Printable View
Like the title says, what new features would you like to see in the new title of CA, or would there be something old you would like to make a comeback?
For me i would like to have quite few units as historically there wasnt many and one thing in particular would be to have dismounting samurai / Kachi unit that could possibly fight with both yumi and Yari spear. That would be lot closer to the real deal.So what you think?
I have a bad feeling, it will be Napoleon: Total War, but with Shogun sprites
I thought Napoleon was supposed to be much better than Empire?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Multiplayer campaign (the article says there will be one but I believe it when I see it).
A small but good quality campaign, a still fear they will try to make it huge in some way, I want it to be simplistic.
A few more units than in the original, even if it breaches historical accuracy. I wouldn't want to many, but a bit of variation is good.
Fantastic Landscapes (I think they can pull that one off if not the others).
Oh and good AI, I think shogun 1 had decent AI, it would be good if Shogun 2 did too.
Non-invincible Geishas.
Warrior Monks!
No anime/manga.
Units have different heraldry depending on which province they are recruited from.
Warrior Monks!
Oh, almost forgot...
RETURN OF THE ASSASSINATION VIDEOS! I loved them...
Better gameplay.
1. I like having fewer but more distinguishable units. Ever since Medieval, the number of units keep going up but the differences between them have become so minor that they have really become indistinguishable from each other. Empire had different stats for all the different line infantries of each faction but the differences were mostly too minor as to be worth bothering with.
I like the days of Shogun and Medieval 1 where units mattered. There really was a big difference between the elite units and the peasant units. Stuff like having spears or swords or armor piercing weapons and the like mattered. There was also a noticeable difference between fast and slow infantry and fast and slow cavalry. There were also clear differences in the cost and upkeep between the better units and the lower ones.
2. Fewer but more varied maps. Ever since Rome, the tactical battles were done on the tile were the defending army was on. That meant that almost everything was flatland. I'm so tired of fighting on flatland all the time.
STW had bridge battles, the occasional two bridge battle, battles with choke points, multiple hills, mountains, forests, etc. I used high ground, bridge and forest advantages all the time on Shogun and Medieval 1. I've barely used them on any Total War game since. I don't even remember any bridge battles post-Medieval 1. I haven't lured any cavalry to forests, either. It was all flatland.
I always prefered produceable agents, I never liked the spawning ones
Varied terrain; hills, forests that provide arrow cover, never liked garrisoning buildings...don't know if S2 will have that
family trees, blood line all that etc.
that's all I can think of at the moment.
Most vital is a return to the Risk type campaign map :bow:
With the Rome type it is essentially impossible to retreat.
In Shogun it was at times best to fall back when faced by superior numbers, gather more force over a few turns & then retake the lost territory.
Often there would be a border buildup then one side would attack & the victor would quickly gain a bunch of territory as the loser fell back, rebuilding his forces until the victors army was sufficiently thinned by having to garrison & the loser was able to concentrate enough force to be a viable defense.
Many other things that were common & cool in Shogun/Medieval are impossible or very rare in the Rome style, like: Allied reinforcement, Sneak attacks by what you thought were friends into provinces you just launched an invasion from, Rethinking your plan if you realise what you were going to do leaves you too vulnerable...
- Better AI
- Risk-style campaign map
- Fewer unit choices (thus better balancing)
- 4 season years
- Moddability
- No Steam/SecuRom
Do you really think CA will return to this type of map? After all the time and effort put into the 3D style one? I too would like it but I am not expecting as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Edit: Steam smells
1. Better battle AI
2. Better campaign AI
3. Modability
4. No invasive securirom
I doubt it. But maybe they can make the engagement box big enough to essentially duplicate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Nerd
That's a brilliant idea! Do you think the AI could manage it? To leave his city and come out onto the field? He hasn't done that since MTW, and that was when he had no choice!Quote:
But maybe they can make the engagement box big enough to essentially duplicate it.
Indeed. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
There's only one thing CA can do to get me to buy: deliver on the AI front. Everything else is icing on the cake, but if the AI can't even form a battle line then you can count me out.
The game will be on a new engine.
I want an EU3 map system. With all the overlays you can have. Political, trade, diplomatic etc
Very, very very cautious about the seemingly RPG element they are slipping in.
Everyone liked the vices and virtues that were added in MTW. The RPG stuff might not be too bad. All in optomistic speculation of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
I think too that the RPG element existed in RTW and beyond. However if i understand this correctly - and they mean it as it was in the original, it won't be an RPG element - just that the game will involve the player's character at the centre of everything. In the original such a thing was present inthe sense that the daimyo was the heart of the clan - he had to personally negotiate and fight.
Also i think that the right game to make a paradoxian camp map was Empire. if again i'm reading this corectly and this is indeed a back to basis move, then the smaller scope, roster, less clans etc is the perfect setting to make this as clearly TW as possible ie a blend of strategy and tactics with the focu on the battles rather than a complex strategy game. Of course i may be wrong, because i don't know what they have in mind and there is a large fanbase that wants such a thing to cater for.
this may work , though i did like the old map system much more than the current 3d one..Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
i would just like to see better detail in the unit animations , specifically in two areas
first off , the more "elite" type units (or just certain units in general) to field a variety of personal weapons in the unit with different animations for each ... right now you can have multiple weapon skins and unit skins per unit .. but when you see an enitre unit of 2h sowrdsmen etc .. or a unit of dismounted knights all with swords.. just seems a bit out of place ..
second would be the collision ... how about multiple units attacking single units etc .. instead of this constant dueling we see ... also with attack stances ... instead of some units (non disciplined for spear walls etc ) just standing back in line , something else could done with them ? (not too sure on this one)
Ofcourse i would be blown out from my shoes, if there would be an overhaul in the battle system, which would make the game more realistic and lot more hard for human players. Japanese armies were composed of contingents of vassals and allies, not homogenious Clan armies. So if the player could not micromanage troops directly, but just give orders to whole contingents, while two equally dumb AI contingents could slug it out after. Maybe the player could only have direct control of his personal contingent. I know this is just a wet dream which will not happen, but its just an idea. In any way, this can be simulated in MP, with different humans allied to each other.
- return to the Risk style campaign map;
- no Steam or SecuRom.
This^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
And vastly improved AI/diplomacy.
Battles must also be tactical not the idiotic rush-fests they have been in previous TW's.
They should because it was better.Quote:
Do you really think CA will return to this type of map? After all the time and effort put into the 3D style one?
Doesn't mean it has to be 2D but it needs that functionality so we can get back to being able to withdraw when we need to & have ally battles again.
Given that the first game had this, it would almost just be a modification of that, I'd like to see how the recent methods work instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Although I have the BOA mod, so I am infact playing Shogun on the Rome engine, more or less, its good. :grin:
Bigger engagement box sounds like a good idea.
Good, I dislike the Empire engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
One thing i would like to see would be attrition. Also they could still use the 3d map, but use pahfindinding so that the AI armies would use roads preferably in order to march straight into enemy. Also entering non allied zone with an army should mean instant war. So the AI could have a condition not to enter a neutral lands in any other case then war. That would eliminate the AI armies hanging around in strange places at the map. Also the attrition would melt down armies in non friendly areas.
The Risk map would be a step backwards, methinks. The 3D Style maps offer a lot more flexibility, and the main problem I'm hearing with the 3D maps (Retreating inflexibility) could easily be solved by allowing you to choose where to retreat. (Although obviously not forwards)
Sod flexible. Give me 'works' & AI knows how to use it.
I don't want to return to what is essentially to just an even more Japanese version of Dice Wars.
If you don't want flexibility, than by all means return to playing STW I.
1, A multiplayer chat room.
2, A return of assassination videos, loved them also.
3, A return of the old classic map damn what was it called the one with small rises in the center that the defender would try and hold and hills on left and right side, was the default MP map until modded flat maps came in.
4, Balance
5, The return of massive mountains, thinking back to those ridiculous hill battles that ElmoOfFear used to make me join late evenings.
6, Hopefully the return of Takiyama (Mizu) and other old Shogun Clans missing atm.I know I'm up for that fellow Takiyama's
I just hope they can make it good.
NO risk map please, I for one actually considered it a mayor improvement when they introduced the 3d campaign map.
Combined naval and land battles, port assaults and the like. I missed this the most actually in Empire but have been looking forward to this since Viking Invasion(slightly off topic, I wish they make naval battles in a viking total war)
Assassination movies of course
The style of Shogun totals atmosphere was really something different then the other games and looking at the trailer they seem to be returning to that so no real worries there.
Little concerned about the engine, are they going to use the empire engine if so how are they going to make that work. And if there making a new engine I hope they can make it stable enough with the first instalment , not having the expansion deliver what the first one should have.
I want to see the Rome style map, not the Risk style. The original map was one region, same battlefield every time. That would be a huge step backward.
I want castles (with ditches or motes) to besiege.
I want the idea of “rock, paper, and scissors” discarded. Units should behave correctly. If a unit was strong in a particular role it need not be artificially weakened in order to enhance the role of some other unit. If yari troops are strong against cavalry they need not be weak versus sword wielding troops. Not all troops are especially useful in particular situations. Designers must not say, for example “Since this unit is really strong in melee we had better make it especially vulnerable to missile fire” or “When the attack strength goes up the defense strength must come down”.
I would like to see units of samurai using all sorts of weapons, not just one. These guys used whatever they liked. They were warriors.
I want alliances to be important and battlefield treachery a possibility.
Is there any evidence of a geisha ever assassinating a daimyo? I do not believe they were so good they left no evidence. But if there is evidence, I’d like to hear it.
I personally wouldnt want to see any other mainly sword unit rather then the mandatory Nodachi samurais who really were a rare instance as individual samurais on the battlefield never operating as units, but i am quite sure that a Nodachi unit cant be avoided. Other then that Katana was only a sidearm for samurai and cheaper mass produced versions or wakizashi´s were used by Ashigaru´s, so please no katana units. Sidearm for many units, yes, but not the main weapon.
Minor correction, the last incarnation of the risk map (MTW), had as many battlefields as there were borders and a random factor - so in theory there could be many random maps. The 3D RTS map first seen in RTW had set, flat maps, per map tile usually based around the roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
I fully understand that we will be getting the 3D map, and I'm not opposed to that as such (I like the idea of fighting countless battles in diverse terrain types), but the original map design is not as limited as some like to make out. It's apples and oranges, the original risk map was good, but it's gone and I can't see CA bringing it back.
I think the RPS element is a strength. An entirely historically accurate experience does not necessarily make a good game and would lead to unit redundancy (as is the case in the newer titles).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
I think the Yari was the weapon of choice at the time? The idea of massed units of katana wielding Samurai rushing each other is a myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
-Edit: In essence what Kagemusha just posted.
I like the idea of battlefield treachery. This was discussed countless times, even before RTW's time, but has never been implimented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
The geisha in STW is fantasy. I think there is evidence of female ninja, but they were not geisha - I forget the name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
A return to unit balance and a strong CAI that is capable of beating you. In the original, battles were for provincial control, not just skirmishing for the rights to siege the local city. Even though I rather like the 3D-style of map, the AI just didn't seem to know how to make it work so if a more "Risk" type of map is done, so be it. I miss the excitement of your entire empire hinging on the outcome of a single battle.
Lots of contemporary art and influences. Great music too.
In all honesty, the closer the Battle Mode of STW2 is to STW1, the better. 3D Visuals, and that's it. Any of you think it needs anything else???
Campaign Mode is a different story as STW1 was way too basic to even compare to the later TW games. Really looking forward to see how they are going to approach the campaign map, resources and all that. Japan is not Europe - it's much smaller, fewer zones. I think going back to Risk-style map isn't a bad idea in the case of STW since it's so compact.
I really don't think they are going to go backwards on the map technology. I would not expect a Risk style map.
Historical unit accuracy would be highly desirable and I hope they implement that. I think an important aspect of their games were lost when they tried to "balance" the units rather than replicate the historical accuracy of what happened. There is a real opportunity to educate and inform people about the time periods they pick. But it will be our multiplayer brethren who potentially spoil that with their desire to have a meaning full multiplayer experience. They do not coexist in the same unit roster as far as I'm concerned.
I want to see good Battle AI and Campaign AI. I want to see the AI, if on the brink of destruction, be more willing to become a Vassal or an ally, or give something to me. I want what they promised in ETW, I want to see the AI determine the importance of a battle and actually RETREAT if things aren't going their way.
I want a different experience if I'm playing a different faction. Also don't balance the single player/multiplayer together. It makes it really lame that the game gets changed because someone is using an exploit online for their own ego. I don't mass mortars and quicklime, okay? I don't see why the unit accuracy should go down because people respond too slowly.
You are correct in your assessment that often historical accuracy/single-player experience gets in direct conflict with unit balance/multiplayer experience. This is especially true when the game has only a few units and most armies look the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
That is exactly why back in the day, 10 years ago, we used to insist with CA to make a seperate unit stat table for multiplayer only. That way you can get a historically-correct and fun campaign experience in single player while multiplayer addicts who don't give a flying crap about history can enjoy their fully balanced units and armies. ;-)
Maybe they can finally do this in STW2 - in the wish list :)
Well I really hope so Terazawa. if they try and fudge the damn thing I'm going to have to throw something at CA for being less than informed about their own game style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terazawa
Actually I'm loving that Dice Wars :cheerleader:Quote:
I don't want to return to what is essentially to just an even more Japanese version of Dice Wars.
If you don't want flexibility, than by all means return to playing STW I.
I guess its not 'Flexibility' that is the problem, its that we are talking about different flexibilities.
The Shogun/Risk style gives flexibility to retreat properly & to give/recieve allied aid but doesn't have manoeuvre.
The Rome style has Theatre level flexibility of manoeuvre but makes it nearly impossible to ever retreat or have allied reinforcement.
I prefer the strategic withdrawal & allied gameplay.
Which is not to say that Theatre level manoeuvre needs to be sacrificed.
What is really needed (& I now remember pointing this out in the build up to Empire) is a 3rd, Theatre level of the game.
My proposal is this:
- Risk style turn-based at the Strategic level.
- Real-time 3d battles at the Tactical level.
- A new Theatre level so that when two armies are in the same province, you get a zoomed in Rome style map of the province & either a period of real-time or several turns of Rome type army manoeuvre per Strategic map turn.
When armies meet on the Theatre level you'd have a Real-time battle on that territory like how we have in the existing Rome style Strategic level.
Could even allow two armies to be in the same province without a battle, standing off/manoeuvring across multiple Strategic turns.
Raiding villages would also work better since there would be time for a defender to react. Could even allow for proper dispersed/concentrated army gameplay.
Allied support would happen Shogun style on the Strategic level & then the allied force would be present on the Theatre level as a separate army (under the control of the player?).
Would be best to have some sort of ability for the two forces to join & manoeuvre together as allies, an AI that would try to do that & on the opposing side, attempt to keep the allied forces separated & defeat them in detail.
This is a big part of the problem with the Rome style strategic map, its virtually impossible to successfully strategically retreat.Quote:
I want to see the AI determine the importance of a battle and actually RETREAT if things aren't going their way.
In Shogun you can retreat at the strategic level with no harm to your army (unless the fall-back province is taken by the enemy in the same turn!)
You can also retreat in-battle and your army/remnants will withdraw to a different province.
The AI could & did do this.
Two of my alltime favourite Total War battles were:
- Shogun: My 'pissing around' army consisting entirely of high honour, fully upgraded Kensai & battle ninja went on assault vs a near full stack of mostly Ashigaru.
The Strategic AI saw only a handful of enemy & told the garrison to fight. The Battle AI took one look at those super-elite guys & ran the hell away!- Medieval: The Golden Horde attacked a vastly outnumbered (like 10:1 or worse), infantry heavy army that I'd carefully setup hidden in a small forest.
The Horde had a couple units of cavalry severely mauled probing my front & flanks, seems to have realised it was not going to be able to do much damage with the big 'cav in forest vs infantry' & 'units in forest vs arrows' penalties and that I wasn't going to be lured out of my forest (I clamped down hard on chasing), turned around & decided to attack something easier next turn.
The AI used to do these tactical retreats even in Rome (haven't played enough M2:TW to know if its still happening there) but often the retreat is not to a safe area due to the movement restrictions, so they normally still lose, just in a 2nd battle.
Also the default unit balancing was done with values that meant the AI rarely realised when it was at a disadvantage.
Various mods improve this amongst other balancing issues.
------------------
A separate suggestion I'd like to see would be Diplomacy level gifting of units between Allies. This would have interesting game-play effects & could enable Allies to be actually useful.
Victoria allowed something just like that, and it provided a really interesting way to boost an ally's chances. Of course, half the time they'd totally mismanage your resources - but i always loved the idea of giving troops to other nations and having them gain experience to return home as veterens, ready to fight for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoom
If there was a way to instantly recall such gifts, (say because someone declared war on you while your units were gifted. Perhaps impose turn limits on their reappearance to simulate them journeying home) and have them return to your capital? That'd be a great addition to the diplomatic model. Provided the AI could handle it of course.
I seem to have failed to finish the sentence :oops:
Should have ended "actually useful".
Agree on them being returned under certain circumstances, that'd be an important aspect :yes:
I always thought the 3d map was an improvement and each CA game has made it better. It allows for a more in depth campaign within each region that simply adding more regions cannot do so I hope they continue to move forward on this.
However STW had the best atmosphere of all of the game so I hope this will be just as immersive.
One thing I would like to see return is the army formations. I know I can set up my own but I always enjoyed playing around with the preset formations.
And part of that immersion is the subtle hints that the campaign map is a piece of paper on the floor of your campaigning tent, covered with tokens indicating friendly & enemy forces and that you're the Daimyo sitting there puzzling your options before sending off messengers to deliver your orders by pushing 'end turn'.Quote:
However STW had the best atmosphere of all of the game so I hope this will be just as immersive.
The Rome type map doesn't really give that sort of immersion in implementations so-far.
Its not impossible to do though, you get some hints of it in Empire & the beta for R.U.S.E. (WWII RTS) had a wider than strictly necessary max zoom out which showed the map as sitting in the middle of a command bunker (think Battle of Britain) with people sitting around it all WWII style & bits of command style background noises coming more prominent as you zoom out.
At full zoom in R.U.S.E. goes about as close as you get in Shogun/Medieval but you spend most of the time about the same zoom as you do in the Rome type 3D map.
I know that there's no chance but a bloody battlefield was a great atmospheric trait. Real red blood. Everywhere. It just made the whole battle seem, I dunno, worthwhile in a twisted sort of way.
Korea/Asia Expansion. I would honestly buy it if it doesn't come out in mod form first.
A multiplayer foyer for chat! i like napoleon totalwar but cant get into it at all due to the lack of a foyer.
They should do it so you loan a general with the units, similar to the Crusade system which the computer would use (and you would use when you recieved some).Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
It should also affect relations if you just kamakazi with another players units as well, and other factors.
I would love a campaign that starts in the 12th century "Horse and Bow" era and allows the player to progress right up to the 16th/17th Centuries. Could also include the Yuan/Mongol invasions of the 13th Century...
And please NO risk-like strategic map - that was my biggest peeve with the original. Japan is a rugged, mountainous country and armies were usually confined to roads for a reason
Oh and YAH!
A really good AI on the battlefield and on the campaign map. That's it.
They will most likely use the Empire one as it will follow their established pattern of getting two games out of each engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by snorky
I haven't posted here in forever, mostly because I stopped following TW after Medieval 1, but I saw they were re-making STW recently so I popped on back.
Anyway, one thing I'd like to see is this time around to have the Yari Ashigaru carry nagae yari (longspears) and function as pikeman/phalanx and the yari samurai carry the shorter version and function more as elite spearmen. That's always bothered me from the first one, where yari ashigaru were just cheap junk troops (until they become cheap overpowered units in MP later, heh) when historically they had their own tactical role on the battlefield.
Although this brings up another point which concerns me now, as I saw they claimed to be making 30-40 units (which will no doubt increase with the obligatory expansion). Give the japanese only really used about 10 weapons at the time period tops I'm not seeing how they are getting that number. There's the long and short yari, nodachi which were rare, katanas which were not carried alone but with another weapon, teppo which *could* be split into arquebus/musket again, naginata, nagamaki which were also not common, and daikyu and hankyu (yumi, bows) which too were not carried alone. For instance cavalry often carried a bow and a spear.
I'm really only seeing a way to get about 8 distinct unit types here:
Yari Ashigaru (longspear, nagae yari)
Teppo Ashigaru (arquebus, teppo)
Yari Samurai (shortspear, yari)
Nodachi Samurai (longsword, odachi)
Naginata Samurai (naginata)
Yumi Samurai (longbow, daikyu & katana)
"Light Cavalry" (shortbow, hankyu & shortspear, yari)
"Heavy Cavalry" (nagamaki or long tachi sword maybe)
...all of which is a long, round-a-bout way of saying what I definitely do *not* want to see, and that's more fantasy BS units like battlefield ninja and kensei. Better it would be to take those 8 basic types and have them have slightly different stats based on training in different martial arts schools and slight variations in weapon/armor style (like fork yaris vs straight yaris) by region. Given this stuff about "hero units" though I suspect we're going to be getting hokum. Hopefully then, which is another thing I *do* want to see, it will at least be easily moddable this time around.
You could add Yumi Ashigaru there as well as Ashigaru bowmen became more and more widespread from very early on. Some say that it was infact the grouped Ashigaru bowmen that made the mounted samurai more or less to change their weapon of choice from Yumi to Yari. During the latter part of the era, mixed Ashigaru units pretty much were the mainstay of armies. You had teppo Ashigarus, supported by Yumi Ashigaru´s when they were reloading, while Yari Ashigaru´s would protect both from mounted and enemy foot soldiers. Or the first two would give support fire, while the spearmen would engage in hand to hand fighting. Also during the latter part of the era many Kachi/ Samurai carried Teppo´s as some Daimyos even wanted that most if not all men should carry firearms, while discarding most other weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Malaise
Totomi, a multiplayer public chat room.
The Battle Field birds.
:laugh4:
I doubt they'll have quite the same charm as the simple origami birds of STW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp00n
Perhaps if birds would roost on the fallen to be startled away when units approached, that might carry some appeal and reveal the charm of the origninal? Or would that be a little to morbid? A nice touch to the 'settling down' affect after a battle has been fought.
I would like to see:
More tactical depth and a BAI that can handle that:
- weather effects with noticeable effects on weapons, fatigue, field of vision, ...
- interesting battlefields that are more than a few rolling hills and a tree here and there like in ETW
Strategical depth and the SAI that can handle that:
- AI armies avoiding battles on unfavorable terrain and defending on choke points
- allied armies that actually join forces and fight together
It seems to me that most of my battles in ETW are very similar and thus not as memorable this in contrast to a lot of battles in MTW (I joined the TW train just after STW)
True, but the point is more that they'd all just be variations on the same basic thing since there were few weapon types in common use, particularly because you're looking at one culture here. One way I could see them realistically doing unit variation that would still retain a tactical "tightness" is to split units up by "caste" or "class". So you'd have your conscript ashigaru, retainer samurai, and temple-affililated sohei. That'd give something like: (nagae) yari ashigaru, teppo ashigaru, yumi ashigaru (with katana or other sword for melee) and naginata ashigaru. Then mounted and unmounted versions of essentially the same for samurai, except switching out teppo for nodachi/odachi and then again for sohei (except maybe with a kanabo in place of nodachi this time). Still, that's only about 20 units total, and that's treating mounted and unmounted units as different types rather than just letting mounted units dismount. They said about 40 units total and there's bound to be more with DLCs and expansions. So, whereas others seem to be complaining about the lack of "scope" I'm much more hesitant about pointless bloat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I completely agree that more then 20 units per faction would mean entering the realm of fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Malaise
My list:
1. Please Please PLEASE focus on the diplomatic AI. This is the single most important reason why I did not enjoy E:TW, and why I did not buy N:TW. I'm aware that it's hardly a piece of cake to make a good stategic AI, and I'm not expecting to be playing against a group of computerised Bismarcks, but when compared to Paradox Games, Civilisation, Galactic Civilisations 2 etc., the diplomatic AI stands out as the primary flaw of the TW series. IMHO, this should recieve more attention than the tactical AI.
2. Trade routes where one of the things I really liked in E:TW, and I hope to see a similar mechanism implemented again in Shogun II. It'd be cool to have a little fleet of Red Seal ships zipping around to Korea, China, the Phillipines, Indonesia, other domains, etc. There should however be advantages, like higher public order, from restricting trade and imposing an isolationist policy.
3. Resist the temptation to achievement spam. I generally dislike getting achievements for things I was going to do anyway (E.g. You finished the tutorial! Have an achievement!), but if they can be used to indicate different styles of play (E.g. Win a battle of 1,000 men without entering into hand to hand combat) or amazing successes (Win a battle when outnumbered ten to one) then they add to the game.
4. The region level system for E:TW felt like Paradox's "state and province" system in Victoria taken to the extreme. Although I very much liked the idea of controlling the territory around cities as well as the cities themselves, it always felt odd to capture Paris and suddenly control the whole of France. I'm guessing this won't be as much of a problem though in SII:TW, as you will be working on the domain level.
5. Oh, and of course, please let us mod it! :yes:
I agree purely from a battlefield variation point of view ETW and NTW's battles play out in a similar way almost every time its a gunpowder era unfortunately. Good News though if they get it right again Shogun's battles don't play out the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill
As much as I like ETW and NTW they are dominated by gun warfare which I personally never thought makes the most varied battlefield experience. I always found them like playing Shogun with only muskets and weak cav in other words just using 2 units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Maybe they're doing it the Rome/Medieval 2/Empire way. They would give each faction "unique" units that are just reskinned versions of other factions' units with no or completely negligible differences in stats. I still get a kick out of Medieval 2's unique "French" units in the English version, which is just them giving French names to common Western European units.
Well, I would like:
Minimal or no diplomacy
Minimal or no economy stuff
Focus on warfare
What shogun had, and the other games lacked, was that the campaign was won on the battlefield. Start as takeda, play a few turns, Kai is invaded...you lose, tough luck, decent chance that the game is over. Start as Oda, if you are good enough at tactics to take out the warrior monk ronin right off the bat without building up an army, you get a big head start. I commonly fought every battle I could with my daimyo in order to get him up to rank 4 or 6, same with other chosen generals.
Also, keep the tech tree tiny. The most pernicious thing about medieval was that not only did they add tons of pointless micromanagement stuff, it took hours and hours to reach even the midpoint of the tech tree. In MI:
11 turns--> yari cavalry or cavalry archers
13 turns--> warrior monks
Starting from an empty province. It makes the game "go and fight" instead of "sit and wait".
If it can recreate the multiplayer experience of STW even partially my wildest dreams will be fufilled (depending on Ms Alba also)
So i guess
1) Multiplayer chatroom
2) Totomi like maps which don't offer much advantage either way
3) Terrian needs to count for something, like it did earlier in the series
4) Either have the units and armys balanced already or make a seperate stat for MP
5) Less useless units, maybe this could be something seperate between SP and MP, have less near clones for MP, it just makes balance harder.
Would also be nice for a few single player things like better diplomatic and battlefield AI. Lastly some way to still present the player a challenge once he has become the strongest power, making allies work together more effectively could help with this, make a few medium powers able to work together and take on a much larger power, could also be fun when the player is a smaller kingdom working with the AI.
Although MP is what ill buy the game for, good mp is enough for me to buy the game just good SP and I probably won't... although i do love Shogun!
Maybe when a player would be able to control Kyoto he would be declared Shogun or Kanrei, which would give all the other Clans only option of submitting or declaring war to that Clan.I think that could create a nice challence?
yeah that would be cool, back in STW it was pretty meaningless but it could be made to force the hands of some of the remaining larger clansQuote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Reskins are pretty lame though. Best way to do it would be to drop the preconfigured, static unit model altogether and allow component customisation. This would retain historical accuracy, tactical "tightness" and variety all at once I'd say. In other words, it'd work something like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewt
CLASS PRIMARY WEAPON SECONDARY WEAPON (OPTIONAL) ARMOR MOUNT
Ashigaru Teppo same options as former None None
Samurai Yumi (hankyu) Light Yes
Sohei Yumi (daikyu) Medium?
(Nagae "pike") Yari Heavy
(shorter) Yari
Nodachi
Katana
Naginata (and/or nagamaki)
Kanabo
Adding secondary weapons and heavier armors would affect speed and stamina as well as cost/upkeep. Of course you could build the swordsmith/armoury/drill dojo to boost other stats as well. Not every weapon would be available to every class though and maybe not every primary and secondary weapon combination (couldn't really carry a long spear and a short spear for instance). and some weapons should be limited to certain classes (nodachi for samurai, kanabo for sohei I'd say). All of this is probably a waste of time to suggest though since they're almost certainly going to stick with the old model of standardized units.
EDIT: I see the forum formatting messed up my chart but I'm sure you all get the idea anyway.
1.) Risk style map. (fight, retreat to castle, abandon province, this style map also makes for a much more challenging game)
2.) Hand crafted battle maps. (no more generic crap that all look so similar)
3.) Throne room, populated with characters that can be interacted with. (advisors, generals, spys, and geishas)
4.) Very large armies. (as large as is possible)
5.) Armies that form and hold a battle line, and protect their flanks (and hide a few units in the trees to surprise me, just like the original shogun)
6.) Nerf Geishas
Actually, I would be happy with an exact copy of the original game just with updated graphics and larger armies.
A balanced multi-player that has a good rock/paper/scissors and an improved diplomatic UI for single.
Ha, who am I kidding, if they just repackaged the original I'd not only buy it I'd prolly play it too much. After MTW I just lost interest 'cause the bells and whistles overwhelmed the simple beauty of origami birds.
I haven't posted here in almost five years. I see a few of the old pros still around. Wonder if S2TW will bring back many of the originals?
/bow @ Gregoshi san, site looks great, hope you have been well
:fainting: ichi!! It has been way too long since you last graced our forums. I am well and hope the same holds true with you. Glad to see you here and hope it isn't another five years before you return again. :bow:
I hear you about the bells and whistles ichi. I remember playing RTW and one night in mid-game it hit me - I just wasn't having any fun playing it. That was quite a shock because TW games are supposed to be awesome. A lot of what wasn't fun about it was bells and whistle stuff. What is funny is that much of it was things on our wish lists for the next TW game(s) after STW. Be careful what you wish for because you may get it! :laugh4: But to the point, while STW single player definitely needs a boost, CA needs to find balance between too much and too little in the campaign features department. Enough to maintain the challenge and fun factors, but not too much to introduce tedium into the game - or at least switches to turn features on/off if practical.
Between the Org's 10th anniversary celebration and the S2TW announcement, many old friends (and foes :laugh4:) have come out of the dark, hidden corners of the internet. I love it!
:couch: I think it was after some years HOF awards that you disappeared Ichi?Great to see you back and great to see so many other old timers returning to the forum!:2thumbsup:
Welcome back, Ichi. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
i like this idea .. i wonder how this could grow or at least fit into stw2 ... i mean .. there is still room for "static" type units .. or maybe there isn't .... no doubt we would like to have multiple weapon types for certain units (with seperate animations) and even make them "static" .. but i like this idea of being able to customise the layout of certain units or maybe all units ..hmmmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by General Malaise
I think one nice feature would be for the missile troops being able to plant large wooden shields or pavises to the ground like they were used on many occasions.In other words,things like these:
https://img809.imageshack.us/img809/8626/shield.jpg
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
The focus needs to shift back to warfare - which is the TW games' strongpoint. Diplomacy worked best in the older games when it was simplistic and functional. It did not detract from the main thrust of the game. The risk campaign map was ideal for this purpose also. While I am fully aware that CA won't bring it back, I still see the risk map as the better model - and the ideal map for the TW games.
first of all i like all the development in empire and napoleon:
- good strategic map
i like that in one province there are many economic center, and we can be able destroy, the province economy without a direct attack
but i see in napoleon and empire: the easier way is the same (attack the province center) - maybe we have grater distances on a province, we can use better this features
- close up non warrior character spy/assassin
it would be great, that gentleman and spy, has more function: gentleman make provinces happier, and give moral in an army, and spy demoralize enemy, and lover corruption in own cities, and lower the unrest... (and it would be even more grater, they can ad our army special abilities during the combats
-i like the graphical advance the city's looks at the strategic map, but i am sorry about the sea treading simbol stay very simple
(it would be great that we can build a special harbour, which has many advantages: defence towers, upgrade missionary center, police, secret agency, embassy, ad small fortress: we dont need to explore whole new provices its enough one harbour city - may sometime randomly (depend on happiness) attacked by natives from land and see
so and that what i like to see in next tw:
- harbor hase defences from see (towers), and if we want to capture one harbour we have to fight at near the coast, and fight against, grond defences, and ships simultaneously
- ships, has cargo bay (one ship can only transport limited numbers of unit)
- ships - on board army is look like army in a bulding - this soildiers go up deck and shot/fight with the enemy (capture ship) - of course with limited number can fight at the same time - depend on ship kind - , but dead soldiers replaceble from cargo...
- smaller ships can be able to go up wider rivers (and can go nearer the beach)
- rivers can be use as road (trading, and transpoting faster)
- trading roads can be attacked like see trading routes (we can't be able to see where is exactly, but we can see that somebody is robed our traders)
- bandits and rebels appear more often (depend on happiness and unrest, and number of town guard) and they can made more unrest
- some building has monthly wages - police/ town guard/tax collectors etc. where is civil servant is working, but it would be great adnvantage to you, more specialized armored citizens, it can be kill bandits like spy can be executed, and so on...
- the town fight looks terrible to me at empire, and napoleon: it would be grate, that it looks like more like a town: specialized man fight outside the town, and at square if they need more space for formation, but armored citisens can be able to make baricade inside the town (like army man can be on the field)
- there would be more building and tipe of building: more garden, squeare, road, statue, street: like medieval tw II
- there are be more building, and more depend on each other: gold mine - jewel shop, iron mine - armor upgrade, and so on...
-and i hope in shogun tw 2 we will have the posibility to capture korea... or china:-) (at least in accessory)
Personally, and this may be heretical, I'd rather tech trees (at least as we know them) be gone entirely. Techtrees in strat games are the equivalent of levels in RPG games. Metagame contrivances there to keep you grinding to gain in power. They might make sense in Civilization and Empire Earth type games, but in a game whose period is less than a century there is no reason to have tech be changing that much at all (how is it a daimyo wouldn't be able to draft yari calvary at the start of the game already, without needing to build up some tech things?). I'd prefer whether or not drafting "high level" units or agents be based on a tactical considerations like perhaps having many elite units could make one prone to civil war as powerful warrior classes often took opportunity to revolt against their masters or drafting high level agents running the risk of them similarly turning against you, or just simple upkeep/use-value ratios, rather than who can rush to build building A the fastest and pump out unilaterally superior troops.Quote:
Also, keep the tech tree tiny.
EDIT: To clarify further by providing another example: say, instead of simply building a "Legendary Swordsmith" to get "+1 to weapons", you'd first have to have a legendary swordsmith in one of your provinces in the first place (sort of like the legendary swordsmen event from the original) which you'd have to achieve by a mix of population level, contentment/happiness level, and economic strength/wealth. Perhaps also a faction honor or "kingdom power" type thing (for anyone who has played KoH) which would incline superior artisans or samurai to move to your lands.
I'm liking your idea General (Sir!).
I like it to. Maybe leave the economic type improvements (port, mine, farmland). But the "build a fortress and then a famous horse dojo to get heavy cavalry" did seem a bit silly.
The armor and weapon improvements could be available for a price when building a unit--makes sense, no? Less expensive in the right province.
Of course, they will leave it all in. Because "features" are what sells (even to us here, if we didn't know better). But of course, the tangible features remove other features from existence--the tactical and strategic features that you can't put on the box, but that make the game great.