What do you want in next TW title?! What?!

[Sir Beane]

It is based on the earlier games as CoD4 or similar is based on Doom and as the new TW campaign map is based on turn based Civ type games.

I would argue that there is a little more of a link between Medieval to and Shogun than between COD4 and Doom. While the Total War series has changed, to me it still has the 'feel' of a Total War game. I can't really describe it any better than that.

Well this has already been covered so I'll not go into it again... needless to say that my first reaction to this was: ""

Yeah... that wasn't my best talking point really.

This is very subjective. I find the similarity between factions to be a strength and the variety in later games (including MTW) to be a flaw. You are right in that STW is an easier game with which to achieve balance, but itsn't that the whole point? If the game engine limits what you can do, should you not stick to those limits until such a time when you can come up with something better? STW had good balance for those reasons, but more notably because of the superior battlefield AI and better implimented RPS mechanics. In STW (excluding the MI expansion) every unit type had a role. MTW changed all this and introduced factions that differed greatly from one another and fielded many duplicate units. Due to how how autocalc determines battle outcomes, AI factions that were cavarly heavy such as the Turks would always lose when controlled by the AI. The same problem has been perpetuated in RTW, with factions such as Egypt, Pontus and Britannia always exploding all over the map. The Roman factions were artificially skewed to become more powerful than the other factions. They get the Marian Reforms where they a whole load of even more powerful units. In reality for the Romans a single legionary unit would have been enough. This would then have been upgraded come the reforms. The transition from Hastatii to Principes would be best represented by valour as the unit gains experience. It is then up to the player to decide where he places his units in the battle line.

There is a lot here I agree with, especially your point about the rediculously overpowered romans in Rome. However I would much rather see variety than balance.

I don't play Total War games purely for the strategic and tactical challenge. I like to play them in part because they are a great way to put my self in history. The history of the world fascinates me, but sadly the only way to experience it directly is through various forms of media, books, movies games etc.

Games hold the unique distinction of being interactive, which is why they are my preferred method. I love the variety of the later Total War games, and the more variety the better. Sadly I think a truly balanced game would have to drastically reduce the variety and number of different units, and probably the number of factions as well. While a small scale conflict is perhaps better for a balance and gameplay perspective, for me it would sacrifice part of the overall experience. My ideal Total War game would feature the entire globe, with all factions present at the time represented as fully as possible. It would be a nightmare to balance but it would be wonderful for historical colour and variety.

'Balance' is really something only ever found in games. In reality not all men are created equal, and nor are all countries or factions. That some factions have it better than others is part of the challenge for me. Indeed, in Empire I am looking forward to unlocking a tiny place like Savoy and using it to conquer my larger, richer neighbours.If they have better units or better technology I will just have to work harder.

Balance is really quite a divisive issue. It means a lot in multiplayer and less in singleplayer, to some people it is everything and to others it is nothing. I personally would rather have variety first then balance second, but that is totally my opinion and I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with me.

The post shows you nothing of the sort. I have seen it but I don't readily soak up this kind of "marketing". The way I see it, so far we've had innovation: STW, then we've had something based on STW: MTW. After this we've had the disaster that was RTW and the disaster based on that. I don't call RTW "revolution" as it was simply a rework of STW/MW based on a different period. If CA had stopped at MTW and another company had released RTW would you call it a "revolution" then?

Putting discussion over marketing buzzwords aside for a moment my point was that Empire is definitely a new engine. Whether Rome was a disaster are not it can't be argued that it definitely used a different engine than Shogun and Medieval hence the term 'revolution'.

If CA had stopped at Medieval and another company had made Rome under the Total War banner then yes it would have been a revolution if we take revolution to mean that it used a new game engine.

A true revolution of the Total War series would only come if CA suddenly dropped the idea of a campaign map and a battle map and just made an FPS set in Rome. Otherwise the next game will always be an evolution of the idea behind Shogun.

I persoanlly don't see a problem with just improving on what the last game did. I don't expect CA to make a major change in gameplay every game. I guess I'd rather they stick with tried and true rather than risky experimentation.

I'm not exaggerating it at all. Larger companies have bigger targets to meet. CA now being part of Sega must meet those targets for release dates and projected sales. If they release S2TW and only a handful part with their cash then CA are in trouble. You have to remember that you as a seasoned player and forum regular are not the target consumer. The target is the younger player in western europe or north america that will see something that interests them enough to make them want to take the game to checkout. Feudal Japan is something that few people in those regions know anything about. So CA are trying to hit the largest possible consumer base. This is why they did ETW because it includes the US as a faction as well as all of the typical European powers.

This is assuming that the average gamer would not buy a game set in Japan but I believe they probably would. Much of the Western World is in love with Japanese culture at the moment. Shogun was a big success the first time and I have no reason to doubt it would be a second.

If we assume for a moment that Shogun 2 is a risk, and would not sell well. Would you want CA to make it anyway? I would rather they kept selling out and giving us popular games set in Europe rather than losing money on unpopular titles and going out of business.

My argument is that they can't win. They either give people big flashy titles and make money, but get complaints about not wanting to take risks on smaller games. Or they make a smaller better balanced game, satisfy the purists and then go bankrupt.

You can criticise me for my choice of wording. But to me a small scale conflict is one that is not a "world conflict". I would, perhaps wrongly, class China during the "Romance of the three Kingdoms" period, as just that. It would involve a specific region, not the whole of Asia, or all of Europe or the world but just those regions that are relevant to that particular era. The same would go for anything based on ancient Greece. I would probably only need the balkans, Asia minor and parts of the near east. IMHO these sorts of maps allow for many more provinces in a small area, better gameplay and more balanced factions. They are also more immersive than the generic "Europe" maps used in MTW, RTW and M2TW.

I would personally love to see a Total War game based around Asia, featuring China, Japan, Mongolia, Vietnam, Korea, all the way down to India and Indonesia. I wouldn't want it to be to narrow in focus though.

Ideally I would love CA to blend your idea of small scale balanced conflicts with CA's larger, more varied campaign. I would love to see some sort of system where we have the grand campaign map, but with another level of 'zoom' where we could get nearer to the action with smaller provinces and a greater level of terrain detail.

No this is what CA tell you what the expansions are for, or what you have assumed they are for. The main game does not have to be "bigger and grander" as you put it, again this is the same "bigger, more, stronger, more powerful units, 1000s of men" idea that makes up most of the hype about these games. TW games have become playthings for those that want to defeat the enemy with ease and use some of the uber toy units to achieve this. It's all about supply/demand. The player is baited with a continuous flow of new units to keep them interested. They will then take this unit out onto the field to see what it does. I like to refer to these as "toys".

Name an uber unit in Medieval 2. There are a few flashy units such as elephants, but they aren't obtainable as a playable faction. Units such as chivalric knights are 'uber' in the sense that they beat older, more out of date units, but they are available to almost every faction. Medieval and Rome give you new units because they are set over a large enough period of time for technology and tactics to change and present the player with new options superior to those available before.

In real life conflicts there was almost alywas innovation and technological advancement. I like the feeling of slowly working my way up to get bigger and better toys to play with. It may sound a little shallow, but working hard and getting some new shiny things as a payoff is a lot of fun.

Total War games are indeed playthings for people who want to beat up the A.I with fancy units, but they ar ealso playthings for people who want to use mediocre units or even inferior units to beat up they A.I. I don't se ea problem with the game allowing you to do both.

I'm not speaking historically. So an army sent to Invade, for example, Egypt would only need to be the same size as an army sent to invade a single province of Japan? My point is that the smaller armies make more sense in the Sengoku setting because it's a civil war, and each battle is simply that, a battle. The battles in MTW, RTW and M2TW are in real terms wars in themselves. Again to clarify TW battles are more like battles for counties or cities, not entire "provinces" or countries.

This is certainly a problem of scale, but Shogun was only slightly better than the later games have been. Maybe you would need a bigger army to invade Egypt than you would a single Japanese province. You might not. Egypt is mostly desert, Japan is very densely populated. Size isn't everything.

Wars to take entire countries very frequently involved only a large scale battle or two. Some of the battles during the Sengoku Jidai featured troop numbers comparable to battles in Europe where England was attempting to take the whole of France.

Medieval, Rome, Medieval 2 all feature far less men than real life battles would have done. I would prefer CA scaled up the number of men, rather than scaling down geographical scope though.


[QUOTE=Cynewulf;2094648]

No to say that it's the same factions in a different era is perfectly true, because for the most part it will be just that. Saying that does not take anything away from the technological advances of the period. We're not talking about technology but the cultural aspects of the game it's intended target consumer.

I agree CA might be getting stuck in a rut by just featuring Europe, but Empire also features North America and India. I imagine that the next game may have an even greater scope with even more factions. If you want to avoid featuring the same factions then this is the way to do it.

I sitll think that there are huge differences between factions in say, Rome and those in Empire. Aside from geographical location there isn't much to compare between British Redcoats and Woad covered Iceni warriors.

No, the campaign map is all about visual flare and the battles are just a showpiece, an experiment in visuals. There is nothing in the battles that leaps out at you and says "strategy", "tactics" etc. The battles are visual slugfests where the player can win easily almost every time. They are just a selling point of the game like the naval battles will become in the next title. The "game" itself plays out on the campaign map. If you think the battles in RTW/M2TW are challenging then I doubt very much if you've played STW/MTW to any real extent.

I wouldn't argue that the campaign map is about visual flair. It certainly doesn't strike me as paticularly visually impressive. If it is what CA are going for then thay have failed miserably.

I think that compared to almost every other game on the market the TW series are very good at representing tactics and strategy. The fact that morale, tiredness, terrain advantage, weapon advantage, flanking, charging and all those other factors are implemented must count for something.

I would also argue that there hasn't been a game yet where the player can't easily win almost every time. I have never played a game where the A.I has beaten me at tactics or strategy, even games famed for A.I such as Gal Civ 2. If you want CA to program an A.I that can reliably beat a human then you had better be prepared to give them some serious grant money, a team of excellent programmers, and a heck of a lot of time.

I also don't think RTW or M2TW were challenging, and neither was STW or MTW really.

If you want to get beaten in a battle of tactics by a computer program then there are a number of chess simulations I can recommend.

Exactly. There are plenty of turn based strategy games out there that do what RTW/M2TW try to do, but better. So instead of TW games splitting into three (Campaign map TBS/RTS Land battles/RTS Naval battles) and doing none of them well, they sould perhaps concentrate on doing the land battles well as this is what TW is all about after all. In it's present form TW is likely to become a jack of all trades and master of none.

Since there are plenty of games out already that do that kind of thing better, why not buy them instead? There are also games that do the battlefield side of things better than Total War. There are not, however, any games that do both better. That is why Total War is so succesful, to lose one part of that combo would be disastrous. To be honest it's better to do reasonably well at everything than do one thing perfectly and nothing else.

If I get bored of the campaign map in a TW game I can fight a few battles. Maybe that involves 20 units of elit ecannon vs. one unit of very nervous french peasants, maybe it involves trying to defeat a numerically superior force through superior tactics, both can be fun.

And then when I get bored of that I can go back to the campaign map for a little bit of strategy and logistics.

In Empire if I get bored of both of those I can go and mess around on a boat.

In any other game, if I get bored of the fighting or bored of the campaigning then I stop playing the game.


All in all it really sounds like we want differnt things ou tof our Total War experience. Empire might not be the game that can please both of us, but I sincerely hope it holds just as much enjoyment for you as it (hopefully will) for me.