PDA

View Full Version : July 27, FAQ Update



player1
07-27-2005, 17:15
New FAQ update from Shogun:

Guys, those of you that are involved with other fansites should contact me about geting some questions here from your community. This latest batch is from the Org forums more from the TWC next week.


Q: Are there any plans for making auto resolve separate from regular difficulty settings?

A: Not in the expansion pack. This may happen in future products, but we have to consider how confusing it would be to the average player to have too many difficulty setting toggles and switches. It may be possible that we'll add in difficulty sub-settings as advanced options in future products. It can be argued that auto-resolving battles makes the campaign game harder because you are likely to lose more troops in an auto-battle than if you fight it out under manual control, and losing troops unnecessarily is tantamount to burning resources for no payoff.


Q: Will there be further restrictions on creating troops such as a zone of recruitment?

A: There are some restrictions on where troops can be hired already - the Spartans only being available in Sparta, for example. When playing a BI campaign you'll notice that it's now a lot harder to train Elephant units (when playing the Sassanids) simply because there are a lot fewer elephants around thanks to centuries of the elephant population being thinned out/exterminated for the amusement of the Roman mob. Other units are limited to specific areas of the game world too: specifically Romano-British types can only be raised in Britannia, Sughdians can only be raised in the East, Berbers in North Africa, Slavic units on the steppes and so on.

And as some of you may have worked out different types of mercenaries are already limited by geographical regions. This is continued in BI, so that you can't recruit particular mercenary types in the 'wrong' homelands - and it can even be worth sending out an expedition to see what mercenaries are available in exotic and distant parts of the world.

However, as to setting up 'zones of recruitment' for all troop types, that isn't how the game handles the troop restrictions. Actually, limiting troop training too closely would probably become very annoying for players very quickly. You can always recruit the basic troop types in any settlement after all, and the more exotic types are a nice bonus for a given training building constructed in the right region.


Q: Has granting units titles and that sort of thing been considered again for BI or future expansions (the extra command stars/management could really helpt he AI as well as creating more generals to lead armies)?

A: We assume by this that you are talking about the MTW concept of provincial titles being granted to unit leaders. There are two features that you'll see in BI that are similar to this, but not quite the same.

Firstly, you'll be able to recruit generals in the same way as other units: by building the right building in a settlement and then training them. A recruited general will come with a cavalry bodyguard, but he won't be part of the ruling family and won't be eligible to become faction heir or leader. They will age and die, so this is a temporary addition to your leadership.

Secondly, some factions have offices of state that can be given to generals, such as the 'magister peditum' for the Romans, an office that grants an infantry command bonus. You will be free to shift offices of state around between your generals over time, although loading every office onto a single uber-general won't be possible.


Q: Are there any plans for a built-in mod management function with BI or future expansions?

A: There will be a command line -mod function that allows you to redirect the game to use a different set of data without having to replace the original files and - with multiple shortcuts on your desktop all using different -mod redirects - have more than one mod on your PC at once *without* having multiple installations of the game. This will be fully explained in the readme documentation that will ship with the expansion pack. Overall, you'll find that modding support has been substantially improved, especially in the way that factions can be modded.


Q: Will you be releasing a list of the script and console commands that function with RTW and RTW:BI along with the parameters that they use? If not, what's your reason for not doing so?

A: There are no plans at present to make the full list of scripting and console commands public. Most of these are solely to do with development, and wouldn't help anyone mod the game or play it in any way. Besides, no conjuror likes to show how the magic is done! :) However, once work on BI is complete we may reconsider and release more information.


Q: MikeB mentioned an auto-run feature that can be used to run a game without player intervention. This would be very useful for mod testing. Is there any way we can activate it now? If not, will we be able to in the future?

A: MikeB was very naughty to mention that and will shortly be fighting the company bear to pay for his mistake. :) This is a feature we use internally for debugging. Autorun is not something that we've openly advertised for released versions, and it's not normally something that a player would want to do, simply because they are *playing* the game rather than *watching* stuff happen. However, there's a -ai command line option that turns autorun on in release builds after the 1.2 patch. This doesn't work with earlier versions of the game.


Q: What do you think about to do for tightening the tactical deepness of the R: TW BI besides swimmable units and night battles?

A: Many aspects of the AI for battles has been worked on since RTW was published, and we think you'll find it gives you a better game. Then again, the cynics out there would expect us to say that, but short of making this an essay there's not a lot more to say other than it ahs been worked on.


Q: Will there be any improvement on geography in the game? River crossings, cliffs or valleys?

A: The battlefields in BI will look much like those in RTW, as you might expect. However, given that some units can now swim you'll find that river crossings are not quite the same as they once were, as simply waiting for the enemy to cross in one or two places may no longer work as a defensive tactic.


Q: Vanilla R: TW and BI will use the same 3D campaign map? Will you create another map for the expansion?

A: Both RTW and BI use the same map of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, which is hardly surprising given that the action of the game takes place where you would expect. What has changed are the provincial boundaries and some of the settlements. There are around 30% fewer regions on the new version of Europe as compared to the old RTW map.


Q: Are there are any additional attributes that can be affixed to buildings? Can they give more negative and positive bonuses, and how about certain buildings giving specific (ie not all) units different morale and cost bonuses/penalties?

A: Buildings can now have religious effects on the population. Some buildings will improve the quality of specific classes of troops trained in a settlement - shrines honouring Ull, for example, give a quality bonus to any missile troops trained in the same settlement.

If what you're asking about here is modding, then yes, it is possible to add effects to buildings by editing the tech tree text files for the game, but you need to be careful not to make any one building too extreme in what it does to a settlement.


Q: Will there be any new siege equipments?

A: No. Siege technology didn't really move on during the period and what you have is what you get. You either have to go over or through defences, and the methods of doing this: ladders, rams, towers or saps, weren't added to until the invention of gunpowder. Artillery will also still batter holes in walls, of course, and for factions without heavy artillery weapons there's always the chance of hiring mercenary artillerists to do it for you...


Q: Will more information and stats be included for the family members? For example, how they die, individual win/loss ratio, their achievements, all to help personalise them more. Likewise will there be more info/stats included for all factions - most successful general, most aggressive general, etc?

A: This isn't something that we're adding for BI. It is something that we're actively looking at for future titles, and we've had one or two ideas that we think you're really going to like...


Q: Will the exploits that mar multiplayer gaming, e.g. cavalry spamming/stacking be dealt with?

A: A number of exploits have been found and dealt with for the expansion pack. Cavalry spamming has been dealt with specifically, and the relative strengths of spearmen and cavalry have been rebalanced too.


Q: Will there be extra historical battles?

A: There will be at least one battle that ships with BI.


Q: What is the formula that generates kill probabilities in close combat from combatants' attack and defence stats?

A: Sorry, but at the moment this kind of information has to be treated as a commercial secret. We've spent a lot of time and effort developing these algorithms, and we don't see any reason to let any potential competitors have this kind of detailed design work free of charge!


Q: Is there any chance of being given an Excel file similar to the one provided with MTW that showed where unit stats came from?

A: See the previous answer. Again, we've invested time and effort in creating spreadsheet tools to help develop our games, and we don't feel the need to give our expertise to any commercial competitors at the moment. Sorry to the modders, but that's the way it is at the moment. We do, however, review what we're prepared to release from time to time, so this decision may be revisited in future.

player1
07-27-2005, 17:18
Comment about not releasing spreadsheet tools makes sense, if they plan to use them for next game.

Tricon
07-27-2005, 17:32
Mmh. Sounds a bit better then expected. Especially concerning modabilty and the ability to run multiple mods on one install. I'm still sceptical... but it DOES sound better then expected.

Little Legioner
07-27-2005, 17:36
Q: What do you think about to do for tightening the tactical deepness of the R: TW BI besides swimmable units and night battles?

A: Many aspects of the AI for battles has been worked on since RTW was published, and we think you'll find it gives you a better game. Then again, the cynics out there would expect us to say that, but short of making this an essay there's not a lot more to say other than it ahs been worked on.


Q: Will there be any improvement on geography in the game? River crossings, cliffs or valleys?

A: The battlefields in BI will look much like those in RTW, as you might expect. However, given that some units can now swim you'll find that river crossings are not quite the same as they once were, as simply waiting for the enemy to cross in one or two places may no longer work as a defensive tactic.

Uh no! ~:handball:

Ianofsmeg16
07-27-2005, 17:38
Any body see the Seige question? MERCENARY SEIGE EQUIPMENT!!!! legendary..
I agree with tricon, it DOES sound bettter than i thought...only qualm is with the regions, i may have to mod this

SMZ
07-27-2005, 18:14
recruiting generals, multiple mods, mercenary artillery... me likey

player1
07-27-2005, 18:29
Mmh. Sounds a bit better then expected. Especially concerning modabilty and the ability to run multiple mods on one install. I'm still sceptical... but it DOES sound better then expected.

Actually an option to run multiple mods at once already exists, it's just not properly finished.
Currently most data text files coild be read from different folder, but on the other hand, too many other files reference to original folders making it impossible to use this feture for any total conversion mods.

I guess it got updated in expansion.

King of Atlantis
07-27-2005, 18:53
Sounds really good, but i dont like the bigger regions. Oh well im sure it will be modded. ~:cheers:

player1
07-27-2005, 18:55
Q: MikeB mentioned an auto-run feature that can be used to run a game without player intervention. This would be very useful for mod testing. Is there any way we can activate it now? If not, will we be able to in the future?

A: MikeB was very naughty to mention that and will shortly be fighting the company bear to pay for his mistake. :) This is a feature we use internally for debugging. Autorun is not something that we've openly advertised for released versions, and it's not normally something that a player would want to do, simply because they are *playing* the game rather than *watching* stuff happen. However, there's a -ai command line option that turns autorun on in release builds after the 1.2 patch. This doesn't work with earlier versions of the game.

Any way to pause or temoraly disable ai autorun?
Currently if I start game with -ai, it goes and goes and never stops.

And if I save game, and load it (after removing -ai), it still goes and goes...
No way to stop it.

Mike, Shogun?
Please?

bubbanator
07-27-2005, 19:09
This sounds quite nice. I already had high hopes for BI and this just reinforces them. The only thing that I see a problem with is the fact that there will be 30% less settlements and still have the same game map. Will the movement points be increased as well?

I just hope that the world dosen't turn into one big Numidia...

Zenicetus
07-27-2005, 19:15
Any body see the Seige question? MERCENARY SEIGE EQUIPMENT!!!! legendary..


That one jumped out at me too. Sounds like it would be fun, not to mention efficient. No need to drag artillery all over the map and slow down your army, if you just need it for one fight or seige.

Not that it matters to me personally, but I wonder how historically accurate that is? I think of that kind of hardware as being more the product of an organized army, or city. Were roving bands of mercenaries building war machines on their own, and renting them out? Ballistae R Us?

sik1977
07-28-2005, 01:58
Some decent answers to some useful questions. Slightly sad to hear about no added stats etc., for BI and RTW. Anyhow, glad that they will be adding it in the future.

Still nothing on Diplomacy improments, if any. Hope to hear more about it in the upcoming FAQ update(s). Keep up the good work guys (CA).

Oaty
07-28-2005, 04:47
Not that it matters to me personally, but I wonder how historically accurate that is? I think of that kind of hardware as being more the product of an organized army, or city. Were roving bands of mercenaries building war machines on their own, and renting them out? Ballistae R Us?

Siege engineers typically accompanied an army , but they sometimes came from abroad. Think of it this way you have skills and there is an army that is in need of those skills. So are you gonna be jobless or get mere pennies or go for the gold.

Red Harvest
07-28-2005, 05:28
Siege engineers typically accompanied an army , but they sometimes came from abroad. Think of it this way you have skills and there is an army that is in need of those skills. So are you gonna be jobless or get mere pennies or go for the gold.

Syracuse had the best siege engineers in the period of RTW. They had developed quite an industry of it. Not sure that they rented out much to "non-Greek's" unless there was already some alliance of sorts, but they did work for various Greek culture groups.

Red Harvest
07-28-2005, 05:48
The auto-resolve comments are a BIG disappointment. This really shouldn't be that hard to do, and the explanation given is weak in the extreme. The extra toggle would be confusing? Come on!?! The whole blasted difficulty level system is confusing as it is AND WE LACK DOCUMENTATION. Want to help with player confusion? Provide documentation about what the heck the difficulty levels actually do. We've been able to "reverse engineer" some of the aspects of what difficulty levels do.

I don't think there is much disagreement about the level of tedium produced by the current auto-resolve forcing players to fight many easy battles that should be auto-resolved. This is a fairly large negative for BI in the strategic game. Defending it by saying auto resolve can be used to make the game harder... well, that ignores the naval aspect entirely an area that most of us would probably like to have more level. It also means that one must accept completely inane auto-resolve results, or fight meaningless battles for devastating wins (which would be the anticipated result anyway.) I'm missing the logic here...wouldn't a middle ground make more sense, where the player gets a fair shake as if it was AI vs. AI and doesn't have to waste valuable time doing something boring and stupid? Hint for game designers: Don't intentionally bore your customers to tears!

Conclusion: It doesn't look to me like CA gave themselves enough time to do what was really needed for BI.

ToranagaSama
07-28-2005, 13:59
New FAQ update from Shogun:

I'm sorry, some of Richie's responses just seem to fall short. [TS has filled his PC quotient for the day!]


Q: Are there any plans for making auto resolve separate from regular difficulty settings?

A: Not in the expansion pack. This may happen in future products, but we have to consider how confusing it would be to the average player to have too many difficulty setting toggles and switches. It may be possible that we'll add in difficulty sub-settings as advanced options in future products. It can be argued that auto-resolving battles makes the campaign game harder because you are likely to lose more troops in an auto-battle than if you fight it out under manual control, and losing troops unnecessarily is tantamount to burning resources for no payoff.

Am I the only one who feels somewhat insulted by this response? What sort of intelligence argues that auto-resolve makes the campaign harder?? This is preposterous! Using this strain of logic, a player could just sit back and NOT fight a couple of significant battles, allowing the AI to decimate a couple of Armies. That'll make things "harder" too! It'll also be STUPID!

[Want to make things *harder*? Change back the Unit stats BACK to MTW levels!!!! Wanna make things more harder? Figure a way to incorporate 'Hardcore Rules' into option settings universal to everyone. More harder? Let us have Campaign Multiplay---then go away.]

Please STOP the hype! RTW's Auto-resolve isn't better or an improvement over STW/MTW's auto-resolve. In fact, RTW's first incarnation was clearly broken; and, the second is (arguably) not as good as STW/MTW's version. I paid for something better, I didn't get it.


Q: Will there be further restrictions on creating troops such as a zone of recruitment?

A: [snip]

However, as to setting up 'zones of recruitment' for all troop types, that isn't how the game handles the troop restrictions. Actually, limiting troop training too closely would probably become very annoying for players very quickly. You can always recruit the basic troop types in any settlement after all, and the more exotic types are a nice bonus for a given training building constructed in the right region.

For what player?

It worked beautifully in the MedMod!! Doesn't it work for RTR? I know the first incarnation was broken, but the RTR modders fixed it didn't they?

The person asking the question, as well as players of the MedMod, RTR, as well as the upcoming EB mod, are interested in a more challenging game. Aren't you folks at CA getting this? Vanilla versions of TW are NOT challenging, for most ***experienced*** players.

Difficulty settings need more than just simply tweakings of Unit stats and AI cheats. This method is OLD! Unexciting and unimaginative.

What's needed is a series of interelated *game-setting* options, that would effectively turn a Vanilla version of TW into a MedModded version; or, a RTR version; or a EB version. I'm not talking about the historical changes these and other modes have made, BUT the **Gameplay** adjustments.

Yes, RTW and MTW have to an extent some *mild* sort of ZOR, but that's just it, what's needed is a Difficulty beyond *mild*, several Difficulty settings.

Note, RTW has the least replayability of any TW game. How many times do you have to hear the word Boring and RTW used in the same sentence?



Firstly, you'll be able to recruit generals in the same way as other units: by building the right building in a settlement and then training them. A recruited general will come with a cavalry bodyguard, but he won't be part of the ruling family and won't be eligible to become faction heir or leader. They will age and die, so this is a temporary addition to your leadership.

Smells like Cheese to me. *Buy-a-General*.

Battle looming. Don't have General and/or existing General SUCKS! Have mucho dollars? No problem!! Just buy a General. No need to preserve your General and his bodyguard. None at all. Long as you have the money, just use and throw em away.

Disposable Generals. Just what the world needs.

QUESTION: Will a Player be capable of purchasing a General's rank too? Need 6 Star General? Got the money? No problem, click....

Dear CA: Making the game easier is NOT, the same as making the game *better*.


A: There will be a command line -mod function that allows you to redirect the game to use a different set of data without having to replace the original files and - with multiple shortcuts on your desktop all using different -mod redirects - have more than one mod on your PC at once *without* having multiple installations of the game. This will be fully explained in the readme documentation that will ship with the expansion pack. Overall, you'll find that modding support has been substantially improved, especially in the way that factions can be modded.

Hellejulauh (sp?) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.


A: MikeB was very naughty to mention that and will shortly be fighting the company bear to pay for his mistake. :) This is a feature we use internally for debugging. Autorun is not something that we've openly advertised for released versions, and it's not normally something that a player would want to do, simply because they are *playing* the game rather than *watching* stuff happen. However, there's a -ai command line option that turns autorun on in release builds after the 1.2 patch. This doesn't work with earlier versions of the game.

Again, another call for a Logic Check.

So, the game is *supposed* to be designed for modability, yet, the one indisputably necessary feature needed to *test* modded changes was/is withheld? This should be given to us right out of the box. Without such a feature, the MedMod would not have been what it was.

Check, Check, Logic.... Check, Check, Logic, Check....

[TS speaks to the powers that be at CA:]
Let the chips fall where they may. Withholding it didn't alter the uproar, did it? Nope, there still was a near mutiny in the ranks. Soooo, what's the point?


Q: What do you think about to do for tightening the tactical deepness of the R: TW BI besides swimmable units and night battles?

A: Many aspects of the AI for battles has been worked on since RTW was published, and we think you'll find it gives you a better game. Then again, the cynics out there would expect us to say that, but short of making this an essay there's not a lot more to say other than it ahs been worked on.

First, please realize that these questions are coming from the Org! We, here, have no difficulty with complicated responses in the form of an Essay. Please type away.

Second, stop Hyping us, and perhaps we'd be less cynical.

As far as we cynics, the ball is in YOUR court. Richie in specific and CA in general. You all lost, at least a measure of our confidence, it's up to you all to gain it back.

One manner in which you lost our confidence is by being OVERLY secretive. STOP IT!

It is far, far, far, better to discuss and gain feedback regarding proposed GAMEPLAY changes. Far, far, far, far, better to have our tacit, or, consensed approval BEFORE dropping the ball. NO?

Really, who purchased RTW with the expectation of *Fundamental* alterations to Gameplay? I sure as H didn't!!!!

It doesn't take much to know that any changes which may "give[s] you a better game", will have to be comprehensive in nature; otherwise it won't give a "better game", however subjective that may be.

It is being implied that this is unworthy of discussion, community/developer interaction, or, as it was put, an Essay.

Check, Check, Logic, Check, Check....


Q: Will there be any improvement on geography in the game? River crossings, cliffs or valleys?

A: The battlefields in BI will look much like those in RTW, as you might expect. However, given that some units can now swim you'll find that river crossings are not quite the same as they once were, as simply waiting for the enemy to cross in one or two places may no longer work as a defensive tactic.

We desire and request battle maps as detailed, atmospheric and, above all, as tactically challenging as those of the original Shogun: Total War!

Nothing less will suffice.

Random generating maps is a nice technology/feature, but until such time as the technology can generate maps of equal quality as those of Shogun: Total War, this feature s/b held in abeyance. Thank you.


The auto-resolve comments are a BIG disappointment. This really shouldn't be that hard to do, and the explanation given is weak in the extreme. The extra toggle would be confusing? Come on!?! The whole blasted difficulty level system is confusing as it is AND WE LACK DOCUMENTATION. Want to help with player confusion? Provide documentation about what the heck the difficulty levels actually do. We've been able to "reverse engineer" some of the aspects of what difficulty levels do.

Some of the things being said are just plain silly.

Re "DOCUMENTATION", so true, so true. Richie, CA, how do you expect us to take what you say seriously?

Atention Must be Paid!
Willy Loman, Death of a Salesman
Author Arthur Miller

ToranagaSama
07-28-2005, 14:00
P.S., thank your Player1 for posting the FAQ to the Org.

Seamus Fermanagh
07-28-2005, 16:00
Not that it matters to me personally, but I wonder how historically accurate that is? I think of that kind of hardware as being more the product of an organized army, or city. Were roving bands of mercenaries building war machines on their own, and renting them out? Ballistae R Us?

Roman Legions, at least after Marius got done with them, almost always had trained engineers "on staff" as part of the over-large Cohore Prima. Many of the large Eastern armies had dedicated engineers on the "general staff," though little indicates such skills being as broadly dispersed as among roman forces.

Barbarian forces, when they initially encountered "civilized" armies, WERE at a disadvantage, as their traditional warfare culture rarely involved sieges and the fortified palisades they did have were mostly to deter raiding/banditry. That having been noted, however, it is important to remember that the Germano-Celts were illiterates, not idiots. They had rich artisanry and were highly skilled in all of the "military-industrial" arts of the era (albeit with a weaker economic base and much poorer infrastructure). Renting foreign advisors for gold or simply copying what was used against them would have quickly been adopted, and the raw materials (wood/sinew/hair/rocks) aren't exactly Vanadium-like in rarity.

Once palisades and walls become the norm, the need for siege engines/tools is quickly apparent to anyone -- even the unskilled. Living near the Yorktown, VA battlefield as I do, you can see the effect of even a simple palisade: 1.5m ditch with 2m mound above it, logs every .5m or so sticking out at a 30-degree up angle from the middle of the mounded portion. Now imagine trying to climb it while someone is lobbing bricks at you or poking at you with the classic "pointy stick." It does NOT take long for someone to decide there "has to be a better way."

SMZ
07-28-2005, 17:28
I like the ability to train generals. That's a relatively common practice. Any leader who's raising troops of soldiers is going to be raising commanders for them also. It was pretty common to have schools to train men to become leaders.

They make sure this isn't abused however since they say the trained generals won't be added to your family. So protecting your family members is still key.

econ21
07-28-2005, 17:35
I like the reference to rebalancing cav and spears.

I'm disappointed with the answers to the last two questions (ones that I posed), but I guess there is a silver lining in that they imply more TW games are near certainties. And, no, after Imperial Glory, I don't think CA has much to fear from the competition so far.

Orda Khan
07-28-2005, 17:59
The Family Tree was a nice touch in RTW, I was hoping this would be expanded a bit in BI. A click on dead ancesters that provided a tableture with their achievements would have been a great addition IMO.

I never expected BI to introduce massive changes, it is afterall, just an expansion but some of the answers should hopefully set some minds to rest. There are some who will never be satisfied but I guess we just have to live with that. On the whole I am even more optimistic about BI now. Let's hope it's a success

......Orda

Puzz3D
07-28-2005, 18:54
I like the reference to rebalancing cav and spears.
I certainly thought this was needed, and I'm glad to see that CA reconsidered their RTW v1.0 choice on it.



after Imperial Glory, I don't think CA has much to fear from the competition so far.
Yes, but XIII Century is coming, and the new video available shows men and horse moving at realistic speeds. Although, it doesn't show any tactical combat, it does show spearmen putting the butt of their spear into the ground to meed a cavalry charge.

It's my understanding from something CA posted that movement speed has been re-evaluated for BI. If that is coupled with a re-evaluation of the speed of combat resolution, I think both SP and MP will benfit. SP because the AI seems tailored for battles which unfold at a slower pace than currently, and MP because you have 20 units to coordinate. Not only would gameplay improve but realism would as well, and I'm not suggesting going all the way back to MTW speeds because I don't think that's necessary.



The auto-resolve comments are a BIG disappointment. This really shouldn't be that hard to do, and the explanation given is weak in the extreme. The extra toggle would be confusing?
I know this has been CA's position on difficulty levels for a long time, but the downside to limiting the difficulty options is that fewer players are satisfied with the game. With RTW, CA did actually increase the difficulty options by separating the strategic and tactical difficulty levels which was a suggestion that came from players back in STW days. So, I think some well thought out arguments could sway CA on this question of adding more difficulty options.

To my mind it would be less confusing if autoresolve didn't give the AI opponent an advantage, and to do that you had to set an "advantage to AI auto-resolve" option. The way it is now, players might not realize that the AI is getting an advantage on auto-resolve, and it definitely causes a problam for those players who would like to auto-resolve some battles but not others as Red Harvest points out.

Colovion
07-28-2005, 19:54
There are around 30% fewer regions on the new version of Europe as compared to the old RTW map.

..... there better still be the same amount of cities

Ryanus
07-28-2005, 21:52
I like the ability to train generals. That's a relatively common practice. Any leader who's raising troops of soldiers is going to be raising commanders for them also. It was pretty common to have schools to train men to become leaders.

They make sure this isn't abused however since they say the trained generals won't be added to your family. So protecting your family members is still key.

And don't forget, those hired generals have a new loyalty rating which means they can turn against you ~:). I wonder if family members have this too? If so I assume they are normally more loyal to begin with.

What I think would be a really cool feature, in BI or the next game, would be if you could make a hired general become part of the family by getting his loyalty high enough, (by the occasional gift, giving him some of those titles C.A. mentioned, giving him land, ect.). This of course would be difficult and require substantial time and recourses.

Another sugestion for future games would be for hired generals having a "retiring age" instead of dying, and after retirement having a chance to become a unique retinue.

O.K. enough of my ramblings! really looking forward to BI!