Warhammer will be next but what then?

[EU Empire is fubar]

I think it will be WW1 as they were talking about how tanks would be able to be used in a total war game in future. Some of the units in Warhammer are like tanks.

[Sirlion]

IMHO WW1 in a TW game is impossible. At least to a "realistic" level. Unless we want Waiting at the Frontlines: Total Boredom with a dysentry simulator built in.

[Kraut]

Waiting at the Frontlines: Total Boredom with a dysentry simulator built in.

You mean "with a dysentry DLC coming soon"?

[Cadmium77]

I'd prefer a game that focuses on a shorter time frame, like the 30 Years War. By focusing on less, things like correct formations, military kit, buildings, family trees etc. can be fleshed out better than if it's a much longer period:



playable factions should be:

• Spain / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_III_of_Spain
• Austria / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdin..._Roman_Emperor
• Catholic League / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximi...tor_of_Bavaria
• Protestant Union / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freder...ector_Palatine
• Saxony / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G...ctor_of_Saxony
• Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund_III_Vasa
• Russia / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_I_of_Russia
• Sweden / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav...phus_of_Sweden
• Denmark / faction leader:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_IV_of_Denmark
• France / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIII_of_France
• England / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I
• Dutch Republic / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice,_Prince_of_Orange
• Republic of Venice / faction leader:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Priuli
• Ottoman Empire / faction leader: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_I

list of wars in the 1600s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...1799#1600-1699

list of naval battles in the 1600s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_17th_century

contemporary images:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C...astiaan_Vrancx
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C...:Peter_Snayers

A Guerre De Trente Ans would indeed be awesome. But the next engine needs to handle huge numbers of men on the battlefield and needs to have an entirely new approach to the campaign map. Ambuscades need to be done better. The movement of armies across the landscape needs to be broken up as armies need to forage for supplies in the countryside as they move about. Thus strategy involves logistics on a much deeper level as an army divided by its need to feed itself must constantly be struggling between being divided and coalescing to form a viable battle group at an opportune moment, all without the benefit of radio communications.

[Huberto]

I strongly suspect the next historical TW will not be Medieval or something limited to land war in Europe. We've been in those settings now for almost three years running. Instead, it's going to be 3 Kingdoms (China/East Asia) or more likely a Victoria game on a global map and I think we'll see it released in September 2017.

[NostalgiaFan]

I strongly suspect the next historical TW will not be Medieval or something limited to land war in Europe. We've been in those settings now for almost three years running. Instead, it's going to be 3 Kingdoms (China/East Asia) or more likely a Victoria game on a global map and I think we'll see it released in September 2017.

I personally really hope it is a China themed one and that it is on a true new engine because I have seen nothing about Warhammer that has shown me they have fixed melee combat besides making the charges look better and take away the synced animations.

[Abdülmecid I]

I strongly suspect the next historical TW will not be Medieval or something limited to land war in Europe. We've been in those settings now for almost three years running. Instead, it's going to be 3 Kingdoms (China/East Asia) or more likely a Victoria game on a global map and I think we'll see it released in September 2017.

I think that September 2017 is too early, judging by Rome's II, as the new historical title would probably be as ambitious (that means the investment of money and time by CA), pattern, which was announced in June 2012 and released in September 2013. That seems a likelier date for Wahrammer's last expansion and I doubt that they are going to publish two TW games simultaneously or announce a new game, only two months after the release of the previous one (thus halving their profits and the generated hype from both games). In my opinion, 2018 is the earliest year and I wouldn't even be surprised, if it was released in 2019. Regarding its content, China is fine and dandy, but the vast majority of CA's audience, essentially composed of Europeans and Americans have neither any interest nor any knowledge about the events. Heck, even I wouldn't buy such a game, just like I didn't buy Shogun and Warhammer, despite considering myself more interested in history than CA's average consumer. Victoria sounds more probable, but they missed their opportunity after FotS, and shiny knights are much more attractive and famous than the Foreign Legion, not to mention that the temptation of copy-pasting Brettonia's (as well as the Byzzie's and Cordoba's from Charlemagne, because Easterners always look the same) models is irresistible. Add to that the surprise Dragon (forever grateful to Chaos for the inspiration) update for the Halloween and everyone is going to get mad, no matter if the Mongol hordes prefer getting starved in the middle of the Black Sea to sacking Baghdad. Mark my words, Total War: Knights, released in April 2018 with Wallace and his true Scotsmen as the perfect pre-order incentive.

[LestaT]

Total War China is coming.

[Spear Dog]

Total War China is coming.

Agreed, a few quick thoughts here (rather than a thoughtful analysis);

Warhammer was mostly about (among other things) opening new markets for the Total War franchise - expanding beyond the historical context into an already established fan-base. A potentially lucrative and sound marketing strategy, plus being a fantasy game without the incumbent (and problematic for ideological overseer regimes) interpretations of history it avoided the usual storm of criticism that has come to characterise a Total War title release. Further, it's sort of the 'thin edge of the wedge' into markets Total War has had trouble cracking.

I can't be sure, but a quick perusal on-line seems to indicate that Warhammer pre-Total War was quite popular in China while Total War titles are not particularly successful there. Total War: Warhammer may be able establish recognition and a reputation for the franchise in China. As such, a Total War title tailored specifically for the Chinese market, if successful, would increase Total War sales by multiples of tens to potentially hundreds. But I wouldn't expect too much historical accuracy - I reckon Sega would consult with the Chinese authorities to achieve an 'approved' version of Chinese History. I think it would only extend to the immediate post Kublai Khan era, but may reach back into the bronze age. In this scenario I think there would be a heavy focus on the Mongol expansion westwards into Europe and the dogged resistance to Mongol expansion into China proper, so expect nerfed Western factions and heroic Chinese factions battling Mongols who mostly draw their advantage from being a massive horde rather than military prowess (the Mongol conquerors did after all become the reviled Mandarins whom the revolution defeated).

The potential for modding though - mouth watering!

[BallButton]

As such, a Total War title tailored specifically for the Chinese market, if successful, would increase Total War sales by multiples of tens to potentially hundreds. But I wouldn't expect too much historical accuracy - I reckon Sega would consult with the Chinese authorities to achieve an 'approved' version of Chinese History. I think it would only extend to the immediate post Kublai Khan era, but may reach back into the bronze age. In this scenario I think there would be a heavy focus on the Mongol expansion westwards into Europe and the dogged resistance to Mongol expansion into China proper, so expect nerfed Western factions and heroic Chinese factions battling Mongols who mostly draw their advantage from being a massive horde rather than military prowess (the Mongol conquerors did after all become the reviled Mandarins whom the revolution defeated).

You would still have to list Tibet as a vassal of China during the Ming and under direct control during the Qing (if the game is set in those periods after the dynasty was already well established) which is the so called "approved" version of Chinese history, both in the PRC and ROC. The debate is always about how independent Tibet was from China after the Yuan, not whether was Tibet independent from China after the Yuan. Tibet was never independent from China politically or militarily from China since the Yuan, it's independence in 1912 till 1949 wasn't recognised by legitimate country as legal either.

Back to the game, I would say that that a Genghis Khan period China would be a good candidate: The politically & militarily corrupted but technologically & economically advanced Southern Song (Advance gunpowder weapons and navy), the emerging backwards but adaptable Mongol Horde (can learn how to use gunpowder), the Sino-nomadic Jin and Liao dynasties in the east and west respectively who are in between the Song and Mongols (Nomadic troops + some gunners and cannons), Sino-Qiangic Western Xia (strong heavy cataphracts, mountain troops), the Sino-tribal Kingdom of Dali (I don't really know what they have except for monks). You already have 5 strong factions in one region, throw in Korea, Tibetan factions (Tibet was in pieces during this period), some other nomadic tribes and you basically have a full total war game already. The map would consist of China, Korea, Nepal & Bhutan, Mongolia, Southern Siberia (From Outer Manchuria, maybe even Sakhalin(KuYe island) to the lower Volga), Central Asia (everything north of the Iranian Plateau, Afghanistan would be excluded too), which is actually really big enough on it's own without the need for Indian subcontinent or Southeast Asia. You can add those but I rather have a less factions and better content, we don't want it to become another Empire TW.

[Axalon]

To all and any newcomers of this thread (or similar ones)...

Please refer to post: 7 (this thread), it contains all the vital information one could
possibly ever need to fully grasp this topic and all its aspects - it also deliver us
the vital perspective needed on how to view any suggestions or activity that goes
on here, beyond that very post.

If in doubt - please read post: 7, all over again. Just saying...

- A

[bigdaddy1204]

I want to see Medieval III, starting in 1025. The game would be drastically different to Medieval II (2006) by starting 55 years earlier. This map shows why:

1. The Byzantine Empire has not yet suffered the defeat at Manzikert (1071) and still holds Asia Minor
2. England has still not been conquered by the Normans (1066) and is ruled by the Anglo-Saxons
3. Spain is still almost entirely under Muslim rule as the Caliphate of Cordoba has not yet splintered (1031)
4. Egypt begins with a much larger empire, including Sicily; the Byzantines still hold southern Italy



Playing as Egypt, the Byzantines and the Caliphate of Cordoba would be somewhat like starting with the Romans or Persians in Attila. Meanwhile, starting with one of the Catholic factions would be like playing with one of the barbarian factions from Attila. This would be a much more accurate depiction of the period than the original Medieval II (2006). It would bring things closer to what the original Medieval I (2002) was like, which was a much better game.

[PikeStance]

Med III is not happening; they already said this. It also been mentioned in this thread several times, so not sure hit repeatedly brought up.

[BallButton]

I don't get the M3TW craze, why would anyone want CA to keep doing the same thing over and over again? In fact I suspect some of these people might be the very same ones who bash COD for being the "same thing" every year, when they themselves are hypocritically demanding CA to do the same thing.

[Jezza93]

Honestly I think 1025 is an awful idea. You just have too many OP factions. Massive Muslim spain, OP HRE, big byzantines etc etc.

I accept that a Medieval III doesn't look like the next one but I would really like it. I never particularly enjoyed Medieval II and I could never quite put my finger on why. I just always found it clunky and restrictive and I thought the DLCs were rubbish. If it wasn't for mods I'd not touch the game with a barge pole.

I'd not care a jot for anything set in China. The period and setting simply do not interest me and I don't think there is much mainstream appeal for it. Empire II would be good, pike and shot maybe but it's not exactly a sexy period of history.

But honestly, if they actually try to make it accessible to modders (like Med II) then they can put it wherever they like and I'll buy it for the mods.

@BallButton mods or not Medi II is incredibly dated, it's almost ten years and the market has changed. Alot of people who didn't buy Medi II would buy Medi III. CA might even try to tap into the Game of Thrones market with the War of the Roses appeal (I'd be surprised, could work as a precursor DLC to a pike and shot TW). If I were CA I'd try to jump on the coat tails of trendy periods. Possible increased interest in WW1 after Battlefield 1? Game of Thrones could send people towards Medieval etc etc etc.

[BallButton]

Just because you don't care about it doesn't mean it's not going to make money. And M2 is not dated, in fact it's still better in certain areas than some of the new ones, it's graphics is still holding up and it's gameplay is definitely in the top 3 for TW games, WITHOUT mods. Also after reading through the forums, I realise that there is more interest in a China Total War than Med 3 and whether you like it or not, those calling for a Genghis Khan TW is actually quite literally calling for a China Total War. But more importantly, people are calling for regions outside of Europe, the community is starting to get sick of Europe, Europe is getting boring already, as you have said, it's ten years already and the market has changed. We want more diversity now, not just white men killing each other anymore.

[PikeStance]

Med2 is definitely "dated.' The beauty of Med2 is its high moddability.
Med 3 is a moot discussion; CA was quote explicit. Guess something else!

[Alwyn]

I feel that Medieval II fans have been waiting the longest, so I hope that CA brings out a medieval-era game. I know that they have said that they won't make a Medieval III, but they could simply call it something else. Why not make that game? The enduring popularity of MII suggests that a new game in that era would have a legion of fans. As PikeStance said, the beauty of Medieval II was its high moddability - it would amazing if they could make a medieval-era game with a moddable campaign map, making total conversion mods possible again (I realise that, with the complexity of today's games, it is a lot easier to suggest that than to achieve it).

After that, personally, I would love to see another game set in the 1700s (and/or early 1800s). I know that many people would prefer a game set in the 1600s or 1800s, but for me the century in between has particular appeal. I would love to see a new game featuring both sea and land battles of that era (and combined sea/land operations, such as the British campaign to take Quebec during the French and Indian War). I would love to see a new game featuring 18th-century warships. A 17th-century game would have great ships of the line, but classic frigates weren't introduced until the 1740s. A 19th-century game would have incredible steam battleships, but I would miss the Age of Sail vessels - particularly frigates. Having read Stephen Taylor's book Commander, about the frigate captain Sir Edward Pellew, and George Daughan's If By Sea (about the US Continental Navy) and The Shining Sea (about USS Essex during the War of 1812), I particularly enjoy using frigates in Empire Total War. On land, I like the balance in this era between musketmen, cavalry and cannon in this era - they are all useful. Muskets had developed sufficiently to be useful without needing pikemen in support. But cavalry could break an infantry regiment which was in line - so cavalry can force infantry to form square, and infantry in square are vulnerable to artillery. In the 19th century, when infantrymen carried rifles, cavalry would become less and less useful, except in scouting roles or in warfare in which soldiers were thinly spread over great distances. Even in the late campaign (part IV of the Road to Independence) in Empire Total War, your infantrymen advance into a hail of shrapnel, rifle fire and then face line infantry using Fire by Rank, any attacker is likely to face massive casualties - it would only get worse in the 19th century, as artillery and rifle technology continued to improve. I could be wrong, but I think I'd find it depressing rather than enjoyable to repeatedly send men to be slaughtered by the firepower of a mid-to-late 19th-century or early 20th-century army.

[PikeStance]

There is a misconception on the forum. Many believe that Med2 is the best ever while Empire is the worse. However, sales suggest otherwise. Contrary to what people on TWC want to believe, but Empire is one of the most successful game of the Total War series. This being said Warhammer sales are great.

[Doomsday]

There are many periods I'd love to see, medieval (again), Renaissance (English civil war dlc), Victoria, empire (again) even a pre history Stone Age would be cool. But it's more features I'd like tbh. I'd love to be able to recruit a generic unit eg peasant levy or knights and then be able to choose how heavily armoured they are, what weapons they carry, etc similar to what you do for heroes in warhammer.
eg, mtw3:
you recruit a unit of Knights, depending on tech/faction you can give them light mail, heavy mail, plate, gothic armour or even Milanese. You can choose whether they're mounted or not, horse armour or no, whether they use a shield (type of shield too) and weapons (sword, mace axe, plus two handed variants). They'd be able to get different weapons mid campaign without recruiting a new unit.
this could work well for any time period. If you also changed the unit models a little, so even if you pick a sword unit some individual models carry other weapons, it could be a masterpiece. It'd be great if a pike and shot era one included both pikes and muskets in a unit, tech could influence the balance of like to muskets, again choosing armour levels and firearms basesd on cost effectiveness, do you recruit a militia armed with matchlocks and rely on numbers? A proper army with breastplates, tassels and helms plus new doglocks? Or something in between. The world would be your oyster.