sick of europe [Archive]

Callahan9119

10-05-2007, 02:24

how many more times must we revisit this god forsaken piece of land

asia please

Csargo

10-05-2007, 02:31

Europe is the main continent in history especially during this time period. I think they did this because CA wanted to add 3d Naval battles, since it's been demanded for a while now. That's my opinion anyways.

Callahan9119

10-05-2007, 02:38

Noir

10-05-2007, 02:43

sick of those who are sick of europe

Csargo

10-05-2007, 02:45

Like I said during this time period Europe was where the major players were during the colonization of the New World. Sorry if my post wasn't clear or was misunderstood.

So would I, but more people would like to see naval battles. Majority=automatic win.

Tratorix

10-05-2007, 03:52

Not to mention that European culture is more familiar to people in North America and, of course Europe. Purely a marketing decision.

Belgolas

10-05-2007, 04:15

I wish it was somewhere else. Like China area would be awesome. Africa too. Or Mesopotamia ancient times.

Gray Beard

10-05-2007, 05:05

Chinese ships and weapons in the 18th and 19th century were substantially inferior to the European Imperial powers. That says nothing bad about the culture of other places. But, it is almost an inescapable truth Europeans were in some important areas better than the rest of the world and (for the time) high technology was one of those areas.

In the Opium wars the British army was equipped with reliable muskets, bayonets flintlock pistols and some early revolvers backed up with muzzle loading cannons The Chinese army were equipped with scale armor and armed with halberds and crossbow with a few large bore muzzle loading cannons. There was also a huge disparity in training and discipline Despite outnumbering the British by nearly 8 to one in total manpower the Chinese still lost in a rout. The Arabs were worse. The Turks a little better.

This doesn't even begin to deal with areas like science and industrial know-how that the Europeans had that most of the rest of the world didn't. Once again this says nothing about culture, art, literature or philosophy.

I guess all this really says is that if you are going to have a conquest and rule simulation in the Napoleonic era set on somewhat realistic Earth you are going to have have to focus on Europe or you are going to have give nations like China (I am a Chinese citizen by the way) abilities that they simply did not have.

The place to include other nations on an equal footing is actually the middle ages. I'd really like to see a M2TW map that covers the world. It might be fun to march a Byzantine army to the Great wall of China or a Chinese army to Paris.

Geoffrey S

10-05-2007, 08:40

Particularly for this time period I'd say centering on Europe is justified. It is after all the century in which Europe began to pull ahead of the rest of the world, the century in which India and China lost their dominant economic position.

Freedom Onanist

10-05-2007, 09:41

sick of those who are sick of europe
What that man says.

I am sick of people trying to populate TW with their bizzare, twisted and narrow nationalistic versions of history. Moving away from Europe and/or further back in history simply introduces more and more fantasy stylee units. Someone mentioned the Boxer Rebellion, can you imagine the kind of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" fantasy type units that might be included? If anyone remebers Shogun they will remember that guy with the super-samurai sword who could take on a whole unit by himself:wall: . Maybe the Boxers would have the power to stop bullets with the power of deep meditation - as the poor saps were told.:whip: What about the arcani, wailing women, amazons, etc...

Setting the game in an 18th cent Western context seems to me to be a great way of restricting some of the wilder enthusiasms for "cool" units and grounding it in some kind of reality. At least the re is plentiful historical reference material to stop them going mad on "machine gun" Chinese Xbows (I know they existed, but they were relatively useless) - a weapon that looks "cooler" than it had any significant impact on the battlefield.

Plus, the game is developed by people who are either European or closely associated with European history so why shouldn't they do a game about that?

Rodion Romanovich

10-05-2007, 10:17

Vuk

10-05-2007, 15:47

how many more times must we revisit this god forsaken piece of land

asia please

The last name of the game is Total War. While the other countries and cultures warfare may be just as interesting, the Europeans dominated warfare during this time. (which is one of the most interesting and glorious time periods in history.

how many more times must we revisit this god forsaken piece of land

THAT sounds bigotted, esp since it depends entirely on who you mean by God.
Also, I would be willing to bet that the reason the left so many places out (including Australia) is because they are planning a big expansion pack with them (or either that, a Napoleonic one :P).
There is a reason that all the other cultures adopted the Western ways of war: they were superior.
I think it is dumb (and bigotted) to say that one culture of peoples are better than another (as I believe you just did), but it is only honest to acknowledge that sometimes, certain cultures have greater techology and more advanced civilizations. (the Romans and Germans are a good example. It is not that the Germans were inferior to the Romans, but that the Romans had a much more efficient military and civilization. The Germans civilization just wasn't as good (at least as far as military goes)).

If you don't like it, don't play it. MOST people (and there is a poll that shows this) are happy with the decision, and this is what they wanted. It is what Total War players want.

Vuk the Seriously Annoyed

Abokasee

10-05-2007, 16:29

Husar

10-05-2007, 17:07

:daisy:
You didn't really expect most people in a TotalWar fanboard to hate TotalWar games, did you? :sweatdrop:

Noir

10-05-2007, 17:19

I am sorry just to exlpain myself better:

i am sick of those who are sick of europe

and also of those who are sick of america and africa and australia and japan and asia and china and antarctica.

How can one say such a thing? This is just a setting for a game, and such comments especially as thread titles are better avoided.

I was blessed enough by karma to visit many places in the world - i can safely say that in their own way they were all great including their histories cultures and traditions.

A bit of respect in presenting our views and opinions wouldn't hurt; you could say that "i am bored with this setting or that" - but saying that you are "sick of" this or that place is a bit too much IMHO.

Noir

Stuperman

10-05-2007, 17:34

Heres a hint, I reckon if you look at history, most of the biggest events happend in europe,

Roman Empire
Medieval Europe (and the middle-east)
Colonies were mainly made by europeans
WW1
WW2 (REALLY BIG)

then it ends there, USA is very short, compared to every were else, plus, it discovery was a big accident, (Columbus was looking for Japan, and the Vikings were just sailing, and that other bloke who found it before columbus was looking japan too)

that is a very western centric view of the world, of the top 5 largest empires of all time, 2 are European based, 1 Asian, and the Russian and Umayyad empires were split (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires)

p.s. I`m Canadian.

magnum

10-05-2007, 19:00

While I'd love to see another asian centered TW game, I think since this release is a new engine that it would be the perfect time to introduce gunpowder and naval combat. Both of those to me scream of the time period and location that CA picked as being the one to showcase.

I still hope that one day CA or someone returns to the Asian theater... just not today.

Geoffrey S

10-05-2007, 19:19

Wow, I'm seeing some awfully ill-informed and narrowminded posts here with regards to Europe's position in the order of things. Do realise that until the eighteenth century Europe was at best technologically, economically and militarily on par with Asia, at worst a backwater. Poor, war-ridden and with almost no influence on Asia, but plenty the other direction.

That's why this period is so fascinating for me to see in the TW series (and in my current uni studies, for that matter): this period is when the West began to outpace the rest, and things can still go a different way.

Zenicetus

10-05-2007, 19:25

Seeing as the game is focused on conquest and battles (at least this was the case for previous TW games), with much less focus on diplomacym politics and culture, the decision is rather obvious: you must include the continent where the most militarily powerful nations existed. The exclusion of China I guess is mostly because of the problems of creating so many factions. If you include China, you must include Japan, for instance, and a lot of other neighbors of China.

I think the main reason to exclude China and Japan is that the game will focus on projecting power overseas, colonizing the New World, with big fleet battles. China was sending HUGE sailing ships to India in the previous era, but due to political factors (the fall of the eunuch faction at the Court), the fleets were scrapped, the shipbuilding dockyards abandoned, the technology and seafaring experience was lost. They became very insular nations, not interested in exploration and founding colonies overseas. So the Empire game will reflect that, and leave China and Japan out as major players (or even minor factions, I hope).

China, Japan, India etc. could have been in the game as targets for land invasion and conquest, even if they weren't operating modern navies. But why bother with something that hard, when the New World is a shorter hop across the Atlantic, with a low density population of very low-tech natives to deal with?

Fewer principal factions also makes it easier for CA to do a better job with the main factions they do have. I'd rather see just five or six main factions, fleshed out with unique dialog, governments and rulers, than a large number of factions that aren't as immersive to play.

Ozzman1O1

10-05-2007, 20:30

Copperknickers

10-06-2007, 10:46

Its not just that, its the amazing warfare in asia, india has its huge infantry armies with weird weapons, china has its techno, japan has its late dutch etc and of course the mongols hav their horses. I being 8th indian am looking forward to the mughals in Etw and let us remember that the focus of this game is more the colonies than europe as they are where all the money is. Once youve secured a good strong starting position then you will focus on the colonies until the end when you have conquered them and can use the spoils of war to kill napoleon.:charge: :duel:

Furious Mental

10-06-2007, 20:28

All of the largest battles in the period took place in Europe. Colonies were important but they are not where most of the warfare took place. I wouldn't expect it to be very different in the game.

Matt_Lane

10-06-2007, 21:19

All of the largest battles in the period took place in Europe. Colonies were important but they are not where most of the warfare took place. I wouldn't expect it to be very different in the game.

I agree the battlefields might have been in Europe but the money that came to pay for the armies came from the colonies. The same should be true in the game. If you want a large British navy you should need colonial possessions to pay for it. Without this your right, it will be Medieval War with Muskets.

Belgolas

10-06-2007, 22:29

Well To think Europe was top dog all the time is misinformed. During the Medieval times Europe was far behind. Asia would have a lot of diversity. ETW will be a lot of similar armies. M2TW has far to many similar types of units. That is one reason I loved RTW/RTR because of diversity. Right now playing as England or France or Spain or HRE, ect are basically the same faction with only a few different units. ETW will probably be the same. Plus Egyptian empire was (I am pretty sure) the longest most powerful empire/faction. Plus the largest was in Asia.

Csargo

10-07-2007, 00:26

mikelfg89

10-07-2007, 08:55

caravel

10-07-2007, 11:14

the answer is very simple, most of the total war players are europeans or from north america(most of them of european lineage) and also the developers of the game, so we like to make and play our history , not the history of others.
And of course the first ever Total War game based in Asia is just a figment of our imaginations...? :inquisitive:

Vuk

10-07-2007, 14:08

It is not bigotted to say that most of the fighting took place in Europe at this time. Also, there was a reason why the Asians and Africans imitated Western warfare.

I think some of you guys are just a little to focused on findind fault. ~;) This is NOT the Medieval period, it is a totally different time, and one in which some of the largest and most interesting wars ever were fought (as well as the most requested from the fans and the one best suited for CA's new advancements). It is common sense to focus on the most important players of the period.

Serbia and Bulgaria were not represented in M2TW, even though they were great powers, why? They were not as important as the other civs, and the developers need to draw a line somewhere.

Seriously, stop whining. ~;)

Vuk

Belgolas

10-07-2007, 14:53

The British Empire was the largest.
whoops forgot.

But anyways I was not talking about this time period. It can be a different time period for an Asian TW. Also I am Canadian and don't care to much for playing my own faction. Anyways hope the next one isn't focused on Europe.

Don't get me wrong I will enjoy it just like a little variety.

Zarky

10-07-2007, 18:10

whats with everyone and a new asia theme,just because of the funny sumos,ningas,and samurias in cartoons:bow: :hmg:

It´s that in almost every historical game, main focus is on Europe and their colonies and so on, I can actually name so many places and regions in Europe that sometimes i feel i should bash my head to wall to forget something.
But otherwise im fine with Total Wars centering Europe. I don´t care much about regions, just historical events and so on.
Reason why there are no much Asian TW games is because it´s harder to gather history from Asia, and there were few Empires who fought against their natural enemies and so on (rather narrow view but im not Asian history specialist.) And i think TW Games should never go to 20th century World Wars since they were so fast paced when compared to prevorious games.
EDIT: And i wish the next game they make would have improved campaing map, im quite bored with regions. Even if now there is more than just 1 settlement in region.

TheLastPrivate

10-07-2007, 22:14

Because Asia had its share of total war even before Europe had barely begun civilization. I must agree Europe was at its peak times (total-war wise) at this time period, but if you switch the time around there is so much to be explored and added to the realm of total war.

Monarch

10-08-2007, 17:57

:dizzy2: i'm sure the arabs, turks, chinese, japanese, indians, koreans steppe people, huns, tatars, africans, persians, jews, egyptians and the hundreds of others would disagree that it was the "major" place

its just getting tired...at least to me

i'd like to see other things added or improved on other than naval battles

TotalWar is a mass market game, more people have heard of the Crusades and Richard the Lionheart + Caesar's conquest of Gaul than tatars...personally I thought the later was a sauce you eat with fish but w/e.

Matt_Lane

10-08-2007, 18:21

I think CA's decision to base their latest game in this time period and in Europe must be evaluated in context. ETW was started straight after Barbarian Invasion and up to that point they had put an Asia based game and a European game out onto the market. I'm sure if they had decided to start a Three Kingdoms game at this point there would be calls that they were locating the games too far East.

ETW is going to be the next game out & I for one am looking forward to it. I also like the idea of another Asian game and I think its highly likely that we will have one eventually (its not like they are going to stop at ETW). Rather than complain about the choice of Europe for this installment I would encourage CA to look to the East for their next game.

I am concerned that CA reuse their game engines every other release. If Three Kingdoms was next it would be saddled with a game engine that seems focused on Musketry and Sailing in a period and area where this was less relevant. It would be unfortunate if this new engine indicated that CA were looking to a more modern era within which to base its future releases.

Zenicetus

10-08-2007, 19:27

I am concerned that CA reuse their game engines every other release. If Three Kingdoms was next it would be saddled with a game engine that seems focused on Musketry and Sailing in a period and area where this was less relevant. It would be unfortunate if this new engine indicated that CA were looking to a more modern era within which to base its future releases.

I was wondering about that too, and hoping they don't "go modern" for the next major release after ETW. The naval combat engine wouldn't get much use in a China/Three Kingdoms game, outside of maybe a little river combat. A better choice for using the new naval engine (IMO) would be either a return to Rome, or the earlier Hellenic period. Plenty of history-defining naval action there, and all they'd have to add is a mechanic for rowed galleys. So I'm hoping that's next in the pipeline.

Freedom Onanist

10-09-2007, 11:23

Abokasee

10-09-2007, 16:43

that is a very western centric view of the world, of the top 5 largest empires of all time, 2 are European based, 1 Asian, and the Russian and Umayyad empires were split (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires)

p.s. I`m Canadian.

Yeah, your right there, but were talking about 1700(?)-1850(?) and in this period europe had some the base of some of the most powerful empires, Im pretty sure china, and all the others will be hopefully be included one way or another

Freedom Onanist

10-09-2007, 16:54

that is a very western centric view of the world, of the top 5 largest empires of all time, 2 are European based, 1 Asian, and the Russian and Umayyad empires were split (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires)

p.s. I`m Canadian.
It's not the size that counts it's what you do with it.

The Romans had a medium/large size empire and heavily influenced the world the world you see nowadays even beyond the confines of the empire. The British had a large empire and, arguably, influenced it just as much. The Umayyad empire is similarly, if not more, influential. The Mongol empire which is often refered to left very little lasting impact.

MansaSakura

10-14-2007, 02:36

doc_bean

10-14-2007, 12:06

While I agree that focusing on Europe in this era is the right thing to do, I really hope they make another Asia based game in the future.

Vuk

10-14-2007, 22:46

the mere existence of this topic is vindication in itself. :yes: i decided to abandon this game and any games made by CA weeks ago. :skull: I still hope the people at CA make a complete liar out of me. But I won't count on it. i guess "re-creating" the same region over and over again or throwing in pirate ships (lol) is easier than doing new stuff.

Still...Don't hold ur breath hoping CA gets all multi-cultural on us....lol

That is a pretty hot post.
It is hard to "Get" multi-cultural when the first game made was about Asia, and all the others after it represented many cultures. I think people are TRYING to find fault with CA here. (though I don't see how they honestly can)

Vuk

Freedom Onanist

10-15-2007, 18:40

the mere existence of this topic is vindication in itself. :yes: i decided to abandon this game and any games made by CA weeks ago. :skull: I still hope the people at CA make a complete liar out of me. But I won't count on it. i guess "re-creating" the same region over and over again or throwing in pirate ships (lol) is easier than doing new stuff.

Still...Don't hold ur breath hoping CA gets all multi-cultural on us....lolLet me see, so far in TW games...

Europe - check
South America - check
North America - check
North Africa - check
Middle East - check
Far East - check
India - check

Hmm, maybe he's talking about Australasia then:wall: :thumbsdown:

Sheogorath

10-16-2007, 20:11

Vuk

10-16-2007, 22:02

Actually, it is worth mentioning that China was probably the most powerful nation in the world until ~1800 or so, when Europe started making the serious technological advances in the military area, rifles, breech-loading, etc.
Up until that point China had technological parity with Europe, and was even MORE advanced in some areas. China's isolationism, though, meant that they didnt advance with the rest of the world.
I believe it was 1793 when the British sent a rather large diplomatic mission to China. The Emperor at the time wasnt too impressed with the marvles of Europe, because he had better toys than they did. In fact, I believe he told the British to go away, although if ol' Georgy boy wanted to he was free to come and pay tribute personally to the Son of Heaven.
The British didnt do anything about it until some time later when they got their vengance with white powder :P

BUT, including China in the game would be a little pointless. China itself was, as I said, isolationist. They didnt bother trying to conqour anything except possibly Vietnam, and there wasnt any real European interest in them except for trade.
India, on the other hand, was a bit of a warzone, what with the British, French, Dutch and Portugese all trying to take over, not to mention all the various native kingdoms and factions.

It is hard to say China was so powerful, because it WAS so isolated. It was not AS isolated as people think, but most of its contact with other contries was through trade, not war. It didn't really get into any real military conflict with the West during the Medieval period, so it is not possible to contextualize
their military power or economic stability with that of the West. Also, the little history we do have is mostly the glorified writings of their history, made by themselves. Egypt did the same thing, and if we were to believe them, even when they were at the point of demise they were a perfect people who lived in a perfect and infinately strong country. :P

The discussion is rather pointless as the Eastern powers could or could not have been stronger than the Western powers, but since there weren't any major wars between them, it is impossible to say (and probably not to make a game with much interaction between them during this time period, as you may be being unfair to one side or the other).

Vuk

Sheogorath

10-16-2007, 23:57

It is hard to say China was so powerful, because it WAS so isolated. It was not AS isolated as people think, but most of its contact with other contries was through trade, not war. It didn't really get into any real military conflict with the West during the Medieval period, so it is not possible to contextualize
their military power or economic stability with that of the West. Also, the little history we do have is mostly the glorified writings of their history, made by themselves. Egypt did the same thing, and if we were to believe them, even when they were at the point of demise they were a perfect people who lived in a perfect and infinately strong country. :P

The discussion is rather pointless as the Eastern powers could or could not have been stronger than the Western powers, but since there weren't any major wars between them, it is impossible to say (and probably not to make a game with much interaction between them during this time period, as you may be being unfair to one side or the other).

Vuk
I'll put it like this, then.
The Qing Dynasty peaked some time in the 1770's, before the British started exporting opium in massive amounts and the Qianlong Emperor went nuts. Prior to that, China had a very good, mostly modern army, was able to more or less squash rebellions out of hand (although one or two gave them a bit of trouble) and could have taken any European nation in a land war and come out of the conflict in one piece.
After 1775 the Qing government started experiencing more and more corruption, the Qianlong Emperor got bored, and China stopped being the richest nation on the planet. Opium imports later on crippled them even more.
Then things like the White Lotus Rebellion and military expeditions drained the treasury even more, and they couldnt afford to modernize their army.

The reason China isnt considered a major power in the era by many is that it didnt have a huge navy. Western ships were vastly superior combat ships when compared to Junks (although it has been shown that junks are far better for trade purposes than western vessels, not to mention faster than comparativly sized ships on western lines), the Chinese werent really interested in colonies, due to the "China has the best of everything, therefore the best of everything comes from China." attitude. And, of course, Europeans brought them everything they couldnt get in China. Of course it wasnt trade, but rather tribute to the Son of Heaven.

Vuk

10-17-2007, 18:37

I'll put it like this, then.
The Qing Dynasty peaked some time in the 1770's, before the British started exporting opium in massive amounts and the Qianlong Emperor went nuts. Prior to that, China had a very good, mostly modern army, was able to more or less squash rebellions out of hand (although one or two gave them a bit of trouble) and could have taken any European nation in a land war and come out of the conflict in one piece.
After 1775 the Qing government started experiencing more and more corruption, the Qianlong Emperor got bored, and China stopped being the richest nation on the planet. Opium imports later on crippled them even more.
Then things like the White Lotus Rebellion and military expeditions drained the treasury even more, and they couldnt afford to modernize their army.

The reason China isnt considered a major power in the era by many is that it didnt have a huge navy. Western ships were vastly superior combat ships when compared to Junks (although it has been shown that junks are far better for trade purposes than western vessels, not to mention faster than comparativly sized ships on western lines), the Chinese werent really interested in colonies, due to the "China has the best of everything, therefore the best of everything comes from China." attitude. And, of course, Europeans brought them everything they couldnt get in China. Of course it wasnt trade, but rather tribute to the Son of Heaven.

and could have taken any European nation in a land war and come out of the conflict in one piece.

How do you know? That is the entire point of my post. You have no idea, as it never happened. Many times people have thought that they could have easily crushed other people, and were unpleasantly suprised. We have no idea how a conflict between the almost polar cultures would have went.

"China has the best of everything, therefore the best of everything comes from China."

Actually, it was because it was exotic. The Western upper-class had everything that the West could offer them, and were intrigued by the fineries of the East. The Chinese were not as open minded about most Western things for a long time, but eventually they craved many Western exports.

We can not predict the results of wars that never happened from our comfortability of our own culture, and the glorified writings of another. I myself have no idea who would have won, but think that it was smart for the West and East to stay out of war, because I think that both would have gotten the crap kicked out of them, regardless of the victor.

Vuk

Sheogorath

10-17-2007, 20:34

How do you know? That is the entire point of my post. You have no idea, as it never happened. Many times people have thought that they could have easily crushed other people, and were unpleasantly suprised. We have no idea how a conflict between the almost polar cultures would have went.
Because the Chinese army was an organized force, rather similar in many aspects to a Western army until they stopped advancing. They did retain some archaic traditions, but that was mostly because they were fighting a lot of people with swords and bows.
The Qing Banners were, basically, a lot like the European armies, they were divided into equivalents of regiments, battalions, etc., had NCO's and all that. The European forces that 'easily crushed' people were usually fighting disorganized or semi-organized forces, and poorly armed ones at that. The British in India had a very tough time against several of the more advanced Indian states, for example, because those states were quite modern, and their armies were organized in a manner similar to the Chinese army. And they had rockets, of course.

Actually, it was because it was exotic. The Western upper-class had everything that the West could offer them, and were intrigued by the fineries of the East. The Chinese were not as open minded about most Western things for a long time, but eventually they craved many Western exports.

We can not predict the results of wars that never happened from our comfortability of our own culture, and the glorified writings of another. I myself have no idea who would have won, but think that it was smart for the West and East to stay out of war, because I think that both would have gotten the crap kicked out of them, regardless of the victor.

Vuk

The official line was that China was the most advanced, sophisticated and powerful nation in the world. The Emperors kept telling themselves that right up until about the 1870's when they suddenly found out that most of China didnt belong to them anymore.
And they didnt really care too much for Western items, aside from silver, which they were nuts for. Later on the British forced opium on them and made them open their ports to western trade more and more (and then took over those ports), but that doesnt exactly count as the Chinese 'craving western exports'.

And yes, both sides would be quite bloodied in any such war.

Prodigal

10-18-2007, 09:20

Not meaning to simplify things, but I would like to see STW revisited at some with China & Korea being included on the map, should be some scope in there for conflict.

Lorenzo_H

10-20-2007, 13:20

Asia? Asia is possibly the continent that most disinterests me of any. At the very mentioning of Asia I want to kill myself...

Bijo

10-22-2007, 00:12

Sheogorath

10-22-2007, 00:58

Actually, there havent been many Napoleonic-era games, and the few that pop up tend to be...shall we say, sub-standard. Imperial Glory was the closest, but it had some issues. Like being unable to modify formations and poor unit selection.

Freedom Onanist

10-23-2007, 10:19

Sick of Europe? The whole TW franchise bores me. In fact, there isn't any new game existing at all that would keep me interested in it for a long time. And speaking of Europe: it is kind of getting a bit too much, you know what I mean? More games that deal with other settings of the world without or with little western content would be splendid. I care little if the West was "superior" or not or "most influential" or any other such typical reason really. The point is that it has been revisited many times already, therefore it would be nice if a focus would be put onto other areas and cultures.Go and play any of the many games based on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms then.

Release dates given are for original Japanese releases.

Amiga

* Romance of Three Kingdoms

MSX

* Romance of Three Kingdoms

MSX2

* Romance of Three Kingdoms (different from MSX1 version)
* Romance of Three Kingdoms II

NES

* Romance of the Three Kingdoms
* Romance of the Three Kingdoms II

SNES

* Romance of the Three Kingdoms II
* Romance of the Three Kingdoms III: Dragon of Destiny
* Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV: Wall of Fire

Genesis

* Romance of the Three Kingdoms II
* Romance of the Three Kingdoms III: Dragon of Destiny

Sega Saturn

* Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV: Wall of Fire

PlayStation

* Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV: Wall of Fire
* Romance of the Three Kingdoms VI: Awakening of the Dragon

PlayStation 2

* Romance of the Three Kingdoms VII
* Romance of the Three Kingdoms VIII
* Romance of the Three Kingdoms IX
* Romance of the Three Kingdoms X
* Romance of the Three Kingdoms XI

PC

* Sangokushi (1985)
* Sangokushi II (1989)
* Sangokushi III (1992)
* Sangokushi IV (1994)
* Sangokushi V (1995)
* Sangokushi VI (1998)
* Sangokushi VII (2000)
* Sangokushi VIII (2001)
* Sangokushi IX (2003)
* Sangokushi X (2004)
* Sangokushi 11 (2006)
* Sangokushi Internet (1999)
* Sangokushi Battlefield (2002)
* Sangokushi Online (2007)

Portable gaming systems

* Sangokushi Game Boy (1992)
* Sangokushi Game Boy Color (1999)
* Sangokushi II WonderSwan (2000)
* Sangokushi IV Game Boy Advance (2001)
* Sangokushi VI PlayStation Portable (2005)
* Sangokushi VII PlayStation Portable (2006)
* Sangokushi VIII PlayStation Portable (2007)
* Sangokushi DS (2007)

Mobile phones

* Sangokushi
* Sangokushi 2
* Sangokushi Mobile
* Sangokushi Mobile 2
* Sangokushi Mobile 3

Sangokushi 11 is also planned to be released on the Nintendo Wii.

For Microsoft Windows, Sony PlayStation and Sony PlayStation 2:

* Nobunaga's Ambition (信長の野望)
* Nobunaga's Ambition II (信長の野望・全国版)
* Nobunaga's Ambition III (信長の野望・戦国群雄伝) (also known as Nobunaga's Ambition: Lord of Darkness)

For handheld systems:

* Nobunaga's Ambition for Nintendo Game Boy (信長の野望ゲームボーイ版)
* Nobunaga's Ambition for Bandai WonderSwan (信長の野望 for ワンダースワン)
* Nobunaga's Ambition for Game Boy Color (信長の野望ゲームボーイ版2)
* Nobunaga's Ambition for Game Boy Advance (信長の野望)
* Nobunaga's Ambition for Nintendo DS (信長の野望DS)
* Nobunaga's Ambition VI, VII, and VII (with Power Up kit) were also released for the Sony PlayStation Portable

And more, Google is your friend.

There are any number of games with Asian settings if you look. Wonder why they concentrated so much on Asia? Becasue of their market? TW, happens to have a Western setting, fair do's if you ask me for a company based in the UK and Australia.

caravel

10-23-2007, 11:49

TW, happens to have a Western setting,
A few points:

1) The first TW game was based in Asia.

2) TW games don't have a strictly "western setting", as the second game was set in Medieval Europe, Russia, the Steppes, North Africa and the Near east. The second game.

fair do's if you ask me for a company based in the UK and Australia.

3) I'm not sure that location has anything much to do with the region an historically based strategy game is based in. If this were the case CA would have started out with VI and worked through the 100 years war to the Napoleonic Wars. If CA were to base this on largest consumerbase then they'd have started out with the American war of independence and moved on to the civil war etc.

Clearly as they haven't done that, then it proves that world setting is irrelevant, and current opinionn on this forum is based upon those that have an interest in the current theme (Europe).

Freedom Onanist

10-23-2007, 13:05

A few points:

1) The first TW game was based in Asia.

2) TW games don't have a strictly "western setting", as the second game was set in Medieval Europe, Russia, the Steppes, North Africa and the Near east. The second game.

3) I'm not sure that location has anything much to do with the region an historically based strategy game is based in. If this were the case CA would have started out with VI and worked through the 100 years war to the Napoleonic Wars. If CA were to base this on largest consumerbase then they'd have started out with the American war of independence and moved on to the civil war etc.

Clearly as they haven't done that, then it proves that world setting is irrelevant, and current opinionn on this forum is based upon those that have an interest in the current theme (Europe).Well, I was responding in general terms to those who say, despite your very valid points, that the TW series should concentrate on the East again and is Euro-centric. It isn't, as you say it has explored many different areas and is thoroughly multi-cultural. I have a feeling that what these people want is actually a much, much more restricted scope for the game.

I do disagree with your assertion that locality doesn't influence game setting. STW was set in the Far East but that was seen as a fairly radical departure at the time and served as a marketing tool. Now that they have done that they have concentrated on the interests of their main market, Western players. Seems to me sticking to this is actually harder to do instead of just caving in and pandering to the more "fantasy/exotic" possibilities of a Far Eastern setting.

I am also not sure about the sales figures you have with regards to the US being the prime market. What are the numbers by region?

Hound of Ulster

10-24-2007, 01:21

most of the world's major powers throughout history have either bordered on Europe or sought to conquer it (China being the exception of course) and Europe was fought over continously from the 600s B.C to A.D 66 and then again from 476 to 1945 by the various local powers, so CA decisions regarding thier choices of setting are wholly appropriate in my view. I would like to see more diversity however. The Three Kingdoms era would rock so hard:jawdrop:

Defender

10-26-2007, 09:14

Actually I hate these kinds of discussion.

None of all the regions are better than each other. They all have their up and downsides.

CA I beg you, rid us of these discussion. Please create a Global Map.... (Include Australia ;))

caravel

10-27-2007, 14:29

Well, I was responding in general terms to those who say, despite your very valid points, that the TW series should concentrate on the East again and is Euro-centric. It isn't, as you say it has explored many different areas and is thoroughly multi-cultural. I have a feeling that what these people want is actually a much, much more restricted scope for the game.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I prefer to see TW games that concentrate on smaller areas and conflicts and not the generic offerings set on the same European map that we've been getting since MTW.

I do disagree with your assertion that locality doesn't influence game setting. STW was set in the Far East but that was seen as a fairly radical departure at the time and served as a marketing tool. Now that they have done that they have concentrated on the interests of their main market, Western players. Seems to me sticking to this is actually harder to do instead of just caving in and pandering to the more "fantasy/exotic" possibilities of a Far Eastern setting.
You are right in that Shogun was the initial attention grabbing release, but it was also the best kind of region, culture and conflict for a TW game to be based upon. TW diplomacy and dynamics have always been too limited for the complex scenario of a Europe or world wide conflict.

I am also not sure about the sales figures you have with regards to the US being the prime market. What are the numbers by region?
The US video games market is pretty much the priority for most US/European games developers. The Asian, particularly the Japanese, market is different.

Nepereta

10-27-2007, 18:33

I am disappointed that ETW if isn't the entire globe after all how do we represent what england, portugal or spain is in these times? Without a whole globe they will in essence be deprived of most of their colonial character!These are the days of the classic sketch 'plum pudding in danger' http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/art-8105/The-Plum-Pudding-in-Danger-coloured-etching-by-James-Gillray. Sure european powers enjoyed a position of superiority back then but they actually did a lot of their fighting in other continents too. I know it could delay things and be awfully hard to map. But the time was all about beginning of globalism. At any given time a world power could well be involved with undertakings in every continent.

Dogon

10-27-2007, 20:15

STW2
Three Kingdoms
First Emperor of China
India
Korea
Thailand vs Burma

I want TOTAL war!

Zenicetus

10-27-2007, 20:59

I am disappointed that ETW if isn't the entire globe after all how do we represent what england, portugal or spain is in these times?

Speaking for myself, I'd rather have a more limited theater of conflict and fewer factions, as long as those factions are well-developed and well-tested. I don't want the game watered down in quality and playabilty, just to represent the whole planet and every conceivable faction at the time. It's not a simulation, it's a strategy game. IMO, the best strategy games have self-imposed limits, so the player's sandbox isn't too big or too small, but just right for a fun gaming experience.

Also, I think we need to consider CA's recent history. They've had problems delivering relatively bug-free and challenging gameplay in RTW and M2TW, and now they're going to be including even more factions in ETW (50, last I heard) . That's already going to be a lot of balancing and testing. I don't think our chances of getting a better game will improve, if they widen the map and start piling on yet more factions and unit types.

Finally, since 3D tactical naval battles will be a big new part of the game, it makes sense to me that CA should focus on the major sea powers at the time, and the parts of the world where the major historical fleet battles took place... which it sounds like they're doing. But I've made that argument in other posts, so I won't rant on about it here.

TenkiWarPRIEST

10-28-2007, 02:54

I'm sick of them that are sick of those who are sick of europe :P

Vuk

10-28-2007, 16:20

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

And I'm sick of all of you! SHUT UP!!!!!!!! :P ~;)

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

Rodion Romanovich

10-28-2007, 16:38

~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry:

IrishArmenian

10-28-2007, 21:15

As long as the game is innovative, high-quality, relatviely bug-free and highly replayable, I don't care which historical setting the game has.

Hellenic_Hoplite

10-29-2007, 03:58

Wow, I'm seeing some awfully ill-informed and narrowminded posts here with regards to Europe's position in the order of things. Do realise that until the eighteenth century Europe was at best technologically, economically and militarily on par with Asia, at worst a backwater. Poor, war-ridden and with almost no influence on Asia, but plenty the other direction.

Japan was in the Feudal Period Up until the 19th century. Europe had started to leave the Feudal Period and go into the Renaissance in the 14th century.

Sheogorath

10-29-2007, 07:09

Japan was in the Feudal Period Up until the 19th century. Europe had started to leave the Feudal Period and go into the Renaissance in the 14th century.

I believe he was refering to China and some of the larger Indian states which were, contrary to what the British would have you think, not composed of a bunch of grown-up versions of Hadji from Johnny Quest running around with curvy swords shouting "Sim sim salbin!" while attempting to wind turbans.
In fact, a few of those states gave the British a bit of a righteous ass-kicking before the British figured out that their own soldiers werent going to cut it and started putting Those Silly Hindoos in the army too. The British even took the Indian ideas for war rockets and put it to use themselves.
India was actually probably at its peak around the 18th century, complete with its own thriving empire which was quite technologically developed.

samiosumo

10-29-2007, 11:50

:dizzy2: i'm sure the arabs, turks, chinese, japanese, indians, koreans steppe people, huns, tatars, africans, persians, jews, egyptians and the hundreds of others would disagree that it was the "major" place

its just getting tired...at least to me

i'd like to see other things added or improved on other than naval battles
BUT the Arabs, Turks, Huns, Tartars, Africans, Persians, Jews, Egyptians and many of the "hundreds of others" have appeeared in Total Wars past. Sundaneese, Armenians, Jordanians, Mamluks (who came from sub-saharan africa), 2 versions of Persia (Sassanids and Selucids, i think) and Carthanginians and Berbers have all appeeared

caravel

10-29-2007, 12:13

Personally I couldn't care less who was the most powerful or least powerful. This is not a "my country/continent is better than your's" thread. Just something different would be welcome.

BUT the Arabs, Turks, Huns, Tartars, Africans, Persians, Jews, Egyptians and many of the "hundreds of others" have appeeared in Total Wars past. Sundaneese, Armenians, Jordanians, Mamluks (who came from sub-saharan africa), 2 versions of Persia (Sassanids and Selucids, i think) and Carthanginians and Berbers have all appeeared
They have appeared but only in the capacity of those making "special guest appearances" beside the main star of the show: namely ancient/medieval Europe. MTW was origninally to be named "Crusader - Total War" so we know from that game that Europe was to be the main focus. The North African and eastern factions in that game suffer from limited, mostly generic, units and large ahistorical provinces. The eastern part of the map in fact is mostly a big mass of rebel provinces. No thought whatsoever went into Russian factions and the Mongols simply appeared at the same time in every campaign with a huge force made up of their three unit roster and then proceeded to self destruct.

RTW suffered from much the same problem, with the Parthians, Pontus and Armenia in particular being very generic, the Egyptians being largely a fantasy faction and others such as the Scythians (and as far as I can tell they're in the wrong place anyway) and Dacians borrowing the same types of units from the celtic/germanic culture factions. With RTW, the main focus seems to have been on the Romans and Greeks with everything else being an afterthought.

So not simply a matter of Europe but of Western or Southern (Romans/Greeks) Europe, being the main focus of TW games since MTW.

BTW the Mamluks were not from sub saharan africa. In fact as far as I am aware no sub saharan factions have been yet included in any TW title.

:bow:

Hellenic_Hoplite

10-29-2007, 13:54

I believe he was refering to China and some of the larger Indian states which were, contrary to what the British would have you think, not composed of a bunch of grown-up versions of Hadji from Johnny Quest running around with curvy swords shouting "Sim sim salbin!" while attempting to wind turbans.
In fact, a few of those states gave the British a bit of a righteous ass-kicking before the British figured out that their own soldiers werent going to cut it and started putting Those Silly Hindoos in the army too. The British even took the Indian ideas for war rockets and put it to use themselves.
India was actually probably at its peak around the 18th century, complete with its own thriving empire which was quite technologically developed.

I was talking strictly about the japanese.

babumbumching

10-29-2007, 17:20

noooooooooo europe is good home to the greatest empire at the time. i just wish they had a bigger overall map like the whole continent of Eurasia and the whole of the americas tht would be one awesoooome game

Sheogorath

10-30-2007, 04:53

I was talking strictly about the japanese.
The other guy was talking about more than just Japan. Japan is not Asia. Its IN Asia, but if youre saying that the Chinese, Indians, Koreans and various SouthEastern Asian peoples were the same as the Japanese, then you need a history lesson.

diotavelli

10-30-2007, 14:20

Hellenic_Hoplite

10-30-2007, 15:18

The other guy was talking about more than just Japan. Japan is not Asia. Its IN Asia, but if youre saying that the Chinese, Indians, Koreans and various SouthEastern Asian peoples were the same as the Japanese, then you need a history lesson.

did I say that? No, I know the chinese had advanced technologies and I know they were the first to utilise gun powder.

TosaInu

10-30-2007, 15:44

Vuk

10-30-2007, 16:13

Hello diotavelli,

Schooled historians do not have one story. The stories are based on assumptions and subject to updates.

Game companies have more to think about than history (even if there was something like a solid history truth available).

Well said Tosa! And it is also hard for game devs as a lot of what people suspect hasn't been proven, and isn't necassarily true.

Vuk

Sheogorath

10-30-2007, 20:03

did I say that? No, I know the chinese had advanced technologies and I know they were the first to utilise gun powder.
I assumed you were using Japan as a global example, since you were responding to a statement about Asia as a whole. Clarification would be good in that sort of statement.

Vuk

10-30-2007, 21:22

lol, I am really sick of all the prattling! I think that it is obvious CA chose the time period that they did because they were introducing sea battles (not to mention that it was the most requested). In the period, Eu was dominant.

We begged like little kids for it, now we are whining about it like little kids. :P
Seriously, lighten up and lay off.

(Note, this post is not directed at any person in particular. Also, it is meant in a light, but serious way. Please take it as such :bow)

Vuk

Hellenic_Hoplite

10-30-2007, 22:35

I assumed you were using Japan as a global example, since you were responding to a statement about Asia as a whole. Clarification would be good in that sort of statement.

Ah ok, sorry that was my mistake.

Kobal2fr

11-01-2007, 05:23

While I wholly agree that a "Romance of Three Kingdoms : Total War" would be great, the Big Idea with Empires has always been naval battles, and there's not much ground for those in China, what with the fact that it's a big land mass and all... whereas Europe has the advantage of having no less than four major seas (North, Med, Baltic, Black) to fight in, all having major strategic implications, while one could certainly play a Chinese warlord ruling a country without a coast. Same goes for the US Civil War to some extent - one could choose to build an Empire from Ohio to Arizona and never need a single ship.

Japan could be argued for in that respect, but then again if I'm not mistaken there never were naval battles featuring canons and ships-o'-the-line etc.. over there, were there ? Pure boardings would be boring - just the same thing as unit A charging unit B, without any flankings and on flat featureless terrain :/

@Zarky : WW1 was "fast paced" ?! :] Joke aside, I agree with you - nevermind the pace, the whole unit based design doesn't work with modern combat. Besides, that's Combat Mission turf.

TosaInu

11-01-2007, 10:58

Japan could be argued for in that respect, but then again if I'm not mistaken there never were naval battles featuring canons and ships-o'-the-line etc.. over there, were there ? Pure boardings would be boring - just the same thing as unit A charging unit B, without any flankings and on flat featureless terrain :/

Hello Kobal2fr,

There were some cannons, but boarding was indeed the way.
There even were seabattles where the ships were tied together, extra planking made a platform to fight.

cannon_fodder

01-23-2008, 05:55

Europe is the main continent in western history especially during this time period.

Heres a hint, I reckon if you look at western history, most of the biggest events happend in europe,
Fix'd.

Well To think Europe was top dog all the time is misinformed.
Correct. When people speak of Europe they generally mean Northern Europe, and this discussion (given that people are talking about European imperialism/colonialism) is no exception. That part of the world only became technologically/militarily/etc. dominant within the last 500 or so years.

Even if that wasn't the case, why should Total War games be based entirely around the respective "top dogs" of time periods?

Moving away from Europe and/or further back in history simply introduces more and more fantasy stylee units.
No. Bad design introduces more fantasy units. There's potential for them in any time period.

If anyone remebers Shogun they will remember that guy with the super-samurai sword who could take on a whole unit by himself.
And what does that have to do with the game being set in a time or place other than 18th century Europe?

Chinese ships and weapons in the 18th and 19th century were substantially inferior to the European Imperial powers.
Granted, but there are plenty of other times and places. It's not as if the next TW game HAD to be set in the 18th century.

It is what Total War players want.
Generally, yeah. But the Mediterranean and Asia are very much worth revisiting eventually.

caravel

01-23-2008, 18:14

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I seriously doubt there will ever be another Asian based TW game.

All future games will probably still be set around western Europe, regardless of the time scale, with the middle east, north africa and possibly the americas present only as they have been in past titles: As auxilliary border territories for the westerners to conquer and annex.

This is probably because CA are afraid that an Asian based TW wouldn't sell because for the most part westerners know next to nothing about asian history and/or aren't interested in a game that doesn't contain their/their ancestors' country in some form or other, europe or factions that they can relate to culturally, geographically or otherwise.

The argument that "Europe was more advanced" is redundant. Why do TW games have to centre around the most advanced culture of any given period, and why do some people want more of everything, more factions, more units and bigger maps? STW worked so well because it was based on a smaller map and had units to suit all roles. Yes it had it's flaws such as the geisha and the battlefield ninja and kensai that were introduced in the dodgy expansion pack, but apart from this it was very well balanced and todays TW games should be much better than this as they are newer after all.

Smaller areas would definitely be much more interesting to play. Smaller maps would add some sense of scale and proportion to the battles and be a better representation. After STW the provinces have been too large and too large an area has been covered.

If someone wants naval battles then they should buy a naval sim. The more diverse the game gets the more scrappy, generic and unbalanced it will become. TW will become a jack of all trades and master of none.

Earl of Surrey

01-25-2008, 16:49

Shogun Total War was my favourite mainly because it wasn't too long or repetitive, the multiplayer was snap bang on and the community was sort of 'forced' into this honour system which I liked alot.

Everything after this was sort of a let down.

However, I have no beef with the European Age of Empire, if they could only bring back that Shogun essence of atmosphere and gameplay. The latest incantations are simply too repetitive and the AI is utterly UTTERLY awful. Additionally, an Asian based game will not appeal to Western audiences and it probably won't even appeal to Asians either because they're all far more interested in MMORPG's.

Viking

01-25-2008, 23:54

I guess it would be nice to visit Asia once more; though The history of Europe is not uniform; getting sick of it already seems a bit over the top. :clown:

Agathyrsus

01-26-2008, 08:11

I would be all for a map that included both europe and asia plus the northern half of africa.

I would love it if it was based in a time that could span hellenic, persian, roman and Han dynasty eras. It is well known that at the height of the Roman Empire, Han China too was very powerful, as well as Persian wealth and power.
There are some cases where it is beleived China and Rome were but days from engaging in minor and/or indirrect conflict.

However in a game like that I highly doubt you will see one nation, even if well played, easily walk to all corners of the map.

Europe and East Asia had minimal contact for many reasons. And yet also indirectly traded with one another.

Neither China or any major European power could easily march across the vastness that the world and expect to fight eachother in any fair means. Not to mention the natural and cultural barriers in place. Distance alone, the Sahara, The Himalyan Mountains, The Carpathian Mountains(helped stop the ottoman invasion of romania), Siberia, the Horse people of the Steppes (Which caused the fall and continued trouble to both East and West, I believe Tattoos were or are still illegal in China relating to Mongol and Hunnic cultures; the fall of Rome, the great wall of China.)

They are all wonderful places cultures and histories but Empire TW is not the era for it. Beleive me, I would love to play a TW game where I could conquer the east or west with the Scythians, but whatever. I'm down with some muzzle loaded action too.

And for the person who said the Turks arent represented... They may not be fully centered on the map in MTW(2), but the Turkish/Ottoman Empire was big business. And I would hope they play a portion of Empire:TW and assume they would. Not to mention they had the most overpowered unit in M2TW.

So yeah, I would like to see other places touched on aswell, But I would like them added to the world of Total War. Wouldn't it be fun to See Rome subdue the steppe and reconquer persia before it became a problem, and find that beyond Alexanders ancient lands, stood an Empire of China willing to greet them with a war they could not even imagine?

First lets let them upgrade the franchise with Empire and Rome 2, perhaps more advanced systems and technology will allow such a vast game. Maybe even add all of Norway Sweden and Finland too :P

Prettyprettyprettygood

02-08-2008, 06:09

"Tattoos were or are still illegal in China relating to Mongol and Hunnic cultures"

I'm sorry but that's a complete falsehood. I wonder who made this up.

Polemists

02-08-2008, 07:09

that in almost every historical game, main focus is on Europe

I would argue that.

Age of Empires last release was Asian Dynasties. Civ 4 has countless asian dynasties and looking at the total war series Rome, Shogun and Medieval (Remade) out of the three main time periods thus far Asia had one. So it's not as if asia is being ignored entirely.

As for Asia in this time period, I would not be surprised if someone event in Asia (I am not a history expert) would affect Europe. CA loves events, and with all the mongols, and turmid events of MTW 2 I'm sure something not on the *Map* so to speak will come out.

If anyone should feel left out it's Africa cause they really never get a game. I mean I don't love africa but other then Egyptian City builders they get jack. Just to be fair that is my view.

Furious Mental

02-08-2008, 07:38

"Even if that wasn't the case, why should Total War games be based entirely around the respective "top dogs" of time periods?"

A game centered on the major empires in any historical period is generally more interesting because its scope is, by definition, larger. E.g. if you make a game about Rome up to 14 AD you must essentially make a game about the whole of Europe. On the other hand if you make a game about Britain in the same period then that's really all there is to it- Britain. Now, you might already find pre-Roman Britain fabulously interesting, but alot of people won't and making a game with a setting that enlivens only a small niche of people is how you go bankrupt as a company. It makes perfect sense for them to want to make a game that will allow their public relations department to say "Omfg play as 50 factions!!!1", and I think it ultimately makes a better game because a global setting with loads of factions means more ways to play the game.

rajpoot

02-08-2008, 09:58

A major focus on Asia wouldn't be viable, because, that would make a M2TW + Expansion size game in itself, and unless that is done, the authenticity would be EVEN worse than what it has been previously in the TW games.......there were so many separate factions, all crammed in close in India itself......then there was China, Japan, more than half of Russia, the North Western regions, the Arabian region......*whew*
AOE-Asian Dynesties tried to sqeeze in the Asians into one expansion, and what they've come up with is a messy goo..............
Better let it be a Europe focused game where the fiction remains to an acceptable limit, so atleast it can't be said that, "Look, they focused the game on Asia and Europe is peripheral, but still, Asia has been portrayed as incorrectly and boringly as ever."

Galapagos

02-08-2008, 12:43

You can be sick of Europe but if the next TW game will be based in 1900 years is clear that Europe will be again in the center of attention.I can't understand why you want other continents, till the 1940-1950 Europe was in it's peak(countries like UK or Germany were the most powerful in the world developing miltary tactics and leading world economy)...i don't want a game where the soldiers used sticks or other primitive weapons like the indians in America...I want to see battles and decisions that really changed the way we live today.I hope the next game will be about WW1 not some "stupid" ancient history.If CA will go back in history just to please some people who want to see their country in the game thay will do a BIG mistake.Just deal with it....If you are sick with Europe don't play the game because 90% the clients like good games and want to see the true millitary not some primitive men with sticks and rocks....Roman Empire, British Empire, the German Reich represented the past of this world, USA represents the present and now with the European Union, Europe represents the future of the world.As you see Europe was the past and Europe will be the future......I am sick of all the people who post here just because they want their contry to be in the game............IT IS ONLY A GAME..................

Sorry guys but they pissed me off.................

The Wandering Scholar

02-08-2008, 13:22

Majority=automatic win.

In that case then why do we not have a eath penalty in the UK? Poll after poll indicates the public want it. An appeal to majority does not always work.

SwordsMaster

02-08-2008, 13:27

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I seriously doubt there will ever be another Asian based TW game.

All future games will probably still be set around western Europe, regardless of the time scale, with the middle east, north africa and possibly the americas present only as they have been in past titles: As auxilliary border territories for the westerners to conquer and annex.

This is probably because CA are afraid that an Asian based TW wouldn't sell because for the most part westerners know next to nothing about asian history and/or aren't interested in a game that doesn't contain their/their ancestors' country in some form or other, europe or factions that they can relate to culturally, geographically or otherwise.

The argument that "Europe was more advanced" is redundant. Why do TW games have to centre around the most advanced culture of any given period, and why do some people want more of everything, more factions, more units and bigger maps? STW worked so well because it was based on a smaller map and had units to suit all roles. Yes it had it's flaws such as the geisha and the battlefield ninja and kensai that were introduced in the dodgy expansion pack, but apart from this it was very well balanced and todays TW games should be much better than this as they are newer after all.

Smaller areas would definitely be much more interesting to play. Smaller maps would add some sense of scale and proportion to the battles and be a better representation. After STW the provinces have been too large and too large an area has been covered.

In all fairness, from the Roman Empire to the Cold War, every major conflict was a battle for Western Europe and the interests of its members.

I do think that smaller would probably be better. I would probably rather play a detailed and perfected game featuring just the HRE than have a half assed attempt to represent the American colonies and their relationship to Europe.

The Wandering Scholar

02-08-2008, 15:41

A smaller map would be nice but it has to be Europe. Why would CA not pick Europe, Europe controlled the world, and to an extent still does, take out USA and who is there to challenge European powers?

caravel

02-09-2008, 02:15

In all fairness, from the Roman Empire to the Cold War, every major conflict was a battle for Western Europe and the interests of its members.
So the rest of the world was a truly peaceful place? The whole of Asia and the middle east has been a huge battleground for Assyrians, Persians, Arabs, Mongols and others since ancient times.

SwordsMaster

02-10-2008, 12:40

So the rest of the world was a truly peaceful place? The whole of Asia and the middle east has been a huge battleground for Assyrians, Persians, Arabs, Mongols and others since ancient times.

Exactly. During ancient times. If you read my post carefully, it says from the Roman Empire.

In ETW's timeframe, however, it was the timeframe of the Manila galleons, the christianisation of Japan, and the East and West India Companies. Nowhere else in the world were interests and military power projected in a similar way.

Red Spot

02-10-2008, 13:19

CA will have a mayor situation getting some "historical balance" in the game ...

Anyway just to have it said ... if you read M2's read-me you'll know that "history" has no place in these games .. its at most a guideline .. :wink:

(personally I'd like'd to see them improve M2 or perhaps even beter Rome, at least not implement more features that will make the game less stable and more prone to memory-leaks ..:saint: )

G

caravel

02-10-2008, 16:50

Exactly. During ancient times. If you read my post carefully, it says from the Roman Empire.

In ETW's timeframe, however, it was the timeframe of the Manila galleons, the christianisation of Japan, and the East and West India Companies. Nowhere else in the world were interests and military power projected in a similar way.
If you read my post even more carefully it says since ancient times and not during ancient times. The Mongol invasions of china and the middle east occurred in the medieval period as did the Arab invasion before it.

Also it is important that I make myself clear in that I'm not saying that different regions apart from Europe be covered in the time frame of ETW, I am saying that different regions be covered and a different time frame, period.

I think I can speak for a lot of TW players when I say that the gunpowder era of men in brightly coloured uniforms drilling into battle in ordered columns, being shot down as they come, holds less appeal than the ancient and medieval eras of brutal and certainly more hands on "Total War". This seems like quite a departure, a whole different genre even.

:bow:

SwordsMaster

02-10-2008, 19:21

If you read my post even more carefully it says since ancient times and not during ancient times. The Mongol invasions of china and the middle east occurred in the medieval period as did the Arab invasion before it.

Also it is important that I make myself clear in that I'm not saying that different regions apart from Europe be covered in the time frame of ETW, I am saying that different regions be covered and a different time frame, period.

I think I can speak for a lot of TW players when I say that the gunpowder era of men in brightly coloured uniforms drilling into battle in ordered columns, being shot down as they come, holds less appeal than the ancient and medieval eras of brutal and certainly more hands on "Total War". This seems like quite a departure, a whole different genre even.

:bow:

Perhaps in respect to personal combat, yes. As far as stakes at play, and numbers involved, and even historical consequences, I think this era holds a lot of interest. Then again, it could be just me. And, the idea that men were orderly waiting their turn to shoot and war was surgical like you have suggested is doubtful in my eyes.

What I like about this period is that we might actually need to use tactics and strategy. Since armament is going to be quite similar for all nations involved, tactics and strategy have more importance, kind of like in a chess game. That being said, plenty of brutality happened in this period.

Diplomacy, if reworked, could also offer a great alternative battleground. Does anyone else think that diplomacy should be made more "personal"? in the sense that individual characters and their loyalties and ambitions should be better represented?

I also agree that different regions would make interesting scenarios. Personally I would love to see a XVI century China, Mongolia, Korea, Japan map, with all four of these fighting for dominance.

Derfasciti

02-10-2008, 21:20

Personally, i'm perfectly fine with the settings being mainly in Europe. It's a fun place with plenty of potential conflict, and it makes sense as Europe has been the producer of the most notable (to us, as Europeans and Americans) historical events.

Although, i'm not totally adverse to the idea of non-European TW games in the future. But I think if it came down to a choice, i'd pick Europe every time.

PBI

02-11-2008, 14:04

Although I am quite happy with the games focusing on European history in general, it would be nice to be able to fight over a different landmass for a change. After all, although the the factions may have changed dramatically between RTW and Empire, the strategic implications of the terrain haven't (the Alps and the Pyrenees will always be a good defensive breakwater, the wide expanse of Russia will always make an invasion difficult etc).

However hopefully in Empire most of the action will happen outside of Europe. I imagine most of the game will be spent building up your Empire, with a big confrontation between the leading European powers only coming towards the end of the game (in the same vein as the Roman civil war in RTW).

Sahran

02-15-2008, 08:18

In all fairness, from the Roman Empire to the Cold War, every major conflict was a battle for Western Europe and the interests of its members.

I do think that smaller would probably be better. I would probably rather play a detailed and perfected game featuring just the HRE than have a half assed attempt to represent the American colonies and their relationship to Europe.

Honestly? After the fall of the Western Roman Empire the Near East and even the Nomads typically saw Western Europe as backwards and hardly worth attention. After the fall of the Western Romans and before the Renaissance, they were not involved in every major conflict, and their interests were hardly paid any heed.

I can say without a doubt that the rise of the Caliphate, undoubtedly the biggest conflict until the Mongols came, had little interest in Western Europe at large compared to their vigorous expansion into India. A single defeat at Tours stopped them from ever challenging Southern France, and they really just did very little against Italy and Sicily, yet in India you have a constant push to spread further and further into the sub-continent. Same with Byzantium.

The Mongols held the Near East with a lot more fixation than with Western Europe - Only Russia was held for a longer period by the Golden Horde. Then you have Tamerlane, who did the same as the Mongols and held barely any interest in impoverished Europe. It was only with the ascent of the Ottomans and the increasing wealth of Western Europe that they really became center players in the Old world Politics.

Prior to that, the only major conflict that involved Western Europe was the Crusades, and that quickly boiled down into their Outremer becoming yet another player (and a fairly minor one in less than a century) in levantine politics.

Western Europe simply offered nothing worth conquering in between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance.

The Wandering Scholar

02-15-2008, 10:38

So the rest of the world was a truly peaceful place? The whole of Asia and the middle east has been a huge battleground for Assyrians, Persians, Arabs, Mongols and others since ancient times.

You are twisting my words just to pove me wrong. When did I say the rest of the world was a truly peaceful place? What part of the world has never seen war? My point is Europe's countries are so small for a reason, large-scale warfare which has undoubtably changed the world.

Mikeus Caesar

02-15-2008, 11:55

What part of the world has never seen war?

Antarctica?

The Wandering Scholar

02-15-2008, 12:20

Nations have battled over it though if not on it.

Furious Mental

02-15-2008, 12:38

Actually what made Europe important in the Renaissance was not wealth but technology, chiefly weapons. When the Portugese and Dutch sailed into the Indian Ocean to trade they found that they had nothing that Asian traders were interested in buying, so instead they decided to become middlemen and literally blasted all other merchant shipping out of the water.

The Wandering Scholar

02-15-2008, 12:45

Bully boys?

SwordsMaster

02-15-2008, 12:57

Honestly? After the fall of the Western Roman Empire the Near East and even the Nomads typically saw Western Europe as backwards and hardly worth attention. After the fall of the Western Romans and before the Renaissance, they were not involved in every major conflict, and their interests were hardly paid any heed.

I can say without a doubt that the rise of the Caliphate, undoubtedly the biggest conflict until the Mongols came, had little interest in Western Europe at large compared to their vigorous expansion into India. A single defeat at Tours stopped them from ever challenging Southern France, and they really just did very little against Italy and Sicily, yet in India you have a constant push to spread further and further into the sub-continent. Same with Byzantium.

The Mongols held the Near East with a lot more fixation than with Western Europe - Only Russia was held for a longer period by the Golden Horde. Then you have Tamerlane, who did the same as the Mongols and held barely any interest in impoverished Europe. It was only with the ascent of the Ottomans and the increasing wealth of Western Europe that they really became center players in the Old world Politics.

Prior to that, the only major conflict that involved Western Europe was the Crusades, and that quickly boiled down into their Outremer becoming yet another player (and a fairly minor one in less than a century) in levantine politics.

Western Europe simply offered nothing worth conquering in between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance.

Really? Are you saying that the wealth of the Caliphate didn't come from Mediterranean trade? That Rome, Venice, or Seville weren't attractive to the Caliphs and the Monghols?

As much as the Crusades were a dodgy enterprise, they were the first true projection of power overseas, much earlier than Cortes' or Pizarro's expeditions, or Normandy landings. And as impressive for their supporters as they were for their enemies. Noone believed that 10000 crusaders could go from England or Germany and reach and take Jerusalem, not the Emperor, not the King, not the Pope, and not Saladdin.

The fact that the Mongols retreated wasn't because they didn't covet the weathe or the power, but because they were interested in the steppe, and suited to fight in it, and the battles against fortified castles and heavy knights in europe didn't suit them.

Russia, however was much more eastern in their tactics, therefore easier to understand, fight, and rule.

The same goes for the Caliphate. After crossint the Pyrenees, the africans just didn't find the extra land was worth fighting for against well armoured enemies that their light weapons and horses could outrun but not defeat.

The fact that European politics were too embroiled and confusing for it to be a singular player does not mean that the small players didn't have interests. How else do you explain the Reconquista? the Christianisation of the Baltic? The challenges to the expansions of these Eastern Empires that came from a horde of barbarians? Backwards animals who defeated the mongols at the Danube?

And to the fact that it offered nothing worth conquering, that might be true. The Mongols were looking for steppes of which there are none, the Arabs for silk, luxuries that were easier to take from the East than from the capitals of Christendom.

So it wasn't for lack of trying.

seireikhaan

02-16-2008, 23:45

Meh. I don't know how many times I've blown my opinion on this, but I would love a Mongol: Total War which covered areas from eastern Russia, Turkey, and Egypt in the West to China and India in the east. Plenty of factions to choose from, if a little research was done. Off the top of my head: The Jin, Song, and Xia Chinese dynasties, Russia, Seljuks, India, Khwarzmians, Mamelukes, Japan, Korea, Caliphate at Baghdad, and I'm sure there's a few more steppe tribes who could be put in as well. Of course, I'm sure this will never happen, but it would be great if they did it and executed it well.

As for ETW, I'm a bit cautious. There seems to be plenty of good stuff on it, specifically the fact that the AI is no longer on two different platforms. But... I'm still a bit hesitant. This seems like just too big of a project to pull of well in the time that CA seems to be presenting. I've just got this feeling in the pit of my stomach that this will somehow end up butchered, but its quite possible I'm wrong. I would love for CA to prove me wrong. I don't mind gunpowder so much, though I'd prefer good ol' bow and sword combat. One of the problems, obviously, is portraying just how complex the political and military situations got, what with overseas colonies, problems at home, rebellious natives, some poor combat terrains for european warfare(jungles, etc...), not to mention the impacts disease would sometimes have on colonials. And last but not least, the issue of how naval transport will work. I have not played M2TW, but apparently it takes roughly 16 years to get to America. Obviously, naval transport will need to be made much more realistic and speedy to make any kind of historical sense. I'm also curious as to how the world map will be done, as it is apparently encompassing far more territory than any previous TW game. Is the map really just going to be that huge, or will there be 'insets' of sorts, to simplify things?

Starance Quintus

02-17-2008, 03:56

Those who think European powers were not as good as Asian need to be corrected. I tell ya, I would love one that involves the whole world and not just a specific area and yer, I would like to play as the chinese or japanese as they are my most favourite asian powers. But yer, you seem to forget that the British Empire would have conquered alot more if our government were stripped of there place at the time. Yer yer yer, i know what most of you guys would say... Not even gonna go there. but still knock yourselves out, but the truth stands. The people of the British Isles were one of the most powerful and when UNITED! Conquered and built the worlds largest Empire to have it given away in the end.

Csargo

02-17-2008, 10:35

Fix'd.

Generally, yeah. But the Mediterranean and Asia are very much worth revisiting eventually.

I know little about Asian history. I think CA is going for what they think will be most popular with the general masses. I may be biased towards this game because it's one of my favorite time periods in European history.

I'm sure they are, but there's little we can do to change what is being worked on now. I would think CA will possibly get to those areas in the future.

Mouzafphaerre

02-17-2008, 10:56

.
I only hope if CA decide to make a STW2 sometime it doesn't turn out a SiNO. :no:
.

Furious Mental

02-17-2008, 11:23

Starance Quintus

02-17-2008, 19:19

It's perfectly obvious why the Empire was "given away"; it was a huge drain of Britain's resources and a major geopolitical liability.The only major dominion that turned a net profit for the metropole for any length of time was India and in the end that too was far too troublesome to hang on to anyway. Every European colonial empire collapsed in the end, Britain could not have been any different. The choice which confronted British policymakers was to either concede to independence-minded colonies and maintain cordial relations with them, or fight costly and ultimately unwinnable wars like Vietnam, Algeria, Angola, and Mozambique and eventually see those countries become radical and aligned with the Eastern Bloc.

India was given to them inreturn for help in WW2 and the same with many more states. The government then were annoyed about costs, But It cost far much more gaining it than it was keeping it. Other failures, lol... those were not ours to begin with. The British Empire historically and now did what it set out to do, that was to spread the english language, trade, military, educational, health and much much more... most of the countries in our world today use our ways funny enough.

seireikhaan

02-18-2008, 09:08

India was given to them inreturn for help in WW2 and the same with many more states. The government then were annoyed about costs, But It cost far much more gaining it than it was keeping it. Other failures, lol... those were not ours to begin with. The British Empire historically and now did what it set out to do, that was to spread the english language, trade, military, educational, health and much much more... most of the countries in our world today use our ways funny enough.
Dude...I don't think he was dissing Britain. You're arguing against nobody here. Although I'd state you're oversimplifying the situation in India, but I digress...

rajpoot

02-18-2008, 11:55

India was given to them inreturn for help in WW2 and the same with many more states.

Yeah right :P

The British Empire historically and now did what it set out to do, that was to spread the english language, trade, military, educational, health and much much more...

Far as what it set out to do was concerned was no more or less than what the Spainiards set out to do in South America.

But like Kamikhaan says, this discussion is going nowhere......... :smash:

Edit:
Infact looking back it seems that the thread itself has stopped going anywhere.

TosaInu

02-18-2008, 22:19

:book2:

Askthepizzaguy

02-19-2008, 17:26

Given the astounding ignorance evident in many of the posts made in this thread (knowingly or otherwise), it's no wonder that CA get away with publishing such historically inaccurate games.

And I think it's highly unlikely that they'll worry too much about the opinions of people like the OP and others, if such blinkered, unconstructive comments are indicative of the intellectual capacity behind them.

If you think Europe is the most interesting and important area of the world or if you think it's uninteresting and unimportant: switch off your computer and go get yourself a library card. You'll be glad you did it one day.

Sometimes this kind of rhetoric makes people wary of the learned. None one likes to be talked down to.

I would like to offer a constructive comment: One could communicate with one's fellow man with understanding, compassion, and respect. They will hear the words rather than the tone, and give more credence to your theories.

I tend to think that the greatest leaders and minds in human history had positive things to say mixed in with the negatives, and the negatives were presented in a manner that was not personal, but rather a general observation.

Example: Crime and incarceration in my country is hurting ethnic minorities by a far greater percentage than the majority. If one showed compassion and understanding and attempted to help, as well as make constructive criticism, headway might be made. However, if I merely said (ethnic minorities) have high rates of crime and incarceration, without offering a solution, it might be seen as a racist diatribe based upon ignorance and hatred rather than compassion and understanding.

The approach is what matters. Our heart can be in the right place, but we can always bungle the delivery of our ideas. One might genuinely care for black people, for example, and work all his life for their benefit, but once someone says the phrase "you people" it is considered offensive.

Inclusiveness rather than condemnation not only sounds better and wins you friends, but it also uplifts the human spirit and in a small way makes life on this planet more civilized.

A kind word can deliver the same kind of constructive criticism as an unkind one, but it is met with greater understanding.

As for the OP's topic, I like Europe but would like to see all of Asia once again, with different time periods to choose from; ancient Chinese cultures battling to create one nation, the dominance of Mongolia, the rise of Japan, etc.

I would also like to see Rome Total War 2; redone and fixed so that one cannot merely spam cavalry, even against phalanxes, and win.

Why not Africa or America, total war? Surely these tribes deserve a game of their own.

Askthepizzaguy

02-19-2008, 17:40

If you read my post even more carefully it says since ancient times and not during ancient times. The Mongol invasions of china and the middle east occurred in the medieval period as did the Arab invasion before it.

Also it is important that I make myself clear in that I'm not saying that different regions apart from Europe be covered in the time frame of ETW, I am saying that different regions be covered and a different time frame, period.

I think I can speak for a lot of TW players when I say that the gunpowder era of men in brightly coloured uniforms drilling into battle in ordered columns, being shot down as they come, holds less appeal than the ancient and medieval eras of brutal and certainly more hands on "Total War". This seems like quite a departure, a whole different genre even.

:bow:

Wholeheartedly agreed.

The marching in columns towards inevitable slaughter leaves little room for creative strategy. Eventually you simply have trenches, moats, and fortifications against cannons and artillery, and then it becomes a battle over who has the biggest gun that can shoot the farthest.

That leads to tanks, which leads to planes, which leads to naval battles with huge gun emplacements and aircraft carriers, all made obsolete by missiles and nuclear weapons.

Where do we go from there? We can blow everything up by the push of a button now. Needless to say, I dislike the usage of guns in warfare, as it makes all civilians forced participants. One man with a sword is not very threatening. One man with a gun is very threatening.

War became less about tactics and strategy with the advent of the gun, and more about who could build the most powerful gun and build more of them.

Brilliant strategy could outwit huge standing armies with minimal forces. Not so anymore. One might say 'what about terrorism', but striking fear into civilian populaces by randomly murdering isn't war to me. For one, it doesn't defeat the opposing army, who continues to occupy and defeats the terrorist at every engagement. The trouble is, terrorism is criminal activity, not warfare, and should be treated as such.

But my goodness that is off-topic. Shall I shutty uppy now?

:focus:

Furious Mental

02-20-2008, 05:21

"The marching in columns towards inevitable slaughter leaves little room for creative strategy."

How is that specific to guns? In case you hadn't noticed, the prelude to a battle in the middle ages was exactly the same. Frankly it seems to me that alot of people are just too lazy to do the research to understand strategy and tactics in the gunpowder era and find it easier to simply conclude that there wasn't any.

And of course there is strategy in modern warfare. There always has been. Most of the strategy is fundamentally the same too. What was Stalingrad? Essentially a double-envelopment.

diotavelli

02-20-2008, 14:41

Sometimes this kind of rhetoric makes people wary of the learned. None one likes to be talked down to.

One might genuinely care for black people, for example, and work all his life for their benefit, but once someone says the phrase "you people" it is considered offensive.

Priceless! If that's not patronising a whole ethnic minority, then I don't know what is. Why do you think anyone should "genuinely care for black people"? What does their colour have to do with anything? Who in their right mind would care for millions of people simply because of the colour of their skin? Doesn't the personality of the individual, their attitude, achievements and apirations matter to you? Or do you think it acceptable to lump an entire ethnic minority together and then make patronising comments about them?

Sometimes this type of rhetoric makes people wary of those who think they have the best of intentions but whose words suggest they are part of the problem.

Inclusiveness rather than condemnation not only sounds better and wins you friends, but it also uplifts the human spirit and in a small way makes life on this planet more civilized.

A kind word can deliver the same kind of constructive criticism as an unkind one, but it is met with greater understanding.

Having read your posts on a number of occasions, I'll have to withhold comment on whether your approach or others' "sounds better".

In a thread where people are posting comments such as:

"In all fairness, from the Roman Empire to the Cold War, every major conflict was a battle for Western Europe and the interests of its members."

"Heres a hint, I reckon if you look at history, most of the biggest events happend in europe, "

"Asia? Asia is possibly the continent that most disinterests me of any. At the very mentioning of Asia I want to kill myself..."

I don't think it unfair to comment that: "I think it's highly unlikely that they'll worry too much about the opinions of people like the OP and others, if such blinkered, unconstructive comments are indicative of the intellectual capacity behind them."

You may not like my tone but that doesn't bother me too much: I don't think I'll ever see eye to eye with someone who think something becomes a science simply because you study it or because they offer courses in it at university! :laugh4:

On topic

I've written several times before that I believe there was ample opportunity for CA to focus this next title on SE Asia and India, with the likes of the Chinese and Europeans being sideshow players - in the same way the Mongols and Timurids are in M2TW. I suggest this not because I'm sick of Europe but because I think it would be good to shift focus to an area that will make the game a completely fresh challenge.

diotavelli

02-20-2008, 14:56

Hello diotavelli,

Schooled historians do not have one story. The stories are based on assumptions and subject to updates.

Game companies have more to think about than history (even if there was something like a solid history truth available).

TosaInu,

I am well aware that "schooled historians do not have one story". [I studied history for a number of years at school and university and took courses in philosophy of history as part of my course.]

That is beside the point.

Whilst there will never be complete unanimity when it comes to the interpretation of historical facts, the facts themselves are less open to debate. For instance, the reasons that WW1 occured are varied and disputed but the fact that the war started in 1914 is not; Augustus may or may not have intended to found a dynasty when he came to power but it is beyond dispute that the battle of Actium occured in 30BC.

Similarly, it is beyond dispute that it is not the case that:

"if you look at history, most of the biggest events happend in europe" or

"from the Roman Empire to the Cold War, every major conflict was a battle for Western Europe and the interests of its members"

That's simply not the case. The Mongol invasions of China, Persia, Asian Russia and (later, as the Moghuls) India prove both of these points wrong. That's a solid historical truth.

Whilst people insist upon writing errant nonsense on these pages and dressing it up as informed comment, I'll feel entitled to respond. If I'm wrong, show me how and I'll make amends.

Ulstan

02-20-2008, 18:03

The reason Europe is the focus is because they fought more often and more brutally than most other cultures. Pretty much any time period you look at pre WWII Europeans are fighting *somewhere*

And as far as the importance of Europe goes, during this time they were unquestionably both the most important and the most advanced. Europeans settled and subjugated four continents. No one else even came close to such achievements at this time, previous outpacings of Europe not withstanding.

Anyone who thinks Europe was some miserable impotent little disease wridden backwater outshone by every other culture under the sun, need to do a little more research. Europe, North Africa, and the mideast (the areas traditionally covered in MTW games) have been the driving forces in history over most of the globe for the last couple thousand years.

PSYCHO V

02-21-2008, 08:05

how many more times must we revisit this god forsaken piece of land

asia please

Good point, I propose ...

NGTW (New Guinea: Total War)!!
http://www.bakubo.com/Irian%20Jaya/Irian-Jaya/pig-festival-lani-6.jpg

Set between 8,000 BC and 1805 AD

Heaps of factions:
New Guinea is one of, if not the most heterogeneous nations in the world. There are hundreds of ethnic groups indigenous to Papua New Guinea, the majority being from the group known as Papuans, whose ancestors arrived in the New Guinea region tens of thousands of years ago. The others are Austronesians, their ancestors having arrived in the region less than four thousand years ago. There are also numerous people from other parts of the world now resident, including Chinese, Europeans, Australians, Filipinos, Polynesians and Micronesians.

There's famous leaders (http://www.febrina.com/JPEGs/0074Willie432.JPG), not quite so famous leaders (http://kratomextract.info/images/png-20x-kratom.jpg), renown politicians (http://www.tawali.com/tawali/tawali_files/home_kids.jpg), light infantry (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/02/09/witch09a.jpg), medium infantry, (http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/225181146_e3030eee1a.jpg)heavy infantry (http://www.travel-images.com/png81.jpg), weapons of mass distraction (http://www.montereybay.com/creagrus/Wamena_Yani-tribesmen.jpg)… significant variation between regular and veteran units (http://www.bakubo.com/Irian%20Jaya/irian-jaya/day-6-village-lani-3.jpg), sophisticated advances in communication and transport (http://www.png-tourism.com/images/origMan%20and%20Boy%20in%20CAnoe.JPG), major advances in agriculture (http://www.bakubo.com/Irian%20Jaya/Irian-Jaya/img0061.jpg), etc etc

http://www.arthurdevany.com/Papua_New%20Guinea_Asaro_Mudman%20(6).JPG

my2bob

Furious Mental

02-21-2008, 11:45

New Guinea is in a state of war funnily enough

Askthepizzaguy

02-21-2008, 20:23

Priceless! If that's not patronising a whole ethnic minority, then I don't know what is. Why do you think anyone should "genuinely care for black people"? What does their colour have to do with anything? Who in their right mind would care for millions of people simply because of the colour of their skin? Doesn't the personality of the individual, their attitude, achievements and apirations matter to you? Or do you think it acceptable to lump an entire ethnic minority together and then make patronising comments about them?

Apparently one has never heard of the civil rights movement. One does not have to be an ethnic minority to care about them or contribute to their fight for equality. If one does not care of the plight of women, blacks, latinos, gays, and other minorities, that is one's choice. But condemning someone for caring is not a great way to win over your audience. Or are you merely talking to yourself, and are you the only audience for your non-inclusive ideas? I'll withold judgment on your character, but your rhetoric leaves much to be desired.

Sometimes this type of rhetoric makes people wary of those who think they have the best of intentions but whose words suggest they are part of the problem.

Caring about civil rights makes me part of the problem? Which problem is that? The Jewish problem? The Black problem?

They have a term for people who espouse such ideas...

Oops! Can't say such things, because that's ad hominem. Gracefully retracted. What I will say instead is that anyone who considers compassion and reason to be a flaw is someone I simply will never relate to very well.

Having read your posts on a number of occasions, I'll have to withhold comment on whether your approach or others' "sounds better".

One does not have to be perfect to uphold his principles. So far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as a saint. However, people can try to be better than what they are, which is my whole point. Why not try it yourself?

In a thread where people are posting comments such as:

"In all fairness, from the Roman Empire to the Cold War, every major conflict was a battle for Western Europe and the interests of its members."

I do believe the poster retracted his comment. If you go back and reread it.

"Heres a hint, I reckon if you look at history, most of the biggest events happend in europe, "

Granted, it's a bit Eurocentric. However, sinking beneath the level of your opponent in order to 'school' them is not advisable.

"Asia? Asia is possibly the continent that most disinterests me of any. At the very mentioning of Asia I want to kill myself..."

Agreed it's a bit bigoted. But do we respond to bigotry with more bigotry, or an attempt at understanding and civility? Do we teach or do we condemn? When one fails, we still have the other, you know.

I don't think it unfair to comment that: "I think it's highly unlikely that they'll worry too much about the opinions of people like the OP and others, if such blinkered, unconstructive comments are indicative of the intellectual capacity behind them."

Absolutely condescending. I stand by that characterization of such rhetoric.
I've been guilty of it before, so I know what I'm talking about!
:grin2:

You may not like my tone but that doesn't bother me too much: I don't think I'll ever see eye to eye with someone who think something becomes a science simply because you study it or because they offer courses in it at university! :laugh4:

More of the same condescension. You may not consider music or theology or philosophy or ethics or law to be sciences in the strictest definition, but they are areas of serious human knowledge which need strict disciplines and should be studied and learned. There's more to the sum of human knowledge than math and physics. What of economics, psychology, or sociology? Are these exact sciences? Or are they a combination of science and philosophy?

You may learn facts on the path to your degree (as have I) but it is still unbecoming of a supposedly learned man to condemn everyone he sees as beneath him. I can attempt to help you, but I think you've demonstrated a closed mind to accepting constructive criticism, and you've offered less than constructive reasoning in return.

On topic

I've written several times before that I believe there was ample opportunity for CA to focus this next title on SE Asia and India, with the likes of the Chinese and Europeans being sideshow players - in the same way the Mongols and Timurids are in M2TW. I suggest this not because I'm sick of Europe but because I think it would be good to shift focus to an area that will make the game a completely fresh challenge.

And on that note, I would have to agree with you.

That said, I bid you a cordial good day.

I would say that a game featuring Asia, Africa, or the Americas before Europe invades would be exceptional and refreshing.

seireikhaan

02-21-2008, 23:53

Good point, I propose ...

my2bob
First of all, that was intentionally inflamatory and completely uncalled for. Please refrain from making similar posts in the future. Second, New Guinea is part of the Australian continent, not Asia, so you're example was totally irrelevant anyways. There is plenty of rich culture, heritage, and military history which pertains to Asia.

Askthepizzaguy

02-22-2008, 00:37

@Kamikhaan

To whom were you referring? I think the debate has met the forum guidelines. I've attempted to be cordial even in my most profound disagreements.

Or were we making a little joke? :beam:

seireikhaan

02-22-2008, 01:01

@Kamikhaan

To whom were you referring? I think the debate has met the forum guidelines. I've attempted to be cordial even in my most profound disagreements.

Or were we making a little joke? :beam:
I was referring to Psycho V's post. I did not quote the whole post, as I thought that would've been redundant. You have, as usual, been extremely polite in this thread. I sincerely doubt that I'll ever have to remind you, of all people, to remain civil.

Master Young Phoenix

02-22-2008, 01:05

Good point, I propose ...

NGTW (New Guinea: Total War)!!
http://www.bakubo.com/Irian%20Jaya/Irian-Jaya/pig-festival-lani-6.jpg

Set between 8,000 BC and 1805 AD

Heaps of factions:
New Guinea is one of, if not the most heterogeneous nations in the world. There are hundreds of ethnic groups indigenous to Papua New Guinea, the majority being from the group known as Papuans, whose ancestors arrived in the New Guinea region tens of thousands of years ago. The others are Austronesians, their ancestors having arrived in the region less than four thousand years ago. There are also numerous people from other parts of the world now resident, including Chinese, Europeans, Australians, Filipinos, Polynesians and Micronesians.

There's famous leaders (http://www.febrina.com/JPEGs/0074Willie432.JPG), not quite so famous leaders (http://kratomextract.info/images/png-20x-kratom.jpg), renown politicians (http://www.tawali.com/tawali/tawali_files/home_kids.jpg), light infantry (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/02/09/witch09a.jpg), medium infantry, (http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/225181146_e3030eee1a.jpg)heavy infantry (http://www.travel-images.com/png81.jpg), weapons of mass distraction (http://www.montereybay.com/creagrus/Wamena_Yani-tribesmen.jpg)… significant variation between regular and veteran units (http://www.bakubo.com/Irian%20Jaya/irian-jaya/day-6-village-lani-3.jpg), sophisticated advances in communication and transport (http://www.png-tourism.com/images/origMan%20and%20Boy%20in%20CAnoe.JPG), major advances in agriculture (http://www.bakubo.com/Irian%20Jaya/Irian-Jaya/img0061.jpg), etc etc

http://www.arthurdevany.com/Papua_New%20Guinea_Asaro_Mudman%20(6).JPG

my2bob

:2thumbsup:

small armies though... them bein' only clansmen and kin ;)

Askthepizzaguy

02-22-2008, 01:10

I was referring to Psycho V's post. I did not quote the whole post, as I thought that would've been redundant. You have, as usual, been extremely polite in this thread. I sincerely doubt that I'll ever have to remind you, of all people, to remain civil.

Oh I thank you for your kind words, Kamikhaan, but your praise is far too glowing.

I aspire to the niceness that I preach, but as any human being will, I often fall short.

I believe Sapi has had to ding me at least twice so far for losing my temper at people who (in all honesty) had exceeded the boundaries of civility and good taste.

As I chastise others for, you should remain civil in the face of uncivility, and I've failed to do that before.

Thankfully my slip-ups haven't caused any permanent damage. And every time I fail, I redouble my efforts to focus on things both fair and funny rather than fruitless. A good lesson for us all, perhaps?
Ok, ok... enough of this off-topic indulgence.

:focus:

EDIT: @Master Young Phoenix

Clansmen, you say?

Perhaps it's only my fantasy, but I for one would love to see my Teutonic Knights from my HRE Blitz campaign arrive in the Americas and trample all over certain 'clansmen' wearing white sheets and pointy hats.

Perhaps someone could mod the "pilgrim" unit to be white and pointy so that I can get out some of my frustration towards hate groups without actually hurting anything or breaking the law.

It makes it easier to forgive and ignore people in real life once I get out all my aggression on virtual dummies who are about 100 IQ points smarter than the real 'clansmen' are.

Am I the only one who would get a kick out of that?

PS they totally need to use the wooden cross thingy as their heavy infantry unit. I'd love to smash it to bits with my catapults. Roll some flaming boulders over some of the backwash from the gene pool. Am I experiencing schadenfreude, or what? The thought of pasting some klansmen with Teutonic knights and capapults makes me giddy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

seireikhaan

02-22-2008, 01:49

Mr. Pizzaguy, the fact still remains that the few times you've gotten a little overheated, you still apologized for it, and usually more profusely than even required. You are generally one of the most pleasant people in the .Org to discuss with, even despite that you allowed yourself to be bewitched by the Patriots. :wink:

Anyways, back to topic, I guess.

PSYCHO V

02-22-2008, 03:35

First of all, that was intentionally inflamatory and completely uncalled for. Please refrain from making similar posts in the future..

Ouch! .. please take a deep breath.

Apologies if I have somehow offended you
..so why do you believe this "intentionally inflamatory"?

Second, New Guinea is part of the Australian continent, not Asia, so you're example was totally irrelevant anyways.

? Despite the island being connected to the Australian mainland many millennia ago (as was the Indonesian archipelago, South America, Pacific Islands etc etc), and the Australian nation once owning the Eastern half of the island, most regard the actual island of New Guinea as part of the Indonesian archipelago (just ask the Indonesians) and thus part of Asia. Though of course as an Australian, I would agree with you and dispute this claim. :yes:

There is plenty of rich culture, heritage, and military history which pertains to Asia.

lol.. and you point?

my2bob

Mikeus Caesar

02-22-2008, 07:35

caravel

02-22-2008, 09:46

Psycho - sometimes people don't get that it's just a joke.

Kamikhaan - Psycho wasn't trying to be deliberately offensive. He was trying to make a point of the ridiculousness of people bawing about it all being eurocentric.
For the record I'm not "bawing (sic) about it all being eurocentric", I simply think it's time for a change. We've had three titles based on roughly the same map area. The main worry with this title is that it will be on a larger map (though still with Europe as the main focus - much like RTW and MTW) but that it will also try to cover too large an area and in doing so will not do the individual theatres much justice.

Mikeus Caesar

02-22-2008, 16:42

For the record I'm not "bawing (sic) about it all being eurocentric", I simply think it's time for a change. We've had three titles based on roughly the same map area. The main worry with this title is that it will be on a larger map (though still with Europe as the main focus - much like RTW and MTW) but that it will also try to cover too large an area and in doing so will not do the individual theatres much justice.

Yes, it doesn't do individual theatres justice, but the scope of this period was too large for them to focus on single things.

And as for leaving Europe - as has been mentioned, they run a business, they have to draw a line between keeping the small percentage of their customers that love accuracy happy while also appealling to as many people as possible.

To do otherwise is generally referred to as 'financial suicide'.

caravel

02-22-2008, 17:56

Yes, it doesn't do individual theatres justice, but the scope of this period was too large for them to focus on single things.
I disagree. Using the same logic one could also say that to make twentieth century warfare game, one must cover all world wars, minor conflicts and the entire world, instead of just World War II and a particular theatre such as the far east or western Europe.

And as for leaving Europe - as has been mentioned, they run a business, they have to draw a line between keeping the small percentage of their customers that love accuracy happy while also appealling to as many people as possible.

To do otherwise is generally referred to as 'financial suicide'.
I often think that CA/SEGA are very lucky to have a horde of fans that are more interested in CA/SEGA's business interests and market share than said individuals gameplay and enjoyment. Perhaps it's in CA/SEGA's interests but that doesn't mean it's in our interests as the end consumer.

People need to stop thinking about how CA/SEGA runs as a company and start thinking about the kind of games they should be producing.

rajpoot

02-22-2008, 18:05

Well I believe that the horde of fans is there due to a reason........whatever drawbacks and bad points the game or the policies might have, it all comes down to one fact in the end, which decides it all......Total War is one of a kind, and it cannot be replaced by any other.....many games are similar, almost same, but not TW.......and while it might have a heaps of mistakes problems and issues, but the very fact that people and most here included, buy its titles says things a lot clearly than everything else.........

The Wandering Scholar

02-22-2008, 19:05

I like what Kingdoms have done (has done?) which still has europe but also has different locations.

diotavelli

02-26-2008, 15:19

Apparently one has never heard of the civil rights movement. One does not have to be an ethnic minority to care about them or contribute to their fight for equality. If one does not care of the plight of women, blacks, latinos, gays, and other minorities, that is one's choice. But condemning someone for caring is not a great way to win over your audience. Or are you merely talking to yourself, and are you the only audience for your non-inclusive ideas? I'll withold judgment on your character, but your rhetoric leaves much to be desired.

Hmmm, the problem here seems to be that I write something and you respond to something else entirely. Nowhere did I suggest that caring for others was a bad thing. My point is that lumping all black people together and stating you "care" for them is condescending and involves viewing a whole ethnic minority on the basis of their ethnicity. The civil rights movement was not about getting white people to be nice to black people but to ensure that all people are treated equally, regardless of their colour. It's quite disturbing in this day and age that someone thinks it acceptable to write about huge numbers of people of widely varying personality, culture, language and achievement in a way that categorises all of them by their skin colour. And that's what you did, I'm afraid.

Caring about civil rights makes me part of the problem? Which problem is that? The Jewish problem? The Black problem?

They have a term for people who espouse such ideas...

Oops! Can't say such things, because that's ad hominem. Gracefully retracted. What I will say instead is that anyone who considers compassion and reason to be a flaw is someone I simply will never relate to very well.

Writing about a whole ethnic minority in a way that classifies them by their race makes you part of the racist problem. You may not feel yourself to be racist but, in categorising people by their tone of skin, you are demonstrating what could easily be seen to be an unconcious racism. Even if you don't have ill-feeling towards a given ethnic group, writing in a way that lumps them all together establishes a precedent that others of less good will are likely to take advantage of. And that makes you part of the problem.

As for retracting ad hominem attacks - what's the point? If you don't want to make such an attack, delete it before you submit your comment. Making the attack and then excusing yourself for doing so seems ill-judged at best and dishonest and hypocritcal at worst. Worth thinking about before you next criticise my own comments?

One does not have to be perfect to uphold his principles. So far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as a saint. However, people can try to be better than what they are, which is my whole point. Why not try it yourself?

I didn't suggest you should attempt perfection. I commented merely that, having read your posts, I felt others argued their cases in a way that sounded much better than your own attempts. My opinion and one I accept you may not like or agree with.

As for trying to better myself: how do you know what attempts I am making? What gives you the right to judge my efforts? Surely the same right that I have to judge your efforts? You don't like the tone I use in my posts and so criticise me, as you're entitled to. I don't like the way you misunderstand my posts and respond to an argument I haven't made, so I criticise you as I'm entitled to. What's the problem with that?

What both of us have done is be critical of others. I freely admit it. You don't. Instead, you try to dress it up as good mannered attempts to help others improve themselves. As you say, that's condescending; it's also downright rude if your criticisms are invalid or ill-considered.

I do believe the poster retracted his comment. If you go back and reread it.

I'm glad he retracted his comment; that doesn't mean the comment wasn't made and that it didn't contribute to the tone of the thread.

Granted, it's a bit Eurocentric. However, sinking beneath the level of your opponent in order to 'school' them is not advisable.

In what way did I "sink" beneath any level? I didn't attempt to "school" anyone. I merely stated that no-one would pay attention to such comments if they were indicative of intellectual capacity. That's not saying that they are indicative. I criticised the opinions and comments of certain posters, not the posters themselves, as you'll see if you look closely. If I'd attacked them directly, I could see your point but I didn't, so I can't.

Agreed it's a bit bigoted. But do we respond to bigotry with more bigotry, or an attempt at understanding and civility? Do we teach or do we condemn? When one fails, we still have the other, you know.

I didn't respond with bigotry, so your first point is irrelevant. I did condemn the comments and the opinions they betrayed because I felt them to be unpleasant and objectionable. If you wish to spend your time teaching people, then you have my respect and good wishes; I don't have such time but still feel entitled to point out ignorance where I see it - especially if that ignorance is aired in an unacceptable way.

Absolutely condescending. I stand by that characterization of such rhetoric.
I've been guilty of it before, so I know what I'm talking about!

Is it condescending to tell a bigot he's a bigot? You certainly don't think so, as you (erroneously) just accused me of bigotry. If someone writes something that you agree is "a bit bigoted" (ignoring for one second that it is a lot more than "a bit bigoted"), should I lower myself to their level in responding? And, if I'm not to lower myself, how I can avoid talking down to them? I await enlightenment!

More of the same condescension. You may not consider music or theology or philosophy or ethics or law to be sciences in the strictest definition, but they are areas of serious human knowledge which need strict disciplines and should be studied and learned. There's more to the sum of human knowledge than math and physics. What of economics, psychology, or sociology? Are these exact sciences? Or are they a combination of science and philosophy?

Listen pizzaguy, you may feel I'm condescending in laughing at your classification of non-sciences as sciences but, in all honesty, I do find it entirely laughable. Music, theology and philosophy are not sciences. Areas "of serious human knowledge which need strict disciplines and should be studied and learned" do not automtically become sciences. That's not on my say-so: it's universally accepted by all parts of academia.

I know that maths and physics are not the "sum of human knowledge" (and taking the time to lecture me on the point is just as condescending as any point I've made). Rather than me labour the point, check any university prospectus or speak to any academic and ask about the status of music, philosophy, sociology or any of your other examples - they'll probably make reference to 'arts' and 'liberal arts', if I have to guess.

You may learn facts on the path to your degree (as have I) but it is still unbecoming of a supposedly learned man to condemn everyone he sees as beneath him. I can attempt to help you, but I think you've demonstrated a closed mind to accepting constructive criticism, and you've offered less than constructive reasoning in return.

At no time did I "condemn everyone he sees as beneath him". To suggest I did is misleading, defamatory and rude. The fact that you think I did perhaps explains a lot about what you've written in response to my comments: your comments are based on a simple but fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. I'll be delighted to read your retraction of the accusation.

Thanks for your offer of help but, given that you're making inaccurate and unsubstantiated accusations, I think you might want to put your own house in order first. I'm happy to receive constructive criticism but, if I don't agree with the reasoning behind it, I don't feel I need to take it on board.

As for your comments on my "less than constructive reasoning": I consider that rude and inaccurate. If you can point to a flaw in my reasoning, I'll accept it. If you simply misunderstand my position and base your criticism on that misunderstanding, that does not mean there are flaws on my part. The fact that you (to take one example) leap from a vague definition of study to an inclusion of all major academic subjects in the field of science suggests that problems with reasoning lie at least as much on your part as my own.

I would like to say I appreciate your good intentions. If they are such, then I do. There does seem something a little self-serving about your frequent admonitions and statements of personal good intention. The fact that you'll attack me for something that I haven't written also undermines your case; especially when a little attempt to re-read my comments and understand them properly would have shown you that I'm not guilty as charged.

I can assure you of my own good will towards you - but I can't and won't promise that I'll curb my sharpened virtual tongue. This is only a web forum, after all, and I'll play it as I see it. I'm more than happy for you to do the same - and as long as we're grown-ups, represent each others comments accurately and handle any stick we may get, I'm sure we'll be fine.

I would say that a game featuring Asia, Africa, or the Americas before Europe invades would be exceptional and refreshing.

See: we can find common ground.

Askthepizzaguy

02-26-2008, 17:30

Hmmm, the problem here seems to be that I write something and you respond to something else entirely. Nowhere did I suggest that caring for others was a bad thing. My point is that lumping all black people together and stating you "care" for them is condescending and involves viewing a whole ethnic minority on the basis of their ethnicity.

You infer that I am lumping "all" of them together, when the context of what I said clearly indicates that I am speaking towards those being oppressed or mistreated by society. You can choose to view what I said with erroneous assumptions, or you can choose to respect the context of the discussion. At this point I feel it's pointless to illustrate this, because it seems clear you will deliberately misinterprete what I say in order to create more red herrings for me to argue against.

The civil rights movement was not about getting white people to be nice to black people but to ensure that all people are treated equally, regardless of their colour. It's quite disturbing in this day and age that someone thinks it acceptable to write about huge numbers of people of widely varying personality, culture, language and achievement in a way that categorises all of them by their skin colour. And that's what you did, I'm afraid.

Again, if reaching out to people regardless of skin color is disturbing to you, then I don't understand where you are coming from. You again infer some kind of malevolence in attempting to ensure good race relations where none exists. You can debate the concept of race relations, and that is your choice, but you haven't done so. You've accused me of doing something I haven't done. If you think it is unacceptable to refer to large groups of people in any way shape or form, I think your disagreement is with the english language itself, rather than my usage of it. You seem offended that people naturally categorize people by gender, ethnicity, or other distinctive features in casual conversation where no bigotry is intended, and you infer bigotry where none exists. Surely you had causal conversations with people before.

When I point out rudeness, you respond by nitpicking what I say to the point of ridiculousness as a defense mechanism. The red herring logical fallacy; instead of debate the point, you create another out of thin air. It's an obvious problem with your argument. Like most people who have been called on their rudeness, you grasp at straws and change the subject. Fortunately, you can make the most specious argument sound credible due to your education, but that does not circumvent the fact that your accusations are entirely ridiculous.

Writing about a whole ethnic minority in a way that classifies them by their race makes you part of the racist problem. You may not feel yourself to be racist but, in categorising people by their tone of skin, you are demonstrating what could easily be seen to be an unconcious racism. Even if you don't have ill-feeling towards a given ethnic group, writing in a way that lumps them all together establishes a precedent that others of less good will are likely to take advantage of. And that makes you part of the problem.

Referring to race is all I did, and if that makes me racist, you're equally guilty. You again make the same erroneous argument that caring about other races in a multicultural society which treats them unequally somehow makes me a racist. That's not just an illogical assumption, it seems intentionally ignorant. I think you're smarter than that, but at this point you are starting to convince me otherwise.

As for retracting ad hominem attacks - what's the point? If you don't want to make such an attack, delete it before you submit your comment. Making the attack and then excusing yourself for doing so seems ill-judged at best and dishonest and hypocritcal at worst. Worth thinking about before you next criticise my own comments?

That's called a joke. Sorry, I won't attempt to lighten the discussion with humor anymore, as it seems to have gone under your radar. If I need to spell out the joke for you, it is that all your arguments are inherently ad hominem, and if I were to follow suit and do the same thing, that would make me a hypocrite. And knowingly doing so, and knowing that would make me a hypocrite, is the irony of the argument. Sorry again for the use of subtlety, I can see it has no effect on you.

I didn't suggest you should attempt perfection. I commented merely that, having read your posts, I felt others argued their cases in a way that sounded much better than your own attempts. My opinion and one I accept you may not like or agree with.

Feel free to hold that opinion; mine is that your arguments have been mostly ad hominem and uncivil.

As for trying to better myself: how do you know what attempts I am making?

I can clearly see that the confines of good taste and civility are lacking in your criticisms of other forum members. That is my one and only criticism.

What gives you the right to judge my efforts?

Freedom of speech gives me the right to point out nastiness.

Surely the same right that I have to judge your efforts?

Yes, you do have the 'right' to be nasty towards people, and I have the right to point it out. Hence the free discussion we are having.

You don't like the tone I use in my posts and so criticise me, as you're entitled to. I don't like the way you misunderstand my posts and respond to an argument I haven't made, so I criticise you as I'm entitled to. What's the problem with that?

Your criticisms are based on an absolutely ridiculous premise, which is that someone is a racist if they show concern for ethnic minorities. My criticism is based on the general observation that you've been nothing but condescending and nasty towards people in this thread.

What both of us have done is be critical of others. I freely admit it. You don't.

When have I ever said that I'm not criticizing you? At this point you are freely inventing a discussion in your own mind that simply does not exist. Your argument fell apart a long time ago, now it is utterly in shambles.

Instead, you try to dress it up as good mannered attempts to help others improve themselves.

You accuse me of having good manners and trying to help others. My only reply is: Thank you for noticing!
:beam:

As you say, that's condescending; it's also downright rude if your criticisms are invalid or ill-considered.

Having good manners and pointing out uncivilized discourse is ill-considered? That's an opinion I do not share.

I'm glad he retracted his comment; that doesn't mean the comment wasn't made and that it didn't contribute to the tone of the thread.

If you don't like the tone, why do you make it worse? Now you display blatant hypocrisy. At least my criticism of you has been polite. Could you do the same towards others?

In what way did I "sink" beneath any level? I didn't attempt to "school" anyone. I merely stated that no-one would pay attention to such comments if they were indicative of intellectual capacity. That's not saying that they are indicative.

Perhaps, and only perhaps, I misunderstood you then. You did seem to imply that they were indicative of intellectual capacity. But since I've accused you of misunderstanding what I was saying, and implying something which I did not mean, then I can only offer you the same courtesy and accept your explanation in this instance.

I criticised the opinions and comments of certain posters, not the posters themselves, as you'll see if you look closely. If I'd attacked them directly, I could see your point but I didn't, so I can't.

I didn't respond with bigotry, so your first point is irrelevant. I did condemn the comments and the opinions they betrayed because I felt them to be unpleasant and objectionable. If you wish to spend your time teaching people, then you have my respect and good wishes; I don't have such time but still feel entitled to point out ignorance where I see it - especially if that ignorance is aired in an unacceptable way.

You questioned earlier whether or not I have the right to judge your behavior. Odd, since you now claim the right to condemn other people for their supposed ignorance. You can't have it both ways.

Is it condescending to tell a bigot he's a bigot? You certainly don't think so, as you (erroneously) just accused me of bigotry. If someone writes something that you agree is "a bit bigoted" (ignoring for one second that it is a lot more than "a bit bigoted"), should I lower myself to their level in responding?

You can choose to do so, but you only harm yourself in the process.

And, if I'm not to lower myself, how I can avoid talking down to them?

With politeness.

I await enlightenment!

No comment. :beam:

Listen pizzaguy, you may feel I'm condescending in laughing at your classification of non-sciences as sciences but, in all honesty, I do find it entirely laughable. Music, theology and philosophy are not sciences. Areas "of serious human knowledge which need strict disciplines and should be studied and learned" do not automtically become sciences. That's not on my say-so: it's universally accepted by all parts of academia.

Yes, in the strictest definition of science, only certain things are hard sciences. But when a field of human knowledge is studied with the same disciplines and methods as say, mathematics or physics, then it becomes a part of the scientific discipline. I'll have to cede the point to you that ethics is not a hard science, however in the broader point that I was making, you can study things like ethics, philosophy, or psychology in a scientific way, using scientific methods, with reason, logic, hypotheses, and theories. What do you call a thing when it incorporates whole sciences like chemistry, biology, physiology, pharmacology, but also incorporates "non-sciences" like sociology, behavioral science, and other soft sciences? Psychology is a great example of this. It dances the line between hard and soft science. So one can argue the point that ethics is in fact a science, albeit a soft one.

I know you will disagree with the point I am making, even though it is correct. So I will end the discussion by ceding the point to you wholesale, even though you haven't won it, as semantics bore me and we could argue this one ad infinitum and I doubt either would win. It all boils down to our interpretations of not only words, but how we see the world. Some things are actually subjective, I suppose.

I know that maths and physics are not the "sum of human knowledge" (and taking the time to lecture me on the point is just as condescending as any point I've made).

Another odd way to argue your point; lecturing, while at the same time arguing that lecturing and condescension are the same thing. They aren't.

You can debate with politeness, and attack the argument rather than the person. Given the sheer number of ad hominem fallacies and other logical errors in your argument, I would question this rather hypocritical jab as only adding to the total.

Fallacies in the argument don't ipso facto render the argument invalid, but they do reduce your credibility as a debator.

Rather than me labour the point, check any university prospectus or speak to any academic and ask about the status of music, philosophy, sociology or any of your other examples - they'll probably make reference to 'arts' and 'liberal arts', if I have to guess.

I refer you to my above argument here. The line between arts and sciences becomes blurred when a discipline incorporates both.

At no time did I "condemn everyone he sees as beneath him". To suggest I did is misleading, defamatory and rude.

I point out that you were rude, and you accuse me of being rude by doing so. In another time and place, it could be funny.
:beam:

The fact that you think I did perhaps explains a lot about what you've written in response to my comments: your comments are based on a simple but fundamental misunderstanding of the facts.

A vague and unsubstantiated attack based solely on opinion rather than example.

I'll be delighted to read your retraction of the accusation.

I cannot retract my original accusation. You berated others for their Eurocentric comments, but did so in a phenomenally rude manner. I felt it ironic that one person whose own postings are dripping with condescension and rudeness would point out the failings in others. And I felt it even more deliciously ironic by doing so myself (pointing out the hypocrisy, thereby making me a hypocrite as well, leaving an opening for you to accuse me of hypocrisy... essentially defeating your own argument by having you argue against a mirror of yourself, albeit a more polite one).

Now that I've gotten you to debate me about whether or not it is proper to go around haranguing people for their mistakes, perhaps the sudden realization that we are now doing exactly that will highlight exactly how futile it really is. Perhaps then, we might stop doing it, and I might not have to do this again in the future.

Thanks for your offer of help but, given that you're making inaccurate and unsubstantiated accusations, I think you might want to put your own house in order first. I'm happy to receive constructive criticism but, if I don't agree with the reasoning behind it, I don't feel I need to take it on board.

Exactly the point I make above. If there is one flaw in my argument, it is the same original flaw you had in yours. You're a hypocrite for condemning people. I pointed that out by doing the same in ironic fashion.

As for your comments on my "less than constructive reasoning": I consider that rude and inaccurate. If you can point to a flaw in my reasoning, I'll accept it. If you simply misunderstand my position and base your criticism on that misunderstanding, that does not mean there are flaws on my part. The fact that you (to take one example) leap from a vague definition of study to an inclusion of all major academic subjects in the field of science suggests that problems with reasoning lie at least as much on your part as my own.

Again laboring the point (which was beside the point altogether, the original point being your browbeating other forum members for ignorance while displaying rudeness).

I would like to say I appreciate your good intentions. If they are such, then I do. There does seem something a little self-serving about your frequent admonitions and statements of personal good intention.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I affirm my good intentions only to counter your proposal that I am a racist for caring. That aside, I don't feel it necessary to point out that there is no malevolence behind my argument, since it was a nonsensical accusation of racism where none exists anyway.

Perhaps you misunderstand my intention here: I don't expect you to change your ways. I only wished to point out the error of bashing someone's ignorance while being clearly guilty of it yourself, as we all are. No man is without ignorance, and so when we condemn others of it, we exhibit the height of hypocrisy. I was hoping that you would arrive at that conclusion based on my argument, whose only main flaw is that I am human myself.

The fact that you'll attack me for something that I haven't written also undermines your case; especially when a little attempt to re-read my comments and understand them properly would have shown you that I'm not guilty as charged.

I'm going to have to point out that your posts are self-evidently rude. If anyone here (excepting you and me due to conflict of interest) could read one of the posts I refer to and come away thinking "this man thinks highly of his fellow forum members and treats them with respect and human dignity", then I will retract my argument.

I can assure you of my own good will towards you

Dare I say it? Your affirmation and assurances of good will seem... self-serving. :beam:

No, actually I believe you. You've taken the time to point out your lack of malevolent motivation, and I believe you have none.

- but I can't and won't promise that I'll curb my sharpened virtual tongue.

A shame, but... if people like Al Franken and Ann Coulter can viciously attack their opponents and get rich off of it at the expense of civilized discourse... I suppose you have the right to do the same, although, to your credit, you accomplish it far more perspicuously. I've never claimed you weren't at least lucid with your points, even if I disagree with them.

This is only a web forum, after all, and I'll play it as I see it. I'm more than happy for you to do the same - and as long as we're grown-ups, represent each others comments accurately and handle any stick we may get, I'm sure we'll be fine.

I'm sure you haven't been harmed in this discussion, nor have I. I feel however, that treating fellow forum members with respect and giving them the benefit of the doubt will enhance your future arguments. There is a kinder way to point out ignorance than to verbally smack people over the head. My original, and still unanswered point.

See: we can find common ground.

My comments in bold.

It is my hope that we can. Common ground is easier to find, however, when people attempt to be diplomatic with their criticisms. Or at the very least, humorous.

As this is now beyond off-topic, I propose we confine our discussion to private message. As I attempted to do before. My email address is askthepizzaguy@yahoo.com.

Rhyfelwyr

02-26-2008, 22:21

Well apart from the fact Europe will always be favoured due to marketing reasons, there are few areas in the world where you can pick a date and say that there was as much cultural, and in particular for a wargame, military diversity, as in Europe; and on a large enough scale with enough fairly powerful factions to make a TW title.

Off the top of my head, there are probably a few regions that give Europe a real run for its money. A game set in the ancient or medieval Far East, including China, Korea, Japan,and Mongolia would be extremely interesting. I think this would prove popular with Western gamers, since we're all familiar with Samurai, Mongols, and Cho-ko-nu etc.

Then there's also India and south-east Asia. A game focusing on this regions would include Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, and factions of various other religions.There would be diverse armies, from those of those in Pakistan to those of the Khmer Empire and Indonesia. Not as much of an appeal to western gamers though.

The ancient Americas would also be an interesting area to cover. This would the the north American Red Indian tribes such as the Apaches, and obviously the rich Aztecs, and if you go south Incas etc. But this is pretty much done in Kingdoms with the European colonists, so I can't see a full game based on it.

Medieval sub-saharan Africa would also be interesting. From the pagan Empire of Wagadou (Ghana), to the Mali city-states, the Berber Murabitun, the Ethiopian Zagwe Dynasty or the Kingdom of Axum, and Christian Nubia. But TBH I think the map would need to stretch north to include the Moors and Egpytians to have the same diversity you see in M2TW.

seireikhaan

02-27-2008, 00:11

Ouch! .. please take a deep breath.

Apologies if I have somehow offended you
..so why do you believe this "intentionally inflamatory"?
Well, I did take a deep breath, and took a few days off from the thread. However, I still feel that I attempted to be as civil as possible, although I'll admit that I was quite furious with the post. My reasoning for calling it inflamatory was because you essentially attempted to reduce the many, varied cultures, civilizations, and militaries in the history of the Asian Continent to a few various indingenous tribes on an isolated island who have, on more than one occasion in the past hundred years, practiced cannibalism, not to mention a severe lack of any large scale societal order, organization, or technology which was not introduced by foreign powers.

? Despite the island being connected to the Australian mainland many millennia ago (as was the Indonesian archipelago, South America, Pacific Islands etc etc), and the Australian nation once owning the Eastern half of the island, most regard the actual island of New Guinea as part of the Indonesian archipelago (just ask the Indonesians) and thus part of Asia. Though of course as an Australian, I would agree with you and dispute this claim. :yes:
Actually, if you look it up, New Guinea is in fact included as a part of the Australian continent.:bow:
If you wanted to point out the 'ridiculousness' of people who wish for a TW game in Asia, then there were far better ways for you to show it.