Welcome

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.

Where next for total war?

crazychameleoncrazychameleon Senior MemberGreat BritainPosts: 467Registered Users
edited March 2015 in Total War General Chat
We’ve reached a point in total war’s lifetime. It’s 15 years since Total War started and it’s come a long way. Now we’ve got Attila, the successor to the initial failure of Rome 2, which was undoubtedly a flop on release to the dismay of many, along with Total War: Arena, a free to play battle MMO, Total War: Kingdoms and Total War: Warhammer. Attila has been a relative success with decent reviews and nowhere near the barrage which Rome 2 received due to it’s relatively bug free release with AI which is actually capable of using siege equipment without having to magic a few thousand flaming torches to burn down a metal gate. However it has some evident issues with multiplayer, campaign depth (in particular diplomacy) and AI are still are major issues in addition to CA’s marketing scheme which is very controversial. I’ll look at each of them, but will talk about how things are bad and how they should be improved in general for the whole series (with the exception of multiplayer).

Multiplayer-
Total War: Attila and Rome 2 were never multiplayer oriented games, unlike Shogun 2, with only around 5% who play multiplayer battles regularly. This has resulted in multiplayer being somewhat neglected with balancing currently... not great with Tagmata cavalry, Germanic Horsemen, Germanic archers, Uar Warriors (whose power is somewhat negated by the much more limited role infantry plays) and the lack of variety between the different German rosters which make up the majority of the playable factions.

Personally unit diversity isn’t as big as an issue provided that factions which aren’t the German factions are viable, which is sort of the case, but more factions will almost certainly be added as DLC or FreeLC (more probably the former unfortunately though). Many of the competitive players like the pace of battles and the roles which cavalry plays and I really like the pacing of battles, but infantry is currently a bit too weak, but multiplayer balancing is a discussion for another thread and balancing is extremely likely to improve.

What I want to talk about is whether CA should focus more on multiplayer in Attila and future total war games when they’ve got a totally multiplayer focused game in the form of Arena which is just around the corner. Frankly, they should do. CA should try and encourage more people to play multiplayer. Looking at the views of multiplayer videos by Heir of Carthage and other youtubers, shows that there are large amount of people who do watch it (and evidently enjoy it), but don’t actually play it. CA should be trying to encourage these players to start playing multiplayer as it can only be beneficial. How? I’m not totally sure as if CA make multiplayer battles easier to play like in Rome 2 EE, it just created more problems and drove more ‘hard core’ multiplayer battle players away due to it’s stale nature. However if battles become more micro-focused and skill based like in Rome 2 at release, it drives new players away due to the initial difficulty as if you don’t know the meta, you’d get wrecked. Some people may say, “So what? If the players aren’t focused and determined, too bad, I had to do the same thing.”

Should CA leave multiplayer as it is with a minority of players playing it or should it try and make it more ‘fun’ for casual players with Free for all or simply overhaul the system adding a sort of capture point system like the dojos in Shogun 2? Leave your thoughts on how Total War should act towards multiplayer below.

AI-
AI in Attila leaves a lot to be desired for a lot of Total War players. Just by looking at reviews of this game, which encouraged me to make this thread, it is one of the main contributing factors and that’s no surprise due to any Total War game requiring a good AI to be a good game. However, CAI is extremely difficult to develop, with the gap between what people expect and what is actually possible in the modern day for a game like total war.

People compare Attila to paradox games and Civilization, but Total War is a much more complicated game than them, some of them a re scripted and those games were in development for much longer. CA’s work on AI, has mainly been ignored due to it’s complexity and the fact that there are no other games like total war available to compare it to.

However, the AI is not clever. You can’t deny it. It may be cleverer, but it still isn’t clever enough to offer a real challenge without significant buffs and this is the weak point of total war games at the moment. You can only do so much balancing, improve graphics and add so many features, but the series can never improve as a whole and advance without a good CAI. I just hope that CA and SEGA will just allow more time for the next big total war to help polish the AI as much as possible, helping with reviews and allow the community to be a lot happier. There are many people who have stopped playing Total War games for Paradox games because the AI acts better in the latter. Even if AIs are more complicated to develop, the AI is still not great and will still drive people away as they see no advancement in AI. Battle AI is not actually that bad, with the exception of a few errors, it’s reasonable for a computer.

Depth-

I know the series is called total war, but it’s meant to be a historical game and in history diplomacy was very important. In most total war games, you often have to wipe out a faction as the faction, despite the fact you repeatedly utterly annihilate all of the cheat full stacks they send at you, killing hundreds of thousands of soldiers from their only city, they never accept peace. In fact destroying their army just kaes them even less likely to accept peace. I know there are some cases where this was true e.g. the second punic war where Rome refused to surrender when Hannibal was rampaging through Italy, but the vast majority of the time, war ends in the surrender of one side and them giving up land or paying reparations. This hardly ever happens in Attila. It should be the other way round. You should mostly be able to get peace with people if you are soundly defeating them or are being beaten provided the loser pays, but with exceptions where some factions (dependent on the leader’s traits) will fight to the utter death. Also more options need to added in diplomacy e.g. give regions and make peace with.

Other depth issues are with sieges, the loss of siege equipment should result in a draw and the changing of capitals (if you can rename Rome to s*** hole, why can’t you change capitals?).

Marketing-
Perhaps one of the most annoying factors of Total War for some people are DLCs. The fact that 2 appear before the game is even a month old with factions that should have been in the base game for stupid prices. Unfortunately this is the way games are appearing to be going and like many others, it’s a bit... sad. However, people still buy DLCs which allows them to make money and that’s what businesses do, make money so you can’t blame CA. However, many people have had enough of it looking back to the days of Medieval 2 and Rome 1, when things were “all much better and more fun” with no bad AI and amazing unit balancing and more importantly no ridiculous DLCs. Whereas the latter is true, the former aren’t and without ranting, some people are unfair to the state of previous games. The point is that, even though DLCs are profitable, is it worth it for CA that they’re driving away loyal members of the community in their rose-tinted nostalgia are running to other grand strategy series and would otherwise continue to buy future games in the series.

Conclusion-
CA and Total War has come a long way since the days of shogun 1, but looking to the future, to keep the series successful with a large happy community, CA must try and:

- Pay more attention to multiplayer. Even though more people play campaign, by paying more attention you keep multiplayer players happy and buying in addition to help attract new players to try out and start playing multiplayer. You can do this by making balance better which makes people who watch youtube videos warm to multiplayer more instead of seeing it as an unbalanced, meta dominated small community full of people who will wreck me as the friendly group of helpful players playing – a hopefully by then balanced game – which it actually is.

- Try and spend more time on the next big game to make it as good as possible by spending more time on it developing the AI and a better suited engine with great depth, but still keep up stopping previous older games from rotting away (as CA have done to Rome 2 after the release of Attila, which annoys me greatly as there still is a lot of potential in Rome 2 and more people play it than Attila currently). This sounds like a lot and I don’t expect CA to do it, but if it does happen, I don’t care whether it takes 3 years to develop the game, it will attract many people to the series who will hopefully stick to it becoming loyal buyers and produce an amazing game. I’m probably dreaming though, but let’s hope CA prove me wrong.

However this comes at a cost. The cost of money. If there aren't enough games being released, there isn't enough money, so I'm not sure if it's logistically possible.

- Try to not release a load of unit pack or culture pack DLCs straight after the release of the game.

Thanks for reading this really long post and I hope it all made sense. I would love to hear what other people think about what total war should aim for to make the next 15 years even better than the last 15 years.
I love the smell of Greek fire in the morning...
Post edited by crazychameleon on

Comments

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 8,400Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    nep;eh;dr

    Not enough paragraphs. Eyes hurt. Didn't read. Really, people, if you want people to actually slog through tons of text make it at least easy to read.

    ETA:
    Ah, OK, now that's better.

  • totalwarrior11totalwarrior11 Member Posts: 31Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    i didnt read it to be honest but the fact is, each game has been better and better and added and improved on new things, not being an overzealous fan but objective. arena sounds fun for a multiplayer focused game, very popular genre these days, kingdoms sounds interesting and cool to see cross platform, and warhammer sounds like it has potential to be amazing... the total war system really seems like it would be great to use for bringing the warhammer universe into a game.. super excited if that is going to happen

    i skimmed it a bit more and will say, would i like to see more unit variety sure, so goths and germanic are not sharing at all, but overall its ok and doesnt really matter, also i liked games with the agent movies they were fun, i think the AI especially battle is good yeah there are ways to win but it is good, and most of my battles are infantry based with cavalry more supporting
  • crazychameleoncrazychameleon Senior Member Great BritainPosts: 467Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Seems that CA have not changed their DLC policy. Brace for hate...
    I love the smell of Greek fire in the morning...
  • DuckyDuck[NL]DuckyDuck[NL] Senior Member Posts: 1,114Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Since TW started 15 years ago its still the same with the same problems and nothing special same concept over and over again only a different era. While where in 2015 TW could have been so mutch more and better in all ways but they dont want to probably because its still running on 32bit while with a 64bit engine they could do almost EVERYTHING with the game but nope all indie small company,s and even big are going 64bit because of the possibilities, But not CA they want to keep TW with the same problems and DLC milking till the 2 years of support are over and then go to the next game to do the same with the same problems only a other era.....

    Its time they come with a game thats just as revolutionary as RTW and MTW where back in the day.
  • AliensWayAliensWay Senior Member Posts: 155Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    O_O... to... many... words... *smiles and acts like he read it* I see... I see... good point :D
    "You can never cross the ocean until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore." –Christopher Columbus
  • vitruviansquidvitruviansquid Senior Member Posts: 580Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Multiplayer -

    I'd agree with your analysis on the current state of multiplayer in TW. I would say that the (future) existence of Arena does not mean mainline, campaign-oriented Total Wars should neglect multiplayer because it's the competitive multiplayer community that has the best understanding of game balance and dynamics which is required to make a fun experience for everybody, including campaign-only players.

    AI -

    I think the AI is clever enough. The moronic thing about most AI complaints I read is that people constantly demand better campaign or battle AI, but never have a specific idea of *how specifically* the AI should be changed to make it better. Like people will say the AI needs to raze settlements less, but not say what factors the AI should take into account when deciding whether or not to raze, or how these different factors should be weighted more or less.

    Depth -

    I'm at a total loss for what you're trying to explain in this section, because as far as I can tell, you're trying to talk about a lot of independent issues. Maybe split this paragraph a couple more times?

    Marketing -

    What's to complain about? CA is honest and informative. You know there are 10 base playable factions in the game and that it costs 45 dollars (or however many Euros). You know there are 3 playable factions in each culture pack, and they even list off each unit and culture trait for Viking forefathers. CA has never been better at communicating the amount of content they are selling in each game, and purchasing their games expecting more stuff is just not responsible.

    Engine -

    Better... how specifically? Because this engine works totally fine for me, and I can imagine many many future Total Wars working fine on it.
  • FitzpatrickFitzpatrick Senior Member Posts: 161Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Would be awesome in times of Kievan Rus, before Mongols stormed Europe. At that time Kiev had bigger population than Rome or Paris and the state was the biggest in Europe aswell, would be nice change of paste from Rome days
  • SnapperaSnappera Senior Member Posts: 929Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    4 player head to head campaign <3
    New Culture Pack - Total War Forums

    Eternal Virginity: -2 provincial growth rate
    DLC Rage: 2x discontent from taxes
    PC Master Race Prices: -10% unit recruitment cost
    Inaccurate Historical Knowledge: Can recruit units from nearby factions
    Older Demographic: +25% Research Rate
  • DaveypoohDaveypooh Senior Member Posts: 158Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    I don't care what era they go next, I just really want a new engine. Warscape sucks for melee combat. The engine for Rome 1 and Medieval 2 was so much better for melee.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 8,400Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Daveypooh wrote: »
    I don't care what era they go next, I just really want a new engine. Warscape sucks for melee combat. The engine for Rome 1 and Medieval 2 was so much better for melee.
    Warscape is just the graphics engine, so it wouldn't affect combat physics.

  • TuranistTuranist Senior Member Posts: 416Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    sadly they are going to make warhammer total war....pfff

    we already have enough fantasty games in the market!

    i really want a medieval3 then they would be complete.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 5,930Registered Users
    edited March 2015
  • SutekSutek Junior Member Posts: 27Registered Users
    edited March 2015
  • lordmaximus77lordmaximus77 Technical Moderator Leeuwarden, NLPosts: 3,198Registered Users, Moderators, Tech Moderators, Knights
    edited March 2015
    Not about Attila. *Moved to General TW Chat.
    Any fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction. — Albert Einstein

    viri non urinat in ventum — Anonymous Roman

    TOTAL WAR FORUM: TERMS AND CONDITIONS
  • vitruviansquidvitruviansquid Senior Member Posts: 580Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Not about Attila. *Moved to General TW Chat.

    This thread is definitely about Attila. It's about design, marketing, and other trends in Attila.

    You may have mistaken the ramblings of idiots who didn't read the original post and spouted off gibberish to be the actual topic of this thread.
  • Kieron251Kieron251 Posts: 1Registered Users
    To me I feel that although the TW franchise has had leaps and bounds of improvement in the almost 2 decades they have been around. I would prefer the game to have the ability of playing as an individual soldier sort of in the same way they gave you the ability to control the siege equipment but have control of all types of soldiers in the army like swordsman, spearmen and archers to name a few.
  • EquixEquix Posts: 350Registered Users
    I never liked Attila and never was interested on purchasing, I am a Rome 2 and Warhammer fan.

    All I want is Warhammer 2, Warhammer 3.

    On historic I would like a Mesopotamian/Bronze age or even a Stone age with mammoth huntings included. If historic wants more modern times, I like first world war or second world war.

    No more medieval, asian, china, or multiplayer crap, thanks.
  • ArthasmenethrilArthasmenethril Senior Member Posts: 1,472Registered Users
    Equix said:

    I never liked Attila and never was interested on purchasing, I am a Rome 2 and Warhammer fan.

    All I want is Warhammer 2, Warhammer 3.

    On historic I would like a Mesopotamian/Bronze age or even a Stone age with mammoth huntings included. If historic wants more modern times, I like first world war or second world war.

    No more medieval, asian, china, or multiplayer crap, thanks.

    And you chose the two places they won't go. Too far back and too far forwards.
    So...the Light's vaunted justice has finally arrived. Shall I lay down Frostmourne and throw myself at your mercy, Fordring?

  • EquixEquix Posts: 350Registered Users
    edited September 12

    Equix said:

    I never liked Attila and never was interested on purchasing, I am a Rome 2 and Warhammer fan.

    All I want is Warhammer 2, Warhammer 3.

    On historic I would like a Mesopotamian/Bronze age or even a Stone age with mammoth huntings included. If historic wants more modern times, I like first world war or second world war.

    No more medieval, asian, china, or multiplayer crap, thanks.

    And you chose the two places they won't go. Too far back and too far forwards.
    If you take a minute to think, stone age/early bronze age is doable inspired on real info on human species migrations, DNA roots and archeology, it would mix especulation and knowledged science. Coming from a fantasy wargame is the most right theme to return to historic.

    World War 1 is also doable, they did still using horses massively, always went short in munnitions and going close combat was not only common but a must.

    Also a decade before first world war could also be cool.
  • EquixEquix Posts: 350Registered Users
    edited September 12
    What I would totally hate is total war to be more focused on stupid multiplayer or a total war medieval or a total war china.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Posts: 876Registered Users
    WW1 isn't doable without rewriting the TW formula.
  • NobleGunnerNobleGunner Posts: 569Registered Users
    What an arduous task. I gave up after first paragraph
  • ArthasmenethrilArthasmenethril Senior Member Posts: 1,472Registered Users
    Equix said:

    Equix said:

    I never liked Attila and never was interested on purchasing, I am a Rome 2 and Warhammer fan.

    All I want is Warhammer 2, Warhammer 3.

    On historic I would like a Mesopotamian/Bronze age or even a Stone age with mammoth huntings included. If historic wants more modern times, I like first world war or second world war.

    No more medieval, asian, china, or multiplayer crap, thanks.

    And you chose the two places they won't go. Too far back and too far forwards.
    If you take a minute to think, stone age/early bronze age is doable inspired on real info on human species migrations, DNA roots and archeology, it would mix especulation and knowledged science. Coming from a fantasy wargame is the most right theme to return to historic.

    World War 1 is also doable, they did still using horses massively, always went short in munnitions and going close combat was not only common but a must.

    Also a decade before first world war could also be cool.
    If you take a actual minute to think going past a certain point and then there's barely anything to read history/lore wise so they would have no History/Lore to work off going too far backwards now going forward to WW1 means trenches and the start of squad based combat. And if you can't do trenches right then you might as well not bother with WW1
    So...the Light's vaunted justice has finally arrived. Shall I lay down Frostmourne and throw myself at your mercy, Fordring?

  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Posts: 1,663Registered Users
    Equix said:

    Equix said:

    I never liked Attila and never was interested on purchasing, I am a Rome 2 and Warhammer fan.

    All I want is Warhammer 2, Warhammer 3.

    On historic I would like a Mesopotamian/Bronze age or even a Stone age with mammoth huntings included. If historic wants more modern times, I like first world war or second world war.

    No more medieval, asian, china, or multiplayer crap, thanks.

    And you chose the two places they won't go. Too far back and too far forwards.
    If you take a minute to think, stone age/early bronze age is doable inspired on real info on human species migrations, DNA roots and archeology, it would mix especulation and knowledged science. Coming from a fantasy wargame is the most right theme to return to historic.

    World War 1 is also doable, they did still using horses massively, always went short in munnitions and going close combat was not only common but a must.

    Also a decade before first world war could also be cool.
    Stone Age: how would you make a 4x strategy war game that takes place in a time before kingdoms and armies?

    Early Bronze Age: technically possible the the lack of factions and units would be a problem.

    WW1: no large unit formations in pitched battle, and no politics. How is that TW?

    WW2: same as WW1 but worse.
    I'm always this grumpy, so it is nothing personal.
Sign In or Register to comment.