Next Total War game?

[Lorenzo_H]

I know it's a bit early to be thinking of this, seeing as Medieval 2 has just come out, and don't get me wrong, I love it. But what do you think should be the next total war game?

[caravel]

I voted for Shogun 2: Total War. Some people may not like the idea of this, but I think they would be pleasantly surprised. I'm not into Japanese history, culture, martial arts, ninjas etc. I don't collect manga DVDs, nor do I own a Katana or a No-Dachi. The original Shogun did it for me though, and I think a sequal would be a great success.

[econ21]

I voted for a Napoleonic TW.

I think M2TW takes us rather close to it already - with the musketeers, the cannon etc. Graphically, I think Napoleonic battles would look gorgeous on something like the M2TW engine - brightly colour uniforms, regimented units of troops, charging horses, the smoke and noise of musket volleys and cannon shot etc.

Plus, we are due a "revolutionary" TW game (like STW and RTW was) rather than an evolutionary one (like MTW and M2TW), so why not go the whole hog and move to the gunpowder era? It could also bring in sea battles, although personally it's the land warfare that really interests me.

In addition, M2TW was such a success in sticking to the "historical war" focus, and working up the RTW gameplay back to MTW standards, I think CA could do a NTW successfully. I would hate to see a half-baked "Imperial Glory 2" type affair, but I trust CA to produce a worthy successor to their own current titles.

Finally, the Napoleonic era is just absolutely perfect for a Total War game:

Strategically - you have about seven or so major powers, with lots of scope for "flexible" dipomacy and conquest. Often "conquering the map" is crazily ahistorical in history, but with Napoleon's ambitions, it becomes a pretty good representation of his historical goals. And often in history, there are strong alliances that divide up the world, Cold War style, but with Napoleon, only the enmity between Britain and France seems to have been fixed. Russia, Austria, Spain and Prussia chopped and changed with the weather.

Tactically - with the three arms of cannon, cavalry and infantry you have lots of chances for real rock-paper-scissors interactions (or even better, combined arms tactics). Personally, I hope they keep it simple like STW and not create lots of artificial distinctions like "swords vs spears" - e.g. between heavy and light infantry etc. (a man with a musket is basically a man with a musket, whatever you put as his epaulette, and Napoleonic infantry differed more in quality than in functional role).

[DukeofSerbia]

I agree with econ21.

Starting period should be just before Seven Years' War and up to middle XIX century.

[Lorenzo_H]

Yeah I have to agree with you there econ21, though I think we can expect a long wait for this to happen and an expansion for M2TW, both of which I have no serious problems with.

I agree that the next TW game will have to be revolutionary. The two best ways i can think of are ones that you have already mentioned; moving to a totally new era with more guns etc, and including naval battles. Napoleonic times will suite Total War in every way - and provide the best place to intorduce Naval warfare, seeing as Naval Warfare was a key aspect of those times. No Napoleonic game would be complete without the ability to re-enact Trafalgar, would it?

@Duke, yeah that would be good to cover the 7 years war, though I see no reason not to cover the whole 19th century, because then you will get in the Crimean War as well.

[caravel]

I would actually change my vote to a Napoleonic era game, if I was sure that CA could pull it off correctly, but I'm not sure of that at all. There are alot of more complicated unit formations in this type of warfare, such as the square formation.

[DukeofSerbia]

@Duke, yeah that would be good to cover the 7 years war, though I see no reason not to cover the whole 19th century, because then you will get in the Crimean War as well.

Why? Last year should be 1847 before nationalism exploded in Europe. In forum will be posted many replies like "why my country is not in?" if there will be cover whole XIX century

[Lorenzo_H]

Why? Last year should be 1847 before nationalism exploded in Europe. In forum will be posted many replies like "why my country is not in?" if there will be cover whole XIX century

Firstly, we get those people anyway, secondly, let 'em suffer

[Cesare diBorja]

I am with econ21 on this one, except I think that this current evolution should be dated to 1615-1618 to even 1648-1650(I have already done so with modification to units and events). The expansion should cover the late 1600s to 1871 or even 1918. Wouldn't that be pretty? I see great potential here. I'd like to see a break down of units or even combined application units such as whole units that have light infantry, musketeers or fusiliers, and grenadiers. With specialty units as well like pioneers and sapper/miner teams.

[econ21]

I would actually change my vote to a Napoleonic era game, if I was sure that CA could pull it off correctly, but I'm not sure of that at all. There are alot of more complicated unit formations in this type of warfare, such as the square formation.

Indeed, that was my reservation before - an Imperial Glory 2 would be worthless, IMO.

And I agree, the cavalry-infantry interactions would be the hardest part to pull off. You would need a real tension - cavalry could murder unsuspecting infantry, but if the infantry could form a square in time, the cavalry would be virtually impotent (although the square would be a nice artillery target).

The timing would have to be right - poor quality AI troops may panic or fail to form the square in time; veteran or well led AI infantry would execute the maneouvre more efficiently; and might even see off a cavalry charge out of square (as, IIRC, the British did at Corunna and, later, Balaclava).

Yet, I think CA could do it. They've handled the tricky cavalry-infantry balance rather well in M2TW (used right, cavalry is devastating; used wrong, it is very fragile) and conceptually the square is not that far removed from the schiltron.

[Braden]

I also voted for a Napoleonic era game, mainly as I feel that the World War’s have been already done to death plus would be very difficult to pull off in the Total War format without ending up looking and playing very much like AoE but with a better campaign map.

Not to say that a Napoleonic game wouldn’t have its problems, certainly I’d think that CA would have to completely revamp their “rock-paper-scissors” combat system due to the higher rate of gunpowder units and their far better real effectiveness when compared to the Medieval hand-cannons.

Other than that, I can’t think of a better company (despite my bitter disappointment about many features of M2) to pull it off.

I think that for a really decent World War game you have to look at Company of Hero’s as something that pulls it off as well as you possibly can (such 20th Century combat is just TOO fast paced and destructive to units for you to have the sort of control or numbers you have in Rome or M2 in one battle).

With Nepoleonic forces you sill have set formations for infantry, cavalry that we all recognise and large scale “set” battles. Potentially the last era where two armies would decided on a battle ground, set up within view of each other and THEN attack each other.

I personally feel that such a “set” battle is the core of Total War. Loose that and I don’t think we have Total War franchise games but rather more traditional (and not as fun) RTS’s.

[IrishArmenian]

I would like to see an expansion pack for M2TW. Call me an optimist, but the ideal situation for me would be to start in the Dark Ages (Like VI) continue through the original campaign with those factions and then have the rennaisance with those factions too. One could guide a nation through about incredibly turbulent years.

[Miloshus]

Next, i think it is going to be expansion pack for mtw2, after that, they are gonna make napoleonic tw.

[cunctator]

Bronze Age:Total War

ca. 1500-1100 BC

[Tony Furze]

I ve voted for Napoleonic-it d be a good break. Id like to see Cavaliers and Roundheads , too.

[caravel]

Indeed, that was my reservation before - an Imperial Glory 2 would be worthless, IMO.

I'm not familiar with that game, so I can't really comment. The lack of proper formations would be a disaster though.

And I agree, the cavalry-infantry interactions would be the hardest part to pull off. You would need a real tension - cavalry could murder unsuspecting infantry, but if the infantry could form a square in time, the cavalry would be virtually impotent (although the square would be a nice artillery target).

The timing would have to be right - poor quality AI troops may panic or fail to form the square in time; veteran or well led AI infantry would execute the maneouvre more efficiently; and might even see off a cavalry charge out of square (as, IIRC, the British did at Corunna and, later, Balaclava).

That's exactly how it would need to work. Anything less would be a complete disaster.

Yet, I think CA could do it. They've handled the tricky cavalry-infantry balance rather well in M2TW (used right, cavalry is devastating; used wrong, it is very fragile) and conceptually the square is not that far removed from the schiltron.

But that still draws from the same old system. As you have touched on already, all the TW games are basically the same as STW as far as the battles go: Unit's in formations that are either rectangular or wedge shaped. With the "rock/paper/scissors" system always there, possibly not as black and white as it is in STW, but there all the same. I do feel that for a Napolenic game that the engine would need a bit of an overhaul. Veteran units would need to form up more quickly and efficiently than green ones, as you have said. Compared to "World - Total War", this is a very workable idea though. World War I wouldn't work due to the difficulty of representing trench warfare, though I suppose trenches could be dug from the campaign map and units deployed into them from the battlefield if they're present. The problem is that such units wouldn't be moving around in columns like units during the napoleonic era so it would be difficult to do. Some level of automation would be needed. A unit would have to contain men that move, crawl, drop and run individually in response to the enemy... Difficult, and the reason why World War II - Total War would be even more impossible.

[Monarch]

Personally, I hope they keep it simple like STW and not create lots of artificial distinctions like "swords vs spears" - e.g. between heavy and light infantry etc. (a man with a musket is basically a man with a musket, whatever you put as his epaulette, and Napoleonic infantry differed more in quality than in functional role).

Clearly you've not played ntw2 :P. You've got your line infantry, your lights, grenediers, possibly rifles and your elite guard infantry.

Anyway, I want a Napoleonic TW. They only reason I think CA might not chose to do it is the awesome city/castle idea thats in m2 may not be able to be used credibly. Furthermore due to uniforms CA wouldn 't be able to fulyl show off their awesome ability for troops that arn't clones.

I still think it'd be a great game and the best tw, however I just hope CA go for gameplay, not a feature fest.

[UltraWar]

I would like UltraWar: Total War to be the next game.

[Mithradates]

My idea is to have Blenheim total war. Fortresses still played an important part in campaigns and the defence of a large citedal would be amazing with waves of men charging at walls of muskets and cannons. The set piece battles would also be as interesting as Napoleonic battles and it would be possible to perhaps have the evolution from pikes to bayonet infantry.

[caspian]

I voted for Other because I fear it will be have a "New World" theme. Kinda like expanding on the whole Europe invades the Americas thing. The setting might bring a whole new dimension to the game, like starting out with a already gunpowder units and guerrilla warfare.

But then again redoing Shogun would be like a dream come true.

[andrewmuir]

I votef for R2TW simply because I think they could do for RTW exactly what they did for MTW -smarter AI, better graphics etc, and at the same time there are so many battles in North Africa, Spain etc that can be addressed.

The Napoleonic wars have some attraction except perhaps for french gamers but realistically I suspect R2TW will come first.

Andrew

[Orb]

Graphics that won't kill poor Orb's machine Total War.

More specifically:

British Empire without graphics that will kill poor Orb's machine total war.

[Andres]

Jurassic Park : Total War ?

248.000.000 - 65.000.000 BC

[Pomerium]

Being a student of history, it will be an expansion pack for MTW 2. Give them six months to a year and it will be released.

The next different TW series is a good guess. I will just sit back and watch.

[Miloshus]

It isnt hard to guess- it is like one timeline
-RTW
-MTW
-NTW
-WW1TW
-WW2TW....

[Monarch]

It isnt hard to guess- it is like one timeline
-RTW
-MTW
-NTW
-WW1TW
-WW2TW....

Not really. That doesn't work because RTW wasn't the first tw game. Feudal era Japan was.

[Lusted]

I think it will be an Asia:Tw game, covering not only Japan, but China, Korea, Mongols and India.

[Caius]

I think WWIII:Total War.
Imagine The USA declaring the war to the rest of the world.That can be a really total War game.

[Roman_Man#3]

i think it would be cool if they made a north american total war like game.(stated earlier). it would probably only interest people in north eastern us. and eastern canada. but when the europeans landed in north america. it would be like (time line) the hundred years war between ebgland and france, so the two main factions would be england and france. it would cover eastern north america, and western europe. it could introduce naval battles, and i just think it would be a cool game. it might not work well on the total war engine though. cause geurilla warfare would be needed, and able to make a fort and then upgrade it. but that could be a new feature.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Personally I would like to first get an expansion which covers the Dark Ages - the period between M2TW and Barbarian Invasion. I see no reason why it should be left out, as though nothing happened during these few centuries.