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

Next historical could not be Medieval 3

NormandymasterNormandymaster Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 160
there are a lot of rumors regarding the next historical tw game most of them suggesting the next will be Med 3 or a medieval trilogy, or even a reboot of Med1
This is mostly based on a trademark request from CA (the Intellectual property office) last January.
So I've searched any recent total war related trademark. What I've found is that all major trademark were registered (or werebeing registered). In 2020 CA registered again Shogun, Medieval, Napoleon and recently published an application for Medieval.
That doesn't mean Medieval is the next historical, Napoleon could be the next.
What's interesing is thatCA seems to have given up on Empire. Empire seemed the msot flawed and critized pas TW game, maybe too daring in some fields, too broken in lots of mechanics
So next game could be Napoleon and it seems more logical than Medieval 3, CA will most likely do all sequels before a third opus

It's only imo what do you think?
«1

Comments

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981
    I don't think it means much at this point.

    M3 makes sense as Medieval is the oldest iteration now. It also makes sense with so many of the mechanics that have been added in the past few games.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    I agree with the OP.

    I personally think that while a Medieval 3 could be fun and all, I think that there are just a couple other time periods that could make better use of some of the newer mechanics and such better than the medieval period.

    Like the weight class system from Troy for instance.

    You could actually use and even expand such a system in a ancient time period more effectively than in the medieval period, where they're really only be light and heavy troops.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981
    A weight system makes even more sense for the Medieval than earlier periods and got to the extremes of it.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,774
    edited April 10


    So next game could be Napoleon and it seems more logical than Medieval 3, CA will most likely do all sequels before a third opus

    It's only imo what do you think?

    I like Napoleon but I prefer Medieval 3 first if the engine would receive massive improvement. I want to see all features in Manor Lords and more integrated on Medieval 3. I want to see some units composed of more men compared to others just like in Rome 1. Extreme unit size and maybe increase in units per army. 24 -26 units per army will be awesome! Walls really act like real walls. Etc...

    Back to topic, I don't want to see Napoleon yet as there are other era which need to see the light first like the most requested Medieval. Also, I would rather have Alexander and Diadochi and even Ranaissance first before Napoleon.

    But if ever CA will make Napoleon, I will still buy it though.



  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 679
    @jamreal18

    Did You play Manor Lords?

    Which features do You mean? You mentioned about it to implement to medieval 3

    I just saw the gamepley video l, the game is still in development
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    Commisar said:

    A weight system makes even more sense for the Medieval than earlier periods and got to the extremes of it.

    That's my only issue with putting the weight system into a Medieval 3.

    I think that there'd really only be the two weight classes of light and heavy, since there wasn't a tone of middle ground during the medieval period.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981

    Commisar said:

    A weight system makes even more sense for the Medieval than earlier periods and got to the extremes of it.

    That's my only issue with putting the weight system into a Medieval 3.

    I think that there'd really only be the two weight classes of light and heavy, since there wasn't a tone of middle ground during the medieval period.
    There's tons of middle ground, far more than there was in earlier periods.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    Commisar said:



    There's tons of middle ground, far more than there was in earlier periods.

    I disagree dude.

    I mean, there could be a few types of medium units, but it would hardly be what could be pulled off in a "Rome 3".


    Back in the ancient times, you could actually have factions that have a lot more mixed weight classes, if you will. Because there'd be a lot of units that could fit into all three weight classes rather than in the medieval period.

    I mean, cultures like some of the Iberians and Germanics would probably make use of a lot of light and medium troops, with their heavy units being their elite noble units.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981
    edited April 11

    I disagree dude.

    I mean, there could be a few types of medium units, but it would hardly be what could be pulled off in a "Rome 3".


    Back in the ancient times, you could actually have factions that have a lot more mixed weight classes, if you will. Because there'd be a lot of units that could fit into all three weight classes rather than in the medieval period.

    I mean, cultures like some of the Iberians and Germanics would probably make use of a lot of light and medium troops, with their heavy units being their elite noble units.

    There's a far larger range of armour types and layering in the Medieval period than the Roman one, including medium weight armours in comparison.

    There's also many areas in the Medieval period that generally lacked heavy armours such as Ireland and Scotland in Europe and a lot of the Middle East and North Africa.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    Commisar said:


    There's a far larger range of armour types and layering in the Medieval period than the Roman one, including medium weight armours in comparison.

    There's also many areas in the Medieval period that generally lacked heavy armours such as Ireland and Scotland in Europe and a lot of the Middle East and North Africa.

    Yeah, but not really.

    I mean you could maybe make that argument for the later medieval period, but not really the early or mid period.

    Because there was such a focus on knights and such, there was a big divide between the noble and lower classes in terms of what kinds of weapons and armor they get their hands on.

    Yeah, there was stuff like brigandine armor, but that was hardly a common thing for non knightly infantrymen for a lot of the medieval period.

    Not to mention that there wasn't exactly tons of professional non noble infantry running around in the early to mid parts of the medieval period either. Lots of them were just levied peasants.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981

    Yeah, but not really.

    I mean you could maybe make that argument for the later medieval period, but not really the early or mid period.

    Because there was such a focus on knights and such, there was a big divide between the noble and lower classes in terms of what kinds of weapons and armor they get their hands on.

    Yeah, there was stuff like brigandine armor, but that was hardly a common thing for non knightly infantrymen for a lot of the medieval period.

    Not to mention that there wasn't exactly tons of professional non noble infantry running around in the early to mid parts of the medieval period either. Lots of them were just levied peasants.

    The very lowest as in levies yes, but that also applied to all the previous ages. The retainers and mercenaries would vary depending on their wealth and culture from light, medium and heavy equipment.

    Brigandine was actually rather common and is seen in a lot of period art work, vast majority were not knights but men at arms. There's also half plates such as Plackarts.

    Again same for the earlier periods, very few nations had standing armies but again still had issues with less variety of armour.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    Commisar said:


    The very lowest as in levies yes, but that also applied to all the previous ages. The retainers and mercenaries would vary depending on their wealth and culture from light, medium and heavy equipment.

    Brigandine was actually rather common and is seen in a lot of period art work, vast majority were not knights but men at arms. There's also half plates such as Plackarts.

    Again same for the earlier periods, very few nations had standing armies but again still had issues with less variety of armour.

    I don't know dude.

    Art work is one thing, but practical manufacturing of equipment in real life is another.

    I just say that because if you go back and look at a lot of those medieval or later art work of medieval warfare and such, a LOT of the guys look really similar to each other. So they probably just "drew" a lot of them people very similarly to each other because it'd be easier to do it that way.

    And I know that many nations and such didn't have standing armies, that's why ones like the Alexander's army and the Romans were so effective in war.

    Because if you think about it, if the Romans faced off against nations that had standing armies, made up of full time warriors or soldiers, they probably would've have a much harder fight on their hands.


    But I honestly think that from what all I've learned over the years, I think it wasn't really until the English and Swiss really put more of a focus on infantry that the idea of the medieval foot soldiers that we think of really took shape.

    And what I mean is just that it wasn't until a handful of nations really got the idea to either use their infantry more effectively or to make their infantry of better quality that infantry really got the upper hand over knights.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,774
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981

    I don't know dude.

    Art work is one thing, but practical manufacturing of equipment in real life is another.

    I just say that because if you go back and look at a lot of those medieval or later art work of medieval warfare and such, a LOT of the guys look really similar to each other. So they probably just "drew" a lot of them people very similarly to each other because it'd be easier to do it that way.

    And I know that many nations and such didn't have standing armies, that's why ones like the Alexander's army and the Romans were so effective in war.

    Because if you think about it, if the Romans faced off against nations that had standing armies, made up of full time warriors or soldiers, they probably would've have a much harder fight on their hands.


    But I honestly think that from what all I've learned over the years, I think it wasn't really until the English and Swiss really put more of a focus on infantry that the idea of the medieval foot soldiers that we think of really took shape.

    And what I mean is just that it wasn't until a handful of nations really got the idea to either use their infantry more effectively or to make their infantry of better quality that infantry really got the upper hand over knights.

    Brigandine was easy to make, a lot easier than most earlier armours due to it needing only small plates. Armour had become easier to make in the Medieval period than the earlier times and became more wide spread over it's course.

    They look similar because people wearing the same type of armour look similar. Same way when we look at art work from the Roman period they look similar.

    It still means they have access to light, medium, heavy and even go as far to add in super heavy weights of units in the period.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    Commisar said:


    Brigandine was easy to make, a lot easier than most earlier armours due to it needing only small plates. Armour had become easier to make in the Medieval period than the earlier times and became more wide spread over it's course.

    They look similar because people wearing the same type of armour look similar. Same way when we look at art work from the Roman period they look similar.

    It still means they have access to light, medium, heavy and even go as far to add in super heavy weights of units in the period.

    Maybe, but I still think that the drawning or painting the same looking type of person would've been easier than making them all different.

    And brigandine armor probably wasn't used as widely as you think until probably the mid medieval period.

    Because I've seen what it looks like and heard a few people talk about how it was supposedly easy to make, but I still have my doubts about how wide spread it was, depending on what part of the medieval period we're talking about.


    I would just rather have a TW game like a Total War: Antiquity where all three weight classes could be more meaningful and special compared to a time period where they're not all useful.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981

    Maybe, but I still think that the drawning or painting the same looking type of person would've been easier than making them all different.

    And brigandine armor probably wasn't used as widely as you think until probably the mid medieval period.

    Because I've seen what it looks like and heard a few people talk about how it was supposedly easy to make, but I still have my doubts about how wide spread it was, depending on what part of the medieval period we're talking about.


    I would just rather have a TW game like a Total War: Antiquity where all three weight classes could be more meaningful and special compared to a time period where they're not all useful.

    Well yeah the "medieval period" does cover 1,000 years so the armour choices did vary over that. The points that has been covered previously in the TW Medieval line covers the rise of the brigandine.

    They would have the same use in any period where it exists as there is a reason why it existed historically.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    edited April 13
    Commisar said:


    Well yeah the "medieval period" does cover 1,000 years so the armour choices did vary over that. The points that has been covered previously in the TW Medieval line covers the rise of the brigandine.

    They would have the same use in any period where it exists as there is a reason why it existed historically.

    Well, the period we call Antiquity was of a similar length of time. Being about 1,200-1,500 years long.

    So there's plenty of major wars or campaigns that could be chose from from those periods as well.

    And I really think that the weight classes would matter more in the ancient periods than they would in the medieval.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981

    Well, the period we call Antiquity was of a similar length of time. Being about 1,200-1,500 years long.

    So there's plenty of major wars or campaigns that could be chose from from those periods as well.

    And I really think that the weight classes would matter more in the ancient periods than they would in the medieval.

    And the armour didn't advance that much across it.

    Really wouldn't be any more important and with a smaller range wouldn't be able to have as much detail and additional play.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    Commisar said:


    And the armour didn't advance that much across it.

    Really wouldn't be any more important and with a smaller range wouldn't be able to have as much detail and additional play.

    I yeah, but the roles of which troops played did matter a lot more than during the medieval period.

    I mean, in the times of Antiquity, there were plenty of use of light, medium, and heavy troops, unlike the Medieval period where it was mostly just heavy infantry and cavalry.

    You could have a lot more factions with more varied approaches to what weight class their units could use.

    Just look back here
    https://www.europabarbarorum.com/EB1/factions.html
    at the old Europa Barbarorum factions and their units to get a good idea of what I'm talking about.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981

    I yeah, but the roles of which troops played did matter a lot more than during the medieval period.

    I mean, in the times of Antiquity, there were plenty of use of light, medium, and heavy troops, unlike the Medieval period where it was mostly just heavy infantry and cavalry.

    You could have a lot more factions with more varied approaches to what weight class their units could use.

    Just look back here
    https://www.europabarbarorum.com/EB1/factions.html
    at the old Europa Barbarorum factions and their units to get a good idea of what I'm talking about.

    Again no it didn't. Roles were still just as important.

    No it wasn't. There was wide range of quality of units and equipment and variety of factions.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    edited April 14
    Commisar said:


    Again no it didn't. Roles were still just as important.

    No it wasn't. There was wide range of quality of units and equipment and variety of factions.

    *sigh*

    I'm starting to think you just don't want to accept the fact that the medieval period wasn't as varied and such as you'd like to believe.

    The historical facts are that most of the tactics and such throughout the Middle Ages were focused on heavy infantry and cavalry, most of which were knights or maybe mercenaries for quite a long time.

    It wasn't really until the Swiss and English made use of tactics that put more emphasis on infantry over cavalry that infantry really took center stage as it were.

    There wasn't much use of light or medium troops outside of the middle or far eastern armies.

    So it's pretty safe to say that there wouldn't be as much variety in a Medieval 3 as you think, even if they tried to factor in the weight class system from Troy.


    And as a long time TW fan, I'd rather take a chance with a time period or era where such things could be made a lot more meaningful.

    I mean in era we call the Antiquity had a lot of variety to the possible factions that aren't just all super similar to each other.

    There are factions like the Lusitani or Germanic factions that could use a lot of their light and medium units for guerilla warfare tactics.

    While there are things like the Romans and Hellenic factions that would have a lot more focus on heavy infantry as the heart of their armies.

    But those are just a couple of examples of factions that would have a little more meaningful effect from the weight class system.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981
    edited April 14
    I don't except something when it's wrong. The bulk of the forces were the levies, a key part of the feudal system that made up the medieval period. They were not all or even majority fully encased in heavy armour. A number of nations during the time frame didn't use cavalry and a number didn't use heavy armour at all. It was a very varied time with a wide range of tactics, weapons, armours, shields and warfare styles.

    England had very little use of cavalry through the Medieval period. They had a high point after the Norman conquest but that was broken, not by English or Swiss tactics but after experiences with the Welsh and Scottish.

    There was huge use of light and medium troops, the majority of the English armies during the 100 years war were light to medium.

    We've already got in the TW games the use of guerilla warfare tactics, they don't work on the campaign and in battle limited use. You'd need to make battles not be about stomping the enemy and make terrain play a much bigger role so taking it early will be an advantage. But then that is less a focus on the guerilla element and more a generic change that would benefit all games.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    edited April 15
    Commisar said:

    It's not wrong just because you don't like it Commisar.

    Inappropriate Comment removed.


    And light archers? Never seen those before in a TW game!


    And you kind of undermine your argument for the a Medieval 3 by openly admitting that we've seen all this stuff before.

    Even if you give the Scots early pikes and such, they won't stay unique or special because EVERYONE else will end up getting pikes as well in the late game, if you haven't conquered them by then.


    At least in a Rome 3, the weight classes would actually be meaningful and not just some tacked on thing.

    And maybe they could take some things from Warhammer, such as different attrition mechanics or something to make guerilla warfare work beyond just the battles.

    They could give such things to factions like the Lusitani or Germanic factions, at least if they were within their home territory or something like that.


    But the era of Antiquity would just offer a lot more options in terms of actually meaningful unit weight classes and such that may have been seen before, but would still be fun to play without feeling redundant.


    Playing as the Lusitani would and should feel different than playing the Spartans or Arverni.

    It would certainly be a lot different than playing a bunch of European kingdoms that would have a lot of similarities between them.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,981
    Yeah, still a light class. Same way there's no classes for antiquity we haven't seen before in the multiple games covering it.

    No I don't. No more than you've undermined antiquity by pointing out things we've already seen and mechanics we've already had.

    They'd be just as tacked on to a R3 as M3. Weight still existed in both but there was a wider range of it for the Medieval period. It will have just as many uses just can have slightly more depth with a wider range of choices.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,900
    I, as an outside observer of the "debate" like that it is strange that claiming "you are wrong", without sources or citations and with plenty of counter examples given, seem to be "enought" for one.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    edited April 15
    Commisar said:

    Yeah, still a light class. Same way there's no classes for antiquity we haven't seen before in the multiple games covering it.

    No I don't. No more than you've undermined antiquity by pointing out things we've already seen and mechanics we've already had.

    They'd be just as tacked on to a R3 as M3. Weight still existed in both but there was a wider range of it for the Medieval period. It will have just as many uses just can have slightly more depth with a wider range of choices.

    Inappropriate Comment removed.


    Whether you care to admit it or not, factions and such of Antiquity can would offer a lot more meaningful and varied in their play styles compared to your precious medieval era.

    And I have provided some proof that the factions and such would be different.
    Inappropriate Comment removed.

    Here's a link to EB1's website, specifically to their factions.
    https://www.europabarbarorum.com/EB1/factions.html

    Just bother to actually look through them, and you'll see exactly what I mean.


    And if they were to implement things like the weight class system to a Rome 3, it would actually be a lot more meaningful to a number of armies or factions of Antiquity. Such as the Lusitani and Germanic factions.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,900

    Commisar said:

    Yeah, still a light class. Same way there's no classes for antiquity we haven't seen before in the multiple games covering it.

    No I don't. No more than you've undermined antiquity by pointing out things we've already seen and mechanics we've already had.

    They'd be just as tacked on to a R3 as M3. Weight still existed in both but there was a wider range of it for the Medieval period. It will have just as many uses just can have slightly more depth with a wider range of choices.


    Dude, all you've done is try to keep saying the same thing over and over again, when you know you're wrong.

    And now all you can do is try to keep this in a stalemate so that you don't have to admit that the medieval period you drool over so much isn't as great as you like to believe it is.

    That's all you ever do Commisar.
    this is a funny bit of projection.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,298
    SiWI said:

    I, as an outside observer of the "debate" like that it is strange that claiming "you are wrong", without sources or citations and with plenty of counter examples given, seem to be "enought" for one.

    Actually SiWi, I did provide some sources of the great mod Europa Barbarorum 1, which did a really good job at overhauling Rome 1 and pushing the game to its limits.

    Here's a link to their website's factions page
    https://www.europabarbarorum.com/EB1/factions.html

    Just take a look through some of the factions, and you'll see that there are plenty of units that could easily be put into one of the weight classes of Troy's mechanic.


    I mean, what's the harm is checking out the a very historically accurate mod that still holds up today?


    And I don't see either of you two providing any examples of units that would really fit in with all three weight classes while also being historically accurate, other than your standard archers and such.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,900

    SiWI said:

    I, as an outside observer of the "debate" like that it is strange that claiming "you are wrong", without sources or citations and with plenty of counter examples given, seem to be "enought" for one.

    Actually SiWi, I did provide some sources of the great mod Europa Barbarorum 1, which did a really good job at overhauling Rome 1 and pushing the game to its limits.

    Here's a link to their website's factions page
    https://www.europabarbarorum.com/EB1/factions.html

    Just take a look through some of the factions, and you'll see that there are plenty of units that could easily be put into one of the weight classes of Troy's mechanic.


    I mean, what's the harm is checking out the a very historically accurate mod that still holds up today?


    And I don't see either of you two providing any examples of units that would really fit in with all three weight classes while also being historically accurate, other than your standard archers and such.
    you are missing the mark.
    You keep claiming that medieval armor was this or that.
    Any source for that? Nope.

    Also, of course, you are acting as if I would have written that before that comment that has the link which doesn't proves what you have been claiming in regards of armor.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 22,381
    Let's all keep the personal/derogatory references out of the conversation folks.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

Sign In or Register to comment.