Next Total War version

[Magyar Khan]

well we have seen Shogun, after some patches a splendid game

then Mongol Invasion (add-on), it added some units, dust and after some patches a good game

now Medieval, hundred units, bigger maps, siege equipment, (static) castles. one patch. game is for sp very nice (being told) and for mp a bit boring if u played previous versions.

later Viking perhaps (add-on), probably for sp more ships, some units and some campaigns and scenarios. for mp probably just some units so this addon will be sp based. adding lets say 16 new units to 100 we have alredy is not a big improvment. the upside is that teh add on may serve as a 2nd patch and improve mp as well.

the Future new version , lets say Total War III. if it are romans or not many things have to be added to be a worth new version.

Fantasy will drastically increase teh new possibilities cuz magic and items and so on are new to Total War.

but if it would be

Romans (or ancient greek or whatever) than its possible to add more formations (Turtle , orb) and perhaps new warmachines like chariots and elephants.
its possible to let it be 3D, in a year the new standard pc speed is more than 3Ghz and graph cards are faster as well.

i wuldnt mind if teh number of men is reduced and the number of units increased.

but imo at least fire should be added, to set woods in fire and but also a 2 sided online campaign possibility. barbarians vs romans. maybe a light version of the SP campaign but in a next worthy version there must be more options to give online gaming a goal besides doing some battles at night.

perhaps a more interactive way to design your castle-fortress as well so u can add moats and stuff.

my 2 points
- add fire
- add online campaign*

what u think, and keep it realistic* plz, should be added to be worthy?

*online campaigning is realistic but requires some vision from teh marketeers.

[trader/warrior]

the number of men should be increased not decreased

[Knight_Yellow]

well the scotts should get added.

spears should work against horses

archers should work against inf

more units perhaps 25+

and it must repeat MUST have a mp campaign max 6 ppl. with the option to forge alliances and conquer the continent with ur ally's.

[CaPeFeAr]

if tw moves foward in time then possibly a nepolanic version... if moving backwards...id say focus on alexanders time ...the armies of india and macadonia and so forth...plz forgive my spelling http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif if we are talking about ways to improve gameplay....more options more options more options.... let the host balance the game for those who want a balanced game.... ability to ban units...assign armies... limit amounts of certin troops and so forth...the more options the host has the better.

[Nelson]

Setting woods on fire is too bogus from a historic perspective. Any fire should be limited to sieges.

I agree with trader/warrior that fewer men would be a step in the wrong direction. 3D all the way is fine so long as numbers do not diminish.

Moats and other siege engines would be great as would an online campaign of some sort.

A fantasy setting might be tolerable AFTER Rome and any other good historic periods are all exhausted.

[Al Qasim Hussein]

DIPLOMACY AND TRADE

in SP, sorry, not a big MP person http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Diplomacy: penalties for breaking treaties. Come on, why even have a treaty, CA? The computer breaks them, I break them, the computer won't even SIGN THEM by the time I own 60% of the world. It's just a non-function in the game.

Princesses. Why? And don't say for alliances, I just went over that

Moving across allies' lands, giving allies money/troops/sweet lovin'/whatever. I know all of these have been brought up 1000 times but they bear repeating

Trade: It's pretty good right now, but overland trade... I mean, the Novgoradians (?) weren't big seafarers as they didn't have a port that wasn't always icebound. But I betcha they trod the Silk Road when they could Perhaps a way to build roads...although that wasn't a big priority in the Middle Ages.

Thats my two florins. Thanks for reading.

[LordKevinV]

I posted this in the entrance hall but im sure not many people read whats in there, but anyways....what this game needs is smaller and different kinds of battles. as an example an ambush of a king as he travels through the map, or attacking a caravan robin hood style? well just my thought on it.

[Spino]

Here's my list in order of importance.

- Improved AI
- Improved diplomatic and political model
- Improved AI
- MORE THAN 16 CONTROLLABLE UNITS ON THE BATTLEFIELD AT ONCE
- Improved AI
- Generals and agents that age and die
- Improved AI
- Subordinate commanders and armies (with limited orders?) on the field of battle. The more the merrier. More epic than epic is my motto...
- Improved AI
- Improved Naval model - I'm tired of seeing a sea zone dominated by my sizeable fleet closed to ALL trade and transport because a faction that I'm at war with managed to build and launch one stupid ship in that same zone.
- Improved AI
- Inter-faction marriages that have more value and long term implications than a simple alliance.
- Improved AI
- Improved Trade model- Why do you lose the economic benefits of trade when you take over a far flung province that was once a major trade partner to your merchants? Doesn't intra-faction trade count for anything?
- SLINGER UNITS and other lightly armed oddities

Did I mention improving the AI?

Let's face it. Even if Total War Rome brings more multiplayer goodness to the table (i.e. improving the current system and possibly incorporating an online campaign) the Total War series are all about the single player experience. The 1.1 patch was a godsend for MTW and really improved the single player game. Unfortunately the AI still makes some seriously stupid mistakes in the strategic game. Too many times I've seen factions engage in multi-front wars or those with massive fleets concentrated in obscure sea zones instead of being sensibly spread out to other zones to maximize trade income.

[Magyar Khan]

improving ai where is that good for as u can find better skileld players online...

[FasT]

yes improve fire etc..But increasing and addin more things requires better machines to run online etc..Thats one problem.But what the hell go with it.
Id be more happy with less units but more balanced
id also still like maps with areas with quick sand random.

[AMPage]

If those screen shots are the next total war, that's gonna kick ass. Awesome 3d graphics i can't wait, it's a dream come true. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

What i want for improvements for mp you can visit the jousting fields and under the topic mp features. It has a good list for multiplayer options. For single player i haven't played much, but i'll share what i think would be nice.

1. A new way of playing campaign. Instead of having provinces, where you drop units from one to the next no matter how big/small the province is, units have movement and only can move a certain distance each turn.

2. Castles hold your money, so you can't just buy units anywhere and build, you have to transfer the money from castle to castle if you don't have enough. So, when you take over an enemy castle, if they haven't moved out there money, it's yours.

3. Generals, Kings, Heirs and such are special units, which all shown on the battlefield. Generals are special units which you hire or search for in a castle. When you train a new unit it can gain in valor, but dosn't automatcially have a general, you have to asign a gen to the unit/units. On the battlefield lets say you have a king, two heris, and a general presant they will all be shown and you will told if they are killed in battle.

4. A better campagin map in a nice rich 3d enviorment. The campagin map in mtw isn't so great looking...stw was better, but not by much. A nice map keeps me more into the game.

5. Improved diplomacy like others want.

Those are a few things i would like to see for sp.

For unit sizes i wouldn't want them to big anyway, cause the bigger the unit sizes the less tatics invovled. I don't really like the 100 unit sizes as it is, 80 unit size is the max to my liking. So, if they go as low as 40 for default unit sizes i wouldn't mind. I like controling armies, but i also like tatics...

You should be able to control as many units as your pc can handle at once. I'd like an increase in the amount of units to be controled at once, but if added for mp also, i would like a speed slider or it just becomes all the time mass head on rushes and no tatics.

I would also like construction sets for campaign making and troop making. Nice handy/easy tools to make your own campaign and change/make units.

magy, why would a person who plays sp wanna play the poor mp just for a good match? They shouldn't have to.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Crandaeolon]

Some stiff competition for the Total War series would be nice... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Emp.Dacosta]

The next Total War should be Imperial: Total War. There are tons of of games that are set in the Roman/Ancient Period, such as AoM, AoE and Cossacks plus many others. There really aren't that many Imperial games, and it would be real interesting if a Total War Imperial game was made. It could 1500 - 1895. What do you think?

[Jaret]

MULTIPLAYER CAMPAIGNS

PPL, like LANS you know. Small Lans, big Lans and MP via I-net. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

CA always says that most ppl want to play Sp, so that is where the "customerbase" is. I think that this forum kinda proved them wrong. There is an MP "customerbase", that doesn´t like Sp all that much. Disregarding them means to loose that customerbase ( or a large % of it ). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Improve MP and even more PPL will like and buy TW, giving you moo money to work on the next TW. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

Also the AI realy is kind of a problem. Sometimes it shows unimaginable genious on the Battlefield ( Captain: "If we withdraw and reorganise, maybe we can take their flank, sir " General: "In a Dream " ), the next time they let themselves get peppered to death by Missile Units, without even trying to advance. Also the AI must learn how to disband units I hate to fight Armies of rubbish. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Blocking a traderoute should only be possible if you have a bigger fleet I wonder how a single Dow managed to block off my full stack of Wargalleys. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

The overall game is about perfect, congrats CA PLD http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Time to work on the right balancing and fine tuning http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

Looking forward to whatever there comes CA OWNS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[el_slapper]

MP campaign only if the campaign time is reduced. It would be hell in current eternal MTW campaign.





OR

An idea I've read(tribute to the author, whoever it may be), Mini-campaigns focused on a small amount of time, with accurate objectives. Repel the Mongols as the Russians, free France under Joan of Arch's rule or Hold Granada versus the Christians. Short amount of time, focus on a small ground, with 2 to 4 players. That would be doable & nice, both in SP & MP. NEEEEVEEEER a full MP campaign.

[HopAlongBunny]

Multi-player campaign. Fixed bugs, list is still quite long (o'course those SHOULD be fixed in a patch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif) Improved AI and diplomacy...actually anything to keep the game halfway interesting beyond the point where you know you'll win in a walk, or you know you've been thrashed.

I would like to see the MP issues addressed. I don't play MP yet but if I do, I want it to work. On-line gaming is a bit dreary when its a sure bet that all flaws will be attributed to the "net" or your lack of a 100000Ghz multi-threading, super-cooled home comp.