Next Total War Game Discussion

[Philippe De Hausser]

actually if CA wants to do a better game than Rome 2 they need to start the game ca 300 bc. Rome woul have to conquer the neighbouring cities (Etruscan Samnites...), in the East you will have the Diadochos no big empire as in Rome tw. CA must respect History and includes a big lot of Greek cities in the West, in Sicily, Greece and Minor Asia. they must separate Athens from Sparta. this period (300 to 100 or 50 bc) would be the most entertaining and challenging period possible.

I actually would rather have a Classical Greece game. It would include the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, the rise of the Spartan, Athenian, Theban, and Macedonian Empires, and the clashes between them and the other city states. But then you could always add on a Hellenistic Greece expansion.

[Philippe De Hausser]

actually if CA wants to do a better game than Rome 2 they need to start the game ca 300 bc.

I actually think that the best would be a Classical Greece game which would include the Peloponnesian and Persian Wars, the Rise of the Spartan, Athenian, and Theban, empires and the wars between them and the other city states. You could make a separate expansion for Hellenistic Greece/Rome's Rise. I don't think you can beat Classical and Hellenistic Greece.

[Tiger Taiko]

I vote for Ancient China Total War (+- 300 B.C.).

[Sashimig]

I vote for Ancient China Total War (+- 300 B.C.).

are there enough historical material to do a game?

[King William the Conqueror]

probably.

[zbeck008]

So it goes without saying that I'm a huge fan of Rome and think it was their best game ever. What I don't get is all of the interest on this forum from a "Victorian" total war. What I'm interested in is WHY... what is it that Victorian era would give to the game play that people are wanting....honestly it sounds boring to me. I believe that CA is at their best when presenting ancient history. They hit guns and I start looking for something else to play. There are so many other companies that do firepower or first person shooting games that CA should remain in their own niche with swords and shields....but just my humble armchair general opinion. :-)

[-=PHX=-Hades]

So it goes without saying that I'm a huge fan of Rome and think it was their best game ever. What I don't get is all of the interest on this forum from a "Victorian" total war. What I'm interested in is WHY... what is it that Victorian era would give to the game play that people are wanting....honestly it sounds boring to me. I believe that CA is at their best when presenting ancient history. They hit guns and I start looking for something else to play. There are so many other companies that do firepower or first person shooting games that CA should remain in their own niche with swords and shields....but just my humble armchair general opinion. :-)

If they do Victorian they are going to have the same problem they've had with Empire and Shogun 2 and that's lasting appeal. I love Shogun 2, but I get sick of it after a week because all the factions are all the same, save for a few tiny differences. And even with the size and scope of Empire it was basically the same units for every faction and it's going to be like that if they do Victoria too. The great thing about Rome is each faction had mostly its own unique set of units, so you get a different experience with each faction. Medieval 2 had this too, just not to the same extent.

Don't get me wrong, I would definitely like to see what CA could do with the Franco-Prussian War and the American Civil War, but Rome 2 is clearly the best choice here and considering it has over 400 votes and Victoria only has 58 obviously most of you agree and I'm almost certain CA does too. They just wanted to improve on the basis elements of the game with Shogun 2 like the AI and the campaign map and such, but I'm sure they're itching to make Rome 2 as much as we're itching to play it.

[TheSutekh]

Ancient Greece with Illyrian, Macedonian and Greek city states would be my best choice. It's not exactly touched by TW before and there is too much potential in it to ignore.

[Sashimig]

I agree Shogun 2 was a great game but I got bored very fast. empire could have suffered from the same things but we had 3 continents to conquer and the brand new naval battles. tw games with guns are overdone now and antiquity was just done once.
If we keep tabs:
- Antiquity 1 game 2 expansions
- feudal times 4 games 4 expansions
- modern times 2 games 3 expansions

to restore theed balance we need one antiquity game then one modern + expansions every time

[-=PHX=-Hades]

Ancient Greece with Illyrian, Macedonian and Greek city states would be my best choice. It's not exactly touched by TW before and there is too much potential in it to ignore.

I like this idea, but as an expansion to Rome 2, not a whole game. They are close enough in time-period that there is no reason you can't do one without the other.

[TheSutekh]

I like this idea, but as an expansion to Rome 2, not a whole game. They are close enough in time-period that there is no reason you can't do one without the other.

They're actually entirely different eras with different dynamics. Putting them in the same game wouldn't do justice to either one.

[-=PHX=-Hades]

They're actually entirely different eras with different dynamics. Putting them in the same game wouldn't do justice to either one.

Well they did a pretty damn good job of it in Rome and Rome Alexander.

[TheSutekh]

Well they did a pretty damn good job of it in Rome and Rome Alexander.

It's not really possible for them to do a pretty damn good job because they never worked on the city state structure. Roman conquest were pretty much the end date of the Greek era and the Alexander's adventures were rather superficial. TW pretty much never touched the real Ancient Greek history.

[JonSnowIsBadAss]

ancient Greece and Rome are worlds apart. if any period of history deserves a full in depth total war game it is ancient Greece. Ancient Greece consisted of several hundred more or less independent city-states, that had relatively small scale set piece decisive battles. These city states then had to form alliances to fight the huge armies of the first Persian empire, and this led to the rise of Athens and Sparta and the Peloponnesian War.

Sounds like a perfect setting for the next total war game to me, i just hope the game engine is closer to medieval2 than empire. i havnt played any new total war after empire, the Mods for medieval2 (Westeros total war to be specific) look to be far more enjoyable than playing these future pre-released bug filled must have steam disappointments.

[Uga the Caveman]

Rome II Total war! Viking Total War!! Prehistoric Total war!!! Someone those.

[muy]

my 5 cents.

with fots they have been testing out better naval combat with more modern ships (no rotating turrets yet)

logically, next would be (? dlc for fots ?) the 1904-1905 conflict between imperial japan and imperial rusia, going in era from late fots to pre ww 1 and introducing naval ships with turrets, going further on things like rail roads, regimental combat, naval bombardments opening the way to ww1.

next full game would be ww1 era introducing airplanes and tanks in late technology tree. how will airplanes be used in next era tw ? my guess is as a sort of naval units, stationed on an airfield resource, with a 'bombardment' range and an "areal intercept" range. although that might be too specialized for ww1 and might need to wait till ww2,

Total War : world at War

[muy]

I agree Shogun 2 was a great game but I got bored very fast. empire could have suffered from the same things but we had 3 continents to conquer and the brand new naval battles. tw games with guns are overdone now and antiquity was just done once.
If we keep tabs:
- Antiquity 1 game 2 expansions
- feudal times 4 games 4 expansions
- modern times 2 games 3 expansions

to restore the balance we need one antiquity game then one modern + expansions every time

so far i would say antiquity 1 (r-tw) / feudal 4 (m-tw1, s-tw1, m-tw2, s-tw2)/ despotic age 3 (e-tw, n-tw, fots-tw)/ modern era 0.

imho, next a fots expansion that covers the kolonial era of japan from after the boshin war till before the first world war (maybe even include ww1, it doesn't mather in the east, japan only took some german kolonies, during ww1, pleasing their english allies who were supplying them with state of the art warships and being oportunistic with taking land from someone who was to occupied elsewhere to react, lol).

next full game ... prelude to ww1 and ww1 itself.

world at war -total war

[Rorarii]

my 5 cents.

.....

next full game would be ww1 era introducing airplanes and tanks in late technology tree. how will airplanes be used in next era tw ? my guess is as a sort of naval units, stationed on an airfield resource, with a 'bombardment' range and an "areal intercept" range. although that might be too specialized for ww1 and might need to wait till ww2,

Total War : world at War

yeah, my thoughts too.

Aircraft as "bombardments" (if not intercepted by enemy aircraft) and more importantly - aircraft as long range scouts on the strat map.

People say trench warfare won't work .. WHY??? what do players do once a battle starts - look for defensive postions for their troops - stone walls etc etc What's the differenct between a trench and a stone wall ??? To those who say boring battles!? .. I say C-R-U-P!

Tactical options
(1) where to put barbed wire ?
(2) where to put machine guns ?
(3) do we call in bombardments / gas attacks / aircraft attack ?
(4) snipers
(5) when to blow the whistle for 'everyone over the top!'
etc etc

Unit variety
(1) basic riflemen
(2) heavy infantry - machine guns, wire, mortars etc
(3) cavalry
(4) elite infantry - storm troopers - (FLAME THROWERS!!!)
(5) tanks
(6) artillery
(7) airships - spotter baloons
(8) miners - tha'r be a deep 'ole tha'r be!
(9) medical units

This doesn't sound boring to me!

REG!!

[Lуra]

yeah, my thoughts too.

Aircraft as "bombardments" (if not intercepted by enemy aircraft) and more importantly - aircraft as long range scouts on the strat map.

People say trench warfare won't work .. WHY??? what do players do once a battle starts - look for defensive postions for their troops - stone walls etc etc What's the differenct between a trench and a stone wall ??? To those who say boring battles!? .. I say C-R-U-P!

Tactical options
(1) where to put barbed wire ?
(2) where to put machine guns ?
(3) do we call in bombardments / gas attacks / aircraft attack ?
(4) snipers
(5) when to blow the whistle for 'everyone over the top!'
etc etc

Unit variety
(1) basic riflemen
(2) heavy infantry - machine guns, wire, mortars etc
(3) cavalry
(4) elite infantry - storm troopers - (FLAME THROWERS!!!)
(5) tanks
(6) artillery
(7) airships - spotter baloons
(8) miners - tha'r be a deep 'ole tha'r be!
(9) medical units

This doesn't sound boring to me!

REG!!

You got Men of War for that.

~Lyra

[Arcani 4 Ever]

After playing Fall of the Samurai, im sure the next game is going to be Industrial = Total War with a probable expansion based on the American Civil War.

After that im sure Rome II will come