Warhammer will be next but what then?

[White Bishop]

If it was to be chinese history I do hope it is during the warring kingdoms periods. Anything later would be rather.. Eh. Slow.

[WhiskeySykes]

Take your pick of the Opium Wars. The late Qing/Taiping Rebellion is phenomenal material. The fall of the Tang dynasty was followed by 60 yrs of intrigue and war. IF China was the setting, they'd have plenty of wars expansionist and domestic to choose from.

[NostalgiaFan]

The only difference between Attila and Warhammer is Warhammer utilizes 64 bit and Attila uses 32 bit. This has nothing to do with animation, but performance.

Wrong. Did you forget that Warhammer took out synced animations from nearly every unit in the game besides specific ones? Besides in the end its the same engine they used since Empire which again, people are not interested in because the combat sucks, where as the Warhammer version at least is tolerable. If they were to play a medieval game they sure as hell would not put money away buying it when they could get the same damn thing with a mod since it as an Attila expansion would just be a lazy copy paste. CA either makes a new engine for a new medieval game or they don't bother because people are sick to death of playing battles on the same engine.

The nest historical title is not Med III and the next one after that won't be either.

Don't count the chickens before the eggs hatch. None of us know what game will come out or not after the next historical title in 2018/19, but I find it ludicrous that CA would never make another solo Medieval game at all. The setting is way too popular to never be touched again for asinine reasons.

[PikeStance]

Wrong. Did you forget that Warhammer took out synced animations from nearly every unit in the game besides specific ones? Besides in the end its the same engine they used since Empire which again, people are not interested in because the combat sucks, where as the Warhammer version at least is tolerable. If they were to play a medieval game they sure as hell would not put money away buying it when they could get the same damn thing with a mod since it as an Attila expansion would just be a lazy copy paste. CA either makes a new engine for a new medieval game or they don't bother because people are sick to death of playing battles on the same engine.

As I said already, the only difference is Warhammer uses 64 bit and Attila uses 32 bit. My understanding, it is a performance enhancer. It does allow more stuff to be crammed in there, but Warhammer (based on my understanding) needed more to be crammed in.

Don't count the chickens before the eggs hatch. None of us know what game will come out or not after the next historical title in 2018/19, but I find it ludicrous that CA would never make another solo Medieval game at all. The setting is way too popular to never be touched again for asinine reasons.

CA was pretty clear about the issue. In the next 5 years, expect DLCs another Warhammer title, one new historical title and then one other historical title (new or a redo of Empire (which was left open as a possibility). If they make a DLC in the Medieval time period, I wouldn't think at the end of the 5/6 year period, they will make a standalone. Anything is possible. If the DLC is not well received, then maybe the possibility will be there.

[WhiskeySykes]

^^ It's not at all the whole engine that's at fault, it's that CA slavishly code battle mechanics that belong in 2002. They need to innovate the series and put Warscape's processes to the test with new battle dynamics. I can think of a few that would fit any era, any army type, whose variables are already logged by the AI.

[NostalgiaFan]

As I said already, the only difference is Warhammer uses 64 bit and Attila uses 32 bit. My understanding, it is a performance enhancer. It does allow more stuff to be crammed in there, but Warhammer (based on my understanding) needed more to be crammed in.

You ignored my point on the synced animations. The fact is that without the Magic and monsters and stuff the Warhammer combat is at least more tolerable then the annoying synced combat of past Warscape games. Not like it matters much since no one wants Medieval 3 to be turned into a measly expansion to a game on an outdated and flawed engine.

CA was pretty clear about the issue.

No they weren't.

In the next 5 years, expect DLCs another Warhammer title, one new historical title and then one other historical title (new or a redo of Empire (which was left open as a possibility).

Not even the point I was talking about. I already know Warhammer and the unknown historical era are next on the list I was talking more about the one after that. Nothing CA said mentioned anything about it never doing a Med 3.

If they make a DLC in the Medieval time period, I wouldn't think at the end of the 5/6 year period, they will make a standalone. Anything is possible. If the DLC is not well received, then maybe the possibility will be there.

They will not make an Medieval expansion to Attila. There is not a single reason to do so and it is just an idiotic thing if they did. They would be making the worst move in their history to pull something like that. There is no need for a failed expansion for that when CA knows a new stand alone Medieval game would give them numerous amounts of cash. Until CA says there is no chance of a Med 3 after the next historical title then it has as much chance of happening as Empire 2 or any other era.

^^ It's not at all the whole engine that's at fault, it's that CA slavishly code battle mechanics that belong in 2002. They need to innovate the series and put Warscape's processes to the test with new battle dynamics. I can think of a few that would fit any era, any army type, whose variables are already logged by the AI.

This is a poor defense for Warscape's flaws. This "Warscape's potential has yet to be discovered" is hogwash that has zero evidence to it. We have seen it in all the past titles how CA was forced to cut around the corners due to it being unable to handle things in newer games because it is so limited. The fact is that after 8 years the Warscape engine is growing more and more outdated and the only reason it is still around is because CA are forcing it out to do so. CA being solely to blame does not excuse this. They said plenty of times they tried to do things fans have wanted and they did try at times and even then Warscape did nothing for us.

CA's incompetence is a factor but it is far from the sole reason for why Warscape is not up to standards, the thing already became outdated as far as Rome 2 hence why it was the buggiest and most broken release in TW history. They have only been more careful since then but even so they have had to cut corners more and more after every single title even when they add new features as if they have no more room for more.

[PikeStance]

You ignored my point on the synced animations. The fact is that without the Magic and monsters and stuff the Warhammer combat is at least more tolerable then the annoying synced combat of past Warscape games. Not like it matters much since no one wants Medieval 3 to be turned into a measly expansion to a game on an outdated and flawed engine.

I didn't ignore point, I specifically mentioned the advantage of using 64 bit to 32 bit. So either you have no clue what 64 bit offers or you being unnecessarily argumentative.
As I said previously, all games from Empire to Warhammer uses the same engine.

No they weren't.
Not even the point I was talking about. I already know Warhammer and the unknown historical era are next on the list I was talking more about the one after that. Nothing CA said mentioned anything about it never doing a Med 3.
They will not make an Medieval expansion to Attila. There is not a single reason to do so and it is just an idiotic thing if they did. They would be making the worst move in their history to pull something like that. There is no need for a failed expansion for that when CA knows a new stand alone Medieval game would give them numerous amounts of cash. Until CA says there is no chance of a Med 3 after the next historical title then it has as much chance of happening as Empire 2 or any other era.

CA specifically stated that they are NOT making a "third" game. It was black and white answer. The vague answer that left a possibility is the future prospect of an Empire 2. CA also said the next game ill be 'epic." I can only guess but I suspect it will be a 3-1 game.
CA makes money "hand over fist." People on this forum think because a game is "buggy" and/ or flawed that it doesn't sell well.

This is a poor defense for Warscape's flaws. This "Warscape's potential has yet to be discovered" is hogwash that has zero evidence to it. We have seen it in all the past titles how CA was forced to cut around the corners due to it being unable to handle things in newer games because it is so limited. The fact is that after 8 years the Warscape engine is growing more and more outdated and the only reason it is still around is because CA are forcing it out to do so. CA being solely to blame does not excuse this. They said plenty of times they tried to do things fans have wanted and they did try at times and even then Warscape did nothing for us.

Well, not to burst your optimism; but I doubt that CA will "change" the engine given they just switched to 64 bit from 32.

CA's incompetence is a factor but it is far from the sole reason for why Warscape is not up to standards, the thing already became outdated as far as Rome 2 hence why it was the buggiest and most broken release in TW history. They have only been more careful since then but even so they have had to cut corners more and more after every single title even when they add new features as if they have no more room for more.

People need to realize that 'release" dates are actually paid betas. As I mentioned above, the 64 bit allows for more stuff to be done. Based on what I have read, the 64 bit gives them so much more room, they are not even close to filling it even with Warhammer. BTW, you are aware that Rome II uses an updated engine, so it was not "outdated." Essentially, both ETW and TWR2 suffered from updated engine technical issues. I suspect switching to 64 bit and previous experiences help alleviate the issues that plagued the release of TWR2 and ETW.

[Karak Norn Clansman]

Chinese history, bronze age or Assyrian-Babylonian-Persian Middle East, please (Persians could start as migrants intruding into Iran to eventually claim Elam if the player do not hinder them).

If further fantasy wargame adaptations are in store, then Lotr or Game of Thrones. Just a wish list, in case CA glimpses it. The fantasy part would make financial sense, at least.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

For fantasy, definitely Lord of the Rings/Middle-Earth.

Historically, Central Asia, ancient Persia and the eastern Mediterranean.

[Sanguinis]

Based on the recent devblog post regarding the next historical title:

--there are "important character relations that occur between the major personalities in the game"
--the UI artists are trying to "capture the mood of this unique setting" and "have done an incredible job in realising the style we’re going for"

Unfortunately this seems unlikely to refer to a grand-scale game like I think most of us are hoping for -- i.e., Elizabethan, pike and shot, etc. A "unique setting" and a specialized art style is not consistent with a global campaign map with multiple continents and a wide range of cultures. Although there are certainly important personalities during the age of discovery, the post suggests a focus on "relationships" between the game's characters, which also suggests a smaller-scale game perhaps focusing on a single historical conflict within a single or a handful of cultures.

I think we are looking at a Shogun-type project in terms of scale. Keeping in mind they have previously stated it will be a "new era" for the franchise, I could see American Civil War, 100 Years War, something in China, or pre-Alexander antiquity. ACW (while it fits with the "personalities" comment) is probably too short a conflict for an entirely new historical title. 100 YW is probably too similar to medieval 1/2 timelines. Given the direction they have taken with Warhammer, I could see CA continuing to base campaigns around a "hero" which would work best coupled with ancient or legendary "personalities". IMO, this leaves something based around ancient greek heroes or early Chinese warlords in the warring states period. I think both of these are lazy options for a historical TW title, but that is where the evidence is pointing.