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

1235789

Comments

  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    Suliot said:

    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.

    How do we know for certain the bronze age miracles didn't happen? The only significant mythological Hero from the Rome 2 period was Jesus, and that game is abstract enough (and has enough other source material) to omit him while skirting around the question of whether the Bible is true. Also, Jesus didn't use battlefield magic like the bronze age wizards did so he's not as relevant to TW. However, if Moses showed up as a character but couldn't part water and drown entire Egyptian armies, then CA should just leave him out altogether IMO. But if they leave out the Bronze Age heroes then they're excluding a major part of that setting. Technically even the Trojan War is questionable history.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    I think Biblical characters shouldn't be included, only legendary heroes like Achilles, Hector, Jason, Heracles (maybe), etc should be in the game. And they would have only bonuses and special quests that maybe lead to foundation of ancient cities etc. But in any case such heroes should not play a huge role in the game, Bronze Age empires should be the focus, characters like the aforementioned should only be there to provide some flavor.

    Ancient legends are probably based on real events and people, but over centuries they were distorted and they were turned into myths that we know to this day. I'm 100% sure that Theseus didn't slay a Minotaur inside a labyrinth, but he probably is the founder of Athens, and he got such a mythical story formed around him centuries later.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Suliot said:

    Ancient legends are probably based on real events and people, but over centuries they were distorted and they were turned into myths that we know to this day. I'm 100% sure that Theseus didn't slay a Minotaur inside a labyrinth, but he probably is the founder of Athens, and he got such a mythical story formed around him centuries later.

    If we entertain even a small possibility that Biblical miracles could've really happened, then even the Minotaur becomes plausible because it was conceived through the magic of Poseidon. Only militant atheists should be 100% certain that a Minotaur didn't really exist. :)
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    Still, I don't think a game set in the Bronze Age should include supernatural elements. I just want the armies and the Empires of the period.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Suliot said:

    Still, I don't think a game set in the Bronze Age should include supernatural elements. I just want the armies and the Empires of the period.

    Most accounts of battles in the bronze age come through mythology, there were no historians like Livy keeping records back in those days and archeology provides scant clues. Heck, they haven't even deciphered the Minoan language yet. CA would be inferring quite a lot and omitting the most interesting parts if they left out the mythology IMO.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    The Iliad was written centuries after the War of Troy supposedly happened, of course it has a lot of mythological stuff in it. It would be better to just focus on the archaeological findings and what we know, plus use some imagination to come up with new units. I would like a historical title, not a mythological one.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Suliot said:

    The Iliad was written centuries after the War of Troy supposedly happened, of course it has a lot of mythological stuff in it. It would be better to just focus on the archaeological findings and what we know, plus use some imagination to come up with new units. I would like a historical title, not a mythological one.

    The most detailed account we have is from the Battle of Kadesh 1250 BC, and even in that case historians don't know exactly how the 5,000 chariots were used. Ramesses II was constantly channelling divine magic in that battle.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    You don't believe he was really using magic do you?
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Suliot said:

    You don't believe he was really using magic do you?

    It doesn't matter - according to historical records of bronze age battles, magic was a major factor. That wasn't the case in iron age battles. If you strip out the magic and mythology, you're left with some very tenuous historical data to base a strategy game around. I mean, TW players could "pretend" they're playing a historical bronze age game but the reality is that most of it would be made up by CA anyway. I would actually find a bronze age TW more immersive if it embraced the mythology and didn't pretend to be historical. However, I'd like to see the mythology aspect done in a more gritty "realistic" style than Warhammer. e.g.



  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    Magic played no factor in real life though, those records just embellished real events. If you want a Total War Mythology fine, just say so, but don't say make a total war set in the bronze age and then ask for things that didn't exist to be put in. Events that took place in the Bronze Age had nothing to do with magic or mythical creatures. Empires rose and fell, people migrated and cities were built, just like in the rest of history.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Suliot said:

    Magic played no factor in real life though, those records just embellished real events. If you want a Total War Mythology fine, just say so, but don't say make a total war set in the bronze age and then ask for things that didn't exist to be put in. Events that took place in the Bronze Age had nothing to do with magic or mythical creatures. Empires rose and fell, people migrated and cities were built, just like in the rest of history.

    Again, you don't have any proof that magic didn't exist in the bronze age; historical records say it did. I'm partly playing Devil's Advocate here, but really all the bronze age films involve magic.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    We don't have proof that it existed either, no archaeological findings support this, and people have written all sorts of stuff over the ages we can't take it at face value. Don't take the Iliad as a historical record, it's just a legend, but a legend that was probably based on a real event that didn't involve anything supernatural. If you're going to argue that magic existed, then you better provide some real factual evidence, the burden of proof is on you.

    And just off the top of my head the movie Troy didn't feature anything mythological, unless I'm remembering it wrong, I haven't seen it in more than a decade.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    I'm not trying to prove that magic existed in the bronze age, that would be pointless. I'm just saying magic was practically inseparable from history even if it was only in peoples' imaginations. You're right that Troy omitted the gods of the Iliad and didn't use "magical" special effects, although the main characters had superhuman combat abilities representing their divine magic. I suppose TW: Bronze Age could also have combat heroes like TW:WH, who can slaughter entire units single-handedly, but if they're going that route then they're already halfway down the rabbit-hole. Might as well just make Moses and Ramesses II wizards at that point.

    I would be OK with a completely "mundane" Bronze Age TW game too, but in that case CA should leave out the mythical heroes rather than include neutered versions of them.
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Posts: 685Registered Users
    Shogun 2 had legendary units, and they worked fine. I don't think having Achilles as a general, who is also very good at melee, is going to be that much of a stretch. But having Minotaur's and Centaurs in such a game, would take it out of the historical setting and instead would turn it into a mythological one, which is fine but then it wouldn't be "Bronze Age" anymore.

    We don't need more titles that have such creatures and magic in them, we already have WARHAMMER, which spans three titles. I think that's enough of mythological creatures for a while.

  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    They could just make a Mythic Mode option for the bronze age game, that can be toggled on/off. Easiest solution that makes everyone happy.
  • NochyanNochyan Member Posts: 110Registered Users
    Sorry, guys, didn't you hear? The Bible is Fake News...
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyPosts: 1,739Registered Users
    If CA would present us the next "historical total war" as Bronze Age with Minotaurs and Centaurs and other fantasy stuff, this brand is dead for me.

    I want more strategy (and better AI ) in the game not more eyecandy.
  • tombergrtombergr Posts: 3Registered Users
    It would be a good idea of the period of the Thirty Years War of 1618-1648 guaranteeing a number of battles, sieges and complex diplomacy.
  • Psycho_VPsycho_V Registered User Posts: 513Registered Users
    edited July 2017

    Technically even the Trojan War is questionable history.

    True if you believe the war was over Helen of Sparta. Seen in the context of the period's geo-politics (eg Armana letters), it was all too real.
    Suliot said:

    I think Biblical characters shouldn't be included, only legendary heroes like Achilles, Hector, Jason, Heracles (maybe), etc should be in the game.

    "Israelites" were an attested State in Retenu (Canaan) by the end of the 13th C BC (Merneptah Stele). Why not have a 'Moses' and 'Joshua' named leader? They're little different to the 'legendary heroes' of Homer's Iliad? In both cases they're probably founded on a historic person / persons.
    Suliot said:

    Ancient legends are probably based on real events and people, but over centuries they were distorted and they were turned into myths that we know to this day. I'm 100% sure that Theseus didn't slay a Minotaur inside a labyrinth,

    Yup.
    But he probably did kill a warrior priest during the Minoan bull festival (Head gear).

    How do we know for certain the bronze age miracles didn't happen? .. Jesus didn't use battlefield magic like the bronze age wizards did so he's not as relevant to TW
    Battle of Kadesh 1250 BC .. Ramesses II was constantly channelling divine magic in that battle
    According to historical records of bronze age battles, magic was a major factor. That wasn't the case in iron age battles.

    Hmm .. :neutral:

    If you strip out the magic and mythology, you're left with some very tenuous historical data

    I'm sorry but a great many scholars would disagree with you .. in many ways the bronze age offers more 'historical data' (due to the longevity of bronze, clay cuneiform tablets, etc) than the iron age (incidentally, my favourite period).


    The bronze age loses a lot of its appeal if you strip out the divine miracles and mythology.
    I would actually find a bronze age TW more immersive if it embraced the mythology and didn't pretend to be historical.
    However, I'd like to see the mythology aspect done in a more gritty "realistic" style than Warhammer

    Agree to disgree, but if you want a "Clash of the Titans", maybe CA could add that to their fantasy genre after Warhammer.

    TW: Mythology should NOT be an 'Historical Era' imho

    my2bob
    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, 1572 – 1631, Meditation 17)
  • EpamonidasEpamonidas Posts: 8Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    I really wouldn't want to see mythology in a Bronze Age TW game featuring minotaurs and magic. There's Warhammer for people who want that. However, I think it's entirely appropriate and should be the case that if there's a Bronze Age game that it should use elements that Rome 2 did for 'magic/sorcery' and take them even further. For instance, Druidic Nobles' chant, wolf warrior's fear effect, Egypt cultists, and those witches the Suebi had.

    A bronze age game would feel odd without something like that, but as long as they're balanced and not overdone I don't see a problem with it. It might also make up for the fact that less units would have formations like Shield Screen or Hoplite Wall and so shifting some abilities over to 'support' troops would just move the micro around a bit.
  • GayansGayans Posts: 3Registered Users
    It's seems that is a part of Ireland's coast , isn't it ?
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    Yeah, it seems like the coast of Ireland which hints of a large British isles mapp. And since CA has hinted a return to a setting they have previously visited but haven't done enough justice, the only thing I can think of that fits in with the TW Saga series description is a standalone sequel to Medieval: Total War - Viking Invasion.

    Btw I think that a 11-13 century "Total War Sagas: Crusades" would be awesome. It would have to have the same scope as a general campaign of similar size as Attila. It would fit well in with the Saga concept. It would have to include a papacy feature which has been further developed from that of Medieval II with papal elections, crusades and inquisators. Feodalism could easily be described with a revised governor system from Attila were governors instead are feudal lords with some added political features such as a revised civil war feature from Rome II adapted to the Medieval world? It could even include turkish and mongol hordes moving in from the Steps in a similar to the great migrators and the huns of Attila. 4 turns per year set from say 1095 to 1290 att the latest.

    This would bring a TW Saga with a clear theme set in a medieval world on map of similar size and scope of that of Attila, that would also act as a spiritual sequel to Medieval II.
  • GayansGayans Posts: 3Registered Users
    I think maybe you're right, but why they give us a picture of Ireland and not of England ?
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    Probably to trick us
  • GayansGayans Posts: 3Registered Users
    Maybe, but what is almost sure, it's that's a part of eastern Ireland coast.
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    Yeah it will be a game set in the British Isles, that's for sure! And given CA:s description that this will be a revisit to a setting in a previous release, the only thing I can think of is either a standalone follow-up to either Viking Invasion or the Kingdoms - Britannia campaign.

    Any thoughts on a potential "Total War Sagas: Crusades" ??

    I think it's easily doable on present framework from Attila for example, and would make a good follow-up to Medieval II
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Psycho_V said:

    I'm sorry but a great many scholars would disagree with you .. in many ways the bronze age offers more 'historical data' (due to the longevity of bronze, clay cuneiform tablets, etc) than the iron age (incidentally, my favourite period).

    Cuneiform tablets were used primarily for bean-counting; people weren't recording historical events. When it comes to warfare, historians know very little about the bronze age (see the Tollense River excavations). The Armana letters provide scant details about the Trojan War; just that there were a series of conflicts in western Anatolia around that time.
    Psycho_V said:

    Agree to disgree, but if you want a "Clash of the Titans", maybe CA could add that to their fantasy genre after Warhammer.

    TW: Mythology should NOT be an 'Historical Era' imho

    Let's not exaggerate, I'm not lobbying for TW: Clash of the Titans. It's primarily a game about army-level combat and most of the monster mythology is individual hero level. In RW mythology there was only one Minotaur, so I would expect a historical bronze age game not to embellish and make a whole race of Minotaurs. For that reason alone, a Minotaur would be difficult to incorporate unless they added an "agent mini-game". Anyway, the Theseus legend predates the 1500-1000 BC period so it's a moot point. Primarily, I'd like to see a system of "divine favour" that does more than just boost public order. Miracles should be rare and possibly random (along with divine catastrophes). If they add a few monsters as window-dressing that would be fine with me, but I can understand why people would prefer not to have any monsters.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    I feel that if TW: Bronze Age were marketed as a historical title, there should be no room for magic in it whatsoever. Particularly as unit and general abilities in recent games have sadly been occupying that role already.

    BUT, TW:Mythology would be the strongest contender I can think of for a fantasy title after Warhammer. Thinking about it, I would definitely choose that over a straight historical Bronze Age game.

    History is history, though - magic and monsters have no place there unless in the socio-religious sense that we've seem faith and superstition play in previous fact-based titles. Let's not talk about Head Hurlers in RTW :D
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    BUT, TW:Mythology would be the strongest contender I can think of for a fantasy title after Warhammer. Thinking about it, I would definitely choose that over a straight historical Bronze Age game.

    Thing is, I suspect most people who'd want a TW: Mythology wouldn't want armies of Minotaurs either. The ideal would be firmly rooted in history but with a layer of RW mythology added. CA wouldn't have to advertise it as a historical title or a fantasy title, just call it TW: Bronze Age and offer the option of toggling magic and mythology on/off. This would kill 2 birds with one stone without requiring two separate titles.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    edited July 2017

    Fredrin said:

    BUT, TW:Mythology would be the strongest contender I can think of for a fantasy title after Warhammer. Thinking about it, I would definitely choose that over a straight historical Bronze Age game.

    Thing is, I suspect most people who'd want a TW: Mythology wouldn't want armies of Minotaurs either. The ideal would be firmly rooted in history but with a layer of RW mythology added. CA wouldn't have to advertise it as a historical title or a fantasy title, just call it TW: Bronze Age and offer the option of toggling magic and mythology on/off. This would kill 2 birds with one stone without requiring two separate titles.
    If you're familiar with how resistant CA are to the idea of giving a toggle option to something as rudimentary as battle speed, the idea of them making something as resource-intensive as magic/mythology toggleable all of a sudden begins to sounds quite outlandish!

    It would be cool, but it will never happen... even when leaving aside the branding headaches of having history and mythology rolled into one title.
Sign In or Register to comment.