TW4 what do you want?

[cunctator]

Atztec/Inca:TW is my second choice. The spanish invasion would offer aa unseen variety in gameplay.

[GonZ]

Thanks for the input folks. I suppose I should pitch in with my own views - could be a long post, bear with me.

Era.

I would definitely like to see the post Medieval period explored covering:

# The Renaissance (Europe, 14th century - 16th century)
# Elizabethan period (United Kingdom, 1558 - 1603)
# The Age of Enlightenment Europe,18th century
# Napoleonic Era, 1799-1815

So I am talking an age of gunpowder, sea power, exploration, religious unrest and rebellion.

Name.

mmm tricky one. But Imperial TW? TW4:Empires, TW4: Conquest?

Geography.

There needs to be a global aspect here as world exploration and trade would have to be a major part. Obviously the scale is massive - you can't have a battle map for every part of the globe.

So I would still like to see the main focus of the game to be on an extended Europe.

The global aspect; exploration, colonies and distant power struggles could be handled as an abstraction; players allocate resources - troops, money, specific generals etc to handle this part of the game on behalf of the player. Progress could be handled in terms of reports coming in as well as treasure, new technologies and improved maps.

To handle this I would like to see the introduction of a new map level. Essentially a dynamic world map that develops over time.

At the start of the game the world map would be very inacurate a bit like this one from the 15th Century http://graphics.britannia.com/histor...fords/fram.jpg

As the game proceeds and your faction explores or trades maps with other nations the the quality of the map would improve. To something like this one from the 17th: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...pler-world.jpg

Other things I'd like to see in the game:

More diplomatic options - e.g. alliances that mean something and can last.

More espionage options - e.g. being able to spark, sponsor and assist rebels in enemy territories.

Tech tree - cartography, navigation and ship building tech trees + gun and canon tech. Also a tactical tech tree that would have an effect on battle field manoeuvres. For instance Barrack square 1; improves discipline & morale. Barrack square 2. Improves discipline, morale, stamina and allows troops to form a square. etc.

Turn sequence - I'd really like to do away with the turn sequence altogether. I'd rather have a fluid sliding scale that would slow down or speed up time. You would be able to see units moving round the map in "real" time. Things would come in and out of view depending on the proximity of scouts, line of site and ability of your units. Battles would be based on manoeuvring two or more armies together. Ideally you would see the armies and supply trains etc marching round Europe

Fog of war - I think that the way things are hidden til explored in RTW is good and should be enhanced in TW4.

Characterisation & role-play. Vices and virtues to the next level up. Choosing the right man for the job would be more important. Hidden vices perhaps? More plots and intrigue. Negotiations handled "in person" i.e. from your kings or generals perspective when an emissary visits, or from your emissaries perspective when he is granted an audience. With options of what to say and how to say it; from grovelling formalities to surly demands.

Internal conflict - more chance of rebellions, religious unrest, plots and civil wars. Bring back the disloyal generals, so we can set an example of them!

Sea battles. I'd really like to play these out but I can live with an improved abstracted version if need be.

Bigger battle maps - so we can have massive waterloo style battles. Blood, smoke, mud and carnage on the battlefield.

Multiplayer campaigns. Removing the turn sequence might make this more viable. Allow players to arrange weekly sessions for instance. Agree on a rate for the time slider and away you go. Absent players can set plans in place and would have to rely on AI.

Well that's about it for now, hope someone out there likes my ideas.

[Barbarian_King_1]

A Three Kingdoms with possible Mongol invasion add on, mod, etc. would make China would make an excellent topic. It is different than the others, could cover more time, include more difficult terrain, and would not be that hard to create, ie. cheap for the company.

I agree with many of the previous entries. A better AI, and greater gamout of responses in diplomacy. I for one always want to behead my losing generals, especially when the battle is won, and they run, and take everyone else with them. Why is that not an option? Another portion would be sandbox. Why not include a map maker, random, etc. and start with one province. In addition would like online strategic play, with yes, unfortunately uncommanded (auto) battles.

I like naval combat too, but it would not be as useful in this mod. Maybe riverboats mmmm. No not paddlewheelers, before I start taking shots across my rigging.

The Middle Kingdom could be a wonderful place to play, I mean fight, I mean conquer. I am sure I am not saying anything new, but there is my two ducals, oops wrong period.

The Original Barbarian King

[Papewaio]

TW1: Shogun
TW2: Mongol Invasion
TW3: MTW
TW4: Viking Invasion
TW5: RTW

So we want to go back in time and change Viking Invasion (incidentally the only one in the series I havn't played)...

[Samurai Waki]

I'd have to go with Imperial: TW covering the time from the Spanish Discovery of the Americas to roughly the end of the American Civil War/Franco-Prussian War. Although, I'd like to see a more realistic format, were things really were the way that they were, up until the point you decide to screw up history. I've seen enough of the Late BCs-1500s AD, and would like to move foreward instead of back.

I would Also Like to See

Completely Revamped Trade System: If you're nation can produce it, you can trade things with other nations for it.

Completely Revamped AI: I would like to see an AI that actually learns from it's mistakes, and forms it's own complex battle plans for each individual nation, according to what kinds of units it has available to it.

Completely Revamped Diplomacy Model: Meaning, instead of sending around a Diplomatic Agent, you can just click which faction you want to have a diplomatic deal with, whatever the distances from your capital to their capital, determines how long it will take to get your message there and back.

No More Turns!: I'd like to see a game, that doesn't use a turn based system, this would allow players to be on their toes at all times. It takes a certain amount of in game time to construct new buildings within cities, or train new units, in real time. Also, this would allow for realistic marching distances between cities.

Assigning Governors to foreign provinces: Because the Scope of the Game is so large, you can actually Assign Governors to take care of domestic issues in your far away provinces. This includes building up your Colonies, and raising foreign levies. This would allow you to manage whatever aspect of the game that you want (trade, military Expeditions, and Diplomacy), while you're governors are doing all the little important things in the background, that are relatively unimportant to you, but vastly important to your nations success. Also, Governors would gain traits over time that would either be good or bad for sed province... this includes all out rebellion.

Map of the World: The entire world would be represented, and with it, every major, and many minor civilization with it, each with unique units, and military, or cultural doctrines.

Religion: Bring God to the Savages, or re-populate areas with citizens of your own ilk. This includes things like Inquisitions, and dare I say it... genocide. This would greatly upset other nations that are not of the same thought-process, or religion that you are, and they may even declare war outright war.

Complex Campaigns: This includes supply lines and attrition, and when you march your armies into enemy territories you can assign them certain missions, including raising farms, and small communities, or attempting to sack the provincial capital, you may also order your general in command to take a defensive position, or seek your enemies offensively. If a battle ensues, it is completely up to you to take command, but if you don't, and the General under control of the AI has good command traits, you may well win the day, without taking atrocious losses.

Improved Battle Controls: If you take over command of your troops, you are no longer god and can't see everything. The Battles are fairly first person... and some 3rd Person. You can order cavalry to screen your line, or poke at enemy offensive or defensive positions to find out where they are the weakest. You only know what you're up against until the enemy is right in your sight. Of course with advent of later technology, things like air balloons, and good telescopes will be available at your disposal. Basically, your underlings do the fighting for you, you tell them where to go, and where to attack, and the AI would figure out the rest. This would mean that you might get frustrated with a fresh lieutenant that doesn't know exactley what he's doing, but with time, and if he doesn't die, he'll learn to do things that will put an edge on the enemy.

Chaos Theory and Corealis Affect: The rotation of the Earth, geologic location, and position of the planet vs. the sun... mean seasonal changes, according to time and location, Barometric Pressure, Humidity, and Elevation. Also things like Weather Patterns develop regularly that you can use to your advantage... or your enemies will know how to use to theirs.

Hmmmm.... can't really think of too many other things... Naval Battles, going along the same line, as my Improved Battle Controls suggestion would be nice though too.

Wazikashi

[Burnzy]

Hopefully: Colonisation: Total War (Picking up where MTW left off and going through to 1800(ish) - This would let me live out my dream of being born during this period with memories of the future, hindsight = Me saying "Longbow > Musket God damn it!")

Realistically: Hellenistic: Total War. (Rome engine with new skins, a few little features and maybe the Indus - Yawn - Unless its expansion was the Roman struggle for dominance of the Italian peninsular)

Alternatively: MMORPG: Total War (Strictly profit I'd expect)

--

Can't help but think of it though - Setting off from Spain with a small fleet to fight the exotic and mysterious peoples of the Americas and taking home huge amounts of loot, with constant skirmishes with other Catholic powers, possibly a high speed chase around Cape Horn where the sink rate is 99% .

Some other brilliant features which would add huge amounts of realism:

1. Different stages of war/aggressiveness, ie: total tar, skirmishes, war at sea/distant provinces. Total war is and was a rare thing, look at the Falkland Islands - Strictly provincial and wasn't total war, these things happen and I'd love it to be incorporated into the TW games.

2. Looting after battles! Why not?! It happened! Not only gold and valuables, but also weapons and armour - the game could translate this to weapon/armor upgrades like those of the armouries built in provinces. The amount and quality depending on the slain enemy, however.

3. Further enhanced diplomacy. Use your imagination, I'm talking ultimatums, pacts over territories ("You invade Belgium, and I'll invade you!" sort of thing) and many others.

4. Lots more which I can't think of off the top of my head!

Total War games really do have unlimited potential, if CA could only tap into even a quarter of it in the next game, it would easily drive me crazy like the previous titles .

[King Arthur]

1. My wet dream: The Great Empires period, 1600-330bc, including facs like Egypt, Babylonia (Kassite), Mittani, Hittite, Assyria, Judah, Phoenicia, Urartu, Persia, Minoans, Nubians, Libyans etc etc and all the Mycenaean kingdoms of Greece etc. Basically a bronze age scenario spanning three disctinct periods/ parts.
2. or a Hellenic game divided into three parts; City states 800-500bc, Classical 500-356bc and finally Hellenistic 356-30bc much like HTW but on a much larger scale.
3. or maybe China although that game would IMO span a too lengthy period of time to be interesting.
.

Agreed pseRamesses ,the bronze age scenario would be an excellent idea
an important era as its an important era in the cradle of civilisation of mesepotamia
of this period i would like to see the movement of peoples through territories
which happened in this period

[thelzdking]

I think that anything post 1500 is hopeful; I think things would be too complex politicaly to do the era justice. Also I personnally think warfare becomes less apt for the TW style after the medirval period.

What I would like is for them to take RTW as it is, keep the engine, graphics, world map etc but make into another medieval setting. Then spend 2 years fashioning the most intricate, perfect AI and political mechanics ever seen, then spend another 6 months giving the whole thing a graphical once over etc.

Don't see a problem with the RTW engine and graphics, just needs things like supply lines, a complex marriage/family tree sytem (if it was set in the middle ages again) and most of the other things people have said, but the key I reckon would be the AI.

[Copperhaired Berserker!]

What I would want would be.......

Total war: reloaded
I would like this to totally revamp every TW game, ever. The company would listen to the fan base, org, twc, the lot to make Tw games perfect. all mods would help the company, for skinning and the like.

Conclusion: sorry but this will take 100 years!

[ipsen]

Well, personally, I haven't seen any fandom-based game successful

First we have to decide what essential characteristics of TW series are. Based on the summary, then we can plot out at least the new era.

To me, fundamental things a TW game must have are:
-Multi-state map.
-Turbulent diplomacy.
-Game functions at both strategic level and tactical level - hence operations are crucial.
-Hand-to-hand combat. At least soldiers have to be able to form a unit-on-map. So machine-gun battles are ruled out!
-Economy to manage.
-It must be logical! You cannot expect full operations from West Indian tribes!

From the aforementioned criteria, I suggest the following options of periods:
-China at virtually any time in the past! It had always been an unstable state under monarchies.

-India: some BC time. A perfect multi state which was constantly under threat of civil wars and invasions.

-Mongol Total War: why not a full version of the Mongol hordes fighting each other and then conquer the rest of the world?

-Islam Total War: well, truly wars between states of different Islamic sects are worth a terrific attempt. Umayyad, Abbasid and Mameluks and the like!

-Some other minor conquests in history like that by Tamerlane, Attila, etc.

My two cents

[Franconicus]

I want to have the option to save during battles!

[Satyr]

I don't care when or where the game is set. It could honestly be Rugby:Total War for all I care but it needs one key ingredient!

A really good AI!

[Maedhros]

I must agree with Satyr - A challenging AI must be the number 1 component of a new game.

It must also have a feel and atmosphere appropriate for the setting.

Fantastic advances have been made with the graphics and I'd like to see that continue forward.

Further improvements in the diplomatic options and perhaps an option to requip your armies as you see fit.

Pick a quality level of the basic soldier, choose his armor, weapons, and equipment. So you can tailor your army specifically to your particular need.

They have been taking small steps forward on the sea. I'd like to see a bold leap and wonderfully rendered ships we watch moving across the water into battle. Complete with fire, arrows and boarding. Naval battles could be fought on the ocea, lakes, rivers, and canals.

I would enjoy most any setting. China at 3 kingdoms or probably prior, Something before 1500 BC, or a unique fantasy game. Whatever the ultimate setting I'd love to see it.

My biggest wants have to be an AI capable of surprising me or at least adapting to my tactics. If I'm heavy on cav maybe my foe should persue higher spear recruitment and adapt field formations that favor a spear focus.

That and naval battles.


They have been improving or working to improve on every other issue I want to see improved on the game. So hats off and wallet open to the future of Total War.

[Wishazu]

My personal request would be a Greek focused game, i.e the peloponnesian war etc. however i dont really mind what time period they go for next time as long as the following features are included.

Improved Battlefield AI
More depth to negotiations
Naval Battles(If imperial glory can have em, then why not total war?)
Loyalty feature from medieval(i liked spying on my generals to discover who was plotting against me)
Civil wars^^^ that pretty much goes hand in hand with the loyalty thingy :)
Factions Re-emerging
Multiplayer campaign

[edyzmedieval]

I personally would like MTW2!!! It's my fav TW and also my fav game!!!

Here are my favourite options:

1. Medieval Total War 2
2. Ancient: Total War
3. China: Total War(Three Kingdoms)

[King Kurt]

I would like to see either a Renaisance TW - say 1450 - 1650 ish - loads of technical advance and lots of religious action with the reformation or a 19th century TW - say 1792 - 1900 - again - technical advance and lots of conflicts to spice things up - you could even abstract the colonies and impact of things like the american civil war.

[KukriKhan]

Folks, let's see if we can get through to page 3 of this topic without the needless shouting (overly-large text, multiple exclamation points, etc). Consider your audience, the readers.

Thanks.

[GonZ]

@Kurt Renaisance TW

That make's sense to me.

"technical advance and lots of conflicts to spice things up" absolutely. And not just technical advances either - new weapons needed new tactics. Available tactics should be available to those factions who invest in it. It's a whole new tech-tree.

Endless opportunity for diplomacy, trade, treachery and Machiavellian scheming.

Also ripe the for the periods afterwards, and numerous expansion possibilities. Gunpowder please!

Also warming to the idea of the Three Kingdoms China ideas. Ancient has been done IMO - it's called Rome TW. I'm sure Rome is moddable down-tech much better than up-tech.

[Satyr]

You mean we aren't writing this as advice to CA? Come on now, of course we are.

[KukriKhan]

Sure...they read here too. Let's not shout at them. I'm absolutely certain they're interested.

[Franconicus]

Bribing should be changed. It should not be possible to bribe FMs or other loyal troops. But it should be possible to bribe mercs that serve the enemy even before a battle.
You should also be able to have joined actions with your allies. It should be possible to coordinate plans and to exchange units.

[British Mutt + Viking]

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.

[CMcMahon]

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.

[British Mutt + Viking]

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.

[Mount Suribachi]

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.

[British Mutt + Viking]

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.

[Mount Suribachi]

BM+V, have you tried the Napoleonic mod for NTW? They've got more than 4 unit types
Furthermore, I don't feel the need for a game to have hundreds of units for it to be interesting, one of my favourite things about Shogun is that it only has around a dozen units, all of which have a use, and are wonderfully balanced in a rock/paper/scissors kind of way.

As for the Napoleonic era, it would be a hugely popular subject (how many copies has Cossacks sold?) especially in continental Europe where this kind of thing is massive (EU2 for example).

I disagree with the simple diplomacy I suggested being "too complicated" for the average player. I just copied the system from Alpha Centauri which was a hugely successful game.


I also forgot to add my final point

9) Supply and attrition. Maintaining a supply of food/water/ammunition/pay for your armies should at least be a factor. If your supply lines suffer, then disease and desertion should increase in your armies

[British Mutt + Viking]

What I meant by four unit types is that there is little genuine difference between a French infantryman and a Russian one. That was one of the defining features of "Napoleonic" warfare, in that it was really just a simple matter of 50,000 men carrying muskets and bayonettes, marching up to an army of 50,000 other guys with the same weapons and only slightly different uniforms, firing volleys at each other and maybe charging with bayonettes. In the end, the guy with more men usually won, and any occasion where the guy with fewer troops won, it was because his enemy made some hideous mistake which cannot be explained logically.
However, I agree, that it would be a good game, but I am simply noting that I imagine that the difference between it and the sheer variety of the previous games will turn quite a few players off. I known many people who loved STW but found MTW to be too "different" for their tastes. The difference between this game and the previous three would be considerable to say the least.
And just to add, one shouldn't put too much into what Europeans think with regards to games, because in the end, the people who really decide the gaming industry are the Asians and Americans, as they are the biggest markets by far. Also, to be honest, Europeans tend to have more depth and appreciation for historical games than the average American (but I am sure most of the Americans here are of a higher standard than the average). This observation is based entirely upon personally having lived in both Europe and the United States, and is not intended as an insult to Americans, only an appreciation for cultural differences. In all honesty, Europeans can be a bit of a bore in compare to Americans, so it's all equal in the end.

[Azi Tohak]

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

[Maedhros]

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?