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

Suggestions to improve TW games for a wider gamer audience

kokankokan Junior MemberPosts: 50Registered Users
Its clear by looking at the forums (mostly Steam) that not all players are alike… some enjoy simple things, others like a bit more of complexity.

A little of background about me: I have played TW games since Rome 1 came out, but also enjoyed other strategy games like Age of Empires, Anno and Company of Heroes (there were more, but these I consider the most relevant) but never really enjoyed StarCraft and Civilization.

Age of Empires was great because there was the part of the military conflict and the management of resources.
Anno was more about civilization management: build efficiently, trade and keep the people happy.
Company of Heroes was obviously because of how tactical the combat was: troop placement and troop choice for successful counters.

The problem here is that I needed 3 games to please all my tastes, and never at the same time. However, I feel that TW games could the perfect platform to deliver in all 3, but as I stated before: not all players are the same so I expect that a lot of people won't want all of this on a TW game.

So, this brings us to my proposal for future games: a modular approach supported by the devs that allows each player to tailor their gaming experience to their tastes and experience.

How would this work?
Should be simple enough. At the start of a campaign, the player only had to choose which modules he wanted to play with:
> Advanced Military: activates a system like what we see in ToB (which is great) with units that aren't recruited at full power, with food upkeep and are recruited from a limited pool => this system makes a great job at preventing the AI from spamming like crazy.

> Advanced Resources I: added resource requirements to techs and buildings

> Advanced Resources II: made it so that resources would be gathered and stocked, building would then have a fixed cost in wood, stone, glass. It would also allow the player to have a better control over trade: which and how many resources he would be willing to trade (balancing the need for money from selling those resources, and the effort to prevent other factions from having access to advanced buildings).

If Advanced Military was on, resources would also be used to recruit units (generating equipment for them).

> Advanced Empire I: added population to the game (like Rome 1 and Medieval 2) removing those "Growth" points that for me remove so much immersion… it was great back in Rome seeing how my actions actually impacted my population (over drafting from one settlement meant that I would lose money from taxes..)

> Advanced Empire II: added more layers to empire management such as social classes that would have a proper impact on the economy and military (like what we find in Anno).

> Advanced Politics: would enable a more complex political experience like what we currently find in ToB or Rome 2 (but hopefully more at the level of CK2).

Having a system like this would mean that instead of relying on fake difficulty settings, we could actually increase the difficulty of our game by increasing its complexity instead of just adding bonus to the AI and penalties to the player.

Understandably, the AI could be a problem, but all these games managed to do it decades ago... you shouldn't really have a problem now.

Hopefully, CA could try out such modules with the more recent games and implement a part of these suggestions for future games (at least giving us the option to disable some features that we don't enjoy).

Well, these are my wishes and hopes. What do you guys think?

Comments

  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Posts: 2,591Registered Users
    I think that this is a bit convoluted. CA should focus on making each title a good game, not several different games.
    ò_ó
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,589Registered Users
    Why do people want ToB recuruitment system?

    Units are becoming complete on the march?
    They should muster in the barracks rather than on the march. Of course you need to train them, so you train them while marching?
  • kokankokan Junior Member Posts: 50Registered Users
    Warlocke said:

    I think that this is a bit convoluted. CA should focus on making each title a good game, not several different games.

    Maybe I didn't express myself properly, it makes sense in my head xD but I can see how written it can look complicated.

    The idea is just to give the player some control over the way it experiences the game, if the current vanilla way is the way the player wants to play then these options would be disabled.

    If the player would like a more complex campaign, with a bit more management on the campaign map (where we currently just skip turn most of the times, with the occasional battle or build order) then he just would have to tick one or more of those advanced systems. For example the more advanced Resources or Economy system would impose resource requirements on building and recruiting which in turn would require the player to apply more strategy to its military conquest (either to deprive someone from resources or to get them for themselves).

    Maybe its just me, but the current TW formula is getting stale, I like a bit more challenge on the campaign side of things and severely dislike artificial difficulty (like decreased loyalty, public order, etc just to make the game harder). And lacking any serious competition in this area, my only option is to hope for CA to do something about it.
  • kokankokan Junior Member Posts: 50Registered Users
    jamreal18 said:

    Why do people want ToB recuruitment system?

    Units are becoming complete on the march?
    They should muster in the barracks rather than on the march. Of course you need to train them, so you train them while marching?

    ToB recruitment system, the way I see it, works based on the principle that when a unit is recruited, its in fact a call to arms that is placed empire wide.

    Since a few of the trained men in your empire are present in or close to the province you are in, then they are immediately available and the rest will arrive over time. Troops require both food and money (and supplies for campaigns outside your territory).

    I like it very much for a few reasons:
    - it prevents the instant one turn full army spam that the AI tends to do (the player too) since you are limited to a pool of available units that will only be recruited at about 1/3 full power;
    - due to the food requirement it also reduces the AI ability from fielding more armies than its territory would allow (even though the AI still gets a small food upkeep reduction);
    - Strategically is a lot more demanding: do you recruit the few units you have available to try to prevent the enemy from taking a settlement and risk losing both the men and city? Or do you accept the loss and recruit those men to fight later at full power?
    - The supply system also requires you to plan ahead when you are about to go to war: different stances have different consumptions, and supplies can be partially refilled by raiding or looting but your army won't be able to stay out there forever.

    Again, I understand that this system won't always please everyone, which is why I think its important to have the option to choose the vanilla or the more advanced system.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,221Registered Users
    kokan said:


    So, this brings us to my proposal for future games: a modular approach supported by the devs that allows each player to tailor their gaming experience to their tastes and experience.

    Not profitable even if they did this,. Why try to make one game trying to please everyone, when they can divvy it up into three separate games and anyone that actually likes them can just buy all three? Because some of them want to just get it all in one package?
    kokan said:


    > Advanced Military: activates a system like what we see in ToB (which is great) with units that aren't recruited at full power, with food upkeep and are recruited from a limited pool => this system makes a great job at preventing the AI from spamming like crazy.

    > Advanced Resources, military, politics

    This is literally trying to pile nine very different games into one. If I wanted to choose, we already have Steam Library.
    If you really insist, CA can just make DLC or expandalone campaigns that put different focuses. Which they sort of already do.
    kokan said:


    Having a system like this would mean that instead of relying on fake difficulty settings, we could actually increase the difficulty of our game by increasing its complexity instead of just adding bonus to the AI and penalties to the player.

    I don't see how making you have to manage multiple resources instead of just gold avoids all the usual difficulty and AI issues.
    I mean, Age of Empire will NEVER have the problem of AI armies failing to recruit units due to you taking over regions that allowed them accesses to said units, because such game mechanisms do not exist in Age of Empires.
    kokan said:


    Understandably, the AI could be a problem, but all these games managed to do it decades ago... you shouldn't really have a problem now.

    None of those games had to deal with what Total War has, that's the only reason why they "managed it" in the first place: it isn't that they were able to overcome Total War's parameters, but the parameters never existed back then.
    kokan said:


    Hopefully, CA could try out such modules with the more recent games and implement a part of these suggestions for future games (at least giving us the option to disable some features that we don't enjoy).
    Well, these are my wishes and hopes. What do you guys think?

    Well these modules you speak of already exist, they are called separate games. I honestly don't see the point in trying to meld them into one game.
    Seeing as the basis for all of this is to have it all at the same time, the idea is actually self contradictory, because adding levels 1-3 to each and playing whatever combination inevitably results in a VERY different game than any other combination. So, why combine them all in the first place if the end result is a very different game anyways?

    In a world where I can play Age of Empire, Stronghold, Starcraft and Total War any time I want, why would I consider mashing them all together more fun?

    Trying to make a game that pleases everyone won't work. CA just needs to make games that actually just play fine and hopefully everyone buys it and gives it a try. How many people here praise or hate Rome2's naval battles, without ever playing a naval battle in that title? You can easily tell who those people are by what they say about it.

    Some game mechanics of the titles you speak of are not even compatible with each other. You can't exactly affect the nature of squad based directional tactics involving cover and garrisoning of structures from Company of Heroes by altering military, economy and political levels in Total War, anyways.

    And even if you end up pulling off such a monumental project...how many people would even like the game? Hey a game that can play like Age of Empires, Starcraft, Company of Heroes. Great...but I've already bought those games and invested time into it, why would I buy this game that's going to cost another $100 bucks, walled off with its own DLC, and probably buggy as hell?

    If you want to improve TW games for a wider audience, you just make a diverse line of titles. One game lets you manage resources differently, another manages battles differently. They're trying to do this with Sagas titles and not revisiting the same theme every year. DLC campaigns also help, why make a 300BC Rome Total War when you can just make a DLC campaign for Rome2 featuring the same timeline?

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • BrynjarKBrynjarK Posts: 221Registered Users
    daelin4 was wery spot on and thats not rude or anything but just realistic,

    CoH biggest diffrence in armys was abit of skin work (not really but when comparing..) here we are dealing with a diffrent kind of monster.

    I am hovever a big fan of the idea of more campaign features, a bit of politic for some, more permanent destruction of citys for others.. :)
  • kokankokan Junior Member Posts: 50Registered Users
    edited October 2018
    I think I need to be clear on something, I am in no way asking for TW games to play like CoH (battle wise they already do in some extent). If there is a place TW don't need much change is on the battle side of things.

    All I was asking was to have the option to add layers to the campaign side of TW (when I say me next, I mean for the player in general):

    > Allow me to choose between the simplistic way economy works (aka just gold for everything) with some resource management: resource buildings generate X amount per turn, I stockpile some and sell some then I use what I have to build. (the AI would just require general access to resources and full gold amounts: Shogun 2 already had this)

    > Allow me to choose between simple population mechanics (what we have now) with something more interesting: different classes of population that interact differently with the resources available if appropriate.

    > Allow me to replace the recruitment system with the one that ToB uses or even with one that uses both of the things above:
    - smith uses iron to produce weapon types -> weapon types + population dictate troop availability.
    - weapons + horses + population …

    The ideia in the end would be simply to allow the player to tailor the game to his desires, nothing too fancy. The AI would just cheat as it always does, but I would really appreciate that I could increase my campaign difficulty with proper difficulty instead of pilling on debuffs on me and buffs to the AI.

    Someone doesn't like these options? Thats ok, because they would be just options.

    Sure, I could very well go play Age of Empires, Stronghold or whatever… but that still wouldn't be giving me the experience I want to have.
Sign In or Register to comment.