Warhammer will be next but what then?

[eXistenZ]

I see no point discussing this. This title wont be out untill 2019, at the earliest. 95% of their resources goes to warhammer. They have nothing tangible at the moment, if they had, they would have used it to sooth out the oldtime fans who got a knife in the back

[Kraut]

China has a history of banning any media that depicts animals as being capable of speech since they regard this as offensive.

Must have changed to some degree... https://www.shanghaidisneyresort.com/en/

[PikeStance]

China has a history of banning any media that depicts animals as being capable of speech since they regard this as offensive.

This might result in banning a warhammer game over the beast-men.

Well, do not tell the Monkey King this!
According to my Chinese wife, there is absolutely nothing offensive about talking animals. She thinks you are referring on a ban from 1949 depicting "animals" as some sort of "demigod."
There are a lot more shows about "real life" issues on Chinese television, but there are also some interesting "magical" type shows too.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Well, do not tell the Monkey King this!
According to my Chinese wife, there is absolutely nothing offensive about talking animals. She thinks you are referring on a ban from 1949 depicting "animals" as some sort of "demigod."
There are a lot more shows about "real life" issues on Chinese television, but there are also some interesting "magical" type shows too.

I was referring to primarily literary/book bans from the 1930s-1950s where animals were depicted as essentially being morally/intellectually on par with people and in some cases even having special abilities. I thought it was due to Chinese culture being offended by talking animals.

[Huberto]

It appears that the Warhammer II announcement has disappointed many:

The Warhammer 2 announcement at EGX Rezzed last week was met with dismay from some fans, who'd instead hoped Creative Assembly would reveal its other core Total War game in the works.
CA's first Warhammer game, although well received by fans and critics, was released less than 12 months ago. When it announced the sequel the developer said it would be out within the year, which some fans feel is a little early.
At the time of publication, the official trailer had received almost 12,000 dislikes on YouTube, with many of the comments asking when the franchise will return to the history setting that made its name.

Make that 12,000 +1

Anyway looks like CA is now feeling some heat about this and it has issued a statement about future historical titles on the Totalwar.com blog, including name-dropping Mr. Lusted again, etc. Not surprisingly we learned almost nothing new about forthcoming historical titles, and nothing at all about when the next new game is going to be released -- or whether WH 3 or the new historical game will be released first. I suspect if we keep up the pressure we may be able to bump the next historical release date or at the very worst some add-ons to TWA or TWR2. In any event, it's time for other developers to step up, as CA is bogged down in fantasy ditch. Go out and buy Darth's new American Civil War game, for starters...

[PikeStance]

Personally, i would rather they not "rush." We already seen what happens when they rush products (e.g. Empire and Rome II). I really do not see why the next historical title is a secret unless they really haven't narrowed it down yet.

[Huberto]

Personally, i would rather they not "rush." We already seen what happens when they rush products (e.g. Empire and Rome II). I really do not see why the next historical title is a secret unless they really haven't narrowed it down yet.

No one wants to repeat the awful experience of playing TWR2 or ETW at release. It's really a question of CA's staffing priorities. They need to build up the historical team and make it dominate Total War development. They have not answered which game is to be released after WH2 -- WH3 or the "major" new historical title. We need it to be the latter.

I wasn't impressed with CA's attempt to explain where things stand. For example, they were bragging about hiring a historical expert to advise them, but at the same time telling us the game design is locked and has moved to asset creation stage, which means he's advising them on how things look, not about historically authentic game mechanics, etc.

[eXistenZ]

That its taking them so long to say anything meaningfull about the historical TW has nothing to do with "polishing", or "not rushing". Its because they barely have anything, and worse, its obviously not a priority

[PikeStance]

No one wants to repeat the awful experience of playing TWR2 or ETW at release. It's really a question of CA's staffing priorities. They need to build up the historical team and make it dominate Total War development. They have not answered which game is to be released after WH2 -- WH3 or the "major" new historical title. We need it to be the latter.

I wasn't impressed with CA's attempt to explain where things stand. For example, they were bragging about hiring a historical expert to advise them, but at the same time telling us the game design is locked and has moved to asset creation stage, which means he's advising them on how things look, not about historically authentic game mechanics, etc.

That its taking them so long to say anything meaningfull about the historical TW has nothing to do with "polishing", or "not rushing". Its because they barely have anything, and worse, its obviously not a priority

Didn't they more or less say this when they said they have nothing worth showing. I also didn't say they were not rushing; I said I would rather they didn't. Whether or not that they are or not is conjecture.
My guess is WH is a priority especially after it was well received. I would also guess the reason why they made this statement is that they probably shifted more emphasis on WH after the success. But now, they realize the fan base STILL want a historical title soon. I think with the success CA forgot that WH caters to a niche crowd, the vast majority of TW fans are attracted tot he historical content. I suspect this is why they went out of their way to mention the "historical expert" and name dropping. I also suspect this is why they will come up with content for previous title. It is easier to create something on an already created platform than to quickly put together a new historical title. Again, I am just guessing here.

[Alwyn]

I wonder if others have seen today's Creative Assembly video The Future of Total War FAQ about Warhammer II (mostly). I'm intrigued by the observations (about 5 minutes in) that Warhammer II will be more "narrative driven" and the idea that AI factions can beat the player to the victory conditions as well as the idea of a "combined campaign map" (for Warhammer and Warhammer II). I wonder if those kinds of ideas could be applied to historical games in future?

At about 10:40, Darren MacNally starts to discuss the historical games. He cannot say which era the next game will be set in; it sounds like they are working on models and textures for the next historical game, as well as the smaller team who are working on additional, smaller historical content (more DLC for Attila or Rome II, maybe?).

[Owlparrot3]

Yes Alwyn i saw the video and though i dont like warhammer i have to admit it intrigued my mind with new ideas .

[eXistenZ]

They cant say which era, they cant even pin down the release year. They can't even say when the next "announcement" about it will be.


He might as well have said nothing, wxould have been less painfull, as the WH fans get a nice ten minutes of news, we once again get nothing.

See you in 2019 CA, if you make that date

[Heathen Hammer]

I really hope next historical title won't be centered around China, but I wouldn't mind seeing medieval China campaign as a DLC to hypothetical Medieval III.

[NostalgiaFan]

It's naive to want a medieval 3 on a new engine. The game would most likely be broken like Rome 2 and empire with it having so many various cultures and factions all on a brand new engine to boot. China would be giving them a good more simpler place to start that can help in development of the new engine to where when we finally can have a stable Med 3.

[PikeStance]

The impression I got is a "Medieval III" will be part of a major DLC connected with Attila. I wouldn't hold out for a third Medieval. However, it would be interesting if they are someone how able to combine Attila and a DLC to create single large game.

[NostalgiaFan]

The impression I got is a "Medieval III" will be part of a major DLC connected with Attila. I wouldn't hold out for a third Medieval.

Not a chance in hell. CA would be beyond stupid to pull a move like that. The Middle Ages is the most popular time period for Total War fans next to Rome and not only is making one on the old engine for Attila bad, but putting one out for an expansion that barely made a quarter of the amount it's previous title did in pre order sells is just a plain bad business move. Even Warhammer at least took out the synced animations that people hated because it ruined the combat so putting a "Medieval 3" on the outdated Attila engine would be awful.

Besides why would new people pay so much money (and for those who already bought it even more money) just to play something they could already play without out having to pay with mods? It's clear CA really can't do much for Med 3 as a mere expansion so why bother buying one when you could just download the medieval kingdoms or 1212 mod instead?

There is simply no good reason for CA to pull something that stupid for it's fans. Attila is already expensive even without all the DLC, putting a huge expansion to cover the Middle Ages would be asking too much from people that just want to play a new Medieval game.

[PikeStance]

The only difference between Attila and Warhammer is Warhammer utilizes 64 bit and Attila uses 32 bit. This has nothing to do with animation, but performance.
The nest historical title is not Med III and the next one after that won't be either.

[WhiskeySykes]

I wonder if others have seen today's Creative Assembly video The Future of Total War FAQ about Warhammer II (mostly). I'm intrigued by the observations (about 5 minutes in) that Warhammer II will be more "narrative driven" and the idea that AI factions can beat the player to the victory conditions as well as the idea of a "combined campaign map" (for Warhammer and Warhammer II). I wonder if those kinds of ideas could be applied to historical games in future?

At about 10:40, Darren MacNally starts to discuss the historical games. He cannot say which era the next game will be set in; it sounds like they are working on models and textures for the next historical game, as well as the smaller team who are working on additional, smaller historical content (more DLC for Attila or Rome II, maybe?).

The narrative part doesn't intrigue me. If that translates to better writing or incidents in some way, I'm for that, but otherwise not. Keep all that narrated content to historical battles, and leave the grand campaign alone. Now, the bit about the ai stepping up it's game? Hell yeah, its about time. I want more from my allies than "herow noboo frend" for punching their rivals in the balls. I want some relational mechanic at play, where me and the ai can "discuss" campaigns, or coordinate our attacks, so he draws out the garrison by setting farms on fire and I move in for the kill. It'd be clever if real alliances of mutual benefit would have lasting consequence, and the maintenance of which required some combination of cunning, skill, and luck.

Coalitions might resemble the crusade mechanic at a glance, in so far as allied factions shared a common goal, and the armies generally supported each other behind enemy lines (unless you got wise and took the ferryboat to Outremer) before getting nailed by the Turks. Yeah, I think they could much improve on that, dub it a "coalition," even give these entities probable behaviors and a shred of authenticity, like it wasn't just Billy Ray's afterthought. Grant members of a coalition input based on campaign plans, drawn up in the treaty phase, and the relative influence or dominance of each faction could complicate things nicely. Some stretch of that might actually work, if the ai's up to par. That's if they want to be innovative, instead of miserly dole out dlc that rightfully belongs in vanilla.

I'm happy for Attila gamers, if that smaller team really is making new content for them. I don't see why not. Why not throw your core market a bone, for asking them to sit so patiently? Its an acknowledgement they didn't have to make, so kuddos CA if its a real thing. I hope their projects are worth the purchase, like a new campaign scenario, or whatever Attila needs in the way of repair and improvement. Its too bad Rome 2 overshadowed Attila, but that's what you get for having a lying PR and releasing a turd. On top of one fiasco, it didn't help Attila any that his era was also a disaster.

[MilesNDavis]

There are so many possiblities tbh, so many

[MilesNDavis]

But I'd say definitely early Chinese history.