What do yall want?

[Strike For The South]

What do yall want in MTW2. I say keep everything MTW was and add RTW family system along with a better diplomacy and I would be happy!

[NodachiSam]

Deeper diplomacy and a deeper campaign map would be awsome. General improvments all around I guess. Also it'd be nice if the map had a wider reach than the previous two games without loosing too much detail (Great britain still having at least 4 provinces, like Ireland, Scotland, and 2 more). Maybe having a 60%, 80% and 100% victory or the option to declare victory after a certain point.

[Craterus]

All I want is a damn good game. Can't ask for more than that.

[Mikeus Caesar]

I want the depth of MTW. I want a ridiculous amount of buildings like MTW. I want emergent factions like MTW. I want the religion like MTW. I want assassinations and spying like MTW.

I don't want the AI like RTW. I don't want a max of 21 factions like RTW. I don't want a game that consists of eyecandy and nothing else like RTW.

[Templar Knight]

A realistic medieval wargame, with deep diplomacy, large scale battles, political intrigue..... a game that makes you feel like a king!

[Servius]

Personally, I hope they ditch RTW's family system and revert to MTW's. RTW focused too much on micro-managing generals and cities. I think if CA ditches the governor idea, throws out half of the vices and virtues, and de-links the family size to the number of provinces, it could be good.

The improved graphics are great and all, but visuals are the easy part. Designing a great AI apparently is much harder, but I don't think you can really have a great game without a great interface and a great AI. After RTW, I'm really worried about the quality of the AI, and (bugs and customer service).

[Sand]

Hmmm, No map clutter pieces like Princess and Diplomat. A strategic AI that works. Seriously, the TW series has terrible diplomacy - I cant believe theyre unable to devote some time to making it work in a satisfactory fashion. If Im beating the absolute tar out of an opponent, I want them to recognise that and sue for peace not repeat mindlessly "We see no reason to bring an end to the war - even though you outnumber us 10-1 and are laying seige to our capital". Theres optimism, and theres lunacy.

Boost the campaign map speeds - Im talking triple or quadruple. Armies should be slowed by having to fight battles, not the fact they march about 2 miles a day. Id also like to see the style of army recruitment reflecting feudalism rather than 19th century standing proffessional armies. I already mentioned it in the "M2 -dissapointed" thread, but standing troops/mercenaries should have very, very high upkeep to keep them small. To flesh out the Kings army for campaigns vassals are recruited like mercenaries in RTW, but they auto-disband after the spring/summer campaining season. Vassal quality should depend on the provinces/regions theyre from. You shouldnt be able to recruit Welsh Longbowmen as vassals in Sicilly though, the culture of a region should be reflected in the vassals available.

Ive got a dislike for the 100% map conquest wins. It just kills the immersion and plays up how bad the AI is that its even possible to conquer 100% of the map. GA style conditions should be the focus, with the option to play on for those who want to.

Discourage castle seiges - I much prefer field battles to seiges, and I want the AI to play its part in giving me field battles, rather than hiding in a castle, dying of dysentry. Give them "free" troops to give me a good fight if thats what it takes to get them to stand and die like men. Also, please allow settlements to auto-surrender when faced with hopeless odds rather than waste everyones time. More castles have surrendered or been betrayed by realists than have ever been stormed.

And when it comes to field battles, to stop the "find and hill and sit on it" battle AI that means playing TW is a route to a qualification in mountain climbing, place objective flags on the map that determine victory. Simple enough, one each at either end to represent the various camps/baggage trains. 2 neutral ones on features in "no mans land" to encourage the battles to be fought there and not halfway up Everest. Whoever holds the majority of them at the end of the time limit wins. The camp ones are worth more than the no mans land to reflect if they enemy has grabbed it, theyve overrun and sacked the baggage train. Basically derived from the city squares in RTW seiges, and the likes of Combat Mission.

A bit of a wish list, and Im quite sure none of it will happen despite it not being all that intensive to do. I love the TW series, but Im a tad cynical about non-eye candy aspects being improved or considered all that much when it comes to design.

[Geoffrey S]

Four seasons, speeded-up campaign movement, slower battles, improved AI on both battlemap and campaign map (or at least AI capable of keeping a formation), and most importantly more importance for terrain on the battlefield and larger battlefields with more varied heights.

Aside from the AI, all things I'd consider a natural evolution from the RTW template.

It'd be very nice if the hardcoded limits were more flexible, particularly with regards to the amount of factions.

Heading into more wishful territory, I'd particularly like to see more complex sieges and some inclusion of supplylines; neither is entirely necessary, but could add a lot.

[ajaxfetish]

Of course historically the middle ages was a period of siege warfare (compare the number of sieges during the era to the number of field battles). Anyway sieges could be great if a lot of focus is put into them, such as:

A full range of siege options
-starvation
-escalade (scaling ladders and/or towers)
-battering rams
-missile engines (catapults, trebuchets, cannon, etc.)
-sapping and mining
-treachery
-surrender (with terms?) in the face of certain defeat
-effective sallying options for the defender

and a more realistic approach to castles
-customizable castle defenses, such as
--layout options (concentric, linear, etc.)
--placement and size options for towers and walls
--creative use of moats, bridges, and barbicans
--intensive gatehouse construction (machicolations, portcullises, etc.)
--incorporation of terrain in defense
--hoardings and such temporary wartime additions
(or if fully customizable castles is too much to ask for, then at least a few optional layouts to choose from when building it, or else historically based castles for each province based on a historically influential castle in that area)

-defense with your own troops manning walls and towers instead of autodefended castles

-more chance of the AI actually actively besieging a castle (and having the intelligence to do it well) so you can defend them instead of just assault.

So far total war games seem more geared to field battles, which is fine, but if they shift the emphasis to sieges it should be accompanied by as much attention to realism, options, and fun as their battles are.

Ajax

[crab]

1) Civil wars take place more than MTW. for example, when a king died, a war should begin among princes to become a king. when the king died, player may choose a prince to go on.

2) Princes should request for political refuge from the other empires.

3) There are only two options before the battle, manuel and automatic. There may be another option for tactics. Fighting manually sometimes may be difficult to control all soldiers. There may determine a tactic like this before the battle. something like this:


4) New settlements can be built.

5) City's population should determine how many turns take establishing a building. And also in a turn more than a group of soldier may establish according to the city's population and wealth.