Your own TW style game: What features would you like to see?

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

If you were to create your own TW style game, what features would be crucial for you? What do the hardcoded features of TW games lack, apart from functional diplomacy / AI intelligence?

Personally, I'd add the following features:

- founding settlements: the player can found settlements on his own and thus create new provinces. He can also destroy existing settlements thus eliminating the province, giving the soil to a neighbouring one

- technological progress: by building appropiate building (schools, temples), the player can amass "progress points" like in Civilization. When a given amount of points is reached, your faction could benefit from new / better units and buildings

- disloyalty: your nobles can revolt and form a faction to wipe you out (dunno if this is already implemented in M2TW). The bigger the empire, the more difficult to keep it together

[Antinous]

I would add the settlements like yo said.

2.) You can take control of ship battles like on land.

3.) Tons of new factions with special units.

[jirisys]

Realistic army sizes.

No more 20 stack max.

Multiple settlements on a region.

Ability to create settlements.

Realistic management mechanics (not ETW style, but a more comprehensive system without betraying the RTW system).

Realistic AI diplomacy.

Realistic AI tactics.

Unlimited factions.

SDK kit.

Unlimited units, buildings and whatnot.

Better trait system, scripts and ancillaries.

And that's just in the top of my head.

~Jirisys ()

[fomalhaut]

most importantly, the AI needs to keep account of losses and gains in real terms. If they lose their army, they should immediately sue for peace or at least step on the table, not send levies until their unnecessary death as a faction because they never ever accept peace. Except maybe for Rome with Hannibal and with Pyrrhus, most factions would be fighting for extra territorial gains or other reasons, not for the sake of their nation. losing their main force should at least stem them, humiliate them, end them as a powerful force outside of their region ala Athens invasion of Syrakuse

In Alpha Centauri there's a real sense of politicking at all times, while in RTW it's literally total war, never ending, purposeless conflict for the sake of it. No manipulating 3rd parties to help you, no solidifying alliances, nothing, just war. with everyone.

[Skullheadhq]

Centurio! You're back! Didn't see you in some time!

Anyway, here's my wishlist.

Succession crises: Multiple sons/pretenders fighting for power after your ruler dies.
Reputation system: If you conquer half the world, the rest will conspire against you to keep you down.
Political (senate) system with factions: one needs to acquire a majority there for your decisions or face destabilization when monarchy when going against the council's will.
Rebellious heirs: heirs could get impatient and start a civil war.
Multiplayer battles: the ability to fight a battle with one army with more players, one commands the centre, two others flanks and another one the cav.
Multiplayer campaign: self explaining

And much more, but don't come to mind right now.

[moonburn]

the true steeps without city´s if you had the nomadic trait all of your units would have 0 upkeep and all you had to do was to roam around putting troops on top of icons that meant catle or other important resources every autumm you would/could build forts to protect your troops for when winter arrives or loose 1/4 of your unprotected army and then spring arrives and you would restart attacking rebels or other steppes nomads use the resources gathered to recruit directly from the mercenary pool and keep at it until 1500 ac where gunpowder starts to cut you down

if you got tired of that life of loosing family members due to them not reaching the forts in time and having no more money to build a new one you could steppe out of the steeps and attack someone to take over their city´s and start your road into becoming a setled people

that would make playing a steppes faction very fun particulary setling forts all over to take control of grazzing grounds mines heards slaves furs traderoutes or extracting money from the setled people in the fringes of the steppes

also the hability to create colonies (make them permanent stone forts) and later on to pick a capital city from all the permanent stone forts in your province (something like for every region there´s x permanent stone forts inside a formula that would depend on space available like province y as 1300 square km´s then it can have 6 permanent stone forts even tough it only has 2 psf´s at the start and 1 capital province wich could be destituted and be turned into 1 psf traded for another one)

also the hability to use your army to ensure the loyalty of a few people without having to conquer them or destroy them would be nice athens didn´t had soldiers everywhere in it´s league it only had to flex it´s muscle or let 1 be destroyed/conquered by the spartans to put them all in check

this last one combined with the hability to create colonies could make for an extremly interesting gameplay of total politiche control of the world from 1 single city state and it´s 250 colonies scatered all over the world

[Arjos]

Pretty much a lot of what has been said, but I always wanted to see a proper feudal/tribal representation: the player being the main dynasty/tribe in power, sided with multiple sub-factions, all part of the same culture, but each behaving on its own; with the player focused on maintaning his position, while fighting off with foreigners aswell...

[antisocialmunky]

An EB Mod.

[Ca Putt]

generally a more realistic (and hideously complex XD ) damage system for weapon types and armor that also differs between wounded etc units.

Also the ability to lend/sell units which in turn have different behavior: when the faction declares war/attacks the original faction it depends on unit type or a FMs traits, who was part of the "package" if they become regular troops, disband or rejoin their original faction.

Generally I'd like to see the whole thing in realtime and seamless(similar to Hegemony) to among beeing epic also get over silliy long siege times and enable armies to come out of cities to meet attacking armies before they siege it, tho that would a) make multitasking too important and remove all the relaxation from the game^^*
and b) make it Hegemony and not Total war :D

*tho this could be minimized by moveing the scale to a REALISTIC level and thus make it very speed altering heavy. - you would fight a battle in normal speed or maybe 6X speed but you have to speed up a lot when "kingdom manageing" as otherwise it'd take a day to move your army from Corinth to Athens.
but alas that would really take some serious mapping ;) and cost a lot of ram

[fomalhaut]

I wouldn't mind resorting to MTW or Shogun graphics for a super revamp in complexity.

[Sylon]

The ability to upgrade an existing veteran unit to a different unit. For example, upgrading a 3 chevron hastati unit into a 1 chevron principes unit, at a cost. Alternatively, being able to upgrade a unit of veteran levy phalangitai into a proper, professional phalangitai unit.

[TiberiusClaudiusMarcellus]

Hey guys! Tiberius Claudius Marcellus here (used to play the BtSH PBM), but stopped coming around because of no internet at home and restrictions on the work's internet.

Glad to be back, and anxiously awaiting EB 2. (An EB-style mod (Japanese) for S2:TW would be awesome!)

OT: I'd like to see the ability to take over regions of provinces instead of the whole thing at once, say divide them up into 10 or so smaller areas representing real world geographic separations (mountain spines, the valleys), collections or individual historic small towns, and natural resources (mines, forests, ship yards/ports, etc).

It would make the game extremely in-depth on the strat map. You zoom in and the world map with its general details fades into a detailed map of the province in question, divided up into its own little sub-regions. Imagine moving your army - and splitting it up into small groups - set out to hold a village blocking the main road while your main force circumnavigates and hits the main target or splits up further to take over / blockade resource areas or rural population centers.

Each of these little sub-regions would have their own loyalties, their own bonuses, descriptions, and could allow more realistic and slower expansion to simulate the ebb and flow of populations/culture, the more realistic actions needed to invade, conquer, and subjugate/liberate a large area, and make the map look more realistic instead of huge chunks of the planet suddenly changing color in one turn. Perhaps have a timer/counter that tracks an adjusts loyalty in each sub-region based on its base value, how long it has been in control of a faction, how strong military forces are, etc. At some point the loyalty would permanently flip into the holder's favor, but before that, leaving it untended would prove disastrous.

[Ichon]

Actual incentive not to always conquest everything. IE- capturing and dominating culture of an entire region should be quite tough and require long investment of resources. Cheaper would be win a few battles and perhaps kill an Emperor and his Heir and acquire a client kingdom which pays tribute and initially (in the lifetime of the next leader) lends military aid. Continuing military help after the death of the first leader who made the deal with the winners would require reduction of the tribute or a full alliance that also gives help not just takes it. So a player might be faced with the choice to win a few battles and secure a peace for unknown length of time(new leader could die in a battle against other enemies or rebels in 1 turn or live 20 turns) or complete conquest of a region that forces to maintain strong garrisons or face uprising and no internal succession crises or similar for that captured region to actually adopt conquerors culture. Something like 200 turns though after 50 turns the captured region could get reduced garrisons and supply some of its own military manpower to help out the ruling power. If this system could vary by culture and ethnos even better. IE- if Greek culture had an overall score in the world depending how well it was doing that gave foreign cultures harder or easier time to convert its captured populations. So Syracuse might fall to Rome but if Macedon was expanding for Romans to convert Greeks in Syracuse could take full 200 turns modified by how well Roma culture was doing. If Epirus on the other hand conquered Syracuse then it might take only 100 turns as they both share Greek culture.

I am not a fan of realtime (get enough of that in Paradox games)for campaign turns though I really do think the turns should be random. Sometimes your enemy moves first, twice in a row, sometimes you do. Would create many more 'surprise' attacks and missed reinforcements etc as actually happened quite often but is very hard to replicate in game.

If the above system could also have succession crises when there is not a strong official Heir that client kingdoms break away or choose to support the nearest contender. If Capitol turned rebel and the various contenders had to either kill competing contenders, or take and hold Capitol for 10 turns or something but not complete break of the realm where half goes rebel and has to be re-taken. However client kingdoms and regions in the process of being converted to occupiers culture could break away or rise in rebellion that could be interesting. So as a player you might choose more often client kingdoms until you got a strong young Heir who should be able to keep the Kingdom stable for at least the first 50 turns when the chances of rebellion in occupied regions is highest.

The final part would be robust diplomacy with AI gains favoring enemy of enemy is friend and goals based on strength of the strongest neighboring kingdom. If a bunch of small kingdoms are isolated and warring they might always vassalize if winning a war. A small kingdom in between a large neighbor and a slightly smaller neighbor might want to emulate the larger neighbor by growing through taking over the smaller.

Of course periodically in rebel regions or in regions undergoing succession crises new factions from a list of historical factions might arise. Or if a culture has a very low world world score and its Emperor and Heir are killed some of its regions could erupt into a new faction and culture with a relatively high world score from being fresh on the scene.

Larger and larger kingdoms would require either very high world culture score or very high authority of the king. So expanding doesn't get easier if you conquer similar cultures as the overall cultural score might actually relatively decline if other cultures are doing better. Also the largest kingdoms would need to exist with very high cultural score or face constant succession crises without both a strong king and heir.

I am ok with small graphics and battle AI improvements(AI keep its damn general alive) from the level in Shogun 2. Better would be to make different terrains and troops types have more penalties or bonuses according to their tactical roles. Basic infantry spearmen as the generic 'everything' unit with small bonus vs cavalry in frontal charge in open terrain while cavalry in rough terrain get a larger penalty while spearmen have neither penalty nor bonus in that same rough terrain. Units fighting a foreign culture on the foreign land have a small morale penalty while defenders on their own soil get a morale bonus.

[Ibrahim]

what I want? well, a lot. most of these are more pipe dreams though, than what is objectively possible (I'm not a good programmer, so how possible all this is, I dunno). some of my ideas reflect my dark mindset; others, my desire to simulate warfare in the 1750's, and still others, just for realism's sake.

General:
1-a more moddable engine. hardcodes need to be loosened, or eliminated alltogether (depending on the feature in question)
2-more efficient programming, so that more can be done with less memory. (if possible-I'm not a computer programmer, so I don't know if it is possible). none of the trouble we have with Empire and Napoleon: total war (don't know about S2:TW).
3-seemless transitions between strat and battle maps.
4-beyond that, the general idea is sound. turn based strat, realtime battlemap. best I've seen yet IMHO.

Campaign:
1-a higher province limit-or none if possible.
2-more than one sea province-if possible.
3-a threat assessment and tradeoff assessment script for the AI. Diplomacy shouldn't be suitable for idiots, but for real rulers-and players, who no doubt suffer the exacerbating effects of an unreasonable diplomacy. no one deserves to be forced to download a force diplomacy script (no, I am not saying the FD script for RTW mods is bad or unhelpful-the opposite in fact; nor should it be taken as a negative comment to FD script designers/modders); it should be part of the game from the get-go.
4-be able to mod AI behavior even more than we can do nowadays. down to being able to remove the silly total war mentality of the AI, so that we don't have armies getting spammed all over the place. most culture IIRC were more into limited warfare, where a single, crushing defeat is enough.
5-be able to commit incest. perverse, but many societies did it. also, be able to "choose" the bride (not just "princesses", but noblewomen, or even commoners).
6-more nuanced government systematic-EB comes closest to what I want, as a default.
7-a more nuanced topographic map: gray-scale sucks at accurately reflecting basic topography.
8-generally more detailed TGA files for maps. M2TW is taking this to the correct direction, but not quite enough.
9-let's take out loans! srsly, states have always taken out loans. why should a total war game be any different?
10-more economy, in the sense of being able to mint coins and standards.
11-the ability to indeed found cities, or better still, to also be able to change province boundaries, or create new ones from scratch.
X-I had a bunch of other ideas, but they're not on my mind atm. when I think them up again, I'll edit here.

battlemap:

1-be able to mod unit formations more flexibly than we can nowadays: it is not enough to dictate distances between man and man. how about if ranks are staggered? where can we place the officers (not every army put them on the right)? we can put say, 2 in front, 7 to the back, and maybe 3 to the right, for the lulz. what about if the unit is staggared? straight? do they cadence march? if so, how well? what is the amount of space present for each man (RTW, and M2TW, aren't that good about this part)? should it be envisioned as a square, or a circle? what is the rate of march? etc.
2-more intuitive and flexible animations, and a looser skeleton system, with looser hardcodes. you never have an idea how much a pain it is to get models to do the 1757 manual of arms, when you have to attach the weapon directly to the hand-bone; equally saddening, is when you can't make only the front rank kneel. Empire total war kinda does that, but poorly (apparently, they never actually studied musket usage). all this is a pet peeve though :shame:
3-more flexible missile system (projectiles). this one is more involved then it seems, though I don't want to make people spend 1 hour of their lives explaining all the problems with the system in both games.
4-be able to use multiple special abilities, when and how I want, per unit. ETW kinda does that, but only for specific circumstances (e.g. I can only build trenches in sieges IIRC). If I want to build trenches in the middle of nowhere, I should be able to.
5-a complete gravity engine: we can save space (conceivably) if we got rid of (or minimized) death animations, in favor of a SWAT-4 esque method, where bodies drop in a less rigid manner. this should free up space (I hope) for the next point:
6-have wounded men shown on the battlefield: I want to see (and hear) men writhing from non-lethal, or slow killing injuries. sounds sickening, but it is meant to sicken people (and maybe the AI: perhaps emotions can be simulated?). war isn't a game, so why should a video game partly about it be any different in appearance? it is part of the "edutainment" idea. if I could add smell, I would.
7-the effects of missiles should be graduated: merely hole making the person, going through, blowing off limbs/organs, and vaporizing the victim. and so on. this leads to another concept
8-a more complete, rational physics engine. the gravity and missile effects should be parts of it.
9-no arcade mode playing: I don't want to see people flying 20 feet up into the air cuz a berserker hit them. I doubt anyone on this planet was, or is as strong as Shao Kahn. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8hBl82HTHI&feature=related) (warning: graphic MK6 (deception) fatality)
8-internal organs need modelling. I'll leave you to figure this one out. nothing too complex: brains, hear, lungs, guts, and liver.
9-the right to design, or edit from a template of a design, of fortifications. and it shouldn't be a set hard coded list.
10-get this: the ability to name regiments. it's a pet peeve of mine, even in Empire: total war. Hessians were not numbered in the British army, which didn't even use numbers until 1751.
11-the ability (indeed, to confirm some people here), to refit units. what if I want to change uniforms? simplify them? even get rid of them?
12-the ability to directly model in disease and desertion. as well as making supply of the army, and a real medical department.
13-I wanna see people getting bogged down in Flanders mud (like Agincourt), or alternately, native Americans taking deliberate cover behind trees to pick off some scarlet clad loser who thought it was a good idea to wear a shiny silver gorget round his thoat. walking in the rain in a muddy area in RTW or M2TW doesn't lead to people getting stuck, possibly up to their knees.
14-I want to be able to directly defend beeches, or stage amphibious landing on defended beeches-at least in concept.
15-more nuanced sieges: parallels, pavises, more siege weapons, etc.
16-the concept of not just temporary forts and watch towers, but castles, castrae, even great walls. all built separately from the system used in M2TW
17-the concept of "frontlines", piquets, etc. as some here have said, we shouldn't just have to capture a city to get a province-though that should be the default.
18-sappers. we need them. I wanna build my own bridge 'cross the Rhine
19-better ambush interface. it is not enough to be able to hide till the last minute. I want to remain concealed when firing-assuming i have camouflage, or are inside hidden chambers with portholes for shooting.
20-because I'm a sadist: make machine guns a genuine possibility.
21-overall, I'd like simulation possible from prehistory to maybe 1916 (1945 if you really want to stretch it).

[antisocialmunky]

I'm starting to wonder, can't you mod the source engine into an RTS engine?
http://www.hl2wars.com/

Might be fun to just import some EB models into it. I've seen crazier things done.

[fomalhaut]

The ability to upgrade an existing veteran unit to a different unit. For example, upgrading a 3 chevron hastati unit into a 1 chevron principes unit, at a cost. Alternatively, being able to upgrade a unit of veteran levy phalangitai into a proper, professional phalangitai unit.

this simply can't be a true reflection of reality, the units are an abstraction of the roughly the same people of a social class. Levies being 'promoted' like that en masse is wholly unrealistic, a group of farmers don't simply become citizens, which is what a professional soldier would be.

[Ichon]

Weren't many of the class divisions based on age though? Just like modern times it takes a decade or few to accumulate wealth and the lower tier warriors might still be 'citizen' and come from good families but not have the wealth or experience to be considered a phalangitai or principes? Although I am not sure if this works across all civilizations or would be worth the effort.

[Foot]

Weren't many of the class divisions based on age though? Just like modern times it takes a decade or few to accumulate wealth and the lower tier warriors might still be 'citizen' and come from good families but not have the wealth or experience to be considered a phalangitai or principes? Although I am not sure if this works across all civilizations or would be worth the effort.

I think his point is that a Hastati unit in a game such as TW is not the same group of people fighting over a number of years, such that after a certain number of years they all progress to the rank of Principes because they have all reached that age. A unit in TW is just a body of men of a certain class, the individuals that make up that class will certainly change over time. Over time the individuals who make up that unit will change in small numbers. Perhaps in one week, a group of 5 or so reach an age where they are then reorganised into a Principes unit, while in that same week five new individuals replace them from some other unit.

You are trying to represent minutiae as an important gameplay mechanic, and so it stops being historical and starts being gamey. Its important to maintain the correct perspective across the game to ensure that what you represent is relevant to your representation. Focusing on small things that aren't important to your chosen perspective is what TW do, and what I wish they wouldn't.

Foot

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Great responses here.

The ability to fight naval battles on the battle map is quite desireable, Antinous. Also a reputation system like Skullhead said, changing the attitude of foreign powers towards your empire according to your power and conduct, and perhaps on how serious you take the fullfillment of treaties.

I wonder a bit though that nobody besides me thinks that technological progress would be a good idea. I can imagine, for example, when Greeks conquer Rome, they could easily adopt the 3rd tier roads and the bigges aqueducts.

Some ppl mentioned they wanted TW in realtime. I don't think that's a good idea. Realtime strategy is just a pain in the ass imho, since you would have to constanty monitor what's going on without the time to really think about your next moves. It would bring TW even more to total war instead of politicking and strategic cunning. In reality, things are going so slow that you normally have far more time than in a game.

To summarize it, I think TW games could benefit more from the Civilization series.

[TiberiusClaudiusMarcellus]

To summarize it, I think TW games could benefit more from the Civilization series.

Amen, Amen, Amen.

I loved how your civ's culture could be checked on the map as an overlay and if your civ's was high and your neighbor's was not it could inspire revolts without you necessarily acting towards that effect. Imagine how that would make EB even more awesome and random. The great thing about it, too, would be that you couldn't just start spamming "culture" buildings; rather the combination of your military strength , city development, trade, and elapsed time would be the determining factors.

And the effect would be near your cities / "high culture" areas. If you had some dumb little village on your border, it couldn't possibly exert influence into the neighboring rural areas, but could be susceptible to the large city that the neighboring empire has just down the road.

Fun, fun stuff.

[Ibrahim]

@ Centurio: I largely agree with your assessment. however, I do feel the need to state a few things here, in response. a devil's advocate, so to speak.


I wonder a bit though that nobody besides me thinks that technological progress would be a good idea. I can imagine, for example, when Greeks conquer Rome, they could easily adopt the 3rd tier roads and the bigges aqueducts.

I see where you come from, but to me, the Civ series' technological progress system strikes me as busy work. If you can come up with a more hands-off system, I'd be eager to support it, but I don't see where it is possible. and for the record, I have the same opinion of E:TW and N:TW regarding technology.



To summarize it, I think TW games could benefit more from the Civilization series.

I agree, but to an extent. I do admire the Civ series deplomacy, and the way cities can be founded, and built up in all manner of ways. but as mentioned, I have reservations regarding the technological progress feature. Having played Civs I through III, they all come across as great games. but that last part always feels like busy work.

I dunno, it's just a feeling I get regarding the technology thing.



this simply can't be a true reflection of reality, the units are an abstraction of the roughly the same people of a social class. Levies being 'promoted' like that en masse is wholly unrealistic, a group of farmers don't simply become citizens, which is what a professional soldier would be.

true, but what about cases where the soldiers are simply re-equipped, so as to pretty much get "promoted"? like, for example, the so called "Marian reforms"? otherwise, I see your point.

[fomalhaut]

Weren't many of the class divisions based on age though? Just like modern times it takes a decade or few to accumulate wealth and the lower tier warriors might still be 'citizen' and come from good families but not have the wealth or experience to be considered a phalangitai or principes? Although I am not sure if this works across all civilizations or would be worth the effort.

as Foot said, this could perhaps be done on an individual basis, but not per taxeis/cohort/unit and thus could not be reflected in the game engine meaningfully.

I completely disagree, Civilization has gone done a path I cannot follow in recent iterations. If you want how diplomacy, culture, politick and warfare should feel on a macro level Alpha Centauri is the standard. Turn based then real time battles are the way to go though, real time? leave that to those games where you trade men for meat and swords turn buildings on fire by wacking them (Age of Empires or whatever)

[Ca Putt]

The problem of promoted units mainly arises because a) many players don't train armies that give the entire spectrum of society (through financial problems or because they like to spam a certain unit) and b) most campaigns don't take a season or maybe two but several years due to the 4tpy which in turn makes it strange to run around with a unit of ... jugunthiz for 5 years as by that time they'd probably all be dugunthiz. With more tpy or realtime this "problem" would be somewhat removed as a campaign can end at harvest time.

[I_damian]

Obviously I would like an AI that is actually intelligent, or at least able to keep its army in formation and carry out simple manouvers, such as keeping spearmen in reserve to counter your cavalry, or using their cavalry to take out your cavalry rather than just using it to headbutt your front lines and die. But since games now are about shiny shiny and nothing more, I can't have that.

SO! What I would like that I can think of off the top of my head: Unlimited factions so that every historical people can be represented in mods, and I would also like for there to be some recognition of human and AI behaviour. If I'm good and I don't attack my allies, the longer I don't attack them, the more loyal they should become, until a point is reached where nothing will make them declare war except me doing something really, really bad. Empire had this, kind of, but it was just a little box that said your allies trust you. In reality, if you shared a border, they were going to attack eventually, no matter how many gifts you have.

Above everything else though, I would love for it to become more difficult to manage your faction as it grows bigger and in to an empire, as historically was. This has kind of been present in all the TW games so far, but for example in RTW, a settlement far away might rebel, but only that settlement, and they would throw out the troops and governor. What should happen, is the settlement should rebel WITH the governor and troops, declare independence, and other cities around it should join in to form a proper faction. This happened in MTW, why they took it out is just baffling.

[Ibrahim]

The problem of promoted units mainly arises because a) many players don't train armies that give the entire spectrum of society (through financial problems or because they like to spam a certain unit) and b) most campaigns don't take a season or maybe two but several years due to the 4tpy which in turn makes it strange to run around with a unit of ... jugunthiz for 5 years as by that time they'd probably all be dugunthiz. With more tpy or realtime this "problem" would be somewhat removed as a campaign can end at harvest time.

or, you could just implement a mechanic that allows for individuals in the first unit to be transferred to the nearest Dugunthiz unit (or even create a new one), as soon as the unit gains a certain level of xp.

so maybe:

1 bronze chevron: 5 dugunthiz
2: another 5
3: another 5

It's just another suggestion.

and so on.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

What I so far forgot to mention:

- decimation of your troops on campaign due to sickness, famine, and bad weather! In reality by far the biggest share of casualties was due to these factors.

- blood and mutilation on the battlefield! But that's not a top priority I admit.

[war is hell]

I would like to see more realistic sieges that are actually fun to play. Not sure how to do this exactly.

Two things for starters.

1: Could we atleast make the battle field look like it is undersiege? Like the cities should be surrounded with camps, waggons, baggage, supplies, animals, servants etc.

2: Dismountable Cavalry units. Chariots are effectivly useless during a siege. Casse bodyguards should automatically be dismounted into a Calawre or whatever.

[Ibrahim]

What I so far forgot to mention:

- decimation of your troops on campaign due to sickness, famine, and bad weather! In reality by far the biggest share of casualties was due to these factors.

- blood and mutilation on the battlefield! But that's not a top priority I admit.

1-at least until WW1. maybe we could have diseases varying, so that say, in areas that are awampy we get Malaria and yellow fever? or along floodplains and in siege conditions, have severe outbreaks of Typhus or Typhoid? or, if we're in the right spot, bubonic plague or smallpox. these all have varying lethalities (from almost 100% for bubonic plague to ~33% for smallpox), and those who are affected by don't die tend to be unfit for combat for a while (or invalided home). that's why in my list, I stated the need for a medical department: if you could implement a script that creates regulations or similar on an army, that effects hygene, you could lower the death rate (or raise it?). then of course it's needed for the wounded: better the medical service, the higher the survival rate from a serious injury.

2-it's not, but it adds feeling.

[Cambyses]

Personally, I would like to see a much more detailed game on the campaign map where issues such as supply, logistics, finances, army morale etc all played a much more important element. I want far more control about where are how I fight my battles, I dont want every fight to be about getting to a settlement and the rest of the map largely ignored. resources should be important, control of regions should be important, proper planning and development of reserves/supply lines etc should be important. For me also this would mean many more turns so that we can get more realistic movement rates into place. Perhaps even simultaenous turns. Probably this would also mean fewer battles as a percentage of game time. I would happily accept a smaller map if this were to be implemented properly.

I would also add that as many, many battle in ancient times were fought at or very near rivers, that a wider range of strategic options became available to a commander around a river. For example building pontoons or boats, destroying bridges, shadowing an opponent on the otehr side of the river. etc.

On the battle map I would like to see unit movement speed vastly reduced so that bad positioning actually means something. There would need to be a "speed up" button like in old MTW (which maxed at a seeming speed of light timescale) to make this viable. I would like to see units behave more realistically so that they would not reliably obey to the letter what their general told them every time and perhaps move out of the players control entirely if they moved too far from the commander. A delay in receiving orders would also be good.

[Satyros]

I say let the game be gamey .

The simulationist approach would bog down the TW experience with irrelevant and uninteresting detail ( for most players ) .

If the game is good "out of the box" , I guess the good modding folks would then give us the excellent , polished ( and niche ) TW experience . EB proves beyond doubt this point , even with the hard-coded severe limitations and handicaps of the RTW engine/game taken into account .

But for a "gamey" TW game to be good , a good tactical and strategic AI is absolutely required .

But I'm under the impression that nowadays the TW games are not even "mod-able" , are they ?

Oh well ..

Satyros

[stratigos vasilios]

Complete west (Iberia/West Africa) to east (Asia) map set in the EB era. Add north to south to that too. Would be amazing, but alas not possible.

[vartan]

I say let the game be gamey .

The simulationist approach would bog down the TW experience with irrelevant and uninteresting detail ( for most players ) .

If the game is good "out of the box" , I guess the good modding folks would then give us the excellent , polished ( and niche ) TW experience . EB proves beyond doubt this point , even with the hard-coded severe limitations and handicaps of the RTW engine/game taken into account .

But for a "gamey" TW game to be good , a good tactical and strategic AI is absolutely required .

But I'm under the impression that nowadays the TW games are not even "mod-able" , are they ?

Oh well ..

Satyros
So, for marketing purposes and whatnot, would you say that a simulationist approach would not sell to as wide an audience as a more gamey​ approach to such a video game?

Complete west (Iberia/West Africa) to east (Asia) map set in the EB era. Add north to south to that too. Would be amazing, but alas not possible.
And why is it impossible to have a game with such a large map? There are already strategy games that cover the entire globe. Whether it's smart computing-wise is another matter entirely!

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

In fact, there's already a mod for eu: Rome that includes that area you specified, in EB's timeframe...

[Satyros]

So, for marketing purposes and whatnot, would you say that a simulationist approach would not sell to as wide an audience as a more gamey​ approach to such a video game?



Well , yes and I'm only stating the obvious here .

I won't claim that I know exactly the numbers of players who enjoy Vanilla RTW / EB RTW but judging from my own little circle of gamers , most won't be bothered to explore the excellent game that EB is .

They would do that with other games ( Paradox grand strategy games , for example ) , but is seems that they find EB "too complex for a TW game" . It seems that some people just want to win easy , cinematic battles combined with a sort of lame strategically campaign . Or , to put it mildly , EB is not your average War-/strategy- game . It takes more time than the base game ( RTW ) , rewards the players who pay attention to detail , it's much more enjoyable if you happen to be a "history-nerd" , all in all it has a rather specific audience .

Now , I'm not saying that EB is the epitome of simulationist games , but it is much further down that path than your "regular Vanilla RTW" .

I try not to bring this up every single time I write in this forum , but every single time I cannot avoid it ( sorry fellas , don't want to nag or anything ) :

Just imagine where would EB be if there weren't the faults in the A.I.

Or even RTW for that matter .

Nowadays I play many paradox grand strategies , just because they play "smarter" , but - to be a bit "sentimental" - I miss my TW games .

To be precise , I miss the post-MTW /pre-RTW era . The game I was expecting then was never delivered by the good people of CA . Passed on ETW etc , haven't played STW2 yet .

So I still don't ask much from CA ( to return on topic ) . Just some good quality ( and even scalable - to cater for the needs of all kinds of players-customers ) tactical and strategic A.I. and ( if they would be so kind ) some room for creative ( ---> modding ) freedom for the good guys such as those who have given us the spectacular ( and always fresh ) EB game .

Everyone happy .












I can't stress enough that I value equally the historical accuracy with the enhanced gameplay in EB . At the end of the day , the latter is what brings me back to this game years after its earlier releases , and to put it bluntly , if EB sucked gameplay-wise I wouldn't play it . The historical accuracy is a GLORIOUS bonus .

Thank the gods for EB

Satyros

[stratigos vasilios]

And why is it impossible to have a game with such a large map? There are already strategy games that cover the entire globe. Whether it's smart computing-wise is another matter entirely!

I meant in the same depth (faction and settlement wise) as EB. Including more than the limited amount of hardcoded factions, hence the impossibility.


In fact, there's already a mod for eu: Rome that includes that area you specified, in EB's timeframe...

I'm interested, what's it called? I've played the Eras TW Conquest mod for M2TW if that's what your talking about?

[Kival]

He's speaking about a mod for Europa Universalis: Rome not about a TW-Game.

[stratigos vasilios]

Ah thanks. I'll look it up, for the record ErasTWC isn't too bad either. It's no EB... but it's ok.

[vartan]

I meant in the same depth (faction and settlement wise) as EB. Including more than the limited amount of hardcoded factions, hence the impossibility.
Argument doesn't really hold since your own "TW style game" need not have any limit on the amount of factions. :2thumbsup:

[moonburn]

people should make a list of all the ideas here and present them to either the team or creative assembly there´s many good ideas for development of future expansion packs (yeah yeah yeah i wanna play the steppes total war and politk total war where wining a batle might cost you the war)

[bobbin]

There is a whole thread started by CA for that very reason over on the TWC.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

There is a whole thread started by CA for that very reason over on the TWC.



Really? Seems interesting to me. Especially because I don't understand that, in the course of six (6) games of the TW series, CA seemingly didn't manage to think of hardly any of the things discussed in this thread. Lest for sea battles, of course.

[Satyros]

Hm there is something I'd like to see implemented in the series , even more so retrofitted in MTW2/RTW ( yeah , right ) :

I can understand the need in giving ( "under the table" ) the A.I. factions more money from an "out of game" perspective , but there's no need to cancel any "in game" effect of military victories in diplomatic negotiations .

Sure , help ( financially ) the A.I. get back on its feet after yet another devastating defeat on the field of battle , but give the player the joy of cashing in these overwhelming victories diplomatically by keeping a kind of "victory points score" or something similar.

Satyros

[Spazticated]

I'd like to see an in game unit creator/editor, such that you can alter the equipment of soldiers or create new units entirely depending on your factions culture, infrastructure and resources.

So you could for example, if you are the Greeks, have a certain amount of equipment, armour and weapons and even traits that you would have access to, to begin with and gradually as you conquer neighboring factions you would add more equipment to your pool for creating new types of soldiers. Which is something that bugs me about these total war games, that you can't take something that other factions/cultures do well, and incorporate it into your own faction once you've conquered them, something like when you start getting hoplites in chainmail in the original EB.

Lets take a unit of Spartans for example, there would be a trait called "Spartan" which while giving great benefits, ups the recruitment cost and upkeep to match, these soldiers would be wearing bronze muscle breastplates which would also up the costs but would grant the trait "Well Armoured" when coupled with greaves, but if you conquer Rome and thus the facilities used to produce roman chainmail, you would add chainmail to your pool of equipment which you can then armour your Spartans with.

But if you conquer Thrace for example and gain access to Falxes, you would at first only be able to train your new Greek Falxmen in Thrace where the blacksmiths can produce Falxes and the populace would know how to use them, your Falxmen would need a trait like "Dacian" or "Thracian" to make good use of falxes until you build up your training grounds and blacksmiths in Sparta before you could have "Spartan" falxmen. This would also extend to cavalry and elephants and siege equipment and naval units, ect. This customization would also include colours and symbols, like what the symbols units would have on their shields and the colour of their tunics, uniformity would be expensive, though, as I believe it was historically.

If we are doing anything but play this game historically accurate (which would be boring as hell) why shouldn't the Germans be able to train their own Cataphracts if the conquer Asia minor? If I wanted to play the Greeks like Spartans were dominant, I could throw the "Spartan" trait on the entire Greek unit roster, make their tunics/togas and cloaks crimson and paint a lambda symbol on all of their shields if I had the gold to afford to do that, it would certainly liven up Multiplayer matches if one player was the neon pink, bunny shielded Celts, versus the jet black, galactic empire shielded Egyptians.

[vartan]

I'd like to see an in game unit creator/editor, such that you can alter the equipment of soldiers or create new units entirely depending on your factions culture, infrastructure and resources.

So you could for example, if you are the Greeks, have a certain amount of equipment, armour and weapons and even traits that you would have access to, to begin with and gradually as you conquer neighboring factions you would add more equipment to your pool for creating new types of soldiers. Which is something that bugs me about these total war games, that you can't take something that other factions/cultures do well, and incorporate it into your own faction once you've conquered them, something like when you start getting hoplites in chainmail in the original EB.

Lets take a unit of Spartans for example, there would be a trait called "Spartan" which while giving great benefits, ups the recruitment cost and upkeep to match, these soldiers would be wearing bronze muscle breastplates which would also up the costs but would grant the trait "Well Armoured" when coupled with greaves, but if you conquer Rome and thus the facilities used to produce roman chainmail, you would add chainmail to your pool of equipment which you can then armour your Spartans with.

But if you conquer Thrace for example and gain access to Falxes, you would at first only be able to train your new Greek Falxmen in Thrace where the blacksmiths can produce Falxes and the populace would know how to use them, your Falxmen would need a trait like "Dacian" or "Thracian" to make good use of falxes until you build up your training grounds and blacksmiths in Sparta before you could have "Spartan" falxmen. This would also extend to cavalry and elephants and siege equipment and naval units, ect. This customization would also include colours and symbols, like what the symbols units would have on their shields and the colour of their tunics, uniformity would be expensive, though, as I believe it was historically.

If we are doing anything but play this game historically accurate (which would be boring as hell) why shouldn't the Germans be able to train their own Cataphracts if the conquer Asia minor? If I wanted to play the Greeks like Spartans were dominant, I could throw the "Spartan" trait on the entire Greek unit roster, make their tunics/togas and cloaks crimson and paint a lambda symbol on all of their shields if I had the gold to afford to do that, it would certainly liven up Multiplayer matches if one player was the neon pink, bunny shielded Celts, versus the jet black, galactic empire shielded Egyptians.

Would you envision this as something along the lines of unit creation/customization much like character customization in (MMO)RPGs? or something completely different? I imagined it similar to RPGs except with drag-drop or a similar user-friendly interface that has a real-time counter of the unit cost that the resulting unit would have, and so on. For instance, there could also be a training rating index, such that the unit would be more powerful but costly depending on how much training was put in. Its time-to-produce/recruit would also be dependent on its training rating. In fact, depending on how the training rating index-versus-cost curve looked like, you could find a "sweet spot" for every combination. I don't know, just a thought.

[Spazticated]

Would you envision this as something along the lines of unit creation/customization much like character customization in (MMO)RPGs? or something completely different? I imagined it similar to RPGs except with drag-drop or a similar user-friendly interface that has a real-time counter of the unit cost that the resulting unit would have, and so on. For instance, there could also be a training rating index, such that the unit would be more powerful but costly depending on how much training was put in. Its time-to-produce/recruit would also be dependent on its training rating. In fact, depending on how the training rating index-versus-cost curve looked like, you could find a "sweet spot" for every combination. I don't know, just a thought.

Pretty much exactly like I was thinking, a paper doll interface like what you would find in World of Warcraft, you drag your pilos helm to the helm slot, the soldiers armour stats go up but so does the costs in real time, you could also add complexity if at first only 40-50% of the unit was wearing pilos helms, the rest wearing helms from your existing pool, you would have to adjust a slider to increase the uniformity of equipment all the way to 100% but also increase the cost.

[vartan]

Pretty much exactly like I was thinking, a paper doll interface like what you would find in World of Warcraft, you drag your pilos helm to the helm slot, the soldiers armour stats go up but so does the costs in real time, you could also add complexity if at first only 40-50% of the unit was wearing pilos helms, the rest wearing helms from your existing pool, you would have to adjust a slider to increase the uniformity of equipment all the way to 100% but also increase the cost.
Ah...you went one step beyond what I had imagined. I thought we were customizing a unit we would be training afresh. But nay, you speak of refitting a unit at present. That is all the more complex in that, for instance, I may only be able to refit a unit in some ways (not all possible ways) because that unit is near or stationed in some town that can obviously only provide what military equipment it was famous for (or if you want a more complex system, what military equipment it has stockpiled). On that last parenthetical note, imagine you had to manufacture and keep a stock of military equipment. The problem I see with going this far is that not all ancient states had state-manufactured military equipment, at least such is my understanding.

[Spazticated]

Ah...you went one step beyond what I had imagined. I thought we were customizing a unit we would be training afresh. But nay, you speak of refitting a unit at present. That is all the more complex in that, for instance, I may only be able to refit a unit in some ways (not all possible ways) because that unit is near or stationed in some town that can obviously only provide what military equipment it was famous for (or if you want a more complex system, what military equipment it has stockpiled). On that last parenthetical note, imagine you had to manufacture and keep a stock of military equipment. The problem I see with going this far is that not all ancient states had state-manufactured military equipment, at least such is my understanding.

I didn't specify new or retrained units, I don't think, merely how the system would hypothetically work. I suppose, you could create a new unit, give it it's basic load out and more importantly, it's training. For example, create a unit of slingers with the "Rhodian" trait, which could only be trained at Rhodes, once the unit is recruited, you could then only change the equipment, not the traits/training of the unit, these Rhodian slingers could be taken to Rome and outfitted in chainmail, but could not be retrained as anything but slingers.

[vartan]

I didn't specify new or retrained units, I don't think, merely how the system would hypothetically work. I suppose, you could create a new unit, give it it's basic load out and more importantly, it's training. For example, create a unit of slingers with the "Rhodian" trait, which could only be trained at Rhodes, once the unit is recruited, you could then only change the equipment, not the traits/training of the unit, these Rhodian slingers could be taken to Rome and outfitted in chainmail, but could not be retrained as anything but slingers.

Do you suppose people would perceive this as an example of an over-featured asset in a game or rather a plus?

[Spazticated]

Do you suppose people would perceive this as an example of an over-featured asset in a game or rather a plus?

I was thinking on this earlier, what I imagine could be done with a system like this is make the game more player driven, than history driven. You wouldn't need reformations if all the player would need to do is take what would be his pre-Marian Hastati and Principe back to Rome with the requisite buildings/research/whatever and throw them in some new armour to turn them into what is effectively post-Marian Hastati and Principe or he could go into the unit creator and equip, train, and name a new unit exactly like post-Marian Hastati and recruit those alongside the old Hastati.

But to actually answer your question, you could have it as a main game play feature where you essentially let the player loose with a blank soldier canvass and a whole bunch of swords, shields and pointy sticks to make his own unit rosters and otherwise do with as he pleases, or you could give the player his unit roster of historically accurate soldiers and allow the player to tweak and modify load outs a little bit to match his play style or preferences, or somewhere in between those two.

Something closer to the former would certainly be a cinch for modders to work with and if you wanted to play it closer to history, you can, while allowing for the freedom and customization players like me enjoy.

[moonburn]

herm not wanting to nit pick but there was no post marian hastati after mariius you get legionaries since it was the only way the romans had to replace all the "worthy" men they had lost to the germanic advances and most of the men who where left after their "agricultural" revolution only qualified for ascenssi since the great nobles "took" their lands so there was a great increase in lowborn men and a great lack of citizens who qualified for the hastati job

while at the same time the need to maintain regular strong military ocupations of newly conquered lands meant those who did qualify did not want to stay away from their lands since a lost crop meant he couldn´t pay his sons equipment and the empoverishment of his family and thus a reduction of rome´s recruimtnet pool for heavy infantry

[Spazticated]

herm not wanting to nit pick but there was no post marian hastati after mariius you get legionaries since it was the only way the romans had to replace all the "worthy" men they had lost to the germanic advances and most of the men who where left after their "agricultural" revolution only qualified for ascenssi since the great nobles "took" their lands so there was a great increase in lowborn men and a great lack of citizens who qualified for the hastati job

while at the same time the need to maintain regular strong military ocupations of newly conquered lands meant those who did qualify did not want to stay away from their lands since a lost crop meant he couldn´t pay his sons equipment and the empoverishment of his family and thus a reduction of rome´s recruimtnet pool for heavy infantry

My mistake, I never actually play as the Romans, I prefer the Koinon Hellenon or whatever the Greek faction on the Peloponnese is called in whichever mod I happen to be playing, but I knew there was some reforms in there, just replace post-Marian Hastati/Principe with Legionary if you must but the idea remains exactly the same, since either way both units fought in the same manner, the only difference in terms of gameplay are what their equipment was, which I already covered and as I said before, I'd personally like to leave the history up to the individual player in my own TW style game.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Spazticated, I think your idea is great, but the example with pre / post marians is however not valid.

Moonburn is correct in his statement. The difference between the two units cannot be displayed gameplay-wise just by an armour or training upgrade. This would be wrong, since the higer cost of professional soldiers is not only due to their different equipment, which is not automatically superior to that of a princeps or triarius. Furthermore, the difference between these two concepts is so great that it would just not fit my idea of a historically accurate depiction of the era, even although we are not talking about EB here.

Nevertheless I think your concept is fascinating, albeit perhaps taken a bit too far. Recruitment limited to certain provinces, what we already have in EB, expanded by training and armoury upgrades differing by region.

[Spazticated]

Spazticated, I think your idea is great, but the example with pre / post marians is however not valid.

Moonburn is correct in his statement. The difference between the two units cannot be displayed gameplay-wise just by an armour or training upgrade. This would be wrong, since the higer cost of professional soldiers is not only due to their different equipment, which is not automatically superior to that of a princeps or triarius. Furthermore, the difference between these two concepts is so great that it would just not fit my idea of a historically accurate depiction of the era, even although we are not talking about EB here.

Nevertheless I think your concept is fascinating, albeit perhaps taken a bit too far. Recruitment limited to certain provinces, what we already have in EB, expanded by training and armoury upgrades differing by region.

What I was trying to say is that from a gameplay perspective both hastati and legionaries are both line infantry, with large shields, short thrusting swords and pilum to throw before engaging in melee, so functionally there isn't a difference in how the units would behave, only in how both units came about, but in my example, how they came about would be left to the player, legionaries was just an example of the evolution of unit rosters using the unit creator, imagine that instead of a gladius these "Legionaries" were using sarissa and called "Legionnaires" and instead of roman red, they were wearing the players particular favourite colour which is the direction the player decided to take his faction in.

Of course, the part you seemed to like would apply, you would first need to secure a source of sarissa and grounds with which to train sarissa wielding units before being able to recruit them first in regions with those capabilities before gradually expanding the area of recruitment as the infrastructure improves over time.

Just remember that freedom is the ultimate goal, to take the game off the rails so to speak since we are already altering history, in for a penny in for a pound.

[antisocialmunky]

So I found an awesome mod buried in the mod section of the center....

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=380438

A game that pretty with EB accuracy would be great :D

[Rahl]

So I found an awesome mod buried in the mod section of the center....

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=380438

A game that pretty with EB accuracy would be great :D
Wow, they use a better engine (E:TW) than EB but the units are uglier. Who needs this mod if its ever to be finished?

[fomalhaut]

I'm sorry but EB will always be the epitome of strategy gaming, there's no competition.

[vartan]

I'm sorry but EB will always be the epitome of strategy gaming, there's no competition.
There's potential competition; e.g., a game without the limitations of RTW that takes everything to a whole new level of complexity and ingenuity, and having the EB team work on this game's content.

[illyric]

As everybody else in this forum I would like to see an AI that is not a kamikaze:stare:. For example when playing Pontus the Greeks declared war upon me without any provocation. On the other hand the Macedonians, Epirotes and Romans were slaughtering the Greek city-states and had reduced them only to Rhodes and Crete. This is totally unrealistic. A faction that fights for survival can not declare war upon any other faction:dizzy2:. Also, when playing Epirrus I had reduced the Romans only to one city in the north (Bonona) and yet they refused becoming a protectorate or peace, so what could I do? I gave an end to them:laugh4:.
Another point I would like to discuss is the battle quality provided by the AI. The only difference between an easy level battle and the one of hard level is the morale of the army. They never try outflanking, they never outmaneuver you. If you are the one attacking they await for you to attack them. If they attack you they come to you in a rather disorderly way. I think (like the most players) that the battles AI should try to be "wiser".
Another thing is attrition. For example when you spend a turn in a desert or a outside your territory during winter some of your soldiers will die as a result of attrition. Of course the units original of Arabia shouldn't suffer summer attrition and those original of the Baltic/Russia have no reason to suffer from winter attrition. On the other hand if the Arabians would go to Russia their winter attrition must be much higher than the units original to (let us say) Rome. If this feature could be enabled it would make the map movement more realistic.
Also Hannibal on his route to Italy crossed the Alps because the normal roads could be easily protected by the Romans. The "Thermopiles" were protected only by 300 Spartans and they could hold for several days. What I mean is that some strategic points like the Thermopiles or "La Brèche de Roland" should be "constructed" so that the player and AI alike should follow some routes that sometimes are longer than usually in order to avoid these obstructions.

BR guys!

[FinnishedBarbarian]

As everybody else in this forum I would like to see an AI that is not a kamikaze:stare:. For example when playing Pontus the Greeks declared war upon me without any provocation. On the other hand the Macedonians, Epirotes and Romans were slaughtering the Greek city-states and had reduced them only to Rhodes and Crete. This is totally unrealistic.

Let me guess, you attacked sinope as pontos and triggered a scripted event?

That shouldn't be considered kamikaze behaviour because the koinon represents alliance of city states so it could be seen as independent action by rhodes who reacts to pontic agression against sinope by starting a commercial blockade etc.

[illyric]

Let me guess, you attacked sinope as pontos and triggered a scripted event?

That shouldn't be considered kamikaze behaviour because the koinon represents alliance of city states so it could be seen as independent action by rhodes who reacts to pontic agression against sinope by starting a commercial blockade etc.

As far as I can remember I had conquered Sinope many turns earlier. I had already entered war with Greeks and signed a peace treaty (together with trade rights :cool:). When they re-declared war upon me I had already conquered all Anatolia!:laugh4:

[Arjos]

When they re-declared war upon me I had already conquered all Anatolia!:laugh4:

Could be that the KH besieged Byzantion, iirc Pontos has a script to declare war on whoever attacks it...

[green jacket]

Here's some features i would love to see

Supply lines

When your armys are in the field they need to maintain a supply line, used abit liketrade routes in etw and ntw, negative effects happen when a enemy army attacks the supply line, lack of roads, army leaves the road, winter, length from city. Supply lines would originate from the nearest allied city (maybe some exception could be suggested). It would encourage smaller armies to raid/protect a larger armies supply lines. Armies under 6-8 units would not need a supply line as they would survive on the country side and FM traits could affect this. A bonus to supply would also be given if your army is in one of your own provinces.

Supply lines that clash with a enemys would result in half the amount of supply for all armies effected. Also for a supply line to pass through another factions province requires military access, however enemy provinces can always be used as a supply route. Supply lines can also use trade routes that use ports, however they require an allied or occupied port. So if your army is in a enemy province (surrounded by unusable trade routes) you would have to have a single unit in the port tile for it to be used as a supply line.

Broken or weak supply lines would mean attrition to units and lowered morale. General guard units would be the only unit that would not be affected (seeing the FM would pay for his units food ect).

Also light cavalry that raid these lines would have the most effect, followed by light infantry & skirmishers, then archers, then heavy cavalry and finally heavy infantry being the most usless at this role (to encourage realistic use of units, heavy units would most likely be used for large battles not raiding supply lines). Also the number of units that attack a supply line will have different effects. Only 1 or 2 units attacking the supply line wont have much effect, with about 10-15 units having the most by effectively cutting them completely. Any more than 10-15 units across the *entire* supply line would have no extra effect. When using ships to attack naval supply lines faster (so usually cheeper ships) would have a better effect than full size war ships.

Also kind of copying from fable 2 & 3 the supply line would be seen by a kind of golden breadcrumb trail, the more intact and shorter the supply line the more solid, the weaker or more raided the supply line the less solid.

Unit traits

Units that do well in a battle or survive multiple battles could gain traits such to improve their base stats due to experience, however they would only last a max of 18-20 years depending on the factions soldiers period of service. This would include a unit that gets routed being known as cowards by fellow soldiers and receiving something like minus 1/2 morale for the next battle or two until they prove themselves. Also if a faction loses a eagle ect they could have negative traits that will stay with the unit for its life, however being slowly reduced as the event is slowly forgotten.

Unit officers

Each unit with individual officers that could have a max of 5 traits could provide more realistic generals when FM aren't present. Also could effect unit traits. Their traits would be similar to the traits their units gain. Also could be swapped between units however each starts with a specialisation to the unit they're recruited with and would take time to specialise to a new unit with only a max of two avaliable at any time (for example being specialised with just heavy infy or spearmen and light inf ect). Officers in a kind of unit they're not specialised in will result in negative results such as -1 morale or -2 defense to missle fire ect. Also a officer will always keep a specialisation to the unit theyre recruited with, and only will the second specialisation ever be replaced. Im thinking 1-2 years in game time to gain a specialisation

Eagles/holy totems

Eagles that act more like seige weapons as in they can be dropped or picked up. Units that loose their eagle get negative traits as do their generals. Factions that caputure them can also attach them to a unit and use it for a bonus in battles. Also a mission to return it to a capital city if a eagle is captured or to recapture it if lost, before it gets taken to the enemy capital city could be activated. This could also include other objects such as celtic holy object ect. Once a object is in a city it can also provide that city with bonuses, such as income (due to tourism to see a fabled object), public order (due to nationalistic pride) or even a bonus for a short time to the whole factions public order. The whole time the object could be swapped between units ect.

[Ibrahim]

Really? Seems interesting to me. Especially because I don't understand that, in the course of six (6) games of the TW series, CA seemingly didn't manage to think of hardly any of the things discussed in this thread. Lest for sea battles, of course.

I only just now noticed this, so I will respond now:

RTW (or at least BI) does allow for naval battles. though it has to be done "outside the box". it has been done since August of last year-though alas the details I am not sure of:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=381631&highlight=naval+battles

[Ludens]

I can't find the link right now, but A TWC modding news round-up contained screenshots of R:TW naval battles more than five years ago. That's the last I heard of that mod, though. I imagine the battles were just chariots modded to look like boats, running around on a blue field.

[Leon the Batavian]

Don't know if this has been mentioned before but for MP I wish you and I in one campaign could do our things simultaneously. I think its technically impossible but still if this is a wishlist real or fictional that would be great I think.

And I want a huge map with the whole world on it with each and every ancient time nation and society. What happened during antiquity in the Americas or China ?

[Oddnerd]

Oh man, I could write an essay, but I shall stick to those things that I found RTW in general lacking, and that would make EB even more top tier.

1 - More complex Rebel faction system. In RTW and EB the rebels were a single faction with generally one hivemind. EB attempted to give the feel that they were independent city states with the scripted events that control the Lusitanni-Celtiberian alliance or the Sinope/Crimean-KH alliance and that did help a bit. If it was possible at all to take it further and give independent city states (or at least the ones of import) some scripted behaviours that make them act more independent and even allow them to be individually allied to certain factions, then that would be a great way to add to the depth of the game.

2 - Hiring units based on your alliances. Instead of having to rely on naturally replenishing mercenaries, if your alliances could generate a separate pool of soldiers that could be hired that would be cool. I would only want this if it were realistic. EX - an alliance with the averni could grant the romans a modest supply of lower tier celtic units and a small amount of elites (with marked-up mercenary price). Since the Romans had a tendency to equip their celts in a superior manner to the celts themselves, maybe the units could be inherent to each factions techtree, but one requirement could be an alliance with a faction of a certain culture. The only difference between this and capturing an allied state is that you would not need to go to war and take another factions territory with a specific culture - as was the case when I had to invade parts of gaul to get helvetti units and neitos.

3 - Less bloodthirsty AI. I thought that aside from the inevitable "Territorial Expansion" penalty in ETW, the Empire political engine was pretty solid, I could actually have an ally who participated in battles and who didn't backstab me the second he was close enough to see me.

4 - Better AI tendency towards naval invasons. As KH and Casse I was nigh-unkillable because no one ever came to Rhodes or Krete, or Britain

5 - I don't know if this is more or less historical, but I don't particularly like the patron god temples with specific traits. I think every faction should have a generic temple line that improves certain things based on the religion as a whole, rather than specific deities. In RTW it was stupid what sorts of things came from a certain temple (weapon upgrades for example), and in EB you find that in some cases one temple is completely better than the other - they can both add the same happiness bonus, but then one has an extra law bonus of up to 20%, or more trade income. We also know that the morale bonus is largely worthless. I would rather have either a single temple line for each faction (bonuses should vary between factions), or allow each level of temple to be converted the same level temple of a different God, with maybe 1 turn per conversion, since building a temple up from the ground is annoying when you just want to get a different statue inside.

I'll be back to harass you all with more soon, but I have a Mol Bio test :S

[antisocialmunky]

Let us not forget that a little boobage is nice too.

[TheLastDays]

Oh man, I could write an essay, but I shall stick to those things that I found RTW in general lacking, and that would make EB even more top tier.

1 - More complex Rebel faction system. In RTW and EB the rebels were a single faction with generally one hivemind. EB attempted to give the feel that they were independent city states with the scripted events that control the Lusitanni-Celtiberian alliance or the Sinope/Crimean-KH alliance and that did help a bit. If it was possible at all to take it further and give independent city states (or at least the ones of import) some scripted behaviours that make them act more independent and even allow them to be individually allied to certain factions, then that would be a great way to add to the depth of the game.

2 - Hiring units based on your alliances. Instead of having to rely on naturally replenishing mercenaries, if your alliances could generate a separate pool of soldiers that could be hired that would be cool. I would only want this if it were realistic. EX - an alliance with the averni could grant the romans a modest supply of lower tier celtic units and a small amount of elites (with marked-up mercenary price). Since the Romans had a tendency to equip their celts in a superior manner to the celts themselves, maybe the units could be inherent to each factions techtree, but one requirement could be an alliance with a faction of a certain culture. The only difference between this and capturing an allied state is that you would not need to go to war and take another factions territory with a specific culture - as was the case when I had to invade parts of gaul to get helvetti units and neitos.

3 - Less bloodthirsty AI. I thought that aside from the inevitable "Territorial Expansion" penalty in ETW, the Empire political engine was pretty solid, I could actually have an ally who participated in battles and who didn't backstab me the second he was close enough to see me.

4 - Better AI tendency towards naval invasons. As KH and Casse I was nigh-unkillable because no one ever came to Rhodes or Krete, or Britain

5 - I don't know if this is more or less historical, but I don't particularly like the patron god temples with specific traits. I think every faction should have a generic temple line that improves certain things based on the religion as a whole, rather than specific deities. In RTW it was stupid what sorts of things came from a certain temple (weapon upgrades for example), and in EB you find that in some cases one temple is completely better than the other - they can both add the same happiness bonus, but then one has an extra law bonus of up to 20%, or more trade income. We also know that the morale bonus is largely worthless. I would rather have either a single temple line for each faction (bonuses should vary between factions), or allow each level of temple to be converted the same level temple of a different God, with maybe 1 turn per conversion, since building a temple up from the ground is annoying when you just want to get a different statue inside.

I'll be back to harass you all with more soon, but I have a Mol Bio test :S

Well, all nice ideas for a seperate game, but since you mentioned implementing them in EB:

1,2 are not possible to do, withing the RTW engine, I think. I'm certain about option #1. I mean, scripted events and all that is possible but to give every rebel state the possibility to ally individually with the player, they would all need to be seperate factions and there's not (nearly) enough faction slots for doing that. #2 might be possible but I doubt it.

3) well the AI is moddable in M2TW, so we'll see what they come up with

4) Bi.exe does solve this a bit ;) - I consistently have the KH attack Taras when playing Rome xD

5) Well... I don't really mind the current system. There were different main gods and holy sites in reality and it adds to the RP element, imo.

[Lvcretivs]

Just a thought, but how about implementing a modified WEGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-keeping_systems_in_games#Simultaneously-executed_and_clock-based_turns) system of synchronous Player/AI order execution regarding the 'strategic layer'? Surely, the time increments covered by turns would have to be reduced (two weeks?), movement allowances would have to be carefully modified (realistic rate of advance based on army composition) and some sort of aesthetically pleasing 'route planning interface' devised, but the added strategical depth (campaign multiplayer :yes:) would surely be interesting.

[Stark]

Just a thought, but how about implementing a modified WEGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-keeping_systems_in_games#Simultaneously-executed_and_clock-based_turns) system of synchronous Player/AI order execution regarding the 'strategic layer'? Surely, the time increments covered by turns would have to be reduced (two weeks?), movement allowances would have to be carefully modified (realistic rate of advance based on army composition) and some sort of aesthetically pleasing 'route planning interface' devised, but the added strategical depth (campaign multiplayer :yes:) would surely be interesting.

I would love that.

[Ibrahim]

Just a thought, but how about implementing a modified WEGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-keeping_systems_in_games#Simultaneously-executed_and_clock-based_turns) system of synchronous Player/AI order execution regarding the 'strategic layer'? Surely, the time increments covered by turns would have to be reduced (two weeks?), movement allowances would have to be carefully modified (realistic rate of advance based on army composition) and some sort of aesthetically pleasing 'route planning interface' devised, but the added strategical depth (campaign multiplayer :yes:) would surely be interesting.

I do have one problem: would there be an un-clunky way of transitioning from turn to real time based gameplay when two armies clash?

otherwise, perfect!

[vartan]

I do have one problem: would there be an un-clunky way of transitioning from turn to real time based gameplay when two armies clash?

otherwise, perfect!
Yeah. That's what I was thinking. But you see simultaneous-execution gameplay in games like Warlight (http://warlight.net/) (like Risk). They're not bad, but they're well-tailored to such games, or the rest of the game works well with that clock feature. Don't know if a TW-like system can manage with that. Not sure. Definitely better in theory than having every player take turns one at a time (not realistic).

[antisocialmunky]

Simultaneous turns where you plan out all your moves at distinct intervals kinda like American football sims.

[Ptolemaios]

This is something I think you could actually do. When you have a crushing defeat you should lose money,
because your soldiers left there weapons on the field or your opponent raided your camp, which you couldn´t defend.
In addition the faction you lost against should get the same amount of money, of course. The same occurs when you
have a heroic victory. You could make the amount of money referring to the upkeep cost of the defeated army. The more
elite a unit is the more expencive equipment an more money they have to lose. I think this would make battles more decisive,
but I have no idea how much it would effect the AI and it´s money scripts...

[Ludens]

There already is such a thing for EB1: search for the "spoils of victory" submod. However, the way you describe it isn't very realistic. Yes, the camp will be looted, but it's unlikely a substantial part of the state treasury is kept there. The profit comes from looting the possessions of rich soldiers, not the state. In most cases, it was the citizens rather than the state who bought the expensive bits of equipment, so the state wouldn't be out of cash for lost weaponry. Anyway, what would fleeing soldiers leave behind? Shields, perhaps (and I only know that for certain about the heavy hoplite shield), and pikes probably. Both of which were fairly cheap. Expensive equipment, like swords and armour, doesn't impede running very much.

Also, you are assuming the looters would obediently yield their plunder to the commanding general, who would then sell it for full-market value and donate the proceeds to the state treasury. In reality, with the Romans at least, the general would keep a good share, and divide the rest amongst his men. The spoils of victory went to the army, not the state.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

My TW game...

Ok, First ,Bigger armies and Biggger maps. More reaslitic units in the game, like Shogun 2 really.

Money - Should be coming dpeneding on industry. One thing I found in the total war games were there were buildings that deveopled your industry and gained access to new technological advances, it weren't meantioned there. I'd make sure that buildings make a contribution to your industry.

Millitary buldings: They should aslo have advances, like researching this technology or that, and vets should be added.

Generals can now have more speeches, or you can type it in. Its the same with diplomacy I guess, I would like to write something to them.

AI should help you ,not stack loads of armies agasint you.

Battle victories should be depended on how you fought, so once you have finished a battle, you will be given a option to see it in real time movie player or whatever, and it will present you in a view as if you've never seen before, the general making his speech and the troops moving, you can zoom to any part of the battlefield. And of course, you can save Replays

More reaslitinesss in campagains. Fleets shoiuld be more of a millitary standard. and you should be able to upgrade and have better fleets.


Once you have conqerued a province, you have two choices: Recruit their units or don't recurit it.

Mercanerys/ They are well important in TW games and I would have them.

We should see more of the commenoers , you can create stories, then put it into the game and watch it, like ''Samurai vs Samurai '', of course,there will be a built in feature for that.

And Modding: There should be a modding menu which allows you to download as many TW mods as you want. You should be able to play agasint people who have modded their games and this should not cause much of a excuse.

Historical accuiracy: Make it even more hisotrically accruate.

[asugrynd]

How about if you take over a province you get control of tribes who historically lived there and be able to 'use' the land?

-Being able to lay out traderoutes by yourself to these tribes (or allied provinces nearby).
-Keeping control and peace between the different tribes within each region, this will bring in more depth and chaos to the whole war, rather then straight on attacking other factions.
Then also your diplomats will be more usefull (atleast that's what I think) and they will have had an amount of training when dealing with the 'big guys'.
-Having groups of civilians/slaves led by a noble or a tribe work up defensive hills, moats etc. (within reason ofcourse).

What will be the uses of these tribes?

- You can demand (emergency) taxes.
- You can bring a 'call to arms' meaning every tribe will send you a few (free?) troops which can only stay in the region (perhaps except in special circumstances?), this could tip the balance any time anywhere when attacking or defending and make the war a bit unpredictable.
- They could give a wider supply of new sons and daughters to marry into the ruling family (the opposite of sending a daughter to them to keep the local chieftain happy might be interesting.)
- If they are pleased they may send out troops to deal with rebels? Or become rebellious against you themselves. (You can only enjoy crushing rebel-armies popping up for so long)
- Uncovering/producing resources if they grow powerfull enough under your rule maybe?
- The option for selecting chieftains/generals among a list of candidates of these tribes instead of randomly having one recruited?

What's their influence on the region?

- They are responsible for a % of public order (wether that's displayed as the order in a capital or a very own version of regional order is up to the modders I guess).
- They could have fights amongst eachother, not something you necesarily have to deal with except perhaps on occasions when things get out of hand.
- Enemy factions could assault these tribes aswell for quick cash, wether you can protect them or not may reflect on how they will like your presence.
- What if a network of spies get's into these tribes and they rat them out, or buy all the lies that have been spread against your superior rule?
- Perhaps how easy trade goes and how likely it is rebels will pop up alltogether?

Possible perks.

- They could have their own demands, which noble family will rule the tribe, under your rule?
The local chief or a puppet whom his strings you are pulling?
- Obviously the chance they resent to pay taxes to the point where they take up arms against you.
- Demand money/protection after some storm wrecked their barracks.

This is just a few suggestions what's all possible and I think though a huge work in itself that it may yet make the game interesting every single round.
(Though proper balancing of complaints or praise from these tribes might be wise ofcourse.)

Peace, (as if that's gonna happen.):crown:

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Well, there's lots of things that would improve the game, but one of my bugbears is lack of unit limits, and on the counter-side, having to wait for ages to build high-end units.

I think this may already being implemented in EBII, but having a limit on high-end units would be more realistic, and would also stop human players from dominating battles by using elite troop-spam. So, for heavy-cavarly, there maybe should be a limit of one unit per province owned, and so on down for professional units, with maybe only militia's being unlimited. Limiting numbers by province would also help - so you can't spam all your heavy cavalry allocation from one province, but need to raise each unit in the province that has the allocation for it.

On the other hand, it pisses me off that I have to wait three-quarters of the game to get to some high-end units, which would be available to a tribe without such massive requirements. Therefore, maybe in conjunction with the above, I'd make far more units available at lower barracks levels, but change it so that more advanced barracks allowed greater numbers of higher-end units to be maintained, rather than allowing better units to be built. I'd prefer that only reforms/political/sociological changes make new unit types available.

[Populus Romanus]

On the other hand, it pisses me off that I have to wait three-quarters of the game to get to some high-end units, which would be available to a tribe without such massive requirements. Therefore, maybe in conjunction with the above, I'd make far more units available at lower barracks levels, but change it so that more advanced barracks allowed greater numbers of higher-end units to be maintained, rather than allowing better units to be built. I'd prefer that only reforms/political/sociological changes make new unit types available.

I always disliked the fact that you had to build up huge barracks to recruit units that should be available from the start (historically). However, a unit limit doesn't seem right. The most logical answer would be to jack up upkeep so high that there would be a de fact unit limit without actually putting one in place. Unit limits limit the fun in a game because it tightens the already narrow limits imposed by the game mechanics onto the player.

[Horatius]

Here are mine off the top of my head.

1. Make cultural aspects of the factions matter and have an impact on the game. Here are some examples.
a. Marriage. Not all cultures were monarchies; and I simply eye roll when asked to confirm a spouse as a Roman, Celtic, or Greek faction; and here is why. Roman culture didn't have the senate deciding on who a young woman married; if her father was alive he decided; if not it was her decision (but if she was very young her mother would handle the first marriage). Either way me as consul/senate/even emperor should not be managing the private lives of every single person of importance; should I also arrive at their houses in the morning to dress them and brush their teeth? In Greek cultures a woman's kyrios (father, brother, uncles, sons) decided on her marriage not her archon. I could go on but the marriage thing has to turn automatic in cultures where the government did not decide.

b. Fertility. Why not reflect on actual social conditions to determine fertility and why should high fertility always be a blessing? EB was right to remove the end Roman Civil war for being overtly biased; but high fertility in royal families was a recipe for civil war. The most famous example is Caesar's intervention in a Ptolemaic Civil War; where too many children meant a faction split. Culture should have a direct effect on fertility; while some (i.e. Roman) makes fertility stay always at a very low rate (reflecting the liberal nature of Roman Marriage Sine Manu, apathy towards male heirs when adoption through a will did the same thing etc) while others like the Sweboz should have a very high birthrate (reflecting Tacitus' account of the idealistic nature of their marriages and polygamy; p.s. I regret that more isn't known about Germanic Tribes from bc years). Each culture had civil wars for it's own reasons; and fertility as one source shouldn't be overlooked.

Greed and ideology as causes of civil wars. With fertility I went over what should cause stability drops in the more monarchic cultures (I just used Germans as a random example for higher fertility; I know their tribes had high levels of democracy) but the republics and oligarchic states (except Rome most of this time period and Carthage) had their own problems with civil war. A minor but important example is the many times Dumnorix was pardoned before his brother apparently died and Caesar just had enough of him. From a distance it looks like Dumnorix had his ambition shattered by his brother being Vergobert and made deals with every foreign power that could give him an opportunity. According to the total war engine that was such a rarity it shouldn't even be reflected slightly; according to everyone else it would be nice if nobles of all cultures made deals with foreign powers and even tried to seize controll of the faction by creating a new one with the same name.

c. Farming. The only culture where capturing the main cities would mean control of the population was Carthage. In the ancient world most people lived in the country and this should be reflected by many obstacles you need to capture outside of the city; in fact cities should be parasitic; while the country land should be very hard to take and maintain without some reforms done in the land. No control of the farmland? Well no profit except for Carthaginians then. All a city should do is allow you to collect tax and allow recruitment past levies (reflecting state arms control) but without the mini obstacles representing control out of a city taken there should simply be no tax to collect. Trade depended on agriculture; no food no money in the city to purchase luxury goods so again no countryside no tax.

d. Surrender-Cities often needed to neither be starved nor stormed when in a hopeless situation. It would be nice to see non-Roman culture reflected; because only the Romans would force enemies to go through every city before agreeing they were defeated.

e. I mentioned the roman exception plenty of times so here should be the roman and carthaginian weakness. severe penalties for losing Rome or Carthage to reflect the historical importance those two exceptional cities have. They both have great advantages if you factor in culture; they should have that extreme weakness.

[asugrynd]

OH I forgot something rather important!!!!

Trees that get transparant when you get closer to them with the camera!

I've had a battle too many in the woods where I couldn't see a thing of what was happening, so trees becoming transparant would be nice.. or atleast make the computer stumble around in the woods aswell if that isn't possible. :smiley2: