m3tw

[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!

[Martok]

anders: Those are also excellent points. (They actually occurred to me too, but I admit I was too lazy to bother articulating them. Perhaps that's just as well, though, as I think you put it better than I could've anyway.)

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!

To be honest, I think it's a little premature to start talking about more sequels, as there's still at least a few major time periods the Total War series hasn't yet covered. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I personally would love to see a TW title set in either ancient China or Bronze Age Greece (particularly around the time of the Persian invasions and the Peloponnesian War). There'd be plenty of factions, units, and diplomatic/political situations in both eras to make for an interesting game.

[PBI]

WWII is certainly way out, a TW version of that is more or less impossible as far as I'm concerned, but I think WWI might just about be do-able. Tanks were a relative rarity and a long way from being useable for mobile warfare, and most of the armies were still trying to use the sort of linear combat and large infantry formations we see in earlier games, so I think it might just about be possible to portray. CA have said that units in Empire will be able to make use of cover so trench warefare seems possible, and while long range artillery poses problems, it seems to me the same will be true of artillery in Empire. The problem is simply that it won't be very much fun fighting a largely defensive war of attrition using obsolete tactics, which is why I think it will appear only as a mod, not a full game or expansion.

I think the way the next installment will go will depend strongly upon how well Empires works; it is in my mind a proof of concept of whether gunpowder warfare works well in the TW format. If it does, I suspect the next installment will be the period either directly before or after Empires, if not I expect a more radical departure such as China. I certainly hope the series doesn't simply go down the road of endless remakes however; there are plenty of interesting historical periods and settings not yet explored (fenir and Martok suggested just a few of them), no need to simply keep revisiting the same old ones over and over with a few bells and whistles attached. The game needs either a new region or a new setting to keep it fresh; I much prefer playing a game with a setting I know next to nothing about than one I feel has no more surprises.

[anders]

some questions

what ranges did napoleonic artillery work from?

some of you mention a chinese setting, what were chinese warfare like?

is there reason for an ancient greek game when we already have rome( or a new rome after empire) which already has peltasts and phalanxes?

[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.

[WarMachine187]

Id love if they went back to all the former tw eras.Escpiacially STW.I think after empires they should take a step back.empires will be great but hopefully theyll fix the ai problem and multiplayer issues.I agree with Zenecetus,the three kingdoms era would be awesome to play.Great tacticians like Cao Cao,zhuge liang, plus cult heroes like gan ning,Lubu,etc.Sea warfare would nice considering the scale of naval battles fought during that time a la chibi.

[The_Reckoning]

I like how much enthusiasm the idea of an oriental TW is getting.

Apart from what has been said about WWI/WWII, I don't think it will happen simply because of how saturated the WWII RTS market is. But yeah, warfare totally changed and became more about grand strategy than individual battles, and battles began being indiscrete.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient..._States_Period

That and all the dynasties below it are extremely ripe for a game to be made. The only China RTS that comes to mind is Three Kingdoms: Fate of the Dragon.

some questions

what ranges did napoleonic artillery work from?

some of you mention a chinese setting, what were chinese warfare like?

is there reason for an ancient greek game when we already have rome( or a new rome after empire) which already has peltasts and phalanxes?

I could see them making a Greek city-states campaign as part of a Kingdoms-sytle expansion for Rome: TW II. That would be good. They could pick the time just around when the Persians tried to expand into Greece, with your city-state having the option to submit to them and take penalties to economy, or fighting them. The event could be triggered and the AI factions, as well as the player, all choose Yes[submit] or No[fight], and then all the AI factions either going to war against them or against you.

:D

[anders]

generally, I think theres some factors that needs to be in place for a TW setting in order for CA to consider it:

a relatively well-known era for which theres some public interest, and which isnt too similar to the eras alredy used( so probbly no dark ages or renaissance)

an era in which melee combat in cohesive units were the order of the day

an era with relatively varied units, and clearly defines unit types which are relatively well documented( so no stone age or sub-saharan setting)

this doesnt leave many settings to use apart from the three, ancient europe, medieval europe and japan, which are visited.