total war 4

[Brogie]

just wonder what you guys think the enxt total war should be?

i think napoleonic war would be good, with muskets, chosen men, dragoons, lancers.. and proper ship battles maybe

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think maybe the inclusion of guns and the new world shows CA's intention of bringing their TW series into the gunpowder period. I would guess the next TW game will be Napoleon: Total War. That would then probably be followed by R2TW. Although I think that a TW game set in the far east, perhaps the Three Kingdoms era, could also make an appearance.

[sapi]

I suspect that the next TW game (it's TW5 iirc) - if it is to be historical - will be set in the Napoelonic era.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the next one may in fact be fantasy, though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the next one may in fact be fantasy, though.

They wouldn't do that to us would they?:no:

[sapi]

Hard to say.

It must be tempting to go for some original IP, though - and personally, I could see a fantasy TW working very well, provided it was done in moderation (ie no space travelling dwarves with flaming longswords) :laugh4:

[Brogie]

I suspect that the next TW game (it's TW5 iirc) - if it is to be historical - will be set in the Napoelonic era.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the next one may in fact be fantasy, though.

it would be the 4th eara ,,,wich is what i was meanin...jap,, rome,, medieval,,the 3 so far

i hope its not fantasy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Is the fantasy idea something to do with the Star Forts? I'm not sure exactly what they are, but I heard them mentioned appearing in M2TW somehow.

[Kobal2fr]

I suspect that the next TW game (it's TW5 iirc) - if it is to be historical - will be set in the Napoelonic era.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the next one may in fact be fantasy, though.

Hmmm, I wonder when I've heard that "next one's gonna be napoleonic warfare" line...
Ah, right : right after the release of every TW game since MTW :clown:

Me, I don't care, I've still got Fields of Glory tucked away somewhere :sweatdrop: But I'd say you're right and the next one is going to be fantasy - they wouldn't have included such a weird question in the polls without good reason. Then again, "fantasy" covers such vast universes... Wouldn't bet on Warhammer, since GW already has deals with other gaming companies. And Blizzard does its own thang, so no Warcraft : Total War either. Maybe Romance of Three Kingdoms ? Wasn't there some mythology thrown into that one ?

What I'd really, really love would be Belgariad : Total War :yes:. Taste fiery death, Angaraks ! :charge:

OK, so that's probably not going to happen. One can dream.

[Brogie]

wonder if ww1 eara could be done with tanks, airships and planes...it would have to be like HOI2 where planes cant be on the map, only attack a certain range from a city or an airfield...build rader stations and aa on the map like forts and watch towers, and coastal defences

[Kobal2fr]

Hahaha, yeah, trenchwar : total war would be very exciting - tons of units with infinite "arrows" sniping at each other across the map. One dead every 4 hours (game time). Then someone charges and gets cut down in 2 seconds flat by massive arty and machine gun fire :clown:

[Rhyfelwyr]

What fantasy related question did CA ask in the polls? Also anyone know about the Star Forts?

I woulnd't mind a Three Kingdoms: Total War with some fantasy thrown in. In fact, that could be really interesting to play while still keeping the element of realism.

An official LOTR:TW would also be really nice. I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet really.

However, the Star Forts sound really futuristic. I hope we don't have lightsabers and laser guns total war.:shame:

[anders]

my money is on fantasy because of the poll question.

and I really dont see the big problem with a fantasy TW provided its some sort of grim, medieval-like setting with no silly magic and heroes and stuff. The only difference to the games we alrready love would be that historic units would be replaced with fantasy staples. I mean how much worse is it gonna be pitting ork pikemen against elven sword-dancers than pitting spear militia against feudal knights. And nobone will get to complain about historical inaccuracy.

and i really think fantasy, which should still be about melee and archery just like m2tw and predecessors, with the odd monster or fireball thrown in, would fit better to the TW formula than tanks and bombers.

[Heinrich VI]

i would prefer a "sort of remake" of RTW spanning a longer time period (multiple campaigns) and less focus on the romans. for example forging the old kingdom of egypt into a superpower, the rise of the assyrian empire, the proto-greek mykenian civilization and so on. all through the original timeframe to the era covered by BI and beyond into the dark ages until MTW2 takes over! :verycool:

[Rhyfelwyr]

There will never be a TW game set in the 20th Century. It just wouldn't work in the engine.

Also, what was that question from the polls exactly?

[sapi]

If the next game were to be a fantasy one, I'm guessing it'd be with CA's own IP.

Moved to the EH, btw - this doesn't belong in the Citadel.

[Ser Clegane]

I would not expect any science fiction or WW1/WW2 game - as has been mentioned, it would require a new engine - also it would be a rather risky step away from the traditional fanbase (and perhaps would even fall out of the scope of what CA itself is interested in doing).

An Asian setting like "Three Kingdoms" could be interesting, but I do not think that it would be "mainstream" enough for Western markets to be economically feasible. Of course CA might be interested in targeting the Chinese market at a point, but I do not see that coming for the next 2 installments (if you would like to target e.g., the Chinese market it would probably make more sense to not develop a new game with a hardware intensive improved engine, but rather to create a "spin-off" that uses the current engine - perhaps even on RTW level - to reach out to customers in Chine who do not necessarily have high-end PCs)
"Shogun" is probably the only Asian setting that might address a large enough customer base in Western countries, but even that is unlikely (I would love to see it made though).
Perhaps CA will try to offer an Asian campaign as a downloadable mini-expansion at some point (like the Alexander expansion - they also asked in the poll if people would buy a downloadable campaign)

Napoleonic era might be a feasible option. How successful was "Imperial Glory" on the market (I did not follow that one)? If it flopped it might be to difficult to convince "management" that this would be a good idea.

I have the feeling that a fantasy setting or something like RTW2 is more likely than NTW (IIRC the poll question was something along the line of "would you buy a fantasy TotalWar game?" - I would have to check though).
For a fantasy setting I would expect that CA would rather create its own setting rather than licensing a setting.

[Odin]

As much as I would love a 3 kingdoms TW, I dont think it will happen.

CA and the Total war series are geared for global sales.

Fantasy, napoleonic, or WWII are pretty much guarantee sellers.

[Matt_Lane]

I think the fantasy and WWII markets are too flooded at the moment for TW to stand out. CA generally seems to have set its products in era's that its competition has not yet exploited (how many games are now set in the Roman period?) I do think the Napoleonic setting is a strong contender if the engine can cope with the change of bias from melee to gunpowder. Also the Spartan title might indicate they want to jump on the next generation gaming platform bandwagon.

For pure personal preference I'd much rather they took us back in time to the ancient civilizations of Eygpt, the Hittites and Mesopotamia.

[Didz]

There is a huge gap in the market for a decent combined Napoleonic Campaign/battle simulator. It is, or was, the most popular period for tabletop wargaming, so there ought to be a massive untapped market of players out there.

I've wasted a fortune on failed or partial attempts and it would be nice if the CA team could finally set the standard.

[Daaraa]

How about an expanded Mongol TW.

I'm thinking of the old KOEI Gengis Khan series. The map spanned from Japan to England. The AI shouldn't get all the fun playing the Mongols.

The challenge in that game wasn't in conquering but in managing your empire with disloyal, smart generals or not so bright, loyal generals. Basically you won if you owned 2/3 of Asia/Europe for 1 full turn.

[Odin]

How about an expanded Mongol TW.

I'm thinking of the old KOEI Gengis Khan series. The map spanned from Japan to England. The AI shouldn't get all the fun playing the Mongols.

The challenge in that game wasn't in conquering but in managing your empire with disloyal, smart generals or not so bright, loyal generals. Basically you won if you owned 2/3 of Asia/Europe for 1 full turn.

I played that game a lot "clan of the grey wolf" I believe. You could also play Richard the lion heart in one scenario as well.

Koei games are great to bad they dont make them for the PC in english.

anyway yeah, I would buy a CA title around the mongol period.

[diotavelli]

I do think the Napoleonic setting is a strong contender if the engine can cope with the change of bias from melee to gunpowder.

There are other issues of greater significance than just the move from melee to gunpowder and I feel these make a Napoleonic setting unfeasible without a completely new engine.

Central to Napoleonic history is the role of Britain and Napoleon's Continental System. Wellington's armies were largely a distraction in Iberia but the British navy and British industrial/commercial power were crucial. A Napoleon: TW that ignored Britain or relegated its role would work but wouldn't make sense; for a considerable period of Napoleonic history, Britain was the only European power standing against Napoleon.

The current engine might be able to handle the Continental System but I very much doubt it. Having French diplomats chasing British diplomats around Europe to prevent the Brits being able to get trade rights with anyone would be an OK feature of the game but, to be historically accurate, it would have to be central to Naploeon:TW (which would be dull) and far more complicated than now (which the current engine doesn't support).

Then there's the naval element. The current engine can't do naval battles. That means you'd have to decide the Battle of Trafalgar by auto-calc. The potential success of the Continental System or otherwise would likewise be something you could only affect by building as many ships as you could and then crossing your fingers: not very satisfying at all.

My personal preference would be for TW: the Indies. Including the Indian subcontinent, modern Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Burma and Vietnam, you'd have a wealth of territory, cultures, resources and religions.

Starting late-Mongol era, you'd have the opportunity to fight to establish your dynasty as the pre-eminent power in the region. You'd want to get trade links where possible but also gain converts to Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam, as appropriate. Control of India's cotton and minerals or the trade of the Spice Islands could make or break your economy. And the warfare would be constant, with gunpowder having been introduced from China by early 15th century. For an expansion, how about the arrival of the Portugese, Spanish, Dutch and British? Or a mini-campaign based around Chinese dominance in the early Ming period?

The market is definitely there: why would Westerners buy a title based on medieval Japan but not medieval Indies? And the fact that Asia makes up 60% of the world's population might persuade CA and Sega that this would be a good market for them.....

[Daaraa]

My personal preference would be for TW: the Indies. Including the Indian subcontinent, modern Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Burma and Vietnam, you'd have a wealth of territory, cultures, resources and religions.

Starting late-Mongol era, you'd have the opportunity to fight to establish your dynasty as the pre-eminent power in the region. You'd want to get trade links where possible but also gain converts to Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam, as appropriate. Control of India's cotton and minerals or the trade of the Spice Islands could make or break your economy. And the warfare would be constant, with gunpowder having been introduced from China by early 15th century. For an expansion, how about the arrival of the Portugese, Spanish, Dutch and British? Or a mini-campaign based around Chinese dominance in the early Ming period?

The market is definitely there: why would Westerners buy a title based on medieval Japan but not medieval Indies? And the fact that Asia makes up 60% of the world's population might persuade CA and Sega that this would be a good market for them.....

I'd go for that too. It would be interesting to see if you could revive the dying Khmer empire or make the Thai the dominate force in the area pushing out the Khmer and Vietnamese empires.

I'd be more inclined to purchase a TW title about Medieval Asia than a Napoleonic TW.

[Odin]

The market is definitely there: why would Westerners buy a title based on medieval Japan but not medieval Indies? And the fact that Asia makes up 60% of the world's population might persuade CA and Sega that this would be a good market for them.....

The market is there? I'm sorry but I dont believe it. I dont have numbers to back me up, but my instinct tells me that the "medieval indies" for game scope might not be a great seller.

The TW series arent nitch games, I concede Shogun lends credence to your presentation, but in all candeor the big sellers in PC military/strat games have always been Western Medieval, Roman, WWII, and american civil war.

the % of titles that fall into those categories speak to the viability of my claim.

[Psiloi]

I agree with diotabelli about the next TW, must be asian. But i think that his proposal can be expanded: Asian Total War. The time: 1150-1650 that is between the rise of the mongols and the arrivals of all the europeans with colonies there (Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, England and France), South Asia, plus East Asia (Japan of STW is about that age), plus the empires of the steppes and western Asia (until where?, all Balkans or Taurus mountains). Could be cutted around the Hindukush, exclude western Asia (with the western muslim empires appearing like the mongols...) and centered only around the eastern side. The map not a square but a circle. The time could be changed to 1350-1800. :juggle2:

[Didz]

The market is there? I'm sorry but I dont believe it. I dont have numbers to back me up, but my instinct tells me that the "medieval indies" for game scope might not be a great seller.
I agree.

STW got of to a good start mainly becuase people were inspired by the Samurai concept, and then built up from that initial beginning as news spread of how unique the gameplay was.

An Indies game wouldn't have either of those benefits. I suspect we TW'ers will buy it, but I doubt it would win many new converts.


The TW series arent nitch games, I concede Shogun lends credence to your presentation, but in all candeor the big sellers in PC military/strat games have always been Western Medieval, Roman, WWII, and american civil war.
Thats perfectly true, and is why I think the real market winner would be Napoleon Totalwar.

In wargaming the big four periods are WW2, ACW, Ancient and Napoleonic. Of these the only one which does not have a major presence in the PC gaiming market is Napoleonic, and yet it comes second in the pole of popularity.

A lot of companies have tried and failed to produce a good Napoleonic game but many have managed to crack part of the equation.

Diotavelli's, points are well made and care would definately have to be taken over the strengths and weaknesses of the various factions. The good news is that some games have already cracked that part of the problem. Crown and Glory for example, has a pretty good model for the ecomonic and diplomatic standing of the main factions which is largely driven by trade and the distribution of resources. If handled correctly Britain is cash rich but resource poor forcing it to concentrate on trade and winning friends through subsidies. France on the other hand is manpower heavy but short of money, at least at the start, and has to annex land in order to acquire the resourses it needs. That aspect of C&G works well, where it fails is on the campaign movement and logistic's side which ruins the credibility of the game. It also has an overbearing national morale system that denies the player control of his faction, bit like rebelling armies but on a national scale.

Naval battles could be a problem. But having said that nobody gets stressed about the inability to refight Lepanto, so why should Trafalgar be such a big deal.

[UltraWar]

The 4th Total War was Medieval Total War 2! :inquisitive:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, but as he said earlier he meant the fourth era, as Medieval appears twice. A TW game set in the Indies would never sell well. The series will always be European and sometimes maybe Chinese/Japanese based. I still hope for a Three Kingdoms: Total War. Even if there is a fantasy element to it.

[John_Longarrow]

Is the fantasy idea something to do with the Star Forts? I'm not sure exactly what they are, but I heard them mentioned appearing in M2TW somehow.


Star forts refer to a five sided structure made mainly of earth that is very resistant to cannon fire. They are designed around the concept of interlacing fields of fire and were the pinnacle of military engineering on the continent for a period of a couple hundred years.

Here is a link to the wiki entry on it. This also has a good picture of one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort


For myself, I'd love to see an alternate setting for the next TW product. Similar play to the current MTW2 but with a very different unit roster/history/campaign map. I'm not too interested in the "People in funny costumes" style orcs in some games, but it would be interesting to have a catapult shot come from your "Wizard".

[Didz]

Yes, if the next TW game includes Star Forts then I would assume that its going to be based in the 18th Century Horse and Musket wars as thats when the design of star forts reached its ascendency.

[seireikhaan]

Ok, I really don't mean to sound rude or anything guys, but READ THE QUESTION! Its not 'what will the next TW game be?' It's 'what do YOU think the next TW game SHOULD be?' I'm sorry for being so obnoxious about this, but really, is it so hard to answer the actual question?


Anyways, I personally think it ought to be Mongol: Total War. Factions could include the Mongols(obviously), India, Japan, Korea, three different Chinese Dynasties, Khwarzmians, the Caliphate at Baghdad, Russia, and the Turks. And I'm sure there's more factions which I'm not aware of which could be included. I don't think it ought to go any further west than the Turks or Russia, just for the sake of keeping the map to a semi-reasonable size. And most importantly of all: go back to the risk map!

[Samurai Waki]

Well "Star Forts" Really doesn't mean anything. Could Just mean that they got their information wrong again, and are just doing a Pike and Musket Age, or Colonial TW. Of course thats a broad enough area, to where Star Forts are feasible.

[King of Finland]

I would like to see a game about 30 years war. I don't know is it possible with the current TW engine but I have heard that the CA's English studio is working on a new one.

[Martok]

My top 2 choices for a Total War title remains either ancient China (especially the Spring & Autumn period) or a fantasy setting. I know many fans feel a fantasy game would be "heretical" since it wouldn't be set in real-life historical setting like the other TW games, but as others have pointed out before, it would have the distinct advantage of no one being able to complain about historical accuracy. ~;)

I would be very surprised if CA ever made a game set in the 20th century. The Total War series doesn't lend itself very well to modern battlefields. The games have always been more about men killing each other face-to-face, than shooting at each other from several hundred yards apart with bolt-action rifles & machine guns.

[Didz]

My top 2 choices for a Total War title remains either ancient China (especially the Spring & Autumn period) or a fantasy setting.
I don't have anything against fantasy games, in fact I play several. But the way I see it thats the problem. If CA begin making fantasy games they are entering a whole new market which quite frankly is already well served with people who know their stuff. In my opinion it would be a waste of CA's talent and there would be little to be gained by players in buying just another fantasy battle game.

I think its a case of horses for courses, CA should let Blizzard work the fantasy market and instead concentrate on area's where there are large numbers of unsatisfied players.

The modders are already working on fantasy expansions anyway, so I'd just leave to them to satisfy our desires for Orc and Skeleton armies.

Ok, I really don't mean to sound rude or anything guys, but READ THE QUESTION! Its not 'what will the next TW game be?' It's 'what do YOU think the next TW game SHOULD be?' I'm sorry for being so obnoxious about this, but really, is it so hard to answer the actual question?
Perhaps, your being a bit pedantic here....What most players think the next TW game SHOULD be, is often also what they hope it will be. Therefore, the two are closely linked in players minds and expectations.

I certainly think that the next TW SHOULD be Napoleon Totalwar, and I also think thats what it will be especially after the comments about the Star Forts.

It would tap a huge market of unsatsified Napoleonic Tabletop wargamers who currently have nothing worth playing other than the old hex based computer games published by HPS and a few flawed high level strategy games like Crown and Glory. It would boost interest in the TW series no end and bring in a lot of new players. Likewise HPS is an easier competitor to deal with than Blizzard, simply because Blizzard are innovative and well financed whilst HPS haven't come up with a new idea in over 10 years and are still producing clones of John Tiller's original Battlefield:Waterloo.

Going for Ancient China or Medieval:Indies would definately be a safer option, in so far as there is hardly any competition at all, but won't bring in a lot of new players. Those of us who already play TW games will obviously buy it, but personally I think TW needs to go for increased market share and that means trying to tap into one of the major wargaming era's. WW2, Ancient, and ACW are already heavily serviced, but Napoleonic which is the number 2 most played era worldwide is still open for grabs, with only a few hex-based games to compete against.

[diotavelli]

It would tap a huge market of unsatsified Napoleonic Tabletop wargamers who currently have nothing worth playing other than the old hex based computer games published by HPS and a few flawed high level strategy games like Crown and Glory.

It would also confront CA and Sega with the problem of servicing a large, disgruntled audience with very high expectations. Tabletop wargamers have a habit of considering themselves tactical geniuses with an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the finer points of strategy; Napoleon buffs are the worst of the lot. Think about the flak CA and Sega got for flaws in M2TW: do you reckon they'd now want to go cruising for a bruising in potentially the toughest market of all?


It would boost interest in the TW series no end and bring in a lot of new players....Going for Ancient China or Medieval:Indies would definately be a safer option, in so far as there is hardly any competition at all, but won't bring in a lot of new players. Those of us who already play TW games will obviously buy it, but personally I think TW needs to go for increased market share and that means trying to tap into one of the major wargaming era's. WW2, Ancient, and ACW are already heavily serviced, but Napoleonic which is the number 2 most played era worldwide is still open for grabs, with only a few hex-based games to compete against.

If any company in the world can break products that target new markets, surely it's Sega? That's why CA linked up with them in the first place. From Sega's point of view, they can either spend a fortune explaining why CA can get Napoleonic right when so many other people have got it wrong or they can tell the world that the Medieval era in the Indies was one of the most fascinating periods in history and that they can experience it.

TW definitely "needs to go for increased market share" but that can mean breaking the mould rather than just doing the predictable. Even if you can give a better experience in the Napoleonic era, you can't really give anyone something entirely new. The history is the same. The armies are the same. The victory conditions are the same. The units may be prettier and they may deploy more accurately (or not, if the AI doesn't improve!) but it'll still be another Napoleonic title.

In comparison to the Indies, pre-Renaissance Europe was an uncivilised backwater. The Chinese had mapped and colonised everywhere from Africa to Australia to North and South America before Henry the Navigator first floated a boat. The resources at the disposal of the Mughal emperors far outstripped anything the Byzantines, HRE, Seljuks or Ottomans ever imagined. Magellan circumnavigated the globe in a ship 35-40ft long: the tillers on Zheng He's treasure ships were 36ft high. The religious divergence and interaction in the area was far greater and more interesting than the Muslim/Christian clash.

Yet CA managed to make an interesting game about Medieval Europe! Think what they could with some really interesting history!

In addition to which, you shouldn't ignore the importance of the Asian market. Disney have just made their first Chinese language film. Why? Because 20% of the world's population live in China. The area covered by an Indies title would include countries whose population make up over half the global total.

If Sega want a game that would shift units, should they sell the Indies to 300million Americans and 466million EU residents or try to sell a short, balding Frenchman to 4 billion Asians?

[Didz]

It would also confront CA and Sega with the problem of servicing a large, disgruntled audience with very high expectations. Tabletop wargamers have a habit of considering themselves tactical geniuses with an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the finer points of strategy; Napoleon buffs are the worst of the lot.
True, they would have to get it right if they do it at all.

Doing it and getting it wrong would discredit the whole series.


In addition to which, you shouldn't ignore the importance of the Asian market. Disney have just made their first Chinese language film. Why? Because 20% of the world's population live in China. The area covered by an Indies title would include countries whose population make up over half the global total.
But most of those countries, China in particular, would never allow their people to play such a game. It would contain politically incorrect information, which they would not want their people to be exposed to. Thats why Google have to mod-their browser software for the asian market, governments out there will not let their people be exposed to uncontrolled historical information from the West.

[diotavelli]

The market is there? I'm sorry but I dont believe it. I dont have numbers to back me up, but my instinct tells me that the "medieval indies" for game scope might not be a great seller.

The TW series arent nitch games, I concede Shogun lends credence to your presentation, but in all candeor the big sellers in PC military/strat games have always been Western Medieval, Roman, WWII, and american civil war.

the % of titles that fall into those categories speak to the viability of my claim.

Just to back-up the points made in my last post, I think this may be a mis-analysis of the way the global market is shaped nowadays. We in the West (you're in MA, USA, right?) are going to see some of our verities challenged in the next decade or so.

In the West, we know Western history, obviously. That's why we buy games based on Western history. Up until recently, Westerners made up the majority of game purchasers. As a result, games have tended to be tailored to their tastes. That will change.

I do have the numbers to back me up. The combined middle classes of India and China make up a larger population than that of the US - by over 33%. They can afford computer games. They'll buy games about Gettysburg and Cannae but how much more responsive would they be to games covering their own history?

And that's just for now. The middle classes in Asia are growing far faster than the total populations of those countries (i.e., more people are becoming affluent as a proportion of the total). And Asian countries are growing far faster than those in the West. We're about to become a minority section of the market.

The future "big sellers in PC military/strat games" may not look much like the current and past ones. What is considered niche will change considerably. The American Civil War was an internal dispute lasting 4-5 years and involving only two sides - how much resonance does that have to 1.1billion Indonesians? The Hundred Years War? Armies how small? Involving whom? And the average Vietnamese cares because? That's niche.

I could be wrong: an Indies TW title might not sell - but only for now. Long-term, stuff about Asia will outsell stuff about Europe by such an enormous margin it'll seem impolite to discuss the two at the same time!

[diotavelli]

But most of those countries, China in particular, would never allow their people to play such a game. It would contain politically incorrect information, which they would not want their people to be exposed to. Thats why Google have to mod-their browser software for the asian market, governments out there will not let their people be exposed to uncontrolled historical information from the West.

Um, I hope for your sake that there's no Indians reading this thread! The world's largest democracy, with a population of 1.1billion and a middle class the size of the total population of the US. And no censorship.

In addition to which, why do you think an Indies game would be "politically incorrect" to the Chinese authorities? To be accurate, it would have to reflect that China was the largest, most advanced country in the world throughout the medieval period. That, in comparison to China, the West was a provincial, barbarian backwater. Why would they object to that?

Google have to mod their software for China to prevent information getting through about China's recent history and current situation. There are no blocks on information regarding Chinese's ancient history - quite the opposite, in fact.

China discovered and colonised America at least 70 years before Columbus. They discovered and colonised Australia a couple of centuries before Captain Cook was born. Their tribute system under the Ming included countries from all over East Africa, the Middle East and Asia. They were the global superpower to an extent that makes current US hegemony seem puny.

But most of the world doesn't know this. And the Chinese authorities would very much like them to. They want China to take a leading role in the world's affairs and economy and are happy to use their history to justify their place at top table.

The Chinese would only object to "uncontrolled historical information from the West" if a TW:the Indies was inaccurate - if it was accurate, they'd probably help with its development costs!

[Odin]

Just to back-up the points made in my last post, I think this may be a mis-analysis of the way the global market is shaped nowadays. We in the West (you're in MA, USA, right?) are going to see some of our verities challenged in the next decade or so.

In the West, we know Western history, obviously. That's why we buy games based on Western history. Up until recently, Westerners made up the majority of game purchasers. As a result, games have tended to be tailored to their tastes. That will change.

I do have the numbers to back me up. The combined middle classes of India and China make up a larger population than that of the US - by over 33%. They can afford computer games. They'll buy games about Gettysburg and Cannae but how much more responsive would they be to games covering their own history?

And that's just for now. The middle classes in Asia are growing far faster than the total populations of those countries (i.e., more people are becoming affluent as a proportion of the total). And Asian countries are growing far faster than those in the West. We're about to become a minority section of the market.

The future "big sellers in PC military/strat games" may not look much like the current and past ones. What is considered niche will change considerably. The American Civil War was an internal dispute lasting 4-5 years and involving only two sides - how much resonance does that have to 1.1billion Indonesians? The Hundred Years War? Armies how small? Involving whom? And the average Vietnamese cares because? That's niche.

I could be wrong: an Indies TW title might not sell - but only for now. Long-term, stuff about Asia will outsell stuff about Europe by such an enormous margin it'll seem impolite to discuss the two at the same time!

Yes, but thats a bit macro in its application isnt it? I agree completely if we are talking about a global consumption issue, but this is wargame. So you have numbers to back up an increasing middle class in eastern nations with disposable income.

Thats cool, I wont dispute that, but do they buy wargames? I think the answer is no, but I will defer to any statistical evidence you provide to the contrary.

You make a good argument for the middle classes and asia and thier emergence as an economic force, but you dont directly corelate it to the topic, total war 4 and sales. They may be the largest increase in disoposable income, but simply placing the game on shop shelves dosent sell it.

The consumer base for PC games is still the US, europe and japan, thats where major sales occur (at least the last time I looked at sony sales), not china or india. Will that change in 10 years? Probably, but the laws of supply and demand always dictate for profit companies product lines.

And as of right now, I dont see a demand for an indies total war.

[diotavelli]

Yes, but thats a bit macro in its application isnt it? I agree completely if we are talking about a global consumption issue, but this is wargame. So you have numbers to back up an increasing middle class in eastern nations with disposable income.

Thats cool, I wont dispute that, but do they buy wargames? I think the answer is no, but I will defer to any statistical evidence you provide to the contrary.

You make a good argument for the middle classes and asia and thier emergence as an economic force, but you dont directly corelate it to the topic, total war 4 and sales. They may be the largest increase in disoposable income, but simply placing the game on shop shelves dosent sell it.

The consumer base for PC games is still the US, europe and japan, thats where major sales occur (at least the last time I looked at sony sales), not china or india. Will that change in 10 years? Probably, but the laws of supply and demand always dictate for profit companies product lines.

OK, this is getting into the realms of nerdism on my part but:

The US video game market in 2005 was worth $8.4billion and is expected to grow by 8.9% to $13billion in 2010.

The Asia Pacific market in 2005 was worth $9.8billion and is expected to grow by 12.3% to $17.4billion in 2010.

Figures from Pricewaterhouse Coopers, June 2006.

The consumer base for PC games is not "still the US, europe and japan, thats where major sales occur". More product is sold in the Asia Pacific market (precisely that which would identify most closely to a TW: the Indies) than in the US.

According to Pearl Research (who specialise in the games industry), the Chinese market took off in 2001 and the Indian market a couple of years later. They are growing fast, as are smaller markets, such as Taiwan and Korea.


And as of right now, I dont see a demand for an indies total war.

I don't understand this. You accept that the Japanese and other Asians will buy titles about European and American history but don't think Europeans and Americans will buy titles about Asian history? Are Asians more open-minded than Westerners?

Isn't it more likely that the best games have been about European and American history? If CA produce a fantastic TW: the Indies, Sega will have no problem marketing it. "The mystery of the Orient." "Can you conquer the East?" And so on. If they can sell Rome to Asia, why can't they sell the Spice Islands to North America?

[Odin]

OK, this is getting into the realms of nerdism on my part but:

The US video game market in 2005 was worth $8.4billion and is expected to grow by 8.9% to $13billion in 2010.

The Asia Pacific market in 2005 was worth $9.8billion and is expected to grow by 12.3% to $17.4billion in 2010.

Figures from Pricewaterhouse Coopers, June 2006.

The consumer base for PC games is not "still the US, europe and japan, thats where major sales occur". More product is sold in the Asia Pacific market (precisely that which would identify most closely to a TW: the Indies) than in the US.

According to Pearl Research (who specialise in the games industry), the Chinese market took off in 2001 and the Indian market a couple of years later. They are growing fast, as are smaller markets, such as Taiwan and Korea.

Okay, I cant dispute the numbers and wont.


I don't understand this. You accept that the Japanese and other Asians will buy titles about European and American history but don't think Europeans and Americans will buy titles about Asian history? Are Asians more open-minded than Westerners?

Is that rhetorical?


Isn't it more likely that the best games have been about European and American history?

Okay, your begining to sway me to your point of view.


If CA produce a fantastic TW: the Indies, Sega will have no problem marketing it. "The mystery of the Orient." "Can you conquer the East?" And so on. If they can sell Rome to Asia, why can't they sell the Spice Islands to North America?

Well thats just it, North America isnt fluent in the orient, some of us are but if you picked 100 people who would purchase this game and asked them about the medieval period of asia what do you think the response would be?

30% is my guess, there are a few clever ones like my self who can tell you Kamakazi is the devine wind that sunk the mongol invasion fleet, but past the mongols and the warring states period of Japan asian history isnt really mainstream.

But your numbers are there, so perhaps your right. However I havent seen many other geographical military games around asia in the US, other then Romance of the three kingdoms, and WWII sims.

So if your numbers bare out your theory, where are the games ?

[diotavelli]

Is that rhetorical?

Yes, I can assure you it was!


Well thats just it, North America isnt fluent in the orient, some of us are but if you picked 100 people who would purchase this game and asked them about the medieval period of asia what do you think the response would be?

30% is my guess, there are a few clever ones like my self who can tell you Kamakazi is the devine wind that sunk the mongol invasion fleet, but past the mongols and the warring states period of Japan asian history isnt really mainstream.

I take your point but how familiar would the average North American be with the Roman world? They'd probably know emperors, centurions, straight roads and throwing Christians to lions were involved but I doubt much more than that. That's not a dig at Americans - the British aren't much better and we had the Romans here for nearly four centuries. Yet Rome sells.

For hardcore gamers, not knowing the history might be an initial stumbling block but CA/Sega should be able to overcome that with the quality of the gaming experience and the TW brand.

For the casual gamer, it's just a question of pitching it correctly. A few references to Marco Polo, Kublai Khan, mysteries of the Orient, the Taj Mahal, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and the Buddha should be enough to get some interest. Then you tell 'em they get to fight enormous, realistic battles. If they can be persuaded to buy into an unreal fantasy world, why not an unreal real world? Especially one they didn't know existed. If that doesn't work, use the special weapon: mention kung fu warrior monks. Game sold.


But your numbers are there, so perhaps your right. However I havent seen many other geographical military games around asia in the US, other then Romance of the three kingdoms, and WWII sims.

So if your numbers bare out your theory, where are the games ?

That's an interesting question. A few companies (including the likes of EA) have set up Far Eastern studios, in Singapore, Taiwan and the like. No one spotted the Chinese market, so that's dominated by homegrown players (the CEO of one of these is about to become a $ billionnaire, apparently). I guess, rather like the film industry, it will take a few years from the beginnings of East-West PC industry links before there's a true crossover PC game. A developer would have to be sure an Asian-themed game was a winner before taking the risk of pitching it in the West but I think CA could make it with TW.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think the strategy TW-style wargames that have traditionally sold best have been based in times and areas of history which are the most interesting, not just to people living in the present area the game in set, but more generally.

Europe and the far east have always produced the best selling wargames. This is because they had the most diverse armies, the most unique cultures etc in these areas. For example, in Europe you have always had unique armies throughout the continents history. Top quality infantry (Romans, Byzantines), heavy cavalry (Parthians, English), horse archers (Sarmatians, Turks) etc etc. In the far east you have elite Japanese Samurai infantry, light Mongol horse archers, advanced Chinese armies with gunpowder etc.

But what do you have in other areas of the world that have not been used as base for top-selling wargames? The Native Americans with no horses and everyone armes with a stone axe and a bow and arrow? The Aztecs with clubs and darts? Africa where every tribal warrior uses a spear (except of course Mali, Ghana and the northern factions)? The Indies where I would guess the tropical climate means warfare is very much limited to light, unarmoured infantry? The only area I can think of that has not really been used to its full potential is India, which has fairly developed and interesting armies from before the Roman Era, and would include the battle between Islam and Hindiusm etc.

Maybe I am being the classic westerner thinking Europe is the centre of the Universe and that everywhere else in the world was historically an undeveloped backwater. I could be completely wrong about what I said in the paragraph above. Maybe I just have these beliefs because I am so used to playing western-based games. However, I think CA will always focus on the most diverse and interesting areas on history, or at least those that were diverse and interesting on the battlefied, and I don't think this would be the case with an Indies: Total War.

[Didz]

So if your numbers bare out your theory, where are the games ?
And equally important what is their subject matter. Because despite your apparent faith in the open minded attitude of the Chinese Government I would be very surprised to hear that they are allowing their people to play games based upon China's Imperialist past.

It wasn't more than a few years ago that they massacred 2,000 of their own students just for requesting a move to towards democracy. They certainly objected most strongly to Hearts of Iron, merely because it mentioned certain countries they didn't want their people reminded had existed.

I will be very surprised to find that any Chinese Strategy games are based upon pre-communist chinese history, until that history has been very heavily massaged to meet government approval.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What would sell well I think would be a Napoleon: Total War set in Europe, with a new campaing in the expansion that covered the American Civil War. Finally bring the TW series to the home nation of its huge US fanbase.

[diotavelli]

I think the strategy TW-style wargames that have traditionally sold best have been based in times and areas of history which are the most interesting, not just to people living in the present area the game in set, but more generally.

Agree with you completely.


In the far east you have elite Japanese Samurai infantry, light Mongol horse archers, advanced Chinese armies with gunpowder etc.

The Mongols (Mughals in India) and the Chinese were involved in the Indies in this period. Very extensively.


But what do you have in other areas of the world that have not been used as base for top-selling wargames? ......The Indies where I would guess the tropical climate means warfare is very much limited to light, unarmoured infantry? The only area I can think of that has not really been used to its full potential is India, which has fairly developed and interesting armies from before the Roman Era, and would include the battle between Islam and Hindiusm etc.

Your "guess" is wrong, I'm afraid. In the Medieval period, 'the Indies' (from the point of view of outsiders, both Asian and European) included everything from modern day Pakistan to New Guinea and from the borders of China to modern Australian territorial waters. India was part of the Indies and is, as you suggest, a suitable area for a TW-style strategy game. Along with Islam and Hinduism, you'd have to factor in Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and even (Nestorian) Christianity.

As for the warfare in the rest of the Indies, you're plain wrong. The Khmer, for instance, used war elephants and had a good mixture of heavy and light infantry, plus archers. The Burmese were powerful enough to drive out the Chinese under the Ming dynasty - and the Indians all recognsed China as being the supreme power in the area during the period.


Maybe I am being the classic westerner thinking Europe is the centre of the Universe and that everywhere else in the world was historically an undeveloped backwater.

This isn't a criticism but yes: you are "being the classic westerner". The Indies during this period was more advanced than Europe. In comparison, it was Europe that was the "undeveloped backwater": and not by a little. The Indies were far wealthier and far more sophisticated.


I could be completely wrong about what I said in the paragraph above. Maybe I just have these beliefs because I am so used to playing western-based games. However, I think CA will always focus on the most diverse and interesting areas on history, or at least those that were diverse and interesting on the battlefied, and I don't think this would be the case with an Indies: Total War.

I get the impression from what you've written that you don't know much about the Indies in this period (no criticism intended). The area was more "diverse and interesting" than Europe. There were more religions, more cultural and ethnic groups, greater wealth, more resources (spices, minerals, cotton, silk, porcelain and drugs) and a lot more people. The Indies were more advanced than Europe in the medieval period to the same extent that Europe was more advanced than the Indies in the early twentieth century.

Don't forget that it wasn't just a bunch of islands in the west Pacific. It included the Indian subcontinent. The Chinese were the dominant naval and trade power in the region throughout. Gunpowder weapons were introduced earlier. Warfare involved horses, elephants, camels and sophisticated bows.

An Indies: Total War, if vaguely accurate, would be far more "diverse and interesting" both in terms of history and "on the battlefield" than M2TW.


Because despite your apparent faith in the open minded attitude of the Chinese Government I would be very surprised to hear that they are allowing their people to play games based upon China's Imperialist past.

Not sure where you got the idea I believe the Chinese government to "open minded"? Self-interested, yes - my comments suggested that - but "open minded", no. Bit of a daft comment, if you'll forgive me! I do happen to know that the Chinese government are very keen to improve knowledge of China's former achievements - sponsoring exhibitions, arranging academic study, seminars, conferences, etc.

Let's assume for a minute that you're correct. That still leaves India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Vietnam and Japan. Population of 2 billion or thereabouts. And it doesn't detract from my earlier points about the fact that the Indies remains historically and militarily very interesting and perfectly suited to the TW treatment.


What would sell well I think would be a Napoleon: Total War set in Europe

Best place for it, I say. :clown:

Doesn't get around the fact that the TW engine couldn't adequately represent the Continental System or Britain's naval dominance. Or that TW games are designed to last centuries, not twenty years (four and a bit years in the case of ACW).

[Lorenzo_H]

I suspect that the next TW game (it's TW5 iirc) - if it is to be historical - will be set in the Napoelonic era.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the next one may in fact be fantasy, though.
bummer.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry for my lack of knowledge of the Asian continent, but I thought that the Indies were just Indonesia, Malaysia etc. A TW game with India, China, Japan, the Khmer Empire etc would be very interesting. If anyone could help generate gamers interest in the area, it would be CA. Classic westerners like myself wouldn't want to buy a game if it was based on the areas I described in my rant...

[diotavelli]

A TW game with India, China, Japan, the Khmer Empire etc would be very interesting. If anyone could help generate gamers interest in the area, it would be CA. Classic westerners like myself wouldn't want to buy a game if it was based on the areas I described in my rant...

The best bit is that the natural expansion would be Indies TW: European Invasion. It follows on chronologically from both M2TW and Indies TW. You could play as the Mughals, Khmer or Marathi, resisting the infidel white invaders or you could play as the Portugese, Dutch or Spanish, bringing Christian enlightenment to the mysterious East (and nicking all the nutmeg you can lay your hands on while you're at it).

I do think that, if handled properly, the relative "newness" of the Indies would be a selling point for the game. Everyone has heard of the Khmer and the Mughals but don't necessarily know who they were, what they did and how they did it. Getting the chance to find out more and to play as the various factions would be genuinely interesting.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Congratulations, you've won me over to the idea of an Indies: Total War. Although, I still would like to see a Napoleon: Total War at some point, or at least one in the age of pikes and muskets.

[Odin]

I take your point but how familiar would the average North American be with the Roman world? They'd probably know emperors, centurions, straight roads and throwing Christians to lions were involved but I doubt much more than that.

Probably not familiar at all, but to the americans that CA wants to sell the game too? Proably a great deal of them are knowledgable of the roman empire and have been exposed to it via RTW, certainly more wargames exsist in the west on the roman period, then do on the asian.


For hardcore gamers, not knowing the history might be an initial stumbling block but CA/Sega should be able to overcome that with the quality of the gaming experience and the TW brand.

Yes, the brand should sell the title okay, but I'd wager a pint that MTW (1 or 2) sold better then RTW, or shogun for that matter. Being familiar with the geography, and the historical content of the game is a seller.


For the casual gamer, it's just a question of pitching it correctly. A few references to Marco Polo, Kublai Khan, mysteries of the Orient, the Taj Mahal, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and the Buddha should be enough to get some interest.

Okay, I'll give you that one.



That's an interesting question. A few companies (including the likes of EA) have set up Far Eastern studios, in Singapore, Taiwan and the like. No one spotted the Chinese market, so that's dominated by homegrown players (the CEO of one of these is about to become a $ billionnaire, apparently). I guess, rather like the film industry, it will take a few years from the beginnings of East-West PC industry links before there's a true crossover PC game. A developer would have to be sure an Asian-themed game was a winner before taking the risk of pitching it in the West but I think CA could make it with TW.

didz point on the chinese market pretty much sums up a good response to this, I do recall when I was a fan of paradox games, they couldnt sell thier HOI titles in china because of the representation of singapore I believe?

[rvg]

Personally, I would love to see a new Shogun as the next TW game. As far as Napoleon goes, nah, too many guns. Too many guns will ruin the feel of a TW game.

[z@rds]

I hope they do one about ancient china preferably during the Warring States Period where there were lots of fighting.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Yes, the brand should sell the title okay, but I'd wager a pint that MTW (1 or 2) sold better then RTW, or shogun for that matter. Being familiar with the geography, and the historical content of the game is a seller.

You'd be out of a pint ;)

[diotavelli]

You'd be out of a pint ;)

Everyone off to Boston - Odin's buying!

Hmm, if I catch a flight from Heathrow I can get there by 6ish.... Shall we say Bukowski's Tavern at about 8?

[Caerfanan]

Well, this is not the first thread about the subject, but I would, on the same base as roleplaying games go, be a fan of a battle engine (maybe some naval battle engine in addition?)+ a campaign engine ("generic IA for developping economics and troop building?") + Scenarios (map + history background + Set of units)

This is probably something difficult to make work, but would be, by far, the best: the greek fans could have their "uniting grece" scenario, the Napoleon fan their "european emperor" scenario, thos into whatever exotic countriy (from their point of view) could have their "ooo not at home warring" scenario, etc, etc,...

[Didz]

The way I see it, CA either use Sega's resources to go for growth or they continue to try and milk as much cash as they can out of their current game engine.

If they choose the latter course then diotavelli's Indies idea is probably the way to go as its basically MTW2 with new units and maps. And we will all buy it because we're TW fans.

But if they want to go for growth then they need to invest in expansion of their game engine to cope with more complex naval warfare and a more detailed diplomatic and economic model.

that will enable them to produce games based on the more popular era's of history like The American War of Independance, Napoleonic's and American Civil War. Thats where the big money is waiting and where current market competition is weakest.

If they try going for fantasy, they will basically 'crash and burn' those markets are saturated with companies that have been doing fantasy for years and have the whole process sewn up tight. There is nothing that CA could bring to the fantasy market that hasn't already been done by someone else and so they would lose their market differentiation and become just another box on the shelf.

[Subedei]

My guess would be RTW II, too.

As partly already mentioned: the time frame could be expanded [Rise of Assyrian Empire to the Fall of rome], the oncentration on Rome could be lowered [so maybe call it "Antique Total War"], it could integrate all of Eurasia [Japan to Portugal, Siberia to Gobi/ Sahara]....and last but not least: most of us should start saving money for a new computer.

[diotavelli]

The way I see it, CA either use Sega's resources to go for growth or they continue to try and milk as much cash as they can out of their current game engine.

I would suspect that Sega will expect them to do both - hence having two studios and nothing to stop them expanding further. Somebody in CA will be working on a new engine already, I'm sure: how many people and to what deadline is another question. In the meantime, they have an engine that's arguably state of the art (by a lot of measures anyway) and Sega will expect them to get the fullest possible return from it.


If they choose the latter course then diotavelli's Indies idea is probably the way to go as its basically MTW2 with new units and maps. And we will all buy it because we're TW fans.

But if they want to go for growth then they need to invest in expansion of their game engine to cope with more complex naval warfare and a more detailed diplomatic and economic model.

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Medieval Europe worked well with the earlier engine and the current one. Any improvement to the engine would work well for Europe or Asia, medieval or ancient. Given that much of the most important territory in the Indies is islands, "more complex naval warfare" would work excellently in Indies:TW; similarly, trade in the Indies was far more extensive and sophisticated than in Europe in this period, so "a more detailed diplomatic and economic model" would be good too.


that will enable them to produce games based on the more popular era's of history like The American War of Independance, Napoleonic's and American Civil War. Thats where the big money is waiting and where current market competition is weakest.

The problem with the examples you give is the potential depth of the game. In Napoleonic Europe, there weren't too many genuine powers: not as many as in the Roman or Medieval era, certainly. In the American eras you mention, you can cut it right down. War of Independence: Britain, rebels, Indians (a bit) and France (a very little bit). Civil War: North, South and no one else (not really). Not exactly "Total" war, is it?

TW's AI will never be able to defeat a player on a 1 v. 1 basis with factions of comparable strength; it can never be smart enough. It manages to present what challenge it does due to having multiple factions who are more powerful combined than the player (to begin with, at least).

I think TW titles need plenty of factions to retain interest. Napoleonic might cut the mustard but WoI and ACW simply don't. Correct me if I'm wrong!

I agree with you about fantasy, though, Didz.

[Didz]

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
Thats because you are assuming that huge numbers of new players will flock to buy a game based on subject that very few of them have ever heard of or taken any interest in before.

My view is if you want to attract a lot more players to play your game you given them something that they have been dying to get their hands on for over a decade.

The problem with the examples you give is the potential depth of the game. In Napoleonic Europe, there weren't too many genuine powers: not as many as in the Roman or Medieval era, certainly.
Britian, France, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Poland, Russian, Bavaria, Saxony, Wurtemburg, Spain, Portugal, The Confederation of the Rhine, Naples, The Ottoman Empire, The Marmelukes, The Unites States, Mexico, Assam, Brazil, and the various Indian Sultanates.

I've ignored those counties which were under colonian rule although in theory they could become independant during the course of the game. I've also assumed that the game would limit the players strategic options to those which featured historically. Therefore, Eygpt, India and South America are included but China is not, although in theory Napoleon or Britian could have decided to involve China. Even so you have approximately 19 playable factions all of whom had armies and many had navies too.


In the American eras you mention, you can cut it right down. War of Independence: Britain, rebels, Indians (a bit) and France (a very little bit). Civil War: North, South and no one else (not really). Not exactly "Total" war, is it?
I would agree with you if Total War offered a multi-player campaign option but it doesn't. So, in many respects it doesn't matter how many playable factions there are what matters is whether players want to play the game and the American War of Independance is a popular period particularly in America.

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily suggest launching a new Horse & Musketry period TW series with the American War of Independance the fact is that once the engine is in place its a pretty easy option to launch it as a further title in the series and know that it will sell well.

Likewise with the American Civil War.

As for the AI not being good enough, one would hope that it will get better. Remember these games are going to have to be quite a bit different in content and style that the 'hack and slash' system used in MTW2. We are talking serious diplomacy and economic's if games in this period are going to work. Even the battle engine would need a lot of enhancement as morale was far more important in this period as was unit formation and order of battle.

Which is why I see this as the more innovative and risker option, but with higher potential reward.


I think TW titles need plenty of factions to retain interest. Napoleonic might cut the mustard but WoI and ACW simply don't. Correct me if I'm wrong!
I think your wrong.

You are basing that view on your own perferences and assuming that everyone else who plays TW games plays them for the same reason you do.

The periods I quoted are immensely popular wargaming periods. The millions of people who wargame these periods worldwide don't consider them boring because there weren't enough factions involved. They play them because they are interested in that period of history and they would buy the game for the same reason.

For example: I will consider buying any game which features the Napoleonic period simply because it does and I periodically search to see if any new ones have been released. There are whole websites just dedicated to monitoring and evaluating Napoleonic Wargames.

By comparison I wouldn't give a game based on the Indies a second glance if I happened to see it on a computer shop shelf. The only reason I would buy it is because I know the Totalwar series, which is why I say its main market will be amongst existing TW players and market growth pretty limited.

[diotavelli]

Thats because you are assuming that huge numbers of new players will flock to buy a game based on subject that very few of them have ever heard of or taken any interest in before.

My view is if you want to attract a lot more players to play your game you given them something that they have been dying to get their hands on for over a decade.

That might be a little parochial, IMO. There are a lot of people in the world for whom the medieval Indies are just as familiar (if not more so) as the Napoleonic or ACW eras. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Asia Pacific video game market is bigger than the American market - that could be where your "huge numbers of players" will come from.


Britian, France, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Poland, Russian, Bavaria, Saxony, Wurtemburg, Spain, Portugal, The Confederation of the Rhine, Naples, The Ottoman Empire, The Marmelukes, The Unites States, Mexico, Assam, Brazil, and the various Indian Sultanates.....Even so you have approximately 19 playable factions all of whom had armies and many had navies too.

Naples? Wurtemburg? If memory serves, most of the small states were simply rolled over by the larger powers in the Napoleonic era. The game could not be accurate and represent these smaller states as being capable of self-defence, let alone expansion. The number of powers that could accurately be represented as capable of influencing the destiny of Europe is much smaller than you suggest, IMO (France, Prussia, Austria, Russia and Britain?).


I would agree with you if Total War offered a multi-player campaign option but it doesn't. So, in many respects it doesn't matter how many playable factions there are what matters is whether players want to play the game and the American War of Independance is a popular period particularly in America.

No, this misses my point entirely. I wrote that the AI "manages to present what challenge it does due to having multiple factions who are more powerful combined than the player". This is a SP issue, not MP. It's not the number of playable factions that counts, it's the ability of the AI to mount a serious challenge. Too few factions and a degree of equivalence between them and the AI would be a push-over.


As for the AI not being good enough, one would hope that it will get better. Remember these games are going to have to be quite a bit different in content and style that the 'hack and slash' system used in MTW2. We are talking serious diplomacy and economic's if games in this period are going to work. Even the battle engine would need a lot of enhancement as morale was far more important in this period as was unit formation and order of battle.

Which is why I see this as the more innovative and risker option, but with higher potential reward.

It sounds to me as though you'd like CA to go and build the perfect horse and musketry game, rather than a new TW title. That's not a criticism - just an observation. Also, I think "hack and slash" is a pretty good description of Napoleon's diplomacy but there you go....


I think your wrong.

You are basing that view on your own perferences and assuming that everyone else who plays TW games plays them for the same reason you do.

No, I'm not. As stated above, my rationale is that the AI needs a large number of factions at its disposal in order to provide the player with a challenge. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my preferences or assumptions about why other people play TW games.


The periods I quoted are immensely popular wargaming periods. The millions of people who wargame these periods worldwide don't consider them boring because there weren't enough factions involved. They play them because they are interested in that period of history and they would buy the game for the same reason.

Again, you missed my point. My argument is not that these periods were boring, for reasons of too few factions or anything else. I didn't write that I thought that. Hopefully, you now understand my reasoning from my explanations above.


For example: I will consider buying any game which features the Napoleonic period simply because it does and I periodically search to see if any new ones have been released. There are whole websites just dedicated to monitoring and evaluating Napoleonic Wargames.

By comparison I wouldn't give a game based on the Indies a second glance if I happened to see it on a computer shop shelf. The only reason I would buy it is because I know the Totalwar series, which is why I say its main market will be amongst existing TW players and market growth pretty limited.

What was it you were saying about "basing that view on your own perferences and assuming that everyone else who plays TW games plays them for the same reason you do"? :laugh4:

I get the impression you're a Napoleon buff. I've met a few before and know it's wiser not to disagree with them on the pre-eminence of the era! My arguments are based on what I think is workable in the TW format and what a global PC game audience might be interested in. I don't have a personal preference when it comes to areas or eras but do feel the Indies would suit the TW format brilliantly. I'm less sure about the Napoleonic era and very unsure about WoI or ACW - not because I'm not keen on them but because they don't suit the TW format.

If the question had been: 'what game should CA release next', then it wouldn't matter whether the era people chose would work in the TW format. But the question was "what should the next TW title be" and so some eras have to be discounted, IMO.

The OP asked what we thought the next TW title should be. That's what I'm trying to answer. Perhaps CA should base their next title on the Napoleonic, WoI or ACW eras - but I don't think they'd be TW games

[Didz]

My arguments are based on what I think is workable in the TW format and what a global PC game audience might be interested in.
That was the point I made earlier when I said it depends on whether CA decide to milk the existing game engine for every penny they can get out of it or go for growth.

If they decide to stick with the current engine and just add a few tweaks then your idea is as a good as any.

But personally I don't think it will add a huge number of new players the TW community, or increase the overal volume of sales beyond that reached by MTW2.

It sounds to me as though you'd like CA to go and build the perfect horse and musketry game, rather than a new TW title.
Well I'd certainly like someone to do it, before I get too damned old to play it.

[diotavelli]

That was the point I made earlier when I said it depends on whether CA decide to milk the existing game engine for every penny they can get out of it or go for growth.

And I answered your earlier point. I think they'll do both. The two are not mutually exclusive.


If they decide to stick with the current engine and just add a few tweaks then your idea is as a good as any.

Well, gee thanks! ~;) As I wrote earlier, I think that a title based on the Indies would benefit both from an improved battlefield engine and improved diplomacy and economics. The same could be said of Rome or medieval Europe. An improved engine doesn't necessitate a move to a more modern era and staying pre-modern doesn't mean you can't improve the engine.....


But personally I don't think it will add a huge number of new players the TW community, or increase the overal volume of sales beyond that reached by MTW2.

Despite what I've written about the size and growth of the Asian gaming market? I don't understand your logic, if I'm honest. If CA want to "increase the overal volume of sales beyond that reached by MTW2" why write a title for the smaller US and European markets when you could target the larger Asia Pacific market? Especially as that market is the fastest growing.

Your argument seems to be that Napoleonic and early US history are very popular but have not yet been covered in the TW series; therefore, if they were covered, CA would sell loads more games. This ignores several facts:

1. CA could stick to Roman and medieval history, introduce a new engine ever 4-5 years and add customers that way.
2. Those who love Napoleonic history might buy a new Napoleon:TW title but a lot of those more keen on medieval or ancient history might not be interested. CA could lose as many customers as it gained.
3. The majority of games are bought by 'casual' gamers. They're as likely to pick up recommendations from reviews in non-specialist media as from dedicated gaming mags or communities like this. Sega can get those reviews.
4. A lot of gamers who might think now "I'm not interested in Asia" could be persuaded otherwise. A few here already have been. A very strong case can be made that medieval South-East Asia was a lot, lot more diverse and complex than Napoleonic Europe; it could even be suggested that it was more interesting! As I wrote previously, if CA/Sega can sell ancient Rome to the Asian market, why can't it sell medieval Asia to the US/EU markets?

As I see it, the Indies provides a perfect environment for a TW campaign: a diversity of troop types and terrains to make the battles interesting and a diversity of cultures, ethnic groups and religions to make the campaign interesting.


Well I'd certainly like someone to do it, before I get too damned old to play it.

Don't worry that's a way off yet. After all, who's going to teach your grandkids to play PC games....?

[Psiloi]

persuaded otherwise. A few here already have been. A very strong case can be made that medieval South-East Asia was a lot, lot more diverse and complex than Napoleonic Europe; it could even be suggested that it was more interesting! As I wrote previously, if CA/Sega can sell ancient Rome to the Asian market, why can't it sell medieval Asia to the US/EU markets?

As I see it, the Indies provides a perfect environment for a TW campaign: a diversity of troop types and terrains to make the battles interesting and a diversity of cultures, ethnic groups and religions to make the campaign interesting.



Don't worry that's a way off yet. After all, who's going to teach your grandkids to play PC games....?

I agree about the importance of the asian market so that is not a problem. But i think that to limit the game to India-Indochina-¿Indonesia? is a lost of a great chance for a big game. Althought with a great variety, i think that region haven't the sufficient variety for a game like the TW, in types of troops for example. The variety can be added with invasions from out of the map like the mongols in MTW, but again, that mean loose a lot of field for the game. Should be entire eastern half of Asia, includiying the extreme East and here we have a wonderful argument because the "asian" market is in fact korean, japanese and chinese. The next game should to have those countries plus southeast Asia of course from New Guinea to Ceylon, a western limit in present Pakistan and in the north crossing near Lake Baljash from there to the East with all the Steppes inside until the Amur's mouth. So there we have marvelous setting with a lot of peoples and variety in units and battlefields. The name Mongol Total War or East Total War, as i said before i prefer 1150-1650

More or less this:

http://www.welt-atlas.de/datenbank/karten/karte-0-9016.gif

We have the following factions:

Burmans
Chinese (Southern Song wich follow the chinese dinasties, then Ming technology)
Dheli Sultanate (wich later change to Mughal empire)
Dravidians (wich include first Chola and then Vijayanagar)
Khemer
Koreans
Japanese
Mongols
Srivijaya
Thais
Viets

Non playables: Indigenous barbarians (Philippines, Taiwan, inner Borneo...), Jin China, Laosians, Rajputs, Tibetans, Timurids

There is a lot of options.

[diotavelli]

I agree about the importance of the asian market so that is not a problem. But i think that to limit the game to India-Indochina-¿Indonesia? is a lost of a great chance for a big game.

I wasn't thinking of limiting the game as you suggest. To quote from my earlier post: "In the Medieval period, 'the Indies' (from the point of view of outsiders, both Asian and European) included everything from modern day Pakistan to New Guinea and from the borders of China to modern Australian territorial waters."

Including Japan and Korea would be a natural extension, especially as they had known trade links with the Indies (or however you wish to describe this area) during the period. I think your ideas are closer to mine than you realise!

[Psiloi]

Including Japan and Korea would be a natural extension, especially as they had known trade links with the Indies (or however you wish to describe this area) during the period. I think your ideas are closer to mine than you realise!

That's true fellow, we are coming to an agreement :yes: , but what time do you propose?

[I Am Herenow]

Alright, I've read this thread, and it's quite interesting, and thought it was time for me to wade in :beam:

To be honest, guys, I think a Napoleonic game is the most obvious choice. I understand all your arguments about Medieval India being interesting and more developed etc. but no-one has heard of them! Why was it called "Rome: Total War" and not "Dacia: Total War" or "Carthage: Total War"? You could play any of those three factions, and more, but it was named after the Romans as they were by far the most famous nation from that time (they are even called "Roman times"!) and most people would rather play as them than the other factions. The "average person" - or "casual player", if you like - is going to be very familiar with Rome: everyone has certainly heard of the Roman Empire and has a picture in their minds of a Roman soldier with his red, square shield - whereas most people who have never played RTW have probably never even heard of Dacia, Pontus or the Seleucid Empire. Granted, most people will recognise the name "Carthage" too, but they are only famous for elephants, Hannibal, and being beaten by the Romans - just like the Gauls, Dacians and all those other "barbarians". And, let's face it, who wants to play as the losers?

Things like medieval India belong in mods. I think that, no matter how advanced they may have been, they will still be a niche market. For history buffs, enthusiasts, 'grognards' and whatever else you want to call them, Indies: Total War would be a great game. But those people play EB and RTR, not RTW "Vanilla". Those mods, and other ones which try to add historical realism to the game, are great, but (in the case of EB certainly, which is the RTW mod I've played the most) they do not cater for the "casual gamer". Despite being more immersive and having more inventive, complex features, if RTW and EB had been released simultaneously as stand-alone games, I think RTW would win. EB is just too much of a niche product. Even its name, "Europa Barbarorum", implies weirdness and obscurity, whereas with "Rome: Total War", you immediately have a well-known 'brand' and the inviting prospect of killing stuff, and you know exactly what you're going to get.

Like I say, RTW V would have benefitted from some of EB's features like two dock systems, more interesting traits and maybe (at a stretch) even government type buildings. However, fifty versions of Hastati from every period in Rome's history and with every variation, more "authentic" spelling which screams of Lord of the Rings idiocy and the general wealth of stuff to pick through, some of which seems near-identical or pointless, very soon becomes overwhelming and, frankly, boring, for anyone without a History degree. As interesting an addition as Ancient Xorgilic commands are, they are only interesting if you are interested in that sort of stuff already. Casual gamers would be driven away.

I mean, think about it. If you look at a completely different area of the games market - sports - what do you see? Football (i.e. soccer), basketball, ice hockey, boxing, motorsports - that sort of stuff. Do you see any Lacrosse games on PS2? Did the PS3 launch title lineup include a Squash game? Do you even know what a match of either sport looks like? Probably not. However, there must be a 'fanbase' for Lacrosse in just about every country who are totally into it and love the sport, and would love to see a videogame or motion picture devoted to it, but noone else would.

And so, though it pains me to say it, we here are all Lacrosse fans, metaphorically. Even though there may be people here who are really into medieval India, China at the time of the Roman Empire or Bronze Age Greece (hell, I sure find those areas of history interesting), frankly, noone else does.

I think casual gamers who are just browsing for a game need something they can recognise in order to buy it: Rome, Napoleon, soccer. I think CA should stick to stuff that people recognise, but at the same time improve the engine, add more features and increase moddability so that games based on Medieval India can be created through mods.

Incidentally, about the American Civil War having too few factions, it could be an Alexander-style game where it's you against everyone, although as many players will testify, it would make for a rather shallow campaign and I can see many of you here want diplomacy to become more, not less, important.

As for the "Asia has a market for Indies: Total War" argument, I'm not sure. Although I completely agree that there must be millions of middle class people in Asia who could buy videogames, the question is, would they? Is there really a demand for PC games in, say, India?

Also, about people enjoying games about their own country, I think this is only true to a certain extent. I myself come from Ukraine, but do I know what was going on in that area in 1384? No, and, to be honest, I don't particularly care. Nor do I want a game made about it. In fact, I defy any British or American person who isn't a historian/history student/similar to give me, off the top of their heads, an in-depth analysis of the political situation in their country in, say, 1787. Indeed, would most Brits/Americans even know who the head of state was at that time? Sure, people like to play as themselves, but it's more important if they recognise who they are playing as. Why else would most Rome: Total War players play as one of the Roman factions, despite a relatively small proportion of them actually being from Rome or Italy?

So, in conclusion, stick to the most famous areas of history with your games, and leave the rest to the mods.

Anyway, those were my thoughts on the subject!

[Jekermesh]

Lots of really interesting arguments here, I do agree to a certain extent, with the previous entry about the need for TW games to be continually easilly moddable. BUT, i do think that the heart of TW games is in hand to hand combat, swords, horses camels, the plethora of factions that inhabits most continents of the world from the Roman times untill the dawn of the Renaissance, and the emergence of trade and diplomacy. So consequently I think that a game based in the East Indies would be great, there is a huge amount of history there, factions, technology, culture and obviously religions.

However, the game I would love to see would be the same time period (1000ish-1500's) and based in Middle East/Central Asia/India and some of China. More factions than you can shake a stick at, many religions, many famous characters and a great chance to re-write history, which is I think one of the main attractions of this game - "Im going to recover Jerusalem, but do it right by not killing quite so many people" etc... I think the possibility of managing the Delhi Sultanate, or the Seljuks, some smaller Hindu factions is very attractive and fun. The Mongols in all their different guises could be represented Ilkhanate, Chagatay etc... as emerging factions or could be represented differently. Furthermore there could be add-ons to deal with the rise of the European trading states, Holland, Portugal, UK etc...

Also in terms of people not really recognising these particular parts of history, well I dont think it matters. I am lucky enough to be a History student but even I would have been left scratching my head if someone asked where the capital of the Scythian state was, but having played Rome as a result of already knowing the formula from previous incarnations I now know, sort of. The point being I think the franchise is enough to attract existing fans and bring in new ones. Although in saying that i'm pretty sure the next installments will be some crap fantasy title that will ruin the franchise for every one who cant mod.

Oh and off the top of my head the King of England in 1787 was George III, but as always correct me if im wrong...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Although Napoleon: Total War would seem a natural progression, I think the focus on gunpowder would wreck the TW feel. Ranged units have always had trouble in the new TW engine featuring in Rome and Medieval 2. Right now Arquibusiers, skirmshers etc are a nightmare to use. For a gunpowder era mod, CA would have to put huge efforts into improving the AI. A Napoleon: TW with an American War of Indepedance and Civil War expansion would sell wonderfully. I'm just not sure it would work very well.

The Indies: Total War does sound to me like the most interesting new setting for a TW game, maybe equal with a Three Kingdoms game anyway. But CA might lose sales basing their next release on such a little known area to their fanbase in the west.

Basically, I think they either need to make a breakthrough in the engine and AI for a Napoleon TW, or make a breakthrough in targeting customers to allow the Indies TW on the current engine, with a few improvements.

[Matt_Lane]

Personally I think Indies: Total War would be a great game that I for one would purchase. However I've been with the series since Shogun (yet to do Rome) so I know its merits. For a game to succeed in the Western market it can't survive on its current fan base alone it needs to attract new customers and for this it needs a hook. Medieval, Shogun and Rome are all set in popular periods. They have Knights, Samurai and well Romans. Although the East has a rich culture that would offer plenty of factions for such a game I don't think it has such a link to popular Western Culture.

I see no reason for CA not to market such a game at the Far Eastern markets where it looks like it could take off. In fact this is probably the games best chance to be taken up in the Western market, word off mouth and a later release date.

[IrishArmenian]

I hope for:
Ancient Middle East/Europe (with less Roman focus)
Bronze Age Middle East/Europe
3 Kingdoms
East China/Korea/Japan

[diotavelli]

To be honest, guys, I think a Napoleonic game is the most obvious choice. I understand all your arguments about Medieval India being interesting and more developed etc. but no-one has heard of them!

You're quite sure that no one has heard of the Indies? Or, as you suggest, India? Most people I know have heard of them. May not be able to place them specifically but would certainly have a rough idea.


Why was it called "Rome: Total War" and not "Dacia: Total War" or "Carthage: Total War"? You could play any of those three factions, and more, but it was named after the Romans as they were by far the most famous nation from that time (they are even called "Roman times"!) and most people would rather play as them than the other factions. The "average person" - or "casual player", if you like - is going to be very familiar with Rome: everyone has certainly heard of the Roman Empire and has a picture in their minds of a Roman soldier with his red, square shield - whereas most people who have never played RTW have probably never even heard of Dacia, Pontus or the Seleucid Empire. Granted, most people will recognise the name "Carthage" too, but they are only famous for elephants, Hannibal, and being beaten by the Romans - just like the Gauls, Dacians and all those other "barbarians". And, let's face it, who wants to play as the losers?

It was called Rome:Total War because, as you said, "they are even called 'Roman Times'". If you want to describe the period that game covers, 'Rome' and 'Roman' are the best descriptions. Same with Medieval: people instantly have an idea what you're talking about. If you want a word to describe the Far East, China, India, the Spice Islands, the Malay peninsula and so on, 'Indies' does the job. It's up to the marketing people to get across the message of what the game's about.


Things like medieval India belong in mods. I think that, no matter how advanced they may have been, they will still be a niche market. For history buffs, enthusiasts, 'grognards' and whatever else you want to call them, Indies: Total War would be a great game. But those people play EB and RTR, not RTW "Vanilla". Those mods, and other ones which try to add historical realism to the game, are great, but (in the case of EB certainly, which is the RTW mod I've played the most) they do not cater for the "casual gamer". Despite being more immersive and having more inventive, complex features, if RTW and EB had been released simultaneously as stand-alone games, I think RTW would win. EB is just too much of a niche product. Even its name, "Europa Barbarorum", implies weirdness and obscurity, whereas with "Rome: Total War", you immediately have a well-known 'brand' and the inviting prospect of killing stuff, and you know exactly what you're going to get.

1. You can't fairly go from stating that "medieval India belong[s] in mods" - which is your opinion, not fact - to suggesting that a CA game based on the Indies would be mod-like and not cater for the casual gamer. The name might be more obscure but that doesn't mean the game has to be.
2. EB was niche. The name is more obscure than "Rome: Total War". "The Indies:Total War" is not obscure in anything like the same way - if the game's title was in Sanskrit, you might have a point.


Like I say, RTW V would have benefitted from some of EB's features like two dock systems, more interesting traits and maybe (at a stretch) even government type buildings. However, fifty versions of Hastati from every period in Rome's history and with every variation, more "authentic" spelling which screams of Lord of the Rings idiocy and the general wealth of stuff to pick through, some of which seems near-identical or pointless, very soon becomes overwhelming and, frankly, boring, for anyone without a History degree. As interesting an addition as Ancient Xorgilic commands are, they are only interesting if you are interested in that sort of stuff already. Casual gamers would be driven away.

Please see earlier point: just because EB might have driven away casual gamers with it's high level of detail, there is no reason whatsoever to believe a vanilla Indies: Total War would. There is no logic in suggesting that it might.


I mean, think about it. If you look at a completely different area of the games market - sports - what do you see? Football (i.e. soccer), basketball, ice hockey, boxing, motorsports - that sort of stuff. Do you see any Lacrosse games on PS2? Did the PS3 launch title lineup include a Squash game? Do you even know what a match of either sport looks like? Probably not. However, there must be a 'fanbase' for Lacrosse in just about every country who are totally into it and love the sport, and would love to see a videogame or motion picture devoted to it, but noone else would.

I'm very familiar with lacrosse and squash but there you go. I accept they're minority sports. Your analogy isn't very good, though. About 60% of the world's population live in or very near the area that Indies: Total War would cover. To suggest that something about their geographical area would be obscure or 'minority' is contrary to the facts.


And so, though it pains me to say it, we here are all Lacrosse fans, metaphorically. Even though there may be people here who are really into medieval India, China at the time of the Roman Empire or Bronze Age Greece (hell, I sure find those areas of history interesting), frankly, noone else does.

You've got some evidence to back up the claim that the majority of the world's population aren't interested in the area they live in?


I think casual gamers who are just browsing for a game need something they can recognise in order to buy it: Rome, Napoleon, soccer. I think CA should stick to stuff that people recognise, but at the same time improve the engine, add more features and increase moddability so that games based on Medieval India can be created through mods.

The idea that casual purchasers can't be persuaded to try something a little unfamiliar is wrong. Otherwise, how did Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (for one example) become such a success? In the West, it was sold as much on its SFX as its context but, following its success, the market for Asian movies of a similar style exploded. CA is working with Sega: marketing muscle is not a problem for them - and they would not be dealing in an obscure area, as you suggest, anyway.


As for the "Asia has a market for Indies: Total War" argument, I'm not sure. Although I completely agree that there must be millions of middle class people in Asia who could buy videogames, the question is, would they? Is there really a demand for PC games in, say, India?

Please see my earlier post: the video games market in Asia-Pacific is larger than that in the US or Europe. The Indian and Chinese consumption of games is massive.


Also, about people enjoying games about their own country, I think this is only true to a certain extent. I myself come from Ukraine, but do I know what was going on in that area in 1384? No, and, to be honest, I don't particularly care. Nor do I want a game made about it.

Could that be because the Ukraine wasn't at its brighest or best in 1384? Yes, and it therefore wouldn't make a good subject for a game. But, as part of a bigger game, it becomes interesting: MTW and M2TW prove this. Additionally, making an analogy between the Ukraine and the whole of South-East Asia is not exactly apposite.


In fact, I defy any British or American person who isn't a historian/history student/similar to give me, off the top of their heads, an in-depth analysis of the political situation in their country in, say, 1787. Indeed, would most Brits/Americans even know who the head of state was at that time?

Yet you argue that a Napoleonic title would sell? 1787 is part of a rubbish era but 1797 or 1807 are the bomb? If "most Brits/Americans" don't know the history of the late C18/early C19, why would they all want to buy a game about it?


Sure, people like to play as themselves, but it's more important if they recognise who they are playing as. Why else would most Rome: Total War players play as one of the Roman factions, despite a relatively small proportion of them actually being from Rome or Italy?

Are you sure most people played as one of the Roman factions? You may be right but I'd like to see concrete evidence. If it is correct, I'd be prepared to bet that there are two reasons:

1. the Roman factions are the only ones you can play to begin with.
2. the Roman factions are amongst the easiest to win with.

Familiarity with the faction might be important but not as much. For most players, the important thing is the challenge/interest, not whether you're intimate with the faction's history. Also, Roman citizenship was not the preserve of those born in Rome or Italy: in later years, you could be born in modern Britain/France/Spain/N.Africa/etc and still be a Roman - so your argument doesn't really work.


So, in conclusion, stick to the most famous areas of history with your games, and leave the rest to the mods.

Anyway, those were my thoughts on the subject!

Interesting thoughts, all of them: I just don't agree!:beam:

[Duke John]

As a response to the original question: none.

In my opinion TW has run its course. I have seen enough of this system of controlling units which can act completely independent. The only thing which ties your units together are a bunch of circles of influences concerning morale. The strategic part has also hardly progressed. It's still about recruiting units in an ever increasing number of areas.

For me the TW style of fighting battles is getting as stale as the standard RTS gameplay. It's time to start to re-invent the genre.

[I Am Herenow]

In fact, I defy any British or American person who isn't a historian/history student/similar to give me, off the top of their heads, an in-depth analysis of the political situation in their country in, say, 1787.


I am ... a History student
...
Oh and off the top of my head the King of England in 1787 was George III

Well, you did have a slight advantage :wink:

And yes, it was George III (thank you Wikipedia :beam:)


You're quite sure that no one has heard of the Indies? Or, as you suggest, India? Most people I know have heard of them. May not be able to place them specifically but would certainly have a rough idea.

The Roman Empire is still more famous, though.


It was called Rome:Total War because, as you said, "they are even called 'Roman Times'".

My point is still valid: the Roman Empire was so influential and important at that time that people later referred to the whole time period as 'Roman Times'. Nobody calls them 'Dacian Times' - and, on a similar note, nobody calls the Medieval period 'French Times' or something, because there was no one dominating power at the time - in Europe, at least; M2 is famous because of the period, not because of any one country.


...which is your opinion, not fact...

Well, what's wrong with that? This thread does have "Opinion" written next to it. Besides, most of what people - including you - have written here has been their opinion. The very question 'What would you like the next Total War game to be?' asks for your opinion on the matter.


The name might be more obscure but that doesn't mean the game has to be.
...
The name [EB] is more obscure than "Rome: Total War". "The Indies:Total War" is not obscure in anything like the same way.

Well, if the name is obscure, the game will be too. Just like any Lacrosse videogame, even with the most amazing graphics, AI and controls, would be obscure - until the sport itself became mainstream/popular, that is.

Although sticking the familiar ": Total War" ending onto a title will make it more recognisable, it will still look 'weirder', if you like, than one about the Roman Empire or the Medieval period.


How did Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon become such a success? In the West, it was sold as much on its SFX as its context but, following its success, the market for Asian movies of a similar style exploded.

Exactly: it's about seeing people fly around with swords, not about the story so much. Just like many people watch The Matrix for the fight scenes, not the story (which is actually really good, although 2 & 3 overdid it in my opinion - but that's neither here nor there). And the explosion in similar films would also have been to see fight scenes, rather than for deep, complicated plots.

Moreover, Samurai, Ninjas etc. (i.e. Medieval China/Japan) are another part of history that has been romanticised by us, and so are another safe bet. I think that sort of thing was covered in Shogun, proving my point that it is relatively mainstream and there is enough interest in it, if you include enough Samurai. Medieval India/Malaysia etc., whilst equally interesting from a purely historical point of view, don't have the same broad, mainstream appeal that Samurai, Knights in shining armour and Legionnaries do.

Incidentally, apart from the periods in history already covered by the Total War series and the Napoleonic wars (and the American War of Independence and Civil War), other iconic ones are probably ancient Greece, especially Sparta in terms of war (although Greece was in RTW and there's a console game about a Spartan, although I haven't played it); ancient Egypt (although it's not really famous for its soldiers and I don't know how many proper factions could be made at that time) and the two World Wars, especially World War Two.


Could that be because the Ukraine wasn't at its brighest or best in 1384?

Well, when was England "at its best"? When its empire was at its largest? There is huge anti-slave trade feeling at the moment in Britain, so I doubt people would want a game about colonizing Africa, India etc. and/or keeping them under control (although no-one has any worries about doing it as the Romans, but there you go).

And anyway, my point was that an iconic period in history can be more important in selling a game than having it based around your own country.


1787 is part of a rubbish era but 1797 or 1807 are the bomb?

I'd just plucked that date out of thin air, but yes, I do think that the Napoleonic period in history is a very famous - indeed, iconic - one. And the dates aren't important: what's important is that Napoleon is more famous than whatever was happening in 1787. Besides, using your argument, the period 1909-1913 is just as famous as 1914-1918 and just as interesting. Well, obviously, '14-'18 is much more well-known and studied, and a lot of stuff can happen over the course of a few years.

And I do think periods like the Dark Ages, the period between the Medieval period and the Napoleonic one and the 19th Century after Napoleon don't have much mainstream appeal.


Are you sure most people played as one of the Roman factions? You may be right but I'd like to see concrete evidence.

Well, when I first bought Rome: Total War, I wanted to play as a Roman faction - didn't you? I can't give you "concrete evidence" as I'm not going to go around surveying people or getting together test subjects - I'm just posting in a forum here, not writing a thesis.


The Roman factions are the only ones you can play to begin with.

Well, CA didn't do that by accident - they probably did it because most people would want to play as Rome and because they'd spent the most time on the Romans, again, because people would be most interested in them. Again, even if all playable factions were available from the start, would you really have picked Dacia for your first ever game?


Roman citizenship was not the preserve of those born in Rome or Italy: in later years, you could be born in modern Britain/France/Spain/N.Africa/etc and still be a Roman.

So what? None of those people think of themselves as Romans - not even Italians do, I would imagine - so nobody can really associate themselves directly with the Roman Empire, and yet it's still very popular. This is probably because it was the one that 'conquered all the other countries' and was the 'winner' and had a big empire and soldiers with red shields and provided the basis for most European languages and introduced high-quality roads, bath houses and many other things to most of Europe.

[Odin]

You'd be out of a pint ;)

Cool.

For all you newer poster here Im going to do something that you will rarely see on the org boards.

I was wrong

good luck with figuring it out, Im out of this convo.

[Fate]

I personally would love to see something set between the late 18 and 19th centuries, but not neccessarily being napoleonic.

I'd love to see something involving the british and the east india company in india, fighting the mahratta princes, or maybe the scramble for provinces in the carribean. Both of these would be heavily reliant on Naval warfare though.

One concept which could include the musketry aspect of such warfare would be an African total war game, following a simlar vein to Zulu:TW.
There would still be nations (africans) armed with mellee weapons, but then you could also have firearm based nations, such as Britain, Portugal, The Boers and the Dutch. This wouldnt be as heavily reliant on naval warefare so it could potentially stick to the same current engine.

An american civil war game would be good, but only two sides, it'd be better if it were released in an Alexander vein, as an add on.

Though ultimately, all of these are are digressions from a NTW game, which really would be bloody awesome. Though the main problem regarding this is the naval warefare aspect. Mind you, Imperial glory pulled the naval warefare off okay, and even the battles, its just a shame about the lack of routing, and withdrawing from melee.

My vote goes with a NTW sequel, with a kingdoms stlye expansion, covering the british in India, Africa, the Carribean, and an american civil war, or perhaps an american war of independence scenario.

[diotavelli]

The Roman Empire is still more famous, though.

Um, I don't mean to criticise, I Am Herenow, but it would be useful if you could try to distinguish when you're giving your opinion and when you're stating fact. Because I'm not sure you're correct that the Roman Empire is more famous than the Indies. If you add the populations of China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand, you have half the world's population. Just those nine countries. Add their neighbours and you have the largest video games market in the world.

And they learn about the history of their area at school. Some may learn about Rome but it is the equivalent of Western kids learning about medieval Asia. Did you mean: "The Roman Empire is still more famous in the West, though"?


My point is still valid: the Roman Empire was so influential and important at that time that people later referred to the whole time period as 'Roman Times'. Nobody calls them 'Dacian Times' - and, on a similar note, nobody calls the Medieval period 'French Times' or something, because there was no one dominating power at the time - in Europe, at least; M2 is famous because of the period, not because of any one country.

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, the Roman era is famous because of the Romans - but your argument was that no one would want to play a game about the Indies because no one had heard of the Indies. This isn't true and is also misleading because it ignores many of the reasons people might choose to buy/play a game.


Well, what's wrong with that? This thread does have "Opinion" written next to it. Besides, most of what people - including you - have written here has been their opinion. The very question 'What would you like the next Total War game to be?' asks for your opinion on the matter.

Of course you're entitled to express your opinion - and I didn't criticise you for that: I merely pointed out that "medieval India belong[s] in a mod" was opinion not fact and it may sense to make the distinction. The reason I did that was because you seemed to offer an argument against having an Indies TW title because mods tended to be for the hardcore and would drive away casual gamers. If it was fact that only a mod-style Indies title was possible, you'd have a point - but it isn't a fact, only your opinion.

I hope that, when I'm posting here, I make clear when I'm guessing and when I'm talking with the facts behind me - because then people know and make the distinction for themselves. I'm only asking you do the same.


Well, if the name is obscure, the game will be too. Just like any Lacrosse videogame, even with the most amazing graphics, AI and controls, would be obscure - until the sport itself became mainstream/popular, that is.

Although sticking the familiar ": Total War" ending onto a title will make it more recognisable, it will still look 'weirder', if you like, than one about the Roman Empire or the Medieval period.

1. I said the name "might be more obscure", not that the "name is obscure".
2. It doesn't logically follow that "if the name is obscure, the game will be too".
3. Your analogy with lacrosse doesn't get any better with re-use!:beam: You can't compare a little-known minority sport with an area of the world with a rich history that is well-known the majority of the world's population. That history may not be well-known to you but you are in a shrinking minority.
4. An Asian TW title might look "weirder" to you but your assumptions about what is "mainstream/popular" do seem to have a huge bias and to ignore the facts about the majority of the global games market.


Exactly: it's about seeing people fly around with swords, not about the story so much. Just like many people watch The Matrix for the fight scenes, not the story (which is actually really good, although 2 & 3 overdid it in my opinion - but that's neither here nor there). And the explosion in similar films would also have been to see fight scenes, rather than for deep, complicated plots.

No, I can assure you that lots of people are watching more Chinese cinema that doesn't have fight scenes but who got into Chinese film having seen CT,HD first. Familiarity with the actors, directors, etc increases as more films are watched and the reasons for watching them may change.


Moreover, Samurai, Ninjas etc. (i.e. Medieval China/Japan) are another part of history that has been romanticised by us, and so are another safe bet. I think that sort of thing was covered in Shogun, proving my point that it is relatively mainstream and there is enough interest in it, if you include enough Samurai. Medieval India/Malaysia etc., whilst equally interesting from a purely historical point of view, don't have the same broad, mainstream appeal that Samurai, Knights in shining armour and Legionnaries do.

By "us", you mean those living in Europe and the US, I assume (forgive me if I'm wrong here). You may feel that the Indies don't have "broad, mainstream appeal" but that's parochial in the extreme, given the demographics of the global gaming community. Start to drop a few names, such as Taj Mahal, Angkor Wat, the Khmer, the Spice Islands and so on and even the mainstream Western market will quickly work out what you're talking about.


Incidentally, apart from the periods in history already covered by the Total War series and the Napoleonic wars (and the American War of Independence and Civil War), other iconic ones are probably ancient Greece, especially Sparta in terms of war (although Greece was in RTW and there's a console game about a Spartan, although I haven't played it); ancient Egypt (although it's not really famous for its soldiers and I don't know how many proper factions could be made at that time) and the two World Wars, especially World War Two.

Again, your idea of what constitutes "iconic" does seem to be very limited and may not be one that the majority of the world's population would share.


Well, when was England "at its best"? When its empire was at its largest? There is huge anti-slave trade feeling at the moment in Britain, so I doubt people would want a game about colonizing Africa, India etc. and/or keeping them under control (although no-one has any worries about doing it as the Romans, but there you go).

And anyway, my point was that an iconic period in history can be more important in selling a game than having it based around your own country.

And my point wasn't a dig at Ukraine. You had said that you didn't care what happened in your country that year and wouldn't want a game about it. But if 1384 had been an amazing year in Ukraine, not only would you know about it, you'd probably be genuinely excited at the prospect of a game about it.

This is relevant because people in SE Asia will know that the medieval period in their area was exciting and interesting and they're likely to be keen on a game about it - mainly because it will be interesting but the regional link will be a bonus.


I'd just plucked that date out of thin air, but yes, I do think that the Napoleonic period in history is a very famous - indeed, iconic - one. And the dates aren't important: what's important is that Napoleon is more famous than whatever was happening in 1787. Besides, using your argument, the period 1909-1913 is just as famous as 1914-1918 and just as interesting. Well, obviously, '14-'18 is much more well-known and studied, and a lot of stuff can happen over the course of a few years.

No, my argument was that it was daft to claim that Brits/Americans wouldn't know what was happening in 1787 but would rush to buy a Napoleonic title. If you're genunely interested in an era, you'll know its history (including the years immediately preceding it); if you're only casually interested, you won't know this stuff but you're also far less likely to buy a game based on it. You can't have it both ways: Napoleonic is iconic and people are really into it but they may not know much about it - they're either into it or not.


And I do think periods like the Dark Ages, the period between the Medieval period and the Napoleonic one and the 19th Century after Napoleon don't have much mainstream appeal.

Damn! You should have told CA about the Dark Ages before they went and released Barbarian Invasion. Of course, no on bought that title, did they? And no one bought Viking Invasion, either. No, the Dark Ages don't have mainstream appeal.... ~;)


Well, when I first bought Rome: Total War, I wanted to play as a Roman faction - didn't you? I can't give you "concrete evidence" as I'm not going to go around surveying people or getting together test subjects - I'm just posting in a forum here, not writing a thesis.

I wanted to play as a Roman faction but not as much as I wanted to play as Greece. There you go. I wouldn't want to make arguments based on what other people like without having the facts.

You may not be writing a thesis but its always best to acknowledge when you're making an argument from conjecture and when you have facts to back you up. A number of people took me to task for claiming that the Asia-Pacific games market was the biggest - so I got the facts to prove it. It makes a difference because otherwise I could just be talking out of my ****.


Well, CA didn't do that by accident - they probably did it because most people would want to play as Rome and because they'd spent the most time on the Romans, again, because people would be most interested in them. Again, even if all playable factions were available from the start, would you really have picked Dacia for your first ever game?

No, but Dacia is an unrepresentative example, IMO. Not many people would feel any association with them. The Gauls, Greeks, Carthaginians and Britons would be an entirely different kettle of fish - I suspect a few people would play them ahead of the Romans.


So what? None of those people think of themselves as Romans - not even Italians do, I would imagine - so nobody can really associate themselves directly with the Roman Empire, and yet it's still very popular. This is probably because it was the one that 'conquered all the other countries' and was the 'winner' and had a big empire and soldiers with red shields and provided the basis for most European languages and introduced high-quality roads, bath houses and many other things to most of Europe.

My point was that you couldn't conclude anything from the number of Italian/Rome-based players, as they had no more reason to associate themselves with the Roman Empire than anyone else in Europe.

You're absolutely correct about the reasons why many people would want to play as the Romans. But, as you've said, there is no equivalent to the Romans in M2TW and yet it has sold well and been popular. So the fact that there would be no direct equivalent to the Romans in an Indies TW is irrelevant (although the Chinese could accurately hold a very similar position).

You said: "people like to play as themselves, but it's more important if they recognise who they are playing as". I disagree. It's important to have some idea what the game's about and you may start off playing as a familiar faction. But check on these boards the number of people who've started playing as a faction they knew nothing about and quickly grown to love: it could be that the faction fits their playing style or they like the animations/starting position/challenge. And that can happen in an Indies TW.

I'm not suggesting that Napoleonic, early US or any other period of history are dull or uninteresting. My opinion is that the Indies:TW would make a good game but my opinion counts for no more than yours on this subject.

But if it's anyone's opinion that SE Asian history is niche, uninteresting, unvaried or obscure, then their opinion is wrong. Sorry - no offense intended but that is the way it is: there are more of them (Asians) than there are of us (um, anyone else!), they buy more video games and their history is just as rich and worth knowing as ours.

[I Am Herenow]

But if it's anyone's opinion that SE Asian history is niche, uninteresting, unvaried or obscure, then their opinion is wrong. Sorry - no offense intended but that is the way it is: there are more of them (Asians) than there are of us (um, anyone else!), they buy more video games and their history is just as rich and worth knowing as ours.

1) I never said the history of Asia, or anywhere else, was uninteresting.

2) Nor did I say it wasn't worth knowing.

However, I'm talking about making a videogame - which is primarily designed to entertain - not reading a book on history, which one might do if one is interested in history in general.

As for the rest of your argument (sorry, I don't want to do 20 quotes again, but you'll know what I'm talking about), the bottom line is:

If you were head of CA/Sega and had to decide on the next TW title, putting your money into the project, would you go for Indies: Total War? Bearing in mind that it wouldn't just be for yourself because you find that region and period in history interesting - but you'd have to actually shift units and sell more than CIV 5, Fifa 2008 or whatever other stuff would be on the shelves.

Next, what exactly is this region famous for? I'll have to admit that I don't know much about its history in the Middle Ages, so you'll have to enlighten me. What factions would you have? What were the interesting troops? If the region was mainly noted for economic/social development, how would this translate into game features?

Would this game just be M2 with different factions and a different map (basically, the same thing a mod can do)? If not, what would be the major differences? What specific features (other than better graphics, "Get Off My Land" Diplomacy option etc.) would sell this specific area and this specific period in time - not only to Asia, but to the US and Europe? Or would the game, in fact, be aimed only at the Asian market? If so, would it really be able to compete with CIV, RON, AOE etc.?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

After a NTW,RTW2,and STW2, what else can they make really..

[Cuchulin]

I would love to see a TW based on Old Testament Israel during the time of David up to the Persian and Greek Conquests.

[Sheogorath]

Just a quick FYI, since I see a lot of this being thrown around...

Most Napoleonic combat WAS melee based, typically only one or two volleys of musket fire would be followed up by a charge at the enemy, simply because muskets were so innacurate at any kind of range that a prolonged musket duel was a waste of ammunition.
I believe that the Napoleonic: Total War mod forums stated somewhere that during the Battle of Borodino something like one hundred shots were fired for every casualty inflicted via musket fire.
The goal of musket fire was to cause the enemy to break and flee, not to wipe them out. That was what cavalry, the bayonette and artillery were for.

Of course, CA'll probobly change that, but the NTW mod was quite fun, even with its emphasis on ranged combat. I think CA could do quite well for themselves if they did it right, which would no doubt mean not sticking to history too closely, of course.

[rvg]

At this point the series has enough recognition that CA can develop Tasmania: Total War and people will still buy it.

[Fate]

Just a quick FYI, since I see a lot of this being thrown around...

Most Napoleonic combat WAS melee based, typically only one or two volleys of musket fire would be followed up by a charge at the enemy, simply because muskets were so innacurate at any kind of range that a prolonged musket duel was a waste of ammunition.
I believe that the Napoleonic: Total War mod forums stated somewhere that during the Battle of Borodino something like one hundred shots were fired for every casualty inflicted via musket fire.
The goal of musket fire was to cause the enemy to break and flee, not to wipe them out. That was what cavalry, the bayonette and artillery were for.

Of course, CA'll probobly change that, but the NTW mod was quite fun, even with its emphasis on ranged combat. I think CA could do quite well for themselves if they did it right, which would no doubt mean not sticking to history too closely, of course.

Agreed Sheogorath, and a fine point it is. However, in many cases, troops of the period (british particuarly) were trained brutally in the use of musketry. Which makes sense, with it being the prime weapon of the time, that and the bayonet.
However, CA would almost certainly emphasise the use of musketry if they went on to create NTW. It wouldnt be like RTW where there would be large amounts of troops that all use the same weapon (the sword being the prime example). There simply wouldnt be enough variety.
Some troops in particular were used for the charge whilst others would be used to fire volleys from the line; eg. Grenadiers for the charge, basic line redcoats for volley fire.

My point being, large amounts of the game would be based around the musket, least of all because it would be the new toy for the CA and TW players. Undoubtedly, they would try and press this.

[I Am Herenow]

Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!

Is that a spoof of Henry V?

BTW, you're right, if NTW was released, you certainly wouldn't get 1% accuracy with muskets!

[The Spartan (Returns)]

A really good Total War would be just called Earth: Total War

You pick a continent, select a time period, (optional) choose a specific war, choose a faction, and you're off!!!

[Shieldmaiden]

A really good Total War would be just called Earth: Total War

You pick a continent, select a time period, (optional) choose a specific war, choose a faction, and you're off!!!

Most realistic demand EVAR! :2thumbsup:

I'd be happy with a Shogun 2, or at least Asia Total War :yes:

Or if CA went fantasy - It would be interesting to see a semi-historical and mythological spin on it, rather than "traditional fantasy". Think Age of Mythology not Warcraft.

[Mithrandir]

I'll be reading this thread tomorrow when I have the time to see if everyone plays nice and if there's a need for the new dramaqueen smiley, or maybe some more drastic measures...

[Sheogorath]

Agreed Sheogorath, and a fine point it is. However, in many cases, troops of the period (british particuarly) were trained brutally in the use of musketry. Which makes sense, with it being the prime weapon of the time, that and the bayonet.
However, CA would almost certainly emphasise the use of musketry if they went on to create NTW. It wouldnt be like RTW where there would be large amounts of troops that all use the same weapon (the sword being the prime example). There simply wouldnt be enough variety.
Some troops in particular were used for the charge whilst others would be used to fire volleys from the line; eg. Grenadiers for the charge, basic line redcoats for volley fire.

My point being, large amounts of the game would be based around the musket, least of all because it would be the new toy for the CA and TW players. Undoubtedly, they would try and press this.
True grenadiers would be BETTER at charging, simply because they were selected from the largest and strongest men amoungst various line regiments. But, in my opinion at least, musketry depended far more upon the nation from which the troops came.
The Russians for instance, lived (and died) by Suvurov's "Bullet is an idiot, bayonete is a fine chap" doctrine, so much so that only a very few Russian commanders even bothered training their troops to AIM their muskets.
The British, as mentioned, placed more emphasis on accuracy, considering that their army was the smallest of the Great Powers in any case (its hard to maintain a large army AND over 200 ships of the line.)
Of course, the British lacked the famous Russian obstinance when it came to standing under fire. And, I believe, the only records of regular line infantry charging cavalry come from Russia :P

CA would also need to revise the resource system a bit, that or make unit sizes different between factions. Russia and France had FAR larger armies than any other nation, Russia's came to some 800,000 by the end of the Wars, with France at over a million. Third place was Austria with some 500,000 at most, followed by Prussia and the UK.

Basically CA would need to depart from their 'standerdized units' deal and make pretty much everything different, even though a six pound cannon was a six pound cannon, the French had better training than pretty much anybody (Napoleon was an artillery officer before he became Emperor), except perhaps the Russians >_>

[IrishArmenian]

I'd be happy with a Shogun 2, or at least Asia Total War :yes:

Or if CA went fantasy - It would be interesting to see a semi-historical and mythological spin on it, rather than "traditional fantasy". Think Age of Mythology not Warcraft.
I agree completley, SM.

[diotavelli]

1) I never said the history of Asia, or anywhere else, was uninteresting.

2) Nor did I say it wasn't worth knowing.

I realise that and I didn't accuse of either of those things. I said that "if it's anyone's opinion" - not your opinion. I was making a point about Asian history, not about you - apologies if this was not clear.


However, I'm talking about making a videogame - which is primarily designed to entertain - not reading a book on history, which one might do if one is interested in history in general.

You write later of the history of the Indies in this period that you "you don't know much about it". That being the case, how can you know whether it could make an entertaining videogame? Again, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, I really just don't understand how you can admit to ignorance about it but also suggest that it's unsuitable for the TW treatment. The two don't seem to add up.


As for the rest of your argument (sorry, I don't want to do 20 quotes again, but you'll know what I'm talking about), the bottom line is:

If you were head of CA/Sega and had to decide on the next TW title, putting your money into the project, would you go for Indies: Total War? Bearing in mind that it wouldn't just be for yourself because you find that region and period in history interesting - but you'd have to actually shift units and sell more than CIV 5, Fifa 2008 or whatever other stuff would be on the shelves.

Yes, I would. For the reasons I've given in several previous posts. The history of the period is fascinating - don't take my word for it: check for yourself.

The diversity of cultures, ethnic groups, religions, naval strengths, military strengths and economic strengths in the area was far greater than in Europe in either the Roman, medieval or Napoleonic periods. The Asian market is the biggest in the world and Western understanding and appreciation of the history and cultures of Asia is growing rapidly (Asian films, books and music are selling in greater and greater numbers, tourism in the area is growing, more Asian products are being bought, more people work for Asian companies, etc., etc.).

As head of CA/Sega, I could look at the market and think: "Hmm, a me-too product like a CIV or Fifa2008 rip-off, that will merely share an existing, defined market or a brand new product that will appeal to an enlarged market and have first mover advantage but work from the base of a successful brand?" Not a difficult decision, really.


Next, what exactly is this region famous for? I'll have to admit that I don't know much about its history in the Middle Ages, so you'll have to enlighten me. What factions would you have? What were the interesting troops? If the region was mainly noted for economic/social development, how would this translate into game features?

A few people (i.e., not just me) have written extensively about what the region is famous for. Try the development of gunpowder. Try the discovery and colonisation of Australia and the Americas years before Europeans. Try scientific and medical sophistication on a level the Europeans wouldn't match for centuries. Try a diversity of culture and religion that Europe has only known in the past century (following immigration from these very regions).

As for factions, here's Psiloi's list (which I don't believe is necessarily complete):



Burmans
Chinese (Southern Song wich follow the chinese dinasties, then Ming technology)
Dheli Sultanate (wich later change to Mughal empire)
Dravidians (wich include first Chola and then Vijayanagar)
Khemer
Koreans
Japanese
Mongols
Srivijaya
Thais
Viets

Non playables: Indigenous barbarians (Philippines, Taiwan, inner Borneo...), Jin China, Laosians, Rajputs, Tibetans, Timurids

There is a lot of options.


Would this game just be M2 with different factions and a different map (basically, the same thing a mod can do)? If not, what would be the major differences? What specific features (other than better graphics, "Get Off My Land" Diplomacy option etc.) would sell this specific area and this specific period in time - not only to Asia, but to the US and Europe? Or would the game, in fact, be aimed only at the Asian market? If so, would it really be able to compete with CIV, RON, AOE etc.?

This game would "be M2 with different factions and a different map (basically, the same thing a mod can do)" in the same way M2 is different from RTW and NTW would be different from M2.

NTW mods already exist, yet that doesn't mean CA couldn't create a brand new TW title set in the Napoleonic era. In the same way, just because an Indies mod could be created, that doesn't mean CA couldn't create a TW title dedicated to them.

Given that much of the map would be archipelagoes and that maritime trade was of greater significance, naval warfare and trade would benefit from improvement. Gunpowder and artillery developed far earlier in this part of the world, so they'd need to be better represented. Religion was more diverse and the propensity of different religions to co-exist and/or kick-seven-shades-of-sh*t out of each other would need to be reflected better. The list of new features that could be developed is enormous - just as big as for NTW, I would guess.

[In reality, the number of new features in either Indies:TW or NTW would be more to do with what CA could afford/manage to develop in time.]

Of course the game would not "be aimed only at the Asian market" - any more so than Shogun was only aimed at the Japanese market or Rome at the European market. That's quite a parochial suggestion, if you don't mind me saying so. Would you suggest that only Americans would want to play an American Civil War game? If not, why would you suggest only Asians would want to play an Indies:TW game? I don't see the logic.

[Fadly]

why don't they make WTW (World: Total War) covering the entire globe and spanning further into the future (End somewhere in 18th or 19th century). also, i suggest that naval battle should be given RTS status too instead of auto, maybe in a manner of Age Of Sail.

[Didz]

why don't they make WTW (World: Total War) covering the entire globe and spanning further into the future (End somewhere in 18th or 19th century).
Basically, its been done to death by Sid Meier. That sort of run the world god game is great for a few passes but by its nature is so abstract it soon loses its replay appeal, and why would CA want to surrender its unique market niche to go head to head with someone like Sid.

I'm interested, and a little concerned, by some of the comments on the idea of Napoleon:Totalwar. If CA were to go for any 18th Century period game they would in my opinion have to make significant enhancements to their game engine for it to work. That was why I considered such a decision to be more risky than the idea of a Medieval:Indies Title, but with higher potential rewards.

However, contrary to one poster I don't think there is much problem with the current blackpowder weapons model used by the engine. In fact, if you compare the way musketry and artillery fire is handled in TW games with the way it is handled in existing Napoleonic simulations like Cossacks 2 you will discover that TW is already far superior to anything being done elsewhere. Some minor tweaks are needed to accuracy and ammunition options but beyond that its pretty much there. Napoleonic musketry was not that accurate, historical battlefield analysis suggests about 6% at 100 paces dropping to 1% at 300 paces. What did the damage was volume of fire. Certainly, with STW it was possible to set-up quite passable simulations of Napoleonic musketry with massed musketeers, and what was nice about STW was that the smoke effects were much denser than in the later titles so you actually got the classic gunpodwer induced fog of war after a few volleys.

Where the main effort would be needed would be in changing the battle engines obssession with hand to hand combat. The fact is that victory on a black powder battlefield was all about morale, and troops rarely (if ever) cross bayonets. The number of times this actually occured can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and one of those was a mistake. To acheive that would require a pretty major rethink of how the morale system works as troops simply should not stand their ground if they are successfully charged by the enemy, nor should troops be able to charge if the enemy holds their ground. This battle of wills at close quarters was the essence of war on the blackpowder battlefield and needs to be modelled very carefully of a simulation is to work.

The other vital and as yet unexplored area of battlefield activity is that of command and control. The existing CA engine really doesn't model this beyond the formations button, but if it is to develop beyond the medieval period then this factor has to be taken into account. Command and control was differenciator which allowed one army to be manourved to gain the morale ascendency over the other and win the battle. Again Cossacks 2 doesn't even attempt to model it, but still calls itself a Napoleonic simulation, however other games do have quite sophisticated simulations of the Corps structure and control interface. Peter Turcan's games for example were more or less sold just on the way this part of his games operationed.

My concern, and the real risk is that CA will go for this period and get it wrong which would be a disaster for everyone. Thats why I think the Indies option is a much safer bet, its basically MTW2 with a few more elephants.

[Matt_Lane]

Thats why I think the Indies option is a much safer bet, its basically MTW2 with a few more elephants.

I wonder how they would expand on their current crop of Elephant artillery, heat seeking Elephants perhaps?:laugh4:

[diotavelli]

However, contrary to one poster I don't think there is much problem with the current blackpowder weapons model used by the engine. In fact, if you compare the way musketry and artillery fire is handled in TW games with the way it is handled in existing Napoleonic simulations like Cossacks 2 you will discover that TW is already far superior to anything being done elsewhere. Some minor tweaks are needed to accuracy and ammunition options but beyond that its pretty much there.

.....Where the main effort would be needed would be in changing the battle engines obssession with hand to hand combat......

....The other vital and as yet unexplored area of battlefield activity is that of command and control. The existing CA engine really doesn't model this beyond the formations button, but if it is to develop beyond the medieval period then this factor has to be taken into account.....

....My concern, and the real risk is that CA will go for this period and get it wrong which would be a disaster for everyone. Thats why I think the Indies option is a much safer bet, its basically MTW2 with a few more elephants.

Some very interesting points there, Didz. I agree with your contention that command and control could be handled better by the TW engine. It becomes especially important in the Napoleonic era and thereafter. Boney was such an excellent practitioner that he not only changed the shape of Europe but rewrote the rulebook for everyone who followed him.

Essentially, as I see it, before Napoleon most generals were content to draw up in conventional battle lines and duke it out. The side with the best starting position, best equipment, bravest fighters and/or best luck would win. After Boney, generals (to a greater or lesser extent) try to learn from the lessons he taught his opponents. However, he wasn't the first to show expertise in this area - generals from earlier periods had done so, even if they were few in number.

Having improved command and control would certainly help for factions strong in HA and cavalry, as the current situation is that the player has to micromanage such units and the AI tends to let them mill around with questionable effectiveness. Thus, an improvement of the current engine would work well for all eras, as it could be re-used in the Roman, medieval (European or Asian) or other times.

And that's essentially what it comes down to. Any improvement to the engine is likely to be reusable in multiple eras. Just as CA were able to visit and revisit medieval Europe with two different engines, so they could do the same with any other era.

Basically, M2TW is RTW with fewer elephants and more sandals; Indies:TW would be M2TW with more elephants and more curry powder; Napoleon:TW would be M2TW with even fewer elephants and more muskets. The next game from CA could reuse the current engine with a few tweaks but both the most popular suggestions would benefit from more significant improvements. And the two aren't mutually exclusive as improvements made for one could be reused for the other.

[Didz]

Yep! Like I say NTW would require a major rework of both the Battle and Campaign engines if it was to work. The battle engine I've already discussed, the campaign engine would need to provide a much more enhanced diplomatic function to cope with the concepts of coalitions and multi-state factions such as the Confederation of the Rhine. It would also need a much more sophisticated ecomonic system to cope with the impact of trade on the various factions and their role in the conflicts. (Something like Crown of Glory, but hopefully with a much better interface)

[Fadly]

i think they should test it first as an expansion for M2TW. see how it work out in a current engine (with few improvements). from the players response, CA can make a guideline of creating NTW.

personally, i see no fault in the M2TW gunpowder units. in a late period, half of my armies are gunpowders (i play turks and i build a lot of janissari musketeers and cannons).

[Didz]

i think they should test it first as an expansion for M2TW. see how it work out in a current engine (with few improvements). from the players response, CA can make a guideline of creating NTW.
I think thats already been done, check out this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wkmR5tjfCc
I think this mod is based on MTW but basically its the same battle engine.

There are other video's featuring this mod here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYVfPrM_5WM&mode=related&search=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bxzVo2PtA8&mode=related&search=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ7u-PjOJAI&mode=related&search=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp8dL9xUKWc&mode=related&search=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuYy7GtdS8&mode=related&search=

As you can see the visuals are more or less there, accurate uniforms appropriate formations. the modders have done everything possible within the limitations of the game engine itself. The dedication is quite amazing and a testiment to just how much these people want this game, but they can only go so far without changes to the engine itself. As you can see the command and control is not quite right and the morale system is far too tuned to medieval warfare allowing a lot of a-historic melee combat.

[Csargo]

STW2:wall:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would love to see a TW based on Old Testament Israel during the time of David up to the Persian and Greek Conquests.Hey, I've never heard this idea before. I think it's brilliant! :2thumbsup:

I wouldn't mind TW 5 going back in time. Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians; chariots, stone slingers...it could really work.

[Flavius Merobaudes]

I could imagine something like Colonialism:TW.

European powers in a competition to conquer the world against Chinese, Indian, Africa... Leading to a clash of interest spheres and finally to war between the superpowers in Europe itself.

Napoleon would make a good add-on to that, in Alexander style.

This would include a much larger strategy map and very different goals and scenarios depending on the faction you play. English against French in America, Ottomans against Germany/Austria/Russia, British against Portuguese in Asia and lots more.

A 20th century or fantasy game wouldn't be TW anymore.:no:

[rvg]

STW2:wall:
word.

[diotavelli]

STW2:wall:

I don't see it, personally. STW was a great game but, by very nature of its setting, can't offer the level of diversity that we're now used to from RTW and M2TW. CA rely on that diversity to give the game extra depth and colour: playing as the Polish you tend toward HA, the English to longbowmen, the Milanese and Venetians to militia and so on. The fact that the factions can seem quite different means the game has a longer play-life than it might otherwise do.

I could be wrong (and feel free to tell me if I am!) but I think CA would struggle to get that level of diversity in S2TW. For that reason, I don't think they'd ever release it. The TW brand relies upon releasing game after game that are smarter, richer in depth and detail, prettier to look at and more engrossing each time (whether they deliver on all of these is a different matter!). Releasing a game that might be smarter and prettier to look at but that could be accused of having less depth and detail would be too risky.

For that reason, I think we can expect all future TW titles (as opposed to expansions) to operate on a map at least close to continental in scope (Europe, SE Asia or eastern Americas, for example). This will give them the scope for diversity that they're looking for.

To support my case, I present exhibit A, m'lud: the first expansion for M2TW, namely "Kingdoms". As you will know, m'lud, the expansion includes a number of campaigns dealing with territories of a size and a number of factions comparable with those in the original STW. It would seem that CA do not feel a campaign of such a size any longer merits a full title dedicated to it.

This is my opinion. I am prepared to change it in return for cash bribes (even quite small ones).

[doombringer]

i would like to see maybe a select a campaign- kingdom style, with different eras and maps - maybe a rome overhaul- more balanced to other factions, napoleonic would be good, and maybe a big scale americas, from clonisation to independance, then civil war

Doom

[OliverWKim]

I would love to see a LOTR:TW, but that's not going to happen, as EA is squatting on that license. the BFME games look OK but they are puny in comparison to the massive battles in the movies and books, which is exactly what TW does best. Plus, the CA is starting to lean towards the micromanagement side of things with the addition of the special hero units with abilities in Kingdoms, though the trick would be not to overdo it (i.e. Gandalf throwing fireballs and engaging in a magic duel with the Mouth of Sauron) like in the BFME games.

A Napoleonic era game wouldn't be bad... but haven't the Lordz already accomplished that?

[Didz]

A Napoleonic era game wouldn't be bad... but haven't the Lordz already accomplished that?
That depends upon your measure of what an NTW game ought to be. The Lordz have certainly done an excellent job and pushed the boundaries of what can be acheived far beyond what I considered possible. However, they are still limited by the RTW/MTW game engines and haven't been able to include every facet of Napoleonic Warfare. The morale, command and control, economic and diplomatic system all need to be changed to allow a full implementation to occur.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

I enjoy the historical aspect of the TW games - Napoleonic would probably make the most sense sequentially, but maybe a World War TW would be cool too. Also, I was thinking about a fantasy TW... that'd be cool

[Gimli]

I must admit that I am hoping for a Napolean Age type of game from the TW series. I'm not sure how much farther they could carry it past that time period though because of the massive changes in fighting tactics... They could do an American Civil War as well, but it would be kinda small and lame in my opinion. Honestly, I am hoping they DON'T do a fantasy one... We all saw where Age of Mythology went... (appologies to any AOM fans out there! :sweatdrop: ) However, being Gimli, I would LOVE to lead a horde of TW Dwarves into a fierce melee with swarms of sniveling orcs! :laugh4:

[Crian]

I, for one, am hoping that they would, in one way or another, revisit feudal Japan.

They could make an oriental themed Total War game and have the Sengoku Jidai period as a smaller campaign like what they're doing with Kingdoms. :yes:

[woad&fangs]

Could someone make a thread with a poll about this so we could clearly see the major opinions.:logic: My personal vote would be for an asian setting whether it was persian, Indian, chinese, or maybe a russia total war starting at Ivan the terrible:2cents:

[Taurus]

I would most like to see a Three Kingdoms: Total War in ancient china (e.g. much like the dynasty warriors series.)

[pockettank]

why does everyone say S2TW? or a china:TW when u can have Asia:TW that expands into russia, japan, philipenes, all the islands between asia and austalia (sorry sont know what there called lmao) maybe part of australia if not all of it possibly stretching into Asia minor and such.. i think thats better than JUST japan or china :yes:

[Crimison]

STW2:wall:

I'm just after seeing a really cool TV show about samurai weapons, and that just gave me the urge to play STW. So, basically, I WANT MY STW2!:2thumbsup:

Just as long as it has good AI....

[KukriKhan]

Neanderthal:TotalWar

When the idea of organised warfare began.

:thumbsup:

[ainamacil]

I would very much like to see a Napoleon: Total War be the next game from CA. Muskets, field guns, and bayonet charges exemplify my favorite era of history.

Yes, it would need a new engine. You would definitely need to do real-time naval battles. But they built a new engine for Rome. It would undoubtedly require quite a bit of work. But I would enjoy the hell out of it.

The prospects for Historical Battles and Campaigns are endless. And there could be an expansion based on the American Civil War or even westward expansion. Play as the superpower United States or one of the numerous native tribes!

I'd buy it!

[Robin From Da Hood]

I would very much like to see a Napoleon: Total War be the next game from CA. Muskets, field guns, and bayonet charges exemplify my favorite era of history.

Yes, it would need a new engine. You would definitely need to do real-time naval battles. But they built a new engine for Rome. It would undoubtedly require quite a bit of work. But I would enjoy the hell out of it.

The prospects for Historical Battles and Campaigns are endless. And there could be an expansion based on the American Civil War or even westward expansion. Play as the superpower United States or one of the numerous native tribes!

I'd buy it!
Good idea.But what i would like a world war one or second world war.For ww2 the engine i think would be harder to realise but for ww1 it is much easier cause the tanks are fewer and the aircraft aren't so many like in ww2.

[seign_thelas]

Mongol, Three Kingdom, or Shogun 2

[pockettank]

Neanderthal:TotalWar

When the idea of organised warfare began.

:thumbsup:


:yes: agreed ~:cheers:

[Trajanus]

To be honest, guys, I think a Napoleonic game is the most obvious choice. I understand all your arguments about Medieval India being interesting and more developed etc. but no-one has heard of them! Why was it called "Rome: Total War" and not "Dacia: Total War" or "Carthage: Total War"? You could play any of those three factions, and more, but it was named after the Romans as they were by far the most famous nation from that time (they are even called "Roman times"!) and most people would rather play as them than the other factions. The "average person" - or "casual player", if you like - is going to be very familiar with Rome: everyone has certainly heard of the Roman Empire and has a picture in their minds of a Roman soldier with his red, square shield - whereas most people who have never played RTW have probably never even heard of Dacia, Pontus or the Seleucid Empire. Granted, most people will recognise the name "Carthage" too, but they are only famous for elephants, Hannibal, and being beaten by the Romans - just like the Gauls, Dacians and all those other "barbarians". And, let's face it, who wants to play as the losers?

Apologies, but this is incorrect. I live in a country that is not Western. (China) and I can safely tell you that not everyone has heard of the Roman Empire. 'The Roman Times' you speak of are only called thus in Europe for context. They could easily be called Chinese Times as the Chinese Empire at the time was just as important and in fact more advanced in some ways than Rome. Depends on what part of the World you live in and what language you speak. Rome was the dominating power in Europe, so of course it's name is used, but only because it easily tells people what era you are talking about, and the map was Europe.


Things like medieval India belong in mods. I think that, no matter how advanced they may have been, they will still be a niche market. For history buffs, enthusiasts, 'grognards' and whatever else you want to call them.

Again it depends on what Market you are going for. As stated before by Diatovelli the Asian Pacific Market is vast compared to the Western one, and I can assure you that most Chinese gamers would prefer to see a game set in their own country rather than overseas. However the key point most people fail to make is that yes China has the biggest population in the world, but it also has the worst piracy problems as well. (I can buy fake copies of ANYTHING in legal shopping malls!) So yes the market over here is the biggest, but the potential for profit sadly isn't. What's more there is a lot of xenophobia in the East. Ask almost any chinese person what they think about Japanese and you will get the response of 'little devils' with no joke intended. Its a hate culture, and so you won't see a big profit in China from a game based in Japan. I can remember only 1 Chinese clan when STW was just out.

You restrict your opinions to Western markets and people who come to English-speaking websites. I can understand this as most Chinese people do the same for their own language. (Try looking at a Chinese website see how far you get :dizzy2:


And so, though it pains me to say it, we here are all Lacrosse fans, metaphorically. Even though there may be people here who are really into medieval India, China at the time of the Roman Empire or Bronze Age Greece (hell, I sure find those areas of history interesting), frankly, noone else does.

No offence meant, but try opening your mind to the fact there there are more people in the World than just those from Western countries. Also don't think that there are only English or European-speaking forums and websites for the TW series.



As for the "Asia has a market for Indies: Total War" argument, I'm not sure. Although I completely agree that there must be millions of middle class people in Asia who could buy videogames, the question is, would they? Is there really a demand for PC games in, say, India?

India is an up and coming technological country. A lot of IT companies are locating there. China is the same. Microsoft have 2 offices in China, (Chengdu - my city, and Dalian), Intel have just built their biggest factory here in Chengdu.) It's nothing to do with 'Middle-Class' in Asia. Internet Cafes are the process, and there are millions of them. IBM has financed a Chinese Company from Xian to build net cafes throughout China. They have just built one in Beijing that I think has 7 floors of computers in a huge building. Net cafes over here are cheaper than you can imagine (£0.07/hour) and people literally live in them as they are open 24/7. I read a report not long ago based upon a person who lives in a Net Cafe in Japan. It has facilities such as showers!


Also, about people enjoying games about their own country, I think this is only true to a certain extent. I myself come from Ukraine, but do I know what was going on in that area in 1384? No, and, to be honest, I don't particularly care. Nor do I want a game made about it. In fact, I defy any British or American person who isn't a historian/history student/similar to give me, off the top of their heads, an in-depth analysis of the political situation in their country in, say, 1787. Indeed, would most Brits/Americans even know who the head of state was at that time? Sure, people like to play as themselves, but it's more important if they recognise who they are playing as.

Again, not to be rude but you are thinking with a Western mind-set. Open your mind to the fact that different cultures think in different ways. I can tell you right now that the Chinese people (much like Americans today) are very nationalistic. They see their country as the best and cling firmly to this opinion. Yes you come from the Ukraine, but I believe you don't have this feeling because was there ever a Ukrainian Empire? At the end of the day it's about power, and the Chinese have sustained their position in the World longer than any others.


Why else would most Rome: Total War players play as one of the Roman factions, despite a relatively small proportion of them actually being from Rome or Italy?

From what I read about people playing RTW, the most common question was 'How can I unlock the other factions?' Most people played as Rome because they were the starting factions. The first mod for the game was an open all factions mod, which came out pretty quickly if I recall.


So, in conclusion, stick to the most famous areas of history with your games, and leave the rest to the mods.

In terms of people knowing about it, 1.5 billion directly know the history of China, and many others from outside China know a lot or a little about it. Famous in terms of no. of people knowing it, or in terms of no. of people in your area knowing it is a different thing.

This post is not to put you down I Am Herenow, I just see a lot of people thinking what they study and learn about at school or in their private time is what everyone in the World studies and learns about. Having lived in both West and East (native of the UK now living in China) I can promise you that this isn't the case.

As for CA and profit, I cannot see a direct move to gain from the Chinese market, because even after looking at all the statistics about it's size, its all fake. Firstly people here don't buy games, they go to Net Cafes and play them. Net Cafes do not buy a copy for each computer as they should, but actually just 1 copy and install on all computers. This drastically cuts the possible profit down. Then on top of that piracy problems mean its an almost no go area.

But opening up a new era for Western minds isn't such a bad idea. I didn't know anything about medieval Japan before I bought Shogun. Although I had just finished reading James Clavell's book 'Shogun' at the beginning of 2000. It opened my mind to a new era, and I found myself learning as much as possible about it because it turned out I loved it.

As for the next Total War: *sucks teeth* anything is possible. As most say it depends on what market they are trying to reach. I would like to see Chinese Warring States, because of the multitude of factions, plus the map wouldn't have to be that big. No point having a World map if 'Russia' is just one province. A remake of STW is always a nice choice, but will maybe stagnate the genre further as Duke John mentioned. Mongols is kinda difficult since they already have an Expansion pack about them, although this is localised in Japan. Still the map would be huge Covering all of Asia (including Indonesia) and then much of Europe as well, if not all. Greece would be nice, if it was done in detail, because of the number of factions available. The Fantasy genre is now a tough nut to crack, unless they purchase some special rights, which I am sure SEGA have the cash for.

The question is after 7 years, where can they take turn-based strategy?

[I Am Herenow]

OK, I'm going to say the same thing to you as I did to diotavelli: would you put your own money into making a TW game based on China? Well, you've already answered that question in your post: no. I don't dispute that you will know more about China than me, but when I asked whether there was a games-buying culture in the East, why did you first argue that there was, but then admit that, in fact, there wasn't (due to internet cafes etc.)?

Also, as for turn-based strategy, I actually prefer a turn-based campaign map as that is more manageable. Battles are meant to be chaotic and realistic and so it's good that they're real-time, but a real-time campaign map where armies advance on you and you have to counter them, as well as building buildings and all the usual stuff, would probably drive you mad.

[Trajanus]

I'm not talking so much about game-buying culture. The conception is that there is a huge game-playing culture here. But that misleads developers by the actual number of game-buyers. Don't get me wrong a large percentage buy games, but they are pirate copies so the developer earns no money.

Aye if I had some spare cash I would invest in a China based TW. And I think if you played it you might just come to love it. Look at the original Shogun. How many Japanese players were there online? Not many, yet it was off the success of that game that the whole series got going.

Sorry to stray off topic.

[Galapagos]

:focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus:

[Gimli]

Neanderthal:TotalWar

When the idea of organised warfare began.

:thumbsup:

Now THAT would be FUN!!!! :viking: :smash:

[Galapagos]

Omg..Neanderthal:total war :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: What troops would you like to have?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: It would be better a WW1 or WW2 total war

[Gimli]

:laugh4: You could have uh, clubmen... and er.... rock throwing men.... (?) and ummmm.......................... yeah, it would be great! :grin: Actually, I think you could do pretty well with it if you moved it along so that it covered neanderthal up to like copper age type stuff! :2thumbsup:

[Galapagos]

You all just make me laugh:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[King Jan III Sobieski]

What about a Cold War type game? The Soviets vs. U.S.A. or something like that?:egypt:

[Andres]

Just posting to make the not so nice username disappear from the Entrance Hall index :bow:

How about a Camel Total War?

[sapi]

I'd like to see a C:TW ~;)

User forcibly removed from the forum :bow:

EH mods will take care of the rest.

[Gimli]

All due respect to camels, but without horses for them to get bonus against, who would they excell against?... :bigcry:

[tarbanrael]

I would love to see an updated version of Shogun Total War. And why not a Chinese Total War: my knowledge of Chinese history is very limited but I am quite sure that some of their Empire building must have been just as interesting as the Medieval period in Europe.

[I Am Herenow]

What about a Cold War type game? The Soviets vs. U.S.A. or something like that?:egypt:

Yeah, a Total War game where you can't deploy any troops or fight any battles, lest your country (or the entire world) be immediately obliterated. That would be fun...

[Warluster]

I would love a TW game covering some of the years between 1500 and 1800. Not all, but aybe just 1500 to 1650, It'd rock!

[Charge]

What series really needs, is the new gameplay,ideas - much more clever AI, much more deeper diplomacy, much more control on campmap/battlefield, navy battles.
New covered area won't add interest to play. Recruit-build-siege-battle-recruit-build-betrayed-siege-battle:wall: All the same... You must be TW fanatic to play this endlessly.:no:
As for me, I will not even think about buying next games, if they'll not about romans/greeks/barberians.

[Gimli]

They really could do with a better AI... It would really add to the game! The AI generals are ok... *kinda* But their factions make no sense... They are all very backstabbing and will be at war with you one turn, ally with you the next, and then backstab you the next! :dizzy: Also, I think that you should be able to form vassel (spelling?) states that would pay you money so you don't destory them... They could have the possibility to rebel I suppose... But I would like an AI that you could strike SOME bargains with... "We stop fighting if you give me THIS land or THIS money..."

[Swoosh So]

Id like a 'little effort' added to multiplayer, as for the single player aspect i believe theyre on the right track if they just observe what the good mods are doing and make vh mode alot harder by maybe making you at war with neighbours at the start and making PROPER rebellions.

It would be nice to request help from an ally to attack a province or character stack, of course the ai coud do this too, and perhaps these requests could have monetary values attached, as most players know the game feels so much better with an ally on your side in a battle or on the enemies side although this rarely happens :\

Id also like to see very hard mode make your finances tight so you can only support 2-3 stacks max, and more surprise naval attacks by the ai (moving 2 or more stacks by sea and attacking provinces with little time to reply).

[vladiator]

With all the modding that is going on (which allows to change maps, units, names, etc) is it possible to mod, say, MTW2 into games set in the Roman era or in Indies?

[I Am Herenow]

Some mod teams are planning to do this. Off the top of my head, I know the Europa Barbarorum, Inca: Total War and Lordz (who made Napoleonic 2: Total War for RTW) teams - all of them teams who have made mods for RTW - are either going to port their mods over to M2 or are considering it.

Therefore if they were all to port, we would get M2 mods set in the ancient era (or "Roman times", if you like), pre-Columbine South America and Napoleonic Europe.

[The_crusader]

Omg..Neanderthal:total war :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: What troops would you like to have?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: It would be better a WW1 or WW2 total war



WW1 because everybody was motivated to do that war ...ww2 was like for the french "oh my god not this again" and for the english it was "here we go again gotta teach those germains a leason or two about world domination"~:shock:

but I would have to go with with WW2 evrything was cooler:smug2:

[Charge]

Is work started?
Medieval2 they start shortly after RTW release...

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Hi Charge,
As of yet, no work has begun or been announced by the CA in Sussex (the creators of Shogun and Rome) or Australia (the creators of Medieval and Medieval II). I presume that it's currently in the planning stages of development and its setting will be announced about six/seven months prior to the release.

[Charge]

In this case release is about 2009... :inquisitive:

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I think that would probably be a good aproximation Charge. S:TW was released in 2000, M:TW was 2002, R:TW was 2004 and M2:TW was 2006. Presumably the next game will either be late 2008 or early 2009. You just got to hope they don't keep us waiting too long!

[I Am Herenow]

LOL I doubt they'd start even before they'd finished with Kingdoms, not to mention having to hang around monitoring M2 and Kingdoms for a few months after release and making the inevitable patches to fix bugs etc. before they could truly move on.

[The_crusader]

They could also think about doing a better version of Shogun ,STW 2 so we would could wait a big max of around 4 years before RTW2 comes out ,just now people are starting to play Shogun and they are liking it.:thinking:

[Charge]

I can wait 3/4 years for RTW2, but if they will make REALLY impressive work.

[jenko4292]

Back to one of the original points does anyone else think a LOTR TW would be good. If not then a completley new map uniqe to anything real
With the same basic gameplay but with the addition of heroes and hero body guard units
Also if a game was made based in the 20th century WW sort of times they would need to rewrite history to make it fun otherwise it would just be watching men shoot each other
Does anyone know how to get into game design by the way not so much the graphics just the ideas behind the games

[magnum]

Well, as CA had made the comment once upon a time (after Vikings was released) that they were planning basically new engine, second game using same engine, then new engine again (i.e. Shogun and Med1 had same engine, then Rome and Med2 had the same engine), that would mean the next one will have a new engine. Yea, thats pulling a statement from the days of yore, but if they stick to it this would be a good time to make changes that would be necessary to optimize a game engine to model gunpowder units. Thus Napolionic would be a good period.

On the other hand, if they decide to continue using the same engine, then I think/would like to see a China/Kingdoms based TW game.

[Martok]

LOL I doubt they'd start even before they'd finished with Kingdoms, not to mention having to hang around monitoring M2 and Kingdoms for a few months after release and making the inevitable patches to fix bugs etc. before they could truly move on.
Actually, CA began working on the new engine for Rome in 2000, shortly after Shogun was released. So it's entirely possible they've been working on a "3rd-generation" engine since 2004 when Rome first came out.

Is such a scenario actually likely? I don't know. But it certainly is possible.

[The_crusader]

Well, as CA had made the comment once upon a time (after Vikings was released) that they were planning basically new engine, second game using same engine, then new engine again (i.e. Shogun and Med1 had same engine, then Rome and Med2 had the same engine), that would mean the next one will have a new engine. Yea, thats pulling a statement from the days of yore, but if they stick to it this would be a good time to make changes that would be necessary to optimize a game engine to model gunpowder units. Thus Napolionic would be a good period.

On the other hand, if they decide to continue using the same engine, then I think/would like to see a China/Kingdoms based TW game.

I think they wont take that next big step into a new engine such as Napolionic total war because there is already a game on the Napolionic wars....
im still trying to find the name but I remember seing it at best buy:inquisitive:

They should do a remake of shogun then when the money comes in they do there big RTW 2 master piece:2thumbsup:

[Didz]

I think they wont take that next big step into a new engine such as Napolionic total war because there is already a game on the Napolionic wars....
Beleive me if there was a decent Napoleonic game I would own it:no:

There have been quite a few computerised boardgames based on the period but nothing even remotely playable as a wargame.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

LOL I doubt they'd start even before they'd finished with Kingdoms, not to mention having to hang around monitoring M2 and Kingdoms for a few months after release and making the inevitable patches to fix bugs etc. before they could truly move on.Not quite I Am Herenow. Both CA teams alternate - England will be producing the next game while Australia will busy themselves optimizing Kingdoms and patching M2:TW.

[Lusted]

Indeed there are 2 offices, one in the UK, one in Oz.

[The_crusader]

Beleive me if there was a decent Napoleonic game I would own it:no:

There have been quite a few computerised boardgames based on the period but nothing even remotely playable as a wargame.



Here is what I meant when it was a little like the tota lwar series it lokk appealing...
http://www.armchairempire.com/images/Reviews/pc/cossacks-2-napoleonic-wars/cossacks-2-napoleonic-wars-2.jpg

[Didz]

Here is what I meant when it was a little like the tota lwar series it lokk appealing...
http://www.armchairempire.com/images/Reviews/pc/cossacks-2-napoleonic-wars/cossacks-2-napoleonic-wars-2.jpg
Thats Cossacks 2 - Battle for Europe. I have that and Cossacks II Napoleonic Wars. But in reality neither of these games have any relavance to the Napoleonic Wars at all other then the fact that the skins of the units are vaguely Napoleonic.

Both games have a simple Command and Conquer style resource gathering system which basically rewards rushers who can seize and hold 'Gold mines' quickly. There is no attempt to apply any sort of Command and Control structure to the games, it is purely a click fest control system with no consideration is given to Napoleonic logistical or tactical problems.

Finally, the AI is appalling and basically relies upon the 'Mass Production Bonus' cheat to swamp the human player with troops rather than any form of strategy or tactical finesse.

BTW: The single player campaigns are just a farce, basically involving the rescue of a damsel in distress and have about as much to do with the Napoleonic was as the plot of Grand Theft Auto. It also has some of the most appalling voice acting I have ever heard, most of whom seem to think they are producing an American Civil War game.

The Lordz NTW mod is actually far better than both these games and its free, unfortunately NTW2 does not have a campaign option.

So, if you haven't bought Cossacks 2 yet, my advice is to save your money, unless you are looking for a plastic box to fill a gap in your bookshelf. It basically kept me occupied for about a day before I got bored with it.

[Lord Zimoa of Flanders]

Rumour spreads it could be RTW2:

http://www.gameguru.in/pc/2007/28/rome-total-war-2-on-the-anvil/
http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/comments_news.phtml?id=072707_8
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6594&Itemid=53


LZ

[Myrddraal]

And for those of you talking about good Napoleonic games, check LZoF's signature links :wink:

[Swoosh So]

Rumour spreads it could be RTW2:

http://www.gameguru.in/pc/2007/28/rome-total-war-2-on-the-anvil/
http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/comments_news.phtml?id=072707_8
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6594&Itemid=53


LZ

Thanks alot for the info, you just made me a very happy peep this morning! i hope they keep in the competing rome factions, i disliked mods that made rome just 1 faction :\

:2thumbsup:

[Jack Lusted]

Nothing has been announced relating to the next game yet.

[I Am Herenow]

So much for those links then!

TBH I think they're working on a new console game (therefore, a new Total Warrior game) because they're looking for a PS3/X360 (can't remember which) optimiser who's good at low level machine code on the CA website.

[Swoosh So]

Well not saying rome will be the next one but the fact that someone from ca says its in the pipeline is good news, at least for me as i find the period of history of rome very interesting.

[Saulot]

I like the idea of a new Rome game, because I love the ancient world and warfare best of all. I would love to see a Total War in a slightly earlier time period, set in the Middle East.

[icek]

shame they will go back to rome and make rome2 tw. I had so much hopes for something very very new. :shame:

[Charge]

Is special place for suggestions to CA exists?

[Garnier]

For those who want the best napoleonic battle game available, I present European Warfare: Napoleonica (mod based on the ACFB engine).

http://www.mastersofthefield.com/
Screenshots:

https://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9506/613630535og.jpg

https://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7571/825738225lf.jpg

http://www.mastersofthefield.com/drakes_things/Champs_pic2.GIF

http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/6322/2002094221894762721_rs.jpg

[Martok]

Rumour spreads it could be RTW2:

http://www.gameguru.in/pc/2007/28/rome-total-war-2-on-the-anvil/
http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/comments_news.phtml?id=072707_8
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6594&Itemid=53


LZ
Meh. They're all quoting from the same comment, and the comment itself is far from conclusive. Given Scott Steinberg's remarks, he could just as easily have been referring to the next game CA's UK office is working on. In addition to which, I have a hard time believing they would do a Rome 2 so soon after Medieval 2 -- it would be far too unoriginal.

[Fate]

I'll be well peeved if they release R2TW.

Even though Rome is my favourite game of the lot, i just dont see the point in releasing it so soon after the original. I mean ATW didnt come out until last year.

CA should iron out all the M2TW bugs and sort a good series of expansions before thinking about heading into ANOTHER project! (One that is unsuprising and already done at that!)

[NagatsukaShumi]

I'll be well peeved if they release R2TW.

Even though Rome is my favourite game of the lot, i just dont see the point in releasing it so soon after the original. I mean ATW didnt come out until last year.

CA should iron out all the M2TW bugs and sort a good series of expansions before thinking about heading into ANOTHER project! (One that is unsuprising and already done at that!)

Creative Assemly will be ironing out bugs and concentrating on Kingdoms as it will most likely be the English office which produce the next game.

Companies need to keep produing new games, its how they make money, so I see nothing wrong with them moving on.

[Gurkhal]

I hope that the next game will have a new setting, maybe the earliest Dark Ages from the fall of Western Rome at 476 to maybe 1066, India, the 14th to 16th centuary, China, pre-Columbus Mesoamerica or ancient pre-Persian Middle East. I sincely hope that CA does not intend to recycle the Medival and Rome setting over and over again. That would really be dull.