Because English is not my forte lets put some things in reason order like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle tought us.
Angara (Angyra ) also in 10th century (the modern capital of Turkey).
The scetch is based on archaeologogical findings and that time descriptions.
Why that city?
Nottice few things:
- The citadel is on a hill.
- The city has no moat (how could have in the middlle of a desert).
Now lets use this example and use your previus posts to categorise what a Medieval 3 must have in order to be a decent TW game.
- Settlements variety per culture/size/type (coastal/inland both cities and castles).
- In the tech tree skills armies must be able to be able to create and use siege machinery like sapping, rams, towers etc.
- AI and player's more than 1 besieging armies must be able to use that machinery to attack the settlement from different sides (Rome I).
- The game must find a way to fuse all previus TW game (unless I repeat that is a legal obstacle) like:
- Throne chambers (Shogun I)
- Spy reports (MTW I)
- Rome I multiple attach on the same settlement.
- Connection of the strat_map model of a settlement with ist battle map one (In Rome II you have a strat_map huge city and in battle map a town).
- Variety of settlements per size/type/culture
- ETW provincial infrastucture separated from the settlement's one)
- M2TW unit armor upgrades and not simply replacement with stronger ones.
- Attilla and Rome II armyt attrition in hostile enviroment.
- ETW naval battles that you can capture enemy ship .
- Rome II and Attila naval landings.
- Mercenaries available via events or recruitment in the Inn (MTW I).
- Mercenaries that desert when income goes negative.
Alwyn you have faith in CA/SEGA developers. I want to remind a minor detail. When Rome II announced one of the first pictures was the variety of horses with more than 20 of them .Instead thegame used 7!
Small detail you may say... But if they could not make a settlement variety in both Rome II and Attila and connect them with their battle models what makes you think that they will do it now?WHY they do not doing it now as FLC for both Rome II AND Attila to show that something has change and make us believe in them and what they will have to offer to us in the near future. I hope new siege wont have Dragons!
- In TGC our scripters made autonomus regions,
- rebelions, mercenaries that desert if income is negative,
- prisoners exchange when peace comes after a war ,
- mercenaries that become available after raids/agreements or events....Have you seen anything similar to official TW games?
I am sorry that I am not that optomistic and I hope that I will be proven wrong in time.
EDIT: Diplomacy needs also a reconstruction. In RomeII AND Attila you can not have trade agreements even with factions that are not in war with you. That in insane. Infact that should be 100% opposite.
Because traders act as spies and also before a war is declaired money is essensial even from your future enemy. To few know that in the Roman (byzantine is false now days because more and more modern historians use the proper term) and Sassanid wars there was an unwriten agreement that the trade of Nisean horses (essensial for both of them for their cataphracts) was not allow to stop. Also even if they were in war they both had a mixed guarisson in modern Georgia mountain passes (iron gates) to prevent steppe people raids!
See how history creates scenarios that our imagination sometimes find difficult to achieve.