Next Totalwar Is...

[TN[ KrAzY!]

blatantly napoleonic total war, it would work fine, theyve done guns in both shoggy and mtw. would be awesome

[AngryGerbil]

Being an American History buff and a Total War fan, I'd LOVE to see a TW game about the American Civil War. It won't happen of course, but MAN that would just be too cool! Have turns last a day or a week, enable ambushes and entrenchment actions on the battle map, toss in a bit of jockying for European aid for some political spice.

Thinking on it now, any civil war TW game would probably not work as it is only 1 v 1 in a civil war and part of the fun of the previous TW games in the relationship between multiple factions. Ah well, I guess it wouldn't work after all. One can dream though. =)

Of the more realistic suggestions I've seen here, I'd go for the Ancient:TW game between Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians etc.. That would be neat, no doubt. After that, I'd like an East Asian:TW game based around China, Japan, Mongolia and the Phillipines. But I'm not totally opposed to a Napoleonic: TW. It could be really cool too. Some people seem to draw the line at Guns vs. Swords in TW games, but I liken the line more to Formation Armies vs Post-Machine Gun, Airforce and Tank warfare that appeared during WWI. To me, WWI is the line where the folks at CA should draw the line in their own "timeline" availiable to them.

I think if they were to do a gunpowder game, they could still have units comprised of different equipment (the swords, arrows and spears we have now, or the matchlock, flintlock or rifled barrel weapons for any future gunpowder game). But they would have to replace "armor" with "training" in a gunpowder game IMO. Instead of pouring money into chain mail, tower shields, and helmets, a gunpowder emperor would pour money into training units of crack troops who can reload muskets faster and have better accuracy and the like. I dunno, just thinking outloud at this point.

But, one thing I think most of us can agree on, Naval Battles! I don't care what game they make next, it isn't truly a "Total" War until you can control your navies!

Hey, maybe that'll be their next game! It'll focus exclusivley on naval battles. Actually, maybe not, but you never know!

[bmolsson]

meh. The American natives didn't have horses until well after the conquistador period in mexico, they would mainly be comprised of spear infantry...slinger infantry...archers...and atl-atl infantry. Perhaps the use of Geurilla Warfare would be more prominant in tactics than elsewhere but other than that it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Well, you don't have to be 100% historical. Give the North American tribes the horse and the fun increases...... ;)

[DisruptorX]

I'd like to see a pre-european invasion version of Total war set in north and south america. There were 52 nations in what is now Canada alone and it's ground nobody else is covering. The cultral diversity is immense, from the northern inuit to the southern maya for example. Then use the invasion by europeans like they did the Horde in MTW and have them as unlockable nations. For example the failed viking colony in Newfoundland around 1200 ad, or the Spanish invasion in the gold rich south 400 years later.

Doubt it will ever happen, but it would be really cool and could be done in my opinion. Early america is an open and fertile ground for this game.

The North American Indians didn't fight in armies like those featured in other total war games, and didn't fight pitches battles in regiments. They don't make very good subjects for a war game.

[Samurai Waki]

I like things to be as historical as possible without it taking away from playability. The Native Americans certainly did have organized armies...The Aztecs suffered a lot from internal dissention and so stationary forces were necessary...which in turn those armies could be used to conquer new lands. The Incas suffered many of those same problems, however both the Aztecs and the Incas were the pinnacle of Pre-European American civilization and no other American tribes could match them toe-to-toe. The Northern American tribes were almost 90% of the time located near abundant water sources, and thus inland America would be almost untouched until the arrival of Horses during the 1600s. By that time European Colonies would already be established in Mexico and South America as well as North America's eastern coast.
Also the notion that the Chinese discovered America before the Europeans is a farce. The Chinese new very little about the lands beyond the Bearing Straights...they didn't even know if there was much beyond those lands. No historical evidence has been found saying that the Chinese were in Americas and even one Chinese historian said that they crossed the Pacific Ocean by boat and founded America which his a popular opinion in China, however, statistically speaking impossible. The Native American DNA is so ancient that they have found similar ties to Ainu, Chinese, and even Caucasian DNA. Nobody knows who discovered it first, but it is fairly irrelevent at this point because all it would come to is hollow bragging rights.

[NimitsTexan]

Problem with an early North American game is that if it is at all historically accurate, you wil get a bunch of weak factions with limited unit types; if it is not, well, what's the point? As for the Aztecs and Incas, you would have basically one power to pick on a bunch of weaker factions, and again very limited units types (specifically no cavalry).

ACW could be done. The diplomacy would be limited (but in Rome, besides the other Roman factions, I seem to be at war with just about everybody most of the time anyway so . . .) but the tactical battles (which is way I play TW) would be outstanding. Napoleonics would all be good (and a more natural evolution for the series).

BTW, the gunpowder units iN MTW were my favorites.

[chinaboy71]

Hmm well iwould have to say the development team will try to stay away from a TW number 2. Also I think they will keep away from all the gunpowder and what nots. And even though they have used it before in small amounts, they could not possibly want to base a whole game on it. Also what keeps the TW series from being any other strategy game is that its good combat. Good strategy. If you start to use guns, then it becomes a number game almost. Ofcouse when melee was becoming obsolete, they also widely used calvary. I dont really know what the next TW war will be. But i think they will stay away from extensive technology and anything too close to home, like WW1 or WW2. Well thats my confused opinion.

[chinaboy71]

I could also go for an entire world TW. i think the map work would be very difficult and there are so many cultures and everything to work out, but I think they know you have to step it up to make people want to buy your product. And possibly more like, well I guess it could have a little more city control stuff. Like more specific to that province. I dont know, sort of like Civilization 3. Well maybe not. But I cant think of a good example. But I would say sometime before the US when there was a lot less gun powder. Well thats my other confused opinion.

[Thrudvang]

I dunno if a full-world Total War could work, if they used the new campaign map.

The best i've seen a full world done was in Europa Universalis 2 and that used tiled provinces like Medieval/Shogun.

[Orpheus]

I cant see how a gun based game would be as fun or as skillful as hand to hand infantry. If your going to have a gun based game you may as well go the hole hogg and have WWII TW........ No thanks.

The battle tactics used in the Napoleonic wars would be well-suited to the RTW engine, I think (after some obvious ammendments to unit strategy.) Although they made much use of firearms, the battlefield tatctics are in some ways more akin to medieval strategy than modern warfare. (Advancing in rank, line of battle, etc.) There was also plenty of infantry/cavalry hand-to hand fighting to be done.

A Napoleonic-era game should probably include an American Revolutionary War, in a strategic map expanded west to include North America and maybe east to include the colonial campaigns in India.

[SirGrotius]

100% behind a Napoleonic: Total War.

First, I don't think the argument that Imperial Glory or whatever it's called will lead CA to abandon any Napoleonic aspirations is valid. Many similar games are made contemporaneously, if anything, they'd profit from additional exposure. Think of WWII games or the craze w/ modern day FPS. Also, there were a bunch of very similar RTS games of the Age of Kings mold out in 2000 (EE, Age of Wonders, a bit later RON).

Second, as mentioned previously, they've done the gun thing somewhat in MTW and I loved it. I was the weird dude in MP who elected to have something like six serpentine units in his army. And I won. They'll be able to keep the unit sizes down, and maybe they could focus on captain traits, i.e. each unit's (division?) commander would confer certain bonuses/penalties onto his troops, while a general would do the same but for all. Maybe they could implement a simple logistics system to keep the game fresh and realistic, which system would highlight the importance of communications in the period. (e.g. if one presses the shift key or so, the map will highlight a unit or army's line of communications/supply, and if an enemy "sits" on that line said unit/army will suffer logistical penalties such as reduced movement rate, increased attrition, and lowered loyalty/reliability...deserters?.)

Third, I remember back in the day, maybe for Windows 95, I played a game w/ some amount of joy called Fields of Glory (I think), and it was awesome. You could play many historical battles, and there was nothing like playing as Napoleon and sending in the Guard. Oh no, here comes Blucher!

Yeah, so my vote is w/ Napoleonic: Total War, and come on, it's obvious that this will be the choice. I'd recommend preping oneself for the advent of shock and awe.

[DisruptorX]

Wow, yea, we could have a Napoleonic Total War game that moves at several times the speed of sound, just like RTW, and real life. This new realistic game would, of course, speed up the time it takes for muskets to reload (to appeal to the plebs), and feature the same wonderful movement engine from RTW (when you command a unit to move forward, the front rank moves to the back, and the rest of the unit moves forward in a long line)

Of course, just like in the real time period, cavalry would be unstoppable. Once engaged, they could swirl around like a school of fish, doing 180 degree turns in a split second. Then, at will, they could turn and flee and then charge in again while technically still engaged in combat. You don't even need to break out of melee to charge. Thankfully such a realistic feature has already been introduced in RTW, so we are already more than halfway there.

Oh yeah, also to fully take into account the period, units behind a melee would open fire into their friend's backs and slaughter them. They could go in and make sure that units do this, even if "fire at will" is not turned on, just like in Rome.

Of course, to fully reflect the times, melee would last for a few seconds, and be decided, leaving one side completely dead, and the other pretty much intact. Protracted melee would be too fun to actually include in the game, so the 5 second war as featured in RTW would have to do. Okay, I can't type any more without going into a rant. As far as I'm concerned, CA should just stop making TW games entirely, unless they go in from scratch and completely rework the rome engine from the ground up. Everything about it is flawed, and I don't want to see it used again, ever. Maybe after a year of patches, Rome will be a functional game.

[Botis]

I'd personally prefer to see a setting not long after MTW finishes - 1500's -> 1700's so could encompass Spanish hegemony & Dutch revolts 30 years war through to Battle of Blenheim. It's an interesting period - ever changing alliances rise & decline of Turkey & Spain, Rise of France & English as dominant powers blah blah blah. In my humble opinion it is too cool a period not to sim with TW next. Notwithstanding that, I played the old Microprose game Fields of Glory to death when it came out & later the Firaxis Nap's sim & would salivate copiously at the prospect of any Nap's based Horse and Musket Total War!

But what I'd like to see CA do more than anything else is a Multiplayer campaign... ACW would be good for that - like that old Steve Green (??) game The Civil War which was pretty good fun MP for 1990something.

[chinaboy71]

What about improving the strategy elements? There is more scope for revolutionary changes here, but we need to see first how much RTW has already achieved, and what scope remains for future developments.

I think the obvious candidate, and the one big area of weakness in Total War games, is multiplayer, and I mean campaign/strategic, and well as battles. Campaign MP is a problem that has yet to be solved, but there is a very large market for massive, immersive MP games. You would be an up and coming general in the Total War universe, pitching your wits against human opponents to conquer the known world.[/QUOTE]

I just read this idea. Wow what an amazing game that would make for. It would be like an awesomely improved version of lineage. I think gaming, and I mean the acual types of games are becoming obviously multiplayer. But I think that Lineage is the only game that has gotten to an awesome level. What the TW development team should consider is just a massive multiplayer game. Like Linegae the game is all through out Asia. They have 20,000 people servers or something like that. And the biggest servers in the rest of the world for like...any game i know is 64. Well I hope they dont go into fantasy type games wiht dwarfs and elves, and hope they make it just a huge multiplayer game. Past that, I guess I dont care much what its about. Heck, Ill play anything TW comes out with. Its all good.

[chinaboy71]

I dunno if a full-world Total War could work, if they used the new campaign map.

The best i've seen a full world done was in Europa Universalis 2 and that used tiled provinces like Medieval/Shogun.

Um.. I live in China. So I dont have RTW. And I was just wodnering, what exactly is the new campaign map. I saw a picture, but it doesnt make all that much sense.

So I guess I'll try to look it up, but can someone explain?

[Samurai Waki]

I'd like to see Napoleon Total War era, or Rennaissance building up to the Napoleon Era. I'd also like to see Shogun Total War revisited...and for that matter Medieval Total War revisited(not exactly part 2 but re-rendering the units, Textures, and Map to Rome Graphics Engine) I am not personally interested in dealing with just America as the focal point, but perhaps the entire world, if that were to be the case, the Map would have to deal less with just Provincial borders like in the Previous 3 games and more with national borders, that way tactics could be adjusted to fit more coherently with Napoleon style tactics and such. Within those National Borders would still be Provinces that gain and tax income, train units, have Map of the World style battles...and so on and so forth. There would be a lot of separate cultures within the game, but the point of the game would not be world domination in the sense of controlling everything but becoming the supreme dominant power over the rest of the world, in that case it could be done. The British rose to become the Dominant World Power during the Imperial Ages...but why couldn't the French, Russia, or for that matter China become the leading power as long as you played smart it could be tactically done.

[PseRamesses]

IMHO there´s really just one timeperiod that fits the total war concept that hasn´t already been done yet; 1492-1818 ad. either including the quest for the new world, as in EUII, or just focusing on Europe with thoose hundreds of states. My real wet dream though is the rise of civilization spanning from 3100-30 bc. around the Mediterranean.

[Darklight1138]

The North American Indians didn't fight in armies like those featured in other total war games, and didn't fight pitches battles in regiments. They don't make very good subjects for a war game.

Uh .. what history books are you reading?
First nations people (Indians are in India), while not nearly as 'sophisticated' as those other featured subjects, were just as bloody and violent as the rest of us. While they left no written record that's easy to read, there is plenty of archealogical evidence to dispute your claim.
Perhaps you are thinking of the tribes in what is now the USA, that had been starved by the slaughter of the buffalo and ravaged for generations by disease imported by europeans, before they fought back with the few numbers left to them.
The Aztecs for example fought so many wars that it was a way of life. So did the Maya. The Blackfoot and Cree fought many pitched battles, since you mention only North America, but the only reason I know that is because I grew up in Cree territory. I could almost close my eyes, walk until I was completely lost, reach down and find the head of an ancient arrow. The Huron and Mohawk were powerful nations, before disease, guns, and horses.

The Vikings, good enough to be included in MTW, got thier hinnies stomped by what they called skraelings in Newfoundland and Laborador. Had to leave. Lots of them died. Big museum in Newfoundland all about it. You can even visit the site of one of the Viking colonies which was founded by Eric the Red or perhaps his son Leif Ericsson, and then had to abandon. There is evidence of a large scale attack and battle in that colony, which is probably why the colonies failed.

The American armed forces labelled the Cherokee "fierce warriors and skilled strategists" even though there were so few of them by that point.
Aztecs, Maya, Mohawks, Huron, Mohegan (Mohican to most of you, as in Last of), Apache, Cherokee, Iroquois, Aluet, and Inuit are all recognized civilizations of the sedintary and agricultural type, and those are just a few off the top of my head. The Cree, while a 'hunter/gather' society, were not just a couple of people. They were nomadic like the Mongols, and a powerful force. So were the Blackfoot. The territory controlled by the Cree in Alberta stretched from just south of the Peace River to between what is now Edmonton and Calgary. That's just in Alberta alone, nevermind the rest of Canada. (The Cree are a northern people, and very different from the Apache for example.)The Mohawk nation was huge. In the War of Independance down in the states, both sides relied heavily on alliances with native tribes.
There was consant warfare all through history, like in Europe and Asia, and it all wasn't little raids by a few guys on horses imported from europe. They understood strategy as well as the rest of us. They understood war.
I could go on and on and on, but I won't.
I think my point is clear. I wouldn't have suggested it for a strategy war game if I thought for a second that strategy and war wasn't involved.
Didn't fight in armies indeed. No 'regiments' eh?
Tell Custer they don't fight in armies and 'regiments'.
Tell Washington that the people he relied on didn't fight in armies and 'regiments'.
Tell it to Eric the Red too.

"Open your eyes and you will see. Open your mind and you will understand."

[Samurai Waki]

Darklight...I believe it is unfair to call Native American strictly a Native American considering there are literally hundreds of distinct tribes. I live in Montana, and we have the 2nd largest Native American population in the United States, we are surrounded by 12 absolutely different tribes...if you call a Sioux and a Crow just native American it is insulting to them, considering for the most part blood runs very thin between them. Native Americans were hunter gatherers here, and so an established civilization would be impossible to implement historically in a TW game. Not to mention most Northern Tribes had less than 2,000 members at any one time, therefore it would leave no space for regimental armies, that is not to say they could not function militarily quite the contrary...and General George Armstrong Custer witnessed that himself. The Vikings could not compete with the loose Confederation of Tribes in Newfoundland, not because they were outnumbered...but because they had close to the same technological capabilities, and the Natives were superior ambushers...and knew how to strike fear where it counted. Those tactics would serve them well...until the arrival of the more technologically advanced Europeans some 500 to 600 to 800 years later. The Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas were as I said before the pinnacle of American civilization...there were others such as the Olmecs, Iroquois, Anasazi, and Hopi tribes but even they did not represent the vast scale of American nations at the time. Not to mention the complete lack of cavalry leaves something to be desired. I have nothing but respect for many Native Indians(Americans) but this would not be a good period to cover considering the limited tactical possibilites and almost complete lack of diplomatic endeavors.

[Nomad]

I'm hoping MTW2,
is in the pipeline. AmericanCivil:TW would be to restrictive as mentioned, two few factions and virtually no significant cultural differences. Variety is the spice of life after all. If the American market must be appeased then make it New World:TW. After all most Americans came from Europe not the otherway round so us Europeans would still be able to relate to this game. 15th-17th century cross atlantic would be kool. But MTW2, RTW style would rock. Particulary if it extended further east maybe including a bit of India and China.

[doc_bean]

Personally, I'm hoping for a Three kingdoms: TW,

but being realistic, I expect to see a M:TW2, the original was (and is) a fantastically successful game, and a sequel is bound to make a ton of money.

For the revolutionary game, I'm hoping for a world spanning renaissance/imperial age game, but that's probably a bit too ambitious.
(IG will be about 4 years old by then so it wouldn't be competition anymore, unless they decide to make a sequel off course ...)

[DisruptorX]

snip

Firstly, the Aztecs and Maya were not North American indians.

I do not believe that anywhere in my very short post I said anything about the Native Americans not being warlike.

The Native Americans did not wage war as it is featured in other totalwar games.

You mentioned the battle of the little bighorn, which is a perfect example of my point. That battle was notable because it featured an unheard of alliance of the warriors of many tribes. It was very unusual. And no, the indians did not fight in regiments. All thousand(it was 1 or 3 thousand, don't remember) or so of them were mounted on horseback, and fought as skirmishers. It also wasn't much of a battle, custer charged in with his hundred or so guys and was slaughtered in short order.

The vikings were not driven out because they were somehow less fearsome warriors, they were driven out because they were outnumbered in a strange land by aggresive peoples who didn't want them to stay. The same thing would have happened to the Europeans if the Native Americans in Virginia and massachusetts had done the same.

A game of Native American warfare could be interesting, but it doesn't seem to fit the totalwar model. There would not be any unit variety at all, for instance.

[Lord Of Storms]

I'd personally prefer to see a setting not long after MTW finishes - 1500's -> 1700's so could encompass Spanish hegemony & Dutch revolts 30 years war through to Battle of Blenheim. It's an interesting period - ever changing alliances rise & decline of Turkey & Spain, Rise of France & English as dominant powers blah blah blah. In my humble opinion it is too cool a period not to sim with TW next. Notwithstanding that, I played the old Microprose game Fields of Glory to death when it came out & later the Firaxis Nap's sim & would salivate copiously at the prospect of any Nap's based Horse and Musket Total War!

But what I'd like to see CA do more than anything else is a Multiplayer campaign... ACW would be good for that - like that old Steve Green (??) game The Civil War which was pretty good fun MP for 1990something.

For those who just cannot wait for Napoleonic Total War!!
go to our website here and play now!!
www.thelordz.co.uk
look at the available info and the NTW download section enjoy!!1...LOS

[Tyrac]

I think the idea of Eurasia total war might have hit on something. People are saying MTW 2 or STW 2. I think we will not see a move to guns and all ranged combat.

I think that the time periods that most catch the eye and imagination of most people have now been done. Rome, shogun, and medevil cover the big three "cool" periods of war that most people think about.

So maybe the next Total War really could be TOTAL WAR.

A game that spans ALL THREE of the previous games wrapping them into one gigantic super game.

Have it span all of the lands covered in the three games and all the time periods! They could just call it TOTAL WAR! I think it would be revolutionary.

[adembroski]

Alexander seems the next logical step, but I prefer the idea of a Fantasy: Total War... Lord of the Rings, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, whatever, it'd be a nice change of pace.

[octavian]

wow that was some bump this thread is like over a year old

[Microwavegerbil]

Hehe, it's pretty funny that you revived a year old thread only to make a minor comment.

[octavian]

it wasn't me who revived it... it was adembroski, unless you were calling his comment minor in which case... oh i give up

[Craterus]

Even more interesting as there's another thread on this on the first page....

[TenkiWarPRIEST]

Shogun 2 with actual mp clan support. That would be a jaw dropper.