ideas for RTW

[masp_82]

Some ideas for RTW, tell me how do you think about:

1. There should be an option for surrendering. When you siege a city, you can put a diplomatic onto the city to offer a surrender. If the enemy agrees, he is allowed to put his defending troops back to his nearest friendly province and you can conquer the city without fighting. This would make sense for example when a not so important city is sieged from the enemy, you have no chance to win and you want to retreat and save your remaining troops for defending your capital city.

2. "news" between alliance partners. When for example iam allied with the greeks, it would be nice to have a message after every round for important things happened to my alliance partner. When he lost/won a major battle, how many soldiers he/enemy lost in this battle, when he conquer or lost an important city...

3. reinforcement in an alliance. In MTW i had no possibility to do something active after i have ended my turn, i could only react. How about this: Iam germanic and allied with the gauls. After i have ended my turn, the romans attack a province or city from the gauls. Now there should be a message like "the gaulish leader requests your help", then all my troops who are near the gaulish border and not far away from the attacked gaulish city are highlighted and i can drag them to the city to support my alliance partners in the upcoming battle.

4. in MTW you had only the choice to kill enemy captured soldiers in the battle. In RTW, you should have this option also after an battle and there should be more information about what you have captured. For example when I capture an enemy leader after the battle there should be a screen with the portrait of the captured leader and his vices and virtues and i can decide to kill or to sell him
In STW there was the "throne room", RTW should have a "dungeon" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Dead Moroz]

Good ideaz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

I think there must be a set of conditions when you discuss the surrendering offer. I.e. if your enemy is too strong he can offer you to surrender without any guarantees for your life and freedom. Then he will kill/enslave your troops or let them go (it will depend on vices & virtues of enemy general). But if the siege will cost too much for enemy you can bargain better terms of surrender.

[Scipio]

I also think that you should be able to sell captured enemy troops keep the money rolling http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif

[masp_82]

yeah good idea moroz. The general who killed soldiers who have already surrendered should get a vice which has the result that soldiers under his further command lost many of their fighting spirit cause they hate him.

@scipio
or you give the captured soldiers a choice to fight under your banner in the future (this units on the battlefield should then have a very low moral) or they were killed instantly.

[biguth dickuth]

All the ideas mentioned here so far are very good indeed and i suppose they are not too hard to become part of the game.

I really hope that someone of the developers notices this topic

Another useful idea would be for the time-flow to be constant, similar to games like europa universalis, instead of the typical term-based system. There should be an option to slow down the pace (as much as you want) when too much is happening and you can't cope with all of it at the same time, or speed it up when nothing happens or you are waiting for something. This would eliminate the need for armies to have movement points and would make interventions, like the 3rd one mentioned by masp_82, when an ally requests for help, much easier.

Of course, i'm aware that this particular idea will not be included in RTW but it could be used in future TW games. I believe it's not a bad one, as it gives a greater sense of realism.

[RisingSun]

Biguth, I believe the "pseudo-realtime" is where the Total War series should head next. It would give all the advantages of a turn based system (since you can pause) but solve lots of problems like changing direction of an army en route, or taking six years to march up the Italian peninsula. What could those soldiers be doing to waste so much time? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif or perhaps http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif or http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif maybe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-argue.gif is there a chance they could http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif away all that time? They could've started filthy habits like http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif . Or perhaps they decided to become http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif in their spare time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Regardless, the pseudo-realtime genre is the best format for any future TW game, bar none.

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ Jan. 31 2004,00:32)]What could those soldiers be doing to waste so much time? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif or perhaps http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif or http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif maybe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-argue.gif is there a chance they could http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif away all that time? They could've started filthy habits like http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif . Or perhaps they decided to become http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif in their spare time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Duke of RumpyPumpy]

I like the ideas for selling prisoners etc. It would be very fitting for the Roman era.

I also like the "news" and the reinforcment ideas. But I believe you should only get those things if you have spies or other agents in those regions that provide you with the "news" or can provide early warning of a moving enemy army which will allow you to move reinforcements if you wish.


Quote[/b] ] The general who killed soldiers who have already surrendered should get a vice which has the result that soldiers under his further command lost many of their fighting spirit cause they hate him.


I don't agree with this. Captured soldiers in the Roman era were generally made into slaves. No soldier is going to hate their general for killing slaves. This is trying to press modern morality onto a different era.

I hate the idea of making this a real-time game. If you want to play an RTS there are many very good titles out there for you to play.

Turn based works for the campaign mode. In the campaign mode you are not a god seeing all and commanding all. You are a faction leader, sending out commands to relevant leaders telling them what they should do during the next year. The only time you turn into a god is when you wiz over to each battle to take over from the general.

In a RTS, whenever you are off pause, you must be keeping and eye on everything, making some time periods extremely intense and others just watching basic activities. The strength of the TW series for me is that it is turn based. If I want an RTS I have a lot of options to play that kind of game. TW real-time is a completely different game then TW as we know it.

( We need a smiley showing a happy face tossing his two cents in. )

:-) toss cent cent

[DthB4Dishonor]

I agree I like the turn based system. Although I would like to see it changed into seasonal turns like it was in STW.

The idea of better diplomacy has been a dream of mine since STW. Here are a few of my ideas to expand on some of the already very good ones.

1) Allow powerful countries to be a bully. Let me send my emissary to request that a country give me X amount of florins or I will view them as an enemy. Would make for some interesting strategies.

2) Allow for Declarations of war from a throne room type of setting. I want to be able to say we go to War vs XYZ and not always sneak attack.

3) In Alliances a good ally should be able to ask another ally for support in terms of money or man power.

i.e. I have intercepted a plan for Greeks to invade my land and ask for 1000 troops from you to help protect my lands.

4) Allow friendly armies to pass through your lands. This way all your neighbors dont have to become your first enemies. YOu might also offer to pay a toll for such a request.

5) Lastly bring back the throne room and allow me the option of cutting off the head of obnoxious emissaries.

This happend alot, smaller weaker countries would band together to repel a larger bully.

[Knight_Yellow]

Quote[/b] (DthB4Dishonor @ Jan. 31 2004,23:12)]I agree I like the turn based system. Although I would like to see it changed into seasonal turns like it was in STW.

The idea of better diplomacy has been a dream of mine since STW. Here are a few of my ideas to expand on some of the already very good ones.

1) Allow powerful countries to be a bully. Let me send my emissary to request that a country give me X amount of florins or I will view them as an enemy. Would make for some interesting strategies.

2) Allow for Declarations of war from a throne room type of setting. I want to be able to say we go to War vs XYZ and not always sneak attack.

3) In Alliances a good ally should be able to ask another ally for support in terms of money or man power.

i.e. I have intercepted a plan for Greeks to invade my land and ask for 1000 troops from you to help protect my lands.

4) Allow friendly armies to pass through your lands. This way all your neighbors dont have to become your first enemies. YOu might also offer to pay a toll for such a request.

5) Lastly bring back the throne room and allow me the option of cutting off the head of obnoxious emissaries.

This happend alot, smaller weaker countries would band together to repel a larger bully.
im quite sure (about 70-80%) that all the features you listed their are in RTW.

1. its been stated that diplomacy is mutch like Civ3's and that you can demand tribute.

2. The only one im not sure on, it would be a nice "formal" way of declaring war though

3. i think this is also an option with the new extended diplomacy.

4. Yip freindly countries armies are allowed to travel through allies lands if they get permission.

5. ive heard the "throne room" and the movies for events will make a return in one form or antoher.


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Monk]

Quote[/b] (DthB4Dishonor @ Jan. 31 2004,18:12)]1) Allow powerful countries to be a bully. Let me send my emissary to request that a country give me X amount of florins or I will view them as an enemy. Would make for some interesting strategies.

2) Allow for Declarations of war from a throne room type of setting. I want to be able to say we go to War vs XYZ and not always sneak attack.

3) In Alliances a good ally should be able to ask another ally for support in terms of money or man power.

i.e. I have intercepted a plan for Greeks to invade my land and ask for 1000 troops from you to help protect my lands.

4) Allow friendly armies to pass through your lands. This way all your neighbors dont have to become your first enemies. YOu might also offer to pay a toll for such a request.

5) Lastly bring back the throne room and allow me the option of cutting off the head of obnoxious emissaries.

This happend alot, smaller weaker countries would band together to repel a larger bully.
1. Factions can negotiate specific treaties, such as this: "Ally with me and i shall attack your enemy, Faction Z, for five years." or "I demand X florins, if you do not comply i will invade" (examples have come from different FAQ's )

2. Not to sure about a declaration of War.

3. In the treaties, you can cede cities to allies, make trade agreements, and allow them passage through your land,(and vice versa). Also i have heard rumors about declaring war together, but i can't be sure

4. already answered

5. As far as i know, FMVs will be back for capturing wonders of the world. I.e if you defeat the Egyptians near the pyramids, you will get a movie of your legions (or w/e) marching in front of the pyramids while your general reviews them. I have heard that holding such wonders gives bonuses to your faction, but as for what kind, i cannot say.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Monk @ Jan. 31 2004,23:29)][quote=DthB4Dishonor,Jan. 31 2004,18:12]1) Allow powerful countries to be a bully. Let me send my emissary to request that a country give me X amount of florins or I will view them as an enemy. Would make for some interesting strategies.


I agree with most of what you said.

I only wish to add a few requests - if they have not been mentioned before.

(BTW, anyone remember the old 386 game - Romance of Three Kingdoms?)

I would like to boost the political factor and include things such as:

Desertions. If your faction is in a bad way, some generals and whole units may run away to other factions - esp. if they are bribed by emissaries. Also if your army has an unpopular or weak general, the troops under his command may desert.

I would also do away the cute but inadequate virtual 3d board game approach to the strategic map.

A simple click and spreadsheet approach would be better imho. Aspects like loyalty and vices etc.. should also not be given - unless you have a spy network in the province or the ability of your advisors. Then depending upon their mettle, those sorts of aspects should be uncovered.

[The Wizard]

You mean the partially ("on command") turn-based system that games such as Imperium Galactica (yes, but only the demo ¬_¬) had?

Maybe that would work with the new system of movement. But I'm a bit sceptical at this change I'm only human... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif



~Wiz

[masp_82]

Quote[/b] (Duke of RumpyPumpy @ Jan. 31 2004,16:30)]
Quote[/b] ] The general who killed soldiers who have already surrendered should get a vice which has the result that soldiers under his further command lost many of their fighting spirit cause they hate him.


I don't agree with this. Captured soldiers in the Roman era were generally made into slaves. No soldier is going to hate their general for killing slaves. This is trying to press modern morality onto a different era.
thats true when we talk about captured soldier from a battle. But i mean the soldiers which have accepted your offer to surrender. The general has promised them to let them go home. When he now kills these soldiers, he breaks his promise. He must get a disadvantage from these action. If not, the surrender option mentioned in my starting post is useless, because every gamer would kill the surrendered army.