What is really missing from M2TW? (and RTW?)

[HorseArcher]

Some of you will not like this at all. Some of you will think that I'm "ranting", but I am just trying to figure out of what exactly doesn't feel right about M2TW (and for that, RTW as well).

I got to this point in my research, after playing other games and just thought about it for a long time.


Ok, let's see what we do in the game.


You load up the game, you choose a faction, which has specific units and a position on the map.

You do your stuff about in the turns, set tax levels, move spies and priests and train soldiers and build buildings.

What does the AI do? Same thing. builds stuff, moves armies around.

You get messages about disasters, deaths, alliances/war news etc.

Next would be your turn again, where you further build more stuff and you might just attack someone or someone attacks you.

So why does this feel sort of empty (to me) ?

It's missing something, I'm telling you. It's called "Personality".

What do I mean?

We as humans, are usually engage in social engagements and we have our own opinions and beliefs of our friends, families and strangers or the president. We build up our own opinion by listening to this person talking and making decisions and basically just ...living his/her life in a certain way.

A Certain-way is the key. Without diversity and personalities, we would be just a bunch of clones, a bunch of robots on the assembly line completely numb with no feelings.

That is how these factions are. A bunch of no-personality with no way to make an impact on us. They attack or they don't. They invade and they don't. They do not communicate with us, besides those.

Let me clear this up better.

What if (and please history buffs just let me talk for a moment, this isn't about historic accuracy, but trying to figure out a better gameplay) All these factions would have a different personality?

Let's say,
-HRE would be the one that acts like they own the world and they would let you know by small messages to you of how they feel about your "puny" little country. The would even bluff you or flash their chest around by marching their army on your borderline, like some sort of policemen.

- France would play the nice little innoncent girl, who just want to defend herself all the time, and sometime would cry wolf for the first military buildup by the borderline. They would always send you their concerns and perhaps make you run to help them, but you'd notice they were a little over exaggarating.

- Hungary would try not to be involved in trying to stomp on rebellions, even if it means that crossing your border and asking for "military access", even when they already got it (so they would drive you a bit mad, but it gives you an opinion of them), They would also would want you to see to continue to talk diplomatic matters, even if there is nothing to talk about.

-Milan would be the backstabber, the "fox" of the factions, who would always send you gifts, and a turn later would invade your country and laugh in your face , how easily you have fell for it.

- The mongols would be the real threat. They would be a little big mouth about telling you 40 turns ahead, that "we are coming for you" and "we will destroy you, just because ....we can".



.........And I could go on an on, about the rest of the factions, but I hope I'm clearing up a picture here.


These roles would also rotate randomly so we would never know who we are dealing with, and we would only have a clear picture if we build our appropriate units (spies, priests) and they would also change in behavior by simply looking at our money or military might and they would switch behavior accordingly.

This really, doesn't take any sort of Giant AI, because I have seen this in other games happening and it always just "put a face on the enemy" kinda thing, makes it very personal and very immersive.

I know someone will come here and tell "but this would require an impossible AI"- not so. I know there are people out, who played strategy games before and seen this sort of stuff.

So, what do you think?

[lawngnome]

I though faction behavior was moddable? That's how the Carthage ship-spam got fixed in RTW afaik, because Carthage had a trait that made it build ships out the wazoo. I like more personality to factions... Galactic Civilizations is good at that... good strat game... it could work

[VaultDweller]

It would be nice.

When I started reading your post, I thought perhaps you were going to talk about the personality of the game itself. That's one thing that I feel has been on the decline ever since STW. STW had aspects that really helped define the cultural side of the game, such as the throne room with the map of the current state of Japan, the advisor with his well-delivered and relevant Sun Tzu/Art of War quotations, and the diplomats that you actually saw in your throne room while they verbally delivered their proposition to you. Assassination movies are finally back after a 2-game hiatus, which is good, but they still don't accentuate the cultural soul of the game as STW's did (probably because Ninja and Geisha are so much cooler than the M2TW agents). Oh, and the intro and closing videos for the games. STW had a whole lot more character there as well.

It's not really the same thing that you're getting at, but I feel that improvements along these lines would really help to forge a stronger connection between the player and the game.

[Klund]

I though faction behavior was moddable? That's how the Carthage ship-spam got fixed in RTW afaik, because Carthage had a trait that made it build ships out the wazoo. I like more personality to factions... Galactic Civilizations is good at that... good strat game... it could work

They have a behavior setting like France is set at "religious smith" and England is "trader henry". As far as I know, the first (religious,trader) only guide the AI on which buildings to prioritize and the second (smith,henry) only guide the AI on which types of units to prioritize.

I don't know about going as far as the OP has it on setting personalities but I agree that the game needs some more flavor. I would start with adding titles like the original MTW had, it was very simply but added an extra bit of depth to the game even if it was a small thing.

I would also enhance the dynasty and traits/retainers features. I have no idea if any of this moddable or not but I would firstly fix the succession laws and prevent adopted generals from being crowned, or possibly remove adoption if another way of gaining generals can be found.

Then possibly add to the trait and retainer events. Possibly have menu pop ups to make certain choices for characters in which direction you would like to go with them. Something as simple as choosing if your 17yo prince will participate in a tourney (+chivalry or +troop morale, possibly an injury trait) or instead devote his time at the tourney to making powerful friends (+management, -troop morale). Then maybe follow it up by telling how he did in the tourney if he participated, perhaps he gained an extra trait or gold by capturing a nobleman, or won the hand of a lady as a possible marriage match.

Anything to add a bit of a 'story' to the game, however simple.

Haha...but then the game would be comprised of somebody's smug preconceived notions about other nations' "national character". I suppose the African nations would have to fit into their little cubicle too...I'm not sure I'm too crazy about your idea. Frankly I'm getting plenty of character out of the AI diplomacy engine right now. About all I can take, frankly.

What M2TW is lacking frankly is realism. It simply does not portray the middle ages, save for when it's in the BF mode. The economy is all wrong. And if the economy is wrong then the politics is wrong. And if the politics are wrong then the strategy will necessarily be wrong too...

I believe the OP said he wanted the personalities of the nations to be random at the start of each game.

I agree about the diplomacy though, I have put my game on the shelf til the patch arrives. I can't take any more of the "your on my border so I must attack" style of diplomacy that the game currently has, despite the many dev interviews in which they claimed to have 'overhauled' the diplomacy engine...if this is their idea of an improved diplomacy engine then I truly hope they don't 'improve' anything else.

[Kretchfoop]

I always kinda thought the same thing. Total War factions seem very cookie cutter to me. I know they have different profiles or whatever you would call it like lawngnome pointed out but they seem very superficial.

I think Civiliation IV did this very well. Each unique leader acted differently from another. For instance, if you started a game near Montezuma who was very aggresive you could count on him attacking you at some point in the game but if you had a stronger military then him you could bully him around to an extent. Likewise if you started next to say, Hatshepsut, you could count on a stalwart game long ally if you played well. Isabella would be a religion freak who would love you if you shared religions or hated you if you were of different faiths. Definatly gave the game more atmosphere and added much to diplomacy.

EDIT: Although I do have to give some props to CA. The diplomacy still needs some serious work when compared to games like Hearts of Iron, Galcatic Civilizations, and Civ IV which is disappointing considering these games have been out for awhile now. But I do think they took a big step forward from RTW in this regard and hope they continue spending resources improving it.

[Halie Satanus]

Hmm, strange you put this up now as i was just modding the events in bi for my mod, rather than having date based historical events I'm putting in letters sent by a priest trapped in the lands of the dark lords describing events that his spies have reported to him. we hope to release soon.

Eg; {THE_SASSANID_MARTYRDOM_TITLE} is now.....

The death of the first.
My brother grave and terrible news from the east, word of Evil most foul has reached me from my spies in the lands of the dark ones, it has been said that the dark lords have ordered the death of the first born of every family in all captured settlements, they are to be sacrificed to the Evil God mother Lilith. One report has said the screams of the mothers could be heard for miles, what Evil has been unleashed upon the earth my brother.

[Da_TRU_1]

i concur, i like this idea and hope something can be done, either by CA(doubtful) or the modding community(highly probable)

[Farnan]

STW was more of a piece of artwork than the rest of the games. It even had an encyclopedia of Japanese History. It was the masterpiece of CA, even though MTW2 is more fun to play, it is a game that would never be matched as an artwork. That is probably why we'll never see a STW2 since no game can be that much of an artpiece. It was also the game that CA used to launch the genre, thus it had to be like it was to awe people...

[VaultDweller]

STW was more of a piece of artwork than the rest of the games. It even had an encyclopedia of Japanese History. It was the masterpiece of CA, even though MTW2 is more fun to play, it is a game that would never be matched as an artwork. That is probably why we'll never see a STW2 since no game can be that much of an artpiece. It was also the game that CA used to launch the genre, thus it had to be like it was to awe people...

Amen to that.

[OG Grenadier]

I think the franchise has become more jaded with each installment. Lets face it folks most of us have probably played the game to death several times over and then some. It is easy to become increasingly critical as a result.

[Cadmium77]

Haha...but then the game would be comprised of somebody's smug preconceived notions about other nations' "national character". I suppose the African nations would have to fit into their little cubicle too...I'm not sure I'm too crazy about your idea. Frankly I'm getting plenty of character out of the AI diplomacy engine right now. About all I can take, frankly.

What M2TW is lacking frankly is realism. It simply does not portray the middle ages, save for when it's in the BF mode. The economy is all wrong. And if the economy is wrong then the politics is wrong. And if the politics are wrong then the strategy will necessarily be wrong too...

[HorseArcher]

Haha...but then the game would be comprised of somebody's smug preconceived notions about other nations' "national character". I suppose the African nations would have to fit into their little cubicle too...I'm not sure I'm too crazy about your idea. Frankly I'm getting plenty of character out of the AI diplomacy engine right now. About all I can take, frankly.

What M2TW is lacking frankly is realism. It simply does not portray the middle ages, save for when it's in the BF mode. The economy is all wrong. And if the economy is wrong then the politics is wrong. And if the politics are wrong then the strategy will necessarily be wrong too...

Those 2 can work very well beside each other. I'm talking about personalities versus realism. You do know, that these countries does have personalities, how you or someone else view them, based on the culture, people, the people in power.

Let me give you an example (straight from history)

Frederick did not forgive Henry the Lion for his refusal to come to his aid in 1174. Taking advantage of the hostility of other German princes to Henry, who had successfully established a powerful and contiguous state comprising Saxony, Bavaria and substantial territories in the north and east of Germany, Frederick had Henry tried in absentia by a court of bishops and princes in 1180, declared that Imperial law overruled traditional German law, and had Henry stripped of his lands and declared an outlaw. He then invaded Saxony with an Imperial army to bring his cousin to his knees. Henry's allies deserted him, and he finally had to submit in November 1181. He spent three years in exile at the court of his father-in-law Henry II of England in Normandy, before being allowed back into Germany, where he finished his days as much-diminished Duke of Brunswick, peacefully sponsoring arts and architecture, and died on 6 August 1195.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederi..._Roman_Emperor

see from that, you can pretty much set out a type of personality of a faction (based on the faction leader) for at least a given number of turns. Then it would change again aftera new emperor. The point is, that it would give some sort of behavior on the map, instead of just the regular attacks "because of they want to expand" or , it would put reasons behind their actions.
I think , the other problem in this game is the missing -action ---><---reaction sort of thing. My actions in this game should make more impact of what I do or don't. Same with the AI factions.

[savage_rabbit]

It simply does not portray the middle ages, save for when it's in the BF mode.

Hardly so. The game in general is simply a fantasy. It's a fun game, but a fantasy loosely based on facts (as all fantasies are) nevertheless.

[HorseArcher]

Hardly so. The game in general is simply a fantasy. It's a fun game, but a fantasy loosely based on facts (as all fantasies are) nevertheless.

Well, I think gaming/historical realism can walk hand-in hand to a certain point. It can be fun as hell to play a game with a given level of historical accuracy. If that point gets crossed through, it's either the game is not "historical" and more like fantasy game, but still provide fantastic gameplay.

Or we could go all historic, but again, I didn't buy M2TW to watch the History Channel. For that, I just flip the channel on.

[savage_rabbit]

Or we could go all historic, but again, I didn't buy M2TW to watch the History Channel. For that, I just flip the channel on.

I wouldn't buy it to "watch the History Channel" either. I would buy it to LIVE history. But, no one caters to that for some reason. I guess if developers made a game that emulated real things, that really matter, that people could really learn from, they might be able to say that they did something important with their life and career... and we just can't have game developers making claims like that, can we?

[Pnutmaster]

I agree with all of your points, Horse.

Here's two ideas of my own:

1. Why have people been reminiscing about MTW titles? I believe I know why. Titles added substance their to family members and characters, and substance is what's lacking in M2TW characters. What is M2TW when practically every factional family member has the same traits, the same pagan magician, the same titles. Make traits that are unique to each faction. Tell us that the adopted English general is of Norman descent. Make family members more than bodyguard units with dread and governing abilities. (E.B achieved this to some degree with their wide variety of ancillaries).

2. Assign each faction goals that they must/will complete over the course of the game. They might be territorial (possession of Jerusalem), economical (construction of a particular building), political (seat of Pope), religious (conversion of an orthodox region), etc. To keep the player on his feet, these goals could change with the rise of a new faction leader. The faction leader's goals could be listed as one of his traits, visible to the player once a spy has been employed.

Thoughts? Criticisms? Both ideas could easily be expanded. Just making suggestions in the effort to infuse personality into M2TW

[Syntax Error]

I agree with all of your points, Horse.
2. Assign each faction goals that they must/will complete over the course of the game. They might be territorial (possession of Jerusalem), economical (construction of a particular building), political (seat of Pope), religious (conversion of an orthodox region), etc. To keep the player on his feet, these goals could change with the rise of a new faction leader. The faction leader's goals could be listed as one of his traits, visible to the player once a spy has been employed.

That would be interesting to know the ambitions of a faction leaders, and that it would change along with the secession of a new one, could lead to some interesting tactics to counter such ambitions it were to threaten your interests.

[HorseArcher]

That would be interesting to know the ambitions of a faction leaders, and that it would change along with the secession of a new one, could lead to some interesting tactics to counter such ambitions it were to threaten your interests.

Well, further thoughts into this, I think it boils down, that the faction leaders should be more influential to their surroundings. Surroundings mean, his own faction and the rest of the factions.

I know, I can read about the faction leader's traits, but let's put them to work. Let these traits trigger certain emotions from other faction leaders.

Also, other faction leaders, tell me stuff while i'm playing. I want to hear some faction leader telling me to get the hell of his land, or taunt me somehow. I also want to hear someone begging me not to attack and some others going after my purse.

[Zhuge_Liang]

There aren't enough new features, layouts, designs etc to make it seem like a totally different game from RTW.

There is a lack of quality or polished finish.

[General Dissaray]

I would very much like to know more about the people I am compeeting against, as well as personalaty of them beacouse who want's to know robots personaly? By know more about them I mean the big hapenings in their lands, things like when they get a new king or some thing like that. Why not? I hear about wars that spark up bitween peoples I have never met, like Byzantium and Turky. But I can't get news about the Scots or the French and I hold borders with both of them, it jsut seems a little silly.