TW3 = MTW2

[Jon von]

I read all those posts about the next TW. In my opinion, european middle age is the definitive scenario for this game.
First of all, we can say what TW3 can't be. It can't be about an age where gunpowder prevails: the large use of sophisticated artillery and gunmen would implicate very
wide battlefields, I think at least 10 times wider than MTW fields: so no Napoleonic war, American Civil War, '700, '800, '900, futuristic scenarios.

So, in my opinion, we have to check the potentiality of pre-gunpowder scenarios. Now I don't wanna compare all the possible scenarios. Just wanna list the advantages that medieval scenario got over the others:

1 It displays many factions with different cultures; this means a lot of different ways to play, tactics, weapons, troop types. I think it's hard to find a scenario with more different troop types, for example. And differents troop types means different tactics, etc.

2 (MOST IMPORTANT)Religion matters meet politics as it has never happened before in (at least western) history. You can never take political decisions without taking care of religion consequences, particularly if you are christian you can't disregard Pope's judgement.
This make diplomacy (when and if it will be developed) very challenging and unique.

3 There are many factions but these factions are well-balanced. There are stronger and weaker faction, of course, and this is good, but noone prevails. For example, how could you balance the factions in Napoleonic age (you would exclude the existence of Napoleon)?
The factions are, more or less, in the same tecnological level.. to make an example, they all know agriculture so their economy are founded on agriculture. In a hypothetical Ancient times Total War, how would you manage German tribes economy?

4 Medieval background is unique, it has the charm of a obscure and very religious age, where the rational knowledge of the world has been replaced by mistic visions and... uh, I don't wanna be rhetorical, so I stop http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Conclusion:
in my opinion Medieval is the ultimate and the definitive scenario, expecially for a game as TW.
MTW is a great game, but, men, how many things could be improved? And how many things an add-on could improve? Not enough.
Medieval scenario is the definitive one, but MTW is far by being the ultimate game; so I'd like to see MTW2. I don't care to see a new background, new factions and troops. I'd like a improved AI, diplomacy, more tactics, and maybe a MPcampaign. Personally, I think CA should work on these things, not wasting time to create new troops or backgrounds.
I'm going to write a post in which I'll list the things that could be improved in a hypothetical MTW2; I really think that a simple add-on could not improve the game in a "touchy" way (Is this right? Can you understand me? Don't speak english very good), so my solution is:

TOTALWAR3 : MTW2

Cheers

[Leet Eriksson]

If they are going to make a TW3 then its going to be a sequel or prequel,not the same.if TW3 is actually MTW with improved features thats called a "remake" and not actually a sequel/prequel of sorts.imho i think TW3 should be based on the romans or greek i really like seeing these 2 in a TW game sometime soon,besides who would'nt want to see legionnares rolling on the fields killing and sluaghtering barbarians/persians?

[Rosacrux]

Jon von

Interesting thoughts, but I wouldn't agree: MTW plus an add-on is all what I could digest as for the medieval settings in a TW game and I fear most other users feel that way.

OTOH, Ancient: Total War, with a decent diplomacy, politics and economics engine, a different "province" concept and handling, and a new battle engine, and maybe real-time (a-la Europa Universalis) strategy map, would be the game of the decade.

[Jon von]

I think Ancient Times is the "great rival" of Medieval Total War. We could make a new topic about this challenge http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

It's unquestionable that ATW would be original and MTW2 wouldn't; but the question is: is this important? For me, no, even 'cause I like the medieval background more.

MTW went out 2 years after STW. How much is the MTW strategical AI better than STW AI? Not enough to justify 2 years of AI development. Same thing for the tactical AI, even if we can say that it's not so bad.
MTW is a half-masterpiece, and the add-on will probably be a 3/4 masterpiece, if we'll be lucky. But to satisfy its potentiality, it must be re-programmed for a part.

You say that Ancient: Total War, with a decent diplomacy, politics and economics engine, a different "province" concept and handling, and a new battle engine, and maybe real-time (a-la Europa Universalis) strategy map, would be the game of the decade. ok, but CA would work for 6 years to make that game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

So what I say is: there are many many things to improve in TW, if CA has limited time to spend, I'd like better to have a re-make of MTW with AI, diplomacy, economic engine, politics SERIOUSLY IMPROVED than a new game with, for ex., AI lightly improved as it has been with MTW after STW.

[Rosacrux]

Why don't they go over at Paradox, license their strategy engine and work only on the battle engine and the AI (and ofcourse artwork and stuff)?

I think that would cut down time and costs considerably http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Jon von]

Besides, even another MTW could be in part original: for example, the game could start in the 7th-8th century with the arab expansion, or in the 10th century with the second barbarian invasion..

[Ktonos]

Ancient : Total War is imho and not mine only, the best era for TW3. Germanic barbaric hordes either will be rebels or non existant. The civilised and important factions of that era are different of those of the dark and midieval ages.
We would have to deal with Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Indians, Gauls, Carthageneans (major factions) and Etruskans, Hebrews, Skythians, Illyrians, Ibirians, Phoenicians, Saxons, Britons, Celts (NP factions). Alternative there could be no greek faction and instead of it Athenians, Spartans and Macedonians. The str. map game could be real time like the one in EU series but with out so many provinces. Battle map could be improved, but all that are hypothetical. I say lets enjoy that dimond in our cd-rom drivers for the time being and when -if ever- TW3 is out we will replace it...

[Jon von]

ATW got big limits:
All the playable factions you listed are mediterranean factions, so big limits to the background variety.
Ancient age is too much long period to define.. the factions listed belong to a period of thousands of years... we have to define which part of the AT we want to consider.
We can consider, for ex., the "Greek period" VIII century b.c. Then we'll have: Greeks, Persian Empire, stop. Egyptians were under Persian Empire, all the western Europe had no very political importance.
We can consider the "Roman period", starting for ex from IV century b.c.; then we'll have: Romans, Gauls, Carthageneans, some Hellenistic Realm. The rest is out. And so on.

What I want to say is that all the factions you list aren't playable in the same game 'cause when, for ex. there was the Persian Empire Rome was a village of 150 men, and when Rome controlled the Mediterranean sea, Egypt was a reign of lesser importance..
Define Define Which part of AT do you want to be playable?

[Daveybaby]

I dont understand why large scale gunpowder battles have to be ruled out (e.g. Napoleonic Total War), just because it wont fit within the current TW engine.

If limitations of the engine stops CA from making the next game in the series significantly better/different from whats gone before, then theyre better off not bothering. Why would you buy Ancient:Total War - a game which, due to the period in which its set, would by definition be less varied (both strategically and tactically) than what we've already got in Medieval?

I think after 2 games (and 2 expansions, assuming there's one for MTW) the total war tactical engine could be considered at the end of it useful life, and is due for a serious upgrade or complete rewrite anyway.

And judging from what i've read about the reasons for CA not getting MP campaigns working for MTW - it seems that the strategic map engine could do with a rewrite too.

[Daveybaby]

Oh, and i know all the purists hate the idea, but i think the best possible next game for the current total war engine would be a fantasy version.

It would be a fun alternative, and would fill the time quite nicely while CA produce a new state-of-the-art engine for the next 'serious' installment in the background.

Not to add that the sales of a fantasy wargame will probably outsell a 'serious' wargame 10:1, especially with the current LOTR frenzy going on.

[Ktonos]

Have you ever played the "Rome" scenario for Civ2? Begin:aprox. 200BC. Romans, Carthageneans, Gauls, Celts, the three Greek Empires (Macedonian, Seleukian, Ptolemy) and a faction representing Indipendet Greek and Allies. My opinion is that they should make 3-4 eras to begin. The above factions where in existance in all eras between 500-30 BC. But Romans at 500bc where just the citizens of a small town, and Macedonians a weak federation of the Greek north. The truth is that in each of those eras there will be 2-3 protagonists and the rest will follow them. This is not bad AT ALL You can play Greeks at easy (500BC), moderate (331BC) or hard (100BC). And the fourth era could be fantastical having every faction at its peak at the same time.

[A.Saturnus]

PLEASE not middle-earth-total-war
I think every pc-game about this theme was trash. Don`t exploit good old Tolkien that way. Also; it would lead to endless discussions how strong orcs actually should be...
I could live with fantasy-TW, but create a new fantasy world for it.
Jon has many good points, but my idea of a game in lutherian age would meet many of them:
-battle-fields wouldn`t have to be that big
-melee would play a serious role together with gunpowder weapons
-religion would be very important (even more than in MTW)
-diplomacy would be very important (more than in ancient total war)
-many different factions in war with each other (how many nations were involved in the thirty-years-war?)
plus: this period is rarely used in pc-games

so why not make a remake that starts with the end of the roman empire and ends with beginning of enlightment? I know this is a long time and many different factions and units would be needed, but it would definitely be great

[Whitey]

Three Kingdoms: Total War.

or possibly Rome: Total War.

[Ktonos]

Bah...I am a role player and fantasy rpg's are about heroes,vilains, Dragons, epic duels, magic ... I love them but only when I am a player or the DM with my pals around the bed with dices and papers. In aseries as TW these things don't fit.

Now, religion was something that could drive people into war during medieval ages. Politics was what could do the same in ancient times. Instead of catholic christian, orthodox christian, muslim population percentages there could be Monarchy, Democracy, Oligarchy, Despotism, Tyranny and Republic followers. The player could select the goverment and change it whenever he believes it is suitable. Different goverment types should have different effects in gameplay.

Religion could also fit in A:TW. Who is the major patron Deity of, lets say Spartan people? Aris has the 45%, Artemis the 37%, Demetra 12% etc. Aris grands a 45% for every unit prodused to come with +1 valour. Artemis +37 drachmas from wood exploit. Demetra +12% agricultural production. Of course those are quick ideas and may seem stupid, but for the developers would be far more easy to make a game based in the ancient culture.

[Daveybaby]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Nov. 26 2002,10:48)]PLEASE not middle-earth-total-war
I think every pc-game about this theme was trash. Don`t exploit good old Tolkien that way.
Doesnt have to be tolkein, in fact i'd much rather it wasnt that - too restricting. But: Fantasy does not always equal crap.

Look at Age of Mythology. I cant stand the 'Age of..' games, but AoM kinda proves you can have something other than the standard tolkein stuff, and do it well.

And for a decent PC fantasy strategy game, try Master of Magic. This is one of the all-time strategy gaming classics (and is a better game than the original Civ IMHO*). A MoM-a-like using the total war engine for tactical combat would be a pretty damn fine game.

Anyhow, i'd much rather have Napoleonic Total War regardless.

* and, in fact, its better than CivIII http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Spino]

Geez, I believe this is only the billionth thread devoted to the subject matter of Medieval's sequel... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif And yet each time I see such a thread I feel compelled to offer my two cents... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I'm all for the Ancient era. Chariots, Hoplites and Elephants, oh my

The time period for an Ancient themed sequel? I'm a little torn here. I'd love to have it start just before the commencement of hostilities between Athens and Sparta but I feel beginning just prior to the rise of Philip I of Macedon (Alexander the Great's father) would make for a more interesting game. End it perhaps one hundred years after the transformation of the Roman Republic to an Empire. In that time period Europe and Western Asia was anyone's game That's roughly 400 years of bloody good fun

Should CA take decide to make an Ancients themed sequel I sincerely hope they do not limit the scope to that of Imperial Rome. Shogun is a great game but part of Medieval's charm is the is the dizzying myriad of units available from each faction (especially those faction specific units). After enjoying the cornucopia of martial units available in MTW I'd hate to be limited to the basic Imperial Roman/barbarian fare.

A fantasy rpg based Total War? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif As much as I love rpgs I'll have to pass on that one. As an avid wargamer there are alarmingly few games of the same caliber as the TW series so if given the choice I'll take historical based simulations over dragons and elves anyday. One could campaign to influence CA to make it even easier to mod the sequel so like minded players could band together to make some spectacular fantasy based mods.

[lafayette]

When thinking of a gun-powder age, I am not thinking of Napoleontic times straight away.

The period of 1570 to 1750 is great time. With muskets and pikes playing a major role at the beginning. There a lot of wars and a lot of factions.
Dutch, Spanish, England, France, Austrians, Italian states, Turks, Russians, Swedes, some German kingdoms like Bavarians. There is 100 year war (Spain vs Dutch), the 30 years war...

So to make a point. Warfare did not jump from swords to muskets straight away. Especially in the beginning there were a lot of diferences between the European armies, and muskets were just a part of the army. The Austrians even used swords and shields at this time. Also the role of cavalery changed ofcourse even more, though the old units and tactics were as hard as old habits. The invention of the bajonet removed the pikemen and increased collom firepower.

Eventually the manouvring of collums and development of how to give a volley of bullits (Maurits and Gustav) as well the evolution of muskets and artillery changed the battlefield forever. I agree that these battlefields can be much bigger, but then again also the present MTW is only a representation of much bigger battles. I think that the tactical part of the game will increase even more An wild rush can be very foolish. Finding the weak spot will be even more important. Battles may take longer.

When going for Ancient TW, I would also go for a small Rome. The goal could be to build an empire. It took Rome quite a time to build it. Especially in the first centuries there were some nice factions that could equally challenge Rome. Indeed the Gauls, Carthaginians, Greek, Parths, etc., and at times there were enough civil war style battles between Roman armies them selves.

Yes, I would love to see the cohorts of hastati, principes and triarii march in perfect order over the battlefield. Or what to think of Hannibals Elephants?
But then again, I love to do Blenheim with Marlboro and Prince Eugene too.

I agree that a gunpowder age would be more of next phase of TW and that the ancient age would probably be more of the same engine as MTW.

If i could opt. I would go for the gunpowder. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Cousin Zoidfarb]

I agree Total War 3 should be redone in the medieval European setting, but they should improve the weak part of the game , that being the strategy/diplomacy aspect. Anyone remember Genghis Khan or Romance of the Three Kingdoms? The graphics were terrible, but the empire management and strategy/diplomacy was loads of fun. Or they could steal EU's ideas.

[Teutonic Knight]

IMHO I have to agree with Ktonos, I think he has done the best job presenting his case and i believe that Ancient: Total War is the way to go. If there was a poll for what we should do I would.............wait, I'll go start a poll now Good idea

[solypsist]

Christ Not another one of these speculation threads Please keep 'em in The Tavern.