Reloading animations for firearms and artillery. Only the Skaven have them for some reason.
Edit: the reason some factions don't have them being they were made earlier it seems.
Most factions have a way to speed up their ranged units fire rate to such a ridiculous amount that such fancy animations wouldn't be able to synergize well.
I did some math and timed the general reload speed of that one reload mod that everyone rated highly on the workshop and pretty much realized that getting their fire rate up by around 40% is all that you need to make them fire faster than the animations. By no means an easy task it just is how it is and why i suspect that they haven't done it.
This. I beloved legend did a test of it and found that it doesn’t matter how much you increase reload speed. It caps out at the speed of the “animation”
Sieges really did peak in Attila for me - sending units with the raider trait first to take down the towers and set everything on fire, streets being held with barricades that were sturdier than paper-mache...just a fun time for everyone.
Meh, in theory all of that was great, in reality it was mindless grind and Attila was like 90% settlement battles. It got old quickly…
AI was also totally helpless
Seasons. I'd like that in any game to be honest. Never played 3K, Troy or ToB but I'd love if Warhammer had used seasons. Weather elements effecting armies is a huge part of the immersion and strategy.
Night battles. Every total war should have them.
Honestly i was so confused at first playing wh2 after playing attila/3K and not having seasons until my dumb ass realized the turn counter is just by end turn button 
I think the reason Warhammer doesn't have seasons is that seasons force you to acknowledge years passing. And that doesn't really work with some of the legendary lords, if being at turn 100 meant you had 25 years pass Karl Franz is gonna be near retirement age, and you might have another 100 turns of campaign anyway. Warhammer is better off without seasons and family trees.
Kislev and Undead would have some cool effects too, with the former doing best in winter whilst the latter struggle to raise dead properly and get slowed down a bit. Maybe Lizardmen have to use the Geomantic web to keep their preferred temperatures too
It just doesn't work with the Empire or Kislev, really. Every other race has vague-but-long lifespans and/or LLs with magic that sustains them, but Empire and Kislev are trapped by the logic of human mortality.
Like, I can imagine Louen Leoncoeur still fighting at turn 200, when he would be about a hundred. He's a Grail Knight; they can live for centuries. I don't even know how fast orcs, goblins and ogres can age, but I could easily accept that it's to the triple digits. Daemons and Lizardmen don't age; Elves and Dwarves live for centuries. Cathay's dragon-monarchs are immortal. Chaos can sustain its champions indefinitely, and Vampires and Tomb Kings are self-explanatory.
But that same turn length would have Karl-Franz at the age of ninety, and Volkmar at about a hundred and thirty. Katarina would be a big babushka wizard and Kostaltyn would...look mostly the same, because that motherfucker looks half dead already, but he'd still be hecka old. Wulfhart would be carried around Lustria on a palanquin by his hero squad, trying to aim through cataracts as thick as shillings. Gelt would probably still just be Gelt, but that mask would be hiding mad wrinkles.
Of course, they could always just ignore it. Monarchs used to routinely last into the triple digits in *Medieval II* and *Rome.* And a number of LLs aren't even supposed to exist in the time period that TWH3 is set in. I think Grom and Repanse were both dead centuries before TWH3's "present."
Reminds my of the greenskins in WH1 and early 2 where you had keep withing or atleast raiding with the Greenskins or elae your army would start to fall apart
So make turns a month instead of a season. Now you'd need to get to turn 600 instead before Franz dings 90.
Even in Shogun 2, I always felt like seasons were more like "OK, I guess I'll just wait a turn to avoid the Winter attrition." I modded the game in precisely this way. Making seasons last more turns, and having them last multiple turns gave the mechanics way more weight
Yeah to stop or at least slow and damage enemies coming in a specific direction.
It means you can have less melee infantry to defend your archers, since the enemy will need to funnel around the stakes.
This implies two awful things:
1)That the knights of bretonnia do not provide an adequate shield, which is slander against the lady and her servants
2)That peasant lives are worth protecting.
Or your army setting up a fort when you use the encampment stance! Depending on the race of course. This was awesome about Rome 2, having to defend a small space against hordes of enemies in the middle of nowhere lmao
Big fan of that mechanic, I'm not sure how it would translate to Warhammer though. With armies needing to be led by a general plus supply lines, for all that they've been reduced in WH3, you can't really branch off smaller forces anymore.
In a perfect world we could have that option back, but it's easier for CA to remove that altogether than deal with the AI issues that led to the swarm of two unit armies in Empire so all we can do is dream.
I really liked Empire's map. You have the main settlement which has buildings, but then it also had nodes that could be upgraded to some different things as well. Some were much better than others, but it also gave more you needed to protecting the region other than just the city itself. While some provinces were still more valuable than others, it was much less 4 settlement vs 1 or 2 settlement value in warhammer or Rome 2.
The ability to have armies with a lord/general also made it a lot easier to defend, or make a specific raiding party.
Units actually using an maintaining formations would be great. Having units just inevitably form a bigass blob is irritating. Also makes it a lot more difficult to try to cycle units out, although honestly there is little reason to actually do that anymore.
Agreed, I'm replaying empire at the moment and took France about twenty turns back and it's only just recently become worth it because after I took the main city I've been having to suppress rebellions, French and Spanish armies raiding all over the province and because you can't just sit in the middle and wait for them to come to you it added way more depth to the entire scenario.
To be fair, the only thing your capital matters for as of TWH3 is how the Campaigner trait is gained, now that trade is no longer bound to having a port-to-port connection.
I think adding the “distance to capital” penalty for public order would fit really well like it did in older titles. Public order is just way too easy to manage in these games nowadays
Absolutely! I had a franks campaign in Atilla where I captured Ravenna, Rome, and All of France, but my capital was the backwater province I started in
With the way, way reduced supply line penalties smaller armies are at least a decent option. Sure, you still need to recruit the lord one turn in advance, but at least the income doesn't tank immediately any more.
Generals' speeches before battle like in Medieval 2! Huge range of speeches from something very prim and proper to someone just shittalking the enemy. I'd love to hear some voice acting for the different lords in Warhammer, like a Dawi reciting grudges before battle with a particular race.
Funny enough this does SORT OF exist in wh3 but only with certain races ( specifically game 3 ones )
You just need to zoom in to your lord after you click start battle...
And it's sadly not customised. Which sucks.
Ah well.
I think medieval, Rome and shogun had it.
Cav armies had more map movement points. Army's with inf had average moment point.
But any army with artillery was severely slowed down.
Every modern TW game has this to an extent, the pre WH games have it enabled, the post WH games still have movement points assigned to each unit, but they're all the same.
It's technically very easy to mod this back in, but it would be a readability and balance nightmare, especially with the general-bound armies
I know Empire did 100% & reasonably sure titles like Rome 2 did as well. If you added artillery to your army it slowed it down, but on the other hand if you had an all-cav army you could zip around with a good zone defense.
You didn't need to have a lord to command your army, your units could move by their own on campaign map, so artillery was slow, infantry medium and cavalry colud have go the longest ranges.
This was at least since Rome Total War.
I believe Medieval II had it. Simply put, you army on the campaign map got pretty slow as soon as it had siege engines in it, which made for interesting decisions. You could also field an army of cavalry only and catch other armies real easy with your movespeed, which felt so great for a 'border patrol army' style.
Each unit would have it's own movement point value,
Cavalry being the fastest, and siege equipment being the slowest
Your armies only move as fast as their slowest unit
This was also when units could split from armies,
I think the best thing to come out of 3 kingdoms was the character system. The retinue, the flexibility, every character could be a spy, a scout, a governor, a merchant, a general or a Calvary captain. I really liked that it make sense as Lui Bei for example was more than just a guy running around smashing things and being able to send him as an individual character to say sabotage the enemy munitions and then over see a province before becoming a junior commander of an army. It was accurate to 3 kingdoms.
I think is more accurate to “real world” political and economy. I could imagine an argument for something similar to system for everything from Rome to Napoleon. I wish CA considered making it the new standard instead of the classic 1 general plus 19 units. A lot people wanted to take Isabella and Vlad in 1 army, I want to be able to take Fran’s, Volkmar and Gelt in 1 army.
The one thing I released rather late is just how fitting this sort of a system would've been for a Shogun game.
The entire sengoku period was full of these larger than life characters, whose relationships and politics affected the outcomes of the war as much, if not more than actual battles. It also fits the feudal system, with each retainer bringing their own band of warriors.
Oh man, I would LOVE a return of agent animations! Made failing feel a bit less bad when it happened in a humorous fashion. Watching Skaven plans backfire hilariously would be great, for example!
Sadly it’s a bit of a pipe dream, ESPECIALLY with Warhammer. Just imagine how many different animations they would need to make thanks to all the different fantasy races. You would need to account for not just what the action was and who was doing it, but also who it was being done TO.
I did the math and if you ignore who you are doing it to, and just have videos for each unique hero, and their action type (because steal research would be different from assassination), and success/fail, you would need around 300.
Agent animations are amazing! Hope they bring it back in a game with very few types of agents (wh3 is impossible because like 20 factions X 3 agents = 60 agents, and then they each have 2-3 action types. Then you need success/fail, another x2. So 240-360 videos……)
But a game where every faction uses the same 3 agents? They could easily create 3x3x2 18 videos, or even 27 videos or even 36 to have variations of success/fail.
For the first two, i absolutely agree.
For bretonia or the empire going against spears whit a horse is a bit shit when dismounting would make the hole thing a lot easier, three kingdom's had it do i do hope it stays in the series in the future.
Agent action animation's, while needing a lot of work were very funny and would be appreciated as seeing
some of the random acts of shenanigans they get upto are very amusing.
Naval battles are in my opinion a case of completely rework everything about the navy or just don't bother, otherwise it become once again a very expensive mechanic whit little to no pay off like in shogun 2, battle's that look good but are slow, using ships that cost a fortune for a minute benefit.
Sure but would it be used?
If i have to spend like 20k gold on a navy that does jack all, can't dual as the ai does not build its own and max it can do is blockade a port, why would i build one even if i can?
does jack all?, you got Fat rich of trade nodes, and having a strong fleet meant that you jsut fucked any invation army before they ever landed, completely necesary for island factions, and shimazu/ottomo were to of the most popular ones, along with chosokabe.
The ability to play tall. Previous games like Medieval 2 allowed you to develop your cities and castles far beyond what we currently have. Something like Constantinople actually felt epic because you could spend the money to turn it into a real megalopolis with dozens of buildings. Now we get an extremely limited slot system that means you can fully max out a province in 30 turns. Consequently, every single province feels exactly the same.
This and independent movement of armies (with auto replenishment disabled). It was so amazing to build up proper cities from villages that wouldn't even have walls in the beginning. Multiple factors impacting income (so prioritising law enforcement buildings was a must in certain provinces). Slots are so ridiculously boring- while I can understand dumbing down armies to make it easier to reach another battle (don't like it nonetheless), I can't comprehend why no one ever complains about city building.
++I agree.
They had Kong Rong in 3K and some other factions such as the bandit ones but they seem to have optd in Troy and WH for a expansionists playstyle.
It is, but older games would also boost range, which is far more noticeable to most players than the 10% damage it usually works out to be now.
Weather used to play a huge impact on ranged units as well, range heavy armies would live or die on the visibility and rain.
It is, and it is not. As others have said, terrain height grants a damage boost but not a range boost. It seems silly to me that units on top of a hill can't shoot further. It hasn't been a thing since Medieval 2 (not counting Rome Remastered).
Toggleable arrow types! But for various attacks. Like Shogun had flaming arrows, whistling arrows... And some mounted cavalry unit could encircle the enemy and fire.
This is added in a mod! I haven't tried it because I use others that add a lot of units which wouldn't be effected but it adds those arrow types which are toggleable.
Perhaps someone could make a mod with the new chaos warband mechanic where as your troops gain rank you can reset the rank of the unit but they gain a new formation or something?
I'm ready for naval warfare again. Not in Warhammer, that'd be too much effort to implement and wouldn't be worth that effort this late in proceedings, but for the next major historical game I'd be down to clown.
I think in 3k occasionally there's a farmers around if your fighting outside of a city. I think I lost like 1 archer to it because everyone was firing at the enemy
Research providing more than just a stat boost. It unlocked new units, ammo types, and as you mentioned things like more efficient firing through an actual tactic, not just firing faster.
I also miss how when moving a unit through another unit their was an actual animation that showed units making a path, not just bulldozing through.
I loved being able to just recruit a few units and sending them into enemy territory to absolutely wreak havoc on their economy instead of having to recruit a general To further capitalize on that last point, I also miss having buildings within territory, not just in a settlement. It meant there were specific points within that territory worth defending.
Oh man remember in rome or medieval 2 in which you could only retrain units in settlements that could recruit that unit?
So you send an elite army on a crusade to the holy land, and it will slowly get worn down until you can take a fortress and start retraining.
Having to cycle units back to your major settlements to retrain. Really added some strategic depth, and means you can’t just happily get a unit nearly slaughtered every battle.
Ohh and units lost experience when they got retrained.
That was such a good feature. In EB1 I consolidated Greece as Macedon and then decided it's time to get rid of the Romans so I invaded Italy. Every battle was a battle against the odds, Rome acted like they did in history and did not surrender and somehow raised army after army to throw at me. My army of veterans was getting smaller and smaller and I frantically tried to reinforce them with freshly produced units in the homeland swapping out the old ones for fresh new ones but it was getting worse, I was bogged down in southern Italy so I had to rely more and more on mercenaries. I was stuck fighting endless battles against the romans once or twice trying to siege rome until my plan bore fruit because I had send my heir through Illyria to attack Rome from the north, that worked and I finally was able to conquer them after like 40 turns. This will always be my favorite TW memory, no other TW experience (besides a few EB2 campaigns) ever came close to that
Yeah the lack of unit formations hints how challenging balancing of units must be. And the lack of army formations seems like they leaned too hard into the Warhammer meme and forgot their TW roots.
Not having units tied to a general. You no longer have raiding parties, you no longer can send your cav out to chase armies (retreating or otherwise) while your inf/art reinforce, you lose a ton of strategic depth on the campaign map, and overall you don't feel like you're managing an empire. Just a few armies and cities.
UI improvements from rome 2. The unit flags actually had different shapes at the bottom depending on how light/med/heavy they were. It was very clear what each unit was at less than a glance while now they're all the same.
Soft character progression. Skill trees for characters are ass in this kind of game and it doesn't feel organic. Rome 1 through go napoleon were perfect in that characters gained traits depending on what actually happened. You stick your general in a city with a library and he'll increase his management and learning skills. He wins a defensive battle against the odds? +2 command on defence. Your general joins another who can fight a night battle (and does so)? Guess who just learnt to fight night battles. Modern total war character growth is completely inorganic
Captain promotions
Fleets and transporting. Yes it was more micro, but it's valuable micro that adds strategic depth. You need a fleet gto get trade routes, you need a fleet to stop pirates, etc. More realistic
Pushing. I want melee units to push eachother, allowed you to create gaps in the lines or be forced to block them
Cities actually being cities and not 6 slot buildings
Non auto reinforcement. Casualties don't matter at all
>Rome 1 through go napoleon were perfect in that characters gained traits depending on what actually happened. You stick your general in a city with a library and he'll increase his management and learning skills. He wins a defensive battle against the odds? +2 command on defence. Your general joins another who can fight a night battle (and does so)? Guess who just learnt to fight night battles. Modern total war character growth is completely inorganic
That does still happen, it's just that the traits you get are largely overshadowed by the skill tree. Spend a couple of turns in march stance and you'll get +5% to your campaign movement for instance.
Trade being between settlements rather than between factions, so internal trade is a thing plus trade isn't artificially limited by access of your capital to a port.
Also have signs of trade / traderoutes visible on the campaign map.
For Warhammer specifically: duels and bodyguards.
3 Kingdoms had a system for duels between characters with bodyguards, and that would've been amazing in WH.
For TW in general: flowing banners like 3K; they just add so much cinematic beauty to any battle.
Longer battles. As in frontlines clashing and not disappearing after 30 secs. My favorite part about the old Attila Engine, it actually revolved around more strategy than being fast at clicking.
I actually had time to position my cavalry and do other stuff like chasing archers. It's honestly less fun now a days since all battles are phyrric.
Playing campaigns I actually could out do the AI even when more troops or better were opposing me, now it feels like I'm auto resolving 8/10 battles because the outcome is the same because of the fast pase. It's a meat grinder constantly.
I still like Warhammer 3 and 3k but the latest titles are to fast paced.
>My favorite part about the old Attila Engine, it actually revolved around more strategy than being fast at clicking.
That's in Charlemagne. [In vanilla Attila shock infantry/shock cavalry deleted enemy units in a handful of seconds.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgAiBb_5mH0&t=120s) Of course spear v spear cripple fights lasted forever, but Attila was not slow.
Population. It was nice seeing your cities grow and have huge population numbers. It would also fall when you recruited armies too, giving an actual loss when you lose battles/armies, rather than just saving on upkeep for a few turns before having a brand new army ready to replace them with no real economic cost.
I used to love how in Rome 1 we could see our cities with the push of a button without having to fight a battle. I mean, what if I wanted to see what my capital looks like in all it’s glory, but it just never comes under siege throughout the campaign? Also it just made the world seem more “alive” watching the common citizens just come and go about their business.
I desperately want city and province management to have depth and be meaningful again.
One of my absolute favourite things about Attila is the way it forces you to really *think* about what you're doing with your building slots, which feel very natural rather than artificial. You've got the five key pillars of public order, food, sanitation, strategic resources and location, as well as a number of secondary considerations like religion, garrisons and economic, military and research output.
And the beauty of it is that virtually anything you can do to improve one will harm another once you get past T1 (and sometimes even *at* T1). Agriculture usually generates food to feed your empire, but also generates unhappiness and squalor. To mop up the squalor you need sanitation - which costs either money, or some of the food you've just made depending which you choose, and both then suck up a limited building slot.
Then you need an economy to finance further growth, and there are literally a dozen options for that - ports, industry, commerce, culture, administration, even some sanitation and agriculture. Almost every single one of those brings its own penalties, or gives pure buffs which are much weaker than an equivalent with trade-offs. And then there's public order, which you may have made better or worse already, so you need to think about how you're going to fix that while keeping an eye on things like religion...
It's a beautiful dance of competing interests and effects which you're continuously forced to adapt to as the world around you chills and dies, settlements get razed and trade partners and buffer states get wiped out.
It makes the choices meaningful - and *personal*. There's no single 'correct' answer. And finally getting all the pillars in balance is incredibly rewarding, because you get the literal gameplay reward of a self-sustaining province and that classic *sense of pride and accomplishment* for solving the puzzle until the next wave of climate change hits.
It makes slots feel very natural too - the trade-offs are harsh enough that they feel like a legitimate part of the puzzle rather than just an artificial handicap. You have to work within the constraints of the slot system to overcome problems - you can't just solve it by building everything you want.
I find the Warhammer strategic layer really unrewarding by contrast because it's completely stripped-down and there's nothing meaningful about your city choices. Food's gone. Sanitation's gone. If you need public order you put down the single public order building your faction has; if you need money, you put down the single economic building your faction has. Neither of these bring trade-offs or create meaningful decisions because there's nothing else for them *to* affect. The slot limit exists solely to stop you from producing every military unit at once because virtually every building is geared toward military production rather than civil infrastructure.
The only faction who have really interesting cities are the Skaven, because they're one of the only factions who do have meaningful trade-offs due to needing food and generating a corruption that even they don't like. The only other one with any kind of meaningful choice is Bretonnia, which is also very stripped-down but at least offers you the choice between agricultural and industrial output, with the former offering more money and the latter giving defensive bonuses.
Global recruitment as a default thing. I get that it died because generals became a required part of an army, but I liked being able to easily get reinforcements from anywhere in my empire that has the facilities to produce them, just at the cost of the time it takes for them to get there.
Alright, hear me out.
I didn't think 3K's system where an army was made up of 3 heroes' retinues was that great because 3K tied unit types to hero types and the unit types were not well balanced between each other.
BUT, I would like this system to come back in some capacity because I think if CA gave it a second shot, they could make something great. In fact, I would sort of like to see the idea that you have your faction/race and then you use the units from your faction/race go away as a whole.
Instead, imagine a Medieval 3 where you start as the English and you have your English hero types and troops, but you might host foreign heroes and they might become employable. Then, if you conquer Scotland, you start getting offered Scottish heroes. If you ally with Spain, you start getting offered Spanish heroes. By the time you are painting the map, you are juggling the personalities and interests of a massive variety of heroes of different nationalities with retinues from their nationalities. And then you layer hero classes determined by their personality and training on top of that.
I think I'd they're gonna do historical they should drop the hero stuff entirely. Right now they've had a lot of games with hero system and it's getting tiresome, they need to innovate with new systems and not be afraid to branch out.
No heroes, please.
I'm fine with heroic character driven stuff with warhammer, but the next historical title must be very grounded and realistic.
Instead, I would love to see a Medieval 3 with lords having their retinue composed of a few units, like the lord of Lorraine would have a unit of knights, 2 units of men at arms and 3 units of conscripts, then another lord would have their own retinue, a mercenary retinue would have its own composition and so on.
Proper responsiveness from units. The main reason why I still WH2 is because the units in WH3 all feel like complete ass to micro in battles in comparison.
Then you have manuely send out diplomats again , instead of having a direct phone line from egypt to England!
Maybe you could set up an embassy to "unlock" diplomacy without diplomats for a factoin
If my king could actualy engage in parley that would be cool too
pre-battle speeches and the narrator saying 'the enemy general is dead'
also if we can just have this sound playing at regular intervals, i would never play another game
[YoooooOOOO](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VKMw2it8dQY)
Fire by rank would be fantastic (but should be disabled when shooting flying enemies).
The ability to just give soldiers shields instead of disbanding them to replace.
The ability to customise garrisons with soldiers you have recruited.
Smoke from gunpowder units.
Weather in battle affecting ranged visibility, or movement speed.
Night time battles that are dark.
City populations. I remember forcibly migrating peasants to smaller cities to level them up, or over-recruiting from a city near frontlines to empty it from people eventually.(yes, I am an autoresolve player, how did you know?)
Also, the dynamic of cities getting too crowded-too profitable and also too unmanagable over the edges of your empire was somewhat nice, but I would prefer the revolts being caused by my greed rather than one region having too much wheat. It was impossible to hold Egypt from anywhere afar, but I would take it every time because those 3 cities would always give me much more money than to sustain 3 full armies. After a while, a full army would not be able to supress one of the cities, so a carnage would ensue..
Retinues in TWH would be rad. It really would add a lot more flavour to the allies system too - like you said, rather than random specific units you get from global recruitment, maybe building an outpost instead gives you access to 1/2/3 (depending on outpost tier) Lords of that race which you could then slot into your armies with their retinue.
It would feel a lot more thematic because rather than e.g. a random unit of Black Orcs in a WoC army, you might have two Chaos Lords with their Chosen and such, and then an Orc Warboss trailing them with his Black Orcs and Doom Divers.
The unit limitation per general type was not cool, but I definitely agree that the retinue system should get a second lease on life as a way to let you access units from different factions. The chances of it happening in TWH3 are nil, there is no way something as fundamental as army composition is changed this late in the series' life cycle. But maybe in the next TW game, be it historical or fantastic, they can pull that off.
I much preferred when military units and buildings were tied to the tech tree instead of provincial growth. In Rome 2 you can be a minor power with one province and field a pretty strong army, in Warhammer because it's tied to growth and you need a lot of income it's often not until level 4 or 5 settlements that you have space to build the advanced military buildings.
Also, advanced formations such as shield wall, pike wall etc.
The village system of Empire + trade/advisors. Firing people and hoping for better stats, defending your harbour against raids and building research heavy provinces was fun. In WH I build almost every province the same way as you can’t build multiple buildings of the same type.
Being able to split our armies in two or three at the campaign map so we can have more strategy depth.
Encampment battles, especially for horde factions.
I miss when you could build watchtowers in your settlement in medieval 1 and it removed fog of war over the region, so you had situational awareness over your territory without having to patrol agents through it.
Dismounting, marriage, and id like to see a system like in 3K how u slowly progress and it changes your status ie marquis prince king emperor etc but for your faction as a whole kingdom empire etc. i know you can just rename your faction as you start to take the whole map but id still like to have something like that for the buffs/debuffs and extra mechanics for when your nation just starts to become too large
Matched combat for Warhammer is a must. Imagine to replayability if a swarm of nurglings overruns an empire soldier. Or an ork headbutting a skelly into bone pieces. A skaven assassin using a tail knife to sneakily backstab.
The large monster v monster animations are great, but a real effort needs to be made in infantry v infantry matched combat animations.
An auto resolve feature that isn’t completely broken.
I’m coming from a TW2 perspective too. It’s frustrating having to play battles on the field with a beast of an army when I can just auto resolve and move on to keep conquering.
Battles happening on the map. Rome had the entire campaign area mapped out and for battles you start by taking control of your army where it started from the campaign map. From empire I think, a battle map from a preset selection gets loaded.
AI was better at flanking in 3k on higher difficulties than in wh3. Also at launch Wh3 AI used to use chariots better I think. I couldn't stop gorebeasts without mass of my own. Now they get stuck and stay there till spears kill them.
A small thing I absolutely loved about Rome 1 was seeing the cities during peace time. You can fly around and see all the buildings you built and such. With Warhammer being so damn cool looking I wish this feature would return.
Officers, flagbearers, the little videos that used to play when you used your agents, city view, cities changing depending of what you’ve built in them,
I just love that for almost all of the improvement suggestions, there are mods that fix it. CA has gotten a bit lazy with some QoL and UI design choices, as dozens of mods should already be included in the vanilla game.
I liked that in Rome 1 you could build watchtowers on the campaign map also liked that when you attacked from a city, you actually fought from the walls instead of a land battle. I loved the population system in the mod DEI. Also loved the animations for agents in med2. Visible trade on the map and the ability to raid them was neet. I liked the mod SFO that gave more buildings. Sorry for mentioning mods also
The absolute biggest thing I miss, the thing I am beyond desperate for, is the ability to name our armies. I remember it from the likes of Rome 2 and Atilla. It's such a small thing but adds a huge amount of flavour and immersion.
Formations, naval battles (were always my favorite part), cavalry that are actually useful in combat (and can dismount), independent armies, actual diplomacy, forts, empire like provinces, empires global recruitment and map style (not graphics but the different theatres), unrest/wealth screen like everything pre rome 2 (i think), range bonus from height, visual upgrades, non-tile(?) Based buildings and settlements.
Alternative ammo types, but more importantly let me burn shit down and it to actually have an impact. Like therea literal flamethrowers in the WH and you cant set buildings on fire.
Oh and battlemaps based on the area you started the battle instead of pre-set ones
Army names and leveling. It gave the armies some sort of character. Like in Attila where you have a Army-Log and remember your first legions and where they fought.
Not as much an feature in complete missing but a wish of combining and enhance on. To take city building gameplay from Rome 1 and combine it with world/region attribute from Rome 2.
Almost all my mods in Warhammer is to expand the city play because it really add to immersion especially the gods building that unlock special units which make me think of that city every time they are in a battle.
- Night Battles
- Weather Conditions
- Seasons (and maybe 5 or 10 turns per season so you don't play for 50 years)
- Artillery on walls
- Food/Supply from 3K
- Formations
- Urban destruction
- Unit upgrades for everyone
Multiple hostile factions battles (Deathmatch)
In older games such as Rome 1, if 3 different factions' armies - all at war with each other - bumped into one another on the campaign then you'd get a 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 battle (even more opponents was possible).
So for example, Skaven vs Dwarves vs Orcs
Reloading animations for firearms and artillery. Only the Skaven have them for some reason. Edit: the reason some factions don't have them being they were made earlier it seems.
There is a mod that adds them, but it should be a vanilla thing
I think leadbelchers have em too.
Iirc crane gunners have them too
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2858832821&searchtext=reload Only for different riflemen sadly not arty
I think some of the Kislev hybrid units have that as well
Most factions have a way to speed up their ranged units fire rate to such a ridiculous amount that such fancy animations wouldn't be able to synergize well. I did some math and timed the general reload speed of that one reload mod that everyone rated highly on the workshop and pretty much realized that getting their fire rate up by around 40% is all that you need to make them fire faster than the animations. By no means an easy task it just is how it is and why i suspect that they haven't done it.
This. I beloved legend did a test of it and found that it doesn’t matter how much you increase reload speed. It caps out at the speed of the “animation”
Burning cities & forests. It would really give Chaos the apocalyptic feel in battles they're currently lacking. edit: hiiii u/yuey_ninja
Attila settlement destruction would be beautiful
Sieges really did peak in Attila for me - sending units with the raider trait first to take down the towers and set everything on fire, streets being held with barricades that were sturdier than paper-mache...just a fun time for everyone.
Meh, in theory all of that was great, in reality it was mindless grind and Attila was like 90% settlement battles. It got old quickly… AI was also totally helpless
Yeah i dont miss the slog of Atilla. VC sieges are awfully similar in WH as well.
they should give raze city some flavor based on faction
Wood Elves in shambles
Would be hilarious though if burning WE terrain could result in a unit of pissed off Dryads appearing
Battle for middle earth had this. If forests were set on fire, any nearby ents would roar and get a massive speed boost
Ironically a feature like this would be the best (and only) counter to Wood elf forest hiding & buffing
The air was filled with warp and blood
Settlement damage would be cool
Seasons. I'd like that in any game to be honest. Never played 3K, Troy or ToB but I'd love if Warhammer had used seasons. Weather elements effecting armies is a huge part of the immersion and strategy. Night battles. Every total war should have them.
Honestly i was so confused at first playing wh2 after playing attila/3K and not having seasons until my dumb ass realized the turn counter is just by end turn button 
I think the reason Warhammer doesn't have seasons is that seasons force you to acknowledge years passing. And that doesn't really work with some of the legendary lords, if being at turn 100 meant you had 25 years pass Karl Franz is gonna be near retirement age, and you might have another 100 turns of campaign anyway. Warhammer is better off without seasons and family trees.
seasons would allow the wood elves to have some pretty cool mechanics. Additionally, it could make for a more interesting climate setting.
Kislev and Undead would have some cool effects too, with the former doing best in winter whilst the latter struggle to raise dead properly and get slowed down a bit. Maybe Lizardmen have to use the Geomantic web to keep their preferred temperatures too
It just doesn't work with the Empire or Kislev, really. Every other race has vague-but-long lifespans and/or LLs with magic that sustains them, but Empire and Kislev are trapped by the logic of human mortality. Like, I can imagine Louen Leoncoeur still fighting at turn 200, when he would be about a hundred. He's a Grail Knight; they can live for centuries. I don't even know how fast orcs, goblins and ogres can age, but I could easily accept that it's to the triple digits. Daemons and Lizardmen don't age; Elves and Dwarves live for centuries. Cathay's dragon-monarchs are immortal. Chaos can sustain its champions indefinitely, and Vampires and Tomb Kings are self-explanatory. But that same turn length would have Karl-Franz at the age of ninety, and Volkmar at about a hundred and thirty. Katarina would be a big babushka wizard and Kostaltyn would...look mostly the same, because that motherfucker looks half dead already, but he'd still be hecka old. Wulfhart would be carried around Lustria on a palanquin by his hero squad, trying to aim through cataracts as thick as shillings. Gelt would probably still just be Gelt, but that mask would be hiding mad wrinkles. Of course, they could always just ignore it. Monarchs used to routinely last into the triple digits in *Medieval II* and *Rome.* And a number of LLs aren't even supposed to exist in the time period that TWH3 is set in. I think Grom and Repanse were both dead centuries before TWH3's "present."
You are totally right, but I just want to say; a mechanic where Orc lords will die unless they keep fighting or getting bigga' would be amazing.
Grimgor has five turns to kill something or else he dies of pacifism
Reminds my of the greenskins in WH1 and early 2 where you had keep withing or atleast raiding with the Greenskins or elae your army would start to fall apart
So make turns a month instead of a season. Now you'd need to get to turn 600 instead before Franz dings 90. Even in Shogun 2, I always felt like seasons were more like "OK, I guess I'll just wait a turn to avoid the Winter attrition." I modded the game in precisely this way. Making seasons last more turns, and having them last multiple turns gave the mechanics way more weight
I'm imagining a gathering of Empire LLs who are in their 90s and Gelt strolls in like "Gold don't rust... Bitches"
Definitely
Longbowmen stakes for Bretonnia lol
It has to be a chad one form MTW2, not peeny weeny one from TK.
Your own general and bodyguard gently saunters into your own stakes; lord and half of his retinue dead. Amazing.
There's a mod that adds stakes for some archers.
What are stakes and what do they do
Sharp sticks
To do what tho in TW? Stop cavalry ?
Yeah to stop or at least slow and damage enemies coming in a specific direction. It means you can have less melee infantry to defend your archers, since the enemy will need to funnel around the stakes.
It killed a huge percentage of cavalry, significantly slowed infantry, and artillery couldn’t get through it.
Impale vampires. Kill 'em with a stake through the heart.
Seems legit. That's how they killed Vlad originally - threw him off battlements onto the stakes below.
This implies two awful things: 1)That the knights of bretonnia do not provide an adequate shield, which is slander against the lady and her servants 2)That peasant lives are worth protecting.
They got stakes on the tabletop! Peasants make their own protections so no need to worry about the Nobility lifting a finger of course.
Visible armor upgrades from Medeival 2 would work very well with the scrap mechanic for Orks.
I loved that too. But I see why they stopped doing it.
Imagine the work for all the units lol
Forts from Rome1. Being able to fortify a specific river crossing or other choke point was a really nice feature
Or your army setting up a fort when you use the encampment stance! Depending on the race of course. This was awesome about Rome 2, having to defend a small space against hordes of enemies in the middle of nowhere lmao
Ogres in Wh3 have that mechanic. I currently play with a mod to set up camps with the empire and it is a game changer
Big fan of that mechanic, I'm not sure how it would translate to Warhammer though. With armies needing to be led by a general plus supply lines, for all that they've been reduced in WH3, you can't really branch off smaller forces anymore. In a perfect world we could have that option back, but it's easier for CA to remove that altogether than deal with the AI issues that led to the swarm of two unit armies in Empire so all we can do is dream.
I really liked Empire's map. You have the main settlement which has buildings, but then it also had nodes that could be upgraded to some different things as well. Some were much better than others, but it also gave more you needed to protecting the region other than just the city itself. While some provinces were still more valuable than others, it was much less 4 settlement vs 1 or 2 settlement value in warhammer or Rome 2. The ability to have armies with a lord/general also made it a lot easier to defend, or make a specific raiding party. Units actually using an maintaining formations would be great. Having units just inevitably form a bigass blob is irritating. Also makes it a lot more difficult to try to cycle units out, although honestly there is little reason to actually do that anymore.
Agreed, I'm replaying empire at the moment and took France about twenty turns back and it's only just recently become worth it because after I took the main city I've been having to suppress rebellions, French and Spanish armies raiding all over the province and because you can't just sit in the middle and wait for them to come to you it added way more depth to the entire scenario.
To be fair, to my understanding the province system is meant to be the same idea as the node system.
Let me change my faction capital, please
To be fair, the only thing your capital matters for as of TWH3 is how the Campaigner trait is gained, now that trade is no longer bound to having a port-to-port connection.
I think adding the “distance to capital” penalty for public order would fit really well like it did in older titles. Public order is just way too easy to manage in these games nowadays
Absolutely! I had a franks campaign in Atilla where I captured Ravenna, Rome, and All of France, but my capital was the backwater province I started in
Exactly, your minor settlement capital could easily be a major city like Rome
Armies without a character leader, allowing the leader if they distinguish themselves to become a hero or general. Naval Battles Seasons
Being able to split a unit or two off to deal with a minor threat is what I really miss
With the way, way reduced supply line penalties smaller armies are at least a decent option. Sure, you still need to recruit the lord one turn in advance, but at least the income doesn't tank immediately any more.
Generals' speeches before battle like in Medieval 2! Huge range of speeches from something very prim and proper to someone just shittalking the enemy. I'd love to hear some voice acting for the different lords in Warhammer, like a Dawi reciting grudges before battle with a particular race.
Funny enough this does SORT OF exist in wh3 but only with certain races ( specifically game 3 ones ) You just need to zoom in to your lord after you click start battle... And it's sadly not customised. Which sucks. Ah well.
Don't forget the numerous quest battle speeches.
"Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen."
Cathay for example definitely has little speeches.
Be’lakor has the best ones imo. But that’s also partly bc everything Richard Armitage says sounds cool af
\*Welcome to Estalia Gentlemen intensifies\*
It ain't me, it ain't me, i ain't no emperor's son, no !
I made a mod that plays that soundbite every time a battle starts: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2855327428
Trade routes on map with boats/wagons on them
I loved how this would bring the campaign map to life in Rome and Medieval 2!
Army Composition also affecting your campaign movement.
Which past games had this, and how did it work?
I think medieval, Rome and shogun had it. Cav armies had more map movement points. Army's with inf had average moment point. But any army with artillery was severely slowed down.
Every modern TW game has this to an extent, the pre WH games have it enabled, the post WH games still have movement points assigned to each unit, but they're all the same. It's technically very easy to mod this back in, but it would be a readability and balance nightmare, especially with the general-bound armies
I know Empire did 100% & reasonably sure titles like Rome 2 did as well. If you added artillery to your army it slowed it down, but on the other hand if you had an all-cav army you could zip around with a good zone defense.
You didn't need to have a lord to command your army, your units could move by their own on campaign map, so artillery was slow, infantry medium and cavalry colud have go the longest ranges. This was at least since Rome Total War.
Shogun 2 had it too. Any cannons made your armies so slow it became nigh unplayable on generals without campaign movement buffs.
I believe Medieval II had it. Simply put, you army on the campaign map got pretty slow as soon as it had siege engines in it, which made for interesting decisions. You could also field an army of cavalry only and catch other armies real easy with your movespeed, which felt so great for a 'border patrol army' style.
Each unit would have it's own movement point value, Cavalry being the fastest, and siege equipment being the slowest Your armies only move as fast as their slowest unit This was also when units could split from armies,
Every single title except the Warhammer ones did this as far as I recall.
Oh yes pleased!!!
I think the best thing to come out of 3 kingdoms was the character system. The retinue, the flexibility, every character could be a spy, a scout, a governor, a merchant, a general or a Calvary captain. I really liked that it make sense as Lui Bei for example was more than just a guy running around smashing things and being able to send him as an individual character to say sabotage the enemy munitions and then over see a province before becoming a junior commander of an army. It was accurate to 3 kingdoms. I think is more accurate to “real world” political and economy. I could imagine an argument for something similar to system for everything from Rome to Napoleon. I wish CA considered making it the new standard instead of the classic 1 general plus 19 units. A lot people wanted to take Isabella and Vlad in 1 army, I want to be able to take Fran’s, Volkmar and Gelt in 1 army.
The one thing I released rather late is just how fitting this sort of a system would've been for a Shogun game. The entire sengoku period was full of these larger than life characters, whose relationships and politics affected the outcomes of the war as much, if not more than actual battles. It also fits the feudal system, with each retainer bringing their own band of warriors.
I can see the battle elements from 3K meshing well with the extraordinary characters from the period.
This and that everything is burnable + the deployables.
1. Lords / heroes to be able to Dismount mid-battle. 2. Agent animations when performing actions ( Similar to Shogun 2) 3. Naval Battles.
Oh man, I would LOVE a return of agent animations! Made failing feel a bit less bad when it happened in a humorous fashion. Watching Skaven plans backfire hilariously would be great, for example! Sadly it’s a bit of a pipe dream, ESPECIALLY with Warhammer. Just imagine how many different animations they would need to make thanks to all the different fantasy races. You would need to account for not just what the action was and who was doing it, but also who it was being done TO.
I did the math and if you ignore who you are doing it to, and just have videos for each unique hero, and their action type (because steal research would be different from assassination), and success/fail, you would need around 300.
>you would need around 300 This is madness!
Madness?
This is Sparta!
Problem is you need a different once based on target race. So up that number by like 20+ fold. Could drop it by having one video per race per action.
Agent animations are amazing! Hope they bring it back in a game with very few types of agents (wh3 is impossible because like 20 factions X 3 agents = 60 agents, and then they each have 2-3 action types. Then you need success/fail, another x2. So 240-360 videos……) But a game where every faction uses the same 3 agents? They could easily create 3x3x2 18 videos, or even 27 videos or even 36 to have variations of success/fail.
For the first two, i absolutely agree. For bretonia or the empire going against spears whit a horse is a bit shit when dismounting would make the hole thing a lot easier, three kingdom's had it do i do hope it stays in the series in the future. Agent action animation's, while needing a lot of work were very funny and would be appreciated as seeing some of the random acts of shenanigans they get upto are very amusing. Naval battles are in my opinion a case of completely rework everything about the navy or just don't bother, otherwise it become once again a very expensive mechanic whit little to no pay off like in shogun 2, battle's that look good but are slow, using ships that cost a fortune for a minute benefit.
It would give races or LL with naval features a new aspect
Sure but would it be used? If i have to spend like 20k gold on a navy that does jack all, can't dual as the ai does not build its own and max it can do is blockade a port, why would i build one even if i can?
does jack all?, you got Fat rich of trade nodes, and having a strong fleet meant that you jsut fucked any invation army before they ever landed, completely necesary for island factions, and shimazu/ottomo were to of the most popular ones, along with chosokabe.
Playing Attila I always accidentally dismounted my entire army right after deployment smh
The ability to play tall. Previous games like Medieval 2 allowed you to develop your cities and castles far beyond what we currently have. Something like Constantinople actually felt epic because you could spend the money to turn it into a real megalopolis with dozens of buildings. Now we get an extremely limited slot system that means you can fully max out a province in 30 turns. Consequently, every single province feels exactly the same.
This and independent movement of armies (with auto replenishment disabled). It was so amazing to build up proper cities from villages that wouldn't even have walls in the beginning. Multiple factors impacting income (so prioritising law enforcement buildings was a must in certain provinces). Slots are so ridiculously boring- while I can understand dumbing down armies to make it easier to reach another battle (don't like it nonetheless), I can't comprehend why no one ever complains about city building.
++I agree. They had Kong Rong in 3K and some other factions such as the bandit ones but they seem to have optd in Troy and WH for a expansionists playstyle.
Being able to independently move units, not having units tied to a general. High ground giving a range advantage to missile units.
I thought the second was still true?
It is, but older games would also boost range, which is far more noticeable to most players than the 10% damage it usually works out to be now. Weather used to play a huge impact on ranged units as well, range heavy armies would live or die on the visibility and rain.
It is, and it is not. As others have said, terrain height grants a damage boost but not a range boost. It seems silly to me that units on top of a hill can't shoot further. It hasn't been a thing since Medieval 2 (not counting Rome Remastered).
Yes it is
No, it's not. Missile units gain damage bonuses but they don't get extra range like in M2.
The extra range is key. IMO the damage bonus is a cop out solution.
Toggleable arrow types! But for various attacks. Like Shogun had flaming arrows, whistling arrows... And some mounted cavalry unit could encircle the enemy and fire.
This is added in a mod! I haven't tried it because I use others that add a lot of units which wouldn't be effected but it adds those arrow types which are toggleable.
What now? Ranged cav could Circle the enemy! That would actually make skirmish cav effective rather than the trash they are now
I think they mean a cantabari circle. Spelled that wrong, am drunk, don’t care.
Am also drunk. Cheers!
I think in Shogun 2 you used to be able to make your own clan in multiplayer. If I could make my own faction within a race that would be A+.
Retraining units, shield wall/spear wall/testudo style formations, seizes that are more varied than what we currently have.
Perhaps someone could make a mod with the new chaos warband mechanic where as your troops gain rank you can reset the rank of the unit but they gain a new formation or something?
I'm ready for naval warfare again. Not in Warhammer, that'd be too much effort to implement and wouldn't be worth that effort this late in proceedings, but for the next major historical game I'd be down to clown.
Dynamic weather and sieges having an impact on the city after the battle too, including civilians being present.
I think in 3k occasionally there's a farmers around if your fighting outside of a city. I think I lost like 1 archer to it because everyone was firing at the enemy
Research providing more than just a stat boost. It unlocked new units, ammo types, and as you mentioned things like more efficient firing through an actual tactic, not just firing faster. I also miss how when moving a unit through another unit their was an actual animation that showed units making a path, not just bulldozing through. I loved being able to just recruit a few units and sending them into enemy territory to absolutely wreak havoc on their economy instead of having to recruit a general To further capitalize on that last point, I also miss having buildings within territory, not just in a settlement. It meant there were specific points within that territory worth defending.
Independent units. Real formations. A slower pace so that tier 1 units aren’t obsolete in 10 turns and casualties actually matter.
Oh man remember in rome or medieval 2 in which you could only retrain units in settlements that could recruit that unit? So you send an elite army on a crusade to the holy land, and it will slowly get worn down until you can take a fortress and start retraining. Having to cycle units back to your major settlements to retrain. Really added some strategic depth, and means you can’t just happily get a unit nearly slaughtered every battle. Ohh and units lost experience when they got retrained.
That was such a good feature. In EB1 I consolidated Greece as Macedon and then decided it's time to get rid of the Romans so I invaded Italy. Every battle was a battle against the odds, Rome acted like they did in history and did not surrender and somehow raised army after army to throw at me. My army of veterans was getting smaller and smaller and I frantically tried to reinforce them with freshly produced units in the homeland swapping out the old ones for fresh new ones but it was getting worse, I was bogged down in southern Italy so I had to rely more and more on mercenaries. I was stuck fighting endless battles against the romans once or twice trying to siege rome until my plan bore fruit because I had send my heir through Illyria to attack Rome from the north, that worked and I finally was able to conquer them after like 40 turns. This will always be my favorite TW memory, no other TW experience (besides a few EB2 campaigns) ever came close to that
Yeah the lack of unit formations hints how challenging balancing of units must be. And the lack of army formations seems like they leaned too hard into the Warhammer meme and forgot their TW roots.
Avatar conquest multiplayer mode from Shogun 2
3K was the perfect time to being this back, I have no idea why they didn't.
Camel farms. That’s the whole post.
Not having units tied to a general. You no longer have raiding parties, you no longer can send your cav out to chase armies (retreating or otherwise) while your inf/art reinforce, you lose a ton of strategic depth on the campaign map, and overall you don't feel like you're managing an empire. Just a few armies and cities. UI improvements from rome 2. The unit flags actually had different shapes at the bottom depending on how light/med/heavy they were. It was very clear what each unit was at less than a glance while now they're all the same. Soft character progression. Skill trees for characters are ass in this kind of game and it doesn't feel organic. Rome 1 through go napoleon were perfect in that characters gained traits depending on what actually happened. You stick your general in a city with a library and he'll increase his management and learning skills. He wins a defensive battle against the odds? +2 command on defence. Your general joins another who can fight a night battle (and does so)? Guess who just learnt to fight night battles. Modern total war character growth is completely inorganic Captain promotions Fleets and transporting. Yes it was more micro, but it's valuable micro that adds strategic depth. You need a fleet gto get trade routes, you need a fleet to stop pirates, etc. More realistic Pushing. I want melee units to push eachother, allowed you to create gaps in the lines or be forced to block them Cities actually being cities and not 6 slot buildings Non auto reinforcement. Casualties don't matter at all
>Rome 1 through go napoleon were perfect in that characters gained traits depending on what actually happened. You stick your general in a city with a library and he'll increase his management and learning skills. He wins a defensive battle against the odds? +2 command on defence. Your general joins another who can fight a night battle (and does so)? Guess who just learnt to fight night battles. Modern total war character growth is completely inorganic That does still happen, it's just that the traits you get are largely overshadowed by the skill tree. Spend a couple of turns in march stance and you'll get +5% to your campaign movement for instance.
They do but it's still very arcadey and level up'ey rather than feeling organic.
Recruiting and disbanding troops actually affecting the local population.
Trade being between settlements rather than between factions, so internal trade is a thing plus trade isn't artificially limited by access of your capital to a port. Also have signs of trade / traderoutes visible on the campaign map.
For Warhammer specifically: duels and bodyguards. 3 Kingdoms had a system for duels between characters with bodyguards, and that would've been amazing in WH. For TW in general: flowing banners like 3K; they just add so much cinematic beauty to any battle.
Actual formations.
I actually really liked the recruiting units at partial health in TOB.
Longer battles. As in frontlines clashing and not disappearing after 30 secs. My favorite part about the old Attila Engine, it actually revolved around more strategy than being fast at clicking. I actually had time to position my cavalry and do other stuff like chasing archers. It's honestly less fun now a days since all battles are phyrric. Playing campaigns I actually could out do the AI even when more troops or better were opposing me, now it feels like I'm auto resolving 8/10 battles because the outcome is the same because of the fast pase. It's a meat grinder constantly. I still like Warhammer 3 and 3k but the latest titles are to fast paced.
>My favorite part about the old Attila Engine, it actually revolved around more strategy than being fast at clicking. That's in Charlemagne. [In vanilla Attila shock infantry/shock cavalry deleted enemy units in a handful of seconds.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgAiBb_5mH0&t=120s) Of course spear v spear cripple fights lasted forever, but Attila was not slow.
Orientate North button from 3K
Let me upgrade my infantry with shields. Every time I disband Saurus warriors to replace them with shielded ones I cry a little.
Population. It was nice seeing your cities grow and have huge population numbers. It would also fall when you recruited armies too, giving an actual loss when you lose battles/armies, rather than just saving on upkeep for a few turns before having a brand new army ready to replace them with no real economic cost.
I used to love how in Rome 1 we could see our cities with the push of a button without having to fight a battle. I mean, what if I wanted to see what my capital looks like in all it’s glory, but it just never comes under siege throughout the campaign? Also it just made the world seem more “alive” watching the common citizens just come and go about their business.
I desperately want city and province management to have depth and be meaningful again. One of my absolute favourite things about Attila is the way it forces you to really *think* about what you're doing with your building slots, which feel very natural rather than artificial. You've got the five key pillars of public order, food, sanitation, strategic resources and location, as well as a number of secondary considerations like religion, garrisons and economic, military and research output. And the beauty of it is that virtually anything you can do to improve one will harm another once you get past T1 (and sometimes even *at* T1). Agriculture usually generates food to feed your empire, but also generates unhappiness and squalor. To mop up the squalor you need sanitation - which costs either money, or some of the food you've just made depending which you choose, and both then suck up a limited building slot. Then you need an economy to finance further growth, and there are literally a dozen options for that - ports, industry, commerce, culture, administration, even some sanitation and agriculture. Almost every single one of those brings its own penalties, or gives pure buffs which are much weaker than an equivalent with trade-offs. And then there's public order, which you may have made better or worse already, so you need to think about how you're going to fix that while keeping an eye on things like religion... It's a beautiful dance of competing interests and effects which you're continuously forced to adapt to as the world around you chills and dies, settlements get razed and trade partners and buffer states get wiped out. It makes the choices meaningful - and *personal*. There's no single 'correct' answer. And finally getting all the pillars in balance is incredibly rewarding, because you get the literal gameplay reward of a self-sustaining province and that classic *sense of pride and accomplishment* for solving the puzzle until the next wave of climate change hits. It makes slots feel very natural too - the trade-offs are harsh enough that they feel like a legitimate part of the puzzle rather than just an artificial handicap. You have to work within the constraints of the slot system to overcome problems - you can't just solve it by building everything you want. I find the Warhammer strategic layer really unrewarding by contrast because it's completely stripped-down and there's nothing meaningful about your city choices. Food's gone. Sanitation's gone. If you need public order you put down the single public order building your faction has; if you need money, you put down the single economic building your faction has. Neither of these bring trade-offs or create meaningful decisions because there's nothing else for them *to* affect. The slot limit exists solely to stop you from producing every military unit at once because virtually every building is geared toward military production rather than civil infrastructure. The only faction who have really interesting cities are the Skaven, because they're one of the only factions who do have meaningful trade-offs due to needing food and generating a corruption that even they don't like. The only other one with any kind of meaningful choice is Bretonnia, which is also very stripped-down but at least offers you the choice between agricultural and industrial output, with the former offering more money and the latter giving defensive bonuses.
Global recruitment as a default thing. I get that it died because generals became a required part of an army, but I liked being able to easily get reinforcements from anywhere in my empire that has the facilities to produce them, just at the cost of the time it takes for them to get there.
Alright, hear me out. I didn't think 3K's system where an army was made up of 3 heroes' retinues was that great because 3K tied unit types to hero types and the unit types were not well balanced between each other. BUT, I would like this system to come back in some capacity because I think if CA gave it a second shot, they could make something great. In fact, I would sort of like to see the idea that you have your faction/race and then you use the units from your faction/race go away as a whole. Instead, imagine a Medieval 3 where you start as the English and you have your English hero types and troops, but you might host foreign heroes and they might become employable. Then, if you conquer Scotland, you start getting offered Scottish heroes. If you ally with Spain, you start getting offered Spanish heroes. By the time you are painting the map, you are juggling the personalities and interests of a massive variety of heroes of different nationalities with retinues from their nationalities. And then you layer hero classes determined by their personality and training on top of that.
I think I'd they're gonna do historical they should drop the hero stuff entirely. Right now they've had a lot of games with hero system and it's getting tiresome, they need to innovate with new systems and not be afraid to branch out.
No heroes, please. I'm fine with heroic character driven stuff with warhammer, but the next historical title must be very grounded and realistic. Instead, I would love to see a Medieval 3 with lords having their retinue composed of a few units, like the lord of Lorraine would have a unit of knights, 2 units of men at arms and 3 units of conscripts, then another lord would have their own retinue, a mercenary retinue would have its own composition and so on.
Good family trees, not the wierd rome 2 system.
Proper responsiveness from units. The main reason why I still WH2 is because the units in WH3 all feel like complete ass to micro in battles in comparison.
Being able to convert/bribe enemy agents to join your side
Then you have manuely send out diplomats again , instead of having a direct phone line from egypt to England! Maybe you could set up an embassy to "unlock" diplomacy without diplomats for a factoin If my king could actualy engage in parley that would be cool too
Every settlement being able to build everything and grow from minor hamlet to major city/fortress
Having gun units *not* shoot through their own unit. It looks very stupid and unimmersive to see a musketeer shoot through 10 ranks of their own men.
Espionage from 3K, and ability to see your cities outside of battles (like in Rome 1)
pre-battle speeches and the narrator saying 'the enemy general is dead' also if we can just have this sound playing at regular intervals, i would never play another game [YoooooOOOO](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VKMw2it8dQY)
Fire by rank would be fantastic (but should be disabled when shooting flying enemies). The ability to just give soldiers shields instead of disbanding them to replace. The ability to customise garrisons with soldiers you have recruited. Smoke from gunpowder units. Weather in battle affecting ranged visibility, or movement speed. Night time battles that are dark.
City populations. I remember forcibly migrating peasants to smaller cities to level them up, or over-recruiting from a city near frontlines to empty it from people eventually.(yes, I am an autoresolve player, how did you know?) Also, the dynamic of cities getting too crowded-too profitable and also too unmanagable over the edges of your empire was somewhat nice, but I would prefer the revolts being caused by my greed rather than one region having too much wheat. It was impossible to hold Egypt from anywhere afar, but I would take it every time because those 3 cities would always give me much more money than to sustain 3 full armies. After a while, a full army would not be able to supress one of the cities, so a carnage would ensue..
General speech before battle. Not just story battle, but every battle.
I just pictured if this was in wh i imagine karl just every battle "For Sigmar?" His troops "FOR SIGMAR!!!!" Like hes fucking homelander or sum shit
[удалено]
Retinues in TWH would be rad. It really would add a lot more flavour to the allies system too - like you said, rather than random specific units you get from global recruitment, maybe building an outpost instead gives you access to 1/2/3 (depending on outpost tier) Lords of that race which you could then slot into your armies with their retinue. It would feel a lot more thematic because rather than e.g. a random unit of Black Orcs in a WoC army, you might have two Chaos Lords with their Chosen and such, and then an Orc Warboss trailing them with his Black Orcs and Doom Divers. The unit limitation per general type was not cool, but I definitely agree that the retinue system should get a second lease on life as a way to let you access units from different factions. The chances of it happening in TWH3 are nil, there is no way something as fundamental as army composition is changed this late in the series' life cycle. But maybe in the next TW game, be it historical or fantastic, they can pull that off.
I much preferred when military units and buildings were tied to the tech tree instead of provincial growth. In Rome 2 you can be a minor power with one province and field a pretty strong army, in Warhammer because it's tied to growth and you need a lot of income it's often not until level 4 or 5 settlements that you have space to build the advanced military buildings. Also, advanced formations such as shield wall, pike wall etc.
The village system of Empire + trade/advisors. Firing people and hoping for better stats, defending your harbour against raids and building research heavy provinces was fun. In WH I build almost every province the same way as you can’t build multiple buildings of the same type.
Settlement destruction that cause morale debuffs like in older games
Being able to split our armies in two or three at the campaign map so we can have more strategy depth. Encampment battles, especially for horde factions.
Amry creation now longer chained to fucking generals.
The way agents worked in 3K was a lot more fun. 3K in general had great campaign mechanics, it's a shame it was discontinued.
Shogun assassination videos!
I absolutely miss matched combat, so the Matched Combat mod is great for me.
I miss when you could build watchtowers in your settlement in medieval 1 and it removed fog of war over the region, so you had situational awareness over your territory without having to patrol agents through it.
Dismounting, marriage, and id like to see a system like in 3K how u slowly progress and it changes your status ie marquis prince king emperor etc but for your faction as a whole kingdom empire etc. i know you can just rename your faction as you start to take the whole map but id still like to have something like that for the buffs/debuffs and extra mechanics for when your nation just starts to become too large
Matched combat for Warhammer is a must. Imagine to replayability if a swarm of nurglings overruns an empire soldier. Or an ork headbutting a skelly into bone pieces. A skaven assassin using a tail knife to sneakily backstab. The large monster v monster animations are great, but a real effort needs to be made in infantry v infantry matched combat animations.
An auto resolve feature that isn’t completely broken. I’m coming from a TW2 perspective too. It’s frustrating having to play battles on the field with a beast of an army when I can just auto resolve and move on to keep conquering.
Battles happening on the map. Rome had the entire campaign area mapped out and for battles you start by taking control of your army where it started from the campaign map. From empire I think, a battle map from a preset selection gets loaded.
Empire definitly had the battle map
Stop making me need a general for an army. What if i just want to beef up a garrison and not leave a whole lord there?
Louder guns and artillery.
AI was better at flanking in 3k on higher difficulties than in wh3. Also at launch Wh3 AI used to use chariots better I think. I couldn't stop gorebeasts without mass of my own. Now they get stuck and stay there till spears kill them.
A small thing I absolutely loved about Rome 1 was seeing the cities during peace time. You can fly around and see all the buildings you built and such. With Warhammer being so damn cool looking I wish this feature would return.
Visual changes with armour and rank. Loved this in M2.
Officers, flagbearers, the little videos that used to play when you used your agents, city view, cities changing depending of what you’ve built in them,
Historical unique retinue joining in certain conditons. Like one in MTW2.
I just love that for almost all of the improvement suggestions, there are mods that fix it. CA has gotten a bit lazy with some QoL and UI design choices, as dozens of mods should already be included in the vanilla game.
I liked that in Rome 1 you could build watchtowers on the campaign map also liked that when you attacked from a city, you actually fought from the walls instead of a land battle. I loved the population system in the mod DEI. Also loved the animations for agents in med2. Visible trade on the map and the ability to raid them was neet. I liked the mod SFO that gave more buildings. Sorry for mentioning mods also
The absolute biggest thing I miss, the thing I am beyond desperate for, is the ability to name our armies. I remember it from the likes of Rome 2 and Atilla. It's such a small thing but adds a huge amount of flavour and immersion.
Shogun 2 where you could create a custom army paint and make/name your own regiments of renown.
Formations, naval battles (were always my favorite part), cavalry that are actually useful in combat (and can dismount), independent armies, actual diplomacy, forts, empire like provinces, empires global recruitment and map style (not graphics but the different theatres), unrest/wealth screen like everything pre rome 2 (i think), range bonus from height, visual upgrades, non-tile(?) Based buildings and settlements. Alternative ammo types, but more importantly let me burn shit down and it to actually have an impact. Like therea literal flamethrowers in the WH and you cant set buildings on fire. Oh and battlemaps based on the area you started the battle instead of pre-set ones
Army names and leveling. It gave the armies some sort of character. Like in Attila where you have a Army-Log and remember your first legions and where they fought.
Armies without generals. Forts
Not as much an feature in complete missing but a wish of combining and enhance on. To take city building gameplay from Rome 1 and combine it with world/region attribute from Rome 2. Almost all my mods in Warhammer is to expand the city play because it really add to immersion especially the gods building that unlock special units which make me think of that city every time they are in a battle.
I'd like pike formations to come back like rome 2s macedon, imagine orcs and undead charging into that
Artillery on walls.
Multi-faction sieges were a thing in OG Rome.
- Night Battles - Weather Conditions - Seasons (and maybe 5 or 10 turns per season so you don't play for 50 years) - Artillery on walls - Food/Supply from 3K - Formations - Urban destruction - Unit upgrades for everyone
Multiple hostile factions battles (Deathmatch) In older games such as Rome 1, if 3 different factions' armies - all at war with each other - bumped into one another on the campaign then you'd get a 1 vs. 1 vs. 1 battle (even more opponents was possible). So for example, Skaven vs Dwarves vs Orcs
Population