Total War: Ancient Wars ------------- concept of game in future

[Am7]

I want to share a new game concept.
1) Imagine you are playing Total War: Rome 2 for a faction of Rome, but you can switch to a faction of Parthia, or choose any other faction.
2) Imagine you control an entire army, but you can give all under the control of AI and start playing any character on the battlefield, in the first person. If he dies, you can choose any other, simply the legionary or army general.
3) Imagine you can select any time period in history, but do not worry, that the game will many gigabytes weigh, the game is on a remote server, you only need an internet connection. The game will be constantly updated.
4) You can not only be an emperor in this game, but also merchant or a spy, or assassin, and at any moment become implanted in another character.
5) In this game you will be able to meet, the real players, the same as you
Just say you want such a game in future from the CA ?

[Greve Af Göteborg]

1: Defeats the purpose of building your own empire, the player progresses with the faction that he has chosen
2: I would not like it.
3: A game where you can select any time period would either be Shallow or take forever to make (like duke nukem forever).
4: Too many features like this in a game makes a game without a sense of direction
5: So, it's an mmo?

[Dude with the Food]

1) You mean take control of the endless super-stacks?
2) The Ai? You have played Total War?
3) When did total war go online?
4) Emperors can die. I'd rather stay as the telepathic god I am.
5) Yeah but no. We already have multiplayer.
Not from CA. Maybe someone else while CA carry on with new Total Wars. And I'll be playing the Total Wars while you're on that game.

[Am7]

1) Imagine you are playing Total War: Rome 2 for a faction of Rome, but you can switch to a faction of Parthia, or choose any other faction. Without starting a new game
Sorry I do not know how to edit the post

[Woodrow Skillson]

You will one day be a great "idea man" for a mod.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

You will one day be a great "idea man" for a mod.

No mod can do these things. Not even CA would be able to do all these things while still making it into a good game, you'd just mix in way too many gimmicks and stuff into the game. It would be pretty damn horrible unless CA were allowed to work on it for more than half a decade, and even then it would probably not be good.

[Woodrow Skillson]

No mod can do these things. Not even CA would be able to do all these things while still making it into a good game, you'd just mix in way too many gimmicks and stuff into the game. It would be pretty damn horrible unless CA were allowed to work on it for more than half a decade, and even then it would probably not be good.

That was part of the joke.

[Am7]

No mod can do these things. Not even CA would be able to do all these things while still making it into a good game, you'd just mix in way too many gimmicks and stuff into the game. It would be pretty damn horrible unless CA were allowed to work on it for more than half a decade, and even then it would probably not be good.

This game can be upgraded, not necessarily at once all to do. This game will never get bored, will always be something new to emerge, you will not attachment to the game progresses, you will be able to travel in time.

[Gelston]

I want to share a new game concept.
1) Imagine you are playing Total War: Rome 2 for a faction of Rome, but you can switch to a faction of Parthia, or choose any other faction.
2) Imagine you control an entire army, but you can give all under the control of AI and start playing any character on the battlefield, in the first person. If he dies, you can choose any other, simply the legionary or army general.
3) Imagine you can select any time period in history, but do not worry, that the game will many gigabytes weigh, the game is on a remote server, you only need an internet connection. The game will be constantly updated.
4) You can not only be an emperor in this game, but also merchant or a spy, or assassin, and at any moment become implanted in another character.
5) In this game you will be able to meet, the real players, the same as you
Just say you want such a game in future from the CA ?

You should check out Mount & Blade. It has most of what you want.

[Am7]

You should check out Mount & Blade. It has most of what you want.

I played Mount & Blade, but I want these innovations in the Total War

[Pour Some Sugar On Me]

I played Mount & Blade, but I want these innovations in the Total War

You do know M&B 2 is in the make, I hope?

[Admiral Van Tromp]

Double Post

[Admiral Van Tromp]

I played Mount & Blade, but I want these innovations in the Total War

I don't understand this... I see a growing tendency amongst gamers that makes them want to mix every game. People are more and more trying to take features of some game and mixing them into others. You see that when people say that TW should have first/third person action like Mount and Blade, or when people say that Paradox's Grand Strategy Games should have RTS battles like Total War. Just learn to enjoy every game as a separate experience and stop trying to mix them, it usually ends up badly and removes the focus of the game making it a mess.

[Razor]

I don't understand this... I see a growing tendency amongst gamers that makes them want to mix every game. People are more and more trying to take features of some game and mixing them into others. You see that when people say that TW should have first/third person action like Mount and Blade, or when people say that Paradox's Grand Strategy Games should have RTS battles like Total War. Just learn to enjoy every game as a separate experience and stop trying to mix them, it usually ends up badly and removes the focus of the game making it a mess.

Adding elements (campaign map stuff and diplomacy) from Paradox games to Total War games makes much more sense than adding first person elements and ideas like wouldn't-cool-to-control-one-soldier-on-the-battlefield-kind-of-ideas.

TBH I'm happy with neither Paradox games or Total War games. One has a (sort of) real time campaign which I hate through and through (mainly pop-up spam and constantly pausing and unpausing and getting overwhelmed by everything happening at once and the need to focus on everything all the time) but is IMO the far more challenging and superior strategy game, the other uses the combination of turn based campaign and real time battles which is absolutely classic, but the AI and the whole mechanism dealing with war and diplomacy are so damned simplistic and shallow that it puts me off. Waging war and conquering provinces in Total War games is no effort at all compared to Paradox games.

[Admiral Van Tromp]

Adding elements (campaign map stuff and diplomacy) from Paradox games to Total War games makes much more sense than adding first person elements and ideas like wouldn't-cool-to-control-one-soldier-on-the-battlefield-kind-of-ideas.

TBH I'm happy with neither Paradox games or Total War games. One has a (sort of) real time campaign which I hate through and through (mainly pop-up spam and constantly pausing and unpausing and getting overwhelmed by everything happening at once and the need to focus on everything all the time) but is IMO the far more challenging and superior strategy game, the other uses the combination of turn based campaign and real time battles which is absolutely classic, but the AI and the whole mechanism dealing with war and diplomacy are so damned simplistic and shallow that it puts me off. Waging war and conquering provinces in Total War games is no effort at all compared to Paradox games.

I do agree with you on making Total War a more complex experience being positive. I was talking more about complete "game changing features" if you want to call them that. Total War is Turn Based, with RTS battles mixed in, both aspects can be improved on the basis of that structure. What I meant was "glueing" features that seem to be separate to the main experience.
As for Paradox, the RTS scheme works for some of their games, but others could be better with turns. For example Hearts of Iron's WW2 setting fits well with it, given the tension, the decision making, etc. As for Europa Universalis or Victoria, on the other hand, a slower, turn based pace would fit better imo. Altough you can always pause and manage freely. And yes, I do agree that a pop-up spam reduction would do it no harm.

[Am7]

Ok 5) the item can be removed

[Jokern]

No, the game wouldn't have any focus.

[Am7]

No, the game wouldn't have any focus.

Everything will depend on the player, he will focus on his interesting story time. Thus it will be possible to study the history, being in the midst of events.

[Sharpe]

My thoughts.

[BLITZCRAFT]

The only thing i would want out of all the things you mentioned is to controle a soldier on the battlefield.
just like you can control artillery or the gattlinggun in shogun 2.
just think it would be awesome to run around in those massive battle's as a roman soldier killing a few guys before getting cut down yourself.
with that said i dont know how they would implement this without either making it to overpowerd or to weak.

in all honesty i just want CA doing what they think is best for the game they have never let me down before so they clearly know what they are doing.