If you could, what would you change about NTW1?

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Hey all,

Just curious; if you could make changes, what would you want changed?

And yes, Luk, I know; the Vistula!



Ash

[[GG]SirDabrowski]

Maybe flip-flop Vistula Uhlan and Polish Lancer stats? Or maybe just give the Vistula Uhlans a VERY nice valour upgrade?

I'd also like to see General units like they're portrayed in ATW.

[[GG] SeaDogg]

Make artillery so that cannister or solid shot can be selected by each unit; which is realistically how it was done. There was never a separation; ie designating one gun to only fire cannister and others to only fire solid shot.

Improve the ability to use rockets without making them unrealistically effective. David Howarth's Waterloo book stated that one brit artillery officer went against orders and brought his rockets to the field. It is said he had to fire them horizontally at ground level because he was not allowed to bring the normal equipment used. There was also evidence that french cavalry saw the rockets screeching by their horses feet.

Experiment with fused mortars. Create some means of selecting the time of the fuse.
( i know in know- the game wont allow u to do any of this- did that ever stop u guys before?)

Find a way to create scenarios using the map editor, so that u can place units on a historical map and play them from that position. Perhaps the 'save army configuration' can be used in some way to do this. We could then have a custom list you could go to by date of historical conflicts.

Create AWI units that represent each Continental regiment. Separate Northern and southern campaign conflicts in AWI to reflect the difference is units that were used. ( If the Continental regiments at the end of the war were as talented as the early '' gatherings'' of colonials at the beginning in New England it would have been a very different war.)

I know you all have and will continue to get bored with me saying this last one, but if you ever figure out how to make naval actions and landings take place on the same map in one smooth transition the result will be dynamite. You cant get a true understanding of how the two interacted with a land-based game. Small boats, flat boats, launches with bowguns, galleys rowed and sailed with larger mounts, all this alters the tactics and the actual effectiveness of units. BTW, well-sited coastal batteries historically stood up well vs any ship, no matter the size. But marines learned quickly how to attack and neutralize them. Coastal fortifications were notoriously weak on their land-facing side.

Im wore out again, time for coffee;

g'morning gents

[RFG|EmpressMeg]

I'd like to see the generic nations get their own units. Keep the ones that do not have any special attributes, but some units could be instated to give a more national feel to each faction.

[[GG] Lord General Store]

I also think Megs idea is great, more different units, give the Danish, Spanish, Portuguese, Piemontese etc... some specific units. Maybe even get the dutch some heavies, they could cost a fortune, but it would still be fun variety wise

Another thing that I believe would fun, this is because I still LOVE the campaign game, is different campaigns. Keep the map, units and factions the same, but for instance what about a post Waterloo campaign. Would be fun trying to get it right again as Napoleon with huge no of enemy troops on your border.

GS

[macsenrufus]

Very simple: more castle maps - essentially all siege assaults are identical, depending on the size of the castle. More maps generally, I just love the ones included -- someone is a real terrain artiste. (I have just downloaded the GG map pack, so hope to try some of those soon!)

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Unfortunately, you wont find any castle maps in the GG pack, but they ARE, in my humble opinion, the nicest maps around:) (And no, I didnt make many of them:) )

[macsenrufus]

One other thing - artillery that doesn't get lost and exhausted in the woods when it's trying to withdraw. That one REALLY bugs me, cause I usually need reinforcements FAST by that point.....

[rom]

I like Meg's idea as well...and If I could I would disable the ai's ability to go into skirmish formation.

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Ugh, AI skirmish! Basically ruins the Single Player game, no?! d**n running away computer:(

[[GG] SeaDogg]

I've been thinking abt this again lately from a new perspective. Obviously most game play features are limited by what the original program did, how limited are we to that original program in terms of how combat takes place and what the results are.?

It concerns me that most combat between units boils down to one shot deals. You manuver, you fire for a while and you either go in for melee or you do something else. But when melee happens, if you dont win that unit to unit battle you break and run off the map. Nine times out of ten you never see those guys again.

This leaves little room for multiple charges, for re-grouping and rallying by command units. In real battle reports you often read of one side or another charging, falling back and regrouping and then going in again.

As for Casualties sustained in this game, they seem to be much, much higher in percentage of the force you have in the field than in many historical battles. Victory and defeat seem to mean either survival or annilation in this game, but not so much in reality.

Is there a way to modify how fatigue is increased and decreased so that units have MORE chance of recovering from a bad attack without simply routing and running off the map? If there is this game would be much more pleasant, the tactics would be more interesting, the overall strategy employed in a game would be more- forgive me but I HAVE to use this word-MATURE!

This is the main reason why I think low budget games are erroneous. They result in quick bouts, single violent clashes that u either win or lose. With more money to upgrade the units you buy you have the opportunity to improve morale and decrease fatigue. The overall result is a stronger, longer-lasting army. (which is What Women REALLY Want!!! MelGibson was Braveheart before he was Nick the mindreader.) TotalWar has essentially allowed what seems to be a bunch of immature boys with only 20 minutes online before mommy calls them to dinner to dictate how most battles should be fought. I believed this was the case when I first played MTW and Vike Inv re-enforced this feeling. Personally, I dont care if a battle takes longer. I would rather have one good long battle a night with many phases on different parts of an interesting field than a hundred one-attack-wonders.

I think NTW has made some progress at getting past this tendency because it takes a relatively mature (if still unstable!) mind to grasp the difference in tactics. But the game play could change significantly for the better if casualties were not assessed quite so easily and if it you had the chance of manuvering and making a good attack or defense without risking complete annilation.

Personally, I am always playing this game with a goal of finding a way of keeping most of my units intact, and encouraging my allies not to stake their whole army on one attack or one piece of ground. Having watched Blucher/Gawain adapt his expertise from VikeINV to NapTW as quickly as he has and seeing the innovative way he uses his forces so far tells me that there is a lot more potential for improvement in tactics in shooting engagements of this type than what we know how to do so far.

Think about it, go back and read some historical accounts of a few of your favorite engagement and take notes - they arent all total routs.

Any Takers>??

DoGG
Any takers?

[macsenrufus]

termite said:

Make artillery so that cannister or solid shot can be selected by each unit; which is realistically how it was done. There was never a separation; ie designating one gun to only fire cannister and others to only fire solid shot.

One way to do something like this is used in Pike and Musket mod where they use alternative battle modes (ie dismounting) for artillery - eg demi-cannon can "dismount" into siege mortars etc. Maybe not a perfect solution, but it would be possible to make some of the arty able to dismount as cannister - at least at the beginning of battle you can chose which mode to use it in. Saves lugging such a hulking great siege train across the campaign map in order to meet all tactical options....

[[PVI]Marschall Viktor]

termite said:

Personally, I am always playing this game with a goal of finding a way of keeping most of my units intact, and encouraging my allies not to stake their whole army on one attack or one piece of ground. Having watched Blucher/Gawain adapt his expertise from VikeINV to NapTW as quickly as he has and seeing the innovative way he uses his forces so far tells me that there is a lot more potential for improvement in tactics in shooting engagements of this type than what we know how to do so far.

DoGG
Any takers?

We're the viking invasion after all...deal with it. ;D

Expect more hordes as we speak, to come a savage throught your lands, your women and your riches...and there's nothing you refined men of the 1800's can do to stop us.
We increase in numbers. You shall feel first hand the terror and the fury of the Viking.


lol