10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

[Lord Baal]

I don't think they aren't capable as much as they aren't willing to do it. Hey, the more flashy and "easy to play" is the game, the more it will sale. This has been the curse of the gaming industry ever since internet multiplayer became the norm. You see how the balance of vanilla total war after Empire Total War is geared so full armies of 20 units each can duke it out and have a clear winner in around 5 to 10 minutes, because that's more or less the time an average round of most multiplayer games lasts these days.

As long as the game can be modded I don't care much about vanilla balance because that's like the first mod ever to every Total War game, the slower/realistic battles mod, however when this attitude is extended towards the campaign the game suffers a lot from my perspective. As said, one million times and I'll keep saying, arbitrary limits aren't necessary when you stablish a good set of rules and balance that would stablish natural rules by itself.

[Gigantus]

Businesses have no choice but to increasingly cater to the ever shrinking attention span, I mean, I have been asked several times to make videos for my plain text editing tutorials. Seriously.

All would be forgiven and forgotten for some decent modding capability.







exits center left, grumbling to himself, frantically looking for his max face palm pic

[Lord Baal]

All would be forgiven and forgotten for some decent modding capability.

This, one jillion times this...

I can only imagine what could a truly sandbox campaign would be on Total Warhammer, with every empire province being it's own faction but working in a system were they all elect the Emperor, and your current elector count (or any other relevant character) can be elected depending on your political acumen and/or military prowess and then you can have lots of options like changing the capital if you like, ordering around the other counts (for what it's worth) and so on and forth... With true family trees and having successions wars and whatnot.

Sadly we are stuck with immortal leaders for all purposes and this gives 0 political choices and limits the re playability as the empire is only the empire and you can only play as the emperor or one of their advisers which end up with you (after confederating) controlling the emperor anyway. While the geological scope of the game seems wide, the temporal and political one is not.

On this same page I wonder if Med 3 could have even a broader family tree, or multiple family threes per faction so you can have several noble families along the royal one ruling the country, appointing your lands/provinces to the heads of the other families.

[AnthoniusII]

Businesses have no choice but to increasingly cater to the ever shrinking attention span, I mean, I have been asked several times to make videos for my plain text editing tutorials. Seriously.

All would be forgiven and forgotten for some decent modding capability.







exits center left, grumbling to himself, frantically looking for his max face palm pic

This, one jillion times this...

I can only imagine what could a truly sandbox campaign would be on Total Warhammer, with every empire province being it's own faction but working in a system were they all elect the Emperor, and your current elector count (or any other relevant character) can be elected depending on your political acumen and/or military prowess and then you can have lots of options like changing the capital if you like, ordering around the other counts (for what it's worth) and so on and forth... With true family trees and having successions wars and whatnot.

Sadly we are stuck with immortal leaders for all purposes and this gives 0 political choices and limits the re playability as the empire is only the empire and you can only play as the emperor or one of their advisers which end up with you (after confederating) controlling the emperor anyway. While the geological scope of the game seems wide, the temporal and political one is not.

On this same page I wonder if Med 3 could have even a broader family tree, or multiple family threes per faction so you can have several noble families along the royal one ruling the country, appointing your lands/provinces to the heads of the other families.

I couldn't agree with both of you more. But around there are two kind of people. Those that praise in EVERYTHING CA/SEGA does even for the worst of its products and those that ask what they need to make CA/SEGA's unfinished game , attractive and playable. CA/SEGA the last years see the second kind of people as a "curse" rather as clients. Even when physics and logic is on the table (what modding can achieve since the devs have no will to do anything under those prospectives) if you point something wrong , automaticaly you are a whinner or an enemy of CA/SEGA!

[Slaytaninc]

Battles in vanilla total war games have always been fast-paced . One reason is that while the AI is faster at micro it makes much poorer decisions than the player. This is one reason why CA rarely bothered to improve the AI on harder difficulty levels. Better to make your incompetent AI as good as it can be for all players.

The limited building slot arrangement has been irritating me to no end. Zero immersion there.

I don't mind so much in something like Warhammer where it's supposed to be gamey, but when it comes to historical games it bothers me to no end as well. Sure, Rome was already a significant city in the timeframe of Rome 2, even during the timeframe of Rise of the Republic, but why should it be so much more significant than Capua (which afaik isn't in the vanilla campaign)? An even better example would be some of the barbarian provinces, what justification is there for one province over another? I'd give specific examples but I'm not familiar there. I'm reminded of Rome Total Realism 7. It was pretty well-polished and a focused campaign but those minor settlements seemed incredibly pointless to me.

[Gigantus]

Minor settlements was a replacement of the grain (?) trade resource, no other function. Rather novel at the time. We used some trade resources in RotK to simulate wonders as M2TW did not have that mechanic any more. Basically giving a new dress to an old body, but then that's what modding does. Now it's restricted to shifting the bodies around on the same dance floor.

[Slaytaninc]

It's ironic, because in theory there's so much that could be done with Rome 2 and Attila. However the days of being able to code a simple plug-in so you can use common programs to radically overhaul the map just isn't possible anymore. CA is never going to give us the source code needed to create a plug-in for a program like Blender but if they did that alone would change so so much. We're no longer limited by silly things like faction limits (it's not at least a practical limit.)

My controversial opinion is that the modern games are much better games than the older ones. However they're not sandboxes for new gameplay like Rome and Med2 were and I think that's a huge loss for the Total War community and this site even more so.

[Gigantus]

There is nothing controversial about enjoying better graphics and different game mechanics versus an inability to mod those like in the old games. I really would love to have animated resources on the map in M2TW, especially that eagle (?) flying around. Or create a custom map for Three Kingdoms (done it for M2TW, I mean the latest game edition )

[skillfultree]

One day some company or jaded fan is going to make a mashup of Paradox and Total War. Then all our dreams will come true.

[Lord Baal]

What if we desing a game and launch a indegogo or gofundme or some other thing like that? At least Gigantus is like a celibrity around here.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Best thing done is the thing done yourself. If you have the drive, light the spark - can't depend on others to do so.

[MarchOfThePigs]

I just want Med 2, but with a hybrid Attila/Rome 2 feel.

[CommodusV]

My controversial opinion is that the modern games are much better games than the older ones. However they're not sandboxes for new gameplay like Rome and Med2 were and I think that's a huge loss for the Total War community and this site even more so.

Necro aside, I think this raises a question as far as just what makes a good, or 'better' game. Is it the time spent on the mechanics, how much there is physically baked into it, or is it the sum experience, and if so, dependent on the majority of players supporting it to count?

People have their particular tastes, the reason why many swear by Paradox games and turn their nose at Total War. Some within Total War appreciate this sandbox-y nature for older titles as the essence of the franchise, and if you lose the things that made the older titles so appealing, then any level of stuff thrown into new titles cannot be 'as good' when the sum enjoyment can never compare. But that's of course an individual question.

[Gigantus]

In the end it comes down to flavor. Always the flavor - while I am partial to mint and chocolate ice cream no threat would convince my grand children to have a lick. Come to think of it: it might explain the general, unusual peace and quiet I get when indulging in it.

[0riflamme]

I'd like to see a supply train system. I hear Britannia has one? I'm talking about armies leaving what are basically trade routes between them and the previous settlement or region they disembarked. These can be attacked to strand armies without supplies, so they need to raid, or even take attrition in harsh winters, deserts, mountains, and the further the army moves from home.

I like this idea, but I think Three Kingdoms is the game that did it. I also have to give CA credit for developing diplomacy, from what was basically 20 years of the same thing. Experimenting on tertiary mechanics like that is great, it should lead to making better enemy behaviors.

I want Medieval 3 to begin with Charlemagne's death and end before The Wars of Religion.

[robertlamp]

Well, i would like to see better version of agents.

[Huberto]

CA started to make some strides in Three Kingdoms with more logical and complex diplomacy and trading systems and those would work well in a Medieval setting. Assuming they keep that and design the campaign more in the direction of a Crusader Kings, the real effort needs to be in tactical battles and more realism. No more blobbing and broken up battlefields with units running all over the place. I hate that.

Instead, imagine larger versions of what we've seen recently in demos with Manor Lords combat, combined with an engine overhaul/new engine plus a battle system that slows the pace and is rewarded for positioning, terrain, and conserving stamina versus the current emphasis of clicking all over the place.

[Lord Baal]

The medieval 2 engine overhaul project is making strides towards many of the things wanted. Specially towards better scripting.

[Jurand of Cracow]

CA started to make some strides in Three Kingdoms with more logical and complex diplomacy and trading systems and those would work well in a Medieval setting. Assuming they keep that and design the campaign more in the direction of a Crusader Kings, the real effort needs to be in tactical battles and more realism. No more blobbing and broken up battlefields with units running all over the place. I hate that.

Instead, imagine larger versions of what we've seen recently in demos with Manor Lords combat, combined with an engine overhaul/new engine plus a battle system that slows the pace and is rewarded for positioning, terrain, and conserving stamina versus the current emphasis of clicking all over the place.

I haven't played the Three Kingdoms but I'm very interested in the trade system in the TW games. I find the Medieval2 one to be much more reasonable than that of the Warscape engine (even if not a perfect one, obviously). Can you elaborate how the trade system is in the 3K and how the next TW game would need it?
cheers
JoC

[Huberto]

JoC-

The last and equally important diplomatic option is trade. Trade is divided into several parts. You can send or receive a given amount of gold from another faction as a one-time or long-term payment. This similarly with food - you can send a certain amount of food to another faction throughout X number of turns, or get it from another faction. The third option is to trade items - weapons, armor, mounts, supporters, or accessories - in exchange for influence, gold, or pushing through other diplomatic options.
The fourth and separate issue is exchange. You exchange one good (grain, rice, iron, jade, silk, etc.) to get another from the other faction - this will result in a large increase in the gold received each turn. This is also the option with the most restrictions - the number of trade exchange offers depends on the development of the faction (level, built buildings, as well as assigned posts in the court). You can exchange goods only with factions you can access directly (their border is next to yours, or when you are able to access them through the territory of an ally).

System is enjoyable and works well for the most part. I can't remember if this is in addition to generic trade agreements that cover resource exchanges and generate money. You should definitely play 3K at least once or twice to check out the revamp of diplomacy system in the campaign.

Source: https://guides.gamepressure.com/tota...e.asp?ID=50254