Printable View
The Daimo used gunpowder, and quite a lot of it! The only reason Nobunaga defeated the Takeda was an Agincourt-esque (In the sense that the ranged fighters defeated the fearless and fearsome calvary)Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
I would like to see Shogun II as opposed to merely an expansion. I was also looking forward to a VI, but maybe they will do that later, as in Rome they went Rome, BI (Later in History) and then Alexander (Earlier).
Quote:
Originally Posted by diablodelmar
japan got gunpowder homey, and the "medieval" time was the same time as the greatest part of japanese war history 1000 to 1600ish :beam: and for the most part was constant conflict between various provinces and whoever the emperor or rulers viewed as enemies at the time...shame most people just think of the "warring states" period when thinking of japan
effective gunpowder spread fast to most parts of the world in about the same time period
napoleanic war would be cool, but do you honestly think they could handle this with the current engine or AI?
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
Absolutely. Napoleonic tactic was line up your troops 3 ranks deep with nice brightly coloured shirts and shoot. That's it.
Your infantry shoot in massed ranks, your cavalry charge. The AI can handle that :dizzy2:
That's why the yanks won the war of independence - hiding and shooting from cover was considered cheating. If they'd fought like men we'd have had them :yes:
(Oi! You! Yes you thinking of writing a snotty thirteen page reply about the complicated tactics of the Iron Duke - forget it. It's tongue in cheek...)
I'm holding out for 'History: Total War'. You start in 10,000 BC with a sharp stick, and over the course of thirteen thousand turns you work your way up to main battle tanks, nuclear weapons, and directed energy guns.
Heh, Japan would be a great setting for an expansion. What would be nice is that they'd, indeed, expand the map to the East. Ah, Japan, China, etc. :beam:
If it's true that the expansion's gonna be about the Americas, then-- mehh, I won't get it.
I dislike the idea of an Asia TW, it's half fictional and aims at pleasing all those that "can't play with 10 unit types" and "one civilisation" which shouldn't be a problem if playing like so accounts for good gameplay with immersive details and atmophere as was the case with STW.
As for revisiting Sengoku i doubt that we will see it in an expansion or a proper release and judging from the new releases it's for the best.
I like Diotaveli's East Indies idea. Never been done before and lots of diversity there.
I'd like to see something I've tentatively named Caveman:Totalwar as a release at some point. Go all the way back to a point where on turn 1 of the game the event that triggers it all is "A group of hunters got the idea to settle down and grow grain on the same spot every year". You start off with your only recruitable unit being 'rabble' (club armed thugs basically-oh yeah!) and carry on from there up to maybe around 1000 BC. Lots of nifty events like introducing the concept of organized soldiers, slings and bows for war not hunting, domesticating the horse (amongst other critters), the wheel, Sumerian clock and calendar for better agriculture, Beer (had to throw that in! LOL), creation of primitive armors and first massed spear tactics, etc
Personal opion but I'd like to see it done :beam:
There is more to Asia then China excetchzbe1, depending on the the time period. Lots of history you could use for a TW game, biggest among which would probably be the Romance of the Three Kingdoms era. Probably set it in the Yellow Turban rebellion leading up tot he founding of the three kingdoms. As for unit types why would Asia have less? You have the base types just like Europe, then the specializations and unique types depending apon region.
As for half-fictional I don't see why you'd say that, I mean asian countries conquered as large of empires as Europeans throughout their history. Anyway, just thought i'd respond since it bugs me when people think an Asia centered game would be like three units and a couple civs slugging it out. Read up on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms era, you'll see its a perfect setting.
I agree, China has plenty of complexity all its own. It's not some single nation or culture either, its a group of related and competing ones. In a lot of ways, under some emperors China was more like western europe unde the pope.
There really should be eras for it, and faction spawns, but thats something a lot of us want anyway. And China also had a Mongol invasion...
Africa and pre-Columbian America just didn't have enough powerful factions that were contemporaries of each other.
There are plenty of great unit types available for an Asia TW. Everything from Shogun, everything from the Mongol hordes, China's somewhat different soldiers in various factions... a unit full of guys carrying baskets full of rockets could fun! You could even stretch it to India... and that brings a whole slew of new religions and types of soldiers. Just because no one took over the whole region... oh wait, nobody did in Europe either.
Asia TW would be awesome. Heck, have the earliest era be 1000 AD and have a full world map and throw everything in from M2TW too! It could literally be impossible to conquer the whole world. But that doesn't have to be the point of the game either... But even that could be feasible if a more involved vassal system was created.
What if technological development was done differently? What if instead nations invested money to improve the random chance of developing an ability (and getting it FIRST)? The odds could be balanced out so that most developments would happen within a decade or two of the actual historical occurrence. But if someone went and threw an insane amount of money at something... you might see deep sea vessels sooner or cannons earlier. Might be tough. You would want a model for technological propagation between factions... alliances, trading, battlefied encounters, etc and how they alter the odds of picking up a trick from another faction.
I never said that Asia is a bad setting. I agree with you that its history offers plenty of opporunity including Thailand, Vietnam and India. The three kingdoms is another classic setting used countless times (like in kohei games). The wars with the Mongols and the Mongols themselves, of course.Quote:
Originally posted by Chaos Lord
There is more to Asia then China excetchzbe1, depending on the the time period. Lots of history you could use for a TW game, biggest among which would probably be the Romance of the Three Kingdoms era. Probably set it in the Yellow Turban rebellion leading up tot he founding of the three kingdoms. As for unit types why would Asia have less? You have the base types just like Europe, then the specializations and unique types depending apon region.
As for half-fictional I don't see why you'd say that, I mean asian countries conquered as large of empires as Europeans throughout their history. Anyway, just thought i'd respond since it bugs me when people think an Asia centered game would be like three units and a couple civs slugging it out. Read up on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms era, you'll see its a perfect setting.
I am all for these options.
What i dislike is the idea of mixing all this together that is often proposed as a counter argument instead of a Sengoku Jidai centred campaign . The "10" unit types refers to this as well.
I am for anything in a historical context as you suggest. I am against though a fictional mish mash that sets Samurai against war elephants just because "10 unit types (of Sengoku) suck".
I apologise for being vague.
:bow:
I'm sorry, but I don't get you, how is this any diffrant than Longbow era england fighting the moors, or Denmark fighting Scicily, or a dozen other M2TW scenarios that never happened and never could have happened in real history due to geography constraints.Quote:
I am against though a fictional mish mash that sets Samurai against war elephants just because "10 unit types (of Sengoku) suck".
My approach on this is that these scenarios should be way less possible than they are or impossible at best. I always disliked the fact that after STW, the games concentrated in a mish mash of units and civilisations whether they could on the other hand stay focus in certain periods/settings that avoid this, like for example the crusades, the 100 years war and the Reconquista.
In my campaigns in MTW i play with homelands and GA that severely limit the possibility of conflicts like the one you describe. These are my preferences though and they dont have to be anyone else's. I post this as my own point of view - not meant to be imposing on anyone.
Also note that i don't play M2 (tried it at a friend's and didn't like it enough to buy it or spend more time with it) - so don't mind me that much.
[QUOTE=Marquis of Roland]A european campaign of that time period can include Americas, while an Americas-based campaign cannot include Europe. QUOTE]
I don't see how an American campaign from that period can exist without Europe.
Oh I see what you meant now excetczebe1, the bizzare ahistorical units and setups you can engage in with them can be annoying. But its practically one of CA's trademarks now after RTW and M2TW. Best thing to do is to try to ignore them or treat them as wandering mercs in the enemies army. Of course, sometimes that can be hard to do if its a whole faction like Egypt in RTW though.
This is why i concluded that you better dont mind me - i am just not interested in CA's new policies at all...
Please, MTW1 and STW had their own share of fictional units. It's *always* been CA's "trademark" to mix realism with a touch of fantasy to liven things up a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosLord
I really need to find me a pair of those rose tinted glasses everyone seems to have...
That was not the case in the original STW. The fantasy units were introduce for the WE/MI release. As for MTW, its true that it had the usual cheese but nowhere near to what RTW introduced.Quote:
Originally posted by LordKhaine
Please, MTW1 and STW had their own share of fictional units. It's *always* been CA's "trademark" to mix realism with a touch of fantasy to liven things up a bit.
In addition there had been several mods for MTW/VI that fix this and introduce more realistic rosters much like for RTW.
CA developer interested in Shogun as the next TW game should check out the Samurai Invasion by Stephen Turnbull, Imjin War by Samuel Hawley and The Immortal Yi Soon-Shin (English sub) all available in amazon.com.
Not only do these books and dramas covered the actual warfare among Hideyoshi's samurai with Korea and China in detail but also, in this war, one of the critical area was the naval warfare -something that CA has completely overlooked in the past and should not overlook no longer.
IMHO, the Imjin War was the perfect backdrop, on the Japan side you have Hideyoshi with his ashigaru musketeers, on Korea (Chosun) side you have the guerrillas, warrior monks and of course, the Immortal Yi Soon-Shin and his awesome turtle ship and then there was the Ming Chinese whose human wave was one of the deciding factor of the war.
To stretch the history a little as to enhance the game play, we could even add the following elements into the game: there was the Mongol Manchurian horde led by the charismatic Nurhaci; the zealous Catholics from the land of Conquistadors who wanted to do to Japan and China what their peers had done to the Aztecs and the Incas...
I guess I should open a new thread to discuss my idea.
For the next TW game, I'd like Asia:TW. Starting from around the birth of the Yuan Dynasty (from Temujin uniting the Mongolian tribes to become Khan, then conquer Jin, Song, Hsia,...). Expand West to see MTW. Expand East to see STW. Expand South for a totally new experience.
As for the M2TW expack, I would prefer expanding East rather than the New World.
Since the TW game has a non-existant dipolomacy feature the Shogun era makes a perfect total war game. There´s a strong feeling amongst gamers that this era should be revisited. Have a look here and vote:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=77631
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
Gentlemen, I am quite aware that the Japanese acquired gunpowder from the Portuguese. However I maintain my opinion which you don't have to agree with, which is that I dislike the whole "Shogun" theme very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
"Takeda, Daimo, Nobunaga"...you see I don't like this old Japanese war culture. I know too many people obsessed with all the Japanese clans and it makes me feel sick to the core. If CA decide to turn again to Shogun then very well and happy playing to all those who like it. I shall abstain.
@sabutai, yes I do think the current engine could handle it; why ever should even the Medieval 2 engine not be able to??? I think some things needing tweaking is less of a focus on sieges and focus more on open battle, and also the addition of Trafalgar style naval battles directly commandable by the player.
Medieval 2 also shows us how good TW is at handling gunpowder weapons. The Total War series itself begs for a Napoleonic type game.
If there is a China: Total War it can be set in the Warring States Period from 5th BC to 221BC when it was unified under one Emperor. At this point China was split into 10+ kingdoms at constant war with each other. China would make an excellent setting.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosscoliosis
However, only 10 factions isn't enough for a Total War game, and that may be the reason why they haven't developed one yet. Then you could include the surrounding nomadic tribes and Korea and Japan, provided they existed during that period.
Additionally, there's no big invasion to look out for ie. No Mongol-like Invasion.
On top of that the western side of the map would be landlocked, with naval battles mainly in the east where the sea is only.
I would love to see a China Total War though.
hmm i found the units of "warrior monks" kinda cheese, i forget if kensei were in the original releaseQuote:
Originally Posted by excetchzebe1
wat about martian assault total war :)
thats fine, just as long is it isnt more europe or america :book:
my vote is still with japan :yes: god i loved shogun, but when i go to play it now its just so dated and the diplomacy makes rtw seem like it was made by the united nations, your lucky if any alliance lasts 2 turns...i guess you could argue that alliances changed daily in that period, i still remember my first game of shogun, mori's broke alliance 2 turns after i made the pact...my adviser calling them worthless dogs only fueled my anger :beam:
one of those memories that stick with you :balloon2:
:thinking: We haven't had any Total War games with any America in them yet. (well, M2TW has a little bit of Aztecs - but that hardly counts)Quote:
Originally Posted by sabutai
ahhh but you purposely excluded me saying europe...a classic example of a statement being taken out of context :thumbsdown:
if you wanna do america, fine; but it couldnt be done in an expansion, its far too complex a situation, and frankly cant be done with the "total war" style gameplay, ca would need to reinvent the franchise to make a game thats even halfway decent.
whats the angle? 3 european powers on the americas to fight it out against each other and those poor hapless indians, standing around much like rebels waiting to have a "province" taken?
i think your banking too much on the creativity of the creative assembly to ever have this come to fruition, other than a shameless title to sell units :no:
even a napoleanic expansion would be rather bland in my opinion, and too easy.
yet i think most are correct, it will be either a napoleanic or american expansion, it simply makes sense from the view of getting units sold
What I am trying to say is, if you made a campaign for the Americas, there will be so many factors linked back to Europe that it'd be very difficult to base the better part of the game on the Americas rather than Europe. Hence, what I said in my earlier post. It'd also be very difficult to come up with decent faction selection with an Americas-based campaign. You practically can't pick any European faction to be a faction in the game because almost all of their source of production and military is coming from Europe, so it'd be just easier (and more fun IMO) if you included America in a European-based campaign instead of the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Condormanius
You will be hard-pressed to find anyone that would like to see Romance of the Three Kingdoms: Total War more than I do (my favorite book). However, as far as what CA or sega would do, they probably won't make it because a later setting for Asia (pretty much around the same time frame for MTW2) can include more countries/factions, unit types, etc. For example, at the time of the Three Kingdoms period, Japan was nothing more than a scattered collection of primitive tribes. I know one thing for sure though: if Sega does decide to make a Three Kingdoms: Total War, it WILL sell like hotcakes in EVERY Asian country, and the number of people with computers in China alone now outnumbers the entire population of the United States.
As far as unit selection I think a Asia:TW may have more units than MTW2.
I hope CA does not take a page out of EA's book and decide to go with a TW:2163 game or something like that.