General Sun's Tent Editorial Next Issue "What I like to see in the Next Game"

There has been much talk over Medieval Total War 2 and how to it would be a disappointment to many. For myself, MTW2 doesn’t sound like anything to get excited about, the gameplay looks to be (superficially) identical to RTW in its current form. Many people have said, and probably rightly, that MTW2 would accomplish only what mods for RTW has accomplished.
What I’ve not seen are concrete ideas on how to take Total War to the next step. From the very beginning of the series (Shogun) to the upcoming MTW2, Total War has stayed the same gameplay wise except for one point; that is the move from a RISK style map to a civilization style map. For the next part of the series, the games that will come after MTW2, I have definite hopes for some real revolutions in gameplay.
Ultimately, the goal of the series is to make the games as real of a war simulator as possible, while keeping it fun. Quickly, here are the ideas that would be of real benefit to the series while keeping it from being too “hard-core”.

1. The move to a Real-Time Campaign Map.
I say this because war is real time, life is real time. The way that the game currently works with turns does not accurately represent campaign map maneuvers, the pursuit of fleeing armies, traps and ambuscades and campaign map pincers that Napoleon was so fond of. I say that it is impossible to carry out a historical campaign in a turn-based map, Hannibals’ movements in South Italy cannot be accurately reflected, nor Napoleon’s campaigns (which was all about this type of maneuver), nor Alexander’s even relatively simple campaign because even that was about evading larger armies until the terrain for battle was suitable.

What is more; many ideas which I list below cannot be done on a turn-based map, and I consider the move to real time a basic necessity.

The question of course is how this should be implemented. Star Wars Empires at War had implemented such a map and it was greeted with mixed feelings. Some simple interface changes would make their map much superior.

A. Firstly, the pause button should very prominent. SWEAW had the pause button hidden in a corner small box. The pause button should be this huge thing at the center of the interface bar because frankly, in a real time map, that is the most important button.
B. More auto-pauses should be implemented. Pause when a building is complete, pause when an army reached its destination, pause after battles. Having more pauses and notifications would let the player keep on top of the situation without the clunky mess that EAW put us in.
C. Slower default speed. In EAW the default speed was very fast and there was no option to slow it down. With these simple edits, a real time system would probably work very well, opening up another ballpark of gameplay.

2. Attrition
Every army experiences Attrition losses while campaigning away from home. Some causes are: Illness, desertion, guerilla attacks, stragglers, and more.

How it should work is very simple. Whenever an army is in enemy territory, it should steadily lose men at some reasonable and balanced rate. When a province is captured from an enemy, attrition is lowered, but not gone. There should be a clear supply line coming from the nearest friendly territory, a supply line that can be cut off by the enemy to further the attrition.
Each army should have a supply store, higher levels means less troop loss, lower levels means high troop loss and lower quality troops when on the battlefield. The store is kept up by the supply line or by living off the land. But the latter option depends on the wealth of the land and the former option depends on the faction treasury.

The player should not be able to retrain troops in newly captured territories, in fact, captured territories should not be able to train any troops or build any buildings nor contribute to costs until either the enemy faction is wiped out or peace is made.
Attrition however, should end after a designated time.

Attrition should also be dependent on season. Obviously winter means more attrition losses. Imagine the campaign of Napoleon in Russia without attrition, there is no question that he would’ve won.

3. Waypoint System
I’m not talking of the current “all rally here” button, but a system where the player can plot the future move of troops on several steps. That is, all go here, then here, then here, and set the armies moving without further micromanagement. This is probably just as useful in the battlemap as in the campaign map.

4. Some real campaign map Terra-Formation.
The history of China would not be the same without the Great Wall; World War I was fought by lines of infantry in trenches; in Denmark, the Hapsburgs were repelled using floods. More options such as this should be given to the player. Right away I can think of three options.

A. Ability to build walls. Each section of the wall would have to be put under siege individually. The gameplay implications of this are obvious.
B. Ability to burn/chop down forests. Forests are places for enemies to hide in, a good source of wood, and chopping them down should give more “living space.” Helps with squalor perhaps…
C. Trenches contingent on guns.

5. Making the country-side worthwhile.
Currently the country side is just a piece of land that the army stands on to fight. It shouldn’t be. There should be the option to pillage the countryside without having to take the city. Even if the city isn’t taken, the countryside is still a conquest. Having an army in sit for a long time in the countryside should move borders even without having taken the city.
Especially in the middle ages, most of the population is rural, and the effects of conquering rural areas should be reflected in province population and province wealth.

6. Making the army the centerpiece of the empire.
In war and campaign, the army is the centerpiece of an empire. The destruction of an army is the destruction of the empire, the loss of the war. The loss of cities is not nearly so significant. While RTW does reflect that pretty well, here are a few propositions to make it even better.

A. Abandon city option; if an enemy army is close to the city, there should an option make everyone leave. This will cause population to scatter to remaining cities; the effectiveness of the option should be contingent on population happiness.
B. Destroying an enemy army should give a big boost to home happiness as well as income in terms of wealth. (This comes in the form of captured equipment and booty).
C. Likewise the loss of an army should be very detrimental to happiness.

7. Reduce city management.
The way that cities are currently managed by the player is boring and frankly not very conducive to gameplay. The current way that cities are managed is no-brainer. It doesn’t add anything to the gameplay and detracts from the military aspects of it. So here’s what I propose.

A. No more buildings. An emperor or a general should not have to concern himself with the building of markets, roads or anything of that sort. Instead replace it with “focuses”. Economic focus raises trade, tax income, cultural focus raises population, happiness, and so on.
B. Eliminate the build this building to get this military unit. That is just such a ludicrous gamey implementation that raises micro-management. This is Total War, not SimCity. Instead, if an unit can be built in one city, it can be built in all. However, cities with lower “military focus” will build lower quality versions of that unit.
C. Ability to invest cash to further a focus. Throw a lumpsum of cash to improve happiness, or trade, or the military. The specifics should be left to the governor in charge.

8. Give us more creative maps.
Right now, the battle maps are just fields with hills or mountains or strange houses/monuments. There should really be more interesting maps. The bridge maps are really terrible, just one bland bridge in the middle of a field. Having lakes, marshes, plateaus would all be very nice. I want to fight in villages, through used army camps, etc. Not just the old plains or hills.
Also, why limit the cities to just having a few streets? It would be much better to open it up and allow the armies to roam and take backstreets.

9. Better lighting.
There’s just something off with the lights and the way that it’s reflected on units etc… The torches at night don’t look all that great either. That’s just my personal opinion…

10. Slow down battle-speed
Battles are currently way too fast. A Principe on hitting a legionary cohort breaks in three seconds, never mind that reinforcements are coming on the flanks. But this argument has been done twenty times already, I’m just throwing my opinion out there…

Originally posted here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63734

Agree with much of what you have posted! However...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General_Sun

What is more; many ideas which I list below cannot be done on a turn-based map, and I consider the move to real time a basic necessity.

---

I agree with almost all of the points you make but which of them require a Real-Time Campaign Map? All of them, as far as I can tell could be done on a simultaneous-move turn based system. I mean if you have a pause button feature then how is it any different than a simultaneous-move turn based system?

Good list, except keep Strat map turn-based.

God, can't anyone give Creative Assembly a break? We haven't even played M2TW yet and all EVERYBODY here does is just whine about how much it will suck, how much it sucks already, how much it sucked, and how anyone who thinks otherwise sucks. It seems like the sole purpose of these boards is to complain about how so bloody awful the TW games are. Well, if they're that bad, stop bloody playing them and leave the rest of us in peace!

I will admit that I agree with your points 2 and 5, and have on several occasions postulated ways to mod them into the games. However, I also recognize that the vast majority of TW gamers don't give an -expletive- over how many loaves of bread they need to sustain their soldiers over 3.7 weeks - they just want to go out and smash other guys' armies while "Ooooing" and "Aaahhing".

Like it or not, fellow history nuts and TW veterans here, Creative Assembly can no longer realistically tend to only us anymore. That's the volatile video game industry for you. Haven't you noticed that the number 2 thing that they've advocated after graphics for RTW and M2TW was accessibility, how easy it was to go and kick some -expletive- while looking cool doing it? We may not like it, and CA probably doesn't like it too much either, but its just something that we all should have learned to cope with by now. They're not betraying us or trying to deliberately hurt us - they're just trying to survive in an industry that is beginning to rival Hollywood in its xenophobic cautiousness and danger.

I say we stop threatening to form an angry mob every time the CA staff sneezes, and instead give them a hand for all of their hard work on these excellent games. Who's with me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo

God, can't anyone give Creative Assembly a break? We haven't even played M2TW yet and all EVERYBODY here does is just whine about how much it will suck, how much it sucks already, how much it sucked, and how anyone who thinks otherwise sucks. It seems like the sole purpose of these boards is to complain about how so bloody awful the TW games are. Well, if they're that bad, stop bloody playing them and leave the rest of us in peace!

I will admit that I agree with your points 2 and 5, and have on several occasions postulated ways to mod them into the games. However, I also recognize that the vast majority of TW gamers don't give an -expletive- over how many loaves of bread they need to sustain their soldiers over 3.7 weeks - they just want to go out and smash other guys' armies while "Ooooing" and "Aaahhing".

Like it or not, fellow history nuts and TW veterans here, Creative Assembly can no longer realistically tend to only us anymore. That's the volatile video game industry for you. Haven't you noticed that the number 2 thing that they've advocated after graphics for RTW and M2TW was accessibility, how easy it was to go and kick some -expletive- while looking cool doing it? We may not like it, and CA probably doesn't like it too much either, but its just something that we all should have learned to cope with by now. They're not betraying us or trying to deliberately hurt us - they're just trying to survive in an industry that is beginning to rival Hollywood in its xenophobic cautiousness and danger.

I say we stop threatening to form an angry mob every time the CA staff sneezes, and instead give them a hand for all of their hard work on these excellent games. Who's with me?

---

i agree its annoying me too It looks fantastic in my opinion and ive pre ordered I might have gripes about hwo they handled the demo but really give them a break until you play the darn thing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo

God, can't anyone give Creative Assembly a break? We haven't even played M2TW yet and all EVERYBODY here does is just whine about how much it will suck, how much it sucks already, how much it sucked, and how anyone who thinks otherwise sucks. It seems like the sole purpose of these boards is to complain about how so bloody awful the TW games are. Well, if they're that bad, stop bloody playing them and leave the rest of us in peace!

I will admit that I agree with your points 2 and 5, and have on several occasions postulated ways to mod them into the games. However, I also recognize that the vast majority of TW gamers don't give an -expletive- over how many loaves of bread they need to sustain their soldiers over 3.7 weeks - they just want to go out and smash other guys' armies while "Ooooing" and "Aaahhing".

Like it or not, fellow history nuts and TW veterans here, Creative Assembly can no longer realistically tend to only us anymore. That's the volatile video game industry for you. Haven't you noticed that the number 2 thing that they've advocated after graphics for RTW and M2TW was accessibility, how easy it was to go and kick some -expletive- while looking cool doing it? We may not like it, and CA probably doesn't like it too much either, but its just something that we all should have learned to cope with by now. They're not betraying us or trying to deliberately hurt us - they're just trying to survive in an industry that is beginning to rival Hollywood in its xenophobic cautiousness and danger.

I say we stop threatening to form an angry mob every time the CA staff sneezes, and instead give them a hand for all of their hard work on these excellent games. Who's with me?

---

I'm with you. For the sake of working on games for 3 years, that should already be enough to give them a big pat on the back (understatement).

And they'll probably get it in the form of my $50US.

I still can dream, can't I?

11. NAVAL BATTLES please....

Well I am always missing the naval side of the game , movement of ships in a tactical 3d sea reconstruction , soldiers ready to use long range catapults , ballistas , greek fire or what the technology allowed at the timeframe of the period and of course boardings and naval per naval real time fight .....:2thumbsup:

12.Customizable Castles /forts/cities
I would like to be able to actively partecipate at the construction of local castles , cities or forts , and also that all mayor capitals are custom made to reflect reality mostly , like imagine a Venice on the islands , an Rome around the Tiber , etc etc....

Many good points but i dislike the idea about attrition. It would be more interesting if attrition only started when supplies run out, and starting with lowend units.

G

Some interesting discussion. The move to a PTS campaign map is a very interesting suggestion. Like you say, if implemented properly it opens up a whole new level of strategic gameplay.

For me, no matter what else they implement, the number one thing I want to see in the 3rd gen TW engine is

13. Supply Such an enormous part of campaigning and one so far totally ignored in the TW series.

I've mentioned him before, but one of the programmers for CA is a guy called R.T.Smith. Older gamers will remember him as the author of a series of classic strategy games in the 80s. His superb Desert Rats included a supply system. To receive supplies you needed a HQ unit intact, and an unbroken line back to your supply source (ports). The further from your supply source, the slower you received supplies. You used up supplies when you moved and fought. If you ran out of supplies you were in trouble....as a result the game very accurately simulated the dynamic of the desert war.

If they could do it in 1985, why can't we do it in 2006?

As for the difference between RTW & MTW2 (or lack thereof), remember this is being developed by CA Australia. None of us know what CA UK are up to.......I like to think they are working very hard on the next TW engine ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

As for the difference between RTW & MTW2 (or lack thereof), remember this is being developed by CA Australia. None of us know what CA UK are up to.......I like to think they are working very hard on the next TW engine ~:)

---

Ohhh Cool I haven't thought about it ^^ I hope then for a great RTW2 .....

Comrade Alexeo gets my vote. How about all the nay sayers actually wait to play the game before running their hates. I'll crack up if you play it and actually love it.

14.Subdivisions of provinces

Roman era or Medieval one this could apply the same ....

We need to have one big city : the capital of province and admoinistrative center of it , and also sub regions that you need to conquer to have full control of the region , their numbers could vary according to the importance of the region and its population so they can be smaller centers or smaller castles to give so the feeling of a more vivid and populated zone .... of course every add on by merchants , roads , trade , resources etc are jusr province based and not region based , the region based system will count only to provide a substrate to conquert he province and if an enemy occupies the regions the trade and incomes get decreased etc ....

1.Real time campagins at most aren't crap. EAW wasn't a drag but it only had 30 territories. With 100 plus like TW it would drag. The 600 in Crusader kings really drags.

2.This reeks of way to hard to ballance to make anyone happy. Plus with the TW constraint of using units that are at most a thrid of what they would have been in a real army it features means that this would simly mean you don't train a unit but rather rent it. Bad idea, until TW Napoleon invades Russia with the 500,000 men the real Napoleon did.

3.In RTW campagin.

4.The great wall of China was until the 15th century a metaphorical wall rather than a physical one. The Mings built actual wall sections you see outside Beijing, and only outside Beijing. The rest of the wall was watch towers, forts, and fortified towns. All of which are in TW right now.

5.:no: Bad idea given AI limitations.

6.I dislike any notion of making TW any more martial-centric than it is now.

7.A)Emperor's did concern themselfs with buildings in a city. Generals too. Bulding stay
B)TW isn't a wargame, it's a strategy game which means you need to build buildings to trian units. This should never be removed.
C)Your asking to remove the micromangament of a city and replace it with the micromanging of governors. :no:

8.=higher system requirements

9.Nothing wrong with the lighting

10.Battle speed is fine where it is. It should not be reduced much more than it is in M2TW. Or will be back to the crappfest that STW/MTW battles were. :thumbsdown:

11.Everything CA has said about naval tells me they fear it turnng into another throne room. A bug ridden coding nightmare.

12.Rivers through cities might work but this means more HDD space for city bits.

13.Already in all TW games. WTF do you think upkeep is? However if your armies and navy started to rebel/disert if you went into the red it might be better.

14.This would require you too reduce provinces even more. So that the none hardcore TW player will actually finish a campagin. Or make it so that all sub regions surrender if the capital is taken.

While I like the idea of attrition and various other ideas (especially the "your army dies, it is practically over" situation), I am absolutely against making TW not turn-based. I really hate real-time campaigns since it happens too fast and even if there is a "snail" speed mode, I still use the pause button to give others and then fast forward the time.

The mix turn-based campaign/rts battles is the very feature that made me a loyal fan of the series. The moment that system goes full real-time would be a sad day for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faenaris

While I like the idea of attrition and various other ideas (especially the "your army dies, it is practically over" situation), I am absolutely against making TW not turn-based. I really hate real-time campaigns since it happens too fast and even if there is a "snail" speed mode, I still use the pause button to give others and then fast forward the time.

The mix turn-based campaign/rts battles is the very feature that made me a loyal fan of the series. The moment that system goes full real-time would be a sad day for me.

---

I agree. I muse over turns for up to ten minutes sometimes, especially when you have a huge empire and you need to check everything out. tactical parts of a game (IE battles) are perfect for real time but grand strategy is not. I don’t like to be rushed, which is why I rarely play things like command and conquer.

Just because MTW2 looks like a really enjoyable doesnt change the fact that General_Sun is completely right on many points.

That said however CA is taking some (very tentative and cautious) steps in the right direction. The new recruitment pools system sounds like itll change gameplay up quite a bit. The castle/city system while not to my tastes is also an effort to change up the gameplay and i respect it for that fact alone. Without going into a whole long list there are some very nice changes CA has made for MTW2.

That said however CA in my opinion is being a bit overly cautious and could do alot more about adding new features and such.

This has been mentioned before but the more different you make a sequel it the bigger the gamble it is. The Total War series is a sucess, the size of the forum proves that. I have no idea how much CA have spent making this game but I am sure that it is a lot of money. When games were designed at home by three of four guys people could afford to take risks, if CA or any of the big games companies spends £10 million and makes a flop that nobody apart from a small core of dedicated gamers buy, then they are in serious trouble.
What I trying to say is it is a lot easier to gamble with £10,000 than with £10,000,000.

I'll toss in my two cents while i'm at it. Firstly this will probably get me the big red bumper sticker of not a complete history dork. Don't get me wrong I love history, I like reading about battles and crusades, but hell if I can quote who the third emperor of byzantine emperor was, or how many men were lost at the battle of agincourt historically speaking, and no i don't know how a authentic mongol should look.

That all being said I am a gamer, and I realize things that sell and things that don't sell. You have some interesting points, points that in countless other games may be great, not this game though and CA won't implement them. Another said it and they were right CA has to leap out of the historical threshold. If you don't believe me look at the games. Activision is gone, if not for Sega who knows what publisher you might have leading CA. CA is a small group, but like everyone if they don't make a profit they won't make games.

Let's be honest besides CIV 4 and Total War can you name a single one historical real time risk like board game that has done well. If your going to tell me they don't exsist I can think of at least 5 that came out and did horribly.

Secondly CA is revoultionary in my view, weather you view them as such is your own opinon. We'd all have things we want to see, but if you don't think the game has taken major leaps everytime it comes out, then you may just be thinking to minute. I assure you if I give a average gamer Shogun and MTW 2 I know which one they'd rather buy. Yes because of grahpics, yes because there are more features, but also because it has taken steps. Maybe not all the steps everyone wants. Still I think they do move foward and I am a fan who will continue to buy games.

That being said I would love to see naval battles, I would love to see little minor things implemented. I'm not a big fan of real time strategy aspect in a total war game. However I would much rather them keep there pace, then the risk that CA goes out of buisness. Rome did better then MTW sales wise, MTW 2 will do better then Rome sales wise, so on and so on. I hope they do get every average gamer, I love these games and I wish everyone played them with me.

That's my spiel, it's just a opinon your welcome to trash it, construct it or compliment it.There are improvements to be made, but I personally think total war is revoultionary with every game I see. That's why i'm CA's fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faenaris

While I like the idea of attrition and various other ideas (especially the "your army dies, it is practically over" situation), I am absolutely against making TW not turn-based. I really hate real-time campaigns since it happens too fast and even if there is a "snail" speed mode, I still use the pause button to give others and then fast forward the time.

The mix turn-based campaign/rts battles is the very feature that made me a loyal fan of the series. The moment that system goes full real-time would be a sad day for me.

---

The same here. Absolutely against it too. I'm kind of slow in finding and deploying strategies so i don't want a campaign setting being essentially based on the number of times u can click on your mouse buttons a second.

As for waypoints, they are already in and work fine in the demo.

Still, there are some interesting ideas developped by the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

4.The great wall of China was until the 15th century a metaphorical wall rather than a physical one. The Mings built actual wall sections you see outside Beijing, and only outside Beijing. The rest of the wall was watch towers, forts, and fortified towns. All of which are in TW right now.

---

Hmmm? *Raises eyebrow*

Anniep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General_Sun

Many people have said, and probably rightly, that MTW2 would accomplish only what mods for RTW has accomplished.

---

Many people above are certainly wrong. From what I have seen from the demo, the game engine did have fixes that you can't ever mod.

Anniep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyAnn

Hmmm? *Raises eyebrow*

Anniep

---

Yep a physical wall all along the border or Inner Mongolia is a myth. All be it one perpetuated for tourism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

13.Already in all TW games. WTF do you think upkeep is? However if your armies and navy started to rebel/disert if you went into the red it might be better.

---

Please don't swear at me. Upkeep and Supply are not the same thing. One is a fixed cost in the game that you always have to pay no matter what. This is meant to restrict you from spamming unlimited armies by forcing you to pay out a cost that is meant to simulate wages, food, drink etc etc. And you always have to pay it, even if your army is trapped on the other side of the world, you still pay their upkeep.

Whereas in reality you would have to send their pay, food, drink, weapons, ammo, etc etc by sea and land to them. Where they would be subject to piracy, theft, breakage, spoilage, interception, blockades etc etc. The further an army is from its bases, the harder and more expensive it is to supply. And when an army is lacking in supplies it loses men to disease, death, desertion etc. Without supplies it cannot manuevre or fight as effectively. Maintaining your supply chain was of critical importance in all the time periods covered in the TW series.

Its like the old truism about "amateurs talk tactics, proffesionals talk logistics". Alexander the Great understood this. Tinned food came about after Napoleon sponsored a competition for someone to design non-perishable food for him to take on campaign. If supply (as opposed to upkeep) was not a factor in warfare, Napoleon could have marched all the way across Russia and Patton & Montgomery could have driven all the way to Berlin in August 1944.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Yep a physical wall all along the border or Inner Mongolia is a myth. All be it one perpetuated for tourism.

---

Revisionist, eh?

Anniep

I'd say you might be more happier playing EU / HOI than TW perhaps. Or rather having TW look more like these games.

Don't think thats possible though. Too different game engine / approach / setup in use in either game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

Please don't swear at me. Upkeep and Supply are not the same thing. One is a fixed cost in the game that you always have to pay no matter what. This is meant to restrict you from spamming unlimited armies by forcing you to pay out a cost that is meant to simulate wages, food, drink etc etc. And you always have to pay it, even if your army is trapped on the other side of the world, you still pay their upkeep.

Whereas in reality you would have to send their pay, food, drink, weapons, ammo, etc etc by sea and land to them. Where they would be subject to piracy, theft, breakage, spoilage, interception, blockades etc etc. The further an army is from its bases, the harder and more expensive it is to supply. And when an army is lacking in supplies it loses men to disease, death, desertion etc. Without supplies it cannot manuevre or fight as effectively. Maintaining your supply chain was of critical importance in all the time periods covered in the TW series.

Its like the old truism about "amateurs talk tactics, proffesionals talk logistics". Alexander the Great understood this. Tinned food came about after Napoleon sponsored a competition for someone to design non-perishable food for him to take on campaign. If supply (as opposed to upkeep) was not a factor in warfare, Napoleon could have marched all the way across Russia and Patton & Montgomery could have driven all the way to Berlin in August 1944.

---

Yes they are, in TW. Supply doesn't enter into it. Your example is from WW2. Where ammo, weapons, food, water, parts, feul, and replacements had to shipped from home to the units in the field. Napoleon had to ship ammo/powder, weapons, some food, and replacements to his armies in the field. All Alexander had to ship was replacements to and orders from himself in the feild. Your supply idea has no place in TW until they go beyond the 17th century. When armies stopped foraging for everything they needed on campagin. Or make and asian TW. The Chinese armies carried tofu and rice rations with them on campagin.

I have been playing a lot of HoI2 Doomsday recently and CA could learn a lot from them. The way you balance your production between Supplies (keep your armies in the field), Commercial Goods (Keep the people happy), Upgrades,Reinfocements, and finally Production (building tanks/planes/ships).
In RTW assuming you have a good enough barracks/stable/archery range you can buy anything even if you have recently purged the population. MTW2 seems to have moved forwards with its recruitment pools and the such like which is good.
However if you had a slider which you could call military spending, the more you spend the faster the recruitment pools grow (if you throw money at a problem it tends to get at least a bit better). In peacetime you can cut back because you only need a small steady trickle to keep your units up to strength. This would allow you to simulate wartime spending changes and also allow you to focus on building Cathedrals in peacetime and recruiting archers in wartime better. Also it can't be that difficult to implement as Victoria had a similar system and that came out about 10 years ago, though it was far from perfect and due to other unrelated flaws was unplayable.
The only downside is that it is a bit more complex and a bit different and thus might deter the average gamer. Despite that a change like this would be an enourmous improvment to the campaign element. I am going to buy MTW2 because I love the battles and I am going to play the campaign to build armies to fight cool battles.
But with things like EUIII coming along I am going to get my grand strategy fix elsewhere. On the other hand I am going to miss the ability fight cool battles in EUIII so I am going to be unhappy either way.

Edit: That's not to say that CA haven't got a lot right with the campaign map. I prefer the turn based system and the new characters look great (diplomats, assasins etc.). Also governors affecting the performance or cities is another great feature, and I think the Total War series pioneered generals with a command rating though I might be wrong. The whole vice and virtue syste is inspired and really adds character to the game. I don't mean to flame CA or the Total War series but nothings perfect and I think these changes would improve the game. Also the terrain in RTW and MTW2 is a lot more attractive and realisitc than in HoI2. CA has got more right than it has gotten wrong, but that doesn't mean its perfect.