Some final suggestions

Ok, it's probably a little late for massive changes, but here's (yet one more member's) thoughts on what I'd like to see....

1) The Papist Resurgency - Get rid of it. Or, better yet, if the pope is going to come back with 40 units of Chivalric Knights, make him have to re-establish in perhaps a rebel province, or a province with a really high zeal rating, or with a low approval rating. ..... I never played for long as Italy or Sicily simply because of the difficulty of uniting the whole Italian peninsula.

Option 'B': Three strikes and you're out: After three unsuccessful re-emergences, the papal state becomes some form of a vassal state / protectorate of the final conquering power... it provides some income, but not all. It has troops that are yours, but the papacy picks them, and it decides what development it wants. I dunno.

2) Empire vs. Kingdom:
As a Kingdom, you're more prone to unhappiness in conquered territories. Gauges could be (of course) A) Religion, B) Language, C) Culture. As a result, Kingdoms couldn't steamroll the map without spending alot of time "assimilating" new provinces. As a result, you'd need people other than just priests, such as perhaps "teachers" for language, and "merchants" for culture... or something like that. Benefit - If a province (or provinces) is cut off by one silly ship, but still shares similar traits to the home kingdom, it doesn't automatically rebel if culture, language, and religion are similar. Still, growth is slower and more realistic.

As an Empire, you're less prone to unhappiness in conquered territories (possibly due to greater autonomy in those territories) but there is a greater chance for civil war from a rogue general.

3) Civil war - It doesn't have to be an all out affair. Rather, three grouped provinces could decide they want independence... or four, .... or a group of islands.... or whatever. Take out some of the randomness, add some reality.

4) On the battlemap I'd like to see creeks / swamps / wadi's: Small bodies of water that slow (but don't stop) advancement. Creeks would of course be minor obstacles. Swamps would be somewhat more difficult (and would tire the attacker / defender), wadi's would be similar to creeks, but in the desert. It would add for more interesting terrain, and more strategy. Also, they'd be more prevalent than the standard "river maps", such as Aragon.

5) Ability to field more soldiers if you have a larger army: I loved it when the mongols attacked. I'd line up the PA's, shoot and shoot and shoot, and eventually the Kahn would be dead. The remaining forces would advance, get shot, and advance again. Fun for awhile, but not realistic when I was completely outmatched.

6) The addition of roads: You could build them. Upgrade them. Similar to RTW I guess. What they'd do, I don't know, but I'd like to see them.

7) Elimination of city overcrowding (and the corresponding unhappiness): This annoyed me to no end in RTW. Sincerely, to me it was the worst part of the game. I understood the general concept, but to me it was more of an annoyance.

8) If they're going to have a college of surgeons or a military academy, make them do something. Actually, this part is also a question to the viewing audience at large: "What did these buildings do???". Did I miss something? I know, if I was the turks, I could get the Janissary thingy's, but did they do anything else?

well, in reference to 4), I think they may well have this in the game - they've been going on about the increased complexity of the battlefield scenery.

As for 5), the problem is that most people's computers wouldn't be able to handle huge armies.

And as for 8), I think the College of Surgeons prevented plague or something in MTW. As for the other buildings, they provided titles for your generals.

Hm, like all of these ideas. Especially the on battle obstacles.

I would like some armoured knights to be able to mow down some weaker, and even a few heavier units. But so far from the demo previews im not sure if it gonna happen

What about, placing oasis in the deserts, so an army advancing trough a desert can only move between oasis and thus create a bit of choke points. Seriosly, no army could just emerge from any part of desert. They had to folow ways of water, and thus desert borders get more easily defende than fiew thousand km of open sand.

1. I don't know about this... The Papacy was a fact of life in the Medieval period that did not go away, thus it's resurgence. Of course RTW does not have remerging faction so the feature may not be in the game at all. I wonder if you be able to make the Papacy a Protectorate?

2. Nice ideas, RTW has something like it with different culture buildings applying a penalty to public order.

3. Don't hold your breath, RTW still had the rebel (slave) faction which was almost a step backward as they popped up all over the place and you rarely ever saw a whole province revolt. They where also very generic. Some of the mods did good things with them, making them much more regional. The BI idea of rebel version of individual factions was fun, but would get a bit messy if every faction had one...

4. I am pretty sure that have stuff like this (i.e. effects movement speeds and so on).

5. You can have this in RTW if you like. Simply alter to preferences.txt file to set UnlimitedMenOnMap (or something like that) to TRUE. No longer will you see "your reinforcements where delayed" messages but if you have a six full stack battle (and you enable the AI control for your additional stacks so they are all fielded at once) you better be ready for a slide show... :laugh4:

6. Cool... Though I would expect the old Roman roads to still exist and be in use...

7. Opposite reaction here... Loved it and the way it representled the tension and uneasy of a crowed ancient city...

8. We can only hope... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4th Dimension

What about, placing oasis in the deserts, so an army advancing trough a desert can only move between oasis and thus create a bit of choke points. Seriosly, no army could just emerge from any part of desert. They had to folow ways of water, and thus desert borders get more easily defende than fiew thousand km of open sand.

---

Now that's a cool idea... RTW or BI... I had to spend so much on watch towers to keep and eye out for enemy stack or rebel popups...

I like the idea of armies in the deserts advancing along water routes. For that matter, you could have something similar for the European climates, like a "mountain pass" or "canyon" battle map. Kind of the opposite of a river map, where you've got two chunks of land and an impassable barrier in-between (save for the bridge)... These other maps would be two chunks of impassible land, with a ribbon of passible in-between.

This actually brings up another subject, where perhaps a general with greater stars (due to their greater experience) would start a battle in the better of positions. So ~ for example ~ if two generals fought each other in Switzerland or Tyrol, if one general is far more advanced, the battle map would be a tight constricted valley, with the more advanced general on either side of the cliffs. If one general was only slightly more advanced, perhaps the tight valley would become a broader one, with more access to the higher points.... and if there was parity between the generals, both would start on some form of a broad mountainous plain.

It's funny, but the more advanced TW has become, the less exciting I've thought the battle maps have been (with STW being the best).

Cliffs: Despite their presence, I've never felt they played that big of a role. Archers can't adequately shoot down from them (and from such height they should be twice as lethal or more), and any army trying to move around them automatically spreads out into this long line... IMO, make the height advantage more effective, the time to exhaustion on attackers more prevalent, and the AI's pathfinding more realistic.

Back to the idea of empire vs kingdom: As an empire, you're kind of all inclusive ~ there are many cultures and many peoples within your realm. They may or may not like it, but for the most part they accept it as they are semi-autonomous anyway. There is alot of scheming as to who will rule, and periodically rogue elements try to break away. Also, there's probably more graft and corruption. Still, you can grab alot of territory as an empire. As a kingdom, you are instead the predecessor to a nation. Your people are more or less homogenous. Their beliefs are more or less homogenous, as is their culture. I guess that, to me, the benefit to a kingdom is that you have less civil unrest from your home territories, but more from recently conquered territories, which would make it more difficult (and more expensive) to expand. However, beyond a certain point, assimilating new peoples might not be an economically viable option, therefore the kingdom becomes an empire. Once you're an empire, the people kind of settle down, and rebellions over population discontent are fewer, while rebellions from ambitious political / military figureheads are greater. Available money is slightly less, due to the burden of bureacracy (slightly lower production), but at the same time it's not entirely necessary to further train priests, teachers, etc.... Still, you would then (and only then) have the option of training some truly advanced units, pulling from all corners of the empire to create grand (and expensive) super units.

Yeah, and by the way, that would be an awesome idea for the military academy.... the ability of a player to create one (and only one) super unit... or to pick from a pre-made list: The english could have a "Yeoman's Guard", longbowmen that could shoot 20% further, and 20% faster. The germans could have "Royal Knights Templar" (as fast as Chivalric Knights, but with the Offensive / Defensive power of Gothic Knights)... whatever, just ideas. You could pick it, tweak it, make it, but you'd still have to make it, and you could only make it in the province with the military academy.