View Full Version : Features you would like....

02-09-2003, 14:21
This topic is too see what people would really like too see in the game please keep it in bullet points. the purpose of this topic is too give CA extra ideas incase they miss soemthing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

But what i would really like too see is...

-Huge huge maps i mean 10 times bigger then MTW give the game a real feel of the battlefield and u can really flank not site on one side of the map and see 120 horses rideing around u on theother side.

- Night battles if the dont do this i be very very dissapointed

- units on walls i tihnk this might happen as what we seen in the screenshots

- real command noises lieke the lead commander of a goup of men says Halt in english (or what ever language u prefer) and war crys.

- units look differant like omg STW, MTW unit move the same and look the same, walk the same, stand in perfect lines. like come on sort it out. the could look differna tin the way of some can carry stuff on the backs etc

- formations like the tortoise and single line, wedge, wave.

- online campagin, and dont give me that it cant be done cause it can. bte u would get hundreds more people buy the game i bet ya.

-ships not like on SP map but 3d ones ship battles. only in SP though.

- archers more relaistic like when the hell did 60 archers fire at a group of 128 light inf and kill about 7 like come on relism. also this would make people think again before full charging his army .

-river woulds be nice i mean like cavary cahgeing down a river would be so cool.

- bigger units like 300+ this would be quite fun i think.

thats all i can think of for now please share your thoughts...

02-09-2003, 14:31
Well my RTW wishlist goes on forever

Stormer the archer thing is also on my wishlist. Its really annoying when you are fighting a battleand hope your archers can do some damage, you get a unit of 120. A huge volley of arrows is fired and 7 men collapse from the line. You just wanna punch the computer screen

- War crys, like in gladiator the germanic tribes at the beggining try and psyche the Romans out with those war crys. And yes I know they're from Zulu

- Maybe, some increased gore, e.g the occasional blood curdling scream and a leg and head here and there, and from the screenshots if you can zoom in that much it would look impressive. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

- The ability to train units up more, like they can go on commando courses or something and they get improved stamina

- More realistic seiging, and fighting on the walls.

- Fire Mwhaaaaaahaaaa

- More events on the map screen. E.g Jesus of Nazerth is leadin a rebellion, etc get wot I mean

Thats just a sample of wot I want.

I will probably disappear for at least 6 weeks when RTW comes out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

02-09-2003, 14:39
Quote[/b] (max_killer_payne @ Feb. 09 2003,11:31)]

Quote[/b] ]The ability to train units up more, like they can go on commando courses or something and they get improved stamina

well done you reminded me on something. nice points max payne http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

- units need more stamina the cant just run along for 5 mni and get tired how ever much armour u have ok gothic knights exception but peasents, archers no way i think even arfter 30 mni of play units should still be quite tired.

Toda Nebuchadnezzar
02-09-2003, 15:05
Online Naval Battles: This can be implimented more easily than other ideas I feel. Firstly making the maps would be easy. You could have sea battles, coastline battles, archipelago battles (dunno which archipelago, buts its possible for custom battles).
The ships would be hard to make, but I think that the ideas would be very similar to that used in STW. When two ships meet, then a bridge (like those over rivers in STW) appears between them. Units from one ship can move onto another. Naturally it would be VERY hard to make everything possible, so perhaps I am still dreaming.
Ships would have to be massive to fit lots of units on, which would then make them hard to manouvre. Or perhaps you could have trireme battles. Just ram the opposition as hard as possible with your ship, then wait for her to sink, or make your units that come with the ship get on board it and capture it. THIS WOULD BE GREAT

Moving scenery available: For those of us who have super fast machines, with top of the table graphics cards, why not impliment this idea. When you come up against a river, you actually see it running. Not sitting still and looking fake. Trees blowing in the wind. If it rains, then if you follow the route of a unit marching, you see a trail of mud. Thousands of feet marching over the same spot is gonna cause massive mud problems. Night battles would be cool. Or twilight battles, with a red sunset. Units would have torches to see where they were going.

Suprise Attacks: Whenever you attacked a province in SP you had a pitched battle. Why not be able to make surprise attacks where you attack the army in its camp. This would be cool. It says you can fight in massive urban areas, but attacking a camp would also be great.

Realism: From one of the recent screenshots, you see Romans climbing over a wall to attack Gauls. The walls are not real at all. Gauls did not live in walled cities like the Romans. They had hillforts mainly (well the celts did). Also from that picture you can tell that the lan inside the castle is miles above the land outside the castle. Is that not a bit fake? Its like a massive plain, and then you get this mile squared piece of land 400m above the plain, with completly straight sides.
This engine is supposed to outclass everything. Well, maybe they should put slightly more thought into this bit.

EDIT: instead of always having bridges, why not fords. So that you can see cavalry marching through shallow waters. That would be nice.
just my 2 cents.

02-09-2003, 17:49
found alote of features i will list them here

•Wage war with your favourite ancient civilizations

•Battle with the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and Barbarians, as well as their successor kingdoms Each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and their own special units.

•Huge battles of up to 10,000 units, all fully 3D and life-like without any sacrifice in gameplay

•The campaign suits the gaming needs of beginners and experts alike, with the options of automatic taxation, building, and training.

•Fight your way through the enemy's gates with thousands of infantry, as well as powerful siege weapons.

•Full 8 player multiplayer support over LAN or the internet. *

•Less slow-downs than in Medieval: Total War despite the more detailed, 3D graphics (less demands on your system)

•See a full detailed environment surrounding your troops to up to 32 kilometres away from where they stand

•This game takes full advantage of pixel and vertex shaders.
•Detailed night skies, and full weather details.

•The cities will be to scale, with full sized, realistic cities

•Battle INSIDE the cities, garrisoning city buildings, and marching in the streets

•Watch your cities grow and expand, now with more natural environments making natural border lines, like rivers and mountains.

•More realistic battling lands. Now when there is a battle near a players farmlands, the battle field will covered in wheat farms. If its near the enemies aqueducts, they will appear too

•More interaction in the battlefields. Destroy parts of your enemy's lands instead of taking the whole thing in one big attack. **

•Move your armies more freely over the campaign map, travelling through mountain passes, and helpful port cities.

•Cities will be full of buildings with different uses, no longer will it be just plain walls and a couple undetailed buildings.
•The senate will be implemented in the game, dictating you and your plans until you become strong enough to overpower it **

•You will be able to use boiling oil and pour it off your walls, onto the approaching enemies as they near your walls

•Realistic fire It will spread and burn everything in site right before your eyes

•During the night, your troops will take out torches and light them to be able to see what they are doing

•The Gauls and Visigoths are making appearances too

Info found at http://www.strategyplanet.com (http:///www.strategyplanet.com)

02-09-2003, 18:28
Perhaps attacking a enemy prov. should be more complex - you can choose a point and then the defender (if they have watchtowers, spies etc. to have noticed your incursion) can meet you there for battle or let you raid the coutryside a bit. The attacker can decide if they just want to do some light raiding or if they want to attack the defneding army and conquer the land. The attacker or defender can choose not to commit their entire force if they like. Each army has a camp (if not in a garrison) which can be attacked/ambushed. Armies must be able to maintain a supply line/forage. The MTW strategic feaure is a bit simplistic: move army to prov, fight battle/retreat or hold up in castle.

There could be a whole new dimension added to the game in the regard.

02-09-2003, 18:56
id like to hide in forests. like disengage from battle and escape into the forests, hold up there for a few turns then come back out to challenge the invaders another day. that would add a great feature to the game wich already sounds like an amazing achievment it itself.

02-09-2003, 19:16
Stormer I agree with you about the archers. I mean they are totally unrealistic. Like you said, you could fire a volley of 60 archers and be lucky to kill 5(in my experience). Half of the time they miss anyway. If you fire 60 arrows, half of them fall behind the formation. Also, they always fire in an arc. Since when couldnt you fire straight forward? I'd really like to see archers improved in RTW.

02-09-2003, 19:40
very nice points all Monk i tihkn u missed th epurpose of the topic i would lke to hear what features you would like not what are going too happen :P nm maybe u can post some of them

02-09-2003, 19:48
well the features that i listed are going to be in the game. half of them id like to see (such as the torches at night and a 3D map). but like ive said, the 1 real thing id like to see is the abillity to run from a fight and lay low in the Forests. Maybe this could be a Barbarian only tactic?

The reason i posted those features is so people can see whats already in the game, and so they can drool over it even more ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ). I only wanted to show people the current revealed features. if it was posted in the wrong type of topic, i am sorry.

What i would like to see:

Diplomatic AI: an Ai that understands the importance of Comrades in Arms

Trade Routs on land: Building roads should increase trade to a certain area, and make the cities around it more profitable to own and defend

Raids: the option to launch a raid on enemy lands. Insted of 7,000 troops leading an all out invasion. 300 could move through the forests(this is just an idea) and launch ambushes against trade caravans or small patrols.

Patroling Borders: Border forts shouldnt be able to scope out the entire enemy from the edge of your land. instede you would have to assign Border patrols to keep an eye on what is yours.

Mortal Ai Enemies: when you screw the AI over(e.g, Stab em in the back and launch attacks on them) they should remember this and act accordingly.

02-09-2003, 20:25
hehehe nice idea m8 np for psoting ingane features http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

02-09-2003, 20:37
One more thing, fire arrows. That shoot across the sky like modern day tracers.

02-09-2003, 20:46
MKP i agree, Fire arrows should be included. but should come at a higher cost than reg arrows.

02-09-2003, 20:54
no i dont think fire arrows should be in daylight shooting from just an archer
i think befor egame u must buy some PITCH (oil) like on gladiator which is lit when game begins and ur archers use that to fire Flaming arrow if they move away from that then they fire normal arrows only also arrows that stick in the ground.

also artillary creaters or catepluts http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

02-09-2003, 20:57
Stormer, thats what i was trying to get at. i should have specified what i ment by "cost more". thank you for stating that. *smacks himself in the head and returns to the shadows*

Leet Eriksson
02-10-2003, 00:12
i want SYRIAN ARCHERSok alot of features i wanted have been moentioned so i don't have to go through the gist again,although i would like to see some extra bonuses given to the factions unit when defending their own territory(ie egyptians get a bonus when fighting in the desert,wich is obviously the terrain they are used to fight on).

02-10-2003, 15:09
How about more features concerning the general. Generals will become individualy recruited, the general's command level will affect the size of the army he can command, a logistics level to affect the size of the army he can raise and the morale of the army while on the road and length of sieges. Genrals will no longer be part of a unit of man but an individual lone unit that also shows up on the field and you would to post units to guard him. also units on the field can only be grouped under a genral or equivalent, so you send 3 genrals to battle your army can only be grouped into 3 groups. genrals can have other virtues like bonus for commanding mounted troops, bonus for rallying troops etc.
And maybe generals can be even sent on diplomatic missions.

02-10-2003, 16:47
nice ideas

np monk

02-10-2003, 20:16
Yeh I forgot that. Fire arrows should cost more and only go on when its starting to get darker, so u can see them whizz across the sky. And when you are under fire from arrows you can select the turtle formation and your men will run as wuickly as they can to get into formation, the unlucky few who dont get their qucik enough, get mowed down.

02-10-2003, 20:57
yeah but not too dark or you wont be able to see nothing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

also arrows should kill load sof units in a formation u but if they got shield they can do what william wallices men do on the film braveheart http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif if they have no shield well as Max payne stated they get mowed down.

02-11-2003, 00:06
another feature id like to see is a formation for defending against arrows. like the Barbs would crouch down and hide under their small sheilds, or the Romans would get in their Tortoise Formation, ect ect. like u have ur wedge formation, Close and Spaced formations. And then u could have Arrow/Defensive Formation.

02-11-2003, 09:30
I'd like to secondthe idea about having a supply train to guard. I have only seen that in one other game, destroying it was the quickest way to beat a more numerous superior opponent.

Assaulting an encampment would also be lots of fun. Especially if you have alarge contingent of light horse

02-11-2003, 12:24
I really like:

-open for mods.
-a new game mode: 16v16 and up. One doesn't control the whole army, but only 1 unit, optional reinforcements (respawns). A bit similair to teamgames in first person shooters.

STW and MTW could have had it, the huge 3D worlds in RTW are almost made for it.

TotalWar meets Unreal Tournament. No, I don't want shock rifles instead of pilums.

02-11-2003, 17:57
Just had an idea, maybe if you build a colloseum, and you get the option to train a few specialy picked men, in the colloseum and they get like +3 attack if they survive, and other stats. Also you should have 'leaders' in a unit, out on the battlefield, so like officers nowadays and they have slightly better amour and weapons.

Also I dont think the death of a general should make men rout so much, if anything they should gain +2 aggression (If that becomes a stat&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and attack with anger and great feriocity to avenge their fallen general.

02-11-2003, 18:02
max killer. the general death thing you sugested is a good idea. but the bonus should only last for a short time. as without leadership an army cannot function. lets say like Your general dies, then your men start to get pissed off, So for like 2-3 Min your men have a +1 to attack but -1 to organazation and dicipline. after this wears off their states should return to normal.

i dont know just a thought

02-11-2003, 18:07
I'd like to see units that can be used both strategically and tactically. An example would be barbarian guerillas. When placed in a province they could randomly ambush non-garrisoned enemy units (with lower success rates against larger forces). When joined with other barbarian units, or used directly on the enemy, they would be a conventional attacking unit.

I'd like to see the limit of men that can fit in a base greatly increased. The downside would be that, under seige, the more men you have in a base the faster your supplies would run out.

I'd change the way naval travel works. Instead of going from one side of the world directly to the other in one turn, I'd prefer if troop transport ships were automatically built and used. These could be attacked by enemy ships.

I'd also like to see where we can build units, and then combine them. For example, I build 60 archers in one province, and 60 in another. The following turn I combine them into one large unit of 120 archers. Obviously there would be limits on unit size, but it would be a way to have large groups of elite troops without wasting several slots of small units, or waiting X years for a single province to create a large group of them. In the case of differing stats (armor, weapon quality etc.) they would be averaged (though it'd be better if each unit kept it's individual stats, that would take up more resources then it's worth).


I thought several of the ideas here were quite good. The idea of allowing barbarians to hide within forests after being invaded (on the strategy map) is appealing, and would help make up for the fact that they can't build the same sprawling fortress as the other factions. I also found the idea of scalable RTS battles, with people controlling 1 or 2 units under the larger command of the general appealling.

The idea of a formation almost strictly for arrow defense is a good idea, and it would allow the developers to increase archer effectiveness against enemies who are not in the proper formation and still keep balance.

02-11-2003, 19:57
I'd like to see more tactical and strategic options like others have mentioned.

For instance:
Supply line management and harassment that could help influence the amount of ammo and moral of troops before an engagement. The defender could sucker in the attacker to go deeper into the territory then harass his supply lines before attacking. The supply caravan and stores should be visible on the battle map. Ranged units with good supply lines should never run out of ammo.

The ability to maneuver before the engagement to try and cut off supplies or gain an advantage. This could tie into unit moral and strength based on how much marching they had to do before the engagement. You could deploy your armies in seperate areas of the battle field based on where they enter the area from so you could actually surprise and flank.

I hate the fact that victory is based on forcing the defender to surrender when they can simply run away and regroup until the time runs out. If they want to stop you they should have to stop you. Otherwise you should be able to march past them and take the city or resources that you are trying to capture.

02-12-2003, 12:46
Yeh Monk I agree that the +3 attack or aggression thing should last for say 3 mins?? But I agree, they should be unorganized and formations are easily broken.

02-14-2003, 08:30
The revenge thing would be good, but should apply only to elite troops, or his bodyguard.

Common cannon fodder would route while the getting was good. Such troops had little to gain and everything to lose by staying on. discipline was not high in the ranks of medieval armies.

02-14-2003, 09:46
I don't know if anyone said this or not cause I didn't read all posts just yet, so this is what I have thought about.

A few more unit formations. By this I mean not just open and closed formation, or wedge, but also things like half-circles, or quarter circles. This would require either both a concave and convex half-circle, or all 4 parts of a quarter circle. It might be tricky to implement the proper morale for this type of formation, but I'm sure CA could do it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Basically, so I could implement a formation like the keyhole, and do it a bit better than I could in STW. Here's some examples of what I mean (the drawings are about halfway down the page)

Blade of the Immortal - Guide: Samurai Armies (http://www.sutic.nu/blade/guide/armies.htm#armiesformations)

Also, something that I think I would like to see is some shallow water, like in a creek, that armies could move through. It would maybe slow them down, and they would suffer higher casualties while being attacked in it. I think it would be great to see cavs rushing through it and splashing water everywhere http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Lord of the Isles
02-14-2003, 14:09
Quite a few in this thread have asked for more realism in archery in R:TW. I'm grouping the calls for more relism and relaistic archery here too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

You don't like firing a volley of arrows and killing only 7 enemies with 120 archers? Or 5 with 60 archers? Good god, those are wonderful figures per volley. How many people do you think archery killed in Medieval battles? Hint: Legolas in Lord of the Rings should not be taken as a typical archer for the purposes of pre-gunpowder ranged warfare. Sheesh.

02-14-2003, 14:57
Archers are already lethal enough IMO. In terms of the battles RTW will have historically we should be looking at 5-10% casualties for the winning side, and 15-20% for the losers. evidently i expect these'll be higher to get more of a game, but archers shouldn't be slaughtering any enemy that comes within range.

02-17-2003, 02:39
well in terms of archer realism im not asking that 1 volley Decimate the enemy unit. only that when 120 arrows fly tho the air towards their target it just seems to be that 113 of those arrows suddenly disapear right before impact and only 7 guys fall. i mean in actuall warfare u wouldnt see 120 (fully well trained) bowman fire and only 7 enemys end up falling. all im asking is that 3/10 of the arrows fired hit their target.

if the units are allowed to use their shields to deflect incoming missles (raising their sheild to block an incoming arrows. i already stated this could be done thro a Defensive formation ) then i say that the effectiveness of Archers should be increased. i know that Archers were not Battle winners (except for the Longbowman but they were the exception ) but be real. do you honestly think that out of 120, 113 would somhow miss an opponet whose no more that 20 yrds away??

02-17-2003, 04:56
I would like to have different options in military campaigns. Wether you just want to go on a raid with a band of your loyal men, or go on a huge military campaign with all of the supplies that big armies need.

Also, it'd be pretty neat if you could go into battle map to see how you'r army is traveling and occasionally fend off few of the small skirmishes that usually occured before a major battle. Also during the night you could command your army to set up a camp.

And I would like the graphics of the environment to be better. For instance having trees look more realistic with varied size and color. Also the grass could be made a little more realistic, having it cover soldiers ankles or even up to the knees ( they have already done it with the farm )

The wind should be also a factor in the game. It should be expressed visually ( with trees swinging, grass moving, and soldiers' clothes moving ) and strategically. Sand, from looking at the screenshots, looks really nice ( especially with those ripples ).

02-17-2003, 09:33
I'd like the difference in cost and quality of troops to be noticeable. For example, the German and Gallic tribes could field many more troops than the Romans could when they warred against one another. When Julius Caesar won at Alesia, his 30,000 legionaires were up against well over a 100,000 Gauls.

The barbarians(Gauls,Germans,Dacians ect.)should have to field much larger armies to beat Roman or Greek based armies.(on the open fied...in foresty terrain or in ambushes this advantage would be offset) Barbarian armies however should be much cheaper, and quicker to raise.

Roman and Greek armies by comparison should be expensive, and time consuming to train and field. They would however be far better in quality.

Basically I'd like the barbarian armies to go with a quantity over quality theory, Greek and Romans favoring quality over quantity.

02-17-2003, 09:54
3/10 hitting their target? on the basis that you fire three volleys that means a unit of 100 is reduced to 34/5. three volleys is nothing in STW/MTW terms. And the enemy is supposed to keep on coming?

Modern military manuals regard a unit that suffers 30% casualties as being totally destroyed for military purposes, their moral goes through the floor. Regardless of whether the archers are trained or not those sorts of casualty figures simply aren't realistic. There are reasons for wearing armour and carrying shields, and formations are not densely packed. there are plenty of places for arrows to go other htan causing casualties. If archers were even anything like as effective as you want them to be noone would go into battle armed as anything else.

02-17-2003, 10:08
it is my belief that arrows tend to incapacitate more than kill . Perhaps an 'injured' mode should be used for a percentage of the units hit by arrows to decrease the units ability to fight , make arrows effective , and avoid shooting their lethality in non-real levels

02-18-2003, 14:02
I think that the archery really needs to be sorted. hope Ca are listening.

btw im sorry for not following this topic i made my nets been down nearly all week thanks for replying though some nice thoughts.

Pablo Sanchez
02-19-2003, 02:25
In real-life terms, only three types of bows were ever really effective. The composite bow used by steppe peoples, the longbow, and the crossbow. These weapons could inflict catastrophic casualties, largely because they had several times the pull of your normal bow. As practical weapons, the vast majority of bows were useful only for lowering morale and creating a few random casualties.

Why do you think that the Romans and Greeks eschewed bowmen? Their style of war was walking up to the enemy and sticking a length of iron in his belly, not intimidating him off the field.

This is how they are modeled in MTW, and that is how they should be modeled in RTW.

02-19-2003, 02:54
I'd like to see options that are great tactically, but rather rather poor strategically. A good example would be the suppossed poisoning of Athens water by the Spartans during the Peloponnesian War. Kills your enemies, but causes other countries to become very weary of you, weakening your alliances.

02-23-2003, 17:23
Quote[/b] (Xicote @ Feb. 09 2003,13:16)]Stormer I agree with you about the archers. I mean they are totally unrealistic. Like you said, you could fire a volley of 60 archers and be lucky to kill 5(in my experience). Half of the time they miss anyway. If you fire 60 arrows, half of them fall behind the formation. Also, they always fire in an arc. Since when couldnt you fire straight forward? I'd really like to see archers improved in RTW.
But that's how it was back than. Archers weren't as accurate as we may think they were. Some arrows wouldn't even reach the enemy, some would fall behind, and some would simply be shielded or deflected by a shield.

If we want the game to stay as accurate they should continue portraying archers as not-totally-relied-upon unit, because that's what they were ( especially in Ancient times, Rome didn't use them that much ). May be CA should introduce an option for infantry to be able to raise their shields above their heads, ( if they have one; this should be set either for automatic or manual ) as a shower of arrows is approaching them. This would reduce the amount of men that would fall from the shower of arrows ( same amount as in MTW ). The units that wouldn't have shield or just wouldn't raise their shield would be inflicted with more casualties. And as any unit is charging ( especially mounted unit ) it's harder to be hit by arrows.

So does this idea present a good alternative for you guys?

02-23-2003, 17:37
Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 17 2003,03:33)]I'd like the difference in cost and quality of troops to be noticeable. For example, the German and Gallic tribes could field many more troops than the Romans could when they warred against one another. When Julius Caesar won at Alesia, his 30,000 legionaires were up against well over a 100,000 Gauls.

The barbarians(Gauls,Germans,Dacians ect.)should have to field much larger armies to beat Roman or Greek based armies.(on the open fied...in foresty terrain or in ambushes this advantage would be offset) Barbarian armies however should be much cheaper, and quicker to raise.

Roman and Greek armies by comparison should be expensive, and time consuming to train and field. They would however be far better in quality.

Basically I'd like the barbarian armies to go with a quantity over quality theory, Greek and Romans favoring quality over quantity.
I agree with you Longshanks, but at the same time I don't want to end up fielding maximum of few hundred Roman soldiers. If they were going to do this I suggest increasing the number of barbarians on the screen rather than decreasing the amount of Romans.

I really like the idea of Romans being the superior on the battlefield. And unless you ambush them there really isn't a way for a hundred of Gauls to defeat hundred Romans in a head-to-head battle.

02-25-2003, 13:57
About archers - infantry archers were very inaccurate and their arrows didn't pierce the armor. E.g. greeks use archers as supplementary force and never counted on them seriously. I would be very dissapointed if archers were overestimated.

About difference in prices and maitanance costs - great idea And historically correct.

02-26-2003, 21:22
Seasonal turns.

Overall, I hope that there will be a lot of scalability in the complexity of the game, nto bacuse I'm afraid of vast number of options, but because I like them. Many games today are toned down so as to appeal to a wider audience, while people who seek complexity in the games are ignored as "hard-core gamer freaks". This can be ellegantly solved by having a lot of micromanagement things optional, i.e. being able to customize your experience through gameplay options. You can't make a simple game more complex, but you can have a lot of things optionally automatized for people who dislike micromanagement. Undoubtedly this would please the widest array of people, and make the game a rare gem of dumbed-down gaming world of today.

03-01-2003, 10:15
I don't know how much the following has been talked about as I have been away from board for a good while but it's something I mentioned/hinted at a long time ago when RTW rumours were flowing.
The campaign map is going to be fully 3D. What this should lead to is every building, recource etc.. has a location on the map. It will be owned by a player and have a sphere of influence(Civ 3). If an enemy comes into the area(campaign map) they get to destroy or capture the buildings/recources. If the player has any troops in the area then you will be zoomed to a 3D battlefild which mimics the campaign map layout for the area, including troops positions as the battle was triggered.
This will lead to some great strategy elements that have so far been missing from the TW games.
The need to position your troops near key areas and defend them. Proper use of terrain so defending from the top of the hill is not always possible. i.e. you want to defend your farmlands that are in a valley, then your troops will be in the valley and can be attacked from above
Same with cities etc.. that are generally built on plains or next to rivers.
So many other options and features stem from this basic concept for battles that I could go on forever.
So onto another part of this idea(Civ 3) and the sphere of influence. With a fully positional campaign map should come fully positioned populations affected by yor sphere of influence etc.. Cities(Churches etc..) would attract more people to the area etc.. giving greater income to a player but also the greater need for certain buildings otherwise unrest and rebellion could occur.
Again these ideas come strongly from Civ series of games and the sooner TW and CIV game concepts are merged the better for the whole strategy gaming community.

Other things that flow from population count is the idea of volunteer soldiers and conscripts. Say every year 1% of your population would volunteer to join your army. If you only had a 1000 people then you can't go creating a military unit of 100 in size unless you conscript.
Then another idea that I feely would have made MTW so much better is the home terrority idea for soldiers. Many of the specialist types of units were useless when compared with standard available troops that could be built in your biggest and most advanced castle hundreds of miles away. But if the specialist troops gained advantages from fighting in their homeland then there would be a reason to use them. This applies to standard units also in that if they are raised from say Rome then if they are defending in or around Rome then they should get a +2 honour advantage. As distance increases from home then honour and morale drop. So if you move say Scottish Clansman to fight in Morocco their morale could be penalised by say -4 and honour -2 and couldn't defeat standard militia. Put them abck in Scotland and they would rip knights apart

Time and supplies should also affect these conditions so the longer the troops are away from home, the less effective they become. The less supplies they get the less effective and perhaps more disloyal they become.

That's enough for now, maybe I should go write this great game I keep thinking and talking about (If only I had the time and money, come on lottery numbers&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Michael the Great
03-01-2003, 18:55
CA,plz include a button that,when pressed,the units selected charge the nearest enemy,this would by VERY useful.
For example,I have a group of units selected,and I march towards the enemy,and I want my troops to charge at the same time,but I have to click on every one of my units and the click on every individual enemy unit to attack...this is very time-consuming,there is a definite need for this command.

03-02-2003, 15:17
are you asking for a button requires no other commands for the battle to take place? try the auto resolve battle button m8 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

micromanaging is what the game is about http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

03-02-2003, 15:20
Michael The Great I agree its soooooooooooooooo annoying to have to click on your men and give them individual targets, it would be alot better if they just charged the nearest enemies, and if the AI is better than act accordingly, like if an enemy is far off, then engage it with bows,etc. And when they get close they charge them automatically.

03-05-2003, 07:36
Dear Santa,

The thing that i want most in this world for RTW is multiplayer co-op. I just love being able to play with my friends online, but we get so sad when the only option is to beat each other up. Mommy says this leads to violence in school, and mean people in the street. Co-op battles against ai bots would help to unite all people in the world in the spirit of peace and unity. In fact, mommy says only terrorists hate co-op mode. Santa, your not a terrorist are you?

Heroic units, (like kensai) would be neat too. Supper tough heros, maybe ex-gladiators, or famous warriors. One man killing machines.

Swoosh So
03-05-2003, 11:26
What about heroes that you could attach to a unit, ie not a single superhuman kensi but a strong hero attached to a normal unit to give it some sort of bonuses

03-05-2003, 12:34
I think they have that kind of heroes... aren't they called "generals" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I want more strategic options... more empire-building options... more diplomacy... more chariots... more Greek units... more chariots for the easteners... more elephants for everybody in the med and the mid east... more sheep... err... sheep? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Swoosh So
03-05-2003, 13:11
Lol i think generals fill a different role to the one i suggested.