Lets keep the economists out of this!

[King Yngvar]

Total War really does not need a more advanced economy, I would be all open for a better AI handling of domestic policies (taxing, building, etc) while I handle the military aspect, and if CA manage to improve diplomacy I might even look forward to handle that aspect as well. For as it is right now, the only good thing you can do with diplomats is getting trade agreements, and even that is boring as hell, moving those little things around all the time.

[Gaiseric]

Maybe they could do a reversal of RTW automanage feature. If you want your settlement to be automanaged you have to move a family member there.
He would be your vassel and auto-manage the settlement. If he has low loyalty towards you he could become independent like in BI. I think that by having vassels CA could make this game more historically realistic. I'd also want a more complex economy but people should be able to choose if they want to manage it or not.

I know that the focus of the TW games are mostly on battles but the games could be so much more if you actually had to pay attention to your economy.

The AI economy in RTW and BI is a big joke. They can support huge numbers of troops for free. The AIs tall stacks of troops are fun to battle with through the first few campaigns but after a while it becomes riddiculous and boring. It would be much more fun if the damage I do to the AIs economy(blockades/sabatoge/raids) had an effect the number of troop stacks it can support.

[drone]

I prefer to micromanage, so I don't really want the economic side dumbed down or made automatic. I also don't want CA to take it to the extreme like MOO3 did (that was a bit too much). It would be nice if they could improve the navigation of the city management screens, to make it easier to see what all your cities are doing, instead of having to page through them one at a time. This has always been one of my complaints with the campaign map GUI. If you are an anal-retentive micromanager (like me), it takes too long to check on your cities, which decreases the number of turns you can play in one sitting.

[Divinus Arma]

It will certainly be more complex, not less:

In Medieval 2, players will have the option to develop each of their settlements as either a castle or city. They both have particular benefits, with castles placing greater emphasis on military expansion, while cities will have a much greater benefit to your faction's economy. This will call for a good deal more strategic thought when it comes to expanding your empire across the map--the number and location of your cities and castles will be vital. Build too many cities, and you may have to rely on mercenaries to bolster your forces. Opt for too many castles, and you may not have the funds in the coffers to maintain your war effort. It becomes a fine balance.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...ml?sid=6144512

This new article os very telling.

[Martok]

This new article is very telling.

Uh, no it's not. The interview doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, aside from two things:

1.) The number of turns the game will have--except that it didn't make any sense, unless 1 turn now equals 2 years (which I don't believe).

2.) Vague assurances that the diplomacy and AI are going to be improved. I'm glad Smith at least mentions this, but I still dare not be too hopeful in that regard.

Aside from that, though, Smith didn't really say anything that hasn't already been covered in other articles. In fact, most of the information yesterday can be found in the game's initial announcement on the various gaming websites. The only feature he really gave any additional information on at all was the graphics, and that worries me.

[screwtype]

It will certainly be more complex, not less

When I think about it, I don't know why they persist with the "province" system at all. Provinces made sense when the campaign map was Risk style but what point is there when you have a detailed RTW like map?

I think with the new map style, maybe it would be an idea to drop the province system altogether and just have a free flowing map with all kinds of different topography on it. Then you would simply choose good locations to build your cities and castles, for example you might build your cities near a good natural harbour, or in a place where the soil is fertile, or a location that would advantageous for trade.

There's a heck of a lot of things they could do to make the map more interesting and give the campaign more depth, but they seem frightened to take the plunge and get away from the elementary economic system inherited from earlier games.

And BTW, a more complex economic model does NOT necessarily mean more micromanagement, excessive micromanagement is usually caused by bad design. In RTW, for example, one of the things that made the economy a pain to manage was the badly designed interface.

[Divinus Arma]

When I think about it, I don't know why they persist with the "province" system at all. Provinces made sense when the campaign map was Risk style but what point is there when you have a detailed RTW like map?

I think with the new map style, maybe it would be an idea to drop the province system altogether and just have a free flowing map with all kinds of different topography on it. Then you would simply choose good locations to build your cities and castles, for example you might build your cities near a good natural harbour, or in a place where the soil is fertile, or a location that would advantageous for trade.

There's a heck of a lot things they could do to make the map more interesting and give the campaign more depth, but they seem frightened to take the plunge and get away from the elementary economic system inherited from earlier games.

And BTW, a more complex economic model does NOT necessarily mean more micromanagement, excessive micromanagement is usually caused by bad design. In RTW, for example, one of the things that made the economy a pain to manage was the badly designed interface.

Imagine a real time map (w/ sliding scale time control) + the ability to choose where to locate settlements?

[screwtype]

Sorry, as I just said on another thread, I'm completely opposed to the concept of a real time campaign. There are far too many RTS's out there already, and I don't like any of them

[screwtype]

One thing that might be good would be to have resources and improvements actually appear on the map and be interactive. So for example you might have grain fields, and when an enemy army occupies that field it can burn it to starve the peasants, or use the food there for its own troops. Or by occupying a mine hex you cut off that particular resource from the enemy and instead get its benefits yourself.

I mean basically I'm arguing for a map that you can really interact with. The problem I have with the RTW map is there's not enough you can do with it, there's a lot of it but most of it is uninteresting and it doesn't act like a living, breathing world.

Like, instead of just having "resources" in a province that you automatically receive when you conquer it, wouldn't it be better if you actually had to develop that resource, build a road to it, and then possibly have to try and defend your improvement from a marauding army? That sort of thing could bring the map and the strategic campaign alive in a way it just isn't now. It doesn't have to be an incredibly complicated system, there are surely ways to do this that are elegant and intuitive.

I'd also like to see food play a more important role in the game, like the need to stock your cities and castles with surpluses in order to hold out during sieges, and the need to have a supply train for your troops in the field - which in turn would make an overall faction food surplus a necessity. That way your armies are closely tied to your economy and the topography of the map. You might then find yourself with an urgent need to defeat a marauding army before it disrupts your economy and leaves your peasants or armies starving.

There are heaps of ways to add depth to the campaign portion of this game, without unduly adding to the complexity or the micromanagement. It wouldn't be that hard to do. I can't understand why CA want to give us a Mickey Mouse economy, when every other aspect of the game is just begging for an economic/strategic model with more depth.

[screwtype]

Total War really does not need a more advanced economy

Oh yes it does!

I would be all open for a better AI handling of domestic policies (taxing, building, etc) while I handle the military aspect, and if CA manage to improve diplomacy I might even look forward to handle that aspect as well. For as it is right now, the only good thing you can do with diplomats is getting trade agreements, and even that is boring as hell, moving those little things around all the time.

Yeah, diplomacy sucks in RTW, and it is really, really stupid that diplomats (and other strategic units) can only move one province per turn - not to mention the ridiculous way they get blocked in their movement by other strategic units or armies on the map!

Strategic units IMO should be able to move ANY distance on the map in a single turn. They shouldn't be blocked by other units, and they shouldn't need shipping to cross water.