Ideas and suggestions

[mitra]

Unicorn asked to collect on the email rw2box(at)hotmail your ideas and suggestions for improve the game in single and multi; so send all the things you would like to see in the game (more the ideas are well explained better is). Please insert the tag "Idea" in the object of mail for separate it from the bug report.

[ThisIsRealWarfare]

Wow great :grin:

I just sent about 10 ideas in my mail, in the hopes of that some will be used. :-P

[Goblin Wizard]

Could you post them here too? It's always very interesting subject to discuss.

[He111]

Great! will do!

My initial impressions are;

1) it's a bit difficult for a noob to get an army big enough to do any fighting, especially when ..
(2) Bandits command large armies .. ????
(3) Bandits and peasants seem to have valuable items ... ????
(4) peasants seem to wonder anywhere even in enemy territory ... ????
(5) I having problems understanding -Army levels when hiring units, maybe I need to do more reading
(6) I prefer sand-box gaming where I can do my own thing, hope this game allows this
(7) Game scenario might be great for a Russian audience but next game should be marketed towards Europeans / Americans - Rome? Civil War?
(8) I don't hear any noise when archers fire arrows, the more realistic a battle is, the more enjoyable it will be.
(9) Maybe some peasant units should be owned by the player, which he needs to protect?
(10) Game speed is too fast and hitting numpad + and – just pauses the game.


... more to come ..

Note ????? = is that historically correct? if so, then i need to learn more about this historical period.

[He111]

errr .. i just tried that email address but it came back with an error ??

Is that hotmail.com ?

.

[Goblin Wizard]

(7) Game scenario might be great for a Russian audience but next game should be marketed towards Europeans / Americans - Rome? Civil War?
It's personal taste but imo XVIII/XIX is not a good time frame. It's 90% about guns and shooting which is really boring (as E:TW and N:TW were). My choice would be XV/XVI century - medieval twilight and dawn of the gunpowder era. It's the best time because the whole variety of units can be represented and everyone can choose his own army composition and tactics. The Hussite Wars is the best example of this time. I'd like to see war wagons in action:cool:.

(10) Game speed is too fast and hitting numpad + and – just pauses the game.
IMO not the game speed is too fast but cavalry speed. Heavy armored knights riding on heavy armored horses shouldn't run so fast or turn on a dime. Especially, cavalry in wedge formation was very hard to command and turn. Horses seem to have not 1hp but whole Porsche inside.

[mitra]

errr .. i just tried that email address but it came back with an error ??

Is that hotmail.com ?

.

No sorry, I miss a piece, is rw2box(at)hotmail.it

[He111]

It's personal taste but imo XVIII/XIX is not a good time frame. It's 90% about guns and shooting which is really boring (as E:TW and N:TW were). My choice would be XV/XVI century - medieval twilight and dawn of the gunpowder era. It's the best time because the whole variety of units can be represented and everyone can choose his own army composition and tactics. The Hussite Wars is the best example of this time. I'd like to see war wagons in action:cool:.

That sounds good but that would require alot of different unit (soldier) development - meshes, animations etc. Their next game could be "Knights and Castles", using same units just moving the Location to western Europe. Target audience would be France, England etc .. although if the Euro collapses then maybe "Ancient China" should be their next game!? :-P

.

[Goblin Wizard]

although if the Euro collapses then maybe "Ancient China" should be their next game!? :-P
That sounds good too but Chinese were using gunpowder much earlier than in europe:grin:. Have you seen Red Cliff movie? That is how I picture "Ancient China" :).
btw as you probably saw in custom battles, textures for many western european countries are already done. All the game needs is a bigger map (and maybe some castle maps for siege battles).

[ThisIsRealWarfare]

It's personal taste but imo XVIII/XIX is not a good time frame. It's 90% about guns and shooting which is really boring (as E:TW and N:TW were). My choice would be XV/XVI century - medieval twilight and dawn of the gunpowder era. It's the best time because the whole variety of units can be represented and everyone can choose his own army composition and tactics.

Thirty years war perhaps? A great variety of sligthly old-styled cavalry and infantry, getting modernized with gunpowder weapons. Pikemen, Musketeers, A quite large variety of cavalry, like Cuirassiers, Lancers, Polish hussars.. cannons... :grin: That'd probably be a nice time of the game. (Even though we already have With Fire & Sword).

If interested to read, here are my ideas that I've sent already. Note that it's alot of text.

First: I've mentioned it in many posts. The strafing. It should work to do oblique (In 2 directions simultaneously), so it's way easier to use the camera (especially on the battlefield).
Next: The Campaign as well as the battles have a great potential. To make the campaign better, you should add some improvements and more options when it comes to managing cities, entering battles, and so on. It also lacks many important things such as unit recruitment costs, which only appears after you've bought them, they should be visible before buying. Additionally, more quests so that a too-hard-one wont stop the player, rather that he/she gets some extra smaller quests to do, and in that way gain money, experience and so on for his/her army, which makes it easier to get better units and face even the hardest quests. Do NOT make the main-quests easier though, as they are fun when it's hard to win. ;)
Last here; More unique units would not be so bad.

Continuously, The battles could in many ways be improved. The units (Speaking of a regiment now, not just an individual), are too close-packed. They look really small even if it's irregulars with 200-260 men. If making them in a bit more loose formation, it would look much nicer. Also, it's a bit annoying that they are always put in a really big column rather than 3-4 nicely organized lines.
The battle controls are quite well done, with good formations and so, but the units react very slow on orders. Usually they don't even run when having orders to. I think it would be better if they had running as basic rather than walking, and perhaps they'd walk if you just pressed anywhere on the map, but if you assigned a certain place to them dragging the regimental cursor, the "how the regiment shall form up when in position", they should run (Compare with Shogun 2 Total War).
Something else very annoying is that archers and Crossbows barely deals any damage on long distances. At the same time, they deal a bit over-powered damage on short distances. Arrows should do more damage even though they have flown long, but perhaps with less accuracy. If they fire at enemies close to them, the arrows should basically do about the same damage, but with much greater accuracy.
Last idea for the battles: It would be good if you could have a deployment phase before the battle, especially at siege battles, since now the walls are quite useless because of that the enemy gets to them in no time.

And it would be well appreciated if you guys could fix the crashes, which occur more on some battles/sieges than others. ;)

[NalgaSucia]

Even though my troops are walking in the middle of a forest, on the Ground tab of stats and info of unit selected it says field, it should say forest and give you like -2 arrow damage or something.

[mitra]

the ground parameter indicate only the ground type for movement penalties, the forests or fortifications are not directly linked to ground where they are placed. Anyway a additional parameter ad hoc is a good idea.

[Desaix]

It's personal taste but imo XVIII/XIX is not a good time frame. It's 90% about guns and shooting which is really boring (as E:TW and N:TW were).

Life is nice because you get many flavours...curious that I find so boring medieval warfare. Little chance to disengage, no cannons...just ugly blob melee.

[Goblin Wizard]

...medieval warfare. Little chance to disengage, no cannons...just ugly blob melee.

Unfortunately, you are right ;). Blobs are a big disadvantage. I don't remember any game that takes into account a unit's cohesion. That's why army maneuvering was so hard - units didn't went through each other (or rarely did - mainly when they were running away). Units' order and cohesion were priorities. If I was one of the devs :) I would give a big penalty to such a units (much bigger than loose formation penalty and instruct the AI to avoid those situations. That penalty should lasts about 10-15 sec after units crossed each other. It could greatly reduce the blob effect, give the game more realism and make the battles much more tactical.

[mitra]

There ares penalties both a group level than soldier level; remember than you must compress unit ranks to dense for avoid penetration and move them in slow mode for avoid ranks separate for ground effects. Like in real battle blobs can happen but the winner is always the general which mantain the troops under the better and strict control.

[Goblin Wizard]

There ares penalties both a group level than soldier level
I don't really understand. Could you explain this?
remember than you must compress unit ranks to dense for avoid penetration
Do you mean enemy penetration or friendly?

btw Do pikemen get bonus for additional rows while fighting with spears and in formation (like in MTW)?

[mitra]

If your group is perforated you receive the same penalties of rear attack; the single soldier attacked from direction where the weapons cannot defend him can be hit easily. So a dense formation will have alwasy a big advantage over a loose one.

btw Do pikemen get bonus for additional rows while fighting with spears and in formation (like in MTW)

Pike have a mininum range from the enemy for be use but can be used also a certain number of rear ranks. Over this maximum number of ranks, the supplementary ranks have the sense of create group mass against perforation. A wide unit can easily attack on the flanks but can be perforated easily, a deep formation can be attacked on the flanks but not easily perforated.

[NalgaSucia]

Talking about blobs, In my opinion, this game closely resembles the way medieval warfare was waged, there was no 1 man versus 5 nor any of that bull++it.

It was about discipline and cohesion of the troops, units following their commanders, and the first who broke was the looser.

It was about keeping the foormation in line, and the actual violence just lasted for few hours (of course in this game last minutes, if not an actual battle would last 12 hours), and the main killing was in the retreat of one side.

It was about planning, but also the initiative (the thing I love most of this game) of the commander of the unit, becaise the General (or the knight in command) was itself taking part in the violence.

All in all, this is a very good game, WITH VAST POTENTIAL and with its dedicated staff and support members (thats you mitra;)) it may go a looong way.

I would suggest the following:
1) To change the animations of the cavalry charge. Instead of going in circles, after crashing with the unit with their lances for half an hour, they should charge, collide, because of the momentum, push 4 or 5 men (in the case of heavy footmen, 1 or 2) and stop and attack with their swords.

I dont know if its possible, but in my opinion, its the best aproach to the situation.

2) It should be included in the unit stats in the battlefield a tab for type of terrain they are.
Example: Unit is in an open field +1 arrow damage
Unit is in light forest -1 arrow damage
Unit is in a dense forest -2 arrow damage

See where im getting at?

3) Fix the pathfinding routes for soldiers in siegebattles.
Its very difficult to put a crossbowmen unit in the walls without having 10 men of the unit still down on the ground because they are hugging the wall instead of finding the door to get up with the rest of the unit.
This means pathfinding problems. It should be looked at.

I think this is good for now, the game has a very steep learning curve, but after you get how it rolls, its easy and fun.

[mitra]

thanks :)

For all the suggestions please, a part write here, send a email here rw2box(at)hotmail.it , is difficult collect them all over the various forums, and Unicorn needs to have some pro-memoria in their archive, so a email is the better.

PLease also, do the more possible adv for the game in the communities which you usually visit and where the players can be interested. This help greatly the game and Unicorn

[He111]

yeh, I've noticed the AI attacking uphill with multiple units - swords and pike intermingling, destroying one of my defending units. This didn't look right or make sense.

but i will send this concern to the email address.

but let us not forget, Roman legions were designed as individual soldiers, happy to fight in formation or out. Romans realised battles start in formations but end in a mess!

.

[PeteSKTemplar]

Hi guys! I like medieval, those canons and pistols are not honorable for me:rolleyes: Though right now archery reminds me now effectiveness of early gun powder, pointless at long range, instant kill at close:confused:
I havent seen yet suggestion to be able to improve an armor of units, kind of how TW Medieval 2 had - peasants - irregulars could have ring armor for example, at least some leather or clothing better though I don't like plate for that period to have for best units. Perhaps at least + 1 armor value for every units could be upgradable. What you think? I like Real warfare 2, especially tactic value which has been lost in TW, also I like that paper-scissor-rock formula is not that much strong as most of rts of today have. Only one big problem I have now is stability, too often "error message". I hope next patch will help with that. :-P

[Goblin Wizard]

I havent seen yet suggestion to be able to improve an armor of units, kind of how TW Medieval 2 had - peasants - irregulars could have ring armor for example, at least some leather or clothing better though I don't like plate for that period to have for best units. Perhaps at least + 1 armor value for every units could be upgradable. What you think?
I had similar thoughts but when I checked the scripts and game mechanic I lost any hope for changes. The armor is a very basic stat for the game's design. It not only stands for protection but is linked with many other things like hiring cost, level/training, army composition, etc. Many scripts and probably even main code would has to be changed to get something so simple like armor upgrade.

[PeteSKTemplar]

I see, well it was just suggestion, perhaps something else then what might prolong survivability of "veteran" (I mean trained or upgraded through battle experience) units even though irregulars could be implemented.;)

[mitra]

For armor is better create improved version of unit, don't you think? A irregular with armour is not too much irregular. Also leather armour was not so little expensive at that time. Take present the balance of unit (especially for multi) has been very accurate so cost, upgrade and numbers of a group are in strict rapport with those of other units. Usually they test very long a new battle mechanic or unit before release it for avoid to create unbalance in the battle.

[PeteSKTemplar]

I haven't been criticizing mechanic, I understand it, I like it that unlike TW series where player could have had an entire army consisting from epic units unlike it was in history rw gives us "reality", I was just suggesting what I would like to see to have ability somehow to extend survivability of units, if not armor then for example "advanced training" giving them some bonus for defence. I would like to have even irregulars to survive bigger battles, as a reason I understand that experience was usually better skill than better gear. Right now my hero is lvl 16 I guess and he can have 10 irregular units but only one knight, so I would like to have those irregulars to be able to survive those armies which I am fighting where I do not see any irregulars, usually sergeant and elite class. That is all for me to explain why I was thinking about that. If I cant have most of my army same lvl than at least I would like to have something else to counter that (besides tactic) :-) (and mangolel especially :cool:)

[mitra]

Moral upgrade and weapons abilities; a commander in the army; with the adeguate upgrade value, irregulars can compete whith foot knights. Of course they receives more losses but they are more and this balance the losses. Quality has the advantage in short time, but the fatigue effect works well contrary to STW2, so if they can maintain their moral high at the end the "numbers speaks".

[PeteSKTemplar]

True for melee, I was thinking about better survival of irregulars against archery, better moral means even more losses (they fight almost to the end) but they will not reach archers. Because of this I had to made my foot knights the most expensive cavalry plus all sergeants units are cavalry too to kill those archers. It is interesting that irregulars in round formation can withstand heavy cavalry charge nicely. Against horse archers I can not use my cavalry (too expensive to replenish), so my irregulars x-bows are only (quite good) counter against them.

[mitra]

This is part of balance; if irregulars was resistent to arrows like more expensive infantry this will be a unbalance the game, of course you mean let me purchase the armour as upgrade, but at this point is not better take directly the militia swordmen? I did frequently armies like you describe powerful cavalry and mass of irregulars infantry. Usually the best tactics is (assuming you has the cavalry superiority) use your infantry as target (set it in open mode) and hit his arrows with your arrows. At the end it will be forced to make a choice between it infantry or your arrows. At the end your infantry is so big in number that he cannot make too hard damage if your shooters press his ones.

I can assure you a big mass of irregulars on three lines in compact formation with a general in the middle is very hard to defeat if you has not a strong superiority in shooters.

[ThisIsRealWarfare]

This is part of balance; if irregulars was resistent to arrows like more expensive infantry this will be a unbalance the game, of course you mean let me purchase the armour as upgrade, but at this point is not better take directly the militia swordmen? I did frequently armies like you describe powerful cavalry and mass of irregulars infantry. Usually the best tactics is (assuming you has the cavalry superiority) use your infantry as target (set it in open mode) and hit his arrows with your arrows. At the end it will be forced to make a choice between it infantry or your arrows. At the end your infantry is so big in number that he cannot make too hard damage if your shooters press his ones.

I can assure you a big mass of irregulars on three lines in compact formation with a general in the middle is very hard to defeat if you has not a strong superiority in shooters.

The cavalry part, it's a bit difficult. Depending on enemy army, they have a great superiority with Horse archers. I really think they hit way too much, I mean horse archers can barely miss. Neither Crossbows nor archers would in most situations get time enough to destroy enemy horse archers. For example, the mongol forces does only consist of cavalry. Half of that cavalry is usually melee, half horse archery. My army is for now consisting of some knights (mounted), many pikemen, many good Xbows, and really good infantry overall. However, I cant beat any mongolian force...

The thing is that, when they charge my infantry, I only have once choice; putting them in circle formation (Schiltron). When doing that, they can easily defend themselves against the enemy melee cavalry, but with about 750 horse archers (In an average mongol army) behind them, they bombard my formations and kill them within a matter of minutes. If charging with my cavalry to chase away those horse archers, my cavalry simply dies. My archery cant hit half as much as the enemy horse archers, and they reload way slower. There is basically no chance of defeating a mongolian army unless you have tons of archers and pikemen, plus a very good position (preferably a hill)

[mitra]

Yes mongols are hard but is not easy to use for a human over all the the grounds, usually the good choice is to place yourself over high ground, external ring of armoured troops, internal of bowmen, pike behind bowmen, and use the cavalry for feint attacks for force them to don' shoot from statis position (shoot in movement has penalty) . If you has sufficient cavalry you can try a anvil hammer tactics using your infantry as anvil.

[mailor]

Never engange in a battle against mongolians in the field. Hide in your castles when they approach :)

Not a very good tip, I know.

[PeteSKTemplar]

When I was forced to run after horse archers with my heavy cavalry I use spread formation until they reach end of map, when I catch them I use close formation again. I know it is taking advantage of game mechanics but I have not found yet other solution besides using my 7 units of irregulars x-bows upgraded to 2nd primary weapon, 3rd is still very expensive for me.
I agree that it would not be good to have cheap units resistant to damage because they always were kind of canon fodder another idea I got is if we could have possibility to choose instead of 2 irregulars one militia unit, instead of 2 militia 1 sergeant etc, possibility to choose huge low cost armies or smaller but expensive, it is just an idea, to have different option and experience, it would be similar how it is with foot and mounted version of same unit, first is bigger and cheaper, second (mounted) is smaller and more expensive but instead of just unit option we might have an army option for something like that. If it was possible then I could have entire mounted army as Mongols or Prussian have because right now I cant have any cavalry instead of irregulars. I repeat its just an idea no complaining. Also do you like how mangonel is useful against infantry but useless against cavalry even when cavalry is stationary? I would prefer if mangonel would hit at least few of those when stationary.

[mitra]

Yes, I sent already your idea to developers, my point is only that they take very seriously the balance of game factors so respect other gameplay changes those of battle mechanic are less rapids (the game mechanic has been adapted by a Napeolonic wargame rules). About the effect of siege weapons on cavalry I saw the same against the mongols (too little effect) but siege machine are still in works for improve them, so I think is one of things already in correction list.

[rico20012]

there are any trainers for this game?????????

[mitra]

there is the battle tutorials, the the storyline campaign is throught to be a tutorial to sandbox campaign.

[Glabro]

He means cheating programs. But Google can answer this to him.


I've found the irregular missiles, at least, to be quite useless compared to irregular melee units. There is precious little time to fire before the distance is closed and melee ensues, and there the number of men is decisive.

Maybe units move too fast, maybe archers do too little damage from afar as well, but fact is that I at least will be skipping missile units for now, until the AI can prove to me their usefulness.

[6ann]

Hello guys.

I've found the irregular missiles, at least, to be quite useless compared to irregular melee units. There is precious little time to fire before the distance is closed and melee ensues, and there the number of men is decisive.

Maybe units move too fast, maybe archers do too little damage from afar as well, but fact is that I at least will be skipping missile units for now, until the AI can prove to me their usefulness.

I think that is a good point of this game. A single archer unit is ineffective in long range, especially against targets with shields. But in close range, arrows can kill even horse knights. And if you use several archer units as a group, their salvos demolish enemy moral very effectively.

[PeteSKTemplar]

I am satisfied with archery but horse archery. Most infantry have shields finally a game where those shields are not just texture. Irregular archers if upgraded primal weapon are really good and plenty of them. I very rarely use them in front, I prefer to hold them just behind infantry line. Infantry will defeat anyone if supported with those archers even heavy cavalry if they are in round formation. I agree with that close range lethality (what make horse archers assassins of heavy cavalry) - its too much, especially does not make sense against good armored units though I found that using spread formation is saving the day against them for me plenty of times. I would like to see just bit increase in damage for long range but substantially in close especially against heavy units. Perhaps crossbows might be bit stronger but much slower - trade of against those heavy units in comparison with bow though eastern bows were strong in that time against all but best armors but that does not mean that shields could be ignored with them.;)
Right now what bother me are ctds. :-x