View Full Version : Creative Assembly Expansion Feature Wsihlist
Colovion
02-06-2005, 13:54
We might never see any of these features that we suggest.
But it's a wishlist - so...
1. Ability to take prisoners instead of just killing everyone, perhaps make it cost money to keep prisoners for for as long as you want to support them before having the option to kill/repopulate the area (though that would probably put some unrest in your province).
2. Campaign Map Replays
3. A "Kill Speed" Slider
:bow:
Space Marines. With chainaxes.
Hey, we can WISH!
Claudius the God
02-06-2005, 23:52
campaign game replays
better AI
new factions
expanded tech trees of buildings and units
ability to create villas in a province to store populations away from the city if necessary
a more complex mercenary system... ability to hire a wider variety of units
mtw style glorious achievements for non roman factions
ability to capture enemies for slavery
multiple capitals for advanced factions (Rome had at least four capitols at one stage)
ability to promote captains to Generals without the man of the hour stuff. ... conditions apply though...
a more complex bribing system, choosing exactly what you want, not just keeping generals and getting rid of the rest...
imperial family trees.
the ability to start an Empire game, starting on a historically accurate campaign map in the first years of the Roman Empire, which lasts until 476 AD when the last roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, died.
and maybe even a start a late game somewhere in the middle, half way between 14 AD and 476 AD
'choose your own religion' option in the later stages of the game, such as Mithras and Christianity and so on.
campaign game replays
better AI
new factions
expanded tech trees of buildings and units
ability to create villas in a province to store populations away from the city if necessary
a more complex mercenary system... ability to hire a wider variety of units
mtw style glorious achievements for non roman factions
ability to capture enemies for slavery
multiple capitals for advanced factions (Rome had at least four capitols at one stage)
ability to promote captains to Generals without the man of the hour stuff. ... conditions apply though...
a more complex bribing system, choosing exactly what you want, not just keeping generals and getting rid of the rest...
imperial family trees.
the ability to start an Empire game, starting on a historically accurate campaign map in the first years of the Roman Empire, which lasts until 476 AD when the last roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, died.
and maybe even a start a late game somewhere in the middle, half way between 14 AD and 476 AD
'choose your own religion' option in the later stages of the game, such as Mithras and Christianity and so on.
You do realize that the last Roman emperor was Constantine XI and he died in 1453 at the hands of the Ottomans. My wish list is for CA to fix Roman cavalry auxilia, and reconsile the horse archer move and fire issue with the FF issue. For them to seperate generals and family members. So that all family members are generals, but not all generals are family members.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-07-2005, 01:57
All of the above, except the space dudes, with a larger campaigh map showing parts of Scandinavia, more of Asia and Africa, and Britain up to Hadrian's Wall. Also the invading barbarians like Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc.
You do realize that the last Roman emperor was Constantine XI and he died in 1453 at the hands of the Ottomans. My wish list is for CA to fix Roman cavalry auxilia, and reconsile the horse archer move and fire issue with the FF issue. For them to seperate generals and family members. So that all family members are generals, but not all generals are family members.
wasnt he a byzantine emperor, i know they were the leftovers of the roman empire, but he wasnt really a roman emperor was he?
Armchair Athlete
02-07-2005, 03:04
Increase the maximum amount of factions to at least MTW:VI levels (for modding purposes)
master of the puppets
02-07-2005, 03:49
naval battlefield ~:eek:
you actually position your ships and get um to ram each other
offer to annex before attack (as was roman custom, always ask people to join the empire before ripping them a new A-hole)
peasants with varios farm tools
barbarians are a mottled group (not all wearing the same cloths and same weapons some with axes, some swords, spears ect)
A sea battle that doesn't let the 22 man 2 ship remnant escape with 12 men when the 600 man fleet engages.
wasnt he a byzantine emperor, i know they were the leftovers of the roman empire, but he wasnt really a roman emperor was he?
If you had a time machine a could ask him he would tell you he was. You see the byzantine empire is a modern myth, like vikings having horns on their helmets. It would be like if in say 1500 years historians took to calling the USA the republic of texas after hispanics become the most numerous ethnic group.
PS I forgot to say 3D ship battles. Hell if the imperial glory devs can get it to work why can't CA.
Chelifer
02-07-2005, 06:36
2. Campaign Map Replays
As I understand the replays in RTW are like tracks in some flight sims, they contain initial conditions and player's input (orders). Now, the battle maps in campaign are generated before every battle, unlike predefined custom battle maps, so a campaign battle replay would have to include the generated map, and that would increase an average replay file size essentially.
Correct me if I am wrong.
RollingWave
02-07-2005, 08:27
Diplomacy expansion: seiged cities, seiged cities should be able to negotiate and vice versa (u could negotiate with seige city... IF ur sieging the city of course) and that u shoudl be able to give or ask for besieged cities if u are the person seiging etc.... also if ur next to sea u should be able to get out from the sea or reinforcement enter from sea.... troops outside of their faction provinces should cost extra to maintain.
FURRY_BOOTS
02-07-2005, 09:16
1st person capablity, can you imagine actually being the general ~:cool:
of course well have to wait for 500mb vid cards for that, but even so,,,, ~:eek:
1st person capablity, can you imagine actually being the general ~:cool:
of course well have to wait for 500mb vid cards for that, but even so,,,, ~:eek:
Why will we?
Whether the camera is positioned floating above the battlefield, or fixed on a characters eye-view, is the same to the computer. The number of poly's and amount of shading needed for the envoironment wont change just because the camera angle changes (well it will change depending on whats in-view of the camera, but if a normal view and a general's eye view both look at exacly the same scene in a playfield, the amunt of processing power will be exacly the sme whether it a floating camera under user control or a camera fixed on the generals eye-view.
There is currently on one game available that requires more than 256MB, Doom3 - on its Ultra settings it uses 490MB of uncompressed textures. No other game will see a significant benefit moving from a 256MB card to a 512MB single-GPU card.
FURRY_BOOTS
02-07-2005, 16:00
Why will we?
Whether the camera is positioned floating above the battlefield, or fixed on a characters eye-view, is the same to the computer. The number of poly's and amount of shading needed for the envoironment wont change just because the camera angle changes (well it will change depending on whats in-view of the camera, but if a normal view and a general's eye view both look at exacly the same scene in a playfield, the amunt of processing power will be exacly the sme whether it a floating camera under user control or a camera fixed on the generals eye-view.
There is currently on one game available that requires more than 256MB, Doom3 - on its Ultra settings it uses 490MB of uncompressed textures. No other game will see a significant benefit moving from a 256MB card to a 512MB single-GPU card.
the current units in 1st person perspective would look absolute crap!!! & yes 1st person perspective is alot closer than your maintaining.
Horses with triangular rear quarters wouldnt cut it im afraid, plus you consider facial animations, non generic cloned units & an environment to match, all the extra scripting for unit deaths etc,
imagine a siege on rome in 1st person, with thousands of units!!! im sorry but i think current cards would struggle
Captain Fishpants
02-07-2005, 16:53
Space Marines. With chainaxes.
Hey, we can WISH!
As an ex-GW writer - NOOOOOOOOOOO! For the love of God, no! ~:)
Arkatreides
02-07-2005, 17:25
What I'd really like to see (apart from the above) is the ability to UPGRADE units. For example a Hastati unit should be upgradeable to a Principes unit (after all that's what happened in real life)
I'd much rather be able to upgrade my pre-Marian troops to Marian troops after the reforms event. Much more usefull than the micro managing nightmare of changing hastatii to princepes.
PS I'd rather have a couple mobz of choppa boyz than puny space marine boyz ~;) :hide:
Mikeus Caesar
02-07-2005, 19:33
the ability to UPGRADE units.
Please, please, please include that!!! I hate playing as a roman faction, because just when i get all my armies sorted and ready to rule the world, that b***ard marius comes along with his new army, so then whenever my hastati or any old units suffer losses, i can't replenish them with some new soldiers. And then there's the whole business of replacing the old units with the new ones....but some things i would like to see are:
1) Special maps for a city that was by default a capital at the beginning of the game. For me, it takes away the coolness of the game when rome is just the same as any other roman city.
2) Special walls for the barbarians. e.g the highest tech lvl for walls being a mixture of stone and wood. The bottom of it is stone, and the top is wood with pathways on so the barbarians can place archers on their walls.
Colovion
02-07-2005, 19:38
2) Special walls for the barbarians. e.g the highest tech lvl for walls being a mixture of stone and wood. The bottom of it is stone, and the top is wood with pathways on so the barbarians can place archers on their walls.
I agree.
So far the "Barbarians" :dizzy2: are hampered by having lame wooden walls.... only. They don't have any of the amazing earthworks and hillforts which they did historically.
Please include this. ~:cheers:
th3freakie
02-07-2005, 19:44
6 (or is it 5? or 7?). Soldiers Natural Deaths - and some kind of diferent resistance to it for diferent units in diferent terrains.
It feels too wierd when you take 1000 men in heavy armours to the desert, stay there for 5 years and none of them dies in the process. Same thing with vast, inospit snow fields.
7. Forts actualy being usefull for anything - they could reduce the natural deaths of soldiers, and give the owner the chance to engage enemy armies wanting to siege the Fort, so as they stoped being death-traps for whoever is inside, forcing the defender to sally.
curufinwe_91
02-07-2005, 20:32
hmmm...i wonder...an AI that actually uses a large army like an army...instead of a mob of men (i.e, attack in a line, protect the flanks, not too much to ask for is it?). i know some of you might think that it'll be too much, but the medival:VI AI managed that.
Eldar could beat orks or space marines any day!
Colovion
02-07-2005, 20:35
6 (or is it 5? or 7?). Soldiers Natural Deaths - and some kind of diferent resistance to it for diferent units in diferent terrains.
It feels too wierd when you take 1000 men in heavy armours to the desert, stay there for 5 years and none of them dies in the process. Same thing with vast, inospit snow fields.
7. Forts actualy being usefull for anything - they could reduce the natural deaths of soldiers, and give the owner the chance to engage enemy armies wanting to siege the Fort, so as they stoped being death-traps for whoever is inside, forcing the defender to sally.
wow, that's a surprisingly good idea for how simple it is - it would make Forts be a barrier for disease and the elements as well as the enemy.
_Aetius_
02-07-2005, 20:50
wasnt he a byzantine emperor, i know they were the leftovers of the roman empire, but he wasnt really a roman emperor was he?
Poor Constantine indeed wouldnt be very happy by that remark ~;) not that he'd understand english of course.
I hate that term byzantine empire, unless im mistaken wasnt it first coined in the 17th or 18th century something like that?
Theres alot that needs to be done with RTW most of them minor im sure the patches will get rid of all major bugs etc just countless little things that wind me up or take away from the realism of the game. I cant even be bothered listing them, im sure someone will threads were people can moan alot usually are very popular ~:)
As an ex-GW writer - NOOOOOOOOOOO! For the love of God, no! ~:)
You're right, the addition of World Eaters to the barbarian factions would be unbalancing. Better give the civilised factions various Chapters of their own. :D
Red Harvest
02-07-2005, 21:15
Recruit representative armies, not units I've explained my thoughts on this before. The tech tree would allow the player/AI to build larger and/or more complex and upgraded armies, but the basic elements would be historical. Right now there is no reason to build lower end units once you get the higher end units. And you can build whole armies from elites. But the most interesting part of the campaign is fought early on, with the lowest level units and that makes for a rather bland experience.
More Meaningful Naval Strategy Port upgrade level would allow port defense and require more ships to blockade. Total port level would also determine how many boats could be in the water. Invasion force size would be limited by the number of ships available. Elephant units might require 3 ships per unit, cavalry/camels/chariots 2, infantry 1, family members 1.
Campaigns from different periods A very early campaign at the time of Alexander and the Samnite Wars (with higher resolution Italy map). A later, 3rd Punic War/Marius campaign. A slightly earlier Pyrrhus time period Campaign.
master of the puppets
02-07-2005, 23:15
able to build REAL authentic roman forts. moats, stone walls, stakes, towers. oh and that you can customize defenses pick and position towers, walls, stakes, gates. that would be cool
Crownsteler
02-07-2005, 23:31
offer to annex before attack (as was roman custom, always ask people to join the empire before ripping them a new A-hole)
already possible, it requires some diplomacy, but it is very much possible
okey... screw diplomacy, just tell them to hand you over that settlement or you'll attack. if the circumstances are right, they will quickly evacuate the town. did it once as the ptolemies with siwa, and oh, did it make me feel good :)
I once aquired most of gual in a similar manner, but i just bought all the settlements for 5-10k :)
1) Special maps for a city that was by default a capital at the beginning of the game. For me, it takes away the coolness of the game when rome is just the same as any other roman city.
also already possible, but it does require a lot of modding (and i don't know how)
Got to admit, I was about to uninstall RTW (haven't played it really in ~4 months). Installing patch 1.2 was a mere formality and fairness. Then I'm suckered in once again :dizzy2:. Skirmishes are now better, especially those Velites (fast becoming my favorite unit. NO, they are my favorite unit ~;) ).
here's my wishlist just on top of my head (I'll be repeating some that's already been mentioned):
1) 3d Naval Warfare - This a no-duh. Imperial Glory has one. Why can't the current king of strategy games, Creative Assembly, have one?
2) Kill-rate, unit speed slider - Epic games mean longer battles! I have units routing so easily. I don't mind chain rout at all, but this is obscene, it happens within seconds of impact. Also, these guys run like sprinters (they carry gear too, mind you).
3) Restored Rock-Paper-Scissor scheme - Cavalry penetrates or skirt all the way through my screening units. I can't defend my General from Cavalry pushes without nonstop pauses.
4) Bigger battle maps - Whatever happened to the 4x-MTW maps?
5) More provinces - There are lots of space there.
6) More units - How about more than 20 unit slots?
7) Weather - Where are the snowstorms, lightning, and heavy, blinding rain? Perhaps include the Day & Night cycle in campaign battles.
8) City Pathfinding - Fix the city pathfinding. Units go crazy inside the city.I tell my cavalry to enter the gate and move right and they go straight to the phalanx's dirty, pointy fingers. Same thing happens with other units. I tell them to drive straight behind the enemy with full force and they do the beauty pageant walk ~:eek:
9) Eric Hurley, the Headhurler as the official mascot (hehe).
:charge:
Claudius the God
02-07-2005, 23:43
You do realize that the last Roman emperor was Constantine XI and he died in 1453 at the hands of the Ottomans. My wish list is for CA to fix Roman cavalry auxilia, and reconsile the horse archer move and fire issue with the FF issue. For them to seperate generals and family members. So that all family members are generals, but not all generals are family members.
Romulus Augustulus was the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, even though he was a puppet emperor. he died 476 AD
somehow i don't see Rome: Total War continuing into the middle ages just to show the end of the Byzantine Empire, and Imperial Russia claimed to have followed that imperial tradition through their adoption of the Russian Orthodox church
anyway,
while i would love to have 3D naval battles, i can't see it happenning for the expansion set
using diplomacy on a besieged settlement is a must... and the ability to cross rivers (not over bridges or shallows) should be allowed, but using up something like four times the number of movement points in crossing the two tiles distance for the river crossing.
Campaigns from different periods A very early campaign at the time of Alexander and the Samnite Wars (with higher resolution Italy map). A later, 3rd Punic War/Marius campaign. A slightly earlier Pyrrhus time period Campaign.
This I'd like. Maybe a really early campaign starting from the foundation of Rome itself (no three factions, just SPQR) for example, so I could indulge more with differing starting positions and situations. As it is, pretty much every game is the exactly the same expansion then show down with Rome.
At least three different campaigns I think, an early one like you describe (but obviously still just on the same world map), a middle one like we already have, and a late one with a vast Roman juggernaught. The last one would be a real challenge as a barbarian, having to pussyfoot around Rome until you're powerful enough to start chipping away at them.
The middle one would still be the most varied (being the only one with the four Roman factions), I'd just like to play as a single Roman faction from the very beginning as Rome itself.
_Aetius_
02-08-2005, 01:06
Romulus Augustulus was the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, even though he was a puppet emperor. he died 476 AD
He was deposed in 476 he died later, the point were most consider the end of the Roman emperors is Heraclius (sp?) but all emperors called themselves roman so it doesnt matter if the west existed or not, the roman empire existed aslong as there was an emperor there to rule it and in 1453 that ended.
I think personally the Holy roman empire was simply a joke lol
I'd like to see musicians with the commander units. The trumpeters and what not. In fact, I would prefer a lot more signalling then we have now.
if my city has just come under siege i would like the choice to either A) march out and deploy in front of the city to try and see off the enemy army before the actual siege begins. B) sit tight and hope for reinforcemenst(thats actually what happens now) or C) abandon the city alltogether if you have no possibility of sending any assisstance.
_Aetius_
02-08-2005, 01:59
1, I think they need to improve how individual men fight, if you zoom in you see the men kind of pushing into each other and everynow and then someone randomly swings his sword and kills somebody but in battles swords are being flung far more frequenly than that.
2, Also use of shields to, i want to see men pushing behind there shields or blocking attacks abit more.
3, Id like to see when for example a general wins a great battle or a great campaign that you can dedicate an arch or column to him in a city (a triumph)of your choice etc i think thatd be pretty cool, it could cost say 10000 denarii so its a rare thing and not overused and it could improve public order and morale of garrison troops stationed in the city or something like that.
4, They absolutely have to improve the stats of troops, units of 80 men seem to flee more often than not when only 1/4 of the men have died battles are needlessly short.
5, Armies need to start further apart I think, give more chance for tactics and so on, itd give the terrain a much bigger part to play, currently its massively under used.
6, improve AI in sieges, im sick of enemy armies besieging my cities when i know they cant possibly win, but they are strong enough that if i sallied id take heavy hits, but because the auto is so innaccurate im forced to personally take command of sieges were the outcome is a forgone conclusion thus wasting my time.
7, use cities more realistically, I think taking the central plaza is abit silly really, i mean dont some cities have citadels at the heart of the city? or some other form of hard fortification to resist this? cities that supposedly hold 25000 people seem abit tiny, buildings could be possible to occupy, making sieges more realistic will add to there duration and improve steady fighting in the streets instead of just sitting the centre for 3 minutes.
Red Harvest
02-08-2005, 03:36
Adding to my list:
Ability to handle more complex unit types Right now you only get one type of soldier per unit--even elephants and chariots use this, and merely put the crewman in a different animation as mahout or charioteer. In addition you get an officer. But some historical units were filled out by soldiers with various roles: infantry shield bearers combined with archers or spearmen or javelinmen; chariots with shield bearers, charioteer, and one or two archers or spearmen; Assyrian horses and Arab camels riders with one controlling the horse/camel, and the other using a bow.
Separating mounts and men Allow dismounting or loss of the mount. Also loss of the rider with mount continuing on. Many camel riders actually dismounted to fight. And British chariot types did the same.
Sam Adams
02-08-2005, 05:20
"peasants with varios farm tools
barbarians are a mottled group (not all wearing the same cloths and same weapons some with axes, some swords, spears ect)"
hell yes. I agree with that one.
accurately similuating naval conflict would require a vast addition to the RTW engine... it would be nice but I think this is pushing it.
I would like to see some blood, personally.
and it would be simple to have napoleonic total war based on this engine, just need to change the art stats and names.
HarunTaiwan
02-08-2005, 05:35
2) Kill-rate, unit speed slider - Epic games mean longer battles! I have units routing so easily. I don't mind chain rout at all, but this is obscene, it happens within seconds of impact. Also, these guys run like sprinters (they carry gear too, mind you).
1) SPEED is too fast once battle is joined to maneuver anything.
I hate waiting 5 minutes for them to march towards me and then be frantic for 20 seconds trying to adjust to the final charge.
_Aetius_
02-08-2005, 06:09
If battles lasted as short as they do on RTW in reality, then wars would have lasted about 20 minutes Lol
Colovion
02-08-2005, 08:57
If battles lasted as short as they do on RTW in reality, then wars would have lasted about 20 minutes Lol
nah, they'd have to get there first
so in RTW ...
that would be like 25 minutes
Besides the changes from pre-Maroius to Marius units, (Hastati upgrade to ELeg Cohort) I would like to see barbarians faction can use siege engines. I mean it's okay they're stuck to pre-historic roads and equipments but when they sacks Rome don't they have atleast can use the onagers and catapults if the factory still standing ? Or they just rape, pillage and burn ?
:duel:
the current units in 1st person perspective would look absolute crap!!! & yes 1st person perspective is alot closer than your maintaining.
A lot closer to what?!?!
It is possible to position the camera at eye-level, when there are battles, you can even position the camera 'inside' a soldier, and view the battle as he sees it from behind his shield.
Horses with triangular rear quarters wouldnt cut it im afraid,
They cut it with a floating camera, why dont they cut it with a camera fixed to eye level?
plus you consider facial animations, non generic cloned units & an environment to match, all the extra scripting for unit deaths etc,
imagine a siege on rome in 1st person, with thousands of units!!!
Your asking for a lot more than just a camera postion now, yes that would take more power. What you meant to say originally was "imagine it 1st person and the units were a detailed as the Combine in Half Life 2, with envoironment textures taken straight from Farcry"
im sorry but i think current cards would struggle
No need to apologise, they probably couldnt handle having 2,000 unique characters all animated to the quality of a HL2 character, that isnt what you said in your original post though, you just said '1st person capability', which any game with a realtime 3D engine has by default, because 1st person is just another angle like any other.
If battles lasted as short as they do on RTW in reality, then wars would have lasted about 20 minutes Lol Ah, the British obsession with Benny Hill ~;) . I suppose they speed up the music as well to fit the fast units, so it will be Benny Hill-ish. ~D :::cues Benny Hill music:::
Rosacrux redux
02-08-2005, 15:46
I just wish for an Alexander expansion... or even better, for a Persian Wars expansion... does this sound too much?
Claudius Maniacus Sextus
02-08-2005, 16:09
1)BETTER AI!!!!!! :duel: :charge: :bow:
2)Morale MUST be fixed,i had 1 GenBOdyGuards rout an 54 ScythiaHA,it just SUCKS,and when 1000 gauls attacks 300 greeks fight till death not charge then they rout! :balloon2:
3)Rome MUST be an SPECIAL city,and diffrent from other.
4)Upgrade unit
~:) 3)if another guy tell's me that it is possibile with: u can mod that........please SHUT uP! :furious3:
Recruit representative armies, not units
Ditto. This is at the at the top of my list. It would be nice if this also enforced some sort of army coherency, requiring a general to actually move an army. You would need to have an option to promote a captain to a general (without adopting him, mind) but with a limit on the number of non-family generals (say 1 pr. army barracks + 1 for the capital).
Also, give the player some measure of control over army reforms. Say, whenever you get a family member elected as consul, or have a particularly nice string of victories, you could try to change the "standard" army and re-equip your troops, with the senate's approval of course. A reform along the lines of "yeah, all ownagers, all the time, baby!" should of course have a smaller chance of being approved than a less radical proposal. Yes, I know this is hard to implement, but I think the game should have more politics in general. It's frustrating to see your family members rise in the senatorial ranks, without getting to use their newfound powers for anything.
Also, it should be possible to raise a full army in 6 months, within the usual constraints of man-power and funds. The romans did it, so why can't we?
Of course, such an army would be completely green and much less effective than veterans. I think the whole experience system needs re-jigging too. As it is, troop type is much more important than experience, and this didn't seem to be the case historically. Veterans should be more flexible in between the different roles, cf. the carthaginians re-arming their more experienced troops in legionary style and the macedonians using the argyraspids for more than simply better phalangites.
Also, give armies the ability to march along roads in friendly territory, and between friendly ports, without using movement points. It is unrealistic that it takes several years to shift your forces from one theater to another.
You could separate such "instant" marches into a separate movement phase, taking place after normal movement, to prevent players from invading enemy lands with an army from across the empire. Forcing "instant" marches to stop at borders would give the enemy some time to prepare against hostile build-up of forces, if they paid attention to their borders. Alternatively, you could allow armies to "teleport" between forts, cities and ports in friendly territory, as long as you could draw an uninterrupted line between the two, and let a "teleport" cost 100% movement points.
Finally, draw a line between field armies and garrisons. Historically, armies didn't hang around long in cities, as the generals didn't trust the soldiers to keep their hands off the civilians and their goods. Instead, they manned forts out in the sticks, where the battles were actually fought. Garrisons should be a city upgrade, like walls and other defensive structures.
All these changes to armies only apply to roman factions and others who actually had standing armies. It would be nice to see a levy system in place for the barbarian factions. Each warlord could have a small number of "chosen" units as a sort of retinue. You could then choose to levy more troops by choosing that warlord, paying a raising fee and clicking a button. What you get when you click that button depends on the v&v's of the warlord and the upgrades in the province he's in. Take your chance!
Such levied armies would probably disintegrate again on defeat (or complete success!) but particularly charismatic and powerful warlords would be able to maintain their armies for longer before they had to click the "levy" button again, and their retinue would of course increase in size with victory and success.
Just a few suggestions. Sorry about the length. :bow:
Only way I'd ever go first person to fight is if I was sure the AI wouldn't promptly charge my archers and catapault crews at the enemy pikemen leading to a chain route and me being the only guy left on the field.
People fighting after being dismounted would be a good idea but would lead to certain complications. I mean if one guy got dismounted but the others didnt, you'd end up with a unit of horsemen...and some dude running far behind yelling "come on guys wait up, this isnt funny! IM TELLIN MOM!"
Units with assorted weapons would be ok as long as they all still had the same attack value. Otherwise it would get crazy with some guys getting a spear and getting a bonus vs cav and another guy getting an axe and gettin an AP bonus...they'd be hard to counter seeing as they have no real uniformity.
Something that wasnt mentioned was bringing back CIVIL WARS! I don't mean this retarded three family thing for just the Romans. I'm talking about like in MTW where if you screwed up royally or some Inbred lunatic took the throne you'd get a bunch of seriously unhappy people who decide to go their own way.
Also I'd like to see bandits and such appear in a more intelligent way. It should take a certain level of low public order obviously, but also depend largely on the wealth of the province. This is something that the Scythians and Numidians would really need, they have these huge, desolate lands that get bandits poppin up all over the place. This shouldn't happen, why, because they're poor. You don't see homeless people getting mugged too often do you?
In regards to siege battles, other than the obviously needed fix for the path finding ( I swear my men seem to eat lead paint chips for snacks ) is to get the citizens more involved. If they are being besieged by an enemy, they most likely want to join in the defense as nobody enjoys seeing their homes looted, their wives and daughters raped, and their neighbors killed. Make a certain percentage of these people rise up as militia that exist only for this battle.
Only other thing I can think of is to have them either eliminate the unit/faction limit for modders or at least make it a lot larger. Throw in a bunch of new units, let us bring in more than 20 units, and all that good stuff.
Ah, the British obsession with Benny Hill ~;) . I suppose they speed up the music as well to fit the fast units, so it will be Benny Hill-ish. ~D :::cues Benny Hill music:::
Actually Benny Hill was never as popular in the UK as it proved to be in continental Europe. Especially Germany for some reason.
Whaddya mean "off topic"?
Colovion
02-08-2005, 20:48
Individual Moral Status
I know this is something that would be really hard to impliment. Essentially it would be made so that each soldier has a moral of their very own, ikmpacted by their experience/kills and other influences such as the General etc.. If one unit gets impaled by a pike right next to him, that has an impact; more on green troops and less on seasoned veterans. This would be a great idea because when one side of a unit gets crushed, usually the entire unit puts down their swords and stops fighting; with this feature it would make it possible for small pockets of soldiers to hold out longer and make that "heroic last stand" or something. I've had it where there was a unit of 120 men charging at me and my cavalry and hastati charge at that unit, kill about 20 of the enemy and suddenly the other hundred don't want to fight anymore and get ground up like so many coffee beans. It would be awesome to have a battle going on and see a couple guys running away slowly off the back of the army, get your General to come around and blow his horn and get those men back into the battle. At the moment it's as if the average man in the unit wants to run then the rest of them dont' get a say - they're just all going to die because once they start running away they're gone.
Chelifer
02-08-2005, 23:58
"Auto-pilot battles" (not auto-resolve ones)
Could be fun to watch AI vs AI :charge: :duel:
~D
SwordsMaster
02-09-2005, 00:05
I wish units gained morale with distance travelled. Firstly, crossing 5000miles on foot, is a tough test, and you get hardier want it or not. Secondly such a long trip makes for stronger bonds between soldiers so they fight more united and protect each other more. Or something.
And it is really easy to implement IMHO.
sassbarman
02-09-2005, 01:36
I would like to see archers handled differently. As it stands now they are just way to powerful. Watching archers simply annhilate advancing heavy infantry with sheilds at such ridiculous rates suspends my belief that I'm watching a real battle, to the point where it almost ruins the expierence.
I suggest that instead of archers simply killing or missing units, they should do what in real life they actually did, which was to break up enemy formations lower moral and yes kill some enemy troops. I think it would be much more realistic and intersting to have advancing units hunker down behind their shields in fear, resisting orders to advance when arrow fire became too intense, rather than just wholesale slaughter. Of coarse better quality troops would advance more steadily and be less inclined to ignore orders.
Just some thoughts on how archers are handled presently, I think ca could make some major improvements in this very important aspect of the game. What do you guys think?
Byzantine Prince
02-09-2005, 02:09
Wow dude you joined in 2001 and you only have like 81 posts?!?! That's amazing.
Anyways though you're right archers are a little too powerful. Just get RTR though. It makes them a lot weaker somehow. It's weird since their attack is almost the same.
_Aetius_
02-09-2005, 02:16
Individual Moral Status
I know this is something that would be really hard to impliment. Essentially it would be made so that each soldier has a moral of their very own, ikmpacted by their experience/kills and other influences such as the General etc.. If one unit gets impaled by a pike right next to him, that has an impact; more on green troops and less on seasoned veterans. This would be a great idea because when one side of a unit gets crushed, usually the entire unit puts down their swords and stops fighting; with this feature it would make it possible for small pockets of soldiers to hold out longer and make that "heroic last stand" or something. I've had it where there was a unit of 120 men charging at me and my cavalry and hastati charge at that unit, kill about 20 of the enemy and suddenly the other hundred don't want to fight anymore and get ground up like so many coffee beans. It would be awesome to have a battle going on and see a couple guys running away slowly off the back of the army, get your General to come around and blow his horn and get those men back into the battle. At the moment it's as if the average man in the unit wants to run then the rest of them dont' get a say - they're just all going to die because once they start running away they're gone.
I think this is the kind of thing that we will see in the next generation of RTW style games, i just cant it happening soon, but it would drastically improve the realism of battle, however wouldnt it be over complicated for an already over complicated game? the main problem i think is that this would make it impossible to know the effectiveness of a unit, you can tell which unit of for example hoplites is experienced and more likely to stand in battle by the chevrons etc and that is all the 80 men in that unit who have say 3 bronze chevrons, if we had individual experience/morale etc, itd be impossible to determine the effectiveness of a unit as a whole. Therefore making it very hard to know if you can rely on them or if theyll do anygood.
Though i suppose that in itself is part of realistic warfare ~:)
The Storyteller
02-09-2005, 02:42
I think upgrading existing pre Marian troops to their post Marian counterparts is a little too much. In reality, there was a lot of opposition to the Marian reforms. The Marian reforms came about because of a huge lack of manpower - the able bodied, propertied men are precisely the ones you want to have at home, plowing the fields and attending to their businesses. So Marius recruited from among the Head Count, the underprivileged and jobless, people from the lowest rank of society. Because of that, the Senate wanted nothing to do with these troops, and there were still many armies using the older style of troops for many years after. I think the game as it stands now portrays it more accurately - as soldiers in the old style armies serve out their time or are killed, the new style armies gradually replace them.
I believe the last great old style army assembled was for a battle at Arausio. The Romans lost miserably because of a lot of wrangling between the commander appointed by the Senate, and the guy who thought he ought to be commander... after that, there just weren't enough able bodied, propertied men left in Rome OR Italy to do much. (The Senate had to call on Marius, whom they loathed, to again assemble a Head Count army to avenge that defeat and stop the Germans invading Rome...)
I like the levy idea! That would mean that the Barbarian factions would have far mroe of a role playing feel to them, because you would have to train up your leaders and really watch their V&Vs...
I would like to see a more variable AI (when they get the basics sorted out). When I face an army lead by a "good defender", it should behave differently from one led by a "good attacker" (or a "social drinker", for that matter).
Colovion
02-09-2005, 04:15
I think this is the kind of thing that we will see in the next generation of RTW style games, i just cant it happening soon, but it would drastically improve the realism of battle, however wouldnt it be over complicated for an already over complicated game? the main problem i think is that this would make it impossible to know the effectiveness of a unit, you can tell which unit of for example hoplites is experienced and more likely to stand in battle by the chevrons etc and that is all the 80 men in that unit who have say 3 bronze chevrons, if we had individual experience/morale etc, itd be impossible to determine the effectiveness of a unit as a whole. Therefore making it very hard to know if you can rely on them or if theyll do anygood.
Though i suppose that in itself is part of realistic warfare ~:)
I am pretty sure that the current way XP goes up for a unit depends on the average XP value for each soldier within the unit. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works. If they already have XP values for each man, why not just add a Moral feature for each unit? Doesn't really seem that difficult to me.
BobTheTerrible
02-09-2005, 04:22
I am pretty sure that the current way XP goes up for a unit depends on the average XP value for each soldier within the unit. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works. If they already have XP values for each man, why not just add a Moral feature for each unit? Doesn't really seem that difficult to me.
That's true, I'm pretty sure that each man has his own exp.
The problem with this idea is that men are still ordered as a unit. So take an example: there's a unit of 80 hastati. 40 run away during a fight. However, the general rallies the 40 men. Now you have a a group of 40 men still fighting, and 40 men far away who just got rallied. This could cause some weird pathing issues, also, when an enemy attempts to charge a unit, which 'group' does it go for, and what does it do when it defeats one 'group' etc etc.
This would be possible with a really good pathing engine and stuff, but right now I think it would be hard (but not impossible) to implement.
caesar44
02-09-2005, 16:05
1, I think they need to improve how individual men fight, if you zoom in you see the men kind of pushing into each other and everynow and then someone randomly swings his sword and kills somebody but in battles swords are being flung far more frequenly than that.
2, Also use of shields to, i want to see men pushing behind there shields or blocking attacks abit more.
3, Id like to see when for example a general wins a great battle or a great campaign that you can dedicate an arch or column to him in a city (a triumph)of your choice etc i think thatd be pretty cool, it could cost say 10000 denarii so its a rare thing and not overused and it could improve public order and morale of garrison troops stationed in the city or something like that.
4, They absolutely have to improve the stats of troops, units of 80 men seem to flee more often than not when only 1/4 of the men have died battles are needlessly short.
5, Armies need to start further apart I think, give more chance for tactics and so on, itd give the terrain a much bigger part to play, currently its massively under used.
6, improve AI in sieges, im sick of enemy armies besieging my cities when i know they cant possibly win, but they are strong enough that if i sallied id take heavy hits, but because the auto is so innaccurate im forced to personally take command of sieges were the outcome is a forgone conclusion thus wasting my time.
7, use cities more realistically, I think taking the central plaza is abit silly really, i mean dont some cities have citadels at the heart of the city? or some other form of hard fortification to resist this? cities that supposedly hold 25000 people seem abit tiny, buildings could be possible to occupy, making sieges more realistic will add to there duration and improve steady fighting in the streets instead of just sitting the centre for 3 minutes.
loved the idea of triomphs
It would be nice if line-of-sight could be handled better. As it is missile units fire at targets they cannot see, ignoring walls, buildings and hill crests like they have x-ray vision. I expect this would make for a more complex shooting algorithm that would go beyond a simple range check. Hence not a likely improvement. But hey, this is a wish list, right?
Mikeus Caesar
02-09-2005, 19:24
you can build whole armies from elites.
A good idea would be to allow a limit to the amount of elite units you can have in an army. e.g. a limit of 4 elites to an army.
Eric Hurley, the Headhurler as the official mascot
Eric!!! We want eric!!! Wooh!!! :yes:
screwtype
02-09-2005, 19:28
That's true, I'm pretty sure that each man has his own exp.
The problem with this idea is that men are still ordered as a unit. So take an example: there's a unit of 80 hastati. 40 run away during a fight. However, the general rallies the 40 men. Now you have a a group of 40 men still fighting, and 40 men far away who just got rallied. This could cause some weird pathing issues, also, when an enemy attempts to charge a unit, which 'group' does it go for, and what does it do when it defeats one 'group' etc etc.
Actually, if you look at the way units get strung out now, this is already happening to a degree. It appears that the AI will more or less charge toward whoever is holding the unit banner. So I'm not sure pathfinding would necessarily be an issue.
However, I can't see the point of having individual morale. It's the herd instinct. When those around you start to break and run, it's obviously going to make you feel that you should be doing the same. And you insitinctively realize that that when the guys next to you start to run, the odds against your own survival are about to increase exponentially. So breaking as a unit just makes better sense to me.
"Auto-pilot battles" (not auto-resolve ones)
Could be fun to watch AI vs AI :charge: :duel:
~D
Excellent idea!! Probably very easy to implement as well.
You can do this already to a certain extent. Take two armies into a battle, have one of them AI controlled, and just sit back and watch the action.
Mikeus Caesar
02-09-2005, 19:38
Take two armies into a battle, have one of them AI controlled, and just sit back and watch the action.
That works, but it's not perfect. I find that without a bit of guidance, most armies that are yours which you leave to fight for themselves end up routing within a minute or so. Btw, can we get this stickied please? It could be a rather interesting opposite to the Bugs sticky.
Colovion
02-09-2005, 20:40
It would be nice if line-of-sight could be handled better. As it is missile units fire at targets they cannot see, ignoring walls, buildings and hill crests like they have x-ray vision. I expect this would make for a more complex shooting algorithm that would go beyond a simple range check. Hence not a likely improvement. But hey, this is a wish list, right?
How was it handled in MTW? Seemed fine then...
I fear another "mini-campaign" expansion pack coming ~:eek: Why not just extend the map and add more factions and provinces. ~:)
Colovion
02-12-2005, 20:36
I fear another "mini-campaign" expansion pack coming ~:eek: Why not just extend the map and add more factions and provinces. ~:)
because that's what the EB mod is doing ~D
The ability to take personal command during a rebellion. Not 'thrown out city, army appears in city'. That's rubbish, and seriously pisses me off. Rebellions do not happen like this.
You should be taken to a battle in the city, the bulk of your forces outside the barracks and some of them on the plaza having come out of the governors building. Then you hold back the city or lose it, with the size of the rebellion and its composition dependant on the size of the city itself. Because frankly, I'm also tired of a town producing more rebels than it has total population.
And one last idea....100% happiness in a city no matter what you, if your garrison equals or outnumbers the total population. That's total martial law. When you've got a trained legionnaire with two pila and a gladius for every single man, woman and child in the place....no-ones going to be rebelling. Obviously though, peasants won't count towards this. Sorry bub, you gotta pay to jackboot people into the floor.
Mikeus Caesar
02-12-2005, 22:07
You should be taken to a battle in the city, the bulk of your forces outside the barracks and some of them on the plaza having come out of the governors building. Then you hold back the city or lose it, with the size of the rebellion and its composition dependant on the size of the city itself. Because frankly, I'm also tired of a town producing more rebels than it has total population
That's a good idea. Defending the main governement buildings against the unruly masses. And as for the amount of rebels being in proportion with the population, i totally agree. Since when was a small 400 people village able to raise an army of 1600 men? Out of their own population too?
William Amos
02-12-2005, 22:55
A real long shot here but
The option t watch OTHER factions fight their battles. Wheneer a battle happens on the map it "pops up" in a screen and you can have the option of watching the battle unfold or just skip it.
Say your a roman faction and the Egyptians and Selucids fight a major battle. you get to sit and watch and see how it plays out.
Also naval battles actually battling.
The ability to TRAIN some traits for your leaders. Say sending your Heir to a Roman School to gain math or other skills or to a roman war college (or whatever its called) to gain military traits. One way to overcome random traits being assigned.
Please fix the damn speed.
Spoils of war. the ability to plunder the defeated and gain either denarii or their armor and weapons and equipt your troops.
Gladiatior games. Have the ablity to sponsor gladiator games in which you can have either solo gladiator battles (sort of like a chapion general vs another champion) or massive battles with either dogs, or lions or chariot races or scores of battles. Winner of these battles gets denarii.
(Another Long shot)
_Aetius_
02-13-2005, 00:06
I think that there should be more participation in battles from allies, as historically the roman empire often fought armies with there legions but had numerous barbarian tribes come to the battle to aid them or there enemies, the battle of Chalons is a perfect example, Rome v the Huns but it had thousands of ostrogoths, gepids, visigoths, and burgundians and many more.
I find it annoying when im allied with another nation and my empire is being invaded left right and centre by someone and my ally just sits there instead of coming to my aid, unless its like right on their doorstep. Whats the point in an alliance if allies dont help each other in war? all the ally needs to do is get an army put them on a few ships and send them to the field.
There is the attack faction option in diplomacy but the times ive done it my allies have still done nothing, ive many times sent armies without requests to allied territory to help fight off invaders, the AI should do it to.
Also shouldnt barbarian hordes be larger? I mean the romans wouldnt have had any trouble conquering all of the barbarians if they like in RTW popped up with tiny armies in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps like my first suggestion abit like mercenaries you could call for local tribes to ally with you against the enemy your marching to face and tribes of barbarians or rebels join your cause for denarii or integration into the legions or what not.
i know this is probably the longest shot of all but i would like some kind of multiplayer campaign. but maybe a shortened campaign or limited human players, i.e limit the campaign to 4 humans etc. this would be a huge hit with small groups of friends and clans etc. but i think this is doomed to only ever be a dream. i could push it even further to some sort of persistant online game MMORTSG - Massively Multiplayer Online Real Time Strategy Game. ~:)
Colovion
02-13-2005, 11:41
A real long shot here but
The option t watch OTHER factions fight their battles. Wheneer a battle happens on the map it "pops up" in a screen and you can have the option of watching the battle unfold or just skip it.
Say your a roman faction and the Egyptians and Selucids fight a major battle. you get to sit and watch and see how it plays out.
Also naval battles actually battling.
The ability to TRAIN some traits for your leaders. Say sending your Heir to a Roman School to gain math or other skills or to a roman war college (or whatever its called) to gain military traits. One way to overcome random traits being assigned.
Please fix the damn speed.
Spoils of war. the ability to plunder the defeated and gain either denarii or their armor and weapons and equipt your troops.
Gladiatior games. Have the ablity to sponsor gladiator games in which you can have either solo gladiator battles (sort of like a chapion general vs another champion) or massive battles with either dogs, or lions or chariot races or scores of battles. Winner of these battles gets denarii.
(Another Long shot)
Some good ideas there.
Colovion
02-13-2005, 11:44
Also shouldnt barbarian hordes be larger? I mean the romans wouldnt have had any trouble conquering all of the barbarians if they like in RTW popped up with tiny armies in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps like my first suggestion abit like mercenaries you could call for local tribes to ally with you against the enemy your marching to face and tribes of barbarians or rebels join your cause for denarii or integration into the legions or what not.
The barbarian horde is a piece of propegana, it's not real... the game just has a Rome/Hellenes bias so that all of the other factions are heavily weakened. The EB mod is fixing that problem.
Mikeus Caesar
02-13-2005, 13:46
some kind of multiplayer campaign
That would be good. Me and a friend have always dreamed of being able to do that. We would be allied, until we'd both conquered half the world, then we'd assemble all our troops in one place for the battle to end all battles, as tens of thousands of men pour onto the screen
Capital building in your capital making it costly to move your capital but has 1 huge bonus and maybe more. Allows you to train any unit in the tech tree available to you. Some kind of penalty though maybe 4 years to train unit units from it and if it takes 2 years then 8. This allows units such as triarii to be trained, as it is now it's nearly worthless to train them. This would be seperate from regular city recruiting so you still could recruit regular units. Also allow 2 recruiting slots, so you can retrain those elite units.
If you move your capital it takes 10 years or so to rebuild the capital building. So no moving your capital every turn isn't such a good option anymore.
An elite and cavalry population This would help reduce an overabundance of elite troops from the capital building.. An easy way about this is if you have 10000 troops and the elite rate is 5 percent, then you can have up to 500 elite troops and once you are at 500 or more you cannot train new elites until you lose some or your regular army gets bigger. There should be a minimum your allowed to have not to hurt the small factions and when there on there knees. Same with cavalry population, with Romans having one of the lowest populations while the eastern gets a higher population.
Forts/ bridges overpowered, Lay siege to a bridge. you get build points to ferry troops across the river. So you can have half your army on both sides either forcing the human to withdraw or fight a fair battle and on the rare occasion making the A.I. fight a fair battle.. Forts, ability to bypass a fort that blocks the path of course costing movement points. The bigger the fort garrison the more movement points it reduces.
garrison based on upkeep cost instead of numbers. ~D It's lame having 20 peasants in a huge city. This would also allow the A.I. to get public order bonus while stocking it with good troops. Oh no the A.I. with a stonewalled city effectively garrisoned.
Citadels for large and huge cities.
Edit: forgot to add A.I. sallies, siege equipment should be deployed behind your lines and unequipped. Kills multiple exploits and 2 annoyances. The exploits are it creates an obstacle course for the A.I. and can allow your frontline to have it's flanks protected by siege equipment. You can also keep a tower/ram equipped to lure in A.I. arrows as long as you can afford to lose it. It also allows your men far away from the gate to scale the walls most likely unopposed calling off the sally trapping them inside getting shot up. ! minor annoyance is having to drop it all and lining up your troops the big annoyance is the CTD(1.2 patch) that can occur if you are fighting on top of ladders.
Mikeus Caesar
02-13-2005, 18:35
An elite and cavalry population This would help reduce an overabundance of elite troops from the capital building.. An easy way about this is if you have 10000 troops and the elite rate is 5 percent, then you can have up to 500 elite troops and once you are at 500 or more you cannot train new elites until you lose some or your regular army gets bigger.
Same with cavalry population, with Romans having one of the lowest populations while the eastern gets a higher population.
Precisely what i think. It would stop all the nooblets getting their elite armies and then trampling all over the AI, then coming here and saying how well they owned their enemy. Personally, i have a maximum of 4 elites and 4 cav to an army. Then i have a maximum of 8 regular infantry and then 4 ranged units. The ranged units can be either archers or siege weapons or both.
the A.I. with a stonewalled city effectively garrisoned.
If only. Another thing i would like is to see the AI have some order to their armies, rather than just recruiting anything and sticking it in an army.
because that's what the EB mod is doing ~D Hmm...Do you mean a new map or the current map with a physical extension? Sounds good either way. ~:cool:
Here's more:
Riot solution - instead of just kicking out the occupiers, give them an option to fight inside the city square. The player deploys inside the city square while the rioters try to take it from the periphery.
If the rioters rout en masse and couldn't be captured then they become rebels camped just outside the city in the campaign map.
i agree, but when a unit of hastatii gets to x chevrons it can be uppgraded to principes at a cost in a city that can build them. and some system to the reforms aswell.
edit: the elite system i mean here.
naval strategy wasn't that har though. just a bunch of ramming, schooting and entering, controlling it woudl be just like controllig 15 units of scatterred HA with skirmish turned of against a big enemy.
recruiting should be redone, RTR did ZOR. but here's my idea:
when you are greek, and you take a gaul city, yopu shoudl be able to recruit gaullians until you build your own barracks.
imagine: rome counqers sparta and gets to recruit spartan hoplites. ho much fun would that be? you could have a great mix of units.
Claudius the God
02-13-2005, 23:23
we already have five levels of government based on popultion.
i want to see, after imperial palace, not necessarily another governmental stage, but the ability to build and upgrade villa's in the countryside (one villa in that settlement, upgrade to 2,3,4,5) based on the population of that region as a whole (not just the city)
this i'm basing on that in some cities during the first centuries AD had hundreds of thousands (or even more than a million) inhabitants.
and i want to see 2 expansion sets, one for Alexander the Great (and other events preceeding RTW), and the rise of the Roman Empire until the great Germanic invasions destroyed the Western Roman Empire...
bobderfisch
02-14-2005, 00:25
Some people mentioned having a special layout for Rome; I'd like for all the cities to have a special layout, and I don't think it'd be that hard. It could be sort of "modular." Currently, all the buildings have a "slot" they go into at each level of city size. When the city size is upgraded, the slots change, and, for example, the barracks might get moved across the city (this is the real reason it takes years to upgrade city size - dismantling and moving buildings!).
I think city construction could be done "agglutinatively," ie, if you build a trader early on, it's near the center of the city, even after an upgrade, as are its derivatives, like forums or markets. Each building could have a preset arrangement of streets around it, which changed as the building was upgraded.
Thus, if your buildings were positioned in a city based on the order they were constructed, and each level of building "ordered" the city around it in a certain way, then each city you encounter in a game would be different.
Also, it'd be nice if there were a bit of interplay between different cultures in cities, since now, Coliseums and such don't even show up in occupied barbarian cities until you upgrade and they become Roman.
Really, though, I'd like city combat to be more unique. Perhaps town watch could have enhanced stats, or at least morale, in the city. I also like the idea some else mentioned of putting guys in buildings. Granted, all this would make city combat even more anachronistic, but hey...it'd be fun.
a_ver_est
02-14-2005, 15:01
I whish buildings out of walls can be select as target in the strategic map.
So mines, farms, ports, ... could be burned by troops
Mikeus Caesar
02-14-2005, 18:36
Last two posts, very good ideas. Especially the one about how to make every city different.
-have a (round) pike-box for greek hoplites: essecpially spartans. it will be like an testudo, but round and pikes sticking out everywhere. it will make phalanxes stronger when isolated.
-create war drumms, like the drum of chaerona. it will be round 20k and have a moral impact all over the battle map: pos. on own, neg.on enemy. it will be extremely slow on campaign, about 0.7x artillery.
-let people get knocked of their horse/chariot fighting allong on foot. or make elephants rampage without anyone on top! horses running amok.
-make sarmatian horses armoured, not likecataphracts but a plate on the head and make it look mean.
-give generals/captains on foot a beautifull shield. the left arm is now just hanging there.
-change levy pikemen, or phalanx pikemen to :pezetairoi.
-give greek cities companoin cav. it's kinda weird that GREEK royal cav is not available for greeks.
-keep cretan archers as merc. but also give them to greeks with siege engineer.
-give a nice ( scripted) mini campaign of alexander. scripting all enemy army's and maybe, just maybe even give them tactics! ( sarcasm alert)( not trying to start new topic but hé)
it will be like an rpg or something.
Get basic unit interaction right. I see units of cavalry mashing themselves into enemy formations, all shoving each other forward in their eagerness to get to the front, and I wonder who the hell thought this makes any kind of damn sense at all. Who sat down, watched a tight packed formation of soldiers in a phalanx formation get shoved back into a thin crescent moon shape and thought 'bingo'. I want that person shot in the face, and replaced with someone who thinks that a deep, close formation should not be spread open so easily. Who thinks that, in fact, a stoic line of Roman Legionnaires braced for impact or a phalanx will only break up if they all start dying.
Get basic unit interaction right. I see units of cavalry mashing themselves into enemy formations, all shoving each other forward in their eagerness to get to the front, and I wonder who the hell thought this makes any kind of damn sense at all. Who sat down, watched a tight packed formation of soldiers in a phalanx formation get shoved back into a thin crescent moon shape and thought 'bingo'. I want that person shot in the face, and replaced with someone who thinks that a deep, close formation should not be spread open so easily. Who thinks that, in fact, a stoic line of Roman Legionnaires braced for impact or a phalanx will only break up if they all start dying.
completely true. :bow:
but that will probably need big changes on the enige. not easily done for a quick patch.
but how do you propose to do it? didn't the romans brace? it seems logical they did, it's a natural reflex to put your shield and weapon in front of you.
maybe their should be a trampeling action, at least 10 men dying by the mass of the horse. but then again. horses shouldn't be able to beat a phalanx up front, wich they now sometimes do.
what also seems logical is a phalanx braceing for impact-> putting his spear in to the ground(but-pike) and aim it at the charge. but that will be a pretty much instant pike box and unbalance the game.
another suggestion: make barbarians auto. warcry during charge. it's micro managing each unit now, micromanaging somethign they would automatically do when charging.
Yes, I don't doubt they probably would need big changes in the engine. Which is a shame, as usual MTW was vastly superior in that regard. When men charged and hit an enemy they either killed him and kept charging into the next man or failed to kill him and stopped to do battle. You simply wouldn't have one unit mashing another unit back like RTW because it simply didn't work like that. A cavalry charge would murder the first line or two and then be stopped by the sheer number of men. In RTW this whole 'mass' thing they've got and the fact that you can push one man into the man behind him and on and on to move the whole unit, screws it all up mightily.
Hell, the whole point of the phalanx was that there was so many men behind it. You just couldn't push the front row back or break the formation because all the men behind aren't moving for anything.
so men should be able to get trampeled...
do you might happen to know how phalanxes react to flanking from the rear? it seems to me that a (short piked) hoplite would have the common sence, training and reaction time to stick hsi spear in the ground and brace for it..
about my pikebox, I realised that it is currently not possible to have to special moves.. so: make primaire fire phalanx, and sec. fire loose. so you click HOW you want to attack with the ALT-key.
but then moving without attacking will have flaws. so you could
a: make prim. and alt. walking
or b: make phalanxes auto. abort formation when told to run.
when all teh above can has been done the special ability will be pikebox. would be nix if it looked like an hedge-hog or something.
BeeSting
02-15-2005, 19:40
4. Better AI
Better AI, and that's all I ask.
As long as the AI could do its best to keep formation not opening up gaps all over the line, skirmish before engagement, and the battle turns into phases... I would be a happy man.
Also on the campaign level, I would like to see more options and features:
1. A numerical indication of your favor with a particular nation.
2. More notable personalities for different factions.
3. A diplomatic option to have a faction stop attacking one of your allies. Where was Rome when Saguntum was under siege by Hannibal? Did they not first send envoys to Carthage?
4. A hegemon, which more than likely would be a human player, seems to be singled out by weak nations, forcing a player to their senseless elimination. As it seems the AI policies are extremely suicidal.
The potential for this game is great with its battle engine and awesome graphics. The level of sophistication of battle rules is realistic and yet the AI falls so short of expectations. The same could be said about the overall single player aspect of this game, it is too crude and limiting for the kind of costumers who were initially attracted by the depth of its battle engine. I’m sure they expect no less depth on the diplomatic and economic aspects of the game.
The idea is there.... but the pieces are far from being together even after the third series of its development.
_Aetius_
02-15-2005, 21:27
I want that person shot in the face, and replaced with someone who thinks that a deep, close formation should not be spread open so easily.
Shot in the face, thats the funniest thing ive read on this site ~D
let phalanxes but-pike their spear in ground when beiing charged
Colovion
02-20-2005, 21:34
let phalanxes but-pike their spear in ground when beiing charged
Yeah, that would be awesome if any spear unit could do that. For gameplay purposes you'd probably have to make it so that it takes a little time for them to setup in that way - similar to how it takes a little while for the phalanx to get formed, this would be similar but less time. Great idea!
Shouldn't this thread be stickied?
i think it would be cool if for an expansion they added more factions, more choices for the landscape on the custom battles, and more historical battels. As far as for the campain i would like it if you could start off with a bigger and stronger army so you can have good battles from the start. it would also be cool if you could caputre slaves and if they had small tribes and villages that you could plunder so u dont have to caputre towns and cities for $$ also it would be cool if you could like burn your enemies food supply and stuff like that.
Kraxis' wishlist:
1: Special walls for at the very least the Dacians, Gauls and Spanish, hopefully all barbs. Earthmound (actually layered dirt and wood) with a large wooded wall with a walkway. They had those and they were very resistant to rams.
2: Officers and musicians for all factions. If not in the units directly then at least just to make them moddable so we can get them.
3: More mercs and a bit more variety (for instance more barbarian mercs, maybe a swordunit to accompny the spear unit we have already). The merc system is fine though, so keep it. Cretans to be the strongest archers in the game and make them very sought after by the AI (it seems fitting that the strongest archers are mercs and thus available to all and none at the same time).
4: Regional capitals for advanced factions. Not as good as real capital but cuts 'Distance to capital' in half. 1 or 2 would be fine.
5: Prisoners!!! I want prisoners. Low morale troops should not fight to the death but rather surrender. Mid morale troops (early tech main troops such as warbands and hastati) checked for surrender every 5 seconds of 'fighting to the death'. High morale every 10 seconds, and very high never. Something along those lines.
Routers that are cut off from retreat surrender, otherwise (if run down from behind) only a portion surrender.
Prisoners can be sent to nearest governed settlement as slaves, be ransomed or killed (I'm looking forward to letting bandits become my slaves).
6: Glorious Achievements for all factions (even romans).
7: Campaign map replays. PLEASE! We need to brag!
8: Include the other small campaigns (other than the Sons of Mars) that we can find traces of in the various files. Want Alexander short campaign and possibly Phillip short campaign as well.
9: More slots for units and factions.
10: Kill speed slider... Too fast. Along with Run speed slider.
11: Size between Large and Huge (Huge is double Large) with 120 men in normal units. Modded that myself in Preference file and it works perfectly for me.
12: Civil Wars a la MTW.
13: Weaker archers and stronger javelins. Possibly toning down cavalry a bit with fewer men and much higher prices in terms of recruitment and upkeep.
14: When general gets special victorious trait (victor or local hero styled traits) a victory column or arch is errected for him with his name on it. Possibly mention where it is and a small movie?
15: Differentiated cavalry and human populations. Possibly even elite (but that might have a bad impact on certain factions). Both populations should be visible at all times. Certain provinces have more cavalry, others near nothing (Crete, Lakedaimonia or the Brittania quickly comes to mind).
16: Captains armed with a shield when on foot, or banner if in a unit without one such. Just a bigger one than a normal one.
17: More historical battles. Start out with the TC battles that didn't make it, but Zama, Pydna, Magnesia, Plataea, River Sabis (Ceasar's legions in the process of building camp are surprised by Nervii and two other Belgic tribes), Cunaxa and plenty more are good candiates as well.
18: More Horde units. The barbarians are awfully organized it seems. It works greatly with Warbands and Swordsmen in Horde, as are all the low level horse archers (in fact they seem more manageable this way).
19: Give the option of being able to hire bandits (wouldn't they just love to get a bag of money rather than having to fight you). Some units would of course not join you, such as Peasants and various militias. Chance to get units (they are after al bandits so you run the risk that some or all stick it to you and run with the money).
20: Infantry units add to larger ships fighting power.
HailMightCaeser
02-21-2005, 19:14
The ability for horses and their riders to have seperate hit points. When infantry hack away at the horse, it dies but the rider shouldnt. He should fall of the horse and be shocked, but still be able to continue to fight. THe same applies to a horse charging in spears. First of, it would be cool if the horse would refuse to do something, if it wasn't trained properly, and the rider could be thrown of the horse. Second of all, if the horse did charge, the horse could die but the rider could survive. Sorry if this is unorganized, just a thought.
Mikeus Caesar
02-21-2005, 19:42
1) Have some faction like the Goths or the Vandals as a RTW version of the Mongol Horde.
2) Please please please allow battles in ports. It would be very cool to plunder and capture an enemies port. That way you could cut off their trade links, and get a lot of money from pillaging the port.
horse-rider seperation will screw it all up. it will be impossible to controll a unti wich is half inf, half cav.
and then, when the horse dies, the rider falls of, and mostly be trapped under teh horse, ( in 80% at least one leg). and then. heavy cav riders had very heavy armor and could barely get up if fallen. and most importantly: falling down in de middle of enemy lines will kill you.
horse-rider seperation will screw it all up. it will be impossible to controll a unti wich is half inf, half cav.
and then, when the horse dies, the rider falls of, and mostly be trapped under teh horse, ( in 80% at least one leg). and then. heavy cav riders had very heavy armor and could barely get up if fallen. and most importantly: falling down in de middle of enemy lines will kill you.
Indeed... Consider the problems of the cavalry unit actually winning the fight, and is then needed to fight in another place far away. Riders all run off to do the fighting but a few men on the ground are left behind. If the standarbearer happens to be one of them if would ruin the enemy pathing greatly as the enemy units would now try and attack those few guys very far from the actual unit (just like with the dogs but just much more frequent).
It would be lovely ifthe game somehow could climb this obstacle, but at the moment I would not want this. I would though like for some horses to survive their riders death. They could then run off the map scared and whinnying. Seems only fair as horses often survived. Also this would not demand a new unit only a figure running towards the nearest edge. It could possibly even ruin unit setups (bad news for phalanxes) and so on.
horse-rider seperation will screw it all up. it will be impossible to controll a unti wich is half inf, half cav.
and then, when the horse dies, the rider falls of, and mostly be trapped under teh horse, ( in 80% at least one leg). and then. heavy cav riders had very heavy armor and could barely get up if fallen. and most importantly: falling down in de middle of enemy lines will kill you.
The heavily plate armoured 'Frankish' knights would tend to get caught up in their strirrups and saddle or under their horse, they were perfectly mobile in their armour. Of course, usually your horse dies in the middle of the enemy so getting stuck in your general riding equipment for any amount of time is kind of fatal anyway.
Were ancient heavy cavalrymen in far heavier armour than they would normally be able to wear? I feel sorry for the bloody horses.....
Adittion to Kraxis' Wishlist .
21: Add more speeds to cavalry, possibly infantry too. It is sickening to see Greek Cavalry or Equites run down Numidian Cavalry or Horse Archers, it is even worse to see Cataphracts run as fast as all other heavy cavalry and generals. Because of the lack of differentiated speeds there is close to no reason why anybody should ever train the expensive upkeep unit of Companions when they have a unit that is more powerful, as fast, better armoured (not shot to pieces by archers and can survive heavy impacts with infantry), has AP and ha a much lower upkeep and is of course a rung down the ladder in the techtree.
At the least give us three speeds. Fast, heavy and cataphract speed. But please add another for medium cavalry so that we can create a unit that is light but not fast (early bad cavalry such as Equites and Greek Cavalry).
Shouldn't this thread be stickied? YES. Attention mods Nelson and Catiline! :charge:
CA has to see this or else, all these writings are pointless. :dizzy2:
1.ability to create a culture of your own over an amount of time (say fifty years)for example creating a triumvarum(3 faction leaders(sp))incorporate gods of other factions if you have enough of their temples in your empire and so on and so forth
2.units that come into your building que only after an amount of time (not like the romans replacing your former units but just being added to the que)oh and maybe a way to mod those units with an easy to use editor
3.civil wars like in mtw
(sorry for the bad english im belgian you see.....)
Mikeus Caesar
02-22-2005, 19:47
.ability to create a culture of your own over an amount of time
In fact, i would like the ability to create your own faction. You could make a banner for it on some special program that comes with the game, and describe it all, and pick what sort of fraction it will be e.g if you want it to be a roman fraction, then you can make it so. Then, you could have the option of playing it in campaign. But obviously you would have to let another fraction be replaced.
maybe a way to mod those units with an easy to use editor
Please no!!! If that was included, all the super noobs would start flooding mod sites with their own crappy crazy units!! They would prolly make rainbow cohorts!!! It would be awful!!!
The Stranger
02-22-2005, 20:43
so that's why nobody want to tell me where i can get a CAS editor, well than i won't show you the amazing skins and unit's i have for all of you so better tell it. Everybody deserve a chance and i definitly.
BeeSting
02-22-2005, 21:09
Adittion to Kraxis' Wishlist .
At the least give us three speeds. Fast, heavy and cataphract speed. But please add another for medium cavalry so that we can create a unit that is light but not fast (early bad cavalry such as Equites and Greek Cavalry).
This is a good idea.
CAS editor, whats that? does that mean I can get rid of spartan helmets myself? :D :'D
Mikeus Caesar
02-23-2005, 19:40
i won't show you the amazing skins and unit's i have for all of you so better tell it. Everybody deserve a chance and i definitly.
Your skins prolly are amazing, but you're just part of the small 10-5% minority that can actually make decent skins. Most people either know how to make them, but go completely overboard and make something that looks like a horrid eyesore, or they haven't done it very well, haven't tested it and then put it up on a website, so some poor scum downloads it, installs it, only to find his game explodes from the utter stupidity.
Shot in the face, thats the funniest thing ive read on this site
It's not the funniest thing i've read...anyone here remember the 'Roman Snowplows' topic? It went on about radioactive roads and roman mass extinction due to their lead piping. Or does anyone remember the topic in which Eric the Headhurler was made?
On my wishlist (after the Battle AI that includes some "I" and moves for the computer to reinforce his withdrawing armies) is birds.
The birds circling in MTW were useful (sometimes) and I see that CA has included the start for bird and deer skeletons. If they could include these so that we could see deer running from the advancing line and birds circling overhead and flying up as a unit disturbs them.
After that, naval battles would be great.
mfberg
naval battle would suck, is my guess.
all they did was shooting, entering and ramming. sounds nice, but boredom will be victorious. there is not as much variotion on see as on land
scsscsfanfan
02-26-2005, 01:54
I would like to see
1. the ability to name and re-name your army and fort, has a history/ record of what has happen to that army eg involved in battle of ... in year... , honor gained etc...
2. ability to given more title of office to your general and also alowing mod of this, eg commander of northern army. just like in MTW.
3. solders gain experience not only from fight,but training as well. so if you can train your army in a fort, say over 1-2 years, for example - you can slowlly gain experience.
1. the ability to name and re-name your army and fort,
Players should be able to start another city once the population hits a certain high cap.
That or at least lower the current inhuman population growth. :dizzy2:
Better yet, combine these two so it is fairly rare to found a new settlement.
soldiers should not be able to LOSE experience. hwo do you forget the tricks to save your life?
soldiers should not be able to LOSE experience. hwo do you forget the tricks to save your life?
They never do. Every man in the unit, or so I've been led to believe, maintains his own experience. The unit card simply shows an averaged level of experience across the whole unit. So if you take a half strong unit of veterans and retrain to give them a bunch of n00bs, the unit experience will of course show a lower level of unit wide experience.
they do. I had a good hastati of 4 and at the end of teh battle there was: experience gained -2. so they do. my general of 5 also lost
they do. I had a good hastati of 4 and at the end of teh battle there was: experience gained -2. so they do. my general of 5 also lost
You mean that those guys didn't suffer losses?
they do. I had a good hastati of 4 and at the end of teh battle there was: experience gained -2. so they do. my general of 5 also lost
Did they have men die? If all the experienced men in a unit get binned of course unitwide experience is going to take a dive. I've had the same happen to Chosen Swordsmen.
Another addition to Kraxis' wishlist:
22: Please make a senate office of Dictator.
A way it could be impletemented: It should only be given as a price for a completed mission. As Dictator you get the ability to give missions to the other factions as well as a lot of Influence and Command. That way you can help or hamper the other factions.
Colovion
02-27-2005, 09:54
Another addition to Kraxis' wishlist:
22: Please make a senate office of Dictator.
A way it could be impletemented: It should only be given as a price for a completed mission. As Dictator you get the ability to give missions to the other factions as well as a lot of Influence and Command. That way you can help or hamper the other factions.
yes, also that can easily rub the other factions the wrong way and make them bind against you - but if you use it properly, you can use it to reform Rome as it was Historically....
/neverhappen
Mikeus Caesar
02-27-2005, 18:30
Hm.....dictator would be interesting.....you could either bring the romans to the ground in a civil war, or unite them and conquer the world.....
Did they have men die? If all the experienced men in a unit get binned of course unitwide experience is going to take a dive. I've had the same happen to Chosen Swordsmen.
no losses. they iddin't take part in the battle, no kills either
Another addition to Kraxis' wishlist:
22: Please make a senate office of Dictator.
I've missed the dictator office too. It should allow the appoinment of a Master of Horse as well. Taking Rome could trigger a dictatorship after which any remaining factions could become like protectorates.
I've missed the dictator office too. It should allow the appoinment of a Master of Horse as well. Taking Rome could trigger a dictatorship after which any remaining factions could become like protectorates.
Hmm... Could be interesting. But it makes sense. It just seems strange that the other factions would cave in if you took Rome.
My idea is only just that. But the point was that the Dictator should be a very special and/or powerful office you only get seldomly (I think the game can't make out a critical situation, so no Dictators in critical times for Rome).
Naturally the Senate should perhaps view you with more suspicion if you give the Scipii the mission of taking Hyperboria or the Brutii the mission of making the Britons a protectorate. Those are nigh impossible. Even more if you demand the suicide of a leader.
I think the Senate should set the rewards, so that you can't give yourself a very easy mission that bags you a 'Rare unit you can't recruit' or something like that.
But in any case I would love an office of Dictator (could be cool if the dictator got the epithet of 'the Dictator').
Few suggestions:
First, can someone please summarize all the suggestions at the beginning of the thread? I know CA is reading this (capt. Fishpants already commented once), so I think it is worthwhile doing that.
Here are my suggestions:
Ability to train multiple units in a single turn, but only one unit per building type. In other words, you can build one missile, one infantry , one cavalry and one agent per settlement per turn (provided you have all the req. buildings). This will speed up the game and incentivize the player (and AI) to mix up their army.
Ability to export campaign battles as custom battles. Add a button to the battle declaration screen and allow player to export the battle as a custom one (this requires the added feature of starred commanders in custom battles).
Ability to save battle results in a log file, and more importantly, ability to import battle results into a campaign. This will allow some form of rudimentary multiplayer campaign as follows:
1. Export campaign battle as custom battle
2. Play out custom battle online with a friend
3. Import results of battle into campaign.
Logging of all campaign events (helps with writeups of campaigns): declaration of wars, major battles, etc.
Campaign map geographical labels (e.g River Tiber, Alp Mountains, Mount Etna ) that can be used to give names to battles.
-give play again option, in custom battles, the swap-sides option
-make factions auto-declare war on each other when the áccept or we will attack'is ignored
Mikeus Caesar
03-01-2005, 23:16
bump
Do not do that. If this topic sinks, someone will revive it with another post that is actually something of interest.
Colovion
03-01-2005, 23:40
there's 5 pages of good stuff here
you really want that to get lost?
I wouldn't.
Razor1952
03-02-2005, 00:38
I'd like more conditionals for unit and building , specifically I'd like
to be able to test for
1. human or ai player(eg. build time of warband=2 turns if human otherwise build time = 1)
Other conditionals like
total faction treasury
town gross income
might also be considered to be added but I realize that these may interfer with the ai coding already extant. Nevertheless modders would have to experiment to get the right balance with these.
In no particular order of importance, and also not repeating a number of excellent ideas already covered here.
1: Land based naval combat. What I mean by this: An autocalc determines the number of ships that grapple successfully. Each pair of grappled ships is rendered on the battle map as a town square type area connected by a bridge (obviously different skins). If more grapple attempts succeed than defender ships exist, attach another attacker ship on the other side. Each faction gets a sailor unit that deploys on each ship. Transported troops are randomly distributed across ships. Battle proceeds normally until all town squares are captured, by one side or the other. If more than half of the winning unit of sailors survives, they capture the opposing ship and the crew is split evenly, otherwise the losing ship is sunk. If enough winning sailors are killed that the unit autodisbands, the winning ship sinks as well. Side with most ships (including captured ships) is the winner. This approach ignores ramming, wind effects, and a whole slew of other issues (unless they are included in the grapple autocalc), and so I think it might just be doable for an expansion.
2: Campaign menu option for simultaneous turns. This would require some shufffling of the order of code modules in the .exe, but I think it's also realistically possible for the exp. Units delay moves until the end of the turn, just like a unit with pre-existing orders does now. AI then calculates moves based on the current position of the unit, just like now. Then, once all the orders are issued, moves are processed, one faction at a time, one map square at a time. Two forces moving into each others' areas of control triggers a battle, winner stops, loser retreats as now. Agents halt in place.
Why do this? Now you have to predict an enemy army's plans and move to intercept them. You need to keep reserves in case you guess wrong. You can't cherry pick the terrain for your battles, you have to adapt to what the situation forces upon you. It adds a HUGE new level of depth, planning, challenge, and realism to the game. Making it a campaign option allows Wally Wristtwitcher to stay with the current system, while Harry Hardcore gets a vastly greater challenge, with no fundamental AI changes needed.
3. I'll probably do this myself via modding if the seige bug gets addressed, but: two versions of each troop type. Green units have recruit time 0, experience 0, and so you can train multiples in one turn. Normal units train as normal, but have experience 3 or 4. Rome did levy huge armies on short notice, but they weren't much good. Thus you can choose between quality and quantity. Devote the same time to rigorous training and washing out the poor candidates, or get everyone to the point that they can hold a sword and face towards the enemy two out of three times ~D
RollingWave
03-02-2005, 08:40
A few things.
1.Alllow faction civil wars etc... (option on and off) would be a bit more realistic and make the game more difficult and ppl not putting all their best stuff in one basket.
2.Another option: allow captured technologies, espically some of the more obvious like paved roads and higher lvl cities, come on it makes sense that the barbarians can't build it initially but does it make sense that they can't reproduce it many years after they capture it??
3. can hire, retrain mercs at cities in the proximity.
Actually, you'd be suprised how long it took the barbarians to rediscover things of the Romans after the fall of the Roman empire and stuff. So many things were lost, like the construction of buildings using concrete, that the level of civilisation in Europe dropped after the fall of the western Empire, resulting in the Dark Ages.
One good example would be Britain... Rome had a lot of luxuries like Baths, sewers for hygiene, piped water, yet even after the Middle Ages the condition in London was filthy for the most part, using unsanitary and probably contaminated wells, open sewers in the street, and on top of that, poor transport facilities (roads were mostly dirt tracks, if even that)
Grand Duke Vytautas
03-04-2005, 09:20
Sorry if this has been already mentioned, but personally I would like these features included:
1. ability to build/destroy settlements in any part of the province (accordingly to the size of a province)
2. historical campaigns (with specific tasks and goals)
3. bad effects of war on population
4. ability to take/ransom/enslave prisoners
5. 3d sea battles (it isn't an impossible wish I hope)
6. effects on army when marching long distances
7. civil wars
8. slower and more realistic battle and combat speeds/kills
I think this would make the game more historically accurate harder and more realistic.
I wish I wish I wish ~D
Grand Duke Vytautas
03-04-2005, 09:24
Oh damn I forgot to mention the most important feature ~D that no TW game had - better plan of management of your settlements, that is you don't have to go into every city you own, but there is like special window of all settlements.
Mikeus Caesar
03-04-2005, 19:54
1. ability to build/destroy settlements in any part of the province (accordingly to the size of a province)
I wish!! It would be much nicer walking around the large open spaces of Africa or the Steppes and have the occasional town, rather than walking for miles and miles without anything. It would also mean if you needed to quickly retrain some units, you wouldn't have to walk halfway across the world.
Yet another addition to Kraxis' wishlist:
23: Make it possible to build over Imperial Palaces. It makes no sense that you can't do anything about an imperial palace of another culture in your city.
How could I forget...
24: Please bring back the F1 screen. Yes I know F1 is used as of now, but then make it F10 or some other command, but please bring it back we need to see the actual stats of the units in battle. Pausing and rightclicking doesn't hold the same effect.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-09-2005, 23:02
Sorry if this has been already mentioned, but personally I would like these features included:
1. ability to build/destroy settlements in any part of the province (accordingly to the size of a province)
2. historical campaigns (with specific tasks and goals)
3. bad effects of war on population
4. ability to take/ransom/enslave prisoners
5. 3d sea battles (it isn't an impossible wish I hope)
6. effects on army when marching long distances
7. civil wars
8. slower and more realistic battle and combat speeds/kills
I think this would make the game more historically accurate harder and more realistic.
I wish I wish I wish ~D
Far from it. You might want to check out what Merlin is doing with that over at The SCC (http://www.stratcommandcenter.com)
BeeSting
03-18-2005, 19:41
This thread is starting to look like a Christmas wish list, to Santa Claus.
We must all be good boys now.
Ssssstttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicccccccccccccccckkkkkkkkky!!!!
Mikeus Caesar
03-24-2005, 21:34
Yes, sticky this thread. Btw, another good addition would be this: on the custom battles menu, let us select the Wonders of the World as maps. Because if we can't do that, then there is a very small chance we ever get to fight around the wonderful wonders, like the pyramids.
HailMightCaeser
03-25-2005, 03:49
I would like to see you be able to convert to christianity (the Romans atleast), which would be mean making the campaign set later. You would either play as early rome or late rome.
AntiochusIII
03-25-2005, 06:50
And why would you do so, looking from the Roman governer's point of view? ~;p
Your subjects get sloppy and weak. (GOVERNER's view) Your army gets disloyal (those stinking barbarians are Christians..so.....besides, I shouldn't kill a person.) Your loyalty rating drops (who says the Emperor is a deity? He's lying!) And much more...
Of course, it would work if this religion is a threat you need to stop. Or as barbarians to improve influence rating (favored by Romans) And..hooray! The Bishops are back! (and the assassins get more work to do ~D )
Bah, sticky it.
Mikeus Caesar
03-25-2005, 11:58
Someone PM Nelson or some other colloseum mod, and tell them to sticky this.
I would like to see you be able to convert to christianity (the Romans atleast), which would be mean making the campaign set later. You would either play as early rome or late rome.
the game starts in 270 BC, so conferting will take you 400 turns. the marius reform is already too early. but conferting to christianity 350 years too soon is riduculus. i'm no expert, but that is too much. and it wouldn't realy effect gameplay that much.
Mikeus Caesar
03-25-2005, 12:39
Jerby, he's on about converting to christianty much much later in history, when it has taken a grip on so many people that it is now a threat to the roman empire and it's religions. And as for the Marian Reforms coming too early you're right there. They come too early, so you don't get a chance to use the wonderful Triarii.
HailMightCaeser
03-25-2005, 17:11
I'm talking about converting in 312 AD, the actually date... Like I said you can play as early or late Rome.
well, in 312 AD, there aren't much 'factions' left. no more greeks, macedon, carthage, egypt, iberia. playing rome then isn't even a challenge, it's just mopping up.
look here http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/index.php?title=Roman_Empire
what ( IMO) would be interessting is to be able to play rome right after the marius reform, so you can instanly wield cohorts. like is beiing done for RTR6.0
Colovion
03-25-2005, 21:04
I hate the arrows on the minimap. They only show where the units are, not what their formation is or if they're getting slaughtered. To get a proper mini-map view you have to zoom in all the way, this is self defeating as once you get in that close you can't see your flanks on the minimap. It would be nice if they changed the arrows on the minimap to actual unit representations with individual pixels for men.
Craterus
03-26-2005, 00:14
i think if you could manually play the naval battles that would be cool!
(sorry if this has already been suggested, i haven't read the whole forum)
Mikeus Caesar
03-27-2005, 14:34
Craterus, considering how a lot of people go on about wanting naval battles, you'd think it's already been mentioned. I think it's been mentioned at least twenty times in this thread.
Coccum_Pugnus
03-27-2005, 18:03
Wishlist:
-Speeds for calvery
-Campaign replay, battle replay
-unlock the factions that are not unlocked when you beat the Imperial Campaign
-Add glorious achivment option
-Have civil war, and instead of making them several rebel provencies make them something like the swiss or the burgendiesnsssess.....(something) like in MTW, which can futher break down.
-If you have majority in the senate the option to send task to the other Roman Factions.
-Don't change archer strength and don't make riders seperate units, first I think the bow is well represented already, and the ladder, it could possibly mess the game up bad.
-Speed slider in battles
-early, highpoint, and late empire options to 576, and constatinople option running to 1086.
-and maybe you can do this but I can't reorganize my units inside the army, the little slots with units I try to move to around so the same units are grouped together but it won't happen, that would be nice.
-A pre-battle screen like in MTW
-Better ending cutsceens, you got me all exited after seeing the begining ones but man almost cried when all I got at the end was a guy walking down a hallway.
-a pony
-Maybe HAN: Total war, other side of the world....just a thought
-Greece: Total War, speaks for its self
-Egypt: Total War, " "
Craterus
03-27-2005, 20:10
sorry Mikeus; there's loads of posts in this thread and i haven't read many!
good suggestions Coccum_Pugnus!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.