patch wishlist

[Kraxis]

I can sympathise with you/those that do need it. I really can... But when it is an obvious benefit for only one side (the player), I don't want it crammed down my throat. And that is sadly the case right now. I can't avoid it.

[Whacker]

I can sympathise with you/those that do need it. I really can... But when it is an obvious benefit for only one side (the player), I don't want it crammed down my throat. And that is sadly the case right now. I can't avoid it.

Fair points all. In the spirit of respect for differences and to create a win-win situation for all sides, the best solution is.... make it modable.

And for that matter, I would like to put forth a suggestion that's been in mind mind for a long time, years now, and I'm sure other orgahs and probably even CA have thought about this, as they almost seem to be going in this direction. I think CA should make their engine much more generic, almost akin to ID's Quake engines. The executable would be basically a front-end that handles the mechanics of talking to the PC hardware and OS, etc, and makes use of pluggable dlls and files to handle content and game mechanics. Thus, it's possible to have extremely wide varieties of gameplay and whatnaught through the use of the same executable, as a glance at the Quake series will show. My apologies if I'm not using the exact right software terms here, it's been a long time since my programming days. The idea is sound though, and I think it'd add quite a bit of leeway and flexibility in terms of what modders and the community in general can do with the game. I do think that CA is somewhat heading in this direction already, from what the honorable-yet-not-around Epistolary Richard reported from his Brisbane visits, there are a larger number of configs and scripts that we can muck with to mess with game mechanics, a big step up from the RTW days. One could also argue this is a step up from MTW as well, even though in the MTW to RTW shift we lost the ability to change a hefty number of variables. If CA truly wants to great a game that has a good core, and also has truly vast possibilities for community involvement and addons, this is the route to go imo. (and open source your tools, dangit!)

Cheers!

[sapi]

A small thing, but i'd like to stop agents moving into towns when getting out of the way for other agents - it's a pain when the town comes under siege that turn and you can't get them out.

[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.

[JFC]

Create the 'Choose Order of New Units' like in MTW when you have a battle with a full stack and have reserves.

[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.

[Aelwyn]

Has anything been said by CA about toning down the Inquisitors yet? They have not failed once, and just executed my King.

Its getting very annoying, as assassinating them is next to impossible. I don't have enough troops or patience to encircle them either.

[Mazoch]

Seeing a lot of the same issues already raised:

- Units have a VERY though time holding and getting in formation.
This tends to lead to battles often being more of random mobs running around than formations of soldiers.

- Units seem to react very slowly to orders.
It seems (at least much of the time) that a unit often hesitates for quite a while before reacting to an order. This, combined with the high movement rate of a unit in full speed often makes it very hard to react to an approaching unit in an organized fashion. It seem like it takes units longer to take the first couple of steps than it takes a unit already moving to cover fairly large distances.

- Cavalry charges
Been brought up quite a few times already, it tend to be very hard to get cavalry to effectively charge. It seems that in order to charge a hostile unit they not only have to be in near perfect formation (something that tends to be difficult, see above). But they also insists on 'walking' most of the distance to their target, then slowly start accelerating.. If the unit hasn’t moved during all this, then you got a charge. In reality it very rarely seems to work like that. I would prefer to see the cavalry get at least a decent attack bonus if they engage a unit while moving at run speed when colliding with the unit. The full bonus could still be reserved for the 'perfect charge' system, but right now I just don’t have the time in the heat of the battle to wait for the knights to get their act together.. by the time the do the fight the unit they are trying to charge has usually already won or lost.

- Path finding in cities
The path finding in cities really doesn’t seem to work very well. I find that it's generally very difficult to get your unit to go where you want them to with one or two single commands. Instead I find myself having to micro manage them through the streets. For example I often find myself having to send multiple units up a narrow street. The front unit will be slow to start moving, this leads the second unit to consider the path blocked and instead it'll often start moving the opposite direction (presumably to find an alternate route by going though have the city..) all I want is for several units to walk down the street.

- Hibernating AI
Often the enemy AI seems to go into some kind of hibernation and simply just stand there. This issue has been brought up a lot in regards to using missile units to slaughter the AI without the AI charging. But the AI also tends to ignore obvious things like several units riding around their army to take position behind their army.

- Stagnant siege combat
Sometimes you get stuck in a situation where the AI is unable or just unwilling to try to attack in a siege battle, unless you are using the battle timer there is no way of really fighting the battle short of a suicidal frontal attack out of the gates. If the UI is unwilling to assault the walls, it should withdraw.

- Crusades
It's much to easy to loose units when moving across the map. Unless you’re able to take something close to a bird flights route to your destination you will loose units. This often makes little sense. A typical example is sailing around Spain. I've also lost several units trying to cross from northern France to the Mediterranean to get on a ship, natural features, blocking units and other terrain often makes it very hard to not kick off the 'moving in the wrong direction' penalty.

Agents:
- Too much micro management
Currently I feel it takes way to much time to manage your agents. Too much time is spent getting them from A to B. I would suggest two changes to agents in general:
1) Drastically increase their movement rate (I would suggest double or triple movement rate). They are not an army trying to cross the land, but rather a few individuals. They should be able to move much much faster than a full sized army. In addition, the game play challenge of agents should not be in getting them to their destination. That’s relevant for armies on a campaign but the game play of diplomats should be centered on negotiations with other factions. not spending two decades getting across the map.
2) Allow agents to move through units blocking their path. I can understand the potential tactical element in being able to block agents at chokepoints but the negative impact on the flow of the game play far outweigh this. All it general accomplishes is that you have to spend more time micro managing the agents to get around random obstacles.

Assassins
Personally I'd prefer to see assassins do better against other agents and worse against generals. Killing off merchants, spy’s and generally unwanted, undefended individuals should be heir specialty, not infiltrating a heavily defended camp or castle to kill the leader of an army. Currently the opposite seems to be the case. Assassins generally fair better against generals than against other agents.

Spies
Enemy spy’s that has been revealed on the map should be all but doomed. They are spies; their strength should be to avoid being seen. Once seen they should be easy pickings for other spies, assassins or even army units

Priests
I would LOVE to be able to denounce the priests of other religions if they are in my territory. After all a Muslim Imam IS a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The way I would prefer to have it work is that in a territory owned by a faction of your religion, priests of your religion can attempt to denounce priests of other religions in the same way you can denounce heretic units.

Inquisition
This is a point that’s been brought up a lot. I'd like to see the option to disallow inquisitorial trials in your territory at the cost a drop in your favor with the pope. For example, if the inquisitor shows up and wants to try to put your general on trial you'll have the option of a) Deny the trial. This would prevent the inquisitor from performing the trial but cost you a lot of favor with the pope, potentially leading to excommunication. b) Allow the trial, potentially loosing your general, possibly getting a small boost of pope favor for not getting in the way of the popes blood hounds. This would also have the side effect of kingdoms being excommunicated being able to simply tell the inquisition to buzz off.. Why would a faction that has already been excommunicated allow the popes inquisitors to burn them at the stake at will?

[IrishArmenian]

Please, more turns! I cannot stand it when I have 20 provinces when I have about 125 turns left. I feel rushed. Could you release a patch to make it two turns per year? (I know about modding it, but my incursion into modding R:TW made the game unplayable)

[kublikhan3]

I would like to see a customizable difficulty level. Even if it's only a half-dozen or less options exposed in a UI that would be a good start.

[Trithemius]

I would like to see a global count added to the swordsman recruitment event that is used to determine the chance of obtaining a Swordsmith Guild.

I would also like to see the Turks have some more units that count towards this event. I think that most primary melee troops should count (so knights, non missile cavalry, spears, bill/halberd/voluge infantry, and swordsmen). As it stands the Turks cannot obtain one of the guilds without some serious armoury construction efforts.

[Kraxis]

I would like if pavises doesn't count in melee... Currently they do, making pavises crossbowmen terribly powerful in melee as well as in ranged fights.

[Bijo]

More in-game text would be nice. Like when you right-click a unit in your recruitment tab. I always liked reading the longer texts they put there in RTW.

The option to assassinate your family members. Ain't I cruel? XD

Option to "disband" agents like with army units. I don't know exactly, but I couldn't do this with one of my assassins whom I didn't use anyway. I'd gotten short on money so I had to economize here and there.

- Units seem to react very slowly to orders.

I actually like this (but not all the way).
I'd think that the commander gives the order, who gives it to the commander of the unit somehow and then they react. Whatever the case, I bet it'd be difficult on a battlefield to order issues and have them carried out exactly and perfectly fast the way you'd want them to.
When the battle hasn't started yet and things are more organized following orders must be quicker and more effective. But the more distance or disorganization there is on the field (due to battle conditions and whatever else following orders should be slower and such. Just imagine your general being at one side fighting off infantry and another unit all the way on the other side fighting off cavalry or infantry. I think it'd be very difficult for them to respond quickly.

[playboytaxi]

Why is not posible to build more then one Castle or city i each provice? Lets say in Constantinople province can be also castle of Edrine (Adrianopol). Or we need more provinces then.

And hey where is Bulgaria?
This province Sofia(today Bulgarian capital) have noting to do with the old Bulgarian capital Preslav which is more East .The name of Sofia in 900 was Sredets.

[Kraxis]

I wish for cavalry not to be so powerful... I wish that Khazaks can't defeat JHI and Dismounted Gothic Knights by charging them.... Or dedicated anti-cavalry units such as Armoured Spearmen. They are after all the weakest sort of cavalry there is. Yet it is farily easy to do this in custom battle.

[Bijo]

Overview
When my lands spread far out as I conquer more and more, I start using the Overview screen, and then the Settlements tab. I click on this Settlements tab which will be on the left, and then I check this scroll and right-click a settlements to check it out as this information comes on the right side.
Now, I always have Show Settlement Details on, so when I right-click a settlement (in that list) these details appear on the left on top of the Overview scroll. No: not on top; it just takes away the Overview scroll. This means if I want to continue checking the Overview I've got to again press 'O' to get there, and this is going on all the time.
So what I'd like is to be able to press Escape and then I'd go back to the previous Settlement Overview scroll, just like I can press Escape after right-clicking a building/unit as this information appeared on TOP of the Settlement Details then going back. Same with Trade Details; these also just go back to the Settlement Details scroll.
If this is not fixed/done, it'll take more time to effectively and quickly manage an empire's settlements.

Retinue
I think it's been said already, but the ability to exchange retinues between characters (generals, spies, assassins, princesses, and so forth). Maybe these retinues' ages should be shown and their deaths too so you can't use them infinitely.

Optimization
I said it already, but I'll say it again. OPTIMIZATION of the whole shebang. In this day and age companies, programmers, and the likes, should be able to produce good code, if not very good or perfect. It's as if they all become less and less skilled (or they don't care that much) and rely on available new hardware too much or something like that.
But I respect CA still for being able to pull off a game like this, for its big size and all that comes with it. It's pretty difficult, and they haven't done a bad job, but not a terribly good one either.
For instance, there are many times the game starts lagging in sieges. This especially happens when I have shadows on, even if in non-siege battles it works smoothly. It's not the ladder thing or whatever. It already starts when the screen is paused, nothing's moving, and I'm deploying my troops.

With the optimization goes the Auto-Detect. This must be fixed because as it is now it's almost useless. Sure, we know it's difficult to take into account all the possible existing hardware on PCs but still. CA can pull off so much, why not this? Maybe I want too much perfection :P

Army control, Shift + #
I really hardly use the Shift + # because I don't really need it. When I play I almost micro-manage my units (and use grouping a lot) instead of using this overall way to organize them. But when I DO use the Shift + # I hardly ever works efficiently. Maybe it's because I don't know how to use it, but when I select a group of infantrymen and a group of archer/crossbowmen and want to have the infantry in front and the missiles behind, shouldn't they move close to each other in neat rows? Well, they DON'T. And not just that, as they don't do it efficiently, they don't face the enemy army in a proper way, so I need to order that separately too. Arrrgh.

Moving sideways
I haven't seen an option to move your entire army to the left or to the right totally horizontally and just that, but if it's there somebody please tell me. Sometimes my army is facing the opposing army wrongly. For instance: our infantry lines would not clash rightly but one unit might flank their line and one of theirs could flank mine. It's not always a problem, but the option to move sideways would be GREAT :)

[dopp]

I would like if pavises doesn't count in melee... Currently they do, making pavises crossbowmen terribly powerful in melee as well as in ranged fights.

If the armor system was working properly they'd have separate values vs ranged and melee...

Would like diplomats stationed in a region to improve relations between the owning faction and the diplomat's, based on the skill of the diplomat. A sort of conversion effect to counter the strange deterioration of relations on VH in place of constantly giving away freebies to the computer to keep it happy.

Would like "empire bloat" eliminated from the game. The game starts handing out bad traits like new toys at Christmas once your treasury hits 50k.

Would like cavalry to be a bit more resilient, particularly against archery. Right now peasant archers rip through advanced plate. The loss of the shield is particularly unbalancing.

I want gunpowder and pikes as Byz. I remember using arquebusiers in MTW as Byz but they were hopeless (I modded them a bit). Now they are good but Byz don't get them... what a way to go.

Would like movement speed in friendly territory to be increased somewhat so that it doesn't take me 3 turns to march reinforcements from one city to the next.

Would like princesses to be able to seal alliances by marrying lesser lords instead of only the crown prince. Would like marrying a lesser lord to seal an alliance rather than switch him over to your side and get your neighbor upset with you for trespassing. Would like a panel to pop up listing available foreign suitors for each unmarried princess that you can use to initiate diplomacy and negotiate for her marriage, or some way of telling who's available other than walking over to check. The way it is now your princesses wander all over the map hoping against hope that someone actually wants to marry them in the next city they visit, then spend the rest of their lives with their newfound husbands trying to flee the country.

Would like the princesses to have a CharmStarter trait that gives them 3 base charm so they don't always give bad traits when married off.

[Kraxis]

If the armor system was working properly they'd have separate values vs ranged and melee...

Yes, the special _ex line that can't be used. That would be able to do that. But if you fight regular Crossbowmen and Pavises you will notice a difference in their capability in melee. That shouldn't really happen.

At best the pavise should protect the back, but it seems it protects the front in melee.

[dopp]

Maybe they cower on the ground until the knight gets tired of banging on their shield, then jump up and finish him off.

[Slicendice]

Princesses born with no charm and difficult to make more charm. They've had 16 years to become charming now I need them to do the work of the crown!

Only been able to marry the first princess and only been able to marry 1 princess from another faction for a total of 2 marriages at once. I've got a lot of princesses and I'd like to be able to use them. Is there a limit on marriages?

Inquisitors are a great new feature and I don't think they should be nerfed. But I think you should only be attacked by them if you have low Christianity rates in a province or are excommunicated. There should be a reason for them to come other than random slaughter. Otherwise I need a way to boost the piety of my generals to protect them. (Anyone know if putting a spy or priest in with my armies will protect them from Inquisitioner?)

I need to be able to pick my heir. I can't do that now and some adoptee or some Dutch general takes my thrown.

Billman don't stand well against calvalry. That's not how I remember them last time.

I can't place troops in front of my gates in a full U shape. I can only put them on the right and directly in front. The left side is impossible to put anything there.

Some cities don't give free support to militia units or don't get the full amount according to Wall type. (too many to mention here)

Merchants are not a significant feature of the game and that's unfortunate. Could you make it so that you need a merchant on a resource, ie. iron, tin, sulfur etc. in order to produce certain units? Make it so your friends and trading partners sell you these things but any faction that is warring against you doesn't. Which means you need a merchant in their territory on their resource so you can make those units. You could even be selective in what you sell another faction. This way it's worth it to cultivate and nurture merchants until they become strong. Even when I was getting 150 to 260 florens for controlling the amber in Russia and Poland my trade from merchants was dwarfed by my total trade.

Acquisitions of merchants should give a reward equivalent to the value and skill of the merchant being seized. Right now I only get 500 Florens for any merchant bought out. What is this Socialism? This alone could boost the power and love of merchants.

No option to ransom, release, or execute captured rebel prisoners. This seems like a good opportunity to boost the dread or chivalry of my patrols.

When taking a city and the battle ends with all enemy routing they should automatically become prisoners. Where they gonna go?

Missile troops shoot all crazy.

Troops don't engage or run all crazy.

Cavalry won't smash into the enemy sometimes and when chasing routers they run all crazy.

Path finding on walls and in cities is all crazy.

I can't transfer ancillaries to my generals.

Definitely would like a "get off my land" feature.

I think the Pope should stop warring Christian faction whenever they fight and regardless of who started it. (like it is right now) This means when you attack a faction you better make it quick and make it count. Plus the Pope orders both factions to stop. So I like it when the enemy attacks anyway and gets excommunicated. Then I can do a quick Crusade on their arses.

Could we armor up our mercenaries and give them any experience bonus' to be had in a castle?

If we are going to get in trouble for crossing our neighbors property then pathfinding for troops and characters should be more careful not to enter that territory.

I get the impression that having spies and assassins in neighbors territory ruins my reputation even if they aren't infiltrating. I dont' think having those units in enemy lands should get you in trouble even if they bump into someone or are seen by their spies or watchtowers. I should only be penalized by infiltration into cities and characters and only when I get caught.

My reputation is dubious but I've never been caught with my spies and assassins and never broken an alliance. I should be golden by now. What's up with that?

My assassins should be able to kill inept diplomats and merchants and even princesses. I don't want to pay 100 florens until some inept diplomat dies. Right now I have to put them all on a ship with 1 boat in the fleet and go attack the rebels.

[Bijo]

About diplomacy:
The suggested "Get off my land" option mentioned several times sounds great to me. They should REALLY add this. Should've done it as a standard option long ago anyway.

But I have more about this thing. There's this option where you can 'declare a cancellation of Trade Rights' or to 'declare a cancellation of an Alliance'. But it'd be good to see them used in more ways. For instance if you can THREATEN to break an alliance or to cancel trade rights.
What if a faction is your ally and supposedly depending on your military power to assist them? You want something, they want something: demand something and threaten to break the alliance and with that your military assistance.

Same thing for economically weak factions or factions depending on trade (as they all do of course): if there is much trade between yours and theirs true your ports and/or roads you can threaten to cancel the trade.

Example:
You and a faction are neutral and engaging in trade rights, but you're planning to conquer them sooner or later. But to avoid war for some time you'll prepare to weaken them by canceling your trade rights. You do this because maybe you have enough trading connections established anyway or whatever, making lots of money each turn, and you could deal well with it as they'd actually lose a big chunk of their income. Just imagine the possibilities.
Even more! What about pressuring OTHER factions to cancel trade rights with your neutral but soon-to-be foes? When I think of it...... oooooo
Of course when you would force or convince other factions to cancel trade rights or even alliances with them, your relations might worsen with one and improve with the other. Also the reputation should be handled carefully.

Many possibilities

[Bijo]

I have more wishes/suggestions:



In the Overview, then the Agents tab, you can roughly see their positions and their skills and whatever. When I checked this while FINALLY using Merchants, I saw the information saying he was busy trading some kind of good and how much he was making a turn. Now, wouldn't it be nice if there was more information here? I'm talking about other Agents and Military Forces.
Example: you quickly need a Diplomat but your empire's so BIG you can't find one. So you go to Overview and Agents to check it out. Some of these Diplomats already have designations as you pointed them to certain locations. It'd be handy if you could see information here saying that they are underway somewhere already, so you know you don't have to check them out.
Another example would be one of your armies already on the march on you see what destination you chose for them.


During a battle I can't give a number to one single unit. They must be a group to get a number! That sucks.
I use the minimal interface: no radar and time, and the cards are set to slide, and the commands are also set to slide. So the screen is basically free from all the interface things and I'd be more glad if I could also just totally hide the cards. But then I'd have to constantly scroll my view to this particular one unit to select him if I'm organizing a battle all the way up there. I don't feel like pointing my cursor down all the time to select just ONE unit making these cards appear. It costs time.
So in order for me to enjoy it to the most, yeah I put 'em cards to slide so the screen is nice and clean and only use it when selecting one specific unit. Beh.

[Kraxis]

Only been able to marry the first princess and only been able to marry 1 princess from another faction for a total of 2 marriages at once. I've got a lot of princesses and I'd like to be able to use them. Is there a limit on marriages?

Only heirs can marry... Otherwise your princess will find a suitor and he will become part of the family (like Man of the Hour events), or she can be actively used to make generals defect if they are not married. See a French general? Use the princess to look at him, then there will be a little text that says if there are potential suitors or not in the stack. You can also do the same with your own generals (unmarried of course). That makes them more loyal.

Acquisitions of merchants should give a reward equivalent to the value and skill of the merchant being seized. Right now I only get 500 Florens for any merchant bought out. What is this Socialism? This alone could boost the power and love of merchants.

And I make a lot more most of the time, and generally better enemy merchants give a whole lot. I believe my best is somewhere just below 3000.

I can't transfer ancillaries to my generals.

Some you can (generally objects) most you can't. Seems fitting that you can't just get id of bad ones by giving them to a general you are going to charge into a full stack alone. We can argue on the ancilliaries themselves and their rate of appearance, but that is something else.

My reputation is dubious but I've never been caught with my spies and assassins and never broken an alliance. I should be golden by now. What's up with that?

Feature. When you are playing hard and very hard your diplomatic relations simply have a baseline somewhere pretty low. Your relations will automatically drop to that. You can try to gift yourself onto better terms but it will not last.

[dopp]

He means reputation, not relations. Never could figure out how to raise it... I'm always very untrustworthy for no apparent reason (never start wars).