New game class announced: Total War Saga

[Ichon]

What do you think CA is working on between September of 2013 and September 2017?

Four years according to the idea that the trilogy is a single game would mean CA hasn't even released anything yet but sometime in early 2019 CA after 6 years work by 100-200 people Sega would have a single title including all the DLC and covering 18+ relatively unique races.

$45-90,000 USD is average salaries for graphic artists and programmers. Say we figure average salary of 60,000 (fewer programmers than artists) and 150 people (during early development fewer people working) That is over 54 million USD just in salaries not including GW costs, Sega's cut, Steam's cut (30%) , marketing, and studio overhead, and the loans to 6+ years before seeing any revenue come in which would easily add several millions more. Just to break even CA would need to sell nearly 1.3 million units of this theoretical game at full price. Not to mention CA doesn't receive customer feedback in this process and the final game will not be nearly as good as releasing it in stages over this 6 year span.

It is just BS to say all the DLC is cut content and the trilogy should be a single game by someone who doesn't understand business at all.

CA and Sega actually took some risk to devote as many resources to game 1 as they did, game 2 is still costing a fair amount but I do think by game 3 the profit margins will be pretty nice for Sega and GW. However I can't see how that is bad for consumers as they got content after 3 years instead of 6 years and due to the nice profits will likely get more content than otherwise and Sega might be willing to let CA try other fantasy themed games which of course isn't a guarantee CA will succeed in making good content always but it is better to have them able to at least try if you care about what you might be playing over the next decade. If you don't care about getting access to more and different gaming content but are posting here then you are really just a troll.

[Daruwind]

Damn man, that´s seriously long wall of text - gratz on your writing

Before I reply I just want to make some quick observations: at my previous post I expressed my disapproval of what CA is doing with warhammer. Certain members immediately rushed to defend CA and object to what I had to say. A little while later my next post is here, again I express disapproval of the direction CA is going and what do you know, pretty much the same guys immediately rush to defend CA and object to what I have to say once again. Quite interesting, isn't it? As they say: "a coincidence that repeats itself ceases to be a coincidence". What makes this even more interesting for me is that I've never seen a single post of you guys with any criticism or "negative" feedback for CA. Ever. It's as if everything CA does is always right and justified immediately for you.

Wait...have I missed any paycheck from CA? Damnit...now I have to ask Welsh if i´m dumb for free or what... O.o

Empire....the awfull siege slowdown. Attila...bad optimalization for many. Rome 2 limited building system. (I like the concept as opposing to blindly build anything anywhere yet I would tweak it to 8/6 or 10/8 in major/minor cities) Sieges are not the perfect in Warhammer. Naval combat is little lol in Shogun 2 .....I could easily continue like for idk but I try to focus on better parts. And there is definitely room for improvement. OH by the way I hate as Attila was released leaving Rome 2 behind without family tree and other things. That´s one reason why I´m looking forward to possible Rome 2 campaign pack. I´m giving CA another try to improve the game. :-)

And Daruwind has recently said that he blindly buys every TW that CA releases regardless of if it's actually good or not, so essentially he has indirectly admitted that he's a fanboy,

I own all TWs, I have played all TWs and I love all my TWs each for being little different. I have never said that there is nothing wrong with TWs or that there is no room for fixing,improving or evolution. Do I regret buying Peninsular Campaign for Napoleon? Nope...or unit packs for Empire / Napoleon like Grand Battery of Convention? Nope, it is my money, my time and my fun. But I would never ever buy anything blindly and if there is TW I´m disliking I would gladly say it loudly. So far I haven´t regret single Euro...But definitely there are better TWs but don´t make do a top list. Sometimes I have taste for FotS another time for Med 2 or Empire even with all the bugs... For example I have Crusaders Kings II and some DLCs however I don´t like the latest direction so I haven´t bought any in long time...

So if im fanboy for being fan of history and at the same time being fan of Warhammer (or any other scifi/fantasy) then yes, i can live with that. :-) But we are talking about games after all. Games should be fun and trying to keep reality or being realistic at all cost in probably not the best aproach ;-)

I've never said any of that stuff. Don't try to put words in my mouth that I never said, it's very rude and disrespectful. Other members have said things like that for sure, but I never did. What's really going on here is that you have attached to me a label in your head that says: "a history guy that hates CA for making warhammer" and you reply to me according to that label. So you'll probably be shocked to know that I actually love fantasy settings as much as I love historical settings. In fact, when CA announced warhammer I was quite interested in buying it, because I find warhammer fantasy a great setting for a TW game with awesome factions. The fact that I choose to boycott the product has nothing to do with the setting, it has everything to do with CA's scammy and anti-customer business practices and the significantly limited moddability which severely reduces the overall value of the game, at least for me.

And let me blow your mind even more: I actually love fantasy settings so much that one of my current hobbies is building my own fantasy world.

Well okey, it was probably not fair to generalize and label you as "screaming history boy" sorry for that. But you are trying the very same with labeling me as fanboy, almost being paid by CA and so.. :-)

To defraud people into paying the price of 6 full games and get just one in return....The problem lies in how they choose to do it....Plus, you're just wrong at this. Most of their DLCs are cut content, therefore people actually are forced to buy them to get the full product.

Your opinion. People vote with their vallet. Read again Ichon´s previous post. You are free to disagree with that but it won´t change the truth/world/reality?

Neither are you. And yet you buy everything. Funny, right?

You are quite obsesed with what I do with my money? I´m guilty then. I don´t buy many games per year. Witcher 3, MWO mechwarriors and Total Wars are my sins (but don´t get me wrong I have enough experience from Age of Empires 1+2,Warcraft 1,2,3, Dune..Crusaders Kings, Age of Wonders, Heros of Might and Magic 3, Tiberian Sun, Starcraft 1+2......enough experience?). I don´t smoke, drink or use drugs. Just have one GF which is definitely more expensive than all my games together

Are you advertising CA's products now?

Well not everybody is fanboy of CA and some are actually interested only in particular periods of history. Having so many different projects in near future means more people with different tastes may be happy in near future. Or some dumb people like myself wil have almost orgasm as having constantly new things to play with.

You mean for warhammer? Well, there are many negative reviews about the mini campaigns. Many people say they don't really represent the factions well enough or accurately and they don't live up to their high prices.
I have neither played nor watched gameplay walkthroughs for FotS, so I have no opinion on it.

Nope. Overall. Age of Charlamagne. The Last Roman .....but try to compare these with Peninsular campaign for Napoleon Of course the minicampaigns for Warhammer are not perfect, they are the weak point of these DLCs however the faction itself, mechanics and roster are the strong point. For example im quite happy the Tomb Kings for Warhammer 2 won´t have mini campaign and will be instead boosted on campaign map. :-)

Yes, it will. The more people are working on a project at the same time, the sooner it is completed. And it's not just about the time of its release. If there are no other historical projects taking resources then all resources for historical projects go to the main title, therefore it will be of much higher quality overall as a product and a better game.

Nope. In your mind all the people could work at the same time however game development needs different set of skills in particular development periods. So you either hire guys for short time or have more products in different stages of development and shift people between teams. Try to google it for yourself

What's the point of getting hyped? Expectation is the mother of all disappointment and the root of all heartache.

Yeah, you know..i´m pretty optimistic person. To the point it causes headache to some others...But that´s not my problem. I had nice weekend playing MWO, Warhammer and minecraft with GF. Sorry if your life is not so sunny...

And TW:W is not a great game by any means. Not even close. A great game doesn't come in pieces, it's a complete product at release. A great game doesn't cost the price of 6 full games either. Plus, a TW game that comes with the worst sieges and multiplayer of the franchise is anything but great.

Your opinion. Looks like sales are saying something else. Probably too many dumb people outside bought it..I get it. Well Ichon said it very well in previous post. And if you don´t accept it..well I cannot say anything more :-) Ohh but there is still hope that next historical game won´t feature so many different models so it should save some money for other stuff.

What you just said is very contradictory. Because "having more different maps" actually requires a moddable campaign map. We can't have more maps (let alone different ones) if the campaign map is unmoddable. We're limited to the maps that CA sells.

That's a problem right there. This means that the modders are severely limited in making content that strictly fits the maps that CA decides to sell. Plus, it means that the modders have to spend more money to buy the new campaigns in order to get the new maps. So if a modder can't afford to or simply doesn't want to buy the mini campaigns he can't get the new maps. So modders are forced to pay more and at the same time limited to providing less content. And they're doing it for free. Anyway you look at it, that's just terrible.

So what is worse? Having one map and nothing else or having DLCs which provide additional maps to mod additional scenarios? I know, both are bad in your eyes as you are not getting tools to mod whatever you want...But my pick is the second scenario as to having at least some options.

Yeah, so what?

Well I don´t know how you do modding but I was meddling with buildings,startpos and other stuff, what I learned in Rome 2 is quite similar to how things work in Attila, Warhammer. I´m having quite often all three games in PFMs and cross checking things. It doesn´t matter if you do mods for one game of another. I don´t say you can convert anything but definitely if you are good modder in one title you will be even in next one...:-)

Yeah, Rome 2 was released in 2013. But how is this relevant to anything we're saying?

May be common logic? The longer time from original release, the lesser number of people playing/having game? Just quick question...If CA decides to produce new campaign for Shogun 1....would it be more likely as standalone or big DLC?

...I refuse to comment anything else because nobody si willing to read such wall of texts Sorry time to play minecraft with GF.

[Welsh Dragon]

@perifanosEllinas

I would usually write a long and detailed response where I address each of your points in turn. But I suspect this would achieve little, as it is unlikely to change your firmly held beliefs. And to be honest, I'm on holiday so I really don't feel like it. So I will try to keep this brief.

I have a generally positive view of Total War and CA, and I have never said otherwise. This is built on 15+ years of playing and enjoying their games, and almost as long being part of various communities. I think they get more right than wrong, and I have a generally favourable view of the direction CA is taking the series. The news that we have a Rome 2 (I hope) Campaign DLC, a Saga game and the Next Major Historical to look forward to is a very big piece of positive news to me.

I'm generally happy with the price to content to game hours/enjoyment on offer, and am happy to pay for DLC which add additional playable factions, units and campaigns, if the subject interests me, which it generally does (Blood & Gore being the notable exception, which is why I've never bought a B&G DLC and am unlikely to ever buy one.) I would go so far as to say I would rather pay for a DLC which adds a faction designed by CA, than play a free mod with what a specific modder thinks that faction should be like. But I respect others feel differently.

I judge each game and DLC they make based on what is said to actually be in it related to the price. I find the repeated accusations of "cut content" from members of the Total War community at best puzzling, and at worse downright wrong, because to me that's demanding content a person has not paid for and so is in no way entitled to. The game descriptions are generally very clear about what is included for the price being asked, and so anything outside of that is in my view not part of the price being asked for, and thus not part of what was paid for. It cannot be "cut content" because it was never ours in the first place.

I generally do not play with mods and have little interest in doing so, outside of unofficial patches and minor tweaks. They just don't interest me. I am no modder, but as I said I respect modders. However it seems to me that some feel they are entitled to a lot more from a game studio than they are actually entitled to and more importantly than they actually paid for.

(And no, I can't direct you to software that lets you mod the campaign map of Rome 2 or Attila, because there isn't one, and it's not what I meant anyway. It seems to me, and I apologise in advance if I have misunderstood, that some modders basically want the means to make a whole new Total War game, in a new setting, with new factions and units etc, for the price of a standard game. That they basically want to make a new game built off the backs of the people at CA who did a lot of the hard work building and refining the engine in the first place.

So if a modder wants to do all that, then please by all means found a studio and either buy an off the shelf engine like Unreal, or build one from scratch. I look forward to seeing the results.)

Does all this mean I don't disagree with and sometimes criticise CA's decisions? Absolutely not. But when I do, I do so in my usual polite and reasoned fashion, in what I feel is the right way and in the right place. So it often gets missed amongst the angry shouting and insults that criticism of CA all too often devolves into. And I also try to see different people's opinions and look at more than one side of the argument. So while I may dislike some of the things a person, developer, company etc does, that doesn't mean I don't understand and agree with why they did it.

I think it's safe to say I strongly disagree with you on a good many things. But I chalk that up to a simple difference of opinion, instead of attributing it to some kind of blind hatred or hidden agenda. Not only do I think it's insulting and unnecessary to call people "fanboys" or "haters," I think it only serves to weaken that person's argument, because then the discussion becomes about the person being addressed, not the views being expressed. And I don't attribute any more significance to seeing the same people complaining about CA and Total War in different threads, than wishing to discuss the games and get their opinions across.

Finally, I think that if we dehumanize people, by calling them Fanboys or Haters or just thinking of them as a Company instead of individuals, we make the community and the world a worse place. So yes, I do think as customers we should take into account the people we buy from and the costs incurred to make the games we enjoy. Because they are human beings too, just like us.

Anyway, that's proved to be a lot longer than I intended, so let's wrap this up.

In conclusion, you don't like what CA is doing, I generally do. So let's just agree to disagree.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[craziii]

damn, entitled ppl thinking warhammer 1 is not a full total war game

[Sharpe]

Total War has never been better - can't wait.

This is the golden age of being a TW Fan.

Also the mental gymnastics of the "muh Rome 1, muh Medieval 2" hardcore lot is still hilarious and kinda sad to see. It's been 4 years since Rome 2 was released and it seems you've actually spent more time weeping about CA and TW than playing it. Face it, the game series you apparently love is gone, replaced by a far larger studio. Go and play some Paradox games and bore yourself to sleep. In doing all your moaning you've actually killed the website - the meta among TW fans holds this to be true. Reddit is a far better site for discussing the series and far more objective too. A shame because this site used to be a great place to discuss both the good and bad aspects of TW releases rather than certain members yelling "REEEEEEEEEEEE muh Balkans REEEEEEEEEEE late stage capitalism"

Now if you don't mind me I'm going to launch my Gorebulls through 9 units of Brettonian Peasants.

[Daruwind]

Now if you don't mind me I'm going to launch my Gorebulls through 9 units of Brettonian Peasants.

morning post on reddit

[Fredrin]

I have a fair few gripes with the game design itself, but when it comes to release strategy, I'm fine with the direction CA is going in.

The idea that they could release all three parts of Warhammer at once, as fleshed out as it's turning out to be and at the price of a standard game (or even double that) is patently ridiculous.

My only regret is that they didn't use the same release strategy for Rome II - the Classical era is no doubt big enough to span a trilogy. In fact, Rome II is proof that it's way too big to cram into a single game.

One thing I like most about the new "staggered release" policy is that other peoples' enthusiasm is paying for a better experience for me. I've barely bought any DLC for Warhammer because fantasy isn't really my bag, but thanks to all that DLC being shifted, part II is looking to be an awesome addition to the main game.

The roles might well be reversed when I'm buying all the sagas and extra DLC for the next historical, making it a better experience for new converts from the Warhammer side. CA is gradually getting the balance right in terms of the diversity of DLC on offer and how much value it actually brings to the game.

The only way CA are able to be very ambitious as they enter a new era (or IP in the case of WH) is if they can count on a large amount of additional content being spun off from the main release. Given the enormous production values these days, the previous model of Main game (Empire, Shogun II) followed by follow-up sequel (Napoleon, FotS) just wasn't going to cut it.

So, I'm all for CA releasing multiple different games with each leap forward, provided that each big leap offers enough fresh gameplay and each spin-off comes with a good diversity of mechanics. There hasn't been nearly enough innovation to keep gameplay exciting throughout the whole RII>Attila>WH cycle in my opinion.

[LestaT]

Can we all get back on topic? All these business talks are what made TWC boring these days.

.... and those talk about no tools to mod? Oh please. Real modders create their own tools. RTW and MTW2 mods happened because modders at that tume created their own tools without which, models can be added.

Now, where are we?

Will the Saga series still be based on 32 bit or get upgraded into 64 bit? As I understand, they are basicallly stand alone games on their own right though they may be build based on Rome II or Attila.

Will they havea full game price or the DLC campaign price?

Will they have their own launcher or will they use exixting games which they are based launchers?

[Ichon]

Saga are complete and independent games so I'd expect close to full game price and not needing anything other than Steam.

I am curious what they do here but I am not sure how much I'd go in for another Roman or Classical era game. If CA actually tries some new mechanics I am much more interested but if it feels like Attila II with slightly different time period, and adding back in only families etc I will probably skip it.

Honestly I am hoping CA tries either Renaissance era game or something in China. I'd spend some money on either of those. 30 Years War might be interesting as well though CA seems to try and avoid controversy with religion so even war between Catholics and Protestants might be too much strain for them.

[Meretrix]

.... and those talk about no tools to mod? Oh please. Real modders create their own tools. RTW and MTW2 mods happened because modders at that tume created their own tools without which, models can be added.

It's not that modders don't (want to) create tools anymore but CA has been pretty strict about hard coding core features, since modders are cutting into their dlc revenue.

Will the Saga series still be based on 32 bit or get upgraded into 64 bit? As I understand, they are basicallly stand alone games on their own right though they may be build based on Rome II or Attila.

Will they havea full game price or the DLC campaign price?

Will they have their own launcher or will they use exixting games which they are based launchers?

God I hope they don't all have their own launcher. I really don't want 30 TW games installed. Maybe there will be a new Saga launcher that they all plug into. They said they will be cheaper than a full game though (like an expansion price)
It really would be most efficient just to release one solid game and just sell these "sagas as dlc but that is probably not as financially lucrative.

[LestaT]

Saga are complete and independent games so I'd expect close to full game price and not needing anything other than Steam.

I am curious what they do here but I am not sure how much I'd go in for another Roman or Classical era game. If CA actually tries some new mechanics I am much more interested but if it feels like Attila II with slightly different time period, and adding back in only families etc I will probably skip it.

Honestly I am hoping CA tries either Renaissance era game or something in China. I'd spend some money on either of those. 30 Years War might be interesting as well though CA seems to try and avoid controversy with religion so even war between Catholics and Protestants might be too much strain for them.

China might be made into full historical game. I don't mind another roman era game though base on Attila engine.

[Welsh Dragon]

Can we all get back on topic? All these business talks are what made TWC boring these days.

.... and those talk about no tools to mod? Oh please. Real modders create their own tools. RTW and MTW2 mods happened because modders at that tume created their own tools without which, models can be added.

Now, where are we?

Will the Saga series still be based on 32 bit or get upgraded into 64 bit? As I understand, they are basicallly stand alone games on their own right though they may be build based on Rome II or Attila.

Will they havea full game price or the DLC campaign price?

Will they have their own launcher or will they use exixting games which they are based launchers?

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit. I'm inclined to think 32 bit, just because they talk about them being a "follow-on from previous Total War games and inhabit the same time-period, or at the very least relate to it." So as no historical has been 64 bit, I'm not sure that the first Saga will be. But could be wrong.

They also stated that the first will be "another spiritual follow-up to Total War: ROME II, like Total War: ATTILA, and moves the time period forward in much the same way." Which I think means we may wish to look at their "parent" games to get some idea of what they'll be using.
https://www.totalwar.com/blog/a-tota...announce-blog/
(Penultimate question.)

Re: Pricing CA's stated that pricing will be more like FOTS and Attila. Which I take to be closer to £30 RRP than the £40/$60 RRP (which Warhammer is.)https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...itles/djujl26/

Re: Launcher. I think they will have their own launcher. They're meant to be a completely standalone game as far as I can tell, just be set in a tighter geographic area and/or time period than the Era titles.

That said I think Sagas are really going to be full games in terms of content. They may not be the next major historical, or revolutionise Total War, but if they're doing something like Fall of the Samurai then they will be in many ways a full game.

For example full size maps (the first is said to be in terms of regions as big as Attila) just covering a smaller geographic area and/or a smaller amount of time.

I also think we're talking multiple different factions, as in the blog post I provided a link to earlier in the thread they said:

"So, Total War Saga games will be the same mix of turn-based campaign strategy, real-time battle tactics and hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay as a regular Total War game, but focussed down on a distinct moment."

I don't think they'd be talking like that if we were looking at a Warhammer style mini-campaign, or even a Rome 2 Caesar in Gaul or Hannibal at the Gates style smaller campaign. I think they mean a full grand campaign, just maybe instead of covering all of Europe stretching all the way to Afghanistan, we're talking maybe only part of Europe but it much more detail.

But we shall see.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Welsh Dragon]

God I hope they don't all have their own launcher. I really don't want 30 TW games installed. Maybe there will be a new Saga launcher that they all plug into. They said they will be cheaper than a full game though (like an expansion price)
It really would be most efficient just to release one solid game and just sell these "sagas as dlc but that is probably not as financially lucrative.

Interestingly I actually think it's better to do each Saga as a separate game, as it gives people a lot more choice and options.

If you take for example "Age of Charlemagne," someone who has no interest in the Late Antiquity/Early Dark Age setting of Attila, but is interested in the early Middle Ages and Charlemagne, they have to buy a game they aren't interested in (Attila) just to get the Charlemagne campaign they are interested in. Where as if "Age of Charlemagne" had been a Saga game, they could have just picked up "Age of Charlemagne" and be away and uniting Europe to their hearts content.

Also, with a few exceptions campaign DLC tends to be smaller than a full size game, where as it sounds like Sagas are going to be full sized games, just with a smaller geographic/temporal focus.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Fredrin]

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit. I'm inclined to think 32 bit, just because they talk about them being a "follow-on from previous Total War games and inhabit the same time-period, or at the very least relate to it." So as no historical has been 64 bit, I'm not sure that the first Saga will be. But could be wrong.

They also stated that the first will be "another spiritual follow-up to Total War: ROME II, like Total War: ATTILA, and moves the time period forward in much the same way." Which I think means we may wish to look at their "parent" games to get some idea of what they'll be using.
https://www.totalwar.com/blog/a-tota...announce-blog/
(Penultimate question.)

Re: Pricing CA's stated that pricing will be more like FOTS and Attila. Which I take to be closer to £30 RRP than the £40/$60 RRP (which Warhammer is.)https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...itles/djujl26/

Re: Launcher. I think they will have their own launcher. They're meant to be a completely standalone game as far as I can tell, just be set in a tighter geographic area and/or time period than the Era titles.

That said I think Sagas are really going to be full games in terms of content. They may not be the next major historical, or revolutionise Total War, but if they're doing something like Fall of the Samurai then they will be in many ways a full game.

For example full size maps (the first is said to be in terms of regions as big as Attila) just covering a smaller geographic area and/or a smaller amount of time.

I also think we're talking multiple different factions, as in the blog post I provided a link to earlier in the thread they said:

"So, Total War Saga games will be the same mix of turn-based campaign strategy, real-time battle tactics and hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay as a regular Total War game, but focussed down on a distinct moment."

I don't think they'd be talking like that if we were looking at a Warhammer style mini-campaign, or even a Rome 2 Caesar in Gaul or Hannibal at the Gates style smaller campaign. I think they mean a full grand campaign, just maybe instead of covering all of Europe stretching all the way to Afghanistan, we're talking maybe only part of Europe but it much more detail.

Yep, I agree with all this. Though I do think that if they can find a way to port it to 64-bit, they will do. People moving from Warhammer quick end-of-turn times will make a fuss otherwise! I have no idea about the technical requirements, though. It might be fiendishly difficult.

[LestaT]

Yep, I agree with all this. Though I do think that if they can find a way to port it to 64-bit, they will do. People moving from Warhammer quick end-of-turn times will make a fuss otherwise! I have no idea about the technical requirements, though. It might be fiendishly difficult.

I think moving to 64 bit will just made the game be able to use more memory. Yeah, Warhammer do seems blazingly fast. Not sure because there are less factions on the map compared to Attila or Rome II. Rome II is pretty fast for me but Attila is such a bore waiting for turns to end. I would love to play more of that game but the long turns kinda turn me off.

[Ichon]

I think moving to 64 bit will just made the game be able to use more memory. Yeah, Warhammer do seems blazingly fast. Not sure because there are less factions on the map compared to Attila or Rome II. Rome II is pretty fast for me but Attila is such a bore waiting for turns to end. I would love to play more of that game but the long turns kinda turn me off.

Yeah unfortunately I agree with that- I have only completed a couple Attila and AoC campaigns vs dozen in Rome II and a couple dozen in Warhammer. Warhammer campaigns feel much faster, not only in end turn times but flow of a campaign. Also I think because the AI seems to avoid laying siege there are fewer siege defence battles in Warhammer. I don't actually mind too much since 95% or higher siege defence are won and fighting them out is rarely fun. I've quit a few Rome campaigns due to 6-8 siege battles at the end of every turn most of which were completely hopeless for the AI but if auto-calc the AI actually has a chance or at least would inflict high losses that might give a besieger in 3 turns a real chance.

Walls feel necessary in TW because the AI has perfect map knowledge through fog of war and will march 10-15 turns away to attack an unwalled settlement. I would actually prefer a system of much wider ZoC of armies and only Capital cities having walls though garrisons can be present in other settlements. That way defensive armies actually make some sense and have a decent chance to intercept invaders as well giving a real advantage to armies which have a secondary form of move like Beast Paths, tunneling, World Roots, etc.

[LestaT]

I agree with the wider ZoC. I remember the earlier release of ETW where it had a wider control and chance of interception. I enjoy that very much.

[Huberto]

I agree with the wider ZoC. I remember the earlier release of ETW where it had a wider control and chance of interception. I enjoy that very much.

It is also is more realistic. I've been playing this game called Frozen Cortex that is simultaneous turn based with ZoC's. In each turn, there is planning phase for both sides, then real time execution If TW used a similar approach it would make for more strategic tension on the campaign map and more realistic movement. The game developer of Frozen Cortex is Mode 7, and they are based in Oxford UK. SEGA should reach out and buy them.

[Fredrin]

It is also is more realistic. I've been playing this game called Frozen Cortex that is simultaneous turn based with ZoC's. In each turn, there is planning phase for both sides, then real time execution If TW used a similar approach it would make for more strategic tension on the campaign map and more realistic movement. The game developer of Frozen Cortex is Mode 7, and they are based in Oxford UK. SEGA should reach out and buy them.

Frozen Synapse was a fantastic little game. Number two is on the way this year as well, apparently:

http://www.pcgamer.com/frozen-synaps...layed-to-2017/

[Lin Huichi]

If the Saga titles are going to be full sized campaigns, how big is the main title going to be?