surprise them? The mere thought of it sends a shiver down Vanya's headless spine!

GAH!

Nowake

11-29-2011, 03:34

Drop a note more often Vanya, the head-chopping season is year-round after all.
Oh and, while in principle I would frown on such an option, in this particular case randomization would bring a great many memories of a long-forgotten lil' gem of a game called Imperialism II, which was the cosiest TBS ever; takes me back.

MDPR

12-04-2011, 16:49

I agree in the following.

In the TWC thread, Craig specifically said "features" so I'll leave the era and locale alone.

Regarding features...

1) If/when you return to the age of sail or beyond, I'd like to see coastal battles, with ships acting like off-map artillery. For example, if an army in Empire makes an amphibious landing, the army can land but uses all its movement points. So it can't move off the beach until the next turn. Well, if you're defending, and you attack an army on the beach in that situation, the battle should take place on a coastal map, with any neighboring ships displayed in the water, and you should be able to trigger a cannonade (like as a general special ability, on a timer) that brings up an AoE cursor to target the bombardment.

2) If/when you return to a colonial period, it would be nice if you included the entire globe, not just little trade theatres like the Ivory Coast. Even if it were just coastal provinces, I'd like to be able to land, take over or build a trade castle, and possibly have to defend those with regular army units. So, you wouldn't have to map out the interior of Africa, but at least have a string of colonial provinces along the coast instead of just those anchorages/trade nodes.

3) I really miss the ability to award titles to units, as you could in MTW. You've gone a long way to bringing that back, first in Empire (with the government ministers), and now even closer in Shogun 2 (with the ability to award up to 4 commissions to specific generals). I'd like maybe a few more commissions/titles for generals (for example, in MTW, you could award a province governorship AND a privy council title), and they titles were appropriately named for each faction (which won't apply in a game like Shogun but probably would if you return to Europe). But I'd also like the ability to award battle honors after particularly awesome victories. For example, right now in Shogun 2, if you have some kind (not sure if it's Heroic or Decisive, or something else) victory, a little gold monument appears on the campaign map, and you can hover over it to see who faught who, what year, what the name of the battle was, etc. Well, when you win a battle that triggers the creation of monument like that, I'd also like the ability to grant (or have automatically granted based on kill/death ratios) battle honors to specific, individual units. Battle honors would add something to the units stats (+2 morale or +1 Melee Attack). This would help distinguish individual units. I really liked how in Empire each unit was numbered and you could change their names. In Shogun 2 you can't do that. All units are anonymous, and except for experience, they're all the same. I find I don't care for my Shogun 2 units anywhere near as much as I did for my Empire units, and I'm sure it's because there's no way to distinguish one from another.

4) In Shogun 2, you named the prefecture capitals, but not the ports, farms, etc. In Empire, every building in a region had a name (Oxford, Lyon, etc.). Shogun 2 feels more anonymous because of this, and that decreases my engagement.

5) Be sure to retain the 4 season turn format, no matter what future games have as a start and end date. The number of turns between the arbitrary start and end dates is immaterial. The immersion and beauty that comes with 1 turn / season, and the added tactical variety it can add to battles, is just too good to give up again.

6) Significantly increase the default range of ships, and moderately increase the range of agents, and somewhat increase the range of armies on the campaign map. The first thing I do when I get a new TW game is see if there's a Darth Mod for it yet, because one of the usual improvements that mod makes is to increase the range of units, especially ships starting with Empire. The default ranges are always rediculously short, especially for ships, and it's SO frustrating. Please talk to Darth, figure out what methodology he uses to determine the ranges, and adopt something close to that as the default in future TW games.

7) Brainstorm some way of incorporating the Avatar system into the single-player game. As a diehard SP player, I'm never going to use MP, but I like where you were going with the customization and personalization of an avatar on the MP side. It would be great if the SP side could benefit from that too.

8) The Ninja movies are great. I'm so glad they're back. They're a lot more attractive than the ones in RTW and M2TW and more interesting in their settings, methods, etc. Please retain these in future TW games.

9) If multiple generals are present in the same stack, allow all of them to get experience from victories. Even if you set up a heirarchy, where the top guy gets 100%, and the 2nd highest ranking guy gets 80% and so on, that would be cool.

10) It would be even cooler if allied units on the same battlefield could benefit from the bonuses of their general. For example, in S2, you can develop your generals to be good with cavalry vs. infantry, offense vs. defense, etc. Let's say I have 2 stacks from my own faction one that's mostly infantry and led by a general with infantry bonuses, and another mostly cavalry with a general with cavalry bonuses. They both fight in the same battle, and since they're both from my faction, I control them on the battlefield. Well, I'd like the infantry to get the bonuses from their general and the cavalry to get the bonuses from THEIR general. Conversely, you could allow for all general bonuses to apply to all units in a stack if a stack has multiple generals. This would be similar to the way some of the Commissioner bonuses apply to all units while some apply only to units in a stack led by that particular general.

11) It would be cool if you could add in some kind of dedicated troop transport ship class. In Empire, it always felt a bit unfair that I could transport 20 units on a single Sloop, or in Shogun 2, on a bow kobaya.

Jungle Rhino

12-05-2011, 16:48

Great thread and looks like Craig has been paying attention with the upcoming inclusion of naval bombardment in FotS!!!

My 2c is ROME 2!!!! Basically just take Shogun 2 and have it make sweet love with Europa Barbarorum to make an amazing beautiful Rome 2 baby. I'll quit my job, become a recluse and play it until the day I die :)

One idea though, and it would work with what other people are saying about characterisation of veteran units etc. would be for them to pick up the odd piece of captured equipment when they defeat their enemies. The historical precedent would be something like Hannibal's African spearmen who near the end of his campaigne were rocking round in nice fancy Roman armour they had 'borrowed' from their victims. Also highly appropriate for something like Alexander the Great as he adopted much of the Persian dress after spending years swanning around the Near East. You'd need to implement this subtley or you would lose the flavour of your orginal unit, but if done well I think it would be really neat. Note this would note have any game effect and would be purely for aesthetic reasons :)

Nowake

12-05-2011, 17:41

Hey Jungle Rhino, welcome to the .Org old boy ~:wave:

Basically just take Shogun 2 and have it make sweet love with Europa Barbarorum to make an amazing beautiful Rome 2 baby.
I see you're a family man!

Jaabberwocky

12-11-2011, 22:42

I would vote for a Warring States period of China, similar to what they did with Shogun 2 and it's focus on Japan only.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

12-17-2011, 22:50

I really think they should make a sequel to Napoleon total war, it was fantastic, including the mods, I'd like a Napoleonic total war 2.

Age

04-21-2015, 00:14

I would really like to see Viking Total war mostly dealing with the Vikings and yes other factions not the way it is in MTWVI.

guineawolf

05-17-2018, 20:05

Bring back the feature where when a unit has upgraded armor, their armor changes in battle too.

More economic options, the economy needs to be developed further.

4. Individual taxation, bring it back, every province must have it's own dedicated taxation system.

Bring back the ability to trade research and regions in diplomacy.

Make it possible to trade individual resources.

where is the rectangular shield of CARTHAGE's POENI infantry???
at least that is the beautiful form of Carthaginian regular infantry in CAESER 3 and SEVEN KINGDOM 2.....

can we have better goods to doing trade and earn those hard earn talents,denarii???

of coz what i means to add some design (manufacturing goods) from CAESER 3,it is to add a feature to allow us to manufacturing tradeable goods in workshops from tradeable raw materials(resources);like furniture from timbers,iron wares from irons,pottery from clay,wine from grapes,marble as temple building materials,oil from olives,vegetables from farming,grain to wheat flour,horses from ???(no horses means no support from cavalry!!!that will be very serious problem!!!),store grain for food under siege,and encircle armies!!!

of coz that mean we have to store them(that mean there will be spoils of war!!!from enemy store tradeable goods),logistics also part of war,very important part too!!!

most important is that at least we will have something to do(fun to do if counting denarii) while we have no war to fight on!(with all trade partners surrounding my factions,i dun want to fight them,that means it is time to do some cities managements!!!
that will have to add some "buildings" for us to build,like wine workshop,pottery workshop,and etc....

to CA=about trading food supply! weapon and armor supply! arcade mode=no morale mode!!

food supply=
actually,after signing trade treaties,we can trade strategic food supply to other factions and buy food supply from other faction,to spend our gold or earn more income,options=buying from local markets or foreign faction's markets...of coz,we can add the option of auto management...

every faction should have their own personalities like imperialism2:age of exploration,like they like to fight battles,or using diplomacy to win profit,or like to ambush,or like to hiring mercenaries,or else...so on and so on...And different AI like more stupid or more smarter,or good at tactics,or good at strategy!!!then at least we won't feel like we are fighting the same AI and dun get bored...

In Gengis Khan 4 of KOEI also have autoresolve battles,but at least it allow players to choose want to watching those autoresolve battles or not,in this case,that is becoz some players love to watching battles scene,and it can produce more accurate battles's results,

weapon and armor supply=
actually,there are bronze equipment(weapons and armors),iron equipment,steel equipment(in three kingdom perhaps???) and leather armor and etc...and wood armor and wood weapons like clubs??

that means we can capture strategic resources supply like iron,tin,copper,coal,and produce leather supply ourself,or buy these metal resources from foreign factions's traders,then supply our weapons and armors factory(foundry?we have been limited must build foundry to supply barrack with weapons and armors with some cost or we can just buy weapons and armors from foreign traders???),of coz can buy different level of fine horses too!

then we also can adjust our troops's recruitment cost and upkeep cost by adjusting our troops's equipments(weapon and armor!custom equipment?),like equip light infantry javelin,short axe,but large oval shield and hardend leather armor,and militia with short sword,spears,large square shield and chain mail or breast plate!make them heavy armor militia(my "money legions" can afford them,then why not???with faction's culture's choice of equipment!),equip cavalry with fast light horse,heavy strong charger!or balance 1! of coz we can just buy horses from foreign traders with higher prices/cost if we do not build stables to produce and supply horses...of coz,we can add the option of auto management...
of coz we can have the option to choose to play with custom equipment or not....

at last,ARCADE MODE,especially no morale mode=
CA plz let us choose arcade mode options with several options=both no morale mode or AI soldier have no morale(so i can enjoy slaughtering every enemy soldiers and enjoy the total overwhelming to enemy great resistants!!!most importantly!!),but human player soldier got morale,can be break and routed mode!!!

then most important last thing=SPOILS OF WARS!!!
i urge CA plz let us capture enemy vast treasury=strategic reserve cash as our most important spoils of war(of coz including important war material resources=resources that create weapons and armors site/settlements!),mostly after capturing enemy settlements or capitals!!

everybuddy!what say you guys????

guineawolf

05-17-2018, 20:08

to CA! STARCRAFT TOTALWAR and COMMAND & CONQUER GENERALS TOTALWAR!!!

after watching the effect of WARHAMMER 2 RISE OF THE TOMB KING,i find out these effect can perform better in STARCRAFT1/ORIGINAL TOTALWAR and COMMAND & CONQUER GENERALS TOTALWAR!!!

TIME TO DEAL WITH BLIZZARDS!!!

TIME TO FIGHT FROM PLANET TO PLANET ! FROM GALAXY TO GALAXY!!!

can there be TOTAL WAR:AGE OF EMPIRES???

each empires being place randomly in the map including custom making factions/empires???

using age of empires's units as base combatants???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to CA!please take a look on "seven kingdom 2:the fryhtan wars"!
===================================================
you guys can create a civilization mixture and monster horde of "seven kingdom 2"base total war
game;
it got persian,egytian,roman,greeks,carthaginian,norman,celts's kingdoms and several variation of
fryhtans hordes

please use the:
resources production system,resources manufacturing system,resources trading system,
new city/settlement building/founding system of <<BRAVE HEART>> and random map generators of
<<imperialism 2:age of explorations>> and buildings's building system of <<rome 1:total war>>,

-------------------------------------------------
world war 2's total war!!!
==================================
refer to <<八年抗戰2>>(traditional chinese phrase)'s and <<HEART OF IRON 4>>'s resources,weapons's
and units production system,and also can refer to design of <<COMPANY OF HEROES>>,
and please reuse populations system in <<rome 1 total war>> and <<medieval 2 total war,
and adding "looting" option in <<medieval 2 total war>>,adding looting not just money but also
supplies...
<<close combat 5:invasion normandy>>'s design,adding reinforcements option(reinforcements choose
from regiment's units roster enter from victory point's route that still being occupy,
that means we can ambush these reinforcements by waiting at surrounding area of these
victory point's route) into battle map,and units(infantry and tanks and vehicles) out of ammo and
fuel can withdraw from the battle map to refuel and rearm(refill back to regiment's units roster),
except heavy guns like 88's and heavy mortars can be resupply by ammo truck(trucks fill with ammo).

--------------------------------------------------------
<<starcraft 1>> with blizzard!!!
====================================

------------------------------------------------------------
new medieval era total war!!!
======================================
please refer to <<成吉思汗4威力加強版>>(traditional chinese phrase)'s design
(offspring creation system,
naming system,custom faction creation system,and please add an option to allow us to create our own
banners/logos/symbols,then upload/import into game and use them as custom faction's
banner/logo/symbol,
and reenlist all <<medieval 2 total war>>'s
units roster to all those european's and all islam's factions's units roster,reenlist all
<<shogun 2 total war>>'s units roster into japanese factions,just need to create all the other
units roster for other culture's faction only...

--------------------------------------------------

these <<starcraft total war>> and <<genghis khan total war>> map must be huge and the size of
the battle will be huge too,base on the performance of today's PC,i think this force to be the
future total war title....

guineawolf

05-17-2018, 20:19

CA please take a look on CIVIL WAR GENERALS 2:GRANT-LEE-SHERMAN!!!

IT IS A DAMN VERY GOOD OLD GAME!!!
SKS Plays Civil War Generals 2 Gameplay: WAR! [Episode 1]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peOXXRQuFqU

(take a well look on the short combat's scene video clips!!!)

it got unit's supply and units's firearms upgrades to purchase at the firearm factory too!!!(1 more place to spent our precious gold/supply again!!!1 more strategic planning phase for financial planning part!!!)

guineawolf

05-17-2018, 20:24

hopefully there is mongol invasion (same as shogun 1 :total war)in shogun 2 :total war after become the Shogun of Japan and the total conquest and unification of whole Japan,invasion to Korea;after invasion and conquer of Korea,then invasion to China,to final war to the huge army of China!!!
i want to spend my 5000,000 "money legion" and my 300,000 troops in korea and china!!

are there will be 1 day that CA will put ITEMS/ARTIFACTS buying in shogun2/shogun3's merchant?

i hope there will be,coz i love to buy items/artifacts in KOEI's Nobunaga's Ambitions 12:Kakushin /Iron Triangle,i hope i can enjoy shopping in merchant shop in the shogun2/shogun3's castle,buying items/artifacts.....

like buying better armor to better protection or increase hitpoint of generals by wearing it,increase general's attack by buying better katana,buying better horse to add safely retreat from battlefield for generals,buying translate copy of art of war of Sun Sze to increase command star or command radius,and so on so on.....

guineawolf

05-17-2018, 20:29

i have play much shogun2:totalwar these days ,after watching explosion graphic effect of kisho ninja's explosive in this game,i think CA oredi can create CLOSE COMBAT:TOTALWAR about world war 2.....i beg CA to create it,coz i love this CLOSE COMBAT GAME!!!(TOO!INCLUDING TOTALWAR SERIES OF COZ!!!)

after watch the explosion of mortar in "Warhammer:TotalWar" from a youtube video ,that reminds me that may be the CA(Creative Assembly) can try to create a World War 2 totalwar game,it's original game was CloseCombat series.

The Close Combat 3:Russian Front and Close Combat 5:Invasion Normandy also got campaign map and battle map,but what i want more is the "numbers" and graphic that TotalWars have!And the 3D replay and combat feature in Company of Heroes series!

The only suggestion is to hopefully CA will take a look on CloseCombat3,CloseCombat5 and Company of Heroes 1 and 2.....i personally love the 120mm mortars in CloseCombat,it is my personal company's artillery!And the sounds of those tanks's gun in CloseCombat3.
And the promotions of my Ranks(from CloseCombat3),from Lieutenant(lead 1platoon=5 squads) to Captain(a company's officer,leading 1 company=at least 3 platoon=at least 15 squad),from Captain to Major,and so on and so on...

And 1 last thing,hopefully CA will add reinforcement feature to these CloseCombat:TotalWar,like Rome:TotalWar,can sent in more troops after there is empty slot available after any unit is complete KIA.So we can continue the fight=the combat=the battle...and limited artillery support,air support,naval support by fire naval guns to create naval artilery support!!!to every battle!!!

guineawolf

05-17-2018, 20:36

TOTALWAR:MEDIEVAL 2,try to take a look look on:
1.)CRUSADER KINGS 2(Developer: Paradox Development Studio) and
2.)STRONGHOLD:CRUSADER(this is a RTS game,a CASTLE SIM),Developer: FireFly Studios.
3.)Genghis Khan 4 with power up kit(from KOEI).
Actually i only interest with the CRUSADER KINGS 2's almost worldwide map...and STRONGHOLD:CRUSADER?It's auto resources collecting system is most welcome by me,after you build buildings,it's citizen will automatically go to work on resources collecting and manufacturing,if the worker get killed,there will be a new citizen go and replace that dead worker....

And the Genghis Khan 4 ?It can build cities and name them(like CIVILIZATION 4),
it can train other faction's units after you capture other faction's city(and to train them in other cities,yo need to link them up with roads).
It can stockpile the resources(if you can create a building for us(players)to collect resources and manufacturing goods like IMPERIALISM 2,then stockpile them,this is very important,coz these stocks can be spoils of war!!!The profit and fun of wars!!!) like horse,diamond,jewels,gold,silver and spices,iron,and manufacturing goods like clay pot of China or weapons,then to be trade with other cities(to do this,you need to create a trade caravan to load with cargo of goods,then travel to other city to trade for money!!!(of coz the trade caravan can be auto travel to other cities and trade)But your caravan can be raid by enemy that standing on your trade route...of coz it need a road to create a trade route...

TOTALWAR:MEDIEVAL 2 is good for it's unit's training system,like it only can train more troops in a city by upgrading city's barrack(bigger barrack train 2 to 3 units compare to smaller barrack train only 1 unit)and the units with losses of troops,can only be reinforce by merge with another units(more logical than TOTALWAR:NAPOLEON and TOTALWAR:SHOGUN2,coz the reinforce troops can be cut off by blocking the route by enemy units.)
But i also hope that TOTALWAR:ROME can be mod again,modding to TOTALWAR:MEDIEVAL2's unit's training system and unit's reinforce system....of coz the training of new units will replenish the city's population.TOTALWAR:ROME also need a lot of distant cities that cannot be conquer to be trade routes of those cities at edge of the world map.Or set some trade routes like TOTALWAR:NAPOLEON,like Silk route,Spice route and others trade routes....

Third,TOTALWAR:EMPIRE can refer to IMPERIALISM2,EUROPA UNIVERSALIS series and VICTORIA series(i am interest with their map coz i can have plenty of colony.)by Paradox Development Studio

Fourth,the TOTALWAR:CLOSECOMBAT(can be refer to CLOSECOMBAT series and HEART OF IRON series by Paradox Development Studio),in this title,it can add the captured region can have some factory like tank factory,or other weapon factory that can let us control and produce tanks and ammunitions to repsupply our regiments,and perhaps a barracks that can let us replenish our regiments with new troops.Example:capturing a region with Tiger tank factory can let us produce Tiger tanks and equip them to our armor regiments,it is a spoils of war!!!or capturing tanks(tanks need crews!!!)in battle or station in the camp.

or TOTALWAR:WORLD at WAR can refer to COMMAND & CONQUER:GENERALS.And the tech tree for both TOTALWAR:CLOSECOMBAT and TOTALWAR:WORLD at WAR can be found in COMPANY OF HEROES series and COMMAND & CONQUER:GENERALS.

These games i suggested to take a look on can be view in STEAM....

I forget that there is a game almost similiar with TOTALWAR series(it also have campaign map and battle map!!!),that is BRAVEHEART,you can have a look on youtube,the link is (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUhAxg20weY),you guys must play it first to get known to it!!!This game also can be refer as TOTALWAR:MEDIEVAL2 REMASTERED!!!

And there can be also a TOTALWAR:ROME REMASTERED,larger map!more cities!better look of units!And movie clip events report(take a look on CAESER3)!These can be refer to Legion_Gold(Slitherine software presents)(http://www.slitherine.com/products/p...6&PlatformID=1).
And hopefully the campaign will be start from the RISE of ROME!(before the romans still using greek phalanxe and being defeat and raid by CELTS,after that defeat and raid the romans start to using replubican legions,then the unification of Italy!after this,of coz the conquest of the world!)

And i have find out that there is 1 more era that you guys can create,that can refer to CHARIOTS OF WAR(also by Slitherine software).I suggest you guys take a look on this page=http://www.slitherine.com/products/?p=14&a=3

If these TOTALWAR games can add the history of these eras,then these games can be more educationing!

If you guys going to do the TOTALWAR:ROME REMASTERED....Please put in the campaign AI and battle AI of the bugless version 1.0 TOTALWAR:ROME,they are almost perfect version of TOTALWAR game!!!

at least the campaign AI of 1.0 know to use "NUMBERS"!!!They will attack you with multi stack of armies,not like 1.5,attack 1 by 1,and get slaughtered!

In battles,they will attack the player armies at once!!!(with all units,not like 1.5,only surrounding player's armies with units,but not co-attack!)With this tactics,it make me feel like i am on a real battlefield!(the only flaw is the generals's unit will always charge in the battle,very heroic!And get killed!Not like TOTALWAR:NAPOLEON;s general staff units will stay behind their armies and boost their morale.This flaw make me have to close the morale(FALSE the Morale in preferences file) and play like arcade,but at least it is better,coz the AI's armies prove more resistants and can kill more of my troops.....

The AI attack with multi stack of armies make us always have chances to fight in huge numbers of battles a lot!!!(at least total 10,000 troops fight and die!!!And i have fight a battle of Narbo_Martius that consist at least 20,000 Scipii Legion fighting the defenders of Narbo_Martius 25,000 of Julii Legion!This is yours perfect game!!!)

Sorry,it is 10,000 Scipii legion fighting 15,000 Julii legion,and won!!!
And i still play morale at that battle...

I mentioned about CRUSADER KINGS 2,EUROPA UNIVERSALIS 4,VICTORIA 2 and HEARTS OF IRON 4,that is becoz i am interested with their huge maps!There are plenty of lands to conquer!
And in BRAVEHEART,there are plenty of spoils of war!!!

If you can use the TOTALWAR:ARENA or TOTALWAR:WARHAMMER's graphic or engine to do the TOTALWAR:ROME REMASTERED,that will be perfect!!!Coz they are very beautiful!!!

Perhaps you guys are the group that can convert ROMANCE OF THREE KINGDOM 8 and 9(from KOEI) into TOTALWAR game!!!(ROMANCE OF THREE KINGDOM 8 is good becoz player can become not only a Lord but also a Retinue(a fellow officer).And good choices of units(a few kind of infantry and some cavalry to be choose!) to be recruit and train!
And ROMANCE OF THREE KINGDOM 9?It got a almost complete list of ranks as promotion!

And convert the EMPIRE EARTH(a franchise of real-time strategy computer games developed by Stainless Steel Studios and Mad Doc Software) to TOTALWAR!
The goodness of EMPIRE EARTH is it can changing era to another era,actually like CIVILIZATION series,can using laser shooting infantry to fight bowmens...