So what would you like to see in S2TW?

[Kagemusha]

Like the title says, what new features would you like to see in the new title of CA, or would there be something old you would like to make a comeback?
For me i would like to have quite few units as historically there wasnt many and one thing in particular would be to have dismounting samurai / Kachi unit that could possibly fight with both yumi and Yari spear. That would be lot closer to the real deal.So what you think?

[Beskar]

I have a bad feeling, it will be Napoleon: Total War, but with Shogun sprites

[johnhughthom]

I have a bad feeling, it will be Napoleon: Total War, but with Shogun sprites

I thought Napoleon was supposed to be much better than Empire?

[Thermal]

Multiplayer campaign (the article says there will be one but I believe it when I see it).
A small but good quality campaign, a still fear they will try to make it huge in some way, I want it to be simplistic.
A few more units than in the original, even if it breaches historical accuracy. I wouldn't want to many, but a bit of variation is good.
Fantastic Landscapes (I think they can pull that one off if not the others).
Oh and good AI, I think shogun 1 had decent AI, it would be good if Shogun 2 did too.

[Krusader]

Non-invincible Geishas.
Warrior Monks!
No anime/manga.
Units have different heraldry depending on which province they are recruited from.
Warrior Monks!

[Thermal]

Oh, almost forgot...

RETURN OF THE ASSASSINATION VIDEOS! I loved them...

[andrewt]

Better gameplay.

1. I like having fewer but more distinguishable units. Ever since Medieval, the number of units keep going up but the differences between them have become so minor that they have really become indistinguishable from each other. Empire had different stats for all the different line infantries of each faction but the differences were mostly too minor as to be worth bothering with.

I like the days of Shogun and Medieval 1 where units mattered. There really was a big difference between the elite units and the peasant units. Stuff like having spears or swords or armor piercing weapons and the like mattered. There was also a noticeable difference between fast and slow infantry and fast and slow cavalry. There were also clear differences in the cost and upkeep between the better units and the lower ones.

2. Fewer but more varied maps. Ever since Rome, the tactical battles were done on the tile were the defending army was on. That meant that almost everything was flatland. I'm so tired of fighting on flatland all the time.

STW had bridge battles, the occasional two bridge battle, battles with choke points, multiple hills, mountains, forests, etc. I used high ground, bridge and forest advantages all the time on Shogun and Medieval 1. I've barely used them on any Total War game since. I don't even remember any bridge battles post-Medieval 1. I haven't lured any cavalry to forests, either. It was all flatland.

[A Nerd]

I always prefered produceable agents, I never liked the spawning ones
Varied terrain; hills, forests that provide arrow cover, never liked garrisoning buildings...don't know if S2 will have that
family trees, blood line all that etc.

that's all I can think of at the moment.

[Monk]

Non-invincible Geishas.
Warrior Monks!
No anime/manga.
Units have different heraldry depending on which province they are recruited from.
Warrior Monks!

Indeed.

There's only one thing CA can do to get me to buy: deliver on the AI front. Everything else is icing on the cake, but if the AI can't even form a battle line then you can count me out.

[pevergreen]

The game will be on a new engine.

I want an EU3 map system. With all the overlays you can have. Political, trade, diplomatic etc

Very, very very cautious about the seemingly RPG element they are slipping in.

[Subotan]

I voted that I'd get it, but only if it is not Steam exclusive.

I dislike Steam for the same reasons I dislike any intrusive copy protection software or unnecessary commercial bloatware that locks the user in to a single service where the available products are not necessarily at the best available prices...

2nd:[No] Steam conection. I didn't buy NTW and ETW because of this fact.
.

• No Steam/SecuRom

Edit: Steam smells

- no Steam

Hello 2004! Welcome to 2010! In the future, the price of PC gaming existing at all is that we have to use a media platform which has gradually improved to the point of become an acceptable service.

Seriously though, all the Steam haters should be lucky that something like this exists, therefore preventing PC gaming from slowly descending into a permanent nadir.

[General Malaise]

PC gaming isn't going anywhere, so the condescending attitude is quite unnecessary. Plenty of game developers out there don't use Steam and do quite well or if they do use it also offer non-Steam options. Many of these are indie companies like matrix games or spiderweb but, frankly, they tend to produce better products than the big companies anyway.

The reason it *looks like* PC gaming is dying is because people only consider it from the standpoint of the big companies, like those involved with TW, who, instead of realizing that the PC gaming audience is quite different to that of the console and that the PC offers different possibilities, are foolishly trying to compete with the console market particularly by focusing on shallow things such as graphical development.

I personally would have no problem if PC games, TW for example, never went past the graphics of STW or MTW as long as they maintained their level of gameplay. Even if PC gaming was somehow to die because I refuse to use Steam, then fine, let it die. There's plenty of good PC games already out there and I'm not going to be corralled into something as a consumer that exists only to limit my freedom especially when the products coming out are of worse and worse quality.

[Nelson]

I want to see the Rome style map, not the Risk style. The original map was one region, same battlefield every time. That would be a huge step backward.

I want castles (with ditches or motes) to besiege.

I want the idea of “rock, paper, and scissors” discarded. Units should behave correctly. If a unit was strong in a particular role it need not be artificially weakened in order to enhance the role of some other unit. If yari troops are strong against cavalry they need not be weak versus sword wielding troops. Not all troops are especially useful in particular situations. Designers must not say, for example “Since this unit is really strong in melee we had better make it especially vulnerable to missile fire” or “When the attack strength goes up the defense strength must come down”.

I would like to see units of samurai using all sorts of weapons, not just one. These guys used whatever they liked. They were warriors.

I want alliances to be important and battlefield treachery a possibility.

Is there any evidence of a geisha ever assassinating a daimyo? I do not believe they were so good they left no evidence. But if there is evidence, I’d like to hear it.

[Kagemusha]

I personally wouldnt want to see any other mainly sword unit rather then the mandatory Nodachi samurais who really were a rare instance as individual samurais on the battlefield never operating as units, but i am quite sure that a Nodachi unit cant be avoided. Other then that Katana was only a sidearm for samurai and cheaper mass produced versions or wakizashi´s were used by Ashigaru´s, so please no katana units. Sidearm for many units, yes, but not the main weapon.

[caravel]

I want to see the Rome style map, not the Risk style. The original map was one region, same battlefield every time. That would be a huge step backward.

Minor correction, the last incarnation of the risk map (MTW), had as many battlefields as there were borders and a random factor - so in theory there could be many random maps. The 3D RTS map first seen in RTW had set, flat maps, per map tile usually based around the roads.

I fully understand that we will be getting the 3D map, and I'm not opposed to that as such (I like the idea of fighting countless battles in diverse terrain types), but the original map design is not as limited as some like to make out. It's apples and oranges, the original risk map was good, but it's gone and I can't see CA bringing it back.

I want the idea of “rock, paper, and scissors” discarded. Units should behave correctly. If a unit was strong in a particular role it need not be artificially weakened in order to enhance the role of some other unit. If yari troops are strong against cavalry they need not be weak versus sword wielding troops. Not all troops are especially useful in particular situations. Designers must not say, for example “Since this unit is really strong in melee we had better make it especially vulnerable to missile fire” or “When the attack strength goes up the defense strength must come down”.

I think the RPS element is a strength. An entirely historically accurate experience does not necessarily make a good game and would lead to unit redundancy (as is the case in the newer titles).

I would like to see units of samurai using all sorts of weapons, not just one. These guys used whatever they liked. They were warriors.

I think the Yari was the weapon of choice at the time? The idea of massed units of katana wielding Samurai rushing each other is a myth.

-Edit: In essence what Kagemusha just posted.

I want alliances to be important and battlefield treachery a possibility.

I like the idea of battlefield treachery. This was discussed countless times, even before RTW's time, but has never been implimented.

Is there any evidence of a geisha ever assassinating a daimyo? I do not believe they were so good they left no evidence. But if there is evidence, I’d like to hear it.

The geisha in STW is fantasy. I think there is evidence of female ninja, but they were not geisha - I forget the name.

[ReluctantSamurai]

A return to unit balance and a strong CAI that is capable of beating you. In the original, battles were for provincial control, not just skirmishing for the rights to siege the local city. Even though I rather like the 3D-style of map, the AI just didn't seem to know how to make it work so if a more "Risk" type of map is done, so be it. I miss the excitement of your entire empire hinging on the outcome of a single battle.

[Sp00n]

Totomi, a multiplayer public chat room.

The Battle Field birds.

[caravel]

The Battle Field birds.

I doubt they'll have quite the same charm as the simple origami birds of STW.

[A Nerd]

Perhaps if birds would roost on the fallen to be startled away when units approached, that might carry some appeal and reveal the charm of the origninal? Or would that be a little to morbid? A nice touch to the 'settling down' affect after a battle has been fought.

[Peasant Phill]

I would like to see:

More tactical depth and a BAI that can handle that:
- weather effects with noticeable effects on weapons, fatigue, field of vision, ...
- interesting battlefields that are more than a few rolling hills and a tree here and there like in ETW

Strategical depth and the SAI that can handle that:
- AI armies avoiding battles on unfavorable terrain and defending on choke points
- allied armies that actually join forces and fight together

It seems to me that most of my battles in ETW are very similar and thus not as memorable this in contrast to a lot of battles in MTW (I joined the TW train just after STW)