Fair enough.
Then again, the West =/= US and Britain.
According to nearly every online poll I’ve seen, Victorian Era is the most popular Western setting for the next TW game.Tell me something, were those polls written in English and did you reach them through an American or British website?Victorian Era beats Pike and Shot by a massive percentage in online polls for the next wanted TW game.
One thing we should all take into account is that, despite having people from all over the world, TWCenter is primarily a British-populated website, and CA is a British developer.
For instance, back in the day every single poll I saw in TWC clearly showed a very militant preference for a historical TW game over a fantasy one, and now we have that Warhammer is the most successful TW game in history. There is a difference between very vocal minorities and the real deal (and in our specific case I'm by no means claiming than the US and the UK audience are a minority, but merely that you can't really consider most if not all of the online polls we are used to see as serious or representative. Hell, many of the people who would really be into a Pike&Shot game probably don't even speak english and therefore are not vocal in English communities... Spanish, French, Italians, Turks... and I'm not mentioning the Dutch or the Germans because most of them do).
The Point remains the same. By that logic Empire/Napoleon and Fall of the Samurai should be representative of European (and American) factions and warfare covering the 19th century and therefore the argument would nulify the possibility of a Victorian era TW game, and honestly, when everyone seems to agree that the most obvious candidates are precisely Victoria, Pike & Shot and WWI, using that argument seems pointless, since then WWI would be left as the only possible option (of course leaving out much more unlikely possibilities like more remote -from a western point of view- lands and periods, like China or early Egypt/Mesopotamia)Sure, we don’t have a game set in Europe in those time periods, but we have games with European factions and European style warfare covering some of those time periods
I did not bring up Germany or France same as I did not bring up California or Texas, the fact is that the last study I saw, from 2008 -i know, outdated, but still- and North America was actually the third market in gaming software profits after China (1st) and Europe (2nd). The volume is there, the European Union has a larger GDP and a quite larger population than the US.If we want to bring up smaller countries with smaller gaming markets like Germany and France, the next game might as well be a China Total War game because their gaming market is going to generate comparable profits than those countries you mentioned combined.
I can't find more specific and updated studies which showcase the PC market specifically, but still, there does not seem that much of a difference between the potential profit in Europe, America and China.
Then again, Europe and the US normally go roughly hand by hand in terms of tastes. A 19th. Century game would probably be more appealing to Americans and Brits while a 16th./17th. century game would appeal to pretty much everyone else in the west plus Turkey (not entirely sure of where the Germans and the Russians would stand here, but they would definitely be into both).
And whatever the case, I don't think CA chooses periods based on profits alone, they probably have their own biases as well.
You said the Pike and Shot era was not comparable in history or culture to other periods.That’s nice, but most those folks have absolutely nothing to do with Total War games.
And I beg to differ. TW depict an entire period, not just the military. Shogun would not be nearly as good without its music and its art. Everything, from the political intrigues to architecture contribute to the overall feel of the game. And even then, feel free to take out the painters and the writers from the list and you still have a ton of iconic monarchs and generals.
If you want to stick to the military, let's review... Gonzalo Fernandez de Córdoba, Francis I, Charles V, Gustavus Adolphus, Turenne, Cortés, Pizarro, Maurice of Nassau, Ambroggio Spinola, Alessandro Farnese, the Duke of Alba, the prince of Condé, Jan Sobieski, von Wallenstein, von Frundsberg, Alvaro de Bazán, Francis Drake, Oliver Cromwell, Tilly, Vauban, Montecuccoli, d'Avalos, Michiel de Ruyter, Niels Juel (essentially the guy who invented the tactic used by Nelson in Trafalgar), zhen He, Andrea Doria, Barbarrossa, Ivan the Terrible, Selim I, Suleyman the Magnificent... even Michellangelo designed fortifications.
The same goes for military events: the Italian Wars, Peasants War, Huguenot Wars, English Civil War, the Dutch Revolt, the Armada, the Ottoman-Venetian wars, the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars, the Thirty Years War... Pavía, Lepanto, Breitenfeld, Rocroi, Sieges of Vienna, St. Quentin, Cerignola, Flodden, Chaldiran, Mohacs, the sack of Rome, Mühlberg, White Mountain,Lützen... (and all that is leaving out America and Asia and probably missing a lot of important stuff in north and eastern Europe.)
And just in terms of what in the end matters as much... the looks... it's just full of variety, blends, flamboyance, with as much potential "steam-punk" appeal as the 19th century (all sorts of weird and beutiful military weapons, armor, and inventions).
Actually, Da Vinci designed all kinds of military inventions, crossbows, cannons, armoured cars and even a helicopter (granted some were never built, but still, it's relevant and adds flavour). Don't know about Shakespeare, but his Spanish equivalent, Miguel de Cervantes (Don Quixote's author) fought against the Ottomans in Lepanto and lost an arm. Those are just ways ot selling the game and making it more appealing and immersive.You don’t send Da Vinci or Shakespeare off with an army to fight in a line formation.
I think you are the only one taking the whole Pike & Shot nomenclature literally. The fact that everyone is calling it Pike & Shot TW does not mean at all that the game is only about the Pike and Shot tactic, same as those who are calling it Rennaissance TW are not envisioning a TW game about art and architecture (the Rennaissance was just a cultural revolution, not the name of a military history period).Some of the people you listed also aren’t even in the Age of Pike and shot, while others never fought in pike/shot warfare so it’s not relevant.
You can name it how you want, I just want a game set in Europe during the 16th. and 17th centuries (if I were to truly dream about the impossible, even going from 1450 to 1715, but that's not going to happen).
Just say that Da Vinci designed tanks and helicopters in the 1500s and you got all the Currahee crowd in, becoming utterly disappointed by the lack of 16th. century Apaches and Shermans but actually learning some history, and who knows, maybe becoming interested in it (if not, tell me why on earth did I then, as a Spaniard, become interested in English longbowmen and the Hundred Years War after playing Age of Empires 2).Yes, some famous writers, poets, etc may have lived in the era, but that doesn’t generate enthusiasm for the actual warfare that folks know nothing about.
And then again, I beg to differ. TW being a game about warfare and expansionism... well, we are talking about a period which saw the biggest military revolution since Antiquity (Pike&Shot/gunpowder warfare), a period which is the reason why entire major civilizations were devastated and a whole non-european continent speaks now Spanish, English and Portuguese, the period in which most modern European states were forged (i.e. Westphalia 1648) and the system of balance of power was established which would originate pretty much all the main conflicts for the next ~250 years, it was the theatre of some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history (Spanish Conquest of America, Thirty Years War, Ming-Qing Wars, Huguenot War...), the rise of the Western World, which had been lagging behind for hundreds of years, it was the first ever globalized period, saw the bloody birth of Protestantism, the Golden Age for half the countries in Europe, the rise of modern Capitalism, today's leading economic system, one of the biggest cultural and scientific revolutions in centuries (Rennaissance, Baroque, start of the Enlightment and the Scientifical Revolution, etc)...I said it was not as relevant and not as popular relative to other eras in European history…and certainly not as relevant relatively speaking to world history.
Not to mention that, due to this period's events, the two leading powers of the past 200 (the US and the UK) years today speak English and not Spanish... (poetic license to say that Spain might have dominated Britain and North America, for instance, if the Armada had not been scattered).
So, again, we should mark the boundary between what's relevant for the West or to World history from what's relevant for the US or Britain. The period is definitely not any less relevant than all the other periods in which TW games have already taken place in. And whatever the case, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with this act of "ranking" historical periods. I can't think of a single century in the past 600 years which was not extremely relevant.
I find that hardly possible given that I did not really read the op and merely scrolled down to see the reactions.Your contradiction bias is that you want to accept OP’s faulty premise that we can only have a European Total War game based on popularity and relevance to the West, and then reject the evidence that Pike and Shot isn’t even that popular or relevant compared to other periods in both Western AND World history.
What would that evidence be, by the way? Would you as well say the 16th and 17th centuries are less relevant than other periods in which TW games have already taken place, like Shogun or Attila/Charlemagne?
Ok, at this point I have to ask. What are those other possibilities and by what criteria other than personal preference are they considered "better"?OP thinks it’s a good idea to push Pike and Shot Warfare on us instead of the MANY better possibilities
Honestly, I'm not going to debate a very clear quote which is not even open to interpretation (since it even states the qualifying criteria and leaves clear that there are other possible definitions).Well, he is wrong. Spain did not create the world’s first standing army. If you want to use English Wikipedia, at least read the article.
Again, I'm not going to debate a quote:According to wikipedia, the first “modern” standing army wasn’t even Spanish – it was created by the Ottoman Empire
"The first modern standing armies in Europe were the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, formed in the fourteenth century.[6][7] In western Europe the first standing army was established by Charles VII of France in the year 1445.[8] The Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus had a standing army from the 1460s called the Fekete Sereg, which was an unusually big army in its age, accomplishing a series of victories and capturing parts of Austria, Vienna (1485) and parts of Bohemia.
By other definitions of a standing army, being understood as one of volunteering professionals instead of that of conscription levies or hired mercenaries, Spain created Europe's and the world's first modern standing army through the creation of the distinguished Tercios by Emperor Charles I of Spain (also known as Charles V of Austria). The Tercios revolutionized modern warfare in Europe and became the most prestigious and undefeated force during the era of Spanish Habsburg dominance in Europe. Eventually all European armies would try to mimic the style and tactics of fighting used by the Tercios because of their constant innovative evolution that was sparked by creative veteran soldiers that formed the regiments and their great leaders. The Tercios became such a successful force that their reputation as an undefeatable force gave them a psychological advantage in the battlefield against their enemies who greatly feared them. The Spanish Habsburgs would form Tercio regiments in all of their possessions, including the Italian Tercios, the Portuguese Tercios and the Burgundian Tercios."