m3tw

[The_Reckoning]

2. China:total War? T'ang:Total War. Maybe. I really beleive if china or japan are done, they will be done in their entirity. That is, an Eastern:Total War. Or Oriental:Total War. Maybe Dragon:Total War.
Mabye Ch'ang period.

I don't think anyone can beat the title "Dynasty: Total War"

:D

[Mailman653]

A WWI TW game....

[PBI]

The problem with another European setting is that a lot of the strategic richness of the game comes from the geography of the campaign map. Thus because we have had the same map for the last three games, in many ways we have been playing the same campaign. So the unit types and factions may have changed, but a lot has stayed the same: The English Channel is still effectively a moat for the British Isles, the Alps still form a natural border between wealthy Northern Italy and France and Germany, Sicily is always the gateway between the East and West Mediterranean, and the vast expanses of Russia always take ******* forever to march across. Plus it means that exploration essentially ceases to be a part of the game, since we already know where everything is.

That's why I feel the next game at least should have a non-European setting: I want a new continent to get to grips with, to learn the economic centers and defensive chokepoints. Since I know next to nothing about the geography of China, for example, a far East setting would work pretty well, as obviously would a made-up fantasy map. There are certainly plenty more interesting periods of European history to explore, but I think for the next installment the setting needs to be moved in space, not time. To simply have the same old campaign map once again, just with a few resources and cities moved around a bit, would make me feel like CA aren't really getting their money's worth out of the people who make the campaign map.

I always thought it would be nice if they could have included a "random map generator" a la Civilization. Although I can see why this isn't feasible for TW, it would be nice to be able to play on a map with some surprises in it.

Regarding a WWI game, I would love to see this as a mod (there are certain features I am hoping they will include in Empires which would make this more feasible) since I'm interested in the period but I'm not sure it would be varied enough to make a full game. The 4 years of the war would be much more focussed a time span than in any TW game so far, for one thing.

[Martok]

Re: World War and other modern eras: While I have no objection to games covering the period, I sincerely hope CA never creates a Total War title based in the 20th century. One of the attractions of the TW series is the sight of thousands of troops clashing with each other head-on with spears, swords, axes, pikes, etc. The series' focus is primarily on melee combat, not shooting at each other with rifles and machine guns.

As it is, Empire already has lesser appeal to many folks (including myself) because the era saw a greatly increased role in gunpowder (and cannons in particular); while it still had a role, melee fighting became a lot less prominent during that time. Not that I don't find the Colonial/Imperial era interesting (because I do), but I still have doubts as to how well it'll translate to the Total War brand. Realistically speaking, the time period covered by ETW is about the latest CA can go while still retaining hand-to-hand fighting as a viable tactic.

I always thought it would be nice if they could have included a "random map generator" a la Civilization. Although I can see why this isn't feasible for TW, it would be nice to be able to play on a map with some surprises in it.

Agreed. Of course, a random map generator would really only work with a fantasy-type game, but I could live with that.

[Mailman653]

Maybe its time for Caveman:TW It can be loosely based on history and still have those fantasy elements like unleashing a dinosaur on your enemies

And instead of Europe or Asia, we can have Pangea as a map and just divide that into territories.

[anders]

in reply to Martoks post about gunpowder taking ome of the appeal out of a TW:wwI/wwII game; the firearms isnt the main problem in adapting modern warfare to TW, its rather the problem of bringing a game based on compact cohesive units, and battles as affairs which are carried out by a limited number of men( although sometimes thousands) on a limited space, into an age when troopers move, pick targets and take cover individually, arty fires indirect fire from posistions thousands of meters away, armour moves in squads where the single units keep several hundred meters between them and the battle areas stretches for kilometers, and there are large scale battles lasting for days interspersed with limited engagements lasting for minutes.

I just dont see how this could be portrayed within the frames of the current TW tactical concept. and WWII small-scale fighting is one thing, and is portrayed well enough in CoH, Panzers etc, while larger battles can be done in games which keep the action on the operational level, but how could current TW, which both lets you see individual soldiers and the operational level, portray something like the battle of stalingrad? Games like Total Annihilation does this, but they are wery different from the TW we know and (mostly) love.

[rajpoot]

Well considering all that's been said, I think that after they're done with the xpacks of ETW, maybe brought it to the end of the 19th century and added new area specific content like they did with M2TW, it's going to be remake time. Because it doesn't seem that they have any more time periods for pure TW style games, and I doubt they'll simply drop such a good series. So who knows, we might have a Shogun 2 Total War, and then a Rome 2 and maybe even a M3TW........fingers crossed for that!

[Zenicetus]

in reply to Martoks post about gunpowder taking ome of the appeal out of a TW:wwI/wwII game; the firearms isnt the main problem in adapting modern warfare to TW, its rather the problem of bringing a game based on compact cohesive units, and battles as affairs which are carried out by a limited number of men( although sometimes thousands) on a limited space, into an age when troopers move, pick targets and take cover individually, arty fires indirect fire from posistions thousands of meters away, armour moves in squads where the single units keep several hundred meters between them and the battle areas stretches for kilometers, and there are large scale battles lasting for days interspersed with limited engagements lasting for minutes.

I agree. Unless TW gets completely away from the idea of controlling blocks of soldiers in fixed formations, it just doesn't have the flexibility to show WWII infantry combat. That's why games like CoH are successful: they stick to the company level with very small groups of soldiers.

My personal preference for a follow-up to Empire would be going back to ancient Greece and the rise of the city states, possibly following through to a remake of Rome (although maybe that would be the expansion). Starting earlier than the first Rome game would also make Egypt a more interesting faction to play. The sail-based naval combat engine in Empire might be easily adapted with the addition of rowing, and I'd love to see trireme combat. That could be spectacular. I think any follow-up game would probably be in an era where they could re-use the naval combat engine.

A second choice for me would be China/Three Kingdoms just for the cultural novelty.... although it does have some drawbacks like fewer factions, similar units, limited naval actions (mostly on rivers, IIRC). Ancient Greece/Egypt would probably be easier to market.