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.

Categories

A Total War Saga – Announce Blog

1246789

Comments

  • laczeklaczek Posts: 1Registered Users
    Will it be on a new engine?
  • BennyMendtBennyMendt Senior Member Posts: 297Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    CnConrad said:

    I'm afraid you are vastly overstating the importance...

    Well, not really...not at all.
    During the 16th century the Portuguese created a worldwide empire not challenged by any other European state for a hundred years.The navy of the House of Aviz in the early 16th century it may have been the most advanced operational force of its kind.

    "We can say that Portugal was the first global power in the history of the world system. Others did, of course, claim to rule over the "four quarters of the world", or "under heaven", and Genghis Khan and his sons came pretty close to gaining a world empire (but failed). But Portugal was the first actually to establish an enduring politico-economic structure at the global level" (George Modelski)

    The Anglo-Saxon point of view tends to forget that In history, you can't judge the past by today's standards. The greatest obstacle to gain a true understanding of the past is our human tendency to read the present into it. As some historians have already pointed out, the significance for world history of the creation of the global empire of Portugal can hardly be overstated.

    The Portuguese was a lingua franca in 16th, 17th and 18th centuries in Asia (spoken by the local elites), Africa - and South America.Protestant missions (Dutch, Danish, English…) that worked in India were forced to use Portuguese as their evangelisation language spoken by the local elites.Even the language spoken in Batavia (today´s Jakarta) is still closed linked to the Portuguese language as spoken in Portugal, especially in its written form. In 1704, the Dutch Governor Cornelius Jan Simonsz said that "if one spoke Portuguese in Ceylon, one could be understood everywhere".

    It's telling that in the book Asia in the Making of Europe. Volume II: A Century of Wonder. by Donald F. Lach. Portugal has pride of place; the literature in that language gets 122 pages, as compared with 34 for Spanish, 56 for Italian, 70 for French, and 70 for all the Northern European languages.
  • KrilralKrilral Member Posts: 910Registered Users
    If that map-piece is actually from the new game, then that comparison is a pretty good find and does indeed point towards a "viking invasion" game or something similar. I'm not really sure how it would be a "spiritual successor" to Rome 2 though. Those eras seem to have very little in common.

    I could definitely see a "Vikings vs. Britain" game happening, especially seeing as there's a lot of pop-culture that has been dealing with vikings or similar early-medieval stuff since the succes of "Vikings".
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users

    I do hope they get the atmosphere and the lighting right. There's too much gloom in Attila sometimes. "But that was the whole idea" - yeah right, Attila didn't permanently black out the sun when he came, weather is a separate phenomenon independent of Attila's actions, and there IS such a thing as going too far while trying to set the mood.
    The last thing I want is - "Danes are coming! So let's have fog, rain, mininum lighting, and a screaching female voice in the background."

    I agree, they've been doing this since Rome 2 and they should just stop already. I want to fight in beautiful and green British fields, forests, highlands, lowlands, etc. I REALLY hope battlefields don't look desolate like they did in Attila and Rome 2, as though they were in the Middle East or something.

    And I don't think this is an engine problem, Shogun 2, Empire and Napoleon use the same engine, and the landscapes look gorgeous, especially in Shogun 2
  • EpamonidasEpamonidas Posts: 8Registered Users
    You think the maps in Rome 2 looked bleak and desolate? That game was bright and beautiful, only slightly less vibrant than Shogun 2. This especially holds true for doing things like Caesar in Gaul campaign. However, if you're in say a desert of nothing but sand you can't really make it green and beautiful...

    I really did hate how Attila looked though and I agree with that


  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users

    You think the maps in Rome 2 looked bleak and desolate? That game was bright and beautiful, only slightly less vibrant than Shogun 2. This especially holds true for doing things like Caesar in Gaul campaign. However, if you're in say a desert of nothing but sand you can't really make it green and beautiful...

    I really did hate how Attila looked though and I agree with that


    Not desolate, maybe I should have worded that better, but they were as you say "less vibrant", very boring and colorless.
  • waly8724waly8724 Junior Member Posts: 19Registered Users
    Hello how are you?? Does anyone know if they plan to add the features of Attila to Rome 2? I think that if a moder can do it (without demeaning the work of the moders) the CA should be able. In addition, I suspect that the new DCL campaign (I'm not talking about Saga) is going to add those features to Rome II because those of CA said that the game has to actulizarce before being able to put the new mini campaign. What do you think?
  • Psycho_VPsycho_V Registered User Posts: 512Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    CA_Whelan said:

    The Boshin War only lasted around a year whereas the Sengoku Jidai was more like a century. Saga games will be much more focused in terms of subject matter

    Hi.

    Just wondering if you guys have considered the end of the Bronze Age (1500-1000 BC)?

    The period is one of the most epic in human history. It is also one of the most rarely depicted in modern media.

    It witnessed the peak of the ancient empires and then their sudden collapse within 100 years (with the exception of Egypt that struggled on for another couple of hundred years).

    It also serves as example for Strategic analysts and policy makers today.
    Recommended reading: 1177 BC: the Year Civilisation Collapsed, Pror Eric Cline, Princeton University Press)
    1. Major Natural disasters
    2. Climate change
    3. Increasing political polarity / disparity of wealth / internal instability
    4. Industrial change and technological innovation
    5. Mass migration / invasions
    6. Interruption of Globalised Trade
    7. Major shifts in alliances and power
    8. Significant International Espionage and Assassinations
    9. Famous characters - Hatshepsut (only Female Pharoah), Thutmose III (Napoleon of the ancient world), Akenaten (Heretical Ruler), Tutankhamun (boy king), Ramesses II, Ramesses III, etc
    10. Several factions - New Kingdom Egypt, Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Kassite Babylonians, Mycenaens, Minoans, Alashiya (Cypriots), Retenu (Canaanites), Libyans, Israelites, Nubians, Nomadic Elamites, Sea Peoples - Peleset / Philistines (Cretans), Shardana / Sherden (Sardinians), Shekelesh (Sicilians), Danuna (Homer's Achaeans), Teresh (Etruscans), Lukka (Lycians), Weshesh (Trogans) .. etc etc ad naseum
    11. Massive armed struggles (eg. Mycenaean assault on Troy / Hittite satellites, Hittite amphibious invasion of Cyprus (main supplier of tin), Kadesh, etc etc).


    ESKEHL said:

    My guess is at the old Medieval: Total War - Viking Invasion gets a proper follow-up. It`s the best scenario I can imagine given the size of the map judging from that coastline of Ireland.


    Be interesting. I love the sound track of the old Vikings TW. :)

    my2bob
    Post edited by Psycho_V on
    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, 1572 – 1631, Meditation 17)
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    Bronze Age deserves it's own full title.
  • Psycho_VPsycho_V Registered User Posts: 512Registered Users
    Suliot said:

    Bronze Age deserves it's own full title.

    Agree
    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, 1572 – 1631, Meditation 17)
  • SbygneusSbygneus Posts: 799Registered Users
    Would English Civil War Total War fall in Total War Saga caterogy?
    Maybe the picture of Irish coast is from such game like English Civi War TW?
  • EpamonidasEpamonidas Posts: 8Registered Users
    Psycho_V said:

    Suliot said:

    Bronze Age deserves it's own full title.

    Agree

    I agree, I've been eager for a Bronze Age TW ever since I started playing the franchise. The Era from Rome I/II is great, but I like it 400-700 years back even more.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,590Registered Users

    Psycho_V said:

    Suliot said:

    Bronze Age deserves it's own full title.

    Agree

    I agree, I've been eager for a Bronze Age TW ever since I started playing the franchise. The Era from Rome I/II is great, but I like it 400-700 years back even more.
    What are the factions expected for Bronze age?
  • EpamonidasEpamonidas Posts: 8Registered Users
    jamreal18 said:

    Psycho_V said:

    Suliot said:

    Bronze Age deserves it's own full title.

    Agree

    I agree, I've been eager for a Bronze Age TW ever since I started playing the franchise. The Era from Rome I/II is great, but I like it 400-700 years back even more.
    What are the factions expected for Bronze age?

    Really depends if they want to keep the same general map as Rome II or try and focus it in a little more and make provinces 'larger'. Anyhow, you could divide Italy up into many factions rather than just having Rome. Etruscans, Samnites, among various other Sabellic peoples, not to mention all the Greeks in southern Italy and Sicily.

    You'd have several Illyrian factions like Dauni and Veneti among others, probably could pretty easily put three together since they were fairly distinct. Hittites in certain areas of Anatolia, Phrygians, 2-3 Dacian factions, Phoenecians, Cushites, Numidians, Persians, Medes, perhaps Parthians, Armenians, Babylonians, Assyrians, various Scythians, Lydians, Egyptians, Greek Aeolians (really just Greeks all over the place), perhaps there's another celt-iberian factions they could add and a lot of Semitic factions as well. Not saying they'd want to have all these (aside from maybe like campaign AI).


    I'm not sure what kind of sources there are for specific celtic tribes depending how far back you go. I think the Insubres and Senones popped up pretty early by foreign writers.



    They wouldn't be lacking for factions that's for sure


  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyPosts: 1,739Registered Users
    Bronze Age would end in Central Europe in 700 BC with the Hallstatt Culture (Beginning of Iron Age), in South Europe and the Near East it ended earlier ( 1200 BC). Many of the factions you mention are from Iron Age like Phrygians, Lydians, Celts, Samnites, Sabelli etc ...
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 743Registered Users

    jamreal18 said:



    What are the factions expected for Bronze age?
    You'd have several Illyrian factions like Dauni and Veneti among others, probably could pretty easily put three together since they were fairly distinct. Hittites in certain areas of Anatolia, Phrygians, 2-3 Dacian factions, Phoenecians, Cushites, Numidians, Persians, Medes, perhaps Parthians, Armenians, Babylonians, Assyrians, various Scythians, Lydians, Egyptians, Greek Aeolians (really just Greeks all over the place), perhaps there's another celt-iberian factions they could add and a lot of Semitic factions as well. Not saying they'd want to have all these (aside from maybe like campaign AI).

    I'm not sure what kind of sources there are for specific celtic tribes depending how far back you go. I think the Insubres and Senones popped up pretty early by foreign writers.

    They wouldn't be lacking for factions that's for sure
    Don't forget the Canaanites and Kassites if they're focusing on the "Old Testament" Bronze Age period, say between 1500-1000 BC. In that period, the Greeks would be Mycenaeans. That's the most interesting period IMO because of the associated mythology, with the Late Bronze Age collapse around 1100 BC being equivalent to the campaign endgame.

    I'm not sure it's worth including Europe on a campaign map of that period. I don't believe there were any Bronze Age empires in Europe. Eastern Bronze Age empires wouldn't realistically expand nearly as much as Iron Age empires did, so a map covering Greece, Egypt and the Middle East would probably provide the right scope (with a lot more detail on each region than Rome 2 etc.).
  • EpamonidasEpamonidas Posts: 8Registered Users
    edited July 2017

    Bronze Age would end in Central Europe in 700 BC with the Hallstatt Culture (Beginning of Iron Age), in South Europe and the Near East it ended earlier ( 1200 BC). Many of the factions you mention are from Iron Age like Phrygians, Lydians, Celts, Samnites, Sabelli etc ...

    It depends on how hard of a definition you take on it. The usage of iron tools and weaponry spread throughout different cultures quite differently. Maybe not an archaeologist, but I think if you asked most people when the first Greco-Punic conflict started they'd say it was the late Bronze Age, even though they probably were both using Iron spear heads at that time. If you're going to make a game in like 700 BC like I originally suggested nearly all those factions would be there and bronze would be the predominant material used except maybe by the Dacians and Gauls.

    If CA actually wanted to do a Bronze Age title focused in like 2000-1500 BC, I feel like it would be very hard to include both Europe and the Near East while having all the factions flushed out. Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem to be pretty difficult to have large rosters for many of the factions outside of like Egypt, Greeks, and some peoples in the Near East.
  • Psycho_VPsycho_V Registered User Posts: 512Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    jamreal18 said:


    What are the factions expected for Bronze age?

    1. New Kingdom Egypt
    2. Hittites
    3. Mitanni
    4. Assyrians
    5. Kassite Babylonians
    6. Mycenaens
    7. Weshesh (Trogans)
    8. Minoans
    9. Alashiya (Cypriots)
    10. Teresh (Etruscans)
    11. Retenu (Canaanites)
    12. Ammurru (Amorites / Syrians)
    13. Libyans
    14. Israelites
    15. Nubians
    16. Nomadic Elamites,
    17. Peleset / Philistines (Cretans)
    18. Shardana / Sherden (Sardinians)
    19. Shekelesh (Sicilians)
    20. Danuna (Homer's Achaeans)
    21. Lukka (Lycians)
    To name a few. The remaining areas were filled with other various peoples and cultures.



    Just to name a few.

    Depicting 1500-1000 BC, you capture the peak of ancient empires before they all collapsed within 100 years .. in the 12th Century BC.

    This period:
    • Begins post the Hykos rule of Egypt and beginning of the Egyptian New Kingdom.
    • Begins post the eruption of Thera (one of the largest in human history) and weakening of Minoan hegemony of the Eastern Med.
    • Begins at the Egyptian reign of Hatshepsut (only Female Pharaoh)
    • Includes the Syrian War
    • Includes the Trogan War (Mycenae (Greeks) & Egyptians v Wilusiya (Troy) & Neshites (Hittites))
    • Includes the Copper War - Hittite amphibious invasion of Cyprus (Alashiya) - main supplier of Copper. Tin coming from Afghanistan.
    • Includes the Assyrian-Mitanni War
    • Includes the Elamite-Mitanni War
    • Includes the Hittite-Egyptian War
    • Includes the Mycenaen-Minoan War
    • Includes the Lybian Invasion of Egypt
    • Includes the Sea People invasions

    my2bob
    Post edited by Psycho_V on
    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, 1572 – 1631, Meditation 17)
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 1,148Registered Users
    I don't think bronze age would have much appeal for a big audience. Not as warhammer, Rome or medieval. My best guess would be something about Vikings. Which is fine by me although I would have left them to update Rome II with atilla mechanics and additional campaign map futures and diplomatic options. Also a rework of the path finding during sieges.
  • Psycho_VPsycho_V Registered User Posts: 512Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    LESAMA said:

    I don't think bronze age would have much appeal ..

    No .. of course. The historical setting is boring as **** :smile:


    (NB not suggesting this historical but Seti I is within the period)

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love anything Viking, Medieval or Ancient (in fact any historical well done). But the end of the Bronze Age would offer one hell of a setting .. and that's what counts. Remember, this is a historical title and as such it will be limited by setting.

    Further, the quality of the setting / gameplay provides the appeal for any TW title .. not some notional reference. Even the most devout fanboy can loose heart if a setting is all a game has going for it.

    Take for example the Spartan 300. Just look at the huge appeal Spartans have in the popular imagination!
    Why don't we have thousands of games about historical Sparta? Because the setting / reality of Spartan history doesn't have "much appeal" (institutionalised paedophilia, isolationism, zenophobia, luddism, and proto-facism).

    I knew nothing of the setting for games like Skyrim, Wicher 3, etc etc but like most, loved them because they were fantastic games set in an environment that offered significant interest and options.

    It's all about the narrative / quality of product. Make a good product and it will sell imho.

    my2bob
    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, 1572 – 1631, Meditation 17)
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 1,148Registered Users
    Just my personal thoughts. Samurai, legion's, napoleon, knights, crusades, Vikings,skeletons, ww2 etc are in my opinion topics which already have a large fan base and therefor will appeal to a large group of people. Bronze Age is just something I don't think a large audience would go for. I played all total war games starting with shogun I and would probably also buy a Bronze Age to support ca in keep making great strategy games. Just in my opinion not something which would appeal to the masses.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    LESAMA said:

    Just my personal thoughts. Samurai, legion's, napoleon, knights, crusades, Vikings,skeletons, ww2 etc are in my opinion topics which already have a large fan base and therefor will appeal to a large group of people. Bronze Age is just something I don't think a large audience would go for. I played all total war games starting with shogun I and would probably also buy a Bronze Age to support ca in keep making great strategy games. Just in my opinion not something which would appeal to the masses.

    You think that there's no audience for the "War of Troy"? It's part of this era, everyone knows Achilles and Hector, that could be used to advertise the game with great effect I think.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 743Registered Users
    Suliot said:

    You think that there's no audience for the "War of Troy"? It's part of this era, everyone knows Achilles and Hector, that could be used to advertise the game with great effect I think.

    That's the beauty of 1500-1000 BC; it's part of the Age of Heroes so we could have Perseus, Hercules etc. using mechanics similar to heroes in Warhammer...and it would be historically accurate! Here's a list of potential heroes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_culture_heroes . These characters often lived for hundred of years.

    Also, major events like earthquakes and volcanoes could be tied to the mythology system. If it was done right, a Bronze Age TW could have more popular appeal than any previous historical title IMO.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    Exactly, CA could have much more freedom to shape the game, without being afraid of being inaccurate. They could interweave ancient myths and legends into the game, not going too crazy obviously with mythical creatures, but they could use legendary heroes.

    I think that years from now, instead of making Rome 3, they could do this instead. It means they can set another game in the same location but instead of it being in the Classical antiquity/Hellenistic era, it would be in an earlier one.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 743Registered Users
    Suliot said:

    Exactly, CA could have much more freedom to shape the game, without being afraid of being inaccurate. They could interweave ancient myths and legends into the game, not going too crazy obviously with mythical creatures, but they could use legendary heroes.

    Agreed, CA probably wouldn't have monsters recruitable into regular armies, but something like Quest Battles from Warhammer could be used to convey a lot of the mythology. Cyclopses, Medusas and and Dragons might make appearances in Quest Battles or be summoned through some kind of divine miracle system that also covers "wizards" like Moses and the Pharaohs (who were considered to have god-like powers). CA could use the monster animations from TW:WH and just re-skin them with a more historical appearance. A lot of the "divine magic" could be natural events such as bountiful harvests or "critical hits" in combat like David vs. Goliath. If you lose favour with your gods, there could be consequences like plagues, locust swarms or fire and brimstone raining down on your towns.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    No, no, I don't think they should include mythological creatures in such a game. Just use legendary heroes, but put them in more "historical" situations. It is likely that most of the legendary heroes from the period really existed, but they were not superhuman, and they didn't fight mythical creatures. They just won battles and settled cities, however as time passed they were transformed into the legendary people we know today.

  • Psycho_VPsycho_V Registered User Posts: 512Registered Users
    LESAMA said:

    Just my personal thoughts. Samurai, legion's, napoleon, knights, crusades, Vikings,skeletons, ww2 etc are in my opinion topics which already have a large fan base

    True .. and as much as I love them myself, over representation can be counter productive. Does anyone really want Sly to do a Rocky VIII?

    Something new .. done well, could prove quite refreshing.
    Suliot said:

    No, no, I don't think they should include mythological creatures in such a game. Just use legendary heroes, but put them in more "historical" situations. It is likely that most of the legendary heroes from the period really existed, but they were not superhuman, and they didn't fight mythical creatures. They just won battles and settled cities, however as time passed they were transformed into the legendary people we know today.

    Agree.. CA could include epic heros like Achilles, Hector, Ajax etc depicted as warriors with buffs (esp group morale,
    training). Nothing crazy / outside the realm of possibility.

    my2bob



    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, 1572 – 1631, Meditation 17)
  • SvatdaSvatda Posts: 1Registered Users
    I would love to see Hussite Wars :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars

    - focus on central Europe
    - 15th century warfare
    - first primitive handguns (in Europe)

    - peasants beating up full plate knights
    - war wagons!


    oh and hi! my first post here :)


  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 743Registered Users
    Suliot said:

    No, no, I don't think they should include mythological creatures in such a game. Just use legendary heroes, but put them in more "historical" situations. It is likely that most of the legendary heroes from the period really existed, but they were not superhuman, and they didn't fight mythical creatures. They just won battles and settled cities, however as time passed they were transformed into the legendary people we know today.

    Disagree, as far as history is concerned they were superhuman and fought monsters. If they include the heroes they should be portrayed as such, otherwise they would feel neutered and bland. The bronze age loses a lot of its appeal if you strip out the divine miracles and mythology.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users

    Suliot said:

    No, no, I don't think they should include mythological creatures in such a game. Just use legendary heroes, but put them in more "historical" situations. It is likely that most of the legendary heroes from the period really existed, but they were not superhuman, and they didn't fight mythical creatures. They just won battles and settled cities, however as time passed they were transformed into the legendary people we know today.

    Disagree, as far as history is concerned they were superhuman and fought monsters. If they include the heroes they should be portrayed as such, otherwise they would feel neutered and bland. The bronze age loses a lot of its appeal if you strip out the divine miracles and mythology.
    They didn't happen in real life, if you include such things then it wouldn't be Total War Bronze Age, instead it would become Total War Mythology.
Sign In or Register to comment.