I can honestly think of no other time period or geographical setting for the next TW historical game...

[HigoChumbo]

You need to reread the OP’s first post again because you’ve missed my point.

My point was pointing out the HYPOCRISY and DOUBLE STANDARD in the OP’s post because he first claims that we won’t have a game set in the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, etc or the bronze age, etc because those settings aren’t popular in the West and won't sell well. Then the OP goes ahead and chooses a relatively lesser known and less popular period of European history.

Fair enough.

Then again, the West =/= US and Britain.

According to nearly every online poll I’ve seen, Victorian Era is the most popular Western setting for the next TW game.

Victorian Era beats Pike and Shot by a massive percentage in online polls for the next wanted TW game.

Tell me something, were those polls written in English and did you reach them through an American or British website?

One thing we should all take into account is that, despite having people from all over the world, TWCenter is primarily a British-populated website, and CA is a British developer.



For instance, back in the day every single poll I saw in TWC clearly showed a very militant preference for a historical TW game over a fantasy one, and now we have that Warhammer is the most successful TW game in history. There is a difference between very vocal minorities and the real deal (and in our specific case I'm by no means claiming than the US and the UK audience are a minority, but merely that you can't really consider most if not all of the online polls we are used to see as serious or representative. Hell, many of the people who would really be into a Pike&Shot game probably don't even speak english and therefore are not vocal in English communities... Spanish, French, Italians, Turks... and I'm not mentioning the Dutch or the Germans because most of them do).

Sure, we don’t have a game set in Europe in those time periods, but we have games with European factions and European style warfare covering some of those time periods

The Point remains the same. By that logic Empire/Napoleon and Fall of the Samurai should be representative of European (and American) factions and warfare covering the 19th century and therefore the argument would nulify the possibility of a Victorian era TW game, and honestly, when everyone seems to agree that the most obvious candidates are precisely Victoria, Pike & Shot and WWI, using that argument seems pointless, since then WWI would be left as the only possible option (of course leaving out much more unlikely possibilities like more remote -from a western point of view- lands and periods, like China or early Egypt/Mesopotamia)

If we want to bring up smaller countries with smaller gaming markets like Germany and France, the next game might as well be a China Total War game because their gaming market is going to generate comparable profits than those countries you mentioned combined.

I did not bring up Germany or France same as I did not bring up California or Texas, the fact is that the last study I saw, from 2008 -i know, outdated, but still- and North America was actually the third market in gaming software profits after China (1st) and Europe (2nd). The volume is there, the European Union has a larger GDP and a quite larger population than the US.

I can't find more specific and updated studies which showcase the PC market specifically, but still, there does not seem that much of a difference between the potential profit in Europe, America and China.

Then again, Europe and the US normally go roughly hand by hand in terms of tastes. A 19th. Century game would probably be more appealing to Americans and Brits while a 16th./17th. century game would appeal to pretty much everyone else in the west plus Turkey (not entirely sure of where the Germans and the Russians would stand here, but they would definitely be into both).


And whatever the case, I don't think CA chooses periods based on profits alone, they probably have their own biases as well.

That’s nice, but most those folks have absolutely nothing to do with Total War games.

You said the Pike and Shot era was not comparable in history or culture to other periods.

And I beg to differ. TW depict an entire period, not just the military. Shogun would not be nearly as good without its music and its art. Everything, from the political intrigues to architecture contribute to the overall feel of the game. And even then, feel free to take out the painters and the writers from the list and you still have a ton of iconic monarchs and generals.

If you want to stick to the military, let's review... Gonzalo Fernandez de Córdoba, Francis I, Charles V, Gustavus Adolphus, Turenne, Cortés, Pizarro, Maurice of Nassau, Ambroggio Spinola, Alessandro Farnese, the Duke of Alba, the prince of Condé, Jan Sobieski, von Wallenstein, von Frundsberg, Alvaro de Bazán, Francis Drake, Oliver Cromwell, Tilly, Vauban, Montecuccoli, d'Avalos, Michiel de Ruyter, Niels Juel (essentially the guy who invented the tactic used by Nelson in Trafalgar), zhen He, Andrea Doria, Barbarrossa, Ivan the Terrible, Selim I, Suleyman the Magnificent... even Michellangelo designed fortifications.

The same goes for military events: the Italian Wars, Peasants War, Huguenot Wars, English Civil War, the Dutch Revolt, the Armada, the Ottoman-Venetian wars, the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars, the Thirty Years War... Pavía, Lepanto, Breitenfeld, Rocroi, Sieges of Vienna, St. Quentin, Cerignola, Flodden, Chaldiran, Mohacs, the sack of Rome, Mühlberg, White Mountain,Lützen... (and all that is leaving out America and Asia and probably missing a lot of important stuff in north and eastern Europe.)

And just in terms of what in the end matters as much... the looks... it's just full of variety, blends, flamboyance, with as much potential "steam-punk" appeal as the 19th century (all sorts of weird and beutiful military weapons, armor, and inventions).

You don’t send Da Vinci or Shakespeare off with an army to fight in a line formation.

Actually, Da Vinci designed all kinds of military inventions, crossbows, cannons, armoured cars and even a helicopter (granted some were never built, but still, it's relevant and adds flavour). Don't know about Shakespeare, but his Spanish equivalent, Miguel de Cervantes (Don Quixote's author) fought against the Ottomans in Lepanto and lost an arm. Those are just ways ot selling the game and making it more appealing and immersive.

Some of the people you listed also aren’t even in the Age of Pike and shot, while others never fought in pike/shot warfare so it’s not relevant.

I think you are the only one taking the whole Pike & Shot nomenclature literally. The fact that everyone is calling it Pike & Shot TW does not mean at all that the game is only about the Pike and Shot tactic, same as those who are calling it Rennaissance TW are not envisioning a TW game about art and architecture (the Rennaissance was just a cultural revolution, not the name of a military history period).

You can name it how you want, I just want a game set in Europe during the 16th. and 17th centuries (if I were to truly dream about the impossible, even going from 1450 to 1715, but that's not going to happen).

Yes, some famous writers, poets, etc may have lived in the era, but that doesn’t generate enthusiasm for the actual warfare that folks know nothing about.

Just say that Da Vinci designed tanks and helicopters in the 1500s and you got all the Currahee crowd in, becoming utterly disappointed by the lack of 16th. century Apaches and Shermans but actually learning some history, and who knows, maybe becoming interested in it (if not, tell me why on earth did I then, as a Spaniard, become interested in English longbowmen and the Hundred Years War after playing Age of Empires 2).

I said it was not as relevant and not as popular relative to other eras in European history…and certainly not as relevant relatively speaking to world history.

And then again, I beg to differ. TW being a game about warfare and expansionism... well, we are talking about a period which saw the biggest military revolution since Antiquity (Pike&Shot/gunpowder warfare), a period which is the reason why entire major civilizations were devastated and a whole non-european continent speaks now Spanish, English and Portuguese, the period in which most modern European states were forged (i.e. Westphalia 1648) and the system of balance of power was established which would originate pretty much all the main conflicts for the next ~250 years, it was the theatre of some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history (Spanish Conquest of America, Thirty Years War, Ming-Qing Wars, Huguenot War...), the rise of the Western World, which had been lagging behind for hundreds of years, it was the first ever globalized period, saw the bloody birth of Protestantism, the Golden Age for half the countries in Europe, the rise of modern Capitalism, today's leading economic system, one of the biggest cultural and scientific revolutions in centuries (Rennaissance, Baroque, start of the Enlightment and the Scientifical Revolution, etc)...

Not to mention that, due to this period's events, the two leading powers of the past 200 (the US and the UK) years today speak English and not Spanish... (poetic license to say that Spain might have dominated Britain and North America, for instance, if the Armada had not been scattered).


So, again, we should mark the boundary between what's relevant for the West or to World history from what's relevant for the US or Britain. The period is definitely not any less relevant than all the other periods in which TW games have already taken place in. And whatever the case, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with this act of "ranking" historical periods. I can't think of a single century in the past 600 years which was not extremely relevant.

Your contradiction bias is that you want to accept OP’s faulty premise that we can only have a European Total War game based on popularity and relevance to the West, and then reject the evidence that Pike and Shot isn’t even that popular or relevant compared to other periods in both Western AND World history.

I find that hardly possible given that I did not really read the op and merely scrolled down to see the reactions.

What would that evidence be, by the way? Would you as well say the 16th and 17th centuries are less relevant than other periods in which TW games have already taken place, like Shogun or Attila/Charlemagne?

OP thinks it’s a good idea to push Pike and Shot Warfare on us instead of the MANY better possibilities

Ok, at this point I have to ask. What are those other possibilities and by what criteria other than personal preference are they considered "better"?

Well, he is wrong. Spain did not create the world’s first standing army. If you want to use English Wikipedia, at least read the article.

Honestly, I'm not going to debate a very clear quote which is not even open to interpretation (since it even states the qualifying criteria and leaves clear that there are other possible definitions).

According to wikipedia, the first “modern” standing army wasn’t even Spanish – it was created by the Ottoman Empire

Again, I'm not going to debate a quote:

"The first modern standing armies in Europe were the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, formed in the fourteenth century.[6][7] In western Europe the first standing army was established by Charles VII of France in the year 1445.[8] The Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus had a standing army from the 1460s called the Fekete Sereg, which was an unusually big army in its age, accomplishing a series of victories and capturing parts of Austria, Vienna (1485) and parts of Bohemia.

By other definitions of a standing army, being understood as one of volunteering professionals instead of that of conscription levies or hired mercenaries, Spain created Europe's and the world's first modern standing army through the creation of the distinguished Tercios by Emperor Charles I of Spain (also known as Charles V of Austria). The Tercios revolutionized modern warfare in Europe and became the most prestigious and undefeated force during the era of Spanish Habsburg dominance in Europe. Eventually all European armies would try to mimic the style and tactics of fighting used by the Tercios because of their constant innovative evolution that was sparked by creative veteran soldiers that formed the regiments and their great leaders. The Tercios became such a successful force that their reputation as an undefeatable force gave them a psychological advantage in the battlefield against their enemies who greatly feared them. The Spanish Habsburgs would form Tercio regiments in all of their possessions, including the Italian Tercios, the Portuguese Tercios and the Burgundian Tercios."

[Intranetusa]

Fair enough.
Then again, the West =/= US and Britain.
Tell me something, were those polls written in English and did you reach them through an American or British website?
One thing we should all take into account is that, despite having people from all over the world, TWCenter is primarily a British-populated website, and CA is a British developer.
For instance, back in the day every single poll I saw in TWC clearly showed a very militant preference for a historical TW game over a fantasy one, and now we have that Warhammer is the most successful TW game in history. There is a difference between very vocal minorities and the real deal (and in our specific case I'm by no means claiming than the US and the UK audience are a minority, but merely that you can't really consider most if not all of the online polls we are used to see as serious or representative. Hell, many of the people who would really be into a Pike&Shot game probably don't even speak english and therefore are not vocal in English communities... Spanish, French, Italians, Turks... and I'm not mentioning the Dutch or the Germans because most of them do).

I’m sure folks in the Middle East and Mediterranean would love a bronze age TW game, or a medieval TW centered on the Islamic Caliphates. Or the folks in China, Korea, and Japan would love a Total War game based on 3 Kingdoms, Warring States, Imjin War, or a Chinese Dynasty. None of their opinions are being heard either in TWC. If we put this to an international poll, Dynasty-Warriors-esque/3 Kingdoms Total War would probably shoot to the top.

The Point remains the same. By that logic Empire/Napoleon and Fall of the Samurai should be representative of European (and American) factions and warfare covering the 19th century and therefore the argument would nulify the possibility of a Victorian era TW game, and honestly, when everyone seems to agree that the most obvious candidates are precisely Victoria, Pike & Shot and WWI, using that argument seems pointless, since then WWI would be left as the only possible option (of course leaving out much more unlikely possibilities like more remote -from a western point of view- lands and periods, like China or early Egypt/Mesopotamia)

I’m not sure who logically argues for a WW1 game. Every thread I’ve seen it come up has seen it mercilessly ridiculed, and for good reason. WW1 battle tactics doesn’t lend itself to a Total War game. Leave WW1 to the folks who made Company of Heroes.

I did not bring up Germany or France same as I did not bring up California or Texas, the fact is that the last study I saw, from 2008 -i know, outdated, but still- and North America was actually the third market in gaming software profits after China (1st) and Europe (2nd). The volume is there, the European Union has a larger GDP and a quite larger population than the US… can't find more specific and updated studies which showcase the PC market specifically, but still, there does not seem that much of a difference between the potential profit in Europe, America and China.

Well, Victoria Total War at least covers China due to the Opium Wars. Pike and Shot warfare concentrated on Europe won’t get anything with China unless you make a totally separate expansion that has nothing to do with pike & shot warfare but happens to take place during the concurrent timeframe with P&S Europe. And if China is the biggest gaming market now, and assuming they actually buy TW games, I guess we’re getting something based on China Total War game next…

Then again, Europe and the US normally go roughly hand by hand in terms of tastes. A 19th. Century game would probably be more appealing to Americans and Brits while a 16th./17th. century game would appeal to pretty much everyone else in the west plus Turkey (not entirely sure of where the Germans and the Russians would stand here, but they would definitely be into both).
And whatever the case, I don't think CA chooses periods based on profits alone, they probably have their own biases as well.

I think something based in China’s Total War might be more popular in America than Pike & Shot warfare due to Konomai’s Dynasty Warriors. I cannot understate how unpopular/unknown pike and shot era warfare is in the US.

You said the Pike and Shot era was not comparable in history or culture to other periods.
And I beg to differ. TW depict an entire period, not just the military. Shogun would not be nearly as good without its music and its art. Everything, from the political intrigues to architecture contribute to the overall feel of the game. And even then, feel free to take out the painters and the writers from the list and you still have a ton of iconic monarchs and generals.

Fair enough.

I think you are the only one taking the whole Pike & Shot nomenclature literally. The fact that everyone is calling it Pike & Shot TW does not mean at all that the game is only about the Pike and Shot tactic, same as those who are calling it Rennaissance TW are not envisioning a TW game about art and architecture (the Rennaissance was just a cultural revolution, not the name of a military history period). You can name it how you want, I just want a game set in Europe during the 16th. and 17th centuries (if I were to truly dream about the impossible, even going from 1450 to 1715, but that's not going to happen).

If it’s Europe in the 16^th/17^th century then just call it for what it is – Pike and Shot warfare. Leave other nations like China, India, Japan, etc out of this since they weren’t involved. Same goes for Americas.

Just say that Da Vinci designed tanks and helicopters in the 1500s and you got all the Currahee crowd in, becoming utterly disappointed by the lack of 16th. century Apaches and Shermans but actually learning some history, and who knows, maybe becoming interested in it (if not, tell me why on earth did I then, as a Spaniard, become interested in English longbowmen and the Hundred Years War after playing Age of Empires 2).

I don’t deny folks can become interested in other eras. I just take issue with the OP’s entire premise of choosing P&S Europe. If he/you simply said you want P&S because you find it interesting, then that’s fine and totally legitimate. I take issue with OP denigrating all the other eras/events outside of Europe by falsely claiming they’re all unpopular in the West.

And then again, I beg to differ. TW being a game about warfare and expansionism... well, we are talking about a period which saw the biggest military revolution since Antiquity (Pike&Shot/gunpowder warfare), a period which is the reason why entire major civilizations were devastated and a whole non-european continent speaks now Spanish, English and Portuguese, the period in which most modern European states were forged (i.e. Westphalia 1648) and the system of balance of power was established which would originate pretty much all the main conflicts for the next ~250 years, it was the theatre of some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history (Spanish Conquest of America, Thirty Years War, Ming-Qing Wars, Huguenot War...), the rise of the Western World, which had been lagging behind for hundreds of years, it was the first ever globalized period…

The absolutely worst thing CA could do is focus a game on European Pike and Shot Warfare, and then throw in a bunch of other factions in the game like Qing and Ming China, India, random colonies around the world, Americas, etc. that have nothing to do with Pike and Shot, and simply just exist during the same era. Scope creep is terrible and makes for a very bad game. Most of those things warrant a separate game by itself, and not be lumped in with European P&S warfare title

So, again, we should mark the boundary between what's relevant for the West or to World history from what's relevant for the US or Britain. The period is definitely not any less relevant than all the other periods in which TW games have already taken place in. And whatever the case, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with this act of "ranking" historical periods. I can't think of a single century in the past 600 years which was not extremely relevant. ."

I find that hardly possible given that I did not really read the op and merely scrolled down to see the reactions.

My main issue was with the OP premise, so I took issue with your post since I assumed you read the OP and sided with OP’s opinions.

What would that evidence be, by the way? Would you as well say the 16th and 17th centuries are less relevant than other periods in which TW games have already taken place, like Shogun or Attila/Charlemagne?

From TWC and Totalwar.org and steam polls.

“Honestly, I'm not going to debate a very clear quote which is not even open to interpretation (since it even states the qualifying criteria and leaves clear that there are other possible definitions).”

I meant to take issue with the quote and the way the article is written, not with you. If you go through the history, it seems nationalists are arguing with each other over who had the first standing army. I find it redundant because “volunteering professionals” is the predominant definition of a professional standing army. The very first sentence states “A standing army, unlike a reserve army, is a permanent, often professional, army.” Non-volunteer professional standing armies are extremely rare – eg. early Janissaries.
The main qualifier in that sentence is the word “modern” – which seems to be an [arbitrary?] distinction made by the writer to give Spain some recognition.

[WhiskeySykes]

Ok, ethnicity of the market is not one of CA's criteria in choosing the setting. Simply put, the UK start-up would never have gambled Shogun, if ethnicity even broke top ten in the criteria.* As for today's industry, billion dollar publishers with global reach absorb the risk of marketing, and as history shows these entities can hype just about anything. So finding the audience is their concern, not the developer's, and they will sell the copies be it Age of Discovery, China, you name it.

Besides the obvious, being does it interest CA's staff (not us), conform to a vaguely TW formula, and the technical limitations in Warscape, the actual criteria at play go something like this:
[The three CA have told us go here, such as the brand new era.]
Can we justify up to two expansions?
Is there material for a direct spin-off (Nappy, Attila)?
Is there potential we could return with a sequel some day?
Can the era be googled? Does it turn up good hits?
Can the average person point to the landmass(es) on a map?
...

I'm sure when breaching apartheid states ethnicity factors in Sega's marketing.

* For tangible evidence, CA would have to wait 15 years for Shogun to reach the Japanese market via Steam, and the argument a tiny, UK start-up were watching the stars for signs of future Japanese profits is ludicrous.

[HigoChumbo]

I’m sure folks in the Middle East and Mediterranean would love a bronze age TW game, or a medieval TW centered on the Islamic Caliphates.

I don't think there is a lot of people playing videogames in Iraq or Syria.

In the other hand, I'm sure the Turkish audience would prefer a 16th/17th century game about the golden age of the Ottoman Empire than they would prefer a game about Hitites.

Or the folks in China, Korea, and Japan would love a Total War game based on 3 Kingdoms, Warring States, Imjin War, or a Chinese Dynasty. None of their opinions are being heard either in TWC.

Agree, exactly my point. (Though there is a lot of westerners asking for an Asian TW in TWC).

None of their opinions are being heard either in TWC. If we put this to an international poll, Dynasty-Warriors-esque/3 Kingdoms Total War would probably shoot to the top.

Exactly, which kind of proves the thing about Victoria being more popular due to minor, local polls rather pointless.

I’m not sure who logically argues for a WW1 game. Every thread I’ve seen it come up has seen it mercilessly ridiculed, and for good reason. WW1 battle tactics doesn’t lend itself to a Total War game. Leave WW1 to the folks who made Company of Heroes.

I personally don't want a WW1 game, but I insist that TW is not a simulator. It's the centenary and CA might jump on the hype wagon same as DICE and others did, and as DICE, they might have no problem in making an adapted videogame about WWI which does not represent at all historical WW1 tactics.

And again, there were countless threads ridiculing a Fantasy TW game as well and there you have Warhammer as the most successful TW game in history.


In any case, the only thing I was saying is that if we stuck to your "this dlc covers a few years of the period" argument, then both Pike&Shot and Victoria would be ruled out, which I find unlikely since they are probably two of the three main candidates, unless CA just tackles something entirely unexpected, like China or Bronze Age.

Well, Victoria Total War at least covers China due to the Opium Wars. Pike and Shot warfare concentrated on Europe won’t get anything with China unless you make a totally separate expansion that has nothing to do with pike & shot warfare but happens to take place during the concurrent timeframe with P&S Europe. And if China is the biggest gaming market now, and assuming they actually buy TW games, I guess we’re getting something based on China Total War game next…

Again, Pike&Shot is just a reference name, no one is saying that the game has to be exclusively about the Pike&Shot tactic. It can perfectly be a game about the 16th and 17th centuries in general, and China fits perfectly there.

And a big part of the appeal of TW is not to just recreate history, but to tackle what ifs and alternative history scenarios.


By the way, Medieval 2 Kingdoms would then be as little a representation of Pike&Shot as China in the 16th century would be, because as far as i'm concerned Pike&Shot tactics were not used in America, where colonists didn't have the big, trained armies Europeans had in their homeland.

And if you want to sell games in China, I doubt that a humiliating defeat to a foreign army 10 times smaller as was the Opium Wars is the most appealing subject for them. We are talking about a period which in China was considered the "Century of Humiliation". China is a big, proud, ancient country, I don't think they'd be happy sticking to the role of mere cannon fodder for some redcoats to shoot at. They are not the zulus.


I also personally find Chinese soldiers of the 16th century far more interesting, exotic and overall badass than those of the 19th.

I think something based in China’s Total War might be more popular in America than Pike & Shot warfare due to Konomai’s Dynasty Warriors. I cannot understate how unpopular/unknown pike and shot era warfare is in the US.

Well, I personally think the american audience would have an easier time relating to Henri VIII or Elizabeth I or the founders of Jamestown or the Spanish who colonized half their country (I've seen Ponce de León referenced in many american blockbusters, for instance) or even John Smith and Pocahontas than they would have relating to DongZhuo warlord of Luoyang in the Kingdom of Wei, enemy of Zhang Rang leader of the Shí Chángshì eunuch faction of the Han.

There is a difference between controlling a badass fantasu kungfu fighter and putting yourself in control of a kingdom in front of a map full of names, soldiers and nations you have never heard of.


Then again, that's just my personal idea.


And again, Pike and shot WARFARE might be unknown, but the same can't be said for the period, which unlike a 100% Chinese game, would be full of historical icons that americans would immediately recognize.

If it’s Europe in the 16th/17th century then just call it for what it is – Pike and Shot warfare. Leave other nations like China, India, Japan, etc out of this since they weren’t involved. Same goes for Americas.

I'm just saying they would fit perfectly well if they wanted to include them, not much unlike the Marathas in Empire, for instance.

I insist for instance that, just like in China or Japan, there was no Pike&Shot warfare in America during the 16th/17th centuries, and I doubt anyone would argue that America was not involved in European affairs in the time. Different theatres, different conditions.


In any case, I'd be happy with either a game focused just in Europe as I would with a game expanding to some of the Americas and Asia, both would present extremely interesting scenarios to play.

If he/you simply said you want P&S because you find it interesting, then that’s fine and totally legitimate. I take issue with OP denigrating all the other eras/events outside of Europe by falsely claiming they’re all unpopular in the West.

Ok, no problems with that. Though I find denigrating China's history equally as pointless as denigrating European history during the 16th and 17th century, most importantly knowing how much of a big deal the 16th and 17th centuries were for Europe and half the World.

And I obviously have a personal preference for the period, but I think it also safe to say that the period is objectively extremely iconic and relevant internationally be it in warfare, culture, science or arts, Hollywood and anglo-saxon nationalism aside.

The absolutely worst thing CA could do is focus a game on European Pike and Shot Warfare, and then throw in a bunch of other factions in the game like Qing and Ming China, India, random colonies around the world, Americas, etc. that have nothing to do with Pike and Shot, and simply just exist during the same era. Scope creep is terrible and makes for a very bad game. Most of those things warrant a separate game by itself, and not be lumped in with European P&S warfare title

There is a solution for everything. If they wanted to include China in the context, I'm sure they would find a suitable way to do so.

Hell, there were several European factions in Shogun 2 and none of them were ninjas.


By the way China did not just "exist" during the period, they were not precisely isolated from Europeans, neither directly (conflicts with the Portuguese, for instance, or even conflicts between europeans IN China, like the dutch attacks on Macau) nor indirectly (for instance, the huge impact Spanish silver trading had in China due to inflation).

And again, no one is saying it has to be necessarily a game about European P&S. I just want a 16th/17th century game featuring Europe. The details and the scope I'll leave for professional designers.


A big scope hurting the game depends on the talent and the resources (and the ambition) of the developers. I don't see the (HUGE) scope hurting games like Europa Universalis 4 or Crusader Kings 2, with centuries of extremely different cultures, religions, government types, military technologies, dynastic laws, taxing and so on. You can play with a feudal western nation as much as a trading republic, a nomadic horde or a japanese daimyo, all with a reasonable amount of unique features.

For a military focused game it should be even easier, and it would not be the first time that CA mixes completely different military cultures in the same game (european musketeers vs samurais, macedonian phalanxes vs roman legions, indian elephants vs british redcoats, aztec warriors vs spanish conquistadores), and the fact that there was not a major war vs Chinese and Europeans does not really mean a thing in a game focused in alternative history (Specially when said wars were indeed a more than real possibility). Hell, in Medieval 2 you can conquer the Aztecs with the Byzantine Empire if you want and I see no one complaining.


That said, if we are going to doubt Creative Assembly's capacity to pull such a big scope off, then agreed, they should focus on Europe for such a game.

From TWC and Totalwar.org and steam polls.

I was not asking about what each specific community prefers but about what makes the 16th/17th period less suitable, interesting or "worse" for a Total War game.

“volunteering professionals” is the predominant definition of a professional standing army. The very first sentence states “A standing army, unlike a reserve army, is a permanent, often professional, army.” Non-volunteer professional standing armies are extremely rare – eg. early Janissaries.
The main qualifier in that sentence is the word “modern” – which seems to be an [arbitrary?] distinction made by the writer to give Spain some recognition.

But if you say that what defines a professional standing army is "volunteering professionals", then the Spanish did indeed create the first one. Unless you consider older mercenary armies as "volunteering professionals", and if so, there have been standing armies since antiquity.

Or at least that's what Wikipedia says.

The other three examples they give of modern standing armies are the Jannisaries (which you yourself disqualify), the French Compagnie d'ordonnance (which as far as I'm concerned were mercenaries forced into the king service, even under the threat of killing them if they didn't) and the Hungarian Black Army (mercenaries as well), which, at least for a lack of more examples, leaves the Spanish Tercios as the first permanent, voluntary, professional modern standing army.


And I'm not saying any of this out of nationalism, I'm merely sticking to the definitions and the examples given, and I ignore if there are other examples not mentioned here. Then again, it depends on the parameters you choose for the definition, by other accounts, the Assyrians had the first standing army.

My main issue was with the OP premise, so I took issue with your post since I assumed you read the OP and sided with OP’s opinions.

Nah, I didn't, but point taken.

[WhiskeySykes]

And if China is the biggest gaming market now, and assuming they actually buy TW games, I guess we’re getting something based on China Total War game next…

No, neither of you are listening. Market ethnicity has no bearing on the setting.

And again, there were countless threads ridiculing a Fantasy TW game as well and there you have Warhammer as the most successful TW game in history.

So I guess Creative were polling orcs and elves, because apparently markets are only receptive when the dude on the box looks like they do.

... but I insist that TW is not a simulator

Total War's always been a tactical battle simulator. What do you insist it is, then?

We are talking about a period which in China was considered the "Century of Humiliation". China is a big, proud, ancient country, I don't think they'd be happy sticking to the role of mere cannon fodder for some redcoats to shoot at. They are not the zulus.

Well, Total War's not about recreating history, right? Here's to the Century of Payback.

I think something based in China’s Total War might be more popular in America than Pike & Shot warfare due to Konomai’s Dynasty Warriors. I cannot understate how unpopular/unknown pike and shot era warfare is in the US.

What? I don't even -- Where do you get these conclusions?

There is a difference between controlling a badass fantasu kungfu fighter and putting yourself in control of a kingdom in front of a map full of names, soldiers and nations you have never heard of.

As long as the game's in english, we Americans will be fine.

[HigoChumbo]

Total War's always been a tactical battle simulator. What do you insist it is, then?

It's not a simulator in the sense that it does not attempt to accurately recreate the exact military tactics of each period, nor the units or historical reality. It's an adaptation which gives the flavour of the time, not an accurate representation. (and that's not even getting into the fact that I've never heard of a historical general that could use a 2 minute cooldown ability to give his soldiers a charge bonus). CA themselves always say something like they go for "authenticity" and not so much for "accuracy", not to mention they normally go with cinematic spectacle over realism.

TW is as much a historical battle simulator as Battlefield 1 is a shooter simulation of WW1 (maybe not to the same absurd extremes, but you get the point, also, some TW games would resemble reality a bit more than others).

Well, Total War's not about recreating history, right? Here's to the Century of Payback.

I've been making that argument again and again.

It works as much for changing the outcome of the Opium Wars in a potential Victoria TW as it works for, say, letting the Spanish finally launch their invasion of China in a Pike&Shot game.

As long as the game's in english, we Americans will be fine.

Well, you can always play and even enjoy, but I imagine many people would have a harder time relating.

I've even seen some guys who have a hard time getting into some games just because the lead character is female...


I guess it depends on the person and on how well made and presented the game is.

[Locus_Devium]

Could somebody make a survey about which time period they would like to see in the next historical title?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G925F mit Tapatalk

[WhiskeySykes]

Could somebody make a survey about which time period they would like to see in the next historical title?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G925F mit Tapatalk

They could, I guess, but it would be an exercise in futility. The topic would deteriorate into wildly contrived speculation, why it can't be x or it must be y. Its not like developers spy on our polls. If you make the survey, you'll see what I mean.

[HigoChumbo]

Could somebody make a survey about which time period they would like to see in the next historical title?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G925F mit Tapatalk

There were a couple done recently. I believe Victoria Total War was always in first place (then again, I imagine that TWC being primarily a British populated probably had some influence there. Don't say it to discredit the results though, Victoria is definitely a popular period).



http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...total-war-game

This is the only one I can find, though it's not entirely representative of the issue given that there are options included that we know are not possible, like Medieval 3 or "Revolution" (Empire/Napoleon), and it seems to have a rather low participation (just 1 vote for Rennaissance seeing how many people are asking for it seems odd, though I imagine many of the people who are now asking for Pike&Shot might have voted for Medieval).

I remember a strawpoll with a lot more votes, but for my life I can't find it.



In any case, since you ask, I might make a thread with a few polls just for fun and see what happens.

[Kraut]

Recent Dutch movie Michiel de Ruyter was also about this period.

Talking about national bias, this is a good example. I actually watched this movie (it was on Amazon TV). Here in Germany, though, it is not named "Michiel de Ruyter", but rather "Der Admiral - Kampf um Europa" ("The Admiral - Fight for Europe"), because nobody here even knows who the hell "de Ruyter" is or was... most would probably guess "Dutch Soccer Player?" ... and the shame about this is: we are your freakin immediate neighbours!!!

Now guess how popular de Ruyter could be in the US, Asia, > insert other part of world here <

[Inhuman One]

Thing is, there are very few historic figures known across the world.

Every period tends to have the "top tier" of people everyone save for the most ignorant would have heard about.
Napoleon, Richard the Lionheart, Queen Elizabeth I, George Washington, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ghengis Kahn, Julius Caesar and such belong to that group.

Then there's also the kind of "second tier" of historic figures that anyone with at least a basic interest in history would know.
Here you'd find people like Saladin, Sun Tzu, The duke of Wellington, El Cid, Hannibal Barca, Queen Isabella of Castille, etc.

After that it tends to require a deeper interest in history and a willingness to explore that further.

But the point is, these games are not made for an audience that would only know the "top tier" of historic figures. It would be foolish to do that since clearly those people wouldnt care about history anyways. They could however look at how many of the "second tier" historic figures they can focus on and how marketable they are, same for the historic events of the period.

Regarding Michiel de Ruyter, he's likely best known here in the Netherlands and I assume that the British would know him too. He inflicted the worst naval defeat they ever suffered on them after all at Medway.
Anyone with any interest in pike and shot warfare would soon find their way to Maurice of Orange-Nassau though, because many of the tactics came from him. But I suspect he is not well known outside of the Netherlands. Heck even here he is underappreciated since the average Dutch person does not know we had a small but powerfull land army, they think we only had a good navy.
And internationally he would not be well known because he was not a conqueror. Only millitairy conquerors tend to be well known. Despite various of his millitairy innovations STILL being used today in modern armies. He likely was the most influential Dutchman, but would only be known to those who take an interest in Dutch history or the 80 years war with Spain that won us our independence.

[The Noble Duke Of York]

Astonishing to me that so many in this thread insist that a Pike and Shot game would not be popular with Anglo-Saxons. "It would probably only be of interest to us continental European types tut tut."

The English Civil War. Oliver. Cromwell. Roundheads and Cavaliers.

You can sell a Pike and Shot game to anglo-saxons.

You can also sell it to Americans as enough bought the medieval games and there aren't any Americans in that history. I wouldn't fret over not being able to sell a 1450-1715 game. CA can do it. Make it a good game and enough people will buy it. Tack on a Cromwell DLC and sell buckets more.

[Intranetusa]

Thing is, there are very few historic figures known across the world.
Every period tends to have the "top tier" of people everyone save for the most ignorant would have heard about.
Napoleon, Richard the Lionheart, Queen Elizabeth I, George Washington, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ghengis Kahn, Julius Caesar and such belong to that group.
Then there's also the kind of "second tier" of historic figures that anyone with at least a basic interest in history would know.
Here you'd find people like Saladin, Sun Tzu, The duke of Wellington, El Cid, Hannibal Barca, Queen Isabella of Castille, etc.
...

I know about everybody on your list except El Cid and Isabella of Castille. I've never even heard of those two. I'd bump Saladin and Sun Tzu (and maybe Hannibal) up to tier 1.

[HigoChumbo]

Talking about national bias, this is a good example. I actually watched this movie (it was on Amazon TV). Here in Germany, though, it is not named "Michiel de Ruyter", but rather "Der Admiral - Kampf um Europa" ("The Admiral - Fight for Europe"), because nobody here even knows who the hell "de Ruyter" is or was... most would probably guess "Dutch Soccer Player?" ... and the shame about this is: we are your freakin immediate neighbours!!!

Now guess how popular de Ruyter could be in the US, Asia, > insert other part of world here <

We can't really judge the validity or interest of a period or figure based on what "the masses" (so to speak) or some specific nationality know about them, if that were the case 99% of our games, movies and famous figures would be just about Brits and Americans or someone who they have "heroically" defeated (and honestly that's is not really that far from the actual case). If we stick to the cherrypicked and/or manipulated accounts of nationalist historiography, propaganda or entertainment we are doing history and critical thinking a poor favour.


Why has the vast majority of people never heard of de Ruyter but everyone knows about, say, Francis Drake? Why does everyone know about the Spanish Armada of 1588 but not as much as even heard about the quite similar English Armada of 1599?

That said, I also watched the de Ruyter movie and it's a nationalist hagiography not much unlike your typical hollywood production. I guess that de Ruyter's biggest blunder was to let himself be defeated by the French and not the English. If he had been defeated by an Englishman both de Ruyter and the Englishman would today be internationally recognized figures.


I we were to argue about de Ruyter being idealised by dutch nationalism (which judging by the movie, might very well be the case), then we should use exactly the same critical spirit to judge figures like Francis Drake, Christopher Colombus or even Nelson. The real issue here is not the Dutch being the only ones who know about de Ruyter, but most other people knowing about Drake and not de Ruyter, and the cause is anglo-saxon historiography being internationally widespread. I see no reason why de Ruyter should be less known than Drake, so if both were worthy then both should be internationally known, and if both were just products of idealised, nationalist propaganda, then knowledge of Drake should be as limited to Britain as de Ruyter's is to the Netherlands, instead of letting ourselves get a twisted vision of history influenced by one-sided, media diffusion.

Thing is, there are very few historic figures known across the world.

Every period tends to have the "top tier" of people everyone save for the most ignorant would have heard about.
Napoleon, Richard the Lionheart, Queen Elizabeth I, George Washington, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ghengis Kahn, Julius Caesar and such belong to that group.

Then there's also the kind of "second tier" of historic figures that anyone with at least a basic interest in history would know.
Here you'd find people like Saladin, Sun Tzu, The duke of Wellington, El Cid, Hannibal Barca, Queen Isabella of Castille, etc.

I'm not sure if you are talking about "tiers" in terms of historical relevance or in terms of international knowledge/recognition.

If it's about relevance, I fail to see how Richard the Lionheart or Elizabeth I are top tier figures yet Hannibal Barca or Isabella of Castille are second tier (it might sound biased because I'm Spanish, but I believe it safe to say that the legacy of Isabella was by far more impactful than that of Elizabeth and, specially, the Lionheart, and this comes from someone who is not to fond of sanctimonious Isabella.), but that's precisely what I'm talking about, most people today have an anglo-saxon centric view of history, and I don't think that's a legacy worth continuing, not to mention that it normally leads to a really unfair cult of personality, and nothing good ever comes from cult of personality. That happens in every country, but of course those which have been important in the past couple hundred years and, most importantly, during the information revolution, get a much broader international projection.


There is a difference between iconic characters and events and those which are relevant. Sometimes a relevant character can also be iconic, but a lot of times the achievements of some are exaggerated with nationalistic purposes, idealising some historical figures that then become icons for either nationalists or those who just know about history through very specific channels (like movies... or elementary school).

But the point is, these games are not made for an audience that would only know the "top tier" of historic figures

You just need cool graphics, a decent gameplay and a pretty trailer, the knowledge will come after =)

Besides, there are lots of very iconic figures during this period. There are several well-known movies and series done about Elizabeth I or Henry VIII (The Tudors), though it would be a crime to make a Pike & Shot game English-centric, as much as having named Napoleon TW after Wellington instead (worse actually, considering England was not even one of the big players in the 16th. century). I can understand a "Queen Victoria" Total War, but an "Armada Total War" or a "divorce by beheading" Total War would be crossing the line. There are other more relevant though not so well known figures like Charles V, Philip II, Louis XIV, Suleyman the Magnificent etc. that I could easily imagine featured in the boxart, though you don't always need a monarch or a general to sell a title, you can still use the appeal of the period's culture or warfare.

I imagine half the people who bought Warhammer (or Charlemagne, or Attila...) could not name a single character in the game before doing so, but still, if the game is appealing and fun, then an interest in it and the setting it depicts will eventually grow. There were truckloads of "lore" videos appearing in Youtube the months before Warhammer's release, popping out precisely because the mere announcement of the game generated an interest in many people who previously didn't really pay attention to that setting.

Regarding Michiel de Ruyter, he's likely best known here in the Netherlands and I assume that the British would know him too. He inflicted the worst naval defeat they ever suffered on them after all at Medway.

I don't think I'd go as far as calling it the worst naval defeat of the British (specially considering they were pretty much unopposed the whole time). As a Spaniard I can think of Cartagena de Indias (3000 men strong Spanish fortress garrison and 6 ships of the line vs the British with 29 Ships of the line, 22 frigates, 135 minor ships 12.000 soldiers and 15.000 sailors, with the Spanish losing all 6 ships, 800 dead and 1200 wounded for the British 11.000 dead, 7500 sick or wounded, 1500 cannons lost, damaged or captured and 27 battleships and 27 transports sunk or heavily damaged). Then again, neither Medway nor Cartagena were strictly "naval battles". There are probably better candidates for that title (Jutland comes to mind).

Astonishing to me that so many in this thread insist that a Pike and Shot game would not be popular with Anglo-Saxons.

The English Civil War. Oliver. Cromwell. Roundheads and Cavaliers.

I think it would definitely be interesting for Anglo-Saxons (well, for Brits at the very least), though it also looks like Brits are more fond of the Victorian era, which is understandable since them being the first world power in the 19th century probably stirs up their nationalism more the Pike & Shot era when they were more of a second-rate power (which in any case has been as exploited by nationalistic historiography, but still).

You can also sell it to Americans as enough bought the medieval games and there aren't any Americans in that history.

Well, most people are into Vikings, Samurais and Knights independently of how nationalistic they are or how much they know or care about history.

Then again, there are definitely tons of badass looking soldiers in the Pike&Shot era, so the appeal potential is there all the same.



In any case nationalism is not the only sales incentive (though it definitely helps). If the game is well done it's well done. I have never been a samurai fanboy and I knew next to nothing about Japan before playing Shogun, and still the game was a delight to be immersed in because it was beautifully crafted... the ambience and battle music, the artstyle, the attention to detail, the appealing graphic design and of course the revolutionary battles. The Rennaissance period has as much material if not more to achieve such a well-rounded product, so it has a lot of potential (the only thing that really worries me is how well could CA adapt the warfare of the time and make it entertaining without butchering it).

[Kraut]

Regarding Michiel de Ruyter, he's likely best known here in the Netherlands and I assume that the British would know him too. He inflicted the worst naval defeat they ever suffered on them after all at Medway.

The proud British do not know about any foreign Admiral defeating the glorious Royal Navy, because such a travesty surely never happened.

[WhiskeySykes]

Make it a good game...

Yes, please. Damn the setting if the game doesn't work and the mechanics aren't interesting.

[Inhuman One]

With naming well known historic figures in tiers, I didnt mean in regards to their accomplishments but how well known they are. King Richard Lionheart is very well known due to robin hood stories, which there are countless movies of. Without the Robin Hood story he likely would not have been familiar to the general public.

I dont mean they are the best or most accomplished people. Simply the most iconic that even anyone who despises anything regarding to history and never opened a history book would know of them.
Everyone also knows Star Wars for example, even if they never saw the movies and hate science fiction, they would know about it. It's just that well known. Also says nothing about the actual quality of Star Wars, only that there's simply no avoiding to NOT know it exists.

[Intranetusa]

With naming well known historic figures in tiers, I didnt mean in regards to their accomplishments but how well known they are. King Richard Lionheart is very well known due to robin hood stories, which there are countless movies of. Without the Robin Hood story he likely would not have been familiar to the general public.
I dont mean they are the best or most accomplished people. Simply the most iconic that even anyone who despises anything regarding to history and never opened a history book would know of them.
Everyone also knows Star Wars for example, even if they never saw the movies and hate science fiction, they would know about it. It's just that well known. Also says nothing about the actual quality of Star Wars, only that there's simply no avoiding to NOT know it exists.

I don't think Sun Tzu is tier 2 with the other folks consider how well known he is. People still read his book today, which is fairly popular in business and among military circles. Hannibal is pretty popular too...one rarely talks about Roman history (especially military history) without talking about Hannibal.

Maybe you need a 1.5 tier for them to differentiate them from everybody else in tier 2. :p

[Inhuman One]

Heh well perhaps yes. To me Sun Tzu is well known, but there is no iconic image known of Sun Tzu to go with the name. Maybe I'm not giving the history haters enough credit, but personally I feel I might still give them too much credit!