Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 54

Thread: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

  1. #1

    Default 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Hi all. I recently made a video on 10 things medieval 3 would need. It would be awesome if you could also add your ideas of what Medieval 3 (if it ever gets released) would need here in the thread or in the comments of the video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbsjEMw6JhM

  2. #2
    lolIsuck's Avatar WE HAVE NO CAKE!
    Patrician Citizen Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Modding Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Heerlen, Limburg
    Posts
    12,736

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Thread moved to the General TW Discussion.

  3. #3
    AnthoniusII's Avatar XXI ARMORED BRIGADE
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,727

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    That is an easy delima.
    Without seeing your video here is my list.
    1: No siege escalation the way that exists in Attila.
    2: Re installing sapping in siege methods
    3: Final fix of model coalition issue in fights.
    4: Direct connection of the strat_map model of a settlement to the one that player will confront in battlefield.
    5: Douple of building slots
    6: Re-enstate of region infrastructure like ETW that would include better roads, border forts and watch towers separated than the one in the settlement building slots.
    7: Re use of the dismount abillity of mounted units inorder to use siege equipement like in Shogun II
    8: Re enstate of separate use of siege equipment when 2 or more armies besiege a settlement like in RTW 1
    9: Re enstate the abillity to capture enemy ships like in ETW and Shogun II
    10: Complete Modding tools INCLUDING map and strat_map editor.
    Conclusion.
    Medieval 3 will NEVER achive these with this development team so its a worthless discusion.
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


  4. #4

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Awesome idea. And sadly I agree on the last thought. I dont trust CA right now to do anything good in the near future.

  5. #5

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Wow that's a great ideas. And also, that video is a great one too. Looking forward to with those put in the game.

  6. #6

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    thanks warcraft. I am planing to do a 10 things med 3 must not have.

  7. #7

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Nice video, i agree.

  8. #8
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,235

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Wanted to write pretty long and detailed answer. BUT. Your video is pretty amateurish and sounds mostly like personal opinion. No comparison especially between later titles, no alternatives and why some sucks and some are better in your eyes.... Keep working but there is long road to be good youtuber. Sorry I could reformulate lower text, rewrite many parts but who cares. If you are unwilling to present points here, I feel no duty to as well..
    -----------------


    First of all, why should we even bother watching random youtube video when you cannot even take time to present all points here in written form? It seems more likely you just want to generate more views. My time is cash for you...You are not going into specifics and explaining and comparing why you have your opinion and why it is better than alternatives. To me your video is personal wishlist without any deeper though. Just because you like it...And you are talking mostly about Rome 1 and Med 2, where are current trends and evolution from ToB, 3K, Wh(s)...Where is proper comparison?

    1) detachable armies - why we need it? On opposite side is AI spam of token force just to harrass,raid,bother you every (other) turn...If anything we need quite opposite. We need army with more command posts. Like one general plus a few subcommanders for particular parts of army like vanguar, rearguard, cavalry,...3K is finally showing move in righ direction with army composing of three subcommanders. I don´t know if we will be able to split 3K armies but that is only fish i have in that direction. One commander with up to 6 unit - yes. Anything smaller - no. Having more characters per army would allow deeper characteristic, do the guys like each other? Are they loyal? Are they prone to switching side in middle of battle because some old feud?

    2) Color recognition and memorability - why? You seem to be stuck in past..familiarity. Ok I get it but in current time simple red or purple is not enough. Plus colors in early TWs are awful. I don´t want my army to looks like having one color pyjamas. You cannot have 16 base colors while having 100+ factions.

    About intro videos. You probably missed Warhammer(s) pretty solid narrative and introduction into different factions...

    3) Smaller amount of factions that are different - You need more factions for more diplomacy options like confederation etc. You want just a few faction and that is, no my friend i want to struggle at very beggining among similar faction and then fight different empires, kingdoms

    Having more smaller subfaction offer little different starting position. Sparta vs Athens, Wessex vs east, different houses of Rome...

    4) Dynamic population. I agree that we need population mechanics. However simplicity of Rome 1 is not enough for me in 2019. Look at DeI mod for Rome 2. That should be our goal. Plus 3K is again returning population into game.

    5) Pope, crusades and jihad - True. We need more mechanics for particular culture/religion groups and meaningful endgame. For every faction, not only for catholic ones.

    6) DLC - DLC/FLC quality is probably best now to whole history. I´m pretty sure 3K will keep the quality as well.

    7) Good AI, no cheating, good diplomacy - Unless i´m mistaken. With every new TW the bonuses/cheats for AI are getting smaller and smaller. Diplomacy is long term problem. Looks like CA already put some effort into 3K diplomacy.

    8) Good agent mechanics and spy videos - Lately we have pretty varied agents. Like in Warhammers. What more, they are finally!!! able to participate in battles and are no longers just names on campaign screen. And with 3K/ToB looks like agents are gone. I honestly can live without them if generals/other characters are able to pick their job. Videos are the least problem, watching the same video for 10 time is boring.

    9) Good and regular general speeches - No. Unless we can have like a few hundreds of variations. I played all TWs so far. After 1000 hours there is no speech I have not heard 10 times. No.

    10) Hotseats - I have done no hotseat game for 10 years. Probably due to people playing from their own PC. I prefer good multiplayer mode ala Shogun 2. But it would be plus point for people playing alone home..

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    That is an easy delima.
    Without seeing your video here is my list.
    1: No siege escalation the way that exists in Attila.
    2: Re installing sapping in siege methods
    3: Final fix of model coalition issue in fights.
    4: Direct connection of the strat_map model of a settlement to the one that player will confront in battlefield.
    5: Douple of building slots
    6: Re-enstate of region infrastructure like ETW that would include better roads, border forts and watch towers separated than the one in the settlement building slots.
    7: Re use of the dismount abillity of mounted units inorder to use siege equipement like in Shogun II
    8: Re enstate of separate use of siege equipment when 2 or more armies besiege a settlement like in RTW 1
    9: Re enstate the abillity to capture enemy ships like in ETW and Shogun II
    10: Complete Modding tools INCLUDING map and strat_map editor.
    Conclusion.
    Medieval 3 will NEVER achive these with this development team so its a worthless discusion.
    2: Not only sappers, but overhaul to deployables as well. Having sappers in real time battle would be strange but I would like to have them during city being besieged with ability to damage walls per turns or to generate undermined wall sections per turn. Then in actual battle player would be able to collapse random part of wall for example and sappers will participate as normal unit.
    8: What we really need is ability to have battles with multiple sides. Like 2vs1, 3vs1, 3vs2... or whatever. With campaign option to actually fight or keep back. And corresponfing diplomacy bonuses/penalties.. And toss there siege equipment as well!!
    1: Actually is linked with 1: I would like ability to influence battlefied to bigger degree, especially wooden towns,cities. Say whatever you want, flame arrows+flame shots and burn down all heretics! This is purely about personal taste..
    4: Actually overhaul to siege battles would be great! I want more variety from storming smaller forts to multistage battles in capital cities with multiple wall layers, moats,...

    3: Yep

    5: This is purely balance issue. But agree, double number would be great. That is compromise between building everything and having to think about priorities.
    6: This is connected with previous point. You can have this feature in Rome2/Attila but they are merged with main building chain to save building slots. That´s all. What I would like to see is heavy split into building chains. Ability to make even smaller settlement a fortress at expense of economy part of things and vica versa

    7: Yep
    9: Actually we need deeper naval combat system as whole! Campturing ship is only one part!
    10: Complete modding tools are like golden grail. But in Wh(s) you can make battle maps, you can make city maps and you can connect them with different points, cities, city levels. So we actually have part of what you want.. Let´s hope it will be same in 3K or better. I can live without campaign map editor because for Rome2 there is only one major mod, for Attila 1-2, for WH(s) again 1-2.

  9. #9

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    I have to say that I have not played WHs due to me not being into fantasy a lot so it's true that if some things are there done correctly I haven't given them credit. I have more focused on med 2 and rome 1 since they are IMHO the best TW games made. Rome 2 after 10000 patches was OK and Attila just never got me into it for some reason. Napoleon is a good TW game but I prefer hand to hand based games. Shogun 2 was good and being honest I also haven't tried ToB due to seeing some reviews and it just didn't look good to me. I also have a bad feeling about 3k (- diplomacy, that looks awesome), but it is true that we haven't seen much of the ''historical'' part of the game. More just about the romantic game mode. About the video, yeah I guess you could call it more like a wish list. Didn't go 2 in debt but probably I should. Tnx for the feedback

  10. #10

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    + I shall also write it in written form here. Sorry bout that

  11. #11
    AnthoniusII's Avatar XXI ARMORED BRIGADE
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,727

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post

    2: Not only sappers, but overhaul to deployables as well. Having sappers in real time battle would be strange but I would like to have them during city being besieged with ability to damage walls per turns or to generate undermined wall sections per turn. Then in actual battle player would be able to collapse random part of wall for example and sappers will participate as normal unit.
    8: What we really need is ability to have battles with multiple sides. Like 2vs1, 3vs1, 3vs2... or whatever. With campaign option to actually fight or keep back. And corresponfing diplomacy bonuses/penalties.. And toss there siege equipment as well!!
    1: Actually is linked with 1: I would like ability to influence battlefied to bigger degree, especially wooden towns,cities. Say whatever you want, flame arrows+flame shots and burn down all heretics! This is purely about personal taste..
    4: Actually overhaul to siege battles would be great! I want more variety from storming smaller forts to multistage battles in capital cities with multiple wall layers, moats,...

    3: Yep

    5: This is purely balance issue. But agree, double number would be great. That is compromise between building everything and having to think about priorities.
    6: This is connected with previous point. You can have this feature in Rome2/Attila but they are merged with main building chain to save building slots. That´s all. What I would like to see is heavy split into building chains. Ability to make even smaller settlement a fortress at expense of economy part of things and vica versa

    7: Yep
    9: Actually we need deeper naval combat system as whole! Campturing ship is only one part!
    10: Complete modding tools are like golden grail. But in Wh(s) you can make battle maps, you can make city maps and you can connect them with different points, cities, city levels. So we actually have part of what you want.. Let´s hope it will be same in 3K or better. I can live without campaign map editor because for Rome2 there is only one major mod, for Attila 1-2, for WH(s) again 1-2.
    2: I agree with sappers /actually having one such "unit" in your army it would justify a real siege escalation.
    In this time that coding has made jumbs ahead the besieged player should have a pop up message that "sounds are heard and enemy may dig tunels under our walls and we should do something.
    Back in early days in Attila i made a sugestion. The besieger (AI or player) should be able to launch attacks to the besieged city cause some damage and withdraw to siege CAMP. I emphasise the world cam because siege must be two side story.
    A besieged gaurisson should be able to brake the siege if sally out of the city and capture the besieger's camp ( his provisions) and force him to withdraw (lift the siege).
    As you mentioned multiple armies angagement is a MUST and i agree. RTW-1 showed the way to that , a feature that could be worked further.
    5: Double -comparing to Attila always-building slots (i warched with interest your attempt in this matter) is indeed a ballance matter. No matter ifg there will be Castles or not a city can be able to have a unique character. Rusichi TW mod shown the way were every building leads in atleast two choices leaving the player to have the finall desision if he/she wants a city to emphasise to commerse or food or finally become to military center. TGC mod follows that example forcing players to chose if their port will bring them income or it will be a naval base giving them access to advanced warships BUT THEY CAN NOT have BOTH. In Rusichi TW a basic farm forced the player to deside if he will give the land to local aristicracy aka less income but unlock a number of units or will give the land to local population and there for more tax income and more food. That is why the ETW feature of province infrastructure must be re-enstate to give more oportunitities and option to cities.
    9: Yes Naval combat is neglected in Rome II and Attila. What i mean...Forget the lack of ship capture. But a warship was equipted with balistas and catapults but in these two games small warships do not have such equipment allowing them to be defeated bu transport carrying units!!! No transport ship should allow the unit it carries to fight atleast warships must be all heavier armed.
    But in a game such Medieval 3 there is a huge BUT....
    Romans (those that false we call Byzantines) had a variety of warships (Galea, Dromon, Helandion, Pamphylos, Fire Dromon and fire Pamphylos) when in the west they used ONLY Cogs both in trade and war. So imagine a medium size Dromon against a big Cog. Dromon has 4 single balistas and a wooden castle in the middle with or with out a catapult. Cog has a small castle in the front relying only to its archers.
    How a company that aims primarily to "western" audience give such a unballanced navies to players?
    In attila even the barbarians have access to fire Dromons!
    Another issue is the time frame. We read the the 1st Crusade's chrinicles "And the Emperor donated to them -crusaders- manganica with their crews , because they -crusaders- never saw such machines in their lives".
    Manganica are Trebushets (ther Avar version, onagers, catapults and balistas ), Crusaders never saw such machines simply because the Roman legacy had faded in west europe and they did not need such machines because untill 1200 the only stone structures in their lands were Churches! In the last Viking invasion to Paris , the city still had wooden walls and for the 1st time a stone tower that was not completed in that invasion! The same time in Spain , Italy , Balkans and Middle East and northern Africa there were enourmus in size urban centers with complexed walls and huge towers.
    10: Map editor is a MUST simply because mods can not use the same cities in every era. The map was entirely diferent in 872 to the one in 1500! Cities like the famous Nikopolis (the one that August build to celebrate hiw victory in Actium) in 872 had a quarter of a milion inhabitants but in 1500 simply was a tiny village!
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


  12. #12
    Gigantus's Avatar The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Modding Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    47,250
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Lower the dumbing down of the game would be nice. While the battle map happenings are satisfactory and will appeal to the short span attention gamers the campaign map side appears to be somehow largely forgotten, the odd eye candy doesn't make up for what is happening to it.
    Remember the traits and ancillaries in M2TW? Taken to infinity by modders? The endless number of buildings. The sheer count of diverse campaign maps that stopped dead with ETW? The close to non existent campaign scripting now is kinda heart breaking, too.



  13. #13
    AnthoniusII's Avatar XXI ARMORED BRIGADE
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,727

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Lower the dumbing down of the game would be nice. While the battle map happenings are satisfactory and will appeal to the short span attention gamers the campaign map side appears to be somehow largely forgotten, the odd eye candy doesn't make up for what is happening to it.
    Remember the traits and ancillaries in M2TW? Taken to infinity by modders? The endless number of buildings. The sheer count of diverse campaign maps that stopped dead with ETW? The close to non existent campaign scripting now is kinda heart breaking, too.
    True we never saw a "character" as Dux Of Venecia or something similar. But i do not trust a hope to see endless lines of buildings since the CA/SEGA dev team was not capable to insert more than six. It would be a miracle of work of another development team if we could see double that number of buildings slots. They are simply worthless to achieve something even that simple. They have proven their in capabillity numerus times in Rome II and Attila and its DLCs .
    I am not optimistic to see such detailed character diversion by traits and ancilliaries since they did NOT manage to complete a real family tree 4 years later!!
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


  14. #14
    Kyffhäuser's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    under the mountain
    Posts
    68

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Medieval 3 would need to be less than twenty dollars. It would need to really be finished-this-time-we-swear, before I buy for even that price.

    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.

    Mostly Medieval 3 just needs to be finished and cheap, I'm never giving CA full price for their games again. I'll just wait for the next Lunar New Year sale for 70% off.

  15. #15
    Jurand of Cracow's Avatar History and gameplay!
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cracovia
    Posts
    2,514

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Let's start with something small. The sieges.
    For now, you build rams and towers to storm a city. Yet in the Middle Ages many castles were build on the hill-tops just to prevent possibility of storming it with a tower.
    Why not to implement diversity of settlements so that you can use with some towers, but with the other you cannot?

  16. #16
    AnthoniusII's Avatar XXI ARMORED BRIGADE
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Thessalonike Greece
    Posts
    21,727

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow View Post
    Let's start with something small. The sieges.
    For now, you build rams and towers to storm a city. Yet in the Middle Ages many castles were build on the hill-tops just to prevent possibility of storming it with a tower.
    Why not to implement diversity of settlements so that you can use with some towers, but with the other you cannot?
    Corect but you ask the imposible.
    In Rome II and Attila , just because this development team could not create a descent SAI (SeigeAI) , they created unwalled settelements, and when they add walls in minor settlements they LEFT HUGE GAPS on them to allow their STUPID AI to storm the city. And now...you come and ask hill top keeps with Motte and Baileys! Why did CA/SEGA develpment team made you any harm and you want to embarace them exposing their incapabillity? Why are you so nusty?
    Lets supose that they implement Mottes and Baileys primitive castles. Would any "westerner" customer accept to have these when a player that would play with Roman Empire, Islamic Factions and southern Italian cities would have stone walls? Unless CA/SEGA will repeat the succefull Age of Empires wall/tower system and make them all wooden and towers like church belfry?
    About diversity of settlements. Modding M2TW/Kingdoms 3 cultures use atleast 4 city battlemodels and 4 castles per culture and per size!!!
    How dare you ask this impossible thing from CA/SEGA developers???
    There are moments (in history), in which a nation owes,
    if it wants to be considered as a great one, to be able to fight.
    Even without hope of winning. Just because it has to.
    Greek War motto.
    XXI Armored Brigade. Proud that served in that unit in 1996!
    "Spartans do not ask how many (enemies are) but where they are"!
    XXI Armored Brigade's motto.
    The Greek Secret (or why they will fight again if it will be necessary or why they do not sell their history).


  17. #17
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,235

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantus View Post
    Lower the dumbing down of the game would be nice. While the battle map happenings are satisfactory and will appeal to the short span attention gamers the campaign map side appears to be somehow largely forgotten, the odd eye candy doesn't make up for what is happening to it.
    Remember the traits and ancillaries in M2TW? Taken to infinity by modders? The endless number of buildings. The sheer count of diverse campaign maps that stopped dead with ETW? The close to non existent campaign scripting now is kinda heart breaking, too.
    I disagree with first thing. Battle side of TWs is pretty much stagnating:

    Empire - added naval combat
    Rome 2 - added combined land/naval battles
    Wh1/2 - added magic + on battlefield agents + for the first time greater variability to units (we had elephants, chariots, camels, horses and dogs but Wh(s) are just adding way more variety) Laboratory mode!!!
    3K - 3 Commanders per army....

    What I´m missing right now is
    1) Naval + combined combat
    2) More sides on battlefield ~ more armies? Not just having more subcommanders but ability to have like 2vs1, 2vs3....ability to join battles of other factions, to help one or other to generate diplomatic bonuses.
    3) Deeper army structure. Like one supreme commander per army with lets say up to 5 lower commanders for particular parts like Vanguard, rearguard, cavalry/flanking, scouting, reserve/baggage (+main under main commander) with different roles and bonuses and features. Great commander will have better control over subcommanders, they will arive sooner on battlefield, less risk of betreyal...

    EDIT:
    4) bigger role of terrain...bridges, hills, crossroads, narrow points, marshes, elevations, cliffs...and LOS/FOG of war
    5) garrisonable structures! Field fortifications...
    6) more deployables and basically bigger deggre of interaction with map and eviroment. Set cities, foliage on fire...

    Traits/ancillaries
    Med 2
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfil.../?id=241376584
    Wh 2
    https://totalwarwarhammer.gamepedia....aracter_traits
    +items + legendary quests/items

    Okey, so Med2 has more unique/special ancillaries and what? After all it is just bonus number. We can generate such large list for ANY newer TW plus adding items and other stuff so ANY modder can put ANY newer TW to such infinity and beyond. And put items on top of anything...If anything I´m missing army traditions from R2...

    Endless buildings are unrealistic for me. Why play historical setting when you can make new Rome/Constantinople from any small no-name village? Plus it removes ANY specialization. I agree that more slots would be ideal, that´s after all what I´m trying to mod but overall i see why CA opted for such system. 6/4 started as one cornerstone of their new region-province-state system and they balanced stuff around it. That´s all. Having mandatory road and walls and other stuff is just boring. Having dilema to either build road and walls or more military buildings or economic ones...that´s good goal. That´s adding dilema and ability to choice...have fun.

    I fully agree that campaign tools would be great. But I´m not fully sure that reason to see so few number of great overhaul mods is due to this missing feature. Games get bigger, mods too, everything gets more complex. That´s natural development of stuff..

    EDIT:
    And about scripting. It is true campaign map is more limited but at the same time modders are creating more complex stuff then ever:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15704890

    just about spells for WH2 lords:
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfil...?id=1606974310

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    .......But i do not trust a hope to see endless lines of buildings since the CA/SEGA dev team was not capable to insert more than six. It would be a miracle of work of another development team if we could see double that number of buildings slots. They are simply worthless to achieve something even that simple. They have proven their in capabillity numerus times in Rome II and Attila and its DLCs .
    I am not optimistic to see such detailed character diversion by traits and ancilliaries since they did NOT manage to complete a real family tree 4 years later!!
    Quote Originally Posted by AnthoniusII View Post
    Corect but you ask the imposible.
    In Rome II and Attila , just because this development team could not create a descent SAI (SeigeAI) , they created unwalled settelements, and when they add walls in minor settlements they LEFT HUGE GAPS on them to allow their STUPID AI to storm the city. And now...you come and ask hill top keeps with Motte and Baileys! Why did CA/SEGA develpment team made you any harm and you want to embarace them exposing their incapabillity? Why are you so nusty?
    Lets supose that they implement Mottes and Baileys primitive castles. Would any "westerner" customer accept to have these when a player that would play with Roman Empire, Islamic Factions and southern Italian cities would have stone walls? Unless CA/SEGA will repeat the succefull Age of Empires wall/tower system and make them all wooden and towers like church belfry?
    About diversity of settlements. Modding M2TW/Kingdoms 3 cultures use atleast 4 city battlemodels and 4 castles per culture and per size!!!
    How dare you ask this impossible thing from CA/SEGA developers???
    Sorry Anthonius, but you are seeing inability and impotence just because CA has different vision which is not your ideal.

    You know what I try to mod, I would love more building slots as first person but I see clearly why 6/4 slots were choosen. It is their cornerstone around which rest of province system, buildings, effects is balanced. You have to select some numbers after all. 6/4, 8/6, 10/8.....What you are not seeing is CA evolution and experimenting with different titles.

    Rome2 - 6/4 but without ports just 5/3
    Attile - hordes with 10 slots
    Wh1 - full 6/4, hordes, + variation with some factions....Norsca outposts, Wood Elves especielly their home province with 8/10 slots.
    Wh2 - Faction capitols have now 10 slots + region locked landmarks (not just one resource building)

    This is one line of their system. At the same time

    Empire/Shogun 2 leading to ToB and now 3K system. It is different way.

    Family trees in Rome2. You realized CA returned after 4 years and there are always engine limitations? It is easy to say fix it, but very often you have not permission to touch such deep in system to make such changes. That´s why ToB removed abmushes. They were unable to fix them in ToB (yet they are fixed in Wh(s) and 3K...because they were fixed on engine side) that´s why family trees in R2 are what they are. Developers explained it that some other changes would break other aspects of characters...I understand that we are players don´t have to be happy with substandard product but CA returned to R2 for free, you were not force to buy new campaign pack. Honestly there are way more buggier game released (Fallout76...) and way more greedy companies. CA is maybe patching a lot but at least lately we have great FLC policy and no lootboxed and other microtransaction crap.

    I know you like battlemaps and battlemodels. And you are right about that.
    Last edited by Daruwind; February 13, 2019 at 01:59 AM.

  18. #18
    Gigantus's Avatar The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus Modding Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    47,250
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    I disagree with first thing. Battle side of TWs is pretty much stagnating:

    Empire - added naval combat
    Rome 2 - added combined land/naval battles
    Wh1/2 - added magic + on battlefield agents + for the first time greater variability to units (we had elephants, chariots, camels, horses and dogs but Wh(s) are just adding way more variety) Laboratory mode!!!
    3K - 3 Commanders per army....
    As I said "While the battle map happenings are satisfactory.."
    We had limited magic, one ability only per character, in M2TW btw, and a fantasy mod obviously has no problem to add an unending variety of units, they did so in M2TW as well.
    The 3 commanders is actually something I look forward to try.

    Endless buildings are unrealistic for me. Why play historical setting when you can make new Rome/Constantinople from any small no-name village? Plus it removes ANY specialization.
    Agreed on the Rome sentiment, I should have mentioned (easy) customizable availability in M2TW - which is the key to specialization.
    It appears I was mistaken where traits and ancillaries are concerned.
    Last edited by Gigantus; February 13, 2019 at 12:14 AM.



  19. #19

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    Building slots in cities is one of the subjects I somewhat frequently change my opinion about since I believe there's merit to both options. At first I hated them because of the lower amount of buildings you could construct in a settlement, but eventually I just came to view the provinces as single entities or settlements with a larger area of affect.
    That being said I often felt that I still ended up constructing the same buildings in the various cities in the same province simply because in most cases there were one or two buildings which provided significant advantages over the other options. In some games where a 'basic' building branches into multiple options there's almost always a building that is vastly superior to the other alternatives that there's no point in constructing any others. If it's a frontier city lying next to your enemies you might also be 'forced' to build buildings which provide garrison troops in order to defend it from hostile armies. The province system is also certainly not without any faults but that's an entirely different story.

    Endless buildings are unrealistic for me. Why play historical setting when you can make new Rome/Constantinople from any small no-name village? Plus it removes ANY specialization.
    Sorry, but I'm just not buying this explanation. How often do you actually see random backwater settlements grow into major cities? Unless you're using mods, cheats or playing the same campaign for the entire 400 turn limit it's most likely not going to happen. Furthermore, just because you can construct a building in a settlement does not mean you have to - The random tiny cities in the heart of my empire have no need for blacksmiths, public order buildings, military buildings and educational centres. Specialisation exists in the same way it does in the newer games; if a city (or castle in M2) lies on the border I can build military buildings in order to ensure I can recruit and equip the best available units. If it's a coastal city with little enemies around it I can turn it into an economic hub that focuses on markets, ports etc.

    On the other hand, why play a historical setting like Rome 2 or Attila when Rome and Constantinople hardly are any different from a random province capital in the middle of nowhere? Don't get me wrong, I like how many of the settlements in the newer games have special resources that allow for them to become certain types of settlements, but as it currently is I just feel the slots are too limiting. I think we could come a long way with adding multiple slots to the cities where it could be justified, preferably also if it meant the reimplementation of population as an actual mechanic instead of Rome 2 and Attila's population surplus. But most importantly I want the slots to actually feel impactful instead of nearly always ending up being filled out with the same public order and industrial buildings.

  20. #20

    Default Re: 10 Things Medieval 3 Would Need

    I really like the idea that castles would be on top of hills. That would be interesting but again, depends how CA can tackle that

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •