When the options are over...for CA

[pevergreen]

Options are endless.

Futurism Total War.

[joe4iz]

China is a huge market (there are many chinese clans in MP) and it will be even bigger in few years time. Since CA was never the enemy of profit I am sure sooner or later they will do a chinese TW.
Also they can always remake Shogun. ~:D Actually it would be sin not to remake it with the 3D campaign map and with all the new features they have. ... Perhaps adding Korea to the map. And if there is Korea there is China

I agree with this one and would like to see a China TW. There is a downside to the Chinese market in general. They lead the world in the sale and use of pirated software. I would not be sure how much CA would actually make off of the game in that marketplace.

[FactionHeir]

Can't play online with pirated software now, can you, lacking a proper CD-key?

[Ramses II CP]

That's certainly what Blizzard thought with Diablo II...

[Ulstan]

They could also do one about the rise of Napoleon (as an add-on).

The American Civil War would be popular in the US.

I think the ACW would do very poorly on the total war engine. The Napoleonic wars, if done well, could be superb. You'd have a much greater variety in unit types (Line infantry, light infantry, grenadiers, light and heavy cavalry, dragoons, lancers, artillery, etc) than in the ACW where basically all important battles involved two types of units: infantrymen armed with rifled muskets and artillery.

The formations in Napoleonic wars mattered as well: you had skirmishers, attack columns, lines, squares, etc. In ACW everyone was in lines all the time, until they realized that was a bad plan, and then they started digging fieldworks.

CA has plenty of options left: they could do a classical greece total war, and add in a good naval engine so that it isn't just a recycled Hellenic total war mod.

[Slug For A Butt]

Or if they fancied a different take on a war game, how about "Hippy Total War"? with "Flower Power Invasion"?
Unit of currency is the Lentil and the battle speed is ahem... lets just say slower.

[SirGrotius]

This reminds me of someone worrying whether or not musicians will run out of riffs. Don't worry, there is lots of ground to cover, and RTW2 would be immensely popular. CK is a good investment.

[joe4iz]

I saw a history channel special today about the Trojan War.

That would make a nice TW, taking place before the classic Greek Age. Several factions could come into play, not just Troy and the Greek city-states.

I agree that the ACW would be rather bland, but it still would be popular in the States.

Napoleonic Wars would be awesome though.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

ATW is too politically incorrect at this moment. It's like saying goodbye to a big chunk of the clientele so I doubt it.The problem with gunpowder that it's not very heroic not like phallanx or a legion or a warband where you need skill and training to be a skilled war machine: it's bunch of not so skilled blokes with guns shooting at each other till one side is dead with inaccurate weapons
probably peeing themselves doing it. It is not alike certain movie which i won't mention , Ok i will: THISH ISH SPARTAAH

[joe4iz]

The French and Indian War fought in North America would be a good one. They already have some of the Indian animations. The only problem would be that when infantry engaged , most of the time they used tomahawks or knives as few guns (except regulars) were fitted for bayonet.

Most of the combat was on foot due to the nature of terrain etc.

[Cadwallon]

Well, Empire Total War sort of covers the Napoleonic War genre - I think a reprise of the Shogun: Total War or possibly Total Civil War are more likely. You may also have extra players involved - with the introduction of a naval element, you could have a battle between the first ironclads, British/Canadian intervention - other elements are also possible. Invasion from Alaska by the Russian Empire? Native American uprisings, further secessions by other states, Mormon establishment of a breakaway Deseret, Texas declares independance, invasion of the south by the Empire of Mexico with French assistance...

My bet is Total Civil War. Basically, the last five thousand years have been exactly that - total war. Too many to choose from really.

[diotavelli]

Apologies to any Americans reading but I can't imagine an American Civil War-based TW game any time soon.

All the existing titles run for hundreds of years, with lots of factions and (supposedly) dramatic innovations in technology that give one side or another an advantage. The ACW lasted half a decade, with only two principal antagonists and limited technological improvements: I don't see how it fits the bill, at all.

More importantly, the ACW is of limited interest to most of the world. Outside of the US and a few hardcore wargamers elsewhere, few people are really interested in it. It was a parochial little affair that, whilst hugely significant to Americans, isn't considered by many other people to be important in the great scheme of things.

It's comparable to other national conflicts like the War of the Roses or Albigensian Crusade, rather than the epic, international wars like the Thirty Years' War or the Napoleonic Wars. Maybe it would merit a campaign in an expansion to a future game but certainly no more than that.

[joe4iz]

Apologies to any Americans reading but I can't imagine an American Civil War-based TW game any time soon.

I don't think you would offend anyone about their not being a ACW TW. I don't think there will not be one because that genre has been done quite a bit by other studios. In strategy games, I think it has bee overplayed much like the WW2 FPS games that seem to dominate the shelves.

Insofar as time frame is concerned: weeks, months or years would not matter as the end of the turn could be any one of those for any series.

[diotavelli]

I don't think you would offend anyone about their not being a ACW TW.

I thought I might offend people because of my comments about the limited significance of the ACW, not because I don't think it warrants a full TW title but I realise I probably didn't make that clear.

Insofar as time frame is concerned: weeks, months or years would not matter as the end of the turn could be any one of those for any series.

I think you're wrong on this. Yes, turns could be weeks or months, rather than years: that's not the issue. The issue is having a timeframe that allows meaningful technological advance and the ACW doen't fit the bill.

All the other TW titles have you start at one level of technological proficiency and gradually advance over time. This is essential to the game's appeal: do you blitz now or turtle until you have technological superiority? The ACW only lasted five years and the nature and quality of troops and weaponry available did not change significantly over this period: you could turtle for a few weeks or months but the quality of your forces would not change significantly.

As I said, it might merit a campaign but not a full title. The number of protagonists and opportunities for technological advance are comparable (at a scrape) to that in the Britannia or Crusades campaign but fall way, way, way short of that for the whole of M2TW or RTW.

[Benandorf]

Shogun: Total War didn't cover a huge period of time. Neither did Alexander ^_~

But while I agree that it is a bit short, there have been wars where signifigant tech advancements have occured in a short period of time. ACW had quite a bit of tech changing from '61 to '65.

On the other hand, I agree it would not fit the genre very well. They need to stay away from the more modern times where guns are the weapon of choice. Because guns made heavy infantry obsolete, and a TW game with just rangers and cav would not be that interesting.

Just my opinion, of course. Hopefully CA will prove me wrong with E:TW.

[Ulstan]

Apologies to any Americans reading but I can't imagine an American Civil War-based TW game any time soon.

All the existing titles run for hundreds of years, with lots of factions and (supposedly) dramatic innovations in technology that give one side or another an advantage. The ACW lasted half a decade, with only two principal antagonists and limited technological improvements: I don't see how it fits the bill, at all.

Hey, no apologies needed. I'm an American and I agree wholeheartedly.

the TW franchise is not well suited to modelling the American Civil War.

I think they run into issues trying to model the subjugation of the new world, and I don't think they could get any more 'modern' than that.

I'd rather they looked farther back into history for their next title.

[Cadwallon]

I disagree - I think Total Civil War (which I'm calling it) would have a very broad based appeal. I'm Australian, and in many respects movies and documentaries about the Civil War have a broad appeal here - and I know they do overseas. It was the first truly modern war, and did witness significant technological change throughout the war. Machine guns (gatling guns), were first used, trench based warfare, modern siege techniques, the first ironclad ships, armoured trains, combined with more traditional flanking action of cavalry and bayonet charges, use of skirmishers, sharpshooters etc. Even the slightest technological edge - such as repeating carbines gave you an advantage. The confederacy also began to put african americans into the battle, too late in the way - what would happen if they had done it earlier? the Turtledove alternative history books paint a picture on how things might have gone.

It combined the best (or worst - depending on your point of view) of modern and ancient warfare. You also had a range of uniforms, unit designations and veteran units vs green 'just raised' regiments. Units would not have a 'good/excellent' morale indicator in their unit card, but would build their morale and combat bonuses more than in the current incarnation of the game.

And they still used significant 'blocks' of troops that would be useable in a Total War engine context. You also have broad brush cultural issues at play, slavery, reliance on trade (so the sea trade has a significant affect on the Confederacy's ability to continue the war against a Northern blockade - hence the invention of the Merimac), expansion into the West, involvement by foreign powers etc. I think the strategic appeal of the Total War genre might have broader appeal than traditional games which are more focused on actual tactical combat.

[diotavelli]

It was the first truly modern war, and did witness significant technological change throughout the war. Machine guns (gatling guns), were first used, trench based warfare, modern siege techniques, the first ironclad ships, armoured trains, combined with more traditional flanking action of cavalry and bayonet charges, use of skirmishers, sharpshooters etc. Even the slightest technological edge - such as repeating carbines gave you an advantage. The confederacy also began to put african americans into the battle, too late in the way - what would happen if they had done it earlier? the Turtledove alternative history books paint a picture on how things might have gone.

It combined the best (or worst - depending on your point of view) of modern and ancient warfare. You also had a range of uniforms, unit designations and veteran units vs green 'just raised' regiments. Units would not have a 'good/excellent' morale indicator in their unit card, but would build their morale and combat bonuses more than in the current incarnation of the game.

And they still used significant 'blocks' of troops that would be useable in a Total War engine context. You also have broad brush cultural issues at play, slavery, reliance on trade (so the sea trade has a significant affect on the Confederacy's ability to continue the war against a Northern blockade - hence the invention of the Merimac), expansion into the West, involvement by foreign powers etc. I think the strategic appeal of the Total War genre might have broader appeal than traditional games which are more focused on actual tactical combat.

There are still only two genuine protagonists (having any others as playable factions would be going far further from the realms of historical accuracy than CA has ever done before).

The "significant technological change" you mention is highly debatable. Sure, there was innovation, but the same could be said of the Crimean War of the previous decade or the Franco-Prussian War of the next. That too had innovation: improved weaponry, improved treatment of the wounded, improvements in siege warfare and so on but nothing comparable with the change over the centuries of RTW or M2TW.

They also had only two or three main protagonists and lasted less than a decade - so, whilst they might merit a TW campaign, they wouldn't merit a full title. Just like the ACW.

The point about full TW titles is that, whilst a significant tech advantage accompanied by a couple of big battlefield victories or city/castle captures will effectively knock out another faction as a serious opponent, there are plenty of other factions to worry about thereafter. That's the point of the grand campaign, as opposed to expansion campaigns that are supposed to be far shorter.

An ACW TW title couldn't offer that. If, as either the Confederacy or the Union, you managed to get a tech advantage and win a few battles/provinces, it would be gameover. There might still be a few native tribes to subdue but no one can seriously suggest that, by the 1860s, they might have overwhelmed and defeated either the Confederacy or the Union. Similarly, the Brits or French might pop over for a quick raid but, again, the idea that they might have tried to conquer the territory between Canada and Mexico requires stretching the truth and the imagination beyond anything in previous TW titles.

The amount of noise that is generated when CA includes ahistorical units suggests they'd be unwise to introduce ahistorical factions.

Too few factions, too similar factions, too short a time period and too little technological advance - ACW:TW wouldn't have the depth required.

An idea does occur, though: as an expansion to E:TW, how about campaigns based on the Crimean War (1850s), the ACW (1860s), the Franco-Prussian War (1870s) and the Boer War (1890s)?

[Slug For A Butt]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There are still only two genuine protagonists (having any others as playable factions would be going far further from the realms of historical accuracy than CA has ever done before).

The "significant technological change" you mention is highly debatable. Sure, there was innovation, but the same could be said of the Crimean War of the previous decade or the Franco-Prussian War of the next. That too had innovation: improved weaponry, improved treatment of the wounded, improvements in siege warfare and so on but nothing comparable with the change over the centuries of RTW or M2TW.

They also had only two or three main protagonists and lasted less than a decade - so, whilst they might merit a TW campaign, they wouldn't merit a full title. Just like the ACW.

The point about full TW titles is that, whilst a significant tech advantage accompanied by a couple of big battlefield victories or city/castle captures will effectively knock out another faction as a serious opponent, there are plenty of other factions to worry about thereafter. That's the point of the grand campaign, as opposed to expansion campaigns that are supposed to be far shorter.

An ACW TW title couldn't offer that. If, as either the Confederacy or the Union, you managed to get a tech advantage and win a few battles/provinces, it would be gameover. There might still be a few native tribes to subdue but no one can seriously suggest that, by the 1860s, they might have overwhelmed and defeated either the Confederacy or the Union. Similarly, the Brits or French might pop over for a quick raid but, again, the idea that they might have tried to conquer the territory between Canada and Mexico requires stretching the truth and the imagination beyond anything in previous TW titles.

The amount of noise that is generated when CA includes ahistorical units suggests they'd be unwise to introduce ahistorical factions.

Too few factions, too similar factions, too short a time period and too little technological advance - ACW:TW wouldn't have the depth required.

An idea does occur, though: as an expansion to E:TW, how about campaigns based on the Crimean War (1850s), the ACW (1860s), the Franco-Prussian War (1870s) and the Boer War (1890s)?

I agree wholeheartedly diotavelli.
I also agree with your earlier post that it wouldn't generate enough interest outside the US to justify it being released as a standalone title. In just the same way that the Spanish Civil War, English Civil War or War Of The Roses wouldn't generate enough interest outside their national borders, so the Americ War would also fail to interest "outsiders".

[Robespierre]

It may be true that there are tons of interesting settings for TW games. i vote for the pike and musket era myself, from the outbreak of the 30 years war up until culloden, and focusing on the ENGLISH civil war, which grew to engulf all the "British" isles and Ireland, and saw a rapid advance in military organization and tech from (un)trained bands to a standing army in just a few years. plus it kept on coming back!

but what TW really needs to make it lots more gripping is to go thoroughly unabashedly multiplayer. no more massacres of AI whip-monkey formations. who's the daddy?

[IvarrWolfsong]

I would love to 16th-17th Century covered... warfare still had armored folks and also had guns... fortresses and huge armies... 3 musketeers and polish winged hussars, tilly and wallenstien..etc, etc (Cossaks flashback).

Dark Ages TW would be fun too. It would be sort of a BI/VI update.

[SpencerH]

I think the TW engine could be used to make a small unit (company or maybe bn) modern (ie WWII - now) combat game. With each tactical map unit being a tank or a MG or a squad for example. Most modern small unit combat is fought on virtually the same scale as M2TW.

[Gaius Terentius Varro]

Problem is that CA would find a lot of competiton in that period (ww2)something they are not used to.

[SpencerH]

There are strategic WWII games like HOI but AFAIK no tactical level 3D strategy game.

[GFX707]

Ireland total war. Admit it, it just has to be made. Hero units, vikings, normans, missile, short swords, chariots, head counting, paganism, christianity, tribal warfare vs dynastic warfare, painted warriors, naked warriors, fian díbeargaigh, cavalry, ritual warfare versus total warfare, units and individuals, fighting monks, fighting women (till the seventh century), there is no avoiding it.

Failing that, what about a cúchulainn total warrior?

You forgot to mention ginger pubes

[Zenicetus]

I don't think WWII works, for several reasons. There are problems with the scale of the 3D tactical battle map when you start adding long-range artillery, mechanized units like tanks, and aircraft. The battle areas would have to be huge, unless that stuff is just abstracted or miniaturized, like the way it's done in Company of Heroes. It wouldn't make sense to have a nice 3D naval combat engine like the one they're adding to Empire:TW without something similar for major air battles like the Battle of Britain, Midway, or the strategic bombing campaigns later in the war. It would be tough to extend CA's basic design of strategic map + small tactical battle map area to those scenarios involving air combat.

Another problem with WWII is that it doesn't fit the "lots of factions, and every faction out for itself" model that the previous TW games have been built on. If it followed history at all, you'd have essentially just two factions competing with each other -- the Allies and the Axis. It wouldn't have the feel of a classic, open-ended TW title, unless they have a scenario where every country is fighting every other one for conquest (basically, the same objection I'd have to an American Civil War TW game). If they did do that, then playing as America your first obvious goal would be to invade and conquer Canada, because it's close, resource-rich, and relatively undefended. Then you'd attack Mexico for the oil fields. It might be a fun sandbox game, but you couldn't call it a "WWII" game.

It might also be a little tricky to have important but distasteful (in modern times) options at the end of the tech tree, like fire-bombing of civilian cities and the atomic bomb. Maybe this is why most WWII strategy games focus on more restricted campaigns, like the Battle of the Bulge or D-Day.

So, just my opinion, but I think WWII is a non-starter as a TW title. CA should stick to earlier periods of conflict before big, worldwide strategic alliances developed. And preferably more melee and primitive missle combat instead of gun-based armies, but thats' just my personal bias.

[Slug For A Butt]

You forgot to mention ginger pubes

Yeah, the ginger pubes poking out beneath the lightly paqdded shirt like albino spider's legs would definitely put me off.

But seriously, I think that CA have to make games that appeal to a broad section of people, which is why AmericanCivil, English Civil, SpanishCivil etc just wont happen. If we ae looking at a potential future release, lets look at a time period and a land mass that enompasses numerous disparate peoples.

[Lamprey]

Considering the distinct military eras in human history, I'd be inclined to agree that yeah - they're getting close to exhausting the different eras TW games can be set in.

While the history of warfare was looong, it did not change much for very long stretches of time. A battle taking place between Egypt and Mesopotamia in 4,000BC would not be much different from a battle taking place between Egypt and Persia in 100AD. Some equipment differences, but similar tactics and unit types (infantry/cavalry) and they're still swinging swords & spears. In other words, nothing RTW hasnt covered yet or that could not be done in mods.

The early medieval era was modeled in Barbarian Invasion. Late medieval era is M2TW.

Shogun covers Asia, and that's really it. When Empire comes out and covers the early modern era, that takes care of gunpowder fighting and we all know the engine is not suited to massive army fights of WW1 or flexible small unit combat of WW2.

The ACW? It was a small war fought in a relatively remote location, not to mention for the wrong reasons since the constitution the southern states ratified after the revolutionary war stated that they could leave the union if they wished. Bottom line is, it wasn't important enough for a game and can/should be handled with a mod. The world's armies didn't bother learning from it and instead learned from Prussia's brilliant 19th century conflicts with Austria and France.

[Callahan9119]

they really need to go back to the drawing board and start streamlining the clunky campaign map interface and improve AI and the ability to micro manage on the battlefield

even the reviewers at all the gaming sites are saying this title is stale, and ca's total war games have been the critics darling forever

time to get creative

but like others have said, the only way they are limited with general plot ideas is by scope and scale

look at what they did for the britannia campaign, ireland has like over a dozen cities instead of one like in vanilla, and england is friggin huge

the conflicts in history that they could recreate in a game are pretty much endless

there had better be an asian campaign coming soon, i miss japan

or even a redo of rome with the new gameplay/graphics/animations would be fun, but do it like kingdoms with tons of different campaigns

[Bobo]

Do you think CA would invest in developing the sea battles just for E:TW? I think there will be at least another game with sea battles after that, not including any expansions.