Just sticking my head up in the clouds

I would love to speculate on what features could be put in the new TW game, but they have tread into an era that holds little interest for me.

Instead, I'll elaborate on how I think provences should be handled in terms of constructing buildings, farming, and unit recruitment.

A long time ago there was an excellent turn based strategy game called Lords of the Realm II. LoTR II had a few similarities to MTW.
[*] geographic regions are carved into provences.
[*] these provences are defended by a fortification ranging from a wooden palisade to a multi-turreted castle
[*] Each provence has its own "happiness" rating, much like the Stronghold series. In LoTR, the happiness is governed by several factors, just as MTW.

In LoTR II, there was a lot more work done on the strategic map in order for the player to successfully govern each county.
[*] Each county, depending upon its size and soil quality, had multiple fields which could be used to grow crops, graze cattle, or lie fallow.
[*] The county population was graphically represented. The player had to choose how to divide the work force. Workers could be assigned to work crops, tend cattle, gather resources (timber, iron, or stone), work in the blacksmith, or assist in constructing a castle if such a project was going on at the time.
[*] Rather than raising a unit of troops to be available the next year, there was an armory that is expanded by the blacksmiths, or equipment could be purchased by traveling merchants.
[*] In a time of need, a percentage of the local population could be drafted into the army. You trained troops based upon the equipment in your armory (again, much like Stronghold). - LoTR's system was flawed, since peasants who were given armor became full-fledged knights. This is essentially the way one raises an army for offense or defense.
[*] Performing such levies had a negative effect upon the happiness of your county. Also, this means that you must change the allocation of peasanst to ensure the fields are being looked after.
[*] Each county has a granery that is used to feed the local population. Depening upon the size of the population, and the army, a certain amount of grain is removed from the granery. Cattle feed population by their dairy byproducts, or can be slaughtered in times of great need.
[*] An enemy army can plunder fields, which are spread out in the county, thus denying a county of the food necessary to sustain its population. This is very much a tactic of the middle ages, but I imagine such tactics have been employed since the beginning of warfare.
[*] It is possible to ruin an enemy by simply marching a large army into a county and allowing said army to live off the land. This does not necessarily mean destroying crops, but the game counted all armies in a county when factoring how much grain/cattle is consumed per season.

I would have loved to see many of these ideas employed in the new MTW:
[*] By breaking down the population and its work role, larger provences could construct buildings faster since they would have a larger workforce.
[*] Food, such an important aspect in warfare, would again have its due place. - I must acknowledge that EB's "well supplies"/"rationing" attributes for FM's is a step in the correct direction.
[*] In times of need, units of levy units (such as spearmen, bowmen, and slingers) should be able to be drawn up in the same turn. If, however, the leve en masse occurs in the fall, then the player must choose between a large levy (and poor harvest), or only a small levy.
[*] All other units would be recruited based upon building types and availability, just as EB currently works.

Just my thoughts. What do you all think?

Want it complex? Go play Crusader Kings, Victoria, Doomsday, Europa Universalis, Europa Universalis Rome or Supreme Ruler 2020, you choose what time you like best, you have the choice of more than thousand years of human history:book: (I love all of them...)

Of course the display of battles is absolutely pitiful compared to RTW/MTW...

:jawdrop:

I was always searching for more complex strategy-games, too!

I never heard of this games, but I googled them and I think they seem to be awesome. :dizzy2:

I never knew, that such complex games exists and played so much stupid games! :wall:

I have heard of these games as well, but their lack of emphasis on combat has kept me from trying them. While I enjoy the complex elements, I prefer the combat elements enough to play the TW games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcAurel

:jawdrop:

I was always searching for more complex strategy-games, too!

I never heard of this games, but I googled them and I think they seem to be awesome. :dizzy2:

I never knew, that such complex games exists and played so much stupid games! :wall:

---

Crusader Kings is very good. I'm playing it to make an epic campaign. Playing through CK, EU 2, Vicky and HOI: 2. I already am King of Denmark, Poland and Jerusalem. And I'm looking to become Emperor of Byzantium! ^_^

I don't play anything else than EB. Actually, I'm not really a gamer. So without any historical depth such as so far only the EB team has shown me, games don't really mean much to me. I used to play Civ3 about six or seven years ago, but compared to RTW, it's pretty boring.

Paradox games are very good if you like this sort of thing, I do.
But bear in mind combat is very abstract compared to EB/Rtw. Then again don't look on it as a single battle but a struggle for a province over time and yoy are a ruler dtatched from the battle field.
Also get older games where you can get the latest patches.

I just ordered Europa Universalis per Amazon. It was only 1,98 €. I'm really looking forward to that game. :beam:

Europa Universalis 1? I don't know how good that game is. Europa Universalis II is the one I play.

lord of the realms 2 is classic

I'm actually amazed that there's a copy of EU 2 in my local store , even when there's not even one copy of anything related to total war :shifty:

Since several months, there should be a Europa Universalis III out ;) ...with "spectacular 3D-graphics" (which looks worse than Medieval Total War-battle graphics...)...

I personally love Victoria, Doomsday and now Supreme Ruler 2020 the most. They offer a good mixture of internal country affairs and focus on wars. In Europa Universalis III you are very restricted in expansions (historical accuracy, no world dominations in 17th century possible :( ) and I'm one of those guys who love coloring a whole map/globe in one color...MY color, specifically:egypt:

Victoria has a focus on inner affairs like population demands, taxes, education, political systems (government issues, elections, popular issues etc.), an abundant industry part (masses of resources...) and a relatively small war focus, no masses of unit types, but enough to make strategic advance and tactical thinking necessary...Doomsday again is like 80% war focused, no inner politics except from some basic sliders (Isolationist or Innovationist? Autocratic or democratic? etc.)and a good amount of diplomacy (more options as in EB, that is ;) ), but a huge tech tree, masses of units, more than 30 factors influencing battles and battle efficiency. This is completely focused on strategic warfare, especially rocks on LANs in Multiplayer.

Especially the fact you can continue a Victoria campaign in Doomsday is quite thrilling, even if somewhat buggy...and as usual you have to apply strict house rules as it's usually always possible in the time frame to conquer very very large portions of the world...