What would you like to see in an Add-on

[Lord Nelson]

Right before we start. I know the game has been delayed, but I'm trying to keep boredom from setting in and having to gnaw my own foot off as a cure.

I know they already have the "special needs - ooh sorry forces" edition out. But I'm talking about a proper expansion.

For me it would be:(In no particular order)

Timeline extended to another 100 years, taking it roughly to 1899.

The whole world opened up including Australia, Africa, South America and the rest of Asia.

More in game events and the player having to make a decision on them i.e: natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes, and troop desertion.

The ability to directly take out faction leaders to shorten a war

These are just a few of mine. I dont know wether these have already been included but I cant see them anywhere.

Just wondering what everyone else was thinking....

[Polemists]

Timeline extended to another 100 years, taking it roughly to 1899.

Heck no....i am much more for exploring 1600-1800 then moving further out. We already have rocket ships and the possible inclusion of a machine gun. Do you really want to see nuclear missles in 1899?

The whole world opened up including Australia, Africa, South America and the rest of Asia.

That would be nice, though not asia, as I think they should keep Japan for a future shogun total war 2.

More in game events and the player having to make a decision on them i.e: natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes, and troop desertion.

I agree but generally I never felt there was much decision behind the events you listed. Most of the time those things just happened and you just dealt. I'd prefer to see more expansion on civil wars, revolts, revoultions, etc.
Things you can clearly pick a side and a choice on.

The ability to directly take out faction leaders to shorten a war

It would be interesting, but wars would have to be immensely more costly then now to make this viable.


I'd like to see new factions, units, and more animation. I don't want the graphics to leap just to see more of what they can do with what they have.

A few new movies might be nice to for cinematics in game.

[Lord Nelson]

Since nuclear warfare didnt happen for another 50 years after my proposed time ending. How on earth would nuclear weapons find themselves in the game.? The closest they had was the maxim gun and even that handn't be invented!!. And the game runs from 1700 - 1799

Second. I think if your gonna have 3 1/4's of the world you may as well have it all. Including Asia, they could then call it the world campaign or something.

Thirdly, Revolts come from unrest in your city and there is a chance they could form there own faction. So thats already included in the game. Id like to see more fundamentalist activities like troop desertion and explsove planting on important buldings then I agree. (Guy fawkes stylee)

Fourthly, How much more costly could it be than someone declaring war on you and there allies joining in if you fail? If you succeed, then it throws there country into near anarchy. But only the most highly trained assasins could pull it off.

Fifth and final your last point about animations. Good idea!! There wern't enough animations in Medieval for my liking. They should have things like Soldiers marching through the town/city when you capture it.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

1) If you extend the game to 1899, machineguns WILL be required. They were invented and in use by several armies. As opposed to quite a few additions to ETW that were not in service fifty years after ETW "ends". Extend that logic to the period ending 1899 and the math does add up to nukes (1945) in our arsenal, even if gameplay doesn't.

2) If you want to say three quarters it's done like this: 3/4. 3 1/4 Is the world three times and a bit, which makes no sense.
Also, it doesn't follow that if we get much of the world (in no way shape or form close to 3/4 btw) we should get the rest. Modelling the (Ant)Artic area would be an astounding waste of effort for one thing. Question that needs to be asked is does it expand gameplay to add extra territory like Asia. Not all that much, but I suppose it might be nice. Could be awful too. One slice of a cake is a joy to eat, eating the whole cake will just leave you feeling sick. I fear that giving us the whole world to fight over can be rather overwhelming.

3) Troop desertion? I'll file that under 'micro-management I and the game do not need'. Having to check in on all my armies every turn to keep them up to strength? No thanks! I'll just pretend part of the upkeep costs I pay goes towards keeping the unit up to strength. As to blowing up buildings... sounds nice, but when did that really ever happen? The mere blowing up buildings by secret against is something that didn't happen on any serious scale, the effects of it on a nation in ETW (losing access to cavalry) would be sheer fantasy.

4) At this point in time few countries were ruled by their head of state. Taking the head of state out would miff parliament/the people, but it's effects would in most cases be pretty minimal. In most historical cases all these actions did was provide a casus bellum for nations that were already armed and ready to go at each other already. I'm not opposed to it being included, but you have unrealistic expectations as to what it achieves, both as a failure and a success.

5) More animations. Sure, why not? But kindly not more animations for animations sake. make it do something other then look pretty. Troops marching through town doesn't really add to gameplay. I'd rather see troops use the extra animations to do stuff on the field you would expect them to do. Cower behind cover, refined reload animations, fix bayonet, etc.

[Nelson]

One needs consider what going forward very far into the 19th century would mean to the series as we know it. Remember that wild charges and melees are what Total War battles have always been about!

I think Total War’s march through history is pretty much done once rifled weapons have proliferated. By 1860 mounted cavalry ceases to be important on the battlefield and effective fire ranges open so far as to make melee attempts of any sort very expensive.

I suppose the franchise could move forward if the battlefields became so much larger as to accommodate rifled artillery. Even so, fans would need to get used to fewer tactical choices and learn to rely on attrition to win a battle. I doubt that Petersburg: Total War would be very popular.

[Mailman653]

For an add-on, I think they might go the route of what they did for MTW2's add-on. A collection of three or four campaigns with it's own special features, for instance:

The French revolution and the rise of Napoleon can be one campaign.
The Seven years war
The War of 1812

Just look at this page:Wars 1800-1899

More wars and conflicts than you can shake a stick at.

[Lord Nelson]

Someone has indeed not been thinking before replying. Though all evidence points to you being him, M'Lord.

1) If you extend the game to 1899, machineguns WILL be required. They were invented and in use by several armies. As opposed to quite a few additions to ETW that were not in service fifty years after ETW "ends". Extend that logic to the period ending 1899 and the math does add up to nukes (1945) in our arsenal, even if gameplay doesn't.

2) If you want to say three quarters it's done like this: 3/4. 3 1/4 Is the world three times and a bit, which makes no sense.
Also, it doesn't follow that if we get much of the world (in no way shape or form close to 3/4 btw) we should get the rest. Modelling the (Ant)Artic area would be an astounding waste of effort for one thing. Question that needs to be asked is does it expand gameplay to add extra territory like Asia. Not all that much, but I suppose it might be nice. Could be awful too. One slice of a cake is a joy to eat, eating the whole cake will just leave you feeling sick. I fear that giving us the whole world to fight over can be rather overwhelming.

3) Troop desertion? I'll file that under 'micro-management I and the game do not need'. Having to check in on all my armies every turn to keep them up to strength? No thanks! I'll just pretend part of the upkeep costs I pay goes towards keeping the unit up to strength. As to blowing up buildings... sounds nice, but when did that really ever happen? The mere blowing up buildings by secret against is something that didn't happen on any serious scale, the effects of it on a nation in ETW (losing access to cavalry) would be sheer fantasy.

4) At this point in time few countries were ruled by their head of state. Taking the head of state out would miff parliament/the people, but it's effects would in most cases be pretty minimal. In most historical cases all these actions did was provide a casus bellum for nations that were already armed and ready to go at each other already. I'm not opposed to it being included, but you have unrealistic expectations as to what it achieves, both as a failure and a success.

5) More animations. Sure, why not? But kindly not more animations for animations sake. make it do something other then look pretty. Troops marching through town doesn't really add to gameplay. I'd rather see troops use the extra animations to do stuff on the field you would expect them to do. Cower behind cover, refined reload animations, fix bayonet, etc.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! 1) Why would machine guns be availbale in 1899!!! they wernt invented!!!!!!!!! They didnt exist!!!! LISTEN CAREFULLY!!! THE MAXIM GUN WASNT USED UNTIL THE FIRST WORLD WAR!!!!

2) I never said anything about the antarctic. The fact is I feel the game will be too short. You only get maybe 200 turns and if your goal is world domination I fail to see how this will be acheivable.


3) The fact is you had micro managment in Rome. You had to make sure the cities had the best governmor possible. And keeping your cities happy so they didnt revolt.

4)From my experience there is nothing worse than cut scenes in the middle of a fight. Especially when they last too long. Better to have them at the start or the end of combat.

[Sir Beane]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! 1) Why would machine guns be availbale in 1899!!! they wernt [censored] invented!!!!!!!!! They didnt exist!!!! LISTEN CAREFULLY!!! THE MAXIM GUN WASNT USED UNTIL THE FIRST WORLD WAR!!!!

I'm afraid this is completely untrue. By 1899 several variations on the rapid firing gun had been invented, including the Puckle gun (1718), the Gatling gun (1861), the Nordenfelt gun (1871), the Gardener gun (1874) and finally the Maxim gun (1881).

You should probably check facts before ranting and swearing at another Org member. This is a civil forum with a great community, and most members would like to keep it that way. There is no reason to get worked up like that.

That said I agree with both extending the timeframe of the game, and with increasing the size of the map. The absence on South America and Africa is deeply disappointing. Asia is more understandable but I would certainly like to see it included. Australia could atleast make a token appearence as a bit of coastline.

Extending the timeframe would allow for the Opium wars, the colonisation of Africa, the American civil war, the 'Great game' between Russia and Britain, the opening up of China and Japan, the uprising and overthrow of the British East India company in India, and many other interesting parts of history.

However I wouldn't want to extend the game as far as WW1. At that point warfare changed dramatically and was no longer in keeping with the gameplay and style of a TotalWar game. Trench warfare and wars of attrition would not make for a fun game at all in my oppinion.

[Mailman653]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! 1) Why would machine guns be availbale in 1899!!! they wernt invented!!!!!!!!! They didnt exist!!!! LISTEN CAREFULLY!!! THE MAXIM GUN WASNT USED UNTIL THE FIRST WORLD WAR!!!!

Chill out, it's just a game and a discussion over a game, the Org has a forum for debate over historical matters.

The Maxim might have been the first true MG, but you forgot that the Gatling gun came before it, and the Mitrailleuse before that and before that something called a "Puckle gun" all of which fired a lot more bullets than your average musket or rifle but if you want to debate the matter of machine guns further, I think creating a new post over on the other forum will be best.

[Owen Glyndwr]

Someone has indeed not been thinking before replying. Though all evidence points to you being him, M'Lord.


2) If you want to say three quarters it's done like this: 3/4. 3 1/4 Is the world three times and a bit, which makes no sense.
Also, it doesn't follow that if we get much of the world (in no way shape or form close to 3/4 btw) we should get the rest. Modelling the (Ant)Artic area would be an astounding waste of effort for one thing. Question that needs to be asked is does it expand gameplay to add extra territory like Asia. Not all that much, but I suppose it might be nice. Could be awful too. One slice of a cake is a joy to eat, eating the whole cake will just leave you feeling sick. I fear that giving us the whole world to fight over can be rather overwhelming.

I'd just like to point out in response to this point. If the game actually extended to 1899, then Asia would be quite important, as a lot of nations attempted to exert influence over the weak Ming(?) Dynasty (Open Door Policy, Arrow War, Boxer Rebellion, etc.) Also that would include the rise of the Meiji gov't in Japan, the reemergence of a Japan that people at least noticed actually existing.

However I just wanted to make that point, I'm not for extending the date. Firstly, because with the Crimean War and the American Civil War, the world got to see firsthand just how much warfare had changed, becoming more about defensive warfare in which the assaulters tended to fall before superior, well-guarded positions. (Stonewall Jackson showed firsthand how warfare would be faught on through WWI)

I'd actually love to see the game take over in the 1600s, that way we could see the rise and fall of the tercio (I'd love to see the tercio as more than a spanish pikeman division, as per M2), I mean the 1600s with the 30 years war, and then even the War of Spanish succession, there are so many more options to do by going back 100 years.

[PBI]

Modelling the (Ant)Artic area would be an astounding waste of effort for one thing.

Now now, let's not be hasty.

Next you will be trying to persuade us all that Rockall was not a key strategic battleground in 18th century warfare.

I'm not saying they can't go there, I'm saying they shouldn't, because even amongst TW devs now there seems to be a idea that they could do a WW2 timeframe game and be okay, and I am 100% opposed to that as well.

I assume you are referring to the comment in the Eurogamer preview video? To be fair, I should point out that the guy who floated the idea of a 1900-1950 Total War was (I believe) the artistic director, and as such I imagine his job is purely to consider the aesthetics of the game, not the potential for gameplay. In which case, I entirely agree with him: A Total War game set in that period, the age of ridiculously pompous European empires, the Edwardians, and the Roaring Twenties, is going to look fantastic, no matter how dire the gameplay.

Lengthy OT rant about WWI:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Regarding WWI (or even WWII) Total War; I agree that it is not somewhere the series should go at least in its current form, primarily because of the pure scale of battles in the modern era being unsuited to Total-War style tactical battles; however, I would (politely, cautiously, moderator-fearingly) disagree with the commonly-held notion that WWI was a boring conflict of mindless attrition. Although battles on the Western Front certainly did often degenerate into both sides simply pouring more and more men into the grinder after the initial offensive bogged down due to antiquated tactics or logistics, it was demonstrated on various occasions that, given the right leadership and tactics, it was quite possible to succesfully take the offensive against the enemy. Vimy Ridge is the most obvious example, while the Western Front in 1918 was almost entirely characterized by mobile, offensive warfare on both sides, largely made possible by tactical, not technological, innovations. Meanwhile on other fronts, where the troops were less densely packed into the front line, things always were more fluid; I would scarcely describe Tannenberg or the Brusilov Offensive as static, attritional battles.

Total War games always have worked hard to make the battles more interesting than in real life. For every great decisive rout like Cannae or Agincourt there were a great many indecisive, cagy encounters where both sides lost a few hundred men before withdrawing and claiming they had won a glorious victory. Yet in RTW for example pretty much every battle is a Cannae-like crushing victory in which the losing army is essentially wiped out. Thus I see no reason why a WWI Total War need be dominated by Somme-like attrition rather than Vimy Ridges or Tannenbergs. Although I feel that a conflict as interesting and important as WWI is woefully underrepresented in gaming, I do not feel it would work well in the current Total War format; however, the reasons for this are purely to do with the scale of the battles not translating well into the Total War battle engine, not anything inherent in the tactics of the era making it a less interesting conflict than earlier periods. I remain hopeful that a WWI game could be made according to the broad Total War model, with distinct and independently rich Tactical and Strategic games with meaningful interplay between the two, a model in which I feel the Total War series is essentially the heir to the magnificent X:COM series. However, the Tactical sphere of such a game would likely bear little relation to its current Total War incarnation.

However, despite my personal affection for early 20th century history, I would agree that the best direction for the series to go after Empire would be backwards in time, not forwards. Preferably also a good few thousand miles to the east, to China, Mongolia, and south-east Asia. However, if the series does remain in Europe, I hope for the period 1500-1700, broadly encompassing the Pike and Musket era, a method of warfare whose emergence was alluded to in the late game of Medieval 1 and 2 and which will likely be largely extinct but occasionally still seen by the start of Empire, but which has not yet been given the center stage. For me, this means the Spanish Armada, the English Civil War, and the many wives of Henry VIII, all rich Total War material.

For expansions for Empire, however, there is certainly plenty of scope in and around the period of the main game. I would agree that, nice as it would be to simply add more continents to the main game, for an expansion I prefer a closer focus on a single geographical region and a narrower historical period. Possibilities I wouldn't mind seeing might be:

ACW (I envision something like the Teutonic campaign in Kingdoms, with the Civil War itself making up the main event, although with France and Great Britain very much present and with their own interests, and with a potentially interesting sideshow in Mexico).
Scramble for Africa.
Thirty Years' War
A South American campaign, encompassing maybe the independance campaigns from the Spanish and Portuguese and maybe some of the later local wars in that region.

I strongly suspect though, that we will get a single, large expansion campaign in the fashion of RTW:BI, covering the Napoleonic Wars. I would be somewhat disappointed by this, since I feel it would be too close to what the European theatre of the main campaign will do anyway, but it is certainly the obvious choice since the campaign end date has been revised from 1820 to 1800.

[Sol Invictus]

I think we all can agree that the Napoleonic Wars will be the first expansion. I would even like it to be more expansive; he he ; and go from 1800-1870, but that could be another full release, maybe Nationalism: TW 1820-1870. So assuming that Napoleon: TW is the first expansion, CA can easily squeeze in another and the Thirty Years War would be a great starting point. Who wouldn't like some good Tercio, pike and sword action? This would make ETW with expansions cover approximately the period of 1600-1820ish. That is my hope.

[Divinus Arma]

The American Civil War as an expansion pack, like Alexander was. Alexander was unavailable in the U.S.

I think it would be worthwhile to offer The Civil War with famous generals occupying an important role like the Alexander character did in the RTW expansion.

[Martok]

All right folks. Play nice, or not at all.


I'm already on the verge of locking this thread, but I don't want to punish the vast majority of patrons who are making meaningful contributions to the discussion, so I will say this only once:

If I see any more trolling, flaming, baiting, or swearing, the person(s) guilty of said violations will be issued (additional) infractions and warning points. Consider yourselves on notice.