Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Games i would like to see

  1. #21

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Quote Originally Posted by Gen. Ulysses S. Grant View Post
    Here is a list of Games for Total war in my opinion would be cool

    Napoleon 2
    Mexican-American War
    American Civil War
    World War I & II
    Vietnam
    Medieval 3
    Cold War
    Empire 2
    They are all good choices I would enjoy.

    I would also add Warhammer 40K
    Last edited by herne_the _hunter; February 07, 2019 at 06:17 AM.

  2. #22
    Mayer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Germanic since 500BC, Arabic since 2015
    Posts
    2,287

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Warhammer 40K has individual units, not formations like Warhammer Fantasy.
    HATE SPEECH ISN'T REAL

  3. #23

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    Warhammer 40K has individual units, not formations like Warhammer Fantasy.
    Yes that change would be good for the franchise.

  4. #24
    Kyffhäuser's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    under the mountain
    Posts
    68

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Age of Exploration
    Hyborian Age
    Napoleon 2
    Bhagavad Gita
    Victorian, Edwardian, WW1
    Dying Earth, Cthulhu, Night Land

  5. #25
    La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham's Avatar Artifex♔Duffer♔Civitate
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Den,with a massive pair of binoculars, surveying TWC, ensuring members are laughing & happy!
    Posts
    1,563

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Quote Originally Posted by Comrade_Rory View Post
    These should all be the same game.
    I'd love to see an "Empire 2" which covered the 19th century. I feel like Fall of the Samurai showed those of us who are into Victorian history that it could be done and then we never got a full game.
    However if they wanted to call it something other than Empire 2, that'd be fine but if they made an actual Empire 2 then I would want that one to cover both the 17th and 18th century.

    Basically I just want 17th, 18th and 19th centuries represented in some way... and give us customisable uniforms, as that was promised back in Empire and we never got it.
    I whole heartily agree old boy, Empire 2..... 17th 18th and 19th centuries involved!

    "No problem can withstand the assault of sustained Dufferism"

  6. #26

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Agreed

  7. #27

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Gonna be honest I have no excitement for a pre gunpowder game is we are going to still be stuck with this same engine we have had for ten years. No matter what the melee combat is going to suck or just be bland and dull. I would on the other hand actually be fine with an Empire 2 or any setting between the 18th to 19th century because that is where the engine was meant to be used so it would fit there with the range combat.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Somebody knows why Total War saga is focusing exclusively on Ancient periods? I think they released interesting titles in the recent years but they abandoned gunpowder era and I don't know why. It's a shame they didn't continue with titles such as Empire and Napoleon, and besides Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai, we don't have any title based on mid-late 19th century period. I think the idea of Empire Total War has a huge potential they aren't exploring (and taking advantage of it).

  9. #29
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Witht eh success of WH, I believe they think they have a new audience, so that are trying to capture the historical people with the fantasy people and they are looking for romanticized history. It looks like ToB may be the last historical title. if you like tactical aspect of the game with real world campaign mechanics, you should check out Grand Tactician.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  10. #30
    Daruwind's Avatar Moderator
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,307

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    First of all, we should remember that CA is doing TWs in production lines ...Empire,Napoleon,Shogun2 then bigger technology jump to line R2/Attila/ToB then again jump to 64bits with line Wh1/Wh2...Wh3 and Troy is based upon those as well. Now they are starting 3K. It is easy to expect that we will get at least one 3Kish title focusing on leading character (Genghis Khan but put here any bigger name from Asia) and probably even Saga game. This is all because for Engine part of CA it took some time to alter, improve build new engine for future titles. Like right now. There is running Wh2 engine, but pre-production or works on Troy probably started some time ago that 3K was not ready by the time and again we have just hints that Wh3 might get actualy some pretty big changes as well in comparison with Wh1/2.

    Now why I´m starting with such point. If we want game with bigger focus on 18-19 century gunpowder fights, CA would probably alter engine a little and create whole line for it. 2-3 games. So if you ask me if we will get Empire 2, I will say yes. It will just take some time. If you look lower at release dates you can notice that major title marking new lines are like every 3/4 years. So question is, what will be next CA´s move. If they want to return to Med3 or try Empire2 or if we might get something else like Tolkien TW.

    Pls note DLCs/FLCs are not noted. Just fill all years with appropriate content like DLC for 3K then Wh2 then one for Saga then repeat 3K, Wh2..again again...bla bla bla

    Empire - 2009
    Napoleon - 2010
    Shogun2 2011
    Rome 2 - 2013
    Attila - 2015
    Wh1 - 2016
    Wh2 - 2017
    ToB - 2018
    3K - 2019
    --------------
    Troy - 2020 (Wh2 based Saga)
    end 2020-early 2021 Wh3 (Wh2ish line end)
    2021 3K following character base title(Genghis Khan?)
    2022 first opportunity to get new line like Med3/Empire 2
    2023
    2024
    2025 next opportunity
    ...

  11. #31
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    I am not anticipating a future historical title.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  12. #32

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    I feel obliged to say this has little to do about the period chosen and more regarding how it is executed. I guarantee a well executed game set in the early medieval period would not be bland, dull, or whatever else. Total War is fundamentally a' sword and board' series, and the very operation of the engine is biased towards this even with an 'unhappy balance' rebuild that attempts to cater to the gunpowder era and then be spliced into modern melee games. I think for the series to actually progress either way they have to get off their comfort zone bums and perform a rebuild, an opportunity with the saga line that has been squandered. With such a rebuild, a great many things are possible, and I can stop feeling like everything between empire and recent entries is the same thing with a different coat of paint. There's multiple games that are matched or outstretched in diversity by the level of modding in Medieval 2. That's hard to beat, but beating it involves trying, and there's been too much 'add some, take some, now reskin everything (or not so much, hi r2/attila/tob)' between entries for that to have been viably countered.

    Thus, what I want to see is innovation, unsafe and thus unlikely as that may be. I want a game that evolves from what came before rather than adding a few things and then 'forgetting' fun or useful functions from prior games, or failing to even approach familiar territory from before (the sad disparity of naval battles, multiplayer campaigns, so on). I would imagine the apex of warscape comes from the distinction between s1 and m1 in the beginning, where virtually everything as made sense was ported over... and then improved and expanded. Right now I think the series would benefit from a change the degree of m1 to r1, but I'll settle for the former. If the fundamental approach to games is taken this way, I'd accept a great deal of options. I have zero interest in gunpowder. To me, that's not what the series is about, regardless of the underlying engine they've bunkered onto. But with a bit more innovation and a serious glance towards the things that made earlier entries good (even warscape ones, though I preach to look back further), I'd accept a foray into gunpowder, even if I think modern warfare is untenable even by this engine.

  13. #33
    Daruwind's Avatar Moderator
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,307

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    CA gained new audience but not all groups are having big intersection. Wh pulled in a lot new guys, fantasy guys but more precisely Warhammer fans. I garantee there is a lot other fantasy groups for Tolkien, Warcraft, GoT, Witcher and others. If CA would make Tolkien game, there will be new influx of players and at the same time some Warhammer guys won´t touch it.

    Very same is true for history settings. With 3K we got bunch of Asia guys (little joke no offense anybody) and probably lot of them won´t play even Shogun 2 or other historical setting. Just look around, we have bunches of Gunpowder guys, Medieval guys, Antiquity guys and not necessary everyone is playing other settings.

    I can agree that right now Fantasy looks like the best setting, pleasing the most people and earning money but I don´t believe it will state that forever. Wh was great hit, CA has time and results to maybe try even Tolkien now, if not Lord of the Rings then maybe the First Age etc...Warcraft is probably out of question even if for me it would be next best setting (Warcraft is loosely set upon Wh). GoT/Witcher and similar setting have some fantasy features but actual battles are quite "normal". (Why I keep talking about Witcher, super great games + we will get new TV series in short time) but even if CA manage to get rights for one or two of those, then what? After those will run its courses in 6-8 years. Different question, look at Paradox and others, they keep repeating CK setting, Rome setting...because they are popular. So don´t worry. We will get Med3/Rome3 sooner or later.

  14. #34
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,621

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    I believe one argument against fantasy setting is the trouble with Licence. CA was able tot find an agreement with GW for TW Warhammer but there is no certainty it could do the same with whoever holds the rights for LotR, ASOIAF, etc.

    To me it looks easier to use historical settings as a starting point and then spice it up with a couple of fantasy/mythical/romance features.

  15. #35
    PikeStance's Avatar ⚜️ Omnipresent ⚜️
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shenzhen
    Posts
    11,695
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    It is difficult to compare CA to Paradox. Paradox games are more than just different settings. CK is focus on the ruler. Your interaction is as if you are an individual. EU is focus on factions and the development of your faction from the formative period of nations States to modern era. HOI4 focus is pre-war preparation and large scale operations. Victoria II is a different setting, but focus on industrialization and liberalism (people), so it is very different game-play. TBH, Rome is a little of everything, but noting of anything (if you are a cynic) and a jack of all trades if you are being kind. Personally, the game-play has yet to be fully developed given they altered the game experience with last patch. Stelllaris has a radicaly different setting, but the game-play is very different from the other titles.

    CA titles are more about the setting. Any changes of the game-play is sometime marginal. Food plays a different role in S2 than it does in the later titles and it plays no role in the earlier title. There are some different mechanics from R2 to Attila, but maybe not enough. Ironically ToB has the most different game-play, but people act as if it is only an extension of Attila. Of course, it was developed right afterwards and so the setting was too close.

    Paradox goes out of its way to create an historically immersive and realistic experience while CA has gradually moved away from that and is moving to a more "gamer's" experience. Using fantasy instead historical sources allows them greater freedom to do that. While Paradox goes out of its way to let the fans know that they hear them, CA goes out of its way to alienate the fan base. It is disappointing given it wasn't that long ago that it invited a number of modders for a conference.
    IMHO, CA needs to fire their entire marketing and PR department or develop a different strategy. There is no reason they cannot developed their fantasy genre, their romance genre and a pure historical genre simultaneously. There is absolutely no reason they cannot do this.
    MODDERS WANTED | MY PATRONAGES
    Imperial Splendour is looking for Modders and Researchers. SEE AD HERE
    If interested, contact PikeStance(Mod Leader/Manager) or Quintus Hortensius Hortalus (Mod leader /Lead Artist)

    Under the Patronage of Omnipotent- Q | Member of the House of Wild Bill Kelso
    Patron of
    _Tataros_
    | Magister Militum Flavius Aetius | Alwyn | Lord Oda Nobunaga | Massive_attack |
    Proposed the Following for PHALERA: Mangalore & sumskilz | OPIFEX: wangrin, z3n, and Swiss Halberdier


    Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers | House of Noble Discourse

  16. #36

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    CA gained new audience but not all groups are having big intersection. Wh pulled in a lot new guys, fantasy guys but more precisely Warhammer fans. I garantee there is a lot other fantasy groups for Tolkien, Warcraft, GoT, Witcher and others. If CA would make Tolkien game, there will be new influx of players and at the same time some Warhammer guys won´t touch it.

    Very same is true for history settings. With 3K we got bunch of Asia guys (little joke no offense anybody) and probably lot of them won´t play even Shogun 2 or other historical setting. Just look around, we have bunches of Gunpowder guys, Medieval guys, Antiquity guys and not necessary everyone is playing other settings.
    I'll have you know I am very offended. /s

    I can agree that right now Fantasy looks like the best setting, pleasing the most people and earning money but I don´t believe it will state that forever. Wh was great hit, CA has time and results to maybe try even Tolkien now, if not Lord of the Rings then maybe the First Age etc...Warcraft is probably out of question even if for me it would be next best setting (Warcraft is loosely set upon Wh). GoT/Witcher and similar setting have some fantasy features but actual battles are quite "normal". (Why I keep talking about Witcher, super great games + we will get new TV series in short time) but even if CA manage to get rights for one or two of those, then what? After those will run its courses in 6-8 years. Different question, look at Paradox and others, they keep repeating CK setting, Rome setting...because they are popular. So don´t worry. We will get Med3/Rome3 sooner or later.
    LotR would be the ideal setting, but I've heard that the Tolkien Estate is pretty stingy with rights. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but I can certainly see greed being a factor. I don't know if Paradox is a good example to tout. In my opinion, their development costs are fairly low. All of their games run on essentially the same exact engine. There are obvious differences between the game, but that's really a matter of re-configuring the engine and re-writing parts of the code rather than developing an entirely new one. In addition to that, unlike Total War, they don't have to worry about hundreds of different models and textures, they don't have to worry about engine performance in the same way as Total War does. Going from HoI3 to HoI4 is not a huge difference. It's more optimizations, tweaking game mechanics and balance, as well as paying writers and game design guys to tweak balance/fluff. They probably also have a few historians on payroll. Admittedly, Stellaris was probably an exception. I can certainly buy the idea that Stellaris had very high development costs. In contrast, I can easily see a world where a Total War game has development costs that are 10x-15x of a Paradox game.

    In my opinion, I think CA's best option is to continue to develop the model they've essentially released with the Warhammer series. They need to release a base game like Rome 3 Total War, and then develop 30$ expansion content like Attila-lite every 3 months. Expand the map, add new groups of factions, maybe add an earlier time period, bigger tech trees, and so on. IMO, this reduces development costs, increases profitability, and keeps users happy. I'd sprinkle in free stuff with every expansion and every big patch. This can also build a path towards better modding tools. CA's greatest move was probably selling Warhammer 2 at full price. Minimum investment for greater returns, and I haven't really seen too much complaining. Pretty sure everyone loves the Warhammer series.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    If they want to grab the fantasy audience by the hand, I liked age of mythology, I'm sure I'd enjoy
    Total War: Mythology as well ^^
    Apart from that, I wish they really took a moment to really improve Ai, combat AI in particular.

    It's long overdue, and seems to me the best course of action to revitalize peoples interest in the series.
    Challenging battles, more variation in tactics employed by AI, such as utilizing more humanlike behaviour/tactics a la keeping a portion of your force hidden in order to surprise the enemY/gain an advantage, not marching with their entire army formed up and still managing to cram about 3000 men into a corner on 2 or 3 of my heavy units in formation, only to be incinerated by a few catapults.
    , etc..
    I think battles would be more interesting if perhaps a subcommander system was used, where groups of compatible units are following the main chain of command, can deviate from said command if an opportunity seems to present itself, but will remain closeby its designated companions.

    This would encourage smaller scale battles rather than blobbing it up.
    Might just be me tho.

    You could give me a roster with 1 unit for each role, I'd be happy enough with just that if the battles were amazing, is my point.
    Last edited by ABullishBear; November 01, 2019 at 10:27 PM.

  18. #38

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Coming back to melee vs gunpowder units, I have an argument in favor melee units. Let's talk about Medieval 2 Total War, whose latest units are somewhere in Renaissance period, with some gunpowder units. They are terribly bad, they form a weird square and that units are so weak you can blindly defeat them. It's not funny at all to play Medieval 2 Total War with the latest units and that was the reason I left 1648 mod, an amazing mod, probably my favourite, but ruined due to the awful gunpowder units handled by AI. Set up a custom battle against AI, I can ensure you that you can beat AI with a fair lower amount of units. Am I the only one experiencing this?


    Empire Total War improved in some extent the behaviour of gunpowder units compared to Medieval 2 Total War, but still AI is not doing well, with weird positioning and suicide melee attacks in situations where AI could use its infantry with muskets and instead goes with a suicide attack. I have a better experience with Napoleon Total War in this respect, I am not strongly familiar with Shogun 2, but I think AI does far better than in Empire. Still, I have better gameplay experience when I am in older periods and when melee units are most of the units in the battlefield, and bows and spears are the only projectiles. I experienced that AI does far better with bows and other projectiles rather than guns, is this your case as well?


    So, if CA is not willing to improve gunpowder units AI behaviour, in that case I rather prefer to play Total War on periods where guns didn't exist at all.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    While I'm of the mind that melee is completely a viable path to take, the argument above is fundamentally poor in supporting it. Doing units wrong doesn't excuse them from an initiative to make a game where they do it better. I would say that even melee units have lost a great deal of muster in modern total war; I'd hardly use that as an argument against using melee units in another entry. While TW has always been fairly incompetent with gunpowder, I'd say it is one part what you describe (caused by poor design that should be fixed), and a basic lean towards melee combat that the entire series has which makes that effort mildly unnatural, as difficult as it may be to explain the latter in any satisfactory way.

  20. #40

    Default Re: Games i would like to see

    Quote Originally Posted by CommodusIV View Post
    Doing units wrong doesn't excuse them from an initiative to make a game where they do it better.
    While certainly applicable in many situations, like a father giving advice to a son, from a business perspective, it's rather the reverse. Unless absolutely critical for the future or necessary to execute a business plan, you generally want to venture away from things you've done poorly in the past. CA doesn't have to make another gunpowder game ever again, and sticking to things they're good at is probably better for everyone involved. For CA's profitability, for consumers who want a quality game, and for their parent company who has to justify supporting them. In that regard, perhaps Arena or something of the sort should've been left on lift support as a test-bed or sandbox environment where players essentially beta test CA's future engine design.

    As an aside, I personally feel that gunpowder and artillery has worked really well in Warhammer so I don't really see the issue anymore.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •