TW4 what do you want?

[GonZ]

We're getting a better picture now on the expansion pack for Rome. But unless I'm mistaken there's no official news about a future TW game. Spartan Warrior aside...

What do players want next?

What would you call it? Which era and location would you set it in? What functionality do you cry out for? What innovations can be made?

I suspect there’ll be no consensus. But I’d love to hear peoples views.

--

I apologise if this is dragging up a previous forum topic but pre any official announcement, this is our chance to influence, and the more we talk about it the better imo.

[Franconicus]

TW4 must have

Naval battles
airplanes
bigger variaty of units
better diplomacy
commanders with clearer personality
more historical battles
choclate icecream
heidi klum
babes
ferraris

Did I miss anything? ~:cheers:

[Brutus]

I would like Religion: Total War, set in Europe and surrounding regions in the 16th (and maybe early 17th) century. In this the religious conviction of your ruler (faction leader) would have a huge consequence on diplomacy with other factions, the loyalty of your subjects, the morale of your soldiers and the loyalty of your family or generals. The battle engine would have to stay, but gunpowder units would be an enourmous addition (although "phalanx"-warfare would remain in the game as well). Of course naval battles would have to be implemented, as well as many, many more historical regions and cities, a new 'family' system, which doesn't only implement the royal family itself (maybe different styles of rule for different factions?). All units would be region specific (or mercenaries), and cities and castles would be based on their real appearance (making them all unique). Finally, many of the features of MTW (like factions emerging, family members revolting and marrying of princesses to forge alliances) would have to come back. By the way, being able to choose the name of your childeren (giving the real historical feel by having a name run for generations in the family) as well as being able to choose your governors and generals from the nobility originally attached to a specific region, would be very nice.

Well, many more ideas, but that's it for now.

[ichi]

For an historical period I'd like to see something Greek or maybe Persian, perhaps 1500-200 BC.

Actually I'd like to see the series try a less historical approach for once, something with a little fantasy, maybe Atlantean or other pre-historical period.

or how about Old Testament Total War?

ichi :bow:

[Kagemusha]

I would like to see WWI or WWII totalwar.I think that would be a great challence for the developers :duel:

[xemitg]

TW4 must have

Naval battles
airplanes
bigger variaty of units
better diplomacy
commanders with clearer personality
more historical battles
choclate icecream
heidi klum
babes
ferraris

Did I miss anything? ~:cheers:



The last four better be in there no matter what game it is.

I wish the combat would have more detail in it. Perhaps every soldier would look a little different. It would be awesome to have things like limbs being hacked off and riders being knocked off their horses and continue fighting. Gore and blood wouldn’t be the center piece of the game. However, if a soldier gets chopped in the arm, naturally his arm should fall off. I fear a Greek based game would be too similar to RTW. My vote would be back to Asia for a Chinese campaign or of the like. It just needs to be different and unique from the past TW games.

[Conqueror]

So long as it doesn't have firearms, it's good. I can enjoy firearms in strat games only if it's set at least WW1 era or later, and I don't want "Total WW" since that theme's done to death and because I think that TW series is better kept to the old days of swords n' spears.

That said, I think the warring states era of China would be an interesting theme for a TW title.

As for features that I'd like to see:

- Supply lines. This is one of the most important stratetic weaknesses of an invading army and it's a great shame that it hasn't been included in TW yet. It should be possible to try to capture or destroy your enemy's supplies. You would need to dedicate units to guard the supplies for your own troops. An underprotected supply train would attract brigands.

- Option to use scorched earth strategy. This could be combined with the raiding of supplies to totally screw up an invasion force.

- Naval battles in 3D battle map with player control over ships.

- A diplomacy system where alliances can be formed specifically against a faction. Ie factions A and B team up against faction X. Perhaps complete with agreement over how to divide the captured provinces. Also there should be a way ask your ally to attack a specific province of your common enemy.

- It should be possible to ask a faction to break their alliance, trade rights, etc to another faction. Or to "persuade" a faction to stop attacking another faction.

- If you keep making diplomatic agreements and breaking them, then there should be consequences. Other factions would no longer take your word for anything, so you could not get any more alliances and other beneficial agreements from them. Also, executing all the populations you conquer should earn you a bad reputation which would also hurt you diplomatically.

- When a faction is aggressively expansionistic, other factions might take note and gang up on it.

- Populations for provinces should be divided to separate figures for slaves, free men, and wealthy men/nobility. Units that are based on particular social class should only be recruited from that class (ie no recruiting of knights from peasants). If a province doesn't have enough citizens of required class then that unit can't be trained there untill the number has grown.

- Similarly, there should be a population of horses, camels, elephants, etc for each province. You could only train mounted units if there is enough mounts available. The rate of recovering their number could be increased by dedicating resources to breeding the animals.

- Technology such as better ship-types, siege engines, composite bows, fortification techniques, etc could be aquired from other factions and adopted. For example, faction A might lack the knowledge of how to build and operate ballistas. They face faction B in battle and suffer ballistas being used against them. Then they send agents to bribe some engineers of faction B to change sides and build ballistas for them. Faction A from then on is able to train their own ballista units.

- Developement of better units should require use of earlier units. It's not good if you can just skip the basic light infantry units, build the big barracks building and start producing the elite light infantry. In order to unlock the more advanced units, you should have made actual use of similar lower quality units in the battle field. Of corse, this would not be required for units that should be available to a faction at the start date.

- Terrain should be more varied and also it should be more significant, especially when it comes to movement of cavalry. Infantry and archers could be moved to places where cavalry can't reach them easily, hence giving them good tactical position.

- It should be possible to set forests on fire. Any units hiding in the forest would be killed, but the fire could also spread and kill your own units if you're not careful! Wind direction should be important factor when using fire. Also, burning buildings in cities should be a real danger to the army in the city, and fires should lower populations. It should be possible to try to burn down major parts of another faction's settlement like you can sabotage specific buildings in RTW.

[Viking]

For an historical period I'd like to see something Greek or maybe Persian, perhaps 1500-200 BC.

That would be nice.
I don`t wan`t a total war game that goes forward in time(from the RTW time period), rather backwards.

Perhaps the expansion would be "Alexandrian Invasion", where you have to fight of the maniac! :charge:

[cunctator]

Bronze Age:Total War
1600-1100BC

[Oaty]

Egypt Total war. At least they would'nt need to revamp too many units ~D

In all reality though China Total War for me

[Martok]

1st choice: Fantasy TW
2nd choice: Hellenic/Persian TW (during the Bronze Age, of course)
3rd choice: China TW (during the Spring & Autumn period).

[mfberg]

You have forgotton:

Stone Age:Total War ~;)

mfberg

[Volstag]

My obligatory comments:

I think the engine works best with pre-gunpowder, or, more specifically, pre-Industrial Revolution conflicts. While a WWI or WWII Total War would be interesting, it would require a radical departure from their current design. The scale of such engagements is, IMO, beyond the capability of the engine (as written) to handle: hundreds of thousands of combatants, air-power, long range artillery, fronts that are dozens of miles long, battles lasting days/weeks, etc. How would they handle submarine warfare, strategic bombing? In addition, there would be several thousand different unit types.

While they could probably get away with conflicts such as the American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, Napoleonic wars, etc, for me, personally, the major attraction of the TW series is that they focus on eras/conflicts that receive relatively limited "treatment" in the computer gaming industry -- and, hence, I'd like to see them continue that trend.

-V

[Colovion]

Anything, as long as it's free of bugs. If CA doesn't get paid to test it enough then release a frickin open beta!

You hear that?

RELEASE AN OPEN BETA

that should assuage any obvious bugs which we have the most delightful time of discovering 5 minutes after installing the game

Oh and more CA support on the forums; more accountability. I'd rather actually feel like teh developers are standing behind their game with smiling faces instead of hiding in a corner hoping and praying for mercy.

[Templar Knight]

16th-18th Centuries

[edyzmedieval]

Medieval Total War 2 with:

many features from RTW
improved diplomacy and AI
diplomacy must have that offer screen
improved trade and more trade goods
more units
more factions

..........

[Shambles]

For a campaign
Id like The entier world involved,
With eskimo warriors,
And australian aberigenees and stuff.
"you cant realy prove they dint exist, So idf like them in"

More diversety in units,
And restrictions to tech tree so not all people can build same
A historicaly acurat game "to some degree considering ive just added Eskimos and stuff"
Not set to any specific time period,
But at the same time Prety loyal to historical events,
"obviously if the french are already dead, Cant have A French specific event"
And Bring back the chess board movement of Shogun and MTW

Better music for ambiance, "it really can make or break a game"
STW battel feel.
But more of a MTW campaign map and economics controll.
Id like Rome TW type gfx. But also a option to drop down To the old STW gfx style for lower end users,

Many more historical battles, Whch also incorporate in to campaign mode,
I.e
if in May 1500 Some 1 had attaked osama. With a specific army In real life,
then they attack osama in campaign mode at that date with that specific army Just as in real life. Only difrence being The defending army "you" See how you would have coped with it when theres more to think about than Just win the battle,

Better ways of defending your ports, And blocking emnissarys From entering by upgrading, But also abilaty to train Better emnisarys or assasins exetera Who can get past the security,

More Upgrades and diftern boat units,
With Amount of crew on board a ship being a factor as to how many shots it can shoot or how quickly, So as to make a better nortical battle.

Abilaty to dictate unit size, Default size of 120 for instance,
But you decide you can oly afoard a unit of 58,
You should be able to Create a unit of 58,

4 turns in one year,

And a better trading system,
Allowing you to set the price you want for your goods,
And qualaty of workman ship, (poor workman ship = less wages for crafts men "yes they should be involved and so should salary)
So buyers would take in to concideration Price and qualaty then evaluate which was best value for money,
The computer ai should also be adjusting its prices to try and beat yours,
but the computer would not be able to find out how much you are selling your goods for Unless that particular faction has purchased goods from you or has a spy in your trading province, Or by word of mouth Several months after you changed your prices,
The same should apply to human players.

I spose i could go on and on :)
But I dont want Some 1 els to make a winner of a game from my ideas and make a fortune,
Becous id be prety Agrivated if i bought the game and said HEY thats what i said,.

Oh It should be called Ultimate Toatl war

ShambleS
:bow:

[Franconicus]

Maybe an imperialism TW; that could include the whole world.
And the battle maps should have more details. Trenches, Swamps, Hedges, Creeks ...
Weather should be as good as MTW, maybe with fog! ~:cool:

[IliaDN]

Aztecs TW , heh , that can be funny.

[PseRamesses]

1. My wet dream: The Great Empires period, 1600-330bc, including facs like Egypt, Babylonia (Kassite), Mittani, Hittite, Assyria, Judah, Phoenicia, Urartu, Persia, Minoans, Nubians, Libyans etc etc and all the Mycenaean kingdoms of Greece etc. Basically a bronze age scenario spanning three disctinct periods/ parts.
2. or a Hellenic game divided into three parts; City states 800-500bc, Classical 500-356bc and finally Hellenistic 356-30bc much like HTW but on a much larger scale.
3. or maybe China although that game would IMO span a too lengthy period of time to be interesting.

Personally I´d like to create an Egyptian mod spanning from the unification ca. 3150bc to 525 bc when incorporated into the Assyrian empire/ or end with the New Kingdom at 1069 bc. This epic one should be divided into 5 distinct eras; Old-, Middle- and New Kingdom plus the 1st and 2nd Intermediate periods.

[dimitrios the samian]

MESOPOTAMIA TOTAL WAR starting with Sumeria and progressing thru to the twilight of the Assyrian Empire .

[xemitg]

Unless we want a game similar to RTW, we need to avoid things like egypt total war or greek total war. It would be just an update of RTW. Unless if that’s what everybody wants...

[Craterus]

I like that time period.

It's part of the reason I never got Medievil; I don't know much about the time period. It doesn't interest me.

[Al Khalifah]

Look at the Total War sequence...

STW: Begins in 1530
WI: Some starting positions in 1490
MTW: 1086 - 1492
VI: 798 - 1066
RTW: 272 bc - 41
BI: circa 360 - 590

I'm guessing something before R:TW then.
Maybe Greece: Total War, with Dorian Invasion expansion pack.

[PseRamesses]

Unless we want a game similar to RTW, we need to avoid things like egypt total war or greek total war. It would be just an update of RTW. Unless if that’s what everybody wants...
Then, what have we left? Europe 1500-1800 ad? A Chinese TW? An american indian/ Atec/ Inca game? Or what? The main thing with the TW-series is to exploit and cover the main conflict periods in human history. I suggested a bronze age game just because it´s nothing like RTW at all. Warfare was very diffenrent and honor was a key element. Skirmishing is another key to ancient warfare not at all like the Roman era with organized warfare. I do realise that for people that finds history obsolete or dull this would be a bad choice.
My other suggestion regarding a game based around Egypt is just my personal flavour based on over 15 years of studying egyptology and I think it wouldn´t be that popular amongst the gaming community.
However, a TW-game covering the ancient empires that I suggested, roughly 2000-1000 bc, would be a killer IMO. Before the TW-series evolve into more modern warfare 15th, 16th, 17th centuries the game needs to be better, smarter AI, more complex reality settings like attrition, logistics etc etc. That the TW series would attempt to release a "modern" (18th and 19th cetury) warfare game would be the end of this great serie. There are to many good games covering this era already on the market.

[Shambles]

I told u No specific time period,
Start form neanderthal man,
And work your way up.
at 4 turns per year with the game i described youd be Verry lucky to make it all the way thru to the sengoku jidai period.

ULTIMATE TOTAL WAR!!!!

[dimitrios the samian]

BABYLON TOTAL WAR

[Craterus]

Look at the Total War sequence...

STW: Begins in 1530
WI: Some starting positions in 1490
MTW: 1086 - 1492
VI: 798 - 1066
RTW: 272 bc - 41
BI: circa 360 - 590

I'm guessing something before R:TW then.
Maybe Greece: Total War, with Dorian Invasion expansion pack.

RTW: 270bc - 5 bc (It's definitely 270. I'm not sure about the 5 part; I made that up.)

I like Bronze Age.

I like sword and spear, not guns.

[Drisos]

I don't want it.

I will only cost us more STW-players...:bigcry:

[Basiliscus]

Well for something not done before, why not something along the lines of the carving up of Africa by the major European powers in the 19th century? This might give people a chance to play as natives or any one of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Ottomans etc. What you all think of that?

Or perhaps the Chinese colonies around the same period, Boxer rebellion et al?

Perhaps even Aztec/Inca TW would work, Cortez/Pizarro and associated cronies. They could happen like a scripted event like the Mongol invasion in MTW.

If it wasn't for AOE3, an American colonies TW might work ~:)

[cunctator]

Atztec/Inca:TW is my second choice. The spanish invasion would offer aa unseen variety in gameplay.

[GonZ]

Thanks for the input folks. I suppose I should pitch in with my own views - could be a long post, bear with me.

Era.

I would definitely like to see the post Medieval period explored covering:

# The Renaissance (Europe, 14th century - 16th century)
# Elizabethan period (United Kingdom, 1558 - 1603)
# The Age of Enlightenment Europe,18th century
# Napoleonic Era, 1799-1815

So I am talking an age of gunpowder, sea power, exploration, religious unrest and rebellion.

Name.

mmm tricky one. But Imperial TW? TW4:Empires, TW4: Conquest?

Geography.

There needs to be a global aspect here as world exploration and trade would have to be a major part. Obviously the scale is massive - you can't have a battle map for every part of the globe.

So I would still like to see the main focus of the game to be on an extended Europe.

The global aspect; exploration, colonies and distant power struggles could be handled as an abstraction; players allocate resources - troops, money, specific generals etc to handle this part of the game on behalf of the player. Progress could be handled in terms of reports coming in as well as treasure, new technologies and improved maps.

To handle this I would like to see the introduction of a new map level. Essentially a dynamic world map that develops over time.

At the start of the game the world map would be very inacurate a bit like this one from the 15th Century http://graphics.britannia.com/history/herefords/fram.jpg

As the game proceeds and your faction explores or trades maps with other nations the the quality of the map would improve. To something like this one from the 17th: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Kepler-world.jpg

Other things I'd like to see in the game:

More diplomatic options - e.g. alliances that mean something and can last.

More espionage options - e.g. being able to spark, sponsor and assist rebels in enemy territories.

Tech tree - cartography, navigation and ship building tech trees + gun and canon tech. Also a tactical tech tree that would have an effect on battle field manoeuvres. For instance Barrack square 1; improves discipline & morale. Barrack square 2. Improves discipline, morale, stamina and allows troops to form a square. etc.

Turn sequence - I'd really like to do away with the turn sequence altogether. I'd rather have a fluid sliding scale that would slow down or speed up time. You would be able to see units moving round the map in "real" time. Things would come in and out of view depending on the proximity of scouts, line of site and ability of your units. Battles would be based on manoeuvring two or more armies together. Ideally you would see the armies and supply trains etc marching round Europe

Fog of war - I think that the way things are hidden til explored in RTW is good and should be enhanced in TW4.

Characterisation & role-play. Vices and virtues to the next level up. Choosing the right man for the job would be more important. Hidden vices perhaps? More plots and intrigue. Negotiations handled "in person" i.e. from your kings or generals perspective when an emissary visits, or from your emissaries perspective when he is granted an audience. With options of what to say and how to say it; from grovelling formalities to surly demands.

Internal conflict - more chance of rebellions, religious unrest, plots and civil wars. Bring back the disloyal generals, so we can set an example of them!

Sea battles. I'd really like to play these out but I can live with an improved abstracted version if need be.

Bigger battle maps - so we can have massive waterloo style battles. Blood, smoke, mud and carnage on the battlefield.

Multiplayer campaigns. Removing the turn sequence might make this more viable. Allow players to arrange weekly sessions for instance. Agree on a rate for the time slider and away you go. Absent players can set plans in place and would have to rely on AI.

Well that's about it for now, hope someone out there likes my ideas.

[Barbarian_King_1]

A Three Kingdoms with possible Mongol invasion add on, mod, etc. would make China would make an excellent topic. It is different than the others, could cover more time, include more difficult terrain, and would not be that hard to create, ie. cheap for the company.

I agree with many of the previous entries. A better AI, and greater gamout of responses in diplomacy. I for one always want to behead my losing generals, especially when the battle is won, and they run, and take everyone else with them. Why is that not an option? Another portion would be sandbox. Why not include a map maker, random, etc. and start with one province. In addition would like online strategic play, with yes, unfortunately uncommanded (auto) battles.

I like naval combat too, but it would not be as useful in this mod. Maybe riverboats mmmm. No not paddlewheelers, before I start taking shots across my rigging.

The Middle Kingdom could be a wonderful place to play, I mean fight, I mean conquer. I am sure I am not saying anything new, but there is my two ducals, oops wrong period.

The Original Barbarian King

[Papewaio]

TW1: Shogun
TW2: Mongol Invasion
TW3: MTW
TW4: Viking Invasion
TW5: RTW

So we want to go back in time and change Viking Invasion (incidentally the only one in the series I havn't played)...

[Samurai Waki]

I'd have to go with Imperial: TW covering the time from the Spanish Discovery of the Americas to roughly the end of the American Civil War/Franco-Prussian War. Although, I'd like to see a more realistic format, were things really were the way that they were, up until the point you decide to screw up history. I've seen enough of the Late BCs-1500s AD, and would like to move foreward instead of back.

I would Also Like to See

Completely Revamped Trade System: If you're nation can produce it, you can trade things with other nations for it.

Completely Revamped AI: I would like to see an AI that actually learns from it's mistakes, and forms it's own complex battle plans for each individual nation, according to what kinds of units it has available to it.

Completely Revamped Diplomacy Model: Meaning, instead of sending around a Diplomatic Agent, you can just click which faction you want to have a diplomatic deal with, whatever the distances from your capital to their capital, determines how long it will take to get your message there and back.

No More Turns!: I'd like to see a game, that doesn't use a turn based system, this would allow players to be on their toes at all times. It takes a certain amount of in game time to construct new buildings within cities, or train new units, in real time. Also, this would allow for realistic marching distances between cities.

Assigning Governors to foreign provinces: Because the Scope of the Game is so large, you can actually Assign Governors to take care of domestic issues in your far away provinces. This includes building up your Colonies, and raising foreign levies. This would allow you to manage whatever aspect of the game that you want (trade, military Expeditions, and Diplomacy), while you're governors are doing all the little important things in the background, that are relatively unimportant to you, but vastly important to your nations success. Also, Governors would gain traits over time that would either be good or bad for sed province... this includes all out rebellion.

Map of the World: The entire world would be represented, and with it, every major, and many minor civilization with it, each with unique units, and military, or cultural doctrines.

Religion: Bring God to the Savages, or re-populate areas with citizens of your own ilk. This includes things like Inquisitions, and dare I say it... genocide. This would greatly upset other nations that are not of the same thought-process, or religion that you are, and they may even declare war outright war.

Complex Campaigns: This includes supply lines and attrition, and when you march your armies into enemy territories you can assign them certain missions, including raising farms, and small communities, or attempting to sack the provincial capital, you may also order your general in command to take a defensive position, or seek your enemies offensively. If a battle ensues, it is completely up to you to take command, but if you don't, and the General under control of the AI has good command traits, you may well win the day, without taking atrocious losses.

Improved Battle Controls: If you take over command of your troops, you are no longer god and can't see everything. The Battles are fairly first person... and some 3rd Person. You can order cavalry to screen your line, or poke at enemy offensive or defensive positions to find out where they are the weakest. You only know what you're up against until the enemy is right in your sight. Of course with advent of later technology, things like air balloons, and good telescopes will be available at your disposal. Basically, your underlings do the fighting for you, you tell them where to go, and where to attack, and the AI would figure out the rest. This would mean that you might get frustrated with a fresh lieutenant that doesn't know exactley what he's doing, but with time, and if he doesn't die, he'll learn to do things that will put an edge on the enemy.

Chaos Theory and Corealis Affect: The rotation of the Earth, geologic location, and position of the planet vs. the sun... mean seasonal changes, according to time and location, Barometric Pressure, Humidity, and Elevation. Also things like Weather Patterns develop regularly that you can use to your advantage... or your enemies will know how to use to theirs.

Hmmmm.... can't really think of too many other things... Naval Battles, going along the same line, as my Improved Battle Controls suggestion would be nice though too.

Wazikashi

[Burnzy]

Hopefully: Colonisation: Total War (Picking up where MTW left off and going through to 1800(ish) - This would let me live out my dream of being born during this period with memories of the future, hindsight = Me saying "Longbow > Musket God damn it!")

Realistically: Hellenistic: Total War. (Rome engine with new skins, a few little features and maybe the Indus - Yawn - Unless its expansion was the Roman struggle for dominance of the Italian peninsular)

Alternatively: MMORPG: Total War (Strictly profit I'd expect)

--

Can't help but think of it though - Setting off from Spain with a small fleet to fight the exotic and mysterious peoples of the Americas and taking home huge amounts of loot, with constant skirmishes with other Catholic powers, possibly a high speed chase around Cape Horn where the sink rate is 99% ~D ~D.

Some other brilliant features which would add huge amounts of realism:

1. Different stages of war/aggressiveness, ie: total tar, skirmishes, war at sea/distant provinces. Total war is and was a rare thing, look at the Falkland Islands - Strictly provincial and wasn't total war, these things happen and I'd love it to be incorporated into the TW games.

2. Looting after battles! Why not?! It happened! Not only gold and valuables, but also weapons and armour - the game could translate this to weapon/armor upgrades like those of the armouries built in provinces. The amount and quality depending on the slain enemy, however.

3. Further enhanced diplomacy. Use your imagination, I'm talking ultimatums, pacts over territories ("You invade Belgium, and I'll invade you!" sort of thing) and many others.

4. Lots more which I can't think of off the top of my head! ~D ~D

Total War games really do have unlimited potential, if CA could only tap into even a quarter of it in the next game, it would easily drive me crazy like the previous titles ~:cheers:.

[King Arthur]

1. My wet dream: The Great Empires period, 1600-330bc, including facs like Egypt, Babylonia (Kassite), Mittani, Hittite, Assyria, Judah, Phoenicia, Urartu, Persia, Minoans, Nubians, Libyans etc etc and all the Mycenaean kingdoms of Greece etc. Basically a bronze age scenario spanning three disctinct periods/ parts.
2. or a Hellenic game divided into three parts; City states 800-500bc, Classical 500-356bc and finally Hellenistic 356-30bc much like HTW but on a much larger scale.
3. or maybe China although that game would IMO span a too lengthy period of time to be interesting.
.

Agreed pseRamesses ,the bronze age scenario would be an excellent idea
an important era as its an important era in the cradle of civilisation of mesepotamia
of this period i would like to see the movement of peoples through territories
which happened in this period

[thelzdking]

I think that anything post 1500 is hopeful; I think things would be too complex politicaly to do the era justice. Also I personnally think warfare becomes less apt for the TW style after the medirval period.

What I would like is for them to take RTW as it is, keep the engine, graphics, world map etc but make into another medieval setting. Then spend 2 years fashioning the most intricate, perfect AI and political mechanics ever seen, then spend another 6 months giving the whole thing a graphical once over etc.

Don't see a problem with the RTW engine and graphics, just needs things like supply lines, a complex marriage/family tree sytem (if it was set in the middle ages again) and most of the other things people have said, but the key I reckon would be the AI.

[Copperhaired Berserker!]

What I would want would be.......

Total war: reloaded
I would like this to totally revamp every TW game, ever. The company would listen to the fan base, org, twc, the lot to make Tw games perfect. all mods would help the company, for skinning and the like.

Conclusion: sorry but this will take 100 years!~D

[ipsen]

Well, personally, I haven't seen any fandom-based game successful ~:)

First we have to decide what essential characteristics of TW series are. Based on the summary, then we can plot out at least the new era.

To me, fundamental things a TW game must have are:
-Multi-state map.
-Turbulent diplomacy.
-Game functions at both strategic level and tactical level - hence operations are crucial.
-Hand-to-hand combat. At least soldiers have to be able to form a unit-on-map. So machine-gun battles are ruled out!
-Economy to manage.
-It must be logical! You cannot expect full operations from West Indian tribes!

From the aforementioned criteria, I suggest the following options of periods:
-China at virtually any time in the past! It had always been an unstable state under monarchies.

-India: some BC time. A perfect multi state which was constantly under threat of civil wars and invasions.

-Mongol Total War: why not a full version of the Mongol hordes fighting each other and then conquer the rest of the world?

-Islam Total War: well, truly wars between states of different Islamic sects are worth a terrific attempt. Umayyad, Abbasid and Mameluks and the like!

-Some other minor conquests in history like that by Tamerlane, Attila, etc.

My two cents :bow:

[Franconicus]

I want to have the option to save during battles!

[Satyr]

I don't care when or where the game is set. It could honestly be Rugby:Total War for all I care but it needs one key ingredient!

A really good AI!

[Maedhros]

I must agree with Satyr - A challenging AI must be the number 1 component of a new game.

It must also have a feel and atmosphere appropriate for the setting.

Fantastic advances have been made with the graphics and I'd like to see that continue forward.

Further improvements in the diplomatic options and perhaps an option to requip your armies as you see fit.

Pick a quality level of the basic soldier, choose his armor, weapons, and equipment. So you can tailor your army specifically to your particular need.

They have been taking small steps forward on the sea. I'd like to see a bold leap and wonderfully rendered ships we watch moving across the water into battle. Complete with fire, arrows and boarding. Naval battles could be fought on the ocea, lakes, rivers, and canals.

I would enjoy most any setting. China at 3 kingdoms or probably prior, Something before 1500 BC, or a unique fantasy game. Whatever the ultimate setting I'd love to see it.

My biggest wants have to be an AI capable of surprising me or at least adapting to my tactics. If I'm heavy on cav maybe my foe should persue higher spear recruitment and adapt field formations that favor a spear focus.

That and naval battles.


They have been improving or working to improve on every other issue I want to see improved on the game. So hats off and wallet open to the future of Total War.

[Wishazu]

My personal request would be a Greek focused game, i.e the peloponnesian war etc. however i dont really mind what time period they go for next time as long as the following features are included.

Improved Battlefield AI
More depth to negotiations
Naval Battles(If imperial glory can have em, then why not total war?)
Loyalty feature from medieval(i liked spying on my generals to discover who was plotting against me)
Civil wars^^^ that pretty much goes hand in hand with the loyalty thingy :)
Factions Re-emerging
Multiplayer campaign

[edyzmedieval]

I personally would like MTW2!!! It's my fav TW and also my fav game!!!

Here are my favourite options:

1. Medieval Total War 2
2. Ancient: Total War
3. China: Total War(Three Kingdoms)

[King Kurt]

I would like to see either a Renaisance TW - say 1450 - 1650 ish - loads of technical advance and lots of religious action with the reformation or a 19th century TW - say 1792 - 1900 - again - technical advance and lots of conflicts to spice things up - you could even abstract the colonies and impact of things like the american civil war. ~:cheers:

[KukriKhan]

Folks, let's see if we can get through to page 3 of this topic without the needless shouting (overly-large text, multiple exclamation points, etc). Consider your audience, the readers.

Thanks. :bow:

[GonZ]

@Kurt Renaisance TW

That make's sense to me.

"technical advance and lots of conflicts to spice things up" absolutely. And not just technical advances either - new weapons needed new tactics. Available tactics should be available to those factions who invest in it. It's a whole new tech-tree.

Endless opportunity for diplomacy, trade, treachery and Machiavellian scheming.

Also ripe the for the periods afterwards, and numerous expansion possibilities. Gunpowder please!

Also warming to the idea of the Three Kingdoms China ideas. Ancient has been done IMO - it's called Rome TW. I'm sure Rome is moddable down-tech much better than up-tech.

[Satyr]

You mean we aren't writing this as advice to CA? Come on now, of course we are.

[KukriKhan]

Sure...they read here too. Let's not shout at them. I'm absolutely certain they're interested.

[Franconicus]

Bribing should be changed. It should not be possible to bribe FMs or other loyal troops. But it should be possible to bribe mercs that serve the enemy even before a battle.
You should also be able to have joined actions with your allies. It should be possible to coordinate plans and to exchange units.

[British Mutt + Viking]

The issue is that the melee era of warfare is more or less covered, and that leaves the age of muskets, rifles, and then modern warfare (Napoleonic wars, American Civil War, and then the wars to follow), with the first two easilY done with the engine (The crudest form of this exists with the gunners in STW) and I don't think TW engine really is appropriate for modern-warfare (WW1 and beyond)
I would not be surprised if a TW comes out covering the Napoleonic Wars, which would be great except for one thing. The game's 3d warfare would be crap in compare, because of the lack of variety in units and the sheer simplicity of Napoleonic warfare tactics would make it rather boring in compare to the previous three games. That means the game has to find a way to really improve the strategy side of the game, which is really hard to do and most people will not appreciate it. If such a game comes out, I expect the reviews will all say the fighting sucks and that's that. A game about the Civil War would be similarly compromised, though I can think of a few things that might give it more flavour. If anything, the scale of the fighting would be an issue because Napoleonic armies numbered in the tens of thousands. If you think it hard to control 2,000 men in RTW, imagine controlling 50,000.
In my opinion, the TW series has run its course because the engine relies on formation fighting, and after the Civil War, formation warfare begins to fade, and if we push too far back in time, we fight there is nothing new or different enough to be worthwhile. Now, if they have released a Napoleonic game first, then Shogun, Medieval, and Rome, it would have been better.

[CMcMahon]

1750s-1920s

And, like AOE or a game like that, your faction will upgrade it's technologies and older units will become obsolete. Also, units should automatically lose men and disband with age; you can't really expect a single unit of 40 hastati to survive for 85 years without at least retraining, even if they've never been in battle. Surely they're going to get old and die.

[British Mutt + Viking]

That is another issue, which is that the conflict between using seasonal and yearly turns. In my opinion, seasonal turns are much more realistic, but I can how the issue of time can be hard for some players. In STW, 16 years, the age of an heir coming of age, is 64 turns, and the life-span of a king can stretch over 200 turns. Also, lots of people had a hard time thinking around the idea of income coming in every 4 turns, not every turn.
If a game was seasonal in turns, then certain units, and I do mean only certain, can disband automatically, but if it is yearly, then I would not want it to be so, for the armies which could have taken years and years to building up correctly (due to other flaws of the strategy map) will have a very short shelf-life, and it is not going to be popular if you build up this great army and suddenly half the men "get old." That is a sure way to turn people away from the game.
Myself, I want three things to be different next game. Instead of a county/province production screen, I want it so that every building in a province has its own production queue. so instead of only one unit at a time being built in a province each turn, you can rig it so that at the bowyer, one archer is building, at the swordsmith, a unit of swordsmen, at the horse-breeder, some hobilars, and at the spear-smith, an armoured spearmen unit, and after one turn, ALL 4 units appear at once in the same province during the same turn (if their production times allow). This way, it is on a more realistic timescale to build armies.

[Mount Suribachi]

1) I don't care too much what the era is, as long as the game is polished, as bug-free as possible and well supported after release

2) The diplomacy needs to be greatly improved upon. Even just copying the system from games as old as Alpha Centauri (7 years old!) would be an improvement. That game had "trustworthyness" ratings, so you couldn't make and break alliances on a whim. Each faction had a rating for how much it liked/disliked other factions based upon what style of government they had, how they behaved towards them, how aggressive they were, what your core values were etc. You had several levels of diplomatic relations from all out war to a kind of vassalship. You could loan money, give away provinces and units, co-ordinate tactics, trade tech (for tech, money, land etc). Considering it was a contempary of Shogun, its diplomatic game is far in advance of the TW series.

3) Much better empire management. As we all know, once your TW empire reaches a certain size, running your empire becomes a very long-winded and often tedious task. Most of my MTW games I've stopped playing after about 100 years as I can't be bothered with all the micro-management. Others have in the past pointed out the ways that games like Civ, CTP, SMAC etc handle empire managent in a more efficient way

4) Much better information management. From day 1 of MTW I felt that the info management was clunky and didn't give anywhere near enough info. Things like being able to see ALL your unit leaders, not just your stack leaders and order them by each attribute. See point 3

5) More rebellions/civil wars. More powerful generals and generals of Royal blood making a bid for power, especially with a weak king. If your King dies without an heir, rather than the game ending, having your most powerful generals battle it out for power

6) Keep the epic nature of the game, keep those wonderful epic, see-saw battles, the ones that we remember years and years later (did I ever tell you about the time I was playing as clan Mori and I was attacked by an army of 2000 Yari Ashiguru and 2000 Warrior Monks....). We all love TW games for those special battles :charge: :duel: :bow:

7) Atmosphere, atmosphere, atmosphere. I think most people would agree that STW had the best atmosphere. It was so lovingly crafted, and the game was just dripping in the ambience of medieval Japan. Not that the other 2 were bad, but Shogun takes the cake.

8) I know I said I didn't care what era, but I would prefer Napoleonic. If this Napoleonic game could include the whole world a la EU2, then so much the better, but I think that would be a layer of complexity too far. If TW4 does become NTW, then perhaps the expansion could be the American Civil War, which only having 2 sides would be ideal for the holy grail of TW games, the multiplayer campaign.

[British Mutt + Viking]

The issue is that not all players, and indeed most players, do not have the mind-set to appreciate the dimplomatic and strategic side of the game. If the company is going to make a game, it cannot just fine-tune it for the small set of players who appreciate and long for the kind of dimplomacy and such as you describe, or else the game will not sell well enough to justify its cost.
With regards to Napoleonic warfare, the issue is that it is fun and cool to us, but, and this is a big but, the fighting would be very simple and crude in compare to the kind of action we see on Medieval or Rome. There are only 4 types of soldier you are likely to find, a musket-armed infantryman, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, and riflemen (This is not including the arabs and turks, but history shows that it is not smart to use medieval era Mamelukes against European volley-fire). The only major variation on this would be that the French would have the Imperial Guards, perhaps some Highlander infantry for the English )(which are again little more than slightly more aggressive musketeers), and then the tiny difference between the countries. French infantry were historically faster, more flexible, but less disciplined than Prussians, who were much slower, very rigid, and so on. Russians would have to have Cossacks, that is a given, but their infantry musketry was terrible, and their favoured tactic was to use massed bayonette charges, with obvious results. In short, I don't think players used to variety and complexity of Medieval and Roman warfare would be so quick to appreciate the simplicity of Napoleonic warfare. It would just too different for most players' tastes.
One thing, though, that I think would be a great help is to add in a climatization factor for troops. Soldiers would fight differently in certain terrains and climates. Instead of just saying "an armour of 5 makes you tired faster in the desert" a "poor in desert" marker on the unit would say that it is one point of speed slower, tired (at least) 25% faster, and minus 1 or more morale points. A unit that is "good in desert" would gain a plus 1 speed, tire 25% slower, and + 1 morale. Something like that would greatly improve the dynamics of the battlefield. Viking units in MTW or in RTW, Germanic tribesmen types, would be at home in winter, while other units would be cold, tired, and miserable. Those from the desert would REALLY miserable, cold, and tired. That way, you don't have Mamelukes from the deserts of Algeria or Carthaginians fighting as well in the snows of the Alps as they do in the sunny grasslands of central Italy.
Another feature I want is a "sneak" feature. Units that can conceal in the open can move slowly without being detected (or at least with little chance of it) so that ambushes can be mor readily controlled.

[Mount Suribachi]

BM+V, have you tried the Napoleonic mod for NTW? They've got more than 4 unit types ~;)
Furthermore, I don't feel the need for a game to have hundreds of units for it to be interesting, one of my favourite things about Shogun is that it only has around a dozen units, all of which have a use, and are wonderfully balanced in a rock/paper/scissors kind of way.

As for the Napoleonic era, it would be a hugely popular subject (how many copies has Cossacks sold?) especially in continental Europe where this kind of thing is massive (EU2 for example).

I disagree with the simple diplomacy I suggested being "too complicated" for the average player. I just copied the system from Alpha Centauri which was a hugely successful game.


I also forgot to add my final point

9) Supply and attrition. Maintaining a supply of food/water/ammunition/pay for your armies should at least be a factor. If your supply lines suffer, then disease and desertion should increase in your armies

[British Mutt + Viking]

What I meant by four unit types is that there is little genuine difference between a French infantryman and a Russian one. That was one of the defining features of "Napoleonic" warfare, in that it was really just a simple matter of 50,000 men carrying muskets and bayonettes, marching up to an army of 50,000 other guys with the same weapons and only slightly different uniforms, firing volleys at each other and maybe charging with bayonettes. In the end, the guy with more men usually won, and any occasion where the guy with fewer troops won, it was because his enemy made some hideous mistake which cannot be explained logically.
However, I agree, that it would be a good game, but I am simply noting that I imagine that the difference between it and the sheer variety of the previous games will turn quite a few players off. I known many people who loved STW but found MTW to be too "different" for their tastes. The difference between this game and the previous three would be considerable to say the least.
And just to add, one shouldn't put too much into what Europeans think with regards to games, because in the end, the people who really decide the gaming industry are the Asians and Americans, as they are the biggest markets by far. Also, to be honest, Europeans tend to have more depth and appreciation for historical games than the average American (but I am sure most of the Americans here are of a higher standard than the average). This observation is based entirely upon personally having lived in both Europe and the United States, and is not intended as an insult to Americans, only an appreciation for cultural differences. In all honesty, Europeans can be a bit of a bore in compare to Americans, so it's all equal in the end. :scastle:

[Azi Tohak]

In terms of era, I don't particularly care. Pike and shot would be great...but why on earth would anyone want to be someone besides Sweden?

Graphics, scmaphics, I don't care. The game looks great as it is. There was very little change in graphics between STW and MTW right?

My main thing, as has been said before, is an improved AI, both tactical and strategic. It does not have to be Hannibal, or heck Gaius Julius, but please, for the love of God, give me an AI that my sister can't beat!

Azi

[Maedhros]

I think we all agree on the point of improved AI.

I think we also agree proper atmosphere makes for a game that feels finished and ready for hours of play. It is essential to establishing mood and making a game memorable.

To any developers out there tell the people who guard the purse strings this is an essential part of building value in a product.


That said, can somebody back me up on naval battles? It is has been discussed in the past but I'm not seeing so much anymore. Rome quality graphics with tri and biremes ducking it out....

That would be a fight worth zooming in on. Frankly it would look good from high above too.

Is there a second for the seas as the new battle frontier?

[Papewaio]

An extra difficulty level

Easy/Medium/Hard/Very Hard/Org'ah ~D

[Lonely Soldier]

For a campaign
Id like The entier world involved,
With eskimo warriors,
And australian aberigenees and stuff.
"you cant realy prove they dint exist, So idf like them in"


I'm working on somthing like that for the current game - including eras (I think someone mentioned those), and a global system - , though if they made it as a new game with a new uber engine that would be best of all!

[vanedor]

I think a game covering the entire world at no specified time would really suck. They just can't give it the same kind of details they could give it to a game in a specified country or region at a specified time. Many say STW had the best 'ambiance'. That's because it only covered one nation at a much specified time. In R-TW there are many nations but only during antiquity and already they had trouble to make all nations well playable and accurate beside Romans (and even for them...).

I doubt the next game go Aztec or Inca. Not enough known. I, personally, have no idea what warfare looked like, there, before the Spanish conquest. It's really not a popular setting and frankly, it's of no interest for most of us who are of European origin.

I fear a China Total War would only be a STW with a bigger map. Not enough variety.

I agree the game needs a better ai, a better diplomacy. I would like it to be easier to make peace with another nation. To have a reputation and have leaders have a personality, not just declare you a total war because your land appears no enough defended. Have alliance actually means something (for honourable opponents).

I think a colonisation era game would be really interesting. You could be the Vice-Roi for the colony and wage war against the native (Indian tribes, South American empire) and other European colonies. You could hire native auxiliary to help your troops, build forts, new cities. Actually "establish" the province borders instead or having them established right from the start. It was a new land after all. You would need to supply your troops with powder and cannonball (which would make forts far more important than they are in RTW, as they would act as a spot where you can re-supply your troops).

I think that could make a wonderful game.

[KSEG]

Back to the original:
New Shogun Total War.
And this time no silly unhistoric things like geisha and ninjas, only 8 nation, having a distinct cavalry unit, stupid movies.

[Marquis of Roland]

A total war whole world game; do you realize how much hardrive space and memory that would use up? I mean, imagine the tech, Rome by itself would have about, what, 3-4 different tech trees?

I don't see how a China: total war would be just another STW with a bigger map; China and Korea had really unique units. It would also be better for the terrain would be more varied, meaning more varied factions with more unit variety and tactics.

I would definitely want them to make a worldwide total war, but I don't know how high the system requirements would be, and I know for sure that my computer right now wouldn't be able to handle it.

What year would this worldwide total war start and when would it end?

[British Mutt + Viking]

And this time no silly unhistoric things like geisha and ninjas, only 8 nation, having a distinct cavalry unit, stupid movies.

Geisha, Ninjas, and 8 clans are not as unhistoric as you think. The only thing really out of whack is the Geishas, and that is only insofar as they were not historically used on the same scale as the game does. If you want to complain about unhistoric, the way Samurai fought is not the way they do it in the game, but to realistically depict samurai warfare would really just be too confusing and complicated.
There were 8 major clans that had major historical impact, and to a limited degree, the unit specialization is correct (Mori clan was famed for its adherence to Buddhism, and thus warrior monks did serve in greater numbers with them).

[ichi]

Back to the original:
New Shogun Total War.
And this time no silly unhistoric things like geisha and ninjas, only 8 nation, having a distinct cavalry unit, stupid movies.

The ninja movies were the coolest part!

And by making Geishas so powerful you were forced to devote significant resources to that technological development.

Besides there are mods in development for the VI and Rome engines

ichi :bow:

[Skott]

Like others I'd rather see them go back farther in time rather than go forward. TW:Bronze Age or TW:Stone age. Only possible exception to that maybe would be Meso-American where they have the North, Central, and South American version. Include the Incas, Aztecs, Mayas, Hopis, and etc. Have the cut off just before the Spainiards arriving to the new world. Something like that would be cool I think. Leave the post-gunpowder weapons out of it. ~:cheers:

[Enoch]

I agree with the ones that want another go in the Medieval period.
A Medieval TW2 with the Rome: TW engine... what a treat that would have been!!! :charge:
Another wish would be Crusades: TW

[LestaT]

A china total war seems to be the greater choice and would be great especially during the warring states period but maybe a different look at ancient kingdom around the south east asia (vietnam , cambodia area now) or during the 14th-15th century which includes old malaccan sultanate and the coming of western power such as dutch , portugeese and english .

[Megas Alexandros]

China: Total War is an excellent idea. The 7 Kingdoms' period is one of the most interesting times of history.

I also prefer pre-machines eras. This also stands for hand-held guns.

But what I really would like to play: the whole ancient times, with all of Eurasia, and North Africa, from the first great cultures to the dark ages, Arthur's times, perhaps. 2000 B.C. - 1000 B.C. - 1000 A.D.

[Megas Alexandros]

China: Total War is an excellent idea. The 7 Kingdoms' period is one of the most interesting times of history.

I also prefer pre-machines eras. This also stands for hand-held guns.

But what I really would like to play: the whole ancient times, with all of Eurasia, and North Africa, from the first great cultures to the dark ages, Arthur's times, perhaps. 2000 B.C. - 1000 B.C. - 1000 A.D. The greatest empires the world have seen.... And the greatest men....

[Sir Toma of Spain]

I rekon a world total war would be great if you had like 3 or 4 different campaigns for different parts of the world.

For North America you could have the civil war or something like that

For South America you could have the Aztecs and Incas and have a Spanish invasion

For Europe you could have the Napoleon era or something like that

For China you could have the 3 kindoms period

and i'm sure there are tons of other possibilities as well

[Krauser]

I wouldn't like a worldwide total war. It's just too much land to cover. Campaigns would just take way too long to finish. I don't want to have to spend 1000 hrs to beat it once.

[Krauser]

bah...can't edit my post

add-on to the above:
I'd be more interested in a Total War in the Americas. They haven't done anything in the Americas have they? Maybe everyone thinks its a boring part of history because everyone's studied it too much in school?

It could cover both South and North America. It would cover all the ancient peoples, then have Spanish Conquest, then continue with the Britain and French fight for North America. There could be multiple campaigns. One for each major period. The total time period would be like 1400-1776AD stopping at American history that everyone knows about.

[Sam the Subduer of Rebels]

i Reckon Total War: Timelord would be good as you could start as a small tribe any where in the world and play right the way into the futre.

in it would be:

playable plane/ship/spaceship battles
religions you could make up
weapon creating
mines
alien invasions

[Ianofsmeg16]

Isle of Man: Total War
Set in the time of Bartix, the Smegs pack up and leave while the urANIANs invade with the help of the no-tailed Cats.....Bartixian Stickmen try and help but are overrun
Will you defend your territory as the Smeg Legions
Attack the weak Smegs as the urANIANs or the No-tailed Cats
Run around in circles screaming MY MOTHER WAS A GOOSE EGG?(then you may need help)

ISLE OF MAN: TOTAL WAR (copyright of the bartix thread and Bartix: Total War)

[Slon]

Personally, I would love to see Medieval: Total War with the Rome: Total War engine.

Whatever the next game is, I would like it to be more complex strategic map-wise. Let the players decide what to export and import. Let people control rations. Also, the "take the city and control the entire region" has to go. There is more to controlling a province than just holding the main city. Also, is one city per province really that realistic? Other than that, the battles system also needs fixing. Right now the units are very difficult to control. Sometimes they walk onto the bridge when you order them to stand next to it, etc... Horse also suck at chasing down routers. It's like they are trying to go "with" the routing army rather than just chage past them or engage in individual combat. That is another thing. Why not just have different modes for units? One for fighting, one for charging through and one for exterminating (against routing units)? Naval battles (player-controlled) are obviously a must, as well. Also, captain selection needs to be improved in the future game. Prisoner-taking is a must. Also, siege battles need to be fixed since right now soldiers have trouble going through gates (they walk out in some straight line, getting into some odd formation beforehand).

Edit: And I am just getting started. Rome: Total War is swarming with bugs and problems. Granted, the game is quite complex and problems are expected to arise. For example, the whole overpopulation thing prevents people from upgrading farms. Well, I was thinking, why not just export the food from a Latifundia in Carthage to, say, Viscus Gothi? So, instead of getting 30,000+ rebellious people in carthage and 800 in gothi, I can have carthage decline to a reasonable 24,000 while Viscus Gothi grows into a minor city at increased speed. Again, I'm just picking problems off the top of my head. The TW designers need to sit down and think hard before creating another game. It is just disappointing to see such an epic game with great replayability value get bogged down because it wasn't polished.

[Krauser]

Prisoner-taking is a must.

Hostages and ransoms would be pretty cool to add.


Also, siege battles need to be fixed since right now soldiers have trouble going through gates (they walk out in some straight line, getting into some odd formation beforehand).

Yeah, I hate how archers tend to keep running towards the gate and try to get through it BEFORE attempting to launch arrows. I mean, they are clearly within range. Don't tell me they can't shoot over the walls.

[King of Atlantis]

An america mod would be hard.

North america was composed of MANY tribes that would all have roughly the same units.

The best america won would be

Age of Revolution: Total War/ Colonies: Total War

This could be at the time of americas revelution. England would have many was, france would have a very rebelous populace and americans would have to fight for their freedom and fight the native americans.

The european powers could also fight to keep their various teritories.

[Enoch]

I'd be more interested in a Total War in the Americas.

It could cover both South and North America. It would cover all the ancient peoples, then have Spanish Conquest, then continue with the Britain and French fight for North America. There could be multiple campaigns. One for each major period. The total time period would be like 1400-1776AD stopping at American history that everyone knows about.
What an excellent idea. I would have bought the game…

[Geoffrey S]

I'd certainly be ready to buy some kind of Asia: Total War. There are so many interesting things that have happened in so many time periods in the region that it'd be impossible to be lacking for inspiration when making such a game. It'd be nice though if the next release could be a bit more bug free, along with a more flexible set of hard-coded limits.

[Zenicetus]

Hi, a RTW newbie here. I just bought it a few weeks ago, when I finally upgraded to a computer strong enough to run it.

I haven't played the earlier TW games, so personally I'd be thrilled if they re-made one of them with the new engine, preferably MTW. But that may not be a good marketing move for the company. As long as there are still interesting eras to cover, they might get more sales from the established fan base with something new. I think China is maybe the best candidate, especially if they build in a lot of atmosphere and cultural flavor. Bronze Age as a prequel to RTW might also be fun.

TW:MesoAmerica (as several have mentioned here) is an interesting idea. It would be fun to try recreating the Spanish conquest... massive tech superiority in a tiny group against huge numerical superiority with the native armies. Or play one of the native empires, and see if you could hold off the Spaniards for a few hundred years.

I don't think I'd enjoy a Napoleonic period game, but that's just my personal bias. I like zooming in on the 3D chaos in RTW's melee combat. Even without blood and gore effects, it works (in terms of being an interesting, compelling game) because there's so much going on. A line of Napoleonic-era soldiers slowly falling over while others march in from behind to replace them, facing off across a big empty field.... no blood or gore effects... invisible bullets... gaaaah. It just doesn't sound as exciting as chariots and elephants crashing into a line of pikemen. And I think it's the look of the 3D battle engine that helps sell this kind of game beyond the hardcore strategy players. So for my $.02, I think they should stick to pre-gunpowder combat.

[Maedhros]

I like zooming in on the 3D chaos in RTW's melee combat. Even without blood and gore effects, it works


Here here. More chaos. Let the gentlemen have their own war game.

~:cheers:

Mixing in up - up close and personal seems more exciting.

[caesar44]

The graphics in RTW is good and so are the battles , so
1. Time period : c. 1200 to c. 1600 ce
2. Better diplomacy as mentioned above
3. Maximum realism
4. Naval battles
5. More factions
6. More cities
7. Interactive campaign map , no need for Central Africa and the far east , just more focus on Europe and the near East
8. More focus on internal relationships - hairs , political systems , civil wars , class conflicts etc'

there is more but that should make the game heavenly for me

[Strike For The South]

American civil total war would be sweet get the border states to get to your side ~:cool:

[Lankeveil]

A New STW should be more like the Classic: "Sword of the Samurai" Especially the part about working your way up from the bottom of the Samurai hierarchy.

[Ciaran]

Has anyone ever played Knights of Honor? Now, that game has a diplomacy system that I´d love to see in the next TW game. And preferably in a medieval setting, too.
I wouldn´t mind a fantasy setting as well, if it were done like Master of Magic, i.e. not related to a specific "universe".

[Wilhelm The Mediocre]

In an American Civil War scenario, you could use your persuasive abilities to coax other nations that were not historically directly involved into becoming your ally in a new, escalated war encompassing North American and European nations.

[The Darkhorn]

Well, I've looked at this thread for a while and taken it in. There are a lot of great ideas, and like some of you I really would be happy with just about any era. It's the game engine that really sets TW apart from others. I was a History/Bible major in college so just about any era is interesting. I DO agree (sorry WWII fans - I'm actually one of you) that this particular format is not condusive to a 20th century wargame. In the Napoleonic era, armies of six figures fought battles in a relatively small area compared to the size of the fronts held by armies of same number of men during the World Wars. The battle map alone in some case would need to be hundreds of miles across to be accurate.

The idea of a game based during the era of Reformation, Thiry Years War, and English Civil War sounds pretty good. Plus, that is the beginning of colonialism. Race to discover the New World.

I like ancient stuff too, but I, being a Yank (actually a Southron as it were) would love to see the ACW done. My son likes to fight battles on MTW, but he likes the gunpowder era. Can you imagine the spectacular sound during an ACW or Napoleonic battle with the TW engine!? Wow! This system will work well with gunpowder era. The tactics will be different with many interesting cavalry units too. A leg unit would need to be able to form square. Anyway, there's my pitch for ACW. My son and I already fight spendid battles on the carport with over 3000 toy soldiers we have plus all the accessories a good battlefield needs. And, really nothing can top that....but it is time consuming....and is not a campaign..."TACW" would provide a nice alternative for needing a Civil War battle "fix" when we're without the hours/days needed to devote to a floor battle (it has rules and such...pretty extensive...volleys are fired with rubber bands, the number depending on size, position, etc.).

Whatever, it is, here are my thoughts in no particular order:

1) For goodness sake, an AI faction needs to know when it's been beaten. My constant wars against drooling idiots whose territories I don't want and who refuse to surrender prolong the game by days and hours! It makes it boring. Politics MUST be upgraded and more logical, based on the AI personality of course.

It is absolutely aggravating to chase a ruler around his former empire because I don't want to hold it, nor temporarily garrison it with light garrisons which won't stop revolts and stuff anyway, nor heavy garrisons I don't have to spare.....and either way I don't want the temporarily held territories to be a tempation to some neutral...putting at me at war with another overmatched enemy who can't see the writing on the wall and won't just leave me the heck alone to work on GA.....I don't want their stinkin' territory or a vast, sprawling empire. I like to take the provinces I need per my defense strategy depending on faction. Finally, I corner him enough to kill him with no heirs and be rid them for maybe FIVE YEARS OR SO!!!!!! I mean really, why do some factions never return, and some come back 10 times only 3-10 years after elimination? They're at war with you again within 5-10 years....and must be crushed again b/c they will not make peace. I have quit beautiful campaigns with bustling, awesome empires b/c I got so bored with this phenomenon (is that spelled right?) of constant wars against aggressive imbeciles (sp?) who eyes cannot see the vastness of my empire and it's resources. Even then, my best general does the job with a 2-3 stacks of aged combat rejects with rusty weapons and holes in their socks left over from upgrades! In fact, this junk is why I never disband them. I need them to fight idiots till they finally phase out b/c of casualties. If Catholic, being able to BBQ the enemies into the little gray armies is okay sometimes, but they still come back 5 years later. Wouldn't it be cool if when we died without an heir....we could hit end year and just watch what happens till we re-emerge and try to see if we can start over!?

2) IN FACT, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. Let the player re-emerge! :knight: Seriously, diplomacy needs upgrade and needs more statuses than Enemy, neutral, ally.

3) I would also suggest that on the campaign map.....please, please, please, please let me just have one stack per territory unless I seperate them myself. It makes no difference in a battle, so why should I have all these stacks to keep up with as am jostling units all about making upgrades and moving them to keep them active? It can be very confusing and take 20-30 minutes to complete a turn without a battle if my Empire is large. I like to play France, Poland, and now the Byz - so, it usually gets that way, even though I play GA. Does anyone agree with this? I hate all those stacks. The territories are cluttered enough as it is. Yes, I'm whining....~:mecry:

4) I'd like it if your agents, stacks, ships, etc. stay where you put them in a provence so you see everything clearly. You also need to be able to move enemy non-invisible agents around within the territory so you can see everything. Instead, all these things seem to have a group hug after hitting endyear! Ships also tie up together and have a drunken party after you hit endyear. ~:grouphug:


I can probably think of more, but I'm tired of typing!

[The Darkhorn]

In truth, I'd really love to see MTW redone with suggestions listed and any improvements from RTW (which I haven't played yet...I'm waiting for it to get cheaper....plus I'm elbow deep into MTW).

One thing some of y'all may be missing about the chaos of a large ACW or Napoleonic battle (in which there was actually lots of hand to hand to combat - no rifles yet - in fact bayonet charge was the basic idea) is the SMOKE. Wouldn't a TW battle be great if you could barely see? Talk about a challenge!

[The Darkhorn]

But what I really would like to play: the whole ancient times, with all of Eurasia, and North Africa, from the first great cultures to the dark ages, Arthur's times, perhaps. 2000 B.C. - 1000 B.C. - 1000 A.D.

Now, that would be something!!!!

I also wondered about a Middle Earth:Total War, covering some of the stuff from the Semarillion (I know it isn't spelled right) as well as the War of the Ring. I imagine aquireing the rights to that would be hell.

[Breeze]

I agree with most posts no guns!! it has to stay in a time period where they dont have them I'd like to see it as mod friendly as possible to add as many mods to it as u like, I'd also like to see more religion and political penalties. I dont want to see it going the way of magic with special abilities at all. however I would love to see more movement keys where we could rehearse flanking in the heat of battle just have certain units bbreak away for a deeper flank thing sof that nature Id also like to see unit production continue even as you are under seige

[SomeNick]

So long as it doesn't have firearms, it's good. I can enjoy firearms in strat games only if it's set at least WW1 era or later, and I don't want "Total WW" since that theme's done to death and because I think that TW series is better kept to the old days of swords n' spears.

That said, I think the warring states era of China would be an interesting theme for a TW title.

As for features that I'd like to see:

- Supply lines. This is one of the most important stratetic weaknesses of an invading army and it's a great shame that it hasn't been included in TW yet. It should be possible to try to capture or destroy your enemy's supplies. You would need to dedicate units to guard the supplies for your own troops. An underprotected supply train would attract brigands.

- Option to use scorched earth strategy. This could be combined with the raiding of supplies to totally screw up an invasion force.

- Naval battles in 3D battle map with player control over ships.

- A diplomacy system where alliances can be formed specifically against a faction. Ie factions A and B team up against faction X. Perhaps complete with agreement over how to divide the captured provinces. Also there should be a way ask your ally to attack a specific province of your common enemy.

- It should be possible to ask a faction to break their alliance, trade rights, etc to another faction. Or to "persuade" a faction to stop attacking another faction.

- If you keep making diplomatic agreements and breaking them, then there should be consequences. Other factions would no longer take your word for anything, so you could not get any more alliances and other beneficial agreements from them. Also, executing all the populations you conquer should earn you a bad reputation which would also hurt you diplomatically.

- When a faction is aggressively expansionistic, other factions might take note and gang up on it.

- Populations for provinces should be divided to separate figures for slaves, free men, and wealthy men/nobility. Units that are based on particular social class should only be recruited from that class (ie no recruiting of knights from peasants). If a province doesn't have enough citizens of required class then that unit can't be trained there untill the number has grown.

- Similarly, there should be a population of horses, camels, elephants, etc for each province. You could only train mounted units if there is enough mounts available. The rate of recovering their number could be increased by dedicating resources to breeding the animals.

- Technology such as better ship-types, siege engines, composite bows, fortification techniques, etc could be aquired from other factions and adopted. For example, faction A might lack the knowledge of how to build and operate ballistas. They face faction B in battle and suffer ballistas being used against them. Then they send agents to bribe some engineers of faction B to change sides and build ballistas for them. Faction A from then on is able to train their own ballista units.

- Developement of better units should require use of earlier units. It's not good if you can just skip the basic light infantry units, build the big barracks building and start producing the elite light infantry. In order to unlock the more advanced units, you should have made actual use of similar lower quality units in the battle field. Of corse, this would not be required for units that should be available to a faction at the start date.

- Terrain should be more varied and also it should be more significant, especially when it comes to movement of cavalry. Infantry and archers could be moved to places where cavalry can't reach them easily, hence giving them good tactical position.

- It should be possible to set forests on fire. Any units hiding in the forest would be killed, but the fire could also spread and kill your own units if you're not careful! Wind direction should be important factor when using fire. Also, burning buildings in cities should be a real danger to the army in the city, and fires should lower populations. It should be possible to try to burn down major parts of another faction's settlement like you can sabotage specific buildings in RTW.


I want this. :bow: As those of you who are familiar in any way with my posts would probably know anyway.

I think a pre RTW period game would be good too.

Couldn't be bothered remembering other features I'd like at the moment but I do know that if they made MTWII and STWII and maybe some Napoleonic TW game they would sell just as well or even better than all the others. The mods are there or nearly there to show how popular these eras would be afterall.

~:cheers:

[Upxl]

Well for something not done before, why not something along the lines of the carving up of Africa by the major European powers in the 19th century? This might give people a chance to play as natives or any one of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Ottomans etc. What you all think of that?

Must say I like it.

My opinion is that they should keep the melee approach.
To heavy guns could really ruin the game.

I wouldn't mind to see a remake of RTW ~:)
If the AI on campaign /battle map improves greatly.
With more realistic (world)diplomacy

[matteus the inbred]

Colonial Total War? sounds good, until someone develops Gatling Guns...

Chinese Warring States is a fascinating period with lots of wacky units like scythed chariots and guys with enormous spiky dagger-axes, plus many interesting and often highly genocidal experiments with gunpowder rather later on (9th century?)

i have a number of DBM wargames army lists describing Chinese armies of the period if anyone ambitious fancied 'modding' it...

[RemusAvenged]

China's Warring States Time Period
MesoAmerican (Aztec, Mayan et al)
India or SE Asia

[The Darkhorn]

China's Warring States Time Period
MesoAmerican (Aztec, Mayan et al)
India or SE Asia

Yeah, one based on India is an underdone idea. It would actually be quite interesting. AH once had a boardgame called MAHARAJA, which was very, very similar to it's BRITANNIA game. Both were excellent, and while VI British campaign reminds me of the latter, a version or mod of the former would be great too. But, I wonder if you would bring it all the way up to the times with colonial powers and their "factories" like the MAHARAJA board game did?

[scooter_the_shooter]

I'd like to see a colonial tw; spanning from the spannish and aztecs to the American revoloution.~:)

[Breeze]

I'd like to see the older MTW made with the RTW engine where you could utilize the cities. And id like to see more difinitive things on the 2D map larger areas for the actual battles where using area's with more trees would be possible. I'd like toi see the batttles be more dynamic where cities burned and troops were affected by this, Id like to see traps in the fields or in the cities as you entered traps within a city,, I'd like to see moats with Crocs!! and Id like to see the ability to burn a field by creating traps within it as well. These items and things may need conditional factors for them to be employed correctly but they sure would be nice

[Maedhros]

Middle Earth or Silmarillion aren't options. That was apparently explored but one of their developers in another post indicated somebody with deep pockets had bought the rights.

Which is sad because the War of the Rings games on the market now don't do Tolkiens world justice. They look like every other lame real time game. This is the best engine for any strategy game.

It could still be cool if they could get the rights to the big war near the end of the second age, or the contest between Arthdain (and Cardolan, Rhudaur) vs. Angmar.

Anything from the Silmarillion would be spectacular, since the scale was so much bigger.

these are unlikely so an early part of the warring states period would be good. That would also give us a break from Europe and make a return to Greece or Assyria later seem fresher in a future game.

[Duke John]

I trust CA that they will come up with an interesting period and the game is moddable, so all I would like to see is a decent AI, that has been given the priority it deserves in a strategy/tactical game.

[Martok]

Middle Earth or Silmarillion aren't options. That was apparently explored but one of their developers in another post indicated somebody with deep pockets had bought the rights.


That would be EA. In addition to Jackson's movies, they've now also secured the rights to all of Tolkien's published works. This is what allows them to focus the sequel to Battle for Middle-Earth on the War of the Ring's "northern theatre" (elves, dwarves, Dol Goldur, etc.).



Which is sad because the War of the Rings games on the market now don't do Tolkiens world justice. They look like every other lame real time game. This is the best engine for any strategy game.

It could still be cool if they could get the rights to the big war near the end of the second age, or the contest between Arthdain (and Cardolan, Rhudaur) vs. Angmar.

Anything from the Silmarillion would be spectacular, since the scale was so much bigger.

these are unlikely so an early part of the warring states period would be good. That would also give us a break from Europe and make a return to Greece or Assyria later seem fresher in a future game.


I agree that the next TW game should either be in a fantasy setting or based during China's Warring Sates period--and that the next game after that should be something like Bronze Age: Total War, focusing on the Greeks, Persians, etc. ~:cheers:

[Mouzafphaerre]

So long as it doesn't have firearms, it's good. I can enjoy firearms in strat games only if it's set at least WW1 era or later, and I don't want "Total WW" since that theme's done to death and because I think that TW series is better kept to the old days of swords n' spears.

That said, I think the warring states era of China would be an interesting theme for a TW title.

As for features that I'd like to see:

- Supply lines. This is one of the most important stratetic weaknesses of an invading army and it's a great shame that it hasn't been included in TW yet. It should be possible to try to capture or destroy your enemy's supplies. You would need to dedicate units to guard the supplies for your own troops. An underprotected supply train would attract brigands.

- Option to use scorched earth strategy. This could be combined with the raiding of supplies to totally screw up an invasion force.

- Naval battles in 3D battle map with player control over ships.

- A diplomacy system where alliances can be formed specifically against a faction. Ie factions A and B team up against faction X. Perhaps complete with agreement over how to divide the captured provinces. Also there should be a way ask your ally to attack a specific province of your common enemy.

- It should be possible to ask a faction to break their alliance, trade rights, etc to another faction. Or to "persuade" a faction to stop attacking another faction.

- If you keep making diplomatic agreements and breaking them, then there should be consequences. Other factions would no longer take your word for anything, so you could not get any more alliances and other beneficial agreements from them. Also, executing all the populations you conquer should earn you a bad reputation which would also hurt you diplomatically.

- When a faction is aggressively expansionistic, other factions might take note and gang up on it.

- Populations for provinces should be divided to separate figures for slaves, free men, and wealthy men/nobility. Units that are based on particular social class should only be recruited from that class (ie no recruiting of knights from peasants). If a province doesn't have enough citizens of required class then that unit can't be trained there untill the number has grown.

- Similarly, there should be a population of horses, camels, elephants, etc for each province. You could only train mounted units if there is enough mounts available. The rate of recovering their number could be increased by dedicating resources to breeding the animals.

- Technology such as better ship-types, siege engines, composite bows, fortification techniques, etc could be aquired from other factions and adopted. For example, faction A might lack the knowledge of how to build and operate ballistas. They face faction B in battle and suffer ballistas being used against them. Then they send agents to bribe some engineers of faction B to change sides and build ballistas for them. Faction A from then on is able to train their own ballista units.

- Developement of better units should require use of earlier units. It's not good if you can just skip the basic light infantry units, build the big barracks building and start producing the elite light infantry. In order to unlock the more advanced units, you should have made actual use of similar lower quality units in the battle field. Of corse, this would not be required for units that should be available to a faction at the start date.

- Terrain should be more varied and also it should be more significant, especially when it comes to movement of cavalry. Infantry and archers could be moved to places where cavalry can't reach them easily, hence giving them good tactical position.

- It should be possible to set forests on fire. Any units hiding in the forest would be killed, but the fire could also spread and kill your own units if you're not careful! Wind direction should be important factor when using fire. Also, burning buildings in cities should be a real danger to the army in the city, and fires should lower populations. It should be possible to try to burn down major parts of another faction's settlement like you can sabotage specific buildings in RTW.
.
Great ideas. May I add true siege equipments and wall towers, which wn't operate unless you really man them and won't magically change sides simply walking a unit thrugh them. And of course the very existence of the I in AI.
.

[Rilder]

How about a sort of

"Dawn of Man: Total War"

Were each "tribe" starts out as a small villiage and the biggest armies starting out are small hunting parties with like 60 men max... maby add an "ages" system that allows you the progress thru the ages from warring tribes to mighty cilvizations

Also you should be able to "found" settlements and when it starts there should be very little like 20 settlements in all, maby 30 each held by a different faction

also throw in an in deth tech tree that makes the decisions you chose that make your culture.. you could start out as a tribe and work your way up to greek, eastern and all the different cultures neer the beginning of RTW

immagine working your way up from a tribe and turning into a greek culture and trying to follow the steps of alexander~:rolleyes:

[Maedhros]

Civ Building is great, but that game works best in Civilization and a couple other games. The primary focus of this series is the battles, and the lead up to them. It is about the fighting and warring. Not strictly the building of the culture.

Culture, and city management are factors but they take a second seat.

As much as I love to build, I don't think it is the best focus for this particular series of games. It would mean reinventing the game, and potentially losing its essence.

There is also the number of games already focusing there and the amount of money behind them.
=======================================
Early warring states or a unique fantasy game. Perhaps a fantasy game can be spun into a movie later.....for extra dev bucks. Restore some credibility and quality to game based movies.

Oh, and detailed naval battles. Similar to the land fights in scale and visual effect.....

Please

[Martok]

Civ Building is great, but that game works best in Civilization and a couple other games. The primary focus of this series is the battles, and the lead up to them. It is about the fighting and warring. Not strictly the building of the culture.

Culture, and city management are factors but they take a second seat.

As much as I love to build, I don't think it is the best focus for this particular series of games. It would mean reinventing the game, and potentially losing its essence.

There is also the number of games already focusing there and the amount of money behind them.
=======================================
Early warring states or a unique fantasy game. Perhaps a fantasy game can be spun into a movie later.....for extra dev bucks. Restore some credibility and quality to game based movies.


Couldn't have said it better myself! ~:cheers:



Oh, and detailed naval battles. Similar to the land fights in scale and visual effect.....

Please


I agree this would be a great feature. Even more than that, however, I fervently hope that CA finally adds something long wished-for among TW fans: a multiplayer campaign. Nothing like pitting one's empires against each other (in addition to your armies)! ~D

[Random_butter]

For an historical period I'd like to see something Greek or maybe Persian, perhaps 1500-200 BC.
:bow:

I like to see something set in the Ersian Wars aswell. Maybe something like MTW where you had different eras in the Middle Ages. So we could have Trojan wars(Bronze Age) then Dark Ages and then Golden AGe with all the city states.

But something in Greece during the Persian Wars would be great, since i am just after finishing Tom Holland's Persian Fire and it really got me interested in the whole Persina War.

[Majikos]

Isralite: Total War would be cool. It could have all the features from BI. It would be amazing playing the Isralites as a horde looking for the promise land. Factions would include Isralites, Canaanites, Moabites, Hittiesand Egyptians. There could be settlements like Jericho and Sodom & Gomorrah. Religion would range from Judaism to the semite gods like Baal and Ishtar.
(did i spell Isralite right?? No offense to anyone intended if i did!)

[Helgi]

But what I really would like to play: the whole ancient times, with all of Eurasia, and North Africa, from the first great cultures to the dark ages, Arthur's times, perhaps. 2000 B.C. - 1000 B.C. - 1000 A.D.

This would be great, but set it up with the RTW engine and break it into chapters like in MTW
:knight:

[Kickius Buttius]

As many people have said already, I would love to see Tolkein translated into the TW engine. It is a shame that this cannot be so.

Ancient China or something along those lines is, I think, the way to go. I would also be very excited about the Greek city states, although such a game might bear too much of a resemblance to Rome for the taste of the marketing department.

Alternately, it might be interesting to see the scale reduced in campaign terms while maintaining the size of the battles. In other words, a campaign map that focuses upon a smaller area (say, Greece and the near coast of Turkey) in greater detail. This scale would allow more terrain details on the campaign level, in turn allowing greater manuevering in order to ensure that your forces start in optimum position on the battle map.

It is absolutely essential that naval battles be able to be controlled as land battles are. Autoresolving is a mess!

[Hannibal Barca]

Han Total War anyone? Dating from pre-Han (building said empire) and post-Han (Three Kingdoms) and everything inbetween.

A remake of Shogun Total War with RTW engine and graphics would be nice, or a campaign with all of the orient (China, Japan, Mongolia, etc.)

Or, Mongolia Total War, beginning with Genghis Khans expansion of the largest empire in exsistence, or as the nations trying to get in Mongolia's way/trying to forge their own worldwide empire.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

Some interesting ideas. This thread (http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm3.showMessage?topicID=7800.topic) is from the Total War (http://www.totalwar.com) forums. Its their general debate as to what the next Total War should be based upon (need to read it myself ~D). Thought you might wish to know other suggestions / mods / ideas etc from other TW'ers ~:thumb:

[WhiteProphecy]

more different spartan units

or change how they look please!!! not just in red robes!!
and you can make a new unit, but not where its goddish attack and defence, you have to pay for how much training (attack & deffence) the new unit you make has.
um

i game like Spartan Total Warrior, but with up to atleast 2 player campaign

[Dimeola]

I would dearly love to see a new version of STW...with a huge map...turns for smaller time period......maybe a TW developers/modders kit included. Would love to see a fantasy setting like Hyboria....just dont think it would sell well enough.
dim

[Reidy]

1) Renaissance : Total War - 1453 to 1745
Expansion: Napoleonic Invasion 1790 to 1816

OR

2) Empire : Total War with several different campaigns - one for the americas, one for africa and one for asia (and maybe europe)
Expansion: Nationalist Invasion (american war of independance).

[boastj]

World total war
with every type of unit you can think of

[boastj]

and villages in provinces

[rvg]

I want TW4 to be the revisited MTW with better graphics, and more advances economy and tactical battles.

[Mangudai]

A lot of my ideas have already been said. I agree with most of Conquerer's suggestions. The thing I would like to see improved the most are your options on the campaign map. Presently the only viable strategy is to besiege cities. I'd like raiding to be a profitable activity.

For example, I think you should be able to click on any army on the field and options would pop up. Forage area, Pillage area, etc. Using these options would cost some movement points, but your army wouldn't have to sit completely still.

The game already models the fertility of map squares, and models devestation reasonably well. What I want to see is the attacker make some money. For example you get a pop up saying "Your forces have stolen 192 denarii worth of cattle", or "Your forces have caputured a trade caravan worth 264 denarii", and so on.

Also 90% of the population in a region should live outside the city, so raiders could exterminate some or capture some slaves without occupying the region.

Also attackers should have the ability to "blockade" a mine and confiscate the revenue from it.

I'd love for it to be worthwhile to send small bands into enemy territory, or have a large stack of invaders spread out and sweep the country. At present its more efficient to just have one big stack go besiege the city ASAP.

It looks like CA started to include supply and logistics but gave up on it mid-development. It would be nice to have these aspects in the game. But, there is a lot to be said for keeping the economy simple and based entirely on one cash standard. If we had to micro-manage livestock, the game might not be as fun.

[Michael the Brave]

It looks like CA started to include supply and logistics but gave up on it mid-development.


Where do you know that from ??

[Monarch]

Very interesting ideas. LOTR one wouldnt work because well with Battle for Middle Earth II coming out and stuff they'd be too similiar and CA wouldnt get the rights.

Now onto the WW1/WW2. Its interestingly my favourite period of history, the one I like studying the most and the one I know most about. Interesting then I would not like it to be in a total war game. World War 1 because what would it be? Early mobalizing of 1914, then the race to the sea to outflank, then what? Nothing, deadlock. You'd have to be amazing to break a line, there was no movement in the first world war, itd be terrible as a game. World War 2 because it'd be too different from previous titles, it'd be a huge overhall and also such a short time period, perhaps 20th Century: Total War where they could stick in a couple of civil wars, world wars, falklands, gulf etc but bleh...

Colonial: TW could work. It could be like AOE3 (though of course being TW itd be loads better) in that the americas are involved, but they could go further in including Africa, Carribean etc.

China is very interesting. I know very little about the subject which in sometimes makes it more fun, you get to learn loads and have fun ~:cheers: Arthurian seems cool but errr, again please do correct me as my knowledge lacks in that time period but wasnt it all wandering tribes and stuff? You wouldnt get to play as somebody you half recognise imo.

A fantasy game - bleh, liking history as i do the great fun part of strategy games is just that, the history. I dont know I'd probably still buy it but not preorder you know?

[Michael the Brave]

Very interesting ideas. LOTR one wouldnt work because well with Battle for Middle Earth II coming out and stuff they'd be too similiar and CA wouldnt get the rights.

Now onto the WW1/WW2. Its interestingly my favourite period of history, the one I like studying the most and the one I know most about. Interesting then I would not like it to be in a total war game. World War 1 because what would it be? Early mobalizing of 1914, then the race to the sea to outflank, then what? Nothing, deadlock. You'd have to be amazing to break a line, there was no movement in the first world war, itd be terrible as a game. World War 2 because it'd be too different from previous titles, it'd be a huge overhall and also such a short time period, perhaps 20th Century: Total War where they could stick in a couple of civil wars, world wars, falklands, gulf etc but bleh...

Colonial: TW could work. It could be like AOE3 (though of course being TW itd be loads better) in that the americas are involved, but they could go further in including Africa, Carribean etc.

China is very interesting. I know very little about the subject which in sometimes makes it more fun, you get to learn loads and have fun ~:cheers: Arthurian seems cool but errr, again please do correct me as my knowledge lacks in that time period but wasnt it all wandering tribes and stuff? You wouldnt get to play as somebody you half recognise imo.

A fantasy game - bleh, liking history as i do the great fun part of strategy games is just that, the history. I dont know I'd probably still buy it but not preorder you know?

I think that the possibilities you have enumerated just show that the best option for the next totalwar game is a remake of MTW/STW..in fact I remember reading somewhere TW4 will be a remake of MTW...anyone heard CA stating that ?

[Ludens]

I think that the possibilities you have enumerated just show that the best option for the next totalwar game is a remake of MTW/STW..in fact I remember reading somewhere TW4 will be a remake of MTW...anyone heard CA stating that ?
I can't recall anything, except that when Time Commanders announced that they would launch a new series with battles including Stamford Bridge and Hastings several members speculated that TW4 would be in the Medieval era again. But if CA would confirm this it would be over the forum in no time, so I think it never happened.

[Mangudai]

Where do you know that from ??

export_desc_units

[Mangudai]

I like wargames set between 1600-1900. However I don't think the Total War engine is suitable for it. I've tried battles with nothing but arquibusiers and cannons using MTW, its fun for a few battles then it gets lame (way better that trying this with AoE though). Terrain on the tactical map would have to change considerably, and there are issues with scale, etc. Forget about WWII total war, that's just nuts. Pre-gunpowder for me please.

[Monarch]

I think that the possibilities you have enumerated just show that the best option for the next totalwar game is a remake of MTW/STW..in fact I remember reading somewhere TW4 will be a remake of MTW...anyone heard CA stating that ?

Apologies for not being clear, I myself just didnt really have a clear mindset about what I would want the next TW to be, so instead I decided to evaluate others ideas. I in fact out of suggestions such as Colonial, Arthurian, Remakes of previous games, and China would go for China, in my opinion it suits the engine the best and lends itself better than say Arthurian for a game.

~:handball:

[matteus the inbred]

Wheel of Time Total War! it'll never make a film (too big), but plenty of scope for conquest and reunification stuff. for the very good point about fantasy not having the same history and depth, Robert Jordan has included enough (too much?!) background for this not to be problem, if people are prepared to read a bit. i might have done a history degree but i still discover new stuff every day cos of these forums.

bagsy the Aiel, and apologies for people who've no idea what i'm talking about. check out www.dragonmount.com if you want.

[Monarch]

I think that making a wheel of time one would cut their audience dramatically, alot of people buy it because its historical and such. Now if they were to perhaps loan/sell whatever the engine to some people to make a WoT then fine, but please make a historical one. An example of this is how Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds was built on the AoE2 engine.

I personally wouldn't buy a WoT Total War, I've not read the books, dont know anything about them, I mean what sort of tech are we talking LOTR type stuff? Well anywho, just my humble opinion.

[adembroski]

Medieval: Total War with the Templars as a playable faction.

With further thought, that wouldn't really work. I just thought of something though, someone mentioned mmorpg: total war... how would that work? You play a single knight and work your way up to king or something?

[matteus the inbred]

WOT TW would be mid-medieval type tech, gunpowder is just around the corner though...i think the problem with WOT would be whether or not to include people channelling the power (basically, magicians) and to what extent they could do stuff. it would be silly to have that in, as it's got no place in TW, but it wouldn't really be proper WOT if you left it out.
MTW 'start as a humble squire and work your way up to warlord' sounds like a damn good idea though!

[Sociopsychoactive]

GAH!

I just finished reading the other, older, 'whats the next TW game' thread, only to find this one is the one I was after, and I really don't have the time or patience to read all the replies on here, so forgive me if this isn;t a new idea.

First off, people are thinking too small. If sid mier could do it years and years ago 9admitedly in a very clunky way) then why can't CA do it now, in a much better and more in depth way? Yes, I'm talking about..

Civilisation :Total War

Have the entire world as your playing field, with the time period starting as the late bronze age, and going right on into the early gunpowder age, maybe even with turns meing longer during the first part of the game and shorted toward the end (just like Civilisation did, although it did it badly).

if you start off with the right factions in the rightr places (and I know were talking hundreds of factions, but it's possible, although difficult) then the historical accuracy nuts will be happy.

Anyway, I know thats not going to happen untill at least TW5, but I thought I'd say it. Now for what I realisticly want.

Supply lines, yes, definately need to be included, they were very much missing from RTW. if your army has no supply train then they are demoralised, cannot recieve re-enforcements and cannot report back to home, there is no such thing as the radio after all. Doesn;t it mean that you could easily have a general and an entire army go rebel, or swap sides or whatever, if their suplies and communications have been cut off, and the home faction be totally unaware of it? Wouldn;t that add a new element to the game?

Naval battles are a must, they have been missing from every TW game so far, and i want so dearly to control my ships in person, sending an armada of galleys toward the enemy and watching their little fleet of fishing ships turn tail and run away. Yes, it;s difficult to do as it's not been incorperated into any TW engine yet, but it would be worth it.

Mp Campaigns. Hell, we have been playing PBEM MP campaigns since shogun, merely because the game lacks an easier way of doing it, so this HAS to be included in the next game. If it were I'd plasy multiplayer a whole load more, as it is with just battles it barely interest me, my style of fighting generally revolves around 'keep as many men alive as possible' rather than 'kill the enemy no matter the cost' and MP is all geared toward the latter.


As to what it will be, well....

I don'twant NTW, I don't like gunpowder units. The is one main difference between napolionic warfare and the warfare of MTW and RTW. Napolion, and most other commanders of the time, handed muskets to rookies, and for the first shot of combat there was little difference between them and veterens. Yes, the generals veterency makes a big difference, but with muskets and rifles there is little skill, at least not in the first shot.

The same was said by the christian church about the crossbow, and indeed they tried to ban it more than once for the simple fact that a peasant could kill a king with it, and there was no honour involved. Gunpowder weapons are just as bad, a squad of fresh recruits with muskets could kill a heavy cavalry unit, whereas hand to hand they would have been slaughtered. Yes, hand to hand was still a major part of warfare, bayonett charges, cavalry and the like were still major players I know, but you can't ignore the impact gunpowder weapons would have.

I also, for some of the same reasons, don't want to see Amercia: Total war, but I admit it would be a good setting. Start it from the first landing of the europeans (although whether the vikings where still around then I don't know) and have it climax with the result of the civil war. Make as many factions playable as possible, and cover both north and south amreica. Peronsally I'd have great fun fighting off the conquistadors as the aztec empire, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of them to their gods. This would hopefully allow people to play the old hack and slash style verses muskets and cavalry, and then after a while gunpowder weapons and horses would become widespread enough that all factions use them.

Don't make it in any way like 'american conquest' (I hate that game with a passion), make it a TW game with both options available, and don;t forget that the europeans didn't ONLY use gunpowder and cavarly, the bow and the spear where still used, just far less than in the medieval period, and who says we can't change that ourselves by playing that way?

So, with those two at the bottom of my list I'm drawn to another, Fantasy: Total war. Ofr all you warcraft fans it would be a great game, pitched battles with orcs and the like against elves, dwarves and humans. Don't call it middle earth (if nothing else they would have to spend every penny just on the license) but fantasy :Total war would work in the same style as MTW and RTW, just with magic instead of science, and orcs instead of peasants.

Then again, my ideal would still be MTW2 (though whatever you do CA, don't call it that). Expand the map to include as much as you can, like japan, china and the like, incorperate things from rome like the city provinces and freedom of movement, plus the battlemap-squares rather than provinces. Yes, it may seem a bit of a cop-out, but I'm positive 90% of MTW fans would buy it, and most RTW players would go for it, so there is a market. There is so much potential in that time period that hasn't been tapped yet, and it remains a favourite among all sorts of games from RTS's to castle-sims to Total war. Bring on MTW2!

But then again, there is another option. Yes, this is stretching a bit, but what about world: Total war. World war one was a mess, everyone fought and thousands died every day, make it so the battlemap is you climbing from the trenches to advance, getting gunned down all the way, and the campaign map see's you trying to shore up a struggling empire against more enemies than you knew existed. Yes, tanks and guns are less fun than bows and swords, but WW1 hasn;t been done to death like WW2 has, and how many of us would like to go back and fight the battles again, OUR way, rather than field-marshal Haig's way of slaughtering troops all over the place. It would be hard, it would take years to develop, and it would be risky, but i think it could work.

I had more, but this is long enough already.

[TenkiWarPRIEST]

Seems like Romance of the Three Kingdoms on the original Nintendo had more elaborate diplomacy interaction. No version since STW has had the same game immersion. STW2 , or as mentioned the Seven Kingdom period would be great.

[RemusAvenged]

I'd like to see the older MTW made with the RTW engine where you could utilize the cities. And id like to see more difinitive things on the 2D map larger areas for the actual battles where using area's with more trees would be possible. I'd like to see the batttles be more dynamic where cities burned and troops were affected by this, Id like to see traps in the fields or in the cities as you entered traps within a city,, I'd like to see moats with Crocs!! and Id like to see the ability to burn a field by creating traps within it as well. These items and things may need conditional factors for them to be employed correctly but they sure would be nice

Having barriers set up in a city would be awesome. Sieges are way too easy. Why not allow for the blocking of streets to slow an enemy, or the hiding of units in buildings or even a special 'city mob' set of units that appear for the defender? Maybe even allowing unlimited arrows for the defender.

And how sweet would it be to have stakes or pit traps to slow down enemy cavalry from charging in and dominating?

Sorry that's off topic and old but Breeze is onto something.
Um, African Total War! Come on Zulus rock, Nubians are cool, Masai Tribemen would sweep up and pygmies...

[RemusAvenged]

Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time would be a really rich source of units and Geography. But the non human Trollocs and Myrrdals might be tough to do justice to. Aiel desert warriors, Seanchan oriental style units with fantastic lizard and Battle Cat mounts, strong defensive crossbow units, horse me up the wazoo, darkfriend mob units, Malkeri Knights, Two Rivers bowman and of course: Far Dareis Mai. Santa likey :san_tongue:

But I think it would need a magic element. Some unit that could cast simple fireballs or earth rending.. Maybe something along the lines of the Heroes from Warcraft?

[RemusAvenged]

OK last post on this. Not that I normally like gun powder, but the Alternate History books series by Harry Turtledove would be great.

An America split after the South wins independence due to a UK-France enforced end to the Civil War. Here the USA is not on good terms with Canada and is surrounded by enemies.

This leads to an All-American coldwar-stalemate that ensues where the USA sides with Germany and has a big Socialist party, since Lincoln would have been despised for losing. The CSA (Confederates) still carry slavery upto the 1890's and they have strong allies in the UK and France. Things come to a boil again as they move into Mexico (Manifest Southern Destiny) and Cuba in the 1880's. And this starts a Second American Civil War by a still stronger but isolated North.

Not that I agree with the South's right to the "War of Northern Aggression", but IMHO the premise would be a good change up.

[Laman]

Songhai TW!
Play as Songhai, Mali, Hausa, Oyo, Benin, Mossi or others. Would be a lot of fun. And for expansion (if needed) CA could have Moroccan Invasion.

[King Noob the Stupid]

I think colonization TW would be great, it could begin around 1492 and end in the 18th century, there would be Europe, America and Africa on the map (perhaps Asia too) and you could play as one of the european powers trying to bring christianity to the natives and gold to their homelands while fighting the natives and the other europeans, or you could play native peoples trying to save their lifes and their culture/religion, addon could be for example african pre-colonization kingdoms or mayas/aztecs/incas or something like that.

[Alim]

I'd personally like to see the return to the medieval period in the next game, great as MTW is, there is still so much that can be improved (diplomacy, naval battles and so on). Perhaps instead of focusing on Europe this title could be mostly about the warfare in Asia (Arabia, Persia, China, India and of course the Mongols). I think this could be fun.

[Duke John]

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=518874&postcount=42





is it true those guys can make the skeletons for the models mount and dismount the horses?

Its possible they have , but they application you mentioned is possible in deed , one thing RTW prides it self on is its ability to be moded , we feel that the only way to truly gain the insights and intrests of the consumer is letting there imagination run wild , in fact the next installment of the Total War Series was going to be centered around The Greek and Persian Empires , prior to the dates of RTW , however , do to the apparent intrests by numerous groups and mods that have been made , that project has been pushed back , and currently European Total War is slated to be realesed late next year. And I assure you , you will not be Dissapointed.
Either a poster acting like he has got inside information or a CA employee.

[RemusAvenged]

Maybe Legends will be a Forgotten Realms Legends scenario.

DARK ELF Armies would have some of the most amazing units I'm sure.

[Microwavegerbil]

Seems like Romance of the Three Kingdoms on the original Nintendo had more elaborate diplomacy interaction. No version since STW has had the same game immersion. STW2 , or as mentioned the Seven Kingdom period would be great.

Not to get too off topic, but exactly how can you say that neither game since STW has the same immersion. Especially since you mention the diplomacy, which has only gotten better through each iteration of the game?

Anyway, I'm not expecting the map to move too far off from it's current position from the last two games. The game's main audience is just more familiar with Europe, and European based games will just sell better than one based somewhere else.

Personally, I'd love to see one set across Alexander the Great' Empire just after his death, that could have some potential.

[[GG]vonDöbeln]

Definitely Napoleonic (or at least 15th-19th century)!!! That would give us Lordz something real to work with. ;)

Lord von Döbeln

[Vladimir]

My vote is for something set in China say in the time period of the movie Hero. They did a game on the unification of Japan why not China?