What do you want to see in Medieval II?

[HorseArcher]

I'm making this thread to post some ideas about what features , units, functions, maps, factions you'd like to see in Medieval II :Total War and i'll see if i can inform some CA developers/reps to take a look.

So, post your wishes, ideas here.

[Kscott]

*Improved battle and Campaign AI
*Historically accuracy when it doesnt hurt gameplay
*regional units
*Lifting of hardcodes
-faction limit
-map size
-percent water
-the Papacy

[jrs90]

*Improved battle and Campaign AI
*Historically accuracy when it doesnt hurt gameplay
*regional units
*Lifting of hardcodes
-faction limit
-map size
-percent water
-the Papacy

NO PAPACY!!! they must be included,all u that want such a historiclly accurate game....how dare u want no papacy. They were a HUGE part of the medieval time period, sure it was kind of retarded that the MTW papacy wouldn't let catholics fight eachother, but no papacy at all? There should be one, not one that controls all of the catholic kingdoms fights but rather their faith(CRUSADES!)

[~Feanor~]

i forgot something before:
- MORE INTELLIGENT KI
- and a better population system, i really disliked in rtw, that a city grows too fast and that they made everytime some revolutions, it's not possible for me to get a high loyality at a big populated city
so it's also not able to create a big empire, because there their loyality is not enough to expand..

[ablitzkrieg]

-Units as a whole should gain traits. Replace 'experience' with something less generic. Say that some spearmen kill a lot of eastern cavalry, give them a bonus against that type of unit. Sort of like the general's trait system, but for the soldiers instead

YES! Like in Panzer general 2, actual units gained experience but also their own traits. So when you right click on a unit to see what its traits are, you get more than the default information for that unit type. You could get...

- The captain of the unit.
- Where and when the unit was raised.
- Famous battles it was in and the famous generals it served with.
- Battles it distinguished itself in. This could be determined by the numbers of kills/prisoners it gets perhaps? (in addition to the increase in Valor)
- actual bonuses it can achieve. For instance, bonus against fighting different unit types or different factions.

This would attach the player much more to these units rather than the clone armies that you really didnt give a damn whether or not it was destroyed or not. This would also allow for ultra elite units that would fight to the death no matter what (useful and accurate considering some of the knight orders of the time). This would allow the player to have units he could rely on no matter what, units that they could depend on not routing before you can manuever to help them.

Also, being able to give them whatever name you want would be extremely cool as well.

-- More factions (smaller ones).. As we all remember, Denmark was probably the faction people had the most fun with as you started relatively weak (1 province) but with room to expand without enciting huge wars.

[hyphonated]

Greater Political and Diplomatic control/options. I think the Total War team have got the combat element of the series so refined and polished now, that its a little rich to ask for more more more on detail when theyve developed an entirely new game engine and mechanics for combat.

Rather I'd like to see more options for leaders and generals, being able to hire them, lure them from other factions/countries and train them. To be able to CREATE titles and bestow honours on generals and soldiers more often. Things like TOURNEMENTS (strictly for generals or family members to be part of) to gain valour, prestige, dread as well as experience and increase/decrese loyalty etc... They loved their tournements in those times!

Also things like a greater amount of buildings and structures for Factional Indulgence. The Medieval period was a time consumed by extravagence and exhuberance. Buildings that really arent that essential, but that add to the reputation or fame of a faction and add prestige. When you build impressive Civic buildings, they are meant for attention!

I know it'd be a big ask, but perhaps even customising the look and equipment of family members and generals, or the factional leader at least. Being able to place them in whatever armour, clothing and put lances, swords, clubs, bows etc... for them to use. Also the customisation of a shield for the factional leader would be highly desirable, not only would this look awesome, it would also add a lot to the Multiplayer option, as it would be able to give online players an identity on the battlefield.

Those are just a few

[Giurza]

I will only quote myself... too tired of typing now
this is only a small thingie that I want to be included in the MII TW. there are other thing that I would like to see in it, but I have a thread about it... it concerns more of a faction discussion, so I think it would not be polite to post it here

I would say that building forts was a very good idea, but they messed up with it in RTW, 'cos as it was said, you were just cornered there.
what I would like to propose is to build a wooden fort at first and then there should be given a possibility to upgrade it to a full time castle (only castle without any other structures within, except of course barracks for the garrison). for those that would like to oppose this idea, I'd like to remind that in medieval times it was a 'must do' to saturate country with small strongholds (varying all from wooden forts to quite large castles). besides it should affect the spawn of rebels in the province much more than it was done in RTW
for example:
[IMG][/IMG]
this is not a city... even not the town... this is just a stronghold... and the ending result could be a generic castle as shown here:
[IMG][/IMG]

[Chuffy]

Greater differences between Kings, Princes, Generals and Captains. Kings should have different models on the camp and battle maps, same with princes and generals and captains. Also make your King more important in the running of a country, if your King is a complete nutjob unrest in your kingdom will be high and the people will not much confidence in him. If the King is a great administrator and economist the economy of the nation will flourish as opposed to whichever city the king currently resides in.

The return of regional units and regional bonuses from MTW as opposed to RTW's 'elephants and camels only trainable in desert regions but you can recruit Iberians in Sarmatia'.

The various diplomatic options are fine (although I would personally like to see more) but they all need to be made more important/non-broken. I would like to be able to set up complex leagues and alliances and for things like military access to work properly.

A bigger scale to the campaign map, look at RTR 7.0 at how they are increasing the distance between cities and making things like the italian penisular bigger. Also less cartoony city models, I really like Chivs city, fleet and army models, they look sensible and make the map seem bigger as cities aren't as big and cartoony. Also with the campmap make it more strategic, I HATE being able to leave an army in the middle of the Arabian desert for 200+ years WITH NOTHING BAD HAPPENING TO IT. What the hell is that!? Attrition and supply please.

[Zenith Darksea]

1. Better AI for battles and campaign map (as has been mentioned so often).
2. Less sloppiness in portrayal of history!
3. More in-depth diplomacy.
4. More depth for non-Catholic factions (I have a nasty feeling that the Catholics will get an awesome system of Papal politics, intrigue etc. etc. but that the Orthodox and Muslim factions will just be tacked on to give them someone to kill).
5. Fewer arbitrary hardcode limits.
6. A better spread of factions - instead of having 13 (count 'em!) factions crammed into Western and Central Europe while in the East you only have Russia, Hungary, the Roman Empire, the Turks and Egypt, add a few more to the East. I'm all in favour of having the new Western factions, but if we're having them, we really should also see Serbia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Kiev, the Danishmends and (dare I say it?) perhaps even Georgia.
7. A more realistic and dynamic recruitment system. RTR's ZoR idea and EB's government system were great - without hardcode limits and with more programming resources, CA could make some really good systems out of these concepts.

[Markas]

Ability to capture kings/commanders in battle and ransom troops as in MTW would be a nice return.

[Space Voyager]

Yes, I'm the one constantly rambling about the use of group AI. Since I've written all I had to write about it in the new FAQ in the original Rome forum, I'll constrain myself to some new ideas. These are based on the fact that when a unit is far away from the general they should tend to be without control and act on their own.

Firstly, I'd like it to be possible to put single units under AI as well. This would enable some interesting AI additions to the battles.

Secondly, two kinds of AI should be implemented; a user-defined AI (this one being the same as in RTW) and the second one, involuntary AI, defined on the distance from the general. Since I was more or less happy with the user-defined AI, I'll write about this involuntary one.

Perhaps a unit that ventures too far from the general should be automatically put under AI. This feature would make sense if the battlefields would be larger than they are now.

A whole group should only be "lost to AI" when the last unit in it is too far from the general for it to be controlled by him. This doesn't apply when the group is already under AI control, naturally.

When two (or more) single AI units come close enough, they are automatically grouped and they coordinate their actions.

Such "unvoluntary AI led groups" should tend to get closer to the general. When one of the AI led units in such group comes close enough to the general the whole group should be led by the player again.

Although it may seem that this requires massive ammounts of work, I don't think so. It only requres single-unit AI (which shouldn't be a problem, you can simply add single-unit groups) and a different "thought pattern" for involuntary AI. Instead of moving towards the enemy they would move towards the general. The biggest problem may be auto-grouping and involuntary AI triggering, becouse it means the distances between units and the general should be known constantly. But with today's computers... These are VERY simple calculations compared to the rest of the game coding.

[Giurza]

Secondly, two kinds of AI should be implemented; a user-defined AI (this one being the same as in RTW) and the second one, involuntary AI, defined on the distance from the general. Since I was more or less happy with the user-defined AI, I'll write about this involuntary one.

Perhaps a unit that ventures too far from the general should be automatically put under AI. This feature would make sense if the battlefields would be larger than they are now.

well might be a good idea... still it can be critisized for the lack of grip on the reality... you see every good general, and even those that are not that good, do have their runners, messengers, etc... thru which he (or she (Jean D'Arc)) issues orders... if you would think that a general alone could command an army bigger than 1000 troops(and even less) with the help of his voice alone, I'd say you drifting.... it is impossible to command more than 100 troops in the midst of the battle only shouting... (believe me ) and if you want to make game more realistic... well I don't think that our computers will be able to compute it... all the runners running with your orders... possibility to draw vectors of advance in your orders and other stuff that is necessary in the battle. and I doubt that there are scripters that can do that either... so untill we get a computer which has a computability something closer to ape's brain, we'll have to sitt tight

[Drunken]

Id like to see better AI (wouldnt we all ). AI that actually chalenges you tactically, rather than using pretty much the same tactic over and over again, and loosing.

Id also like to see more modability, less hardcodes and maybe some mod tools released at launch.

[Honeohvovohaestse]

1. Better AI for battles and campaign map (as has been mentioned so often).
2. Less sloppiness in portrayal of history!
3. More in-depth diplomacy.
4. More depth for non-Catholic factions (I have a nasty feeling that the Catholics will get an awesome system of Papal politics, intrigue etc. etc. but that the Orthodox and Muslim factions will just be tacked on to give them someone to kill).
6. A better spread of factions - instead of having 13 (count 'em!) factions crammed into Western and Central Europe while in the East you only have Russia, Hungary, the Roman Empire, the Turks and Egypt, add a few more to the East. I'm all in favour of having the new Western factions, but if we're having them, we really should also see Serbia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Kiev, the Danishmends and (dare I say it?) perhaps even Georgia..

Totally on 4 and 6, the middle east is hugely neglected too. Serbia and Lithuania not being included is disappointing to say the least. It's basically, Scottland and is there for England to kill, the other western places are there fore the French or germans to kill, many of the nations are cannon fodder.

[therussian]

Two seperate Russian factions and better representation of Eastern and Central Europe.



And better AI

[ngr]

1. Better campaign and battle AI. Real aliances and vassals.

2. More moddability of the game.

3. Better control over reinforcements in battle. Every time I used computer-controlled reinforcements in RTW they were just intervene for my battle plans and waste of my troops. It need at least simple coordination between human and computer-controlled armies, like you say to your helpers: "Hold on", "Start skirmish", Attack!", etc.

4. More depth of sieges:
- town levies draftable during siege
- the option for besieged garrisons to surrender, on various terms - possibility to demand besieged city in peace treaty conditions
- I wish army that siege a city won't always go away (or disappear) after unsuccessful assault, but keep siege if it still have enough forces for it

5. Old units to be upgradable when new types of troops are discovered.

6. Diplomats should be able to hire mercenaries.

7. Special mountain bonus for some units.

8. More (much more!) factions and better balanced map. "Must be" factions are: Lithuania, Aragon, Serbia, Sweden, Georgia. It would be great to have also Burgundia, Bohemia, Swiss, Volga Bulgaria, Bulgaria, Khwarazm, 2-3 Russian principalities and some of Crusader states.

9. Glorious Achievements.

10. Trade via rivers.

11. Fishing industry in coastal cities.

12. Moats. Destroyable in campaign mode city walls and moats.

13. Reappearing factions.

14. Possibility to continue play with another dinasty when last member of current ruling dinasty dies.

15. Possibility for agents to move from one coastal city to another without usage of battle ships.

16. Native voices of units - not different accents of English like in RTW.

[Musha]

I'm making this thread to post some ideas about what features , units, functions, maps, factions you'd like to see in Medieval II :Total War and i'll see if i can inform some CA developers/reps to take a look.

So, post your wishes, ideas here.

Despite how i think there doing this more ways to play with religoin.

Such as making alliance with a muslim country so the papacy will declare war on me.
**** like that.

But thanks to my political and army side i would hope that you could make better ways to conquer countrys like....
Getting your allie to attack one side and then you attack the other side of there country and split the land in half.

Merecenery generals should turn on you more often.
That would be great

[Gogoas]

I wanna see good a.i., realistic faction representation and GUNS GUNS AND GUNS!

Also I would want to see something of a horde ability as seen in b.i. but more realistically represented (i.e. no two family members who have lost everything but themselves who go conquer some random rebel city and come back in full force)

O ya and more cg movies scattered randomly throughout the game, like assasination videos/whatever.

[Fabolous]

Just two things, though not exactly easy ones, but they are the two most important things to a TW game.

- Strong AI
- Great Diplomacy

[Chuffy]

I want to add a few things:

- Options for cities to surrender, even during a battle.

- Glorious achievements

- Multiple starting ages; early, high, late.

- New weapon animations for some troops....knights for example.... see anything wrong with them?

and PROPER ALPHA AND BETA TESTING TEAMS.