Request to CA: Please keep these Attila/TLR Features in Future Titles

[the lightning legion]

Yet you hypocritically do nothing while the other guy does exactly as you describe plenty of times.

links?

BTW its not like i'd need to bother to point it out when someone who dares oppose this forums consensus gives voice to his opinion, plenty of people will have already done it long before i'll see it.

[PointOfViewGun]

I just like shoving logical opposition in his face

Logical opposition? None of your statements could be classified as logical opposition.

Characters still die in a few dozen turns, regardless of the family tree. How would it be worse with a family tree? On the contrary, someone might prefer a constantly changing family tree to a stagnat one. If by timeline you mean the historical era, then I disagree: Royal dynasties played a significant role in their states' politics (e.g. the relations between the Successor Kingdoms) and they did have an actual role in many of the playing factions, like Parthia, Macedon or the Seleucids. Actually, even Rome and Carthage that didn't have any hereditiary ruler are divided into six families.

You don't seem to have read what I said properly. I'm not talking about it being worse, nor I'm talking about the historical era. I said timeline and then talked about one year per turn timeline... With one year per turn characters get old quick, which makes a family tree a nuisance. Anything less than 4 turns per year, which Attila has, would make that feature a useless one, merely a place holder.

[johnmck]

I fail to see why you couldn't have a 1-turn per year family tree. Maybe if CA actually had events during the 50 or so years (turns) of a characters life, it wouldn't be a "nuisance." But you're right, in the current limited state that the family tree is in, it wouldn't make much sense. I would personally love if every other turn characters in your family tree were presented with choices that affect their development, but I mean, this is CA we're talking about here.

[LinusLinothorax]

Dont forget the features which include that you can change now the bodyguard of your general aswell as the line of sight system. Rome II was a frightening backstep on many ways, but these two featueres are amazing and i dont want to see a future TW without them.

[surg3on]

It is well known here by regulars that Setekh and I never agree on anything and won`t. That`s why I won`t waste my time telling him, he`ll just argue in circles, just as you would. I just like shoving logical opposition in his face, when he`s clearly wrong, < removed >

What a surprise you spoke up supporting Setekh. Not.

its almost as if you both like different things! *GASP*

My own opinion? Attila is one of the best TW's. Not perfect but probably the least flawed of the big bunch we are lucky to have the option to choose from (its not like theres tons of companies creating TW clones).

[LinusLinothorax]

(its not like theres tons of companies creating TW clones).

Name one which is not completly inferior to TW.

[Aenima]

You don't seem to have read what I said properly. I'm not talking about it being worse, nor I'm talking about the historical era. I said timeline and then talked about one year per turn timeline... With one year per turn characters get old quick, which makes a family tree a nuisance. Anything less than 4 turns per year, which Attila has, would make that feature a useless one, merely a place holder.

Didn't M2 have a family tree with 1TPY? What negative effect would 1TPY have on a family tree that doesn't effect a political party system with 1TPY? People dying quickly before you're able to level them up as much as you like? That'd still be, and is, a problem with the political party system. What would make it such a nuisance?

[PointOfViewGun]

Didn't M2 have a family tree with 1TPY? What negative effect would 1TPY have on a family tree that doesn't effect a political party system with 1TPY? People dying quickly before you're able to level them up as much as you like? That'd still be, and is, a problem with the political party system. What would make it such a nuisance?

And how many people remember it's relevance to the game? Even you are not sure of it's existence. That pretty much says it all. I myself have no memory of using it.

People dying too quickly is not a problem of leveling them up as much as I like. It's about leveling them up to a reasonable level. Between 20 and 40 years of age you only get 20 turns to develop a general. With Attila, you have 80 turns. The difference is quite obvious.

[Theo]

Is this thread still going on O_O? Didn't realize I had opened up such a hornet's nest in the OP... Or we just have some explosive personalities in here lol.

Didn't M2 have a family tree with 1TPY?

Medieval II had a two year per turn system with a family tree on the grand campaign (that's right, every turn two years went by). But generals only aged each winter, which happened every other turn. So your generals aged 1 year every four years.

But modders quickly changed the years per turn and seasons to four turns per year, and eventually the kingdoms packs came out, so generals lasted a pretty long time for the majority of people. And yes, people loved their family trees even then, bizarre as the aging system originally was. I still remember playing TATW with my awesome Gondorian family trees ^^. Also EB2. I don't think anyone ever complained about CA including family trees in Medieval 2, and there were a ton of mods which made generals immortal.

The RPG elements of total war games have always been a key feature to earlier total war games for the majority of fans.

Can't think of a single such a major idea that was left behind. I've played every single Total War game since the first Shogun. They gradually collected new ideas that became an essential part of the games.

I'll bite: Civil Wars, Faction Resurrection, and Family Trees.

Both Civil Wars and Faction Resurrection (defeated factions coming back if their starting territories revolt against you) were dropped in the transition from Medieval Total War to Rome Total War. In MTW, you could even choose which side of the civil war you wanted to command.

Now, you can rationalize removing the family tree all you want, that doesn't change the fact that it was a much loved feature and CA decided to design Rome II in a way that saw family trees removed. The other two features would have made Rome Total War a much better game.

So we have two examples; the transition from MTW to RTW, and from STW II to RTW II, in which features were dropped from one game to the next. Which, in my opinion, justifies my OP in which I request that the next titles be designed around preserving (and expanding on) the features I mention.

[Aenima]

And how many people remember it's relevance to the game? Even you are not sure of it's existence. That pretty much says it all. I myself have no memory of using it.

Uhh, no. I'm well aware that M2 had a family tree, I'm also pretty sure that it had a 1TPY system, or maybe 2. I'm not asking about the game having a family tree, I know it did.

People dying too quickly is not a problem of leveling them up as much as I like. It's about leveling them up to a reasonable level. Between 20 and 40 years of age you only get 20 turns to develop a general. With Attila, you have 80 turns. The difference is quite obvious.

So are you saying you think the political system in R2 was also a failure? You earlier said that a family tree didn't suit R2's timeline because 1TPY=dying too quickly and thus not allowing for proper development. So why was using a political system for R2 any better when it had the exact same pitfall?

Medieval II had a two year per turn system with a family tree on the grand campaign (that's right, every turn two years went by). But generals only aged each winter, which happened every other turn. So your generals aged 1 year every four years.

But modders quickly changed the years per turn and seasons to four turns per year, and eventually the kingdoms packs came out, so generals lasted a pretty long time for the majority of people. And yes, people loved their family trees even then, bizarre as the aging system originally was. I still remember playing TATW with my awesome Gondorian family trees ^^. Also EB2. I don't think anyone ever complained about CA including family trees in Medieval 2, and there were a ton of mods which made generals immortal.

The RPG elements of total war games have always been a key feature to earlier total war games for the majority of fans.

Really? I have it in my head that generals aged quite fast in that game. Fair enough.

For me it's always been a mix of slight RPG + lots of immersion making TW games fun for me. Unfortunately that just seems to be quite lacking these days. On the one hand I love Attila's family tree, the map, the many factions and the building trees etc....but at the moment I'm just finding it hard to really "get into." I installed it again last ngiht (hence being here again) but a problem I keep having is knowing that playing as the WRE is going to feel pretty unrealistic as I'm generally able to wipe out historically menacing hordes like the Subei/Vandals/Goths/Roxolani etc with relative ease.

I dunno, maybe I've never given the campaign enough time to really challenge me (and I'm saying this even though money has typically been an issue as the WRE) but it always feels like I wipe out most of the hordes and am then left thinking "ok....now what?" Other factions have a bizarre habit of not actually annexing my land but instead like to sack and raid so overall it just feels like not much happens in my campaigns. Not really much immersion to be had when these thoughts are constantly at the back of your mind

[PointOfViewGun]

I'll bite: Civil Wars, Faction Resurrection, and Family Trees.

Both Civil Wars and Faction Resurrection (defeated factions coming back if their starting territories revolt against you) were dropped in the transition from Medieval Total War to Rome Total War. In MTW, you could even choose which side of the civil war you wanted to command.

Now, you can rationalize removing the family tree all you want, that doesn't change the fact that it was a much loved feature and CA decided to design Rome II in a way that saw family trees removed. The other two features would have made Rome Total War a much better game.

So we have two examples; the transition from MTW to RTW, and from STW II to RTW II, in which features were dropped from one game to the next. Which, in my opinion, justifies my OP in which I request that the next titles be designed around preserving (and expanding on) the features I mention.

Rome I did have civil wars and faction resurrection.

I also loved having soldiers with katanas but I can't expect it in Rome II, can I? Can I also list is a removed feature? Or if we have a new Shogun themed game and not have horde mechanics, can we talk about it as a removed feature? We shouldn't. It's pointless. We can only talk about features as removed if it made sense to have them in the first place.

Uhh, no. I'm well aware that M2 had a family tree, I'm also pretty sure that it had a 1TPY system, or maybe 2. I'm not asking about the game having a family tree, I know it did.

So are you saying you think the political system in R2 was also a failure? You earlier said that a family tree didn't suit R2's timeline because 1TPY=dying too quickly and thus not allowing for proper development. So why was using a political system for R2 any better when it had the exact same pitfall?

According to Theo, Medieval II basically cheated, which was most likely to make the family tree meaningful.

Political system is not equal to family tree. Family tree could merely be a factor of the political system. Rome II's political system focused on the balance between factions probably because of the timeline constraints. Hence, character management was much simpler compared to Attila. I wouldn't call it a failure in the sense you're talking about.

[Aenima]

Political system is not equal to family tree. Family tree could merely be a factor of the political system. Rome II's political system focused on the balance between factions probably because of the timeline constraints. Hence, character management was much simpler compared to Attila. I wouldn't call it a failure in the sense you're talking about.

Again, though, why would having implemented a family tree in R2 not worked? You have family members in R2 who are somewhat similar to a "family tree" except you don't actually get to see a family tree. I just don't understand how R2's timeline makes a family tree ineffective when it seems it could have worked perfectly fine, or at least as well as how R2's political system worked. Hell, the two could have been implemented together in some form or another.

[PointOfViewGun]

Again, though, why would having implemented a family tree in R2 not worked? You have family members in R2 who are somewhat similar to a "family tree" except you don't actually get to see a family tree. I just don't understand how R2's timeline makes a family tree ineffective when it seems it could have worked perfectly fine, or at least as well as how R2's political system worked. Hell, the two could have been implemented together in some form or another.

It would work but not in a sense that it would be a benefit for the game. It would only technically work. With a one year per one turn scheme characters we're talking about only 20 turns to get from age of 20 to 40. That's 80 turns for Attila. Already told you that. If, with that difference, it would still work perfectly fine for you, then there isn't much I can tell.

[Abdülmecid I]

Rome I did have civil wars and faction resurrection.

The only civil war that could possibly happen would be between one Roman faction and the remaining three. However, portraying it as a civil war is misleading, since the four factions (SPQR, Scipii, Julii and Brutii) were completely independent from each other, so it was more like a conflict between four ex-allies. Faction resurrection, on the other hand, didn't exist in Rome I, Barbarian Invasion and Medieval II.

[PointOfViewGun]

The only civil war that could possibly happen would be between one Roman faction and the remaining three. However, portraying it as a civil war is misleading, since the four factions (SPQR, Scipii, Julii and Brutii) were completely independent from each other, so it was more like a conflict between four ex-allies. Faction resurrection, on the other hand, didn't exist in Rome I, Barbarian Invasion and Medieval II.

I checked. You can find people talking in threads about factions reemerging after they've been gone. Rome I, in a weird way, used separate independent but connected states thing to depict different families of Rome. A war between them is still civil war and it was part of the campaign progress.

[Abdülmecid I]

I checked. You can find people talking in threads about factions reemerging after they've been gone. Rome I, in a weird way, used separate independent but connected states thing to depict different families of Rome. A war between them is still civil war and it was part of the campaign progress.

Well, I searched but I didn't manage to find any thread about faction resurrection in Rome I. Perhaps, you mean the emerging (not the re-emerging) factions of BI, like the Ostrogoths, the Roman rebels, the Slavs and the Romano-British? The only relevant thread I found talked about how faction resurrection could possibly be added in R1 by modding:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...rging-factions

[PointOfViewGun]

Well, I searched but I didn't manage to find any thread about faction resurrection in Rome I. Perhaps, you mean the emerging (not the re-emerging) factions of BI, like the Ostrogoths, the Roman rebels, the Slavs and the Romano-British? The only relevant thread I found talked about how faction resurrection could possibly be added in R1 by modding:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...rging-factions

No, I mean re-emerging. First result on Google search...

[Abdülmecid I]

No, I mean re-emerging. First result on Google search...

Ha, never knew about that. It looks more like a bug than a feature, but anyway, I stand corrected. My apologies, Setekh.

[Theo]

Rome I did have civil wars and faction resurrection.

Now, when I wrote my post answering you I anticipated that a certain type of person may come back with that retort (regarding civil wars). I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you weren't that type of person.

As for faction resurrection, LOL! Have you even played RTW I? Like ever? You cannot resurrect factions in that game. It just isn't possible. There are a few mods in Medieval II (involving hordes) that worked on making a script to make possible, but beyond that it simply wasn't present in the game. Your searches clearly aren't informing you well. Go back and play the game before trying to talk about it any further.

On second thought, I went and followed the links further down the thread, and that one thread in 2009 (one thread in 5 years of the game being out) claimed that factions could resurrect. However no one provided any screenshots, so it is pretty feasible that the people in that thread were simply having a laugh. If you want to test if this feature is in the game, go play rtw I (vanilla )and destroy a faction taking all of their provinces, and then let them rebel. Then come back here and post the screenshots. Nothing happened did it? That's because the feature simply wasn't in the game.

I'm sure these modders would have loved to know factions could already re-emerge:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...rging-factions
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...on-re-emerging
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ng-MTW-to-M2TW

Rome I civil wars weren't civil wars in terms of gameplay mechanics (like in MTW or any game post-empire). The Romans were split into four separate factions. In gameplay terms, it was not a civil war, it was a weirdly implemented design choice used to simulate one civil war for the three playable roman factions. They didn't even get the names right for these factions either. And no one but the Romans had any features remotely resembling this. Contrast this to MTW, where every faction had a civil wars, and your own faction was split apart by them. MTW (and Empire, Rome II + Attila) had civil wars as a feature, RTW had one "civil war" as a gimmick.

You can argue semantics all you want, but the truth is: the civil war mechanic (which occurred with any faction) was removed from MTW to RTW, but a script was added to prevent the four roman factions from being able to go to war until certain conditions were met. In other words, a gameplay feature that was present in one game was removed and replaced with another, much worse (in just about everyone's opinion, but yours probably) in the next.

I also loved having soldiers with katanas but I can't expect it in Rome II, can I? Can I also list is a removed feature? Or if we have a new Shogun themed game and not have horde mechanics, can we talk about it as a removed feature? We shouldn't. It's pointless. We can only talk about features as removed if it made sense to have them in the first place.

Nice false analogy. Now explain why civil wars (actual civil wars, like the ones represented in MTW and RTW II), factions resurgence, and family trees are anachronistic and geographically inappropriate going from MTW to RTW or STW II to RTW II. Or any other setting you can think of.

So as you can see, you are wrong on all three points. You even admitted you don't actually remember how RTW or MTW II worked. There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong dude. It is actually a sign of maturity.

[PointOfViewGun]

Now, when I wrote my post answering you I anticipated that a certain type of person may come back with that retort (regarding civil wars). I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you weren't that type of person.

As for faction resurrection, LOL! Have you even played RTW I? Like ever? You cannot resurrect factions in that game. It just isn't possible. There are a few mods in Medieval II (involving hordes) that worked on making a script to make possible, but beyond that it simply wasn't present in the game. Your searches clearly aren't informing you well. Go back and play the game before trying to talk about it any further.

On second thought, I went and followed the links further down the thread, and that one thread in 2009 (one thread in 5 years of the game being out) claimed that factions could resurrect. However no one provided any screenshots, so it is pretty feasible that the people in that thread were simply having a laugh. If you want to test if this feature is in the game, go play rtw I (vanilla )and destroy a faction taking all of their provinces, and then let them rebel. Then come back here and post the screenshots. Nothing happened did it? That's because the feature simply wasn't in the game.

I'm sure these modders would have loved to know factions could already re-emerge:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...rging-factions
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...on-re-emerging
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ng-MTW-to-M2TW

Rome I civil wars weren't civil wars in terms of gameplay mechanics (like in MTW or any game post-empire). The Romans were split into four separate factions. In gameplay terms, it was not a civil war, it was a weirdly implemented design choice used to simulate one civil war for the three playable roman factions. They didn't even get the names right for these factions either. And no one but the Romans had any features remotely resembling this. Contrast this to MTW, where every faction had a civil wars, and your own faction was split apart by them. MTW (and Empire, Rome II + Attila) had civil wars as a feature, RTW had one "civil war" as a gimmick.

You can argue semantics all you want, but the truth is: the civil war mechanic (which occurred with any faction) was removed from MTW to RTW, but a script was added to prevent the four roman factions from being able to go to war until certain conditions were met. In other words, a gameplay feature that was present in one game was removed and replaced with another, much worse (in just about everyone's opinion, but yours probably) in the next.

Nice false analogy. Now explain why civil wars (actual civil wars, like the ones represented in MTW and RTW II), factions resurgence, and family trees are anachronistic and geographically inappropriate going from MTW to RTW or STW II to RTW II. Or any other setting you can think of.

So as you can see, you are wrong on all three points. You even admitted you don't actually remember how RTW or MTW II worked. There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong dude. It is actually a sign of maturity.

Just because it wasn't depicted the way you wanted it to be depicted doesn't mean there wasn't civil war in Rome I. It's not me whose arguing semantics. Initially, Rome I was just to be a Rome game. That's why the game started with only giving you Roman factions to play. Plus, the faction represented a single family. Any civil war depiction similar to Attila in Rome I would not be a civil war but a family war.

I'm not gonna go play Rome I for hours just to give you unnecessary proof. Four people talking about it happening is good enough for me. Whether it's a major/essential idea or not is debatable as well. Certainly not that comparable to civil war or family tree.

They don't have to be anachronistic or geographically inappropriate. That's not how an analogy works. What the analogy indicates is context. I also didn't argue about civil wars and faction resurgence in that analogy. It was quite obviously about the family tree. The context here is what I've been talking about; the difference between one year per turn and four turns per year schemes. You're gonna have to look for my other posts here for more on that.