Enhanced game mechanics for the new TW part 1 of 3
Foreword
While M2TW has some better features than RTW and STW, I still feel that there are areas that could be enhanced by Creative Assembly. That being the case, I have listed my requests here and would like your opinion on the matter.
This is divided into three sections: A) the new game mechanics that I would like to see in the next TW game; B) the new commands that could be incorporated as to enhance gameplay and minimize micromanagement and; C) recommended backdrop for the new TW game:
GAME MECHANICS:
1. CA should create a better AI that could be more prone to create alliances and, most importantly, be able to coordinate attack and defence on a strategic level so that instead of fighting incessant skirmishes, there can be few decisive epic battles worthy of Battle of Chalons (in which Flavius Aetius and his allies stopped the horde headed by Attila the Hun).
2. The game should end with an Epic Battle in which all hostile factions were to ally themselves and send a massive army as to challenge the human player to a last-man-standing battle (akin appearance of the Mongol Horde in MTW). This Epic Battle event could be trigger once a faction has achieved a certain level of dominance (say after conquering 30 provinces) and would serve as the perfect way to end the game.
3. The game should have the option of recording the battle once it is fought.
4. On the tactical map, there should be two levels of fog of war: the current status (you see it all) and the camera only on the general (you see only what the general sees). Obviously, the 2nd level is harder and yet more realistic. The map ought to be bigger (or at least comparable to STW) or limit the line of sight as to allow element of surprise/ambush.
5. On the strategy map, more than one army can form a combined attack on an enemy army by right click the area where the armies are and then click on the enemy target.
6. Also on the tactical map, you can have more than 20 units through the use of the tabs. Going back to the Battle of Chalons for example: I can have on my 1st tab the general Aetius and his 19 units of Roman legions and on my 2nd tab king Theodoric and his 19 units Visigoth warriors. At the player’s choosing, he/she can command them all or leave the select tab to the AI. As to minimize micromanagement, I have introduced the following commands that should enhance the gameplay.
7. Money is made not only by sacking enemy territories but by winning in battles as well. This is of a particular importance to the Barbarian factions. The money made should roughly equivalent to the cost of the enemy captured/killed.
8. Barbarian faction generals (as well as Carthage) should be able to increase its "prestige" points through successful battles. This “prestige” point could lower recruitment cost of mercenaries and/or attract with additional "volunteer" troops.
9. Barbarian factions should be able to “tech up” upon capturing “civilized” settlements, which would allow them to create better units.
10. Mercenaries (such as Numidian Skirmishers) should be able to be retrained to the full capacity at its origin source without the need of barrack.
11. With the notable exception of the Barbarian faction, when the player ventures outside of its territory it will require supplies. Logistics of supplies can be represented with a unit in form of caravan. Each caravan should sustain X number of units for X number of turns (the amount vary per sophistication of the civilization level) and it can be captured by the enemy. Units in foreign territory without adequate supplies will desert; have low morale and/or low ammunition and thus lower /attack/defence factor.
12. Roman Conqueror of significant accomplishments (capturing of most a faction's territories and/or its capital, annihilation of major enemy forces etc) should be given a corresponding cognomen such as Germanicus, Africanus, Numidicus, Felix (Lucky), Carnifex (butcher), Magnus (Great)... etc which could then be pass on as the family name.
13. Certain Barbarian units in their natural habitat should be able to automatically camouflage themselves if not moving.
14. Barbarian armies can move with faster speed within its territory despite lack of adequate road. Also, Barbarian armies can conceal better for ambush within its territory.
15. Praetorian Guards should be available only to the Roman Senate. It should be the strongest unit in the entire game.
16. The movement point for bigger ships should be increased accordingly. A trireme should be able to travel twice as far as a bireme.
Re: Enhanced game mechanics for the new TW part 1 of 3
Quote:
10. Mercenaries (such as Numidian Skirmishers) should be able to be retrained to the full capacity at its origin source without the need of barrack.
Already happens in M2TW.
And many of your suggestions just seem to be based around if they do RTW2. What about if they do something different?
Re: Enhanced game mechanics for the new TW part 1 of 3
Quote:
. The game should end with an Epic Battle in which all hostile factions were to ally themselves and send a massive army as to challenge the human player to a last-man-standing battle
I wouldn't like this at all. I'm totally against scripting the AI to act in a certain way. The game should play out organically.
On the other hand, I do think they currently have an AI parameter that adjusts your relations downward with other factions if you start to dominate. So if you beef that up maybe you'd get something like what you described.
Re: Enhanced game mechanics for the new TW part 1 of 3
I am just using RTW for example since it is my personal favorite. I am sure many, if not all, of the ideas that I suggested above can be applicable for different game setting as well once CA chooses to make a new game engine.
Re: Enhanced game mechanics for the new TW part 1 of 3
One of the reason why M2TW bores me to tears is that I no longer find it challenging (except when I have Crusade declared on me and then again the Crusade only targets selected provinces).
The current gameplay has come down to steamrolling over AI faction which is kind of repetitious.
I think it would be more gratifying fighting a massive, pivotal battle, something akin Battle of Austelitz (between Napoleon and the 3rd Coalition).
Re: Enhanced game mechanics for the new TW part 1 of 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by taichiman
One of the reason why M2TW bores me to tears is that I no longer find it challenging (except when I have Crusade declared on me and then again the Crusade only targets selected provinces).
The current gameplay has come down to steamrolling over AI faction which is kind of repetitious.
I think it would be more gratifying fighting a massive, pivotal battle, something akin Battle of Austelitz (between Napoleon and the 3rd Coalition).
One of the biggest problems with this is that you aren't considering the limitations of the game at all. You can't just throw all the remaining AI units together into a giant multi-stack army, and have them all fight your massive multi-stack army in a single huge battle. The amount of calculations you're trying to have the game do will just go through the roof, and it won't much matter what system anyone has, they won't be able to handle trying to draw the hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield who might be involved. And that's not even to mention the AI and calculations to maneuver and decide battles outcomes on each individual man.
Even if this could be accomplished, I wouldn't want it to be: It doesn't represent what happens historically in such situations. Consider World War II for example. While it's true that much of the outside world ended up banding together to oppose Nazi Germany and its allies, to represent the situation as a giant pivotal battle would be completely incorrect. Battles continued to be fought primarily at the borders of the German-controlled territory, beginning in the West with the D-Day invasion of Normandy of course - the primary point being to capture territory. Russia in the East didn't somehow magically end up in D-Day to help with the push there. So from that standpoint, I'd have to say that suggesting some huge battle should happen that involves all the remaining countries at any given point is just ridiculous, as there's no way it would happen like that. And that's not even taking into account that forcing you to fight on many fronts due to the expanded nature of your empire is in fact a better decision for any group of opposing allies to make than it would be to try to mass a huge force to attack one place. Without other distractions you will quickly and easily turn all resources against that one large army, where if you have to defend 15 points from constant danger, odds are you can't allocate the same resources nearly as effectively and are much more likely to end up in a compromised position due to the intense micro-management required in such multi-front situations. In fact it is commonly suggested that Germany's involvement in a 2-front war is the primary reason they in fact lost - that their inability to focus on a given opponent compromised their entire empire.
So while I admit it might be nice to have the AI put up a bit better fight at later stages in the game, I am totally opposed to anything like you've suggested to address that notion.
Re: Enhanced game mechanics for the new TW part 1 of 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
One of the biggest problems with this is that you aren't considering the limitations of the game at all. You can't just throw all the remaining AI units together into a giant multi-stack army, and have them all fight your massive multi-stack army in a single huge battle. The amount of calculations you're trying to have the game do will just go through the roof, and it won't much matter what system anyone has, they won't be able to handle trying to draw the hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield who might be involved. And that's not even to mention the AI and calculations to maneuver and decide battles outcomes on each individual man.
Foz, during Medieval I, my countless stacks of Almohads defended Europe against countless Mongol Horde in an Epic Battle that took hours to resolve so I think the technical problem can be overcome if CA is willing to look into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foz
Even if this could be accomplished, I wouldn't want it to be: It doesn't represent what happens historically in such situations. Consider World War II for example. While it's true that much of the outside world ended up banding together to oppose Nazi Germany and its allies, to represent the situation as a giant pivotal battle would be completely incorrect. Battles continued to be fought primarily at the borders of the German-controlled territory, beginning in the West with the D-Day invasion of Normandy of course - the primary point being to capture territory. Russia in the East didn't somehow magically end up in D-Day to help with the push there. So from that standpoint, I'd have to say that suggesting some huge battle should happen that involves all the remaining countries at any given point is just ridiculous, as there's no way it would happen like that. And that's not even taking into account that forcing you to fight on many fronts due to the expanded nature of your empire is in fact a better decision for any group of opposing allies to make than it would be to try to mass a huge force to attack one place. Without other distractions you will quickly and easily turn all resources against that one large army, where if you have to defend 15 points from constant danger, odds are you can't allocate the same resources nearly as effectively and are much more likely to end up in a compromised position due to the intense micro-management required in such multi-front situations. In fact it is commonly suggested that Germany's involvement in a 2-front war is the primary reason they in fact lost - that their inability to focus on a given opponent compromised their entire empire.
As for the World War II example you cited above. Well, there were of course long campaigns but then once in a while there would be a pivotal battles that could have gone either way (the Battle of Kursk and the Operation Market Garden comes to mind). These battles involved massive armies of both parties since the strategic importance of the outcome was simply too important to ignore. In M2TW, I have yet to find a battle of strategic importance and this not only frustrates me, it bores me.
To sum, all I am asking is to enhance the strategy level of the AI so that it could plan a coherent attack and defense strategy. Is it too much to ask?
