When will CA annocunce the next TW game?

[The_Doctor]

Early next year?

E3?

[A.Saturnus]

That´s pointless speculation. If I remember correctly, Rome was announced before VI got out. But this time there´s another game in the making so I guess the successor of Rome will have a greater distance to BI than Rome had to VI.

[Mongoose]

Do you mean "Spartan:Total warrior"? AFAIK, it's being made by another team...

[A.Saturnus]

Do you mean "Spartan:Total warrior"? AFAIK, it's being made by another team...

Yes, but that still means a diversion of resources.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Alternatively you could look at Total Warrior as a resource generator for the PC Total War games, since the PC market is smaller than the console one

[CBR]

CA has also AFAIK hired more people the last couple of years so I dont see Spartan as something that really sucks resources out of the Total War series.


CBR

[ghostcamel]

Alternatively you could look at Total Warrior as a resource generator for the PC Total War games, since the PC market is smaller than the console one

Exactly.

I never really got why people were so anti-Spartan Warrior when it was first announced. If you guys make money you can continue to make games, maybe even a sequal to your current PC juggernuat RTW.

The big thing is to have the PC experience and the console one not bleed into each other, dilluting each. Other than that it looks win/win to me. Listen to the fans and you should ;) do fine.

[hellenes]

Alternatively you could look at Total Warrior as a resource generator for the PC Total War games, since the PC market is smaller than the console one

But why you should bother with a UNPROFITABLE market instaed of focusing on the PROFITABLE???

Hellenes

[PseRamesses]

Early next year?
E3?

Hopefully an announce in spring -06 with a release in the autum. But the most plausible would be 2007 if they relly want to knock this game back up to no1 again and take it seriously.
Based on history: STW fall? 2001, MTW spring? 2003, RTW fall 2004 if I remember correctly so it seems the devs needs some +1 1/2 years between games.
The main prob IMO is what era will it cover? A guess would be somewhere between 1500-1800 ad. Personally I´d prefer a bronze age game somewhere around 1500 bc or so with empires and a huge amount of city states and/ or factions.

[edyzmedieval]

A TW game won't be the same if they make from 1500 to 1800.
Many mods tried to do this. All of them failed completely.

A Bronze Age one would be good. I personally would like with Babylon.

[TB666]

A TW game won't be the same if they make from 1500 to 1800.
Many mods tried to do this. All of them failed completely.

No it wouldn't.
Look at the Lordz team.
Their mod is very popular(for MTW) and what they have done so far with RTW is amazing.
So CA will have no problem.

[The_Doctor]

err, guys can keep this away from what you want the next TW game to be. We have had too many of those.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Hopefully an announce in spring -06 with a release in the autum. But the most plausible would be 2007 if they relly want to knock this game back up to no1 again and take it seriously.
Based on history: STW fall? 2001, MTW spring? 2003, RTW fall 2004 if I remember correctly so it seems the devs needs some +1 1/2 years between games.
The main prob IMO is what era will it cover? A guess would be somewhere between 1500-1800 ad. Personally I´d prefer a bronze age game somewhere around 1500 bc or so with empires and a huge amount of city states and/ or factions.

I'd prefer that as well...

[Ianofsmeg16]

Y'know, i wouldn't mind a fantasy game...just, please, no magic.
i wouldn't mind seeing a Victorian era, with the whole world as a map....something like Victoria:EUTS but with RTW graphics etc

[ChaosLord]

I doubt they were really interested in SP games hellenes, and if they were really that into warez they were probably playing WC3/FT on bnetd(emulated battlenet servers) instead of buying it. I also wouldn't take one look at how many people are in the lobby and says its just 400. Far more pass through then that. I also don't see why you think the MP campaign will suddenly have tens of thousands(to even to begin equaling the numbers playing popular MP games) playing it.

Theres tons of people who play singleplayer who don't play multi and its not because they find the battles pointless, its because they just don't like multiplayer. I also have to say again, i'm not against an multiplayer campaign. It'd be a nice addition to the TW series. But theres nothing to show it'd suddenly prevent all the piracy you think is happening. For most the main attraction of TW are the battles, not the campaign map.

Those who want can get their fix for battles from sp and mp, while the few that prefer the campaign map to it get their fix in singleplayer. Challenging AI also isn't a pipedream, its just not as easy to implement as the latest uneeded graphics feature. Go play Civilization 2, then play Civilization 3. You'll see quite a leap in the AI, and Civilization 4 is only looking better in this reguard as well. Now admittedly this is turn-based battling, but CA could spend some time improving the ability of the AI to wage organized wars on the campaign map and better army composition(to also make battles more difficult).

Diplomacy is a bit harder, but not so hard they couldn't do something to show AI mood towards your nation like other games do. Or for the AI to give more diplomacy feedback. Anyway i've strayed from the point. In the end it doesn't matter if a games main attraction is multiplayer and its protected by a cdkey. A popular enough game will end up with cracked multiplayer. Its happened to WC3/FT, BF1942, NWN, etc... Pretty much any multiplayer game there are now work arounds out there to play it. There are even cracked servers for popular MMORPGs like WoW and L2.

Now if those get cracked and played online without being bought, what makes you think CAs multiplayer campaign will be spared the same fate?

[hellenes]

I doubt they were really interested in SP games hellenes, and if they were really that into warez they were probably playing WC3/FT on bnetd(emulated battlenet servers) instead of buying it. I also wouldn't take one look at how many people are in the lobby and says its just 400. Far more pass through then that. I also don't see why you think the MP campaign will suddenly have tens of thousands(to even to begin equaling the numbers playing popular MP games) playing it.

Theres tons of people who play singleplayer who don't play multi and its not because they find the battles pointless, its because they just don't like multiplayer. I also have to say again, i'm not against an multiplayer campaign. It'd be a nice addition to the TW series. But theres nothing to show it'd suddenly prevent all the piracy you think is happening. For most the main attraction of TW are the battles, not the campaign map.

Those who want can get their fix for battles from sp and mp, while the few that prefer the campaign map to it get their fix in singleplayer. Challenging AI also isn't a pipedream, its just not as easy to implement as the latest uneeded graphics feature. Go play Civilization 2, then play Civilization 3. You'll see quite a leap in the AI, and Civilization 4 is only looking better in this reguard as well. Now admittedly this is turn-based battling, but CA could spend some time improving the ability of the AI to wage organized wars on the campaign map and better army composition(to also make battles more difficult).

Diplomacy is a bit harder, but not so hard they couldn't do something to show AI mood towards your nation like other games do. Or for the AI to give more diplomacy feedback. Anyway i've strayed from the point. In the end it doesn't matter if a games main attraction is multiplayer and its protected by a cdkey. A popular enough game will end up with cracked multiplayer. Its happened to WC3/FT, BF1942, NWN, etc... Pretty much any multiplayer game there are now work arounds out there to play it. There are even cracked servers for popular MMORPGs like WoW and L2.

Now if those get cracked and played online without being bought, what makes you think CAs multiplayer campaign will be spared the same fate?

Well the point is that they ARE interested in SP games, there is even a russian TW forum where there is a thread:Help a friend send free pirated copies of RTW VI to others!!! they just arent interested in ORIGINAL sp games...
W3TFT's battlenet is much lag free UP date 1.20a patch, and most important OVERWHEMINGLY popular with all the features, its very hard to any emulated server to compete thats why the numbers of players on the offical server are so high...
I think that a MP campaign would give what most people like RTW for the ability to play the MAP online thats why IMO the number of current mplayers is so low. Do you know many players that play only custom battles in sp?
RTW's Campaign map "AI" isnt its main weakness its the justifiably poor battlemap "AI" because of the HUGE amount of variables in a 3 dimensional enviroment with limitless possibilities and factors that the current hardware "AI" cant compete with a decent player. There are just TOO MANY rules (or no rules...) for the "AI" to comply and compete with the result of billions of years of evolution...
Ive seen in greek netcafes faceservers of L2 (set up by chain greek netcafe corporations) the lag is unbearable items get lost and its misreable, while ANY faceserver of WoW gets shut down ASAP as one reports one...
The bottom line is a SERVER by CA with the quality of Blizzard like support with low lag and attractive features can make the TW cd keys actually worth the ink they are printed in...

Hellenes

[Viking]

I'd prefer that as well...

CA, go for bronze age, please.