Printable View
Someone ever think about a "Leave this territory" diplomatic option?
I think it could be very usefull in some cases! (allies or neutrals that stand at ur door per turns without doing anything)!
I don´t know if have time, but it´d be good in the next pacth!!:balloon2:
what if your generals get excommed personaly but not the entire faction .. if pope says to end hostilities with certain faction you are war at but you still attack them with one of your generals they will be excommed ..
it would take down there chiv and piety and leave a mark even after they will be reconciled what should be possible too
but if heirs or faction leaders attack your faction will be excommed ..
Not sure if this has been suggested before, but expanding on Famous Battles would be nice. I'm not certain whether they actually do anything beyond giving you a little marker. Things I'd like to see:
* Morale bonus if the winning faction of the famous battle fights on the spot of said battle.
* Or, alternately, morale penalty if the losing faction were to fight in the same situation.
* More detail; maybe a listing of Famous Battles your faction has acquired, with the full details of the battle saved (casualties suffered and inflicted in individual units, length of battle, etcetera).
* I'd find it pretty cool if it automatically saved a recording of Famous Battles, actually.
* Or better yet, save the Famous Battles as Historic Battles with statistics of how the original battle went down. Or, if not Historic, then add a new section for Famous Battles.
Not at all knowledgeable of the effort involved in any of this, or whether some of it is even possible; but, I think it'd be interesting to see.
Anh... a replay button for the famous battles will nice too!
And in gods name, why do u guys rip of the "view city" options that was so nice in R:TW??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
This is a very good idea!!!
Along with it I think the family tree list should have the shields of all factions, so you can know their heraldy (would be extremely helpful with marrying your princess's).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead_Like_Me
I never thought of that one, changing my factions hair!
Just kidding there, you know. But I know what you meant was "heir," but that wouldn't be historicaly accurate. Except for maybe the Byzantines.
I think changing a faction's hair would be a wonderful idea!Quote:
Originally Posted by verity_blues
And FWIW, that's not correct that it's not historically accurate, there were a number of instances for a good deal of the factions represented where the oldest male didn't inherit. Poland was like that. The HRE was like that. England had several instances where the oldest male didn't inherit and it wasn't due to death, I think France did as well. Papal States if you want to get technical as well. :grin: There's more but I don't recall them off the top of my head.
As I've said in the past, I'm all for this feature. Failing that and they refuse to give it to us, at least give us the ability to assassinate our own faction characters (both would be better!). The "sending on a one way trip" of the unwanted generals is very lame imo.
Cheers!
I think it would be great if it was possible
Changing the heir could also result in the posibility of the former heirs loyalty plunging and resulting in a civil war
I know this has been said b4..but i'll say it again. A harder AI, I'm currently playing Russia on VH/VH post-patch..and it still not challenging enuf. Id won the game basically at turn 100. now its just mopping up. but the game is still absolutely fantastic nonetheless.
Oh and if theres like a 'total surrender' variable...abit like 'vassal', but more when the defeated faction with their cities, monies, generals etc.. gets integrated into ur own faction.. (probably be just be the last city with a peasant) it would be neat a neat kink into the game and change the strategical dynamics of ur game somewhat. :2thumbsup:
Many people have commented that this would be a good idea... so I wanted to take the time to point out that the agent list is sortable by agent type (sorry if this info has gotten out already and I'm rehashing it). Just click once on the gray-ish "status" word that heads one of the columns on the agent roster page, and voilla, the agents form up nicely by agent type. This works similarly for all those gray text entries that head columns in the army list, settlement list, and agent list. You can sort armies by size for instance, settlements by population, income, and presence of a governor, and of course agents by "status" which ends up being type, just to name a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Quote:
Originally Posted by fabiano
I agree with both observations, and like both the ideas presented here: they're trying to ease the intense micromanagement currently required by the strategy pieces on the campaign map, which I think is the only way they can retain their usefulness late into a campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunkin General
Rather than than try to speed up transportation or give agents general missions though, I propose a different take: a "mission manager" of some sort. The basic idea would be that you could assign your agents to missions (a destination, and an action to perform once he gets there) at which point the game would automate the process of getting the man there and having him perform the action. That way, if the agent's trip is interrupted by an enemy army, the AI would just adjust his path if possible or else begin moving him again when the path is clear, without bothering the human player about the agent being stopped in his travels (when you have to try to figure out again where it was he was going). It would also make it easy to track which agents are doing something and which are idle, which could be used to display an icon in the roster screen to show an agent is active - this would be quite valuable for making sure you've assigned your agents something to do. Guarding a settlement could be a mission then, further giving us a way to distinguish those spies just resting in a settlement from those that we have purposely put there to be defensive.
Probably the best way to go about this would be to make other factions' units/settlements/agents display buttons for various agent missions you can perform against them in the details scroll they currently pop up, in addition to the usual information already there. Once a mission is set, you'd get a pop-up to select an agent or agents to perform it - and here much useful information could be given like the distance in turns that each agent is from the target, their skill levels, success chances, etc. Also another great chance for automation here: a button to simply dispatch the closest idle agent of the correct type to do the mission, and perhaps a second to dispatch the best qualified agent to do the job. You could still hand pick them yourself, but the quick options would save TONS of agent managing time. The other awesome benefit of this idea is that you wouldn't have to click an agent and then scroll like crazy to find the desired target for his mission - you'd do it in the opposite order, picking the target and mission type, then the agent from a list, and all the movement would be automatically taken care of.
I realize an idea like this is a bit of a tall order for a game update and so may be better considered as a feature for the next TW installment, but I wanted to stress the points I feel would be key to making agents really usable in longer games in the hopes that some form of help can make it into an update:
1. Agents should be fire and forget. -- Once I tell an agent where to go and what to do, he should go there and do that even if he must wait a bit for other traffic to get out of the way. Even this small bit of automation would save players tremendous time and frustration from having to constantly replot the trips of their agents due to high volumes of traffic on the map.
2. We need some method of telling at a glance which agents are busy and which are idle. -- Currently I have to look at each agent in turn to see what if anything he is doing, and scroll around for something to assign him to if he is idle. As the campaign advances this becomes an overbearing burden, to the point of making the agents useless b/c they take 15+ minutes to manage for one turn.
3. It could be indispensable to have options to put a given agent, groups of agents, or even whole agent types/all agents under AI control. -- It could be managed and indicated like automated settlements are, giving the player the option to only control those agents he/she really wants to. This would be an easy way to make sure agents retain their usefulness, yet let the player adjust the amount of micromanagement they require. There simply is a point where no one wants to manage every agent they have either b/c of their numbers or the repetition of doing it, and it would be great to be able to put some of them on autopilot and know they would do reasonable and useful things without any human intervention.
This is my first time here, so just a few thoughts.
1) Why are the Caribbean Islands and Mexico at the same latitude as the English channel? Seems otherworldly to me.
2) Why is it that the English faction cannot train crossbowmen of any type nor infantry based gunpowder units? Can only purchase limited nonupgradable mercenary verisons of each. This is historically inaccurate and a real pain. CA should review and remedy this asap.
3) Naval unit movement:
a) A ship travelling at 5 knots for 6 months would cover over well over 1800 miles. But CA models it closer to 200 miles. Same problem in earlier MTW and RTW.
b) Why does it take 5 years to cross the Atlantic? Columbus did it in under 6 months.
4) Desertion of units onboard ship during a Crusade. This is really unreal. What do they do, jump into the ocean?
5) Technology freeze? When playing into the 16th century, European technology does not seem to advance beyond that of the early 14th century. English and other European naval units are frozen at the "carack" stage and this histric anomaly allows Spain to gain sea superiority via the "grande" carrack. What about the "race" galleons the English produce in the middle 1500's (i.e. Mary Rose). Wheelock technology is also never introduced (Arquebusiers cannot shoot in rain using matchlocks). CA needs to revist this.
6) Knight Upgrades: Maybe these should be classified as bugs. I find these really bothersome.
a) Whenever I recruit a knight at a citadel with a jousting/tourney field I never get the expected upgrade. Also, when retraining a knight at such a citadel the experience upgrade doesn't take the first time. You end up paying twice for the same upgrade.
b) Specialty experience upgrades of both the local and global variety (St. Johns Capter House/Headquarters) function haphazardly at best. Most of time they just don't happen.
7) Selection of Faction Heir Issue. The AI chooses a faction heir very arbitrarily and most often to the players detrement. The player should minimally be able to choose among a list of faction members. Or even better open it up to all faction members like RTW.
Thanks for giving us a place to discuss our concerns.
I would also like to add my yearning to have what we had in the original MTW vis-a-vis our assassin/special character functionality, glorious wonders, et al. I also agree that a mission option beyond what we had in the original MTW for priests, diplomats and assassins, princesses is a great idea. In MTW we had diplomats trying to get a foreign bride to marry, a princess looking to marry, an assassin set to do the dirty deed. And the characters would happily go off and automatically do just that. The idea would work the same in MTW2 vis-a-vis assassins if the concept of regional watchtowers/border forts were reintroduced. Remember how much more difficult it was if your assassin's target went to a province with border forts (I lost quite a few good ones that way).
I too miss the ability to view a city as we did in RTW. I would tweak it somewhat though. In RTW you could only view a city if you owned it (at least that was what I experienced). You should be able to view a city you own or one which you have successfully infiltrated. That would be more like the real thing. Great if you are planning a siege with an optoin to conquer to know the fastest way to the town square.
I defintely agree that sapping is a major part of the siege experience that is sorely lacking in MTW2, especially since historically, it was used quite extensively. Maybe a special sappers unit, not too cheap like peseants, not too expensive like dismounted knights or a special skills upgrade to an existing unit type. The unit should require some sort of special training at minimum and skill upgrading should be available (gunpowder era: gunsmith teaches them about use of low level charges to help dig the tunnel faster and then plant demolition charges under the walls).
Glad to be able to share.
One that I haven't seen mentioned:
I want to be able to enter and use the 'fortified manors' that show up on some of the battle maps. They're somewhat rare, but they are very interesting. They are square structures with several towers and ramparts on the the walls, surrounding a square courtyard with a well and a single entrance that has no gate. If units could enter this building and climb and man the walls, it would make for an interesting defensive position for some battles. Since there's no gate on the entryway, no siege equipment would be needed to take it (slaughter everyone in the gate area and then climb the stairs), so no real way to exploit it. Based on their size, I doubt they could hold more than 2 to 3 units, so not too unfair to the person who has to attack.
It would be fun to have a small fortified position like that as a strongpoint in a defensive line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Absolutely one of my wishes as well, imagine those darn rebels you thought you'd just roll over with your Medieval tanks(knights) only to find that they had stationed themselves in one of these Manors and required some footguys to root them out.
There's a serious bug that I haven't seen anyone mention yet, and it seems so obvious to me that I'm surprised that CA missed it both before the product release and before the first patch; speaking as a programmer, I don't think it would be difficult to correct the problem. Here's the bug:
If you do a load game, and there are units queued for upgrades, they will not receive any experience upgrades (die to guilds or whatever.) This means that after pressing "end turn", it will see that they have not been fully upgraded, and you can add them to the queue again -- spending money on them a second time for an upgrade you've already purchased, and also losing one turn of usage with those units.
The only way around this problem is to remove all units from all queues that are due experience upgrades after a load game, and then add them back to the queues before pressing "end turn". If you accidentally forget to perform this procedure after a load game, and wish to return to the a previous game turn to get the experience upgrades that you've already paid for, there's a good chance that different random events could change the entire course of the game when pressing "end year," which is extremely frustrating.
Another bug that I've encountered occurs frequently when using the battle simulator. I prefer to draw my own formations for a group, rather than using the limited selection of formations provided by the game. In previous versions of Total War, the battle simulator would remember the formation that was in effect at the time a group was created and attempt to hold that formation. In M2TW, as soon as a group starts moving, the battle simulator loses track of the initial formation and will not allow you to specify that formation at the destination on the map (with green arrows, etc.). At times, this makes battles unplayable for me.
Here is my wish list for enhancements:
1. Player-selected elimination or reduction of spawned threats (heretics, rebels, etc.) These are not only historically unrealistic but they do not add to the entertainment value of the game whatsoever. They have little or nothing to do with strategy, but they are and endless stream of repeated annoyances that puts a short halt to the real flow of the game until they can be dealt with.
2. Smarter campaign AI.
3. Less suicidal combat AI.
mate, are you sure that that's the cause of that bug?
If so, it's getting added to the buglist :laugh4:
I also wish we could specify the depth of a line of units. Currently, when you group units and drag them into a line, the computer gives them all the same frontage, no matter how large the unit is. That means that depleted units end up as thin lines when placed in formation with full units. I would like the option to specificy, for example, that the formation never go below 4 ranks deep. So, when drawing out the line the frontage of the depleted units stops expanding when it would reduce them below 4 ranks, while the larger unit continue to get longer until they reach the preset depth. As it is now, in order to achieve my desired formation, I have to manually draw each unit's formation.
I had actually speculated the same thing as bbrass10 about the upgrades, Sapi, though I haven't tested it empirically. It does seem like it always happens when I've just loaded the game to start playing again though, and doesn't happen after I'm continuing to play. I have also taken to flushing my retraining queues when I load now (and actually saving the game at the very beginning of a turn before anything gets in the queue), and it's been a while since I had a unit come out with the wrong experience. All signs point to some vital bit of information failing to be recorded in the saved games, but I'm not really in a mood to actually make sure right now.
I would like there to be an option where u can build a custom formation and to make your man stay in formation even while moving.
Example: Take 4 spearman groups and spread them into a square which each one of the spearman groups faces out of the square and to make them be able to move like so. I can put a picture
The trouble with this is it's extremely unrealistic. You are drawning on a TON of misconceptions about knights in this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by IvarrWolfsong
Anyways, my personal wish... Engineer units.
Eliminate land bridges, allow engineer units be capable of figuring a way across (pontoon bridge would be expensive, but semi-permanent and capable of moving large numbers of troops over very small sea spans, such as the bosphorus, or just making a ferry... which would move one stack over.
They would also do the building... forts and watch towers. I don't like the idea of losing management control just because I can't see the Irish Sea from York.
Hi guys,
Sorry about this, it was going to go into Randarkmaan's thread, yet it was closed, so I hope you don't mind me placing it here. Sorry.
Great Idea's Randarkmaan! I agree with all of them especially the risk style map one, but I don't agree with fancy graphics - my PC cannot handle them.
I believe that one of the solutions to the dispute over the risk style map could be to have a selection box of which type you desire to play with on the starting screen.
May I also you request that you add:
Category A:
The Ability to Assassinate your Own Generals, yet expand upon this great idea! Always have the risk of being found out, the general losing loyalty over it, or going off and rebelling in revenge if he is that sort of person.
Every faction leader is the only family member who has influence. This effects loyalty of his men, loyalty of his provinces and the chances of diplomatic relations going well. Diplomats also have influence which also effects the way they discuss relations.
Hidden traits from M:TW - you can no longer look at a general and see his real side.
Category B:
A much more complex diplomacy system with many more options enabling you to recommend that factions assault or defend a certain region, give troops to other factions and set missions for your protectorates.
Category C:
A better strategic map experience. I confess, I generally dislike the battle map and always auto-resolve as, due to my strategic un-intelligence I have no capacity to actually beat up the foes. So what I would like to see would be a complex build tree like in M:TW including border-forts and other such complex features.
Also I would like to see your government idea expanded upon to the point of which you have the option of imposing one once you capture a new city and it decides what development will be like. For example, if Celts attacked Sparta, they could choose either to keep the people living there and just oppress them (provides a Spartan tech-tree with many Spartan units), keep the Spartans living there yet bring in many Celts too (provides a balanced tech tree) or just wipe out the Spartans and bring in loads of Celts (provides a Celtic tech-tree).
Also, this idea is stolen from a thread way back which I found, jobs, occupations and classes. There would be a certain amount of people in a settlement who do a job relating to the time period and each of these jobs is divided into classes. Of course there could also be nasty un-employment in all of this which provides a happiness negative and can cause many riots. The jobs are divided into classes which determines which troops can be trained (upper class troops are taken from the upper class - nobody in the upper class, no upper class troops). The jobs all provide certain bonuses and penalties. Having lots of farmers can provide lots of farming income, having lots of builders reduces build time, yet increases building cost, having lots of traders increases trade income.
I would also like to see some sort of desirability rating similar to that of Ceasar IV which effects how willing people from all classes are to come and join your new settlement. If the place is mostly farmers then the upper-class wont want to live there, if the place is wealthy with fountains and other such amenities then everybody will want to come, if the place has many jobs then the middle and lower classes would be flocking to the city. Also, in this factor, the amount of good housing you have for them effects their happiness in their new environment - so if one knew they were about to have a population boom - it would be time to build more houses!
So what do you guys think of my, very stupid, ideas. All feedback welcome, thanks, cheers!
Ok one of the major issues for me is the fact that I can park my army pretty much anywhere in enemy territory without any major consequences. And what is even better, the AI does it back to me too. What annoys me is the fact that there is no incentive to kick a foreign army off your territory. It is quite easy to just ignore them, and eventually they will wander away.
Well to combat this issue I looked to the original MTW for guidance. My idea is simple, when a foreign army is on an territory, that providence loses all of it's income, just like in MTW. You are not forced to fight it, but it will cost you dearly if you don't. This will make it so it is like the providence is under seige. Your settlement is left alone, but it will generate in income. This make the player, and the AI fight more field battles, make military access a viable option, and add some more flavor to the game.
Thankfully, this feature is in the game, (devestation), but needs to be increased so it has some bite to it. Maybe this is moddable, I don't know :juggle2: ?
Anyone else think this is a good idea?
Great idea... I think it would lead to whole new areas of diplomacy... Trying to get back your captured 8 star general or your beautiful princess in order to marry her to the newly available heir to the neighbouring kingdom...Quote:
Originally Posted by IvarrWolfsong
Nevertheless, it's more an expansion kit issue than a mere patch-relevant issue...
Yes, I'm certain of the load game issue disabling all experience upgrades. I deal with it constantly and sometimes I am forced to re-fight battles because I'm unwilling to spend up to thousands of florin to get the upgrades that I've already paid for.
Dual monitor Support
I don't have 2 monitors at present but have a graphics card with 2 outputs so its do-able.
I notice that Supreme Commander (you want a game with bugs?) has dual monitor support.
Might be useful for hot-seat games?
I'd use it in single-player - campaign map - 1 monitor to show map, the other show windowed boxes with: diplomacy; events (esp plagues and who's affected); missions; also a notepad where i can make a note of things to do (very useful if you only play for a hour or two at a time but want to continuity in a campaign.)
On battle maps it would be so useful to have 2 views of settlement /castle esp if you are being attacked by 2 armies.
(Maybe not for M2:TW but the next TW game or the next expansion?)
More trouble than it's worth, imo
I haven't had a chance to try the dual monitor support in supcom, but it lags enough as it is that adding a second monitor would be awful
Once the computing power is in place it'd make sense though
Abilty to mod how much inividual AI factions value an indivual region.
Either a simple thing like they value regions where they are the faction creator more than others or preferably something more detailed. A line in descr_regions for each region like:
this value then being usable in the AI profile code.Code:france 1200, england 1000, default 400 (for Caen maybe)
russia 400, byzantines 400, default 1200 (for jerusalem)
something like
Code:min_entry region_value=800
I have some simple wishes to add.
When you have a tab open, using the mouse scroller will scroll you through the list. WYSIWYG. (I haven't seen anything of it. If there is, show me.)
When you marry off your princess she shouldn't disappear as an agent. She should still be able to operate as usual.
Ok, My wishes are pretty out there, but I'd like to see them.
1- I'd like to see religion affecting your unit creation in a settlement. For example, if I'm sitting in Jerusalem with the vast majority of the population muslim, I'd like to see Muslim units available to my faction, even If I'm a christian. (If you think it's unbalancing, consider that it would be considered "Fratrenizing" by the pope, and might give you a cross hit per unit trained.)
2. In the same vein, I'd like to see certain units NOT available if there isn't enough of a cultural/religious influence. MUch as I love Highlanders, it doesn't make sense to be training them in ACRE with a 95% muslim religion percentage... Maybe 1 unit, but not the full three.
3. I admit that it would involve some major balancing, but the army lists should be reworked to include units that you will get if you have certain percentages of belief. Of course there are pros/cons to that. (For example, I'd love to see some old RTW units put into play if you have a high enough percentage of Pagans...)
4. Less Diplomat Spam.
5. This one is BEYOND out there, but I'd like to see it. As a fan of Boadicea and Joan D'arc, I'd love it if RARELY, a princess unit became a general. (One way might be if the princess is attached to an army and the commander is killed, she might take over. Of course this eliminates her for the "Marriage" role, but adds some nice flavor.)
6. The ability to speed up a damn Inquistor on a witch hunt. As it is now, I see em CRAWL towards my general. It's bad enough having them as uber as they are without the "Death March."
The thing I'd most like to see is a Video Option for 'Fast Shadows'.
My RTW runs nice and fast with high shadows switched on, whereas M2TW's shadows cause a huge loss of FPS. (Presumably because they cast themselves properly on other objects including the object casting the shadow.)
With Shadows switched off, M2TW runs about the same speed as RTW. If I could have RTW's shadow renderer in M2TW that would be ideal.