The next game in the total war series?

[lionhard]

Does any 1 know what its gonna be? Im gonna have an orgasm if its rome 2 total war. I want peoples opinion on what iv just found.

Check this link out and look where it says rome total war. The dates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War_(series)

Edit : DAMN IT i just read it properly and its sum stupid mac gold release that came out this year. i thought it was gona be rome 2 total war. FS im not happy

[Apázlinemjó]

Does any 1 know what its gonna be? Im gonna have an orgasm if its rome 2 total war. I want peoples opinion on what iv just found.

Check this link out and look where it says rome total war. The dates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War_(series)


Edit : DAMN IT i just read it properly and its sum stupid mac gold release that came out this year. i thought it was gona be rome 2 total war. FS im not happy

I wonder what will be their next game... maybe a second Shogun or an ETW expansion?

[Duguntz]

Another shogun would be truly awesome, seeing the progress that have been made in the serie since the first!

[HunGeneral]

I tihink I would like to see a Rome 2 total war - but more modeable then N:TW so it can be used as a basis for EB III.

[Duguntz]

EB 2 isn't even close to be out on BETA and you already speak about a EB 3? maybe when gaming will be on hologram, and no more car will be used, coz we'll use teletransportation!

[lionhard]

:daisy: shogun off, rome 2 all the way. How come EB 2 has taken so long comparesant to EB 1? just a random question their for ya

[Mediolanicus]

:daisy: shogun off, rome 2 all the way. How come EB 2 has taken so long comparesant to EB 1? just a random question their for ya

Gangstah language... cute...

AFAIK EB to its final version took 4 years...

And MTW2 is only 3 years out + there's more units to be modelled since the clone units of RTW are no more, there seems to be even more research on EB II and I don't know for sure, but it seems the team is smaller (at least the modellers and stuff).

[vartan]

If CA spends time and energy making a new Rome, I wish for it to take an open-ended approach. That is, I wouldn't want to play a half-effort game, like NTW. I would like something that is very open to modification as well as something that has many years of effort in it, just like EB and EBII.

P.S. Lionhard if you're going to curse, please censor the whole word and not part of the word. Forum rules.

[Duguntz]

P.S. Lionhard if you're going to curse, please censor the whole word and not part of the word. Forum rules.

Don't worry, he ment... Flower...

[Mediolanicus]

Don't worry, he ment... Flower...

I personally think that particular forum rule is flower, but if you flower just for the sake of flowering to look cool, like he seems to be doing, I find that (and I'm completely at loss for the right English word here, it's late and I don't want to think about it, so find your own word that fits here and means that I get irritated, find it childish and things like that).

Back on topic: I don't care what time period the next TW-game is about, as long as the gameplay and modding possibilities are better than ETW and NTW.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

I would love either Dark Ages TW or Nomad TW....

[Mediolanicus]

I would love either Dark Ages TW or Nomad TW....

That's actually a good idea... I'd buy them.

[Tellos Athenaios]

When in doubt, use a daisy: :daisy: It is Backroom convention and works well enough.

Anyway why does it take so long...? How long have we yet been at it? A year, two if you count some pre-production planning? I do know it took spare time from me for about 6 months all in all to get a reasonably solid font tool done, so we can now finally mod fonts in TW games. I also know I did not work exactly 9 to 5 on it 5 days a week, either. Granted it probably would've been done sooner if I had been content to do a more straightforward system font -> game font converter; but now we can do stuff you simply didn't see in M2TW with it. It's that kind of attitude which slows us down yet produces ultimately a better result if you don't consider ETA's all that important.

[bobbin]

:daisy: shogun off, rome 2 all the way. How come EB 2 has taken so long comparesant to EB 1? just a random question their for ya

More factions, more researching, more units, far more skinning work, more complex game mechanics and the fact that many people were still working on EB in the early days. Take your pick.

Re: the OP I'd say RTW2 would be the obvious choice as it was one of their most sucessful games.

edit: looks like Tellos beat me to it

[lionhard]

Ok lets go off topic to talk about flowers real cool guys real fricken cool.

If they make a rome 2 they beta make it more realistic, they must have been inspired by what u guys did with EB, i cant belive they havnt announced nothing yet because before every other game has been out theve announced the next in line. If its shogun im gonna see my ****

[vartan]

Ok lets go off topic to talk about flowers real cool guys real fricken cool.

If they make a rome 2 they beta make it more realistic, they must have been inspired by what u guys did with EB, i cant belive they havnt announced nothing yet because before every other game has been out theve announced the next in line. If its shogun im gonna see my ****
I'd much rather discuss English grammar and vocabulary usage, since it is clearly far more interesting a topic to discuss.

[A Nerd]

Some might be dissapointd in a STW2 that uses the new campaign map like everything after MTW considering how well those games worked and how some think they were the best in the series. Personally, I would like pretty much anything because I have enjoyed all of the titles. I just hope it's more moddable, especially after playing some of the talented mods out there.

[WinsingtonIII]

My guess is that they'll go for Rome 2: Total War. It was an extremely popular title and probably the most popular historical time period they've ever done. I also believe that if they do make a Rome 2: Total War, it will be much more historically accurate than the first Rome. Not up to EB standards, to be sure, but definitely better than the original Rome; because that was the low point for the series in terms of historical accuracy and they actually do seem to be making much more of an effort towards historical accuracy in Napoleon.

As for what I'd most like to see, it wouldn't be Rome 2. EB2 will already fill that niche fine for me. I would love to see a Dark Age: Total War, like Hannibal Khan said. They've never really done that time period, other than Viking Invasion, and that was only of Scandinavia and the British Isles. A full Europe/Middle East campaign in this period could be very interesting.

[stratigos vasilios]

I would be curious to see if an Americas TW would work, ie. pre European contact. But I'm not sure how much literature is available to really make an accurate game. Also what's everyones thoughts on an Indian TW, each kingdom vying for power with elephants being more readily available weapons!

[Unintended BM]

I think they'll probably stick with gunpowder and do the American Civil War or something. That's my guess. I doubt they'd go back to ancient times yet.

[vartan]

I think they'll probably stick with gunpowder and do the American Civil War or something. That's my guess. I doubt they'd go back to ancient times yet.
Precisely. They're headed down a slippery slope straight toward WWII, Korea, Vietnam...

[Krusader]

E3 is on the 15th to 17th June so I'm sure we'll be told the next Total War then.

Personally the only Total War titles I'm looking forward to is Shogun and Medieval 1 on gog.com.
And EB2 is latest EB. No EB3.

[Cute Wolf]

Shogun 2 will be good, I can't wait to see my samurai archers and Teppo collect many ashigaru heads in better 3D!

BTW : Very much true, vanilla Empire is a :daisy: junk and pretty much worthless.... but Napoleon is far better than the Empire.... especially Napoleon is far more balanced...

[Badass Buddha]

A traditional Total War game set during the Second Industrial Age or later would be impossible, due to scale, and the changing face of warfare. It already takes a heavy suspension of disbelief to play an ancient army no larger than 4800 men, and when you start talking about single armies of many hundreds of thousands being shrunk to the size a brigade, things get ridiculous. Even if the armies were shrunk, the battlefields would have to be immense to take into account artillery even from a relatively short 10 miles away. How would the mechanics for air strikes work? There would need to be mechanics for choosing an area and fortifying it. No one has a computer strong enough to do all that yet.

Also, they'd probably whitewash the hell out of the more recent stuff, like removing all the swastikas from German uniforms or some such crap.

[Ibrahim]

A traditional Total War game set during the Second Industrial Age or later would be impossible, due to scale, and the changing face of warfare. It already takes a heavy suspension of disbelief to play an ancient army no larger than 4800 men, and when you start talking about single armies of many hundreds of thousands being shrunk to the size a brigade, things get ridiculous. Even if the armies were shrunk, the battlefields would have to be immense to take into account artillery even from a relatively short 10 miles away. How would the mechanics for air strikes work? There would need to be mechanics for choosing an area and fortifying it. No one has a computer strong enough to do all that yet.

Also, they'd probably whitewash the hell out of the more recent stuff, like removing all the swastikas from German uniforms or some such crap.

simple: they won't.

WW1 and WW2 era battles can only be the preserve of either purely RTS* or TBS. a hybrid of the two, like the total war series, isn't a good design for this. Ironically, WW1 is theoretically even harder to do than WW2, because of the need to represent hundreds of miles of trenches and fortifications in one go (afterall, fighting was pretty much along the whole front, 24/7). this would break all but the supercomputer to do. at least in WW2's case, you can make the multiple mini army approach represent a WW2 offensive, but again, we run into the problem of scale. plus, in both wars, soldiers no longer went into the fray with formal close order groups, which furthur adds to the problem.

as in the style of thousands of little sprites, like AoE or American Conquest, both of which i still, on occasion, play.

[Duguntz]

I for my part, would be really interested in a TW game on the time of emerging civilisations. we speak about 4000 BC and onward. Faction like Akkad, Sumer, Egypt, even Minoan (though they're younger than the 3 previous). I'd go even further in time, like Neolithic, but then, scale would be a big problem. But to me the emergence of civilisation is a really interesting period!

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hmm CA might just do an All Under Heaven. It ticks all the boxes: similar yet varied factions, a fascinating timeline, exotic factions and possibility for civil war. As far as the military go you have the mix of gunpowder units, very different battleships; and a more traditional army with the complete tactical array of shock troops to militia, plus some more exotic units depending on how inclusive the map is. By contrast a Rome 2 Total War cannot offer quite the same number of graphical/tactical `selling' points .

Otherwise a Warring States game. Of course Rome 2 Total War is also possible, but SEGA did just allow the release of Rome Total War on Mac which may not be the best moment for announcing a Rome 2.

Yes there are some quite amazing exceptions. Just that they are/were somewhat more limited in scope and hence not as readily available on a battlefield. :shrug:

[Skullheadhq]

Let's hope that the next TW won't be the American Civil War, but one that players from around the world know something about and is interesting for all.

[Duguntz]

It's funny to see how so many people claims that their country is filled with unprecedented glory and history, even more when nobody knows about it, they claim that they've been forgoten by historian, but when it comes to America they couldn't care less! Makes me laugh...

[Mulceber]

Let's hope that the next TW won't be the American Civil War, but one that players from around the world know something about and is interesting for all.

Yeah, besides, CA wouldn't create a game in which Total War actually WAS practiced. That would break the rules.:dizzy2: :clown:

[lionhard]

Let's hope that the next TW won't be the American Civil War, but one that players from around the world know something about and is interesting for all.

Im with ya their.

Lets hope its rome 2, its 1 of the few games i can actually play on a daily basis

[ziegenpeter]

Also, they'd probably whitewash the hell out of the more recent stuff, like removing all the swastikas from German uniforms or some such crap.
You mean "some such:daisy:" :laugh4:

@Topic: Well I guess they already showed that they are not afraid of an using the same time period with mtw2, and I think rtw2 is a good guess. But I wonder were the TW game after that or the add-on would go. Since the next game(rtw2) would be "revolution" and the one after that "evolution". They wouldn't recycle BI.

Another guess would be "RenaissanceTW" with the possibility of "30 years of total war" as successor.

[antisocialmunky]

Hopefully Not-Suck-On-Release:Total War.

[Skullheadhq]

Hopefully Not-Suck-On-Release:Total War.

I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you...
Whatever the new TW is, I won't be buying it before the third patch.

[Cute Wolf]

I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you...
Whatever the new TW is, I won't be buying it before the third patch.

pretty much true for the empire... even they are still suck until now...

and false for Napoleon....

[Brennus]

One problem that no one seems to have raised so far with a TW set in the 20th Century is how on earth you include aircraft. IMHO I would love to see a Dark Age total War 476AD-1084AD with a map on the same scale as EB or Imperial Total War, set in the 19th Century, purely for the sake of fighting with pre-dreadnoughts.

[WinsingtonIII]

Let's hope that the next TW won't be the American Civil War, but one that players from around the world know something about and is interesting for all.

If they do this time period, I doubt it would only cover the American Civil War (keep in mind that would mean two playable factions total...). You could have a variety of smaller campaigns in this time period, including the American Civil War, The Crimean War, The Franco-Prussian War, maybe even the Austro-Prussian War (or perhaps a German unification campaign in general); or a South African campaign focusing on the Anglo-Zulu War and the subsequent Boer Wars. This is why, in my opinion, if they do this period, it will be a "Kingdoms" type expansion to Napoleon, not a full-fledged game.

[seriousbusiness]

I would be satisfied with a 19th century TW. An era of colonisation and progress, punctuated by a couple of wars that threatened to become very serious (eg. German/Italian unifications, 1848 revolutions, US civil war - which was really bloody, Franco-Prussian war, Crimean). Making the most of Britain's hegenomy and the uneasy peace.

I'd also like a 16th-17th century renaissance/reformation one, covering the Spanish/habsburg hegenomy and some of the craziness that meant (incl 30th years war, Dutch revolt, Louis XIV, Ottoman wars, expanding trade etc etc)

WW1 would be good but tricky to pull off. It was in fact the first genuinely 'total' war (although the revolutionary, napoleonic, crimean and US civil wars all had some similar features). I would rather some delay in producing it. It would be much better on more advanced future hardware IMO to get the full feeling of just how grotesque and godawful the whole thing was

A dark age/Charlemagne/Byzantine/early medieval total war would be great. That period has been sorely overlooked so far.

Lastly, but not least, Rome II would be hugely welcome, I am sure :laugh4: (provided it is easily moddable! that's what makes the TW series truly great!)

[Brennus]

How about... now bear with me. Legionary: Total Warrior.

You, a young lad of recruitable age, follow through the career path of a Roman legionary in one of the periods of Roman history. As you go along you need to make careful choices about your career path and depending on what you do depends affects you end up in the Legion, either as a Centurion in the infantry, a cavalryman, part of the artillery team or dead. Unlike Spartan Total Warrior the game would be historically accurate and would require you to perfect the everyday routines and combat skills of a legionary. Depending on when the game is set alters the ending of the game. For example if it is set in the Second Punic Wars the game ends with you victorious as Cannae or if it is set during the reign of Trajan you finish the game in Dacia.

How does that sound?

[Cute Wolf]

How about... now bear with me. Legionary: Total Warrior.

You, a young lad of recruitable age, follow through the career path of a Roman legionary in one of the periods of Roman history. As you go along you need to make careful choices about your career path and depending on what you do depends affects you end up in the Legion, either as a Centurion in the infantry, a cavalryman, part of the artillery team or dead. Unlike Spartan Total Warrior the game would be historically accurate and would require you to perfect the everyday routines and combat skills of a legionary. Depending on when the game is set alters the ending of the game. For example if it is set in the Second Punic Wars the game ends with you victorious as Cannae or if it is set during the reign of Trajan you finish the game in Dacia.

How does that sound?

Sounds good, but it will be better in late republic if you start as young patrician eqvites first, you can try to got popular support by down to earth, dismounting when in a battle, fought shoulders to shoulders with your comrades, and end up being a popular general, or fed up your honour, fought at the horseback, promoted to command ranks, and grows to be feared leader, that planned all the fight behind his desks, and leave the dirty jobs to your lesser men...

[Fluvius Camillus]

Sounds good, but it will be better in late republic if you start as young patrician eqvites first, you can try to got popular support by down to earth, dismounting when in a battle, fought shoulders to shoulders with your comrades, and end up being a popular general, or fed up your honour, fought at the horseback, promoted to command ranks, and grows to be feared leader, that planned all the fight behind his desks, and leave the dirty jobs to your lesser men...

What about the crisis of the third century? You could support the ruling emperor or decide to try your luck with a self-proclaimed emperor.

~Fluvius

[Badass Buddha]

It's funny to see how so many people claims that their country is filled with unprecedented glory and history, even more when nobody knows about it, they claim that they've been forgoten by historian, but when it comes to America they couldn't care less! Makes me laugh...

That's because compared to all of you Eurasians, we've barely done anything, and what we have done usually isn't nearly as cool. Deep down, we're all ashamed, so we try to make ourselves feel better and cover our feelings of inadequacy by yelling "'MER'CA, :daisy: YEAH!" and making stuff up.

Concerning the US Civil War, I wouldn't even give it an expansion pack, because if it had been competently waged by the north early on, it would have been over very quickly, and a skilled player would be able to beat the game as either side in 5 turns by exploiting the other side's weaknesses. (For those of you unfamiliar with the US Civil War, the Union (north) had an advantage in manpower and resources, while the Confederacy (south) had superior officers and soldiers). I can see a game taking place in that rough time period though (Crimean to Franco-Prussian wars).

Concerning the use of air strikes in a Total War game, I think it could be implemented by getting whatever planes you had in waves, each coming at a fixed interval during the battle, and have them do a strafing/bombing/supply run or what have you before leaving.

Concerning a game where you play as a foot soldier, I can only imagine that working as someone in a society where they didn't fight in ranks, because otherwise you'd just be standing there in a line button mashing, which I think would get old very quickly (Unless we cast realism to the winds and do it Dynasty Warriors style).

[Apázlinemjó]

Or a totally new game. Women Total War, the whole game would be about half-nude chicks fighting in the mud.

[vartan]

Or a totally new game. Women Total War, the whole game would be about half-nude chicks fighting in the mud.
That should be one of the poll options.

[Finn MacCumhail]

How about... now bear with me. Legionary: Total Warrior.

You, a young lad of recruitable age, follow through the career path of a Roman legionary in one of the periods of Roman history. As you go along you need to make careful choices about your career path and depending on what you do depends affects you end up in the Legion, either as a Centurion in the infantry, a cavalryman, part of the artillery team or dead. Unlike Spartan Total Warrior the game would be historically accurate and would require you to perfect the everyday routines and combat skills of a legionary. Depending on when the game is set alters the ending of the game. For example if it is set in the Second Punic Wars the game ends with you victorious as Cannae or if it is set during the reign of Trajan you finish the game in Dacia.

How does that sound?

Then you need Mount and Blade and some Roman mod

[coordinator0]

Personally I would like to see a Total War game based in the Far East. Not necessarily a Shogun II Total War game, but one more focused on China and the surrounding areas.

[Ionotkoiamor Not Suelisabmys]

How about one based on Ancient Greece? Perhaps starting at the end of the Persian Wars....ending upon the death of Alexander?

[plutoboyz]

I really hope it was India Total War or Polynesian Total war or Nomad Total War.

[antisocialmunky]

I really hope it was India Total War or Polynesian Total war or Nomad Total War.

Imagine the naval battles!!!!:laugh4:

[plutoboyz]

Imagine the naval battles!!!!:laugh4:

Yeah!

[Skullheadhq]

How about... now bear with me. Legionary: Total Warrior.

You, a young lad of recruitable age, follow through the career path of a Roman legionary in one of the periods of Roman history. As you go along you need to make careful choices about your career path and depending on what you do depends affects you end up in the Legion, either as a Centurion in the infantry, a cavalryman, part of the artillery team or dead. Unlike Spartan Total Warrior the game would be historically accurate and would require you to perfect the everyday routines and combat skills of a legionary. Depending on when the game is set alters the ending of the game. For example if it is set in the Second Punic Wars the game ends with you victorious as Cannae or if it is set during the reign of Trajan you finish the game in Dacia.

How does that sound?

We're still talking about TW, right?

[Badass Buddha]

Three Kingdoms: Total War would kick ass.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

How about Mongol: Total War? (Or maybe to extend its timespan, an Altai: Total War starting with the Huns and ending with Siberia getting conquistador'd by Russia and their gulay-gorods:clown:)

[Paltmull]

Or a totally new game. Women Total War, the whole game would be about half-nude chicks fighting in the mud.

:laugh4:

[antisocialmunky]

How about DLC: Total War?

[Zradha Pahlavan]

World War 1, anyone? Or maybe Assyria Total War?
Those are both historical periods that are sadly neglected...

[Fluvius Camillus]

World War 1, anyone? Or maybe Assyria Total War?
Those are both historical periods that are sadly neglected...

As there has been said earlier, how will you implement the long distance artillery, the trenches and the dawn of war aviation.

U-Boats would be nice though!

~Fluvius

[Zradha Pahlavan]

As there has been said earlier, how will you implement the long distance artillery, the trenches and the dawn of war aviation.

Increase the size of the battlefield and allow trenches to be built on the strategic map like forts? Aircraft as reinforcements?
I don't know, I bet something could be worked out.

[Skullheadhq]

We need a game like Company of Heroes but then WWI, that would actually be a much better platform for it, and why didn't someone else came up with this for a CoH mod :(

[ComteTallaFerroXIV]

What about a Warlords: Total war, about the warlords fighting in china.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Sherman's march to the sea and the Shanandoah Valley's destruction is what I suppose you're talking about?

[WinsingtonIII]

Increase the size of the battlefield and allow trenches to be built on the strategic map like forts? Aircraft as reinforcements?
I don't know, I bet something could be worked out.

It doesn't really matter if something could be worked out if the TW platform simply isn't the right platform for the war, and I really don't think it's the right platform for WWI. Skullhead's right, a more traditional rts like Company of Heroes would simply work better. CoH did a really good job with WWII, the capturing of strategic points made it feel a little less like your traditional rts.

[GenosseGeneral]

CoH is an awesome game. Love the micro-management (making that ONE damned Tiger survive... pls, 57mm, DONT hit it!)
The WWI thing: The only one dealing with it which I know is Empire Earth (in the German campaign). The verdun battle is quite well-made, although its very centered around von Richthofen.

Back to topic:
Looking at the series, I would say that there would be a re-make of Rome or Shogun (TW is now popular enough to do that).
But taking into consideration that they just made into the age of firearms...
hm
17th century?
30 years war
Prussia's and Russia's Rise
France developing from a civil war state to a superpower

on the other hand, this would only be an earlier version of ETW
so also unlikely.

[Cute Wolf]

as far as we talk... we still have no much of Napoleon's moddable... assume CA relase their modding tools, maybe it can be going very2 deep...

[mountaingoat]

sandbox total war ... just have the basic game layout with a world map .. a selection of troops from all regions spanning from x time period ... and leave it fully open to mod .. let the players make their own tw games =P

[vartan]

sandbox total war ... just have the basic game layout with a world map .. a selection of troops from all regions spanning from x time period ... and leave it fully open to mod .. let the players make their own tw games =P
That's like asking for Jenna Jameson. It ain't gonn' happen, no siree.

[Starforge]

How about "we fired half the graphic artists and hired programmers to make better AI, diplomacy, and gameplay" Total War. I'd buy that game. Unfortunately, CA seems to be going through a gaming mid-life crisis. The games get prettier and more stupid with each release.

Seriouslly, though:

Mid 1800's or less (preferably much less in my case - Rome, Greece, Assyria, China, etc. would be my preference.)
Slower, not sped up gameplay. Take the turns to months or less rather than seasons or more. (I guess that's the city building gamer in me talking probably.)
Better AI, etc. as mentioned above, but I know that's still a pipe dream for the foreseeable future. Far riskier and harder to do than making it look pretty.

[vartan]

How about "we fired half the graphic artists and hired programmers to make better AI, diplomacy, and gameplay" Total War. I'd buy that game. Unfortunately, CA seems to be going through a gaming mid-life crisis. The games get prettier and more stupid with each release.

Seriouslly, though:

Mid 1800's or less (preferably much less in my case - Rome, Greece, Assyria, China, etc. would be my preference.)
Slower, not sped up gameplay. Take the turns to months or less rather than seasons or more. (I guess that's the city building gamer in me talking probably.)
Better AI, etc. as mentioned above, but I know that's still a pipe dream for the foreseeable future. Far riskier and harder to do than making it look pretty.
You sound like you need an overdose of Civ V.

[Starforge]

You sound like you need an overdose of Civ V.

I was hoping to finish up Civ IV rehab before it is released :).

Though, to me, the 2 games are only similar at a superficial level. While it would be nice to take the combat from RTW and the Civ building from the civ games, Civ would have to be redesigned in quite a few ways to make that work well IMO. The campaign map in TW seems like it could be updated easier without having to change the core of the game as much. Unfortunately, without changes, that leaves less than stellar combat from Civ and less than stellar campaign maps from TW. I'm not convinced the combat changes in Civ 5 will be 'better' but looking forward to it nonetheless.

[flyingeagle]

heres some ideas for ya
- Hannibal total war
- rome 2 total war
- china total war
- crusade total war
- viking total war

[Apázlinemjó]

Europa Universalis: casus belli system, trading system, tech trees, AI, campaign quests, diplomacy
+
Total Wars: campaign map, agents, battles & units, religion system, family trees
=
Perfect historical RTS

[Moosemanmoo]

I'm rooting for Aztec Total Warrior

[lionhard]

Europa Universalis: casus belli system, trading system, tech trees, AI, campaign quests, diplomacy
+
Total Wars: campaign map, agents, battles & units, religion system, family trees
=
Perfect historical RTS

Can this be done? Im sure with the correct tools and the competant people a game like that can be achieved, it would be nice :)

[WinsingtonIII]

Can this be done? Im sure with the correct tools and the competant people a game like that can be achieved, it would be nice :)

I think battle AI will always be somewhat of an issue, but EU does show that campaign AI can be better at least. That game is also not turn based though, and you need turns if you want total war type battles, unless you have it real time but pause the campaign for the battles. I think the turn based system does hurt the AI though because it makes it very easy for the human to launch sneak attacks and surgical strikes that the AI could counter if it was in slow real time like EU, but cannot because of the turn based system. ETW and NTW did try to help with this issue a bit by making the zone of control around armies way bigger so they could reinforce from further away, and it does help in some cases, but it's not enough (particularly when the battle AI is so bad that you can easily defeat a force 3 times the size of yours).

[Starforge]

Europa Universalis: casus belli system, trading system, tech trees, AI, campaign quests, diplomacy
+
Total Wars: campaign map, agents, battles & units, religion system, family trees
=
Perfect historical RTS

Just as long as Paradox doesn't code it. Years and several expansions later is too long to wait for a mostly fixed but still buggy game. Good idea in general, though, to mix those games.

[J.R.M]

Would be great to see a "China total war" or Rome 2 TW, also i would love an "Aztec total war " (or something like that) but i doubt that´s their first posibility, if even that.

[pikeman]

Rome 2 Total war please :D:D

>:) ROMA VICTRIX!!

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

The Rumareufondoz greets you:knight::knight::knight:

[Andy1984]

I think battle AI will always be somewhat of an issue, but EU does show that campaign AI can be better at least. That game is also not turn based though, and you need turns if you want total war type battles, unless you have it real time but pause the campaign for the battles. I think the turn based system does hurt the AI though because it makes it very easy for the human to launch sneak attacks and surgical strikes that the AI could counter if it was in slow real time like EU, but cannot because of the turn based system. ETW and NTW did try to help with this issue a bit by making the zone of control around armies way bigger so they could reinforce from further away, and it does help in some cases, but it's not enough (particularly when the battle AI is so bad that you can easily defeat a force 3 times the size of yours).
I'm fairly certain a much better BattleAI is possible and isn't even that impossible to implement by CA. They just need to add a lot more variable parameters to account for more diverse battle situations. Right now, several of the biggest issues that I encountered in the battleAI (none of which are that hard to implement) are:

- RTW does not know how to skirmish using it's entire army. There's always that single unit that stands still. Attack that unit and even missile cavalry will join the frain. A clever AI will take into account the cost of sending it's missile cavalry into the fray (i.e. calculate what the likely damage in charging and melee is compared to the damage it could do if it just sacrificed that unit and continued to skirmish). The mathematical ideas necessary behind such reasoning were extensively developed some 30 years ago. I guess it's about time to implement them.
- RTW hardly takes into account fatigue. More often than not armies are winded or worse when they engage me. It's not that hard to tell an AI to rest it's army before entering the dead zone of my missiles.
- RTW doesn't take into account the likeliness of routing units, especially not her own routing units. It's not that hard to tell an AI it should prefer any other unit to charge but that unit that is already badly shaken due to exhaustion and incurred losses. These units should obviously be held somewhat in reserve and/or rested.
- RTW doesn't take into account the objectives of a battle. It merely tries to win. It's not hard (nor the result of pure genius) to consider the importance of the battle based on the position on the battle map. Invading armies should be hurt, regardless your own costs. While the invading armies of an AI should be more careful to their own losses, rather than pursuing victory. The only situation where RTW takes these considerations into account is when it is being besieged. It will often attempt suicide sallies, which is ok. (Though if such a sally fails, the AI should attempt to gain a draw to gain time, which it doesn't.)
- The formations I encounter are quite fine in their own right (I'm using MarcusCamillius', Darth's etc formations*, so I can't distinguish between these and basic RTW). But it doesn't requires a genial pair of brains to realise these formations should be formed according to both the terrain and the enemy army composition. At the moment, these are sadly lacking. The AI will attempt to form something of a 'best' formation imaginable, regardless of enemy opposition or terrain. Again: these could be easily fixed by a AI-program that calculates the expected losses vs kills with regard to the enemy army composition and the terrain and give each tactic a score. You could still allow the AI to start with a historical formation and initiate a formation-improving-program as the game starts. This way, the AI would (apart from fight) continuously seek to improve it's formation before attacking you.
- At this moment, most individual units hardly behave according to a plan. They react far too much on individual incentives. Hit a unit with missile fire, and the AI will react with one or two units. It should either react with her entire army (sending in everyone is undoubtly more efficient than sending in two units against an entire army) or it shouldn't react at all (hoping you'll soon run out of missiles before killing too many opponents, which makes your missile units worthless).


Of course, writing a battle AI on the level of a unit is significantly easier than writing one on the level of an army.


* No bad word about the modders who developed these formations though, as they undoubtly did the best they could given the hardcoded constraints they faced.

[A Nerd]

Ancient TWs and the like would be great. I for one would love a new Rome or Shogun. But what would be done with this new naval engine that they have so lovingly nurtured over the ETW and NTW titles? My lack of historical understanding tells me that ancient naval warfare might be somewhat bland.

[Badass Buddha]

My lack of historical understanding tells me that ancient naval warfare might be somewhat bland.

Hardly: in the ancient Mediterranean, the MO was to ram your ship into another and board it. It would be just as intense. Also, flamethrowers.

[A Nerd]

Brilliant! I stand corrected...

[vartan]

Andy, I would be surprised and shocked if I found out you have not applied to work for CA, since you clearly known precisely what CA needs.

On a more serious note, please put aside the anthropocentric views. They aren't really handy when looking objectively at an issue such as AI. You bring up some issues in your post that aren't relevant to battle AI as much as they are to strategic AI. What you take for granted is one thing, what computers are created to do is a completely different one. Battle AI can do many things you'd expect it to do. It's quite more tangible and flexible in the hands of a programmer. With regards to strategic AI, the only ones winning in this field are the chess programmers. And even there one still sees a majority of the work put into pure tactical calculations. Again, to recap, don't expect much from a big-picture strategic standpoint. Battle AI can and has been improved heavily over the decades. Strategic AI can only act so much as a human does. Strategic games of the hybrid genre such as Rome are a very long way off from reaching your or my level, let alone Washington, Napoleon, or Eisenhower. Any higher expectations, I would say, border on ludicrous.

[Andy1984]

Andy, I would be surprised and shocked if I found out you have not applied to work for CA, since you clearly known precisely what CA needs.
I have to disappoint and shock you. ;)


On a more serious note, please put aside the anthropocentric views. They aren't really handy when looking objectively at an issue such as AI. You bring up some issues in your post that aren't relevant to battle AI as much as they are to strategic AI. What you take for granted is one thing, what computers are created to do is a completely different one. Battle AI can do many things you'd expect it to do. It's quite more tangible and flexible in the hands of a programmer. With regards to strategic AI, the only ones winning in this field are the chess programmers. And even there one still sees a majority of the work put into pure tactical calculations.
I don't really agree with you here. Give a computer time and CPU and it will quite easily find the best solution. It just needs to check all possible outcomes for several moves in a row. Higher difficulty levels on chess computers (at least on the one I'm experienced with), just means more turns the AI will take into account. It calculates for every possible series of moves the losses and takes, and simply follows the one with the highest outcome. It could be refined (meaning: checking which one of parallel outcomes is more likely to be achieved), but then we're no longer talking about the kind of chess-computer that is to be sold to any greater public.


Again, to recap, don't expect much from a big-picture strategic standpoint. Battle AI can and has been improved heavily over the decades. Strategic AI can only act so much as a human does. Strategic games of the hybrid genre such as Rome are a very long way off from reaching your or my level, let alone Washington, Napoleon, or Eisenhower. Any higher expectations, I would say, border on ludicrous.
I fail to see the difference between what's needed for a better strategic and a better battle-AI. Both use essentially the same algorithms, with the battle-AI the most complex ones (because she faces binomial and path-finding problems that need to be solved in real time).


In the underlying text I'm basicly arguing the differences between a better BAI and the current one are - for the larger part - quite easy to implement. We already have the needed aspects of a decent BAI, they just need a tiny bit more input to be remarkable more effective.

The issue at hand is basicly a shortage of parameters the AI takes into account. If it did that, it's behaviour would improve significantly. Removing fatigue already helps the AI greatly. CA knows exactly by what formulae these battles are resolved. She knows the impact of lethality, weapon type, fatigue and morale and she has the formulae in which these numbers are put. The only thing she needs to do is to put all and not just some of the variables in the algorithms that make AI-spearmen attack my cavalry. They do that already simply because the BAI already calculates the efficiency of units in the battle (read: the BAI is already able to read my units. They just don't use all available information). Right now it's like the BAI doesn't know all the acceptable moves of chess, and therefore won't consider several moves herself. Even if these extra parameters would make the calculations to slow, they could easily be done before the start of the battle (i.e. create a matrix that reflects the lethality and efficiency of the units on the terrain when facing each unit, 20units*20units=400 numbers) and correct during the battle for terrain, morale and fatigue.

About the strategic considerations: Think about my remarks about the objectives of a battle as a suggestion for a number that tells the AI which ratio losses-kills are acceptable to her situation. Such a ratio would obviously be calculated on the strategic map (where the AI can decide what forces could be brought in should she loose). Import that single ratio into the BAI, and compare it to any plan the BAI wants to resolve. I.e. calculate the expected losses-kills based on position, morale, stats,... and compare these to the ratios that should be achieved. Right now the number the BAI uses to decide whether to fight or to retreat is a static number. Make it a variable based on the outcome of the CAI, and she would perform much better.

The biggest difficulty in such a 'battle plan' (as opposed to a more unit-based approach) is the number of units on the battlefield (as this number pretty much determines the number of available and reasonable plans). Given that this number of units hasn't increased that much since MTW1 (and further increasing that number isn't primordial either), given that heuristics to combine units can easily be developped (I believe the AI already calculates the movement-patterns for several units instead of each unit individually when lining up), I'm honestly convinced this could be realized.

[vartan]

I'm sorry to disappoint you Andy, but you can't do too well when it comes to strategic AI. Perhaps you have never played with AI?

Ask a computer to create fractals, to do math, to add up pawn-values on a chess board, and so on, and it will do so millions of times faster than you or I could.

Ask a computer to create original art, original theorems, original strategic maneuvers that are counter-intuitive and go against the "best-case" scenarios. It fails miserably. Three-year old chimps do a better job.

This is the drawback of a computer. This is what our neuroscientists are working on every single day here at the labs: to figure out what exactly is it that makes the human brain so much more, at least apparently, creative than a machine that works digitally.

[WinsingtonIII]

I'm fairly certain a much better BattleAI is possible and isn't even that impossible to implement by CA. They just need to add a lot more variable parameters to account for more diverse battle situations.

Well, I'm sure it could be improved, but I'm not sure it will ever be up to the standards most people want.

[krste]

Check this out http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=359792

[WinsingtonIII]

Check this out http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=359792

Did you notice this statement as well? It's from the article they link to on ign.com

"Though in possession of full details, our lives wouldn't be worth living if we divulged what we know, but let's just say that the new PC-only game eschews the gunpowder weaponry of recent Total War titles and gets back to basics"

So no 1800's... My guess (and most people's guess I think) is Rome 2. RTW was far too successful for them to not revisit the era. But, I guess you never know. Here's to hoping that CA's higher regard for historical accuracy that was shown in Napoleon will remain for Rome 2 (and ideally become a much higher regard).

[Andy1984]

Or a Greece total war, given the helmet type...

I too hope for a second Rome. Although I should probably be more concerned by the high pace at which they release new games, rather than excited about the sequal of a great game now about five years old.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

I actually don't care what time period the next TW is about as long as it is as moddable as RTW. From RTW onwards the modding part of the game have gone more and more difficult.

[vartan]

I actually don't care what time period the next TW is about as long as it is as moddable as RTW. From RTW onwards the modding part of the game have gone more and more difficult.
That's right. Is it not true that RTW is the most modifiable of all Total War games? or is M2TW on par with RTW?

[WinsingtonIII]

I also noticed this: http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/comments_news.phtml?id=072707_8

It's quite old (2007), but he does specifically mention a follow up to Rome. Who knows though. We'll see in a few weeks.

[A Nerd]

Rome 2 would be great! I'm sure alot of the people on this forum would be pleased! If more moddable imagine an EBIII!? What would the members of this forum think if perhaps the new TW was going to center on the Greek states (judging from the helm clue in the tread on the entrance hall forum)? I'm excited no matter which it is!

[vartan]

Rome 2 would be great! I'm sure alot of the people on this forum would be pleased! If more moddable imagine an EBIII!? What would the members of this forum think if perhaps the new TW was going to center on the Greek states (judging from the helm clue in the tread on the entrance hall forum)? I'm excited no matter which it is!
Congrats on 500 posts. That's a great piece of sarcasm by the way. If anyone was seriously expecting/desiring/wishing EB3 they should be considered mad.

[A Nerd]

Aw, show a little optomism!!! I know it's premature speculation to expect and EBIII when EBII hasn't even been released, but I was merely trying to psyc-up the EBers about the upcoming TW title. Though they will probably be playing EBII when it's released and won't show the new TW title much interest. I personally will try both. I am ambydexterous in that way!!

No negative sarcasm, subconcious perhaps, but not intentional!!

Thanks for the congrats, friend!!! Here's to 500 more!!! (hopefully useful and intelligent)!!!

[Apázlinemjó]

Aw, show a little optomism!!! I know it's premature speculation to expect and EBIII when EBII hasn't even been released, but I was merely trying to psyc-up the EBers about the upcoming TW title. Though they will probably be playing EBII when it's released and won't show the new TW title much interest. I personally will try both. I am ambydexterous in that way!!

No negative sarcasm, subconcious perhaps, but not intentional!!

Thanks for the congrats, friend!!! Here's to 500 more!!! (hopefully useful and intelligent)!!!

EB team announced that they won't make EB III after II, because it consumes too much time.

[HunGeneral]

I hope it will be Rome 2: Total War, but I will simply wait and see what comes out of it. Hopefully EB II will be released earlier.


EB team announced that they won't make EB III after II, because it consumes too much time.

Somehow I seemed to remember the same - just can't remmeber from where.... (EBII will be epic like nothing else anyway)

[Skullheadhq]

I think CA will release the next TW game on the E3, or that's what I hope...

I'll place my bets on R2TW, just because RTW sold like crazy. Brace for even better looking Roman Ninjas!

[Mulceber]

EB team announced that they won't make EB III after II, because it consumes too much time.

Well, hopefully they'll maybe reverse their decision when Rome 2 comes out - because let's face it, we're gonna need the EB team to correct all the historical screw-ups that CA manages to pull off. But from the sound of it, that may be a long ways away - if ever. -M

[Apázlinemjó]

Well, hopefully they'll maybe reverse their decision when Rome 2 comes out - because let's face it, we're gonna need the EB team to correct all the historical screw-ups that CA manages to pull off. But from the sound of it, that may be a long ways away - if ever. -M

But, daddy, I wanna conquer the world with mummies!!! :'(

I hope you're right. I hope Skullhead is right too and we will see an R2TW trailer on E3.

[Andy1984]

I think CA will release the next TW game on the E3, or that's what I hope...

I'll place my bets on R2TW, just because RTW sold like crazy. Brace for even better looking Roman Ninjas!
Releasing it without hyping it first would seem an odd decision to me.


EB team announced that they won't make EB III after II, because it consumes too much time.
That statement must have been made at a moment where both ETW and NTW offered few modding possibilities. With the next TW-title, the situation might (I repeat: might) be more favourable to the modding community. Other than that: even if some EB-members decided to retire after or even before the release of EB2, there would most likely be others who wouldn't. Just take a look at the team that made EB1: a considerable part of the team has either quit the team or left the modding-arena. (No bad words about these members. They somehow deserve a life too.)

kind regards,

Andy

[A Nerd]

EB team announced that they won't make EB III after II, because it consumes too much time.

That would be a shame, not to experience the vision of such talent. I do realize they have lives however. Oh well, we don't even know if the presumed Rome 2 will be moddable.

edit: posted before I read the above post. (I do that all the time!)

[Skullheadhq]

Releasing it without hyping it first would seem an odd decision to me.

I meant announce...

[vartan]

It seems awkwardly amusing reading the sentences that refer to the EB Team in such a distanced tone. It is almost as if there is a concept that there are two worlds: The Realm of Humans, and The Realm of the EB Team...

[Apázlinemjó]

That statement must have been made at a moment where both ETW and NTW offered few modding possibilities. With the next TW-title, the situation might (I repeat: might) be more favourable to the modding community. Other than that: even if some EB-members decided to retire after or even before the release of EB2, there would most likely be others who wouldn't. Just take a look at the team that made EB1: a considerable part of the team has either quit the team or left the modding-arena. (No bad words about these members. They somehow deserve a life too.)

I doubt that the new TW will be as moddable as RTW was, afterall Sega is in control.

[jirisys]

It seems awkwardly amusing reading the sentences that refer to the EB Team in such a distanced tone. It is almost as if there is a concept that there are two worlds: The Realm of Humans, and The Realm of the EB Team...

And the Realm of EB itself,

Hope for Hayasdan: Total War

or Maya: Total War

~Jirisys (those titles would sell good i guess:clown:)

[vartan]

And the Realm of EB itself
The so-called "Realm of EB" is a human construct. It falls into the higher-tier construct "Real of Humans". By MediaWiki categorization, the EB Team may fall under the Humans category, but since the development team of Europa Barbarorum transcends humanity, they get their own realm/category...

[WinsingtonIII]

I meant announce...

They already have stated they will announce the next TW at E3, that's what the link earlier in the thread was stating

[Tellos Athenaios]

A few points to consider w.r.t. EB 3:

EB II gets made largely because M2TW and RTW overlap considerably in “how things are done”. There are differences; and significant ones, too. But there are similarities which mean that a large body of engine know-how could be transferred without too much issues. You have no idea how important it is that any halfway sane person can edit a description text, or put a few unit cards into the mod; until you've made a 400 odd units mod. Like EB 1, for instance.

That same major benefit was lost with later games; where if I understand things correctly, one must use a fairly complex and hairy tool (essentially a tailored hex-editor) to hope that changes actually propagate somewhere halfway the right direction. This is not conductive to building an EB 3.
There was relatively quickly a thorough understanding of what the M2TW (and specifically Kingdoms) engine could do that RTW can not. There was also a relatively quickly a thorough understanding of how one could apply this to the concept of EB; again something that lacks in later games. This was entirely CA's doing: they released an unpacker and a set of docs that explained some of the new scripting statements.

This is much less the case, if at all, with the later games. For instance, if I understand things correctly modders work with .lua files. This suggests that the later games incorporate a Lua interpreter so that they incorporate a full programming language with support for complex scripts well beyond the realm of RTW/M2TW. But as I understand it: nobody actually knows what the API (exposed routines and data) of the engine is because unlike M2TW/Kingdoms there are no equivalents to the unpacker and docs as supplied by CA. So everyone is largely still working on a few opaque file formats rater than the much more interesting topic of maximising the engine's potential. This is not conductive to making a mod like EB 1, which almost entirely relies on there being a halfway solid body of knowledge to mold the game into something more fitting.
Ultimately EB depends on a few people capable of pushing the mod forward. And they are not at all interchangeable; and they are few. If they decide to put EB on hold, or if they decide to quite doing this; then that puts EB on hold, or ends part of EB. This means that if they don't want to do EB 3, it is 99% likely there will not be an EB 3.

Continuing this line of thought, and assuming the team dissolves (itself) after EB 2 is deemed done; it would mean that some other talented people would have to get together and start their own EB 3 to do it. And such a thing takes motivation of the kind that usually means a person would have found and applied for EB membership long before that point. And it also takes skill/knowledge which means such a person might have well been contacted or made an EB member already.

[Skullheadhq]

found this in the entrance hall:

Link (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/54923/New-Total-War-To-Be-Unveiled-At-E3)






In addition, we have a couple of tweets from CA:

Link (http://twitter.com/CAGames/status/14359252723)

"Do you like my custom tissue dispenser?" (http://yfrog.com/5a40oj)



The second tweet in particular would appear to be a fairly large hint.... :sweatdrop:

Hellas: Total War? Let's hope so!

[anubis88]

This would be revolutionary...

[Skullheadhq]

This would be revolutionary...

How so, AFAIK Shogun:TW focused on one country as well.

[anubis88]

Well it would be revolutionary since no TW mod was based in Greece yet :D...

Let's just hope it's not Sparta:Total War

[Skullheadhq]

No, 300: Total War, including Persian rhinos and minotaurs.

[plutoboyz]

No, 300: Total War, including Persian rhinos and minotaurs.

and semi-naked general with lot of piercing.

[Skullheadhq]

and semi-naked general with lot of piercing.

dancing around the battlefield...

[Andy1984]

Thanks alot for your explanation Tellos Athenaios.

[Andy1984]

It will be STW2 (http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093664p1.html)

The "up to 56,000 units in a single battle" looks promising. If it were open to modders, it might be a great hit.

[mlc82]

"One particularly novel development is the introduction of hero units. These are warriors who have perfected a fighting art and can carve their way through enemy armies without much trouble at all. Based on mythologized historical figures like the warrior monk Benkei, hero units are a nearly unstoppable force on the battlefield, capable of holding bridge crossings against entire armies, or smashing through a battle line to engage the enemy general. You can counter heroes with the right tactics, such as filling them full of arrows, or by having your own hero units engage them in duels. The development team may even consider letting players use political manipulation to sway heroes away from each other. "


And here we all thought Arcani and flaming pigs were bad...

[Andy1984]

I don't really care about historical accuracy in the vanilla-version. CA wouldn't be able to keep up with the dozens of historians and modders that constitute the modding-community. Therefore, it might actually be a good idea to focus on hardcoded aspects and moddibility rather than on number of units or even historically accurate units. So far, nothing from that frontier however. Closer to the release date, we might know more.

[WinsingtonIII]

I think a few ridiculous hero units could be fun. I would rather have them and have accurate unit types other than that than have ridiculous unit types. The way I see it, having an entire unit of something completely inaccurate ruins it more than just one guy who happens to be ridiculous. Still, I'd probably prefer neither.

I'm glad they decided to revisit Shogun simply for the smaller scale it provides. The scale of Empire was one of the things that ruined it, and part of the reason Napoleon is better is because the scale is smaller. With Shogun's small scale, a lot of detail can be put into everything. Don't get me wrong, I love the epic nature of Total War games, but sometimes the scale is detrimental, because it means the details are neglected.

[vartan]

More detail and larger scale warfare in a game are not necessarily incompatible. They are doable and require a dedicated development team with time and resources on their side. Smaller scale warfare games cannot arguably get away with the relatively lesser detail that a larger scale warfare game can get away with. In any case, all of this aside, the scale of warfare that any game adopts goes to show the variety of tastes in people, and the variety of people in general. You have those who wholeheartedly enjoy those games in which you control either one soldier or only a select group, and you have those who select games on the scale of those from the Total War series. I stand on the larger end of the spectrum. Total War is indeed bittersweet!

[WinsingtonIII]

I don't think they're incompatible, and I like epic scale (anyone who plays Total War does). In fact, if CA had spent maybe a year longer on Empire and ironed out issues and improved historical accuracy, it could be one of the best in the series (it certainly had the most potential in terms of the world map). But unfortunately, deadlines mean they have to make choices and sometimes one aspect suffers over another. Regardless, I think Shogun 2 is actually a good choice simply because it will be quite a change of pace for the series as of late.

[vartan]

Regardless, I think Shogun 2 is actually a good choice simply because it will be quite a change of pace for the series as of late.
If I was religious I would pray with you brother. We can only hope and be disappointed as usual. Pessimism prevails yet again.

[Seneca]

I have no faith in this. Sure, the graphics will overwhelm us, the battles will be epic and the whole thing will feel refreshing for the first week, but after that it will be like ETW all over again and we will be disgusted by the boring gameplay and low complexity.

I'll keep waiting for EBII instead, no mater how long it takes. Best thing out there.

[vartan]

I have no faith in this. Sure, the graphics will overwhelm us, the battles will be epic and the whole thing will feel refreshing for the first week, but after that it will be like ETW all over again and we will be disgusted by the boring gameplay and low complexity.

I'll keep waiting for EBII instead, no mater how long it takes. Best thing out there.
Logic phail. EBII ain't the best or worst thing out there, cause it ain't out there, wherever "there" is. It escapes me, but there was some terminology used to describe that phenomenon wherein your thoughts or predictions of something or some event shape your eventual perception of it. You expect the worst in the new release? Then you'll get the worst. Expect the unexpected (i.e. something new and not in any other TW game)? Then you'll likely get something exciting.

[krste]

What i find the most intriguing is this :

"The game's AI is being programmed according to Sun Tzu's Art of War. As one of the core foundations for this kind of mix of melee and ranged warfare, Sun Tzu is an obvious starting point, but what was particularly revealing is how much Sun Tzu talks like a programmer. If, for example, you outnumber the enemy more than five-to-one, Sun Tzu recommends an enveloping move. If you outnumber the enemy two-to-one, he prefers a direct engagement."

Does this means no more Artificial Idiot ?

[Arkhis]

Logic phail. EBII ain't the best or worst thing out there, cause it ain't out there, wherever "there" is. It escapes me, but there was some terminology used to describe that phenomenon wherein your thoughts or predictions of something or some event shape your eventual perception of it. You expect the worst in the new release? Then you'll get the worst. Expect the unexpected (i.e. something new and not in any other TW game)? Then you'll likely get something exciting.

Wise words. I always hope for something interesting when a new TW game is on the way.

I wonder how this game will turn out, though. What will the map be like? Most importantly, how will they give the factions a unique flavour? The latter is important for a video game, but alas, the various daimyos fighting for power during the Sengoku Jidai have essentially the same army make-up.

I'm not sure about these Hero units , though.

[Apázlinemjó]

Wise words. I always hope for something interesting when a new TW game is on the way.

I wonder how this game will turn out, though. What will the map be like? Most importantly, how will they give the factions a unique flavour? The latter is important for a video game, but alas, the various daimyos fighting for power during the Sengoku Jidai have essentially the same army make-up.

I'm not sure about these Hero units , though.

HEROES!!! :O

[mountaingoat]

oh what would be nice ...

-multiple animations for each unit (they already have skins )

mostly for the elite type units .. where you would of had a wide array of personal weapons brought onto the battlefield .. like watching a group of dismounted knights in mtw2 all carrying swords and shields.. or an entire unit of 2h swords .... having a mix of 1h and 2h weapons and different type of weapons would be nice with fitting animations ..

-advanced animation collision etc

more "flowing" i guess when units are attacking each other .. instead of this great pause with the units standing behind .. i can understand a certain disciplined unit of phalanx or spearmen holding a formation ... but maybe something different from just standing behind .

updating the way animations interact during combat with possibly "pushing" motions ? multiple units attacking single units ( when available) , as now we always have that constant dueling going on for the most part.


-animations effected by their weapons and surroundings

it always seemed strange to me how (when you get bored and start looking closely at the details ) of how a group of spearmen would attack well in a confined space whilst on a wall .. it seems as though there would hardly be any room for this spear and shield to move and thrust a weapon .. *shrug*

-breaking weapons/changing weapons?

how about when horses charge , there is a chance for the lances to break .. instead of having them charge with a lance effect over and over ?

an option to force units to change weapons instead of some sort of automatic processes that calls for them to change from spear to sword etc, and top that off with more than 2 weapons per unit maybe or at least the option to mod this =P


that should do for now lol

[Krusader]

What i find the most intriguing is this :

"The game's AI is being programmed according to Sun Tzu's Art of War. As one of the core foundations for this kind of mix of melee and ranged warfare, Sun Tzu is an obvious starting point, but what was particularly revealing is how much Sun Tzu talks like a programmer. If, for example, you outnumber the enemy more than five-to-one, Sun Tzu recommends an enveloping move. If you outnumber the enemy two-to-one, he prefers a direct engagement."

Does this means no more Artificial Idiot ?

I think CA has written something along the lines for every TW game they've released.

As for heroes, personally I think we'll see heroes with anime-abilities.

[mlc82]

They've said that same thing from Medieval 2 on. "We realize the AI sucked before (nevermind no major reviewer seeming to notice), and we're going to make it just like a human player this time!". Something very close to that was in an old PC Gamer Medieval 2 preview. Same was said for Empire yet again. Now for the newest game.

[WinsingtonIII]

how about when horses charge , there is a chance for the lances to break .. instead of having them charge with a lance effect over and over ?

an option to force units to change weapons instead of some sort of automatic processes that calls for them to change from spear to sword etc, and top that off with more than 2 weapons per unit maybe or at least the option to mod this =P

Well, the breaking lances feature was actually in M2TW. Your cavalry had to wait for their lances to "recharge" (you can pretend they're being resupplied by squires or something I suppose) before they could charge with them again. Plus, you can already change weapons by using the alt-click attack key, but it can be quite glitchy. It would be really nice to see a variety of weapons and animations in a unit.


I have no faith in this. Sure, the graphics will overwhelm us, the battles will be epic and the whole thing will feel refreshing for the first week, but after that it will be like ETW all over again and we will be disgusted by the boring gameplay and low complexity.

I'll keep waiting for EBII instead, no mater how long it takes. Best thing out there.

I think you're being overly pessimistic. To be sure, Shogun 2 will hardly be perfect, and the AI probably won't be great, but it will probably be a step up from Napoleon and Empire battle AI simply because Total War battle AI seems to do much better with melee battles than gunpowder fights. I'm not claiming RTW battle AI is good, but it does a better job than Napoleon or Empire.

Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, I believe the relatively small scale of this game (in the grand scheme compared to other Total War games) actually allows more focus on complexity and detail. And even if it is a quite flawed game, which is always a possibility, you cannot deny that it will be a change of scenery, considering that this is the first time since the first Shogun that a TW game is not focused primarily on Europe and the Middle East (ETW is somewhat of an exception, but not really, as most of the playable factions are European).

I'd rather they focus their efforts on better campaign AI than battle AI to be honest. As long as the battle AI is mediocre like in Rome or Medieval 2, it won't be that horrible, but they need to work on campaign AI. If the computer can actually behave well on the campaign map the game will be much more challenging than if it behaves well on the battle map but does little campaign wise.


Pessimism prevails yet again.

Pessimism only prevails because you let it.... We have no idea what the game will be like, why not be optimistic? To me it doesn't make sense to complain about how bad something will be before it even comes out. Seems like wasted energy to be honest.

[vartan]

Pessimism only prevails because you let it.... We have no idea what the game will be like, why not be optimistic? To me it doesn't make sense to complain about how bad something will be before it even comes out. Seems like wasted energy to be honest.
I know. :laugh4: Like I said, people only see what they wish to see. I don't believe in fate, so if people are complaining, they are choosing to. Poor fellows. :sweatdrop: Time for a :book:.

[Intranetusa]

I don't want to see another Shogun game - that era and location has already been exhausted. Rome II would be nice, but it would be too limited and a rehash.

I want to see:
1. Ancient Eurasia: Total War
2nd century: Han Empire vs Parthian Empire vs Roman Empire vs Mayuran Empire - the world's 4 greatest 2nd century civilizations in a free for all battle would be freking sweet
2. Qin-Han Empire Total War
3. Three Kingdoms Total War
4. Warring States to Qin Empire Total War (one of the earliest cases of actual "total war"
5. Mongol Empire Total War (conquer everyone)
6. Ming-Korean-Japanese War (Imijin war?), complete with random European trading factions and Portuguese selling weapons
7. 8th century Eurasia: Total War
Tang Dynasty vs Sassanids vs Byzantines

Other/Expansion ideas:
1. Peloponnesian War: Total War, and then all the wars in which Sparta continuously gets their @$$ kicked
2. Greco-Persian War

Ugh, I just found out the next Total War Game is Shogun 2....that is kinda lame. I predict CA will just turn it into a remake - basically Shogun 1 with better graphics and even crappier AI.

[Apázlinemjó]

Wow, I just read a few comments at Gamestar (Hungarian one) and they are like "OMGZOR IT'S STW2 WIT HEROS WOWOWOWOWO TOTAL WARZOR DA PWNZOR". I was afraid to post anything.

[Krusader]

Pessimism only prevails because you let it.... We have no idea what the game will be like, why not be optimistic? To me it doesn't make sense to complain about how bad something will be before it even comes out. Seems like wasted energy to be honest.

My pessimism stems from experience. And with hero units, I'm not going to be optimistic either, particularly when one hero is a mythological hero...it could be worse (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=363869)

[bobbin]

As for heroes, personally I think we'll see heroes with anime-abilities.

I hear the Akira unit will be a real tide turner in battle.

[WinsingtonIII]

My pessimism stems from experience. And with hero units, I'm not going to be optimistic either, particularly when one hero is a mythological hero...it could be worse (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=363869)

I know it stems from experience. Still's a waste of time though... because all you're doing is putting negative energy into something we know nothing about

I'm not particularly optimistic about the heroes either though, but if Tom Cruise is in, I don't see what could go wrong :clown:

EDIT:

On a more serious note though, I just read this on heroes. It seems the ign article was a bit (read as: very) misleading about them and this is how CA actually wants them described


Hero Units: - These are not one man armies that destroy everything that opposes them. These are highly ranked elite units, available at the top of the tech tree who exemplify a mastery of a given martial technique (E.g. sword fighting). They are able to take on other heroes, and are naturally very powerful against groups of enemies but are not invincible game-changers. These figures are also based on true historical accounts of great fighters who founded schools of combat, not myths that take on whole armies and win.

This sounds much better, although I'm still skeptical and I do NOT want this turning into an RPG.

The text is from here (http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/sreply/917044/t/First-look-of-Shogun-2-Total-War-.html) by the way.

[Intranetusa]

I'm not particularly optimistic about the heroes either though, but if Tom Cruise is in, I don't see what could go wrong :clown:

But Dances with the Last Avatar was such a great movie! It'll at least be as historical as Roman hash-assassin ninjas and flaming pigs in R:TW



This sounds much better, although I'm still skeptical and I do NOT want this turning into an RPG.

"Sparta: Total War" hack n' slash RPG anyone?

[Ludens]

The Shogun 2: Total War forum (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?312-Dojo-II) is up. Let's head there to discuss the possibilities.

[Starforge]

What i find the most intriguing is this :

"The game's AI is being programmed according to Sun Tzu's Art of War. As one of the core foundations for this kind of mix of melee and ranged warfare, Sun Tzu is an obvious starting point, but what was particularly revealing is how much Sun Tzu talks like a programmer. If, for example, you outnumber the enemy more than five-to-one, Sun Tzu recommends an enveloping move. If you outnumber the enemy two-to-one, he prefers a direct engagement."

Does this means no more Artificial Idiot ?

Call me a cynic but that's called marketing. Read the paragraph again and see if anything tangible is actually promised or if it simply sounds good. Yet, somewhere, I guarentee there's a kid out there thinking.......Sun Tzu! cool!

Edit: Heroes? Seriously? I wish CA would make a good game and not have a bunch of execs sitting in a room trying to second guess what the 14 yr olds will buy. Then again - I'm not 14 so maybe I'm just not the target audience :D.

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

Edit: Heroes? Seriously? I wish CA would make a good game and not have a bunch of execs sitting in a room trying to second guess what the 14 yr olds will buy. Then again - I'm not 14 so maybe I'm just not the target audience :D.

I am 14 and I disagree with the idea of hero units in a Total War game...

[paleologos]

Hero units?

That would be World of Total Warcraft, wouldn't it?

[Hannibal Khan the Great]

Shogun 2: Total WoW. What will they think of next?

[paleologos]

Shogun 2: Total WoW. What will they think of next?

Perhaps World of Total Star WarsCraft.

[mountaingoat]

Well, the breaking lances feature was actually in M2TW. Your cavalry had to wait for their lances to "recharge" (you can pretend they're being resupplied by squires or something I suppose) before they could charge with them again. Plus, you can already change weapons by using the alt-click attack key, but it can be quite glitchy.

hehe not even close to what i meant , though that idea needs a lot more work ... and yes the alt clicking is glitchy at best,... you are responding to me like i have never played a TW game? :grin2:


though.. if there was a "camp" where your horses or soldiers could run back to and "re arm" .. then it might simulate that...

either way .. off to the stw2 forum :book:

[WinsingtonIII]

hehe not even close to what i meant , though that idea needs a lot more work ... and yes the alt clicking is glitchy at best,... you are responding to me like i have never played a TW game? :grin2:

Sorry, I wasn't trying to presume anything, I thought maybe you hadn't played Medieval 2 and didn't know about the lance feature. I agree though, it's not a great representation.

Realistically though, in my opinion, they need to focus on improving AI and historical accuracy before they move on to more minor details like breaking lances, although the details would be nice to see as well.

Sorry Ludens, last post about this here from me.

[Starforge]

I am 14 and I disagree with the idea of hero units in a Total War game...

No offense meant to 14 yr olds. It's the middle age game execs (and movie directors) who try and second guess what they think 14 year olds will like I reserve some contempt for since it's usually based only on an interpretation of what has sold in the past.

[seienchin]

Shogun 1 had the sword masters so having different kind of single man units with names is pretty cool. :)
Beeing able to choose the skills the generals get, is not tooo great in my opinion and naval battles in sengoku japan are a catastrophy. Except for that it sounds great. :)

[plutoboyz]

Heroes unit? I hope Shogun 2 modder friendly.

[Phalanx300]

What i find the most intriguing is this :

"The game's AI is being programmed according to Sun Tzu's Art of War. As one of the core foundations for this kind of mix of melee and ranged warfare, Sun Tzu is an obvious starting point, but what was particularly revealing is how much Sun Tzu talks like a programmer. If, for example, you outnumber the enemy more than five-to-one, Sun Tzu recommends an enveloping move. If you outnumber the enemy two-to-one, he prefers a direct engagement."

Does this means no more Artificial Idiot ?


I found that most interesting as well. Hopefully it will work out. Then again we don't want an Sun Tzu AI kicking our asses all the time do we?

[vartan]

I found that most interesting as well. Hopefully it will work out. Then again we don't want an Sun Tzu AI kicking our asses all the time do we?
Sure we do. If the AI is good enough I might give it a spot in the future tournaments (=

[Brennus]

Neanderthal: Total War.

Really quick to make cos you have a limited technology tree and small unit sizes.

Factions: Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Sapien Sapien

Emergent factions: The Vulcans (like in Shogun with the Dutch and Portugese they bring new technologies but these technologies can really upset the balance of power).

[stratigos vasilios]

Neanderthal: Total War.

LOL :laugh2:

[antisocialmunky]

No <3 for China? I would be pretty ticked if the expansion wasn't China. ITs good they have their heads out of hte clouds. If htey expended all the effort they did for Emperor and Napoleon but focused it more, the game owuld be awesome.

[Cute Wolf]

No <3 for China? I would be pretty ticked if the expansion wasn't China. ITs good they have their heads out of hte clouds. If htey expended all the effort they did for Emperor and Napoleon but focused it more, the game owuld be awesome.

nah, I bet All Under Heaven will be much better than standard CA vanilla game :grin:

[Qvintvs]

Diadochi: Total War

[Mulceber]

Might as well just make Rome 2 Total War and have it start 30-50 years earlier. -M

[seienchin]

Im still waiting for 1.World war Total war or maybe 2nd. But I guess Computers dont have enough power for simulating a modern war.

[WinsingtonIII]

Im still waiting for 1.World war Total war or maybe 2nd. But I guess Computers dont have enough power for simulating a modern war.

I really doubt the TW series is going to do these wars. I don't think they fit the style these games usually have.

If you want a good WWII tactical game, play Men of War, it's quite realistic and it's a lot of fun as well.

[vartan]

Im still waiting for 1.World war Total war or maybe 2nd. But I guess Computers dont have enough power for simulating a modern war.
If I had a dollar for every time this was rehashed on The Guild, I would be a millionaire.

[seienchin]

If I had a dollar for every time this was rehashed on The Guild, I would be a millionaire.

So what? I dont get the message of your post, but maybe it has none...

@Winsingto
The Series is called Total war, so havin a WWII Scenario would be a good match to the title. ;)
Off course the engine would have to change a little bit, but not more than from Medivial to rome.

[vartan]

So what? I dont get the message of your post, but maybe it has none...
You've been on the Guild longer than I have, you should know the point, unless you haven't followed the World War Total War posts over the months/years. It always starts with some intriguing and exciting proposal, and ends with people recalling all the vast and various amounts of factors that would have to come into play for the game to truly be a "total war" representation. I think it's mentioned in the ends that the computer "can't" or "never has" done such a thing. I don't know. Ask the veterans.

[Cute Wolf]

almost every attempt to create WW total war ends up in failure... except two, which have rather realistic results, but still got ahistoric in battle

[WinsingtonIII]

@Winsingto
The Series is called Total war, so havin a WWII Scenario would be a good match to the title. ;)
Off course the engine would have to change a little bit, but not more than from Medivial to rome.

I'm not just being a downer here, I really don't think the engine fits it. How would tanks be represented? Would there be multiple tanks in a unit that had to move together wherever they went? This is not an era of formation warfare, it's all about spreading out, taking cover, and other factors that don't work well with an unit of 150 men in it. If they tone it down to squads of 5-6 men, then they're just mimicking CoH or Men of War and the whole point of TW is the epic scale of it. How would aircraft be simulated on the campaign map? I can see them being off-map abilities you can use during battle, but what would determine whether or not you would have them available? Would you have to attach aircraft to armies on the campaign map (doesn't really make sense considering they aren't based right next to the army necessarily)? If so, would those planes be destroyed when that army gets destroyed (again doesn't really make sense)? I have a lot more of these questions as well...

In my opinion, there are just too many questions like this that I don't think there are satisfactory answers to. You really should check out Men of War if you want realistic WWII tactical combat. I haven't even addressed WWI Total War here because I think it would be utterly boring. Every battle would be exactly the same, and the borders on the campaign map would never move.

[mlc82]

I'm not just being a downer here, I really don't think the engine fits it. How would tanks be represented? Would there be multiple tanks in a unit that had to move together wherever they went? This is not an era of formation warfare, it's all about spreading out, taking cover, and other factors that don't work well with an unit of 150 men in it. If they tone it down to squads of 5-6 men, then they're just mimicking CoH or Men of War and the whole point of TW is the epic scale of it. How would aircraft be simulated on the campaign map? I can see them being off-map abilities you can use during battle, but what would determine whether or not you would have them available? Would you have to attach aircraft to armies on the campaign map (doesn't really make sense considering they aren't based right next to the army necessarily)? If so, would those planes be destroyed when that army gets destroyed (again doesn't really make sense)? I have a lot more of these questions as well...

In my opinion, there are just too many questions like this that I don't think there are satisfactory answers to. You really should check out Men of War if you want realistic WWII tactical combat. I haven't even addressed WWI Total War here because I think it would be utterly boring. Every battle would be exactly the same, and the borders on the campaign map would never move.

Also, the average range of a WWII era rifle, let alone machine guns, tank cannons, and etc, was just a little longer than ancient or medieval composite bows, trebuchets, etc. A WWII Tiger tank could fire well across multiple Total War battlemaps lined up one against the other.

[vartan]

As you can see clearly, the rehashing has simply begun.

[seienchin]

Also, the average range of a WWII era rifle, let alone machine guns, tank cannons, and etc, was just a little longer than ancient or medieval composite bows, trebuchets, etc. A WWII Tiger tank could fire well across multiple Total War battlemaps lined up one against the other.

Even a Tiger II couldnt destroy other tanks at ranges more than 4 kilometers and off course, given terain and circumstances this is only theoretical, the range it usually fought was way shorter.
Anyway, if there will be a World war Game with a total war like engine it would have to have huge battlefields and units etc. and they would have to have AI by themselves so that is why I said no computer today could handle it, but look at games like Sins of a solar empire. Huge fleet with hundreds of vessels and even older pcs can zoom in smoothly.
With that kind of Huge scale, zoom function and Ai it would be at least possible and I guess fun to play.
Still I dont think it will ever happen^^

[vartan]

Never say never.

[GenosseGeneral]

hopefully STW 2 wont be again a steam-only game. that was why i boycotted ETW, started looling for some mods for the "old" ones (rome&MTW2) and found EB.

[flyingeagle]

Shogun total war 2 is on its way, but i would really like if they made a Rome total war 2 and expand on what that game the masterpiece that it was... maybe afterwards they should go further back than Roman times, but this is my opinion... I like Shogun 2 but it seems that some people dont like the idea of that, you dont know a game unless you experience it, and hey, its the first total war game... the game that started this amazing series, but yes, i also hope for a Rome 2... And possibly make the factions that were non-playable actually playable (for example: Armenia), that pissed me off. But they should add more factions in Shogun 2 as well, like the Otomo, Azai, Date, Chosokabe, Saito, Tokugawa, Ashikaga etc... Im very eager for a new total war game.

[fomalhaut]

I personally wouldn't want a WWII Total War game, especially since the premise of total war was never to recreate one specific war but to give you the context to shape history as you and all that. the combat would just not be fun to me, and there are already dedicated WWII strategy games that would blow total war out of the water. and what kind of infrastructure could we build? these are already established huge cities where it just is not logical to be building basic buildings.

[WinsingtonIII]

But they should add more factions in Shogun 2 as well, like the Otomo, Azai, Date, Chosokabe, Saito, Tokugawa, Ashikaga etc... Im very eager for a new total war game.

I believe all of those factions are in Shogun 2. If you're talking about which ones are playable, Date, Chosokabe, and Tokugawa are all playable out of those

[Olaf The Great]

A fantasy based Total War? I think this is the only TW game that CA can do without DERPing history. /smug.

But really, a China:Total War or India and especially Mongolia would be amazing

[Alrik]

A fantasy based Total War? I think this is the only TW game that CA can do without DERPing history. /smug.

Yeah I've thought about that as well, but all fantasy stories that'd draw a big enough crowd are too benign. They are written for imbecills, usually good verses bad, anything more than that is apparently beyond either the writer's capability, or the readers. I'm guessing both in equal doses as the good written stuff with lots of factions, intrigue and action never ses the limelight. I mean seriously the thing that's spamming the TV channels now is the damn Legend of the Seeker, anyone but retarded children gets naseous by all the holes in the plot. The action being based on the character's sheer stupidity to get them into trouble and pure luck to get them out of it. and two sides, as usual, good versus bad, how original.

Personally I hope that CA does something boring, like another gunpowdergame that I won't be the least interested in buying, so that they can further improve the engine before they tackle Rome 2, but like many have said, the pressure for Rome 2, is pretty big, so it's likely to be the next.

[Cute Wolf]

well, at least Shogun2 is pretty decent game, but still not as good as Napoleon

[Olaf The Great]

Napoleon is basically an expansion pack that you have to pay a lot more for that doesn't use the same file directory from what I've heard.

[Vulg]

Scifi:Total War.

Basically it enables you to play any modern day human nation sounds dull at this point but the AI or another player could play as:

Aliens
Zombies
Mutant virus
Plants

Maybe a game where you can make your own bad nation so to say as an exampel of the above 4.

Something a little fun, customisable and far fetched, thinking a Sand box game with some starting scenarios/ideas.

[moonburn]

well i´m still hoping for a greek golden age total war with corinthos athens sparta thebes myletos the ionians kretins (5 regions in kreete) magna grecia and perhaps even emporion arse and carthage where you go to war in the eat or west conquer a city and you add like 1.000 mnai to your main city every year as payment/trade with your colony to suport the raging war in greece and then after you finally destroyed or made your rivals your vassals an emerging faction like the persians and you could have your own personal marathon

pehaps with like 50 missions to get argos to allie with you free x city from the "spartans" to get an allie

the important subject and the twist in this game would be that you could only control 1 city the others you could control it´s taxs and maybe even upgrade the walls but nothing else and only while you keep the people happy or a large garrison there

and then again they could inovate in city administration sistem where the auxiliars would all be sent into a separate box and be considered part of a "council" like what happened in places like salamis where they had the council of 30

whenevr you wanted to send an army out you picked 1 member of the council and added it to a military unit (or more) to avoid the stupid fm´s units

it would make for an amazing game where you had to balance out the economy politics (you could only control 1 city at any given time and conquering another city and putting a more "friendly" goverment there would cost you alot in upkeep for the garrisons) demographis (raising an army and strong numerous garrisons would cost your city and surrounding areas people and creating colonies altough the best way to ensure strong economical revenues in the long run, aslong as they where not ravished by poeni or persians )

for the creation of colonies you would have to pick wisely joining many colonies together they could protect each other but it would be like putting all the eggs into 1 basket and you never knew when the schytians persians poeni umbri iberians or someone else would attack that region wich would demand you to send off "suport" making you weaker for a shorter time or not sending support and loose those tax payers every few turns

ok i will shut up now :\

[fomalhaut]

Those are solid ideas, but i don't think most TW players want to be so limited in their control. And the Greek Golden Age isn't that different to most consumers from the post-classical age of RTW, so it just wouldn't be viable.

[moonburn]

well there´s only so much one can do before it deplets the game ideas so i think this would make for a very sollid more realistic game altough not so appealling to everyone (particulary mindless kids wich seem the target segment of sega )

but somehow i see it working for a more specific crowd or then as a kind of expansion pack for a future rome total war 2: the greeks wars

[Populus Romanus]

I have gots the bestest idea'er evar. They should make EBTeam:TW!
Simply copy EB, claim it as their own, rename all the factions with the names of EB Team members, give them special units, and presto!, you have EBTeam:TW!

For instance, Foot would be Hayasdan, Atilius would be Romani, bobbin would be Eleutheroi, Moros would be Sab'yn, and Oudysseos the Casse!

It would be AWESOME!

[vartan]

As a fan of science-fiction, astrophysics, astronomy and many sciences, I would very much appreciate a revamped Total War game with a completely new interface and gameplay set in the future, even if in our own galaxy, with planetary systems at stake, and humanity on the possible verge of destruction if one does not act swiftly.

[Duguntz]

well there´s only so much one can do before it deplets the game ideas so i think this would make for a very sollid more realistic game altough not so appealling to everyone (particulary mindless kids wich seem the target segment of sega )

but somehow i see it working for a more specific crowd or then as a kind of expansion pack for a future rome total war 2: the greeks wars

Well moonburn, as well as we'd liketo see something like that happen, it won't. each and every game must be conceived to touch the most general public as possible, and not to target anyone in particular, in ordert o max out the number of sells, you pointlessly make a new game if only "connaisseur" buy it, as you'l loose much more money making it than you'd win selling it. hence, the game must be interesting, but enough hollywoodlike to attract as well the mindless kids that only wants to see thousand of soldiers hit each other with swords, no matter where, when or why!

[Cute Wolf]

well, Empire is CA at lowest ebb of TW gameplay, luckily for us, Napoleon are much more better.

[Fluvius Camillus]

Tomorrow S2TW collectors edition will arrive, I have to see if I'll play it, Empire drained my energy to play TW, might take up something different and play it later.

And I didnt even got to playing NTW, which everyone tells me is awesome... Busy life...

~Fluvius

[Duguntz]

Tomorow is the day I was breathing for since i know shogun II was being worked on...

[Cute Wolf]

shogun 2 is good, worth it, but damn, the AI is soooo easy to beeeaatttttttttt
(sun tzu? my ***, simple flanking tactics works and they are even dumber than RTW AI)

PS: Steam servers is noticeably works much more better

EDIT : maybe it was me that found the AI was too easy, years of blitzing RTW mods in VH battles difficulty allready took their toll

[Lazy O]

Ive watched videos, the AI stinks

[Duguntz]

What did you expected about AI? I don't wanna put any bad opinion on CA, but guys, you can't expect any REAL challenge while competing against a machine! it's still only codes! AI will NEVER be as challenging as an experianced human player. because even if well done, we can predict it. So stop blasting AI because of expectation impossible to acheive...

[Fluvius Camillus]

I played it a few hours with the Takeda, but didnt have time to start a serious campaign. I'll check it out later.

~Fluvius

[vollorix]

A true artificial intelligence has jet to be invented...
I wonder, though, if a battle "AI" would be programmed and run on kind of powerfull "supercomputer", how frustrating it might turn out to compete with it? If a chess computer can be created, why not a good AI for a game? :)

[Lazy O]

I don't wanna put any bad opinion on CA

That be a sin. I think its not that difficult to ATLEAST get the AI to do so much as flank, form a decent formation, pick sensible armies etc....No ones asking them to make an AI version of varus....

[moonburn]

That be a sin. I think its not that difficult to ATLEAST get the AI to do so much as flank, form a decent formation, pick sensible armies etc....No ones asking them to make an AI version of varus....considering it takes me 5 minutes to rout an elite army with medium cavarly and militians while varus defeat took 3 entire days before he was defeated even varus is like 10 stars above the ai

and as someone stated how hard can it be for the general ai to build up "sensible stacks" with cavarly archers skirmishers and somewhat decent cavarly and then use them properly in the batle ... i mean the ai works greats for celts it´s all about clash and trying to break the enemy as fast as possible but for a roman army for instance they should try to tire up the enemy batle lines retreat the hastati use the princeps and try to win with them while moving cavarly and ascenssi around not to get flanked and not send their generals to fight against superior cavarly without at least a group of rorarii coming up for the suport in time (and thats when i decide to make it challanging and not let their generals die in a mass of infantry while my skirmishers shoot them in the back and my own cavarly is killing off their skirmishers and then turning around to clash against their bactleline backs)

[Lazy O]

Varus was/is one of the best RTW players of all time, I was not talking about the roman general :P

[vartan]

A true artificial intelligence has jet to be invented...
I wonder, though, if a battle "AI" would be programmed and run on kind of powerfull "supercomputer", how frustrating it might turn out to compete with it? If a chess computer can be created, why not a good AI for a game? :)
Classic myth: that competence in AI formulation for chess means competence in AI formulation, period. I've studied the history of decades of work in the development of chess algorithms and chess hardware, and I can tell you that the resulting product is very specialized, and rightfully so. It does a damn good job of what it was meant to do. Unfortunately, this doesn't translate into a "battle AI" for anything else, whatever that may mean anyway.

That be a sin. I think its not that difficult to ATLEAST get the AI to do so much as flank, form a decent formation, pick sensible armies etc....No ones asking them to make an AI version of varus....
Already done (see games in the Total War series by the Creative Assembly).

[Lazy O]

I must be blind then.

[vartan]

I must be blind then.
1) flank, 2) form a decent formation, 3) pick sensible armies

1) Observe the computer's movements in a custom battle. Computer chooses to ignore a good portion of your center and instead focuses on either flank. The computer surrenders the center to its own detriment. The moment you begin the battle the computer moves its entire army to one side, usually its left (your right), unnecessarily.

2/3) What is a 'decent formation'? There are no decent formations, only decent ladies and gentle men. Same applies to sensible armies. Moreover, the computer cannot be sensible in the sense humans can (no pun intended, really). Computer has some problems it can overcome, many it cannot.

[Lazy O]

1) No, most often it just targets one unit and the rest can be surrounded in seconds.

2) Thats a Darthmod invention, not included in Vanilla, very often they tend to form a blob

3) AI often send 2/3 unit stacks to besiege fortresses, picks levy armies, and almost never recruits cavalry.

[vollorix]

If you battle the AI for a prolonged period of time you could see it adapting to your army composition. But that requires some additional circumstances like enough money and availiability of apropriate units. Once i´ve started to harass Macs with some mostly cavalry based army in the Thracian mountains, they, after a couple of heavy defeats, have managed to field a counter force consisting heavy and medium cavalry ( Thessalians + Prodromoi ) as support for their heavy mobile infantry like Agrianians, Thureoporoi and Elite Peltastai. No phalanx units were send again in my direction untill the AI was planing to conquer Tylis. This time i was playing on VH campaign since on medium it was a catwalk to reach Athens by the year 250 bc, which seemed very unrealistic, and dissapointing, to me at the same time. It seems to me that AI needs some kind of "reaction time" to respond with alternative army compositions, but if one moves to fast, and to succsesfully, forward, destroying it´s infrastructure and limiting their recruitment bases, then one would mostly see that "levy spam", or simply a mix of units supposed to be superior than the players ones according to their stats, while 1 mediocore archer unit with low morale and melee skills, combined with a "hard hitting" cavalry, would easily beat multiple units of Pandas or Lugoai...

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

If you battle the AI for a prolonged period of time you could see it adapting to your army composition. But that requires some additional circumstances like enough money and availiability of apropriate units. Once i´ve started to harass Macs with some mostly cavalry based army in the Thracian mountains, they, after a couple of heavy defeats, have managed to field a counter force consisting heavy and medium cavalry ( Thessalians + Prodromoi ) as support for their heavy mobile infantry like Agrianians, Thureoporoi and Elite Peltastai. No phalanx units were send again in my direction untill the AI was planing to conquer Tylis. This time i was playing on VH campaign since on medium it was a catwalk to reach Athens by the year 250 bc, which seemed very unrealistic, and dissapointing, to me at the same time. It seems to me that AI needs some kind of "reaction time" to respond with alternative army compositions, but if one moves to fast, and to succsesfully, forward, destroying it´s infrastructure and limiting their recruitment bases, then one would mostly see that "levy spam", or simply a mix of units supposed to be superior than the players ones according to their stats, while 1 mediocore archer unit with low morale and melee skills, combined with a "hard hitting" cavalry, would easily beat multiple units of Pandas or Lugoai...

I noticed the Ptolemaioi doing the same in my Sabyn campaign; because I used Sabyn noble cavalry (and Ethiopian medium cavalry) quite extensively, after a few battles they started sending stacks with more heavy cavalry. The battles became harder and harder.... of course, it didn't help that they had taken over half the world and the only other surviving powers either kept a peace with each other or became protectorates of one or other of the big guns. But, the composition of their armies did alter.

As to the question of what will be the next TW release. Shogun was the first, wasn't it? Rome followed and, let's face it, Rome sells. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next release was R2:TW.

Wouldn't it be great if they contacted the EB team for some input? Now, if they (CA) make the mod tools available that they say they are going to then R2:TW could be a god-send, with the availability of more factions and naval battles....

[Rahl]

1) flank, 2) form a decent formation, 3) pick sensible armies

1) Observe the computer's movements in a custom battle. Computer chooses to ignore a good portion of your center and instead focuses on either flank. The computer surrenders the center to its own detriment. The moment you begin the battle the computer moves its entire army to one side, usually its left (your right), unnecessarily.
They don't do that every time and "bugs" like sending single units to attack an archer or your generals unit standing before the battleline can easily overshadow such good moves. But you're right, I recognised that too. Most times it makes me angry though, because it destroys my plans and forces me to use more micromanagement, but at the end I still beat them easily. Though, that's a problem of mine and not one of the AI, because it didn't made it wrong when the battle became harder for me and I think it's similar for other players.
When the battleline don't clash tidely it doesn't mean the AI made something wrong. Many players seem to be as annoyed by such things as I, but most times that increases my losses...

2/3) What is a 'decent formation'? There are no decent formations, only decent ladies and gentle men. Same applies to sensible armies. Moreover, the computer cannot be sensible in the sense humans can (no pun intended, really). Computer has some problems it can overcome, many it cannot.
I think the army composition could be improved without to much work. The AI already uses units according to its type (infantry, missile, cavalry...) what would be the problem to force it trying to mix such units on a "realistic" or historical way?

The biggest problem I see is the fact that EB players are usually passionate and often very experienced, but a battle AI for a TW game is very complex and thus hard to make it challenging, especially for EB players. I don't think that we will see much improvement there in the future. Though the Campaign-AI can propably become much better. AI for round-based games seems to be much easier to make, there're some with nearly unbeatable versions.


2) Thats a Darthmod invention, not included in Vanilla, very often they tend to form a blob
Something must be wrong with your install. I see a "blob" not very often.

[Lazy O]

The blob was all to common to me in all Mods, maybe it has something to do with me messing up their plans with light cav, but i dont care.

[Atraphoenix]

A true artificial intelligence has jet to be invented...


Never forget deep blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29)...
but CA is too poor for such a project...

[fomalhaut]

Shogun seems like it would be quite poor for modding as i'm realizing it is back to the SINGLE culture slot! and judging from the tech and building tree they didn't flesh out that one culture very much or am i just way too used to EB and RS? i haven't touched a vanilla TW in too long not when two of the best mods ever are around

[DeathFinger]

A true artificial intelligence has jet to be invented...

Semi-OT I know but try to defeat an AI in Demential mode in Starcraft II. Pretty challenging, and the AI doesn't cheat. They just were programmed like progamers are playing. I'm sure AI can be improved in this way, even if I'm all except someone able to understand how it could be made.

[WinsingtonIII]

Semi-OT I know but try to defeat an AI in Demential mode in Starcraft II. Pretty challenging, and the AI doesn't cheat. They just were programmed like progamers are playing. I'm sure AI can be improved in this way, even if I'm all except someone able to understand how it could be made.

I don't think it makes sense to compare an RTS AI to a tactical battlefield AI, though. In a pure RTS game, obtaining victory is all about micromanagement and outproducing your enemy. On a Total War battlefield, you can't just expect to produce a blob of units and throw them at the enemy en masse, because the morale system, the importance of proper formation, the effects of flanking, etc. mean that you can encircle and rout a tight blob of advanced units with a smaller number of less advanced units. You really can't do that in a pure RTS unless you are using units that specifically counter the enemy's in the game's rock-paper-scissors system.

[vartan]

In short, Rome: Total War's battle AI is complicated, but not complicated enough.

[jirisys]

In short, Rome: Total War's battle AI is simple, that means it's not complicated enough.

I corrected it for you.

~Jirisys ()

[vartan]

I corrected it for you.

~Jirisys ()
Oh thank you. Are we still on for jiggy jiggy tonight?

On topic, yes Rome can be more complicated in some ways than RTS AI and chess AI, but to put it in one sense, there is a good complication and a bad complication. Rome's complication needs more complication.

[jirisys]

Oh thank you. Are we still on for jiggy jiggy tonight?

On topic, yes Rome can be more complicated in some ways than RTS AI and chess AI, but to put it in one sense, there is a good complication and a bad complication. Rome's complication needs more complication.

Chess and RTS are easy because they need not a analytic, adapting, sapient and modifiable mind. Chess is static, all pieces move the same all the time (except for exception) and the goal is pretty clear; that is a calculative system. RTS is practically the same. Works on stats and a sort of rock-paper-sissors system, not to complicated.

Now RTT are much more complicated. You have differing values of formation, wit, movement, deployment, flanking, trickery, traps, battlefield, etc. Not a single AI has yet adapted to these parameters and variables, and I'm saddened CA is not trying to make it happen, as much as programming yet another same-gameplay/better-graphics game.

~Jirisys ()

[Rahl]

Not a single AI has yet adapted to these parameters and variables, and I'm saddened CA is not trying to make it happen, as much as programming yet another same-gameplay/better-graphics game.

~Jirisys ()
There's one thing the game developers recognised already many years ago, good AI doesn't sell games.

[fomalhaut]

so has anyone played Shogun II? how is it? i like Shogun for its simplicity but i can always... just play Shogun if i want Total War in its original purity. no need to have a rig just to play Shogun I with pretty colors and animations over it.

[MickTrilogy]

I hope its a game about the English Civil War or something like that :)

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

I hope its a game about the English Civil War or something like that :)

Yeah, that'd be interesting, though perhaps better as an expansion/part of a Kingdoms-style game with multiple campaigns.

Oh, and welcome to the the Org, hope you'll enjoy your visit. ~:wave:

[Alsatia]

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Warring States of China. It would be really interesting if they did it, but since they did Shogun 2, It may not be the best idea. CA is probably more or less going to do Rome 2, mainly because of the larger pushes for that sequel, even from years back.

[NikosMaximilian]

I'm obviously biased here, but I'd like to see a full game with the American wars of independence, from the US (1770 for a start date maybe) to 1900 (end of Spanish rule). Empire Total War only scratched the surfice of this potential (and there's a lot of potential). All the factions that could be included:

-British Empire

-U.S.A.

-French Empire

-Spanish Empire

-Portuguese Empire

-Dutch

-The different Native Tribes, from Eskimo/Inuit down to the Ona. Not all of them could be playable because of faction slots limits, but many could be represented by rebels with unique geographical units, much like EB. Many could raid the frontier zones, spawn stacks or become "hordes" if their lands are conquered. Some could be allied to the revolutionaries, some to the European Empires, others be client kingdoms, and many independent.

-The African American slaves, who could ally with factions who choose to end slavery, thus giving them a bigger army, better reputation and stronger economy in the long term. If a factions chooses to keep the slave work system, it could have a short term economic bonus but face high unrest, poor reputation and rebellions.

-The different rebellious creole factions (United Provincies of the Rio de La Plata, Gran Colombia, Chile, Peru, Brazilian Kingdom, Mexico and so on). After rebelling, they could choose whether to become a monarchy or a republic.

The tactical and strategical scenarios would be very different from any other previous Total War Game, and also very different in the game itself. Going from artic tundra in northern Canadá, through the Great Lakes, great plains, key (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River) river (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River) crossings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parana_River), huge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonian_Desert) dry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Desert) deserts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Basin_Desert), mountains, different (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantanal) swamps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchafalaya_Basin), forests, dense jungles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Rainforest), crossing the highest mountain range in the continent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Andes), river and open sea battles, fortified island hopping in the Caribbean, various hills and plateaus, etc.

There would be a lot of different and new units, from the continental and imperial armies of the period, militias, many different classes of native warriors fighting with gunpowder to stone age weapons, mounted warbands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaucho), etc. There would also be many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington) famous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_de_San_Mart%C3%ADn) generals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim%C3%B3n_Bol%C3%ADvar) and leaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Miranda) to be represented. There could also be rebellions inside the rebellions, leading to new factions spawning.

This was an era of innovations, so railroads, evolution of firearms and warships, advances in many fields could be applied as reforms and buildings.

Also a completely new set of unique buildings and many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palenque) new man-made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chichen_Itza) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikal) natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon) wonders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iguazu_Falls) to be (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aconcagua) re-discovered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machu_Picchu) or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty) built (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal) at a very high cost. They could have a key role in building the new national identities or subjugating them and giving a huge law and order bonuses.

Anyway, I just drifted too much, just my dream to once have a Total War game like this.

[britany]

There is a new iOS app for total war, anybody buys this game app?
http://www.dotmmo.com/total-war-battles-shogun-7626.html

[Olek]

I think Rome 2 will be next, we have had Shogun 2, medieval 2, so I'd assume Rome 2 would be on the cards.

[Basileus_ton_Basileon]

if the make rome 2 I better see that CA learn a thing or 2 from EB (and EB2).....or even RS, at the very least.

Although, knowing CA, we'll be (very very) lucky to get RTR level of detail and accuracy.

[Finn MacCumhail]

Necromancy!

I think there would be WW I Total War next, not Rome 2. Look at Shogun Fall of Samurai, CA have lots of new ideas and mechanics, that suit WW I excellent. Machine guns, iron ships, rail roads. Also lots of the units already done for Japan, USA, Britain, France.

[Lysimachos]

Necromancy!

I think there would be WW I Total War next, not Rome 2. Look at Shogun Fall of Samurai, CA have lots of new ideas and mechanics, that suit WW I excellent. Machine guns, iron ships, rail roads. Also lots of the units already done for Japan, USA, Britain, France.

I agree about the new mechanics; making Rome 2 next would be a waste of lots of fine new features. But - with all due respect to the makers of TGW - I still don't see a convincing TW game set in WW1 coming. Instead I'd go for a victorian era version of ETW.

[huth]

I think that finally we will get WW2 total war game... the series evolved very much from original Shogun and farther changes are on the way, and with progressive technology a move from turn based game to real time but with a whole epic scale is inevitable... and CA is imho closer to this than Paradox.

[Rahl]

According to the article about Shogun:The Fall of the Samurai in the PC-Magazin GameStar Rome 2 is the most likely next part of the series and I believe they're right.

[ForzaFiori]

Rome 2 would be epic, but what I really want to see would be an Egyptian era game, starting in ~1600 BC roughly. There would be a divided egypt (it's 50 years before the end of the 2nd Intermediate Period), and some of the most famous empires of the time are starting up: Minoans, Hittites, Hyksos, Sea Peoples, Mittanni, Babylonians, and some smaller ones I can't remember the name of.

[Olek]

The biggest problem I see with a WWI or WW2 totalwar game is the lack of formations used in those era's, and I think the TW mechanics are based on Formation warfare, or have been since day 1.
I suppose It could be done, but I think with the bloodbaths of WWI we would need to see a major increase in the number of units otherwise battles will be over in minutes.

But really, I want Rome 2, nothing else in the series has had me as addicted as Rome TW, as I am still playing it.

[seleucid empire]

I agree with the ForzaFiori . I really want to see a pre-hellenistic game involving those civilisations in the east and the archaic greeks aswell. Think of the siege of troy, the battle of Kadesh, The legendary campaigns of Sargon, The sycthian invasions, the invasion of the sea peoples, the dorian invasion, Wars of King David, the exodus of the Israelites and THE ASSYRIANS!!! or the persians. The nubian invasion of egypt

[Blxz]

Yeah, but the teeming masses don't know anything about those time periods. CA knows that popular appeal sells games.

[Kocmoc]

Well, after all these years, we saw almost anything now. Shogun, Rome, MTW, NTW…
It turned into second parts with MTW2 and S2.

I personal cant imagine a WW2 or WW1 TW game, I was pretty much disappointed from NTW already. The playstyle and the tactical momentum was pretty much limited and very static.
The most and deepest tactical momentum and gameplay can be achieved with a "phantasy TW", with mages, trolls, wizzards….
It would be a first timer with different range attacks, strong melee, cav… anything you need for a game with lots of potential.

Apart from this, the major problems has to be solved, no matter what game it is.
Many things work nice within the SP, but create lots of trouble in MP.

CA tried to give MP a huge impact and if you follow the user playing it, they have failed badly. I doubt they are happy with those numbers.
A learning-curve for units, which are only based on much time, is pointless. To turn this game into a "mmo" didnt work and this was obvious.
Online Gaming has same simple basic rules and I have lots of trouble to understand, why CA continue to fail to adjust that.

1. Quick games
2. easy to enter as newcomer
3. a good learning curve
4. no advance for Oldtimer
4.1. the same chance for everyone


That I can bring units to lvl 9 or whatever and than have skills which make a massive impact, is the most stupid thing they ever could bring.
Its fun for the guy who got it, but its a huge disappointment for everyone who is new or didnt got that.

There were "old style games", ladder games, free games…. There was a clanwar… wow, we always did want that, but the basic idea was a disaster, you could have a winratio of 95%, but you never could beat a clan with 500 member,
who just won 20% but ofc got a lot more wins… Whats the point? Where is the challange? All the good clans didnt take part….

The ladder was also a joke! The old ladder in TW in 2000 was great, not perfect, but extremely good. You didnt hat to play just masses on games, the score was determined on your opponents and the winratio.
In S2 all you did need was new player, who give you a quick win. Other "good ranked player/teams" did dodge us fulltime, since they feared to lose…

I could continue, but actual I ask myself: What the hell those guys who create these parts of the game are thinking? This are simple things, you can easy see before the game is published!



Now my bet, the next game will be some "*****2" game, something we had already and now get a fresh look.
CA better accept the fact, that they are not able to bring a good MP part of the game anymore and just stop they effort and save the recourses.

[moonburn]

technically they could if they found a way to limit your army sizes to 2-3 regiments and then forçed people to cooperate together to win

the most fun part of any online game is comunicating and doing stuff as part of something

all the great games have that particular aspect (given that it´s normally with just caracthers)

but they could take the development part of for instance dark omen (trust me towards the end of the 90´s that was the best game out there) give players a chance to do a few single players campaigns to develop both their small armies and learn to use them properly and then they would have to pick a faction (given that carthage and rome where both senatorial factions you would get a senate vote to decide wich general would lead the batles against other factions)

then you would have a team of "romans" with armys of 20-30 regiments all trying to work together to achieve victory

you could always take the eleutheroi path and become a mistoporoi general and actually get payed by this or that faction to go to war and give an hand here and there (ofc you could also get destroyed once you lost your usefullness so you would end up creating leagues with other misthoropoi)

problem wich such a schem is that most people would pick rome giving rome and uneven amount of manpower (did i mention you would have gold and experience from the batles and you would have to save up some gold to retrain and better reequip your troops )

then it would just be a matter or combining warzones with proper wartimes when the time for a great batle beteween the seulekids and ptolemaioi came all of the generals would pick their leaders and their leaders would pick their best 10 generals to go with him to batle while the rest went back to single player campaigns to try and get more gold and experience then what they loose in men

just me brainstorming a bit but i think a lightning might have broken a few circuits

[Vilkku92]

Something makes me think, that we won't be seeing WW1 or WW2 Total War games - EVER! The TW games have always had their focus on formation battles with all of the army standing on a field shooting or chopping each other, marching by the signals of drummers and flagbearers in good parade field-order in battlefields the size of a few square kilometers at best. Since that kind of warfare stopped by the end of the 19th century, I have no way of imaging CA making a TW-game taking place after those times. Especially since there already are games like Combat Mission, Company of Heroes and quite a few others portraying those times. I would bet my money on them making a Rome 2 next.

Though a pre-hellenistic Total War would be nice. After all, smashing the nose of the Sphinx would be the dream of every Assyrian.:evil:

[Finn MacCumhail]

Every following CA game moves from the Ancient times to Nowadays. Rome, Middle ages, 18th century Empire, Shogun (yes, one goose step back but then three steps ahead, welcome 19th century!). It seems that the next game would be late 19th century Europe with Americas, India, Africa, Pacific Region. And then there would be WW1 official addon.

There are very interesting ideas already introduced in S2FoS, which wouldn't be abandoned because they are very good and they eat lots of time and human resources to be made just for one addon. Trench war, hiding in buildings - possible since Empire. Railways, iron ships, machine guns - sins S2FoS. Come on, pilla throwing and ballista shooting seems childish from the technical (in-game realization) point of view. What might replace this interesting features in Rome 2?

Plus RTW is not outdated yet. Why would they make Rome 2?

[ForzaFiori]

BLXZ: One word - Egyptomania. Nothing in the world has captured more peoples attentions. Slap "ancient Egypt" on the box, maybe with a picture of King Tut's deathmask, and it'd sell like hotcakes.

[Blxz]

BLXZ: One word - Egyptomania. Nothing in the world has captured more peoples attentions. Slap "ancient Egypt" on the box, maybe with a picture of King Tut's deathmask, and it'd sell like hotcakes.

I'd buy it =)

[seleucid empire]

me 2
it will be great to have a game in a period where chariots dominate and armies relied on skills and numbers rather than strict formations

[Bob Doad]

It will be BYOTW(Build your own total war) where its just a vanilla engine with nothing on it that comes with a ton of modding tools and thus tons of possabilties #wishfulthinking

[Blxz]

It will be BYOTW(Build your own total war) where its just a vanilla engine with nothing on it that comes with a ton of modding tools and thus tons of possabilties #wishfulthinking

Only following the trend of CA lately it will be as you said but also totally unmoddable.

[vartan]

It will be BYOTW(Build your own total war) where its just a vanilla engine with nothing on it that comes with a ton of modding tools and thus tons of possabilties #wishfulthinking
I smiled.

Only following the trend of CA lately it will be as you said but also totally unmoddable.
I laughed.

I was thinking it'd be called DIY: Total War.

[Blxz]

I was thinking it'd be called DIY: Total War.

I chuckled. :yes:

[seleucid empire]

I still want to see a TW game in the time period of the hittites or egyptian empires. It would be so nice to start off with a powerful empire in Asia Minor for once. Greece will be s turbulent as ever tho with the different Archaic factions. Imagine having Agamemnon;s empire or the Myrmidons of Achilles!

[rickinator9]

I still want to see a TW game in the time period of the hittites or egyptian empires. It would be so nice to start off with a powerful empire in Asia Minor for once. Greece will be s turbulent as ever tho with the different Archaic factions. Imagine having Agamemnon;s empire or the Myrmidons of Achilles!

Not really sure about that, but if you only want to have the eastern mediterranean as an area, I doubt there would be a lot of factions.

[ForzaFiori]

Just off the top of my head, assuming a map of the eastern mediterranean, Africa from the horn of somalia up, and the Middle east there would be Nubia, Egypt, the Hyksos, the Hittites, the Mittanni, Several independant Greek nations (Athens, Troy, Sparta, Rhodes, etc), the Minoans, Babylonia, Elam, the Canaanites, the Cushites, the Libyans, and the Sea Peoples. There's 16 factions, two of them nomadic rather than settled (Libyans and Sea Peoples), assuming you have independent greek cities. If not, its still 13, and I've never even studied the area and time period in depth. If I were to ask a professor in my history department, (or re-checkout a book I was reading last semester), I could probably get a list of 20 or so major players who all existed during the time and could be considered "major players".

[vartan]

TW would be better off taking a lesson from Paradox and not indirectly misrepresent "minor players" by excluding them.

[rickinator9]

TW would be better off taking a lesson from Paradox and not indirectly misrepresent "minor players" by excluding them.

I think the new medieval: total war should be a partnership with paradox. Crusader kings 2 with TW battles would be the best game ever.

[Arjos]

Crusader kings 2 with TW battles would be the best game ever.

Amen to that!

[Bob Doad]

I think the new medieval: total war should be a partnership with paradox. Crusader kings 2 with TW battles would be the best game ever.

CA your move

[vartan]

CA your move

Relevant (http://youtu.be/M_sBk-hyS5s)

[tobit]

I was reading today about the Vandals vs. the Byzantine fleet in 468, and it would be pretty cool to command an ancient fleet in the way total war Empire did. Especially with realistic Fire ships, and the intense ramming and hand to hand conflict that was around back then. But it would be cool as an RPG or a Sandbox game too.

I also think warfare in the 17th century would be really cool to watch in a Total war game, what with maneuvers like the Caracole, or the innovations of drill vs. mercenary style conflicts. There really was a military revolution during this period.

[Divine]

Rome 2!!! Yeah baby!!! I really hope they put the effort in with this game. Time to re-open Rome