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

An Update on our Upcoming Historical Releases

1678911

Comments

  • CaractacusMagnusCaractacusMagnus Senior Member Posts: 370Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    Ok I started to quote and reply but there are so many statements in the last page or so that are directly the opposite of what is the case, I'm just going to suggest people at least watch the stream and properly try the new features before they post comments that make it very, *very* obvious they haven't.

    I have been pleasantly surprised.
    I installed the beta patch this afternoon for free, and it isn't absolutely perfect (I will have some feedback) but it makes a number of quality of life improvements (yay ui scaling) and this evening's Rome II session was more slow paced, involved and interesting than usual, in a positive way. CA said in the stream they are confident this is a better system and I was sceptical, but actually the confidence is well-placed. It is.
  • simurgh559simurgh559 Junior Member New York, USAPosts: 26Registered Users

    Historical error for the upcoming "Empire Divided" DLC: Narseh was not the king of Armenia in 270 AD; he was a Sasanian prince and brother to Hormizd I while the king of Armenia was Artavasdes IV (a Sasanian vassal).

    Apparently no one has responded to my post.
    La shay' haqiqah, koulo shay' moumkin.
  • LestaTLestaT Senior Member Posts: 3,089Registered Users
    To preorder or not to preorder...... Decisions... Decisions....
  • hitman_8182hitman_8182 Member Posts: 34Registered Users
    I think CA should be focus on Empire 2 or new major historical series :*
    Updates "Empire Divided" for Rome 2 or Total war Saga are good but I prefer new major game like Empire 2 or Medieval 3 :)
  • SbygneusSbygneus Posts: 753Registered Users

    Sbygneus said:

    Sbygneus said:

    Sbygneus said:

    Sbygneus said:

    Rome again? This is unbearable. How long will we be fed with it? Seems Creative Assembly is less creative nowadays. It feels so flat.

    It feels great. No more neon spells, goblins, elves and wizard bs. It feels so great.
    You obviously misunderstood me. I also prefer historical titles. But there was't any new good one from Empire Total War on.
    Empire had vision, was something new (although buggy). Then we only got old refreshed steaks. Medieval swords, Ancient swords, Samurai Swords. So damn flat. CA has become so lazy.
    Where is pike and shot era? It has so much new type of gameply to offer. Where is whole Victorian Era? Even Stone Age era would be better than new Rome DLC.
    Is that a joke? The "samurai swords" game (Shogun 2) takes place in the 1500s (right during the Pike and Shot era in Europe) and has extensive use of guns and gunpowder weapons. Shogun 2 is a cross between Empire TW and the traditional ancient swords games. It really isn't in the same category as the other ancient sword/spear games like RTW.
    Its not a joke. They repeat the same thing all the time. 2xshoguns, 2xmedieval, 2xRome. Its not funny any more for me so no joke, sir.
    So your concern is repeating the same titles over and over again rather than having swords over and over again.
    Does metaphorical speach exist for you?
    Your point is unclear. Do you dislike the fact that most of the games are about swords/spears (as opposed to Empire or Napoleon gunpowder warfare) or do you dislike games for remaking old titles?

    Your posts are flip flopping between those two entirely separate issues.
    Why? Of course I have nothing against swords! Aren't swords present even in 19th century? My point is I would like to see new era obviously. Lets leave "swords" alone, shall we? :)
  • Ituriel32Ituriel32 Posts: 159Registered Users
    I am not very interested in the new campaign. Too few factions, too many Romans and it's not my time frame.
    I did not play too much of these reasons for August's impertory.

    If it were to give a new nation to the primary campaign, it would be a different situation.
    And I'm still waiting for my sand dunes with Numida to play.

    Changes in politics are the most important.
    Rome2 - where there are walls in smaller settlements?
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,209Registered Users

    Historical error for the upcoming "Empire Divided" DLC: Narseh was not the king of Armenia in 270 AD; he was a Sasanian prince and brother to Hormizd I while the king of Armenia was Artavasdes IV (a Sasanian vassal).

    Yeah, Narseh even invaded Armenia.
  • ManzikertManzikert Junior Member Posts: 8Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    I hope it's 16-17th centuries it fills the huge gap between the Medieval and Empire TWs and there's so much there to cover and lots of potential for extensions and DLCs: Reformation, religious wars, English civil wars, the Ottomans, the Spanish Hapsburg wars in Europe and the Americas , the Anglo-Dutch wars, the northern wars and the rise of Russia, wars of Louis XIV and of course the military revolution. Let's also not forget the Spanish inquisition and the witch-hunting craze of that would add some colourful plot elements. Also with this year the 500th anniversary of the Reformation and next year the 400th anniversary of the outbreak of the Thirty Years War it would be very timely.
  • ManzikertManzikert Junior Member Posts: 8Registered Users
    Any idea what year the new RTWII DLC ends in 300AD?
  • eXistenZ2eXistenZ2 Senior Member Posts: 579Registered Users
    Ituriel32 said:



    Changes in politics are the most important.

    You will be dissapointed
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    I have to say, the political party and secession system look very decent. But they leave a bitter taste in the mouth considering they 100% should have been there at release and we're getting them 4 years later in an afterthought FLC package. Thanks, I guess...
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 17,899Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Fredrin said:

    I have to say, the political party and secession system look very decent. But they leave a bitter taste in the mouth considering they 100% should have been there at release and we're getting them 4 years later in an afterthought FLC package. Thanks, I guess...

    Disagree a little with your premise Fredrin. I do not think this could have been introduced four years ago in a form that would have been anywhere near what it seems it will be now, nor do I think it any more complicated attempt than that which was introduced with the original release would have been accepted.

    The original release, as I'm sure you recall(!), introduced a number of new features, (armies requiring generals, limited general candidates, etc.) that were, shall we say, incomplete in nature. That said, after a few months of rework and updates, it became very playable. The additional content only made things better, especially the Imperator Augustus DLC. Given the critical nature and concensus on that game at the time, I do not think this feature would have had a chance.

    I mention all this only to say that the last four years have been a tremendous growth and learning experience for Total War game development. Out of that experience, and the input of thousands of posts detailing wishes and ideas for enhanced family features we now get the P&P update.

    Just my personal thoughts. :)
    "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
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    dge1 said:

    Fredrin said:

    I have to say, the political party and secession system look very decent. But they leave a bitter taste in the mouth considering they 100% should have been there at release and we're getting them 4 years later in an afterthought FLC package. Thanks, I guess...

    Disagree a little with your premise Fredrin. I do not think this could have been introduced four years ago in a form that would have been anywhere near what it seems it will be now, nor do I think it any more complicated attempt than that which was introduced with the original release would have been accepted.

    The original release, as I'm sure you recall(!), introduced a number of new features, (armies requiring generals, limited general candidates, etc.) that were, shall we say, incomplete in nature. That said, after a few months of rework and updates, it became very playable. The additional content only made things better, especially the Imperator Augustus DLC. Given the critical nature and concensus on that game at the time, I do not think this feature would have had a chance.

    I mention all this only to say that the last four years have been a tremendous growth and learning experience for Total War game development. Out of that experience, and the input of thousands of posts detailing wishes and ideas for enhanced family features we now get the P&P update.

    Just my personal thoughts. :)
    Fairly said and I appreciate I'm playing the role of Captain Hindsight a little in my comment above - everything seems a bit easier when you're looking four years into the past.

    The IA patch defo improved the game a lot. It basically delivered a game that was ready to play a year after its actual launch, so I'm not going to heap that much praise on it!

    I actually didn't play much of Rome II after that patch because it didn't address one of the core complaints that most old TW fans had of the game, which was that the politics system almost completely broken and it chronically lacked campaign depth. And that's pretty much the only reason why I'm a bit salty about this FLC - it stretches the old adage "better late than never" to its limit... and perhaps a bit beyond.

    I could maybe have enjoyed these changes if they'd come with the Emperor Edition patch. But since then, we've had all the awesomeness of a pretty well fleshed out campaign in Attila and the sheer scale of Warhammer. To be fair, it may be because of those games that the infrastructure for this FLC was there in the first place.

    So yes, I disagree with you to the extent that I think these changes would have been more gratefully received back in Oct 2014, but I agree that CA have been fantastic in taking on board a lot of player feedback since then which is perhaps how this update has come about at all. My inner optimist tells me this is a small taste of things to come in the major historical release, so at the very least, it's a good omen :)
  • simurgh559simurgh559 Junior Member New York, USAPosts: 26Registered Users
    jamreal18 said:

    Historical error for the upcoming "Empire Divided" DLC: Narseh was not the king of Armenia in 270 AD; he was a Sasanian prince and brother to Hormizd I while the king of Armenia was Artavasdes IV (a Sasanian vassal).

    Yeah, Narseh even invaded Armenia.
    At least someone has responded. Thank you.
    La shay' haqiqah, koulo shay' moumkin.
  • FornachiariFornachiari Junior Member Posts: 30Registered Users

    jamreal18 said:

    Historical error for the upcoming "Empire Divided" DLC: Narseh was not the king of Armenia in 270 AD; he was a Sasanian prince and brother to Hormizd I while the king of Armenia was Artavasdes IV (a Sasanian vassal).

    Yeah, Narseh even invaded Armenia.
    At least someone has responded. Thank you.
    Mira acá: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/207334/announcing-total-war-rome-ii-empire-divided/p2
    CA_Eric said:

    Amin N said:

    Dear devs,

    At this period of time (Year 270) Armenia is completely under Persian (Sassanid) rule, so why go in a non-historical direction?

    Edit: At 270 AD, King of Persia is also the Sassanid King of Armenia; Somewhere between 271 - 273 AD, his brother Narseh (which is the king they chose to go with) becomes king of Armenia, and he is also part of the Sassanid Dynasty.

    I do understand you might want to put Armenia there for flavor, but shouldn't you make them a vassal of the Persians or at least give them a diplomatic bonus with Persia instead of Rome (since the governor of Armenia was the Persian King's brother and they were under Persia). Please do answer me, I am confused.

    Thank You

    Hi Amin,

    Thanks for bringing this up and I hopefully have some answers for you.
    On the subject of how you play Armenia, we realise that in 270 AD Armenia was not independent as you say. This is why in Empire Divided when you play as Armenia you will start as a Satrap of the Sassanids. Where you choose to go from there, is up to you!

    As for who the ruler of Armenia and the Sassanids are at the time, we used “Iranica online” as our source for historical facts around this period. Specifically http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/narseh-sasanian-king

    There seems to be no exact timeline that can be agreed upon as to either when Narseh was viceroy of Armenia, or when Hormozd-Ardašir became the shahanshah – the latter ascending to the throne between 270 and 272 AD. As such, we decided to have both events occur prior to the game starting, although we accept that there could have been other possible rulers of both Armenia and the Sassanids at this time.

    Specifically the paragraphs we are referencing are:

    Narseh:

    Narseh, viceroy of the Sasanian Empire. Before his coronation as king of kings (šāhānšāh), Narseh governed two viceroyalties: in the beginning, he was viceroy of Hind(estān), Sakastān, and Turān to the Edge of the Sea (Kettenhofen, 1995, pp. 11-12; Huyse, 1999, I, sec. 34: MPers. 23, 24; Parth. 19; Gk. 42), and later, viceroy in Armenia (Humbach and Prods O. Skjærvø, III/1, secs. 3, 19). We do not know the exact time-span of both viceroyalties (Huyse, 1999, I, pp. 10-14). Šāpur I’s entrusting of this vast territory to Narseh testifies to his belief in his son’s ability to rule. As viceroy, Narseh probably played “a key role in Sasanian Eastern policy” (Alram, 2012, p. 279; Weber, 2012, pp. 160-68). In the 3rd century CE, Armenia, Narseh’s second viceroyalty, was the politically and strategically most important province of the empire. The first two Sasanian kings’ policy of western expansion was closely connected with the Armenian question and repeatedly caused military encounters between Rome and the Sasanian Empire. The small number of Western sources and the unreliability of Armenian sources (Kettenhofen, 1995, pp. 48-73) make it difficult to write a history of Armenia in the 3rd century CE (Weber, 2012, pp. 173-82).
    Hormozd-Ardašir:

    When Šāpur I passed away (270/72), Hormozd-Ardašir ascended the Sasanian throne as Hormozd I. There is no detailed information on Narseh’s appointment as Hormozd-Ardašir’s successor in Armenia. Also not clear are the circumstances of the coronation of Bahrām I, whom his father had not had in mind for succession (Huyse, 1999, I, secs. 33-34; see the chapter “Narseh’s Genealogy”). It may be assumed that only Bahrām I, after Hormozd’s early death (273), made Narseh king of Armenia in return for the latter’s giving up of his right to the throne. Narseh’s damnatio memoriae of his brother, testified to by Bahrām I’s inscription and investiture relief, may count as a late reaction to his brother’s action.
    Hopefully this answers your questions.
  • simurgh559simurgh559 Junior Member New York, USAPosts: 26Registered Users

    jamreal18 said:

    Historical error for the upcoming "Empire Divided" DLC: Narseh was not the king of Armenia in 270 AD; he was a Sasanian prince and brother to Hormizd I while the king of Armenia was Artavasdes IV (a Sasanian vassal).

    Yeah, Narseh even invaded Armenia.
    At least someone has responded. Thank you.
    Mira acá: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/207334/announcing-total-war-rome-ii-empire-divided/p2
    CA_Eric said:

    Amin N said:

    Dear devs,

    At this period of time (Year 270) Armenia is completely under Persian (Sassanid) rule, so why go in a non-historical direction?

    Edit: At 270 AD, King of Persia is also the Sassanid King of Armenia; Somewhere between 271 - 273 AD, his brother Narseh (which is the king they chose to go with) becomes king of Armenia, and he is also part of the Sassanid Dynasty.

    I do understand you might want to put Armenia there for flavor, but shouldn't you make them a vassal of the Persians or at least give them a diplomatic bonus with Persia instead of Rome (since the governor of Armenia was the Persian King's brother and they were under Persia). Please do answer me, I am confused.

    Thank You

    Hi Amin,

    Thanks for bringing this up and I hopefully have some answers for you.
    On the subject of how you play Armenia, we realise that in 270 AD Armenia was not independent as you say. This is why in Empire Divided when you play as Armenia you will start as a Satrap of the Sassanids. Where you choose to go from there, is up to you!

    As for who the ruler of Armenia and the Sassanids are at the time, we used “Iranica online” as our source for historical facts around this period. Specifically http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/narseh-sasanian-king

    There seems to be no exact timeline that can be agreed upon as to either when Narseh was viceroy of Armenia, or when Hormozd-Ardašir became the shahanshah – the latter ascending to the throne between 270 and 272 AD. As such, we decided to have both events occur prior to the game starting, although we accept that there could have been other possible rulers of both Armenia and the Sassanids at this time.

    Specifically the paragraphs we are referencing are:

    Narseh:

    Narseh, viceroy of the Sasanian Empire. Before his coronation as king of kings (šāhānšāh), Narseh governed two viceroyalties: in the beginning, he was viceroy of Hind(estān), Sakastān, and Turān to the Edge of the Sea (Kettenhofen, 1995, pp. 11-12; Huyse, 1999, I, sec. 34: MPers. 23, 24; Parth. 19; Gk. 42), and later, viceroy in Armenia (Humbach and Prods O. Skjærvø, III/1, secs. 3, 19). We do not know the exact time-span of both viceroyalties (Huyse, 1999, I, pp. 10-14). Šāpur I’s entrusting of this vast territory to Narseh testifies to his belief in his son’s ability to rule. As viceroy, Narseh probably played “a key role in Sasanian Eastern policy” (Alram, 2012, p. 279; Weber, 2012, pp. 160-68). In the 3rd century CE, Armenia, Narseh’s second viceroyalty, was the politically and strategically most important province of the empire. The first two Sasanian kings’ policy of western expansion was closely connected with the Armenian question and repeatedly caused military encounters between Rome and the Sasanian Empire. The small number of Western sources and the unreliability of Armenian sources (Kettenhofen, 1995, pp. 48-73) make it difficult to write a history of Armenia in the 3rd century CE (Weber, 2012, pp. 173-82).
    Hormozd-Ardašir:

    When Šāpur I passed away (270/72), Hormozd-Ardašir ascended the Sasanian throne as Hormozd I. There is no detailed information on Narseh’s appointment as Hormozd-Ardašir’s successor in Armenia. Also not clear are the circumstances of the coronation of Bahrām I, whom his father had not had in mind for succession (Huyse, 1999, I, secs. 33-34; see the chapter “Narseh’s Genealogy”). It may be assumed that only Bahrām I, after Hormozd’s early death (273), made Narseh king of Armenia in return for the latter’s giving up of his right to the throne. Narseh’s damnatio memoriae of his brother, testified to by Bahrām I’s inscription and investiture relief, may count as a late reaction to his brother’s action.
    Hopefully this answers your questions.

    You have answered my questions. Thank you, CA!
    La shay' haqiqah, koulo shay' moumkin.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,209Registered Users
    Saga is going to be announced!
  • PrometheusPrometheus Senior Member Posts: 765Registered Users
    When is coming Medieval III?
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 17,899Registered Users, Moderators, Knights

    When is coming Medieval III?

    Never would be my 'personal' hope....
    "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
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 9,566Registered Users
    dge1 said:

    When is coming Medieval III?

    Never would be my 'personal' hope....
    my I ask why?

    Fear that the innovations of recent years would ruin it?
    Or are you uninterested in medieval times?

    (I'm quite confident that the next major historical TW, after the one in the works would be M3, thou that means 3+ years...)
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 17,899Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    edited November 2017
    I like , and still play Medieval II. My desire,quite frankly, is for something new. A new time frame or era. while I would certainly play another rendition of the Medieval time frame I would very much prefer a Guns & Powder something, perhaps a Victoria era or late Renaissance era. Also, something in the China & SE Asia area. There was so much going on there I personally would love to see something done with it.

    Just looking for something with a different historical basis. We seem to be on a redo and reboot of stuff that has been already touched. Nothing wrong with it I suppose, and a lot of people want and would enjoy it. Certainly nothing wrong with that. I'm just hungry for something different. :)
    "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
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyPosts: 1,739Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    Pike and shot would be nice.
    Post edited by MarcusIuniusBrutus on
  • PrometheusPrometheus Senior Member Posts: 765Registered Users
    Medieval II is about time they go back on that timefram and they can include all the world this time , with several dlcs updates and soon , they coul dmilk the cow for ages there .
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonPosts: 3,012Registered Users
    dge1 said:

    I like , and still play Medieval II. My desire,quite frankly, is for something new. A new time frame or era. while I would certainly play another rendition of the Medieval time frame I would very much prefer a Guns & Powder something, perhaps a Victoria era or late Renaissance era. Also, something in the China & SE Asia area. There was so much going on there I personally would love to see something done with it.

    Just looking for something with a different historical basis. We seem to be on a redo and reboot of stuff that has been already touched. Nothing wrong with it I suppose, and a lot of people want and would enjoy it. Certainly nothing wrong with that. I'm just hungry for something different. :)

    Totally. There's so much history the series hasn't covered yet. I understand the Medieval era is extremely cool, but it is pretty amazing there is such an appetite for it being rehashed a third time without people even knowing how awesome others eras could be. Renaissance would be my number one, followed shortly by Victoria.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 9,566Registered Users
    dge1 said:

    I like , and still play Medieval II. My desire,quite frankly, is for something new. A new time frame or era. while I would certainly play another rendition of the Medieval time frame I would very much prefer a Guns & Powder something, perhaps a Victoria era or late Renaissance era. Also, something in the China & SE Asia area. There was so much going on there I personally would love to see something done with it.

    Just looking for something with a different historical basis. We seem to be on a redo and reboot of stuff that has been already touched. Nothing wrong with it I suppose, and a lot of people want and would enjoy it. Certainly nothing wrong with that. I'm just hungry for something different. :)

    I think doing new stuff will be indeed necessary for TW to survive.
    Now with WH and the new era promised, I think we seen alot of it.

    Thou I do hope that the next new era comes not after a remake of every TW (excluding WH) era before that again.

    But I do expect that after what ever the new era is, we will see M3.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,209Registered Users
    @SiWI strongly agree...

    Does everyone knows what is the most requested era?

    I believe its Medieval
  • CapnBCapnB Posts: 1Registered Users
    MrJade said:

    SiWI said:

    If we would be talking about a napoleon or a future TW Victoria DLC, yes, but otherwise I don't see a conflict from "just" 2 nation that good as TW martial.

    I still fully expect the next historical game to be 1830-1930 and will include expansion for the Opium Wars/Boxer Rebellion, American Civil War, the Crimean War, and World War I. ACW would have the hardest time being justified honestly, as it wouldn't unlock new factions on the grand campaign unless it allowed you to start "rebellious governments" akin to changing government types like in Empire. The Opium Wars would certainly let CA add in China, India, and other SE Asian countries if not in at launch, Crimean War allows for the creation of new Balkan and Eastern European nations, and World War I would be an amazing self-included campaign akin to Charlemagne.
    As someone who played all the Total War Games up to Fall of the Samurai and who enjoyed so much the latter's move into modern, nation state industrial warfare (railways, gatling guns, modern marine/foreign legion infantry, calling in naval bombarments), I have been waiting 5 long years for a new era, only to see repeats of existing ones (different periods of Rome or Medieval) or even non-historical games like Warhammer. No doubt Warhammer has earned the franchise many new fans and a lot of money, but it would be nice if a new era was announced akin to that above - ie post Napoleonic era/Victorian era. The constant mystery about what is being developed next hardly helps with the wait - the units and gameplay were there in Fall of the Samurai, it would just be nice to have some maps/campaigns outside of Japan to play them on and some more historical battles to attempt...

    In terms of a "Victorian" era, even 1830 to 1909 would be an interesting enough period (leaving out WW1 as it involved a whole new type of war, in the air, in massed trenches, under the surface of the sea)- in addition to what Mr Jade said about Opium Wars and Crimean war (where you for instance re-create the charge of the Light Brigade), there are the European Wars that shaped the structure of modern Europe; the Risorgimento in Italy, involving France and Austria, and the wars of German unification; the Austro-Prussian, Prusso-Danish and most famously the Franco-Prussian war. Without this series of wars, we would never have had 2 of the key belligerents in WW1 and WW2. As Mr Jade has said, the theatre need not only be Europe - there were also the Battle of Adowa and the Boer War, imperial powers brought to their knees by Ethiopian tribesmen/a guerilla force of Boer commandos respectively, and the Russo-Japanese war which again marked the rise of Japan to imperial status and the decline of Tsarist Russia. The American Civil war may not allow many immediately obvious playable factions, but it has some of the most important campaigns in modern military history and would interest those of a historical bent (particularly with set-piece historical battles).

    While I understand there might be hesitation about making some wars in that period available due to what took place (eg colonial wars) there would even be scope for these to allow players to see if history could be reversed- say playing the American Indian wars as the Indians and being able to win (imagine for example being able to attempt feats such as the Nez Perce retreat of over 1600 miles while outnumbered 10 to 1 or, in a different type of conflict, to survive the battle of Camerone as the Foreign Legion).

    I know the above is longer than most forum posts but having waited 5 years for some satisfaction or hint that we might get a historical era game focusing on post-1830, I wanted to make my voice heard before I give up even following the TW website for more updates. And so the wait continues...

  • Saurto93Saurto93 Posts: 36Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    New big game era should be 1492-1699 , next Total War Indriustrial , next Medieval 3 , next Bronze Age Total War , next WW1 , next Empire 2 , next China Total War. Sounds pretty good. :D :D :D
  • ranknfileranknfile Senior Member Posts: 7,336Registered Users
    My own hopes: pike and shot 15th/16th century Europe; ancient China; and Medieval 3.
    Any of those would suit me just fine. I'm sure whatever it is, I will play it to my woman's annoyance!
    "Whoever desires is always poor" - Claudian
  • drakausadrakausa Posts: 6Registered Users
    Byzantium during the Frankish incursion? Cataphracts? Very Late Roman legions made up of non-Romans?
Sign In or Register to comment.