total war 4

[diotavelli]

I do think the Napoleonic setting is a strong contender if the engine can cope with the change of bias from melee to gunpowder.

There are other issues of greater significance than just the move from melee to gunpowder and I feel these make a Napoleonic setting unfeasible without a completely new engine.

Central to Napoleonic history is the role of Britain and Napoleon's Continental System. Wellington's armies were largely a distraction in Iberia but the British navy and British industrial/commercial power were crucial. A Napoleon: TW that ignored Britain or relegated its role would work but wouldn't make sense; for a considerable period of Napoleonic history, Britain was the only European power standing against Napoleon.

The current engine might be able to handle the Continental System but I very much doubt it. Having French diplomats chasing British diplomats around Europe to prevent the Brits being able to get trade rights with anyone would be an OK feature of the game but, to be historically accurate, it would have to be central to Naploeon:TW (which would be dull) and far more complicated than now (which the current engine doesn't support).

Then there's the naval element. The current engine can't do naval battles. That means you'd have to decide the Battle of Trafalgar by auto-calc. The potential success of the Continental System or otherwise would likewise be something you could only affect by building as many ships as you could and then crossing your fingers: not very satisfying at all.

My personal preference would be for TW: the Indies. Including the Indian subcontinent, modern Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Burma and Vietnam, you'd have a wealth of territory, cultures, resources and religions.

Starting late-Mongol era, you'd have the opportunity to fight to establish your dynasty as the pre-eminent power in the region. You'd want to get trade links where possible but also gain converts to Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam, as appropriate. Control of India's cotton and minerals or the trade of the Spice Islands could make or break your economy. And the warfare would be constant, with gunpowder having been introduced from China by early 15th century. For an expansion, how about the arrival of the Portugese, Spanish, Dutch and British? Or a mini-campaign based around Chinese dominance in the early Ming period?

The market is definitely there: why would Westerners buy a title based on medieval Japan but not medieval Indies? And the fact that Asia makes up 60% of the world's population might persuade CA and Sega that this would be a good market for them.....

[Daaraa]

My personal preference would be for TW: the Indies. Including the Indian subcontinent, modern Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Burma and Vietnam, you'd have a wealth of territory, cultures, resources and religions.

Starting late-Mongol era, you'd have the opportunity to fight to establish your dynasty as the pre-eminent power in the region. You'd want to get trade links where possible but also gain converts to Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam, as appropriate. Control of India's cotton and minerals or the trade of the Spice Islands could make or break your economy. And the warfare would be constant, with gunpowder having been introduced from China by early 15th century. For an expansion, how about the arrival of the Portugese, Spanish, Dutch and British? Or a mini-campaign based around Chinese dominance in the early Ming period?

The market is definitely there: why would Westerners buy a title based on medieval Japan but not medieval Indies? And the fact that Asia makes up 60% of the world's population might persuade CA and Sega that this would be a good market for them.....

I'd go for that too. It would be interesting to see if you could revive the dying Khmer empire or make the Thai the dominate force in the area pushing out the Khmer and Vietnamese empires.

I'd be more inclined to purchase a TW title about Medieval Asia than a Napoleonic TW.

[Odin]

The market is definitely there: why would Westerners buy a title based on medieval Japan but not medieval Indies? And the fact that Asia makes up 60% of the world's population might persuade CA and Sega that this would be a good market for them.....

The market is there? I'm sorry but I dont believe it. I dont have numbers to back me up, but my instinct tells me that the "medieval indies" for game scope might not be a great seller.

The TW series arent nitch games, I concede Shogun lends credence to your presentation, but in all candeor the big sellers in PC military/strat games have always been Western Medieval, Roman, WWII, and american civil war.

the % of titles that fall into those categories speak to the viability of my claim.

[Psiloi]

I agree with diotabelli about the next TW, must be asian. But i think that his proposal can be expanded: Asian Total War. The time: 1150-1650 that is between the rise of the mongols and the arrivals of all the europeans with colonies there (Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, England and France), South Asia, plus East Asia (Japan of STW is about that age), plus the empires of the steppes and western Asia (until where?, all Balkans or Taurus mountains). Could be cutted around the Hindukush, exclude western Asia (with the western muslim empires appearing like the mongols...) and centered only around the eastern side. The map not a square but a circle. The time could be changed to 1350-1800.

[Didz]

The market is there? I'm sorry but I dont believe it. I dont have numbers to back me up, but my instinct tells me that the "medieval indies" for game scope might not be a great seller.

I agree.

STW got of to a good start mainly becuase people were inspired by the Samurai concept, and then built up from that initial beginning as news spread of how unique the gameplay was.

An Indies game wouldn't have either of those benefits. I suspect we TW'ers will buy it, but I doubt it would win many new converts.

The TW series arent nitch games, I concede Shogun lends credence to your presentation, but in all candeor the big sellers in PC military/strat games have always been Western Medieval, Roman, WWII, and american civil war.

Thats perfectly true, and is why I think the real market winner would be Napoleon Totalwar.

In wargaming the big four periods are WW2, ACW, Ancient and Napoleonic. Of these the only one which does not have a major presence in the PC gaiming market is Napoleonic, and yet it comes second in the pole of popularity.

A lot of companies have tried and failed to produce a good Napoleonic game but many have managed to crack part of the equation.

Diotavelli's, points are well made and care would definately have to be taken over the strengths and weaknesses of the various factions. The good news is that some games have already cracked that part of the problem. Crown and Glory for example, has a pretty good model for the ecomonic and diplomatic standing of the main factions which is largely driven by trade and the distribution of resources. If handled correctly Britain is cash rich but resource poor forcing it to concentrate on trade and winning friends through subsidies. France on the other hand is manpower heavy but short of money, at least at the start, and has to annex land in order to acquire the resourses it needs. That aspect of C&G works well, where it fails is on the campaign movement and logistic's side which ruins the credibility of the game. It also has an overbearing national morale system that denies the player control of his faction, bit like rebelling armies but on a national scale.

Naval battles could be a problem. But having said that nobody gets stressed about the inability to refight Lepanto, so why should Trafalgar be such a big deal.

[UltraWar]

The 4th Total War was Medieval Total War 2!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, but as he said earlier he meant the fourth era, as Medieval appears twice. A TW game set in the Indies would never sell well. The series will always be European and sometimes maybe Chinese/Japanese based. I still hope for a Three Kingdoms: Total War. Even if there is a fantasy element to it.

[diotavelli]

The market is there? I'm sorry but I dont believe it. I dont have numbers to back me up, but my instinct tells me that the "medieval indies" for game scope might not be a great seller.

The TW series arent nitch games, I concede Shogun lends credence to your presentation, but in all candeor the big sellers in PC military/strat games have always been Western Medieval, Roman, WWII, and american civil war.

the % of titles that fall into those categories speak to the viability of my claim.

Just to back-up the points made in my last post, I think this may be a mis-analysis of the way the global market is shaped nowadays. We in the West (you're in MA, USA, right?) are going to see some of our verities challenged in the next decade or so.

In the West, we know Western history, obviously. That's why we buy games based on Western history. Up until recently, Westerners made up the majority of game purchasers. As a result, games have tended to be tailored to their tastes. That will change.

I do have the numbers to back me up. The combined middle classes of India and China make up a larger population than that of the US - by over 33%. They can afford computer games. They'll buy games about Gettysburg and Cannae but how much more responsive would they be to games covering their own history?

And that's just for now. The middle classes in Asia are growing far faster than the total populations of those countries (i.e., more people are becoming affluent as a proportion of the total). And Asian countries are growing far faster than those in the West. We're about to become a minority section of the market.

The future "big sellers in PC military/strat games" may not look much like the current and past ones. What is considered niche will change considerably. The American Civil War was an internal dispute lasting 4-5 years and involving only two sides - how much resonance does that have to 1.1billion Indonesians? The Hundred Years War? Armies how small? Involving whom? And the average Vietnamese cares because? That's niche.

I could be wrong: an Indies TW title might not sell - but only for now. Long-term, stuff about Asia will outsell stuff about Europe by such an enormous margin it'll seem impolite to discuss the two at the same time!

[Odin]

Just to back-up the points made in my last post, I think this may be a mis-analysis of the way the global market is shaped nowadays. We in the West (you're in MA, USA, right?) are going to see some of our verities challenged in the next decade or so.

In the West, we know Western history, obviously. That's why we buy games based on Western history. Up until recently, Westerners made up the majority of game purchasers. As a result, games have tended to be tailored to their tastes. That will change.

I do have the numbers to back me up. The combined middle classes of India and China make up a larger population than that of the US - by over 33%. They can afford computer games. They'll buy games about Gettysburg and Cannae but how much more responsive would they be to games covering their own history?

And that's just for now. The middle classes in Asia are growing far faster than the total populations of those countries (i.e., more people are becoming affluent as a proportion of the total). And Asian countries are growing far faster than those in the West. We're about to become a minority section of the market.

The future "big sellers in PC military/strat games" may not look much like the current and past ones. What is considered niche will change considerably. The American Civil War was an internal dispute lasting 4-5 years and involving only two sides - how much resonance does that have to 1.1billion Indonesians? The Hundred Years War? Armies how small? Involving whom? And the average Vietnamese cares because? That's niche.

I could be wrong: an Indies TW title might not sell - but only for now. Long-term, stuff about Asia will outsell stuff about Europe by such an enormous margin it'll seem impolite to discuss the two at the same time!

Yes, but thats a bit macro in its application isnt it? I agree completely if we are talking about a global consumption issue, but this is wargame. So you have numbers to back up an increasing middle class in eastern nations with disposable income.

Thats cool, I wont dispute that, but do they buy wargames? I think the answer is no, but I will defer to any statistical evidence you provide to the contrary.

You make a good argument for the middle classes and asia and thier emergence as an economic force, but you dont directly corelate it to the topic, total war 4 and sales. They may be the largest increase in disoposable income, but simply placing the game on shop shelves dosent sell it.

The consumer base for PC games is still the US, europe and japan, thats where major sales occur (at least the last time I looked at sony sales), not china or india. Will that change in 10 years? Probably, but the laws of supply and demand always dictate for profit companies product lines.

And as of right now, I dont see a demand for an indies total war.

[diotavelli]

Yes, but thats a bit macro in its application isnt it? I agree completely if we are talking about a global consumption issue, but this is wargame. So you have numbers to back up an increasing middle class in eastern nations with disposable income.

Thats cool, I wont dispute that, but do they buy wargames? I think the answer is no, but I will defer to any statistical evidence you provide to the contrary.

You make a good argument for the middle classes and asia and thier emergence as an economic force, but you dont directly corelate it to the topic, total war 4 and sales. They may be the largest increase in disoposable income, but simply placing the game on shop shelves dosent sell it.

The consumer base for PC games is still the US, europe and japan, thats where major sales occur (at least the last time I looked at sony sales), not china or india. Will that change in 10 years? Probably, but the laws of supply and demand always dictate for profit companies product lines.

OK, this is getting into the realms of nerdism on my part but:

The US video game market in 2005 was worth $8.4billion and is expected to grow by 8.9% to $13billion in 2010.

The Asia Pacific market in 2005 was worth $9.8billion and is expected to grow by 12.3% to $17.4billion in 2010.

Figures from Pricewaterhouse Coopers, June 2006.

The consumer base for PC games is not "still the US, europe and japan, thats where major sales occur". More product is sold in the Asia Pacific market (precisely that which would identify most closely to a TW: the Indies) than in the US.

According to Pearl Research (who specialise in the games industry), the Chinese market took off in 2001 and the Indian market a couple of years later. They are growing fast, as are smaller markets, such as Taiwan and Korea.

And as of right now, I dont see a demand for an indies total war.

I don't understand this. You accept that the Japanese and other Asians will buy titles about European and American history but don't think Europeans and Americans will buy titles about Asian history? Are Asians more open-minded than Westerners?

Isn't it more likely that the best games have been about European and American history? If CA produce a fantastic TW: the Indies, Sega will have no problem marketing it. "The mystery of the Orient." "Can you conquer the East?" And so on. If they can sell Rome to Asia, why can't they sell the Spice Islands to North America?

[Odin]

OK, this is getting into the realms of nerdism on my part but:

The US video game market in 2005 was worth $8.4billion and is expected to grow by 8.9% to $13billion in 2010.

The Asia Pacific market in 2005 was worth $9.8billion and is expected to grow by 12.3% to $17.4billion in 2010.

Figures from Pricewaterhouse Coopers, June 2006.

The consumer base for PC games is not "still the US, europe and japan, thats where major sales occur". More product is sold in the Asia Pacific market (precisely that which would identify most closely to a TW: the Indies) than in the US.

According to Pearl Research (who specialise in the games industry), the Chinese market took off in 2001 and the Indian market a couple of years later. They are growing fast, as are smaller markets, such as Taiwan and Korea.

Okay, I cant dispute the numbers and wont.

I don't understand this. You accept that the Japanese and other Asians will buy titles about European and American history but don't think Europeans and Americans will buy titles about Asian history? Are Asians more open-minded than Westerners?

Is that rhetorical?

Isn't it more likely that the best games have been about European and American history?

Okay, your begining to sway me to your point of view.

If CA produce a fantastic TW: the Indies, Sega will have no problem marketing it. "The mystery of the Orient." "Can you conquer the East?" And so on. If they can sell Rome to Asia, why can't they sell the Spice Islands to North America?

Well thats just it, North America isnt fluent in the orient, some of us are but if you picked 100 people who would purchase this game and asked them about the medieval period of asia what do you think the response would be?

30% is my guess, there are a few clever ones like my self who can tell you Kamakazi is the devine wind that sunk the mongol invasion fleet, but past the mongols and the warring states period of Japan asian history isnt really mainstream.

But your numbers are there, so perhaps your right. However I havent seen many other geographical military games around asia in the US, other then Romance of the three kingdoms, and WWII sims.

So if your numbers bare out your theory, where are the games ?

[diotavelli]

Is that rhetorical?

Yes, I can assure you it was!

Well thats just it, North America isnt fluent in the orient, some of us are but if you picked 100 people who would purchase this game and asked them about the medieval period of asia what do you think the response would be?

30% is my guess, there are a few clever ones like my self who can tell you Kamakazi is the devine wind that sunk the mongol invasion fleet, but past the mongols and the warring states period of Japan asian history isnt really mainstream.

I take your point but how familiar would the average North American be with the Roman world? They'd probably know emperors, centurions, straight roads and throwing Christians to lions were involved but I doubt much more than that. That's not a dig at Americans - the British aren't much better and we had the Romans here for nearly four centuries. Yet Rome sells.

For hardcore gamers, not knowing the history might be an initial stumbling block but CA/Sega should be able to overcome that with the quality of the gaming experience and the TW brand.

For the casual gamer, it's just a question of pitching it correctly. A few references to Marco Polo, Kublai Khan, mysteries of the Orient, the Taj Mahal, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and the Buddha should be enough to get some interest. Then you tell 'em they get to fight enormous, realistic battles. If they can be persuaded to buy into an unreal fantasy world, why not an unreal real world? Especially one they didn't know existed. If that doesn't work, use the special weapon: mention kung fu warrior monks. Game sold.

But your numbers are there, so perhaps your right. However I havent seen many other geographical military games around asia in the US, other then Romance of the three kingdoms, and WWII sims.

So if your numbers bare out your theory, where are the games ?

That's an interesting question. A few companies (including the likes of EA) have set up Far Eastern studios, in Singapore, Taiwan and the like. No one spotted the Chinese market, so that's dominated by homegrown players (the CEO of one of these is about to become a $ billionnaire, apparently). I guess, rather like the film industry, it will take a few years from the beginnings of East-West PC industry links before there's a true crossover PC game. A developer would have to be sure an Asian-themed game was a winner before taking the risk of pitching it in the West but I think CA could make it with TW.

[Didz]

So if your numbers bare out your theory, where are the games ?

And equally important what is their subject matter. Because despite your apparent faith in the open minded attitude of the Chinese Government I would be very surprised to hear that they are allowing their people to play games based upon China's Imperialist past.

It wasn't more than a few years ago that they massacred 2,000 of their own students just for requesting a move to towards democracy. They certainly objected most strongly to Hearts of Iron, merely because it mentioned certain countries they didn't want their people reminded had existed.

I will be very surprised to find that any Chinese Strategy games are based upon pre-communist chinese history, until that history has been very heavily massaged to meet government approval.