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

16791112

Comments

  • CaractacusMagnusCaractacusMagnus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 370
    edited November 2017
    "Beware the Crow" could be a reference to Valerius, (as in M. Valerius Corvus, he took the name of Crow after one landed on his helmet at a single combat and his huge Gaul opponent took it for frightening divine intervention, as the Gauls believed in the Crow goddess mentioned by others here) - there is plenty of scope for a campaign in his lifetime with the Samnite Wars and it would befit the crumbling Rome imagery as well.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    Am I right in thinking that "Beware the Crow" is only a clue for the saga game and so not much help for tomorrow's announcement?
  • CaractacusMagnusCaractacusMagnus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 370
    Fredrin said:

    Am I right in thinking that "Beware the Crow" is only a clue for the saga game and so not much help for tomorrow's announcement?

    Ah yes of course, I'm mixing the two up.

    It's a shame, I liked the idea.
  • VessingerVessinger Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,007

    So are we getting a full trailer or something? The cracked Rome II logo is nice but shows very little.

    Apparently, there is going to be a more detailed announcement tomorrow. Although yesterday's trailer didn't set the bar very high in the detail department.
    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.
    This old "units are the same" "so lazy" chestnut is such a classic example of some gamers perceiving an issue and if it was "fixed" almost everyone would hate it.

    Men in armies tend to have two arms, two legs and weapons, so they will tend to seem similar. Even from one game to the next it will be mainly the gear and animations that will change slightly. This is not a damning indictment of a historical war game series. If they do pike and shot and a follow-up title (as is their wont) the same "criticism" will be levelled at them for that.

    The way I see it is I'd hate to see CA take that "problem" and run with it, because I respect differing opinions but the only possible way to 'fix' it is more and more fantasy in the unit rosters.
    You are partly true. But why not for example English Civil War game? Why is it worse than another Roman cohorts?
    Answer seems obvious: why bother with new era mechanics when we can change some skins and make easy money. This is lazy.
    I'd be happy to see a game set during the Civil War, but as far as a DLC for an existing game is concerned I would fully expect it to be derivative of the main game, common sense should tell us this, there's.. just no basis there for an inference that anyone is lazy/not lazy.
    Lazy approach. Not lazy persons.
    I think you're confusing the term 'lazy' with 'uninspired', and in either case, you're wrong for the most part. Would you rather they made up fantasy units? Yes, they reuse unit models for different factions of the same culture, so what? There is still plenty of variety.

    When there is a unit that is unique and significant to a faction they always get their own models and textures.
  • CaractacusMagnusCaractacusMagnus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 370
    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.
    This old "units are the same" "so lazy" chestnut is such a classic example of some gamers perceiving an issue and if it was "fixed" almost everyone would hate it.

    Men in armies tend to have two arms, two legs and weapons, so they will tend to seem similar. Even from one game to the next it will be mainly the gear and animations that will change slightly. This is not a damning indictment of a historical war game series. If they do pike and shot and a follow-up title (as is their wont) the same "criticism" will be levelled at them for that.

    The way I see it is I'd hate to see CA take that "problem" and run with it, because I respect differing opinions but the only possible way to 'fix' it is more and more fantasy in the unit rosters.
    You are partly true. But why not for example English Civil War game? Why is it worse than another Roman cohorts?
    Answer seems obvious: why bother with new era mechanics when we can change some skins and make easy money. This is lazy.
    I'd be happy to see a game set during the Civil War, but as far as a DLC for an existing game is concerned I would fully expect it to be derivative of the main game, common sense should tell us this, there's.. just no basis there for an inference that anyone is lazy/not lazy.
    Lazy approach. Not lazy persons.
    I think the point applies either way.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    Vessinger said:



    I think you're confusing the term 'lazy' with 'uninspired', and in either case, you're wrong for the most part. Would you rather they made up fantasy units? Yes, they reuse unit models for different factions of the same culture, so what? There is still plenty of variety.

    When there is a unit that is unique and significant to a faction they always get their own models and textures.

    Graphics, models and textures are one thing - there is only so much variation a history-based game can manage before it gets a bit over the top.

    I do think CA could be a bit more creative in how they approach battle and campaign gameplay mechanics. I doubt it's lack of inspiration, to be fair, but just that these elements require a lot of high level thought and programming to implement. They were a bit thin on the ground in Rome II, which is why I never got into that game despite trying hard.


    Maybe they will have ported over some cool stuff from Attila (family tree anyone?) and designed some afresh with this DLC. It sounds like quite a bit of work has gone into it.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,957
    MrJade said:

    Sbygneus said:

    American Civil War not interesting? English Civil War not interesting? I prefer any of these over any Chinese stuff

    American Civil War is really quite interesting.
    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.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CaractacusMagnusCaractacusMagnus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 370
    Fredrin said:

    Vessinger said:



    I think you're confusing the term 'lazy' with 'uninspired', and in either case, you're wrong for the most part. Would you rather they made up fantasy units? Yes, they reuse unit models for different factions of the same culture, so what? There is still plenty of variety.

    When there is a unit that is unique and significant to a faction they always get their own models and textures.

    Graphics, models and textures are one thing - there is only so much variation a history-based game can manage before it gets a bit over the top.

    I do think CA could be a bit more creative in how they approach battle and campaign gameplay mechanics. I doubt it's lack of inspiration, to be fair, but just that these elements require a lot of high level thought and programming to implement. They were a bit thin on the ground in Rome II, which is why I never got into that game despite trying hard.
    On this I agree. Opportunities were missed for a RTW sequel - especially in terms of expanding on and polishing battlefield features, behaviours, formations, and there are some things that are prohibitively hard to address with mods.

    Still, many hours of gameplay after patch 17 and people are still playing and modding the game, perhaps even eager to see what the DLC is, so they did something right.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    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.
  • VessingerVessinger Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,007
    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.
    The only way I see them doing WW I as an expansion is if the GC has all the pieces in place, (e.g. the units and the world map), otherwise it would be too much.

    I could see the American Civil War as a DLC though. With only 2 factions I doubt it would hold much replayability for me, but it'd still be interesting to go through at least once.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    Vessinger said:

    The only way I see them doing WW I as an expansion is if the GC has all the pieces in place, (e.g. the units and the world map), otherwise it would be too much.

    A Victorian map should have all of the needed nations. You had Europe + US + Japan + China as the major powers.
    Vessinger said:

    I could see the American Civil War as a DLC though. With only 2 factions I doubt it would hold much replayability for me, but it'd still be interesting to go through at least once.

    It really depends on whether or not they divided up the armies as different nations and just had them all in interlocking alliances. You could very easily make each state an army, there's 11 confederate states and 22 Union states (3 of which don't even need to be on the map) and 4 states on both sides. You could consolidate it down to 4 southern factions and 5-6 northern factions.
  • VavourasVavouras Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 9
    eastern concept maybe, persians.
  • IntranetusaIntranetusa Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 634
    edited November 2017
    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.
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,151
    I still fully believe the crow is in reference to the Morigahn, basically warning of blood and a period of war in the british isles. I don't think the Saga is purely in Ireland though, and think it takes place probably across the British Isles.

    The biggest issue with the 3rd century crisis DLC IMO is that a lot of things happen interspersed from one another. The Gothic Invasion for example happens in the 250's while the Roman, Palmyran, and Gallian Empires come to play after 265 at the least. The plague also comes in 251 and the even itself starts in the 230's. Where do you start honestly? Despite that I still think the Third Century is most likely but who knows.
  • AdamYahyaAdamYahya Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
    Sbygneus said:

    LestaT 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.
    This old "units are the same" "so lazy" chestnut is such a classic example of some gamers perceiving an issue and if it was "fixed" almost everyone would hate it.

    Men in armies tend to have two arms, two legs and weapons, so they will tend to seem similar. Even from one game to the next it will be mainly the gear and animations that will change slightly. This is not a damning indictment of a historical war game series. If they do pike and shot and a follow-up title (as is their wont) the same "criticism" will be levelled at them for that.

    The way I see it is I'd hate to see CA take that "problem" and run with it, because I respect differing opinions but the only possible way to 'fix' it is more and more fantasy in the unit rosters.
    You are partly true. But why not for example English Civil War game? Why is it worse than another Roman cohorts?
    Answer seems obvious: why bother with new era mechanics when we can change some skins and make easy money. This is lazy.
    English civil war is as exciting to me as American civil war which is not interesting at all. Now, if we talk about Chinese civil war, then it's different. Since we dont have the word on that yet, I'll take Roman civil war anytime, anyday.
    American Civil War not interesting? English Civil War not interesting? I prefer any of these over any Chinese stuff
    Nope. They are not. Interest is subjective and I never assume what interest me will also be interesting to all others. :)
  • AdamYahyaAdamYahya Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,386
    'Is this the end of the Empire? Or just the beginning…'

    After thinking about it a bit, I'm leaning towards Constantine on this one. There's a lot of things that could be spelling the 'end' of the Empire, but other than the IA campaign (i.e. already done) nothing much that could count as a beginning - except Constantine, given his role in founding Constantinople and establishing it as the capital of the Roman (eventually Byzantine) Empire. Which, of course, could count as the 'end' of the Rome-centric empire as well.
  • AdamYahyaAdamYahya Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318
    tak22 said:

    'Is this the end of the Empire? Or just the beginning…'

    After thinking about it a bit, I'm leaning towards Constantine on this one. There's a lot of things that could be spelling the 'end' of the Empire, but other than the IA campaign (i.e. already done) nothing much that could count as a beginning - except Constantine, given his role in founding Constantinople and establishing it as the capital of the Roman (eventually Byzantine) Empire. Which, of course, could count as the 'end' of the Rome-centric empire as well.

    Or the end of Alexander's empire. The war of the diadochi.
  • SbygneusSbygneus Registered Users Posts: 995
    edited November 2017

    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.
  • MorkMork Registered Users Posts: 260
    edited November 2017
    LestaT said:

    tak22 said:

    'Is this the end of the Empire? Or just the beginning…'

    After thinking about it a bit, I'm leaning towards Constantine on this one. There's a lot of things that could be spelling the 'end' of the Empire, but other than the IA campaign (i.e. already done) nothing much that could count as a beginning - except Constantine, given his role in founding Constantinople and establishing it as the capital of the Roman (eventually Byzantine) Empire. Which, of course, could count as the 'end' of the Rome-centric empire as well.

    Or the end of Alexander's empire. The war of the diadochi.
    Yes, thought about that too, but the teaser Picture of a celt or germanic warrior doesn´t fit that well.

    ok, there were Galatians in Asia minor, but still, i Think this has more to do with one of the roman civil wars, crisis of the 3rd century, or, as someone pointed out, the early Days of Rome. but that scenario is already covered in the introductory Campaign.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatians_(people)


    guess we will find out this afternoon.


    CA has done a great job with saying a lot without saying anything really. Kudos to that!
  • SbygneusSbygneus Registered Users Posts: 995
    LestaT said:

    Sbygneus said:

    LestaT 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.
    This old "units are the same" "so lazy" chestnut is such a classic example of some gamers perceiving an issue and if it was "fixed" almost everyone would hate it.

    Men in armies tend to have two arms, two legs and weapons, so they will tend to seem similar. Even from one game to the next it will be mainly the gear and animations that will change slightly. This is not a damning indictment of a historical war game series. If they do pike and shot and a follow-up title (as is their wont) the same "criticism" will be levelled at them for that.

    The way I see it is I'd hate to see CA take that "problem" and run with it, because I respect differing opinions but the only possible way to 'fix' it is more and more fantasy in the unit rosters.
    You are partly true. But why not for example English Civil War game? Why is it worse than another Roman cohorts?
    Answer seems obvious: why bother with new era mechanics when we can change some skins and make easy money. This is lazy.
    English civil war is as exciting to me as American civil war which is not interesting at all. Now, if we talk about Chinese civil war, then it's different. Since we dont have the word on that yet, I'll take Roman civil war anytime, anyday.
    American Civil War not interesting? English Civil War not interesting? I prefer any of these over any Chinese stuff
    Nope. They are not. Interest is subjective and I never assume what interest me will also be interesting to all others. :)
    I think the same way but opposite so no agreement ;)
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,916
    edited November 2017
    Do people really want Alexander to be an expansion game of Rome 2?

    Alexander deserves his own game just like Napoleon and Attila; Diadaochi as his saga game or as late game for Alexander.

    Its awkward to see Diadaochi without Alexander Campaign.
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • mcar110mcar110 Member United KingdomRegistered Users Posts: 450
    edited November 2017
    jamreal18 said:

    Do people really want Alexander to be an expansion game of Rome 2?

    Alexander deserves his own game just like Napoleon and Attila; Diadaochi as his saga game or as late game for Alexander.

    Its awkward to see Diadaochi without Alexander Campaign.

    Alexander is a good shout for one of the new Total War Saga games, it fits that perfectly.

    I hope they’ve selected a time period for this campaign dlc during the time of the Roman Empire and not something from before then
  • Sughdian WarriorSughdian Warrior Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 187
    LestaT said:
    That's right. Check their twitter post
    Here's rubbing hands in expectation of some actual news on historical content at last.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,916
    mcar110 said:



    Alexander is a good shout for one of the new Total War Saga games, it fits that perfectly.

    What will be the title for this game?

    Saga is different from Character
  • mcar110mcar110 Member United KingdomRegistered Users Posts: 450
    jamreal18 said:

    mcar110 said:



    Alexander is a good shout for one of the new Total War Saga games, it fits that perfectly.

    What will be the title for this game?

    Saga is different from Character
    You’re right that Saga focuses more on a time period rather than a character.
    Not sure what the title could be (obviously his name would have to be included) but since his conquests are only spread over a period of (roughly) 15 years I reckon it’s a good candidate for a saga game.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,916
    mcar110 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    mcar110 said:



    Alexander is a good shout for one of the new Total War Saga games, it fits that perfectly.

    What will be the title for this game?

    Saga is different from Character
    You’re right that Saga focuses more on a time period rather than a character.
    Not sure what the title could be (obviously his name would have to be included) but since his conquests are only spread over a period of (roughly) 15 years I reckon it’s a good candidate for a saga game.
    Actually Saga and Character are only the same.

    Ex.
    Genghiz Khan and Mongol are the same.
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 1,739
    I never got into the game with the childish, ahistorical, un features of Rome I and Med II.
    LestaT said:

    tak22 said:

    'Is this the end of the Empire? Or just the beginning…'

    After thinking about it a bit, I'm leaning towards Constantine on this one. There's a lot of things that could be spelling the 'end' of the Empire, but other than the IA campaign (i.e. already done) nothing much that could count as a beginning - except Constantine, given his role in founding Constantinople and establishing it as the capital of the Roman (eventually Byzantine) Empire. Which, of course, could count as the 'end' of the Rome-centric empire as well.

    Or the end of Alexander's empire. The war of the diadochi.
    Or the slowing end of the Roman Republic with Marius and Sulla and the beginning of the roman empire with Sulla as first dictator in its modern sense (civil war and politcs?).

    You could put in Jugurta (Numidia), Cimbri et Teutones ( germanic warrior^^) and Mithridates of Pontus and Tigranes the Great of Armenia. ;)
  • Sughdian WarriorSughdian Warrior Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 187
    edited November 2017
    1 hour 40 minutes left, till we, hopefully find out.
  • HeinzuHeinzu Registered Users Posts: 938
    Is this the end of the Empire? Or just the beginning…

    It has to be end of some era and start of another .Constantine fits more to Attila than Rome. This may be about some really big changes to Rome and Celts/Germans may be involved in this. Destruction of the WRE is already in Attila. It may be about really big barbarian crisis before Christ. There were multiple of them and it's hard to tell which one. We will see soon.
Sign In or Register to comment.