Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Community feature requests...

1252627282931»

Comments

  • KingJohnSnowKingJohnSnow ItalyRegistered Users Posts: 4
    edited December 2016
    I think the Total War saga has been so succesfully and enduring thanks to 2 factors:
    1)Management System of the game (economy-troops recruitment)
    2)Strategic battles/Map breakthrough

    So the only thing that is really missing atm is a very large map where players contend for the control of territories each others.
    And a really great things would be the selling of veteran elite troops/craftable items to other players with golds.
    Winter is coming
  • WolfheimWolfheim Registered Users Posts: 33
    I just got 3 parts I missed in Warhammer.

    1. More turns per year including seasons.
    2. Sieges battles like in Rome 2, in Warhammer i find it incredibily lacking.
    3. Small villages battles, with the option to sally out.

    the rest is Amazing. Keep up the great job!
  • mamkolub2005mamkolub2005 Registered Users Posts: 1
    why u didnt do more slots for multiplayer campaign (4 or 8 slots) and synchronous turns option? Its give new live for games.
  • Witchdoctor1Witchdoctor1 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1
    I would love to see Mousillon and Middenland added in the base single-player game. Both have LLs that are already in-game, both (especially Middenland) are very important lore-wise and both have interesting start positions. Wouldn't take much time to tweak to make unique from the other factions in their race, and we already have multiple Greenskin, Dwarf ans WE factions, which all play unique from each other.
  • Quintus_PetilliusQuintus_Petillius Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 145
    edited February 2017
    I love these feature requests threads.

    Ill keep it concise though.

    Campaign maps:

    Ability to found new settlements in real time on the map, anywhere on the map. So for example an army can choose to found a village along some river or wherever... and borders will form around that village. Kinda like Civilization. Obviously, this would create more work for the devs like programming battle maps but it would be a cool feature and increase replayability.

    With that said I would prefer more regions in campaign maps, not less. The more regions the better. To counter siege after siege you could make the majority of regions simple villages or minor settlements without walls. Include the bigger cities of course but to reduce the empty space of the map put in some villages that would take a lot more turns to turn into a big city with walls. This, imo, would also increase replayability.

    Manpower, more diplomacy features a la Europa Universalis.

    Modding:

    I would like to see you guys update the Attila assembly kit and TED... fix the editor. Perhaps allow us to add the maps to the campaign. With what you have accomplished with the warhammer editor it feels like you guys **** up with attilas editor and instead of fixing it or releasing a new version you just gave up and went to warhammer. I was really looking forward to custom settlements on the campaign map.

    Future titles should have an editor so we can create custom battles, add them to the campaign and perhaps even edit the campaign maps regions.
    Steam ID: Quintus_Petillius_Cerialis
    Steam maps
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 491

    I love these feature requests threads.

    Ill keep it concise though.

    Campaign maps:

    Ability to found new settlements in real time on the map, anywhere on the map. So for example an army can choose to found a village along some river or wherever... and borders will form around that village. Kinda like Civilization. Obviously, this would create more work for the devs like programming battle maps but it would be a cool feature and increase replayability.

    With that said I would prefer more regions in campaign maps, not less. The more regions the better. To counter siege after siege you could make the majority of regions simple villages or minor settlements without walls. Include the bigger cities of course but to reduce the empty space of the map put in some villages that would take a lot more turns to turn into a big city with walls. This, imo, would also increase replayability.

    Manpower, more diplomacy features a la Europa Universalis.

    Modding:

    I would like to see you guys update the Attila assembly kit and TED... fix the editor. Perhaps allow us to add the maps to the campaign. With what you have accomplished with the warhammer editor it feels like you guys **** up with attilas editor and instead of fixing it or releasing a new version you just gave up and went to warhammer. I was really looking forward to custom settlements on the campaign map.

    Future titles should have an editor so we can create custom battles, add them to the campaign and perhaps even edit the campaign maps regions.


    These are features I would also lik to see more fluid borders would also make it more interesting as it would be great to be able to just take the parts of a territory that you need, especialy if towns and villages where coupled to a resource that would make them more valuable.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,238
    edited March 2017
    I'd just like to see a few small additions added to future games.

    1) Bring back Rally Points. In Shogun 2 your General could set a rally point somewhere on the field that routing troops would automatically move toward if they recovered their moral. It was a very handy feature and reduced micro, especially in hectic battles.

    2) Seasons, as many people have mentioned elsewhere in the thread

    3)I know CA looks to the community for inspiration when introducing new features to the games, but the modding community has a huge amount of fantastic and sometimes very simple ideas that improve gameplay. I'd like to see CA look at very popular mods and implement them into the game officially. I realize that some mods are out of the question, such as custom units, "conquer anywhere" mods, etc. But very simple ones like varied colors for horses, increased movement range in owned regions, the option to turn off certain effects like the glow/flame on hero/lord weapons, etc.

    4) there's definitely a few more that i can't think of right now :expressionless:

    TW: Warhammer is a fantastic game though, looking forward to the future!
  • ZudremarZudremar Registered Users Posts: 5
    Ah my poor English give me strenght!))
    those are my few suggestions:
    1) We need a post-battle stats about not only kill-count, but some sort HP-damage report. Cuz some units design not to take away models, insted just to harase them. It's helps to understand usefulness of mages for example or bowmens.

    2) Thats harder. There are to fast armies, in that game incarnate. Or saying otherwise there is not much game walls to restrain fast ocupation. Hence then you do not feel like oposite site strugling for they borders. In shogun 2, map is far more smaller, But to take lands from your enemy you must fight much harder and longer. You starting to estimate they force and respect they historical references. It's give you good opportunity to shake yourself, open your eyes and start planing wise strategy. Seen only one oportunity for that for now and not smartiest one. It's walls for lower settlements and long-bilding sige equipment.

    3) Sieges. I understand that this game take style of revived board game. This all about living toys and rulls from the authentic game. So we dont realy need exactly same experience like in historical games. But we need some fantasy redesign instead. For now siege is all about stone boxes and you are jumping over walls and some siege fetish like battering ram or siege towers. Its not working for immersion at all. Because you have so different flavors of all fractions on the field and not any when you face identical battle machines and defence mechanic. Its hard to implement but this is Big. Maybe some leser mechanics. Some swamp near necro-towns where defenders can summon low tier infantry in the rear of atackers. Give away siege tover from Beastmens and give to some units digging skill. So after long siege preparations you can deploy some small force of units behind the wall. Towns and cappitals of provinces are the real lore of that world. Bretonnia is much more Bretonnia with bunch of moats (if i not mistaken). We just need some cool rules for lame box-siege wars))

    4) More rhythmic music themes for the battles. From time to time TW have a jewels in that point but not always. We need some. Themes for campaign come in handy too.

    5) Mage rebalance. From what i know mages in Warhammer lore and tabletop are not in the same level. TW:W logic thinks that hero mage and lord mage is identical casters and so on. So some grand magicians like Kemler is the same force as a street magician from Stirland. It's not represents scales of characters.

    I'm waited that game around 14 years and you give me much more then i expect. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. That list is just my thoughts. I belive they make sense
  • ZudremarZudremar Registered Users Posts: 5
    edited March 2017
    And please give to us some signs of future content))
  • onyxsoloonyxsolo Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1
    I'd like to see The Golden Age of Piracy! It was a pretty significant historical that led to a lot of themed storytelling adventure. Imagine building your own pirate nation! You could possibly begin earning money with a small ship like a fishing sloop. But, through the power of the total war engine be able to sail around the globe trading, warring, or raiding various nation ships and ports until you conquer or found your first colony like Tortuga in the Caribbean.

    Start by Imagining a map of the entire globe with all the major cities for the period. The only exception would be the player should only have full control over managing port cities or resupply stops along trade routes. All the other cities would be micromanaged by the PC, but should exist for trade/economy purposes. I think there should also be several different play styles available. You should have the ability to play as a nation, merchant, privateer, or PIRATE. Arghhhh!!!

    As a nation you would be focused more on protecting your country by weakening enemy nation’s sea trade/supply routes along with protecting your tax/trade revenue from pirates etc. Nation leaders should start out with complete control over port cities to ensure safe trade routes or resupply stops where their income comes from taxing merchants, employing privateers and spoils of war (Capturing enemy nation ports and ships). They should only have minimal control over the inland cities, just to ensure they are well supplied.

    As a merchant you would focus on building up businesses and forging trade alliances. Merchants should have access to buildings that supply trade goods and resources like Arms (weapons), Cotton, iron, wood and various other trade commodities. They should also be able to build trade ships and to a lesser degree ships to protect them.

    As a privateer you could be a pirate hunter, protect trade convoys, raid other nations with something like a letter or Marque or earn income by exploring uncharted areas for Nations/Merchants. Sailing the seas for adventures would be the main attraction to being a privateer.

    The pirate would be similar to a privateer in the aspect of sailing for adventure. Pirates however should also have the option to found a colony or pirate safe havens. Pirate leaders should have no code to live by other than their own. A pirate could possibly form alliances with other pirates, but, under normal circumstances would be an enemy of all Nations unless pardoned. Pirates should have the option to start out like a privateer, rogue Merchant/Military Ship captain or the corrupt Governor of a small port along a trade route.

    Things like spy networks, alliances and character abilities should all affect the fog of war which I feel should play a huge role in this Golden Age of Piracy era. I have so many ideas about the various styles of gameplay bouncing around in my head right now it’s hard to focus because I enjoyed many hours of gaming in this genre as a child. I would love to see this style brought to the wonderful Total War Engine and would welcome the opportunity to give more input if requested.

    Thank you,
    Onyx
  • HartassenHartassen Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 159
    Custom battle without lords to test unit strengths/weaknesses without lord interference!

    Expanded multiplayer leaderboard, ingame tournament styles and more, to perhaps actually for once make a total war game a streamable game. With tabletop players this should be achieveable if you put some effort into it.
    This forum looks bad and is hard to navigate. Difficult to keep track of your posts and replies and you can't change your email.

    Would be better if you straight copied a good forum.
  • DreadedNorwegianDreadedNorwegian Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,181
    It annoys me that if losing a fight after having retreated once your amy is destroyed, even though you have a lot of units left. Just happened to me in warhammer when playing as brettonia. Got attacked by two armies, So i retreated to only fight one. I lost the battle, but got a valiant defeat and we were pretty much even in remaining strengt, but since I had already retreated my army got destroyed. It makes no sense CA. My general was alive, my army strengt was at 50 %, more than enough to at least retreat, but still it got destroyed. I would like to be able to loose battles without having to watch my army get destroyed by a simple game mechanic, at least when I still have lots of units left.
    Enig og tro til Dovre faller!
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 491

    It annoys me that if losing a fight after having retreated once your amy is destroyed, even though you have a lot of units left. Just happened to me in warhammer when playing as brettonia. Got attacked by two armies, So i retreated to only fight one. I lost the battle, but got a valiant defeat and we were pretty much even in remaining strengt, but since I had already retreated my army got destroyed. It makes no sense CA. My general was alive, my army strengt was at 50 %, more than enough to at least retreat, but still it got destroyed. I would like to be able to loose battles without having to watch my army get destroyed by a simple game mechanic, at least when I still have lots of units left.

    I could'nt agree more, there is after all such a thing as a fighting or tactical retreat. History is full of comanders who, finding themselves at a dissadvantage, have elected to retreat to a better possition and may I add ultimately won.
  • RodentofDoomRodentofDoom Registered Users Posts: 588
    edited April 2017
    TW:WH

    Diplomacy
    I almost never use it, because it's very underwhelming.
    It needs more flexibility
    It needs more meaningful options

    Economy
    It's too simplistic

    Campaign Battles & Seiges
    There's no variety
    There's no weather effects
    There's no time of day difference

    Unit's
    Where's the WH army painter ? :smiley:
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    I sincerely hope your gameplay devs are working on some variable battle speed options for the new historical game. A sizeable chunk of players have been crying out for them for several years now. Long overdue doesn't even begin...
  • TommyBoyTommyBoy Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1
    I just want to see free-for -alls make their way back into the game! That and teh rally points, like Shogun 2.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 2,148
    Total war nailed it with the battles and every new game is getting better in my opinion. Perhaps sieges could be made more interesting.

    For me currently the biggest improvement could be made on the campaign map mechanics. Everything is in or was in but could be more thouroughly developed. The campaign map is where the end game is being played. Doing the mix of the campaign mechanics right should also improve end game experience.

    Possible Mechanics that should interact/linked more with each other:
    -Manpower
    -Resources
    -Diplomacy (incl. agents, marriages, rpg elements, perhaps bring back the throne room shogun1)
    -Trade
    -Technology
    -Of map raiding bands

    If the right mix is being created all these factors should strengthen each other to keep the end game interesting. Economics playing a major part in the choices the player has to make if he/she want to be able to maintain and expand there territory.

    For example if the importance of resources is increased or penalized for not having them conquest, diplomacy and securing trade routes get's much more meaningful.

    With regard to of map raiding bands. In the current games the earth is flat. Meaning that if I secure a corner of the map I don't need to spend resources on it to keep it secure. By introducing a story around invading forces/ bandits etc the player should keep an eye on "secure" locations. This has to been implemented well within the campaign so that it also seems logical for the player and can to a certain amount be influenced by the player. Perhaps by chain of events where the player has to make certain choices which effect to appearance of a hostile force.

    Just my thoughts...
  • Attila_a_hunAttila_a_hun Registered Users Posts: 4
    I think a new diplomacy system would be awesome, where you have peace conferences. After a succesful siege you don't own the city, you just occupy that and that gives you warscore. If you fully occupy the whole enemy country, then you earn 100% warscore. You could vassalize the country, take some provinces, annex it and so on.

    The other thing is more ranged units, for example every country has at least one unit of every ranged unit type.
  • Saurto93Saurto93 Registered Users Posts: 36
    From the Total War series I like the most: Rome 1, Medieval 2, Shogun 2, Napoleon.

    To devs: Please after 6 years implement this battle from GameStop special pre-order to standard version of Shogun 2.

    Best Regards!
  • HalonHalon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 118
    So I recently tried out Age of Charlemagne, this really reminded me how much I enjoy Attila:TW and I think a lot of the features such as faction politics and army integrity amongst others really add a lot of depth to the campaign experience. As a long time fan I've grown used to the ecentricities of the series but I've had a proper think about it and here's the changes I'd love to see in the next historical TW game:

    - Extended Family Trees: I'd really like access to all those cousins and distant relations from the start of the campaign, giving me more scope to get involved with political intrigue strait away.
    - Improved Faction Politics Interface: The UI feels somewhat clunky and important details like loyalty (and the reasons behind it) aren't imediately obvious. Nor is the relationship between Power and Control, but on the flip side I don't want politics dumbed down either.
    - Political Event Freeze: At the start of a turn when a new political action requires a decision I find it frustrating that I can't postpone the decision whilst I look at the politics screen, particularly because sometimes I've no idea who is doing what and what relation they are to my leader.
    - Fewer and Larger Battles: This seems to be the direction of travel at the moment, especially obvious in WH:TW and AoC. And I must say I approve, it feels more realistic and lends those large battles a lot more weight. Although of course its dependant on the historical era.
    - More Varied Land Battles: I was really pleased when ambush battles were introduced, it makes army movement on the campaign map a more strategic affair. I would like to see more types of battle though. Baggage train raids (conducted by cavalry) and skirmish battles could both involve smaller portions of larger forces engaging each other in an attempt to disrupt/defend the armies overall integrity. The engagement radius of the target armies for these battles could be much larger than normal, thus giving you a chance to do it before the armies are close enough to go toe to toe.
    - Force Integrity Effects: I'd like to see integrity become even more important by having it effect things like morale, campaign movement and maybe even upkeep cost, thus making army integrity a target itself.
    - Multi-Stage Sieges: For the really big cities and castles it should, in my opinion, be possible for the defenders to drag out the siege out over a few turns. Breaching the walls, capturing inner defences and storming the keep could all be represented as seperate battles. However my prefered option would be to see it all represented on one battlefield with the attacker given all three goals to complete, and if they are willing and able to do it in one battle then thats great. If they only manage one or two then the siege carries on, but the next attempt only requires them to finish off what they didn't (or chose not too) achieve previously. Naturally losing part of the settlement to the enemy should cause problems for the defenders, maybe morale penalties, attrition or fewer turns till surrender. There's a number of reasons why a faction might choose to attack in this way, perhaps their forces aren't strong enough to do it in one go or maybe the enemy is close to surrender and this would push them over the edge. The hard part would be getting the AI to fight intelligently enough so that it knows when to cut its losses as the attacker or defender.
    - Keep Minor Settlement Sieges: I like small settlement 'sieges' without walls they're just another terrain to fight over which spices things up a bit, the WH:TW method just ends up with hopelessly outnumbered garrison forces having no option but to rush to their deaths. At least an Attila:TW garrison force can create chokepoints to try and bleed the enemy dry.
    - Siege Engine Options: More thematic siege options, such as undermining walls and factional restrictions on siege towers.
    - More Siege Defences: Give me more barricades to man, and perhaps more options over where to place them!
    - Garrison Variety: As I'm sure anyone whose played the opening few turns of the Western Roman Empire knows, garrison variety could do with a shake up. Maybe if every building in the settlement affected (either positively or negatively) the garrison composition this might make a big difference to the over all siege variety.
    - Randomised Modular Cities: This could really boost the great work done in Attila:TW on sieges. The variety doesn't need to be infinite or include the entire settlement but certain areas, tower placement, barricade sites, wall sections and gates could be randomised to make a massive difference. As a side note I'd love to see the attackers camps and trenches etc, maybe even with a gameplay effect.
    - More Weather Types and Effects: Speaks for itself really but it strikes me that some effects should also over lap, for example rain/fog.
    - Survivors Needed for Disbanding Units: Far too often I've found that 7-8 cavalry escaped my clutches at the end of a battle, which is enough for the unit to survive and therefore the army. I'd like to see the number needed to regroup to be higher, and for the things like the total amount of casualties inflicted on the army and the quality of the surviving troops and the quality and fate of the general to be taken into account. If you're the last 100 or so peasants left out of a 3000+ doomstack, you're going to go home.
    - Mercenaries and Disbanding Armies: Apart from factions who famously relied heavily on Mercenaries (Carthage for example) Mercenaries shouldn't count, or they should count for less, when an army might disband after a battle. I feel that this, coupled with the above change would make battles more decisive.
    - Defeated Generals Magic Bodyguards: Always feels odd that a badly mauled army, perhaps with one or two partial levy units left can spring back to action with a full elite bodyguard unit. I'd like to see the new generals bodyguard made up of the survivors from the previous owner (complete with skills and upgrades) but perhaps with a bare minimum of 10%. And then in a way these would always be the men who are carrying on the armies traditions.
    - More Province Specific Units: Perhaps its just a case of variety for varieties sake, but I think it would make the provinces on the campaign map feel even more individual. It could be as simple as swapping the basic skirmisher unit for a locally named type that is immune to attrition in that area (similar to R2:TW) or changing the spear look and feel of the usual spear levies. This would also be welcome for the Empire factions in WH:TW, Hochland Halberdiers etc.
    - Capture Settlement Options: I'd like to be able to decide what to do with the captives and the settlement seperately.
    - Battle Victory Options: Some of these don't seem to make sense to me. I'd set it up like this, Sell Captives boosts morale, gains cash, loss of some campaign movement next turn due to transporting prisoners. Take on Captives boosts replishment, temporary loss of integrity due to foreign troops. Execute Prisoners, loss of morale but has wider diplomatic effects (fear, anger, approval etc)
    - Population Pools: When you recruit units I'd like them to be drawn from seperate population pools, so that only a certain amount of, particularly elite, units can be raised at any given moment before being depleted (meaning you'd have to wait for the pool to recover). This pool size could fluctuate depending on edicts, province wealth etc. Peasants would be plentiful whereas nobility would be harder to come by. This would have the added bonus of forcing players to be careful with their best troops to avoid a Crecy style catastrophe. Peasants and serfs on the other hand...
    - Characters on the Battlefield: Characters could be embedded into units to fight alongside the troops and/or provide bonus's, a bit like WH:TW except they're directly attached to a unit (ideally of you're choosing).
    - Unit 'Flock' Movement: Staggering the way troops turn around and speed up and slow down would probably go a long way towards making the units look a bit more natural when moving, especially in melee.
    - Longer Boarding Actions: They always feel too quick to me, slowing down the combat and giving us more ways to effect the ebb and flow of combat would be helpful (cool down abilities, one off abilities, setting target priorities for crew)
    - Diplomacy: Diplomacy Diplomacy Diplomacy... if there is one aspect of the Total War series that has caused me to give up with campaigns more than anything it is this one. The lack of some basic options is baffling and irritating. Even when I'm winning, or perhaps especially when, diplomacy is an obstacle between me and my nefarious plots on the campaign map. Being able to get factions to make peace with other factions, trade settlements, explictly threaten are just the most obvious and annoying missing options that mean most campaigns end up with me butchering everyone and grinding them down regardless of whether or not they were my best of allies rather than trying to negotiate.

    More diplomacy options please.
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 517
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/200255/if-the-new-dlc-is-indeed-for-rome-ii-we-should-discuss-ideas-about-how-ca-could-make-rome-ii-better#latest

    I would say that this is my wishlist for features if there ever were to be a final update to Rome II. If you want to discuss it please click on the link and proceed to my thread and comment there, or comment here.

    My ideas are as follows:

    • A release of a DLC expansion should come with new features for the grand campaign as well in the form as a free give-away.

    • Free features would include some basic stuff from Attila, such as government posts and governors. It would expand on politics side of the game for all factions. Perhaps adding more political parties for each faction and adding more events for each faction?

    • Add and improve some of the features of Historical Family System. This could serve as a really simple feature for those factions that are kingdoms or tribes. You could take inspiration perhaps from Europa Universalis 4, were arrange marriage in diplomacy was just about adding the probability of producing an heir. Same thing could be used in Rome II.

    • Revamped faction screen, to make way for government posts, governors and more political intrigues. Perhaps with the some of the features of the Historical Family System there would also be needing some space to incorporate a place were you could see the faction leader in the government screen.

    • Make a more interesting system for noble republics such as Rome and Carthage and for democracies such Athens and other factions like it in "Wrath of Sparta", for example by adding elections which determines the faction faction leader.

    • In republics such as Rome and Carthage, the elections could determine the overall faction leader and which house it comes from. In terms of noble republics, the family that for example holds the position as consul is having their character as the faction leader and with it adding their family's traits to the overall faction traits.

    • Incorporate the People of Rome mod features and make space for it in the UI so understanding the features of the mod becomes more intuitive. this would allow the gameplay to be slowed down a bit, and make empire building a bit more nuanced

    • Add more regions and provinces to the map. This together with "People of Rome" features would slow down gameplay and allow for a proper 4 turns per year. Specific areas which could more provinces added is for example the greek peninsula were the abscense of Thermon and Corinth from R:TW map makes the peninsula more "easily" conquerable and not that interesting.

    • Improve some smaller things in the UI. Mods like DEI and Haegemonia have taken inspiration from cultures represented in the game when changing the UI for each faction. Also some things could be moved around a bit. Attila for example had info on faction modifiers, income, food supply and seasons of the year to the center in the top were it was visible.

    • Change unit and building cards towards more of the style of Attila. A pure estethical feature, I know, but still at least for me it`s important.

    • Add the "remake Rome: Total War intro"-videos for Rome II just because they are so damn good!
    I think that these ideas would dramtically change the campaign, and in terms of campaign gameplay make Rome II the game it was supposed to be all along, and without having mods to play it. Not all of the ideas are viable, but this is definitely the things I feel that CA would have to take into consideration when releasing another DLC for the game.

  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    Halon said:

    So I recently tried out Age of Charlemagne, this really reminded me how much I enjoy Attila:TW and I think a lot of the features such as faction politics and army integrity amongst others really add a lot of depth to the campaign experience. As a long time fan I've grown used to the ecentricities of the series but I've had a proper think about it and here's the changes I'd love to see in the next historical TW game:

    - Extended Family Trees: I'd really like access to all those cousins and distant relations from the start of the campaign, giving me more scope to get involved with political intrigue strait away.
    - Improved Faction Politics Interface: The UI feels somewhat clunky and important details like loyalty (and the reasons behind it) aren't imediately obvious. Nor is the relationship between Power and Control, but on the flip side I don't want politics dumbed down either.
    - Political Event Freeze: At the start of a turn when a new political action requires a decision I find it frustrating that I can't postpone the decision whilst I look at the politics screen, particularly because sometimes I've no idea who is doing what and what relation they are to my leader.
    - Fewer and Larger Battles: This seems to be the direction of travel at the moment, especially obvious in WH:TW and AoC. And I must say I approve, it feels more realistic and lends those large battles a lot more weight. Although of course its dependant on the historical era.
    - More Varied Land Battles: I was really pleased when ambush battles were introduced, it makes army movement on the campaign map a more strategic affair. I would like to see more types of battle though. Baggage train raids (conducted by cavalry) and skirmish battles could both involve smaller portions of larger forces engaging each other in an attempt to disrupt/defend the armies overall integrity. The engagement radius of the target armies for these battles could be much larger than normal, thus giving you a chance to do it before the armies are close enough to go toe to toe.
    - Force Integrity Effects: I'd like to see integrity become even more important by having it effect things like morale, campaign movement and maybe even upkeep cost, thus making army integrity a target itself.
    - Multi-Stage Sieges: For the really big cities and castles it should, in my opinion, be possible for the defenders to drag out the siege out over a few turns. Breaching the walls, capturing inner defences and storming the keep could all be represented as seperate battles. However my prefered option would be to see it all represented on one battlefield with the attacker given all three goals to complete, and if they are willing and able to do it in one battle then thats great. If they only manage one or two then the siege carries on, but the next attempt only requires them to finish off what they didn't (or chose not too) achieve previously. Naturally losing part of the settlement to the enemy should cause problems for the defenders, maybe morale penalties, attrition or fewer turns till surrender. There's a number of reasons why a faction might choose to attack in this way, perhaps their forces aren't strong enough to do it in one go or maybe the enemy is close to surrender and this would push them over the edge. The hard part would be getting the AI to fight intelligently enough so that it knows when to cut its losses as the attacker or defender.
    - Keep Minor Settlement Sieges: I like small settlement 'sieges' without walls they're just another terrain to fight over which spices things up a bit, the WH:TW method just ends up with hopelessly outnumbered garrison forces having no option but to rush to their deaths. At least an Attila:TW garrison force can create chokepoints to try and bleed the enemy dry.
    - Siege Engine Options: More thematic siege options, such as undermining walls and factional restrictions on siege towers.
    - More Siege Defences: Give me more barricades to man, and perhaps more options over where to place them!
    - Garrison Variety: As I'm sure anyone whose played the opening few turns of the Western Roman Empire knows, garrison variety could do with a shake up. Maybe if every building in the settlement affected (either positively or negatively) the garrison composition this might make a big difference to the over all siege variety.
    - Randomised Modular Cities: This could really boost the great work done in Attila:TW on sieges. The variety doesn't need to be infinite or include the entire settlement but certain areas, tower placement, barricade sites, wall sections and gates could be randomised to make a massive difference. As a side note I'd love to see the attackers camps and trenches etc, maybe even with a gameplay effect.
    - More Weather Types and Effects: Speaks for itself really but it strikes me that some effects should also over lap, for example rain/fog.
    - Survivors Needed for Disbanding Units: Far too often I've found that 7-8 cavalry escaped my clutches at the end of a battle, which is enough for the unit to survive and therefore the army. I'd like to see the number needed to regroup to be higher, and for the things like the total amount of casualties inflicted on the army and the quality of the surviving troops and the quality and fate of the general to be taken into account. If you're the last 100 or so peasants left out of a 3000+ doomstack, you're going to go home.
    - Mercenaries and Disbanding Armies: Apart from factions who famously relied heavily on Mercenaries (Carthage for example) Mercenaries shouldn't count, or they should count for less, when an army might disband after a battle. I feel that this, coupled with the above change would make battles more decisive.
    - Defeated Generals Magic Bodyguards: Always feels odd that a badly mauled army, perhaps with one or two partial levy units left can spring back to action with a full elite bodyguard unit. I'd like to see the new generals bodyguard made up of the survivors from the previous owner (complete with skills and upgrades) but perhaps with a bare minimum of 10%. And then in a way these would always be the men who are carrying on the armies traditions.
    - More Province Specific Units: Perhaps its just a case of variety for varieties sake, but I think it would make the provinces on the campaign map feel even more individual. It could be as simple as swapping the basic skirmisher unit for a locally named type that is immune to attrition in that area (similar to R2:TW) or changing the spear look and feel of the usual spear levies. This would also be welcome for the Empire factions in WH:TW, Hochland Halberdiers etc.
    - Capture Settlement Options: I'd like to be able to decide what to do with the captives and the settlement seperately.
    - Battle Victory Options: Some of these don't seem to make sense to me. I'd set it up like this, Sell Captives boosts morale, gains cash, loss of some campaign movement next turn due to transporting prisoners. Take on Captives boosts replishment, temporary loss of integrity due to foreign troops. Execute Prisoners, loss of morale but has wider diplomatic effects (fear, anger, approval etc)
    - Population Pools: When you recruit units I'd like them to be drawn from seperate population pools, so that only a certain amount of, particularly elite, units can be raised at any given moment before being depleted (meaning you'd have to wait for the pool to recover). This pool size could fluctuate depending on edicts, province wealth etc. Peasants would be plentiful whereas nobility would be harder to come by. This would have the added bonus of forcing players to be careful with their best troops to avoid a Crecy style catastrophe. Peasants and serfs on the other hand...
    - Characters on the Battlefield: Characters could be embedded into units to fight alongside the troops and/or provide bonus's, a bit like WH:TW except they're directly attached to a unit (ideally of you're choosing).
    - Unit 'Flock' Movement: Staggering the way troops turn around and speed up and slow down would probably go a long way towards making the units look a bit more natural when moving, especially in melee.
    - Longer Boarding Actions: They always feel too quick to me, slowing down the combat and giving us more ways to effect the ebb and flow of combat would be helpful (cool down abilities, one off abilities, setting target priorities for crew)
    - Diplomacy: Diplomacy Diplomacy Diplomacy... if there is one aspect of the Total War series that has caused me to give up with campaigns more than anything it is this one. The lack of some basic options is baffling and irritating. Even when I'm winning, or perhaps especially when, diplomacy is an obstacle between me and my nefarious plots on the campaign map. Being able to get factions to make peace with other factions, trade settlements, explictly threaten are just the most obvious and annoying missing options that mean most campaigns end up with me butchering everyone and grinding them down regardless of whether or not they were my best of allies rather than trying to negotiate.

    This is a fantastic set of suggestions @Halon - I hope CA are strongly considering some of these.
  • cauldronjotycauldronjoty Registered Users Posts: 16
    MULTIPLAYER HOTSEAT MODE!!!

    Please, bring back the HOTSEAT MODE, just like it was in Medieval 2.

    Hotseat was the greatest part of it.

    You could play long campaigns with mutliple friends over time and send each other save.file through internet. And then you could chose your own time when you complete your turn, without your friends being online or near you.
    All of us were roleplaying our kings, heirs and agents and we had tons of roleplaying texts written about our campaign, whole timeline of all the events, battles, wars, etc. It was full of betrayal and politics and it was awesome. (I can send you the wiki link we did about our 1400 Renaissance Campaign - Sicilian Vespers mod, but it's not in english.)

    What good is co-op campaign, when all the players have to be online AT THE SAME TIME and when it's not your turn, you just have to sit it out ?

    The downside of hotseat was that you just couldn't play battles together/against each other, which co-op campaign provides, but it's still very time restraining and impractical, if you understand.

    Please, please, please, bring back the Hotseat Mode or something simillar to it, that the individual player can play out his turn even without other players being online and allow us to play battles together. It would be the greatest addition this game could ever have.
    "My life's purpose is to reintroduce Hotseat/email Mode back to the awesome Total War series, so people can play with friends without the need to be online all at once." Me, 2018 B)
  • cptscullycptscully Registered Users Posts: 1
    Hey I have a suggestion / inquiry about the likelihood of a 4 or more player multiplayer campaign in the next games, i think its a great feature that me and my friends would thoroughly enjoy. If one of the CAs could get back to me about this it would be great because it could bring a lot of my friends into the total war scene.

    Thanks, Cptscully
  • KingJohnSnowKingJohnSnow ItalyRegistered Users Posts: 4
    onyxsolo said:

    I'd like to see The Golden Age of Piracy! It was a pretty significant historical that led to a lot of themed storytelling adventure. Imagine building your own pirate nation! You could possibly begin earning money with a small ship like a fishing sloop. But, through the power of the total war engine be able to sail around the globe trading, warring, or raiding various nation ships and ports until you conquer or found your first colony like Tortuga in the Caribbean.

    Start by Imagining a map of the entire globe with all the major cities for the period. The only exception would be the player should only have full control over managing port cities or resupply stops along trade routes. All the other cities would be micromanaged by the PC, but should exist for trade/economy purposes. I think there should also be several different play styles available. You should have the ability to play as a nation, merchant, privateer, or PIRATE. Arghhhh!!!

    As a nation you would be focused more on protecting your country by weakening enemy nation’s sea trade/supply routes along with protecting your tax/trade revenue from pirates etc. Nation leaders should start out with complete control over port cities to ensure safe trade routes or resupply stops where their income comes from taxing merchants, employing privateers and spoils of war (Capturing enemy nation ports and ships). They should only have minimal control over the inland cities, just to ensure they are well supplied.

    As a merchant you would focus on building up businesses and forging trade alliances. Merchants should have access to buildings that supply trade goods and resources like Arms (weapons), Cotton, iron, wood and various other trade commodities. They should also be able to build trade ships and to a lesser degree ships to protect them.

    As a privateer you could be a pirate hunter, protect trade convoys, raid other nations with something like a letter or Marque or earn income by exploring uncharted areas for Nations/Merchants. Sailing the seas for adventures would be the main attraction to being a privateer.

    The pirate would be similar to a privateer in the aspect of sailing for adventure. Pirates however should also have the option to found a colony or pirate safe havens. Pirate leaders should have no code to live by other than their own. A pirate could possibly form alliances with other pirates, but, under normal circumstances would be an enemy of all Nations unless pardoned. Pirates should have the option to start out like a privateer, rogue Merchant/Military Ship captain or the corrupt Governor of a small port along a trade route.

    Things like spy networks, alliances and character abilities should all affect the fog of war which I feel should play a huge role in this Golden Age of Piracy era. I have so many ideas about the various styles of gameplay bouncing around in my head right now it’s hard to focus because I enjoyed many hours of gaming in this genre as a child. I would love to see this style brought to the wonderful Total War Engine and would welcome the opportunity to give more input if requested.

    Thank you,
    Onyx

    Really awesome! I love this idea,hope developers will take a look on it seriously.
    Winter is coming
Sign In or Register to comment.