PDA

View Full Version : An (novel) idea for the game.



Katasaki Hirojima
11-15-2002, 03:14
I'v never liked how you can only get 1000 of the engines possible 5000 of your troops on the field at any given time. I thought awhile about a good way to handle this in SP and decided that it would be nice to have "subordinate Generals" That being AI generals whom have control of the rest of my units, while I control the vangaurd.

Thus my 12 units, plus two other 12 army units under my banner come onto the field, while the ther two are controlled by AI generals. They have the independant honour bonus from that armys general. War strategy can be organized by giveing the AI general commands, like "take that hill" and "hold this ground" "Skirmish"...baisicly, you click on one of your armies and bring up a list of strategys, click a strategy, then direct the general to where he should bring his army to fight and hold. He'll do the rest, like wheeling, flanking, ect.

As a fail safe, incase you need to you can switch your current army to an AI general, and take over command of a diffrent army if the AI gets them in to much trouble.

Also, deployment should be avalible to attacker and defender.

I'd like this, it'd be very realistic and fun to play. You didn't have just one general on the field, you had several, each controlling their own forces. Thus two factions can have for example 6 armies on the field at once, AI generals manuvering and fighting for control against one another while you and your army play Center Vangaurd. Or, if need be, any of the armys.

I think it would be plausible and workable, the current engine would allow it and the AI would need minimal reworking to allow AI generals under your own nations control, fighting along your side.

Gregoshi
11-16-2002, 06:05
Are you refering to MP online battles or SP custom battles?

pdoan8
11-16-2002, 06:32
For SP, I consider myself as a commander in chief. I will do all of the planning and ordering then my men will execute my orders. I have no problem with the current system. There may be room for improvement, but it's OK for now.

For MP, I have a better idea. How about maximum 64 players on each side (equivalent to 4 vs 4) and each command a single unit. 64 unit will make up the army for each side with one of the player acts as the commander. The commander die, there will be others. Each unit act independently and control by a human brain. Nothing would be better.

Dionysus9
11-16-2002, 09:38
pdoan,

I'm afraid that wouldn't keep my interest for very long. As soon as my unit is engaged I dont have anything else to do. Just sit there until they win or get routed, really. If I was in charge of one unit of spears and my job was to hold/hold, that would get old/old really fast.

Kata,

Here is a reply for you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. I like the idea of having subordinate generals, to some extent, but I don't think I could trust the AI to cover my back. Why not just increase the # of units under the players control? Gimme 32 to work with...If I just group them in groups of 2, I'm back to 16 again--workable.

hoom
11-16-2002, 14:04
I actually think this would be better than 32 units http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Of course, I wouldn't trust the AI with my good units...
But then, if I could say 'hold that position' etc to the AI, then that would tend to stop the AI from doing particularly stupid things like charging across a bridge it is supposed to be defending...
Same could be done with allied AI armies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif