mixed the formulas

I was reading about lords of the realm III, and suddenly an idea came to mind. why not mixed total war series with part of the conventional RTS foumula. because I really don't like that the only multiplayer mode for total war series, I think what is really lacking in the formula is that there is no camp.

Yes, I heard somewhere that RTW will include the camp options, but I wonder RTW is still a turn-based games, why bother about the camp? I think that conventional RTS formula is perfect for camp otions.

like when two armies meet, you could start another interface with conventional RTS look. and you start to send spy to look for the enemy and collecting the woods, stones, to use as camps, defenses, or set as trap, and there could be designed with a lot more stuff with this interface.

of course, we will not forget about the familiar battlefield scene, like when we set out our armies towards the enemy's camp or ground, then the Battlefield scene will emergy. by this way I think the whole total war campaign could be designed toward the real-time and adopt the Paradox's gameplay into the series.

and you could assign the generals, or vassals, like the lords of the realm III to take control the war, or anything else. and by this way, the multipalyer would be more fun and more options. but the AI will need a huge revolution though, for the single player mode.

I think there must be people think of something like this. give your two cents. ^^

I'd be very very worried that adding collection elements to the game would cause it to degenerate into 'strongest economy always wins', like other RTS's do.

no,no, no, I should explain better. only the camp part is the conventional RTS. the other part is still the total war. just add additional interface...a battle is not just a single battle, if you have a camp, even you are defeated on the battlefield, the camp will be a fort to back up your defeat. by this way, we could even do so many other detailed manuver over just the battlefield fighting. but since the RTW is going to come out, I really looking forward for it. but the options for the multiplayer is till limited to the battlefield, not even the small war campaigns, I think by this way we could have have more mavuevers and a multiplayer small war campaign is very possitble.

of course, the total war formula will need to improve along the time, I don't think this is unacceptible. and of course, the conventional RTS is changing too, the one we used will need to be adjusted to fit the total war style. I really think it could work. we just need to find out.

Well, I still think that would give an advantage to the better camp builder and take away from the importance of the battlefield.
Economy can be a little improved, in my opinion, on the strategic map, but I honestly don't want to see that sort of micromanaging, resource gathering a la Starcraft etc. in a Total War game. This should remain an automated background task that you can set up and improve on but not worry about overlooking and managing all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 12 2003,10:25)]Well, I still think that would give an advantage to the better camp builder and take away from the importance of the battlefield.
Economy can be a little improved, in my opinion, on the strategic map, but I honestly don't want to see that sort of micromanaging, resource gathering a la Starcraft etc. in a Total War game. This should remain an automated background task that you can set up and improve on but not worry about overlooking and managing all the time.

---

I agree with everything Brutal DLX says. If I want to play that kind of game, I would buy Warcraft. The reason I bought TW was because I DIDN'T want that kind of game. When I'm battling, I want to focus on the battle, not on resource gathering, training new units, etcetera.
That makes the gameplay to focussed on fast reactions (which I haven't got) and to little on strategic thinking (which I also haven't got, but like to pretend I have http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif ). It is just that those fast games are to fast for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Dec. 12 2003,10:38)]

---

If I wanted all the eco. crap and and build as you fight stuff I'd play AoM. There really good games but best economy always wins. Thats what makes the Tw series so unique, your battle screen and campaign screen are diff. The eco. in the TW series could use a boost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (dwarven_eagle @ Dec. 12 2003,13:34)]If I wanted all the eco. crap and and build as you fight stuff I'd play AoM. There really good games but best economy always wins. Thats what makes the Tw series so unique, your battle screen and campaign screen are diff. The eco. in the TW series could use a boost

---

you will beat anyone if your eco is the best, and you can't beat anyone if you eco sucks. no matter you play total war, or conventional RTS. there's no difference in any kind game formula, you can't escape from that part.

it is just a suggestion, and how it gonna play like depends on the the designers. my suggeestion is only in the war campaign. it is not like you are gonna built up a whole camp with different buildings and start to pruduce farmers... just like I said, the designers will have to manipulate the game engine to fit the total war series, if designers want to do something like this. or, we could have different way by playing like Savage, a commander see the strategic map, and the other player are assigned by the commander to do whatever.

well, anyway, it's just my two cents, cheers ^^