Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Ultimate MTW

  1. #1
    Member Member Nomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Palatinate of Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    278

    Default


    Your opportunity to say "How it should be" Do you pine for Naval combat, or road networks to allow armies more than hunderd miles per year. Maybe more Civ and less War. Perhaps more historically accurate regions.
    From the Trivial to the profound. What gripes you and what "additions" do think would make MTW the Ultimate Historical RTS.
    Do not despise the snake for having no horns,
    For who is to say, he will not become a Dragon.

  2. #2
    Champion head hurler Member Accounting Troll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Welsh Marches
    Posts
    785

    Default

    I'd have loved being able to fight naval battles.

    Also, more advanced diplomatic options would have been nice. When you lead a small faction, you can't win by brute strength, so you need to be a backstabbing weasel.

  3. #3
    Member Member Malcolm Big Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Options on ways to kill prisoners
    Do unto others before they do unto you.

  4. #4
    Member Member MalibuMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    265

    Default

    Yeah, I'd like a bit more ability to take your nation in whichever direction you wanted to, for things like a spying and diplomacy-centric strategy, or a science and technology strategy, to be viable options. Of course no amount of information about the enemy army, or superior weaponry, will save you if you don't have any troops, so the game must remain above all realistic to the time period it models, but I think these strategies are underplayed at the moment.

    For example, you should be able to choose to put more money into science/technology, to get access to things which other nations don't have (domestic as well as military). This would have to be very carefully done because scientific development was sluggish at best in the time period of the game, but things like you should be able to get to gunpowder or the compass before other people, or exploit these inventions better and more quickly with a better science and technology base. Or much smaller things like metalworking advances or bow design could give a small edge to troops (on a more detailed level than the current 'weapons upgrade').

  5. #5
    Slapshooter Senior Member el_slapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Taverny, France
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    A dynasty manager like in Crusader Kings. And vassalization with it. Let's England be vassal of France ;)

    No need to finish off enemies - and with it more factions.

    Already said, but a more detailled tech system.

    More realistic troops training. Oda Nobunaga said "it takes 3 years to train an archer, but only 5 weeks to train a muskeeter". Have recruitment depending on local population.

    Make trade goods have more impact : wood allows to build bows, leather/steel are required to buid armors, gems increase craftsmen productivity, butter increases morale & so on. Plus land trade.

    Horse archers firing while running, not simply quick archers.

    and, but just an idea to make it taste better, allow customization of units(I want my Arbalester to have more armor, or my hobilars to have less to be quicker...)
    War is not about who is right, only about who is left

    Having a point of view upon everything is good
    Having a view upon every point is better

  6. #6
    Humanist Senior Member A.Saturnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Aachen
    Posts
    5,181

    Post

    What does that do in the Tavern?

  7. #7
    Member Member Auxilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Cardiff, South Wales
    Posts
    154

    Default

    Yes, real-time naval battles would be very cool.

    Better thought out sieges.

    A more accurate recruiting system, with more faction specific units.
    Overheard at wargaming convention -

    'I never had any time for Pyrrhus - if there's one thing I can't stand it's a bad winner!'

  8. #8
    Senior Member Senior Member katank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA, USA
    Posts
    3,739

    Default

    yep, always struck me as unrealistic how later RKs have so much more armor and yet are still just as fast.

    all these are great ideas.

    naval combat system is definitely needed, same with diplomacy and being able to trade provinces, money, etc. and more stable alliance system.

    ie. allies needs to change to neutral for a few years before they can attack, giving fore warning or else risk losing 3 crowns of influence or something. nice stiff penalties.

  9. #9
    Aktacy Bei Member Eastside Character's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    somewhere in the endless steppes
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Just give me better(more realistic) AI, and I can live without all those others improvement you all here mentioned.

    Regards,
    EC

  10. #10
    Resident Spammer Member son of spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    right behind you
    Posts
    836

    Default

    Definitely naval combat.

    Also, many more factions Split the Italians into city-states that can ally with each other and rarely break alliances. All those rebels on the board defintely need to be part of new factions. I never want to see a rebel again unless its a small bandit army. Civil war rebels should get their own faction, like maybe from the english civil war you can have the lancastrians and the yorks or something. Perhaps you can make it so that attacking other factions when you have a civil war is severly detrimental, so you won't have a Lancastrian faction sharing the map with a Yorkish (sp?) faction.

    More buildings, and a more realistic unit management system, like the homelands of medmod, but more so. Perhaps you can only build a limited number of hi tech troops per decade in a province? This will stop the crazy armies of 16 RK or 16 CK from owning.

    More realistic generals, like what is coming out in RTW.

    Much better diplo, more along the lines of civ III.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Senior Member katank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA, USA
    Posts
    3,739

    Default

    good stuff, SoS.

    BTW, I would like a chain of command system.

    I would like there to be a second in command feature.

    If the commander is killed, then the second takes over.

    there should be a penalty like maybe only half the bonuses of the second being given and a morale penalty for the general death.

    when both are killed, then a really stiff penalty should kick in.

    This would also prevent my army from practically melting when my general gets kileld by a lucky catapult shot from the enemy or something.

  12. #12
    Urwendur Ûrîbêl Senior Member Mouzafphaerre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mikligarðr
    Posts
    6,899

    Default

    -
    Two words:

    "detail", "depth"

    Much more micromanagement. More sociologically accurate population management for instance. Invade a province, build a couple buildings, spam with high level clericals/imams and it's totally yours a decade later. History didn't work like this.

    The province concept should be redone. Unlike some patrons, I like it but also would love to see real functioning cities and fortifications.

    Many many more provinces and factions.

    Naval combat, aye sir We don't need no PotC, just a Patrician III style simple engine will do it.

    Faction unique customization.

    Transportation, trade, diplomacy, politics...

    REAL moddability, as in no stupid hardcoded stuff. I mean, the engine can still be there in its keep but come on guys? What's the point in hardcoding GA?
    _
    Ja mata Tosa Inu-sama, RIP Hore Tore & Adrian II

    Mouzafphaerre is known elsewhere as Urwendil/Urwendur/Kibilturg...
    .

  13. #13
    Resident Spammer Member son of spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    right behind you
    Posts
    836

    Default

    Yeah, I like the second in command feature idea, Katank.


    But maybe it would be better if it only worked for humans . I just had a battle against the Turks (medmod), roughly equal numbers, except I had half-strength merc units, 3 spears, 2 woodsmen, and 4 half depeleted units of archers/xbows. My general was a one star 18 men viking raider cav.

    The turks had 3 or 4 ottoman inf, some spears, one unit of faris, and their 5 star gen.

    My first thought was "oh god, I'm screwed". Then, I noticed that their gen was one man (v6) but still only a one man unit of ottoman siphai. The craziest thing was that the gen marched at the head of his army ...right into a greeting volley by my missile units .

    Needless to say, I had an overwhelming victory, killing 400 and losing only 97 men.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Senior Member katank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA, USA
    Posts
    3,739

    Default

    lol, yeah.

    but I think we should give the poor AI a chance.

    they shoulda also get that.

    however, if both generals get killed, then morale penalty would be like -10 or something stiff like that.

    -6 for commander in chief is enough, -2 after few seconds.

    -10, -4 afterwards when the second dude also bites the dust.

    The AI may very well stupidly march out its second in command too

  15. #15
    Member Member Finn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    258

    Default

    far longer timescale, what a couple of hundred years? pff give me pre roman through to 19th century (dont think you could go beyond that due to the change in how wars/battles are fought once machinery starts to play a more imprtant roll)

    "proper" seige equipment like we see in the intro

    better management of unit sizes, unit size should not be a balancing tool, but should be a tactical tool, as a general i should be able to decide how big i am going to make a certain unit of men none of this "spears are 200, swords are 120 stuff)

    Also if units are treated individually (eg in valour) then let me manage them individually, allow to sort 2 like units based on valour so i can filter out the highest valour into a new unit etc


    better unit production/tech tree, if i invade a province thats been kicking out a certain unit for years, why cant i produce that unit with the exact same people in the country as before?

    completely global map

    completely get rid of the "province" system, historically borders were changable at best, borders changing should be more dynamic and less fixed, eg if i want to march an army down through a country avoiding any of the major population/military centres and head straight for the capital, i should be able to, equally the defenders is going to try to head me off too.

    more "science" involved in the tech tree, eg a certain tech shouldnt appear just when a certain year rolls by, but more based on research, eg if i fight against an army with chain mail, i should then be able to build some (quite bad) chain mail, as time progresses and the reports of how the chain mail fairs in battle come back from my frontlines, i can improve and modify the chainmail to make it better. the same with everything else, swords, pikes etc.




  16. #16
    Member Member MalibuMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Finn @ April 26 2004,04:20)]completely get rid of the "province" system, historically borders were changable at best, borders changing should be more dynamic and less fixed, eg if i want to march an army down through a country avoiding any of the major population/military centres and head straight for the capital, i should be able to, equally the defenders is going to try to head me off too.
    This is coming in RTW.

    Good other suggestions btw.

  17. #17
    Merkismathr of Birka Member PseRamesses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Birka town in Svitjod. Realm of the Rus and the midnight sun.
    Posts
    1,939

    Default

    I do agree with EC that the best wish for an uber-TW-game would be a smarter AI. Don´t you just love it when the AI pull a really smart move on you?
    *The other day I creamed an Italian armys archers with my cavs and the Italian commander pulled his foot soldiers into a nearby forest where my cavs weren´t of much use.
    *Or when you get rushed directly by 4-6 GBG´s because the AI realizes that you won´t have time to reach an advantage point?
    One should hope for an AI that learns from the human player by the way he plays. Some have the same style and army- compozition at all times and attacks/ defends in the same way so the AI should learn from that and try to find a way around it. That would be "artificial intelligence".

  18. #18
    Member Member lancer63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    El Salvador
    Posts
    336

    Default

    I share most of the ideas here, specially about naval combat and diplomacy. And I know it's wishful thinking, but I don't like to have generals who advance in rank yet they have to remain low units. Like that 3-4 urban militia guy who always apears in Anjou, or the 5 star italian UM already in Corsica, or Sardinia can't remember, I say if a good UM general gains rank, he (and his unit of course) should be upgraded within his branch to militia sergeant, halberdier, pikemen, etc. Same thing for spears, archers, cavalry, etc. As upgrades become available. For the same reason a 'bad' general should be 'degraded' as a unit. I know it wont be done. I just hate to lose a good general just because he commands a bunch of peasants who couldn't stand a chance against mediocre cavalry.

  19. #19
    Merkismathr of Birka Member PseRamesses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Birka town in Svitjod. Realm of the Rus and the midnight sun.
    Posts
    1,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (lancer63 @ April 26 2004,10:14)]I don't like to have generals who advance in rank yet they have to remain low units.
    What I really find ridiculous is to see a general on foot?
    Personally I think a generals unit should be the best cav unit in the era, constantly upgrading so I concur with your thoughts on this.

  20. #20
    Travelling Knight Content Manager Nigel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Twynham Castle
    Posts
    1,006

    Default

    Many things on my whishlist have been said before:

    better diplomacy
    better AI
    generals moving up in rank
    more depth (but not necessarily more detail, imho)
    easier modding

    but most of all : a Multiplayer Campaign

    Nigel

  21. #21
    Member Member Zhuge_Liang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vigo
    Posts
    28

    Default

    it would be nice that commanders who follows an hero (or high ranked general) learns v&v and get ranks while they figth on his army
    what about to set population on which province which you can grown faster building houses and loose it recruiting troops (population would increase/decrease the earning money)

  22. #22

    Default

    Some things I'd like to see:

    More accurate travelling system. It's silly that I can get from Ireland to Tripoli in one turn via ships, but it takes me three turns to get from Scotland to Wessex.

    The ability to affect supply. Army vs army fighting is fine and all, but it can be more effect to attack an enemy's supply lines. No food/replacement ammo/etc will take a toll on an army, making it easier to eliminate.

    AI settings for your own army. Sometimes I'll be off microing HA or something, and glance up to find that the enemy has attacked my main army. Which is just standing there. It'd be nice to be able to assign units tasks, that they will do - "Defend unit X", or "Attack anything that comes closer than X", for example.

    Of course, these ideas aren't important to me as a better AI and better diplomatic options would be, but those have already been mentioned, so I won't go into any detail on them.

    Bh

  23. #23
    Senior Member Senior Member katank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA, USA
    Posts
    3,739

    Default

    bhruic is right, in RTS games like AOk and RON, these unit behavior command are far more complex than that of MTW

  24. #24
    Member Member lancer63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    El Salvador
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Zhuge_Liang @ April 26 2004,14:39)]it would be nice that commanders who follows an hero (or high ranked general) learns v&v and get ranks while they figth on his army
    what about to set population on which province which you can grown faster building houses and loose it recruiting troops (population would increase/decrease the earning money)
    If I remember correctly, in Romance of the Three Kingdoms you could only train a limited percentage of the population into soldiers per year, and when disasters happened the ability to train troops would suffer accordingly. Same thing when a good crop or the opening of a trade route or a new mine. The population increased and technological upgrades became available as the limit of troops to train increased.

  25. #25
    Senior Member Senior Member gaelic cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    mayo
    Posts
    4,833

    Default

    I want more provinces to crush and more diplomacy so I can feel more evil when I crush my allies as well as my enemys.
    They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
    a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.

    Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy

  26. #26
    BLEEEE! Senior Member Daveybaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Hastings, UK
    Posts
    767

    Default

    (1) Revamp the trade system.
    Currently its too dependent on sea routes and too easy for one empire to dominate. Change the focus of trade from a province-to-province level to an empire-to-empire level.

    i.e. Make it so that if your empire has a tradeable item in one of its provinces (doesnt matter which province or where it is, you just have to own it), then you can trade that item with any empire that you share a border with (use chains of fleets between ports to allow trade with empires you dont share a border with).


    (2) Change the way regional bonuses work.
    i.e. dont require the facilities/units to be built in that specific province in order to gain the benefits - cos it just takes too damn long to build up a region and gain the benefits of the bonuses at the moment.

    e.g. once i have a province with iron, let me build metalsmiths anywhere, not just in the provinces with iron (if i lose access to iron later on then my metalsmiths should become ineffective).

    Or, if i capture region X which gives access to (say) high valour archers, then any archers i build anywhere after that should gain the valour bonus (again, if i lose control of the province then i lose the bonus for any subsequently trained archers).




  27. #27
    Senior Member Senior Member katank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA, USA
    Posts
    3,739

    Default

    I would say the iron stuff should be tradeable and exportable to your other provinces.

    if it's close to your iron province, then it can build first level metal smith etc.

    the home province can naturall build all the way to metalsmith 4 but the others scale.

    that way, your better provinces at least get some weapon bonuses.

  28. #28
    BLEEEE! Senior Member Daveybaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Hastings, UK
    Posts
    767

    Default

    Meh, the whole reason i want it available thoughout your kingdom is to reduce the micromanagement, and to get rid of the annoyance of having to build up a complete province from scratch (taking seventeen bazillion years) in order to get the full benefit of the of the iron. Allowing nearby provinces to benefit from it a bit doesnt really help.

    I like the idea of making iron tradable, though. Conversely i kinda like the idea of giving the other trading goods some tangible benefits to your empire... e.g. access to silk (and other luxuries) makes your people happier.

  29. #29
    Member Member NewJeffCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    317

    Default

    I have only played Single Player, Early, Total Domination, so based on that perspective, some things I would like to see:
    1) Fuzzier era changes. To me, it does not seem realistic that, bang, in 1205 you can suddenly start cranking out crossbows, arbalesters, chivalric knights, sergeants and men-at-arms, etc, when one year earlier you could not. Maybe 5-10 years earlier, you can produce crossbows & longbows, then in 1205, you can start on arbalesters and 1215 you do pavise arbs? Maybe in 1195, you can produce an early version of the Chivalric Sergeant that is a bit better than a Feudal Sergeant but not quite the final Chiv Sergeant?
    2) More trade goods, but maybe lower value for all of them. And, land-bound provinces should not be quite so penalized when it comes to trade, I think. Why can't Anjou send its goods to Aquitine or Normandy for export if you control both provinces?
    3) Better diplomacy. Instead of 3 levels – at war, neutral, allied – you can have 5 levels – a) at war, b) recently hostile (just entered into a ceasefire, tensions still high, only limited trade, if any), c) neutral, d) allied, e) strongly allied. With a strongly allied faction, you can coordinate an attack.(i.e., you are the English and strongly allied with the HRE due to your king marrying an HRE princess. You can send an emissary to say, “Attack: France”)
    4) Flexible, provinceless maps sound great as well per RTW.
    5) This is a big pet peeve of mine – a message that says “Are you sure you want to End Year?” when you hit the button. On numerous occasions, I have accidentally hit the button. Not usually a disaster, but sometimes I miss a new building being started.
    6) I agree with other posters – bishop-cardinal/imam spamming should be less powerful. Now, within a decade, you can turn a whole province to 90%+ followers your religion by dumping in 12-15 holy men. Maybe diminishing returns for each holy man beyond the first? Why are there not other holy men coming from Persia or farther down the Nile? It would be cool to see a random Imam from there, or a Jewish rabbi wandering about. I believe one or two provinces do start with a small Jewish percentage, no?
    7) More buildings so you can have more choices.
    8) Better naval combat.

  30. #30
    Member Member Nomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Palatinate of Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    278

    Default

    I guess there will be some kind of AI mod eventually. At least the Dudes at GamesHeavan have managed it with Cossaks and American Conquest. So maybe one day some bright spark will reinvent MTW's AI (Hardcoded or not).
    Do not despise the snake for having no horns,
    For who is to say, he will not become a Dragon.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO