Feature requests - what's missing from Total War?

[Prof.Moriarty]

-Combined land and sea battles
-Larger time span in comparison with shogun
-Make it less rigid, give every faction a completely different feel thus increasing replayability
-And ofc more mod friendly

[Khwarezm]

- Random map funciton
- A new engine (how obvious)
- Mod tools or make it just possible to edit the map
- Faction diferences in RTW combined with the amount of factions in S2
- Good (and if possible, a modable) diplomacy system
- Good economy system. I like M2TW resource system & NTW his settlement system, but these are two opposites and they need a good balance. The ETW system is too complicated, it is good, but many people won't like it.

[Lord Willy]

AT kinjo what mod is that?

Its Vanilla Rome total War (1.5 Patch) or Barbarian Invasion . Not a mod anyway .

[Kinjo]

-Combined land and sea battles
-Larger time span in comparison with shogun

Mixed land and sea battles has the potential to be very cool and maybe we we get some cool troy like amphibious landings going as well. The only/major problem with campaigns that cover longer spans of time is you will get less turns to develop your characters. For example if you have a campaign that covers a 200 year span of time and 1 turn equals 1 year then you will only have 40-50 turns to develop your characters before they die. Personally I think 4 turns per year works best for the TW series covering a 55-100 year time span. I like to develop my characters and the RPG system so I would really hate to see a race through time where 1 turn equals 1-4 years and your characters are gone in no time. Anyways that's the bad side to campaigns covering longer spans of time.

[alhoon]

When you're playing with people's fond memories of a series you have to get it right

Perhaps I'm reading too much here but...

Fond memories + get it right = R2TW.

R2TW has all you want Craig!
Epic battles on an epic map!

Think of the epicness of Ships ramming ships while archers hail arrows and soldiers rush on the enemy ship!

Oh, and since I've made a commitment to myself about any post in this thread:

- More moddable map. Really, you can't make the map so that everyone will like it. Sure you can make it good but many would want something different here while others something different there while some would say "Yeah, but I want to focus on Bronze age Egypt" so they will want something different there again.

[Prof.Moriarty]

Mixed land and sea battles has the potential to be very cool and maybe we we get some cool troy like amphibious landings going as well. The only/major problem with campaigns that cover longer spans of time is you will get less turns to develop your characters. For example if you have a campaign that covers a 200 year span of time and 1 turn equals 1 year then you will only have 40-50 turns to develop your characters before they die. Personally I think 4 turns per year works best for the TW series covering a 55-100 year time span. I like to develop my characters and the RPG system so I would really hate to see a race through time where 1 turn equals 1-4 years and your characters are gone in no time. Anyways that's the bad side to campaigns covering longer spans of time.

Indeed it would almost make the RPG system a lot less useful and immersive. A system that I really like btw. It could however reintroduce the whole family tree aspect that I really liked in MTW2. Or the awkward fact that it takes 2 years for a army to march from London to Paris. However a longer timespan would increase the variation of a campaign with different units or factions which is something I enjoy.

[Kinjo]

Indeed it would almost make the RPG system a lot less useful and immersive. A system that I really like btw. It could however reintroduce the whole family tree aspect that I really liked in MTW2. Or the awkward fact that it takes 2 years for a army to march from London to Paris. However a longer timespan would increase the variation of a campaign with different units or factions which is something I enjoy.

MTW 1 had the best solution by far with the Early, Middle, and Late period campaigns. For example if CA did a Rome II you could have the start of the War with Pyrrhus as the beginning of the early campaign, maybe the Third Punic War as the middle campaign, and something else appropriate for the late campaign possible Constantine to 455AD.

[Asterix]

If the next TW game will be Rome 2, can we please have an appropriate and historically accurate government system for Rome? ie no faction leaders b/c the Republic had consuls and all that good stuff. The magistrate positions in the Republic could be represented similarly to the ministers in NTW, with different effects depending on their office. EX, quaestors could give a tax bonus depending on their skill, aediles would impact public order, etc.
There could also be a Senate itself, similar to the college of cardinals in M2TW. you could manipulate the Senate depending on your needs and could see the candidates for specific magistracies and commands.
of course, what i would like to see in the next TW game far more than the above is moddability.

what would also be nice is a truly dynamic siege system. The siege systems in RTW and M2TW were very drab and unrealistic. I liked the NTW siege system to an extent considering the times were about right (a 7 week siege rather than the 7 year siege you saw in RTW and M2TW) and the sieged side suffered attrition, but they weren't very dynamic. if the next TW game is pre-gunpowder, then i'd like to see options to build walls of circumvallation and similar things, where you could actually carry out the siege carefully and dynamically, with sallies from defenders and counter sapping and all that good stuff.

[Inhuman One]

Historically realistic campaign goals would be a great feature to have.

Right now its all about conquest, which is alright, but I do think that some countries should have different objectives. A combination of conquest, research, building specific structures or other objectives would be best. Less areas would need to be conquered, and to compensate for it there would be other objectives.

It could be different for each country of cource, conquest could be the only objective for the Roman Empire, Macedon, Byzantium, Mongolia, the Huns or other such factions in their respective timeframes.
Other objectives would just be a way to balance things out with factions that never had much intention for conquest. They could still conquer of course, but could focus more on strenghtening what they have.

Babylon's objective could be to build the hanging gardens for example. That could require a high amount of gold, several trade items, research and a long build time. The build site would need to be defended as well.

Keeping another faction alive could also be a good objective. Easy enough to protect yourself, but to ensure the survival of another faction might be quite different. In a medieval 3, the survival of the papal states could be a campaign objective for most catholic factions. Possibly the HRE could have the option to take over the papal states and all its powers, creating a true Holy Roman Empire.

An a related note, please dont ever force players to rush again. I hate that about Shogun 2. Its a great game but too many areas need to be conquered in too little time.
It takes quite some time to really get the economy going and build some decent troops, the best troops hardly ever see action in the campaign because of this.

[Gmoney39513]

Bethesda has made DLCs AND expansions, both of which sold well.

Could not agree with you more, Fallout and Oblivion are liviing proof that Mods and DLC's can peacefully coexist. Albeit at the end of the day it comes down to the content and quality of the DLC, making your customer spend a few bucks for something that was free in all your previous games shows them your values as a company have shifted for the worse.

[Gmoney39513]

Craig asks what is missing from Total War but in the back of his mind he knows all to well what the answer is, reference 77 pages of loyal Total War modders who were given the "cold shoulder" http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=330713

or perhaps you meant features we would have to pay $4.01 for?

IMHO the only thing that is missing from the game that could not be added via modding is a better reinforcement system. You do realize this reinforcement system totally negates numerical superiority in any battle exceeding a full stack? Allow us to have the option to give the AI control of the rest of our army like in RTW.

[Desley]

Hotseats!

[Populus Romanus]

moddable campaign map
ability to control more units in battles (~30)
diplomatic option "give settlement to ________"

[Humble Warrior]

I think `real time` would be going the C&C twitch way and the final nail in the coffin for TW. There was a series of games I played which ended in Sins of Solar Empire which went `real time`. Couldn`t get into it. I just can`t get the hang of that last game since something`s always happening while you want to sit and think. By the time you`ve made a decision (like in 5-10 minutes), the CAI has a fleet outside your door!

I don`t mind constant action ON THE BATTLEFIELD, that should be pure real time, but on the Campaign map I like to sit back and quietly consider all my options, as you would in real life (you`d easily have an hour or so), then once decided, make my commands and click `Next turn`. Then the AI has its turn.

I think it makes life easier for the AI to `think` and act as well.

Or perhaps do a dual version of the standard turns and an optional `real time`, like Civ4 which I only ever play Turn based.

[Peachum]

Another option could be simultaneous turns. So you plan out what your next actions are while the AI does the same. Then you hit the next turn button and you watch it unfold. So if you want to intercept the enemy, there is a bit of guess work and chance. If combined with logistics and other factors, maneuvering in the campaign map could have some real depth.

[MathiasOfAthens]

more terrain styles and castle styles please

I think the terrain improvements since M2TW have been huge already. But I agree with more castle styles, more uniqueness to cities. Maybe even a design your own kind of function while on the campaign map. Give the player the option of setting down barriers in front of the gates or building the gate on a certain side or other features to the city/castle in battle.

Another feature I would love that would fit well for Rome2 is river naval battles. Some rivers were very wide and Rome especially crossed them with barges or river boats. Perhaps there could be a type of intercept battle where there player fights trying to cross or defend a river with a bridge. So the AI or the player lands his ships with troops onto the other side. Obvious take a lot of work with the AI but I think it could be done. Similar to how the AI used rams and ladders.

And another feature would be to allow bridge crossings to be upgradeable and destructible on the campaign map like towns were in ETW/NTW. For example a player can place his army on a bridge and select an option to destroy it, reverting it back to just a river ford.

I would also love to see fortified bridges with forts on one side on the battlement. It would really create a chokehold feeling on the campaign map.

Oh and please for the love of God if the next game is going to be Rome2 dont make borders that extend into deserts like in M2TW the Algerian border... Make desert regions unconquerable like in ETW... I like liked certain border regions in there. But another problem with the borders is a lack of regions. France was one whole region so if a faction wanted a piece of it they had to take all of it... boring to say the least. So if the next game is Rome2 I hope there are hundreds of tiny regions alone to represent villages and tribes. Sure it will take a lot of work but it will be far worse if you just make one huge region for all of Northern Italy or another huge region for Southern France or whatever...

So please realistic borders that dont extend into the deserts. North African regions that resemble the border lines of Rome in North Africa. Plenty of small regions that allow the player to create a unique empire with a different combination of regions.

[Disaray]

Another option could be simultaneous turns. So you plan out what your next actions are while the AI does the same. Then you hit the next turn button and you watch it unfold. So if you want to intercept the enemy, there is a bit of guess work and chance. If combined with logistics and other factors, maneuvering in the campaign map could have some real depth.

There is a game that works like that called Frozen Synapse, you can pick it up on Steam. It is only squad sized elements fighting but it plays out just as you described and is very entertaining and mentaly stimulating. I don't know how well it would work out on something as large scale as a Total War title but it would be intresting to findout.

[General Brittanicus]

I think `real time` would be going the C&C twitch way and the final nail in the coffin for TW. There was a series of games I played which ended in Sins of Solar Empire which went `real time`. Couldn`t get into it. I just can`t get the hang of that last game since something`s always happening while you want to sit and think. By the time you`ve made a decision (like in 5-10 minutes), the CAI has a fleet outside your door!

I don`t mind constant action ON THE BATTLEFIELD, that should be pure real time, but on the Campaign map I like to sit back and quietly consider all my options, as you would in real life (you`d easily have an hour or so), then once decided, make my commands and click `Next turn`. Then the AI has its turn.

I think it makes life easier for the AI to `think` and act as well.

Or perhaps do a dual version of the standard turns and an optional `real time`, like Civ4 which I only ever play Turn based.

I personally would prefer it to stay turn based, but if they were going to make a change they could always change it to a system such as the one paradox uses for eu3 where time doesn't pass in turns, but will keep going until you slow it down or pause it. As i said though i would prefer TW to stay turn based,as i can always play eu3 if i want something different.

[Humble Warrior]

I personally would prefer it to stay turn based, but if they were going to make a change they could always change it to a system such as the one paradox uses for eu3 where time doesn't pass in turns, but will keep going until you slow it down or pause it. As i said though i would prefer TW to stay turn based,as i can always play eu3 if i want something different.

I liked EU3, but did find that system a little annoying. I would have to slow it down to really slow just to think, then I`d have to speed it up and of course something would happen that I wasn`t ready for and I`d miss it, so back to slow again, then fast, then slow- AAAGGH! Annoying.

Another option could be simultaneous turns. So you plan out what your next actions are while the AI does the same. Then you hit the next turn button and you watch it unfold. So if you want to intercept the enemy, there is a bit of guess work and chance. If combined with logistics and other factors, maneuvering in the campaign map could have some real depth.

Now that`s not a bad idea at all. Not bad at all. Sounds very realistic too. I think maybe CIV 4 did it this way.

have a Rep.

[pyj99]

+ Mod tools
+ reinforcement systems allowing to have 10 000's of unit on the battlefield (a la RTW)
+ specific maps for historical places

best