Ideas for MEDİEVAL TOTAL WAR-2

These are my ideas and suggestions about Medieval-2…I hope;the creators of the game should care about these suggestions…


1- Soldiers types and the battle screen should be like Medieval-1 .Strongness and weakness of soldiers should be protected but archers should be improved .In some provinces(Egypt,Persia),recruiting War Elephants can be good. Soldiers should be more brave and shouldn’t leave the battefield immediately. Thre must be a lot of unit formation but they should be simple,not fantastic. Units should be seperated or the seperated units should be joined together. Generals and admirals with stars should be joined together too. We cannot unite these generals in the same group. This should be changed and improved.

2- There should be siege machines in the game(You know the siege machines in Stronghold-2).The defender sides should have trhenches near their walls, Grek fire, boiling oil, balistas and trebuchets on the walls and things like these. And the attacker sides should use siege weapons like siege towers and onagers. Players always want to put their soldiers into a big siege weapon and attack to walls. The Naval Army should attack the castles near seas. A tower that has no soldiers in it shouldn’t fire arrows. We should leave a unit in every city to defend the city so they can stand in the Towers and fire arrows to enemy. You know in Medieval-1 the towers and walls are firing arrows but there are no soldiers in them so who’s firing?-Ghosts(?)

3- The big Map Technic in Rome should be used in Medieval-2 too. The map should be between The 25th and the 65th North latiudes---20th West and 75th East parallels. But the map should be more big and 3d. Travelling on the map should be like Rome but there’s a problem that should be solved;for example if a large army takes a road in 3 turns, only a general’s unit should take the same road in one day.You know general’s unit’s horses are beter than any horses. Diplomats,spies or assasians should travel faster. Fleets should take more road in one turn. Mountains, rivers and lakes should look like as their real looks. And there must be wars on the pasages of mountains. Passage of mountains should be more important. We should carry our armies with our fleets, and our armies should pass the rivers that are not too deep.(This option is avaible in the game:Imperial Glory). But our armies shouldn’t pass through everywhere. There must be areas that covered by rocks or swamps. And these swamps should effect the wars.

4- In Rome and Medieval the naval wars are on the campaign screen and they are done automatically.But we should do naval wars on the battle screen. .(This option is avaible in the game:Imperial Glory)

5- Armies must be bigger. Strategy players don’t care about soldiers’ faces or hair. Players always want to see a lot of units in the same screen.For example we should lead an army that has got 500 units and each unit should have 100 or 200 soldiers. Players don’t like to strive with little battles. Joining into a big battle with powerful army that is prepared in high details is more attractive to players.

6- Trade products should be stored .And when we produce gold,stones we should be able to store them.And we should be able to build construcitons with our gold and stone stocks. We should build castles on our owns.We should improve our castles with towers or trenches. For example İstanbul Castle is a peninsula,Paris Castle is on a River…Each castle should have its own specialities.But in Medieval and Rome all of them are open to any kinds of attack. We should build castles on our maps and can improve these castles.We should also stock storable food in our castles.So if the enemy siege our castles,we can defend for a long time ourselves so the enemy has to attack directly .So the sieges become more enjoyable.But in Rome and Medieval, attacking a castle is too boring.

7- In rivers or thight sides of seas should be passed by rafts.Beacuse in the begining of the game we cannot transport our armies.And waiting for building a port steals our times..

8-Building a construction takes too much time.But in real world buildnig a port or a barrack doesn’t take too much time.

9-Bribes,awards and gifts types can be improved.. In history, kings or sultans give each other horses,swords or female slaves.And concubines should be recruited as spies or assasians.We should give concubines to our general and agents.So their loyalty becomes higher.And we should also give good horses to our generals as a gift.Or an unit that uses good horses can be recruited.So these units can get into the enemy lands and give an unexpected visit to enemy soldiers.

10-Generals with high skills should lead more powerful units.And generals should be recruited in another barracks. Simple soldiers should be able to become a general if they fight for years. Old generals should be able to leave the job and they should be able to become a governor of a place.

11-The game should pass years between 925 to 1525. And the periots’ starting dates should be 925,-1080,-1180,-1290.In turns,the climate should be changed and in every year there should be 3 or 4 turns.

12--Border Castles should be left out. But special units should be recruited to defend the borders.And another special units can be recruited to save the Kings.

13-Assasians and spies can kidnap enemy diplomats or generals.And kidnapped people can be interrogated in a special building. And when we learn what we need we should kill or set free these people.

14-When a princess marry,there is no need to delete her from the map.And kings’ children should be on the map so players should be able to kidnap or kill them to destroy faction’s heirs.But a kidnapped person should be rescued by ransom.If the enemy doesn’t give ransom units can be used as slaves.or kidnapped diplomats can be hold in a Dungeon.Yes there should be a new building named Dungeon

15-Spies should be able to open the gates of a city which is under a siege.And catching a spy should be too difficult on open lands.Furthermore they should be able to make a rebellion in the enemy army.

16-Only the religion doen’t cause a rebellion.National feelings can be used for making a rebellion. And people that see many wars on their lands should be more warrior and always try to make a rebellion

17-Like in Rome and Imperial Glory ciwil population should be use as a source. Heirs of a destroyed faction should be able to prepare a rebellion.

18-There should be groups in the people like real world.Nobles,slaves,soldiers...These difference between these groups should cause a fight.

19-If a king is dead or the kingdom’s condition goes badly,the heirs of the faction should fight each other to take the management of the country.

20-Woman should be able to become a General(egypt quenn secerüd dür -Remember; Jan dark).And women whose husbands’ are died should be able to marry again.

21-In Rome and Medieval-1,the trade goods are only written on the paper.But I think these should be used. There must be occupation groups for each of trade goods.And in the constcruction menu we should be able to start buildings about these. For example,

Iron and copper --- Weapon and Armor

Gold and silver --- As Money

Fabric and Silk --- Uniform/Sailcloth

Wheat/Oil/Grape/Cattle --- Food for common people and soldiers

Stone and Lime --- Castles and Buildings

Slave --- Productive Power

Camel and Horse --- Transport and Carvan

22-Sounds of the game is really important for strategy players.Sounds in Medieval-1 are wonderful.In Medieval-2,sounds must be as good as Medieval-1’sounds.
And the pictures of people should be more detailed.In Medieval-1,all the pictures are full of ugly people(!)

23-And if the creators of Total War decide to make Medieval-2 they should search cultures of nations.For example,In Medieval-1 Turks,Persians and Arabs are shown as same.Three of them are Muslim but they have got very difference.So the creators should make a big search about cultures..

I think the main commercial problem with improving strategy games is how easy it is to play.

There was this one game that pushed the limits a little called master of orion 3, it was a complete failure... It was an extremely complex game laid out like a spreadsheet that became tedious and players quickly became bored and annoyed. However I don't think it's complexity was the problem, but rather the AI used to make the game easier.

I think games like this when you are going for 100% conquest or games like civilisation 4 are nearing the limits where a person can make all the decisions himself without getting bored. The next level of complexity would have to be achieved by using an AI in a manner that ensures the player has complete control without putting much effort into things he is not interested in. Something as simple as a few automatic commands that can be switched on and off which can be programmed easily to perform actions the players wants, determinned by extensive play testing... Like the auto-tax, except more complex.

I don't think there will be a medieval total war 2. Maybe a napolean total war. Or even better a complete global total war ranging from the stone age to the late 19th century with 100s of scenarios and the AI I just mentionned and all the bribes, trading and technology boz mentionned.


hmm? hmmm?

I'll chime in on this one even though I believe there is already a medieval war 2 which I'll explain in a bit.

1. The soldier/ archer thing can be modded to make them stronger or weaker. Since MTW can be modded to add new units your elephants can be in MTW if you want. I think routing and leaving the battlefield is realistic enough not to be changed.

2. I fully agree to this, except I think it would make the game to complicated if you took the best aspects of stronghold and mix it in to MTW.

3. I think as long as there isn't oceans in the way armies can go anywhere. Technically they can. The game is talking about provence to provence so there is almost always a way. Armies would navigate around swamps and find passes through mountains. This might affect fatigue and morale but I am unsure how someone would be able to go about this and still make a game playable. To break the game down to more than one turn a year might make the game exceedingly boring. Sometimes I go 10-20 years w/out doing anything of signifigance except build. If I had to move military armies around swamps, large rivers, and mountains I would be frustrated and doubt I would be having fun.

4. I totally agree. I think it would have rocked playing naval battles. Fleets manuvering and the such, most fun, not to mention it would make you alot more leary about building a trade network of just 1 ship per section of sea way.

5. I totally disagree. One of the reasons I liked MTW was their attention to detail. I liked the look of the armies their hair and faces and army detail. If you want bigger units then change the setting thats already in the game.

6. Nice but again if i have to count every gain of wheat my country grows, or every ounce of gold they mine it will drive me crazy. Heck when I've conquered 1/3 of MTW it takes 1/2 an hour a turn just to get through moving pieces, ordering buildings to be built, and checking morale. This is not even talking battles. If it takes me 3 years to win the game once then that is 2 years and 10-11 months longer than I liked.

7. I'd like to see you transport your now super huge cavalry unit across the british channel in a raft. 1st you want your army to be harder to move then you want to make it easier by putting them on rafts? Thats crazy. Transporting a fleet across a large body was a massive undertaking, requiring fleets of ships. To do it in the game would undermine the reasons why places like the British isles and ireland were hard to conquer. It is a significant natural barrier. I don't even like the connection between wessex and flanders. Thats still 16 miles of open sea. Of course that can be modded to get rid of it.

8. In the real world building a port is accomplished with machinery and computers. Of course it doesn't take to long. Back then it took significantly longer. The time it takes to build things in MTW is just fine with me.

9. Yes i definately agree some of the political or espionage type actions could be vastly improved. I would like to see them delve into expanding this.

10. I dont think this is necessary. You can make old generals govs of provences, and you dont have to take them into battle. This is a part of the game you could roleplay yourself. About high ranking generals leading more powerful units they do. I had a 9* general, whose unit was Urban Militia. That sucked right? Wrong. These guy's valour was off the chart they had access to the best armor and weapons because I had them refurbished in a provence with a County Militia (i think thats the highest one), a master blacksmith and a master armourer. They still more than held their own against "more advanced troops".

11. Yet again another example of you have way to much extra time on your hands. It would take way too long to play the game even one time through.

12. Border forts are part of a network of pieces that protect your borders. Spies, assassins, emissaries, bishops, cardinals, and even princess run counter-intelligence to protect the people who live in your borders, even your king. I agreed that developing the more sneakier or political aspects of the game would be neat, but I don't see any reason to remove border forts.

13. What would we learn that we cant already find out in the game? Nope don't like it.

14. No, when a princess marries another faction she is no longer yours to control, best case scenario she would become a pawn of the other faction. And as a pawn of the other faction her new duties no longer revolve running about the countryside. She is busy producing heirs and planning parties. This is a historic reality. Actually from a historic standpoint, MTW's princesses were given way to much freedom.

15. Opening seiged castle doors are already in the game, albeit very hard, as it should be. Armies can be bribed which is close enough to rebell for me. Catching a spy is fine as it is now. Remember a whole network for counterspying is at work catching spies.

16. Already happens in the game. Drop a provences loyalty below 100% in a game and watch what happens. It isn't a religious rebellion its a provincial rebellion and I've fought more than a few with rebellious foot knights and reg. army vets. This can also be modded to make a provence more likely to rebell.

17. Population = resource, hmmm, very interesting. I would go for it. Heirs of a destroyed faction are used for rebellions. I'm sure you've seen a faction resurgence, if you haven't you need to play the game longer, i promise they're there and problematic. The only exception is your faction. Once you lose then you lose game over.

18. I am not interested in this whatso ever

19. Already happens. Are you playing the same game I am? Civil wars can and do happen. Pray that you are never on the recieving end of one that you didn't engineer yourself.

20. MTW was made to be semi-historically based. Let's try to keep it that way. Women's role during the Medieval period is pretty well depicted in the game. Women were almost never generals (Except Joan of Arc). Although letting a Woman take control if their were no male heirs would have been interesting to see.

21. Again making to many parts of the game more complicated may overwhelm the player. A frustrated player = a player who isn't going to play much longer.

22. I agree the music still must be interesting, and perhaps even more varied. People in the Medieval World were ugly. Deal with it.

23. I believe you are right. They did a very decent job of factions and the differences of them, but they could do more. Although this is a good segway into the reason why MTW-2 already exists.

Some of the things you have listed above already occur in the game one way or the other. You did bring up a couple of good ideas like fleet battles, and exanding on epionage and more politics.

The rest of your ideas have already been done by modders. I believe the direction these modders have taken have created many MTW-2s. They have created more factions, more units, more cultures, and more music. They have even created different environments. You could play Lord of the Rings Total War, based on the books by Tolkien. I think a modder is working on Colonial Total War, based on the American Colonies and the Revolutionary Period. Sounds fun, huh?

This is the reason why CA may never come out with a MTW-2. They developed a great game and are prolly sitting around playin the great games built by modders who tweaked what they created. If you want to try somethin new download the BKB mod or MTW-XL or one of the many kicking around the forums. I hear they are very different and bring a whoile new flavor to MTW.

I'd like to see a TW that uses the whole world and goes from 5000BCE to Future :-D.

Moved to Arena.Though this maybe a game in the TW series it is not MTW.

And on to the EH, because it's still TW.

Some interesting ideas... I go along with this one in particular

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bozkirsovalyesi

5- Armies must be bigger. Strategy players don’t care about soldiers’ faces or hair. Players always want to see a lot of units in the same screen. For example we should lead an army that has got 500 units and each unit should have 100 or 200 soldiers. Players don’t like to strive with little battles. Joining into a big battle with powerful army that is prepared in high details is more attractive to players.

---

I agree with bozkirsovalyesi up to a point here. Yes I think it's very important to have bigger armies and bigger battle maps to accommodate them. But I like the detail too.

I know it's pushing the technical envelope, but in an ideal world I'd like a seamless transition between the campaign map and the battlefield.

So at "satellite" view you can see armies marked by the walking units (as in RTW). Zoom in a bit and you can see the actual armies walking in columns on the map. Zoom in again and you can start identifying individual divisions (or indeed separate armies) and manoeuvre them on this more tactical view. Zoom more and you get the RTW battlefield perspective. Zoom again and you get a Generals eye view.

I'd like to lose the turns and have to manoeuvre my armies into battle positions in real time (time slider on the campaign map please). I think this tactical manoeuvring phase would add a lot of depth and realism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bozkirsovalyesi

For example we should lead an army that has got 500 units

---

Armies of 500 units would be impossible to control.

500 units is not as crazy as you think. The only issue would be that you cannot fight MTW or RTW type warfare with that kind of numbers. Napoleonic warfare, which is rigid and simple, controlling 500 regiments is a trifle, but 500 units in MTW or RTW would drain the best of us dry.

correction:

500 soldier ................ 100 or 200 unit






or more good:

400 - 500 soldier ........... 100 - 150 - 200 unity

Heres (a few of!) my suggestions I could go on all day, but then noone would read it!

(A) I think the number of units should be increased slightly, but not much (maybe 20-25), but I would make the weaker 'barbarian' type units larger. This is because at the moment a small high tech army can slaughter an enormous low tech army with hardly any losses because the low tech army can only bring approximately the same number of men to the field at the same time due to the way reinforcements are handled. eg double the size of peasant, fanatics, slavs etc so they can 'swarm' the high tech guys.

(B) I think the building time for structures should be proportional to the size/population of the settlement. Its ridiculous that a tiny outpost fort builds at the same rate as your capital with hundreds of thousands of workers.

(C) I think generals should be trained at a military accademy (which you can send your princes to if you want) and this coupled with genetic inheritance decided how good a general they are. The current system which relies on the kings influence is too biased
When a general dies you should have to substitute a new one - not a guy with identical stats appearing - this is totally unrealistic. Great leaders DID die and their countries were often much worse off because of it, but hey thats life!

(D) I want to see a score system which gives me more satisfaction than that end sequence and a high score table. This could be something like GA balancing military and civilian goals, but which gives you a score for the game even if you finish before the end!

(E) There should be more specialisation for which provinces can build which units etc - less generic armies and more reason to contest certain provinces. eg anyone can build tribizond archers, but only in trebizond etc. I think this would show the fact that when a nation conquors a region then the culture of that region can become assimilated into their own (rather than lost forever as it is at the moment - except reemergences)

(F) I like the movement, sea movement and trading concepts in RTW, with a bit of modification they could work well (the one thing I dont like as a result of this is all the siege battles)

(G) Diplomacy needs improved greatly - I want to fight alongside allies on purpose, not by random chance. Be able to trade/give units, provinces, gold to each other. Right of passage agreements. Mutual protection pacts, alliances etc.

(H) Some sort of limit on strategic agents - they can be greatly abused and I've mostly stopped using them as I prefer a battle dominated game. My suggestions would be a maintainance cost for them or each building can support a certain number (eg each church has 2 missionary priests, you get 1 cardinal for your cathedral, 2 spies for each brothel etc)

(I) Archers allowed on the walls instead of infinite tower arrows in siege defences. Suggest the archers have to make a trip to the armoury to restock arrows after they have shot them all - running out as easily as in foreign campaigns would be unrealistic.

(J) You should be able to take the metal armour off in the desert! Just because you equip a guy with the best plate armour in the world it doesnt mean he has to wear it for every fight!

(K) Add momentum to charges, particularly cavalry. I'm fed up with heavy cavalry charges getting stopped by a few guys in a depleted unit or routers. I'm not saying they have to be killed immediately, just that they shouldnt halt the charge the riders who dont connect keep going

(L) Add weapon lengths so eg pikemen have a very large advantage when a swordsman is at the end of the pike, but a disadvantage when (if!) he reaches the guy face to face

MEDİEVAL TOTAL WAR-2

what time..?

dark age europe ~;)

Great leaders DID die and their countries were often much worse off because of it, but hey thats life!
If we used a seasonal turn system, I would be content with that, but if we have to use a yearly turn system, then no cheese.
Some sort of limit on strategic agents - they can be greatly abused and I've mostly stopped using them as I prefer a battle dominated game. My suggestions would be a maintainance cost for them or each building can support a certain number (eg each church has 2 missionary priests, you get 1 cardinal for your cathedral, 2 spies for each brothel etc)
I think the support cost would be better control, as well as increasing the price of hiring in the first place. Spies were expensive little beggars, & were a significant drain on resources. Also, I think some consdieration to reintroducing the spy specific vices and virtues would be good.
Diplomacy needs improved greatly - I want to fight alongside allies on purpose, not by random chance. Be able to trade/give units, provinces, gold to each other. Right of passage agreements. Mutual protection pacts, alliances etc\
Well put!!!
Archers allowed on the walls instead of infinite tower arrows in siege defences. Suggest the archers have to make a trip to the armoury to restock arrows after they have shot them all - running out as easily as in foreign campaigns would be unrealistic.
I like that idea of archers "garrisoning" the walls of a castle. you could send them onto the walls, where they then spread out equally on all sides, then they will mass on the walls where the enemy is, but they shouldn't have to get more ammo, since the walls can have plenty of stock-piles on hand, or runners to do that for one. I recommend a small number of "permanent" archers in towers be around, so there are always archers, but not many. I also think that a defender in a battle should always have a minimum of double normal ammunition. Ammo wagons might be considered as well, but the idea is that the defender has the advantage of time to prepare stock-piles of additional ammo when set up before the battle begins.
You should be able to take the metal armour off in the desert! Just because you equip a guy with the best plate armour in the world it doesnt mean he has to wear it for every fight
I think it should go further, and armour alone not be the factor to decide desert effects. There should be say, 3 or 4 climate types to choose from, like "desert," "northerner" "central" & "mediterranean" Desert guys do not suffer much from the heat, so they fight well in the desert (they are weaker, simply because its hot for anybody, but nearly as weak as others), really well in mediterranean (which is usually dry, hot, but not nearly as bad as desert), then do average in central (like France, England south of Scotland) climate, but they suffer as bad as non-desert types do in the desert in the snows of Scandinavia. To balance this out some, troops can get used to certain climates, but it will take time, and they will never be fully at home. Plus, perhaps soldiers out of their climate and in a real bad one could have a tendency to get sick while standing in the line, so units slowly lose men during battle, even if there is no enemy fire or fighting. These men are not dead, only unable to fight, so upon the end of fighting, they are returned to you, but it makes it harder to drag out certain battles. Units that are exhausted (regardless of climate) could also suffer this fate, which is an incentive to not push your men too far, or they will fall apart.
Add weapon lengths so eg pikemen have a very large advantage when a swordsman is at the end of the pike, but a disadvantage when (if!) he reaches the guy face to face
I found that a simple way to resolve that issue is to give such units a weak attack, but strong defence. All my privately modified spear-units work this way, and they are terrific. Spears are not supposed to be killing weapons (though some men can become quite deadly with them) as much as they are meant to keep the enemy at bay. Spearmen don't kill, they keep the baddies busy while killing units maneuver in for the kill.
I think generals should be trained at a military accademy (which you can send your princes to if you want) and this coupled with genetic inheritance decided how good a general they are. The current system which relies on the kings influence is too biased
I agree the heirs to a king tend to not be well done, & a dedicated general unit which did not count in an army's order of battle would be terrific. Such men could start out with average stats (between 3 & 5 for all categories), plus a randomly chosen trait of a military nature (the general performed well in attacks during his training, so he is an attack specialist, while another was highly popular & a natural leader, so he gets fearsome1 trait) But to get these units, one must have a lot of infrastructure.

1) Instead of years, seasons, winter and summer.
2) Poverfull province governors with many troops in their command grow disloyal.
3) Unit numbers and cost vary according to the province they come from (p.e. Archers from egypt 100/unit, archers from Malta 30/unit).
4) Extensive recruitment has an effect on agriculture (less men to work), low recruitment has an effect on loyalty (more people, not enough land for everybody).
5) Rationalize province2province movement (it is not logical to need the same time to cross through Cyrenasia and the same time to cross through Provence....)
6) Siege towers available in every siege.

I would echo the following:

- More involved naval combat. (Sid Meier's "Pirates" anyone?)
- More complex diplomacy, trade and espionage.
- SIEGE TOWERS!!!
- More highly interactive events (like disease, a moving/spreading plague etc)
- More detailed profiles of generals and royal family. Royal Family history and relationships.
- Simple pre-programmed manouevres on the battlefield, like feints etc.
- Details of generals whilst on the battlefield

Creating and maintaining supply lines while on campaign is a much needed feature. In this way armies can march realistic distances given the time passing between turns, but the player is still limited by how much of a risk he is willing to take when sending armies marching over long distances: should he march ahead in the hope of taking a particular city, or is the enemy to close and could possibly cut the attacking army off from supplies?

Another thing I would like to see is a more realistic representation of manouvering armies. A basic "move forward" or "move backward" would make it so much easier to pull off coordinated attacks and feints with infantry, while the player can concentrate on flanking the enemy with other (cavalry) units. A slower communication based on the distance from the general's unit would also make battles more interesting, simulating the confusion of a battle. Higher ranked generals would have quicker communications of course. More control over reinforcements or supporting armies would also be nice (like "attack now", "hold position" or "suggest you take this (click) location").

Obviously a more complex and logical diplomatic system would be great, allowing detailed treaties and the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Creating and maintaining supply lines while on campaign is a much needed feature.

---

I totally agree

Heres my thoughts: A Totally refurbished physics engine, meaning if a trebuchet hits a wall, it would do realistic damage to it according the weightxdistance thrown also the amount of damage to a wall or structure would be calculated as heightxspeed of impact so if your boulder smashed into a wall going at a high rate of speed it would just cleave into the wall and actually look like it hit it realistically, if your boulder slammed into a wooden plank supporting a building depending on what plank(s) it hit the building would teeter and collapse according to the trajectory at which the boulder hit it.

In battles physics would also matter, so vanilla type archers would do less damage, so a soldier whose shield is hit by an arrow it might stick into it or bounce off... Arbalests, X-Bows, and Bodkin headed arrows might hit a target in the shield bust the shield in half and jam into the guy behind the shield, they might go completely through softer armed targets. "bullets" would slam into a heavily armored subject and it may bounce off, or shatter their armor, or go through. Of course each unit would be individually rendered, so if a projectile hit a soft spot it probably kill him. Remember ladies and Gentlemen...Physics can be fun!

Most of this would serve for cosmetic purposes, but it could also help some with AI... my mouth would drool if such a system were to be put into the next game.

more ideas..?

1. My biggest complaint is that their is no multiplayer campaign mode. If I even had to autocalc battles against my human friend, thats fine but I want an ally I can trust.

2. Lets say I ally against Germany and no matter what, I stick by his side and save his butt and he (the A.I.) helps out once in a while - once my nation gets bigger, I would like to remain allied when someone else attacks me and its allied to both. I am tired of seeing a good ally break alliances as well.

3. No more cheap tactics, for instance; Faction Returns with Uber Armies, Pope Returns Constantly, Mass Rebellion in the end, one weak enemy ship taking out 2 of my more advanced ships later on. Also, don't quote me because many factors go into moral and routing but I think sometimes my army routs when in reality it shouldn't have.

4. I can understand it taking a long time to build a building the first time in an empire, the research wasn't there yet in history - but if I have a bell foundry in Wales, it shouldn't take so long to build one in Scotland - I already did the research for the one in Wales. Also, if I had a Master Shipyard in Florance, I should be able to just build one in Demark without having to tech all the way up - BUT IT SHOULD COST MORE, perhaps double the amount of florins.

5. All Catholics should be able to Crusade. I love playing the Danes and they can't. I know in real life they didn't Crusade but this is a game - if I was king and I saw Britain have a successful Crusade to Palestine, I would want to do one too.

6. In the movie Braveheart, they put oil on a battlefield and had archers ignite it, that would be cool.

7. Cannons should come in groups like everything else, that way if you put a unit cap, artillery won't be such a bad idea in Multiplayer Campaigns. I mean, whats better - ONE cannon or a group of CMAA's

All in all, I am not complaining. I love this game and for every thing I put above, I can name 5 things I like about this game. Please, if you hear me on anything, I would rather have better AI and extra ideas than a new Graphics Engine. Thank you.

Also, fun factor is always more important than realism.

Sure, I love realistic playing as much as possible but I don't mind breaking a rule to make a game a lot more fun.

Case in point, Danes and Poles should at least be able to crusade.

Want proof that this is important, look at Counter Strike - the #1 non MMORPG game out there. Its mostly realistic but it doesn't kill the pace like other tactical shooters. Now those get boring quickly.

Also, more than 16 units at a time would be sweet.

A Few more ideas sort of just popped into my head

This is going along with the idea that there is an RTW style map involved. No Turns...none...zip...zero..nada. Instead make the system work more like HoI or HoI2, I don't think a board type strategy game like the original MTW works very well, everything like marching distances, recruitment, and build time would be dependant on time itself, of course the real time could be adjusted to fit your needs.

The Tactical System should be overhauled as well, something along the lines of the game 'mount & blade' on a much grander scale. This would be neat. and of course the time it takes to relay messages between the general and his lieutenants would take time as well, not the instantaneous "go here!" "Yes Sir!" it would be more like "relay this message to this unit's captain or superior officer... I want him to take this hill" and then your runner would go to the Captain and tell him to take the objective, and then your runner comes back and says something like "the Lieutenant has gotten your orders sir! he is taking the hill at all costs". The Further a Unit is from your general the longer a unit has to wait for a message. The More Coordinated a Force is, the faster messages can be relayed, so in the beginning of the early period you might have messengers run to an officer, and then later in the game Flags could be used, so you can command larger armies more effectively.

I still agree with my Physics suggestion.

Towns & Population: Towns need some serious overhaul. I do like the suggestion of build your own castles. But more has to be done as far as complexity of terrain. And You really only have command of what is built within your walls, like armouries and palaces, etc. When People move in your city, they might expand beyond the reach of the walls, and not only build houses, but if you're castle is a trade hub you might sea merchants moving in, or an increase of churches (if a cathedral isn't built), and basically see people going about their daily lives. If it is a port city, such as London you might see ships going up the Thames to dock (or actually docking). The Larger a Settlement is the quicker buildings will get built, especially if it has an ample amount of educated men to engineer structures. If You Upgrade your Castle, you can also build ringwalls around the city settlement, thus adding to it's defense. If a Castle is besieged you will see it's villagers (as the feudal system should work) run into the castle and arm themselves accordingly. You should get an instant Bonus in men. The Better the Armory the more capable weapons a peasant or commoner will be armed with.

Also on a further note: If it were to truly be the medieval times I'd like to see my suggestion of Feudalism noted. Men coming from different parts of the same Kingdom will have different banners and colours. They only way you can tell which men are yours and which men are the enemies is going to be based on general garb but more importantly by their standard. Of course there would be an indication that the these men belong to you because their standard would have something that would indicate loyalty to the Kingdom such as the "Three Lions" or the Three Fluer-de-Lys. But unlike in Medieval total war, whole armies of men were not colored coordinated at all, until the latest parts of the game, which would be like a "consolidation of power and national unity" sort of event, in which all your men dress the same and all standards are the same. If a standard falls in battle this is going to be bad for you, because you may not be able to tell whose troops are whose in the confusion of battle, and this did happen quite regularly. of course the following system would have to be adjusted to the ai.

Agents: While Personally I dislike the Diplomat Agent (I don't see why you couldn't just have a window representing diplomacy) I do like the Spies and Assassins. Good Spies should be hard to come by but may prove themselves very capable. Such as gaining a position of trust or being the right hand man of a rival king could bring them down swiftly if you decided to unleash his powers at that point. Spies should also be able to cause a general ruckus within a city, or heaven forbid open it's gate up to you (which would be much harder to do than it is in RTW). Assassins... well they don't really need to be changed.

As far as when a King Dies, he may have the Alexandros option of not appointing an heir, "to the best man is my empire" sort of deal where you're sons and nobles are all fighting each other for domination. In the early game the chances of all out war between several different factions within your kingdom might erupt, but by the later early era the more docile it becomes, with more backstabbing and whoever is the most manipulative gets the throne. If you're king dies without an heir, but has a daughter married off to a foreign king, he automatically gains control of your Kingdom (so watch out for that :) ), the reverse of if a son or royalty is married to a foreign princess nothing would happen at all, but the chances are much better that the heir married to a princess of a powerful country will ultimately gain the throne, as that king could potentially use his own power to bolster yours, such as sending you a host of Knights, or even sending you a whole army to destroy your enemies.

I'll have more to say in due time :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

Case in point, Danes and Poles should at least be able to crusade.

---

AND Hungarians!

I think that the campaign should be longer than ending at 1453 I think that it should go past this
:book:

:bow:

And to add I think that their should be asassin movies like in STW that would be really cool I always like those movies.
~:cheers:
:bow:

1. I think assasins need to be fixed. Assasination attempts occur way too frequently. Also assasination should carry some kind of consiqence for the people initiating it. Not just that you loose your assasin if you fail, but if you are HRE and you off the Chancellor of the English, they aren't just going to go "oh, hum... time to make another Chancellor." They are going to loose thier s**t and come knocking on your door. :furious3:
2. There needs to be some sort of negotiation and reparations for ceasefire. If HRE attacks France and are defeated there needs to be some compensation beyond spoils for France. Like tribute or something. :embarassedg:
3. You should get ex-commed every time you go on a counter-offensive when some country comes and invades. If this happened during the real Medieval period, eventually no one would give a rats red arse what the Pope had to say. :duel:
4 I would love to see some kind of Causus Belli like in Europa Universalis as this would be more accurate and keep the AI from invading just for s**ts and giggles. :charge:
Way more than this but I can't focus at the moment. Barking puppy needs to be fed and a pot of coffee needs to be made.

Eh @ MTW 2

I want China Total War.

Imagine "Battlefield Martial Artists"

Up +

Too much reading, however.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

1. My biggest complaint is that their is no multiplayer campaign mode. If I even had to autocalc battles against my human friend, thats fine but I want an ally I can trust.

---

I agree. At least on MTW vanilla, it is really weird that my catholic allies hate me more than the muslims who are "infidels" in their eyes. Same thing goes to my fellow muslims when I'm playing as muslim. I've also seen weird alliances amongst arch-rivals. Well, you know what I'm talking about. Say Egyptians are expanding north but the French side with them instead of helping their neighbors.

There are some good ideas, but heres a few I would like to see implemented. These as such are not easy to add to the existing game.

1) Naval battles definately, and depending on the ships in question, some may fire projectiles, while others would need to get close in order for their crew to board and fight the other crew. Fast ships would have the advantage of movement around the battle.

2) Spies are mostly uncontrolled, but you can use the taverns and brothels to hire agents for specific missions. The agent would have an upfront cost, and then a small "maintenance fee". In exchange, you'd get reports and information about the target or region. In addition, some agents might act as double agents, so therefore the agent that you hired might've been hired by your enemy, and as a result could be giving you false information, while giving your enemies valuable information. That spy you just hired could likewise be an assassin. Assassins would have a small upfront fee, and if successful could demand a much larger followup fee. Non-payment might result in negative consequences.

3) Assassination attempts should have more than two outcomes. There should be atleast: 1) Target Killed, Assassin escaped. 2) Target Killed, Assassin killed in escape attempt, 3) Attempt Failed (or mission aborted) and assassin escaped, 4) Attempt Failed and assassin caught. Numbers 3 and 4 might be common if the chances of success are low, while 1 and 2 are more likely when the chances of success are greater.

4) Overland traderoutes. Overland traderoutes should act in one of two ways. Based on the existing trade elements.

a) You train Caravan units, and move them like you do normal agents. You require one in your home trading province, and then one in each province to form a chain to the chain's destination(s). Your caravan sells to each province that it reaches where your goods can be sold. You might have a chain going from Flanders, all the way to Constantinople, selling your goods in each territory along the route.

b) Your level of trading post determines the range from the province. The Trading Post sells goods just to the local population. A Merchant sells to the local population, and each bordering province. A Merchant Guild sells to each that the Merchant sells to, plus one additional ring from there, etc.

5. Retain the existing turnbased format for campaign map, but break each year down into two seasons. Each region is affected by one or both of the primary weather types. Winter and Summer. During winter season, troops can only move one province at a time to simulate the colder weather and more difficult conditions. While Summer season, troops can move up to two to three provinces at a time. Desert might be limited to two, while severe desert conditions might likewise be affected as per Winter conditions. Other regions might have Winter/Summer combinations. What this means is that one turn you can move your troops one province over, while the next year they can move further. What specific weather conditions exist would be determined primarily from where you're leaving and partially where you're heading and by which route. All this would be handled by the computer to calculate, so it's a matter of just picking up your unit and checking to see it's range. Enemy controlled provinces would therefore halt the movement of a unit (even if they were entitled to 3 province movement).

6. When your King dies without any Heirs that are of age, the game should calculate each year where there is the possibility that you have an underage heir, and advance the game a series of years. The game might resume with you in control of a recently reemerged faction which may have most or very few of it's original territory. It would depend on how long it took your underage heirs to come of age, and then rally the people. During the uncontrolled period you would be able to see the events during your absence.

7. During castle sieges, defenders should take a heavy morale hit once their general/king has died. This might result in flight, or surrender of the remaining troops, rather than it being down to the last man. Disciplined or Elite troops might stand longer, but others would collapse quickly if the castles walls were breached, and hordes of soldiers were flowing in.

8. Battering Rams. You should be able to train ram crews that can move up to the castle gates, and act as a movable melee siege weapon, rather than having troops run up to the gates to try to break them down. Battering Rams should be more effective than normal troops banging against the gate. Optionally some units can be outfitted with siege ladders, so instead of trying to bash their way through the fort walls, some of the men in the units can scale the walls and get in.

9. On Engage at Will, some units should be able to split up into two smaller groups. For instance, a unit of Royal Knights might split to chase two nearby units of archers. Currently it's one or the other, particularly if the two sets of archers move further apart (if they are close together the Knights may attack men from both units. Some units could even be specialized in temporarily being two smaller units when they need to be.

10. Grouped units of similar units are treated as a single unit of the specified type (you can at a later time ungroup them if necessary. Currently when you select say two units of spearmen and group them together, if you try to form a spearwall with a depth of 3 men, what will happen is that there will inevitably be a gap as you try to stretch them out to meet that depth of three men. You then manually have to move one of the spears together. Having 3 units of 100 spearmen should create a superunit of 300 men, and with few hassles, be able to create a single unbroken straightspear wall of 100 men wide at 3 men depth.

11. Movement of battle camera would need to be completly free tilt, meaning you could get a complete overhead view of the fighting if you so choose.


Regarding #5, I propose to retain the turnbased format, because it gives the game some extra gameplay depth. You have Real-time battles, and turn-based kingdom management. I like the combination of the two different game play types. You can play plenty of custom battles if that's all you wanted to do with MTW, but likewise you can autocalc all your battles if you weren't interested in the RTB. It is one of MTW's strengths.

This is all so far that I can think of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbroadbent

6. When your King dies without any Heirs that are of age, the game should calculate each year where there is the possibility that you have an underage heir, and advance the game a series of years. The game might resume with you in control of a recently reemerged faction which may have most or very few of it's original territory. It would depend on how long it took your underage heirs to come of age, and then rally the people. During the uncontrolled period you would be able to see the events during your absence.

---

or one of the ex-heirs can just resume the kingdom right away in a smaller scale, say as rebel. We can already pick sides when there's a civil war so why not be able to pick when the king doesn't have a successor? With that said, the only "game over" we have is in 1453.

As far as the turnbase on campaign, I just don't like the fact that our enemies know what provinces we're invading. I like challenges but it seems to me that the AI factions have the advantage whereas I always defend my province unprepared. Anyone notice this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weebeast

or one of the ex-heirs can just resume the kingdom right away in a smaller scale, say as rebel. We can already pick sides when there's a civil war so why not be able to pick when the king doesn't have a successor? With that said, the only "game over" we have is in 1453.

---

True, that's possible. Whatever makes the game go on.

Quote:

---

As far as the turnbase on campaign, I just don't like the fact that our enemies know what provinces we're invading. I like challenges but it seems to me that the AI factions have the advantage whereas I always defend my province unprepared. Anyone notice this?

---

Yeah, sometimes it seems that way, though if you know what sort of troops are at your borders, and what kind of defenses you have (and what sort of behavior the faction is running) you can guess what might occur. When I see a buildup occuring (which could be as a result of a buildup on my own), I tend to try to meet the rate of buildup.

I guess you need more spies. High valor spies can be very useful for telling you when attacks are coming. I don't have watchtowers and border forts in my game, so all I have to worry about are high valour assassins and spies of the opposing faction finding my hidden agents. On the downside of not having watchtowwers, it's not as easy to boost loyalty as upgrading to border forts give a total of 50 happiness, so rebellions and revolts can be much more common. It also makes it a necessity that you train a number of spies and assassins to protect the homeland provinces.

Up +

Here's an idea: Slow down the goofy unit speed, bring back the spear bonus, and make the combat more like it was in M:TW, only prettier.

I'm all for new features and pretty pictures, but the real-time battles are the core of this game. The "improvements" of combat in R:TW to make the battles more "exciting" are what caused more mutiny in the fan base than everything else put together.

Maybe multiple play settings would help: arcade (which they can drop as far as I'm concerned), normal (like R:TW), realistic (slower unit speeds, spear bonus like M:TW) and very realistic (better than M:TW, where a battle can last hours.)

P.S. No more goofy units like Eqyptian Chariots in Roman times.

A real-time, or more precisely "non-turnbased", campaign map would be nice. Leave the torches and knives, I´ve been playing Knights of Honor for a while which does have such a campaign map and it plays no more hectic than Rome or Medieval, actually more fluent. It would benefit a MP campaign even better than auto-calced battles, especially if the game doesn´t go to pause mode when a battle is fought.
Food supply is a must (including foraging, a feature even Lord of the Realm II, from the early 90´s, had) and the stamina/exhaustion of a unit in battle could be influenced by how long (and where) the army had been marching about without resting.
Perhaps some feature like the Family members could be adapted to the medieval system, posts like governors, generals, diplomats, spies etc. are performed by Nobles, which are basically similar to the Roman family members, with the difference that their number depends on the number of provinces the player controls. In MTW you could asssign titles to officers, but you had that many officers (because every unit had one) it became more work than playing. Perhaps another approach would suit that better, the provinces give titles and the titles open spaces for your staff, i.e. you can have only as many agents in the furthest sense of the word as you have provinces, perhaps a few "basic" open slots when a faction only has one province.
But, if MTW II is already announced then any kind of "wishlist" is no more than that, as the game design will most certainly be done already.

I actually like the way battles are in RTW. The one thing I didn't like about MTW (I'm not really that bothered by graphics) is that battles took so damn long. The worst was when the enemy had reinforcements. I would think "Oh no, not more of these bloody b***ards!" Combat should be over quickly because what we're after is strategy: moving the troops around, flanking and envelopping the enemy...The way soldiers will duck and parry in MTW2 mgiht remedy that a tiny bit, but that will get boring after a few weeks.
But please, please include Naval battles! We've been waiting for so long.

Quote:

---

tower that has no soldiers in it shouldn’t fire arrows. We should leave a unit in every city to defend the city so they can stand in the Towers and fire arrows to enemy. You know in Medieval-1 the towers and walls are firing arrows but there are no soldiers in them so who’s firing?-Ghosts(?)

---

The civilians/peasants and bishops are the ones who shoot arrows.

I know this is quite hard to implement but would be interesting do away with the rebels and instead create minor powers something like in imperial glory i'm not saying make new fully playable factions just give em something standard maybe a special unit here and there ,and make em modable so we can play them once you get the hang of the game one could use a challange playing luxemburg or serbia who knows. Leave the rebels in just as rebels .Also would bring some more stuff to diplomacy like protectorate or vassal states that arre not neceesarily factions but you have to protect em.:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

Here's an idea: Slow down the goofy unit speed, bring back the spear bonus, and make the combat more like it was in M:TW, only prettier.

I'm all for new features and pretty pictures, but the real-time battles are the core of this game. The "improvements" of combat in R:TW to make the battles more "exciting" are what caused more mutiny in the fan base than everything else put together.

Maybe multiple play settings would help: arcade (which they can drop as far as I'm concerned), normal (like R:TW), realistic (slower unit speeds, spear bonus like M:TW) and very realistic (better than M:TW, where a battle can last hours.)

P.S. No more goofy units like Eqyptian Chariots in Roman times.

---

I agree completely. However, I think four game modes may be a bit too much to ask, as it requires four rounds of balancing. You know how long it took to get R:TW balanced. I think there should be an arcade mode (fast units, high kill speeds, lots of mayhem on the battlefield) and a realistic mode (slow units, slow kills speeds, balanced) and leave it at that. No doubt the community will mod the hell out of it once it has been released ~;) .

I would like to be able to give names to each of my units, or units that have had a distinguished career should get the option to name them, plus some sort of 'causes fear' or 'veteran unit' Trait.

Make the battles nitty gritty like in BI...the middle ages weren't all flashy and pretty colours...they were down and dirty, dark, a true period of upheaval, so why not reflect this in how the people fight, and how the game looks overall?

I think they're already looking to please you, SilverKnight. According to what's been released, they'll have plenty of flashy colors and heraldry, but over the course of a long, hard battle the soldiers will get progressively more dirty as they get soiled with blood and the mud of the battlefield.

Ajax

Lots of good ideas here. I like the reference to Crusader kings. Normally I don't like RTS games, but Paradox has made some good stuff.
1. Seasons. The problem with turn-based games is that movement is Waaaay to slow. The old region to region moves does NOT work. I see that playing Rome also. A boat taking a year and a half from Rome to Carthago? Should be instantly barring enemy action or bad weather.. Land units should also be able to move longer in 6 months. Here things such as weather, terrain, food and enemies should slow them down. With good infrastructure you should easily be able to ride from the south of France to Normandy in one turn, as long as you just cross friendly territory in supply, and with money to pay for food;)

2. Tactical. One thing that I've always thought were taken too little advantage of, is the pre-battle sequence. If the attacker has the option to wait 3 times before attacking, this should have further consequences than just changing the weather. If reinforcements are expected, they get at bigger chance of coming into play early in the battle the longer you wait.
The defender should be able to put up field fortifications if the attacker gives him time. These should be rudimentary breastworks, stake fences and anti-cav ditches. An attacking general that takes his time too often will risk getting 'vaccilator' vice. If he's successful, an 'organized' virtue could also come. A higher ranked defending general who is given time to organize, can get an 'counter-attack' event where he can choose to counter-attack with a morale bonus, and the erstwhile attacker is now defending with lowered morale.

just 2 thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zajuts149

2. Tactical. One thing that I've always thought were taken too little advantage of, is the pre-battle sequence. If the attacker has the option to wait 3 times before attacking, this should have further consequences than just changing the weather. If reinforcements are expected, they get at bigger chance of coming into play early in the battle the longer you wait.
The defender should be able to put up field fortifications if the attacker gives him time. These should be rudimentary breastworks, stake fences and anti-cav ditches. An attacking general that takes his time too often will risk getting 'vaccilator' vice. If he's successful, an 'organized' virtue could also come. A higher ranked defending general who is given time to organize, can get an 'counter-attack' event where he can choose to counter-attack with a morale bonus, and the erstwhile attacker is now defending with lowered morale.

just 2 thoughts.

---

God dag, Zajuts! :bow:

That's a very cool idea. It could really help out a defender who's at a severe disadvantage, and could also force the attacker to not necessarily wait for the "ideal" weather conditions before joining battle. Such a feature would probably also help out the AI as well, particularly given they're the defender more often than not! Now if we could just get someone on the dev team to read this....

I like the physics idea. With the new physics card comming out, it would add a great amount of realism. I know a Sega is already implementing it in another game.

I liked the way the STW/MTW maps played on multiplayer. They played bigger, although they say RTW maps are larger, the old games made you play with more strategic moving. Rushing to help your partner, or having to back track in case you got rushed.


Cromwell

I actually like that the strategy part is turn based and WOULD NOT have bought this game if it had not been. Neither will I purchase Medieval 2 if it is not turn based. The shelves are inundated with RTS games. I am so bored with them. They are more challenging than turn based, but they are NOT more realistic.

I love the real time battles, yet I have already given my thoughts as to why using the pause button is MUCH more realistic than what happens if you don't, especially in a large battle. That is in the "Your most successful battle tactics" thread, where I was thanked for my "mighty rebuttal of those who treat the pause function with scorn and derision."

:horn: (King's to you matteus!)

Here it is for you fellas still trapped in the New Members area:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Darkhorn

Actually, the pause button is more realistic I think, especially when using high maintenance units (by which I mean must keep a close eye on them for them to behave according to how they're trained and most useful - such as HA). Two reasons I believe this and don't feel like a wuss when pausing. First off, I am playing a game on a computer. In reality, if I was a general, I might merely look this way and that to see different parts of the battlefield and give orders. Whereas on a computer, I've got to move the camera all over the place in a large battle, unrealistically wasting time, though you could make the arguement that can simlulate the time it takes to send orders. True, but orders for the most part in medieval warfare were issued before a battle in the form of the battle plan....this brings me to the 2nd reason. There are enough intagibles in a battle already to make it realistic. In reality, sometimes troops didn't follow their orders right. Well, they screw up movement enough anyway. Sometimes maybe the route wasn't the best one, or they get tangled with 2 men from an enemy unit and all fight there instead of marching to some far off point you want them to. They charge impetuously. Archery units (I hate this one and it happens a lot) while set on hold postion/hold formation/ fire at will still sometimes (often) let the enemy walk right up on them without firing a shot.....etc. Not using the pause button is making everything depend on me, which is unrealistic....it is like assuming that indiviual unit commanders have absolutely no initiative and no knowledge of the overall battle plan. Fact: to use HA effectively, they must be on HF/HP/FAW. However, often that means they will need to be micromanaged to maximize effectiveness and make sure they don't get charged by a bunch of turtles, which will happen if you don't tell them to move. Why assume that the unit commander is an embicile who won't move when he should, just because you're off dealing with something else?

---

I apply the same logic here. Real time strategy, while great for tactical situations with the moderation of having the pause button to do some managing to avoid some VERY unrealistic consequences of not doing so, runs into the same basic problem: WHAT IS GOING WHERE YOU ARE NOT LOOKING.

People, this game takes place over the course of several hundred years. Is it going to take several hundred years to play it? Of course not. So, you are at an unfair advantage when playing RTS. Say you are fooling with something in the steppes and look up and 2 years have passed. WTF is going on in your English lands? When playing RTS, especially with the tons of micromanagment people seem to be hoping for, things could get stagnant very quickly in parts of the screen you don't see. Or worse.....the Spanish are taking over the British Isles and you don't even know it. They marched right by your army and waved at them. The reality of it is.....in real life there was time to plan, to see what was going on, etc. Especially b/c communications where slow. If I have had to wait two weeks for a report on the movements of the French army, don't you think in reality I've had plenty of time to think how I may want to counter any of the multiple moves they may make based on the last intelligence I had from my agents? Instead they invade somewhere I don't expect, which could happen, but I have to react as if I didn't have at least 15 minutes to think about it!!! 'Cause if I take 15 minutes to think about it, they will have marched 70 miles (Boy they've been eating they're wheaties!). So, you slow it down. Hmmmm. You still can't be everywhere at once. The only way it could ever work is if there is lots of default crap done based on the type of men you have governing the provinces the king is not in or very near.....but then that defeats the whole purpose of playing a game...maybe we should just auto-calc the campaign. Wow! I finished my HRE campaign in 10 seconds. Just load...auto-calc....and see if you won! Sounds like a blast. At the very least pause. But then why not just have a turn based system that takes care of all that possibility you may want to PLAN something, and also, while you're off crusading Richard Plantagenet, your brother John, while he may want your throne, at least won't stand idly by while the Frogs invade. Turn based strategy, while it has it's flaws, is much more realistic than real time strategy. Years go by in this game, but not in real life. If I play for 30 years I need to be able to do what someone would have time to do in 30 years. The only way you can do that is with TBS.

I would really like to see naval actions more detailed than just a victory/defeat message. Wasnt there some tactical skill used to out smart larger ships with smaller faster ships...

You're probably not going to see more in-depth naval action. There's no mention of it in the IGN interview and if it were there it would be big news. They'll probably need a new engine to make that come out so don't expect it until the next game at the earliest.

And thank you Darkhorn. The turn-based strategic set-up was one of the things I loved when I first played M:TW. It allowed a realistic amount of time for planning while still keeping the action of the fighting in realtime. I think it's a great feature and I'd hate to see it changed.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Darkhorn

I actually like that the strategy part is turn based and WOULD NOT have bought this game if it had not been. Neither will I purchase Medieval 2 if it is not turn based. The shelves are inundated with RTS games. I am so bored with them. They are more challenging than turn based, but they are NOT more realistic.

I love the real time battles, yet I have already given my thoughts as to why using the pause button is MUCH more realistic than what happens if you don't, especially in a large battle. That is in the "Your most successful battle tactics" thread, where I was thanked for my "mighty rebuttal of those who treat the pause function with scorn and derision."

---

The only thing I see that is wrong with that Logic, is why couldn't the Strategic Map pause whilst you are in Combat?

Quote:

---

The civilians/peasants and bishops are the ones who shoot arrows.

---

LOL, that's nice. Civilians and peasants maybe, but bishops did shot arrows? The mere fact in itself is ridiculous, but if you think about it, there was only one bishop in one diocese and in the other hand devout clergyman were not usually that agressive, daredevil, "death-despised" type... ;)

I agree entirely with the previous opinion, that towers shouldn't shot arrows, if there isn't any soldier in they. It's illogical, because if we have cleaned the walls, we had to kill the unvisible civilians too, so dead people should not kill my alive soldiers! :)

And at last my brilliant idea: flags on the walls! In wartime they weren't usual, but in peace nice colourful flags often decorated the castles.

Id like to see the true size of constantinople represented accurately...Id even go so far as to say that the size of 'city' or whatever should be unreachable by any other civ unless they have a massive superiority over most of the other civs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

The only thing I see that is wrong with that Logic, is why couldn't the Strategic Map pause whilst you are in Combat?

---

It would I hope if they did RTS!!!! Still, that wasn't what I was talking about. You don't have to be fighting a battle to be doing something else. You can be queing things to build or train...or deciding on some mercs...trying to get your assassin to drop on the right guy in maelstrom of agents in the middle of the province!!!! You might be just new to the game and still trying to figure out how something works. You might be checking out an opposing stack to see if you want to invade. You might be checking a general's V&Vs. You might be looking through yours units for a good governor.........................................etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....ad finitum....anything that might distract you long enough for something bad to happen simply because an amount of game time went by much faster than real time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Id like to see the true size of constantinople represented accurately...Id even go so far as to say that the size of 'city' or whatever should be unreachable by any other civ unless they have a massive superiority over most of the other civs...

---

Agreed, you should have the option to build such a city, but only if you are prepared to build something that takes say 20 turns and on which you will have to spend massive amounts of capital. And please put in the double walls of Constantinople, with a huge water filled moat in front of it!
And it would be good if they attached the port to the town, rather then have it on the other side of the bay, so that if a bunch of brigands wanders onto your road, your trade isn't cut off.
And young family members should also gain stars even if they don't command the army in which they are fighint, they could just be apprentices learning from their older relatives.

A fine thread. We have a new forum dedicated to Medi2, so we'll move this topic there. New members are able to post there also. So follow me to the new forum, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Darkhorn

It would I hope if they did RTS!!!! Still, that wasn't what I was talking about. You don't have to be fighting a battle to be doing something else. You can be queing things to build or train...or deciding on some mercs...trying to get your assassin to drop on the right guy in maelstrom of agents in the middle of the province!!!! You might be just new to the game and still trying to figure out how something works. You might be checking out an opposing stack to see if you want to invade. You might be checking a general's V&Vs. You might be looking through yours units for a good governor.........................................etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....ad finitum....anything that might distract you long enough for something bad to happen simply because an amount of game time went by much faster than real time.

---

Well, obviously, if you've played HoI/ HoI 2 you would be able to adjust how fast the flow of time went. From Very Slow 1/10th Normal Time, to Very Fast which would be 10x normal speed. This would give you ample time to do everything you ever wanted to do. If you wanted to see generals/army stats, the game would automatically pause and let you view them for however long you wanted. Also, when you adjust building queues and Unit Queues within a city, the game should also pause, as well as the Tax adjustment window, and the other government functions.

As far, as concerns about armies invading your territory while you are doing something else, at this time in history, an enemy would make a formal declaration of war against you before they moved on you, and your armies, it was rarely done any other way(Don't Let RTW Fool you into thinking enemies would just suddenly invade your territory without good cause and not warning you first), mainly because your enemies still had honor, or adhered to the rules of Chivalry (which Knights would have been loathe to attack an unprepared enemy).

As far as Agents go, I think they need a serious adjustment. You should be able to build assassins, that don't work like spies or diplomats, instead you should be able to click a rival agent or General, and there should be a button that says something along the lines of "Send an Assassin after him" in that way, you would never need to move an assassin piece, and they could do the work inflitrating enemy territory themselves, kill their target when they think they have the best opportunity to (if they aren't found out before then) and then return back into your service.

If I had the opportunity to change the entire interface of the TW game, I would make you LOVE this system.

http://www.totalwar.com/community/medieval2.htm

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=131

I'd Like to see different Population Classes like, Poor Peasant Class, Peasant classs, rich peasant class , and Noblty and base recruitment and income off the population values, you wouldnt want to train all Weak units off peasants then you got crappy army, if you train off the richer classes your economy drops... so you'd have to balance you'd basicly have to train units off the peasant class to have a good economy!

Unit types associated with population classes:

Poor Peasant- Weak units
Normal Middle Class Peasants- light and Medium Infantry
Rich Peasant Class- heavy infantry and calvary
Noblty- Elite units

Income Effects Based on Population classes.

Poor Peasant Classes- Decreases Income and increases Squalor More then other classes
Normal Middle Class- No effect on income , same squalor increasment
Rich peasant Class- Increases Income and less Squalor increasment then Normal class
Noblty - Normal Income, and less squalor.

Moats!!!!!

Need i say any more? It would be great to have to brave the gates which are the only way into a castle thanks to a moat....you could even have a siege weapon that works like the sappers in rtw and that fills a path across the moat....

Quote:

---

2)That spy you just hired could likewise be an assassin. Assassins would have a small upfront fee, and if successful could demand a much larger followup fee. Non-payment might result in negative consequences.

---

...Such as the person who hired him mysteriously dieing...

The guy who made this thread - some of your ideas are good, but most of them would just turn Medieval 2: Total War into Medievalish: Total Micro-management. I mean, come on, having resources? We're trying to get away from the AoE style of play.

LIST PREPARE : Bozkırsovalyesi

ENGLISH TRANSLATION GROUP
www.totalwar-turkiye.byethost15.com --------- lupus-giris , blackknight1453
www.trgamer.com ----------------- greatwolf
www.totalwar.org --------- LeftEyeNine
www.donanimhaber.co ------------ foks , kyorhan , slayersami , _qwerty_ , Comet , fıratkale , DESTINY , hitman009 , xmen , Mertallica , theFaLLeN , Castrolives , ISalVatioNI , take_me_as_i_am

powered by Totalwar-Turkiye ( totalwar TURKISH fan site)



A-Game Tech:

1-We want to take movies of some battles and then watch it. Enable this.

2-Let us watch a video of important people's(such as kings) life
story if he/ she dies.

3-We must be able to zoom to the places that we will build our forts
and the places that we want to investigate.

4-Let's make it possible to control our assassins and spies, who will perform assasination, sabotage, ambush, kidnapping, spying
and such missions, via using the technique -zooming inside the city- in Rome, by ourselves. For this, an interface can be added
like in action games.

5-Let's make it possible to control our assassins and spies, who will perform assasination, sabotage, ambush, kidnapping, spying
and such missions, via using the technique -zooming inside the city- in Rome, by ourselves. For this, an interface can be added
like in action games.

6-Border castles should be removed. Instead there should be secret agent units trained from a dpecific building who will be able to blow covers of spies. These may even be able to eliminate assassination attempts on the leader as well. Guardian units may be another option. We should be able to do operations such as assasinations, taking captives, ambush or infiltrate into cities by the help of minor squads of elite soldiers. And for such operations, there can be a minimap where we can control minor battle units as it is in Battlefield.

B-General:

1-Soldiers types and the battle screen should be like Medieval-1. Strength and weakness of soldiers should be protected but archers should be improved. In some provinces (Persia, pakistan, sudan, etiopia), recruiting War Elephants can be good. Soldiers should be more brave and shouldn’t leave the battefield immediately. There must be a lot of unit formations but they should be simple,not fantastic...... Soldiers should be more brave and shouldn’t leave the battlefield immediately. Units should be seperated or the seperated units should be joined together. Generals and admirals with stars should be joined together too. We cannot unite these generals in the same group. This should be changed and improved.
2-Sounds of the game is really important for strategy players.Sounds in Medieval-1 are wonderful.In Medieval-2,sounds must be as good as Medieval-1’sounds.And the pictures of people should be more detailed.In Medieval-1,all the pictures are full of ugly people(!)

3-The game should pass years between 925 to 1525. And the periots’ starting dates should be 925,-1080,-1180,-1290.In turns,the
climate should be changed and in every year there should be 3 or 4 turns(like Shogun).

4-The jihads’ influence should be reduced or balanced..Pagans shoul be able to make expedition..Orthodoxes should make crusades and the muslims should make attack jihads.in muslim countries, there are different denominations (such as orthodox and catholic in christianity).In this game there should be such a culture. There can be caliph (leader of muslims) - patriarch (leader of orthodox) - great shaman (leader of pagans)..n 10th. century, state of khazaria was jewish. This point can be added.

5-And if the creators of Total War decide to make Medieval-2 they should search cultures of nations. For example, In Medieval-1 Turks, Persians and Arabs are shown as same.Three of them are Muslim but they have got very difference.So the creators should make a big search about cultures..

6-You should prepare medieval-2 very well and you should add these parts to this game.
--- military units and war screen in medieval-1
--- castles and siege units in stronghold-2
--- big strategic world map of rome total
--- sea wars of imperial glory
--- population transfer and producing new cities like civilization and barbarian
--- sabotage and assasination by entering the city
--- attacking and capturing a city with a soldier or a few soldiers at night
gamers around the world can inform you about features of each culture.

7-Let all our army to join battle we are bored with reinforcements. Reinforcement system kills all the tactical richness of the game and with it number of soldiers becoming worthless. Even if you cant make all our armies to join battle allow us to choose units one by one.

8-Make nomads , rebels and brigands have their economy so they would be they have to sack something to live.

9-Rebellions that cannot be stopped quickly should turn into a great disaster and then they may turn into independent factions.

10- A cavalry units always stay as horseman and it it always dies with his horse.Let us dismount all cavalry and do not kill both horse and soldier kill only one of them.

11-İn rome siege units(catapults etc.) soldiers were able to go in melee and some soldiers like hoplites an archers were able to change their weapon but give us much more unit like them and also make it (changing weapon) easier(forexample with a button) .

C-Map And Terrian

1-The big Map Technic in Rome should be used in Medieval-2 too. The map should be between The 25th and the 65th North latiudes ---
20th West and 75th East parallels. But the map should be more big and 3d. Travelling on the map should be like Rome but there’s a problem
that should be solved;for example if a large army takes a road in 3 turns, only a general’s unit should take the same road in one day.
As it’s known in the past the general's horses were the pedigree ones. Diplomats,spies or assasians should travel faster. Fleets should take more
road in one turn. Mountains, rivers and lakes should look like as their real looks. And there must be wars on the pasages of mountains.
Passage of mountains should be more important. We should carry our armies with our fleets, and our armies should pass the rivers that
are not too deep.(This option is avaible in the game:Imperial Glory). But our armies shouldn’t pass through everywhere. There must be
areas that covered by rocks or swamps. And these swamps should effect the wars.

2-The straits and large rivers should be allowed to crossing over by simple and single-use boats. Also transpassing widths around 50-200 kms should be available for once without waiting for the construction of ports or shipwrights. The completion of the building sequence of port > shipwright > ships take much time in the beginning of the game. River boats and temporary bridges may be options as well.

3-there may be some abrasion in armies(or moral damage ect.) passing in the places such as everglades, deserts or mountains, if rome's map class is used. also, by the causes such like storms, cold and thirst, soldiers of army can be killed. and there is already casualties in navies by the storms in rome.

4-Let us able to pass mountains and harsh terrain.You must make the peaks of mountains (up 2500- 3000 meters) immpassable. But lower parts must be able to be passed. But armies should give great casualties when passing mountains so passages can be important enough.

5-Mountain passes are wide, open plains make them narrow places. And there is ambush system in rome but armies are starting far from each other and head to head.Make them start closer and make attacker armies start from front or flank of the enemy.

6-On the maps boundaries should be more realistic. Passageways should be covered with snow during winter.In the RTW (THE)watchtowers couldnt be demolished, we want them to be demolished or occupied. The temporary military camp may continiue. In the critical areas we should be able to establish some little and unimportant military stations. Rebellious and bandits should be able to establish castles, moreover heretics like The Hashasis(!) should be able to produce assassins. Castles that in the hard areas regardless of their weakness, should not be taken easily. (As Alamut in Iran and Masyaf Castles in Syria)

7-Let's remove the situation of being stuck without having able to move when we are passing by an enemy's city, military unit, or navy and 'being caught' by those enemy units in a 'foggy' area. This is so nonsense.

8-At the map of rome until you reach from one side, whole castle is already sieged. Castles should have 4 sides. And for a whole siege at the same time there should be soldiers of invaders at the 4 sides of the castle so that the whole access of castle to out can be cut off. Reinforcments should be able to come from open sides to the castle. And Naval forces should be able to close seaside or from this side we should be able to get help.

D-Tech Tree:

1-Rome and Medieval-1,the trade goods are only written on the paper.But I think these should be used. There must be occupation groups for each of trade goods.And in the constcruction menu we should be able to start buildings about these. For example,

Iron and copper --- Weapon and Armor

Gold and silver --- As Money

Fabric and Silk --- Uniform/Sailcloth

Wheat/Oil/Grape/Cattle --- Food for common people and soldiers

Stone and Lime --- Castles and Buildings

Slave --- Productive Power

Camel and Horse --- Transport and Carvan

2-Trade products should be stored (like in Imperial Glory).And when we produce gold,stones we should be able to store them.And we should be able to build constructions with our gold and stone stocks. We should build castles on our owns.We should improve our castles with towers or trenches. For example İstanbul Castle is a peninsula,Paris Castle is on a River…Each castle should have its own specialities.But in Medieval and Rome all of them are open to any kinds of attack. We should build castles on our maps and can improve these castles.We should also stock storable food in our castles.So if the enemy siege our castles,we can defend for a long time ourselves so the enemy has to attack directly. So the sieges become more enjoyable.But in Rome and Medieval, attacking a castle is too boring.

3-Building a construction takes too much time.But in real world buildnig a port or a barrack doesn’t take too much time. There should be options like having an ability of constructing a ship after having a iron mine, a weapon atelier or a timber atelier..There should be a system of constructing new buildings properly this situation...Building a construction takes too much time.It should be shortened. (Like real life workers,money and raw matarials should effect buliding speed)

4-I think it is better to be caravanseries for trade caravans on their trade roads like seaports for trade ships.. and make it possible to make commerce over lands.. it may be possible invansions for trade roads both over land and sea by enemies or invaders...

5-In MTW-1 the firearms were invented too early and overpowered. Actually in 1290s the rocket, in 1340s the cannon and in 1420s the rifles were just discovered. What's more since the rifles had short ranges and were low at accuracy, they were ineffectual weapons. It was after 1380s that the cannons were able to destroy the fortresses. The rifles were only more powerful than bows after 1530s and following 1600 they had a longer range. These bugs should be fixed.

6-Firearms:

Year:1290.........: Rockets/ arrow-spear rockets

Year:1315.........: Pipes that throw arrows or spears

Year:1340.........: Little Sahra Cannons

Year:1365.........: Siege Cannons

Year:1390.........: Great Sahra Cannons

Year:1415.........: Primitive Rifles (One shot per 15 min)/ Grenades

Year:1440.........: Great Siege Cannons

Year:1465.........: Mortars

Year:1490.........: Arquebus Rifle (1 shot per 5 min)

Year:1515.........: Pronged Troopdemolishing Rifle

E-Millitary

1-There can be differences between the powers of the faction armies but this gotta be in an order.For example the poland and almohad armies were very weak in the MTW1 so they were very easy to beat for the other factions

2-Soldiers types and the battle screen should be like Medieval-1. Strength and weakness of soldiers should be protected but archers should be improved. In some provinces (Persia, pakistan, sudan, etiopia), recruiting War Elephants can be good. Soldiers should be more brave and shouldn’t leave the battefield immediately. There must be a lot of unit formations but they should be simple,not fantastic...... Soldiers should be more brave and shouldn’t leave the battlefield immediately. Units should be seperated or the seperated units should be joined together. Generals and admirals with stars should be joined together too. We cannot unite these generals in the same group. This should be changed and improved.

3-WAR ANİMALS:
Asian Elephant-------> Smaller/ Fast-High Fighting Power
African Elephant-----> Bigger/ Slow-High Carrying Capacity

Asian Camel----------> Two Humped Camel/ Slow/ High Carrying Capacity
Arab Camel-----------> One Humped Camel/ Fast/ Suited for making High Speed


Enormous Horses------> For heaviest Cavalry/ Very Powerful-
Very High Carrying Capacity/ Slow/ Bad Stamina/ Hard to Manoeuvre

Big Horses-----------> For armoured Cavalry/ Powerful- High Carrying
Capacity/ Slow/ Good Stamina/ Hard to Manoeuvre

Middle Sized Horses--> For medium Cavalry/ Weak-Low Carrying Capacity/
Fast/ Bad Stamina/ Good for Manoeuvring

Little Horses--------> For Horse Archers/ Weak-Very Low Carrying Capacity/
Really Good Stamina/ Good for Manoeuvring

PureBred Horses------> For Commanders an Elit Units/ Powerfu-Fast-Good
Stamina/ Can March 1.5 times of Other horses in a Turn

Best PureBred Horses-> For Agents/ VeryFast/ Can March 3- 4- 5 times of
other horses in a Turn

4-Cavalry Archer in wide steppes and Deserts , Heavy Cavalry in Grassy Land , Light İnfantry in Mountains and Harsh land and Heavy İnfantry in Narrow Plains must have great bonus to their fighting skills. An that bonus must be as much as that type of land would effect cultures of living nations.

Steppe Field...........: Cavalry Archer +4 ... other cavalry +2
----->like Cumans, Seljuks, Persians, Magyars

Desert Field...........: Light Cavalry +4 ... other cavalry +2
----->like Arabs, Moors

Grassy Field...........: Heavy Cavalry +4 ... other cavalry +2
-----> like French, Germans, Russians

Field with Hills.......: Archer İnfantry +4 ... other İnfantry +2
-----> like Byzantines, Welsh, English

Field with Mountain....: Light İnfantry +4 ... other İnfantry +2
-----> like Scots , Swiss , Bohemians , İtalians

Forested Field.........: Heavy İnfantry +4 ... other İnfantry +2
-----> like Swiss, Austrians, Germans

5-Armies must be bigger. Strategy players don’t care about soldiers’ faces or hair. Players always want to see a lot of units in the same screen.For example we should lead an army that has got 100 - 200 units and each unit should have 400 or 500 soldiers. Players don’t like to strive with little battles. Joining into a big battle with powerful army that is prepared in high details is more attractive to players.

6-Generals with high skills should lead more powerful units.And generals should be recruited in another barracks. Simple soldiers should be able to become a general if they fight for years. Old generals should be able to leave the job and they should be able to become a governor of a place.And good generals should be rewarded with lands,titels ect.

7-The mtw countries'soldiers were able to take extra bonus according to the region that they were created..but having a chance about fighting with more extra bonus in their fatherland or in the regions that their citizens are populous is the most important point... Soldiers who defend their own fatherland and people, must be more powerful at their countries. This power while defending castles should be higher........ Soldiers who defend their own homeland and people, must be more powerful at their countries. This power while defending castles should be higher. To produce per one lap one military unit becomes disadvantage for powerless countries. When we are in need of many soldiers, we should be able to produce more than one military units at one time.

8-Povinces must be the main country of a faction depending on ethnic system. Units trained in a main province (Populatin is full of your Nations people) must be more loyal and they must get bonus of +3 or more when figtin on their own province. For example a unit trained in a German City (Owned by Germans and populain is german) must be more loyal than a unit trained in İtaly (Owned by Germas but population is İtalian) And a unit trained in main part of Germany must get bonus of +3 or more) but when fighting in France(or somewhere else) it must loose its bonus.

F-Diplomacy-Intelligence-Economy-Rewards:

1-In the former games, one could get many information about other countries by just looking at the map. Let's do it harder to get information about other countries, so that spies, captives, bribed rivals, the information that is given by the patrolling units would be more valuable. Moreover, let's do it possible to perform secret military operations and ambushes towards enemy.

2-When a princess marry,there is no need to delete her from the map.And kings’ children should be on the map so players should be able to kidnap or kill them to destroy faction’s heirs.But a kidnapped person should be rescued by ransom.If the enemy doesn’t give ransom units can be used as slaves.or kidnapped diplomats can be hold in a Dungeon.Yes there should be a new building named Dungeon.

3-Kings, Queens and princess must be on the map like emissaries (agents). It may be done for all royal bloods.In MTW1 our spies were joining rebel (sometimes) in MTW 2 all of our royal family mamber should join rebels or creat their own rebellion.

4-Please, insert this feature to the game - gaining land or establishing a state with marriage between royal people.

5-There shall have some options like eliminating the enemy and force them to pay taxes or capturing their warehouses to have their goods.

6-In the game determinative effect of sea fights must be more important.when the navies are at harbour they should be under guarding like armies at the castle.. there must be catapult-archer-- grek fire- (greguva) on the ships.soldiers must fight at the deck of the ships. the ship of the player who lost should change hands.

7- "Border castles should be removed. Instead there should be secret agent units trained from a dpecific building who will be able to blow covers of spies. These may even be able to eliminate assassination attempts on the leader as well. Guardian units may be another option. We should be able to do operations such as assasinations, taking captives, ambush or infiltrate into cities by the help of minor squads of elite soldiers. And for such operations, there can be a minimap where we can control minor battle units as it is in Battlefield."

8-Assasians and spies can kidnap enemy diplomats or generals.And kidnapped people can be interrogated in a special building. And when we learn what we need we should kill or set free these people.

9-Spies should be able to open the gates of a city which is under a siege.And catching a spy should be too difficult on open lands. Furthermore they should be able to make a rebellion in the enemy army.

10-Bribes,awards and gifts types can be improved.. In history, kings or sultans give each other horses,swords or concubine (female slaves). And concubines should be recruited as spies or assasians. We should give concubines to our general and agents.So their loyalty becomes higher.And we should also give good horses to our generals as a gift.Or an unit that uses good horses can be recruited.So these units can get into the enemy lands and give an unexpected visit to enemy soldiers.

11-çWe are having troubles when we met kings which does not accept treaty or governors which does not accept bribe.So let us gift thmwith concubins and have existing or temporary effect on them.

12-Agents:
royalcourt.........: emissaries..........upgrades...+1 / +2 / +3 / +4

out: makes diplomacy, spies,gives high amount of bribe,relates with, important person , decreases the loyalty of people
in: Fires from job, gives present and bribe, relates with important person, increases the loyalty of people


governors palace...: spies...............upgrades...+1 / +2 / +3 / +4

out: spies, gives low amount of bribe, opens castle gates by bribe, couses rebellion, decreases skills of important person by cousing scandals, decreases loyalty of people
in: spies and counterspies, increases the loyalty of people


Tavern.............: assasins............upgrades...+1 / +2 / +3 / +4

out: Murders, kidnaps, sabotges, opens th gates secretly, decreases the loyalty of people
in:Murders, kidnaps, sabotages,increases the loyalty of people


Brothel............: concubins...........upgrades...+1 / +2 / +3 / +4

Works like a courtesan and given as present for important person,
agents even the kings or princes.

out:Relates with important people or agents, decreases the loyalty of
enemy agents, decreases skills of important person by cousing scandals

in: İncreases the loyalty of agents and important people


Merchants palace...: Merchants...........upgrades...+1 / +2 / +3 / +4

out: Decreases loyalty and income
out:İncreases loylty and income

Secret Police Web..: Secret Polices......upgrades...+1 / +2 / +3 / +4

out: Finds enemy agents and heretics and kidnaps them. Spies, athers information, atacks important places as a group, decreases loyalty

in: Finds agents and heretics, counterspies, gathers information, binterrogates, protects, increases loyalty

G-Social Life:

1-Like in Rome and Imperial Glory civil population should be use as a source. Heirs of a destroyed faction should be able to prepare a rebellion.

2-There should be groups in the people like real world.Nobles,slaves,soldiers...These difference between these groups should cause a fight.

3-If a king is dead or the kingdom’s condition goes badly,the heirs of the faction should fight each other to take the management of the country.

4-Woman should be able to become a General(egypt quenn secerüd dür -Remember; Jan dark).And women whose husbands’ are died should be
able to marry again.

5-Only the religion doen’t cause a rebellion.National feelings can be used for making a rebellion. And people that see many wars on their lands should be more warrior and always try to make a rebellion.

6-Income should decrease where the population also decreases so the main country should pay attention. It is a funeral when population increases in Rome. Population shall increase so slowly and there should be an option like we could take providence to control population increase.

7- You can make that we can make civil population to immigrate region to region, even to another country.this has already made in barbarian invasion. in BI , people from the fallen country can immigrate to anotherit could be added to the new game that the civil population can immigrate and colonize. the ethnic order can be changed. a disorder can occur in the reveal rebellion of another country. people can be assimilated and make their place in the history or split up and become another nation. with epidemic disease - famine, invasion - massacre , populationcan be lowered.immigrators from another climate can't adaptate to the new climate and dwindl. in such places, income lowers etc.

H-Tactics:

1-Soldiers types and the battle screen should be like Medieval-1. Strength and weakness of soldiers should be protected but archers should be improved. In some provinces (Persia, pakistan, sudan, etiopia), recruiting War Elephants can be good. Soldiers should be more brave and shouldn’t leave the battefield immediately. There must be a lot of unit formations but they should be simple,not fantastic...... Soldiers should be more brave and shouldn’t leave the battlefield immediately. Units should be seperated or the seperated units should be joined together. Generals and admirals with stars should be joined together too. We cannot unite these generals in the same group. This should be changed and improved.

2-In the battlefield , mtv's and rtw's battalions are not enough...There should be 100-150 or 200 battalions each one including 400 or 500 soldiers. The armies' battle order(mtw and glory group formations) should be like this.There is no need about the permanent reinforcesment.All the army should go at once to fight a battle. The armies should be as huge as the real ones...

3-Both in medieval and rome there are formations. But they are useless because Aİ always enters battle as a single line from one side of the screen to another side. Let Aİ to choose best suited formation of enemy and let us choose our own.

4-Cleaving manoeuvres, rotation from flank to center, phalanx, tortoise, and crescent formation for single unit these all must exist in the game.

5-Units are trying to take shortest route but this is cousing them to be cought to enemy units or somewhere in the field. Let us able to move them point by point so we can give them zig-zag routes.

6-Soldiers in units are not able to turn right or left one by one so waiting whole unit to turn couses great waste of time.

7-Mountain passes are wide, open plains make them narrow places. And there is ambush system in rome but armies are starting far from each other and head to head.Make them start closer and make attacker armies start from front or flank of the enemy.

I-Castle Ans Naval Battles:

1-The game should not be focused on pitched battle.The castle fightings must have importance as much as pitched blade.. (it was like this in stronghold too)The castles in Rome had been weak so if somebody comes to save the castle this time the war appears faraway. The castle defenders should stand out against the huge armies with a less amount of soldiers.The war must be in front of the bulwarks even though there had come asist army from outside for the surrounded castle not faraway on a agora(range).The ones in the castle should be able to join this fighting The unneeded castles shall be able to collapsed or abandonmeted subsequently..

2- For defence let us able to build: trenches, stakes, arrow shelters, spiked bushes, burning grass bales, stumps with stakes (Cheval de frise), removeable bridges and Caltrops.

3- Trade products should be stored .And when we produce gold,stones we should be able to store them.And we should be able to build constructions with our gold and stone stocks. We should build castles on our owns.We should improve our castles with towers or trenches.
For example İstanbul Castle is a peninsula,Paris Castle is on a River…Each castle should have its own specialities.But in Medieval and
Rome all of them are open to any kinds of attack. We should build castles on our maps and can improve these castles.We should also stock
storable food in our castles.So if the enemy siege our castles,we can defend for a long time ourselves so the enemy has to attack
directly. So the sieges become more enjoyable.But in Rome and Medieval, attacking a castle is too boring.

4-The big Map Technic in Rome should be used in Medieval-2 too. The map should be between The 25th and the 65th North latiudes --- 20th West and 75th East parallels. But the map should be more big and 3d. Travelling on the map should be like Rome but there’s a problem that should be solved;for example if a large army takes a road in 3 turns, only a general’s unit should take the same road in one day. As it’s known in the past the general's horses were the pedigree ones. Diplomats,spies or assasians should travel faster. Fleets should take more road in one turn. Mountains, rivers and lakes should look like as their real looks. And there must be wars on the pasages of mountains. Passage of mountains should be more important. We should carry our armies with our fleets, and our armies should pass the rivers that are not too deep.(This option is avaible in the game:Imperial Glory). But our armies shouldn’t pass through everywhere. There must be areas that covered by rocks or swamps. And these swamps should effect the wars.

5-When we attack citadel we can't enter the citadel with our trebuchets and defenders also cannot carry their trebuchets to the wall. It should be corrected. In Rome there are nice buildings but they are all like decors and useless.On city wars soldiers can not enter these buildings but they should be able to enter.. . in city wars last combat to be city square many nonsensical... Construction of citadel should be given more importance. IN addition, there should be small citadels in the big citadels and the battle can finish in this small citedels.

6-Units in besieged castles are doomed to die. Let us able to cleave siegers and flee or let us able to use diplomacy to flee from castle.

7-In Rome and Medieval the naval wars are were on the campaign screen and they are were done automatically.But we should do naval wars on the battle screen. .(This option is avaible in the game:Imperial Glory)

8-In the game determinative effect of sea fights must be more important.when the navies are at harbour they should be under guarding like armies at the castle.. there must be catapult-archer-- grek fire- (greguva) on the ships.soldiers must fight at the deck of the ships. the ship of the player who lost should change hands.

Add on to assasins skill: they can execute mission and frame other country responsible,mission difficulty increases and if assasin escapes relations of country targeted and country framed decrease(leading probably to war.:)),if his mission failed your ralations with country targeted decrease and even more with country framed(leading again probably,to war).....

Another old thread with cobwebs revived I see.

There is only one thing CA need to consider at this late point if they haven't already.

A 'REMOVE TREETOPS' option.

Fighting in forests is a pain in the buttocks region really. Would be nice to see what's going on.

And lose the realism? How the heck would a real commander know what's going on in a forest fight? There's a reason they're called battlefields, not battlewoods.

Ajax

Considering this game consists of a free roaming mouse controlled camera/viewpoint and your general magically bellowing out orders that are obeyed instantly to units that are the otherside of the map and entirely obscured from view owing to the fact there's a mountain between them, realism is something sacrificed at every turn. The option (note: option for General Cam fetishists) to remove tree tops, or perhaps better yet, just increase the transparency of the leaves, branches etc when your troops occupy the area, would just make things more player friendly. Currently you're forced into a low, almost ground level viewpoint which is alien to the player as you spend 99.9% of the time viewing the action at a higher and more friendly angle. I'd prefer to fight the enemy than fight with the camera whenever the action takes place under the cover of a few odd looking trees.

Little player-friendly options like that which you can switch on/off when you require it tend to show the developers are thinking about the player's experience.