Ahhh the good old Wedge and Hold Formation of STW and MTW...Originally Posted by DensterNY
Re: Desired Features, old and new
Ahhh the good old Wedge and Hold Formation of STW and MTW...
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Re: Desired Features, old and new
vassals being able to say there coming to battle but end up not doing, and similar things.
like i remember i think in braveheart the movie, the english send in the irish first to fight the scots and they fake a charge and just as they get to each other they stop and are all friendly etc and join forces.
also i remember some other movie i think or game i dont remember, and this could be used so that you will no longer be a vassal since it would weaken the kingdom forcing u to be vassal.
i remember the two armies were fighting and the vassal was suppose to fight but instead just walk off from battle and leave them there.
so you could withdraw and just walk away from battle and your kingdom making you vassals army would lose morale since your walking away and there army would be defeated and the result could be the kingdom too weak to force you to be vassal anymore.
Re: Desired Features, old and new
also to add on to the withdrawing part, how about an organised withdrawal like how if neither side is going to win you withdraw your troops without fleeing and without having to exit the battle and just losing or it randomly solving.
that would be good especially if you took away the system of defender/attacker (except in siege situations etc), because when armys got into battle whoever thought they could get an advantage by attacking first would, and if both hold a good defensive position then someone isnt 'forced' to attack just because they moved their unit piece first, if neither have guts to move first you should be able to withdraw like that or move away to a different spot where you think you have an advantage and at the same time getting the enemy to move to a spot where theyll have a disadvantage, or to even tempt them to attack first if they think you moved in a bad spot. etc
Re: Desired Features, old and new
Oh, I had almost forgotten...
Re-add the old F1 screen. It was at times vital to battles, but mostly it was just a piece of very very nice info.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Re: Desired Features, old and new
I would really like the AI to do a better prejudgment of the outcome of a battle on the strateegy map when deciding whether to defend or withdraw. I am really tired of going into battle mode only to have the bloody enemy army run away. If they are going to do that then they should save me a few minutes and withdraw on the strategy map.
Re: Desired Features, old and new
I agree Furious. The best solution would be if the AI just didn't attack, or automatically withdrew on the Campaign Map if/when it was obvious they'd get slaughtered in battle.
The secondary correction would be to impose a rule that, if you agree to battle, but then withdraw, you automatically lose 25% of your forces (captured by the enemy). And honestly, if your attacking army is x% the size of the defender (maybe 10%-25%, so puny) then you lose the entire army (all captured). That way, if the AI can't be made smarter, at least that skirmishing band can only pull that silly stuff once.
If you fight the battle and take casualties, THEN retreat, no additional penalty should be applied.
Fac et Spera
Re: Desired Features, old and new
Allow titles of nobility to be given to princes - i.e., making your 2nd son Duke of York. The title would then become available to whomever else you choose if that prince becomes king.
Allow the ability to "create" nobles the way you can in RTW:BI. Maybe they should be a lesser title like Earl or Count.
Include pilgrimage trails and sites as a new feature. This would allow for more historical realism and atmosphere. If a king of a certain piety level builds a cathedral/grand mosque, there should be a certain % chance that the building will become a pilgrimage site (by housing a relic or something). The pilgrimage trail and site will bring in more money to that king's treasury because of the continuous influx of pilgrims, who boost the economy of the country the visit. It would also increase the population, leading to squalor, etc. The countries surrounding yours could also experience these effects as pilgrims transit them. A pilgrimage site could also boost your standing with the Pope. Some of these could be inherent if cathedrals are built in certain historical pilgrimage sites, like Santiago de Compostela and Canterbury.
Better ending. The presentation you got when you won (or lost) MTW was good. The picture looked like a period painting, you got some music, and a nice little speech about your kingdom. Not overwhelming, but decent. RTW - you hardly get anything. One little window with your leader marching into the Senate, or your barbarians standing at attention. Something closer to what happens in MTW, or more, would be good, plus an automatically generated faction chronology displaying your achievements.
Keep the family tree from Rome, but maybe merge it with the automatic faction chronology mentioned above to add more information and track accomplishments.
This has been mentioned elsewhere, but more prominence for your king on the campaign map and in his personal information screen, more like MTW and less like RTW.
Better simulation of feudalism than in MTW. I'm actually not sure how this would be done, but in the Middle Ages kings rarely had standing armies of their own. The game Crusader Kings reflects this pretty well. Maybe make your more powerful nobles even more likely to rebel. Or give them other options for exercising their independence - for example, a lower-loyalty Duke might withhold some of his troops from your use if your king is low-influence. Powerful nobles could almost be like other factions, where the number of troops and funds they provide from their province is based on a diplomatic negotiation or something.
On a similar note, allow other factions' kings to be vassals of other kings if they inherit a province, i.e., like how Henry II was a vassal to the king of France because he was Duke of Normandy (although, of course, Henry never acted like anyone else's vassal). This could be more fodder for inter-factional disputes and very frequently was during this time period.
It's probably too late for most of these things to be done, but maybe not some, like the ending or the running chronology.
An E:TW AAR on the American Revolution: The Long March of Liberty
Re: Desired Features, old and new
Rufus, I never got BI, so can you explain about how you can "create" nobles in BI?
Fac et Spera
Re: Desired Features, old and new
If you're short on family members to serve as governors, you can create a unit of Noble Cavalry or something (the name varies but I think all factions can do it) and the unit will be led by a named character who is a general, can serve as governor of a settlement but is not a family member (I think), so he can't inherit leadership of the faction. It's very expensive, requires about 3 turns to create the unit, and you can't do it till you have the most advanced cavalry stables, but it can come in handy sometimes, particularly when you have lots of family members around the same age and they all kick the bucket around the same time. Also, these generals usually appear with at least one star and a useful ancillary immediately.
An E:TW AAR on the American Revolution: The Long March of Liberty
Re: Desired Features, old and new
I don't know if this has been posted before... Currently when changing a unit formations direction, they turn as a whole. This is very annoying, as you lose time. But if every single soldier of that unit would turn turn only 180 degrees once, the whole unit would have changed it's direction in a much shorter time. This would be very handy, when you are beeing outflanked by enemy cavalry for example. I desire this feature if possible.
Re: Desired Features, old and new
Yep, just like units turn and expose flanks should you order them to move sideways. MTW introduced this foolish behaviour, good old Shogun units would simply shuffle to right or left while maintaining facing. I wish they would reintroduce that
.......Orda
Re: Desired Features, old and new
Multi-tiered titles: the ability to grant a higher title to a character with a lower title and have it replace the lower title, e.g. a Duke title replacing a Lord title. This is in addition to complementary titles like Warden of the Cinque Ports, Lord Chancellor, etc.
Also, the ability to grant titles to your heirs. It always aggrevated me in MTW that your often most-capable characters couldn't run provinces. When a king died and the previous heirs became regular lords, that was always a great day. :)
Re: Desired Features, old and new
Mhm...
Re: Desired Features, old and new
determine the amount of men to be trained in a unit and make it adjust the time to make them accordingly.
Re: Desired Features, old and new
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.
Re: Desired Features, old and new
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.
Re: Desired Features, old and new
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.
"The facts of history cannot be purely objective, since they become facts of history only in virtue of the significance attached to them by the historian." E.H. Carr
Re: Desired Features, old and new
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.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Re: Desired Features, old and new
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.
Re: Desired Features, old and new
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 :)
Re: Desired Features, old and new
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 rosterI 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.
Re: Desired Features, old and new
One feature that added so much to the medieval atmosphere of the campaign in MTW was the ability to grant titles to favored generals. I hope that feature returns, possibly even expanded and improved, in Medieval 2.
I also enjoyed the virtues and vices and hope they are in the new game as well.
Re: Desired Features, old and new
Maybe eyecandy and not very important, but on the battelfield, some tents behind the attacked army would add some atmosphere. The same during a seige. Some tents and carts etc. would be nice. I think there were tents in MTW but not in RTW.
Re: Desired Features, old and new
There aren't any tents in MTW, only some buildings like farmhouses or churches
Re: Desired Features, old and new
Heres some ideas of mine to make the next Total War game more realistic:
1.The alliances in Total War games have been pretty pointless so far. Perhaps if two factions are allied, then if one is attacked, it should be able to ask for help, if the ally is nearby enough to arrive at the battle. If the ally refuses to do so, then that faction should lose 'honour points'. This 'honour points' system would mean that if a faction broke alliances, or refused to help allies, then that faction would lose 'honour points'. Then other factions would be more reluctant to work with that faction in future. Also, when a faction of a different religion proposes a deal with another faction, then the proposing faction should be treated like it has a set lower number of 'honour points'. For example, if Britain proposed an alliance with the Almohads, and Britain had 100 'honour points', it should be treated by the Almohads like it has 60 'honour points'. A country with low 'honour points' should have them partially restored whenever they get a new King.
2. If a nation is much stronger than another, then it should be able to give the other nation the option of being a Vassal, or it will be attacked. Vassal states would basically be the same as a standard faction, but they would have to pay taxes to their master nation, and either aid them in battle themselves, or hand over control of their armies during war. Also, if a General or Prince is about to revolt, then the nation should be allowed to offer them vassalage, to prevent conflict. This would then set up a new faction. Also, nations should have the option of granting their vassal states independance at any time, or demand to take total control of them, which the vassal state can either agree to or declare war with its master nation.
3. If a faction is defeated, a screen should come up with the conquering nation and any factions with royal families in some way related to those of the defeated faction. These factions would then negotiate over the defeated faction's land, using money, threats, or jsut plain negotiations. The conquering nation should be allowed to take total control of the land, but those with a claim through marriage or relations etc., should only be allowed to command regions as vassals, so new factions named after their region would be created for these vassal states. I think it would be realistic as well as quite cool to have new factions springing up every came, and not just like the ones you can predict in RTW:BI. This would add a whole new depth to the game and make campaings much less repetetive.
Last edited by RTW King; 03-25-2006 at 14:17.
Join the AMC. Down with rappers!
Re: Desired Features, old and new
Yes you're right, but only partly. There were tents in a historical battle, I'm quite sure.
By the way, I like the idea with the honor points!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks