Next Totalwar Is...

[Stormer]

Well aparantley in some magazines and vids i seen, CA plan on making a next totalwar but they are still debating the Napolionic era, American History, or maybe a Medieval 2, they say they havent made their minds up yet but we all know they have :bow: as they decided on RTW before Medieval was even made, i dont cant see how any of the gunpowder era games are gonna work in this engine. also that other game IMPERIAL GLORY is being realsed soon.

Me thinks we should all get our Shogun or Medieval 2 Demands in ~:grouphug:

[Beelzebub]

MTW2 would ROCK. I think the medieval setting is the best for TW games since you've got such a wide variety of cool units and cultures. If they really wanted to be ambitious they could increase the scale of the conflict from europe/middle east to everything between europe and japan. But I'd be more than ok with just the same area as MTW redone with all the new engine improvements.

[Red Harvest]

I don't see why they couldn't alter the engine to make it work properly for gun based warfare. Map size would need to be huge.

[fester]

I agree the medieval period is the best setting for a TW game . The technical advances for example runs from iron mail armour right trough to full plate steal then there's the introdction of the crossbow and its development into a long range armour weapon. fortifacations start as mere earth works and timber baracades to massive stone fortresess and the development of siege engines used to breach them with the eventual introduction of gun powder.All this set on the back ground of the medieval power struggle wich resulted in hundreds of years of warfare. I cant think of a period more suited to a TW game .

[Basileus]

I say they make Shogun 2 and Medieval 2 with rpg elements that would make me happy heh

[ShellShock]

CA in the Gamespot interviews talk about always developing two games, one an evolution and the other a revolution. So MTW was a evolution of STW, whilst RTW is a revolution - by this I think they mean the revolution was going from 2D to 3D for battles, and the tight integration of the strategic campaign map with the tactical battle maps.

An evolution of RTW may be STW 2 or MTW 2 with the new engine. Or possibly some other era, but still using the same engine. After all they have invested a lot in the engine, and it has light years of mileage in it, as can be seen already with all the TV spin offs.

But what would be the revolution from RTW? They've already done the 3D thing, and I don't think just improving the graphics will cut the mustard - we can take it as read that future games will always have better graphics.

What about improving the strategy elements? There is more scope for revolutionary changes here, but we need to see first how much RTW has already achieved, and what scope remains for future developments.

I think the obvious candidate, and the one big area of weakness in Total War games, is multiplayer, and I mean campaign/strategic, and well as battles. Campaign MP is a problem that has yet to be solved, but there is a very large market for massive, immersive MP games. You would be an up and coming general in the Total War universe, pitching your wits against human opponents to conquer the known world.

[son of spam]

Three Kingdoms: Total War!

Hopefully...

I'm kinda hoping CA wouldn't cover the same ground with the next total war. Why play Medieval again (even with better graphics?). With Three Kingdoms they could probably even give the hero system more meaning than just a bunch of high valor/high command guys.

[ShellShock]

Another revolutionary change would be to implement proper sea based battles, rather than the current abstraction.

Again, like the campaign multi-player, this could be applied to many different eras. How about New World: Total War, set in the age of European expansion and colonisation of America, Africa, and Australasia. A lot of the decisive battles occurred at sea, which would be ideal for a new engine. If you have read any of the Patrick O'Brian books - or seen the film Master and Commander, you will know what I mean.

[Psyco]

I'm going for Napoleonic: Total War.
We already have Medieval, so I really don't think we need another one (how different could it be?). Shogun 2 would be better, simply because Shogun is older than Medieval. The change from Shugun to the next game would be huge. The reason I want N:TW is because it hasn't been done. There has never been a TW game in which the main weapon was the gun. It would be something completely different.
Thats my 2 cents.

[lars573]

I'm for a Napoleonic total war as well. Intsead of shogun 2 I'd prefer an asian total war set from persia in the west to japan in the east from the begining of the sung dynasty till the fall of the ming, that would work great. Personally Medieval 2 is the last thing I hope they make, a rehash of medieval with rome's engine would just be a worthless cop out IMO.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm for a Napoleonic total war as well. Intsead of shogun 2 I'd prefer an asian total war set from persia in the west to japan in the east from the begining of the sung dynasty till the fall of the ming, that would work great. Personally Medieval 2 is the last thing I hope they make, a rehash of medieval with rome's engine would just be a worthless cop out IMO.


that would be unbelievably massive in scope and would not capture the interests of enough buyers - however interesting it is


a 3 kingdoms or dynastic china-Japan game is a possibility with maybe a eurasian steppe/South asia mod or something


but my bet is on napoleonic TW next - or at least it will be the Revolution game

[Colovion]

It's tough for game companies to find something which people will like after breaking ground with new ideas - now they've covered most of the time periods so they'll have ot pull something really good out of their hats this time.

[Stuie]

I was always of the opinion that the MTW map should have been extended all the way to Japan, thus covering the same territory/factions as the old Koei game Ghengis Khan II. So that's what I'd like to see for a MTW2.

But then again, Rome is my dream game, so it matters little what they make next as long as the expansion(s) for RTW are good. ~:)

[fester]

I cant see how a gun based game would be as fun or as skillful as hand to hand infantry. If your going to have a gun based game you may as well go the hole hogg and have WWII TW........ No thanks.

[Daevyll]

MTW 2 would be my preference.

Another interesting setting would be to decrease the scope of the game, allowing for more detail.

A game about the War of the Roses perhaps, with very detailed dynastic/political aspects.

[Beelzebub]

A 1453-1815 era game would be a good guess for their revolution game. Even up until 1815 cavalry still were significant for those who like their fighting to be more up close and personal (just ask the scot greys at waterloo), as were bayonet charges and the like.

I don't see why people are so opposed to MTW2, especially if it covered a larger area. It would be a far different game from MTW1 with the rome engine, heavy cavalry could really make much more impressive charges as they should've, castles would be as imposing as they truely were during the period (RTW's walled cities make MTW fortresses look like sandcastles). Then you have the whole new and improved strategic map to really make that part more interesting.

[Spino]

The rumors that the next TW game will indeed be Medieval '2' have made a huge impression on me. I was originally hoping that modders would transform RTW into 'Medieval 3D' but if there is any truth to this rumor then I won't have to hope and modders won't have to bother!

Although remaking Medieval right after Rome sounds strange, by the time the remake actually hits the shelves it will be sometime in late 2006/early 2007, more than 4 years after the original was released. Four years is a rather long time as far as PC gaming is concerned and the original Medieval will definitely be yesterday's news by then. Furthermore the Dark Ages/Medieval period is so damn popular I think strategy gamers and the TW community will be delighted to see CA take this route. The RTW system is so far ahead of previous TW games that Medieval '2' would seem like an entirely different beast from the original.

If CA doesn't remake Medieval than I'd definitely like to see them cover the Three Kingdoms period in China or turn back the clock even further and cover the struggles between the Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc.

It is definitely looking like CA's next 'revolutionary' title will feature warfare in the early gunpowder age. I'm hoping they cover the period from the 30 years war, War of the Spanish Succession, etc... all the way to the Napoleonic wars. But I'd really like to see them cover a smaller time frame, maybe from the time of Frederick the Great to sometime after the Napoleonic Wars, so we can have monthly turns instead of bi-annual or annual turns like we do now.

[Steppe Merc]

Why play Medieval again (even with better graphics?).
Dude, I'd buy it... that and STW 2. I'll buy any thing as long as it's not a gun based one. I hate guns. :knight:

[biguth dickuth]

I'd go for a MTW2 but with an earlier starting date and a world map.
The changes, however, i'm mostly interested in have to do with gameplay. I'd like to see the following:

- A real-time 3d map without "end turns" which reflects the constant changes as time passes.

- No provinces, just towns and cities and areas of influence around them.

- Several kinds of economical and political systems and the ability of the player to shift between them in the long-term.

- Different kinds of social organisation in different societies and different ways of troop recruitment for each faction, according to the faction's economical and political system.

- Even larger and more imposing 3d battles with more realistic fighting animations and a multitude of skins per unit (no more "attack of the clones"!).

- Naval battles.

I'm sure i have more to add in that list but can't think of it at the moment. Please tell me what you think.

[Longasc]

I would say Medieval 2.

Napoleonic Era: Problematic -> Gunpowder units were the worst part of MTW (IMO). They would fight on new terrain with the introduction of gunpowder, while

MTW 2 -> familiar ground, plus the experiences of RTW with the new 3D engine.

Good chance that this game would not only feature one of the imo most interesting periods, but also improved gameplay free of major bugs and the gripes of a completely new game / system.

[mambaman]

why not go for Ancient Total war and a period around Alexander the Great or even before??

[Quietus]

Pyros has already beaten CA to the punch with Imperial Glory. Besides, this engine is no good when it comes to guns. And it has no 3D naval battle either.

Current Engine:
Thus, the good candidates are MTW 2 or Ancient China TW. Representation of the Medieval Age in MTW was poorly done. It is then logical to right what was awful. Add some good production value here and there to get the real medieval flavor (I'm not asking for an implementation of the feudal system here :dizzy2: ). IMHO, Shogun was tastefully done and there's no need yet to remake this one.

Next Generation:
For the next generation of TW they should improve upon the hack-and-slash, pin-and-flank style since it is getting quite old. (IG already utilizes buildings, trees, etc for tactics).

Add some Naval Battles there. They are already behind on this one too (IG).

Twenty units is still not nearly enough!!! (Right, right??? ~;) )

Much larger battle maps so reinforcements will no longer be as necessary ( So you can make large flanking maneuver; Heck even divide your large army into 5 pieces for a truly coordinated offensive).

As for the socio-political-economic-military system. I'll wait for he verdict in RTW first. See if there is a balance there. ~:)

I'm pretty sure everyone has their own ideas on how to improve the next gen. TW.

[ICantSpellDawg]

why not go for Ancient Total war and a period around Alexander the Great or even before??


that will probably be the expansion

east asia will be the evolutionary

napoleonic will be the revolutionary



thats my verdict - it sounds like it would make sense

[Steppe Merc]

I think there should be two expansions: One for the 'Barbarian Migrations' with the Huns and the Goths, the Other around Alexander.

[Armchair Athlete]

I think it will be MTW 2, with a later finishing date maybe. I think this would be the one they do because due to the later finishing date, gunpowder units will be used much more, and they can use feedback from players to gauge whether a predominately gunpowder game would be successful (eg NTW). Gunpowder and primarily ranged units are something that CA have never done, so it may be a bit risky to jump straight into it.

[Quokka]

Why not go into the future like Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri and completely make something up. They don't even have to go that far forward.

At least the historical accuracy nuts would leave them alone.

[Bigwig]

If we're straying from real history here, Westeros: Total War (based off the fantasy books by George RR Martin) would definitely make an amazing game. If not, I think Napoleonic:TW would be the next logical choice, followed by Medieval:TW 2.

[ShellShock]

I'd like to see the following:

- A real-time 3d map without "end turns" which reflects the constant changes as time passes.
Ugh no - this would make TotalWar into an RTS, which is probably anathema to most people here. I personally need time to think whilst I'm planning my next move (and I don't want to have to keep pressing pause).


- No provinces, just towns and cities and areas of influence around them.
As per RTW.


- Several kinds of economical and political systems and the ability of the player to shift between them in the long-term.

- Different kinds of social organisation in different societies and different ways of troop recruitment for each faction, according to the faction's economical and political system.
These will add more depth to the game, but may make it too complicated for the average player - some reviews have already complained that RTW is too complicated.


- Even larger and more imposing 3d battles with more realistic fighting animations and a multitude of skins per unit (no more "attack of the clones"!).
This will surely happen, as the power of graphic cards keeps increasing.


- Naval battles.
This gets my vote; it is a major area of gameplay where CA have yet to make their mark.

[ShellShock]

A good reason why CA may not do Napoleaonic era next is the forthcoming release of Imperial Glory (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/imperialglory/preview_6107461.html) from Pyro, which looks very much like what would happen if you ported the RTW engine to Napoleonic times, and added in 3D sea battles.

However, if Imperial Glory is a lemon, then there will still be room for CA - but will they want to tread in someone else's footsteps, rather than lead the field?

From where I'm sitting, it looks like CA's options are limited. It is difficult to see how they can repeat the success of RTW, with an era that has equal mass market appeal and has not already been done. I think MTW 2 looks more likely as a result - at least CA already own this space, they know it in depth, and there is the existing MTW market plus new comers from RTW.

[Colovion]

Yeah MTW 2 would be sweet.

The Creative Assembly and Ensemble Studios tend to be having the same problems - they run out of Historical Periods to make games out of...

[CrackedAxe]

MTW2? STW2? Thats just wishful thinking. I bet it NEVER happens. They aint gonna spend kazillions developing games that are already seen as 'old hat' 'been there before' 'nothing new there'.

Marketers just dont do that.

The Napoleonic thing sounds great. The NTW mod is great on MTW, so I dont see why it could'nt be done for a new game with the Rome engine. There's so much scope in this era, so much warfare and military development, both naval and land. It has to be a serious contender for the next one.

[Shoraro]

Personally, I'd like to play RTW to death before worrying about what the next one is going to be. ~:)

[ShellShock]

The Napoleonic thing sounds great. The NTW mod is great on MTW, so I dont see why it could'nt be done for a new game with the Rome engine. There's so much scope in this era, so much warfare and military development, both naval and land. It has to be a serious contender for the next one.

I would have agreed, until Imperial Glory came along. A Napoleonic Total War would be in direct competition with Imperial Glory, so CA may decide instead on MTW 2. Of course it won't be called that, and the being and end date may differ slightly, and the map may be slightly different, but using the RTW engine it would be quite cheap to develop - certainly not kazillions. By the way, in which country is the kaz the currency? :laugh4:

[Orda Khan]

Napoleonic Total War.......
Now there's one I certainly would not buy

.......Orda

[biguth dickuth]

Ugh no - this would make TotalWar into an RTS, which is probably anathema to most people here. I personally need time to think whilst I'm planning my next move (and I don't want to have to keep pressing pause). I would surely support the inclusion of a speed-slider in the campaign map with which you can slow down the game as much as you want, even to "real" time (a game minute per minute). This way you'll have enough time to think of your next move without pressing the pause button. Besides, thinking between turns, like we do in end-turn games, is like pressing a pause button and freezing time, making our moves and then pressing for the time to continue and reveal us the outcome of our strategies.
A "constant-time" campaign map (i don't want to call it "real-time"... ~;p ), like the one i'm suggesting, will give a more "real" feeling to the game and therefore make it better, in my opinion. Check a game called "Europa Univeralis" to see a system similar to the one i'm suggesting.


As per RTW. No, actually RTW has provinces and although you can move your armies freely inside them, you have to conquer their city in order to aquire them. Also, the troop-training and the profit making aspects may be city-related but they are actually also province-related since there is only one city per province. As you can see, the province system has not been completely abolished.
I would rather have no provinces at all, just cities and their areas of influence.


These will add more depth to the game, but may make it too complicated for the average player - some reviews have already complained that RTW is too complicated. Then the success of "Civilization" which includes these socio-politico-economical factors up to some point should really seem odd to these reviewers.

[Colt374]

I have a couple of dreams for the total war franchise.... I can't see them ever happening, but it would be so nice...

* World War 1 Total War : Imagine a Total War game based around World War 1? The European Theatre was the only main one in that war, so it could easily transfer to the strategic game. The tactical battles would be slightly harder to adapt, but I think could be done pretty easily.
Of Course, a World War 2 Total War would also be great, but much harder to do even if it only covered the European Theatre. Tanks and Airstrikes could make the battles really interesting.

* A Full World Map Total War, sort of like Europa Universalis 2, set in the era after Medieval Total War. I know, the scope is much too large, way too many unit types required, but as a dream game I like the idea.

* And lastly, Conquistador Total War. Massive Aztec, Mayan etc armies battling in the New World would be great. Those same armies against numerically inferior but technologically superior Spanish Armies would be amazing! And if you incorporate the era after the Spanish Conquests, you could have English, French, Dutch, and various Native American Factions too. This one I could see being done with the current Total War engines VERY easily.

Hope you like my dreams....

Colt.

[Somebody Else]

I'm thinking an entertaining prospect could be a merger between Civilisation and Total War - with the whole world up for grabs... the game would be rather epic in scope - and could be rather difficult to produce.

But imagine starting say with the rise of the civilisations in the Fertile Crescent, and ending say with the conquering of the New World? And of course, everything in between, ranging across the whole world.

Heh... The Esquimaux as a faction could be rather amusing...

[King Azzole]

I pray and continue hoping for MTW2. I dont see how it would take so long... They allready have a campaign map of europe, and the engine is done. Alls thats needed is updated coding and new unit graphics? Not too sure but doesnt seem like it would take long and could make them lots of $$$ for minimal effort. Seems the next logical step for them, and if I was the president of the company I would do it for profits reason if nothing else.

I have always dreamed since I was a kid (I am 26 and grew up on atari and nintendo and Tandy 1000) of having a game like the TW series, and my ultimate dream would be for a TW game that encompasses the entire world (maybe even the new world) from the rise of greece to the industrial age. THAT would be the ultimate game. But of course I doubt that would ever happen anytime soon.

[Steppe Merc]

I say a bit before greece and stoping around 1500s... because once guns get in the picture, theirs no fun.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I am hoping for a Denmark, Total War, with just 1 faction, Denmark, and just a one provence map, the word. That would be fun because after the first turn everyone would hate demark. j/k

I really want a Napoleonic, Total War, with Europe and America and hundreds of tiny provences and you take each turn = 1 day and you just recruit units but they are crap when you recruit them so if you want you can train them and the units would be huge, like regiment size and you can have like an army size army with tons of casualties per battle and with tons of micromangement so you can see all your officers in your regiments (have from Sergent to Major General under you command) and in battle they all have different uniforms and each regiment has a slightly different uniform and they all have numerical names and you can launch invasions where you get to bombard a fort from the sea and land troops near it kinda like a napoleonic d-day. Also, your men can go from Private to Major General depending on how many battles they survived and how many enemies they killed. Also where you only controll 1 general, not the king of the country, but you become a duke after like 3 major victories and controll like 10 minor provences and sooner or later you can become king if you stage a rebellion. Also, an improved valor system. And new gargantuan battle maps.

Maybe I am just dreaming (ok I am) but I would die for a game like that.

[Colovion]

I hope for STW 2

but I'd enjoy MTW 2

[ShellShock]

I suppose if CA don't do STW 2 or MTW 2 then they are bound to come out as mods, so don't lose all hope, you classic Total War fans. :knight:

...but you might have a long wait, judging by the gestation period for some of the MTW mods.

[Spartiate]

How about an eastern based TotalWar dealing primarily with the unification of the Mongol Hordes and their sweep through Asia and Eastern Europe/Arabia.
Mongols TW?
Genghis TW?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Antiaritca Total War!
Penguin Armies!

[King Azzole]

~:rolleyes:



Anyway... If they do decide to make an eastern total war involving the mongels or chinese I hope they make an engine that can handle 100000+ troops on the battlefield cause those armies were ALOT larger than your standard european ones. Would be a shame to conquer northern china as the mongels with 5000-10000 mongels... :no:

[Steppe Merc]

Well the Mongols weren't that big... all steppe nomads infalted their numbers to insane porportions.

[Stormer]

I want a medieval: totalwar 2, where the English where the clothing of the film braveheart which was a orange uniform.

But if CA plan on doing a game which is set inthr 1600+ then it would have to be around the time of Napolion or maybe the english civil war where theys still used pikes and swords and the revolt of the jacqobites would be an honour to crush :bow:


I just hope CA dont Rush it like they did with medieval totalwar. :shame:

[ICantSpellDawg]

i dont know who came up with MTW2 or why so many people think it will happen (who knows)

but someone said that CA had already done most of the time periods possible??


what about the period from when mtw ends to where the napoleanic era begins? huge wars there all over europe

and what about a huge world map covering the age of global european expansion?
that would be gnarly for the revolutionary game

im sure CA will think of something - but i totally doubt that the next game will be mtw

in 4 years time, maybe - with totally new engines and playing styles

but i think it would be redundant to do it with the total war engine - how many people would pay to see an updated MTW engine beside the most hardcore? (i know id buy it - but look at the numbers)

[dedmoroz]

STW 2 for me plz
those japs are crazy i like them :bow: ("799 heads are taken" whoaaa)

and indeed NTW is a bad bad idea...

[Stormer]

People say thay would hate muskets and gun powerder era, but us Shogun players remember how we loved to hate muskets and they were usally great fun to use. :laugh4:

[DisruptorX]

People say thay would hate muskets and gun powerder era, but us Shogun players remember how we loved to hate muskets and they were usally great fun to use. :laugh4:

I hate how utterly useless guns are in medieval. You are lucky if they even get 1 round off, let alone cause any casualties.

[Tamur]

It's a given that there will be one expansion for RTW, probably covering the collapse of the Empire and the invasion of the Goths.

For the game coming out two years from now, they'll be looking to use the same engine and basic gameplay as RTW, so guns are right out. I'd be very surprised if they don't cover the huge empires of the Ancient Near East at some point. Either that or the Spring-and-Summer or Warring-States periods in China, where Sun Tzu and Sun Pin grew up.

It's great fun to think of what games were like four years ago, compare them to Rome, and then project the incredibly lush, detailed graphics we'll get to see with the next engine...

[IrishMike]

WWII TOTAL WAR The panzers are comming! The panzers are comming!......

Ok time to get serious. I like the ideal for a expanded shogun total war that would include china, vietnam, korea, and other various places around there. Talk about strategy with the placement of forts. :bow:

[Fragony]

They should do Medieval India. There was a great thread about Indian military history in the monestary but it seems like it didn't survive the change on the org. It would have tons of variety in tactics and units and generaly be a kickass setting.

[Devastatin Dave]

Shogun, Shogun, Shogun!!! I would like a Napolianic would be cool, but I really think that 3D Shogun would be the shiznit!!! ~D

I really don't think any of the WW1 or 2 would be great. It would look like a first person shooter more or less. There are plenty if those out on the market and saturated on different consoles.

3 Kingdoms would be awesome as well. :book:

[frogbeastegg]

:looks at new arrival: Arena is non-TW games, sending onwards.

[hoom]

I hope first for Ancient China (three kingdoms? dunno my chinese history well enough...thats why I want one)
Or India :)
But I wouldn't be dissapointed at a Medieval 2 or Shogun 2
Never been much of a fan of musketry but I doubt I'd be upset by Napoleonic:TW either :juggle2:

[Adrian II]

Campaign MP is a problem that has yet to be solved, but there is a very large market for massive, immersive MP games.
Hear hear. ShellShock, campaign MP will be the next real "revolution", no doubt about it. Make it Napoleonic and you'll draw in a huge mass of new TW enthusiasts. Since logistics played such a large part in Napoleonic battles, the game might include three maps per turn. One campaign map, one intermediate map and one battle scene. The intermediate map would be a sort of close-up campaign map on which players move units around a province or border area in preparation for an upcoming battle. You get a limited amount of time to move your troops into position, then the fighting starts whether you like it or not.

[rayoftoul]

I think that they may consider Barbarian: Total War or something, around the time of the fall of the Romans and the setting in of the dark ages (about 200-300 AD, I'm not sure). Maybe it's too similar to Rome: Total War, I don't know.

A MTW 2 would be great, as would a Napoleonic TW. I'm sure whatever they do, it'll be great :)

[JR-]

Eurasia: Total War

spanning from the UK in the west, to Japan in the East.

starting in the year 900AD, going on to 1500AD

that would be ace.

but Wheel of Time: Total War would be great too.

[Commander ElTee]

Having never played stw i would definitely like to see something involving the asians with the new shogun engine, eurasia total war would be pretty sweet. However i think it will be napoleonic total war which i am sceptical about due to the involvement of gunpowder weaponry which i never cared much for in mtw. America total war encompassing all of the americas would be interesting but i doubt it would hold much sway with the european patrons.

[Tricky Lady]

There are plenty of possible next TW series that I would like to see, for instance:
- Conquistador TW in the Americas
- Napoleonic TW, but not probable due to Imperial Glory
- Ancient Empires TW: Babylonians, Sumerians, Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians etc
- Dark Ages TW in Europe - perhaps not enough variety in units though?
- or something like the Horse&Musket TW mod, sounds okay too, plenty of (civil) wars, huge variety in units...
and even
- Mediaeval TW bis, would be great though nothing "new".

Oh well, this is just dreaming. First I'll enjoy RTW before thinking too much of another TW series.

[Nobody You'd Know]

evolutionary:
1. Ancient Art of Total War: China, Vietnam, Korea, etc.
2. MTW2
(hey, why not just toss in two at once?)
*I think this could include the MP campaign. :duel:

revolutionary:
1. 1400-1870: Napoleonic, Conquistadors, American Revolution, American Civil War, etc.
2. ?
*MP campaign if it isn't already done, voice-over-ip to talk with others in MP battles and campaigns, battlefield fortifications (digging pits, etc.), naval battles :surrender:

revolvolututionary:
1. any time period, I don't care
*All of the units are 3D holograms on a tabletop ~:eek:

[Medieval Assassin]

Star wars, total war...


Honestly, "The Art Of Total War" Which is STW revisted... It's a shame most don't know the awesome that is shogun...

[Qilue]

I know what I'm about to suggest is considered heresy to some here but...

Middle Earth Total War.

Just once in a strategic game like MTW, EU2, Civ(x) etc, I'd like my reason for expansion to be more than just greed.

[zentuit]

I know what I'm about to suggest is considered heresy to some here but...

Middle Earth Total War.
I doubt they could get the license to make it since a "competing" :laugh: title already has it.

As for me, I started with MTW so I have never seen STW so that would be interesting to me. I would also buy a MTW2 in a heartbeat.

I expect to see a fantasy offering; possibly tied into D&D or I was thinking an Everquest, but Everquest domain doesn't really have the concept epic battle.

[chip]

~:cool: I believe taht they might be thinking about Greece:TW

[Sinner]

Forum: Total War. ~:)

Just imagine it: Grognards vs 'arcade' players, MP vs SP, mods vs soon-to-be-banned idiots, old timers vs noobs. ~D

[eddeduck]

Wat about smily TW
:duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel:

[Samurai Steve]

Hi, this is The Sword of Cao Cao, my account went and commited seppuku though. You might remember me leading the revolution for China Total War.

I'm back. Oh and by the way to whoever said something about evolution and revolution, China would be a total revolution. BIGGER BATTLES. Even in the Rome demo, the battles still seemed kinda small units wise. Chinese battles were so damn huge it's not even ufnny. There are records of some Warring States era battles cobtaining over a million men. Thats just one way it would be so revolutionary. Plus CA has completely ignored Asia for the most part. They concentrated only on Japan and Mongolia. Warfare was so different and no less epic in Asia! So many different weapons, maneuvers, differnet politics, such advanced technology for its time. While Europe was hurling rocks, the East was making and using bombs, landmines and flamethrowers. And of course the emphasis on a warriors personal honour. With this game we would get the Warring States period to the 3 Kingdoms era. With the expansion we would be able to get India, Mongolia, Indo-China, natives! Even the primitve headhunters still had intreresting ways of warfare. And no less efective. I'm all for the gunpowder age, but dont forget Asai too! This is not "Mostly European Total War" this is "Total War". Do Asia first, IT WILL SELL, then possibly the ancient, ANCIENT eras, like Babylon, Egypt, Israel, Myceanae (or do this for Rome expansion!), THEN move on to the gunpowder age. In fact we could knock it out in one expansion, one other game. First use the ancient, ANCIENT idea for the Rome expansion, then do China Total War.

[DisruptorX]

While, I agree that an asian total war with focus on the chinese would be great(bow before the great warrior Lu Bu! ~D ), I would really like to see a total war taking place between 1450 and 1700.

I think most people just think of Spain's and Britain's Conquest of the New World and somehow think of this as a "peaceful" time in Europe. This ignores the constant warring of the times. In the East you had the Ottoman Turks at the height of their power attempting to conquer eastern Europe, and of course the reconquista did not end until 1492. The selection of units would be cool, you would have lots of gunpowder, but plenty of heavy armour and melee. Maybe for a *real* challenge, you could also play as the various North or South American natives.

This time period mainly interests me because I am fascinated by the Ottoman Empire, basically the only post-medieval non-European empire that was equal to the Europeans in might.

[lars573]

Hi, this is The Sword of Cao Cao, my account went and commited seppuku though. You might remember me leading the revolution for China Total War.

I'm back. Oh and by the way to whoever said something about evolution and revolution, China would be a total revolution. BIGGER BATTLES. Even in the Rome demo, the battles still seemed kinda small units wise. Chinese battles were so damn huge it's not even ufnny. There are records of some Warring States era battles cobtaining over a million men.

Thing about accounts of ancient battles is you have to take out a zero or 2, at the very least divide by 5, to be in the ball park as far as numbers of men in a battle/army go.

i really don't see what some people have against gunpowder only total war game. I mean a 16th century western european army is gonna have ,in MTW parlance, swiss armoured pikemen, gothic knights, halbrediers, arqubusiers, culverins or serpentines, and some kind of light cavalry.

[Commander ElTee]

I would love to see a eurasia total war.

[Aldaceleb]

American Civil War:total War!!!

[The Tuffen]

I'd be happy with MTW:2 although i'd be interested in an american civil war/american conquest period

[mynameisjonas]

Whatever the setting for the next game, I also would like the engine to include 3D naval battles. This could add a whole new dimension to gameplay. Imagine what RTW would be like if you could add Themistocles and the battle of Salamis, etc. Probably would take a already excellent game and make it an instant classic.

[Orvis Tertia]

OK, I got tired reading all of the posts on this thread, but here are my two cents:

If Medieval 2 was announced today, I would head to the store and put my pre-order in. I think Medieval was terrific fun, and updating it to the current engine and strategy system would be amazing.

Here are some requests for new features, if they remake it:

Tactical sea battles.

The ability to design your own fortifications and castles.

Larger map that includes East Asia, but make the distance penalties and natural barriers such that it would not be feasible to govern an empire that stretches from Europe all the way to East Asia. That would keep a realistic separation between the Eastern and Western cultures, but it would still allow limited contact and invading hordes.

Perhaps some more fleshing out of the feudal system that would create families vying for power within your empire. It would be interesting to manage the power struggles among your vassals, and it would also be interesting to be able to grant authority to nobles who could then govern portions of your kingdom, if you desired. There is a whole complex dynamic that could be fleshed out there.

More emphasis on significant characters who would affect science (technology), religion, medicine (public health), exploration, culture, etc. It would be interesting if you could choose to entice a great artist, philosopher or man of science to your court, as in return for your patronage you could benefit from advances. I guess what I'm getting at is freeing up the advance of technology so that some of it comes from your king's initiatives, but also there would be great thinkers and inventors who would make discoveries on their own. Luck and an inclination toward encouraging intellectuals could increase your chances of benefitting from these discoveries, but maybe the trade-off would be that it would increase things like public dissent within your empire.

[PFJ_baby_jesus]

Indian subcontinent 1300 - 1600

lots of bonkers units

[WarHawk]

See? I told you guys they wouldn't make a China Total War!

[lancer63]

While MTW2 would be a dream come true to me and STW2 would be most welcome in my machine. I'd also enjoy a Renaisance TW game. Gunpowder was not that reliable at the time and cold steel still ruled the bloodfields. :duel:
Most other versions are ok to me. A Three Kingdom TW game would be great too. What I wouldnt stand is an american conquest game. I see no fun in killing thousands of mayans and aztecs using 300 conquistadores. There is a game about it already, played the demo and convinced me not to buy it. ~:eek:

[JR-]

hooray, my suggestion of Eurasia: Total War seems to be gathering some momemtum. :bow:

[Samurai Waki]

I thought that MTW was the best, afterall I played it fairly continuously for 2 years, however the Idea of Eurasia is very appealing.

[NimitsTexan]

A Napoleonic game would be the best next installment IMHO, and could probably outshine Imperial Glory (which looks more like Praetorians-style RTS with a strategic layer than a true strategy/war game). Although, naval combat is a must have for a Napolenic game. Actually, I would have preferred that they include naval combat in this game (massive battles of triremes and such). The abstract naval units were fine or MTW, as naval power was not much of a factor for many of the powers/time periods covered there, but such would not be the case for a Napoleonic game.

BTW, the gunpowder units were my favorites in MTW.

[Samurai Waki]

The only problem with Napoleon Era Total War is that while most of the battles and such were fought in Europe, most of the reasons why it was fought their was because of wealthy foreign territory and colonies all around the world...it would have to include almost the entire world to be played effectively...It could start around 1750 and end in 1860s, each turn could be divided by the seasons...effectively 3 months per turn, but Naval Battles would have to be essential..and would be cool anyway!

[WarHawk]

The only problem with Napoleon Era Total War is that while most of the battles and such were fought in Europe, most of the reasons why it was fought their was because of wealthy foreign territory and colonies all around the world...it would have to include almost the entire world to be played effectively...It could start around 1750 and end in 1860s, each turn could be divided by the seasons...effectively 3 months per turn, but Naval Battles would have to be essential..and would be cool anyway!
Yeah, it could be more or less a 17th to late 18th century total war. I think it would be interesting to have the creation of Germany as a nation, aswell as the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870's.

[Samurai Waki]

Yeah, it could be more or less a 17th to late 18th century total war. I think it would be interesting to have the creation of Germany as a nation, aswell as the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870's.

Yeah...it would be interesting to see it played out well though...like certain factions would have events happen to them that completely change their AI. Like France would go from a slightly aggressive(but slightly passive) Monarchy to a democracy which would spawn Napoleon...it would be a nice change from the medieval and pre medieval tactics we've all been used to seeing. The other thing is...that it would be imperative to have subgenerals and Marshals, that way you could effectively have massive armies each one with individual companies of 200-500 men. The Campaign map strategy would be far more vital to victory than the actual battles. You could tell your subgenerals to do certain things while in battle mode...but they figure it out most of the bloody details on their own. Like for example you order them to take a defensive position on ridge X...he moves his men...or certain companies of his men onto that ridge and defends it...while you have another General with 30,000 men order to flank right...its all complicated stuff and hard to tell in a lot of detail but you know where I'm getting at...the point is you wouldn't be able to command single armies of 100 to 8000 men like in RTW and MTW on your own realistically.

[Jugurtha]

Yeah, it could be more or less a 17th to late 18th century total war. I think it would be interesting to have the creation of Germany as a nation, aswell as the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870's.

You'd have to add in the 19th cntury too then. ~:)

But I am with you.

Unfortunately, I don't think that an Asia TW woul be different enough. As an expansion pack to RTW yes, but otherwise there only so many things you can do with (basically) sword/spears/bows + local weird units.

The 17th/18th/19th century offers so many different possiblities the mind boggles. You could start with basically MTW(ish) units, but players who didn't balance aggression/economics with upgrades early on would be heavily penalised when faced with gunpowder enemies.

It "looks" very different as far as a game developer is concerned.

There are loads of different factions competing.

Formations and their evolutions conformed historically to the tactical gameplay in TW (unlike MTW, I didn't like the "sophistication" it forced on units like peasants).

There are lots of different unit types/weapons.

Flanking by the sea is possible.

[ZIM!!]

I think the age of imperialisim should be done say somewhere in the 1500-1800 area a map like RTW but the scope would be the entire world

establish colonies
fight natives
fight other empires at home and abroad
tons of units
huge tech tree


there were so many little and big wars in that era + the world domination factor attracts a lot of people

[Darklight1138]

I'd like to see a pre-european invasion version of Total war set in north and south america. There were 52 nations in what is now Canada alone and it's ground nobody else is covering. The cultral diversity is immense, from the northern inuit to the southern maya for example. Then use the invasion by europeans like they did the Horde in MTW and have them as unlockable nations. For example the failed viking colony in Newfoundland around 1200 ad, or the Spanish invasion in the gold rich south 400 years later.

Doubt it will ever happen, but it would be really cool and could be done in my opinion. Early america is an open and fertile ground for this game.

:charge:

[Samurai Waki]

meh. The American natives didn't have horses until well after the conquistador period in mexico, they would mainly be comprised of spear infantry...slinger infantry...archers...and atl-atl infantry. Perhaps the use of Geurilla Warfare would be more prominant in tactics than elsewhere but other than that it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

[TN[ KrAzY!]

blatantly napoleonic total war, it would work fine, theyve done guns in both shoggy and mtw. would be awesome

[AngryGerbil]

Being an American History buff and a Total War fan, I'd LOVE to see a TW game about the American Civil War. It won't happen of course, but MAN that would just be too cool! Have turns last a day or a week, enable ambushes and entrenchment actions on the battle map, toss in a bit of jockying for European aid for some political spice.

Thinking on it now, any civil war TW game would probably not work as it is only 1 v 1 in a civil war and part of the fun of the previous TW games in the relationship between multiple factions. Ah well, I guess it wouldn't work after all. One can dream though. =)

Of the more realistic suggestions I've seen here, I'd go for the Ancient:TW game between Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians etc.. That would be neat, no doubt. After that, I'd like an East Asian:TW game based around China, Japan, Mongolia and the Phillipines. But I'm not totally opposed to a Napoleonic: TW. It could be really cool too. Some people seem to draw the line at Guns vs. Swords in TW games, but I liken the line more to Formation Armies vs Post-Machine Gun, Airforce and Tank warfare that appeared during WWI. To me, WWI is the line where the folks at CA should draw the line in their own "timeline" availiable to them.

I think if they were to do a gunpowder game, they could still have units comprised of different equipment (the swords, arrows and spears we have now, or the matchlock, flintlock or rifled barrel weapons for any future gunpowder game). But they would have to replace "armor" with "training" in a gunpowder game IMO. Instead of pouring money into chain mail, tower shields, and helmets, a gunpowder emperor would pour money into training units of crack troops who can reload muskets faster and have better accuracy and the like. I dunno, just thinking outloud at this point.

But, one thing I think most of us can agree on, Naval Battles! I don't care what game they make next, it isn't truly a "Total" War until you can control your navies! ~:cheers:

Hey, maybe that'll be their next game! It'll focus exclusivley on naval battles. Actually, maybe not, but you never know!

[bmolsson]

meh. The American natives didn't have horses until well after the conquistador period in mexico, they would mainly be comprised of spear infantry...slinger infantry...archers...and atl-atl infantry. Perhaps the use of Geurilla Warfare would be more prominant in tactics than elsewhere but other than that it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Well, you don't have to be 100% historical. Give the North American tribes the horse and the fun increases...... ;)

[DisruptorX]

I'd like to see a pre-european invasion version of Total war set in north and south america. There were 52 nations in what is now Canada alone and it's ground nobody else is covering. The cultral diversity is immense, from the northern inuit to the southern maya for example. Then use the invasion by europeans like they did the Horde in MTW and have them as unlockable nations. For example the failed viking colony in Newfoundland around 1200 ad, or the Spanish invasion in the gold rich south 400 years later.

Doubt it will ever happen, but it would be really cool and could be done in my opinion. Early america is an open and fertile ground for this game.

:charge:

The North American Indians didn't fight in armies like those featured in other total war games, and didn't fight pitches battles in regiments. They don't make very good subjects for a war game.

[Samurai Waki]

I like things to be as historical as possible without it taking away from playability. The Native Americans certainly did have organized armies...The Aztecs suffered a lot from internal dissention and so stationary forces were necessary...which in turn those armies could be used to conquer new lands. The Incas suffered many of those same problems, however both the Aztecs and the Incas were the pinnacle of Pre-European American civilization and no other American tribes could match them toe-to-toe. The Northern American tribes were almost 90% of the time located near abundant water sources, and thus inland America would be almost untouched until the arrival of Horses during the 1600s. By that time European Colonies would already be established in Mexico and South America as well as North America's eastern coast.
Also the notion that the Chinese discovered America before the Europeans is a farce. The Chinese new very little about the lands beyond the Bearing Straights...they didn't even know if there was much beyond those lands. No historical evidence has been found saying that the Chinese were in Americas and even one Chinese historian said that they crossed the Pacific Ocean by boat and founded America which his a popular opinion in China, however, statistically speaking impossible. The Native American DNA is so ancient that they have found similar ties to Ainu, Chinese, and even Caucasian DNA. Nobody knows who discovered it first, but it is fairly irrelevent at this point because all it would come to is hollow bragging rights.

[NimitsTexan]

Problem with an early North American game is that if it is at all historically accurate, you wil get a bunch of weak factions with limited unit types; if it is not, well, what's the point? As for the Aztecs and Incas, you would have basically one power to pick on a bunch of weaker factions, and again very limited units types (specifically no cavalry).

ACW could be done. The diplomacy would be limited (but in Rome, besides the other Roman factions, I seem to be at war with just about everybody most of the time anyway so . . .) but the tactical battles (which is way I play TW) would be outstanding. Napoleonics would all be good (and a more natural evolution for the series).

BTW, the gunpowder units iN MTW were my favorites.

[chinaboy71]

Hmm well iwould have to say the development team will try to stay away from a TW number 2. Also I think they will keep away from all the gunpowder and what nots. And even though they have used it before in small amounts, they could not possibly want to base a whole game on it. Also what keeps the TW series from being any other strategy game is that its good combat. Good strategy. If you start to use guns, then it becomes a number game almost. Ofcouse when melee was becoming obsolete, they also widely used calvary. I dont really know what the next TW war will be. But i think they will stay away from extensive technology and anything too close to home, like WW1 or WW2. Well thats my ~:confused: confused opinion.

[chinaboy71]

I could also go for an entire world TW. i think the map work would be very difficult and there are so many cultures and everything to work out, but I think they know you have to step it up to make people want to buy your product. And possibly more like, well I guess it could have a little more city control stuff. Like more specific to that province. I dont know, sort of like Civilization 3. Well maybe not. But I cant think of a good example. But I would say sometime before the US when there was a lot less gun powder. Well thats my other ~:confused: confused opinion.

[Thrudvang]

I dunno if a full-world Total War could work, if they used the new campaign map.

The best i've seen a full world done was in Europa Universalis 2 and that used tiled provinces like Medieval/Shogun.

[Orpheus]

I cant see how a gun based game would be as fun or as skillful as hand to hand infantry. If your going to have a gun based game you may as well go the hole hogg and have WWII TW........ No thanks.
The battle tactics used in the Napoleonic wars would be well-suited to the RTW engine, I think (after some obvious ammendments to unit strategy.) Although they made much use of firearms, the battlefield tatctics are in some ways more akin to medieval strategy than modern warfare. (Advancing in rank, line of battle, etc.) There was also plenty of infantry/cavalry hand-to hand fighting to be done.

A Napoleonic-era game should probably include an American Revolutionary War, in a strategic map expanded west to include North America and maybe east to include the colonial campaigns in India.

[SirGrotius]

100% behind a Napoleonic: Total War.

First, I don't think the argument that Imperial Glory or whatever it's called will lead CA to abandon any Napoleonic aspirations is valid. Many similar games are made contemporaneously, if anything, they'd profit from additional exposure. Think of WWII games or the craze w/ modern day FPS. Also, there were a bunch of very similar RTS games of the Age of Kings mold out in 2000 (EE, Age of Wonders, a bit later RON).

Second, as mentioned previously, they've done the gun thing somewhat in MTW and I loved it. I was the weird dude in MP who elected to have something like six serpentine units in his army. And I won. They'll be able to keep the unit sizes down, and maybe they could focus on captain traits, i.e. each unit's (division?) commander would confer certain bonuses/penalties onto his troops, while a general would do the same but for all. Maybe they could implement a simple logistics system to keep the game fresh and realistic, which system would highlight the importance of communications in the period. (e.g. if one presses the shift key or so, the map will highlight a unit or army's line of communications/supply, and if an enemy "sits" on that line said unit/army will suffer logistical penalties such as reduced movement rate, increased attrition, and lowered loyalty/reliability...deserters?.)

Third, I remember back in the day, maybe for Windows 95, I played a game w/ some amount of joy called Fields of Glory (I think), and it was awesome. You could play many historical battles, and there was nothing like playing as Napoleon and sending in the Guard. Oh no, here comes Blucher!

Yeah, so my vote is w/ Napoleonic: Total War, and come on, it's obvious that this will be the choice. I'd recommend preping oneself for the advent of shock and awe.

[DisruptorX]

Wow, yea, we could have a Napoleonic Total War game that moves at several times the speed of sound, just like RTW, and real life. This new realistic game would, of course, speed up the time it takes for muskets to reload (to appeal to the plebs), and feature the same wonderful movement engine from RTW (when you command a unit to move forward, the front rank moves to the back, and the rest of the unit moves forward in a long line)

Of course, just like in the real time period, cavalry would be unstoppable. Once engaged, they could swirl around like a school of fish, doing 180 degree turns in a split second. Then, at will, they could turn and flee and then charge in again while technically still engaged in combat. You don't even need to break out of melee to charge. Thankfully such a realistic feature has already been introduced in RTW, so we are already more than halfway there.

Oh yeah, also to fully take into account the period, units behind a melee would open fire into their friend's backs and slaughter them. They could go in and make sure that units do this, even if "fire at will" is not turned on, just like in Rome.

Of course, to fully reflect the times, melee would last for a few seconds, and be decided, leaving one side completely dead, and the other pretty much intact. Protracted melee would be too fun to actually include in the game, so the 5 second war as featured in RTW would have to do. Okay, I can't type any more without going into a rant. As far as I'm concerned, CA should just stop making TW games entirely, unless they go in from scratch and completely rework the rome engine from the ground up. Everything about it is flawed, and I don't want to see it used again, ever. Maybe after a year of patches, Rome will be a functional game.

[Botis]

I'd personally prefer to see a setting not long after MTW finishes - 1500's -> 1700's so could encompass Spanish hegemony & Dutch revolts 30 years war through to Battle of Blenheim. It's an interesting period - ever changing alliances rise & decline of Turkey & Spain, Rise of France & English as dominant powers blah blah blah. In my humble opinion it is too cool a period not to sim with TW next. Notwithstanding that, I played the old Microprose game Fields of Glory to death when it came out & later the Firaxis Nap's sim & would salivate copiously at the prospect of any Nap's based Horse and Musket Total War!

But what I'd like to see CA do more than anything else is a Multiplayer campaign... ACW would be good for that - like that old Steve Green (??) game The Civil War which was pretty good fun MP for 1990something.

[chinaboy71]

What about improving the strategy elements? There is more scope for revolutionary changes here, but we need to see first how much RTW has already achieved, and what scope remains for future developments.

I think the obvious candidate, and the one big area of weakness in Total War games, is multiplayer, and I mean campaign/strategic, and well as battles. Campaign MP is a problem that has yet to be solved, but there is a very large market for massive, immersive MP games. You would be an up and coming general in the Total War universe, pitching your wits against human opponents to conquer the known world.[/QUOTE]

I just read this idea. Wow what an amazing game that would make for. It would be like an awesomely improved version of lineage. I think gaming, and I mean the acual types of games are becoming obviously multiplayer. But I think that Lineage is the only game that has gotten to an awesome level. What the TW development team should consider is just a massive multiplayer game. Like Linegae the game is all through out Asia. They have 20,000 people servers or something like that. And the biggest servers in the rest of the world for like...any game i know is 64. Well I hope they dont go into fantasy type games wiht dwarfs and elves, and hope they make it just a huge multiplayer game. Past that, I guess I dont care much what its about. Heck, Ill play anything TW comes out with. Its all good. ~:)

[chinaboy71]

I dunno if a full-world Total War could work, if they used the new campaign map.

The best i've seen a full world done was in Europa Universalis 2 and that used tiled provinces like Medieval/Shogun.


Um.. I live in China. So I dont have RTW. And I was just wodnering, what exactly is the new campaign map. I saw a picture, but it doesnt make all that much sense.

So I guess I'll try to look it up, but can someone explain?

[Samurai Waki]

I'd like to see Napoleon Total War era, or Rennaissance building up to the Napoleon Era. I'd also like to see Shogun Total War revisited...and for that matter Medieval Total War revisited(not exactly part 2 but re-rendering the units, Textures, and Map to Rome Graphics Engine) I am not personally interested in dealing with just America as the focal point, but perhaps the entire world, if that were to be the case, the Map would have to deal less with just Provincial borders like in the Previous 3 games and more with national borders, that way tactics could be adjusted to fit more coherently with Napoleon style tactics and such. Within those National Borders would still be Provinces that gain and tax income, train units, have Map of the World style battles...and so on and so forth. There would be a lot of separate cultures within the game, but the point of the game would not be world domination in the sense of controlling everything but becoming the supreme dominant power over the rest of the world, in that case it could be done. The British rose to become the Dominant World Power during the Imperial Ages...but why couldn't the French, Russia, or for that matter China become the leading power as long as you played smart it could be tactically done.

[PseRamesses]

IMHO there´s really just one timeperiod that fits the total war concept that hasn´t already been done yet; 1492-1818 ad. either including the quest for the new world, as in EUII, or just focusing on Europe with thoose hundreds of states. My real wet dream though is the rise of civilization spanning from 3100-30 bc. around the Mediterranean.

[Darklight1138]

The North American Indians didn't fight in armies like those featured in other total war games, and didn't fight pitches battles in regiments. They don't make very good subjects for a war game.

Uh .. what history books are you reading?
First nations people (Indians are in India), while not nearly as 'sophisticated' as those other featured subjects, were just as bloody and violent as the rest of us. While they left no written record that's easy to read, there is plenty of archealogical evidence to dispute your claim.
Perhaps you are thinking of the tribes in what is now the USA, that had been starved by the slaughter of the buffalo and ravaged for generations by disease imported by europeans, before they fought back with the few numbers left to them.
The Aztecs for example fought so many wars that it was a way of life. So did the Maya. The Blackfoot and Cree fought many pitched battles, since you mention only North America, but the only reason I know that is because I grew up in Cree territory. I could almost close my eyes, walk until I was completely lost, reach down and find the head of an ancient arrow. The Huron and Mohawk were powerful nations, before disease, guns, and horses.

The Vikings, good enough to be included in MTW, got thier hinnies stomped by what they called skraelings in Newfoundland and Laborador. Had to leave. Lots of them died. Big museum in Newfoundland all about it. You can even visit the site of one of the Viking colonies which was founded by Eric the Red or perhaps his son Leif Ericsson, and then had to abandon. There is evidence of a large scale attack and battle in that colony, which is probably why the colonies failed.

The American armed forces labelled the Cherokee "fierce warriors and skilled strategists" even though there were so few of them by that point.
Aztecs, Maya, Mohawks, Huron, Mohegan (Mohican to most of you, as in Last of), Apache, Cherokee, Iroquois, Aluet, and Inuit are all recognized civilizations of the sedintary and agricultural type, and those are just a few off the top of my head. The Cree, while a 'hunter/gather' society, were not just a couple of people. They were nomadic like the Mongols, and a powerful force. So were the Blackfoot. The territory controlled by the Cree in Alberta stretched from just south of the Peace River to between what is now Edmonton and Calgary. That's just in Alberta alone, nevermind the rest of Canada. (The Cree are a northern people, and very different from the Apache for example.)The Mohawk nation was huge. In the War of Independance down in the states, both sides relied heavily on alliances with native tribes.
There was consant warfare all through history, like in Europe and Asia, and it all wasn't little raids by a few guys on horses imported from europe. They understood strategy as well as the rest of us. They understood war.
I could go on and on and on, but I won't.
I think my point is clear. I wouldn't have suggested it for a strategy war game if I thought for a second that strategy and war wasn't involved.
Didn't fight in armies indeed. No 'regiments' eh?
Tell Custer they don't fight in armies and 'regiments'.
Tell Washington that the people he relied on didn't fight in armies and 'regiments'.
Tell it to Eric the Red too.

"Open your eyes and you will see. Open your mind and you will understand."

[Samurai Waki]

Darklight...I believe it is unfair to call Native American strictly a Native American considering there are literally hundreds of distinct tribes. I live in Montana, and we have the 2nd largest Native American population in the United States, we are surrounded by 12 absolutely different tribes...if you call a Sioux and a Crow just native American it is insulting to them, considering for the most part blood runs very thin between them. Native Americans were hunter gatherers here, and so an established civilization would be impossible to implement historically in a TW game. Not to mention most Northern Tribes had less than 2,000 members at any one time, therefore it would leave no space for regimental armies, that is not to say they could not function militarily quite the contrary...and General George Armstrong Custer witnessed that himself. The Vikings could not compete with the loose Confederation of Tribes in Newfoundland, not because they were outnumbered...but because they had close to the same technological capabilities, and the Natives were superior ambushers...and knew how to strike fear where it counted. Those tactics would serve them well...until the arrival of the more technologically advanced Europeans some 500 to 600 to 800 years later. The Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas were as I said before the pinnacle of American civilization...there were others such as the Olmecs, Iroquois, Anasazi, and Hopi tribes but even they did not represent the vast scale of American nations at the time. Not to mention the complete lack of cavalry leaves something to be desired. I have nothing but respect for many Native Indians(Americans) but this would not be a good period to cover considering the limited tactical possibilites and almost complete lack of diplomatic endeavors.

[Nomad]

~:) I'm hoping MTW2,
is in the pipeline. AmericanCivil:TW would be to restrictive as mentioned, two few factions and virtually no significant cultural differences. Variety is the spice of life after all. If the American market must be appeased then make it New World:TW. After all most Americans came from Europe not the otherway round so us Europeans would still be able to relate to this game. 15th-17th century cross atlantic would be kool. But MTW2, RTW style would rock. Particulary if it extended further east maybe including a bit of India and China.
~:cool:

[doc_bean]

Personally, I'm hoping for a Three kingdoms: TW,

but being realistic, I expect to see a M:TW2, the original was (and is) a fantastically successful game, and a sequel is bound to make a ton of money.

For the revolutionary game, I'm hoping for a world spanning renaissance/imperial age game, but that's probably a bit too ambitious.
(IG will be about 4 years old by then so it wouldn't be competition anymore, unless they decide to make a sequel off course ...)

[DisruptorX]

snip

Firstly, the Aztecs and Maya were not North American indians.

I do not believe that anywhere in my very short post I said anything about the Native Americans not being warlike.

The Native Americans did not wage war as it is featured in other totalwar games.

You mentioned the battle of the little bighorn, which is a perfect example of my point. That battle was notable because it featured an unheard of alliance of the warriors of many tribes. It was very unusual. And no, the indians did not fight in regiments. All thousand(it was 1 or 3 thousand, don't remember) or so of them were mounted on horseback, and fought as skirmishers. It also wasn't much of a battle, custer charged in with his hundred or so guys and was slaughtered in short order.

The vikings were not driven out because they were somehow less fearsome warriors, they were driven out because they were outnumbered in a strange land by aggresive peoples who didn't want them to stay. The same thing would have happened to the Europeans if the Native Americans in Virginia and massachusetts had done the same.

A game of Native American warfare could be interesting, but it doesn't seem to fit the totalwar model. There would not be any unit variety at all, for instance.

[Lord Of Storms]

I'd personally prefer to see a setting not long after MTW finishes - 1500's -> 1700's so could encompass Spanish hegemony & Dutch revolts 30 years war through to Battle of Blenheim. It's an interesting period - ever changing alliances rise & decline of Turkey & Spain, Rise of France & English as dominant powers blah blah blah. In my humble opinion it is too cool a period not to sim with TW next. Notwithstanding that, I played the old Microprose game Fields of Glory to death when it came out & later the Firaxis Nap's sim & would salivate copiously at the prospect of any Nap's based Horse and Musket Total War!

But what I'd like to see CA do more than anything else is a Multiplayer campaign... ACW would be good for that - like that old Steve Green (??) game The Civil War which was pretty good fun MP for 1990something.
For those who just cannot wait for Napoleonic Total War!!
go to our website here and play now!!
www.thelordz.co.uk
look at the available info and the NTW download section enjoy!!1...LOS

[Tyrac]

I think the idea of Eurasia total war might have hit on something. People are saying MTW 2 or STW 2. I think we will not see a move to guns and all ranged combat.

I think that the time periods that most catch the eye and imagination of most people have now been done. Rome, shogun, and medevil cover the big three "cool" periods of war that most people think about.

So maybe the next Total War really could be TOTAL WAR.

A game that spans ALL THREE of the previous games wrapping them into one gigantic super game.

Have it span all of the lands covered in the three games and all the time periods! They could just call it TOTAL WAR! I think it would be revolutionary.

[adembroski]

Alexander seems the next logical step, but I prefer the idea of a Fantasy: Total War... Lord of the Rings, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, whatever, it'd be a nice change of pace.

[octavian]

wow that was some bump this thread is like over a year old ~:handball:

[Microwavegerbil]

Hehe, it's pretty funny that you revived a year old thread only to make a minor comment.~D

[octavian]

it wasn't me who revived it... it was adembroski, unless you were calling his comment minor in which case... oh i give up

[Craterus]

Even more interesting as there's another thread on this on the first page....

[TenkiWarPRIEST]

Shogun 2 with actual mp clan support. That would be a jaw dropper.

[adembroski]

Shoot, my bad... I did a search for something else and ran across this thread, found the conversation interesting, never checked the date... of course, now, after the release of the expansion, I'm sure the conversation is going to start coming up. 3 months 'till e3, right?

[Tyford]

I say Medieval 2, except have Viking Invasion inthe original game, and have the victory in Vikings connected to who leads England, if the Normans don't win - so have 793-1066 and 1066-1205, 1205-1321, 1321-1453, and have the option to play the Norman campaign.