What do you want?

[rajpoot]

All right, I've looked at the threads, and I see strong emotions and sentiments spilling all over, well, I thought, why not clarify things finally......I mean, ETW is coming, so who all here actually want a total history game like what EB did to RTW, and who all want a total balance game with no care for history, and who are the people who think it should go more or less hand in hand like it goes now?


Edit :
Incase I've posted this in the wrong place, please pardon me and shift it. I for one thought that its correct place will be the ETW thread.

[Bellum]

History. Some factions will be harder than others, but all the better challenge. Making weaker factions stronger and stronger factions weaker so that all factions are easy is silly.

[General_Sun]

Fun>Interative Documentary.

[Galain_Ironhide]

I think - follow history up until the point of the opening of the game, then thats when you are in the drivers seat! You are creating your very own peice of history. Thats how the games have always been and thats how IMHO they should stay.

Other wise I feel that the game would be too restrictive in the path that you would play as any nation. (eg, By history the apaches never conquered Europe or defeated the pilgrims on their home turf and if you played it by historical means you could only play to the point where you are defending your homelands and thats it! Or if you played the French, you could sweep Europe until ultimately you lose at Waterloo... Game over.)

It would be nice to play certain critical battles that were fought in real history in a Grand Campaign, but for that to happen, the game itself would be determining what you do on the world map, not you. A little too Pre-ordained for me.

Sorry, enough rambling.

[Barbarian]

I agree, but the unit and campaign balance should be made historical. If some faction has no strong points, and other one has superb economy, elite army and fleet, they shouldn't be made nearly equal. I don't care about the balance, because history wasn't balanced. If you can't surive against superpowers, you die, if you meet the best cavalry on earth, that's your problem to figure out how to beat them with your poor recruits.

Yes, and the situation should be historical only at the start, and it shold not be limited by the sript or something.
Apaches should be able to conquer the world, but it must be made so, that it is extremely hard to do for them. I wouldn't like to see how player could just take apaches and steamroll the map.

[magnum]

Yea, balance above and before all else would ruin the game in my opinion. I voted a little of both but that covers a lot of ground. One of the things I didn't like about M2TW was that it felt to balanced. There weren't dominant factions and/or units. Not saying I want fantasy units (I don't) but if a faction or unit had advantages and/or were superior, I'd like to see it represented in game to some extent. In MTW XL, I liked playing as a minor faction simply because it was so difficult to win (or sometimes even to survive - Irish)

[Ozzman1O1]

I do have a hard time playing as factions with no historical past,EX:Armenians in rome total war,

[Ferret]

I voted for history because having different factions at different difficulty is what makes the game fun, if they were all the same it would be boring. As for multiplayer all games are like this, on football games everyone picks the best teams, on FPSs everyone picks the best gun so why can't everyone have the best faction on multiplayer? An what's wrong with unbalance anyway? Everything in life is unbalanced.

[The Wandering Scholar]

Although I cannot vote, I would say that although a game is a game there is something wrong if Spain can defeat Rome, wrong if Rome is dominated by Pontus. As Rome it should be easy, as Spain/Pontus it should be really hard.

The factions should start by holding historic settlements, historic troop numbers (even if graphics have to be reduced to accommodate them) and from there fate is made.