Quote Originally Posted by anders View Post
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.