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

Give us back our gunpowder!

Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
Anyone else getting sick of TW games being released in ages before gunpowder? The last four "real world" TW games outside of Warhammer have all been in pre-gunpowder eras (Three Kingdoms, Thrones, Atilla, Rome II). That's just inexcusable.

The Total War series is clearly meant for gunpowder ages. The first TW game ever was in a gun powder age. That was one of the main appeals to me. Getting black powder weapons and then unleashing them upon my unsuspecting foes who don't have them. It's why I had more fun with "The Americas" expansion of Medieval II then the main game. It's why almost exclusively play as factions with gunpowder weapons in the Warhammer games.

It's fine to occasionally crank out a non-gunpowder TW game just to cover some new eras. But four in a row? Seriously? Come on, CA, get back on track.
«1

Comments

  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 2,212Registered Users
    edited November 2018
    Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai was not that long ago, you know. And we just got a mainly gunpowder faction in Warhammer...
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    Fossoway said:

    Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai was not that long ago, you know. And we just got a mainly gunpowder faction in Warhammer...

    2011 is pretty long ago to me. And yes there are gunpowder factions in Warhammer, but there is still no excuse for 4 "real world" TW games in a row that aren't in gunpowder ages.
  • samojasamoja Posts: 50Registered Users
    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
  • samojasamoja Posts: 50Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
  • samojasamoja Posts: 50Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
    There are many other settings they can explore besides gunpowder, gunpowder/non gunpowder is not a binary choice.
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    edited November 2018
    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
    There are many other settings they can explore besides gunpowder, gunpowder/non gunpowder is not a binary choice.
    I just feel the TW games are best when they take place in a gunpowder age. Maybe it's because of my nostalgia for the first game, but ever since then, ever TW game that doesn't have guns in some for feels like it's missing something vital.

    What's really odd is TW's choices recently haven't just lacked gunpowder, they have lacked good melee and ranged weapons altogether. Like thrones of Britannia. What does that offer? 9th century European war? That's lame even by medieval standards. The weapons are armor of that time are as basic as they come. And now 2nd Century China? I know the three kingdoms is a rich story-lore wise. But how unique and appealing are the weapons and armor back then? I doubt that much.

    Heck, China was the place that invented gunpowder. To have a TW game in China before gunpower is really selling them short.
  • samojasamoja Posts: 50Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
    There are many other settings they can explore besides gunpowder, gunpowder/non gunpowder is not a binary choice.
    I just feel the TW games are best when they take place in a gunpowder age. Maybe it's because of my nostalgia for the first game, but ever since then, ever TW game that doesn't have guns in some for feels like it's missing something vital.

    What's really odd is TW's choices recently haven't just lacked gunpowder, they have lacked good melee and ranged weapons altogether. Like thrones of Britannia. What does that offer? 9th century European war? That's lame even by medieval standards. The weapons are armor of that time are as basic as they come. And now 2nd Century China? I know the three kingdoms is a rich story-lore wise. But how unique and appealing are the weapons and armor back then? I doubt that much.

    Heck, China was the place that invented gunpowder. To have a TW game in China before gunpower is really selling them short.
    Best TW game ever was Rome 1, no gunpowder whatsoever, point invalid, next.
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    edited November 2018
    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
    There are many other settings they can explore besides gunpowder, gunpowder/non gunpowder is not a binary choice.
    I just feel the TW games are best when they take place in a gunpowder age. Maybe it's because of my nostalgia for the first game, but ever since then, ever TW game that doesn't have guns in some for feels like it's missing something vital.

    What's really odd is TW's choices recently haven't just lacked gunpowder, they have lacked good melee and ranged weapons altogether. Like thrones of Britannia. What does that offer? 9th century European war? That's lame even by medieval standards. The weapons are armor of that time are as basic as they come. And now 2nd Century China? I know the three kingdoms is a rich story-lore wise. But how unique and appealing are the weapons and armor back then? I doubt that much.

    Heck, China was the place that invented gunpowder. To have a TW game in China before gunpower is really selling them short.
    Best TW game ever was Rome 1, no gunpowder whatsoever, point invalid, next.
    I disagree. The 2 Shogun games were the best of the "real world" TW games, followed by Medieval 2. And even in Medieval 2, the Americas expansion (which gunpowder has a major role) was the most fun part of it.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
    There are many other settings they can explore besides gunpowder, gunpowder/non gunpowder is not a binary choice.
    vats majority are unpractical to make major game titles in.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
    There are many other settings they can explore besides gunpowder, gunpowder/non gunpowder is not a binary choice.
    I just feel the TW games are best when they take place in a gunpowder age. Maybe it's because of my nostalgia for the first game, but ever since then, ever TW game that doesn't have guns in some for feels like it's missing something vital.

    What's really odd is TW's choices recently haven't just lacked gunpowder, they have lacked good melee and ranged weapons altogether. Like thrones of Britannia. What does that offer? 9th century European war? That's lame even by medieval standards. The weapons are armor of that time are as basic as they come. And now 2nd Century China? I know the three kingdoms is a rich story-lore wise. But how unique and appealing are the weapons and armor back then? I doubt that much.

    Heck, China was the place that invented gunpowder. To have a TW game in China before gunpower is really selling them short.
    Best TW game ever was Rome 1, no gunpowder whatsoever, point invalid, next.
    I disagree. The 2 Shogun games were the best of the "real world" TW games, followed by Medieval 2. And even in Medieval 2, the Americas expansion (which gunpowder has a major role) was the most fun part of it.
    M2 and Shogun 2 are defiantly up there. personally I also liked Empire, despite all flaws.

    Less perhaps for the land battles, but sea battles and the feeling of global warfare.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
    There are many other settings they can explore besides gunpowder, gunpowder/non gunpowder is not a binary choice.
    I just feel the TW games are best when they take place in a gunpowder age. Maybe it's because of my nostalgia for the first game, but ever since then, ever TW game that doesn't have guns in some for feels like it's missing something vital.

    What's really odd is TW's choices recently haven't just lacked gunpowder, they have lacked good melee and ranged weapons altogether. Like thrones of Britannia. What does that offer? 9th century European war? That's lame even by medieval standards. The weapons are armor of that time are as basic as they come. And now 2nd Century China? I know the three kingdoms is a rich story-lore wise. But how unique and appealing are the weapons and armor back then? I doubt that much.

    Heck, China was the place that invented gunpowder. To have a TW game in China before gunpower is really selling them short.
    Best TW game ever was Rome 1, no gunpowder whatsoever, point invalid, next.
    I disagree. The 2 Shogun games were the best of the "real world" TW games, followed by Medieval 2. And even in Medieval 2, the Americas expansion (which gunpowder has a major role) was the most fun part of it.
    M2 and Shogun 2 are defiantly up there. personally I also liked Empire, despite all flaws.

    Less perhaps for the land battles, but sea battles and the feeling of global warfare.
    I didn't like Empire. Too buggy and the AI was garbage. Also the game tried to cover too much for one game. I hope that they do make an Empire 2 though. That era deserves another chance.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
    There are many other settings they can explore besides gunpowder, gunpowder/non gunpowder is not a binary choice.
    I just feel the TW games are best when they take place in a gunpowder age. Maybe it's because of my nostalgia for the first game, but ever since then, ever TW game that doesn't have guns in some for feels like it's missing something vital.

    What's really odd is TW's choices recently haven't just lacked gunpowder, they have lacked good melee and ranged weapons altogether. Like thrones of Britannia. What does that offer? 9th century European war? That's lame even by medieval standards. The weapons are armor of that time are as basic as they come. And now 2nd Century China? I know the three kingdoms is a rich story-lore wise. But how unique and appealing are the weapons and armor back then? I doubt that much.

    Heck, China was the place that invented gunpowder. To have a TW game in China before gunpower is really selling them short.
    Best TW game ever was Rome 1, no gunpowder whatsoever, point invalid, next.
    I disagree. The 2 Shogun games were the best of the "real world" TW games, followed by Medieval 2. And even in Medieval 2, the Americas expansion (which gunpowder has a major role) was the most fun part of it.
    M2 and Shogun 2 are defiantly up there. personally I also liked Empire, despite all flaws.

    Less perhaps for the land battles, but sea battles and the feeling of global warfare.
    I didn't like Empire. Too buggy and the AI was garbage. Also the game tried to cover too much for one game. I hope that they do make an Empire 2 though. That era deserves another chance.
    the era or a quasi Empire 2, aka TW Victorica?

    I would like both options.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
    There are many other settings they can explore besides gunpowder, gunpowder/non gunpowder is not a binary choice.
    I just feel the TW games are best when they take place in a gunpowder age. Maybe it's because of my nostalgia for the first game, but ever since then, ever TW game that doesn't have guns in some for feels like it's missing something vital.

    What's really odd is TW's choices recently haven't just lacked gunpowder, they have lacked good melee and ranged weapons altogether. Like thrones of Britannia. What does that offer? 9th century European war? That's lame even by medieval standards. The weapons are armor of that time are as basic as they come. And now 2nd Century China? I know the three kingdoms is a rich story-lore wise. But how unique and appealing are the weapons and armor back then? I doubt that much.

    Heck, China was the place that invented gunpowder. To have a TW game in China before gunpower is really selling them short.
    Best TW game ever was Rome 1, no gunpowder whatsoever, point invalid, next.
    I disagree. The 2 Shogun games were the best of the "real world" TW games, followed by Medieval 2. And even in Medieval 2, the Americas expansion (which gunpowder has a major role) was the most fun part of it.
    M2 and Shogun 2 are defiantly up there. personally I also liked Empire, despite all flaws.

    Less perhaps for the land battles, but sea battles and the feeling of global warfare.
    I didn't like Empire. Too buggy and the AI was garbage. Also the game tried to cover too much for one game. I hope that they do make an Empire 2 though. That era deserves another chance.
    the era or a quasi Empire 2, aka TW Victorica?

    I would like both options.
    If I could pick the setting for the next TW game, it would be the Age of American colonization, roughly 1500-1800. The territory would be the entire continent of North America + the Caribbean. Think of the wide array of different factions: European empires, Pirates, and Natives. Also it would bring back a heavy emphasis on naval war.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Ohio9 said:

    samoja said:

    Guns e3xist since mid 13th century, human history(since first major civilization arose) spans about 10 000 years altogether, long story short there is a lot more history where there was no guns then vice versa.

    Like I said, I can understand the occasional non-gun era TW game. But four in a row is ridiculous.
    9300 years without gunpowder, 700 years with gunpowder, you do the math.
    That's beside the point. Just because there is enough history for them to make many games in non-gunpowder eras doesn't mean that they should.
    There are many other settings they can explore besides gunpowder, gunpowder/non gunpowder is not a binary choice.
    I just feel the TW games are best when they take place in a gunpowder age. Maybe it's because of my nostalgia for the first game, but ever since then, ever TW game that doesn't have guns in some for feels like it's missing something vital.

    What's really odd is TW's choices recently haven't just lacked gunpowder, they have lacked good melee and ranged weapons altogether. Like thrones of Britannia. What does that offer? 9th century European war? That's lame even by medieval standards. The weapons are armor of that time are as basic as they come. And now 2nd Century China? I know the three kingdoms is a rich story-lore wise. But how unique and appealing are the weapons and armor back then? I doubt that much.

    Heck, China was the place that invented gunpowder. To have a TW game in China before gunpower is really selling them short.
    Best TW game ever was Rome 1, no gunpowder whatsoever, point invalid, next.
    I disagree. The 2 Shogun games were the best of the "real world" TW games, followed by Medieval 2. And even in Medieval 2, the Americas expansion (which gunpowder has a major role) was the most fun part of it.
    M2 and Shogun 2 are defiantly up there. personally I also liked Empire, despite all flaws.

    Less perhaps for the land battles, but sea battles and the feeling of global warfare.
    I didn't like Empire. Too buggy and the AI was garbage. Also the game tried to cover too much for one game. I hope that they do make an Empire 2 though. That era deserves another chance.
    the era or a quasi Empire 2, aka TW Victorica?

    I would like both options.
    If I could pick the setting for the next TW game, it would be the Age of American colonization, roughly 1500-1800. The territory would be the entire continent of North America + the Caribbean. Think of the wide array of different factions: European empires, Pirates, and Natives. Also it would bring back a heavy emphasis on naval war.
    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    edited November 2018
    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    edited November 2018
    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    I just think that would be too much. Bigger isn't always better. Include too much territory and you end up reducing the quality to fit it all in. The was one of the main problems with Empire. We've already had tons of TW games in Europe, and we'll have tons more.

    I'd also love to see a TW game about the American Civil War, but i'm not sure how that would work since there would only be two factions.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    I just think that would be too much. Bigger isn't always better. Include too much territory and you end up reducing the quality to fit it all in. The was one of the main problems with Empire. We've already had tons of TW games in Europe, and we'll have tons more.

    I'd also love to see a TW game about the American Civil War, but i'm not sure how that would work since there would only be two factions.
    This is not about bigger, but having more interesting areas or nations.
    Having europe helps here alot.

    US civil war is something taht couldwork as big DLC for either Empire 2 or TW Vicotria.
    As its own game, even as saga title, I don't really see it.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    I just think that would be too much. Bigger isn't always better. Include too much territory and you end up reducing the quality to fit it all in. The was one of the main problems with Empire. We've already had tons of TW games in Europe, and we'll have tons more.

    I'd also love to see a TW game about the American Civil War, but i'm not sure how that would work since there would only be two factions.
    This is not about bigger, but having more interesting areas or nations.
    Having europe helps here alot.

    US civil war is something taht couldwork as big DLC for either Empire 2 or TW Vicotria.
    As its own game, even as saga title, I don't really see it.
    You don't think the Americas and Caribbean during the colonial era are interesting enough on their own?

    I would love to see a Civil War DLC. Also, a two-faction war in TW isn't unprecedented. The original Shogun game had the mongol invasion expansion, which was just Japan vs Mongols.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    I just think that would be too much. Bigger isn't always better. Include too much territory and you end up reducing the quality to fit it all in. The was one of the main problems with Empire. We've already had tons of TW games in Europe, and we'll have tons more.

    I'd also love to see a TW game about the American Civil War, but i'm not sure how that would work since there would only be two factions.
    This is not about bigger, but having more interesting areas or nations.
    Having europe helps here alot.

    US civil war is something taht couldwork as big DLC for either Empire 2 or TW Vicotria.
    As its own game, even as saga title, I don't really see it.
    You don't think the Americas and Caribbean during the colonial era are interesting enough on their own?

    I would love to see a Civil War DLC. Also, a two-faction war in TW isn't unprecedented. The original Shogun game had the mongol invasion expansion, which was just Japan vs Mongols.
    No and how AoE3 did seems to prove it well enough.

    Well you own example is basically what today would be a dlc, not a own game.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    I just think that would be too much. Bigger isn't always better. Include too much territory and you end up reducing the quality to fit it all in. The was one of the main problems with Empire. We've already had tons of TW games in Europe, and we'll have tons more.

    I'd also love to see a TW game about the American Civil War, but i'm not sure how that would work since there would only be two factions.
    This is not about bigger, but having more interesting areas or nations.
    Having europe helps here alot.

    US civil war is something taht couldwork as big DLC for either Empire 2 or TW Vicotria.
    As its own game, even as saga title, I don't really see it.
    You don't think the Americas and Caribbean during the colonial era are interesting enough on their own?

    I would love to see a Civil War DLC. Also, a two-faction war in TW isn't unprecedented. The original Shogun game had the mongol invasion expansion, which was just Japan vs Mongols.
    No and how AoE3 did seems to prove it well enough.

    Well you own example is basically what today would be a dlc, not a own game.
    AOE proved nothing. It's an unrelated game. And like i said, I liked it.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    I just think that would be too much. Bigger isn't always better. Include too much territory and you end up reducing the quality to fit it all in. The was one of the main problems with Empire. We've already had tons of TW games in Europe, and we'll have tons more.

    I'd also love to see a TW game about the American Civil War, but i'm not sure how that would work since there would only be two factions.
    This is not about bigger, but having more interesting areas or nations.
    Having europe helps here alot.

    US civil war is something taht couldwork as big DLC for either Empire 2 or TW Vicotria.
    As its own game, even as saga title, I don't really see it.
    You don't think the Americas and Caribbean during the colonial era are interesting enough on their own?

    I would love to see a Civil War DLC. Also, a two-faction war in TW isn't unprecedented. The original Shogun game had the mongol invasion expansion, which was just Japan vs Mongols.
    No and how AoE3 did seems to prove it well enough.

    Well you own example is basically what today would be a dlc, not a own game.
    AOE proved nothing. It's an unrelated game. And like i said, I liked it.
    It proved the scenario doesn't worked as much you liked.
    You personally liking it is very irrelevant.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    I just think that would be too much. Bigger isn't always better. Include too much territory and you end up reducing the quality to fit it all in. The was one of the main problems with Empire. We've already had tons of TW games in Europe, and we'll have tons more.

    I'd also love to see a TW game about the American Civil War, but i'm not sure how that would work since there would only be two factions.
    This is not about bigger, but having more interesting areas or nations.
    Having europe helps here alot.

    US civil war is something taht couldwork as big DLC for either Empire 2 or TW Vicotria.
    As its own game, even as saga title, I don't really see it.
    You don't think the Americas and Caribbean during the colonial era are interesting enough on their own?

    I would love to see a Civil War DLC. Also, a two-faction war in TW isn't unprecedented. The original Shogun game had the mongol invasion expansion, which was just Japan vs Mongols.
    No and how AoE3 did seems to prove it well enough.

    Well you own example is basically what today would be a dlc, not a own game.
    AOE proved nothing. It's an unrelated game. And like i said, I liked it.
    It proved the scenario doesn't worked as much you liked.
    You personally liking it is very irrelevant.
    You're basing that entirely on opinion. Your opinion of the game proves nothing except what you thought of it.

    And again, it's an unrelated game. Even if it was bad, the idea that it proves no one can ever make a good game that takes place only on the Americas during the colonial era is absurd.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    I just think that would be too much. Bigger isn't always better. Include too much territory and you end up reducing the quality to fit it all in. The was one of the main problems with Empire. We've already had tons of TW games in Europe, and we'll have tons more.

    I'd also love to see a TW game about the American Civil War, but i'm not sure how that would work since there would only be two factions.
    This is not about bigger, but having more interesting areas or nations.
    Having europe helps here alot.

    US civil war is something taht couldwork as big DLC for either Empire 2 or TW Vicotria.
    As its own game, even as saga title, I don't really see it.
    You don't think the Americas and Caribbean during the colonial era are interesting enough on their own?

    I would love to see a Civil War DLC. Also, a two-faction war in TW isn't unprecedented. The original Shogun game had the mongol invasion expansion, which was just Japan vs Mongols.
    No and how AoE3 did seems to prove it well enough.

    Well you own example is basically what today would be a dlc, not a own game.
    AOE proved nothing. It's an unrelated game. And like i said, I liked it.
    It proved the scenario doesn't worked as much you liked.
    You personally liking it is very irrelevant.
    You're basing that entirely on opinion. Your opinion of the game proves nothing except what you thought of it.

    And again, it's an unrelated game. Even if it was bad, the idea that it proves no one can ever make a good game that takes place only on the Americas during the colonial era is absurd.
    except your are missing the point.
    The game wasn't bad, but did badly because of your beloved scenario. That's the critical point here:
    even if the game is good, the scenario drags it down.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    I just think that would be too much. Bigger isn't always better. Include too much territory and you end up reducing the quality to fit it all in. The was one of the main problems with Empire. We've already had tons of TW games in Europe, and we'll have tons more.

    I'd also love to see a TW game about the American Civil War, but i'm not sure how that would work since there would only be two factions.
    This is not about bigger, but having more interesting areas or nations.
    Having europe helps here alot.

    US civil war is something taht couldwork as big DLC for either Empire 2 or TW Vicotria.
    As its own game, even as saga title, I don't really see it.
    You don't think the Americas and Caribbean during the colonial era are interesting enough on their own?

    I would love to see a Civil War DLC. Also, a two-faction war in TW isn't unprecedented. The original Shogun game had the mongol invasion expansion, which was just Japan vs Mongols.
    No and how AoE3 did seems to prove it well enough.

    Well you own example is basically what today would be a dlc, not a own game.
    AOE proved nothing. It's an unrelated game. And like i said, I liked it.
    It proved the scenario doesn't worked as much you liked.
    You personally liking it is very irrelevant.
    You're basing that entirely on opinion. Your opinion of the game proves nothing except what you thought of it.

    And again, it's an unrelated game. Even if it was bad, the idea that it proves no one can ever make a good game that takes place only on the Americas during the colonial era is absurd.
    except your are missing the point.
    The game wasn't bad, but did badly because of your beloved scenario. That's the critical point here:
    even if the game is good, the scenario drags it down.
    How does the scenario drag it down? You've never explained this. What does colonial America lack? It has everything fit for a TW game: Tons of different factions, lots of territory, rich history. I'm not seeing a problem here.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:

    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:



    there I would kinda object.

    Not necessary the time span, but the focus geographically.

    Age of Empires 3 did, more or less what you asked and failed badly.

    So I would prefer a map that includes if not India and Europe then at least Europe (TW europe if you know what I mean).

    I liked AOE3. But even if you didn't, that's a totally different game, so there is no reason to compare it to TW.

    The entire continent of NA+ the Caribbean is more then enough for one game.
    I didn't hate it, but it wasn't too much of a success and that mainly because of the scenario they chose, it seems at least.
    In that sense it would be relevant for TW.

    Whats enough for TW depends on how you draw the map.
    Every map can be draw to be "enough" for TW, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone when I say I prefer a NA+Caribbean+Europe over only NA+Caribbean.
    I just think that would be too much. Bigger isn't always better. Include too much territory and you end up reducing the quality to fit it all in. The was one of the main problems with Empire. We've already had tons of TW games in Europe, and we'll have tons more.

    I'd also love to see a TW game about the American Civil War, but i'm not sure how that would work since there would only be two factions.
    This is not about bigger, but having more interesting areas or nations.
    Having europe helps here alot.

    US civil war is something taht couldwork as big DLC for either Empire 2 or TW Vicotria.
    As its own game, even as saga title, I don't really see it.
    You don't think the Americas and Caribbean during the colonial era are interesting enough on their own?

    I would love to see a Civil War DLC. Also, a two-faction war in TW isn't unprecedented. The original Shogun game had the mongol invasion expansion, which was just Japan vs Mongols.
    No and how AoE3 did seems to prove it well enough.

    Well you own example is basically what today would be a dlc, not a own game.
    AOE proved nothing. It's an unrelated game. And like i said, I liked it.
    It proved the scenario doesn't worked as much you liked.
    You personally liking it is very irrelevant.
    You're basing that entirely on opinion. Your opinion of the game proves nothing except what you thought of it.

    And again, it's an unrelated game. Even if it was bad, the idea that it proves no one can ever make a good game that takes place only on the Americas during the colonial era is absurd.
    except your are missing the point.
    The game wasn't bad, but did badly because of your beloved scenario. That's the critical point here:
    even if the game is good, the scenario drags it down.
    How does the scenario drag it down? You've never explained this. What does colonial America lack? It has everything fit for a TW game: Tons of different factions, lots of territory, rich history. I'm not seeing a problem here.
    Well first sales figures suggest it wasn't good enough (AoE3). So even if you don't see the problem, Microsoft saw it.

    As for the scenario:
    it has less then the same with europe and far less then the same as europe and india.
    This goes for everything, faction "rich history" ect.

    It has simply less of all, then a TW with Europe/india additionally.

    besides all the practical problems of starting points and the faction then playable.
    For neaderlands to be playable you couldn't start in the 1500s.

    A TW with europe doesn't have this problem.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Ohio9Ohio9 Posts: 278Registered Users
    edited November 2018
    SiWI said:


    Well first sales figures suggest it wasn't good enough (AoE3). So even if you don't see the problem, Microsoft saw it.

    Irrelevant. AOE3 is a different game made more then a decade ago. Its sales record has no bearing on how well a TW game would do in the same era. One game's sales records doesn't determine the sales for every game made in the same setting.
    SiWI said:


    it has less then the same with europe and far less then the same as europe and india.
    This goes for everything, faction "rich history" ect.

    It has simply less of all, then a TW with Europe/india additionally.

    Less of what exactly?
    SiWI said:


    For neaderlands to be playable you couldn't start in the 1500s.

    So have their campaign start a little later if you pick them. I don't see how that's even a minor problem.


  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Ohio9 said:

    SiWI said:


    Well first sales figures suggest it wasn't good enough (AoE3). So even if you don't see the problem, Microsoft saw it.

    Irrelevant. AOE3 is a different game made more then a decade ago. Its sales record has no bearing on how well a TW game would do in the same era. One game's sales records doesn't determine the sales for every game made in the same setting.
    according to that logic you never could compare anything to anything because its a different XY.
    A standard clearly design to shield you from unpleasant evidence.

    SiWI said:


    it has less then the same with europe and far less then the same as europe and india.
    This goes for everything, faction "rich history" ect.

    It has simply less of all, then a TW with Europe/india additionally.

    Less of what exactly?

    all you mentioned.
    SiWI said:


    For neaderlands to be playable you couldn't start in the 1500s.

    So have their campaign start a little later if you pick them. I don't see how that's even a minor problem.

    When was the last time that TW had different starting dates (aka different campaign maps) in a game?

    M1?
    So yeah CA doesn't do that because that require to redo the map a a couple of times.

    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
Sign In or Register to comment.