So it is just my complaint , I think all who played MTW remember " loyalty " feature that was dif for every unit.
I think RTW is lacking this feature and I would like to see it restored in future series.
What is your opinion?
Printable View
So it is just my complaint , I think all who played MTW remember " loyalty " feature that was dif for every unit.
I think RTW is lacking this feature and I would like to see it restored in future series.
What is your opinion?
Yes! it would add alot of depth to the game...
Hey Ilia,
I just read the new faq at the .com (new updated) and I believe it is going to be in the Barbarian Invasion expansion. ~:)
edit: here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shogun (of the .COM)
Cool news , indeed. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
nice to heard that, now it will be more interesting. However, if activist could combine the rome total war and their expan will be great though.
I have voted yes even though it used to drive me to the very brink when in MTW as the Danes i always got very disloyal generals whom i had being cultivating.This restored feature will now mean that you can no longer send out a general to conquer all and sundry as he will become too powerful and have a strong backing from the army.
As a side note i believe that CA should make it damn near impossible to BRIBE an army however as in MTW it was all too easy to bribe anyone with the slightest of negative traits or none whatsoever.
so wait, let me understand this. Now if they implement night battles in BI, does that mean if we play regular RTW or RTR, we can have night battles as well?
hmm good question
I'd have no objection to it, so long as it actually did something. In MTW it was pretty easy to find plenty of generals whose loyalty was beyond reproach, so it was by and large a waste of time IMO.
What I really *would* like to see back is the titles for provinces that you could award to your generals, along with the non-province titles, like Treasurer or whatever. They were cool :)
I voted yes. I never played MTW, but this featuresounds like it would add more depth, even make it a bit more challenging, so I wouldn't mind it.
Craterus, you don't what you are missing. Loyalty means you end up having to keep an eye on your generals as well as the enemy generals, because if there are too many disloyal generals, then your entire campaign can be ruined as your mighty empire is suddenly ripped in two by civil war. It has happened to me only once on MTW, playing as the italians, all of Germany and Eastern Europe bowed down to me, and i was making a move into the steppes, when Civil War broke out. To make matters worse, the Germans reappeared in the exact same turn. My empire broke in two, and within ten years everything had fallen apart, and i was back at the start. Provinces ruined, empire weakened.
Fraction re-emergance and loyalty make the game much harder than RTW is right now.
Maybe for generals and captains. I'd like to see them defect to the other side without losing their units or changing uniforms. Generals kinda have that in the trait system. Captains are more bribable. But to have them desert for more than a gold coin would be nice. Maybe the farther and longer they fight away from the capital, the higher the chance they could go over to the other side. If your treasury gets too low or squalor or corruption is too high, they'll say enough is enough. To fix this maybe you'd be forced to place a taskmaster pro-consul to influence your far-off garrisons.
Loyalty was a great feature and made the game much better. It was fun to have your generals revolt and then choose between your good general or your king. I usually went with the rebels and put down the loyalist forces.
I loved the civil war in MTW, it added so much depth to the game, and could make or break a nation. I remember so many failed campaigns with the French due to the dang unfaithful soldiers.
Sounds Awesome. I love rebels, and RTW doesn't let you do anything with 'em. I hope I can actually become a rebel leader...I AM GOING TO BUY BARBARIAN INVASION NOW!!!! when it comes out...
Not to post new thread - just another question : would you like to see re-appearing factions restored?
As for me I am all for that.
It could optional ( like " govern all towns ) just to bring more more action and interest in yhe game.
Hey, just got a idea maybe someone already said it, but won't it be nice to see that some of the faction that are destroyed come back after there is a rebel? Well I think that is a good idea.
I would like emerging factions and re-emerging factions.
Maybe if an area of the map is flled with rebel, they should become a faction. Each area of rebels has a name (Lesbian rebels) so if that area turned rebel and the rebel force became strong, they could become a faction - The Lesbians?
The Lesbians becoming a fully fledged faction would be great. I would be King, or should i say Queen, of the Lesbians!!
And have the Lesbians take Rome!! Yay! Lol.
You could also have Bedouin faction emerging...
Gladiator faction... There's loads.
loyalty was great. I would normally go after the enemy King and make him look stupid descrease his influence, thus making his generals less loyal and his provinces rebellous and starting a civil war.
In RTW this link has been broken. You can make a faction leader look stupid, but it does not affect the loyatly his cities, only the one he his in.
Loyalty was responsible for making every and any game in MTW always unstable. Unstable in the interesting sense of the word.
For those of you who dont know how it worked, i explain myskef:
Every army leader had a certain value of loyalty, wich could be affected by vices and virtues, just like influence or acumen. This value was also affected by the king's influence, meanin that if you had a 9 influence king, every single army leader would be totally loyay; but if you had a zero influence ruler, then almost no one would be loyal to you.
Im not sure how it was triggered, but it involved having disloyal generals in charge of big armies and far from the king. Well, in these cases, the disloyal generals would unite and start a civil war. You would have the chance to fight on their side(the insurgent army) or on the loyalists side(your current king). You may lose some provinces inmediately, and would have to fight almost everywhere against your own people.
It was an unstabilizing factor becuase if you had a very lousy king and no heirs, you were in serious danger of losing a lot of ground. You could never be absolutely certain that your core provinces were fine...
Man, i really want this back!!!! Not to mention faction reappearing!
heheh, whenever there was a sign that civil war was going to start, i would assassinate my king. Abracadabra, the faction heir comes along, appears to have lots of influence, and the day is saved by Bob the Assassin.
Now that I understand what loyalty is:
I definitely want it in the next game. I would choose sides with whichever leader I preferred. It gets a bit of role-play into the game.
Quite simple:
YES
:bow:
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
I want rain!
return of the loyalty and re-emergences
Yes
Loyalty was great,
Kept you on your toes and caused you empire to crumble at points.
are they bringing back faction re-emergences too?
I also want some sp. events such as emerge of the Golden Horde in MTW.
Maybe we get them back. From the wargamer preview, talking about factoions:Quote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
Quote:
Adding to the chaos, still others will emerge when circumstances are right, so the strategic situation will keep a player on his toes, regardless of which faction he chooses.
Yeah, now I definitly think about it when the expan come out with feature like that. As some of you said but after you take the insurgent army side will you able to become the faction that you turn against once you defeated the loyalist army? Cause that will be great ~:cheers:
The GH emergence needed at bit of polish to be good. They always came in the same year, so empty those provinces the year before (so they come with less troops) and move your army in to quench them the first year. Seemed silly.
Loved the idea though, but HA's are just so annoying to fight i'd usually autoresolve...
Agreed, Horse Archers were a nightmare to fight. Chasing skirmishing horses all over the battlefield with Infantry is not my idea of fun. For HA units it might have been better to give them fewer arrows but make them far more deadly.
It's funny because that's what LongJohn said when Magyar asked about improving cavalry archers in STW. Cavalry archers had an anti-unit in STW which was the faster yari cavalry. It wasn't historical, but it provided an interesting gameplay within the cavalry units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
Heh, and all the better it was for it! This is one of these clear situations where gameplay should supersede historical accuracy. Good on you LohnJohn (I wish he'd never left CA). As a result I never minded horse archers in STW simply because I knew I could build a unit of Yari cav to counter them. Now, in Rome it's a case of Ctrl + A and target the horse archers until they (hopefully) get caught or rout. Otherwise, it's leave computer and get a beer while the insanely stupid chase round the square battle map ensues... :charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
For that reason alone I never play against the Eastern factions. One could consider making all horse archer units use the "heavy horse" model because I think I'm correct in saying that it's slower??
Foot archers are good and accurate counter against horse archers. There is no need to introduce ahistorical elements in gameplay. I never have problems fighting eastern factions.
Don't know how it would work in Rome, but in Medieval, once you chose a side, the other side appeared as rebels, and you got to keep the faction colours. Now, i don't remember if you kept the alliances if you backed the disloyal generals...Quote:
Originally Posted by vale
Not every faction has access to foot archers ...Quote:
Originally Posted by cunctator
If the answer to HA is to simply make a counter unit like the ahistorical Yari cav unit, why would anyone then bother with HA?
Eastern armies would lose their uniqueness and westernised warfare would prevail. How is this a good move?
HA can be countered and if a faction has no archers I am sure they have slingers who are adequate. Inventing some cock and bull unit because HA are hard to catch certainly is no answer IMO
-------------------
Re-emerging factions.......yes
Civil war.......definitely!!!
.......Orda
Because the yari cav had a counterunit. That's why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
That is fine, if you are playing STW and have identical units. Both MTW and RTW feature different factions with unique units so giving each a yari cav type counter would return to STW.
The one thing I really enjoyed about MTW campaign was the different tactics required with each faction.
But I am off topic
......Orda
Fanatasitc!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shogun (of the .COM)
Q. In addition to barbarian invasions, will we see signs of internal strife in the western empire with break-away empires such as the Imperium Galliarum.
A. Yes. And no. There are mechanisms in place to allow for rebellions to flare up into civil wars. We also have taken account of the rival Emperors that appeared from time to time, so a Roman faction may split and have more than one Emperor in being. The Gallic Empire is 100 years before the period of BI, so you won't see that happening. You might find that there is a breakaway faction in that area, though, if you don't keep an eye on the internal order of Rome as well as defending the borders.
Q. Will there be civil wars?
A. Yes. The rebellion mechanisms have changed to allow for rebellions to spread, and to allow for disloyal generals making a stab for ultimate power themselves.
i knew they wouldnt let us down!
~:cheers:
TITLES
TITLES
TITLES
"senate offices" are inconsequential
I camped in the woods with Byzantine infantry Kats. I usually had four units of Trebizonds too. After I break their Heavy Calv, I run the archers out and pepper what's left and withdraw after I'm out of ammo. It's pretty effective except for the fact you have to wait the rest of the battle out.
Slingers have a lower range and so aren't an adequate counter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan