Two Issues that would make ETW much better

[General Gordon]

1) A supply system in the campaign map mode.

2) A Fog of War that wouldn't let one player see from a "God's view" the exact location and composition of the nemie's forces during tactical battles.

[RO Citizen]

Yep, yep. They'll both be added in NTW, and hopefully a modder will make a retrofit mod for ETW, too.

[daniu]

Yep, yep. They'll both be added in NTW, and hopefully a modder will make a retrofit mod for ETW, too.

What, the Fog of War too? Where did you get that?

[Tim_Ward]

The thread title should read "Two issues which would make the AI even worse".

[MKeogh]

The thread title should read "Two issues which would make the AI even worse".

That's pretty funny, and you're probably right being suspicious about CA getting its CAI to handle a supply system. However, hidden units on the tactical map not showing up on the overview was a feature of all previous TW titles. It's disappearance from ETW is as mysterious as the disappearance of the CAI's ability to retreat which also a feature of all prior TW games (heck in STW and MTW the BAI actually also had the ability to retreat from the battle map!)

As for issues that would make ETW better? Here are a few of mine:

1) Return the BAI to its 1.3 patch form which just returned it to its 1.1 patch form. How CA broke it with the 1.2 patch, fixed it with the 1.3 patch, and then broke it again with the 1.4 patch is just mind-boggling.

2) Revamp the siege engine. Siege battles are simply awful in their current state with the stupid ropes and the AI's bum rush for the flag. Almost anything would be an improvement over the current system.

3) Get the AI to retreat from hopeless battles on the campaign map and the battle map like it did with the game's earlier titles.

4) Improve the diplomatic engine. Friendly or Very Friendly trading partners should not be declaring war without cause or any rational reason. For example: why did the Marathas, a friendly trading partner, declare war on my Sweden while I'm still in the Baltic and they're still in the subcontinent? I'm currently sinking occasional Maratha invasion fleets in the North Sea. ETW's diplomatic engine apes Civ4's and does a horrible job at it! Personally, I'd love to see the current diplomatic engine ripped out and replaced with Civ4's, but that's a pipedream.

5) Nerf the Marathas and/or boost the Mughals and/or give France and Great Britain some territories in India so it doesn't always become Marathaland by 1725!

6) Give the Dutch both a naval and trading ports in the Netherlands at game's start so they have a chance to become a decent naval power.

7) Improve the battle maps for the North American maps especially those in the Great Lakes region to appear as the wilderness they were in the 18th century and not cultivated farmland.

CA has stated that it's done with major patches for ETW. However, I do hold out some hope for #1, but not so much 2-7. I wish, though, that one day the mod tools will be released and some of the above will be introduced by some industrious modders.

[RO Citizen]

oh no, sry. Not the fow.

[Chyeaaaa111]

Speaking of FOW, have it apply to the CAI too!!!! I'm sick and tired of the enemies ships knowing EXACTLY where I am despite their ships being no where near mine!!

[MatrixStorm]

Do friendly-very friendly nations attack you without a reason?
I though that was fixed?
I was never attacked by a nation with that kind of oppinion of me.
I hope that it isn't like in RTW, where all the bordered nations attack you without reason...

[MKeogh]

Do friendly-very friendly nations attack you without a reason?
I though that was fixed?
I was never attacked by a nation with that kind of oppinion of me.
I hope that it isn't like in RTW, where all the bordered nations attack you without reason...

Yep, it still happens. The example of the Marathas, a friendly trading partner, declaring war on my Sweden is from my current campaign with the 1.5 patch. It's absolutely absurd! It's almost as if once the Marathas eliminated its local rivals, the Mughals and the Persians, that it HAD to declare war on the human player regardless of how far away that player's country was from India!

And it's not an isolated incident, I also had the Marathas declare war on my France despite decades of peaceful trading.

I don't think "friendly" or "very friendly" relations means much at all within the current diplomatic system. The only way to keep an AI nation at bay is either ally with it and then never request its help in a war so it can't get out of the alliance or use the ridiculous exploit of granting it a right of passage agreement. Otherwise it appears that it's no holds barred as to declarations of war.

For example, I also "loved" playing the Americans in RTI Chapter III with the 1.5 patch and watching Spain, a "VERY friendly" trading partner, loading up a fleet in Cuba, sailing up the American coastline, declaring war on me, and landing its army on Long Island!

I will say it's improved a bit since the 1.4 patch- weaker nations, at least in my games, have been less suicidal, but overall ETW's diplomatic engine is still pretty primitive in comparison to other PC strategy games like EUIII or Civ4.

[Lumina]

1) A supply system in the campaign map mode.

2) A Fog of War that wouldn't let one player see from a "God's view" the exact location and composition of the nemie's forces during tactical battles.

2) Fog of War is a bad thing. Line of Sight is better. Hills/Trees would block your view of the enemy, so taking the high ground would actually matter. Having horsed field officers owuld be nice as well link them to individual regiments in the field so you can have someone with a great view distance marching with the men, would be neat allowing such officers to have abilities of generals like morale and rally since I find it silly that Regiments get some silly officer on foot, but no other officers regiments had lots of officers including file closers nad all kinds of stuff like that. Brigades had their own Generals. lol ETW battle sizes are almost the size of brigades so I guess one general makes sense but Regiments had officers and they had choices to go out on horse back, act as scouts and such just many wouldn't because it made them a fat target on a horse.