patch wishlist

[R'as al Ghul]

Three small minor things:
1. I'd like to have the savegame name default back. Whenever I save in Medieval 1 the older game gives a default like "Venice - 1154".
2. Where are the birds?
In Medieval 1 you had flocks of crows circling above the field. Why aren't they in Med2? I was actually looking forward to see them in improved graphics.
3. In sieges, probably mentioned before, when the AI manages to make a breach, all his units, even those on ladders and towers, climb back down and try to make it through the breach. Often that's not a good decision.

R'as

[Barry Fitzgerald]

As of now..I just wish there was a patch...nailing the AI would at least make the game playable...

I am so tempted to just unistall it and put MTW on or even RTW...least you could play at that.

Very little challenge so far...this patch is taking too long. Suggests some serious issues are present and taking time to correct

[Frantz]

the AI makes an excellent us of ladders ... so more more ladders and less rams ( one is enough ...the others are usually unused ) AND the AI should garrison more his castles .
just a bit less missiles for everyone ....

and of course the AI doing something during battles ...

[Whacker]

A cool little idea that I had regarding diplomats.

- Give us the ability to "sacrifice" a diplomat near another faction's city to create a permanent "embassy" in that city to that faction. For example, I just build a single diplomat, then traipse him off to another faction's capital. When he's near the capital, I can click on him and select "create embassy". He then disappears (as well as upkeep), and you now have the ability to enter dialog at any time with the other faction through your interface somehow. Diplomats would still be useful for direct work on the campaign map, but being able to talk to another faction without having a diplomat close would be great, such as to make an alliance before you attack, bribe them, etc. Perhaps if you or someone else captures the city that you created the embassy at, then that ability disappears. I kinda dislike this though, I'd prefer for it to stay open somehow. Also now that I think about it, the embassy as a building itself on the build screen isn't a good idea, more as just an abstract idea.

[Bijo]

I've seen many suggestions I'd make myself. Here's some of my own :)

General Camera

What I don't like is the fact that the General Camera view is poorly done. For instance when going through a forest with your general in the back of the army as I lower the view a bit to see in front of me, those banners/flags/etcetera are in the way.
One could argue that's okay and that's just how it is or should be, but it's annoying to play the game like that. I always prefer the General Camera view because it makes it more personal and more difficult. Having those flags and such in the way MAKES it more difficult, but in a bad way. In RTW these banners could be seen through or disappeared when close enough.

Another thing about this General Camera....
After the speech before a battle you choose to deploy and you can take care of the initial positions of your troops. I zoom out for an overview and see if my units are placed the way I want them to be placed. But when I choose to start the battle the view doesn't go back to the General Camera, but it stays the way I had it during deployment. This means I need to go into the menu every time to choose the General Camera again. ANNOYING!


Optimization

Sometimes the thing just lags. I don't have the best computer (it's mediocre at best) but I've made sure I've tuned the settings so the performance is as high as possible. But even then there are times the game just lags annoyingly.
For instance in one battle I had one small army facing a same-sized enemy army and another small allied AI reinforcements army coming into their flanks. I played as Spain by the way, and the thing just lagged every few seconds.
With bigger battles playing other factions I never had this problem.


Diplomacy

I like the idea presented by Whacker. Maybe limit these embassies to only one per faction, and only to their capital. Or just as many as you want.

[Mr Frost]

A cool little idea that I had regarding diplomats.

- Give us the ability to "sacrifice" a diplomat near another faction's city to create a permanent "embassy" in that city to that faction. For example, I just build a single diplomat, then traipse him off to another faction's capital. When he's near the capital, I can click on him and select "create embassy". He then disappears (as well as upkeep), and you now have the ability to enter dialog at any time with the other faction through your interface somehow. Diplomats would still be useful for direct work on the campaign map, but being able to talk to another faction without having a diplomat close would be great, such as to make an alliance before you attack, bribe them, etc. Perhaps if you or someone else captures the city that you created the embassy at, then that ability disappears. I kinda dislike this though, I'd prefer for it to stay open somehow. Also now that I think about it, the embassy as a building itself on the build screen isn't a good idea, more as just an abstract idea.

Interesting idea , but to be realistic , it would have to have an upkeep cost (the diplomat will still want to be paid} .
It would also need to be an available target for sabotage and destruction by the faction that owns that city {just like today , a host nation/faction should be able to eject an embassy} ie : a building .
It would have to require the Faction owning the city targeted to give permission for it to be created .
An act of war by you or the host faction would have a high probability of the Host Faction choosing to eject your embassy from their city , and that would give you then a fresh new diplomat outside their city {perhaps with some traits and ancillaries related to say , the dialogues and results thereof over the last 10 turns ?}
The Embassy would still need its' own Diplomat type traits and ancillaries {at first based on those of the founding diplomat , but later changing as he dies and others replace him behind the scenes} .


On a related note , it would be nice if armies could have an option to attack foreign agents , but I imagine the A.I. isn't mature enough yet to manage the complexities that would surround that {would either kill everything in sight starting wars etc or ignore them when it shouldn't} .
It would be more realistic ; how long would an imam really have lasted openly preaching in Il de France in 1250 or a Catholic bishop in Egypt in 1100 ? The local lords would simply have chopped their heads off or physically thrown them out of the country if they were lucky !

[Hotspur]

Is there a secondary weapon bug with missile troops? They seem to be able to chop my melee troops up with ease - particularly on city walls. Billman vs Crossbowmen should be 1 nil to the billmen not 3 nil to the crossbowmen.

[Kraxis]

Is there a secondary weapon bug with missile troops? They seem to be able to chop my melee troops up with ease - particularly on city walls. Billman vs Crossbowmen should be 1 nil to the billmen not 3 nil to the crossbowmen.

Well, their stats are actually pretty even, unless you speak of Peasant or Militia crossbows.
However my test in Custom Battle even had the Billmen get off a nice charge while my crossbows didn't. Nearly 20 of my men died in the charge, but afterwards they more than made up for it, and lost just about 40 in all, while the Billmen lost almost 70 of their 90.