Yuku free message boards

YES I've been waiting for this ME. Thank you!
From my experience with RTW and some stuff I heard about MTW2
Oh and GM said we put it here.

1.) Falling back effect and fall back command: A unit (more likely infantry) under a lot of pressure from the enemy (but not enough to break its line) would usually fall back and loose ground, instead of standing where they are and fight till they rout like in the game. Also in the game, you are able to pull units back out of the fight, but they should be able to fall back fighting. At least I think they do after some historical research.

2.) Take out the ability-for-soldiers-to-fight-uneffected-in-a-crowd in the game: Often in the game I encountered when the final infantry charge is ordered on both sides, the battlefield turned into one or two gigantic mass of soldiers dueling it out. The original long battle line is now squished into a mass. But in real life such a crowded area is bad for fighting. You can't even swing your sword properly. Often when I call my reserves into battle they would just run past their comrads and add into the mass. But in real life reserves plug holes in the line or reinforce a very thin part. In the game the mass is still very thick, so the reserve shouldn't be able to enter battle.
And because of this, number doesn't matter as much in a restricted battlespace, since only the frontline units can fight. But in the game (at least it feels like to me) the reserves can also join battle when they shouldn't be due to overcrowding. This also mean should an actually crowd develop, the soldiers in the crowd would have very low fighting ability. It should also depend on the weapons of the soldier. A dagger would be a lot easier to wield in a crowd than a longsword

3.) Casualties: You might have made the casualty rate really high to be attractive to plays, but I don't think that's very realistic (and so don't like it). Usually in a battle of the day, the battle itself would not result in casualties of more than 10%, and reaching 20% is extremely unlikely. Most of the casualties are dealt in pursuit. But in the game a unit of 200 men can get their line thinned to 50 or less before they rout, so most of the casualties are actually taken in battle.
In other words, I wish you would make the troops a lot harder to kill, but a unit would rout with a lot less troops being killed. And then in pursuit the units would be very easy to kill because they have their "backs to the enemy" trying to run away. That way 80%+ of the casualties is delt in the pursuit.

4.) The moral effect of the general should be made higher: Troops, seeing their own leader risking his life, would fight harder. In addition, the death of the general (or running away) would result in an almost automatic rout of the entire army. The troops fight for the general (especially post Marius) and the death of the general would mean there's nothing left to fight for but their own lives, so might as well run for safety.
But in the game this effect is minute. I chased Darius off the field in Guamala, but his army kept fighting just as fiercely as ever (unlike in history, where they immediately panniced and ran). In the end I formed a square with four remaining phalanx and let them waste themselves charging walls of spears. In history if that actually happened, I would have been wiped out. The Persians would just stand at a distance and thin my Phalanx with arrows, and charge when my phalanx is thin enough for them to break through easily. (Felkirk)
Oh and there should be some chances that an army that lost their general but have another general as second in command would go "REVENGE!" and have like Iunno 10X morale? (Chalons)

5.) Siege walls: When maintaining a Siege, you should allow us to build a wall surrounding the town. And if there is reinforcements coming, to allow us to build another wall outside the first. This way the army sallying forth and the relief army would need to attack a fortification, making it a lot harder. Also if a player deems a frontal assault on the walls had failed, he could order withdraw. And then the units would retreat to the siege walls and the siege would continue instead of the breaking off the siege. Also maybe both sides can make siege fortifications on an open battlefield to turn even open battlefield into semi-siege assaults. Like two forts right beside each other appearing on the map. Or four. (Phillipi)

6) Impassable and difficult terrain. In the game there aren't enough impassible terrain. Forests could be used for ambush, but thick forest are very difficult to pass as units gets slowed down and lost (even in the Battle of Wilderness and Chancellorsville in the ACW), and there are no Canyons (at least none that i've encountered.) This makes flanking a lot easier than it should be. There are impassible forests on the empire map, but none on the battlemap where it actually matters. On top of that there are no muds and no swamps (at least I have not seen any). The former would heavily decrease mobility and the latter is impassable (unless engineers build plank roads on it, another thing to be implemented).

7.) Cavalry and Phalanx/Pike in "difficult terrain": To me the effects of difficult terrain in the game on these two units are so small they can be disregarded. But in history the effects are huge. These two units can only perform properly on open plains, in rocky outcrops and/or forests, they are extremely weak. For the phalanx, the forests or large rocks break their tight formation if they try to maneuver through it, which makes them extremely weak. For cavalry, the thicker the forest (or rock formation) the less room there is to maneuver, and the more obsicles in their way if they want to charge, making their charge useless. Both effects are, to me, so small they are neglectible in the game.

8.) Formation: While we can subsitute square (and a bit of circle) formation of the legions by placing infantry units face different sides, and make a square (or circle), it is a bit hard to more sure there's no flank exposing. Both formation are very important for the legions fighting defensively, so I think they should be added. In addition, infantry can also for the wedge. In fact, infantry wedge is often used, though instead of charging outright, they march forward steadily in the wedge. And I don't think the wedge is that long and thin at the base, but I could be wrong.

9) Logistics: Can we have a logistics system? It should work sort of like a supply train and supply line, which you pay a normal amount of money of say like 50 Denari for ever movement square of road you are to the closest city + 100 Denari for each square you are to that road FOR EVERY UNIT. So if an enemy army get between you and the road the supply will have to go further (maybe as far as can't approach within 3 squares of the enemy army) and you'll have to pay more. And then if they block the road instead, you won't have to pay anything but you won't recieve any supplies. And then the amount of troops you have will go down each term you don't get any supplies, as you'll have to forage for food. Morale on the battle would also decrease. I notice during sieges the number of troops go down per term in the city, so maybe we can somehow move that to the other armies.
And then can we have different kind of supply trains?
Like you have the basic supply train: food, medicine, horsefeed, etc. Then you can pay an extra 500 denari/square or something so your supply trains carry extra arrows, so your men in the game have 3/4 times the arrows. (Wasn't that what the Parthians did?)
Then maybe the same thing for artillery ammunition. And then maybe you can double that cost to get both ballista bolts and arrows. And then maybe a siege enginner train so you can have 1.5 times the number of buildpoints or something during a siege.

10) Villiages: Can we have small villiages all over the map? Ones that can't be upgraded more than large town. Cause this is before the time of modern urbanization. Most of the people lived in the country side in farming villages. And they won't have any income, but their income will be added to the actually capital of the province, which are the cities we have right now. And we'll have to build basic stuff like bath and wooden walls for them or they'll get plague and spread it to the cities. And then we can make the income of the capital depend quite a lot on these villiages so a city with 5000 income and 5 villiages will be down to 2500 income if all it's villiages are taken over. So that if it had 4000 cost to pay, with all 5 villiages it has a 1000 net gain but as soon as 3 villiages are taken it has a 500 net loss. Or maybe even more villiage, as much as 20, and whoever last had a unit of troop there controls it. And then maybe the "famous battles" marker could get a name. Like Battle of (The closest villiage/province capital to the battle). On a side note, there should be famous sieges too.
And then can our forts be upgraded to these kind of villiages if we move enough troops in there?
And if you conqueor the capital you get all the villiages at once except ones that are still garrasioned by enemy troops or something like that.

11) Pauses in Combat:I read from "Warfare of the Classical World" that battles were actually assaults after assaults. But in TW we have one assault which slugs out for a long time. It make sense to have assaults which you beat back and they regroup and go again. I mean the Battle of Hastings lasted from morning till night. Try jogging non-stop for that long (12hours). And think that fighting is a lot more tiring both physically and mentally than jogging and it's only logical to think they fault in assaults with breaks in each. Right now we only have the cavalry "charge, return, charge." But infantry did it too. Can we simulate this somehow? Like make a unit rout quite easily but rally quite easily as long as it runs behind some friendly unit so the enemy isn't chasing them? Of course that would also mean we need them to die a lot harder than they're dying or after 5 charges there won't be much people left.

12) Weather!: It seems that in STW and MTW weather mattered some. But I know RTW and it seems MTW2 weather matters nothing. Rain should make all range weapons less effective and gunpowder weapons useless, and so should sandstorms. Rain/sandstorm/snowstorm/mist all decrease visibility to the point that the enemy could sneak troops behind your back while being out of sight. If it rained or is raining some parts of the ground would also turn to mud. Temperature is also a big factor. Too high and troops would get dehydrated quickly and if there is no river/lake on the map it means they get tired really quickly. Too cold means the metabalism of troops slow down and they become less effective and also tire quickly. Also in some of the more northern provinces the cold should make the river/lake freeze over, turning them essensially into flat plains. However if the ice is not covered by snow it would mean both sides would have difficulty controlling their movements - especially cavalry with their iron horseshoe - as they will be sliding on the ice. It also mean an army could bring catapults of some type to smash the ice and drawn the crossing army.

13) Take out the enemy's unit banner: The enemy's unit banner should be removed and the info box should not indicate the number of enemy in that unit (or at least only a very rough one). Marcus the Centurion gave a really good advice which goes like "you can make your forces seem more numerous by putting them in loose formation" which can be used to do various stuff. However since you can determine the enemy's strength by counting their banners and reading the info box, this advice is pretty pointless. Without concrete knowledge of the enemy's numbers it would add another level of strategy as the player could be fooled into the thinking the enemy have more/less troops in one place.

14) Attack a point in the line instead of a unit: Instead of attacking a unit. I want it to be changed so we attack an area. Everytime I click a unit and order it to attack the enemy unit from the front, it march towards the enemy so that my unit's centre (where the banner is) is opposite the enemy's banner. But I don't want that and in real life it doesn't work that way. I want to order my troops to attack the enemy in an area, not the enemy unit. So if I see a weakness between two enemy units, I can tell troops to charge the weak part and break a whole in their line instead of piling it onto one or the other enemy units.

15) Morale in Frontal Combat: The units rout too quickly in frontal combat. They should rout a little slower as they do right now in a flanking maneuver but they should definately last about 3~5 times longer in a frontal confrontation and maybe even longer.

16) Diplomacy: A diplomacy system that actually works. A faction with about totaly 50 troops (about 3 units totalling 50 guys) would very likely accept being a protectorate of a large empire with 5 full stacks. Then there are asking for loans, trade embargos (tell other factions to not trade with XX), force them to give some protectorate over, fear tactics, trade for technology, etc.

17) Naval battle that the player controls and it take into account the different fighting styles between galleys (rams) and war galleons (cannons) as well as weather condition and terrain condition.

18) Different Levels of AI: Like if the computer faction leader has 10 management the campaign AI would be ruthless, but if he has 0 the campaign AI would be very stupid and don't create good units or balanced armies and make taxes too low/too high. While a 0 star computer general/captain would have very stupid AI while a 10star AI would be as brilliant as Hannibal (not that it'll actually use Hannibal's strategy).

19) Ability to send diplomats to a city you're besieging or a city that is besieged. Come on they do it all the time.

20) Surrender: Surrounded troops sometimes (maybe most) surrender instead of fight to the death. So does generals. In medieval times surrendered generals are ransomed (and sometimes forbidden to take up arms against the faction that captured them for the remainder of the war - though Iunno if this rule was actually maintained as I knew some generals that broke them)

21) Rebel FactionS (plural): Each rebel settlement should not be in effect under the same faction as all the other rebels. They should be their own "half faction" in effect in that you can negotiate with one rebel settlement/army without effecting all the other rebels.

And that was my 2 cents. I'll post more when I come up with more.

EDIT: Changes and additions to some of the ideas.

Exactly. I mean if El Cid is rebel in Valentia, there's no way he would be working together with another rebel settlement in faraway Russia. So you can make Valentia your protectorate without having to protect some wierd settlement in the Ukraine.
Also those settlements should be able to train their own diplomats to negotiate too, and maybe spys and assasins as well.

Like say umm England is attacking settlement A and it ask France to come save them in return they'll be France's protectorate.

Three more:

22) Actual use of time of day: The battle should not always start in the morning, but a random choice of morning, noon, and evening to simulate when the two armies arrive for battle. Also say if you arrived at noon, it could have rained in the morning to make the ground muddy, so you would want to (if you're attacking) press "wait" to see if the ground dries. But it could also rain again so it's even more muddy (or just muddy if it was dry before) before you pressed "wait." Or if you want to wait for a rain to move troops undetected. As for night attack, not only would a general without a "night attack" trait be unable to come to the aid of another general, but during a night battle it should be like rain/snowstorm/sandstorm as in you could move your troops undetected as long as they are some distance from the enemy. However the same goes for the enemy so there's a chance both players sends a flanking force that meets each other by supprise (and both routs without fighting )

23) Battle timer to be more realistic: In real life there are few situations with an actual time limit to a battle. Either an army rout or it is ordered to withdraw. Many times a general would order withdraw just before enemy reinforcements arrive, but as we ourselves are able to do that this is out of the timer - of course this mean there should really be a chance of delayed reinforcement for both sides instead of it being caused by limitations in the computer's graphic card. The only time there should be a timer is in the evening, as if the sun sets it would make further battle impossible without reforming at the very least. Like at Hastings Harold was trying his best to hold till nightfall. Or maybe an incoming blizzard/really large sandstorm which would make fighting impossible. But those two should be the only time a battle should have a battle timer.

24) Friendly units mistakenly fighting each other: There are many instances recorded in history when a unit mistaken a friendly unit for an enemy and attacked it. There could be many reasons for this: low visibility (heavy rain/sandstorm/snowstorm/mist/night) or mistaken flags and banners for an enemy's as occured during the war of the roses. I want to see this somehow implimented to add another extra depth to strategy.

I can see that many of these if implimented would make the game VERY challenging. So maybe there should be options to turn these options on or off (like the way battle timer can be turned on or off).