How would you change TW: to be more of RTS or return to "old school"?

[Dead Moroz]

How would you change future TW games? Will you make it more like RTS games (AOE, EE, Warcraft, etc.) following style of RTW/BI? Or will you rather develop its strategy/tactics basis following traditions of first TW games?

[LorDBulA]

Well i cant say that i want TW series to go "old school", but most definitely i dont want it to become RTS.
I mean RTW is many times more complicated and advanced (and i dont talk about graphic) then STW or MTW.
Its just CA decided to build kids game on top of this incredible engine.
Look at EB and you can see that you can build very nice game on top of RTW.
I would like all next version to be more complicated, more advanced.
For example adding supply element and attrition to armies, much more advanced population element (dividing poplulation on wealth classes, tie unit recruitment to appropriate wealth class, no more recruiting peasants and knights from the same pool). More advanced building options (and more logical, you dont have to stick to one level of building per one level of city thingy).
BI faction rebellion for All factions would be nice, especialy if they could put more depth into it.
Generally i would like TW to evolve to more complicated, advanced faction simulator and not into RTS like game.

[Samurai Waki]

At this point I've given up... pending player reviews of M2TW. I'll just reserve myself to playing HoI2 and EU2, with the exception of EB, and if I want some high action stuff I'll play Brothers in Arms or something. Only mods are keeping this game alive for me.

[BelgradeWar]

Old school, definitely.

[Ludens]

It is not like there are only two possible ways to go. I don't particularly care about the "Old School", but I definetly don't want TW to become like Warcraft. There are already too many fact click, resource-fest games out there, and after playing S:TW I don't care about them anymore. If TW is going to resemble those, I wouldn't know what games to play anymore.

On the other hand; R:TW brought many improvements over the previous editions, like a more complex strategic map and a better battle-model. However, the low difficulty level (due to bad strategical and tactical balance) wasted their potential and encouraged a fast-paced action style of play as opposed to the more measured, slow style of M:TW/S:TW. In this sense, R:TW was both a step in the right and in the wrong direction. I hope that MII:TW will live up to its potential: the battle model and strategic options are wasted if you hardly need to be aware of them to win the game!

[Lord Armbandit]

If TW is going to resemble those, I wouldn't know what games to play anymore.



You'd just play STW still!

I voted 'old school', but thats not really what I want. I want progress, in the right direction.

Seriously, you can't compare RTW to Warcraft et al, RTW may have been slightly more RTS like in the battle styles than STW and MTW, but the strategic layer was still one thousand times better than anything in any RTS I've ever played.

And everyone, no game is ever going to be perfect. This forum sometimes reminds me of a bunch of nasty women, who would bitch constantly about a friend if she was out of earshot. CA need our feedback, but some people seem to react to elements of the game not fitting their exact demands like a personal insult.

RTW was and is a great game, with fewer flaws than many other, even more celebrated titles.

[Avicenna]

TW is good as it is in my opinion.


For example adding supply element and attrition to armies, much more advanced population element (dividing poplulation on wealth classes, tie unit recruitment to appropriate wealth class, no more recruiting peasants and knights from the same pool).
That would make campaigns ridiculously expensive.. and make it hard to replenish cavalry. I guess they could upgrade their own equipment though.


More advanced building options (and more logical, you dont have to stick to one level of building per one level of city thingy).
surely your city has to advance in order to build more sophisticated buildings like CA has to advance to make more sophisticated games?


BI faction rebellion for All factions would be nice, especialy if they could put more depth into it.
You mean defection to another faction? As in Sparta rebelling and defecting to the Greeks? That would make it easy for factions which have a lot of cultural influence (esp Greeks)

[Craterus]

Turn-based. If I wanted to play an RTS, I'd go and buy something like AOE3.

[Samurai Waki]

Just because something isn't turned based, doesn't mean it is a true RTS like AoEIII...think outside the box.

[PseRamesses]

As a broad outline of the future TW-game I´d like to see a game that combines TW, EUII, CIV, Sim City and even Sims.

1. Build your empire like in CIV with existing cities AND the ability to found new settlements with special units. Borders should be based on influence rather than on existing provinces like in CIV. Units that explores, searches for new material that will open up new parts of the techtee.
2. Outline, build your cities like in SimCity (or CaesarIII) if you want. Construct fortifications, build aqueducts, theatres etc outline housing, markets and so forth.
3. The ability to play your generals on a personal level like in Sims. Being able to play TW on a personal level with a character from the age of 16. Even on the battlefield where you get into hand-to-hand actions with your character.
4. An enhanced TW style game where you can build battlefield fortifications, a far more intelligent battlefield AI etc.
5. A diplo-system that actually works in a realistic way like in EUII.

All of these "levels" of play gould be toggled on/ off as the player likes. This means that a Builder-type player can concentrate on this, a strategist could focus on that part of the game and so on.

[Antiochius]

Of course the old school. If i want to play the RTs i will buy Warcraft und such games

[Asmodai]

[QUOTE=Tiberius]That would make campaigns ridiculously expensive.. and make it hard to replenish cavalry. I guess they could upgrade their own equipment though.[QUOTE]

Tiberius, campaigns were always expensive, at least historicaly.
Many factions (England for example) almost bancrupted on wars, even succesfull war can(and usualy do) cause hole in the treasury.

I`d like to see more realistic approach for many battlefield and kingdom govering problems.

On battlefield:

Khightly units were consisted of "lances". "Lance" was the term used for single knight with lance, and few servants for back up.
I seen some posts, that cavalry in M:TW is a little bit underpowered. Infantry is too powerfull. Downgrade all infantry units and cavalry will be rule again.


On kingdom governing problems...
More diplomacy. More often diplomatic actions win wars rather than sucesfull military campaign.

And definitely, turn based.

[=E.T=]

Old school like Shogun !!!

[Nobunaga]

old school definitely.

[Abokasee]

Old school

it whats made RTW well RTW :embarassed:

[Drock]

If it were up to me, MTW II would be based around the Glorius Achievement mode. In other words, campaigns and what not would be both costly and rewarding, and instead of the whole "ok I have 225 turns lets conquer all of Europe mentality" I'd rather go with the, "ok, 225 turns, I need to pacify Scotland and Ireland, and make England the cultural center of the world."

Something like that would be amazing, although I'll prolly look for it in a mod instead of the final release since I imagine not that many people agree with me.