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

Total War Idea- 1870-1900s Victoria Era/Imperalism

BavarianSoupChefBavarianSoupChef Registered Users Posts: 3
edited July 9 in Total War General Chat
I really enjoy the fall of the samurai, napoleon total war, and late empire mechanics (specifically guns and all that). I also figured that it would be interesting to see how total war would do this sort of thing.
The idea of this one would center around conflicts like the Spanish-American war, American conflicts with natives, European, Japanese, and American imperialism, Russian-Ottoman conflicts, Zulu War, Boer War, and other wars of the like. I feel like this has lots of potentials to be a very good game



I have made a new post about this with updated information and also it was written better.
Post edited by BavarianSoupChef on
«1

Comments

  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,020
    personally I would like a TW "Victoria" to go from 1815 to 1918 (or 1900)
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151
    Yeah.. I think due to the fact in the UK people are pulling down statues who gave anything to do with imperialism I very much doubt we will see that in the title.. I think Victoria TW is more likely.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,923

    Yeah.. I think due to the fact in the UK people are pulling down statues who gave anything to do with imperialism I very much doubt we will see that in the title.. I think Victoria TW is more likely.

    This. I don’t know if you’ve watched or read the news in the last month, but in out current political climate no major game publisher is going to okay a game where you have the option to slaughter and subjugate natives or spread modern imperialism.

    I’m okay with this.
    ò_ó
  • BavarianSoupChefBavarianSoupChef Registered Users Posts: 3
    Well, I meant more the idea of imperialism and expansionism rather than that being the name. I mean empire total war is theoretically the same concept.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,923

    Well, I meant more the idea of imperialism and expansionism rather than that being the name. I mean empire total war is theoretically the same concept.

    Empire Total War wouldn’t have been made today. The world has changed and so has CA.
    ò_ó
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 453
    Lmao wut? A statue thrown to the sea doesn't mean that the 18th century will not generate monies. Given the popular appeal of Pirates of the Caribbean, the Patriot and etc. the 18th century will always remain a very profitable setting.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151

    Lmao wut? A statue thrown to the sea doesn't mean that the 18th century will not generate monies. Given the popular appeal of Pirates of the Caribbean, the Patriot and etc. the 18th century will always remain a very profitable setting.

    No one said it wouldn't generate monies.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 453
    Ah, of course, CA would not make a potentially profitable game, because of the alleged pressure coming from PC. Makes absolute sense.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151

    Ah, of course, CA would not make a potentially profitable game, because of the alleged pressure coming from PC. Makes absolute sense.

    Although CA could make money from any game they do, so it would make perfect sense to avoid something that may give them bad press.. that’s basic. Not forgetting CA will stand their ground when it comes to equality issues, would’ve been easy to pull the female generals but they told those against to play another game.

    You really don’t know CA.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 453
    Yeah remember in 2006 and 2007, when the Iraq war was in full swing and terrorist attacks happened in London and Madrid that CA actually refused to sell a game, whose main new feature was Crusades, and its expansion that relied exclusively on them? Oh, what that actually never happened.

    Female generals actually prove my point. They were added, because of their popularity, due to changing demographics and the fact that women were always popular in video-games. Nothing to do about equality. You seem to forget that private companies are profit-seeking entities.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151

    Yeah remember in 2006 and 2007, when the Iraq war was in full swing and terrorist attacks happened in London and Madrid that CA actually refused to sell a game, whose main new feature was Crusades, and its expansion that relied exclusively on them? Oh, what that actually never happened.

    Female generals actually prove my point. They were added, because of their popularity, due to changing demographics and the fact that women were always popular in video-games. Nothing to do about equality. You seem to forget that private companies are profit-seeking entities.

    This is getting a little tedious. Remember during that period when social media was nothing like it is now and there was no such thing as a SJW or a counter culture?

    Female generals were added because they were popular? I’m starting to not take you seriously.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 453
    You seriously don't believe that female warriors are not popular, both among the males and the continuously rising female demographic? What can I say, just google it. I even remember the pre-release posts begging for Amazons in Rome II. By the way, you still have to demonstrate why CA would care about it. You know, with something more tangible than your opinion. But yeah, I guess CA cares about equality, not monies, sounds legit.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151

    You seriously don't believe that female warriors are not popular, both among the males and the continuously rising female demographic? What can I say, just google it. I even remember the pre-release posts begging for Amazons in Rome II. By the way, you still have to demonstrate why CA would care about it. You know, with something more tangible than your opinion. But yeah, I guess CA cares about equality, not monies, sounds legit.

    No, I don't believe female generals are popular in R2, considering CA got review bombed for adding them. Personally I'm glad they stood their ground but in terms of money there's no evidence to suggest adding female generals added to the sales. So no, I won't be looking through Google to prove your argument for you.. that's your job.

    My opinion is you have no evidence to support your claim, my opinion holds due to you not offering any evidence.. apart from an example of personal experience that cannon be verified.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,408
    Yeah the title it quite likely to put people off. The more commonly suggested Victoria would probably be viewed better and have better marketing.

    They also did skirt around the slavery element in Empire, with it I think being basically just a tech to ban it.

    Plus other companies have got actively supported games in similar time periods, EU4 springs to mind. That covers the rise of slavery and I don't think there's been any issues with that (I am active on their forums and mostly see it being complaints over the lack of depth to it).
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151
    Commisar said:

    Yeah the title it quite likely to put people off. The more commonly suggested Victoria would probably be viewed better and have better marketing.

    They also did skirt around the slavery element in Empire, with it I think being basically just a tech to ban it.

    Plus other companies have got actively supported games in similar time periods, EU4 springs to mind. That covers the rise of slavery and I don't think there's been any issues with that (I am active on their forums and mostly see it being complaints over the lack of depth to it).

    Yes I remember them saying they found it tricky and they underlined the option to end slavery.

    I'd say that the Paradox games do not focus on Empire and Imperialism that's why I'd avoid it. The things happening in the UK is getting a little out of hand, even modern comedies are getting removed from streaming sites. I think any company will avoid mildly difficult issues for the next year or two, just not worth the grief. Personally I don't like taking certain things off the table but I guess the guys in CA who are paid to look after the companies name will probably play it safe. I mean.. this could mean Victoria could be held back due to it's obvious connection with the Great Game in Africa and other such periods. Disappointing.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,408

    I'd say that the Paradox games do not focus on Empire and Imperialism that's why I'd avoid it. The things happening in the UK is getting a little out of hand, even modern comedies are getting removed from streaming sites. I think any company will avoid mildly difficult issues for the next year or two, just not worth the grief. Personally I don't like taking certain things off the table but I guess the guys in CA who are paid to look after the companies name will probably play it safe. I mean.. this could mean Victoria could be held back due to it's obvious connection with the Great Game in Africa and other such periods. Disappointing.

    Yeah that is true. It does follow the definition of Imperialism and you can take over large swathes of Africa in it but it is also a long established game (and series) and still rather niche.

    I still don't think it will impact a possible game set in the 1800s as it's not on the table currently. I think with Tory and WH3 being the next 2-3 years of their releases and a game set in the 1800s being really grand in map scale they might want to either do a second game set in China OR do a smaller title to bridge the gap.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151
    Commisar said:

    I'd say that the Paradox games do not focus on Empire and Imperialism that's why I'd avoid it. The things happening in the UK is getting a little out of hand, even modern comedies are getting removed from streaming sites. I think any company will avoid mildly difficult issues for the next year or two, just not worth the grief. Personally I don't like taking certain things off the table but I guess the guys in CA who are paid to look after the companies name will probably play it safe. I mean.. this could mean Victoria could be held back due to it's obvious connection with the Great Game in Africa and other such periods. Disappointing.

    Yeah that is true. It does follow the definition of Imperialism and you can take over large swathes of Africa in it but it is also a long established game (and series) and still rather niche.

    I still don't think it will impact a possible game set in the 1800s as it's not on the table currently. I think with Tory and WH3 being the next 2-3 years of their releases and a game set in the 1800s being really grand in map scale they might want to either do a second game set in China OR do a smaller title to bridge the gap.
    I don't see them touching it until things calm down but I do see them doing it eventually, FotS was really popular and the old saying that a gatling gun can solve any problem is just as true for TW.

    My main issue is they will avoid the gritty realism of a game that will be about imperialism, they will play down certain features and not really have a mechanic that supports or shows imperialism as deep as I'd want them to. Considering the waves made with the R2 female generals and the fact TW games are often at the top of the global best seller list what CA does gets noticed a lot more these days. I imagine if the board members at CA had a choice they'd evade anything even remotely 'politically sensitive' this year.

    TBF though I don't see a major historical release coming any time soon so I'm not sure it matters. 3K will be here for ages and we won't hear about any new sagas for a year and a half at least. I'd rather they waited so they could do a complex Empire style game with all the historical bells and whistles.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 453
    Lmao, the review bombing of Rome II was an organised attempt by Stormfront, which happened several years after their inclusion. Most of them haven't even played the damn game. Internet campaigns =/= indication of popularity.

    Two introductory articles about the changing demographics and the fact that companies try to pander to the new consumer trends:
    https://books.google.fr/books?id=VW2QAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=female+soldiers+video+games+marketing&source=bl&ots=B0sGHeJLvN&sig=ACfU3U2FVqXHdLwWDgU3bkBSN-qLn-wHbQ&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_v__jh4bqAhXF8uAKHVQ3CYsQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=female soldiers video games marketing&f=false

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130321064024/http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them

    https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/adult-women-largest-gaming-demographic/?fb=ss&prtnr=nerdist

    By the way, Dave, I'm still waiting for you to explain why CA cares about equality and not profits. You know, support your claim with an actual source, not your opinion.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151

    Lmao, the review bombing of Rome II was an organised attempt by Stormfront, which happened several years after their inclusion. Most of them haven't even played the damn game. Internet campaigns =/= indication of popularity.

    Two introductory articles about the changing demographics and the fact that companies try to pander to the new consumer trends:
    https://books.google.fr/books?id=VW2QAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=female+soldiers+video+games+marketing&source=bl&ots=B0sGHeJLvN&sig=ACfU3U2FVqXHdLwWDgU3bkBSN-qLn-wHbQ&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_v__jh4bqAhXF8uAKHVQ3CYsQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=female soldiers video games marketing&f=false

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130321064024/http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them

    https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/adult-women-largest-gaming-demographic/?fb=ss&prtnr=nerdist

    By the way, Dave, I'm still waiting for you to explain why CA cares about equality and not profits. You know, support your claim with an actual source, not your opinion.

    The first link is an entire book in a foreign language.. so it means nothing.

    The next one argues that games with only female characters don't do well because they don't get supported.

    The next proves that females love playing mobile games.

    Now.. where is this evidence that females make up a significant amount of PC strategy games, specifically the TW series? Further to this do you have any actual proof that having female generals was positive to game sales of an already old game?

    Did I say CA care about equality and representation over profits? Or can the 2 coexist? If CA were to select a different game rather than a game based on imperialism/slavery would that objectively effect their profits? The answer to that question is.. no.

  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 453
    Right, the first book is a collection of works, whose title is in German, but the specific article I linked is in English.

    The next one also argues that mixed games perform better than male-exclusive ones.

    The third demonstrates how women play more and more video-games. Wikipedia has a small, fully-referenced paragraph on that, if you prefer the encyclopedia.

    By the way, female generals were added as a part of a DLC. The goal was not to impact the sales of the main game.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Demographics_of_female_players

    CA could certainly choose another setting, but the point is that the 18th century is perfectly viable, despite an obscure statue having been thrown into the sea. Feel free to argue otherwise with actual sources.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151

    Right, the first book is a collection of works, whose title is in German, but the specific article I linked is in English.

    The next one also argues that mixed games perform better than male-exclusive ones.

    The third demonstrates how women play more and more video-games. Wikipedia has a small, fully-referenced paragraph on that, if you prefer the encyclopedia.

    By the way, female generals were added as a part of a DLC. The goal was not to impact the sales of the main game.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games#Demographics_of_female_players

    CA could certainly choose another setting, but the point is that the 18th century is perfectly viable, despite an obscure statue having been thrown into the sea. Feel free to argue otherwise with actual sources.

    Again.. non of this impacts the TW series, females are simply not interested in grand strategy or turn based strategy games:

    https://www.polygon.com/2017/1/20/14337282/games-for-women-and-girls

    CA didn't release DLC to make money? My point is this, CA refused to listen to fan feedback about female generals because it would look bad in terms of their company values, it may have been seen as CA accepting a sexist narrative.

    Equally, CA would want to avoid a pro-imperial narrative in todays rather sensitive political climate. This is a reasonable position for a company to hold and you haven't convinced me otherwise.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 453
    What feedback? Only a couple of history nerds reacted. Do you seriously believe that many are mad at female generals, while Rome II is riddled with inaccuracies of the most obvious kind? Genuine suggestion, don't listen to twitter too much, the world is much less adamant about that stuff than social media echo chambers would let you believe.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151

    What feedback? Only a couple of history nerds reacted. Do you seriously believe that many are mad at female generals, while Rome II is riddled with inaccuracies of the most obvious kind? Genuine suggestion, don't listen to twitter too much, the world is much less adamant about that stuff than social media echo chambers would let you believe.

    A few? All the TW games got review bombed to the level of mostly negative.. are you being serious? It had nothing to do with history nerves being upset, it had more to do with elements of the alt right turning things political.

    Genuine suggestion.. think before replying.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 453
    That thing never happened. Only Rome II was review-bombed, it started from a misleading story, which emerged several months after the DLC release and which concerned a group of people outside the TW fandom. This is not reddit, you can't start a rumour, based only on upvotes.

    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151

    That thing never happened. Only Rome II was review-bombed, it started from a misleading story, which emerged several months after the DLC release and which concerned a group of people outside the TW fandom. This is not reddit, you can't start a rumour, based only on upvotes.

    You say that never happened and then you give me video evidence it did.. are you feeling ok? First you argue it was a few nerds complaining about history and now you are admitting (thanks to evidence) that it was a newsworthy event. The facts:

    Adding these female generals created a negative response from certain elements of the fanbase (those part of the anti-SJW club).
    CA refused to make any changes despite the outcry because they are not willing to align with a more right wing view.

    This is clear evidence CA will avoid aligning in anyway anything that will label them as supporting alt-right views (possibly because the majority of their fanbase are educated).

    Again, I do not think CA will go near imperialism and you have not convinced me otherwise. Lots of different types of media have been removed from streaming sites due to low level offense and you think this is the time for a progressive company to get involved with imperialism, slavery etc?

    Comedy gold.
  • chefboiardichefboiardi Registered Users Posts: 6
    SiWI said:

    personally I would like a TW "Victoria" to go from 1815 to 1918 (or 1900)

    I honestly would actually like that too time period maybe as far back as Civil War for the potential of introducing the first all-metal ships

    ps, i love that sig, how did u set it up?
    Completed Campaigns
    • (Done)GrndC - Empire-Karlitos Franz
    • (Done)GrndC - Lizardmen-Big Mazda
    • (Done)GrndC - High Elf-Tyrion Lannister
    • GrndC - Greenskin - Grom, Wurrzag, Thorgrim
    • (Done)Rome, Arverni, Carthage, Macedon, Sparta, Egypt
    • (Done)ImpAug - Antony' s Rome, Octavian's Rome, Lepidus' Rome
    • (Done)ERE, Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Danes, Geats, Jutes
    • (Done)Apache, Tarascan(P'urhepecha), Aztec, Mayans, Tlaxcala
    Rarest Achievements
    Skink Priest Decipherer (2.9%) WH2
    GG No Re! (0.7%) 3K
    Master Tactician (3.8%) Rome2
    Burning Seas (10.3%) Attila
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 453

    That thing never happened. Only Rome II was review-bombed, it started from a misleading story, which emerged several months after the DLC release and which concerned a group of people outside the TW fandom. This is not reddit, you can't start a rumour, based only on upvotes.

    You say that never happened and then you give me video evidence it did.. are you feeling ok? First you argue it was a few nerds complaining about history and now you are admitting (thanks to evidence) that it was a newsworthy event. The facts:

    Adding these female generals created a negative response from certain elements of the fanbase (those part of the anti-SJW club).
    CA refused to make any changes despite the outcry because they are not willing to align with a more right wing view.

    This is clear evidence CA will avoid aligning in anyway anything that will label them as supporting alt-right views (possibly because the majority of their fanbase are educated).

    Again, I do not think CA will go near imperialism and you have not convinced me otherwise. Lots of different types of media have been removed from streaming sites due to low level offense and you think this is the time for a progressive company to get involved with imperialism, slavery etc?

    Comedy gold.
    Lmao, how does the video support your assertion that "all TW games got review-bombed to the level of mostly negative"? Even R2 the only game affected was not mostly negative. What exactly is your goal here? Mislead the guest who didn't bother to watch the video? Jeez, mate, just admit you're wrong. By the way, adding the female generals didn't create any controversy whatsoever. The review-bombing started several months after their addition, because of a sloppy comment from Ella CA. Watch the video, it won't bite. Anyway, my aim is not to convince you, but to show that the concept of CA abandoning a potentially very profitable setting, because a random statue was vandalised sometime in 2020 is based on absolutely nothing and is contradicted by facts and common sense.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,151

    That thing never happened. Only Rome II was review-bombed, it started from a misleading story, which emerged several months after the DLC release and which concerned a group of people outside the TW fandom. This is not reddit, you can't start a rumour, based only on upvotes.

    You say that never happened and then you give me video evidence it did.. are you feeling ok? First you argue it was a few nerds complaining about history and now you are admitting (thanks to evidence) that it was a newsworthy event. The facts:

    Adding these female generals created a negative response from certain elements of the fanbase (those part of the anti-SJW club).
    CA refused to make any changes despite the outcry because they are not willing to align with a more right wing view.

    This is clear evidence CA will avoid aligning in anyway anything that will label them as supporting alt-right views (possibly because the majority of their fanbase are educated).

    Again, I do not think CA will go near imperialism and you have not convinced me otherwise. Lots of different types of media have been removed from streaming sites due to low level offense and you think this is the time for a progressive company to get involved with imperialism, slavery etc?

    Comedy gold.
    Lmao, how does the video support your assertion that "all TW games got review-bombed to the level of mostly negative"? Even R2 the only game affected was not mostly negative. What exactly is your goal here? Mislead the guest who didn't bother to watch the video? Jeez, mate, just admit you're wrong. By the way, adding the female generals didn't create any controversy whatsoever. The review-bombing started several months after their addition, because of a sloppy comment from Ella CA. Watch the video, it won't bite. Anyway, my aim is not to convince you, but to show that the concept of CA abandoning a potentially very profitable setting, because a random statue was vandalised sometime in 2020 is based on absolutely nothing and is contradicted by facts and common sense.
    Wait.. so you start by saying a few nerds got upset about historical accuracy, I explained that’s wrong and now to save face you are trying to argue I’m wrong about those people review bombing all the TW games rather than just R2? Like that’s the crux of your argument all of a sudden? Are you for real?

    This is great stuff.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 453
    Yes, your sentence was wrong in all regards. Horrible of me pointing that out, now I will only live in shame.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!
Sign In or Register to comment.