who would like to see a real american campaign?

[Callahan9119]

would be cool to have a nice english/french/spanish campaign in the americas, maybe with a cool little event trigger for colonies to declare independence....and of course the natives to fight the good fight :jumping:

it would be a nice follow up to the end of mtw2's european powers landing in america :captain:

i bet they go napoleon though

[Dooz]

Indeed, I'd like an Americas: Total War as an expansion to M2TW. It just seems so right and such the obvious choice, I wonder how they'll screw it up...

[Callahan9119]

ha your more pessimistic than even me ~:grouphug:


i'm gonna go fire up regular rome and go throw some heads, makes me feel better

[B-Wing]

I think it would be best to wait for a new game in the series based around this concept, rather than an expansion. I just don't think they're ready for that yet. I just really don't think the current TW engine and gameplay style would fit the conquest and colonization of the Americas very well. I really wish they wouldn't even try to include any of the Americas in M2TW, and I think that aspect of the game is going to be very disappointing.

[Aenarion]

I really wish they wouldn't even try to include any of the Americas in M2TW

I totally agree with you B_Ray. It wouldn't give the game that touch of goodness if America is included.

Because since we are talking about a Medieval game, we mainly have to focus on the most important events that happened throughout Europe and North Africa. Other countries would signify only a little the importance of Medieval times.

Thanks,
Aenarion

[Favre]

American revolution : Total war

[Dead Knight of the Living]

I'm a big fan of American History, but I don't see any of our wars being worthy of the total war series. I like having multiple factions to fight against. Who would you put in America:Total War. France, Britain, Spain, Colonies and a bunch of Native factions. That has boring written all over it.

No, that has extremely boring written all over it. I think it might be a good mod for someone to work on, but I don't see them making a whole new game in the series over it.

[Dead Knight of the Living]

I totally agree with you B_Ray. It wouldn't give the game that touch of goodness if America is included.

Because since we are talking about a Medieval game, we mainly have to focus on the most important events that happened throughout Europe and North Africa. Other countries would signify only a little the importance of Medieval times.

Thanks,
Aenarion

I don't mind them including a little piece of the Americas in there. If we're trying for historical accuracy than in 1492 some of America should be on the map. THe game does go into the 1500's does it not. Imagine the Turks fighting a battle against the Spanish in the New World. Could be interesting.

For me, it depends how they integrate it. I'm sure there's ways they can turn it into a weak addition to the game. If they do it right it might be fun. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Orda Khan]

Any campaign in America during mediaeval times would be pure fantasy and something I definitely would not be interested in

......Orda

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Well I'd certainly prefer it to the East - if they ever did a game about China for example it would bore me to death.

Its also hardly pure fantasy - the Aztecs and the Incas had some major battles with their local confederacies and to be honest we probably don't know enough research-wise to comment about it. Also there can be little doubt that the Vikings/Norse colonies came into numerous hostile contacts with the Indians of North-East America. On its own yes it would certainly be a stretch but America in a map with Europe certainly warrants a place as there are many possibilities.

[Sir Robin]

Well there is that old Sid Meyer game, Colonization that was pretty fun. I could see a Total War there but I figure you would need to include naval battles that I don't think CA is ready for yet.

[Dooz]

Well there is that old Sid Meyer game, Colonization that was pretty fun. I could see a Total War there but I figure you would need to include naval battles that I don't think CA is ready for yet.

I did hear in an interview somewhere with Bob Smith I believe that they're working on naval battles to be up to par with the TW battle system for future TW games, so that could definately be interesting for upcoming games in the series. Perhaps Napoleanic Wars?

[IrishArmenian]

See, I think that as soon as the Americas come into play, everyone wants to seem cultured in Europe. Isn't that why this game is based in Europe, it was (take no offense) one of the most, if not the most, savage and war-torn areas in the world.

[Furious Mental]

In all honesty I think I'd rather the campaign just continue in Europe. Bigger countries, bigger armies, bigger battles, bigger wars.

[Zalmoxis]

If they actually had battles where the mainstay weapon was rifles, with almost no swords then the series would be dead to me.

[Furious Mental]

That didn't happen until at least the mid 19th century.

[Callahan9119]

I'm a big fan of American History, but I don't see any of our wars being worthy of the total war series. I like having multiple factions to fight against. Who would you put in America:Total War. France, Britain, Spain, Colonies and a bunch of Native factions. That has boring written all over it.

No, that has extremely boring written all over it. I think it might be a good mod for someone to work on, but I don't see them making a whole new game in the series over it.

why i meant expansion although i wasnt clear about that...i agree i dont like any of the americas in mtw2, but they are there...so just take it as they give it. i wish there were was years instead of turns..around 220 turns ? doesnt feel right

i wonder if they will go with a coloniest flavor with france, briton etc taking far off lands

[sunsmountain]

I wouldn't. Real american campaigns would involve long gun battles with little room for strategy or tactics.

[Furious Mental]

As if there were no tactics in that era

[Duke John]

Yeah, especially considering that medieval tactics were probably the most limited of all eras. Line up, shoot arrows, charge, break through/flank, rout. Or do people actually believe that TWs way of depicting of command and control is accurate?

[Sensei Warrior]

I wouldn't. Real american campaigns would involve long gun battles with little room for strategy or tactics.

Tell that to Brigadier General Francis Marion. I'm sure his opinion would differ.

An American TW would be different. If they made it unique as a stand alone it could have some potential. Although they should not mix Americas with Europe in Medieval Times. True, there were the Vikings who knew about us, but practically no one else until well after the Middle Ages. It just seems like apples and oranges.

[Diurpaneus]

Ohh NO ! NO AMERICA ! I dont want to see any american map in the MTW2:furious3:

[sunsmountain]

As if there were no tactics in that era
Exactly my point.


Yeah, especially considering that medieval tactics were probably the most limited of all eras. Line up, shoot arrows, charge, break through/flank, rout. Or do people actually believe that TWs way of depicting of command and control is accurate?

No, but game wise it's a lot more fun than standing at range and shooting until you're done. That's not the idea behind MOH or COD, which are good games, but not RTS's.


Tell that to Brigadier General Francis Marion. I'm sure his opinion would differ.

Ah, the "Swamp Fox"... yes him and for example that "Desert Fox" Rommel: Great personalities, but the weapons they use are too boring to make a RTS out of, at least in the TW-way. Unless you're talking about Tiberian Sun and stuff, I don't see and i cannot imagine a good TW engine with guns. Were you thinking about Sid Meier's Gettysburg? Or any other "real" military war simulation programs? Nahhh, give me flank bonuses, armor piercing, and spear ranks. No guns for me, hand to hand fighting is more sportive. Guns can be fun in strategy games like Homeworld, Master of Orion and Starcraft. But i've never seen those games use morale, and for good reason. Marines enter base, concentrate fire, Ultralisk routs... *yawn*
In TW games, guns sound stupid in my opinion...

But then again, wouldn't Real american campaigns involve stu...ehh guns?
:laugh4:
:scastle:

[Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett]

American Total War sounds like a great idea to me. To be honest I'm getting a little bored of the European/Middle East map that's been in almost every TW game, so any new territory to fight over would be refreshing change. Also it'd be a new era to learn something about (being English I wasn't taught much about American history pre WWI).


No, but game wise it's a lot more fun than standing at range and shooting until you're done.

You can describe Medieval as a bunch of guys charging at each other into meele then hitting each other with sharp/heavy objects. It's an accurate description but, I think we'll all agree, doesn't get anywhere close to capturing the nuances of the tactics involves in such battles. Your description of the tactics involved in gun battles in similarly lacking. Line battles from that era are extremely tactically engaging.
I'd recommend you give NTW a go.


In TW games, guns sound stupid in my opinion...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Rome the only TW game so far without guns?

[Sensei Warrior]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Rome the only TW game so far without guns?

lol, hmm it seems Anthony is right, but i'm sure suns meant that if guns comprised the majority of units on a battlefield.

Although I am particularly enamored with the Middle Ages, I think I would give and American TW a shot just to see, and of course maybe be able to play a unit that the wiley Swamp Fox leads.

[r johnson]

why i meant expansion although i wasnt clear about that...i agree i dont like any of the americas in mtw2, but they are there...so just take it as they give it. i wish there were was years instead of turns..around 220 turns ? doesnt feel right

i wonder if they will go with a coloniest flavor with france, briton etc taking far off lands

If it was an expansion pack it'd be a good idea, because then you won't have to have it.

And about tactics in these gun fights, all they did was stand in two straight lines fire shot after shot until one line looks close to breaking point then a bayonet charge thats it you've conquered America congratz:idea2:

[Furious Mental]

Napoleonic warfare involved, flanking, skirmishing etc, in other words all the basic tactics you use in the classical warfare in Total War. If anything you would have a wider range of tactical options in a Napoleonic game because your basic infantry could fight either in a melee or at a distance rather than one or the other.

[B-Wing]

I won't pretend to know anything about the tactics used in any time period, but I know that for me, gunpowder weapons aren't half as fun or interesting as pre-gunpowder weapons, at least until they reach the point of technology seen in World War 2. I can't explain or justify why combat involving earlier guns and cannons doesn't thrill me, but it just doesn't.

Well, to make one exception, I do find all the mythology built up around Caribbean pirates very enticing, but that's another topic.

[spmetla]

Instead of making an American TW it'd be nice if they made a expanded Reniseance TW or Napoleanic TW which has Europe a good amount of the middle east and africa along with the Americas. Then trade wars in the Atlantic and such would have a purpose. Big problem though would be that I wouldn't want any game of those periods without good naval battles, I can deal with a bit of abstraction but if Trafalgar were fought like in MTW or RTW I would jsut get really angry. :furious3:

[Callahan9119]

Napoleonic warfare involved, flanking, skirmishing etc, in other words all the basic tactics you use in the classical warfare in Total War. If anything you would have a wider range of tactical options in a Napoleonic game because your basic infantry could fight either in a melee or at a distance rather than one or the other.


exactly, i dont think to just to label guns as ghey means anything, to say that 19th century warfare wasnt strategic makes no sense.

but this wouldnt be the 19th century, i was talking about primitive firearms in the american continent, with maybe late late developments featuring the colonists revolting etc. if the naturals had been united america could have been very different, deserves a look imho.

i always loved guns in the stw and mtw series, would love to see them used in the way they have in the past, yet more powerful

just cuz starcraft RoN etc had guns doesnt mean TW is the same...those rts games are just about zerging and focusfiring your units...arrows or gunpowder or lasers there isnt much strategy in fps games besides what the uber side and your build strategy
wouldnt be the constant epic battles of the main campaign, but focus more on logistics and recourses....more of an attrition battle

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

I totally agree with you B_Ray. It wouldn't give the game that touch of goodness if America is included.

Because since we are talking about a Medieval game, we mainly have to focus on the most important events that happened throughout Europe and North Africa. Other countries would signify only a little the importance of Medieval times.

Thanks,
Aenarion

yes but the discovery of the new world was an important event right?

[AntiochusIII]

yes but the discovery of the new world was an important event right?Sure, but its full effects are far after the Middle Ages. It's true that the recently-reunited Spanish got their gold, and mines (which are actually a more permanent asset), got really powerful, and began to rise into Superpower status in Europe at just about the end of the Middle Ages; but one could also make a case that the reunification is far more important than the New World acquisitions in Spain's success, at least in the early stages. Anyway, I would not like to see a freakin' Philippe Augustus genociding in the Yucatans and taking native treasures back to France for a Crusade. :dizzy2: The implementations will be very hard and surely, even by CA's generally high standard, will fail miserably in at least one quarter of this very complex issue.

Indeed, arguing from a military focus the most appropriate end of the Middle Ages in my opinion would be the usual 1453, the Fall of Constantinople and the end of the Hundred Years' War. The final defeat of the last bastion of Antiquity, though long part, if not pillar, of the Medieval world, of course, the turning of an era in the East, and the laying the foundations of two modern nations in the West surely must justify some symbolic changes. The Italian Renaissance was already on its way by that time anyway.

Of course, from a social/technological standpoint, which isn't TW's focus, the Printing Press would be more appropriate: the invention turned the world over, with time.

I'm not naturally a pessimist, but a Medieval Total War with the Americas angers me. It's like Pharaonic Egypt against Rome all over again.

Of the topic: I wouldn't really be interested in a TW campaign--slaughtering masses of under-armed native armies and minor skirmishes (and very few major battles) with rival colonial powers over the Continent isn't really all that fun--though a Paradox-style pure strategic campaign would be really fun; that is, if it includes the European powers. Talking such, I might as well just wait for EU3 and be done with it.

But a criticism of this American addition does not make for a general dislike of the game. I see potential still in my beloved series, and I hope for the developers to do their best. :2thumbsup: