Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Adorbs

Community feature requests...

1181921232430

Comments

  • joe92joe92 Member Posts: 44Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    They're are 60 odd pages so I don't know if this has already been mentioned.

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

    Cheers,
    Joe

    P.s. Please bring out Rome 2: Total War next :D
    "When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity." - Dale Carnegie
  • iWarsawiWarsaw Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    joe92 wrote: »
    They're are 60 odd pages so I don't know if this has already been mentioned.

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

    Cheers,
    Joe

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

    You can do that in Shogun 2!
    irish437 wrote: »
    Decrease the amount of cities that can build walls. There should be only a couple on the map. This will increase the number of open field battles. Late game, everything is a siege because the movement range is pretty large and almost every AI city has walls.

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

    Wall cities are very important though. Why wouldn't a city have a wall? That's kind of suicide not to have that. I wouldn't like to see cities not having walls. I like choosing which forts I can make into castles, or towns into forts. Perhaps limit the size of castles and forts which they do in M2 to the population, however I don't prefer that either. I like how in Shogun2 I can always build up a castle.
  • The DonThe Don Senior Member Posts: 218Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    Exclusive faction unit dlc!!!!!!!!!
    i7 930 @ 2.8ghz Overclocked to 4.1ghz (Upgrading to Haswell only due to Rome II Total War)
    Rampage 3 Extreme Mobo
    6 gigs DDR3 Corsair Dominator GT @ 2000mhz
    Nvidia MSI GTX 690
    CoolerMaster HAF-X Tower Case
  • TheEmoSpeeds666TheEmoSpeeds666 Member Posts: 89Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    Be able to take over parts of a province (port, farm towns etc) or defend them with a few random units of militia and mercs. Also, be able to garrison units there and recruit basic militia.
    There are always casualties in war, gentlemen — otherwise it wouldn't be war. It'd just be a rather nasty argument with lots of pushing and shoving. - Arnold Rimmer
  • rybeckrybeck Senior Member Posts: 119Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    Implementing a casus belli system as a precondition for declaring war (e.g. Europa Universalis). For example, to properly declare war, player must first invest in diplomatic efforts to create a proper casus belli such as manufacturing a historical claim to particular province, grievances from enemy covert actions, trade disputes, claiming a foreign throne through royal marriage and other ways. This will make the diplomatic game more interesting and integral to overall game.

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

    Of course, there should also be an option to disregard proper casus belli rules, but the negative consequences of that should be huge (e.g. huge increase revolt risk on home provinces, decrease in loyalt of generals etc).
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    I support A casus belli system, but not the one from Europa Universalis (or any other Paradox game - least of all that of Crusader Kings 2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

    This would mean (in an Empire setting):
    If you declare war on Spain as France and "conquer" all european regions and some none-european, but you decide to demand (at least some of) their american regions, you get the demanded (implying that the warscore is high enough) regions, but Spain regains full control over their european ones.
  • ArilonArilon Senior Member Posts: 229Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    I dont know if it was already mentioned,
    but I would be happy if choosing/changing the captial would be possble again
    AND the opportunity to "trade" Regions to vasals, frinds or enemies.

    It would be superb if this would be implemented in S2 with a patch,
    but its a HAVE TO for the next one, especially when u MP campaigns.
  • DodanodoDodanodo Senior Member Posts: 257Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    I support A casus belli system, but not the one from Europa Universalis (or any other Paradox game - least of all that of Crusader Kings 2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

    these 2 combined form somewhat of replacement mechanisme for Realm Divide, making nations band together against rappidly expanding nations. this would be more gradual though, and thus fairer and less forced, imo.
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    france attacks spain for no reason (without cb)
    The main problem is that there always IS a reason - even if it's just the "need/want to expand".
    this way over agressive players(or AI) are punished, but not too much.
    But there should also be a factor for power/influence (military, economic...) that can, depending on the factions power/influence, at least partly negate the penalty for aggressiveness. Because it wouldn't really have worked to mark e.g. the Roman Empire as "aggressive". They were way to powerful to make this a big difference (besides that it was common in that time to conquer "without "reason"" as we would define it today).

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

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

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

    And you should be able to "hide" your true power. Maybe via a whole new part for the game - intelligence. It would work similar to research. You'd be able to "research" different strategies to either "find out" other factions strengths and/or hide your own. And it might improve your intel-agent's strength. It might also increase the line of (region) sight and you may "research" AND influence other factions internal (e.g. happiness) and external (e.g. diplomatic relations) affairs in different ways (bribes, murded, blackmail...).
    it gets a diplomatic penalty towards all nations of about -10 or -20
    I would limit that only to (France's) "neighbouring" nations like England and the German and Italian States - or whoever else has common borders with France AND Spain by then. So they wouldn't get ANY penalty with e.g. Russia or Poland.

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

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

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

    But like described earlier... this cb does not limit you to only (re-) conquer the rest of this region groups regions. You can expand your war to other regions (depending on if it will be implemented or not: as long as your warscore is high enough AND the cb-region is included).
    similairly, if you conquer a province you don't have claim on, you get a territorial expansion penalty, perhaps depending on the size and worth of the province, but no more then five, wich will then also degrade to about 2 permanently, wich will again stack for every unlawfull province you conquer
    I agree with the territorial expansion penalty, but I would not make a permanent penalty, as it would penalize "small" factions (that start with e.g. 1 region) over "large" factions (that start with e.g. 5 regions), because the "smaller" faction would already have a penalty of -8 when they reach 5 regions.
    IF there's a permanent penalty, then it should be for a fixed number of regions (e.g. -2 for 10 regions, -4 for 20 regions...).
    after awhile of holding the province, somewhere between 10 and 50 years, maybe depending on population size or cultural/religious differances, you will receive a claim on that province, and the penalty will dissappear.
    That I can agree with completely. But the time should also depend on the time the campaign covers. If it's a Rome:TW-like campaign with a few houndred years, 10-50 years would be ok, but if it's a Shogun 2-like campaign with barely two decades, it should be more like 1-5 years.
  • DodanodoDodanodo Senior Member Posts: 257Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    I was sort of reffering to a napoleon/victorian setting as in where everybody knows each other and where people form alliances if one particular nation becomes to powerfull and expansive(like france under Napoleon). in this case a nation would get a negatief diplomatic penalty towards everybody, albeit a smaller one compared to it's neighbors, do to his reputation as being aggressive.

    offcourse there is always a reason, but the point is wether that reason is viewed by all or most as a justifiable reason. for example if germany conquers a region from france wich it has a claim on (it being a german region, Rhineland Westfallen for example), a country like Britain would view this as a just reason for conquest. if however Germany attacks france just because it wants to expand, England would view this as an overly aggressive move and react on it negatifly (assuming that England is Neutral towards both parties in this instance).
  • The WeaverThe Weaver Senior Member Posts: 2,167Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    Dodanodo wrote: »
    I was sort of reffering to a napoleon/victorian setting as in where everybody knows each other and where people form alliances if one particular nation becomes to powerfull and expansive(like france under Napoleon). in this case a nation would get a negatief diplomatic penalty towards everybody, albeit a smaller one compared to it's neighbors, do to his reputation as being aggressive.

    offcourse there is always a reason, but the point is wether that reason is viewed by all or most as a justifiable reason. for example if germany conquers a region from france wich it has a claim on (it being a german region, Rhineland Westfallen for example), a country like Britain would view this as a just reason for conquest. if however Germany attacks france just because it wants to expand, England would view this as an overly aggressive move and react on it negatifly (assuming that England is Neutral towards both parties in this instance).

    Coding this would probably be a nightmare, but given that it was possible, how would the game award penalties in the situation where a faction moves against a region because it was traditionally "theirs", even though the region was culturally dissimilar to its traditional overlord? For example, Ireland launches a successful rebellion and becomes a faction in its own right. Britain sends two stacks in and crushes it. Conservative powers in Europe would consider the British action as appropriate, restoring a pre-existing status quo, while perhaps France and the US might see such an action as reprehensible. IN such a scenario the region would have to have code written into it that evoked a different response from different factions to its capture.
    "O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend
    The brightest heaven of invention" - Henry V Act I Prologue
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    I was sort of reffering to a napoleon/victorian setting as in where everybody knows each other and where people form alliances if one particular nation becomes to powerfull and expansive(like france under Napoleon). in this case a nation would get a negatief diplomatic penalty towards everybody, albeit a smaller one compared to it's neighbors, do to his reputation as being aggressive.
    I think this works for almost every time setting - with some modifications here and there depending on the time. But there should also be a "power-difference-maximum". Once this is reached, e.g. when one faction is 20 times more powerful than another, the lesser faction should be able to decide if they want to surrender (either in becoming part or protectorate/vassal of the more powerful faction) or not (like most German states, Spain and the Netherlands did to Napoleon) - depending on the faction's characteristics.
    how would the game award penalties in the situation where a faction moves against a region because it was traditionally "theirs", even though the region was culturally dissimilar to its traditional overlord?
    The "claim" system could be extended. You don't just get a claim, you get "claim points" that increase over time (up to e.g. 100) - but only for the faction owning the region and each new faction (either via rebellion or liberation) get's a minimum of claim points. In case of a war, if more than one faction has a claim on a region, the points absorb each other and the "rest" determines the diplomatic penalty.
    These "claim points" can be influenced via buildings and/or agents (similar to the influence in RotS and FotS, but not as e.g. +1 each turn, but as +5 at once and permanent (well... as long as the building is there)) - for owning and non-owning factions.
    Therefor you can intesify your claim or create (at least a small) one.

    Apart from the "claim points" and cb, the diplomatic relations between the attacker/defender and the other factions should depend on the penalty - and, like in your example, the difference in the governments (conservative/traditionals, liberals... - even though this wouldn't be needed in games pre-renaissance).

    In your example, the UK might get an even higher penalty with the USA as you might have thought (again depending on the time). In a Napoleon setting, they might get a penalty because of the difference in the government types AND another because they don't like the UK anyway because they liberated themselves from them not long ago and are still in dispute (even war) over several territories and would therefor prefer a weakend UK.
    Similar if France. They would also like to see a weakend UK - and Ireland as a possible ally. But they might as well get a slight bonus, for the "reconquista".
    Which all then add up and determine the penalty/change in diplomatic relation.


    Somehow related to this: When I conquered all european regions of a colonial power, new factions emerge in the americas. But why do they hate me (especially when I never conquered anything near them)? Shouldn't they be grateful I liberated them? Or at least neutral to me?
  • DodanodoDodanodo Senior Member Posts: 257Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    The Weaver wrote: »
    Coding this would probably be a nightmare, but given that it was possible, how would the game award penalties in the situation where a faction moves against a region because it was traditionally "theirs", even though the region was culturally dissimilar to its traditional overlord? For example, Ireland launches a successful rebellion and becomes a faction in its own right. Britain sends two stacks in and crushes it. Conservative powers in Europe would consider the British action as appropriate, restoring a pre-existing status quo, while perhaps France and the US might see such an action as reprehensible. IN such a scenario the region would have to have code written into it that evoked a different response from different factions to its capture.
    offcourse I fully realise that the kind of system we are proposing is incredable complicated, and that CA will probambly never implament it. It's far more complicated then even EUIII has. but it does show what kind of system I would like to see in TW. What I often experience in lategame (in for example NTW) is that ones you grow beyond a certain point, you become invincible, and the game is basicly over. this was even more so in earlier games. In Shogun 2 they tried to fix this with realm devide, but that just feels scripted, forced. I would like to see a more dynamic system where the AI nations react to the player and to eachother in a more realistic way. this makes things like conquest and diplomacy much more intresting. I think EUIII does this much better, although that system could also use some improvements.

    the basic point is, realisme is complicated. to make the game more realistic, you have to add more factors. much like how a model becomes more representative of the truth, the more variables you add. I would like CA to make TW games more realistic with every new release. Offcourse it will not be so complicated at first, but who knows, in 5 yeras or 10. maybe things like Diplomacy in TW games will actually start to make sense.
  • rybeckrybeck Senior Member Posts: 119Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    I suggest a minor tweak to the modelling of fatigue in TW games

    1. Fatigue gained in battle should be permanent for the duration of the battle. i.e. you can't reduce fatigue by resting units

    2. On the campaign map, when an army marches a long way and immediately attacks at the end of that march, that army should enter battle fatigued to a degree (degree of fatigue can be calculated as a function of remaining movement points).
  • RagnarokRagnarok Senior Member Posts: 707Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    The things I would like to see in the next TW's:
    -Being able to demand to attack a certain city.
    -The ability to ask units from a vassal. Untill now, the only good thing about vassals is laying a buffer (and therefore less interesting than capturing the region yourself most of the time). If we would be able to recruit a certain amount of units from the vassal, this would raise the variety in the game and makes vassals more interesting. (Example: Gallic warbands in Gaul when playing with Rome or Carthage). The downside about mercenaries waswhere that they could not be replenished.
    -Being able to recruit local units (like swiss pikemen) would be pretty awesome too, as well as being able to place your own walls/towers to create deathholes.
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    Being able to demand to attack a certain city.
    I would like that too, but we should be careful what we wish for. Because then it might/will also happen that an ally of yours asks you to attack a certain settlement or port.
    And maybe I might not want to do this (e.g. when I'm asked to attack an ally or trade partner) or I am not able to do this, because my army is out of reach (for the time given - like it usually was for me in Rome when the Senate asked me to blockade a port within 5 turns).
    But depending on the consequences (e.g. diplomatic malus with the one who asked and/or other allies or potential allies), I might also not want ot disappoint them...

    So if this comes in, it should be "reasonable". Not that I'm e.g. playing as the Shimazu, allied with the Hojo, maybe already at war with at least one other clan, and asked to attack a Date-settlement (even if I have no treaty with them or even if I'm already at war with them) at the other side of the map within "too few turns" - and the consequences would be e.g. -20 to diplomatic relations and/or a broken alliance.
    The ability to ask units from a vassal.
    That AND being able to tell the vassal "how to play" (defensive, "at will", offensive).
    And again: reasonable - especially when the AI asks.

    Right now the vassal usually leaves its capital/region capitals unprotected so that hostile clans can easily take it (almost always, but the bigger the region, the more likely). And even if there is a hostile army marching towards the capital, they don't retreat their (sometimes superior) army to the capital or even attack the enemy. NO, they send them somewhere else.

    And the ability to demand that they build certain buildings would also be great. What use is the "demand units" to me, if they only build e.g. Naginata buildings when I'm specialised on Katana.

    All demands should come at a cost, like e.g. some money in exchange (of course less than it would've cost to do whatever you want yourself) or a unit (or a few units) in exchange for a certain building or the attack or defense of a settlement. Or the lowering of the payment (e.g. 40 % instead of 50 % of the total income of the vassal) permanently (with a permanent bonus - as long as this lasts) or for a certain time.
  • RagnarokRagnarok Senior Member Posts: 707Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    Yeah, I was thinking more like a restriction based on the diplomatic relations. Maybe making it only possible to ask this from an ally with a +150 in relations.
    And I agree with you, right now you have little influence on your vassals. It would be great (and logical) to have some influence over them. But you have a good point that this should take fine tweaking ;)
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited June 2012
    Yeah, I was thinking more like a restriction based on the diplomatic relations.
    I wouldn't want a total restriction below e.g. +150. Maybe make it less likely for them to agree or decrease the quantity and/or quality.

    Like when you ask for a unit (maybe not ask for a certain number/type, but a general request for "military support" - which could also be money):
    When your relation is e.g. 200, you might get 5 Samurai, at 150 you "only" get 3 Samurai, at 100, you get only 1 Samurai and 1 Ashigaru, at 50 you get only 1 Ashigaru. In all cases: if they agree at all - the better the relation, the more likely. And certain treaties might also have an influence. Like a trade agreement could give +10 % to agreeing, quality and quantity, an alliance +30 % and vassals +60 % (it's either alliance or vassal, but both can add up with trade).

    The reason I'd prefer this is, that especially (new) vassals, even more in a RotS- and FotS-like situation (with different cultures, religions, allignments...), tend to not have a very good relationship with "me", but I would still want to be able to "rule" them.
  • DEUS PROELIORUMDEUS PROELIORUM Senior Member Posts: 141Registered Users
    edited July 2012
    OK, I have two ideas which I think would be awesome and a further one which I'd be interested to see and that I think could work, but can understand why it may be a bad idea (as you may guess, I'm hoping for a Rome 2 or Classical Civilisation Total War game in the future, which would be ideally suited to these developments) P.S. Sorry for the essays:

    1. Supply:
    In the Total War games so far, it has been relatively easy for a huge army to march into barren enemy territory (for example the deserts of Africa) and just stand there for 20 turns (assuming they don't get defeated in battle). However, should a real huge army do such a thing, they'd starve within days! Therefore I think control over how to supply a campaigning army could be a big step forward - I would propose four ways - foraging, winning over local tribes/communities who supply you in the short term, sacking small settlements (ones which don't count as provinces on the campaign map) and supply routes either from the sea or by land; in which case, an enemy army can potentially cut off an army's supplies and win an epic victory in doing so. I feel this is important because it, for the first time, increases the need for naval power further than just tools to cut enemy trade, protect your own, and as military transport vessels. Look at history! Xerxes' invasion of Greece: he had an enormous army, easily capable of defeating the Greek army under normal circumstances, yet when the Persian navy lost at sea to the Greek navy, the Persian army lost its supply, and was forced to fight the Greek army in unfavourable conditions due to a need to gain a quick and decisive victory. On Total War games, the Persians would have won this war every time despite their naval disadvantage.

    2. Allied contingents:
    OK, so in history, did the Romans ever attack anywhere which just their seasoned legionaries? NO!!! They always supplimented their lines with practically equal numbers of allies - there are very few recorded exceptions to this rule. The same can be said for the Carthaginians whose entire army was often made up of Libyans, Spanish and Numidian troops - no Carthaginians at all!! And the story is the same with the Persians and the Greeks also. Therefore, when you conquer territories, you should be able to recruit troops akin to the culture of that area, and here I'm talking more than just a few rubbish mercenaries here and there - I mean actual allied contingents supplying troops to your army, which you can then control, when you have conquered an area, or who are a client kingdom of yours. Furthermore, when you are a client kingdom of someone else, you should be expected to do the same! At the moment, client kingdoms are little more than strong alliances - there doesn't seem to be much to say who is actually subordinate in the relationship...

    3. Deflated casualties:
    I'm not entirely sure if this could work too well, but I'd certainly be interested to see Total War give it a go. For in real history, with few exceptions (like Cannae, Trasimene, Teutoburg, Carrhae etc.), it was very rare for a desicive defeat in battle to mean the actual complete destruction of an army. More often than not, a complete victory could mean killing 5% of an opponent's army to your 2%. At the moment, the Last Man Standing tendencies of battles means that campaigning becomes more a game of attrition than tactical prowess - as even in a stunning victory against an enemy army equal in size, you are likely to lose about half of your men (to put this in perspective, at Cannae, which is seen as one of the bloodiest battles in history, and resulted in the complete slaughter of most of the Roman army, Hannibal only lost about a tenth of his army, and this was described as exceptionally high for a victorious army). I understand this may detract slightly from the fun of battles, so for this reason, I'd probably argue limiting this to an optional feature, but I'd be really interested to see how it works - I mean, the biggest problem with such a feature is that it seems very difficult to actually make any sort of progress, but this can be resolved by adding a greater power to diplomacy, and to dissolved forces. Usually, even if only a small part of the army perished, but the leader was included in those who died, the entire army would disband nevertheless. Furthermore, if a faction is being consistently defeated by another, peace negotiations would likely have resolved most disputes, which may include clauses ordering the disbanding of certain armies. Therefore, if this feature were to be put in place, it would be important to parallel it with a reform in campaign diplomacy.
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited July 2012
    1. Supply:
    I think that's a great idea.
    When an army is in certain territories (e.g. "rough" ones like deserts, mountains (like when Hannibal crossed the alps) but especially in enemy territory (from a certain distance to at least allied territories on - depending on the territory and season)) it should suffer artrition, unless they build (very cheap) supply posts/a supply line - which then can be destoyed/raided by the enemy.
    2. Allied contingents:
    I like that too - but (as you said) it might work mostly (if not only) in an ancient time setting.
    When you conquer a foreign region, you should not be able to recruit ALL of you own faction's units. Maybe one or two unit types (one basic (e.g. militia) and one elite/advanced), the rest should be "regional troops".

    Those regional troops should/might be slightly different to the "original" "troops of that region", because they are recruited/trained with faction-own specialties (e.g. if an archery-specialised faction recruits "regional archers", they would have e.g. a higher accuracy).
    But you should also be able to recruit "faction-own" units - but at a very high price (compared to if you recruit them in your homelands). And at some point (e.g. after you owned the region for x years and/or when a certain level of (faction-own) administration is reached) you are either be able to decide if you want to partly or completely "convert" the region to a "homeland" or this conversion is automatically.
    A partial conversion would result in the loss of the region-own special units/elites, but the gain of more of your own factions unit types. Or you don't loose the region-own ones, but they become more expensive.
    And a total conversion inverts the previous situation: you can now build all you faction-own units, but only a few (mostly one or two) "region-own".
    3. Deflated casualties:
    As an optional feature: why not. But otherwise: I'm against it.
    As a ruler (or as an ingame pre-condition - for the ai-factions - with a modifier for the different factions) you might be able to decide how armies act in battle. Like when the losses are higher than x % (you should be able to decide yourself between 1 and 100 % - the higher, the more important is morale), the army retreats or offers peace/defeat (to the opposing army, not the faction).

    But I support the diplomatic addition (disband certain armies), if it is done correct.
    I wouldn't want to have to disband certain armies if they are needed somewhere else. This should mostly be limited to armies that are a direct threat to the the "winner" - not ones that are on the other side of the map (an exception could be if there's an ally of the "winner").
  • TaharqaTaharqa Member Posts: 59Registered Users
    edited July 2012
    As the thread seems serious, I'll make a serious answear, focusing only the multiplayer game.
    Addition of :

    1. Naval/ground battle. Naval battles could open on siege battle. It was something promised, not yet realeased.
    Half Sea, and half land, units that survive the Sea fight should be able to disembark, and to pursue on the fight on land.
    2. Disconnect elements in the Ranked games... I mean, we all know that many players disconnect in the purpose of getting easy wins, and to rise in the ranking. Just ADD disconnected...as in every serious multiplayer game, such as starcraft, Win/Loose/Disconnections, it s a bit a pity that no player don t believe anymore in the multiplayer, just cause of this Drophacking issue, and all the clan war has lost its credibility!
    3. Inside view over other elements...we have the canon, we have the gatling...i'm not asking to be able to play a cavalry, or a Tosa, but it seems possible. Well, it wouldn't be so hard, it would permit to live more the battle, and have more immersive sensations.
    4. The possibility to USE city elements...to hide units inside houses, or castles...so they can shoot by the windows, or such things, to occupy a building.
    5. Addition of engineers units > everyone know, that on a battle ground, we have alrdy built units ready to deploy : canon, catapults... but I remember that usually, engineers had an active role in wars...digging the ground to make a slight defense element to hide behind, cutting a tree to build fast a piece of Siege element or to deploy a bridge...For exemple, in Shogun 2 sea battle, the possibility to deploy Mines before the game start was really a GREAT idea...why not, in siege mod, the possibility to create hidden holes before the game start? some traps, like a wall of fire? (that bowmen with fire on arrows could starts)? These same engineers would be able to repair some buildings during the fight, or add other elements..? And attacking engineers...to make a tunel under a wall in order to pass under or just to undermine it?
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited July 2012
    I'm not sure how many of you read this http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/total-war-rome-2-preview-every-detail-about-the-new-engine-naval-combat-multiplayer-and-mods, but it seems some of our ideas will be in the game (Total War: Rome 2).

    One of those ideas is the region thing (a few provinces are governed as ONE region, but have to be conquered individually) and the "individual, (more or less - it's hard to tell right now how much) player-chosen units" (in this case the equipment of the units) is another. Bigger (and hopefully more individual and "realistic") towns and mixed (land and sea at ones) battles are other ideas that seem to make into the game.

    So... this wasn't/isn't a waste of time (as some posters put it) and we can now wait for Rome 2.
  • Sughdian WarriorSughdian Warrior Senior Member Posts: 101Users Awaiting Email Confirmation - NO EMAIL
    edited July 2012
    I still wonder how people in CA keep up with the massive content being added to this forum each day. Do they have a special filter? Do they have a responsible person who checks the threads daily/weekly and passes info to other departments? It would be interesting to know.
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited July 2012
    Do they have a responsible person who checks the threads daily/weekly and passes info to other departments?
    IF this thread had anything to do with the decisions at all (I think so, even if just a little as there are probably similar ones that counted too), then I think this is pretty much how it works.

    I think they make a list of demands and maybe some details about them. And later on they check what might work for the current or next game/add-on, what can be done and how difficult is may be to implement (the complexity of the creation and/or the result).
  • GusaarGusaar Junior Member Posts: 4Registered Users
    edited July 2012
    - As example, in M2TW if your character have a guard dog, and an assassin came to kill you, why it isn't shown in the video?, if you have a templar knight, why it isn't in your army?, sounds kinda difficult but if you have it, then show it.

    - I like the idea of returning to the old cities style where you could manage each building, not just one per city expansion.

    - I'm not sure if it's just S2TW but it's kinda frustrating to take a rain of arrows being if your're pretty far from the walls... I prefer the scale of Medieval cities and fortress.

    - Units variation! I really like that even if its just the unit card it changes per faction, I'm not an expert in history to know about all the military units, but as ex. to have sherwood archers just for england sounds cool.

    - And some of the other ideas about seen a general ranking sounds cool, and even if I really like the RPG stuff and it would be cool, it's different for the gameplay of TW and adds complexity making the curve of learning harder.
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited July 2012
    if you have it, then show it.
    I like the idea of returning to the old cities style where you could manage each building, not just one per city expansion.
    I agree.
    Units variation! I really like that even if its just the unit card it changes per faction, I'm not an expert in history to know about all the military units,
    Yeah, like Hoplites in the different Greek states - the/some stats varied more or less depending on e.g. training and quality and kind of equipment.
    but as ex. to have sherwood archers just for england
    I wouldn't limit it to England (taking that you mean the faction). I would "limit" it to certain provinces or (like it seems to be in Rome 2) regions, maybe also to a certain culture, religion and/or ressource. So whoever controls the required province/s or region/s AND matches the other possible requirements can recruit the units.
  • Monkeylizard99Monkeylizard99 Senior Member Posts: 1,497Registered Users
    edited July 2012
    Naval raids similar to bombardments, but perhaps with the added advantage of maybe taking control of structures or coastal settlements using only your navy.
    Sarog wrote: »
    Please don't say "madness" in a Sparta thread. Even over the internet I fear being drenched in spittle.
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited July 2012
    I'd like to have a singleplayer coop-campaign (with the AI). With everything (like unbreakable alliance) from the multiplayer one.

    The (single) player then can either choose a coop-faction or it is random. The "factions available" are in both cases either all playable or just the "neighbouring" (in case of Rome(1) when playing the Spanish, the neighbouring would be the Gauls and the Carthage) - rebels, if there are any, do not count as neighbours.


    I would also like to see ALL factions playable - no matter how small/weak they are (even if you could survive the first few turns only in a certain combination of a multiplayer-coop then).


    Edit:
    I would also like to see a slight change in diplomacy. Right now the AI mostly refuses to join a war that I started (but mostly does join when another AI-faction starts a war).

    Edit2:
    You said that it's possible (probably limited) to modify units (like deciding between spears or swords for cavalry). That's why I'd also like to see this (if it's not already planned) extended to ships.

    I'd like to see the "man" of a ship divided into three parts. Part one is the "regular crew", part two are the "long-range-warriors" and part three are the "melee-warriors".

    The "regular crew" are the man that move the ship (the oarsmen, navigator/s and responsible for the sails).
    The "long-range-warriors" are bowmen and those who handle ballistas, catapults & co.
    The "melee-warriors" are those who defend against boarding parties and form boarding parties.

    Those three groups can then be trained, equipped and (within the limits of the ship) numbered at will. There's a minimum crew for each group, but each group's numbers can be raised.

    The more "regular crew" a ship has, the higher is its speed, range and maneuverability and the less likely is the ship to suffer artrition and fatique.
    The more "long-range-warriors" a ship has, the higher is its firepower and firerate and the better is the quantity and quality (e.g. ballista and/or catapults, burning ammunition or not, accuracy...) of it.
    The more "melee-warriors" a ship has, the more likely is a succesful boading or boarding defense. "Melee-warriors" can also replace the "regular crew" and the "long-range-warriors" (each with a malus depeding on their special training - later more to that).

    Each group can individually be trained. This training gives an additional bonus to at least one of the group's other boni (maybe even by the player's/AI decision). Additionally, "melee-warriors" can receive special training in the other two groups basic skills (in comparison: the groups themself are "regulars" and the "melee-warriors", special training included, are militia - like Yari Samurai vs. Yari Ashigaru).

    All ship-modifications can be made group-indidually or at once (and therefor evenly spread across all grous) - except for the "melee-warriors" special training, that is additional to both.


    And there can also be ship-modifications in addition to the crew-modifications. Those are e.g. which kind of wood you use for the ship, if and which kind of "armor"/protection (like special arrow loops or not, if there are sails or not (also depending on the ship class) and which material is used for potential sails (resulting in higher quality and therefor lower maintenance/wearout).


    The prize and maintenaince cost of the ship therefor depends on the decisions you make about it. AND ships can be altered at any time - and already existing ones can then be upgraded to the latest "model" in an own shipyard.
  • master130686master130686 Member Posts: 64Registered Users
    edited August 2012
    Another idea that I have, and which would fit perfectly into Rome 2 is to actually build (or destroy) bridges.

    I'd prefer not to have fixed bridges on the map. During the exploration of the map, the player can't cross "too big" rivers, so he has to move around them. If he wants to cross them, he has to order the construction of a bridge (that can later be upgraded). This construction would work similar to the construction of watchtowers and forts in Rome1 and Medieval 2.

    Depending on the faction, the construction takes longer and/or costs more or is impossible at all. Especially the "less advanced" factions like the Gauls and Germans wouldn't be able to build bridges until they reached a certain level of knowledge (or have help from a more advanced ally). But these factions may also cross big rivers, but not via constructing long-lasting bridges, but by building short-lasting boats/rafts. Those may be used one-time or limited to a few turns (if used - like the forts in Rome1 that were destroyed if no unit's in them).


    And now that I think about it, I would highly recommend that research is divided into several parts, representing the "level of civilization". Because it is not logic that e.g. the Gauls have the same research available then the Romans (at least not from the start). So, in order to get access to the same techs, they need to finish other techs first.

    For example (with the Shogun 2 techtrees as reference): The Romans start with a techtree of the Original Shogun 2 and the Gauls with the techtree from RotS. In order to advance (also in civilization), the Gauls need to finish researching the two final techs (not neccessarily all techs). When done so, the new (classic Shogun 2) techtree becomes available. And the same goes for this techtree. When the final two researches are completed (in this case I recommend that ALL other techs need to be finished too), the next techtree becomes available.

    I would also like to see a variety of each techtree for each faction group, because even in the 2nd techtree, the Gauls have some different techs/priorities then the Romans or the Germans or the Egyptians. But each techtree level should be less different between factions. And long-term alliances between different faction groups result in a mutual assimilation of unique techs of the other group - the longer the more. And in case of long-term alliances between factions (and/or faction groups) with different techtree levels,
  • AlexanderTheGreatAlexanderTheGreat Member Posts: 35Registered Users
    edited September 2012
    i already post that in Rome II forums but just in case ;)

    so i thought about this idea for some time and i think or more correctly know that more micro game elements will make me and you love this game more, even when we will finish the campaign , so read and replay .

    so till now we all saw that investing in a general in Rome can give you sometimes just the edge needed to win your foes , to those of you that did not try it yet you should , we also saw that taking the same unit to battle again and again will result in gaining this unit experience which give its own attribute aside the ones you can buy in the city by upgrading buildings for armor and stuff, now my idea is really about focus on the "small" soldiers , the ones that consist your army the 1/ 1000 , i really want to have a system in the game that will allow me to monitor every single soldier in my army , to be able to set the front line within a unit of soldiers so i will have the option to raise generals and great leaders from scratch so of speak , we saw some examples in MIITW when you could win an heroic victory with army that have a normal unit commanding it and in the end of the battle you had a pop up window asking you if you want to make this unit a general unit , this i think will contribute allot for the game depth in so many ways .
    the way i imagine it in game is that you will have an option to right click on your armies and an option will pop up with , for example, "inspect unit" and then a scroll will open in front of you showing you the soldiers that consist the unit you just clicked ,
    there we will be able to see the following traits or info if you like :

    1. experience meter - that will determine the amount of kills and successful battles this soldier as been through.

    2. veteran - the total amount of time participate in battles .

    3. special - this tab is related for special veteran soldiers which have gained a large amount of both xp and "veteran" , it will give bonuses for the specific soldier , for instance the soldier must have killed 300 or more enemies and have a total time on the battlefield of 3 hours , that will give this soldier an extra attacking point or some sort of minor bonus and in total they will be 3 special upgrades for each INDIVIDUAL unit.

    now aside the micro management that this will bring to the game big time , i think people will just find themselves playing with this system and create a much more interesting warfare environment . i don't know exactly how difficult it is from a programer point of view but i still write it so you guys can see and reply. Btw this will replace the older system of upgrading units and will make the massive warfare feel a bit more surgical in some ways .

    p.s i have already post some ideas again just in case il put them here to .

    hey im just going to list some ideas here and i really want to know what you guys think , thanks.
    some of the ideas wont be specific and will show a general direction of thought.

    1. through out all total war titles i played which are from Rome till shogun II i did not saw the one perfect diplomacy system that i know most of you want to see , some of them ( systems ) presented an idea that didnt actually effect the game or the AI characters within it in the way i hoped they will and here are some examples :

    A. in Rome you had an option to ask one nation to attack another , now 99% of the time no one accept my offers and no matter the amount of gold and cities i offered in return they just decline over and over which brings me to the second example .

    B. in Empire: total war you had an option to offer a gift that cost all lot of currency even for a rich country and yet the results are not even close to satisfy and justify the amount of coins you put in this effort to make some countries act more nicely to you or just to do a political maneuver . another thing about coin system in diplomacy is that it seems that AI can tell how much coins you have and whenever i offer coins in exchange for something the AI seems to ask me a certain percentage of my total amount of gold and not lets say a fixed or somewhat reason amount of coins , this should be fixed cause it just do not make any sense , there should be however an in-game global economy system who can tell the status of the world market and by that the AI will determine how much to take for lets say "map info" .

    C. the third and the least for now is the betrayal system in total war titles , frankly most of the time i dont know if the AI betrayed me or just did an idiotic decision that does not going hand to hand with the current situation in the conflict area , for instance one of the times i played as England in medieval II i had the usual problems with France till Denmark step into the area of conflict and attacked both me and France at this point i made peace with France so we both can get back on our feet and after 2 or 3 turns France was declaring war against me while Denmark is ruin havoc among them NOW THAT JUST DO NOT MAKE ANY SENSE IN ANY POINT OF VIEW .

    in summary diplomacy must have MAJOR upgrades and fixes for "working agreements" cause it just does not feel real to me and in all lot of points along my campaign in all of the titles i played i just kept playing cause i had all lot of coins and huge armies who make diplomacy less value for me , but still lack of good diplomacy is ruin the final touch in a proper total war game , and having the AI offering me coins and gifts from time to time just cause im either nice to him ( like accepting allot of is proposals ) or just stronger and happen to be his neighbor .

    2. the game "trading system" and "economical system" are both had allot of improvements over the years and titles of total war but still seem to lack some more micro management and control of the player , i want to be able to create and choose trade routes , they can be limited but at least not every time i have rebels blocking my trade i will have to stop everything recruit new troops waste fortune for some idiots who think im not good enough for them 0.o . in general we need to be creative here so try hard i could not find any more interesting stuff for this matter.

    3. as one guy already posted here i will not buy an over rated game just because he has some nice graphics , i really ask you guys to lower the graphic for the greater good of massive battles and of my wallet of-course .

    4. what i want to see in Rome:II is a touch or more of city management , i want to be able to zoom in the city just like in Rome: total war and to be able to build city upgrades in the city itself just like in the global map , the only difference is that i could choose the location of the buildings and thus making each city look unique , in the "zoom in the city mode" , i will name it city zoom from now on, i will be able to choose several style of the same building to make it unique , and the more important part of this is that i could choose where to put my defenses and how to put them , of course there will be limitation on the city walls and perhaps you would have a several type of city walls to choose from which will only effect the way the city looks . some other things maybe some decoration for the city to make it , again, more unique , and for all of that you will have to invest either the in game currency or maybe other currency that can be made by completing side missions or each time you conquer a new city .
    aside that you will be able to acquire new "building plans" when you reach far regions like the Arabic area in the south .
    the end product of this idea will result in numerous cities that look really different from each other .

    so last word is that i really expect the game to be much more personal and that i could really feel that i need to invest in my generals cities allies foes and the in-game world in order to make something out of it and not just kill - earn - be happy for an half of hour .

    hope you enjoy reading this please add some ideas i will follow this thread, thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.