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 – Q&A

CA_WhelanCA_Whelan Posts: 677Registered Users, Moderators, Administrators, CA Staff, Community Team
Hi guys, after the announce of our new Total War Saga range of games this week, we thought we’d answer a few clarifying questions we’ve seen popping up in different places.

Is this the next major historical game?

We think of ‘major’ meaning a triple-A, era-based game like ROME II or EMPIRE; a next big step in the franchise. So no, Total War Saga games are not that, they are spin-offs of previous games, like Fall of the Samurai.

However, our first Total War Saga will be released before the next major historical game. It’s being developed by a completely independent team lead by Jack Lusted and is separate from the next major game’s development.

You can think of us as having 3 different types of standalone Total War game:

Eras (massive major releases in the series)
Characters (spin-offs from Eras based on famous historical individuals)
Sagas (spin-offs from Eras based on pivotal historical events)

Is this a campaign DLC for Rome II or Attila?

No, this is a stand-alone title with the amount of content you would expect from any other stand-alone Total War game. It will be available for purchase on its own and does not require you to own any other Total War games.


Is this a mini campaign or a full sized Total War title?

It’s a stand-alone Total War title, it just focusses on a specific succinct moment in history as opposed to a massive era or certain character.

Are Total War Saga games going the be the same price as a major Total War game?

Prices will depend on retailers, but we expect them to be in line with other standalones we’ve done in the past. Like Fall of the Samurai, Attila and Napoleon.


Do I have to own a previous Total War game to play the upcoming Total War Saga title?

No, you can play the upcoming Total War Saga game without owning any previous Total War title.

Is this game one episode in a series, or is it completely stand-alone?

Total War Saga games are merely a type of Total War title that share a common scope, level of detail and focus. They are not in any way episodes of a larger series.

Are you going to change the names of Attila and Napoleon?

No, those are character-focussed (see first question), we imagine we will do more of those in the future. Total War Saga games are about pivotal moments that don’t have a strong character, like Fall of the Samurai, which we may revisit the name of to help it sit alongside future releases.
«13

Comments

  • ShermanSherman Member Posts: 843Registered Users

    Before say something about the price I have to see the amount of uniqueness and contents of this title, but considering that I expect only a little modified warscape game that can't be too different from Attila or Rome II, I hope the price will be "right"
  • kinjokinjo Senior Member Posts: 1,609Registered Users
    All I have to say is the year 1066 seems like it would be a perfect fit for a Saga title.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 2,985Registered Users
    Will the approaching game be using the latest in CA's graphics technology? i.e. Will it use Warhammer graphics and modelling?
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,063Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    @CA_Whelan Its still related to Roman Era but before Attila's timeframe, right?

    -----------
    How about the upcoming campaign dlc?

    Any updates about this project?
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • ArgonArgon Senior Member ItalyPosts: 1,428Registered Users
    If I remember correctly the price for TW Attila was € 49.99. If the content is nearly the same of any other total war is 100% fine for me.
    My favorite factions in TW titles:
    Rome 1 - House of Julii
    Medieval 2 - Milan
    Empire - England
    Napoleon - France
    Shogun 2 - Tokugawa
    Rome 2 - Macedon
    Attila - Western Roman Empire
    Warhammer - Empire (Karl Franz)
  • AxelradAxelrad Senior Member Posts: 591Registered Users
    I'm really liking this, think it's a great way to have more historical Total War. I just wish we knew what period the first Saga game was focused on. I think that'd clear up a lot of unclear expectations flying around.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,063Registered Users
    Axelrad said:

    I'm really liking this, think it's a great way to have more historical Total War. I just wish we knew what period the first Saga game was focused on. I think that'd clear up a lot of unclear expectations flying around.

    Isn't Fall of Samurai the first "Saga" game?
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Posts: 478Registered Users
    Given that we in the previous thread concluded that the game will be based in the british isles, and judging by the scale, it`s probably a big british isles map, why can`t we now at least get a hint of the title and content?
  • Bura89Bura89 Senior Member Pisaurum, ItalyPosts: 594Registered Users
    Fredrin said:

    Will the approaching game be using the latest in CA's graphics technology? i.e. Will it use Warhammer graphics and modelling?

    I think I read somewhere on their blog they're using the last historical game's engine, so Rome II or Attila I guess.
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Posts: 478Registered Users
    In terms of Totl War Saga series, there could be a way to please fans craving for a Medieval III, and that would be Total War Sagas: Crusades

    Perfect setting! Allows you to go back to the era were the popes words were comparable to common law. You have a great clash of civilisations which changed course of history for many people. Perhaps starting with Urban II and his speeach in, Clermont, 1095 which launches the crusades. Perhaps include the orders, the crusades to the north etc. Then suddenly you would have grand strategy game with the flashpoint twist a la Attila
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 2,985Registered Users
    The release strategy makes a lot of sense imo. More serious history fans - i.e. those more likely to tune in for a saga as well as a major release - are more interested in attention to historical detail than state-of-the-art graphics.

    The virtue of sagas is that they can divert resources that would have gone on graphics into pure gameplay and narrative elements. It's a winner if you're more into the series for the strategy and gameplay than the flashy effects.

    My only regret is that battle gameplay in the Rome II era games is weak as hell. Specially after having put a few hundred hours into RII/Attila. But seeing as saga games are likely to use those games as their template, that's not likely to change.

    AoC showed that a fair bit can be done to reinvigorate campaign gameplay. But that needs to be a lot if they're going to be asking in the region of 40/50 quid a game.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 16,211Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    edited July 2017
    jamreal18 said:

    Axelrad said:

    I'm really liking this, think it's a great way to have more historical Total War. I just wish we knew what period the first Saga game was focused on. I think that'd clear up a lot of unclear expectations flying around.

    Isn't Fall of Samurai the first "Saga" game?
    Not really. Alexander, from Rome I, might fit the catagory as it has been defined. The Kingdoms game for Medieval II would certainly be in the running. It had four scenarios for different time periods. Also, the Mongol Invasion for Shogun I could probably be billed as one.
    "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
  • AxelradAxelrad Senior Member Posts: 591Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    dge1 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Axelrad said:

    I'm really liking this, think it's a great way to have more historical Total War. I just wish we knew what period the first Saga game was focused on. I think that'd clear up a lot of unclear expectations flying around.

    Isn't Fall of Samurai the first "Saga" game?
    Not really. Alexander, from Rome I, might fit the catagory as it has been defined. The Kingdoms game for Medieval II would certainly be in the running. It had four scenarios for different time periods. Also, the Mongol Invasion for Shogun I could probably be billed as one.
    Agreed. Though if you want to get really picky, you could slide Alexander into the character focused stuff like Napoleon and Attila. And those were also all on much smaller, campaign-pack scales. It sounds from the info so far like they want this Saga series to be more on the scale of Attila (which kind of has me wondering if the Saga titles will have their own DLC and expansion content...I wouldn't mind that, but I know so many people flip out at the idea.) It's all retroactive semantics anyway, what I was getting at is the lack of knowledge about this first game being billed as a "Saga."

    People are already saying it's pretty much confirmed to take place in Ireland, but that's just based on a single image that may or may not mean anything. The only thing we know for sure about this flashpoint is that it's somewhat close to the Roman period. That's such a wide open field of possibilities.
  • CereticCeretic Junior Member Posts: 8Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    ESKEHL said:

    Given that we in the previous thread concluded that the game will be based in the british isles, and judging by the scale, it`s probably a big british isles map, why can`t we now at least get a hint of the title and content?

    Dates for your diaries

    43 - Aulus Plautius invades Britain
    410 - Rescript Honorius - the independence of Roman Britain
    449 - Adventum Saxonum - the coming of the Saxons
    516 - Bellum in Mons Badonicus - the battle of Badon Hill

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,063Registered Users
    dge1 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Axelrad said:

    I'm really liking this, think it's a great way to have more historical Total War. I just wish we knew what period the first Saga game was focused on. I think that'd clear up a lot of unclear expectations flying around.

    Isn't Fall of Samurai the first "Saga" game?
    Not really. Alexander, from Rome I, might fit the catagory as it has been defined. The Kingdoms game for Medieval II would certainly be in the running. It had four scenarios for different time periods. Also, the Mongol Invasion for Shogun I could probably be billed as one.
    Alexander is based on a person, not an event...
  • Bura89Bura89 Senior Member Pisaurum, ItalyPosts: 594Registered Users
    dge1 said:

    Not really. Alexander, from Rome I, might fit the catagory as it has been defined.

    It's more like Barbarian Invasion, Alexander could fit better in the "character" focussed titles.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 16,211Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    jamreal18 said:

    dge1 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Axelrad said:

    I'm really liking this, think it's a great way to have more historical Total War. I just wish we knew what period the first Saga game was focused on. I think that'd clear up a lot of unclear expectations flying around.

    Isn't Fall of Samurai the first "Saga" game?
    Not really. Alexander, from Rome I, might fit the catagory as it has been defined. The Kingdoms game for Medieval II would certainly be in the running. It had four scenarios for different time periods. Also, the Mongol Invasion for Shogun I could probably be billed as one.
    Alexander is based on a person, not an event...
    Bura89 said:

    dge1 said:

    Not really. Alexander, from Rome I, might fit the catagory as it has been defined.

    It's more like Barbarian Invasion, Alexander could fit better in the "character" focussed titles.
    You're probably right about Alexander. I was looking more at the timeframe and the Persian war than just one person.
    "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: 478Registered Users
    Ceretic said:



    Dates for your diaries

    43 - Aulus Plautius invades Britain
    410 - Rescript Honorius - the independence of Roman Britain
    449 - Adventum Saxonum - the coming of the Saxons
    516 - Bellum in Mons Badonicus - the battle of Badon Hill

    You forgot one year: 865 - The great heathen army
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Posts: 478Registered Users
    I seriously think that a good idea would be a port of Imperator Augustus to Attila. It would fit well in with all the new features and give some of the fans what they want; playing as the roman empire in early imperial period.

    What do you guys think?
  • ShermanSherman Member Posts: 843Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    jamreal18 said:

    Axelrad said:

    I'm really liking this, think it's a great way to have more historical Total War. I just wish we knew what period the first Saga game was focused on. I think that'd clear up a lot of unclear expectations flying around.

    Isn't Fall of Samurai the first "Saga" game?
    No, the Q&A made it clearly. Fall of Samurai was a stand-alone expansion for Shogun 2 (It was linked directly to Shogun 2 even if Stand alone, I liked this) focused on the Boshin War.
    TW: Sagas games will be something build with the same philosophy, but only from now this is an official way to publish new stand alone games.

    EDIT: I read now that now in the last lines of this Q&A that they maybe will change the game (I interpreted differently from the previous thread)... however even if Fall of the Samurai is stand alone, is linked to Shogun 2... I'm curious if these sagas will be linked in some way to their main "eras" games.
  • cidas61cidas61 Junior Member Posts: 21Registered Users
    What is the plan for multiplayer ?
    same medieval2 rome2 atilla empire or napolyon
    or same shogun
    or unknown type
  • waly8724waly8724 Junior Member Posts: 17Registered 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?
  • MachTurtleMachTurtle Posts: 4Registered Users
    dge1 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Axelrad said:

    I'm really liking this, think it's a great way to have more historical Total War. I just wish we knew what period the first Saga game was focused on. I think that'd clear up a lot of unclear expectations flying around.

    Isn't Fall of Samurai the first "Saga" game?
    Not really. Alexander, from Rome I, might fit the catagory as it has been defined. The Kingdoms game for Medieval II would certainly be in the running. It had four scenarios for different time periods. Also, the Mongol Invasion for Shogun I could probably be billed as one.
    Nah, Alexander would have to be more of a character driven spin-off. They haven't renamed Fall of the Samurai yet but they said they were considering it.
  • thewhiteindianthewhiteindian Senior Member Posts: 418Registered Users
    Every Saga has at least a few main or central characters.

    Maybe it's the Early Roman Republic culminating in the Pyhrric War. Or the end of the Middle Republic and the Mithridatic wars. But both have very central characters. Which rules Alexander out... Maybe its the years of the "Five Good Emperors", where you battle Caledonians, Germans and Parthians and manage a massive unified Roman Empire.

    I'd like too see Mithridatic Wars, personally. So many diverse Pontic units, weird, Pirate vessels and beautifully redone High-Marian legionaries, siege works, sieges themselves for that matter, and UI and political system that counteracts intrigue from inside the senate and outside from Mithridatic agents.

    If they do the "Five Good Emperors", the would split up territory, time and campaigns, so you wouldn't manage the entirety of the Empire. It would be broken up like Napoleon's campaigns.

    I wouldn't mind any campaign like "The Last Roman", that expands on campaign logistics like DeI did. Supply routes foraging, winter quarters. All of that in a vastly more detailed and expanded environment.

    If these sagas are going to lie sometime between the Persian Wars and Charlemagne I think everyone would be pretty happy to buy theses campaigns as stand alone titles if CA continued to update the framework for Rome II and Attila. Sagas won't be built from scratch and now we see W2 coupling with W, most people playing DeI anyway, why doesn't CA revisit both tittles (Rome II and Attila) and give the players who they want.
  • thewhiteindianthewhiteindian Senior Member Posts: 418Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    Ceretic said:

    ESKEHL said:

    Given that we in the previous thread concluded that the game will be based in the british isles, and judging by the scale, it`s probably a big british isles map, why can`t we now at least get a hint of the title and content?

    Dates for your diaries

    43 - Aulus Plautius invades Britain
    410 - Rescript Honorius - the independence of Roman Britain
    449 - Adventum Saxonum - the coming of the Saxons
    516 - Bellum in Mons Badonicus - the battle of Badon Hill


    Agricola's conquest of Britain willl definitely (be a Saga) - he's a major character, historian, ethnographer, general but isn't the focus of the campaign, never assumed the purple, average person might think your talking about a string bean if you said Agricola. CA will use him and the conquest of Britain
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,063Registered Users
    edited July 2017
    @thewhiteindian The Five Good Emperors is really a nice idea but what will be the playable factions in this game?

    https://historyloversdelight.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/the-five-good-emperors-romes-golden-age/

    It's called the golden age of Rome...


    Also the Crisis of 3rd Century is also interesting but I wonder which factions are playable....
    ----------------

    Regarding the Mini Campaign



    Wars of the Roman Republic

    Roman-Etruscan Wars
    Roman–Latin wars
    Roman-Hernician wars
    Roman-Volscian wars
    Samnite Wars
    Pyrrhic War
    Punic Wars (First, Second, Third)***(Hannibal at the Gates)
    Macedonian Wars (Illyrian, First Macedonian, Second Macedonian, Seleucid, Third Macedonian, Fourth Macedonian)
    Jugurthine War
    Cimbrian War
    Servile Wars (First,Second, Third)
    Social War
    Civil wars of Lucius Cornelius Sulla (First, Second)
    Mithridatic Wars (First, Second, Third)
    Gallic Wars ***(Caesar in Gaul)
    Caesar's invasions of Britain
    Julius Caesar's civil war
    End of the Republic (Post-Caesarian, Liberators', Sicilian, Fulvia's, Final)


    Wars of the Roman Empire


    Germanic Wars (Marcomannic, Alamannic, Gothic, Visigothic)
    Wars in Britain
    Wars of Boudica
    Armenian War
    Civil War of 69
    Jewish-Roman Wars
    Domitian's Dacian War
    Trajan's Dacian Wars
    Parthian Wars
    Persian Wars
    Civil Wars of the Third Century
    Wars of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • thewhiteindianthewhiteindian Senior Member Posts: 418Registered Users
    @jamreal18 --Factions would be Macromanni, Quadi, Picts, Parthians and Armenians. And I think it would be very much a combo of LR and CiG, where you have a massive frontier and a Roman faction that has a few small perimeter cities and horde/armies in the form of "Hives" with a main body armies, auxiliaries and cavalry, supply trains, slavers, traders, prostitutes and scouts emanating from the Hive/Legion across a frontier that houses multiple legions that make contact with the enemy and engage in a wars of attrition, while you research battle technlogy, logistics, economy and realpolitik to suppress tribes. All the while be pushed towards major scripted battles
    Same would go for Agricola, first suppressing Boudica rebellion, then continuing on to conquer Britain
    Jewish War is another good candidate.
    The Sulla and Marian Civil Wars

    I still think the Mithridates Wars would be by far the most interesting. Think HatG but Eastern Mediterranean, lots of new units, Legions vs Phalanx, siege and naval technlogy with upgraded mechanics , there are enough characters and events in the late 2nd century & early 1st BC on the Roman side to balance a Mithridates. After all, he looses, and there is Sulla and Marius factions in the Roman circus during all this leading into their civil war.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,063Registered Users
    @thewhiteindian

    If it's Five Good Emperor's Period....

    Here are the battles Romans fought at that time...

    ****You forgot Dacia....

    2nd century

    First Dacian War (101-102)
    101 – Second Battle of Tapae – Trajan defeats Decebalus, with heavy losses.
    102 – Battle of Adamclisi - Roman forces led by Trajan annihilate a mixed Dacian-Roxolano-Sarmatae army, with heavy casualties on the Roman side.

    Second Dacian War (105-106)
    106 – Battle of Sarmisegetusa – A Roman army led by Trajan conquers and destroys the Dacian capital. Part of Dacia is annexed to the Roman Empire.

    Roman-Persian Wars [1]
    114-117 – Trajan invades Parthia and occupies Ctesiphon.
    161-165 – Roman–Parthian War — Vologases IV invades Armenia, but is pushed back and Ctesiphon is sacked.
    195-197 – Septimus Severus invades, sacks Ctesiphon, and acquires northern Mesopotamia.

    Kitos War (115-117)

    Second Jewish Revolt (132-135)

    Marcomannic Wars (166-180)
    170 – Battle of Carnuntum – Marcomannic King Ballomar defeats the Roman Army and invade Italy.
    178-179 – Praetorian Prefect Teratenius Paternus defeats the Quadi.
    179 or 180 – Battle of Laugaricio – Marcus Valerius Maximianus defeats the Quadi in Slovakia.
  • SornSorn Posts: 1Registered Users
    Sherman said:

    I hope the price will be "right"

    The price'll be 60$, no doubt there. They've said again and again they view this as another big title, just focused on a smaller area geographically or chronologically so expect big title prices.

    I feel your pain here, even Rome2, which only really came alive once Mods were put in place, doesn't 'feel' worth the price without those mods and titles haven't got any more meaty in the interim. I think they're missing their market here. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think people like me would prefer choice and depth over animations and art.

  • waly8724waly8724 Junior Member Posts: 17Registered Users
    I think that something I would have to do is add the characteristics of Attila to Rome II. A new campaign of Rome II without those characteristics is not worth.
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.