Evolution of the TW battlefield - what next?

[GonZ]

Just for a moment detach yourself from the campaign game and think about our beloved 3D battlefield.

Where should CA go next? What features would you like to add? What gameplay?

For myself:

Much, much larger maps and deployment areas. Giving more room in which to manoeuvre troops for maximum tactical advantage.

A new dynamic control UI that offer movement options based on individual units capabilities and experience.

How would you improve it?

-

Again, I apologise if this is dragging up a previous forum topic.

-

[edyzmedieval]

Sorry to tell you but...

There are thousands of posts like these!!!

I would like a MTW2...

[GonZ]

I would like a MTW2...

OK you want MTW2.

But the topic is about the battlefield. What modifications, added functionality would you like to see applied to the new MTW2 battlefield?

You wouldn't want it exactly the same as MTW or RTW would you? Can you not see areas for improvement, innovation?

[edyzmedieval]

Well...

I want improved graphics, improved AI, many new units, factions and provinces.....

[Drisos]

Graphics are fine, but should be changable via options, choose your own grafics.

Keep the STW elegance.

Maps in the true shape of the region, and a better system with the borders.

~:)

[asilv]

Evolution? :furious3:
There is no evolution. The Ca created TW battlefield years ago on sixth day of creation of Total War and it has remained same ever since.
:book:

[edyzmedieval]

Silvouz...

Vices and Virtues:

Truly Pious
Fanatic
Very Charitable

[doc_bean]

Rome's battle fields feel a lot smaller than MTW's. I like 'em bigger !

But mostly, they need to fix the AI, the rest is secondary. No use having great battlefields if all the AI does is charge straight at you.

[Drisos]

But mostly, they need to fix the AI, the rest is secondary.

make EA maintain their server! so you don't have to play STW against the AI, which is in my eyes a total idiot on the battlefield!

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'd want:
- bigger battlefields. If possible, make them even twice the size of those in Medieval!
- larger armies, even if that means going back to sprites only again. I'd like to control legions consisting of at least 6000 men, if possible armies with two to three real legions and as much auxilia as support. Of course they would be facing huge barbarian armies twice or three time their size...
- the ability to have a carroballistae "attached" to each cohort without needing a new unit slot for each carroballista
- better nature graphics. I actually liked the M:TW nature better than the nature in R:TW. The nature in R:TW has too little variety - either forest covering the entire battlefiled or no forest at all, pretty much. Too few smaller hills etc. I like the complexity of the M:TW battlefields, but I wouldn't mind seeing even more complex terrain.
- impossible for chariots to move in too terrain
- penalty for cavalry and chariots in medium-steep terrain and much penalty for moving over plowed fields, forests and similar
- field fortifications (ability to place chevaux de friese, caltrops etc.)
- more farms, small villages, buildings and other details on the battlefields
- better coordination of the AI behaviour.
- making the Ai using fake retreats, Hannibal's Cannae bulging and then withdrawn centre, skilled harassing from AI to open up weak points in player's defensive formation, cavalry doing hit-and-run attacks
- cavalry being less powerful for prolonged combat, but more effective at hit-and-run, cavalry having MUCH smaller units
- slower battle speed
- a system so that the defeated part won't lose 90 percent of his army in the routing phase - for example fleeing enemies halting, turning around and cooperating against their hunters while continuing the flight.
- make it possible to give AI controlled own armies some simple basic orders about tactics before battle (such as: stay hidden and ambush enemy when I give signal in horn, or: pin the enemy, or: wait until I pin enemy then attack rear, or: only harass - keep own casualties down at all costs even if it means few enemy casualties infliced)

Edit:
- I'd also like if factions could coordinate their attacks more (perhaps a diplomatic option "let's start a campaign against faction x together, let our armies meet at point: specify by click, or an option: "give troops to faction x for y turns to support their war against faction z" or "request troops from faction x for your war against faction y for z turns") so you can have 2 or more enemies against you in one battle or get to command auxiliaries from tributaries and/or allies to get more varied armies and interesting battles. I'd also like to see a larger portion of militia and smaller amount of professionals.

[GonZ]

Right okay better AI. I agree this is important.

What about multiplayer? AI is not an issue. How would you improve it then?

I for one switched straight over to the minimal battlefield UI when the patch for RTW came out. I felt that the previous UI was clunky... and just... wrong. Too much like a dashboard. So the minimal UI improved this - although the results were far from perfect.

What I would like to see is the ability to customise the battle tools. Essentially in the same way that I customise a regular piece of software - like a graphics package. The way I layout the tools is not the way someone else would lay out the tools.

So ultimately I am thinking about a set of customisable buttons and controls that change contextually depending on the unit(s) selected. Available options would be defined by experience, morale, and the leadership of that unit (group).

Using MTW2 as an example, In the heat of battle the low morale unit of unpaid English Billmen might be able to make an advance, but not a charge. Whereas, the well paid, fed and motivated unit of Billmen along side would have the option for a full charge.

I would like a UI that could be built upon. So that basically the same UI could handle all sorts of battles including gunpowder & sea battles. Just by adding new widgets!


--

A thought on AI and new controls. I'd quite like the ability to issue some "flexible" orders to troops and groups of troops. For instance "defend x area" "take, then defend x hill", "flank x unit right". The success of such actions would be influenced by all the usual stuff; experience, morale, leadership qualities (or lack of them). Perhaps the AI would work better with general commands. Any thoughts?

[Samurai Waki]

The whole interface for battles should be changed, the current system is starting to get very reminiscent of Tomb Raider... each game was exactly the same (as far as battles go) just with improved graphics.

From a Post a Made Earlier here are my suggestions:

If you take over command of your troops, you are no longer god and can't see everything. The Battles are fairly first person... and some 3rd Person. You can order cavalry to screen your line, or poke at enemy offensive or defensive positions to find out where they are the weakest. You only know what you're up against until the enemy is right in your sight. Of course with advent of later technology, things like air balloons, and good telescopes will be available at your disposal. Basically, your underlings do the fighting for you, you tell them where to go, and where to attack, and the AI would figure out the rest. This would mean that you might get frustrated with a fresh lieutenant that doesn't know exactley what he's doing, but with time, and if he doesn't die, he'll learn to do things that will put an edge on the enemy.

Also if allies or another army is present on the battlefield runners can be sent between the two so both sides can assess the situation together for troop movement and coordination. There should be a detailed map mode showing your position, you're allies position, and whatever position you know the enemy has taken (of course this can change if you are not within visual range or don't have scouts). Within this mode you can set waypoints for your allies army to move, and what type of formation they should take. This is all of course a broad generalization, so your ally will still conform to whatever situation suits him best once within range or contact of the enemy... your allied General won't be brain dead, or under your direct command (especially if he has an equal or higher command then you do) if he is a direct subordinate general, then he will faithfully do whatever you tell him to do. An allied General who is not from the same country may be more fickle about taking your orders than a general who is of the some country as you are.

I want to see as much immersion into the battlefield as possible, as much as if you are really the general, in command, and not some entity who watches it being played out from a far away distance.

[Maedhros]

Addition of a new type of battlefield. One with lots of water. Actually all water. I'd like to see ships fighting from barges and warships on rivers, canals, lakes....and of course much larger boddies of water.

This would be most ideal with a Greece as the next choice but I'm open.

Improved AI is obvious. I would like to see the fires start as a result of battle. If you are firing flaming arrows, there is a chance you'll start a fire. Especially in a particular season.

For seasonal effects to have greater impact on the field.

the presence of supply tents and rear logistical points would be nice.

Something to add colour and depth to the battlefield. If buildings and towns had people, and animals running about and hiding and such. maybe even forming quick mobs to repel an invader or army that has caused them serious harm.

[PseRamesses]

1. Improved battlefield AI.
2. Improved battlefield AI.
3. Improved battlefield AI.

[Samurai Waki]

So aside from the vague response of "Improved AI" could you tell us what you would want to improve about it? Everyone already knows the AI sucks, so what could be done to make it more... shall we say... human?

I'd personally like to see the AI more as a learning module, think of it as a complex game of chess. The AI sends a unit forward to scout/skirmish, you meet it, the AI evaluates the situation and sends it's next best option to secure it (or keep you at bay). Whilst doing this, the AI spots your main battle line and by a rough estimate, determines what forces you have, and the best way to counter it. The AI determines that because you are holding a good defensive position, it might be better to split forces and try to draw your army into two different quadrants, whilst keeping a force of cavalry hidden from you're eyes as best it can. When your battle line decidedly splits to meet your enemies, the cavalry burst out of the forces, and right into the flanks or rear of your rear... game set and match... AI. The better battle expirience an AI general has, the better it can evaluate the situation in which it faces. So a good general doesn't boost so much as moral(only a really influencial general can boost moral), as probability of winning in an open engagement against you by doing nasty tricks, and the like. Also generals need not be close to a unit to get the job done, the General can keep a respectable distance from the main battle, but you/it will send couriers to lieutenants for orders, the further the distance between the general and the battle, the longer it takes to relay a message.

[PseRamesses]

So aside from the vague response of "Improved AI" could you tell us what you would want to improve about it? Everyone already knows the AI sucks, so what could be done to make it more... shall we say... human?
It was just a rant, sorry! I just want the AI to be a bit more smart like not charge his best general into a 8 row deep phalanx unit, running back and forth inside a settlement for good target practice when besieged AND break formations. Have you ever seen the AI hold formation? I haven´t and I must have played tens of thousands of battles with RTW. MTW was better in that way.

I'd personally like to see the AI more as a learning module, think of it as a complex game of chess. The AI sends a unit forward to scout/skirmish, you meet it, the AI evaluates the situation and sends it's next best option to secure it (or keep you at bay). Whilst doing this, the AI spots your main battle line and by a rough estimate, determines what forces you have, and the best way to counter it. The AI determines that because you are holding a good defensive position, it might be better to split forces and try to draw your army into two different quadrants, whilst keeping a force of cavalry hidden from you're eyes as best it can. When your battle line decidedly splits to meet your enemies, the cavalry burst out of the forces, and right into the flanks or rear of your rear... game set and match... AI. The better battle expirience an AI general has, the better it can evaluate the situation in which it faces. So a good general doesn't boost so much as moral(only a really influencial general can boost moral), as probability of winning in an open engagement against you by doing nasty tricks, and the like. Also generals need not be close to a unit to get the job done, the General can keep a respectable distance from the main battle, but you/it will send couriers to lieutenants for orders, the further the distance between the general and the battle, the longer it takes to relay a message.
Couldn´t agree with you more m8!

[mfberg]

Battle field communications
The ability to ask your allies to flank or wait until ..., or any other simple command.
The ability for your AI allies troops to refuse.
Reduced command ability if your army is too big (see above)
More involved logistics (Some empires have found winter supplies in Russia can be hard to obtain)

Campaign
Not for the TW games, but ones like it. Start as a lower ranking officer/soldier and work your way up to commander of the armies. While you are a lower soldier the AI takes over your empire, when you reach a certain level you are the governor of a city/province, and after another level you get to be the (omnipresent) king until you die. (And restart as another low ranking officer).

mfberg

[Muska Burnt]

i would like to see messopotamia total war or american revalution or compton naw just kidding that would be funny though well actualy seeing like a gang war one would be cool your settlement are hoods and etc that would be a good idea

[TenkiWarPRIEST]

Zulu Total War

[Papewaio]

Gah!!!

Where did you pop from Tenki-sama?

Are you lurking around much or just flying through?

Kind Regards,
Pape

[spacekraken]

Everyone says AI but I've gotta say it too.

I would like to see a TW set in the modern era like WWI or WWII.

Also, I'm surprised so few others mention this (or there's not a mod for it), but I'd like to see blood, severed arms, heads, screams of agony and such. They could have a toggle between clean and bloody. Though I guess this is wishful thinking, since I'm sure they don't want an M rating which is understandable. Still I'm disturbed by the Disney-fication of RTW. They don't even have the death rattles that soldiers had in MTW when they die.

I'd like to see characters that drag the wounded out of the melee and soldiers who are wounded limp out or crawl out.

The return of prisoners and ransoms.

[Muska Burnt]

ya blood and injury would be cool to see and for cavarly when people kill the horse i wanna see the man get up and fight or if he get stuck under his horse like see someone lauph then just stab his neck or something

[Rodion Romanovich]

Addition of a new type of battlefield. One with lots of water. Actually all water. I'd like to see ships fighting from barges and warships on rivers, canals, lakes....and of course much larger boddies of water.


Wow, I can imagine how wonderful this would be if there would be a city next to the river/canal... Or what about if you could siege Constantinople and send in a fleet to assault the wall defenders from the rear and open the gates for my huge land army! If the next TW would be a Napoleonic or later TW, how about allowing you to give cannon support from ships close to the shore when fighting battles on shores? The possibilities are endless...

[ToranagaSama]

Also, I'm surprised so few others mention this (or there's not a mod for it), but I'd like to see blood, severed arms, heads, screams of agony and such.


I know a good physcotherapist, if you need a name....

[Craterus]

I know a good physcotherapist, if you need a name....

I've a good spelling teacher, if you need a name... (psychotherapist)