Campaign Ideas for a Possible Total War: Ancient Near East

[Drtad]

With the release of Total War Troy that's based in the Bronze Age, my hopes have increased for a full-fledged Total War with various campaigns based on Ancient Near Eastern warfare. Here are some ideas I had for campaign start dates and possible DLC campaigns. Does anyone else agree that we need a Total War game based on the Ancient Near East? For anyone curious about the history of Ancient Near Eastern warfare (at least in the early period, see this book: https://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Ancie.../dp/0415255899
Bronze Age - Start Date 1450 BC, playable factions = Babylonia, Egypt, Hittites, Mitanni, Assyria, Elam, Mycenae, Troy, Arzawa
Sumerian Warring States - Start Date 2450 BC, playable factions = Uruk, Umma, Lagash, Adab, Kish, Akkad, Mari, Ebla, Elam
Iron Age - Start Date 800 BC, playable factions = Assyria, Urartu, Egypt, Elam, Media, Phrygia
DLC CAMPAIGNS
Rise of Sargon - Start Date = 2370 BC, playable factions = Kingdom of Lagash led by Urukagina, Kingdom of Uruk led by Lugalzagesi, Akkad led by Sargon, Kish, Mari, Ebla, Elam
Rise of Hammurabi - Start Date = 1800, playable factions = Babylon, Sealand, Elam, Assyria, Eshnunna, Larsa, Mari, Aleppo, Egypt
Rise of Persia - Start Date = 559 BC, playable factions = Persia, Media, Neo-Babylon, Egypt, Armenia/Urartu, Lydia, Greek city-states

[Daruwind]

Generally agree however. What you propose would need full tent pole game as base/core for such campaigns, expansions..and Troy would be like one possible scenario. Especially having whole Bronze Age collapse as scenario because what we see as Troy is just simplification? Well based upon books but whole collapse was bigger scenario.. Troy at the other hand will get at max a few character based Lord Packs (additional starting options but hardly no new campaign etc...)

Next major title is Wh3, then we can expect maybe 3K follow up title (Attila,Napoleon like..so Genghis Khan?) and after that the next tent pole TW is in the air. Med 3? Empire2/Victoria? Or whole new IP like Tolkien? All makes sense...

What I fear is the ancient near east is not so much flashy and shiny to attact enough hype and people. Don´t get me wrong, it could be great game, however you are competing with dragons, dinosaurs and such stuff. :/ Let´s say unit variety won´t be as large. Infantry mostly, some archers/range options. Low cavalry, almost no elephants or artillery..

[WibblyWWonder]

That would be a sensational setting. Of the DLC mentioned, the rise of Persia would be an outside chance if Troy is successful as it has tenuous links to their most successful historical title.

[Drtad]

Generally agree however. What you propose would need full tent pole game as base/core for such campaigns, expansions..and Troy would be like one possible scenario. Especially having whole Bronze Age collapse as scenario because what we see as Troy is just simplification? Well based upon books but whole collapse was bigger scenario.. Troy at the other hand will get at max a few character based Lord Packs (additional starting options but hardly no new campaign etc...)

Yes of course the Bronze Age collapse would also be a great scenario... we know juust enough about the Sea Peoples and the fall of a bunch of kingdoms to do that justice.

Next major title is Wh3, then we can expect maybe 3K follow up title (Attila,Napoleon like..so Genghis Khan?) and after that the next tent pole TW is in the air. Med 3? Empire2/Victoria? Or whole new IP like Tolkien? All makes sense...

Ahh I never played Warhammer... it seems like it could be fun (nothing against fantasy) but I just don't know anything about that universe, don't know where to start...

What I fear is the ancient near east is not so much flashy and shiny to attact enough hype and people. Don´t get me wrong, it could be great game, however you are competing with dragons, dinosaurs and such stuff. :/ Let´s say unit variety won´t be as large. Infantry mostly, some archers/range options. Low cavalry, almost no elephants or artillery..

I think it can be done well if done right. Sumerian Warring States/Rise of Sargon would be tough with certain limitations (though we would have Sumerian war carts with donkeys!), but the later eras would be a bit more flashy in terms of the battles themselves vs the campaign map. We know a lot about the Neo-Assyrian army and their contemporaries, which would be a fantastic campaign, though it might be a bit much as just one part of a larger game...

[Abdülmecid I]

My dream scenario for Total War is the one centered around the collapse of the Assyrian Empire. Egyptians, Babylonians, Lydians, Medians, Persians and etc. ready to profit from the weakness of Nineveh. However, I'm also certain that my wish is never going to materialise. Creative Assembly doesn't randomly choose timeframes, but, on the contrary, their decision is determined by how recognizable and popular each setting is. The above depends on popular culture, which nowadays is mainly shaped by Hollywood, so absolutely no chance for our Sumerian, Achaemenid, Phoenician, Phrygian friends and the rest of the company. Mummy-style Egyptians are the only exception, but even them would be more easily adjusted into a mythological Total War or an anachronistic depiction of the Lagids, Rome I-style.

In what concerns the Antiquity in the western hemisphere, there are only four possibilities that could be taken into a consideration from a company aiming to appeal to as many customers as possible:
1. The rise of the Roman Republic (Rome I, Rome II and the majority of its digital packs).
2. Classical Greece and especially Sparta thanks to Leonidas' 300 and their suggestive underwear (Wrath of Sparta, pre-order incentive for Rome II).
3. Homer's epic poems thanks to Brad Pitt's performance in Troy.
4. Alexander III of Macedon, because of his fame and the commercially disappointing movie of Oliver Stone (the Alexander expansion of Rome I).

That's all, unfortunately, the chances of the rest of the settings is miniscule, not to say non-existent. SEGA will ignore them, since their limited reputation will inevitably lead to an unnecessary reduction in revenue. If we analyse it a bit, we can notice how profoundly the film industry has influenced the company's business policies. Empire relied heavily on the 4th of July and the Patriot, while it also included an imaginary faction in the Antilles, just for the sake of the Pirates of the Carribean. The poster of the Kingdoms expansion was essentially a copy of Mel Gibson in Braveheart, the Fall of the Samurais reflected the adventures of Tom Cruise in 19th century Japan, Three Kingdoms screams of Dynasty Warriors and the title, music and 2-D art of Throb was clearly inspired from Game of Thrones. Even during the siege of Carthage demo for Rome II, the marketing employee compared the amphibious battles of the game with Saving Private Ryan.

[Daruwind]

Ahh I never played Warhammer... it seems like it could be fun (nothing against fantasy) but I just don't know anything about that universe, don't know where to start...

You don´t need to. It is like Witcher, Lord of the Rings. You just start jorney and you don´t have to know whole lore or history, just enjoying the path. Despite the world looking like crazy circus, it can be actually mature and probably the best approach is lightweigh one. Don´t take it too seriously..

I think it can be done well if done right. Sumerian Warring States/Rise of Sargon would be tough with certain limitations (though we would have Sumerian war carts with donkeys!), but the later eras would be a bit more flashy in terms of the battles themselves vs the campaign map. We know a lot about the Neo-Assyrian army and their contemporaries, which would be a fantastic campaign, though it might be a bit much as just one part of a larger game...

Again, this is exactly curse of Warhammer. Fantasy allows more extremes and variations so basically every faction can feel very very different. Great example is Shogun 2 where all clans are copy paste with just a few minor stat differencies. And a few units here and there yes. And similar thing is to be seen in ToB. Combat is not bad, it is acutally pretty historical but from first battle to the last, almost every one is very similar. I can probably sum it up in general as in historical TWs there is usually some final stack, which is universal for whole game. In Empire, Napoleon, In R2/Attila, ToB, 3K in all those games I build ultimate doomstack as example we can use R2 with Roman legionnaires, few cavalry and few artillery pieces and steam rolled whole map.

In contrast, Wh managed to bring unique style for almost every race/faction, which in turn is usually forcing you to alter your playstyle against certain factions. Pair it with graphical orgies on screen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZFiuwrGiSI

music and 2-D art of Throb was clearly inspired from Game of Thrones.

I would say Last Kingdom and Vikings ..maybe? :-)

I love all your possible scenarios and I could see it totally work. One of my dream scenarios is like Age of Empire 1...dawn of civilization. Basically imagine reverse of Attila. Whole world is like "ruined" settlements and player has to advance and build stuff while competing with others. However differencies between factions would most notably be in campaign part/mechanics of game. And problem is that CA is trying to sell TWs primary via battles. :/ I don´t think CA is neccessary against those settings, after all we got Attila for example but always there are some setting with better money prospect. (going Wh, possibly going Tolkien with Amazon series ahead?) Like now Troy on Epic = instant success if Epic is paying bills.

[Daruwind]

Basically this is the very scenario I would like.

1) Start of the game is classical empire building for each particular faction
2) trading, diplomacy, expanding vs other major factions
3) accelerating decline in fertility, earthquakes -> famine -> rebellions -> disruption in trade...
4) and finally Sea people as end game challange.

This is putting together enviromental decline from Attila, end game invasions as ToB (Normans/Vikings)/Attila(Huns)/Wh(Warriors of Chaos) and ideally with heavy emphasis on new Troy resource system..

[Alwyn]

I'm enjoying reading the ideas for Total War setting on this thread - the rise of Persia, the Sumerian Warring States, the collapse of the Assyrian Empire, the Bronze Age Collapse and others sound like scenarios with a lot of potential.

Drtad, I recently started playing Warhammer and I agree with Daruwind. I'm a fan of Lord of the Rings but have no history with the Warhammer universe - and I'm having a great time. I suggest watching PartyElite's Beginner's Guide videos, asking questions on a thread for Warhammer beginners, finding out about the history of the fans and the characters on the Warhammer wiki and getting both Warhammer I and II so you can play the Mortal Empires campaign (including the campaign maps from both games on one huge map).

Abdülmecid I, that sounds like a really interesting scenario. Historically, was it the rising strength of Babylon that caused the fall the Assyrian Empire (as the Metropolitan Museum of Art suggests) or had the Assyrian Empire been weakened so much by then that the only question was which nation would invade?

I see what you mean, Abdülmecid, about the way that games follow films and TV. If CA aren't likely to make games of these scenarios (unless film-makers and TV studios create a demand), these sound like modding projects. It would be amazing if the developers developed a new Total War game which allowed modders to create new campaign maps - even if this meant that the graphics were not as good as the latest games - perhaps this could be done with a new Medieval game (or a Bronze Age II, if Troy is Bronze Age I).

Daruwind, you made good points about how your proposed Bronze Age Collapse scenario would use elements of different games. Some experienced players say that Total War games are too easy, maybe the combination of challenges you identified would be enjoyable for players who feel that way?

[Drtad]

Basically this is the very scenario I would like.

1) Start of the game is classical empire building for each particular faction
2) trading, diplomacy, expanding vs other major factions
3) accelerating decline in fertility, earthquakes -> famine -> rebellions -> disruption in trade...
4) and finally Sea people as end game challange.

This is putting together enviromental decline from Attila, end game invasions as ToB (Normans/Vikings)/Attila(Huns)/Wh(Warriors of Chaos) and ideally with heavy emphasis on new Troy resource system..

I think this would be a good end-game for a Middle Babylonian/Great Bronze Age Empires campaign (starting around 1450 BC, with Hittites, Mitanni, Assyria, Babylon, Elam, Ugarit, New Kingdom Egypt).

My dream scenario for Total War is the one centered around the collapse of the Assyrian Empire. Egyptians, Babylonians, Lydians, Medians, Persians and etc. ready to profit from the weakness of Nineveh. However, I'm also certain that my wish is never going to materialise. Creative Assembly doesn't randomly choose timeframes, but, on the contrary, their decision is determined by how recognizable and popular each setting is. The above depends on popular culture, which nowadays is mainly shaped by Hollywood, so absolutely no chance for our Sumerian, Achaemenid, Phoenician, Phrygian friends and the rest of the company. Mummy-style Egyptians are the only exception, but even them would be more easily adjusted into a mythological Total War or an anachronistic depiction of the Lagids, Rome I-style.

I think a game centered around the Neo-Assyrian Empire would be good - it definitely can be marketable, especially with the Biblical connections, however problematic they may be ("a Total War of BIBLICAL proportions" or some such thing).

I'm enjoying reading the ideas for Total War setting on this thread - the rise of Persia, the Sumerian Warring States, the collapse of the Assyrian Empire, the Bronze Age Collapse and others sound like scenarios with a lot of potential.

I think a Sumerian Warring States period campaign could be SO cool, especially since I think Sumerians are quite popular in general and they are generally quite known... It could be a kind of "Rise of the Republic"-like scenario, with certain kings like Urukagina of Lagash and Lugalzagesi of Umma being extremely interesting in terms of the development and divergence of their royal ideology. Of course, with Sargon of Akkad being the cherry on top in this scenario... I don't think people in general (well, in America anyway) really know that much about the Romans, at least not that much more than what they know about Sumerians. Sargon of Akkad is also pretty well-known, at least many people know his name, or have heard it in passing.

Abdülmecid I, that sounds like a really interesting scenario. Historically, was it the rising strength of Babylon that caused the fall the Assyrian Empire (as the Metropolitan Museum of Art suggests) or had the Assyrian Empire been weakened so much by then that the only question was which nation would invade?

The Assyrians at their peak were definitely much stronger than the Babylonians, but that didn't stop the Babylonians from rebelling constantly even during Assyria's peak (Mushezib-Marduk and the Elamites vs. Sennacherib, etc.). The revolts after Ashurbanipal's reign/near the end of his reign were crippling, and the fact that everyone hated them didn't help. It really did take everyone's strength (Medes, Babylonians, Urartians, Scythian mercs, Cimmerian mercs, whoever else) to take them down at the end there - the archaeology for the last battle of Nineveh is really interesting (really a devastating battle). The archaeology of the collapse of the Urartian cities/forts around this time is also interesting (remains of Scythian mercs defending cities like Teishebaini, tons of arrows stuck in the walls, was it Medes or Scythians or internal conflicts?, etc.).

Of course, a Rise of Persia campaign would have to be part of a game that featured the rise and fall of Neo-Assyria...

[Daruwind]

I think this would be a good end-game for a Middle Babylonian/Great Bronze Age Empires campaign (starting around 1450 BC, with Hittites, Mitanni, Assyria, Babylon, Elam, Ugarit, New Kingdom Egypt)

Yes! And I finally again find map I wanted. One of usual TW problem is narrowing and limiting campaign map (Ottoman empire in Napoleon...so sad ) I would love to have a lot space around campaing map borders. A very complex landmass. Central mass with water around is boring, here we have varoius Seas, Islands...maintining control over certain islands or maintaining trade agreement might be crucial to get various resources...Here even Anatolia feels like big Island. you have to fear from which direction will come next raider...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I see what you mean, Abdülmecid, about the way that games follow films and TV. If CA aren't likely to make games of these scenarios (unless film-makers and TV studios create a demand), these sound like modding projects. It would be amazing if the developers developed a new Total War game which allowed modders to create new campaign maps - even if this meant that the graphics were not as good as the latest games - perhaps this could be done with a new Medieval game (or a Bronze Age II, if Troy is Bronze Age I).

Daruwind, you made good points about how your proposed Bronze Age Collapse scenario would use elements of different games. Some experienced players say that Total War games are too easy, maybe the combination of challenges you identified would be enjoyable for players who feel that way?

It is true that Bronze Age (Collapse) is not so popular setting. However Egypt..pyramids are So going with empire building theme might work. Dawn of civilization(s), ala Age of Empire...It will be little light weighted game in terms of unit variety. Well after all we can see Troy just in front of our eyes now....

But I really think that game might be very well scalable for various difficulties.

-but actually adding penalties to slow down expansion and moving armies further from your territory being harder to maintain..
-Attila style slow degradation of climate so even in late game empires are weakened
-More invasions for higher difficulties
-And trading ..trading ores... Plus having really dynamic trade system. Imagine FotS/Napoleon/Empire system where you can get exotic resources from certain resource nods. Now imagine them being half map away with very very limited rewards. A few units of tin per turn. Imagine if raiding naval/land route actually get you precious resources while removing them from original faction. Raiding is no longer just some virtual money, now it is very important source of Tin!!! Protection of trade routes is now way way important. And what if the same is true for moving resources inside empire. Having gold mines somewhere means any raiding around might deprive you of precious metals....

-Over exploiting wood/food production will lead to quick drop of such production. Mines won´t be unlimited. Especially tin sources are almost all trade based! Advanced units, upkeep, replenishment might require bronze for example so for higher difficulties, limiting amount on map, amount available for training will add stress on player.

EDIT: Actually I think a lot people would hate my very complex system. Because they would have to plan provincies ahead, think in long term. Do I need very intesive food production now to boost armies and cities and trady or keep slower growth. Rapid pace or longterm stability?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Random maps Because I was loooking for the very top one...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

West part of map


Of course we need east part as well


Some geopolitical maps 14/12 centuries..

[Vladyvid]

Nah i dont think so: Rome 1 and 2, Alexander, Troy. Thats quite enough ancient titles. Anyways, what you guys are proposing is not viable because it doesnt exist in the mainstream awareness. Troy does, Rome does, Greece/Alexander does. Babylonians, Assyrians and all those others do not exist in the collective awareness of the masses that the CA is catering to. I cant imagine them focusing on anything that is not easy to digest for an average person.

I would expect something more like Robin Hood or Three Musketeers, maybe American Civil War. Definately something well known and easy to sell.

[Daruwind]

Nah i dont think so: Rome 1 and 2, Alexander, Troy. Thats quite enough ancient titles. Anyways, what you guys are proposing is not viable because it doesnt exist in the mainstream awareness. Troy does, Rome does, Greece/Alexander does. Babylonians, Assyrians and all those others do not exist in the collective awareness of the masses that the CA is catering to. I cant imagine them focusing on anything that is not easy to digest for an average person.

I would expect something more like Robin Hood or Three Musketeers, maybe American Civil War. Definately something well known and easy to sell.

Generally agree with "Troy does, Rome does, Greece/Alexander does" however you are missing one very like area - Ancient Egypt. No matter how tainted, twisted and unrealistic vision casual people have about Pharaons, Pyramids and all stuff there, it is very much liked setting. So put on front page pyramid, something aka egyptian and you can sell it....It is very same like with Troy. People at most know something something about Hellen, big city, wooden horse and Achilles. Reason why we are not getting full Bronze Age collapse scenario is simple. Scope. Adding far culture like hinted above would require full tent pole game scale...

-----------

Robin Hood seriously? Three Musketeers? You call these better setting due to public awareness?? Seriously?????? At least say something like War of Roses/Hundred Year War/30 Years War ..as you can create game around those settings. We are even missing William the Conqueror from ToB and that was quite big character and quite nice scenario...ACW I already today covered in different comment. Outside USA its popularity is nothing exceptional and while I would love the TW, it would bring a lot troubles for CA to solve...

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15948891

[Vladyvid]

You call these better setting due to public awareness?? Seriously??????

I said that "I would expect something more like ..." and not that i consider those to be good ideas, or desirable total war settings. You could say that my expectations are low, but its not fair to assume that i wish for such crappy settings.

As for that Egypt idea, well yes it is a well known civilization, but Egypt is closely associated with Cleopatra and that brings us back to Rome again. Egypt is part of most settings that have either Rome or Greece as the main theme. Tho with the saga format, maybe, but i would be surprised.

[Daruwind]

Issue is not that Robin Hood or three musketeers are crappy setting but how exactly would you do the marketing for them. Musketeers are like part of 30 years war. But very zoomed in France. Robin Hood again is very specific very local character ....in large large world around. Robin lived in times of Lionheart....that is Crusade time not sure you can create marketing around him while game probably would encompasse the rest of Europe and feature Crusades.. You can promote games for Napoleon, Attila, Genghis Khan, Alexander as those characters shaped world in their times but Robin Hood is at bext hero/agent or something like that....

Well if you look how CA is often treating Egypt. I have often feeling that for majority of world such long time spanning civilization is almost identical no matter about what period we are talking. Maybe because pyramids and lot of stone stuff around is not changing a bit....But exactly Saga format is reason why in Troy is no proper Hittite, Assyria, Egypt and other stuff. Too large scope for Saga game..

[Vladyvid]

Hittites and Assyria could be a bit too vulgar for marketing.