The - if there are new things in... thread

[Caius]

What do you want to see in new TW games?

I not mean, I want to see a game in a Futurist timeframe, or I want Shogun2:TW

I mean, for example, a game when you have 2 special habilities, or that kind of things that are imppossible to see in TW games

What do you think?

P.S.:Nothing about camels please. Camels wont be allowed here.Excuse Martok and Mithrandir

[Martok]

P.S.:Nothing about camels please. Camels wont be allowed here.Excuse Martok and Mithrandir

Well there goes my suggestion.

In seriousness, though, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Are you wondering what new TW title we'd like to see, or are you wondering what new features we'd like to see in the next TW game?

[Warmaster Horus]

I think he means features.

As for me, something I know will never be done, but which would really be cool, is a first- or third-person perspective of the battlefield. Imagine being the General, looking from a hill, observing the battlefield, directing the troops directly. Or, suppose you are the footslogger, the legionaire, who must obey orders (a pre-defined battleplan). Imagine taking the place of Centurion, leading your century into the melee... The possibilities are endless, and here I'm just taking about Roman military.
Think of the Huns, or Steppe Nomads. You are one of many, and the army has found its next refuge... The king orders the charge...

This idea had already been taken in Rise and Fall: Civilisations at War (I think that's the title). IMHO it was a cool feature, but in it you were literally a god. Which felt a bit ... wrong. But if CA implements this idea (if), I'm sure they'd be able to adjust things.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I would simply like to see all the features from M:TW re-encarnated in a new title (with the risk-style map.) However, to add onto that, perhaps with a more complex system of trade where one has to set up trade routes, selecting what goods they wish to export or import. Every good has it's value and can be a primary, un-processed worth little, or a secondary good, processed, worth more. To show the processing of goods every faction can, if importing certain primary resources, construct required buildings to process it in the provinces where the goods are arriving or moving to. For example a Stone Mason for crude and unprocessed Stones or a Slaughterhouse to turn livestock into meat. Trade can, in that way, indebt a faction if they are exporting low value goods and importing high value ones to satisfy their needs. Of course this can work the other way around.

That could also be a way of adding a sort of Caesar IV happiness system where the whole population is divided into classes which require certain amenities to be satisfied. For example the upper-classes will require many luxury secondary goods, such as silks, to feel content, while your average peasant would be happy with simple secondary goods, such as meat, to be happy.

Also, with this classes system, could come the limitations of training troops and the effects that it may cause - the system could force the player/AI to build balanced armies. For example, if your province has thousands of peasants, but no members of the nobility, no knights or other such high-ranking troops could not be constructed. As it would be true with the middle class and mid-ranking troops, for example Men-at-Arms in M:TW.

As an adaptation to the M:TW "provincial valour bonuses" where the units were famed for in history, I would suggest that the province will only become famous for something if plenty of that type of unit is constructed in the settlement by the player over time. For example, if I was to train a huge force of Men-at-Arms in Aragon, that province may become famed for them.

I would also like to see the ability to, when you build border-forts in a province, as one does in Medieval, when going across the borders enemy troops take losses or, alternatively, they appear on the battle map, and have to be broken through to get into the province and destroy the foes' army.

Also en-genius AI would a nice addition. Although the AI in Medieval was reasonably intelligent, it was not perfection, however it was certainly better than the AI, on the battlemap, than that of the newer titles. Relating to improvements around this field, I would like to experience an AI that adapts to your tactics slowly, but surely, depending on the intelligence of the AI generals/leaders, so eventually your tactics have to change to prevent the AI from completely wiping you out.

As a penultimate suggestion, which is a small flaw which I find with M:TW, is the traits system. I dislike it how generals can have nine acumen, yet have only four points of it from traits. To resolve this I would suggest the R:TW/M2:TW traits system, yet the keeping of hidden traits, yet the player themselves has to investigate the individual with a spy before finding out if they exist or not.

As a final suggestion - breath a sigh of relief, I've nearly shut up! I would suggest making peasant revolts more common. In M:TW although the irregularity of peasant revolts is realistic, I would like to see more of it to increase the challenge presented to the faction's leader.

Unfortunately, these ideas are only for the strategic map. I'm not really a tactical sort of person, read the username , so I prefer that sort of level rather than the battlemap - especially in M:TW where tactics are not involved in that mode anyhow.

[Caius]

Or, suppose you are the footslogger, the legionaire, who must obey orders (a pre-defined battleplan). Imagine taking the place of Centurion, leading your century into the melee... The possibilities are endless, and here I'm just taking about Roman military.

I had that idea too.

It would be great be a General, like Hannibal Barca, giving orders in Lake Transimene.Imagine it!

[Shieldmaiden]

I would like to see a TW game with detailed Battle terrain features and weather effects. I.e - cliff, marsh, mud from rain, frozen water in winter.

Imagine ambushing and dropping rocks from a clifftop onto your foe, or perhaps defending a bridge into your lands from barbarians and praying the river won't freeze over and let the horde swarm across.

[Ayesha]

I don't know why you said no camels. Camels frighten horses and they're cute ;)
In TW I use nearly all camels whenever I get the chance (except for Shogun Total War. I have never played that).
As far as changes that I would like to see. Definately more camels and definately more archers. I don't think that there are near enough of either. I just got RTW a a week ago because I liked MTW and M2TW so much and was disappointed by the lack of camels and archers.
I still like the TW games just how they are though.

[Martok]

I don't know why you said no camels. Camels frighten horses and they're cute ;)
In TW I use nearly all camels whenever I get the chance (except for Shogun Total War. I have never played that).
As far as changes that I would like to see. Definately more camels and definately more archers. I don't think that there are near enough of either. I just got RTW a a week ago because I liked MTW and M2TW so much and was disappointed by the lack of camels and archers.
I still like the TW games just how they are though.

Folks, we clearly have here a lady of impeccable taste. Truly Ayesha, you are more than worthy of being a fellow disciple of our beloved Camel Lord Mithrandir.

Transport ships.

A better AI on strategy and battle maps

I strongly second these two things as well.

It's always bothered me that an entire army can cross the sea in a single ship -- it really hurts a player's ability to suspend disbelief and forget that s/he is playing just a game. Yes, I know we're suposed to simply imagine that the actual troop transports are "abstracted", and that the ships we build are merely their escorts. Doing so, however, really detracts from the immersion factor, regardless of which TW game you're referring to. I don't care if transports were cheap and easily destroyed, so long as we'd actually be required to build them.

And I can't agree more on the need to improve the AI. I can say Medieval 2 has made noticable improvements over Rome (not that that's really saying much, to be honest), but there's still so much more that could be done. The computer has never been very good at castle/city assaults in any of the Total War titles, although I admit that's perhaps as much a failure of the empire-level AI to provide its armies with the proper siege engines and assault troops.

....Which brings me to the area where the AI still could use some *major* beefing up, which is the campaign itself. The strategic-level AI is still not very good at training the right units and combining them effectively, and (especially with RTW and M2TW) it's still rather poor at maneuvering its armies around the main map. It also continues to have major difficulties prioritising potential targets to attack and/or places it should defend. I've read too many complaints (and in a few cases have seen it myself) from mystified players who, while placing a city under siege, notice that the enemy has 2-3 full army stacks less than a turn away, but refuse to come to the aid of their beleaguered comrades.

[Ayesha]

Folks, we clearly have here a lady of impeccable taste. Truly Ayesha, you are more than worthy of being a fellow disciple of our beloved Camel Lord Mithrandir.

That's cute ;)

[Raijer]

Some great suggestions so far...

I would love to see basic military marching/drill commands implemented, which IMHO would often be easier and a far more elegant way of issuing commands to a unit or army.

[Caerfanan]

I've seen a lot of nice suggestions/comments, on differents matters, here.

What I would add, then, should be a "depth level setting" for all fields of the game (trade, agents, battle orders types), so that the battlers would have very complete and realistic battles with loads of things to manage, while the trade would be some "yes/no", the unit master could use a very detailed unit development "tree" and artisan tree so that he could desing his units completely (armors, weapons, type of training, type of mounts, etc...), and so on...

[caravel]

It's always bothered me that an entire army can cross the sea in a single ship -- it really hurts a player's ability to suspend disbelief and forget that s/he is playing just a game. Yes, I know we're suposed to simply imagine that the actual troop transports are "abstracted", and that the ships we build are merely their escorts. Doing so, however, really detracts from the immersion factor, regardless of which TW game you're referring to. I don't care if transports were cheap and easily destroyed, so long as we'd actually be required to build them.

I couldn't disagree more.

Personally I prefer the abstraction of how it is handled on the risk style map of MTW, and don't like the transport vessels in RTW. It bothers me having to walk my army into a ship and then move that ship off using movement points from one coast to another.

One way it could have been implemented in MTW1 would have been to have the ships come into port, merge the army stack with the ship, then move the fleet back out to sea and move it to the province in the normal way. This would have been an improvement on the existing MTW "pick up and drop in one turn" system anyway.

With the newer game engine (RTW/M2TW) there is not much you can do with it as it currently works in about the only way than it can work on a movement point based tiled map.

[Caius]

It's always bothered me that an entire army can cross the sea in a single ship

That is true.How can 4820 troops stay in a single bireme?

It doesnt make any sense

[Don Esteban]

That is true.How can 4820 troops stay in a single bireme?

It doesnt make any sense

True but also, how can it take so long to build a single bireme when Rome was capable of building fleets of hundreds of ships in a year????