The Official Hopes, Dreams and Fears Topic

[ThePianist]

Bigtex, if Hillary Clinton was the devil, how come all the nations of the world in the beginning of time have put more resources into international tribal warfare rather than building and expanding habitat?
If the worst that you could think of is Hillary Clinton, you really don't know what's worst in life.

Suggestion:

-Currently when a faction message pops up, there is only a "yes" or "no" (check mark or x mark), it'd be great if the messages had multiple choices like in RPGs.

-In RTW, the archer/slingers/ballistas etc. could only fire at the flag of units. So if the unit moves, the arrows/slingstones/bolts changes the aim with it. That's great. However, it'd be great if there was an additional fire mode implemented: area fire, and that's much more realistic as well because in real life soldiers have no idea which people is in which little unit on the battlefield when firing. So with the area fire, you'd click on a missile unit (in ETW, nearly all infantry, plus cannons, are missile units) and indicate an area where they keep firing at. It's much easier that way, because there are many times in RTW where I wish I could have the ballistas and catapults launch their projectiles at a fixed point on the battlemap, rather than moving its aim with whichever unit. Not saying that the aiming-at-an-unit firing system is bad. It's excellent. But it would be more complete, if a second firing system was implemented, the aiming-at-an-area fire.

-When clicking the faction icon in the strategic map and opening the family tree, it'd be great if the royal dynasty (think in ETW all were still kingdoms) had a family tree, and then on another part of the page are a pool of generals, and perhaps, governors. So that not all generals have to be family members, since the 19th century empires were run differently from the ancient ones.
And in the middle of the game, the gamer could pull up the family tree + horizontal general list, and at anytime adopt a general by clicking and dragging from one part of the page into another. So that if a general develops a lot of stars and good traits, he could be added into the dynasty. It's better this way than having it only happen as a pop-up faction event.


This further idea has to do with the upkeep cost of armies:

variable upkeep cost, a great hope and dream for Empire Total War

-In the stats of public order in cities (squalor+unrest+distance from capital, etc), perhaps changing the "distance from capital city" stat. Because in the 19th century, empires were able to take cities and maintain them at huge distance from the capital city, with relatively tiny amount of troops, such as most of the colonial wars.

It's a bit odd to occupy a town of 400 people with a full stack, and the full stack gets ejected because the 80% of distance from capital is driving the public order below 70%.

Instead of having distance from capital city affect the cities, it's better to have it affect the soldiers. Like, in RTW and M2TW, it's essentially the same engine, so a unit is recruited at the same price and has upkeep at the same price, no matter where on the map.
It'd be great if further from the capital city (or perhaps, major military training towns), the recruiting cost of a unit increases. And even better, the upkeep of a unit increases with a scalar multiplier, depending on distance from capital city.

This would be a more realistic implementation of raising armies, maintaining armies, and invading and keeping cities.
Better yet. Not only does the upkeep cost of units increase by a percentage the further away from the capital, but also, the upkeep of units increases when an enemy army is near (to simulate the difficulty of maintaining armies without desertions, and more difficulty in getting material, ammo, etc), and especially increases if a city is under siege.
This would motivate armies to sally forth so there'd be less siege battles.

Or, even better: in the RTW (and probably M2TW) engine, when a faction takes over certain other factions' cities, there is a cultural difference of between 0 and 50% in the public order of the city, to simulate the cost and labor of maintaining an occupied city.
What if in Empire: Total War, this was reflected in the upkeep. Depending on the player's faction, each geographical location has different upkeep multipliers. It increases with distance to capital, but it also has added value based on the geographical location's historical inclinations, and/or what's going on on the campaign map. So let's say the player's faction is Napoleonic France. France's unit upkeep in French territory is +0%. In Spain, France's unit upkeep get +5% because of distance from capital city, but also +10% because of Spanish guerilla warfare. In Poland, France's unit upkeep get +(some-number)% because of distance to capital, and that's it. In Russia, France's unit upkeep get +(some-number)% because of distance to capital, and +50% because of scorched earth tactics of the Russians.

And, it'd be great if an army invading a province, didn't just cause devastation to agriculture (minus some percentage of agriculture income to the city), but also drive up the upkeep cost of the enemy units in that province, especially if it turtles inside a city, because it rampages through the countryside taking all the supplies. That would encourage armies to not stay inside cities for sieges (did any siege happen at all in 19th century?) but go fight battles.

It's especially great if in Empire:Total War, a unit that costs 100 to upkeep in the home territories would cost many hundreds or even a thousand to upkeep, in far away territories. It totally simulates the colonial warfares, and even the war among the relatively near countries in Europe.

From what I read of the previews, the dev teams probably thought of this idea already. If it isn't implemented or not in the final version of the game, depending on the devs' superior knowledge and experience in game-making, would the devs please just add a upkeep_multiplier attribute to each units in the .txt files, so modders could play with it. If something like that is implemented,

[Sheogorath]

I gather that the way most overseas empires were maintained with few colonial troops was that they'd hire natives. Like in India, the a lot of the 'British' troops were either natives in EIC service or from various princes 'allied' to the Brits. The Russians had a similar system in Central Asia with all the little khannates and stuff.

I also thought of something else I'd like to see in (or rather, not in) the game.

Get rid of those GOD DAMN STRATEGIC MAP UNIT ANIMATIONS.
I SWEAR TO GOD IF I HAVE TO SIT THROUGH ANOTHER TEN MINUTE SESSION OF 'SIX NATIONS ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE A CITY' I WILL KILL SOMEBODY.
Or just make them shorter. Seriously. The RTW animations were acceptable, 'though a bit long. The guys in MTW2 have to wind up for like, two seconds before they do their little sword-clash.
Its annoying, CA. Get rid of it. Or make a shorter animation.
Just do SOMETHING >_>

And also do something about the AI attempting to bribe the SAME CITY over and over every turn.

[rajpoot]

Get rid of those GOD DAMN STRATEGIC MAP UNIT ANIMATIONS.
I SWEAR TO GOD IF I HAVE TO SIT THROUGH ANOTHER TEN MINUTE SESSION OF 'SIX NATIONS ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE A CITY' I WILL KILL SOMEBODY.
Or just make them shorter. Seriously. The RTW animations were acceptable, 'though a bit long. The guys in MTW2 have to wind up for like, two seconds before they do their little sword-clash.
Its annoying, CA. Get rid of it. Or make a shorter animation.
Just do SOMETHING >_>

Spacebar speeds it up.............

[PBI]

But even sped up, some animations are still glacially slow (princesses and inquisitors).

[Megas Methuselah]

In RTW, you could just skip AI movement...

[anders]

area fire is a definite must-have for artillery units, and probably for the infantry as well, it would be great to be able to fire into the enemy advance isntead of over their heads.

the problem with infuriating campaign map animations should be lessened if the agents are removed as mentioned i previews.

[Julius_Nepos]

I have to say one of my chief concerns is whether or not CA will actually deliver on all the features they've got planed for ETW's final release. I'm really sort of waiting things out to see just what the final product is actually going to be like. I remember all the hype and excitement before Oblivion came out and the actual product, in many ways, (at least to me) didn't really live up to what was promised. I'm remaining optimistic however, and after all February is quite a ways away as it is.

My main hope is that diplomacy is improved at least to the point where vassalage works, and AI factions aren't quite as suicidal as they have been in the past. ETW is entering the era of the ideal of the Balance of Power and it would be nice to be able to engage in actual "strategery." Given the elimination (apparently) of rebel provinces from the start, it's even more important to ensure (to me anyway) that "sharing a border" isn't tantamount to a "declaration of war."

At any rate from what I'm reading the game already seems to be pretty good, and a little bit more like Europa Universalis, which in my mind is a step in the right direction. I do hope the German states don't get annexed immediately (that would be irritating) and I'm very much hoping the whole Squalor-Culture-Distance to Capital penalty System is completely revamped. I'm relatively excited about this new Total War installment, but cautiously so. I haven't played M2TW much since it came out and I found Kingdoms pretty flat (though still interesting).

At any rate, I'll need to get my historical action fix elsewhere for the fall and winter, I'll keep an eye on ETW developments and so long as the glaring issues from past installments are dealt with, at least nominally) I should enjoy the show. If Holstein is indeed in as a faction, it'll be even more interesting still. Cheers!

[EstateLA]

Hopes: Low system requirements with adequate graphics, which CA has done mighty well on.

Dreams: Diplomacy in battle, or able to use agents in a battle, realistic maps with what the area actually looks like.

Fears: That the campaign will be too short, and there will not be enough territory

[SpencerH]

At this point it's a bit more simple for me.

Hopes: that the game will be flawed but playable (a la RTW)

Dreams: that the game will be better than STW or MTW

Fears: that the game will be as bad as or worse than MTW2 (which I never managed to play for more than a short time before giving up in disgust)

[kingsnake]

I hope for a very realistic sailing and ship damage.

I dream that high-end computers will suddenly drop in price in January 2009...

[DisruptorX]

My primary concern is the pace of combat. If it plays at roughly the same speed as MTW 1&2, all will be good. In these games, combat is fast paced, but slow enough that it is possible to command a full army in real time.

If it plays like RTW, with horses galloping around at 80 mph, and men running at about 30, I will not be amused.

I'm optimistic that it will be a good game, and I'm looking forward to building trade empires and non-conquest related victory conditions.

[PBI]

I dream that high-end computers will suddenly drop in price in January 2009...

all too true...

[Sol Invictus]

My primary concern is the pace of combat. If it plays at roughly the same speed as MTW 1&2, all will be good. In these games, combat is fast paced, but slow enough that it is possible to command a full army in real time.

If it plays like RTW, with horses galloping around at 80 mph, and men running at about 30, I will not be amused.

I'm optimistic that it will be a good game, and I'm looking forward to building trade empires and non-conquest related victory conditions.

I imagine that Empires will have the player controlled speed option the M2TW had. I think it was Shift and click on the speed button to really slow things down. I would be very disappointed if that feature is discarded since I hate a fast paced games.

[ljperreira]

To my knowledge, the era of siege battles was pretty much gone by this point. Forts were still used to guard ports and so forth, but they were mostly geared towards fending off ships in that case. Cannons and artillery were simply too effective at this point.

Field fortifications were the new big thing. Building redoubts and so forth prior to the battle to stick your cannons in and so forth.

There were a few sieges during the Napoleonic war (for example, the first and second siege of Almeida, Portugal), but they wouldnt have lasted as long as sieges from the medieval time period. Cannons and artillery were quite effective, but so were some of the methods used to counteract this, such as star fortifications and such.

Anyhow, two of my "hopes" for ETW is the inclusion of Marines, and ship to shore attacks on shore batteries (Naval landing parties), or ship to shore attacks on basically anything .....would it be too much to ask to hear sailors singing sea shanties as they worked?

[Polemists]

My only fear is that nations will act completely eradaic again


Ex:

Hello my name is Milan.

I will never have more then three cities, but I will manage to train over 8000 crossbow men to send against you. Nothing else really, just crossbowmen. I always entire into alliances, and will always betray you, even when it's in my interest not to.




I mean I don't want to see the 13 colonies sailing a fleet over to england and invading london


Otherwise diplomacy is always nice.

[rajpoot]

Anyhow, two of my "hopes" for ETW is the inclusion of Marines, and ship to shore attacks on shore batteries (Naval landing parties), or ship to shore attacks on basically anything .....would it be too much to ask to hear sailors singing sea shanties as they worked?

They've already said ship to shore attacks are not happening......if there was one thing that could have made Empire absolutly flawless, it would have been being able to attack forts using ships.....but it's not in there. I must confess this was one thing I too wanted alot.

[Owen Glyndwr]

What I want to see is a battle system that is easier to use.
A lot of my complaints are coming from RTW, but I'd love to see an AI that knows how to manage its troops. One of the major reasons I find the AI loses nearly every battle is because they become unable to maneuvre their troops in force. Instead they move troops in one division at a time, which effectively minimizes completely the advantages in numbers. Also, I'd like an interface that is easier to use. In RTW and M2TW, the problem I had was when you were on the attack, if you want all your troops to move at once in a unified charge, you'd have to either tell all your forces to attack one unit, to which they all funnel into one guy, or pause the game and tell each individual unit to attack one other individual unit, which makes me never want to play the attack in the game because it becomes so frustrating. What I want for ETW and future games, is the ability to tell your entire infantry line to charge the enemy in general, as a singular unified force. Also, I'd like better pathfinding in the game. In seiges, I want my cavalry to go get around behind the enemy so I tell them to run around the square, and instead they decide to run straight through an army of 600 spearmen to their deaths. It becomes idiotic, and often I find success in these games is just to aimlessly wander around enemy armies until they attack you because defense seems to be the easiest way to win a game.

[Martok]

Some good points, Owen Glyndwr. I too would like to see units able to better take care of themselves when necessary. I like micromanaging to some extent, but I don't like it when I *have* to do it.

[gardibolt]

Fear:

Securom, or some other malware again.

EDIT: Hoo-Ray! No Securom!!

[naut]

Boats. Early boats, especially continental boats where poorly set-up for combat. They used land-style cannons that made reloading near impossible, as men would have to scale the outside of the boat to reload the cannon's. The Spannish Armarda effectively fired 1 cannon shot every day because of this. Where as the English ships fired 1 shot an hour because they could be reloaded from the inside of the boats.

Also early tactics involved firing cannon on the front and rear of the boat rather than broadside.

I can't see CA getting boat battles historical in anyway.

[batemonkey]

Boats. Early boats, especially continental boats where poorly set-up for combat. They used land-style cannons that made reloading near impossible, as men would have to scale the outside of the boat to reload the cannon's. The Spannish Armarda effectively fired 1 cannon shot every day because of this. Where as the English ships fired 1 shot an hour because they could be reloaded from the inside of the boats.

Also early tactics involved firing cannon on the front and rear of the boat rather than broadside.

I can't see CA getting boat battles historical in anyway.

They DID, but not in this period. In this period the main problem (esp at the start of the century) was overloading ships with so many cannons that the handled very badly even in calm weather and in bad weather were libale to sink.

[Sheogorath]

They DID, but not in this period. In this period the main problem (esp at the start of the century) was overloading ships with so many cannons that the handled very badly even in calm weather and in bad weather were libale to sink.

Ahhh, the good ol' Santísima Trinidad.
Or perhaps the Vasa. Whatever you care to say about the Swedes, shipbuilding doesn't seem to be their strength :P

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I hope to see AI that knows how to use 'Military Assistance' option!

I mean, wouldn't it be nice if you ask military assistance and if they accept to give it then the AI-allied army would follow your army where ever you go?

Or what is even better - AI actually asking 'Military Assistance'! So far I have never seen AI asking it!!

[GMaximus]

I hope to see AI that knows how to use 'Military Assistance' option!

I mean, wouldn't it be nice if you ask military assistance and if they accept to give it then the AI-allied army would follow your army where ever you go?

Or what is even better - AI actually asking 'Military Assistance'! So far I have never seen AI asking it!!

I've seen the AI ask me to attack tis o tee in exchange for money in RTW several times, especially as Romani in EB. Of course, that function was obviously rather broken, as it'd only ask me that if I asked it something first, like map information.

In BI I've even seen the AI ask me for assistance in a battle. I think it was as the Goths, I was wandering by the Alps, evading all those other hordes, when the Western Romans attacked Vandals and I got a message that said the ally was asking for my help.


Hopes: a working diplomacy, where you can form long lasting alliances with your neighbours, not only someone in the other corner of the map. Also a system where war would only affect your world standing if you started it without a valid reason - so, if the AI is actually smarter and it's dangerous to go to war on all fronts now, you'd cling on to all sorts of reasons to justify your wars.

Dreams: a function so that if one of your princes/your king has married the daughter/sister of another king, he could attempt to vie for the throne of that faction after their current king dies. If he suceeds, and it was your king, then you'd gain direct control over that faction, and if it was one of your princes then you could get a massive relationships boost. Maybe it could even lead to a war if other factions protest against your prince/king becoming the ruler of that faction (ala Spanish Succession War, which starts, IIRC, just a year after ETW starts!).

My greatest fear thus far is that the AI will still stay the same old 'ha ha I backstabbed you with a peasant'.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

In BI I've even seen the AI ask me for assistance in a battle. I think it was as the Goths, I was wandering by the Alps, evading all those other hordes, when the Western Romans attacked Vandals and I got a message that said the ally was asking for my help.

This must of happened because your armies were in standing near to each other on the camp map.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

all too true...

Amen To That


I hope MP is actually good this time around, which is my prmiary concern.

[Celtic_Punk]

I want to see a game as indepth as Hearts of Iron, with Intelligent AI and as historical as EB

OH! and i want to see better naval combat than Silent hunter 3 and 4... I want to be gripping my seat in fear, and when I win a huge engagement, I want the feeling of true satisfaction and I want to feel compelled to jump out of my seat and cheer, earning that sip of scotch!

which might I add you get from silent hunter 3... youll never be more scared of destroyers in your life.

[Sebastian Seth]

Hopes & Dreams:

Campaign Creator/Editor (Civilization III had this...)
- Including Unit Creator/Editor
- Including Building Creator/Editor
- Including Faction Creator/Editor
- Including Campaign Map Creator/Editor
Craphics upload/download web site (The Sims had this...)
- Skins for ready made skeletons
- Building models & skins
...

Modding as it is wastes too much time. It should be about creating instead of hunting bugs in messy file structure...

[Celtic_Punk]

Ooooooooo a unit editor!!! OMG i just had a *puts his guiness guy commercial voice on* BRILLLIANT idea!

Since most rebellions are guerilla style actions, and/or the soldiers will have to make do with what they have and scavenge.... A rebel unit creator if you join the rebels! So you can change maybe the colours of your uniforms or lack there of, change hats n whatnot, AND choose different standard weaponry. And this all would be done INGAME.

I know this is out in the clouds, but it'd be pretty boss eh?