Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 60 of 144

Thread: TW4 what do you want?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    The issue is that the melee era of warfare is more or less covered, and that leaves the age of muskets, rifles, and then modern warfare (Napoleonic wars, American Civil War, and then the wars to follow), with the first two easilY done with the engine (The crudest form of this exists with the gunners in STW) and I don't think TW engine really is appropriate for modern-warfare (WW1 and beyond)
    I would not be surprised if a TW comes out covering the Napoleonic Wars, which would be great except for one thing. The game's 3d warfare would be crap in compare, because of the lack of variety in units and the sheer simplicity of Napoleonic warfare tactics would make it rather boring in compare to the previous three games. That means the game has to find a way to really improve the strategy side of the game, which is really hard to do and most people will not appreciate it. If such a game comes out, I expect the reviews will all say the fighting sucks and that's that. A game about the Civil War would be similarly compromised, though I can think of a few things that might give it more flavour. If anything, the scale of the fighting would be an issue because Napoleonic armies numbered in the tens of thousands. If you think it hard to control 2,000 men in RTW, imagine controlling 50,000.
    In my opinion, the TW series has run its course because the engine relies on formation fighting, and after the Civil War, formation warfare begins to fade, and if we push too far back in time, we fight there is nothing new or different enough to be worthwhile. Now, if they have released a Napoleonic game first, then Shogun, Medieval, and Rome, it would have been better.
    Fee Fi Fo Fum, I got in me veins the blood of an Englishman, Welshman, Saxon, Anglo, Scotsman, Picti, Irishman, Norman, and a bloody heathen Viking. No joke!

    This idiotic message brought to you by a person with a pure "British" family tree. If it settled on the British Isles, its on my tree tree, except Romans. Cheers!

  2. #2
    Member Member CMcMahon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    160

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    1750s-1920s

    And, like AOE or a game like that, your faction will upgrade it's technologies and older units will become obsolete. Also, units should automatically lose men and disband with age; you can't really expect a single unit of 40 hastati to survive for 85 years without at least retraining, even if they've never been in battle. Surely they're going to get old and die.

  3. #3

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    That is another issue, which is that the conflict between using seasonal and yearly turns. In my opinion, seasonal turns are much more realistic, but I can how the issue of time can be hard for some players. In STW, 16 years, the age of an heir coming of age, is 64 turns, and the life-span of a king can stretch over 200 turns. Also, lots of people had a hard time thinking around the idea of income coming in every 4 turns, not every turn.
    If a game was seasonal in turns, then certain units, and I do mean only certain, can disband automatically, but if it is yearly, then I would not want it to be so, for the armies which could have taken years and years to building up correctly (due to other flaws of the strategy map) will have a very short shelf-life, and it is not going to be popular if you build up this great army and suddenly half the men "get old." That is a sure way to turn people away from the game.
    Myself, I want three things to be different next game. Instead of a county/province production screen, I want it so that every building in a province has its own production queue. so instead of only one unit at a time being built in a province each turn, you can rig it so that at the bowyer, one archer is building, at the swordsmith, a unit of swordsmen, at the horse-breeder, some hobilars, and at the spear-smith, an armoured spearmen unit, and after one turn, ALL 4 units appear at once in the same province during the same turn (if their production times allow). This way, it is on a more realistic timescale to build armies.
    Fee Fi Fo Fum, I got in me veins the blood of an Englishman, Welshman, Saxon, Anglo, Scotsman, Picti, Irishman, Norman, and a bloody heathen Viking. No joke!

    This idiotic message brought to you by a person with a pure "British" family tree. If it settled on the British Isles, its on my tree tree, except Romans. Cheers!

  4. #4

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    1) I don't care too much what the era is, as long as the game is polished, as bug-free as possible and well supported after release

    2) The diplomacy needs to be greatly improved upon. Even just copying the system from games as old as Alpha Centauri (7 years old!) would be an improvement. That game had "trustworthyness" ratings, so you couldn't make and break alliances on a whim. Each faction had a rating for how much it liked/disliked other factions based upon what style of government they had, how they behaved towards them, how aggressive they were, what your core values were etc. You had several levels of diplomatic relations from all out war to a kind of vassalship. You could loan money, give away provinces and units, co-ordinate tactics, trade tech (for tech, money, land etc). Considering it was a contempary of Shogun, its diplomatic game is far in advance of the TW series.

    3) Much better empire management. As we all know, once your TW empire reaches a certain size, running your empire becomes a very long-winded and often tedious task. Most of my MTW games I've stopped playing after about 100 years as I can't be bothered with all the micro-management. Others have in the past pointed out the ways that games like Civ, CTP, SMAC etc handle empire managent in a more efficient way

    4) Much better information management. From day 1 of MTW I felt that the info management was clunky and didn't give anywhere near enough info. Things like being able to see ALL your unit leaders, not just your stack leaders and order them by each attribute. See point 3

    5) More rebellions/civil wars. More powerful generals and generals of Royal blood making a bid for power, especially with a weak king. If your King dies without an heir, rather than the game ending, having your most powerful generals battle it out for power

    6) Keep the epic nature of the game, keep those wonderful epic, see-saw battles, the ones that we remember years and years later (did I ever tell you about the time I was playing as clan Mori and I was attacked by an army of 2000 Yari Ashiguru and 2000 Warrior Monks....). We all love TW games for those special battles

    7) Atmosphere, atmosphere, atmosphere. I think most people would agree that STW had the best atmosphere. It was so lovingly crafted, and the game was just dripping in the ambience of medieval Japan. Not that the other 2 were bad, but Shogun takes the cake.

    8) I know I said I didn't care what era, but I would prefer Napoleonic. If this Napoleonic game could include the whole world a la EU2, then so much the better, but I think that would be a layer of complexity too far. If TW4 does become NTW, then perhaps the expansion could be the American Civil War, which only having 2 sides would be ideal for the holy grail of TW games, the multiplayer campaign.
    "I request permanent reassignment to the Gallic frontier. Nay, I demand reassignment. Perhaps it is improper to say so, but I refuse to fight against the Greeks or Macedonians any more. Give my command to another, for I cannot, I will not, lead an army into battle against a civilized nation so long as the Gauls survive. I am not the young man I once was, but I swear before Jupiter Optimus Maximus that I shall see a world without Gauls before I take my final breath."

    Senator Augustus Verginius

  5. #5

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    The issue is that not all players, and indeed most players, do not have the mind-set to appreciate the dimplomatic and strategic side of the game. If the company is going to make a game, it cannot just fine-tune it for the small set of players who appreciate and long for the kind of dimplomacy and such as you describe, or else the game will not sell well enough to justify its cost.
    With regards to Napoleonic warfare, the issue is that it is fun and cool to us, but, and this is a big but, the fighting would be very simple and crude in compare to the kind of action we see on Medieval or Rome. There are only 4 types of soldier you are likely to find, a musket-armed infantryman, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, and riflemen (This is not including the arabs and turks, but history shows that it is not smart to use medieval era Mamelukes against European volley-fire). The only major variation on this would be that the French would have the Imperial Guards, perhaps some Highlander infantry for the English )(which are again little more than slightly more aggressive musketeers), and then the tiny difference between the countries. French infantry were historically faster, more flexible, but less disciplined than Prussians, who were much slower, very rigid, and so on. Russians would have to have Cossacks, that is a given, but their infantry musketry was terrible, and their favoured tactic was to use massed bayonette charges, with obvious results. In short, I don't think players used to variety and complexity of Medieval and Roman warfare would be so quick to appreciate the simplicity of Napoleonic warfare. It would just too different for most players' tastes.
    One thing, though, that I think would be a great help is to add in a climatization factor for troops. Soldiers would fight differently in certain terrains and climates. Instead of just saying "an armour of 5 makes you tired faster in the desert" a "poor in desert" marker on the unit would say that it is one point of speed slower, tired (at least) 25% faster, and minus 1 or more morale points. A unit that is "good in desert" would gain a plus 1 speed, tire 25% slower, and + 1 morale. Something like that would greatly improve the dynamics of the battlefield. Viking units in MTW or in RTW, Germanic tribesmen types, would be at home in winter, while other units would be cold, tired, and miserable. Those from the desert would REALLY miserable, cold, and tired. That way, you don't have Mamelukes from the deserts of Algeria or Carthaginians fighting as well in the snows of the Alps as they do in the sunny grasslands of central Italy.
    Another feature I want is a "sneak" feature. Units that can conceal in the open can move slowly without being detected (or at least with little chance of it) so that ambushes can be mor readily controlled.
    Fee Fi Fo Fum, I got in me veins the blood of an Englishman, Welshman, Saxon, Anglo, Scotsman, Picti, Irishman, Norman, and a bloody heathen Viking. No joke!

    This idiotic message brought to you by a person with a pure "British" family tree. If it settled on the British Isles, its on my tree tree, except Romans. Cheers!

  6. #6
    Member Member Azi Tohak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Smallville USA.
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    In terms of era, I don't particularly care. Pike and shot would be great...but why on earth would anyone want to be someone besides Sweden?

    Graphics, scmaphics, I don't care. The game looks great as it is. There was very little change in graphics between STW and MTW right?

    My main thing, as has been said before, is an improved AI, both tactical and strategic. It does not have to be Hannibal, or heck Gaius Julius, but please, for the love of God, give me an AI that my sister can't beat!

    Azi
    "If you don't want to work, become a reporter. That awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch digging and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to the poorhouse."
    Mark Twain 1881

  7. #7
    Member Member Maedhros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    206

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    I think we all agree on the point of improved AI.

    I think we also agree proper atmosphere makes for a game that feels finished and ready for hours of play. It is essential to establishing mood and making a game memorable.

    To any developers out there tell the people who guard the purse strings this is an essential part of building value in a product.


    That said, can somebody back me up on naval battles? It is has been discussed in the past but I'm not seeing so much anymore. Rome quality graphics with tri and biremes ducking it out....

    That would be a fight worth zooming in on. Frankly it would look good from high above too.

    Is there a second for the seas as the new battle frontier?
    KZ
    "A positive attitute may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."

    Herm Albright


  8. #8
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    An extra difficulty level

    Easy/Medium/Hard/Very Hard/Org'ah
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  9. #9
    Defeater of the Wicker People Member The Darkhorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Jackson, Mississippi USA
    Posts
    154

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    Well, I've looked at this thread for a while and taken it in. There are a lot of great ideas, and like some of you I really would be happy with just about any era. It's the game engine that really sets TW apart from others. I was a History/Bible major in college so just about any era is interesting. I DO agree (sorry WWII fans - I'm actually one of you) that this particular format is not condusive to a 20th century wargame. In the Napoleonic era, armies of six figures fought battles in a relatively small area compared to the size of the fronts held by armies of same number of men during the World Wars. The battle map alone in some case would need to be hundreds of miles across to be accurate.

    The idea of a game based during the era of Reformation, Thiry Years War, and English Civil War sounds pretty good. Plus, that is the beginning of colonialism. Race to discover the New World.

    I like ancient stuff too, but I, being a Yank (actually a Southron as it were) would love to see the ACW done. My son likes to fight battles on MTW, but he likes the gunpowder era. Can you imagine the spectacular sound during an ACW or Napoleonic battle with the TW engine!? Wow! This system will work well with gunpowder era. The tactics will be different with many interesting cavalry units too. A leg unit would need to be able to form square. Anyway, there's my pitch for ACW. My son and I already fight spendid battles on the carport with over 3000 toy soldiers we have plus all the accessories a good battlefield needs. And, really nothing can top that....but it is time consuming....and is not a campaign..."TACW" would provide a nice alternative for needing a Civil War battle "fix" when we're without the hours/days needed to devote to a floor battle (it has rules and such...pretty extensive...volleys are fired with rubber bands, the number depending on size, position, etc.).

    Whatever, it is, here are my thoughts in no particular order:

    1) For goodness sake, an AI faction needs to know when it's been beaten. My constant wars against drooling idiots whose territories I don't want and who refuse to surrender prolong the game by days and hours! It makes it boring. Politics MUST be upgraded and more logical, based on the AI personality of course.

    It is absolutely aggravating to chase a ruler around his former empire because I don't want to hold it, nor temporarily garrison it with light garrisons which won't stop revolts and stuff anyway, nor heavy garrisons I don't have to spare.....and either way I don't want the temporarily held territories to be a tempation to some neutral...putting at me at war with another overmatched enemy who can't see the writing on the wall and won't just leave me the heck alone to work on GA.....I don't want their stinkin' territory or a vast, sprawling empire. I like to take the provinces I need per my defense strategy depending on faction. Finally, I corner him enough to kill him with no heirs and be rid them for maybe FIVE YEARS OR SO!!!!!! I mean really, why do some factions never return, and some come back 10 times only 3-10 years after elimination? They're at war with you again within 5-10 years....and must be crushed again b/c they will not make peace. I have quit beautiful campaigns with bustling, awesome empires b/c I got so bored with this phenomenon (is that spelled right?) of constant wars against aggressive imbeciles (sp?) who eyes cannot see the vastness of my empire and it's resources. Even then, my best general does the job with a 2-3 stacks of aged combat rejects with rusty weapons and holes in their socks left over from upgrades! In fact, this junk is why I never disband them. I need them to fight idiots till they finally phase out b/c of casualties. If Catholic, being able to BBQ the enemies into the little gray armies is okay sometimes, but they still come back 5 years later. Wouldn't it be cool if when we died without an heir....we could hit end year and just watch what happens till we re-emerge and try to see if we can start over!?

    2) IN FACT, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. Let the player re-emerge! Seriously, diplomacy needs upgrade and needs more statuses than Enemy, neutral, ally.

    3) I would also suggest that on the campaign map.....please, please, please, please let me just have one stack per territory unless I seperate them myself. It makes no difference in a battle, so why should I have all these stacks to keep up with as am jostling units all about making upgrades and moving them to keep them active? It can be very confusing and take 20-30 minutes to complete a turn without a battle if my Empire is large. I like to play France, Poland, and now the Byz - so, it usually gets that way, even though I play GA. Does anyone agree with this? I hate all those stacks. The territories are cluttered enough as it is. Yes, I'm whining....

    4) I'd like it if your agents, stacks, ships, etc. stay where you put them in a provence so you see everything clearly. You also need to be able to move enemy non-invisible agents around within the territory so you can see everything. Instead, all these things seem to have a group hug after hitting endyear! Ships also tie up together and have a drunken party after you hit endyear.


    I can probably think of more, but I'm tired of typing!
    We are men of action...lies do not become us.

  10. #10
    Defeater of the Wicker People Member The Darkhorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Jackson, Mississippi USA
    Posts
    154

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    In truth, I'd really love to see MTW redone with suggestions listed and any improvements from RTW (which I haven't played yet...I'm waiting for it to get cheaper....plus I'm elbow deep into MTW).

    One thing some of y'all may be missing about the chaos of a large ACW or Napoleonic battle (in which there was actually lots of hand to hand to combat - no rifles yet - in fact bayonet charge was the basic idea) is the SMOKE. Wouldn't a TW battle be great if you could barely see? Talk about a challenge!
    We are men of action...lies do not become us.

  11. #11

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    World total war
    with every type of unit you can think of

  12. #12

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    Medieval: Total War with the Templars as a playable faction.

    With further thought, that wouldn't really work. I just thought of something though, someone mentioned mmorpg: total war... how would that work? You play a single knight and work your way up to king or something?
    Last edited by adembroski; 12-09-2005 at 10:54.

  13. #13
    Retired Member matteus the inbred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Up a mountain... Ok, London.
    Posts
    739

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    WOT TW would be mid-medieval type tech, gunpowder is just around the corner though...i think the problem with WOT would be whether or not to include people channelling the power (basically, magicians) and to what extent they could do stuff. it would be silly to have that in, as it's got no place in TW, but it wouldn't really be proper WOT if you left it out.
    MTW 'start as a humble squire and work your way up to warlord' sounds like a damn good idea though!
    Support Your Local Pirate

    Ahaaaaaar

  14. #14

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    GAH!

    I just finished reading the other, older, 'whats the next TW game' thread, only to find this one is the one I was after, and I really don't have the time or patience to read all the replies on here, so forgive me if this isn;t a new idea.

    First off, people are thinking too small. If sid mier could do it years and years ago 9admitedly in a very clunky way) then why can't CA do it now, in a much better and more in depth way? Yes, I'm talking about..

    Civilisation :Total War

    Have the entire world as your playing field, with the time period starting as the late bronze age, and going right on into the early gunpowder age, maybe even with turns meing longer during the first part of the game and shorted toward the end (just like Civilisation did, although it did it badly).

    if you start off with the right factions in the rightr places (and I know were talking hundreds of factions, but it's possible, although difficult) then the historical accuracy nuts will be happy.

    Anyway, I know thats not going to happen untill at least TW5, but I thought I'd say it. Now for what I realisticly want.

    Supply lines, yes, definately need to be included, they were very much missing from RTW. if your army has no supply train then they are demoralised, cannot recieve re-enforcements and cannot report back to home, there is no such thing as the radio after all. Doesn;t it mean that you could easily have a general and an entire army go rebel, or swap sides or whatever, if their suplies and communications have been cut off, and the home faction be totally unaware of it? Wouldn;t that add a new element to the game?

    Naval battles are a must, they have been missing from every TW game so far, and i want so dearly to control my ships in person, sending an armada of galleys toward the enemy and watching their little fleet of fishing ships turn tail and run away. Yes, it;s difficult to do as it's not been incorperated into any TW engine yet, but it would be worth it.

    Mp Campaigns. Hell, we have been playing PBEM MP campaigns since shogun, merely because the game lacks an easier way of doing it, so this HAS to be included in the next game. If it were I'd plasy multiplayer a whole load more, as it is with just battles it barely interest me, my style of fighting generally revolves around 'keep as many men alive as possible' rather than 'kill the enemy no matter the cost' and MP is all geared toward the latter.


    As to what it will be, well....

    I don'twant NTW, I don't like gunpowder units. The is one main difference between napolionic warfare and the warfare of MTW and RTW. Napolion, and most other commanders of the time, handed muskets to rookies, and for the first shot of combat there was little difference between them and veterens. Yes, the generals veterency makes a big difference, but with muskets and rifles there is little skill, at least not in the first shot.

    The same was said by the christian church about the crossbow, and indeed they tried to ban it more than once for the simple fact that a peasant could kill a king with it, and there was no honour involved. Gunpowder weapons are just as bad, a squad of fresh recruits with muskets could kill a heavy cavalry unit, whereas hand to hand they would have been slaughtered. Yes, hand to hand was still a major part of warfare, bayonett charges, cavalry and the like were still major players I know, but you can't ignore the impact gunpowder weapons would have.

    I also, for some of the same reasons, don't want to see Amercia: Total war, but I admit it would be a good setting. Start it from the first landing of the europeans (although whether the vikings where still around then I don't know) and have it climax with the result of the civil war. Make as many factions playable as possible, and cover both north and south amreica. Peronsally I'd have great fun fighting off the conquistadors as the aztec empire, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of them to their gods. This would hopefully allow people to play the old hack and slash style verses muskets and cavalry, and then after a while gunpowder weapons and horses would become widespread enough that all factions use them.

    Don't make it in any way like 'american conquest' (I hate that game with a passion), make it a TW game with both options available, and don;t forget that the europeans didn't ONLY use gunpowder and cavarly, the bow and the spear where still used, just far less than in the medieval period, and who says we can't change that ourselves by playing that way?

    So, with those two at the bottom of my list I'm drawn to another, Fantasy: Total war. Ofr all you warcraft fans it would be a great game, pitched battles with orcs and the like against elves, dwarves and humans. Don't call it middle earth (if nothing else they would have to spend every penny just on the license) but fantasy :Total war would work in the same style as MTW and RTW, just with magic instead of science, and orcs instead of peasants.

    Then again, my ideal would still be MTW2 (though whatever you do CA, don't call it that). Expand the map to include as much as you can, like japan, china and the like, incorperate things from rome like the city provinces and freedom of movement, plus the battlemap-squares rather than provinces. Yes, it may seem a bit of a cop-out, but I'm positive 90% of MTW fans would buy it, and most RTW players would go for it, so there is a market. There is so much potential in that time period that hasn't been tapped yet, and it remains a favourite among all sorts of games from RTS's to castle-sims to Total war. Bring on MTW2!

    But then again, there is another option. Yes, this is stretching a bit, but what about world: Total war. World war one was a mess, everyone fought and thousands died every day, make it so the battlemap is you climbing from the trenches to advance, getting gunned down all the way, and the campaign map see's you trying to shore up a struggling empire against more enemies than you knew existed. Yes, tanks and guns are less fun than bows and swords, but WW1 hasn;t been done to death like WW2 has, and how many of us would like to go back and fight the battles again, OUR way, rather than field-marshal Haig's way of slaughtering troops all over the place. It would be hard, it would take years to develop, and it would be risky, but i think it could work.

    I had more, but this is long enough already.
    I was trying to find some help in the ancient military journals of General Tacticus, who's intelligent campaigning had been so successful that he'd lent his very name to the detailed prosecution of martial endeavour, and had actually found a section headed "What To Do If One Army Occupies A Well-Fortified And Superior Ground And The Other Does Not", but since the first sentence read "Endeavour to be the one inside" I'd rather lost heart.

  15. #15
    Disturbed Member TenkiWarPRIEST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Rock Creek, Tx
    Posts
    135

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    Seems like Romance of the Three Kingdoms on the original Nintendo had more elaborate diplomacy interaction. No version since STW has had the same game immersion. STW2 , or as mentioned the Seven Kingdom period would be great.
    TenkiWarPriest Tsuchiya Great Clans of Tenki
    :M Gah WarPriest Gah - Krasturak

    I leap from depths of debt into the skies.
    Autumn of The Dragon.

  16. #16
    Roasted To Perfection Member Microwavegerbil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    Quote Originally Posted by TenkiWarPRIEST
    Seems like Romance of the Three Kingdoms on the original Nintendo had more elaborate diplomacy interaction. No version since STW has had the same game immersion. STW2 , or as mentioned the Seven Kingdom period would be great.
    Not to get too off topic, but exactly how can you say that neither game since STW has the same immersion. Especially since you mention the diplomacy, which has only gotten better through each iteration of the game?

    Anyway, I'm not expecting the map to move too far off from it's current position from the last two games. The game's main audience is just more familiar with Europe, and European based games will just sell better than one based somewhere else.

    Personally, I'd love to see one set across Alexander the Great' Empire just after his death, that could have some potential.

  17. #17
    Member Member Skott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    434

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    Like others I'd rather see them go back farther in time rather than go forward. TW:Bronze Age or TW:Stone age. Only possible exception to that maybe would be Meso-American where they have the North, Central, and South American version. Include the Incas, Aztecs, Mayas, Hopis, and etc. Have the cut off just before the Spainiards arriving to the new world. Something like that would be cool I think. Leave the post-gunpowder weapons out of it.

  18. #18

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    i Reckon Total War: Timelord would be good as you could start as a small tribe any where in the world and play right the way into the futre.

    in it would be:

    playable plane/ship/spaceship battles
    religions you could make up
    weapon creating
    mines
    alien invasions

  19. #19
    Not affiliated with Red Dwarf. Member Ianofsmeg16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Home of Palm trees, cats with no tails, three-legged men, fairies...and more german bikers than germany
    Posts
    1,996

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    Isle of Man: Total War
    Set in the time of Bartix, the Smegs pack up and leave while the urANIANs invade with the help of the no-tailed Cats.....Bartixian Stickmen try and help but are overrun
    Will you defend your territory as the Smeg Legions
    Attack the weak Smegs as the urANIANs or the No-tailed Cats
    Run around in circles screaming MY MOTHER WAS A GOOSE EGG?(then you may need help)

    ISLE OF MAN: TOTAL WAR (copyright of the bartix thread and Bartix: Total War)
    When I was a child
    I caught a fleeting glimpse
    Out of the corner of my eye.
    I turned to look but it was gone
    I cannot put my finger on it now
    The child is grown,
    The dream is gone.
    I have become comfortably numb...

    Proud Supporter of the Gahzette

  20. #20

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    Personally, I would love to see Medieval: Total War with the Rome: Total War engine.

    Whatever the next game is, I would like it to be more complex strategic map-wise. Let the players decide what to export and import. Let people control rations. Also, the "take the city and control the entire region" has to go. There is more to controlling a province than just holding the main city. Also, is one city per province really that realistic? Other than that, the battles system also needs fixing. Right now the units are very difficult to control. Sometimes they walk onto the bridge when you order them to stand next to it, etc... Horse also suck at chasing down routers. It's like they are trying to go "with" the routing army rather than just chage past them or engage in individual combat. That is another thing. Why not just have different modes for units? One for fighting, one for charging through and one for exterminating (against routing units)? Naval battles (player-controlled) are obviously a must, as well. Also, captain selection needs to be improved in the future game. Prisoner-taking is a must. Also, siege battles need to be fixed since right now soldiers have trouble going through gates (they walk out in some straight line, getting into some odd formation beforehand).

    Edit: And I am just getting started. Rome: Total War is swarming with bugs and problems. Granted, the game is quite complex and problems are expected to arise. For example, the whole overpopulation thing prevents people from upgrading farms. Well, I was thinking, why not just export the food from a Latifundia in Carthage to, say, Viscus Gothi? So, instead of getting 30,000+ rebellious people in carthage and 800 in gothi, I can have carthage decline to a reasonable 24,000 while Viscus Gothi grows into a minor city at increased speed. Again, I'm just picking problems off the top of my head. The TW designers need to sit down and think hard before creating another game. It is just disappointing to see such an epic game with great replayability value get bogged down because it wasn't polished.
    Last edited by Slon; 07-10-2005 at 07:35.

  21. #21
    Pious Augustus Member Krauser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    296

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slon
    Prisoner-taking is a must.
    Hostages and ransoms would be pretty cool to add.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slon
    Also, siege battles need to be fixed since right now soldiers have trouble going through gates (they walk out in some straight line, getting into some odd formation beforehand).
    Yeah, I hate how archers tend to keep running towards the gate and try to get through it BEFORE attempting to launch arrows. I mean, they are clearly within range. Don't tell me they can't shoot over the walls.

  22. #22
    Don't worry, I don't exist Member King of Atlantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ruins of Atlantis a.k.a Florida
    Posts
    1,658

    Default Re: TW4 what do you want?

    An america mod would be hard.

    North america was composed of MANY tribes that would all have roughly the same units.

    The best america won would be

    Age of Revolution: Total War/ Colonies: Total War

    This could be at the time of americas revelution. England would have many was, france would have a very rebelous populace and americans would have to fight for their freedom and fight the native americans.

    The european powers could also fight to keep their various teritories.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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