Your own TW style game: What features would you like to see?

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Spazticated, I think your idea is great, but the example with pre / post marians is however not valid.

Moonburn is correct in his statement. The difference between the two units cannot be displayed gameplay-wise just by an armour or training upgrade. This would be wrong, since the higer cost of professional soldiers is not only due to their different equipment, which is not automatically superior to that of a princeps or triarius. Furthermore, the difference between these two concepts is so great that it would just not fit my idea of a historically accurate depiction of the era, even although we are not talking about EB here.

Nevertheless I think your concept is fascinating, albeit perhaps taken a bit too far. Recruitment limited to certain provinces, what we already have in EB, expanded by training and armoury upgrades differing by region.

[Spazticated]

Spazticated, I think your idea is great, but the example with pre / post marians is however not valid.

Moonburn is correct in his statement. The difference between the two units cannot be displayed gameplay-wise just by an armour or training upgrade. This would be wrong, since the higer cost of professional soldiers is not only due to their different equipment, which is not automatically superior to that of a princeps or triarius. Furthermore, the difference between these two concepts is so great that it would just not fit my idea of a historically accurate depiction of the era, even although we are not talking about EB here.

Nevertheless I think your concept is fascinating, albeit perhaps taken a bit too far. Recruitment limited to certain provinces, what we already have in EB, expanded by training and armoury upgrades differing by region.

What I was trying to say is that from a gameplay perspective both hastati and legionaries are both line infantry, with large shields, short thrusting swords and pilum to throw before engaging in melee, so functionally there isn't a difference in how the units would behave, only in how both units came about, but in my example, how they came about would be left to the player, legionaries was just an example of the evolution of unit rosters using the unit creator, imagine that instead of a gladius these "Legionaries" were using sarissa and called "Legionnaires" and instead of roman red, they were wearing the players particular favourite colour which is the direction the player decided to take his faction in.

Of course, the part you seemed to like would apply, you would first need to secure a source of sarissa and grounds with which to train sarissa wielding units before being able to recruit them first in regions with those capabilities before gradually expanding the area of recruitment as the infrastructure improves over time.

Just remember that freedom is the ultimate goal, to take the game off the rails so to speak since we are already altering history, in for a penny in for a pound.

[antisocialmunky]

So I found an awesome mod buried in the mod section of the center....

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=380438

A game that pretty with EB accuracy would be great :D

[Rahl]

So I found an awesome mod buried in the mod section of the center....

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=380438

A game that pretty with EB accuracy would be great :D

Wow, they use a better engine (E:TW) than EB but the units are uglier. Who needs this mod if its ever to be finished?

[fomalhaut]

I'm sorry but EB will always be the epitome of strategy gaming, there's no competition.

[vartan]

I'm sorry but EB will always be the epitome of strategy gaming, there's no competition.

There's potential competition; e.g., a game without the limitations of RTW that takes everything to a whole new level of complexity and ingenuity, and having the EB team work on this game's content.

[illyric]

As everybody else in this forum I would like to see an AI that is not a kamikaze. For example when playing Pontus the Greeks declared war upon me without any provocation. On the other hand the Macedonians, Epirotes and Romans were slaughtering the Greek city-states and had reduced them only to Rhodes and Crete. This is totally unrealistic. A faction that fights for survival can not declare war upon any other faction. Also, when playing Epirrus I had reduced the Romans only to one city in the north (Bonona) and yet they refused becoming a protectorate or peace, so what could I do? I gave an end to them.
Another point I would like to discuss is the battle quality provided by the AI. The only difference between an easy level battle and the one of hard level is the morale of the army. They never try outflanking, they never outmaneuver you. If you are the one attacking they await for you to attack them. If they attack you they come to you in a rather disorderly way. I think (like the most players) that the battles AI should try to be "wiser".
Another thing is attrition. For example when you spend a turn in a desert or a outside your territory during winter some of your soldiers will die as a result of attrition. Of course the units original of Arabia shouldn't suffer summer attrition and those original of the Baltic/Russia have no reason to suffer from winter attrition. On the other hand if the Arabians would go to Russia their winter attrition must be much higher than the units original to (let us say) Rome. If this feature could be enabled it would make the map movement more realistic.
Also Hannibal on his route to Italy crossed the Alps because the normal roads could be easily protected by the Romans. The "Thermopiles" were protected only by 300 Spartans and they could hold for several days. What I mean is that some strategic points like the Thermopiles or "La Brèche de Roland" should be "constructed" so that the player and AI alike should follow some routes that sometimes are longer than usually in order to avoid these obstructions.

BR guys!