Ideas for Total War games after Empire.

[Domen]

Originally Posted by Owen Glyndwr

So...Poland. Got it!

This period (1500 - 1700) had seen a lot of warfare, and it was interesting, and I say this not just because Polish military was cool at that time.

It is a good period for a Total War game. Empire is rather boring compared to this period or to Medieval warfare.

BTW - American Civil War: Total War would also be a nice game for me.

I like American Civil War period very much, I used to be interested in history of this war a lot.

Of course there are already mods made by funs which present this part of history of war. There is also "With Fire and Sword" mod which represents more or less 17th century warfare and is probably Poland & enemies of Poland-centered (I'm not sure because I haven't played it yet - surprisingly ).

[Dachs]

The American Civil War would if anything be even less suited to the Total War engine than the previous time periods - not that the previous time periods were modeled particularly accurately either.

[Jos Ballenbak]

I hope we could finally see some decent diplomacy gameplay....

[Flying Pig]

In general, I think, the more complicated the politics and diplomacy of the day, the less well a time-frame lends itself to the Total War games - if the diplomatic engine was made anything near realistic, people would complain that there wasn't enough fightin'.

[Domen]

The American Civil War would if anything be even less suited to the Total War engine than the previous time periods - not that the previous time periods were modeled particularly accurately either.

Anyway, we already have Napoleon Total War and Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai.

if the diplomatic engine was made anything near realistic, people would complain that there wasn't enough fightin'.

If you mean backstabbing allies and everybody declares war on you - this is already in the game.

[west india man]

They should at least make diplomacy deep enough that not everyone on your border eventually declares war on you.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

In general, I think, the more complicated the politics and diplomacy of the day, the less well a time-frame lends itself to the Total War games - if the diplomatic engine was made anything near realistic, people would complain that there wasn't enough fightin'.

The Total War engine depends on relatively small set-piece engagements between concentrated armies. It breaks down horribly when considering extended fronts and any sort of operations beyond the most rudimentary "this army goes here and besieges this city". That is not particularly well suited to any period, especially given the small size of the armies the engine can handle, but for European history, it really breaks down badly in the late eighteenth century.

Politics and diplomacy can, conversely, usually be abstracted away, or ignored entirely by setting the game in a context in which everybody is at war anyway.

Originally Posted by west india man

They should at least make diplomacy deep enough that not everyone on your border eventually declares war on you.

They did that with Empire and all of the subsequent games.

[Flying Pig]

Politics and diplomacy can, conversely, usually be abstracted away, or ignored entirely by setting the game in a context in which everybody is at war anyway.

Yes, but to limit the American Civil War to the two belligerent sides would, if nothing else, make the Confederate cause seem (even more) totally insane.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

Yes, but to limit the American Civil War to the two belligerent sides would, if nothing else, make the Confederate cause seem (even more) totally insane.

I don't totally understand your point. It's a Total War game. You can conquer the whole map. The ability for the Confederacy to "win" - and since nobody ever defined what "winning" would mean for the Confederacy that's a whole other can of worms - is comparatively small beer.

[Flying Pig]

If you looked at it as a match-up between the Union and the Confederacy, like some sort of cage-fight without any external influence, your first reaction would probably be 'what are those Greys thinking?'

[Dachs]

Sure. I agree. I also think that that's almost completely irrelevant in the context of a Total War game.

[PhilBowles]

Originally Posted by Commodore

What I am suggesting is that Britain: Total War and it's expansions would cover the the period of 480AD to 1066AD. Therefore the vanilla game could cover a period before the Vikings arrived and the expansions would be when the Vikings arrived and an expansion involving the Norman invasion.

Britannia Total War would definitely be among my picks for a period, but the Norman Invasion would not make the best expansion, as for a rarity the country was largely unified at that point, and aside from knights (which would be confined to the Normans), the units wouldn't be any different from those in the preceding Dark Ages. Norman-era feudal Britain offers many more opportunities given the large numbers of landholding lords with their own agendas; War of the Roses as a general period (but somewhat longer, as in reality that war lasted only 30 years, a short time period for TW) would be a good one that ties to a familiar conflict while being generally representative of feudal British politics. Following the S2 release model, the Wars of the Roses could be the first campaign pack - while an English Civil War pack could be the standalone expansion, working along Fall of the Samurai lines with the factions choosing between parliamentarian or royalist support.

The Anarchy, a lesser-known short civil war in 12th Century Norman Britain, would possibly make an interesting setting just for its uniqueness - I'm not aware of any games set in this period.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by RickFGS

Rome Total War II with complete naval battles, more city micromanagement, more map detail, more goodies and resources, much better and intelligent AI, tech research, tech trading, possibility to create new colonies/settlements.

Much of that is unlikely from the actual Rome 2. Shogun 2 took a firm step away from micromanagement in all its forms - much reduced building options, more automation and fewer agents, no need for city governors, automated unit replenishment, automatically-generated garrisons, removal of the population growth mechanic, fewer trade resources in the landscape (and a maximum of one per province), global rather than provincial taxation and simplified happiness management, as well as the removal of Empire's village growth mechanic. From what I've heard, Rome 2 aims to manage provinces at even broader scale than Shogun 2.

I'm not sure if there was enough technological development during the Roman Empire to justify a tech tree, but if it's done I'd like one that's less 'gamey' and reflects actual technological change rather than just 'gain extra game bonuses'. Come on, having to research sumo contests or tea ceremonies? Or, in Empire, needing to conduct research to discover the wedge formation in use since at least medieval times (I'm not sure whether its use in Rome: TW was historically accurate; I suspect it's an anachronism as the wedge is a heavy cavalry formation, and nothing resembling knights really existed in the Roman world).

Specialized units such as: trade ships, caravans, manpower reserves, engineer and so on...

Again recent TW history argues against it. Merchants and diplomats have gone to be replaced by automated agreements; so have princesses. There's no pressure to increase the number of specialist unit types that require their own management.

More city view interface, possibility to design city defenses upon walls completion, possibility to add extra features to defenses in conquered/native cities, such as extra towers, extra gates, extra wall section and siege equipement for defense (scorpions, onagers, ballistas, whatever).

Maybe you should be playing Cossacks rather than Total War...?

Better game engine, more effort in game speed and playability, and not so much in graphics, since Sega takeover, the gameplay was never quite the same as in the original Rome Total War...it doesn´t flow smothly anymore...

Medieval II was almost a carbon copy of Rome in most respects; the two titles are far less different than other games in the series (except Empire and Napoleon, but arguably including Shogun 2 vs Fall of the Samurai). Empire was the only title that actually added significant new micromanagement elements (two flavours of happiness, technological research and scientist management, growth and management of multiple settlements in a region) - and nearly all of that was removed again in Shogun 2 (the research tree remained but both the tech tree and the effects of different techs were heavily simplified), whether because that's the direction of simplification the developers are taking the series, or just because these elements weren't in the first Shogun.

Originally Posted by SteveTR

I'd like to see Colonization: Total War. It would focus on Africa and/or east Asia in 19th century. You'd have railroads, machine guns etc. It works great in Total War: Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai, so it should work here, too.

Total War: Scramble for Africa (19th Century, numerous European and native factions) would work very well - I'd rather Asia was given a treatment of its own rather than tacked on to a game set elsewhere (again. Yes, I am looking at you, Empire).

An Indochina-based TW during the Khmer and early post-Khmer period (11th to 13th Centuries) would be one of my choices; multiple major factions in what are now Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar (playable factions could include Khmer, Sukothai, Vientiane, Champa and Pagan, all roughly contemporary and many interacting with one another), as well as numerous minor factions and AI Mongols, as well as potentially influence and involvement of China (which would be off-map; the map would probably extend to eastern Thailand in the east and central Thailand in the south, the Indian border in the north and the Chinese border in the west, the general area of Khmer influence). In the Khmer empire this was also a period of the replacement of Hinduisim by Buddhism, and sectarian conflict between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, so there's plenty of scope for introducing religion, international trade and relations, and politics.

[Flying Pig]

Originally Posted by Dachs

Sure. I agree. I also think that that's almost completely irrelevant in the context of a Total War game.

Sorry to dig this up, but I never gave you an answer - the point is that it wouldn't be much fun to have two factions to play, one of whom had to work very hard to lose and the other of whom could never win.

[PhilBowles]

Originally Posted by Flying Pig

Sorry to dig this up, but I never gave you an answer - the point is that it wouldn't be much fun to have two factions to play, one of whom had to work very hard to lose and the other of whom could never win.

It might if it was done along the lines of Fall of the Samurai. In the game the Boshin War is depicted as an affair both sides could have won, and the Shogunate forces are given more advanced equipment than I believe they had in reality; the factions are also selected so that there's a rough 50-50 split between them. The real Boshin War was never very equal (that's why it only went on for about six months...). They could do the same to 'balance' the Confederacy against the North. Instead of two factions, they could have individual states, and in a similar way those have to declare for either North or South.

Of course that would more or less be a retread of Fall of the Samurai and I don't think the American Civil War is particularly well-suited to Total War, particularly as this is expansion-like content - what would be the main game? But it could at least be done in an engaging way.

[Keroro]

Can't believe this thread is still going after so long.

Anyway, if anyone missed it then here's a little news. Could this mean the long awaited Warhammer: Total War will be with us in five years? There's no detail at present, and I doubt there will be for some time, but the possibility is very enticing. Warhammer is a balanced world (the type that the Total War series loves to model) with a pretty rich background. I'll be interested to see what CA can make of it.

[PhilBowles]

Originally Posted by Keroro

Can't believe this thread is still going after so long.

Anyway, if anyone missed it then here's a little news. Could this mean the long awaited Warhammer: Total War will be with us in five years? There's no detail at present, and I doubt there will be for some time, but the possibility is very enticing. Warhammer is a balanced world (the type that the Total War series loves to model) with a pretty rich background. I'll be interested to see what CA can make of it.

The article's just mentioning Total War for brand recognition, since otherwise people are unlikely to know who Creative Assembly are - it doesn't imply that the Warhammer games will be based on Total War (although Relic did basically produce a Warhammer 40,000 version of its existing Company of Heroes game in Dawn of War II).

Although there was an undeservedly neglected gem of a game many years ago called Shadow of the Horned Rat, a campaign game that (with a sequel) were the only ones that tried to bring Warhammer as a wargame to the computer (rather than just other games set in the world), which remain the only good Warhammer computer games to date outside the Warhammer 40,000 setting (which has had Space Hulk and the Dawn of War games). The campaign was scripted with limited options compared with TW, but it had the same type of split campaign map/tactical combat system as the Total War games and with a system of units that were recruited on the campaign map and stuck around developing (and, if they took losses, losing) experience over the course of the campaign.

[nyarmondt]

Now, I must first admit I haven't played a lot of TW games, but since it's just ideas & wishlists...

Anyhow, I would go for a TW: Colonial Demise.

It's logic in the sense of succession of time periods, but gameplay would be a bit weirder.

The game would start in 1900 & end in 1950. Field of play would be Europe, Africa and Western Asia. Everything east of India's most southern tip would not be included, and it would give room for a valid expanion

Players would be able to choose to play either a European colonial country, or an "insurgent" faction.

Colonial players would have big empires to begin with, but would face a higher corruption and revolting colonies, while insurgents have to wrench control over their beloved land from those earlier mentioned.

And offcourse, there's the Germans :P The Germans would have to be scripted a little bit so that they hardly have any choice but attacking other european countries (but I guess making their original colonies totally lame would do the trick).

The Bolcheviks would be treated as an Insurgent party, though their oppressor should not be a playable party.

Anyhow, this would span from the end of the 2nd Boer war untill the end of WW2 (however that might end - a wise German player could consolidate the whole of Europe)

Their are offcourse 3 things on which the TW engine should find a solution:
1) Negative popularity: people really don't like to be claimed the property of a foreign crown.
2) The change from siege to artillery/airstrikes: sieges were meant to keep most infrastructure intact, those new variants tend to obliterate stuff. Naval battles should also become more detailed.
3) A more civ-like tech tree, preferably one where the player can customise builds for new units - a bit like in SMAC)

Offcourse you noticed I omitted the size-of-armies point. But when you play games like civ, do you really pretend that that one phalanx that you build is only 1 man and his spear? Anyhow, I do tend to play TW games more in a TBS style as to revel in the RTS side of it

[Traitorfish]

While the premise is interesting, colonialism only seriously broke up after 1950, so it seems like you're missing the mark with either the theme or the time-scale on that one. It also seems like it would be a topic better handled by a style of game more give to diplomacy, government and wide-scale warfare, than Total War's focus on pitched battles. I mean, even in the changes you list, I get the impression that you don't actually want a Total War game here, you just want a game with the Total War label.

[Commodore]

Just a little side comment: Not to sound like a jerk or anything (which means I probably am going to sound like a jerk), but does anyone else find it funny that people are asking for more diplomacy in a game who's title suggests that the whole point is to bash the skulls of every empire you can get your hands on?

[Owen Glyndwr]

Originally Posted by Commodore

Just a little side comment: Not to sound like a jerk or anything (which means I probably am going to sound like a jerk), but does anyone else find it funny that people are asking for more diplomacy in a game who's title suggests that the whole point is to bash the skulls of every empire you can get your hands on?

No. People have been calling for an improved diplomacy in the game at least since R:TW. Violence sells, but I think most strategy gamers want a slightly more nuanced game than that.