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

1234689

Comments

  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    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.

    TW forum posters misrepresent the population of gamers who actually lay awake worrying about whether the next TW will be purely historical or purely fantasy. Most people aren't bothered by magical events like Votive Offerings etc. in Rome 2, so ramping up the magic level for bronze age should be fine. Like you said, the Agent and General abilities are already essentially magic.

    A toggle option might be difficult to game-balance, but it sounds like they're doing something similar with Regional Occupation in TW:WH2.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    It's not something that keeps me up at night, but I think it's fair to say that "magic abilities" (as they were nicknamed) were never that popular in a historical context because they felt a bit too... well, like magic.

    And if you don't think it would present many branding/marketing difficulties to merge history and fantasy in one title, then I think you're nuts personally. "Historical authenticity" is central to that part of CA's offering. You can't just add make-believe sprinkles and expect people to be happy with that.

    As I said earlier, though - a TW: Mythology game that treated the source material sensitively and intelligently could make for a fantastic game, if extremely difficult to pull off.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    It's not something that keeps me up at night, but I think it's fair to say that "magic abilities" (as they were nicknamed) were never that popular in a historical context because they felt a bit too... well, like magic.

    I thought the magical abilities added quite a lot to gameplay, and represented the leadership qualities of great generals. Hannibal claimed to be channelling Hercules IRL. Players who prefer to believe that Hercules wasn't really a demigod can just treat Hannibal's magical abilities as a battlefield abstraction of his natural leadership skills.
    Fredrin said:

    And if you don't think it would present many branding/marketing difficulties to merge history and fantasy in one title, then I think you're nuts personally. "Historical authenticity" is central to that part of CA's offering. You can't just add make-believe sprinkles and expect people to be happy with that.

    Anyone who thinks TW games are "historically authentic" is nuts; the format isn't conducive to anything more than abstraction. They are close enough to real history to facilitate immersion by people with a casual knowledge of the history, but CA takes many liberties. Once you start looking closely at the actual history it doesn't hold up.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    edited July 2017


    Anyone who thinks TW games are "historically authentic" is nuts; the format isn't conducive to anything more than abstraction. They are close enough to real history to facilitate immersion by people with a casual knowledge of the history, but CA takes many liberties. Once you start looking closely at the actual history it doesn't hold up.

    I put "historically authentic" in commas as that's the stock phrase CA use to describe their games - i.e. as opposed to "historically accurate", which as you rightly say is simply not achievable in a TW game.

    Anyway, people have different capacities for suspension of disbelief. Yours appear to be quite high and can tolerate magical abilities and such without it affecting how immersed you are in the game. I personally find that things like that affect the extent to which I can get immersed in a historical setting pretty badly. People who argue against magic abilities were never arguing for pure historical accuracy - more so, intelligent game mechanics that didn't strain the limits of their belief quite as clumsily as the ones currently on offer.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    Anyway, people have different capacities for suspension of disbelief. Yours appear to be quite high and can tolerate magical abilities and such without it affecting how immersed you are in the game. I personally find that things like that affect the extent to which I can get immersed in a historical setting pretty badly. People who argue against magic abilities were never arguing for pure historical accuracy - more so, intelligent game mechanics that didn't strain the limits of their belief quite as clumsily as the ones currently on offer.

    I suspect one's ability to suspend disbelief depends on one's religious belief, and/or belief in the potential of the human mind. I would describe myself as Agnostic, but I want all the mythology to be true because it's entertaining. I could see how someone who's a militant atheist might have difficulty accepting magical abilities, even abstract buffs/de-buffs like Rome 2's.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    I don't think it's so much about religious belief personally (I'm 99.9% atheist, 0.1% agnostic myself).

    I apply a pretty similar critique to games as I do to film and literature. The reader/viewer/gamer always knows deep down that what they're experiencing is fiction, but the quality of the game/book/film lies in how effectively it can convince them otherwise.

    It's natural for the human mind to try and subconsciously pick apart the fiction, but really good art will stand up to that scrutiny and keep them immersed. I think atheists and religious people can appreciate stuff that achieves that equally and by and large for similar reasons.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    I don't think it's so much about religious belief personally (I'm 99.9% atheist, 0.1% agnostic myself).

    I apply a pretty similar critique to games as I do to film and literature. The reader/viewer/gamer always knows deep down that what they're experiencing is fiction, but the quality of the game/book/film lies in how effectively it can convince them otherwise.

    It's natural for the human mind to try and subconsciously pick apart the fiction, but really good art will stand up to that scrutiny and keep them immersed. I think atheists and religious people can appreciate stuff that achieves that equally and by and large for similar reasons.

    What I meant was that a religious or agnostic player might be better able to suspend disbelief when "historical magic" is added to a "historical game" (at least compared to a diehard atheist). Most of the magical events in Rome 2 could be explained by weather etc., and even a General's magical abilities could be chalked up to abstract command effects (e.g. is Hannibal really channelling Hercules to cause Fear personally, or is he inspiring his troops to a level of ferocity that causes fear). The subtle magic in Rome 2 fits the beliefs of the period IMO. A bronze age game would need more overt magic and divine intervention to really capture the beliefs of that period.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users

    Fredrin said:

    I don't think it's so much about religious belief personally (I'm 99.9% atheist, 0.1% agnostic myself).

    I apply a pretty similar critique to games as I do to film and literature. The reader/viewer/gamer always knows deep down that what they're experiencing is fiction, but the quality of the game/book/film lies in how effectively it can convince them otherwise.

    It's natural for the human mind to try and subconsciously pick apart the fiction, but really good art will stand up to that scrutiny and keep them immersed. I think atheists and religious people can appreciate stuff that achieves that equally and by and large for similar reasons.

    What I meant was that a religious or agnostic player might be better able to suspend disbelief when "historical magic" is added to a "historical game" (at least compared to a diehard atheist). Most of the magical events in Rome 2 could be explained by weather etc., and even a General's magical abilities could be chalked up to abstract command effects (e.g. is Hannibal really channelling Hercules to cause Fear personally, or is he inspiring his troops to a level of ferocity that causes fear). The subtle magic in Rome 2 fits the beliefs of the period IMO. A bronze age game would need more overt magic and divine intervention to really capture the beliefs of that period.
    I see what you're getting at and definitely agree it has the ingredients of a cool game mechanic. The idea would basically not to depict mythic elements in their literal form, but to convey their psychological perception in your troops/characters.

    The difficulty comes when translating that into actual mechanics in a way that doesn't make them function very much like magic does in Warhammer. For me personally, the whole system of "magic abilities" was very mechanical and contrived. Levelling up Fear 1-5, activating it like a spell, waiting for cooldown. It's very standard game design, which is probably why CA did it, but I found it detracted a lot from the whole authenticity of the setting.

    I agree, though, the power of religious fervour and heroism on the battlefield were massive parts of Bronze Age warfare, so any game set in that period would need to find a convincing way of depicting them. I think we part ways when you say that Rome II provided an effective way of doing that.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    I see what you're getting at and definitely agree it has the ingredients of a cool game mechanic. The idea would basically not to depict mythic elements in their literal form, but to convey their psychological perception in your troops/characters.

    The difficulty comes when translating that into actual mechanics in a way that doesn't make them function very much like magic does in Warhammer. For me personally, the whole system of "magic abilities" was very mechanical and contrived. Levelling up Fear 1-5, activating it like a spell, waiting for cooldown. It's very standard game design, which is probably why CA did it, but I found it detracted a lot from the whole authenticity of the setting.

    I agree, though, the power of religious fervour and heroism on the battlefield were massive parts of Bronze Age warfare, so any game set in that period would need to find a convincing way of depicting them. I think we part ways when you say that Rome II provided an effective way of doing that.

    Rome 2 magical abilities were all psychological so they weren't too intrusive IMO despite the gamey cool-down mechanic. When wizards are throwing around fireballs it's a different story, but the Warhammer magic system fits that setting. A bronze age god/magic system would have to be more epic than Rome 2 but without feeling too much like a fantasy game.

    Only magic and miracles that were documented historically should be included, IMO. Most of them could possibly be chalked up to psychological or natural effects. Even parting water or turning sticks to snakes could probably be explained by natural phenomena, but these miracles should be animated in-game as a bronze age bicameral mind might have perceived them. They would generally be one-off miracles occurring on the campaign map, or very occasionally in a battle, and have an element of randomness. Personally I think miracles should be tied to divine favour/disfavour and the gods should be actual characters in the diplomacy menu.

    In terms of heroic warriors, something along the lines of TW:WH Empire Captains would probably around the minimum combat capability for independent characters. Anything weaker than that, and CA might as well just put them in a bodyguard unit like standard TW.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 1,165Registered Users
    I think it's clear that ca introduces saga to generate spin offs for best sellers like Rome 2 and medieval 2. Products where a lot of demand still exists in the community and already have shown there business potential. CA's CEO already stated that there will never be a number 3 cycle like medieval 3 although a lot of customers are asking for it. Saga is one of the solutions for ca to fill in this demand. Little marketing effort and production capacity is needed to generate a reasonable amount of sales for already proven concepts. In my opinion therefor a Bronze Age will not happen in the near future as part of saga. The part of the map shown by ca also shows which direction this saga is going. I'm only glad that ca has evolved it's business strategy and that we will see more historical and fantasy products from ca. Basically the only games I play next to paradox.

  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    LESAMA said:

    CA's CEO already stated that there will never be a number 3 cycle like medieval 3 although a lot of customers are asking for it. Saga is one of the solutions for ca to fill in this demand. Little marketing effort and production capacity is needed to generate a reasonable amount of sales for already proven concepts. In my opinion therefor a Bronze Age will not happen in the near future as part of saga.

    True, the last couple of pages were off-topic. Bronze Age would probably not be a Saga but rather a standalone game. Wrath of Sparta is about the oldest period Rome 2 could support without re-skinning everything.

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,771Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Lighten up folks. It's a game, not metaphysical or conjective self consciousness....
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    Given that we know were the first Saga title takes place, and we can almost guess which time period it is, My question is this; how much longer do we need to wait for the official reveal?!
    Post edited by ESKEHL on
  • Psycho_VPsycho_V Registered User Posts: 513Registered Users
    LESAMA said:

    I'm only glad that ca has evolved it's business strategy

    True .. and those of us that have supported them these past 18 years hope they'll continue to do so .. alongside advances in game-play and immersion.

    I can appreciate there are many that truly love the Warhammer universe, but over reliance on an increasingly unbelievable plethora of colourful (magical) fireworks will prove a poor substitute imho.

    my2bob

    PS: You may kill my 'Zing-Bang Fire-Whoppers' and 'Crackle-Flash Ice-Swirlers' with your 'Puff-Storm Wind-Sage' ..

    .. but my 'Rumble-Splash Water-Wizard' will have vengeance with his 'MAD Terra-Forming Meat-Masher Spell of Delirious Destruction' !!! :)


    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, 1572 – 1631, Meditation 17)
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Psycho_V said:

    I can appreciate there are many that truly love the Warhammer universe, but over reliance on an increasingly unbelievable plethora of colourful (magical) fireworks will prove a poor substitute imho.

    The spells in Warhammer aren't even that spectacular or essential to gameplay. Even the monsters just look like slightly larger ants amongst the smaller ones. I would say that artillery in Empire/Napoleon has a more profound impact on battles than any fantasy spell or unit in WH.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 1,165Registered Users
    Psycho_V said:

    LESAMA said:

    I'm only glad that ca has evolved it's business strategy

    True .. and those of us that have supported them these past 18 years hope they'll continue to do so .. alongside advances in game-play and immersion.

    I can appreciate there are many that truly love the Warhammer universe, but over reliance on an increasingly unbelievable plethora of colourful (magical) fireworks will prove a poor substitute imho.

    Agreed!

    I think that all the people who post here have a warm hart for historical total war games. Probably a lot of us have been fans for a long time. Although I like warhammer and ca is pushing for more historical titles I can't help to feel a little sad that so little has been done over the past years with regard to historical titles.

    I really hope that there next titles are really improving the concept and making the campaigns more interesting overall. There have been over the past few years on the forums a lot of good ideas of how to improve this. Hell I think that a lot of fans would be more than willing for free :) to brainstorm on campaign concepts for future historical titles.
  • AvanNeriusAvanNerius Posts: 2Registered Users
    I really like this new strategy for the release of total war titles, and in my opinion, i think this saga could be about the war of the roses, last about 30 years and has a good potencial for new mechanics in diplomacy. (sorry for my english) :)
  • Psycho_VPsycho_V Registered User Posts: 513Registered Users
    edited July 2017


    The spells in Warhammer aren't even that spectacular or essential to gameplay. Even the monsters just look like slightly larger ants amongst the smaller ones. I would say that artillery in Empire/Napoleon has a more profound impact on battles than any fantasy spell or unit in WH.


    I haven't played Warhammer myself, so you may be right.

    But judging from the numerous gameplay videos, Warhammer is heavily dominated by huge balls of colourful magic swirling across the battlefield, slaughtering units and in many cases significantly changing the balance of power.

    Where Empire/Napoleon sought to represent historical facts within natural scientific law / physics, Warhammer is a suspension of the same (metaphysical fiction / make believe). For me this also suspends all sense of immersion and ultimately interest.

    I can appreciate many will love nothing more than seeing giant fire skulls and vortex spells take out half the enemy army, but imho it's overdone and merely offers a poor diversion / substitute for actual improvements to the TW franchise.
    LESAMA said:


    Agreed!

    I think that all the people who post here have a warm hart for historical total war games. Probably a lot of us have been fans for a long time. Although I like warhammer and ca is pushing for more historical titles I can't help to feel a little sad that so little has been done over the past years with regard to historical titles.

    I really hope that there next titles are really improving the concept and making the campaigns more interesting overall. There have been over the past few years on the forums a lot of good ideas of how to improve this. Hell I think that a lot of fans would be more than willing for free :) to brainstorm on campaign concepts for future historical titles.

    Yup, spot on. CA often overlook their greatest resource, their fans. Product placement devoid of customer consideration will prove a fatally flawed business model.



    my2bob


    Post edited by Psycho_V on
    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, 1572 – 1631, Meditation 17)
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    Psycho_V said:

    I haven't played Warhammer myself, so you may be right.

    But judging from the numerous gameplay videos, Warhammer is heavily dominated by huge balls of colourful magic swirling across the battlefield, slaughtering units and in many cases significantly changing the balance of power.

    Where Empire/Napoleon sought to represent historical facts within natural scientific law / physics, Warhammer is a suspension of the same (metaphysical fiction / make believe). For me this also suspends all sense of immersion and ultimately interest.

    I can appreciate many will love nothing more than seeing giant fire skulls and vortex spells take out half the enemy army, but imho it's overdone and merely offers a poor diversion / substitute for actual improvements to the TW franchise.

    You might be mistaking the arrow trails for magic spells because TW:WH made the "vapour trails" more visible, and the trail colour is different for poisoned or special arrows. There are also buffs and magic items for heroes which produce a "glowy" effect for visual recognition, so I can see how someone who hadn't played might get the impression that spells are constantly flying everywhere.

    Normally wizards only have enough magic for about 3 offensive spells during a battle, and spells only last a few seconds. If they're timed right, spells can make a difference, but you can win without wizards just as easily (maybe easier, because it's tempting to waste all your magic early when it's less effective). I've never felt the game was a fireball arms race in the same way Empire/Napoleon was an artillery arms race.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    Magic is great in a fantasy setting. I'd actually like to see more of it in Warhammer. But when it comes to a history game, it can do one.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    Fredrin said:

    Magic is great in a fantasy setting. I'd actually like to see more of it in Warhammer. But when it comes to a history game, it can do one.

    Depends on the period. Even if magic wasn't real, peoples' belief in magic often affected battlefield decisions in a very real way. e.g. The Chronicles of Henry of Livonia show that northern crusaders were very careful of spirits and magic from sacred groves in their campaigns against the Slavic pagans. Making the threat of magic real in-game is, in some ways, more "simulationist" than a purely scientific/rational approach.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users

    Fredrin said:

    Magic is great in a fantasy setting. I'd actually like to see more of it in Warhammer. But when it comes to a history game, it can do one.

    Depends on the period. Even if magic wasn't real, peoples' belief in magic often affected battlefield decisions in a very real way. e.g. The Chronicles of Henry of Livonia show that northern crusaders were very careful of spirits and magic from sacred groves in their campaigns against the Slavic pagans. Making the threat of magic real in-game is, in some ways, more "simulationist" than a purely scientific/rational approach.
    So long as it doesn't visibly look like magic, with big flashy effects and cray Starcraft-style mechanics etc... then I'm 100% down with that. Blind belief can spur people to do some pretty rad stuff. On battlefield or otherwise.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 748Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    So long as it doesn't visibly look like magic, with big flashy effects and cray Starcraft-style mechanics etc... then I'm 100% down with that. Blind belief can spur people to do some pretty rad stuff. On battlefield or otherwise.

    Something like de-buffs for being near an enemy sacred grove might work. The red dots on the unit banners in Rome 2 were pretty good visual indicators IMO, without being too flashy.

  • BillyRuffianBillyRuffian Moderator UKPosts: 36,184Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    @Psycho_V I've played quite a lot of Warhammmer, all without using magic - it's nowhere near essential. I treat magic used against me by the AI (and that's fairly rare) in the same way as the off-shore naval bombardments in FOTS - you just have to ignore the occasional over-colourful graphics. Beyond that, if you play zoomed out, it's just a matter of moving blocks of units in rock, paper, scissors mode like any other TW game.

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than illumination." (Andrew Lang)

    |Takeda| Yokota Takatoshi

    Forum Terms and Conditions: - https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest

    "We wunt be druv". iot6pc7dn8qs.png
  • GenShermanGenSherman Senior Member Posts: 572Registered Users
    This is some really good news. I have been on quite a long break from Total War ever since Warhammer was the focus, but have had the newfound urge to play Attila. So far it has turned out to be a really good game. So then I decide to come here to see if anything is happening that I might be interested in and I see this!

    Looking forward for more news and development on this. Historical TW is the only TW for me.
  • Psycho_VPsycho_V Registered User Posts: 513Registered Users

    There are also buffs and magic items for heroes which produce a "glowy" effect for visual recognition, so I can see how someone who hadn't played might get the impression that spells are constantly flying everywhere...you can win without wizards just as easily (maybe easier, because it's tempting to waste all your magic early when it's less effective). I've never felt the game was a fireball arms race.

    Ok. Yes the ascetics tends to suggests there's a whole lot going on at any given time. Being a magic minimalist (appreciating more of a LOTR style universe) it's personally off-putting.

    @Psycho_V I've played quite a lot of Warhammmer, all without using magic - it's nowhere near essential. I treat magic used against me by the AI (and that's fairly rare) in the same way as the off-shore naval bombardments in FOTS - you just have to ignore the occasional over-colourful graphics. Beyond that, if you play zoomed out, it's just a matter of moving blocks of units in rock, paper, scissors mode like any other TW game.

    Makes a little more sense, cheers mate.
    From a game-balancing perspective, maybe I've been too harsh / need to try it some time.




    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, 1572 – 1631, Meditation 17)
  • mishu_warriormishu_warrior Posts: 6Registered Users
    I think I got it!

    THAT part of Irish coast is nearby DROGHEDA! Maybe this is THE clue!

    The city, one of the few in that area, was taken by Oliver Cromwell in 1649 and it was the first city to fall in the Irish Campaign and site of a massacre of the Royalist defenders!

    So: British Civil War - turning point
    Map concentrated on one area: Britain
    New weapons and military strategies: they can't use the same as in attila or rome 2, it would be boring!!!
    The weapons of that age can be easily integrated in a total war game.
    I think they will give us the choice beetween Royalists and Parliament, so the game won't be character based...

    In my opinion the British Civil War fits CA's announcement.

    The Norman Conquest (+ DLC The Lion Heart Crusade) or the Wars of the Roses could also make sense but I think they would be too similar to attila and charlemagne! They can't make the same game if they want our money...
  • BillyRuffianBillyRuffian Moderator UKPosts: 36,184Registered Users, Moderators, Knights

    I think I got it!

    THAT part of Irish coast is nearby DROGHEDA! Maybe this is THE clue!

    The city, one of the few in that area, was taken by Oliver Cromwell in 1649 and it was the first city to fall in the Irish Campaign and site of a massacre of the Royalist defenders!

    So: British Civil War - turning point
    Map concentrated on one area: Britain
    New weapons and military strategies: they can't use the same as in attila or rome 2, it would be boring!!!
    The weapons of that age can be easily integrated in a total war game.
    I think they will give us the choice beetween Royalists and Parliament, so the game won't be character based...

    In my opinion the British Civil War fits CA's announcement.

    The Norman Conquest (+ DLC The Lion Heart Crusade) or the Wars of the Roses could also make sense but I think they would be too similar to attila and charlemagne! They can't make the same game if they want our money...

    Except that Jack said "... I can say that it’s another spiritual follow-up to Total War: ROME II, like Total War: ATTILA, and moves the time period forward in much the same way"

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than illumination." (Andrew Lang)

    |Takeda| Yokota Takatoshi

    Forum Terms and Conditions: - https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest

    "We wunt be druv". iot6pc7dn8qs.png
  • mishu_warriormishu_warrior Posts: 6Registered Users
    Ok...you are right....but "moves the time period forward in much the same way" keeps in consideration Age of Charlemagne?

    Imperator Augustus ≈ 40 B.C.
    Attila ≈ 450
    Charlemagne ≈ 800
    Cromwell ≈ 1650

    So from Augustus to Charlemagne there are ≈ 840 years
    From Charlemagne to Cromwell there are ≈ 850 years
    :smile:

    "spiritual follow-up" could mean that there is no major innovation in the game if compared to Rome 2.
Sign In or Register to comment.