View Full Version : Things you wish were in RTW
Well, we've all had a chance to play RTW for more than a year now.
While you were playing, there must have been a point where you thought "I wish I could do xxxx"
What might that xxxx be?
For me it would have to be destroying or founding of towns/cities. I was just reading about what happened to Carthage in real history....put to the torch. If only we could do that in-game.
A hot coffee thing.:san_laugh:
If you succeed then you will have a child and if you don't you have to wait until the next time one of the wifes is in the mood:san_grin:
Ability to make another country your slave, basically a super protectorate.
You get to make his allies.
Demand any province from him.
Get to see his entire map in real time.
And make his enemys for him.
Conqueror
12-23-2005, 13:58
1. Supply trains and foraging. Pillaging/destroying enemy supplies should be possible to attempt. If an army loses it's supplies then it has to live off the land. If this is not sufficient to feed the whole army then the units will be depleted due to massed desertion. Scorched earth tactics should be applicable, though this would cause great damage to your own provinces.
2. An "Interception Zone" (IZ) for every stack on the campaign map. Each army would radiate an IZ around it, The size of the IZ would be based on the left-over movement points of the army (the less the army moved during the previous turn, the bigger it's IZ will be). The function of the IZ would be that when an army of another faction moves into player's IZ, the player would be prompted with a popup screen, with the option of either attacking the army or doing nothing. If the player decides to attack, his army will move to intercept the other army, and a battle is started.
Of corse, the player's own armies, when normally moving on the campaign map, would be subject to being intercepted by the AI in the same way. With IZs, field battles would become a lot more common and siege battles less common. It would also make it more difficult to grab cities with instant assaults:
In RTW you can too easily just march around an AI army (because they are stuck sitting still while it's your turn) and reach the city in the province in the same turn. Then, if the player has ballistas or onagers (or spies in the city) he can attack right away and defeat the typically pitiful AI garrison. Then the next turn when the AI army is finally allowed to move, it's too late because the player has already taking it's city, and now the AI can only try to win it back through a siege.
3. Flammable buildings and vegetation. You should be able to set things on fire, and the flames should spread. Granted, you can already burn buildings with onager shots, but it never spreads the fire and only thing it does is destroy the building, it never hurst units even if they are hugging the burning house. Burning down cities and forts would be a nice addition to siege warfare. Likewise, setting a forest on fire would be a very effective way of killing/forcing out those units hiding in there. But using fire in such way should be very dangerous, as it could spread toward your own units. There would need to be some kind of icon to display the direction of the wind, and the wind should not stay constant.
That interception zone is a really good idea. I was thinking of something similar. I would also like a more realistic supply model. But most importantly, I wish a decent A.I.
DensterNY
12-23-2005, 18:53
Holybandit and Conquerer,
Definitely good ideas... As for the super-protectorate - historically when one nation/empire got incredibly powerful and large other nations didn't spontaneous oppose it... they became their vassals and kissed their asses as best they could to avoid being conquered and anhiliated.
Also, the supply lines/foraging idea is great because armies can't just march off to war without any thought to feeding and supplying its men especially in RTW time when you have armies that are out to war for 20-30 years time.
The other ideas that I would like implemented... One is when you enslave a city instead of just population growth all citys that receive benefits should also get a reduction in cost and time to build new structures. The Romans utilized slaves extensively for all of their engineering marvels and buildings that dotted the world.
Zatoichi
12-24-2005, 12:21
I'd quite like to see a return to the MTW idea of taking prisoners during battles instead of them just dying in the rout. You could have the option to sell them as slaves or trade them/sell them back in case of nobility/family members. Or just plain slaughter them! This isn't too historical for this time period as far as I'm aware.
Also, the ability to recieve gold in the way of loot from battlefields - you could tie this in with the supply train idea - maybe you would only get the gold from looting battlefields when your army made it back to a friendly city. That way, you could be defeated in battle before reaching your base and lose all your ill-gotten gains. I guess this would need better defined armies rather than just a collection of units - but this would also be agood thing.
At its core rtw is a superb game, albeit with a few flaws. I would be more than satisfied if CA just improved the AI. i do like some of the sggestions ive read here though.
one other thing i wouldnt mind is the ability to come out of a town and fight a battle before it falls under siege, failing that abandon it. You can allways come back later.
What I would like is the ability to fight a field (not a sally) when someone starts a siege of your city or fort. Example: I had taken Corinth from the Greeks but a Greek twenty-two unit stack was on it way to retake it. I couldn't risk a revolt, but I didn't want to fight a sally battle. So I left half the army as garrison and positioned the other half outside in the hope that they would attack it so the garrison would appear in the battle as reinforcements. Instead they sieged the city and then used a petty two-unit stack to attack my field army. The worst bit was that my garrison couldn't come to the aid of my field army (on account of being besieged), but their twenty-two unit stack of besiegers could!
I couldn't win this, so I reloaded and fought a sally battle, but I would like it to be possible to meet an attacking army in front of the city when they lay their siege. As it is, cities and forts are a deathtrap.
What I would like is the ability to fight a field (not a sally) when someone starts a siege of your city or fort. Example: I had taken Corinth from the Greeks but a Greek twenty-two unit stack was on it way to retake it. I couldn't risk a revolt, but I didn't want to fight a sally battle. So I left half the army as garrison and positioned the other half outside in the hope that they would attack it so the garrison would appear in the battle as reinforcements. Instead they sieged the city and then used a petty two-unit stack to attack my field army. The worst bit was that my garrison couldn't come to the aid of my field army (on account of being besieged), but their twenty-two unit stack of besiegers could!
I couldn't win this, so I reloaded and fought a sally battle, but I would like it to be possible to meet an attacking army in front of the city when they lay their siege. As it is, cities and forts are a deathtrap.
Horra horra, excellent idea.
RTW has a problem with boundries, I usually start on a map where im on the downside of a hill
-
- - << This is where I am.
- -
- -
If they gave you a little space before the battle this could be worked out, they did this in MTW.
2) Chose what units go in battle and which stay out, I dont like important units like elephants or seige engines get halved in a major battle.
I want the MTW special win conditions back. The BI provinces are a good alternative, but I would also like to see stuff like: Build a lvl 5 barracks in X province.
Oh, and... SP BATTLE RECORDING!
Garvanko
12-28-2005, 13:39
More coherent Alliances. For example, the Gauls, Germans and the Spanish working together to defeat the julii. Or Pontus helping the Seluecids against the Egyptians. I want to see this physically happening on the campaign map..
I would surely like reintroducing certain MTW features, such as taking prisoners, having various alternatives to choose from after fighting a rebel force. Ability to apply the wedge formation for infantry would be totally sweet as well - I want to do the Asterix-thing with my legionnaires!
Another thing I was mourning after some time ago: being able to "raise a legion" in a matter of 2-4 turns. By "raising a legion" I don't mean the generic thing you would do - train individual centurias from a city or two and merge them with a general - but something else instead. By using the "Raise a Legion" ability you basically draft a legion out of nowhere - well not entirely nowhere, the number of the troops is reduced from the city intended.
My idea of "Raise a Legion" would require something from the faction as well so that it wouldn't be terribly overused:
Certain popularity within the Senate
A general who has obtained certain amount of skill (skill as for stars) - the general chosen leads the legion
"Raise a Legion" -ability is terribly costy when compared with the ordinary means of training armies
The legions formed by using the Raise a Legion -ability would be tied into their generals; should the general die, his legion will be dismissed. The units formed using the ability would be marked with a symbol, which indicates the unit in question to be a raised unit and which further warns that the
Some points concerning the legions/units formed with the ability of Raise a Legion.
Unit(s) in the legion(s) is/are tied to the leading general; should the general either die or exit the army, the entire legion will dismiss
Units in the legions can be retrained achieve experience as normal units would do be used as a garrison in a city or fort
Units are marked with a special emblem which indicates that a) they are units formed by using the Raise a Legion ability and b) they'll dismiss if their general dies or exits the army
Orvis Tertia
12-29-2005, 05:00
More full-frontal nudity. :medievalcheers:
InsaneApache
12-29-2005, 16:10
The ability to destroy settlements. *burn hollywood, burn* :winkg:
The ability to seize the enemies seige engines and keep them.
The ability to steal technology from more advanced factions. (As it was in Civilization)
Real time naval battles, that have the ability to show the troops (if any) carried by the fleet, and that they make a difference, like Marines.
damn I had a load the other night whan I was drunk and now I can't remember them all. I 'spose I'll have to get drunk all over again so I'll remember. (well that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it :gring: )
UltraWar
12-29-2005, 18:30
the chance to turn all the egyptians into Muhammed Hassan's and.......
ALL YOUR BASES BELONG TO US!
I´ve just yesterday tried the demo for Knights of Honor, now that game is precisely what the strategic map of the TW games should be. It incorporates a couple of features mentioned here, like the need for food supply, the possibility to loot villages and a transparent and (most important) working diplomacy part (without the need to send pesky diplomats all about the map hoping to find some fellow :rtwno: ). And it´s not turn-based but the clock runs all the time, though slow enough that it´s not really an RTS.
The downside is, the battles don´t come up to the TW level and there are less units ~:(
To cut a long story short, the strategic part of Knights of Honor, the battles of MTW and the graphics of Rome, that would combine the best of all worlds.
Germanvs
12-31-2005, 11:02
I would like the units in the battle-map to have a few more options/buttons:
- the 'keep your distance' button should be available for all.
- a 'charge at will' button would be nice as well.
- a 'never attack a routing unit' would be good (especially in combination with the 'fire at will' for my hastati/principi: I hate it when to spend their pilae on 30-odd routing peasants with a couple of warbands advancing on them a bit further on)
- a 'keep face to the enemy'button would also tremendously help,
I also find it hard to plan an enveloping manouvre. The whole waypoints thing doesn't work very well for me, especially since I cannot tell them to move around and then attack or guard that area.
As it is now, with the current speed of battles (a half speed button would be another nice thing) I find myself forced to pause a lot in battles, which feels abit like cheating. If I don't pause, I can't win any even-sided battle (on VH).
scorillo
12-31-2005, 15:12
well...
scorillo
12-31-2005, 15:14
1.Definately the Alliances improvement is the first on the list....an alliance must to be an oath,no...more than an oath...a sacrement....and when one side decides to break the alliance...they should announce it....and not stabing on my back...and when i ask them to fight along side me....they should take their army and phisicaly fly to my aid
2.More cities on the campaign map for each faction
3.Germans didn't had phalanxes!
4.More factions should be added,like: bastarnae,carpi,scordiscs(celtic tribe),illiryan,qvazi,marcomanni(separate from Germania,marcomanni were in today's Slovakia,though were germanic tribe,and they played an important part on roman history eg.Marcus Aurelius Column)
5.Britannia & Egypt...do I need to explain?!
6.Factions shouldn't die so easily !!!...Allmost all should resist in one way or another as far as they can
I would be very happy if these shell be fixed....by an mod or a decent patch:balloon2:
Somebody Else
12-31-2005, 18:25
Just had an idea about revolts... Rather than the garrison being ejected out of the city, perhaps instead a new kind of city battle - with both the garrison and rebels starting in the city.
Also, again to do with city battles - random third-party townsfolk wandering around would be entertaining...
Lord Winter
12-31-2005, 19:22
No hard code Diplomacy
AntiochusIII
12-31-2005, 22:43
Just had an idea about revolts... Rather than the garrison being ejected out of the city, perhaps instead a new kind of city battle - with both the garrison and rebels starting in the cityThat idea came up often enough that I really hope CA's would like to do that in the TW sequel.
And it indeed would be so much fun.
I´ve just yesterday tried the demo for Knights of HonorThat game is a good game. A bit too easy though, and the AI build their empires too fast...
An "Interception Zone" (IZ)A most excellent idea indeed. :2thumbsup:
I want the MTW special win conditions back.Among the more frequent demands by the fans. I am among those many who agree with you. Hopefully CA will listen to the fans...
For me I don't ask much. If CA continues to use the concept of culture, then I at least ask that the current "indestructible" buildings be destructing, if only for the sake of complete assimilation. It is currently absolutely annoying to take a foreign culture's huge city...
Of course, things like farms and roads will be hard to destroy, but not impossible. Why not make it cost money instead to destroy them?
I also doesn't like the direction overall that the TW series is going. I am sure that the TW series always have a foot on the RTS side of things, this is where I want the foot removed, peacefully or cut off. :sweatdrop:
1) The "rewarding" system of elite units later on just doesn't work. I know it has been used since STW but seriously, combined arms is the name of the game for a game this scale, not "super tauren beat the crap out of the little grunts."
2) The population of a city...that smacks of RTS... It seriously unbalances the game. There was an idea (not mine) that came up earlier about seperate populations of province and city, whereas the province will be for recruitment, taxes, and stuff (and population move around when things go bad in a province, or a province prospers and attracts immigrants) while city represents technological development (urbanization) which involves the tech tree side of things, and probably trade income. That was a great idea.
3) The speed...ha!
4) The lack of "character." In these kinds of games (be it Civilization or Total War) there is a certain lack of involving "character." Going the RTS way (pumping units, mass produce, huge empire overrun the world) is making things worse. In Shogun, characters such as Takeda Shingen, Uesugi Kenshin, Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Mori Motonari, and Date Masamune are a boon to the game's atmosphere, even though they are just abstract numbers, if only because they are "characters" and their extra stars made them very useful, not to mention the joy of watching an AI "hero" like this actually affects the map. (Many times I counted these high star A.I. guys to be turning the tide of failing clans back to glory on their own. Like the Takeda, and the Uesugi).
In MTW, our kings are obvious and "personal," as well as the dynasty. The presence of heroes (I remembered the glee when I first saw Joan of Arc on my side -- she was a rewarding appearance after a grueling French campaign, and put my falling empire (I was inexperienced then) back on track by leading her armies (my, but...) to countless victory against the bloody Italians all the way to Rome from Burgundy, saving my Homeland scores for a victory in time...) also helps.
In RTW...sooooo much potential are wasted. Where are the mighty Antigonids, descendants of the legendary Antigonus and Demetrius? I want a bloody campaign of my own saving my hated arse from the rest of the Diadochi world from Antigonea to Demetrias. All we got from Macedon was a bunch of uninteresting family members with a leader named Antigonus. What about the Seleucids? Why is Antiochus soooo old and the only Antiochus ever lived? WTF? I want to see my Antiochus III! Where is he? How about the Ptolemaics? Where are the wily diplomats? Their great coffers weren't hiring massive native armies to annoy the hell out of you, you know, but spread around in every corner of the world enhancing the influence of that powerful family. Imagine the fun of bargaining a treaty for Ptolemaic aid, while your little kingdom fought off a mighty oppressor with Ptolemaic gold! How about the Barcas? Why aren't they in there? Who's gonna beat up the Romans now? Where is HANNIBAL? Gah!
What we have, instead, is a bunch of fictional Roman loser families (still with no personality) and they don't even have Scipio Africanus. :shame:
All in the name of tailoring to RTS. :no:
The Hellenistic world was a much more fascinating place than the game managed to present.
I love this game, but I hate these aspects of it.
Craterus
01-01-2006, 00:52
Gaius Julius and Hannibal Barca are actually possible names for certain generals. Wether or not you get them/see them is all chance. The naming of characters is done at random, but those names are in the choosing pools.
antisocialmunky
01-01-2006, 03:06
No Eggies.
SomeNick
01-01-2006, 08:09
All of the above and more disctinctive looking Generals & retinue. A cool helmet/uniform like in the movie gladiator for the Roman's would be good...
Bridges being more tactically important by the ability to construct and destroy them. Armies having the ability to make a bridge and being risky to cross without an engineer ancillary with general maybe...
Armies being able to climb over mountains and heavy woods with greatly reduced movement. The movement of any amry being confirmable before they execute it. Dragging mouse is a pain in the arse, especially when it stuffs up through a manual error as per > 'oh... they are going to go that way.... damn...oh I didn't save... damn damn damn'
To be able to take siege engines through city gates.
More distinctive or customisable banners for specialised units.
The option to name characters in the actual game without stuffing around with game files.
More engaging or determinable outcome with naval war fare. Tired of chasing enemy fleets everywhere takes up too much time in a turn with the info window as the only form of play is stale. Especially later in the campaign.
Rough indication of actual income via any trade route (sea/land) by maybe hovering mouse over it would be a lot more convenient. Hate chasing rebels around too (lol), when I couldn't be bothered working out income and stuff to see if it's worth doing it!
More options in game menu regarding game play.
Ah nearly forgot! Campaign battle replay saves would be good.
Lastly...
No bugs!
There... said it...
AntiochusIII
01-01-2006, 09:20
Gaius Julius and Hannibal Barca are actually possible names for certain generals. Wether or not you get them/see them is all chance. The naming of characters is done at random, but those names are in the choosing pools.I know that. But they won't be the same Hannibal or Caesar now, would they? I've seen a Hannibal late in 150 B.C. (Yes, I guess there was a Hannibal in 150 B.C. historically since the Carthaginians did seem to reuse names throughout history) and he was an insane alcoholic with no stars. Or a Publius Scipio at 240 B.C. who's an inbred. WTF? Those are not good excuses for real characters to not show up! And what's with the dynasty being unable to repeat the names like they did in MTW? Many dynasties reuse names continuously.
The worst gripe is that it used to exist in an earlier game and a good feature removed. :wall:
AntiochusIII hit the nail on the head. While R:TW has many refinements compared to M:TW, the overal gameplay is less due to a short of faster = better attitude. Fast battles, fast expansion, fast enrichment, fast-'n-simple diplomacy, an A.I. unable to slow the player down much.
But I have to say that the new patches are pushing R:TW in the right direction again, so I doubt it was CA's intention to leave the old fans out cold.
Fast&Simple diplomacy? I think not, at least not compared to MTW where diplomatic options were next to none. I´ll agree with the rest, though.
I would like it if you were allowed to make forts which you would be allow to upgrade.
the romans did not always use a conquered city to fight from. They would have forts... and some forsts would grow bigger and have better walls and such. They would train there, get local recruits, sometimes reinfocements...
Geoffrey S
01-03-2006, 15:53
Supply lines are a must. Right now the movement rates are either unrealistically small or (in mods) so large as to unbalance the game; with something like supply lines an army could in theory move far greater distances, but only if supplies have been stocked beforehand, and if the enemy doesn't cut the army off. It'd also mean expeditions would be more planned than in the current RTW, where it's often decided on a turn by turn basis what to attack next.
Something I'd also like to see is a major overhaul of the provinces. Right now, there's one town per province. What'd be great is if there were one larger city inside a province, and a number of smaller towns around it. These would supply the city with food and supplies, and would serve as garrisons. An invader would have to conquer as many of these as possible to prevent food from reaching the major city, or to prevent these towns being used as garrisons for raids on the main forces.
More varied battle scenarios could also be a good thing. For instance, if you decide to withdraw without a fight, a random chance could occur meaning that the enemy attempts to fight anyway, and as the player you'd have to either defeat the enemy or get as many units outside the borders of the map as possible; or attempting to damage the siege works surrounding the city; or trying to get reinforcements through the enemies siegeworks and into the city; or even attempting to break out of a city when all appears to be lost. I also like the idea proposed earlier of having to fight the occasional street-by-street battle during riots or the like.
And Europa Barbarorum as the standard RTW. ~;)
2. An "Interception Zone" (IZ) for every stack on the campaign map. Each army would radiate an IZ around it, The size of the IZ would be based on the left-over movement points of the army (the less the army moved during the previous turn, the bigger it's IZ will be). The function of the IZ would be that when an army of another faction moves into player's IZ, the player would be prompted with a popup screen, with the option of either attacking the army or doing nothing. If the player decides to attack, his army will move to intercept the other army, and a battle is started.
I like this. It makes things more realistic, yet doesn't complicate the game too much.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.