There is another new poll at the official site on the next total war.
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/64192
Printable View
There is another new poll at the official site on the next total war.
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/64192
Where is the Europe: 1400-1700 option?!? I've been asking for this since R: TW! :furious3:
Post and ask!
It can't hurt. I sure don't want RIITW yet!
I would like an Asian: Total War with China and Japan with mini-campaigns such as the Sengoku Period and others. India could be in it too.
However, The Great: Total War has a ring to it.
Nothing really happened, outside of Kingdom's and Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr
Asia Total War sounds intriguing, but it's too undefined. What time period? What part of Asia?
It's too early for another Rome, but I'd love to see a two-part project starting with the expansion of the Greek city states, with Rome as a later full game or expansion. The naval battles could be spectacular (if they finally get sailing right). So Greek Total War was my first choice, without knowing more about what the Asia thing is about.
I can't believe WWI is on the list. Leaving aside the discussion of how exciting trench warfare would or wouldn't be, I don't see how the current tactical battle engine could cope with it. The battlefields aren't large enough to represent long-range artillery or air support. And even though aerial dogfights in WWI were something of a sideshow, I don't see how they could add air combat as a strategic or tactical element in the current game engine. Without aerial dogfights, it really isn't a WWI game.
It's time for Shogun2 to return us to Japan during the Segoku Jidai and the wars in Korea. Including the 12th century period would be good too.
Banzai!
I really agree that they should make an Asia: Total War.
Not so sure if a WW1 game would even get close to the appropriate scale. Why is there now an option for an 19th century Total War? Would it really be any different from Empire for like half the game?
If I registered for the boards (not likely!) I'd vote for WWI. Take CA out of their comfort zone, make them do something really interesting. Much more of a gamble, but does anyone want them to make Shogun 2 the same way they made Med 2?
Shogun II or Rome II.
Shogun 2.
Keep it small, keep it tight, make it work properly.
I don't really understand what this is supposed to mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Ideally I would like Asia or WWI in that order, if they could be done right.
Realistically I seriously doubt either would be done very well, so maybe it would be better to go for Rome or Shogun 2; as hoom said, I would rather have a game which is not too ambitious in scope and which is well implemented than something which tries to be the "best game ever" and falls short. Also, I care sufficiently little about the settings that I won't mind giving it a miss if it's another mess, but enough that I would be interested in playing the game if it is good.
The only setting I would be really iffy about is Medieval 3, I don't see what could be added by revisiting the setting yet again. I would probably be inclined not to bother with it unless it turns out to be really great.
In any event I think the next game is likely the franchise's last chance; CA badly needs to repair the damage done by ETW, and I think breaking the series of progressively more unfinished games we have had since Rome with a slick, finished game with realistic ambitions is more important than the specific setting.
IDK if I'd buy an asian total war, I might buy Rome Total War 2, but I think they should do Shogun 2 (or Asia) depends how far away the release date is, I guess itd be around 2011, so I'd probably buy it, buut I dunno, while I'd probably prefer something in europe or the entire world, I think all the people that really want the asia setting deserve something by now
East Asia or WWI.
In further explanation of my earlier statement: The prospect of a WWI:TW scares the crap out of me.
I can barely conceive of how that could possibly work, let alone for CA to execute such a massive change to the needed level of polish.
I could potentially go for a Greece:TW with Greek infighting, colonisation, Carthage vs. Syracuse (?), Persian invasion, Trireme battles etc.
I really don't want to see the TW series stagnate into doing the same periods over & over.
Its definitely too soon for a return to Medieval (M2 was already too soon!) & Rome but I think its best for the next one to 'rebirth' the series by going back to Shogun, probably Greece following after S2.
Shogun 2.
Keep it small, keep it tight, make it work properly.
Shogun if it looked awesome, or Rome.
I have a feeling it's going to be an Asian:TW. CA isn't going to want to put the brand new engine to waste, and This way they'll be able to implement some gunpowder units.
And my E:TW folder is only what? 10gb? Look at the maps. That doesn't look like it's going to be too small.Quote:
Keep it small, keep it tight, make it work properly.
I mean small as in the scope of the project ie plan something that can be relatively easily completed & made to work properly.
Part of the reason that CA is really the only company making TWish games is that nobody else is crazy enough to make games of such sweeping scale & many features that must pose massive technical/programming challenges.
They have mostly pulled it off in the past but the launch quality of Empire, residual bugs (including many lingering in previous TW games) & increasing fan hostility shows that they've been getting too ambitious so its time to cut back to something more manageable with more focus on producing a good game.
Asia: TW
I’d go for that, a semi-revisit of Shogun. Similar to E:TW and N:TW however in that the main game (i.e. the Empire game) is the full Asian sub-continent, China warring states, India the whole gambit…dammit you could even include Mongols again and the Americas (in line with the claims the Chinese visited first).
THEN the expansion would be full Shogun II…simples see *squeak*
Keeps the same game engine, same format as current games…main then an expansion…and keeps us oldies hooked as we wait to revisit Shogun again but with *shock* 3D animations!!
I’d post on the official forums but ezboards and me just don’t get along (in other words all my logins don’t work anymore).
So, feel free to suggest on those boards anyone if you want….
If they did this, kept the engine the SAME, keep all the FIXES they’ve put out for Empire and just concentrated on getting the units right, maps right and the last remaining game play issues right…CA could win us back.
They mustn’t try to re-invent the wheel again, Empire was clearly too much of a leap over Medieval II for them (lords knows why though)…keep what works NOW in the new game, we don’t need any concentration on “greater enhanced graphics” or “advanced particle systems”.
Just get the GAME PLAY right!
Here's another angle on the "next game" question. Since full 3D naval combat is the big new feature in ETW (and I mean that in terms of sexy trailers that help sell the game)... which choice would make the best use of the naval combat engine, both for tactical interest and to help sell the game?
I think that's a strong case for ancient Greece or Rome (preferably Greece, for me). There have been enough movies showing navies of oared ships fighting with archery, primitive artillery, and ramming, for people to relate to easily. And it wouldn't require a major overhaul of the naval combat engine since this is all close-range fighting that fits within the scope of ETW's naval combat engine. Steamships already move (more or less) like ships under oar power. Boarding and capture could still be a factor, and it just needs a new tactic for ramming.
Ancient Asia had naval battles, but I think they were using smaller ships and mainly as archery platforms. Mostly small-scale coastal battles, with some river combat in China. I may be wrong (I'm not that well-versed in the history), but it seems to me that naval combat in ancient Greece around the time of the Persian and Peloponnesian wars would be more "cinematic" and better for selling the game. Also fun to play, if they did it right.
Medieval III isn't a time when ship combat was very interesting, and I think that's a low probability anyway since it was the last period covered before ETW.
Naval combat in WW1 wouldn't work well, for the same reasons I posted above about long-range artillery and air support. They would need to vastly expand the battlefield area for dreadnoughts pounding away at each other, along with scouting (and bombing) from airplanes. They'd also have to figure out how to incorporate the early submarines. It's just not a natural fit for the current ETW engine without making it much more complicated.... and I think (as said above by others), what we want is a tight game with good AI coding that wouldn't require massive additions.
So that's my best argument for Greece: it's the best way to exploit the naval combat side of the game. As an aside, I think the concept of schools, colleges, and the tech tree (i.e heavy emphasis on science instead of religion) is also a more natural fit for Greece than for Asia, or a Medieval III.
Currently Rome II has twice the votes as its nearest competitor.
I agree that Greek and Roman Naval War is an interesting topic for a game or otherwise.
The ships need a reverse before you introduce ramming though.
There is stepping and unsteppen of masts, the use of heavy weights on booms to sink your enemy, all kinds of interesting Naval inventions for technologies.
I just wonder about how long you need research to obtain flaming pigs or screaming women?
Personally I would love an Asia total war with an expansion focusing on Japan. There is a huge potential of variety in Asia that has yet to be fully explored.
The issue I think will be sales. Shogun was highly focused on an area that might not sell well enough for CA to devote an entire game to it. Devoted fans of the series would love this but would such a game bring in enough new fans? I am not so sure. Same thing with an Asia total war, will it expand their appeal more than another European/American period game.
I actually think we may see them move away from the huge campaign games toward a more narrow and directed period game. something like Road To The Revolution and NTW. This could mean smaller games but more frequent publishing. Focusing on wars that they think will sell well. I am not keen on the idea, but I do think it is possible.
Ditto, Ditto, Ditto!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by hoom
I think as the series has evolved, the games have gotten bigger, more bloated, and more difficult to balance and program AI for.
shogun 2 for me to please.
Totally agree with the idea mentioned above about keeping it focused and tight, get the core game working right then maybe expand features and such with dlc.
*Sigh* the division of Asia/Shogun into Asia and Shogun II is pointless. They won't make Shogun II anyway so it should have been just Asia: Total War. Shogun II could easily have been the expansion or whatever. As it stands R2TW will win that poll.
Personally I'd like to see either S2TW or ATW. I would only buy if it were totally free of Steam and any other intrusive copy protection or "phone home" software.
I'd wish for Shogun 2, but compared to Rome2 or WW1 it would not sell too much copies for SEGA's tastes.
Well, I guess we need to face it.
Once upon a time hard-core gamers were a force in the market. They bought the high-end machines and the games that ran on them.
There were a lot of studios but they all gradually dwindled. They were bought out, went under, or taken over.
Today it is the mass market and casual gamers that seem to rule the roost.
The time, effort, and heart are not going into these games. It is no longer the feel of the game but the dazzle of the graphics that matter.
Realism is just something for 3D shooters and Historical Accuracy only applies to the lines of Airplanes.
Most only have enough grasp of history and geography to know that Rome was a long time ago and Europe isn’t a province of Canada.
So, just expect Rome II and when they are up to it WWII...
*checks watch*Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Wow, I didn't know it was time for condemnations of the supposed 'casual gamer' already. Ah, the good old days, where there were thousands of studios all working selflessly with no thought of making massive piles of money out of gamers who were pure hearted and true.
Oh no wait, that's so wrong I can actually hear the universe screaming out a big no in response. Mass market has always ruled the roost, and just because the market itself is now so large you can pretend you're a unique and special 'hardcore' snowflake doesn't suddenly make casual gamers a new phenomenon. It's so-called 'casual gamers' who've been dragging your backside along with them since the NES in the mid eighties, not the other way around.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khorak
:idea2:
Most studios started as gamers building things they wanted to play and yes making money from it but it lacked something it has now Khorak old boy.
A corporate mind set. Those old studios made some money and sold out or went on to something different. But what their motive was in building those was much different.
It wasn’t about bean counters and release dates. No rush for Christmas or some media hype.
But....
In your ignorance and hast to criticize you missed the point. It was a let down for those wanting what was before.
The people voting don’t want Shogun II because they never even saw the box art.
A game focused on history would feel too much like school, or someone trying to penetrate a thick head.
So the games are graphic and light with a minimum of thought needed at each end...which is where you came in.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Fisherking, you are probably romanticizing the past a bit too much. Not only that, but even in it's borked state ETW is far from a casual game. A truly casual gamer's eyes are going to glaze over at all the options available to them (and they'll never dig deep enough to see where ETW doesn't work). Furthermore, there are still hardcore games out there; check out Paradox's line of games which include some really arcane stuff.
If you find the TW series too unsophisticated, then check out other stuff. Not only are you more likely to find something you like, but you get to stick it to CA in the process.
:no:No one gets it do they!
Fine, I laid it on thick about the past, great...
That was a preamble to what came after.
Everyone is pining for Shogun 2 here, meanwhile the kids are voting for another go at Rome...
That is all I was trying to say!
If I laid it on thick about a golden age of games that never really was For Get It...It was about Rome and Not STW2
You got it yet????
:wall:
edit:
I can’t just leave it...
You guys are like Joe Friday
Embellishment is way over your head it seems....
I bet you send birthday cars like...
Its your birthday huh?
:shame:
:clown::beam:
Had a radical thought this morning (and to tentatively get thread back somewhat on track)..ok, not a full new game but an expansion:
Revolution: Total War
Covers -
English AND American Civil Wars using ETW's expanded engine.
Covers those wanting a more "Medieval" style game with the English Civil War and those wanting a more modern feel of mid-late 19th Century warfare with American Civil War.
Maps could be made quite extensive with gameplay similar to ETW with towns, farms etc being outside the regional capitals and the regional capitals a bit more realistically un-advanced.
(yeah, ok, I want an American Civil War game but thought just focusing on that wouldn't really make a good value £20 expansion)
Fisherking actually made a good post and it does sum things up well. Some of you are perhaps too young to know how the gaming industry started out.
This is absolutely true. There was a time when there were hardcore gamers only. Nowadays just about every device can play some kind of game whereas back then you needed a decent PC with a 3D accelerator card or a dedicated console. When I was a lad, my parents would not even let me have an Atari because someone told them that they "break the TV". Being a gamer was being against the system. Everyone disapproved. Parents, teachers, the general public, siblings, even friends. My father expected me to be out on the football pitch, he could not understand gaming or the need for it. Any negative press read in the newspaper or seen on TV about gaming was taken as an excuse to limit my time playing games. I had to be a hardcore gamer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
This is true as well. Some of the best studios in fact were bought out and then went under or were laid off by the new owners. The small studios innovated and the big publishers simply bought them out and milked the frachise to death. This went on and on until it created the current gaming market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
There are so many developers consigned to history now that it's hard to keep track of them all. In most cases the takeovers of these small stuidios by the big boys such as EA and SEGA has also seen a decline in innovation. Games are now less revolutionary and more formulaic. They stick to what sells and annual profits are the primary concern. Smaller studios try to revolutionise the market and make a name for themselves, this is what keeps good quality games in the pipeline. It is this innovation and originality that has dried up in recent years.
Nowadays with so many devices capable of running games and the attraction of multiplatform, it's sad that the games industry has gone the same way as the music industry. It is targeted at the widest possible audience and thus is nothing special. It's rather like trying to cook a meal that everyone will like. You will realise that person x does not like tomatoes and that person y dislikes chilli, and person z is not overly keen on spices. What you end up with is something bland, unoriginal and uninspired that is trying to cater for too many tastes. This is what the commerical music industry is like and this is also where gaming is heading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
The marketing of new games is mostly about screenshots and short demos. Without the revolutionary graphics games will score low with the reviewers and will not impress when it comes to screenshots. This is why the visuals are the main focus. When a potential customer is reading a magazine review it's all "book by the cover". They cannot really make an assessement on AI or gameplay at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I'm not entirely convinced that TW needs "realism" in the sense of realistic terrain and graphical violence. The realism required is at the physical level, i.e. trajectories, windage, weather, fatigue, morale atc. TW game have lacked any semblance of this since MTW and for other games, except simulations, this kind of realism is never a priority. TW has followed the same path, where 'realism' has become purely visual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Somewhat of a generalisation. I don't think historical accuracy is the real issue. I would not care if CA made Dungeons & Dragons - Total War, so long as the tactical battles and proper physics, balanced units and gameplay returned with better support for the MP community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
R2TW will probably be next, WWI and WWII would be unworkable IMHO, due to the unsuitability of the TW engine. Other types of games can do that better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
:bow:
I’m not too young but at the time I just cared little about the details other than trying to get my BASIC written software (that I’d taken three days to type in) to work on my Vic-20.
I’d hate to see a RTWII mainly because so many Mods have already made the game just about good enough in my opinion and it’s a “well flogged horse”
Asia, Helenistic or Civil Wars is the way to go! New territory, that’s how CA will get new and more custom, not re-hashing products already available for under £5 on eBay (oh yeah…and without the STEAM fecking about).
I also agree that either world wars is just not suitable for the type of Battle scenario TW games use. The Campaign however would be awesome…but the battles pretty much a mess.
EDIT – Modern warfare (i.e. 20th Century) just moves TOO FAST for an appropriate level of Realism vs. Numbers of Units vs. Number of Men per side vs. weapons available.
Air combat would be a MUST and it also has to be at the same time as ground battles means its really unworkable.
From a post of mine on another forum.
There seem to be no end of wars in the 19th cent to choose from alongside the obvious ones (ACW), which have been done over and over again.
Oh, and this is by no means a full list.
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 1913 begins
19th century Total War - ad nauseam
See!
Civil War: Total War now looks like a nice large game with multiple campaigns to choose from!
“which have been done over and over again” – With different game systems and engines. To many of us the Total War format is the best style for these types of games and admittedly CA have that pretty much sewn up.
Besides, I’m not playing any of them and I want a Total War version. (takes bat and ball and walks off home)
Civl War : Total War? Whose civil war? :wall: I know whose you mean, but it is only one of many conflicts. It doesn't deserve a TW all to itself or even the accolade of being the headline act of the next TW game. A campaign within it, no doubt, but it is too restricted, too parochial to be the centre-piece of a TW game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Braden
I actually would like to see a TW game from the start of 16th century(New World;exploration;religious wars) to the end of 17th century.
But.. most likely this kind of game will never come. Swiss government will probably say NO.
Well as originally stated mainly American and English Civil Wars…I agree though only really suitable for an Expansion and not a full game unless you add more campaigns to it and the potential to expand play to a more Global (for American) and European (for English) campaign after completion of the main objectives of each.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
Example: In the American CW campaign you complete the game as the South, beat the North and unify North America. Next turn Global Economic and Social Map opens up (similar to ETW’s trade map) where the “New America” can interact directly with South American, European and perhaps even Pacific and Asian theatres.
Similar on the English campaign after “winning” Europe opens up for you…take Cromwell’s New Model Army into France or Spain!
EDIT - Actually it doesn’t matter that much. Its my personal flight of fancy and I hope a Mod Community is listening for that…
Don’t want to detract too much from the fact we want Asia: Total War!
Agreed, they would be great campaigns or expansions. I believe the Mod community has already come up with an ACW mod?Quote:
Originally Posted by Braden
Disagreed. Sorry, but to me an Asian setting all too often means a fantasy one. I mean by that the distorted, romanticised, ingorant view we Westerners have of Asia. Unfortunately the TW series has proven fromt he very firs all too easily susceptibel to the more "fantasy" units. Anyone remember that maniac with an oversized katana able to take on units all by himself in Shogun? If you'll pardon my French, absolute :daisy:! :furious3: That kind of infantile, puerile thing is just way too easy for TW under the guidance of Sega to repeat if they go for an Asian setting. Might as well go for Middle Earth Total War. No doubt in their search for ever greater markets something like this is on the cards - along with a move to console.Quote:
Don’t want to detract too much from the fact we want Asia: Total War!
No interest whatsoever in it.
Well IF that was the way it took then we’d all be upset.
Yeah, remember Shoguns silly/fantasy units as well but as long as they’re exceptions rather than the normal. Asia would have scope for some truly epic battles and continental scale conflicts…for starters you have the Kingdoms period and the Korean War.
IF done well it’ll be good but you’re looking at the negative here and you could say the same for ANY title/subject selection for CA/SEGA to publish. If you go there immediately then you leave yourself with no options do you?
The next Total War I want?
Empire: Total War 1.6 of course.
Rather like the sciences in which you can study universes, planets galaxies and the marco direction, there is the exact opposite. The micro universe.
I believe CA needs to find an event, a period, a war, something much shorter, well defined, and focus their efforts.
Of course, that screams total failure to SEGA and the casual gamer market.
But, NTW is an example.
War of the Roses.
Amercian Civil War.
One of the many war in Europe between 1700 and 1850.
Not necessarily. When it comes to "historical accuracy" none of the TW series have been very hot on it. In fact STW was closer to feudal Japan, at least in the general "feel" than MTW or RTW were to their eras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
A generalisation. It could also be argued that we westerners have the same "distorted, romanticised, ingorant view" of Europe. Have you ever seen an historically accurate 'historical' movie? Do you consider, Spartacus, Gladiator, 300, Troy, etc, etc to be historically accurate? Was RTW historically accurate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
Yes, the whole series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
The Kensai? He was introduced in the Mongol Invasion ex pack along with the "battlefield ninja". IMHO that's where CA started to go wrong. MTW had the "Hashishin" which were the same as the BF Ninja and many more fantasy units besides. In total STW had about two units that could be considered fantasy units. MTW had lots more, though many people conveniently forget that. Moving on to RTW and the fantasy unit count reaches it's saturation point with chanting druids, screeching women and 10 different types of legionaries, battlefield gladiators, those masked chaps and other assorted nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
So in spite of all that CA got the Roman era right and the Sengoku period wrong because of two fantasy units (three if you include the Geisha) and a bit of abstraction (Noh/Kurosawa influence)?
:inquisitive:
That is not a real argument against CA doing an Asian TW or Shogun II. Using the same logic, R2TW and M3TW would also be a disaster. Games developers have the funds and means to get in the experts (SEGA happen to be an asian company, so I don't see them having much issue finding Japanese historians).Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
And why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
Who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
:bow:
Asai, what you say is possible. Unfortunately, you fail to convince me that an Aian setting will not simply be a fantasy-fest, over and above anything we have seen to date. STW was the first, since then they have gone further off-piste, mainly to assuage the more puerile demands of a not inconsequnetial proportion of the market. A market segment that absolutely loves all the martial arts, mystical, MongolZ R0x, BS.
A Middle Earth : TW? Yes, I'd rather, nothing wrong with fantasy for fantasy's sake.
Voice of the Camel Lord: This is just a gentle reminder to please keep it civil, folks. I've seen a few posts in this thread that were a bit....heated, shall we say? I realize many of us have strong opinions on this subject (and I'm no exception), but remember to debate the issues; let's stay away from personal attacks please. :bow:
As for myself, my preferred settings for a future Total War title remain the same: Ancient China, ancient Greece (especially the Persian Wars and Peloponnesian War), or a fantasy setting.
The latter setting actually holds a fair bit of appeal for me, if for no other reason than that at least CA wouldn't have to worry about historical accuracy. Nagamasa is quite correct in that the TW series has gone downhill in this regard since Shogun's Mongol Invasion expansion pack, with Rome being the nadir (or pinnacle, depending on how you look at it).
Still, though, I'd love to see an ancient China game, particularly if it were set in the Spring & Autumn period. Many potential factions, lots of diplomacy and political intrigue, huge armies, technological innovation....I get excited by the mere possibilities!
I know this is a tad bit off-topic, but I will post my preference in the end.
Someone mentioned the shift to console games and I can foresee CA headed that way in it's quest for ever-increasing sales. I found this little discussion to be interesting:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/25...console-losing
That console gamers can simply plug-in, unbox the game, and start playing without having to invest $$$ in a new rig (you can get a PS3 for less than many high-end graphics cards), or have to d/l the inevitable follow-on patching, speaks volumes.
It would not surprise me one bit to see, in the not-too-distant future, TW being sold for consoles. Whether that'd be a good thing or not will remain to be seen.
My vote would be for an Asia:TW, but given the recent track record for TW games, I would be verrrry hesitant to buy it, if they indeed ever do it. I'm certainly willing to give CA a chance to 'get it right', but I'm not holding my breath:inquisitive:
And CA is going to have to jump through some hoops to patch the buggy thing and ARE.TEE.ESUS. kinda suck on consoles unless you can yell at your dudes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdvrvSqFOGI
I would like to see a return to Rome. It was my favorite Total War period, after Empire.
Yeah, but that's a double-edged sword. Without historical accuracy to lean on as a framework for the game, Ca would have to license an existing fantasy system ("Dungeons and Dragons®:Total War"), or else invent a fantasy system from scratch. That's what Bioware is doing with Dragon Age, and it's what Stardock is doing with their Elemental: War of Magic strategy game. It's what Blizzard did with Warcraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
It's great when it works, but it's not easy to design a coherent background universe that isn't dumb, silly, or just another Tolkien ripoff. An interesting and challenging fantasy melee/magic system takes a lot of work. How long has Dragon Age been in development now, as Bioware's attempt to ditch the D&D license? Something like eight years?
With historical warfare strategy games, all of that structure comes "free" with a little research, and the programmers can focus on coding the mechanics. Since the main complaint everyone seems to have with CA is the quality of their AI programming (or to put it differently, the ambitious scale of the game compared to what their AI can handle), I think they're better off not trying to design a fantasy world from scratch. Especially since other game companies are already in that market niche with current or upcoming projects. CA has a niche in historical wargaming that they should hang on to.
A triple-edged sword? I think the problem we have seen in all the TW games, bar Shogun (maybe?) which took most people by surpise in a setting most didn't know that well, has been the depth of the armchairs a few of the self-appointed "experts" sit in. One man's history is another's fantasy. The little dictum about history being written by the winners really does skew the one's point of view on many things hence all the "CA don't know what they are doing", "CA are anglo/euro centric", "blah, blah", ad nauseam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
If I were at CA I'd be pushing firmly for a fantasy setting, and not LOTR - just as many people with opinions. The creative effort would be well worth it to avoid all the flak about incorrect, under-powered or unfair representations.
I have seen some say that a WWII version of Total War is not possible.
I am not promoting a WWII version but I think it is entirely doable. There have already been games that had air, land, and sea in battles so why would it be imposable for CA to make one.
I don't think the current engine would do it but if they had set out to do it I don't see a problem.
But having said that, I hope they do several others before they go looking at something like that.
:laugh4::laugh4:
Nothing is going to stop criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
Some don’t like things even before they know what they are.
Some self appointed experts will say they did it wrong even if they make it up from scratch.
It doesn’t matter if they did bugs or dragons or outer space, someone will lash it and trash it.
I think CA knows that already, though...
And what is wrong with LOTR?
Except that there have been a lot, but a good one might come along someday....
:laugh4:
I'm not an authority on history or warfare but IMHO, it's not really possible with the current incarnation of the TW engine. WWII is essentially modern warfare, i.e. squad based combat, not line infantry and cavalry charges. I don't see how the TW engine can represent house to house, street by street fighting or engagements involving armour and air power. There are a variety of sims that already do this, though most of these are very specific. At the campaign level it could perhaps be done, but when it comes to battles no. EVen then it would not be worthwhile IMHO because compaines like Paradox release those kinds of games and from what I've heard are better at it. TW's main selling point was and should always be battles, but sadly if you exclude visuals, these have degraded in quality since the first two games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
WWI is similarly unworkable due to the style of warfare of the time. From WWI onwards (well sometime before that actually) the whole idea of "units" would have to go, necessitating a complete rebuild and redesign of the engine.
:2cents:
Well you are right, that there is no way this engine could do it and I am not saying that it is easy but there are games out there that do it and so building one that handles the battles and the campaign is possible.
But like I said, I am not looking for it yet. There are loads of things I would rather see first.
The Napoleonic period up to about 1820 is about as far as this type of game construct and engine can be taken.
It's the last real use of cavalry as part of the combined arms concept before it's phased out. Of course there are exceptions and cavalry was still used up until WWI but it's hard for cavalry to compete against repeating rifles and machine guns.
Unless they want to move to a command and conquer style engine they need to stay in the period before 1850.
Totally agree. Unless we are willing to loose the TW style of play we actually like and prefer to many other games out there...CA need to limit themselves in time periods.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Or go Fantasy as already suggested. Being a huge Fantasy fan (LotR, AD&D, White Wolf, Forgotten Realms etc etc), I'm not adverse to it.
Wasn't there an attempt already at a TW "rip-off" style LotR's game? :inquisitive:
Yep. Though I would push the TW a bit further to include the the ACW, even maybe the Franco-Prussian war. It would be interesting to see how the TW engine would deal with steam trains in both those conflicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Given the expanded geographic scope of ETW maybe we could hope for a global setting and just argue about dates? So no, Asian/European/Middle Eastern arguments, just when? when would be a good time where most major players would've had a chance to have an impact, given slightly unrealistic movement and logistics capabilities? I'd say an interesting period would be the end of the Middle Ages to up till the ETW era. Europe is fast developping new forms of warfare and the Middle and Far east haven't turned in on themselves yet.
Of course, it would a be adifficult one for CA to do. They probably don't even want to do anything of the kind given the fan base's competing pet hates and loves.
Frankly, I don't mind -as long as they do this:
...but I'm finding it hard ot be excited about another TW game right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoom
Plus, what on earth would be the fun in a WW1 battle game? Inching your trench closer to theirs? Lets face it, the campaign strategy side of the game will be shocking compared to the alternatives, eg from Paradox.
Now I think we're up to a four-edged sword, maybe more. We might have to move to a metaphor like a mace with a bunch of points on it. :laugh4: LOTR:Total War would have multiple strings attached, which could affect the quality of the game:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
1) CA would be paying a licensing fee, which could cut into the funds available for programming, artwork, and testing. Unless, of course, the IP is so popular that extra sales would make up for the fee, but that's a gamble.
2) Licensing a closely-held property like LOTR, might mean restrictions from the IP owners on what CA could or couldn't show in the game (violence restrictions, etc.).
3) A popular fantasy IP like LOTR brings with it a rabid fan base, who will pick apart any deviation from canon. And the canon is much more pinned down and formalized than what we know of ancient warfare, at least. Complaints about flaming pigs aside, CA has a lot of slack for what it can show in a game about ancient Rome, Greece, China, or Japan without raising too much of a fuss. Not that many people are either experts in the time period, or care that much.
4) If you license someone else's world, characters, storyline, and melee/magic system, then you give up the potential to expand your own IP into future projects. For the best example of that, see what Blizzard was able to do with the Warcraft franchise.
I think a mix of these factors is what led Stardock and Bioware to build their own fantasy worlds from scratch for their upcoming games. Probably #1 and #4 were the main reasons, since (as mentioned up-thread) users will always find something to complain about, whatever the game concept.
Shogun and NTW are rather restricted as well so there is precedent for it. That being said it doesn't interest me much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
Personally I still hope for an Asia total war the encompasses as much of the continent as possible. Sure you can do just Japan or China, but there is so much else that could be included that is not addressed well anywhere else.
However, one idea I haven't seen here is to go back further in time. Helenistic Greece is nice, but how about Assyria, the Hurrians, Hittites, Babylonia, a properly done Egypt etc?
A WWI/WWII Total War would have to tackle several new issues, namely incorporating Air/off map indirect fire, strategic attack, presumably bigger battles, and a continuous front.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
As for fantsay/Sci Fi, how about Star Trek Total War? Tie it in with the new movie release, and it already presents numerous factions to use for a campaign. The biggest problems would be handling the issue of 3D maps/combat, but given that many Star Trek/Star Wars games have used basically two dimensional campaign and combat maps, that would not seem a prohibitive problem.
I think you're forgetting one thing...
Third Reich Tech Research:
Philosophy Path: The Final Solution to the Jewish Question.
I don't think that CA has a big enough pair to deal with any controversial considering how Switzerland and the West African slave trade did not exist in ETW. It would have been fun to take loans from Switzerland to jump start my economy but no.... And all things considered, you can't play as the Third Reich in a strategy game - its just politically unfeasible. You're a jerk if you pretend it didn't happen and you're insesitive if you portray it.
Tactics games deal with only the military situtation while a strategy game would force you to set overarching goals.
PS. WWI has a similar problem with the Armenian Genocide but its not as sensitive of a subject in the West.
Hearts of Iron, anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Or Close Combat.
@ antisocialmunky
Would you like to name a mainstream title that has dealt with that in a game?
Did RTW deal with the crucifixion of any Jews?
As to WWII combat, Guys.
The battles are RTS and look at the RTS battle games out there.
It doesn’t need to be 40 simulators tacked together.
Anything of Strategic scope could be handled like the old naval battles in an auto calc with flack & fighters vs. Bombers and escorts, or escorts vs. submarines and then fix a damage result for trade or infrastructure.
Continuous lines are covered with something like interception zones.
Use your imagination, it is doable.
That is all I said.
I never hinted it was desirable.
So what was the deal with Switzerland not being in the game?
I live there so I'm not sure what the problem is.
As to the game, I think they have done a very good job in handling the "scope" needed for E:TW. That and the naval battles are a real positive point to this game.
Perhaps between 1540-1700, which is the European Renaissance period and put it on a global scale, including Japan, China, South America, most of Africa, the Indian subcontinent.
The only issue is that it is not really appealing for a war game.
However, the positive side of that is that it covers much of the colonial expansion from Europe and all the management headaches that could entail.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
:laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
What's controversial about Switzerland not existing? What did I miss in my history lessons? What nefarious activities were they up to in those days?
Banking? Nope.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by NimitsTexan
Wait, let me rephrase that: NO!!
If they make a TW game based on that awful excuse for a "movie", blood will weep from the walls; hell-mouths will open up, devouring the Earth.
They have a policy of neutrality and it seems like for that reason, the Swiss Confederation was removed form the game. We never really got an answer on the Swiss question true, but the faction's unit assets are in ETW, its just that the faction, and that part of the map doesn't exist while tons of other minor factions exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
1) Those games only detail the military aspect like Company of Heroes and other RTT games like Blitzkrieg. That's how they get away with doing WWII without that bit of unpleasantness. You play as the military, not the civilian government.Quote:
Would you like to name a mainstream title that has dealt with that in a game?
Did RTW deal with the crucifixion of any Jews?
In contrast, TW has not been exclusively about warfare since STW with all the random 4xish stuff that was added. You play as the leader or shadow government of your country building infrastructure, charging taxes, developping trade and technology.
And that's the problem: you don't play just as a general in the faction in TW, you play as the leader of the faction. You can't ignore what's going on beyond the battles.
Not that I would care if I was playing as Mr. Hitler, but there would be a fundemental problem in ignoring the policies of the Third Reich in a game that purports to be atleast semi-historical that shows both the civillian and military side...
2) But there were zealots, enslaving, extermination, and Judea was part of the game and you could exterminate Judea :-\. You also didn't start that game 8 years into the process of collecting and slowly killing 12 million people. Similarly the inquisition was in MTW as well as the persecution of the Jews though toned down quite abit. However, again your hands weren't tied.
This is opposed to faction whose starting ideology is based on racial superiority and the extermination of subhumans and undesirables.
Then there's the issue of Japan raping and pillaging their way through Asia for about 10 years...
EDIT:
Actually, what might be interesting is a WWII TW starting in 1930 and let it go from there. America isn't a powerhouse DEMOCRACYWINZ, France isn't dead, Germany is still in a state of flux, Russia isn't crippled by purges, China isn't at its complete nadir, and Japan hasn't declared on China.
You have to do some building so the game starts off kinda slow but they you form your own alliances as factions and watch the League of Nations be sad. France, Britain, Russia, and Japan start fast while Germany, America, China need to be built up.
So you can have a Red Alert style game where Russia invades Europe and America and the Allies have to hold it off or something. :)
You could also have the Chinese Nationalists unite China, get rid of the Communists and Warlords, and invade Japan and Russia.
So Switzerland was left out because they were neutral?
Wow. I wonder how that occurred.
The more I think about it the more I realise that CA have pretty much covered everything.
I would expect a re-do after N:TW
For those thinking about sci-fi options, how about Aliens: Total War / AvP: Total War or Starship Troopers: Total War?
Well, CA does have something of a reputation when it comes to bugs... ;)
:laugh4::shocked::laugh3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zild
Well, this part is kind of ridiculous:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
My computer is dual core, blah blah blah, about a year and a half old, runs M2TW on all the highest settings, Can You Run It insists I more than meet all minimum specs, but it's actually too poor to run E:TW, at all. I figured, maybe low settings, but nothing, at all, zippo. With this game, CA has moved way beyond what the casual gamer is capable of, unless your idea of the casual gamer is buying the latest Alienware Deluxe every three months. It's clearly intended ONLY for the hardcorest of the hardcore gamers because no one with a casual computer rig can play it.
Not so sure with that. Seems the 1.5 patch has significantly effected the performance of the game on systems that were happily running it on 1.4.Quote:
Originally Posted by gardibolt
My PC is by No means top flight and built on a shoe-string budget and it, like yours, runs M2 at the highest settings on everything BUT judders and stutters with ver.1.5 of Empire. Fortunately, it does this mainly on the campaign screen when a turn is started or on the battle map if I zoom in for a close up.
My spec is only:
AMD X2 5000 processor
ATi 4650 512mb GFX card
2Gb Corsair 800mhz CL4 RAM
Hardly a “hard core” PC.
duuuhQuote:
Originally Posted by Zild
how will that be fought?????????
Starship Troopers don't fire in a line, in that time, firing like that would be only ysed by a dumbass
What "time" would that be? Would any firing by a human even be around "in that time"...:laugh4:...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Septimus Severus
Ooo....Cyborg: Total Wars!!
:laugh4:
A joke just as much as a Starship Troopers comment huh?
How about Bronze Age: Total War, taking place in the eastern Mediterranean region and further east to the Indus River Valley. You get a great mix of peoples, weapons, tactics, and so on. There are the Egyptians, the early Greeks, the Babylonians, the Hittites, the Canaanites, the Persians, the Jewish people (who could be treated like a horde rampaging into Canaanite territory), Abyssinia, and all sorts of other minor peoples living in the region. The existance of slingers, bowmen, early cavalry, CHARIOTS, heavy spearmen, and light swordsmen could make for some fun tactics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Septimus Severus
You're assuming the gameplay mechanics would be based around tight unit formations rather than loose unit cohesion or perhaps some other, more suitable approach.
You're assuming I was being serious, not making a blatant joke at CA's expense.
I hope they don't jump for Rome 2 as those who love Rome will just be disappointed its not the same and people hoping for something new from the worlds history would be disappointed.
Also I don't think Total War should no more modern than the 1800s there are already games that do world war 2 or modern war.