The issue is that the melee era of warfare is more or less covered, and that leaves the age of muskets, rifles, and then modern warfare (Napoleonic wars, American Civil War, and then the wars to follow), with the first two easilY done with the engine (The crudest form of this exists with the gunners in STW) and I don't think TW engine really is appropriate for modern-warfare (WW1 and beyond)
I would not be surprised if a TW comes out covering the Napoleonic Wars, which would be great except for one thing. The game's 3d warfare would be crap in compare, because of the lack of variety in units and the sheer simplicity of Napoleonic warfare tactics would make it rather boring in compare to the previous three games. That means the game has to find a way to really improve the strategy side of the game, which is really hard to do and most people will not appreciate it. If such a game comes out, I expect the reviews will all say the fighting sucks and that's that. A game about the Civil War would be similarly compromised, though I can think of a few things that might give it more flavour. If anything, the scale of the fighting would be an issue because Napoleonic armies numbered in the tens of thousands. If you think it hard to control 2,000 men in RTW, imagine controlling 50,000.
In my opinion, the TW series has run its course because the engine relies on formation fighting, and after the Civil War, formation warfare begins to fade, and if we push too far back in time, we fight there is nothing new or different enough to be worthwhile. Now, if they have released a Napoleonic game first, then Shogun, Medieval, and Rome, it would have been better.
Bookmarks