Community feature requests...

[irish437]

Decrease the amount of cities that can build walls. There should be only a couple on the map. This will increase the number of open field battles. Late game, everything is a siege because the movement range is pretty large and almost every AI city has walls.

I am all for a couple strategically placed forts. But Walled cities really kill the game.

[joe92]

They're are 60 odd pages so I don't know if this has already been mentioned.

Quite simply, I would like to ability to choose who the Faction Heir is when the leader dies. In more times than one the computer picks someone who has so many bad traits that I'm actually to waiting for them to pass on. Then when I choose a different, more suitable Faction Heir, the old one gets another bad trait. So I would like to ability to choose mine before this happens.

Cheers,
Joe

P.s. Please bring out Rome 2: Total War next

[iWarsaw]

They're are 60 odd pages so I don't know if this has already been mentioned.

Quite simply, I would like to ability to choose who the Faction Heir is when the leader dies. In more times than one the computer picks someone who has so many bad traits that I'm actually to waiting for them to pass on. Then when I choose a different, more suitable Faction Heir, the old one gets another bad trait. So I would like to ability to choose mine before this happens.

Cheers,
Joe

P.s. Please bring out Rome 2: Total War next

You can do that in Shogun 2!

Decrease the amount of cities that can build walls. There should be only a couple on the map. This will increase the number of open field battles. Late game, everything is a siege because the movement range is pretty large and almost every AI city has walls.

I am all for a couple strategically placed forts. But Walled cities really kill the game.

Wall cities are very important though. Why wouldn't a city have a wall? That's kind of suicide not to have that. I wouldn't like to see cities not having walls. I like choosing which forts I can make into castles, or towns into forts. Perhaps limit the size of castles and forts which they do in M2 to the population, however I don't prefer that either. I like how in Shogun2 I can always build up a castle.

[The Don]

Exclusive faction unit dlc!!!!!!!!!

[TheEmoSpeeds666]

Be able to take over parts of a province (port, farm towns etc) or defend them with a few random units of militia and mercs. Also, be able to garrison units there and recruit basic militia.

[rybeck]

Implementing a casus belli system as a precondition for declaring war (e.g. Europa Universalis). For example, to properly declare war, player must first invest in diplomatic efforts to create a proper casus belli such as manufacturing a historical claim to particular province, grievances from enemy covert actions, trade disputes, claiming a foreign throne through royal marriage and other ways. This will make the diplomatic game more interesting and integral to overall game.

This casus belli will then limit the possible outcomes of war. I.e. player cannot simply overrun enemy's territories and keep them, player is only limited to rectifying the grievance a the bottom of the casus belli. E.g. if a historical claim on a province is the casus belli, the player can only claim that province at the conclusion of war.

Of course, there should also be an option to disregard proper casus belli rules, but the negative consequences of that should be huge (e.g. huge increase revolt risk on home provinces, decrease in loyalt of generals etc).

[master130686]

I support A casus belli system, but not the one from Europa Universalis (or any other Paradox game - least of all that of Crusader Kings 2).

A casus belli should indeed create a "reason for war", but the war should not be limited to the original casus belli. If a war is declared that is based on a casus belli, the "goals" of it must be reached to win the war. But if you're able to do way more than that, you should also be rewarded - as should you be punished if you don't reach those "primary goals".

The rewards and punishments may include payments, regions, troops (e.g. give/recruit an army of a certain strength or size or pay the upkeep of the opposing faction/s) and/or diplomatic actions (like forming or cancelling alliances, trade agreements...).

Payments, troop arrangements and diplomatic actions should be limited to either one-time "actions" or to a limited time period - like "give an army of a certain size and/or strength and pay the upkeep for X turns/years" or like "give/recruit a certain quantity, quality and/or type for the opposing faction/s within the next X turns/years".

How much and for how long should depend:
a) on the warscore (the difference of battles lost and won)

the score should depend on how many men fought alltogether, on each side AND in relation between the sides (both the relation of the numbers and the strengths of each side). Therefore a battle 200 vs 200 (strength 1:1) should get a higher score than a 300 vs 100 (strength 3:1), but the same as a 300 vs 100 (strength 1:1), but also way less than a 2000 vs 2000 (strength 1:1). And the kind of victory (decisive, pyrrhic, normal...) should be important.

and b) the difference in strength (economic, military...) between both sides (or at least/sometimes the faction who declared war and the one that war was declared on - allies not counting) BEFORE AND in relation to the difference AFTER the war.

The higher the difference AFTER and in relation to BEFORE the war, the longer the time and/or the higher the reward/punishment.


But you should ALWAYS be able to declare war on anyone. The main difference would be that negative war effects (like the territorial expansion malus - tem) would be smaller or none existend for the casus belli. If e.g. the casus belli includes a certain region, this whole region is tem-free. Everything beyond this is not. But if another faction has the same cb on this region, you still get the tem with this faction - maybe an even higher one. It's similar to then-to-be neighbouring factions.

So if you try to annex the hungarian crown as Poland (in a Medieval 3 setting), you get no tem with Sweden (you usually would get the usual tem for each region without the cb), but you'd get at least the usual tem with the Bycantine Empire (if not a higher - e.g. if the annexed regions include some that they have a cb for).


And you should be able to expand cb's. Like when you have cb's on several regions of an opposing faction (or alliance), you can add other cb-regions during the war, if the warscore is high enough.


What I like about Europa Universalis is that you can decide at the end of the war (if you win of course) which region/s you'd like to claim (with or without cb, though cb-regions are mandatory) - if you can afford them, according to the warscore. That is similar to the way you can demand additional regions in Rome to Napoleon But you don't automatically get the "conquered" regions AND demand others. You decide the regions you demand/claim at the end of the war.

This would mean (in an Empire setting):
If you declare war on Spain as France and "conquer" all european regions and some none-european, but you decide to demand (at least some of) their american regions, you get the demanded (implying that the warscore is high enough) regions, but Spain regains full control over their european ones.

[Arilon]

I dont know if it was already mentioned,
but I would be happy if choosing/changing the captial would be possble again
AND the opportunity to "trade" Regions to vasals, frinds or enemies.

It would be superb if this would be implemented in S2 with a patch,
but its a HAVE TO for the next one, especially when u MP campaigns.

[Dodanodo]

I support A casus belli system, but not the one from Europa Universalis (or any other Paradox game - least of all that of Crusader Kings 2).

A casus belli should indeed create a "reason for war", but the war should not be limited to the original casus belli. If a war is declared that is based on a casus belli, the "goals" of it must be reached to win the war. But if you're able to do way more than that, you should also be rewarded - as should you be punished if you don't reach those "primary goals".

The rewards and punishments may include payments, regions, troops (e.g. give/recruit an army of a certain strength or size or pay the upkeep of the opposing faction/s) and/or diplomatic actions (like forming or cancelling alliances, trade agreements...).

Payments, troop arrangements and diplomatic actions should be limited to either one-time "actions" or to a limited time period - like "give an army of a certain size and/or strength and pay the upkeep for X turns/years" or like "give/recruit a certain quantity, quality and/or type for the opposing faction/s within the next X turns/years".

How much and for how long should depend:
a) on the warscore (the difference of battles lost and won)

the score should depend on how many men fought alltogether, on each side AND in relation between the sides (both the relation of the numbers and the strengths of each side). Therefore a battle 200 vs 200 (strength 1:1) should get a higher score than a 300 vs 100 (strength 3:1), but the same as a 300 vs 100 (strength 1:1), but also way less than a 2000 vs 2000 (strength 1:1). And the kind of victory (decisive, pyrrhic, normal...) should be important.

and b) the difference in strength (economic, military...) between both sides (or at least/sometimes the faction who declared war and the one that war was declared on - allies not counting) BEFORE AND in relation to the difference AFTER the war.

The higher the difference AFTER and in relation to BEFORE the war, the longer the time and/or the higher the reward/punishment.


But you should ALWAYS be able to declare war on anyone. The main difference would be that negative war effects (like the territorial expansion malus - tem) would be smaller or none existend for the casus belli. If e.g. the casus belli includes a certain region, this whole region is tem-free. Everything beyond this is not. But if another faction has the same cb on this region, you still get the tem with this faction - maybe an even higher one. It's similar to then-to-be neighbouring factions.

So if you try to annex the hungarian crown as Poland (in a Medieval 3 setting), you get no tem with Sweden (you usually would get the usual tem for each region without the cb), but you'd get at least the usual tem with the Bycantine Empire (if not a higher - e.g. if the annexed regions include some that they have a cb for).


And you should be able to expand cb's. Like when you have cb's on several regions of an opposing faction (or alliance), you can add other cb-regions during the war, if the warscore is high enough.


What I like about Europa Universalis is that you can decide at the end of the war (if you win of course) which region/s you'd like to claim (with or without cb, though cb-regions are mandatory) - if you can afford them, according to the warscore. That is similar to the way you can demand additional regions in Rome to Napoleon But you don't automatically get the "conquered" regions AND demand others. You decide the regions you demand/claim at the end of the war.

This would mean (in an Empire setting):
If you declare war on Spain as France and "conquer" all european regions and some none-european, but you decide to demand (at least some of) their american regions, you get the demanded (implying that the warscore is high enough) regions, but Spain regains full control over their european ones.

I like you're idears, and am personally a big fan of a possible casus belli system for TW. but I think the main penaltys for going to war should be diplomatic.

for example. france attacks spain for no reason (without cb), it gets a diplomatic penalty towards all nations of about -10 or -20, because they are then viewed as agressive. this penalty will last as long as the war, then slowly degrade to about -5. and everytime you do this at the end -5 gets added to this penalty. this way over agressive players(or AI) are punished, but not too much.

similairly, if you conquer a province you don't have claim on, you get a territorial expansion penalty, perhaps depending on the size and worth of the province, but no more then five, wich will then also degrade to about 2 permanently, wich will again stack for every unlawfull province you conquer. after awhile of holding the province, somewhere between 10 and 50 years, maybe depending on population size or cultural/religious differances, you will receive a claim on that province, and the penalty will dissappear.

these 2 combined form somewhat of replacement mechanisme for Realm Divide, making nations band together against rappidly expanding nations. this would be more gradual though, and thus fairer and less forced, imo.

[master130686]

france attacks spain for no reason (without cb)

The main problem is that there always IS a reason - even if it's just the "need/want to expand".

this way over agressive players(or AI) are punished, but not too much.

But there should also be a factor for power/influence (military, economic...) that can, depending on the factions power/influence, at least partly negate the penalty for aggressiveness. Because it wouldn't really have worked to mark e.g. the Roman Empire as "aggressive". They were way to powerful to make this a big difference (besides that it was common in that time to conquer "without "reason"" as we would define it today).

This factor should be a "relative" one, always and only from the factions point of view. Meaning: If you're playing Poland in a Medieval 3 setting and the only other factions you know are e.g. Russia, some German states, Denmark and Hungary, then your "power" is in relation to them. It wouldn't matter if e.g. France is as powerful as all the above together, because you don't know them yet (only difference/exception are alliance as described below).

The factor for power/influence would also be changed in case of alliances (especially protectorates and personal unions). Because in case of an alliance, the allied faction's powers are combined - depending on the kind of alliance. If it's a military alliance, then this would apply for attack AND defence. If it's a defense-only alliance, then it would only apply in case of an attack against one or more of the included factions, not if one of them is the attacker.

And if the faction you attack has an ally that you don't know yet, the factor may either be still the same (if you know that there's another ally, you should be more careful if you attack or not) or it may be another colour (just to show that this might not be the "true" power you'll have to face.

And you should be able to "hide" your true power. Maybe via a whole new part for the game - intelligence. It would work similar to research. You'd be able to "research" different strategies to either "find out" other factions strengths and/or hide your own. And it might improve your intel-agent's strength. It might also increase the line of (region) sight and you may "research" AND influence other factions internal (e.g. happiness) and external (e.g. diplomatic relations) affairs in different ways (bribes, murded, blackmail...).

it gets a diplomatic penalty towards all nations of about -10 or -20

I would limit that only to (France's) "neighbouring" nations like England and the German and Italian States - or whoever else has common borders with France AND Spain by then. So they wouldn't get ANY penalty with e.g. Russia or Poland.

And there should also be no penalty with allies, if they join the war. If not, AND if they're neighbours, the penalty should be way less - especially IF they conquer (or at least fight - and therefor gain XP as well) as well.

Another main difference with allies should be a diplomatic penalty if you attack an ally with a cb. Attacking allies was common in Medieval and Roman/ancient times, but there should be a penalty if you don't have a cb. BUT, it should be very easy to get a cb, like it "creates itself" (though you can speed this up via certain actions) in neighbouring regions if you own a province "long enough". In this case it would just be an "expansion cb".

If there will be "region groups" (like, e.g. Catalonia in Spain or Provence in France) and you conquer one of this groups regions, you automatically get a "region cb" on all the other regions within this group - and the one who loses this region get's this cb on you.

But like described earlier... this cb does not limit you to only (re-) conquer the rest of this region groups regions. You can expand your war to other regions (depending on if it will be implemented or not: as long as your warscore is high enough AND the cb-region is included).

similairly, if you conquer a province you don't have claim on, you get a territorial expansion penalty, perhaps depending on the size and worth of the province, but no more then five, wich will then also degrade to about 2 permanently, wich will again stack for every unlawfull province you conquer

I agree with the territorial expansion penalty, but I would not make a permanent penalty, as it would penalize "small" factions (that start with e.g. 1 region) over "large" factions (that start with e.g. 5 regions), because the "smaller" faction would already have a penalty of -8 when they reach 5 regions.
IF there's a permanent penalty, then it should be for a fixed number of regions (e.g. -2 for 10 regions, -4 for 20 regions...).

after awhile of holding the province, somewhere between 10 and 50 years, maybe depending on population size or cultural/religious differances, you will receive a claim on that province, and the penalty will dissappear.

That I can agree with completely. But the time should also depend on the time the campaign covers. If it's a Rome:TW-like campaign with a few houndred years, 10-50 years would be ok, but if it's a Shogun 2-like campaign with barely two decades, it should be more like 1-5 years.