total war 4

[seireikhaan]

Ok, I really don't mean to sound rude or anything guys, but READ THE QUESTION! Its not 'what will the next TW game be?' It's 'what do YOU think the next TW game SHOULD be?' I'm sorry for being so obnoxious about this, but really, is it so hard to answer the actual question?


Anyways, I personally think it ought to be Mongol: Total War. Factions could include the Mongols(obviously), India, Japan, Korea, three different Chinese Dynasties, Khwarzmians, the Caliphate at Baghdad, Russia, and the Turks. And I'm sure there's more factions which I'm not aware of which could be included. I don't think it ought to go any further west than the Turks or Russia, just for the sake of keeping the map to a semi-reasonable size. And most importantly of all: go back to the risk map!

[Samurai Waki]

Well "Star Forts" Really doesn't mean anything. Could Just mean that they got their information wrong again, and are just doing a Pike and Musket Age, or Colonial TW. Of course thats a broad enough area, to where Star Forts are feasible.

[King of Finland]

I would like to see a game about 30 years war. I don't know is it possible with the current TW engine but I have heard that the CA's English studio is working on a new one.

[Martok]

My top 2 choices for a Total War title remains either ancient China (especially the Spring & Autumn period) or a fantasy setting. I know many fans feel a fantasy game would be "heretical" since it wouldn't be set in real-life historical setting like the other TW games, but as others have pointed out before, it would have the distinct advantage of no one being able to complain about historical accuracy.

I would be very surprised if CA ever made a game set in the 20th century. The Total War series doesn't lend itself very well to modern battlefields. The games have always been more about men killing each other face-to-face, than shooting at each other from several hundred yards apart with bolt-action rifles & machine guns.

[Didz]

My top 2 choices for a Total War title remains either ancient China (especially the Spring & Autumn period) or a fantasy setting.

I don't have anything against fantasy games, in fact I play several. But the way I see it thats the problem. If CA begin making fantasy games they are entering a whole new market which quite frankly is already well served with people who know their stuff. In my opinion it would be a waste of CA's talent and there would be little to be gained by players in buying just another fantasy battle game.

I think its a case of horses for courses, CA should let Blizzard work the fantasy market and instead concentrate on area's where there are large numbers of unsatisfied players.

The modders are already working on fantasy expansions anyway, so I'd just leave to them to satisfy our desires for Orc and Skeleton armies.

Ok, I really don't mean to sound rude or anything guys, but READ THE QUESTION! Its not 'what will the next TW game be?' It's 'what do YOU think the next TW game SHOULD be?' I'm sorry for being so obnoxious about this, but really, is it so hard to answer the actual question?

Perhaps, your being a bit pedantic here....What most players think the next TW game SHOULD be, is often also what they hope it will be. Therefore, the two are closely linked in players minds and expectations.

I certainly think that the next TW SHOULD be Napoleon Totalwar, and I also think thats what it will be especially after the comments about the Star Forts.

It would tap a huge market of unsatsified Napoleonic Tabletop wargamers who currently have nothing worth playing other than the old hex based computer games published by HPS and a few flawed high level strategy games like Crown and Glory. It would boost interest in the TW series no end and bring in a lot of new players. Likewise HPS is an easier competitor to deal with than Blizzard, simply because Blizzard are innovative and well financed whilst HPS haven't come up with a new idea in over 10 years and are still producing clones of John Tiller's original Battlefield:Waterloo.

Going for Ancient China or Medieval:Indies would definately be a safer option, in so far as there is hardly any competition at all, but won't bring in a lot of new players. Those of us who already play TW games will obviously buy it, but personally I think TW needs to go for increased market share and that means trying to tap into one of the major wargaming era's. WW2, Ancient, and ACW are already heavily serviced, but Napoleonic which is the number 2 most played era worldwide is still open for grabs, with only a few hex-based games to compete against.

[diotavelli]

It would tap a huge market of unsatsified Napoleonic Tabletop wargamers who currently have nothing worth playing other than the old hex based computer games published by HPS and a few flawed high level strategy games like Crown and Glory.

It would also confront CA and Sega with the problem of servicing a large, disgruntled audience with very high expectations. Tabletop wargamers have a habit of considering themselves tactical geniuses with an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the finer points of strategy; Napoleon buffs are the worst of the lot. Think about the flak CA and Sega got for flaws in M2TW: do you reckon they'd now want to go cruising for a bruising in potentially the toughest market of all?

It would boost interest in the TW series no end and bring in a lot of new players....Going for Ancient China or Medieval:Indies would definately be a safer option, in so far as there is hardly any competition at all, but won't bring in a lot of new players. Those of us who already play TW games will obviously buy it, but personally I think TW needs to go for increased market share and that means trying to tap into one of the major wargaming era's. WW2, Ancient, and ACW are already heavily serviced, but Napoleonic which is the number 2 most played era worldwide is still open for grabs, with only a few hex-based games to compete against.

If any company in the world can break products that target new markets, surely it's Sega? That's why CA linked up with them in the first place. From Sega's point of view, they can either spend a fortune explaining why CA can get Napoleonic right when so many other people have got it wrong or they can tell the world that the Medieval era in the Indies was one of the most fascinating periods in history and that they can experience it.

TW definitely "needs to go for increased market share" but that can mean breaking the mould rather than just doing the predictable. Even if you can give a better experience in the Napoleonic era, you can't really give anyone something entirely new. The history is the same. The armies are the same. The victory conditions are the same. The units may be prettier and they may deploy more accurately (or not, if the AI doesn't improve!) but it'll still be another Napoleonic title.

In comparison to the Indies, pre-Renaissance Europe was an uncivilised backwater. The Chinese had mapped and colonised everywhere from Africa to Australia to North and South America before Henry the Navigator first floated a boat. The resources at the disposal of the Mughal emperors far outstripped anything the Byzantines, HRE, Seljuks or Ottomans ever imagined. Magellan circumnavigated the globe in a ship 35-40ft long: the tillers on Zheng He's treasure ships were 36ft high. The religious divergence and interaction in the area was far greater and more interesting than the Muslim/Christian clash.

Yet CA managed to make an interesting game about Medieval Europe! Think what they could with some really interesting history!

In addition to which, you shouldn't ignore the importance of the Asian market. Disney have just made their first Chinese language film. Why? Because 20% of the world's population live in China. The area covered by an Indies title would include countries whose population make up over half the global total.

If Sega want a game that would shift units, should they sell the Indies to 300million Americans and 466million EU residents or try to sell a short, balding Frenchman to 4 billion Asians?

[Didz]

It would also confront CA and Sega with the problem of servicing a large, disgruntled audience with very high expectations. Tabletop wargamers have a habit of considering themselves tactical geniuses with an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the finer points of strategy; Napoleon buffs are the worst of the lot.

True, they would have to get it right if they do it at all.

Doing it and getting it wrong would discredit the whole series.

In addition to which, you shouldn't ignore the importance of the Asian market. Disney have just made their first Chinese language film. Why? Because 20% of the world's population live in China. The area covered by an Indies title would include countries whose population make up over half the global total.

But most of those countries, China in particular, would never allow their people to play such a game. It would contain politically incorrect information, which they would not want their people to be exposed to. Thats why Google have to mod-their browser software for the asian market, governments out there will not let their people be exposed to uncontrolled historical information from the West.

[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!

[diotavelli]

But most of those countries, China in particular, would never allow their people to play such a game. It would contain politically incorrect information, which they would not want their people to be exposed to. Thats why Google have to mod-their browser software for the asian market, governments out there will not let their people be exposed to uncontrolled historical information from the West.

Um, I hope for your sake that there's no Indians reading this thread! The world's largest democracy, with a population of 1.1billion and a middle class the size of the total population of the US. And no censorship.

In addition to which, why do you think an Indies game would be "politically incorrect" to the Chinese authorities? To be accurate, it would have to reflect that China was the largest, most advanced country in the world throughout the medieval period. That, in comparison to China, the West was a provincial, barbarian backwater. Why would they object to that?

Google have to mod their software for China to prevent information getting through about China's recent history and current situation. There are no blocks on information regarding Chinese's ancient history - quite the opposite, in fact.

China discovered and colonised America at least 70 years before Columbus. They discovered and colonised Australia a couple of centuries before Captain Cook was born. Their tribute system under the Ming included countries from all over East Africa, the Middle East and Asia. They were the global superpower to an extent that makes current US hegemony seem puny.

But most of the world doesn't know this. And the Chinese authorities would very much like them to. They want China to take a leading role in the world's affairs and economy and are happy to use their history to justify their place at top table.

The Chinese would only object to "uncontrolled historical information from the West" if a TW:the Indies was inaccurate - if it was accurate, they'd probably help with its development costs!

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think the strategy TW-style wargames that have traditionally sold best have been based in times and areas of history which are the most interesting, not just to people living in the present area the game in set, but more generally.

Europe and the far east have always produced the best selling wargames. This is because they had the most diverse armies, the most unique cultures etc in these areas. For example, in Europe you have always had unique armies throughout the continents history. Top quality infantry (Romans, Byzantines), heavy cavalry (Parthians, English), horse archers (Sarmatians, Turks) etc etc. In the far east you have elite Japanese Samurai infantry, light Mongol horse archers, advanced Chinese armies with gunpowder etc.

But what do you have in other areas of the world that have not been used as base for top-selling wargames? The Native Americans with no horses and everyone armes with a stone axe and a bow and arrow? The Aztecs with clubs and darts? Africa where every tribal warrior uses a spear (except of course Mali, Ghana and the northern factions)? The Indies where I would guess the tropical climate means warfare is very much limited to light, unarmoured infantry? The only area I can think of that has not really been used to its full potential is India, which has fairly developed and interesting armies from before the Roman Era, and would include the battle between Islam and Hindiusm etc.

Maybe I am being the classic westerner thinking Europe is the centre of the Universe and that everywhere else in the world was historically an undeveloped backwater. I could be completely wrong about what I said in the paragraph above. Maybe I just have these beliefs because I am so used to playing western-based games. However, I think CA will always focus on the most diverse and interesting areas on history, or at least those that were diverse and interesting on the battlefied, and I don't think this would be the case with an Indies: Total War.

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What would sell well I think would be a Napoleon: Total War set in Europe, with a new campaing in the expansion that covered the American Civil War. Finally bring the TW series to the home nation of its huge US fanbase.

[diotavelli]

I think the strategy TW-style wargames that have traditionally sold best have been based in times and areas of history which are the most interesting, not just to people living in the present area the game in set, but more generally.

Agree with you completely.

In the far east you have elite Japanese Samurai infantry, light Mongol horse archers, advanced Chinese armies with gunpowder etc.

The Mongols (Mughals in India) and the Chinese were involved in the Indies in this period. Very extensively.

But what do you have in other areas of the world that have not been used as base for top-selling wargames? ......The Indies where I would guess the tropical climate means warfare is very much limited to light, unarmoured infantry? The only area I can think of that has not really been used to its full potential is India, which has fairly developed and interesting armies from before the Roman Era, and would include the battle between Islam and Hindiusm etc.

Your "guess" is wrong, I'm afraid. In the Medieval period, 'the Indies' (from the point of view of outsiders, both Asian and European) included everything from modern day Pakistan to New Guinea and from the borders of China to modern Australian territorial waters. India was part of the Indies and is, as you suggest, a suitable area for a TW-style strategy game. Along with Islam and Hinduism, you'd have to factor in Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and even (Nestorian) Christianity.

As for the warfare in the rest of the Indies, you're plain wrong. The Khmer, for instance, used war elephants and had a good mixture of heavy and light infantry, plus archers. The Burmese were powerful enough to drive out the Chinese under the Ming dynasty - and the Indians all recognsed China as being the supreme power in the area during the period.

Maybe I am being the classic westerner thinking Europe is the centre of the Universe and that everywhere else in the world was historically an undeveloped backwater.

This isn't a criticism but yes: you are "being the classic westerner". The Indies during this period was more advanced than Europe. In comparison, it was Europe that was the "undeveloped backwater": and not by a little. The Indies were far wealthier and far more sophisticated.

I could be completely wrong about what I said in the paragraph above. Maybe I just have these beliefs because I am so used to playing western-based games. However, I think CA will always focus on the most diverse and interesting areas on history, or at least those that were diverse and interesting on the battlefied, and I don't think this would be the case with an Indies: Total War.

I get the impression from what you've written that you don't know much about the Indies in this period (no criticism intended). The area was more "diverse and interesting" than Europe. There were more religions, more cultural and ethnic groups, greater wealth, more resources (spices, minerals, cotton, silk, porcelain and drugs) and a lot more people. The Indies were more advanced than Europe in the medieval period to the same extent that Europe was more advanced than the Indies in the early twentieth century.

Don't forget that it wasn't just a bunch of islands in the west Pacific. It included the Indian subcontinent. The Chinese were the dominant naval and trade power in the region throughout. Gunpowder weapons were introduced earlier. Warfare involved horses, elephants, camels and sophisticated bows.

An Indies: Total War, if vaguely accurate, would be far more "diverse and interesting" both in terms of history and "on the battlefield" than M2TW.

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.

Not sure where you got the idea I believe the Chinese government to "open minded"? Self-interested, yes - my comments suggested that - but "open minded", no. Bit of a daft comment, if you'll forgive me! I do happen to know that the Chinese government are very keen to improve knowledge of China's former achievements - sponsoring exhibitions, arranging academic study, seminars, conferences, etc.

Let's assume for a minute that you're correct. That still leaves India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Vietnam and Japan. Population of 2 billion or thereabouts. And it doesn't detract from my earlier points about the fact that the Indies remains historically and militarily very interesting and perfectly suited to the TW treatment.

What would sell well I think would be a Napoleon: Total War set in Europe

Best place for it, I say.

Doesn't get around the fact that the TW engine couldn't adequately represent the Continental System or Britain's naval dominance. Or that TW games are designed to last centuries, not twenty years (four and a bit years in the case of ACW).

[Lorenzo_H]

I suspect that the next TW game (it's TW5 iirc) - if it is to be historical - will be set in the Napoelonic era.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the next one may in fact be fantasy, though.

bummer.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry for my lack of knowledge of the Asian continent, but I thought that the Indies were just Indonesia, Malaysia etc. A TW game with India, China, Japan, the Khmer Empire etc would be very interesting. If anyone could help generate gamers interest in the area, it would be CA. Classic westerners like myself wouldn't want to buy a game if it was based on the areas I described in my rant...

[diotavelli]

A TW game with India, China, Japan, the Khmer Empire etc would be very interesting. If anyone could help generate gamers interest in the area, it would be CA. Classic westerners like myself wouldn't want to buy a game if it was based on the areas I described in my rant...

The best bit is that the natural expansion would be Indies TW: European Invasion. It follows on chronologically from both M2TW and Indies TW. You could play as the Mughals, Khmer or Marathi, resisting the infidel white invaders or you could play as the Portugese, Dutch or Spanish, bringing Christian enlightenment to the mysterious East (and nicking all the nutmeg you can lay your hands on while you're at it).

I do think that, if handled properly, the relative "newness" of the Indies would be a selling point for the game. Everyone has heard of the Khmer and the Mughals but don't necessarily know who they were, what they did and how they did it. Getting the chance to find out more and to play as the various factions would be genuinely interesting.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Congratulations, you've won me over to the idea of an Indies: Total War. Although, I still would like to see a Napoleon: Total War at some point, or at least one in the age of pikes and muskets.

[Odin]

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.

Probably not familiar at all, but to the americans that CA wants to sell the game too? Proably a great deal of them are knowledgable of the roman empire and have been exposed to it via RTW, certainly more wargames exsist in the west on the roman period, then do on the asian.

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.

Yes, the brand should sell the title okay, but I'd wager a pint that MTW (1 or 2) sold better then RTW, or shogun for that matter. Being familiar with the geography, and the historical content of the game is a seller.

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.

Okay, I'll give you that one.

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 point on the chinese market pretty much sums up a good response to this, I do recall when I was a fan of paradox games, they couldnt sell thier HOI titles in china because of the representation of singapore I believe?

[rvg]

Personally, I would love to see a new Shogun as the next TW game. As far as Napoleon goes, nah, too many guns. Too many guns will ruin the feel of a TW game.

[z@rds]

I hope they do one about ancient china preferably during the Warring States Period where there were lots of fighting.

[JeromeGrasdyke]

Yes, the brand should sell the title okay, but I'd wager a pint that MTW (1 or 2) sold better then RTW, or shogun for that matter. Being familiar with the geography, and the historical content of the game is a seller.

You'd be out of a pint ;)

[diotavelli]

You'd be out of a pint ;)

Everyone off to Boston - Odin's buying!

Hmm, if I catch a flight from Heathrow I can get there by 6ish.... Shall we say Bukowski's Tavern at about 8?

[Caerfanan]

Well, this is not the first thread about the subject, but I would, on the same base as roleplaying games go, be a fan of a battle engine (maybe some naval battle engine in addition?)+ a campaign engine ("generic IA for developping economics and troop building?") + Scenarios (map + history background + Set of units)

This is probably something difficult to make work, but would be, by far, the best: the greek fans could have their "uniting grece" scenario, the Napoleon fan their "european emperor" scenario, thos into whatever exotic countriy (from their point of view) could have their "ooo not at home warring" scenario, etc, etc,...

[Didz]

The way I see it, CA either use Sega's resources to go for growth or they continue to try and milk as much cash as they can out of their current game engine.

If they choose the latter course then diotavelli's Indies idea is probably the way to go as its basically MTW2 with new units and maps. And we will all buy it because we're TW fans.

But if they want to go for growth then they need to invest in expansion of their game engine to cope with more complex naval warfare and a more detailed diplomatic and economic model.

that will enable them to produce games based on the more popular era's of history like The American War of Independance, Napoleonic's and American Civil War. Thats where the big money is waiting and where current market competition is weakest.

If they try going for fantasy, they will basically 'crash and burn' those markets are saturated with companies that have been doing fantasy for years and have the whole process sewn up tight. There is nothing that CA could bring to the fantasy market that hasn't already been done by someone else and so they would lose their market differentiation and become just another box on the shelf.

[Subedei]

My guess would be RTW II, too.

As partly already mentioned: the time frame could be expanded [Rise of Assyrian Empire to the Fall of rome], the oncentration on Rome could be lowered [so maybe call it "Antique Total War"], it could integrate all of Eurasia [Japan to Portugal, Siberia to Gobi/ Sahara]....and last but not least: most of us should start saving money for a new computer.

[diotavelli]

The way I see it, CA either use Sega's resources to go for growth or they continue to try and milk as much cash as they can out of their current game engine.

I would suspect that Sega will expect them to do both - hence having two studios and nothing to stop them expanding further. Somebody in CA will be working on a new engine already, I'm sure: how many people and to what deadline is another question. In the meantime, they have an engine that's arguably state of the art (by a lot of measures anyway) and Sega will expect them to get the fullest possible return from it.

If they choose the latter course then diotavelli's Indies idea is probably the way to go as its basically MTW2 with new units and maps. And we will all buy it because we're TW fans.

But if they want to go for growth then they need to invest in expansion of their game engine to cope with more complex naval warfare and a more detailed diplomatic and economic model.

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Medieval Europe worked well with the earlier engine and the current one. Any improvement to the engine would work well for Europe or Asia, medieval or ancient. Given that much of the most important territory in the Indies is islands, "more complex naval warfare" would work excellently in Indies:TW; similarly, trade in the Indies was far more extensive and sophisticated than in Europe in this period, so "a more detailed diplomatic and economic model" would be good too.

that will enable them to produce games based on the more popular era's of history like The American War of Independance, Napoleonic's and American Civil War. Thats where the big money is waiting and where current market competition is weakest.

The problem with the examples you give is the potential depth of the game. In Napoleonic Europe, there weren't too many genuine powers: not as many as in the Roman or Medieval era, certainly. In the American eras you mention, you can cut it right down. War of Independence: Britain, rebels, Indians (a bit) and France (a very little bit). Civil War: North, South and no one else (not really). Not exactly "Total" war, is it?

TW's AI will never be able to defeat a player on a 1 v. 1 basis with factions of comparable strength; it can never be smart enough. It manages to present what challenge it does due to having multiple factions who are more powerful combined than the player (to begin with, at least).

I think TW titles need plenty of factions to retain interest. Napoleonic might cut the mustard but WoI and ACW simply don't. Correct me if I'm wrong!

I agree with you about fantasy, though, Didz.