Features that should be included in M2:TW

[Zhuge_Liang]

List features that should be included in M2:TW even if you know they already wont be. Chances are if everybody asks for the same features then they will be introduced if possible.

1) Better fire effects
2) Burning forests
3) Interaction with the environment - like throwing bolders down a slope (used by many nations as a defensive weapon)
4) Naptha & naptha pits
5) Guns
6)Slower battles and manouvers to give time to counter threads and for better strategy
7) Faster animations and therefore more action in battles.
8) Ability to fire arrows when running
9) Naval battles (i don't think there is a pups chance in hell for that now)
10) Control of a single man.
11) More detaile land, like swamps, marshes, fast flowing rivers that can kill people when they wade/swim accross.
12) Ability to choose to fight an enemy before they beseige your walls or to hide behind the walls.
13) Ability to build fronteers - like a wall accross a border with your enemy.
14) Blood pools and spirts.
15) Since the models are made of different limbs then have some limbs that can be cut off.



Give me time... i will think of more.

CA let me work for you as a new features consultant - i don't need a wage, i'd want to do it! LOL

[Sétanta]

11) More detaile land, like swamps, marshes, fast flowing rivers that can kill people when they wade/swim accross.
12) Ability to choose to fight an enemy before they beseige your walls or to hide behind the walls.
13) Ability to build fronteers - like a wall accross a border with your enemy.

thats good ideas...especially number 12
i always hated that when you sallied they were all ready for you and you had to take the time to deploy while they attack you

[Shaun]

2) this causes a lot of strain on the system.
5) ifthe game finishes in 1530, then im sure they will be in.
8) horses can already do this, and if infantry can do it its VERY unrealisic.
10) its a strategy game, not a 3rd person action game like Spartan TW.
12) you can already do this.
14) the skins get blood and dirt on them as the battle wages on.
15) again, same as 2.

All the rest are very doog ideas though.

[Ewan]

15) dont let the movies fool u , it is really disicuilt to hack someones limb off, doctors when amputating have hack saws and power tools. also i wouldnt wwant it to be too gorry

[Chaotica]

12) you can already do this.

I think he means being able to choose to defend even before the enemy begins the siege, not sallying. This would be a great improvement, imho.

[Zenith Darksea]

Yes indeed. Because an army would have time to decide whether or not to deploy outside its walls before the enemy cordoned the area off. Instead, whenever an army besieges you, you just have to sit there and then sally out against an army that's ready for you.

[Manji]

Just two things:

1. Better diplomacy. Pacts, alliances, marriages with dowries, military/economical pacts, etc.
2. Enhanced "family" features. More detail on our descendants/retainers in terms of unit control, unit type, etc.

[Shaun]

A few of the things that i want is-
1)Better and More depth to diplomacy. I want the puppet pope thing to actaully make a difference. I want the royal marrigge thing with princesses to be important enough to cause wars. I want the AI to do whats best for its self, i want it to know what to do.
2)Trade, no-one has mentioned this yet. I want trade to be more complex than building expensive buildings which means more money in the long run. I want factions to go to war over trade. I want goods that can be exported to different factions, i want to be able to cut off factions.
3)Better Campaign map AI, obviously.
4)More faction slots. CA mentioned all the playable factions, does this mean there are others.

[Zhuge_Liang]

2) this causes a lot of strain on the system.
5) ifthe game finishes in 1530, then im sure they will be in.
8) horses can already do this, and if infantry can do it its VERY unrealisic.
10) its a strategy game, not a 3rd person action game like Spartan TW.
12) you can already do this.
14) the skins get blood and dirt on them as the battle wages on.
15) again, same as 2.

All the rest are very doog ideas though.

2) & 15) wouldn't really cause too much strain on the system. For the burning forrests just look at the burning buildings in RTW - has almost no effect on preformance whatsoever. Also the limbs falling off could be included as animations ince the models are already going to be there as separate components in order to increase the individuality of the troops.

As for 8) it would be a nice feature if archers fired arrows when running away from the enemy to cover their retreat, but of course they would be less accurate.

As for 10) this would attract a whole other target audience aswell as the current fans.

[Shaun]

2) & 15) wouldn't really cause too much strain on the system. For the burning forrests just look at the burning buildings in RTW - has almost no effect on preformance whatsoever. Also the limbs falling off could be included as animations ince the models are already going to be there as separate components in order to increase the individuality of the troops.

Yes it is. Burning forrests were going to be intriduced in BI but it was to much strain on the system, same with blood. CA even said so.

[Bwaho]

-Respect-O-meter, if you break diplomatic agreements it will be harder to make deals in the future.

-A diplomatic demand that forces your protectorate to only be allowed to build certain amount of units. So you can force your beaten foe to become a protectorate and then limit his units to, lets say 1500. If the protectorate breaks the agreement you wont lose any "respect" (see above) if you attack him. Of course the protectorate should rarely break this agreement, it can happen sometime but NOT often.

-Minimum unit requirement in a city (castle) in order to able to guard it at all. If the number of units in the city is under the requirement, the city will automatically surrender and you'll lose it. This way we will get rid of those annoying sieges where you attack 2 peasant units with a full army. It only takes time and it's unrealistic and a complete waste of time. Don't let sieges become what it was in RTW...a boring repeating process.

[Shaun]

-Respect-O-meter, if you break diplomatic agreements it will be harder to make deals in the future.

I was thinking something more on the lines of a friendlyness meter(obviously named someting different). The higher the meter, the more friendly that faction is to you and more likely they will accept proposlas. The higher the meter the more likely a faction is to help you in a war and so on.

[Bwaho]

I was thinking something more on the lines of a friendlyness meter(obviously named someting different). The higher the meter, the more friendly that faction is to you and more likely they will accept proposlas. The higher the meter the more likely a faction is to help you in a war and so on

Yeah that's what I mean...same stuff (can't say ****...oh dang I said it anyways) different name

[pansarskott]

What I really want to see...is injured soldiers lying about the field, you know, gasping and moaning! And I dont think it should be that difficult to implement..just look at Imperial Glory...If they can do it...so can CA!

Or what do you think?

[Shaun]

Too much strain on the system. That wood need new units to be added to the battle field.

[PROFESSORPAUL]

Here's an entire list I made:

1. Vastly improved AI. This goes for the campaign AI and Battle AI.

2. Variety in battles. Make the AI use different strategies depending on the terrain or even what faction they are. A group of low-skilled peasants might completely get slaughtered in one battle, and in another battle they might get spirit and actually win. But overall, no more insta-routs, unless its completely believeable or if the odds are completely unfavorable.

3. Make it so the AI can determine if they're going to lose a battle or not on the campaign map like in MTW. If you invade a province with an army three times the size of the enemy army, they should decide to retreat to a friendly province and regroup for a counter-attack, instead of staying to fight even if they have no chance. Exceptions would be defending the last province they own and there are no friendly provinces nearb.y

4. Bring back units having individual commanders who have their own loyalty and traits.

5. More death animations. Also allow weapons to appear on the battlefield after a soldier dies instead of just the body and shield.

6. Allow arrows to stick into shields or stick into soldiers or horses that are hit with them. Also allow weapons to stick into soldiers if the attacking soldier loses his grip or does it as a finishing move.

7. Historically accurate. Make the buildings, units, names, and factions accurate.

8. Bring back civil wars.

9. Awesome sound effects and better music. Maybe even use some of the music from MTW.

10. Some or any sort of blood effect.

11. Better hit detection. Sometimes a hit wouldn't register in RTW if one soldier hit another soldier's "box" and he wouldn't budge or get knocked back, even if it clearly showed the attacking person not missing. Maybe even wounds could be possible, showing men get battered and bruised and cut as they battle. Also breakable shields, so if a man's shield gets broken or knocked out of his hands, he'd have to resort to melee combat without protection, and act much more agile.

[Chuffy]

-Minimum unit requirement in a city (castle) in order to able to guard it at all. If the number of units in the city is under the requirement, the city will automatically surrender and you'll lose it. This way we will get rid of those annoying sieges where you attack 2 peasant units with a full army. It only takes time and it's unrealistic and a complete waste of time. Don't let sieges become what it was in RTW...a boring repeating process.

Oh God, yes please. This would such an easy thing to implement and would improve the game immensely.

[Bwaho]

What I really want to see...is injured soldiers lying about the field, you know, gasping and moaning! And I dont think it should be that difficult to implement..just look at Imperial Glory...If they can do it...so can CA!

Or what do you think?

No...they should focus more on gameplay this time

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

1) would be ok, but not really needed
2) to my knowledge, that hardly ever played a role in battles.
3) nice, but hard to do - maybe in ambushes
5) Guess they'll be in, as MTW 1 allready had them and they were on the screenies.
6) Yup.
7) I don't really mind
8) Noone really ever did that (unless on a horse...
9) I guess they'd be pretty boring, but I could still autoresolve them
10) honestly - would you ever need it?
11) Great idea!


I'd personally love to see more variety on the realism level - like the option to be unable to command your army as soon as your general is dead (messages from the afterlife, huh?), disabling the minimap (medieval radar- whoa!), the option to not be allowed to fight yourself when there's no family member/faction leader present (I never got that - you have the option to manage all settlements or not, but it shouldn't be too hard to send messengers what to build/recruit during the next six month, but you (faction leader) can shout military commands accross the whole continent within seconds, telling units when to charge) etc...

I do most of that myself, but it would be nice to configure the game like that, so you don't have the constant feeling to tie an arm behind your back.

[Chuffy]

No...they should focus more on gameplay this time

Exactly, this is why I'm wary of all this excitement about 'finishing moves' and fully rendered dead bodies lying around...is it needed? No...it's a nice idea, but will it make the game experience better as a whole?