Feature requests - what's missing from Total War?

[Lord Baal]

I specially like the way you manage the supply idea! I think that having different tier supply buildings will help to do this. If you are only moving one army to a point you will need some temporal supply buildings and they should suffice. As war get more serious/numerous/long the small logistic chain will have to grow (one should increase the supply buildings, so they can deliver more supplies within their ROC, thus supporting more armies at the same time

Maybe supplies can be transferable to one building to another as long their ROC are overlapping and/or connected by roads/ports routes and no enemy is around or raiding the trade routes, so you can create real supply chains with it!

[Tonno]

I did not read trough all this comments (some of them did), but real things that total war is missing are good old map system frome RomeTW, Recrutment from M2TW, HOTSEATS from M2TW... and good old fighting from RTW...no op maunted units no op gunpowder or dumb archers that move their whole line to shoot left or right...

Give me R2TW with more units,regions and hardcore political systems: FIGHT FOR POWER!!!

[KittySN]

I only have one major request:

Please smooth out the horrors of controlling units in battle. Specifically bring back Ctrl grouping and get rid of this "must group" to move in formations (have a toggle hot-key). While I may know what I want to do, I can't always do it because I get stuck around the grouping toggles, desperately trying to control my units faster. Because of this, Rome and Medieval 2 were more user friendly. Shogun 2 is a brilliant game (albeit some bugs), but I can look past it all... the only reminder being every time I fight a battle.

If you make Rome 2, revive Rome's controls as a template (or selectable one) and please include the antiquated features. So many diehard Rome players will love you for it. Rome continues to be successful not necessarily because of the graphics but because it's so marvelous otherwise (and modifiable). Rehash it with all the extras/improvements you can dream up (don't deviate from the heart) and it'll sell like hotcakes.

Here's my old request thread:

Greeting CA!

I'm one of your older players who prefers melee eras and I recently moved into Shogun 2, having skipped over Empire and Napoleon, and there are 5 significant changes to the controls/commands I've encountered which make this game very challenging and confusing to manage, even with ~2 months experience and the foundation of 1,000+ battles to date. I don't expect them to be considered or implemented with everything else you're focused on, but if they could ever find their way home, it would be vastly appreciated to both myself and those who know what I'll comment on (and miss).


Grouping

I've noticed the need to group units to move in formation. I don't necessarily mind this so much over the fact that when I group, the cards shift places into a different order. This makes it very difficult if I need to adjust some nested commands on specific grouped units as I must scan my cards over each time. Is it possible to keep them in the order they're already displayed (left to right), and simply move them together?

Ctrl Movement

Since I just mentioned grouping, I have to touch on something I severely miss: using the Ctrl key! To reference Rome Total War, one could select several units while holding Ctrl and simply click a location, having them become "temporarily grouped" until they moved to that location. This feature cut out the complexity of grouping/regrouping for short term commands. If this alone could be revived, I'd be positively thrilled!

Left->Right Orientation

Another aspect I miss is how when I selected and dragged units to a location, they'd be arranged left to right according to their position in my unit cards, the only exception being the general which would automatically shift towards the center (I don't miss that). What this allows me to do is quickly glance at the location of my unit, left to right, and look at my cards, left to right, all the while knowing which units I'm observing. The only way I can know currently is by selecting the units individually to see which cards are highlighted or vice versa. It's frustrating trying to command a flank of a line when the only way you can select them for control is dragging boxes and grouping. Once again, if cards could correspond left to right, it would be much more organized.

Arrange Cards

Please make it more difficult to arrange cards! Perhaps you could require holding a hot-key and then drag the card to its new location? Sometimes I get stuck rearranging cards when all I want to do is select them! Rage!

Pivoting Groups

The last significant request I can think of is the way groups strafe and retreat. For example, when I wish to quickly shift to the left while facing my front, after grouping, my entire army pivots to face the left (direction of march) and then once again pivots to face the front. To counteract this, I often have to drag the new location of all my unit lines so they'll arrive faster. Can the units just run to the location instead of reforming in the direction of march?


Sorry if that seemed like a lot. I'm just trying to express my control concerns!

If any of these could make a return in a fix or future game, it would be much appreciated!

Thank you for reading!

Oh, and the Alt key for alternate attacks (charging archers) was useful too.

Good luck with development in whatever you're creating.

[Hazbones]

This is a continuation of THIS DISCUSSION

I specially like the way you manage the supply idea! I think that having different tier supply buildings will help to do this. If you are only moving one army to a point you will need some temporal supply buildings and they should suffice. As war get more serious/numerous/long the small logistic chain will have to grow (one should increase the supply buildings, so they can deliver more supplies within their ROC, thus supporting more armies at the same time

Maybe supplies can be transferable to one building to another as long their ROC are overlapping and/or connected by roads/ports routes and no enemy is around or raiding the trade routes, so you can create real supply chains with it!

I think the different types of supply buildings is a good idea too. I think they should provide food as farms do in Shogun2 but you have to move supplies there as you did with trade ships in ETW I think it was. There could be trader units that you can fill up carts and move to supply depots. Units within the ROC of the depot will get supplied with whatever is in the depot until the supply runs out. This means the more units that are in the depot's ROC the faster supplies will dwindle. As you said, bigger supply buildings can be built to hold more supply like warehouses and such. The higher level supply building the more food it can produce (markets) or hold (warehouses).

NOTE: I realize that some people don't like to micromanage things like supply and so some buildings can auto fill themselves each turn like: farm markets, trade posts, and merchant guilds. You just won't be able to supply huge stacks on the measly products these supply bldgs create.

I read some people in the community wanted something "new" to the game instead of the constant "siege-fest" which basically makes up many of the TW titles. I hardly ever play out sieges (due to bugs and the general boredom with them) and so the only pleasure I get is fighting out in the open with stacks of units. I was thinking of ways to get the players and AI to come out of their turtle shells (towns) and fight. I mean look at any history book and see how many battles were fought over river crossings, mountain passes, valleys, coasts, etc. compared to how many were fought inside a city!

With an ROC system now you can fight over all those other things which made war so terrible. I can just imagine creating a ROC with supply lines and my army is barreling through enemy territory when all of a sudden, my lines are cut by a raiding enemy. My army now finds its next turn in a winter situation where attrition is now eating away my army as I try to fall back to a working supply line. I totally lose my objective I was going for, my army is falling apart due to attrition, and the enemy is in my rear looting all my supply stores (which no doubt he will use to now attack me)!

Now THAT would be total war.

[Lord Baal]

Now THAT would be total war.

I hope that gets implemented in a way or another! Mine (I don't know if you read it) seems too complex to implement on the game (lot of programing behind, although it would be more "automatic" in the actual gameplay), but yours seems better suited to the game (simpler to program). Is somewhat cleaner and gets the same objective! Gives the armies the vulnerability they had regarding supplies, that have been missing in every Total War to this date. It's like that dude said once... An army marches on its stomach!

This would give a new life to the strategy part of the game, giving both a new and realistic feature while adding a mechanic that brings a lot of strategic possibilities to the table.

[Hazbones]

This is a continuation of THIS DISCUSSION

I hope that gets implemented in a way or another! Mine (I don't know if you read it) seems too complex to implement on the game (lot of programing behind, although it would be more "automatic" in the actual gameplay), but yours seems better suited to the game (simpler to program). Is somewhat cleaner and gets the same objective! Gives the armies the vulnerability they had regarding supplies, that have been missing in every Total War to this date. It's like that dude said once... An army marches on its stomach!

This would give a new life to the strategy part of the game, giving both a new and realistic feature while adding a mechanic that brings a lot of strategic possibilities to the table.

Heck, even the communication lines idea is just a rehash of what CA had with the watchtowers in MTW. They keep widdling away all the good ideas and try too hard to come up with complex things that don't work as intended. The Communication Bldg reveals the map as the watchtowers did way back in the day with the added ROC part where within that revealed ROC area you can build more comm bldgs, recruit spies and other intel agents, launch balloons to view even further into enemy lands, etc.

Any areas on the campaign map that are not connected to your comm network have a movement penalty (if a unit) or other reductions to its capabilities (if a structure).

Command Radius and Structure:
Another idea CA could use is something like a command structure. Your general's rank determines how many unit slots you are able to put into his stack. The higher the rank, the more units you can add to the stack. Combine more than 1 general into a stack and you expand the number of units in the stack without having the higher rank. It too would be a simple way to express "command structure" in a game that is not really set up for it currently.

The rank of the general will also determine the size of the area of influence and ROC of the unit stack. Units within the ROC of a high ranking general could all be allowed into a battle at the same time. Those not in the ROC of the general or those units that go beyond the capabilities of the general will come in as normal reinforcements as the system currently has them. Now you could have battles between "Corps and Divisions" properly instead of the trickle in system we have now. It is possible to have more than 20 units in a battle per player you just cannot see the unit cards for anything over 20. If CA can fix this issue there is no limit to the Epic battle scenarios we could have.

[Lord Baal]

Any areas on the campaign map that are not connected to your comm network have a movement penalty (if a unit) or other reductions to its capabilities (if a structure).

Yes! Like training buildings having penalty turns (the time I extra time takes the messenger to delivery the orders). So a unit normally recruited on 1 turn could take 2 or 3!

I find clever that you are reusing mechanism already present in one way or the other on Total War. This could ease the introduction of new features by recycling and improving old ones.

Command Radius and Structure:
Another idea CA could use is something like a command structure. Your general's rank determines how many unit slots you are able to put into his stack. The higher the rank, the more units you can add to the stack. Combine more than 1 general into a stack and you expand the number of units in the stack without having the higher rank. It too would be a simple way to express "command structure" in a game that is not really set up for it currently.

I already proposed that!!!
Seriously did you read my wall-o-matic text of doom?

And the rest of the idea is a neat way to give battles in the campaign map a new scope without dramatically altering the battle mechanics once the battle have started, beyond increasing the unit numbers.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I like the idea about a command structure. You could even one up it a notch by tying it to tech level. So lets say a player or AI army destroy a couple towns that provide some sort of boost to command level in new generals, any new generals hired or spawned will only be able to command smaller level armies.

So The player researches command level for larger armies (doesnt matter how many tiers there are). Generals recruited before an enemy army destroys the player library or something can continue to lead the same level of troops but new generals cannot until the level of infrastructure has been raised.

Or more realistic perhaps the level of troops a general can leave is based off not only his command level but level of production and infrastructure in the empire. The more roads in regions and crops or towns with crops boost the command level?

Add more of a reason to pillage towns then.

[Dodanodo]

I love both you're idears. I've been vying for a more realistic and dynamic way of conquering provinces and managing armies for years. however, I fear that this system is too complex. looking at CA's past reformations to the TW campaign map, they seem to only simplefy it, rather than make it more realistic. Altough I do hope I'm wrong on that.

[Lord Baal]

I like the idea about a command structure. You could even one up it a notch by tying it to tech level. So lets say a player or AI army destroy a couple towns that provide some sort of boost to command level in new generals, any new generals hired or spawned will only be able to command smaller level armies.

So The player researches command level for larger armies (doesnt matter how many tiers there are). Generals recruited before an enemy army destroys the player library or something can continue to lead the same level of troops but new generals cannot until the level of infrastructure has been raised.

Or more realistic perhaps the level of troops a general can leave is based off not only his command level but level of production and infrastructure in the empire. The more roads in regions and crops or towns with crops boost the command level?

Add more of a reason to pillage towns then.

I also proposed this, tying up the amount of units per armies to one or several logistics/command techs and aptitudes it's logical. The better the generals and your tech, the bigger the armies! However there could be exceptions like the Huns.
This especially if the game start in a really early period, a dilemma should arise. If you want insta-death stacks-of-doom you could choose a cheap and quick "horde" tech (appropriate to "barbarian cultures"). This however should hinder the quality of equipment of most of your soldiers (again making it appropriate to "barbarians"), this also could hinder your other tech research speed and from then on it will force you to a more "free" game play, since you'll need to really use hordes of troops (population could be trouble here too).

[mp0295]

Mods back
Better horse charging animations. Troops should not stay i perfect battle line when hit by horse. I want people flying like RTW
More diversification of units
Tactical map based on strategic map
Imperial Family / Family I held a connection to my generals in RTW/ M2TW. To me they were important, I had fun developing them into full blown destroyers. In ETW/ NTW, generals were just replicable guys who could stop people from routing

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yeah good points. It would in some ways make the viking invasions more realistic too. Armies were often around 500-1200 men... raiders were as many as the ship could carry. Maybe 30 men per ship. Would be very cool if CA could perfect this so there could be spinoff in Britain with armies so small but the potential to raise them even higher.

Plus proper raiding of villages.

[crzyrndm]

I knew there was something I was missing.

In M2 when you select a unit, they had bright green circles around their feet. In shogun 2 You have yellow circles that only show occasionally. Now this for me is awkward because it's difficult to differentiate your units from your opponents when you select them.

I think the problem is that they are currently below the vegetation, but it's still very frustrating. Bring back obviously selected units, or atleast make it an option.

[Humble Warrior]

Good luck with development in whatever you're creating.
[/B]

Sticking girly love hearts to appeal to Creative Assembly is cheating. Just kidding. Do more- anything to get CA doing the job!

[Eulogi]

I want less secrecy and mystery surrounding most aspects of the game's workings.

for example, why can we not see how many points a skill point upgrade is good for. how are melee def and att factored into combat? how bout armor? i have always heard armor isn't but then why do ninjas get a lvl 9 armor penetration 20 clan token 120 koku skill? See what I mean?

There is so much debate on the community about various factors because you guys don't make this stuff known. Please let us in on the mechanics in the next game or future patches.

Since you prob will not do that at least let us respec our units for 3 tokens while we try to figure out this stuff on our own. I mean come on.... i build a unit to lvl 9 spend my points/tokens then see that x skill is actually kinda crap because i had to guess basically. Then i am out 20-60 tokens cause i gotta delete it and make another. why is that the way you guys want this game to be. There is not a respec button and you guys shroud the game in secrecy so you must want it that way. Please please be more open in the future.

Thanks

[alhoon]

Question for Craig:

Craig, you said you're compiling the thread in a huge document... isn't that a bit impractical?
I'm not a business manager but I'm pretty sure that I would prefer to read a couple of paragraps with "in 280 posts, X users asked for modding tools, Y users asked for increased number of units/army, Z users..." than a 20 page package. Sure, I would love that large compilation in the back of the 2 paragraph synopsis but having to wade through 20 pages... Sounds like too much time.

[Hazbones]

Yes! Like training buildings having penalty turns (the time I extra time takes the messenger to delivery the orders). So a unit normally recruited on 1 turn could take 2 or 3!

I find clever that you are reusing mechanism already present in one way or the other on Total War. This could ease the introduction of new features by recycling and improving old ones.


I already proposed that!!!
Seriously did you read my wall-o-matic text of doom?

And the rest of the idea is a neat way to give battles in the campaign map a new scope without dramatically altering the battle mechanics once the battle have started, beyond increasing the unit numbers.

Can you link me back to your "text of doom"? This thread is getting too big to wade back through the pages of ideas.

Judging by the way CA is recycling the game over and over since ETW I figured it would be safe to stick to that channel of thought to keep things sort of going in the same direction using things that they've already had in game at one time or another. Maybe doing that will give a better chance that they will implement ideas we discuss here.

Prisoner Exchange:
I liked the old TW games where you got to decide what to do with the prisoners you captured in battle. You could finance a whole campaign by the money you gained from exchanging prisoners. I'd like to see CA take it a step further and (depending on the time period of the next TW title) create a prisoner exchange system. Just like in wars armies would trade prisoners in a parole system. It would be easy to implement, just allow the player to collect prisoners from enemies they capture into a pool of men. This manpower pool could then be traded to the other player something like the "gift" you can send to other factions in Diplomacy.

In Diplomacy, the player has 2 options: CA can make these men transform into currency OR make them possible for the receiving player to "hire" sort of like Ronin in Shogun2. If the faction "hires" or pays to have their men back in game, the unit reforms as a basic "recruit" unit and the player can then spend the money to retrain them back into whatever the player wants. It is possible that the prisoners can have some of their experience left over from their original unit retained or give some other bonus to entice the player to WANT to take them back instead of just taking the money. If the player chooses not to "hire" the men back, the player only gets a small percentage of their value as currency.

Things Others Have Already Mentioned:
>>CA needs to seriously move toward tying the recruiting manpower of a region to the population of that region. If you keep sapping the people out of a region to use in military units, soon you'll run out of people to manage the city and region itself!

>>MathiasOfAthens is on a good point also where the damage you do to a region or an empire as a whole REALLY DOES hurt the target faction. As I read from another poster, it was suggested that there needs to be BIG differences between the factions. You need to FEEL the differences between factions so much so, you can actually play to the strengths and weaknesses of each faction. IE: If you are fighting a seafaring faction, you don't want to fight them out at sea but instead your target should be to damage their ship building capabilities. The way the game is now, a ship building faction is the same as all the others. Hit them just like all the rest and you win. I'd like to have strategy on the campaign map too and not just on the battle map!

>>Others had mentioned the ability to declare war on allies (or switch sides) during a battle. It would be cool to pull a rouse on your true enemies in mid-battle. It could even be used in Shogun2 in some battles where betrayal was used as a weapon to win! Maybe take it a step further and allow diplomacy in a battle. Allow the players to send their army leader out to parley with the enemy to try reconciling, trickery, or straight up buying off an opponent to stop a fight before the START button is pushed. Anything to beef up the Diplomacy aspect of the game would be welcomed.

[Rorarii]

MILITIA CALL-UP!! IF the enemy is at the gate, a trumpet blasts and all male citizens of military age drop what their doing, race home, grab their weapons and form up in the field of Mars! .. 1 turn, 2 Roman Legions ready!

Etruscan Patricans = small units of experienced, highly equiped Eques & Triarii
Roman Citizens of prime age = units of Princeps
Roman Citizens of younger age = units of Hastati (front line fodder)
Roman Citizens of yougest age = units of Skirmishers
Non-citizens = units of levy spearman (poor equipment), if required.

How more interesting a factions is when you divide up by class!

R

[Asiriya]

Mods, first and foremost. I have no idea why you would remove them. RTW and M2TW bought themselves for me on the basis of the modding community. I haven't bought a TW game since. I have borrowed them off friends, and while initially fun, I soon get bored. I played maybe 1, 2 vanilla games of RTW and M2TW before I began looking for mods.
Mods give me 15 different games to play, different maps to conquer, allow fiddling so that I can play with orcs and trolls, let me alter units so that I can have knights in armour that aren't being destroyed by peasantry.
By removing mods you have lost yourself at least £60 of my money. Attempting to fill the gap with DLC is even more amusing; why would I pay £5 for a few units I could have got for free a little while before. You may be trying to change the game, but I'm not interested in playing it.

On the subject of game changing, I would like to see another TW game with a smaller focus. I really enjoyed the Kingdoms campaigns, specifically the Britannia map, and part of Lusted's Lands to Conquer mod. It's been a long time since I played, but essentially the map was of Britain and France only.
I would really like to see a more realistic feudal system. King, then lords, then knights, then peasants. King has power but relies on the lords. There is no real standing army, so whenever you wish to go to war you require having the lords favour to get them to raise their populace.
Basically what I would like is something like Mount and Blade, but with a larger view and the ability to have detailed overall control of the men under your control. The option to shift into 1 soldier and fight as them would be great.
More though, it would be about making deals amongst the lords and making people happy. I want an enemy that is powerful enough that without smart planning you can't straight out defeat them, so any victories must be consolidated before pressing an attack. I want a smaller focus that feels more realistic.

I still want R2TW, but unless you package it with mod tools, I'm not interested. Keep things small and work on diplomacy and AI instead.

[Lord Baal]

Can you link me back to your "text of doom"? This thread is getting too big to wade back through the pages of ideas.

Here it is the resume, or little wall of doom...

The explanation of every point is here, in what I think is a huge wall of doom post.... However I find it entertaining.