View Full Version : 1.3 Wishlist
CA, specifically Pala, has asked for a list of community requests for 1.3, and I'm sure everyone here is only too happy to oblige :laugh4:
A few rules to keep things civilised:
- Only post an idea if you have 1.2 so the list doesn't get cluttered with improvements that have already been made
- No flaming. Feel free to discuss and debate suggestions offered, but do it in a civilised way
- Please bold suggestions so that I can pick them out from the general discussion
- No CA bashing/swearing/anything else that isn't normally permitted in these forums. You know the rules ~;)
So let the ideas commence :yes:
Oh, and just because something's moddable doesn't mean that it would be a bad suggestion to have CA adopt officially :yes:
--------
Campaign Map
Make an agent limit for spies and assassins just like there is for merchants, so the AI and player can't spam them.
Return of the title system from MTW
Ability to change the faction heir
Diplomacy
"Get off my land" option
Option to declare war without attacking unprovokedly.
Battle Map
Let the player choose the order of reinforcements.
Make Halberd units have the same speed as Pikemen
General Balancing in light of shield and 2-hand fix
Make an agent limit for spies and assassins just like there is for merchants, so the AI and player can't spam them. This is probably a big factor in making all the AI cities have thieves guilds.
FactionHeir
04-09-2007, 12:33
Make an agent limit for spies and assassins just like there is for merchants, so the AI and player can't spam them. This is probably a big factor in making all the AI cities have thieves guilds.
You can already do that yourself in the descr_buildings file
Just because it's moddable doesn't mean it's a bad idea to adopt officially.
Ability to Organise Reinforcements prior to battle
I think that this might be available in the new extension?
Title system would be nice like in MTW:1
I want to give and take titles like Chamberlain, province count and so on
Elmar Bijlsma
04-09-2007, 19:35
Play speech during deployment mode.
The speeches are fun and really add something, but must I really sit around doing nothing while I listen to it? Let me arrange my army while it continues to play, please.
I think 1.2 is working nicely for me so far.
One thing that does really bug me though is the fact that halberdiers move so slowly. That is (I think) all polearm units with the spearwall ability - Halberd Militia and Voulgiers spring to mind but there may be more. This occurs whether they are in spearwall mode or not. They move slower than pikemen and even artillery units. They are the slowest units in the game. This makes them pretty useless in a combined arms force as they are usually left way behind. The only solution so far is to have them run to their destination, which obviously tires them out too quick! I don't think that a halberd should be any more difficult to manouvre than a pike.
So, my suggestion for 1.3 would be: Make Halberd units the same speed as Pikemen.
Thank you
Stu.
Statistics and price ballancing of the units.
For example:
Cheaper; archers, spears & hybrids.
More expensive; pikes, cavalry.
Weaker stats for mounted xbows and less powerfull light cavalry.
pike master
04-09-2007, 23:42
I think 1.2 is working nicely for me so far.
One thing that does really bug me though is the fact that halberdiers move so slowly. That is (I think) all polearm units with the spearwall ability - Halberd Militia and Voulgiers spring to mind but there may be more. This occurs whether they are in spearwall mode or not. They move slower than pikemen and even artillery units. They are the slowest units in the game. This makes them pretty useless in a combined arms force as they are usually left way behind. The only solution so far is to have them run to their destination, which obviously tires them out too quick! I don't think that a halberd should be any more difficult to manouvre than a pike.
So, my suggestion for 1.3 would be: Make Halberd units the same speed as Pikemen.
Thank you
Stu.
!i second this!
also i would like to see the uphill downhill bug fixed.
visual of pikes with spears lowered level before contact.
better pike performance. they are still not working properly.
zstajerski
04-10-2007, 01:07
The much debated option: Get off my Land!!!
The option: to declare war!!
The option: change Faction heir!!
That would be the most urgent stuff for me....
pike master
04-10-2007, 05:27
no way to find out which factions are excummunicated.
no way to know the location of an agent or army that has rebelled or betrayed you. no magnify option to show you the location.
kawligia
04-10-2007, 05:44
I would like for agents to replot their course automatically IF the new path is less than 2 or 3 turns longer than the original (So they don't go around the world). Agent micromanagement is the worst.
FactionHeir
04-10-2007, 11:33
Let's see.
- Give Forlorn hope the 2hp they deserve. [can mod it, but as sapi said...]
- Sort agents by agent type and creation order
- Remove the annoying base unrest in regions (15%-20%) [I can remove it by modding, but still]
- Ability to assassinate your own generals/family members/agents
- Ability to disband agents
- A non-cheating AI [If we wanted it to cheat we could mod it ourselves]
- Ability to set Jihad/Crusade cooldown time
- Remove battlemaps where armies can wait out at inaccessible spots. [I know CA considers this a feature not a bug, but I hate it anyway and this is a wishlist]
- Ability to remove ancillaries via code or check for presence of a given ancillary without having to give it its own type
- Stop the non sensical random port blockading of the AI
- Make AI Scots actually take Inverness and Dublin
- Make the diplomatic option of "Demand Attack Faction" actually cost less than 600k in florins AND make the AI actually act according to your demands if you pay it that amount. Currently they just let it expire and take the rep hit...
- Fix all bugs I reported on the buglist :D
Daveybaby
04-10-2007, 11:45
I would like for agents to replot their course automatically IF the new path is less than 2 or 3 turns longer than the original (So they don't go around the world). Agent micromanagement is the worst.
Amen to that.
While we're on that topic, i would love to see some reworking of agents tab, i.e. instead of just one tab for all of your agents (why? why would i ever need to see my priests and my assassins in the same list? They are totally unrelated) instead give us one tab each for priests etc / spies / assassins / merchants / diplomats. I'm totally sick of having to scroll down a massive list of priests and spies to find my diplomats.
ALSO would love to see: A 'cycle through idle agents' hotkey.
Definition of 'idle':
All Agents : agent is outside a settlement, and doesnt have a movement path defined for the next turn, and has not yet been used by the player this turn.
Merchants, Diplomats should also be treated as idle if they are inside a settlement, since AFAIK they don't contribute anything useful while in there.
Merchants aren't idle if they're sitting on a resource.
I guess Priests could be considered non-idle if theyre preaching in foreign lands. Meh.
Thus each turn we could simply hit the key to cycle through the agents which should probably be doing something, but aren't.
Empirate
04-10-2007, 12:07
I like all suggestions that have popped up so far a lot. However, I have some small contributions to make:
1. I'd like to see heavy penalties for all kinds of missile units when fighting in a forest.
2. I'd like to see situational modifiers matter more, especially downhill fighting, tiredness etc.
3. I'd like to see either a) Archers firing faster or b) Crossbowmen firing more slowly.
4. I'd like to have the campaign map AI give the Mongols some concrete goals, which they try to reach no matter what, as well as a generally more aggressive behavior. In a recent campaign of mine, they didn't attack a single settlement, didn't attack other AI armies parked right under their nose. However, they made slow (ca. half movement points used per turn) progress into the Balkan area, until finally I stumbled over them at Venice. Then they ambled back east, only to wander off into Greece (which I wasn't interested in, so I left them alone). This is just ridiculous!
5. Rebels popping up all over the place may be interesting in the beginning, but from the point you have ten provinces, it just gets more and more annoying. Tie rebel frequency to size/stability/power of an empire, please! Alternatively, give us some real rebel challenge: When there is unrest in a settlement, let a stack of rebels pop up. When there is more unrest, let this stack multiply... and let it move and attack the settlement itself, instead of just standing around until the player gets annoyed enough to finish them off: Proactive rebels!
part_time_player
04-10-2007, 13:09
King grants governor titles to Generals
and Governors traits then directly influence province
Influence is increased when governor is resident in province.
Cannot give governorships to non-generals
Title added to name description
Titles Hereditary
Increase global affect of kings traits so success of empire is more dependent on quality and distance of leader.
Troops not led by a General cannot rebel in a home province
Appearance of rebels tied to Province Happiness
100% happy = no rebels, the lower it goes, the more rebels appear and the better qualtiy they are. As above, make them more pro-active!
"Make peace with other faction" Diplomacy option
"Get off my land" Diplomacy option
Show Agents/Armies/Navies Movement points in lists scroll
I would second all points made so far regarding agents, seperating lists, restricting quantities etc.
Afro Thunder
04-10-2007, 13:26
no way to find out which factions are excummunicated.
Can't you just hover your mouse over the factions on the Popeometer?
Yes, but I agree in saying that it would be nice to have the 'broken crosses' mechanic returned
Thats not what he's asking for.
He's asking that we don't get told when a faction is excommed or that we can't find out where an army/agent that has gone rebel is by clicking the magnify glass, (it does exist, thats why I say i think he wants the options removing).
MilesGregarius
04-10-2007, 14:10
While we're on that topic, i would love to see some reworking of agents tab, i.e. instead of just one tab for all of your agents (why? why would i ever need to see my priests and my assassins in the same list? They are totally unrelated) instead give us one tab each for priests etc / spies / assassins / merchants / diplomats. I'm totally sick of having to scroll down a massive list of priests and spies to find my diplomats.
ALSO would love to see: A 'cycle through idle agents' hotkey.
Definition of 'idle':
All Agents : agent is outside a settlement, and doesnt have a movement path defined for the next turn, and has not yet been used by the player this turn.
Merchants, Diplomats should also be treated as idle if they are inside a settlement, since AFAIK they don't contribute anything useful while in there.
Merchants aren't idle if they're sitting on a resource.
I guess Priests could be considered non-idle if theyre preaching in foreign lands. Meh.
Thus each turn we could simply hit the key to cycle through the agents which should probably be doing something, but aren't.
Or bring back the movement bar that was introduced in BI. Much easier to keep track of which agents/armies/fleets still might need to be moved.
SigniferOne
04-10-2007, 15:14
Append "BC" or "AD" if the year option is chosen, instead of turn number, like in RTW. Having it say 200 BC or 1000 AD is much more immersive than just 200 or 1000.
Help modders crack the buildings/settlements format.
JustSomeGuy
04-10-2007, 16:38
Let the player as well as AI factions go into negative florins when dealing with ransoms... I know you could do this in the original M:TW, not sure why it changed.
I know it's quite frustrating when you can't pay out that 200 florins to save some of your troops when you know you'll be getting 20,000 florins by next turn!
Plus, I'm sure half the reason why most of my rasoming of AI family members fails, is because most AI factions spend all their money each turn... just like me!
pike master
04-10-2007, 18:27
protection for units especially infantry versus cav and missile units in forest or woods needs to be increased.
do away with complicated mountian maps that cause pathfinding issues.
The Blind Samurai
04-10-2007, 23:36
put more historical battles in
Spoil after battles. Similar to sacking a town, but you don't need to make any decision for it. You just get a certain amount of money as a result of winning a battle. Perhaps it could be calculated like this:
recruitment cost + upkeep cost / ???? x 0.9, 1, or 1.1 (random factor)
???? being a balanced number. This way you can get spoil by fighting rather than just taking cities. I know spoil was a huge thing after battles in the middle ages. Perhaps a couple of traits/retinue to go along with this that are aquired when the general gets more or less spoil depending on the random factor.
Here is an example of it working (not balanced though):
Defeated army's casualty's total of recruitment cost and upkeep: 3429 / 10 x 1.1 = 377 florins spoil. Then the chance of getting a "quartermaster" type ancillary: 0.1 each time the random factor is 1.1
I hope this all makes sense.
oklahomasooners
04-11-2007, 02:35
Proactive rebels[/B]!
accually one time i just took york with prince rufus with my campain with england and i disbanded most of my army to generate cash leaving only a few archers and militia units to defend him....but then a rebel army just sprouted up and seiged the city..but before i could get reinforcements they attacked....tey killed rufus with one charge because for some reason they had armoured swordsmen.... i guess it's to do with what kind of rebels they are because i've accually had several occasions in which they seiged me.
Specky the Mad
04-11-2007, 04:31
-Background battle music
Something with a start, a middle, and a end that matches the events taking place, such as two epic armies meeting get a epic background, but if they get whooped a really stirring 'after battle' piece plays.
-Improved AI army composition
Just have a simple unit balance count for every two infantry units the AI should acquire a calvary unit, a missile unit, and 0.5 of a artillery unit. But should be dependent on what faction it is so the turks will play with HAs, while England will play with longbows.
-AI elect certain provinces to specialize unit production
It would add a strategic option to the campaign map to actually target certain provinces to acquire a production line if you lack one your self or vice versa for the AI.
-'Complex' tech trees
It makes it worthwhile to 'invest' in a provinces as you will get different bonus from a each province making it unique.
-Make the info boxes appear like real parchment
It looked great in MTW when the scroll came up but M2TW does nothing to capture the Medieval look, and the seal of approval from the king looks a lot better than a button ever could.
-Faction Civil Wars
Loyalty is almost worthless without it, as their is no punishment for not managing it except the once of a rebelling general.
-Titles
Not necessarily a province title but a title for your supreme military commander or councilor of the empire would be nice.
-Provinces be governed from outside the city or castle
If no general is present in the city or castle, but is present in the countryside they should get some kind of influence bonus as governors are usually short on hand and have to go out and defend the region but they would still have some influence from outside the walls.
-Fix the overriding trait problem
So that if you have battledread 3 but get battlechivalry 1 it should drop battledread to battledread 2 and battlechivalry to be canceled out until all of battledread has been removed.
-More pre-battle speeches
Its great that the starting five factions got a lot of attention but if that could eventually be turned to the over factions that missed out on getting interesting speeches would be great.
helmeteye
04-11-2007, 04:41
The much debated option: Get off my Land!!!
The option: to declare war!!
The option: change Faction heir!!
That would be the most urgent stuff for me....
I second all these. Get off my land being the most important. Changing heir should be a top priority. My a king can't choose his heir is beyond me.
Furious Mental
04-11-2007, 09:49
In my experience attacking AI stacks with lots of artillery do not exploit the advantage by holding back and bombarding the player. instead they charge while their artillery fires. This seems rather silly to me.
KyodaiSteeleye
04-11-2007, 10:47
Running down routers with cavalry - this is the most frustrating issue in the game for me at the moment.
HoreTore
04-11-2007, 12:48
Only real thing bugging me:
Improve the crusade/Jihad AI! Some of the stuff I want to see:
- crusades attacking enemies/rebels/turks blocking their path instead of going around
- crusading stacks just leave the levant when someone else take the target. They should attack other targets there.
- make the AI desert eventually. When the spanish leave their crusade stack off their coast, they are hurting everyone, as no new crusades can be can be called until the general dies
Another thing I'd really want to see, is a "kickstart unit" console command. Whenever the AI stuffs up and simply goes inactive, you can use this command to force them to recalculate and do something. Both for units and factions. I really need this in my current campaign for a venetian full crusade stack who has ben standing near Toledo's port since turn 20, when the cordoba crusade was finished....It's now turn 70... It hasn't done anything at all...
So the AI doesnt make as many siege weapons and makes more castle fighting units, remove the siege factory line of buildings from the castle. I play with it like this with good results.
Empirate
04-11-2007, 14:09
I second all these. Get off my land being the most important. Changing heir should be a top priority. My a king can't choose his heir is beyond me.
I'm still undecided wether I like the current system without a GOML option in diplo or not. It forces you to keep a close watch on your provinces. Having a powerful stack patrolling your borders goes a long way towards dissuading anybody from setting foot on your land. Also, in my experience, lots of watchtowers along the borders seem to help.
Still, for practical purposes, a GOML option would probably make our lives a lot easier...
HoreTore
04-11-2007, 15:13
plotting down a peasant fort at every chokepoint does wonders. Impossible a lot of the time though.
Having a powerful stack patrolling your borders goes a long way towards dissuading anybody from setting foot on your land. Also, in my experience, lots of watchtowers along the borders seem to help.
That's not exactly my experience... Having a stack patroling an area does help, but against a faction that you've thoroughly pissed off you can expect almost continuous invasions and sieges, even from lesser powerful stacks. The AI seems to be decent enough to pick an invasion route that's farthest from your "patrol" as well, but they'll often send woefully inadequate stacks against my citadel that's garrisoned with 8 units of dismounted fuedal knights... In my last English campaign, I had formed a line north/south of castles from that area just to the west of Denmark directly south to the northwest tip of Italy. All 4 of the provinces were converted to castles, and I had a constant stack of knights roving about. The HRE continuously threw everything it had at me, and never let up even if I tried to bribe them to "perfect" standing. That was v1.1 with ProblemfixerPure, so I don't know yet if v1.2 has or will change anything.
Also, watchtowers don't seem to do anything at all in terms of deterence.
Just my $0.02
:bow:
oklahomasooners
04-11-2007, 18:48
when parts of your army deserts it says they leave to find another lord to crusade with so why dont those men accually go find someone else instead of disapearing? so the main thing i'd want is the crusades fixed
I want to see the upper limits for factions, provinces, units, buildigs, etc. to be set in the config/ini file.
I understand the intention that 31 factions, ets limits are chosen to make the MTW2 fit in the RAM of the minimum spec PC. Most of us have much much better game rigs and this limits should not stop the modders imagination and freedom.
absolutely agree:
Diplomacy option:get out of my lands
Of course, if they say no, you now are at war.
Diplomacy option:declare war
We should be able to just send the French king a note saying your mother mated with a goat and we declare war upon thee.
family tree option:change faction heir
Yes, I realize you can assign faction heir to the desired character's attributes and send the lousy heir on a sightseeing trip to the Pirates to get rid of it. Realistically, how many times in history did a king; murder/imprison/send to the monestary/etc a bad heir? The Byzantines almost made it an annual ritual, lol. Let the game reflect that option, with appropriate loyalty penalties.
sort function by agent type in agents table
I would love to able to sort all my merchants, then spies, then assassins. Hard enough going agent by agent, especially when the table resets to the top every time I bring up an agent on the map screen.
bring back the titles!!!!!
Loved this function in MTW1.
New idea to wish for:
Diplomatic option: Quit spying/sabotaging/assassinating in my lands
Once again, if you know who is doing it, you should be able to have your people talk to their people and say knock it off or else! Right now, it is almost impossible to kill a spy or assassin, short of stacking a squad of your own agents in a town. The risk/reward of trying to assassinate a spotted enemy agent is ludricrous. In MTW1, you at least had a decent chance to whack enemy agents.
HoreTore
04-12-2007, 02:11
Ok, I lied in my first post, there's another thing bugging me.
In battle mode, we need a command that says "If you move an inch, I'LL BLOW YOUR FREAKIN' BRAINS OUT!!11".
About the only thing I miss from MTW, really. Say you have your army set up in a nice defensive position, and the enemy is advancing. He has light cannon fodder at the front, and the juicy targets at the back. Now, if you leave fire at will on, they will fire at the first unit in range, which means you'll waste ammo and time shooting at the fodder. If you tell them who to shoot at in advance, they'll move out of their position. What you have to do, is very carefully wait and micromanage, leaving fire at will off, and targeting the unit just as it comes in range...
It would have been much better, and of course realistic, to be able to tell them to stand their ground and fire at a specific enemy when it comes in range.
Brutal DLX
04-12-2007, 10:26
Just some minor ideas, I concur with all the ones mentioned before.
- Ability to capture/salvage artillery pieces from the enemy after winning a battle, doesn't make sense the enemy can keep them just because a few of their crew got away alive. Of course you would need to have to retrain them if you want to use them for yourself.
- Possibility for faction re-emergence as part of a rebellion/ civil war as it was in MTW This was nice as some AI factions could get a second chance after they got overrun through bad luck at the beginning of the game.
Make horse breeders guilds available to castles as well as cities.
Make thieves and assassins guilds harder to get so the AI doesnt only have them.
Make masons guild easier to get.
I would like there to be a Castle Editor/Creator which u can play in at custom battle option...
I'd like to see...
Movement and Combat Penalties for Cavalry in Woods and Very Steep Stopes.
Less steep hills.. Basically a flatter campaign map which would result in flatter battle maps. I hate fighting on mountains in normandy... Were there really mountains in normandy? I dont think so.
Gigermann
04-12-2007, 21:58
On Battlemap (and/or Deployment mode), hotkey to display zones where units may not pass or be deployed, probably with separate colors (yellow vs. red?) to indicate where foot units can go but artillery cannot. Would take a great deal of frustration out of deployment.
Diplomats gain experience by "gaining an audience," as opposed to the results of the deal (over which they may have very little control), which gives them something to do, allowing them to advance, when the factions nearby have nothing to offer at the moment.
Map Info "diplo-mission" should include "updates"; as it is, it seems that if the faction being asked does not know the location of any cities you do not, he won't tell you anything at all.
Player should be able to get details about enemy factions, like family tree, bankroll (basically, being able to look at the AI's "info scroll(s)"), probably via spy-mission.
Desperately need a "spy-hunter" mission, for when you know a spy is in your city but you can't do anything about him—for assassins, maybe?
Priests should be able to do diplomat missions (as for MTW; less chance of "gaining an audience" if using that suggestion). And BTW, where are the Bishops?
Auto-manage agents (by type?)? Managing them takes way too much time.
Chevauchée: ability to pillage the countryside without actually attacking enemy units—it'd give the AI something to do while it's sitting around doing nothing on your lands. Of course, it should be considered an act of war.
I'd like to see 6-month turns made into an official game option, which in order to work, would have to include matching adjustments to build times, income, etc. to balance out with the normal game.
Option to SURRENDER: I remember pinning an enemy army against the sea, at which point it withdrew and basically "drowned" rather than fight. Even if the Player never uses it, the AI needs the option.
All for now, until I think of more…
Make longbows fire faster to prevent rushing and also to make using England worthwhile.
fix gamespy
Specky the Mad
04-13-2007, 01:52
Chevauchée: ability to pillage the countryside without actually attacking enemy units—it'd give the AI something to do while it's sitting around doing nothing on your lands. Of course, it should be considered an act of war.
You can already do that, its called 'devastation', but its not a act of war and i am not entirely sure if you get money for it but the AI and the player can lose money if some one does it to you. It happens just by having a enemy force on your lands especially on a high trade land and you a army parks on the road between the port and city, at least a thousand florins is lost whether or not that money is acquired is a 'different' question.
HoreTore
04-13-2007, 02:37
Another thing I'd love to see, is the ability to create your own deployment formations. In this game you have only the standard one, in MTW you could choose from a bunch. I've never used either even once. However, I do have a lot of standard formations for different factions, for example, my Janissary armies usually/always deploys the same. It would have been great if you had an editor where you could create such formations, and then just picking it from a list when the battle starts, without manually deploying each unit.
phonicsmonkey
04-13-2007, 10:36
Hi all, long time reader / TW player, first time poster and all that jazz
I'm playing with trusted alliances enabled with the values suggested at the top of the file, and would like to see:
Diplomacy option: break alliance with faction X
the point being that if you want to ally with a particular faction (eg.) Spain but for some bizarre reason they have decided to go against the Pope, the rest of Christendom and all that is Holy and ally with the nefarious Egyptians, my enemies, I'd like some way of persuading them to break it off "in their own interests" if you know what I mean....
laters,
Captain Pugwash
04-13-2007, 11:27
There are lots of good suggesions here particularily around diplomancy and its options. I do not have 1.1 but querry why if 1.2 (official) is not yet running why these latest ones cannot be incorperated into 1.3.
Yes to change of heir.
Yes to turns reverting to year
Yes masons guilds being easier to aquire
A very big yes to agent type field as it takes ages to keep tabs on them
A very big yes to granting of titles
Limit the number of spies and assasins as per merchants but make them more effective
Stop inquisitors burning your king and heir.
Better positive traits for generals relating to actually running a town
Just an observation.
Why dont you get scholers as charactors in their own right to educate the leaders and/or masses from either catherdrals or univercities. This could be resident in the town and improve its running. Equally might become subversive
and need 'firing'
Allow an option to use RTW style shadows that didnt hurt performance nearly as much as the new "3d" shadows. The new ones cast shadows on guys next to them and such, while in RTW they only were on the ground. RTW's dont look as good, but for me I would rather have them than have to use no shadows at all.
Perhaps allow priests/imams to "kill" other religions holy men if they are in your land. Maybe make it only possible if the religion of the province is 50% or more on your side, and the bigger the % religion advantage, the bigger the chance of killing the enemy priest.
Perhaps allow priests/imams to "kill" other religions holy men if they are in your land. Maybe make it only possible if the religion of the province is 50% or more on your side, and the bigger the % religion advantage, the bigger the chance of killing the enemy priest.
I second that. Maybe 'convert' would be friendlier. You should then get to keep the converted priest (maybe with a reduced piety).
You should also get to keep the merchants you managed to buy out (maybe with a loss of certain positive traits, or a gain of negative traits).
Ability to control balista/cannon towers: select targets, hold fire, use fire ammo.
I would just like to put in a good word here for sorting agents by TYPE. Let me look over all my spys. THEN my priests. THEN my diplomats. In most games as my empire gets larger I have no idea where alot of them are or what I intended them to do last turn, since it was 2 days ago.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.
Let me cycle through agents based on what they are and not have to churn through EVERYONE 15 times to find that one single idle spy or priest.
Please.
RickooClan
04-13-2007, 18:10
I dont know but honestly i dont have much confidence in CA can really fix the AI on the battle field.
Apart from the very obvious passive AI BUG there are still many faults i saw in RTW remain in M2tw.
For example, the AI still cant pick the "best" or "better" position on the battle field. For some weird reason the defensive AI will pick a spot in the middle of the hill rather than the top. Therefore the human player can always round to the top of hill and gain huge advantage. :embarassed:
On the other hand, if you are defending sitting on top of the hill, the AI just fool enough and charge up to you directly at front. In STW or MTW, the AI will at least searching another route at the bottom of the hill for a minute of 2 before they decide to charge up. [You have to reposition your formation a lot accordingly while defense on hill in STW/MTW but not at all in RTW/M2tw]
Another example is you can now easily lure the AI missile troops out of the main force and charge them down with calvary. You can easily beat them up before they skirmish back to their spearman or the like.
I remember the AI dont suffer from these simplest faults in STW or MTW. It begins in RTW and i truely believe the CA battle AI programmers are no longer those create STW or MTW. :inquisitive:
Perhaps here are my wish list but i dont think that can be done by the current CA team honestly. :no:
HoreTore
04-13-2007, 21:22
I would just like to put in a good word here for sorting agents by TYPE. Let me look over all my spys. THEN my priests. THEN my diplomats. In most games as my empire gets larger I have no idea where alot of them are or what I intended them to do last turn, since it was 2 days ago.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.
Let me cycle through agents based on what they are and not have to churn through EVERYONE 15 times to find that one single idle spy or priest.
Please.
You can already do this, if I read you right. Open up the agent tab, and click on the upper right corner. Can't remember what the word is though. If you click the name, you can sort the agents by name, if you click on ...... you sort them by type.
Eternal Infernal
04-14-2007, 01:01
What I've always wanted to see.. (Mainly in the original MTW, because rebellions happened more frequently there). Is the ability to finance the rebels against your enemies. Say, for example, an AI held city neighboring your province enters revolt. Imagine that if, with a diplomat or likewise, you could secretly finance the rebellion and get a higher chances of higher quality troops with upgrades being generated and a higher chance of the faction losing control of the settlement.
If you can take advantage of the situation, It would be a subversive way to take an allied settlement without breaking an alliance.
Probably not feasible though... but then again.. 'Wishlist'
Allow an option to completely remove the "anti-blob effect", if only for single player.
Please.
This single feature butcher the whole game in a totally idiotic and useless way...
Allow an option to completely remove the "anti-blob effect", if only for single player.
Please.
This single feature butcher the whole game in a totally idiotic and useless way...
Voted for this also. Or failing this at least revert back to the RTW unit cohesion/blobbing mechanics, which are infinitely better as of M2TW v1.2 unofficial.
Gigermann
04-14-2007, 18:22
A few more:
Bring back (MTW) spy alerts to enemies' intentions (X Faction is planning to attack X in X years)
Expand "trait alerts" to include all traits (should be able to be turned off) so there'll be no more "Poor Taxmen" sneaking-up on you.
It'd be nice if you could recall all the "announcements" after you've dismissed them
Sorting cities/fortresses by "project completion" level
Need ability to turn off visibility of "weather" in battles (I've been having some problems with rain dragging my FPS down lately)
Quickening
04-14-2007, 21:32
Please do something about this "Winning First" trait. It's near impossible to have a Chivalrous empire because of it. My Generals get it despite doing everything possible to be honourable in battle.
BozosLiveHere
04-14-2007, 22:37
As a modder, I guess my biggest wish would be for a FactionWideTraitExists conditional, similar to FactionwideAncillaryExists. Traits are much more flexible than ancillaries (you can remove them from a character for one) and this would finally provide us with an easy way to move traits 'up' the family tree.
pike master
04-15-2007, 02:23
produce a greater variety of spearwall halberdier units.
most notably in the mercenary category i.e. swiss halberdier mercenaries.
also try to find someway to incorporate a swiss faction by giving it a name based on berne and then when the time frame approaches for the swiss cantons your faction renames itself.
also an austrian faction with armored foot knight pikemen
Swordsman
04-15-2007, 18:48
Campaign: Rational AI garrison of settlements.
My major issue. AI routinely garrisons border cities/castles with only one or two units. Human player can routinely snatch two or three of these at a time and effectively destroy the faction as a power with almost no losses. Frankly, instead of randomly running around the map with big stacks the AI would be better served ferociously defending what it already has...
Follow on: Has anyone seen the AI consistently repair important buildings when it takes a settlement? My experience is that it almost never does-- further crippling its capabilities.
Little Legioner
04-15-2007, 22:51
View settlement in battlemap
Who does not want to see glorius achievements of his cities? Mighty walls, grand temples, markets, taverns etc etc.
Please CA, give this option back to us :shame:
Loyallist Revolts, like in MTW.
Nobles And titles, rather than this adoption and general making.
This way Noble families help run the realm with the Royal families.
Titles NOT as Ancillaries.
Please do as MTW Orginal, where the general may not be in the province be the effects are there.
Titles Pass father to son
Fix the trait system so we can actually role play our generals et cetera
Faction re-emergenance
Loyalist revolts
Re-balance of unit stats, now the shield bug is fixed.
Get off my Land, with a Sorry or get stuffed reply.
Add gunpowder units to East Roman Empire, sicily et cetera.....remember we are playing them, so they will go longer than historically
thank
fenir
stevek1977
04-16-2007, 16:38
A multi-slot auto-save option
example: The last 5,10,15,20,etc turns are saved automatically at the end of every turn.
There is a previous thread on it here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79981
pike master
04-16-2007, 19:34
daytime torch bug needs to be fixed
Three Suggestions:
Moats for the main game. I know this is a feature of the expansion, but would be luuuurvly for the main game.
Traps for sieges. For example a fire trap which could be ignited by bowmen firing from the walls. Or ability to add stakes outside the walls when defending.
Political situation scroll. I brought this bad boy up ages and ages ago, but I think it's a good idea. It would have the map appear at the beginning of a new turn showing the map of Europe with tick boxes to see what was going on.
This pic is ages old, but you get the idea: Situation Map (https://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w146/jcauston/Campaign-map.gif)
edyzmedieval
04-17-2007, 19:54
Please, more wall upgrades. MTW was so awesome when it came to castle upgrades.
SigniferOne
04-17-2007, 23:38
Gigerman, the trait alerts, I believe are triggered for those traits which have a trait_acquired text message in export_descr_character_traits.txt.
SigniferOne
04-17-2007, 23:41
View settlement in battlemap
Who does not want to see glorius achievements of his cities? Mighty walls, grand temples, markets, taverns etc etc.
Please CA, give this option back to us :shame:
I second this. Was there ever given a reason why this was taken out? Seems like such a relatively simple addition to make, that would add such a vital sense to immersiveness and attachment of player to his faction/cities.
Option to change the names of your Generals and agents and maybe even captains and admirals. Basically just like the edit city names option.
Lupiscanis
04-20-2007, 13:18
AI Generals with better skill.
One of the biggest flaws I find in PC vs AI battles is the morale level. Yes, there are occasions when I fight an AI general with 5+ command and a fair level of dread or chivalry (excluding the mongols), but its few and far between and is usually either a faction leader, or a special general (such as El Cid).
Either providing a general base increase in AI General leadership, or making the AI care more about keeping them alive to increase their power, would imo, provide for much better battles.
HoreTore
04-20-2007, 14:02
AI Generals with better skill.
One of the biggest flaws I find in PC vs AI battles is the morale level. Yes, there are occasions when I fight an AI general with 5+ command and a fair level of dread or chivalry (excluding the mongols), but its few and far between and is usually either a faction leader, or a special general (such as El Cid).
Either providing a general base increase in AI General leadership, or making the AI care more about keeping them alive to increase their power, would imo, provide for much better battles.
That's very true. Once as the Milanese, I fought a french general with decent command(4+ stars I think), and maxed out chivalry, probably due to a crusade or something. His army just wouldn't flee, it fought to the very last man, even when I smacked cavalry into his rear. In the end, I suffered about 60% casaulties. If I hadn't got a lucky shot at his general with my crossbows in the end, I probably would have lost too.
Patricius
04-21-2007, 02:23
I would to see the MTW civil war feature, perhaps also the shadow factions of BI, though perhaps the shadow factions could be annoying in some way.
I would also like the city view to be restored, as suggested already. It has some utility in that I can get a sense of a city or castle, and its environs before I might have to endure an assault. The other reason is that it gives a sense of immersion. I recall from RTW that certain cities, like Massilia with its view of a river valley and certain cities I could place myself, had wonderful situations. It was also good to be able to descend from on high to view my empire in closest detail.
I will say it again: being able to choose my heir. When viewing the family tree a little frame will surround the portrait. I wonder if this was a feature like the city view which could have been included, but pressures of various sorts saw it removed. This is a feature of crucial importance. It really wrecks immersion, the sense of guiding an empire is lost, in not being able to select my heir.
MTW kings had a faction wide effect based on the ruler's traits. I would love if he king's traits had a faction wide effect. This might be the case already, it seemed more noticeable in MTW.
I want to reiterate the need for MTW style titles.
LennStar
04-21-2007, 12:47
Free Units in castles
Not only the one Knight.
I nearly never use castles.
1. The defence isn't very much better. Its easier to defend a town with 6 (costless) militia then the biggest castle with 2 elite-units. My scottish towns are always protected by 6 "gepanzerte Miliz-Pikeniere" (the best militia-pikeman) and that is good enough for almost every enemy. For bordertowns I sometimes add a few bowman and a cavalry, but it is never more expensive than a castle.
2. Money. Even if you need more units for cities - they cost ~1000 and you get ~2000 more out of cities.
I currently have only 1 castle out of no reason. For cavaly I add a few from some guild if I need them.
Philbert
04-21-2007, 20:38
add a command to have units in the campaign map to start following their plotted path without having to click their destination again.
ability to group agents without an army present (e.g. bunch of priets, merchant + spy)
make sure the settlement scroll always relates to the selected city (this is now not so when for instance you move a unit from city 1 to city 2)
When you tell a unit to move out of its line of sight, make it so they dodge obstacles that will catch them in their zone of control. Its very annoying when all your ships and armies get stuck even though it would have been avoidable if you had moved them one step at a time.
lol..many people havent patch 1.2 and here is list about 1.3 ...very nice
Make automatic move to location of chosen person when click on a portrait of person in a faction screen ( general, priest, spy, assassin ).
Daveybaby
04-23-2007, 13:31
My number one all time request to CA that i've never thought to mention before:
Add a hotkey to toggle between your main stack and your reinforcement stack during a tactical battle.
In other words, we currently have the option to either:
(A) Let the AI control our reinforcements (ummm.... no thanks), or
(B) Control them ourselves, but only up to the limit of 20 units, so the remainder of our reinforcements sit idle unless another unit withdraws or retreats.
Please add an option (C) that lets us control multiple stacks, cycling through them using a hotkey.
Also, I imagine the multiplayer contingent among us would probably wet themselves at being able to control multiple stacks of troops in the same battle. The only limit would then be whatever your PC can manage to render without grinding to a halt.
Add a hotkey for the campaign map that organizes the selected stack by unit type. This will be very helpful and time-saving for those of us who otherwise have to keep moving our armies around and remerging them to organise.
Little Legioner
04-26-2007, 08:59
Retrain Mercenaries in their region
It'd be good option to fulfill their ranks again.
Loyalist Revolts
One of the best feature in MTW and lost in time. I hope to see it back.
More natural effects
Floods, bad harvest, plague etc etc.
Peasant revolts, religional revolts
Due to high taxes or heretics rebel armies can attack your regions or try to assasinate your family members or diplomats. Hussites, Catharsists, Hashashins, Peasants...
My number one all time request to CA that i've never thought to mention before:
Add a hotkey to toggle between your main stack and your reinforcement stack during a tactical battle.
In other words, we currently have the option to either:
(A) Let the AI control our reinforcements (ummm.... no thanks), or
(B) Control them ourselves, but only up to the limit of 20 units, so the remainder of our reinforcements sit idle unless another unit withdraws or retreats.
Please add an option (C) that lets us control multiple stacks, cycling through them using a hotkey.
Also, I imagine the multiplayer contingent among us would probably wet themselves at being able to control multiple stacks of troops in the same battle. The only limit would then be whatever your PC can manage to render without grinding to a halt.
I believe your wish has been granted in the kingdoms expansion. See that thread.
Daveybaby
04-26-2007, 16:02
I believe your wish has been granted in the kingdoms expansion. See that thread.
How on earth did i manage to miss that? :embarassed:
Well i guess i have an extra reason to buy the expansion now.
Edit : and then i saw this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1489991&postcount=99):
The major drawback that the Preview mentions concerning the AddOn is that many features contained in the four scenarios will not be available in the original M2:TW. For example the forts with moats can only be built in certain scenarios and you won't be able to control AI reinforcements in the original campaign.
So i guess my original request still stands :sad: ...
Edit again:
Will the new "control reinforcements" option be available in the "core" (original) campaign?
We are currently looking into it.
... maybe :dizzy2:
I don't have 1.2 but just hear me out.:idea2:
I think it would be a cool idea to put a diplomat in a foreign settlement and be able to have him set up an embassy there, of course this would remove the diplomat from the game but you would never need a diplomat for that faction again.
Hopefully no one has suggested this yet.
Important feature IMO:
Allow the free camera like in the cinematic editor, to be available in any battle, or most importantly in campaign battles. No need for replay, but to be able to move the camera to any spot during campaign battles would be awesome. Very awesome.
Of course the default could be as normal, but if there was a setting, like RTS cam, General cam, total war cam, and cinematic cam, that would work well.
Several posters have already mentioned this but:
Improve cohesion of units on a battle map, e.g. make units less likely to fall apart when they charge and chase routers.
By this I mean to remedy the situations when only the first row of the unit charges and the rest mills around behind them, and anti-blobbing horrors when chasing routers. Additionally, it would also be a great bonus for tighter maneuvering in general.
HoreTore
04-29-2007, 12:12
Another wish:
More Jihad stuff! Add a building(ribat?) to it as well, so the turks can actually get a guild in castles. Also more units for it, like some camel cavalry, and perhaps some archers.
Colossus
04-29-2007, 12:29
Ill defend the mp community here, no doubt we will be ignored:
1. Do something about lag.
2. If not possible do something about gs (e.g. get rid of them)
More Diplomacy tweaks:
If an assassin is caught trying to kill your general: An automatic diplomat warning screen (i.e. without needing a diplomat) allowing you to change relations without a reputation hit.
If a spy is caught in your city: Same as above.
If enemy troops are on your land: A diplomat sent to them can give a "Get orff my laand" warning. If they fail to leave you can declare war without a reputation hit (perhaps after X offences).
If a priest is on your land: As Above. It would be nice to have some sort of diplomatic solution to meddlesome priests/imams.
If you kill a priest/merchant using 8pack exploit (please keep exploit though!): Counts as an act of aggression.
Gaius Terentius Varro
04-30-2007, 20:31
If you use any cheap exploits/cheats the game runs 220V through your nuts. Oh yes and those awfull faces of Armored Sargeants and it's clones( dismounted huscarls/viking raiders etc) in light mail/heavy mail they look like someone took a dump in their helmets...
Warning!!! strong images:
https://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3950/face2ky1.jpg
Patricius
05-02-2007, 13:27
I must be repeating others in say this, but the ability to choose heirs should be restored. Removing it subtracted a substantial strategic element from the game.
Gaius Terentius Varro
05-02-2007, 17:09
I want a Locksmith ancillary for generals since I want to finally stop worrying about how things are working out for my disgraced princesses with the Chastity Belt ancillary...
Allow a general to take down a watchtower the same way he builds it. Like when you push the build button and he is standing on a watchtower it removes it. During that turn he should be able to put it back up for free in case you push the button by accident.
Colossus
05-03-2007, 21:38
Sorry, was I ignored:
GS ARE RUBBISH
Daveybaby
05-04-2007, 08:35
Sorry, was I ignored:
GS ARE RUBBISH
Try posting something comprehensible, that will probably help with your problem.
Request for 1.3: Make the AI pick a wider selection of guilds in their settlements. It seems like it just accepts the first guild it gets offered, which 90% of the time will be a thieves guild. So as i steamroller through the land, all i see in cities is thieves guild after thieves guild. Gets a bit boring to be honest.
So either:
(a) Make the AI prioritise certain guilds in certain cities (the way human players do) and make it actively work towards getting those guilds in those cities (pretty difficult i expect).
or
(b) Make the AI reject start to reject a guild once more than a certain percentage of its settlements have that guild.
or
(c) Make thieves guild harder to get, i.e. on a par with other guilds.
Alternatively, reduce the impact of demolishing a guild - i.e. remove the -20 guild penalty for other settlements (keep the -100 for the settlement where the guild is being demolished though) so that we dont have to compromise our chances of getting a master thieves guild or an HQ just because thats all that the AI will build.
Readjust 2hand sword unit's stats.
As of now the zweihänder are quite possibly the worst unit compared with it's price for stats. After testing DGK on most sword units and axe units they come up short each time. Despite their charge bonus they seem to all fall in a neat line of dead each time upon making contact with enemy sword, especially S&S units because of their shield + high defense.
You would think the DGK's armor value would be greater or more effective for the labor intensive full plate and heavy mail. At least enough to stop a sword thrust or swipe every now and again in game. Also pointed out in another thread, one would be lead to believe a sword as capable as the zweihänder would be able to do significantly more damage as compared to a simple one handed sword.
I also second the following suggestions:
Winning First is still not fixed. It makes it almost impossible to use cavalry effectively without gaining this trait. Which makes a early games a bit less fun not being able to engage my general's bodyguard, especially in a charge. And I am not sure how to trigger the fair fighter trait even when losing half of my army to the most even battle as possible. Trying to stay chivalrous in battle is now seems something of the past unless your general starts with the fair fighter trait.
If possible it would be nice to see loyalist revolts and religious revolts added as well. As this adds more flavor and more importance to keeping the peace.
Tschüß!
Erich
Cousin Zoidfarb
05-06-2007, 14:08
An indicator that tells you when a charge is possible with your cavalry. Ie the sword icon turns green or red when the target is selected
And war wagons
Dismounting units, for (#@$@'s sake!
I utterly fail to understand why this can't make it in. It should be incredibly easy, just add a line in the export_descr_unit file, something like dismounts_as "x", then before battle in SP (not MP, because that's technically redundant) like at the pre-battle card, option to "dismount" the unit. Hell this doesn't have to be in the base campaign at all, as long as it's THERE and we can USE it. :wall:
madalchemist
05-06-2007, 19:06
What Whacker wrote.
I was just going to write the same
Quickening
05-06-2007, 19:09
Dismounting units is pointless though. I want them to fix whats there already instead of adding pointless stuff on.
Dismounting units is pointless though. I want them to fix whats there already instead of adding pointless stuff on.
Pointless unless you need to assault a settlement with an army mostly made of mounted units. Which can't use siege equipements right now.
Quickening
05-06-2007, 19:44
Pointless unless you need to assault a settlement with an army mostly made of mounted units. Which can't use siege equipements right now.
Well it counts as a new feature which would require balancing etc. It's not going to happen and its not going to help fix the stuff that is there and not functioning.
LorDBulA
05-06-2007, 21:18
Sorry for commenting this in this thread but I cant help it.
Dismounting units, for (#@$@'s sake!
I utterly fail to understand why this can't make it in. It should be incredibly easy, just add a line in the export_descr_unit file, something like dismounts_as "x", then before battle in SP (not MP, because that's technically redundant) like at the pre-battle card, option to "dismount" the unit. Hell this doesn't have to be in the base campaign at all, as long as it's THERE and we can USE it.
What You request is not a simple change. You are asking CA to change basic workings of unit. This is HUDGE request. It would take lots of time and money to implement. I hope this will help You to understand CA decision if they wont implement this.
And yes I also would LOVE to see this feature in expansion to M2TW ( I'am sure that it will not be added in a patch to M2TW). But I wont hold my breath.
madalchemist
05-06-2007, 22:11
Well it counts as a new feature which would require balancing etc.
Seeing as it existed in MTW, I say it was already balanced and playtested, it must only be put in
It's not going to happen
I wonder where this certainty comes from...?!
its not going to help fix the stuff that is there and not functioning.
Since it's a feature it couldn't fix anything.
What it could do would be restoring the mounted troops flexibility we used in MTW while sieging (as Omisan wrote), which was a nice thing.
About what's not functioning, I see many bugs I value less than the dismount feature
Quickening
05-06-2007, 22:16
Seeing as it existed in MTW, I say it was already balanced and playtested, it must only be put in
Except that MTW is a totally different game to M2TW.
I wonder where this certainty comes from...?!
Time will prove it.
Since it's a feature it couldn't fix anything.
What it could do would be restoring the mounted troops flexibility we used in MTW while sieging (as Omisan wrote), which was a nice thing.
About what's not functioning, I see many bugs I value less than the dismount feature
I don't see whats so wrong with just building troops for a specific purpose. Just don't go to sieges with all cavalry.
The game just hasn't been designed with dismounting in mind and neither was Rome. It's a feature that for one reason or another they have simply done away with. It's not that much of a loss.
Id definately rather see the pathfinding etc etc improved rather than this new feature tacked on.
madalchemist
05-06-2007, 22:36
Except that MTW is a totally different game to M2TW.
The difference is the RTW system used instead of MTW, but I fail to see how incorporating useful tools may be a failure.
Time will prove it.
Are you a seer or a dev who already knows the answer? Because it would be enlightening to know the reason you are so sure about it...assuming there is.
I don't see whats so wrong with just building troops for a specific purpose. Just don't go to sieges with all cavalry.
But I don't go to sieges with all cavalry, as most of those who want the dismount feature do. The reasons we want it back is not because we always forgot to bring a ballista.
The game just hasn't been designed with dismounting in mind and neither was Rome. It's a feature that for one reason or another they have simply done away with. It's not that much of a loss.
Id definately rather see the pathfinding etc etc improved rather than this new feature tacked on.
I agree the first part, save the fact it was not that much of a loss.
Besides, you assume that the lack of inserting dismounting would prevent the game from being improved; I actually thing it's self-evident that the improvement/fixing of the game is not based upon the features you can put in (otherwise, we'd now have zero bugs, since the last two patches put nothing new into the vanilla game)
HoreTore
05-07-2007, 00:34
(otherwise, we'd now have zero bugs, since the last two patches put nothing new into the vanilla game)
I suggest you read the changelists more closely... Or play a while with 1.0, then play with 1.2....
madalchemist
05-07-2007, 12:11
I suggest you read the changelists more closely... Or play a while with 1.0, then play with 1.2....
I assumed "new features" doesn't mean "fixed camera bug, assassination tweaked, improved diplomacy mechanic, AI now crosses bridges to attack, etc.", but something there wasn't in the first release.
Boiling oil is a "new feature" in Kingdoms not because it wasn't existing in RTW, but because it was missing in MTW2 vanilla 1.0.
Is it clear?
Gaius Terentius Varro
05-07-2007, 15:28
Just be glad we didn't get naked chicks in this one
HoreTore
05-07-2007, 17:20
I assumed "new features" doesn't mean "fixed camera bug, assassination tweaked, improved diplomacy mechanic, AI now crosses bridges to attack, etc.", but something there wasn't in the first release.
Boiling oil is a "new feature" in Kingdoms not because it wasn't existing in RTW, but because it was missing in MTW2 vanilla 1.0.
Is it clear?
As I said, read the changelists, and/or play with v1.0 then v1.2. You should see the first one as soon as you start a campaign with france, then click on Toulouse.
The second one will probably come about 5 minutes into your first battle.
Vladimir
05-07-2007, 17:27
Increase rebels for human player
Make the settlements require larger garrisons and harass the player with more rebels on higher difficulties. Make me work to keep my empire together. I shouldn't be able to conquer and pacify Northern Italy in less than 7 turns and complete the Reconquesta in less than 25 on H/VH.
Changable weather for Grassy Plains.:wall: :wall: :wall: It is absolutely ridiculous that you can't change the weather for grassy plains. Random fog and rain can really lag up team games.
madalchemist
05-07-2007, 19:32
As I said, read the changelists, and/or play with v1.0 then v1.2. You should see the first one as soon as you start a campaign with france, then click on Toulouse.
The second one will probably come about 5 minutes into your first battle.
Well, I did play extensively 1.0 and started playing 1.2, but I still don't see new features (playing with France and clicking on toulouse only made me see the inquisitor who started near it in 1.0 is gone).
And, by the way, it appears to me you labeled my sentence "no new features, only bux fixing" as CA/Sega bashing, which it isn't -or at least was not supposed to be-, anyway everyone is free to have his personal judgement.
At this point, I'm really curious! I re-read the changelist, but I'm still convinced about the no-new-features theory.
Do you mind telling me what you were referring to? (Please :))
Gaius Terentius Varro
05-07-2007, 19:37
Changable weather for Grassy Plains.:wall: :wall: :wall: It is absolutely ridiculous that you can't change the weather for grassy plains. Random fog and rain can really lag up team games.
I love it when I bring loads of archers only to have then neutered by rain
Quickening
05-07-2007, 20:27
Just withdrew from a battle before it had even began and my General got Chivalrous in Battle. Eh, yeah.
Dismounting units is pointless though. I want them to fix whats there already instead of adding pointless stuff on.
Not a MTW player I take it? As for one of your other comments, please read other's comments before making snotty kneejerk reactionary posts. It should not be remotely hard to implement this, and as for balancing, I already stated that as long as it's available to us, it doesn't need to be implemented in the game for "rebalancing".
Just be glad we didn't get naked chicks in this one
I believe the official term is "screaming naked cannibal whores". :2thumbsup:
Increase rebels for human player
I was about to say "you can already change this with the brigand_spawn and pirate_spawn values in descr_strat", but I stopped short. Is your intent across the board, or just for human-player held lands? I could see it being useful having some kind of additional modifier for the non-AI player(s) to make it harder or easier.
I love it when I bring loads of archers only to have then neutered by rain
For non-composite bows this shouldn't be too bad, composite bows should take a much larger hit because they aren't single construction, and even the best-made ones could fall apart when soaked.
Edit - @ Goalie - Fiddle with your descr_projectiles.txt file, and change/add the "accuracy_vs_units" (or whatever it is) setting to your liking. Higher values, like 0.1, will be horribly inaccurate. Lower values like 0.0001 will ensure that almost everything is on target. Don't forget to uncomment it (remove the ';') so that it's working, and remember you can add it to any of the projectiles you want if they don't already have it. To check which projectile is used for a particular unit, check the export_descr_units.txt file. For example, all the Longbowmen flavors use the bodkin_arrow projectile type.
I love it when I bring loads of archers only to have then neutered by rain
You actually used archers in MTW 2? ~:eek:
That is another thing I forgot entirely to bring up. Archers = Useless from my experience. In multiplayer rush armies are the only consistantly effective armies and hardly anyone takes missles besides the ocasion one or two peasant archers. It would be nice if they could actually deal some damage to cav and inf like in RTW and bring back skirmishing.
Quickening
05-07-2007, 23:07
Not a MTW player I take it? As for one of your other comments, please read other's comments before making snotty kneejerk reactionary posts. It should not be remotely hard to implement this, and as for balancing, I already stated that as long as it's available to us, it doesn't need to be implemented in the game for "rebalancing".
Well I have MTW actually. But guess what? This is M2TW. There's no dismounting and no titles. The game doesn't need them. Again, I wish they'd spent their time fixing stuff instead of adding something which only a few people hung up on MTW actually care about.
madalchemist
05-08-2007, 01:09
Well I have MTW actually. But guess what? This is M2TW. There's no dismounting and no titles. The game doesn't need them. Again, I wish they'd spent their time fixing stuff instead of adding something which only a few people hung up on MTW actually care about.
I suggest you to try MTW, I assure you it's a very exiting and balanced game.
But that's beyond the point...you assume that because this is MTW2, MTW's features cannot exist? Do you know most of the combat rules in MTW2 are taken from STW (morale, fatigue, experience)?
The engine is RTW's, but the combat is based upon STW's rules.
Anyway, since the only thing you want to speak in this post is that who thinks differently from you is inevitably part of a minority and doomed to write nonsense, I'm done with this discussion.
Quickening
05-08-2007, 02:33
I suggest you to try MTW, I assure you it's a very exiting and balanced game.
Eh... I said in the bit that you quoted that I have the game.
But that's beyond the point...you assume that because this is MTW2, MTW's features cannot exist?
No. You missed my point entirely. They could put space aliens in if they wanted. But the point is would time be better spent doing that or fixing what is there already?
Any feature could conceivably be implemented. But it isn't necessary. The game just hasn't been designed with it in mind.
Do you know most of the combat rules in MTW2 are taken from STW (morale, fatigue, experience)?
Obviously. They are the same series of games. It's series of games about warfare. And believe it or not, the Total War series is not the only games series to have those things nor was it the first.
Anyway, since the only thing you want to speak in this post is that who thinks differently from you is inevitably part of a minority and doomed to write nonsense, I'm done with this discussion.
I never said that nor even implied that but you can take from my words any tone you like. I won't lose sleep.
You think dismounting should be implemented and I think it would be a waste of time. End of discussion really.
I never said that nor even implied that but you can take from my words any tone you like. I won't lose sleep.
You think dismounting should be implemented and I think it would be a waste of time. End of discussion really.
What you are doing is trolling, plain and simple. For the record, you are in the minority, there are hordes of us that want dismounting back in the game seeing that this is supposed to be the sequel to M2TW, if you don't agree just look at this and past feature request threads, and you'll see dozens of posts asking for this. Your arguments about the game not being "designed" to include dismounting are pointless. This is a feature we want. If you don't, fine, then respectfully shut up, you don't even know if the time spent on including it would have been spent on bug fixing to begin with. If you aren't going to contribute to the effort in working toward getting a feature, be our guest, but stop being an obnoxious troll.
Edit - No, you aren't trolling because you disagree, you are trolling because you said "I don't want this feature so don't implement it." Reasons you gave where in a nutshell 1. you didn't really want it and 2. you thought it would take away from bug fixing. Taking these two separately, 1. is just trolling plain and simple, just because you don't want something, means the rest of us shouldn't get it?, and 2. again you are smoking something if you think you have ANY idea that this would impact other work efforts. You have no idea how CA works and how they assign work out, so thinking you have even an iota of insight to this is mindless arrogance. That's why you are trolling.
Back on topic
Titles! Yeah I know it's already been mentioned, but this one was great too.
Non-interlocking Concentric Castle Walls Somewhat suspect that this won't happen because how the pathfinding works, but I could be wrong. Nevertheless, this was another awesome bit from MTW that I greatly miss. As it stands right now, once you get a unit on the outer wall, you can run all the way around and come out in the inner ring always, because the walls are all linked.
Give us back the ability to implement the RTW wall mechanics Captureable towers, PLEASE. PLSPLSPLS puh-leeze!!! Boiling oil, but I think this is going to be in the expansion.
Sap points/Saping C'mon, sapping was/is an integral part of siege warfare throughout history, from pre-history all the way up to the early modern times.
Quickening
05-08-2007, 02:55
What you are doing is trolling, plain and simple. For the record, you are in the minority, there are hordes of us that want dismounting back in the game seeing that this is supposed to be the sequel to M2TW, if you don't agree just look at this and past feature request threads, and you'll see dozens of posts asking for this. Your arguments about the game not being "designed" to include dismounting are pointless. This is a feature we want. If you don't, fine, then respectfully shut up, you don't even know if the time spent on including it would have been spent on bug fixing to begin with. If you aren't going to contribute to the effort in working toward getting a feature, be our guest, but stop being an obnoxious troll.
Im being an obnoxious troll for disagreeing with you? I see. For the record, I do believe that implementing such a feature would take work away from actual bugfixing hence my whole argument. And you don't know it wouldn't. If this was a topic about features for the next Total War game then Id be all for it. And my point about the game not being designed for such a feature is relevant to how much work the thing would actually take.
Anyway I'll stop being a "troll" now.
HoreTore
05-08-2007, 11:58
Well, I did play extensively 1.0 and started playing 1.2, but I still don't see new features (playing with France and clicking on toulouse only made me see the inquisitor who started near it in 1.0 is gone).
And, by the way, it appears to me you labeled my sentence "no new features, only bux fixing" as CA/Sega bashing, which it isn't -or at least was not supposed to be-, anyway everyone is free to have his personal judgement.
At this point, I'm really curious! I re-read the changelist, but I'm still convinced about the no-new-features theory.
Do you mind telling me what you were referring to? (Please :))
I'll give you another hint: look at the buildings you can build in 1.0, then 1.2...
Monsieur Alphonse
05-08-2007, 17:05
1. Global info: for example, so you now when an other faction has a guild headquarter.
2. possibility to see the battlemap so you will not be suppressed to find yourself at the foot of a hill in stead of on top of it. Especially when you are the attacker you should now in advance what the battlefield would look like.
3. If you capture rebels you should get a reward from the counsel of nobles. for example 1 florin for every captured rebel, 100 for a captain and thousand florins for a general.
4. If the human player gets into negative florins he should get a warning that his troops will desert in a couple of turns. The first units to desert will be the mercs. After that lonely captains, generals will low loyalty. I mean soldiers won't fight without being paid.
5. Fix or change the way the ai crusades. They don't get desertions even if the are standing still for a couple of turns. I don't know if it is a bug but I have one AI crusading army running around which consists out of a one general and 19 units of crusader mercs.
6. You can't fire at what you can't see. Archer, xbows siege artillery should not be able to fire at targets they can't see. Indirect fire was only developed during WW1. I have been shot at (actually my units) over walls, through very dense fog and over the top of hills.
7. Higher tiers of buildings should produce superior units than lower tiers. For example English armoury produces heavy billmen which are inferior to armoured swordmen. Other example are turkish Azabs (complete useless units)
8. Early period mercs are overpowered. Mercenary spearmen and merc xbows are far superior than anything else.
pfui first post:2thumbsup:
5. Fix or change the way the ai crusades. They don't get desertions even if the are standing still for a couple of turns. I don't know if it is a bug but I have one AI crusading army running around which consists out of a one general and 19 units of crusader mercs.
The lack of desertion was/is a known bug, I don't know if it's been fixed in v1.2. Speaking of crusades...
Give us the ability to control the amount of time that a crusade/jihad cooldown requires!
madalchemist
05-08-2007, 17:33
I'll give you another hint: look at the buildings you can build in 1.0, then 1.2...
Wow! With all these seers and hint whisperers, I wonder whether the forum has the ancillary pagan_magician :)
Anyway, what I've seen after your mysterious -but generous- analysis is what is called in the readme "Metallic Resource now support Mines", but nothing else (maybe your battle advisor speaking more often).
I got it? I got it? Who knows!
Sincerely, neither of those are what I called "new features". Why? Because mines already existed in MTW2 vanilla (not to mention they existed in RTW, MTW and IIRC in STW), so the fact you can build them in more provinces is, if you want, an add-on, a tweaking, or an improvement.
But NOT a new feature, not something never seen before; otherwise 1.2 brought dozens of new features, the matter in this discussion is what is a feature or not.
Just to resume what I wrote above, an example of "MTW2 new feature" would be the heir selection, the boiling oil or the dismounting units.
Definitely not something that was already in the vanilla game in the hands of another faction, province, culture, unit, agent, and so on.
Only one thing matters for me.
A full set of Multi-player campaign options e.g. Hotseat, PBEM, LAN and Online
Its been needed since the launch of STW and its way overdue.
I would like to see a follow-up on 1.2's bugfixes by rebalancing the units. In particular, address the issue of some mid-range units being significantly better than late units. This was an issue I had with MTW and I am a little disappointed to see it reappear in M2TW. There has to be a reason to tech up, otherwise everyone just sticks to Dismounted Foot Knights, for example.
Armor upgrades that work would be nice, or rebalancing the units to take the current system into account.
Oh, and I second the return of dismounting cavalry. Maybe also get rid of the dismounted versions in the barracks, to make room for proper dedicated infantry units. I want powerful walls of spearpoints for my infantry blocks, not a bunch of knights who decided to walk to battle that day to save on gas.
bows, crossbows + gunpowder units actually do damage during a siege, like shooting the assaulting units, instead of making pretty flaming arcs into the air when they are on the walls.
this is the one bug that has annoy me to no end.
Further improve deployment inside cities or castles.
I have a new one apart fro mmy embassy suggestion I would like people to fall of wallslike in RTW, also, this might have been changed when assulting a settlement when I rout sall enemies they get a chance to run to the flagged part and rally but I don't get this option when I defend and shouldn't units in the flagged area automaticly get fight to the death when they rout(may have also changed) I don't think you should ever win a seige by routing all units unless you are defending.
The attacker can and does win a siege when all units have routed (ie none have reached the town square yet)
I Am Herenow
05-13-2007, 10:00
I originally posted these ideas as suggestions for improvements for an RTW mod (Europa Barbarorum), but the people there said that the RTW hardcode didn't allow for those ideas to be implemented. However, as this seems to be a CA-monitored, anything-goes suggestions thread, I thought I would post them here (albeit slightly edited) and see how popular my ideas would be, in terms of gameplay.
So, here they are:
1) Acquiring technology
I believe you'll be able to steal technology in Kingdoms, but it would be nice to acquire it by more agreeable means. So, as part of diplomacy, you can offer to give another faction some unique technology of yours, or ask them to teach you one of theirs.
You could use this if you're some obsessed gotta-catch-'em-all guy, but I was thinking more: get the Aztecs to fill your coffers and do your road-/church-/whatever-building for you, after which you can hire some armies from the money you make and sail into the New World, killing them anyway. Or buy a building technology to increase population happiness. Obviously, some factions would be very unwilling to sell some technologies - e.g. if you want to buy those super-duper ships off the Spanish, it's going to cost you a fortune, or require you to have 10 armies standing along the Spanish border, looking very mean. However, it might be quite sensible to teach a nation how to build large ports or markets in exchange for a tribute, because:
a) The tribute would fill up your coffers
b) It would drain theirs
c) It would improve trade for both of you - good if they're your allies, and it gives you extra income anyway
d) It means you can invade a better city (see note about roads, above)
Surely this sort of thing happened in history, and if implemented, the possibilities would be endless...
2) Population resettlement.
You will have the option of "recruiting" normal civilians from your cities. They can be recruited in groups of a thousand, and each thousand people takes 2-4 turns to recruit (because they have to get ready, get belongings etc.). Once they're all ready, you can move them out of the city, where you'll get a big civilian "army". You can then move them to a different city, and again let them settle in. Again, 2-4 turns per 1000 to buy/build a new house etc. - i.e., assimilate. This would both slow/stop squalor in huge cities, and help tiny villages that take forever to advance, grow.
In order to stop this from becoming some super-own-everything-God-mode feature, the following drawbacks should be included:
a) Both the city that the citizens leave and the one they arrive in will suffer a short-term unrest increase, as the people are forced from their homes.
b) The original city will only lose its population when the citizen unit(s) physically leave the city; while they are still getting ready or garrisoned inside ready and waiting to move, they'll just be sitting there, creating squalor and unrest. Similarly, only when they become fully assimilated into the new city will its population increase; whilst assimilating, they will increase unrest. The unrest will last a few turns after they leave/settle in.
c) Citizens will have various effects on the world around them:
i) The citizens will gradually become more and more irritated; the more time passes from when they were evicted to when they settle in. If their anger reaches a certain point, they/the city they're in will rebel and become a large Rebel army, or a city/castle with a large Rebel garrison (or both, if there are enough citizens and the rebelling city's garrison spills over). These armies may or may not be aggressive - CA can decide on that. Perhaps this should mean that any army with citizen units in it should have a happiness marker (the green etc.-coloured face).
ii) Citizens devastate the landscape and slow trade, even in their own regions (like enemy armies).
iii) If citizens are moved from a frontier region, their unhappiness at moving out may be decreased. If there are enough hostile armies near the settlement they move out of - i.e. the threat of a siege, and consequently their deaths, is high - they may, in fact leave the settlement happier than they were in it. Incidentally, perhaps add a few things that upset settlements' populations: sieges and the distance to the capital already exist as decreases to population happiness, but what about living on the frontier/next to the enemy (not necessarily distance) and/or the threat of a siege (possibly same thing)?
Citizens that are moved from a plague-ridden settlement will also be happy to leave (just make sure they aren't carrying the plague).
On a similar note, the more happiness-increasing buildings a city has, the smaller the lingering unrest will be once the citizens move in. Note, this is about happiness upon resettlement; the other two points are about happiness upon leaving. Note also that this is not the same as the assimilation period - i.e. the time it takes to add the citizens to the settlement's population (see 2) d)).
d) All cities have a cooldown period after assimilating 1 unit of citizens (during which they can't assimilate any more); the smaller the city, the larger the cooldown period. Also, very small settlements might take longer than large ones to assimilate 1 unit of citizens. This is because there are fewer resources and less manpower there to build new houses etc. Also, in terms of balance, this means that you can't skyrocket your tiny village into a huge city - indeed, dumping loads of citizens onto some random town will mean instant rebellion (and not the good, time-to-massacre-and-make-money type, because you'll get a huge Rebel army too [see 2) c)]).
On a similar note, citizens take longer to get ready in small towns (because of fewer available supplies to get them through the journey etc.), if you wanted to drain a small settlement of its population; and, as always, you can't have <400 people.
e) These groups of citizens can be interacted with by most character types:
i) Allied
1) Another citizen unit: can merge with them, and they can split, like normal armies/fleets (1 unit=1000 citizens, therefore max. 20K per group).
2) Army (i.e. military units): can merge, subduing anxiety/rebellious thoughts, and will help in battles (see 2) e) ii) 2)). Generals can either increase or decrease happiness, and increase or decrease the chances of a rebellion happening, depending on traits.
3) Spy/Assassin: can merge, subduing anxiety and helping prevent enemy spies/assassins from succeeding with their missions. Subduing anxiety may involve killing off some citizens with dubious loyalties.
4) Diplomat/Priest: can merge, increasing happiness (by lying to them/calming them down).
5) Merchant and Princess: Nothing.
ii) Enemy
1) Another group of citizens: they can fight (see 2) e) ii) 2)).
2) Army: can attack the citizens. I think armies with Citizen units can only fight auto-resolved battles (to reduce lag), with Citizens having the worst possible combat stats (unarmed, 1 attack, 0 charge etc.). Or the player can tick a checkbox in the battle screen that will "Omit Citizens from the battle", meaning they can stay behind whilst the normal soldiers fight either an auto-resolved or normal battle (thus lowering the army's size and strength but ensuring no citizens die). If an enemy army has Citizen units traveling with it, the battle must be auto-resolved.
If an army with Citizen units were to lose, what fate would befall the hiding Citizens is up to the winner of the battle (extermination, flight, rebellion; a combination, depending on the battle - whatever).
3) Spy/Assassin: Spies obviously spy as recon for the enemy (as with normal armies), and Assassins can kill citizens (in groups of 50 or 100 at a time to make it worthwhile - these assassinations spread fear and thus speed up the rebellion process).
4) Diplomat/Priest: Can try to bribe citizens to rebel, and/or spread lies/rumours of the cruelty/military defeats/etc. of the citizens' faction, decreasing happiness. Possible option to try and convert some/all of the citizens to the Diplomat's/Priest's faction...?
Priests of a different religion to your citizens' will increase unhappiness dramatically if they interact with the army, and priests sent to wipe out heresy might decide that your citizens are evil, and start butchering them. However, priests of another faction but of the same religion as you may well also increase the happiness of your Citizens, like your own Priests, especially if you are allied with that faction.
3) Blockades
Rebels blockading you and blockading rebels currently doesn't make sense. I understand that pirates would want to sink ships at sea to grab some loot for themselves, which is why they are aggressive. However, why they would want to blockade a port remains a mystery to me, as reducing some random faction's naval trade doesn't help them in any way. Also, there is currently no point blockading rebel docks as they don't do anything anyway (i.e. are non-aggressive) and money doesn't seem to help them; they'll only train/conjure a few ships and kill you eventually, and it ties up your ships and wastes money for you.
Therefore, I propose that blockades should not only choke a rival's economy, but be beneficial to your own. I.e. the blockading ships will stop trading ships by coming in and out by looting and sinking any ships that try to enter/exit the city's port (like traders who didn't know about the blockade or something). This will mean receiving a steady drip of money into your economy as well as hurting an enemy's.
Therefore:
If a fleet blockades a port large enough, it can pay for itself, and even generate a profit.
Blockading rebels will make sense, as you get income from it and don't anger any nations.
Pirate ships can be assigned to rebel cities which exist on land (preferably ones with ports) and bring income to their assigned city (meaning they produce more troops, maybe?).
Also, I think that you shouldn't be able to build warships whilst blockaded, but the enemy fleet that is blockading you will gradually lose units as merchant ships manage to overcome one of their fleet every once in a while.
locked_thread
05-15-2007, 06:08
None of this matters, the developer is deaf.
locked_thread
05-15-2007, 06:11
edit
remove the annoying in battle commentary feature added in the 1.2 patch
"your enemy has lost more than half his men"
I know that idiot Im the general - its my business to know if Im winning or losing
Rebel appearance should be tied to region instability. If a region is 100%+ loyal, rebels should never appear. Conversely, regions with 50% loyalty should see a full stack of rebels every turn (up to 5? stacks per region). The level of rebelliousness influences the number of troops produced and their quality. Any region with less than 100% loyalty is guaranteed to spawn some kind of rebel. Rebel spawning replaces riot casualties. Also, armies won’t be kicked out of rebellious cities. Instead, rebel stacks continue to form until the problem is cured.
- Rebel armies should aggressively attack cities, and assault before food runs out. A successful assault could potentially create/restore a faction, if an appropriate one is available.
- There should be a tab/tool for scrolling through rebel stacks within your regions. It is especially difficult to spot them during winter time as they blend in perfectly.
I think there needs to be a clear distinction between Rebels who represent betrayal by your own Nobility (or a Nobleman from an eliminated faction attempting to recover his lost land) and bands of brigands and unemployed mercenary companies preying on your population and trade.
The former ought to be led by a proper general and consist of recognised military units appropriate to the faction from which their leader hails. These, should be directly linked to dissaffected characters in the game and theoretically they might not need to attack your city if the dissaffected leader was the city govenor at the time he opted out. If so he will simply take the city with him. Whether, a noblemen chooses to make a grab for personal power ought to depend upon his loyalty, and the level of influence other factions are putting on him, but if he decides to betray you he ought to take his army with him and may even change his faction loyalty together with that of anything he is guarding at the time.
The brigands and mercenary rebels would be a combination of revolting peasants whose numbers would depend on the general happiness of the local population and dispossessed soldiery whose numbers would depend on the number of units which have been paid off, or routed, in the area creating 'unemployed soldiers' and the level of conflict in the area 'attracting adventurers and mercenaries'.
However, brigands and mercenaries would not be interested in attacking cities. Their main occupation ought to be the interdiction of trade and the robbing of unprotected agents. They would avoid battle if at all possible and should make good use of the terrian to hide their presence.
The only indication that there must be a large number of mercenary companies or bandits preying on your trade in the area would be the loss of revenue and the fact that they are probably going to be offering their services to you as troops as well as robbing you blind.
madalchemist
05-15-2007, 13:59
Apart from asking for Civil Wars, Re-emerging factions, Dismounting and Heir Selection (all of them already been asked to death), I think the menagement of Agents should be simpler.
I'm the kind of player who does almost all with the use of all and every kind of agents, and leaves the rest (not much) to the army. I bet I'm not the only one.
During mid to late game, you control a huge amount of agents. Let's say you have 15 towns and 5 castles (a balanced choice); in this scenario I have 15 Priests, 15 Merchants, 12-15 Spies, 5-6 Assassins, 5-6 Diplomats, and maybe 1 Princess, for a total of 50-60 agents; most of them (like Priests, Merchants on valuable resources and Spies used as counterspies) does not need to be moved and used, but all the others REQUIRE attention and wise use each and every turn to become and remain useful agents instead of losses of time and money.
The Agent scroll list has several bugs:
-Once you select and use an agent from the list, it closes itself and you have to re-open it
-Once you select and move an agent from the list, it "resets itself" (sp?) and returns to the top agent displayed
-Given the number of agents you could have to menage, to find those you have to use every turn is a looong process.
The result is I spend more time looking for my agents on the map/agent list than move my armies and enjoy the game (one turn lasts forever).
Please, remove the above-described bugs and add one hotkey per type of agent to remove time when you select and use them.
I Am Herenow
05-15-2007, 16:52
I agree with your ideas, and on a similar note, can agents have an "auto-explore" option? i.e. they walk around the map each turn, discovering any areas that are grey to the player, so that you don't have to keep micromanaging diplomats each turn. Maybe have a Scout agent who does this.
Also, you can assign the agent (Diplomat, Scout, whatever) to patrol a specified area (or number of regions), to check for settlements which have changed hands since you last saw them.
King of Finland
05-16-2007, 12:54
The game starts in 1080 and the city in Finland is Helsinki. The problem is that Helsinki wasn't founded until 1600 century. Better option would be to place a city called Turku to Finlands South west coast.
I think the management of Agents should be simpler.
I agree.
I'd like to see some sort of auto-search button as suggested, and perhaps some sort of mission system so that you can tell them to 'Go talk to the French' or whatever and leave them to it until they arrive.
I'd also like to see the option to stack agents, so that groups of assassins and spies can be moved together, or indeed so that the classic combination of Spy and Merchant can be moved as a single unit.
madalchemist
05-17-2007, 14:06
One thing rarely used is the vassalage, and imo it could be made a valuable option.
Diplomacy improved from 1.1 regarding backstabbings/accepting ceasefires etc. but compared to RTW, I have still to see an occasion where I could get one more vassal instead of one more annihilated faction, for these reasons:
- AI now is more likely accepts ceasefires when risking to be annihilated, but vassalage hasn't changed much. They still prefer to die with honor (and give me 1-2 provinces at low military cost in the process) than survive as protectorates.
- If you want to have a vassal (assuming you are huge and it's tiny) you have to pay a sum of money and/or land very far from being cost-effective.
- The worst part, the vassal can break the vassalage anytime with no drawbacks save for a loss of global faction standing (considering they are about to die, I'd say the loss is near zero).
If these points are true, vassalage is an useless diplomacy option :(.
In RTW I remember making more than one protectorate, but the chance of it to backstab me was rather low and overall the vassalage was cost-effective.
Do any of you played Birtright:The Gorgon's Alliance, back in 1997?
In that very old game, vassalage existed, and was rather a profit since:
-Vassal could break the vassalage in no way, mutual military access granted, every nation I go to war with, same goes for my vassal (but not vice versa)
-The number of provinces controlled by my vassal increased the value of provinces "under my influence" (and when you got enough provinces under your influence, you won the game).
So I say: why not making the AI accepting vassalage more often (particularly when they are about to disappear in a game without re-emerging factions) but granting the sovereign nation that the vassal will not backstab -by forbidding them to commit acts of war against the sovereign, like a crusading army cannot attack not-excommunicated factions, in addition assassins and spies cannot target sovereign nation's armies, cities and agents, etc.- and adding the number of province controlled from the vassal to the total needed from the sovereign to win the game.
Under these circumstances, I'd say vassalage would be used as a viable diplomacy option.
Under these circumstances, I'd say vassalage would be used as a viable diplomacy option.
I'd like to see vassalage used not just as a diplomacy option by also as a corruption, bretrayal and rebellion option. Most of the factions we play are actually collections of vassel lords and princes, so the unit of vassalage would probably be more appropriate if it was based upon individual characters and or cities. The idea that factions might spontaneous implode and fracture into rival factions ought to be a serious threat even on the battlefield. It is after all exactly how Richard III lost his life on the battlefield of Bosworth.
Here's yet another long wishlist for the game (some are repeats of what others have said, many of them I haven't seen anyone suggest).
Battle
--
- Firing range has been strange in all the total war games. Say that the "bow symbol" turns green at range X, then I cannot fire unit one unit is within that range (fine so far). But when one unit is in range, my missed shots seem to be able to travel up to range 2*X (or sth). Either chagne the logic so missed shots do not reach longer than X, or alternatively give me a "yellow bow" symbol which gives me the option to fire at units within 2*X but with lower chance of hitting compared to "green range". I'd prefer limiting the range of missed shots. Sending out a "scout" unit up front makes the enemy artillery fire manage to hit at rear units, which would not be possible if I didn't send out that scout. It seems completely ridiculous, IMO. *IMPORTANT*
- Reduce the incredibly large advantage of standing higher than your opponent. Alternativly flatten 90% of all battle maps on the campaign map. It gives too much of an advantage to the army happening to "spawn" on a hill/mountain, and it also encourages passive play, especially there no reason for a defender to move a single unit and still kill off the attacker with ranged weapons. The damage from ranged units on high ground should also be reduced to be the same levels as when standing on equal ground, the range advantage of height should be more than enough. To me, this is making many battles boring since the outcome is clear 5 seconds after seeing the battlefield (i.e. I see who will get the high ground). At the very least make it an option to change "advantage of height" between a couple of different settings when starting the game *IMPORTANT*
- Related to the above: Line-of-sight ranged units (e.g. some cannons and muskets) should not get increased range from standing on a hill. If they cannot "lob" their shots when standing on level ground, why should height increase their range?
- Ranged units (especially line-of-sight units) should only show the "green bow" symbol when they actually can *fire* from their current position. I have no use knowing that a unit is in range if I cannot fire (due to elevation/obstacles/other reasons) which happens all the time right now
- Related to the above: Modifier key (e.g. holding down CTRL) to show the map area that can be fired upon for currently selected ranged unit (e.g. highlighted in green similar to how movement range is showed on the campaign map). Preferrably also "modifier+klick mouse anywhere on map" should show that "if my unit was located in clicked spot, it could fire in the following area" (when done for multiple units, it can either not have to work, or it should show area for shortest-ranged unit
- Ability to see where units can move/deploy (bind another modifier key to paint the battle map in some color where the currently selected units can and cannot move). I hate when my artillery just refuses to move for no apparent reason and finally it turns out there's a minor rock in the way (and I _might_ be able to move if one centimeter to the left of where I wanted it to go, but I cannot find out that before I have clicked every pixel in the vincity
- Mode for ranged units to "attack clicked unit when it gets into range, but don't move before that happens".
- Reduce accuracy of all elephant artillery to be on par with (or maybe even lower than) regular artillery. Why should elephant-mounted guns be 10 times more accurate that "standalone" artillery? They are good enough even with reduced accuracy!
- AI formations with little or no ranged units should attack (or possibly run out of range) when coming under (significant) ranged fire instead of just standing around geting butchered
- Add ability to choose order of reinforcement arrivals (prior to start of the battle would be fine)
- Mode for cavalry "chase down nearest routing enemy unit" (needs only be available when at least X% of opposing units are routing). Mode continues to apply until all routers are eliminated or user unchecks this option. Micromanaging end-of-battle is not _that_ fun
Campaign
--
- Heavily reduced chances of getting negative traits for generals standing in cities (especially the "extravagant"-related traits). My generals shouldn't become useless just becasue they are standing in a city for a few turns *IMPORTANT*
- Make the Mongol/Timurid more agressive/decisive in its movements (so it moves it units in the same direction more than one turn instead of running back and forth for 40 turns altough there are weakly defended cities less that one turns march away or weak enemy unit stacks in their zones of control) *IMPORTANT*
- If the human player is not anywhere near the eastern border of the map, make the mongol/timurid *much* weaker. I'm tired of seeing the mongol exteminating the turks and egyptians in EVERY game I'm not playing one of them, and then the timurid arrives and all he can fight against is the mongol
- Slightly higher assasination chances on the mongol/timurid generals (or reduce their attribute values slightly). A 10+1 skill assassin only having 18% for a first-time attempt is too low
- Give the AI a quality-focus instead of quantity when building units. I'm tired of facing town militia-stacks combined with some siege weapons and archer militia late in the game. I'd rather see half as many units, but them being high-level units so there at least can be *some* opposition
- Let the AI cheat more with building constuction so it can build more quality units (e.g. a free unit-producing building every X turns in its Y largest castles and Z largest cities?)
- Give the AI more cash/turn for recruitment on high difficulties (but restrict its spending on the navy, since it already overspends there)
- Related to the above 3 points, reduce the AI spending on lowe-level mercenaries and let it focus more on trying to get good units of its own
- Strengthen the muslim AI factions. Give them better units and/or let them cheat even more than the other factions
- Make the christian factions use quality units in their crusades once in a while. Full stacks with town militia, pilgrims and some mecenary crossbows don't scare anyone
- Make the AI factions actually use thier family members/generals to lead their armies instead of always leaving that job to useless captains
- Give the "regular faction AIs" (i.e. non-mongol) slightly better generals by default, e.g. raise their command by 2 on average.
- Add some form of kingdom-wide penalty (X% unrest for Y turns in all cities?) when the king/sultan is killed by enemies (in battle or through assassination). If there already is such a thing, increase it so it is noticable
- Neutral/allied units should not block units belonging to the territory's owner (i.e. they have no zone of control and they also let all units they are not at war with pass right through them). Units in their own territories should still be able to block neutrals, though
- Agents should be able to pass right through allied/neutral/enemy units in any territory (there can be a certain capture/detection chance when doing this with enemy units).
- AI balancing the unit types in its stacks so that it never has more than 4-5 siege engines per army (and no more than 6-8 archery units). 10 trebuchets in a army fighting field battles in not a good idea. Ever!
- High-level unit-producing buildings MUST be significantly better than medium-level ones. Re-balance so there is some kind of point in building the expensive units for all factions. As it is now, lots of the costly buildings and units are completely useless
- GUI option to "find next unit standing outside settlements that has not moved at all so far this turn" and cycle through every unit found this way ONLY ONCE (it doesn't reset itself to go back to a unit previously selected next time I click it)!
- Neutral navies should not have zone-of-control effects
- Make the papal state less militaristic, it often ends up as the strongest catholic faction. I'd prefer if it mostly used its unit in crusades and in defense instead of always beating the Sicilian/Venetian out of Europe and often taking most of the balkans. Give it a couple of free unit stacks every time Rome is threatened, but otherwise make it semi-pacifist against catholic factions.
- Unit stat descriptions are inaccurate or some features are too weak. a) Gunpowder units with a weapons upgrade show +1 in _melee_ skill. Isn't it the musket I'm upgrading, or does it mean it gets a more robust stock so it can be used as a club? b) Are all armour upgrades really just a +1 to the armor value? People seem to indicate that it actually isn't so. If they are that weak then make them more powerful, espseically high-level armor. If no, update the descriptions to show their actual increases
- _Some_ way to deal with high-level enemy priests/imams/inquisitors/merchants inside my own territory! Don't care how, just make it happen
- The fertility/marriage/adoption rates of family members seem to be correlated with the number of generals/family mambers I have at the current time. This seems to produce periods where I get lots of generals within a short period (e.g. 10-20 turns) until I reach some type of "cap" and then I get no new generals until most of my current ones start to die of old age (i.e. the majority of my generals get old/die at the same time, which gives too-high fluctuations in the family size). If this is the case, please adjust so there is a more even distribution of new generals over time (make it depend on the traits & status of my generals, and noting more).
- Rebel spawning rate _seems_ to be the inverse of the amount of rebels already in this part of the map. So if I kill off one rebel stack, it seem to raise the chance of another one spawning nearby. If this is the case, please change it so that killing one rebel _reduces_ the chance of new rebels appearing in order to _encourage_ me to deal with them instad of me prefering to chase them off the roads and then leave them there just because the next spawn might be more work to chase off. Also give some _minor_ monetary rewards for killing rebels
- Easier for diplomants to gain traits/retinue even after the first few turns (few diplomacy offers are ever accepted unless it's the first time I meet a faction, so give them exp. some other way, e.g. cities visited or factions met)
- Ability to group agents (e.g. multiple priests moving as a single unit) in order to reduce the annoying micromanagement of moving agents
Misc.
--
- Ability to disable loading-screens and intro movie (or can I already do this, if so how?). I'm tired of having to press ESC twice to get around redundant "commercial" screens for Sega/Nvidia/Soundblaster every time I load the game. I've already been forced to see those 100 times and I don't see why I have to prolong the loading time of the game to see these (I already paid for the game, for crying out loud).
That's all I can think of for the moment
Cousin Zoidfarb
05-17-2007, 17:17
make charges less unpredictable
warwagons
Stuperman
05-17-2007, 18:39
Devnull, I totally disagree about the AI cheats, I've abbandoned several campaigns when my enemy is down to 2 or 3 territories, but still has 6 or 7 fullstacks and recruits a new one 2 every turns. I think that 1.5 stacks (1 offensive, .5 def) + garisons per 2 territories is about right.
I Am Herenow
05-17-2007, 19:24
Yeah, Devnull, I generally agree with your ideas, but I think it's better to improve AI to get to the root of why the AI is easily conquerable sometimes and implement fundamental improvements, rather than heaping gold on it.
I'd like to see 2h axe animations fixed. I've heard both that they are fixed and that they're not, so I really would like to know :S been looking for 2 hours now, nothing :(
I'd like to see 2h axe animations fixed. I've heard both that they are fixed and that they're not, so I really would like to know :S been looking for 2 hours now, nothing :(
I would also like the Totalwar.org forums fixed. from time to time they just decides to stop loading pages so I gotta wait a few hours before being on here again
Please fix the replay feature to be reliable.
madalchemist
05-20-2007, 15:28
I'd like to write my 2 cents about alliances.
Orientiss' mod created nearly-unbreakable alliances (from AI's point of view, of course), and 1.2 improved a bad alliances scripts making it almost realistic.
"Almost" , I say, because factions with 2-3 provinces still attack an empire with 10 times their military, economic and political strength, and I think it's faulty.
I know this has been debated a lot, dividing those who think "If they are an empire and I'm a county, I should attack them asap before they overwhelm me" and those who think "If they are an empire and I'm a county, I should assure asap that I'll remain to their side not to be annihilated"; the formers say that since the game objective is to conquer 45 provinces, it sounds reasonable to attack who is winning, even at the cost of losing; the latters say that is neither realistic nor historically accurate that a county should act as if it should conquer 45 provinces instead of trying to survive against an empire.
Personally, my opinion is the latters'. I won't say things like "this should be Medieval2: Total War instead of Medieval2: Total Stupidity", but it's true that if alliances means nothing once effect like the "tall poppy" are triggered, diplomacy has few or no use.
I must add that, as many could already know, I'm a MTW nostalgic, so I miss a system where you could win the game without having to conquer 45 provinces and alliances were reliable till the end. I specify that to short any possible answers.
Let me speak again of Birthright, and how the alliances worked: there were 3 kind of positive relations with another nation, from the lesser to the greater:
-Permissive alliance (mutual military access granted, but nothing else)
-Full alliance, the "true" form of alliance (mutual military access granted, each time one of the two declared war to an enemy, the entire "block of full allies" declared war to the enemy -and all the enemy's full allies dclared war with the other block-, no chance to ally with an enemy of one of your allies)
-Vassalage (I explained how it worked in my precedent post in this thread)
The interesting things were these:
-You could not enter the land of ANY nation with an army, unless you had a permissive alliance, a full alliance, a vassalage, or you were at war with that nation -the game simply said "not permitted" and left your army within your borders-; that means, behind the lines, that diplomacy option "get off my land" many ask was not needed.
-If you wanted to wage war against a neutral nation, you had to "declare war" to it via diplomatic action at no monetary ot faction standing cost BEFORE set foot on their provinces. No war declared, no chance to make an act of war by sending unit in neutral lands.
-To wage war against a permissive ally, you had to cancel the alliance through diplomatic ways (the AI had the 100% chance to let you do it, just trowing a small bag of coins to it).
-To wage war against a full ally, you had to cancel the alliance through diplomatic ways (like permissive alliance's situation, just the fact you needed a little larger bag for the coins) OR degrade the alliance to permissive one (with little coins).
-To wage war against your liege lord (one you was the vassal of), you had to submerge it with coins to shift the relations to full ally (the rest is written above).
The catch was: "To wage a war you must first declare it or be prevented from sending troops"; and to declare it, you had to make diplomatic agreements with the would-be enemy in the case of any form of alliance.
This way, backstabbing and its consequences were impossible, and there weren't faction standing problems for attacking a neutral faction.
All this could be created easily (probably with some adjustment, like the fact a nation WILL have to accept your interrupting the alliance without make impossible requests and "what happens if I cancel an alliance with military access AND I have troops in what are now neutral lands?" -the answer would have been in Birthright "those troops cannot move until they get military access again or they are at war with the province they are in"), but I know the chances these suggestions have to be taken into consideration are near 1%; no problem, let me write them once and be done with it :beam:
trickydicky
05-20-2007, 15:42
A few things that IMO would add to the games immersion.
A "Get Off My Land" Diplomacy Option This is VERY frustrating.
Ability To Set The Faction Heir Should be as standard - logical and historically accurate.
Governer Titles ala MTW This was great.
Civil War! Choose Your Side: ala MTW Added to the flavour of the game, and civil wars did, and continue to happen.
And of course smarter battlefield AI :beam: But I might just be dreaming of that one...
newworldorder
05-20-2007, 20:07
I'd like to see the return of Siege Engineers primarly and also more effective moats. I think the Siege should be more complex and less susceptible to cheesy tactics. I'd like to see the effect of this wax and wane deppending on what technologies are available to the sieger and deffender. I'd also like to see more deffensive tactics from counter-siege equipment. Large scale catapults and ballista's that could be purchased and set on the battlements.
I'd also like to see some kind of attrition when an army is on your soil, as in, an increase in upkeep and possibly not being able to adequetly supply your invading army if the route is blocked by an enemy force.
While there is a lot to do in Medieval 2, the system could be more realistic in terms of how difficult it is to maintain an army on someone elses soil.
NWO
"Say no to globalisation and the abolishment of the freedoms we (The serfs) enjoy today for tommorow they could be but a memory under centralized control"
455trt43trg
05-20-2007, 22:25
Chance name of Helsinki. (Only Finland area province) to Turku or someting. Helsinki was not founded at time of game.
Im from Finland so this always bothers me. :beam:
Bump for fixing 2hander stats and animations. This is imperative in my honest opinion.
Chance name of Helsinki. (Only Finland area province) to Turku or someting. Helsinki was not founded at time of game.
That will hold as much ground as Hamburg being changed to start as a large town instead of a castle, unfortunately. :no: By the way, not completely sure this works... Try clicking on the town's name, I believe you can rename it. I know as of v1.2 I clicked on a settlement and had the ability to add text if memory serves.
Tschüß!
Erich
I Am Herenow
05-21-2007, 06:58
Well I think guys like CA should be historically accurate, but you're probably best off hoping that the MTR guys (or another mod team, perhaps) will improve on the situation.
Kobal2fr
05-22-2007, 02:10
Chance name of Helsinki. (Only Finland area province) to Turku or someting. Helsinki was not founded at time of game.
Im from Finland so this always bothers me. :beam:
You can do that yourself if you own it ;)
As to my wish, besides the obligatory old coot "bring back titles ! And Great Achievements ! And get orff ma lawn !" : make night battles REAL night battles again, not daylight battles with torches !
SigniferOne
05-22-2007, 16:31
As mentioned previously, it would be really nice if we could have I_ options for conditionals. It simply cannot be overstated enough how much modding life would be easier if we could use conditionals in if- or while- statements, just like regular normal programming. The I_ conditionals that I would most like to see (because I have a very advanced script already waiting for them :coffeenews:) are: I_Trait, and I_IsPositionInRect. Can you guys imagine what we could do if Trait was "I_" able?
John_Longarrow
05-22-2007, 23:41
CAMPAIGN MAP
1) The ability to rotate the Campaign map by 90/180/270 degrees. This would make it a lot easier to see behind obstacles such as cities and captions.
2) A MTW style “Pre battle” screen that shows our forces, the enemy forces, and a display of the terrain the fight will take place in.
3) When defending on our own territory, I’d love to be able to recruit mercenary and militia forces before the fight. If these units auto-disband at the end of the fight and are discounted it will definitely help out the AI.
4) Common troops between cities and castles for low level troops. Its very annoying to have different “Names” for what are really the same troops when you are talking base spear and archer/cross bows.
5) Tie chance of a unit going Rebel to the happiness of the province they are in. ie, if the happiness is less than 100%, let the units there without a general have that as their chance of staying loyal.
6) For spies, give me the following couple choices when using them. If I have one in a city it can either; a) cause unrest like now, b) just keep an eye open without causing unrest, or c) aid the local government in getting rid of enemy spies. Option c would only be available if my spy is in an allied country and would not cause unrest.
7) Allow troops to be upgraded to better versions. I should be able to upgrade peasants to town militia to spear militia, etc. This way I can keep veteran troops by upgrading them. As is keeping veteran troops isn’t useful until you’ve topped your tech tree.
8) The diplomacy screen should not be a full screen. It should be half size to allow the player to still look at the campaign map and units on it.
9) Allow Generals to hire “Ancillary characters” in settlements. Examples would be; Priest that accompanies general (Abby or better, increases piety), Scout (Explorers Guild, that increases line of sight), and many of the existing ones. This way the player doesn’t have to worry as much about luck in getting these characters and can instead groom generals to their play style.
10) “Get off my land” and “Titles” as have often been posted.
CAMPAIGN START UP
When first starting a campaign, the following should be options;
• Fatigue On/Off
• Morale On/Off
• 6 month /1 Year / 2 Year turns
• Vices On/Off (allow/prohibit negative traits)
Would like the following to be addressed or explained in some fashion:
Firearms reload times need tweaking to match their 'fire-by-rank' rate. Taking a standard three-rank firing line, the three lines will fire consecutively without issues, then spend an eternity waiting around for nothing before repeating the firing process again, this time significantly slower:
All three ranks ready.
Front rank fires, retires to reload. Second rank ready.
Second rank fires, retires to reload. Third rank ready.
Third rank fires, retires to reload. Front rank ready.
Front rank does nothing. All three ranks ready.
Time passes.
Front rank finally decides to fire, retires to reload. Second rank ready.
Second rank fires after a significant time lapse, retires to reload. Third rank ready.
Repeat process.
Pikemen in spearwall formation with guard mode on do not attack. Pikemen instructed to attack enemy units attempt to walk through them. Their engagement radius seems to be shorter than their weapon's actual length.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
05-28-2007, 03:22
few MP, as expected....
I Am Herenow
05-28-2007, 06:39
Ignore
I Am Herenow
05-28-2007, 06:44
What does MP mean? :inquisitive:
cutepuppy
05-28-2007, 10:45
What does MP mean? :inquisitive:
member of parliament?
my wishlist:
1) bring back titles
2) bring back a grand achievements mode
3) regional units instead of merely faction specific units. I still think it is quite silly you can train gothic knights in gaza. If you can make mercenaries region-specific, it must be possible with normal units too, no?
4) remove flaming ammo from non-siege battles
5) reduce the number of artillery in field battles. It's annoying to see AI armies composed of 12 units of artillery and a general's bodyguard.
invalidopcode
05-28-2007, 20:51
This will never happen but I really wish they would bring back all of the features from the original M:TW that they dropped for some reason?! The most serious one being glorious achievements.
Bugs aside, the biggest grievance I have with the current game is that it is boring after you play a faction from each of the religions. Once you sample the two religions, the rest of the game is rinse, wash, and repeat. The units are the same, the battles are the same (i.e they are almost all sieges), and the personality of your empire is just not there. The game is kind of rotting on my hard drive. The original M:TW had more depth and replay value.
In terms of small things to make it better you only need look at the modding community. Thanks goodness for young people with lots of idle time... :)
I Am Herenow
05-28-2007, 21:59
Are you sure MTW and STW are really better than M2? Couldn't that just be nostalgia?
invalidopcode
05-28-2007, 22:11
Are you sure MTW and STW are really better than M2? Couldn't that just be nostalgia?
Absolutely. The graphics and such cannot compete with M:TW2 but the overall *gameplay* was better. The campaign was more alive and personal, so the battles had a context that M:TW2 does not have. I was more immersed in the M:TW game. M:TW2 ends up just being the same thing over and over again with the same units attacking the same castles with nothing in between to keep me coming back for more.
I think they the expansion for M:TW2 could potentialy engage the gamer better since the mini campaigns are more personal. They could potential have other goals besides "kill your enemy".
I have noticed this trend in other games as well. They add the bells and whistles because that one image of fiery arrows is cool, but they forget the basics. The total war series is not the only game to suffer this fate.
I Am Herenow
05-29-2007, 07:34
Well, OK, but what exactly did STW and MTW have that made them better than M2? People say the AI was better, but I can't believe that's true, as if the graphics were worse, all the technology must have been worse (inc. AI).
Well, OK, but what exactly did STW and MTW have that made them better than M2? People say the AI was better, but I can't believe that's true, as if the graphics were worse, all the technology must have been worse (inc. AI).
believe it
the battle AI was deadly - I used to consider autoresolving to avoid having to fight it and lose another battle - I was actually scared of it..mommy mommy
it skirmished better than you could
it outflanked better than you could
it manouvered and formed up its army quicker and better than you could
Alot of battle I would try and make a square on a hill and hope that I could stop him from getting in behind my lines and causing a mass rout
because of the strat map:
it would invade with masses of men 6+ stacks
your allys would turn up and join you in HUGE multiple army battles
almost all of the battle were fought in the field
there were few annoying little battles against 3 units etc
meeeemorieesssss
alas few who remember it still live :shame:
Little Legioner
05-29-2007, 09:10
Bring back to view settlement feature back please, :sweatdrop:
I know what you've already said about "engine transition" but i'm wondering is it so hard to implement this feature back again?
I dont understand why people want to view the settlements when the settlements are all identical????? surely once youve seen one - youve seen them all - please help me with this one
I really dont see why you would have CA using their resources to make things like "view settlement" and other fluff work when things like unit performance from halberdiers and pikemen are still not right.
my wishlist:
functioning pike units
functioning two-handers, especially spearwall ones
somewhat better ability of spear wall units ( voulge, halberd etc.) to recieve charge( they have a pointy end on their weapons you know, and reach as good as a spears)
balancing so that DFK are not the end all and be all of infantry warfare, able to butcher later knights, professional pike, varangians etc with contempt.
I Am Herenow
05-29-2007, 20:57
I dont understand why people want to view the settlements when the settlements are all identical????? surely once youve seen one - youve seen them all
Well, that's the problem, you see - we haven't seen one! ;)
ninjahboy
05-30-2007, 11:46
Being able to choose the faction heir like in MTW (nothing like a bit of favouritism:D)
Titles and lordships - WAY cooler and helps me concentrate on my favourite generals e.g Lord ...... Master of the Kings Horse....
...... Prince of Bulgaria etc
...... Archduke of Canterbury
alex9337
05-31-2007, 21:41
I would like to see the Scottish have the ability to train archer militia units in their cities.
I may be wrong (still haven't played every faction yet), but they may be the only faction that does not have the ability to build any archer units in cities.
I love defending my cities from siege attacks and the most fun is the positioning of archers on my walls and letting loose the fire arrows! Can't do that with the Scots unless I have garrisoned archers built in Castles and then if they take casualties, I have to move them back to a Castle to "re-train" them.
Thanks!
From the point of view of my current Scottish Campaign there are three things which would make campaigns more immersive.
1. The ability to award titles to family members and generals.
2. The ability to select your faction heir, or at least override the AI's inappropriate selection. In my current campaign Prince Edmund, King Edwards brother remains faction heir even though the King has an 18 year old son.
3. The re-adjustment of inquisitions and witch-hunters. They seem to have gone from imba in 1.1. to useless in 1.2 and there must be some middle ground option somewhere.
4. A 'get off my land' diplomatic option, this is really a killer for roleplay campaigns as there is no solution to wandering army syndrome other than war or bribery. Whereas in real life it would lead to a whole load of abuse and threats.
Ok! thats four:dizzy2: ...there are four things which would make campaigns more immersive.
make all units available to a faction in MP also available in the campaign game, like dismounted lithuanian arher cavalry for the poles or the dismounted french archers for the french( last one is pretty stupid since they afaik never fought mounted) shouldnt be to difficult, and its a shame to have all those units developed and not be able to use them in single player.
Little Legioner
06-01-2007, 17:22
Well, that's the problem, you see - we haven't seen one! ;)
True...
Slicendice
06-01-2007, 18:18
When a Cannon is captured in battle you should lose that cannon. I think they should become a prize of battle and you should be able use captured cannons and re-enforce them even if you don't have the tech to build them. So basically you build a cannon and it is a character unto itself. The operators are easily replaceable but the cannon is not.
I'd like to see towers and other seige equipment that are destroyed when an army sallies from the castle/city have to be rebuilt thus requiring more time for the attacking army. I remember how disappointed I was when I destroyed all the equipment only to find when I ended the battle that equipment magically re-appear!
It's been said before but:
Choose Faction Heir
Declare War
Get off my Land!
Crazy wishes--Some cavalry fall off their horse or their horse dies or whatever. I'd like to see these losses on the battlefield. Knights get up off the ground and try to join infantry units automatically.
madalchemist
06-01-2007, 18:59
I studied lately in a 1.2 Danish campaign the role of princesses, and I concluded that they are pretty useless as they are.
In short, not mentioning the few you have of them, it is extremely hard to develop them to valuable agents because of the many v&v triggers that lower their charm (the worst of them is the one who give the girl "Pretentious Woman" is your income is high, since that will hurt players only in the long run).
It is a similar critic to those who write "Remove the triggers who make your generals more and more useless while sitting in a city": too many negative triggers, too few positive ones; to build successful princesses, you must devote part of the game (and much gold!) to it, assuming you know precisely how appropriate triggers work.
I edited some of the triggers and got a better result, but not enough. I could give all of them 10 Charm, but they would have been useless anyway but the marriage. The system itself makes them not so useful.
So this is my suggestion: first of all, be more generous with their triggers, then add in the Diplomacy option "Marriage with faction general", in addition to the already existent "Marriage with faction leader" and "Marriage with faction heir"; this way you can use the girls to simply reinforce alliances (or forge new ones) making the marriage between factions more common.
I'd also say: boost the chance of a princess to steal an unmarried enemy general; during the campaign I saw 5 ranks princesses can seduce quite good and it's an effective tactic.
One more thing. Someone already proposed a system where agents cannot lose ranks by failing missions (like MTW). I think this should be true, but for the princess and diplomat only; it's too bad to lose ranks just because often you cannot know what the other would refuse unless you add 10000 florins.
I Am Herenow
06-01-2007, 20:02
No, I think agents should lose ranks - because when other countries learn that so-and-so didn't want to marry your princess, she'll seem less attractive to them too (and something of a joke, if she can't get married), so her effectiveness at marrying someone will decrease.
Similarly, countries will be more inclined to push for a hard deal with a diplomat who is known for being bad at negotiating.
Slicendice
06-02-2007, 14:22
I've built my princess up pretty fast and easy. Just make deals one at a time. For instance, trade rights, sell map, buy map, alliance, give money. That's 5 deals in one turn and if you continue to give money then that is even more successful diplomacy in 1 turn. I've marched my English princess Cecilia to Rome stopping along the way and by the time she got that she had 9 charm.
However, I do agree that there are negative triggers that happen to princess' and Generals which make it very annoying to keep them around.
madalchemist
06-02-2007, 14:42
No, I think agents should lose ranks - because when other countries learn that so-and-so didn't want to marry your princess, she'll seem less attractive to them too (and something of a joke, if she can't get married), so her effectiveness at marrying someone will decrease.
Similarly, countries will be more inclined to push for a hard deal with a diplomat who is known for being bad at negotiating.
Then I pose a question: "Should agents lose ranks even when their percentage of success isn't seen by the player and may be 0?"
When you send a spy or assassin in mission, you know the chances of success BEFORE clicking "Go for it"; then the agent may gain or lose rank, and it usually is strictly connected with the % of success of the mission, with a part being random that you can accept or not by aborting the mission.
Diplomacy doesn't work in the same way. A low-rank diplomat (from now, put also the word "princess" where I write "diplomat") approaching any faction -allied, neutral or enemy- could want to make an offer you know it may be rejected -i.e. not trade rights- and receive a loud "No!" just because the faction has no intentions to, for instance, sell its map info when it would buy yours.
In this scenario if you ask to sell your map info and later you ask theirs, they will say "Yes" than "No", if you ask they to sell their map info first, they will say "No" and refuse the second offer, no matter what you propose.
If you instead propose "Sell map info to buy map info" they will say "Yes" if their priorities are to gain info and "No" if they fear you want map info to invade OR if, for instance, your faction has 10 provinces, they have 2, and they have no intention to spend money (they would make a counter-offer by offering gold for the gap between 10 and 2, but only if they have enough money AND are inclined to do so).
If this example is reasonable, my point should be clear: spies and assassins are easy to train because you know the scenarios and risks involved (and the chance to lose ranks is fair); diplomacy is an "high-chaos scenario", where you cannot know if you are entering a "lose-lose game" and this will make your diplomats'ranks stay low.
If you could assassinate your useless agents or sack them, it would be fine, but now you'll stick with the presence of gold-consuming useless ones.
I Am Herenow
06-02-2007, 20:40
I would agree that a feature to kill off your own generals, family members and agents would be very helpful, but still, the fact that a particular part of the campaign map (diplomacy) requires thought from the player does not mean that the game's internal number crunchers should go easy on him.
Just because you don't know whether a particular faction will accept your proposal doesn't mean that their refusal (in effect, your "failure") should have no consequences; similarly, just because you don't know, upon starting a battle, whether you will win or lose, doesn't mean that your troops should reappear and your general suffer no negative effects if you do lose the battle.
gibsonsg91921
06-02-2007, 22:26
i wouldnt care so much about choosing your faction heir if the faction heir automatically changed to the closest living male relative, so it would pass down to a son even if they werent born when their grandpa died.
madalchemist
06-02-2007, 22:56
Just because you don't know whether a particular faction will accept your proposal doesn't mean that their refusal (in effect, your "failure") should have no consequences; similarly, just because you don't know, upon starting a battle, whether you will win or lose, doesn't mean that your troops should reappear and your general suffer no negative effects if you do lose the battle.
Are you saying the lack of informations about another faction's priorities should make my agents bear consequences?
My example was simple: sometimes it may happen that you initiate diplomacy with a faction when you don't know there are NO proposals they will accept, and in this case, you make no agreements and your diplomat's ranks go down; not useful at all, and I should know it beforehand when it happens.
Your comparison with a battle you do not know you'll win isn't correct, since you win a battle by the smart use of your troops (assuming the enemy has your same troops), moving, charging, firing, flanking, etc. not by clicking "Offer" and make your agent's rank work (little) and the unknown information you couldn't have work (a lot). Besides, in battles you always have the autoresolve option, who gives you a close expectation of the victory or defeat; in the case of a not-siege battle with similar troops, the result is almost always equal to the win-ratio expectation.
I'm saying the use of spies, assassins and DFK -and any other troop- gives you a percentage of expectation you can work upon, near the effective outcome. Diplomacy ain't so; having displayed the percentage chance of someone to accept a proposal would be better, as the line "balanced" does not help you much.
Btw, from RTW one of the improvements in diplomacy we have in MTW2 is "more informations" about the proposal I'm offering and the chances of it to be accepted. And it was something fans asked throughly after RTW, to give sense to the diplomacy system.
I Am Herenow
06-03-2007, 07:30
Look, sometimes your proposals get refused. Sometimes your enormous navy will be sunk by a few pirates. These things happen. However, there should still be consequences for it. There shouldn't be a percentage with diplomacy because there is no percentage: I mean, what's the probability that two people will date, and what's the probability that someone will rob a bank? There isn't one, because these things involve weighing up many different options, and aren't solved by crunching numbers.
Frankly, assassination and infiltration attempts shouldn't have percentages either, but as they are simplifications and abstractions for what would actually happen in real life, and are solved by crunching numbers, a percentage can be produced.
trickydicky
06-03-2007, 12:23
I watched "The 13th warrior" again last night, great film!
While watching it, there is a scene at the beginning where a Norse ship is docked at the side of the river, and then it hit me. How cool would that be, if you could use the rivers in game. Imagine the possibilities!
So another wish would be:
A more detailed campaign map, with the facility to use your ships up and down the rivers. Now that would be cool.
madalchemist
06-03-2007, 14:11
Look, sometimes your proposals get refused. Sometimes your enormous navy will be sunk by a few pirates. These things happen. However, there should still be consequences for it. There shouldn't be a percentage with diplomacy because there is no percentage: I mean, what's the probability that two people will date, and what's the probability that someone will rob a bank? There isn't one, because these things involve weighing up many different options, and aren't solved by crunching numbers.
Frankly, assassination and infiltration attempts shouldn't have percentages either, but as they are simplifications and abstractions for what would actually happen in real life, and are solved by crunching numbers, a percentage can be produced.
To be precise, in diplomacy a precise percentage exists (but it can only be shown by cheats IIRC), but the problem is not the diplomacy lacking a percentage or the fact your proposals will be seldom refused; that is part of the game.
The problem, as I wrote, is that your diplomats suffers from it. Period.
Hope my opinion is clear now that I wrote it in short.
I Am Herenow
06-03-2007, 14:27
Look, with Assassins and Spies, you know the chance that they will succeed but they can die if they fail; with Diplomats you don't, but they only become worse at their skill if they fail. That seems fair to me.
Slicendice
06-03-2007, 15:33
Speaking of rivers. . . I would really like it if the rivers had names when you moved your cursor over them. I've learned so much about European Geography from playing this game (go figure) and adding these names would be a really nice detail that might help any of us who ever get on the Jeopardy game show. ;)
Also: Under no circumstances should the computer ever EVER, EVER! automatically consolidate my troops for me. EVER! Even if there is just one left I want to rebuild it.
Also it would be nice if troops were unique when you built them. That each of them had a name that stuck with them (or that you could edit). For instance I have a battle coming up and I'm going to make sure I put the 5th Cavalry in the stack, but not the 4th cavalry. You could pour units into other units all except for 1 unit. Once built you could only get rid of that unit by disbanding it or if it is completely destroyed in battle. Also if all men are destroyed in battle there is still a chance that some will heal and the unit will reappear after the battle.
I think this will give another emotional attachment to the game that will make it more enjoyable to play. Players who suddenly lose a unit they've had the entire game will lament their loss and the rest of us can hear stories about how the fabled 1st Infantry was lost.
Also it would be nice if troops had a record that you could access. For instance an information window that pops up stating the year unit was commissioned, how many battles fought, where those battles were, how many heroic victories, miles travelled, etc.
Also if each unit developed special characteristics that would be really cool. For instance, a special attribute like, "Stubborn Defence" for infantry which makes them impossible to route, "Vicious Charge" for cavalry increasing charge speed and damage, or "Devastating Fire" for archers giving them ability to pour twice as many arrows into a target. (you may notice I've gotten some of these from Panzer General II)
madalchemist
06-03-2007, 16:28
Look, with Assassins and Spies, you know the chance that they will succeed but they can die if they fail; with Diplomats you don't, but they only become worse at their skill if they fail. That seems fair to me.
Yes, but a dead spy or assassin has an upkeep of zero florins; a bad diplomat has the same upkeep of a diplomatic genius. And that is not fair.
I Am Herenow
06-03-2007, 17:21
Fair enough - but like I say, I fully support the implementation of a feature to make it possible to kill off your own generals, family members and agents. Even if it is not a dead cert that you can get rid of that irritating general or diplomat, the chances should certainly be higher than for a foreign one (as your family members will trust your own assassins more than foreign ones will, obviously). Also, if civil wars were to be introduced, then perhaps the question of which of your family members die could be decided for you!
And as we're on the topic of killing off members of your own faction, generals/family members with enough Dread should be able to kill off any irritating or embarrassing ancillaries they happen to pick up.
John_Longarrow
06-04-2007, 17:28
Campaign Startup
Enforce Alliance This would require a faction to cancel an alliance before they can attack / blockade a port. With the current "Random Blockading" issue this will avoid AI factions starting wars they are not prepaired to fight.
Campaign Map
Regenerative units Much like Generals Bodyguards, it would be nice if our units could recruit in the field. The new recruits would have the same problem as Generals Bodyguards (ie, replacements have no experience), but this would allow for a more organic feel to strategic operations instead of the current "Send another unit up with replacements / bring them back to get them patched up" feel.
Disband agent If I no longer need someone, I should be able to get rid of them and not have to keep paying for them. I should even be able to send a wayward Princess to a Convent if needed.
Station Ancillary characters A general should be able to leave ancillary characters, such as overseers and architects, at a settlement. Then the settlement would have that advantage even if the general is out fighting.
Increased priests The cap on priests should be the number of churches plus the number of generals. That way you don't have a LOT of generals running around with pagans because they have been in the field without a designated priest. That would allow for each faction to keep the faith in its armies AND service the provinces.
Limit Rebel tech No rebel force should appear with units that he player cannot build. If there are no facilities to build crossbows in my empire it doesn't make much sence for rebels to be turning them out.
i wouldnt care so much about choosing your faction heir if the faction heir automatically changed to the closest living male relative, so it would pass down to a son even if they werent born when their grandpa died.
Exactly, thats the real problem. If the faction hier followed the usual rules of succession it wouldn't be a problem, but as it stands we need the ability to change the faction hier in order to correct the errors in the automatic selection process.
Also it would be nice if troops were unique when you built them. That each of them had a name that stuck with them (or that you could edit). For instance I have a battle coming up and I'm going to make sure I put the 5th Cavalry in the stack, but not the 4th cavalry. You could pour units into other units all except for 1 unit.
I like the idea but I think the example given is a bit too modern in concept. Mercenary and Free Companies would be known primariliy by the names of their Captain e.g. Captain Gardner's Longbowmen whilst those who were feudal levies would be known by their Lord, e.g. Lord Salsbury's Swordsmen and those from specific settlements by their town name e.g. The Bowmen of York. Beyond that higher groupings or Battles would be named by whatever symbol the commander was using to identify them e.g. Boars, Bears, Harts . This system persisted until well after the English Civil War in England hence Cromwell's Ironsides, Colonel Gardiner's Horse and Newcastles White Coats. I don't think regimental numbers actually began to appear until until the mid-18th Century except of course for Roman Legions and even then I don't think it extended beyond the core legion structure.
Nevertheless, it would be nice to be able to label units in this way, but it would have to be in character with the game period rather than an abitary number system.
Yes, but a dead spy or assassin has an upkeep of zero florins; a bad diplomat has the same upkeep of a diplomatic genius. And that is not fair.
I agree, it should be possible just to pay off unwanted agents (delete them) in the same way as troops, likewise unwanted sons, generals and faction hiers should just be disinhereted or expelled from the country, possibly with some sort of negative effect on local unrest or even the chance that they might turn rebel and make a personal bid for power.
madalchemist
06-05-2007, 14:58
I agree, it should be possible just to pay off unwanted agents (delete them) in the same way as troops, likewise unwanted sons, generals and faction hiers should just be disinhereted or expelled from the country, possibly with some sort of negative effect on local unrest or even the chance that they might turn rebel and make a personal bid for power.
You are right. Not only useless agents, but everyone and everything who lacks the ability to boost your faction should be cast away (and I'm not feeling like Machiavelli when I say so since we are speaking about pixels), in a way or another.
I'm tired to organizate one-fragile-ship expeditions loaded with incompetent heirs, bad diplomats and so on and let the pirates do the rest.
As Didz said, this expelling could have a negative effect of some sort to balance the game (or be an excuse to reinsert Civil Wars ;))
You are right. Not only useless agents, but everyone and everything who lacks the ability to boost your faction should be cast away (and I'm not feeling like Machiavelli when I say so since we are speaking about pixels), in a way or another.
More to the point I think thats more in keeping with real life in that no ruler would tolerate idiots in key positions unless he felt a need to do so.
ninjahboy
06-06-2007, 11:23
its a good idea, if theperson is well liked or somethingbut totally incompetant then there should be an option to pay him off or jsut sack him. Also bring back the ability to choose faction heirs, sick of hacing to try to kill me idiot of an heir
madalchemist
06-06-2007, 13:50
Add Diplomacy options:
"Get off of my land!", being requested by almost all players
"Declare war"; what's this? Simply, you cannot bring troops into lands you do not have military access with when you are not at war with (if you have troops who lack the military access because the land they are in switched owner, they won't move at all until the war or military access is gained). Gives more sense to the diplomatic action and prevents global faction standing from going low because you attacked a neutral faction.
If you want to make acts of war, use spies and/or assassins, but DO NOT send troops -by the way, an option to make allied spies not spreading unrest inside allied towns and the above ally letting them in without risk would do much imo-
The following proposals are just ideas to improve the role of Diplomacy, so stop reading if you want to read something asked by more than one.
-"Bribe merchants", like you bribe units or diplomats. They shouldn't be so faithful to refuse a little cash, or at least not more than a DFK or a diplomat
-"Go fight heresy in <insert faction here>", a proposal for inquisitors; instead of bugging me, they go bug my enemies, triggering a move action for him to the selected faction or province, assuming they can reach it without sailing. The longer the trip, the higher the cost. (maybe the chance and cost might be influenced by papal standing...)
-"Go spread heresy in <insert faction here>", the above proposal, but for heretic and witches. Useful not only to free my provinces from them, but to annoy an enemy with an heresy rampage (then he'll have to deal with the spawned inquisitor as well :P)
-"Break alliance with <insert faction here>", the same thing the Pope ask you sometimes, you ask to untrustworty faction (or would-be untrustworthy).
The catch is: if you are used to a little dread score and have florins burning on your wallet, let's give you more options!
I Am Herenow
06-06-2007, 18:07
Generally nice ideas, although I wouldn't agree with the idea about not letting armies move if you haven't declared war. This is for two reasons:
If you and another empire are racing to get to a city, and the other empire (who are Neutral to you) capture it first, your army gets stuck there? Surely backing off would be more appropriate, especially if you don't want to fight the guys who captured the city.
There is nothing physically stopping an army from going somewhere - even today, the French army could march into Spain, say, if they really wanted to - and so maybe troops should suffer some sort of pentalty (unrest due to guilt?) for invading a neutral country - although this should be MODDABLE - but physical barriers are just wrong, in my opinion.
The rest of the stuff sounds good, though - diverting witches and then getting inquisitors to chase after them would be fiendishly clever!
madalchemist
06-07-2007, 00:15
With the presence of both "Get off my land" and "Declare war" the necessity of not letting an army move in other lands disappears completely, as you send a diplomat saying "Get off my land - accept or we'll attack" or "get off my land - accept or declare war" to the intruded army.
Saying as from RTW princesses and pope elections created new Diplomacy options almost without bugs from vanilla, I hope adding new ones is so easy that can be modded, if not included by 1.3.
phunkbot
06-07-2007, 00:27
Hey guys,
I think i have a couple of ideas for this thread here, they might be pretty obvious and already brought up,
but hey its my wishes so if any one else got those as well Cheers! ~:cheers:
1) I would like to have a numerical indicator of how many (bushels of widgets) each stat of a generals is;
if its counted anyway, why keep it from me? Pretty much the same goes for all things taken into account that seem to be kept away from you, a character scroll with that sort of info (much like the ' settlement details ' one f.ex.) or just some way to see those in game would be great and I wouldn't think its that much of a deal to set up (for the most part), please correct me if I'm wrong
2) I'd like to be able to see the little green travel path where my stacks would try to go trough before sending them someplace;
now I haven't played RTW so I last used to move pieces around and am probably not noticing the way this got better since RTW; It just makes sense to get those at least as an option to me.
3) "Get off my land or I will make you look like ground beef" diplomatic options would be good. Also, for diplomats, I think a general of yours should have the option to talk to another faction's diplomat by you pointing over and clicking the diplomat while the general is selected(gah!) , that'd be neat.
Thats pretty much it for now I'll be adding to this as ideas come back to me... or just come along. Any corrections to stupid stuff is welcome in a PM so i would see it.
peace, im out
lot of dudes wanting the get off my land diplomatic option - wouldnt it be better if other countries had to either have a millitary passage or alliance or be at war with you - before their armies could cross into your land - so for instance you walk into anothers land without an agreement - then its war
no need for get off my land
because i can just see this happening - AI parks stacks on your land - you say get off - a) it leaves and returns next turn or b) declares war and attacks
so whats the point - the way the game is you know if its parking stacks on your land - it going to declare war in the next few turns - regardless of standing, the pope, or its reputation or power
its just such transparent repeditive garbage at the moment
edit: and how does this work - Ive never declared war on anyone but defended myself and attacked those i was at war with and my rep is the worst
if you want allys then dont have shared borders
yeh 1.2 vastly improved - MY BUTTTTTTT
its so broken I guess some game apologists have mistaken random AI sillyness for programmed genius
With the presence of both "Get off my land" and "Declare war" the necessity of not letting an army move in other lands disappears completely, as you send a diplomat saying "Get off my land - accept or we'll attack" or "get off my land - accept or declare war" to the intruded army.
Not necessarily...one of the goals I had in mind for the "Get off my land" option was to get rid of an offending army without the need to declare war or threaten it. Thus a third option would be 'Get off my land and I will pay you X florins' or 'Get of my land and you can look at my maps.' It would, in effect, merely be another demand in the diplomatic bag.
Simply, you cannot bring troops into lands you do not have military access with when you are not at war with (if you have troops who lack the military access because the land they are in switched owner, they won't move at all until the war or military access is gained). Gives more sense to the diplomatic action and prevents global faction standing from going low because you attacked a neutral faction.
Personally, I think thats going too far. I would agree with higher penalties for tresspassing on another factions soveriegn soil but physical blocking smacks of interference by the program in the way I want to play the game. After all the AI would have access to 'get off my land' too so they have the same options we do. I would also argue strongly that 'Get off my Land' should be implemented in the same way as a mission, e.g. once issued you have x turns to comply failing which you suffer the additional penalty. I certainly don;t want armies to magically leap to the nearest border.
-"Bribe merchants", like you bribe units or diplomats. They shouldn't be so faithful to refuse a little cash, or at least not more than a DFK or a diplomat
My only concern here is that it would undermine the whole merchant system within the game. It would certainly require careful game balancing to get this right otherwise players would simply stop hiring merchants and go around bribing the AI's instead.
In real world terms the Merchants don't represent people, they represent enterprises orginated in the merchant houses of a specific city to gather remote resources for trade in the markets of that city. Taking over those resources with another Merchant makes sense as the resources are then redirected to another market, but bribing an existing merchant would not create a new trade route and so would make no difference to where the resources were being transported. The option to slaughter enemy merchants with assassins already exists, which severes a trade route but I think bribery is going too far.
It might be clearer if Merchants were represented by a merchant house rather than a man, or if they converted into a house once they establish a trade route, but as long as you imagine that the merchant is merely the 'head honcho' for an much bigger organisation, and may not actually be where his figurine is located but back at the Merchant guild writing cheques it makes sense.
-"Go fight heresy in <insert faction here>", a proposal for inquisitors; instead of bugging me, they go bug my enemies, triggering a move action for him to the selected faction or province, assuming they can reach it without sailing. The longer the trip, the higher the cost. (maybe the chance and cost might be influenced by papal standing...)
I think the current three kills and they're out arrangement is reasonably sound.
If this option was provided I don't think I'd waste a diplomats time on delivering such a message when the inquisitor is unlikely to be around long anyway. I would certainly like to have a bit more warning when an inquisition was being initiated in my land, I think its inappropriate the way they just appear without permission. Perhaps, the Pope should give factions a no choice 'Grant me the right of Inquisition, or I will be very unhappy.' type note before sending them in. The current arrangement is a bit too Pythonesce for my tastes.
-"Go spread heresy in <insert faction here>", the above proposal, but for heretic and witches. Useful not only to free my provinces from them, but to annoy an enemy with an heresy rampage (then he'll have to deal with the spawned inquisitor as well :P)
As I understand it the appearance of heretic's and witches is a consequence of local conditions caused by the owner of the province e.g. by us. Assuming that to be true it doesn't really make a lot of sense to be able to send troubles of your own making to plague someone else.
Having just had to deal with a major heresy problem in my Scottish blog I found it made a lot of sense and responded appropriately to the counter measures I took to clear it, so I think this is a case of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' from my point of view. The idea of bribing heretic's doesn't really make much sense realistically, they are after all fanatic's. My only real gripe is that on an individual basis the heretic's themselves look unfinished, it would be nice to see a bit more detail to them. Certainly they ought to be regionally specific and it would be nice to see some detail on the nature of their heresy rather than having to imagine it.
-"Break alliance with <insert faction here>", the same thing the Pope ask you sometimes, you ask to untrustworty faction (or would-be untrustworthy).
I like this idea. There have been several instances in my current game when I have wanted to try and change the balance of power through diplomacy and being able to undermine an opponents power block by stealing his allies is an important option. I also think that their needs to be definite penalties for being allied with an ex-communicated faction probably in terms of Pope-o-meter deductions on a turn by turn basis.
BTW: is there any way of telling whether a faction has been Ex-Commed?
There have been several instances in my Scottish game where factions seem to have been ex-commed but I have either not been told or overlooked the notification. It would be nice to be able to see if they were from the screen, perhaps with a broken cross symbol onn their shield or something.
madalchemist
06-07-2007, 17:24
"Get off or my land" was not meant to be used exclusively with "Accept or we'll attack" or "Accept or we declare war", but as an option to put on the table compatible with give money, give map info, give tribute etc. (otherwise it would not expand diplomacy too much).
The fact of proposing armies not being able to cross borders unless war is declared etc. is a reminescence from my hours of game with "Birthright:the Gorgon's alliance", that I admit, after having read the feedback in this post, is too strict for a TW game (and can get complicated); in any case, trespassing enemy borders should be seen as a major offence.
I remember in RTW the Senate giving you missions with 2 turns to complete to "get your army off a land you don't have military access with" if the land was a protectorate of yours. That surely had a sense, and could be put as a mission for the offender as you proposed, but I think if trespassing has to be a major offence, the offender failing to obey should trigger a war. No less.
About bribing merchants I agree that it could change the way everyone deals with them, as you said, just bribe them instead of hire them; this can be avoided by putting the required sum of money to bribe a merchant very larger than a diplomat and obviously depending from their rank (if bribe a 8 rank merchant requires 40,000 florins, how much time you need to get your money back?) AND, I'd say, from the Authority of the faction leader, since giving them the loyalty bar is complicating the agent too much for normal gamers; by the way, the Authority of the faction leader is currently used to determine whether an army goes rebel or not so it should have sense.
The option to kill a merchant instead of bribing it is viable, but if a merchant is became a big problem such as you must remove him, low-level assassins won't do the trick; you would have to have been training and using assassins from the beginning, and that doesn't mix with a chivalry reputation, while bribing is considered like spying, only a minor dread strategy; sadly, if you want to use assassins effectively you have to expect to have 10+ dread in the long run in my experience of 1.2 gaming, which isn't always what you desire.
A similar address is for heretic and witches: to get rid of them you need cardinals or assassins, while to get rid of merchants you need merchants or assassins; the core of my proposal was to make diplomacy able to solve more troubles to make it more important in the game, since if you don't want to build all type of agents (which you CAN do even at VH/VH with good results) just to change global strategy. What if you don't want to build priests or merchants and save florins for different approaches to the current game? What if you don't want to train assassins for the dread they bring?
Btw, I agree than heretics and witches should be "fanatics" and bribing them may sound strange or illogical, but not entirely (the sound of cash often made miracles even in the Middle Ages).
About inquisitors, I agree the Pope should ask you whether he can send some in YOUR land before doing it and new rules could be implemented (I even tries everything to make inquisitors recruitable agents, but, alas, it's hardcoded :(; how I miss them from MTW!).
Just to resume, my points in the discussion are two: 1) Give more options to Diplomacy, even at the cost of bend logic a bit. 2) Give the player the chance to deal with all threats without forcing him to build always the appropriate agents.
Both can be debated, however, as many could say "If you want to stop a merchant, send him 2 merchants" and that would be logic as well.
To see whether a faction is excommunicated go to "The Pope" window and move the mouse upon the factions' papal standing bars; it says either how much the Pope appreciates that faction or if he excluded it from the believers (the latter meaning they are excommunicated).
@madalchemist
Thanks thats useful to know.
Caliburn
06-12-2007, 09:28
Assassinating ancillaries might be a fun, if not exactly easily implemented, idea. Are you an angry father who learns about his daughter's secret lover? How about that foreign fruitcake your son has? What about that Holy Lance you've always coveted but the nasty Hungarian prince is holding in his hand?
Maybe it would be a bit of a hassle to kill ancillaries, but ever since Rome I've wanted to get rid of the red-nosed uncles etc.
Maybe even kill off a "trouble at home" wife, but that would mean that wifes should be ancillaries as well...
As I recall in RTW it was pretty easy to get rid of them. You just gave them to some old dodder who was about to peg it and let him die and take them with him.
I used to have funeral parties where any characters approaching likely death were visited by their younger family and swapped ancillaries taking any good ones and giving him all the bad ones they wanted rid off.
madalchemist
06-12-2007, 14:09
I used to have funeral parties where any characters approaching likely death were visited by their younger family and swapped ancillaries taking any good ones and giving him all the bad ones they wanted rid off.
Heh heh...I see that funeral parties are rather similar than the ones in my country...:skull:
I Am Herenow
06-12-2007, 16:40
Didz, the thing is, that's just abusing the system (rather like camping in the corner of a battlefield to cover your flanks). We want it to be implemented so that it's supposed to be done - I mean, surely only the most chivalrous, kindest kings would put up with a drooling idiot following them around? Besides, it will give the AI a chance to have beter generals too.
Didz, the thing is, that's just abusing the system (rather like camping in the corner of a battlefield to cover your flanks).
Explioting rather than abusing. We all expliot the system every time we deliberately outwit the AI, its actually very difficult to switch off part of your brain to play at its level.
The fact is that in RTW it was permitted to swap ancillaries and so one tended to do it. Not doing it would have been a conscious decision to make the game harder. A bit like the current trend of throwing money at the AI.
We want it to be implemented so that it's supposed to be done - I mean, surely only the most chivalrous, kindest kings would put up with a drooling idiot following them around? Besides, it will give the AI a chance to have beter generals too.
Hmm! not sure thats really true. The problem is that we the players are gods who are omnipotent and therefore see all and know all.
Our generals, family members and agents are mere virtual reality mortals whose knowledge would be pretty limited and whose motives and interests are petty and driven by all sorts of desires which are irrelevant to our divine goals in the game.
Perhaps, the drooling idiot we consider a burden to us is considered amusing by our virtual servant, or perhaps he's just really good at brown-nosing the boss. Maybe the Queen really thinks he's sweet and would give the King ear-ache if he wasn't around to make her laugh. He might even have been given the job as a special favour to a friend.
I mean you don't have to look far to see some real life examples of drooling idiots being allowed to occupy positions of power and influence that embarrass the hell out of their masters.
David Blunkett for example. True they got rid of him in the end but not before he'd done a hell of a lot of damage, and John Prescotts still being carried along and shuffled from one pointless job to the next to try and keep him out of trouble. Then there's Boris Johnson?
Historicallly, I bet Mary Stuart would have liked to have had the sort of knowledge we have when she was choosing her husbands and agents. The lady seemed doomed to find the bad apple in every basket she reached into culminating in the selection of Thomas Morgan and Charles Paget, to act as her emissaries with Spain, whose stupidity eventually got her executed.
So, from that point of view, frustrating as it is, I would be reluctant to simply allow any ancillary or agent to be dismissed arbitarily at the very least there ought to be some negative impact to doing so other wise we will all end up cloning superheroes.
madalchemist
06-12-2007, 18:55
Someone proposed to give every general the chance to "buy" an ancillary appropriate to the settlement they buy it from.
If I was the general (or the faction leader), I'd surely equip myself (or my subordinates) with all the best stuff around. Except, of course, for those whose better action they can do to help me is becoming part of an enemy faction.
This means idiots die and geniuses survive (and win!) in my game, but in everyone whose strategy is to favor the best's, too.
In RTW it was exactly so, many appreciated but it seems many did appreciate more the MTW2's approach.
A middle way could be an option to switch it, like the difficult, morale, fatigue, etc.
You don't want negative v&v? Done.
You don't want to make ancillaries transferable? Done.
And so on...(should be easy to implement)
Yes, Warcraft III has those and they are useful for equiping heroes. I think their called artifact shops or something. No doubt something similar will be provided when CA produce a Totalwar fantasy version.
madalchemist
06-12-2007, 23:42
I guess you think buying ancillaries should be allowed only in a fantasy game, and not in a TW game?
Maybe you think the chance to acquire a nun or a biograph would ruin the spirit of the game?
I wish there was a summary of the cumulative effects of all the various attributes and/or ancillaries which belonged to a general.
This summary could be contained in a pop-up when you hold the cursor over his portrait, such as:
Attack bonus: +2
Defense bonus: +1
Law: +3
Squalour: +2
Trade: +8%
Taxes: -2%
We already get pop-ups for individual traits; this would summarize their effects.
As we all know, it's practically impossible to sort out all the factors for a veteran general in order to decide which one is best for your various cities.
I Am Herenow
06-13-2007, 06:52
I wish there was a summary of the cumulative effects of all the various attributes and/or ancillaries which belonged to a general.
This summary could be contained in a pop-up when you hold the cursor over his portrait, such as:
Attack bonus: +2
Defense bonus: +1
Law: +3
Squalour: +2
Trade: +8%
Taxes: -2%
We already get pop-ups for individual traits; this would summarize their effects.
As we all know, it's practically impossible to sort out all the factors for a veteran general in order to decide which one is best for your various cities.
Good idea!
I guess you think buying ancillaries should be allowed only in a fantasy game, and not in a TW game?
I think it would very much depend on how it was done. The whole concept of traits and ancillaries is a variation on the character development process used in fantasy roleplaying games anway so we are already one rung up the ladder. Its certainly not something I've come across in wargames before.
Maybe you think the chance to acquire a nun or a biographer would ruin the spirit of the game?
Having got ancillaries I can see how the next logical step would be to allow them to be selected and purchased, again thats a standard feature of fantasy roleplay. But if you have a scenario where a Mercenary Captain is offering you his services I can see how it makes sense that you should have the option to say 'no thanks'.
On a similar note it would also make sense to allow special weapons, armour and mounts to be purchased for generals. They would certainly have the funds to do this in real life and if your going to be able to select their retinues you ought to be able to choose their equipment and their bodyguards too.
Perhaps the only arguement against it is the fact that MTW2 is not a roleplaying game.
i.e. there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between player and character. So, in theory we are not the character making the decision, but some omnipotent being watching events from a divine perspective. As such we are merely informed what decision the character made, rather than make the decision for them.
In that respect introducing an ancillary purchase option would actually be changing the relationship between the player and the characters in his faction.
It would certainly move the game closer to the Warcraft 3 concept by making it more hero focussed in terms of player options.
madalchemist
06-13-2007, 12:59
Perhaps the only arguement against it is the fact that MTW2 is not a roleplaying game.
It would certainly move the game closer to the Warcraft 3 concept by making it more hero focussed in terms of player options.
Yup, it's true, MTW2 is not a roleplaying game, and we should pray it doesn't become one (please don't speak again of Warcraft 3 :embarassed:).
I quoted only a couple of sentences, but I read all your post and must say I agree with you, everyone would have the funds to customize the generals and make them all look alike.
One thing though: the ancillaries system (how to acquire, why, maybe allowing them do be moved or disposed of) should be more clear for the player; modders read exactly how trigger works and have a good approximation of what you must do to have a particulary ancillary or trait, while more base informations should be provided to the not-modder gamer; system more clear = more fun.
Maybe I could suggest to write inside a building description (in a separate little window) which trait and ancillaries it can rovide to a general/agent.
modders read exactly how trigger works and have a good approximation of what you must do to have a particulary ancillary or trait, while more base informations should be provided to the not-modder gamer; system more clear = more fun.
Maybe I could suggest to write inside a building description (in a separate little window) which trait and ancillaries it can rovide to a general/agent.
I don't think even the modders have an exact answer to what triggers all of them and some seem to be random.
I've been trying to use Kobavello's The Prince Guide https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86130 to try help influence the development of my characters and whilst some aspects are quite easy to control. Others are pretty difficult. Its certainly not always as straight forward as 'this building gives you this'. Then of course there are the bugs which give an ancillary when you don't deserve one. e.g. Pagan magician.
I agree with you that the system needs to provide the player with more information on what its doing. The end of turn reports we get are quite literally a waste of space and could contain a lot more by way of detail and explanation in the room they take up on our screens.
But given that the game doesn't even account correctly for the financial changes it makes to our treasury every turn, I think we will have to wait a while for them to explain why our assassin just got a Black Stallion, or where that yappy guard dog just came from.
What I'm not so sure about is the idea that we should just be able to buy them rather than merely influence whether they are acquired. But I do agree that we ought to at least be given enough information to do the latter. For example: I was not aware that tax level and priest recruitment were important to character development till I read the guide.
[p.s. Whats wrong with Warcraft 3, it set the standard really and its got huge replay value. Command and Conquer has nothing similar to the concept we are discussing.]
I get the impression your trying to work out whether I'm in favour of buying ancilaries or not. The truth is I'm not sure about it, mainly because I'm not sure about ancillaries in the first place. They are the sort of thing you expect to see in a fantasy game, but at the same time there is no real reason they should not be part of a wargame. Its just a novel concept, for modifying a characters stats.
Likewise introducing roleplay into a wargame setting whilst not exactly new (I've played Napoleon and Dohturov in large multiplayer wargames before) isn't the normal approach adopted by a computer wargame. But then MTW2 isn't supposed to be a computer wargame.
So it really comes down to trying to assess what difference it would make to the game play and that really depends on how it is done and I'm trying to not to be judgemental about it.
John_Longarrow
06-13-2007, 17:44
Didz,
As the person who first put forward the idea of being able to get an ancillary (not a virtue or vice) by paying for it, I was in no way affected by either Fantasy Roleplaying or Warcraft. I was inspired by Alexander the Great. I was inspired by Agamemnon. I was inspired by every commander who has a loyal and dedicated staff supporting him, one that he hand picked to do what ever it takes to get the job done.
The concept was "If I have an Abbey or better in a city, can my General hire a priest to accompany him as a spiritual advisor". Extended, that would include Clark traveling with Louis as he explored the North American continent. One was a military captain, the other a professional cartographer. The cartographer would only be available where one has an explorers guild. Likewise your young Alexander can get his beloved horse at a master Horsebreeders guild.
For most fantasy games, it is the vices and virtues that you can "Buy" in one fashion or another. I cannot comment on World of Warcraft as I've never played any of the games in that series.
The concept I was hoping would make sence is "If there is a region famous for something, a general may go there to get an example of what they are famous for". That would cover heading to Paris to get an expert chief, Dublin for a renowned Whiskey distiller, and Frankfurt for master biermeister. Instead of having to wait around for one, the general could put out a call and put forth the cash to procure the services he needs. For non-unique items (like fancy armor) it seems to me that going to a very high level armorer would be more in keeping with reality that having a fine suit "Magically appear" when your local armorie is expanded. As this is a pre-industrial setting arms makers are less likely to give away show pieces than a Remington or a Colt.
John,
Yes! I recognise the logic of what you are proposing. All I'm saying is that such a concpet has usually been reserved for Hero style battle games and Fantasy Roleply in the past.
Thats doesn't mean its not worth considering for a wargame style game, but it could change the focus of the gamplay. At the moment the player is not the character but merely allocates those characters roles within the game setting. Once we begin to make decisions at individual character level then the entire game concept shifts and we begin to get into historical roleplay rather than strategy. As I said before, the mere existence of traits and ancillaries has put us on the bottom rung of that roleplay ladder, and is encouraging discussions such as this one. Selecting ancillaries is another rung up that ladder, and it will inevitably lead to more idea's such as buying special weapons and armour, being able to choose your wife and whether to get rid of her. Handling the upbringing and education of your children etc.
I'm not saying that wouldn't be an interesting idea, but it would make a big difference to gameplay.
Incidently, I don't agree with concept you describe below:
The concept I was hoping would make sence is "If there is a region famous for something, a general may go there to get an example of what they are famous for". That would cover heading to Paris to get an expert chief, Dublin for a renowned Whiskey distiller, and Frankfurt for master biermeister. Instead of having to wait around for one, the general could put out a call and put forth the cash to procure the services he needs. For non-unique items (like fancy armor) it seems to me that going to a very high level armorer would be more in keeping with reality that having a fine suit "Magically appear" when your local armorie is expanded. As this is a pre-industrial setting arms makers are less likely to give away show pieces than a Remington or a Colt.
Only because nobility and heads of state do not 'go shopping' for useful people. They usually send a diplomat or an messanger and have the useful person come to them.
So, I would be opposed on realism grounds to any suggestion that a general needs to go somewhere in order to get an ancillary. I think if the ancillary is available then it should be available to anyone who can use it, the issue then becomes whether stock is limited , in which case market forces and loyalty ought to determine who it goes to.
For example: when Edward I wanted a master mason to build his welsh castles he didn't travel to Savoy to hire him he merely summoned James of St.George to England.
Now given that there was only one James of St.George, had King Phillipe of France also wanted him to build castles in Normandy there would have been some sort of bidding war over who acquired his services, and the loser would have had to accept a second choice.
That would certainly be a more realistic approach to ancillary acquisition, but it would mean that ancillaries need to be made globally available and only restricted by issues of feilty and price.
John_Longarrow
06-13-2007, 20:41
Didz,
From a totally realistic perspective it does make sence for a General to have what he desires brought from another area to him instead of him going there. Of course from a totally realistic perspective a unit would receive reinforcements in the field and equipment upgrades were shipped out to the troops instead of having a unit return to a "Castle" for repairs or upgrades.
In game we have something different.
We already have units going back for repairs and some players selectively place generals in settlements with specific building or when specific types of building are build so that they have a chance of getting an ancillary or trait. There are several threads around about "Making sure you have a high chivalry general in a settlement when you XYZ" or "Set up one settlement for spy production and DON'T put a general in there. That way you avoid the following bad traits...". We already are doing some things in our play style that encourages specific traits and ancillaries. My suggestion is to get it out in the open and add an easier to understand way of doing this. The current byzantine logic for how you get most traits or ancillaries is not very friendly to the player. Personally I'd rather see it more opaque and easier to work with.
madalchemist
06-14-2007, 00:30
The end of turn reports we get are quite literally a waste of space and could contain a lot more by way of detail and explanation in the room they take up on our screens.
But given that the game doesn't even account correctly for the financial changes it makes to our treasury every turn, I think we will have to wait a while for them to explain why our assassin just got a Black Stallion, or where that yappy guard dog just came from.
That for sure :(
[p.s. Whats wrong with Warcraft 3, it set the standard really and its got huge replay value. Command and Conquer has nothing similar to the concept we are discussing.]
I get the impression your trying to work out whether I'm in favour of buying ancilaries or not. The truth is I'm not sure about it, mainly because I'm not sure about ancillaries in the first place. They are the sort of thing you expect to see in a fantasy game, but at the same time there is no real reason they should not be part of a wargame. Its just a novel concept, for modifying a characters stats.
I'm a little biased towards Warcraft III (this without having played it much, I must admit), so don't give much weight to what I wrote about it.
Btw, I wasn't trying to make any kind of "trap of words" to make you say whether you're in favour of buying ancillaries; not to sound rude, but if I want to know your opinion, asking it politely has proven to be a more effective way in this post.
About ancillaries, I think they should be part of a wargame since they are both logical and historically accurate; to make them balanced, too, (apart a huge playtesting) we should think to what we think they are; in short, what is the difference between a trait who hit "nogoingback" and an ancillary? I'd say very few (even comparing an ancillary and any kind of trait), they both are part of the v&v system that is for many (including me) the best part of a TW game.
And the good the v&v makes to the game is the customization, roleplaying and logic following your characters.
If the yapping dog and the black stallion were understood by the player the way the trait "Farmer" was in MTW, the v&v benefit to the game would be greater (but here I realize I'm rewriting the same things I wrote in my last post).
About ancillaries, I think they should be part of a wargame since they are both logical and historically accurate;
Hmm! I think we have to be very careful about claiming realism and historical accuracy as a justification for ancillaries or indeed anything else in TW games.
The fact is that they are a novel way of modifying a characters stats, but as John has just pointed out the entire game is based upon a rather unreal concept of having to go back and forth to visit places to get things and that in itself is not very realistic or historically accurate.
The fact is that most of our characters would have these ancillaries from the point that they accepted their role in society, and they would not have to jump through various hoops to acquire them. The real game within a game would be whether they could replace their current advisor, guard dog or mistress with something better and that would be a global acquisition issue not a case of building a better brothel in Hamburg.
The same applies to the point that John raised. In reality units would not need to return to base to rearm nor would their recruitment be dependant upon the construction of armouries or barracks. If we were to go for truly realistic and historically accurate version of MTW2 then troops would be obtained by feudal levy or other historically accurate means and equipped with arms and armour purchased from which ever armourer one wished.
Thus, if funds allowed a French noble could equip his knights with the very latest Milanese armour guarantee'd to be longbow proof, without ever building a castle or a barracks, or a local armoury, or capturing Milan.
Bottom line is that MTW2 is not historically accurate, and has never claimed to be. Its just a strategy game, therefore the only real issue is whether allowing the purchase of ancillaries would change the gameplay for better or worse.
There are several threads around about "Making sure you have a high chivalry general in a settlement when you XYZ" or "Set up one settlement for spy production and DON'T put a general in there. That way you avoid the following bad traits...". We already are doing some things in our play style that encourages specific traits and ancillaries. My suggestion is to get it out in the open and add an easier to understand way of doing this. The current byzantine logic for how you get most traits or ancillaries is not very friendly to the player. Personally I'd rather see it more opaque and easier to work with.
Yes, I've been trying to follow Korbavelli's Prince Guide and I agree with you that the current system for trigering ancillaries and traits is mind blowingly complex to expliot.
The issue I suppose is whether it was in the game designers mind that we were to expliot it, or whether the desire was to keep it mysterious and complex deliberately to discourage the player from trying to manipluate it. Certainly, before I read Korbavelli's guide I was happy just to let my characters develop without my guidance and I accepted that how they were was how they were, and that this in some mysterious way was a reflection of the way I played the game and used those characters.
Its only since reading Korbavelli's guide that I have become obssessed with controlling my characters development and neurotic about putting a general in a settlement with a brothel, or a province with high heresy.
So, having become neurotic about trying to control something I previously didn't give much thought to until someone else suggested that there was a way to control it. I guess the next logical step is to demand a simpler system to control it so that I don't have to remember all the hidden triggers that the game designer didn't want me to know about in the first place.
Will this improve the game?
It will make it easier to play, and easier to build high spec'd characters. The likelihood of acquiring negative ancillaries and traits will also decrease if we know exactly how to avoid them all. In general it should be easier to acheive a high spec'd character and coupled with the other options requested to dismiss unwanted ancillaries and agents it should mean that there will be far fewer interesting individuals in our factions that we would prefer not to have.
Is that a good thing?
In theory it will mean that every general will be as good as we can make him, and those that don't make the grade can merely be dismissed. The game will be more controllable, more predictable, more understandable, but will that make it more playable?
I'm really not sure.
John_Longarrow
06-14-2007, 16:35
Didz,
My own personal preference would be to have a separate "Ancillary" system that would be tied in to what you build in different settlements and how much emphasis you are willing to put in, as the player, towards getting specific goodies for your generals. This should be separate from vices and virtues, those mysterious traits that heredity and circumstance give to each character.
I’d also rather not have the V&V portion linked to tax rate and building present. To me it is counter intuitive that having a low tax rate makes a general bad with taxes. There are many times when you need to lower taxes to encourage population growth or population control. Couple this with often needing a general in the settlement for the same reason and you see why I don’t like that set of triggers. Likewise a brothel would encourage a general NOT to have a specific mistress as he’s have more options with this line of buildings present.
My own take is that ancillaries should be based on what you can get in your empire and that these should all be transferable. Some of the existing ancillaries should be turned into traits, such as yappy dog as it is the princesses preference for these things that causes her to have one. This way you can have your siege engineer accompany your commander who’s going to be storming a castle while your governor keeps the tax collector.
I'm guessing that until this happens, I'll have to sit down and start working on a mod. I wonder if there is any way to make ancillaries recruitable now?
madalchemist
06-14-2007, 16:57
Well, we have many valid points to debate on.
First, the fact MTW2 is or isn't historically accurate; to make a long story short, obviously a French commander should be able to buy the best Milanese armor (as his troops wouldn't have to stop in the castle to wear it) but the game doesn't allow it since it's a strategy game.
This example is something I completely agree upon, but the fact that being a strategy game kills historical accuracy isn't true in all cases.
From what I've read, some guys think accuracy should be 100% while others think playability as a strategy game should be 100%; the game itself is a conundrum of these two opinions, sometimes going towards accuracy and sometimes towards playability.
About this, I think it's about self-evident.
Since making all players equally happy is impossible, the result is what we play now.
Anyway, pages and pages of rants and discussion on the official forum showed us that both in unit/faction balance and historical accuracy the debate is endless, and it's clear to many that either one of them or both of them are impossible to create to meet the standards of some players.
So when we discuss about what is possible and what can be changed, we always know we are looking for some sort of final compromise.
Since the final choice is the developers', the best thing we can do is write feedback as we already do and hope that in the "final compromise" our ideas will be in.
Its only since reading Korbavelli's guide that I have become obssessed with controlling my characters development and neurotic about putting a general in a settlement with a brothel, or a province with high heresy.
So, having become neurotic about trying to control something I previously didn't give much thought to until someone else suggested that there was a way to control it. I guess the next logical step is to demand a simpler system to control it so that I don't have to remember all the hidden triggers that the game designer didn't want me to know about in the first place.
Will this improve the game?
It will make it easier to play, and easier to build high spec'd characters. The likelihood of acquiring negative ancillaries and traits will also decrease if we know exactly how to avoid them all. In general it should be easier to acheive a high spec'd character and coupled with the other options requested to dismiss unwanted ancillaries and agents it should mean that there will be far fewer interesting individuals in our factions that we would prefer not to have.
Is that a good thing?
In theory it will mean that every general will be as good as we can make him, and those that don't make the grade can merely be dismissed. The game will be more controllable, more predictable, more understandable, but will that make it more playable?
I'm really not sure.
If you became neurotic after having read the guide to develop generals AND this lowers your fun in the game, there is something wrong: either knowing how triggers works ruin the game or the game is less fun because of how the triggers work.
I agree with John_Longarrow that ancillaries (and traits) should be easier to predict, and I think both of them shouldn't be in the most cases either a boost or a drawback, but instead a mixture of the two.
I mean: if the yapping dog and the secret love ruin your princess' charm and do no other, the logical approach would be to try to avoid them; otherwise we'll send cavalry charges vs spearmen anytime, while we use archers vs spearmen, spearmes vs cavalry and cavalry vs archers in combat. I can hardly think a player roleplaying a general charging spears with cavs "because my general is a risk taker, a butcher, or a poor tactician". Does that kind of player exist? I bet that even if he exists, devs do not make the game to be more fun for his style.
The current trigger system is imo too punishing with bad ancillaries/traits because of the lack of knowledge the player has. If you have the knowledge, you can become neurotic about your characters.
I fully believe Didz avoidsing the Pagan Mage like the plague at the point of losing fun, since it's the same for me. I even use the remove_ancillary cheat when it pops up.
So the solution could be: negative traits/ancillaries having less impact upon the general and reducing those who give either a boost or a flaw.
That way you could ignore how trigger works and enjoy more the game even when your general picks up bad habits
neoiq5719
06-14-2007, 16:57
i dont know if this has been mentioned before cos there are a bunch of pages already but:
1) Cavalry should be way more responsive to commands. If u tell them to disengage they should do it inmediatelly and run away fast too not slowly which is what it is now.
2) Being in red should start creating unrest BUT among your soldiers which eventually would lead to desertions ( hey soldiers are not getting paid, how would u feel?)
3) They came up with this cinematic editor which i consider a total waste of time since what i want is to play and not to make videos so is it possible to make an AI editor? Now that would be usefull if it could be implemented.
I Am Herenow
06-14-2007, 17:57
I think a cinematic editor is a good thing, as it lets mods customise assassination scenes etc. easily (or at least I assume it does).
About negative traits, I actually think it's good that you can get leaders who are pants, and for two reasons:
No leader is perfect. Just look at today's politicians. Blair is charismatic (+ Influence), but he's a perpetual liar and George Bush's pet (- Influence, + Unrest). Brown is good with numbers (+ Tax Income, + Management) but gloomy (- Influence) - and so on.
I think it's good that the game at least forces you to have one bad thing (i.e. people with bad traits) because I don't know about the rest of you, but if I lose a battle, I just load my last save - I never really play a real campaign, where I lose territory etc.
John_Longarrow
06-14-2007, 18:07
MadAlchemist
As there are different sections for "Traits" and "Ancillaries", my preference is to have more of a difference between them rather than making either more predictable. For my personal enjoyment I'd love it if the Vices and Virtures a general gets (traits) are triggered by time, predication, and his actions.
For predication, at creation each general would get one to three "Preferences". Over time these preferences would come out. That could include an enjoyment of drink, being overly friendly with the ladies, or a love of administration. As time goes by these preferences would come out more and more unless there is something that would prevent them. As an example, a general who's "Friendly with ladies" may aquire a mistress. This should be able to happen even if he's not married.
Action based V&V's are already in the game and seem to make a lot of sence. Some I'm not so sure on, especially the "Winning first" set which appear to happen based entirely on you being good at defeating the enemy in battle.
This should then clear up the Ancillaries for transferable items/people who would be a bonus to have. Not all would be only a bonus, and I can see having some ancillaries that would have some negatives. They should all be good for something though.
I just see this as an example of two different systems that accomplish the same goal. I'd love it if they were less alike.
I Am Herenow
06-14-2007, 18:42
Are there any features currently implemented in M2 that make actions on the battlefield (which are more specific than just winning/losing a battle) change traits/ancillaries? For instance, mowing down some routers increases Dread; Generals get more command stars if they win more decisively; they become bloodthirsty/whatever if they actually charge into the enemy (especially from the front).
I understand that linking specific battlefield events to the campaign map would be harder than linking campaign map events to the campaign map, but still, could it be done?
madalchemist
06-14-2007, 19:25
MadAlchemist
As there are different sections for "Traits" and "Ancillaries", my preference is to have more of a difference between them rather than making either more predictable. For my personal enjoyment I'd love it if the Vices and Virtures a general gets (traits) are triggered by time, predication, and his actions.
For predication, at creation each general would get one to three "Preferences". Over time these preferences would come out. That could include an enjoyment of drink, being overly friendly with the ladies, or a love of administration. As time goes by these preferences would come out more and more unless there is something that would prevent them. As an example, a general who's "Friendly with ladies" may aquire a mistress. This should be able to happen even if he's not married.
Action based V&V's are already in the game and seem to make a lot of sence. Some I'm not so sure on, especially the "Winning first" set which appear to happen based entirely on you being good at defeating the enemy in battle.
This should then clear up the Ancillaries for transferable items/people who would be a bonus to have. Not all would be only a bonus, and I can see having some ancillaries that would have some negatives. They should all be good for something though.
I just see this as an example of two different systems that accomplish the same goal. I'd love it if they were less alike.
I see your point.
To limit the numbers (and kinds) of traits of a general can get according to less factors (some ones randomly decided at coming of age), and to let them use ancillaries -coming from his inclinations- as bonuses or bonus/malus together; hope I got it 'cause English isn't my first language.
To limit the "inclinations" a general could have would be a way to make easier the prediction of what he'll become, and it'd make the v&v more player friendly.
And to consider the ancillaries, in a way, a better thing than a trait, acquirable if the general's conditions are met.
Imo it would be one of the ways to simplify the system, so I'd personally like it.
To make it clearer, in a way or another, would prevent headaches from who, like me, wants the perfect general ;)
Rebellious Waffle
06-14-2007, 23:07
Hopefully this hasn't been mentioned yet: REDUCE THE REFRESH RATE ON THE PATHFINDING ALGORITHM FOR SKIRMISHING MISSILE CAVALRY. When being pursued by other cavalry at a relatively short distance behind, my experience is that the new path chosen by the unit has a strong horizontal component, which changes (evidently) several times a second. The result being that the missile cavalry slows down as if it were going to turn, but never does -- it just lags slower and slower until the enemy catches up and engages in melee combat, defeating the purpose of skirmish mode. The problem can be circumvented by turning off skirmish mode, but then I don't get to use the game feature effectively at the time when it really counts.
Well, we have many valid points to debate on.
First, the fact MTW2 is or isn't historically accurate;
Not really, the designers themselves have stated that MTW2 is a strategy game inspired by history and is not necessarily historically accurate. I mean it patently isn’t simply because there is no system included to model feudalism and the effectiveness is certain units are way out of sync with their real potential.
Obviously a French commander should be able to buy the best Milanese armour (as his troops wouldn't have to stop in the castle to wear it) but the game doesn't allow it since it's a strategy game.
No, the game doesn’t allow it because the designers decided to use a different system for troop recruitment and equipment. It has nothing to do with MTW2 being a strategy game, as historical accuracy is a separate issue. A completely accurate historical game would still be a strategy game it would just ensure that every game process was designed to as historically accurate as possible, rather than the most playable.
It’s certainly not true that strategy kills historical accuracy and I’m not sure why you think that is being suggested. However, I think it is true that being a slave to historical accuracy can kill playability. For example all the cavalry nuts on MTW2 would go into withdrawal if cavalry charges were nerfed to reflect their real life potential.
There is a fine line between playability and historical accuracy and personally I think MTW2 is close to the line on this as it stands at present. There are some aspects of MTW2 which I don’t like because they are a bit too gamey, but on the whole the game contains enough historical stuff to make it interesting. But for me it’s a close run thing and CA have been sailing closer to the edge with each new release. I would certainly never buy Spartan Total Warrior as that went too far, and as I’ve said in the poll I’m not interested in a TW Fantasy title, I buy a completely different style of game for fantasy play.
If you became neurotic after having read the guide to develop generals AND this lowers your fun in the game, there is something wrong: either knowing how triggers works ruin the game or the game is less fun because of how the triggers work.
Well like most wargamers, I’m a control freak, once I know how something works I want to be in control of it. Ancillaries and traits never really bothered me until I realised that they could be controlled. As soon as I realised they could be controlled then my natural instinct was to seek to control them.
It hasn’t ruined my enjoyment of the game, but it has increased my workload when playing it. The point I was making was that I suspect in truth we were not supposed to try and control them, I think the designers had it in mind that our generals would simply acquire traits and ancillaries which reflected the style of our game during the normal course of play, and if it had not been for the modding community we would have been left in blissful ignorance of the triggers that cause them.
I fully believe Didz avoiding the Pagan Mage like the plague at the point of losing fun, since it's the same for me. I even use the remove_ancillary cheat when it pops up.
Actually, I don’t but only because I can’t remember what the triggers for a Pagan Magician are, and because I read somewhere that its bugged anyway and you get the Pagan Magician when the reverse of the conditions stated arises instead of the right conditions. Most of my generals have Pagan Magicians as a result.
So the solution could be: negative traits/ancillaries having less impact upon the general and reducing those who give either a boost or a flaw.
It’s difficult to imagine a player choosing to acquire a negative trait or ancillary if they have a choice. The common approach in roleplaying games is to overcome this by combining positive and negative traits in a single element, so that players have to balance the benefit gained with the penalty imposed.
So, for example a Pagan Magician might have -2 Piety but increase the morale of every unit in the general’s army by handing out invulnerability potions to the troops before every battle and casting curses on the enemy.
That way the roleplayer is allowed to be in control but only in so far as he gets to choose the mix of positive and negative traits his characters acquire.
madalchemist
06-15-2007, 16:16
It’s certainly not true that strategy kills historical accuracy and I’m not sure why you think that is being suggested. However, I think it is true that being a slave to historical accuracy can kill playability. For example all the cavalry nuts on MTW2 would go into withdrawal if cavalry charges were nerfed to reflect their real life potential.
I stated that the strategy killing historical accuracy is self-evident, but since you say you don't think why I think it has been suggested, I'll make a couple of examples:
Didz,
From a totally realistic perspective it does make sence for a General to have what he desires brought from another area to him instead of him going there. Of course from a totally realistic perspective a unit would receive reinforcements in the field and equipment upgrades were shipped out to the troops instead of having a unit return to a "Castle" for repairs or upgrades.
In game we have something different.
We already have units going back for repairs and some players selectively place generals in settlements with specific building or when specific types of building are build so that they have a chance of getting an ancillary or trait
This is John said some posts ago, and it's a perfect example of historical accuracy bent like a bar to make retraining strategically easy, plus the fact that a general must be in i.e. Toledo, let's say, to get traits and ancillaries coming from what's happening in Toledo where he's the governor; as if not being at home when you ordered a pizza could allow your relatives to eat the pizza and you not paying the bill (heh, a rather extreme example). If in your lands farms improve or you start to recruit assassins you'll have consequences, in the good and in the bad (that was titles was for in MTW).
Countless other examples could be done, but I repeat, not to bash CA for a bad work, but to demonstrate strategy and historical accuracy are hard to mix.
There is a fine line between playability and historical accuracy and personally I think MTW2 is close to the line on this as it stands at present. There are some aspects of MTW2 which I don’t like because they are a bit too gamey, but on the whole the game contains enough historical stuff to make it interesting.
No one here said the game isn't enjoyable as it is, but it appears to me that everyone think some aspects of the game come from strategy needs while others come from history to give immersion.
Well like most wargamers, I’m a control freak, once I know how something works I want to be in control of it. Ancillaries and traits never really bothered me until I realised that they could be controlled. As soon as I realised they could be controlled then my natural instinct was to seek to control them.
It hasn’t ruined my enjoyment of the game, but it has increased my workload when playing it. The point I was making was that I suspect in truth we were not supposed to try and control them, I think the designers had it in mind that our generals would simply acquire traits and ancillaries which reflected the style of our game during the normal course of play, and if it had not been for the modding community we would have been left in blissful ignorance of the triggers that cause them.
Being a control freak in a game remains within human nature ("throw the first stone who never tried to work out ancillaries" :)), but increasing your workload when playing it didn't ruin your enjoyment of the game at all? My (but mine alone) experience from when I knew the trigger system was to edit and tweak most of them and have the game (both in the rewriting of the edited files and during play) work as I wanted, and it was quite tiresome; not meaning what's true for me must be true for you, however.
It’s difficult to imagine a player choosing to acquire a negative trait or ancillary if they have a choice. The common approach in roleplaying games is to overcome this by combining positive and negative traits in a single element, so that players have to balance the benefit gained with the penalty imposed.
So, for example a Pagan Magician might have -2 Piety but increase the morale of every unit in the general’s army by handing out invulnerability potions to the troops before every battle and casting curses on the enemy.
That way the roleplayer is allowed to be in control but only in so far as he gets to choose the mix of positive and negative traits his characters acquire.
That's exactly what I said in an earlier post: "ancillaries (and traits) should be easier to predict, and I think both of them shouldn't be in the most cases either a boost or a drawback, but instead a mixture of the two."
@madalchemist
Sorry! I having real trouble understanding why you consider strategy gaming to be something which excludes historical accuracy, and I think its creating mutual confusion.
In my country a Strategy Game is any game on any subject which requires the player to use long term planning to acheive a set of goals. The game itself might be historically accurate, or complete fantasy or completely abstract. Its still a strategy game. Chess for example is a strategy game.
So, I don't understand why you are making a distinction between strategy and historical accuracy as the two terms are mutually exclusive.
You can have a strategy game which is historically accurate and you can have an historically accurate game which involves no strategy.
So, comments like 'strategy killing historical accuracy is self-evident'are just meaningless. Most historically accurate games are strategy games therefore suggest one precludes the other makes no sense to me.
However, I don't think thats what your saying.
I've tried to re-interprete your words by subsituting 'playability' for 'strategy' but that implies that you consider hisotricallly accruate games to be unplayable, or perhaps boring, and I don't think that is necessariliy true either.
So, I'm confused now and I don't really know what point you are trying to make.
madalchemist
06-15-2007, 17:29
@Didz
Probably part of the problem is the fact my English is negligent not being my first language.
But you are right in saying I used too often the term "strategy" while I had to use "playability".
If a strategy game is, for definition, something who requires the player to use long term planning to acheive a set of goals (like chess), MTW2 is in every way a strategy game.
Yes, substitute the term "strategy" with "playability" almost everywhere I wrote it and the result is more or less what I wanted to say: "Playability and historical accuracy don't mix well"; often you have one at the expense of the other (or of a part of the other).
That said, I still think MTW2 is a good mix of them.
DVX BELLORVM
06-15-2007, 21:19
I'd like to have a full screen strategic map, with selectable "layers" (something like Civ4). This map would provide political situation, religion distribution, army, family members and agents positions, guild distribution, units availability, trade routes, etc.
I'm aware I'm asking too much, but it is a wishlist...
@Didz
Yes, substitute the term "strategy" with "playability" almost everywhere I wrote it and the result is more or less what I wanted to say: "Playability and historical accuracy don't mix well"; often you have one at the expense of the other (or of a part of the other).
That said, I still think MTW2 is a good mix of them.
Good, then in that case we agree.
I also think that MTW2 is a good mix of historical accuracy and playability. However, I'm not sure how much farther I would want to see CA go with the current roleplaying aspects of the game.
Likewise, I would be very concerned if they went any further towards 'real-time' movement in the campaign. At present the movement animations are just annoying but if they became real-time I think I would simply stop playing.
John_Longarrow
06-15-2007, 23:01
Didz,
If it was real time, you'd spend two years waiting for your turn to finish!
Suggestion for the Battle Map
When you have a unit selected and you have your curser over a target unit or location, I'd love to have the distance to targed displayed some place. That would give a much better idea as to how quickly the unit could get there.
I'd also like it if you could have a unit selected then click on the "Radar" map to choose where you want it to go. With the limit on how high up you can move your point of view, this would help greatly with large fights.
Campaign Start up
As there are many Yes/No type settings in the config files, I'd like to have a simple screen that allows us to set or unset all of the configuration values for a campaign on start up. That way we would have one place to go to turn on/off cut sceens and the such.
Didz,
If it was real time, you'd spend two years waiting for your turn to finish!
No....a week actually. The movement rate depicted on the campaign map is approximately seven days march for an army on foot. The 2 years is merely a mechanism to make sure that events like the Mongol invasion happen within a reasonable number of turns.
But, as you probably realise my use of the term 'Real Time' was referring to 'Accelerated Real Time' as in 'Real Time Strategy Game' rather than real time as in 1 minute of game time takes 1 minute to complete.
[Actually one of things I find most annoying about fans of RTS games, is that they often claim that RTS games are more realistic than turn based games like MTW2. I mean what is realistic about being given 15 seconds to react to a situation which would have taken 15 days to happen in the real world. Thats not realism and its not strategic either.]
I'd also like it if you could have a unit selected then click on the "Radar" map to choose where you want it to go. With the limit on how high up you can move your point of view, this would help greatly with large fights.
You can do that now. I do it all the time. Furthermore, if you hold down the SHIFT you can direct a unit to follow a particular path around the battlefield using the 'Radar' map.
Its very useful if during seiges you want to direct certain units, such as reinforcements to march around the city at a safe distance to join your assault forces, or if you are defending during a seige and you want to order horse archers or other similar troops to sally from a side gate and circle round the map to attack the assault forces in the rear.
Campaign Start up
As there are many Yes/No type settings in the config files, I'd like to have a simple screen that allows us to set or unset all of the configuration values for a campaign on start up. That way we would have one place to go to turn on/off cut sceens and the such.
That would be a good idea, there are lots of settings in the preference file that ought to be capable of being set at the start of a campaign.
The length of time represented by one turn being an obvious one, but there must be a lot of others.
John_Longarrow
06-19-2007, 00:02
Didz,
Thanks for the info. I had tried doing that previously, but for what ever reason I think I messed up on what I was trying to do and figured it wasn't supported.
Thanks for the info. I had tried doing that previously, but for what ever reason I think I messed up on what I was trying to do and figured it wasn't supported.
Seems to work for me, I used it only last night to give positional targets to my horse archers around the flanks and rear of an enemy force.
John_Longarrow
06-20-2007, 16:39
Didz,
I remember now exactly what I was really thinking of, and it wasn't the tactical map.
Campaign Map
On the campaign map I would love to have the following options;
1) I'd like to be able to click on the small map to have units and agents move to the settlement in said province. This will allow me to get through a turn much faster when I'm dealing with a large empire without having to worry on a turn by turn basis which agent or agents I've moved.
2) Have an event trigger when a princess or female relative comes of age. It would be the same as when a general comes of age and would at least give us an idea where we need to look. It gets a bit annoying to have to keep going to the family tree every couple turns to check on ages.
3) On the small map when on the campaign map, I'd love to have a dot in each province I know about that shows where its settlement is. Optionally have another dot for the port.
Yes, I agree those would be useful.
madalchemist
06-23-2007, 12:17
A couple of wishes about Diplomacy:
-Give the Diplomat the ability to make more than one action per turn (like in RTW, the chance to initiate diplomacy more than one time per turn per diplomat); I always found useful in RTW the use of multiple diplomacy actions in a turn from the same area -usually to bribe rebels after the place they are currently in went on my blacklist due to failed diplomacy-.
I know all agents have 1 and only one action per turn, but I think Initiate Diplomacy could be an exception.
-Create the option in Diplomacy "Kill the enemy diplomat" (maybe only when he's insulting you and maybe only if you are at war with his faction...), obviously a dreadful action with severe consequences upon your reputation, but alas, historically accurate.
Plus, it could be a gentle way to get rid of your useless diplomats :P, make the enemy fillet him. Or you slicing an enemy diplomat too good at his job (to get Dread!!)
-Give more weight to the Council of Nobles.
I'd even suggest a separate window indicating your standing with the Council of Nobles (like "the Pope" one), who goes up or down depending from how you menage the faction and how you fulfill its missions.
Maybe even insert new triggers who give the faction leader traits like "Supported by Council" -similar to "Adored by Pope"- who increase the Authority if you have a good standing with it and triggers who decrease your authority if you are bad standing with it.
You could have more public order in cities if the Council is with you and vice versa.
I Am Herenow
06-24-2007, 16:30
Sounds good! :)
But with the "Kill the Diplomat" option, do you want it to be available for Generals only, or Diplomats, Captains etc.?
madalchemist
06-24-2007, 16:55
Sounds good! :)
But with the "Kill the Diplomat" option, do you want it to be available for Generals only, or Diplomats, Captains etc.?
I'd say for Generals or Generals/Captains, preferring Generals only as they should be the only ones to make decisions who worsen the faction's standing :)
I Am Herenow
06-24-2007, 18:04
Sounds interesting, but why would anyone do that instead of just sending an Assassin? Maybe getting a faction's best Diplomat killed would lower their standing amongst other nations, making them something of a joke, and increase the chances that they would be attacked?
"Humiliate Faction x" missions / Diplomacy option, anyone?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.