What new feature would you like

[koiosworks]

We would like some player feedback on what feature they would most like us to add to future games in the series:

1. Ability to play both sides in single player set battles (eg., i can play the persians)

2. Add a sandbox ability to 'buy' your entire army with points for set battles and multiplayer play (eg. ignore historical troop dispositions and let the player customize their forces for each battle)

3. Add 'alternative' history and let the game stray far from real history.. (e.g, alternative battles and paths if you 'lose' a battle instead of making you refight the battle)

Thanks for your feedback!

[pahom]

I think that #1 is my choice. I have to say that the other two are also appealing. Can we have a #4 -- all of the above?

[Marathon]

#1

[PDiFolco]

#2 would please me most, but with a tweak : for the campaign, ability to buy the army at start of the 1st battle, then be able to "refit"/upgrade it between battles with more options than currently (ie choice of troop types for example).
But both others are nice too .. [:)]

[Arsaces]

ORIGINAL: koiosworks

We would like some player feedback on what feature they would most like us to add to future games in the series:

1. Ability to play both sides in single player set battles (eg., i can play the persians)

Yes, that's what I want !

[Clipper1968]

ORIGINAL: koiosworks

We would like some player feedback on what feature they would most like us to add to future games in the series:

1. Ability to play both sides in single player set battles (eg., i can play the persians)

I vote for this!!!it would be great.[:)]

2. Add a sandbox ability to 'buy' your entire army with points for set battles and multiplayer play (eg. ignore historical troop dispositions and let the player customize their forces for each battle)

3. Add 'alternative' history and let the game stray far from real history.. (e.g, alternative battles and paths if you 'lose' a battle instead of making you refight the battle)

These two features would be interesting too,but not historical:it is a real dilemna...[&:]
Could it be possible to implement a choice at the start between the historical campaign and the"free style campaign"?That is exactly that I would like please...[&o][&o][&o]

[2gaulle]

#1 is the minimum

#3 could be interesting

#2 instead I will prefer to be absolutly free with the set-up

[Mr.Frag]

#2 looks tasty. It would be interesting to convert troops into other troops, perhaps even troops that would not normally be on Alexander's side.

I don't see much use in #1 unless the scenarios are balanced in a way that it plays well.

If my assumption that the forces were tweeked to make it tough for Alexander is wrong, sure then, but if it is an overpowering mix I don't see the fun in playing the other side.

#3 could be fun, but I'm not one who gives up and accepts losses no matter what path you offer up. I suspect most folks who play this type of game are stubborn like me. [:D]

[2gaulle]

more important.

a smaller video card requierment.

for tin you need a 128meg video card, something completly crasy and absolutly not necessary if some optimisation would have been done.
[:-]

[koiosworks]

you just need a 64 meg video card. From reviewing your error logs we have diagonosed your problems being due to your 32 meg gforce 2 mx and drivers that are 1.5 years old [:-]

[Adam Parker]

#2 of the choices given. I feel the campaign is the heart of the game.

However, personally, the between-battle R&R segment seems slightly out of place as is. I don't know how these things work in the table top arena and of course, we've likely all experienced this routine in games such as Panzer General.

It's just that in PG rest and refitting, the purchasing of new units etc seemed to make more sense.

Maybe because in TSA the concept of money suddenly rears its head out of the blue and it's something the player really has no essential control over. In PG I believe the currency is "command points" as such (it's been a long time!).

Between battles 2 and 3 in the TSA campaign for example I somehow had enough money to just buy and replenish everything... Hence, I felt why not just give everything to me and not have me worry about it [;)]

Players can currently change generals but with the small number of battles comprising the campaign and the fact that random leadership qualities are provided in response, I'm unsure if its really worth the effort as well?

So given option 2, maybe that's one way around what I'm feeling. Give the player some historically based choice of units with ratings and even names for flavor. Also in the battle set up screen, it's hard to determine whether a unit is an archer or slinger. Some different graphic there could assist. Maybe limit the selection of forces and cards available not to money but to historical command and control limitations - ie: What if Alexander's performance allowed him to proceed to the next battle quicker or slower?What would this mean in terms of forces, leaders and cards available? What would it mean for the enemy's TO&E too?

Just some thoughts.

Adam.

[2gaulle]

you just need a 64 meg video card. From reviewing your error logs we have diagonosed your problems being due to your 32 meg gforce 2 mx and drivers that are 1.5 years old

since I have update the card the game is slower.
64 meg is still a lot for what we need. there are not that many animation. and you said in a recent post than 128 meg is necessary
by the way my old video card is able to play rome total war but not tin.
but you are true it would at been better for me to change my video card instead of bying tin

[ravinhood]

Well you didn't list one that I would be interested in. But, (3) might come closest of all.

I would like to see a random "battles" generator. Just abstract battles using the playing pieces, either with Quick Battle setups like Combat Mission and the player chooses and/or Quick Battles setup by the computer like Rome Total War does. You get what you get and you have to play with that. Makes for some darn interesting challenges and outcomes.

[pahom]

2gaulle,

I do not think that it is fair to change subject topics to apply the same criticism posted in other threads. The developers post requirements in games for a reason. If you purchased a game without checking the system requirements, how are the developers to blame?

Not updating your drivers for 1.5 years is far too long. Please take the advice given and update your drivers at Nvidia. I hope you take this post in the spirit it was intended. I am trying to be helpful. [:)]

Sincerely,

Pahom

[koiosworks]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Well you didn't list one that I would be interested in. But, (3) might come closest of all.

I would like to see a random "battles" generator. Just abstract battles using the playing pieces, either with Quick Battle setups like Combat Mission and the player chooses and/or Quick Battles setup by the computer like Rome Total War does. You get what you get and you have to play with that. Makes for some darn interesting challenges and outcomes.

The point system we are thinking about would be something like the idea you are describing. We could make it more a random setup by adding an option to let the AI pick your units when he picks his units. Even let the AI place your units for you.

I think our only constraint would be that the maps would not be random. we don't use a tile mechanism to make our maps so we have no abity to 'generate' maps on the fly.

[2gaulle]

I do not think that it is fair to change subject topics to apply the same criticism posted in other threads.

the subjet is " What new feature would you like". I'm on topic. and I consider It's important.

Please take the advice given and update your drivers at Nvidia.

I do and now it's more slow

[Clipper1968]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

Please take the advice given and update your drivers at Nvidia.

I do and now it's more slow

The video scene issue is still missing and you would really be the unlucky guy...[:D][:D][:D]
Désolé...[;)]

[ravinhood]

The point system we are thinking about would be something like the idea you are describing. We could make it more a random setup by adding an option to let the AI pick your units when he picks his units. Even let the AI place your units for you.

I think our only constraint would be that the maps would not be random. we don't use a tile mechanism to make our maps so we have no abity to 'generate' maps on the fly.

That's fair enough, as long as the game has something that randomizes the initial starting units either player bought or computer created. Both would work for unlimited amount of play value.

It's one reason I moved away from standard board wargames, it was always the same play for the most part and after you had played it a few times, it became boring.

When you add some random features to a game ala Civilization, Combat Mission, the Total War Series, even when the campaign gets old or the ingame scenarios, the random battle generator will always provide a new challenge.

[A_Turtle]

Add them in the order you have them listed. Also an option to replay the battle in 'movie mode' would be a nice feature too. Oh, I got a new monitor and and the maps/units look much better. Forget what I saaid about the contrast between units and background. Thanks for a great game.

What I really really want though, is a game like this, but where I can 'buy' armies and play against others online on random or pregenerated maps. Historical and Fantasy. YOu manage that and you will have one content puppy here. I would most definitely vote with my wallet for somethign like that. Now after you get all this great leader business done, give me what I really really want. [&o]

ORIGINAL: koiosworks

We would like some player feedback on what feature they would most like us to add to future games in the series:

1. Ability to play both sides in single player set battles (eg., i can play the persians)

2. Add a sandbox ability to 'buy' your entire army with points for set battles and multiplayer play (eg. ignore historical troop dispositions and let the player customize their forces for each battle)

3. Add 'alternative' history and let the game stray far from real history.. (e.g, alternative battles and paths if you 'lose' a battle instead of making you refight the battle)

Thanks for your feedback!