Things I'd like to see in RTW
There's been a lot of talk in this forum about the changes many of us would like to see in game basics, like the need for better campaign and battle AI, slower walk and kill speeds, less "uber" cavalry and so on, and I agree with most of it.
However, I thought I might list a few other improvements not related to these issues that I'd like to see. Really I should probably sit down sometime and make a long list of everything I'd like to see, but here are a few for now.
1/ Better management tools.
1a/ First, there is a crying need in this game for a better, faster way to manage your cities. This has been an issue for three games and two expansion packs now and it still hasn't been fixed. It's such a chore to have to cycle through all your cities one by one making the necessary adjustments.
So there needs to be a master interface you can bring up from which you can review and manage ALL your cities. It should list all the relevant details about a city, such as population, happiness level and tax level, and you should be able to adjust the tax level of each city directly from this interface, and see instantly how it impacts on the happiness level.
It should also have a small pic showing which unit and/or building is currently being built in that city (if any) with the name of the unit type/building type below. Next to the unit building pic should be icons showing what upgrades units built in that city are currently eligible for. That way you can easily see which are the best cities to build in.
Naturally, you should also be able to zoom directly to any city from this master interface, where you can make more detailed changes if you wish. But if you have zoomed from the master interface, when you close the city interface you should be automatically taken back to the master interface again.
1b/ Another clumsy game mechanic ATM is the way slavery is managed. If you want to pump up the pop. of one or two cities with slavery, you have to remove all the governors of every other city before fighting your battle. Another tedious chore which could easily be avoided.
Where slaves go should not depend on where your governors are. If you choose the "slavery" option, another window should pop up immediately which lists all the cities you currently possess, together with their populations. You should be able to click on one or more cities and immediately see how it changes the population of each city that slaves are being sent to (to keep it simple, slaves are just evenly divided between however many cities you select, as they are now). When you have it how you want it, you click the okay button and the slaves are sent just to the cities you chose.
Oh and speaking of governors, why has the method of selection changed from MTW? MTW's system was better, where you could nominate the leader of any unit as the governor by dropping the province title on him. (Yes, I'd like to see province titles, and the enhanced ratings they bestow brought back). You can still use your family members as governors, but now you will have more than enough of them to act as generals for your armies.
2/ More complex campaign.
Ca seems to be very timid in adding anything which complicates the basic build more units/conquer the world paradigm. The campaign is desperately in need of some added dimensions which complicate the issue and force you to consider more than just conquering your next province on your inexorable way to steamrolling the world.
I'm not going to suggest that CA adds a supply dimension, because I've yet to see a good implementation of supply on a computer game. But there are certainly some other things that could easily be done to make the campaign more of a multi-dimensional challenge.
Now, there are already "random events" and "effects of war" on provinces, but their effects are so negligible as to make them totally superfluous. So some more work here would be a good start.
2a/ Effects of War.
First, I think that in any province which contains two or more factions which are at war, there should be a substantial negative effect on the population, simulating slash and burn by the interloper and foraging by both sides. So I think there should be, say, -10% growth in any province where two or more warring factions are present. Furthermore in the case of siege, there should be an accelerating negative effect - say 10% loss of pop. on first turn, 20% loss on second, 30% loss on third and subsequent turns.
Also, I think a province's tech level should shrink as its population shrinks. So if, say, it dips below 6000, you lose all the buildings that relied on a 6000 population to initially be built. That reflects loss of vital personnel and infrastructure through death, damage and emigration.
By these simple methods, warfare becomes a very nasty thing indeed for provinces and you will need to take uncontested control of provinces very quickly to avoid substantial damage to your province and its population. (Perhaps, though, these effects should only occur where the human player is a party to the conflict as otherwise the entire map might quickly become depopulated and de-teched).
2b/ Random events.
The trouble with random events as they are currently implemented is (a) they are too infrequent and (b) they don't do much when they do occur.
I think EVERY province should have a random event of its own at the beginning of every turn, either negative or positive. The random event for each province should be announced at the top of every province information sheet when you bring it up, and also on the master interface I talked about before. The proportion of negative to positive random events should increase with harder difficulty levels.
Positive random events could be - baby boom (adds extra to pop), good harvest, excellent harvest, positive prophecies etc. Negative random events would give opposite effects. Random events affect happiness as well in some cases other attributes.
The effects of negative random events should also be bad enough to have a material affect on your campaign. For example a terrible harvest should cause starvation and negative growth for a couple of turns as well as the possibility of disease breaking out. An occasional earthquake or fire should destroy heaps of buildings and a big drop in the population. And so on. But again, I think random events should probably only affect the human player.
Maybe your overall population's happiness should also be affected by the other things you do. For example whenever you capture a province you might see a temporary boost in happiness throughout your kingdom. But losing a battle will cause an across the board drop in happiness, leading to possible revolts in the same turn. Again, higher difficulty levels should decrease the positive effects of winning and increase the negative effects of losing.
Okay, that will probably do for now. I forgot how long it can take to describe a few simple ideas, LOL. But I really think the campaign needs more complexity to make it more interesting and challenging. And it's not as though the changes I've suggested would mean more micromanagement - they would just mean it wouldn't be so easy to win.
And if CA thinks that features like these would make the game too complicated for the average dumbo, then the solution is clear - a campaign that doesn't include any extra features as the default, and an "advanced" campaign for those who like a more immersive gameworld.
Re: Things I'd like to see in RTW
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
Where slaves go should not depend on where your governors are. If you choose the "slavery" option, another window should pop up immediately which lists all the cities you currently possess, together with their populations. You should be able to click on one or more cities and immediately see how it changes the population of each city that slaves are being sent to (to keep it simple, slaves are just evenly divided between however many cities you select, as they are now). When you have it how you want it, you click the okay button and the slaves are sent just to the cities you chose.
2a/ Effects of War.
First, I think that in any province which contains two or more factions which are at war, there should be a substantial negative effect on the population, simulating slash and burn by the interloper and foraging by both sides. So I think there should be, say, -10% growth in any province where two or more warring factions are present. Furthermore in the case of siege, there should be an accelerating negative effect - say 10% loss of pop. on first turn, 20% loss on second, 30% loss on third and subsequent turns.
Also, I think a province's tech level should shrink as its population shrinks. So if, say, it dips below 6000, you lose all the buildings that relied on a 6000 population to initially be built. That reflects loss of vital personnel and infrastructure through death, damage and emigration.
By these simple methods, warfare becomes a very nasty thing indeed for provinces and you will need to take uncontested control of provinces very quickly to avoid substantial damage to your province and its population. (Perhaps, though, these effects should only occur where the human player is a party to the conflict as otherwise the entire map might quickly become depopulated and de-teched).
YES. Very nice ideas. Right now it's too easy to slash and burn through provinces and elimination is still the preferred method of conquest.
Re: Things I'd like to see in RTW
Nearly all of those ideas are what i would love to see. Especially these two:
Quote:
Ca seems to be very timid in adding anything which complicates the basic build more units/conquer the world paradigm. The campaign is desperately in need of some added dimensions which complicate the issue and force you to consider more than just conquering your next province on your inexorable way to steamrolling the world.
Please make it more complex. At the moment, RTW is just a case of smash and grab through the world. It's far too easy. Compared to MTW, this is Kid's stuff.
Quote:
First, I think that in any province which contains two or more factions which are at war, there should be a substantial negative effect on the population, simulating slash and burn by the interloper and foraging by both sides. So I think there should be, say, -10% growth in any province where two or more warring factions are present. Furthermore in the case of siege, there should be an accelerating negative effect - say 10% loss of pop. on first turn, 20% loss on second, 30% loss on third and subsequent turns.
Much more realistic. At the moment, all that happens when an enemy army stands in your province is that the ground goes black, and you have a small dip in your income. And as for your talk on the random events, i also agree with that. Unlike MTW, where events seem to happen every few turns, RTW has a big event only once a game or something.
Re: Things I'd like to see in RTW
I like those changes, specially the one on how to easily manage your cities.
Personally I'd be really happy with just the fire arrow problem fixed, and testudo fixed. Testudo is usless, I don't think there's one situation where it can be used. And now only is it not useful, but it induces a negitive effect on my troops. I believe if it didn't make them tired, it would be a useful skill.
Re: Things I'd like to see in RTW
[QUOTE=screwtype]1/ Better management tools.{/quote]You can right click on the cities tab to get a screen wich gives you basic information on all your cities. the same goes for armies, agents, fleets etc. etc. etc. :) This should take care of the management tools, although perhaps not in the amount of detail you'd like.
As for slavery, well, i personally don't see the need for this, but i guess it could be added. I'm pretty much neutral on this one.
[QUOTE=screwtype]2/ More complex campaign.{/quote]
More effective random events sound cool to me. The addition of more historical events would also be cool. But i wouldnt want too many random events. To me those are just another screen that holds me back when all i want to do is finally storm sparta with it's nasty spartan hoplites :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
2a/ Effects of War.{
Now this is a point where i strongly disagree. Or, to be more precise, i think it would be a balancing nightmare.. Afterall, if i am at war with the rebels, then there are two warring factions. Now remember, rebels pop up every few turns. So every few turns i'd be losing 10% of my population. Jus the rebels in the current game would be sufficient to completely stop any growth at all.
Second, if sieging did cause such intense population losses, conquering provinces would be useless. Never mind the fact that the AI would be out of manpower completely after a few short yet furious turns in the beginning.
Alltogether, effects of war can be increased if you ask me, but be very very careful about what that does to game balance.
The same basically goes for losing tech levels of buildings when the population drops. Make the faction pay florins for their upkeep at lower population levels, dont destroy the buildings: imagine losing your high level temple, barracks, port and some other things because you built one hastati too many.. *winces*
Although i think i understand the desire for more depth in the campaign, i feel that to add the level of depth you're discussing to a total war game would result in players never having the time to get down to a battle. Battles are the core of the TW series. The mechanics you are suggesting are even more complex than those used in civilization games. They make me think of games like Hearts of Iron etc. etc. (paradox entertainment).
Not that i discredit those games in any way, i just doubt that the elements you mentioned fit in a total war game.
Regards,
-Ranges
Re: Things I'd like to see in RTW
Personally I think that most of those ideas are a bit complicated, but I would like to see some sort of scroll displaying 'at-a-glance' information on all of your cities, although probably just income, population, growth and loyalty would be enough. Didn't Shogun have something like that?
Re: Things I'd like to see in RTW
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranges
You can right click on the cities tab to get a screen wich gives you basic information on all your cities. the same goes for armies, agents, fleets etc. etc. etc. :) This should take care of the management tools, although perhaps not in the amount of detail you'd like.
Yes I know about that info panel, and it is certainly an improvement over 1.1, but you are quite right when you say it's "not in the amount of detail" I would like.
I want a panel where I can quickly see the *exact* happiness level in every city and adjust the tax rate immediately FROM that panel without having to go into the individual city panel. I also want to be able to see exactly what units and buildings I'm building there and what upgrades those units are eligible for.
The point as I said is to have a master interface where you can quickly manage all the important matters without having to refer to the individual city panels. I personally am really sick of having to cycle through all these info panels just to check and adjust tax rates and I'm sure that many others are as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranges
But i wouldnt want too many random events. To me those are just another screen that holds me back when all i want to do is finally storm sparta with it's nasty spartan hoplites
I'm not suggesting you have screen after screen popping up telling you about this or that random event. That would be annoying. What I said is that the random event for each province each turn would be listed at the top of the province's info panel when you go to have a look at it. For convenience, it should also be listed in the master panel I talked about earlier.
As for more random events "holding you back" from trashing the opposition, it's different strokes for different folks I guess. Perhaps there should be an option to turn them off for folks like you who just want to wage war and nothing else. But I'm sure there are plenty of people who would appreciate a little more colour and challenge with regard to province management.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranges
[On Effects of War]. Now this is a point where i strongly disagree. Or, to be more precise, i think it would be a balancing nightmare.. Afterall, if i am at war with the rebels, then there are two warring factions. Now remember, rebels pop up every few turns. So every few turns i'd be losing 10% of my population. Jus the rebels in the current game would be sufficient to completely stop any growth at all.
Actually, I forgot about the rebels, I was thinking only of the other factions.
But I don't think it would be a difficult thing to balance. You could take the easy way out and make it that rebels have no effect on population (unless they actually lay siege to a city), just on province income. In other words they are not "slash and burn" types, but more like a sort of parasitic mafia hanging around. Or you could just make it so that rebels didn't pop up so frequently. A lot of people don't like the frequency of rebels already.
But now that you mention it, you've reminded me of another change I'd like to see that I forgot to add. I think contested provinces - that is provinces in which units from two or more warring factions are present - should recieve NO income for any side. Only provinces held uncontested should get any dough.
In this way, provinces containing a rebel army (or any other enemy army) would suddenly have no income, which I think would be cool. It's far too easy to accumulate money in the current game. And rebels are more a nuisance than anything else right now. Much of the time, I don't even bother attacking them. But if they were stealing ALL the money from a province, obviously you'd need to deal with them more urgently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranges
Second, if sieging did cause such intense population losses, conquering provinces would be useless.
No it wouldn't be useless, it would just put the brakes on your expansion a bit. In fact the impact of changes I have suggested would probably be less severe than the previous two games, where infrastructure was lost VERY quickly in contested provinces.
Look at it this way. You besiege a city in a province with a 10,000 population. First turn of siege, the city loses 10% or 1000, down to 9000. Second turn, it loses 20%, or 1800, down to 7200. Third turn, it loses 30% or 2160, down to 5000. Three turns of siege and you're still only 1000 guys short of the same level of infrastructure the city previously had. The impact is not that severe. And how often do you take three turns to capture a besieged city?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranges
Never mind the fact that the AI would be out of manpower completely after a few short yet furious turns in the beginning.
If it was implemented across the board, yes. But I did say the changes would only apply in provinces contested by the HUMAN player. Provinces fought over by two AI factions would not be subject to these losses, otherwise you're right, there would soon be no population left in the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranges
Alltogether, effects of war can be increased if you ask me, but be very very careful about what that does to game balance.
Okay, I'm glad we agree on something ~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranges
The same basically goes for losing tech levels of buildings when the population drops. Make the faction pay florins for their upkeep at lower population levels, dont destroy the buildings
I don't agree, I think the game is just too easy when you can capture cities with all of their infrastructure essentially intact. It should be harder than that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranges
imagine losing your high level temple, barracks, port and some other things because you built one hastati too many.. *winces*
That's a good point, I didn't consider that. Obviously the game would need to warn you when you are about to take population that would reduce your total population below one of the threshold levels. Other than that I don't see it would be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranges
Although i think i understand the desire for more depth in the campaign, i feel that to add the level of depth you're discussing to a total war game would result in players never having the time to get down to a battle.
I think you're exaggerating the impact that these fairly modest changes would make. The idea is just to give you a bit more to consider in building your empire. AND to give you a bit more excitement as well!
For example, as the game stands you can besiege cities for several turns, at your leisure, until the enemy is weakened or you have brought up reinforcements. But with the suggested changes, you know that for every turn you delay, the population is declining rapidly and the value of that province deteriorating! So you have an extra incentive to assault at the earliest possible moment - perhaps without those reinforcements you really wanted...
Alternatively, imagine that an enemy faction sits an army in one of your provinces. Now you can't afford to just sit back and wait for him to assault your city - you have to go there and fight him off your land, quick, before you lose any more population!
With a rebel army, you still have to defeat it quickly or else lose all your money from that province. So the idea is not about "less" combat, it's about adding some more urgency to your maneouvres, and raising the stakes for defeat.
I don't think that would detract at all from the fun of the game. On the contrary, I think it would add some much needed suspense to the outcome of battles.
And BTW, if I had my "druthers", I would be making much more comprehensive changes than these! The changes I've suggested were made only because I think they could be included without making major alterations, either to the program code or to the popular, battle-centric philosophy of TW that you and many others enjoy.
Anyhow, thanks for the comments. I enjoyed the exchange ~:)
Re: Things I'd like to see in RTW
Yeah, the only possible use I can think of for testudo is for when you're advancing on stone walls under fire. But even then by the time they get up there, they're exhausted, and if you're playing with the time limit on, you've probably wasted a good deal of time too. But even then testudo is horribly bugged. What really annoys me about it above all else is that it takes so much time to set it up. Is reforming the unit into an 8x10 rectangle really nescessary?
Re: Things I'd like to see in RTW
Hi there screwtype, I agree with a lot of which you're saying. I would play in 'in-depth' -mode if it were available. ~:cheers:
Re: Things I'd like to see in RTW
And a ~:cheers: to you too :laugh4:
