General Sun's Tent Editorial Next Issue "What I like to see in the Next Game"

[Faenaris]

While I like the idea of attrition and various other ideas (especially the "your army dies, it is practically over" situation), I am absolutely against making TW not turn-based. I really hate real-time campaigns since it happens too fast and even if there is a "snail" speed mode, I still use the pause button to give others and then fast forward the time.

The mix turn-based campaign/rts battles is the very feature that made me a loyal fan of the series. The moment that system goes full real-time would be a sad day for me.

[ProudNerd]

While I like the idea of attrition and various other ideas (especially the "your army dies, it is practically over" situation), I am absolutely against making TW not turn-based. I really hate real-time campaigns since it happens too fast and even if there is a "snail" speed mode, I still use the pause button to give others and then fast forward the time.

The mix turn-based campaign/rts battles is the very feature that made me a loyal fan of the series. The moment that system goes full real-time would be a sad day for me.

I agree. I muse over turns for up to ten minutes sometimes, especially when you have a huge empire and you need to check everything out. tactical parts of a game (IE battles) are perfect for real time but grand strategy is not. I don’t like to be rushed, which is why I rarely play things like command and conquer.

[shifty157]

Just because MTW2 looks like a really enjoyable doesnt change the fact that General_Sun is completely right on many points.

That said however CA is taking some (very tentative and cautious) steps in the right direction. The new recruitment pools system sounds like itll change gameplay up quite a bit. The castle/city system while not to my tastes is also an effort to change up the gameplay and i respect it for that fact alone. Without going into a whole long list there are some very nice changes CA has made for MTW2.

That said however CA in my opinion is being a bit overly cautious and could do alot more about adding new features and such.

[Aracnid]

This has been mentioned before but the more different you make a sequel it the bigger the gamble it is. The Total War series is a sucess, the size of the forum proves that. I have no idea how much CA have spent making this game but I am sure that it is a lot of money. When games were designed at home by three of four guys people could afford to take risks, if CA or any of the big games companies spends £10 million and makes a flop that nobody apart from a small core of dedicated gamers buy, then they are in serious trouble.
What I trying to say is it is a lot easier to gamble with £10,000 than with £10,000,000.

[Polemists]

I'll toss in my two cents while i'm at it. Firstly this will probably get me the big red bumper sticker of not a complete history dork. Don't get me wrong I love history, I like reading about battles and crusades, but hell if I can quote who the third emperor of byzantine emperor was, or how many men were lost at the battle of agincourt historically speaking, and no i don't know how a authentic mongol should look.

That all being said I am a gamer, and I realize things that sell and things that don't sell. You have some interesting points, points that in countless other games may be great, not this game though and CA won't implement them. Another said it and they were right CA has to leap out of the historical threshold. If you don't believe me look at the games. Activision is gone, if not for Sega who knows what publisher you might have leading CA. CA is a small group, but like everyone if they don't make a profit they won't make games.

Let's be honest besides CIV 4 and Total War can you name a single one historical real time risk like board game that has done well. If your going to tell me they don't exsist I can think of at least 5 that came out and did horribly.

Secondly CA is revoultionary in my view, weather you view them as such is your own opinon. We'd all have things we want to see, but if you don't think the game has taken major leaps everytime it comes out, then you may just be thinking to minute. I assure you if I give a average gamer Shogun and MTW 2 I know which one they'd rather buy. Yes because of grahpics, yes because there are more features, but also because it has taken steps. Maybe not all the steps everyone wants. Still I think they do move foward and I am a fan who will continue to buy games.

That being said I would love to see naval battles, I would love to see little minor things implemented. I'm not a big fan of real time strategy aspect in a total war game. However I would much rather them keep there pace, then the risk that CA goes out of buisness. Rome did better then MTW sales wise, MTW 2 will do better then Rome sales wise, so on and so on. I hope they do get every average gamer, I love these games and I wish everyone played them with me.

That's my spiel, it's just a opinon your welcome to trash it, construct it or compliment it.There are improvements to be made, but I personally think total war is revoultionary with every game I see. That's why i'm CA's fan.

[TheImp]

While I like the idea of attrition and various other ideas (especially the "your army dies, it is practically over" situation), I am absolutely against making TW not turn-based. I really hate real-time campaigns since it happens too fast and even if there is a "snail" speed mode, I still use the pause button to give others and then fast forward the time.

The mix turn-based campaign/rts battles is the very feature that made me a loyal fan of the series. The moment that system goes full real-time would be a sad day for me.

The same here. Absolutely against it too. I'm kind of slow in finding and deploying strategies so i don't want a campaign setting being essentially based on the number of times u can click on your mouse buttons a second.

As for waypoints, they are already in and work fine in the demo.

Still, there are some interesting ideas developped by the OP.