Printable View
Does any 1 know what its gonna be? Im gonna have an orgasm if its rome 2 total war. I want peoples opinion on what iv just found.
Check this link out and look where it says rome total war. The dates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War_(series)
Edit : DAMN IT i just read it properly and its sum stupid mac gold release that came out this year. i thought it was gona be rome 2 total war. FS im not happy
I wonder what will be their next game... maybe a second Shogun or an ETW expansion?Quote:
Originally Posted by lionhard
Another shogun would be truly awesome, seeing the progress that have been made in the serie since the first!
I tihink I would like to see a Rome 2 total war - but more modeable then N:TW so it can be used as a basis for EB III.
EB 2 isn't even close to be out on BETA and you already speak about a EB 3? maybe when gaming will be on hologram, and no more car will be used, coz we'll use teletransportation!
:daisy: shogun off, rome 2 all the way. How come EB 2 has taken so long comparesant to EB 1? just a random question their for ya
Gangstah language... cute...Quote:
Originally Posted by lionhard
AFAIK EB to its final version took 4 years...
And MTW2 is only 3 years out + there's more units to be modelled since the clone units of RTW are no more, there seems to be even more research on EB II and I don't know for sure, but it seems the team is smaller (at least the modellers and stuff).
If CA spends time and energy making a new Rome, I wish for it to take an open-ended approach. That is, I wouldn't want to play a half-effort game, like NTW. I would like something that is very open to modification as well as something that has many years of effort in it, just like EB and EBII.
P.S. Lionhard if you're going to curse, please censor the whole word and not part of the word. Forum rules.
Don't worry, he ment... Flower...Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
I personally think that particular forum rule is flower, but if you flower just for the sake of flowering to look cool, like he seems to be doing, I find that (and I'm completely at loss for the right English word here, it's late and I don't want to think about it, so find your own word that fits here and means that I get irritated, find it childish and things like that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Duguntz
Back on topic: I don't care what time period the next TW-game is about, as long as the gameplay and modding possibilities are better than ETW and NTW.
I would love either Dark Ages TW or Nomad TW....
That's actually a good idea... I'd buy them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Khan the Great
When in doubt, use a daisy: :daisy: It is Backroom convention and works well enough.
Anyway why does it take so long...? How long have we yet been at it? A year, two if you count some pre-production planning? I do know it took spare time from me for about 6 months all in all to get a reasonably solid font tool done, so we can now finally mod fonts in TW games. I also know I did not work exactly 9 to 5 on it 5 days a week, either. Granted it probably would've been done sooner if I had been content to do a more straightforward system font -> game font converter; but now we can do stuff you simply didn't see in M2TW with it. It's that kind of attitude which slows us down yet produces ultimately a better result if you don't consider ETA's all that important.
More factions, more researching, more units, far more skinning work, more complex game mechanics and the fact that many people were still working on EB in the early days. Take your pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by lionhard
Re: the OP I'd say RTW2 would be the obvious choice as it was one of their most sucessful games.
edit: looks like Tellos beat me to it
Ok lets go off topic to talk about flowers real cool guys real fricken cool.
If they make a rome 2 they beta make it more realistic, they must have been inspired by what u guys did with EB, i cant belive they havnt announced nothing yet because before every other game has been out theve announced the next in line. If its shogun im gonna see my ****
I'd much rather discuss English grammar and vocabulary usage, since it is clearly far more interesting a topic to discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by lionhard
Some might be dissapointd in a STW2 that uses the new campaign map like everything after MTW considering how well those games worked and how some think they were the best in the series. Personally, I would like pretty much anything because I have enjoyed all of the titles. I just hope it's more moddable, especially after playing some of the talented mods out there.
My guess is that they'll go for Rome 2: Total War. It was an extremely popular title and probably the most popular historical time period they've ever done. I also believe that if they do make a Rome 2: Total War, it will be much more historically accurate than the first Rome. Not up to EB standards, to be sure, but definitely better than the original Rome; because that was the low point for the series in terms of historical accuracy and they actually do seem to be making much more of an effort towards historical accuracy in Napoleon.
As for what I'd most like to see, it wouldn't be Rome 2. EB2 will already fill that niche fine for me. I would love to see a Dark Age: Total War, like Hannibal Khan said. They've never really done that time period, other than Viking Invasion, and that was only of Scandinavia and the British Isles. A full Europe/Middle East campaign in this period could be very interesting.
I would be curious to see if an Americas TW would work, ie. pre European contact. But I'm not sure how much literature is available to really make an accurate game. Also what's everyones thoughts on an Indian TW, each kingdom vying for power with elephants being more readily available weapons!
I think they'll probably stick with gunpowder and do the American Civil War or something. That's my guess. I doubt they'd go back to ancient times yet.
Precisely. They're headed down a slippery slope straight toward WWII, Korea, Vietnam...Quote:
Originally Posted by Unintended BM
E3 is on the 15th to 17th June so I'm sure we'll be told the next Total War then.
Personally the only Total War titles I'm looking forward to is Shogun and Medieval 1 on gog.com.
And EB2 is latest EB. No EB3.
Shogun 2 will be good, I can't wait to see my samurai archers and Teppo collect many ashigaru heads in better 3D!
BTW : Very much true, vanilla Empire is a :daisy: junk and pretty much worthless.... but Napoleon is far better than the Empire.... especially Napoleon is far more balanced...
A traditional Total War game set during the Second Industrial Age or later would be impossible, due to scale, and the changing face of warfare. It already takes a heavy suspension of disbelief to play an ancient army no larger than 4800 men, and when you start talking about single armies of many hundreds of thousands being shrunk to the size a brigade, things get ridiculous. Even if the armies were shrunk, the battlefields would have to be immense to take into account artillery even from a relatively short 10 miles away. How would the mechanics for air strikes work? There would need to be mechanics for choosing an area and fortifying it. No one has a computer strong enough to do all that yet.
Also, they'd probably whitewash the hell out of the more recent stuff, like removing all the swastikas from German uniforms or some such crap.
simple: they won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badass Buddha
WW1 and WW2 era battles can only be the preserve of either purely RTS* or TBS. a hybrid of the two, like the total war series, isn't a good design for this. Ironically, WW1 is theoretically even harder to do than WW2, because of the need to represent hundreds of miles of trenches and fortifications in one go (afterall, fighting was pretty much along the whole front, 24/7). this would break all but the supercomputer to do. at least in WW2's case, you can make the multiple mini army approach represent a WW2 offensive, but again, we run into the problem of scale. plus, in both wars, soldiers no longer went into the fray with formal close order groups, which furthur adds to the problem.
as in the style of thousands of little sprites, like AoE or American Conquest, both of which i still, on occasion, play.
I for my part, would be really interested in a TW game on the time of emerging civilisations. we speak about 4000 BC and onward. Faction like Akkad, Sumer, Egypt, even Minoan (though they're younger than the 3 previous). I'd go even further in time, like Neolithic, but then, scale would be a big problem. But to me the emergence of civilisation is a really interesting period!
Hmm CA might just do an All Under Heaven. It ticks all the boxes: similar yet varied factions, a fascinating timeline, exotic factions and possibility for civil war. As far as the military go you have the mix of gunpowder units, very different battleships; and a more traditional army with the complete tactical array of shock troops to militia, plus some more exotic units depending on how inclusive the map is. By contrast a Rome 2 Total War cannot offer quite the same number of graphical/tactical `selling' points[*].
Otherwise a Warring States game. Of course Rome 2 Total War is also possible, but SEGA did just allow the release of Rome Total War on Mac which may not be the best moment for announcing a Rome 2.
[*] Yes there are some quite amazing exceptions. Just that they are/were somewhat more limited in scope and hence not as readily available on a battlefield. :shrug:
Let's hope that the next TW won't be the American Civil War, but one that players from around the world know something about and is interesting for all.
It's funny to see how so many people claims that their country is filled with unprecedented glory and history, even more when nobody knows about it, they claim that they've been forgoten by historian, but when it comes to America they couldn't care less! Makes me laugh...
Yeah, besides, CA wouldn't create a game in which Total War actually WAS practiced. That would break the rules.:dizzy2: :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Im with ya their.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Lets hope its rome 2, its 1 of the few games i can actually play on a daily basis
You mean "some such:daisy:" :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Badass Buddha
@Topic: Well I guess they already showed that they are not afraid of an using the same time period with mtw2, and I think rtw2 is a good guess. But I wonder were the TW game after that or the add-on would go. Since the next game(rtw2) would be "revolution" and the one after that "evolution". They wouldn't recycle BI.
Another guess would be "RenaissanceTW" with the possibility of "30 years of total war" as successor.
Hopefully Not-Suck-On-Release:Total War.
I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you...Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Whatever the new TW is, I won't be buying it before the third patch.
pretty much true for the empire... even they are still suck until now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
and false for Napoleon....
One problem that no one seems to have raised so far with a TW set in the 20th Century is how on earth you include aircraft. IMHO I would love to see a Dark Age total War 476AD-1084AD with a map on the same scale as EB or Imperial Total War, set in the 19th Century, purely for the sake of fighting with pre-dreadnoughts.
If they do this time period, I doubt it would only cover the American Civil War (keep in mind that would mean two playable factions total...). You could have a variety of smaller campaigns in this time period, including the American Civil War, The Crimean War, The Franco-Prussian War, maybe even the Austro-Prussian War (or perhaps a German unification campaign in general); or a South African campaign focusing on the Anglo-Zulu War and the subsequent Boer Wars. This is why, in my opinion, if they do this period, it will be a "Kingdoms" type expansion to Napoleon, not a full-fledged game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
I would be satisfied with a 19th century TW. An era of colonisation and progress, punctuated by a couple of wars that threatened to become very serious (eg. German/Italian unifications, 1848 revolutions, US civil war - which was really bloody, Franco-Prussian war, Crimean). Making the most of Britain's hegenomy and the uneasy peace.
I'd also like a 16th-17th century renaissance/reformation one, covering the Spanish/habsburg hegenomy and some of the craziness that meant (incl 30th years war, Dutch revolt, Louis XIV, Ottoman wars, expanding trade etc etc)
WW1 would be good but tricky to pull off. It was in fact the first genuinely 'total' war (although the revolutionary, napoleonic, crimean and US civil wars all had some similar features). I would rather some delay in producing it. It would be much better on more advanced future hardware IMO to get the full feeling of just how grotesque and godawful the whole thing was
A dark age/Charlemagne/Byzantine/early medieval total war would be great. That period has been sorely overlooked so far.
Lastly, but not least, Rome II would be hugely welcome, I am sure :laugh4: (provided it is easily moddable! that's what makes the TW series truly great!)
How about... now bear with me. Legionary: Total Warrior.
You, a young lad of recruitable age, follow through the career path of a Roman legionary in one of the periods of Roman history. As you go along you need to make careful choices about your career path and depending on what you do depends affects you end up in the Legion, either as a Centurion in the infantry, a cavalryman, part of the artillery team or dead. Unlike Spartan Total Warrior the game would be historically accurate and would require you to perfect the everyday routines and combat skills of a legionary. Depending on when the game is set alters the ending of the game. For example if it is set in the Second Punic Wars the game ends with you victorious as Cannae or if it is set during the reign of Trajan you finish the game in Dacia.
How does that sound?
Sounds good, but it will be better in late republic if you start as young patrician eqvites first, you can try to got popular support by down to earth, dismounting when in a battle, fought shoulders to shoulders with your comrades, and end up being a popular general, or fed up your honour, fought at the horseback, promoted to command ranks, and grows to be feared leader, that planned all the fight behind his desks, and leave the dirty jobs to your lesser men...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
What about the crisis of the third century? You could support the ruling emperor or decide to try your luck with a self-proclaimed emperor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
~Fluvius
That's because compared to all of you Eurasians, we've barely done anything, and what we have done usually isn't nearly as cool. Deep down, we're all ashamed, so we try to make ourselves feel better and cover our feelings of inadequacy by yelling "'MER'CA, :daisy: YEAH!" and making stuff up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duguntz
Concerning the US Civil War, I wouldn't even give it an expansion pack, because if it had been competently waged by the north early on, it would have been over very quickly, and a skilled player would be able to beat the game as either side in 5 turns by exploiting the other side's weaknesses. (For those of you unfamiliar with the US Civil War, the Union (north) had an advantage in manpower and resources, while the Confederacy (south) had superior officers and soldiers). I can see a game taking place in that rough time period though (Crimean to Franco-Prussian wars).
Concerning the use of air strikes in a Total War game, I think it could be implemented by getting whatever planes you had in waves, each coming at a fixed interval during the battle, and have them do a strafing/bombing/supply run or what have you before leaving.
Concerning a game where you play as a foot soldier, I can only imagine that working as someone in a society where they didn't fight in ranks, because otherwise you'd just be standing there in a line button mashing, which I think would get old very quickly (Unless we cast realism to the winds and do it Dynasty Warriors style).
Or a totally new game. Women Total War, the whole game would be about half-nude chicks fighting in the mud.
That should be one of the poll options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó
Then you need Mount and Blade and some Roman modQuote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
Personally I would like to see a Total War game based in the Far East. Not necessarily a Shogun II Total War game, but one more focused on China and the surrounding areas.
How about one based on Ancient Greece? Perhaps starting at the end of the Persian Wars....ending upon the death of Alexander?
I really hope it was India Total War or Polynesian Total war or Nomad Total War.
Imagine the naval battles!!!!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by plutoboyz
Yeah!Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
We're still talking about TW, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
Three Kingdoms: Total War would kick ass.
How about Mongol: Total War? (Or maybe to extend its timespan, an Altai: Total War starting with the Huns and ending with Siberia getting conquistador'd by Russia and their gulay-gorods:clown:)
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó
How about DLC: Total War?
World War 1, anyone? Or maybe Assyria Total War?
Those are both historical periods that are sadly neglected...
As there has been said earlier, how will you implement the long distance artillery, the trenches and the dawn of war aviation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zradha Pahlavan
U-Boats would be nice though!
~Fluvius
Increase the size of the battlefield and allow trenches to be built on the strategic map like forts? Aircraft as reinforcements?Quote:
As there has been said earlier, how will you implement the long distance artillery, the trenches and the dawn of war aviation.
I don't know, I bet something could be worked out.
We need a game like Company of Heroes but then WWI, that would actually be a much better platform for it, and why didn't someone else came up with this for a CoH mod :(
What about a Warlords: Total war, about the warlords fighting in china.
Sherman's march to the sea and the Shanandoah Valley's destruction is what I suppose you're talking about?
It doesn't really matter if something could be worked out if the TW platform simply isn't the right platform for the war, and I really don't think it's the right platform for WWI. Skullhead's right, a more traditional rts like Company of Heroes would simply work better. CoH did a really good job with WWII, the capturing of strategic points made it feel a little less like your traditional rts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zradha Pahlavan
CoH is an awesome game. Love the micro-management (making that ONE damned Tiger survive... pls, 57mm, DONT hit it!)
The WWI thing: The only one dealing with it which I know is Empire Earth (in the German campaign). The verdun battle is quite well-made, although its very centered around von Richthofen.
Back to topic:
Looking at the series, I would say that there would be a re-make of Rome or Shogun (TW is now popular enough to do that).
But taking into consideration that they just made into the age of firearms...
hm
17th century?
30 years war
Prussia's and Russia's Rise
France developing from a civil war state to a superpower
on the other hand, this would only be an earlier version of ETW
so also unlikely.
as far as we talk... we still have no much of Napoleon's moddable... assume CA relase their modding tools, maybe it can be going very2 deep...
sandbox total war ... just have the basic game layout with a world map .. a selection of troops from all regions spanning from x time period ... and leave it fully open to mod .. let the players make their own tw games =P
That's like asking for Jenna Jameson. It ain't gonn' happen, no siree.Quote:
Originally Posted by mountaingoat
How about "we fired half the graphic artists and hired programmers to make better AI, diplomacy, and gameplay" Total War. I'd buy that game. Unfortunately, CA seems to be going through a gaming mid-life crisis. The games get prettier and more stupid with each release.
Seriouslly, though:
Mid 1800's or less (preferably much less in my case - Rome, Greece, Assyria, China, etc. would be my preference.)
Slower, not sped up gameplay. Take the turns to months or less rather than seasons or more. (I guess that's the city building gamer in me talking probably.)
Better AI, etc. as mentioned above, but I know that's still a pipe dream for the foreseeable future. Far riskier and harder to do than making it look pretty.
You sound like you need an overdose of Civ V.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
I was hoping to finish up Civ IV rehab before it is released :).Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Though, to me, the 2 games are only similar at a superficial level. While it would be nice to take the combat from RTW and the Civ building from the civ games, Civ would have to be redesigned in quite a few ways to make that work well IMO. The campaign map in TW seems like it could be updated easier without having to change the core of the game as much. Unfortunately, without changes, that leaves less than stellar combat from Civ and less than stellar campaign maps from TW. I'm not convinced the combat changes in Civ 5 will be 'better' but looking forward to it nonetheless.
heres some ideas for ya
- Hannibal total war
- rome 2 total war
- china total war
- crusade total war
- viking total war
Europa Universalis: casus belli system, trading system, tech trees, AI, campaign quests, diplomacy
+
Total Wars: campaign map, agents, battles & units, religion system, family trees
=
Perfect historical RTS
I'm rooting for Aztec Total Warrior
Can this be done? Im sure with the correct tools and the competant people a game like that can be achieved, it would be nice :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó
I think battle AI will always be somewhat of an issue, but EU does show that campaign AI can be better at least. That game is also not turn based though, and you need turns if you want total war type battles, unless you have it real time but pause the campaign for the battles. I think the turn based system does hurt the AI though because it makes it very easy for the human to launch sneak attacks and surgical strikes that the AI could counter if it was in slow real time like EU, but cannot because of the turn based system. ETW and NTW did try to help with this issue a bit by making the zone of control around armies way bigger so they could reinforce from further away, and it does help in some cases, but it's not enough (particularly when the battle AI is so bad that you can easily defeat a force 3 times the size of yours).Quote:
Originally Posted by lionhard
Just as long as Paradox doesn't code it. Years and several expansions later is too long to wait for a mostly fixed but still buggy game. Good idea in general, though, to mix those games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó
Would be great to see a "China total war" or Rome 2 TW, also i would love an "Aztec total war " (or something like that) but i doubt that´s their first posibility, if even that.
Rome 2 Total war please :D:D
>:) ROMA VICTRIX!!
The Rumareufondoz greets you:knight::knight::knight:
I'm fairly certain a much better BattleAI is possible and isn't even that impossible to implement by CA. They just need to add a lot more variable parameters to account for more diverse battle situations. Right now, several of the biggest issues that I encountered in the battleAI (none of which are that hard to implement) are:Quote:
Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII
- RTW does not know how to skirmish using it's entire army. There's always that single unit that stands still. Attack that unit and even missile cavalry will join the frain. A clever AI will take into account the cost of sending it's missile cavalry into the fray (i.e. calculate what the likely damage in charging and melee is compared to the damage it could do if it just sacrificed that unit and continued to skirmish). The mathematical ideas necessary behind such reasoning were extensively developed some 30 years ago. I guess it's about time to implement them.
- RTW hardly takes into account fatigue. More often than not armies are winded or worse when they engage me. It's not that hard to tell an AI to rest it's army before entering the dead zone of my missiles.
- RTW doesn't take into account the likeliness of routing units, especially not her own routing units. It's not that hard to tell an AI it should prefer any other unit to charge but that unit that is already badly shaken due to exhaustion and incurred losses. These units should obviously be held somewhat in reserve and/or rested.
- RTW doesn't take into account the objectives of a battle. It merely tries to win. It's not hard (nor the result of pure genius) to consider the importance of the battle based on the position on the battle map. Invading armies should be hurt, regardless your own costs. While the invading armies of an AI should be more careful to their own losses, rather than pursuing victory. The only situation where RTW takes these considerations into account is when it is being besieged. It will often attempt suicide sallies, which is ok. (Though if such a sally fails, the AI should attempt to gain a draw to gain time, which it doesn't.)
- The formations I encounter are quite fine in their own right (I'm using MarcusCamillius', Darth's etc formations*, so I can't distinguish between these and basic RTW). But it doesn't requires a genial pair of brains to realise these formations should be formed according to both the terrain and the enemy army composition. At the moment, these are sadly lacking. The AI will attempt to form something of a 'best' formation imaginable, regardless of enemy opposition or terrain. Again: these could be easily fixed by a AI-program that calculates the expected losses vs kills with regard to the enemy army composition and the terrain and give each tactic a score. You could still allow the AI to start with a historical formation and initiate a formation-improving-program as the game starts. This way, the AI would (apart from fight) continuously seek to improve it's formation before attacking you.
- At this moment, most individual units hardly behave according to a plan. They react far too much on individual incentives. Hit a unit with missile fire, and the AI will react with one or two units. It should either react with her entire army (sending in everyone is undoubtly more efficient than sending in two units against an entire army) or it shouldn't react at all (hoping you'll soon run out of missiles before killing too many opponents, which makes your missile units worthless).
Of course, writing a battle AI on the level of a unit is significantly easier than writing one on the level of an army.
* No bad word about the modders who developed these formations though, as they undoubtly did the best they could given the hardcoded constraints they faced.
Ancient TWs and the like would be great. I for one would love a new Rome or Shogun. But what would be done with this new naval engine that they have so lovingly nurtured over the ETW and NTW titles? My lack of historical understanding tells me that ancient naval warfare might be somewhat bland.