sick of europe

[SwordsMaster]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Wandering Scholar]

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

[caravel]

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

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

[SwordsMaster]

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

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

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

[Red Spot]

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

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

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


G

[caravel]

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

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

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

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

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

[SwordsMaster]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Derfasciti]

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

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

[PBI]

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

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

[Sahran]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Wandering Scholar]

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

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

[Mikeus Caesar]

What part of the world has never seen war?

Antarctica?

[The Wandering Scholar]

Nations have battled over it though if not on it.

[Furious Mental]

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

[The Wandering Scholar]

Bully boys?

[SwordsMaster]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it wasn't for lack of trying.

[seireikhaan]

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

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

[Starance Quintus]

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

[Csargo]

Fix'd.

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

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

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

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I only hope if CA decide to make a STW2 sometime it doesn't turn out a SiNO.
.

[Furious Mental]

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

[Starance Quintus]

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

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

[seireikhaan]

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

Dude...I don't think he was dissing Britain. You're arguing against nobody here. Although I'd state you're oversimplifying the situation in India, but I digress...

[rajpoot]

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

Yeah right :P

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

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


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

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

[TosaInu]

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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

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

Wholeheartedly agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Furious Mental]

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

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

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

[diotavelli]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a thread where people are posting comments such as:

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

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

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

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

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

On topic

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

[diotavelli]

Hello diotavelli,

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

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

TosaInu,

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

That is beside the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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