Gameplay additions you wish existed.

[themoob]

Firstly, I don't know if a thread like this already exists, hopefully not. It is not a bashing thread, it is not a "fix this bug" thread, it's a thread to come up with ideas to improve gameplay.


More varied battles - Right now, most battles are straight forward, you start on one side and the enemy starts on the other. It would be more interesting if we had more types of battles. Examples would be:

- Ambushes. Similar to MTW2 but let the defender have some choice in which units are where in the column, and actually have them set up along the road. Also, have the road actually be a good ambush spot with ledges and the like.

- Retreats. Right now retreats are very basic and arcadey, how about once your army is out of movement points on the campaign map and are still being pursued, a kind of retreat scenario is set up.THe retreating army starts at exhausted, but can still get away if they reach the end of the map, which would encourage use of rearguards and the like.

- Cut off armies. If the enemy positions a larger army in between two smaller ones, it could turn into a battle where the two armies need to reunite to face the bigger foe. This could be represented IG already, but improve on it, with the smaller armies getting a large moral boost if they reunite.


Better location selection - Kinda like in R:TW, you should be able to look at the terrain your army is occupying and the nearby terrain, especially on the defence. Then you should be able to pick where yoru deployment zone is as well. A large part of 18th century warfare was picking a good place to fight, and the randomly generated maps you get now don't make sense (why would an army camping, on the defence, choose to deploy on the lower ground when there is a hill 2 minutes walk away?).


Camp system - HQ's were very important back then, the generals needed somewhere to command on. They're not in game at all. >.>

Improved reinforcement system - Right now, if 2 of your armies are standing right next to eachother, somehow one still needs to walk for a while to the other. Some kind of tab system should let you able to control more than one army at once, it would make it difficult, but moving large armies was. Also, perhaps reinforcements with time limits if they are a few spots away from your fighting army, to show it takes them a while to get there.

[Francebunkerer]

Ambushes still exist although they rarely occur. The ambushed army starts deployed in single file while the ambusher gets to deploy on most of the map and can directly flank the enemy at start.
But I've only seen one ambush so far, unfortunately.

- Retreats. Right now retreats are very basic and arcadey, how about once your army is out of movement points on the campaign map and are still being pursued, a kind of retreat scenario is set up.THe retreating army starts at exhausted, but can still get away if they reach the end of the map, which would encourage use of rearguards and the like.

This could actually be fun. Ca should implement it.

[M D]

There should be options for militia or minutemen to shoot officers etc..

Also I agree with all mob's points especially the rearguard

[stupiddk]

How about AI reinforcements are controlled by the AI.

[Bythesword]

There should be a option for the hardcore gamer to play more realistic.

That you need to build fortresses to keep the supply of your troops intact. And that your units upkeep is higher in foreign country's than in your own country.

They should have line of supplies, linking a fort to your main army.
In colonial circumstances, you can get supply's by taking city's or attacking a port.

When you fight in desert, you also have random casuality's because of the heat when ill supplied.

If you don't supply your armies, they will have lower morale and will rout quickly.


It's very prudent for any other nations to cutt off your line of supply, and that the main army need to recapture it before they can begin the siege.

[Hakello]

Something very easy to implement (some mods already did it)

-Allow all mounted units to dismount

Simple, but sometimes very usefull.

I like your ideas, altough I don't think a 'camp' will be implemented, however, if your generals bodyguard was able to dismount, you can place him in building and stuff

[ralala]

It's very prudent for any other nations to cutt off your line of supply, and that the main army need to recapture it before they can begin the siege.

Certainly they could pull this one off? Make it like a trade-route, where you can move an stack onto it to "block/raid supply route".. Or like in Stainless Steel for Medieval, where the army has a limited amount of turns before it must return to a city/ship to resupply.

[Davi535]

i'd love to see these implemented in the game. The retreats would be especially cool.

[Daeger]

I think random generated maps would work if they were less open. I mean, There are no choke points in the map, the terrain should vary, vegetation should be lush and the place should look like people lived there if there is a settlement/village or buildings around. Also, if you fight near a farm, there should be actually farm buildings and fields there. If your troops occupy a textile factory, you should see a huge textile factory in the battlefield and you should actually defend it. I have never seen a realistic looking battlefield in any TW game and It doesn't bother me that much, but it could be much better..

[Legio]

Stay on topic guys

[GasMask]

Stay on topic guys

+

[Porkcannon]

I think random generated maps would work if they were less open. I mean, There are no choke points in the map, the terrain should vary, vegetation should be lush and the place should look like people lived there if there is a settlement/village or buildings around. Also, if you fight near a farm, there should be actually farm buildings and fields there. If your troops occupy a textile factory, you should see a huge textile factory in the battlefield and you should actually defend it. I have never seen a realistic looking battlefield in any TW game and It doesn't bother me that much, but it could be much better..

As a pain in the butt it would be... randomized mapping. The host of any multiplayer game would merely choose the area where the battle would be fought (ie: Flanders, Bavaria, etc), and then a random map with random terrain would be created. This way there would be no pre-determination of who gets to camp where. There also wouldn't be the plagued skill that resides in most video games where players can memorize maps for their advantage. Each player would go into a map ignorant.

[GasMask]

As a pain in the butt it would be... randomized mapping. The host of any multiplayer game would merely choose the area where the battle would be fought (ie: Flanders, Bavaria, etc), and then a random map with random terrain would be created. This way there would be no pre-determination of who gets to camp where. There also wouldn't be the plagued skill that resides in most video games where players can memorize maps for their advantage. Each player would go into a map ignorant.

[upsettingshorts]

Ive mentioned this before, but diplomatic options to ask other nations to make peace with or declare war on a third party.

[Careless]

Ive mentioned this before, but diplomatic options to ask other nations to make peace with or declare war on a third party.

Desperately needed as long as the AI is too stupid to ever make peace with itself

[mightyfenrir]

I like the idea of fixing where reinforcements come in in relation to placement on the map too. I'd also rather see ladders than grappling hooks, but this has been discussed. Or, if nothing else, the ability to knock in the front door. Is it just me or can you not do that on forts anymore?

[GasMask]

I like the idea of fixing where reinforcements come in in relation to placement on the map too. I'd also rather see ladders than grappling hooks, but this has been discussed. Or, if nothing else, the ability to knock in the front door. Is it just me or can you not do that on forts anymore?

Hooks sounds great youre ideas are great +

[Toshiba]

I made a perfect ambush, I had Trailleurs positioned on the road, both sides, and I have a unit of militia that lures them to go through the road. My troops will then fire at them when they cross my ambush and their morale shatters...

[Deathcal]

I completely agree on maps being way to plain and simple. I've played some of the historical battles and there you can actually "play the field". You got big forests to hide and plan ambushes, mountains that create routes to clearings, high grounds to place mortars or to defend, etc.

Also remember that when you fight on a farm or a textile factory, that's actually a TOWN. So not only should you see the specific building you built in then campaign map, but also a town around it or near it. Another good addition that could work with towns and how they grow would be lines of supply. It's easier to keep an army when there are towns around to leech food and water, perhaps replace gunpowder or hospitalize wounded men. Not so easy when you march your army through a barren land during months in bad weather.

I'd like South America and relevant areas of Africa to be in as theaters of war too.

Just thought of something while reading on another post... Hate how your artillery units seem to miss all the time? Artillery-fire mini-game! How great would it be to be able to fire your cannons manually? Add or not the whole reloading process (though I can see how I'd blow myself up while putting the stuff in the canister in the wrong order like Silvester) but the firing part could be great, managing angle and I can already see the rod icon on my mouse pointer to light the fuse! Hah I suppose it's too much wishful thinking...

[themoob]

Another idea I thought of from replies in this thread would be more heavy terrain effect on units.

Going up steep hills should be a slow process, if it's raining the mud will slow down everyone, etc.


And I like the idea of supply routes, we definitely need those as it was a very important consideration in 18th century Europe.

EDIT

Another idea.

PRISONERS PLEASE

So many casualties in 18the century warfare were actually prisoners. Yet in E:TW, either men die to their last or run like hell. Some kind of prisoner and surrender system needs to be set up, perhaps when enemy units surrender you need to use your units to round them up and take them back to your camp.

EDIT

Yet another idea

During 18th century warfare, artillery were very valuable as they were difficult and expensive to make, and also hard to move around. As a result, often one side would capture another sides artillery to use it for themselves. I wonder if this could be implemented somehow.