TOTAL WAR: EMPIRE 2 Proposed Gameplay

[wangrin]

If you're the attacker, defensive works aren't useful, apart from siege and only if CA would create a true siege battle mechanic.

Ability to build defensive works could be linked to some sort of "engineering" points.
Each unit, depending of its type could be granted an amount of engineering points.
Some traits of retinues could increase this amount.
So, a "good besieger" trait could be a multiplier, increasing by 10% (level1) the amount of engineering point of the army.

Each defensive work could need a certain amount of engineering points to be build.

Moreover, defensive works available could depend of the type of units and retinue.
An army composed of regular infantry and cavalry could be able to build common earthwork, but only sapper/engineer units or engineer retinue could allow to build all type of defensive works.

[Herr Doctor]

And a proper role of artillery (batteries etc), which would be even more complex to model but could make the long sieges especially interesting.

PS. All the ideas are simply stunning. It's a pity that CA usually takes the opposite road instead making their games in-depth.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Your suggestions are great. I would just like to add to your regions that there should be more than 300 regions. Most would be small and minor villages. Majority would be. Leave the capitals and important cities as walled or large. ETW became stale because of their region system.

I would also like to see a timeline from the mid 1600s to the 1800s. This would start the game with early muskets and pikes and lead to a transition to napoleon era warfare. Hopefully, it doesnt lead to major factions advancing too quickly and stomping out pike armies with more advanced weapons and drills.

But I would like to play a game where you start in the 1600s and can advance to more advance tech to conquer your neighbors. Otherwise if there is even a pike based system coded in the game then maybe modders can create a mod.

[Alwyn]

A more advanced siege system could be both historical and exciting.

Good idea, MathiasOfAthens, about having more regions. I recently started playing Rome II; I like the system of having groups of regions with a walled city as the capital and subsidiary cities without walls. I agree that such a system could work well for an Empire 2. Historically sieges were important; at least for me, if every battle at a city was a siege, then the game would become repetitive. Using groups of regions in a Rome II-style province system would be a good compromise in my view. I could imagine a combination of DLC and fan-made mods adding extra parts of the world, if the base game provided (for example) the Americans, Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and India, as in ETW - but if the base game allowed modders to add extra regions (like Shogun II and unlike ETW).

One thing I really enjoy about ETW is the development of technology leading to different challenges on the battlefield. I also like repeating or changing history and obviously a longer time-line would allow us to repeat or change more historical events. So I'd be okay with starting an Empire 2 in the 1600s and leading to the Napoleonic Wars.

[wangrin]

Zone of Control (ZoC)

1. DEFINITION

A Zone of Control is an area where an army can :

• spot an enemy army
• intercept an enemy army

A Zone of Control size depend of

• terrain
• unit types/categories
• others (?)

2. MECHANICS

2.1. GENERALITIES

A ZoC only allow a probability to spot and intercept an enemy army.
A ZoC isn't a deny zone.

An army ZoC size as well as the ability to intercept an enemy army should depend of units composing the army.
So, the basis of the ZoC system should be units.

The ZoC could be divided into a CLoS (Campaign Line of Sight) and a ZoI (Zone of Interception).

3.1. UNIT ZoC

As ZoC depend of the ability to send a unit to recon or intercept enemy unit, unit ZoC is, in fact, unit campaign movement radius/point or a percentage of movement points..
Using remaining movement points during the turn is likely not a good idea as TW is a turn based game and it is not rare that armies are out of movement point at the end of their turn.

So, possibilities are :

• define unit ZoC as the same as unit maximum campaign movement points ;
• define unit ZoC as the same as unit remaining campaign movement points during the turn ;
• define unit ZoC as the result between unit maximum campaign movement points and a multiplier depending of unit remaining campaign movement points during the turn to avoid a "no ZoC" ;

3.2 ARMY / NAVY ZoC

An army ZoC should be divided in two part :

• The Recon Zone
• The Interception Zone

The Recon Zone (RZ) is an area where the army can spot and "check" enemy armies but not intercept them (because of insufficient forces)
So, the RZ radius is defined by the greatest unit ZoC available in the army.
The RZ could allow several actions :

• recon enemy army :
  The general select a unit of his army (with sufficient unit ZoC) to recon the enemy unit.
  The recon unit get a chance to fulfil its mission and to avoid interception by enemy units.
• harass enemy army :
  The general can select a small force composed of one or mode units (with sufficient unit ZoC) to intercept/ambush enemy army convoys or enemy units patrolling around.
  The small force get a chance to fulfil its mission and to avoid interception by enemy units and in case of interception a limited battle could ensue.

The Interception Zone (IZ) is an area where the army can intercept the enemy with its full forces.
So, IZ radius is defined by the smallest unit ZoC available in the army.
The IZ could allow several actions :

• ambushing enemy army
  The general decided to try an ambush attack.
  The probability of success depend of the balance of recon abilities between your army and the enemy army, as well as terrain.
  In the worst case, your army can be finally ambushed by the enemy army...
• intercepting enemy army
  The general decide to start a classic battle with the enemy army.

NOTE : RETREAT PATH

One of the issue with TW games is the retreat path.
The player is unable to influence it and game engine decisions are often stupid, at best.

So, it is important CA :

• allow human player to control his army retreat path after losing a battle ;
• Upgrade game engine abilities to calculate more accurate retreat path.

The important thing here is what parameters use and how calculate the retreat path.[/list]

[wangrin]

CAMPAIGN MAP

The campaign map and its specific mechanism depend of the period chosen for a future TW: Empire 2.
But it should be possible to define some generic features and then adapt them to specific needs.

CAMPAIGN MAP SIZE :

1. World map :
   TWE2 can cover any period within the modern and early contemporary period, eg. from 16th century to 18th century and 19th century.
   This period is characterized by a switch between Asia to Europa as centre of economic and financial activities and European powers discovering and colonizing overseas (Americas, Indies, Africa, etc.).
   So, if the game is "euro-centered", a campaign map could not be limited to Europe and nearby area, the map must be a world map.
   Of course, depending of the period, more or less areas should be "Terra Incognita" and unavailable in the game.
2. Foreign Trade Nodes :
   As it should be difficult to create a huge number of factions, CA could rely on system similar to "trade nodes" from Shogun 2.
   Such system could be use during any period within the modern period to represent trade with China and Japan for example.
3. Theaters, provinces & regions :
   Like in ETW, campaign map could be divided in "theaters" to ease management of empire.
   This would be accurate with history, like Spanish "Vice royalties".
   
   CA should keep the new province system release with TWR2 : grouping regions in provinces.
   On the other hand, CA should use a system similar to M2TW to develop cities : the choice to develop a city as "military city" (fortress), "economic center" (trading, industrial or agricultural center).
4. Forts :
   As the period was a lot about siege warfare, a TWE2 game could not avoid to deal with the return of forts.
   Contrary to ETW, I don't think a fortress should be build by generals. It should be a decision of the government and could be build only in faction's own regions.
   Moreover, forts should have a construction cost AND an upkeep cost.
   Player could decide to decrease or even cancel upkeep. In this condition, fortification will degrade (like during siege) and, in the worst case are completely destroyed.
   Player could decide to repair fortification in case of war.
   Player could also decide to dismantle fort if useless or to reduce upkeep costs.
   To avoid "fort spam", CA could define a limit number for forts depending of the number of region or any other system.

CAMPAIGN MAP MECHANISM :

1. Coalition system :
   Such system would allow factions to regroup against an other coalition or any shared goal.
   The coalition would be lead by one faction (leader) who :
   
   • assign goals to coalitions armies : besiege a city, defend/attack a city, a region or an area, track/attack an enemy army/fleet, blockade a port/ maritime region, flank (protect) an allied army, etc.
   • can eventually take control of coalition armies
   • can raise "coalition" troops
   
   The leading faction could be nominate :
   
   • because being the most powerful faction in the coalition
   • after elections
   
   
   
   • Extension of the coalition system : the Holy Roman Empire as a permanent coalition
     
     • HRE emperor is elected by electors ;
     • HRE can call the HRE army composed of contingents from Germans States and Kreisregiments ;
     • HRE organize armies and nominate commanders for each armies ;
     • HRE define war strategy ;
     
     This means that German regions should be organized by Circles or Reichskreise if it is not possible to organize them by "states".
     
   • Extension of the coalition system : religious wars
     A faction could call factions sharing its state religion to join a coalition against a faction or coalition of different faith.
     For example, a catholic faction could call other catholic factions to join in a war against protestant faction(s).
     This could represent 30 years war for example.
2. Horde System :
   The new Horde System from TWR2 and Attila should be keep as it is a valuable feature to represent "factions" such as native Americans.
   A Horde do not earn any region, but is able to build camp that work like cities (upgrading "building", etc.).
   This system could also work for armies, but after being simpler. An army could build camp (could represent winter quarters) that make available several "buildings" such as Campaign Hospital, Smith workshop, Bakery, etc.

[Alwyn]

Great ideas, wangrin! Playing TW on a world map would be incredible, even if there were still some unused areas (perhaps modders could fill in any blank spaces). I think your ideas for recon, interception and ambush would make for exciting game-play. I wonder if it would be possible for AI factions to change their strategy depending on their relative strength compared to an enemy. For example, suppose France is at war on two fronts. On one front, there is a powerful German coalition. On the other front, there is an Italian city-state which has been weakened by a costly war. France could fight defensively on the German front, preparing ambushes, building forts and defending choke-points such as river crossings and mountain passes. On the Italian front, France could advance aggressively (while the Italian state could be using defensive tactics on this front.)

Better retreat paths would be a significant improvement. Your ideas for forts sound good. Ideally, when deciding to build a fort, I would like to be able to 'zoom in' from the campaign map to the battle map view, to choose a specific location for my fort (e.g. on a flat-topped hill or by a river, providing a natural moat). A coalition system sounds great, both for multiplayer and solo play - it would be useful to be able to ask an AI ally to defend or attack a strategic location, for example.

[Akarios]

A few more things:

• 4 Seasons per year and proportional movement allowances based on season. This would give a good reason to maintain light forces (which move in Winter and Spring better than regular forces). The number of turns per year would be based on this. (that doesn't mean just 4 turns)
• The ability to mod multi-turn seasons. Little movement occurred in Winter and Spring and activity was compressed in Summer and Fall. It would make sense to have say 1 Winter turn, 2 Spring turns and say 4 turns each for Summer and Fall. This could be done instead of proportional movement (which would be my preference actually)
• Replacements take as many turns to reach a unit as it would a replacement unit of the same type to move to the location of the army. Right now, replacements are pretty generic, being able to replace anything from Infantry to Artillery. 18th Century warfare wasn't generic. You couldn't just toss a sword to somebody and call him a man-at-arms or yeoman. All arms (including replacements) required some degree of training.
• Replacements aren't possible until a procurement tech is researched. Being able to get trained personnel into the field to replace losses wasn't well understood until 1730 or so. Until then, it was more common to raise units of the same type, march them out and either fight them as units or combining them into new units.
• In lieu of well defined supply lines, replacements and maintenance should cost more the farther away a unit is from the nearest supply point.

Great ideas, wangrin! Playing TW on a world map would be incredible, even if there were still some unused areas (perhaps modders could fill in any blank spaces). I think your ideas for recon, interception and ambush would make for exciting game-play. I wonder if it would be possible for AI factions to change their strategy depending on their relative strength compared to an enemy. For example, suppose France is at war on two fronts. On one front, there is a powerful German coalition. On the other front, there is an Italian city-state which has been weakened by a costly war. France could fight defensively on the German front, preparing ambushes, building forts and defending choke-points such as river crossings and mountain passes. On the Italian front, France could advance aggressively (while the Italian state could be using defensive tactics on this front.)

Better retreat paths would be a significant improvement. Your ideas for forts sound good. Ideally, when deciding to build a fort, I would like to be able to 'zoom in' from the campaign map to the battle map view, to choose a specific location for my fort (e.g. on a flat-topped hill or by a river, providing a natural moat). A coalition system sounds great, both for multiplayer and solo play - it would be useful to be able to ask an AI ally to defend or attack a strategic location, for example.

Changing strategies shouldn't be too hard. It'd be a matter of defining the right decision matrix for the CAI.

[wangrin]

REPLENISHMENT :

Armies had to constantly face to attrition, from deads and wounded to desertion (likely the most important factor).

To replenish units, we have to take into account two mechanisms :

1. local replenishment :
   
   
   • recruiting from prisoners
   • recruiting from natives
     example : a French regulation dated May 1 1757 allowed to enroll up to 5 foreigners in a French infantry company (a fusilier company was composed of 31 fusiliers, a grenadier company was composed of 36 grenadiers)
   • merging units
     In some case, units can be merged.
     In extreme case, like French did during the SYW, "provincial infantry" (milice de France) can be used as a reserve (despite regulation that forbid it).
   
   
2. remote replenishment
   
   
   • sending unit back in its quarters
     Depending of armies organisations, it was possible that regiment kept a "reserve depot" like Austrian did during the Seven Years War.
   
   

The fact is no armies send all its forces in front line.
Forces were always divided into "field army" in front line (itself divided in several lines) and a "reserve".
"Provincial" troops were generally use to replace field army unit in their garrison duty.

So, to "translate" this in a Unit Replenishment Mechanic, it could look like this :

• local replenishment : allow to replenish a unit up to x % of its original size, based on recruiting natives of war prisoners ;
• remote replenishment : allow to replenish a unit with reserve depot trained reinforcement but depend of "supply line" ;
  can be linked to a technology (as I'm not sure it worked for the early XVIIIth century)
• emergency/field replenishment : merging a badly damaged unit in an other one

It could be interesting to add a "reserve / field" mechanism.
Regiment were rarely send in campaign for the entire duration of the war.
Generally, regiment alternate being in the field army (alternating between front line and reserve) and in garrison/reserve in the rears if not back at home.
But I fear such system would be to complex for the game and gameplay.

[Akarios]

While I agree about local replenishment, I'd be careful with it, since implementation would open the door for Prisoner's of War and how to use them. e.g. Impressment, Housing (i.e. maintenance), utilization in Diplomacy just to name a few.

[wangrin]

Battle Casualty Systems :

CA implement a rather simple system in ETW / NTW / TWS2 : a soldier or general is dead or alive.
In TWR2 / Attila add more choice : at the end of a battle you can release prisoners, recruit from them or kill them all.

The simple fact that a general cannot be taken prisoner is silly.
Moreover, CA was able to create a more accurate system in M2TW : it was possible to make general prisoner, exchange prisoners of war, etc.

In the "real life", after a battle you are left with casualties :

• killed
• wounded (wich x % will die from theirs wounds...)
• captured and missing

In the "real life", general can be taken prisoner.
In this case, it is possible to exchange him, to pay a ransom or to let him prisoner.
When exchanged, it was possible to forbid him to take part to the war again (for the duration of the conflict).


What a Battle Casualty System could look like :

• General status : after a battle, general can be safe / wounded / dead / prisoner
  
  • general wounded : like any agent wounded, general is removed from the campaign map for x turns, contrary to other agent, general must be replaced (*)
  • general dead : general must be replaced
  • general prisoner of war : general must be replace, can be exchanged through diplomatic menu
• Army status :
  
  • Casualties : after a battle, each army reports its losses
    
    • killed ;
    • wounded : x% recovered per turns, maybe limited to n turns and x can be a mathematical series
      For example, you have 100 wounded, 50 will recover for the next turn, 25 recover for the second turn, no recovering after the second turn, unrecovered wounded considered as dead
      The ratio or parameters of the mathematical series must be defined in db table to be modable.
      Moreover, technologies should be able to modify these parameters (example : field military hospital increase recovering)
    • captured (prisoners in enemy hands) : can be exchanged (in battle report)
    • missing (deserters)
  • Prisoners (enemies) : can be exchanged (in battle report), can be recruited (x% of prisoners)
    Not all enemy prisoners can be recruited, the ratio should be defined in db tables to be modable.

(*) depend of the army system
TWR2 / Attila Army System : an army must be lead by a general, so, if he his unavailable (dead, wounded, prisoner) he must be replace and replacement take effect at the end of the turn.

[roaringsilence]

I strongly disagree about keeping the TWR2 region/province system. I truly hate that system. Way too restrictive. I prefer ETW's region 10 times out of 10. They only change needed to is that some of the larger regions
should be split into several smaller regions. Spain and France could be split into 3-4-5 regions. Sweden into 3-4 and Finland into 2. However a game like EU-series have way too many regions.
Possible that some of the largest non province capital could grow enough to allow for two buildings and that the smaller regional capitals could grow into a three slot small city.
To be honest I really loved ETW despite it's flaws and bugs but I really really dislike R2 (except the extended diplomatic features).

I personally don't want a new game to be anywhere near R2/ATW (which is based on R2) mechanics. Sure ETW had it's flaws but in general it was a very good game. Vastly better then R2.
I would also like to see the reinforcement system used in M2TW but with some tweaks.

[ACMilan88]

Love to see ETW 2. 18th century is my favorite time period. A ETW 2 must have:
- Better AI mecanics
- Proper army formations
- Engage in melee/Ranged combat when suitable
- Unit formations don't bump into eacher making a mess
- Realistic seiege battles with less glitches and different fort models/layouts
- Unique buildings for minor but important factions like Bavaria, Saxony, Venice for example
- Realistic language for all factions, not Danes that speak Swedish for example
- in dept hirtorical research from the CA time making each faction realistic and historical, unique unit rosters that represent the faction in question. Else hire a historian that can help you out with research
- Realistic unit models
- Historical wars and alliances like war of spanish succession, 7 years war etc
- No overpowered factions like Poland for example
- Different campaign for each part of the 18th century - for ex a early, midd and late campaign with units and events that represent those periods in a historical manner
- An american revolution campaign with more playable factions like Britain and france
- Possible DLC, french revolutionary wars
- Historical characters like leaders and generals with realistic portraits. Realistic uni models for historical generals in-game


Disirable additions:
A n asian map, dosn't have to all of asia

[SanderP]

-World Map
-MANY MANY provinces

Thx, that's all

[apostrophefz]

Hell yeah a whole wide world would be great. Europa Universalis, but Total War-like! That would be ambicious, gargantuan, and absolutely great!