General Sun's Tent Editorial Next Issue "What I like to see in the Next Game"

[Drake]

Comrade Alexeo gets my vote. How about all the nay sayers actually wait to play the game before running their hates. I'll crack up if you play it and actually love it.

[PROMETHEUS]

14.Subdivisions of provinces

Roman era or Medieval one this could apply the same ....

We need to have one big city : the capital of province and admoinistrative center of it , and also sub regions that you need to conquer to have full control of the region , their numbers could vary according to the importance of the region and its population so they can be smaller centers or smaller castles to give so the feeling of a more vivid and populated zone .... of course every add on by merchants , roads , trade , resources etc are jusr province based and not region based , the region based system will count only to provide a substrate to conquert he province and if an enemy occupies the regions the trade and incomes get decreased etc ....

[lars573]

1.Real time campagins at most aren't crap. EAW wasn't a drag but it only had 30 territories. With 100 plus like TW it would drag. The 600 in Crusader kings really drags.

2.This reeks of way to hard to ballance to make anyone happy. Plus with the TW constraint of using units that are at most a thrid of what they would have been in a real army it features means that this would simly mean you don't train a unit but rather rent it. Bad idea, until TW Napoleon invades Russia with the 500,000 men the real Napoleon did.

3.In RTW campagin.

4.The great wall of China was until the 15th century a metaphorical wall rather than a physical one. The Mings built actual wall sections you see outside Beijing, and only outside Beijing. The rest of the wall was watch towers, forts, and fortified towns. All of which are in TW right now.

5. Bad idea given AI limitations.

6.I dislike any notion of making TW any more martial-centric than it is now.

7.A)Emperor's did concern themselfs with buildings in a city. Generals too. Bulding stay
B)TW isn't a wargame, it's a strategy game which means you need to build buildings to trian units. This should never be removed.
C)Your asking to remove the micromangament of a city and replace it with the micromanging of governors.

8.=higher system requirements

9.Nothing wrong with the lighting

10.Battle speed is fine where it is. It should not be reduced much more than it is in M2TW. Or will be back to the crappfest that STW/MTW battles were.

11.Everything CA has said about naval tells me they fear it turnng into another throne room. A bug ridden coding nightmare.

12.Rivers through cities might work but this means more HDD space for city bits.

13.Already in all TW games. WTF do you think upkeep is? However if your armies and navy started to rebel/disert if you went into the red it might be better.

14.This would require you too reduce provinces even more. So that the none hardcore TW player will actually finish a campagin. Or make it so that all sub regions surrender if the capital is taken.

[Faenaris]

While I like the idea of attrition and various other ideas (especially the "your army dies, it is practically over" situation), I am absolutely against making TW not turn-based. I really hate real-time campaigns since it happens too fast and even if there is a "snail" speed mode, I still use the pause button to give others and then fast forward the time.

The mix turn-based campaign/rts battles is the very feature that made me a loyal fan of the series. The moment that system goes full real-time would be a sad day for me.

[ProudNerd]

While I like the idea of attrition and various other ideas (especially the "your army dies, it is practically over" situation), I am absolutely against making TW not turn-based. I really hate real-time campaigns since it happens too fast and even if there is a "snail" speed mode, I still use the pause button to give others and then fast forward the time.

The mix turn-based campaign/rts battles is the very feature that made me a loyal fan of the series. The moment that system goes full real-time would be a sad day for me.

I agree. I muse over turns for up to ten minutes sometimes, especially when you have a huge empire and you need to check everything out. tactical parts of a game (IE battles) are perfect for real time but grand strategy is not. I don’t like to be rushed, which is why I rarely play things like command and conquer.

[shifty157]

Just because MTW2 looks like a really enjoyable doesnt change the fact that General_Sun is completely right on many points.

That said however CA is taking some (very tentative and cautious) steps in the right direction. The new recruitment pools system sounds like itll change gameplay up quite a bit. The castle/city system while not to my tastes is also an effort to change up the gameplay and i respect it for that fact alone. Without going into a whole long list there are some very nice changes CA has made for MTW2.

That said however CA in my opinion is being a bit overly cautious and could do alot more about adding new features and such.

[Aracnid]

This has been mentioned before but the more different you make a sequel it the bigger the gamble it is. The Total War series is a sucess, the size of the forum proves that. I have no idea how much CA have spent making this game but I am sure that it is a lot of money. When games were designed at home by three of four guys people could afford to take risks, if CA or any of the big games companies spends £10 million and makes a flop that nobody apart from a small core of dedicated gamers buy, then they are in serious trouble.
What I trying to say is it is a lot easier to gamble with £10,000 than with £10,000,000.

[TheImp]

While I like the idea of attrition and various other ideas (especially the "your army dies, it is practically over" situation), I am absolutely against making TW not turn-based. I really hate real-time campaigns since it happens too fast and even if there is a "snail" speed mode, I still use the pause button to give others and then fast forward the time.

The mix turn-based campaign/rts battles is the very feature that made me a loyal fan of the series. The moment that system goes full real-time would be a sad day for me.

The same here. Absolutely against it too. I'm kind of slow in finding and deploying strategies so i don't want a campaign setting being essentially based on the number of times u can click on your mouse buttons a second.

As for waypoints, they are already in and work fine in the demo.

Still, there are some interesting ideas developped by the OP.

[LadyAnn]

4.The great wall of China was until the 15th century a metaphorical wall rather than a physical one. The Mings built actual wall sections you see outside Beijing, and only outside Beijing. The rest of the wall was watch towers, forts, and fortified towns. All of which are in TW right now.

Hmmm? *Raises eyebrow*

Anniep

[lars573]

Hmmm? *Raises eyebrow*

Anniep

Yep a physical wall all along the border or Inner Mongolia is a myth. All be it one perpetuated for tourism.

[LadyAnn]

Yep a physical wall all along the border or Inner Mongolia is a myth. All be it one perpetuated for tourism.

Revisionist, eh?

Anniep

[Tempiic]

I'd say you might be more happier playing EU / HOI than TW perhaps. Or rather having TW look more like these games.

Don't think thats possible though. Too different game engine / approach / setup in use in either game.

[Mount Suribachi]

13.Already in all TW games. WTF do you think upkeep is? However if your armies and navy started to rebel/disert if you went into the red it might be better.

Please don't swear at me. Upkeep and Supply are not the same thing. One is a fixed cost in the game that you always have to pay no matter what. This is meant to restrict you from spamming unlimited armies by forcing you to pay out a cost that is meant to simulate wages, food, drink etc etc. And you always have to pay it, even if your army is trapped on the other side of the world, you still pay their upkeep.

Whereas in reality you would have to send their pay, food, drink, weapons, ammo, etc etc by sea and land to them. Where they would be subject to piracy, theft, breakage, spoilage, interception, blockades etc etc. The further an army is from its bases, the harder and more expensive it is to supply. And when an army is lacking in supplies it loses men to disease, death, desertion etc. Without supplies it cannot manuevre or fight as effectively. Maintaining your supply chain was of critical importance in all the time periods covered in the TW series.

Its like the old truism about "amateurs talk tactics, proffesionals talk logistics". Alexander the Great understood this. Tinned food came about after Napoleon sponsored a competition for someone to design non-perishable food for him to take on campaign. If supply (as opposed to upkeep) was not a factor in warfare, Napoleon could have marched all the way across Russia and Patton & Montgomery could have driven all the way to Berlin in August 1944.

[lars573]

Please don't swear at me. Upkeep and Supply are not the same thing. One is a fixed cost in the game that you always have to pay no matter what. This is meant to restrict you from spamming unlimited armies by forcing you to pay out a cost that is meant to simulate wages, food, drink etc etc. And you always have to pay it, even if your army is trapped on the other side of the world, you still pay their upkeep.

Whereas in reality you would have to send their pay, food, drink, weapons, ammo, etc etc by sea and land to them. Where they would be subject to piracy, theft, breakage, spoilage, interception, blockades etc etc. The further an army is from its bases, the harder and more expensive it is to supply. And when an army is lacking in supplies it loses men to disease, death, desertion etc. Without supplies it cannot manuevre or fight as effectively. Maintaining your supply chain was of critical importance in all the time periods covered in the TW series.

Its like the old truism about "amateurs talk tactics, proffesionals talk logistics". Alexander the Great understood this. Tinned food came about after Napoleon sponsored a competition for someone to design non-perishable food for him to take on campaign. If supply (as opposed to upkeep) was not a factor in warfare, Napoleon could have marched all the way across Russia and Patton & Montgomery could have driven all the way to Berlin in August 1944.

Yes they are, in TW. Supply doesn't enter into it. Your example is from WW2. Where ammo, weapons, food, water, parts, feul, and replacements had to shipped from home to the units in the field. Napoleon had to ship ammo/powder, weapons, some food, and replacements to his armies in the field. All Alexander had to ship was replacements to and orders from himself in the feild. Your supply idea has no place in TW until they go beyond the 17th century. When armies stopped foraging for everything they needed on campagin. Or make and asian TW. The Chinese armies carried tofu and rice rations with them on campagin.