Suggestions for the next TW game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraigTW

Hi guys,

You might have noticed I posted up on TWC and our forums for suggestions as to what should be in the next TW game. Well you guys are included in that, too.

Please reply to this thread with any suggestions and I'll make sure they're all put into my report.

Thanks!

Craig.

---

First suggestion : NO STEAM ! I want to own my game and not require third-party malware to run it, especially considering how intrusive, abusive and restrictive it is, thanks.

Now for the game itself...

- Work on AI and diplomacy. I know it's what you hear every game, but seriously, it's always been the weak point of the serie. It should become an actual relevant part of the game.
- More developped "conquest" part. It's always bothered me how you can conquer a province and it's immediately added to your possessions and you can churn out units quickly from it. I think a rather long "assimilation" time should be required.
- In the same vein, manpower. The idea was here in RTW (though, again, the AI was prone to fail at it), and it would be nice if it could make a comeback. I always found it weird that huge stacks of units, thousands upon thousands of men, could be slaughtered without it being a big deal as long as you have money to replace the losses (and with STW2, money comes in such large sums I can easily afford to lose one full stack every two turns or so, which means I'm pretty much immune to attritional warfare).
- Speaking of it : ATTRITION ! Logistic lines and the like. It really makes the strategy much deeper and more interesting than having some kind of immortal stack that can walk in the far-away mountains for some centuries without problem.
- Immersion. You got it right with STW2, keep it up !
- Better mélée fighting. MTW2 was ATROCIOUS in this respect, STW2 is better but not perfect. It's a bit "weak" if you know what I mean, lacking in power and energy (RTW was the best by far in this domain, even though it caused the "blob" problem). Also it's just a collection of duel. Units should fight as unit, and you should NOT have five guys standing around a foe and doing nothing but looking at a sixth fighting alone. This make close-up fighting look ridiculous. It's nice to have these neat animations, but what is the point if their principle is defeated by making the hand-to-hand fighting disjointed.
- Harder sieges. Fortress in all the TW games are either easily assaultable (walls are barely able to slow down attackers, you wonder what's the point building them) or easily starvable. In history, fortress and castle were quite a big deal. MAKE them a big deal ! (again, it would require a better AI)

As for the setting...
I'd like either a RTW2, a very ambitiout "Civilization : Total War" (I guess you can imagine the idea) or maybe a "Fantasy : Total War", as long as it's light on fantasy and doesn't make standard soldiers look like peasants.
But please, NO GUNPOWDER ERA ! I hate, hate, hate it.

No.The Gunpowder is excellent! I love that era! I only wish that CA could make the Korean expansion.

No fantasy total war.Stick to history.Otherwise I would never buy it.

even though it caused the "blob" problem). Also it's just a collection of duel. Units should fight as unit, and you should NOT have five guys standing around a foe and doing nothing but looking at a sixth fighting alone. This make close-up fighting look ridiculous. It's nice to have these neat animations, but what is the point if their principle is defeated by making the hand-to-hand fighting disjointed.
Units should fight as unit

That's european style.Not Japanese.If you looked at it,the samurai came and fought like the old guard.One samurai vs one samurai,2 samurai vs 2 samurai.

Erm...This is Japan we're talking about.Samurai would never have always just faced one samurai,they would have faced manother samurai in battle.Shogun 2 has excellent combat.RTW has no combat at all.One slash at a enemy's shield and he;s dead.How is that real? You're making the total war series numb again.No way.CA has to move forward,

You know, I actually wouldn't mind seeing some sort of "fantasy" Total War. There was a game a few years ago called Warhammer Mark of Chaos, and it was almost like Total War, except it had a defined story and was strictly linear; you fought a battle, you moved on in the story to the next battle. It was actually a really good game - I enjoyed it a lot. If CA were to grab an IP like Warhammer, I could see a Total War game using that being somewhat interesting.

But still, I'm hoping for Medieval 3. I can't think of anything that should change or be added from what the series already has. Things like "work on diplomacy" are pretty much always going to be a work in progress, and should be a given.

I'll also agree with the post 2 posts above me - Gunpowder really isn't that bad. Empire was a really good game.

Suggesstion/persinal prefrence

time frame:Germany world war 2
Factions: nazi germany with swastikas please, USSR france british empire nazi italy the republic of spain the ottoman empire sryia ukraine sweeden poland denmark all the other factions that took place in this war
emerging factions: afrika corps.

Faction leaders aldolf hitler stalin and the rest.


campaign should inclued diplomacy. goverment slider were you get to chose if you want to be more right or left. right means the nazis of the population will favor you more and left means all will be normal except a nazi revolt might happen,
air battles these will be basicaly played like shogun 2's naval battles but without the boarding just select the plane unit you want to controle right click on a enemey plain and it will attack atoumanicaley.
tanks should behave like tanks get hit in the rear a few times by another tank and boom.

battle map size should be about the size of napoliean battle maps basicaley wide open aeras but expect small squad sizes and fast paced battles

The only problem is that we have Hitler.Not many people like him.Otherwise I'm all for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

You know, I actually wouldn't mind seeing some sort of "fantasy" Total War. There was a game a few years ago called Warhammer Mark of Chaos, and it was almost like Total War, except it had a defined story and was strictly linear; you fought a battle, you moved on in the story to the next battle. It was actually a really good game - I enjoyed it a lot. If CA were to grab an IP like Warhammer, I could see a Total War game using that being somewhat interesting.

But still, I'm hoping for Medieval 3. I can't think of anything that should change or be added from what the series already has. Things like "work on diplomacy" are pretty much always going to be a work in progress, and should be a given.

I'll also agree with the post 2 posts above me - Gunpowder really isn't that bad. Empire was a really good game.

---

Yes,Medeivial 2 felt like a cheap game.Dont get me wrong here,but it just felt bad with huge amounts of historical inaccuracy.It looks good,but a Mediveal 3 would do,And spain never existed as kingdom during its early history.

Has anyone watched Avatar:The Last Airbender? That would be perfect for a total war game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

The only problem is that we have Hitler.Not many people like him.Otherwise I'm all for it.

---

Some people need to get over that - it's all in the past. That generation has practically died off by now anyway, so you really can't blame anyone for any of that any more. Besides, I would argue that the Japanese had just as many comparable and downright dirty acts that could easily consider them just as bad, but no one seems to care about that anymore. It's war - dirty acts happen in war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

Some people need to get over that - it's all in the past. That generation has practically died off by now anyway, so you really can't blame anyone for any of that any more. Besides, I would argue that the Japanese had just as many comparable and downright dirty acts that could easily consider them just as bad, but no one seems to care about that anymore. It's war - dirty acts happen in war.

---

Don't blame them.I think they were less brutal than the nazis.The Nazis killed anyone who didn't belong into their regin.The ''dirty '' acts are the Japanese's actions,You shouldn't have bought shogun 2,if you hate them that much.If you can't say I want a korean expansion of shogun 2,then don't ask for WW2 either.You must blame them.Thanks to Hitler,today many westerns compare themselves as superior(when they are not) There are Neo Nazi groups in all of Europe,and racsism is tolerant.If you want to make a game about killing jews and that stuff,good luck on you.Then maybe you will gain bad reception.I would never support it.WW2 seems good,but it won't work.Espcially in land battles.In Air,it could work,but it won't do.

But to lighten the mood.I want CA to make the 30 years war,

I would like to see the return of the Kingdoms reinforcement system. As it is in the default, the player is at a great disadvantage.

Realism/historical accuracy. I liked this for ETW and NTW as there were the smaller nations represented. If CA did Rome 2 I want to see only one Roman faction. Maybe several Gaul and Germanic tribes.

Expansion packs. Really like this 100x more than just DLC reskins. Also more mod support.

Unit names and titles and nicknames for Generals.

Duels! Scholars were a nice touch too.

Give the ability, if you are the defender, to pick the boundaries you start deployed in.

Maybe you can do a game based on the Dark Ages. Maybe something centered around Charlemagne. A Mediterranean war would be cool. You should be able to pick different types of government to reflect the different city states of Greece. IE Democracy, Militarism, Monarchy, Philosopher King, Oligarchy.

Quote:

---

Also, Rome suffered from the lightning fast battles like Shogun 2 does, although in Rome they were about 100% quicker than in Shogun 2. You would literally have about 10 seconds of combat before the entire enemy line crumbled and ran. Generals kamikaze themselves in to your spearmen ahead of their entire army, killing themselves right at the start of the battle. Archers were completely lethal.

---

I'm sorry, did we play the same game? In Shogun it seems like units die out faster, rather than breaking. In Rome, battles could last a long while. Also, Archers were fairly useless. If you want to talk deadly than look at MTW2, those pavise crossbowman and longbowman would tear up an enemy army proper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Discoman

I'm sorry, did we play the same game? In Shogun it seems like units die out faster, rather than breaking. In Rome, battles could last a long while.

---

Whether the units die out or break, the result in both games is the same - the battles are over way too fast. It has been a long time since I've played RTW, so I can't properly compare die vs routing between it and TWS2. But I do know that the fast movement and combat in RTW killed the game for me. Things seem a bit slower in TWS2, but not enough for my taste.

Also, I think we've had enough talk about Nazis. Thanks.

Victorian total war.

30 years total war.

With my recent jump into untested territory, I did come up with a good idea for the next Total War game, and that would be some way to direct your vassals. The last game I played, I made a vassal very early in the game (this is documented in the Hattori guide). They proved to be a major asset early on, but caused more problems than I could keep up with later in the game. Coupled with a few very poor decisions (attacking the enemy with a tattered army and losing everything they had) made me think "It would be really great if I could open the diplomacy screen and tell that nub to not be dumb".

I normally never have issues with vassals, but I also typically only make them when the game is well within my favor, and when all they can really do is provide more support for me in the late game, as well as trade agreements. Making one so early (turn 10'ish) showed me that, while they can be a great benefit, they can also be a hinderance without direction. Giving them free reign to go about their business would be okay if I could just interject at a few key moments and tell them to hold off until I can reinforce them - otherwise they just put themselves in unwinnable positions and lose their only means of defending their newly conquered land.

This could be something simple as opening the diplomacy screen and having a few options to discuss with them; be aggressive (openly attack your enemies), be defensive (only defend your territories), be passive (focus on your economy, or otherwise just sit and wait until told otherwise), or use your own judgement (do whatever you want to do). There could also be additional requests, such as; attack this town (in the case that I want them to take a certain province to expand their territory), defend this town (if I, or an ally, maybe have a undefended town that needs support and they're the only army nearby), follow this general (if I'm, or another vassal/ally general, is on a warpath and I want him to accompany me/them), etc...

I think these are probably the bare necessities, and covers just about everything I can think of that I would want my vassal to do. Additionally, you could extend a slightly modified and less in depth list of commands to allies, that could basically just consist of attack, defend or be passive, but they should also have more freedom to disobey and do what they want since they are not directly ruled by me (like a vassal is).

There should also be a return of the "give territory" diplomatic action. Sometimes a vassal will lose a piece of land, and I will regain it - sometimes I would actually prefer that it still be in control of my vassal, and they should also be fairly thankful to me for doing it for them. Historically, Tokugawa distributed land to the clans that followed him, and punished those that fought against him. There really should be a way to reward your vassals, because there's very few ways to keep them happy outside of direct interference with enemies close to them. Unless you just happen to be in the proper location, setting up a battle where you can assist them is a lot harder than it sounds. I often times have to reload a game after I see what my vassal will do so I can properly position myself to help him, when it would have just been easier and make more sense if I told him to do it. One of the funniest examples I've seen on more than one occasion is a province right next to my vassal that has little or no troops, with a modestly sized force of my units standing right next to the enemy castle, and my vassals' half-filled province just sitting around do nothing, or running in the opposite direction. I usually just give up and take it for myself, but still...

Another add; my vassals should automatically be extending trade agreements (if possible) between themselves, or interacting with eachother in a mutually beneficial way. I've seen my vassals not trading with eachother, which really doesn't make any sense. When their turn comes up, this is literally the first thing they should be checking to see if they can do or not.

Initially, I misread the title and thought the question was "what should be the next Total War game", to which I would have answered "Rome II." In terms of new or improved features, I definitely think Shogun 2 did many things right and would like CA to build from it. For example: keeping 4 turns per year (which allows CA to explore more limited periods of history), improving diplomacy (as always), improving battle AI in sieges (as always), and keeping the focus on smaller important areas instead of large swathes of land. Expand upon the region development system, the agent customizations, and the research. Allow regions to build on each others' strengths and weaknesses to create a balanced, unified empire (like the global food supply and province specialties). Besides that, I can't think of much else.

Welcome to the Org King David. ~:wave:

You figured out what many haven't. ~;) I like your list, but I would suggest fewer seige battles - in fact, fewer, more significant battle overall.

I also like Madae's suggestions too. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King David X

Initially, I misread the title and thought the question was "what should be the next Total War game", to which I would have answered "Rome II." In terms of new or improved features, I definitely think Shogun 2 did many things right and would like CA to build from it. For example: keeping 4 turns per year (which allows CA to explore more limited periods of history), improving diplomacy (as always), improving battle AI in sieges (as always), and keeping the focus on smaller important areas instead of large swathes of land. Expand upon the region development system, the agent customizations, and the research. Allow regions to build on each others' strengths and weaknesses to create a balanced, unified empire (like the global food supply and province specialties). Besides that, I can't think of much else.

---

What sort of limited periods would you be envisioning? Like something a hundred years or less in something the size of a smallish nation like the expansions in Kingdoms?

America del Sur Total War: Set in the years leading up to the War of the Triple Alliance, which was the peak of instability in South America and a time of violence, conquest, and TOTAL WAR.

30 years total war! It must be made!

Yeah, we got it. :daisy:

I am not sure how Akka’s initial post was phrased, but I would stop by just to note that the whole next Total War title debate is totally off-topic in a thread where the developers asked for community input on next Total War features. Now, considering the scarcity of replies -- on most gaming sites (I am not talking about Total War sites now) such a topic would get twenty pages in the first twenty four hours – we should at least make the effort for them to be relevant, revealing and, who knows, revelatory for our devs! As it stands now, two thirds of these posts are neither (including this one, I am aware of the my own quandary thank you very much).

And, ahem, a request to our moderators: perhaps you chaps could change Craig’s topic’s title to Features you’d like implemented in the next Total War game? Plus, you could move all the off-topic “I want the next X Total War” talk to THIS thread, which dealt with the subject previously.
I know it’s a fifteen minutes, boring out of your mind task, yet you chaps get the clothed faces, what on earth could you possibly want more besides that incentive to toil away in our service?
Hmm?! :curtain:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowake

I am not sure how Akka’s initial post was phrased, but I would stop by just to note that the whole next Total War title debate is totally off-topic in a thread where the developers asked for community input on next Total War features. Now, considering the scarcity of replies -- on most gaming sites (I am not talking about Total War sites now) such a topic would get twenty pages in the first twenty four hours – we should at least make the effort for them to be relevant, revealing and, who knows, revelatory for our devs! As it stands now, two thirds of these posts are neither (including this one, I am aware of the my own quandary thank you very much).

And, ahem, a request to our moderators: perhaps you chaps could change Craig’s topic’s title to Features you’d like implemented in the next Total War game? Plus, you could move all the off-topic “I want the next X Total War” talk to THIS thread, which dealt with the subject previously.
I know it’s a fifteen minutes, boring out of your mind task, yet you chaps get the clothed faces, what on earth could you possibly want more besides that incentive to toil away in our service?
Hmm?! :curtain:

---

I wonder why you never pointed this out in the first place.

Oh, I'm just a very confused character with his mind all over the place, so what can you expect. But I venture to presume that until now the rest of the sound fellows reading this would've probably thought blokes would have the sense to figure it out after the first ten times they had pointed it out and edit themselves or return back on track without the need for my personal appeal.

Considering how that went, you're stuck with my belated brainwave :2thumbsup:

Ike marechal Davout! IKEEE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowake

And, ahem, a request to our moderators: perhaps you chaps could change Craig’s topic’s title to Features you’d like implemented in the next Total War game? Plus, you could move all the off-topic “I want the next X Total War” talk to THIS thread, which dealt with the subject previously.

---

CraigTW chose his own title - I'd be loathe to amend it. His opening post is rather open - he does not mention the word features, just what "should be in" the next TW game. I think that means both the next TW title and the features are on-topic for this thread.

Supplies
An option in gameplay to turn supply on/off so it can be used or not.

Supplies - like cash - are created in your cities. Supplies are used by your soldiers and population. Supplies can be stockpiled in your cities, transferred between cities at need, supplies travel the roads/trade routes/sea lanes you have automatically.

An army will automatically request supplies from the nearest friendly town, only a certain amount of supplies can trvel down a road in a turn however. IE dirt road takes 8 supplies (can feed 8 units), so a larger army may need to be supplied via a second road aswell or be forced to pillage/forage for the remaining supplies needed. A paved road can take 10 supplies and so on. The player can create supply dumps on the campaign map the same way forts/watchtowers could be in rtw - though the best way would be to create a fort and make that the supply dump.

Enemies can cut the roads/sea lanes and deny your force supplies, as you can do to enemies also. Armies can carry a certain amount of supplies - modified by leader - tech. A caravan is a militairy unit consisting of 10 wagons loaded with supplies, each wagon carries 2-3 supplies so a single caravan can stockpile 20-30 supplies, adding extra caravans will slow the armys campaign movement and reduce the maximum soldiers in the army but add a greater stockpile of supplies - though caravans also USE supplies as they eat and drink etc. Extra supplies will arrive if the army is connected to a friendly city, but if they are not supplied they must use thier stockpile.

Foraging or pillaging makes the citizens of the area angry and rebelious, so if you take over its possible the locals will ambush your roads and reduce supply through-put.

doh have to go to work, any queries let me know and i can explain more but you get the jist of it.

Oh econ, late reply incoming!
Though probably for the best to have missed it the evening before, you're totally making me feel like "the bad guy" now, would've ruined my dinner :stwshame:

And I can understand where you're coming from if you base your decision solely on the text. I suppose it could be seen as ambiguous. My own reply was sparked by the fact that I actually wanted to settle whether we're going too much off-track with all these "X Total War" posts and I checked the threads he made originally on their official forums and at that twc thingie -- the threads he writes in his original post that this topic is an echo of -- and those were titled specifically "Feature requests", with contributors rather focused on that.

Oh well, not that much of a big deal in the end, we can go on as we did before -- we'll file this exchange under "Nagging all the way to the bank" then and hope it will shame a few nonetheless into staying on topic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowake

Oh, I'm just a very confused character with his mind all over the place, so what can you expect. But I venture to presume that until now the rest of the sound fellows reading this would've probably thought blokes would have the sense to figure it out after the first ten times they had pointed it out and edit themselves or return back on track without the need for my personal appeal.

Considering how that went, you're stuck with my belated brainwave :2thumbsup:

Ike marechal Davout! IKEEE!

---

For someone who won the pre battle speech contest,you seem very vauge,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

For someone who won the pre battle speech contest,you seem very vauge,

---

I'm assuming you meant vague, and I don't know - the post you quoted made plenty of sense to me.