The - if there are new things in... thread

[Caius]

What do you want to see in new TW games?

I not mean, I want to see a game in a Futurist timeframe, or I want Shogun2:TW

I mean, for example, a game when you have 2 special habilities, or that kind of things that are imppossible to see in TW games

What do you think?

P.S.:Nothing about camels please. Camels wont be allowed here.Excuse Martok and Mithrandir

[Martok]

P.S.:Nothing about camels please. Camels wont be allowed here.Excuse Martok and Mithrandir
Well there goes my suggestion. ~;p

In seriousness, though, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Are you wondering what new TW title we'd like to see, or are you wondering what new features we'd like to see in the next TW game?

[Warmaster Horus]

I think he means features.

As for me, something I know will never be done, but which would really be cool, is a first- or third-person perspective of the battlefield. Imagine being the General, looking from a hill, observing the battlefield, directing the troops directly. Or, suppose you are the footslogger, the legionaire, who must obey orders (a pre-defined battleplan). Imagine taking the place of Centurion, leading your century into the melee... The possibilities are endless, and here I'm just taking about Roman military.
Think of the Huns, or Steppe Nomads. You are one of many, and the army has found its next refuge... The king orders the charge...

This idea had already been taken in Rise and Fall: Civilisations at War (I think that's the title). IMHO it was a cool feature, but in it you were literally a god. Which felt a bit ... wrong. But if CA implements this idea (if), I'm sure they'd be able to adjust things.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I would simply like to see all the features from M:TW re-encarnated in a new title (with the risk-style map.) However, to add onto that, perhaps with a more complex system of trade where one has to set up trade routes, selecting what goods they wish to export or import. Every good has it's value and can be a primary, un-processed worth little, or a secondary good, processed, worth more. To show the processing of goods every faction can, if importing certain primary resources, construct required buildings to process it in the provinces where the goods are arriving or moving to. For example a Stone Mason for crude and unprocessed Stones or a Slaughterhouse to turn livestock into meat. Trade can, in that way, indebt a faction if they are exporting low value goods and importing high value ones to satisfy their needs. Of course this can work the other way around.

That could also be a way of adding a sort of Caesar IV happiness system where the whole population is divided into classes which require certain amenities to be satisfied. For example the upper-classes will require many luxury secondary goods, such as silks, to feel content, while your average peasant would be happy with simple secondary goods, such as meat, to be happy.

Also, with this classes system, could come the limitations of training troops and the effects that it may cause - the system could force the player/AI to build balanced armies. For example, if your province has thousands of peasants, but no members of the nobility, no knights or other such high-ranking troops could not be constructed. As it would be true with the middle class and mid-ranking troops, for example Men-at-Arms in M:TW.

As an adaptation to the M:TW "provincial valour bonuses" where the units were famed for in history, I would suggest that the province will only become famous for something if plenty of that type of unit is constructed in the settlement by the player over time. For example, if I was to train a huge force of Men-at-Arms in Aragon, that province may become famed for them.

I would also like to see the ability to, when you build border-forts in a province, as one does in Medieval, when going across the borders enemy troops take losses or, alternatively, they appear on the battle map, and have to be broken through to get into the province and destroy the foes' army.

Also en-genius AI would a nice addition. Although the AI in Medieval was reasonably intelligent, it was not perfection, however it was certainly better than the AI, on the battlemap, than that of the newer titles. Relating to improvements around this field, I would like to experience an AI that adapts to your tactics slowly, but surely, depending on the intelligence of the AI generals/leaders, so eventually your tactics have to change to prevent the AI from completely wiping you out.

As a penultimate suggestion, which is a small flaw which I find with M:TW, is the traits system. I dislike it how generals can have nine acumen, yet have only four points of it from traits. To resolve this I would suggest the R:TW/M2:TW traits system, yet the keeping of hidden traits, yet the player themselves has to investigate the individual with a spy before finding out if they exist or not.

As a final suggestion - breath a sigh of relief, I've nearly shut up! I would suggest making peasant revolts more common. In M:TW although the irregularity of peasant revolts is realistic, I would like to see more of it to increase the challenge presented to the faction's leader.

Unfortunately, these ideas are only for the strategic map. I'm not really a tactical sort of person, read the username :wink:, so I prefer that sort of level rather than the battlemap - especially in M:TW where tactics are not involved in that mode anyhow.

[Caius]

Or, suppose you are the footslogger, the legionaire, who must obey orders (a pre-defined battleplan). Imagine taking the place of Centurion, leading your century into the melee... The possibilities are endless, and here I'm just taking about Roman military.

I had that idea too.

It would be great be a General, like Hannibal Barca, giving orders in Lake Transimene.Imagine it!

[Shieldmaiden]

I would like to see a TW game with detailed Battle terrain features and weather effects. I.e - cliff, marsh, mud from rain, frozen water in winter.

Imagine ambushing and dropping rocks from a clifftop onto your foe, or perhaps defending a bridge into your lands from barbarians and praying the river won't freeze over and let the horde swarm across.

[edyzmedieval]

I want TW to be the best game in the whole world.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

like in Stronghold troops will have to dig moats while under constant fire from the enemy. the enemy will have controllable mounted artillery on towers. the enemy has an abundant of traps such as boiling oil, rock drops etc. your general can fight in the keep with his bodyguards until he dies.

[sapi]

The ability to construct walls/earthern defences on both the campaign and battlemaps

[Mithrandir]

Any camel unit will do.

[pevergreen]

:bow: Camel mounted Cannons?

Camel: Total War. An official one though.

[caravel]

Certain aspects of games such as Stronghold would be ok, e.g. processing of resources to improve their trade value or usefullness etc, but equipment that can be manned would not be something I would like to see in a TW game. I prefer the way towers were handed in previous TW games with arrows emerging from the slits. I would be all for ballistas, catapults or cannons on towers starting with a permanent, crew that can be killed off, though.

The digging of moats thing I dislike. The way I understand it, moats or "mottes" were not circular channels of water, but moreso mounds created by gradually lowering the land around them then raising it up more sharply in the centre. The fort and motte in MTW1 is rather strange as the tiny walled fort in the centre should really be where your units deploy and the motte should be outside of this, not within it. For the fort motte and bailey the outer wall (the bailey) should be wider and enclose a small village. The trench at the base was often filled with water sourced from a spring (many of which would often dry up in the summer) or by way of a stream or river diverted for the purpose. The important factor is that the trench was not the moat, the hill is the moat. It is modern popular history that has corrupted the meaning. So basically the moat would be created before the castle was even built. All of this renders the stronghold version of moat building very gamey and naive.

[Andres]

How about singing burning naked camels getting thrown away by a trebuchet?


Disclaimer: No camels have been hurt in the making of this post. The author nor the Guild are responsible for any harm inflicted to camels by the readers of this post.

[caravel]

How about naked Andres cleaning out the camel stables for the next three months? :inquisitive:

p.s. There are a lot more flies and a much stronger smell this time of the year. :2thumbsup:

[Andres]

Bah, watch out, or I'll sing your camels dead...

[caravel]

GAH! don't you read the threads, camels are invincible! :yes:

[Shieldmaiden]

How about singing burning naked camels getting thrown away by a trebuchet?

I demand Head-hurling Druids in Flaming Camel Chariots followed by a pet Wardog.

NOW! :dizzy2:

[Caius]

I want to see cohorts with 320 troops!

Amazing wars!

[Marcus Cornelius]

Some form of logistics and supply routes, so guerrilla war can be waged and an A.I. that can handle that. It would really force you to think about your upcoming campaign. Also the ability to burn down forests. Leave nowhere to hide for those pesky barbarians.

[Ossie The Great]

To be able to burn down forests, and marshes and mud and things on the battle map


Or, suppose you are the footslogger, the legionaire, who must obey orders (a pre-defined battleplan). Imagine taking the place of Centurion, leading your century into the melee... The possibilities are endless, and here I'm just taking about Roman military.



that would be very cool

[Martok]

Diplomacy that actually make sense....and an AI that utilize its functions effectively.

If I'm at war with someone, have them down to their last province when I own 50 provinces, I expect they'll accept my offer of a ceasefire (should I feel gracious enough to offer one). If I demand that someone become my vassal/protectorate, I shouldn't have to give them money just so that they'll accept -- they should recognize they're in a much weaker position than myself and accept vassalage/protectorate status knowing they have little other choice. I also don't want factions to accept alliances if they're simply going to break them less than 5 turns later.

If a bunch of factions are going to gang up on me because I'm the Big Guy (and I should note I don't particularly like this "feature" of TW games either), they had better do so while they still have a reasonable chance of actually defeating me. There are few things more irritating than being a 60-province superpower who has to beat off a coalition of factions that own less than 20 provinces themselves -- it's nothing more than an annoying speed bump in those situations. It'd be far better if I were a 20-province superpower fighting against a coalition of factions that own 20 provinces themselves. If I'm going to get dogpiled, then by gods I want to have to really *fight* my way out trouble! :yes:

[atheotes]

I would like to see the battlefield AI behave in tune with nature of the general commanding it. I mean, if the guy is a great strategeist it should pull of some slick moves and the general should not get involved hands on in the battle himself. If the guy is brave and fearless, he should be right in the thivk of things. Also if the general gets killed, the battle should become a little chaotic (this is not difficult as this is what we see now :laugh4: )...
i know... i know... i should stop dreaming :wall:

[macsen rufus]

I would like to see trade items "doing" more - ie if you can import certain items, then new abilities should be available, eg make a trade route to an iron province, then get a weapons upgrade building dependent on your trader etc. That way having trade cut off would be more serious than losing a bit of wonga.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Sorry guys, yet I'm going to carry on boring you with more pathetic, stupid and idiotic suggestions:

Based upon the idea that in M:TW every unit is lead by a general, the troops have loyalty to their unit leader and their faction. With low loyalty to their unit leader they may simply kill him, and the men in the unit loyal to him, and install a new man in his place. If they are disloyal to their faction then they may mutiny against their unit leader and form an independent army. Also this factor could effect the stamina and morale that units have on the battlefield.

Also, each unit could have a certain amount of zeal which could vary depending on what the unit is. If they are a high zeal unit lead by a low piety general then their loyalty to their leader will suffer. If they are a high zeal unit then, if the faction leader is un-pious, their loyalty to their faction will reduce. Also angering the Pope, getting used in assaults on other Catholic factions or getting excommunicated could also effect their factor. However, this would only work in a Medieval/Dark Ages/Late Classical scenario and would probably look a little ridiculous in a different period.

I would also like to see desertions if their loyalty drops too low and starting a mutiny would not be worthwhile due to factors such as lack of men willing to join within the stack.

Penultimately I would like to see the ability to modify a units wages, henceforth effecting it's loyalties towards you. The lower the wage the more they will dislike you. Also, being in a stack with a better paid unit could effect their loyalties too.

As a final, and probably ultimate suggestion - don't worry I've nearly silenced pestering you with my annoying suggestions, I suggest that perhaps the class that the unit has come out of could effect these loyalties depending on the overall happiness of their class in the province that they were trained in and in the province they are in at the time. For example, if the peasants at home are revolting the men in a peasant class may desert/mutiny and join the rebellion.

[Warmaster Horus]

Dare I say you enjoy micro-management, Omanes?
As for the AI, diplomacy and the likes, those are all normal, very typical suggestions, which CA attempts to improve all the time (I've heard MedII 1.2 isn't too bad).

I think someone said it, I'm not sure, but what should be done with the Battle AI depends entirely on the enemy General's skill, as well as his traits. This could be done with the player's troops, where for example, the General who has a "suicidal attacker" trait, or something like that, instead of retreating like YOU want, charges into the fray like he'd do because of his trait. This would add a certain sense of realism, because someone so obsessed with victory, or saving his troops, would NEVER retreat first, when he believes there's still a chance of victory.

[macsen rufus]

A couple of other things:

* battlefield defections - eg you could never "play" the Battle of Bosworth properly in MTW as some contingents changed side half-way through. So if somehow bribes could come into effect during the battle rather than on the campmap, so you'd never know until the battle was underway whether the bribe had worked. I know, impossible, but it would be good :beam:

* napalm chihuauha catapults :clown:

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Dare I say you enjoy micro-management, Omanes?Economical micro-mangement always has been my sort of thing - for some strange reason, although I enjoy TW battles, I find the strategic map's economical oppertunities much more interesting. However, I still do conclude in spending more time on the battlefeild than on the campaign map, and I would rather it be the other way around.

[caravel]

Based upon the idea that in M:TW every unit is lead by a general, the troops have loyalty to their unit leader and their faction. With low loyalty to their unit leader they may simply kill him, and the men in the unit loyal to him, and install a new man in his place. If they are disloyal to their faction then they may mutiny against their unit leader and form an independent army, depending on the size of the mutinous men in their province, like in M2:TW when a general turns rebel, not a civil war as in M:TW, or the unit leader, depending on his loyalties, may join them. Also this factor could effect the stamina and morale that they have on the battlefield.
I agree completely, loyalty should have many aspects. I would like to see a truly feudal system in later TW games where a Duke of one of your provinces may suddenly name the King of a rival faction as his liege lord. This happened a lot back then so it would add a new dimension. If your king is failing to impress then expect your provinces to start defecting.

I would also like to see desertions if their loyalty drops too low and starting a mutiny would not be worthwhile due to factors such as lack of men willing to join in within the stack.
Yes, low loyalty should cause desertions from the ranks before it causes civil war. Dread should also effect this. Dread should need to be balanced and not just maxed out. A low dread general should see more corruption in provinces that he governs, his troops should also get lower moral when fighting under him in battle. An average dread general would give morale bonuses to his troops and stamp out corruption in a province he is governing. A high dread general would start to have a negative effect again. While quelling the general population he would have put quite a few noses out of joint, and in battle his men's morale would suffer (who likes to fight for an evil scum bag?). Corruption under such a man would be rife, as only the nastiest types would work for him. This would require the player to balance dread.

Penultimately I would like to see the ability to modify a units wages, henceforth effecting it's loyalties towards you. The lower the wage the more they will dislike you. Also, being in a stack with a better paid unit could effect their loyalties too.
I like this idea. Also the more money you make the more soldiers would expect to be paid. This would only apply to certain eras where professional standing armies are used. When it comes to feudal society I'm not sure it would be relevant.

As a final, and probably ultimate suggestion - don't worry I've nearly silenced pestering you with my annoying suggestions, I suggest that perhaps the class that the unit has come out of could effect these loyalties depending on the overall happiness of their class in the province that they were trained in and in the province they are in at the time. For example, if the peasants at home are revolting the men in a peasant class may desert/mutiny and join the revolt.
Again a good idea. Historically troops were brought in from elsewhere to quell rebellions. These troops would have had no association with the townspeople and thus no loyalty to them. Raising a militia in the town itself would have been folly, and probably nigh impossible. So yes the units you train reflecting the public order of the province is a good idea.

One of my own points, that I have mentioned elsewhere is this: AI. I would like to see an AI that remembers your actions and learns from them. I would like to see all of your actions noted down by the AI, and for these actions to fully affect future diplomacy. If you executed 200 prisoners, or turned traitor on an ally, you won't just get a nasty vice, but the AI will know about it and it will take it into account.

:bow:

[Severous]

Hi

Things I would like to see:

1) Individual soldiers carry experience in RTW/BI. Id like to be able to display this. At any time to show the soldiers in a unit...their kill total/experience. And after a battle the ability to show what they started with, how many they killed, and what it was at the end of the battle.

2) The list of units/agents can be sorted in various ways. But once you leave the scroll it resorts itself and starts itself at the top again. Id like sort and postion you were at to be remembered. This would be very helpful late in a big campaign when working down a long list of units.

3) Post battles stats. You can see what your units killed. But what enemy killed you? Have the ability to present enemy stats.

4) Campaign stats. How many killed from each enemy faction, how many of you did they kill. Running total for the whole campaign.

5) Kills from wall towers to be reported as if it was a unit. So you can see how important they were in battle.

6) Friendly fire stats.

7) Make screenshots in something other than tga's. Have the option to define file type created...png/jpeg for instance.

[atheotes]

I would like to see the battlefield AI behave in tune with nature of the general commanding it. I mean, if the guy is a great strategeist it should pull of some slick moves and the general should not get involved hands on in the battle himself. If the guy is brave and fearless, he should be right in the thivk of things. Also if the general gets killed, the battle should become a little chaotic (this is not difficult as this is what we see now :laugh4: )...
i know... i know... i should stop dreaming :wall:

To expand on my previous post...if the general does not have experience or the troops are not confident in his skills, units further away from the general will take more time to respond to your commands. if the general has a runner or some ancillary like that units respond faster to his commands... if he gets the mercenary captain the mercenaries will respond/fight better.
Also the traits of your faction leader should influence your standing with other nations...meaning trustworthy/backstabber/Warmonger etc... and if you are somehow forced to play along/restricted by his character traits it would vastly improve the role playing aspect of the game

[Ayesha]

I don't know why you said no camels. Camels frighten horses and they're cute ;)
In TW I use nearly all camels whenever I get the chance (except for Shogun Total War. I have never played that).
As far as changes that I would like to see. Definately more camels and definately more archers. I don't think that there are near enough of either. I just got RTW a a week ago because I liked MTW and M2TW so much and was disappointed by the lack of camels and archers.
I still like the TW games just how they are though. :beam:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I demand Head-hurling Druids in Flaming Camel Chariots followed by a pet Wardog.

NOW! :dizzy2:

I think I played that Mod.....or was that just one of the basic RTW Egyptian units?




:devilish:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Battlefield and Strategic map earthworks/fortifications.

Artillery crews and ammunition limits for city wall artillery -- and the ability to emplace field artillery on the larger walls if I wish.

Larger battlemaps and larger numbers of units per army.

More factions.

A naval combat battle map. This would be a blast.

Transport ships.

A combat engine that let's cavalry achieve the appropriate result for frontal charges against formed phalanx units. The Mods are better than RTW vanilla, but having cataphracts simply roll over your Shield Pikemen in phalanx was annoying.

A better AI on strategy and battle maps -- but give the AI the same garrison headaches I get.

Concur with Sev' about more stats and more details therein.

[Marcus Cornelius]

Some more ideas...

Give some units the ability to hide while walking through forests, showing that they can dart in between the trees and not be seen.

The ability to unmount your cavalry, at least before a battle.

No more town squares.

I had more ideas, but I forgot them as I was writing this... :dizzy2:

[Martok]

I don't know why you said no camels. Camels frighten horses and they're cute ;)
In TW I use nearly all camels whenever I get the chance (except for Shogun Total War. I have never played that).
As far as changes that I would like to see. Definately more camels and definately more archers. I don't think that there are near enough of either. I just got RTW a a week ago because I liked MTW and M2TW so much and was disappointed by the lack of camels and archers.
I still like the TW games just how they are though. :beam:
Folks, we clearly have here a lady of impeccable taste. Truly Ayesha, you are more than worthy of being a fellow disciple of our beloved Camel Lord Mithrandir. ~;)



Transport ships.

A better AI on strategy and battle maps
I strongly second these two things as well.

It's always bothered me that an entire army can cross the sea in a single ship -- it really hurts a player's ability to suspend disbelief and forget that s/he is playing just a game. Yes, I know we're suposed to simply imagine that the actual troop transports are "abstracted", and that the ships we build are merely their escorts. Doing so, however, really detracts from the immersion factor, regardless of which TW game you're referring to. I don't care if transports were cheap and easily destroyed, so long as we'd actually be required to build them.

And I can't agree more on the need to improve the AI. I can say Medieval 2 has made noticable improvements over Rome (not that that's really saying much, to be honest), but there's still so much more that could be done. The computer has never been very good at castle/city assaults in any of the Total War titles, although I admit that's perhaps as much a failure of the empire-level AI to provide its armies with the proper siege engines and assault troops.

....Which brings me to the area where the AI still could use some *major* beefing up, which is the campaign itself. The strategic-level AI is still not very good at training the right units and combining them effectively, and (especially with RTW and M2TW) it's still rather poor at maneuvering its armies around the main map. It also continues to have major difficulties prioritising potential targets to attack and/or places it should defend. I've read too many complaints (and in a few cases have seen it myself) from mystified players who, while placing a city under siege, notice that the enemy has 2-3 full army stacks less than a turn away, but refuse to come to the aid of their beleaguered comrades. :inquisitive:

[Ayesha]

Folks, we clearly have here a lady of impeccable taste. Truly Ayesha, you are more than worthy of being a fellow disciple of our beloved Camel Lord Mithrandir. ~;)
That's cute ;)

[Raijer]

Some great suggestions so far...

I would love to see basic military marching/drill commands implemented, which IMHO would often be easier and a far more elegant way of issuing commands to a unit or army.

[Caerfanan]

I've seen a lot of nice suggestions/comments, on differents matters, here.

What I would add, then, should be a "depth level setting" for all fields of the game (trade, agents, battle orders types), so that the battlers would have very complete and realistic battles with loads of things to manage, while the trade would be some "yes/no", the unit master could use a very detailed unit development "tree" and artisan tree so that he could desing his units completely (armors, weapons, type of training, type of mounts, etc...), and so on...

[caravel]

It's always bothered me that an entire army can cross the sea in a single ship -- it really hurts a player's ability to suspend disbelief and forget that s/he is playing just a game. Yes, I know we're suposed to simply imagine that the actual troop transports are "abstracted", and that the ships we build are merely their escorts. Doing so, however, really detracts from the immersion factor, regardless of which TW game you're referring to. I don't care if transports were cheap and easily destroyed, so long as we'd actually be required to build them.
I couldn't disagree more. :laugh4:

Personally I prefer the abstraction of how it is handled on the risk style map of MTW, and don't like the transport vessels in RTW. It bothers me having to walk my army into a ship and then move that ship off using movement points from one coast to another.

One way it could have been implemented in MTW1 would have been to have the ships come into port, merge the army stack with the ship, then move the fleet back out to sea and move it to the province in the normal way. This would have been an improvement on the existing MTW "pick up and drop in one turn" system anyway. ~;)

With the newer game engine (RTW/M2TW) there is not much you can do with it as it currently works in about the only way than it can work on a movement point based tiled map.

[Caius]

It's always bothered me that an entire army can cross the sea in a single ship
That is true.How can 4820 troops stay in a single bireme?

It doesnt make any sense

[Don Esteban]

That is true.How can 4820 troops stay in a single bireme?

It doesnt make any sense

True but also, how can it take so long to build a single bireme when Rome was capable of building fleets of hundreds of ships in a year????

[McIwoo]

yep loads of interesting ideas :book:

How about making possible to play the campaign in multi-player?

This is a serious draw back in m2tw for me...or maybe it is possible and I'm too darn obsessed with it I can see it :wall:

[Caerfanan]

True but also, how can it take so long to build a single bireme when Rome was capable of building fleets of hundreds of ships in a year????
You have a point there. The "bireme" unit is probably to be considèred as a fleet, and not a boat!

[Caerfanan]

yep loads of interesting ideas :book:

How about making possible to play the campaign in multi-player?

This is a serious draw back in m2tw for me...or maybe it is possible and I'm too darn obsessed with it I can see it :wall:
It could be done, but the games would be too long... In other games "campaign style", some attempts have been made, but plyaers don't finish the games usually... The diplomacy is hard to do, for instance...

[McIwoo]

It could be done, but the games would be too long... In other games "campaign style", some attempts have been made, but plyaers don't finish the games usually... The diplomacy is hard to do, for instance...

Use to play Hearts of Iron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_of_Iron in multi-player. Probably the best experience I've had with multi-player "strategic" games... It was possible to save the game, otherwise yes it would take way too much time to play it in one go.

In the newish launcher of m2tw I've seen the multi-player campaign mentioned in the polls, I'm still hoping they take this path :2thumbsup:

[Dexter]

Sell an implantable microchip whit the CD/DVD ... instructions show to implant it ...
1. the chip changes all u dont like to what u imagine
2. eliminates SLEEP
3. after 72 hours u drop ower whit a huge smile on your face ... R.I.P.

ok ... seriously ... a more realistic approach to army management and movement ... i found it boring that it takes 10-15 turns ( in MTW2 thats 30 year right ? ) to reach the other and of the map, that`s for speedy armies, but ships ? LoL . And pls this is not an RPG .. if i want to play RPG i play that, i want total war to BE TOTAL WAR ... to see all my enemies dead before me ... and the traits should be based on the decisions u make in game ... a god guy ? well here we are and now we forgot to leave , ahhm u are conquered ... a bad guy ? simple ... kill`em all
... if a ruler has a son he may be fallen far from the tree, but who says he can not be corrected ? there were and and even today methods / commencing shock thearapy :P
example: u start as a "faction" build up your forces win and lose some .. and struggle to achieve dominance ... not that u tech get newer and better units until u forget what unit is which, use blitzkrieg on the ai and voila ... scorched earth is mine ... now i rule a big pile of ash ... thank u ...

all bow down to Dexter ruler of Ashland ... long live his dorkinesss ...

Feel free to disagree * sorry for spelling and other stuff *
:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:

Edited ..

this is not to be taken as criticism, just an opinion sa i could not make a better game ... just presenting how interesting the game is for me

1. Shogun --- 4 turns .. and represents a nation and era ... so 70% satisfactory - misses a lot of things ... those who are history geeks know what i mean
2. MTW + Wiking inv. --- 1 turn a year, huge areas represented poorly ... so 30 %
3. RTW + BI + Alex --- 2 turns a year ... a lot of micromanagement :) ... but again ... huge areas ... inaccuracies ... 50 %
4. MTW2 --- welcome back to europe ... 2 turns a year ... huge areas, a lot of inaccuracies .. 15 %

it seem the newer games are made for quick campaigns ... i like to play for weeks and moths giving me a real challenge to build an empire - kingdom - call it what u like - and maintain it, not finish it in a week ... Rome is close to this ... still the best gemeplay "feeling" is Shogun for me.

[I of the Storm]

A minor cosmetic thing:
I'd like to see some horses running around riderless when e.g. their rider has been shot. Doesn't contribute to the game at all but adds a little flavour to the battlefield.

[Caerfanan]

Use to play Hearts of Iron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_of_Iron in multi-player. Probably the best experience I've had with multi-player "strategic" games... It was possible to save the game, otherwise yes it would take way too much time to play it in one go.

In the newish launcher of m2tw I've seen the multi-player campaign mentioned in the polls, I'm still hoping they take this path :2thumbsup:
Well, thing with multiplayers is that if you want the game to "run" correctly, you nedd the players to hzang around, you need to cope with the strategic map army movements (the one moving first has a huge disadvantage for instance), diplomacy (either players are hanging around while you make propositions, time consuming, or the diplomatic part has to be extended, the offer/conteroffer/acceptance/deal taking several "turns" then...). Even wen you can save the game, it so many time die becaus people are not involved enough (or can't be involved enough because of real life!)