What do you think is missing in MTW2? Here we make update plans.

[Delphina]

... yes, it migh make clearer. yes, you are rude, b/c now you don't like how i write, & you think picking is appropriate to your self-image such to the extent you think you are entitled to tell me you don't like how i write. why would i bother bulleting anything so-called people don't even give the benefit of face-value to? The features i mention, OBVIOUSLY, could be programmed by CA IF they wanted to. I don't even know why you would say they can't be, when clearly by precedent example, they could. In the instance of cavalry, that exists with other CA games, e.g. Shogun. In the instance of entering buildings & castle walls, that exists by equivalent precedent with Empire. The creative elements of more time period detail - greater selections of background music, time-period and cultural depictions of city, e.g. at a battle-map level for 1st person diplomacy/character development, travel mapping, diplomacy development, etc. are simple, entertaining elements that add substance to gaming past that of an all swords and bullets approach to game play. Finally, YES, as naturally high as kite on life as i can be in a world of hateful trolls

Note especially, that while ability to mod monthly, seasonal and yearly turns has been always doable, IT HAS NEVER BEEN ADDED AS A FEATURE TO THE GAME ENGINE, being outside of modding, which is why I again mention the obvious

[Delphina]

Note to side: my great quandary in life is knowing which dimension people are from. E.g. Lord Baal - "lord of the flies". iow, who? nobody

[youneuoy]

Delphina,
you are actually phrasing it rather vaguely. Because of this, it is impossible to give a normal answer.


In short, it turns out like this:

Most of the things you write about are content and not engine related. That is, you can add variety and so on with the help of m2tweop as much as you like and as far as your imagination / time is enough to implement the necessary scripting algorithms and the content itself (text / images, and so on).
Most of the other things have little appeal at this stage of development. Something like that very Dyson sphere (which is not only difficult to implement, but also not very clear why the heck to implement it at all).
The remaining things are simply described in a very strange way. Please show respect for the interlocutors and expand in more detail (and use at least paragraphs to format the text). Take as an example some of the posts in this topic - everything is there point by point with descriptions / assumptions / data on previous attempts to implement similar things and related things that exist in the game right now.


Also please indicate why you are here at all and the reason why you are suggesting this - you are a modder / player / something else and so on.

[Lord Baal]

Ok pal, tone it down and show a modicum of respect. I have not reported you yet but I will if you keep the trend. Me not liking how you write is not being rude, and I just merely point out it was better if you wrote it clearer. On the other hand you do are making personal attacks which I will ignore because you are new here.

See, we are talking about the Medieval 2 engine, not the other engines that came after or before. In the recent Rome remaster the guys doing it were incapable so far of lifting the faction limits, and while they say is for technical issues, it could be simply a business choice, whatever it is, it shows there are definitive limits they won't cross or stuff they won't do, for whatever reasons.

As for features, as the months/years per turn, they are implemented in the engine, otherwise they would not work, they just requires your input on a external file....

And your other points, againg, you are invited to explain them better.

As for your writing and attitude, it's just an advice, you can go ahead and ignore it and be most likely ignored in return or worst get reported as a troll, its your problem.

Have a nice day.

[Marik awt Eivarkein]

I guess they're talking about the fact that, of course, you able to divide your turns so long periods you wish (years, month, days (why)), but still the game lacks of seasons (there always will be only summer/winter), and for interface stuff, if I'm not mistaken, there only year+season text at the loading screen - seemly frustrating thing for those who wish there were month names or even the whole data with days.

AFAIK these things require engine modification to be implemented.

[The Great Khan of Rome]

I guess this isn't missing, but a nice feature to bring back is RTW's exp system, but revised to make it better balance. A +1 def increase per chevron, and +1 increase to attack, shld skill, and an increase in accuracy per 3 chevrons would be a start.

Bring back stat_*_ex and stat_armour_ex would amazing assuming it could be done. In EDU it states that for stat_pri_ex, it individualizes mount attack and defense bonuses instead of using mount_effects to do it. That probably won't be needed, but the one that is most interesting is armour penetration for final line, so ap would customizable. stat_armour_ex is the best out of all them as a unit modder myself. It means the ability to customize unit upgrade stats and differentiate shields that work in melee from those that work better for missiles. Pavsies vs bucklers come to mind. Or shields strapped to back or front of a unit.

Another thing is that cavalry death animations. Whilst on the run, when they die, they should die in a manner similar to RTW where the horse dies and the man just falls off or use the animations for melee deaths whilst galloping in charge.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I guess this isn't missing, but a nice feature to bring back is RTW's exp system, but revised to make it better balance. A +1 def increase per chevron, and +1 increase to attack, shld skill, and an increase in accuracy per 3 chevrons would be a start.

Yeah, I think this would be historical. The fighting quality differences between units would usually come from their war experience, not type or weaponry. On the other hand, the AI is not really good at handling experience...

[Marik awt Eivarkein]

On the other hand, the AI is not really good at handling experience...

At the end of main campaign in original m2tw, large developed nations can often be having the whole stacks of units with gold exp. Where the heck do they get 'em I don't know.

[leo.civil.uefs]

My wishlist has been reduced, either because I changed my mind about some things or because some is already implemented in eop.

here we go:


1 - Fix the widescreen resolution stretch
2 - Single man units
3- Allow the provoke_rebelion command. Plus allowing to decide wich units will be spawn in the rebellion.
4- A new interface to access diplomatic options at any time without the need of diplomats. (A button in the already existing diplomacy menu of the game, to open the diplomatic options.)
5 - Any effort to allow flying units to work better.
6 - Making all settlements available in custom battles. (Currently, they are limite by culture/level so we can't have all custom settlements in custom battles)
7 - Allow the GeneralWithAncKilled trigger.

[Gigantus]

5 - that would be nifty, irritating that you have to physically send a diplomat, in some mods the guy probably dies of old age before he gets there.
8 - you can have a different model for every faction already (faction_variant setup), are you talking about multiple per faction?

[leo.civil.uefs]

5 - that would be nifty, irritating that you have to physically send a diplomat, in some mods the guy probably dies of old age before he gets there.
8 - you can have a different model for every faction already (faction_variant setup), are you talking about multiple per faction?

yeah diplomats is a silly freature of med2.
its ridiculous to ot be able to do diplomacy when you want because the only 2 diplomats the game allows you to have are too far away or just already spent their diplomatic points of the current turn (WTF?)


Im talking about custom towers set via descr_strat.

[Gigantus]

Im talking about custom towers set via descr_strat.

I am not aware that the naming is restricted, eg that you can't use multiple models, like the multiple fort names in descr_strat, but the absence of any battle models for the tower in the usual 'settlement' directories might suggest that it is hard coded. I mean you got a fort for the aztec culture in there which is never used but no tower.
The models on the strat map however are defined as I described and allow for one variant from the default entry in descr_cultures per faction. Which means if you are interested in multiple strat map models then it will have to be approached through the descr_cultures angle were they are defined, not descr_strat which defines the battle model - which isn't in use and hence the entry is only a reference for the strat model.

[Metal.Pigeon]

Interestingly, you can initiate diplomacy without sending a diplomat during Papal elections, so it might be cool for that to be a feature at all times (and for all factions).

Allowing the same faction to be on different teams during custom battles would be nice. Both for easier unit testing and also for mirror matches in multiplayer battles.

Also, I hope it hasn't been said before (I only lightly skimmed the past 20 pages), but multiple Papacy factions would be great. So for example, in a Hundred Years' War scenario, England could be a Papal States-style faction for the House of Plantagenet, while France is the head of the House of Valois.

[Lord Baal]

We need to support youneuoy, for when the time of the Med 2 remaster comes (you can bet is already in the talks, planed, approved or even under work already) as many of his awesome fixes, scripting and modding implementations can be included in the engine.

I still long for naval battles and dismounting units.

[leo.civil.uefs]

Here we go again

1 - Fix the widescreen resolution stretch
2 - Single man units
3- Allow the provoke_rebelion command. Plus allowing to decide wich units will be spawn in the rebellion.
4- A new interface to access diplomatic options at any time without the need of diplomats. (A button in the already existing diplomacy menu of the game, to open the diplomatic options.)
5 - Any effort to allow flying units to work better. (ignoring pathfinding blockage would already be a lot)
6 - Making all settlements available in custom battles. (Currently, they are limite by culture/level so we can't have all custom settlements in custom battles)
7 - Allow the GeneralWithAncKilled trigger. (so a general who kills another one will take its retinues)
8 - Named forts (the current avaliable workaround is an abomination)
9 - Better melee combat behavior for elephants (they mostly stand and do nothing)
10 - The more code conditions and commands added, the better.
11 - Fix the bug of teutonic family tree (faction will be destroyed if leader and heir dies)
12 - Allow faction specific siege engines (in vanilla it is culture specific)

[leo.civil.uefs]

Here we go again

1 - Fix the widescreen resolution stretch
2 - Single man units
3- Allow the provoke_rebelion command. Plus allowing to decide wich units will be spawn in the rebellion.
4- A new interface to access diplomatic options at any time without the need of diplomats. (A button in the already existing diplomacy menu of the game, to open the diplomatic options.)
5 - Any effort to allow flying units to work better. (ignoring pathfinding blockage would already be a lot)
6 - Making all settlements available in custom battles. (Currently, they are limite by culture/level so we can't have all custom settlements in custom battles)
7 - Allow the GeneralWithAncKilled trigger. (so a general who kills another one will take its retinues)
8 - Named forts (the current avaliable workaround is an abomination)
9 - Better melee combat behavior for elephants (they mostly stand and do nothing)
10 - The more code conditions and commands added, the better.
11 - Fix the bug of teutonic family tree (faction will be destroyed if leader and heir dies)
12 - Allow faction specific siege engines (in vanilla it is culture specific)

Just added item 12.
this will open up a lot of interesting possibilities.

[The Great Khan of Rome]

I think a more realistic ask to extend features that are in the game to other parts of it. The one I'm thinking of right now is extending the feature of culture/faction specific names for buildings to that of units, so units can an exonym and endonym applied to them. An obvious example would be Latin exonyms for foreign units or for native endonyms of shared units, like Spear Militia, so we don't have to create new units, just to have different names for them.

The other is saving campaign battle replays like you can in Rome 2. There are many reasons to extend replay saving to campaign battles. One of them, is to save a memory of that battles. The other would be to have a replay to edit in the movie editor.

[leo.civil.uefs]

eop already allows you to put tags in unit names

so you can have the same unit with different names. EXAMPLE:

-ARCHER MILITIA
NORMANS

and

-ARCHER MILITIA
SAXONS

[leo.civil.uefs]

updated due to some items already implemented in eop


1 - Fix the widescreen resolution stretch
2 - Single man units
3- A new interface to access diplomatic options at any time without the need of diplomats. (A button in the already existing diplomacy menu of the game, to open the diplomatic options.)
4 - Any effort to allow flying units to work better. (ignoring pathfinding blockage would already be a lot)
5- Making all settlements available in custom battles. (Currently, they are limite by culture/level so we can't have all custom settlements in custom battles)
6 - Allow the GeneralWithAncKilled trigger. (so a general who kills another one will take its retinues)
7 - Named forts (the current avaliable workaround is an abomination)
8- Better melee combat behavior for elephants (they mostly stand and do nothing)
9 - The more code conditions and commands added, the better.
10 - Fix the bug of teutonic family tree (faction will be destroyed if leader and heir dies)
11 - Allow faction specific siege engines (in vanilla it is culture specific)

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

I do apologise, because I am sure somebody has probably mentioned it. Rivers and ambushes, I am uncertain what it is I hope could/can be done. But how many times do you notice the name river in a battle name? Precisley, because it is a great place to derfend or break up an enemy formation. Unfortunately we have no way to fight, other than bridges. Mountains and weather, in many instances local forces could ambush and desyroy bigger enemy forces in unknown terrain and weather. How can this be replkicated?