Good gameplay from previous total wars
I found that one of the main problems with Medieval Total War 2 was that it did not allow the player to chose the faction heir, but it was instead chosen as the "next in line". I thought this gameplay addition was a total load of crap, especially since the "King" should have more freedom in chosing his successor and not be forced with e.g. "Clarence the Stupid" as a faction heir. :shame:
The ability to choose your successor was perhaps one of the most realistic things about Rome Total War, and the element of the campaign gameplay that made me grow sick of playing MTW2 and go back to playing Rome TW.
Conan himself became king by his own hand, and I personally think it would be rubbish if his heir had to be one of the aquilonian generals as opposed to his own son with zenobia who would be perhaps 5th in line to the throne or whatever the case may be. :inquisitive:
The second element in campaign gameplay that I think should be incorporated into the Hyborian age mod, if possible, comes from medieval total war 1. Does anyone remember that each province came with a title, also that building powerful castles and important buildings created titles such as "Constable of the Realm" or whatever? I thought that was really awesome, not only did it give trait bonuses but it also made my favoured generals into Lord Whatsisname. It gave me a warm little glow inside when i conquered enemy territory and granted my triumphant general his hard-earned lands...
Anyway, I couldn't let such as great mod come together without drawing some awesome elements from previous games that somehow weren't continued. :2thumbsup:
Any criticisms, comments or whatever are totally welcome.
Re: Good gameplay from previous total wars
Unfortunately, I don't believe picking your heir is possible with this particular part of the game.
I've been playing Third Age Total War and thought too that it was absolute crap that you aren't allowed to pick your heir.
Like you said, what if you get Prince Crappolla on the throne?
The way I found to get around this was to turn the next heir into someone good. To start, I have them sit in a city and rule so that their rulership traits increase. Once I'm mostly satisfied with that, I send them out conquering!
I increase their abilities by making sure that they will win...no risky battles. I found a good way to do this was fighting bandits.
The other option, and one that is much quicker, is to get the lousy heir killed. Send him into battle against overwhelming odds and make sure you insert him into the enemy lines so that he can't escape. If he is killed...all the better. If he is capture, simply refuse ransom.
I think this would fit into the Conan idea rather well. "Nobles" in the Age of Conan were ruthless, so I completely see them making sure that a crap heir gets killed in battle while a more suitable heir comes to the front of the line.
I've killed off as many as three contenders to the throne to get the one I wanted into the right place.
I also then stack the current king and the soon to be king in the same army and give the new fella all the best "advisers" or what have you so that his ability is increased even further.
Using this tactic I've found that some of my new monarchs are better than my old...and at worst they are only somewhat less powerful until they have had some time to rule on their own.
Re: Good gameplay from previous total wars
Hmmm... I was under the impression that the Medieval total war 2 engine was based off, in large part, the Rome total war engine (honestly if I'm wrong I apologise). It's just that personally, being able to chose one's heir was such a big deal that it made me hate MoTW 2.
1. Killing off my heir's by sending them into pointless battles seemed so frustrating and time consuming, also the mechanic itself is inaccurate.
Say for example that the faction heir (A) has a son (B), eventually the faction leader (0) dies and the heir (A) becomes faction leader. Then the title of new faction heir is given to his younger brother (C), instead of the new king's son (B). :thumbsdown:
.... Now personally I thought that was rubbish and inaccurate, but maybe I'm just rambling at this point.... :yes:
2. I think one thing I would like to know is how Taranaich is going about the naming system for the ruling families of individual kingdoms.
Now, I've read all of Howard's original Conan stories, even the synopsises (?) and fragments (gotta love the Complete Chronicles of Conan 2006 hardback edition). And I don't know if it really gave that many ideas, I suppose Taranaich will take some from the stories and look up in the corresponding country's history for others (e.g. Zingara - Spain, Aquilonia - France). Even just use examples like:
Yar Afzal (People of the Black Circle) can be on of the rulers in Afghulistan (even though he was a Wazuli, whatever). And others can be... Yar Rakza, Yar Kunli etc :book:
Anywho, thanks Taranaich for doing this, I hope you find the suggestions helpful.
Re: Good gameplay from previous total wars
Hello Crom! Sorry it's been so long replying, but I've been a tad busy on other things.
Anyway...
I don't know about the possibility of selecting faction heirs, but if it can be done, I'll try to include it. While monarchies dominate the Hyborian Kingdoms, it can be a pain being stuck with a useless heir that you can't get rid of: I think we can have a little leeway for the Hyborian Age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crom
2. I think one thing I would like to know is how Taranaich is going about the naming system for the ruling families of individual kingdoms.
It's mostly going to be on a kingdom-by-kingdom basis. Take Aquilonia for example: most of the royal bloodlines are gone, either slain in the War of the Barons or in failed coups against Conan. Usually a character does not go by their family name, but there are exceptions like Servius Galannus and Emilio Scavonus. This appears in Nemedia too, in the form of Aztrias Petanius and Kallian Publico, and (theoretically) Hyperborea's Olgerd Vladislav. This is going to be the setup for most of the Hyborian kingdoms. In Zingara, epithets formed from their birthplace appear to be the norm: Zapayo Da Kova the most prominent example.
Generally, I'm going to keep to single names for most of the characters at the start of the game, with surnames added for any that appear during the game.
Quote:
Now, I've read all of Howard's original Conan stories, even the synopsises (?) and fragments (gotta love the Complete Chronicles of Conan 2006 hardback edition).
I heartily recommend the three Del Rey volumes: there's a lot of stuff that isn't in the centenary edition, like drafts and essays from esteemed scholars.
Quote:
And I don't know if it really gave that many ideas, I suppose Taranaich will take some from the stories and look up in the corresponding country's history for others (e.g. Zingara - Spain, Aquilonia - France).
Pretty much, yup. Zingara's shaping up to be quite interesting with some of the parallels.
Quote:
Yar Afzal (People of the Black Circle) can be on of the rulers in Afghulistan (even though he was a Wazuli, whatever). And others can be... Yar Rakza, Yar Kunli etc :book:
Yar Afzal died in PotBC, so unfortunately he won't make it. According to the synopsis Howard wrote for PotBC, Ghulistan had a king based in Khorbul, though one that the tribes largely ignored: he'll likely have a name similar to Yar Afzal, from Afghan myth/legend/history.
Quote:
Anywho, thanks Taranaich for doing this, I hope you find the suggestions helpful.
Thanks!
