Four minor changes would really help this game

[RZZZA]

We're all aware of the major issues with the game so I won't dwell on those. Playing through the campaign however I've noticed several minor issues that if fixed would make me enjoy the game significantly more. Let's see if you agree with these.

1. The campaign map camera turns 90 degrees every time someone attacks you during end turn AI movement phase, and it remains turned throughout the entire phase. This drives me crazy. We're all used to looking at a map of Europe in a certain way, and when you turn it 90 degrees, I become disoriented and can't tell which way is up. I understand you want to turn the camera to zoom in on the little guys doing their battle dance, but can't the camera return back to its original position after the battle is over?

2. Fast forward is not fast forward. This has been bugging me for several iterations of Total War, I don't know what you CA guys think fast forward is....but it needs to be faster. I'm forced to go to options and pick the '40 minutes per battle' option because your fast forward button is painfully slow. This was never a problem in the original Medieval Total War I don't know why you guys messed with the speed.

3. Roman legionaries really ought to have a 'fire at will' button. Again, CA, stop removing features that everyone enjoyed and nobody had a problem with.

4. Nobody ever accepts a peace treaty. Doesn't matter if they're halfway across the map from me and we've been at war for 50 years. Doesn't matter if I've taken most of their towns and defeated most of their armies. Can you just turn the % chance of AI factions accepting peace up a little bit?

Just fixing these 4 minor things would greatly increase my contentment. Maybe there's some mods out there that address some of these issues, I haven't checked. What do you guys think?

[wulfgar610]

3. Roman legionaries really ought to have a 'fire at will' button. Again, CA, stop removing features that everyone enjoyed and nobody had a problem with.

This one I don't agree with. Earlier legionaries weren't peltasts, the aim was to get in close and 'beat the hell out of the enemy'. Although this strategy wasn't very useful against good cavalry as Arian's 'order of battle against the Alans' reveals. It might have more true of late legionaries with a more static disposition and a supply of darts.

4. Nobody ever accepts a peace treaty. Doesn't matter if they're halfway across the map from me and we've been at war for 50 years. Doesn't matter if I've taken most of their towns and defeated most of their armies. Can you just turn the % chance of AI factions accepting peace up a little bit?

The cost of bad politics!

[BigHairyMelon]

This one I don't agree with. Earlier legionaries weren't peltasts, the aim was to get in close and 'beat the hell out of the enemy'. Although this strategy wasn't very useful against good cavalry as Arian's 'order of battle against the Alans' reveals. It might have more true of late legionaries with a more static disposition and a supply of darts.
The cost of bad politics!

I don't know about pre Marian soldiers but post Marian legionaries had at least 2 pila to throw and would throw them if they were advancing or they would throw them at an advancing enemy, so having a fire at will button is perfectly reasonable to emulate that strategy.

[wulfgar610]

I don't know about pre Marian soldiers but post Marian legionaries had at least 2 pila to throw and would throw them if they were advancing or they would throw them at an advancing enemy, so having a fire at will button is perfectly reasonable to emulate that strategy.

According to Caesar in one battle they tossed them to the ground as useless and simply went in with swords. Pila were very useful against heavy slow moving troops like Greeks, but useless against fast moving troops intent on charging.

[BullGod]

I'm too actually glad legionaries don't have "fire at will".

[PointOfViewGun]

Did legionaries in Rome I really have fire at will feature?

4. Nobody ever accepts a peace treaty. Doesn't matter if they're halfway across the map from me and we've been at war for 50 years. Doesn't matter if I've taken most of their towns and defeated most of their armies. Can you just turn the % chance of AI factions accepting peace up a little bit?

I would say as far as the game never accepting a peace treaty but they need to put a distance clause for sure. It's ridiculous for factions that are far far away to declare war on you and never accept peace.

[krisslanza]

Did legionaries in Rome I really have fire at will feature?

Yeah they did. It made actual skirmishers kind of pointless. Even if the Legionaries would run out of ammo after about 2 or 3 of them, there was the fact very little would survive that - and even without them, they were capable melee troops anyway. So you could bring along vulnerable troops, or... just use your Legionaries as skirmishers anyway. I really don't miss that option being gone.

As for the peace thing, someone's testing seems to show the reason for this is the game's way of deciding the Balance of Power is based on income. So as you actually start winning, and killing their armies? Their power keeps going up, because they aren't paying for those troops anymore. So the AI is never really all that eager to declare war, since based on that, it's "winning" even when it isn't. I feel they meant to make it based on revenue, and someone goofed the coding to look at income instead.

[Sheridan]

Yeah they did. It made actual skirmishers kind of pointless. Even if the Legionaries would run out of ammo after about 2 or 3 of them, there was the fact very little would survive that - and even without them, they were capable melee troops anyway. So you could bring along vulnerable troops, or... just use your Legionaries as skirmishers anyway. I really don't miss that option being gone.

That's not particularly true. Roman troops had very short range - even the velites did - in comparison with peltasts. A mercenary peltasts would outrange and cause serious trouble for any early Roman infantry unit, any time. As opposed to Rome II, missile volleys in Rome I dealt more constant damage and comparatively little as well with standard troops. Another point worthy to be mentioned is that you couldn't use legionaries as skirmishers for a very long time: at best, they would manage to loose a single volley against a charging enemey unit, and they were limited to ~ 2.5 volleys. A peltasts with 7-9 ammo is by far the better option (plus it's a so-so capable melee troop), which you'll find out by playing the game again.

[krisslanza]

That's not particularly true. Roman troops had very short range - even the velites did - in comparison with peltasts. A mercenary peltasts would outrange and cause serious trouble for any early Roman infantry unit, any time. As opposed to Rome II, missile volleys in Rome I dealt more constant damage and comparatively little as well with standard troops. Another point worthy to be mentioned is that you couldn't use legionaries as skirmishers for a very long time: at best, they would manage to loose a single volley against a charging enemey unit, and they were limited to ~ 2.5 volleys. A peltasts with 7-9 ammo is by far the better option (plus it's a so-so capable melee troop), which you'll find out by playing the game again.

I never said they'd be good skirmishers for long. But given the Legionaries were also hearty melee troops, it means once they exhausted their pila you could still use them for their intended purpose. Contrast to say Velites, who once they were out of ammo, were basically useless. I'm not sure on Peltasts though, given I never played any faction but Rome back then.

[jamreal18]

I'm too actually glad legionaries don't have "fire at will".

I miss fire at will.

[BullGod]

I miss fire at will.

There are mods that reintroduce it, so this one is not a problem

[Kenios]

If they are halfway across the world, why would they accept peace terms? You are too far to threaten them and they know it. I can only chuckle when people kept complaining, "Waaaa, the AI doesn't accept peace", because they do. Who knows, maybe I am the only player in TWC who knows how to play the game.

[RZZZA]

If they are halfway across the world, why would they accept peace terms? You are too far to threaten them and they know it. I can only chuckle when people kept complaining, "Waaaa, the AI doesn't accept peace", because they do. Who knows, maybe I am the only player in TWC who knows how to play the game.

Well, I've been playing Total War games since the original Shogun. Right now the peace feature is basically broken, and AI factions don't react to it in any sensible way.

but if you want to share your tips, by all means

[❋ Flavius Belisarius ❋]

1. The campaign map camera turns 90 degrees every time someone attacks you during end turn AI movement phase, and it remains turned throughout the entire phase. This drives me crazy. We're all used to looking at a map of Europe in a certain way, and when you turn it 90 degrees, I become disoriented and can't tell which way is up. I understand you want to turn the camera to zoom in on the little guys doing their battle dance, but can't the camera return back to its original position after the battle is over?

In fact, I really like this option. It is interesting to see Europe under another angle. We can change it according from one military campaigns to another.

[Scorpionet]

Caring diplomatic relations is very important. Any action of its agents on a particular faction, walking on their land without permission, etc.. affects their relaccion with other factions. The IA function accepts peace in their relations with various factions, agrees to be his vassal and even sometimes she requested to be his vassal and end the war when about to disappear.

[century x]

I would be so happy if they put the fire at will option back for the legions.

[AgentGB]

Totally agree about auto fire for legions and other jav wielding infantry, while still keeping the charge effect when they throw them too, but such factions along with there roster of jav skirmishers doctrine, you would have thought they had done this with balance in mind. Nothing like a good exhange of javelins before the sword work begins.

About option four, ive fount that nations do accept peace if you throw enough money at them, even if its says they won't when calculating the likelyhood. But having options to peace out for client states and such would be good. Playing as Sparta, Egypt offered me 16000 gold to peace out with them. That obviously broke them for alot of turns, Diplomacy could do with some looking at, with alot more options, such as he giving away regions and what not.

[GussieFinkNottle]

I completely agree with all four. If I may add a further point, they should also remove the bizarre feature that making a peace deal with an enemy reduces your faction's trustworthiness if your allies or satrapies are fighting them too. You should be able to negotiate a deal that includes your allies, and really your satrapies should just follow your command. This is particularly annoying as Seleucids, because every war you start drags in about 5 factions on your side, and then you aren't allowed to end it without becoming 'untrustworthy' unless you destroy every last enemy town and army.

[Sun Jetzu]

You can turn the camera back yourself using the keyboard. Mixed me up at first but you can turn it back to the normal rotation.