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

Make most females courtiers

LyserusLyserus Registered Users Posts: 51
^This

since we got this courtier system, it is historically accurate and gameplay-wise suitable to make most females courtiers, since most of them in history don't lead armies, and letting them lead army and get killed would be hard for leaders to get heirs (especially for AI)

The only females who can lead army should be the ones actually in history, and perhaps some bandit and yellow turban ones

Also courtiers should have their who skill table, since many of the skills currently affect literally nothing if the character can't lead army
«1

Comments

  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,614
    Don't worry about the AI, it's doing just fine with the female fighting on the frontline.
    _________________________________

    My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
    Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea

    Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !
  • uruktaklanuruktaklan Registered Users Posts: 8
    Great idea, it would make the game feel a lot more historical. Its pretty immersion breaking seeing female generals and faction leaders everywhere.
  • shattishatti Registered Users Posts: 736
    +1
    Shatti's overhaul (records mod enhancer) total war: three kingdoms
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2229620309
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,972
    It is meant to be a sandbox game. Making all non-historical female characters civilians would defeat that purpose. It is plausible that a some other female characters could reach similar status of historical ones. You can assume they are holding power through figurehead husbands, sons, brothers etc as so many have done historically if that is less jarring for you.

    That being said, the AI does seem to spam "seek spouse" and thus generate a large number of random female generals. CA can consider adding a campaign option switch to restrict generic female characters to civilian (non-combat roles only) unless they are made warriors via special events (train your daughter as a warrior, lady takes up command after death of lord etc). Many of the male characters should also be civilians come to think of it.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,192
    Alright, I'll throw out an idea for people to chew on....

    Let's say CA changes it so generic female characters can't lead armies by default (I highly doubt it, but let's just run with this for a moment). However, if they have certain traits like Fiery, Formidable, Intrepid, Stalwart, Brave, Committed, Determined, Disciplinarian, Elusive, Lumbering, Obstinate, Relentless, Strong, or Tough, then they can lead armies as normal.
    Not every character is going have at least one of these traits, but it's a decently varied enough selection that you'll still see a fair few female generals, but without them becoming overly common or whatever.

    Likewise, characters (whether male or female) with traits like Clumsy, Cowardly, Incompetent, Pacifist, Scholarly, or Weak, can't lead armies.

    The only expectations to this would be unique characters, who can always lead armies regardless of their gender.
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947
    Or better yet, make named characters being able to lead armies uncommon at all. This way characters with a name actually stand out much more. And Legendary characters even more awe inspiring. Everybody should be able to get captains to lead their armies.

    Because to be honest, I really feel this game has too much character bloat when it comes to generics. I only ever care about the characters from ROTK anyway. Even with all the new characters that CA has added, nearly 80% of the characters in the game will still be generics anyway since the AI doesn't really place that much important in unique generals (i.e. Cao Cao firing Xiahou Yuan every single time because he can't afford him)
  • LyserusLyserus Registered Users Posts: 51

    Alright, I'll throw out an idea for people to chew on....

    Let's say CA changes it so generic female characters can't lead armies by default (I highly doubt it, but let's just run with this for a moment). However, if they have certain traits like Fiery, Formidable, Intrepid, Stalwart, Brave, Committed, Determined, Disciplinarian, Elusive, Lumbering, Obstinate, Relentless, Strong, or Tough, then they can lead armies as normal.
    Not every character is going have at least one of these traits, but it's a decently varied enough selection that you'll still see a fair few female generals, but without them becoming overly common or whatever.

    Likewise, characters (whether male or female) with traits like Clumsy, Cowardly, Incompetent, Pacifist, Scholarly, or Weak, can't lead armies.

    The only expectations to this would be unique characters, who can always lead armies regardless of their gender.

    that's a good suggestion, making traits relevant is important
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947
    I second the notion on traits. I honestly do not even notice the impact of traits in this game that much.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,614
    While the suggestion of traits is a decent one I do feel it probably wouldn't work out with how the engine is currently handling things.

    But I could be wrong.
    _________________________________

    My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
    Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea

    Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947
    Well traits had a massive and very tangible impact in Med2 (albeit pre-warscape).
    I'm sure CA could make them just as important again especially in a game focused on characters.
    I mean Warhammer already has a pretty robust trait system, so much that players were encouraged to hunt down other characters to gain traits from defeating them.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 370
    the adjstments need not to b so strict as to only allow canon female leaders but i too would like to have an option for the probability of female fighters to b turned down at least b a notch.
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,614
    edited January 2020
    Some traits in 3K are actually pretty important.

    For exemple the Kind trait will actually make it so your general is more likely to "spare" another general in a duel. (Before you actually say what everyone is going to think about this : I KNOW RIGHT ?!)

    The Modest (-15% retinue upkeep) and Humble (No desire for higher office) trait are downright overpowered compared to traits such as Arrogant or Disloyal

    And you have the okay-ish traits such as Brave or Energetic.


    The core of the problem is that Warhammer 2 only has good traits, Medieval 2 had a metric ton of traits here and there.
    3K has a limit of 7 actual traits + 1 potential injury. But unlike Warhammer 2 the means of gettings traits is very obscure for a casual player and based on RNG for the most part. Even I can't get Determined on Liu Bei everytime (and it's like one of the best traits you want on him to be friendly with the rest of his comrades)
    _________________________________

    My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
    Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea

    Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,528
    I'd rather they worked on new features, not fanny about with old ones that don't really impact the game.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 370
    edited January 2020
    others do care. and again others do excessively care about combat animations. obvioiusly, what matters r relevant to the game - is relative. immersion is part of the setting
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,291

    It is meant to be a sandbox game. Making all non-historical female characters civilians would defeat that purpose. It is plausible that a some other female characters could reach similar status of historical ones. You can assume they are holding power through figurehead husbands, sons, brothers etc as so many have done historically if that is less jarring for you.

    Sandbox don't means that the game should not be following a realistic Cultural Norms of the Setting, otherwise players should also be able to form a Han Republic, in 182 CE, having so many females on the battlefield is not realistic, and at least the Records Mode is supposed to be realistic.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,614
    For the 8740808th time.
    Total War is not realistic. It's not trying to be realistic and will not be realistic. At best it aims for authenticity.

    If you want "realism" you're not playing to correct game.
    _________________________________

    My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
    Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea

    Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !
  • Qin_FengQin_Feng Registered Users Posts: 397
    Tayvar said:

    It is meant to be a sandbox game. Making all non-historical female characters civilians would defeat that purpose. It is plausible that a some other female characters could reach similar status of historical ones. You can assume they are holding power through figurehead husbands, sons, brothers etc as so many have done historically if that is less jarring for you.

    Sandbox don't means that the game should not be following a realistic Cultural Norms of the Setting, otherwise players should also be able to form a Han Republic, in 182 CE, having so many females on the battlefield is not realistic, and at least the Records Mode is supposed to be realistic.
    Yeah, and not even in the romance of the three kingdoms you get any female leaders other than maybe Wang Yi.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,528

    others do care. and again others do excessively care about combat animations. obvioiusly, what matters r relevant to the game - is relative. immersion is part of the setting

    If a historical female (as accepted) can lead an army, then any female can lead an army. How can it break immersion if there are historical females leading?

    Let's be clear, this won't change, by all means come up with some ideas but I promise CA will not change this.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 370
    @davedave1124
    can't tell whether u just b playing ignorant for the sake of ur dull argument or u rly that dense. it should b so obvious to anyone but u apparently that just because there was some example of a female warrior this does not directly translates to women warriors, less even women warlords, to had been a common occurence for that period. whether such an excess (arguably) of women warriors as depicted in the game currently is authentic or immersion breaking is not upon u to determine for everybody else.

    i do not expect CA to make a big change on this matter either, but theyve shown to adopt changes in alignment with community feedback too. while i agree that a change is unlikely ure neither in a position to dispell any likelyhood of change on that matter. so pls stop trying to shut down any discussion u seem to have a disagreement with like ure some sort of official authority over what the forum community should deem worthy to discuss. theres nothing wrong with discussing this idea and im not the only one with a similar sentiment.
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • ZilongZilong Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 501
    No thanks, unless this comes as a toggle. I want to be able to recruit female generals if I so choose.
  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Registered Users Posts: 2,760
    Agreed.

    Only the historical Han ladies who lead warriors should be able to lead.

    Qiang, Yellow Turban and Bandit females should be able to lead armies however... Warrior women are the best!
    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,291
    edited January 2020

    Alright, I'll throw out an idea for people to chew on....

    Let's say CA changes it so generic female characters can't lead armies by default (I highly doubt it, but let's just run with this for a moment). However, if they have certain traits like Fiery, Formidable, Intrepid, Stalwart, Brave, Committed, Determined, Disciplinarian, Elusive, Lumbering, Obstinate, Relentless, Strong, or Tough, then they can lead armies as normal.
    Not every character is going have at least one of these traits, but it's a decently varied enough selection that you'll still see a fair few female generals, but without them becoming overly common or whatever.

    Likewise, characters (whether male or female) with traits like Clumsy, Cowardly, Incompetent, Pacifist, Scholarly, or Weak, can't lead armies.

    If a Brave trait would have a much lower chance of showing on female characters it might work.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,192
    Tayvar said:

    Alright, I'll throw out an idea for people to chew on....

    Let's say CA changes it so generic female characters can't lead armies by default (I highly doubt it, but let's just run with this for a moment). However, if they have certain traits like Fiery, Formidable, Intrepid, Stalwart, Brave, Committed, Determined, Disciplinarian, Elusive, Lumbering, Obstinate, Relentless, Strong, or Tough, then they can lead armies as normal.
    Not every character is going have at least one of these traits, but it's a decently varied enough selection that you'll still see a fair few female generals, but without them becoming overly common or whatever.

    Likewise, characters (whether male or female) with traits like Clumsy, Cowardly, Incompetent, Pacifist, Scholarly, or Weak, can't lead armies.

    If a Brave trait would have a much lower chance of showing on female characters it might work.
    I don't even know where to begin with that, so I'm not even going to bother.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 370
    Tayvar said:

    Alright, I'll throw out an idea for people to chew on....

    Let's say CA changes it so generic female characters can't lead armies by default (I highly doubt it, but let's just run with this for a moment). However, if they have certain traits like Fiery, Formidable, Intrepid, Stalwart, Brave, Committed, Determined, Disciplinarian, Elusive, Lumbering, Obstinate, Relentless, Strong, or Tough, then they can lead armies as normal.
    Not every character is going have at least one of these traits, but it's a decently varied enough selection that you'll still see a fair few female generals, but without them becoming overly common or whatever.

    Likewise, characters (whether male or female) with traits like Clumsy, Cowardly, Incompetent, Pacifist, Scholarly, or Weak, can't lead armies.

    If a Brave trait would have a much lower chance of showing on female characters it might work.
    image
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,291
    edited January 2020
    Zilong said:

    No thanks, unless this comes as a toggle. I want to be able to recruit female generals if I so choose.

    CA clearly not going to remove generic female commanders from the game after they wasted so much resources on adding them, but they should be much more rare and/or there should be a option at the campaign start for playing with more historically accurate commanders.
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,972
    ...like moths to the flame...
  • KirkwaldKirkwald Registered Users Posts: 947
    edited January 2020
    It's ideas like this that made Empress He unplayable when we could have had a new unique female model and character in a game that is sorely lacking in characters. It would have been acceptable if CA at least gave her skills tailored for governance but they didnt, so she's still a vanguard general that has no use but sit in court.
    Now I have to sort with kitbashed mods.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 370
    whats so devastatingly bad about a toggle?
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,528

    @davedave1124
    can't tell whether u just b playing ignorant for the sake of ur dull argument or u rly that dense. it should b so obvious to anyone but u apparently that just because there was some example of a female warrior this does not directly translates to women warriors, less even women warlords, to had been a common occurence for that period. whether such an excess (arguably) of women warriors as depicted in the game currently is authentic or immersion breaking is not upon u to determine for everybody else.

    i do not expect CA to make a big change on this matter either, but theyve shown to adopt changes in alignment with community feedback too. while i agree that a change is unlikely ure neither in a position to dispell any likelyhood of change on that matter. so pls stop trying to shut down any discussion u seem to have a disagreement with like ure some sort of official authority over what the forum community should deem worthy to discuss. theres nothing wrong with discussing this idea and im not the only one with a similar sentiment.

    You know.. you're on shaky ground going on about dull arguments.

    If it's possible and there were women warriors, that's all CA needs to add them in general, it's how they apply 'sand box' logic to most things.

    Now, as I say, if it makes you happy thinking about solutions for an issue CA don't see as a problem by all means crack on, but just as a reminder - they will not change this.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,291
    Kirkwald said:

    It's ideas like this that made Empress He unplayable when we could have had a new unique female model and character in a game that is sorely lacking in characters. It would have been acceptable if CA at least gave her skills tailored for governance but they didn't, so she's still a vanguard general that has no use but sit in court.
    Now I have to sort with kitbashed mods.

    The Empress is the most realistic female character in the unmodded version of the game, yes CA work on non-combatant characters is not perfect but CA was going in the right direction with that.
Sign In or Register to comment.