New Empire total war?

brickvapie

Now, I know everyone things this would be bad and a cash grab to get a new ETW, but I think it would be fairly profitable even. I'd like to see what the community sees down below and such. It would be lovely if we could get a Total War Dev on here to comment on it. None the less please comment what you think here

brickvapie, steam user.

ROMOBOY

I would personally like it. By the way, prepare for all the “wrong forum section” replies

saweendra

not sure this the right section but why not i am sure it will have customers

brickvapie

* yes i am deeply sorry for any wrong forum things, this was just a questions

Brizthom

The Empire is already in total war.

SaintCorn

Empire: Total War, but it is actually modern and a lot less janky?
It would definitely be worth it.
And for the Empire in Warhammer,
They need a bit of love.

General_Hijalti

Would absolutely love for some more empire content for total war warhammer. Wouldn't be a cash crab at all, they have plenty of stuff left for dlc and need a flc lord.


In all seriousness I would definitely buy an empire total war 2 (assuming it's good and not a Rome 2 on release), or any heavily gunpowder focused total war.

Pike and shot maybe.

UberReptilian

I've seen others advocate for game III being the "Chaos Total Warhammer" game, so having an Empire Total Warhammer doesn't seem too illogical.

Rutgerhuer

I suspect it's next on CA's list. But they better figure out navies again and fix the way guns work.

manpersal

Another fan here, I'd prefer it even over Medieval III.

Valkaar

They’d have to do A LOT more work to make the factions feel more distinct this time around.

I don’t hate the period, and the campaign map made a lot of leaps forward when they first implemented it.

But the faction-uniqueness was so nonexistent, it’s probably my least favorite Total War that I’ve played.... (to its credit, i at least bought/played it.... some Titles like Thrones of Britannia couldn’t even entice me to try it... so Empire had at least going for it I guess)....

I’m not opposed to powder gameplay.... but much more asymmetry is needed to make it compelling. Fall of the Samurai did a decent job with this imo. Empire... not so much. Most factions had completely identical rosters in terms of unit aesthetics and roles besides the color of their uniforms. The only real differences were slight changes to ‘range’ and ‘morale’ stats. The Ottomans and Maratha were slightly more unique, but not quite the same level of distinctiveness that eastern factions had in previous titles.

Basically, I’d be down for Empire if it got a wholesale redesign. But if they attempt to ‘recreate’ Empire, with just iterative improvements and better graphics, I’d probably pass.

TheGreatEmperor

I definitely prefer it over another ancient historical setting. The thing with pre-gunpowder periods is that they all use spears, swords, bows or other variants of them. It's true that people wore more armour and used more effective weapons over time, but in principle they are more or less the same.

Yes, it's also hard to add uniqueness to the factions when every European nation was using similar guns and cannons, but I think that's also true in the Medieval period even without guns. After all, people in real life don't care about uniqueness when it comes to warfare. They care about effectiveness, and they would copy equipment and tactics from other cultures as they see fit. By the late Medieval period, everyone used heavy cavalry if they could afford it, English, French, Germans, Polish, Byzantines, Arabs, Mongols, Chinese. The main difference among the European knights was their coat of arms.

There are definitely more differences they could add to the factions in Empire. I mean, despite being similar, every nation developed their own guns. I also think the effective range of the guns should have a falloff. It was up to the officers to decide when it was close enough to fire, and that alone was enough to set apart professional armies and militia. Amphibious assaults should also be added in. I think the main difference across different militaries at that time came from the limited resources they had, in terms of manpower, ships, training, and those can be reflected in the game to give more differences.

SiWI

Personally I would like either an Empire 2 (18th century) or a TW Victoria (19th century).

The last gunpowder TW was FotS and revisiting that kind of combat would be a nice change of pace.

cbferris1

If Victorian age or Empire 2 was ever going to happen it would have been years ago. Honestly I don’t see them making either now because they world has gone way to pc for them to put it in an era that was all about Europeans colonizing the whole world. I really wish they would though, I’ve been hoping for something 1815-1915 era for a long time but I don’t think they will ever do it


In related news they did just register “total war: medieval” with the uk patent office so go figure

VikingHuscal1066

I honestly think that a Empire 2 could work really well, but CA would really have to go all out on it.

Because while I don't think it would need three whole games to make it properly, they would need to focus on doing it right, so that not only do all the factions not feel the same, but neither do their armies.


I mean, if they want to focus the base game around Europe and the Mediterranean, that'd be fine. They could make DLC expansion packs that add on different parts of the campaign map.

I would think it would be best if CA started the game's grand campaign around 1680 or so. That way there'd be the most options for possible factions in a eventually near global campaign.

VikingHuscal1066

Valkaar said:

I’m not opposed to powder gameplay.... but much more asymmetry is needed to make it compelling. Fall of the Samurai did a decent job with this imo. Empire... not so much. Most factions had completely identical rosters in terms of unit aesthetics and roles besides the color of their uniforms. The only real differences were slight changes to ‘range’ and ‘morale’ stats. The Ottomans and Maratha were slightly more unique, but not quite the same level of distinctiveness that eastern factions had in previous titles.

Oh, I agree with you on that.

I would really hope that aside from the main playable factions in Europe, CA would expand what a lot of others could potentially do, and not just have them all making nothing but line infantry all the time.

Nazrom

I'd love Empire: TW II, but with more variety between the factions and general polishing.

VikingHuscal1066 said:

Because while I don't think it would need three whole games to make it properly, they would need to focus on doing it right, so that not only do all the factions not feel the same, but neither do their armies.


I mean, if they want to focus the base game around Europe and the Mediterranean, that'd be fine. They could make DLC expansion packs that add on different parts of the campaign map.

I would think it would be best if CA started the game's grand campaign around 1680 or so. That way there'd be the most options for possible factions in a eventually near global campaign.

Agree with the first point. Empire TW factions were all effectively the same minus maybe Ottoman and Maratha.

But If they just do Europe/Mediterranean, it would feel more like a New Napoleon TW rather than Empire TW. The allure of Empire, to me at least, was global colonization/domination.

Commisar

Even then the Ottomans/Marathans tend to play similarly to the Europeans, issue with them adopting the more effective tactics of the period.

Still think the main issue currently is the province system of the new games compared to Empire. It just doesn't fit it or feel like a good representation for the period.

VikingHuscal1066

Nazrom said:

Agree with the first point. Empire TW factions were all effectively the same minus maybe Ottoman and Maratha.

But If they just do Europe/Mediterranean, it would feel more like a New Napoleon TW rather than Empire TW. The allure of Empire, to me at least, was global colonization/domination.

I know, that's why I would expect CA to expand the campaign map with what I would call "expansion pack" DLCs that add not just new areas to the map, but also a lot of different factions that would come with them.

We could get some that expand the map in almost every direction.

I would think that this would be the best way to introduce different factions that would play differently from each other, without breaking the game into separate games.

SiWI

Commisar said:

Still think the main issue currently is the province system of the new games compared to Empire. It just doesn't fit it or feel like a good representation for the period.

I wouldn't see this too much as a problem because if CA actually wants to use an different province system (and I assume they will also try to evolved its game system), they can and it probably will be different to what we have now anyway.

Commisar

SiWI said:

I wouldn't see this too much as a problem because if CA actually wants to use an different province system (and I assume they will also try to evolved its game system), they can and it probably will be different to what we have now anyway.

They've generally pushed it away and kept to the same principle since R2 which doesn't bode well for a such a radical change any time soon. Similar issue with the army/navy cap and requiring a general/admiral.

Nazrom

VikingHuscal1066 said:

I know, that's why I would expect CA to expand the campaign map with what I would call "expansion pack" DLCs that add not just new areas to the map, but also a lot of different factions that would come with them.

We could get some that expand the map in almost every direction.

I would think that this would be the best way to introduce different factions that would play differently from each other, without breaking the game into separate games.

Thinking about it, this could work great as expansions. It could play as sending a colonial force to said locations to expand your empire. Or from the other perspective, pushing back against the colonial forces.

Commisar said:

They've generally pushed it away and kept to the same principle since R2 which doesn't bode well for a such a radical change any time soon. Similar issue with the army/navy cap and requiring a general/admiral.

I really liked the idea of settlements developing over time and being physically appearing on the world map, and I hope they bring it back. I thought it fit the theme of the game well and actually enjoyed the mechanic.

Unfortunately though, my hopes aren't high for it coming back or being revamped as CA seems to have found their groove.

VikingHuscal1066

Nazrom said:

Thinking about it, this could work great as expansions. It could play as sending a colonial force to said locations to expand your empire. Or from the other perspective, pushing back against the colonial forces.

I don't know about having different maps and such, because I would like to see an Empire 2 eventually have a near global scale to its grand campaign map.

Because I'd like to see things like


Let's say you're the British/England, and you want to get a nice proper foot hold in the far east.

Well, you build up a nice little army of your "modern" troops, which you think will be more than enough to deal with anything those eastern barbarians can come up with.

Only for you to realize that the Qing or some other far eastern faction managed to not only had pretty large armies of their own, but that they ambushed your army and wiped it out.


I just think that it'd be a lot more meaningful if when you try to send armies to far away lands, you should have to actually be really careful with them, because unless you have a good supply line, your units will be able to replenish FAR less effectively.

That would make sending an army to the far east as a playable European faction not only time consuming, but really risky as well.

And many of the other major playable factions won't exactly be just sitting around whistling a happy tune. Some of them will also try to expand and advance their faction and armies.

Nazrom

VikingHuscal1066 said:

I don't know about having different maps and such, because I would like to see an Empire 2 eventually have a near global scale to its grand campaign map.

I agree with your idea, I only meant that the expansions could open up a new theater of war. In the end we could have a map on the global scale like ETW (hopefully larger).

So in the beginning it would only be Europe/Mediterranean. But as an expansion is released, you'd be able to travel to the new theater from the existing map, like you could in ETW (think sailing to the new world or going through the Iran/Afghanistan area into India).

Since it'd be a new theater, you would have to rely on the force you sent over unless you've conquered the land connecting the regions in case of Europe/Africa/Asia.

By introducing the different theaters over time, they could take more time to make each new faction unique.

Ideally, this seems like it'd be a great way to do it, but I'm not a game designer so I'm not sure if they'd be able to add on the regions easily.

I definitely wasn't big on the standalone Native American Warpath Campaign because it restricted the size of the map, amongst other problems.

Commisar

Has the AIs naval invasions improved in the WH series? As we've not had it be much of a thing in the recent Saga/history titles to check on.

SiWI

Commisar said:

Has the AIs naval invasions improved in the WH series? As we've not had it be much of a thing in the recent Saga/history titles to check on.

I would say yes.

Being on an inland doesn't mean that you are save and if the AI attacks it usually does with 2+ full stacks when invading an large continent.

VikingHuscal1066

Nazrom said:

I agree with your idea, I only meant that the expansions could open up a new theater of war. In the end we could have a map on the global scale like ETW (hopefully larger).

So in the beginning it would only be Europe/Mediterranean. But as an expansion is released, you'd be able to travel to the new theater from the existing map, like you could in ETW (think sailing to the new world or going through the Iran/Afghanistan area into India).

Since it'd be a new theater, you would have to rely on the force you sent over unless you've conquered the land connecting the regions in case of Europe/Africa/Asia.

By introducing the different theaters over time, they could take more time to make each new faction unique.

Ideally, this seems like it'd be a great way to do it, but I'm not a game designer so I'm not sure if they'd be able to add on the regions easily.

I definitely wasn't big on the standalone Native American Warpath Campaign because it restricted the size of the map, amongst other problems.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'd really like to see.

Though I don't know about putting a bunch of outposts or things like that for different factions from far away lands, things like giving the British or Dutch East India Companies and such.

I'm just worried that if those are factions over in east Asia, and they start out with a big army and navy, they might be able to steamroller most of the far eastern factions with ease.


I guess that's what I want to see most is that if the major European factions want to expand in the east or wherever, they should have to really start small, with what holdings they have in Asia or wherever being rather small, so that they have to think carefully about where to allocate resources.'

I just want the non European factions to also have a chance to thrive and expand.

Commisar

SiWI said:

I would say yes.

Being on an inland doesn't mean that you are save and if the AI attacks it usually does with 2+ full stacks when invading an large continent.

That's good to hear then! Was a bit of a problem with Empire, only the Marathans would really do any invasions...and for some reason the Caribbean islands were their choice lol Would make maintaining defences around your empire more important as well.