Next Total War game? [Archive]

econ21

11-30-2006, 12:28

I voted for a Napoleonic TW.

I think M2TW takes us rather close to it already - with the musketeers, the cannon etc. Graphically, I think Napoleonic battles would look gorgeous on something like the M2TW engine - brightly colour uniforms, regimented units of troops, charging horses, the smoke and noise of musket volleys and cannon shot etc.

Plus, we are due a "revolutionary" TW game (like STW and RTW was) rather than an evolutionary one (like MTW and M2TW), so why not go the whole hog and move to the gunpowder era? It could also bring in sea battles, although personally it's the land warfare that really interests me.

In addition, M2TW was such a success in sticking to the "historical war" focus, and working up the RTW gameplay back to MTW standards, I think CA could do a NTW successfully. I would hate to see a half-baked "Imperial Glory 2" type affair, but I trust CA to produce a worthy successor to their own current titles.

Finally, the Napoleonic era is just absolutely perfect for a Total War game:

Strategically - you have about seven or so major powers, with lots of scope for "flexible" dipomacy and conquest. Often "conquering the map" is crazily ahistorical in history, but with Napoleon's ambitions, it becomes a pretty good representation of his historical goals. And often in history, there are strong alliances that divide up the world, Cold War style, but with Napoleon, only the enmity between Britain and France seems to have been fixed. Russia, Austria, Spain and Prussia chopped and changed with the weather.

Tactically - with the three arms of cannon, cavalry and infantry you have lots of chances for real rock-paper-scissors interactions (or even better, combined arms tactics). Personally, I hope they keep it simple like STW and not create lots of artificial distinctions like "swords vs spears" - e.g. between heavy and light infantry etc. (a man with a musket is basically a man with a musket, whatever you put as his epaulette, and Napoleonic infantry differed more in quality than in functional role).

DukeofSerbia

11-30-2006, 12:50

I agree with econ21.

Starting period should be just before Seven Years' War and up to middle XIX century.

Lorenzo_H

11-30-2006, 12:50

Yeah I have to agree with you there econ21, though I think we can expect a long wait for this to happen and an expansion for M2TW, both of which I have no serious problems with.

I agree that the next TW game will have to be revolutionary. The two best ways i can think of are ones that you have already mentioned; moving to a totally new era with more guns etc, and including naval battles. Napoleonic times will suite Total War in every way - and provide the best place to intorduce Naval warfare, seeing as Naval Warfare was a key aspect of those times. No Napoleonic game would be complete without the ability to re-enact Trafalgar, would it?

@Duke, yeah that would be good to cover the 7 years war, though I see no reason not to cover the whole 19th century, because then you will get in the Crimean War as well.

caravel

11-30-2006, 12:51

DukeofSerbia

11-30-2006, 13:05

@Duke, yeah that would be good to cover the 7 years war, though I see no reason not to cover the whole 19th century, because then you will get in the Crimean War as well.

Why? Last year should be 1847 before nationalism exploded in Europe. :book: In forum will be posted many replies like "why my country is not in?" if there will be cover whole XIX century :thumbsdown:

Lorenzo_H

11-30-2006, 13:18

Why? Last year should be 1847 before nationalism exploded in Europe. :book: In forum will be posted many replies like "why my country is not in?" if there will be cover whole XIX century :thumbsdown:

Firstly, we get those people anyway, secondly, let 'em suffer :devil: :thumbsup:

Cesare diBorja

11-30-2006, 14:02

I am with econ21 on this one, except I think that this current evolution should be dated to 1615-1618 to even 1648-1650(I have already done so with modification to units and events). The expansion should cover the late 1600s to 1871 or even 1918. Wouldn't that be pretty? I see great potential here. I'd like to see a break down of units or even combined application units such as whole units that have light infantry, musketeers or fusiliers, and grenadiers. With specialty units as well like pioneers and sapper/miner teams.

econ21

11-30-2006, 14:02

I would actually change my vote to a Napoleonic era game, if I was sure that CA could pull it off correctly, but I'm not sure of that at all. There are alot of more complicated unit formations in this type of warfare, such as the square formation.

Indeed, that was my reservation before - an Imperial Glory 2 would be worthless, IMO.

And I agree, the cavalry-infantry interactions would be the hardest part to pull off. You would need a real tension - cavalry could murder unsuspecting infantry, but if the infantry could form a square in time, the cavalry would be virtually impotent (although the square would be a nice artillery target).

The timing would have to be right - poor quality AI troops may panic or fail to form the square in time; veteran or well led AI infantry would execute the maneouvre more efficiently; and might even see off a cavalry charge out of square (as, IIRC, the British did at Corunna and, later, Balaclava).

Yet, I think CA could do it. They've handled the tricky cavalry-infantry balance rather well in M2TW (used right, cavalry is devastating; used wrong, it is very fragile) and conceptually the square is not that far removed from the schiltron.

Braden

11-30-2006, 14:31

I also voted for a Napoleonic era game, mainly as I feel that the World War’s have been already done to death plus would be very difficult to pull off in the Total War format without ending up looking and playing very much like AoE but with a better campaign map.

Not to say that a Napoleonic game wouldn’t have its problems, certainly I’d think that CA would have to completely revamp their “rock-paper-scissors” combat system due to the higher rate of gunpowder units and their far better real effectiveness when compared to the Medieval hand-cannons.

Other than that, I can’t think of a better company (despite my bitter disappointment about many features of M2) to pull it off.

I think that for a really decent World War game you have to look at Company of Hero’s as something that pulls it off as well as you possibly can (such 20th Century combat is just TOO fast paced and destructive to units for you to have the sort of control or numbers you have in Rome or M2 in one battle).

With Nepoleonic forces you sill have set formations for infantry, cavalry that we all recognise and large scale “set” battles. Potentially the last era where two armies would decided on a battle ground, set up within view of each other and THEN attack each other.

I personally feel that such a “set” battle is the core of Total War. Loose that and I don’t think we have Total War franchise games but rather more traditional (and not as fun) RTS’s.

IrishArmenian

11-30-2006, 15:52

I would like to see an expansion pack for M2TW. Call me an optimist, but the ideal situation for me would be to start in the Dark Ages (Like VI) continue through the original campaign with those factions and then have the rennaisance with those factions too. One could guide a nation through about incredibly turbulent years.

Miloshus

11-30-2006, 16:17

Next, i think it is going to be expansion pack for mtw2, after that, they are gonna make napoleonic tw.

cunctator

11-30-2006, 16:18

Bronze Age:Total War

ca. 1500-1100 BC

Tony Furze

11-30-2006, 16:28

I ve voted for Napoleonic-it d be a good break. Id like to see Cavaliers and Roundheads , too.

caravel

11-30-2006, 16:38

Indeed, that was my reservation before - an Imperial Glory 2 would be worthless, IMO.
I'm not familiar with that game, so I can't really comment. The lack of proper formations would be a disaster though.

And I agree, the cavalry-infantry interactions would be the hardest part to pull off. You would need a real tension - cavalry could murder unsuspecting infantry, but if the infantry could form a square in time, the cavalry would be virtually impotent (although the square would be a nice artillery target).

The timing would have to be right - poor quality AI troops may panic or fail to form the square in time; veteran or well led AI infantry would execute the maneouvre more efficiently; and might even see off a cavalry charge out of square (as, IIRC, the British did at Corunna and, later, Balaclava).
That's exactly how it would need to work. Anything less would be a complete disaster.

Yet, I think CA could do it. They've handled the tricky cavalry-infantry balance rather well in M2TW (used right, cavalry is devastating; used wrong, it is very fragile) and conceptually the square is not that far removed from the schiltron.

But that still draws from the same old system. As you have touched on already, all the TW games are basically the same as STW as far as the battles go: Unit's in formations that are either rectangular or wedge shaped. With the "rock/paper/scissors" system always there, possibly not as black and white as it is in STW, but there all the same. I do feel that for a Napolenic game that the engine would need a bit of an overhaul. Veteran units would need to form up more quickly and efficiently than green ones, as you have said. Compared to "World - Total War", this is a very workable idea though. World War I wouldn't work due to the difficulty of representing trench warfare, though I suppose trenches could be dug from the campaign map and units deployed into them from the battlefield if they're present. The problem is that such units wouldn't be moving around in columns like units during the napoleonic era so it would be difficult to do. Some level of automation would be needed. A unit would have to contain men that move, crawl, drop and run individually in response to the enemy... Difficult, and the reason why World War II - Total War would be even more impossible.

Monarch

11-30-2006, 16:38

Personally, I hope they keep it simple like STW and not create lots of artificial distinctions like "swords vs spears" - e.g. between heavy and light infantry etc. (a man with a musket is basically a man with a musket, whatever you put as his epaulette, and Napoleonic infantry differed more in quality than in functional role).

Clearly you've not played ntw2 :P. You've got your line infantry, your lights, grenediers, possibly rifles and your elite guard infantry.

Anyway, I want a Napoleonic TW. They only reason I think CA might not chose to do it is the awesome city/castle idea thats in m2 may not be able to be used credibly. Furthermore due to uniforms CA wouldn 't be able to fulyl show off their awesome ability for troops that arn't clones.

I still think it'd be a great game and the best tw, however I just hope CA go for gameplay, not a feature fest.

UltraWar

11-30-2006, 17:06

I would like UltraWar: Total War to be the next game.

Mithradates

11-30-2006, 17:13

My idea is to have Blenheim total war. Fortresses still played an important part in campaigns and the defence of a large citedal would be amazing with waves of men charging at walls of muskets and cannons. The set piece battles would also be as interesting as Napoleonic battles and it would be possible to perhaps have the evolution from pikes to bayonet infantry.

caspian

11-30-2006, 17:15

I voted for Other because I fear it will be have a "New World" theme. Kinda like expanding on the whole Europe invades the Americas thing. The setting might bring a whole new dimension to the game, like starting out with a already gunpowder units and guerrilla warfare.

But then again redoing Shogun would be like a dream come true.

andrewmuir

11-30-2006, 17:26

I votef for R2TW simply because I think they could do for RTW exactly what they did for MTW -smarter AI, better graphics etc, and at the same time there are so many battles in North Africa, Spain etc that can be addressed.

The Napoleonic wars have some attraction except perhaps for french gamers but realistically I suspect R2TW will come first.

Andrew

Orb

11-30-2006, 17:30

Graphics that won't kill poor Orb's machine Total War.

More specifically:

British Empire without graphics that will kill poor Orb's machine total war.

Andres

11-30-2006, 17:46

Jurassic Park : Total War ?

248.000.000 - 65.000.000 BC

Pomerium

11-30-2006, 17:50

Being a student of history, it will be an expansion pack for MTW 2. Give them six months to a year and it will be released.

The next different TW series is a good guess. I will just sit back and watch.

Miloshus

11-30-2006, 19:38

It isnt hard to guess- it is like one timeline
-RTW
-MTW
-NTW
-WW1TW
-WW2TW....

Monarch

11-30-2006, 19:52

It isnt hard to guess- it is like one timeline
-RTW
-MTW
-NTW
-WW1TW
-WW2TW....

Not really. That doesn't work because RTW wasn't the first tw game. Feudal era Japan was.

Lusted

11-30-2006, 22:37

I think it will be an Asia:Tw game, covering not only Japan, but China, Korea, Mongols and India.

Caius

11-30-2006, 22:50

I think WWIII:Total War.
Imagine The USA declaring the war to the rest of the world.That can be a really total War game.

Roman_Man#3

11-30-2006, 23:16

i think it would be cool if they made a north american total war like game.(stated earlier). it would probably only interest people in north eastern us. and eastern canada. but when the europeans landed in north america. it would be like (time line) the hundred years war between ebgland and france, so the two main factions would be england and france. it would cover eastern north america, and western europe. it could introduce naval battles, and i just think it would be a cool game. it might not work well on the total war engine though. cause geurilla warfare would be needed, and able to make a fort and then upgrade it. but that could be a new feature.

Kavhan Isbul

11-30-2006, 23:46

Martok

11-30-2006, 23:58

Well of course CA will make an expansion for Medieval 2, but beyond that....

I'm personally hoping for Spring & Autumn Total War--unite the lands that will someday be known as China, and become its emperor! :yes:

There's between 6-10 powerful kingdoms, including Chu, Wu, Chin, Ch'in, and Yueh; along with a myriad number of smaller kingdoms (all of whom could be used as pawns amongst the great powers). It would have troops and tactics that differed from that of medieval Japan (chariots, early crossbows, etc.), but still have that wonderfully exotic locale. There would be great variations of terrain: open fields, rugged mountains, thick forests, etc. Ah, I'm salivating just thinking about it!

(That said, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with Shogun 2. :wink:)

Of course, my real dream is a Fantasy Total War, but I know that's considered blasphemous to even mention such a thing here. ~;p

EDIT: Oh yeah, and having a TW game set in North America is absolutely the last thing I would ever want to see. Pretty much all of the major wars that have taken place here were between only 2 powers, so such a game would be incredibly boring. :thumbsdown:

CaesarAugustus

12-01-2006, 01:55

I voted Rome 2: Total war, just because the Roman Period is so awesome!:2thumbsup:

However, Napoleonic Total war wpuld definently be fun, too.

In fact, I really dont care what time period CA does next as long as the map extens to the Far East. China and India have been left out of every total war game so far. Its time that I am allowed to conquer all of Europe and Asia!

Plus a Chinese faction would be really, really fun and different to play. (Martok has some great ideas.)

Of course, my real dream is a Fantasy Total War.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and having a TW game set in North America is absolutely the last thing I would ever want to see. Pretty much all of the major wars that have taken place here were between only 2 powers, so such a game would be incredibly boring. :thumbsdown:

Agreed on both points.

Comrade Alexeo

12-01-2006, 05:11

While I dream of a World War One game by Creative Assembly (I'm only half-joking on the dream part), and even though I love the Roman period (that I'm a reenactor might explain why...), I'd still like to see a Shogun 2, if only because I imagine it would be amazing on whatever engine CA is cooking up for their "revolutionary" game (individual samurai!), and because it's an understudied period.

What I don't want to see is a M3TW, at least not for quite a while, because frankly how many times can they do the medieval period (and same for the other games too - how many times do we really need to fight phalanxes, as glorious as it might become on future engines)? If CA keeps doing "reruns", the series will very quickly stagnate; it works for EA and its sports games (no matter how often they may suck) because 1) EA's Board of Directors long since sold their souls to the Devil and 2) because sports are a vastly more popular subject that Rome/medieval Europe/medieval Japan could ever be. I think what seems to be CA's new strategic plan - new engine, new game, rerun of oldest at that point, new engine, new game, rerun of now oldest at that point - could work quite well, so long as the engines can continue developing enough to the point that M3TW would be as different from M2TW as it is to MTW.

Hell, who am I kidding - I just want more!

IrishArmenian

12-01-2006, 06:43

Personally I would like to first get an expansion which covers the Dark Ages - the period between M2TW and Barbarian Invasion. I see no reason why it should be left out, as though nothing happened during these few centuries.
Agreed! I know I would be impressed when I saw how CA pulled of Feudalism and that the Irish states would be:
The big repository of knowledge/ civilisaton
The last Bastion of Catholicism in North Western Europe.

caravel

12-01-2006, 08:58

Well of course CA will make an expansion for Medieval 2, but beyond that....

The expansion will probably be next, I'm sure of that, but as to what game is next I don't know. Did anyone expect that they would do Medieval 2? I didn't.

Of course, my real dream is a Fantasy Total War, but I know that's considered blasphemous to even mention such a thing here. ~;p

**restrains himself from making any jokes**

Well I do think that despite it being unpopular, an LOTR based TW would be a hit.

Grimmy

12-01-2006, 09:13

I'm betting there'll be an expansion to M2:TW first but I dont count that as "the next" TW, only a finish to this current one.

I have no clue what "the next" will be but I'd like to see something along the lines of "Global: TW". By that, I mean a TW that starts at around the beginning of recorded history and covers the globe as a start. For a unified start, some history would have to be infered or possibily even invented where there's no record available but it could be worked out in a playable game sort of way by guessing backwards from where the record starts.

Then the expansions could come in a series that build upon that base. Each major period of history could be its own expansion, up to and including the Napolionic wars and the USA civil war and expansion to the western coast.

After that, the concept of formation warfare starts to end and the unit organization of the current game engine might not work for the battles.

In a few years, the "baseline" computer system will be capable of handling the processor load necessary to make TW a global geography, rather than location specific. And at each major period of history, there's lots going on in places other than those popular to western culture and history.

Warluster

12-01-2006, 10:20

I would think they will follow in the footsteps of the old one and reproduce Viking Invasion, it would be great but I would seriously prefer WW1TW even though World war 1 and world war 2 would take years to with all the modern weapons and stuff.

Talbot

12-01-2006, 11:26

I voted for a Napoleonic Total War game. Although an expansion for M2TW will definitely be next.

Was half thinking to vote for 'Word War', but I'm not quite sure what that would entail. Would it be Scrabble: Total War? Moving powerful letters into place and watching out for a flanking X.

Warluster

12-01-2006, 11:31

Ha! :laugh4:

geala

12-01-2006, 12:10

1.
I would like to have an expansion "European Invasion", a colonial setting in the 15th/16th, where you can play African, American and Asian factions; in the end the Europeans come. Later on you can also play european forces. I pray for a bit more diversion.

But more realistically we will get an expansion similar to VI, maybe the crusades? I didn't like VI and I would not like something like that because of the small timeframe and the not so very interesting troops connected with it.

2.
For the next big TW game I would prefer the time from 1590 till 1815. I wouldn't like the napoleonic time alone: far to less change, no development of troops, too few unit diversification. NP times should be the crowning goal of the campaign.

The game should start after the military revolution caused by the great Dutch-German war school in the end of the 16th century. Nothing was the same after it (exaggaration) and the 30-years-war was the first great scenario it was put into action. That was also the first time since Roman times that fighting in TW-style with independently moving single units would be realistic.

PseRamesses

12-01-2006, 12:51

1. Bronze age 1600-1100bc
2. Age of exploration, 1492-1814?, play on a worldmap, explore and colonize like in EUII.

Orb

12-02-2006, 00:35

I think WWIII:Total War.
Imagine The USA declaring the war to the rest of the world.That can be a really total War game.

One small problem. That wouldn't be a particularly long and interesting war.

The US wouldn't stand a chance.

Edit - now, for a real game

England takes on the rest of the world!

Of course, the inevitable defeat for playing any other faction might make it less approved of...

Caius

12-02-2006, 00:41

Then Rome 2 Total War(if someone create a mod called that way i will have it)

Lorenzo_H

12-05-2006, 09:22

I wonder what the M2TW expansion will entail, since we have decided there is probably going to be one.

KARTLOS

12-05-2006, 09:53

naut

12-05-2006, 12:10

Well of course CA will make an expansion for Medieval 2, but beyond that....

I'm personally hoping for Spring & Autumn Total War--unite the lands that will someday be known as China, and become its emperor! :yes:

There's between 6-10 powerful kingdoms, including Chu, Wu, Chin, Ch'in, and Yueh; along with a myriad number of smaller kingdoms (all of whom could be used as pawns amongst the great powers). It would have troops and tactics that differed from that of medieval Japan (chariots, early crossbows, etc.), but still have that wonderfully exotic locale. There would be great variations of terrain: open fields, rugged mountains, thick forests, etc. Ah, I'm salivating just thinking about it!
Oh my yes! Don't tease me. :charge:

(That said, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with Shogun 2. :wink:)
I'd have no problem with it either.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and having a TW game set in North America is absolutely the last thing I would ever want to see. Pretty much all of the major wars that have taken place here were between only 2 powers, so such a game would be incredibly boring. :thumbsdown:
Couldn't agree more!

Personally I would detest a Napoleonic : Total War, because a) I don't really care much for the era b) No offence but CA would get it wrong.

I would like a Pike and Musket though :juggle2:

However, I would say that it will be an expansion for M2TW.

5

Mazoch

12-05-2006, 22:23

Personally I'd like to see a game focused on the colonial period. Some one put it as:
Age of exploration, 1492-1814?, play on a worldmap, explore and colonize like in EUII.

It would require a full world map and probably an enlarged number of different cultures / units, but I think it would create a very interesting setting that would, on one hand allow for an interesting historical setting but also allow for many interesting opportunities for re-writing history (for example playing China or India).

Bellum

12-05-2006, 23:22

I'm still waiting for VI2. That's the next logical step, I think. Worry about the next game after the expansion comes out.

Laman

12-06-2006, 07:57

Songhai Total War (northwest Africa during the rise of Songhai). Imagine playing Songhai, Mali, Mossi, Hausa, Oyo, Benin etc. And expansion is quite given, Moroccan Invasion :book:

Or India Total War set to begin around 480, when the Huna breaks through the defenses of the Gupta Empire. Once could play with Gupta, Huna, Vakatakas, Kadambas, Vishnukundins, Pallavas etc. With lots of Elephants :2thumbsup:

Raz

12-06-2006, 08:49

Of course CA would make an expansion to the latest release. Afterwards I believe that they should however, revive Shogun:Total War. After which they could make an entirely new era. Hopefully something in the Ancient and Hellenistic time period. When Greece ruled, and if there were to be an expansion, maybe rewind the clock a bit and add the Egyptians into the fray. :egypt:

Also, many of you (Not pointing the finger) are just thinking of the RTS aspect of the game, you got to remember that there has to be a Turn-Based part as well. An invasion of the Americas would be fine but think about the Strategic Map! It would stretch across all of the Pacific Ocean.

Plus, the one feature I'd like to see, is a tabbed army. Think of web browser tabs. If you were to get reinforcements, the new army should come up as a tab along the UI. Click on the tab to look at your reinforcing army from the UI, and click on the other to go back. This would also be good in multiplayer to look at your allies' units and it wouldn't be crowding your unit panel thinking to yourself, is this unit in my first army or what?

Spart

12-06-2006, 12:56

I would like to see a WW 1/2 TW, but I would Also like to see the TW series venture out of Japan and Europe and make a Total War game featuring Africa as the place to conquer, One day hopefully maybe the world will be the target. Though I would like to state that African History up until late 1900s is boring, so maybe a South American Total war is in order or an Asian Total War, Though ultimately it is up to the G-ds of The Total War series.

The Foolish Horseman

12-07-2006, 20:08

i am too optimistic in thinking they would do a WW2 Total War, but a Napoleonic one would be good, Especially if they included the battle Of Waterloo.

Also I am being a bit immature in reckoning they could do a Sharpe: Total War, but that would be good fun:balloon2: But it would be too hard to make as the books are detailed, but not nescessarily Historically Accurate

Luthiena

12-07-2006, 22:11

I'd love for them to do an Ancient Greek one... or something with Amazons. :2thumbsup:

Orb

12-07-2006, 22:19

A. Smith

12-07-2006, 22:56

I voted for an expension for M2TW, but i thought it was about what you THINK is gonna be the next game... i'm pretty sure there is gonna be an expansion, but what i would REALLY like to see is a WWxTW. x being 1 or 2, obviously. why? think of the possibilities! there are loads of types of troops compared to what they once had... possible types: light and heavy infantry, motorized infantry, ligh and heavy tanks, AA gun/vehicles and fighters, fighter-bombers and bombers. obviously you would need more then20 units per army :)

Lorenzo_H

12-08-2006, 17:29

I'd love for them to do an Ancient Greek one... or something with Amazons. :2thumbsup:
well there is Rome Total War and Alexander.

If I am not mistaken, Amazons are a unit in RTW.

Innocentius

12-08-2006, 19:28

Pike and Musket II: Total War
Just like the mod for MTW, only it's an official game by CA and not a mod. I voted Napoleonic as it said "or similar". The game should span somewhere between 1492-1792 (just like Europa Universalis). Mud, gunpowder, smoke, filth, starvation and loud and clumsy weapons...Playing a battle where the LOS drops to 10 yards after the first volley sounds really nice. The game would feature many interesting appearances (like the Swiss in MTW), for example Prussia, and the reformation would be an interesting thing to play with. What if Spain suddenly went protestant on their Italian allies etc.

Yup, that one gets my vote.

IsItStillThere

12-08-2006, 21:29

I voted for "other".

Although I wouldnt mind seeing shogun 2, or a napoleonic era game, I think CA should go for a more focused, compact (ie. less epic) game next.

U.S. Civil War. Simple, just two sides and not that many different units. But still a very interesting struggle. This would allow them to finally attempt to implement multiplayer campaigns (instead of just battles), without the complexity of multiple sides since they'd all be head-to-head. Not all the total war games have to be huge bloated games of great complexity, right? Besides, complicated doesn't necessarily equal fun. It would allow CA to really refine the combat AI for gunpowder units. The rock/paper/scissors in this one woule be infantry/cavalry/artillery. Diplomacy (always a weak part of the AI) would hardly be a factor. And there wouldn't be a lot of random characters wandering around the campaign map either!

jeff

TheFluff

12-09-2006, 00:55

STW2. I would never want a mondern TW series, its played out. N or would NTW be any good because it is based to much off of "line up, shoot" and who ever has the longest range musker/rifle/cannon wins. The TW engine would go to waste, there would be little close combat, and the CC you had would be extreamly repetive. I would leave a NTW2 to the NTW mod team, but i wouldent want it as an offical product. STW2 would offer alot and could be sold as an expansion or a full game with contental asia included.

Marius Dynamite

12-09-2006, 01:32

Finally, the Napoleonic era is just absolutely perfect for a Total War game:

Strategically - you have about seven or so major powers, with lots of scope for "flexible" dipomacy and conquest. Often "conquering the map" is crazily ahistorical in history, but with Napoleon's ambitions, it becomes a pretty good representation of his historical goals. And often in history, there are strong alliances that divide up the world, Cold War style, but with Napoleon, only the enmity between Britain and France seems to have been fixed. Russia, Austria, Spain and Prussia chopped and changed with the weather.

Tactically - with the three arms of cannon, cavalry and infantry you have lots of chances for real rock-paper-scissors interactions (or even better, combined arms tactics). Personally, I hope they keep it simple like STW and not create lots of artificial distinctions like "swords vs spears" - e.g. between heavy and light infantry etc. (a man with a musket is basically a man with a musket, whatever you put as his epaulette, and Napoleonic infantry differed more in quality than in functional role).

Napoleonic Era would be awesome but the game would have to be made much bigger campaign wise. The world should be chopped into sections and you can view each section on a different screen with each screen being like a M2 map. Europe, North America, South America, South Africa etc. Then, each of these maps would have to be bigger to allow more army-moving tactic. Maybe Attrition could make a real debut. If you don't stick to roads and camp in winter, you lose men. Armies taking supplies and supply lines could also be included with some clever thought.
Other things would be important as well. Things like More units under your control. More Soldiers on the field.. Larger battlefields. It should take a very long time to cross the field and you should be open to tactics like splitting you army into several groups to accomplish certain tasks.

I doubt all those things would be included if CA made a Napoleonic Total war but.. hey, I can dream right?

Lorenzo_H

12-12-2006, 09:02

Tamur

12-12-2006, 22:01

Since the next TW will be a completely new game, I think they ought to:

1) lower the detail and truly allow tens of thousands of troops onscreen at once, or keep current graphical levels and give us the possibility to be a soldier on the battlefield who isn't in charge of anything except his blade, his horse, and keeping with his unit.

2) abstract field commands to a division level with rules of engagement, and make runners going from the general's location to the division commanders when objective orders need to be altered.

Napoleonic era sounds great, especially with the M2TW graphics engine.

Personally my favourite setting is the Egypt-Assyria-Babylon-Hattusas-Media-Persia period. No better time for huge kingdoms trying to bash each other to pieces and succeeding after a couple hundred years of it.

RtkBedivere

12-13-2006, 16:35

I think the most likly thing to be released will be a M2TW expansion but i would love to see a shogun two.

Marius Dynamite

12-13-2006, 16:51

I think the most likly thing to be released will be a M2TW expansion but i would love to see a shogun two.

I started with RTW and only got Shogun when I got Eras. I couldn't play it because I am young and can't stand the bad graphics, especially since I started with RTW. What was so good about it? It seems a little blunt with so few kingdoms and a rather small area? How would it be employed to be a big game?

Just wondering.

Zain

12-14-2006, 03:26

I think that a current version on the World Wars (I and II) would be pretty cool. I think it would be fun to choose one of the lesser countries that are near Nazi Germany (who would obviously be a stronger then usual faction purposely) and try to fight them off. I don't know.. just a thought.

RtkBedivere

12-14-2006, 17:42

I started with RTW and only got Shogun when I got Eras. I couldn't play it because I am young and can't stand the bad graphics, especially since I started with RTW. What was so good about it? It seems a little blunt with so few kingdoms and a rather small area? How would it be employed to be a big game?

Just wondering.

Well i didnt by shogun until after i bought MTW. But i still loved it. Its pretty basic as their are fewer units and such and the graphic are quite awful but as you said its old. It was still a great game and require much in the area os stratagy. I think a new shogun on the new engine would be a great combination of new and old.

GrimeReaper

12-15-2006, 23:51

What about Colonial Total war?The great European colonial powers France,Holland,England,Spain,Portugal,Belgium and many factions that became colonies such as areas of Africa asia, north america and south america

naut

12-18-2006, 03:39

It isnt hard to guess- it is like one timeline
-RTW
-MTW
-NTW
-WW1TW
-WW2TW....
To bad the actual timeline of the games goes like this, (from best to not so good also as a coincidence).

Shogun
Medieval
Rome
Medieval 2

JeffHCross

12-26-2006, 21:51

I'm not sure what I think 'should' be the next Total War game, but I'm fairly convinced that the next game would be some type of Colonization/Revolution era game. It just makes the most sense to me.

RTW:BI ends in 463.
MTW: VI began in 792.
M2TW ends in 1530.

That tells me that either we, yet again, rehash a time period already visited (being between BI and VI ... or between BI and the beginning of M2TW) ... or we go to the future. If we go to the future, it seems logical that we'd be talking about the Colonization of the Americas (North & South) or the American/French Revolutions. That just seems like the most logical progression to me.

Note: I'm talking about a full TW game here, not just expansion. Looking at colonization seems even MORE logical for an expansion given that they extended M2 to 1530 and included the Americas. We'll see.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-27-2006, 00:04

N:TW. To see the things the Lordz did in their modifications shocked me. It is truly amazing work. I was, and still am, hooked the outstanding modification they produced. I've downloaded every release of N:TW so far.

Now, ask yourself this: What if CA tried that? With their resources, time, and technology? Even if CA screwed up, we still have a vast and dedicated modding community waiting to fix and change things, as they have done for every Total War game so far.

If CA makes N:TW, and makes it moddable, the game is our oyster.

naut

12-27-2006, 00:20

[...] but I'm fairly convinced that the next game would be some type of Colonization/Revolution era game [...]

[...] it seems logical that we'd be talking about the Colonization of the Americas (North & South) or the American/French Revolutions [...]
To rain on your parade, I can not think of anything worse. The French Revolution? How about simply Pike and Musket? And the American Revolution, boring, beyond boring, despicable. Two factions Britain and America, I'm sorry but that would be the worst game ever.

[...]That tells me that either we, yet again, rehash a time period already visited[...]
It's possible that they will remake Shogun, and will make a separate Expansion for M2TW.

However, what people forget is that there is much more to the world, its diversity and history, than just the USA and Europe.

Bijo

12-27-2006, 00:40

Hrm: creating an empire in western Europe, North Africa, and along the East is getting boring to me. Since I never played Shogun (but I will very soon) I voted Shogun 2, simply because the setting attracts me.

With RTW and Med(2) it's like you fight, manage, and expand in the same areas again, just a different time. I want an Asian-style TW to be the next installment. And I want the general user interface and controls to stay the same as they are now, but I'd sure like them to get a hold again of the magic of the old Shogun (the magic of which I've heard many people speak, and have had a little taste of with the old demo).

I want good gameplay: simplicity, accessibility, effectiveness, superior strategy, superior tactics, good A.I., low system requirements. Further: good superior engine with many options to control, superior presentation (music, settings, atmosphere, sound effects, etc.).\

Wouldn't mind a China-orientated TW game either. Sounds cool to me.

If they move further up into history time line, I'd go for WWI or WWII. Same basic areas again, but everybody is a skirmisher then. Still, they'd have bayonets and stuff.

Warluster

12-27-2006, 04:23

If you are wanting a game about the American Colonies and stuff, I am making a mod for M2TW about America from 1550 to 1800, so join up if you want! Just PM me!

JeffHCross

12-28-2006, 18:48

And the American Revolution, boring, beyond boring, despicable. Two factions Britain and America, I'm sorry but that would be the worst game ever.That's why I included the Colonization of the Americas along with it, Rythmic. I agree, the Revolution itself would be incredibly, ridiculously, boring. I was mainly talking time period, not subject matter. Mods focus on specific events, the main game from CA usually doesn't. That's why we wouldn't see a Hundred Years War: Total War, but we might see a mod for it.

I don't know enough about Pike & Musket to say whether or not that's the equivalent to what I was thinking. But either way, it seems to me that the next game is likely to be 18th century or so ... which would give us the Colonization of the Americas and the American/French revolutions (and Napoleon).

Cangrande

12-28-2006, 23:31

For me it would have to be a game based in Europe covering the period 1660 - 1720, the bridge between M&P and 'modern' warfare and a series of wars happily linked together...great for a campaign?

sapi

12-29-2006, 07:38

Napoleonic Era would be awesome but the game would have to be made much bigger campaign wise. The world should be chopped into sections and you can view each section on a different screen with each screen being like a M2 map. Europe, North America, South America, South Africa etc. Then, each of these maps would have to be bigger to allow more army-moving tactic. Maybe Attrition could make a real debut. If you don't stick to roads and camp in winter, you lose men. Armies taking supplies and supply lines could also be included with some clever thought.
Other things would be important as well. Things like More units under your control. More Soldiers on the field.. Larger battlefields. It should take a very long time to cross the field and you should be open to tactics like splitting you army into several groups to accomplish certain tasks.

I doubt all those things would be included if CA made a Napoleonic Total war but.. hey, I can dream right?
If supply lines are in, i'm out. If you've ever played company of heroes you'd understand why - adding supply lines to a rts does nothing but slow gameplay and drastically reduce tactical options.

Since the next TW will be a completely new game, I think they ought to:

1) lower the detail and truly allow tens of thousands of troops onscreen at once, or keep current graphical levels and give us the possibility to be a soldier on the battlefield who isn't in charge of anything except his blade, his horse, and keeping with his unit.

2) abstract field commands to a division level with rules of engagement, and make runners going from the general's location to the division commanders when objective orders need to be altered.

Napoleonic era sounds great, especially with the M2TW graphics engine.

Personally my favourite setting is the Egypt-Assyria-Babylon-Hattusas-Media-Persia period. No better time for huge kingdoms trying to bash each other to pieces and succeeding after a couple hundred years of it.Again, if the series goes quasi fps i'm out. I agree with you on the setting though.

I think the most likly thing to be released will be a M2TW expansion but i would love to see a shogun two.Meh - wouldnt' be too bad but i'd prefer if it was kept out of asia so it was still relevant

I think that a current version on the World Wars (I and II) would be pretty cool. I think it would be fun to choose one of the lesser countries that are near Nazi Germany (who would obviously be a stronger then usual faction purposely) and try to fight them off. I don't know.. just a thought.TW and gunpowder (that is, armies made up entirely of gunpowder) don't mix - not to mention that there was no place for group formations in ww2

What about Colonial Total war?The great European colonial powers France,Holland,England,Spain,Portugal,Belgium and many factions that became colonies such as areas of Africa asia, north america and south americaNo

Warluster

12-29-2006, 07:48

Gunpowder is okay in TW, I love it in M2TW! Plus the idea of Colonial TW is good, I am making a mod like that right now actually, and people keep telling me i cant do it! I will! I WILL!!!!

sapi

12-29-2006, 08:20

Mod, fine, but not a game - it'd be so repetitive it's not funny :(

Von Nanega

12-29-2006, 10:04

I think with a Napolean Total War game, you would have to have turns representing three months. This would portray the movement on the map better than M2TW. Also the scope of history in this period would be shorter than the M2TW dark ages on story.

Bijo

12-29-2006, 20:55

No seriously, they should go back to their roots. I can already see it, I can smell it, I can hear it: Shogun 2 Total War! :beam: They would have to get rid of the current campaign map and take the old Shogun campaign style (with good valid improvements).... no more exaggerated 3D map. A REAL strategy map you would have on your virtual table in-game.

And I think regarding battle graphics the current stuff is good enough for a while. Heck, you know what would be great for graphics? If they'd manage to make a pretty good realistic 3D battle environment, with NEW sophisticated "versatile" sprites for units. By "versatile" I mean so many sprites they would actually look 3D enough to convince you it was 3D from every distance and angle you look at it.
This would save performance, and probably allow even greater troop numbers to be on-screen, though it would probably take a lot of more work to make. But heck, wouldn't it be worth a lot?

EDIT: though, if you zoom up close, it should naturally go to 3D, but in such a way it doesn't really look ugly.

TW and gunpowder (that is, armies made up entirely of gunpowder) don't mix - not to mention that there was no place for group formations in ww2
True, unless they make it work. But it would mean a drastic change in the series.

Lorenzo_H

12-29-2006, 21:17

I would almost be dissapointed if they did a Shogun 2 Total War. I personally think that after the inevitable M2TW Expansion pack, there will be a Napoleonic Total War, or something that moves on into the age of the Musket. I look forward to playing as the British and using the good old Redcoats to kick the French.

Poulp'

12-29-2006, 21:34

I've voted "other"
my point is that any era will do PROVIDED we can face a challenging IA.

I mean a IA getting more and more cunning according to the difficulty you chose, not some unrealistic bonus to morale and dommage.

And why not an IA learning from its errors (that's a dream, I know), for instance, if they failed to invade you from the front, they'll try the backdoor...

The Stranger

12-30-2006, 01:03

i would like a american civil war or a China:Total War but the Napoleontic era is cool 2

Keith_the_Great

12-30-2006, 04:22

something like VI maybe saxon invaders? starting from when the romans left the british isles until the norman conquest 400AD to 1066AD

naut

12-30-2006, 09:51

something like VI maybe saxon invaders? starting from when the romans left the british isles until the norman conquest 400AD to 1066AD
A common misconception formulated by the Historian, or liar rather, Bede. There was no "Saxon Invasion" as such. It was a continuum of inhabitance and existence, much like modern immigration. Also there was no British "Dark Ages", rather a flourishing of semi-Roman existence, which saw Britain trading with Byzantium (they sold tin, or Briton Gold as it was called, for the riches of the Mediterranean) and the only nation practising Latin in its purity.

Woops got carried away there, back to the topic. :yes: :embarassed:

Cangrande

12-30-2006, 12:55

Hmmm....so what about the Comes litoris Saxonici? What about the years of fighting and destruction?

Ok, the idea of a series of mass invasions might have become outdated but the Saxon takeover was far from peaceful.

naut

12-30-2006, 13:19

There was never any major "invasions" as such, it was rather gradual as modern archaeology is now proving. And the notion of a Saxon "takeover" is also being challenged by modern archaeology.

I'll continue this in another thread if you wish, so as not to hijack this one.

Zoring

12-30-2006, 13:30

Definitly a Napoleonic period mod for me, maybe starting in the 15/1600's and working up to say 1900 right at the end of formations and lines in battle. Your ultimate troops being Mauser armed skirmishers!

Keith_the_Great

12-30-2006, 19:24

yeah thats right :yes:

A common misconception formulated by the Historian, or liar rather, Bede. There was no "Saxon Invasion" as such. It was a continuum of inhabitance and existence, much like modern immigration. Also there was no British "Dark Ages", rather a flourishing of semi-Roman existence, which saw Britain trading with Byzantium (they sold tin, or Briton Gold as it was called, for the riches of the Mediterranean) and the only nation practising Latin in its purity.
kinda knew that myself But Thank for informtion :2thumbsup:

we are talking about a computer game here :beam:

Bava

12-31-2006, 02:17

My vote goes to Shogun II, i really like the setting.

But my dream game would be TW: Caribbean Supremacy (1550 - 1750).
Large scale seabattles (yes, seabattles!)!!! Conquering Cartagena as Henry Morgan!!!
Could live with a napoleonic tw, too.

tsubame

12-31-2006, 02:41

Shogun 2. Hands down...

PureFodder

12-31-2006, 03:44

Got to be N:TW if just for the recreating Sharpe factor. :rifle:

Murfios

01-01-2007, 02:04

Happy New Year. :balloon2:

-Murfios

Neco

01-01-2007, 02:12

An expansion pack to M2TW will most probably be next. However, for the next completely original game, I think a Napoleon era game would be very good. It's probably the most recent era that would still work with the TW style of gameplay.

I also think a game set at some time in Eastern Asia would be nice to see, too.

Derfasciti

01-01-2007, 04:10

Personally I'm hoping for Napoleonic, but STW2 would be really nice to have. That game was great and if CA does everything right, it could be even better.

baron_Leo

01-01-2007, 20:51

Definetly not WWII:Total war:-) The napoleonic era would be great (With a HUUUUUUUUUGE map including america), but to be honest that kind of warfare can be boring sometimes, 'cause the tech advantage could make a very large difference. But I don't really want Shogun2:TW, I didn't liked it that much.

CaesarAugustus

01-02-2007, 00:23

The problem with Shogun II is that the factions, cultures and units would be pretty much the same. Asia Total War however, would br much more diverse, with Imperial Chinese, Indian factions, steppe nomads, Arabs in the West, and the cultures from Southeast Asia. Plus, conquering the small Japanese home islands just isn't as fun as carving out huge, trans-continental empires.

Sebastian Seth

01-02-2007, 01:18

I would also like to see Shogun: Total War II

Bijo

01-04-2007, 18:44

An Asia: TW or whatever sounds cool to me. I agree there'd be a lot of the same looking Japanese factions.

As long as it's not set in Europe, I'm fine with it. And as long as the game will feature a total new engine and all that stuff. If the M2TW engine (or should I say RTW engine?) is reused once again, I will be severely disappointed. Oh yeah... and as long as they capture the magic like those true old games from back then, as they immerse the player into it.

The TW series need some serious fixin'. I wonder if CA can handle serious fixing, or if they even want to (or whether the publisher wants to).

Owen Glyndwr

01-04-2007, 21:54

I was thinking they could do M2 expansion, sticking to the theme, they could do something like European Invasion, in which the map is the Americas and pacific Islands. They could make some of the Native Nations playable, as well as include Spain, English Isles, France, and Denmark if they could fit it in. Although they'd have to find ways to balance it with the whole European superiority, and seeing as how it would take place during the maritime expansion era of the Spaniards Portuguese etc, they would have to include naval combat. But I think it would be quite fun.

Sensei Warrior

01-05-2007, 05:01

An expansion for M2TW is the logical choice, however it might be nice to see them back away from the Western World for a bit.

Another copycat game like remaking Shogun would be annoying, man I don't like watching reruns on TV why would I want to play one.

How about China: Total War? They could do the Period of the Warring States, or an innumerable amount of other periods considering how long China's been kicking around.

Or maybe they could think way outside the box and make something more modern, like WWII: Total War, or 'Nam: Total War, or UN: Total War. Just kidding on the last one.

Pirate20

01-05-2007, 09:58

I would like to see a TW game that takes in Japan, Korea, China and India also the Mongols will have to be added Called something like Asian Total War

The varity in units form eles to horse archers, the vartiy of weapons used

Throb

01-05-2007, 14:02

It will be a Medieval Expansion pack, then they might re do Shogan, possibly even re do Rome. With the possibility of a Medieval Expansion pack being along the lines of Viking Invasion, they might include more of the current map instead of just the UK and Ireland as the Norsemen did not just trouble the UK and Ireland, in fact they might even include a small part of North America as some Norsemen made it that far.

The idea of Napolionic Total War does sound very good, and it would be good to be able to control naval encounters, would be tricky though.

How about an Asia Total war as someone else suggested to stretch from Japan to the Indian sub continant ?

tcgreg99

01-05-2007, 14:37

I want to apologize to everybody who sees his/her already mentioned but not quoted ideas in my post, but since this is my first post I am not that familiar with the correct quotation. :)

Firstly I'ld like to differentiate between what I think WILL BE the next TW PRODUCT released by CA and what I WANT TO BE the next FULL TW GAME:

I think the next TW product released by CA will be an expension to M2TW!
I hope the next full TW game will be something that follows the european timeline, which could definately be somthing like Napoleonic: Total War. Also I would be very interested in a China Total War or Asian Total War leaving the temporal placement to the creative head of CA. Or maybe even Nowadays: Total War spanning the whole world with the U.N. acting like the Pope in M2TW... hahaha. (I know, it sounds a little bit inept, but the "U.N." could give missions, suspend members (cp. excomunication), send peacekeepers, etc.) Sounds quite fun to me. Also political sytsems (like monarchy, dictatorship, democracy, etc.) could play a role. I don't even want to go into detail with that. I only wanted to give another thought-provoking impluse.

Anyway, in the poll I voted for Napoleonic TW.

One thing I would not support would be a US:TW. Not in the TW series and not in the real world. Maybe a NA:TW as in Native American TW: different indian tribes and central american people fight until the European Invasion.

Now to some other aspects mentioned earlier in this thread:

The idea of Comrade Alexeo about CA's product strategy sounds very reasonable to me. Accordingly would be the next steps:
1) Expansion M2TW
2) completely new game with new geographical and or temporal setting, new graphics engine, etc. (econ21 descibed it as "revolutionary")
3) Expansion for 2)
4) redo the oldest, not rehashed TW based on the new engine, etc.
5) Expansion for 4)
redo the last four steps

At least I hope that the next full TW game has a new engine as this was the one (and only major) disappointment for me in M2TW. (I still love to play it though.)

Naval battlefields is IMHO overdue and a must-have in the next game. It is a bit annoying to be in control of almost everything that happens in TW games, but then see fleet being crashed BY CHANCE! Imagine positioning your ships on the naval battlefield, aligning them for canon combat, boarding the enemy ships, and chasing the routing fleet stealing the enemy's wind... uuhhh... that would be nice!!!

Another good idea was from Marius Dynamite that armies loose men if the leave roads and don't stay in camps. What I am thinking of is if armies are too far or too long away from their home land they start to loose men each turn. I am not sure how these "supply lines" are supposed to work but it sounds like a reasonable and not unimportant issue to think about.

I also like the idea with the tabs on the battlefield UI: different taps with different views for different tactical groups.

Also great would be something like an option either to fight a battle on the battlefield like it is today or to fight as "one of many soldiers" with a shield and a sword from a first-person perspective and the rest of the battle is up to the AI.

Kralizec

01-05-2007, 19:18

I voted for Shogun 2, mostly because this time I would prefer an exotic setting (to me, anyway) over a European/Middle East theatre.

A Chinese setting would be great as well, and would probably be preferable to remaking an old game now that I think of it. I'd pay 50 euros for fighting the in the Warring States period in a TW platform!

Provided that the early release is devoid of any cripling bugs ~;)

Owen Glyndwr

01-05-2007, 19:21

while that would be cool indeed, playing a single player in a TW game would detract away from the game style. It is a strategy game, not a hack and slash. I'm sorry if I sound rude, but that would make me want to stop playing the game. however, I would love to have a stat tracker that you can place on either on a unit, or a specific soldier, preferably being the latter. It would keep an eye on how many units they've killed, how many lost, how many times the unit has fled, how many times it's been retrained, along with how long the unit has been around(in years). Also, I definantly would have to agree with you on the sea battles thing. I can't tell you how many times my perfect vicory record has been tarnished because I have lost a few sea battles:wall: . Entonces, A modern-day TW gome would not be possible because warfare has changed so much from the classical unit formations and clashes of ancient and medieval times. How fun would WW1 be? a bunch of people sitting in trenches for fifty years. Also they would have a hard time dealing with the airplane stuff, as well as having cannons being miles and miles away from the actual combat. Modern-day RTSs better left to the completely real-time games like EE, RoN, and AoE. However, Nopoleanic would work as units arranged in actual formations. I would love to see them include the Thirty-Years war in there. It's Tercio versus Adolphus's formations woot! However, I would like to see an Asian Total War as well, Island hopping would indeed be fun!:2cents:

Warluster

01-05-2007, 23:18

If you want Island hopping you should have... wait an idea!
Pacific:Total War
It could have all the islands, and all the nations hop from one island to another!!

{KotR}Sir_Raison{K}

01-06-2007, 01:38

Can we have a dedicated MULTIPLAYER game plz. Medieval era.:inquisitive:

Sort out the chat system for gaud sake ( T - all,Y - team ),none of this press 1,press 6,press 8....what was I going to say anyway...!!!:help:

Units that move when you click on them as opposed to 5 seconds later....:wall:

Units that do what ther're meant to do......:no:

...well I can dream can't I !!!

Rais:smash:

Owen Glyndwr

01-06-2007, 19:09

yeah, I would love to see a working Online campaign AT LEASTon LAN. I would definantly love to have factions that, when you agree to a ceasefire/alliance/whatever, they don't go and stab you in the back the very next turn for no apparent reason. And factions that actually provide assistance when you ask for it.

JCoyote

01-07-2007, 03:39

I would say "Colonial Total War". As opposed to "Napoleonic" which I voted for.

Really, the end of medieval era warfare was more one of scope than significant difference from medieval warfare. Nations were expanding their holdings around the world, and armies and strategies changed to adapt. So really, a good game would cover everything from the late Renaissance all the way perhaps the Zulu Wars... or right before the first World War, when the next massive changes in the nature of war occurred do to mass production and mechanization. So that would cover things like piracy, the american and other revolutions, the US civil war, the Napoleonic wars, etc. A pretty decent stretch of history, similar to the one covered by the Medieval games.

However, if this was to be done, given the interesting nature of piracy and naval warfare of the time, it absolutely MUST have the long requested naval warfare battles for the players.

And it could get pretty overwhelming for a player, considering that a proper colonial total war's campaign map would be nearly the whole planet. It would need a much smarter strategic AI, because that map would be a lot more important. The nature of control and conquest as they relate to "victory" would need to be reassessed as well. While tactical variation might be somewhat less in the colonial period, remember there are also indigenous combatants aplenty on all sides, and the strategic picture would be vastly more complex.

Other than that, Shogun 2 would be fun for a more focused game. One thing I'd like to see is ninja units on the newer strategic map; should definitely get ambush bonuses, and significantly ninja composed armies could perhaps hide and ambush in places other armies can't. Though they would be less powerful than the original Shogun. I think something like Sherwood Foresters with extra tricks on the campaign map, and maybe an advantage when withdrawing. I could have a lot of fun if somewhat more "hit and run" battles were possible.

Warluster

01-07-2007, 04:42

If you were to cover the Renaissance to Zulu wars it would be way to hard because som many changes happened in that period, it would be very hard to go from Musket to Machine-Gun game speaking,

M2TW was easy because it covered an area when nothing happned in the way of war, other then the change to guns. They had swords,Aarmour. Those swords and armour upgraded smally, sword to broadsword. Chain-Mail to Full Plate Armour.

RTW was easy because it covered an area when ABSOLUTLY nothing happened. No change in weapons (Only REALLY SMALL ones) the only change was the fact that Rome became powerful (The whole games based on that)

MTW is the same as M2TW,

STW was different that way,guns were making a name, but swords still had one last word. Cannons could win a battle in Europe, that could in America and Sfrica, but in Asia, (Eastern Asia and a bit of Western Asia) the sword armies were still living. It didnt cover an large enough time period to seriusly cause enough trouble. The sword never died in Japan until about 1880's when the Samurai class was abolished and Japan upgraded.

CTW would be to hard in the fact it covers 1500's to 1800's, Swords and guns and then Rifles and Machine-Guns just would be too hard with the Graphics they have these days.

Everyone also understand that Naval Warfare is VERY hard to make, you know Imperial Glory game? It has naval Warfare and its like TW series, it was (quite) bad, it is possible but quite boring in Medieval Times but all the less quite fun. CA might think of it with such a massive outcry but dont expect until the next big game, if they have it in an Expansion it wouldnt be good for them, but in an new game, then it would do good!

But they could still shorten it down, 1500 to 1700 (I am making a mod about that time period) , 1700-1900? I understand though thats what you want, and in no way am I trying to stop you dreaming about that, but you will be dreaming for a LONG time until that day.

Icefrisco

01-07-2007, 05:45

id like to see something focusing on the rise of prussia between 1715-1918. you could command the armies of the most advanced and powerful antion on earth while outnumbered in nearly every conflict. the creative assembly could add governments and changes in technology as factors of the game.

ive always wanted to fight as frederick the great and as von hindenburg. plus ww1 in total engine would be awesome. ive played for 4 years now and thats all ive ever wanted from the developers. imagine machine guns and bolt-action rifles! plus it would be fun to see the change from flintlock to bolt action.

Owen Glyndwr

01-07-2007, 08:20

Aye, I understand what you're saying, about naval battles being pretty boring in medieval times. But the campaign I was describing was the rise of the European Naval powers such as Spain Portugal and England. But also, imagine how much that would open for them, should they do a 1600/1700 era. They could do the spanish armada, the battle of Trafalger (sp?) etc. But remembers if they go into a 1600 era game and keep it realistic, they should allow for formation specific units. Such as the ability to form tercio (the main formation used in the 1600's developed by the Spanish consisting of 30-row deep formations , with pikeman in front supported by muskets in the back. Also, although i havent explored the mounted gun cavalry in M2, they should allow for wheelock formations as-per 1600's fighting. Which consisted of wheel formations of cavalry having one row fire retreat and the next line fire (that is until Adolphus re-introduced the shock power of the cavalry) Supply lines would be a good idea as well as most wars were faught by trying to cut off the other army's supply lines. Actually, come to think of it, in the pre-Adolphus wars, there were little battles, and it'd be a little boring. Sorry if I got carried away a bit, but I really love to blather on about things like this. In conclusion, I'd love to have an Asia, America, or even an Africa total war would be great, they could have Moorish nations in the north, Swahili nations on the east coast. and Colonists coming in. Also Zulus. How fun would that be? althoough the colonists would be quite overpowering come to think of it, but hey! so were the post-marius Romans and the late-game Egyptians. And who doesn't love a challenge?

JCoyote

01-07-2007, 08:55

If you were to cover the Renaissance to Zulu wars it would be way to hard because som many changes happened in that period, it would be very hard to go from Musket to Machine-Gun game speaking,

Just FYI, there weren't modern machineguns in the Zulu wars. The british had single shot Martini-Henry rifles and some older paper cartidge guns, which were far from perfected at that point.

The Maxim machine gun didn't come til later, and that's almost exactly why I chose the Zulu Wars as an end point... just before the advent of modern automatic weapons. There were some initial machine guns around by that time but they were far from perfect and didn't make major impact until WWI, which is the next major era of warfare that pretty much extends to the present. The early blackpowder era "machine guns" like the Gatling had enough problems that they weren't that dominating on the field. They had wind up magazines, precise production of cartridges was far from perfect, and blackpowder meant in short order the gunners were in a fog bank... limiting their visibility but telling the whole field where they were.

One interesting and not terribly technical change in the period was the dropping of "colors" and the adoption of subdued color schemes and early camouflage. That actually would be the harder thing account for, I think.

One thing that would have to change, and would be welcome in M2TW, would be ammo runners to reload missile units. "Munition Supply" would also be a good, dealing with the available small arm and cannon ammunition not just for the units, but the army as a whole and how much there is for runners to bring up. Supply lines started becoming much more important in this era and there should be factors they influence, ammo being the most significant at that point.

Rilder

01-08-2007, 01:22

Why not go away from the norm and try out a "Fantasy:Total War" with Mages, dragons and "Evil" factions, with there own made up storyline, deffinatly would be fun.

JCoyote

01-08-2007, 03:23

Why not go away from the norm and try out a "Fantasy:Total War" with Mages, dragons and "Evil" factions, with there own made up storyline, deffinatly would be fun.

Uh... that IS the norm in strategy games if you haven't been paying attention.

Rilder

01-08-2007, 08:31

JCoyote

01-09-2007, 03:58

but not with The total war series....

So you're saying abandon your market niche to do what everybody else already does tons of?

Given that Total War tries to be... well not perfectly accurate, but at least believable... I don't think it's a good idea. However, if it WAS to be done, I would suggest following Harry Turtledove, who when he does create stories with magic tries to use consistent rules and does a good job suspending disbelief. I'd say licensing for "Darkness: Total War" might have possibilities.

Owen Glyndwr

01-09-2007, 16:06

Indeed, I play this game as much for its fun strategy, as its historical accuracy. What the various nations isn't accurate (we know the Scots didn't capture all of Briton for example) But the units are historically accurate. However, i know what you're saying JCoyote, but maybe then you can start back a few hundred years before the Europeans come in. It'd be a lot better for ballancing issues (you know, let the african nations get established). And maybe they could set it up for a European mentality set in the AI for the Europeans to be initially non-aggressive, until either one of the African nations set them off,or their populations get too big or something. But I do suppose you're right, the Zulu wars simply would not work, because that is when armies really started moving away from the tight battle formations, and started moving towards independant movement, a thing which simply wouldn't work for the Total War series/

stuartdm

01-09-2007, 18:08

I'd go for India. I don't know much about the history myself, but you could have all the different kingdoms, the moghul invasion etc. I suppose the units would be simlar like in STW. A range of terrains: deserts, forests, plains and mountains. And either stop before the French and British arrive or use them like the Mongols in MTW. You could even do something in terms of allying with one or other of them.

Sarmatian

01-09-2007, 19:43

Moving away from europe would be a good idea... Something in Asia involving china, india, japan, korea would be interesting...

Rilder

01-10-2007, 01:18

but not with The total war series....

So you're saying abandon your market niche to do what everybody else already does tons of?

relax I just Thought the idea of the total war engine with dragons, mages and stuff would be really cool

Veho Nex

01-10-2007, 01:34

JR-

01-12-2007, 13:27

Eurasia Total War from 1085 onwards

Owen Glyndwr

01-14-2007, 17:42

Actually after my vote of S2:TW im starting to think that they might go M2:TW expension Then possibly a Dynasty Total was (China and such) Since there is alrady suck a big market with Dynasty warriors and the such that i think they will hit every area of the world with bows and swords before they hit Revolutionaty and Straight up guns and cannons for the most part. Just my opinion though

While this would be cool, it would have quite a few nations as during that period, everybody and their mother was trying to become emperor. They would also have to have sea battles that go on rivers (i.e. Chi Bi etc)
Also, a lot of battles were won by cunning ploys on the part of the army's strategist rather than flanking and such (or at least that's how the book describes it). also a lot of battles were over before they started because of the duels at the beginning of every battle. So it's a bright idea, and we need to get away from Europe, but it'd be a lot more difficult to do than some of the other things described.

Omanes Alexandrapolites

01-14-2007, 19:00

Hi,
In my opinion the CA will first follow their classic trend and release an expansion to M2:TW like they have done for all of their other games. I would expect that it would be all about the New World and the Colonial Age. Then I expect them to release a downloadable "M2:TW - Charlemagne" which would be very similar to Alexander for Rome. After that I am expecting something quite different to anything we have seen from the CA before. I personally would be expecting a TW game from the Napoleonic Era that would be more epic and beautiful than anything that has ever gone before. However the CA may surprise us by going for something absolutely different from anything that we have suggested, perhaps even going down the fantasy route, although that could lose them many of the historians that have played the series right from the S:TW.

Lorenzo_H

01-16-2007, 23:01

I wonder if anyone at CA will be influenced by this poll. Who knows? they might....

Turkeys The II

01-17-2007, 03:17

I voted for a medieval total war 2 expansion.Since usually theres always a xpack after.

Martok

01-17-2007, 03:39

I wonder if anyone at CA will be influenced by this poll. Who knows? they might....
It's a nice thought, but unfortunately that's not very likely. We might influence their choice in some small way, but probably not to any large degree. This is particularly true now that CA has a much larger fanbase than when Shogun and MTW was released. The Org seems to be viewed as a more "hardcore" section of their fanbase, and hardcore gamers tend to become increasingly outnumbered by the larger "mainstream" group of fans.

That said, we're not entirely without a voice. While developing Medieval 2, CA did make an effort to woo back the denizens of the Org (they lost quite a few fans here after Rome was released). While not all of us Orgahs might like how M2 turned out, it can't be denied that CA did try to actually address our questions & concerns about the game -- and not just feed us happy-sounding (but empty) platitudes. So who knows? :shrug:

Of course, it's kind of a moot point for the next TW game, as I can guarantee CA long ago decided what they were going to do next. In all likelihood, they've probably been working on the next title for quite a while now. Consider the fact that they began work on Rome in 2000 (shortly after Shogun was released), and that it didn't come out until 2004....

caravel

01-17-2007, 10:39

Well CA Australia produced M2TW IIRC, the same as produced MTW. CA UK did STW and RTW and have apparently been working on something else, all the time that M2TW has been in development.

As to the poll here. It won't influence CA a lot. The poll is mostly in favour of an M2TW expansion at the moment anyway, and that will be what most people want. If the entire MTW userbase worldwide voted in that poll it would probably be more than 99% in favour of a M2TW expansion pack.

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but what expansion back will it be? Earlier? Later? I've no idea. I doubt they'll do VI again.

Owen Glyndwr

01-17-2007, 16:35

IDK, i quite liked VI. Getting to play just in England was great! Besides, I got to play as the Welsh:2thumbsup:

Lorenzo_H

01-18-2007, 12:50

It's a nice thought, but unfortunately that's not very likely. We might influence their choice in some small way, but probably not to any large degree. This is particularly true now that CA has a much larger fanbase than when Shogun and MTW was released. The Org seems to be viewed as a more "hardcore" section of their fanbase, and hardcore gamers tend to become increasingly outnumbered by the larger "mainstream" group of fans.

That said, we're not entirely without a voice. While developing Medieval 2, CA did make an effort to woo back the denizens of the Org (they lost quite a few fans here after Rome was released). While not all of us Orgahs might like how M2 turned out, it can't be denied that CA did try to actually address our questions & concerns about the game -- and not just feed us happy-sounding (but empty) platitudes. So who knows? :shrug:

Of course, it's kind of a moot point for the next TW game, as I can guarantee CA long ago decided what they were going to do next. In all likelihood, they've probably been working on the next title for quite a while now. Consider the fact that they began work on Rome in 2000 (shortly after Shogun was released), and that it didn't come out until 2004....
Well explained.

I think that it's reasonable to say that CA wish to please the mainstream more than just a few hardcore players, since there is a far greater profit to be found if you sell to the masses.

Marquis of Roland

01-19-2007, 03:04

Hey guys, there's no reason why you can't put a colonial TW and a napoleonic TW as one game. In fact I think it shouldn't just be napoleonic or colonial total war, you can probably make the game between 1600-1900, with pikes and muskets available in early and gatling guns and repeating rifles and such for late. It should make for good city development as well, and you can include the entire world, including east asia. United States can pop out like Mongols do in M2TW around 1776, or as a rebel faction :laugh4:

As far as making a WWI or WWII TW, you probably literally have to have the processing power of the starship enterprise to even play a 1 on 1 custom battle. And all those complaints about not maintaining cohesion chasing routers, think about what will happen if you made a WWII infantry battalion do that in game, they'd be all over europe in no time lol.

Lorenzo_H

01-19-2007, 13:29

Someone just gave the first vote to Medieval 3 Total War!

I personally feel very strongly that its time to advance into the age of the cannon and musket.

TevashSzat

01-20-2007, 03:27

I can picture the expansion, Protestant Invasion starring Martin Luther and John Calvin within his Geneva stronghold..... Instead of battles, there would be religious debates

Lorenzo_H

02-20-2007, 11:33

There has been some other discussion about this thread so :bump:.

Caerfanan

02-20-2007, 11:53

Not really. That doesn't work because RTW wasn't the first tw game. Feudal era Japan was.
And then Feudal Europ/Middle-East/North Africa!!

I voted for an extension of M2TW, because it is what the editor will do in ly opinion: they can open new factions or cover an historical period (dark ages starts around 500 BC!!!)

But I would largely prefer a game covering the last period where batlles where in an open field. Something like Napoleonic TW.

World War whatever Total War shouldn't work in my opinion. Too much about air control and such. they deserve new games, but it won't be "Total War Like". You won't have a 3 rows formation of B52 charging in the rear a column of tanks...

César Victor

02-20-2007, 23:10

I'd love to see an updated STW. With added gore. Gyah.

Quintus Of Pompeii

02-20-2007, 23:38

Heyy
I'd quite like to see Naploenonic TW and play in naval battles with commanders such as the great Nelson.
Cheers
Quintus

César Victor

02-21-2007, 17:07

Actually a whole eastern total war would be very good. From the Chinese Dynasties of Roman times to the Japanese Samurai warlords of middle ages. But the huge gap in time would mean a campaign would be virtually impossible to finish. Imagine a 4-turn a year campaign that takes 1000+ years to finish? Gyah.

Perhaps allowing a player to chose a time period (such as in MTW) could be a solution to such a problem.

Caerfanan

02-21-2007, 17:30

Heyy
I'd quite like to see Naploenonic TW and play in naval battles with commanders such as the great Nelson.
Cheers
Quintus
Yes, they should try to work something with the naval battles, maybe.

The Spartan (Returns)

02-22-2007, 02:14

Rome 2/ Shogun 2, American/Napolean.

maybe it will have Shader 3.0 and sea battles.

Ignoramus

02-22-2007, 03:13

Personally, I'd prefer a Total War game based on Ancient history. Maybe from say 621 B.C - 323 B.C. It would be quite feasible with the Total War engine, and I'm sure that the period would provide an excellent game.

RoadKill

02-23-2007, 04:40

A expansion for MTW 2 would be great but i really dont want it to continue through America but improve on the diplomacy and religion.

Burns

02-23-2007, 05:17

Isnt the next big TW game going to be fantasy? I read somewhere that it will most likely be something very similar to Blue Lotus in terms of factions. But we'll have to see I guess.

Xehh II

02-23-2007, 10:17

I voted other because, even though I'd like to see a medieval 2 expansion pack, I'd like to see a total war game that goes through the whole human history. This would make the game extremely long, but it would be awesome.

Caerfanan

02-23-2007, 10:21

A expansion for MTW 2 would be great but i really dont want it to continue through America but improve on the diplomacy and religion.
Well if the M2:TW extension could bring naval battles, and more interesting use of agents (which have improved, but not that much), I'm totally for it.

A fantasy total war game could be "fun" as well. I don't know if you heard of a game called Legend of the Five Rings (collectible card games with a huge 7 clan "china-japan-like" backgound storyline, then rolepaying game)? Could be a revisited Shogun, with magic and monsters in addition to the samurai.

Or the computer "totalwarish" adaptation of a fantasy wargame (Warhammer 40K?)?

Less historical though, but why not?

Don Esteban

02-23-2007, 12:33

I would love to see a game based on a smaller area with turns representing months rather than years. Maybe the 100 years war.

The problem would be the limit to the number of factions and that it could turn into LOTR!

Otherwise maybe a rennaisance period game.

adembroski

02-23-2007, 13:15

I would like to see a fantasy total war... complete with wizards and dragons and such.

in conjunction, a mod tollset that opens modding to more people. Campaign map editors, unit editors, etc.. Obviously the skilled modders would still be the best scripters, but to be able to build my own campaign without having to learn a new skillset would be nice:P

Judge

02-23-2007, 19:19

i just hope wotever game it is that, it uses the same controls as stw, mtw/vi
just better graphics :thumbsup: ~:cheers:

Punicus

02-23-2007, 19:41

I think they'll make a M2TW expansion first and then a Napoleanic Total War game next. I'd like to see a Bronze Age Total War, though.

Monarch

02-23-2007, 21:21

Can we have a dedicated MULTIPLAYER game plz. Medieval era.:inquisitive:

Sort out the chat system for gaud sake ( T - all,Y - team ),none of this press 1,press 6,press 8....what was I going to say anyway...!!!:help:
:

lol you can change that by editing your game files. In rome you can anyway.

The Spartan (Returns)

02-24-2007, 02:18

well Total War always has expansions, so you don't need to hope for one..

Gratian

02-24-2007, 08:55

Well, i would vote for smtg like Total War: China ... Qin Shi Huang era to Three Kingdoms (II cent BC to II cent AD...)
also smtg like Total War: Great Schizm about religious wars in Europe in 16-17th cent., like Thirty Years War (there are already Swiss pikes and Landsknechts in M2 so it is quite possible i think...:inquisitive: ).
And instead of just Catholics we might get such structure as in RTW BI - Pagan vs Christianity, only with more religious fractions availiable to chose - catholics, protestants, calvinists and so on...
Also it could be Total War: Ottoman Invasion ...

seireikhaan

02-24-2007, 15:43

Personally, I would love to see Mongols: Total war. Have the game start at about 1200 A.D. There is the mongols, three different chinese dynasties, the Khwarzmians, Koreans, Japanese, and also the other tribes in Mongolia that Chinggis Khaan had unite before he became great Khaan. Also, perhaps Russia and Hungary, since they also had to face the mongols. I think extending it to the middle east and Egypt would make the map too big. Oh, and perhaps India, maybe. I'm sure there's also other cultures I'm not aware of at the time. The map would be large, there would be diversity between the factions, and I also would love to see the Mongols in a prominent role after having them play smaller roles in the mtw games and shogun. If not this, I also like the idea originally posted by Martok of having a Qin Shi Huang Chinese civil war game, that would be a lot of fun as well. I WOULD HATE any sort of colonization game, in addition to a WWI or WWII game. Colonization war tactics were terrible and there wouldn't be enough factions. As for WWI and WWII, the map would have to be absolutely huge, way bigger than anything CA has done yet. In addition, the combat would be so different from CA's past games that I'm worried they would do a terrible job, no offense. Fighting with swords, spears, and matchlock rifles is a long way away from M1 garands, bombers, fighters, and atomic bombs. Also, for WWII especially, there would not be enough factions. Really, can you expect to be able to play as the Czechs? Germany and Italy dominated Europe so much that it was really just them, England, and Russia. The other problem is time. All of the TW games have spanned hundreds of years. WWI and WWII would span maybe twenty to thiry years at the most. Napoleonic total war might be promising, just as long as they restricted it to Europe and don't go to North America and the other colonies.

Tully Bascombe

02-24-2007, 16:00

I'd like to see someone merge the history spanning time scope of the Civilization series, the world spanning scope of the Europa Universalis series, and the intermixture of strategic and tactical play of the Total War series. Then I'd like to see the addition of a feature allowing the player to assume the role of a combatant during battles, a sort of mini-fighting/role-playing game.

You'd never need to buy another game................until someone developed the galactic version. :idea2:

César Victor

02-24-2007, 22:45

I think modernish TW games wouldn't be too fun. TW, for me, is all about marching vast armies into hand to hand combat with arrows raining down and cavalry outrunning everything. Battles that last an hour etc. You wouldn't get this if the game featured modern units.

I'd like to see Napoleonic combat but, if they were to do that, I think naval combat would have to be comletely redesigned.

Monarch

02-25-2007, 19:14

CV, I think you're exactly right. And lets face it, the next game is supposedyl the "revolution", now, CA can't just give us all another graphics upgrade and call it a revolution (this was ok mtw to rtw becuase its was 2d to 3d, which is major). This isn't console gaming, after all.

Something like naval warfare would be a major new feature they could flaunt.

Also on the mp side of things...you could have naval mp battles which would own :beam:

Tristrem

02-26-2007, 21:53

I would rather have a game with no naval combat that had balanced battles and no gamebreaking flaws. They should perfect land battles long before they even think about moving into the naval theater. And if they do not have naval combat it should be abstract and simple like MTW with sea regions. A RTW, M2TW, type map doesn't work for abstract naval battles because you just end up playing ping pong until 5 turns later a ship sinks.

If there was another total war game I would love to see them make would have different campaigns to choose from. It could be like EUIII where they have a many different starting dates, one every 200 years, and you could pick any faction in the world. This could start at the rise of greece and end after the American Civil War ( the last possible war that total war battles would be good with). Then everyone could pick and country they wanted in almost any time period and create their own total war. (However this would probably be very costly and could take years upon years to create). One possiblity would be to buy the engine, the original game, and then be able to buy additional expansion time periods, kinda like how the SIMS games work, you don't need to expansion, but if you get it you recieve tons of bonus features. Plus with this system CA could milk the player base out of oodles of money, plenty to fund further efforts and expansions. Now that is an idea that is revolutionary, not just add some naval battle eye candy.

But if they continue on the current path I would like to see a Byzantium total war, Rise of Islam tw, mongol tw, or maybe even a rise of russia total war going from the mongol invasions to the communist revolution.

Xehh II

02-27-2007, 00:37

Byzantium tw, Rise of islam tw and Rise of Russia tw would not be very good but I support Mongol tw and the first idea.

Lord Cazaric

02-27-2007, 00:47

Rise of Islam totar war would be pathetic. (Hm, I sound like a tw addict! Grr!) It would be all set around the same time, with not that much happening. It's the same with Byzantium TW. Mongol total war would be great however, as its so in-depth and long, with Genghis, Tamerlane (founder of the Timurids) and the siege of Baghdad...could be fun.

However, I'd prefer Greece total war, as there are MANY city-states to play as. eg. Sparta, Athens, Argos, Mycenae, Corinth, Pylos, Thrace and others. You could even add in a Trojan civilisation if it showed the western coast of modern Turkey, as they actually did exist.

Lord Cazaric

02-27-2007, 00:48

And Medieval 3 Total War would be the most pointless waste of space ever. So soon after number 2 came out, nothing would be new or better. *yawns* Boring.

caravel

03-01-2007, 11:04

Rise of Islam totar war would be pathetic. (Hm, I sound like a tw addict! Grr!) It would be all set around the same time, with not that much happening.
I totally disagree that it would be pathetic, but I do doubt it would be very popular.

Correctly implemented it would make for a fascinating campaign, and would be a welcome break from the samey world map with generic provinces and factions that we've had since MTW1.

Starting in the 7th century and continuing until the 12th with the end of the Fatimid Caliphate. The map could cover a smaller area including the Arabian Peninsula, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Iran etc.

https://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6732/map3rc8.th.gif (https://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=map3rc8.gif)

Lord Cazaric

03-02-2007, 00:33

Meh. I suppose so. Greece would be more interesting though.

Xehh II

03-02-2007, 03:18

Yes! Greece would be better than rise of islam.

seireikhaan

03-02-2007, 05:57

My problem w/ greece total war would be the lack of variety and VERY small map. The militaries would all be mostly similar, w/ sparta and athens having obvious advantages over the others. Also, what would be the timeline for Greece? Just somewhat curious.

Islam total war could be interesting, but there is a problem w/ your current map. Who would be all of the different factions? It doesn't include the Mali, a huge islamic power in Africa towards the latter end of that timeline. Mansa Musa, a fairly well known Mali ruler, went on his trek to Mecca with so much gold that he caused massive inflation for years in Egypt just by going through Egypt on the pilgrimage. Allegedly, each of his one hundred slaves each had a golden staff for the pilgrimage. Now imagine what that wealth could be used for militarily...?

Caerfanan

03-02-2007, 10:42

the greek

03-04-2007, 12:48

aisa Total war Would be way different to the last 3 medieval 1 and 2 and rome other than shogun aisa is totally untouched by CA

seireikhaan

03-04-2007, 19:48

seireikhaan

03-04-2007, 19:50

Ooops, accidentally double posted, sorry.

Tellos Athenaios

03-04-2007, 20:49

...it will be an expansion pack for MTW 2. Give them six months to a year and it will be released.

The next different TW series is a good guess. I will just sit back and watch.

Second.

aja5191

03-04-2007, 23:05

I mean I love the timeframe of MT2W, but I feel like it's too different form what I really love: ROME!

Lord Cazaric

03-05-2007, 00:38

Lord Cazaric, what would be your time table for greece? It would be a very, very small map. What would be the incentives to play as some of the smaller city states? Shogun at least had bonuses to the various warlords. If they followed history, Athens and Sparta would be way overpowered compared to the others.

Cambyses II, who would be the factions for Islam? It doesn't seem like there would be very many. Based on the map it wouldn't even include the Mali, who became quite powerful in western Africa.

Greece could go from about 1300 to 300 BC if necessary. And Sparta would be a huge military powerhouse but not much else - also, while having strong units, there wouldn't be many of them - 85% of the Spartan population were helots (slaves).

There are several larger city-states - Sparta and Athens, obviously, but also Mycenae, Corinth (in a very strategic location - the Isthmus), Thrace, Argos, Pylos...the list goes on.

Athens and Sparta weren't always so strong - around 1300-1000 BC, Mycenae would have been the most powerful. And also, not all factions are equal in Total War - look at the difference between the Danes and the Germans, Byzantines or Almohads in MTW.

As for an Islamic one, some factions could include the Fatamids, Abbasids, Ayyubids, Seljuks, Egyptians etc.

Andejar

03-05-2007, 01:06

How about a modern day one called "W Total War".

seireikhaan

03-05-2007, 04:20

Hmm, I suppose that Greece might be promising, but what kind of variation would there be among the militaries? Didn't the city-states all use a variation of the phananx as their main troop?

While its true that some factions in MTW were stronger, all of them had some strong points and some kind of uniqueness for troops that made them very fun and manageable(well, ok, Poland does get it pretty rough). Cavalry was still pretty limited by this point, as the stirrup wasn't invented yet. Unless I am mistaken, which is quite possible and correct me if I am, the gameplay would be a lot of phalanxes ramming into each other while archers tried to whittle the enemy down enough to ensure victory. Phalanx warfare pre-companion cavalry was somewhat unimaginitive. I would love, however, to have the Persians invade, in a fashion similar to the Mongols in MTW. I love the defence the Greeks made to Persia and I think that would a blast to recreate. If not in the game, they could make that the expansion, Persian Invasion.

Oh, for clarification purposes, would the rise of Islam total war begin just after the Arab empire split into civil war?

Laman

03-05-2007, 07:33

....

Oh, for clarification purposes, would the rise of Islam total war begin just after the Arab empire split into civil war?

Considering the Rise part, I would say the time there would be it's initial expansion, squashing Sassanids, defeating ERE, etc.

Caerfanan

03-05-2007, 11:31

Greece could go from about 1300 to 300 BC if necessary. And Sparta would be a huge military powerhouse but not much else - also, while having strong units, there wouldn't be many of them - 85% of the Spartan population were helots (slaves).

There are several larger city-states - Sparta and Athens, obviously, but also Mycenae, Corinth (in a very strategic location - the Isthmus), Thrace, Argos, Pylos...the list goes on.

Athens and Sparta weren't always so strong - around 1300-1000 BC, Mycenae would have been the most powerful. And also, not all factions are equal in Total War - look at the difference between the Danes and the Germans, Byzantines or Almohads in MTW.

As for an Islamic one, some factions could include the Fatamids, Abbasids, Ayyubids, Seljuks, Egyptians etc.
Uuhhhh... Could it be some "Viking Invasion type" campaign for Rome Total War? I mean, if the purpose is the control of Greece! :beam:

Caerfanan

03-05-2007, 11:37

How about a modern day one called "W Total War".

Well thing is that the modern battles are not really fit for a TW type game. I think that the last battles "TW-compliant" would be in the 19th century, when they were still happening on a field and based on eye sight. And even then some people underlined that there was too few units in the end (on that point I would love a wargamer opinion on how show differences between two different "missile" units for instance: must be something: melee prowess, firerate, range? could nbe something like the differences between all the spears in MTW).

How could you manage 10 people squads, multifunction equipment, very long ranges (an average modern tank shoots easily at 3 000 meters, 155mm artillery guns about 28-30km), aircrafts?

PseRamesses

03-05-2007, 14:24

Oh, for clarification purposes, would the rise of Islam total war begin just after the Arab empire split into civil war?
IMHO a RoI game should start in 632ad with Muhammed at the gates of Mekka. The split witin islam, that came later, could be portrayed later with emerging forces (like mongols/ timurids). This will let the player build his empire for some 100 years, fight Byzans at its height (drool) and later try to cope with the schisms in Syria, Iberia and N.Africa. The game map should cover, like the EB map, all lands from Gibraltar to the Indus and from Sudan to maybee southern Scandinavia.

Maximillian von Hapsburg

03-06-2007, 12:45

I reckon maybe we should have something set around the other bronze age civilizations rather than only Rome, like the Hittite wars with the Mitanni and the battle against the Egyptians at Kadesh.

Also would love to see Napoleon: Total War, would love to play as the French, English or the Prussians.

Crusade: Total War wouldn't be bad, I'd have fun owning the Almohads or shooting arrows into the crusaders' heads :beam:

I voted for NTW but any one of those would be awesome!

Yours,

Max

Artorius Maximus

03-06-2007, 21:21

I would like for CA to patch up Medieval II first, then they should think about making an Expansion pack! I would prefer the Dark Ages, or Viking Invasion time period! ;)

After that, they should work on a Shogun II: Total War, that would be awesome....

Kavhan Isbul

03-06-2007, 21:32

I like RoI's scope, and while I do not think its name is viable for obvious reasons, a Dark Ages campaign can be quite interesting - the Eastern Roman Empire at its height, standing against multiple enemies such as the Arabs, the Sassanids, the Bulgars, Avars and Khazars, then the Vikings. The Papacy will be there, plus the Franks, the Saxons, the Lombards, the Moravian Kingdom and many more factions, most of which were the basis for the creation of the modern European states. It would all make for a decent expansion on the whole map (except the Americas) instead of a small campaign centering on one corner of Europe only, such as Viking Invasion.

Lord Cazaric

03-07-2007, 04:24

Crusade: Total War wouldn't be bad, I'd have fun owning the Almohads or shooting arrows into the crusaders' heads :beam:

I think that would make a good expansion for Rise of Islam total war - Rise of Islam: Total War: Catholic Invasion.

The crusaders could appear in the lands of the Byzantines and march down through the county of the Fatimid caliphate via Antioch, Edessa etc.

And the Horns of Hattin as a historical battle, with Guy de Lusignan, Balian and Raymond! That'd be brilliant! In fact, the whole history of Guy de Lusignan and Balian, defender of Jerusalem, would be good for a historical campaign.

Boyar Karhunkynsi

03-07-2007, 04:41

I can see the total war franchise doing the same mistake as the Age of Empires games: focusing on the new world. I really hope this doesn't happen, as it results to some booooring gameplay. How many musket-armed troops can exist?

Now, R2TW would be a sight to behold, if it was well done. I expect they will do this after releasing an expansion for M2TW. I often think of RTW as being better than M2TW, so an expanded RTW running on the M2TW engine would be a pleasant change.

Also, the classical period is better than the medieval period, in my honest opinion. The knowledge and scholarly institutions, the huge leaps forward in warfare, etcetera.

I hope...

-Max :viking:

Caerfanan

03-07-2007, 10:06

Well, there's for sure one thing I can note: many people here have many, many ideas, most of them interesting and viable, but with:
- different periods of time: some like the dark ages, some the renaissance, some hte 18th/19TH century, some prehistory
- different sizes: some like unification wars (China, Greece), some like wider geo-political areas (Extension of Islam, Byzantine EMpire, Colonizations...)

This leads me to something that classical roleplaying games inspire me sometimes. The best thing to do would be

A central "generic" battle engine and campaign engine. the idea being that these "engines" could improve in time but stay as much as possible compatible with the older versions: Core of the soft. Upgrades could include a naval battle engine one day, for example.

Specific maps/units/texts/AI specs: cheaper stuff, but everyone could choose: do I want to unite greece? Do I want to fight the Indian nations to create the US? do I want to replay the battle of Austerlitz? There would be the "parameters" for the engine.

I mean all the TW fans would get crazy about this, don't you think? :2thumbsup:

Xehh II

03-07-2007, 10:09

That was my idea!

Caerfanan

03-07-2007, 10:30

Why not go away from the norm and try out a "Fantasy:Total War" with Mages, dragons and "Evil" factions, with there own made up storyline, deffinatly would be fun.
Could be based on known fantasy
1/ Song of Ice and Fire (By George R.R Martin) TW
2/ Dragonlance TW
...

Many possibilities...

Caerfanan

03-07-2007, 10:39

That was my idea!
Yup, 'cause if I'm correct, apart from what people do prefer, you also have what people don't want to ssee, ever: some would hate some "musket battles", some would hate anything that they don't politically agree with, etc, etc... So have an engine, and provide maps/campaigns

Analogy with RPG: provide a system (the rules), then a universe (the map/type of units/style of factions), then a scenario (factions, units, goals)

Kavhan Isbul

03-07-2007, 18:28

This leads me to something that classical roleplaying games inspire me sometimes. The best thing to do would be A central "generic" battle engine and campaign engine

A generic engine to allow one to create one's own campaign - brilliant!

Now, how does this work so that
1. Sega can sell copies in the long-run and make profits (they need an incentive)
2. It is not too complicated and therefore interesting to the average gamer

Caerfanan

03-08-2007, 11:11

A generic engine to allow one to create one's own campaign - brilliant!

Now, how does this work so that
1. Sega can sell copies in the long-run and make profits (they need an incentive)
2. It is not too complicated and therefore interesting to the average gamer

Exactly! In the roleplaying game world, you can create your own scenario or buy some. This could be the same. Computer wizards and people who like to play "their own games" could mod a lot, and Sega could sell very nice and extensives scenarios!

caravel

03-08-2007, 13:03

Cambyses II, who would be the factions for Islam? It doesn't seem like there would be very many. Based on the map it wouldn't even include the Mali, who became quite powerful in western Africa.
The map I posted was the only decent example I could find at the time. The map could be enlarged as necessary (think of it as the current map shifted downwards and eastwards to cut off most of the north and west). The Mali Empire would be a good faction for a "late era" campaign along with the Almoravids (if CA were to bring back eras). There are plenty of factions, including the Byzantine, Sassanid, Umayyad, Abbassid, Fatimid, Visigoth-Iberians, the Rai of Sindh (India), Moors and many others.

californiatay408

03-09-2007, 10:57

zoyclem

03-10-2007, 02:25

The Spartan (Returns)

03-10-2007, 03:08

I'd like to see ancient Greece better represented--perhaps in the time period of the Peloponnesian War. That long and costly struggle changed a number of early western ideas on how warfare is conducted.

This is a nice site, by the way. There are some excellent tips in the specialized forums.

I think an ancient Greece total war game would be the best. You have the Spartans, the Phocians, the Thespians, the Persians and many more Greek city States. The Persians could either be in the original game or in an expansion which would be similar to the mongol and barbarian expansions. Plus after seeing the movie 300; which was awesome, it seems like this would be a logical way to go.

both are great ideas. an historical battle on Marathon and then Thermompylae..

btw, Warm welcomes from the Grace! :2thumbsup:

las cases

03-10-2007, 11:23

See also the Euratlas maps:

Atb
las Cases

las cases

03-10-2007, 11:32

For instance this one:
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1100.htm

Supervark

03-11-2007, 00:04

Would like to see Ancient Totalwar. All those great chariot units, elephants,slingers ect. Make it from 3000 BC up to about 1000AD will give you a lot of different units and playable factions. Also great religious wars between the old gods and christinanity. whats everyone think?

Marius Dynamite

03-11-2007, 02:36

Kavhan Isbul

03-11-2007, 03:01

I'd be pretty dissapointed if it went to Ancient Greece. The factions would seem very similar and battles would probably get repetitive I think, although I would probably still buy it to see how much the game has got better, but never play it again.

I would hate if they made the expansion the dark ages. M2 only get exciting when you get into the beautiful looking tin footknights, the modern pikemen and the Musketeers. At the start its the dullest thing ever. You look at M2 and think about the Expansion, I imagine on one side a really awesome looking Napoleonic game with cool looking soldiers marching around in uniform and great tactical battles, then you look to the other side and see the M2 militia units running around with no real nation to fight for and no real knowledge of warfare, weapons, tactics or armour.

Just my imagination

You know Marius, there were no nations in the Middle Ages anyway.
As for the rest - to each his own. When it comes to colors, soldiers in the Dark Ages were just as colorful as those later, with the warriors actually wearing heavily decorated arms and armor, based on archeological sites such as Sutton Hoo or Malaya Pereshchepina.
Finally, I find your comment about the warfare knowldge during the so called Dark Ages over-simplistic, at best. Unless of course you are trying to imply that the Eastern Romans (more commonly referred to as the Byzantines) in the height of their Empire with their sophisticated military academies and long tactical manuals knew nothing about the science of war, and neither did the Vikings, the Franks of Charlemagne, or the Arabs. I can also assure you that the armies of the above mentioned powers consisted of more than just militia units running around, and some of them were quite heavily armored, actually.

Xehh II

03-11-2007, 03:18

Lord Cazaric

03-11-2007, 03:44

Yeah, it is a good idea - the worshippers of Ba'al vs. Catholics!

Lord Cazaric

03-11-2007, 03:45

Why am I still not a fully fledged member? Haven't I made enough serious posts?!

I feel ashamed to be considered less to one such as Xehh II.

What happened to Xehh I is anyone's guess...

sapi

03-11-2007, 03:47

:focus:

I'd say the answer to your question is no, though :laugh4:

seireikhaan

03-11-2007, 05:16

Lord Cazaric

03-11-2007, 08:55

I feel all depressed now. I think I'll go dye my hair black, grow a long fringe and cut myself.

Almohads! (that was to keep it on topic!)

Marius Dynamite

03-11-2007, 14:47

Marius Dynamite, perhaps it just me, but I am far less concerned with how "beautiful" CA can make war look than I am with actual gameplay. I love the original MTW, even if the battle graphics are now somewhat dated. They are good enough to get the job done, they represent fairly well, and that is about all I ask. I am far more concerned with the actual gameplay and strategy than shiny armor and being able to see a soldiers facial expressions as he dies in a slaughter.

Sorry you got me wrong, I never meant the actual graphics, I meant the thought of marching 600 or 700 knights in shining armour from France into HRE to fight their hundreds of slightly different knights. Thats why I liked Rome, hundred of legionaries against all of Romes famous enemies. I need that to make me want to play the game. Gameplay keeps it going but it needs the soul to make me want to play. My apologies.

seireikhaan

03-12-2007, 02:04

Well, I disagree with your opinion of what the better time setting is, I think that the medieval age had a little more diversity than Rome. However, thanks for clarifying your comment, I certainly have more respect for you now and I will respect your opinion, Rome certainly wasn't boring.

Caerfanan

03-12-2007, 11:33

I feel all depressed now. I think I'll go dye my hair black, grow a long fringe and cut myself.

Almohads! (that was to keep it on topic!)
Augh!!! I feel your pain, Cazaric!

Caerfanan

03-12-2007, 11:37

From what I see, I still should hope for a two component evolution for CA games...

1/ The central engine: which would add more and more playability/options: why not even parametrise a "management level"? For those who want to cunt each sheep, cow, peasant... and for those who want big management...

2/ The scenario, providing historiacl period, map, troops, factions....

What else could make everyone agree? :juggle2:

Mother Yoda

03-15-2007, 02:23

I seriously think that the most probable expansion pack would be Shogun Total War. Although I would not mind having something else such as (This will have a very slim chance of happening but) Mythology Total War. Yes it would be a combo of the Total war series and Age of Mythology.

Lord Cazaric

03-15-2007, 08:48

both are great ideas. an historical battle on Marathon and then Thermompylae..

btw, Warm welcomes from the Grace! :2thumbsup:

And then onto Plataea and Salamis (but only the latter if sea battles were involved).

A campaign designer would be brilliant - I could put into a game the fantasy world I base the books I write on!

seireikhaan

03-16-2007, 16:20

Caerfanan

03-16-2007, 17:33

Wow, Caerfanan, that would be awesome, but wouldn't that be extremely difficult to pull off? You would need animations for every unit that people would ever possibly want to conceive, plus all of the possibilities of what people would want for buildings, landscape, etc... Wouldn't that take years upon years to get everything that people want into it?

I don't know if it would take years. I'll bet a team of 10-12 people during maybe a year to put down all the concepts and programming of the central engine probably a lot has been done already. campaigning, battling, maybe adding new "tactical" levels. this open engine would then open the doors for scenarios. Maybe that Sega could release 3-4 scenarios a year, and maybe a new version of the central engine.

The thing is that each scenario would come with it's unit files, a "unit file" could be some sort of "open source", for instance, same with the maps, etc, etc... And so the more the scenarios come out of the woods, the more you have materials to build new scenarios! :-)

But what I think as well is that it would be heavy stuff needing peple paying for that. I'm working as a software consultant, the prices there are far above what's done for videogames...

Let's dream!

seireikhaan

03-17-2007, 04:49

Yes indeed, let's dream. That could be a great game, though I doubt it will happen. Ahh, to create my own Mongol horde...(stares off dreamily into space)

Boyar Karhunkynsi

03-17-2007, 05:00

I think an ancient Greece total war game would be the best. You have the Spartans, the Phocians, the Thespians, the Persians and many more Greek city States. The Persians could either be in the original game or in an expansion which would be similar to the mongol and barbarian expansions. Plus after seeing the movie 300; which was awesome, it seems like this would be a logical way to go.

Great idea. A Greek city-state total war. You have to try and unite Greece, while trying your best to fight off the Romans. This would also be on a smaller scale, and garrisons would be the biggest military forces for Greeks. I like it.

I wouldn't advise looking to '300' for factual information about anything. It was a decent movie, given, but terribly inaccurate.

:)

-Max

Joker II

03-17-2007, 11:58

Think without a doubt that the first one will be the expansion pack, what comes after that is pure speculation and to be honest, it doesn't really matter to me, whether it will be Shogun 2, Rome 2, China, Fantasy or Napoleonic.

Aslong as it got, new elements in gameplay, a cool setting, much better diplomacy, extended use of the city view possibility(RPG elements) bigger armies, AI --> major issue !!!!

I'd be happy :yes:

Harve

03-17-2007, 12:43

Bronze Age:Total War

ca. 1500-1100 BC

Yeah id like the very ancient war

It would be extremely unlikely but wouldn't it be strange to have the game from 2000BC- 1945AD? It would be too civilisation like though and the timescale will be have to change of course so its out of the question unless the player can choose when to start. I wish there was a time period before gunpowder that covered the whole world (Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe etc etc etc) where 40 factions were possible or even a made up world, again im thinking too civilisation like.

seireikhaan

03-17-2007, 18:10

I think people need to realize that civilization and total war are not the same market niche. Both are good series, IMO, but they are different. Total war games have never involved research and extended timelines, and I hope that CA sticks to what they do well. Total war involves quick rises to power and equally magnificent collapses, whereas civilization is about gradually and continually gaining the strength to stand the test of time. Civ is also very broad, whereas Total war is much more detailed. Civ also involves more abstract concepts such as culture, leader attitudes and attitudes, and wonders of the world. Total war is just that, WAR, that is why dimplomacy has never been a huge aspect of the games.

Tristrem

03-19-2007, 17:46

I have stated before, I thik the central engine with buyable campaigns is the way to go for CA. It would allow more freedom of choice, but whatever you choose, you pay for that campaign. That is what I hope the next generation of Total War will be.:2thumbsup:

13th-Caesar

03-19-2007, 18:00

Would it be possible and not boring to do a History:Total War or something similar. I have not read all the posts so I am sorry if this is a copy. It could start at the year 0 and finish today. The first pack would maybe just be Europe, or just Asia might be simpler. You could start as Gaul, fend off the Romans. Then slowly advance through the years. Upgrading as you go. Each turn could be 5 years? That way you could incorporate many of these ideas into one. If this wasnt a "super-market selling" game, it might only be made for downloads or something similar.

An additional bonus would be that you get to choose how long each turn is. and what time era you start in, so if you liked the Napoleanic era of the game start in (insert years of Napoleanic wars here) and play 10 turns= one year.

If they got it historically accurate this game could be awesome. Expensive though, and it would need a huge database (replace for clever computer word that means "storage on computer space")

Lord Cazaric

03-20-2007, 04:28

That'd be no fun! How would if be History: Total War if it didn't go beyond the year 0? Mesopotamia and Greece were key areas in history!

seireikhaan

03-20-2007, 09:20

Again, I think CA should stay away from getting the game too long. I don't want them trying to cross it w/ civilization and end up with a butchered game, which is what would probably happen. If they take the timeline too long, we'll start getting into concepts such as research and culture, which is NOT what total war is about.

Aemilianus the Younger

03-25-2007, 19:35

I voted for "Other" i would like to see the 1800's in TOTAL WAR but i would not have it limited to the napoleonic wars or the crimean war. i would expand it to be something like Colonialism: Total War. This way you could incorporate all of the vast trading empires and colonies in africa and asia or even the americas. There would be new factions not included in M2TW(which is great) like:
the Netherlands
Belgium
Austria-Hungary(or just either one or seperate)
Natives from the congo and south africa.

I really liked how in m2tw they expanded the campiagn map south towards Timbuktu and the southern sahara. And the Aztecs in the Americas was a pleasant surprise. I would really like to see them keep going and replicate the colonial era in Total War.

Lord Cazaric

03-26-2007, 06:14

I will put this into simple language....

Guns = Bad
Guns = Boring Game

sapi

03-26-2007, 08:20

In that regard, the Napoleonic wars could work, as they were based in europe; but go any further into the colonial era and the scale just gets too big, imo

Caerfanan

03-26-2007, 10:04

That'd be no fun! How would if be History: Total War if it didn't go beyond the year 0? Mesopotamia and Greece were key areas in history!
Totaly, and to have a game not too long or weird, this "central engine with loads of scenario" would be better: afeter a few years, everyone would find the period he likes!

Innocentius

03-26-2007, 22:21

I will put this into simple language....

Guns = Bad
Guns = Boring Game

Oh, boy, you have a lot to learn:beam:

seireikhaan

03-27-2007, 02:17

For TW puproses, I agree with Caz. Guns can be fun, but it would be going off of what has made TW great, IMO, to have combat revolve around them completely. Napoleonic wouldn't be my prime choice and that would be as advanced as I could like. Learn from AOE's mistakes and stick with what makes the games great, close quarters and arrows. WWI combat would be boring, just lots of trench warfare, waiting for your artillery to shell out the opponent. WWII is getting way too advanced, now we're talking about potentially using Nukes, that is way out of hand for TW. Modern combat games should be left to Call of Duty, etc... even though they don't really have tactics.

Aemilianus the Younger

03-27-2007, 02:51

I agree, it would be great if they expanded the diplomatic features of the games. the princesses in m2tw were a great twist and i sure hope that they decide to continue down that path. for example, how about giving one of your characters to another nation as an option? sort of like how the Vandal king Gaiseric gave his son Hunneric to the Western Roman Empire for five years in exchange for wealth as part of a peace treaty after the fall of Carthage.

I also feel that the games would be much more realistic in the fact that the "underage" characters actually do exist and if one of your settlements get sacked or exterminated or whatnot that character might have a chance of dying if he doent escape intime? or maybe all underage characters and/or women would be kept in the capitol and this might only happen if your capitol city was sacked or whatnot.

One more thing, they should also include a feature when you strat your campiagn on the dificulty, they shouldnt just have a "campaign" difficulty.
They should have something like "campiagn-military aspect" and a "campaign-governing aspect" or something in that ballpark. Then just keep the battle difficulty thing.

Also, i would like it if they made ambushes much more surprising somehow...
instead of just being like a regular battle.

Vorenus

03-27-2007, 03:03

I think the next Total War game should be something along the lines of RTW but with the same depth as MTW. Like three different tim periods similer to the MTW's early middle and late. The early equivalent would be bronze age, city-state wars, fending off persia etc. It would start with Troy and end somewhere after defending from Persia. Middle would start somewhere around Alexanders campaign and end around 100 AD-ish. Late would be The start at the Mid-Empire of Rome untill the the fall.

What do you think?

If this isnt possible than I guess ill hope for Rome 2 total war.:thumbsup:

seireikhaan

03-27-2007, 03:55

Caerfanan

03-27-2007, 13:23

Ehh, I'm not huge on the diplomacy. While it might be sort of interesting, I would get annoyed with it after a while in all likelyhood. Personally, I think they shoul stick with the idea that their title suggests, TOTAL WAR! MTW is my favorite of the games and diplomacy was pretty minimal for the most part, with alliances basically only meaning that you MIGHT help each other on the battlefield, there is still the option of treachory on the battlefield. I preferr that kind of "diplomacy" for games that are supposed to be "total war".
Soooo. there should be some "diplomacy level setting" in the future "central engine". To have the diplomats dicussing very compliacated treaties while the warlords could do their warlording without being forced to write parchments first.

Laman

03-28-2007, 06:55

Ehh, I'm not huge on the diplomacy. While it might be sort of interesting, I would get annoyed with it after a while in all likelyhood. Personally, I think they shoul stick with the idea that their title suggests, TOTAL WAR! MTW is my favorite of the games and diplomacy was pretty minimal for the most part, with alliances basically only meaning that you MIGHT help each other on the battlefield, there is still the option of treachory on the battlefield. I preferr that kind of "diplomacy" for games that are supposed to be "total war".

Preferably there should be good diplomacy that can be used if one want to. The possibility to ruthlessly wage war against all of ones neighbors will always be open regardless of how good the diplomacy model is.

Csargo

03-28-2007, 07:14

I think a Hellenistic Total War would be really fun game to play as would a Shogun 2.

Vorenus

03-28-2007, 22:19

I think a Hellenistic Total War would be really fun game to play as would a Shogun 2.

Yeah, I agree, one of these two woud be great.

Rolo

04-14-2008, 11:06

Not to create another thread of this nature I decided to bump this when Raz posted a link.

We could be due another TW soon so these discussions will begin again in force soon so...

STW2 plus expansions
RTW2 plus expansion
then move on to something different

Therefore STW and RTW fans will not be inhappy about the bias shown to the medieval era. The something different could be anything from popular books/films to other time periods.

Ethelred Unread

04-14-2008, 15:41

How about a the unification of China as a time period?

We could apply Sun Tzu directly then.:book:

PBI

04-16-2008, 12:49

I feel there should at some point be a Mongolia:Total War, covering the period of the rise of the Mongol Empire and spanning Asia, Europe and the Middle East. The Mongols have shown up in almost every TW game at some point as interlopers; it would be nice to see them take center stage for once. And it would be great to have a TW game which features the Oriental factions as well as the Europeans.

I suspect this is unlikely to be the next game however; not much scope for naval combat on the steppes. I suspect the next game might be Rome II, hopefully followed by Mongolia.

seireikhaan

04-17-2008, 12:53

Quintus.JC

04-19-2008, 18:47

How about Three Kingdoms: Total War. Or Warring States: Total War. I believe the latter will make a better game but I think a mod already exist for it.

Spartan198

04-20-2008, 07:12

I'd like to see Rome 2: Total War,on the Kingdoms engine. More factions,more realism (hopefully),improved AI,agents,etc..

Brave

04-20-2008, 09:24

Wake me up when that is made Spartan :yes: I'll be waiting :beam:

Verrucosus

04-20-2008, 10:31

Seconding a suggestion from the first page, I would like to see a "bridge" game between Rome and Medieval covering Rome's afterlife as Byzantium, the Rise of Islam and the long dark age and slow reemergence of civilisation in the west.

Spartan198

04-20-2008, 11:11

Wake me up when that is made Spartan :yes: I'll be waiting :beam:
I'll do that.

Seconding a suggestion from the first page, I would like to see a "bridge" game between Rome and Medieval covering Rome's afterlife as Byzantium, the Rise of Islam and the long dark age and slow reemergence of civilisation in the west.
I wanna third that idea.

I think an ancient Greece total war game would be the best. You have the Spartans, the Phocians, the Thespians, the Persians and many more Greek city States. The Persians could either be in the original game or in an expansion which would be similar to the mongol and barbarian expansions. Plus after seeing the movie 300; which was awesome, it seems like this would be a logical way to go.
It's not inflenced by 300,but the Hegemonia: Total War mod would fill that role and be release a lot sooner. And it'll probably be a lot more historical than a CA-made City-States: Total War.

Quintus.JC

04-20-2008, 12:47

Originally Posted by californiatay408
I think an ancient Greece total war game would be the best. You have the Spartans, the Phocians, the Thespians, the Persians and many more Greek city States. The Persians could either be in the original game or in an expansion which would be similar to the mongol and barbarian expansions. Plus after seeing the movie 300; which was awesome, it seems like this would be a logical way to go.

That game would focus on the Peloponnesian wars, no doubt?

What about going oriental. China provides some fine battle grounds.

Lord Bobbins

04-20-2008, 13:58

Sorry but isn't the next TW going to be Empire:Total WAr:sweatdrop:

Raz

04-20-2008, 14:05

^^^ You realise that this thread was posted back in '07 before CA had even announced Empires... :inquisitive:
Just making sure... :beam:

Edit: November '06 if you want to be exact. =D

Hugalu

04-20-2008, 15:30

Hmm...instead of focusing on a single country like Mongolia or China, why not do a Far East Total War, where the factions involve all the countries in East, Southeast, and South Asia?

Raz

04-21-2008, 02:18

Hmm...instead of focusing on a single country like Mongolia or China, why not do a Far East Total War, where the factions involve all the countries in East, Southeast, and South Asia?
Because not all were involved in warfare at the same time, China was at war with Mongolia during the construction of the some parts of the great wall but this was in 200 odd BC, Vietnam was hardly a united force at this time and it was just (simply put) tribe warfare with plenty of infighting. By ~100 BC, China had Vietnam under it's control, and it stayed that way for around 1000 years. South-East Asia and Oceania didn't have a militaristic sort of background, they were more into trade during this time. And the Japan we know in the feudal era didn't come around 'til (roughly) 1400 AD, this means that a game featuring that sort of stuff would have to have a time frame from 209 BC to 1500 AD... That's a lot of times you have to press the "End Turn" button. And it wouldn't be terribly exciting, every 100 years or so a message will pop up saying "Vietnam is rebelling. But relax you'll crush it with your ultra teched up mega soldiers that have been sitting in your castle for 972 years"
It's better to have an extremely focused era than one that focuses on a wider angle.
PS: Somebody will probably correct me on all of that Vietnamese history... ;)