-
I'm new to the game and to this forum, so please forgive me if these ideas have been brought up before.
I've been playing the game for almost a week and am totally hooked, it is a great game. But, as someone brought up on the Civ games, I'm somewhat disappointed in the diplomacy, sorry scrub that, I'm very disappointed in the diplomacy.
I have a few ideas which I would like to see in the game:
Allies -
Loan or borrow money.
Ask an ally to declare war, perhaps for a financial reward.
When allies are at war with the same faction/s, co-ordinate attacks.
Ask for naval support to transport troops.
Loan or borrow troops, again for financial reward.
Ability to divide up conquered kingdoms between allies.
Neutrals -
Ability to threaten other factions for financial or territory gain, or to stop a war with an ally.
Enemies -
Ask for compensations for ending wars, provinces, cash or troops.
These are a few ideas, what do you guys think?
-
I was about to bring that up too.
Have anyone played europe unervisalis 2. If not...
when u attack other countries u cant gain their province without a peace where u can demand some of the controlled enemy province or demand money millitary acces, wich means that u r allowed to walk thru their land with ur own troops. And if u have dont have any good cause to attack other factions u should lose somthing, or people in ur country maybe would revolt more.
Stuff like that if u havnt played EU 2 do it and you will know what I mean. The games diplomacy is on top. Someone should merge these to games with each other. That person/s will make the best strategi game ever. With perfect battles and a perfect diplomacy.
And they should involve the whole world and use more factions, so it wont be boring after u eliminated 5-8 of the A.I.
Thats what I think. And maybe something for the developers to think of.
ps. I read the post about doing the "simple" things and I realise that it maybe isnt so easy to put all of those things in a game.
[This message has been edited by MajorPain (edited 09-16-2002).]
-
Quote Originally posted by MajorPain:
That person/s will make the best strategi game ever. With perfect battles and a perfect diplomacy.
Thats what I think. And maybe something for the developers to think of.[/QUOTE]
So why do you think that any developers hasnt done this?
No more sales.
If a perfect game was made, no more games of the genre would be needed, as there are already one that is perfect.
And yes I´ve played EU, and I´ve also thought about what would happen if they merged these two games. Unfortunatly it would be impossible, the reason being MP. The game wouldn´t work in MP.
------------------
"The forces of evil will appluad me
as I stride through the gates of hell,
carrying your head on a pike"
-Murray
-
I ment for single campains. And they only have battles for MP.
And all the developers think of is making money on the games, (we can all agree on that or else they wouldnt release games with so many buggs) so if they made that perfect game they would earn alot of them. Then they can do as they did with the TW games. If u compare them with each other there aint much of a diferent.
-
Quote Originally posted by MajorPain:
I ment for single campains. And they only have battles for MP. [/QUOTE]
Well, I would hate to miss out to play against me friends on a large stratigcal scale as well as the tactical mode.
Quote Originally posted by MajorPain:
And all the developers think of is making money on the games, (we can all agree on that or else they wouldnt release games with so many buggs) so if they made that perfect game they would earn alot of them.[/QUOTE]
It would fill the market, after a while there would be no more demand for the game, and then what? If you have made a perfect game there is no reasom to make a sequal...
Quote Originally posted by MajorPain:
Then they can do as they did with the TW games. If u compare them with each other there aint much of a diferent.[/QUOTE]
Wellm except for half the earth away in differance http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
Seriosly though. In EU (and EU2) the most demanding thing for the Computer is the AI, snce every nation has it´s own AI (and there are hundreds of nations) if you threw that into MTW with its demand for graphics etc., you would need one heck of a comp to run the game.
------------------
"The forces of evil will appluad me
as I stride through the gates of hell,
carrying your head on a pike"
-Murray
-
I know I mention "the perfect" game but please dont put to much weight in that word, cause nothing is perfect, right???
what I ment is that first came STW, then MI and those 2 games are very similar not much of a difference. Some new units and buildings cost half of the STW price and the building time is half too. And MTW is also almost exactly the same game as STW, the new in MTW is that the acction take place in another place of the world there are many more units to chose from (which is very cool). But building take to long to build they should still have seasons cause the campain end to quick. And there is more factions.
If they made that "perfect" game the sequal could be a war between evil and good, a fantasy game, that Mithrandir mentioned. They could have different time in the games, this game is between 1100-1400 the next game could be between 500-1000.
Dont get me wrong, I may complain alot but MTW is absolutly the best game of this year no doubt about that.
I also know that its not easy to think of all and maybe not that easy to make a game cause if it was I would create that "perfect" game.
But first of all I want them to fix all the bugs specially so I can play online.
-
More features of EU2 that would fit into MTW:
- Vassal states that you do not directly control, but that are loyal to you (better than alliance), and can't make any treaties of their own. Finally a AI-faction you can turn your back to.
- Grant indepentence to a province (or group of provinces), so they don't rebel untill they get their nation back, often combined with making them a vassal.
- "Core provinces" that only one faction can build the higher structures on. MTW doesn't care that I am the turkish invader in Sweden, I can just as easy build there as in Ankara.
- Casus belli, a cause for war. In MTW the only cause for war is "I want more land, just because". In EU you can war against any faction that enslaves your people (core provinces) as long as you like.
- Stronger penalties for warmongering. No one in MTW cares that I drain my land by an endless war (well, MTW IS about war, I know that, but I still send all able man to the front for 300 years). Should they like that ? Maybe some "war-weariness" (from Civ3)?
- Also from Civ3: I do not have a strategic resource (iron in MTW), why can I not trade it with a faction that has it ? Spanish steel was used all over Europe, not just by mercenaries ...
But please let me explain:
Almost all of this would drift MTW away from being a wargame. Maybe the dev's don't want that, it's their game.
And altough I made a lot of references to other games, I have more fun with MTW than with any other game so far, so very good job.
Belisarius:
The STRATEGIC part of MTW is clearly not about grafics, where all the comparisons to EU are made, so not much strain on the processor there apart from AI imho.
And the "perfect" game is VERY much depending on individual taste, no ? And even if it fits your taste today, who says that you wont get bored by the perfect game in 3 month and buy something else ? If you are really satisfied with the last game, you might even be ready do dish out much more money for another "perfect game", so more revenue for the dev's (who don't get the biggest share of the profit anyway fyi) ...
