Total War Saga - A New Direction for Total War Historical Games

[PointOfViewGun]

This just got published today:

A Total War Saga – Announce Blog

Today we’re thrilled to announce a new class of historical Total War game on PC. Released under a new badge, Total War Saga games will be standalone spin-off titles focusing on exciting pivotal moments in history rather than whole historical eras.

I sat down with the game director on our first Total War Saga game, Jack Lusted, to find out what kind of Total War experience fans can expect from his team.

Michael: So what makes a game a “Total War Saga”?

Jack: With our big releases that cover entire eras, like Rome or Empire, we’ve been following them up with standalone games that focus on a single character’s life and the time around them; like Napoleon or Attila. But there are also these key, pivotal points in history which don’t necessarily revolve around a single character, and only lasted a few months or few decades at most. Such moments also tend to be constrained to a tight geographic area as well.

These moments are perfect fuel for Total War. They’re a powder keg, where anything can happen and history could have gone in any direction. Sagas are epic stories, and we felt that name described those moments well, and allows us to go into the kind of individual detail we love.

So, Total War Saga games will be the same mix of turn-based campaign strategy, real-time battle tactics and hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay as a regular Total War game, but focussed down on a distinct moment.

Sagas won’t be revolutionary new titles or introduce brand-new eras; they’ll follow-on from previous Total War games and inhabit the same time-period, or at the very least relate to it. But these are certainly Total War games.

We’ve got more games in production than we’ve ever had before, and historical games form the majority of our forthcoming releases. We thought that badging these “A Total War Saga” would help players understand that they are a spin-off and not the next major title.

Michael: How is this different to previous Total War games?

Jack: In terms of core gameplay, it’s not. If you’ve enjoyed previous games, you’ll certainly be interested in Total War Saga games. It’s more about focus. There might be as many playable factions or conquerable territories in them, but that could all be focussed down to one specific region or country and a particular point in time.

In fact, we’ve done it before. Fall of the Samurai is exactly the kind of thing we’re talking about here. It was a standalone spin-off from Total War: SHOGUN 2, focussed on the pivotal event of the Boshin War. A concentrated Total War game which puts you right in the middle of a really dynamic moment of history, where the outcome could have gone in a huge number of different directions.

If you liked Fall of the Samurai, and the kind of gameplay we delivered with it, then you’re going to enjoy what we’ve got planned for our first Saga title. But it’s important to say that it isn’t our next major historical release. It is an iteration on a previous game, built on something we’ve already released.

Michael: In our recent blog post, we told fans that two historical games are currently in development. Where does your team’s game sit within that?

Jack: Our team is the Flashpoint project team mentioned in that blog, and our game will be out first. The other game is our next major historical game, with its own large and dedicated team, and will feature a new era we haven’t visited yet. That’s a huge title for CA and we’ll be talking about it much more in the future. It’s going to be a busy time for historical fans coming up.

Michael: What’s the scope of this Total War Saga game? How big will it be?

Jack: When we talk about games based around these moments in history that lasted months or years, we don’t mean short Total War games. They’ll have a narrower focus, but they will still be the epic sandboxes players are familiar with. Again, Fall of the Samurai is a perfect example of this. The period covered in that game was compressed down to a few months but a lot happened within those months. Future Total War Saga games may also cover time periods that short where a lot happens, while others may cover conflicts spanning a couple of decades but still focused on a single geographic area.

To help show the kind of scale we’re talking about, the game that I’m currently working on has a map that is comparable in gameplay size to Total War: ATTILA, but focused on a smaller geographic area, and the campaign will take as long to complete as any other Total War title does. Focusing on a single geographic location in this way allows us to go into greater detail with the period and setting.

Michael: Why is the focus on succinct but substantial moments in history important for you?

Jack: They’re what I like to call table-flip moments in history, where events are in the balance and could go any number of interesting and unique ways. This makes them a perfect fit for Total War games, where we give players the freedom to depart from the actual historical events and explore what might have happened had things gone differently.

When you think of the possibilities in and around those moments, some of those really classic and inspiring moments of history, there’s vast potential. Civil wars, great conquests, rebellions and uprisings, religious movements. As with Total War traditionally, there’s an almost endless list of possibilities of time periods and settings for future Total War Saga games.

Michael: Any hints yet as to the content? Why did you want to make a game based at this particular point in history?

Jack: We’ll announce it properly in the next few months, but I can say that it’s another spiritual follow-up to Total War: ROME II, like Total War: ATTILA, and moves the time period forward in much the same way. It’s great being able to build on and optimise the tech and the content from those games, like the work we did on ATTILA with Age of Charlemagne. Especially for a moment in history we’ve not spent enough time with yet as a studio.

Michael: When can we expect to get more information on your project?

Jack: Not just yet, but pretty soon as I say, if you follow the forums and social media we will keep you up to date!

Likely, it's not the direction people have been expecting or wanted. What do you think? Campaigns with narrower scopes in geography and time is better than a large campaign spanning over centuries and continents?

[Commissar Caligula_]

This is pretty much what I've always wanted. Caesar in Gaul and Napoleon's Campaigns in Italy/Egypt/ect captured it quite well I think.
Focus on a particular character, and their exploits.

Although Attila and Napoleon in general do focus on these two men, they don't focus specifically on them if you get my drift, they just so happen to be set in the time period they were active.

[lolIsuck]

Well, FotS is probably the highest-rated of all post-M2TW games so people not wanting it might not be entirely true. I for one always enjoyed the more detailed campaigns and I am looking forward to this. The only problem with them for me is that I get bored of them a little faster.

[O'Hea]

I like the "Sagas" concept, and it'll be cool to see which eras they decide to aim them at.

Any ideas what this first one might be about? It's a Rome II spinoff, which pushes the start date forward, is more geographically-concentrated than Attila and is focused on a 'table-flip' moment they haven't covered before, or at least not in-depth. My best guesses would be either a Roman civil war (i.e. "Total War: Constantine") or the rise of Islam on a map including Arabia, the ERE and Iran.

[LinusLinothorax]

After seeing the recently published concept art and this:

(East-coast of Ireland, probs to Daruwind)
I am pretty sure we will get an Arthur campaign.

[The Best of Luck]

Exciting! Though all-encompassing era games are awesome, I also liked the campaigns focusing on certain characters like Napoleon. Still haven't played Fall of the Samurai.

[O'Hea]

The map's a pretty strong argument for a British Isles setting, but why would it have to be Arthurian? It'd be a bit of a stretch to call that a 'historical' setting and I don't think it has much of the table-flip quality that the article was talking about.

With the Norse-looking concept art and the coast of Ireland, I think we might be looking at a Viking Age setting. I'd like to see something in the late Viking Age, running up to Brian Boru's career and the Battle of Clontarf, but something 9th-century (like the old Viking Invasion expansion) might be an easier sell.

[Muizer]

The runup to the Norman conquest would fit the bill, I suppose, as would the reign of Alfred the Great.

[ztrain909]

I kinda like it. Hopefully they will focus more on the micromanagement of the campaign. The way DEI mod for Rome2 does or even HOI4. Supply lines, AOC, etc. I think it's a good direction. They can cover a lot more time frames this way.

[Påsan]

another spiritual follow-up to Total War: ROME II, like Total War: ATTILA, and moves the time period forward in much the same way.

This, combined with ireland and the wierd psudo-norse artwork they posted.

Looks to be the Viking age next, yeah. Bit of a stretch to say there has not explored the viking age before since they have littearly had vikings in more than half their games. (Med 1, Med 1: Viking invasion, Med 2, Med 2: Kingdoms, Attila, Attila: Age of Charlemagne, as well as there is a Norscan (Read: Fantasy vikings) DLC coming up for Warhammer 1, they are also in Warhammer 2 and will probably be a main focus of warhammer 3)

Not that I'm opposed to Vikings, but they have been covered, a lot, lately both in media and games.

[lolIsuck]

It would make little sense to have a game focusing on vikings if it is to be the spiritual follow-up to R2TW. If it's just the British Isles there's of course only a few options, the Roman conquest, Boudicca, the Arthur saga and the vikings, anything else is too obscure. The latter two fit more with Attila than Rome II though in my opinion. The first doesn't really seem like a table flip moment though, just the Romans conquering yet another region. The Boudicca rebellion fits that more as it could have gone either way.

[Dude with the Food]

It depends if CA already count Attila as a 'spiritual follow-up' to R2 in which case spin-off from either is technically still a sequel. The problem with Boudicca I think is that everyone's either a Celt or a Roman and after very short narrative, the campaign devolves into just the Romans conquering/failing to conquer yet another region.

[Basileos Leandros I]

British Isles - around 6th century, perhaps.

They've already covered the Viking Age and this is mainly for R2TW.

[Sir Adrian]

I will be dissapointed if it turns out to be Boudica. The least interesting rebellion in roman history in the most overdone part of europe. Snoooore.

If it's britain again at least make it about the saxons and Arthur's roman remnants. Much mote interesting and diverse than a petty celtic queen raising a mob in a second rate province of the empire.

[eXistenZ]

Again no new information except a name that doesnt say anything......

[Linke]

[Anna_Gein]

So how many sub-licence does it make ? There is already Total War "Classic", Total War Kingdom (Free to Play / Pay to Win), Total War Arena (Multiplayer, in beta since years), Total War Warhammer and now Total War Saga ? Did I miss one ?

I fear so many project at once will only reduced CA's product quality.

That was a long test to tell us nothing new. As Total War Saga seems to be a new branding for what CA already did with Napoleon, Fall of the Samurai, to some extend Attila. Or even with Caesar in Gaul, Hannibal at the Gates, Wrath of Sparta, The Last Spartan and Age of Charlemagne.

Personally I do not see much point in this branding. CA already did this with various success. I could not care less how CA name theses products. I only care if the game are goods. Some were but I feel CA has never portrait well the specific conflicts. Hannibal at the Gates is the typical case : you hardly get a Second Punic War while you focus on waves of Iberian armies. The Boshing War was hardly represented in FotS except in the scenario battles. As a whole I feel like Total War games are best when they focus on the sandbox aspect and have a narrow focus a la Shogun 2.

With insight I wish Rome 2 focused solely on the Western Mediterranean world as Rome Total Realism VII did. CA could have expend the geographic scope and reduced the focus with DLC following Rome expansion. I hope CA learned the lesson of Empire and Rome 2. I hope too they finally get back in track and developed more each period instead of the same formula copy pasted over every era. Kind of how Paradox does with Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria and Hearts of Iron.

[NostalgiaFan]

So how many sub-licence does it make ? There is already Total War "Classic", Total War Kingdom (Free to Play / Pay to Win), Total War Arena (Multiplayer, in beta since years), Total War Warhammer and now Total War Saga ? Did I miss one ?

I fear so many project at once will only reduced CA's product quality.

That was a long test to tell us nothing new. As Total War Saga seems to be a new branding for what CA already did with Napoleon, Fall of the Samurai, to some extend Attila. Or even with Caesar in Gaul, Hannibal at the Gates, Wrath of Sparta, The Last Spartan and Age of Charlemagne.

Personally I do not see much point in this branding. CA already did this with various success. I could not care less how CA name theses products. I only care if the game are goods. Some were but I feel CA has never portrait well the specific conflicts. Hannibal at the Gates is the typical case : you hardly get a Second Punic War while you focus on waves of Iberian armies. The Boshing War was hardly represented in FotS except in the scenario battles. As a whole I feel like Total War games are best when they focus on the sandbox aspect and have a narrow focus a la Shogun 2.

With insight I wish Rome 2 focused solely on the Western Mediterranean world as Rome Total Realism VII did. CA could have expend the geographic scope and reduced the focus with DLC following Rome expansion. I hope CA learned the lesson of Empire and Rome 2. I hope too they finally get back in track and developed more each period instead of the same formula copy pasted over every era. Kind of how Paradox does with Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria and Hearts of Iron.

I agree with you. I feel things like Arena and the phone game don't really add much but take more money and work then necessary from CA. Based on how they said this is not going to add much but just go deeper in detail into a small period I can't help but think CA are oversaturating themselves a bit. Hopefully it turns out fine at least and the next big TW game really changes things around to meet expectations for it's long wait.

[Alwyn]

I like the idea of a Total War game "which puts you right in the middle of a really dynamic moment of history, where the outcome could have gone in a huge number of different directions." I remember when the Civilization series of games was sold with the idea 'what if the Roman Empire never fell?'. Total War games seem to me to be well-equipped to explore not just what would happen if the Roman Empire survived (or if other historical what-ifs occurred, like Napoleon invading Britain, as in the introduction to Napoleon Total War) but how such surprises would happen.

I'm intrigued by the east coast map of Ireland which LinusLinothorax posted. When I played the campaign which my Ireland AAR Éirí Amach: Irish Rising was based on, I wished that I could have zoomed in more closely on the campaign map and seen more details. I've seen people saying that they would like there to be more of a connection between the campaign map and the battlefield map. For example, am ambusher could choose between two possible locations for an ambush. (Do you choose the deep forest, where you can easily hide your troops but which gives you less of an advantage, or do you choose the thinly wooded area where the road goes along a narrow valley, where hiding is harder but you would have a terrain advantage because your troops would be in higher ground?) If you are the opposing army, you could have choices too: do you take the direct road which leads through the forest (where you might be ambushed) which will enable you to reinforce a city under siege in one turn, or do you take the long way round which will avoid any ambush but will take longer?

[Sirlion]

Sounds like standalone DLCs to me.