An extra difficulty level
Easy/Medium/Hard/Very Hard/Org'ah ~D
Printable View
An extra difficulty level
Easy/Medium/Hard/Very Hard/Org'ah ~D
I'm working on somthing like that for the current game - including eras (I think someone mentioned those), and a global system - , though if they made it as a new game with a new uber engine that would be best of all!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
I think a game covering the entire world at no specified time would really suck. They just can't give it the same kind of details they could give it to a game in a specified country or region at a specified time. Many say STW had the best 'ambiance'. That's because it only covered one nation at a much specified time. In R-TW there are many nations but only during antiquity and already they had trouble to make all nations well playable and accurate beside Romans (and even for them...).
I doubt the next game go Aztec or Inca. Not enough known. I, personally, have no idea what warfare looked like, there, before the Spanish conquest. It's really not a popular setting and frankly, it's of no interest for most of us who are of European origin.
I fear a China Total War would only be a STW with a bigger map. Not enough variety.
I agree the game needs a better ai, a better diplomacy. I would like it to be easier to make peace with another nation. To have a reputation and have leaders have a personality, not just declare you a total war because your land appears no enough defended. Have alliance actually means something (for honourable opponents).
I think a colonisation era game would be really interesting. You could be the Vice-Roi for the colony and wage war against the native (Indian tribes, South American empire) and other European colonies. You could hire native auxiliary to help your troops, build forts, new cities. Actually "establish" the province borders instead or having them established right from the start. It was a new land after all. You would need to supply your troops with powder and cannonball (which would make forts far more important than they are in RTW, as they would act as a spot where you can re-supply your troops).
I think that could make a wonderful game.
Back to the original:
New Shogun Total War.
And this time no silly unhistoric things like geisha and ninjas, only 8 nation, having a distinct cavalry unit, stupid movies.
A total war whole world game; do you realize how much hardrive space and memory that would use up? I mean, imagine the tech, Rome by itself would have about, what, 3-4 different tech trees?
I don't see how a China: total war would be just another STW with a bigger map; China and Korea had really unique units. It would also be better for the terrain would be more varied, meaning more varied factions with more unit variety and tactics.
I would definitely want them to make a worldwide total war, but I don't know how high the system requirements would be, and I know for sure that my computer right now wouldn't be able to handle it.
What year would this worldwide total war start and when would it end?
And this time no silly unhistoric things like geisha and ninjas, only 8 nation, having a distinct cavalry unit, stupid movies.
Geisha, Ninjas, and 8 clans are not as unhistoric as you think. The only thing really out of whack is the Geishas, and that is only insofar as they were not historically used on the same scale as the game does. If you want to complain about unhistoric, the way Samurai fought is not the way they do it in the game, but to realistically depict samurai warfare would really just be too confusing and complicated.
There were 8 major clans that had major historical impact, and to a limited degree, the unit specialization is correct (Mori clan was famed for its adherence to Buddhism, and thus warrior monks did serve in greater numbers with them).
The ninja movies were the coolest part!Quote:
Originally Posted by KSEG
And by making Geishas so powerful you were forced to devote significant resources to that technological development.
Besides there are mods in development for the VI and Rome engines
ichi :bow:
Like others I'd rather see them go back farther in time rather than go forward. TW:Bronze Age or TW:Stone age. Only possible exception to that maybe would be Meso-American where they have the North, Central, and South American version. Include the Incas, Aztecs, Mayas, Hopis, and etc. Have the cut off just before the Spainiards arriving to the new world. Something like that would be cool I think. Leave the post-gunpowder weapons out of it. ~:cheers:
I agree with the ones that want another go in the Medieval period.
A Medieval TW2 with the Rome: TW engine... what a treat that would have been!!! :charge:
Another wish would be Crusades: TW
A china total war seems to be the greater choice and would be great especially during the warring states period but maybe a different look at ancient kingdom around the south east asia (vietnam , cambodia area now) or during the 14th-15th century which includes old malaccan sultanate and the coming of western power such as dutch , portugeese and english .
China: Total War is an excellent idea. The 7 Kingdoms' period is one of the most interesting times of history.
I also prefer pre-machines eras. This also stands for hand-held guns.
But what I really would like to play: the whole ancient times, with all of Eurasia, and North Africa, from the first great cultures to the dark ages, Arthur's times, perhaps. 2000 B.C. - 1000 B.C. - 1000 A.D.
China: Total War is an excellent idea. The 7 Kingdoms' period is one of the most interesting times of history.
I also prefer pre-machines eras. This also stands for hand-held guns.
But what I really would like to play: the whole ancient times, with all of Eurasia, and North Africa, from the first great cultures to the dark ages, Arthur's times, perhaps. 2000 B.C. - 1000 B.C. - 1000 A.D. The greatest empires the world have seen.... And the greatest men....
I rekon a world total war would be great if you had like 3 or 4 different campaigns for different parts of the world.
For North America you could have the civil war or something like that
For South America you could have the Aztecs and Incas and have a Spanish invasion
For Europe you could have the Napoleon era or something like that
For China you could have the 3 kindoms period
and i'm sure there are tons of other possibilities as well
I wouldn't like a worldwide total war. It's just too much land to cover. Campaigns would just take way too long to finish. I don't want to have to spend 1000 hrs to beat it once.
bah...can't edit my post
add-on to the above:
I'd be more interested in a Total War in the Americas. They haven't done anything in the Americas have they? Maybe everyone thinks its a boring part of history because everyone's studied it too much in school?
It could cover both South and North America. It would cover all the ancient peoples, then have Spanish Conquest, then continue with the Britain and French fight for North America. There could be multiple campaigns. One for each major period. The total time period would be like 1400-1776AD stopping at American history that everyone knows about.
i Reckon Total War: Timelord would be good as you could start as a small tribe any where in the world and play right the way into the futre.
in it would be:
playable plane/ship/spaceship battles
religions you could make up
weapon creating
mines
alien invasions
Isle of Man: Total War
Set in the time of Bartix, the Smegs pack up and leave while the urANIANs invade with the help of the no-tailed Cats.....Bartixian Stickmen try and help but are overrun
Will you defend your territory as the Smeg Legions
Attack the weak Smegs as the urANIANs or the No-tailed Cats
Run around in circles screaming MY MOTHER WAS A GOOSE EGG?(then you may need help)
ISLE OF MAN: TOTAL WAR (copyright of the bartix thread and Bartix: Total War)
Personally, I would love to see Medieval: Total War with the Rome: Total War engine.
Whatever the next game is, I would like it to be more complex strategic map-wise. Let the players decide what to export and import. Let people control rations. Also, the "take the city and control the entire region" has to go. There is more to controlling a province than just holding the main city. Also, is one city per province really that realistic? Other than that, the battles system also needs fixing. Right now the units are very difficult to control. Sometimes they walk onto the bridge when you order them to stand next to it, etc... Horse also suck at chasing down routers. It's like they are trying to go "with" the routing army rather than just chage past them or engage in individual combat. That is another thing. Why not just have different modes for units? One for fighting, one for charging through and one for exterminating (against routing units)? Naval battles (player-controlled) are obviously a must, as well. Also, captain selection needs to be improved in the future game. Prisoner-taking is a must. Also, siege battles need to be fixed since right now soldiers have trouble going through gates (they walk out in some straight line, getting into some odd formation beforehand).
Edit: And I am just getting started. Rome: Total War is swarming with bugs and problems. Granted, the game is quite complex and problems are expected to arise. For example, the whole overpopulation thing prevents people from upgrading farms. Well, I was thinking, why not just export the food from a Latifundia in Carthage to, say, Viscus Gothi? So, instead of getting 30,000+ rebellious people in carthage and 800 in gothi, I can have carthage decline to a reasonable 24,000 while Viscus Gothi grows into a minor city at increased speed. Again, I'm just picking problems off the top of my head. The TW designers need to sit down and think hard before creating another game. It is just disappointing to see such an epic game with great replayability value get bogged down because it wasn't polished.
Hostages and ransoms would be pretty cool to add.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slon
Yeah, I hate how archers tend to keep running towards the gate and try to get through it BEFORE attempting to launch arrows. I mean, they are clearly within range. Don't tell me they can't shoot over the walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slon
An america mod would be hard.
North america was composed of MANY tribes that would all have roughly the same units.
The best america won would be
Age of Revolution: Total War/ Colonies: Total War
This could be at the time of americas revelution. England would have many was, france would have a very rebelous populace and americans would have to fight for their freedom and fight the native americans.
The european powers could also fight to keep their various teritories.
What an excellent idea. I would have bought the game…Quote:
Originally Posted by Krauser
I'd certainly be ready to buy some kind of Asia: Total War. There are so many interesting things that have happened in so many time periods in the region that it'd be impossible to be lacking for inspiration when making such a game. It'd be nice though if the next release could be a bit more bug free, along with a more flexible set of hard-coded limits.
Hi, a RTW newbie here. I just bought it a few weeks ago, when I finally upgraded to a computer strong enough to run it.
I haven't played the earlier TW games, so personally I'd be thrilled if they re-made one of them with the new engine, preferably MTW. But that may not be a good marketing move for the company. As long as there are still interesting eras to cover, they might get more sales from the established fan base with something new. I think China is maybe the best candidate, especially if they build in a lot of atmosphere and cultural flavor. Bronze Age as a prequel to RTW might also be fun.
TW:MesoAmerica (as several have mentioned here) is an interesting idea. It would be fun to try recreating the Spanish conquest... massive tech superiority in a tiny group against huge numerical superiority with the native armies. Or play one of the native empires, and see if you could hold off the Spaniards for a few hundred years.
I don't think I'd enjoy a Napoleonic period game, but that's just my personal bias. I like zooming in on the 3D chaos in RTW's melee combat. Even without blood and gore effects, it works (in terms of being an interesting, compelling game) because there's so much going on. A line of Napoleonic-era soldiers slowly falling over while others march in from behind to replace them, facing off across a big empty field.... no blood or gore effects... invisible bullets... gaaaah. It just doesn't sound as exciting as chariots and elephants crashing into a line of pikemen. And I think it's the look of the 3D battle engine that helps sell this kind of game beyond the hardcore strategy players. So for my $.02, I think they should stick to pre-gunpowder combat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
Here here. More chaos. Let the gentlemen have their own war game.
~:cheers:
Mixing in up - up close and personal seems more exciting.
The graphics in RTW is good and so are the battles , so
1. Time period : c. 1200 to c. 1600 ce
2. Better diplomacy as mentioned above
3. Maximum realism
4. Naval battles
5. More factions
6. More cities
7. Interactive campaign map , no need for Central Africa and the far east , just more focus on Europe and the near East
8. More focus on internal relationships - hairs , political systems , civil wars , class conflicts etc'
there is more but that should make the game heavenly for me
American civil total war would be sweet get the border states to get to your side ~:cool:
A New STW should be more like the Classic: "Sword of the Samurai" Especially the part about working your way up from the bottom of the Samurai hierarchy.
Has anyone ever played Knights of Honor? Now, that game has a diplomacy system that I´d love to see in the next TW game. And preferably in a medieval setting, too.
I wouldn´t mind a fantasy setting as well, if it were done like Master of Magic, i.e. not related to a specific "universe".
In an American Civil War scenario, you could use your persuasive abilities to coax other nations that were not historically directly involved into becoming your ally in a new, escalated war encompassing North American and European nations.
Well, I've looked at this thread for a while and taken it in. There are a lot of great ideas, and like some of you I really would be happy with just about any era. It's the game engine that really sets TW apart from others. I was a History/Bible major in college so just about any era is interesting. I DO agree (sorry WWII fans - I'm actually one of you) that this particular format is not condusive to a 20th century wargame. In the Napoleonic era, armies of six figures fought battles in a relatively small area compared to the size of the fronts held by armies of same number of men during the World Wars. The battle map alone in some case would need to be hundreds of miles across to be accurate.
The idea of a game based during the era of Reformation, Thiry Years War, and English Civil War sounds pretty good. Plus, that is the beginning of colonialism. Race to discover the New World.
I like ancient stuff too, but I, being a Yank (actually a Southron as it were) would love to see the ACW done. My son likes to fight battles on MTW, but he likes the gunpowder era. Can you imagine the spectacular sound during an ACW or Napoleonic battle with the TW engine!? Wow! This system will work well with gunpowder era. The tactics will be different with many interesting cavalry units too. A leg unit would need to be able to form square. Anyway, there's my pitch for ACW. My son and I already fight spendid battles on the carport with over 3000 toy soldiers we have plus all the accessories a good battlefield needs. And, really nothing can top that....but it is time consuming....and is not a campaign..."TACW" would provide a nice alternative for needing a Civil War battle "fix" when we're without the hours/days needed to devote to a floor battle (it has rules and such...pretty extensive...volleys are fired with rubber bands, the number depending on size, position, etc.).
Whatever, it is, here are my thoughts in no particular order:
1) For goodness sake, an AI faction needs to know when it's been beaten. My constant wars against drooling idiots whose territories I don't want and who refuse to surrender prolong the game by days and hours! It makes it boring. Politics MUST be upgraded and more logical, based on the AI personality of course.
It is absolutely aggravating to chase a ruler around his former empire because I don't want to hold it, nor temporarily garrison it with light garrisons which won't stop revolts and stuff anyway, nor heavy garrisons I don't have to spare.....and either way I don't want the temporarily held territories to be a tempation to some neutral...putting at me at war with another overmatched enemy who can't see the writing on the wall and won't just leave me the heck alone to work on GA.....I don't want their stinkin' territory or a vast, sprawling empire. I like to take the provinces I need per my defense strategy depending on faction. Finally, I corner him enough to kill him with no heirs and be rid them for maybe FIVE YEARS OR SO!!!!!! I mean really, why do some factions never return, and some come back 10 times only 3-10 years after elimination? They're at war with you again within 5-10 years....and must be crushed again b/c they will not make peace. I have quit beautiful campaigns with bustling, awesome empires b/c I got so bored with this phenomenon (is that spelled right?) of constant wars against aggressive imbeciles (sp?) who eyes cannot see the vastness of my empire and it's resources. Even then, my best general does the job with a 2-3 stacks of aged combat rejects with rusty weapons and holes in their socks left over from upgrades! In fact, this junk is why I never disband them. I need them to fight idiots till they finally phase out b/c of casualties. If Catholic, being able to BBQ the enemies into the little gray armies is okay sometimes, but they still come back 5 years later. Wouldn't it be cool if when we died without an heir....we could hit end year and just watch what happens till we re-emerge and try to see if we can start over!?
2) IN FACT, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. Let the player re-emerge! :knight: Seriously, diplomacy needs upgrade and needs more statuses than Enemy, neutral, ally.
3) I would also suggest that on the campaign map.....please, please, please, please let me just have one stack per territory unless I seperate them myself. It makes no difference in a battle, so why should I have all these stacks to keep up with as am jostling units all about making upgrades and moving them to keep them active? It can be very confusing and take 20-30 minutes to complete a turn without a battle if my Empire is large. I like to play France, Poland, and now the Byz - so, it usually gets that way, even though I play GA. Does anyone agree with this? I hate all those stacks. The territories are cluttered enough as it is. Yes, I'm whining....~:mecry:
4) I'd like it if your agents, stacks, ships, etc. stay where you put them in a provence so you see everything clearly. You also need to be able to move enemy non-invisible agents around within the territory so you can see everything. Instead, all these things seem to have a group hug after hitting endyear! Ships also tie up together and have a drunken party after you hit endyear. ~:grouphug:
I can probably think of more, but I'm tired of typing!