Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.
Before the announcement of “Attila” there was some speculation what the next Total War title would be. One possible was that the next TW would be a Warhammer TW, this idea however got strongly rejected from some, which is the reason I would like to explain why I think it would be a good idea to make a Warhammer TW and lay down my personal vision for a Warhammer TW. I do realize that this isn’t the first thread about this topic, but I still would like to share my personal vision for a W:TW.
This I would do in 3. steps:
My thoughts of other possibilities
Main differences to “normal” TW. Challenges and my suggest solution
In-depth description of one of the Factions: The Empire of Sigma
But before I beginn:
English isn't my first language and there is a lot of text, so if you friendly bring mistakes to my attention I will correct them.
Also some thoughts could repeat themselves and something’s could be better organized. Friendly suggestions are welcome here as well..
There were a lot of different ideas for a TW, I however only think that only 3 of them a really practical. Things like “US Civil War” are too small in scale (only two factions? Play Stratego) and many others a too niche (even a TW: renaissance) for a TW.
The 3 however I think could/would like to happen are:
Let start with Medieval 3:
One of my biggest fears when it comes to the TW series is that it becomes a mindless repeat of past titles with graphic upgrade only. If you look at the history of the series, than I think you will see that it was almost never a revolution of features but an evolution. Many features make only sense in the time settings and barley translate to other TWs.
The exception from this rule would be Rome I, which thanks to the new graphic, did deeply changes the nature of the series. It made completely sense and was satisfied to redo the TWs before Rome I (aka Shogun and Medieval). Medieval 2 profited greatly from Rome I and it’s with its add-on my favorite part.
Now: from what exactly would a Medieval 3 profit from Rome 2 (and all others parts between them)?
“Graphic would be better!” Okay, but would it deeply change the game play, like the update from Rome I did? I don’t see that. Also it still looks good today.
“Sea battles!” Not included in Medieval 2 (as playable) , but this era isn’t exactly famous for it’s sea battles so I don’t think it would really profit that much, from them. Also is the Naval part not really love by many (I love them in Empire, an era famous for sea battles).
What exactly could be new besides these? The only thing I could think of, would be a castle creator, which gives you opportunity do design your castles yourself (with limitations of course).
Maybe a more complex politics/economy system?
Of course there things I would hate to see in Medieval 3: torches.
Not only makes it little sense, but it devalues the defense mechanism of cities and castles, since you simply can attack right away and the other side has no time to respond.
So while I like the basic Idea, I don’t see enough “new” to justified a Medieval 3.
Next one: Victoria/Empires 2.
Now here I see more potential for new features which would make this part unique enough.
While I like Empire (even it committed a lot of sins) for the gunfights and for it feeling of global war. I was missing things, which should have been there. I would hope a Victoria would deliver these. As example: discovery and the forming of new provinces/colonies. In the series you only could conquer the provinces as they were, for the setting of the 18/19th century however it would make sense that you would need to organize “uncivilized” land.
If you play as USA as example (I let the game start at 1800 for that sake), than the creation of new “states” should be an important part of your early game (could be incorporated with an inner politics/civil war system). You should be able to influence shape and feature of the new “province” to same extend. TW is about what History could be and I don’t think that the borders of the Middle West and West Coast states of the US could only look like, they look today. Same goes for Africa.
Other things like the creation of railroads and crucial technology advance (“Zundnadelgewehr”, Mines, ect), could make deep changes how the battles are fought.
The question is: is CA ready to implement a feature like colonization/province creation? Also the balancing could be difficulty, since an army with “Zundnadelgewehren”, should destroy any army without comparable guns.
Finally the game would suffer the same problem, which already bugged Empire. The factions/units are too similar.
Unit roaster of Empire: Line infantry, Grenadiers, snipers, cannons, heavy and light Calvary. There were some unique units, but overall there factions were too similar on the battlefield. The only standouts were the not European factions. The Europeans played themselves pretty similar to each other. Of course the fact that Empire had Units with the same name with different stats didn’t exactly help (note: I think it is a SIN for a strategy game to name units, which are not the same, the same).
So I don’t dislike this idea at all and think it would be more of its own game than a Medieval 3, but without the possibility of discovery and colonizing/province creation. I think it would miss too much. The fact that CA didn’t implement discovery the slightest, doesn’t make me hope for much.
On it goes to: China.
I must honestly say: I’m not crazy about the scenario, but I won’t denial its potential and that it would be truly new. In the past I was skeptical that they would tackle it, because as far I know the shogun* parts of total war were traditionally weaker in sales, than the once which include Europe.
With the rise of the China as market, it seem however likely, that CA would try get in the market the same Empire was a opening door for the US market.
So on this one, I admit that my personal lacking of passion for the era/place is the main reason I not hoping for it. But I also don’t know what exactly it would make different game play wise from Medieval 2 and Rome 2 and how different the Chinas armies fought.
*If you asked yourself: “But why did CA remake Shogun then?” My answer: it was the first part of the series and many veterans did remember it. To remake it was relative easy, since it’s profited from the Rome I revolution.
So here it is mostly disinterest, which holds pack my passion. I would still pick it up, but I would dream about other TW while playing it.