Looking forward to an improved and overhauled RTW, well I must say your wait is over, here.

Slight off the point (but it is close to it) having installed EB I have been shocked and awed by the depth and historical accuracy in the mod; so I can only say that if there is a RTW2 it should at least come close to the depth and scale of Europa Barbaroum or I wouldnt' be interested.

u read my other reply to some post didnt u? well, like i said, more special abilites, more tactics, being able to make ur own custom unit types, (with realistic cost and upkeep) naval combat, ground and naval combat at the same time for coastal attacks, a prisoner exchange system, (including family members) being able to creat ur own private mercenary force even if ur a faction, being able to play as a mercenary faction, (u fight to earn money and eventually settle down, but dont act like a horde and lose 80% of ur military strength) being able to destroy mines and fields outside of the city by attacking it with ur forces, (waging economic warfare basically) being able to destroy any and all building types if u own the town, bring female family members into the game, (for various purposes and specifications like hostage, marring off to another faction for an alliance, using as deplomat and so on) adding in different political forms that u can specify for ur faction, (like military dictatorship, representitive democracy, communism) being able to change border lines in diplomatic sessions, as to add a certain economic booster like wine without losing/capturing the whole region, being able to set up international water boundries, so if greek ships cross a designated point, they are subject to being attacked, and yeah... the list must go on. so please throw in ur ideas. maybe we can get the companies to make rtw2 with some of the thoughts yall write about.

I played EB, but my comuter got ****ed and i never have reinstalled it. Anyway, it would be awesome if RTW2 got many of it, with a overhauled engine , graphics and phisics, but the gratest awesomeness would be using Unreal Engine 3 (or 4, i dunno when is it coming out) on a larger scale.

For the not-knowing, Unreal Engine 3 is what Gears of War(for console, partial version and for PC full version) uses.

PS:Just got a wacko idea of using CryEngine 2, the one that powers Crysis, and is considered the engine capable of the most beautiful graphics and phisics ever.

yeah, i hope they come out with gears of war 2 soon. its was F-N-A! no lie. realistic, detailed, and gore everywhere. its fun to rev ur chainsaw bayonet on live and scare the mess out of people when the dont know where it came from.

Eh, I don't think there would be much point in hauling over a graphics engine as powerful as Unreal for an RTS game.

Plus, you'd be too distracted with how beautiful and realistic the units look .

Something I would like to have would be the ability to make money from looting the baggage train and equipment of defeated enemy armies. I also think that when you destroy a faction you ought to be able to inherit its treasury.

Or if you take their capitol, you could get like 80% of their treasury.

If they do a RTW2 on ETW's engine, that would be sweet enough for me. Even if with few new features.

SQUALOR PLZ SORT IT OUT ENOUGH SAID

Naval battles, infinitely more units, more special abilities, more abilities for Generals, many more factions, the ability to play as all factions, the ability to be a mercenary faction, custom-mapped cities (You can control the layout) and cities that are astride rivers (A river runs through the middle, with bridges to cross) and a whole lot more diversity in factions, meaning NO MORE COPIES HEMHEM BARBARIANS

Regiments with names(i.e:Wilburshire 113th division of Infantry), customizable soldier names, a "follow this guy" option where you can monitor your little soldier(i.e: how many kills, wounds and time to retirement) Oh, and no ever-lasting regiments(about 30 years of service then the soldiers start retiring) and you have to retrain them so it gets full strenght again.And, as Vault_D(may i call you that?) said a Stronghold-Esque wall building sistem(place your own wall).

They need to fix the allocation of all generals to your capital city. Nothing worse than getting all your leaders miles from the battle front in the mid/end game. They should have a more rounded allocation of family members, such as coming of age in a territory occupied by their father (if father is dead, then divert to capital).

Hail, warlords!

We have given this much thought. Many barrels of ale perished during this period of contemplation, which means our thoughts are many but vague. We shall attempt to enscribe the best of them here.

We wish our virtual world had true battles upon the seas, the ability to capture advances from other Houses (an example being barbarians capturing a facility that produces hurlers of rock should be able to produce said hurlers themselves), and the Statskasse rule- if thou does capture the capital of a foe, the majority of his 'statskasse' (treasury) becomes thine. The ability to design thine own custom warbands would be nice, but not necessary. A definite overhaul of the functioning of Speakers of Words is a must. Being able to use the unmarried family members to seal bargains would be appreciated.

Likewise, the ability to plant thine own settlements in underpopulated wilderness and use them to accept overflowing populace from squalor-ridden burgs would be handy. And the ability to order peons from one burg to another without the need to recruit them into peasant warbands and then manually disband them elsewhere (can also be accomplished by setting recruit time for Peasants to 0 and price to 0). The settlements we so order constructed may never become the capital of the province, thus capturing the capital of the province will still give command of the province to the victor.

And finally, the ability to recruit generals, or at least allow captains to command the building of forts and towers. Why must a royal warrior be present to command such lowly construction? A warchief or captain is good enough- the man follows our orders anyway!

We have read many of the replies of our Peers, and disagree with some while agreeing with others. Methinks the naming of individual warbands would make the tracking and production of warbands unwieldy to the extreme (the named warband becomes a type and then can only be replenished at the burg of recruitment). Retirement of warbands after 30 years service is not feasible, as many units raised by the Great Caesar were not disbanded until either destroyed or replaced by those of the Later Empire. The men retired but were replaced, and the unit remained. Too many details to track will make the whole system unwieldy and unmanageable, thus we prefer the simplistic and general system now in use.

Prisoners exchanges would require the taking of prisoners, which in those days was not done. Captured enemies became slaves, not prisoners. In our virtual world, we kill the foe, and the escaping enemies flee- where can we take prisoners? Or would broken/routed warbands offer surrender on the spot? With the choice being thine to accept the surrender or simply slaughter the cowards. That is viable.

Special abilities for all units would not be welcomed in our world, as most warbands in those days did NOT have special abilities. Commanding the warriors to assume a custom formation- an example being the Mouse-trap the Great Alexandros used against the bladed wagons of the Rugmakers, however, would be welcomed.

[This message has been edited by Terikel706 (edited 02-15-2008 @ 12:55 PM).]

I didn't meant that you would name All the regiments, most would have random names ,but customisable names.

About retirement, thats exactly what i meant! Replace the oldies by retraining.

About prisioners, you are right, in that era there was no ransom.

And "special habilities" would be different formations, change of ammo and even an evasive actions against cav charges. Nothing too "special".

And, there is always the on/off check box on options for these kind of features.

We see that we are mostly in agreement, Lord Danilh. It is always excellent when great minds think alike.

We have pondered thy mention of naming the regiments, and are still of the opinion that idividual names for the warbands would wreak unholy havoc upon the world as we know it. However, after contemplation and a few horns of smooth honey mead, we see that the ability to name groups of warbands into standing army names may well be possible and even desired. The only problem with that would be when the warhost enters a city or merges with another- but the first may be alleviated by merely transferring warbands into the city to replenish, and then return to their warhost fed and happy afterward.

Mehtinks the gods of war have already considered the retirement of the elderly and their replacement with young warriors, although that occurs on a level we do not see. Some fool in our court called it 'administrative details' or some other such nonsense, like the exact make-up of the taxes collected- not all taxes in our day were collected in coin of the realm, much was barter and in kind, yet the value of the taxes remains the same as if all were in coin. The quill-pushers handle the scheduled retirements and replacements, only losses in battle require direct recruitment.

On most other ideas discussed here... we agree!

Skål, Lord Danilh! May thy sword remain eversharp and thy foes tremble at thy approach.

Actually, I rather like the idea of naming units that perform with distinction (perhaps multiple gold chevrons as a trigger).

OTOH...decimation for those who have brought shame to our honor.

Danken Schon(Thank you) Lord Terikel, Maybe most people don't like to roleplay in TW, but i do. Naming would be cool as an extra.

Anyway, other great improovement would be making a real diplomatic AI, not like this actual cannon-fodder diplomacy, but something worth using not only for bribing and cease-firing.

I like the idea of ransoms, take a city, capture the general and his family and either hold them to ransom or kill them to destroy the bloodline (providing the AI doesn't immdediately replace them). Killing them could also have an effect on the city's public order, serving as a warning and lowering their moral and taste for rebellion..

Negotiations could be held and the ransom delivered by a stack. Whether the ransom is actually paid or not is up to the player, double cross the opponent with an attack on their army (if you're characters are being held ransom), though this would hamper the player in future negotiations of ransom.

Also, I'd love to be able to leave the commanding to the AI and just be an individual soldier and have to follow your unit etc. How great would it be to be able to properly storm the walls or fire arrows at point blank and kill and entire row of enemies?

Better diplomatic AI.

Naval battles.

Better battlefield AI.

Larger battles.

Better non/player factions AI.

Being able to capture enemies.

Interaction between the different AIs.

Option for enemy troops to surrender when it's impossible for them to win. (aka no full stack vs. three unit garrisons battles)

Better AI.

Hey Hussar, do you want CA to improve the AI at all?

wouldn't it be great if units like archers could pick up ammo from fallen comrades if they wanted to,or if units throw down their sheilds because they become to damaged to use,and of course if the AI was much better.

all the above +

1. when you click a unit you have like a special ability and then you can choose every man seperate and you can see his name, age, job (prob soldier ) if he has a wife, kids, were he lived, when he joined the army, his personal exp and his personal wealth he has gained (how many dinarii he owns) and all that stuff. so your men grow old and die, or have to do military service from let's say 20-50 (or what was the historical age?) and then you have to find new recruits for your legion. that would make stuff sooooo nice

2. you can make your own city, not like build it (that's already mentioned, but that certainly too!!!) but what i mean is like: you have a family member with an army or so and you find a good place (eg near a river and stuff) and you like first make a fort, and then it grows to a little town and so on until huge city

the new Romulus

I'm probably not going to say anything that hasn't already been said. But what would I like to see? On the battlefield, more command tricks, like getting troops to fall back and fight as they do so and also (for God's sake) to be able to defend themselves when reforming instead of just standing there and getting murdered. The AI must be better - sense weaknesses in your position, and not simply make a beeline for your army wherever it stands, so an end to them attacking you up a sheer cliff face. Also I think a bigger battlefield and larger armies.

In campaign, I'd like to see a stronger role for diplomats. I want factions that you have badly defeated to come to you with offers of peace in exchange for vast amounts of wealth, or if not then territory. Diplomats could also incite rebel revolts in cities with public order and unrest problems. And every time you capture a town you should get a proportion of the treasury - relative to the settlements population size and the population of the whole faction. I'd also like alliances to be a bit longer lasting and meaningful - perhaps if you're under attack then your allies could be obliged, or maybe have cash incentives to come and fight for you and vice versa. On the campaign map, these stacks of allied troops should respond to your orders. And how about intervening in a war between an ally and a rival of yours, but not declaring war openly, instead sending one of your generals to manage the war for them?

Oh another thought you should be able to garrison allied cities if you get permission with a diplomat,and the rebels should play a bigger part instead of just sitting around doing nothing,maybe you could make a peace with them in exchange for some land or something.

Three words: Online Imperial Canpaign(of course, with players controlling only some factions, not all.)