Desired Features, old and new

[IceTorque]

I would like to see the sand box style of gameplay scrapped for a more role playing type of game. i.e. One army, one commander, one era, no build ques, no micro-management and all agents dispatched/received with one click/command. Perhaps the devs that left TW to try something new could maybe try something new with a future TW game.

[econ21]

I would like to see the sand box style of gameplay scrapped for a more role playing type of game. i.e. One army, one commander, one era, no build ques, no micro-management and all agents dispatched/received with one click/command.

I would like to see the RPG elements strengthened too - I like the GA mode of MTW and the Senate missions etc, but I am not sure it requires throwing out the sandbox so completely.

Having multiple commanders would allow the RPG elements to come more into play - you have to manage personalities who have different aims and abilities.

More than one army is essential for a serious strategy game, but I would like to see more customisation of units (upgrading to later tech types) and that would probably entail fewer units in your kingdom (so you care about them more).

Jumping into the body of a general or even a unit commander in battle would be fun. Mount and Blade meets Total War anyone?

One thing that could strengthen the RPG element is more scripting - the Mongols are one element already in MTW, but there could be more. Throw more events at the player that have to be managed.

Giving enemy faction AIs more personality (a la Civ) would help too.

[Geoffrey S]

I'm thinking a direct control option for units would be nice, if the general is close enough and grouped with the moveable unit. Something like WASD could be used to move the unit forwards, move it backwards and rotate it; the larger the group being controlled and the less experience the general/group has the longer the reaction time.

One thing I definitely would love to see is the ability to make a unit walk backwards, making it possible to lure overeager enemies into an encirclement, like at Cannae; this could incur a morale penalty and cause less-experienced units to break.

[Kraxis]

I would like to see the sand box style of gameplay scrapped for a more role playing type of game. i.e. One army, one commander, one era, no build ques, no micro-management and all agents dispatched/received with one click/command. Perhaps the devs that left TW to try something new could maybe try something new with a future TW game.

If that is what you want I suggest getting Legion Arena, it is fairly cheap and the graphics aren't too great, but it is fairly long.

Personally I would prefer to keep the sandbox. I want to build my empire, I want to shape the future. I do not want to be a pawn of some obscure out-of-game force.

[IceTorque]

If that is what you want I suggest getting Legion Arena, it is fairly cheap and the graphics aren't too great, but it is fairly long.

Personally I would prefer to keep the sandbox. I want to build my empire, I want to shape the future. I do not want to be a pawn of some obscure out-of-game force.

I too like to build an empire, I just think it would be more fun and immersive to role play a character and an army. Make more realistic decisions, like who will command a second or more army, e,g, My spies have informed me of two or more armies approaching my borders. As I realistically am in command of only one army, and cannot magically transport myself all over the game world to personally command every battle/skirmish. Do I give command to a general that has a high chance of success but may turn against me ? or do I give command to a trusted general but who has a lesser chance of success ?

As for being a pawn of some obscure out-of-game force. You would have to react to in-game events. e.g. The trusted commander has lost the battle and most of his army, now you and your personal army are up shit creek without a paddle, so to speak. Or the not so trusty general has won the battle and has now decided he wants to be king. Perhaps the game would begin with the player as the prince or consul etc. After proving ones worth you would be given more important tasks and ever increasing troops to accomplish those tasks, and when you think your strong enough you could cross the Rubicon. If you are a prince, maybe you would have to fight off those who would try to claim your rightful position of king when your old man kicks the bucket.

I would prefer to be making/giving the above decisions/commands, as opposed to what building do I need to build next.

Why not command a general to head North South or what ever and fight who ever/ gaurd/garrison a region or settlement ? Why not simply command a spy/ diplomat/princess etc to go and do what you want them to ? To me the current style of build ques micro-management and manual movement of all armies/agents and being a commander/governor of every army/settlement, combined with the god like view and total control of the game world, For me it is not only getting a tad old and repetitive, it also removes any randomness/surprises.

Basically a new and more immersive way to tie together the core gameplay that is TW, and that is the 3d battles.

Could C.A. make such a game ? most certainly. Would such a game appeal to the mass market of 10 yr olds and up ? maybe, but only if the game had Orcs. Would we still have the option of playing more than one faction ? probably not. Would such a game last longer than 10 hours of gameplay ? I would hope so.

I played AOE and AOE II, but I can't even play the AOE III demo because I have been there and done that, and I have been spoiled by TW. RTW is basically the same game as STW. I feel it needs to and will evolve to another level. The above is just my idea of that next level. I like to think C.A. is already working on a whole new style of TW it is their baby after all.

Personally I can't wait to see it grow up and grow out of the sand box.

[lar]

I too like to build an empire, I just think it would be more fun and immersive to role play a character and an army. Make more realistic decisions, like who will command a second or more army, e,g, My spies have informed me of two or more armies approaching my borders. As I realistically am in command of only one army, and cannot magically transport myself all over the game world to personally command every battle/skirmish. Do I give command to a general that has a high chance of success but may turn against me ? or do I give command to a trusted general but who has a lesser chance of success ?

As for being a pawn of some obscure out-of-game force. You would have to react to in-game events. e.g. The trusted commander has lost the battle and most of his army, now you and your personal army are up shit creek without a paddle, so to speak. Or the not so trusty general has won the battle and has now decided he wants to be king. Perhaps the game would begin with the player as the prince or consul etc. After proving ones worth you would be given more important tasks and ever increasing troops to accomplish those tasks, and when you think your strong enough you could cross the Rubicon. If you are a prince, maybe you would have to fight off those who would try to claim your rightful position of king when your old man kicks the bucket.

I would prefer to be making/giving the above decisions/commands, as opposed to what building do I need to build next.

Why not command a general to head North South or what ever and fight who ever/ gaurd/garrison a region or settlement ? Why not simply command a spy/ diplomat/princess etc to go and do what you want them to ? To me the current style of build ques micro-management and manual movement of all armies/agents and being a commander/governor of every army/settlement, combined with the god like view and total control of the game world, For me it is not only getting a tad old and repetitive, it also removes any randomness/surprises.

id love to see a game like that, but i doubt there heading that way. An RPG where your decisions affect your empire, or to-be-empire. fun :)

[Hochmeister]

Hi All,

Been a long time reader and would like to share a few thoughts.

Sorry if this has been covered but I checked most of the wishlist threads:

Bribing: I would like to see a return to the way you could bribe armies in MTW. It was great to have a few Muslim units mixed in with my Catholic Armies and seemed very unrealistic in RTW that they would all just disband into the fields unless they were in your unit roster I dont see this as a major change in programming as bribed units could be treated exactly like mercenaries in RTW which were upgradable but not retrainable. It adds variety and immersion.

Elite Units: As others have mentioned make them expensive and also take several years (errr turns?) to train. I think this would help with game balancing ie: longbows.

Fortify a Border: Just a thought but maybe include an option in your build queue to Fortify a North,East,West or Southern border?? Benefits on the strategic map would be more visibility and less rebels wandering through your territory. This should take a while and be expensive but could help with your strategy on which way you expand particularly for Nations that are surrounded. Maybe on the battle map it could be represented by pre prepared defensive positions, earthworks etc.