Gameplay features you would like to see in TW series

[Aradan]

Title. Inspired from this thread.

I am curious to know what kinda of features modders and serious players would like to see in the series - not for a specific platform but generally, new features the series as a whole should tackle. Preferably not stuff like "I want 500 new finishing-off animations and cooler smoke effects" or "I want flying units that go shhwwwwiiiiing and launch rockets", but rather things that have to do with gameplay, like the technologies or Zone-of-Control features added in ETW.

It would be great if you could give some rough examples of how each feature would work.

[Killerbee]

I would like bether pathfinding and deployment possibilty in (custom) cities . i mean , in MTW2 , you have a citadel , and the centrum of the city is acutally not inside the walls .. So dumb imo . Or pathfinding .

[Aradan]

Concept #1: Supply

Supplies and supply lines are one of the most important aspects of war, and yet in TW they do not exist even in the simplest form, so here goes an idea:

---

A new recruitable entity is introduced, called Supply Wagon. It is available from settlements (smaller quantities, expensive) or directly from farms (bigger quantities, lower price), it has a low max-availability cap and low pool replenishment rate, which would grow depending on regional fertility and farming level.

Armies have a new statistic, “supply_level”, and a new tab, called ‘Supply Train’, which is empty by default and has a given number of slots, where supply wagon units are put. Supply wagons have limited movement speed and slow armies down, but each one of them increases their supply level by a given value (eg 100). Every turn spent outside a settlement, the army’s supply level drops by X, where X is its total 'supply drain rate', which is the sum of the supply drain values of each individual unit, which is a stat in the 'EDU' file that defines how quickly a unit consumes supplies (and like cost, decreases proportionately to the unit strength). The logistical skills of its general also affect the rate of drain, as a multiplier. The total supply drain rate is then deducted from the wagons' "strength" until they reach 0, in which case they disappear from the slots (like units taking casualties, some would be completely destroyed and some would lose some of their soldiers). Devastating enemy territory slightly boosts an army’s supply levels. The rate of an army’s supply consumption can be decreased/increased on a per-army basis, resulting in slower/faster depletion, but also morale penalties/bonuses. Note that an army can spend x (2?) turns relying on the supplies its soldiers can carry with them or take from the land without much effort, during which it doesn't drain supplies from its supply train.

When the supply level of an army is high (above 80% of max value), there is a morale bonus, while when it drops below a certain value (eg 20% of max value) [where max value = (max-#-of-units / #-of-units)*max-possible-supplies], the army starts suffering morale penalties, which get more severe when it reaches 0; at that time combat penalties kick in, simulating soldiers’ weakness due to hunger, and after a while units also have a chance to lose soldiers, as it happens when a plague occurs, to simulate deaths due to starvation.

Supply wagons are treated like units on the campaign map, where they appear as a new 'agent type', and can perform the same non-combat-related actions; they can be moved around the map, be moved to and from an army’s Supply Train panel, be attached to other armies or sent to friendly settlements etc, though they cannot be bribed, spied or ‘assassinated’. If enemy armies “attack” unprotected wagons on the campaign-map, they are immediately captured and can be transferred to the attacker’s supply train, if there are available slots or destroyed. If an army suffers a serious defeat and does not manage to make an organised withdraw, its supply train falls into enemy hands and the same options apply for the winners (take available or destroy). When capturing farmlands/settlements, one can take any available supplies or destroy them, as well, causing unrest against the region owner. The supply level of an army can be marked by a bar on the campaign-map, similar to the one for movement points.

On the battle-map, supply trains/wagons are abstract, we can assume they have been left behind, before the battle starts.


Note that the same system can apply to settlements, where their default supply level would be much higher than an army’s, it could be boosted by special buildings (granaries etc) and supply level would affect a settlement’s ability to withstand sieges.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Physics Engine.

To elaborate, I want the soldiers to be able to swing their swords or other weapons at a plethora of different angles as opposed to a set animation sequence, and the effects of that sword being swung shown on the other end. In TW games everything looks and feels real until someone dies, because they get covered with a remarkably painted-on blood/mud overlay that may be nowhere near where they were actually struck, and die in a particular way. There should be dismemberment, there should not be death sequences but rather a ragdoll response, and there definitely shouldn't be motion capture fight sequences(especially because that's impossible to mod). This also entails another overhaul that's needed, which is to the shoddy HP system. 2 HP is a lot, 3 HP may as well be a gazillion. Larger numbers should be used to properly reflect wounded soldiers and the way in which the battle mechanics work in this respect be adjusted accordingly. This provides more differentiation between units outside of the armor.

[Aradan]

Wouldn't that be taxing for the system? Calculating the physics for 5000 soldiers can be a heavy load.

This also entails another overhaul that's needed, which is to the shoddy HP system. 2 HP is a lot, 3 HP may as well be a gazillion. Larger numbers should be used to properly reflect wounded soldiers and the way in which the battle mechanics work in this respect be adjusted accordingly. This provides more differentiation between units outside of the armor.

This would mean that soldiers have (say) 4 hps and:
If 1 is lost, they get a stat decrease, being injured prevents them from fighting well.
If 2 are lost, they are lightly wounded, still count as dead on the battlefield, but will be healed after battle.
If 3 are lost, they are badly wounded, count as dead for the battle, have x (low) percent chance of being healed after the battle.
If 4 are lost, they are dead. Completely.

?

[Augustus Lucifer]

Wouldn't that be taxing for the system? Calculating the physics for 5000 soldiers can be a heavy load.

I presume that the game still calculates its formulae on an individual soldier basis as it is, which is probably why the units are about 5 years old in graphical terms compared to, say, an FPS or RPG. Whether or not it's more taxing I guess really depends on the way it's developed, I can't say I know enough about ragdoll mechanics to speak with any authority on the matter. Doubtless it would take more system resources, but exactly how much could be anywhere from negligible to substantial depending on how it's handled. Either way it clearly is the future of the combat system to become more versatile and realistic.

This would mean that soldiers have (say) 4 hps and:
If 1 is lost, they get a stat decrease, being injured prevents them from fighting well.
If 2 are lost, they are lightly wounded, still count as dead on the battlefield, but will be healed after battle.
If 3 are lost, they are badly wounded, count as dead for the battle, have x (low) percent chance of being healed after the battle.
If 4 are lost, they are dead. Completely.

?

Potentially, that's one way to look at it, though basing it on a % of HP lost compared to the total would be more accurate if you wanted to use varying values, as using flat numbers has its restrictions. This is true for a lot of things in the game, they have to few 'modifiers' and to many flat values.

[Aradan]

I presume that the game still calculates its formulae on an individual soldier basis as it is, which is probably why the units are about 5 years old in graphical terms compared to, say, an FPS or RPG. Whether or not it's more taxing I guess really depends on the way it's developed, I can't say I know enough about ragdoll mechanics to speak with any authority on the matter. Doubtless it would take more system resources, but exactly how much could be anywhere from negligible to substantial depending on how it's handled. Either way it clearly is the future of the combat system to become more versatile and realistic.

I think the load for system would be too much compared to the advantages, which are none really, except more cinematic battles. I'd rather spend that extra amount of resources into making the AI smarter than in making the gfx more realistic.

Potentially, that's one way to look at it, though basing it on a % of HP lost compared to the total would be more accurate if you wanted to use varying values, as using flat numbers has its restrictions. This is true for a lot of things in the game, they have to few 'modifiers' and to many flat values.

True, I was just using the flat numbers because you used them in your example. Afterall, I doubt internally units have 1 or 2 HPs in the current engines, they probably already have (eg) 200, and every 100 is 1 EDU-HP, or something.

[Aradan]

Concept #2: Manpower

Because it just gets ridiculous when you can recruit non-stop when you have enough money, as if your population bred like rabbits and all children were born males able to serve in the army.

----

A new set of variable is introduced about manpower.

Regional manpower replenish rate: It is the manpower each region adds every turn to the factional manpower. It depends on the region’s total population, population growth rate, culture, religion, prosperity and the faction’s political system, military doctrine and military reforms.

Max regional manpower replenish rate: It is the maximum possible value regional manpower replenish rate can reach; it depends on the regional population and its growth rate.

Factional manpower replenish rate: It is the sum of the faction’s regional manpower replenish rates.

Factional manpower: A faction’s current manpower. Every turn it increases by the factional manpower replenish rate, until it hits the max factional manpower, when it stops increasing. Every time a unit is recruited or retrained, manpower is reduced by an amount proportionate to the number of soldiers in the unit. When manpower is not enough to support recruiting or replenishment of units, these cannot be done. Disbanding units causes manpower to grow slightly, again proportionately to the unit size.

Max factional manpower: It is the maximum possible value factional manpower can reach. It depends on the total population of the faction, its political system, military doctrine and military reforms.


*If a faction has regions in multiple theatres, then regional variables contribute to the theatre-wide variables instead of faction-wide variables (ie there is no factional manpower, but theatre-wide instead, etc).

[Cainrae]

Royal Houses: A feature i would simply love to see, the whole concept of acually having to fight for the throne in order to become King, and then maintain you're bloodline.

Civil Wars: It would be a challange if say, you had a giant empire and then suddently you're nation breaks out in civil war because of low approval or one of you're ministers/generals having to much power.

Watching you're towns grow: I know this may be a feature overlooked in Rome: Total War, but the ability to zoom in and watch how much you're town had grown and what the new buildings looked like was quite pleasing for me.

Regimental Retraining: It would be realistic, that if you had just reserached a new form of military formation or combat stance that the armies that are currently in foreign lands or at a long distance from owned territory needs to return home in order to learn those new abilities/tactics

The Ability to Create you're own Nation: This is a very ambitious idea that most likely won't be made. The ability to create you're own nation and use a saved flag in a directory, then pick a starting territory and evolve from there. You could then enable factors, fx. say that you are a vassal of Russia to start with.

War Exhaustion: The idea is taken from Europa Universalis, that after several years of war you're population will begin to feel exhausted by the war because of lost family members that served in the war or constant worry of being a victim of war.

[Nakharar]

Characters being more independant instead of a general doing what you tell him he should have feelings and etc and should be independant if he thinks something is wrong then he wont do it well. So that way generals that hate a nation would attack while another guy wouldnt.

Also character traits should affect how well generals role playand their independance also if they should revolt or stay loyal. Basicly you should try to gain total control of the faction first.

Indepth economy with more supplies etc trade would be a HUGE factor and have more then 1 thing, blockading ports would bring money and certain units/buildings require certain resources, resources would change price with commonness in your land. So in a nutshell

Independant Characters:

Characters would do what they want to do they wouldnt be obliged to follow orders and if given orders that they do not wish to carry out they might rebel or gain bad traits. This way you must choose the right general for the right job otherwise risk a indepth civil war.

Also character traits should affect how well generals role playand their independance also if they should revolt or stay loyal. Basicly you should try to gain total control of the faction first. Their upbringing and experiences would affect this.

[Aradan]

Royal Houses: A feature i would simply love to see, the whole concept of actually having to fight for the throne in order to become King, and then maintain you're bloodline.

How would that be portrayed on the TW engine? Would every house fighting for the throne get a random army and then they'd battle it out between them? Or would the player be given control of the king and then he'd have a bunch of disloyal generals from the other houses? And how would he deal with that problem?

Civil Wars: It would be a challenge if say, you had a giant empire and then suddenly you're nation breaks out in civil war because of low approval or one of you're ministers/generals having to much power.

That's a good idea definitely. It should also be coupled with the possibility of massive rebellions, due to poor management, bad military defeats, etc probably depending on religion/culture/political system as well.

Regimental Retraining: It would be realistic, that if you had just researched a new form of military formation or combat stance that the armies that are currently in foreign lands or at a long distance from owned territory needs to return home in order to learn those new abilities/tactics

That would require the game to store a 'per unit' variable, since units can be moved into/out of armies, which makes things more complicated. And it would probably be a pain for the player as well, because he would need to remember which units know which new formation/drill and which do not. Maybe it would be better if technologies needed a couple of turns to activate after having been researched?

War Exhaustion:

The idea is taken from Europa Universalis, that after several years of war you're population will begin to feel exhausted by the war because of lost family members that served in the war or constant worry of being a victim of war.

Long wars should increase public unrest and decrease management efficiency (tax income, trade income, etc).

Independant Characters:

Characters would do what they want to do they wouldnt be obliged to follow orders and if given orders that they do not wish to carry out they might rebel or gain bad traits. This way you must choose the right general for the right job otherwise risk a indepth civil war.

How would the game decide that a general doesn't want to do X action?

[Cainrae]

How would that be portrayed on the TW engine? Would every house fighting for the throne get a random army and then they'd battle it out between them? Or would the player be given control of the king and then he'd have a bunch of disloyal generals from the other houses? And how would he deal with that problem?

Every house from the same faction would be allied to a certain point, but a house could lay claim to the throne and then starting a civil war. Or they can just play along and hope that eventually one of their houses members would become king.

[Squid]

Royal Houses: A feature i would simply love to see, the whole concept of acually having to fight for the throne in order to become King, and then maintain you're bloodline.

Royal houses the way you describe them can currently be done, sort of, using the RTW engine (and presumably the M2TW engine as well) using traits and ancillaries. There are limitations to it, where with the way that loyalty works in RTW if a general rebels I don't believe there's a way to make the other members of the house rebel.

How would that be portrayed on the TW engine? Would every house fighting for the throne get a random army and then they'd battle it out between them? Or would the player be given control of the king and then he'd have a bunch of disloyal generals from the other houses? And how would he deal with that problem?

It would be ideally done as an expansion of the ETW method of governmental overthrow, but rather than only having two sides it could be multiple sides for the revolt. As for how to setup royal houses in a faction, there is a preview of Armenian Royal Houses for RS2. If used with a mod that had loyalty, whichever houses were not currently the ruling house would have a loyalty penalty.

[magpie]

Good Thread, A maybe small feature I would like to see introduced.
The ability to execute/assasinate traitors/family members/bad generals.of your faction.
Maybe also if family members had a popularity with the people points system? Then by killing a family member could be a two edged sword.
It may cause outrage and revolt if you picked the wrong target.
This may add to the general intrigue of gameplay.

[Killerbee]

Sorry if this is spam , but is my previous post deleted , or did it get lost in a crash or so ? i'm not sure cause it was a pretty dumb (yet on-topic) post , with a very impossible feature i'd like to see

[Halie Satanus]

Good Thread, A maybe small feature I would like to see introduced.
The ability to execute/assasinate traitors/family members/bad generals.of your faction.

I always liked the trick of putting them on a single ship and sending them off to play with pirates.

[Nakharar]

It would look at the various traits and its command level example:

General has 3 loyalty, 2 command, 10 chivalry, the order is given to sack a city he being chivalrous wont do it and revolts.

Or a General has 3 loyalty, 4 command, 1 chivalry the order is given to attack a HUGE army he revolts.

Or a General who hasnt seen war and has 2 loyalty, no command and no chivalry/dread is given a command to attack the Holy Roman Empire randomly with no declaration of war would revolt.

Regarding the Royal Houses its definatly possible on M2, currently EoR have a great idea on how it is going to work ande i think you will like it, but it relies on some factors that are debatable if they work

[Halie Satanus]

When the supply level of an army is high (above 80% of max value), there is a morale bonus, while when it drops below a certain value (eg 20% of max value) [where max value = (max-#-of-units / #-of-units)*max-possible-supplies], the army starts suffering morale penalties, which get more severe when it reaches 0; at that time combat penalties kick in, simulating soldiers’ weakness due to hunger, and after a while units also have a chance to lose soldiers, as it happens when a plague occurs, to simulate deaths due to starvation.

On a similar note or in addition to... I think it was fairly common for a siege to fail due the besieging army exhausting resources before the settlement. Especially true if the settlement was on the coast and wasn't blockaded.

[AqD]

1.Multi-player campaign + battles (with save function!). It should work with well-developed regions, i.e. with pre-built historical infrastructure all over the map: barracks, roads, etc. So the players can focus on the campaign-scale wars - not just one battle.

2.Huge city size, at least corresponding to the unit scale. In RTW the cities are too tiny and more like forts! There should also be citizens hiding and running around in houses.... (and killable! )

[Nakharar]

2.Huge city size, at least corresponding to the unit scale. In RTW the cities are too tiny and more like forts! There should also be citizens hiding and running around in houses.... (and killable! )

I agree here if any of you have played Spartan Total Warrior that city seemed big enough to me, in the huge cities in RTW which should be HUGE its hardly nothing...

• Also real settlements, if you attack Venice you have to fight Lagoon style. Or in Rome you have to fight around the Tiber etc
• Ability to construct or destruct bridge
• Naval and Land battle happening same time, for example im sieging Acre with a land force and a sea force the sea force has men in it, I would have to attack with both, fight against a fleet and land my men