STW 2 instead of MTW 2

[AwesomeArcher]

Should the makers of the game have made a Shogun Total War II instead of a Medieval Total War II? I think they should have because Shogun was the first total war game to come out and it has a lot of room for improvement with all the new graphics and battle engines. What do you think?

[kburkert]

I dont really mind aslong as they make one later.

[Ibn Munqidh]

I would say no, no way, out of all the series, the one which had the best time period, setting, and case was medieval. The medieval era is the best era, and the lands surrounding the mediterranaen are the best for the game, due to many factors. Cultural clash, religious clash, racism, fundementalism, chivalry, honour, and utmost cruelty.

[Monk]

I would love an stw 2... on the condition they bring back the throne room and everything that set STW apart from MTW :2thumbsup:

[Lorenzo_H]

I think the Medieval period is a far better setting for Total War.

[kburkert]

But STW has a complete new style of game play.

[IrishArmenian]

I never played Shogun Total War, and played Medeival Total War scarecely, for when I was really interested in it I was serving in the army. But I say that I don't really care, but I think with the Medeival time setting, you get so many diverse cultures, so much friction between nations and such a broad scale. They are fighting all over the Continents. Now, I'll bet you could find all that I listed above in Shogun Total War, but in Medeival Total War it is magnified.

[Manstein]

The problem is the fact that it might not fit well with the consumers. Thus, I believe that STW2 will only be possible within the boundaries of a mod.

[Mooks]

I think rome is a awsome time setting. If CA actually opened up one of those page thing called 'books' they might have made the game better faction-unit wise.

[Furious Mental]

No. Too limited setting.

[Lorenzo_H]

I think rome is a awsome time setting. If CA actually opened up one of those page thing called 'books' they might have made the game better faction-unit wise.
errr...dude? CA were very historically accurate! The game was brilliant! Don't be so harsh!

[doc_bean]

M2TW has a lot more commercial appeal than S2TW, so purely business wise, they made the right decision imo. Gameplay wise, the medieval era offers a lot more diversity, which does makes it harder to balance the factions. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on persoanl taste I guess.




errr...dude? CA were very historically accurate! The game was brilliant! Don't be so harsh!

Oh boy...:sweatdrop:

[Dutch_guy]

In my opinion they made a good choice, keep in mind that opinion is based upon the fact that I just like the period better.


errr...dude? CA were very historically accurate! The game was brilliant! Don't be so harsh!


If it was, then mods such as EB and RTR wouldn't be here. As both the mods have set Historical accuracy as their main goal.

:balloon2:

[NagatsukaShumi]

RTW was just as accurate as any of the TW have been, its a none issue. TW will NEVER be totally historicall accurate.

The differences between them have been the AI and the setting, not accuracy.

[barocca]

perhaps they will make STW2 as an expansion

you have Sengoku,
the Mongol invasions - there were two of them
plus the korea expedition
a possible war with china
and the meiji(?) era

just to name a few possible clashes

B.

[Zenicetus]

I think MTW2 was a logical decision. Most people don't know anything about feudal Japan, but they can relate to shiny European armored knights on horseback. In that respect, I'm kinda surprised they did RTW, since these days there isn't much popular knowledge of ancient Rome outside Cecil B. DeMille movies.

MTW2 may also be a springboard for Napoleon:Total War as the next major game, which would also make sense in terms of popularity, but I hope they don't go there. I prefer fighting with ancient, non-gunpowder armies. So I hope they do something like China/3 Kingdoms as the next one. Heck, I'd settle for Stone Age:Total War. Anything that doesn't have firearms as the main combat style.

[IrishArmenian]

I agree with Zenicetus, I am not excited by a Napoleonic era. I like the up close and personal qualities of Melee weapons. You get to see your enemies. I don't like gunpowder Total War ideas.

[Manstein]

I have to disagree upon that setiment. Gunpowder armies maybe be filled with simple shooting, but it might also provide some new graeplay styles that will breathe some new life into the series. The Total War series, as of now, is largely all about pinning the enemy at the front and attack his back. Of course, that isn't the only strategy, but I would like to see a gunpowder Total War.

[edyzmedieval]

What about an RTWII?

[Ibn Munqidh]

What about an RTWII?

yuck....

[The Spartan (Returns)]

I agree with Zenicetus, I am not excited by a Napoleonic era. I like the up close and personal qualities of Melee weapons. You get to see your enemies. I don't like gunpowder Total War ideas.
seconded!!! (although after watching patriot i kinda like those muskets:sweatdrop: )

[The Spartan (Returns)]

What about an RTWII?
id like one. that time period is very interesting. testudos,elephants,phlanxes,chariots,barbaric warcries. whats so yuck about that?

[Brighdaasa]

I'd rather ca stay away from stw2, they will almost surely disappoint those who played stw in the early days. Better not to shatter the image of a near perfect game we still have or have built up in our minds. Imho they will never again get the atmosphere that spot-on as they did in the original one, mainly because the series has moved on to a different audience. Stw was aimed at a niche market with a relatively small and specific audience, as opposed to the broad audience the series is targeting now.

Maybe when ca actually faces competition that's about to best them in atmosphere, ai and graphics, it's time for a new epic episode or a quality remake of stw.

[Basileus]

I´ll say it like this, instead of CA giving us an expansion on MTW2 they should make the expansion STW2 :idea2: heh

[NodachiSam]

Interesting idea but I don't know how much interest actually would exist for another SWT themed game. Maybe as an add on in a more general East Asia Total War, as Japan is kind limited. STW was my baptism into the Total War series but I personally don't know how much interest I would have in another Medieval Japan game. I would also find a Chinese total war even more dull and unappealing unless it was more broad, incorporating Mongols, Tibetans, Koreans, Japanese, maybe Indians, Cambodians... As it is I'm happy with MTW 2 now that I've wrapped my head around the idea.

[Zenicetus]

I have to disagree upon that setiment. Gunpowder armies maybe be filled with simple shooting, but it might also provide some new graeplay styles that will breathe some new life into the series. The Total War series, as of now, is largely all about pinning the enemy at the front and attack his back. Of course, that isn't the only strategy, but I would like to see a gunpowder Total War.
I enjoy *modern* gunpowder combat in strategy games. Basically anything WWII or later, where the tactics are more fluid.

What I don't like is the Napoleonic period (or my possibly mistaken view of it)... the idea of two armies marching towards each other in rigid formation... then the front rank fires in unison, and falls. Then the next rank fires, and falls. Gahhhh... and all at fairly long range. Doesn't seem like that much fun.

Give me guys hacking at each other with sticks and sharp things.

[kburkert]

I hate modern warfare (with guns), theres less tacticts to it, but when you have a sheild and sword theres more tactics. Bows cannot be used as a gun like weapon because it does not just go through anything. So really thers no arguement, some people might injoy a later version of warfare.

CA should make games that hit mytholgical areas like elves and so on. What do you think?

[Duke John]

Instead of writing a lengthly post about how Napoleonic warfare was more tactically interesting than Medieval warfare let me show 2 diagrams of army layouts.

Battle of Austerlitz
http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload2/austerlitz.jpg

Battle of Poitiers
http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload6/487px-Battle_poitiers.gif

And let me add this quote:

He also said CA does not like the Napoleonic Era, not because of the tactics and stuff, but of the implementation of those tactics. Its too hard to code, but if the hardware gets better it would be possible.
From: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=51538


You may not like the Napoleonic wars, but saying that they were tactically less interesting only shows you still got a lot of reading to do :wink:

[Lord Adherbal]

What I don't like is the Napoleonic period (or my possibly mistaken view of it)... the idea of two armies marching towards each other in rigid formation... then the front rank fires in unison, and falls. Then the next rank fires, and falls. Gahhhh... and all at fairly long range. Doesn't seem like that much fun.

that's like claiming tank battles involve tanks lining up and shooting eachother to bits. Both are far from the truth.

Nap battles were a fine balance of shooting, charging and artillery bombardement. On top of that good use of terrain on a much larger scale then medieval/ancient battles was vital.

[R'as al Ghul]

I've asked this question last week and the thread was spammed to death after CA made a "statement".

Anyway, rest assured. There'll be a Shogun mod for M2:TW.
And I'm pretty enthusiastic about the possibilities this new engine will provide.
At least graphic wise. Let's hope that it'll be a game that's actually worth playing, not only looking at.

:bow:

[CBR]

What I don't like is the Napoleonic period (or my possibly mistaken view of it)... the idea of two armies marching towards each other in rigid formation... then the front rank fires in unison, and falls. Then the next rank fires, and falls. Gahhhh... and all at fairly long range. Doesn't seem like that much fun.
Actually you are mistaken ~:) The marching forward in rigid formations was something from 18th century warfare. Napoleonic warfare was a breakaway from the oldfashioned linear warfare with the newly introduced corps that had all three elements (cav, inf and art)


CBR

[Furious Mental]

I think what he's talking about is companies of musketeers firing volleys at each other, which I'm pretty sure was a feature of the Napoleonic era.

[De' Medici]

I would say no, no way, out of all the series, the one which had the best time period, setting, and case was medieval. The medieval era is the best era, and the lands surrounding the mediterranaen are the best for the game, due to many factors. Cultural clash, religious clash, racism, fundementalism, chivalry, honour, and utmost cruelty.

Same here.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Duke John - while Nap era battles may be more interesting when it comes to tactics, the uneducated masses of mainstream gamers don't care. They want shiny graphics and large epic clashes, not 1000 men standing in lines facing each other shooting for two hours.

[AwesomeArcher]

Well you all have pretty much convinced me that MTW 2 would be better, but i would like to have a vote so moderators, would it be alright if i made a poll in the MTW 2 section or should i put it somewhere else.

[Duke John]

while Nap era battles may be more interesting when it comes to tactics, the uneducated masses of mainstream gamers don't care. They want shiny graphics and large epic clashes, not 1000 men standing in lines facing each other shooting for two hours.
But that is NOT how those battles were fought. The reason I showed those diagrams is because it clearly shows that a Napoleonic general had more tactical units to command which expanded his choice of tactics (and no, that is not limited to which unit shoots which unit). That is in stark contrast with the medieval general who generally commanded only 3 units (the 3 battles). I like the medieval period but not because of the tactics used during those times. From what I have read it was mostly lining up and a missile exchange which forced one side to charge. The TW series make it seem interesting with 16 to 20 units but that is something medieval commanders could only dream of.

[Husar]

But that is NOT how those battles were fought. The reason I showed those diagrams is because it clearly shows that a Napoleonic general had more tactical units to command which expanded his choice of tactics (and no, that is not limited to which unit shoots which unit). That is in stark contrast with the medieval general who generally commanded only 3 units (the 3 battles). I like the medieval period but not because of the tactics used during those times. From what I have read it was mostly lining up and a missile exchange which forced one side to charge. The TW series make it seem interesting with 16 to 20 units but that is something medieval commanders could only dream of.
Capturing the whole mediterranean are is something most countries could only dream of, yet it can be done in the TW series...:juggle2:

[Grifman]

Should the makers of the game have made a Shogun Total War II instead of a Medieval Total War II? I think they should have because Shogun was the first total war game to come out and it has a lot of room for improvement with all the new graphics and battle engines. What do you think?

It's irrelevant since they're not.

[sunsmountain]

Anyway, rest assured. There'll be a Shogun mod for M2:TW.

Just like there would be a Medieval mod for RomeTW, that i haven't found anywhere yet... (well, a good one anyway)

...by the time the modders fix the game, a new version is out. In essence, CA is just another good mod team. :)

[econ21]

In essence, CA is just another good mod team.

Please don't disparage CA. Good modders understand they can do nothing without the engines provided by CA. Standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.

[IrishArmenian]

There might have been more strategically interesting battles for Napoleon, but we are not Napoleon. It is much easier to make an interesting, challenging, and a I-won-I-am-so-happy feeling in the medeival period as apposed to the age of Napoleon. Sure, people were still vicious (we always will be), but I agree with Zenicetus. Rows of men carrying early firearms marching, shooting and dying in unison is nothing near the fast paced rush of a mixed calvary/infantry charge laying waste to some stationary soldiers who, noticing the charge, sh** themselves. I think it just is more of a rush.
But backe to why I think it should be Medeival as opposed to Shogun is because the extreme cultural differences, the fanatics from all sorts of religeons (though mostly Western Christians), and the beleif that God had chosen the royalty personally. Also, the sheer cruelty that the Europeans treated their enemies with was unbeleivable. In Japan, honour was showed even to ones enemies, which makes for less backstabbing.

[econ21]

It is much easier to make an interesting, challenging, and a I-won-I-am-so-happy feeling in the medeival period as apposed to the age of Napoleon. Sure, people were still vicious (we always will be), but I agree with Zenicetus. Rows of men carrying early firearms marching, shooting and dying in unison is nothing near the fast paced rush of a mixed calvary/infantry charge laying waste to some stationary soldiers who, noticing the charge, sh** themselves. I think it just is more of a rush.

If you were talking of the American Civil War or the period between that and the advent of the tank, I might agree with you. But Napoleonic warfare was not just rows of men carrying guns.

The French revolution led to an emphasis on shock combat - initially, the French had big armies of patriotic but hastily raised troops. They initially triumphed over the linear tactics of their opponents by sheer elan. This French emphasis on the bayonet was to linger until WW1. But it was not unique to them. The British tended to fight by holding fire until they saw the whites of their eyes and then afterwards charge a disordered enemy. The interaction between these different kinds of tactics is rather dramatic. Later on the Prussians and others started abandoning their strict linear tactics and adopted more flexible French tactics.

In addition, shock cavalry was a key element of Napoleonic battles. Massed charges of heavy cavalry could sometimes wreck an enemy or, if the targets got into square in time, wreck the cavalry.

Most casualties were caused by fire, but IIRC more often by artillery than the lines of men with guns. The placement of artillery could be rather interesting - with horse artillery being able to unload right next to enemies (but also be very exposed to counter-fire) while troops might try to use reverse slopes or other cover to escape terrible mass bombardments.

Infantry fire tactics also evolved with heavy use of skirmishers. By the time of Waterloo, massed formations appeared so vulnerable to enemy fire, most of the day was probably spent skirmishing until critical moments when assaults were attempted.

So I think Napoleonic battles have as many interesting elements as ancient or medieval ones. If done right, it might produce even more of a rush and be more challenging than existing TW games. I certainly respect AI arbalesters in MTW and fiery onagers in RTW.

[doc_bean]

Just like there would be a Medieval mod for RomeTW, that i haven't found anywhere yet... (well, a good one anyway)

...by the time the modders fix the game, a new version is out. In essence, CA is just another good mod team. :)

You don't like Chivalry TW ?

[Lord Adherbal]

In addition, shock cavalry was a key element of Napoleonic battles. Massed charges of heavy cavalry could sometimes wreck an enemy or, if the targets got into square in time, wreck the cavalry.

Most casualties were caused by fire, but IIRC more often by artillery than the lines of men with guns. The placement of artillery could be rather interesting - with horse artillery being able to unload right next to enemies (but also be very exposed to counter-fire) while troops might try to use reverse slopes or other cover to escape terrible mass bombardments.

Infantry fire tactics also evolved with heavy use of skirmishers. By the time of Waterloo, massed formations appeared so vulnerable to enemy fire, most of the day was probably spent skirmishing until critical moments when assaults were attempted.


aye, all that is taken into account in NTW2.
close range musket fire is deadly and will rout or destroy units in a few volleys. So you can't just march your line in front of the enemy army and start shooting. Half your army will be dead before you get there. Terrain is very important (we're only using custom made battlemaps, not campaignmap locations) because it offers cover and bonuses to both the defender and attacker. Cavalry is deadly when it can catch isolated units, but will take severe casualties against solid bodies of infantry and close range musket fire. Artillery can decimate anything that isn't protected by hill or building, and close range cannister (basicly a huge shotgun) fire is deadly. But light infantry is difficult to hit and they can snipe your art crews if you place them in the front rank. Thus you need your own light infantry to keep the enemy's at bay. But light infantry is vulnerable to a quick cavalry charge, so you have to keep your own cavalry or line infantry close. But don't leave let them leave the protection of hills for too long or they will become a cannonball magnet.
I assure you, nap warfare is far from a simple "line up and fire" ~;)

[tutankamon]

Personally i would have loved to se a Bronce Age: Totalwar, Instead of STW 2 or MTW 2... but perhabs that'll come..

[IrishArmenian]

You got me there, econ. I had never actually realized all the details. I am not exactly an expert in Napoleonic warfare. In fact, I was just a little aware of Napoleon's tactics, seeing as I am closer to Russia, I am more knowledgeable about the incredible abandonement of Moscow and the great fire that caught Napoleon by suprise. But back to my original idea, I am not sure about this, but I think there is also less faction choice in Napoleon's time. Everyone consolidates power and there are very few (beside Prussia, but they were excellent fighters) small factions that are like buffer zones between two larger ones. I always like playing like that.

[econ21]

But back to my original idea, I am not sure about this, but I think there is also less faction choice in Napoleon's time. Everyone consolidates power and there are very few (beside Prussia, but they were excellent fighters) small factions that are like buffer zones between two larger ones. I always like playing like that.

But again, I think the Napoleonic period is rather suitable for Total War because unlike, say the American Civil War, there were quite a few Great Powers. Moreover while it did kind of end up with everyong ganging up on France, the alliances often broke down and some surprising if ephemeral ones emerged. (IIRC Napoleon got Austria to send troops with him into Russia; he also tried to get the other continental powers to unite against England).

Basically you would have:

1. France - having access to large nationalistic armies of good quality; initially the most powerful faction, if the one every one loves to hate.

2. England - loads amoney, implacable enemy of France, dominant navy; very good troops but few of them.

3. Austria - main land enemy of France; sizable armies of varied quality

4. Prussia - very interesting "tech tree" possibilties, as it switches from linear 18th century tactics to ones that match the French at their own game

5. Russia - potentially the most powerful rival of France; big armies of good quality; almost unconquerable hinterland

6. Spain - large navy; very interesting possibilities for guerilla warfare and attrition if conquered.

Plus some minor powers - e.g. Poland; Portugal; Denmark; Netherlands; minor German and Italian states etc. You could add Egypt and Turkey as well.

On the grand strategic level I think it would work brilliantly with MTW glorious achievements - goals that tended to pushethe French and the others into conflict, but still allowed flexibility and diplomacy.

[Furious Mental]

I think there would be just as much strategy in a Napoleonic game. It's true that practically all infantry were armed with flintlock muskets with bayonets, but I view that as an opportunity for more flexible tactics because (I don't know much about Napoleonic warfare so forgive any mistakes) you can adapt your musketeers to the situation by using different formations. For instance as I understand it the column was faster and had more morale so I figure you'd use it to charge or flank. The line obviously had the most firepower but was I suppose less mobile. Then there was the box, for defending against cavalry, but I imagine that it was rather static (and every account of the Battle of Waterloo that I've heard said it was vulnerable to artillery, so I'll assume it was), and because three quarters of the troops weren't facing forward could be wrecked by musket fire. Then you could have light infantry who could have the additional ability to skirmish, which in a game would I guess consist of dispersing into an open formation and firing, running back, and reloading as individuals. Obviously hard to hit with artillery and by other musketeers but suicide versus cavalry. Light infantry would also be faster and have more endurance I guess. You would also have rifle men who would be skirmishers par excellence, and perhaps because of their unusual accuracy might be specifically good for knocking off officers (reduce morale and cohesion) and other skirmishers.

I also now know that dragoons in the Napoleonic period didn't generally fight on foot but personally I'd be amenable to giving them that option, perhaps since it's an arcadey feature it could be switched on/ off. And perhaps the same with grenadiers chucking grenades in assaults, and the caracole (just as a way to shoot at and annoy enemy cavalry maybe). The other way to do it would be to have an earlier era when this sort of thing was actually done (at least as I understand).