total war 4

[Didz]

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

Thats because you are assuming that huge numbers of new players will flock to buy a game based on subject that very few of them have ever heard of or taken any interest in before.

My view is if you want to attract a lot more players to play your game you given them something that they have been dying to get their hands on for over a decade.

The problem with the examples you give is the potential depth of the game. In Napoleonic Europe, there weren't too many genuine powers: not as many as in the Roman or Medieval era, certainly.

Britian, France, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Poland, Russian, Bavaria, Saxony, Wurtemburg, Spain, Portugal, The Confederation of the Rhine, Naples, The Ottoman Empire, The Marmelukes, The Unites States, Mexico, Assam, Brazil, and the various Indian Sultanates.

I've ignored those counties which were under colonian rule although in theory they could become independant during the course of the game. I've also assumed that the game would limit the players strategic options to those which featured historically. Therefore, Eygpt, India and South America are included but China is not, although in theory Napoleon or Britian could have decided to involve China. Even so you have approximately 19 playable factions all of whom had armies and many had navies too.

In the American eras you mention, you can cut it right down. War of Independence: Britain, rebels, Indians (a bit) and France (a very little bit). Civil War: North, South and no one else (not really). Not exactly "Total" war, is it?

I would agree with you if Total War offered a multi-player campaign option but it doesn't. So, in many respects it doesn't matter how many playable factions there are what matters is whether players want to play the game and the American War of Independance is a popular period particularly in America.

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily suggest launching a new Horse & Musketry period TW series with the American War of Independance the fact is that once the engine is in place its a pretty easy option to launch it as a further title in the series and know that it will sell well.

Likewise with the American Civil War.

As for the AI not being good enough, one would hope that it will get better. Remember these games are going to have to be quite a bit different in content and style that the 'hack and slash' system used in MTW2. We are talking serious diplomacy and economic's if games in this period are going to work. Even the battle engine would need a lot of enhancement as morale was far more important in this period as was unit formation and order of battle.

Which is why I see this as the more innovative and risker option, but with higher potential reward.

I think TW titles need plenty of factions to retain interest. Napoleonic might cut the mustard but WoI and ACW simply don't. Correct me if I'm wrong!

I think your wrong.

You are basing that view on your own perferences and assuming that everyone else who plays TW games plays them for the same reason you do.

The periods I quoted are immensely popular wargaming periods. The millions of people who wargame these periods worldwide don't consider them boring because there weren't enough factions involved. They play them because they are interested in that period of history and they would buy the game for the same reason.

For example: I will consider buying any game which features the Napoleonic period simply because it does and I periodically search to see if any new ones have been released. There are whole websites just dedicated to monitoring and evaluating Napoleonic Wargames.

By comparison I wouldn't give a game based on the Indies a second glance if I happened to see it on a computer shop shelf. The only reason I would buy it is because I know the Totalwar series, which is why I say its main market will be amongst existing TW players and market growth pretty limited.

[diotavelli]

Thats because you are assuming that huge numbers of new players will flock to buy a game based on subject that very few of them have ever heard of or taken any interest in before.

My view is if you want to attract a lot more players to play your game you given them something that they have been dying to get their hands on for over a decade.

That might be a little parochial, IMO. There are a lot of people in the world for whom the medieval Indies are just as familiar (if not more so) as the Napoleonic or ACW eras. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Asia Pacific video game market is bigger than the American market - that could be where your "huge numbers of players" will come from.

Britian, France, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Poland, Russian, Bavaria, Saxony, Wurtemburg, Spain, Portugal, The Confederation of the Rhine, Naples, The Ottoman Empire, The Marmelukes, The Unites States, Mexico, Assam, Brazil, and the various Indian Sultanates.....Even so you have approximately 19 playable factions all of whom had armies and many had navies too.

Naples? Wurtemburg? If memory serves, most of the small states were simply rolled over by the larger powers in the Napoleonic era. The game could not be accurate and represent these smaller states as being capable of self-defence, let alone expansion. The number of powers that could accurately be represented as capable of influencing the destiny of Europe is much smaller than you suggest, IMO (France, Prussia, Austria, Russia and Britain?).

I would agree with you if Total War offered a multi-player campaign option but it doesn't. So, in many respects it doesn't matter how many playable factions there are what matters is whether players want to play the game and the American War of Independance is a popular period particularly in America.

No, this misses my point entirely. I wrote that the AI "manages to present what challenge it does due to having multiple factions who are more powerful combined than the player". This is a SP issue, not MP. It's not the number of playable factions that counts, it's the ability of the AI to mount a serious challenge. Too few factions and a degree of equivalence between them and the AI would be a push-over.

As for the AI not being good enough, one would hope that it will get better. Remember these games are going to have to be quite a bit different in content and style that the 'hack and slash' system used in MTW2. We are talking serious diplomacy and economic's if games in this period are going to work. Even the battle engine would need a lot of enhancement as morale was far more important in this period as was unit formation and order of battle.

Which is why I see this as the more innovative and risker option, but with higher potential reward.

It sounds to me as though you'd like CA to go and build the perfect horse and musketry game, rather than a new TW title. That's not a criticism - just an observation. Also, I think "hack and slash" is a pretty good description of Napoleon's diplomacy but there you go....

I think your wrong.

You are basing that view on your own perferences and assuming that everyone else who plays TW games plays them for the same reason you do.

No, I'm not. As stated above, my rationale is that the AI needs a large number of factions at its disposal in order to provide the player with a challenge. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my preferences or assumptions about why other people play TW games.

The periods I quoted are immensely popular wargaming periods. The millions of people who wargame these periods worldwide don't consider them boring because there weren't enough factions involved. They play them because they are interested in that period of history and they would buy the game for the same reason.

Again, you missed my point. My argument is not that these periods were boring, for reasons of too few factions or anything else. I didn't write that I thought that. Hopefully, you now understand my reasoning from my explanations above.

For example: I will consider buying any game which features the Napoleonic period simply because it does and I periodically search to see if any new ones have been released. There are whole websites just dedicated to monitoring and evaluating Napoleonic Wargames.

By comparison I wouldn't give a game based on the Indies a second glance if I happened to see it on a computer shop shelf. The only reason I would buy it is because I know the Totalwar series, which is why I say its main market will be amongst existing TW players and market growth pretty limited.

What was it you were saying about "basing that view on your own perferences and assuming that everyone else who plays TW games plays them for the same reason you do"?

I get the impression you're a Napoleon buff. I've met a few before and know it's wiser not to disagree with them on the pre-eminence of the era! My arguments are based on what I think is workable in the TW format and what a global PC game audience might be interested in. I don't have a personal preference when it comes to areas or eras but do feel the Indies would suit the TW format brilliantly. I'm less sure about the Napoleonic era and very unsure about WoI or ACW - not because I'm not keen on them but because they don't suit the TW format.

If the question had been: 'what game should CA release next', then it wouldn't matter whether the era people chose would work in the TW format. But the question was "what should the next TW title be" and so some eras have to be discounted, IMO.

The OP asked what we thought the next TW title should be. That's what I'm trying to answer. Perhaps CA should base their next title on the Napoleonic, WoI or ACW eras - but I don't think they'd be TW games

[Didz]

My arguments are based on what I think is workable in the TW format and what a global PC game audience might be interested in.

That was the point I made earlier when I said it depends on whether CA decide to milk the existing game engine for every penny they can get out of it or go for growth.

If they decide to stick with the current engine and just add a few tweaks then your idea is as a good as any.

But personally I don't think it will add a huge number of new players the TW community, or increase the overal volume of sales beyond that reached by MTW2.

It sounds to me as though you'd like CA to go and build the perfect horse and musketry game, rather than a new TW title.

Well I'd certainly like someone to do it, before I get too damned old to play it.

[diotavelli]

That was the point I made earlier when I said it depends on whether CA decide to milk the existing game engine for every penny they can get out of it or go for growth.

And I answered your earlier point. I think they'll do both. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If they decide to stick with the current engine and just add a few tweaks then your idea is as a good as any.

Well, gee thanks! As I wrote earlier, I think that a title based on the Indies would benefit both from an improved battlefield engine and improved diplomacy and economics. The same could be said of Rome or medieval Europe. An improved engine doesn't necessitate a move to a more modern era and staying pre-modern doesn't mean you can't improve the engine.....

But personally I don't think it will add a huge number of new players the TW community, or increase the overal volume of sales beyond that reached by MTW2.

Despite what I've written about the size and growth of the Asian gaming market? I don't understand your logic, if I'm honest. If CA want to "increase the overal volume of sales beyond that reached by MTW2" why write a title for the smaller US and European markets when you could target the larger Asia Pacific market? Especially as that market is the fastest growing.

Your argument seems to be that Napoleonic and early US history are very popular but have not yet been covered in the TW series; therefore, if they were covered, CA would sell loads more games. This ignores several facts:

1. CA could stick to Roman and medieval history, introduce a new engine ever 4-5 years and add customers that way.
2. Those who love Napoleonic history might buy a new Napoleon:TW title but a lot of those more keen on medieval or ancient history might not be interested. CA could lose as many customers as it gained.
3. The majority of games are bought by 'casual' gamers. They're as likely to pick up recommendations from reviews in non-specialist media as from dedicated gaming mags or communities like this. Sega can get those reviews.
4. A lot of gamers who might think now "I'm not interested in Asia" could be persuaded otherwise. A few here already have been. A very strong case can be made that medieval South-East Asia was a lot, lot more diverse and complex than Napoleonic Europe; it could even be suggested that it was more interesting! As I wrote previously, if CA/Sega can sell ancient Rome to the Asian market, why can't it sell medieval Asia to the US/EU markets?

As I see it, the Indies provides a perfect environment for a TW campaign: a diversity of troop types and terrains to make the battles interesting and a diversity of cultures, ethnic groups and religions to make the campaign interesting.

Well I'd certainly like someone to do it, before I get too damned old to play it.

Don't worry that's a way off yet. After all, who's going to teach your grandkids to play PC games....?

[Psiloi]

persuaded otherwise. A few here already have been. A very strong case can be made that medieval South-East Asia was a lot, lot more diverse and complex than Napoleonic Europe; it could even be suggested that it was more interesting! As I wrote previously, if CA/Sega can sell ancient Rome to the Asian market, why can't it sell medieval Asia to the US/EU markets?

As I see it, the Indies provides a perfect environment for a TW campaign: a diversity of troop types and terrains to make the battles interesting and a diversity of cultures, ethnic groups and religions to make the campaign interesting.



Don't worry that's a way off yet. After all, who's going to teach your grandkids to play PC games....?

I agree about the importance of the asian market so that is not a problem. But i think that to limit the game to India-Indochina-¿Indonesia? is a lost of a great chance for a big game. Althought with a great variety, i think that region haven't the sufficient variety for a game like the TW, in types of troops for example. The variety can be added with invasions from out of the map like the mongols in MTW, but again, that mean loose a lot of field for the game. Should be entire eastern half of Asia, includiying the extreme East and here we have a wonderful argument because the "asian" market is in fact korean, japanese and chinese. The next game should to have those countries plus southeast Asia of course from New Guinea to Ceylon, a western limit in present Pakistan and in the north crossing near Lake Baljash from there to the East with all the Steppes inside until the Amur's mouth. So there we have marvelous setting with a lot of peoples and variety in units and battlefields. The name Mongol Total War or East Total War, as i said before i prefer 1150-1650

More or less this:

http://www.welt-atlas.de/datenbank/k...rte-0-9016.gif

We have the following factions:

Burmans
Chinese (Southern Song wich follow the chinese dinasties, then Ming technology)
Dheli Sultanate (wich later change to Mughal empire)
Dravidians (wich include first Chola and then Vijayanagar)
Khemer
Koreans
Japanese
Mongols
Srivijaya
Thais
Viets

Non playables: Indigenous barbarians (Philippines, Taiwan, inner Borneo...), Jin China, Laosians, Rajputs, Tibetans, Timurids

There is a lot of options.

[diotavelli]

I agree about the importance of the asian market so that is not a problem. But i think that to limit the game to India-Indochina-¿Indonesia? is a lost of a great chance for a big game.

I wasn't thinking of limiting the game as you suggest. To quote from my earlier post: "In the Medieval period, 'the Indies' (from the point of view of outsiders, both Asian and European) included everything from modern day Pakistan to New Guinea and from the borders of China to modern Australian territorial waters."

Including Japan and Korea would be a natural extension, especially as they had known trade links with the Indies (or however you wish to describe this area) during the period. I think your ideas are closer to mine than you realise!

[Psiloi]

Including Japan and Korea would be a natural extension, especially as they had known trade links with the Indies (or however you wish to describe this area) during the period. I think your ideas are closer to mine than you realise!

That's true fellow, we are coming to an agreement , but what time do you propose?

[I Am Herenow]

Alright, I've read this thread, and it's quite interesting, and thought it was time for me to wade in

To be honest, guys, I think a Napoleonic game is the most obvious choice. I understand all your arguments about Medieval India being interesting and more developed etc. but no-one has heard of them! Why was it called "Rome: Total War" and not "Dacia: Total War" or "Carthage: Total War"? You could play any of those three factions, and more, but it was named after the Romans as they were by far the most famous nation from that time (they are even called "Roman times"!) and most people would rather play as them than the other factions. The "average person" - or "casual player", if you like - is going to be very familiar with Rome: everyone has certainly heard of the Roman Empire and has a picture in their minds of a Roman soldier with his red, square shield - whereas most people who have never played RTW have probably never even heard of Dacia, Pontus or the Seleucid Empire. Granted, most people will recognise the name "Carthage" too, but they are only famous for elephants, Hannibal, and being beaten by the Romans - just like the Gauls, Dacians and all those other "barbarians". And, let's face it, who wants to play as the losers?

Things like medieval India belong in mods. I think that, no matter how advanced they may have been, they will still be a niche market. For history buffs, enthusiasts, 'grognards' and whatever else you want to call them, Indies: Total War would be a great game. But those people play EB and RTR, not RTW "Vanilla". Those mods, and other ones which try to add historical realism to the game, are great, but (in the case of EB certainly, which is the RTW mod I've played the most) they do not cater for the "casual gamer". Despite being more immersive and having more inventive, complex features, if RTW and EB had been released simultaneously as stand-alone games, I think RTW would win. EB is just too much of a niche product. Even its name, "Europa Barbarorum", implies weirdness and obscurity, whereas with "Rome: Total War", you immediately have a well-known 'brand' and the inviting prospect of killing stuff, and you know exactly what you're going to get.

Like I say, RTW V would have benefitted from some of EB's features like two dock systems, more interesting traits and maybe (at a stretch) even government type buildings. However, fifty versions of Hastati from every period in Rome's history and with every variation, more "authentic" spelling which screams of Lord of the Rings idiocy and the general wealth of stuff to pick through, some of which seems near-identical or pointless, very soon becomes overwhelming and, frankly, boring, for anyone without a History degree. As interesting an addition as Ancient Xorgilic commands are, they are only interesting if you are interested in that sort of stuff already. Casual gamers would be driven away.

I mean, think about it. If you look at a completely different area of the games market - sports - what do you see? Football (i.e. soccer), basketball, ice hockey, boxing, motorsports - that sort of stuff. Do you see any Lacrosse games on PS2? Did the PS3 launch title lineup include a Squash game? Do you even know what a match of either sport looks like? Probably not. However, there must be a 'fanbase' for Lacrosse in just about every country who are totally into it and love the sport, and would love to see a videogame or motion picture devoted to it, but noone else would.

And so, though it pains me to say it, we here are all Lacrosse fans, metaphorically. Even though there may be people here who are really into medieval India, China at the time of the Roman Empire or Bronze Age Greece (hell, I sure find those areas of history interesting), frankly, noone else does.

I think casual gamers who are just browsing for a game need something they can recognise in order to buy it: Rome, Napoleon, soccer. I think CA should stick to stuff that people recognise, but at the same time improve the engine, add more features and increase moddability so that games based on Medieval India can be created through mods.

Incidentally, about the American Civil War having too few factions, it could be an Alexander-style game where it's you against everyone, although as many players will testify, it would make for a rather shallow campaign and I can see many of you here want diplomacy to become more, not less, important.

As for the "Asia has a market for Indies: Total War" argument, I'm not sure. Although I completely agree that there must be millions of middle class people in Asia who could buy videogames, the question is, would they? Is there really a demand for PC games in, say, India?

Also, about people enjoying games about their own country, I think this is only true to a certain extent. I myself come from Ukraine, but do I know what was going on in that area in 1384? No, and, to be honest, I don't particularly care. Nor do I want a game made about it. In fact, I defy any British or American person who isn't a historian/history student/similar to give me, off the top of their heads, an in-depth analysis of the political situation in their country in, say, 1787. Indeed, would most Brits/Americans even know who the head of state was at that time? Sure, people like to play as themselves, but it's more important if they recognise who they are playing as. Why else would most Rome: Total War players play as one of the Roman factions, despite a relatively small proportion of them actually being from Rome or Italy?

So, in conclusion, stick to the most famous areas of history with your games, and leave the rest to the mods.

Anyway, those were my thoughts on the subject!

[Jekermesh]

Lots of really interesting arguments here, I do agree to a certain extent, with the previous entry about the need for TW games to be continually easilly moddable. BUT, i do think that the heart of TW games is in hand to hand combat, swords, horses camels, the plethora of factions that inhabits most continents of the world from the Roman times untill the dawn of the Renaissance, and the emergence of trade and diplomacy. So consequently I think that a game based in the East Indies would be great, there is a huge amount of history there, factions, technology, culture and obviously religions.

However, the game I would love to see would be the same time period (1000ish-1500's) and based in Middle East/Central Asia/India and some of China. More factions than you can shake a stick at, many religions, many famous characters and a great chance to re-write history, which is I think one of the main attractions of this game - "Im going to recover Jerusalem, but do it right by not killing quite so many people" etc... I think the possibility of managing the Delhi Sultanate, or the Seljuks, some smaller Hindu factions is very attractive and fun. The Mongols in all their different guises could be represented Ilkhanate, Chagatay etc... as emerging factions or could be represented differently. Furthermore there could be add-ons to deal with the rise of the European trading states, Holland, Portugal, UK etc...

Also in terms of people not really recognising these particular parts of history, well I dont think it matters. I am lucky enough to be a History student but even I would have been left scratching my head if someone asked where the capital of the Scythian state was, but having played Rome as a result of already knowing the formula from previous incarnations I now know, sort of. The point being I think the franchise is enough to attract existing fans and bring in new ones. Although in saying that i'm pretty sure the next installments will be some crap fantasy title that will ruin the franchise for every one who cant mod.

Oh and off the top of my head the King of England in 1787 was George III, but as always correct me if im wrong...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Although Napoleon: Total War would seem a natural progression, I think the focus on gunpowder would wreck the TW feel. Ranged units have always had trouble in the new TW engine featuring in Rome and Medieval 2. Right now Arquibusiers, skirmshers etc are a nightmare to use. For a gunpowder era mod, CA would have to put huge efforts into improving the AI. A Napoleon: TW with an American War of Indepedance and Civil War expansion would sell wonderfully. I'm just not sure it would work very well.

The Indies: Total War does sound to me like the most interesting new setting for a TW game, maybe equal with a Three Kingdoms game anyway. But CA might lose sales basing their next release on such a little known area to their fanbase in the west.

Basically, I think they either need to make a breakthrough in the engine and AI for a Napoleon TW, or make a breakthrough in targeting customers to allow the Indies TW on the current engine, with a few improvements.

[Matt_Lane]

Personally I think Indies: Total War would be a great game that I for one would purchase. However I've been with the series since Shogun (yet to do Rome) so I know its merits. For a game to succeed in the Western market it can't survive on its current fan base alone it needs to attract new customers and for this it needs a hook. Medieval, Shogun and Rome are all set in popular periods. They have Knights, Samurai and well Romans. Although the East has a rich culture that would offer plenty of factions for such a game I don't think it has such a link to popular Western Culture.

I see no reason for CA not to market such a game at the Far Eastern markets where it looks like it could take off. In fact this is probably the games best chance to be taken up in the Western market, word off mouth and a later release date.

[IrishArmenian]

I hope for:
Ancient Middle East/Europe (with less Roman focus)
Bronze Age Middle East/Europe
3 Kingdoms
East China/Korea/Japan

[diotavelli]

To be honest, guys, I think a Napoleonic game is the most obvious choice. I understand all your arguments about Medieval India being interesting and more developed etc. but no-one has heard of them!

You're quite sure that no one has heard of the Indies? Or, as you suggest, India? Most people I know have heard of them. May not be able to place them specifically but would certainly have a rough idea.

Why was it called "Rome: Total War" and not "Dacia: Total War" or "Carthage: Total War"? You could play any of those three factions, and more, but it was named after the Romans as they were by far the most famous nation from that time (they are even called "Roman times"!) and most people would rather play as them than the other factions. The "average person" - or "casual player", if you like - is going to be very familiar with Rome: everyone has certainly heard of the Roman Empire and has a picture in their minds of a Roman soldier with his red, square shield - whereas most people who have never played RTW have probably never even heard of Dacia, Pontus or the Seleucid Empire. Granted, most people will recognise the name "Carthage" too, but they are only famous for elephants, Hannibal, and being beaten by the Romans - just like the Gauls, Dacians and all those other "barbarians". And, let's face it, who wants to play as the losers?

It was called Rome:Total War because, as you said, "they are even called 'Roman Times'". If you want to describe the period that game covers, 'Rome' and 'Roman' are the best descriptions. Same with Medieval: people instantly have an idea what you're talking about. If you want a word to describe the Far East, China, India, the Spice Islands, the Malay peninsula and so on, 'Indies' does the job. It's up to the marketing people to get across the message of what the game's about.

Things like medieval India belong in mods. I think that, no matter how advanced they may have been, they will still be a niche market. For history buffs, enthusiasts, 'grognards' and whatever else you want to call them, Indies: Total War would be a great game. But those people play EB and RTR, not RTW "Vanilla". Those mods, and other ones which try to add historical realism to the game, are great, but (in the case of EB certainly, which is the RTW mod I've played the most) they do not cater for the "casual gamer". Despite being more immersive and having more inventive, complex features, if RTW and EB had been released simultaneously as stand-alone games, I think RTW would win. EB is just too much of a niche product. Even its name, "Europa Barbarorum", implies weirdness and obscurity, whereas with "Rome: Total War", you immediately have a well-known 'brand' and the inviting prospect of killing stuff, and you know exactly what you're going to get.

1. You can't fairly go from stating that "medieval India belong[s] in mods" - which is your opinion, not fact - to suggesting that a CA game based on the Indies would be mod-like and not cater for the casual gamer. The name might be more obscure but that doesn't mean the game has to be.
2. EB was niche. The name is more obscure than "Rome: Total War". "The Indies:Total War" is not obscure in anything like the same way - if the game's title was in Sanskrit, you might have a point.

Like I say, RTW V would have benefitted from some of EB's features like two dock systems, more interesting traits and maybe (at a stretch) even government type buildings. However, fifty versions of Hastati from every period in Rome's history and with every variation, more "authentic" spelling which screams of Lord of the Rings idiocy and the general wealth of stuff to pick through, some of which seems near-identical or pointless, very soon becomes overwhelming and, frankly, boring, for anyone without a History degree. As interesting an addition as Ancient Xorgilic commands are, they are only interesting if you are interested in that sort of stuff already. Casual gamers would be driven away.

Please see earlier point: just because EB might have driven away casual gamers with it's high level of detail, there is no reason whatsoever to believe a vanilla Indies: Total War would. There is no logic in suggesting that it might.

I mean, think about it. If you look at a completely different area of the games market - sports - what do you see? Football (i.e. soccer), basketball, ice hockey, boxing, motorsports - that sort of stuff. Do you see any Lacrosse games on PS2? Did the PS3 launch title lineup include a Squash game? Do you even know what a match of either sport looks like? Probably not. However, there must be a 'fanbase' for Lacrosse in just about every country who are totally into it and love the sport, and would love to see a videogame or motion picture devoted to it, but noone else would.

I'm very familiar with lacrosse and squash but there you go. I accept they're minority sports. Your analogy isn't very good, though. About 60% of the world's population live in or very near the area that Indies: Total War would cover. To suggest that something about their geographical area would be obscure or 'minority' is contrary to the facts.

And so, though it pains me to say it, we here are all Lacrosse fans, metaphorically. Even though there may be people here who are really into medieval India, China at the time of the Roman Empire or Bronze Age Greece (hell, I sure find those areas of history interesting), frankly, noone else does.

You've got some evidence to back up the claim that the majority of the world's population aren't interested in the area they live in?

I think casual gamers who are just browsing for a game need something they can recognise in order to buy it: Rome, Napoleon, soccer. I think CA should stick to stuff that people recognise, but at the same time improve the engine, add more features and increase moddability so that games based on Medieval India can be created through mods.

The idea that casual purchasers can't be persuaded to try something a little unfamiliar is wrong. Otherwise, how did Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (for one example) become such a success? In the West, it was sold as much on its SFX as its context but, following its success, the market for Asian movies of a similar style exploded. CA is working with Sega: marketing muscle is not a problem for them - and they would not be dealing in an obscure area, as you suggest, anyway.

As for the "Asia has a market for Indies: Total War" argument, I'm not sure. Although I completely agree that there must be millions of middle class people in Asia who could buy videogames, the question is, would they? Is there really a demand for PC games in, say, India?

Please see my earlier post: the video games market in Asia-Pacific is larger than that in the US or Europe. The Indian and Chinese consumption of games is massive.

Also, about people enjoying games about their own country, I think this is only true to a certain extent. I myself come from Ukraine, but do I know what was going on in that area in 1384? No, and, to be honest, I don't particularly care. Nor do I want a game made about it.

Could that be because the Ukraine wasn't at its brighest or best in 1384? Yes, and it therefore wouldn't make a good subject for a game. But, as part of a bigger game, it becomes interesting: MTW and M2TW prove this. Additionally, making an analogy between the Ukraine and the whole of South-East Asia is not exactly apposite.

In fact, I defy any British or American person who isn't a historian/history student/similar to give me, off the top of their heads, an in-depth analysis of the political situation in their country in, say, 1787. Indeed, would most Brits/Americans even know who the head of state was at that time?

Yet you argue that a Napoleonic title would sell? 1787 is part of a rubbish era but 1797 or 1807 are the bomb? If "most Brits/Americans" don't know the history of the late C18/early C19, why would they all want to buy a game about it?

Sure, people like to play as themselves, but it's more important if they recognise who they are playing as. Why else would most Rome: Total War players play as one of the Roman factions, despite a relatively small proportion of them actually being from Rome or Italy?

Are you sure most people played as one of the Roman factions? You may be right but I'd like to see concrete evidence. If it is correct, I'd be prepared to bet that there are two reasons:

1. the Roman factions are the only ones you can play to begin with.
2. the Roman factions are amongst the easiest to win with.

Familiarity with the faction might be important but not as much. For most players, the important thing is the challenge/interest, not whether you're intimate with the faction's history. Also, Roman citizenship was not the preserve of those born in Rome or Italy: in later years, you could be born in modern Britain/France/Spain/N.Africa/etc and still be a Roman - so your argument doesn't really work.

So, in conclusion, stick to the most famous areas of history with your games, and leave the rest to the mods.

Anyway, those were my thoughts on the subject!

Interesting thoughts, all of them: I just don't agree!

[Duke John]

As a response to the original question: none.

In my opinion TW has run its course. I have seen enough of this system of controlling units which can act completely independent. The only thing which ties your units together are a bunch of circles of influences concerning morale. The strategic part has also hardly progressed. It's still about recruiting units in an ever increasing number of areas.

For me the TW style of fighting battles is getting as stale as the standard RTS gameplay. It's time to start to re-invent the genre.

[I Am Herenow]

In fact, I defy any British or American person who isn't a historian/history student/similar to give me, off the top of their heads, an in-depth analysis of the political situation in their country in, say, 1787.

I am ... a History student
...
Oh and off the top of my head the King of England in 1787 was George III

Well, you did have a slight advantage

And yes, it was George III (thank you Wikipedia )

You're quite sure that no one has heard of the Indies? Or, as you suggest, India? Most people I know have heard of them. May not be able to place them specifically but would certainly have a rough idea.

The Roman Empire is still more famous, though.

It was called Rome:Total War because, as you said, "they are even called 'Roman Times'".

My point is still valid: the Roman Empire was so influential and important at that time that people later referred to the whole time period as 'Roman Times'. Nobody calls them 'Dacian Times' - and, on a similar note, nobody calls the Medieval period 'French Times' or something, because there was no one dominating power at the time - in Europe, at least; M2 is famous because of the period, not because of any one country.

...which is your opinion, not fact...

Well, what's wrong with that? This thread does have "Opinion" written next to it. Besides, most of what people - including you - have written here has been their opinion. The very question 'What would you like the next Total War game to be?' asks for your opinion on the matter.

The name might be more obscure but that doesn't mean the game has to be.
...
The name [EB] is more obscure than "Rome: Total War". "The Indies:Total War" is not obscure in anything like the same way.

Well, if the name is obscure, the game will be too. Just like any Lacrosse videogame, even with the most amazing graphics, AI and controls, would be obscure - until the sport itself became mainstream/popular, that is.

Although sticking the familiar ": Total War" ending onto a title will make it more recognisable, it will still look 'weirder', if you like, than one about the Roman Empire or the Medieval period.

How did Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon become such a success? In the West, it was sold as much on its SFX as its context but, following its success, the market for Asian movies of a similar style exploded.

Exactly: it's about seeing people fly around with swords, not about the story so much. Just like many people watch The Matrix for the fight scenes, not the story (which is actually really good, although 2 & 3 overdid it in my opinion - but that's neither here nor there). And the explosion in similar films would also have been to see fight scenes, rather than for deep, complicated plots.

Moreover, Samurai, Ninjas etc. (i.e. Medieval China/Japan) are another part of history that has been romanticised by us, and so are another safe bet. I think that sort of thing was covered in Shogun, proving my point that it is relatively mainstream and there is enough interest in it, if you include enough Samurai. Medieval India/Malaysia etc., whilst equally interesting from a purely historical point of view, don't have the same broad, mainstream appeal that Samurai, Knights in shining armour and Legionnaries do.

Incidentally, apart from the periods in history already covered by the Total War series and the Napoleonic wars (and the American War of Independence and Civil War), other iconic ones are probably ancient Greece, especially Sparta in terms of war (although Greece was in RTW and there's a console game about a Spartan, although I haven't played it); ancient Egypt (although it's not really famous for its soldiers and I don't know how many proper factions could be made at that time) and the two World Wars, especially World War Two.

Could that be because the Ukraine wasn't at its brighest or best in 1384?

Well, when was England "at its best"? When its empire was at its largest? There is huge anti-slave trade feeling at the moment in Britain, so I doubt people would want a game about colonizing Africa, India etc. and/or keeping them under control (although no-one has any worries about doing it as the Romans, but there you go).

And anyway, my point was that an iconic period in history can be more important in selling a game than having it based around your own country.

1787 is part of a rubbish era but 1797 or 1807 are the bomb?

I'd just plucked that date out of thin air, but yes, I do think that the Napoleonic period in history is a very famous - indeed, iconic - one. And the dates aren't important: what's important is that Napoleon is more famous than whatever was happening in 1787. Besides, using your argument, the period 1909-1913 is just as famous as 1914-1918 and just as interesting. Well, obviously, '14-'18 is much more well-known and studied, and a lot of stuff can happen over the course of a few years.

And I do think periods like the Dark Ages, the period between the Medieval period and the Napoleonic one and the 19th Century after Napoleon don't have much mainstream appeal.

Are you sure most people played as one of the Roman factions? You may be right but I'd like to see concrete evidence.

Well, when I first bought Rome: Total War, I wanted to play as a Roman faction - didn't you? I can't give you "concrete evidence" as I'm not going to go around surveying people or getting together test subjects - I'm just posting in a forum here, not writing a thesis.

The Roman factions are the only ones you can play to begin with.

Well, CA didn't do that by accident - they probably did it because most people would want to play as Rome and because they'd spent the most time on the Romans, again, because people would be most interested in them. Again, even if all playable factions were available from the start, would you really have picked Dacia for your first ever game?

Roman citizenship was not the preserve of those born in Rome or Italy: in later years, you could be born in modern Britain/France/Spain/N.Africa/etc and still be a Roman.

So what? None of those people think of themselves as Romans - not even Italians do, I would imagine - so nobody can really associate themselves directly with the Roman Empire, and yet it's still very popular. This is probably because it was the one that 'conquered all the other countries' and was the 'winner' and had a big empire and soldiers with red shields and provided the basis for most European languages and introduced high-quality roads, bath houses and many other things to most of Europe.

[Odin]

You'd be out of a pint ;)

Cool.

For all you newer poster here Im going to do something that you will rarely see on the org boards.

I was wrong

good luck with figuring it out, Im out of this convo.

[Fate]

I personally would love to see something set between the late 18 and 19th centuries, but not neccessarily being napoleonic.

I'd love to see something involving the british and the east india company in india, fighting the mahratta princes, or maybe the scramble for provinces in the carribean. Both of these would be heavily reliant on Naval warfare though.

One concept which could include the musketry aspect of such warfare would be an African total war game, following a simlar vein to Zulu:TW.
There would still be nations (africans) armed with mellee weapons, but then you could also have firearm based nations, such as Britain, Portugal, The Boers and the Dutch. This wouldnt be as heavily reliant on naval warefare so it could potentially stick to the same current engine.

An american civil war game would be good, but only two sides, it'd be better if it were released in an Alexander vein, as an add on.

Though ultimately, all of these are are digressions from a NTW game, which really would be bloody awesome. Though the main problem regarding this is the naval warefare aspect. Mind you, Imperial glory pulled the naval warefare off okay, and even the battles, its just a shame about the lack of routing, and withdrawing from melee.

My vote goes with a NTW sequel, with a kingdoms stlye expansion, covering the british in India, Africa, the Carribean, and an american civil war, or perhaps an american war of independence scenario.

[diotavelli]

The Roman Empire is still more famous, though.

Um, I don't mean to criticise, I Am Herenow, but it would be useful if you could try to distinguish when you're giving your opinion and when you're stating fact. Because I'm not sure you're correct that the Roman Empire is more famous than the Indies. If you add the populations of China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand, you have half the world's population. Just those nine countries. Add their neighbours and you have the largest video games market in the world.

And they learn about the history of their area at school. Some may learn about Rome but it is the equivalent of Western kids learning about medieval Asia. Did you mean: "The Roman Empire is still more famous in the West, though"?

My point is still valid: the Roman Empire was so influential and important at that time that people later referred to the whole time period as 'Roman Times'. Nobody calls them 'Dacian Times' - and, on a similar note, nobody calls the Medieval period 'French Times' or something, because there was no one dominating power at the time - in Europe, at least; M2 is famous because of the period, not because of any one country.

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, the Roman era is famous because of the Romans - but your argument was that no one would want to play a game about the Indies because no one had heard of the Indies. This isn't true and is also misleading because it ignores many of the reasons people might choose to buy/play a game.

Well, what's wrong with that? This thread does have "Opinion" written next to it. Besides, most of what people - including you - have written here has been their opinion. The very question 'What would you like the next Total War game to be?' asks for your opinion on the matter.

Of course you're entitled to express your opinion - and I didn't criticise you for that: I merely pointed out that "medieval India belong[s] in a mod" was opinion not fact and it may sense to make the distinction. The reason I did that was because you seemed to offer an argument against having an Indies TW title because mods tended to be for the hardcore and would drive away casual gamers. If it was fact that only a mod-style Indies title was possible, you'd have a point - but it isn't a fact, only your opinion.

I hope that, when I'm posting here, I make clear when I'm guessing and when I'm talking with the facts behind me - because then people know and make the distinction for themselves. I'm only asking you do the same.

Well, if the name is obscure, the game will be too. Just like any Lacrosse videogame, even with the most amazing graphics, AI and controls, would be obscure - until the sport itself became mainstream/popular, that is.

Although sticking the familiar ": Total War" ending onto a title will make it more recognisable, it will still look 'weirder', if you like, than one about the Roman Empire or the Medieval period.

1. I said the name "might be more obscure", not that the "name is obscure".
2. It doesn't logically follow that "if the name is obscure, the game will be too".
3. Your analogy with lacrosse doesn't get any better with re-use! You can't compare a little-known minority sport with an area of the world with a rich history that is well-known the majority of the world's population. That history may not be well-known to you but you are in a shrinking minority.
4. An Asian TW title might look "weirder" to you but your assumptions about what is "mainstream/popular" do seem to have a huge bias and to ignore the facts about the majority of the global games market.

Exactly: it's about seeing people fly around with swords, not about the story so much. Just like many people watch The Matrix for the fight scenes, not the story (which is actually really good, although 2 & 3 overdid it in my opinion - but that's neither here nor there). And the explosion in similar films would also have been to see fight scenes, rather than for deep, complicated plots.

No, I can assure you that lots of people are watching more Chinese cinema that doesn't have fight scenes but who got into Chinese film having seen CT,HD first. Familiarity with the actors, directors, etc increases as more films are watched and the reasons for watching them may change.

Moreover, Samurai, Ninjas etc. (i.e. Medieval China/Japan) are another part of history that has been romanticised by us, and so are another safe bet. I think that sort of thing was covered in Shogun, proving my point that it is relatively mainstream and there is enough interest in it, if you include enough Samurai. Medieval India/Malaysia etc., whilst equally interesting from a purely historical point of view, don't have the same broad, mainstream appeal that Samurai, Knights in shining armour and Legionnaries do.

By "us", you mean those living in Europe and the US, I assume (forgive me if I'm wrong here). You may feel that the Indies don't have "broad, mainstream appeal" but that's parochial in the extreme, given the demographics of the global gaming community. Start to drop a few names, such as Taj Mahal, Angkor Wat, the Khmer, the Spice Islands and so on and even the mainstream Western market will quickly work out what you're talking about.

Incidentally, apart from the periods in history already covered by the Total War series and the Napoleonic wars (and the American War of Independence and Civil War), other iconic ones are probably ancient Greece, especially Sparta in terms of war (although Greece was in RTW and there's a console game about a Spartan, although I haven't played it); ancient Egypt (although it's not really famous for its soldiers and I don't know how many proper factions could be made at that time) and the two World Wars, especially World War Two.

Again, your idea of what constitutes "iconic" does seem to be very limited and may not be one that the majority of the world's population would share.

Well, when was England "at its best"? When its empire was at its largest? There is huge anti-slave trade feeling at the moment in Britain, so I doubt people would want a game about colonizing Africa, India etc. and/or keeping them under control (although no-one has any worries about doing it as the Romans, but there you go).

And anyway, my point was that an iconic period in history can be more important in selling a game than having it based around your own country.

And my point wasn't a dig at Ukraine. You had said that you didn't care what happened in your country that year and wouldn't want a game about it. But if 1384 had been an amazing year in Ukraine, not only would you know about it, you'd probably be genuinely excited at the prospect of a game about it.

This is relevant because people in SE Asia will know that the medieval period in their area was exciting and interesting and they're likely to be keen on a game about it - mainly because it will be interesting but the regional link will be a bonus.

I'd just plucked that date out of thin air, but yes, I do think that the Napoleonic period in history is a very famous - indeed, iconic - one. And the dates aren't important: what's important is that Napoleon is more famous than whatever was happening in 1787. Besides, using your argument, the period 1909-1913 is just as famous as 1914-1918 and just as interesting. Well, obviously, '14-'18 is much more well-known and studied, and a lot of stuff can happen over the course of a few years.

No, my argument was that it was daft to claim that Brits/Americans wouldn't know what was happening in 1787 but would rush to buy a Napoleonic title. If you're genunely interested in an era, you'll know its history (including the years immediately preceding it); if you're only casually interested, you won't know this stuff but you're also far less likely to buy a game based on it. You can't have it both ways: Napoleonic is iconic and people are really into it but they may not know much about it - they're either into it or not.

And I do think periods like the Dark Ages, the period between the Medieval period and the Napoleonic one and the 19th Century after Napoleon don't have much mainstream appeal.

Damn! You should have told CA about the Dark Ages before they went and released Barbarian Invasion. Of course, no on bought that title, did they? And no one bought Viking Invasion, either. No, the Dark Ages don't have mainstream appeal....

Well, when I first bought Rome: Total War, I wanted to play as a Roman faction - didn't you? I can't give you "concrete evidence" as I'm not going to go around surveying people or getting together test subjects - I'm just posting in a forum here, not writing a thesis.

I wanted to play as a Roman faction but not as much as I wanted to play as Greece. There you go. I wouldn't want to make arguments based on what other people like without having the facts.

You may not be writing a thesis but its always best to acknowledge when you're making an argument from conjecture and when you have facts to back you up. A number of people took me to task for claiming that the Asia-Pacific games market was the biggest - so I got the facts to prove it. It makes a difference because otherwise I could just be talking out of my ****.

Well, CA didn't do that by accident - they probably did it because most people would want to play as Rome and because they'd spent the most time on the Romans, again, because people would be most interested in them. Again, even if all playable factions were available from the start, would you really have picked Dacia for your first ever game?

No, but Dacia is an unrepresentative example, IMO. Not many people would feel any association with them. The Gauls, Greeks, Carthaginians and Britons would be an entirely different kettle of fish - I suspect a few people would play them ahead of the Romans.

So what? None of those people think of themselves as Romans - not even Italians do, I would imagine - so nobody can really associate themselves directly with the Roman Empire, and yet it's still very popular. This is probably because it was the one that 'conquered all the other countries' and was the 'winner' and had a big empire and soldiers with red shields and provided the basis for most European languages and introduced high-quality roads, bath houses and many other things to most of Europe.

My point was that you couldn't conclude anything from the number of Italian/Rome-based players, as they had no more reason to associate themselves with the Roman Empire than anyone else in Europe.

You're absolutely correct about the reasons why many people would want to play as the Romans. But, as you've said, there is no equivalent to the Romans in M2TW and yet it has sold well and been popular. So the fact that there would be no direct equivalent to the Romans in an Indies TW is irrelevant (although the Chinese could accurately hold a very similar position).

You said: "people like to play as themselves, but it's more important if they recognise who they are playing as". I disagree. It's important to have some idea what the game's about and you may start off playing as a familiar faction. But check on these boards the number of people who've started playing as a faction they knew nothing about and quickly grown to love: it could be that the faction fits their playing style or they like the animations/starting position/challenge. And that can happen in an Indies TW.

I'm not suggesting that Napoleonic, early US or any other period of history are dull or uninteresting. My opinion is that the Indies:TW would make a good game but my opinion counts for no more than yours on this subject.

But if it's anyone's opinion that SE Asian history is niche, uninteresting, unvaried or obscure, then their opinion is wrong. Sorry - no offense intended but that is the way it is: there are more of them (Asians) than there are of us (um, anyone else!), they buy more video games and their history is just as rich and worth knowing as ours.

[I Am Herenow]

But if it's anyone's opinion that SE Asian history is niche, uninteresting, unvaried or obscure, then their opinion is wrong. Sorry - no offense intended but that is the way it is: there are more of them (Asians) than there are of us (um, anyone else!), they buy more video games and their history is just as rich and worth knowing as ours.

1) I never said the history of Asia, or anywhere else, was uninteresting.

2) Nor did I say it wasn't worth knowing.

However, I'm talking about making a videogame - which is primarily designed to entertain - not reading a book on history, which one might do if one is interested in history in general.

As for the rest of your argument (sorry, I don't want to do 20 quotes again, but you'll know what I'm talking about), the bottom line is:

If you were head of CA/Sega and had to decide on the next TW title, putting your money into the project, would you go for Indies: Total War? Bearing in mind that it wouldn't just be for yourself because you find that region and period in history interesting - but you'd have to actually shift units and sell more than CIV 5, Fifa 2008 or whatever other stuff would be on the shelves.

Next, what exactly is this region famous for? I'll have to admit that I don't know much about its history in the Middle Ages, so you'll have to enlighten me. What factions would you have? What were the interesting troops? If the region was mainly noted for economic/social development, how would this translate into game features?

Would this game just be M2 with different factions and a different map (basically, the same thing a mod can do)? If not, what would be the major differences? What specific features (other than better graphics, "Get Off My Land" Diplomacy option etc.) would sell this specific area and this specific period in time - not only to Asia, but to the US and Europe? Or would the game, in fact, be aimed only at the Asian market? If so, would it really be able to compete with CIV, RON, AOE etc.?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

After a NTW,RTW2,and STW2, what else can they make really..

[Cuchulin]

I would love to see a TW based on Old Testament Israel during the time of David up to the Persian and Greek Conquests.

[Sheogorath]

Just a quick FYI, since I see a lot of this being thrown around...

Most Napoleonic combat WAS melee based, typically only one or two volleys of musket fire would be followed up by a charge at the enemy, simply because muskets were so innacurate at any kind of range that a prolonged musket duel was a waste of ammunition.
I believe that the Napoleonic: Total War mod forums stated somewhere that during the Battle of Borodino something like one hundred shots were fired for every casualty inflicted via musket fire.
The goal of musket fire was to cause the enemy to break and flee, not to wipe them out. That was what cavalry, the bayonette and artillery were for.

Of course, CA'll probobly change that, but the NTW mod was quite fun, even with its emphasis on ranged combat. I think CA could do quite well for themselves if they did it right, which would no doubt mean not sticking to history too closely, of course.

[rvg]

At this point the series has enough recognition that CA can develop Tasmania: Total War and people will still buy it.

[Fate]

Just a quick FYI, since I see a lot of this being thrown around...

Most Napoleonic combat WAS melee based, typically only one or two volleys of musket fire would be followed up by a charge at the enemy, simply because muskets were so innacurate at any kind of range that a prolonged musket duel was a waste of ammunition.
I believe that the Napoleonic: Total War mod forums stated somewhere that during the Battle of Borodino something like one hundred shots were fired for every casualty inflicted via musket fire.
The goal of musket fire was to cause the enemy to break and flee, not to wipe them out. That was what cavalry, the bayonette and artillery were for.

Of course, CA'll probobly change that, but the NTW mod was quite fun, even with its emphasis on ranged combat. I think CA could do quite well for themselves if they did it right, which would no doubt mean not sticking to history too closely, of course.

Agreed Sheogorath, and a fine point it is. However, in many cases, troops of the period (british particuarly) were trained brutally in the use of musketry. Which makes sense, with it being the prime weapon of the time, that and the bayonet.
However, CA would almost certainly emphasise the use of musketry if they went on to create NTW. It wouldnt be like RTW where there would be large amounts of troops that all use the same weapon (the sword being the prime example). There simply wouldnt be enough variety.
Some troops in particular were used for the charge whilst others would be used to fire volleys from the line; eg. Grenadiers for the charge, basic line redcoats for volley fire.

My point being, large amounts of the game would be based around the musket, least of all because it would be the new toy for the CA and TW players. Undoubtedly, they would try and press this.

[I Am Herenow]

Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!

Is that a spoof of Henry V?

BTW, you're right, if NTW was released, you certainly wouldn't get 1% accuracy with muskets!

[The Spartan (Returns)]

A really good Total War would be just called Earth: Total War

You pick a continent, select a time period, (optional) choose a specific war, choose a faction, and you're off!!!

[Shieldmaiden]

A really good Total War would be just called Earth: Total War

You pick a continent, select a time period, (optional) choose a specific war, choose a faction, and you're off!!!

Most realistic demand EVAR!

I'd be happy with a Shogun 2, or at least Asia Total War

Or if CA went fantasy - It would be interesting to see a semi-historical and mythological spin on it, rather than "traditional fantasy". Think Age of Mythology not Warcraft.

[Mithrandir]

I'll be reading this thread tomorrow when I have the time to see if everyone plays nice and if there's a need for the new dramaqueen smiley, or maybe some more drastic measures...

[Sheogorath]

Agreed Sheogorath, and a fine point it is. However, in many cases, troops of the period (british particuarly) were trained brutally in the use of musketry. Which makes sense, with it being the prime weapon of the time, that and the bayonet.
However, CA would almost certainly emphasise the use of musketry if they went on to create NTW. It wouldnt be like RTW where there would be large amounts of troops that all use the same weapon (the sword being the prime example). There simply wouldnt be enough variety.
Some troops in particular were used for the charge whilst others would be used to fire volleys from the line; eg. Grenadiers for the charge, basic line redcoats for volley fire.

My point being, large amounts of the game would be based around the musket, least of all because it would be the new toy for the CA and TW players. Undoubtedly, they would try and press this.

True grenadiers would be BETTER at charging, simply because they were selected from the largest and strongest men amoungst various line regiments. But, in my opinion at least, musketry depended far more upon the nation from which the troops came.
The Russians for instance, lived (and died) by Suvurov's "Bullet is an idiot, bayonete is a fine chap" doctrine, so much so that only a very few Russian commanders even bothered training their troops to AIM their muskets.
The British, as mentioned, placed more emphasis on accuracy, considering that their army was the smallest of the Great Powers in any case (its hard to maintain a large army AND over 200 ships of the line.)
Of course, the British lacked the famous Russian obstinance when it came to standing under fire. And, I believe, the only records of regular line infantry charging cavalry come from Russia :P

CA would also need to revise the resource system a bit, that or make unit sizes different between factions. Russia and France had FAR larger armies than any other nation, Russia's came to some 800,000 by the end of the Wars, with France at over a million. Third place was Austria with some 500,000 at most, followed by Prussia and the UK.

Basically CA would need to depart from their 'standerdized units' deal and make pretty much everything different, even though a six pound cannon was a six pound cannon, the French had better training than pretty much anybody (Napoleon was an artillery officer before he became Emperor), except perhaps the Russians >_>

[IrishArmenian]

I'd be happy with a Shogun 2, or at least Asia Total War

Or if CA went fantasy - It would be interesting to see a semi-historical and mythological spin on it, rather than "traditional fantasy". Think Age of Mythology not Warcraft.

I agree completley, SM.