Total War Cities - Simcity style

[HigoChumbo]

I wonder where were all these TW conservatives when CA decided to make the most drastic change to their campaign map (risk style to free 3d) to create the -for most people- best TW game yet, Rome. Probably they complained during the entire development ("omg no ****ing way CA risk style IS TW!!!) to later get smashed by the hurtful truth and see how they had been critisizing for a year the game which later became their favourite game ever...

Some people don't even give new ideas a single thought. They just read the topic and link whatever "NO" meme they stumble upon...


Really... the gaming industry is stagnant, boring and uncreative enough already because of consoles and greedy franchise-spamming companies... Playing the same tw game with better graphics over and over again will eventually get monotonous (and if they wanted to please people like you guys... i wouldn't be surprised if they ended up "FIFAizing" the franchise... releasing a new game with new skins every year...). (yeah! Rome 2015 is out! Romans United has hired Judas Hiscariot!)


Let people be creative dammit... You are all probably raging all over the internet about Lucasarts being closed and still there you sit complaining about the faintest sprout of progress and innovation...

Meh... you guys are the very single reason that could make me miss the 90s...

[nameless]

I wonder where were all these TW conservatives when CA decided to make the most drastic change to their campaign map (risk style to free 3d) to create the -for most people- best TW game yet, Rome. Probably they complained during the entire development ("omg no ****ing way CA risk style IS TW!!!) to later get smashed by the hurtful truth and see how they had been critisizing for a year the game which later became their favourite game ever...

You are fully aware that Total War games have always been described as,

"Games that combine both Turn-based strategy with Real-time tactical battles."

Explain to me how switching from Risk boards to 3D maps changes either of those traits because so far people like you who pull this card haven't been able to answer it.

The fact is we technically are city building simliar to Simcity but on a macro scale. We build buildings to keep the populace happy, buildings to provide food, clean water, forts, etc. The cities also interact with each other depending on bonuses since Shogun 2.

[HigoChumbo]

I don't want the same game over and over again with better graphics. I don't want a city sim inside of this series. I want to play Total War when I play a Total War title. I want to play a city simulator when I play Sim City of Caesar IV. I'd, honestly, much rather THOSE games be expanded to include tactical depth then to have city simulation added to Total War.

... And why do you consider that game genres are so inflexible? Isn't TW actually a blend of 2 different games? (risk-like tabletop strategy and real time grand scale battles, it we were talking actual tabletop games it would be like mixing Risk and Warhammer).

Don't you see that a guy with your very exact mindset could point at you and say "If i wanted to play battles id play "game-with-just-battles-named-x" (warhammer in my example), and if wanted to play a tabletop grand strategy campaign id play that other game with just a campaign map named "Y" (Risk on my example). If your rule of what games are worth making was true... then TW wouldn't have a reason to exist, because we would have 2 separate games, one for battles and one for strategy...

You are fully aware that Total War games have always been described as,

"Games that combine both Turn-based strategy with Real-time tactical battles."

Explain to me how switching from Risk boards to 3D maps changes either of those traits because so far people like you who pull this card haven't been able to answer it.

That's not even an argument. Described by whom? Wikipedia? Is CA bound by any law i don't know that forces them to make games withouth going off that description? Seriously. That's absurd. I'm sorry to say it. So i don't think i need to answer that because your premise makes no sense at all.

What If i defined the 2 original total war games as a turn based risk-like campaign with real time battles? Wouldn't that make the rest of CA's games not TW in your opinion? Isn't my description accurate? Is or was CA bound by it? Rome showed us that they were definatelly not.

Were Blizzard wrong by getting their Warcraft franchise and developing World of Warcraft from it? A completelly different game of a different genre based in the same universe and made by the same developers with the same high quality standards? Would you say they failed? Come on... really. Blizzard is a single company and they have 4 different franchises for 3 different game genres... and they seem to pull them all off (or they did at least, before Activision -or whoever was it- botched it all up after WoW). And does it mean that now they can't make Warcraft 4 as always in the future? Would have you prefered if they had released Warcraft 1, 2, 3 and 4 in a row with no games in between, leaving us without Diablo, Starcraft and WoW?


Do you guys notice that most game designs today were born in the 90s not because they wanted that particular game design but because technical limitations didn't let them do anything more complex? Do you think that anyone would have ever done something like warcraft or age of empires with an isometric 2d view if they had had something like what total war is today available?

They had to make do with what they had (with a few exceptions who actually wanted that exact game design), but now that they have a lot more of techical resources and freedoms... why do you insist in keeping the industry bound by those old limitations? Why don't you let people develop new genres and ideas?

The fact is we technically are city building simliar to Simcity but on a macro scale. We build buildings to keep the populace happy, buildings to provide food, clean water, forts, etc. The cities also interact with each other depending on bonuses since Shogun 2.

If someone came and told you "i just want to play the damn battles and kill people, I don't care about the stupid campaign, they should definatelly make the game just with the battles and throw away all the grand-stragegy crap"... what would you think of him? what would you tell him? Don't answer, you would probably tell him everything that i have been telling all of you guys in my last couple of post.


TW "city-building" system has the worse of worst worlds. It is not deep enought (in fact... it is not deep at all..) to be fun enough to those who want a more complex game, and it is a tedious, boring addition for those who just don't care and want some quick fun.


I never said that they should just pick Simcity and insert it in TW. But there are some more complex city-building -isolated- features that could be included in a TW(ish) to its benefit. Right now the worst problem TW has is the almost absolute lack of depth in it's campaign.

Obviously we would be talking of a completelly different game, a lot of things shoul need to be adapted (just imagine having a "SimCity minigame" in every single city in a total war late game...), but that does not mean you guys have to just close your doors and say no without even giving some arguments to favour a decent debate...


Let's face it... TW hasn't really changed much since Rome. It has improved a lot ofc, it has got much more polished, but the essence is the same. Some new fresh ideas could be at least considered...

[Big Brown Bear]

Really... the gaming industry is stagnant, boring and uncreative enough already because of consoles and greedy franchise-spamming companies... Playing the same tw game with better graphics over and over again will eventually get monotonous

Nobody is asking for Total War: Rome 1.1. This is one single idea that the majority of people in this thread do not like. Do you hear people complaining about the Naval-Land battles? The new tactical battle map? The true line of sight? No.

Let people be creative dammit...

Part of being creative is coming up with bad ideas. People give you negative feedback that you can use to come up with new ideas. As for the people simply leaving no memes, well think of them what you will.

Were Blizzard wrong by getting their Warcraft franchise and developing World of Warcraft from it? A completelly different game of a different genre based in the same universe and made by the same developers with the same high quality standards? Would you say they failed? Come on... really. Blizzard is a single company and they have 4 different franchises for 3 different game genres... and they seem to pull them all off.

A completely invalid point, since you're talking about different genres in different games. There is a massive differences between adding a totally new genre to Total War and creating a Total War spin-off based on a new genre.

Do you guys notice that most game designs today were born in the 90s not because they wanted that particular game design but because technical limitations didn't let them do anything more complex? Do you think that anyone would have ever done something like warcraft or age of empires with an isometric 2d view if they had had something like what total war is today available?

They had to make do with what they had (with a few exceptions who actually wanted that exact game design), but now that they have a lot more of techical resources and freedoms... why do you insist in keeping the industry bound by those old limitations? Why don't you let people develop new genres and ideas?

We're not talking about technical limitations here, we're talking about creative decisions in terms of the direction a game will take. SimCity existed in the 90s too, you know. Total War has loosely stuck to a tried and tested formula and there's nothing inherently wrong with that since they have made numerous changes and improvements to the franchise along the way.

TW "city-building" system has the worse of worst worlds. It is not deep enought (in fact... it is not deep at all..) to be fun enough to those who want a more complex game, and it is a tedious, boring addition for those who just don't care and want some quick fun.

I never said that they should just pick Simcity and insert it in TW. But there are some more complex city-building -isolated- features that could be included in a TW(ish) to its benefit. Right now the worst problem TW has is the almost absolute lack of depth in it's campaign.

Now here is where I tend to agree with you. Despite everything I've just said, based on the clarification by the OP, I can definitely see some level of city simulation benefiting the game. However CA would need to be very careful in just how they implement this.
As you identified, having a fully fledged city builder within Total War just wouldn't work, period. You can't simultaneously manage 50 settlements with that kind of detail and complexity (well, all but the most hardcore players). Now the question is, what sort of depth do you give to this aspect of the game, if it were to be included at all. The problem is, if you make the city building aspect vital to the overall game as well as including too much depth within it then you risk alienating the casual Total War fan base who make up the majority of CA's revenue stream. Obviously this is a no can do.
Something similar to the OP's clarification seems to make sense to me. For those that want that extra level of depth, include a relatively simple city simulator (relative to a game like SimCity) within the city view. Using this would allow you to optimise your settlements as well as giving them something of a personal touch. For those who don't care for the city simulation, include a feature similar in its purpose to auto-management of a settlement, to allow building and growth of a settlement without using the city view. A couple of problems arise in using the city view however. In Rome I, there would be a considerable loading screen in entering city view. Obviously sitting through this loading screen 10-15 times a turn would not be favourable so this would need to be optimised to allow quicker shifting between settlements. Another problem is the customisation of your settlements through city building. This is great, but it then means that every single settlement on the map is not only a custom settlement, but a dynamically changing one too. I don't know, but I imagine this would eat up a lot of resources.

[HigoChumbo]

Keeping citizens happy doesn't interest me and if TW ever included city managment (beyond what it already has, which is actually Empire managment - not the same thing) I would be put off.

City builders (CivCity: Rome, Caesar series, Grand Ages) offer simplified comabt and complex cities.
Total War offer simple cities and complex combat.
Please, Keep it so.

You could have a total war with complex combat and simple city building instead of just simple cities (which for the good they do in their current state... they could just be removed for all I care). Nobody is asking for realistic sewer management.


Ignore peasant happiness. Try to think of it as a military support platform. You would build your walls strategically, you could chose your city placement to guard important resources and crossroads, you could build your cities in defensive emplacements (hilltops, rivers or whatever) to actually complement your army in case of an attack (for instance, creating a battlefield with your flanks/back guarded by the city). Maybe you want a particular city 200 metres further away from the coast to avoid sea raids, maybe you wan't to place it right in the beach as a naval base...

I don't know... I can see tons of options, and half of them actually improve the military depth of the game.

Again, I highly doubt a single person here longs for in depth sewer management. A somewhat simplified, military-focused city-building would do.

Nobody is asking for Total War: Rome 1.1. This is one single idea that the majority of people in this thread do not like. Do you hear people complaining about the Naval-Land battles? The new tactical battle map? The true line of sight? No.

Those are not preciselly revolutionary new features. Those are improvements of the gameplay. If they didn't do naval-land battles before, it was not because they thought it would be a bad feature, it is because it is a very -technically- difficult thing to do.

To me, if you consider this a new revolutionary feature you might as well do the same with bugfixes (a bit of an exaggeration but you get my point)...

Part of being creative is coming up with bad ideas. People give you negative feedback that you can use to come up with new ideas. As for the people simply leaving no memes, well think of them what you will.

I wish people were giving negative feedback. But most of them are not and that's what i'm complaining about. Most of them are just saying "no" or posting a meme and not adding a single reason. I don't really care about city-building in tw, i am just pissed at people who just reject discussing new ideas as a rule.

If people were trying to debate in which ways could something similar like this be implemented in a TW(ish) game and what would be the pros & cons of doing it, i wouln't have posted any rant post.

A completely invalid point, since you're talking about different genres in different games. There is a massive differences between adding a totally new genre to Total War and creating a Total War spin-off based on a new genre.

I used a common game everybody knows. I honestly think the point still stands. If you want something close (althought not that obvious), you can for instance check Massive Entertainment's Ground Control and World in Conflict. They took their GC franchise, revamped it and got a much more succesful game, even when both are still great (i honestly liked GC the better but i must be the only one, and i love both anyways).

You have a lot of examples throughout history. From original-sidescrolling Mario to the free-3d Mario 64 (both were great and equally valid platformers), another would be Company of Heroes and Dawn of War (althought in this case i liked the original better).

We're not talking about technical limitations here, we're talking about creative decisions in terms of the direction a game will take. SimCity existed in the 90s too, you know. Total War has loosely stuck to a tried and tested formula and there's nothing inherently wrong with that since they have made numerous changes and improvements to the franchise along the way.

My point here was directed at those saying "no because that's not TW", and i was saying that TW was probably born not just as a game design per se but as a design conditioned by technical limitations.

Do you think that if D&D creators could had actually have created a virtual reality 3d dragon they would have made a "tabletob" rpg? Back in the day people just wanted to "ride" the dragon. The limitation (in this case the lack of 3d pc games etc) gave place to the imagination and eventually they created a good game design. And as much fun people can have playing D&D with dice and pencils, that does not mean they would not enjoy as well riding -or killing- a dragon in real time in games such as WoW or Demon Souls or whatever. If you bring this example to the extreme, you get what i'm trying to do.

There is no written rule that says that a franchise has to limit itself to its original rules. And if they made a different TW game (or just a completelly new strategy game by CA) that would not mean TW would never come back (hence the example of Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft and the existing possibility of a future Warcraft 4).

Btw if you don't like the WoW-Warcraft analogy, you can compare Warcraft 3 to Starcraft 2 or to the original Warcraft 2. Is the game better with the rpg element War3 heroes brought in? Not necesarily, but it was a very welcome new mechanic and both games are fun in their differences. Has the hero mechanic stopped Starcraft 2 to appear without hero units and rpg elements? no. Will Starcraft 2 stop a future Warcraft 4 with hero units? no (they might do i or they might not, but SC2's design definatelly doesn't limit an hypothetical War4 design, they are just different approaches at the genre.

However CA would need to be very careful in just how they implement this.

I agree, never stated otherwise. I would even go as far as saying that maybe they should not implement it, but they SHOULD definatelly consider new ideas. City-Building mechanics could be one, the one i dream of is battles and campaign merged in the same 3d real time map (will it be a TW in the very strict deffinition of it? no. Does that mean CA can't make different games?)



Btw thanks for actually bringing in some arguments and not just saying "No. This is TW. Just go play Caesar/Simcity"

As you identified, having a fully fledged city builder within Total War just wouldn't work, period. You can't simultaneously manage 50 settlements with that kind of detail and complexity (well, all but the most hardcore players). Now the question is, what sort of depth do you give to this aspect of the game, if it were to be included at all. The problem is, if you make the city building aspect vital to the overall game as well as including too much depth within it then you risk alienating the casual Total War fan base who make up the majority of CA's revenue stream. Obviously this is a no can do.
Something similar to the OP's clarification seems to make sense to me. For those that want that extra level of depth, include a relatively simple city simulator (relative to a game like SimCity) within the city view. Using this would allow you to optimise your settlements as well as giving them something of a personal touch. For those who don't care for the city simulation, include a feature similar in its purpose to auto-management of a settlement, to allow building and growth of a settlement without using the city view. A couple of problems arise in using the city view however. In Rome I, there would be a considerable loading screen in entering city view. Obviously sitting through this loading screen 10-15 times a turn would not be favourable so this would need to be optimised to allow quicker shifting between settlements. Another problem is the customisation of your settlements through city building. This is great, but it then means that every single settlement on the map is not only a custom settlement, but a dynamically changing one too. I don't know, but I imagine this would eat up a lot of resources.

That's why i don't really consider city-building as a feature for TW as it is now. But in the -hypothetical- game i mentioned above (merged campaign and battles in real time 3d map) it would fit perfectly, and you would not need loading screens since citybuilding would happen in that very same map (obviously you could not make this in the current total war scale, you can't have a 3d map with all of europe into it, so it would need a much more reduced scale).


Just imagine Black & White 2 system, with a somewhat larger scale, maybe something similar to Rise of Nations (single strategy map with several cities per kingdom, say... 3-10 cities per player/kingdom) (Black and White had 2-5 cities per map, more or less, i can't remember). And now get that, change the crappy/childish/fixed location city building in B&W and make a serious city builder, with freedom of location of cities, and also replace B&W2 crappy-simplistic battle mechanics with TW battles.

Let me illustrate it with some images. (Note I'm gonna use images as a reference but i am actually going to change the content, i don't want to explain to you how B&W2 is, i want to use B&W2 images to show you what i mean) (Btw try to ignore the cartoonish design and picture it with a more photorealistic approach):

This is a part of a B&W2 map, I think all the small circles with the green flashlight are cities. And that's the only map you have, you don't have a different map for city building an another for battles. You just zoomed in and you built your houses and factories and whatever in that very same map, and those buildings would produce troops that would pop out of them and you would move them freely around the map. No loading screens involved. All in complete freedom.



Now this is obviously a very small scale, there is just a few hundred metters from one city to the next. So now you have to make an effort and picture that very same patter in a much bigger scale, so in between cities you have forests and rivers and hills and smaller villages and you would take some time to get from one to the next on foot.

Imagine this one in a bigger scale, with a bigger map and more cities, and each of the white light beams being a city.




Now when you zoom in (note I'm saying zooming in, there is no different campaign map so no loading screens involved), you have something like this, and you would place every single one of those buildings yourself, as in any city building game:

(btw, note the soldiers battling in the same map in which you city-build and campaign)



other examples:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And as you can see, battles would take place in real time in that very same map as well. You would besiege and defend cities in the very map you would be building them.

(try to ignore the giant cow )



Now imagine somethiing like that with TW-like combat (just like the current total war battles, with the same scale, but in that kind of map). It would be sort of slow paced, you would have to move troops from one city to the next marching in real time (maybe with supply lines?), you could actually ambush armies in real time... And i don't mean a general crouching in a forest as we have in TW now... i mean that you would move your entire army in real time to a forest in a crossroads (or any italian lake you like ^^) and wait for your enemy there.`


If you bring that up to Rise of Nations' scale (or even Civilization) i think it would be a very good middle ground between the simplistic, small-scale B&W and the "way-too-big-to-even-try-this" TW map.

(Check the minimap: all the big squares are actual cities like the one below it (in the spoiler), and in those cities you build all your buildings and train all your troops, and you can move the armies (and navies, note the sea in the top of the minimap) around the map freely)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now please stop a moment to imagine that system, with roughly that scale, with the 3d detailed maps like the ones in B&W pics above (obviously updated to todays standards), cities like the ones we have seen in the TW previews (probably with a reduced scale) and glorious Total War battles... I don't know about you but I am salivating heavily right now.



I would enjoy this a lot in an historic setting, although i can see how people actually want to conquer europe and see the big (bigger) picture (myself included), but we can still have both. And we have been conquering Europe ove and over again in the last 13 years...

I think that (IF they included city building in Warhammer), it would fit a Warhammer title like a glove, since Warhammer doesn't really require that bigger picture (aka, the entire map of Europe) and actually benefits from a more reduced scale.


I hope I explained what I want to describe well.

[nameless]

[QUOTE=nicolasete;12738566That's not even an argument. Described by whom? Wikipedia? Is CA bound by any law i don't know that forces them to make games withouth going off that description? Seriously. That's absurd. I'm sorry to say it. So i don't think i need to answer that because your premise makes no sense at all.[/quote]

Should've figured you'd pull the "that's not even an argument" card.

On the official SEGA website

In 2000, the Creative Assembly re-invented the strategy genre with Shogun: Total War, an unprecedented blend of 3D real-time battles and turn-based management game and the first offering in the multi-award winning series

Everytime when the media interviews a new total war game they ALWAYS identify CA as the maker of these types of games. It is literally their identity and all Total War games are categorized as such under the "Strategy game" section.

Or are you going to pull the "Oh but I'm better and that means nothing to me because my opinion despite the fact that I have zero control over this means more than either the media or CA" itself.

So no try again bud.

What If i defined the 2 original total war games as a turn based risk-like campaign with real time battles? Wouldn't that make the rest of CA's games not TW in your opinion? Isn't my description accurate? Is or was CA bound by it? Rome showed us that they were definatelly not.

Oh now your playing the "What if" card. Guess what anyone can play the "what If" card and that's a good way of prolonging an argument.

THey never described it as such so I don't know where you're going with this.

Were Blizzard wrong by getting their Warcraft franchise and developing World of Warcraft from it? A completelly different game of a different genre based in the same universe and made by the same developers with the same high quality standards? Would you say they failed? Come on... really. Blizzard is a single company and they have 4 different franchises for 3 different game genres... and they seem to pull them all off (or they did at least, before Activision -or whoever was it- botched it all up after WoW). And does it mean that now they can't make Warcraft 4 as always in the future? Would have you prefered if they had released Warcraft 1, 2, 3 and 4 in a row with no games in between, leaving us without Diablo, Starcraft and WoW?

For some strange reason people like you are under the belief that CA has just the one team that works on everything despite the fact that it's well known CA has a few divisions that are working on different projects at the same time just as Blizzard is. However it's only now that they are starting to "branch out" but you seem to forget that Blizzard is a LOT older than CA is (Shogun came out in 2000) so they had more time on their end.

You are also fully aware that CA is making a new Total War Arena game which is a F2P model right? This is done by different division in their company because they want to go explore other venues. Total War games just aren't meant for F2P. If they are to go into the city building franchise (though I'm not seeing a lot aside from the Caesar ones) it would be another division but an actual separate game in itself.

Just like how Warcraft 1-3 are different than Warcraft MMO. They are NOT the same.

EDIT: now that the OP changed his remarks I could see them implementing to a certain degree but given the size and magnitude of the maps it's going be awhile until they can make it happen with computers.

Do you guys notice that most game designs today were born in the 90s not because they wanted that particular game design but because technical limitations didn't let them do anything more complex? Do you think that anyone would have ever done something like warcraft or age of empires with an isometric 2d view if they had had something like what total war is today available?

They had to make do with what they had (with a few exceptions who actually wanted that exact game design), but now that they have a lot more of techical resources and freedoms... why do you insist in keeping the industry bound by those old limitations? Why don't you let people develop new genres and ideas?

A famous chef made the notion (and not exact quote), "Look at your ****ing menu, you've got too many *amn things all over the place. Anyone who looks at this won't even know what it is your restaurant's all about. A restaurant's got to have something that people identify it with."

If someone came and told you "i just want to play the damn battles and kill people, I don't care about the stupid campaign, they should definatelly make the game just with the battles and throw away all the grand-stragegy crap"... what would you think of him? what would you tell him? Don't answer, you would probably tell him everything that i have been telling all of you guys in my last couple of post.

They are, it's called Total War Arena....have you been living under a rock?

Do you also know that Total War games have "Custom battles" where people can play battles in various maps or historical ones?

TW "city-building" system has the worse of worst worlds. It is not deep enought (in fact... it is not deep at all..) to be fun enough to those who want a more complex game, and it is a tedious, boring addition for those who just don't care and want some quick fun.Let's face it... TW hasn't really changed much since Rome. It has improved a lot ofc, it has got much more polished, but the essence is the same. Some new fresh ideas could be at least considered...

Right, adding naval battles, amphibous invasion battles, attrition, season changes, tech trees, etc isn't a lot of changes....

[HigoChumbo]

On the official SEGA website

In 2000, the Creative Assembly re-invented the strategy genre with Shogun: Total War, an unprecedented blend of 3D real-time battles and turn-based management game and the first offering in the multi-award winning series

Really... so what¿?

I could give you a zillion of other different definitions andt hey all would be accurate. And once more... in what world does that definition bind CA to make the game using exactly the same mechanics (in accordance with the definition) over and over and over again???. It's just a summary, not a goddamn universal physics law...


Of course the turnbased campaign+real time battles is CA's signature... does that stop them in any way from trying new stuff? Warcraft was the signature franchise of blizzard... did that stop them from making Starcraft, Diablo or WoW? All of them being completelly different games and even in different gaming genres...

And what we are talking about is not even a different genre... it is just a different approach to strategy... so it is something CA has the ability to do (hell... it's not like we are asking them to make a shooter...)

Or are you going to pull the "Oh but I'm better and that means nothing to me because my opinion despite the fact that I have zero control over this means more than either the media or CA" itself.

So no try again bud.

Of course i have no control at all over CA, neither do you. But i do have the ability to demonstrate how your point was completelly absurd as i did in my last post. So no need to try again. You can just scroll up and read it again.


I don't know why are you being so hard-headed... if the title of the game is so damn important to you... just change it... CA has done other types of games haven't they? Do you aknowledge at least that they have the ability and freedom to make different games?

Because if you are so stubborn that not even this you are going to admit... let me paste the next list:

• Stunt Car Racer 1989 DOS
• Shadow of the Beast 1991 FM Towns[41][42][43]
• FIFA International Soccer 1993 DOS
• Microcosm 1994 DOS
• Rugby World Cup 95 1994 DOS
• ARL 96 1996 DOS, Windows
• International Rugby League 1996 DOS, Windows
• AFL 98 1998 Windows
• ICC Cricket World Cup England 99 1999 Windows
• Cricket 2000 2000 Windows
  
• Shogun: Total War 2000 Windows
• Rugby 2000 PlayStation 2
• Shogun: Total War - The Mongol Invasion 2001 Windows
• Medieval: Total War 2002 Windows
• Medieval: Total War – Viking Invasion 2003 Windows
• Rome: Total War 2004 Windows
• Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion 2005 Windows
• Spartan: Total Warrior 2005 GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox
• Rome: Total War: Alexander 2006 Windows
• Medieval II: Total War 2006 Windows
• Medieval II: Total War: Kingdoms 2007 Windows
• Viking: Battle for Asgard 2008 PlayStation 3, Windows, Xbox 360
• Empire: Total War 2009 Windows
• Stormrise 2009 PlayStation 3, Windows, Xbox 360
• Napoleon: Total War 2010 Windows
• Sonic Classic Collection 2010 Nintendo DS
• Total War: Shogun 2 2011 Windows
• Total War: Shogun 2 - Fall of the Samurai 2012 Windows
• Total War: Rome II In development Windows
• Total War: Arena In development Windows
• Untitled Warhammer Fantasy game Concept stage Unknown
• Untitled Alien game Concept stage Unknown

Let's see if you guess who made all those completelly different games...

And btw, just to prove you wrong again, EVEN INSIDE TOTAL WAR there are titles breaking that deffinition, like the upcoming Total War: Arena, who will probably not have a turn-based campaign at all (will probably not have a campaign...) (i might be wrong here since we don't have enough information, but I'm takinga guess). And you have other obvious spin-off games which are completelly different, like Total War Battles or Spartan Total Warrior...

Oh now your playing the "What if" card. Guess what anyone can play the "what If" card and that's a good way of prolonging an argument.

THey never described it as such so I don't know where you're going with this.

And here you are focusing only in "winning" a conversation instead of trying to bring in arguments and debate. Sorry pal, I'm not going to join that boat.

I'm not prolonging no argument, CA HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE DIFFERENT GAMES, there is no room for argumentation there mate, thats an huge fact. I fear it's you who is prolonging this absurd argument trying to convince a bunch of "internet-people" who you will never know that you are right.

For some strange reason people like you are under the belief that CA has just the one team that works on everything despite the fact that it's well known CA has a few divisions that are working on different projects at the same time just as Blizzard is.

You made an asumption and you are wrong. Obviously CA has several divisions, just as all big companies. They are even hiring people for console Aliens games in their website...

And in any case, the more reason to prove that they can make different games and experiment with new ideas.

You are also fully aware that CA is making a new Total War Arena game which is a F2P model right? This is done by different division in their company because they want to go explore other venues. Total War games just aren't meant for F2P. If they are to go into the city building franchise (though I'm not seeing a lot aside from the Caesar ones) it would be another division but an actual separate game in itself.

So what. You are the only one here arguing on how should make the game. The rest of us are actually discussing gameplay mechanics...

Total War games just aren't meant for F2P.

And yet there Total War Arena lies. No matter wich lowly branch of the company develops it, it has a big, fat, really unconfortable for you Total War on it. And anyways, i guess it will be using Rome2's engine, which is actually made by CA.

That other branch of the company will probably just adapt Rome2 to a f2p format.

Just like how Warcraft 1-3 are different than Warcraft MMO. They are NOT the same.

And again, yet there they lie. Made by the same company (whatever division) under the same ip branch. And if you don't want to take that as an example, then use the transition from Warcraft 2 to Warcraft 3, two different games with very different game-changing mechanics.

If we were having this discussion about them, you would be saying that Warcraft 2 is a pure RTS and should remain like that and i would be saying "dude... just let them try the rpg-style hero thing, and let them borrow the differentiated factions from Starcraf... it might be fun. And... and... ooh oh! they could add undeads! and night elfs!" - "But dude! Warcraft is called Orcs&Humans! its Orcs& Humans by definition!!!" - "so what?"

A famous chef made the notion (and not exact quote), "Look at your ****ing menu, you've got too many *amn things all over the place. Anyone who looks at this won't even know what it is your restaurant's all about. A restaurant's got to have something that people identify it with."

Ser Isaac Newton once said "Sir, i honestly don't give a hoot to what that chef said"

If ser Isaac or me cared about that chef, then TW... a game which is actually a BLEND OF TWO DIFFERENT GAMES (rts battles and turn-based grand strategy tabletop) would also be too much...


Again... we are trying to discuss game mechanics here... ofc all game mechanics have to be streamlined and integrated in any game design, but can you just open your mind and at least discuss the topic instead of just saying "no, its not possible because there is a game summary in the Sega site that states otherwise".

Thanks.

They are, it's called Total War Arena....have you been living under a rock?

Do you also know that Total War games have "Custom battles" where people can play battles in various maps or historical ones?

Like arguing with a mule.

I think i was pretty clear. If someone asked CA to completelly remove the grand-campaign from Total War you would rant at him, and so would all of us, and you know it.

Right, adding naval battles, amphibous invasion battles, attrition, season changes, tech trees, etc isn't a lot of changes....

Those are great features and a step in the right direction.

And yet none of them really change the core mechanics of the game at all (save for the amphibious battles maybe). But in any case, you are just agreeing with me. Those are great additions, great new mechanics that improve the game.

I bet there are people who don't like naval battles or rpg elements like the tech-tree or the generals tiered abilities and ranted about them as much as you are ranting about this now. Tell me... if someone like you would have said "no... just ****ing go play Pirates of the Burning Sea or Navy Field or something and leave TW as it is"... wouldn't you argue with him the same i am arguing with you?

Some interesting ideas there. As you say, you're not talking about a Total War game there at all. Seems like you want Age of Empires but on a larger, more realistic scale. Not sure if it's actually possible to have full scale battles within the same map as the campaign though...

My vision of Total War is a more familiar one. If a real time campaign map is implemented, I'd like to see it in the style of Paradox Games (with considerably improved UI), keeping the campaign and battle map separate.

As for the city building, there are plenty of military applications for it which I believe would fit well with a Total War game. For instance, where you place defensive emplacements/towers on the walls. The number of gates into the city. The basic layout of roads within the city - the ability to create more easily defensible points through the manufacture of choke points. There could be trade offs for this, such as reduced trade or increased squalor/unrest. I'm just spitballing here.

Check it nameless.

THIS is how a gentleman disagrees.

Dude, I think you should calm down a bit. Just because someone misunderstand you, you do not have to accuse them of not taking a moment to read. Misunderstanding is all over the worlds. I think we should expect them to be more common in the internet.

As far as I understand, what you are proposing is actually focusing on a small region with only a few cities. Then ... i would like you to know how would your suggestion link up to the huge campaign map?

Didn't mean to be harsh (sorry if i am a bit exalted in excess, some other guy is plucking my nerves a bit).


I was just discussing how city-building (that some people seem to have forgotten... it is the topic of this thread) could be implemented in a TW (ISH) game. I said that it would be impossible with the current campaign scale and that lead to me discussing a different game/approach that could admit city-building.

Btw, it's not like that would link to the huge campaign map. There would be no huge campaign map. The campaign map and the battle map would be the very same map (which would require a smaller scale for a lot of reasons, from system requirement limitations to avoid making an overcomplicated -too big- game).

Even then, there could be a way to implement that into a grand campaign turn based game (that would be the ****), you could use that realtime map with battles to depict an entire province with several regions (cities) in it, and battles would not be fought in a single square battlefield but over the entire province, with a few cities in each battle.

In any case, this is something to think on since there ar ea lot of extra limitations to be considered (for instance, in my completelly real time system, you would march your armies in the very same real time map, making army maneuvering a part of the gameplay, but if you added that to a normal turn-based map i don't know how army movements would be handled).



I see mainly 2 problems to implement this. One is that we are obviously speaking of a completelly different game, while it could still be sort of a total war. The other is that the AI programmers would face the time of their lives xD. If programming the battle ai alone is hard enough already, imagine if that same battle ai had to take care for maneuvering around the "campaign" map (i use quotes because there is no campaign map)

[Aeneas Veneratio]

• I'm not entirely convinced of, how the ideas presented by the OP could be implemented in a TW game, but as a seperate title, Total War: Greek Citystates perhaps, with increased control of your city and its expansions I would see as a great potential.
  
  One thing I think a TW game could use more of is, a increase in the preplanning of a battle: traps, fortifications, fences made of stakes, grass soaked in oil, which your archers can ignite as the enemy cross, etc.

[Gelston]

I don't want the same game over and over again with better graphics. I don't want a city sim inside of this series. I want to play Total War when I play a Total War title. I want to play a city simulator when I play Sim City of Caesar IV. I'd, honestly, much rather THOSE games be expanded to include tactical depth then to have city simulation added to Total War.

[Muizer]

Caesar II had a city map, province map and battle map. For those who never heard of it, the main game revolved around building a city, but you had to develop trade and military infrastructure on the province map. You also had to raise legions to defend your province, with battles against rebels and invaders being fought on a tactical map. If you failed to stop invaders from reaching your city, it would get sacked on the city map . IMHO still the most entertaining format for a roman era game ever. But it would never work in a TW game for anyone but a few very hard-core players. It would just become too much.
IMHO TW should actually go the other way (if it hasn't already). Abandon the notion of "building" in the literal sense alltogether. It would be better to have a world in which people go about their own business and respond in their own way to player policies concerning public order, defense, tax regime, religion etc..

[Seanakk]

Why not just play Sim city or one of the Caesar games?

[vietanh797]

how about "City in motion"?
"Simcity" suck in my view

[alex_shields]

Total war is to tactical warfare as SimCity is to city-builders.

It's easy to have visions of the glory of a majestic city in the TW engine - but I stay away from city builders because I like managing my army, my soldiers and formations and not worrying about building research or placement. Keeping citizens happy doesn't interest me and if TW ever included city managment (beyond what it already has, which is actually Empire managment - not the same thing) I would be put off.
Caesar II was excellant in its implementation of city view and province view. But that was just managing one provice at a time... not 50-200.

City builders (CivCity: Rome, Caesar series, Grand Ages) offer simplified comabt and complex cities.
Total War offer simple cities and complex combat.
Please, Keep it so.

[Raining Red]

I dont know if everyone has seen OP's edit, but something like that would interesting IMO. It would be an optional feature that could add a nice degree of personalization. For example, you could choose to only worry about your capital and let every other city be done in a default manner. Or you could choose like 3 key cities. Or if you are really bold customize every city. Or ignore it altogether.

I suppose the main concern I would have is how difficult it would be to actually implement and whether or not it would be worth the man power.

What if they created a separate standalone game that involved city building, and then created a cross functionality with TW? It would only be available to people who purchased both games and could of course be completely ignored by people who wanted to play only one or the other.

[vietanh797]

sorry but no real time battle along campaign map
117 regions is impossible to deal with all at once if you keep them at this detail level real time

[HigoChumbo]

sorry but no real time battle along campaign map
117 regions is impossible to deal with all at once if you keep them at this detail level real time

Meh... you guys are impossible.

a) "sorry but I WOULD PERSONALLY PREFER IF THERE WAS no real time battle along campaign map"

b) who spoke about provinces? I imagine you just did a quick overview read of my post and figured out i was talking about TW exactly as it is now but in real time... I never did. I spoke about a different game, i spoke about a much smaller scale, and also... when i say real time i dont mean like in a Paradox game... i mean an actual real time 3d map for everything (same map for battles, citybuilding and army movement, imagine something similar -please... dont take this literally... its an example- as Rise of Nations in 3d, and the thing about that... is that there are no provinces.


But anyways, if your opinion is about my posts... at least take a moment read them completelly before judging the entire concept. You don't know how it feels to get a 2 sentence response to a 2300 word post... specially if that response shows that given it a very, very, quick read, if anything.

[JustaKing]

Great ideas, some echoing what I have said and always wanted. If they could just implement half of them, or even just one or two, it would make my decade.

And could people who are obviously not even reading the posts and replies stop posting and re-posting the same old staid and boring lack of argument "it is too big for this game to handle, too many cities, too complex, too large". An option to auto-manage would be great and would remove any complaints from people who do not want to deal with it, but no option only makes the people who don't want it happy, leaving the other people out.

The real problem might be with AI, honestly, as it might not be up to the task and well...... I can guess most of us can imagine a moment or two of epic face-palmyness as we take a peek at our developing city and see the mess the computer has made of it.

All I can say is, simply being allowed to build and shape my own WALLS, just the walls, would be amazing. Even more options makes me even happier, but for starters, let's just take the walls. Wouldn't take too much time, fits very well into the theme of Total War and would increase strategic depth considerably.

[roarer]

Meh... you guys are impossible.

a) "sorry but I WOULD PERSONALLY PREFER IF THERE WAS no real time battle along campaign map

b) who spoke about provinces? I imagine you just did a quick overview read of my post and figured out i was talking about TW exactly as it is now but in real time... I never did. I spoke about a different game, i spoke about a much smaller scale, and also... when i say real time i dont mean like in a Paradox game... i mean an actual real time 3d map for everything (same map for battles, citybuilding and army movement, imagine something similar -please... dont take this literally... its an example- as Rise of Nations in 3d, and the thing about that... is that there are no provinces.


But anyways, if your opinion is about my posts... at least take a moment read them completelly before judging the entire concept. You don't know how it feels to get a 2 sentence response to a 2300 word post... specially if that response shows that given it a very, very, quick read, if anything.

Dude, I think you should calm down a bit. Just because someone misunderstand you, you do not have to accuse them of not taking a moment to read. Misunderstanding is all over the worlds. I think we should expect them to be more common in the internet.

As far as I understand, what you are proposing is actually focusing on a small region with only a few cities. Then ... i would like you to know how would your suggestion link up to the huge campaign map?

[roarer]

double posted..

[roarer]

Meh... you guys are impossible.

a) "sorry but I WOULD PERSONALLY PREFER IF THERE WAS no real time battle along campaign map

b) who spoke about provinces? I imagine you just did a quick overview read of my post and figured out i was talking about TW exactly as it is now but in real time... I never did. I spoke about a different game, i spoke about a much smaller scale, and also... when i say real time i dont mean like in a Paradox game... i mean an actual real time 3d map for everything (same map for battles, citybuilding and army movement, imagine something similar -please... dont take this literally... its an example- as Rise of Nations in 3d, and the thing about that... is that there are no provinces.


But anyways, if your opinion is about my posts... at least take a moment read them completelly before judging the entire concept. You don't know how it feels to get a 2 sentence response to a 2300 word post... specially if that response shows that given it a very, very, quick read, if anything.

Dude, I think you should calm down a bit. Just because someone misunderstand you, you do not have to accuse them of not taking a moment to read. Misunderstanding is all over the worlds. I think we should expect them to be more common in the internet.

As far as I understand, what you are proposing is actually focusing on a small region with only a few cities. Then ... i would like you to know how would your suggestion link up to the huge campaign map?