So Whats Next?

[knoddy]

Haha maybe a bit soon but im interested in what people think. I know shogun 2 is still a month away but what period do u think they will base the next game in.

My thoughts are that they will redo Rome. i loved rome and the only reason i dont play it as much anymore is because the graphics and gameplay seem a little lame compared to empire haha. they may change the time peroid behind the game but im expecting Rome 2 to be the next game.

Other than that i would love to see a Greek Total war but i dont know how they could do that with Greece as the center of the game. either they do Greece in great detail and not much else of hte world or they do greece in only a few provinces and have lots of the rest of the world. either way would be cool.

other than that i dont see any new time period they cud fuction in. before Greece/Rome i dont think there is much they cud work with. Between Rome and medieval again not much to work with.

They cud possibly do a Mongol total war but the mongols nomadic lifestyle would make that hard.

They could also possibly do a china/middle east based one and have the mongols in there too just as a threat.

anyways enough rambling from me. so what do other people think!

Cheers Knoddy

[pevergreen]

I can see them redoing Rome.

Sure shogun was their first, but Rome made TW a brand.

[sugam]

No doubt, its gonna be Rome. They tested how they could do it with Shogun, then came Rome. Now with new advances in shogun 2 they will work them out and apply them to Rome 2. I hate to say this, but Shogun is kinda like a tester to see how far they will be going with Rome so things might not be perfect, I pry to god its no where near as bad as empires release but from what I have seen it looks very solid so far. The first Rome was very huge and had awesome units so Rome will probably take a while longer before release. I am guessing like 2 to 3 years, unless they cut down a little but I doubt that they would seeing its CA and all, one of the last game studios that has my personal respect.

as a side note to Rome, I loved the burning pig units and the crazy women that would demoralize the enemy with its annoying howling! :)

[Cecil XIX]

Rome is the obvious choice, and a good one, but with Europa Barbarorum II upcoming I'd rather see them try something different. Ideally something with the same, smaller scope as Shogun. I'm thinking either giving Viking Invasion the full game treatment, the Reconquista, Spain during the Islamic invasions, or Italy after Rome fell with Lombards, Goths, Byzantines etc. battling it out.

[Lemur]

with Europa Barbarorum II upcoming
On a long enough timescale, we will see EBII. But then, on a long enough timescale we will all be dead. I would welcome Rome 2 from CA.

[A Nerd]

I am hoping the next game will be ancient China, being somewhat similar to the style of combat and such of feudal Japan. Much like NTW following ETW, the theatres being somewhat similar. If that isn't the case, I would expect Rome to follow Shogun 2.

[pevergreen]

I am guessing like 2 to 3 years, unless they cut down a little but I doubt that they would seeing its CA and all, one of the last game studios that has my personal respect.

Shogun: June 2000 (MI: August 2001)
Medieval: August 2002 (VI: May 2003)
Rome: September 2004 (BI: September 2005, Alexander: June 2006)
Medieval 2: November 2006 (Kingdoms: August 2007)
Empire: March 2009
Napoleon: February 2010
Shogun 2: March 2011


Yup, I can see them taking longer.

[Tempiic]

When Rome II happens, I can see them adding a greek cities dlc campaign like ntw's peninsular campaign rather easily.

Hard to say when that when actually is. Might as well be M3TW first. Or something competely different ;)

[aimlesswanderer]

A logical and historically accurate expansion would be to the Korean peninsula.

After that, China would be fantastic, though not likely to be next. There have been so many wars in China - civil wars, rebellions, invasions by nomads, tribes, the list goes on and on. There's vast scope for a whole series of games there.

But probably won't be until after something in Europe or the Middle East. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and the Hittites would be a good choice.

[Quintus.JC]

A logical and historically accurate expansion would be to the Korean peninsula.

After that, China would be fantastic, though not likely to be next. There have been so many wars in China - civil wars, rebellions, invasions by nomads, tribes, the list goes on and on. There's vast scope for a whole series of games there.


Personally I would love a TW title set in ancient China. The Spring-Autumn/Warring States and Three Kingdom period offer rich pickings. Although I'm not sure whether they'd generate enough interest with it. Rome II would be the logical choice, with the Peloponnesian War as expansion pact. :yes:

[pevergreen]

They have to appeal to the mass market.

Shogun works because every kid and his dog has talked about samurai and ninjas, even if they know nothing about the history. Rome works because the market knows of it.

China? Not so much.

[andrewt]

I'm guessing Rome is next, too. It'll be the only one of their first 3 time periods without a sequel. China isn't popular enough with their primarily Western market but it could work as an expansion to Shogun 2.

Is Shogun 2 a new engine or the Empire engine? CA usually uses the same engine for 2 games.

[A Nerd]

One must also take in to account, if the trend continues, that the next came might be a stand alone that many consider should have been an expansion pack. ETW and NTW for example. Perhaps the follow up to STW2 will relate to it in some way. I realize that one example isn't necesarially a trend, but something worth considering.

[antisocialmunky]

The Great War: Total War :D

[Nelson]

A logical and historically accurate expansion would be to the Korean peninsula.


I agree. This would be a better idea than the Mongols.

[sugam]

Is Shogun 2 a new engine or the Empire engine? CA usually uses the same engine for 2 games.

I think it is the same engine rebuilt. They made a lot of changes to its structure on how it calls back data to try to maxamize its performance.

[Revolting Friendship]

I'm hoping for 1 or 2 expansions for Shogun2 before they move on to the next title.
The candidates for expansions as I can see are:

1. Korean invasion. Really interesting campaign, with both Koreans, Chinese(ming) and Jurchens(manchu) thrown into the mix. This game would look more into handling limited resources of men and supplies, and securing and maintaining supply lines for resupplies and reinforcements, rather than developing cities and recruiting troops.

2. Mongol invasion. Return to the original expansion-topic, so less likely, however they could do it better, and more interesting this time.

3. Nanbokuchô era. Age of the southern and northern courts, a more consolidated all-japanese conflict with less contestants, set in an earlier period. This campaign would allow CA to focus more on story, intruiges and roleplay than just pure strategy, if that's something they want to look into... I suppose the Genpei war is also valid for such a setting but meh, too hyped and nagged out IMO.

4. Boshin war. The destruction (or not) of the shogunate and the restoration of imperial rule, phasing out of the old ways and the samurai caste and introduction of modern military/weapons. It could also feature the struggle of the real last samurai; Saigo Takamori, and his inevitable downfall. Really intruiging setting, however it would require quite some focus on 19th century firearms/tactics to be done right.

After the Shogun2 expansions, I'm hoping for any of these:

1. 17th century europe, the age of pike and shot, hopefully focused on the 30 year war. More focus on military campaigns, fighting battles, logistics and diplomacy than country development, research and recruitment.

2. Mediterranian, 8-5th century BC. The age of greek colonization. This game would simulate the conflicts in greece leading to colonization, and the establishment of colonies and their struggles. It would also feature conflicts with other local powers, the encroaching Persians, the rise of nations such as Rome and Carthage, and the conflicts between greek civilization and these emerging threats. IMO this period preceeding the Persian wars, Peloponnesian wars, and the rise of Rome is just as interesting, if not even more interesting than the latter. But clearly, this game would have as natural expansions, all these popular conflicts.

Or,

3. Mongol invasion PROPER. Starting with the rise of Genghis Khan, his consolidation of the mongolian tribes, continuing with his and his successors conquest of one part of the world after another. The challange for players would first be to emulate his success, and even outdo the Mongols by conquering regions such as India, Africa, Japan and Europe. This game would really offer a grand scale to TW, and present scores of diverse factions, either letting you conquer them as the Mongols, or resist and compete with some of the smaller factions.

[aimlesswanderer]

They have to appeal to the mass market.

Shogun works because every kid and his dog has talked about samurai and ninjas, even if they know nothing about the history. Rome works because the market knows of it.

China? Not so much.

All they need to do is call it "Total War:Kung Fu". That will solve the recognition problem, but having to complete the 36 chambers of Shaolin in order to start the TW campaign proper might put some people off! But being able to recruit nearly invincible Shaolin monks who could defeat hundreds of soldiers each would be suitable compensation. :laugh4:

And I am sure, if they did it right, a TW game set in China would get plenty of extra attention from East Asia - not all of it pirated. There are, after all, millions of keen gamers out there... and I have always thought that there might be an Imperial ancestor in the family tree somewhere!

[knoddy]

After the Shogun2 expansions, I'm hoping for any of these:

1. 17th century europe, the age of pike and shot, hopefully focused on the 30 year war. More focus on military campaigns, fighting battles, logistics and diplomacy than country development, research and recruitment.

2. Mediterranian, 8-5th century BC. The age of greek colonization. This game would simulate the conflicts in greece leading to colonization, and the establishment of colonies and their struggles. It would also feature conflicts with other local powers, the encroaching Persians, the rise of nations such as Rome and Carthage, and the conflicts between greek civilization and these emerging threats. IMO this period preceeding the Persian wars, Peloponnesian wars, and the rise of Rome is just as interesting, if not even more interesting than the latter. But clearly, this game would have as natural expansions, all these popular conflicts.

Or,

3. Mongol invasion PROPER. Starting with the rise of Genghis Khan, his consolidation of the mongolian tribes, continuing with his and his successors conquest of one part of the world after another. The challange for players would first be to emulate his success, and even outdo the Mongols by conquering regions such as India, Africa, Japan and Europe. This game would really offer a grand scale to TW, and present scores of diverse factions, either letting you conquer them as the Mongols, or resist and compete with some of the smaller factions.

First off, of course there will be expansions, not being well versed in this time period in Japan i have no idea what they are but of course other people are offering good suggestions.

my suspicions are that they will redo Rome while it was my fav game it had its problems and i know they would love to jazz its graphics up.

I dont see them doing another pike n shot game for a while. this might just be my personal dislike of another game similar to empire but i dunno i just didnt think it worked as well.

a greece based total war is an awesome idea with one major problem which i believe is why it hasnt been done yet. there are 2 ways to approach a greece based game.

1. have green in epic scale. all the different city states fighting etc for domination. can you rise to lead greece. However this would require greece to be huge to have enough provinces for all the city states. then how do u represent the rest of the world. the Persian empire was huge compared to greece so if greece has to be big to fit all the city states in how big will persia be.

2. they do greece in a simple style with maybe only 3-4 city states, and can accurately represent the rest of the worl. but then it just basically becomes Rome but a diff time period.

dunno if that made sense or not lol

and finally i would love to see a China/Mongol invasion based total war. I love the history of Ghengis Khan and the time. its a period of conflict. you could be one of the mongol tribes trying to rise up to lead the rest OR one of the Chinese empires fighting between themselves with the ever present threat of mongol invasion. the biggest problem with a game like this is the problem that mongols didnt really occupy cities. they raised most of their conquests to the ground. they didnt have cities of their own. But i mean maybe they cud use the horde feature from (Rome BI?) they control provinces but there is an army in each province which can build small improvments to the ger towns that follow them around. ie whereever your army is thats where your tent city is.

So thats my thoughts :D

[quadalpha]

They have to appeal to the mass market.

Shogun works because every kid and his dog has talked about samurai and ninjas, even if they know nothing about the history. Rome works because the market knows of it.

China? Not so much.

They can tap into the vast Chinese market. There is no proper strategy game based on China. What there is is based on a slightly weird RPG/fantasy system.

It would get pirated to bits in China, of course, but even to capture a small part of that market would be a lot.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Put Shoggy 1, Med 1, and VI on Good Old Games, patched for newer OSes and graphics cards.

Minimal amount of work, guaranteed revenue forever. Naturally, they won't do it...

[PanzerJaeger]

WW2!! :grin:

[xploring]

I also want China, there are so many periods to choose from, they can make a series of great games just based on China. And the terrain with the two main rivers also present a lot of opportunities for combined land and water combat. But it's been more than 10 years since they started and they still haven't picked China, so probably never happening.

[Alrik]

Well there have to be interesting factions, China sure, are there enough factions? are they diverse or more or less the same with different starting positions?

I asked myself how early can they go? Can they go earlier than Rome, like some said with te Greek era, possibly. Earlier than that? I dunno, there is the period, around Hammurabi, (Babylonian king), then you have Assyria, Egypt, Baylonia and the Hittite Kingdom as the four mayor players, plus a bunch of smaller kingdoms. Question is it enough and what troop diversity would there be? From what I know there was little armour. apparently the Hittites were one of few or possibly only ones what could make iron weapons, meaning most would be bronze.
I guess it's a possibility, but nothing that really shouts out at me. Like pevergreen said it has to have appeal.

I think and hope it's Rome 2 coming and I hope for more diversity in the none roman factions, plus an army scale-up. I mean a legion was 6000 men, Yeah I guess you can get that onto the screen, but you have to toss in a lot of AI controlled falangst to get there as it is. I'm not sure I really want a 6000 man army either, but I kind of want my wallet and population to limit my army size rather than the slots in the army stack, if you get my drift. The depletion of population in RTW was something I missed in M2TW.

A third Medieval total war would be welcome as well, mostly because I think they missed the feeling in M2TW, it's rushed, you begin smack in the middle and before you've assembled a decent army you're already in the renaissance, no matter that it's still the 11-hundreds, something they've tried to correct with 2 years per turn. Nay I say, do again and do it right. And leave the damn gunpowder in the renaissance where it belongs and leave it out of the medieval age where it doesn't belong.
I wouldn't mind "the Grand Campaign" to be the scale of the Brittannia campaign either, in fact I'd like that very very much. The old map was very much stunted too, I mean the two northern most of the four medieval Scandinavian kingdoms were hardly on the map, only parts of them were. I'd love to see all of those in the game, even if they'd be both similar and minor factions.

[Lemur]

Put Shoggy 1, Med 1, and VI on Good Old Games, patched for newer OSes and graphics cards.
Second the motion.

[Nigel]

I have just recovered from a bad flue. This has put another idea into my head :

Human Body TW, with Influenza Invasion as expansion.
Explore the vast faculties of your body, build a strong immune system, organize the supply of vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates and fats and fight epic battles where you command thousands of white blood cells against various different tribes of bacteria and viruses. Realistic battle maps model the terrain of lung tissue, gut, spleen, kidney and the fameous liver, where you can relive the historic battles of heroic detoxification attempts.


:o)

[aimlesswanderer]

Well there have to be interesting factions, China sure, are there enough factions? are they diverse or more or less the same with different starting positions?

Umm, obviously you know nothing about Chinese history - or China as a whole. At various times there have been so many sides in civil wars - royal factions, court factions, regional warlords, feral military commanders, various tribes, nomads, neighboring kingdoms, various rebels - that you'd have to decide who to leave out.

Not to mention the multitude of rivers, lakes, plains, mountains, forests, tropical rain forests.... are you aware that China is nearly as large as the whole of Europe?

[Zarky]

Umm, obviously you know nothing about Chinese history - or China as a whole. At various times there have been so many sides in civil wars - royal factions, court factions, regional warlords, feral military commanders, various tribes, nomads, neighboring kingdoms, various rebels - that you'd have to decide who to leave out.

Not to mention the multitude of rivers, lakes, plains, mountains, forests, tropical rain forests.... are you aware that China is nearly as large as the whole of Europe?

China indeed is huge and history is very rich, but is there enough variety between factions? Of course Mongols are there, Korea could be included one way or another and maybe even Japanese more or less depending on the era, but making TW: China right after Shogun 2 which has little diversity compared to Rome and Medieval might not be the best choice.
This is something I believe is taken into account when deciding next TW game.
Personally I'm hoping for Rome 2 with again reformed naval combat, as long as it isn't Medieval 3 so soon.

[Kocmoc]

Well, CA brings what has the best Money-effort ratio. This include the time spent and the time needed to bring something new.
While i agree on Rome being the next big one, i rather expect one or two addons first. The engine Shogun run on is the NTW engine,
i doubt that the same engine will be used for Rome. This said, to not bring 1 or 2 addons would be stupid. Its less work for some "extra" money.
It also gives more time to work on the new engine and prepare Rome.

The addons will be well known candidates. I expect mongol invasion for sure and maybe we going to see korean. It could also be possible, that China will be an ownstanding addon.

China hardly will be a solostanding game, at least not after Shogun. Twice something asiatic wont happen, China has potential, so does another medival game.

Also consider, that CA try to make a big step into the MPlayer direction. They need some time, to gain experience and implement that in the new Game.
There are many new things for MP-part, which need to get tested and only time will tell. How the Campaignmap and the skilltree works?
Does the game generate enough online player to keep the matchmaker alive?

Its hard to start working on a new game, if you still dont know what you really want to do with some aspects of the game.
One thing for sure, if the MP-part of S2 dont work like CA want, there will be even more heavy changes. They have to be done to get some food into the online market.

Summary.

1-2 addons for Shogun
and Summer or late 2012 RomeII.

Thats my guess.

[Monk]

Rome 2 is likely an inevitability simply due to how huge the demand for it is. I seem to remember a poll way back when Empire was released that put Rome 2 right up there with Shogun 2 on a list of projects the fans wanted to see next. Before then, however, I'd like to see at least one expansion for S2. I'm sure we'll get it, but more than that i'd like to see the Japanese invasion of Korea of 1592, more specifically this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592%E2%80%931598)).

It could be a lot of fun I think.

[edyzmedieval]

Put Shoggy 1, Med 1, and VI on Good Old Games, patched for newer OSes and graphics cards.

Minimal amount of work, guaranteed revenue forever. Naturally, they won't do it...

Thirded. Having these games patched up and reworked slightly to be compatible is worth more than any new game.

But, anyways, Rome 2 Total War is next. Obvious choice.

[Drunk Clown]

Thirded. Having these games patched up and reworked slightly to be compatible is worth more than any new game.

OMG!!...... that's just.... awful.

Why would you want to play such ugly games? I mean my eye wants something; I'd rather play a mediocre shooter (with today's graphics) than an old game which is a torture to look at.

A waste of money BTW, nobody would buy it.

About China: Total War (don't hope it will be called this)
I don't see why not? I mean was empire such a popular time? Hmm yes maybe in america but I don't think here in europe.

[Drunk Clown]

Hmmm seems like a double post

[NagatsukaShumi]

OMG!!...... that's just.... awful.

Why would you want to play such ugly games? I mean my eye want's something; I'd rather play a mediocre shooter (with today's graphics) than an old game which is a torture to look at.

A waste of money BTW, nobody would buy it.

About China: Total War (don't hope it will be called this)
I don't see why not? I mean was empire such a popular time? Hmm yes maybe in america but I don't think here in europe.

They aren't suggesting that it "replace" a TW in the cycle, simply be provided for those want to play the old games on their new systems. It wouldn't interfere in the process of the production of the new titles.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

OMG!!...... that's just.... awful.

Why would you want to play such ugly games? I mean my eye want's something; I'd rather play a mediocre shooter (with today's graphics) than an old game which is a torture to look at.

A waste of money BTW, nobody would buy it.

Don't worry you probably couldn't handle the AI anyway.

[pdoan8]

Why would you want to play such ugly games? I mean my eye want's something; I'd rather play a mediocre shooter (with today's graphics) than an old game which is a torture to look at.
Eyes candy, dumbed down games. No thanks.


A waste of money BTW, nobody would buy it.
I would buy both STW/MTW again if they fix the major bugs and the compatible issues. Don't need any new features.

Back to topic: something that I haven't seen before (in TW series). China would be nice. I'm not worry about units variety. STW didn't have many units but still managed to deliver solid game play.

[Drunk Clown]

Don't need any new features.

So I can assume you won't buy Shogun 2?

[phonicsmonkey]

3. Mongol invasion PROPER. Starting with the rise of Genghis Khan, his consolidation of the mongolian tribes, continuing with his and his successors conquest of one part of the world after another. The challange for players would first be to emulate his success, and even outdo the Mongols by conquering regions such as India, Africa, Japan and Europe. This game would really offer a grand scale to TW, and present scores of diverse factions, either letting you conquer them as the Mongols, or resist and compete with some of the smaller factions.

I would love a game like that so much I think I might play it forever.

But I strongly suspect the next full game will be Rome 2. And that will make me happy too!

[Nikodil]

WW2!! :grin:

Oh, yes! Would require heavy changes to the engine, but done right it could be very interesting.

[Ultras DVSC]

Libya Total War! And some valuable bonus for those who can eliminate Gaddafi in the shortest amount of time!

[TosaInu]

I expect we'll get an expansion pack first, with naval battles being so important there are a few options.


Hideyoshis attempt to conquer Korea.
Mongol Invasion
Gempei


The last one will be less likely, naval warfare wasn't too much. Though it will be nice to see old samurai wars too without spears and gunpowder.
The second one could be interesting. The second invasion also failed because the Japanese executed some naval raids. What if the typhoon didn't hit the invasion force?
The first one however is most likely. The Korean admiral Yi Sun-sin put up quite an interesting fight with his turtle ships and there's quite some war on land too. The player would have to think a bit about logistics. When marketed and made right, it could attract some Korean customers (active gaming community).

[Zarky]

The first one however is most likely. The Korean admiral Yi Sun-sin put up quite an interesting fight with his turtle ships and there's quite some war on land too. The player would have to think a bit about logistics. When marketed and made right, it could attract some Korean customers (active gaming community).

This has been talked quite a bit about over at other forums, and some people think that it might be offensive to Koreans, since their history with Japan is what it is...
Though I would very much like to see this sort of campaign, from both perspectives. A good idea regarding that campaign would be that Japanese would have to have port connection coming from Japan itself to Korea and then keep roads clear of raiders in order to receive reinforcements when going deeper. This could simulate the fact that one of the factors why Japanese invasion failed was because Koreans held key locations.

[TosaInu]

This has been talked quite a bit about over at other forums, and some people think that it might be offensive to Koreans, since their history with Japan is what it is...

That is true, yet I also think that many Europeans can be offended by NTW. Or the Japanese by STW MI by suggesting the Mongols ever managed to get past the beach. And turn the table around: The French by finally losing it, the Mongols about failing and also the Japanese about Korea.

The Koreans also have much reason to be proud and they do Yi Sun-sin


Though I would very much like to see this sort of campaign, from both perspectives.

Yes.


A good idea regarding that campaign would be that Japanese would have to have port connection coming from Japan itself to Korea and then keep roads clear of raiders in order to receive reinforcements when going deeper. This could simulate the fact that one of the factors why Japanese invasion failed was because Koreans held key locations.

Yes, the logistic part should be key in that game. I feel the Japanese player should also actively do something in Japan and not just 'await' reinforcements to come out of nothing (that shouldn't be huge like the current TWS2 campaign though).

[gollum]

With naval battles and logistics the korean invasion is most likely to be the expansion, yes. And it has the potential, if marketed correctly to sell in Korea as TosaInu says.

Next game is very much likely RTW2.

[Incongruous]

The propblem is, that the TW cycles have, in general, simply covered too much of known human history, Medieval covered an immense expanse of time as did Rome. I believe the future of the franchise should lie with the more limited scope of Shogun and Napoleon, otherwise we are going to run thin on time periods. Of course fantasy could always provide an interesting premise.
If medieval is done again, which I hope it is (medieval 2 was awful), perhaps the focus could be on The War of The Roses of The Hundred Years War.

[Zarky]

If medieval is done again, which I hope it is (medieval 2 was awful), perhaps the focus could be on The War of The Roses of The Hundred Years War.

I hope they do Rome 2 before Medieval 3, but when they do Medieval 3 they definitely should pick a smaller time frame. Medieval 2 had great potential but it was ruined by many things, too large time frame among them.
I'm very intrigued to see how Rome-era naval battles would play out, as well as turtle ships in the expected Korea expansion.

[Napoleon The Emperor Of Europe]

I hope they do Rome 2 before Medieval 3, but when they do Medieval 3 they definitely should pick a smaller time frame. Medieval 2 had great potential but it was ruined by many things, too large time frame among them.
I'm very intrigued to see how Rome-era naval battles would play out, as well as turtle ships in the expected Korea expansion.

I agree,its kinda strange really,Medieval 2,thank god the expanisons were made.:book:

[G. Septimus]

it is obvious that R2TW is next.
but I believe it would be similar to EB II someway

[TosaInu]

STW and MTW were 2D.

RTW onwards is 3D.

M2TW was a remake of the 2D MTW. TWS2 is a remake of the 2D STW. While there are vast differences between the first 3D game and the upcoming one, I think a remake of any (old) 3D game is not likely to happen soon. The next title, after the xpack, will likely be something completely new. I agree that it might be too early for the real exotic ones like Total war: Hittites, but there's enough that will ring a bell with anyone.

Maybe the next step will include some early airwarfare; the naval battles we have today are also one that didn't fit in say STW. CA may very well pick up that challenge. So WW1? By the time it's going to be released it will be 100 years ago that it started.


More conservative titles would be located in China. China rings a bell with everyone: Kung Fu movies, Great Wall, Chinese food, rising economy, 0.01% customers is still 130,000 sold copies.

It will be anything but a remake, all titles are 3D now.


I agree about smaller timeframes, I'ld like monthly or two weekly turns in TWS2.

[antisocialmunky]

STW and MTW were 2D.

RTW onwards is 3D.

M2TW was a remake of the 2D MTW. TWS2 is a remake of the 2D STW. While there are vast differences between the first 3D game and the upcoming one, I think a remake of any (old) 3D game is not likely to happen soon. The next title, after the xpack, will likely be something completely new. I agree that it might be too early for the real exotic ones like Total war: Hittites, but there's enough that will ring a bell with anyone.

Maybe the next step will include some early airwarfare; the naval battles we have today are also one that didn't fit in say STW. CA may very well pick up that challenge. So WW1? By the time it's going to be released it will be 100 years ago that it started.


More conservative titles would be located in China. China rings a bell with everyone: Kung Fu movies, Great Wall, Chinese food, rising economy, 0.01% customers is still 130,000 sold pirated copies.

It will be anything but a remake, all titles are 3D now.


I agree about smaller timeframes, I'ld like monthly or two weekly turns in TWS2.

We are such a thrifty people :D

[Kocmoc]

STW and MTW were 2D.

RTW onwards is 3D.

M2TW was a remake of the 2D MTW. TWS2 is a remake of the 2D STW. While there are vast differences between the first 3D game and the upcoming one, I think a remake of any (old) 3D game is not likely to happen soon. The next title, after the xpack, will likely be something completely new. I agree that it might be too early for the real exotic ones like Total war: Hittites, but there's enough that will ring a bell with anyone.

Maybe the next step will include some early airwarfare; the naval battles we have today are also one that didn't fit in say STW. CA may very well pick up that challenge. So WW1? By the time it's going to be released it will be 100 years ago that it started.


More conservative titles would be located in China. China rings a bell with everyone: Kung Fu movies, Great Wall, Chinese food, rising economy, 0.01% customers is still 130,000 sold copies.

It will be anything but a remake, all titles are 3D now.


I agree about smaller timeframes, I'ld like monthly or two weekly turns in TWS2.


Well, to get airplanes in this game would be some hardcore job to get done, im sure CA has some real fear to even think about this challenge.
Each TW game has always some clustered standing involved, which is possible with groundunits, but a lot harder with airunits.
This said, if we try to think ahead, they could just bring in the aireffect, as example - a bomb attack somewhere, but this would already move far far away from the basic idea of TW.

Im also quite unsure about heavy artillery and to reflect WW1, it would have very little momentum, at least if they want some small realism involved.

I personal dont expect any Game that will be in an age after NTW. What I lately thought of was some Kind of Inka war, from the amount of units there could be some good momentum. If its not Rome, than maybe a Alexander the Great TW? maybe Xerxes time :D

My guess is Rome, it has a very high momentum and everyone like Rom, the history of it.

[TosaInu]

It's going to be a big challenge, I agree with that. (Between you and me: I'm not looking forward to that kind of stuff; even NTW is too modern to my taste).

Greeks and Xerxes is also a contender, Alexander was an RTW xpack so I doubt it will be (all) about him again. Inkas would work too, as well as some African setting.

Yes, I love Rome too. I'm speculating about what will be next, not what I hope will be next. The first thought was China, but when I look at the elements being added, I'm thinking CA will add some airunits. STW-M2TW landbattles, ETW-TWS2 + naval battles, so + airbattles may be next.

[Liberator]

They have to appeal to the mass market.

Shogun works because every kid and his dog has talked about samurai and ninjas, even if they know nothing about the history. Rome works because the market knows of it.

China? Not so much.

Well, for me back 11 years ago, Shogun Total War was a revolution. A game more fascinating than none of the games I'd seen before.

But most people back than didn't take notice of the, it had its fans and it still has, but it didn't sold in large numbers.
I think this was mostly because nobody really cared back than about a strategy game based in medieval Japan (In fact, many european/american people may associate ninjas with China or even broader, East Asia, for instance)

Now, Total War has become a brand. With a broad fanbase.(Do you read this or do you read this?)
A good China TW could definitely sell, but after S2TW, I would prefer Rome 2.



Libya Total War! And some valuable bonus for those who can eliminate Gaddafi in the shortest amount of time!

How about a Iraq Total War?
Imagine all the lovely factions:
- Sunni Al Qaida
- Sunni Baath Party / Saddam Loyalists
- Shi'ite Islamists
- Iranian Revolutionary Guard
- Turkish Army
- 2 different Kurdish factions
- U.S. Army/Airforce/Marine Corps
- British Army

- And don't forget Poland!

[warfarer]

I’ve just finished playing Rome: Total War for the gazillianth time and it really did make me think about future titles to the franchise.

I have owned every Total War Title in the franchise except original Medieval Total war and Napoleon (although I have played it), and I must say that the guys at creative assembly are brilliant at what they do. But I, and I imagine many others, would love to know what’s on the drawing boards for the developers.

This is why I decided I’d post this list of my most wanted eras on a few forums and see what thoughts they may provoke.

Eras They Have To Make

Rome 2 – Rome was an amazing title and the era was just as rich with history as the game was rich with new and innovative ideas. They have to go back to this title for so many reasons, the game basically invented the new breed of total war games that we know today, and I’d love to see the roman legions in awesome new graphics. The other factions of that era I think could have been a bit better represented and id like to see that in any remake, maybe even involving different periods of classic European history, e.g. Alexander through Romulus Augustus and the fall of Rome. I think a better emphasis could be put on the Greek cities also, maybe actually portraying the city states as individual factions, and then having them unify under one banner at a later date. I also think that the historic battles should be a little less Rome centred, for example I’d love to see the now clichéd battle of Thermopylae or Alexander’s battles through India, siege of Troy (I’m sure there are many other epic battles, from many other factions from the period known to classical historians). I would also love to see, in this or any other future title, to customise, even build, cities and defences (castles/forts/entrenchments depending on the era) perhaps based on build points depending on population.

China – China is just about the only area of the world that total war hasn’t yet touched, and with a dynastic history that lasted over 3000 years (with more dynasties being present from 25CE-1644CE) it would be foolish of them not to touch on this period of world history. They could also incorporate Genghis Khan and his Mongol horde which came around the 12th centaury.

Post Napoleon – WW1 – I think it is eventually inevitable that Creative Assembly and the Total War team have to show that they can continue adapting and innovating, the jump from medieval to empire was just as big as a jump from napoleon to a WW1 title would be, the only challenging think would be tank and aircraft warfare, which although making the game somewhat more interesting may make it a little easier. Possibly air battles should be fought separately for example bombing runs on enemy lines, or maybe as an ability like barrage in Napoleon.

WW2/Modern – This would make an amazing title, and with all the rage for modern military tech in games at the moment Total war could capitalise on this. Other game companies have managed to make similar games such as Tom Clancy’s: Endwar and I think a total war would make a more personal and freeform experience, compared to Endwar’s command points and capture locations. Modern ship battles would be an interesting experience in a total war. I think any modern total war game should be more political based, i.e. you don’t just make an alliance with someone then position your armies outside their capital and then just destroy it in real life, so you shouldn’t in game, the campaign AI needs to be smarter, and conquest should be more pact and treaty based, than just rolling your tanks in an hoping they don’t nuke you on any modern title.

Titles I want Them to Make

Star Wars Total War – The market is there, and I’m sure Lucas arts would issue the rights, but SEGA wouldn’t be too happy, plus I’m not sure a Sci-Fi title is what Total War want on their portfolio, the guys like their earth history.

Lord of The Rings Total War – A more plausible alternative title, I’m sure that they could go some way to securing the rights to make one, the market is most definitely there, and the LOTR universe was largely based on medieval British history (minus the orks and elves) The battles would look amazing and far surpass any LOTR RTS that has come before. However the big problem would be, once again, whether Total War want a fictional title on their resume, to which I think the answer is no.

[OUT4BLOOD]

The community overwhelmingly want melee combat, so only LOTR/China/Rome remains. LOTR already has a RTS franchise, so I doubt they would get the license.

Anyway, who cares - Shogun is the original and best timeframe

[edyzmedieval]

R2TW is the next logical step so that will happen.

I want an M3TW or an E2TW. I will not buy any TW that goes fantasy, I want them to stay at least somewhat historical because that's the value of TW games.

[Incongruous]

I feel that a time frame of the 1860-1911 timeframe could be a fantastic idea. so many ideologies, technologies and culturak advances to be put in game. It's the perfect era for the what-if style of Total War, what fi Austria beat Prussie, what if Britain and France had gone to war over Egypt?

[Swoosh So]

Rome 2 was the obvious choice the last time and the time before that! So dont be so sure rome 2 is in the works... Who knows what they bring next im sure it will be a surprise to most as hardly anyone expected shogun2 this time round. All is good with me as long as the game plays well and stays away more recent conflicts such as ww1. I would even be happy with a fantasy game :D

[AMP]

I had a feeling STW2 was coming, so it wasn't unexpected for me to see them to do a remake of the game which started it all and really got their name rolling. I have a feeling RTW2 is coming next because of the high demand for it, so lets see if my gut feelings bat a home run for the 2nd time.

[johnhughthom]

Put Shoggy 1, Med 1, and VI on Good Old Games, patched for newer OSes and graphics cards.

Minimal amount of work, guaranteed revenue forever. Naturally, they won't do it...

I believe there are licensing issues that prevent this, I'd certainly like the original medieval on GOG.

[gollum]

Rome 2 has been the highest in all fan polls, CA organised or otherwise, since the pre-release days of Empire. Another option CA has put forward in the polls especially after making Empire (hence introduce artillery) is WWI. This wasn't very well received in terms of popularity although it has supperters.

CA is bound to do a Rome 2 for certain due to the huge demand and the huge market of history buffs and enthusiasts for the period and it would probably take a new engine to "do justice to it" etc. Making S2 wigth an existing engine makes sense although it was a bit of a surprise - but i guess its also part of good strategic marketing not to be too predictable and maintain an element of surprise. S2 was always 3rd or thereabouts in terms of popularity in polls and it has history with CA so makes sense for a change of pace after the gigantism of empire in terms of concept.

My money is on Rome 2 for next.

[Daveybaby]

God, anything but Rome2. Boooooooring. Something new, please!

[gollum]

Shogvn 3 :elephant:

[Zarky]

God, anything but Rome2. Boooooooring. Something new, please!

And what would that new be? A lot of people seem to be interested in China, but I doubt it would be a smart choice given how it would be similar to Shogun 2.
There aren't that many settings that can be used and Rome would be a refreshing change of pace to both Empire (still too soon for another gunpowder based game) and Shogun.

[gollum]

There's plenty of non-gunpowder settings that are untouched as yet. Some of them are in antiquity and others in the dark/early middle ages.

Some such could be: the Greco-Persian wars/invasions; the Pelloponesean War; Islamic expansion in Egypt, Middle East and Persia in the 6th/7th century (although unlikely due to marketing reasons in the western world).

But yes, Rome probably tops the bill from a popularity and feasibility perspectives.

[Daveybaby]

And what would that new be? A lot of people seem to be interested in China, but I doubt it would be a smart choice given how it would be similar to Shogun 2.
There aren't that many settings that can be used and Rome would be a refreshing change of pace to both Empire (still too soon for another gunpowder based game) and Shogun.
Anything at all. China, india, fantasy, cats vs dogs, anything. Just something new. If all we're going to get from now on is the same 4 games repeated ad nauseum then S2 may be the last TW game i ever buy.

I just dont see the point in doing rome again. What do you think would CA do differently between R1 and R2 (other than higher polygon models which become completely pointless when actually playing because nobody directs an army while zooming in on the general's nasal hairs) that would make the game worth bothering with?

I mean, R1 still works just fine on modern systems (not something you could say for S1 or M1), the campaign gameplay hasnt changed much since then (it changed massively since S1 and M1), the only really new mechanic since R1 would be naval battles (not really a big feature of that era AFAIK, theyre certainly not going to be that big of a deal compared to ETW's ones). So what's stopping you from playing R1?

And what exactly would you want/expect from R2 other than a lower framerate? I'm not just being an arse here, i actually want to know, because IMO rome was the weakest TW game so far, and i'm willing to be convinced that there's something that could be done to make a sequel worth buying, but nobody has yet said *why* R2 would be better than R1. Convince me.

[Jasper The Builder]

Hopefully something soon, as I won't be buying this game.

[ReluctantSamurai]

OK Jasper, we get the picture:laugh4:

[Zarky]

I mean, R1 still works just fine on modern systems (not something you could say for S1 or M1), the campaign gameplay hasnt changed much since then (it changed massively since S1 and M1), the only really new mechanic since R1 would be naval battles (not really a big feature of that era AFAIK, theyre certainly not going to be that big of a deal compared to ETW's ones). So what's stopping you from playing R1?

And what exactly would you want/expect from R2 other than a lower framerate? I'm not just being an arse here, i actually want to know, because IMO rome was the weakest TW game so far, and i'm willing to be convinced that there's something that could be done to make a sequel worth buying, but nobody has yet said *why* R2 would be better than R1. Convince me.
Why I want to see R2 isn't because there is only 1 new mechanic (though I'm a naval enthusiast since ETW), I want to see R2 because every other mechanic finally works properly.
Why exactly do you think Rome is the weakest TW so far? If it's any reason aside from not liking that era, it already has been or will be fixed by the time the next title comes out.
And my final argument still is, there is only limited number of settings you can use and if you zoom too much there won't be any difference between factions. Rome didn't have that problem, neither will Rome 2.
Fantasy is an interesting option, but there is a risk that it totally drops the ball and therefore hurting the developers AND the players.

[Daveybaby]

Why I want to see R2 isn't because there is only 1 new mechanic (though I'm a naval enthusiast since ETW), I want to see R2 because every other mechanic finally works properly.
Why exactly do you think Rome is the weakest TW so far?
Heh, fair enough. I've been thinking everyone wanted R2 cos they loved R1 so much, but i guess wanting a version of rome that isnt crap is a pretty good aim. :-)

While we're at it, i wouldnt mind having the Shogun2 campaign and battle AIs retrofitted to M2TW.

[DisruptorX]

Why exactly do you think Rome is the weakest TW so far?

Combat pace is too fast, most melee is over before you can even bring around your cavalry.

No Rock-paper-scissors balance, or balance of any kind. Light cavalry beats everything except elite hoplites.

Main campaign is annoying, as unrest grows with city size, you spend much time sacking and massacring your own cities to get rid of the extra population.

Too much fantasy stuff, including an entire fantasy faction; the Egyptians.

I'd love to see a good Rome: Total War, though, I love the time period.

[Daveybaby]

Combat pace is too fast, most melee is over before you can even bring around your cavalry.

No Rock-paper-scissors balance, or balance of any kind. Light cavalry beats everything except elite hoplites.

Main campaign is annoying, as unrest grows with city size, you spend much time sacking and massacring your own cities to get rid of the extra population.

Too much fantasy stuff, including an entire fantasy faction; the Egyptians.

Heh, I meant to post almost exactly this, Plus:
Constant rebel stacks spawning for no reason.
Fancy campaign map which promised so much but actually made the game worse because the AI couldnt handle it.
The AI utterly unable to mount any kind of challenge whatsoever, either strategically or tactically.

I know some of the other games since have had similar issues, but RTW felt like a massive step backwards in gameplay for the sake of graphics after STW and MTW.

[Lord Benihana]

I think M2TW was the largest dissapointment - ROme was only a let down because it followed my favorite iteration - MTW1

[DisruptorX]

I think M2TW was the largest dissapointment - ROme was only a let down because it followed my favorite iteration - MTW1

I loved MTW 2, but it did get very tiring looking at those same spearmen models for the majority of the game.

As for what's next, I am hoping for the Imjin War being the expansion, because I wish to play as Ming China. Playing a more gun based army in general would be great fun, though. I was very impressed that they put in fire-by-rank, as I was expecting guns to be extremely situational like they are in MTW 1 and 2.

[Naughtius Maximus]

Uhhh... this game has been out for, what, a week? R U guys bored with it already? Sad. Very sad.

[Napoleon The Emperor Of Europe]

Uhhh... this game has been out for, what, a week? R U guys bored with it already? Sad. Very sad.

I'd say ,China Total War(DUe to its complex history)

And India Total War(This land has always had empires and kingdoms)

Amercian Civl War Total War(It would be interesting to know what you could do..)

I like SHogun 2 though.

Maybe a Rome 2 with 100% historical accuracy(No mods please!)And more factions,new units,and bulit in the Shogun 2/NTW format.

[rjpraditz]

CONQUEST TOTAL WAR
Separate United Provinces Campaign
1.Dutch Revolt (United Provinces, Spain, France, England, Holy Roman Empire)
2.Thirty Years War
3.Dutch Grand Campaign (1600-1650 AD)

GRAND CAMPAIGN
1.Long Campaign (1550-1650 AD)
2.Short Campaign (1550-1600 AD)

MAJOR FACTIONS
PLAYABLE
1.KINGDOM OF ENGLAND 2.FRANCE 3.SPAIN 4.PORTUGAL 5.OTTOMAN EMPIRE 6.POLAND-LITHUANIA 7.RUSSIA 8.HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE 9.MUGHAL EMPIRE
NON-PLAYABLE
MINOR FACTIONS
1.DENMARK-NORWAY 2.SWEDEN 3.SCOTLAND 4.REPUBLIC OF VENICE 5.GENOA 6.PAPAL STATES 7.DUCHY OF PRUSSIA 8.LIOVONIA 9.GEORGIA 10.CRIMEAN KHANATE 11.KNIGHTS OF ST.JOHN 12.MOROCCO 13.PERSIA 14.GUJARAT SULTANATE 15.DECCAN CONFEDERACY 16.VIJAYNAGAR 17.KINGDOM OF AHOM(ASSAM)18.KINGDOM OF MANIPUR 19. MOG PIRATES(BURMA) 20.MAYANS 21.CARIB-TRIBES 22. INCA EMPIRE 23.TUPINAMBA 24.MAPUCHE




EMERGENT FACTIONS
1. SAXONY 2.BOHEMIA 3.BRUNSWICK-LUNEBURG 4.SAVOY 5.BAVARIA 6.SWISS CONFEDERATION 7.BIJAPUR SULTANATE 8.BARO BHUMIYA (Bengal) 9.RAJPUT CONFEDERACY 10.UNITED PROVINCES

[rjpraditz]

VICTORIA TOTAL WAR

Separate British Campaign
1.Indian Campaign (1848-1850)
Great Britain, Punjab, Afghanistan, Mughal Empire,Princely States
2.Crimean Campaign (1853-1856)
Great Britain, France, Russia, Ottoman Empire, Kingdom of Italy, Bulgarian Legion
3. Opium Campaign (1856-1860)
Great Britain, France, Qing Empire, Vietnam, Black Flag Army
4. Grand Campaign (1860-1870)

Grand Campaign (1860-1870)

Playable Factions
1.France 2.Russia 3.Austria 4.Prussia 5.Kingdom Of Italy
Non-Playable
Spain, Ottoman Empire, Qing Empire, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Saxony, Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Hesse-Kassel, Kingdom Of Two Sicilies, Papal States, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Dagestan, Morocco, Persia, Afghanistan, Kingdom Of Burma, Siam, Vietnam, Korea, Aceh Sultanate, Sulu Sultanate, Sultanate of Brunei, Japan, Hanover

Emergent
Ireland, Serbia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Georgia, Cambodia, Johor Sultanate

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Amercian Civil total war.

[gauch0]

Honestly, I'm excited about the prospect of Medieval 3 and Rome 2 alike. I'm playing the hell out of Shogun 2, and I'd take either of those two games using the current (or slightly improved) S2 mechanics and engine. Throw in the special agent videos of S2 as well, please! One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that, in my opinion, seige battles are finally starting to feel right in S2. The combination of garrison troops, capturable defensive structures that can shoot arrows on their own, walls that function well as defensive cover--I hope they keep improving this part of the game for the next ones!

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Rome 2 why does everyone want it?

I mean,Shogun 2 is the new business.Not Rome 2.

[Gregoshi]

Rome 2 why does everyone want it?

I mean,Shogun 2 is the new business.Not Rome 2.
Because

1) like it or not, the Roman empire is much better known and much more popular than Japan and the Sengoku Jidai period.
2) this thread is about what is next, not what is now.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

That is unfair.
like it or not, the Roman empire is much better known and much more popular than Japan and the Sengoku Jidai period

Why rome,why not carthage ,why not other factions?

Japan and Sengoku Jidhai is much better,and that was the only moment in history where it was truly dangerous.

[Monk]

Total War: Back to the Future

Reality is altered! Doc Brown's torn a hole in the space-time continuum with his recent jump into the past, causing realities, past, present and future to collide in an battle the likes of which the world may never see again! Set in a warped version of our world, all your favorite time periods from Total War games past have been thrown into the arena to do battle.

A time storm has warped the continents into masses now unrecognizable. In their place are terrain and cities completely unlike before, and occupying them are the greatest civilization time has ever seen. Rome, Medieval Europe and the Middle East, Sengoku Japan, the Successors of Alexander, Tribes of the Russian Steppes and Revolutionary France with Napoleon at its head have all been hurled into this new world, bound only by their confusion and mistrust for one another! And lurking in the mists of time.. yet more challengers are ready to appear at any moment, the time stream is becoming more unstable with each passing year!

Its a total war experience like no other. As the greatest military minds of the last two thousand years now find themselves at odds.. the only question shall be: who's side are you on? Now is the time. Let Total War begin.

[drone]

I don't think my laptop's power supply can give me 1.21 Gigawatts. :sad:

[gauch0]

I still think Middle Earth: Total War could be fantastic, or some other fictional fantasy license. RuneWars, maybe? Or World of Warcraft? Or Conan the Barbarian? It would be a blast to play with the Total War engine and mechanics in service of a loosely Medieval fantasy world that didn't have to worry about the concept of historical accuracy. I'm not suggesting making it into a roleplaying game by any means--just replace the Medieval or Shogun armies and campaign with a recognizable fantasy setting. Keep the concept of magic to a minimum so that it has no greater affect on the game than the current artillery units and special abilities.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Total War: Back to the Future

Reality is altered! Doc Brown's torn a hole in the space-time continuum with his recent jump into the past, causing realities, past, present and future to collide in an battle the likes of which the world may never see again! Set in a warped version of our world, all your favorite time periods from Total War games past have been thrown into the arena to do battle.

A time storm has warped the continents into masses now unrecognizable. In their place are terrain and cities completely unlike before, and occupying them are the greatest civilization time has ever seen. Rome, Medieval Europe and the Middle East, Sengoku Japan, the Successors of Alexander, Tribes of the Russian Steppes and Revolutionary France with Napoleon at its head have all been hurled into this new world, bound only by their confusion and mistrust for one another! And lurking in the mists of time.. yet more challengers are ready to appear at any moment, the time stream is becoming more unstable with each passing year!

Its a total war experience like no other. As the greatest military minds of the last two thousand years now find themselves at odds.. the only question shall be: who's side are you on? Now is the time. Let Total War begin.


More factions,great leaders of history.
Hey thats actually a really good idea!

You know I had this idea,that when you play multiplayer battles,you could lets say ,go to the MP list.Find battle.go in and choose your faction,but not just any faction ,But lets Medieval total war 2 troops fight against Shogun 2 troops,or NTW troops vs ETW.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Yes,Middle earth ,lord of the rings ,its perfect for total war.I just wish they did one on the American civil war.

It would be a blast to play with the Total War engine and mechanics in service of a loosely Medieval fantasy world that didn't have to worry about the concept of historical accuracy.
Nah.I'm a fan of historical accuracy.then it would like rome all over again.No,I'm terribly sorry,But I must disagree with you,all of this had been tried in rome total war

[A Nerd]

I too would like to see a Medieval 3 with Shogun 2-esque like sieges. Being a fan of Medieval 2, a third would be a plus in my book. Medieval up to par with Shogun 2 with other yet to be seen features a la Shogun 2 would be such fun!

[Ash]

Personally I think M:TW3 would work the best. Sure there are a lot of factions in S:TW2, but they're not half as distinct as Europe in Medieval times. Europe had 4 major religions and a much greater unit roster to choose from.

Would love to see a TW which covers the American Civil War. The amount of area to conquer would be quite large. Only downside, aside from that CA is not great with gunpowder units, is that there are only two factions. But there would be a lot of unit veriaty and techs to explore.

A next R:TW is probably on the agenda, though.

[Zarky]

Would love to see a TW which covers the American Civil War. The amount of area to conquer would be quite large. Only downside, aside from that CA is not great with gunpowder units, is that there are only two factions. But there would be a lot of unit veriaty and techs to explore.

A next R:TW is probably on the agenda, though.

American Civil War could be an expansion pack to next 18th-19th century TW if there's enough demand for it, hardly not a stand-alone. If gunpowder issues are fixed it could be very interesting option. I think map size might be an issue if you want to include all of US, since eastern coast was much more important.

I want to see M3:TW also, but not before R2:TW.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Personally I think M:TW3 would work the best. Sure there are a lot of factions in S:TW2, but they're not half as distinct as Europe in Medieval times. Europe had 4 major religions and a much greater unit roster to choose from.

Would love to see a TW which covers the American Civil War. The amount of area to conquer would be quite large. Only downside, aside from that CA is not great with gunpowder units, is that there are only two factions. But there would be a lot of unit veriaty and techs to explore.

A next R:TW is probably on the agenda, though.

You may have had 2 factions at that time,but rember there were states that served both sides,and any of them could become nuetral or serve each's others side.

It wasn't the whole of amercia,mostly most of it was texas and some other thing.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Not a expansion pack:(.

A game,stand alone.

It would do much better,and put the Napoleon and Shogun format in it,could combine very well.Mix in's empire battle controls.Get NTW's realistic cinematic battles inside the battles,and get Shogun 2 for the campaign and water,and for movement.It could do well for banners, although that would do well with your generals carrying flags in the NTW format.

[Rothe]

The Game of Thrones is starting as a TV series on HBO...

That is something I'd love to see done as a TW title.

In fact, you could probably make a TW: fantasy title that could integrate other fantasy titles as expansions with somewhat different units and campaign map but the same engine.

[Prodigal]

Rome2...I mean haven't I had to wait long enough? I was sure that the mind-numbing, bug addled, every games the same, ETW was going to be RTW2. Am so tired of guns, and that's one of the few era's where they won't rear their ugly heads, although I do seem to remember a horse drawn machine gun unit. MTW would be groovy, in about 6 years, it's been flogged to death, MTW, MTW:V.I, MTW2, MTW2:Kingdoms.

[Mount Suribachi]

Rome 2 - if only so they can do it right. The whole Jullii/Bruttii thing was a mess. So if they can get the senate right they can do the Punic Wars, or Gaius Marius vs the Barbarians, or the Sullan civil war. Or they could do the fall of the Empire, Caesar vs Senate. Or Caesar's Gallic wars. Or Claudius's invasion of Britain. Make them scripted campaigns like Kingdoms.

China:TW would be a complete disaster. Almost no recognition in the west, with a bunch of incomprehensible (to western eyes) names and places. Shogun works only because everyone has heard of ninjas and samurai and they are cool
.
I like ACW:TW idea, that could be interesting, but I wonder how well it would sell outside of the US

The greek city states would I imagine have to be called "300:Total War" in order to make it marketable.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Rome 2 - if only so they can do it right. The whole Jullii/Bruttii thing was a mess. So if they can get the senate right they can do the Punic Wars, or Gaius Marius vs the Barbarians, or the Sullan civil war. Or they could do the fall of the Empire, Caesar vs Senate. Or Caesar's Gallic wars. Or Claudius's invasion of Britain. Make them scripted campaigns like Kingdoms.

China:TW would be a complete disaster. Almost no recognition in the west, with a bunch of incomprehensible (to western eyes) names and places. Shogun works only because everyone has heard of ninjas and samurai and they are cool
.
I like ACW:TW idea, that could be interesting, but I wonder how well it would sell outside of the US

The greek city states would I imagine have to be called "300:Total War" in order to make it marketable.

I disagree with you on China TW.China has a more complex history than the other countries.Have you seen the Chinese war films?They gain massive money in the west.And what's more they're far better than western films.Chinese names sound really cool as do Japanese names.And they put in more historical accuracy than the western ones.China and Japan history's is rich,so is India,please do not refer these countries as 3rd world and that's that.They were far more advanced than europe during history and its a fact.

Shogun works only because everyone has heard of ninjas and samurai and they are cool

Clearly you know nothing of Japan,you think they're just like samurai and ninja.There are actual people living in China and Japan, perhaps you don't know there were actual people during that period of 1545,and many of them were just in danger in that time.You have not seen the film The Last Samurai(2004)?

But I agree with you on rome 2,they should combine all the historical mods and make it like Shogun 2.

[Mount Suribachi]

:daisy:, I wasn't talking about my personal feelings, I was talking about how they would be received by the wider western gaming community. I never called Japan or China 3rd world, I never said they were backward or inferior to Europe. You may know and understand Chinese names, hence why you think they are cool, but to the average westerner they are confusing. I know Japan is more than ninjas and samurai - my "JSDF" folder on my hard drive contains over 9000 images FWIW and here's another clue, check out my name ;) but to the average western gamer the Takeda Shogunate means nothing, they do however know that ninjas and samurai are cool, and thats why Shogun was commercially viable. Please stop applying knee-jerk reactions, insulting me - people were and are living in Japan and China? Really??? - and confusing my knowledge and beliefs with those of a wider audience.

No, I haven't seen a Chinese war film, I've never even heard of a single Chinese war film, no matter how good you may say they are. They might be popular amongst the chinese community, they might be popular with you, but the average man in the street has no clue about any part of chinese history. You want a China:Total War? You best hope for Mongols:Total War, because the average western gamer has heard of Ghengis Khan.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

:daisy:, I wasn't talking about my personal feelings, I was talking about how they would be received by the wider western gaming community. I never called Japan or China 3rd world, I never said they were backward or inferior to Europe. You may know and understand Chinese names, hence why you think they are cool, but to the average westerner they are confusing. I know Japan is more than ninjas and samurai - my "JSDF" folder on my hard drive contains over 9000 images FWIW and here's another clue, check out my name ;) but to the average western gamer the Takeda Shogunate means nothing, they do however know that ninjas and samurai are cool, and thats why Shogun was commercially viable. Please stop applying knee-jerk reactions, insulting me - people were and are living in Japan and China? Really??? - and confusing my knowledge and beliefs with those of a wider audience.

No, I haven't seen a Chinese war film, I've never even heard of a single Chinese war film, no matter how good you may say they are. They might be popular amongst the chinese community, they might be popular with you, but the average man in the street has no clue about any part of chinese history. You want a China:Total War? You best hope for Mongols:Total War, because the average western gamer has heard of Ghengis Khan.


Well.the Takeda Shogunate,since shogun 2 has been released ,I mean why not refer to that name.I seriously should recommend you some great chinese war films,You'll enjoy it and get it a bit of knowledge then.Where am I insulting you?

You want a China:Total War? You best hope for Mongols:Total War, because the average western gamer has heard of Ghengis Khan.
Mongol total war doesn't sound bad either.

[Monk]

Rome 2 - if only so they can do it right. The whole Jullii/Bruttii thing was a mess. So if they can get the senate right they can do the Punic Wars, or Gaius Marius vs the Barbarians, or the Sullan civil war. Or they could do the fall of the Empire, Caesar vs Senate. Or Caesar's Gallic wars. Or Claudius's invasion of Britain. Make them scripted campaigns like Kingdoms.

China:TW would be a complete disaster. Almost no recognition in the west, with a bunch of incomprehensible (to western eyes) names and places. Shogun works only because everyone has heard of ninjas and samurai and they are cool
.
I like ACW:TW idea, that could be interesting, but I wonder how well it would sell outside of the US

The greek city states would I imagine have to be called "300:Total War" in order to make it marketable.

Hello Mount Suribachi, its been a while since I saw you posting. Good to see you again. :bow:

[Fisherking]

Amercian Civil total war.

The ACW doesn’t fit the format of TW games because there are only two factions. Even if you implemented possible European intervention it is problematic. Adding Indian uprisings only gives you very weak factions best handled as NP factions or given to the original player factions.

There is interest in the era in Europe but it is more of a niche market.

I do think there is a sizable market for the ACW and The War of 1812 in the TW format. It could be handled well as an add-on or large DLC for NTW or some future game, I think.

It could also be popular in the MP community if they implemented some kind of theater command feature for team play.

All the same, as much as I would love to play something of those eras, I doubt we see such a game from CA.

[HopAlongBunny]

China would fit perfectly. Something like OSG's Warring States (out of print) fits the bill; clear factions, clear goal, defined but generous geographical area.

Unification of Italy. Only question here would be when exactly to start the era.

[Rothe]

The problem is really that once you get into a very specific time and location frame, the greater public will not really have a lot of connection to it - I feel that China and Italy would be very interesting personally, but I know they would be selling a lot less than Rome or Shogun. That is the real problem with game development: niche games might have great appeal for a small group of players, but they will never happen as a "full title".

I still think that a China game might be doable as an "expansion" type of a deal, since you could use the engine pretty much as is, and just make the factions and troops for the time frame you want.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

The problem is really that once you get into a very specific time and location frame, the greater public will not really have a lot of connection to it - I feel that China and Italy would be very interesting personally, but I know they would be selling a lot less than Rome or Shogun. That is the real problem with game development: niche games might have great appeal for a small group of players, but they will never happen as a "full title".

I still think that a China game might be doable as an "expansion" type of a deal, since you could use the engine pretty much as is, and just make the factions and troops for the time frame you want.


Thats what people were saying when Shogun 1 was about to be released.They thought it was just some stand alone game.When SHogun 2 was in promotion everyone knew of it.

Its the same with China,you're forgetting they've had loads of history,so its easy to pick a period and make it into a game.

[Gregoshi]

When SHogun 2 was in promotion everyone knew of it.
Yes, but a lot of people complained about the choice because they wanted Rome 2. They didn't know or care about Japanese history, but loved the Roman Empire and all that came with it. Some threw temper tantrums and vowed not to play Shogun 2. It is their loss as Shogun 2 is an awesome game. But the point is, that unfortunately from a Western perspective, virtually everyone has hear of Rome. Very few know of Japan's or China's history.

[Nowake]

Oi there,
My two cents
The best choice for the next Total War game is a sino-centric theme. Title should sound something like
Mandate of Heaven Total War

Yes, but a lot of people complained about the choice because they wanted Rome 2. They didn't know or care about Japanese history, but loved the Roman Empire and all that came with it. Some threw temper tantrums and vowed not to play Shogun 2. It is their loss as Shogun 2 is an awesome game. But the point is, that unfortunately from a Western perspective, virtually everyone has hear of Rome. Very few know of Japan's or China's history.
All right.
What I will argue is:
a) Our (Western) mixed reaction to a sino-centric theme is not all that important to Creative Assembly.
b) Our (Western) preferences should be ignored for the good of Creative Assembly.

a) Our (Western) mixed reaction to a sino-centric theme is not all that important to Creative Assembly.
Why? Because, of course, the game would finally be marketable to the asian public for once, a public more numerous and with a proven proclivity for PC and console gaming.
And yes, I presume you will now point the obvious: Shogun is an asian-themed title and it is not making waves there. And I shall point out what I thought should be just as obvious: Shogun is a japanese-themed historical game.
I.e.
- it cannot be efficiently advertised anywhere in south-east Asia outside Japan. Doing the marketing for Shogun in South Korea or China is identical to trying to win over israeli gamers in Tel Aviv with a product about the Reunification of Germany. "Wouldn't your friend David here want to imagine himself in the boots of a prussian junker?" The atrocities comited by the japanese during the first half of the twentieth century in the whole Far East, especially in countries like Korea and China, are identical to the ones comitted by the germans against the jewish people, with the difference in policy in regards to the end result. Extinction versus eternal enslavement (of inferior races). Should the chinese have been a minority or should the germans have been surrounded by jewish countries, that one probably wouldn't have existed either. The whole south-east Asia still reels from the civillian massacres comited by the japanese, and tensions run high at every opportunity. And I'm not speaking here of events like the huge international scandal which surrounded the visit of a japanese temple comemorating their fallen by the japanese prime minister, which took months to defuse. No, there are strong national uproars even for minor issues such as the use of chinese actresses in the movie "Memoirs of a Geisha", which inflamed the press in both countries for months and caused the chinese government to cancel the release of the film completely. You simply can't attempt to sell japanese history in south-east Asia.
- its one Far Eastern market, Japan, is already overwhelmed by samurai-based entertainment. The media runs movies on the period 24/7, manga abound, festivals commemorating men like Takeda Shingen etc. are commonplace, re-enactment is an art and totally facilitated by the exquisite preservation of a plethora of items dating from the period. You can still have a katana crafted in Japan after all by traditional smiths. You don't really see that in Europe, do you? And anyway, more importantly, games regarding samurai abound as well. The competition is cut-throat.

Now, China and Korea on the other hand have not yet developed an electronic entertainment industry themed around their history much, especially military history. Mandate of Heaven Total War would not really have a term of comparison really.


b) Our (Western) preferences should be ignored for the good of Creative Assembly.
The initial Shogun was not a game aimed at immersing us in Japanese culture. They wished to present an engine and the mechanics for an attempt at recreating military encounters and they needed a good setting. What they aimed to achieve was solid gameplay.
Once they picked up their second setting, eventhough their intentions were the same, Creative Assembly stumbled upon a new audience; reenactors, board-game types, miniature-soldiers collectors and what not. They slowly discovered the series and flocked to it, engaging along the way every one of those narrow-minded history buffs who still see the world through nationalistic eyes and would want to play a game where their ancient or medieval ancestors get to crush their traditional enemies on their way to dominating the continent.
And the developers drifted slowly, corrupted by the simplicity of the business model that was opening up to them. What gameplay, what multiplayer, all you have to do is abort every year a semi-functional piece of software that contains shiny armor models copied from history albums. It does not even have to have an exhaustive list, you can be sure it will get modded like crazy until it will showcase all three types of belts thieves in Scotland were said to have had in some apocriphal chronicle from the olden days.
And here is why I think it would be better for Creative Assembly to ignore this public's wishes somewhat and go for a sino-centric title. Multiplayer is now easy to set up and brings a ton of cash if done right. You do not need a recognizable setting if the game is good and it is compatible with being played in public. Millions of people play and watch Starcraft, and I can assure you they had heard nothing of the protoss, terrans or zerg until they were invented, as opposed to having heard about chinese history. Because Starcraft has superb gameplay and is extremly entertaining to watch. And if the Total War series has tremendous potential in any area, that's its potential to entertain a passive public through it's graphics and realistic recreation of battlefield conditions. All it needs is solid gameplay and investment in a decent Battle.net like multiplayer system. Remember that BBC programme using the TW engine, think it was called Time Commanders?
And which country has developed a business model for presenting a PC game as a spectator sport? Korea; with the original Starcraft mind you. And the gamers of which other country watched that evolution avidly, partially participated in it and are demographically a superb target? Yep, China.
Refocus on gameplay, treat multiplayer seriously for once and one gains access to a demographically immense audience of experienced asian gamers who were never yet serviced with products appealing to their own countries' history yet.


Oh and in my opinion Shogun 2's expansion should focus on the Imjin War (the two invasions of Korea between 1592 and 1598). Superb theme from all points of view, including the arsenal of weapons and ships employed by both sides, from Hwach'as to Korean advanced composite bows (superior to japanese bows), breech-loading cannons, panokseons and Turtle Ships and what not.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Yes, but a lot of people complained about the choice because they wanted Rome 2. They didn't know or care about Japanese history, but loved the Roman Empire and all that came with it. Some threw temper tantrums and vowed not to play Shogun 2. It is their loss as Shogun 2 is an awesome game. But the point is, that unfortunately from a Western perspective, virtually everyone has hear of Rome. Very few know of Japan's or China's history.

Watch this film ,its chinese .The Founding of a repbulic.Very good film

[caravel]

The ACW doesn’t fit the format of TW games because there are only two factions.
IMO that doesn't rule it out at all. A large number of factions doesn't make a game, nor does diversity of units. It would actually make a very challenging, well balanced campaign and would only need to involve the two main factions - of course CA won't do it for commercial reasons, because today's TW fans demand the usual "more factions/units/provinces" and it would percieved as a niche, etc.

[MadKow]

Although i would welcome a revisitation of Rome, or some other ancient period, i think a well done fantasy setting might open new ground. I remember a couple of old warhammer games, Shadow of the Horned Rat and Dark Omen, were what came closer, as far as i know to what Total War achieved. So yes, a good popular fantasy franchise mitgh be interesting.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Oi there,
My two cents
The best choice for the next Total War game is a sino-centric theme. Title should sound something like
Mandate of Heaven Total War

All right.
What I will argue is:
a) Our (Western) mixed reaction to a sino-centric theme is not all that important to Creative Assembly.
b) Our (Western) preferences should be ignored for the good of Creative Assembly.

a) Our (Western) mixed reaction to a sino-centric theme is not all that important to Creative Assembly.
Why? Because, of course, the game would finally be marketable to the asian public for once, a public more numerous and with a proven proclivity for PC and console gaming.
And yes, I presume you will now point the obvious: Shogun is an asian-themed title and it is not making waves there. And I shall point out what I thought should be just as obvious: Shogun is a japanese-themed historical game.
I.e.
- it cannot be efficiently advertised anywhere in south-east Asia outside Japan. Doing the marketing for Shogun in South Korea or China is identical to trying to win over israeli gamers in Tel Aviv with a product about the Reunification of Germany. "Wouldn't your friend David here want to imagine himself in the boots of a prussian junker?" The atrocities comited by the japanese during the first half of the twentieth century in the whole Far East, especially in countries like Korea and China, are identical to the ones comitted by the germans against the jewish people, with the difference in policy in regards to the end result. Extinction versus eternal enslavement (of inferior races). Should the chinese have been a minority or should the germans have been surrounded by jewish countries, that one probably wouldn't have existed either. The whole south-east Asia still reels from the civillian massacres comited by the japanese, and tensions run high at every opportunity. And I'm not speaking here of events like the huge international scandal which surrounded the visit of a japanese temple comemorating their fallen by the japanese prime minister, which took months to defuse. No, there are strong national uproars even for minor issues such as the use of chinese actresses in the movie "Memoirs of a Geisha", which inflamed the press in both countries for months and caused the chinese government to cancel the release of the film completely. You simply can't attempt to sell japanese history in south-east Asia.
- its one Far Eastern market, Japan, is already overwhelmed by samurai-based entertainment. The media runs movies on the period 24/7, manga abound, festivals commemorating men like Takeda Shingen etc. are commonplace, re-enactment is an art and totally facilitated by the exquisite preservation of a plethora of items dating from the period. You can still have a katana crafted in Japan after all by traditional smiths. You don't really see that in Europe, do you? And anyway, more importantly, games regarding samurai abound as well. The competition is cut-throat.

Now, China and Korea on the other hand have not yet developed an electronic entertainment industry themed around their history much, especially military history. Mandate of Heaven Total War would not really have a term of comparison really.


b) Our (Western) preferences should be ignored for the good of Creative Assembly.
The initial Shogun was not a game aimed at immersing us in Japanese culture. They wished to present an engine and the mechanics for an attempt at recreating military encounters and they needed a good setting. What they aimed to achieve was solid gameplay.
Once they picked up their second setting, eventhough their intentions were the same, Creative Assembly stumbled upon a new audience; reenactors, board-game types, miniature-soldiers collectors and what not. They slowly discovered the series and flocked to it, engaging along the way every one of those narrow-minded history buffs who still see the world through nationalistic eyes and would want to play a game where their ancient or medieval ancestors get to crush their traditional enemies on their way to dominating the continent.
And the developers drifted slowly, corrupted by the simplicity of the business model that was opening up to them. What gameplay, what multiplayer, all you have to do is abort every year a semi-functional piece of software that contains shiny armor models copied from history albums. It does not even have to have an exhaustive list, you can be sure it will get modded like crazy until it will showcase all three types of belts thieves in Scotland were said to have had in some apocriphal chronicle from the olden days.
And here is why I think it would be better for Creative Assembly to ignore this public's wishes somewhat and go for a sino-centric title. Multiplayer is now easy to set up and brings a ton of cash if done right. You do not need a recognizable setting if the game is good and it is compatible with being played in public. Millions of people play and watch Starcraft, and I can assure you they had heard nothing of the protoss, terrans or zerg until they were invented, as opposed to having heard about chinese history. Because Starcraft has superb gameplay and is extremly entertaining to watch. And if the Total War series has tremendous potential in any area, that's its potential to entertain a passive public through it's graphics and realistic recreation of battlefield conditions. All it needs is solid gameplay and investment in a decent Battle.net like multiplayer system. Remember that BBC programme using the TW engine, think it was called Time Commanders?
And which country has developed a business model for presenting a PC game as a spectator sport? Korea; with the original Starcraft mind you. And the gamers of which other country watched that evolution avidly, partially participated in it and are demographically a superb target? Yep, China.
Refocus on gameplay, treat multiplayer seriously for once and one gains access to a demographically immense audience of experienced asian gamers who were never yet serviced with products appealing to their own countries' history yet.


Oh and in my opinion Shogun 2's expansion should focus on the Imjin War (the two invasions of Korea between 1592 and 1598). Superb theme from all points of view, including the arsenal of weapons and ships employed by both sides, from Hwach'as to Korean advanced composite bows (superior to japanese bows), breech-loading cannons, panokseons and Turtle Ships and what not.

I agree with you on what you say

[Vulgarius]

My vote is for China and Korea! In fact you could tie all three in Mongols etc.

[Den of Earth]

How about an Imperial Total War (The World 1845-1910) with at least a dozen major playable factions. There could then be a Kingdoms type add on with the Crimean, American Civil War and the Bismarck Wars. I miss the famous regiments, being able to occupy an outlaying building and heal a unit without a general, occupying buildings other than my castle. I thought NTW was heading in the right direction and STW2 kind of kicked back to earlier type play. If they don't go back to the 1800's then RTW2 or certainly a Middle Earth Total war would both be great.

[Zenicetus]

I have a feeling Rome 2 will be the next one. CA has to make money to keep the series alive, and that's the title that will sell the best, especially with all the collateral expansions and mods (Ancient Greece, the Near East mods, the later Christian empire, etc.). It's just too rich an area to ignore, as much as I'd like to see other things like China/3 Kingdoms, or a very early bronze age game.

The Civil War (or later) doesn't work for reasons mentioned, like just 2 factions, no unit variety. It also means dug-in positions with long-range rifle fire, which is boring (IMO). I like the eras where people are still rushing together and stabbing each other with pointy sticks.

I don't think they'll ever do a fantasy game, even though the underlying engine would be great for it. With a historical game they don't have to invent the background or the unit design. The game is already "balanced" because armies co-evolve that way through history. With a fantasy title, they need a background story, unit designs from scratch, and a magic system designed from scratch. That's not easy, especially when a company doesn't want to pay for a pre-existing IP like D&D. Look at Elemental: War of Magic, and how that game got trashed for having a lackluster background world and magic system. With a historical game, all that background stuff and unit balance is already taken care of.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

How about an Imperial Total War (The World 1845-1910) with at least a dozen major playable factions. There could then be a Kingdoms type add on with the Crimean, American Civil War and the Bismarck Wars. I miss the famous regiments, being able to occupy an outlaying building and heal a unit without a general, occupying buildings other than my castle. I thought NTW was heading in the right direction and STW2 kind of kicked back to earlier type play. If they don't go back to the 1800's then RTW2 or certainly a Middle Earth Total war would both be great.

ITW would do well,but then it would be to confusing.SHTW2 was the right part.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I have a feeling Rome 2 will be the next one. CA has to make money to keep the series alive, and that's the title that will sell the best, especially with all the collateral expansions and mods (Ancient Greece, the Near East mods, the later Christian empire, etc.). It's just too rich an area to ignore, as much as I'd like to see other things like China/3 Kingdoms, or a very early bronze age game.

The Civil War (or later) doesn't work for reasons mentioned, like just 2 factions, no unit variety. It also means dug-in positions with long-range rifle fire, which is boring (IMO). I like the eras where people are still rushing together and stabbing each other with pointy sticks.

I don't think they'll ever do a fantasy game, even though the underlying engine would be great for it. With a historical game they don't have to invent the background or the unit design. The game is already "balanced" because armies co-evolve that way through history. With a fantasy title, they need a background story, unit designs from scratch, and a magic system designed from scratch. That's not easy, especially when a company doesn't want to pay for a pre-existing IP like D&D. Look at Elemental: War of Magic, and how that game got trashed for having a lackluster background world and magic system. With a historical game, all that background stuff and unit balance is already taken care of.

Let me tell you this.When Rome was released,it contained a whole load of :daisy: (With that I mean the historical accuracy)You had wrong units,wrong banners,and never was rome divided,there were no juli,bruti,scipi stuff.Rome 2 will have the same,so unless they collabrate with the EB and EU teams,Your pathetic Rome 2 can be written off.Rome had unrealistic units,it was too much stuff loaded in,come on,I mean Seleucid Legionaries?before the romans had them?What kind of thing is that?

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I have a feeling Rome 2 will be the next one. CA has to make money to keep the series alive, and that's the title that will sell the best, especially with all the collateral expansions and mods (Ancient Greece, the Near East mods, the later Christian empire, etc.). It's just too rich an area to ignore, as much as I'd like to see other things like China/3 Kingdoms, or a very early bronze age game.

The Civil War (or later) doesn't work for reasons mentioned, like just 2 factions, no unit variety. It also means dug-in positions with long-range rifle fire, which is boring (IMO). I like the eras where people are still rushing together and stabbing each other with pointy sticks.

I don't think they'll ever do a fantasy game, even though the underlying engine would be great for it. With a historical game they don't have to invent the background or the unit design. The game is already "balanced" because armies co-evolve that way through history. With a fantasy title, they need a background story, unit designs from scratch, and a magic system designed from scratch. That's not easy, especially when a company doesn't want to pay for a pre-existing IP like D&D. Look at Elemental: War of Magic, and how that game got trashed for having a lackluster background world and magic system. With a historical game, all that background stuff and unit balance is already taken care of.

Plus the Civil War would do well,so what if's there 2 factions?I'd like to control the confederates and claim the USA.You could add other factions as well.No unit varitey...They did have loads.

[RTKAbu]

Like people play a game to learn things, to play a game so they dont have to read a book about the subject anymore... Historical accuracy can never be done because history itself isnt factual at all but interpretational, done and written by the historian. Like the series or movies of 'Rome' are realistic, most of the things/events which supposed to 'teached things' in that series are already been revised (like the famous scene with Caesar under the blood of the bull). And even then, if you want to achieve the historical accuracy which is now the judgement of the historian of the past, in a game based on the roman empire, you will need to have like 1 faction, rome in this case, who just should have units which cant be countered, no factions against rome ever made chance, especially not after Marius reforms. I know you will now come up with tales of Mirthiades and stuff, well, in the long term, no other country could challenge rome because rome could only survive on war, while others could survive without it, and so even after a lost battle you coultn win a war against rome, because in Romes logic, a war was simply never over before a war was won.

A game based on our historical vision would really be dull, luckily CA didnt based their games on historical accuracy but on playablity, besides rome you had other playable factions which really even had a chance against rome ingame, a real simulater would have 1 Highly OP faction, Rome of cource. A real NTW would be a france which coulnt be countered on land by any faction, only beatable on sea, but not beatable on land. A game about Ghenkis Khan with the best units around because the same story of Rome counts for the Mongols, they just werent beatable, when they lost it was mostly there own greed our strategy mistake. History is a good inspiration for a game, but shoulnt be build totally around it. Its fun you see some things in STW2 which looks like history of Japan, but i am almost sure no one want that, we multiplayers wants 'balance', whatever that word means.

Rome was fantastic, the atmosphere it had was fenomonal. Personally i loved alexander expension even more, although it didnt had a good multiplayer, the single player was really hard.

[TheLastDays]

I don't think they'll ever do a fantasy game, even though the underlying engine would be great for it.

You mean RTW wasn't a fantasy game? ~:confused::laugh4:

Well inf act I disagree with the post above me... Look at EB, that's a really fun game, played that A LOT more than vanilla RTW and it strives for historical accuracy... and no, ROme was not unbeatable... a small change in events might have changed all the outcomes so historical accuracy doesn't mean you have to follow "history on rails"

[Zenicetus]

Plus the Civil War would do well,so what if's there 2 factions?I'd like to control the confederates and claim the USA.You could add other factions as well.No unit varitey...They did have loads.

There was unit variety within each army, sure -- infantry, snipers, cavalry, artillery, etc. But not between armies, since they were originally a single army with the same military tactics, organization, and technology before the breakup of the Union. It was a case of two essentially identical armies going up against each other. For me, that just isn't as interesting as the kind of asymmetrical warfare we could have in RTW and M2TW. For example, learning how to fight with horse archers vs. European heavy knights. You had to learn two very different sets of tactics there, instead of pitting the same types of armies up against each other. YMMV, of course, that's just a personal preference.

[Nelson]

No unit varitey...They did have loads.

Infantry with rifles or smoothbore muskets, cavalry with some variety of firearms (almost always employed while dismounted when facing enemy infantry), and artillery, both rifled and smoothbore.

The artillery ranges would be too long for TW as we know it. Massed shock cavalry charges, one of the favorite tactics among TW fans, had disappeared. Firepower was so potent that the war ended pretty much like WWI. I can't see the ACW working at all. 1850 is about the end of the line for TW type battles. It could be done, but the tactical options available would be reduced from earlier eras.

[Daveybaby]

The artillery ranges would be too long for TW as we know it. Massed shock cavalry charges, one of the favorite tactics among TW fans, had disappeared. Firepower was so potent that the war ended pretty much like WWI. I can't see the ACW working at all. 1850 is about the end of the line for TW type battles. It could be done, but the tactical options available would be reduced from earlier eras.
I have to agree, ACW wouldnt work as a full TW game - i dont think it would even have worked that well as an expansion to ETW. Well, not on it's own I could maybe have seen a version released as a component of a kingdoms style expansion for ETW, but even then it would mostly have been a bit of an oddity - i just dont see how you would keep it playable and yet still satisfy historical accuracy requirements (and let's be realistic here, the complaints aimed at every TW game from the realism brigade would be a drop in the ocean compared to what we'd see aimed at an ACW game - those guys can be fanatical).

[econ21]

I think the ACW would be fine from a tactical point of view - yes, the weapons were starting to get rather long range but there was lots of cover - natural or manmade - on the typical ACW battlefield, so if you are not too literal about the scale of distance and time, then it would not be so different from the NTW model. And let's face it, we have got used to not being too literal about distance and time in TW games. (Armies moving at a crawl over the strategic map, 20 unit army caps, 80 men units etc). It's also true cavalry was neutered and melee rare, but in ETW cavalry is getting close to that (very fragile) and infantry engagements tend to focus on fire rather than shock combat. There would be some unit variety and quite a bit of technical progress - infantry units upgrading from muskets to rifles, many types of artillery and ultimately dismounted repeater armed cavalry. The sea/river battles would be quite fun (monitor vs merrimac, anyone?). And the generals have quite a bit personality, with a fair amount of fun to be had roleplaying Lincoln - trying to pick the good ones and demote the bad.

And in some ways, the ACW quite suits the TW style of mixing the strategic campaign map with the tactical battles - because (unlike WW1, for example) there was a lot of strategic maneouvre - with a lot of freedom where to attack - and many distinct battles. Before Shogun, there was a Civil War computer game that in fact was remarkably like a Total War game - made by an English game designer who also made Napoleon 1813 iirc. Sadly, the AI in both games was utterly broken (as in, there was not really a game there), but the premise seemed sound.

My main reservation with the ACW is the two faction issue - I think the ACW would be best done in depth, with lots of attention to the peculiarities of different states and theatres, rather than trying to zoom it out ETW style to include European factions. There's nothing wrong with a two faction wargame, it's just I like the diplomatic side of TW games and not being in constant war.

Personally, I'm rooting for a Rome 2. The period just has awesome unit and faction variety. I'm revisiting EB right now and falling in love with it again, although the AI limitations of RTW keep intruding. I'm quite giddy thinking what it would be like with STW2s AI.

[Populus Romanus]

I think that Greece: Total War would be the logical successor to Shogun 2, keeping in spirit with the simplicity and focus of S2.

[TheLastDays]

The problem with Greece TW would again be unit and faction variety...

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Like people play a game to learn things, to play a game so they dont have to read a book about the subject anymore... Historical accuracy can never be done because history itself isnt factual at all but interpretational, done and written by the historian. Like the series or movies of 'Rome' are realistic, most of the things/events which supposed to 'teached things' in that series are already been revised (like the famous scene with Caesar under the blood of the bull). And even then, if you want to achieve the historical accuracy which is now the judgement of the historian of the past, in a game based on the roman empire, you will need to have like 1 faction, rome in this case, who just should have units which cant be countered, no factions against rome ever made chance, especially not after Marius reforms. I know you will now come up with tales of Mirthiades and stuff, well, in the long term, no other country could challenge rome because rome could only survive on war, while others could survive without it, and so even after a lost battle you coultn win a war against rome, because in Romes logic, a war was simply never over before a war was won.

A game based on our historical vision would really be dull, luckily CA didnt based their games on historical accuracy but on playablity, besides rome you had other playable factions which really even had a chance against rome ingame, a real simulater would have 1 Highly OP faction, Rome of cource. A real NTW would be a france which coulnt be countered on land by any faction, only beatable on sea, but not beatable on land. A game about Ghenkis Khan with the best units around because the same story of Rome counts for the Mongols, they just werent beatable, when they lost it was mostly there own greed our strategy mistake. History is a good inspiration for a game, but shoulnt be build totally around it. Its fun you see some things in STW2 which looks like history of Japan, but i am almost sure no one want that, we multiplayers wants 'balance', whatever that word means.

Rome was fantastic, the atmosphere it had was fenomonal. Personally i loved alexander expension even more, although it didnt had a good multiplayer, the single player was really hard.

I disagree with you.

[RTKAbu]

Good

[Dionysus9]

Infantry with rifles or smoothbore muskets, cavalry with some variety of firearms (almost always employed while dismounted when facing enemy infantry), and artillery, both rifled and smoothbore.

The artillery ranges would be too long for TW as we know it. Massed shock cavalry charges, one of the favorite tactics among TW fans, had disappeared. Firepower was so potent that the war ended pretty much like WWI. I can't see the ACW working at all. 1850 is about the end of the line for TW type battles. It could be done, but the tactical options available would be reduced from earlier eras.

You make some good points.

My perspective is completely based on MP since I dont play the SP game. 2 Factions is not a problem for MP since you only have 2 teams going at eachother at a time. In fact, the similarity of the opposing forces is actually good for MP tournaments, and such.

In terms of an SP Civil War game-- the "Historical Battles" would be amazing. Actually I might start playing SP if they came out with ACW. It might be very very interesting for CA to introduce the concept of supply lines and supply interdiction with cavalry.

True-- artillery was devastating in the American Civil War-- both at long range and short range (cannister shot)-- and it was often the key to victory...but there were also some battles where bayonettes came into play. Bayonettes! The death toll per unit was insane, which probably appeals to many gamers.

True-- the role of cavalry had changed-- mostly used as dragoons (dismounted rifles) --but it was still critical, and was used to run down routers, skirmish to stall enemy advances, interdict supply lines, and claim and hold key positions in advance of the infantry. Nathan Bedford Forest (the "wizard of the saddle"), a cavalryman, started the war as a private and ended as a general. Cavalry was not unimportant-- it just had a slightly different importance.

Naval battles were pretty important, and naval sieges too-- something CA has sort of been toying with as they approached S2. The ironclads, the river campaigns, and the blockade of the Gulf of Mexico are ripe for TW style Naval combat.

There are a lot of Civil War buffs in the U.S. who have never tried a TW game and I imagine they would love it. I think American Civil War is do-able, with some forethought.

[Zenicetus]

The other problem with an ACW game (besides unit variety and just two factions), is that TW is an economic simulation as well as a military simulation. In that war, one side had almost all the heavy industry, while the other side was an agrarian economy that was heavily dependent on outside trade.

A quick blitz of the North was the Confederacy's best hope, and there shouldn't be just one way to win a Total War game. You'd have to jerk history around, and also provide much more involvement of European factions, to provide the Confederacy with the kind of economic base that could support a protracted, winnable war against the Union.

[econ21]

A quick blitz of the North was the Confederacy's best hope, and there shouldn't be just one way to win a Total War game.

The South fought long and hard enough, despite is economic inferiority (the war lasted about as long as WW1). Smuggling guns and cotton would be an interesting economic angle, as would capturing armaments factories and cutting off the trans-Missippi.

I think the thing to do would be to have different victory conditions than in a standard Total War game. The main one would represent the effect of the southern victories on northern politics. Rather like the prestige victory of ETW, you'd want a kind of negative prestige counter for the North (or may be just Southern prestige to have effects on the North) - representing war weariness and political unpopularity of their leadership. If the Confederacy pull off too many victories, cause too much damage, the North loses the heart for the fight (Lincoln loses the election to a peace candidate). I'd like to see the chance of European intervention as an optional setting, again partly influenced by southern prestige.

The more I think about it, the more it could work. As it happened, I was reading John Keegan's history of the ACW recently. It spurred me to try the demo of Ageod's ACW game, but while it looked very interesting, it was a little too complex for my tastes and crucially lacked the TW battles.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Good

Yes,you point out bad facts in your argument

A game based on our historical vision would really be dull, luckily CA didnt based their games on historical accuracy but on playablity, besides rome you had other playable factions which really even had a chance against rome ingame,

:daisy: In the movies they always do not contain historical accuracy.Same with the games,but why do they it?I mean how come EB was released and it was so popular?

In NTW,no,actually nations stood a chance against France.It was Napoleon that masterminded the battles,mind you he nearly lost them.Same with Rome,if you can ambish a roman legion in a forrest,you do stand a chance

History is a good inspiration for a game, but shoulnt be build totally around it. Its fun you see some things in STW2 which looks like history of Japan, but i am almost sure no one want that, we multiplayers wants 'balance', whatever that word means.

If we don't know what our history is,soon we'll become dumb :daisy:

I agree that history is a good inspiration for a game,it should be built around it,otherwise how will we know the history of our ancestors?You might say go to the libary or something,But I want to experince in RL.Games and movies make the good choice.but i am almost sure no one want that, No one?NO ONE?You MP players are totally igorant of us SP players.Most of the total war games were bought by SP,let alone the MP.SP players do want a historical accuruate map.

So in reality,yes rome was a good game,But every time I play it,it becomes boring thanks to the historical accuracy.

[Populus Romanus]

The problem with Greece TW would again be unit and faction variety...

That is actually what I consider the best feature of Shogun 2, apart from no more rebels. :yes:

[TheLastDays]

The best feature is that they're all the same?

Well imo it really damages the replayability... It was similar with ETW... After playing a campaign as Austria (where I'm from) I started one as Sweden, since I like Sweden, didn't finish it (although that was more because of a bug that didn't let me end a certain turn)... then I couldn't get myself to play yet another european all the same faction and played as the Maratha... never started ETW back up after that campaign...

[Leptomeninges]

I'd personally like to see Rome 2.

I've spent the last few weeks having fun with Empire and Napoleon after getting back into Total War with Shogun 2. While I missed those releases in their time, I now have a better perspective on the simplicity versus scope threads I've seen floating around. Shogun 2 is a pretty polished game and I've enjoyed it. But my opinion is that something was lost in the effort to streamline and standardize. If Empire was too ambitious for CA's resources I think they may have shifted to the other end of the extreme with Shogun 2. As others have said, the downside of such a scope limited game is that it reduces the replay value.

In Empire it's pretty easy for me to think of goals for new games: I'm going to play Austria purely as a continental power and I'll ignore all colonies and trade nodes. I'm going to play UP without taking a single continental province focusing only on trade and colonies. etc. Empire's scope adds the possibility for fairly different games while Shogun 2 tends to end up feeling pretty similar regardless of which faction I pick.

Please don't misunderstand. I like Shogun 2 quite a bit. This isn't a bashing thing. But I think I'd like them to take a step back towards a broader scope whatever the next release.

[econ21]

I'd personally like to see Rome 2.

I've spent the last few weeks having fun with Empire and Napoleon after getting back into Total War with Shogun 2. ... But my opinion is that something was lost in the effort to streamline and standardize.

Yes, I agree with that. For me, the biggest achievement of Shogun 2 is getting back to a game where the battle AI and strategic AI can give you a challenge. Simplicity makes that easier, but it's not essential. (MTW is proof of that.) I went back to ETW and RTW (EB) after my STW2 rekindled my interest in TW. I'd love to see the STW2 AI unleashed on the bigger canvas of some of the earlier settings.

[Populus Romanus]

The biggest arguement against R2, in my opinion, is that the rebels will have to appear again. I loved how in S2 there was a province for every clan, and it made the game far more challenging. However, unless you want all of Gaul to be one province, we will be seeing the rebels again in R2. I do not want that. However, Greece is perfect because there is an abundance of information to create a faction for every province, potentially saving this great feature from S2.

[econ21]

The biggest arguement against R2, in my opinion, is that the rebels will have to appear again. I loved how in S2 there was a province for every clan, and it made the game far more challenging. However, unless you want all of Gaul to be one province, we will be seeing the rebels again in R2. I do not want that. However, Greece is perfect because there is an abundance of information to create a faction for every province, potentially saving this great feature from S2.

I agree about the "minor" clans in STW2 - they were much more fun than rebels in earlier games. In fact, I think we should probably call them "non-playable" clans, as aside from the fact that you could not play as them, they seemed no lesser than the rather vulnerable "Great clans". (Asina became a powerhouse in my Oda campaign.)

I am not sure why you could not do something similar in RTW2. EB2 seems to be coming up with new playable factions and I suspect there's an abundance of alternative historical names, at least, for different Gallic tribes etc. As in STW2, I don't think the non-playable factions need have unique units or cultures etc, so sharing them with the playable "Gauls" would be fine. I guess there might be a nomenclature issue - calling the playable faction rather generically "Gauls" and the others some specific tribe, but I could live with that.

[Populus Romanus]

I agree about the "minor" clans in STW2 - they were much more fun than rebels in earlier games. In fact, I think we should probably call them "non-playable" clans, as aside from the fact that you could not play as them, they seemed no lesser than the rather vulnerable "Great clans". (Asina became a powerhouse in my Oda campaign.)

I am not sure why you could not do something similar in RTW2. EB2 seems to be coming up with new playable factions and I suspect there's an abundance of alternative historical names, at least, for different Gallic tribes etc. As in STW2, I don't think the non-playable factions need have unique units or cultures etc, so sharing them with the playable "Gauls" would be fine. I guess there might be a nomenclature issue - calling the playable faction rather generically "Gauls" and the others some specific tribe, but I could live with that.

That could work with a team as dedicated as EBII's. However, I fear that CA may be unwilling to spend the time researching such things. Historically, there are still areas where we have no idea who lived there (lots of Eastern Europe), and not even research can fix that.

However, if CA is going to go down the road, the community could possibly pitch in some info.

[hlemmur]

I would quite like to see a Dark Ages total war. Because kingdom's rose and fell very quickly, there are no problems with historical accuracy. There is also the choice of playing a pan-Europe campaign or a much smaller campaign - 5th - 7th century Britain would be my favorite but you could also do France in the time of Pepin the Short or after the break-up of Charlamane's empire, the Iberian peninsular during the Moslem conquest, Justinian's reconquest of N Africa & S Italy etc.

In terms of balancing power, there are plenty of barbarian invasions from all sides and there is the growth of the power of the papacy throughout the period, which would be fairly easy to model.

The other fun option would be Crusader total war, focusing on the middle east and Egypt in the aftermath of the first crusade to the defeat of the Mongols at the battle of Ain Jalut. Three playable religions, a real vacuum of power at the start and from 1209 the ever increasing threat of the Mongol hordes getting closer and closer.

I don't like empire total war or anything later. I feel the battle engine is far more suited to a pre-gunpowder age.

[Zarobien]

I would like to see;
- Rome 2 Total War and Barbarian Invasion. For me that was the most enjoyable one because of the different type of factions.
- Medieval 2 Total war and Viking Invasion. But this one I would like to see in the same map. For me its kind of stupid that vikings are only attacking brittain; they whent all the way to sicily.

I'd also like to see the multiplayer career modes in these. And I would actually want CA to take it bit futher with the elite units customization. Why not start with basic units like; spearmen, bowmen, axemen... And then when they get experience; add armors, javellins and such to them... And at the end make more unique armies... Offcourse with some restrictions.

[edyzmedieval]

I place my bets on Rome 2 TW, everyone wants to see this and it's a natural progression because it was a benchmark for CA just as Shogun was.

I for one would want M3TW or N2TW. Medieval 3 with a far bigger unit variety (too many generic units) and Napoleon 2 TW with implementation of accurate tactics and improved AI. :yes:

[JeromeBaker]

My 2cents

1. Rome 2 - RTW was the best experience I have personally ever had with a game(including the mods and variations that came out). It took me 3 semseters to pull my GPA back up after Rome came out my sophmore year in college and sapped all my free time away. RTW actually helped my married life as well. I was engaged when RTW came out and the amount of time I spent playing shocked my fiance who always complained about how I spent my free time that didnt involve her. RTW actually played a sizable roll in why we split up (along with a mother in law to be from HELL!!), and a couple girlfriends later I met my current wife, who I am very lucky to be with (huge step up!). All my friends and family tell me how lucky I was to have not married the first fiance and how blessed I was to marry my current wife, so thanks RTW for the help! Back to the game, I can't wait to see two legionary armies clash together with updated graphics, it will be awesome. (BTW - my wife pre-ordered Shogun 2 and suprised me with it which shows how different the situation is now)

2.WWI. I saw some others suggest it and I think it can be pulled off. Your army could be comprised of different types of infantry ( machine gun units, gas units, standard bayonet and charge units, and other specialties), cavalry (horse and tank - I could see one unit being comprised of a single tank that you could use which would also be accurate I beleive since I dont think tanks were very widespread during most of the war), and the naval units which could involve early subs as well as ships. On the game map, you could construct trenches and defenses much like how you could add forts in previous TW titles. I think it would be really cool to form a defensive line of trenches across your territories by spreading your units out and having them dig in (the type and difficulty of your trench network could depend on research) and also on the flip side, form a plan of attack to punch through an enemy line of fortifications. There is a risk/reward with how spread out your trench network is. If you spread out too thin and the enemy pushes through a section, it might be hard to regroup. You could also make fortifications/defensive lines vary in terms of size and scope to try and trick the enemy into punching through a weak part of the line only to find it was left weak on purpose and you had forces ready to surround and destory the attackers. Possibilities are endless here and it would be nice to play something totally different than anything you have played before.

3. Fantasy world - I personally love the history involved with the series, but it would be awesome to play a complete fantasy world partly because it would be really easy to fully ballance out a set of nations/clans with very unique units, strenghts, capabilties, traits, tech charts, and history. Anyone with an imagination could really make a neat game out of a made up world. If they went this route, I would prefer hand to hand combat, not so much guns. I would hope they would stay away from futuristic worlds, as I dont want to be shooting lazer beams with my units. The way graphics are getting better at CA, they could design a very cool looking map with unique terrain and could also create some cool looking units since they are not constrained by copying real historical maps and units. If they go fantasy on the next title, they really need to make each clan/nation very unique since there is so much freedom in how you create the game.

[Graphic]

Rome 2 seems obvious and would be great.

I almost want Empire 2, though. I didn't hate it as much as some people, but it still had lots of problems in its day, not to mention seeming extremely cold and spartan compared to the very atmospheric NTW and TWS2. I want them to try again and give it their all.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Why ROME 2?

I hated ETW by the way

N2TW with historical accraucy.And more units!Same with Medival 3,and Shogun 3.

[econ21]

Craig from CA has started a thread asking for our opinions on the next TW game:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?136011-Suggestions-for-the-next-TW-game

I am not sure CA will have time to read two threads here, so if you feel strongly on this issue, you could post in that thread.

I'll keep this thread open for two and fro on the issue.

[Graphic]

Why ROME 2?

Epic trireme battles for one.

More to the point: why not Rome 2?

And NTW is easily the most historically accurate/non-fantasy TW game ever released, save perhaps the original Medieval. Your comment seems to imply that it's n ot.

[JeromeBaker]

Why ROME 2?


I think most people enjoy the time period. The historical content is well suited to be turned into a TW game. You have a really dynamic centerpeice in Rome itself. The Roman legions and aux units around them are a lot of fun to play against and with. You have a decent variety of other nations to rival Rome (Carthage has its elephants, Partha has is horse archers, Britain has its chariots, Greeks have their pike/phalanx units, Germany has strong infantry and cav units, ect..)

Then if RTW2 follows history, you will get a chance to have Rome fight within itself, which I really enjoyed in the previous title.

When I break out RTW the only thing that gets in the way is the graphics, the lack of naval battles (I agree with Graphic that the trireme battles will be epic -) and the AI needs some tweaking, but it still is one my favorites today despite it being long in the tooth. Looking at what they did with S2TW, I think they could hit a home run with R2TW if done correctly.

The last reason on why Rome 2 is it will make a boatload of money for CA, and they are going to go with what sells.
Does anyone know the highest grossing TW title? I have no evidence, but I would take a guess RTW is number 1.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

No.Rome 2 is out of the qeustion.Unless they put histoircal accuracy then I am not buying it.Use all the mods of rome and combine it with rome 2,then it will sell really good

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Epic trireme battles for one.

More to the point: why not Rome 2?

And NTW is easily the most historically accurate/non-fantasy TW game ever released, save perhaps the original Medieval. Your comment seems to imply that it's n ot.

There were mistakes made in NTW,wrong flag for russia,and although the battles are great,its not like a Napolenic Battle as it was fought in those days.

[Graphic]

There were mistakes made in NTW,wrong flag for russia,and although the battles are great,its not like a Napolenic Battle as it was fought in those days.

Perhaps not, but I didn't say it was 100% realistic; it's just the most realistic TW game.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Perhaps not, but I didn't say it was 100% realistic; it's just the most realistic TW game.


It is,But Shogun2 is more realistic.NTW and SH2TW are the best games of TW.I would like the battles to be more Napoleonic style,becuase at the moment you're using cavarly when you're not supposed to.I hate that.

[JeromeBaker]

NTW and SH2TW are the best games of TW.

What made NTW be in your top 2 Takeda? (replayability,graphics, ect..)

NTW is the only TW game I have not purchased and this was due to me being disapointed with ETW. I also tend to like melee combat over the guns, but I only have ETW to really base that opinion on. (I am not counting the limited guns I used in M2TW and S2TW)

BTW- Very much agree with you on S2TW being at the top of TW series, which is the main reason I want to see R2TW. If they can keep improving the AI and graphics I would be excited to see a new RTW come out that doesnt need modding right away to make it playable. There were so many things with RTW I overlooked because of how much I am interested in that period in history.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

What made NTW be in your top 2 Takeda? (replayability,graphics, ect..)

NTW is the only TW game I have not purchased and this was due to me being disapointed with ETW. I also tend to like melee combat over the guns, but I only have ETW to really base that opinion on. (I am not counting the limited guns I used in M2TW and S2TW)

BTW- Very much agree with you on S2TW being at the top of TW series, which is the main reason I want to see R2TW. If they can keep improving the AI and graphics I would be excited to see a new RTW come out that doesnt need modding right away to make it playable. There were so many things with RTW I overlooked because of how much I am interested in that period in history.

I'll tell you why.ETW was :daisy:. NTW has realistic campagin map and is a far better game than ETW.Units can actually shoot and fight.The MP is amazing!SH2TW is a great game slo.


In RTW,they should combine all the mods and make into a massive game.