My Perfect Game

[cdeford]

MTW wasn't perfect. But the ideas underpinning the game were pretty close to perfect, with a few enhancemnets here and there it really could have been the perfect game. While RTW is a good game, a lot of the things that made MTW what it was were thrown away in favour of a new design and increased eye candy and I don't suppose now my perfect game will ever be achieved.

So what do I think should have been implemented for RTW rather than what was, to create my perfect game? I'm sure many of these ideas have already been thought of by others, but here goes...

80% of MTW needed no changing at all, except for fixing all the bugs, of course, but a few areas of the game needed enhancements.

Graphics:

The current obsession with 3d really isn't necessary, but I would have liked to see unit sizes on the battlefield increased a bit to make them easier to see, maybe 50%, but that's all.

Diplomacy:

A huge expansion in diplomacy would have made the game more interesting. I would have liked to:

Be able to respond to alliance proposals the same way other factions do to you, and have it mean something.
Be able to arrange and co-ordinate attacks with an ally against a third faction.
Be able to request an ally to come to your aid, or have an ally make such a request to you.
Be able to give aid (money, troops, provinces) to an ally.
If an ally loses his last province, that ally should be able to retreat to one of your provinces (provided there is a route). You can then either give him a province or absorb his remaining troops into your forces.

Units:

I'd like to be able to name units and have them develop a history over the years, like a history tab that listed which engaements the unit had been engaged in (named after a province's city, if it has one, or after the province, if it doesn't). For instance, First Varangrian Guard, fought in the first battle of Constantinople in 1099, gained 2 valour. This would make you care much more about your units, you wouldn't just merge them out of existence willy-nilly, but try to get them back to a base for reinforcements. Famous units could even have a morale-effect against an enemy on the battlefield - how would you feel if you were a green unit and you knew you were facing the Iron Brigade, for instance. Even low-cost units would be worth preserving if they had taken part in, or even turned, a faction-saving battle.

Be able to build a different factions' basic troops - if it's province dependent - if you take a province. This is historically accurate. If you take a North African province, you should be able to raise Berber Camels because they would be plentiful and willing to serve. You would not expect to be able to raise elite units that are more loyal to a faction, so you could raise Desert Archers but not Ghulam Cavalry.

Battlefield:

The camera movement could be better, particularly changing the height.

General:

A history page, detailing major events of your empre.

Of course, everything should be easily moddable, so that MTW could be turned into RTW or anything else just by changing prameters, changing map and unit graphics.

I know this is all pretty pointless since it's after the fact but maybe some of it will appear in futute TW games.

[limitedwhole]

Having been able to have an ally attack a particular province through diplomacy rather than through general opponent would have been nice. Also maybe an "attack fleets" arrangement would have been nice.

Also, have a battle map system for naval combat would have been great, along with real admirals. Naval engagements are so importanat for two of thr roman families and many of the other factions that it would have been nice if the naval system was better done.

Also poor farmer should have had one level of no effect, or been like 4% instead of 8%, or only taken place if their were farms or level equal to your curretn build level. As it is, eiether you micromanage and scheme just to ignore this trait or everyone in the world somehow can't farm. If everyone in the world is terrible at farming, why are their not famines everywhere?

Finally, but most importantly, it would have been nice is resources had more of an impact than just money. Grain is the most important reousrce in teh game because it grows population, but marble could have been used to reduce building time on certain buildings like timber could have. Olive oil, wine and textile should have had happiness boons, etc. As it is the resources are all a little too generic with the exception of grain. Obviously not all resources need this type of boon, but having some more than just slaves and grain stand out would have been nice.

But all in all, this is simply the best war/strategy map game ever.

[Avicenna]

What makes Rome so much worse? I've never played medieval, so I don't know what it's like.

[Ludens]

What makes Rome so much worse? I've never played medieval, so I don't know what it's like.
The answer to this question depends on who you'd ask, but for me it is the lack of challenge. This is partly caused by bad A.I. and partly by the combat model. R:TW's A.I. has learned a few tricks that M:TW's would never have managed, but also forgot some basic lessons. Proper use of height is one, how to lay or evade ambushes is another. Keeping in formation was a problem until 1.3 and there are still quirks with unit match-ups: the A.I. charges strong enemy units with inferior ones, leading to quick defeat, and oftentimes prefers to use its skirmishers for melee duties. The M:TW A.I. would have never done this. I can't speak for BI off course, but I don't think there have been major improvements here.

The R:TW combat model is in some ways superior to M:TW (realistic represenation of phalanxes for example), but not in others (no squeeze penalty, think formations are pushed back just as well) and is generally unbalanced. Both movement and combat seem to go too fast for the R:TW A.I. and especially in early versions it was possible to beat entire A.I. armies up with just a few units of light cavalry. 1.3 improved a lot of the balance though.

On the strategic map diplomacy doesn't make much sense, but then neither did it in M:TW so nothing's new here. However, the new map seems to confuse the A.I.: it has troubles coordinating it's stacks, though less so than before 1.3. The Risk map of M:TW worked far better in this aspect (for the A.I. at least).

Lastly, while I only played a few MP games, I hear from others that game balance is far worse and the MP interface rotten. I can confirm that the interface is indeed user-unfriendly; and this won't have improved since the closing down of the chat-channel.

However, in my opinion R:TW has come a long way since its release, and I wouldn't say that it is that inferior to M:TW anymore. Sure, I played M:TW with more enjoyment, but R:TW has a few qualities of its own.

[greywolf]

yep. there are a lot of things to be missed about mtw. the biggest thing i've noticed is the relative lack of challenge in the battles. in rtw i go into battle basically knowing that i'm going to win--and rather quickly too.

in mtw unless you unless you were going up against peasants, most of the battles were cliffhangers and sometimes took over an hour to finish. i can remember several particularly difficult encounters where the advantage shifted back and forth between my army and the AI. i've had at least one battle i can recall where i went after the "retreating" AI army only to run smack into his thousand-man relief army when i reached the top of a hill! (needless to say i lost that one. my exhausted and decimated units just started routing at the sight of the fresh enemy troops.)

i also wish the AI would coem out and fight more. while i like the fact that you can now assault settlements on the battle map, i also miss being able to engage in maneuver warfare more in the open field. its very hard to make full use of expensive cavalry units in the confines of an enemy settlement.

having said that, i'm still having a blast playing rtw. :2thumbsup:

[cdeford]

Also, have a battle map system for naval combat would have been great, along with real admirals. Naval engagements are so importanat for two of thr roman families and many of the other factions that it would have been nice if the naval system was better done.

I thought about this, and while it would have been great in principle to have expanded naval combat, you might have a dozen naval engagements at the end of a turn, and a full battle on it's own map for each one would probably have taken too long. I suppose you could have a quick combat option, so you could choose to fight large fleet actions and quick-combat the others. It certainly would have been fun to see your galley ramming an enemy ship, or see greek fire in action :laugh4:

In MTW, losing or winning at sea seemed pretty random so it would have been nice to have taken some of it under your own control.

Also, I agree that having a province's unique resources have more of an influence on that province is a good idea. The strategic importance of which province you invade becomes more of a factor.