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

Poll : Next Historical Total War

2

Comments

  • YannirYannir Registered Users Posts: 967
    ArneSo said:


    Medieval 3 Part 1:


    Your Northern Europe/Northern Russia is highly inaccurate historically speaking.
  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 969
    The question is a bit ambiguous. If it's about what we want, then that would be Empire 2. If it's about what we expect, then that would probably be nothing. Given how popular fantasy is, history seems dead for the foreseeable future. Even in 3K, Romance is more popular and in Troy CA ditched completely the "realistic" mode.
    MrDragon said:

    Just to remind everybody (not saying you forgot but just in case) that the fantasy team is not responsible for historical titles and the next historical title is already in production and none of this is related to TWWH3.

    So this thread is entirely in the wrong topic.

    Just to remind everybody there is absolutely no indication that there are two separate teams of considerable size and that the next historical game is already in the works. Keep in mind that development for WH3 started in August 2019, after the release of 3K and a CA employee himself confirmed that they are internally referring to Troy as their historical product to differentiate it from the rest. After all the release pattern hasn't been affected at all, despite the alleged existence of multiple teams.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!

  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 19,475
    Yannir said:

    ArneSo said:


    Medieval 3 Part 1:


    Your Northern Europe/Northern Russia is highly inaccurate historically speaking.
    Didn’t make the map myself obviously.

    Just wanted to point out how such campaign maps could theoretically look like.
    Justice for Kiwi123, neodeinos and FungusHound, the mighty Troll Slayers.
  • DendrofielDendrofiel Registered Users Posts: 102
    edited February 17


    Europe 1617 (Willem Blaeu)



    New World 1617 (Willem Blaeu)



    Asia 1617



    Afrika 1617



  • MaedrethnirMaedrethnir Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,000
    edited February 17
    Medieval 3 for me.
    animacja-sygn-3.gif


  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,224
    Yannir said:

    ArneSo said:


    Medieval 3 Part 1:


    Your Northern Europe/Northern Russia is highly inaccurate historically speaking.
    Same for northern and subsaharan afric,a and there will also be many mistakes in asia and elsewhere probably. But its not about how accurate that map is in the context of this forum, but just to visualize the scope of the proposed game. As such it is fine. As a historical map not so much.
  • TicladesignTicladesign Registered Users Posts: 76
    Uhm yes, Troy, and throne of Britania (sp?) were the historic titles, and likely that studio will make several new historic titles for the fans of Historic total war games..

    But I prefer the Fantasy team sticks to fantasy games, be it Warhammer, Lord of the Rings or a Fantasy setting of CA's own making (Creative freedom! yayz) as the potential playerbase for a Fantasy game is proven to be pretty large.

    Personally I prefer a High Fantasy setting, with focus on Heroes, story and random events on the battlemap. Fantasy also creates far more different types of units, abilities and magic than historic has. But that depends on how the game is designed, of course.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,096

    ArneSo said:

    ArneSo said:

    Medieval 3 + Mongols as 2 combined TW games with a giant map from England to Japan.

    That doesn't seem very possible to me.

    Why?

    CA would just has to copy the game concept of TWWH for a historic title.

    - Medieval 3: Part 1 = Europe, Middle East and Africa

    - Medieval 3: Part 2 = Asia

    If you own both games you have a giant combined campaign.
    That’s the only way to really represent the Mongol Empire.

    Asia is too massive that's why.
    I think you may have missed how large the ME map is going to be.
    Interested in Sea Elves? Did you just call me a simpleton?

  • PoorManatee6197PoorManatee6197 Registered Users Posts: 1,184
    ArneSo said:

    @greendolphin
    It clearly wouldn’t be to big if CA splits the map in 2 different games with 1 combined map.

    Medieval 3 Part 1:



    Medieval 3 Part 2:



    Combined Campaign a-la Mortal Empires:


    Why 2 parts? In warhammer it makes sense because new races are expensive and hard to make because new skeletons and all that, but how do you justify 2 60€ paywalls in a historical title?
    #MakeDwarfsGreatAgain Josef Bugman, Thorek Ironbrow, Alrik Ranulfsson, Grimm Burloksson, Kazador Thunderhorn, Byrrnoth Grundadrakk, Malakai Makaisson, Gotrek Gurnisson, Garagrim, Dragon slayer, Deamon slayer, Doomseekers, Brotherhood of Grimnir, Giant slayers, Thunderbarge, Shieldbearer mount, Master brewer, Goblin Hewer, Norse dwarf war mammoth, Tractator engine, Rune golem, Shard dragon, proper Anvil of Doom, Ulther's dragon company, Lond Drong's slayer pirates, Everguard, Karak Varn, Karag Agrilwutraz, Silver Pinacle, Karag Dum, Karak Vlag, Kraka Dorden, Kraka Ornsmotek, Kraka Ravnsvake, Karak Vrag, Karak Azorn, Karak Krakaten.


    All those missing things are grudges in the great book, is in your hand to settle them, CA. Khazukan kazakit-ha!
  • PoorManatee6197PoorManatee6197 Registered Users Posts: 1,184
    I'm not really interested in historical titles right now but my choose is empire 2. Also a saga title based on the Al andalus period would be great.
    #MakeDwarfsGreatAgain Josef Bugman, Thorek Ironbrow, Alrik Ranulfsson, Grimm Burloksson, Kazador Thunderhorn, Byrrnoth Grundadrakk, Malakai Makaisson, Gotrek Gurnisson, Garagrim, Dragon slayer, Deamon slayer, Doomseekers, Brotherhood of Grimnir, Giant slayers, Thunderbarge, Shieldbearer mount, Master brewer, Goblin Hewer, Norse dwarf war mammoth, Tractator engine, Rune golem, Shard dragon, proper Anvil of Doom, Ulther's dragon company, Lond Drong's slayer pirates, Everguard, Karak Varn, Karag Agrilwutraz, Silver Pinacle, Karag Dum, Karak Vlag, Kraka Dorden, Kraka Ornsmotek, Kraka Ravnsvake, Karak Vrag, Karak Azorn, Karak Krakaten.


    All those missing things are grudges in the great book, is in your hand to settle them, CA. Khazukan kazakit-ha!
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 19,475

    ArneSo said:

    @greendolphin
    It clearly wouldn’t be to big if CA splits the map in 2 different games with 1 combined map.

    Medieval 3 Part 1:



    Medieval 3 Part 2:



    Combined Campaign a-la Mortal Empires:


    Why 2 parts? In warhammer it makes sense because new races are expensive and hard to make because new skeletons and all that, but how do you justify 2 60€ paywalls in a historical title?
    1. Because it would be to big for 1 game with to many unique and diverse cultures.

    2. The concept of WH clearly showed how popular combined maps are to create a game with a massive scope. CA should copy that for historic titles.
    Justice for Kiwi123, neodeinos and FungusHound, the mighty Troll Slayers.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,096
    edited February 17
    10 years ago Empire TW used 138 settlements to represent the Americas, Europe and a good portion of Asia.

    10 year later and the Mortal Empire Map has 300+ settlements and that number may almost be doubled and people are saying CA can't do England to Japan?

    Sure?
    Interested in Sea Elves? Did you just call me a simpleton?

  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 969
    Mongol TW would be nice and colourful, but commercially successful? Not sure about that. Mongols themselves are not very popular in China and the entirety of Central Asia has a very obscure position in modern popular culture. It's not like all these states have some great potential markets waiting to be exploited by CA. If CA wanted to include both China and Europe in a single game (in a game set in the 17th not 13th century), the theater solution of Empire seems the most economical. Even in Rome II, much more moderate in scope, they squeezed Iran and the surrounding regions, in order to include Bactria and the fringes of India.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!

  • greendolphingreendolphin Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited February 17
    What title would you like to be released after playing three kingdoms?

    https://strawpoll.com/wxsk4oy6c/r
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,645

    None. Historical TW is probably dead for the foreseeable future. The only historical TW I can see is maybe an expansion for 3K, something like the Warring States.

    What do you mean?
    Ca has Historical Team, right?
  • greendolphingreendolphin Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited February 17
    Which game would you like to be released after Warhammer 3?

    https://strawpoll.com/wxsk4oy6c/r
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • DeadpoolSWDeadpoolSW Registered Users Posts: 2,170
    Your last, identical thread was moved to general (since like this one, it has NOTHING to do with TWW).
    Nagash will rule again!

    Justice for Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms, Araby, Albion, Amazons, Halflings, Nippon, Ind & the Hobgoblin Khanate!
  • CyresdogCyresdog Registered Users Posts: 572
    We had troy and three kingdoms between warhammer 2 and 3 so 2 fantasy titles one after another isn't unlikely, so why is there not a single fantasy/sci-fi choice?
    After all the fantasy setting was what saved CA

    Reminder to ignore certain Users:
    Lucibuis, Veresh

  • PoorManatee6197PoorManatee6197 Registered Users Posts: 1,184
    ArneSo said:

    ArneSo said:

    @greendolphin
    It clearly wouldn’t be to big if CA splits the map in 2 different games with 1 combined map.

    Medieval 3 Part 1:



    Medieval 3 Part 2:



    Combined Campaign a-la Mortal Empires:


    Why 2 parts? In warhammer it makes sense because new races are expensive and hard to make because new skeletons and all that, but how do you justify 2 60€ paywalls in a historical title?
    1. Because it would be to big for 1 game with to many unique and diverse cultures.

    2. The concept of WH clearly showed how popular combined maps are to create a game with a massive scope. CA should copy that for historic titles.
    If I already own the game I wouldnt pay another 60€ for more humans and a map expansion, different culture or whatever it would just be a change on clothes.
    #MakeDwarfsGreatAgain Josef Bugman, Thorek Ironbrow, Alrik Ranulfsson, Grimm Burloksson, Kazador Thunderhorn, Byrrnoth Grundadrakk, Malakai Makaisson, Gotrek Gurnisson, Garagrim, Dragon slayer, Deamon slayer, Doomseekers, Brotherhood of Grimnir, Giant slayers, Thunderbarge, Shieldbearer mount, Master brewer, Goblin Hewer, Norse dwarf war mammoth, Tractator engine, Rune golem, Shard dragon, proper Anvil of Doom, Ulther's dragon company, Lond Drong's slayer pirates, Everguard, Karak Varn, Karag Agrilwutraz, Silver Pinacle, Karag Dum, Karak Vlag, Kraka Dorden, Kraka Ornsmotek, Kraka Ravnsvake, Karak Vrag, Karak Azorn, Karak Krakaten.


    All those missing things are grudges in the great book, is in your hand to settle them, CA. Khazukan kazakit-ha!
  • Maxim1lianMaxim1lian Registered Users Posts: 64

    ArneSo said:

    @greendolphin
    It clearly wouldn’t be to big if CA splits the map in 2 different games with 1 combined map.

    Medieval 3 Part 1:



    Medieval 3 Part 2:



    Combined Campaign a-la Mortal Empires:


    Why 2 parts? In warhammer it makes sense because new races are expensive and hard to make because new skeletons and all that, but how do you justify 2 60€ paywalls in a historical title?
    Because development and creation is not limited to "races and skeletons" only.
    You must understand that races in Warhammer = cultures and factions in the historical series.
    For example, this implies that many more models of weapons and armor items will be created to keep the "clone war" to a minimum. Much more than Warhammer when compared to the human races in Warhammer. But it will take a long time to create this, since modeling and texturing is also not a fast business. It should also be taken into account that the campaigns will be divided into at least 3 time frames for different ages of the Medieval. And this is also a great variety and difference between a campaign and a campaign.
    Why will there be different time frames? Because the SA has not made a long time interval in its games for a long time. And this is good, because it is anochronic and historically inaccurate.
    Therefore, yes, for each part of the new trilogy on Medieval, people will be quite ready to pay that kind of money, because these are essentially separate games, given how much work and time the developers will invest in them.
  • LaindeshLaindesh Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,461
    Cyresdog said:

    We had troy and three kingdoms between warhammer 2 and 3 so 2 fantasy titles one after another isn't unlikely, so why is there not a single fantasy/sci-fi choice?
    After all the fantasy setting was what saved CA

    CA had to be saved? pretty sure they did just fine as it was?

    TW was always kind of a niche series anyway. WH just boosted its popularity to not-seen-before heights and undoubtly helped 3K sales.

    CA wouldnt release the saga series if the historical titles didnt do just fine i think.
  • Maxim1lianMaxim1lian Registered Users Posts: 64


    Hopefully there will be as many regions and provinces in Medieval 3. And in each region there will be 3-5 settlements - Big city, small cities, castles or fortresses.

    It would be cool.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,096

    ArneSo said:

    ArneSo said:

    @greendolphin
    It clearly wouldn’t be to big if CA splits the map in 2 different games with 1 combined map.

    Medieval 3 Part 1:



    Medieval 3 Part 2:



    Combined Campaign a-la Mortal Empires:


    Why 2 parts? In warhammer it makes sense because new races are expensive and hard to make because new skeletons and all that, but how do you justify 2 60€ paywalls in a historical title?
    1. Because it would be to big for 1 game with to many unique and diverse cultures.

    2. The concept of WH clearly showed how popular combined maps are to create a game with a massive scope. CA should copy that for historic titles.
    If I already own the game I wouldnt pay another 60€ for more humans and a map expansion, different culture or whatever it would just be a change on clothes.
    If the first game is set in Europe full of different factions then by buying it you are admitting that's a full game. If a second game came out with an equal amount of map, gameplay mechanics, new factions then that is another game.

    Just because you personally don't like the idea doesn't mean it won't be done.
    Interested in Sea Elves? Did you just call me a simpleton?

  • TheGreatPamphletTheGreatPamphlet Registered Users Posts: 969
    jamreal18 said:

    None. Historical TW is probably dead for the foreseeable future. The only historical TW I can see is maybe an expansion for 3K, something like the Warring States.

    What do you mean?
    Ca has Historical Team, right?
    Depends on what you mean by that. There's only one main team developing the major upcoming title. Right now, this team is busy with a fantasy product, Warhammer III. There's probably a second team brainstorming about the next game (historical or fantasy), but it's very small. Production only starts once the previous tentpole title is released, aka in late 2021 best-case scenario.

    Of course, there are several minor teams, preoccupied with DLCs and the Saga franchise and other menial tasks.
    Nestor.

    Allah, Suriya, Bashar w Bas!

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,645

    ArneSo said:

    ArneSo said:

    @greendolphin
    It clearly wouldn’t be to big if CA splits the map in 2 different games with 1 combined map.

    Medieval 3 Part 1:



    Medieval 3 Part 2:



    Combined Campaign a-la Mortal Empires:


    Why 2 parts? In warhammer it makes sense because new races are expensive and hard to make because new skeletons and all that, but how do you justify 2 60€ paywalls in a historical title?
    1. Because it would be to big for 1 game with to many unique and diverse cultures.

    2. The concept of WH clearly showed how popular combined maps are to create a game with a massive scope. CA should copy that for historic titles.
    If I already own the game I wouldnt pay another 60€ for more humans and a map expansion, different culture or whatever it would just be a change on clothes.
    Sometimes I only want to play Europe.
    Sometimes I only want to play Asian.
    Sometimes I want to Massive Campaign.

    It will have different experience for sure. Mongols deserve their own game separate from Medieval Europe.
  • united84united84 Registered Users Posts: 909
    Total War: Three Kingdoms, with a three. The next historical flagship in 2023, with a "Three". There's no doubt in my mind a third sequel is planned, either a Medieval 3 or Rome 3 but Rome 2 is more recent. So, I think medieval 3 is a likely contender.

    However, I am more interested in a Imjin war saga or warring states. Since, we got Troy after TW3K. I think it is fair we get a setting set in East Asia after Medieval 3.
  • greendolphingreendolphin Registered Users Posts: 53
    united84 said:

    Total War: Three Kingdoms, with a three. The next historical flagship in 2023, with a "Three". There's no doubt in my mind a third sequel is planned, either a Medieval 3 or Rome 3 but Rome 2 is more recent. So, I think medieval 3 is a likely contender.

    However, I am more interested in a Imjin war saga or warring states. Since, we got Troy after TW3K. I think it is fair we get a setting set in East Asia after Medieval 3.

    I don't understand when people suggests titles such as Imjin War or American Civil War. There will be only two factions in the game. And very, very similar to each other also. They don't even deserve a campaign pack.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,699

    10 years ago Empire TW used 138 settlements to represent the Americas, Europe and a good portion of Asia.

    10 year later and the Mortal Empire Map has 300+ settlements and that number may almost be doubled and people are saying CA can't do England to Japan?

    Sure?

    We can make an estimate by comparison of existing maps and the size of the world. Asia (including the Middle East) is 30.0% of the surface area of the world, Europe is 6.7%. So if we look at Attila as the latest map for all of Europe which I think had 186 provinces, remove the 18 from Africa and the 54 from the Middle East leaves us with 124 provinces for Europe. So if 6.7% = 124 then the 30% = 555 rounded to the nearest full number. Then add those provinces we removed earlier and you get a total of 697 provinces at the Attila level. Of course some areas would be less dense but there's also a good chance such a map would cover more of Africa.

    Would be rather disappointing with the lack of detail in many areas that had lots of nations and also doubt many people will be able to run it, think that would be a huge performance issues. WHs system seems to help it's self with factions not being able to occupy every province and having to devastate them last I heard which can reduce the strain as the game rolls on and more unlocks.
  • Maxim1lianMaxim1lian Registered Users Posts: 64
    edited February 17
    Commisar said:

    10 years ago Empire TW used 138 settlements to represent the Americas, Europe and a good portion of Asia.

    10 year later and the Mortal Empire Map has 300+ settlements and that number may almost be doubled and people are saying CA can't do England to Japan?

    Sure?

    We can make an estimate by comparison of existing maps and the size of the world. Asia (including the Middle East) is 30.0% of the surface area of the world, Europe is 6.7%. So if we look at Attila as the latest map for all of Europe which I think had 186 provinces, remove the 18 from Africa and the 54 from the Middle East leaves us with 124 provinces for Europe. So if 6.7% = 124 then the 30% = 555 rounded to the nearest full number. Then add those provinces we removed earlier and you get a total of 697 provinces at the Attila level. Of course some areas would be less dense but there's also a good chance such a map would cover more of Africa.

    Would be rather disappointing with the lack of detail in many areas that had lots of nations and also doubt many people will be able to run it, think that would be a huge performance issues. WHs system seems to help it's self with factions not being able to occupy every province and having to devastate them last I heard which can reduce the strain as the game rolls on and more unlocks.
    It is possible to reduce the quality of visualization of the strategic map to about CK 3.
    In principle, I don't see any reason to make super graphics for the strategic map if it affects performance. The rest of the processes just need to be optimized. You must also remember that with the next historical part, the hardware will step a couple of generations (CPU for sure) further. You can also adapt DLSS.

    Are you definitely talking about provinces, and not about settlements (regions)? Because by going to Honga along Attila and further on the map, there are 62 provinces, but if you consider that there are on average 3 settlements in the provinces (3 regions), then yes - there will be somewhere 180+ settlements (regions). By the way, I originally meant to shove into these regions instead of 1 settlement - 3-5 settlements (Big city, small cities, castles or fortresses).

    It also seems to me that Europe will need to be made more dense, since in my opinion it was historically a very densely built up region with cities and settlements. I can't say the same for most of Asia, and especially Africa.

    Likewise, if we can very well present a picture of the diversity of military affairs (weapons, armor, equipment, engineering, etc.) of Europe and Asia (especially Europe, I would like to note) in different Medieval centuries. That is a very big question that raises Africa, not North Africa, but the rest, if they want to implement it. In general, I doubt the effectiveness of the military affairs of the peoples there - about the same as with the peoples of South America, as history has shown. Do they need to be implemented and who will play for them?
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,096
    Commisar said:

    10 years ago Empire TW used 138 settlements to represent the Americas, Europe and a good portion of Asia.

    10 year later and the Mortal Empire Map has 300+ settlements and that number may almost be doubled and people are saying CA can't do England to Japan?

    Sure?

    We can make an estimate by comparison of existing maps and the size of the world. Asia (including the Middle East) is 30.0% of the surface area of the world, Europe is 6.7%. So if we look at Attila as the latest map for all of Europe which I think had 186 provinces, remove the 18 from Africa and the 54 from the Middle East leaves us with 124 provinces for Europe. So if 6.7% = 124 then the 30% = 555 rounded to the nearest full number. Then add those provinces we removed earlier and you get a total of 697 provinces at the Attila level. Of course some areas would be less dense but there's also a good chance such a map would cover more of Africa.

    Would be rather disappointing with the lack of detail in many areas that had lots of nations and also doubt many people will be able to run it, think that would be a huge performance issues. WHs system seems to help it's self with factions not being able to occupy every province and having to devastate them last I heard which can reduce the strain as the game rolls on and more unlocks.
    I think you're talking apples and oranges here, as in surface area compared to major settlements. You also appear to be very selective about your examples. Compare how many settlements there are in the UK in Empire TW compared to ToB. Would a global wide map be disappointing if the UK had 3 to 5 settlements rather than a 100?

    If you look at Empire TW what has more settlements? The Americas or Europe? The answer as I'm sure you know is Europe despite Europe being 4 times smaller. Using land mass as an argument is a little far fetched.

    The ME map may end up with up to 600 settlements, considering the Americas, Europe, parts of Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia were completed with 138 settlements.. I don't think we need to be in any doubt of what can be achieved.


    Interested in Sea Elves? Did you just call me a simpleton?

Sign In or Register to comment.