Medieval III is "something we will do"

[Alwyn]

Creative Assembly game director Ian Roxburgh said in a TechRadar interview that Medieval III is "constantly on the radar because we know it's something the fans really want" and "As a studio, it's something we will do at some point, I'm sure."

Any thoughts, hopes or expectations about Medieval III?

[Jurand of Cracow]

I would prefer having Med2:Remastered before that, but I have low expectations as this would have killed the market for Med3. They've published RTW:Rem without risk because R2TW is already on the market, the Paradox' Imperator failed, so that period is out of question. But they'll make Med3 in 2024-25, and they won't publish Med3:Rem :-(

[katsusand]

Does anyone trust modern CA to do Medieval 3 justice?
Do you really want Hijabi generals VS female knights?
What about load of cool down abilities?

CA has abandoned it's focus on Historical Simulation in favor of the Warhammer reddit crowd. I won't get hyped unless they try to win me back.

For now, Manor Lords is the one to look out for.

[alhoon]

It would be a great shame if we don't get M2TW: Remastered.

So, I am calling it:
M3TW will be followed soon after by TW Saga: Crusades!
Similar to Kingdom expansions. The crusades is a good example of Saga. Honestly, 3K is also a saga-like title.

[Nebaki]

I would prefer having Med2:Remastered before that

Or just a simple Workshop for Medieval Total War 2 on Steam. Furthermore even a Remaster should fix the Issues of the current Version or whatever they aimed to call it "Definitive Edition" and should not be something like that Rome Remaster with that funny pricing policy.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I wouldn't be terribly fond of a Med 2 workshop, but then I might be just a bit biased. As for wanting it not to resemble Rome Remastered, expect that and more from any CA efforts in the direction of a remaster, and more than likely expect a Medieval 3 which will likely continue the design philosophies of what they've released in later titles. A nostalgic 'medieval 2 but more' release is by far the least likely outcome.

If a Medieval 3 comes then I hope it will be well crafted and avoid the launch debacles of their recent titles. I hope it's a reasonably fun and thorough experience, and that it won't try to live in the shadow of Medieval 2. Indeed I hope they innovate in formula, or at least be the best they can come up with in the modern 'warscape' generation (which would fit - med 1 the last of the 'chess piece' design, med 2 last of its platform before empire, and so on...)

I'm not terribly optimistic and I very much live in the past as the franchise goes, but all in all I wish it well even if it may not come out as my cup of tea. I definitely hope it won't 'innovate' in nickel and diming business practices, NFTs or slapping in MMO elements in order to play etc. That's the direction that would make me salty more than anything. There's more than enough of that as it is. I'd like to see a return of hotseat or a similar mechanic and a drastic increase in moddability, but that's probably not too realistic to expect.

If we want to see a direct successor to the principles of Medieval 2 omitting elements we don't like from later titles and CA's current direction, then we should probably put our eggs in another franchise or consider a fan project as a community though.

[alhoon]

What I would like from a remastered is the ability to play with more ram and hardware (sure thing), have the ability to have more than 20 units per army (unlikely), use the same script commands (likely), units that can go up to 500 people in ultra but are still 100 in medium (I expect a variation of this), and no limit in buildings, territories, factions, possible units etc (likely).

[AnthoniusII]

What I fear a Medieval 3 Total War might have:

1. The broken Siege AI of both Rome II and Attila.
2. Imaginary units like goth pikemen in Attila
3. The disconnection of the strat_map model of a settlement with its actuall battle map one (in M2TW when you see on map a large town start_map model the game loads a large town battle model , this does not happen in Rome II and Attila).
4. The redigulus siege of Attila where walls cruble and fall by the time in order to make gaps in the defences for the stupid AI to strm in to the settlement.
5. The lack of variety of battemap settlements like in Attila that there is ONLY one battle model per culture, kind, size (all in land villages are one model , all coastal villages are one model).
6. The "hero" issue that CA/SEGA things that because it fited in Three Kingdoms it will fit to a Medieval 3.
7. The incomplete modding tool set that CA/SEGA promised but never released (no one can create a totaly new map in Attila).
8. The rediculus tech tree of Attila that has Emperors on foot unless they get promoted to Comes (Captain)!!!!
9. The game may be compatible only in W10 -W11 so many users wont be able to play it.
10. The lack of imagination in human animations (see how they retreat in M2TW and how in Attila!

[Alwyn]

I wonder how castle building would work in a Medieval III game. I can imagine a mechanic where you choose a location on the campaign map, you're shown the battle map for that location and you choose where to put your castle. For example, you might choose between building on a hill on one side of the map, on a central plain by a road, on an island on a lake or by a river. Each location would have advantages and downsides.

[AnthoniusII]

I wonder how castle building would work in a Medieval III game. I can imagine a mechanic where you choose a location on the campaign map, you're shown the battle map for that location and you choose where to put your castle. For example, you might choose between building on a hill on one side of the map, on a central plain by a road, on an island on a lake or by a river. Each location would have advantages and downsides.

Stop mocking CA/SEGA. If they were incapable to adopt a descent Siege AI for cloned settlements and created walls that melt from rain and wind you now come and put them 4 different Siege AI prospectives according to player's choice?
Sorry to disapoint you but unless they hire some realy skillfull scripters you wont see such a good thing. Imagine...the player choses to build a keep with wooden wall but with a moat ! How rian will create gaps to allow the stupid AI to starm in to the castle?
The most ironic thing is that Lusted hired by CA and not Darth Vader because he was suposed he was better AI scripter! And all we see since then is a TW game worst to an other!

[PikeStance]

The last "historical" thing they created was TOB. 3K is so heavily laden with character crap, it is nearly impossible to play, not to mention the ahistorical aspect of the game.
They really need to revert back to the tactical aspects of the game. On the campaign side, they need to reduce character aspect, and focus more on macro economic, political, and social mechanics. Will they "take the hint" of what fans want or continue to do what they have been doing. If truly the former, than yeah, if the latter, then don't bother.

[Abdülmecid I]

The current direction seems to be what the fans want. Three Kingdoms broke the record of most pre-orders, which was then surpassed by Troy. Sure, Troy was free, but it was still followed by a bunch of DLCs, the most expensive of which was the unit pack that introduced mythical monsters in the game... Then came Warhammer III, which again proved very popular, probably coming third, just behind Three Kingdoms. Meanwhile, Throb received very negative reviews and all the planned DLCs were cancelled. Rome Remastered performed also disappointingly and its player count is minimal, below that of even the original game. The most active TW games right now belong to the Warhammer universe.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it, if CA went back to the old style of TW games, similar to Medieval II and Rome I, but we need to recognise reality: The newer games sell considerably, so we're probably the minority. Anyway, as for the topic, a historical game is probably in the works, but I'm not sure if Medieval III is really a priority. Roxburgh's statement sounds a bit ambiguous, he simply expresses his optimism that Medieval III will eventually come, which appears as a typical company statement, designed not to disappoint anybody.

[PikeStance]

The current direction seems to be what the fans want. Three Kingdoms broke the record of most pre-orders, which was then surpassed by Troy. Sure, Troy was free, but it was still followed by a bunch of DLCs, the most expensive of which was the unit pack that introduced mythical monsters in the game... Then came Warhammer III, which again proved very popular, probably coming third, just behind Three Kingdoms. Meanwhile, Throb received very negative reviews and all the planned DLCs were cancelled. Rome Remastered performed also disappointingly and its player count is minimal, below that of even the original game. The most active TW games right now belong to the Warhammer universe.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it, if CA went back to the old style of TW games, similar to Medieval II and Rome I, but we need to recognise reality: The newer games sell considerably, so we're probably the minority. Anyway, as for the topic, a historical game is probably in the works, but I'm not sure if Medieval III is really a priority. Roxburgh's statement sounds a bit ambiguous, he simply expresses his optimism that Medieval III will eventually come, which appears as a typical company statement, designed not to disappoint anybody.

What do you mean by "free?"

It's $50 on Steam.

BTW, I didn't cite ToB as good, just the last. I believe Atilla did well.
I don't think they will go back to historical titles. The fantasy stuff fits within their approach to game development.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

What do you mean by "free?"

It's $50 on Steam.

His statement predates the Steam launch. Troy launched free at launch on the Epic Games Store, presumably part of the exclusivity arrangement they had at the time.

[AnthoniusII]

The current direction seems to be what the fans want. Three Kingdoms broke the record of most pre-orders, which was then surpassed by Troy. Sure, Troy was free, but it was still followed by a bunch of DLCs, the most expensive of which was the unit pack that introduced mythical monsters in the game... Then came Warhammer III, which again proved very popular, probably coming third, just behind Three Kingdoms. Meanwhile, Throb received very negative reviews and all the planned DLCs were cancelled. Rome Remastered performed also disappointingly and its player count is minimal, below that of even the original game. The most active TW games right now belong to the Warhammer universe.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it, if CA went back to the old style of TW games, similar to Medieval II and Rome I, but we need to recognise reality: The newer games sell considerably, so we're probably the minority. Anyway, as for the topic, a historical game is probably in the works, but I'm not sure if Medieval III is really a priority. Roxburgh's statement sounds a bit ambiguous, he simply expresses his optimism that Medieval III will eventually come, which appears as a typical company statement, designed not to disappoint anybody.

What do you mean by "free?"

It's $50 on Steam.

BTW, I didn't cite ToB as good, just the last. I believe Atilla did well.
I don't think they will go back to historical titles. The fantasy stuff fits within their approach to game development.

Abdulmecid has a point that i shout for years now. CA/SEGA must return to its routs of TW games and find and copy/translate if nessecary the old TW codes unless the withdrawl of the CA Australia kept all the rights of them.
We need a game that will include the great aspects of Shogun I and MTW 1 , the sieges and multi battlegrounds of variety of settlements and the variety of siege tactics of Rome I , the pluralism of anumation and the AI extentiion of M2TW/Kindoms, the realism in naval battles of ETW and Shogun II. Not to mention some realy wonderfull features like the palace room of Shogun I and the spies reports of MTW1 ! I find it realy bizzare that already made aspects could not be part of newer releases (i say again i do not know what legal effect had the dismiss of CA Australia that was responsible for the first 4 TW games.
Attila did well in sales . That does not mean its a TW average quality game. I say again...CA/SEGA curent developers never managed to create a decent AI system starting from Siege AI and create the aufull siege attrition of walls that brings laughs to TW hard core gamers! Theodosian walls of Thessaloniki stand in their place after 1600 years and CA tries to convince us that if you besiege a city for a year its walls will automaticaly crumple and fall!

[katsusand]

While its true that Warhammer and fantasy stuff are more popular and brought in the new fans, that doesn't mean the historical demographic is small by any means... It would be an extreme blunder for CA to pander exclusively to their Fantasy demographic, because they will lose a substantial portion of their fanbase who stuck with them for 20+ years... Especially if a competitor filled the gap by introducing a new title that scratches the same itch as Total War... See Manor Lords, even though it's made by one person, it promises better battle mechanics than anything CA introduced in the last decade...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvRHIvAxZoE

And I wouldn't use RTW: Remastered or the small Saga titles to gauge the popularity for historical games, RTW is my favorite game in the series and even I could see how much of a blatant cash grab it was.

CA is in desperate need of competition to light a fire under their a$$, they could affored to release half-a$$ed titles and disregard a portion of their fanbase because there isn't anything like Total War on the market.

[PikeStance]

Manor Lord looks impressive so far.
Grand Tactician is developing nicely as well.

Roman Empire Wars appears to have hit a roadblock.

[AnthoniusII]

Soon Knights of Honor II will be in beta stage with battles similar to M2TW !

[Alwyn]

Stop mocking CA/SEGA. If they were incapable to adopt a descent Siege AI for cloned settlements and created walls that melt from rain and wind you now come and put them 4 different Siege AI prospectives according to player's choice?!

I'm not mocking them, please don't try to put words in my mouth.

Have you played Shogun 2? The player chooses from different levels of castles. People often say that they enjoy the game, even though according to you CA can't make a decent siege AI.

As for walls "melting from rain and wind", if an enemy army had spent time outside a castle or walled settlement, gaps appeared in the walls and someone asked me to guess what caused the gaps, rain and wind wouldn't be my first guess.

[PikeStance]

I'm not mocking them, please don't try to put words in my mouth.

Have you played Shogun 2? The player chooses from different levels of castles. People often say that they enjoy the game, even though according to you CA can't make a decent siege AI.

As for walls "melting from rain and wind", if an enemy army had spent time outside a castle or walled settlement, gaps appeared in the walls and someone asked me to guess what caused the gaps, rain and wind wouldn't be my first guess.

S2TW the sieges were anticlimactic. I can hold off the AI with a mere 25% of the AI strength. The AI also overbuys the agents (and they are overpowered) thus you are forces to use a mod to curtail that. Outside of that, S2TW is a nice little game. I might be biased given it was shogun that I first fell in love with the game.