Which Era do you think fit the most for a Totalwar game?

[Norpheus]

Well the topic says its all, so far we have been able to play in Medieval Mapan, Medieval Europe, The Era of Rome, And finally The Imperial Era.

Do you think any of these Eras fit better than the others, or that there is an Era that should be included in the next game?


Myself I find the Medieval Europe era most fittin, especially the late part. Battles were smaller (So its realistic), Mongol invasion, Crusades etc. I hope the next game will be about the late medieval era.

[Ascarona]

We already have 2 games in the medieval era... And to be honest, we kind of had all previous era's, if not in the main games then it was in the expansions. So we would be looking to future era's.

Hmm... even more guns

[Cursisanafou]

I think the era of empire total war is one of the best eras.... just need to expand it a little further... french revolution +napoleon's empire.... american civil war...

Although this game needs more territories, and more aggressive minor nations... and maybe less 1 region nations.

[ccllnply]

No era fits in. No historical era anyway. As far as I can see, Total War's style of gameplay is best suited to a fantasy setting. EU3 is better for a historical game

[merka]

No era fits in. No historical era anyway. As far as I can see, Total War's style of gameplay is best suited to a fantasy setting. EU3 is better for a historical game

I dont quite understand your reasoning.

But then again I wouldnt be against it, quite the contrary I think that a more mythical approach to the game would be a cool concept. Hey it worked for Age Of Mythology!

Or a realistic-fantasy era of China, no historical strings attached... Sort of like Shogun, but in a little different setting and on a much more personal scale (since you arent a nation but rather a warlord or something).

[ccllnply]

I dont quite understand your reasoning.

But then again I wouldnt be against it, quite the contrary I think that a more mythical approach to the game would be a cool concept. Hey it worked for Age Of Mythology!

Or a realistic-fantasy era of China, no historical strings attached... Sort of like Shogun, but in a little different setting and on a much more personal scale (since you arent a nation but rather a warlord or something).

My reasoning is that, historically, big nations didn't fight wars of anhilation. They also very rarely, captured a city and then owned that city. Armies fought and when one nation was defeated they agreed on a ceasefire.

The reason I say it is more suited to fantasy is because I can't see Mordor agreeing on a peace deal with Gondor.

[Deathofjams]

My reasoning is that, historically, big nations didn't fight wars of anhilation. They also very rarely, captured a city and then owned that city. Armies fought and when one nation was defeated they agreed on a ceasefire.

Poland was completely destroyed in 1795, and the Marathas and Mughals went soon after (although the latter still had nominal rule of Hindustan up until 1857). The United Provinces were also made into a departement (region) of France for a few years under Napoleon. That's 4 of the 12 largest factions in Empire, all of whom were "destroyed" (even if it was temporarily in some cases). Admittedly the Indian factions are somewhat of an exception, and the United Provinces weren't really a nation in the regular sense of the word. But the example of Poland proves that if they wanted to, powers could completely wipe others from the map.

[Gabriel Anton]

No era fits in. No historical era anyway. As far as I can see, Total War's style of gameplay is best suited to a fantasy setting. EU3 is better for a historical game

Are we talking Strategic game or tactical (battles?)

I agree in total that this sort of game will never fit as a good strategic level game, it is there for DEPTH and role play addition to the battles only,,,

For battles though, there are styles of battles I think TW is more suited too, and for sure it is not gunpowder era, it is for pre gunpowder , Roman Legions or Welsh Longbows no matter,,,, good for both.

The TW style real time battle though is not very good simulator for large gunpowder battles. FOr this far superior is those old turn based games like CIVIL WAR GENERALS or something like that,,,

[jonny duck]

Personally I think the classical era is perhaps the best, but each total war game has been drastically different from its predecessor, and none of them have been particularly bad, just different. If I had my way, I'd want a game set in the classical era (rone, greece, carthage, celts etc), have a very large time frame (600BC - 1000AD), have empire style ship battles with galleys, biremes etc, have the campaign map, the goverment system and the graphics of empire, and the religion and steadyness that the M2 battles provided.

and no diplomats...ever

[Abvex]

Any era that involves huge number of men meeting in battles and nations fighting nations. :p

[Tspk91]

I think that classical era. But they need to raise the number of unit a little bit (4x if possible ).

[UhOhIt'sAnArrow]

Guns are not fun. Honestly in MTWII whenever i reach the gunpowder age i kind of just quit because it ruins the game for me. ETW is as far as i would want to go on the gun line. I think Rome fit the best.

So what do I think is next? Combine RTW and RTW:BI into one game with better graphics and religion being the same bastard it is in MTWII and ETW. Allow us to choose our religion and change it at our whim. Then let us actually see the rise and fall of Rome as any nation we choose.

[boomheadshot45]

I think Rome. I liked the varied unit types. And I just like the strategy needed for Rome than the strategy needed in M2TW (not a big fan of the gunpowder).

[Inhuman One]

I always prefer warriors over soldiers. Battlefield heroics, painted and unarmored men running at their enemies without fear.

The Roman era would be the best era for me, but it should not be called rome total war. I would prefer their attention spread on all nations included instead of just one culture.

[Cynik]

I recently dropped ETW to play some RTW, Europa Barbarorum (mod) to be precise. I haven't had this much fun playing a total war game ...well since RTW came out

Playing as the Macedonians and having a blast, I've said it before but I feel the era of the ancients is the most interesting, eventful and legendary era that I know of.

[Liberius]

Empire is great...it's what I've wanted out of TW since i started playing. It will be just as good as the other TW games after things get sorted and some total realism mods get done.

I still can't understand why they've skipped over the Thirty Years War...I mean, if anything could be called TOTAL war that was it.

[mikil100]

I recently dropped ETW to play some RTW, Europa Barbarorum (mod) to be precise. I haven't had this much fun playing a total war game ...well since RTW came out

Playing as the Macedonians and having a blast, I've said it before but I feel the era of the ancients is the most interesting, eventful and legendary era that I know of.

I agree. EuropaBarbarorum especially makes RTW the best TW.

[Tspk91]

I think that if we have to keep the classic total war style, then RTWII is the best option. But please, CA, make greek phalanx overhand, and macedonian with small shields. And also, give less importance to archers and more to slingers. And dont make the egyptians some pharaonic phalanx and chariot faction....

[Taiko]

I always prefer warriors over soldiers. Battlefield heroics, painted and unarmored men running at their enemies without fear.

The Roman era would be the best era for me, but it should not be called rome total war. I would prefer their attention spread on all nations included instead of just one culture.

I couldn't say it better. Swordfights on the battfield are just way cooler than guns and rifles. I wish and hope for a remake of Rome or Shogun

[King Yngvar]

There is two eras not included yet in the total war series.

1: The dark ages (476-1066)
2: The age of discovery (1492-1700)

If I got to choose the next I would pick one of those.