After Rome Total War?

Ahhh, my good friends....some say the want shrimp some say steak.......I why not surf and turf ~:joker: . While i like many of the ideas stated above I do agree that a China TW would be a bit limited in terms of Unit Variety. The same could be said for a remake of STW.

I say we take 1 step back and 2 leaps forward. How about a call back to STW with a larger scope. This could be the original STW type with more detail etc.... but with a larger map that would include the rest of Asia i.e. China, Korea etc... The different playable factions could be chinese, mongolians, koreans, japanese.......perhaps include Inda aswell so we can cover a large scope of the East. This would allow for a huge variety in units and interesting factions as China, Japan and India could be fragmented at begining. Chinese chariots, Inidan War elephants, Mongolian Cavalry.

I personally loved STW and would love to see it redone with the new RTW engine. I do like the other ideas including Napoleonic TW which has the possibilty of having and American Civil war Expansion pack The Napoleonic TW could have the whole Colonization of Africa and Americas which can have minor factions such as Zulus and Native American Tribes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morgan Frydman

My favourites, in order:

And you could have elite units like Sean Bean!

---

god no! have you ever read the books? sean bean was the worst cast character ever to play the part of Sharpe.

i still like the idea of a Medieval Total War 2 but expanded to cover the whole of eurasia, after all the Mongols plagued the Chinese and Japanese as well as Europe and the Middle east.

I have to disagree with the people saying that China would suck with only a few units to chose from and some copmparing it to have the same few choices that STW did. Someone did a unit post for China and listed all the units just for 1 time period and the list was just staggering. Each region had specialty units that no other region had.

So before you go saying China was so lame for so few unit choices you need to rethink and do the research. I would'nt be surprised if they could easily have over 100 units for 1 time period and many more if you add in over the course of the periods and still have the historical nitpickers complaininng because they left so much out.

Same as Shogun in laments terms STW was just generic representation of Japan. For 1 thing they made the units generic 1 was for the game engine and 2 was they did'nt have the resources for such a complicated game(it takes money and time to do research and considering it was the first in its genre I can understand they did'nt want to put a heavy amount of resources into such a game and find out it's a bomb)

Quote:

---

god no! have you ever read the books? sean bean was the worst cast character ever to play the part of Sharpe.

---

No, I never got round to reading them. Though I have a few of the episodes on video. I thought they were pretty good. If Napolean Total War gets made I say Sean Bean should do the voice. ~:)

What i would like to see is CA using this community,their excellent mods and RTWs graphic engine to create a huge and historically accurate TW that speads from the bronze ages to the napoleonic wars, with the map gradually expanding. Too much? ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morgan Frydman

No, I never got round to reading them. Though I have a few of the episodes on video. I thought they were pretty good. If Napolean Total War gets made I say Sean Bean should do the voice. ~:)

---

Sean Bean was good in Sharpe but as said was not the best cast man to play the part, as per the books.

Sharpe was Borne in Wapping (London) not yorkshire as Sean Beans accent is. And he was tall and had dark hair. he also had a large scar down one cheek.

I He Served in the 33rd (Havercakes) Regiment in a India and Saved Wellington At Assay not in France as he does in the TV Series.

Other than those small diferences both the Books and the TV Series are fantastic.

With sweeping titles like Medieval and Rome Total War they are going to need something big so Napoleonic Total War seems to make sense for the next title even if Asian Total War would be of more interest to me. At least with the latter they could re-introduce the Japanese so that we can have STW 2 with the new game engine. The only other possibility would be a sort of European Total War or Age of Reason Total War encompassing all the religious and expansionist wars of the 17th & 18th century.

I also would love to see a China:Total War, with the Three Kingdoms period as the focus of it as it would be very close to the technology involved in Medieval and Rome TW, and it would be very VERY interesting to have the generals be based upon the historical figures of the time. Having Lu Bu vs Zhang Fei on the battlefield (just like the KOEI games :) ) would be truly enjoyable.

A lot of these suggestions could be done in mods for RTW. ~;) I look forward to a Napoleonic Wars, and Star Wars mods the most.

Neither China, nor another area I'd like to see covered, India, have enough mass recognition or appeal to merit a treatment. Activison would never sign off on it. Romance of the Three Kingdoms has never moved any kind of units in the US or Europe and "Emperor" the city building game was a dismal failure.

Their are only a few areas that are going to be considered accessable enough. MTW again is of course possible. Something set in America is also a possibility, maybe covering 1600-1900 ? This would cover the French and Indian wars, the revolutionary war, the whiskey rebelion, the war of 1812, the Indian wars, the Texas war of independence, the Mexican American war, and finally the Civil war. If it stretched to South America it could include the Spainish colonisation and then the various indepence movements.

Not too many other possibilities. Napoleonics is borderline, which is a pity. It's just not main stream enough.

I would love STW2 but not just a sequel, it would expand the whole campaign map and factions, you could play as the mongols, chinese as well as japan and any other decent sized people that existed at that time.

WW2: Total War
Napoleonic would be plain boring. This age didn't utilize any real tactics on the battlefield. Men just stood there while manouvering.

Fantasy Total War is the only place left to go.

MTW is done - potential for better siedes though

STW is done, please see above

China Total War = Rubbish STW (no samurai)

America Total War is quite possibly the single most rubbish idea since chocolate exhaust pipes, they get their mits into too much already without making them think they have a history worth commenting on. ~:joker:

Mongol Total War a possibility

The real crowd puller would be a LOTR style Total War and the great thing about that is no historical rules, The scope for mods would be limitless and the campaign map could be truly outrageous. ~:cheers:

meant to say sieges not siedes :bow:

Why not a Today total war? the amount of conflicts round the world currently going on mean no shortage of battles.

The scope for diplomacy would be massive, which always seems to be a big factor in peoples enjoyment of the campagne element of the game.

It would differ in that its not so much about conquest but you acting as the head of state of any country you like in the world, and dictate foreign policy as you see fit.

Quote:

---

Why not a Today total war? the amount of conflicts round the world currently going on mean no shortage of battles.

---

I don't think that would work. Strategically it would be good, i.e. big strategy maps and spies and industrial espionage and stuff. But the tactical side of it, the battles, wouldn't work. There are no set piece battles (or very few, anyway) in the world. Its all guerillas, terrorists, cruise missiles and small scale incursions. So a modern day Total War might as well be called Civilization 4.

Quote:

---

The scope for diplomacy would be massive, which always seems to be a big factor in peoples enjoyment of the campagne element of the game.

It would differ in that its not so much about conquest but you acting as the head of state of any country you like in the world, and dictate foreign policy as you see fit.

---

No offence but that sounds completely boring. Might as well just read a newspaper.

Is that not a bit like saying MTW is boring, might as well read a history book???

I think there is scope for a game such as i suggested although the more i think about it the less it suits the Total war aspect but the principle of Strat map and Real time battles in the modern era is appealing to me

A MTW2 would be very interesting, if they put in a good amount of details, diplomacy and commerce.

I would really like to see a Fantasy Total War, too. But the slippery part is that it should be both realistic enough to carry the "Total War" feeling, and at the same time allows for fantastic units and powers. I'm VERY afraid that a FTW would simply becomes arcade, particularly when the trend start to show its ugly head so much in RTW...

Fantasy Total War, you heard it here first folks :director:

Without doubt, it has to be the American Cival war!!

Total Cival War ~:cheers:

The American Civil War and The Napoleon War wouldnt work. There would have been very little units to choose from(infantry, cavalry, cannons, elite infantry, dragoons), and all the factions would have very similar units (The only diffrence between the armies I can think of is the colour).

The Worldwars and the modern warfare is also bad idees, because the total war real time battles nees large, tight formations of men to work( it would be impossible to control a WW2 battle, with all the little units)

What I would like to see is Fantasy: total war. Maybe based on the Warhammer world ( the tabletop game, if anyone`s heard of it). A big, exciting map, a large varity of races and creatures, enourmes cities and no historical facts to care about. It would be PERFECT!!

But if Rome: total war turns out to be a sucess, I think Activision will make a expansion, where they include atilla the hun and the fall of Rome or something.

You paint a very negative approach, but i think it would be good, if even, only a RTW mod. Now, where did i put that potato peeler ?........ ~:joker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unseen Potato

The American Civil War and The Napoleon War wouldnt work. There would have been very little units to choose from(infantry, cavalry, cannons, elite infantry, dragoons), and all the factions would have very similar units (The only diffrence between the armies I can think of is the colour).

The Worldwars and the modern warfare is also bad idees, because the total war real time battles nees large, tight formations of men to work( it would be impossible to control a WW2 battle, with all the little units)

What I would like to see is Fantasy: total war. Maybe based on the Warhammer world ( the tabletop game, if anyone`s heard of it). A big, exciting map, a large varity of races and creatures, enourmes cities and no historical facts to care about. It would be PERFECT!!

---

It is not often that a nail gets so truly hit upon it's head

Warhammer, what a truly quality game. The basic dynamics are all here for FTW. We all know orcs are green, stupid and strong, elves are fast, great archers and live in the woods and so on. Bring it on.

Oh and everyone please stop these ridiculous comments involving modern warfare and the total war engine, this includes all napoleaonic *spelling* and american wars.

So sorry, in future we will e-mail our posts for your approval prior to posting. Heaven forbib we have our own thoughts, when yours are so correct. ~:joker:

Excellent, as long as thats established.

Seriously though - an intersesting thread completely peppered with ideas that the engine just isn't built for.

I know lets have cheesecake total war, where 10,000 men all sit round a table and eat cheesecake using the total war engine.

I can't see any Total Wars set in modern times working. Warfare has changed so radically. You couldn't have the epic battles that the Total War series is famous for, and keep the realism.

Infantry tactics have changed beyond recognition. You don't move units made of hundreds of men around the battlefield, they are split into small groups of mixed unit fire teams who scurry around the battlefield doing their best to avoid heavy armour and just direct air and artillery strikes, then moving in once the area is clear. How is the player going to direct dozens, maybe hundreds of fire teams around a map, while simultaneously directing artillery, tanks and aircraft?

Heavy armoured units don't move in blocks of a hundred either. They are spread out over miles of ground, are we the player going to have to click and move every single one? What about the battles like Kursk with thousands of tanks? even if that was scaled down to just a few hundred tanks on each side it would be far too difficult, as it would require having to control each one.

Games like Sudden Strike got round this by only having relatively small battles with rarely more than a dozen tanks. It was never two huge armies meeting each other! If the game is to live up to its 'Total War' tag with a campaign map where you coordinate entire armies, then that's what it would have do, and entire armies facing off against each other is impossible!


My own preference would be either MTW2 or a Napoleonic TW.

Well said, so we will draw the line at the American Cival War, and not beynd ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommh

Neither China, nor another area I'd like to see covered, India, have enough mass recognition or appeal to merit a treatment. Activison would never sign off on it. Romance of the Three Kingdoms has never moved any kind of units in the US or Europe and "Emperor" the city building game was a dismal failure.

---

If they were such a failure then why did KOEI keep making english ports for it for the SEGA GENESIS, Playstation, and Super Nintendo?? Because they enjoyed losing money?? I think the Playstation is up to ROT3K iteration 7 now.

And if we are talking about sales what Napoleonic era or civil war game has EVER moved any units??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Essex_Cohort

Well said, so we will draw the line at the American Cival War, and not beynd ~:cheers:

---

I dont think Activision even will consider the American civalwar. It would have been an incredible dull game.

There would only be three diffrent base units.Cavalry, Infantry and artilliry. The only variation would be units armed with diffrent weapons. pluss that it would only be 2 playable factions, that were very similar to eachother (It was Americans fighting Americans you know)

And the War lasted just for 4 years. I dont see How this is gonna work with the total war strategy map. The seasons would have to be VERY short, and the whole province thing wouldnt work.

And what would the name of the game be???? The American Cival War: total war???? ~:joker:

The American cival war as totalwar game is a stupid unrealistic idea.

A total war game Cant be based on a war. It has to be based on a Time period.