What would you change about MTW?

I always like to look at computer games, especially strategy games, with the eye of a designer. Usually, even in overall great games, I can still pile a large number of spots that can be improved and even plain mistakes. Or especially in great games, because there every hiccup stands out. Such is the case with MTW. I have thrown together a list of such things for my own fun.

There are three bad faults that could be repaired with little work.

One - not being able to select directly exactly (from a drop-down list, I imagine) which unit to call in as a reinforcement at the moment you're going to call it. Before VI it was downright horrible and pretty much made me never take personal command of battles where I would have to use reinforcements. Still I just see no reason whatsoever why you shouldn't be able to choose the unit to bring in at the very moment when you are going to give the order. It would be easy to fix too.

Two - lack of information on units. This annoyed me to no end before I found frogbeastegg's unit guide. Now it annoys me just moderately, and it has no justification. There should be a display of units' charge, attack, defence, armour, speed and morale stats, much like the display of generals' loyalty, dread etc.

Three - a single peasant sitting in a Fortress sucking horseshoes so that it is unstarveable causing hundreds of casualties among the siegers is utter lunacy. The castle and siege element of MTW is poorly developed overall, but this particular thing is just outrageous. The defense machines don't run on magic. The men operating them should be represented by an inherent defense crew to the castle that would work as a garrison meaning that they make it unnecessary to add the crack-brained old goon with tree bodyguards just to make it impossible for enemy to simply walk in (worse yet, with an unhinged loon of his own) and take over the province along with the castle; they should also be bribable. This garrison team would probably need to be trained instead of popping out of nowhere. You know what, why don't we make it a regular unit (that in field battles would have the strength of slightly beefed peasants perhaps) just to keep things simple. In tactical combat, I guess the coolest way to represent them would be adding some sort of a door to the inside of every arrow tower, that can be destroyed by your men (like the gate), after which they would rush in for a moment and cause the tower to emit a bunch of screams :)

Several smaller shortcomings that could be fixed easily:

It should be possible to loop unit production and it should be possible to queue buildings that aren't available now but will be available after buildings that precede them in the queue are finished. What I mean by that is it should be possible to, for an example, queue Watch Tower AND Border Fort; say, so that once you queue Watch Tower, a greyed out icon of Border Fort appears in the buildings list.

It's annoying when depleted units always get automatically joined when you put them in the same army. This can cause a loss of a decent governor, as well as armour/weapons upgrades. They really shouldn't join unless you tell them to. There's the M key for that.

Actually, armour and weapon upgrades should be counted individually like valour. It's a little silly how 1soldier that has golden shield and sword can give the same upgrade to 99 more men if you're lucky, and how 99 men who have golden shield and sword can lose their prescious just for happening to land into the same army with a lone lunatic.

Especially once latter is the case, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to actually chop or redistribute units entirely as you please (with newly generated generals being very incompetent, obviously). Furthermore, you should be able to select portions of men by valour (or armour/weapon upgrades). Valour is such an awesome thing to micromanage.

Instead of the unpredictable retreat of units after a defeat, you should be able to manually select (in some sort of temporary limited mode) whom to retreat into the castle (if there is one) and whom to retreat to which province. The battle deployment screen should instead of the "if you retreat your units will attempt to" yadda yadda say wether or not there actually is a friendly province nearby! Am I supposed to memorise it?!

It should be possible to lay automatic routes within your empire for all produced units. Armies following such an automatic route, as well as armies who have been directed to a province that is more than one turn away, should be marked somehow so that you would recognise them and wouldn't break their route.

It's corny how you're much better off bribing the armies in a well-developed province just so that you wouldn't lose buildings (especially if it's a handful of peasants -_-). To counter this, I think bribing the whole army in the province should be as if you had conquered the province with a battle, i.e it should get pillaged. The exact same goes for the enemy abandoning the province, you shouldn't be given motive to spray the province with peasant hordes just to make the enemy leave without a fight so you can keep the buildings.

Which brings us to another point, that the AI counts unit numbers to decide wether to fight or not and ignores their quality. This would be very easy to fix: he could make the decision based on autocalc (not that it would necessarily mean that he'd never take a battle he would lose with autocalc, or always take what he'd win).

Ship battles are just tooo crazy. They are a pure gamble. Some consistency would be appreciated here.

In battle mode, it should be possible to rotate the formation of your whole army. For a group selection, the alt-right click shouldn't rotate the units around their each centre, it should rotate the whole selection around its collective centre. This would make management of big armies MUCH more comfortable. It can be annoying to micromanage as it is.

In battle mode, there should be some indication of how big portion of a selection of ranged soldiers can "see" a given location, not just wether anyone at all can see it. It's very hard to figure out sometimes, yet can be crucial. For an example, there could be a circle next to the along with the green-and-red-blinking bow-and-arrow icon, which's clockwise filling would represent this percentage.

Arbalesters make Crossbowmen completely useless. Completely useless units are not good. To counter this, Crossbowmen should have lower reload time and perhaps Arbalesters should have higher cost and upkeep, about the same as Halberdiers. In my opinion as it is Arbalesters are a bit overpowered anyway. Maybe even their current reload time should be increased.

Some units are just completely useless to begin with. Yes, I'm talking about you, Ballista and Arquebousiers. The quickest thing I can think of is giving a unit of Ballista four machines. Arquebousiers, I don't know, they should just be better heh. Some other artillery units are suspect as well.

[obvious]The AI is really stupid.[/obvious] Lulz. But seriously. I just can't see how it could be that hard to make at least strategic AI quite a bit better. If even just fans of the game can significantly improve AI's percieved intelligence by mere modding, then you know the designer of the program definitely way underperformed here.

Phew, quite a list. There must be some things I missed, as well as the bugs and tiny things like contradictory vices and such, but at the moment I can't think of much else that I could call straight mistakes or shortcomings.

MTW is overall an awesome game. In fact, the idea behind it is brilliant. I would go as far as to say the idea behind it has the potential for the creation of a perfect computer strategy game. The execution, while good, still doesn't come close to achieving that. If 10 was perfect, I would rate the game design at about 7. With the listed changes, I would raise this rating to 8 or even 9 (depending on how smart that AI would be...).

The design could be improved yet further without altering the leading idea behind it (especially regarding castles and sieging, also diplomacy, things might center more around valour and so on), but that is impossible to do just in your head without seeing your ideas in action, and also is likely to be more of a matter of personal preference.

There's only one such funny idea I had that I'll mention: perhaps the map edge syndrome could be cured by putting the map edge slightly further for the attacker than the defender. Not a whole lot, maybe the length of a three ranks deep unit of Arbalesters. Now again I can't predict with certainty how this would turn out without seeing it in action, but I actually feel that it might work beautifully. It could probably be at least a worthy option in the game settings menu. Chickenhood must to be punished!

Oh, in case you're wondering, if we set the rating 10 as the highest rank of games that actually exist, then somewhat obviously MTW gets a 10/10 from me. On a relative scale, it's simply brilliant.

What would you change about this game?

Wow, thats a whole list, lol. Apart from the obvious small f-ups in the game that I'd change, Id make these significant changes:


I'd change the way armies move around. Give them more "movement points" so to speak. Not necesarily the Rome and M2 idea, where they were still rather limited.

It's ridiculous that it takes an army a year to travel through Champagne. Ridiculous.


I'd change the speed and range of ships. This is even more ridiculous than the army movement, taking about 8 years to travel the mediterrenean. lol


The absolutely ridiculous, insane and utter frustratingly fact that you seem to be only able to trade with rival factions. What? So intra-kingdom trade suddenly can't be taxed? The F you people smoking?


Those are my three main objections to the game, and I'd change them as fast as gorging down a pizza (so yeah, about 15 mins).

I'd add trade pacts, like with R:TW, and reduce the starting province for every faction to one - and then make the rest Rebel, that way you can form your own kingdom how YOU want without costly faction wars.

/If you know how to do the latter and could tell me, that'd be kewl.

I'm afraid that would be pretty pointless. The AI would simply blitz the rebel provinces in a few turns, infrastructure would be damaged and you'd be in a worse mess.

Pointless or not, I'll take the chance :P

Purely and simply; I'd like the old MTW game engine with the latest spec. graphics.

Oh, and playable naval battles. (...with the latest spec. graphics.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

Actually, armour and weapon upgrades should be counted individually like valour.

---

They are. It just doesn't translate well visually, with the symbols on the unit panels. If you merge one gold armour/weapon trooper with 99 non-upgraded troops, it may look as though they all have the upgrade, but they don't.

Really? Thanks for that, haha. How inexplicable to mess up the display like they did then.

IIRC, the armour/weapon upgrades are per unit, valour is per man. Morale, who knows. The "captain" controls the unit's equipment. So you can merge/fill units and get "free" upgrades (or downgrades, if you are going to the desert ~;)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

It's annoying when depleted units always get automatically joined when you put them in the same army. This can cause a loss of a decent governor, as well as armour/weapons upgrades. They really shouldn't join unless you tell them to. There's the M key for that.

---

You can control this. In the minimap options, you can turn auto-tidy units off.

As far as changes I would like:

Updated video support, of course.

Less hardcoding of certain mechanics for modding purposes.

Better empire management UI. In a game like MoO2, you had the ability to pull up a scroll with all planets and a summary of what they were doing, with the ability to change certain tasking from that scroll. It would make it a lot easier to manage a large empire with this.

1. Better dipolmacy. Being able to invite your allies to attck the same turn you do would be nice. I would like to offer smaller countries the option to become vassal states instead of being attacked by me.

2. Blockades are frustrating to me. If I have no naval presence then I can see that coastal area is under a blockade. If I have ships in the area, especially when I have more ships, I can not see the province as blockaded.

Quote:

---

You can control this. In the minimap options, you can turn auto-tidy units off.

---

And I have it turned off at all times. I am talking about when you take units that weren't together and put them into the same army. Say, there are nothing but 10 Halberdiers in one army and 10 in the other, given both generals don't have any command or V&V when you put them in the same army they are joined into the same unit. It's not a huge problem by any means but it's still annoying.

Quote:

---

So you can merge/fill units and get "free" upgrades (or downgrades, if you are going to the desert ).

---

Oh, that reminds me: you should have the option to downgrade armour. Before battle so that you get it back later would be particularly deluxe, but just permament change on the strategic map would work fine as well.

It's easy to go overboard with these.

Some things that are moddable:

No armour upgrades! Or at least not so effective ones. Maybe the same with Weapon upgrades; gives the player too much of an edge. Also, breaks the unit balance, esp. Archers lose their kill ratio.

Arquebusiers should have more oomph.

Crossbows should have a use.

More camels! (not really)

Fewer factions with javelinmen.

Fewer peasants in AI stacks. Fewer siege engines in AI stacks; no more 12 Ballista + 4 Urban Militia armies attacking stacks of 4 Mounted Sergeants!

More small knolls on the battlemap (those that can have 1-2 units on top of them) for local missile/cavalry height advantage.


Some that maybe aren't moddable:

Agent stacks! These would bundle your two dozen bishops into one marker, so it would be easier to move...

Updating unit types to their newer versions (feudal sergeants to chivalric sergeants etc.).

AI Tech Tree optimization and specialization. It would be nice to see the enemy fielding Chivalric Knights once in a while... (Of course it can be done by simplifying the tech tree and giving factions higher level castles in the beginning, or limiting certain buildings to certain regions).

Revamped trade/fleet system.

Trustworthy Allies who actually do something for you.

Quote:

---

No armour upgrades! Or at least not so effective ones. Maybe the same with Weapon upgrades; gives the player too much of an edge. Also, breaks the unit balance, esp. Archers lose their kill ratio.

---

Hmm, it does get me thinking... What if Armourer line buildings were just a requirement for units that are armoured... Would make things more sensible, really. As it is, Desert Archers or Genoese Sailors can have more armour than the Halberdier and still move fast compared to their slow...

Metalsmith line always seemed a bit awkward to me to begin with (firstly if you don't have metal then where is your units's stuff coming from, secondly if your metal is low-quality or something, then why can't you still just import better?). Maybe it should make production of units, particularly heavily armoured ones, cheaper instead, probably also should be way more evenly spread out across the map. Maybe there could be some otherwise ridiculously expensive units that would become affordable with Metalsmith.

Oh, reminds me of another thing. Loyalty of the province should depend on the quality of the garrison, not just the quantity. Doesn't seem quite right to me that putting a horde of completely incapable soldiers on patrol frightens the population. On the contrary, the presence of a huge useless army would further disgruntle people, if anything. This would further tone down emergence of huge empires as well.

Re armour, does upgrading armour make the unit tire faster? I realise that there are fatigue penalties in the desert, but say you have a unit in central europe - will it fatigue more quickly with gold armour than bronze? Or are the upgrades simply makign the armour better (and thus probably lighter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

Hmm, it does get me thinking... What if Armourer line buildings were just a requirement for units that are armoured... Would make things more sensible, really. As it is, Desert Archers or Genoese Sailors can have more armour than the Halberdier and still move fast compared to their slow...

---

That's how it worked in the Pocket Mod. I basically made armourers as pre-requisite buildings, like the spearmaker, bowyer and swordsmith. The only thing that I left intact was the valour bonus for the Master level building. I then simply used it as a dependency for armoured units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

Metalsmith line always seemed a bit awkward to me to begin with (firstly if you don't have metal then where is your units's stuff coming from, secondly if your metal is low-quality or something, then why can't you still just import better?). Maybe it should make production of units, particularly heavily armoured ones, cheaper instead, probably also should be way more evenly spread out across the map. Maybe there could be some otherwise ridiculously expensive units that would become affordable with Metalsmith.

---

I renamed the metalsmith as the blacksmith and made it the pre-requisite building for all cavalry, peasant type units and axe units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

Oh, reminds me of another thing. Loyalty of the province should depend on the quality of the garrison, not just the quantity. Doesn't seem quite right to me that putting a horde of completely incapable soldiers on patrol frightens the population. On the contrary, the presence of a huge useless army would further disgruntle people, if anything. This would further tone down emergence of huge empires as well.

---

Oh but it does... the lowest quality peasant thug militia are the best for this type of work... On the whole I'd say that this works better than it does in RTW, where garrison size is proportional to the population size and once the population gets to a certain level large garrisons don't help much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MJF

Re armour, does upgrading armour make the unit tire faster? I realise that there are fatigue penalties in the desert, but say you have a unit in central europe - will it fatigue more quickly with gold armour than bronze? Or are the upgrades simply makign the armour better (and thus probably lighter).

---

My memory fails me on this. I think it's only in the sand desert and rock desert terrain types that the armour penalty comes into play though.

:bow:

After a brief disappointing :no: foray into RTW I'd change very little. This is one great game.

A very good question, that has already recieved a lot of intelligent answers.

I find, that some of the things marked as "want to change" is a result of gaming style. Take navies: They travel unrealistically, they fight unrealistically, and the results are (almost?) random. This could call for a revision of the concept, yet the very simplicity of naval affairs gives you time to think about other stuff, and even finish a game now and then. Yet the micromanager would want some more information, options and hands on-decisions. Many of the requests are "more options" like these (upgrade button, more unit stats ect.)

My gaming time is quite limited. So when I play, I want things to proceed a little faster. I want a challange, so there should be things that I need to choose between. Should I build those knights, or will a horde of slav warriors be better suited for the job? Should I build that castle, or hire those mercenaries? What I don't want is a lot of information and a lot of choices. It is striking a balance between simple and complex, yet bringing fun to the user.

Yes, granted, there are many things that work a little... funny... in MTW, yet I find that for a somewhat simple it is quite well buildt. UI can always be improved, I think that is true for almost any game. Some things can be modded, and have been - thank you guys. Yet, my list of things to change would be quite limited.

/KotR

Quote:

---

I find, that some of the things marked as "want to change" is a result of gaming style.

---

I definitely see that. I personally was careful to only list things that don't actually change the game at all and don't add any new qualities but just improve the existing ones, it's mostly interface improvements, really.

It is really slippery ice to start actually changing the game itself. You may think you want a change, but if the change actually was made, you can now see unexpected effects that you possibly like even less than the original situation. For an example, I used to wish that Arbalesters and Crossbowmen could have a (seamlessly working, of course) system where the first rank would run behind the last after shooting to reload and the second would run forth. But then I realised that this would suck out such a large portion of the tactical challenge of positioning your units, and it would probably actually make the game more boring. As mentioned before, it's extremely difficult to come up with a good design without trying it out constantly.

Variety is always good though. This is why modding is such an important part of the value of MTW. I have only tried one mod so far (XL), and I was really blown away by the effect modding can have. I was pretty much sick of MTW, thinking that I would once again leave it in the cupboard for several months until it feels new again. I thought I'd just try a mod for the heck of it before I uninstall. Well, it's as if several months have passed and it feels new again!

The perfect strategy game wouldn't even be so much one game, but an open-source project with tens if not hundreds of fan versions and mods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

For an example, I used to wish that Arbalesters and Crossbowmen could have a (seamlessly working, of course) system where the first rank would run behind the last after shooting to reload and the second would run forth. But then I realised that this would suck out such a large portion of the tactical challenge of positioning your units, and it would probably actually make the game more boring. As mentioned before, it's extremely difficult to come up with a good design without trying it out constantly.

---

It might be possible to mod the game for this. Gunners already do this, the key would be to see if this mechanism could be borrowed for non-gunpowder units. There is a bit of flexibility in the missile reloading cycle mechanics.

This place is educational as ever. I never knew about the M button merging units, though I always wished I could.

Personally I never use "M" and I always turn off the "tidy up units after battle" option. This means that I can manage the combining of like or similar valour units instead of the game just merging the lot and diluting the average unit valour.

I just realized how much I miss this game.

Viva la MTW.

What would I change? Hmmm...not a great deal at all really.

I actually find myself justifying some of the peculiarities of the existing game rather than thinking "Gee that needs a tweak". Examples?

Ship movement - I look at this as control of sea areas rather than individual ships, and so rather than looking at 8 years to cross the med, my justification is that it may take 8 years to make the route safe for merchant vessels, and also for sufficient merchant vessels to be in the region plying their trade. One boat does not a trade route make.

Troop movement - Also probably fair enough that gathering an army to go somewhere is likely to be a bit of a task, and would take some time. The reality is that you probably would not already have all of your troops sitting around ready to go (as one does in-game), so like I said, fair enough in my book.

Random Vices - Perhaps reflects the fact that both Idle Gossip and Malicious Rumour Mongering are just as powerful (perhaps more so) than the truth.

I suppose if anything, the diplomacy area is something that might be worthy of a look - just to give allies a bit more scope to work together...maybe....

Useless units...okay, perhaps this might be another area - there are a few struggling to justify their spot on the team. Beef them up or reduce their cost/upkeep.

Actually unit obsolescence is something maybe. If certain types become no longer trainable, they should perhaps be able to be upgraded (at a price of course).

Maybe the AI should also "auto merge" depleted units rather than being stuck with lots of small units.

Seriously though - all is pretty good as is. The various modders around have certainly added to the variety of the underlying game, but I think that the attraction for me of the mods is the added variety rather than the "fixing of faults/weaknesses"...which must mean that I am pretty happy with where we started from....

The two major changes I would make:

1.) Video card compatibility. (Yes, it's an obvious one, but it needs to be said anyway).

2.) Improve/fix the AI, especially on the campaign side of the game: No more allies backstabbing you for little or no reason. No more 1-province factions attacking 30-province superpowers. No more constantly retreating their way to death across the campaign map as you invade -- for gods' sake computer, at least defend your capital! No more randomly attacking my ships (but making no other aggressive moves). Better handling of fleets and trade. A more realistic assessment of its chances of victory when considering war with another faction (sure, the AI may take that first province, but can it withstand a counterattack?).


There are certainly other things like unit balance and build requirements that could be altered, but the first two are the biggies for me. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vantek

It's corny how you're much better off bribing the armies in a well-developed province just so that you wouldn't lose buildings (especially if it's a handful of peasants -_-). To counter this, I think bribing the whole army in the province should be as if you had conquered the province with a battle, i.e it should get pillaged.

---

Maybe it's a Viking Invasion thing (never installed it), because every time I conquer a province through bribes the province does get pillaged. Loss of a few buildings and everything. A notable exception is if the army is in the castle of that province: bribing them will result in NO pillaging. Nor, IIRC, a "you have taken control of..." screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I renamed the metalsmith as the blacksmith and made it the pre-requisite building for all cavalry, peasant type units and axe units.

---

I take it, then, that you also made the blacksmith as readily available as the inn, requiring not even a level 1 castle? Otherwise it seems odd to make it a prerequisite for so many things, especially considering that the blacksmith was absolutely essential to medieval life, as without him you essentially have a stone age society. In fact, it would be difficult to build even the first level castle without metal, too.

Quote:

---

Oh but it does... the lowest quality peasant thug militia are the best for this type of work... On the whole I'd say that this works better than it does in RTW, where garrison size is proportional to the population size and once the population gets to a certain level large garrisons don't help much.

---

Inexperienced soldiers tend to be brutal and downright cruel soldiers, as history shows, and while they can efficiently cow (and decimate) a camp population, they would certainly only have a detrimental effect on the loyalty if tasked with overseeing the population at large.

There are a few small changes I would do, mostly buffing the AI:

- give AI loyalty bonus for all unit leaders to prevent too many rebellions
- give AI loyalty bonus for provinces, same reason as above
- make sure AI has easier time teching up and building more advanced units (I already mod out peasants in my games)
- change the behaviour of AI generals suicide attacking my lines

All the points above should be fairly easy to implement, too bad we can't mod them in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

2.) Improve/fix the AI, especially on the campaign side of the game: No more allies backstabbing you for little or no reason. No more 1-province factions attacking 30-province superpowers. No more constantly retreating their way to death across the campaign map as you invade -- for gods' sake computer, at least defend your capital! No more randomly attacking my ships (but making no other aggressive moves). Better handling of fleets and trade. A more realistic assessment of its chances of victory when considering war with another faction (sure, the AI may take that first province, but can it withstand a counterattack?).

---

^^ I agree with this completely

One thing I would like to change back to v1.0: I want to be able to merge mercenary units, and also use them to replenish my regular troops (very useful after a bloody crusade has come to your province to leech off your armies). On that note, I wish the retraining worked the same way as in RTW: it takes too long to retrain units one by one, and there is no logical reason why you should have to.

For that matter, there is no logical reason why you can only construct one building at a time, either, and perhaps the number of buildings you can construct at the same time in one province could depend on population and/or infrastructure (and gold, of course).

Hi all, I intended to make a post here long time ago, but now I finally managed to do so…

“What would you change about MTW?”

This is a very, very interesting question and it’s also fascinating to see how people have reacted and answered this question so far. It really shows how different we all are and how we think in this regard. As for myself, well.... Apart from all the changes I already made in MTW-redux, it would be plenty of other things like (in chaotic order): more in spoiler…

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1. Include a strategic AI-editor, so you could tailor all that to your hearts content.
2. Include a tactical AI-editor, so you could tailor all that to your hearts content.
3. Include a trade-editor (including AI), so you could tailor all profits, values and revenue (all related stuff) to your hearts content.
4. Include an agent AI-editor, so you could tailor all that to your hearts content.
5. Include an agent-editor, so you could tailor all parameters and set new ones to your hearts content. Thus actually create new agent-classes!
6. Include a naval-battle-editor, setting various difficulties, influences, bonuses and penalties and so on. All this so naval battles could actually be influenced by the player settings. All in all making naval power a decent factor and fairly interesting to keep track instead current almost entirely random model. Also I would include a “withdraw”/retreat option for ships under attack. I would also, with decent naval battles system in place create various building that increased the efficiency of ships as in upgrade buildings och additional “valour” buildings and stuff like that.
7. Introduce the new parameter of “transport capacity” of ships so it required many big ships for an army of several thousands of soldiers. Small ships would only transport a very small amount. It could work like the castles do. A clear cut limit on how many troops each ship could carry each turn...
8. Include an stratmap-editor, so you could easily create other maps than the one we got on Europe (MTW) and the British Isles (VI).
9. I would change the entire diplomatic system to at least the level it has in M2TW. Because that is way better than in MTW. Also I would carefully consider to include a similar model found in “Europa universalis” with friendly/hostility ratings. Also the model for declaring war and stuff like being forced to either declare war or chicken out on alliances. Stuff like this.
10. Change the system for spies and include more activities for ‘em in the lines of what is found in M2TW at least. The various sabotage operations is a great idea! I would have them do different stuff as in a small operation menu were you could order them to do different stuff like:counter-spying/traditional spying/planting “evidence” for trials/sabotage/sparking revolts/assign them personal security duty (protecting a general from other agents)/spreading corruption (in enemy territory of course)/trial on enemy agent! (Emissary or whatever). Thus you could tick whatever duty saw appropriate for the spy in question and the he would do that solely like this was his current orders. Thus making the spy a more valued and diverse agent. And making things harder at the same time. As of now the do several thing at the same time, “me not like that”...
11. Make the princesses more useful, interesting and valuable. Giving them perhaps significant bonuses in diplomatic affairs (marriage, peace offerings and reinforcing royal connections and alliances, as in factions marry and marry again thus reinforcing the royal bounds). Give them special traits of their own as well. I would increase the loyalty bonus to +3 for a marriage of a princess among own generals.
12. Make a lot harder to get actual information on enemy territories and forces. Perhaps like divided into various stages of accuracy, depending on how much energy and resources are allocated to that end. Like estimate levels (at least 4-5 levels). Perhaps like you need an emissary or princess to get diplomatic info, a spy to get info on armies and happiness, buildings and stuff along such lines.
13. I would also make various spy, princess and emissary reports more frequent and possibly more accurate and varied.
14. Include more culture categories. At least have 3 custom slots for that end.
15. Include more religion categories. At least have 3 custom slots for that end.
16. I would include at least double the size of all bif plates and probably change the file-format for them as well. So at least 256 and 512, but I would prefer 512 and 1024 plates. The system itself is ok, once you have the plates.
17. Include at least 100 vacant custom SFX slots.
18. Include at least 100 vacant custom GFX slots.
19. Include at least 10 vacant slots for custom agents. Thus completely destroy the limited framework that the game has now.
20. I would include at least 100 vacant slots for custom units. Thus completely destroy the too limited framework that the game has now. Probably set unit max to 512 units per file.
21. Include at least 25 vacant and custom slots for projectile weapons. So you could have some solid diversity in various bows, crossbows and siege weapons. As is are too limited for my taste.
22. Include at least 60 vacant slots for custom buildings. So you could have some solid diversity in various bows, crossbows and siege weapons. It is too limited in that way for my taste as is.
23. Increase the upgrade-buildings to a 1-5 model instead of the current 1-4 (armorer and blacksmith).
24. Increase the number of basic castles to 1-8 instead of current 1-5. It would be more diverse and fun that way. Yes it would require more maps no doubt…
25. Rework all the siege stuff. As in M2TW you would have to defend a castle with the forces you have essentially, and of course they would be up and running on the walls and stuff like that.
26. I would at least include the siege-machines of M2TW and let them have similar functions. I would also have more diversity there, as in heavy/regular/light battle-ram/siege-tower/catapults and all such stuff. I would also allow siege-machines to play a more active part in battles. Move ‘em around and stuff like that.
27. Probably introduce a new agent: “Siege-engineer”, a strategic agent to move around for different impacts on sieges, shorten or prolong sieges, requirements for building stuff “on site”. Perhaps giving various bonuses on assaults and thing like that.
28. Probably introduce a new agent: “Brigand”, a strategic agent to move around for different impacts on enemy territory, high jacking tax-transports (which was partly “shipped” back to you), instigate unruliness and forcing the enemy to have greater garrisons there. Things like that.
29. Probably introduce a new agent: “Lady/Consort”, a daughter of nobility who could be married away for loyalty among your own generals or princes. But she would not be nearly as good as a true princess of royal blood. Perhaps +1 or 2 in loyalty. Essentially what the currently princess does.
30. I would make it really worth while to marry a “real” princess giving perhaps additional “xp” to the character who marriages her.
31. I would throw out much of the current, and in many ways completely random, vices and virtues thing. I would make it completely dependent on what “you” actually did, if AI-automation management was turned off. I would also divide it into to levels. 1. Tactical aspect/level of it, only relevant in battle. 2. the solely strategical aspect/level of it in which you “buy”/choose your virtues (and vices) with xp earned from battles with the general in question. 1 strat virtue is free of penalties (princes should start like that maybe, maybe this could be randomized) of any strat vices, with another one you’ll will be forced to choose a vice as well. Things like that, so all that stuff is completely related to what “you” actually do and what happens to “you”. This way a battle-hardened general would have plenty of possibilities to gain such things in contrast to a greenhorn general who simply has no xp to buy some virtues (and vices). Thus you essentially create your own general the way YOU like and not in the way CA like. Xp, yep I would definitely put ‘em in...
32. Include at least a functional naval-combat system that was ACTUALLY dependent on the different values of ships so there was any meaning at all to build different kinds (currently the only meaning is related to movement. This goes for ALL versions of MTW. Hardcoded).
33. I would make the admirals more important and probably throw in a few special and limited traits just for them. Using the Xp-model again...
34. I would reintroduce the 4 seasons/turns on each year as good ‘ol Shogun. Hence making a full year meaningful again instead of current 1 year/turn model. That way also greatly expand the lifespan of everything in the game, so you can actually do something for real with generals and agents. They will and of course should die of old age eventually (yes agents too).
35. I would make a stricter division between nobles and commons. Making it only possible for nobles to receive titles. It would work like the royal-blood thing in MTW v.1.1 roughly. Instead of a royal-blood marker there would be a “nobility” marker. These guys would only come as knights (and similar) and start with 1 star. All other troops would have 0 stars. All non-nobility unit leader would be titled “captains” and could get knighted if sufficient xp would be gathered in battle (thus “buy” a nobility marker with xp).
36. Make it a lot, lot harder to get high values on stars/command, for starters I would at least multiply 3-4 times the amount victories that is the hardcoded standard now. There are TOO many 5-9 star generals running about in the game and above all is TOO easy to get there as well. I would prefer that anything above 4 stars would extremely rare and noteworthy (yes some battle virtues would need to be reworked for that).
37. I would probably make a few adjustments on the stratmap with about 20-30 additional provinces, 3-4 in “Spain”, 3-4 in “France” 5-6 in the British Isles, 4-5 on the Apennine peninsula, 4-5 in North Africa and the rest in the eastern part of Europe. All this might be problematic with current system and map.
38. Rework the various thresholds for the generic tactical campaign categories such “powerful attack”, “good defense” and “good moral” and stuff like that to be far more diverse and operating over greater span of numbers. I would have changed reduxes combat-system even more if it not were for these... So yes, in order to create even more diversity in the unit-stats (thus making battles even harder and more dependent on units and their training. Redux is probably just about 50% of were I really wanted to go with all that).
39. Include an Orthodox and pagan game-score.
40. Include an pagan battle-order-sound-set.
41. I would at least include one custom battle-order-sound-set
42. I would make the game far more compatible with all new hardware.
43. I would have killed ALL well documented and discovered bugs in the game.
44. I would have destroyed the current name-framework and model in the game. I would the replace it with a model with at least 60 vacant and optional custom titles for various pieces such as agents, rulers and generals and all that. So it were possible to have mixed rulers if one would like that (it is not possible due to the current model, at least not on an acceptable level). Thus you could have titles that would work with queens, female knights and female spies (like “lady de Winter” in 3 musketeers etc.) and different and more adjustable name-structures like Spylord, Champion, Priestess, Highcaptain, Grand Admiral, Archdruid, Shieldmaiden or whatever. Hell I would even devise a system with “suggested defaults” that you could rewrite in the ongoing game. As in the title “General” rewritten by the player to “Hero” for instance.
45. I would include a portrait amount editor for agents and generals and all that. A thing that could actually set the framework and the exact number of used for various portraits, so it could be controlled by the player if he/she wanted to. As 1-40, 1-12, 1-1, 1-24 etc. It should have the capacity to go between 1-99 at least.
46. I would include 500 custom and vacant event and news slots.
47. Introduce multiple choice and effect events similar to Europa universalis.
48. Perhaps introduce a stability-factor in the game inspired by the one found in Europa universalis, but I would have designed it 10x times better and compliant to what you actually do. (It’s really a joke what they got in E.U2, not played E.U3 thou, but my guess is that it is more of the same crap).
49. Introduce a fully operational land-trade, as in trade caravans and the like.
50. Maybe introduce additional resources, at any rate, include 10 custom slots for such things in the game.
51. I would rework mercenary-model so in could be completely adjustable and controlled by the player if he/she wanted to (totally moddable).
52. I would have some animations on the strat-map. Nothing fancy is required but something because it’s just static as is. Some waves in the sea, or the whale that they never used or something.
53. I would have some basic and simple animation on all the agent-pieces in the game, not the static poses that it currently has. Again Europa universalis comes to mind.
54. I would probably introduce another new agent: “Jester”, a strategic agent to move around for different impacts on happiness in your realm, possibly does some simple spying as well in enemy territory with the trade off that the agent is visible and still makes the people there happy as well! So there was some sort reason for the enemy to leave the agent alone instead of immediately order an assassin on the case.
55. I would devise a system that would at least allowed limited campaigns for multiplayer mode. I have NEVER understood why CA did not take that freaking excellent opportunity to allow players to enjoy stuff like that. Campaigning against each other! That would be so much more cool and fun! I would have kept the current “heads on” battles as well.
56. Include small and optional cut-scenes in the tradition of shogun and in similar size (not that crappy stuff like M2TW, with too much loading time, yet poor in quality regards to that loading time).
57. I would include at least 10 additional stock unit bif-plates, thus providing more possible variation. The ridiculously hard task of doing custom ones is simply too much work.
58. I would include at least 3-4 additional stock bif-plates on horses. Thus providing more variation.
59. I would have included a lot more SFX in the strat-map and the various events and things that happens there. But I would keep the excellent sound quality. Actually MTW have a very high quality in sounds, it’s just that the program does not seem to cope with that fact too well (too much lag). A shame really. Actually about 50% of MTWs entire size is directly related to SFX and game score.
60. I would include a lot more generic news so you could “drown in all that” if you wanted too. Set as an game option of course.
61. I would include a deployment phase while attacking in tactical, although the deployment area would be 25% of the map area available to the defender.
62. I would include the entire map while deploying as a defender in tactical mode. Short of the attackers deployment zone of course. That way you could actually do some serious ambushing.
63. I would develop the glorious achievements system radically and provide an editor to that end. Making it possible to create new ones and/or fully adjust all of the existing ones.
64. Include an “Influence” editor so that could be adjusted fully to your hearts content.
65. I would make it an optional possibility for the player to freely assign portraits within each category (spies, emissaries etc.) and all this while playing – as in during an ongoing game.
66. Possibly included some simple variation within each portrait like “Castle Wolfenstain/Doom” kind of thing. Or some lighter animation similar to the ones found in Starcraft/Warcraft. I would have made sure that all loading times were under strict control and kept within acceptable standards. Otherwise I would discarded that possibility.
67. I would have animated the sea, if a simple and efficient method of that could be provided, without much extra loading time, otherwise I would abandon it completely.
68. I would have included a total unit-editor which allowed the player to modify ALL parameters in regards to tactical mode.
69. Introduced “smaller campaigns” in the game with lets say 25 provinces conquered for a valid win. As in I would have reworked the victory conditions for the game. Roughly like this: Minor victory=25 regions, Major victory=50 regions, Total victory=100 regions or the whole map.
70. I would have introduced “Minor campaigns” similar to those found in M2TW although I would have designed it differently than that.
71. Reworked the entire historical campaign system so that you would get something similar to the SSI classic; the excellent and simple solution of “Panzer General”. Thus the troops you have would follow you thru each episode (battle) from one to the next during the entire “historical” campaign. Gaining resources for that depending on how you fought your battles and how well you won these or lost them! Yes, you should be able to continue such campaigns even if you loose a battle. It’s not historical anyhow, it’s purely speculative so lets embrace that fact and let the speculative scenario work for us instead! History has very little to do with videogames, even if I find it hard time believing that CA would openly and thoroughly admit that ironclad fact. History serves only as a good source of INSPIRATION, nothing else.
72. I would have the battle-map textures bigger, at least doubled in their size.
73. I would have included more cosmetics in tactical mode. More birds, buildings, cows, sheep, fleeing peasants and stuff like that. And I would made sure that all sound-files were correctly applied to every circumstance. As in no humming bees during winter-battles and stuff like that.
74. I would have made things a bit more foggier because it creates a good atmosfare in the battle map, me thinks….
75. I would have included Tree SFX in tactical mode...
76. I would have included a reworked fire-GFX-model.
77. I would have made almost everything flammable, including trees. Smoldering towers, oh boy that would have been nice!
78. I would have included an optional “Battle Psycho”- game score that kicked in after a certain amount of minutes and with some accurate and functional triggers. Thus adding some real flavor to battle (as it should be in my opinion, making them nasty and dramatic. Music devised and composed in the excellent and expressive tradition of the classic movie score of Apocalypse now. Oh boy that would be cool! Making battles nasty). I don’t give rats ass about the rating board would slam an “18+” on the game, so be it…. To me it would have been well worth it.
79. Included various levels of gore and blood settings in battles...
80. I would have made it possible to adjust SFX and GFX settings in battle.
81. Included a few victory and loss grades for Battle. Like minor, major and total victory/loss. Just to get a fast perspective on how to evaluate it. Essentially like M2TW but better and more explicit. Also I would have “sexed up” the battle-results menu.
82. I would have allowed multiple recruitments of troops like M2TW. That is a good idea and I would want it in here as well...
83. I would have reworked the reinforcement system during battles.
84. Increased the max operational units in battle to 24 units.
85. I would have made each strat unit-stack have a max of 1000 men, instead of the current 960 men. Easier that way...
86. Reworked siege-loss formulas... As in no losses the first turn and then it would increase more and more for each new turn. But all this in a slow pace at least the first 3-4 turns. Sieges should take time, but not 10 full years…
87. I would have made the papist reappearances optional...
88. I would ensure that all weapons and shields worked properly and at least complied to Tyberius standard.
89. I would have made ALL portraits to comply with the redux standard.
90. I would have included the possibility for the armies to move thru two regions instead of the current one (while on land).
91. I would have made the AI fight stubbornly for each and every province as long as it held less then 12 proivinces. Only retreating if there actually was another province to retreat to, and only at odds worse than 2:1.
92. I would have AI to do less crusades/jihads and above all made these more spectacular and important. A crusade should grant piety bonuses for ALL units that have joined it, not just the general. And I would probably raise that bonus somewhat, possibly +2 piety.
93. I would have probably sexed up all menus and interfaces in the game, lots of goldtext and metal, older yellow-ish parchments, some basic animations and SFX on top of it all.
94. I would have made all GFX files in standard formats so they were easily moddable…. Animations in gif for instance (it would probably work just fine). Targa-format on all GFX should work just fine, thus throwing bifs, lbms and all that special crap out the window.

Darn! If I just managed to brainstorm another six changes it would have been a solid 100-list! Nobody is perfect here.... :grin:

So, the real short version of it is that I would change a lot of things. There are probably more I would have changed but this is all I can think of for the moment, apart from the all the changes already made in redux.

- Cheers

Axalon to design M:TW3 plz, k thx. :2thumbsup:

the failure rate of assassins.
get so sick of slowly building up an assassins valour to 4-5 stars setting him on a valour 0 emmissary in your own provinces with a 93% success rate and then failing.
I would prefer realistic success percentages.
In reality it never seems more than 25%
With a good assassin, you attempt 4 low level targets in four consecutive years and the odds are very good you will fail at least one of these times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fagar

the failure rate of assassins.
get so sick of slowly building up an assassins valour to 4-5 stars setting him on a valour 0 emmissary in your own provinces with a 93% success rate and then failing.
I would prefer realistic success percentages.
In reality it never seems more than 25%
With a good assassin, you attempt 4 low level targets in four consecutive years and the odds are very good you will fail at least one of these times.

---

You may be confusing your assassin failing an assassination attempt with your assassin getting caught by counterspies before he can even attempt the assassination. Beware of border forts and also be aware that a rival faction assassin or spy could be counterspying in the province.

good points, vantec but:
"Actually, armour and weapon upgrades should be counted individually like valour. It's a little silly how 1soldier that has golden shield and sword can give the same upgrade to 99 more men if you're lucky, and how 99 men who have golden shield and sword can lose their prescious just for happening to land into the same army with a lone lunatic"

actualliy they are individual, just armur stats displaed for unit lider,not for whol unit and it is really
deceptive:after merging units seemse like all unit is armured,but actually it may be only lider ...
dont be surprise with high casualties..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

You may be confusing your assassin failing an assassination attempt with your assassin getting caught by counterspies before he can even attempt the assassination. Beware of border forts and also be aware that a rival faction assassin or spy could be counterspying in the province.

---

Unfortunately I wish I was. I may have worded it poorly but I actually said:
'I get so sick of slowly building up an assassins valour to 4-5 stars setting him on a valour 0 emmissary in your own provinces with a 93% success rate and then failing'

It's not really all that big a deal but just a frustration I would change if I could.
As a matter of interest it is my understanding that border forts act as 4 valour counterspies and I have always been led to believe that any valour 5 or more assassins can get through undetected unless there is a border fort and an enemy agent there as well to stack the valour bonus?

Let me get this right - the game says it's 93 %, but in reality it seems to be 75 %. So what you would change is the game information. Or is it that you believe the game sometimes "cheat", and let your assasin die even though he shouldn't. And it is the "cheating" you would change?

7 % is a slim change, but not impossible. And sometimes you get unlucky. I've played many civ games where combat odds are given in %, and lost more than once even though I had 99 % change of succes. (Tanks vs. Knights actually, though I find the actual battle situation hard to imagine...)

But I don't know if you've done some serious testing on the matter. I for one would not be overly surprised if the AI actually cheated a little.

/KotR

You have it right on both accounts KotR.

I would change the game information to represent a more realistic percentage because I feel that in displaying the current percentages the game is cheating.

I have done a fair bit of testing on this and you would expect failure from time to time that is what the percentage of failure is for but a good assassin 5 Valour on a 0 valour emmissary seems to fail at least once in every 5 hits or so.

With the listed % success rate of 93% you would expect to fail only once every 10 attempts not every 5 at the most.

I'm sure I've said this before, but I would like to be able to bankroll allied or neutral states to shore them up against rival powers. Not that the AI would necessarily make good use of it... Also, to have a better chance of making alliances or marriages by offering a cash or territorial incentive. And maybe the ability to cede territory without war, to avoid falling out with useful trade allies.

Nice Bregil.
That would definately add to the game IMO

I edited this to get rid of things that are just preferences, and only leave ideas that I think are genuine improvements.

1: I wish that an assassin could attack a general who is not the leader of his stack. I might want to take out an heir, or a really great governor of Constantinople who is making the enemy much money, rather than the top dog, especially if my assassin has a 0% chance against numero uno.

2: It might be fun if your spy in your own province would have the option of feeding misleading information to an AI spy, or trying to turn him, instead of killing him off. Perhaps you could choose to give him information encouraging his faction to invade your province or to not invade. (Make a strong province sound weak, or a weak one strong.) Or how about making him expect another AI province to invade his homeland?

3: I think that the Mongol invasion should be randomized a bit. The main force could arrive a bit further north or south than its current range, and not necessarily on the year it is expected. The Mongols should come as a nasty surprise. That can't really be arranged, but at least it could be less predictible. It should be possible to turn this feature off, though. It could spoil the balance if you are playing the Russians.

4: I would like to be able to pick my side for the historical battles and campaigns.

5: better diplomacy rules

6: I think some "fog of war" random events at the tactical level would shake things up and give the AI a slightly better chance.
A: Sometimes one or two of your units just don't show up. Maybe captain dummy couldn't read the map.
B: orders can be misunderstood. Occaisionally a unit doesn't follow your orders but does something else. How likely this is and how long it takes to regain control depends on how far away your general is. A bit like impetuous units but can affect any non-general unit and the unit's action might not be an attack.
C: Now and then, some jerk just switches sides right before the battle begins, or maybe even part way through a battle. Could really throw a wrench in your plans and force an immediate change of tactics.
7: The issue of movement at a strategic level has been raised before. This is my suggestion. You can move a unit one or two provinces. However, troops that move two provinces have a chance of suffering losses (stragglers) and also a chance of not making it to the second province. The lower the troops' morale, the higher their chance of not getting where they wanted to go and/or losing troops. You don't get to know the results of attempted forced marches until next turn, unless you find out when the tactical map opens, and it turns out that your enemy managed to force march extra troops to the battlefield intact, while some of your guys never even showed up! This idea is based on the forced marches in an old board game called "War and Peace."

All ideas under #6 and 7 should have three levels:
A:off
b: on
c: on, but the player is more likely to suffer bad effects.

I forgot. I wish that assassins would not follow their targets into enemy territories where there are towers or boarder forts, unless you specifically tell them to risk it.