Thats because you are assuming that huge numbers of new players will flock to buy a game based on subject that very few of them have ever heard of or taken any interest in before.Originally Posted by diotavelli
My view is if you want to attract a lot more players to play your game you given them something that they have been dying to get their hands on for over a decade.
Britian, France, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Poland, Russian, Bavaria, Saxony, Wurtemburg, Spain, Portugal, The Confederation of the Rhine, Naples, The Ottoman Empire, The Marmelukes, The Unites States, Mexico, Assam, Brazil, and the various Indian Sultanates.Originally Posted by diotavelli
I've ignored those counties which were under colonian rule although in theory they could become independant during the course of the game. I've also assumed that the game would limit the players strategic options to those which featured historically. Therefore, Eygpt, India and South America are included but China is not, although in theory Napoleon or Britian could have decided to involve China. Even so you have approximately 19 playable factions all of whom had armies and many had navies too.
I would agree with you if Total War offered a multi-player campaign option but it doesn't. So, in many respects it doesn't matter how many playable factions there are what matters is whether players want to play the game and the American War of Independance is a popular period particularly in America.Originally Posted by diotavelli
Whilst I wouldn't necessarily suggest launching a new Horse & Musketry period TW series with the American War of Independance the fact is that once the engine is in place its a pretty easy option to launch it as a further title in the series and know that it will sell well.
Likewise with the American Civil War.
As for the AI not being good enough, one would hope that it will get better. Remember these games are going to have to be quite a bit different in content and style that the 'hack and slash' system used in MTW2. We are talking serious diplomacy and economic's if games in this period are going to work. Even the battle engine would need a lot of enhancement as morale was far more important in this period as was unit formation and order of battle.
Which is why I see this as the more innovative and risker option, but with higher potential reward.
I think your wrong.Originally Posted by diotavelli
You are basing that view on your own perferences and assuming that everyone else who plays TW games plays them for the same reason you do.
The periods I quoted are immensely popular wargaming periods. The millions of people who wargame these periods worldwide don't consider them boring because there weren't enough factions involved. They play them because they are interested in that period of history and they would buy the game for the same reason.
For example: I will consider buying any game which features the Napoleonic period simply because it does and I periodically search to see if any new ones have been released. There are whole websites just dedicated to monitoring and evaluating Napoleonic Wargames.
By comparison I wouldn't give a game based on the Indies a second glance if I happened to see it on a computer shop shelf. The only reason I would buy it is because I know the Totalwar series, which is why I say its main market will be amongst existing TW players and market growth pretty limited.
Bookmarks