View Full Version : Wishlist for Rome 2 (and beyond)
quadalpha
07-03-2012, 05:50
(More than a year to go before release, you never know.)
- I'm personally not terribly bothered, but I expect people would really like extensive mod support.
- Any good ideas/things you want to see in the naval battles?
- I suppose they hinted in this general direction regarding legions and such, but I'd really like more attention paid to more realistic scaling of size, time, and distance. Where in STW and MTW, the campaign map felt like you were ordering attacks on a particular province in a particular season and you are left to imagine the logistical efforts and actual army movement, the later games, by putting an actual army with an actual position on the map, really hurt the credibility and immersion of the experience since it plainly does not take 3 months for an army to march from Rome to Sicily. There really ought to be a more realistic way of representing the army-in-presence on a strategic level. Say, let you decide where to base an army and give you the option of rebasing it from turn to turn, and let you specify where in the map you want the army to concentrate should a province be attacked, for example.
- 'Better' AI? There was an interesting video with one of the Civ developers where he talks about how the point of designing AI is not so that it beats a player, but so that it puts up a good challenge but goes on to lose. Or at least AI that does not annoy. I think FOTS was a lot better about this, but I've just been following the wake of destruction left by the remnants of one Swedish horse regiment with paths seldom tread in NTW and that was not fun.
Catiline
07-03-2012, 08:28
Sensible but challenging win conditions for campaigns that involve things other than conquering vast swathes of the map.
rickinator9
07-03-2012, 12:14
- More moddability
- More historical accuracy(I will puke if I see those mummies again CA!)
- glorious achievements instead of "take x % of the map" to win the game;
- more immersion and RPG elements in the game, with characters being more fleshed out. I would really, really love the possibilty to role play a general/member of an important family and have the possibility to have that member (or one of his heirs later in the game, after 100 years of being loyal to the family) to rebel against his faction and start his own faction.
- different governments.
- countless factions to play as.
- roleplaying.
- succession crisis under certain circumstances.
- active supply lines (not simply a distinction between enemy and friendly territory).
Ibn-Khaldun
07-03-2012, 13:58
- active supply lines (not simply a distinction between enemy and friendly territory).
I would go even further... I would like to be able to raid enemy supply lines and thus weakening enemy armies in your regions. This would make playing steppe factions interesting.
More players allowed in MP campaigns. Obviously the biggest hurdle is how to deal with extra players when a battle starts, but conceptually, it would be so awesome to load up 4 or more friends and just start building empires, seeing real meta game rivalries and alliances forming, ect.
More players allowed in MP campaigns. Obviously the biggest hurdle is how to deal with extra players when a battle starts, but conceptually, it would be so awesome to load up 4 or more friends and just start building empires, seeing real meta game rivalries and alliances forming, ect.
Indeed. One of the things that really elevated Civ 4 above its brethren, IMO, was the superb implementation of MP. Civilization was a series that was generally universally regarded as near-impossible to convert into MP in a manner that was not slow and difficult to use. Yet they managed it for Civ 4 with creativity and ingenuity. If it's possible for Civ, it should be possible for TW. A good MP Campaign implementation is something I could see myself getting lost in for hundreds of hours.
quadalpha
07-03-2012, 18:32
Another thing for the list: In-battle saving. I know sometimes I decide to settle for auto-resolve because I didn't think I had enough time to finish a battle. This'll have to be for 'beyond' since it's just been confirmed there is no in-battle saving in R2. Which might be a blessing, considering the trouble they have making replays come out right.
Another thing for the list: In-battle saving. I know sometimes I decide to settle for auto-resolve because I didn't think I had enough time to finish a battle. This'll have to be for 'beyond' since it's just been confirmed there is no in-battle saving in R2. Which might be a blessing, considering the trouble they have making replays come out right.
You're out of luck, part 2 of the RPS interview (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/03/rome-total-war-2/) specifically said no to this one:
RPS: It says a lot about what that visual scale suggests, because I was watching it thinking ‘ah, this is Supreme Commander BC, this is going to have to take three hours’.
JR: No no. There’s no save point in battles.
quadalpha
07-03-2012, 18:48
You're out of luck, part 2 of the RPS interview (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/03/rome-total-war-2/) specifically said no to this one:
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Beat ... beat ...
wangchang
07-03-2012, 18:56
Please CA depicts the celts/germans more accuratly. They were more than barbarian, especially the gauls who had a thriving civilisation and invented the best armors of that time : chain mail.
In the case of the gauls, they builded great cities, constructed bridges and roads that even caesar found astonishingly well constructed and developed, were extremly fine craftsmen when it came to metals, amongst the finest in the whole world.
Those were civilizations in their own rights mainly conquered by rome because of their internal divisions, and the equipment of their armies could have put others to shame.
Thanks, I know the chance of this being read by you is one out of a million (and i'm being generous).
quadalpha
07-03-2012, 20:52
I'm going to steal this comment from 'bobsy' on the second RPS interview:
I am equally bothered that CA don’t really understand diplomacy. This bit in particular:
“we’re putting love and hate at the very heart of the AI’s intentions”
Love and hate should ideally have very little to do with diplomacy. Diplomacy is gritting your teeth and being friendly to those you hate, being a dick to people you actually quite like, all because your own empire/kingdom/nation’s interests come first.
The warlord may have brutally crushed your valued trade partner, but you extend the olive branch because you don’t want to go the other way.
Your peaceful ally has been nothing but charming with you, but if you don’t turn around and conquer the shit out of them then those critical resources are never going to be exploited.
If you base your diplomatic AI on love and hate then conflicts like WW2 can’t happen. Stalin and Roosevelt would just turn on each other regardless of the practical concerns of having to stop Hitler first. The Cold War wouldn’t quickly turn hot because the USA and USSR hated each other so much. Forget that mutually assured destruction scared the crap out of both sides, it’s all about love and hate.
I’ve really fallen in love with Crusader Kings 2. It also has a love/hate opinion system, but it’s only tangentially related to declaring war. You go to war for a specifically defined reason, most frequently a family claim (or a forgery of one). Once you’ve achieved your goal in that war, it’s all over. Do you hate the King of France? Tough shit, you’ve got no legal cause to go to war. You’re still going to dick each other about, but it won’t be on the battlefield. And you never, never get in those ridiculous situations from other grand strategy games where your enemy is beaten but won’t surrender because they just hate you so much.
I would personally love a system of casus belli and war-goals for TW. Of course, the concept didn't exist in Roman times, but it would be easy to make you have to justify to the Senate the reason you are going to war with X tribe and set your war-goals accordingly. That would, admittedly, go against the idea of the 'total war,' but that itself is quite anachronistic.
My guess is that it is way too late for them to be making any major changes to the game, so this thread is probably futile, but WTH.
When you siege a port city, you should not be able to starve them out or make them give in unless you blockade the port with a fleet. In that case, the defender needs to send their fleet to open it up or their population will start to starve.
Peasant Phill
07-04-2012, 11:48
I would like:
- A choice of start dates. I loved the 3 periods in MTW. You had so much more difference in campaigns on top of the choice of faction.
- A choice of victory conditions. Glorius achievements, Prestige victory, a specific playstyle, ...
ReluctantSamurai
07-05-2012, 00:54
When you siege a port city, you should not be able to starve them out or make them give in unless you blockade the port with a fleet. In that case, the defender needs to send their fleet to open it up or their population will start to starve.
Amen to this and more. Some sensible adherence to basic rules-of-engagement, like:
You need a certain-sized army to siege a particular-sized city [do away with the silliness of a couple of units of light infantry and some skirmishers laying siege to a huge city of 24k+]
If a garrison is evicted from a city due to a rebellion, said garrison should suffer losses depending on the city size (larger city=higher losses). This would simulate the panic/confusion of having to make a hasty exit through a very hostile populace...
If an enemy army gets backed into a position where the only avenue of retreat is through your ZOC (and this should hold true for naval battles, as well) then the enemy is destroyed if defeated.
If the collective mobility of one army is higher than the mobility of another, the army with the lesser mobility has to stand and give battle...that was the point, after all, of having cavalry (AFV in modern warfare)...to force the enemy to battle.
And one that I would dearly, dearly love to see: the ability to scout/see the terrain on which a battle is to be fought. The game is already keeping track of locations on the campaign map and the corresponding battle-maps at any precise point, so let the player see that (perhaps in a sub-box in a corner). One could even have the ability tied to a general's scouting ability or by how much cavalry is in the stack. Nothing more frustrating than maneuvering your army into an apparently commanding position on the campaign map, only to find yourself at the south end of a north-bound kangaroo on the battle map...
And speaking of maps....please, please have some imagination when designing battle-maps. One simply gets tired of having no choice but to charge past a clump of buildings/trees/ruins placed in the center of a map to get at the enemy standing on the hill in either the left or right-hand corner...
I would like:
- A choice of start dates. I loved the 3 periods in MTW. You had so much more difference in campaigns on top of the choice of faction.
I like this. Maybe Early Republic, Imperial, and Late Imperial. Each giving distinct army styles for the Rome factions as well as the enemies they face. Late imperial might be asking for too much (maybe an expansion down the line) but Republic/Imperial start dates would be amazing.
I'd also like the ability to switch government types at the cost of a lot of civil strife. If I want to upset the army and fight for a new republican rome after we're imperial, i should be able to do that.
Peasant Phill
07-05-2012, 11:27
If the collective mobility of one army is higher than the mobility of another, the army with the lesser mobility has to stand and give battle...that was the point, after all, of having cavalry (AFV in modern warfare)...to force the enemy to battle.
Isn't this already the case? Or am I missing something?
ReluctantSamurai
07-06-2012, 00:07
Isn't this already the case?
Bear in mind that I play a modded version of vanilla RTW and I haven't bothered with any TW games since M2TW. Later games might have implemented this feature...I wouldn't know of it then.
But in vanilla RTW, an army can decide to fight or retreat irregardless of the mobility factor. I play mostly the Armenia faction and by mid-game I have several all cataphract armies roaming the country-side and I can tell you that an all infantry army very often retreats from my initial attack requiring me to attack them a second time....that's just not right considering that infantry could hardly escape from cavalry except, perhaps, in a heavily wooded situation.
quadalpha
07-06-2012, 02:54
Bear in mind that I play a modded version of vanilla RTW and I haven't bothered with any TW games since M2TW. Later games might have implemented this feature...I wouldn't know of it then.
But in vanilla RTW, an army can decide to fight or retreat irregardless of the mobility factor. I play mostly the Armenia faction and by mid-game I have several all cataphract armies roaming the country-side and I can tell you that an all infantry army very often retreats from my initial attack requiring me to attack them a second time....that's just not right considering that infantry could hardly escape from cavalry except, perhaps, in a heavily wooded situation.
It's still like that. You can explain the current behaviour by saying that the army icon only represents an army dispersed in a general area that has a certain amount of strategic mobility (+baggage trains, etc.), but the way it's represented makes it look like the whole army is in one place.
quadalpha
07-06-2012, 07:12
You know what would improve the campaign game immeasurably? Simultaneous turns. You order an army to a location, set its stance (attacking/attacking+pursuit/avoid battle/etc.), and there is no guarantee it will get there. This would make the campaign much more tense and exciting, as well as putting real emphasis on scouting and intelligence since you can't just walk up to an enemy army and decide what to do. It would also be more realistic than present, all with one little change to the turn resolution system.
I like this. Maybe Early Republic, Imperial, and Late Imperial. Each giving distinct army styles for the Rome factions as well as the enemies they face. Late imperial might be asking for too much (maybe an expansion down the line) but Republic/Imperial start dates would be amazing.
I'd rather see Early Republic, Middle Republic (Carthaginian Wars), Late Republic (First and Second Triumvirates/Civil Wars).
It would be interesting if they could change the campaign game to more accurately reflect periods of peace and war. When at peace, turns could encompass longer periods than when at war. Almost like having two different campaign map modes. This would help solve the scaling of time/movement during campaigns vs. peace.
You know what would improve the campaign game immeasurably? Simultaneous turns. You order an army to a location, set its stance (attacking/attacking+pursuit/avoid battle/etc.), and there is no guarantee it will get there. This would make the campaign much more tense and exciting, as well as putting real emphasis on scouting and intelligence since you can't just walk up to an enemy army and decide what to do. It would also be more realistic than present, all with one little change to the turn resolution system.
That's an interesting idea, though it would make the action very difficult to follow when the turn execution began. You couldn't simply watch one area, then watch another area, etc, as all areas could theoretically impact each other, by blocking army movement and such. Everything would literally have to move together at the same pace, pausing the entire world for battle resolution, then resuming the worldwide movement of all units. You'd pretty much have to hit end turn, fight a bunch of battles as they popped up on your screen, then review the map and try to figure out what happened and why.
quadalpha
07-06-2012, 16:56
That's an interesting idea, though it would make the action very difficult to follow when the turn execution began. You couldn't simply watch one area, then watch another area, etc, as all areas could theoretically impact each other, by blocking army movement and such. Everything would literally have to move together at the same pace, pausing the entire world for battle resolution, then resuming the worldwide movement of all units. You'd pretty much have to hit end turn, fight a bunch of battles as they popped up on your screen, then review the map and try to figure out what happened and why.
You can do it as it was done in MTW, where the moves play out in a certain order geographically. So you'd just see all the players' moves in one region, then in another. You'd fight a battle either as it comes up, or all battles could be saved up as icons on the map you can then click to resolve. You can also display a line showing the last part of the conflicting armies' approach. To make things clearer as the armies move, you can use large arrows pointing in the direction of march, like they do in history documentaries. That would be exciting, actually. I want large arrows.
Am I the only one who is super excited about being able to choose your troops equipment?! Even if they only give you a few choices, but allow people to mod it so you can choose all the equipment from all factions!
I would love to make Rome a Kingdom, and then equip my men with round shields and pikes when I fought the Parthians!
quadalpha
07-06-2012, 18:02
Am I the only one who is super excited about being able to choose your troops equipment?! Even if they only give you a few choices, but allow people to mod it so you can choose all the equipment from all factions!
I would love to make Rome a Kingdom, and then equip my men with round shields and pikes when I fought the Parthians!
It would be nice to actually be able to carry out Marian reforms.
It would be nice to actually be able to carry out Marian reforms.
Exactly. The thing that made Empires so great was their ability to adapt to new threats and conditions. When they failed, it was usually because they didn't adapt. If you are in command of a European country, it should be up to you how you adapt, since so much of your success hinges on it.
Take Rome and Parthia for instance. When the Parni started fighting their way into the Seleucid empire, they adapted their way of warfare from light horse archers to a mix of that and heavily armoured heavy cavalry with lances. It brought them success in their region. Rome fought the Samnites and then the Gauls and Germans, they changed their military to adapt to new enemies and territory. It brought them success in their region.
When the Romans and Parthians fought, they both failed to adapt to their new enemy, and so both of them had success in their region, but not outside of their region.
The ability to adapt made them great, and the failure to adapt nearly ruined them. Since this whole game is about changing history, it would be so cool to be in charge of how and if your country adapts. And of course you could balance that out by making it that your regions have certain military traditions, and if you start training and equipping your men for a way of warfare that is not part of their military tradition, they will have penalties until that new tradition develops over the years, and the longer a country does one thing, the better its men get at it (up to a point). So if the Arsacid Empire adopts heavy infantry and siege machines for its invasion of Rome, they will not perform as well as the Roman ones, but will still do better than horse archers and cataphracts.
Ibn-Khaldun
07-06-2012, 19:09
Am I the only one who is super excited about being able to choose your troops equipment?! Even if they only give you a few choices, but allow people to mod it so you can choose all the equipment from all factions!
I would love to make Rome a Kingdom, and then equip my men with round shields and pikes when I fought the Parthians!
I like this idea. Something like in Mount&Blade?
ReluctantSamurai
07-06-2012, 20:23
It's still like that.
And I still disagree with it:laugh4:
And of course you could balance that out by making it that your regions have certain military traditions, and if you start training and equipping your men for a way of warfare that is not part of their military tradition, they will have penalties until that new tradition develops over the years, and the longer a country does one thing, the better its men get at it (up to a point).
Excellent idea...and I might even take it a bit further by restricting the recruitment of certain elite troops to a particular province, much the way ellies were recruitable only in certain areas for vanilla RTW. It seems, well, not right that Rome, for instance could train cohorts out of a population of a Middle East city/province:shrug: Cohorts should have to come from Rome, while auxillia units could be recruited from anywhere. A player would have to be much more careful of their elite units because replacements could be a long, long way off....
The simultaneous move idea is very cool but implementing that seems like a programmers nightmare....
And I still disagree with it:laugh4:
Excellent idea...and I might even take it a bit further by restricting the recruitment of certain elite troops to a particular province, much the way ellies were recruitable only in certain areas for vanilla RTW. It seems, well, not right that Rome, for instance could train cohorts out of a population of a Middle East city/province:shrug: Cohorts should have to come from Rome, while auxillia units could be recruited from anywhere. A player would have to be much more careful of their elite units because replacements could be a long, long way off....
The simultaneous move idea is very cool but implementing that seems like a programmers nightmare....
Actually, I believe it could be implemented quite easily. I am no expert programmer (novice in fact), but I think it would not be that hard.
If you are training cohorts in the middle east for 100 years though, shouldn't they be as good? You can have it that over time, the military tradition grows, so you eventually can produce elite units there.
The way I envision it is this:
You are given general categories (heavy infantry, medium infantry, light infantry, light/med/heav cav, missile troops, etc) and certain once are available to certain nations (though the ones that are not can be unlocked by building the right buildings and having the right stuff available (say horses for the cav). You can then (once you have the prerequisites) change the equipment and training focus in that province for a certain type of unit. As you do, it will (over the years) develop a military tradition for that specialty (say, light infantry, sword use, etc), and the smiths in that region for producing that type of armour and weapons. When you switch to something else, that tradition starts to corrode.
Basically your base would be a nake soldier, and his ability and equipment would be decided by the player (and there would be defaults of course). I think it could be pulled off fairly easily. One commentor above pointed out that something similar was done in M&B (though of course it would have to be implemented differently.)
It would also give modders a huge pool of resources to work with when designing their default troops for their mod. It would make modding in soldiers sooo much easier.
EDIT: It would make the game more modular. Like with mechanics, initially making it modular would take more work, but it would save a ton of work down the road for the game designers and modders I bet. Modular systems, tools, and games are so much easier to work with.
EB rocks
07-07-2012, 06:17
im hoping that they add some of the reforms from EB they are so realistic yet very challenging they add a level of realism to a roman and other faction campaigns.
{EB rocks}
AVE!
- A single Roman faction. Julii/Brutii/Scipii thing was stupid.
- Ptolemaic Egypt instead of Moses-era fantasy
- Barbarian tribes only having one province each so they can fight amongst each other as they did, but if they perceived you as a big enough threat they'd unite against you.
- No magic powers bestowed by temples or wonders. Stuff like +2 archer accuracy for having an Artemis temple always felt Age of Mythologyish.
- No head chuckers, screaming women, incendiary pigs, etc.
I don't require the level of realism and complexity that you see in a lot of mods, but I'd like the fantasy units kept at an absolute bare minimum. I want this game to be as true to the era as Napoleon was to the Napoleonic era.
- I want them to keep direct fire mode from FotS. I want to aim ballista
- I want trade to develop on its own. No state owned trade ships or trade treaties. I want it to be something the merchants do on their own that you simply put a tax on and encourage via buildings, not a state enterprise like it's a Leninist regime.
- I want Spartan Hoplites to look correct. I want them to be one of the best units in the game without being a cartoonish unstoppable weapon of mass destruction.
- I want horse archers to have the wide firing arc like they used to.
- Pre-ETW complexity in characters. I want dread, piety, acumen, command, etc. to all be stats that go up to 9 stars. I want to get traits and retinue that don't come as part of an unlock on a skill tree. Go back to the RPG style.
quadalpha
07-07-2012, 17:13
- Pre-ETW complexity in characters. I want dread, piety, acumen, command, etc. to all be stats that go up to 9 stars. I want to get traits and retinue that don't come as part of an unlock on a skill tree. Go back to the RPG style.
And also I want the flavour text for stars, especially the one at 9 command stars about battles conducted by this man being like symphonies (anachronistic, I know, but it was anachronistic in MTW, too). And for some reason I miss the option of incestuously marrying your princesses to their uncles or whatever.
- Bring back the battle maps generated from the strategic map terrain ! It's much more varied and fun than having a bunch of repetitive hand-made ones.
- More dynamic fighting. Since MTW2 included, the "anti-blob" feature made mélée fighting rather boring, with small series of duel while people around look blankly, instead of vast lines of killing in formations. Rome especially lends to having soldiers killing in close order and not breaking ranks to go on a dueling display.
- More realism. Realism is always good.
- Please, please, please, give us an adequate AI. STW2 was the only one giving at least a rough feeling of having actual people and not pure random decisions. Keep improving the AI !
- No Steam. Please. We shouldn't be required to use third-party malware to play a game we supposedly paid for.
feelotraveller
07-08-2012, 12:19
A couple of minor wishes:
- A search function for the encyclopedia
- The ability to reorder the display of unit cards
The first bugs me when I know something is mentioned somewhere... or I have the feeling that it probably should be but have no idea which entry to start looking for it in.
The second would be very handy for command and control. Knowing the unit on the left flank is (or at least can be :yes: ) displayed on the left end of the unit cards would make the game much more pleasurable for me.
ReluctantSamurai
07-08-2012, 14:59
You can explain the current behaviour by saying that the army icon only represents an army dispersed in a general area that has a certain amount of strategic mobility (+baggage trains, etc.)
Then here's a thought....if armies are depicted as being dispersed in a general area, then at deployment time you only get to deploy a portion of your army with both sides receiving the rest of the army as reinforcements. Then battles might become "meeting engagements" much like the the ACW battles of Antietam or Gettysburg.
- A single Roman faction. Julii/Brutii/Scipii thing was stupid.
Certainly the boys in green should go, and the SPQR relegated to having a Rome garrison and nothing else, but I like having the Julii being depicted as a descendant of Julius Caesar, and the Scipii from Scipio Africanus:shrug:
quadalpha
07-08-2012, 16:45
- No Steam. Please. We shouldn't be required to use third-party malware to play a game we supposedly paid for.
Hello, 2007.
- More dynamic fighting. Since MTW2 included, the "anti-blob" feature made mélée fighting rather boring, with small series of duel while people around look blankly, instead of vast lines of killing in formations. Rome especially lends to having soldiers killing in close order and not breaking ranks to go on a dueling display.
mêlée: do it right!
Another feature that I would like is the possibility to change names for the newborns or even rename cities in-game :)
EB rocks
07-08-2012, 22:05
I personally hope for reforms and eras for multiple factions as was historical i also wish for the ability to build forts and be able to turn them into settlements that you name and build buildings in them as was also historically accurate.
Noncommunist
07-08-2012, 23:34
Since they're introducing combined naval and land battles, do you think they might have river naval battles? Or do you think they'll have constructible bridges? I recall seeing something on the history channel about Julius Ceasar building some sort of bridge across the Rhine in 10 days to conduct some sort of punitive raid.
quadalpha
07-09-2012, 01:57
Since they're introducing combined naval and land battles, do you think they might have river naval battles? Or do you think they'll have constructible bridges? I recall seeing something on the history channel about Julius Ceasar building some sort of bridge across the Rhine in 10 days to conduct some sort of punitive raid.
The German preview said they were thinking about having navigable rivers.
jaspritsingh
07-09-2012, 11:31
I just want it to run decently on current systems. Dont want to buy a new laptop just for one game (dont want to sit out till I upgrade either)
Better AI (Is asking for a better AI for a TW game = trolling? Sometimes I think it is)
Unit/faction diversity
Bigger campaign map
Keep the campaign map gameplay as it was in Shogun 2/FotS (this is pretty much the only thing about the entire game where I didn't feel I have something to complain about, save for some minor bugs/annoyances)
Some of the suggestions are already present in M2TW. For example, the renaming of cities. What I want:
- More historically accurate factions and unit rosters, as well as unit models and buildings/architecture. I do not want, however, the insane real names of units and buildings from EB. Axrodstyyxhsetpi Swordsmen? Keep it in English please. However take note from that mod and add the diverse culture, units, buildings, strategy map, accurate population levels, temples, unit stats, reforms and so on. Specifically i'm pointing against no "lorica segmentata", no red and purple soldiers, no superhuman axemen who can flng a cataphract rider in the air and so on.
- More historical events and characters, greater diversity in specific regions on the map, key settlements and so on.
- Make upkeep and unit prices realistic, add more mercenaries.
- Add a grand gampaign mode for multuplayer
- Balance autoresolve for the units that are deadly in a player's hands. Know your own units and game mechaincs - don't let a stack of 19 horse archers lose versus 19 slow-arse spearmen just because of attack/defence stats.
- Whatever you did with the S2TW engine, make it better. My computer is far and well above anyhting required to play any game out there, yet my brief experience with Shougn II left me disappointed at the sluggishness of it. Perhaps it's a feature of the game, but I liked my crisp and to the point camera movement in RTW and M2TW.
- The return of population as a resource for unit recruitment.
- More realistic unrest/civil system.
- More realistic supply for armies and army morale.
- General traits acquired while you play. Less randomness (getting a bad trait just by standing outside a city or inside one with a tavern) but no to selecting abilities as you "level up". Let the system assign traits accordingly, and make the command star growth and things like Night Fighter more valuable and rare to obtain.
- Please make siege assaults less tiresome and boring.
- Make the AI behave with cunning, don't just give it a 10k gold injection per turn and hope for the best.
quadalpha
07-09-2012, 20:00
- More historically accurate factions and unit rosters, as well as unit models and buildings/architecture. I do not want, however, the insane real names of units and buildings from EB. Axrodstyyxhsetpi Swordsmen? Keep it in English please. However take note from that mod and add the diverse culture, units, buildings, strategy map, accurate population levels, temples, unit stats, reforms and so on. Specifically i'm pointing against no "lorica segmentata", no red and purple soldiers, no superhuman axemen who can flng a cataphract rider in the air and so on.
- Whatever you did with the S2TW engine, make it better. My computer is far and well above anyhting required to play any game out there, yet my brief experience with Shougn II left me disappointed at the sluggishness of it. Perhaps it's a feature of the game, but I liked my crisp and to the point camera movement in RTW and M2TW.
- A bit strange to ask for more historical units but without their historical names, isn't it? I mean, to a large degree, the name is all that's 'historical' about a unit.
- For some reason NTW ran a lot smoother than ETW on my laptop. Probably an optimisation thing.
Ibn-Khaldun
07-09-2012, 23:46
One more thing I hope we don't see in this game: Mercenaries dressed in green!
I want to see proper naval battles including ramming and appropriate missile weapons. Hopefully the corvus can be included, too.
Music. I want to hear trumpets, horns, flutes, drums, bagpipes and whatever else armies played to direct and motivate the troops.
Thick, tough earth and timber walls for the Gauls would be nice. Oppida were difficult to break into.
quadalpha
07-11-2012, 00:52
There's a picture in the new PCG showing an x-reme ramming and breaking another ship in two. Don't think it's a screenshot, though.
I do like the idea of moving back towards the RTW RPG system a bit. Whilst I thought the TWS2 skill tree was nice (particularly the multiplayer one, which would work well in SP as well), I missed putting my lunatic generals in charge of an army so that I could hear their crazy pre-battle speeches :beam:.
Ibn-Khaldun
07-11-2012, 07:44
I do like the idea of moving back towards the RTW RPG system a bit. Whilst I thought the TWS2 skill tree was nice (particularly the multiplayer one, which would work well in SP as well), I missed putting my lunatic generals in charge of an army so that I could hear their crazy pre-battle speeches :beam:.
You may be able to do that and try to remember all the old RTW stuff(that made the game fun) if you follow my signature. ~;)
Another thing I'd really like to see are phalanxes that can actually "charge", sure not as fast as other infantry, but we have descriptions of phalangitai rushing to the enemy...
In RTW they walked, against the AI it still works, but in MP it just makes them useless XD
Another thing I'd really like to see are phalanxes that can actually "charge", sure not as fast as other infantry, but we have descriptions of phalangitai rushing to the enemy...
In RTW they walked, against the AI it still works, but in MP it just makes them useless XD
Press "F" to remove the phalanx formation, doubler click to charge, then press "F" once again once you're in melee range to make them raise their spears/sarsissa pikes. Works like a charm.
Press "F" to remove the phalanx formation, doubler click to charge, then press "F" once again once you're in melee range to make them raise their spears/sarsissa pikes. Works like a charm.
And when you lower the pikes to attack, I just run away with my mobile infantry: it doesn't work like anything XD
ReluctantSamurai
07-12-2012, 17:15
If you are training cohorts in the middle east for 100 years though, shouldn't they be as good? You can have it that over time, the military tradition grows, so you eventually can produce elite units there.
I was thinking more in terms of provincial bonuses, much like STW where, for instance, Warrior Monks trained in Kii or Kaga came with a +1 honor bonus. Even the original RTW had provincial bonuses for mercs, just extend this to trainable units.
hi thanks for opening this idea thread if someone has in special ideas only related to multiplayer or things that would influence multiplayer aswell feel free to take part on this prized
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141994-Another-Rome-2-competition-thread-for-Multiplayer-only-best-idea-will-be-awarded
I also wonder what kind of voice acting we are going to get: modern and japanese dubs were nice, although there still were pearls like "shamefur dispray" XD
I just dread to hear more stereotypical acting for most cultures :S
Fisherking
07-21-2012, 13:44
What I don’t want is more like it.
I don’t want to have all the cultures in their native tongues.
No one is going to get what they are saying and researching it is money better spent elsewhere.
I don’t particularly care what Aromatic or Phoenician sounded like. No one is going to agree on how Latin sounds, so save the arguments, and Ancient Greek, I just don’t care.
I would rather the troops make wise cracks in a language I have a chance to understand.
cunctator
07-21-2012, 15:01
Anything but authentic, or at least authentic sounding voices, would be a huge step backward compared to their last few Total War games. If they don't want to spent the money for research CA should use modern Greek or some Gaelic speakers. Just not units of different culture speaking modern English with some cheesy accent.
For me the Latin voicemod for R:TW and later the other ancient languages added to EB improved atmosphere in battles dramatically. It also makes it possible to distinguish speech from my own and enemy troops.
I can see from the interface what my own men are doing, without understanding every said word, and don't want to know all intentions of the enemy.
I would like to be able to actually Siege a city, not just watch from outside the walls, with my army standing idle for three years, I wish I could build fortifications and such to actually prevent the ennemy from fleeing (which is implemented already but has no visual explanation).
This could be easy to do : just an option while laying siege to a city/fort... : in the menu where you build siege engines (rams, sapping points...), just allow the building of wooden walls and maybe towers all arpund the city to help when the besieged army tries to get their way out. Maybe only allow this with big cities with stone walls, so as not to have better siege camps than the community. Oh, and make this require a huge amount of building points.
This could really be cool to have when you don't want to assault the walls. The Romans actually did this in a number of occasions, and I am pretty sure they were not alone.
Praetorian Commander
07-24-2012, 09:59
Hola, me gustaria que incluyeran en la battalla una opcion para personalizar y guardar formaciones de los ejercitos ademas de las que ya vienen, entonces segun el ataque o la defensa de nuestro oponente, podamos cambiar de formacion con un numero del teclado.
Bueno por ahora solo se me ocurre eso, adios.
Hello, I would like that battles include an option to personalize and save army formations besides the ones already included so that depending on the attack or defense of our opponent, we can change formations with a number on the keyboard.
truth1337
07-31-2012, 19:40
- heavier impact of terrain to cavalry efficiency, and make the graphics so it is clear what areas are bad for cavalry, e.g. muddy fields. Please make weather impact muddiness etc also.
- make a small minigame of the preparations leading up to battle, where the struggle with vanguard harassment, placing yourself in a good defensive position, putting your camp in a protected area compared to the battlefield, and things like that are taken into account. During this minigame, horse archer factions could also inflict harassing casualties to force the opponent to engage earlier, even if not under ideal circumstances.
- make battles more realistic in terms of letting more than 90% of the enemy army get away in most battles. Make it possible to retreat from a battle without getting the entire stack to disappear from the campaign map, so that both humans and AI can choose to disengage from battles they were forced into with bad conditions, thus making it more common to have few armies that stay alive longer, rather than massproducing stacks that either get annihilated or annihilates the opponent - so that battles actually matter more. This would give us the ability to have tough sequences of battles in which e.g. an archery strong faction retreat through the help of a sacrificed rearguard over and over again, while inflicting just as much casualties as they take, only that they are continuously giving up ground to do so. This would allow powering down the godlike unrealistic over-effectiveness of steppe factions but still allow them to perform well due to their ability to harass in many battles then disengage.
quadalpha
07-31-2012, 21:51
- make a small minigame of the preparations leading up to battle, where the struggle with vanguard harassment, placing yourself in a good defensive position, putting your camp in a protected area compared to the battlefield, and things like that are taken into account. During this minigame, horse archer factions could also inflict harassing casualties to force the opponent to engage earlier, even if not under ideal circumstances.
Yes, just go a bit further and you'd have my operational level idea!
edyzmedieval
08-04-2012, 13:13
- heroes (Hannibal, Pyrrhus...)
- wonders (and more than just 7!)
- no Realm Divide
- supply routes
- expandable defences (I don't want just walls, I want to build barbicans, towers, gates...)
Seabourch
08-10-2012, 04:36
For me?
I want the so-called Barbarians to not be underpowered, watching my Gauls fall so easily to Roman troops is frustrating. Keep the three factions thing but for accuracy's sake, use the names of prominent political families at the start date. Bring back the ability to choose your time period, loved that one.
Noncommunist
08-11-2012, 02:32
What about something that more easily facilitated civil wars? Perhaps something similar to the mechanism of the revolution from Empire where if a general begins to revolt, you could choose to play him or the existing emperor and fight it out from there.
jaspritsingh
08-16-2012, 09:13
Upto E:TW amd N:TW if I make some one my protectorate, some other faction gobbles them up without me getting involved. If I am the protector of a region I should atleast be given a choice to intervene ?? Hope to see that in R2.
Praetorian Commander
08-17-2012, 05:00
In the campaign I would like regions to be divided into towns and villages with unique units of those factions and that Rome has to conquer tribe by tribe until it all finally becomes a Roman province.
Something that occurs to me for the multiplayer is that factions be divided into tribes for barbarians, villages for other factions and city-states for the Greeks, and in the multiplayer, these villages or tribes can choose all units that are contained in this faction so that battles against Rome would be more balanced, but in the campaign to be tribes and divided peoples so the difficulty would be, in addition to battles with each of the people, to keep the province and at the same time expand the territory, in addition to politics and trade.
When playing with the other factions, you would selecte a state, people or tribe and would seek to unite the entire faction to then go after the conquest of their neighbors or to challenge Rome, and will be able to make alliances or commercial agreements with tribes or peoples of other factions.
The battles should maintain the same dynamics that in Rome 1, which made the multiplayer so variable and replayable.
En la campaña me gustaria que las regiones esten divididas en pueblos y aldeas con unidades unicas de esas facciones y que con roma haya que ir conquistando tribu por tribu hasta que finalmente se convierta en provincia romana.
Algo que se me ocurre para el multiplayer es que las facciones esten divididas en tribus en el caso de las facciones barbaras, pueblos en otras facciones y estados en el caso de los griegos y que en el multiplayer en estos pueblos o tribus se puedan elegir todas las unidades que contiene su faccion y en la batalla con roma seria mas nivelada, pero en la campaña al estar las tribus y pueblos divididos la dificultad estaria ademas de las batallas con cada uno de los pueblos en mantener la provincia y al mismo tiempo expander el territorio, ademas de la politica y el comercio.
Cuando se juega con las otras facciones se elegiria un estado, pueblo o tribu y se trataria de unir a toda la faccion para despues lanzarse a la conquista de sus vecinos o de desafiar a roma, pudiendo hacer alianzas o acuerdos comerciales con tribus o pueblos de otras facciones.
Que las batallas mantengan la misma dinamica que en el roma 1, lo que hace tan variable y rejugable el multiplayer.
a completely inoffensive name
08-18-2012, 04:21
The ability to play on weak/old computers with lower end graphics. I don't think my two year old computer can handle this game on any setting.
jaspritsingh
08-29-2012, 10:12
Lame but can we have personal standards for Top Generals that also show in the campaign map ???
Please make it where you can 'raid' an enemy army or town by attacking it, inflicting losses on them, and then retreating without it counting as a loss on your score. A tactical retreat or a raid is not a loss. It is a victory that does not result in the route of an enemy army.
I would also like to see a "surprise attack" option: I don't mean an ambush, where you have to passively wait for the enemy to march in your area of attack, but actively attacking the enemy camp (since we now have pre-battle cutscenes etc), if specific conditions are met (say general has X ability, there's rain, fog or night). Resulting in an attack on an army that has to yet deploy properly or even get out of the tents etc...
Please make it where you can 'raid' an enemy army or town by attacking it, inflicting losses on them, and then retreating without it counting as a loss on your score. A tactical retreat or a raid is not a loss. It is a victory that does not result in the route of an enemy army.
I second this. It would be a really great feature for horse archer factions especially.
I second that option for a surprise attack.
I second this. It would be a really great feature for horse archer factions especially.
True! Especially for mobile HA/javelin armies it's better to deplete your missiles, clear 40% of the enemy and then retreat than facing them at full force.
ReluctantSamurai
09-05-2012, 02:27
it's better to deplete your missiles, clear 40% of the enemy and then retreat than facing them at full force.
That's something I already can do with any horse-archer faction even without a surprise attack feature. If raiding is a feature put into the game, some serious unit balancing, and accounting for the bad weather, nighttime, etc. by lowering the kill possibilities is in order...otherwise there will be no army the AI can build that could stand up to such a tactic in the hands of a skilled horse-archer player.
I would prefer raiding tactics to lower troop morale for an upcoming battle (or last a set # of turns depending on the severity of the raid) irrespective of any modifiers that an enemy general might confer on his troops.
My 2denarii
And to answer a previous post about such tactics NOT counting as a defeat, I would think a simple counting algorithm that calculates losses in terms of both numbers and value for the troops involved would solve that. If I throw in four or five hundred men on a night raid and lose only 10% of my force while inflicting a much higher % of losses on a larger force, then it won't count as a loss if the proper parameters are in place.
That's something I already can do with any horse-archer faction even without a surprise attack feature. If raiding is a feature put into the game, some serious unit balancing, and accounting for the bad weather, nighttime, etc. by lowering the kill possibilities is in order...otherwise there will be no army the AI can build that could stand up to such a tactic in the hands of a skilled horse-archer player.
I would prefer raiding tactics to lower troop morale for an upcoming battle (or last a set # of turns depending on the severity of the raid) irrespective of any modifiers that an enemy general might confer on his troops.
My 2denarii
And to answer a previous post about such tactics NOT counting as a defeat, I would think a simple counting algorithm that calculates losses in terms of both numbers and value for the troops involved would solve that. If I throw in four or five hundred men on a night raid and lose only 10% of my force while inflicting a much higher % of losses on a larger force, then it won't count as a loss if the proper parameters are in place.
Yea I used to do it all the time with the Saka in EB. But since the battle is considered a loss, you're forced to retreat afterwards and lose all your movement points. That can put you in a tight spot, especially if you're near a settlement.
I don't think a raiding feature would be too hard to balance actually. In EB the horse archer factions are piss poor and archer units don't do a lot of damage against armored units. Because of this attacking and retreating tactics can only get you so far before you need to start recruiting armored infantry of your own. If CA decided to implement a raiding feature, all they would need to do is make sure that ranged units are properly balanced.
Ordinator
09-06-2012, 19:29
Reserve forces you could keep in town that would be like 1/2 or 1/4 upkeep price of normal unit so you don't have to have huge garrison present at all times in city that is close to enemy that is just sitting there wasting upkeep money.
jaspritsingh
09-20-2012, 08:08
Trade as a means of war ...
Spam so much of a particular resource so that an enemy bulk of whose income comes from that resource loses out due to drop in prices.
Tariffs - put taxes on goods from nations you dont like. make them lose money. set AI to treat this as a casus beli
Red_Devil
09-21-2012, 16:08
My biggest wish is for the AI to be up to the challenge. less repetitive tactics: in other TW games, once you've played ten battles, you know all about how the AI will react to any type of attacks... and the use of navies on the battle map still has to be improved i guess. (haven't played shogun 2 except at a friends invitation...)
ReluctantSamurai
09-23-2012, 15:05
in other TW games, once you've played ten battles, you know all about how the AI will react to any type of attacks...
That wasn't necessarily the case with the original Shogun and from what I've seen, STW2, as well. The AI would adapt to your tactics. If you were defending, the AI would try to flank you on either side after you repulsed the first frontal assault; if you were attacking, the AI would set up defense at several different places. It would also try to outmatch your units...so if you were cavalry-heavy, it would try lots of spears, etc....
I want to see finally, after many years of waiting a real good MP part of the game.
A simple game, without tons of features and all those stupid things, which makes newcomer cry.
A longlasting game…
Its already said, many times, about many years. There is no need to repeat it once again.
The focus of the MP, which was promised was exactly where? Does CA mean the peak in the first few days/weeks….
1) Improved AI that can size its enemies up and make rational decisions, that knows when it's losing, that has some kind of sense of self-preservation and isn't just pointlessly rabid and suicidal. Less AI building fleets of crappy ships in the early game and not disbanding them. Less AI using futile guerilla war tactics running around with scores of 3 unit stacks (which is also annoying), when I'm taking their cities with full stacks. AI that won't, as a one province nation with half a stack of militia, suicidally declare war on the player's superpower that owns 3/4 of the world (just because they don't like me and we share a border, or just because the game sees I'm not currently at war) and subsequently put up no fight or challenge whatsoever but totally refuse peace, forcing you to crush them.
2) Improved diplomacy (that the AI knows how to use when it's losing), AI nations that will ask for peace when they are getting totally destroyed instead of doing what others have called the "Black Knight" act and refusing to accept peace on realistic terms even when you're sieging their capital with 4 stacks.
3) Battle speed more like STW and MTW to get rid of clickfest gameplay. Battles where I can actually have enough time to zoom in on the action and watch what's going on and enjoy the pretty graphics close up, rather than making a plan, deploying my army, engaging the enemy, and freaking out clicking the mouse like a lunatic as enemy infantry are walking all over the place at 15mph (watching the battle unfold as a bunch of tiny sprites because I don't have time to zoom in unless I pause it) trying to send 1 unit around the back to attack my general while the enemy AI's battleplan overall seems completely nonexistant other than "send 1 unit flanking teams in vain attempt to attack general so the player has to click every 500 milliseconds and spin the camera round going back and forth catching all the annoying drips, until all enemy AI units rout and the player is left thinking "well that was over quickly" and player heartbeat may now drop below 120. The AI's idiotic fetish for attacking my general being fixed would also remove lame player exploits like just sitting there in a square and waiting for the AI forces to run away because it can't understand that you can't flank a square to sneak 1 unit hit squads after my general.
4) Less sieges, more battles, less 3 unit enemy stacks running around the map, more full stacks, fewer, bigger battles that actually mean something (like STW and MTW)
5) A game that only ships when it's actually ready.
6) More effort on the campaign game in general.
Better AI and more focus on diplomacy/trade/assasinations etc... We all know the battles are gonna be awesome, but to make the game more immersive a good AI is needed to have the feeling you are playing against a competent opponent, not a mindless bot.
My wish list (sorry for my bad english) :
1 - non military units -
1a - slaves/prisoners units which player can:
- sell, buy, give them to faction as gift (part of diplomacy)
- take from conquered army/city as prisoners of war, when you defet army you can chose how many execute and who will live as prisoner/slave
- make them build for us so costs of buildings will be less,
- make them work in a mines for income,
- make them in to a gladiators and they will entertain people of Rome,
- make them free (rise citys population and make them disapear,disband)
- trade them for generals imprisoned by enemy if they are their faction people.
- if they rebell they will try to come back to their homeland
1b - civils units which will be some % of population and they can :
- act as disturbing device on the batlefield (city,setlement) for unit, for exemple: not allowing soldiers movment or slowing them down,
- act as potencialy recruits for immedietely ready but por defenders (militia )
- act as prisoners in case of defet,
- be trained as a auxilia
- be visible representation on batlefield of victims of war,
1c - suply units - representation of all those cooks, helpers,ingeneers,musicians,monks,medics etc, and we can give them accent on some tasks:
- carry extra ammo (arrows, bulets, javelins, stones )
- carry extra horses (more stamina on batlefileld for cavalary)
- more medicaments, food, ( will last longer when siege occurs )
- music on batllefield,horners, warcry, etc ( morale boost )
- for a tactical matter on batlefield if this unit die all extras will be lost as well ( which will be some fun to search them exept general )
and when under siege this will be first unit to kill making sieges more fun ( as balistas can run out of ammo, archers and not make it to the inner city etc)
2 - Diplomacy gifts -
- jevelery, special rare items and artefacts of era,vases, (have some influence on AI decisions) and they give some extra mood tho the game itself
all authentics visuals with some info, where founded ,to which nation has belonged,
- body of defeted generals (AI decisions influence) - to let them burry their legend, warriors, (same as Troy case )
3- Generals
- less generals, less numbers of armies, less battles, but more significant
- would be nice to see how the hero is buried and all the honors to him - maybe a short movie or a picture -grafics- painting- to add some extra taste
maybe some option for burials - on the field, normal ,honored, as king (diffrent costs - each give diffrent efects ,experience +,-/morale/maybe disband some units)
as to serv under his command give them an some view and some memory,spiryt, for future.
more real and it's nice to see consequences of defet as a something which can have more complex losses.
4 - Enviros
- winter - army can cross some rivers as are frozen, same as lakes, can flank on some battlemaps thru this advantage- or some units can drown when ice break.
- spring - army can not cross come points of rivers due to river stroks which are normally crossable during the summer
- summer - heat can kill on deserts
- mountain passes -not crossable some of them in winter or crossable with some losses, on battlemaps easy to defent, with realisticly terrains, etc You know :)
- don't make so many repetitive boring briges as in previous games -
- some real places on the batlefields - with an architecture, an charakteristic places and buildings visible.
- some buildings on the battlefield accesible, or can be burned to not make them advantage -You know -
- can i burn this fields of gold ( sure You can ) give them losses on harvest (on strategy map) give them not crossable area (on battlefield)
5 - EB mod great direction.
- names,voices, etc, learn search,
I would like the siege sorties to occur just outside the city as they did before Shogun2. I know people want more field battles but fighting close to the town makes a lot more sense during a siege.
Roman musicians would be great to see and hear. They used trumpet calls extensively.
adembroski
04-30-2013, 11:05
The more modding support the better, surely.
My biggest request: Barbarian Invasion II. I find the migration period to be fascinating, and the last BI introduced some really interesting mechanics. Easily my favorite TW campaign to date.
I'd like to see a nice variety in battle maps.
I found Shogun 2 maps too generic - they often were flat maps with trees and hills put on top, but without any nice terrain contour.
To me they were like playing on top of a table, and I never felt as if I was on the campaign map.
I'm currently replaying RTW, and I'm really liking the different battle maps. In some ways you feel as though you've zoomed down onto the campaign map.
And also keep all the great stuff they did in Shogun2 and FOTS - skill trees for agents and generals, those nifty move forward, wheel right/left buttons, research tree, etc...
and I'm hoping for a good civil war mechanic for Rome (and Carthage too? Carthage is split into 3 "factions" - I wonder if they'll have a civil war mechanic)
theubermax
05-26-2013, 05:43
I am hoping for realistic supply lines, as to be able to properly implement a fabian strategy, easier naval micro (the naval micro fro large fleets was a pain) possibly by adding AI that think for themselves where you give them an objective, they try and achieve it, of course being able to override their orders.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.