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

The historical title

2»

Comments

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,344

    Commisar said:

    Your arguments against the Renaissance would also rule out Victoria TW.
    1. Late units are in Empire, Napoleon and Fall of the Samurai.
    2. Fall of the Samuria also covers a part of that period.
    3. 100-150 years is longer than the Victorian era, which is only 64 years long.

    1. Not quite the same timeframe. I believe Empire starts in the late 1600s/at 1700 and ends in the late 1700s/at 1800, while the Napleonic Wars ended in 1815. Victorian Era starts 2 decades later around 1837.

    2. FOTS is in Japan, which is a totally different geographic setting - so Victoria still counts as new even if it's in the timeframe as it happens in a different part of the world. Otherwise, it'd be almost impossible to make another "new" historical TW game since the games RTW 1, RTW1 Alexander, RTW1 BI & Attila TW, Attila expansions, MTW2, Shogun 1 & 2, Empire, and Napleon basically covers the timeframe of 4th century BCE to early/mid 17th century CE and 18th century CE to 19th century CE. If we go by that standard, then the only timeperiods left is pre 4th century BCE, the 20th century, and a narrow sliver of time in the 1600s (since Shogun 2 is supposed to go into the early 1600s and Empire begins in the late 1600s or at 1700).

    3. True.
    1. Might not cover the the same period (Medieval 2 didn't really cover the Ren at all either, just a few units) which Empire, Napoleon and FotS also have.

    2. Then the same can be said for the Renaissance, Medieval was set in Medieval Europe. Ren would cover a more modern Europe, North and South America, Asia and portions of Africa. That's a huge change for it which would change the game as much as FotS->Victoria but with more combat changes.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,873
    I think CA isn't too strict with the meaning of "not an age we have done".

    Medieval 2, was not a Renaissance game.

    FotS, plays in a different areas as a TW Victoria probably would be and probably also has far less time.

    Otherwise, only "bronze age" is left, since most eras for a TW China, play either during rome or medieval.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • IntranetusaIntranetusa Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 607
    edited September 2017
    Commisar said:


    2. Then the same can be said for the Renaissance, Medieval was set in Medieval Europe. Ren would cover a more modern Europe, North and South America, Asia and portions of Africa. That's a huge change for it which would change the game as much as FotS->Victoria but with more combat changes.

    Rennisance and the Pike and Warfare people want takes place almost entirely in Europe, with the small exception of colonial landgrabbing in the Americas (which was covered in MTW2 expansions and early Empire). Nobody who thinks Rennisance is going to think of Africa or Asia, and there weren't really major wars related to Europeans in Africa or Asia during that timeframe. IIRC, African and Asian incursions by Europeans happened more in the 1700s and 1800s. The largest wars during the era in those continents didn't involve Europeans, so it would be outside the scope of a "Rennisance" title and have little to do with P&S warfare.

    Eg. It'd be strange to call it Rennisance TW and then include East Asia during the Shogun 2 timeframe in Japan and then Imjin War as there would be little connection to the Renaissance and Europeans.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,344

    Commisar said:


    2. Then the same can be said for the Renaissance, Medieval was set in Medieval Europe. Ren would cover a more modern Europe, North and South America, Asia and portions of Africa. That's a huge change for it which would change the game as much as FotS->Victoria but with more combat changes.

    Rennisance and the Pike and Warfare people want takes place almost entirely in Europe, with the small exception of colonial landgrabbing in the Americas (which was covered in MTW2 expansions and early Empire). Nobody who thinks Rennisance is going to think of Africa or Asia, and there weren't really major wars related to Europeans in Africa or Asia during that timeframe. IIRC, African and Asian incursions by Europeans happened more in the 1700s and 1800s. The largest wars during the era in those continents didn't involve Europeans, so it would be outside the scope of a "Rennisance" title and have little to do with P&S warfare.

    Eg. It'd be strange to call it Rennisance TW and then include East Asia during the Shogun 2 timeframe in Japan and then Imjin War as there would be little connection to the Renaissance and Europeans.
    At the same time Victoria wasn't about large scale wars to take land. It often ended up limiting their fights. Very few fights between Europeans, only 2 really being noteworth at the Franco-Prussian war and Crimean war. Africa was still mainly land grabs and fights against a-symetrial forces and Asia was pretty much just a role over.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,873
    Commisar said:

    Commisar said:


    2. Then the same can be said for the Renaissance, Medieval was set in Medieval Europe. Ren would cover a more modern Europe, North and South America, Asia and portions of Africa. That's a huge change for it which would change the game as much as FotS->Victoria but with more combat changes.

    Rennisance and the Pike and Warfare people want takes place almost entirely in Europe, with the small exception of colonial landgrabbing in the Americas (which was covered in MTW2 expansions and early Empire). Nobody who thinks Rennisance is going to think of Africa or Asia, and there weren't really major wars related to Europeans in Africa or Asia during that timeframe. IIRC, African and Asian incursions by Europeans happened more in the 1700s and 1800s. The largest wars during the era in those continents didn't involve Europeans, so it would be outside the scope of a "Rennisance" title and have little to do with P&S warfare.

    Eg. It'd be strange to call it Rennisance TW and then include East Asia during the Shogun 2 timeframe in Japan and then Imjin War as there would be little connection to the Renaissance and Europeans.
    At the same time Victoria wasn't about large scale wars to take land. It often ended up limiting their fights. Very few fights between Europeans, only 2 really being noteworth at the Franco-Prussian war and Crimean war. Africa was still mainly land grabs and fights against a-symetrial forces and Asia was pretty much just a role over.
    Well as german I could name you just 2 more.... (danish-german and austria-prussian)
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,344
    edited September 2017
    SiWI said:

    At the same time Victoria wasn't about large scale wars to take land. It often ended up limiting their fights. Very few fights between Europeans, only 2 really being noteworth at the Franco-Prussian war and Crimean war. Africa was still mainly land grabs and fights against a-symetrial forces and Asia was pretty much just a role over.

    Well as german I could name you just 2 more.... (danish-german and austria-prussian)

    Danish - German (was 2 wars by my search) would actually be a casualty rate a TW games armies can cover. But even then comapred to the Franco-Prussian and Crimean they are tiny wars. Would compare them to all the little fights Europeans put in around the world during the Ren.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,873
    Commisar said:

    SiWI said:

    At the same time Victoria wasn't about large scale wars to take land. It often ended up limiting their fights. Very few fights between Europeans, only 2 really being noteworth at the Franco-Prussian war and Crimean war. Africa was still mainly land grabs and fights against a-symetrial forces and Asia was pretty much just a role over.

    Well as german I could name you just 2 more.... (danish-german and austria-prussian)
    Danish - German (was 2 wars by my search) would actually be a casualty rate a TW games armies can cover. But even then comapred to the Franco-Prussian and Crimean they are tiny wars. Would compare them to all the little fights Europeans put in around the world during the Ren.

    well I was referring to the one of the "trilogy" that led to the unification of germany.
    Casualty rates were never a concern for TW, otherwise they never made the battle of cannae.
    And little is relative.
    For the danish, it was one of the defining moments in they history, for germans the prologue to one theirs.
    Scale wise we are talking still about 48K men in one battle. Not sure that really compares to the assumed skirmishes of Europeans during Ren.
    Not that it really matters, since CA never try to recreate an age one by one, but just use a starting setting promising for a Sandbox.
    There both Victoria and Ren are fine choices.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,344
    SiWI said:

    Commisar said:

    SiWI said:

    At the same time Victoria wasn't about large scale wars to take land. It often ended up limiting their fights. Very few fights between Europeans, only 2 really being noteworth at the Franco-Prussian war and Crimean war. Africa was still mainly land grabs and fights against a-symetrial forces and Asia was pretty much just a role over.

    Well as german I could name you just 2 more.... (danish-german and austria-prussian)
    Danish - German (was 2 wars by my search) would actually be a casualty rate a TW games armies can cover. But even then comapred to the Franco-Prussian and Crimean they are tiny wars. Would compare them to all the little fights Europeans put in around the world during the Ren.
    well I was referring to the one of the "trilogy" that led to the unification of germany.
    Casualty rates were never a concern for TW, otherwise they never made the battle of cannae.
    And little is relative.
    For the danish, it was one of the defining moments in they history, for germans the prologue to one theirs.
    Scale wise we are talking still about 48K men in one battle. Not sure that really compares to the assumed skirmishes of Europeans during Ren.
    Not that it really matters, since CA never try to recreate an age one by one, but just use a starting setting promising for a Sandbox.
    There both Victoria and Ren are fine choices.

    I was more comparing it to the 2 I mentioned casualty rate wise. For the time period it was a small war and supports my point that fighting in Europe wasn't that big or common.

    During the Ren when a nation would stuggle to muster 48K men? Yeah having thousands in Afria/Asia/South America is relevent and of course brought huge amounts of wealth to Europe.

    I haven't got a problem with Victoria, just think writing of the Ren because it was focused mainly on Europe (which it wasn't) and because there's been a few units in other games doesn't hold when mores been done for Victoria so far.

    Should say personally I don't see the current province system working well for either time period, really hope they scrap it for the historic games.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,873
    Well CA could take this as advantage:

    limiting the fighting in Europe to some extend till the "GREAT WAR" meter is full and then go into "War to end all Wars" Mode and unrestricted fighting in europe.

    But likely CA would simply ignore that the same way you could annex in Napoleon easy, despite that not really happening in the end.

    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,344
    edited September 2017
    SiWI said:

    Well CA could take this as advantage:

    limiting the fighting in Europe to some extend till the "GREAT WAR" meter is full and then go into "War to end all Wars" Mode and unrestricted fighting in europe.

    But likely CA would simply ignore that the same way you could annex in Napoleon easy, despite that not really happening in the end.

    Do you see the army caps remaining? I do see this as a possible issue for another TW covering more of the world. Although that could work if it's limited to Europe, and would allow better balance. Victoria did see the ability to stomp a lot of the world. Then have campaign packs cover the other wars: US civil war, Opium wars and so on.
  • IntranetusaIntranetusa Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 607
    Commisar said:


    Do you see the army caps remaining? I do see this as a possible issue for another TW covering more of the world. Although that could work if it's limited to Europe, and would allow better balance. Victoria did see the ability to stomp a lot of the world. Then have campaign packs cover the other wars: US civil war, Opium wars and so on.

    The army caps/requirement of generals to lead each army is very annoying. But it is a jerry rigged solution to the problem of the terrible campaign AI splitting their armies into a hundred tiny pieces and creating armies with only 1-2 units - which is even more annoying. Until CA develops a half competent campaign AI that can create coherent, united armies and full stacks, I don't see them getting rid of army caps.


    It'd be tricky to cover anything related to the Qing in a Victoria TW game.

    1) Covering the Opium Wars without sensitivity might get the game banned in China (a decently sized market for games).
    2) I'd imagine stomping a significantly technologically inferior army with a weak unit rooster from a giant crumbling faction with its population half hooked on drugs wouldn't be much of a challenge. If I want asymmetrical warfare in Victoria TW, I'd prefer the British invasion of Zululands.
    3) I also see it presenting too many scope creep challenges considering the size of the Qing Empire, which is 40x the size of Japan....and how many different European factions were involved in some way shape or form, etc.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,873
    Commisar said:

    SiWI said:

    Well CA could take this as advantage:

    limiting the fighting in Europe to some extend till the "GREAT WAR" meter is full and then go into "War to end all Wars" Mode and unrestricted fighting in europe.

    But likely CA would simply ignore that the same way you could annex in Napoleon easy, despite that not really happening in the end.

    Do you see the army caps remaining? I do see this as a possible issue for another TW covering more of the world. Although that could work if it's limited to Europe, and would allow better balance. Victoria did see the ability to stomp a lot of the world. Then have campaign packs cover the other wars: US civil war, Opium wars and so on.
    No I didn't.

    TW Wh doesn't have them.

    At least no hard ones.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 305
    It's gonna be late 19th century (after 1881) and early 20th (without Nazis). I am not very interested in the period, I'd prefer Assyria, Napoleon or Louis XIV, but the hints have been clear. T
    he period is very trendy with the 100 anniversary of WW1 and Battlefield's game.

    Bronze Age and China won't be popular enough, so the only somewhat strong candidate is Renaissance, but I doubt it.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • Lin_HuichiLin_Huichi Registered Users Posts: 430
    I would prefer a Far East Asia setting with the Mongols and Genghis Khan. But really I don't care too much about the setting or period. What I really want to see is a better army management system, no more locked to one general armies, and a more fleshed out building system, with more options. Too much streamlining is just irritating to me and it doesn't justify the cost of the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.