Gunpowder, or swords and spears?

['Gunny]

Which type of TW game do you prefer, the ones with gunpowder, or the ones with mostly melee. Do not base this on the quality of the recent games, but on your preference of game. So, Fire or sword? Guns or Spears, Shako and bi/tricorns or Kettle helmets? Demi-cannon or Ballista?

[empr guy]

i prefer swords and arrows, i think it takes more skill then and is more fun then linning men up and watching them shoot at each other.

[Doyle141]

I'm kinda 50/50, it'd be nice to see both put in well.
As in, start off, swords, arrows, etc, then halfway progress to muskets and the ilk. Not like M2TW though

[Emperor of The Great Unknown]

Gunpowder has never really worked right until recently, and I have neevr ever trusted artillery since RTW, so therfore I'm with the swords and arrows.

[OceanPhoenix]

Gunpowder has never really worked right until recently, and I have neevr ever trusted artillery since RTW, so therfore I'm with the swords and arrows.

I comletely agree.

['Gunny]

remember, im not talking about the quality of past or recent TW games, im talking about if you would prefer a TW game (lets say a perfect one) about a gunpowder age or an age of swords

[Xerrop]

Well I would like both. Combined in a Renaissance:TW.
The perfect era, cause gunpowder was not that dominant on the battlefields and the old style weapons had still their use.

[beckyolt]

Yes. 16TH-17th century had the coolest battles. Plate armor, long pikes, early muskets, swords, etc.

[Voodo chile]

Muskets ftw. I suppose its because you have a single multi purpose type of soldier instead of multiple units that do a single job. Guns with the exception of loading times show who the best leader is because militia can inflict similar amounts of damage to elite infantry. But i reckon the awsomeness of guns in increased when you are fighting melee weapon soldiers which is why i am looking forward to shogun 2 and hopefully the guns arnt too crap

[Xerrop]

Well when thinking about the question - ever noticed that basically both appeared in all TW games?
The only exception was Rome with swords and arrows only.

[RO Citizen]

I'd side with the "last argument of kings"

[Doc Holliday]

I would like to see a Victorian era Total War that runs up to the end of Empires. More or less a total war from 1850 to 1950 that would allow you to shape the world as you see fit. Rule Britannia or have WWI kick off at say the time of the Spanish American war. It would make for an interesting game I think.

[Miniluv]

I like the "butcher" feel...if you know what I mean!

[RangerGxi]

I have only played the ones from the Gunpowder age..

[Slaj4496]

I have only played the ones from the Gunpowder age..

You should really get rome total war and m2tw but i recommend rtw 1st

and SWORDS are better than muskets..

[Qitbuqa]

I prefer gunpowder out of 2 choices given, but what I'd really love would be like 1600 - 1700 where pike and shot was important, where charger cavalry like winged hussars could win battles alone, where there were mixed pike/shot formations and canons weren't sniper accurate.

[Okuto]

1500-1700 is my favorite, best of both worlds. I prefer gunpowder overall

[Axalon]

Call me old fashioned but i'll stick with sword and arrows anyday... Gunpowder? Nah, thats just uncool...

[shikaka]

Sword and arrow...


My favourite eras are early medieval (covered in barbarian invasions) and ancient civs (Hitties, Egypt, Assyria, Minoan Crete, Phonecia).


I also like the history of the victoran era, but not for the colonization/war part, but for politics, diffenet ways of thinking, capitalism, strange movements (like anarchism).



Total War could simulate early medieval and ancient god-kings well, but this game genre is not really suited to simulate the complex diplomacy and industrial/human rights advances of the victorian age.
(luckily, I have Victoria:Revolutions for that )

[Wilhelm Ritter]

I think gunpowder warfare is too boring on the tw platform... It's unfortunate but battles are just long and boring...