Happy with the decision made?

Hello Ozzman1O1,

Shogun sea battles may be a disappointment, unless you add say the Korean naval forces.

The Japanase seabattles were more like: tie some ships together, add some extra planking (thus creating a floating platform) and do the normal melee.

The Korean navy used artillery. There's an anekdote of a naval war between Korea and the Japan late 16th century. The samurai wanted to board, the Korean just wanted to sink ships. At some point the crew of two Japanese ships managed to throw grappling hooks to a Korean ship. The two commanders started to quarel who was allowed to board and cut each others grappling ropes. The Korean ship managed to get away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveybaby

I really dont understand this obsession people have with getting RTW2. I dont see how it would end up that much different to the original RTW.

As for STW2, IMO the original STW is probably too small and limited a topic for a new TW game. I think it would make an excellent subject for an expansion pack of an Asia:Total War game though.

---

WHATS WITH ALL THE NEW ASIAN TWS?!

Sorry, i didnt quite catch that. Could you speak up a bit please?

im just saying this (asian total war) thing wont be as fun,name a famouse ancient asian battle,im waiting

Sekigahara.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1

im just saying this (asian total war) thing wont be as fun,name a famouse ancient asian battle,im waiting

---

Well, that's a rather absurd question, considering that the concept of 'famous' is a relativist social construct is completely unprovable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

Well, that's a rather absurd question, considering that the concept of 'famous' is a relativist social construct is completely unprovable.

---

Apparently Oz is 10, "relativist social construct" might be a bit OTT.

Oz - It depends on your point of view.

Anyway, you're right there is a vocal minority who constantly clamour for a Far Eastern setting. I think there are two kinds of people in that minority. Firstly, people who genuinely are interested in the area an its military history. Good for them, there is no real reason why there shouldn't be a "Asian" TW. Except for the secong group. These in my opinion are actually more interested in some kind of Fantasy TW. All they want is a setting that would really let their limited imaginations rip. So, you can have Chinese machine gun Xbows, Bruce Lee as a special agent (?), warrior monks with the ablility to slow time, etc... ad nauseam (till you puke).

This 'second group' you speak of... that's a new one on me. I dont think i've ever seen any evidence that it exists. Are you sure about that? Or did i miss something? LINKS PLZ.

Personally i think an ATW would be a great idea, primarily because it would be something new, as opposed to just churning out remakes of the previous games.

As for fantasy total war: that gets my vote too. Thinking more dragons ogres and elves than made up asian stuff though. Master of Magic: Total war is what i want really.

Nothing new. All the same. Just another terrain and factions, where you see something new?

maybe a time the same as the last samuria would work,when the british traded in asia,only good asian war time,where there were great sea battles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charge

Nothing new. All the same. Just another terrain and factions, where you see something new?

---

3d naval battles, earth walls(trenches?), controlling buildings, etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveybaby

This 'second group' you speak of... that's a new one on me. I dont think i've ever seen any evidence that it exists. Are you sure about that? Or did i miss something? LINKS PLZ.

Personally i think an ATW would be a great idea, primarily because it would be something new, as opposed to just churning out remakes of the previous games.

As for fantasy total war: that gets my vote too. Thinking more dragons ogres and elves than made up asian stuff though. Master of Magic: Total war is what i want really.

---

Depends what you want. I think one of the main selling points of the TW series to date has been that it is rooted(ish) in reality.

The second group. The games are developed by and aimed at a Western audience, who are for the most part ignorant of eastern history. It seems to be treated like some kind of fantasy lalaland, where "cool" and BS are more valued than prosaic reality. Portaying a "samurai" as a fallible person rather than some kind of super human martial artist seems to be impossible, hence their desire for an Eastern setting - patronising. CA are susceptible to it - the super samurai guy in Shogun who could take on a whole formation by himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1

maybe a time the same as the last samuria would work,when the british traded in asia,only good asian war time,where there were great sea battles

---

Hello Ozzman1O1,

I'm not sure how large scale the battles were between the European factions that time (~1850), wasn't Englands (USA?) naval power pretty sealed there already?

There was no Asian naval force. It was around the time Japan started to build one (some ships were built in The Netherlands).

I would love a medieval TW game in East Asia.

(Copied from the TWC from myself. If you go over there the bullet points are links - can't be bothered to get it to work here as well)

I think the game mechanics (firearms, naval battles, etc..) are setting themselves up nicely to delve into the 19th century and its many misunderstandings. In fact I think the mechanics lend themselves to this era and style of fighting much better than any other (hope so anyway).

1810s

* South American revolutions

1820s

* 1820: Liberia founded by the American Colonization Society for freed American slaves.
* 1821-27: Greece becomes the first country to break away from the Ottoman Empire after the Greek War of Independence.
* 1823-87: The British Empire annexed Burma (now called Myanmar) after three Anglo-Burmese Wars.
* 1826-28: After the final Russo-Persian War, the Persian Empire took back territory lost to Russia from the previous war.
* 1825-28: The Argentina-Brazil War results in the independence of Uruguay.
* Portuguese Civil War, 1828-1834

1830s

* 1830: France invades and occupies Algeria.
* 1830: The Belgian Revolution in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
* 1830: Greater Colombia dissolved and the nations of Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Panama took its place.
* Polish Rebellion 1830-1831
* 1833: Slavery Abolition Act bans slavery throughout the British Empire.
* 1833-76: Carlist Wars in Spain.
* 1835-36: The Texas Revolution in Mexico resulted in the short-lived Republic of Texas.
* 1837-1901: Queen Victoria's reign is considered the apex of the British Empire and is referred to as the Victorian era.

o Many, many, many military campaigns. Read any of the Flashman books for British Military entaglements in this period. Very funny and well informed, I'd recommend them to anyone who has an inflated view of "military glory".
o First Anglo-Afghan War 1838-1842
o (First) Opium War 1839-1842
o First Anglo-Sikh War Punjab 1845-1846
o 2nd Anglo-Sikh WarPunjab 1848-1849
o 2nd Anglo-Burmese War 1852
o Second Anglo-Afghan War 1878-1880
o Third Anglo-Burmese War 1885
o Etc...

* 1838-40: Civil war in the Federal Republic of Central America led to the foundings of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.
* 1839-51: Uruguayan Civil War
* 1839-60: After two Opium Wars, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia gained many concessions from ChinaQing Dynasty. resulting in the decline of the

1840s

* 1840: New Zealand is founded, as the Treaty of Waitangi is signed by the Maori and British.
* 1846-48: The Mexican-American War leads to Mexico's cession of much of the modern-day Southwestern United States.
* E : Matiner's War 1846-1849
* 1848: The Communist Manifesto published.
* 1848: Revolutions of 1848 in Europe

1850s

* 1851-64: The Taiping Rebellion in China is the bloodiest conflict of the century.
* 1854-56: Crimean War between France, the United Kingdom, the Ottoman Empire and Russia
* 1857-58: Indian Mutiny of 1857
* Franco-Austrian War 1859 (leads to the creation of the Red Cross due to the large number of casualties and lack of care)
* Spanish-Moroccan War, 1859-1860

1860s

* Garibaldi's Expedition against Sicily 1860/1861
* 1861-65: American Civil War between the Union and seceding Confederacy
* 1861-67: French intervention in Mexico
* Polish Rebellion 1863-1864
* German-Danish War 1864
* 1864-66: The Chincha Islands War was an attempt by Spain to regain its South American colonies.
* 1864-70: The War of the Triple Alliance ends Paraguayan ambitions for expansion and destroys much of the Paraguayan population.
* Guano War 1865-1866 Spain - Peru, Chile
* 1866: Austro-Prussian War results in the dissolution of the German Confederation and the creation of the North German ConfederationAustrian-Hungarian Dual Monarchy. and the

1870s

* 1870-71: The Franco-Prussian War
* 1877-78: The Balkans are freed from the Ottoman Empire after another Russo-Turkish War in the Treaty of Berlin.
* 1879: Anglo-Zulu War in South Africa.
* 1879-84: War of the Pacific between Peru, Bolivia and Chile.
* Pacific War 1879-1884 Chile - Peru, Bolivia

1880s

* 1880-1881: the First Boer War.
* 1884-85: The Berlin Conference signals the start of the European "scramble for Africa". Attending nations also agree to ban trade in slaves.
* 1884-85: The Sino-French War led to the formation of French Indochina.
* 1886: Russian-Circassian War ended with the defeat and the exile of many Circassians. Imam Shamil defeated.

1890s

* 1890: The Wounded Knee Massacre was the last battle in the American Indian Wars. This event represents the end of the American Old West.
* 1894-95: After the First Sino-Japanese War, China cedes Taiwan to Japan and grants Japan a free hand in Korea.
* 1895-1896: Ethiopia defeats Italy in the First Italo–Ethiopian War.
* 1898: The United States gains control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.
* 1898-1900: The Boxer Rebellion in China is suppressed by an Eight-Nation Alliance.
* 1898-1902: The One Thousand Days war in Colombia breaks out between the "Liberales" and "Conservadores," culminating with the loss of Panama in 1903.
* 1899: Second Boer War
* Philippine-American War

I'm happy, even though i didnt vote for it. It includes asia, so i'm happy. ALso i wasnt expecting it to include indonesia, which is a major bonus.

Really?idonesia!I love factions that live on islans for some reason,and if theres indonesia,maybe theres Ausralia!!!:australia: :australia: :australia:

I hate to say it, but I very much doubt that ETW will be a game I'll play. I'm willing to look (I only play CIV and TW) but given the direction that the last two games have gone, I doubt that CA are up to the task of creating a game that will satisfy me.

I hate to hear that Spencer. I'm hoping that we can prove you wrong with Empire. I'm glad that you are at least willing to wait and see what we produce.

Fact remains though, people will still whinge no matter what happens.

I have never found anything to lessen my enjoyment of TW games, I started with RTW.

If you dont like something in a game, mod it out, or find a mod that does it for you.

I downloaded Ultimate AI, for M2TW and i tell you, fixes everything on the campaign map. Much harder, but more enjoyable.

I am a fanatical melee fan. I will often order troops to do whatever, while watching a unit duke it off with another. Cheer on the single guy, count his kill streak etc. If i unmute my sounds, when a man gets 2 kills in a row, i play unreal tournament sound "Double Kill!" etc.

CA have lost a lot of people over the time of RTW and M2TW, but they have gained many as well. Disgruntled M2TW fans would be appeased by a patch.

On to ETW: Even though it may not be orientated as much on the melee fights as the last two games, the sea battles and the new engine will get my money.

If you dont like the time period, bad luck, they are doing this one, if you are concerned they will get something wrong, post it up. If it is to do with history, give references.

CA are willing to take help from us, as long as they can see why it is nessacery and if historical, facts to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Fact remains though, people will still whinge no matter what happens.

---

A bit of a generalisation, but yes there are some "whingers" though I dislike the "whinger" label because it tends to put all of those people that criticise the game into one category - i.e. naysayers and ne'er-do-wells that exist only to complain. This makes for such people's opinions being conveniently dispensed with as "whinging".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

I have never found anything to lessen my enjoyment of TW games, I started with RTW.

---

You started with RTW, so your expectations possibly don't exceed RTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

If you dont like something in a game, mod it out, or find a mod that does it for you.

---

Not everyone is a modder, and there's always limitations as to what you can mod - AI and diplomacy being among those. Generally those that frequent one of the fan forums or official forums tend to be modders and considering that the vast majority of TW players don't visit any TW related forum, they are for the most part probably not aware of existing mods/modding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

I downloaded Ultimate AI, for M2TW and i tell you, fixes everything on the campaign map. Much harder, but more enjoyable.

---

I'm not familiar with this mod, but I doubt it actually "fixes" AI, which is hardcoded of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

CA have lost a lot of people over the time of RTW and M2TW, but they have gained many as well. Disgruntled M2TW fans would be appeased by a patch.

---

RTW was patched up to v1.5 and is still buggy, especially in battles and sieges in particular. From what I've heard M2TW still has many of these same problems, which is why CA won't be getting my cash this time. The problem is that RTW is to date still not completely fixed. M2TW inherited many of those old problems. (CA are even effectively admitting this in the ETW blurb about the diplomatic AI and warfare AI working against each other.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

On to ETW: Even though it may not be orientated as much on the melee fights as the last two games, the sea battles and the new engine will get my money.

---

I have yet to see anything except eye candy screenshots of naval battles, which don't interest me in the slightest. The TW series doesn't need any more toys such as naval battles, it needs land battles to be fixed first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

If you dont like the time period, bad luck, they are doing this one, if you are concerned they will get something wrong, post it up. If it is to do with history, give references.

---

So you say, but anyone posting any of their "concerns" is likely to be pigeon holed into the "whinger" category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

CA are willing to take help from us, as long as they can see why it is nessacery and if historical, facts to back it up.

---

I disagree, historical relevance has always taken a back seat. The games are historically themed, and that's about it. If you were to push CA for a feature/faction/etc on a purely historical basis then you would probably be wasting your time. The main focus of modern games developers is "jaw dropping" visuals. It is visuals that swing it in the modern gaming market.

:bow:

Quote:

---

I'm not familiar with this mod, but I doubt it actually "fixes" AI, which is hardcoded of course.

---

Campaign AI is moddable in M2TW, but not completely.

Thanks for your feedback Caravel, it seems as though i need to rethink my approach to some of my points.

:bow:

My main hope with this new game is the new engine. Even so, I hope the demo has more than battles, I would like to see the campaign in action before I buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The TW series doesn't need any more toys such as naval battles, it needs land battles to be fixed first.

---

Land battle improvement is needed, the redundance needs to be reduced aye, and that I believe is being done with the new engine and all in ETW, but that you don't need or want naval battles??!! :O !! Naval battles, I say are going to be the biggest plus point here!! A whole new dimension to the gameplay!!
I sure am waiting for ETW!!

Hello all, I ve peeked in over here, as I did with M2TW just to see what was going on.

I love ships. I studied the voyages of Captain Cook, the Mutiny records of the Bounty, the discovery of Australia-all very fascinating.

But this concept for a Total War game is a bit "off". I would never have imagined the series to go this way rather than say the English Revolution (Cromwell) or the Boer War, the Zulu Uprising or the American War of Independence ("The Patriot")

Ships just dont make for : a) protagonists in a strategy game-they re exciting to manouevre, and breathtaking visually, but if you ve played ""Ïmperial Glory" you can see the limitations.
b) tactical niceties and nuances which even RTW ,I must concede, sort of allowed for.

Im only just getting to grips with MTW by playing the smaller VI map and I reckon if I can win/lose/ learn from a few more battles and campaigns, and appreciate the depth and possiblity in the game, I might-just might- be ready to go on to (and back to) Shogun Total War with its punishing AI.

I won as the Mercians the other day-not a terrifically challenging faction (and on Normal) especially when you see what other players have done and are doing, but I was really chuffed (delighted) because for once I had used all that was in the game to "earn"a victory, which actually required effort.

I think that s gone missing.

All the best.

yeah.. i want to say i'm not that exicted about naval battles..i think everyone has given this new option in ETW too much attention. obviously navy was the main source for every empire in this era for exploration and expansion but i cannot see how intresting watching ships firing at each other (and please, if u think it is intresting..just y?).

the era is just awesome. i'm a bit sad that it only last for a century but that's not CA's problem..it is history. i'm looking forward for the land battles more than any thing else. i hope they come with many ideas as possible to do in the battle field..i just dont want to see same battles over and over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asj_india

Land battle improvement is needed, the redundance needs to be reduced aye, and that I believe is being done with the new engine and all in ETW, but that you don't need or want naval battles??!! :O !! Naval battles, I say are going to be the biggest plus point here!! A whole new dimension to the gameplay!!
I sure am waiting for ETW!!

---

Well IMHO I've never seen a game yet that managed to cram two types of simulation into one game successfully. For example I've never seen a superb flight sim that also included a superb MBT or helicopter sim nor have I seen a superb naval sim that included a superb submarine sim. In my experience those "bit of everything" games are jacks of all trades and masters of none. I'm even more sceptical when this is coming from a games developer that still hasn't anywhere near perfected melee land battle simulations let alone sea battles. Naval simulations involve a lot of paramters such as wind, current, fog and other weather conditions. I can't see all of this, along with the realistic shot, trajectories, windage, real cannon crews and sea conditions going into a total war game. Prove me wrong CA, instead of coming out with the usual 'it will be fun' or 'the graphics will be stunning'.

I think 19th century would be better,..

Quote:

---

The main focus of modern games developers is "jaw dropping" visuals. It is visuals that swing it in the modern gaming market.

---

Not always, but looks seem to sell better nowadays compared to good solid AI and game play as a marketing tool. I think the latter should become more the focus in general when you design and produce a game. CA should be able with all their resources and experience to deliver both on a very high standard.

LZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S.Selim_1

yeah.. i want to say i'm not that exicted about naval battles..i think everyone has given this new option in ETW too much attention. obviously navy was the main source for every empire in this era for exploration and expansion but i cannot see how intresting watching ships firing at each other (and please, if u think it is intresting..just y?).

---

Naval combat of the era was much more than ships just firing at each other, though I suppose that such warfare would play out a touch slower than most action-oriented types would like. I enjoy it for many reasons. Trying to get the wind on your side, that you might control the engagement, for instance. There is a great deal of planning and decision making that must occur before you actually meet with the enemy. To plan it out carefully and then watch the carnage unfold would be quite fun to me.

Just like Trafalgar, ships approaching each other in good order and an eerie quiet (from what I've read, anyways), meeting one another in a titanic bloody clash that altered history forever. I think having well simulated naval combat in this game would be a great thing. Hell, in this time period England's great strength was her navy. To relegate naval warfare to the sort of role it has had in past TW games would not do justice to this era.