I would buy them all if this was true. I haven't brought any of them because I refuse to indulge the absurdity of "Only twenty at a time" battles. I tried playing IB2 Vandals the other day but gave up because the Kingdoms reinforcement system doesn't give me the control I want. I've got two stacks of Romans against half a dozen stacks of Huns and my other stack is wandering all over the place. What I want in a game is control. I built those units, I brought them to the battlefield, so I want them to do what I want them to do, not have them excluded from the battlefield or controlled by the AI, none of which is even faintly realistic.
The easiest way of dealing with this is have a unit limit preference at the start of the game in the same way you have a unit size preference, eg 10 for small, 20 for normal, 40 for large, 80 for huge. It will therefore be up to the player to judge just how much he/she/theirpc can handle, and what sort of game they want, the usual slow, incremental campaign of many, many small to mid-sized battles, or something big, fast and nasty which can be won or lost in less than 10 hours. For more reasons than I can explain, I want the latter.
Well theres quite some things I would like to request, and I really hope CA will take the time to read through it.
Let's start with Shogun 2 total war. (yep, I keep calling it the old name, old habits die hard.)
Great game, but all factions are too much the same. I have several DLC propositions to mix things up in that regard.
1. Hero DLC. This alters the appearance and status of heroes for each faction, to make them unique to each faction. The hero armor could have a unique faction specific look instead of gold.
2. Honour guard DLC. This gives all factions a unique honour guard unit that embodies their strenghts. No stock appearances should be used for this, all new appearances should be introduced.
Date could get a better armored No-Dachi unit for example, with a helmet for better defence. Oda could get an elite unit of ashigaru perhaps.
And now, for future games.
Regarding timeframes, I would say that 500BC, 500AD and 1500AD seem like good starting periods.
500BC would allow for a weak rome to be present and be the underdog, while persia, the greeks and various other factions would be more dominant. It could span up to the year 0 and employ a technology tree like empire total war, where players research metalworking, new weaponry and armor, millitairy reforms and all that. This would also allow for different factions than those in Rome total war to be playable, and it would allow Sparta, Athens, Persia and Egypt to be at their peak instead of being little more than faded glory.
500AD up to 1000AD could focus on the dark age, as countries struggle to settle and go into the feudal age. With viking invasions, migrations and everything going on, its a time of total war like no other.
1500AD up to 1650AD could focus on the pike and shot era, allowing for both gunpowder, armored units and melee combat to all be viable options.
Furthermore I have some general suggestions that dont need to apply to a single setting.
1. Please add moats and drawbridges in the next game. This will spice up sieges and would be a lot more accurate. It could possibly be exclusive to castles and cities that historically had moats to keep some variation. Desert forts wouldnt have moats after all, maybe just a trench.
2. General customization.
It would be a nice feature to be able to rename generals or to give them a nickname, and be able to change their armor or clothes. Their achievements could unlock special options for this, a medieval general getting a templar in his retinue could result in a templar surcoat becomeing available for wear. And Kings could have various crowns available to them.
3. Unit editor.
Maybe ingame units could get their universal uniforms changed, with each soldier type having several appearances to choose from. Experience levels could unlock new options, like a battleworn appearance for experienced veterans.
4. Siege equipment slots on the walls or elsewhere in the defence.
When defending, it should be possible to place things like cannons, ballistas and other such equipment on top of the walls. It would be more usefull there, and make it a great garrison unit.
Deploying it in such a slot should render it immobile though.
5. Towers and gatehouses that can be garissoned.
This could add additional protection to archers when put inside a tower, or give even more range when put on top of a tower. And some protection since the ladders wouldnt reach them.
Putting soldiers in the gatehouse could be required for boiling oil or throwing down rocks from there.
6. Multible options when recruiting a general.
The choice seems rather random, it might be better if the player gets three options and needs to choose one of them.
7. Multible types of general.
A nice addition would be various kinds of generals, the types available could depend on the faction. If you plan for a general to serve as a govenor, elite foot archers might make for a more usefull bodyguard than horsemen.
8. Battlefield diplomacy.
When a diplomat is attached to the army, he could be send forward at the start of the battle. This could be an additional phase between deployment and battle. In a short cutscene, similar to the general speech, could the diplomat be send forward with a proposal.
-Your general could save his own skin by offering to disband his army and leave with his bodyguards. This could result in negative traits but could save your general when greatly outnumbered.
-When your force is greatly superiour, you could demand the enemy army to surrender or at least pull back to their nearest city.
-During a siege, the city or fort could be surrendered in exchange for free passage for your troops, general and any agents present.
-cruel enemies might kill your diplomat in response to your proposal if they disagree.
The prison could allow you to keep enemy agents and generals in there. Their release can be used in diplomacy.
When inprisoned, you can choose to convert them which could be easier than when they are free and in the field, or you can torture them to receive information about their faction, such as which provinces, wealth and numerous soldiers they posess.
The computer would also be able to do that of course.
Another idea, though this time in the nice to have, allow surprise attacks on the campaign map. This would be the offensive equivalent of the ambush, so that instead of the defender waiting for the attacker to blunder into a trap, the attacker can impose a trap, which was Caesar experienced on the Sambre and Scipio imposed on Hasrubal at Utica. It would also recognise that a lot of the so called ambushes contained more than an element of a surprise attack, in that while the defender was moving just before it was attacked significant numbers of the ambushers were only deployed at the last moment. The defenders knew there was some enemy presence in the area, but then that presence turns out to only be a screening force for a much larger enemy army, which then moves into an attacking position just when the defender is at its most vulnerable. [In a gully, in a forest, trapped next to a body water, split up by some confusion in command/control.]
The variables for deciding whether or not a surprise attack was achieved would be, in descending order of priority, the relative rating of the army commanders, the relative numbers and quality of light cavalry/light infantry in the army's, the terrain, whether it is the attackers or the defenders home terrain, and the season/weather.
If the attacking force achieves a surprise attack the defender is then deployed in the centre of the battlefield, either in column of march, as in an ambush, or in an encampment. The attacker is then deployed, and potentially very close to the defender. The defender should also not be able to move for a certain period of time, face a significant morale penalty, which might cause low grade/vulnerable units to rout from the outset, and have a significant limitation on ammunition. [It's all in the wagons!!!!!!] It's then up to the defender to fight themselves out of this disadvantageous situation.
Your question is "what's missing from Total War"
My answer is Replayability, this means it needs more variety not only in faction to faction basis, but also within a faction by itself. Maybe give a choice for a faction like a dilhemma that once you make a choice your choice significantly alters the way the faction works, not just a religious change, but entirely change unit roster and stuff like that. ALso if you somehow managed to fit the era of rome-medieval-empire into one game that would be pretty awesome indeed, I love LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG campaigns.
One thing I like to do in games is to explore the content slowly and discover new things, with Shogun 2, that exploration ended when I finished my 1st campaign, after that it's the same.
THe only reason I'm still playing S2 is because it has multiplayer, Shogun 2 is the fastest I've gotten bored with a total war game ever. I got bored of single player in less than 1 month, with empire even with it's multitude of gamebreaking bugs it could keep me interested and immersed for more than 1 full year, because of the vast differences between indies, eastern, european and american factions!
p.s. please take a look at my post named "The Client" Craig.
Last edited by Emperor Arcturus Mengsk; June 02, 2011 at 08:42 PM.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
2nd - more diplomacy options. The lack of exchanging territories in STW2 was a terrible decision on your part..........
3rd - more unit diversity. Although its understandable in S2TW, if the next game is something like RTW2 then there must be unit diversity.
4th - bring back changeable capitals, changeable faction heirs and viewable cities on the battlemap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS - keep the language differentiation up - I would love to hear Romans in RTW2 speak Roman for battle speeches, or Greek for Greeks etc. Although languages such as Teutonic and Punic may be hard to come by, at least give them a native North African/Celtic language or something =)
Keep in mind that I've scripted a basic form of that in M2TW (LTCrandom) btw. Calling your allies to attack a certain city in exchange for money.
Last edited by alhoon; June 03, 2011 at 04:30 AM.
What I would like to see improved in future TW games:
1. More historical accuracy: Historical accuracy doesn't mean poorer gameplay, no, not at all. Take a look at some of the famous mods for RTW, like RTR, EB, RSII. They all are historically very accurate, but are extremely fun to play and are very popular. Historical accuracy improves overall feeling of the game and makes it a lot in-depth and interesting.
2. More provinces: Makes playing the campaign a lot more interesting as well as longer, but not too long because there are victory conditions where can be defined whether you need to capture 20 or 50 regions.
3. More factions: Alright, ETW,NTW and S2TW did good with this, but RTW and M2TW did not. So please, let this trend continue. Do not start decreasing the amount of factions you implement in your games CA.
4. Emerging and re-emerging factions, civil wars and wars of succession: I know ETW, NTW and S2TW have similar features but, CA, please don't remove then in the future!
5. Kingdoms style reinforcement system: It was simple, but good enough.
6. Total War: Rome 2
Thanks for listening your loyal fans CA !
Regarding siege equipment -
Rather than making them a physical unit on the campaign map - using up army slots and running the risk of the AI either mass producing stacks of them, or like in S2an obvious lack of them - how about making abstracting them? Maybe they could just exist as part of armies and they'd only become reality when entering a battle. The amount and type would perhaps be proportionate to and dependent on clan tech researched, or an overarching strategy/emphasis of the clan/faction (see below).
This would be a focus the player/AI could select at a clan wide impact level. For instance, selecting a focus on military, civil buildings, agriculture, trade, etc, and within each bracket one would be able to specialise further if desired, or opt to keep a balanced approach. For example, within military there might be options to focus on artillery, melee, archery, cavalry, etc. In essence this is like a clan focus and the player or AI would be able to change this focus over a period of time.
Increased focus on character development -
This is great, and I'd like to see the rpg element expanded upon further. Stats for each general like no. of battles won/lost, other generals killed. Maybe even have news reports of key generals that are impacting on the Japanese scene, human and AI. Let's recreate our Nobunagas.
Edit: Oh, and here's one for the camp that more is not necessarily better. S2 is the tightest of the series and it's relatively small in scope. It's balanced, fun, and most important of all, a challenge.
Last edited by DrJambo; June 03, 2011 at 05:04 AM.
My wishlist for things I'd like to see added to S2TW:
1. Mod Tools - There's a reason why RTW and M2TW lasted so much longer than ETW and NTW.
2. Faction-specific units and campaign map units/options - Even if it's just 1 or 2 units, give them so that they actually have an impact on how you approach battles or campaigns with these different factions instead of stat changes (which I swear you said was something you were going to address in S2TW, but would up having the same problem as ETW in which every faction had the same vanilla units). Helps greatly with replayability.
3. More in-depth diplomacy options. Ability to request allies to attack a province or an army. Or have the option to have you command their armies for a price or a number of turns.
4. More historical battles & events. I hold the number of historical battles in RTW and M2TW as benchmark =). So add as much as you can!
5. Continue to improve AI. S2TW was a step in the right direction, please improve naval unit's AI, and make them more responsive. The formation buttons are essentially useless right now because the ships just won't go anywhere while trying to maintain their formations.
Oh, and mod tools, PLEASE.
CraigTW this is pretty cool that you and CA are taking the time to listen what the community has to say which I really respect and I'm sure there will be many in the community that will appreciate this as well. With that being said I will post my thoughts though I wish I could have been the first post .
Single Player Campaign
- Bring back the option to trade and give territories in diplomacy.
- The option to annex a vassal if the relations level is high enough.
- The ability to coordinate attacks with allies at least the option to ask an ally to attack settlement X or ask them to attack port Y with their navy. Those two option would be a great start and would work similar to how crusades did in M2TW.
- The option to request a faction to end a war with an other faction, its a logical option since we have the option to ask a faction to join a war why not have the option to ask them to stop a war.
- Bring back garrison-able buildings, it was kind of lame not being able to place archers in the castle keeps in Shogun 2. Make the garrison-able building the objective of the siege with a wall and gate that can be destroyed by infantry using torches. We need last stands back in the TW series. These would be palaces and government type buildings that you would have to storm to win the siege, its time for the little undefend-able square in the center of a city or castle to evolve into something better.
- Add more settlement diversity, of course RTW 2 would be easier since there are many different cultures.
- Bring build-able forts back that can be upgraded to a stone version. Also it is very important that these structures can be destroyed and removed from the map so it doesn't get too clustered as your borders move. It would also be neat if these forts could have minor upgrades like roads to the fort and maybe a supply building that improves replenishment for the region. Forts should also add to the repression to the region they are in as well.
These should be the objectives of a siege not some little square with flags unless they are inside of these buildings!
- More RPG element option for those who enjoy this aspect of the game. For example being able to customize the armor and weapon of the general in single player. There should be a few weapon options maybe sword, spear, bow based on the culture of the faction. Armor choices could be determined based on the level of the character, the higher the level the more armor choices.
- Please keep unique faction leaders with kings that have crowns and emperors that look unique to the faction. There could be some weapon and armor options for these characters as well.
- Let there be a bow skill for generals for certain cultures.
- Veteran units should be earned not recruited, I really disliked the ability to recruit full stacks of level 5+ vets it ruins immersion. All xp bonus should be removed from building and technology trees period. Veteran units should be earned from deeds on the battlefield like the man of the hour event. Veterans should be rare but once a unit reaches the threshold vet statues they would earn xp as normal.
- Bring back the ability to rename vets.
- Add the option to customize unit appearance and stats like mp to the single player campaign. Since vets would be rare it wouldn't be hard to manage however there should still be an auto upgrade option.
The reason why a vet system like I described above is so critical for Rome II so you can recreate battles like the Battle of Pharsalus where Caesar's hardened legions that were forged fighting in Gaul are outnumbered 2 to 1 by Pompey's larger army of fresh recruits in the single player campaign. Another example is Hannibal Barca at the battle of Battle of Cannae or the Roman army that invade Greece after the Punic Wars. Its time for the veteran system to evolve and dojos and barracks that turn out stacks of level 5+ vets is not the answer. Its ok to have larger barrack turn out more units but don't give recruits xp. The master of the arts should not be used for xp either it should be used for unlocking larger barracks and maybe formations/drills or unit special abilities like fire arrows.
- Add the option to have more then 20 units in a stack maybe at least 30 or bring back the kingdoms reinforcement system. I think most would be happy with 30 units in a stack as an option though.
- Program the Ai to have historical unit composition for the culture type, I hate seeing full stacks of archers. Maybe Ai stacks could have a percentage scale for how it assembles its stacks like Romans for example could be 10% archers, 20% cavalry, and 70% infantry.
- Program to Ai to use its units correctly on the battlefield for example having archers use lose formation when fighting in archer duels and using its cavalry properly in coordination with the infantry.
Blood and Gore
- Bring back blood to at least the level of M2TW.
- True port cites that show the harbor on the battlefield with ships in the port.
- Location from the campaign map being proper portrayed on the battlefield.
- Defenses for settlements that can be ungraded.
- Viewable fleets in land battle if they are close to the area, this is a RTW feature.
Combined Land and Sea Battles
- Amphibious assaults would be a nice addition to the total war series and it would be nice to see some Troy like action in RTW 2 where the ships land on the beach and the troops disembark. Also it would be neat if the ships could offer a little arrow fire support.
Mixed Weapons in a Unit
- It would be nice to see mixed weapons in certain units for example a barbarian warband could have swords, spears, and axes. Now the unit would not be good at any one particular task but it would be an all round good unit that gets a very small cav bonus since 1/3 of them will have spears so instead of getting a cav bonus of 12 they would a 4. Mixed weapon units also look incredible and is more realistic for certain unit types.
Features not to be Forgotten
These are features that should be in every totalwar game going forward.
- Naval battles.
- Replenishment system.
- Dismounting Cavalry.
- Unique faction leader models on the campaign and battle map.
- Garrison-able buildings.
- City View.
- Avatar System
- Dedicated Servers
- Classic Mode
- Achievements for reaching the top of each MP ladder.
- Working leader boards on day 1
- Veteran ability's that work on day 1
Good luck with your new Project, wish I could be part of the team
Last edited by Kinjo; June 03, 2011 at 09:43 PM.