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).

[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

[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]

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.

[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).

[TinCow]

I want an AI that can at least beat me 10% of the time when I'm outnumbered 3:1 and have inferior troops.

[Rilder]

I want the game to be fun like RTW is.

[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!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Multiple Campaigns.

Don't force me to start at 1080 all the time; bring back MTW's staggered campaign dates.

And just about everything else in this thread.

And a new PC to play with 10,000 soldiers with no slowdown!

[Lazul]

Swedish Faction!

.... just give me that! nothing ells!

[SirGrotius]

Top ten things I'd like to see (in no particular order):

1) Slower, more immersive battles such as MTW
2) Extremely thorough playtesting (reduce bugs)
3) Excellent programming (to make the game playable on 6800 Geforce-type machines, but with an extremely high ceiling of course for cutting-edge systems)
4) Increased functionality for agents (increase their quality, not particulary their quantity--we don't want to micromanage too much)
5) Yes, the battle slider is beloved. Perhaps milestones can be incorporated as well, for those who want to choose between normal, fast, and very fast.
6) CA programmers/representatives reading this thread (or others of a similar vein)
7) Another deal with network television (gotta love the marketing for RTW)
8) New strategy guide contract (the Prima guides for RTW and BI were awful)
9) Terrain-sensitive battle maps as in RTW
10) More transparency in how cities work--aspects such as squalor and public order shouldn't require so many threads to explain. This perhaps can be improved with increasing the level of detail provided in the city comparison tabs.

In essence, gameplay, marketing, and support.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Custom Designed Castles.

None of the stupid squalor crap destroying your city like in RTW (Heh-they added more micromanagement to city building and took away some control over battles).

A dynamic campaign map: building stuff that doesn't start out on the map, destroying stuff, etc. Sowing salt in my enemies field's.

Deep diplomacy.

More atmosphere, less cartoon inspired graphics.

Loads of buildings and options from medieval, the ability to actually build cities.

Crazed Rabbit

[Mooks]

Diplomacy...I want really complex diplomacy, and make it so alliances actually "Work". Yes I know this a fairly new concept for CA. But it CAN work

[Insigna]

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!

I second that!!

[Midnight]

Pretty much everything that's already been said, plus a somewhat unpredictable campaign: in MTW, for example, you'd sometimes get unlikely empires which stretched across vast tracts of land, or empires which had been completely uprooted (Almohads residing in England and Scandinavia, Egyptians in Russia...); in RTW, the most unusual thing I ever saw was the Macedonians not getting crushed. I'd also like to see some variation in who wins various battles (eg, in RTW, the Seleucids and Carthage always get pounded, while Egypt and the Romans are always able to come out on top). In MTW, the French usually kicked the English, but not always; the Spanish usually kicked the Almohads, but sometimes it went the other way; and the Byz\Egypt\Turk war seemed reasonably even. Maybe it's not so historically accurate to 'balance' like this, but I think it makes for a more interesting game if there's a chance unexpected things can happen.

I'd also like to see castles both attached to cities, and independent!

[Hambut_bulge]

Mentioned this in the announcement thread in the entrance hall, but is probably a better place, keep RTW family tree system so that distant relatives or even Princess's can become faction leader. Though obviously having a woman on the throne should send the risk of civil war rocketing skywards.

Whilst I'm thinking about the family tree it would be nice if you could remarry them, in the event of an untimely death, or even allow the faction leader to petition the Pope for a divorce should the marriage prove unproductive. Of course if its a foreign Princess you're trying to get rid of that wouldn't go down to well with her family.

And since we're going all the way up to 1530 in the main campaign, I'd like the Reformation to be included. All those religious conflicts.

[boastj]

City’s astride rivers with bridges and things like London

Towns growing from castles

[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.