sick of europe

[Vuk]

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

[Rodion Romanovich]

[IrishArmenian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

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]

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.

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).

[Vuk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Agathyrsus]

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]

"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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.