Printable View
Well i am wondering what CA will do when they will make all possible games.Will they remake other titles or will they do fantasy games.I don't see such a bright future for Total War series.I don't want to sound too offensive but in the future CA's ideas will be over and i don't wanna see any Rome2:TW or things like that.
Umm...
Empire?
:whip:
I am not saying now but after they make E:TW and other games.They will have no subject for the game.
I think they will probably make a China TW for starters. Which I'd love to see. Probably very colorful to say the least. I never played Shogun so it could be updated also.
Fantasy would be ok, but I am interested in seeing more information (as it becomes available) for Empire.
They could also do one about the rise of Napoleon (as an add-on).
The American Civil War would be popular in the US.
There are other conflicts such as Boer War that come to mind off the top of my head. I'd love to take a crack at playing the Zulu nation.
They could crank it back further into ancient history to take on the rise of all of the nation states that came out of the Middle East, such as the Assyrians, Babolynians, and Phoniecians.
As for now there's still plenty of options to choose from, they barely scratched the surface really.
They could go into the classic Greek period and let you play one of the Greek city states, they could make a game about Persia, the Hittites, Egypt, Nubia, China, the Mongols, Japan in another period, India, Africa, south-east Asia (Khmer anyone), Meso- and south America or they could even make a modern TW set in the 19th or 20th century complete with airborne warfare and the Manhattan Project.
Why not expand the 1500 1700 period and stretch the map from the americas across europe and into asia and ending up in the far east. I would love to have a European army taking on something from Shogun' china/japan or maybe from India.
would be like "Earth Total War"
well there was the movie 300 that deserves a trip to for one thing: pre roman good vs evil persians. Admit it you want the spartans.
Thishhhh ishhh Shhhpaartaahh!!!
Well, we're talking about post-Empire and any expansions, right? I'd guess a dedicated Napoleonic war expansion pack would follow, and/or maybe the U.S. Civil War.
After that, I think a China: Three Kingdoms game would be great, since I'm much more a fan of melee and primitive missile combat than gunpowder. But the problem is they now have a new 3D naval combat engine, which would be of very limited use there.
To use that naval engine, maybe a pre-RTW, classical Greek period game? There were some epic naval battles during that time, and a mix of sail-based and oar-driven tactics would be interesting. Then they could follow it by re-visiting Rome, where naval combat was also important at times. I'd much prefer that, or ancient China, than more gunpowder combat. I really DO NOT want to see them pushing into WWI or WWII with this engine. Even a fantasy series would be better than that.
There's the time period between M2TW and ETW, the age of pike and musket. Focus on the rise of protestanism, Thirty Years War etc.
Vietman: Total War?
Cavemen: Total War?
Space: Total War?
or
Teletubbies: Total War?
I'm looking forward to see these TW games.
- Guru
lol "Cavemen: Total War.. I though of that one too. Seriously though, I'd like them to remake Shogun or do a different Japanese period. I much prefer swords and axes to muskets
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezekiel6
As did the Samuri:2thumbsup:
Ireland total war. Admit it, it just has to be made. Hero units, vikings, normans, missile, short swords, chariots, head counting, paganism, christianity, tribal warfare vs dynastic warfare, painted warriors, naked warriors, fian díbeargaigh, cavalry, ritual warfare versus total warfare, units and individuals, fighting monks, fighting women (till the seventh century), there is no avoiding it.
Failing that, what about a cúchulainn total warrior?
They'd make Total War: Total War where all the previous total wars fight each other to the death.
If I've said it once I said it a dozen times::
Smurf Totalwar!
Then
Smurf Totalwar 2
Then
Abbott and Costello meet Smurf Totalwar.
and finallly
Godzilla versus Smurf Totalwar
They are all sure fire sellers
Cheers:laugh4:
LOL FO.
I'll take it that means you are against remakes in general, butQuote:
Originally Posted by OP
Um... we're already playing medieval 2.
My totally meaningless opinion is that Empires and any expansions will be the final installment on the TW series, and then CA will move on to something else which will be different but just as good. I don't think China is an option simply because it wouldn't sell to the masses. Everyone knows (sort of) about samurai and stuff so shogun sold, next they went for the mass market, medieval europe, well their entire customer base is european culture so no-brainer. Rome - same thing, entire customer base culture heavily influenced by Rome. Next? Oh crap running out of ideas, back to medieval europe. Next? Oh no we are REALLY out of ideas, we already did a remake so lets do a chronological sequel to Medieval. So the last 4 out of 5 games are based around europe and suddenly they are going to go to china and try to sell it to europeans and americans? I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReiseReise
Maybe they will include "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" moves in a China campaign. That way when you play multiplayer, you really CAN say "your kungfu no good."
AoE 3 has an Asia expansion out. Their explorers are replaced by monks that stun guardian animals and then procede to tear out their gall bladders to sell on the black for extra pop cap and gold.
Toons Total War? :idea2:
I know! Internetforum:Total war! Battle it out and prove YOU and only YOU know the right answer! I can see the tagline "anyother game is for n00bs" LOL. Seriousely though I could see a Classical Greek:Total war. Could Call it "Hellas:Total War" and have a Persian Invasion Expansion pack.
Greek City States!
Godfather: Total War
GTA: Total War
Mafia: Total War
Pillow Fight: Total War
Simpsons: Total War
Halloween: Total War
Mobile Phone Throwing: Total War
:beam:
they will go after ww1 after empire
Yup! WW1 is an interesting option but if as Reise said they can not find any new ideas they might move to a new area. We will see that but meanwhile i would have liked seeing dark age total war. It was nice to cut the throats of the monks in VI.
While WW1 and 2 are interesting concepts for wargaming, the total war engine is really not suited to recreate that kind of combat at all! The series Close Combat is a great game in that respect though that infantry is not blocks of soldiers standing in line to die, but can take cover and hide in buildings, hedges, trenches etc. If they could implement the total war style camera control so you got a better sense of the height of things it would be even better. I guess there's nothing stopping CA from doing that but it wouldn't really be total war to me anymore...
I'd much rather see a game set before rome, or a game in the medieval time period with no continent restrictions. Why shouldn't we be able to do like the Mongols and invade another continent? Too historically incorrect? Is it any more historically correct when Scotland or Denmark conquers all of europe?
Cheers
Well, WWI was pretty much giant bricks of people until around the Somme and late war.
WWI would not work at all in the Total War style. It was completely different from even the Civil and Napoleonic wars less than a century before it. Instead of big armies lining up on the field of battle and duking it out of the course of 1 or 2 days as in every war that came before it, WWI was fought in the trenches, with stalemates lasting months on end as the two sides sat accross from each other daring one another to make a foolish attempt at attacking accross no mans land.
CA won't run out of ideas. They could do earlier classical era easily (Persia: Total War, anyone?), they could do ancient egypt, they could make something in the time between BI and MTW, and many more. That's before even considering the east, which could have many games. Or making games that take place on a smaller scale (not less territories, just a smaller map). I'd love to see Greece: Total War.
There's so much time during which infantry and archers were the mainstay of forces, there will never be a time where CA could run out of ideas.
China is a huge market (there are many chinese clans in MP) and it will be even bigger in few years time. Since CA was never the enemy of profit I am sure sooner or later they will do a chinese TW.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReiseReise
Also they can always remake Shogun. ~:D Actually it would be sin not to remake it with the 3D campaign map and with all the new features they have. ... Perhaps adding Korea to the map. And if there is Korea there is China ~;)
Options are endless.
Futurism Total War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
I agree with this one and would like to see a China TW. There is a downside to the Chinese market in general. They lead the world in the sale and use of pirated software. I would not be sure how much CA would actually make off of the game in that marketplace.
Can't play online with pirated software now, can you, lacking a proper CD-key? :wink:
That's certainly what Blizzard thought with Diablo II...
:laugh4: :dizzy2:
:egypt:
I think the ACW would do very poorly on the total war engine. The Napoleonic wars, if done well, could be superb. You'd have a much greater variety in unit types (Line infantry, light infantry, grenadiers, light and heavy cavalry, dragoons, lancers, artillery, etc) than in the ACW where basically all important battles involved two types of units: infantrymen armed with rifled muskets and artillery.Quote:
They could also do one about the rise of Napoleon (as an add-on).
The American Civil War would be popular in the US.
The formations in Napoleonic wars mattered as well: you had skirmishers, attack columns, lines, squares, etc. In ACW everyone was in lines all the time, until they realized that was a bad plan, and then they started digging fieldworks.
CA has plenty of options left: they could do a classical greece total war, and add in a good naval engine so that it isn't just a recycled Hellenic total war mod.
Or if they fancied a different take on a war game, how about "Hippy Total War"? with "Flower Power Invasion"?
Unit of currency is the Lentil and the battle speed is ahem... lets just say slower. :hippie:
This reminds me of someone worrying whether or not musicians will run out of riffs. Don't worry, there is lots of ground to cover, and RTW2 would be immensely popular. CK is a good investment.
I saw a history channel special today about the Trojan War.
That would make a nice TW, taking place before the classic Greek Age. Several factions could come into play, not just Troy and the Greek city-states.
I agree that the ACW would be rather bland, but it still would be popular in the States.
Napoleonic Wars would be awesome though.
ATW is too politically incorrect at this moment. It's like saying goodbye to a big chunk of the clientele so I doubt it.The problem with gunpowder that it's not very heroic not like phallanx or a legion or a warband where you need skill and training to be a skilled war machine: it's bunch of not so skilled blokes with guns shooting at each other till one side is dead with inaccurate weapons
probably peeing themselves doing it. It is not alike certain movie which i won't mention , Ok i will: THISH ISH SPARTAAH
The French and Indian War fought in North America would be a good one. They already have some of the Indian animations. The only problem would be that when infantry engaged , most of the time they used tomahawks or knives as few guns (except regulars) were fitted for bayonet.
Most of the combat was on foot due to the nature of terrain etc.
Well, Empire Total War sort of covers the Napoleonic War genre - I think a reprise of the Shogun: Total War or possibly Total Civil War are more likely. You may also have extra players involved - with the introduction of a naval element, you could have a battle between the first ironclads, British/Canadian intervention - other elements are also possible. Invasion from Alaska by the Russian Empire? Native American uprisings, further secessions by other states, Mormon establishment of a breakaway Deseret, Texas declares independance, invasion of the south by the Empire of Mexico with French assistance...
My bet is Total Civil War. Basically, the last five thousand years have been exactly that - total war. Too many to choose from really.
Apologies to any Americans reading but I can't imagine an American Civil War-based TW game any time soon.
All the existing titles run for hundreds of years, with lots of factions and (supposedly) dramatic innovations in technology that give one side or another an advantage. The ACW lasted half a decade, with only two principal antagonists and limited technological improvements: I don't see how it fits the bill, at all.
More importantly, the ACW is of limited interest to most of the world. Outside of the US and a few hardcore wargamers elsewhere, few people are really interested in it. It was a parochial little affair that, whilst hugely significant to Americans, isn't considered by many other people to be important in the great scheme of things.
It's comparable to other national conflicts like the War of the Roses or Albigensian Crusade, rather than the epic, international wars like the Thirty Years' War or the Napoleonic Wars. Maybe it would merit a campaign in an expansion to a future game but certainly no more than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diotavelli
I don't think you would offend anyone about their not being a ACW TW. I don't think there will not be one because that genre has been done quite a bit by other studios. In strategy games, I think it has bee overplayed much like the WW2 FPS games that seem to dominate the shelves.
Insofar as time frame is concerned: weeks, months or years would not matter as the end of the turn could be any one of those for any series.
I thought I might offend people because of my comments about the limited significance of the ACW, not because I don't think it warrants a full TW title but I realise I probably didn't make that clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe4iz
I think you're wrong on this. Yes, turns could be weeks or months, rather than years: that's not the issue. The issue is having a timeframe that allows meaningful technological advance and the ACW doen't fit the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe4iz
All the other TW titles have you start at one level of technological proficiency and gradually advance over time. This is essential to the game's appeal: do you blitz now or turtle until you have technological superiority? The ACW only lasted five years and the nature and quality of troops and weaponry available did not change significantly over this period: you could turtle for a few weeks or months but the quality of your forces would not change significantly.
As I said, it might merit a campaign but not a full title. The number of protagonists and opportunities for technological advance are comparable (at a scrape) to that in the Britannia or Crusades campaign but fall way, way, way short of that for the whole of M2TW or RTW.
Shogun: Total War didn't cover a huge period of time. Neither did Alexander ^_~
But while I agree that it is a bit short, there have been wars where signifigant tech advancements have occured in a short period of time. ACW had quite a bit of tech changing from '61 to '65.
On the other hand, I agree it would not fit the genre very well. They need to stay away from the more modern times where guns are the weapon of choice. Because guns made heavy infantry obsolete, and a TW game with just rangers and cav would not be that interesting.
Just my opinion, of course. Hopefully CA will prove me wrong with E:TW.
Hey, no apologies needed. I'm an American and I agree wholeheartedly.Quote:
Apologies to any Americans reading but I can't imagine an American Civil War-based TW game any time soon.
All the existing titles run for hundreds of years, with lots of factions and (supposedly) dramatic innovations in technology that give one side or another an advantage. The ACW lasted half a decade, with only two principal antagonists and limited technological improvements: I don't see how it fits the bill, at all.
the TW franchise is not well suited to modelling the American Civil War.
I think they run into issues trying to model the subjugation of the new world, and I don't think they could get any more 'modern' than that.
I'd rather they looked farther back into history for their next title.
I disagree - I think Total Civil War (which I'm calling it) would have a very broad based appeal. I'm Australian, and in many respects movies and documentaries about the Civil War have a broad appeal here - and I know they do overseas. It was the first truly modern war, and did witness significant technological change throughout the war. Machine guns (gatling guns), were first used, trench based warfare, modern siege techniques, the first ironclad ships, armoured trains, combined with more traditional flanking action of cavalry and bayonet charges, use of skirmishers, sharpshooters etc. Even the slightest technological edge - such as repeating carbines gave you an advantage. The confederacy also began to put african americans into the battle, too late in the way - what would happen if they had done it earlier? the Turtledove alternative history books paint a picture on how things might have gone.
It combined the best (or worst - depending on your point of view) of modern and ancient warfare. You also had a range of uniforms, unit designations and veteran units vs green 'just raised' regiments. Units would not have a 'good/excellent' morale indicator in their unit card, but would build their morale and combat bonuses more than in the current incarnation of the game.
And they still used significant 'blocks' of troops that would be useable in a Total War engine context. You also have broad brush cultural issues at play, slavery, reliance on trade (so the sea trade has a significant affect on the Confederacy's ability to continue the war against a Northern blockade - hence the invention of the Merimac), expansion into the West, involvement by foreign powers etc. I think the strategic appeal of the Total War genre might have broader appeal than traditional games which are more focused on actual tactical combat.
There are still only two genuine protagonists (having any others as playable factions would be going far further from the realms of historical accuracy than CA has ever done before).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadwallon
The "significant technological change" you mention is highly debatable. Sure, there was innovation, but the same could be said of the Crimean War of the previous decade or the Franco-Prussian War of the next. That too had innovation: improved weaponry, improved treatment of the wounded, improvements in siege warfare and so on but nothing comparable with the change over the centuries of RTW or M2TW.
They also had only two or three main protagonists and lasted less than a decade - so, whilst they might merit a TW campaign, they wouldn't merit a full title. Just like the ACW.
The point about full TW titles is that, whilst a significant tech advantage accompanied by a couple of big battlefield victories or city/castle captures will effectively knock out another faction as a serious opponent, there are plenty of other factions to worry about thereafter. That's the point of the grand campaign, as opposed to expansion campaigns that are supposed to be far shorter.
An ACW TW title couldn't offer that. If, as either the Confederacy or the Union, you managed to get a tech advantage and win a few battles/provinces, it would be gameover. There might still be a few native tribes to subdue but no one can seriously suggest that, by the 1860s, they might have overwhelmed and defeated either the Confederacy or the Union. Similarly, the Brits or French might pop over for a quick raid but, again, the idea that they might have tried to conquer the territory between Canada and Mexico requires stretching the truth and the imagination beyond anything in previous TW titles.
The amount of noise that is generated when CA includes ahistorical units suggests they'd be unwise to introduce ahistorical factions.
Too few factions, too similar factions, too short a time period and too little technological advance - ACW:TW wouldn't have the depth required.
An idea does occur, though: as an expansion to E:TW, how about campaigns based on the Crimean War (1850s), the ACW (1860s), the Franco-Prussian War (1870s) and the Boer War (1890s)?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I agree wholeheartedly diotavelli.
I also agree with your earlier post that it wouldn't generate enough interest outside the US to justify it being released as a standalone title. In just the same way that the Spanish Civil War, English Civil War or War Of The Roses wouldn't generate enough interest outside their national borders, so the Americ War would also fail to interest "outsiders".
It may be true that there are tons of interesting settings for TW games. i vote for the pike and musket era myself, from the outbreak of the 30 years war up until culloden, and focusing on the ENGLISH civil war, which grew to engulf all the "British" isles and Ireland, and saw a rapid advance in military organization and tech from (un)trained bands to a standing army in just a few years. plus it kept on coming back!
but what TW really needs to make it lots more gripping is to go thoroughly unabashedly :idea2: multiplayer. no more massacres of AI whip-monkey formations. who's the daddy?
I would love to 16th-17th Century covered... warfare still had armored folks and also had guns... fortresses and huge armies... 3 musketeers and polish winged hussars, tilly and wallenstien..etc, etc (Cossaks flashback).
Dark Ages TW would be fun too. It would be sort of a BI/VI update.
I think the TW engine could be used to make a small unit (company or maybe bn) modern (ie WWII - now) combat game. With each tactical map unit being a tank or a MG or a squad for example. Most modern small unit combat is fought on virtually the same scale as M2TW.
Problem is that CA would find a lot of competiton in that period (ww2)something they are not used to.
There are strategic WWII games like HOI but AFAIK no tactical level 3D strategy game.
You forgot to mention ginger pubes :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Riadach
I don't think WWII works, for several reasons. There are problems with the scale of the 3D tactical battle map when you start adding long-range artillery, mechanized units like tanks, and aircraft. The battle areas would have to be huge, unless that stuff is just abstracted or miniaturized, like the way it's done in Company of Heroes. It wouldn't make sense to have a nice 3D naval combat engine like the one they're adding to Empire:TW without something similar for major air battles like the Battle of Britain, Midway, or the strategic bombing campaigns later in the war. It would be tough to extend CA's basic design of strategic map + small tactical battle map area to those scenarios involving air combat.
Another problem with WWII is that it doesn't fit the "lots of factions, and every faction out for itself" model that the previous TW games have been built on. If it followed history at all, you'd have essentially just two factions competing with each other -- the Allies and the Axis. It wouldn't have the feel of a classic, open-ended TW title, unless they have a scenario where every country is fighting every other one for conquest (basically, the same objection I'd have to an American Civil War TW game). If they did do that, then playing as America your first obvious goal would be to invade and conquer Canada, because it's close, resource-rich, and relatively undefended. :beam: Then you'd attack Mexico for the oil fields. It might be a fun sandbox game, but you couldn't call it a "WWII" game.
It might also be a little tricky to have important but distasteful (in modern times) options at the end of the tech tree, like fire-bombing of civilian cities and the atomic bomb. Maybe this is why most WWII strategy games focus on more restricted campaigns, like the Battle of the Bulge or D-Day.
So, just my opinion, but I think WWII is a non-starter as a TW title. CA should stick to earlier periods of conflict before big, worldwide strategic alliances developed. And preferably more melee and primitive missle combat instead of gun-based armies, but thats' just my personal bias.
Yeah, the ginger pubes poking out beneath the lightly paqdded shirt like albino spider's legs would definitely put me off. :skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by GFX707
But seriously, I think that CA have to make games that appeal to a broad section of people, which is why AmericanCivil, English Civil, SpanishCivil etc just wont happen. If we ae looking at a potential future release, lets look at a time period and a land mass that enompasses numerous disparate peoples.
Considering the distinct military eras in human history, I'd be inclined to agree that yeah - they're getting close to exhausting the different eras TW games can be set in.
While the history of warfare was looong, it did not change much for very long stretches of time. A battle taking place between Egypt and Mesopotamia in 4,000BC would not be much different from a battle taking place between Egypt and Persia in 100AD. Some equipment differences, but similar tactics and unit types (infantry/cavalry) and they're still swinging swords & spears. In other words, nothing RTW hasnt covered yet or that could not be done in mods.
The early medieval era was modeled in Barbarian Invasion. Late medieval era is M2TW.
Shogun covers Asia, and that's really it. When Empire comes out and covers the early modern era, that takes care of gunpowder fighting and we all know the engine is not suited to massive army fights of WW1 or flexible small unit combat of WW2.
The ACW? It was a small war fought in a relatively remote location, not to mention for the wrong reasons since the constitution the southern states ratified after the revolutionary war stated that they could leave the union if they wished. Bottom line is, it wasn't important enough for a game and can/should be handled with a mod. The world's armies didn't bother learning from it and instead learned from Prussia's brilliant 19th century conflicts with Austria and France.
they really need to go back to the drawing board and start streamlining the clunky campaign map interface and improve AI and the ability to micro manage on the battlefield
even the reviewers at all the gaming sites are saying this title is stale, and ca's total war games have been the critics darling forever
time to get creative
but like others have said, the only way they are limited with general plot ideas is by scope and scale
look at what they did for the britannia campaign, ireland has like over a dozen cities instead of one like in vanilla, and england is friggin huge
the conflicts in history that they could recreate in a game are pretty much endless
there had better be an asian campaign coming soon, i miss japan
or even a redo of rome with the new gameplay/graphics/animations would be fun, but do it like kingdoms with tons of different campaigns
Do you think CA would invest in developing the sea battles just for E:TW? I think there will be at least another game with sea battles after that, not including any expansions.
Sea battles was a big part even in ancient times. I think they should keep it with all their games...
Well i hope it's ancient times cos i got no intention of playing naval combat game. I had my fun with kingdoms bored now will come back for the game after empire if it is anything I like or EB2 when it is done. See ya all
I really don't mind the idea of redoing old eras with new engines, Shogun, Rome. Especially Rome. In a few years when everyone has quadcore processors....Oh My Jesus. I can only hope they make an EB4!
I know its not a very popular viewpoint, but i'd love to see a fantasy total war game. Anyone out there who's played the old classic Master of Magic will know what i'm talking about here - its almost perfectly suited to a total war style game.
I can sort of see where the OP is coming from. While there are plenty of interesting periods of history to choose from (e.g. ancient china, indian subcontinent, ancient greece), i think that a lot of them could very easily end up feeling like mods of existing total war games, in other words - are they going to bring anything significantly new in terms of gameplay, or is it just going to feel like RTW or M2TW with a different map and different units?
At least with ETW we should get something new and different in our TW. A lot of people dont seem to like that though - they just seem to want more of the same but with flashier graphics, something that i personally just cant understand.
I'd like to play as the European Huns when old Turkic hordes under the command of Attila were fighting the Eastern and the Western Roman Empires. The goths, and all....
I could go for a fantasy title, but only if it was designed so that actual battlefield tactics are more important than simplistic rock/paper/scissors matchups. I don't want to win a battle because my wizards are throwing the right AOE spell to counter what the enemy has built. I want to win on the battlefield by the way I move my forces around... taking advantage of the terrain, and attacking (or defending) at the right time and place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
It's not impossible to design a fantasy-based strategy/tactical game like that, but I haven't seen it done very well yet. Most of them aren't based on maneuver, they're based on lining up against the enemy army and just slugging it out with melee critters and spells.
Another problem with fantasy is that it requires a creative back-story and a well-designed world... hopefully without too much recycling of tired, hackneyed D&D or LOTR concepts. This is an area that CA hasn't ever had to deal with; they can just use the history of our real world as a guide. They'd have to hire a creative team with good writers to pull it off.
That's a good idea. I'd imagine an expansion a la Kingdoms covering the periods you speak of would be-well recieved, and would surely add much to Empire's potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by diovatelli
I also agree that the ACW isn't well suited to an entire TW title, but would definitely enjoy playing a version of it similiar to the crusades or american campaigns of Kingdoms.
You've got the scale wrong. I'm not talking about global scale WWII - Modern Total War. I'm talking about a game played at the company/platoon level on the tactical map and BN/REGT on the "strategic map" ie Band of Brothers TW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
A 2X2 km scale, as is already in use, would be fine.
Well, sure, the tactical 3D engine could be adapted for a small unit game like Company of Heroes, but that would require either 1) scaling the strategy map down to just a narrow campaign, like the Normandy invasion (which isn't what the TW series has done in the past), or 2) having a traditional huge TW strategy map where we spend all out rime fighting small "representative" battles to determine a larger outcome on the world stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
Neither one makes sense to me as a TW title, but that's just personal opinion. There are all sorts of games one could imagine by starting with the 3D tactical battle map, since (arguably) that's the stronger side of the TW games, even with everyone's complaints about the tactical AI. But I like the large-scale strategy side of the game too, with many different factions competing with each other. That just wouldn't happen in a WWII game, unless it breaks the historical timeline and ignores the 2-sided nature of the conflict.
That sounds great - but it's not a total war game, just half of one. The problem with WWI and WWII isnt necessarily the tactical combat, it's with the campaign, both its limitations in terms of scale and number of 'factions', and in how it would integrate with the tactical engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
e.g. If the fighting is at the company/platoon level, do you realise how many battles youre going to have to fight in a campaign. Probably a few hundred per turn.
btw, if you havent already, check out the close combat series of games. I think theyre pretty much exactly what youre talking about w.r.t. tactical combat (albeit not in sexy 3d). Well worth a look even now.
Asia total war!
:laugh4: Heres a funny thing.
If CA actually took their time in developing their titles and making sure bugs were cleaned up and playability (including everyones favourite - diplomacy) was at its maximum from regular patches, they would probably only just have released RTW! Then at least we would be talking about 'when the options are over'.
I know its the nature of the beast to release titles as quickly as possible to keep the paying public ticking over those magical dollars for the industry big wigs. But CA should take a leaf out of some the indy game publishers books, such as Stardock with their GalCiv2 game (They have deliberately held off any sequels until the creator has this game totally right - on another note, the AI diplomacy on this game is awesome, check it out).
I guess all I am trying to say is that i wish the game genre that I truly love to play (TW games - duh!) had some time taken on it to make it the best that it was probably intended to be.
Mind you SpongeBob Squarepants Total War could be another option :laugh4:
Sorry meant - Then at least we would not be talking about 'when the options are over'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galain_Ironhide
Although i agree that WWs wouldnt work, that would make a great new series. Same idea, but on a smaller scale with more squad action and diving for cover rather than flanking and countering etc.
As for the OP, they could always go for a continuation of the total warrior series, or make a 'battle for' one
I have a very weird idea, and i guess i deserve any tomatoes/eggs/rotten fruits that you choose to throw at me. No bricks, please.
Medieval Total Love!
Conquer the kingdom! Get the broads! Sire your lines! Get more broads!
* Conquering each city gets more chance of children.
* Limit of children per couple increase
* Idea is to get as many hot princesses as early possible. (45)
* Crap generals/princesses produce crap chidlren.
* Adultress/uninhibited traits affects the % for marriage.
* Characters with in-law anci can raise in-laws units (same stats and effects as screeching women)
Xena, WP : Total War /nod
won't be a total war for Xena. too many willing victims.
Star Wars: TW... Gungans vs. Ewoks
come to think of it - i would like to see Shogun again.
but this time, i would prefer to see the participation of Korean and Chinese armies in the form of Japanese 1st invasion. imagine the scale of war, the migty shoguns and admirals and generals. it would be awesome.
but would like them to improve the naval combat first. Imagine admiral Yip Sin Sun's defeating hundreds of Japanese vessels, and Japanese samurai and Ashigaru (muskets) running riot all over the peninsula. Wow.
Homeless: Total War
Imagine this, homeless rebelling and taking over cities and then splintering off into different factions, there is also a city police dept. Yhat at the start has the more profitable areas but is very outnumbered, and to make things more interesting the Cops can't use real guns and have to rely on batons, plastic shields, tear gas, and rubber bullets. Then after the Police faction falls they are replaced by the nation's national guard who are authorized to shoot, they would also behave as an invading faction.
There can be Homeless potato hurlers, mumbling women, homeless riding dogs as cavalry, homeless drunken berserkers. There are also elite homeless units that are also elite fighters and incite fear in their enemies hearts through their smell and horrid appearence. Homeless fanatics that act like Druids from RTW. Also one faction would have the special Potato hurlers and their family tree would not have females but only Potatos as mates. :laugh4: There can also be a faction of maybe civillian militia or something like that, maybe even an organized crime syndicate. I was thinking of maybe it taking place in New York due to the diversity of the city and how all the boroughs are mainly seperated through water.
King Arthur: Total War
Now this would be soooooo cool. You could play in 3 different eras, that of Uther Pendragon's quest for kingdom over England, Arthur's rise to King, and the fighting between Arthur and Modred. Arthur's faction would mainly be based on knights and he would have superior generals such as Lancelot, Percivil, and Sir Robin the Not so brave :laugh4:. Arthur could also undertake special quests to get items such as Excalibur (increase in settlement loyalty and added command) and the Holy Grail (Which would be interesting in the Modred chapter as it would "Rejuvenate" Arthur and increase his stats.) but the quests would risk the lives of his Knights. Then have a plague on Arthur's lands during his fall, Modred could also "convert" captured prisoners through persuasion. It would be cool to see what Merlin could do in a Total War game, perhaps having him have an instant retreat option or use spells on the battlefield. There is also mentions of invaders that could be used, maybe have barbarian celtic tribes in the rest of the British isles. Maybe someone should make this as a mod for Kingdoms; it isn't a bad idea really.
Asian Total War would be pretty nice, lotta different factions to play as. I don't think a WW:Total War would work too well, Trench Warfare aint fun, and WW2 would be too fast paced and it would be hard to incorporate planes into the game. WW2 would also need to be larger scale, maybe they could have nearby units such as artillery or ships influence a battle by bombarding the enemy. Oh and I'll be the 3rd to say that I have thought about Caveman: Total War.