Printable View
We might never see any of these features that we suggest.
But it's a wishlist - so...
1. Ability to take prisoners instead of just killing everyone, perhaps make it cost money to keep prisoners for for as long as you want to support them before having the option to kill/repopulate the area (though that would probably put some unrest in your province).
2. Campaign Map Replays
3. A "Kill Speed" Slider
:bow:
4. Better AI
Space Marines. With chainaxes.
Hey, we can WISH!
campaign game replays
better AI
new factions
expanded tech trees of buildings and units
ability to create villas in a province to store populations away from the city if necessary
a more complex mercenary system... ability to hire a wider variety of units
mtw style glorious achievements for non roman factions
ability to capture enemies for slavery
multiple capitals for advanced factions (Rome had at least four capitols at one stage)
ability to promote captains to Generals without the man of the hour stuff. ... conditions apply though...
a more complex bribing system, choosing exactly what you want, not just keeping generals and getting rid of the rest...
imperial family trees.
the ability to start an Empire game, starting on a historically accurate campaign map in the first years of the Roman Empire, which lasts until 476 AD when the last roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, died.
and maybe even a start a late game somewhere in the middle, half way between 14 AD and 476 AD
'choose your own religion' option in the later stages of the game, such as Mithras and Christianity and so on.
You do realize that the last Roman emperor was Constantine XI and he died in 1453 at the hands of the Ottomans. My wish list is for CA to fix Roman cavalry auxilia, and reconsile the horse archer move and fire issue with the FF issue. For them to seperate generals and family members. So that all family members are generals, but not all generals are family members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius the God
All of the above, except the space dudes, with a larger campaigh map showing parts of Scandinavia, more of Asia and Africa, and Britain up to Hadrian's Wall. Also the invading barbarians like Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc.
wasnt he a byzantine emperor, i know they were the leftovers of the roman empire, but he wasnt really a roman emperor was he?Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Increase the maximum amount of factions to at least MTW:VI levels (for modding purposes)
naval battlefield ~:eek:
you actually position your ships and get um to ram each other
offer to annex before attack (as was roman custom, always ask people to join the empire before ripping them a new A-hole)
peasants with varios farm tools
barbarians are a mottled group (not all wearing the same cloths and same weapons some with axes, some swords, spears ect)
A sea battle that doesn't let the 22 man 2 ship remnant escape with 12 men when the 600 man fleet engages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishazu
If you had a time machine a could ask him he would tell you he was. You see the byzantine empire is a modern myth, like vikings having horns on their helmets. It would be like if in say 1500 years historians took to calling the USA the republic of texas after hispanics become the most numerous ethnic group.
PS I forgot to say 3D ship battles. Hell if the imperial glory devs can get it to work why can't CA.
As I understand the replays in RTW are like tracks in some flight sims, they contain initial conditions and player's input (orders). Now, the battle maps in campaign are generated before every battle, unlike predefined custom battle maps, so a campaign battle replay would have to include the generated map, and that would increase an average replay file size essentially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
Correct me if I am wrong.
Diplomacy expansion: seiged cities, seiged cities should be able to negotiate and vice versa (u could negotiate with seige city... IF ur sieging the city of course) and that u shoudl be able to give or ask for besieged cities if u are the person seiging etc.... also if ur next to sea u should be able to get out from the sea or reinforcement enter from sea.... troops outside of their faction provinces should cost extra to maintain.
1st person capablity, can you imagine actually being the general ~:cool:
of course well have to wait for 500mb vid cards for that, but even so,,,, ~:eek:
Why will we?Quote:
Originally Posted by FURRY_BOOTS
Whether the camera is positioned floating above the battlefield, or fixed on a characters eye-view, is the same to the computer. The number of poly's and amount of shading needed for the envoironment wont change just because the camera angle changes (well it will change depending on whats in-view of the camera, but if a normal view and a general's eye view both look at exacly the same scene in a playfield, the amunt of processing power will be exacly the sme whether it a floating camera under user control or a camera fixed on the generals eye-view.
There is currently on one game available that requires more than 256MB, Doom3 - on its Ultra settings it uses 490MB of uncompressed textures. No other game will see a significant benefit moving from a 256MB card to a 512MB single-GPU card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fret
the current units in 1st person perspective would look absolute crap!!! & yes 1st person perspective is alot closer than your maintaining.
Horses with triangular rear quarters wouldnt cut it im afraid, plus you consider facial animations, non generic cloned units & an environment to match, all the extra scripting for unit deaths etc,
imagine a siege on rome in 1st person, with thousands of units!!! im sorry but i think current cards would struggle
As an ex-GW writer - NOOOOOOOOOOO! For the love of God, no! ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Khorak
What I'd really like to see (apart from the above) is the ability to UPGRADE units. For example a Hastati unit should be upgradeable to a Principes unit (after all that's what happened in real life)
I'd much rather be able to upgrade my pre-Marian troops to Marian troops after the reforms event. Much more usefull than the micro managing nightmare of changing hastatii to princepes.
PS I'd rather have a couple mobz of choppa boyz than puny space marine boyz ~;) :hide:
Please, please, please include that!!! I hate playing as a roman faction, because just when i get all my armies sorted and ready to rule the world, that b***ard marius comes along with his new army, so then whenever my hastati or any old units suffer losses, i can't replenish them with some new soldiers. And then there's the whole business of replacing the old units with the new ones....but some things i would like to see are:Quote:
the ability to UPGRADE units.
1) Special maps for a city that was by default a capital at the beginning of the game. For me, it takes away the coolness of the game when rome is just the same as any other roman city.
2) Special walls for the barbarians. e.g the highest tech lvl for walls being a mixture of stone and wood. The bottom of it is stone, and the top is wood with pathways on so the barbarians can place archers on their walls.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
So far the "Barbarians" :dizzy2: are hampered by having lame wooden walls.... only. They don't have any of the amazing earthworks and hillforts which they did historically.
Please include this. ~:cheers:
6 (or is it 5? or 7?). Soldiers Natural Deaths - and some kind of diferent resistance to it for diferent units in diferent terrains.
It feels too wierd when you take 1000 men in heavy armours to the desert, stay there for 5 years and none of them dies in the process. Same thing with vast, inospit snow fields.
7. Forts actualy being usefull for anything - they could reduce the natural deaths of soldiers, and give the owner the chance to engage enemy armies wanting to siege the Fort, so as they stoped being death-traps for whoever is inside, forcing the defender to sally.
hmmm...i wonder...an AI that actually uses a large army like an army...instead of a mob of men (i.e, attack in a line, protect the flanks, not too much to ask for is it?). i know some of you might think that it'll be too much, but the medival:VI AI managed that.
Eldar could beat orks or space marines any day!
wow, that's a surprisingly good idea for how simple it is - it would make Forts be a barrier for disease and the elements as well as the enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by th3freakie
Poor Constantine indeed wouldnt be very happy by that remark ~;) not that he'd understand english of course.Quote:
wasnt he a byzantine emperor, i know they were the leftovers of the roman empire, but he wasnt really a roman emperor was he?
I hate that term byzantine empire, unless im mistaken wasnt it first coined in the 17th or 18th century something like that?
Theres alot that needs to be done with RTW most of them minor im sure the patches will get rid of all major bugs etc just countless little things that wind me up or take away from the realism of the game. I cant even be bothered listing them, im sure someone will threads were people can moan alot usually are very popular ~:)
You're right, the addition of World Eaters to the barbarian factions would be unbalancing. Better give the civilised factions various Chapters of their own. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
Recruit representative armies, not units I've explained my thoughts on this before. The tech tree would allow the player/AI to build larger and/or more complex and upgraded armies, but the basic elements would be historical. Right now there is no reason to build lower end units once you get the higher end units. And you can build whole armies from elites. But the most interesting part of the campaign is fought early on, with the lowest level units and that makes for a rather bland experience.
More Meaningful Naval Strategy Port upgrade level would allow port defense and require more ships to blockade. Total port level would also determine how many boats could be in the water. Invasion force size would be limited by the number of ships available. Elephant units might require 3 ships per unit, cavalry/camels/chariots 2, infantry 1, family members 1.
Campaigns from different periods A very early campaign at the time of Alexander and the Samnite Wars (with higher resolution Italy map). A later, 3rd Punic War/Marius campaign. A slightly earlier Pyrrhus time period Campaign.
able to build REAL authentic roman forts. moats, stone walls, stakes, towers. oh and that you can customize defenses pick and position towers, walls, stakes, gates. that would be cool
already possible, it requires some diplomacy, but it is very much possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by master of the puppets
okey... screw diplomacy, just tell them to hand you over that settlement or you'll attack. if the circumstances are right, they will quickly evacuate the town. did it once as the ptolemies with siwa, and oh, did it make me feel good :)
I once aquired most of gual in a similar manner, but i just bought all the settlements for 5-10k :)
also already possible, but it does require a lot of modding (and i don't know how)Quote:
1) Special maps for a city that was by default a capital at the beginning of the game. For me, it takes away the coolness of the game when rome is just the same as any other roman city.
Got to admit, I was about to uninstall RTW (haven't played it really in ~4 months). Installing patch 1.2 was a mere formality and fairness. Then I'm suckered in once again :dizzy2:. Skirmishes are now better, especially those Velites (fast becoming my favorite unit. NO, they are my favorite unit ~;) ).
here's my wishlist just on top of my head (I'll be repeating some that's already been mentioned):
1) 3d Naval Warfare - This a no-duh. Imperial Glory has one. Why can't the current king of strategy games, Creative Assembly, have one?
2) Kill-rate, unit speed slider - Epic games mean longer battles! I have units routing so easily. I don't mind chain rout at all, but this is obscene, it happens within seconds of impact. Also, these guys run like sprinters (they carry gear too, mind you).
3) Restored Rock-Paper-Scissor scheme - Cavalry penetrates or skirt all the way through my screening units. I can't defend my General from Cavalry pushes without nonstop pauses.
4) Bigger battle maps - Whatever happened to the 4x-MTW maps?
5) More provinces - There are lots of space there.
6) More units - How about more than 20 unit slots?
7) Weather - Where are the snowstorms, lightning, and heavy, blinding rain? Perhaps include the Day & Night cycle in campaign battles.
8) City Pathfinding - Fix the city pathfinding. Units go crazy inside the city.I tell my cavalry to enter the gate and move right and they go straight to the phalanx's dirty, pointy fingers. Same thing happens with other units. I tell them to drive straight behind the enemy with full force and they do the beauty pageant walk ~:eek:
9) Eric Hurley, the Headhurler as the official mascot (hehe).
:charge:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Romulus Augustulus was the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, even though he was a puppet emperor. he died 476 AD
somehow i don't see Rome: Total War continuing into the middle ages just to show the end of the Byzantine Empire, and Imperial Russia claimed to have followed that imperial tradition through their adoption of the Russian Orthodox church
anyway,
while i would love to have 3D naval battles, i can't see it happenning for the expansion set
using diplomacy on a besieged settlement is a must... and the ability to cross rivers (not over bridges or shallows) should be allowed, but using up something like four times the number of movement points in crossing the two tiles distance for the river crossing.
This I'd like. Maybe a really early campaign starting from the foundation of Rome itself (no three factions, just SPQR) for example, so I could indulge more with differing starting positions and situations. As it is, pretty much every game is the exactly the same expansion then show down with Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
At least three different campaigns I think, an early one like you describe (but obviously still just on the same world map), a middle one like we already have, and a late one with a vast Roman juggernaught. The last one would be a real challenge as a barbarian, having to pussyfoot around Rome until you're powerful enough to start chipping away at them.
The middle one would still be the most varied (being the only one with the four Roman factions), I'd just like to play as a single Roman faction from the very beginning as Rome itself.
He was deposed in 476 he died later, the point were most consider the end of the Roman emperors is Heraclius (sp?) but all emperors called themselves roman so it doesnt matter if the west existed or not, the roman empire existed aslong as there was an emperor there to rule it and in 1453 that ended.Quote:
Romulus Augustulus was the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, even though he was a puppet emperor. he died 476 AD
I think personally the Holy roman empire was simply a joke lol
I'd like to see musicians with the commander units. The trumpeters and what not. In fact, I would prefer a lot more signalling then we have now.
if my city has just come under siege i would like the choice to either A) march out and deploy in front of the city to try and see off the enemy army before the actual siege begins. B) sit tight and hope for reinforcemenst(thats actually what happens now) or C) abandon the city alltogether if you have no possibility of sending any assisstance.
1, I think they need to improve how individual men fight, if you zoom in you see the men kind of pushing into each other and everynow and then someone randomly swings his sword and kills somebody but in battles swords are being flung far more frequenly than that.
2, Also use of shields to, i want to see men pushing behind there shields or blocking attacks abit more.
3, Id like to see when for example a general wins a great battle or a great campaign that you can dedicate an arch or column to him in a city (a triumph)of your choice etc i think thatd be pretty cool, it could cost say 10000 denarii so its a rare thing and not overused and it could improve public order and morale of garrison troops stationed in the city or something like that.
4, They absolutely have to improve the stats of troops, units of 80 men seem to flee more often than not when only 1/4 of the men have died battles are needlessly short.
5, Armies need to start further apart I think, give more chance for tactics and so on, itd give the terrain a much bigger part to play, currently its massively under used.
6, improve AI in sieges, im sick of enemy armies besieging my cities when i know they cant possibly win, but they are strong enough that if i sallied id take heavy hits, but because the auto is so innaccurate im forced to personally take command of sieges were the outcome is a forgone conclusion thus wasting my time.
7, use cities more realistically, I think taking the central plaza is abit silly really, i mean dont some cities have citadels at the heart of the city? or some other form of hard fortification to resist this? cities that supposedly hold 25000 people seem abit tiny, buildings could be possible to occupy, making sieges more realistic will add to there duration and improve steady fighting in the streets instead of just sitting the centre for 3 minutes.
Adding to my list:
Ability to handle more complex unit types Right now you only get one type of soldier per unit--even elephants and chariots use this, and merely put the crewman in a different animation as mahout or charioteer. In addition you get an officer. But some historical units were filled out by soldiers with various roles: infantry shield bearers combined with archers or spearmen or javelinmen; chariots with shield bearers, charioteer, and one or two archers or spearmen; Assyrian horses and Arab camels riders with one controlling the horse/camel, and the other using a bow.
Separating mounts and men Allow dismounting or loss of the mount. Also loss of the rider with mount continuing on. Many camel riders actually dismounted to fight. And British chariot types did the same.
"peasants with varios farm tools
barbarians are a mottled group (not all wearing the same cloths and same weapons some with axes, some swords, spears ect)"
hell yes. I agree with that one.
accurately similuating naval conflict would require a vast addition to the RTW engine... it would be nice but I think this is pushing it.
I would like to see some blood, personally.
and it would be simple to have napoleonic total war based on this engine, just need to change the art stats and names.
2) Kill-rate, unit speed slider - Epic games mean longer battles! I have units routing so easily. I don't mind chain rout at all, but this is obscene, it happens within seconds of impact. Also, these guys run like sprinters (they carry gear too, mind you).
1) SPEED is too fast once battle is joined to maneuver anything.
I hate waiting 5 minutes for them to march towards me and then be frantic for 20 seconds trying to adjust to the final charge.
If battles lasted as short as they do on RTW in reality, then wars would have lasted about 20 minutes Lol
nah, they'd have to get there firstQuote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
so in RTW ...
that would be like 25 minutes
Besides the changes from pre-Maroius to Marius units, (Hastati upgrade to ELeg Cohort) I would like to see barbarians faction can use siege engines. I mean it's okay they're stuck to pre-historic roads and equipments but when they sacks Rome don't they have atleast can use the onagers and catapults if the factory still standing ? Or they just rape, pillage and burn ?
:duel:
A lot closer to what?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by FURRY_BOOTS
It is possible to position the camera at eye-level, when there are battles, you can even position the camera 'inside' a soldier, and view the battle as he sees it from behind his shield.
They cut it with a floating camera, why dont they cut it with a camera fixed to eye level?Quote:
Horses with triangular rear quarters wouldnt cut it im afraid,
Your asking for a lot more than just a camera postion now, yes that would take more power. What you meant to say originally was "imagine it 1st person and the units were a detailed as the Combine in Half Life 2, with envoironment textures taken straight from Farcry"Quote:
plus you consider facial animations, non generic cloned units & an environment to match, all the extra scripting for unit deaths etc,
imagine a siege on rome in 1st person, with thousands of units!!!
No need to apologise, they probably couldnt handle having 2,000 unique characters all animated to the quality of a HL2 character, that isnt what you said in your original post though, you just said '1st person capability', which any game with a realtime 3D engine has by default, because 1st person is just another angle like any other.Quote:
im sorry but i think current cards would struggle
Ah, the British obsession with Benny Hill ~;) . I suppose they speed up the music as well to fit the fast units, so it will be Benny Hill-ish. ~D :::cues Benny Hill music:::Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
I just wish for an Alexander expansion... or even better, for a Persian Wars expansion... does this sound too much?
1)BETTER AI!!!!!! :duel: :charge: :bow:
2)Morale MUST be fixed,i had 1 GenBOdyGuards rout an 54 ScythiaHA,it just SUCKS,and when 1000 gauls attacks 300 greeks fight till death not charge then they rout! :balloon2:
3)Rome MUST be an SPECIAL city,and diffrent from other.
4)Upgrade unit
~:) 3)if another guy tell's me that it is possibile with: u can mod that........please SHUT uP! :furious3:
Ditto. This is at the at the top of my list. It would be nice if this also enforced some sort of army coherency, requiring a general to actually move an army. You would need to have an option to promote a captain to a general (without adopting him, mind) but with a limit on the number of non-family generals (say 1 pr. army barracks + 1 for the capital).Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Also, give the player some measure of control over army reforms. Say, whenever you get a family member elected as consul, or have a particularly nice string of victories, you could try to change the "standard" army and re-equip your troops, with the senate's approval of course. A reform along the lines of "yeah, all ownagers, all the time, baby!" should of course have a smaller chance of being approved than a less radical proposal. Yes, I know this is hard to implement, but I think the game should have more politics in general. It's frustrating to see your family members rise in the senatorial ranks, without getting to use their newfound powers for anything.
Also, it should be possible to raise a full army in 6 months, within the usual constraints of man-power and funds. The romans did it, so why can't we?
Of course, such an army would be completely green and much less effective than veterans. I think the whole experience system needs re-jigging too. As it is, troop type is much more important than experience, and this didn't seem to be the case historically. Veterans should be more flexible in between the different roles, cf. the carthaginians re-arming their more experienced troops in legionary style and the macedonians using the argyraspids for more than simply better phalangites.
Also, give armies the ability to march along roads in friendly territory, and between friendly ports, without using movement points. It is unrealistic that it takes several years to shift your forces from one theater to another.
You could separate such "instant" marches into a separate movement phase, taking place after normal movement, to prevent players from invading enemy lands with an army from across the empire. Forcing "instant" marches to stop at borders would give the enemy some time to prepare against hostile build-up of forces, if they paid attention to their borders. Alternatively, you could allow armies to "teleport" between forts, cities and ports in friendly territory, as long as you could draw an uninterrupted line between the two, and let a "teleport" cost 100% movement points.
Finally, draw a line between field armies and garrisons. Historically, armies didn't hang around long in cities, as the generals didn't trust the soldiers to keep their hands off the civilians and their goods. Instead, they manned forts out in the sticks, where the battles were actually fought. Garrisons should be a city upgrade, like walls and other defensive structures.
All these changes to armies only apply to roman factions and others who actually had standing armies. It would be nice to see a levy system in place for the barbarian factions. Each warlord could have a small number of "chosen" units as a sort of retinue. You could then choose to levy more troops by choosing that warlord, paying a raising fee and clicking a button. What you get when you click that button depends on the v&v's of the warlord and the upgrades in the province he's in. Take your chance!
Such levied armies would probably disintegrate again on defeat (or complete success!) but particularly charismatic and powerful warlords would be able to maintain their armies for longer before they had to click the "levy" button again, and their retinue would of course increase in size with victory and success.
Just a few suggestions. Sorry about the length. :bow:
Only way I'd ever go first person to fight is if I was sure the AI wouldn't promptly charge my archers and catapault crews at the enemy pikemen leading to a chain route and me being the only guy left on the field.
People fighting after being dismounted would be a good idea but would lead to certain complications. I mean if one guy got dismounted but the others didnt, you'd end up with a unit of horsemen...and some dude running far behind yelling "come on guys wait up, this isnt funny! IM TELLIN MOM!"
Units with assorted weapons would be ok as long as they all still had the same attack value. Otherwise it would get crazy with some guys getting a spear and getting a bonus vs cav and another guy getting an axe and gettin an AP bonus...they'd be hard to counter seeing as they have no real uniformity.
Something that wasnt mentioned was bringing back CIVIL WARS! I don't mean this retarded three family thing for just the Romans. I'm talking about like in MTW where if you screwed up royally or some Inbred lunatic took the throne you'd get a bunch of seriously unhappy people who decide to go their own way.
Also I'd like to see bandits and such appear in a more intelligent way. It should take a certain level of low public order obviously, but also depend largely on the wealth of the province. This is something that the Scythians and Numidians would really need, they have these huge, desolate lands that get bandits poppin up all over the place. This shouldn't happen, why, because they're poor. You don't see homeless people getting mugged too often do you?
In regards to siege battles, other than the obviously needed fix for the path finding ( I swear my men seem to eat lead paint chips for snacks ) is to get the citizens more involved. If they are being besieged by an enemy, they most likely want to join in the defense as nobody enjoys seeing their homes looted, their wives and daughters raped, and their neighbors killed. Make a certain percentage of these people rise up as militia that exist only for this battle.
Only other thing I can think of is to have them either eliminate the unit/faction limit for modders or at least make it a lot larger. Throw in a bunch of new units, let us bring in more than 20 units, and all that good stuff.
Actually Benny Hill was never as popular in the UK as it proved to be in continental Europe. Especially Germany for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Whaddya mean "off topic"?
Individual Moral Status
I know this is something that would be really hard to impliment. Essentially it would be made so that each soldier has a moral of their very own, ikmpacted by their experience/kills and other influences such as the General etc.. If one unit gets impaled by a pike right next to him, that has an impact; more on green troops and less on seasoned veterans. This would be a great idea because when one side of a unit gets crushed, usually the entire unit puts down their swords and stops fighting; with this feature it would make it possible for small pockets of soldiers to hold out longer and make that "heroic last stand" or something. I've had it where there was a unit of 120 men charging at me and my cavalry and hastati charge at that unit, kill about 20 of the enemy and suddenly the other hundred don't want to fight anymore and get ground up like so many coffee beans. It would be awesome to have a battle going on and see a couple guys running away slowly off the back of the army, get your General to come around and blow his horn and get those men back into the battle. At the moment it's as if the average man in the unit wants to run then the rest of them dont' get a say - they're just all going to die because once they start running away they're gone.
"Auto-pilot battles" (not auto-resolve ones)
Could be fun to watch AI vs AI :charge: :duel:
~D
I wish units gained morale with distance travelled. Firstly, crossing 5000miles on foot, is a tough test, and you get hardier want it or not. Secondly such a long trip makes for stronger bonds between soldiers so they fight more united and protect each other more. Or something.
And it is really easy to implement IMHO.
I would like to see archers handled differently. As it stands now they are just way to powerful. Watching archers simply annhilate advancing heavy infantry with sheilds at such ridiculous rates suspends my belief that I'm watching a real battle, to the point where it almost ruins the expierence.
I suggest that instead of archers simply killing or missing units, they should do what in real life they actually did, which was to break up enemy formations lower moral and yes kill some enemy troops. I think it would be much more realistic and intersting to have advancing units hunker down behind their shields in fear, resisting orders to advance when arrow fire became too intense, rather than just wholesale slaughter. Of coarse better quality troops would advance more steadily and be less inclined to ignore orders.
Just some thoughts on how archers are handled presently, I think ca could make some major improvements in this very important aspect of the game. What do you guys think?
Wow dude you joined in 2001 and you only have like 81 posts?!?! That's amazing.
Anyways though you're right archers are a little too powerful. Just get RTR though. It makes them a lot weaker somehow. It's weird since their attack is almost the same.
I think this is the kind of thing that we will see in the next generation of RTW style games, i just cant it happening soon, but it would drastically improve the realism of battle, however wouldnt it be over complicated for an already over complicated game? the main problem i think is that this would make it impossible to know the effectiveness of a unit, you can tell which unit of for example hoplites is experienced and more likely to stand in battle by the chevrons etc and that is all the 80 men in that unit who have say 3 bronze chevrons, if we had individual experience/morale etc, itd be impossible to determine the effectiveness of a unit as a whole. Therefore making it very hard to know if you can rely on them or if theyll do anygood.Quote:
Individual Moral Status
I know this is something that would be really hard to impliment. Essentially it would be made so that each soldier has a moral of their very own, ikmpacted by their experience/kills and other influences such as the General etc.. If one unit gets impaled by a pike right next to him, that has an impact; more on green troops and less on seasoned veterans. This would be a great idea because when one side of a unit gets crushed, usually the entire unit puts down their swords and stops fighting; with this feature it would make it possible for small pockets of soldiers to hold out longer and make that "heroic last stand" or something. I've had it where there was a unit of 120 men charging at me and my cavalry and hastati charge at that unit, kill about 20 of the enemy and suddenly the other hundred don't want to fight anymore and get ground up like so many coffee beans. It would be awesome to have a battle going on and see a couple guys running away slowly off the back of the army, get your General to come around and blow his horn and get those men back into the battle. At the moment it's as if the average man in the unit wants to run then the rest of them dont' get a say - they're just all going to die because once they start running away they're gone.
Though i suppose that in itself is part of realistic warfare ~:)
I think upgrading existing pre Marian troops to their post Marian counterparts is a little too much. In reality, there was a lot of opposition to the Marian reforms. The Marian reforms came about because of a huge lack of manpower - the able bodied, propertied men are precisely the ones you want to have at home, plowing the fields and attending to their businesses. So Marius recruited from among the Head Count, the underprivileged and jobless, people from the lowest rank of society. Because of that, the Senate wanted nothing to do with these troops, and there were still many armies using the older style of troops for many years after. I think the game as it stands now portrays it more accurately - as soldiers in the old style armies serve out their time or are killed, the new style armies gradually replace them.
I believe the last great old style army assembled was for a battle at Arausio. The Romans lost miserably because of a lot of wrangling between the commander appointed by the Senate, and the guy who thought he ought to be commander... after that, there just weren't enough able bodied, propertied men left in Rome OR Italy to do much. (The Senate had to call on Marius, whom they loathed, to again assemble a Head Count army to avenge that defeat and stop the Germans invading Rome...)
I like the levy idea! That would mean that the Barbarian factions would have far mroe of a role playing feel to them, because you would have to train up your leaders and really watch their V&Vs...
I would like to see a more variable AI (when they get the basics sorted out). When I face an army lead by a "good defender", it should behave differently from one led by a "good attacker" (or a "social drinker", for that matter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
I am pretty sure that the current way XP goes up for a unit depends on the average XP value for each soldier within the unit. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works. If they already have XP values for each man, why not just add a Moral feature for each unit? Doesn't really seem that difficult to me.
That's true, I'm pretty sure that each man has his own exp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
The problem with this idea is that men are still ordered as a unit. So take an example: there's a unit of 80 hastati. 40 run away during a fight. However, the general rallies the 40 men. Now you have a a group of 40 men still fighting, and 40 men far away who just got rallied. This could cause some weird pathing issues, also, when an enemy attempts to charge a unit, which 'group' does it go for, and what does it do when it defeats one 'group' etc etc.
This would be possible with a really good pathing engine and stuff, but right now I think it would be hard (but not impossible) to implement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
loved the idea of triomphs
It would be nice if line-of-sight could be handled better. As it is missile units fire at targets they cannot see, ignoring walls, buildings and hill crests like they have x-ray vision. I expect this would make for a more complex shooting algorithm that would go beyond a simple range check. Hence not a likely improvement. But hey, this is a wish list, right?
A good idea would be to allow a limit to the amount of elite units you can have in an army. e.g. a limit of 4 elites to an army.Quote:
you can build whole armies from elites.
Eric!!! We want eric!!! Wooh!!! :yes:Quote:
Eric Hurley, the Headhurler as the official mascot
Actually, if you look at the way units get strung out now, this is already happening to a degree. It appears that the AI will more or less charge toward whoever is holding the unit banner. So I'm not sure pathfinding would necessarily be an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTheTerrible
However, I can't see the point of having individual morale. It's the herd instinct. When those around you start to break and run, it's obviously going to make you feel that you should be doing the same. And you insitinctively realize that that when the guys next to you start to run, the odds against your own survival are about to increase exponentially. So breaking as a unit just makes better sense to me.
Excellent idea!! Probably very easy to implement as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelifer
You can do this already to a certain extent. Take two armies into a battle, have one of them AI controlled, and just sit back and watch the action.
That works, but it's not perfect. I find that without a bit of guidance, most armies that are yours which you leave to fight for themselves end up routing within a minute or so. Btw, can we get this stickied please? It could be a rather interesting opposite to the Bugs sticky.Quote:
Take two armies into a battle, have one of them AI controlled, and just sit back and watch the action.
How was it handled in MTW? Seemed fine then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
I fear another "mini-campaign" expansion pack coming ~:eek: Why not just extend the map and add more factions and provinces. ~:)
because that's what the EB mod is doing ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
The ability to take personal command during a rebellion. Not 'thrown out city, army appears in city'. That's rubbish, and seriously pisses me off. Rebellions do not happen like this.
You should be taken to a battle in the city, the bulk of your forces outside the barracks and some of them on the plaza having come out of the governors building. Then you hold back the city or lose it, with the size of the rebellion and its composition dependant on the size of the city itself. Because frankly, I'm also tired of a town producing more rebels than it has total population.
And one last idea....100% happiness in a city no matter what you, if your garrison equals or outnumbers the total population. That's total martial law. When you've got a trained legionnaire with two pila and a gladius for every single man, woman and child in the place....no-ones going to be rebelling. Obviously though, peasants won't count towards this. Sorry bub, you gotta pay to jackboot people into the floor.
That's a good idea. Defending the main governement buildings against the unruly masses. And as for the amount of rebels being in proportion with the population, i totally agree. Since when was a small 400 people village able to raise an army of 1600 men? Out of their own population too?Quote:
You should be taken to a battle in the city, the bulk of your forces outside the barracks and some of them on the plaza having come out of the governors building. Then you hold back the city or lose it, with the size of the rebellion and its composition dependant on the size of the city itself. Because frankly, I'm also tired of a town producing more rebels than it has total population
A real long shot here but
The option t watch OTHER factions fight their battles. Wheneer a battle happens on the map it "pops up" in a screen and you can have the option of watching the battle unfold or just skip it.
Say your a roman faction and the Egyptians and Selucids fight a major battle. you get to sit and watch and see how it plays out.
Also naval battles actually battling.
The ability to TRAIN some traits for your leaders. Say sending your Heir to a Roman School to gain math or other skills or to a roman war college (or whatever its called) to gain military traits. One way to overcome random traits being assigned.
Please fix the damn speed.
Spoils of war. the ability to plunder the defeated and gain either denarii or their armor and weapons and equipt your troops.
Gladiatior games. Have the ablity to sponsor gladiator games in which you can have either solo gladiator battles (sort of like a chapion general vs another champion) or massive battles with either dogs, or lions or chariot races or scores of battles. Winner of these battles gets denarii.
(Another Long shot)
I think that there should be more participation in battles from allies, as historically the roman empire often fought armies with there legions but had numerous barbarian tribes come to the battle to aid them or there enemies, the battle of Chalons is a perfect example, Rome v the Huns but it had thousands of ostrogoths, gepids, visigoths, and burgundians and many more.
I find it annoying when im allied with another nation and my empire is being invaded left right and centre by someone and my ally just sits there instead of coming to my aid, unless its like right on their doorstep. Whats the point in an alliance if allies dont help each other in war? all the ally needs to do is get an army put them on a few ships and send them to the field.
There is the attack faction option in diplomacy but the times ive done it my allies have still done nothing, ive many times sent armies without requests to allied territory to help fight off invaders, the AI should do it to.
Also shouldnt barbarian hordes be larger? I mean the romans wouldnt have had any trouble conquering all of the barbarians if they like in RTW popped up with tiny armies in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps like my first suggestion abit like mercenaries you could call for local tribes to ally with you against the enemy your marching to face and tribes of barbarians or rebels join your cause for denarii or integration into the legions or what not.
i know this is probably the longest shot of all but i would like some kind of multiplayer campaign. but maybe a shortened campaign or limited human players, i.e limit the campaign to 4 humans etc. this would be a huge hit with small groups of friends and clans etc. but i think this is doomed to only ever be a dream. i could push it even further to some sort of persistant online game MMORTSG - Massively Multiplayer Online Real Time Strategy Game. ~:)
Some good ideas there.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Amos
The barbarian horde is a piece of propegana, it's not real... the game just has a Rome/Hellenes bias so that all of the other factions are heavily weakened. The EB mod is fixing that problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Aetius_
That would be good. Me and a friend have always dreamed of being able to do that. We would be allied, until we'd both conquered half the world, then we'd assemble all our troops in one place for the battle to end all battles, as tens of thousands of men pour onto the screenQuote:
some kind of multiplayer campaign
Capital building in your capital making it costly to move your capital but has 1 huge bonus and maybe more. Allows you to train any unit in the tech tree available to you. Some kind of penalty though maybe 4 years to train unit units from it and if it takes 2 years then 8. This allows units such as triarii to be trained, as it is now it's nearly worthless to train them. This would be seperate from regular city recruiting so you still could recruit regular units. Also allow 2 recruiting slots, so you can retrain those elite units.
If you move your capital it takes 10 years or so to rebuild the capital building. So no moving your capital every turn isn't such a good option anymore.
An elite and cavalry population This would help reduce an overabundance of elite troops from the capital building.. An easy way about this is if you have 10000 troops and the elite rate is 5 percent, then you can have up to 500 elite troops and once you are at 500 or more you cannot train new elites until you lose some or your regular army gets bigger. There should be a minimum your allowed to have not to hurt the small factions and when there on there knees. Same with cavalry population, with Romans having one of the lowest populations while the eastern gets a higher population.
Forts/ bridges overpowered, Lay siege to a bridge. you get build points to ferry troops across the river. So you can have half your army on both sides either forcing the human to withdraw or fight a fair battle and on the rare occasion making the A.I. fight a fair battle.. Forts, ability to bypass a fort that blocks the path of course costing movement points. The bigger the fort garrison the more movement points it reduces.
garrison based on upkeep cost instead of numbers. ~D It's lame having 20 peasants in a huge city. This would also allow the A.I. to get public order bonus while stocking it with good troops. Oh no the A.I. with a stonewalled city effectively garrisoned.
Citadels for large and huge cities.
Edit: forgot to add A.I. sallies, siege equipment should be deployed behind your lines and unequipped. Kills multiple exploits and 2 annoyances. The exploits are it creates an obstacle course for the A.I. and can allow your frontline to have it's flanks protected by siege equipment. You can also keep a tower/ram equipped to lure in A.I. arrows as long as you can afford to lose it. It also allows your men far away from the gate to scale the walls most likely unopposed calling off the sally trapping them inside getting shot up. ! minor annoyance is having to drop it all and lining up your troops the big annoyance is the CTD(1.2 patch) that can occur if you are fighting on top of ladders.
Quote:
An elite and cavalry population This would help reduce an overabundance of elite troops from the capital building.. An easy way about this is if you have 10000 troops and the elite rate is 5 percent, then you can have up to 500 elite troops and once you are at 500 or more you cannot train new elites until you lose some or your regular army gets bigger.
Precisely what i think. It would stop all the nooblets getting their elite armies and then trampling all over the AI, then coming here and saying how well they owned their enemy. Personally, i have a maximum of 4 elites and 4 cav to an army. Then i have a maximum of 8 regular infantry and then 4 ranged units. The ranged units can be either archers or siege weapons or both.Quote:
Same with cavalry population, with Romans having one of the lowest populations while the eastern gets a higher population.
If only. Another thing i would like is to see the AI have some order to their armies, rather than just recruiting anything and sticking it in an army.Quote:
the A.I. with a stonewalled city effectively garrisoned.
Hmm...Do you mean a new map or the current map with a physical extension? Sounds good either way. ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
Here's more:
Riot solution - instead of just kicking out the occupiers, give them an option to fight inside the city square. The player deploys inside the city square while the rioters try to take it from the periphery.
If the rioters rout en masse and couldn't be captured then they become rebels camped just outside the city in the campaign map.
i agree, but when a unit of hastatii gets to x chevrons it can be uppgraded to principes at a cost in a city that can build them. and some system to the reforms aswell.
edit: the elite system i mean here.
naval strategy wasn't that har though. just a bunch of ramming, schooting and entering, controlling it woudl be just like controllig 15 units of scatterred HA with skirmish turned of against a big enemy.
recruiting should be redone, RTR did ZOR. but here's my idea:
when you are greek, and you take a gaul city, yopu shoudl be able to recruit gaullians until you build your own barracks.
imagine: rome counqers sparta and gets to recruit spartan hoplites. ho much fun would that be? you could have a great mix of units.