Desired Features, old and new

[Servius]

I don't know if we've already had a thread like this, but I know there's not a stickied one, so without further ado, please list gameplay features you would like to see in MTW2. Suggest old favorites from the past that got nixed somewhere along the line, or ones you wish had always been there. Lets try to keep it possitive. No need for bashing here, just what you'd like to see. Short and sweet. Here are some of my desires:

A morale meter on the unit card
A fatigue meter on the unit card
A battle-map speed slidebar
A hotkey that allows you to change unit facing with one click (+ the hotkey)
Different battlefield terrain types that affect different units in different ways
Morale penalty effects for packing too many units in a small space
Morale penalty effects for assigning units too many orders in a given period of time
Morale penalty effects for taking missile fire
Moreale boosting effect when the commander is nearby (visual aura)
Defense bonuses for spear-units based on rank depth
Individual range calculations for each shooter in a missile unit
Range (and maybe damage) boosting effects when shooting downhill
Charge speed boosting effect when charging downhill (all unit types)
Allow all units to use the Wedge formation
Allow provincial governorships to be granted to any unit (title-system)
Do not deduct construction resources until the unit/building is actually under construction
Allow royal marriages to princesses to increase the liklihood that heirs will have good stats

[Cowhead418]

Some off the top of my head:

Alliances to actually mean something
Mutual protection pacts
The ability to create a multiple-faction alliance
MTW system of owning a province (either you did or you didn't) Entering another province is a declaration of war
More movement points for agents - I don't want to have to wait six years for my diplomat to reach the Scythians to ask for an alliance
Battles in the city streets with rebels
The ability to hold councils with your advisors to discuss political and military strategies
More exploitation of the terrain on the campaign map
More weather effects
Tradeable goods to have a function other than just money-making
A better use for princesses
Individual units that are more able to respond to various situations on the battlefield
The STW-style record of generals though it should not have as much impact on the command as it did in STW
When civil wars occur, the other side you don't choose to back should act as a coordinated group and like another faction, not as a split group of rebels
The awesome atmospheric battlefields of STW
More interesting sieges - more options, ability to go see it on the battlefield
No suicidal or idiotic AI generals who throw their lives away (taken from another thread)
STW-style movies! I loved those!

[Grimmy]

I would like to see a change to tactical battles. When an enemy army routs, you can "release to persue". By that I mean, in order to have a general break of formation and persue the enemy to slaughter them, you issue a "release to persue" command (button) and then give up control of your army as they go forth to slaughter.

Otherwise, the army would have to keep formation and advance in good order, rank and file.

This would add a level of tactical "deciet" and tension. Is the enemy army really breaking and running in rout? or are they baiting you into comming after them so they can rally and turn on your men as they are now out of formation and easier to take apart?

Also, I'd like to see a disciplen effect much like morale that is tested per unit during a fight. If a unit is facing an enemy unit that breaks and routs..will that unit "release to persue" without orders to do so, or even against orders not to do so?

Kinda like the saxon shield wall that was holding back successive waves of norman cavalry and foot charges that finally got baited into breaking ranks and going after the enemy they thought was routing, but then turned on them and ...

I'm thinking it was the Battle of Hastings, but not sure on the name.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

A 'Advance' order for multiple units to adance in formation. (to meet the enemy) It can be done now but it is way too fiddly and you are one mouseclick away from disaster if you get it wrong.

The speech to go on during the deployment phase. I kinda like the speeches but I never listen to them because I tire of waiting for the old codger to finish. If he could do his speech while I'm spending a few minutes placing my troops that would be so much better. Not too much to ask, I hope.

A Grognard mode With the Arcade mode rarely used by most people and it's features accesible by the ordinary options already, and with CA already aiming at the massmarket, how about a mode for us die hard wargamers? Stuff like slowing down the battles, units with combat values according to their historical effectiveness rather then for balancing purposes. Etc. etc.

[Joshwa]

I'd like to see more diplomatic options, off the top of my head

*In GA mode, it should be harder to conquer and hold enemy provinces; there should be a hell of a lot of rebellions, the support cost of troops in that province should be higher, and the previous owner should get 'guerilla' troops to harass the occupiers.
*Vassal kingdoms. If you beat another faction, you can demand they pay you money/provide you with troops. You could also take all their heirs off them as hostages. If they decide to attack after that they'd better make damn sure they win!
*A 'Royal Court' system, where your diplomats follow foreign kings around, instead of you having to hunt them down every time you want to petition.
*The ability to decide which captured units to ransom back, and which to dispose of/cripple. Im thinking of Turkish Horses archers here!
*Being able to move through another factions territory without invading. This could either be because you are so big they don't dare oppose you, or by paying them.
*The option to demand territory/money from a faction when they sue for peace.
*different kinds of alliance. Non-aggression pacts, Trade agreements etc. It would be cool if a whole bunch of factions could group together in one big trading league, for example.
*A different system for battle outcomes; If you massively outnumber the enemy, but they take, say, half of your army with them, that would count as a technical victory for you, and a moral victory for them. Troops who suffer crushing defeats 'remember' this, and will be de-moralised the next time they fight. Conversely, troops on a winning streak will have a morale bonus. 'Hit and run' attacks would also be good, with you sending a few units to harass the enemy, retreating, and it NOT counting as a defeat for you, so long as you kill more of them that they do of you.

[Dutch_guy]

Ok, here are some idea's

-would like to be able to save my better campaign battles in the form of a replay.

-I would like the options of ransoming,killing the ringleaders or mercy back, also I'd want to have the option of killing enemy prisoners at the time when the battle is still in progress ( so you can cripple your enemy even If you might lose the battle )

-a Glorious achievement mode, GA, or an improved version of it - suggestions?

-I'd like to see the historical units or Heroes come back from Medieval Total war.

-To be able to wipe out factions with assassins in the mTW style, however balance it so that it isn't as easy as in Medieval but not as impossible as in Rome.

-Larger battle maps, which have more details on it ( think different sorts of terrain etc. ) and can actually be the difference between losing or winning a battle.

-Better weather effects + the corresponding penalties or bonuses, meaning archers have a decreased effectiveness in the rain, camels get bonuses in a sand storm, decreased sight in fog ( think fog of war ).

-Supply lines, which I incidentally did see in a Rome total war trailer / screenshot.

-Make retraining harder, aka make it take as long as is necessary, so given a unit is 100 men strong it should take longer retraining if it has 20 units than that it should take if it had 90 units.

-You shouldn't be able to load a full stack in just one boat, I'd rather have the Medieval system of naval transportation than the Rome one, which says a lot.

-Make certain strategic positions a priority to defend for the AI, meaning that the AI should cover bridges or mountain passes or built castles / forts in those area's.

-An improved diplomacy system, catholics should have an easier time negotiation with fellow believers than with Orthodox or Muslim factions and Vice-versa.

-Armies should be able to cover more distance in your own province than in enemy provinces ( Stolen from another thread, Thanks ~:))

-Rebels hunting should not take more time than fighting battles against the current enemy super power.

-Civil Wars need to return, period.

-Alliances should be there for a reason, and allies should help each other if one of the factions in that alliance ask for help, also backstabbing or cancelling an alliance at a very very bad time for your ally, should result in a loss of ...prestige or influence , loyalty or something of that kind.

-Make the AI form armies rather than 3 unit border patrol ~;)
Meaning it should form stacks rather than forming various little armies.

-AI armies should always be led by a general - that general would NOT have to be a family member.

-Bring back the feature to assign titles to generals, governors, maybe expand that feature - suggestions ?

Well thats all I could think of at the moment.

Will maybe edit this thread of post new brain waves in this thread.

:balloon2:

[ivoignob]

A lot of usefull things were said already. Some of them were already part of previous Total War games.
Well I wish those messages back, which informed you if a king of another faction has died. In MTW for example a glorious faction could become very weak as soon as a king with high influence died and the heir was rather weak. You should be able to get informed of such a great incidence without your spies sneaking around as word would spread.

[Trithemius]

A lot of usefull things were said already. Some of them were already part of previous Total War games.
Well I wish those messages back, which informed you if a king of another faction has died. In MTW for example a glorious faction could become very weak as soon as a king with high influence died and the heir was rather weak. You should be able to get informed of such a great incidence without your spies sneaking around as word would spread.

I agree with this.

I'd also like some "assumed diplomacy" to be going on. Even if my bishops and princesses aren't in a given territory, I'd like to think I could hear something about what's going on there. News might have travelled slow, but with turns that last a year or more it should travel a bit! I suppose it could be thought of as a bit of thinning in some parts of the 'fog of war' or something? Having some idea of who controls what from turn to turn seems fairly reasonable?

[Furious Mental]

An undo button so that I don't have to reload a saved game if I accidentally send an army to a place I don't want it to be.

[Powermonger]

I'd like a 'lock formation' function which allows you to set your armies formation and then press 'CTRL + SHIFT + L' and the formation would be temporarily saves. When you move your army and need for them reform up again you can just press 'CTRL + L' and they rearrange themselves as required.

This should've been in when STW was released, hopefully they will correct this in MTW2 finally.

[Servius]

Good point about the Glorious Achievement mode, I forgot about that but really liked it in MTW.

I also wish I could have the abilities of spies from MTW, but without them always getting killed by guard towers, and without them necessarily pissing the people in the province off. In MTW, if you got a spy in foreign land, you sometimes got reports when the AI was going to attack a certain province ahead of time. I thougth that was SO cool. I think spies should have the following missions that you can send them on:

Intelligenc-gathering - The spy does not upset the populace, he just gathers information about army stacks and cities in the province AND reports of faction plans (like future invasion plans)

Civic Disturbance - Spy doesn't provide any intel, but does irritate the public, making them more prone to rebel againt their current faction

Sabotage - Spy can try to destroy certain buildings in a city/castle

Waylay - Spy can try to slow the movement speed of an army stack

Assassinate - Spy can try to kill the head of a unit (doesn't have to be the head of an army stack).

Personally, I would prefer to have one special operations agent (ala Ninja) rather than two (Spy and Assassin).

I'd also like all unit types to have the basic traits like Command, Piety, Loyalty, Acumen, Dread (MTW style). This, combined with the ability to grant governorships and other cool titles (as you could do in MTW) would be really cool I think.

Lastly (for this post) I'd like the birthrates of family members to be independent of all game events again, rather than linking it to the number of provinces.

[SpencerH]

My biggest desire is options. I want to be able to switch from the RTW RTS-style game (which I dont want to play) to a 'realism'-style game with fatigue and morale indicators and where where cavalry can actually run down routed inf units (for example).

[Nelson]

Castles occasionally had moats and drawbridges. If gates can be made to open and close surely a bridge can made that goes up and down. If a nearby water source is available, castles should be able to have moats.

To cross the moat it would need to be filled. If we can have troops dig mines to collapse walls we can have them fill moats in much the same way.

Start digging the moats, CA! :smile:

I would also like to receive a message during battle to tell me whenever an important vassal has done something noteworthy, dying for example. Something like “My lord, his Grace the Duke of Argyle has fallen!” or “My liege, the Prince your son flees like a frightened nun!”.

[Nelson]

Duplicate post.

[DensterNY]

A lot of usefull things were said already. Some of them were already part of previous Total War games.
Well I wish those messages back, which informed you if a king of another faction has died. In MTW for example a glorious faction could become very weak as soon as a king with high influence died and the heir was rather weak. You should be able to get informed of such a great incidence without your spies sneaking around as word would spread.

Yeah, that is a great part of MTW having the influence of a nation/empire carried upon the name of its King. Whenever there was a transition in rulers for a nation that I was interested in acquiring I would quickly attack their weakest provinces to create chaos and lack of confidence in their king. After a round of two of this it most likely cause mass rebellions which I'd pick apart.

[Trithemius]

I'd like a 'lock formation' function which allows you to set your armies formation and then press 'CTRL + SHIFT + L' and the formation would be temporarily saves. When you move your army and need for them reform up again you can just press 'CTRL + L' and they rearrange themselves as required.

This should've been in when STW was released, hopefully they will correct this in MTW2 finally.

You can ALT+move to preserve formation in RTW (maybe after a patching, I don't remember if it was in 1.0); or do you mean more control over formations?

It'd be neat to be able to store formations and then have your army enter in column and deploy, but I just like watching that sort of thing... >_>

[Powermonger]

You can ALT+move to preserve formation in RTW (maybe after a patching, I don't remember if it was in 1.0); or do you mean more control over formations?

It'd be neat to be able to store formations and then have your army enter in column and deploy, but I just like watching that sort of thing... >_>

More control over formations really. The ALT+Click is okay but a bit clumsy and is only good for maintaining facing and formation if all units are grouped together. It's not much good though if you move some units out of the formation to pursue a enemy unit but then want the whole army to reform again.

You need some way of temporarily saving a formation so you can instantly reorganise your whole army once a battle begins. You're given the 1-9 group formations, the CTRL+L would be just a custom one of them.

[spmetla]

I'd like additional cities, towns, and villages within each province. They can be attacked and held just as the ones currently in RTW and upgraded but they don't give control of the provice as the "capital would". The Captal I believe would be the centre of trade and commerce of course. This would allow for the situation of "outremer" after the fall of Jerusaleum when Acre was all that was left in palastine of the kingdom of Jerusaleam.

it would allow people to sack more cities and because of the new castle/city desicion making thingy they would be able to have both within a province. Also for the smaller unwalled towns and villages they would be of course prime targets for true raiding.

I'd also like to see actual blood on the battlefield. I realize they want to mass market this game and I'm not requesting exploding heads or limbs spurting blood like fountains, instead I'd at least like to see bloodied weapons and armor and pools of blood around corpses.

City combat needs to be improved units get seperated and mixed up and wont march into certain areas. I'd also like to be able raze certain parts of cities, lets say that the enemy retreats to the town square/citadel and waits for me there I could then have my troops set fire to the buildings I do have control of, thatway I could either tempt the enemy out or abandon the siege but have left the city in ruins.

I'd like to expand and promote certain industries. I saw that in MTW it look as if they were planning to do this but didn't and I'd like to see this explored again. That way I could promote the wine industries of france, the glass industry of venice instead of merely passing those base products off to interior provinces or other ports.

I want the ability to have additional contigents to my armies show up in my battles as well but not as reinforcements but as part of my battle line, that way I could have lets say the infantry under command of so and so the left wing of cavalry by sir so and so while I lead the right wing of cav. The way reinforcements are now doesn't really help me at all because they act as two different armies instead of as one. Would make mulitiple stack invasions better.

When I commit nobles to crusades they should be able to return without having completed their objectevis. Many knights abandoned the siege of antioch (some founded the principality of edessa) others went home. Richard the Lionheart didn't take Jerusaleum but went home.

I'd also like marriages to mean more. If I had princess X marry so and so of Germany and that general happened to rebel then I could go to war a bit more legitatmetly and hopefully not get excommunicated.

I'll think of more...

[Furious Mental]

If possible I would get rid of provinces altogether and simply have dynamic national boundaries that function in a manner similar to those in Civ and Rise of Nations. Almost certainly impossible, however.

[spmetla]

I'd also like agents to be able to sabatoge seige equipment and also for the building of siege equipment to require nearby woods or a nearby port. I'd like catapults and onagers to be built as siege equipment. I don't believe that they were used as actual artillery for regular field battles all too often.

As others have mentioned I'd like to see supply lines. It'd allow scorched earth tactics (maybe a build option for a general) and perhaps units such as light cavalry and infantry would get bonuses for foraging and be able to acquire food better (bit goofy but it could work).

I'd like to be able to demolish enemy watchtowers. I want farms to appear on the strategic map so I can go and burn their crops in the summer to ruin their income.

I want ports to be able to function more like cities so that they can be siezed and attacked as well as upgraded with walls. \

I'd like to push ladders off my walls.

I'd like to be able to function sort of as a pirate by being able to steal from caravans and shiplines that I block with my armies and ships.

I'd like to see hostages for agents and family memebers that get captured so I could pay randsom for them. I'd also like to be able to have my family members act as diplomats as well.

I want the transport of troops over sea to require a certain number of ships to transport more troops. A single bireme cant transport a whole army (althoughI guess it could over a 6 month period).

I want cav to be able to dismount. Before battles would be fine.

I'd like to be able to try and build ramparts up to smaller walls (common tactic for smaller towns.

Wooden walls should also be able to hold troops on the wall and have ladders brought against them.

I'd want the crusading orders to appear independtly as sort of friendly rebels/allies in a sense, able to build their own forts/castles.

Battle maps to vary in size according to the size of the forces.

An option to turn the radar off along with scout cavalry (lightly armed and armored fast).

And of course a smart AI on the battlefield and strategic map. No more hmm everyone else in my army died at the gates but I feel my general will do better Charge!

[Ulysses]

WANTED:

-a MUCH MORE challenging campmap-AI, which I can edit for myself(this was the weakest point in the vanilla game, my four-year-old son and my granny could always win this game...)

-same for the battle AI, which was almost "OK" in the original game

-better control system, maybe like in RON: left mouse-choose a unit; middle mouse-choose all units of same type; right mouse-send unit to; right mouse drag-give direction for target spot; right mouse drag+wheel; change formations depth; right mouse drag+left clicks-change formations..., and a better zoom out

-better scripting language for formations, where every unittype is known correctly by the engine(in vanilla MTW the engine couldn't distinguish between artillery and missile-units or between extraheavy-inf. and rus-spears...)

-a economic, techn., diplomatic and rel. campmap-system which is worth it's name, maybe a little like in CIV, but with resources and more complex structures for different strats

-many different types of agents, but only 1-3 of each of them

-much heavier sieges, where siege-equipment is needed, and with heavy losses for the attacker

-an editor for scripting and modding almost every aspect of the game

-an improved system for character-creation, only real actions of the player should influence the general's characters, more rebellions as consequences of bad ruling

-more turns in the game, more epic character

-the devastating atmosphere of the original MTW

[Servius]

Man, having mod tools come with the game would be so cool. Ooo ooo, I just thought of something:

Factional traits (i.e. Culture). You know how your king and heirs can gain vices or virtues through their actions, but they eventually die, and maybe only some remnant of certain behaviors lives on in their heirs. Well what if each faction (basically, you) had a "culture" that developed vices and virtues over time, based on the decisions you (the player) made. These characteristics would carry on throughout the length of your campaign; they would not die with your current king. You could change them over time if you got vices you didn't like, but it should take as long to undo a vice as it took to get that vice. Now I think that would be pretty badass.

[cannon_fodder]

An undo button so that I don't have to reload a saved game if I accidentally send an army to a place I don't want it to be.
x2

Absolutely no reason why such a simple and necessary feature shouldn't be present. The only thing that can happen is the army is ambushed, right? And you could easily load your game after this event anyway, exploiting the system.

I think campaign map turns should be taken simultaneously, as it is a better reflection of real life. From what I've heard, 2 armies in ancient and medieval times could maneuver near each other for long periods, each trying to gain an advantageous position. So, essentially, they would only actually engage each other when each side thought they could win the battle. This would help with the whole "small number of decisive battles" thing, and solve our accidental move woes.

Coupled with setting states or behaviours to campaign map units, so much more would be possible. For example, you could set a unit to "engage at will", "avoid engagement", "retreat upon contact" (for scouts, etc.). Also, with the AI making decisions on a smaller scale than before, there would be a greater impression of a chain of command, which is mostly absent at present.

[Ulysses]

Man, having mod tools come with the game would be so cool. Ooo ooo, I just thought of something:

Factional traits (i.e. Culture).

This was something I wanted to realize in one of my mods, but I despaired on the weak campmap-AI, what makes me shutdown all my modding-projects...


You know how your king and heirs can gain vices or virtues through their actions, but they eventually die, and maybe only some remnant of certain behaviors lives on in their heirs. Well what if each faction (basically, you) had a "culture" that developed vices and virtues over time, based on the decisions you (the player) made. These characteristics would carry on throughout the length of your campaign; they would not die with your current king. You could change them over time if you got vices you didn't like, but it should take as long to undo a vice as it took to get that vice. Now I think that would be pretty badass.

Nice ideas, but I would resolve it more individually: Generals would gain military traits, while gouvernors would gain the acumen maybe piety stuff. Or you could bring totally new traits like strength , intelligence into play. I would have thousands of suggestions for this part of the game...

[DensterNY]

One definite improvement that I would like to see is in sieges... Although I wholeheartedly loved MTW the sieges were pretty bad which wasn't a problem as you fought 95% of the time in the field.

In Rome, we had much more elaborate sieges but you had to fight them all the time which proved to be a long and tedious process. One primary reason was because you'd get stuck on walls fighting enemies who are supposed to be running for their lives but still standing there fighting it out with you to the death. I've had peasants holding off heavy infantry for 5-10 minutes simply because fighting on the walls meant only a few people could engage at the same time.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A naval battle engine.


Also this:

I'd like a 'lock formation' function which allows you to set your armies formation and then press 'CTRL + SHIFT + L' and the formation would be temporarily saves. When you move your army and need for them reform up again you can just press 'CTRL + L' and they rearrange themselves as required.

[Kraxis]

An easier way to turn the entire army.

, and . simply doesn't work very well or fast. The old system for that was simple and easy to use.

[mfberg]

A unit upgrade system to retrain units into the next unit up the scale. for example train spearmen once up to Feudal Sgts, then up to Chivalric Sgts and finally up to Pikes or Gothic Sgts.

Ransoms

A tournament system to allow your units to fight with and against other factions units and your own units, less killing, but the same VnV effects.

They need to make it easier for a non-player faction to make enough money to survive, including deleting units, and trade/smuggling deals with other countries and rebel countries.

mfberg

[Kraxis]

A unit upgrade system to retrain units into the next unit up the scale. for example train spearmen once up to Feudal Sgts, then up to Chivalric Sgts and finally up to Pikes or Gothic Sgts.
I would just prefer that upgrades are retained as per the amount of men in the unit. Meaning no more 2 silver chevron units retrained from 5 survivors to a full unit without a dilution of the experience.

[DensterNY]

Playing football with some friends the other day, which in essence is related to a traditional battlefield, I thought of some features that I'd love to see incorporated into the new Total War games.

Allow units to fight at different tempos as opposed to just having charge or engage. My idea is that in battle commanders can direct their men to press harder which should improve their attack values, perhaps lower defense value a little and also cause a little more fatigue. Units could also be directed to fight more defensively which would mean less killing but would be effective in holding an enemy.

Second, allow minute adjustments to your formations. For instance, allow me to select a unit then have them move forward a meter or backwards a meter or perhaps turn inward 15 degrees while keeping formation. Right now making even the smallest adjustment often means breaking formation and perhaps giving a flank to an enemy even if you just wanted to turn slightly. However, if you could control your formations more precisely then you could pull off magnificent manuevers like Hannibal used.

[Kraxis]

Allow units to fight at different tempos as opposed to just having charge or engage. My idea is that in battle commanders can direct their men to press harder which should improve their attack values, perhaps lower defense value a little and also cause a little more fatigue. Units could also be directed to fight more defensively which would mean less killing but would be effective in holding an enemy.
Ahhh the good old Wedge and Hold Formation of STW and MTW...

[lar]

vassals being able to say there coming to battle but end up not doing, and similar things.

like i remember i think in braveheart the movie, the english send in the irish first to fight the scots and they fake a charge and just as they get to each other they stop and are all friendly etc and join forces.

also i remember some other movie i think or game i dont remember, and this could be used so that you will no longer be a vassal since it would weaken the kingdom forcing u to be vassal.

i remember the two armies were fighting and the vassal was suppose to fight but instead just walk off from battle and leave them there.


so you could withdraw and just walk away from battle and your kingdom making you vassals army would lose morale since your walking away and there army would be defeated and the result could be the kingdom too weak to force you to be vassal anymore.

[lar]

also to add on to the withdrawing part, how about an organised withdrawal like how if neither side is going to win you withdraw your troops without fleeing and without having to exit the battle and just losing or it randomly solving.

that would be good especially if you took away the system of defender/attacker (except in siege situations etc), because when armys got into battle whoever thought they could get an advantage by attacking first would, and if both hold a good defensive position then someone isnt 'forced' to attack just because they moved their unit piece first, if neither have guts to move first you should be able to withdraw like that or move away to a different spot where you think you have an advantage and at the same time getting the enemy to move to a spot where theyll have a disadvantage, or to even tempt them to attack first if they think you moved in a bad spot. etc

[Kraxis]

Oh, I had almost forgotten...

Re-add the old F1 screen. It was at times vital to battles, but mostly it was just a piece of very very nice info.

[Furious Mental]

I would really like the AI to do a better prejudgment of the outcome of a battle on the strateegy map when deciding whether to defend or withdraw. I am really tired of going into battle mode only to have the bloody enemy army run away. If they are going to do that then they should save me a few minutes and withdraw on the strategy map.

[Servius]

I agree Furious. The best solution would be if the AI just didn't attack, or automatically withdrew on the Campaign Map if/when it was obvious they'd get slaughtered in battle.

The secondary correction would be to impose a rule that, if you agree to battle, but then withdraw, you automatically lose 25% of your forces (captured by the enemy). And honestly, if your attacking army is x% the size of the defender (maybe 10%-25%, so puny) then you lose the entire army (all captured). That way, if the AI can't be made smarter, at least that skirmishing band can only pull that silly stuff once.

If you fight the battle and take casualties, THEN retreat, no additional penalty should be applied.

[Rufus]

Allow titles of nobility to be given to princes - i.e., making your 2nd son Duke of York. The title would then become available to whomever else you choose if that prince becomes king.

Allow the ability to "create" nobles the way you can in RTW:BI. Maybe they should be a lesser title like Earl or Count.

Include pilgrimage trails and sites as a new feature. This would allow for more historical realism and atmosphere. If a king of a certain piety level builds a cathedral/grand mosque, there should be a certain % chance that the building will become a pilgrimage site (by housing a relic or something). The pilgrimage trail and site will bring in more money to that king's treasury because of the continuous influx of pilgrims, who boost the economy of the country the visit. It would also increase the population, leading to squalor, etc. The countries surrounding yours could also experience these effects as pilgrims transit them. A pilgrimage site could also boost your standing with the Pope. Some of these could be inherent if cathedrals are built in certain historical pilgrimage sites, like Santiago de Compostela and Canterbury.

Better ending. The presentation you got when you won (or lost) MTW was good. The picture looked like a period painting, you got some music, and a nice little speech about your kingdom. Not overwhelming, but decent. RTW - you hardly get anything. One little window with your leader marching into the Senate, or your barbarians standing at attention. Something closer to what happens in MTW, or more, would be good, plus an automatically generated faction chronology displaying your achievements.

Keep the family tree from Rome, but maybe merge it with the automatic faction chronology mentioned above to add more information and track accomplishments.

This has been mentioned elsewhere, but more prominence for your king on the campaign map and in his personal information screen, more like MTW and less like RTW.

Better simulation of feudalism than in MTW. I'm actually not sure how this would be done, but in the Middle Ages kings rarely had standing armies of their own. The game Crusader Kings reflects this pretty well. Maybe make your more powerful nobles even more likely to rebel. Or give them other options for exercising their independence - for example, a lower-loyalty Duke might withhold some of his troops from your use if your king is low-influence. Powerful nobles could almost be like other factions, where the number of troops and funds they provide from their province is based on a diplomatic negotiation or something.

On a similar note, allow other factions' kings to be vassals of other kings if they inherit a province, i.e., like how Henry II was a vassal to the king of France because he was Duke of Normandy (although, of course, Henry never acted like anyone else's vassal). This could be more fodder for inter-factional disputes and very frequently was during this time period.

It's probably too late for most of these things to be done, but maybe not some, like the ending or the running chronology.

[Servius]

Rufus, I never got BI, so can you explain about how you can "create" nobles in BI?

[Rufus]

Rufus, I never got BI, so can you explain about how you can "create" nobles in BI?

If you're short on family members to serve as governors, you can create a unit of Noble Cavalry or something (the name varies but I think all factions can do it) and the unit will be led by a named character who is a general, can serve as governor of a settlement but is not a family member (I think), so he can't inherit leadership of the faction. It's very expensive, requires about 3 turns to create the unit, and you can't do it till you have the most advanced cavalry stables, but it can come in handy sometimes, particularly when you have lots of family members around the same age and they all kick the bucket around the same time. Also, these generals usually appear with at least one star and a useful ancillary immediately.

[ivoignob]

I don't know if this has been posted before... Currently when changing a unit formations direction, they turn as a whole. This is very annoying, as you lose time. But if every single soldier of that unit would turn turn only 180 degrees once, the whole unit would have changed it's direction in a much shorter time. This would be very handy, when you are beeing outflanked by enemy cavalry for example. I desire this feature if possible.

[Orda Khan]

Yep, just like units turn and expose flanks should you order them to move sideways. MTW introduced this foolish behaviour, good old Shogun units would simply shuffle to right or left while maintaining facing. I wish they would reintroduce that

.......Orda

[Aquitaine]

Multi-tiered titles: the ability to grant a higher title to a character with a lower title and have it replace the lower title, e.g. a Duke title replacing a Lord title. This is in addition to complementary titles like Warden of the Cinque Ports, Lord Chancellor, etc.

Also, the ability to grant titles to your heirs. It always aggrevated me in MTW that your often most-capable characters couldn't run provinces. When a king died and the previous heirs became regular lords, that was always a great day. :)

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I don't know if we've already had a thread like this, but I know there's not a stickied one, so without further ado, please list gameplay features you would like to see in MTW2. Suggest old favorites from the past that got nixed somewhere along the line, or ones you wish had always been there. Lets try to keep it possitive. No need for bashing here, just what you'd like to see. Short and sweet. Here are some of my desires:

A morale meter on the unit card
A fatigue meter on the unit card
A battle-map speed slidebar
A hotkey that allows you to change unit facing with one click (+ the hotkey)
Different battlefield terrain types that affect different units in different ways
Morale penalty effects for packing too many units in a small space
Morale penalty effects for assigning units too many orders in a given period of time
Morale penalty effects for taking missile fire
Moreale boosting effect when the commander is nearby (visual aura)
Defense bonuses for spear-units based on rank depth
Individual range calculations for each shooter in a missile unit
Range (and maybe damage) boosting effects when shooting downhill
Charge speed boosting effect when charging downhill (all unit types)
Allow all units to use the Wedge formation
Allow provincial governorships to be granted to any unit (title-system)
Do not deduct construction resources until the unit/building is actually under construction
Allow royal marriages to princesses to increase the liklihood that heirs will have good stats

Mhm...

[lar]

determine the amount of men to be trained in a unit and make it adjust the time to make them accordingly.

[IceTorque]

I would like to see the sand box style of gameplay scrapped for a more role playing type of game. i.e. One army, one commander, one era, no build ques, no micro-management and all agents dispatched/received with one click/command. Perhaps the devs that left TW to try something new could maybe try something new with a future TW game.

[econ21]

I would like to see the sand box style of gameplay scrapped for a more role playing type of game. i.e. One army, one commander, one era, no build ques, no micro-management and all agents dispatched/received with one click/command.

I would like to see the RPG elements strengthened too - I like the GA mode of MTW and the Senate missions etc, but I am not sure it requires throwing out the sandbox so completely.

Having multiple commanders would allow the RPG elements to come more into play - you have to manage personalities who have different aims and abilities.

More than one army is essential for a serious strategy game, but I would like to see more customisation of units (upgrading to later tech types) and that would probably entail fewer units in your kingdom (so you care about them more).

Jumping into the body of a general or even a unit commander in battle would be fun. Mount and Blade meets Total War anyone?

One thing that could strengthen the RPG element is more scripting - the Mongols are one element already in MTW, but there could be more. Throw more events at the player that have to be managed.

Giving enemy faction AIs more personality (a la Civ) would help too.

[Geoffrey S]

I'm thinking a direct control option for units would be nice, if the general is close enough and grouped with the moveable unit. Something like WASD could be used to move the unit forwards, move it backwards and rotate it; the larger the group being controlled and the less experience the general/group has the longer the reaction time.

One thing I definitely would love to see is the ability to make a unit walk backwards, making it possible to lure overeager enemies into an encirclement, like at Cannae; this could incur a morale penalty and cause less-experienced units to break.

[Kraxis]

I would like to see the sand box style of gameplay scrapped for a more role playing type of game. i.e. One army, one commander, one era, no build ques, no micro-management and all agents dispatched/received with one click/command. Perhaps the devs that left TW to try something new could maybe try something new with a future TW game.
If that is what you want I suggest getting Legion Arena, it is fairly cheap and the graphics aren't too great, but it is fairly long.

Personally I would prefer to keep the sandbox. I want to build my empire, I want to shape the future. I do not want to be a pawn of some obscure out-of-game force.

[IceTorque]

If that is what you want I suggest getting Legion Arena, it is fairly cheap and the graphics aren't too great, but it is fairly long.

Personally I would prefer to keep the sandbox. I want to build my empire, I want to shape the future. I do not want to be a pawn of some obscure out-of-game force.

I too like to build an empire, I just think it would be more fun and immersive to role play a character and an army. Make more realistic decisions, like who will command a second or more army, e,g, My spies have informed me of two or more armies approaching my borders. As I realistically am in command of only one army, and cannot magically transport myself all over the game world to personally command every battle/skirmish. Do I give command to a general that has a high chance of success but may turn against me ? or do I give command to a trusted general but who has a lesser chance of success ?

As for being a pawn of some obscure out-of-game force. You would have to react to in-game events. e.g. The trusted commander has lost the battle and most of his army, now you and your personal army are up shit creek without a paddle, so to speak. Or the not so trusty general has won the battle and has now decided he wants to be king. Perhaps the game would begin with the player as the prince or consul etc. After proving ones worth you would be given more important tasks and ever increasing troops to accomplish those tasks, and when you think your strong enough you could cross the Rubicon. If you are a prince, maybe you would have to fight off those who would try to claim your rightful position of king when your old man kicks the bucket.

I would prefer to be making/giving the above decisions/commands, as opposed to what building do I need to build next.

Why not command a general to head North South or what ever and fight who ever/ gaurd/garrison a region or settlement ? Why not simply command a spy/ diplomat/princess etc to go and do what you want them to ? To me the current style of build ques micro-management and manual movement of all armies/agents and being a commander/governor of every army/settlement, combined with the god like view and total control of the game world, For me it is not only getting a tad old and repetitive, it also removes any randomness/surprises.

Basically a new and more immersive way to tie together the core gameplay that is TW, and that is the 3d battles.

Could C.A. make such a game ? most certainly. Would such a game appeal to the mass market of 10 yr olds and up ? maybe, but only if the game had Orcs. Would we still have the option of playing more than one faction ? probably not. Would such a game last longer than 10 hours of gameplay ? I would hope so.

I played AOE and AOE II, but I can't even play the AOE III demo because I have been there and done that, and I have been spoiled by TW. RTW is basically the same game as STW. I feel it needs to and will evolve to another level. The above is just my idea of that next level. I like to think C.A. is already working on a whole new style of TW it is their baby after all.

Personally I can't wait to see it grow up and grow out of the sand box.

[lar]

I too like to build an empire, I just think it would be more fun and immersive to role play a character and an army. Make more realistic decisions, like who will command a second or more army, e,g, My spies have informed me of two or more armies approaching my borders. As I realistically am in command of only one army, and cannot magically transport myself all over the game world to personally command every battle/skirmish. Do I give command to a general that has a high chance of success but may turn against me ? or do I give command to a trusted general but who has a lesser chance of success ?

As for being a pawn of some obscure out-of-game force. You would have to react to in-game events. e.g. The trusted commander has lost the battle and most of his army, now you and your personal army are up shit creek without a paddle, so to speak. Or the not so trusty general has won the battle and has now decided he wants to be king. Perhaps the game would begin with the player as the prince or consul etc. After proving ones worth you would be given more important tasks and ever increasing troops to accomplish those tasks, and when you think your strong enough you could cross the Rubicon. If you are a prince, maybe you would have to fight off those who would try to claim your rightful position of king when your old man kicks the bucket.

I would prefer to be making/giving the above decisions/commands, as opposed to what building do I need to build next.

Why not command a general to head North South or what ever and fight who ever/ gaurd/garrison a region or settlement ? Why not simply command a spy/ diplomat/princess etc to go and do what you want them to ? To me the current style of build ques micro-management and manual movement of all armies/agents and being a commander/governor of every army/settlement, combined with the god like view and total control of the game world, For me it is not only getting a tad old and repetitive, it also removes any randomness/surprises.



id love to see a game like that, but i doubt there heading that way. An RPG where your decisions affect your empire, or to-be-empire. fun :)

[Hochmeister]

Hi All,

Been a long time reader and would like to share a few thoughts.

Sorry if this has been covered but I checked most of the wishlist threads:

Bribing: I would like to see a return to the way you could bribe armies in MTW. It was great to have a few Muslim units mixed in with my Catholic Armies and seemed very unrealistic in RTW that they would all just disband into the fields unless they were in your unit roster:inquisitive: I dont see this as a major change in programming as bribed units could be treated exactly like mercenaries in RTW which were upgradable but not retrainable. It adds variety and immersion.

Elite Units: As others have mentioned make them expensive and also take several years (errr turns?) to train. I think this would help with game balancing ie: longbows.

Fortify a Border: Just a thought but maybe include an option in your build queue to Fortify a North,East,West or Southern border?? Benefits on the strategic map would be more visibility and less rebels wandering through your territory. This should take a while and be expensive but could help with your strategy on which way you expand particularly for Nations that are surrounded. Maybe on the battle map it could be represented by pre prepared defensive positions, earthworks etc.

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

One feature that added so much to the medieval atmosphere of the campaign in MTW was the ability to grant titles to favored generals. I hope that feature returns, possibly even expanded and improved, in Medieval 2.

I also enjoyed the virtues and vices and hope they are in the new game as well.

[ivoignob]

Maybe eyecandy and not very important, but on the battelfield, some tents behind the attacked army would add some atmosphere. The same during a seige. Some tents and carts etc. would be nice. I think there were tents in MTW but not in RTW.

[Peasant Phill]

There aren't any tents in MTW, only some buildings like farmhouses or churches

[RTW King]

Heres some ideas of mine to make the next Total War game more realistic:

1.The alliances in Total War games have been pretty pointless so far. Perhaps if two factions are allied, then if one is attacked, it should be able to ask for help, if the ally is nearby enough to arrive at the battle. If the ally refuses to do so, then that faction should lose 'honour points'. This 'honour points' system would mean that if a faction broke alliances, or refused to help allies, then that faction would lose 'honour points'. Then other factions would be more reluctant to work with that faction in future. Also, when a faction of a different religion proposes a deal with another faction, then the proposing faction should be treated like it has a set lower number of 'honour points'. For example, if Britain proposed an alliance with the Almohads, and Britain had 100 'honour points', it should be treated by the Almohads like it has 60 'honour points'. A country with low 'honour points' should have them partially restored whenever they get a new King.

2. If a nation is much stronger than another, then it should be able to give the other nation the option of being a Vassal, or it will be attacked. Vassal states would basically be the same as a standard faction, but they would have to pay taxes to their master nation, and either aid them in battle themselves, or hand over control of their armies during war. Also, if a General or Prince is about to revolt, then the nation should be allowed to offer them vassalage, to prevent conflict. This would then set up a new faction. Also, nations should have the option of granting their vassal states independance at any time, or demand to take total control of them, which the vassal state can either agree to or declare war with its master nation.

3. If a faction is defeated, a screen should come up with the conquering nation and any factions with royal families in some way related to those of the defeated faction. These factions would then negotiate over the defeated faction's land, using money, threats, or jsut plain negotiations. The conquering nation should be allowed to take total control of the land, but those with a claim through marriage or relations etc., should only be allowed to command regions as vassals, so new factions named after their region would be created for these vassal states. I think it would be realistic as well as quite cool to have new factions springing up every came, and not just like the ones you can predict in RTW:BI. This would add a whole new depth to the game and make campaings much less repetetive.

[ivoignob]

There aren't any tents in MTW, only some buildings like farmhouses or churches


Yes you're right, but only partly. There were tents in a historical battle, I'm quite sure.

By the way, I like the idea with the honor points!!