Post-patch wishlist

[afrit]

Agreed, I would just add that option to sort them by age, skill, how much money they are making (for merchants) and similar stuff... And a number of them (you have 23 spies)

And sort by movement points left.

[Little Legioner]

View settlement in battlemap. That's all i want.

[brokguitar]

show symbols for units in city under the income, pop growth, build/recruit bar.
p(or a cross)for priest
s(or a eye)for spy
m(or $) for merchant
g(or feather pen) for governer


make it so if you cross into someone land and do not leave by third turn it constitutes war.
Exept when miltary agreement or a crusade is made. (this should include allys, and maybe not papal states)

Make priests stackable WITHOUT a army! Cardinals should be able to lead a group of priests like a general. I dont think acting as a general would be cool but maybe it would??.(like the pope does)

Have agent button that allows you to go through agents on map that have moves left.

[Orda Khan]

Deleted

[PureMassacre]

Sapping: Why is there no option to sap a castles defenses?

Moats: Castles near water sources should have the option to construct moats. Moats would obviously prevent attacks from getting to the walls, and would make it more difficult to sap (maybe have a chance that the mine will collapse, fill with water and drown those inside). Attackers could have the chance to construct barges/rafts/bridges to cross the moat. A drawbridge would allow the defenders to cross the moat.

Gatehouses: Need to be more elaborate, there would often be two portcullises to the main entrance. The one closest to the inside would be closed first and then the one furthest away. This was used to trap the enemy and often, burning wood or hot oil would be poured onto them from the roof. Also, archers could shoot arrows at the trapped enemies. There were often arrow holes in the sides of the walls for archers and crossbowman to eliminate the besieging army

Dismounted Cavalry: Option to dismount cavalry during deployment.

[JCoyote]

Aztecs should be capable of building units and buildings... anywhere. I gave them Sofia as a gift, and they weren't able to do anything with it. No Coyote Priests against the Mongols... for all their wealth.

Mount/Dismount! There are features here other people haven't mentioned yet. YES, you could still allow the making of Dismounted units, as a price break when you only need the infantry abilities. Like MTW, some units might just be more useful as dismounted even and would thus be usually used dismounted. But the new strategic map gives a great reason for mount/dismount: while some units might almost always be used as infantry, and even be terrible on their horses, the fact they have horses means they can move on the strategic map much faster. "Dragoon" type units that fight on foot but move on horse are possible with the current system, and would be nice to have.

Moats would be nice, but then again, most castles were near good sources of water. In fact it was pretty fundamental on choosing sites. Making moats though could be appropriately expensive too: after all, it involves reinforcing the foundations of the castle against erosion. I agree with most suggestions to make sieges much tougher. To balance though, the siege time should be increased to allow the attacker more time to accomplish things. (Also though, in most sieges with many moats the water would have been diverted upstream by the attacker.)

Cavalry charges need to be easier to set up. Pikes need to be better at halting them.

"Stealth" units like Sherwood Foresters, when part of a garrison defending a siege, should be deployable outside the city in some cases. While more theatrical, it would symbolize sneaking a team out at night or whatnot to ambush at "just the right moment". Also from a player standpoint, it could make a fun unpredictable element to some siege battles

Armies interacting with strategic pieces. There should be caveats here though. Diplomatic repercussions should be much harsher when using an army to do this kind of thing. "Escort to the border" should have little consequences. "Execute" should have severe consequences, greater than getting caught using an assassin (being so heavy handed), and should seriously hurt your reputation. These penalties should be even worse when used on clergy... while you should be able to kill off priests with your armies because they are obvious and public figures, doing so more than a couple times should make you a diplomatic pariah. Doing so against a catholic priest as a catholic faction should almost guarantee excommunication.

Priests of different faiths should be able to attack each other, WITH prerequisites. The attacking priest should require a certain percentage of the population to be of his own faith first, and the odds should be low. A success would mean he rallied local believers into action against the target. This should also have a small but very short lived spike in unrest in the local public when it happens. (Inciting your own people to riot, even against competing faiths, is playing with fire after all!) This is diplomatically clean though, after all, it's not the national leader's fault a handful of hotheads took it upon themselves to do those unfortunate things...

National leaders are kings. Princesses are their daughters. The "certain favors" idea is out of character. You don't send your daughter to do those things. At least I hope to GOD you sick piece of work!

LOL. Anyway. On that thought though, it could be made so when spies and assassins are recruited, there is a coinflip on whether the resulting agent is male or female; each would have similar basic abilities, but slightly divergent special tricks. Like wooing heirs, etc. That might be for a later game though. (Also historically pretty accurate; jobs as spies and assassins have usually been open to both genders throughout history.)

[Bijo]

National leaders are kings. Princesses are their daughters. The "certain favors" idea is out of character. You don't send your daughter to do those things. At least I hope to GOD you sick piece of work!

There's no need for name-calling. I was just throwing something in. Don't like it? Then attack the words, not the person.

Sending a princess to another faction's family member to establish an alliance by marriage is not so bad then? Sure, send her away to a far land then, marrying somebody she doesn't know, a man who will control her. A marriage based on pure pragmatical basis. Yes: it is truly great, hm, those kings and princesses.