View Full Version : Medieval / Rome Total War Suggestions
1) Maps:
Add Africa and Asia at least.
2) Turns time period:
I think it should be changed to at least quarters (three months) periods since it is kind of unrealistic that such big provinces could take four years just to build one building or one year just to come up with 30 low quality troops like peasants or militia. You can make the ability to create more than one troop type or building per turn a kind of tech advancement, lets say by having a university with engineering, construction, tools or industrialized advance or maybe by just having a happy, healthy, loyal population.
3) Military units building times, costs and numbers:
This should change too. It would be better if I can choose the troop numbers of the units to be created, make it army quarter portions at least. Lets say I can build five (5 = ¼, a quarter) Royal Nights in one quarter of the time and cost or can build 2 militia armies in one year at double cost.
4) Military units and general ranks
Let at least small artillery units move otherwise they only worth in a siege or they could turn not necessary at all. In fact, I won the campaign in normal mode without crating much siege units and without having to siege a single castle.
Instead of ranks coming out randomly. Lets make some other buildings so that general’s ranks are affected by the existence of that building. Lets say a university, a military academy, knowledge level or tech so the more military advances the higher the ranks of generals created in that province.
5) Neutral vs. ally status:
I really couldn’t notice any difference in the diplomacy status since I was equally attacked by any of them regardless of being ally, neutral or enemy. I think allies shouldn’t attack each or at least without one changing their diplomacy status to neutral or getting big traits penalties.
Add an “alliance sympathy stat” which measure how the province or the faction feels about that alliance. The longer the alliance the stronger the ties and more cooperation among the two provinces or factions. Make true differences between being ally, neutral and enemy.
I think one should be able to increase trade with allies. Let allies give permission to pass trough their lands to attack a neutral or an enemy country or to ask for something in return. You can at least require a condition for doing this like if either province or factions have the same enemy. Asking allies for something to allow troops in to the province can lower “alliance sympathy” for the faction asking for the exchange. Neutral factions can benefit on this status by letting armies pass through their provinces only in exchange for money, troops (mercenary or loyal), tech advances, marriage etc.
You can also create different kinds of alliances; lets say “buy”, “religious”, “strategic”, “blood” or “conviction”. Such categories could add interesting alternatives to diplomacy so one end up being an “ally mercenary” who would only offer alliances to whoever give him the most money, a “religious loyalist” who would only ally with his own religion, alliances made based on economic goals or military defensive convenience by just creating a buffer zone so that no one can attack you directly without first attacking this close ally. Alliances based on blood are related to royal blood and marriage and conviction allies are the one that share common goals with one, lets say military expansion goals, religious spread, technology development, economic profit, bloodline spread or just expand sound diplomatic ties. Let us pick what kind of alliance and what level of cooperation are we expecting and willing to offer them. They could include espionage information exchange, tech exchange, trade, borrowing troops or troop creation, bloodline, sharing allies.
You may add some kind of “non-aggression pact” for neutral factions that can last for a mutually agree time period. Or make temporary or permanent alliances. Anyone who break this pact could have a penalty in money or in traits like “zeal” o whoever is betrayed could get a “zeal” or “valor” bonus to fight against that particular traitor faction or maybe increase recruiting of mercenaries or at least low quality troops.
Try to get allies to work hand to hand in units military units creation and development, and to coordinate who and when to attack another province. Let long alliances be worthy by increasing profits in trade, sharing tech advancement and / or improving military attack coordination. Lets say that I may create more military units (you can change the cost by being higher, equal or even lower) in their provinces or borrow ally units; it could be with less “valor” stats, “zeal” stats or in smaller numbers.
With all of this change diplomacy stance would be worthy since one should decide what is best for his own cause, to make alliances (temporally or permanent) or to remain neutral with or without temporary “non aggression” or “defensive” pacts.
6) Interface:
I found that keeping track of agents and generals was time consuming. Add on a “sort” function in the window for agents and a second window to read all traits without loosing track of them. Add also a sort for the general’s window and show all of their traits instead of only rank.
It would also be nice to know how close are others of achieving victory since there is no possible way of knowing it. One should know how many provinces every faction holds; or at least this can be another job for spies and emissaries. This way one can attack a province or make alliances just to avoid loosing the game. Allies could share this kind of information making alliances worthy and more cooperative.
7) Coastal defenses:
Some naval defense units and buildings are needed. Add coastal watchtowers, cannon lines and defense barriers. You can also add small scout boats. All these should be created independently from infantry troops.
8) Victory modes
Add a naval domination victory either by number of ships, tech advancements or areas dominated anyhow.
Add a Multiple victory mode, in other words a campaign in which there are all kinds of victory modes being played at the same time (this would require information from every faction, alliances and provinces), or at least “faction mode” separately from “ally mode”.
Faction mode:
Faction territory conquest, faction economic growth, faction tech advancements (lest say over 60% of all tech researched), faction bloodline spread, faction ally expansion, faction naval dominance.
Ally mode:
Allied victory by conquest, allied victory by allied expansion, allied victory by combine allied tech advancement, allied victory by religious expansion, allied naval dominance.
9) Battle mode suggestions:
What is the point on having many more troops if not all of them can be in the battle at the same time? In fact, I only commanded two battles in the whole campaign since the management battle is so much difficult than a simple computer calculation even if you have the advantage in numbers. If you have only a small advantage you can even end up even loosing since reinforcement take too much time to get involved in battle and get there late and disorganized. Let us pick if we want to use reinforcements or not, to make it worthy in case of loosing let reinforcements return safely to the province since they are far from battle, you can even take points from the “valor stat” for returning home.
The defender should be allowed to pick the spot or choose the place where they want the battle to take place. As defender one should have knowledge of the advantages that its own lands offers at least make this an alternative for high ranking generals.
I don't know if there is other post with this same topic. I just won the Spanish campaign starting in early period and I enjoyed every minute of it. However I think there still room for improvement. I am interested in sharing ideas and recommendations for these two titles hoping that some of these suggestions could be consider for inclusion in an expansion, patch, mod, add-on or update for Medieval Total War or in the coming Rome Total War. I would like these ideas to reach the game developers or programmers. Please feel free to comment on this issue.
Ikken Hisatsu
01-01-2004, 02:20
couple of things I would like to see are big improvements in army management.
first of all, you cant cram 20 000 troops in one barren little desert province. this is stupid- they would starve to death in a year. As well as their upkeep costs, provinces should have a maximum troop support number- for instance, tunisia with nothing but a fort wouldnt be able to hold many men at all, but constantinople, full farmland upgrades, and a fortress would be able to support far more.
also, each province should have a civilian population. the population would grow when there is plenty of food, people are hapy, etc, and the higher the population, it could support more units. also with more people more advanced buildings could be created, and towns would grow on their own- you would still build forts etc as defense for the town, but its growth would not be dependent on the fort. invasions, disease, and conscription would lower the population.
Also, town guard buildings should actually provide a town guard. so when you are attacked, depending on the size of the population and loyalty levels, you would get a bunch of troops to help defend the province, who would then dissapear after the battle. so if constantinople, with 200% loyalty, huge population and fully upgraded town guard was attacked, it would get a sizeable amount of town guard to help defend (the town guard would be a mix of basic foot soldiers and archers)
so thats my wishlist, and hopefully they will implement something similar in R:TW.
BobTheTerrible
01-01-2004, 03:12
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Something I would like too see is supply lines. You would need to set a route (or it would be automatically set) of resupply wagons/food. If the supply line was cut, some members of the army would die. For example, crusader army in Palestine is surrrrounded by enemy troops and can't find enough food for itself, so some die (in addition to desertion)
To improve medieval TW there is one thing I would like to see to help the Byzantines. Make it impossible to starve the garrison in Constantinople. Since in fact the city was located on a waterway it was easy to get food to the besieged defenders. Instead of just waiting the garrison out, the attacker would have to assault the castle (fortress) which in fact should be the whole city since it was the city that was walled.
/ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Rhyno,
Very good point, and I would really like it when they were all included. But I'm afraid that this is not going to happen, though, some of the points you mentioned are going to be in RTW. Check out www.totalwar.com: latest FAQ (http://pub133.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=2341.topic)
Ikken Hisatsu,
Good ideas, altough the supply idea might be a bit difficult to work out properly. But indeed, quite a lot of Medieval wars were doomed from the word go because of non-existent logistics.
Especially the militia ideas would be a good idea. This is the way cities defended themselves, and why there was not constant warfare. Every city had armed soldiers that would defend the city, but would not go on the attack. Thus, you needed to have a large army to attack, because it would have to deal with the enemies army PLUS his militias.
The idea about civilian population is, IMO, less good. It would make the game more complex, without adding more fun, except for the simcity-fans, who probably aren't playing this game in significant numbers anyway.
Clownmite,
You are right, but this an exceptional case. The game assumes you are sieging a fortress instead of a city. But perhaps one could equip fortresses (and not provinces) with a port, so that for a succesful siege you needed to close off the sea as well. To make the siege last, the besieged would only need to have a sea-way from the fortress to one of his own provinces.
Ludens:
I finally had a look of some of the features for the coming RTW and I am glad some issues are address.
Regarding the militia issue I think developers can make it part of the options to manage it or not so whoever wants that level of complexity added to the game could have it and play it. It could be more complex but I think this would also make the game more powerful and add more realism.
Other thing I would change is the miraculous reappearance of eliminated factions. This events almost had me quitting playing MTV forever and did for just a couple of days. I had several simultaneous multi-reappearances of eliminated factions attacking my internal provinces. How could this ever be possible? I was monitoring my provinces every year with emissaries and looking for signs of trouble in the province window year after year. It was a terrific disaster since they reappeared with dozens of quality troops like heavy cavalry (Germans) and the game only gives you one year to react. Every MTW fan knows that gathering forces to either attack or retake a province takes much more than that, so I ended up with my empire spitted with my armies very far from the problem. Fortunately I could take my lost provinces back but not without suffering lots of economic and even diplomatic loses since retaking my lands had me excommunicated for attacking the surprisingly instantaneous Germans wish caused me to lose my last ally and I ended up having to defend against TWO SIMULTANEOUS CRUZADES. The reappearance of eliminated factions should at least be an option to choose from if not deal with in other way or totally eliminated.
Quote[/b] (Rhyno @ Jan. 01 2004,16:09)]Regarding the militia issue I think developers can make it part of the options to manage it or not so whoever wants that level of complexity added to the game could have it and play it. It could be more complex but I think this would also make the game more powerful and add more realism.
I have no problem with more complexity whatsoever, as long as it does not disrupt my fun in the game.
For example: adding the stat about loyality and dread to generals was a good idea. It forces you to be even more carefull about who to post where. Since they all have a name and you will probably have only few important generals, this adds another challenge without forcing the gamer to keep track of a lot of numbers and letters. There are only a few important (important generals) and these are easily recognizable (name, generalship stars).
On the other hand, adding this kind of thing to assasins/spies would be a bad idea, although it opens up interesting possibilities. Because keeping track of all these agents is a lot more difficult, and quite a different game. It would force another game-element unto the player. If the gamer doesn't like that, then he cannot play the game (he could ignore espionage, but that is not the intention). So that would make the game more complex, but it would add another playing element into the game. To much playing elements can kill a game.
I hope you understand what I mean.
About you miraculously reappearing factions: I play STW, and there it is not so much of a problem, given that there are only 7 factions to start with and rebbelions are less common. However, imagine the opposite situation: you kill of all you opponents, and then the only thing to do would be to mop up the rebels. This would not be a fun game.
(However, your situation also isn't fun. Perhaps better loyality management is needed?).
Ludens:
I can agree that adding some more elements could make a game more complex and not so funny but I think there are other ways to address those issues for example by having a better display of relevant summarized information. However I think that more gameplay complexity should be at least part of the options so that every player can adjust the game to its own preferences.
About the reappearance of factions, I think they should reappear on a rebel province or at least due to something more logical than just an instantaneous magic trick. As I wrote, several times two eliminated factions reappeared in the middle of my empire, away from my armies, attacking a couple of provinces and with numerous high quality troops. Honestly it feels more like being cheated by the AI. I don't have Viking Invasion so I don't know how many of my complians have been already address by this expansion.
I forgot to include something about army movement. I think cavalry units should be able to to go at least one more province per turn, in other words, that they can move two provinces per year or make at least for light cavlary or as a result some kind of a technology upgrade in horse breeding buildings. What do you guys thinks?
Ikken Hisatsu
01-02-2004, 21:54
yeah i was just thinking that the other day, surely an army of steppe cavalry would be able to move quicker than an army of tuetonic knights
Eastside Character
01-02-2004, 22:16
About faction reappearing, my idea: in RTW they could make that option that you can send your army to province 'x' and there kill all the population of this province ( historivally correct ), so after such genocide the faction we destroyed would be gone for good.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif
.EC.
Quote[/b] (Rhyno @ Jan. 02 2004,21:35)]I forgot to include something about army movement. I think cavalry units should be able to to go at least one more province per turn, in other words, that they can move two provinces per year or make at least for light cavlary or as a result some kind of a technology upgrade in horse breeding buildings. What do you guys thinks?
I think that this would be impossible for MTW.
However, in RTW this already adressed (as you know, since you posted in the thread Army movement in RTW (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=13951)
I hope other improovements are included as well.
One of the things I'd really like is a master of orion 2 style province summary screen, like the colonies summary screen in that game. Something that quickly lets you not only see what they're loyalty and income is, but who the governor is, where the governor is, and what they're building - preferably with the ability to give build orders immediately from the screen via a drop down menu. With appropriate sort options of course - not just alphabetical, but by income, by loyalty, by civilian build orders or military build orders.
A similar screen for agents and stacks would be very helpful as well.
A bit of zoom out cam for the battle mode would help a lot too.
Any chance of madding some of this?
thrashaholic
01-13-2004, 19:00
I'd like to see it so in RTW its possible to build your own cities rather than being limited to the provincial capitals. I think its cool that we're being allowed to dictate where forts go, but IMO being able to dicate where new cities would go would add an entirely new dimension to the game.
Thrashaholic
Quote[/b] (thrashaholic @ Jan. 13 2004,19:00)]I'd like to see it so in RTW its possible to build your own cities rather than being limited to the provincial capitals. I think its cool that we're being allowed to dictate where forts go, but IMO being able to dicate where new cities would go would add an entirely new dimension to the game.
True, it would add an entirely new dimension to the game, but it is not quite realistic, is it? There can only be a limited number of cities (for geographical as well as gameplay reasons) and it is unlikely that at this time in Europe, there would be space for more. Anyway, building a city is not something that you just do here and now. A city has to grow.
thrashaholic
01-13-2004, 22:27
Fair enough Ludens, I see what you mean. Maybe a restriction on the number of cities, or specific zones (like near a river) where you could start a settlement and sow the seeds of a city would make it more realistic. I dunno. This would probably be too hard to program, and restricting the areas for cities is like restricting the cities anyway, so back to square one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sick.gif (I hope this makes sense?)
Anyway, only an idea, no probs.
Thrashaholic
Quote[/b] (thrashaholic @ Jan. 13 2004,22:27)]Anyway, only an idea, no probs.
The whole idea behind this thread is to look for ideas. But when you've got a whole lot of ideas, you have to give them a reality check, otherwise this wouldn't get anywhere.
It is just that I am afraid that RTW is already to far in the development-stage to add any of these things. CA said it would just spend the next 6 months with polishing and balancing.
And, hopefully, getting rid of those stupid barbarians units and replace them with something historical Europa Barbarorum
Quote[/b] ]Any chance of modding some of this?
I am not a modder myself, but I think that modding is just changing some of the auxillary files of the game. The game engine stays untouched. Modding basically boils down to changing the numbers in the stats-files and adding new images. A lot of the things suggested here would require more than that, so I'm afraid it is not possible. If you want to know for sure, ask it in the Dungeon.
thrashaholic
01-14-2004, 20:23
I don't like those barbarian units either, they seem just a bit too hollywood for me. I don't know much about the German tribes, but as far as I know Chosen Axemen never existed. But I do know about the Celts ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif ) the Britons didn't have light chariots (in fact they were very heavy being made of oak) and I'm almost positive there weren't Gallic Foresters (well at least not in battle).
Sadly, I think the TW system of making/training/buying units doesn't really suit the way barbarian armies came about. Of course armies were levvied from the local population, who all trained and equipped themselves for war, so there wouldn't have been much variation in troop type and troop numbers could not be maintained for extended periods, but it wouldn't cost as much as a proffessional army like the romans.
I realise a troop training system like this would be impractical and considering the time frame left until RTW is released, it is VERY unlikely to be implemented, but what can you? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sick.gif
Anyway, like Ludens I hope for some historically accurate barbarian units at least befor RTW is released.
Thrashaholic
Quote[/b] (thrashaholic @ Jan. 14 2004,20:23)]Sadly, I think the TW system of making/training/buying units doesn't really suit the way barbarian armies came about.
I realise a troop training system like this would be impractical and considering the time frame left until RTW is released, it is VERY unlikely to be implemented, but what can you? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sick.gif
True, but it doesn't suit the way Pre-Marian Roman armies were formed either. It is just the a system that works while not beeing needlessly complicated.
This is not going to be altered for RTW, you can read that in the Totalwar.com Latest FAQ (http://pub133.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=2341.topic).
Pity.
Add your suggestions here
I have a couple of new suggestions.
1) Allow bigger army numbers for higher ranked generals.
2) A message log to track every event that take place year after year.
3) The game urgently need some music for the campaign map, it is just too boring. I will suggest something great like in Cossacks The Art of War with many instrumental songs that could bring color and excitement to the situation.
Gregoshi
02-01-2004, 07:48
I like #2. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif
I also like the idea about incorporating population into the game equation.
The other thing I'd like to see is more in the way of reasons to fight a war or to make peace. For example in MTW, it should be almost impossible to conquer all of Europe. Being able to beat an (AI) army is not all that should be needed to conquer Europe. Cost, unrest, logistics, communications, desertions, etc. should become a major headache as one's empire begins to expand and almost enforce a peace on the warmonger. Scratching out a decent sized kingdom should suffice and also should be made to be very satisfying accomplishment for the player, rather than the same-old/same-old conquer the map business.
PseRamesses
02-01-2004, 10:34
Regarding diplomacy:
Have a look at EUII, their diplomacy concept is superb
1. You have to send gifts, marry them, help them etc in order to increase the diplopmacy rating over time otherwise it will slowly drop. It´s like any relation, if you don´t maintain it it will fade away.
2. If you go stomping around eliminating other factions of the same religion your relations with allies and others will be worsened.
3. This doesn´t apply to conquering barbarians and other provinces of different faiths. But if you grow big to fast your neighbours will feel intimidated by your growth.
4. Alliances has to be terminated BEFORE you can attack a former ally which really give them a hint of what you´re up to. You can also move your troops through allied lands but your troops will suffer attrition through time
This is really a realistic diplomacy so check it out if you haven´t played EUII, you must
I just bought Viking Invasion and I think its cool but I still getting nasty surprises from this game. The diplomacy model should be polished because it sucks.
I was playing The Aragonese and I was allied with the Spanish, they betrayed me attack one of my provinces. I lost an ally over this despite I was the victim, the dammed Pope didn't do anything about it either, then when I was finally kicking the Spanish bud, The Pope threatened me with excommunication, so I sent him to hell and wiped the Spanish but he did excommunicated me and never the Spanish. Then the French attacked me and I lost every single ally I had despite being the victim, I even lost the alliance with the Italians that were fighting against the papacy and they were not excommunicated until several years later.
In another strange event, The French sent a Crusade against me after being excommunicated and despite they didn't have any ships, the Crusade came across the sea, How could that ever happened??? I have never understood how in the world troops can move using ships and the ports. Are allies any worthy in this game?
Crusaders can use allied shipping if they're given permission to pass though - but only from the ports of the ally who's boats they want to use. So if a French crusade gets permission from the Italians to pass through, they can go to Venice, per se, then hop on the Italian boats out to the middle east.
1. I would like a build goal. Show all the buildings you could ever build, the ones you can' build right now are greyed out. Pick your Master Horse breeder and the 20% farm and fort are highlighted.
2. Same idea, but pick a unit you want to build in that province and it would highlight the starting buildings for that unit.
3. Notes for the town. (In case I forget why I was building that church).
SwordsMaster
03-23-2004, 20:00
Just a couple of things,
first,you cannot depend entirely on your allies,and if dont want to allow their troops through your provinces,you wont,and they'll have to stick with it and not beat the shit out of you as they almost always do....
Secondly,why cant you trade with yourself?
I you own ,say, Sweden,and they export something that does not exist in ,say Algiers,but you also own Algiers, why cant you allow people to trade with it?And you charge a tax on what they sell,its a reasinable feature.
Im also with the EU2 supporters,great game but the battles are entirely random...
The moment i like most in the MTW is when your armies are starving the pope in his castle, he has 2 years to break the siege, but he wont, cos you wiped all his posessions, and he advices you to stop waging war against your fellow catholics... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
Malcolm Big Head
03-27-2004, 05:50
For a bit of added realism how about being able to bribe the Pope to get communicated or possibly so he would look the other way. Early in the game it may be worthwhile to line his pockets. Just as long as you could still kill him for a cheap alternative. It may also be nice if you could put a puppet pope in power and excommunicate other factions.
Lord Ovaat
03-27-2004, 19:39
Kinda like your suggestion about the pope, Malcolm. But how about being able to drag his butt into the Colosseum in RTW? And I want to be able to SEE it Yeah, the pope running around in his little robe, being chased by a bunch of geese or something. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif OK. Maybe that's a bit much, but I've been excommunicated a LOT. Not to mention his bloody inquisitors And paybacks are a ......
Malcolm Big Head
03-28-2004, 01:34
It might also be nice to be able to chose how you kill captured soldiers/generals. Impaling could drastically increase dread while hanging might be more accepted.
I would watch the Pope being chased by geese every time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
yonderboy
03-28-2004, 02:15
This one's easy. A more manageable agenst list. I usually have agents ALL over the map, and quickly the game becomes tedious in the aspect of having to sort thru that list of agents. I don't need to see 58 alims if all I want to do is to see which Assassins I have that aren't on assignment...
That is really a pain. Also... it would be a bit easier if there was a way, say right-clicking, to pick up units. One that does not involve holding the mouse button down. Moving Assassins from Egypt to Ireland and vice-versa, for example, can again be tedious. And ferrying them to and from nearby provinces (such as going from Egypt to Constantinople to Hungary to Swabia to Wessex to Ireland all in one year) isn't much of a help either. It's way too much of a hassle.
Or am I missing something I've overlooked again?
An expansion for Rome: Total War
Belisarius: Total War
It could jut carry on from the original... barbarian invasions of Rome, then the attempts of the Byzantines to reconquer the empire, finishing with the coming of Islam.
Icerian Rex
03-28-2004, 19:29
Seems like I've aaaalways got some kind of improvement or another I'd like to see done, so here's what I've got:
1. An End-Of-Game recap... perhaps you'd see how your tiny kingdom expanded across the map and became a mighty empire
2. An End-Of-Game Stats report... kind of like in AOE, AOK, you could see which opponent (including yourself) was larger in terms of a timeline.... done for a) Strength of Armies, b) Size of kingdom, c) Size of Income, d) Overall Size....
3. FINALLY - I think there should be a way to speed up building (short of cheating)... Either a player could research technologies, or they could import specialists.
Ex: A player early on (such as the Italians) that has alot of money but not much in the way of space, could research the technology of Basic Engineering, say for 25,000 Florins... after this, a basic fort would be built in 25% less time.... in any province. There could be levels to this as well - time passes and other technologies could be researched, causing each new type of castle to likewise take 25% less time, but for increasing amounts of money... say 30,000... 50,000, and then 100,000... This researching of technologies would benefit factions without too many provinces but with alot of free money, and it could be done for any tech line: ARCHERY, SWORDS, MILITIA, CAVALRY, NAVY... anything except farming.
And: For those who didn't desire spending huge amounts of money (or didn't want to wait even a little while), they could import specialists. Say, for instance, you're the Egyptians, and have just captured Sweden. Now, that's way off the beaten track for Egypt, but it needs to be developed fast... you'd go to a guild (first you'd have to build the guild, and there'd be basic guilds, advanced guilds, etc...), and just as there are mercenaries for hire at the Inn, there'd be specialists at the guild. Then, you buy the specialist (say, for instance, a swordsmith), and up would pop this character that you'd then ship to Sweden (or anywhere else you wanted), and say build me a swordsmith here)... instantaneously, you'd have your swordsmith (or at least as of the next turn). No more waiting around for thirty frikkin' years or whatever... if you had the money.
Lord Ovaat
03-29-2004, 16:25
I really, really like the end of game recap idea. Would also like to be able to view progress throughout the game, ie, enemy killed, troops lost, provinces taken/lost, building created/lost/captured, etc. Maybe most productive king and efficient general? Yeah.
PS Speaking of AOE, I hadn't played it in about a year & something I read in a recent post urged me to play a game for a change of pace. Played hardest as usual & got slaughtered in no time. I ALWAYS won that game 'Course, my mind in now stuck in a turn-based mode. Oh, let's see. What should I build now? Now I remember why I was looking for a game with real strategy, not just gather, gather, build, build, kill, kill.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.