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

Why CA NEEDS to make a TW Antiquity

VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
edited October 2022 in Total War General Chat
This is something I've wanted to talk about for a while now.

I mean, I've been having plenty of fun with Warhammer 3 and all, but I have kind of also want CA to make another great historical TW game.

And I've been thinking that while I do really want to see CA make both an Antiquity TW game and an Empire 2, I feel like I have to give my choice to Antiquity because it just seems to have a bit more possibility than Empire 2 has to be a truly great game.

Because while I do think that the future of TW games does lie in fantasy settings, I do think that CA can still make at least a few great historical TW games, but do I feel like in most of the cases I can think of, CA would absolutely HAVE to do a few periods in particular correctly or they wouldn't be worth making.

What I mean is that they shouldn't just make a Rome 3 or even a Medieval 3 that is purely trying to just copy what has been done before but actually improve upon what they were able to do in the past while not forgetting past stuff either.

Because I REALLY don't want a TW: Antiquity to be just a Rome 3, but rather a TW game that eventually has different campaigns that range from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome, really being able to properly cover most of Antiquity.

I wanted to discuss the various major things CA would absolutely NEED to do to make this game right, but I don't want this OP to get too long, so I'll only mention the basics in the OP and post a few comments with some of the others.


Basic Requirements


I can do other major things in a few comments, so please bear with me until I can get those up.


Basic Requirements
Well, I kind of realized that this could be a two fold topic, those two parts being what the game needs to be a great game and all that and the basic requirements to run it.

Firstly, I think that CA should just swallow their pride and just take some inspiration from some of the greatest mods of past TW game games, such as Europa Barbarorum from Rome 1 and DEI from Rome 2.

They should just be willing to come out and say "We've had some people looking into some of the great mods for past TW games, and we've decided to actually fully implement into this game." and just be able to be ok with it.

If I had to name a few things they NEED to add to make a TW: Antiquity truly great, they'd be

1. The unit variety and all from Europa Barbarorum for Rome 1.
2. The population mechanic from DEI for Rome 2.
3. A slightly reworked unit weight class system from Troy.
4. A proper unit quality system, with units being either Levy, Irregular, Professional, or Elite in qualities.

I'm sure there's other major things they could add from great mods of the past, but those two in particular seem to me like they'd be really impact for the base game.

I mean, just look at the old unit rosters for EB here
https://www.europabarbarorum.com/EB1/factions.html

I mean, even now, that's still some pretty impressive variety for a base game, and those rosters don't even show ALL the units in EB.

Just click on the faction icons and then go to Units to see the basic rosters.


As for computer requirements.

I think that CA should try to make future TW games as accessible as possible and shouldn't try to make any giant leap in graphics and such so that more people can easily play the games without spending 10k dollars on a new computer just for a single game.

I'm not saying that they should go back to original Rome 1 levels of graphics, but they could and shouldn't try to push the graphics so much that it becomes hard for most people to play these games, because, like it or not, 90-95% of all battles, which are usually the most taxing part of these games, we players are managing our armies and not zooming in all the time to look at sync kills and so on.

All I'm saying is that CA should find their footing as it were, probably about Warhammer 3 graphic levels and just stay there for quite a while, so as to allow more people to more easily play their games.


Sorry if the OP seems a little long, but like I said, I'm going to make a number of comments that explain different major parts of how and why CA really needs to make a TW: Antiquity and do it right.
Post edited by VikingHuscal1066#5774 on

Comments

  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    edited October 2022
    Multiplayer Part 1
    I just wanted to get the hows and whys of how CA could improve the multiplayer for a TW: Antiquity and make it a lot more appealing.

    And it's actually quite simple.

    Because I realized that CA doesn't HAVE to do a bunch of giant uber things to improve a TW game's multiplayer. There's actually quite a LOT of simple things they can do with it that wouldn't take away from the campaigns at all.

    They shouldn't do things like separating the factions into different campaigns, but rather have less numerous but more unique factions for the MP specifically, as well as giving the factions that are in the MP more unique variety.


    One of these things would be to kind of do what Europa Barbarorum did with it's factions, in a way anyway.

    What I mean is that CA should kind of treat the multiplayer factions as their own separate things from the campaigns in some ways. So instead of having like 5 or 6 playable factions from the same culture group that are super similar to each other, they add only 2 factions from said culture group.

    Allow me to explain what I mean, so please bear with me.

    First, I'll preface this with a request to go back and look and look at some of the vanilla factions from both Rome 2 and Attila. And I'd like to ask that you mainly look at the Gallic factions for Rome 2 and the Germanic factions for Attila.

    Those factions are

    Rome 2: Averni, Tylis, Boii, Nervii, and Galatia.
    Attila: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Langobards, and Franks, just to name a few.

    I'm sure that if you look through many of them, you'll see that most of them do have a handful of unique units along with the more generic ones, but that's the problem, there's only a handful of unique units per playable faction.

    And I'm certainly not saying that they should give every playable faction 50 or more unique units that only they have, to the point where every roster is super bloated with pointless units, but I do think that they should try to make the factions more unique.

    My point is, that instead of having a bunch of factions that end up feeling really similar, they should give us ones that feel more unique. I'll give an example of what they should do.

    They should reduce the Gallic factions in the base game's campaign from like 5 or 6 factions to just 2.

    Instead of having the Averni, Tylis, Boii, Nervii, and Galatia factions, they just could have the Gallic Tribes and Galatia.

    The Gallic Tribes faction should basically be a general army of all manners of units and such from the Gallic world, and note the key word of Gallic, while Galatia is a different take on the Gallic armies.

    The idea is that the Gallic Tribes would draw upon all sorts of different regional units from all over where the Gauls had spread, so stuff like the Belgae, Celtiberians, Gallo-Thracians, and the Alps and such of mainland Europe. Just take a look at the Eleutheroi units from the Europa Barbarorum rosters to see the kind of variety of talking about.

    The idea is to give a baseline Gallic roster and supplement it with a bunch of "regional mercenary" type units that simply add some nice flavor to their roster.

    And I think that CA should take the whole Galatian Legionaries idea and run with it for Galatia, both for SP and MP.

    I think that the Galatian armies should feel like they take inspiration from their various neighbors, with them having a good number of flavorful units, such as some Hellenic inspired pikemen and Roman inspired legionary cohorts and that type of stuff, but all with some Gallic flare. But you get the idea.

    But they could probably do some similar things with other cultural groups, such as the Iberian, Britannic, and Germanic tribes.


    But I would also like to see all the factions be balanced around the same overall level in terms of unit stat ranges and so on, just so we don't have another instance of Empire Divided and Rise of the Republic factions being either super overpowered or super underpowered.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066#5774 on
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    edited October 2022
    Unit Weight Classes
    This is something I really want to see the unit weight class system from Troy be moved over into this sort of game, but I would really want it to be changed up and simplified in a lot of ways.

    Firstly, I just want to preface that I don't really want to see all of Troy's various unit bonuses and such be brought over as well, such as those kind of silly bonus vs swordsmen or whatever type of stuff, I just want the weight class system, and I'd like to see it be simplified in a number of ways.

    I'd really like to see CA almost go bare bones in a sense with there simply being light, medium, and heavy infantry and cavalry speeds and that's it, aside from camels, elephants, and maybe light and heavy chariots of course.

    I think that having the speeds be kept pretty simple would allow for the units to be rely more on their stats and be augmented by abilities and such, hopefully making those sorts of things all matter a fair bit more.

    But I'd also really like to see some weight classes have some more frequent use of certain bonuses or traits or whatever, as stuff like better quality light units would normally have good stamina as a standard as they are more trained and not weighed down by a lot of armor.

    But I'd really just like to see CA bring back a better unit weight class system to a TW where it would really matter more.


    Unit Quality Tiers and Weapons
    Now, this is something I'd really want CA to bring back, but do it better this time around.

    What I'm talking about is the fact that back in Empire and Napoleon, we did kind of have a unit quality system, as many units were labeled as a certain category of unit, such as irregulars and elite infantry among others.

    What I want CA to do is to simply put it into the game as a semi mechanic, where the units are of certain quality levels and that's that.

    The quality levels should be Levy, Irregular, Professional, and Elite.

    I'll use some units from Rome 2 to put this into context.

    Vigiles and Levy Freemen are Levy units.
    Hastati and Gallic Warriors are Irregular units.
    Legionary Cohorts and Chosen Swordsmen are Professional units.
    Evocati Cohorts and Oathsworn are Elite units.

    And aside from the obvious higher stats and all that, I'd also like to see professional and elite levels units come with more perks and traits to make them feel a bit more like full time professional and elite troops.

    What I mean is giving most professional and elite infantry at least good stamina as they are trained a fair bit more than levy or irregular units, but I would like to see it be a bit more than that as well.

    I'd really like to see the different unit weight classes come into play along with the unit tiers in just what kinds of traits and abilities some units get.

    Let's say there's an elite level naked warrior type unit for the Gallic factions.

    Well, that unit being an elite light infantry unit should have excellent stamina and almost never get tired. And along with that, such a unit should also have the Rapid Advance ability from Attila, that is, that it increases the movement speed of the unit by 50% for like 30 seconds with no penalty.

    Such a thing would make some sense, as these kinds of professional and elite light units would be trained warriors or soldiers, and not having to worry about heavier armor and such would no doubt help with their stamina, which would allow them to exert themselves more easily than more heavily armored troops without worrying about tiring themselves out.


    I think that CA should also somewhat simplify the weapons and armor.

    That's not to say they should only have the stats for like 4 or 5 different kinds of weapons, but I do think that they could stand to not have quite as many as say Rome 2, and certainly not as many as Warhammer 3.

    I think that they could make due with a more slimmed down and simplified set of weapon and armor stats, or at least weapons.

    The idea should be that instead of having like 6 or more types of different swords and so on, they should just have 4 types of any kind of weapon at most. I'll use bows as the example.

    There could simply be Levy, Hunting, Strong, and Elite Bows in terms of stats and such, which could allow the higher quality archers to feel like they pack a bigger punch. This could also somewhat go for other ranged and melee weapons as well.

    The idea is that each one jumps up a bit in damage compared to the last one, with the professional and elite weapons being of higher quality and able to do more damage than the weapons that levy units might have.


    And just as a side note.

    I would like to see stuff like Oathsworn and such elite "barbarian" units carry swords that actually look a fair bit longer than the Celtic swords in Rome 2, as it was the noble warriors who could afford those long swords.


    But I would really like to see CA also at least organize the armors and shield stats a little better so that they're easier to apply to units of fitting rank and all that.

    I would just like to see CA be able to create units with a bit more of an easier system, that's all.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066#5774 on
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    Multiplayer Part 2: Map Design
    This is actually a big deal for any TW game, but especially in the multiplayer.

    I mean, it's pretty obvious that it wouldn't matter if a game had the most refined mechanics and or overall gameplay ever, if the map design is bad, you have bad gameplay.

    Now, I'm not going to try to describe 15 or more maps or anything like that, but more so talk about the basics of how they could design the maps for a TW game like this so that players could feel like there's no gimmick maps or ones that feel like they're completely ridiculous.

    The first big thing I think that CA should do is to make the maps overall a fair bit bigger so that they in Warhammer 3.

    Now, calm down, before anyone says anything, I'm not saying they should make the maps so big that it takes hours for players to find each other in a land battle, but I do think that the battle maps could stand to be bit bigger so they feel less arcadey.

    I would say, they should make the maps 50% bigger at most, but actually have it be meaningful and not just giant empty spaces and what not. And maybe it could vary for some maps depending on battle type and so on.

    I'll use river maps and the possible inclusion of historically based maps as the examples of what I'm talking about.


    I would like to see river maps is simply to not have them be the same as they have been for so many games now. I would like to see them actually be designed to actually fun and interesting.

    I REALLY don't want to see the deployment zones be practically right on the rivers on such maps. I also don't to see rivers a completely impassible border that only has one crossing point, but nor do I want to see them to be be crossed EVERYWHERE either, like in some Shogun 2 maps.

    The main thing they need to do is to not simply make the maps a bit bigger, they need to simply not have the deployment zones be right up on the river itself, but rather a fair distance away from it.

    Now, that might seem kind of silly at first, but when talking about multiplayer, this sort of thing would add a lot of tactical options to just how you could play on these maps.

    Rather than having only a single crossing point, most river maps should standardly have a main crossing near the middle or so of the map and two slightly smaller crossing points need opposite edges of the map, that way it doesn't become a race for a single crossing point either.

    But I really think that designing river maps like that in a general sense would allow them be a lot more than just a standoff at a river and that's all there is to it.


    But as for historically based map. I'll use the idea of Thermopylae style map as the example.

    Now I would think that the Thermopylae maps should generally be designed in the same overall way, just with some slight differences depending on battle type.

    I think that the idea of a mountain pass map like Thermopylae could actually work as a Port Assault, "Point Control/Domination" battle, and even just a Coastal Battle map if designed right.

    And what I mean for a "Point Control/Domination" battle is really just the idea of having capture points or key buildings or something that grant a basic bonus for a team that controls them and that's it, rather than a capture the flag type mode.

    I think such capture points should just give a nice +5 to the morale of all units of the team that controls the points, with only like 3 or 4 points at most per any map. I just think that giving such bonuses should incentivize players to not just try to always camp their one side of the map and never move, but will also reward a team that takes the initiative as well.

    I guess if the map is going north to south, the Thermopylae maps should have the main pass in the middle part of the map, with the sea to the east and mountains and second pass to the west. And the secondary pass should have a nice sized clearing and even a ridge that overlooks the center of the battlefield.

    Though the passes should not be so narrow that only one unit can pass at a time, but not be open enough for major use of cavalry either. It should basically be wide enough to actually have a battle there.

    But as for the Port Assault version of the map.

    I think that aside from placing a decent stone wall in the pass, there should be a fair amount of suitable landing spots on the beaches on the southeast of the defenders positions as well, not directly behind the walls, but a bit more south than it.

    But I do think that in the secondary mountain pass should absolutely go right around the main pass and come out just slightly behind either team's starting area, so that it's something you can't just ignore.

    I just think that such a type of map could actually allow for a fair amount of tactical options even though it's mainly a mountain pass map.
  • Lotor12#2810Lotor12#2810 Registered Users Posts: 1,002


    Firstly, I think that CA should just swallow their pride and just take some inspiration from some of the greatest mods of past TW game games, such as Europa Barbarorum from Rome 1 and DEI from Rome 2.

    This is something, with what I would be extremely careful, I do want to "dishonor" these mods and their creators, but for me, they are extremely overrated, epecially DEI for Rome2

    These mods are free and optional , and do not receive objective critism.

    From What I played, I founded them ful of "questionable" design choices, pointless or badly iplemented mechanics - for example supply mechanic in DEI; these things just make game more complicated (but not complex), slow the game and move the game directly towards "hardcore" players


    1. The unit variety and all from Europa Barbarorum for Rome 1.
    2. The population mechanic from DEI for Rome 2.
    3. A slightly reworked unit weight class system from Troy.
    4. A proper unit quality system, with units being either Levy, Irregular, Professional, or Elite in qualities.

    1. I do not remember Europa Barbarorum units from R1, but I remember DEI and Rodious for R2. These unit varieties are full of pointless units, like duplicate of 1 standard unit - Celtic swordmen into many varioations; their creators tried to make many units as possible.

    2. With DEI population mechanic, I would like to ask, what is advantage to have it in game? More micromanagment?

    I see it, as just unnesesary thing, which just make game more complicated, but not interesting

    I would go for old "population" mechsnic from Shogun 2 and Napoleon, the population number determines wealth of province
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    Lotor12 said:


    This is something, with what I would be extremely careful, I do want to "dishonor" these mods and their creators, but for me, they are extremely overrated, epecially DEI for Rome2

    These mods are free and optional , and do not receive objective critism.

    From What I played, I founded them ful of "questionable" design choices, pointless or badly iplemented mechanics - for example supply mechanic in DEI; these things just make game more complicated (but not complex), slow the game and move the game directly towards "hardcore" players

    I hope you mean "I don't want to dishonor these mods", because like them or not, they had a LOT of work put into them, and should at least be respected for that.

    And I can kind of understand not liking some mechanics, as they are different and new and not everyone may like all of them, I do think that the idea behind the supply mechanic in DEI is so that you can't just spam armies willy nilly with no drawbacks, and that having secure supply lines would also be needed as well, which I think is a somewhat good thing for those who want a proper challenge.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    Lotor12 said:


    1. I do not remember Europa Barbarorum units from R1, but I remember DEI and Rodious for R2. These unit varieties are full of pointless units, like duplicate of 1 standard unit - Celtic swordmen into many varioations; their creators tried to make many units as possible.

    2. With DEI population mechanic, I would like to ask, what is advantage to have it in game? More micromanagment?

    I see it, as just unnesesary thing, which just make game more complicated, but not interesting

    I would go for old "population" mechsnic from Shogun 2 and Napoleon, the population number determines wealth of province

    1. Well, here's a link to the old Europa Barbarorum website,
    https://www.europabarbarorum.com/EB1/factions.html
    at least to the factions.

    But just look through some of the factions' units and you'll see that those guy put a LOT of effort into making the units feel interesting and unique.

    2. I think that the mechanic could help make recruiting units a fair bit more interesting than just recruit X and that's it.

    This video explains some of the major things that DEI brought to Rome 2.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhIG2UHFsw

    It's a few years old, but it covers the basics.

    3 and 4. I just think these two things could not only help make organizing units easier, but also creating units as well, as having only so many unit speeds and tiers would make that process easier.
  • Lotor12#2810Lotor12#2810 Registered Users Posts: 1,002


    I hope you mean "I don't want to dishonor these mods", because like them or not, they had a LOT of work put into them, and should at least be respected for that.

    And I can kind of understand not liking some mechanics, as they are different and new and not everyone may like all of them, I do think that the idea behind the supply mechanic in DEI is so that you can't just spam armies willy nilly with no drawbacks, and that having secure supply lines would also be needed as well, which I think is a somewhat good thing for those who want a proper challenge.

    Yes, that is the point, the people who are making these mods are enthusiasts, who do mods for free in free time. I can appreciate that...

    But from a point, that invest my free time into mods, I am not "un-critical"

    Hopefully, this was understandable, my "English command is not my stronger part" :smiley:
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    Lotor12 said:


    Yes, that is the point, the people who are making these mods are enthusiasts, who do mods for free in free time. I can appreciate that...

    But from a point, that invest my free time into mods, I am not "un-critical"

    Hopefully, this was understandable, my "English command is not my stronger part" :smiley:

    No, it's ok, I understand.

    I just think that CA should be willing to admit that they would take some inspiration from mods such as EB, DEI, and Para Bellum, because then they could not only make a better game, but also throw some appreciation to the modders as well, acknowledging the fans and all.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    Different Campaigns
    I should get to talking about this part of the game, as it should be one of the biggest draws to a TW: Antiquity.

    And that is the fact that the campaigns shouldn't be solely focused around Rome alone.

    Of course, most of these campaigns should come through DLC and be more focused on being "grand" style campaigns overall, with a few exceptions.

    I would think that the base game's "grand campaign" could basically be like a "Rome 3" of sorts with all the improvements done to the game overall.

    And if I had to pick 5 or 6 other campaigns and what they'd be called, though not in any order, I think I'd have to go with

    The Rise of Persia: Having to do with the rise of Cyrus the Great and the Achaemenid Persian Empire.
    The Twilight of Rome: Having to mainly do with the Late Roman Empire, kind of what Attila should've been.
    Spartacus's Revolt: A campaign having to do with Spartacus's great slave revolt, with a far more focused scope of Italy and Sicily and a bit of Gaul in the far north.
    The Peloponnesian War: A campaign having to do with, well, the Peloponnesian War and its aftermath, but made a fair bit more interesting this time around.
    And maybe the Campaigns of Alexander or the Wars of the Diadochi.

    But I think that those sorts of campaigns could really give a lot of life to the game that even Rome 2's never managed to do.


    But I will mention that I would really like CA to do something a little more interesting with the multiplayer than what they've done before.

    I'd really like to see only some of the main playable factions from the different campaigns be added into the multiplayer factions, because like I said above in the Multiplayer Part 1, I would much prefer to see CA make the multiplayer factions a bit fewer in number, but be more interesting in their rosters and all that.

    So, I would think that instead of adding the Achaemenid Persians and all the nations and such they conquered into the MP, they could just add in the Achaemenid Persians and have them have a lot of regional units from the various other factions you'd encounter in their campaign.

    It should be a similar thing for the Spartacus/Servile Rebels faction from the Spartacus's Revolt campaign.

    Instead of adding in another Roman faction/army, they should just add in the Spartacus/Servile Rebels faction alone to the MP.

    And as for some of the other factions from campaigns like the Twilight of Rome, I think they could certain groups being combined like what I mentioned before, about having a Gallic Tribes faction instead of 4 or 5 separate Gallic factions in the MP.

    That would of course not be for all of them, but just for some groups, like the Nordic Tribes or Late Celtic Tribes.

    But I'm sure CA could figure out a way to make it work and work well.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    New Mechanics
    Well, I'm not exactly the most imaginative when it comes to coming up with completely new mechanics, but I do have a couple of ideas of things they could add to a TW: Antiquity.


    Firstly, I'd like to see CA actually take the whole weapon switching mechanic from Troy, but take it further and make it better than what it was in that game.

    I really want the weapon switching to be in another game because it would make a lot of sense for some units to have multiple weapons on them, such as "barbarian" noble infantry units.

    Though I will say that while I'd prefer CA actually give all hoplite units a proper phalanx formation like in Rome 1, using multiple rows of long spears and fighting with other weapons such as swords when out of formation, I could accept them simply giving most hoplites the ability to switch between spears and mainly swords along with their shields.


    As for fully new mechanics, I think that CA could possibly work in a "Reputation" type of mechanic that could be more than simply gaining or losing relations with other factions.

    I think that what they could do with such a mechanic is to have the way you interact with other factions really matter a lot more meaningful as well as a bit more complex.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't want it to be so complex that the game becomes a Paradox game, but I do think that it could be worked in to make the diplomacy and all that more meaningful.

    But the way I think this Reputation mechanic could work is to have your actions and dealings with other factions basically spread word to nearby other factions and could even spread abroad.

    For instance, if you want to go all Cyrus the Great and be a benevolent conqueror, defeating multiple enemy armies and releasing the captives from each battle, that may make the faction's lands easier to conquer without worrying as much about rebellions, as they will know that they might be in good hands as it were and that being part of your empire might actually be beneficial.

    Where as flipside, if you're really brutal to a faction or two, the word of your brutality will quickly spread and will make conquering lands and dealing with other factions a bit harder, maybe even to the point where you do have to do what the Romans did and leave entire armies in areas for some time so that they don't rebel.

    Now, I don't really want it to be purely limited to just a good or evil conquering choice, but I do think that how you treat other factions should have consequences down the road.

    And they could also probably factor in how different culture groups see and interact with each other as well and make it work even better.


    Skill Trees
    As far as skill trees go, I don't really want CA to quite make them the exact same thing as Warhammer 3's skill trees, but rather make them a fair bit simpler but more meaningful.

    Don't get me wrong, I think the style of skill trees in Warhammer 3 does work fine for those games, but I do think that it should be a little different for a historical TW game, without being the rather silly stuff that's been done before.

    I think that players should not only be able to choose which units their characters have as bodyguards, but also between 3 different main roles which a leader back in ancient times may go down.

    These skill trees should be Warrior, General, and Governor, which should be something like this

    Warrior: A skill tree focused mainly on making your general a powerful fighter in battles.
    General: A skill tree that focuses on a mixture of battle and campaign effects.
    Governor: A skill tree that mainly focuses on managing provinces and other such campaign things.

    Now, as I said before, I don't think that the skill trees for a TW: Antiquity should be overly complicated or anything, but rather be a bit longer than the skill trees of Warhammer 3, but be far simpler.

    What CA should do with this sort of skill tree is to combine simple skill trees with a improved version of the traits from Shogun 2.

    For those who don't remember, in Shogun 2, whenever your generals leveled up twice, they got to chose from a selection of 3 traits that could give basic bonuses.

    The idea with this game would be to have there be like 4 simple skills in between a good number of more major skills that grant you a choice of a variety of abilities, traits, and what have you that are related to the skill tree the character is going down.

    The Warrior traits and such as a whole should be all about, well, turning the character and their bodyguards into combat monster and granting them choices of various powerful battlefield abilities, such as a basic "Leading the Charge" ability that grants a nice bonus of +5 morale to all units within a big aura when the character's unit is in melee.

    But that ability could either be upgraded to be called "Heroic Leadership" or be gotten later which gives a +10 Morale, +5 MA and MD, and +15 Charge Bonus when the character's unit is in melee, but it's army wide.

    The General traits and such should really be wide ranging, as they could have a lot of different things that could be either campaign or army effects or even both.

    As far as battle stuff goes, the General skill tree and traits should grant things like bigger aura and more morale for units within the general's aura rather than really powerful battlefield abilities. And the campaign effects could range from upkeep reductions from having loyal troops to maybe better movement range, among other things.

    The Governor skill tree, traits, and so on should have a wide variety of campaign effects that could possibly help the character govern a province effective. Though I would like it to be a little more complex than just +3 or 4 public to even the most unruly provinces.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    edited October 2022
    Weapons and Armor
    I know I mentioned a bit about weapons and armor before, but I wanted to expand upon just how they could go about implementing the weapons and armor for the different unit qualities.


    Armor
    Well, I do like how they organized the different armor and shield stats in Rome 2, though I think they could be slightly simplified in this game. That's not to say there should only be like 4 armor and shield stats, but I do think that they could possibly just lower the basic chain mail armor stats down to a single stat instead of there being like 3 or 4 if I remember right.

    I would almost like to see the armor stats at least be somewhat uniform and standardized in a way, as many armies used chain mail armor and so on, but obviously still have some different armor stats for the proper period and all that.

    I guess I'd kind of like to see it be kind of like this

    Professional Chosen Swordsmen have chain mail armor that gives 40 armor and heavy shields which give 30-35 armor, for a total of 70-75 armor. And similar quality heavy units, such as Marian Legionaries should have similar armor stats.

    Elite units like the various kinds of "barbarian" noble warriors however should NOT simply have the same exact armor stats as their professional counterparts, but actually have equipment that's a fair bit better.

    I say that because I've heard that the Celts in particular had a rare type of armor called Ceannlann Armor, which was apparently metal scales sewn onto linen which was further sewn onto a chain mail shirt. So I think that that would warrant such elite units having better armor stats than even professional level units.

    I would say that units like Oathsworn and such should have better armor and shield stats, call them "Noble Armor" and or "Reinforced Shields" or whatever, which gives them 50 base armor and a 35-40 armor from the shields, for a total of 85-90 armor.

    They could obviously have more armor stats, but I just really want the professional and elite level units to really feel like they're the ones who can afford the better equipment, even if some of the stats feel a bit uniform or standarded.


    Melee Weapons
    I think that the melee weapons should be a bit more standardized and uniform as well, as I don't think there NEEDS to be a million different varieties of stats to show what the different weapons.

    I could see the general "barbarian sword" weapons being something like this

    (Levy) Daggers/Knives: 20 base damage and 5 armor piercing damage.
    (Irregular) Short Swords/Long Knives: 25 base damage and 5 armor piercing damage.
    (Professional) Tribal Sword": 35 base damage and 5 armor piercing damage.
    (Elite) Noble Swords: 40-45 base damage and 10 armor piercing damage.

    I think that they could have slight variations on other types of weapons as well. Like having Falcata and Elite Falcata sword stats having more AP than most other swords, like the elite falcatas having like 35 BD and 15 AP or something like that.

    Ranged Weapons
    I think that the ranged weapons could be really interesting, even if they were standardized a bit more as well.

    I think that the devs could stand to not make the different ranged weapons hyper specialized but make them feel like they do have some basic strengths and weaknesses.

    Javelins should obviously still be the shorter ranged but harder hitting missile weapons, but I do think that they could stand to only have light, normal, and heavy variants, with the heavy ones really packings a big punch.

    I think that Slings should kind of almost be the anti skirmisher missile weapons, just like they were in Rome 2 but done a little better.

    I think that Bows should kind of stay where they are, in between the hard hitting javelins and the longer range slings.

    The ranges should also be changed for some of them based on the quality level. It should be something like this

    Light Javelins: 90-100 range with around 20 BD and 10 AP.
    Javelins: 80 range with around 25 BD and 15 AP.
    Heavy Javelins: 65 range with around 40 BD and 25 AP

    Levy Bows: 125 range with around 15 BD and 5 AP.
    Hunting Bows: 150 range with 20 BD and 5 AP.
    Strong Bows: 150 range but with 25 BD and 10 AP
    Elite Bows: 175 range and 30 BD and 10-15 AP.

    Levy Slings: 150 range and 15 BD and 5 AP.
    Sings: 175 range and 20 BD and 5 AP.
    Elite Slings: 200 range and 30 BD and 10 AP.

    I know I know, those seem like some seriously big numbers and all, but I really just wanted to give a basic idea of how do more with the missile weapons while staying fairly balanced. And the big deal is the ranges rather than the damage.

    But I do really want the professional and elite level missile weapons to really feel like they're the more high quality powerful stuff that can do some serious damage.

    And the idea with the elite slings is that stuff like the Balearic and Rhodian Slingers should absolutely be able to punish almost all enemies if they stay within their range for too long.


    But I'm sure that the devs could make both the melee and ranged weapons work effectively without there being a million different variations of every type of weapon.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    Visuals and Unit Scaling
    I know that this isn't really a new topic, but I do think it's something worth talking about as well.

    I've said this before, but I don't really want to see CA continue to try to push the graphics of the TW games in any major ways that makes the games all the harder to run, as I want the most people to be able to play these games as possible.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really want CA to go all the way back to original Rome 1 levels of animations and graphics, I just don't think they should try pushing the graphics and such any further than Warhammer 3's for quite some time.

    I say this mainly because while it can be fun to zoom in and watch the animations of units in preset custom battles, let's be fully honest, 90% of most of our TW battles are spent managing our armies rather than just watching the battle play out.

    And for that reason, I do feel like they graphics and such of each guy in a unit is nowhere near as important in these games compared to the how the game runs the battles overall, which I'd also like to see be a bit bigger than they are now.

    And on that note, I'll talk about unit scaling.


    I'd really like to see the numbers per units be more varied than just 160 guys per EVERY infantry unit so that the scale of the battles might not only be a fair bit bigger, but also possibly see the unit tiers and such mentioned before play a part in it.

    I don't want this comment to end up being too long, so I'll just list the basic numbers for various kinds of units.

    Infantry
    Levy: 240 men per unit.
    Irregular: 200 men per unit.
    Professional: 160 men per unit.
    Elite: 160 men per unit, with possible unit caps.
    Pike: 240 men per unit.

    Missile Infantry
    Levy: 200 men per unit.
    Irregular: 120-160 men per unit.
    Professional: 120 men per unit.
    Elite: 120 men per unit, with possibly unit caps.

    Cavalry
    Irregular: 100 men per unit.
    Professional: 80 men per unit.
    Elite: 80 men per unit, with possible unit caps.


    They could do some other stuff with units such as elephants and chariots, but I just wanted to list the more common units.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    I'm not simply bumping or anything, I was just taking a little break from this thread for a bit.

    Unit Formations

    This is something I realized that I really should've talked about before, as it's one of the things I think would NEED to be improved upon for this sort of TW game to be as good of a game as possible.

    Though I guess I should really elaborate on what I mean.

    I don't really think that the formations in Rome 2 are bad, on the contrary, I actually think that most of them work pretty well at what they're supposed to do, though I do think the stat bonuses they give should be standardized. But it's really the phalanxes and testudo formations I have an issue with.

    I think that the phalanx and testudo formations were far, far better in Rome 1 than the sad excuses they were in Rome 2.

    I mean, the pike phalanx only had 3 rows of pikes instead of 5, the hoplites only had standard length spears and thereby were just heavy spear infantry, and the testudo wasn't really a proper turtle formation.

    The pike phalanxes should be much like what they were in Rome 1 but improved, being very deadly from the front, but being extremely vulnerable on the flanks and rear. But they NEED to go back to being those big slow moving units that can present 5 rows of pikes to their enemies, and those units really shouldn't be able to run while in that formation.

    The hoplites should have a fair bit longer spears than most spear infantry, so they can actually present 2 or 3 rows of spears to their enemies, but also be pretty good out of formation, at least in the case of professional and elite hoplites.

    And as I've talked about before, I would like to see CA bring back that weapon switching mechanic from Troy, and I would be able to accept hoplites being able to switch between spears and swords along with their shields, but I would've like to see the hoplites actually have their phalanxes be done right, but I could at least accept the switching as the alternative.

    And as for the testudo fomation.

    It should really just be like it was in Rome 1, with the unit bunched together and shields on every side but the rear most ranks, or at the very least be more like Attila's testudo formation than Rome 2's, which was at least wider.

    But the formation should be like that of Rome 1, but with all the same sorts of weaknesses as well.

    t should be all but immune to "small arms" fire but certainly not be a melee formation by any means, despite what some movies will show, and it should be a pretty nice target for artillery, be it light or heavy.

    But I really just want those formations in particular to be greatly improved upon from past TW games.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    Special Abilities and Traits
    I was going to include this part in the last comment, but I realized that comment was getting too long.

    But I think that the special abilities and traits should be a bit more specialized in some ways as well as being a little bit rarer, at least in some cases anyway.

    One of the "special abilities" I'd like to see improved would be the Formation Attack thing from Rome 2.

    I'd really like to see CA basically keep it the same as it was, with units keeping formation and all that, but with two major additions.

    1. A extra penalty to get attacked on the flank or rear.
    2. The possible addition of a simple meter that is the "integrity" of the formation or something that allows the units to hold formation.

    Now, I think that the first addition could easily be added and would be enough, but I do think that the second one would just be a nice new addition.


    But I would also like to see other actual special abilities and traits be made a little more interesting by being a bit rarer and more dependent on just what type of unit they are.

    What I mean is that, unlike Attila, I'd really like to see the Scare traits, regardless of what kind, be a lot rarer so they feel more specialized. I wouldn't mind things like Camels having the standard Scares Horses trait, but would like to see the Scares Everyone trait that scares everything to be pretty rare, being reserved for things like elite berserker infantry and elephants.

    But I'd also like to see certain traits and abilities be kind of tied to major things like the unit's weight class and tier, and or a combination of both.

    For instance, most professional and elite level units, at least infantry anyway, should have a Good Stamina trait which, well, gives the unit better stamina. So units like Marian Legionaries and such would have good stamina.

    Now, professional and elite light infantry, such as the Gallic Naked Warrior units or the like, should have an Excellent Stamina trait on account of them be full time warriors and not being hindered by lots of armor and all that. So the better quality light infantry should be able to really outpace and outlast heavy infantry in terms of speed and stamina.

    And on top of that, I think that only certain types of units should gain access to certain abilities as well, like professional and elite light infantry can get special abilities like Rapid Advance from Attila, that is granting the unit a 40-50% speed bonus for like 25-30 seconds with no stupid penalty.

    But I think that such things would be more than fair because the stuff like light infantry and cavalry would need to be used well to get the best out of them, at least for the most part, and I think that it would all work out as a series of good trade offs.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458
    I don't really get why no one wants to talk about a possible Historical TW game.

    I wish someone would've talked about this topic a bit more, as this is a TW topic I was kind of passionate about.
  • Heretical_Cactus#7598Heretical_Cactus#7598 Registered Users Posts: 3,039

    I don't really get why no one wants to talk about a possible Historical TW game.

    I wish someone would've talked about this topic a bit more, as this is a TW topic I was kind of passionate about.

    Well on one side, General isn't used much, so not a lot of people see it.

    And on the other side, we did kinda scratch those itches with Troy and with Rome 1/2+

    So while a TW Antiquity could work, and could be great, people want to see other things first, like Pike and Shot, Empire 2 or 3, Medieval 2 or 3...

    And there is also a bit of a bore about the TW historical I'd say, like it's great and all, but TW Warhammer did give a taste of such variety that's its a bit more difficult to return to historical.

    Like for example, I'd prefer a Grand Mythology game, which would explore the myths of the different Pantheons ancient. Taking parallels to make Dlcs, and making the different Legendary Lords be Gods, like Odin, Thor and Loki, Zeus, Athena and Ares, Ra, Osiris and Seth...

    Instead of having historical elements to learn, it would tell part of their cults/stories as we know them
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,180

    I don't really get why no one wants to talk about a possible Historical TW game.

    I wish someone would've talked about this topic a bit more, as this is a TW topic I was kind of passionate about.

    People do, not many people really check here tho and those of us that have have already seen you post this before.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458


    Well on one side, General isn't used much, so not a lot of people see it.

    And on the other side, we did kinda scratch those itches with Troy and with Rome 1/2+

    So while a TW Antiquity could work, and could be great, people want to see other things first, like Pike and Shot, Empire 2 or 3, Medieval 2 or 3...

    And there is also a bit of a bore about the TW historical I'd say, like it's great and all, but TW Warhammer did give a taste of such variety that's its a bit more difficult to return to historical.

    Like for example, I'd prefer a Grand Mythology game, which would explore the myths of the different Pantheons ancient. Taking parallels to make Dlcs, and making the different Legendary Lords be Gods, like Odin, Thor and Loki, Zeus, Athena and Ares, Ra, Osiris and Seth...

    Instead of having historical elements to learn, it would tell part of their cults/stories as we know them

    I know that the TW General Chat isn't traveled much in comparison, but I have seen some threads be talked about for a while.

    The reason I want to see a TW: Antiquity so much is that while we do have Troy and Rome 1 and 2, I would just really like to see them give us a more interesting and wider ranging take on the ancient world than we've seen so far.

    And I agree, a Grand Mythology TW would be very interesting to see, with all the possible pantheons they could bring in as well.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,458


    People do, not many people really check here tho and those of us that have have already seen you post this before.

    No, I know that, but I'm glad you guys decided to talk about it, even if it's only for a little bit. Thanks.

    Though I do kind of wish that CA would've or would make a "Future of TW" or whatever section of their forums that has to do with this sort of stuff, maybe then these sorts of topics could get talked about a fair bit more.
Sign In or Register to comment.