Suggestion: Battle Names

[General Maximus]

This was one of the best features introduced in Napoleon TW. Giving names to battles makes them really immersive even though they are mostly eye candy. I can easily remember the famous 'Battle of Bavaria' in which I defeated two full stacks of combined Austro-Saxon army using only 10 units as France.

In Shogun II, there were probably not so many good battle names. 'Battle of Iwate Fields' could have been much better if the real name of the battlefield area was used. If farmlands were given proper names, that would have been excellent. I have seen that a heroic victory in battles result in a statue being constructed on the site, with some details of the battle. Seeing the name of 'Battle of Iwate Fields' written was really awkward sounding in a sense.

My suggestions:

Giving a historically accurate name to every single tile of the map should do the trick. Although it will be difficult to search for accurate names of every single 'tile' in the real world Europe, it will really improve the feel of the game. Sieges should also be renamed, so that something like 'Battle of Kagoshima' would become 'Siege of Kagoshima', just like, for example in reality it was 'Siege of Constantinopolis' and not 'Battle of Constantinopolis' in 1453. Or "Siege of Alesia" rather than "Battle of Alesia". "Siege of Sparta", the historical battle, was named as such instead of "Battle of Sparta."

Bridges stand in tiles, so they should be given names too. Battle of Milvian bridge is a famous example.

Battle names can be simply be the location names as well, without adding "Battle of..." to the front. Simply Alesia, Milvian Bridge, Sparta, Azincourt, Blenheim, Austerlitz etc. can do the work, that is to inform about the locations.

And creating unique names for tiles gives the game a HUGE unique flavour. Players can proudly say "I defeated the Ptolemaics at Battle of Petra" or "The tide of the war turned at Rubicon bridge", for example. All battles will be 'famous' and unique in their own way.

I hope CA takes this humble suggestion of mine into consideration.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

Excellent idea!!! and the ability to record campaign battles i can't remember if shogun had it

[Lacedaemon]

Question - how do you name numerous battles in the same tile? Other than that, great suggestion.

[RexImperator]

Question - how do you name numerous battles in the same tile? Other than that, great suggestion.

2nd Battle of Thermopylae

[The Forgotten]

Maybe a little too much work but for Roman stacks (legions) it could list all the famous battles they had been in. A famous battle could be considered as everything with over 3000 men or a 1-3 advantage.

[LewisVee]

Superb suggestion, this would really add to the feel when you win the battle, or hell, even lose

[The Roman Republic]

My suggestions:

Giving a historically accurate name to every single tile of the map should do the trick. Although it will be difficult to search for accurate names of every single 'tile' in the real world Europe, it will really improve the feel of the game. Sieges should also be renamed, so that something like 'Battle of Kagoshima' would become 'Siege of Kagoshima', just like, for example in reality it was 'Siege of Constantinopolis' and not 'Battle of Constantinopolis' in 1453. Or "Siege of Alesia" rather than "Battle of Alesia". "Siege of Sparta", the historical battle, was named as such instead of "Battle of Sparta."

Bridges stand in tiles, so they should be given names too. Battle of Milvian bridge is a famous example.

Battle names can be simply be the location names as well, without adding "Battle of..." to the front. Simply Alesia, Milvian Bridge, Sparta, Azincourt, Blenheim, Austerlitz etc. can do the work, that is to inform about the locations.

And creating unique names for tiles gives the game a HUGE unique flavour. Players can proudly say "I defeated the Ptolemaics at Battle of Petra" or "The tide of the war turned at Rubicon bridge", for example. All battles will be 'famous' and unique in their own way.

I hope CA takes this humble suggestion of mine into consideration.

I think its a great idea, but i think its a bit too much work for just some personal eye candy. I think the current icon that appears on the campaign map to show the battle is just enough for me, I mean i am only going to look at it once and then thats it...

Plus the battle must be a heroic one, just think how many of those there will be and making the campaign map littered with them, slowing the FPS for lower end computers...

I know its a great idea, but still everything has to be put into consideration. Anyway, just my opinion.

[RagingCroppy]

Named Bridges/fords? Named woods, Hills, Mountains, deserts and lakes? You could pretty much name every single landmark on the campaign map. Not sure if CA have time for that though.

[Dan113112]

What about a page in the game that allows you to see all the battles you've fought in that campaign. It displays army numbers and casualties for both sides.

[Himster]

Nice idea, but there are bigger fish to fry and not really a lot of time and this would be time consuming. Hopefully it could be moddable, this is something the modders would love to do.

[The Roman Republic]

Nice idea, but there are bigger fish to fry and not really a lot of time and this would be time consuming. Hopefully it could be moddable, this is something the modders would love to do.

Totally agree with this, it would be better if it was a mod as it saves more time and lets CA work more on historical things

[Yayattasa]

You guys really think the man doing historical search is the same coding and scripting? Really?

[The Roman Republic]

You guys really think the man doing historical search is the same coding and scripting? Really?

Show me proof where I or someone else has even remotely said that.

[Yayattasa]

Show me proof where I or someone else has even remotely said that.

Here's your proof. No need to thank me.

it would be better if it was a mod as it saves more time and lets CA work more on historical things

[HusKatten]

I loved this in Rome 1 and Medieval 2. I'm not sure if the battles were given names, but famous battles where symbolized with a sign telling whoever won and whoever lost for all the factions to see. Yet again, a small cosmetic to greatly increase fun-rate.

[Lord Dakier]

I don't mind being able to name my historical victories but the computer should name my historical losses. Only had one in all my years and that was on a Rome 1 mod.

[The Roman Republic]

Here's your proof. No need to thank me.

One: I clearly said CA, not one man.

Two: It has two emotes with tongues sticking out, I'm surprised that this didn't indicated that it was a joke, but then again it would be hard to get through that thick skull of yours.

Three: Just to help you with what joke I was referring to. Their has been thousands of threads over the years about the historical accuracy that CA has shown in each of their total war games, mostly all of the threads have been complaints on the fact that the historical accuracy has been bad/not good enough.

With the upcoming Rome 2 Total War, everyone is trying to get their opinion and view on historical accuracy and show CA what they want/think in the game.

Four: I shall make it even clearer for you, just incase you didn't read the rather large paragraphs above that might make you scared.

I shall use a blue colour to highlight the text where the joke was made and to what context.

Totally agree with this, it would be better if it was a mod as it saves more time and lets CA work more on historical things

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=577510

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=549018

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=555251

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=578765

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=548947

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=578765

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=577853




As you kindly said,

Here's your proof. No need to thank me.

[Yayattasa]

It didn't look like it was ironic. Never saw a rule saying that two smiles together mean 'irony' or 'joke'.
Also, what does historic accurracy have to do with this after all? It doesn't matter if the previous games were historically innacurrate, it has nothing to do with this. You are mixing it.
You did not mention 'one person', fine, you said CA. That's the same thing. The coder, the scripter and the researcher are working for CA. You really think the work of any of them imparts on the job of the others?

You are willing giving away a feature (relinquishing it to the 'modders') so CA can improve the historical accuracy in the game. You said that, not me

[General Maximus]

I didn't mean anything with the famous battles/heroic victories, I just gave them as an example that when you win a heroic victory on a place with awkward name like 'Iwate Fields', then you get to see that awkward name forever because of the statue. Main point was that if real name of the place was used, looking upon that heroic victory marker would be a pleasure.

By the way, they can at least name all the playable tiles and not the impassable tiles. Since we cannot go and fight battles on impassable areas, they don't need to be named. That way, they would not have to name all the tiles.

If they ever make a Medieval III, it is going to be very, very easier. By the medieval period most if not all names had been finalized and properly explored.

[The Roman Republic]

It didn't look like it was ironic. Never saw a rule saying that two smiles together mean 'irony' or 'joke'.
Also, what does historic accurracy have to do with this after all? It doesn't matter if the previous games were historically innacurrate, it has nothing to do with this. You are mixing it.
You did not mention 'one person', fine, you said CA. That's the same thing. The coder, the scripter and the researcher are working for CA. You really think the work of any of them imparts on the job of the others?

You are willing giving away a feature (relinquishing it to the 'modders') so CA can improve the historical accuracy in the game. You said that, not me

Never saw a rule saying that two smiles together mean 'irony' or 'joke'.

I never said their was a rule, but it is very obvious. I mean of it was serious there would be no logical reason for me to place the emotes.

Also, what does historic accurracy have to do with this after all? It doesn't matter if the previous games were historically innacurrate, it has nothing to do with this. You are mixing it.

Because it was what I was referring to in the joke.

You did not mention 'one person', fine, you said CA. That's the same thing. The coder, the scripter and the researcher are working for CA. You really think the work of any of them imparts on the job of the others?

In my joke I was referring to the historical Accuracy, each job on the game can all relate to if it the output is historically accurate.

You really think the work of any of them imparts on the job of the others?

I don't know where your getting this from a joke, but still each person's job is essential to allow the next person to progress with theirs, I mean you can't start making models without first having a coder. So you need the coders job to be complete inorder to get the unit in-game. Sure you can pre-make them, but they are just going to be siting around until the coder is done.

Anyway we are going off the threads topic, so lets just forget it?? unless you want to continue wasting the moderators time.