what's more important to you? Battles, Campaign, or Mp?

[lemondude]

So what's more important to you and what do you want CA to focus on?

Campaign? To have more campaign options?
Battle? better AI and better feel of battle in general?
multiplayer? Pretty much the same as Battles, but do you want CA to give more multiplayer options, and make multiplayer the main focus?



To me it has to be campaign, I feel the battle more or less is what it is, the AI could be better, but as it stands how much better could it be, while people can always learn new things, it's at least tough for computers to do the same.

The multiplayer I feel is good enough, not that i spend much time on it anyways.

So campaign is really important to me, i really want to play a more tactical campaign, cause right now it feels more or less like the campaign is just an excuse to get into battle and it's not really it's own thing yet.

but maybe that's just me

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Hmm, well, I feel that they're all important, and one should not be focused on more than the other. That said, I would really, personally, like to see the campaign improved.

[Stath's]

Yes, the Campaign map, for me too, it is of the highest importance. Most of TW players like to build and watch over an empire and this is what the campaign map offers. Battles and Multiplayer come next.

[VersionLangley]

MP for me...you can never replace a good player with any AI no matter how good it is.

I want global lobby chat back

[leSith]

MP campaign so more options for campaign available for mp.

So improved campaign with better CAI and BAI with everything available for mp with no desync and that ll make my day ... Actually MTW2 or RTW with mpc enable and I ll still be playing TW.

Bored of fots pretty quick.

And ntw really lake of a competent CAI ( no BAI as for Fots but I could live with it).

[Humble Warrior]

Offline battles and campaign are extremely important to me.

Not Online unless CA start making Online battles adhere to more realistic tactics and not listen to kids who don`t like people `camping` on a hill or want arrows to shoot further than rifles. Right now Online is doing more to ruin the authenticity of battle tactics just to get the short-term finger twitch RTS MP crowd to buy more of their games.

So battles and offline campaign.

[Ildoge]

I think CA should fix bugs, add features and support mplayer because modders can improve IA, campaign map, units, longevity

Yes there are some mp mods but it's very difficult to find an opponent every day, every hour
in vanilla playing mp matches is very easy and u can join with a lot of people

See empire: the sp campaign is now awesome with IS, Darth or other mods and a lot of people still play it.. It will be more awesome with a different campaign map
but mp is dead because of CA

[The Holy Pilgrim]

I think CA should fix bugs, add features and support mplayer because modders can improve IA, campaign map, units, longevity

Yes there are some mp mods but it's very difficult to find an opponent every day, every hour
in vanilla playing mp matches is very easy and u can join with a lot of people

See empire: the sp campaign is now awesome with IS, Darth or other mods and a lot of people still play it.. It will be more awesome with a different campaign map
but mp is dead because of CA

Focus on MP because modders can improve SP?

That's not a good argument to be honest. We're talking about the base-game here, and we're leaving modding out of this. Every aspect of the game can be improved; some more than others. But saying one area deserves more work than another just because mods can fix it? No, that isn't how a company should work. That's just bad practice.

I say that these should be addressed:

1. Better AI in campaign, battle (open and siege, but siege mostly), and diplomacy. The AI in Shogun 2 was better than the AI in past games, and I'd like to see it improved. Not that rushing AI if the army is a ranged based army and not that camping AI when it is made up of shock-troopers. Also, during a siege (which Shogun 2's AI was better at; not perfect, but better), the AI should assault your walls AND use siege weapons at the same time! The part where siege weapons batter the walls and the troops sit there is simulated best by the army besieging the city on the campaign map with your garrison slowly loosing troops. The battle map is where the actual assault is supposed to take place. Intelligently executed and brutal in its attack.
2. Difficulty of an army is based on their general's command level. I'm tired of seeing no difference in strategy and tactics between a 1 star general and a 10 star general. The troops get a bonus on the battle map, sure, but they aren't smarter. Generals with higher command ratings should use better tactics against the player. Will this be easy to do? No, and I'm not certain that we'll see this feature soon, but I know CA can do it if they really put forth the effort like they have in other gameplay aspects of past games (e.g. the improvement of naval battles between Empire and Napoleon).
3. Dynamic borders in a campaign would be a great feature to have as it would make campaigns more like a campaign! Seeing your empire actually claim more and more land without having to take the region's capital would be a satisfying experience. What CA did in Empire with the regional buildings outside of the regional capital was ingenious and drew Total War from a primarily siege warfare oriented game. If borders could begin to wrap around those regional buildings when you take them would be aesthetically pleasing.
4. Better multi-player matching would actually make the multi-player aspect more inviting to newer multi-player players. I can't tell you how many "elite" players (8-10 stars) I had to beat when I was level one. Now, fighting a higher star player can be fun at times, it can also be a bit frustrating when their army is empowered to the point where you're bound to lose. That has been improved lately in multi-player and it's not anywhere near as bad as in the beginning, but a quick-match system that puts players against another player that is +/- 1 level or the same level would be most appreciated.
5. More playable factions in the campaign. Now, recently, I have been content with the amount of playable factions in the game, but I cannot tell you how disappointed I was when I saw that Empire would feature over 50! (Medieval 2 had only 21!) factions and you could only play as 8 of them. It was saddening and it put me off a bit of Empire. Expansions like Napoleon, I can see only being able to play a few select factions, but not in a GRAND campaign! I was glad that in Empire, the 8 factions at least had different styles to them, but I also wanted to play as the smaller nations such as Greece, Venice, the Natives (thanks to Warpath, I could, but I wish it wasn't DLC), the mighty Mughal Empire (which was on the decline, sure, but I was interested in trying to revive them), and many more! It was just saddening to see so many factions marked as unplayable. It doesn't matter if a couple of them are "clones" of another faction; it's still a different campaign. A different starting positions, different enemies, different financial situations; more than enough to change how you play the game. Best example of this? Paradox's Europa Universalis 3. Almost all of the factions were the same in terms of gameplay, but they had different campaigns, different paths to a different goal.

[Phillyphries]

What if there was a way they could combine all avatar based multiplayer total wars into a single lobby, and you could use samurai vs knights or sohei vs legionaires.. lol

But all of them are important, multiplayer seems to have the most replay-ability for me though

[DeMolay]

If they are still working on Shogun 2 /FOTS , i would love their efforts to be focused on the AI personally .
Of course we can't ask for big features as this will likely be done for their next full game

But for Shogun 2 , i'd love both campaign AI and battle AI (sieges especially , variety in tactics ) improvements , but mainly the campaign AI to increase the immersion by making the AI less predictable and finetuning the differences of approach and army composition among AI clans .

And maybe some gameplay mechanics that would be relatively easy for CA to implement as well ( clans to remember you fought with them and saved their capital in the diplomacy menu , ability to broker peace between an ally and a friendly clan , ability to gift provinces , more cooperation between vassals and master for instance among other small features that could enhance the complexity and enjoyment in SP campaign)

[Gaizokubanou]

Battle and campaign combined. I just can't enjoy TW games on multiplayer.

This is my preference. I'm not saying multiplayer should be abandoned. I'm just saying, I personally don't enjoy it and since the topic asked for preference, just giving stating my own.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Dynamic borders in a campaign would be a great feature to have as it would make campaigns more like a campaign! Seeing your empire actually claim more and more land without having to take the region's capital would be a satisfying experience. What CA did in Empire with the regional buildings outside of the regional capital was ingenious and drew Total War from a primarily siege warfare oriented game. If borders could begin to wrap around those regional buildings when you take them would be aesthetically pleasing.

^ This. I agree. This is what I imagine future TW will or should be.

[Adreno]

campaign.. it could have so much more stuff without it getting too complicated for newer players, i want more in depth economy/trading more in depth recruiting/training options and more in depth upkeep/supplysystem

[TrizzyG]

I would love to see all of them equally improved.

It's hard enough for me to choose but I think I can say that I would want the campaign and multiplayer to be improved.

Reasons for why I want the campaign to be improved are already answered within the first couple of replies.

I want multiplayer to be expanded because for the last 3 games, it's gained some really nice improvements and if these can continuously be refined I can see a really good Total War game. What I would like to see is 4-player co-op where during the time that one player is fighting a battle the other three can take control of 1-3 units of either side. With FotS, players were able to take "first-person" control of cannons and fire manually. I would actually like to see if CA can allow you to control individual soldiers, and that could possibly turn Total War into a Turn-based, Real-time Strategy game with First and Third person shooter elements. Maybe even a race mode

Just my two cents.

[Steward Denethor II]

I think the Campaign is more importent but battles need more improvement because they are way too fast: when I blink one of my units goes from being full strength to half dead, though the campaign could use plenty of improvement, including but not limited to a return to the old trait system in Medieval 2 and a larger map. Also a more complicated economy like many people said would be great.

[BullGod]

I think MP receives too much attention already. I don't get it why MP part of the game gets better features than SP (customizable units f.ex.) I have the game, but don't like MP part, so I don't get to use them. Irritating.

More realistic battles, interesting campaign. I don't mind MP, but it is simplifying the game right now, making it play like Starcraft without mining for resources.

[talljoe]

I really wish they'd up the ante on the campaign. Introduce much more... how do I say... meaningful options to diplomacy, economy, and cities. They could do it like Empire, with an "auto manage" mode, so that new players wouldn't need to go in depth on those things, while more experienced players could make their mark on the campaign by using the more in depth options.

But, the real answer to OP's question: SIEGES. I don't care if it's MP, MP coop, single campgain... CA must find a new, different, and fun way of representing sieges in TW games. I would almost rather they be REMOVED then continue in their current form. They are crazy monotonous and boring (flat grass surrounded by square grey walls, units climb up walls. Repeat.)

[jonny duck]

Personally I'd like to see the battles and MP improved. Reasons why?

Campaign
Although this is where most of my time is spent, I think that in recent titles they have improved it vastly. Obviously there will be improvements to come but as it stands, the campaign is the best part of recent titles.

Battles
I enjoy battles, but quickly get bored of simply going through the same motions to win them (apart from the occasional important battle that can only be won if I take personal control. If they improved them to make it so that I wanted to play each and every single one then that would result in an amazing game (or remove autoresolve).

Multiplayer
As it stands, the multiplayer in Shogun 2/FOTS is very good, however there are certain flaws, such as how it favours the more experienced avatars. I'd really like to see the introduction of a classical mode, where it favours real life tactics (advantages/penalties) over game engine exploits. This isn't to say that I don't like how the current version of multiplayer works, only that I'd like to see the inclusion an additional mode. Avatar customisation and veteran units are a feature that should be further developed and included in single player.

Multiplayer campaigns and drop in battles need some improvement too.


Still, the original question is somewhat flawed, focussing on a single area of the game for imrpovement would lead to an imbalanced game, what makes Total War a great game is the balance and equal focus on all 3 aspects. I'd hate (as I'm sure most of you would) to see only a single area improved to the detriment of the other 2.

[crzyrndm]

Refering to Shogun 2 only in order of what needs the most work:

1) Campaign
It's not big enough, and its not deep enough.

2) Battles
Other than standard request for better AI, I only have two problems with this part:
A) I spend the vast majority of my time playing these, and very minimal time on the campaign map. Mostly caused by a lack of depth in the campaign.
B) Stupid pathfinding bugs in sieges introduced with FotS. They worked before, so if this could be fixed...

3) MP
The first TW game I've ever played online. Mostly it works, other than a few minor things (global chat, limited vet slots for those who didnt get in while it was bugged). My only real complaint is that veterans werent included in the campaign

[croatian]

more faction in campain it become unvaried after some time
more special units from some regions
and better AI in the battles