What do yall want?

[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).

[ajaxfetish]

The gameplay M:TW had.
The graphics R:TW had (and that the screenies promise!).

The AI and diplomacy model that both games should have had.

Ajax

[Beirut]

The gameplay M:TW had.
The graphics R:TW had (and that the screenies promise!).

The AI and diplomacy model that both games should have had.

Ajax

What he said.

[lancelot]

Crusades that dont go from france- to moscow- back to france-to spain- on the way to egypt!! MTW crusade paths made zero sense.

Get rid of annoying squalor.

Constantinople to be reflected as the premiere city of the world...ie- much bigger and grand than any other city/castle etc.

MTW Ai had suicidal tendencies..a one province power would often declare war on me (the largest power)....makes no sense.

[Ulair]

I dunno, you go away from the Org for a couple of weeks and they come along and announce MTW-2 behind your back

What can I say? Way to be cool. And what should it have? ajaxfetish has it neatly:

The gameplay M:TW had.
The graphics R:TW had (and that the screenies promise!).
The AI and diplomacy model that both games should have had.

And one from me:
- a rational naval combat system. Doesn't have to be detailed, just has to produce reasonable results...

Crikey, I bet I'll need a new PC. Well, the kids can do without shoes for a wee while, surely...


Ulair

[Satyr]

I want a speed slider on both halves of the game. I like watching troops and agents move on the strategic map, but not too slow or so fast you can't see where they are going like in RTW. Just give me control and I will find a speed my old brain and eyes can handle.

I want a GREAT AI! This has to be the dominant aspect of the game. The graphics are good enough, now make the AI that they can be proud of. The AI in MTW was the best ever produced, make sure MTW2 is even better.

Much better diplomacy. Look to CIV4 for how to do it.

Realistic battlefield behavior. The way cavalry wheeled around before charging in MTW was beautiful, it sucked in RTW, some work here would be great. Same goes for watching an infantry line getting hit, collapsing, breaking and routing. It was great in MTW but sucked in RTW. I would like to see that kind of detail again.

And I want to see a reasonable patch policy. That means "as many patches as it takes"!

[fester]

The gameplay M:TW had.
The graphics R:TW had (and that the screenies promise!).

The AI and diplomacy model that both games should have had.

Ajax

totaly agree

[boastj]

The ability to shout at a small neutral armies in my province and say “Get Of My Land” to them.
Imagine a Wiltshire farmers accent, its funnier.

[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

[Sand]

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).

Castles dominated strategic thinking, in that seige warfare had decreased dramatically from the ancient era so it was very tough to take them by force, until primitive cannons arrived. But seiges were drawn out, starving the defenders into submission was the only consistently successful approach. Storming the walls was very rarely done because it inflicted hideous casualities on the attackers. If seiges were resolved by battles, it was more often the defeat of a relieving force making it clear to the defenders that no help was coming, leading to surrender. The realistic style of starving them out is quite boring, and its not much more fun to storm the walls when youre only facing minimal opposition - the outcome is never in doubt but it still takes 10-20 minutes to breach the walls, march to the central square and kill the 2-3 defending units. IMO, field battles are more fun and dramatic. Heroic last stands and waves of men at arms climbing the walls as rocks are dropped on their heads should be the exception, not the rule as it is currently in TW. IMO anyway.

[Mithrandir]

Should I really be the first to say this ?


...Multiplayer Campaign ~:D

[Martok]

Should I really be the first to say this ?


...Multiplayer Campaign ~:D

Heh. I'd love to see that too, but I think we're going to have to keep dreaming on that one. As I put it in the offical forums, I can't see CA implementing a multiplayer campaign; I have a feeling it would probably get used only a small percentage of the time (and therefore wouldn't be worth the resources needed to put it in).

[Herakleitos]

Should I really be the first to say this ?


...Multiplayer Campaign ~:D

Oh yes, ofcourse!

However, CA's reply is always: It would take around a millenium to finish a game... Therefore I propose a SMALL multiplayer campaign; something like the size of the VI campaign compared to the MTW campaign. It would be very nice if players could choose from variety of campaign maps such as England, France, Spain, Anatolia / Greece. Or better even, scenario's such as the 100 year's war ( long game) or the reconquista (even a longer game I suppose...).

Still it's never going to happen I'm afraid...

[ajaxfetish]

Storming the walls was very rarely done because it inflicted hideous casualities on the attackers. If seiges were resolved by battles, it was more often the defeat of a relieving force making it clear to the defenders that no help was coming, leading to surrender. The realistic style of starving them out is quite boring, and its not much more fun to storm the walls when youre only facing minimal opposition - the outcome is never in doubt but it still takes 10-20 minutes to breach the walls, march to the central square and kill the 2-3 defending units.

No argument here. I just think if they do focus on sieges they should lean toward active assault (even though less common) for the funness aspect, since sitting and waiting is of course a boring way to go about it. I'm for either field battles as the central action, or sieges with enough action and variety to rival the entertainment value of a battle.

Ajax

[Zatoichi]

Bring back the MTW battle speed slider! Return the battles to the pace of MTW - reduce the movement and kill speeds back from RTW levels (like a majority of the mods did anyway) - I'm not interested in Medieval: Total Clickfest - I want to see the new eye candy upclose and personal but not lose my entire left flank in the process without freezing the action via the pause button.

I'd also like the battle maps scaled to unit size, so the more and/or larger units you have, the more room you have to manouvre in.

Oh, and bring back archers and crossbows firing in ranks. Did I mention better battle AI and diplomacy yet?

Blimey - I don't want much do I? All I want is a perfect game, is that so much to ask?

I am a lot more excited about this than a fellow of my years has any right to be!

[Martok]

Wow, I think the rest of you guys have already covered just about everything I could've thought of. I can't really think of anything else to add here that hasn't already been mentioned. Let's hope that CA heeds us on at least the big stuff: AI, diplomacy, better battle-pacing, less agent clutter, etc.

[Templar Knight]

A choice between 'Global Domination' and 'Glorious Achievements'. I am not really a fan of 'Conquer all', I prefer to build up and manage with small expansion when it suits, so the return of something similar to the Glorious Achievements would be nice.