What we would like to see in ETW.....

This thread, I hope will present ideas on the various items we would like to see included from previous TW games, and maybe some new ideas?
Lusted, any chance you could complie the list and send to CA for us please?

Please use Point form, and try and think of how CA could best implement these ideas. Be reasonable!!

exempli gratia:

1. Titles.
I would like to see these re introduced. The abililty to raise and award in succession Knight(sir), Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marques, Duke and maybe the odd prince.
And have this included in the name as in MTW.
To award titles, click on the unit card to which a button on this card will allow you to award/view and or other things the unit in question.

2. Succession.
Can we please make it primus genetia (first born) as in salic law. With the abilitly to change heirs if we want to.

3. Lords.
Can we please have families occupie titles and succeed by their son's primus genetia. This would give great immersion.

4. Please take away adoption.

5. Keep the generals, but intergrate this with the lords function.

6. increase in the number of trabe goods. and the ability to mod more types.

7. The increase of provinces. but not so we can race from town to town.

8. Please include the "get of my land or suffer" diplomacy.

9. Please, Limit the V and V.
Most people in life aspire to achieve good V&V, and therefore we need something to represent this. And can we limit these to 8. And perhaps 6 ancillaries. And have some traits run in families with the ability of certain types of ancihllies being passed father to son?

10. This is a wish....to enable the recruitment of units to represent the units that were recruitable in there areas.
Does not have to be exact, we can make it that later. just if you could put that in game, like the legion names.

exempli gratia: London, can recruit foot regiments of the following names.
Unit of 100 foot. 57th regiment of foot Middlesex regiment.
Unit of 100 foot, 3rd Regiment of foot Royal Kent Regiment.
Unit of 100 foot, 35th Regiment of Foot, Royal Sussex regiment.
Unit of 40 Cavalry, say the 1st Dragoon Guards.
Or the Life Guards and so on. that would mean unit and region specific identification.
et cetera...

Workabilitly.
We would also need to be able to retrain these units in all other regions, we just can reproduce that number regiment in other areas. So once destoryed. We will have to recruit another.
So perhaps, on the recruitment screen, we choose recruit Foot Regiment. and have either buttons to which regiment we want it to be. Or just include all the regiments under foot, and allow the recruiting as per individual cards? EG: Just choose 3rd Foot Regiment Royal Kent. Or 57th Middlesex, et cetera...

Yes I know Kent had the 3rd and the 50th Foot, but that can be condensed to their almagamation regiments as with Sussex, Kent and many others.
Heck I will even send you the list, with foot and cavalry.

Most nations had Regiments recruitable by area, and would be fantastic immerision factor.
But like i said, it's a wish.

11. PLEASE. make spies and assinians live on unless killed. As in MTW. It removes the micromanage and headache of replacing these units in your towns. Which is really annoying. I would rather micromanage the economy or industrial out put than have to keep replacing spies et cetera...

Anyway I can't think of anything else at the moment.

sincerely,

fenir

please limit the amount of the game that is hard coded. the true gold in the series is the ability to mod the game. the more that is hard coded, the harder it is to do that in a complete fashion. we DO respect the work of those programming the game, but we also want to make the game live on through multiple mods. M2TW was the most moddable yet, but there were still many things hard coded that we couldn't touch. i would really like to see everything be open range...

Bizillions of troops on the field at the same time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Bizillions of troops on the field at the same time!

---

U can already do that in M2TW...

I will like to have the ability to create your own flag ship you know the one that leads the navy....
that will be so awesome!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship

I'd like to see the thing from M2K, Heroes. Y'know, have Frederick the Great leading your troops...

A redesigned campaign....maybe even real-time....at the very least, with all the micromanagement taken out and a more realistic recruitment system. Then maybe a focus on realism (CA! Your precious kiddie demographic doesn't play the campaign anyway!) to make the movement rates make a bit of sense, and not have newly recruited diplomats dying of old age before they can reach Russia from France.

Basically I want 90% of the changes to be to the campaign.

maybe at bit more formalized approach to entering war, ie not being able to cross borders without prior declaration of war, or border crossing being an act of war. would eliminate need of "get of my land" too.

like to see more events.. Like Death of Lord Nelson maybe, Trafalgar, Exile of Napolean...etc

also would love to see a very detailed battle log where you could see how many enemy troops you have killed in the whole corse of the campaign, maybe biggest battles you've fought, most troops killed from a single faction etc... would be great.

Besides all the good points touched on here and the other threads, how about faction-specific music (set of tunes for each playable faction)?

Even more so: how about, besides original compositions, adding some of the best of the best of the era including but not limited to: Mozart, Handel, Beethoven, Wagner, Tchiakovsky? :music:

If CA needs help funding the acquisition of these works, let me know :beam:

I don't know about "we" but I would like to see, less battles.

Every single battle should mean something from strategic perspective. Enough of the TW where you see "oh, one more weak horde coming at me" type of behavior. Loosing battle or you elite troops should actually mean something. You can't recruit good units right away, only militia which is no good against real troops. That's why you can't loose or you will be in a strategic situation where you need to stop your advantage (in case), or send other troops to reinforce that front where you lost your battle.

This also comes to where AI builds smaller amounts of stacks and when they build, those stacks should look like real armies or divisions to. I mean some sense in them, real historical variety of troops in the stack would be ideal approach if possible. Nothing has bored and frustrated me in Total Wars as much as the knowledge that after this battle there will be new one in that same place, just after few turns with same like stack trying the suicide trick.

Immersed diplomacy; including the idea of coalitions, instead of just allies.
The return of titles. The removal of adoption, to be changed to "Rising from the ranks"(Sharpe style!! :D) The use of cover in combat, and ill add more when i can think of them :P

Artillery that actually works, extensive melee with the use of bayonets. Generals longer present on the battlefield as a fighting unit. coalitions, defensive alliances, military aid. transgression option for personplayers.

Quote:

---

11. PLEASE. make spies and assassins live on unless killed.

---

AMEN! It's micromanagement I could live without. For those saying it's unrealistic: View your spy not as a single spy but as aspy-ring. You can consider the dying off of old spies and recruiting of young blood into the ring as abstracted. Just like it is now for troops. You can park them in a corner of the map for a billion years and unless some accident befalls them they won't die off either.



On a completely different note, I hope that they get rid of exploding shells for ordinary cannons. It's rare field pieces shoot explosive shot (Around 1500 many were 2-3 pound field pieces anyway, completely feeble) Explosive shells for howitzers and mortars? Fine.
If CA throws in grapeshot/cannister in exchange, that would be terrific.

-Uniquely identified units (STW had them!) so we can keep better track of our favourite/much abused units.
I don't think quite as rigid a method as fenir suggests but more like each city has a list of locally recruited regiment/unit names & just sequentially numbers them as built.
Merged units would keep the more senior number (lower/by experience) unless the unit had been nearly destroyed, in which case they get absorbed into the younger unit.

That way, you could have the 33rd Regiment of Foot, Royal Sussex regiment being much more famous than the 35th (who were tragically slaughtered to the last during a minor skirmish on their first deployment)
The roleplayers can carefully nurture specific units to be closer to history while those who don't care won't need to be troubled by extra complexity & just ignore the names, merging as they see fit.

-Definitely not a realtime campaign (thankfully info to date specifies turn-based).

-Classical/Medieval period formations/animations & walls being in the data-files even if not actually used by the game so that modders for other periods can do their thing without too much issue.
-Dismountable cavalry/mountable infantry (in the same vein)

-city/army view (though, reading between the lines, I suspect we may have a fully dynamic zoom from campaign to battle/city like Supreme Commander so this may well be implicit already)

-Lots of bizzare hats! :)

-The ability for the AI to actually accept peace at times that would be good for it (implied by change/merge of AI but its still a Want)

-Ability to have cities actually be ports without needing a separate port & for cities to be on islands/peninsulas with up to 3 sides being wall into sea/river or even 4 sides with a bridge.

-Sea vs. shore-battery battles.

-Easier ability to mod custom cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

-The ability for the AI to actually accept peace at times that would be good for it (implied by change/merge of AI but its still a Want)

---

Presumably you meant "The ability for the AI to actually accept peace at times that would be good for it (and then not declare war on you again the very next turn)"

Hope that makes it a bit more clear.

- Making the game a REAL turn-based game. IN RTW and M2TW, it is possible to move a little at the time to spot things or try sneaking stuff.

- Having more options like in STW and MTW when one of your territories was invaded. This way it would be possible to react to an invasion or maybe instead remain in your city and fortified it

- Reduce as much as possible micromanagement because of agents. It was fine with STW and then MTW also but the huge map of RTW and M2TW really makes this headache.

- Come back to 4 TPY system but one turn income like in STW. Was very challenging to budget your money (because fields were being taxed only in fall right) although if proven to be the case, trade could bring income every turn.

- Make commanding armies more realistic, where you virtually decided a battle plan with troops placed under subordinate commanders (not dumb ones this time please!) where it is possible to given them specific orders (eg. when signal X is given, move to point A, turn your forces facing left and envelop the enemy army's flank)

- When new order must be given to troops, use a system of couriers and reports which would take time, might be misinterpreted by the subordinate commander or even intercepted by the enemy ! No more of this god all-mighty flying all-viewing camera.

A better morale/cohesion system for units and their organization (a cohesion system such as in Waterloo, Napoleon's Last Battle would be simple and nice) Because having 100 horsemen running through 200 infantrymen without anybody being hurt or any formation messed up is completely stupid and impossible.

More realistic political governments with titles such as ministers, generals, dukes/barons/counts, royal families, important religious characters, with historical succession laws for kingdoms and fiefdoms. Thus a governor could be named for a specific region instead of having to allocated a family for every town (cities could probably be ruled by lesser administrators I guess)

A more realistic way of constituing armies where units where raised to be part of of sub-unit itself part of the main army. Also include OOB (Orders of battle) for army instead of a stack with 20 units in without any specified functions between units.

As well as developing cities with buildings, new technologies or social/military/politic improvement should become available after specific buildings are build or events happened (time required could be hidden to the player and would depend on various factors) Such as the Marian reforms in RTW but on a much larger scale and subjects.

An historically inspired logistic system and possible negative effects if armies get out of supply (desertion, disorganization, illness, etc)

Much deeper diplomatic system and strategic agents (spy network, religious agents, princesses and royal marriages, etc)

1) PIRATES! I am talking about proper Pirates here, not just rebellious ships, I want annoying little fella's who hound my trade routes (maybe not attacking trade ships if they don't feature, but causing a disruption of your trade route instead) and require my attention, the grand age of Piracy is in the timeframe, so I want Blackbeard to blow some holes in please. Hiring your own privateers would also be quite good, maybe if your hire them they only disrupt other countries trade and not yours, who knows, but I was rum drinking swashbucklers!

2) Ability to rename ships, it's nothing huge but I liked naming my ships in Sid Meier's Pirates and let me add my own touch to the game.

3) As has been touched on, do not make the games so rigid that nobody can make mods about anything but gunpowder era, allow hands weapons to still work well enough to equip lots with them etc

4) Increase the diplomatic options and re-work it. It's certainly improved but a similar base as the one in EU would be quite good, where viewing your reputation is quite simple, if needs be for immersion just make it avasilable through an advisor who is mointoring relations with other factions. In EU, people don't just attack you, they usually do it because you have a poor reputation world wide or you've been rude to them, it works very well (though can be improved) but is a good base.

5) More than one start date, let me fight the Napoleonic Wars and Wars of Independance, rather than waiting for them, by which time the world will be completely different.

6) Glorious Achievements, let me win by conquering everything, but don't force me to do that. Alot of players like to sit and play realistically, MTW's GA's allowed you to win without going nuts, this was a great feature.

7) Stick to the turn baded campaign, it works very well.

Charges.

No i'm not talking about calvary, I am talking about infantry. Proper Bayonet charges. With how long it takes to reload the musket it was not uncommon to have your side charge the other while they were reloading. I want to see them be, brutal, bloody, and useful.

Other then that I will be happy.

- Ability to send ships to support land armies in battles around coastal forts, or along major rivers, etc.

- For the love of God, the ability to dismount cavalry during a battle! With the addition of the ability to garrison buildings on the battlefield, place troops behind cover, etc, it would make dragoons actually useful since they could ride out to seize strong points and then defend them on foot.

Group unit AI and enemy AI

If you group units together, let them form walls etc

I would like to see:

TACTICAL MAP:
- most important thing is AI and a base consisting of a stable, simple, well balanced, and well working battle system, like in STW. The required game skills should be about being a good tactician, not about knowing much about the special abilities of strange exotic units with warcries, shieldwalls and phalanx formation.

- to this, only make one major addition that wasn't in STW/MTW1: field fortifications. They are the only major feature of warfare that was not yet introduced in STW/MTW1. Stakes, caltrops, trenches, barricades etc. Add this, in combination with bringing back the STW and MTW importance of taking advantage of the terrain, and the result is a game where both the natural and artifical terrain become crucial elements of the battles. I would also like to see larger battle maps with adding the camp of each army, important roads, river crossings and villages, and a necessity to protect the camp during the battle in order to not lose supplies etc., and a need to control the road to be able to advance and be able to receive reinforcements (using a similar reinforcement feature as in RTW). During deployment, you could select an area where you wish to set up camp, and another area for where to deploy your troops.

- make sure most defeated armies can retreat mostly intact, so battles mostly end with casualty ratios such as 2%-5% except in more crucial battles with 5-40% or similar, and only an occasional slaughter with 10%-80%. Armies should be worn down more by supply problems than combat casualties! NOTE: if an orderly retreating army and a half-routing one don't look too much different, this can also be used to finally allow the player to use fake retreats.

- make the AI capable of using cavalry properly for harassing, just as good as a human player can do it. Let the AI very seldom use cavalry for pure charges.

- obviously: assaults on star fort cities! :idea2: A good element of this would be moats, which one can choose to fill with stones and earth on the strategy map, in order to be able to approach the fort from more directions than just the gate. Also add so navies camped outside a coastal fort can take part in pounding it!

- lift the limit on number of units in an army to perhaps 100 instead of 20! Make players able to go to battle with 100 units as long as they can afford to muster them! In RTW and MTW2, most battles are 20 units vs 20 units - not much variety there. I would like to see a lot of variation in strength and almost never see armies full to the limit the game makes. Handling around 100 units should be not problem in battle (just make 5 rows with 20 in each on the bottom of the screen, or 3 rows with 30 or something), especially if there are good group formations available so you can command them as groups instead of individual units!

- IMPORTANT! make it possible to activate and deactivate "fire at will" for all selected ranged units even if also some non-ranged units are included in the current selection. Example: I want the entire left flank to open fire, but I have 4 pike and 1 cavalry unit there that I manually have to deselect after drawing a selection around the rest, before I can press the 'A' key. With RTW, this was the case, and in multiplayer this was immensely annoying and could sometimes lose a battle! And in a ranged combat game, it will become even more important than in RTW!


STRATEGY MAP:

- add desertion, attrition and supply lines. Add a system where a connected line of small forts must be controlled up to very close behind the army if it is to be supplied that turn. It shouldn't be possible to march straight into Russia without dropping off garrisons along the way and having severe trouble keeping the supply routes and roads covered properly.

- add so that armies with low supply and deep in foreign lands are somewhat understrength when going to battle. Some units will not be able to take part in it but instead be in their camp. Also make those troops that do fight be a bit tired from start if they have marched far.

- create an impressive diplomacy system where you don't fully control and can tax conquered land until either your enemy has signed a peace treaty with you (or you've controlled and garrisoned the province for at least 10 years). This way there won't be unhistorical conflicts with attempts to conquer entire countries: something that very seldom happened in this period. Also make sure a strong alliance is almost always formed against anyone trying to conquer an entire country, that refuses to accept a peace treaty after conquering about 1/3rd or 2/3rds of the country (unless the country is very small that is).

- add "casus belli", without which you get a reputation penalty for attacking another country.

- make it extremely difficult to maintain a good enough economy to keep large armies mustered even in peace time. Make sure the AI too decommissions ships and disbands regiments in peace time!

Dear CA, take a look at the Europa Universalis series. You've probably done so before, but do it again. Play EU for a while. Play it again. After that you'll have a pretty good idea what I want added to your otherwise fantastic game(s). Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empirate

Dear CA, take a look at the Europa Universalis series. You've probably done so before, but do it again. Play EU for a while. Play it again. After that you'll have a pretty good idea what I want added to your otherwise fantastic game(s). Thank you.

---

As a faithful player of EU, I'm curious as to what features of that series would you like to see CA emulate exactly?

Personally, if I had to implement anything from Europa Univeralis into a Total War title it would be the almost limitless diplomacy options. One of EU's strengths.

Will Poland have a real husars that were officially disbanded in 1776?
http://www.husaria.jest.pl/br1.jpg
If yes then world beware because againts them musket tactics are useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoyarPunk

As a faithful player of EU, I'm curious as to what features of that series would you like to see CA emulate exactly?

Personally, if I had to implement anything from Europa Univeralis into a Total War title it would be the almost limitless diplomacy options. One of EU's strengths.

---

Really apart from maybe attriton and diplomacy, theres not much they could learn from it, its a different engine after all, but its diplomacy is fantastic and something that would defiantely improve TW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praxil

I don't know about "we" but I would like to see, less battles.

Every single battle should mean something from strategic perspective. Enough of the TW where you see "oh, one more weak horde coming at me" type of behavior. Loosing battle or you elite troops should actually mean something. You can't recruit good units right away, only militia which is no good against real troops. That's why you can't loose or you will be in a strategic situation where you need to stop your advantage (in case), or send other troops to reinforce that front where you lost your battle.

This also comes to where AI builds smaller amounts of stacks and when they build, those stacks should look like real armies or divisions to. I mean some sense in them, real historical variety of troops in the stack would be ideal approach if possible. Nothing has bored and frustrated me in Total Wars as much as the knowledge that after this battle there will be new one in that same place, just after few turns with same like stack trying the suicide trick.

---

Best suggestion I've seen so far. Way too many battles in current games, they feel like chores after a while.

Quote:

---

1. Titles. I would like to see these re introduced.

---

No way. Too much micromanagement. With all the fleets and transports running around in this era you can be sure there will be plenty as is.

Quote:

---

8. Please include the "get of my land or suffer" diplomacy.

---

Here, here!:yes:

Quote:

---

11. PLEASE. make spies and assinians live on unless killed. As in MTW. It removes the micromanage and headache of replacing these units in your towns.

---

Great idea, have spies represent not individuals who live then die, but networks that live on as long as you keep them funded.:whip:

Some good thoughts coming, keep it up guys.

fenir

Some how discourage having a mass heavy cavalry for web battles

Various changes in weapons and units throughout the game, so at first units will be equipted with feeble muskets and mainy troops having pikes, then all musket be replaced by better rifles, and pikes be completely obsalete.

When a factions becomes conquered, if a former ally comes to "liberate" this means that all the regions the faction orginally had, which have been conquered by you, are given back to the spainish, this will massively improve relations with that faction, and you will get a good amount of support from local troops filling in gaps in your army ranks, of course you can choose if your liberating, or just "Taking it over"

Have various different TYPES of assaination atempts, so for example you can choose between poisoning, stabing, etc

Ships be distructable, so that bits will fall off, instead of it suddenly sinking

When Infantry shoot, they shoot in ranks, but one row shooting after the over, or maybe even the front row croatches, and the other 2 ranks fire along with the front.

NO DAM SHEILD BUG

Agent able to aquire aprentices, these will help the agent, and when the agent dies, he will be replaced by his aprentice

Regional troops would be pretty nice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

8. Please include the "get of my land or suffer" diplomacy.

---

Pity there isn't this option in M2TW (several crusading armies remained on my lands for years).

Quote:

---

11. PLEASE. make spies and assinians live on unless killed. As in MTW. It removes the micromanage and headache of replacing these units in your towns. Which is really annoying. I would rather micromanage the economy or industrial out put than have to keep replacing spies et cetera...

---

This makes no sense. A spy / assassins killed during a mission has to be replaced just like one that dies of old age. If you allow them to live forever all the factions will end up with super elite spies / assassins with hundreds of years experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

-The ability for the AI to actually accept peace at times that would be good for it (implied by change/merge of AI but its still a Want)

---

Do you mean the AI will offer a cease fire benifical to the faction crushing it? In M2TW the only cease fires I got involved me having to pay the faction I was crushing hundreds of florins for several turns (I rejected them and usually crushed the faction in a few turns).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abokasee

When a factions becomes conquered, if a former ally comes to "liberate" this means that all the regions the faction orginally had, which have been conquered by you, are given back to the spainish, this will massively improve relations with that faction, and you will get a good amount of support from local troops filling in gaps in your army ranks, of course you can choose if your liberating, or just "Taking it over"

---

By 'factions becomes conquered' do you mean that some regions of a faction has been conquered or that the faction has been destroyed? In the latter case there is no one to give the regions back to because the leaders of the faction have probably been executed. Though the former case may be an interesting way to improve your reputation and attack another faction 'for morally correct reasons'.

However it would also be fun to have the people of a region support the attacking army because they hate the leader of their faction and want them overthrown (so you have to keep the population happy).


Personally I'd like the ability to repress the population if they demand more freedom (military dictatorship, with regular executions). Trying to subjugate the population could be interesting, especially if they try to revolt.

I'd like to see a lot more difficult customisation.

Something like:

Land battles autoresolve, land battles battlemap, sea battles autoresolve, sea battles battlemap, campaign finances, campaign AI strength, campaign missions, campaign starting situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uanime5

Pity there isn't this option in M2TW (several crusading armies remained on my lands for years).



This makes no sense. A spy / assassins killed during a mission has to be replaced just like one that dies of old age. If you allow them to live forever all the factions will end up with super elite spies / assassins with hundreds of years experience.

---

Not really, because they would inevitably be killed anyway. Sooner or later their luck will run out and that minimum 5% chance to die on operations will come and bite them in the ass.

The way it is now it's just too much micromanagement to build and maintain an adequate spy/assasin/diplomat network.

Quote:

---

If you allow them to live forever all the factions will end up with super elite spies / assassins with hundreds of years experience.

---

I think ideally the spy network would be abstract, not actual characters moving around the map. The more money you put in, the more effective it is. Cut off funding, it goes away.

Its just a way of allieviating some micromanagement and getting a few less characters off of the (now very crowded) map.

A few civ advisor type screens would be nice, so you can see all the empires information and perhasp change things like tax rates and the like.

Echoing Leigo's call for Field fortifacations, sieges here can't really be done without trenches. Also it would be nice that when Sailing the defender is around the entire forces instead of just the gate. Then it really will make the player have to draw the oppenent out into battle until he has the numbers to strongly surround the fortress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uanime5

By 'factions becomes conquered' do you mean that some regions of a faction has been conquered or that the faction has been destroyed? In the latter case there is no one to give the regions back to because the leaders of the faction have probably been executed. Though the former case may be an interesting way to improve your reputation and attack another faction 'for morally correct reasons'.

However it would also be fun to have the people of a region support the attacking army because they hate the leader of their faction and want them overthrown (so you have to keep the population happy).

---

When i say a "faction becomes conqured" I mean it be destroyed, but they didnt always excute the leaders, they exliled neapolean, also, maybe a heir or relitive might of escaped the Axe/Guillitine/Noose etc

Quote:

---

if a former ally comes to "liberate" this means that all the regions the faction orginally had, which have been conquered by you, are given back to the spainish

---

I like this idea but um, would result in an awfully easy campaign for the Spanish :clown:

Above all: AI meaning Artificial INTELLIGENCE
Unique cities!
More differences between factions (though this won't be as much of a problem as Knights have died out)
Regional troops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

I like this idea but um, would result in an awfully easy campaign for the Spanish :clown:

---

thats was just an example, so it could go for any faction, not just spain

Custom difficulty levels!

Give us the ability to tweak the difficulty level of the game in various independant ways, e.g. AI hostility to the player, AI aggressiveness levels in general, AI economic bonuses, AI unrest bonuses, AI troop morale/accuracy/etc bonuses. etc etc.

Obviously have Easy/Medium/Hard/V.Hard presets as before, but at least give us the option of ramping up the difficulty (M2TW is just too easy to win, even on VH/VH) in a way that suits us individually as players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveybaby

Custom difficulty levels!

Give us the ability to tweak the difficulty level of the game in various independant ways, e.g. AI hostility to the player, AI aggressiveness levels in general, AI economic bonuses, AI unrest bonuses, AI troop morale/accuracy/etc bonuses. etc etc.

Obviously have Easy/Medium/Hard/V.Hard presets as before, but at least give us the option of ramping up the difficulty (M2TW is just too easy to win, even on VH/VH) in a way that suits us individually as players.

---

I second that motion. Plus it would would be nice if harder difficulty levels made the enemy smarter instead of giving them combat bonuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

Plus it would would be nice if harder difficulty levels made the enemy smarter instead of giving them combat bonuses.

---

It would indeed be nice. But making a smart ai is a very tough problem for a game of this complexity - so i want the ability to give the AI loads of other bonuses 'just in case' we find the ai too easy to beat on a level playing field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icek

Will Poland have a real husars that were officially disbanded in 1776?
If yes then world beware because againts them musket tactics are useless.

---

Yeah watch out, Polish horses are meaner and more brutal than your average joe's elephant, their knights can dodge bullets, and they fire lazer beams from their eyes.

My main wish would be that minor factions wont be able to conquer the world like Milan in M2TW for exemple :)
If they fix the AI and all the glitches we've seen in previous TW games, it will be perfect :)

[QUOTE=zerathule]
My main wish would be that minor factions wont be able to conquer the world like Milan in M2TW for exemple :)
QUOTE]

Maybe, but didn't the Roman empire start with seven small villages? Who could phantom that rivalling tribes in the Mongol steppe would conquer so much, including huge fortified Chinese cities?

After mature reflection, here's my personal wishlist:

- Start-Up Formations Should Be Savable. I'm tired of waiting for people taking up the better part of my evening to set up their phalanx- or stake-circles, manipular formations and whatnot. Why not allow us to save and load our formations so we can set up armies instantaneously? :idea2:

- Hotkeys & Macros. I'd love to be able to reassign hotkeys in the game, and to record macros. Escape should go back a page rather than asking if you want to exit the game while you're at it.

- Fix the Replays. Nothing is worse than having the battle of your life only to have the replay make you lose big time so you can't relive the thrill. I'm also sick of the incompatibility between different patches: at least save the version number along with the replay and have it appear visually on the loading screen so we don't get a CTD if we try to load an obsolete replay.

Lastly, I think it's high time to allow us to save replays from campaign games and historical battles already.

- More Distinct Faction Color-Schemes. RTR started an unfortunate trend in the modding community where suddenly every army in virtually every mod had to be a mass of brownish-grey units fighting other brownish-grey units. I flat out refuse to play a campaign if I can't even distinguish my troops from the enemy's, and sadly it's creeping into M2TW - Sicily vs Rebels anyone? Here's a hint: if you have to make a button just to make the player's army BLINK on the battlefield just so that he can tell which units are his then you have a usability problem on your hands. I frankly prefer the gay-pride parade that was Parthia to that... :yes:

- Ditch the Rebel Lands. It's much more fun to fight a real faction than some non-descript rebels who rebel because they're into, uh, grey. I'd much prefer to play on maps where only 2-3 cities around the player's capital were rebels from the outset, and every other city on the map was occupied by a genuine faction. Blue Lotus at least made rebels into a visually unique and appealing faction, but that's the exception.

- Bring Back The Fun Units. There's a certain loudmouthed breed of gamers out there who has been throwing hissy fits over the Wardogs, the Headhurlers, the Screeching Women, the Scythed Chariots, Berserkers, the Armored Elephants, and the whole gamut of anachronisms that's been part and parcel of this series. But I love 'em to pieces and think it's part of the particular charm and humor of the series. Keep them out of historical battles, but in the game, please. :charge:

- More Battlefield Tactics. The series has taken a turn for the worse insofar as field battles are concerned. RTW's Phalanx had unlimited tactical use that brought up a lot of creativity and excitement to how battles were fought out which unfortunately has been completely lost - the shieldwall doesn't even come close. The Scythed Chariots created options vis-a-vis cavalry, as did Camel Cavalry. Javelin Skirmishers made rush attacks varied as they were much better than archers in that role. Chariot Ballistas were a blast to experiment with; Screeching Women inspired entire army compositions to take advantage of their ability; in BI we had swimming units that changed the way bridge battles were fought; schiltroms added pizzazz to sieges etc.

I was thrilled to get archer stakes and naffatun, and sieges have been greatly improved, but by and large the game is much poorer on the battlefield than RTW.

And no folks, I don't give a hoot about the "it's not historical" and "it's not realistic" excuses people shore up anytime the topic is brought up. This series has been one long historical and realistic FARCE, and dammit that's what I LOVE about it. :belly:

- More Diversified Factions. In M2TW it seems that every faction has killer cavalry, infantry, crossbowmen/archers, horse archers, siege equipment, and whatnot. But good faction design isn't just predicated on what a faction can do and the token unit that sets it apart: it's also defined by its limitations, something few factions presently lack. :egypt:

Parthia was interesting because you didn't have a solid infantry to hold the line any more. Greek was interesting because you couldn't rely on cavalry. Britannia didn't have archers. Gaul didn't have onagers (AFAIR).

Factions were even diversified on a more fundamental level: Barbarians had bad-ass infantry. Romans had legionnaires chucking pila and capable of testudo. Greek-inspired nations had phalanges. Easterns had horse-archers and gimps.

I also like extremes in the campaign like the broke-ass WRE in BI, the one-city Russia in M2TW, Hungary that has to rush like mad to survive, Carthage starting between a rock and a hard place, Germania with ample opportunity for rigging ambushes, the Romans starting as allies and then breaking out in a civil war etc.

I've played full campaigns with virtually every faction in RTW, but less so in BI, and even less in M2TW. There's simply not incentive enough to try something different because every faction can do everything once you're past Christianity vs Islam.

- Keep the Speed. Slowing down battles to a screeching halt is all the rage in the mod-community. Personally I'd rather watch paint dry so please keep the battle-speed at its current velocity - I think it's perfect. :ahh:

- Ditch the 4-Unit Limit. I see no point whatsoever in having to pay a fine if I pick more than 4 units of a type: now I can't control-double click a given type anymore in order to pick, say, all of my horse archers. I don't need 4 types of knights in an army with the same stats - it's utterly pointless. I couldn't care less that so many people have bizzare rules for online games like that - they're STILL saying that every stinking unit in the game is overpowered...

- The Forest & Jungle Battlemaps Have Got To GO! Huzzah - I picked the wrong map in multiplayer and now none of us can see our units anywhere on the field! "CHAAARGE - uuuh, left!". :thumbsdown:

- 3 Words: Barbary Coast Pirates! If I could get just one wish for ETW that would be it.

- Shanghai Hoggy & DarthVader Before Your Competitors. 'Nuff said.

In M2TW the spacebar flashes your and your enemies units.

There's also a big button that flashes only your own units on the non-minimal gui. It's the one smack in the center with all the ability buttons surrounding it, if I recall correctly.

I don't know how everyone else feels but once you have a city maxed out on troops it should not rebel unless there is some drastic problem. Riot maybe but not rebel!

Of course in the period of this game that may be more of a nonissue...revolutions! well maybe not...

A rock solid diplomacy system ala EUIII and I would like to see some of the europeen capital look like their real life counterpart.(Paris with les tuileries, notre-dame, la seine, etc.)the ability to build national wonder(arc de triomphe)

If the U.S. is going to be a playable faction then there will have to be something like Eras. If not then there will be a large number of p/o-ed non-buyers of the game.

I hope it includes the trade and diplomacy that went on with the European Powers and the Native American tribal groups and allows alliances (with troops) from the various groups.

I don't know how many of you know that the 7 years war lasted 9 years and started in North America. It began over Indian trade and who controlled it. Most historians leave out what happened in the southern area and the tribes there were more numerous there than in the north.

The tribes themselves were powers to be reckoned with, particularly those termed the civilised tribes, well past this period in history.

After the 7 years war the Pennsylvania Rifle came into use on the frontier and by the Revolution was widely in civilian use. While the Brown Bess had an effective range of 80 yards and had no provisions for aimed fire, rifled arms could hit a man at 200 yards and a horse at 400 yards. It lacked a bayonet though and loaded slower so it was used by skirmishers and some militias. The British did have two Regiments of rifles, at least one with breechloaders and were used as snipes to good effect but they never made more rifles or replenished their ranks for what ever reason.

North America was a unique theater of war and I am sure there were similar issues in India...It would be nice to see in the game.

Gimmee a freaking gatling and I'll be happy.

BTW, some very interesting suggestions can be located within this thread. Sadly, they were created prior to the announcement of E:TW, so they are a little generic and may be unsuitable for the selected time period. Sorry about that.

Amphibious Assaults: Ships acting like seige equipment at sea, firing upon positions on the ground, with men storming advanced seabases.

Historically accurate in every sense for the period!

How to do it:

(1) Create Campaign map icons that are "seigable/assaultable", much like settlements.

(2) Ships should be manned by more than one unit (Sailors and Marines). Basically like seige equipment that require multiple units to man it. Allow certain units to leave the "Seige equipment" (Ship), and when they do so, they automatically man small boats. These small boats can be manipulated just like any other seige equipment, and must be unmanned in very shallow water.

(3) Require a certain number of units for gunning efficiency on the ships. For example, let us assume that only five ships may be taken in for a seige of a dock, port town, or seabase. Each ship is comprsed of four "infantry" units: 3 of sailors, 1 of Marines. This would equal a total of 20 units in the battle from the player's perspective. Marines would man no guns and thus not effect the ability of the ship to fire cannons. Each group of sailors would man 1/3 of the ships guns, so if they were to leave the ship for a land assault, it would diminish supporting fire power. This would force a tactical decision on the part of the player to weigh his options in deciding on how many troops to send forth.


I dream of British and Continental Marines and the amphibious assault!

Edit:
Furthmore, advances in cannon and and technology would alter the distance that ships and land-based cannon would be from each other. Of course, it is to be expected that the heavier land cannon would typically launch further, giving another advantage to the defender and retaining some element of the "seige and assault" that makes TW so excellent.

Imagine, if you will, the following:

You, the assaulting player, have lined your ships against the enemy guns, and have taken a beating coming in against the wind. You detach your small boats to allow your Marines and a small supporting contingent of sailors to row forth and assault the port. As they head through the rough seas, cannon balls fly by and splash in the water around them. You focus on your Marine Captain's boat, as your admiral watches from his flagship. He leads nine other boats towards the shore as both land and sea trade cannon fire. To the right, the distracting amphibious force is taking heavy fire and you see a small boat or two sunk by cannon fire in one shot! To the left, the main effort heads towards the safety of the small beach at the cliffs below the cannons. Rifle fire rains down on the crew of the force, as cannons continue to roar overhead.

You reach the safety of land and are met by an opposing force of rifles fortified in defense positions. You call for fire support from the ships behind and light up your enemy, meters away as your Marines charge the battlements with bayonets in hand!

Sticky this thread please? It's bound to be repeated many many times.

would be interested to see the Indian (i.e. Battle of Assaye)

1 other thing, landmarks on the campaign map of famous battles please:2thumbsup:

The only thing off the top of my head would be to have the capability to order your men to advance as they fire. First rank fires, takes knee to reload, and the next rank moves up in front of them, and doing this they advance across the battlefield.


Snite

I think abstracting the spy system is a great idea. I love micromanaging my cities and armies, getting them just perfect. But micromanaging agents is so dull.

Lot's of differing wishes, poor CA.:laugh4:

Beneath some other important things (less battles, field fortifications, diplomacy...) I wish a cavalry and artillery as close as possible to the history.

I have read in some posts that cavalry should only harass and don't make so much charges. Perhaps it depends of the different nations (I know a bit mainly about the Prussian, British and French cavalry) but that sounds odd to me. The only way cavalry really can decide a battle (and it decided many battles before the Napoleonic wars when things became a bit more problematic for the cavalry) is the charge in close order. There were many occasions when cavalry charges broke and swept away cavalry and infantry formations and there were also many occasions when it failed totally. It seems very difficult to me to do it historically correctly with the common TW system.

With artillery it should be more easy with the TW system as it is now. The different mobility of the cannons according to weight should be accurately depicted. A problem is the space on the battlefield and ground conditions. The use of granates should be diminished, perhaps restricted to howitzers, and grape is a must for cannons, later shrapnells also. Horse artillery should be in the game.

I'm one of those who don't want too much arcade in the game and as much history as possible. I've seen that some people like it the other way round. So a good compromise should be found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NagatsukaShumi

Really apart from maybe attriton and diplomacy, theres not much they could learn from it, its a different engine after all, but its diplomacy is fantastic and something that would defiantely improve TW.

---

They should incorporate the national manpower rating from EU 2 it's a great feature and very realistic. They could also have ways to increase this number with upgrades like recruitment centers like they have in EU.
Great game by the way haven't played it in years.

I played a demo of EU and it seemed incredibly dull, although that is just my opinion and to be fair I didn't play it for long. I really hope TW doesn't go down the EU road. While I want TW games to be more historically accurate and have more detailed management in general of factions, I think the reason the TW series is so popular is that it does offer so many interesting and unique factions and units. Although not to the extent of mods like EB though.

If anything at all changes in terms of siege battle mechanics let it be this: Give the defender the option to meet on the field to prevent/counter the beginning of a siege. This would make the 1 unit besieging a city with an entire army in it alot less annoying, since it could be dealt with. Retreating behind the walls or meeting on the field should be the options. Not to mention this would also eliminate most of the annoying sally forth battles that are one-sided slaughters, but a pain to manage due to the city/castle.

Will it be against total war mechanics to have a build your own fort or city and delimit your own province option? Could also allow provinces to be eaten away from the edges through creating military outposts and trenches that are not destroyed by your enemy. Or is that a bit too civilisation?

I'd like to see:

-A complete refurbish on the field construction system, so instead of just watchtowers and forts, we should have simple wall boundaries, maybe to defend a mountain pass, rather than having the forts in RTW and M2 that in real life could easily be sidestepped. I'd love to see garrison-able watchtowers, beacons that would serve a similar purpose, and gates to let certain characters (like diplomats) and factions through!

-Fully customizable city layouts. Ive played castle strike, which is nowhere near as good as Total war games, but it lets you customize the castle (though not very well). It would be fantastic to be able to create custom layouts, save them, and use them in the campaign, then add a wide range of defences (like towers and ring walls), that can be build via a separate construction queue to the regular one.

-Placing settlements anywhere (or numerous ones in a region, the main being its 'capital'), such as merging into ports or on top of hills, would be an added bonus

-Highly improved choreography for battles, so that the soldiers are truly brutal and merciless, slashing anywhere they want and spraying blood as opposed to slashing or blocking every 5 seconds in slow motion, as it appears in M2TW

-In battles, soldiers should be able to SWITCH WEAPONS!!! It would be great to see an archer get a net out and throw it over horse in a cavalry charge, then wrench the spear out of the dislodged rider's hand and stab him with it. It'd also make elephants a bit easier to kill. And after the battle, a warrior might acquire a high-quality rifle from the body of an enemy, and use it thereafter.

-Cooler still would be soldiers in a unit actually using co-ordinated moves and working together to bring down the enemy. Fights should be much quicker and crueller, with people using all the skills and weapons they've got. If you ever get to see 300, when they're fighting the immortals, you'll see what i mean.

-An interesting concept would be to customize the units themselves, based on armour. So would give them armour as you would in a custom battle, but in the campaign only some levels would be accessible, and would require an armoury to use heavier armour. So when recruiting a unit, the armour value would affect the cost. The same goes for weapons.

-I'd like to see negotiation - on the battlefield. To see a diplomat, or a general come with a party of guards to discuss matters before the battle, or play out the traditional method of bringing up the most powerful soldier from each army and having them fight, the winner getting to settle diplomatic agreements on his general's terms. (That's shown in troy)

-Generals really should appear on the battlefield as the do in their portraits. Then you can tell which is your faction leader!

-On the campaign map, there should be patrols along trade routes, and if some caravans are looted, this should affect the income.

-Sieges still have a long way to go, with garrison-able towers (and combat within), deadly gatehouses and more sturdy battering rams. As i said before, customizing the city's defence would add an extra depth to sieges, because if you found a certain section vulnerable in one siege, you could add towers to it for the next. And buildings should certainly be fully-destructible when the attackers breach the walls, whether it be by artillery fire or - regular fire.

-To really make it interesting, why not add townspeople and helpless citizens who can run around screaming in despair when a tower collapses? Then we can be told when something's destroyed in a way other than a video talking about THE WALLS OF JERICHO!!!

I'm sure there are more, i just can't remember them...

god white dont we just ask them to build us a working holodeck so we can re-entact our wildest fantasys (cause some of them posted here are pretty out there) :dizzy2:

edit

Multiplayer Campaign.

Nameable Regiments, would love to name my regiments 54th Foote, 1st Co. or whatever

Huge variety in units on a national scale, no more Blue Tunic+Chainmaille = France and Black Tunic+Chainmaille = Germany

Revolutions! it was quite the fashion of the time.

Redcoats hats changing from different time periods :P

When we are having multi-army battles i dont want some vague Attack/Defend/Shoot mode for them, because they still act like gits, just make it so that i can push an arrow ----> and my 20 unit cards slides over and shows me that armies 20 unit cards, magic! With the PAUSE button we can then organise them splendidly and on a massive scale.

This gave me a new good idea for a request: add reforms instead of pure army building upgrades as the main way of changing your army over time, as in EB. This way, the early game won't be all militia units vs another, and the late game all professionals against each other. I like how EB does it, so that the player has some capability of affecting when the reforms will happen, but a lot of them will be difficult to work towards getting, and appear semi-random.

edit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyanCentaur

- Bigger, more decisive battles. Fewer useless skirmishes.

- Introduce simple logistical considerations on the strategic map. Ex: armies in hostile territory would need access to forage or supply trains, or begin starving.

.

---

Do the two of these not conflict, supply trains and foraging would naturaly lead to more skirmishs, trying to raid opponents supply train, farm lands,etc.

IMO......

-Ability to bombard city/fort from sea and/or land without launching an assault

-Better pathfinding

-Improved diplomacy. Including, but not limited to: AI that actually keeps alliances. Huge penalties/consequences for ai and player that break alliances without just cause. Formation of lasting and meaningful coalitions. Ability to perform multiple diplomacy per diplomat per turn (ie rtw). AI that will actively seek or readily agree to accept cease-fire/client kingdom instead of being killed off. A "get off my land" option.

-Named units that also mention where recruited. ie Legio I Italia, Legio II Spanish, etc.. Records kept for each named unit. ie. # of battles fought, total casualties, regions fought in, etc....

-Everything on a battle map is destroyable.

-An option to select 4tpy or Xtpy at startup so those of us that want to play 4tpy and have a long and slower game can and those that want a faster game can pick the Xtpy.

-Default show year and not turns. Could make it an option to select as well.

-Realistic troop movements. No more of this takes a year to move a province or two.

-Show a family members ability to govern too.

-Titles. BBB for MTW2 is a good example. Titles given to those that govern a city for at least a turn. When that character dies it goes to the next character that governs there for a turn.

-Ability to select an heir if desired...otherwise default to eldest son. If no son or no son of age then perhaps we could have a queen that could rule in son's name till he is of age or line of succession passes to eldest daughter if there is no son at all. Succession must stay in particular family branch by default unless player is forced/chooses to change that.

-How about another option to select if fantasy units are to be included in campaign or not? Would mean an increase in amount of unit slots available, but would satisfy those of us that want only historical units and those that want the flaming pigs or war dog type units.

-Family names are past down....even if only as a trait.

-Better logistical system for armies. Generals can gain a "understanding of logistics" from a academy or through successful campaigning. Without trait you get a "rationing," "belts tightened," "starving" type of trait for commanding general with comparable desertion rates per trait. See EB for example.

-Recruitable governors and generals that aren't part of your family tree. Each should have decent ability in their respective field upon recruitment. Recruited governors should have 0 movement ability. Loyalty of recruited generals should be good at start but can get lower if not actively used. Both should be able to be disbanded at will. Maybe to occasionally pop up again as a rebel general.

-Different governments able to be built with different game effects with the ability to change government types if desired. ie Homeland (limited to specific regions), merchant colony, military colony, allied colony, etc... See EB for example.

Anyway, that is my :2cents:

edit

I would also love to see small towns, villages, ports and all being represented on the Strategic map, as garrisonable, so that you can occupy a rural town and use its buildings as a strategic defense on the battlemap.

Ports should also act as cities in there own right not just an extension of cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daithi MacGuillaCathair

Do the two of these not conflict, supply trains and foraging would naturaly lead to more skirmishs, trying to raid opponents supply train, farm lands,etc.

---

But also it would represent some historical fact. French armies of the later part of the game were renowned for their ability to live off the land. Probably because their logistics were rubbish, but anyway, it was a positive for as long as they were still moving but once they stopped living off the land becasme ravaging the land and turned the inhabitants against them. A good example of this would be Spain and Portugal where they were never going to win a popularity contest but stripping an already poor land of resources lost them many of the friends they had made. Wellington was able to impede the French armiy in Portugal by a policyu of scorched earth. The French came, saw his army in their entrenchments and had to leave becasue of a lack of supplies. Whereas Wellington's army didn't have these problems in Spain and virtually none in France because he insisted on paying(ish) for supplies and had somewhat efficient Quatermaster's system.

i know its historical accurate to have baggage trains and living of the land etc. i was just pointing out that your request for the inclusion of this feature is some what opposed to your wish for less skirmishes. as the raids and counter raids would be conducted on a small scale.

edit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyanCentaur

I've attempted to brainstorm a simple logistic system...

- Armies draw forage automatically, leading to indirect competition for food.

- Each soldier and horse strips a tiny amount of forage from a nearby farm (5 square radius? 10?). Large stacks of men and horses can rapidly deplete the countryside. Richer farmlands provide more forage per turn and recover faster.

- As farmlands are depleted, they provide less food/income to the regional capital, and are depicted darker on the campaign map (green->yellow->brown->gray->black). Thus a fully depleted farmland would provide nothing to the capital. This is similar to "devastation" in existing TW games.

- If a port is within an army's foraging radius, forage can be redirected through that port.

- If all local supplies are exhausted, forage is automatically redirected to any unblockaded port within forage range. This will transfer farm depletion to other controlled provinces that are not themselves blockaded. If troops cannot obtain supplies locally or through a port, they are considered "unsupplied". If a stack contains a mix of supplied and unsupplied troops, the stack as a whole is assigned a supply%.

- 100% supplied armies operate at 100% mobility and combat strength. Armies below 100% move proportionately slower on the campaign map, and fight under a handicap, ie reduced morale / attack / defence / speed. Thus an army at 80% supply moves at 80% speed and fights at 80% effectiveness in battles. Armies below 25% supply are also considered to be starving, and lose troops each turn.

- Besieged troops cannot forage. They are considered "in supply" until they consume the city/fort's food stockpiles. If the city has an attached port, they can trace supply unless the port is blockaded.


Why a logistic system? Because historical military campaigns make no sense when viewed outside a logistical context. Why did they build navies? Why did Napoleon split his armies into separate columns? Why were generals forced to attack strong positions instead of waiting it out?
1) Standing armies cost food, not just cash.
2) Large armies eat alot, impacting population growth and economy wherever they go.
2) Moving an army into foreign territory lets your troops dine at enemy expense.
3) The size of a standing garrison is limited by local forage.
4) To march a vast army into enemy lands you probably have to control nearby ports.
5) You'll normally want to divide large armies into separate columns for better foraging.
6) Large armies must keep moving or eventually starve, unless supplied through a nearby port.

---

What about the situation where a concerted effort was made not forage? Wellington put a lot of effort into creating a semi efficient supply train. Part of the reason was to avoid (as much as possible) pillaging the allied Spanish and Portuguese contrysides, and avoid local antagonisms. When he got into France he experienced none of the problems with the local population the French had in Iberia becasue he paid(ish) for what he took.

I do like your ideas though. You could add an option to use scorched earth tactics as well, like the russians in front of Napoleon, or Wellington in Portugal. An enemy has to move on even faster. Or you could have resource raiding, where you rob and devastate an opponent's resources.

The only problem is that in game terms logistics might get pretty tedious with the expanded map. I took out the supply side of things from the Stainless Steel mod in M2TW, good, but not for me.

One thing I’d like to see is realistic close order movement in battles. in MTW2 groups sort of flow through turns. As someone who has been subjected to close order drill, I can safely say the entire unit can turn any direction and stay in formation with ease and moving along at a pretty good pace or turn in an orderly fashion by rank or file to navigate tighter spaces.

Perhaps there can be a button on the UI, and this toggle button turns on/off close order movement. When on, units, elements in close order speak, stay tight and turn tight, march etc in a very orderly almost mechanical fashion. When the button is off, they move more loosely, more along the lines of MTW2 unit movement.

The purpose being that a unit needs to be able to stop and deliver a volley in unison and in short order. This may require CA allow stragglers to “walk through walls” on occasion. But that would be preferable to having a unit standing there getting shot up waiting on a straggler that got hung up on some battle map obstacle.

I really hope CA read this stuff, because if they take our advice they can make one heck of a good game.

Well what I'm really looking forawrd to see is more intense and detailed Diplomacy.

For example: If you are able to capture prisoners from battles, maybe make it so you are able to build jail cells in the cities so you can place the prisoners there in the jail cells, then in diplomacy you could ask them to give you a region or make them get off your land for the prisoners.

Maybe even add a Non-Agressional-Pact option for diplomacy.

For infantary battles it would be better if the battles used more of land advantage and stuff like that, more tatical planning then like the MTW 2 strategies where you just shot arrows then throw your whole army at them. What I'm trying to say is it would be cool if the battles could work like Company of Heroes, where tatics are the most important.

I also wouldn't mind a campaign with a better story line to it. Like I dont want to spend half my time playing a game then end up only having a pop up telling me I won, I want better prizes for my winnings, and even devastations for losing. A optional storyline is even better, so the game can flow with a story line in all diffrent directions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daithi MacGuillaCathair

i know its historical accurate to have baggage trains and living of the land etc. i was just pointing out that your request for the inclusion of this feature is some what opposed to your wish for less skirmishes. as the raids and counter raids would be conducted on a small scale.

---

the board game "empires in arms"( fantastic napoleon era game if you have the time) handles supply routes by forcing you to be able to pull an uncontested ( ie not broken by enemy units) straight line between the supplied force and a depot, it doesnt cause to mant skirmishes, but makes cossaks and freikorps very valuable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daithi MacGuillaCathair

god white dont we just ask them to build us a working holodeck so we can re-entact our wildest fantasys (cause some of them posted here are pretty out there) :dizzy2:

---

oh, yes, pretty please!