Your wishlist!

[JacquesDeLalaing]

I fear that these are very personal wishes, but here we go:

1) Concentration on the core, operational mechanics (movement, supply, police/control, evade, reconaissance, etc) rather than on the grand-tactical/strategical mechanics (diplomacy, economy, etc.)
2) More transparency of the operational mechanics (more info on how supply works, how movement speeds are calculated in detail, more info on battle-resolution, etc.)
3) Smaller scenarios with short turn-intervalls (4-7 days per turn max.)

[Rossignol]

1/ well, more generals !

[Sauro]

I fear that these are very personal wishes, but here we go:

1) Concentration on the core, operational mechanics (movement, supply, police/control, evade, reconaissance, etc) rather than on the grand-tactical/strategical mechanics (diplomacy, economy, etc.)
2) More transparency of the operational mechanics (more info on how supply works, how movement speeds are calculated in detail, more info on battle-resolution, etc.)
3) Smaller scenarios with short turn-intervalls (4-7 days per turn max.)

I strongly agree with these.

[Shri]

My List-

1. Better Diplomacy and more diplomatic options- various types of Peace Treaty etc and also ability of one ally giving tribute/gift to another ally.
2. Better Ledger of forces, cities, production etc.
3. More info on the operational mechanics- supply, movement, warfare etc.

[Stelteck]

1- Increase stability of the engine and turn execution performance.
It is really important. I sometimes search for Ageod in more general forums such as reddit. The compagny games seems to have a bad reputation (coming mostly from the past) in the casual community of being with lots of bugs, crashingoften and having long execution turn, making sometimes playing against the AI quite difficult.
I'am afraid it is not completely false, even if it is only a part of the bigger picture.

2- Rethink PBEM mecanism with maybe online server, automailing of turn, and a common turn&execution&replay for everyone. And secure turn with password.

3- A clear rule for retreat path after battle, which is sometimes quite strange. In a general point of view, if the actions were a little more predictable it would be a good think. The better player have to win, not the luckier.
As example, maybe activation mecanism, which is really based on luck, could be rethink. Strategic rating could be used only for movement speed bonus, march to the sound of the gun and retreat chance or these sorts of thing.

[ERISS]

3- A clear rule for retreat path after battle, which is sometimes quite strange. In a general point of view, if the actions were a little more predictable it would be a good think.

The retreater (I don't talk about a succesfull moving prepared deep defense) is mainly driven by the victor, so it is not very predictable.
Or maybe you talked about the ability for the winner to choose where the looser go?
However you're right in all should choose a planned prefered way where to retreat, but it will just increase its chance of happening.
EDIT: What should very increase a retreat where intended, is the expertise level of the Retreating ability commander, and the RulesOfEngagement chosen.
By default, the intended retreat is the previous region of the force. A feature to set it otherwise is missing.

Starting with 25%: (or maybe 10% + Strategy +2*AttackOrDefend command values)
with added in brackets the Ability and ROE numbers of the opponent to be added

No level ability: -50% (+25%)
Level 1 ability: +25% (-25%)
Level 2 ability: +75% (-50%) (negative%ofOpponent: a good retreater general
knows where the opponent should go retreating, where to cut his better road)
AND:

All-Out Attack: -75% (-50%)
Sustained Attack: -50% (-25%)
Conservative Attack: +50% (0)
Feint/Probe Attack: +100% (+50%)
OR:
Hold At All Costs: -100% (+75%)
Defend: -50% (+50%)
Defend and Retreat: +25% (+75%)
Retreat if Engaged: +75% (+100%)

You have no retreat skill, you're in a battle as you were just defending, the attacker is level 1 in retreat and made a sustain attack.
If your general decide a retreat: his army goes were intended if % success check:
25 -50 -50 -25 -25= -125%: no way! (opponent: 25 +25 -50 +25 +50= +75%)
hoops, you were defending&retreat and were level2 skill?: 25 +75 +25 -25 -25= +75%! it changes...
(opponent: 25 +25 -50 -50 +75= +25%)

You make a conservative attack and are level 1 retraiter, your opponent was attacking too, sustaining, and has no retreat level:
If your general decide a retreat: 25 +50 +25 -25 +25= +100% : sure you're free to go where you want!
(opponent: 25 -50 -50 -25 +0= -100%)

[Carnium]

1. Improved AI with more (optional) helpers for the AI only. Auto garrison feature did wonders in some games!
2. Better and more detailed ledger. Like how many men are currently under arms per nation/faction and how many have already perished for the cause.
3. Ability for AI to use all stuff that is in the game, not that some are just usable for PBEM. I believe the AI is still not capable of building/destroying forts/depots. Or is it?

I kinda preferred old style graphics over the new one that you can see in TEAW/CW2.Portraits are something that I will probably never like, especially after I saw the ones in original AGEOD's Civil War. There is probably no way back, but maybe I am not alone.
Also don't forget about newbies to the AGEOD gaming. After reading many reviews on Steam I came to conclusion that people would love the games... if they only knew how to play them using better tutorials and some scenarios for newbies
And yes... stability of the engine as "some" games are prone to random crashes. Memory leak or something else?

[ashandresash]

Let's try mine...

1.- More statistics in ledger. Total of men/horses/cannons/ships by type and nationality, production and losses (both current and historical), some graphics with evolution of some magnitudes during the game...

2.- More research. I'm talking more about tactics than technology, improving troops performance, unlocking some specialists (or increasing your force limit of certain units) or even new and/or better leaders. It should be related to some game conditions, like experience gained by troops or leaders (measured by seniority).

3.- More organic Regional Decision Cards. I love them but I think they need to be rethought, aiming to be more systematic as well as integrated into the game (replenishing when some conditions are met, looking for balance with them).

[ERISS]

I edited about retrait idea, see post 35

[Ace]

1- Find a way to avoid clutter when more than 2-3 stacks are in small region (smaller stack sprites or larger maximum zoom)
2- Better PBEM security
3- Fire and assault phase hits differentation in battle report, and inflicted hits by each unit in battle report

[Cardinal Ape]

1 - More elaborate orders. The ability to delay orders and better merging of troops on the move mainly.
2 - Better PBEM. Both in security and ease of use.
3 - A more elaborate experience system for generals. Mainly the ability to promote within a stack and gaining some experience in a losing effort.

[wosung]

1. Faster turn resolution.
2. More of a grand strategy layer.
3. Easier modding.

[Baris]

1- Find a way to avoid clutter when more than 2-3 stacks are in small region (smaller stack sprites or larger maximum zoom)
2- Better PBEM security
3- Fire and assault phase hits differentation in battle report, and inflicted hits by each unit in battle report

Hard to tell if there is a breach level increase or status quo with enemy big counters in a small region with fortified lines graphics; besides searching message logs and asking opponent. Best fit Tzaritzyn.

AI controlled sub faction units in same region can disrupt proper postures for fixed CIC or army. Though it can be game specific.

[Ahenobarbus]

1. Un jeu sur les intrigues politiques dans la Rome républicaine, où la carte du monde est simplement la carte des quartiers de Rome.

2. Les guerres des diadoques. Vive les Séleucides !!

3. Conquetes des conquistadors, où une poignée d'aventuriers doivent s'allier avec des petites tribus indiennes pour conquérir les empires indiens.