1.4 patch achievables - suggestions

Let's help the CA guys listing some of the key issues. I am sure everyone could write up pages but I think it is more constructive to stick with the three main issues you want to be solved. Here is my list:

1, Get rid of the contact Dows. It not just ruins the feel of the game but actually hurts the AI more than it hurts the human player, simply because the AI never prepares for it.

2, Get rid of the static garrisons. They do not hold up a decent player at all, and impose a huge financial burden on the AI. The upkeep of a stack is around 4-5k, so defending let's say 5 region capitals with close to full stacks burns roughly 20k per turn. Instead of this the AI should target the human armies. If the AI army is not large enough as yet it should just "shadow" the human army (i.e. follow from a safe distance) till it gets large enough to attack.

3, Use units what they are good for. Use light and irregular troops as raiders and stick with the main stacks with line, heavy units and with arty. Raiders should operate alone, there is no point in sending stacks of 2 or 3 units (the human player beats them with ease anyway), and a pandour or a militia is more then enough to burn down a farm or a mine.

New maps for MP

especially 3v3 and 4v4 maps.

I would say it would be more efficient to limit the AI to, at most, a half stack if it's not at war with land neighbors, and let it keep a full stack if it is. That seems like something that would be fairly simple to do, although IANAC.

it's been said far too many times to count but CA need work out the kinks with naval invasions. As i see it, atleast in my games, the AI has no trouble loading men on ships it just can't seem to unload them. I have far to many AI fleets blockading ports and raiding trade routes with full and half stack armies onboard.
A suggestion might be to create a transport ship unit who's sole purpose is to carry troops and has no other ability i.e. blockading or raiding. I'm not sure if this is achievable or even doable but something creative needs to be done.

Pathfinding
Accuracy of enemy ships needs to be toned down.
Release of modding tools.
More free stuff.

:grin2:

Please, for the love of God, give us some MP maps.

As it is now, there are no 3v3 maps, and only 2 2v2 maps. Please, guys, let's get a few more maps for us poor mulitplayer types who are so tired of the same terrain!

Here is an idea, that would GREATLY improve the TW MP experiance:

Random Map - generated at the start of the game per pre-set catagory choices (ie hilliness, woods, terrain features (ie buildings, walls, fences).

The advantages of this:

1. No pre-set terrain, so no "same old starting strategy".
2. No one has a pre-set terrain advantage for the side they are on.
3. It would keep the MP constantly fresh and new.

If that's too much to ask for, please, at least just give us some more MP maps!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thurjack_mahr

Please, for the love of God, give us some MP maps.

As it is now, there are no 3v3 maps, and only 2 2v2 maps. Please, guys, let's get a few more maps for us poor mulitplayer types who are so tired of the same terrain!

Here is an idea, that would GREATLY improve the TW MP experiance:

Random Map - generated at the start of the game per pre-set catagory choices (ie hilliness, woods, terrain features (ie buildings, walls, fences).

The advantages of this:

1. No pre-set terrain, so no "same old starting strategy".
2. No one has a pre-set terrain advantage for the side they are on.
3. It would keep the MP constantly fresh and new.

If that's too much to ask for, please, at least just give us some more MP maps!

---

that or start a "make your own MP map contest."
there would be 4 categories: 1v1, 2v2, and so forth. the top 5 maps would be voted on by CA, and the community votes on the #1 map, which would be included in an update. maybe once every 2 months or so? maybe give a goody bag to the winner.

company of heroes has this and its a blast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AggonyDuck

New maps for MP

especially 3v3 and 4v4 maps.

---

I don't think that they ever will and IMO here is the reason why.

Btw, get off my lawn with your muddy feet you dirty rascal! How you dare to enter the sacred halls of SP players on the first place?!?!? :laugh4: :laugh4: ~;p

Ditch most of the suggested Naval changes.

They should limit themselves to providing accurate manoeuvring models for the various ships rather than reverse engineering range and accuracy for game plays sake.

Nerf the pirates.

Pirates are not a big problem, you can always capture their islands.

Interestingly enough since I made my suggestion I have seen the AI attacking my stack on the field but only when it had a clear advantage. Which is fine but the AI handles the stacks sitting in each city separately. So if I move into the range of city A, the army there might attack me if it feels confident but the army in city B (not far from A) will do nothing unless I move my army in the range of it. Obviously a human player would move with both armies, unless city B is directly threatened by a different force.

That isn't the problem. Of course you can capture their islands, as can you simply blitz every faction in the game. The problem is that the pirates aren't small-time raiders that harass your trade, they are fluyt-spawning supermen that take half the game before you can meet them on the field (Er, ocean)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

That isn't the problem. Of course you can capture their islands, as can you simply blitz every faction in the game. The problem is that the pirates aren't small-time raiders that harass your trade, they are fluyt-spawning supermen that take half the game before you can meet them on the field (Er, ocean)

---

Indeed. At the very MOST, pirate fleets should have a galleon or fluyt as a flagship. The rest of their fleet should be brigs and sloops, with galleys/light galleys for the Barbary faction. I should not encounter a full stack of pirate galleons when venturing into the straits of Madagascar.

I see your point but if you want to trade sooner or later you have to capture the pirate islands anyway. On the otherhand unprepared Dows, huge static garrisons and wasting elite troops one by one for raiding seriously hinders the AI's ability to mount a long term challange.

Well, they aren't really pirates if you need to take that amount of effort, and if they can be eradicated easily. If you want to take care of them on the sea, your trade is grounded until you get drydocks. On the other side of the spectrum, you can just take them out first thing if you are a faction with a colony in the Americas.

Neither of these options are really fitting answers to historical piracy, so CA really does need to change it around.

Any good reason why CA won't make Mughals and minor factions playable as standard without the need for a mod?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xipe Totec

Any good reason why CA won't make Mughals and minor factions playable as standard without the need for a mod?

---

The reason I've heard for previous TW games, is that non-playable factions haven't been balanced and tested for use by the human player. A game company has limited resources, and this lets them focus on maximizing playability for the factions you do get, while still letting you compete against a wider group of nations in a larger game world.

It also lets them tailor minor factions to represent historical realities, without having to worry about putting them on a level playing field for world domination. For example, native Americans can only build fishing villages. If those factions were playable out of the box, then sooner or later someone would complain about how their Cherokee faction can't build ships for trade and combat. Or cannon factories... whatever. With the current setup of non-playable factions, CA can build in some "local flavor" that makes the game more interesting and realistic, without worrying about making those factions playable on the same basis as say, GB or France.

If the player community mods the game to make the minors playable, then CA doesn't have to answer for any playability issues. People who want to play the minors badly enough, can play a modded version that unlocks them. Everybody's happy.

That seems reasonable to me. I'd rather see CA spend all its effort on just the major factions, instead of being spread around to every faction in the game. Considering the current state of the campaign AI, I'd say CA has enough on their plate just to get the few playable factions working right. I don't think this would have been a better game, and it probably would have been a worse one, if every single faction was playable right out of the box.

This is just a minor request but I would like to get a mouse over showing the names of rivers on the strat map like you do for oceans and seas, it just would help a little with emmersion.

I'd like to see the post-revolutionary French military wear the correct (dark blue) uniform, as opposed to keeping the royalist white, as they presently do.

I'd also like to see more historical battles. TBH I think 3 is rather lazy. The 18th century saw the war of Spanish Succession, the Great Northern War, the Seven Years War, the War of Austrian Succession, the French and Indian War, the American War of Independence, the French Revolution, the tail end of the War of 27 Years, multiple Jacobite rebellions, the Russo-Turkish war, and the list goes on, and on, and on.... I'm sure CA could find a few more battles worth including at somepoint in the relevant era.

As far as MP battles go, I'd like to actually be able to connect to them occasionally, rather than constantly getting 'No response from host' or whatever....

Please. Fix. The. Diplomacy.

The -200 penalty on betrayal is just plain ridiculous, especially since it is slapped on most factions and will only diminish at a rate of just 1 per turn. While it serves as a big deterrent it gives the human player little to no chance of redemption once the deed is done.

Additionally, its unfair that the penalty applies when you come to the defence of an ally against a former ally.