A friend of mine wrote a letter to CA
Well, that lazyer actually did this. I am surprised as this is his first time writing anything to a gaming company. Here is a copy of what he wrote, i wnat to hear your opinions on it. WARNING, a massive TL,DR.
Hello good people of Creative Assembly. This is my first time writing you a message, as it is first time i felt compelled to do this. You see, i have been an avid fan of total war series, since Rome days, following it up with medieval 2. I never touched Napeleon, but played Empire enough. I skipped rise of the samurai( campaign just didn't interest me) but throughly enjoyed fall of the Samurai and Sengoku Jidai. And lastly Rome 2, which i am still playing, yet...
First of all, ı want you to know that i am not here to whine and complain or tell you how do your jobs as ı am sure you have enough of that. What i will write here will be purely suggestions and observations from a long time player, who wants to lend you his perspective in hopes helping you and making some constructive criticism.
Now to start i must tell you that while Rome 2 pushed me to write this, i want you to know it is not where things start.
I believe the biggest issue you have is change. Let me explain. From onwards medieval 2, you have been cutting out some old gameplay features and mechanics in favor of adding new ones. While i have nothing against adding new mechanics like naval combat, new agent types and tech research tree, the problem is you changing or entirely cutting off old features which had been crucial to game and loved by all players.
City growth and building system is one of such features. Building system of first Rome and Medieval 2 had been the best kind of building system up to this date. Why? First of all, it allowed more personalization. It was mostly up to player to what to build, allowing players to govern the growth of their cities more closely and it also didn't restrict the city growth. Wİth no limited number of building slots, a player could essentially transform a small backwater town to a large crawling urban center. Best part is you never actually needed to restrict players with building slot or settlement types. In medieval 2, players were prevented from turning all of their cities into grand population centers by their own economy. Increasing costs of higher tier buildings, army and navy upkeeps, prevented players from maxing out all of their settlements immediately, instead forcing them to think what to build and where to build. This was a fun and essential feature which had great potential and to this day still missed by many players. My suggestion to you is bring it back and improve it, add to it. Like i said that system has so much potential, like you can add new building chains which provide housing as a population increases or military building chains which provide garrison and civil order for a settlement.
Settlements are another thing. You see, settlement system in Medieval 2 and Rome outclass their successors. That does not mean there weren't any good additions, like province and edicts system in Rome 2 was a welcome addition. Yet grouping settlements in two types(province capitals and others) and limiting the potential of one group was a bad move in Rome 2 which also harmed the the feeling of realistic city growth. (Still it was 10 times better than Empire) You should have scrapped the province capital idea and give cities equal growth capabilities. Like same slot number each, with option to build walls for each and every one of them. In the end, yeah Rome was bigger than many others cities in its time but, this is an alternate history, where Spartans or Gauls may grow and prosper according to players whims. Who is to say Rome can't be eclipsed by other settlements. My point is just make it hard for players to do that, not impossible. Also, bring back public order for each single settlement. Don't make it province wise. Also make players able to change taxation levels for each province or exempt a province form tax.
This is purely suggestion and not a criticism. Add more settlements. I wished to see more settlements in Rome 2, so please, for your next game add more.
Now, another crucial aspect of total war games are characters. Lets start from our family members. First of all i want to say again Medieval 2 and Rome's family tree system had great potential. This was one of the features who needed addition and improvments. In Rome 2 we can neither marry our generals, nor interact their families. I mean one thing you could have done in Rome 2 was to re introduce extended family tree, and add Gravitas as character attribute. Make each character assignable to armies or provinces(according to their political rank), so each character can gain gravitas through either military service as general or civil service as governor. Yet gravitas does not make them bring you more political power but instead allowed them to be eligible for political ranks like (military tribune, preator, consul, pro-consul). First rank marks their entrance into political arena where they start to gain politcal power for your family. Higher ranks bring more power which actually motivates player to promote their family members. What does political power do then? Aside from promotions, it gives bonus to public order, lowers corruption and allows more edicts to be issued because political power in Rome 2 actually represents your chosen family's control over faction. Higher percentage means a more united faction while a lower percentage means a fragmented faction. You can also introduce more events and other variables to influence political power, thus make increasing or maintaining a high political power percentage a fun challange.
Moving from family members let look at agents. I am going to be honest, Agents in Total war games were never good. Both Shogun 2 and Rome 2 were massive improvements as they both introduced agents which were actually useful. Thank you for that. Yet in Rome 2 i can feel you could have handled agents better. You see, in Rome 2, all agents can assassinate and sabotage. This shouldn't be possible. Only spy should have been able to sabotage, assassinate or incite revolts. Dignitaries are already able to help govern provinces yet you could work on that aspect more, or make it so player can send them to other factions realms to increase your relations with them. You see, by doing this you can give Dignitaries a more appropriate role and also solve the problem of AI rejecting each and every proposal as players can smooth their relations with other factions over time through their dignitaries. Champions should not be able to assassinate anyone except enemy champions and it is only through one on one combat which enemy or player can decline. Yet declining or losing such combat gives massive morale debuff to army if a champion is attached to one. Their role as military trainers are spot on. You can also make champion assignable to provinces where they can oversee recruitment of new unit, shortening unit recruitment times. I approve that you made all agents attachable to armies where dignitary can reduce upkeep of the army, champion can train solders and protect general against sabotage and spy allows more movements points and protects both general and army against all hostile actions, yet by following previous suggestions you could have fleshed them out a little bit more.
Take out transport ships, please, or better, make so generals can only acquire them through ports, with money.
Provide players with options to choose from 12 turns per year to 1 turn per year.
Please don't give besieging armies free siege equipment.(like ladders) Make them construct them after besieging. And take out torches.
Your new army system is well done. With new traditions you have allowed players to actually specialize their armies. My only suggestion would be to make so player can actually split of a sub unit on campaign map who can't gain traditions or much. Reason for it is to make it possible reinforce an existing army with units from homeland without creating new army for these units or allowing players to split his army according to his strategy.
Research tree is another new feature which is a good addition. My only suggestion would be to work on it more and more technology tiers and branches. Maybe make a custom tree for each faction.
Returning to characters, allow them to have more than three traits, (don't put a trait limit if possible.) Also allow them to have more than one ancillary. I also need to say again, allow players to arrange marriages for their own characters.
And one last thing, throw some bone to modders. You see, there is reason your most succesfull games are Rome and Medieval 2. While they are both based on a solid formula, they are also highly moddable. When you look at the mods made for Medieval 2 and Rome, you will see conversion mods along with mods that add new cities, new buildings and sometimes a whole new map which is not possible to do as it seems for any of the later total war games.
Seasonal bonuses, attrition, province and edict system, army traditions, new agents, tech tree, naval combat. These are all great additions that i like so much yet these are additions, they are not supposed to compensate for other features that are cut off or simplified. They are supposed to work together with the older features, adding onto them, thus creating a better total war game with each step, with each addition, like a snowball turning into an avalanche.
There still bugs and little problems to talk about but i know you know about them and i know you are working on it.
So i won't talk about blobbing, pike formation being hard to use, etc.
Lastly, while email adress i gave you is a valid one, it is registered under a fake alias. The reason behind that is because i wish to remain anonymous. Yet i will answer to any email sent to that adress.
With my best wishes, a total war player
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Tullaris
