Speculation over the future

[ryan1266]

Victoria Total War sounds by FAR like the best idea. RTW2 sounds somewhat lame in my opinion. I LOVED the original Rome, that was when I first started playing the series and I still play it on a regular basis. However, the game mechanics have moved beyond that time period and it would be a shame to not take advantage of the new developments which are on the way with FoTS. IMO the Rome we have is good as is and the only major improvement you could make would be to add balance and naval battles. Really though, I think having a new age with awesome graphics and modernization would be best rather than a new RTW which though nice, would just not be as awesome.

As for appealing to large audiences... It's hard to beat the appeal of VTW, it represents the industrialization which directly led to the modern world which we all live in today. (and it would look awesome.)

Modern TW? Eh... As was said above, sometimes change isn't for the better. If you really want a squad based WWII game go play CoH or Men of War (heck, MoW even has Vietnam).

[Humble Warrior]

I feel that TW always did better when they stayed pre 1800s. To me they always had a good feel of the ancient to sword and spear and basic gunnes.

I think they bit off more than they could chew with Empire and did better when going back to shogun 2.

I really can`t see them doing WW1, WW2 or Vietnam, etc justice without major years of work and I don`t think they`re willing to make that effort while cash won`t be forthcoming.

That said I`m very interested in these wars and know a lot about them which would annoy me even more if the men ended up doing stupid things for `gameplay`. Let`s not forget that these wars are closer to living memory and would need to betreated with some respect.

[Hresvelgr]

That, and even if they could make a post-1900 game, they'd be cutting into an already established market. Harder to make a profit when you got more established competitors like Company of Heroes and World in Conflict. Compare that to the kind of pre-modern formation battles Total War does, which has no big name competitors. So even if (and I still don't agree it could) a modern Total War could have decent gameplay, it still wouldn't make sense from a business perspective. Personally I'm just crossing my fingers for either Victorian or China Total War, even if China is a bit of a long shot.

[Darth VeX]

Victoria Total War sounds by FAR like the best idea. RTW2 sounds somewhat lame in my opinion. I LOVED the original Rome, that was when I first started playing the series and I still play it on a regular basis. However, the game mechanics have moved beyond that time period and it would be a shame to not take advantage of the new developments which are on the way with FoTS. IMO the Rome we have is good as is and the only major improvement you could make would be to add balance and naval battles. Really though, I think having a new age with awesome graphics and modernization would be best rather than a new RTW which though nice, would just not be as awesome.

As for appealing to large audiences... It's hard to beat the appeal of VTW, it represents the industrialization which directly led to the modern world which we all live in today. (and it would look awesome.)

Modern TW? Eh... As was said above, sometimes change isn't for the better. If you really want a squad based WWII game go play CoH or Men of War (heck, MoW even has Vietnam).

I agree that there are other games which handle squad-based WWII gameplay. But I still think the scale of TW can be combined with this squad-based tactics ... but I also have continued to say the caveat of which is this: it will take many years and several stepping stones to get to WWII. A WWI title, a Victorian/American Civil War title, and possibly another title as well, all to build towards the capability to pull off a modern era game. But again, I would agree that CA doesn't "need" to move further into the modern era for the TW series to continue (and continue being successful).

As for a Victorian-era TW title (possibly titled something like "Total War: Crimean") ... I would only look forward to it for the possible standalone expansion for the American Civil War. I think most US fans of the Total War series are looking forward to CA's treatment of this conflict. While the Crimean War and the advancements to warfare, technology, tactics, and nursing during the Victorian era (more specifically during the Crimean War and US Civil War) are interesting ...

I still think a sequel to Rome would be more than just a graphical update. So much has changed in both the battle and campaign dynamics, that a return to the Roman era would be much more than a simple graphics update.

[Szlachta]

What's really funny is those opposed to TW moving forward into more modern time periods are probably those who were also very much against Empire ... hating the idea of a game where a majority of units would be toting around muskets and rifles. Sad really, because CA has made that work and it's become a part of the TW franchise in such a way that we're all waiting eagerly for FotS where they're yet again introducing more guns and faster killing.

So many people have visions of "Band of Brothers" or "Saving Private Ryan" and small squad-based combat when they envision WWII combat ... but they all seem to forget Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, or about half of the island invasions of the Pacific. Now, these units didn't stand rank & file and just politely shoot at each other, but for me ... the idea of being able to control the Japanese in WWII and making different choices: choosing NOT to attack the US at Pearl Harbor until I have secured landing fields and built bases on Iwo Jima, Wake, and Midway ... then when I do attack Pearl, I have infantry ready for invasion as well--if you're going to wake a sleeping giant, might as well poke it with a really sharp stick!

Or ... how about playing as the Third Reich, and instead of stupidly attacking Russia and fighting on multiple fronts, instead focus on invading Britain and the front in North Africa.

Yes, the game battles would change, becoming faster with smaller units ... but there would be MORE of them as well. A massive army in FotS will consist of 40 200-man units. For this setting, perhaps instead it would consist of 100 50-man platoons (not all platoons would be this large, but in other TW games, not all infantry units have 200 soldiers either). But just like in other TW titles, your stack is never made up just of large infantry units, you have cavalry, artillery/bowmen, and specialist units like skirmishers and such. A game in this setting would be no different. A single Tiger tank might take a unit slot, but a single tank amongst an army is not really enough, so you have 20 tanks, and do they really work best when scattered and given orders individuallly? Or when you group them and use the formations to move them around? The same would be true of all ground vehicles, some of which could even transport platoons of soldiers around, etc.

Would this be different from other TW titles? Yes.
Does different always mean bad? No.
Would it end up a "Company of Heroes" clone? Not necessarily.
Does Creative Assembly NEED to move the TW series into the modern era? No.
Why not?

Because CA makes great TW games, no matter what era they're set in. They have explored much of the time between when Rome rose to power until Napoleon nearly conquered Europe. There are still other ancient and less modern eras to explore. CA does not NEED or HAVE TO move the TW series further forward in time. But that's not to say that there are many fans of the TW series that would love to see probably the world's most famous "Total War" conquered by the Total War gaming series. As it is, CA could go OLDER and I'd be happy. "Total War: Alexander" sounds absolutely delightful to me ...

Agreed. The nay sayers are thinking too narrow minded. TW is the pinnacle of strategy games in my opinion. The jack of all trades blending of turn based Civilization meets real time Age of Empires. The best of both worlds while doing neither the best. A medium that could have any IP, genre, or circumstance. Its to strategy games what Bethesda role playing games are to its genre. It can have anything. Instead of being in 2025 and playing Empire 3 and Rome 4 for the umpteenth time, something has to happen. Make a TW for any and everything as far as I'm concerned. And like it or not, the 20th century encompasses "everything". And as far as 'established markets go', TW wasn't the first to tackle any of its avenues, except for the Japanese theme.

I want another Medieval, Rome, 19th century TW as well, but this would be different. True ambition. And after it, another TW, and another, blah blah, until TW's are coming out of our ing ears.

[wis]

As long as the future includes mod tools and extended mod support like Bethesda did with Skyrim. If not then I'm not going to buy anything made by CA.

[frontier-auxilia]

I like to see the Rise of Genghis Khan as a possiblity.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Alright.


I am now super excited about the Victoria TW idea.

[AngryTitusPullo]

I'm waiting for China Total War - The Warring States.

[PumpkinBread]

Victorian era.
Big DLC Campaign = Britain / Zulu
Big Expansion = U.S. Civil War

[Geuvesa]

I had my doubts about Victoria TW before FoTS but now I can see it being done, and honestly that makes me a little sad to realise just how further away Rome 2 and Medieval 3 are getting. CA proved they can pull off industrial warfare on the battle map, and I think that was exactly their aim.

[vlad06]

I must have missed something. FoTS is an abbreviation of what?

Excuse my ignorance. I haven't been to these forums for years.

[Lazarus]

FotS = Fall of the Samurai.

Playing FotS, I can conclude I will be all for a Victoria TW, as long as they take liberties to have some melee exclusive troops like they did in FotS. Makes for excellent balance and livens up the "stand in an orderly fashion and die" of the current war.

[vlad06]

Ah thanks. So Victoria TW eh? Sounds interesting.

[Sgt.Valenzuela]

I can see the next TW ending around 1915 give them a bit of a test field for bolt action rifles/turrents/tanks to see if they can venture into WW2 era.

I don't care for the melee combat at all since ETW.... The melee soldiers target each other and its only 1v1.... If they go back to RTW or MTW then needs to be an open engagement not this 1v1 "I Shallenge U" deal.

[Kraut]

I had my doubts about Victoria TW before FoTS but now I can see it being done, and honestly that makes me a little sad to realise just how further away Rome 2 and Medieval 3 are getting. CA proved they can pull off industrial warfare on the battle map, and I think that was exactly their aim.

I am pretty sure Rome 2 will come right after the Industrial Era TW which probably will be the next installment. In the FOTS preview in the GameStar print magazine (Germany) there is a small box quoting some CA staff how they "hear the community demanding Rome 2", could be a hint.

[Lord Dakier]

I think we're still on course with my prediction of Victorian era TW. Too many features have been added to make the next game pre-industrial era.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

And imagine what other features would be added!

I.... .Can't really think of any, BUT JUST IMAGINE!

[Kinjo]

There is a time and a place for a Victorian era total war game but I don't think it should be the next title. For the last 3 years/four games we had gun warfare to some degree. I would take a Rome II but long more for a Medieval 3 more then anything especially with the newer graphics and the avatar system.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I would like Rome2 first, before Medieval.

I mean, M2TW was my favorite, by far, but a new Rome would just.... Oh gods, I don't have words for how incredible that would be.


But, I think Victoria TW will be next. And, I think it will be a lot of fun. Maybe even the best TW.

Until M3TW, that is.