What do we want from the next Total War game?

[Andres]

With Fall of the Samurai having been released for a while now, it's time to start looking forward, imo.

I stumbled upon this article at pcgamesn. It's an interesting read. Some things, like the part about the sandbox and infinite mode, I don't necessarily agree with, but it raises some good points and questions.

As for me, I'd like to have more immersion and more RPG elements in the game, with characters being more fleshed out and the possibilty to RP a general (including the possbility to rebel and start your own faction).

I also wouldn't mind a TW game in a fantasy setting.

So, what do fellow Orgahs want from the next TW game?

[Peasant Phill]

I wouldn't want a infinity mode either. Though I would definetly want a way to set your own goals and a sort of storymode. Like most, I must really grind to finish even a short campaign. In the 10 years or so that I've played TW games I've only finished perhaps 2 campaigns.
Setting your own goals can cater to your own needs and won't leave bored after a while (+ added replayability).

The story mode I imagine isn't as such a set story a player follows but more giving the illusion that you're part of something bigger. For instance, the factions in FotS acted all on their own and eventually all against the player. If there would've been some loyalty (with a few backstabbers of course) the player would have gotten the feeling that (s)he was part of something bigger. The story would unfold during play and the player would have a direct influence but wouldn't necessarily be in the center of it.

[al Roumi]

I'm pleasantly surprised at how speculative and open this discussion has started, usually "what next" discussions for TW descend rapidly into what era of history to plunder/recreate. That said, the article is a bit out there for me...

I agree to an extent with Andres that the RPG elements are positive and could bear strengthening. I appreciate the detail which comes with a focussed narrative and it massively adds to my personal imersion in the game. While a proceduraly generated TW would be intelectualy interesting for game designers/journos, it would suffer massively from exactly what causes me to drop campaigns - exhaustion of interest and imagination.

Give me a historical context, paint me a narrative and give me an AI I can feel good about destroying. I consider that a fairly calculated statement as I appreciate that there are countless trade-offs in making what is, first and foremost, a specific gaming experience -not a historical or war-fighting tactical simulator. I need enough of each ingredient (history, narrative and challenge) to be engaged. It's quite a precarious balance in some ways -something a-historical would lose appeal, as would a lack of narrative and of course no challenge. Equally, something slavishly historic would probably be distinctly un-fun, a narrative-less campaign devoid of meaning or compulsion and a truly over-strong AI discouraging.

I really like the way TW skips around the world and through time. There is a definite tie between TW games and my personal knowledge of history and the world - usually each game will encourage me to do a lot of reading on each period. With that in mind, I would very much like TW to remain grounded in history - but I would probably play and enjoy a fantasy/sci-fi based game, it's just it would undoubtedly suffer for the lack of background available for interested players.

I suppose Empire showed what can disapointingly happen when the achievement does not match the ambition. Napoleon (which I've only recently picked up) in some way corrected the horror, but one thing which was strongest in Empire and that I liked is the situation in an era of transformational change. I'm sure it adds to the difficulty of coding the AI and balancing the end-game however.

Finally, for a game at least half about tactics, I find TW could do a lot more to actually model these -or make it easier for the player to utilise historicaly consistent tactics. For example, much more could have been made of the column/line/square infantry formations in Empire, Napoleon and Sogun2:FoTS. Also, what happened to the detailed Roman legionary maneuvres that could have been coded for Rome? And conversely, it seems perverse to have dark-age units deployed in square formations, why not have more amorphous blobs where deployment/organisation is less meticulous. What I'm really suggesting is that the existing battle formations available to the player (and AI) be reworked to include maneuvres, making them more than just a tool for the deployment phase. Why not issue more general commands i.e. forward march, flank, fall back etc, than specify exactly where each soldier in your unit stands by stretching out a line? You could state you want a 3 deep formation or a large cavalry wedge and your grouped units would repsond as a formation, not atomised particles commanded by an omniscient and omnipotent general.

I may have got lost in details at the end there and apologise for the over-long post but there is a lot of ineresting stuff that could yet be done with TW.

[Peasant Phill]

Finally, for a game at least half about tactics, I find TW could do a lot more to actually model these -or make it easier for the player to utilise historicaly consistent tactics. For example, much more could have been made of the column/line/square infantry formations in Empire, Napoleon and Sogun2:FoTS. Also, what happened to the detailed Roman legionary maneuvres that could have been coded for Rome? And conversely, it seems perverse to have dark-age units deployed in square formations, why not have more amorphous blobs where deployment/organisation is less meticulous. What I'm really suggesting is that the existing battle formations available to the player (and AI) be reworked to include maneuvres, making them more than just a tool for the deployment phase. Why not issue more general commands i.e. forward march, flank, fall back etc, than specify exactly where each soldier in your unit stands by stretching out a line? You could state you want a 3 deep formation or a large cavalry wedge and your grouped units would repsond as a formation, not atomised particles commanded by an omniscient and omnipotent general.

I think this would do wonders for immersion. If done properly this would be so much better than the current delay of orders.

[aimlesswanderer]

I agree that the late game when the only objective is to take more provinces to get to the magic number is often quite boring. After a certain point it's more about moving your stacks and autocalcing boring battles just so you can 'win' the game. Being able to choose the winning objectives (or having several ways to win, like Civ) would increase variety and replayability, though would be more challenging to program the AIs behavior.

Not to mention when you have only a single province and you get besieged once a year, and have to fight the same enemies with the same troops in the same castle, for more years that you care to remember (yes, Uesugi, I am talking about you). It would be nice to be able to, say, be dig a ditch or put some sharp stakes where the wall was a pathetic 2 meters high. My troops had plenty of time, just waiting to get sieged again, though there would have to be a limit, or the whole hill would be a death trap.

I would generally prefer a historically based game, as that feels more 'real', and I feel like I can change history (or make sure it does't change). However, a well done fantasy or scifi game would be fine, though that would be straying from the franchises roots.

[TinCow]

I'd be curious to see TW make an attempt at a wholly new IP. CA often runs into road blocks trying to cram gameplay balance into a historical scenario. It might be refreshing to see them give it a go without the limitations imposed by real world geography and units. I too would love to see a bit more of a Civ element added. The idea of starting a TW game with a single city, and then developing tech, founding new cities, and exploring a world filled with other factions to fight or befriend is very enticing.

[HopAlongBunny]

Glorious Achievements mode :)

[Noncommunist]

I'd be curious to see TW make an attempt at a wholly new IP. CA often runs into road blocks trying to cram gameplay balance into a historical scenario. It might be refreshing to see them give it a go without the limitations imposed by real world geography and units. I too would love to see a bit more of a Civ element added. The idea of starting a TW game with a single city, and then developing tech, founding new cities, and exploring a world filled with other factions to fight or befriend is very enticing.

I like the idea of it all happening in some historical context. When you're playing it, there's a sense that you are genuinely learning something. Also, a sense that you could recreate or alter history. Plus, I think there's a lot of history which could accommodate pretty much any type of scenario.

One historical situation that might fit your idea could be the development of the Mississippian cultures in the US. It would take place on fairly familiar terrain for a lot of players(and probably include a few familiar place names). Also, given the absence of written records, units could be created with less regard for historical accuracy since no one knows what units they had. And if started early enough, some of it could include the founding of some of the first "cities" in the region.

[Peasant Phill]

I like the idea of it all happening in some historical context. When you're playing it, there's a sense that you are genuinely learning something. Also, a sense that you could recreate or alter history. Plus, I think there's a lot of history which could accommodate pretty much any type of scenario.

I always found that a great advantage for the TW series. It made me interested in the history behind the setting. It also gave enough information to be able to specify your search. The game being grounded in reality made it more attractive.

One historical situation that might fit your idea could be the development of the Mississippian cultures in the US. It would take place on fairly familiar terrain for a lot of players(and probably include a few familiar place names). Also, given the absence of written records, units could be created with less regard for historical accuracy since no one knows what units they had. And if started early enough, some of it could include the founding of some of the first "cities" in the region.

To local I'm afraid. I'm totally won over for a Chinese setting.

[feelotraveller]

To local I'm afraid. I'm totally won over for a Chinese setting.

Yes, it amazes me that the 5 kingdoms period remains untouched.

Alternatively India has not been done either...

Rome, again, ... zzzzzzzz

[jaspritsingh]

Alternatively India has not been done either...

India ... India can be set in multiple time frames

1. Mughals coming to India, introducing firearms and taking on local rulers.

2. India dividing into multiple factions - Awadh, Bengal, Maratha, Rajputana and a smaller but still potentially dangerous Mughal Empire with the Europeans showing up kinda like in Shogun - giving tech but not directly involved

3. Mughal Empire's end Era when the Mughal Emperor ruled only in Delhi, vassals were independent. East India Company had taken over Bengal, Madras and Bombay. Invaders from Persia and Afghanistan Raiding regularly.

Any of these 3 eras can make a great game with multiple factions with varied techs and units spread across a time frame of 100-120 years

[Nerdymidgetkid]

Rome 2. I will not settle for anything else. I don't care what the CA want to do, because they should have done Rome 2 instead of both Empire and Napoleon, not sure about Shogun as I haven't played it yet. However, everybody has been asking for Rome 2 for a long time and the CA have not listened, but instead made 2 crappy games that nobody likes. I would not play Aztec total war. Viking mythology would be fun but I don't think it is viable for the CA to make a non-historic game. No, Rome 2 is the answer.

Does anyone remember seeing this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IKlVS9k2gc and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3y0tvky5Iw

for Rome? I did, after I played the game, and I wondered why oh why the game hadn't looked like that. Well, now the CA have no excuse, as the technology now exists to get those graphics. When I watched this today getting the links it was different. It didn't seem so good. I think this must mean these graphics are not so incredible any more, and the time has come for CA to make these into a game. Men should also shout "To the Walls!"

My ideas:

Different recruiting forms! The Barbarians did not fight like the Romans, though they did in Rome total war. They also should not form their armies like the Romans. I think the Barbarian factions should be able to "Call to arms" which raises all the possible men. Level of recruits is determined by veterans and facilities to train. You will then have one big blob of troops ranging from mail clad nobles to naked fanatics to common spear-weilders. The Barbarians can raise their army very quickly and bring a lot of troops, but thier army will fight as a single unit that can only be divided to a certain extent. The Romans on the other hand can levy their troops in cohorts and legions, with Hastati, Principes and Triarii. They can also reform their millitary to allow the landless poor in. They are also the only faction that can professionalize their army, meaning they have less troops but the troops have a standard of equipment, better training and will of course always be active, meaning it's easier to do things like man forts and protect the borders from small-scale attacks. Every other faction can only have the standard militia.

EB style governments, if anyone knows what that means.

Naval battles, of course

Tech Trees

Governors and generals DO NOT have to be related to you. I think Shogun is the same as this, you have family members AND generals. On this topic, I think Rome should start off as a republic. You are a prominent senator and you have to stay in power. Adds a new dimension to the game; agents handle internal affairs as well as external ones. Diplomats can bribe other senators. Assasains can kill them and so on. If you are not in power you can still of course weild your influence and gain your money, but you are not in complete control. This feature of the game has an OFF button. If you are getting tired of the Senate getting in your way, you can throw them out. There is no "a chance for power" message. Get whatever senators and soldiers you can on your side. Raise the troops you can; if Troops are militia raise who you can from the cities you control, hire mercs and and buy the support of others. If Rome's army is professional it's about the legions you have in your army, plus whatever else you can get. Obviously this is easier if you are already consul, but it is even more important to have support, whether it be in the plebians, the aristocrats (that would be very hard to do) or the army.

Multiplayer campaign: Like typical Rome, but RTS to solve the multiplay issue. I hope you have those watchtowers!!! However, not sure how to get around real time battles with this. Perhaps there is a turn time limit instead of RTS? IDK about this but maybe you could even have an EVE type set up (Bob is the king, I'm one of his generals, Bill is one of my captains.) I know this is probably overambitious but it would be so cool!

1st person!!! I know this is a bit of a stretch for TW, but I'd love to be my general and fight it out! Use you wealth to buy better equipment for yourself! Also be a gladiator in the arena! Multiplay arena too. In custom battles you can also be anything from foot soldier to general.

I know this will be a controversial one, but I'd like to create a faction of my own. Chose starting tech, gov. type (Monarchy, Republic or Democracy) and then based on the tech there is a simple troop editor. Chose equipment and training/skill and the game works out what the values will be. Random map is generated and you pick where you start/random. You then face either real ancient empires, your previously created empires or other peoples which have been downloaded online. Perhaps you can also create your own faction in multiplay?

Realisitc Factons No more "Greek Cities" " "Gaul" "Germania" and "Britannia." Divide them up, doesn't need to have full selection for example just have Athens, Corinth and Sparta for Greece and Adueii and Arvernii instead of Gaul. Can't remember Brtiton major tribes and have no idea about Germania, but I'm sure there are many historians, some of them on this forum, who do.

I am not saying all of these features should be put in the same game, as it would probably take 4 years + to develop. (No actual clue about it though.) However, those are all my thoughts on what CA COULD put in to make a truly revolutionary TW game, which can be the Rome TW of its time (which I think is only fitting for Rome 2.)