total war 3???? [Archive]

vyanvotts

06-26-2002, 01:11

i would be intrested to know on what you think the next episode of total war should be, what era do you think they should do next? i think they should do the imperealism age next and instead of having castles there should be fortresess ect, there should also be naval battles included and maybe u could have men on ships so you could board enemy ships? that would be good if they got it right. the atillery would be very good though. maybe it could be the world map and you could conilise america and have all the natives attacking you with there primitave weapons, or you could forge allicanses with them to fight other colonial powers.

anyways those are my ideas, u got an good ideas for the next total war?

Puzz3D

06-26-2002, 01:37

I think they should redo WE/MI as an add-on to MTW, so that it can benefit from all the enhancements of MTW.

MizuYuuki ~~~

Fast Death

06-26-2002, 01:48

Bump

Stephen Hummell

06-26-2002, 01:58

Nothin' after 1600, cuz i think all gun battles suck.

Maybe from the death of the roman empire to 1087 (when MTW starts). Barbarian: Total war, to when the Almohad threatened to take over all of Europe, to Charlemange, or when the Norse of the North raided and plundered most of Europe. To when William the Norman took over England with brutle force.

[This message has been edited by Stephen Hummell (edited 06-25-2002).]

Darkmoor_Dragon

06-26-2002, 02:13

I'd like to see 410-1066 "Dark Ages - Total War".

The final days of the Roman Empire and the flux of barbarian peoples... The "real" King Arthur in Briton blah blah blah.

Stephen Hummell

06-26-2002, 02:13

Or Ancient: total war. With the hittites, egyptians, hebrews, greeks, babyalonians,

In a different game, the romans and barbarians.

Stephen Hummell

06-26-2002, 02:25

Exactly what I was thinking Darkmoor Dragon.

Wavesword

06-26-2002, 02:36

Puzz 3D's idea is good, it would be moddable if we have a proper editor for the sprites. Otherwise it is extremely unlikely- ie unprofitable. The add-on will probably make some of the unplayable factions playable I would hazard, and add in another Mongol Invasion scenario I daresay.

vyanvotts

06-26-2002, 02:37

yeah that would be good, but i really think the castles could be improved more, men on walls maybe? men being able to be shoot off walls? that would be brilliant

[This message has been edited by vyanvotts (edited 06-25-2002).]

DrNo

06-26-2002, 03:12

Well what I would like to see would be Total Total War.

i.e. They provide all the neccessary to allow you to customise to your hearts content and set up whatever campaigns you like from history.

However I think were a good few years away from that so for now I would go with a world campaign from 1600 onwards involving much more complicated trade and resource handling, and guns and ships and ....

It wouldn't have to be based on the actual world historical happenings but using the historical tech etc...
A bit like Civ I suppose but in a much narror time span and with the Total War real time fighting.

vyanvotts

06-26-2002, 03:20

yeah that would be good drno, althought it would have to stop in early 1900's or maybe earlier because onece u start getting tanks ect i think it would proably ruin it.

HardRock

06-26-2002, 03:52

I would like to see all three verson put together .. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif World battle

vyanvotts

06-26-2002, 04:00

maybe in the next version they could add a campaign map on multiplayer? that would be brilliant

vyanvotts

06-26-2002, 04:12

well no one mentioned it in this post so i thought id bring it up! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

LittleGrizzly

06-26-2002, 04:12

vyan we've bn dreaming of that for bloody years!

Kraellin

06-26-2002, 05:22

i would guess one of three possibilities: mediterranean: total war, american civil war: total war, or world war I: total war. (this would be the toughest to do, but is perhaps the most neglected war when it comes to computer war games).

there are other possibilities, of course, colonial: total war, fantasy: total war, total war construction kit, egyptian: total war, alexander: total war, sci fi: total war (that one could be a hoot), massive multiplayer: total war (lots of possibilities there also), off world: total war (pre-industrial, just not set on this planet, but still humanoid), waterworld: total war, and so on and so forth.

mediterranean and american civil war seem the most likely to me, but world war I also works because there was still a lot of hand to hand trench warfare and whereas mechanization was starting up, it still wasnt the big item yet. thunder bombers become gas units. siege engines become tanks, mortars are still mortars...the conversions are pretty easy. the hard part might actually be the trenches.

nice to speculate, though, but before they start the next in the series there's still an expansion pack needed for m:tw and maybe a patch or two.

K.

------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

vyanvotts

06-26-2002, 05:41

world war 1 is a good idea, but what about the early planes they had in that war? they wouldnt be able to be flying around the map, or just land on the battle feild ect, got any ideas about how u could sort this probelm out? maybe you could have a button like on sudden strike (ever played that?) where u click where u want bombed or wuteva and the planes come in from out of the map,that sound ok?

Wavesword

06-26-2002, 05:48

Quote Originally posted by vyanvotts:
yeah that would be good drno, althought it would have to stop in early 1900's or maybe earlier because onece u start getting tanks ect i think it would proably ruin it.[/QUOTE]

Ever since I saw the stained corpses on the battlefield that look like they've been run over, I've wanted some demented modder to produce an entirely pointless mod where a tank fights against a whole medieval army, imagine hordes of warrior monks climbing all over it!
WW1 gets my vote too actually, at least when I select all and charge into my own thunderbomber fire I'll be being realistic! One needn't just stick to the trenches either- plenty of fun as the Austrians and Italians fight for the wooden spoon. Hopefully the MP would have a Diplomacy element.

Papewaio

06-26-2002, 06:01

Howabout First Person: Total War. An RPG version.

Play the battle from the point of view of the ashi... I'm sure a lot of us would be leading the rout after being told to block the warrior monks 'Give me a low level ashi to bash and a bit more dosh and I will be the next superashi, block these wm I will have to start my campaign all over again'

Or the point of view of the centurion. The AI controls both sides and you have to see how well you can survive... obey your general and you may get better armour or weapons... disobey and you may find yourself in the garrison force putting down rebellions.

vyanvotts

06-26-2002, 06:24

i once remmber seeing a screenshot for a first person veiw along time ago when there was a small section in a pczone magizine about a game called shogun total war....apprantly there was meant to be a first person mode to, it showed you as an arhcer on a cliff pointing down on a army, anyone else see this?

[This message has been edited by vyanvotts (edited 06-26-2002).]

Prodigy

06-26-2002, 07:04

I would like Total War to come back to Asia. Maybe Imperial China or (and) before and after Mongol Invasion.

Personally, I think TW World War I (or II) wont be sucessfull since they fought (in trenches, streets, etc.) without real fomation. There will be just to much individualism - for this we have Medal of Honor.

------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.

Stephen Hummell

06-26-2002, 07:37

Prodigy is right. The gameplay would be messed up if they did WWI or WWII.

The American Civil War would be an all gun battle, except for cavalry.

So I think they should do somethin' before or during the time period of MTW .

[This message has been edited by Stephen Hummell (edited 06-26-2002).]

Sir Kuma of The Org

06-26-2002, 08:00

I'm guessing the next Total War will be fantasy based something like The lords of the ring or Star wars.

Remember you heard here first http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
La vie est un don.

Stephen Hummell

06-26-2002, 08:11

hehe your funny. Your kidding right.

Prodigy

06-26-2002, 09:16

I hope he is.

------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.

LittleGrizzly

06-26-2002, 11:15

me 2

Take that back !!

Khan7

06-26-2002, 11:21

Individualism is generally equal throughout wars, the details just change. In WWs I and II they very much fought in formation, the formations were just a lot more spaced out.

Matt

theforce

06-26-2002, 11:51

I think the battle among the cities of Greece. That shall be like Shogun but we could have accurate invasion of the Persians etc or campaigns like Alexander the Great etc http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!

oZoNeLaYeR

06-26-2002, 13:28

The Gulf war lol... it'll be cool.. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Hirosito

06-26-2002, 14:41

TW2 isn't out yet and you're already thinking of TW3. tut tut.

rome totalwar is the next.

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

DrNo

06-26-2002, 15:09

WW1 would be good but the maps would have to be huge and troop numbers very high.
It was a 1v1 type campaign though and not Total War's multi faction type stuff.

They could cover any era and I think well all be happy as long as they keep making the forward steps on the gameplay side.

They could do lots of things to make it better, but will we buy a revamped MTW that was say 4 times as good as current version coming out?

My vision for the future is where each person controls one man in these very large battles in massive on-line participation.
You would have the most succesful person as your leader doing the strategy, then if a battle was to be thought it would be announced to start at a certain time.
Everyone who wanted to participate would connect up and get ready for battle.
If someone dosn't connect up in time then the AI would control that person.
If you died then you would take the next available troop spot either newly created or current(that no one else has).
If you survive and gain enough kills etc.. you become unit leader and eventually leader of your clan and take strategic control. Do you then risk going into battle yourself to keep ahead of other players or stay out of it and hope no one gets higher than you?

We would all have headsets but could only talk to those within distance etc..
Imagine the chaos, imagine the realism of battle then!

Your mate has just been cut down by one of enemy, do you fight the man in front or do you get revenge and go after your mates killer with your axe?

the Count of Flanders

06-26-2002, 15:46

just a few ideas for future total war games (originally posted at the .com by myself and Shawn Rowlands):
Baywatch:Total War
Spinning off from the (once) popular series you control scarcely-dressed lifeguards that declare total war on sharks, jellyfish and people that litter on the beach. Just like the series the story will be crap but the graphics will be improved to display the female lifeguards in full glory. The only marching speed will be "running" to ensure maximum character animation enjoyment. Special characters include Pamela Anderson and Carmen Electra. I just know this one will be a record-breaker!
I hope Baywatch Total War comes out. I can't wait to play David Hasselhoff. Creative Assembly could do a whole line of 80s TV shows using the Total War engine. For example: The A-Team Total War. One side would have the A-Team (Hannibal, Face, B.A. Baracus & Murdoch), each would be the equivalent of an STW kensai and, as a group, they could have the ability to construct vehicles out of whatever is lying around. The other side would be mercenaries, terrorists, drug dealers, jellyfish etc. In the true spirit of the show, there would be absolutely no battlefield casualties. Instead battles would occur like this: Bad Guys shot at the A-Team . . . Hannibal throws a grenade . . . Bad Guys drop guns and run, crap explosion, end of episode

oZoNeLaYeR

06-26-2002, 16:04

I suggest no Battle using Moderm weapon since it'll ruin the game... i like sword, arrows etc. not a semi automatic crap or bazooka or rocket.

Wavesword

06-26-2002, 16:48

The problem witn modern weapons is scale and range, it's why WW2 flight sims are better 'games' than superfighters that can kill from 9 miles off.

Roumata

06-26-2002, 18:07

I would be very interested in an Antique: Total war.
From the campaign of Ramses the great to the invasion of the men of Attila against the roman empire, through the battle of troie, the campaign of alexandre the great, the punics war, etc.... !
A huge period but nothing really changed during it in a matter of war !
We would see new units, like war elephant, war chariots, new formations specifics to one country like the roman tortoise, like the greek phalanx or the heavy skirmich barbarian cavalry etc....

Roumata d'Elthor

Orda Khan

06-26-2002, 18:48

Mongols only get mentioned in add ons. I would like to see Mongol Total War with the chance to recreate the greatest continuous land empire the world has known.
The Mongols get a raw deal in history as it is usually told by those who were on the receiving end. Their warfare was years ahead of its time and lets not forget it was the Mongols who opened up the trade routes between west and east.
Mongols the well trained military machine not a bunch of plunderers.
The idea of joining STW/MI and MTW sounds good too and could possibly allow the same option.
.........Orda

------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."

Stephen Hummell

06-26-2002, 21:39

Rome eh. Spaning a thousand years. And all the barbarian tribespeople. The britons to the gauls to the germans. Who else, the egyptians, greeks, persians, people from the middle east, Atilla, carthage, and many others. That would be quite an impressive game. I still say Dark Ages: Total War.

How many more posts before I am samuri?

[This message has been edited by Stephen Hummell (edited 06-26-2002).]

Bohemond

06-26-2002, 22:06

Of all the good (and not so good) ideas, only those seem actually a possibility to me:
Either Antique(Greece, Persia, Rome, Karthago) + Dark Age Total War or American Cicil War.

Another good one that I think nobody mentioned so far:

Napoleon Total War: Lots of grand politics, strategy, gunbattles, bayonets, cavalry etc.

Sorry guys, but WWI is impossible with the TW engine.

Kraellin

06-27-2002, 00:34

actually, wwI is very do-able. squad sized infantry, horse drawn artillery, they still used some actual horse cav, balloons, small in frequent slow aircraft that were little more than scouts at first, bayonet charges were still used, water cooled heavy machine guns...this stuff is all within the abilities of the tw engine. realistically, i doubt it will be the next choice.

i also doubt that rome will be next either. this is why i said mediterranean: total war. that would include all the factions around the med, including the north african nations, middle east, greek, roman and so on. this would be set back in the days of oar ships and no gun powder.

the civil war works also, because even though you had guns, they were still essentially muskets. field artillery was horse-drawn, horse cav was still viable, mortars, balloons for observation, formation fighting...it works.

but if you dont like civil war, you could do revolutionary war and go a bit earlier, or even go a bit earlier and do colonial: total war, the conquest of the new world. that one has lots of possibilities.

but i tend to believe that those seeking more ancient periods will win out, given the history of tw. and yes, whoever said mongol: tw and asia: tw, those would certainly work.

K.

------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

Catiline

06-27-2002, 01:35

Quote Originally posted by Orda Khan:
The Mongols get a raw deal in history as it is usually told by those who were on the receiving end.
[/QUOTE]

For does the sacred text not say 'History is written by the victors...'

Anyhows, my vote goes for the Diadochi, for those who don't know, the Succesor Kingdoms of Alexander's "Empire". Balanced factions, with significant differences, huge numbers of troop types and horse archers for those who need their fix, massive geographical range, the possibility of including rome before it's legions were uber warriors.

Anything post Napoleonic has i'm afraid very little interest from my point ofview, nor do i want to be zapping people with laser guns. That sort of combat IMo can be done better elsewhere.

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

vyanvotts

06-27-2002, 02:55

how about a game like empire earth, where u can advance through the ages, starting from cave men where ur men would be unorganised and not very disiplined to world war 2 maybe

Stephen Hummell

06-27-2002, 08:12

that would take years to make.

Stephen Hummell

06-27-2002, 08:20

civil war- they used muskets up until the later years of the war when the union used breached loaders. Which could pop out 10 shots a minute or more. Plus the game would only be around a couple years or more. So before an after the war would be better. The battles would be huge though. And alot of troops! It would be a sweet game though.

Prodigy

06-27-2002, 08:30

American Civil War has only few types of soldiers and weapons. This will be a step down from MTW. Plus it would be very short.

------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.

the Count of Flanders

06-27-2002, 11:34

...plus nobody outside the US would be interested.

DrNo

06-27-2002, 14:53

I would be interested in U.S. civil war if only it tells us what position the U.S. would be in today if the Confeds won!
Would it be any different?

Civil War, WW1 etc.. are 1v1. Soon as you got the upperhand, game over.
Maybe good to replay some of the battles though using Total War Engine and might be a good add-on pack idea.

Hirosito

06-27-2002, 15:18

the lack of different units is really the thing as weel as the lack of different factions. also civil war is very 'story driven' it's only interseting because things happened the way they did.
ina game you would deviate so quickly that you'd lose all realtion to the real war.

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

hach

06-27-2002, 21:44

What about Fantasy Game like the Warhammer?

the Count of Flanders

06-27-2002, 22:43

that would kick ass, I'm a Warhammer fan. Too bad GW is VERY carefull about giving licenses to make warhammer-related games.

Darkmoor_Dragon

06-27-2002, 22:49

There's a Warhammer MMOG in development now so its seems unlikely they'd spill the license.

A fantasy Total War would be fun though - albeit i can see magic simply replacing gunpowder and artillery as everybodies pet hate!

I think there's a lot of life left in ancient eras yet: Greeks, Trojans, Romans, Alexandre (Macedonians), Dark Ages... though i can also see the franchise reaching as far as Napoleonic Wars.

ECW (English Civil War) would actually be quite a good one also but like the ACW (American Divil War) it might be a bit low on the "global interest" stakes - mind you, who would have thought Shogun would have been such a success? UP till then if you said "Koku" most people thought you'd gone lala and returned to childhood noises or senile dementia.

Good engines. good gameplay etc can overcome any apparent limitation in "realism or story".

Wavesword

06-27-2002, 23:03

The question is at what point will the game be so moddable that we can make all these things by ourselves? Be interesting to see where the glass ceilings are in MTW.

Stephen Hummell

06-27-2002, 23:16

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DrNo:
I would be interested in U.S. civil war if only it tells us what position the U.S. would be in today if the Confeds won!
Would it be any different?

We would have a bunch of hicks running the country. We'd also have Mexico and Canada by now too.

[This message has been edited by Stephen Hummell (edited 06-27-2002).]

Stephen Hummell

06-27-2002, 23:20

Fantasy game? No it has to be a historical game to keep the series going

Yeah, the only difference in the ACW would be different uniforms.

[This message has been edited by Stephen Hummell (edited 06-27-2002).]

the Count of Flanders

06-27-2002, 23:25

Quote Originally posted by Stephen Hummell:
We would have a bunch of hicks running the country.[/QUOTE]
MUST...RESIST...URGE...TO...MAKE...SARCASTIC...REMARK
PHEW
Anyways, I think Warhammer FB would work out great: all the units have already been balanced. Only thing that would cause some trouble is the different rulesets, I mean both Warhammer and Total War have a really good rule set for wargames, which one should you use? I would prefer the Warhammer one because it's probably more balanced although it has more randomness in it.

[This message has been edited by the Count of Flanders (edited 06-27-2002).]

Stephen Hummell

06-27-2002, 23:38

What am I saying, we already have a bunch of hicks running the country.

Fast Death

06-28-2002, 03:47

George Bush: Total War

Wavesword

06-28-2002, 05:04

I've just heard that someone has acquired the licience for He-Man from Mattel for a Computer game. I live in hope.

KukriKhan

06-28-2002, 05:29

NTW: Neanderthal Total War. Primative weapons, beginnings of language, the wheel, original beer, massive conflicts with Cro-magnons; the fossil/artifactual record is so sketchy, developers could create their own world, without anyone saying: "Hey, that's not accurate!".

Sir Kuma of The Org

06-28-2002, 06:29

Quote Originally posted by Stephen Hummell:
What am I saying, we already have a bunch of hicks running the country.[/QUOTE]

Wrong forum, this belongs in OT

------------------
La vie est un don.

Papewaio

06-28-2002, 06:37

With MTW coming out and the unit files. It would not be difficult to modify the stats to very disciplined Hopilite Formations to slingers, to archers, etc. The only trouble I see is the creation of a chariot sprite file.

Not a conceptually difficult Mod if the first experimental version is limited to half a dozen units. The online version might be easier to create and hence balance the units for a SP version.

Emp. Conralius

06-30-2002, 00:33

I think the next in the Total War series should be based around the Hittites, Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc... Punic:Total War. Maybe the name is a little specific about the war between Carthage and Rome, but I think it has a better ring to it than most other examples.

vyanvotts

07-01-2002, 05:35

bump

Stephen Hummell

07-01-2002, 07:04

Don't start bumping and spaming again.

Prodigy

07-01-2002, 12:57

I totally agree, lazers are lame.

------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.

alKO

07-01-2002, 14:53

I would definetly like to see the game based either on Napoleanic wars, or antique.

JRock

07-01-2002, 22:05

If they stick with this game engine, hopefully nothing past 1600AD as the others have mentioned because it just won't work. I'd LOVE to see them have a new full-3D game engine with the ability to portray a Great War simulation. Mustard gas, artillery, zeppelins, early aircraft, early tanks, trench warfare, etc. I don't think anyone makes a game about that right now.

[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 07-01-2002).]

Nelson

07-01-2002, 22:57

Rome: Total War beginning with the subjugation of Italy and continuing through the 4th century. This game could include many states and troop types (elephants even) not to mention several tactical styles. Genuine formations too.

Bohemond

07-02-2002, 00:07

Yes, Rome plus a bit of Greece and Dark Age to spice things up. Should maybe call it Mediterranean: Total War

Exactly what I hope and expect!

the Count of Flanders

07-02-2002, 01:05

SPQR:Total War, sounds catchy doesn't it? Only problem would be that almost no-one would know that it's about Rome.

Emp. Conralius

07-02-2002, 01:19

That sounds good, Meditteranean: Total War! Similar to my Punic: Total War. Encompassing everything from the Sunnites to the Huns! Perhaps base it around the many unpopular civs. found in the original AOE (Age of Empires). Maybe some Dark Age elements too. Lke the Goths, Franks, Vandals, Gauls...all that!

Catiline

07-02-2002, 01:40

If it'll stop people drivelling on about the Great War http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
http://www.actiontrip.com/previews/1914thegreatwar_i.phtml

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

JRock

07-02-2002, 01:56

Ewwww turn-based on a computer. Save turn-based for the real board and figurines and keep computer games RTS please. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Hirosito

07-02-2002, 03:27

civ is the best game ever

vyanvotts

07-02-2002, 03:47

civ 3 is actually one of the most dissapointing games ever.

Nelson

07-02-2002, 03:59

I hear ya JRock. There have been some great turn based computer games like Civ and the Talonsoft titles but I seldom play them. (Play by e-mail is perfect for them though) I push cardboard counters or lead figs around a table top with friends, beer and pretzles if I'm gonna take turns.

Wavesword

07-02-2002, 06:12

I always take ages over my moves and then forget which piece is which in tabletop games.

KeePah

07-02-2002, 13:41

Hey, what did you mean by non american dont know what the Civil War was? Im a Swede and have spent many many many years of studying that (favorite) war. And everyone played North and South on Amiga500!

Civil War: Total War would be nice. If they do it close like to North and South. 1 turn is 1 month or a halv month and so on. And it was many units in the civil war. Many different guns! I love guns! =) Many different cannons etc etc.....

But I'll guess that TW3 would be Emperial: Total war. Europe 1500-1800. That would be a very great game. And if it will come true the Swedes will be in the game as Sweden was the greatest militaristic country in the world 1600 to 1750.

But Colonization: Total War would be very great! But the size of the armies wasent so big so Total War will loose some meaning in the name.

Ok, have to go to play some Shimazu in the Shogun campain =D, take care!

------------------
Cheaters never win and winners never cheat!

alKO

07-02-2002, 18:53

You're right Keepah! Then there could/should also be Hakkapeliitta's, who were one of the most feared soldiers in Europe at the time of 30 Years War.

Emp. Conralius

07-02-2002, 22:12

Keepah's got a point...

vyanvotts

07-03-2002, 04:33

colonial: total war would be very good, it wouldnt really matter if there wasnt as many men in each battle, maybe the makers could add a few more men for gameplay rather then realisim.....its a sacrifice id be happy with

Emp. Conralius

07-03-2002, 05:07

I think the Creative Assembly is gonna keep going further back in time. Shogun was based around the 15th century, then the MI took it to the 1200's, and now their starting it up around the late 9th century. I predict something like Punic: Total War or Meditteranean: Total War. Something from the Persians to the Huns. But Colonial: Total War sounds promising!

Stephen Hummell

07-03-2002, 05:39

I still say Dark Ages:Total War.

vyanvotts

07-03-2002, 05:42

wont going further and further back limit the gameplay options?

Emp. Conralius

07-03-2002, 06:54

Not really, most of the weaponry and what not comes from innovations from the ancient times. I by all means did not mean to simply that you go back to the point of Neanderthals tough, tht would be pretty stupid! I just was saying that that is the pattern Creative Assembly seems to be following.

Martok

07-03-2002, 12:25

"I'm guessing the next Total War will be fantasy based something like The lords of the ring or Star wars."

What's wrong with these ideas? Personally, those are probably the 2 sub-genres I'd favor most, if only to have a break in the historical wargame mode for a while--CA can always come back to history-based games for Total War 4.

Emp. Conralius

07-04-2002, 00:38

Decent ideas Matrock, it's just they stray away from a more historical setting. Shogun: Total War was based around the Sengoku Jidai, which, besides elentary knowledge of samurai and ninjas, nobody really knew about. And then the MI (Mongol Invasion). I think they'll stickto the facts.

Fast Death

07-04-2002, 01:51

Please, for the love of everything holy on this planet, NO fantasy lands!

Keep it accurate, keep it historical... keep it in reality.

Emp. Conralius

07-04-2002, 01:59

I think Creative Assembly will stick with the facts. I mean, the based the 1st installment of Total War around the Sengoku Jidai. Besides the elementary knowledge of samurais and ninjas, the period was almost unheard of. And then the Mongold Invasions, hell I didn't even know the Mngols "invaded" a secluded place like Japan. But know they're reaching out to a bigger audience with the Medieval moniker. They'll stick to realistic, non-fantasy type things. But your ideas are sound, Im just saying...

Emp. Conralius

07-04-2002, 06:34

Here Here Fats Death!

Grifman

07-04-2002, 07:36

Rome: Total War

You'd have the Carthaginians, Gauls, Germans/Goths, Macedonian/Greeks, Seleucids (Asia Minor & Syria), Ptolemies (Egypt), Parthians/Persians, and maybe the Huns thrown in for fun - though they only came on the scene late in the game historically. That's nine factions including the Romans. And you could have non-playable factions such as the Britons, Jews, Illyrians, Spanish tribes, Moorish and Libyan tribes, Armenians, etc.

And they could create different scenarios - the entire life of Rome, or a campaign to unify Italy, the Punic Wars, Roman expansion into the Eastern Mediterranean, and Rome encircled, trying to fight off various barbarian hordes while holding the line against Persia in the East.

Grifman

Emp. Conralius

07-04-2002, 08:38

Grifman, if you read most of my posts on this topic, you'll see that you've taken the words outa my mouth!

Sir Kuma of The Org

07-04-2002, 08:44

Quote Originally posted by Martok:
"I'm guessing the next Total War will be fantasy based something like The lords of the ring or Star wars."

What's wrong with these ideas? Personally, those are probably the 2 sub-genres I'd favor most, if only to have a break in the historical wargame mode for a while--CA can always come back to history-based games for Total War 4. [/QUOTE]

I'm scaring you with my prediction aren't i? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif. To make matter's worst, for now i'm standing with it (bad, bad, Kuma -gets a slap)

------------------
La vie est un don.

Action

07-04-2002, 11:28

Well, if they are gonna keep the same engine, then the next game should just be "Total War".

Start around ancient Greek times and go to about where medieval: total war ends.

The main campaign map = Almost all of Eurasia, and North Africa. (smaller campaigns could limit it to just certain areas)

Sure it sounds a little grand in scale, but it wouldn't take that many units, and hey they already have most of the mongol/japanese/medieval ones done. A lot of units could be shared, like basic ashis/crappy illtrained spearmen only needs to be two or three units, you don't need a seperate version of each unit for each "country".

If they switch to a new engine they will obviously have to do something more specific.

KeePah

07-04-2002, 16:07

Grifman you have right, I forgot to say that I belive 50% of my thinking that it will be Rome: Total War or something and 40% I belive that it will be Emperial: Total War and the rest % to others.

But to the one who wants fantasy and Star Wars, please! Go over to Blizzard and Verant and they will give you what u want. Fantasy and Total War dont mix.. =) Thank god it exist games who are based on realism!

(Time to go and play more Shogun: Total War as Shimazu.... He he it never ends and I never getting tierd of it!) =D

------------------
Cheaters never win and winners never cheat!

Hirosito

07-04-2002, 22:23

gee i only play the demo haven't played shoggy for a long time now.

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

Catiline

07-04-2002, 23:28

i'm curious as to why people want a game that has such a huge time span. Punic wars to the start of MTW? Sounds crap to me. I want a balanced, focused game, not civ with pretty battles.Campaign playbility is simple to lengthen by reducing the apparent length of turns. Make each turn a months and you've got three times the playtime over STW. I still want to be able to finish a campaign afterall.

MTW seems to be divided into three periods. I'm unclear how much overlap there is between these in terms of unit continuation etc, but even so 500 years is a lot of history. A game that pits Hannibals Elephants against the Huns is IMO pretty pointless in htis context. It might be fun but why dilute what is good about Total war as is. I'd be more than happy to play a fantasy game, but the odds of me buying something pseudo historical wouldn't be great, hence the fact I only looked at AOE etc when they're knocking about free with a new PC. Woohooo, another tech race, hurrah.

I think to retain its integrity the series needs to stay focused on periods like the Sengoku Jidai. Obviously there needs to be the pontential for developing new troop types etc but I'd rather see one period done well than several lumped in together with none done properly

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

Emp. Conralius

07-04-2002, 23:28

Thank you Thank you! Maybe Punic: Total War, Mediteranean: Totl War, maybe Trojan: Total War.

vyanvotts

07-05-2002, 05:56

pleas...no fantasy.....that would ruin it forever

Emp. Conralius

07-05-2002, 06:15

lets stick to the facts!

vyanvotts

07-05-2002, 06:18

hell yea, i dont wanna have to control a group of goblins being attacked by a group of ogars with magical lighting spells ect...maybe instead of the dyniamo from shogun we could have a wizard capable of casting tornados that lift whole units of goblins up in the air.....how about...no

Wavesword

07-06-2002, 00:52

Agreed Cat. In Shogun the timespan was a bit too long for my liking, especially in MI. Whenever I created a campaign I tried to minimize upgrading by having quite large standing armies- tho' the computer would still cheat. (The mortality levels of battles was better in STW2). Racing against one's own mortality would be an interesting challenge, rather than relying on that sickly son to finish the job off. The tech tree will be interesting to see- "aha Leonardo da Vinci has upgraded all my catapults".

Grifman

07-06-2002, 06:36

Quote Originally posted by Catiline:
i'm curious as to why people want a game that has such a huge time span. Punic wars to the start of MTW? Sounds crap to me. I want a balanced, focused game, not civ with pretty battles.Campaign playbility is simple to lengthen by reducing the apparent length of turns. Make each turn a months and you've got three times the playtime over STW. I still want to be able to finish a campaign afterall.

MTW seems to be divided into three periods. I'm unclear how much overlap there is between these in terms of unit continuation etc, but even so 500 years is a lot of history. A game that pits Hannibals Elephants against the Huns is IMO pretty pointless in htis context. It might be fun but why dilute what is good about Total war as is. [/QUOTE]

Most aren't talking about a war from Hannibal to MTW, but one encompassing the entire Roman period, about 700 years or so (200BC to 500AD). There's nothing inherently wrong in that. Roman tactics didn't change that much - primarily disciplined infantry based armies - except for the growing emphasis on cavalry as a response to the need for the ability to meet sudden barbarian invasions from the time of middle 200's or so.

You dismiss Carthaginian elephants fighting the Huns - I agree - but I don't see you dismissing a Byzantine invasion of England in MTW - which is just as unlikely. But that could occur in MTW. But that's why it's called a game.

Rome would be a very interesting game, with easily enough "focus" to match MTW.

Grifman

Emp. Conralius

07-06-2002, 09:04

I lot of great ideas. I'm going to have to side with the Roman, Hun, Carthaginian, Vandal type deal. I really think it's the next step in the series. But lets not be too harsh on our comrades who would like a fantasy-pixy-ogre deal. Well not *too* hard.

Catiline

07-07-2002, 04:32

In those 700 years hte changes in Roman tactics were massive. The longest period you could stretch out of it is about 300 without significant tactical changes, and even hten you're stretching hte envelope. I get your point about the Byzantine invasion of England, but frankly htat just confirms my fears about MTW as is.

------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri

vyanvotts

07-08-2002, 05:01

Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
But lets not be too harsh on our comrades who would like a fantasy-pixy-ogre deal. Well not *too* hard.[/QUOTE]

i think we should be EXTREMLY HARD on them. id prefer to control a armie of cavlary and longbowmen then to control goblins backed up by pixies and fairys.

Stephen Hummell

07-08-2002, 09:00

F*** fantasy!!!

Long live the Hives!!!!

Prodigy

07-08-2002, 13:21

I think CA have enough brain power to realise that fantasy suck, and facts rule.

------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.

Emp. Conralius

07-10-2002, 05:43

you guys are showing no mercy!

Stephen Hummell

07-10-2002, 06:32

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
you guys are showing no mercy!

Absolutly, Not enough good historical games and too many bad fantasy games.

Long live the Hives.

The Black Ship

07-10-2002, 07:23

I would love to see a Rome:Total War title, for all the reasons stated previously.

However, another great idea would be a dark ages series, but starting with a still existant Western Roman Empire. Take the game from the 4th Century on up to the Early era of the MTW. That way I could turn the fortunes of Rome and re-establish it's glory...plus spank those arrogant Eastern Romans (they're so uppity!).

Bohemond

07-10-2002, 12:16

Quote Originally posted by KeePah:
But I'll guess that TW3 would be Emperial: Total war. Europe 1500-1800. That would be a very great game. And if it will come true the Swedes will be in the game as Sweden was the greatest militaristic country in the world 1600 to 1750. [/QUOTE]

KeePah, I more and more believe this should be the one I would most like to see. I think the period should include the Napoleonic wars 1812. There should also be tactical naval battles.

About the Swedes. Even today, people in Germany remember the so called "Schwedentrunk" or swedes-drink. It was a nasty way how swedes would kill their prisoners during the 30 years war 1618-1648. The correct technique was to open the mouth with a wooden wedge and force them to drink liquid manure until they were dead.