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

Medieval 3- Early /mid Feudalistic TW

bilbobaggins764bilbobaggins764 Registered Users Posts: 140
If CA does another medieval game I think it should be based on the early and middle parts of the middle ages. This would allow them to incorporate feudalistic aspects [perhaps countries could "advance" down a centralized absolute monarchy or "advance" down a feudalistic mode] and make it not just a simple med 3. Of course, I am biased, I hate when gunpowder is introduced as I belive it kills the imersion of the time period. And I like the early settings better.
«1

Comments

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439
    If the use of gunpowder is historically accurate, how does it break immersion?
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035
    Not sure they'd go that route. I don't see the feudal mechanics being overly popular with most of the community. They trialled it with ToB and it doesn't seem to have gotten huge praise. I also wouldn't expect them to cut off what is the iconic elements of the pop-culture Medieval period which is towards the end with the heavier armour and castles.
  • virginia1861virginia1861 Registered Users Posts: 302

    If the use of gunpowder is historically accurate, how does it break immersion?

    I would just for me it ruins the idea of "medieval" and a pre-gunpowder world. To me it mixes modern and medieval and to me I would rather play a full gunpowder age like empire.
  • virginia1861virginia1861 Registered Users Posts: 302
    Commisar said:

    Not sure they'd go that route. I don't see the feudal mechanics being overly popular with most of the community. They trialled it with ToB and it doesn't seem to have gotten huge praise. I also wouldn't expect them to cut off what is the iconic elements of the pop-culture Medieval period which is towards the end with the heavier armour and castles.

    Could be, but it seems to me you could have both. Start early med/feudal and "progress" to the later monarchies and heavy armor etc. I would love to see a political tech tree of sorts that would allow those of us who wanted to stay feudal, to be able to do so while others could go the more historical route.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439

    If the use of gunpowder is historically accurate, how does it break immersion?

    I would just for me it ruins the idea of "medieval" and a pre-gunpowder world. To me it mixes modern and medieval and to me I would rather play a full gunpowder age like empire.
    But there were gunpowder technologies used in the medieval period. French medieval cannons were used against the English in medieval battles.
  • bilbobaggins764bilbobaggins764 Registered Users Posts: 140

    If the use of gunpowder is historically accurate, how does it break immersion?

    I would just for me it ruins the idea of "medieval" and a pre-gunpowder world. To me it mixes modern and medieval and to me I would rather play a full gunpowder age like empire.
    But there were gunpowder technologies used in the medieval period. French medieval cannons were used against the English in medieval battles.
    what time period? could you provide a link?
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439

    If the use of gunpowder is historically accurate, how does it break immersion?

    I would just for me it ruins the idea of "medieval" and a pre-gunpowder world. To me it mixes modern and medieval and to me I would rather play a full gunpowder age like empire.
    But there were gunpowder technologies used in the medieval period. French medieval cannons were used against the English in medieval battles.
    what time period? could you provide a link?
    This is history, after 1370 France used larger cannons, before smaller.

    Europe had medieval cannons.. google.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035

    Could be, but it seems to me you could have both. Start early med/feudal and "progress" to the later monarchies and heavy armor etc. I would love to see a political tech tree of sorts that would allow those of us who wanted to stay feudal, to be able to do so while others could go the more historical route.

    They will be skipping through the time frame then lightning fast then, plus not what the OP wants.

    More reforms that change how the faction plays would be interesting, but it simply not progressing would just be more a challenge run like not researching any tech.

    what time period? could you provide a link?

    Battle of Crecy was the first from sources of the time period, part of the hundreds year war between France and England. Personally seems surprising that it would be France and England who first used it, would of thought more south eastern European nations would of used it first. Quite possibly it was used by them but in fewer numbers of note in the smaller and rich towns with private sponsors.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439
    I believe the earliest use was by the Moors against Spain. At some of these sieges there were a few high ranking Englishmen who reported back their effectiveness. This was around early to mid 1300s.
  • virginia1861virginia1861 Registered Users Posts: 302
    edited October 2021

    If the use of gunpowder is historically accurate, how does it break immersion?

    I would just for me it ruins the idea of "medieval" and a pre-gunpowder world. To me it mixes modern and medieval and to me I would rather play a full gunpowder age like empire.
    But there were gunpowder technologies used in the medieval period. French medieval cannons were used against the English in medieval battles.
    what time period? could you provide a link?
    This is history, after 1370 France used larger cannons, before smaller.

    Europe had medieval cannons.. google.
    no need to get sassy. Let's say 1370 was the end, sounds like a great end date for an early medievalist game. Let's say 500-1300 ad.
  • virginia1861virginia1861 Registered Users Posts: 302
    edited October 2021
    Commisar said:

    Could be, but it seems to me you could have both. Start early med/feudal and "progress" to the later monarchies and heavy armor etc. I would love to see a political tech tree of sorts that would allow those of us who wanted to stay feudal, to be able to do so while others could go the more historical route.

    They will be skipping through the time frame then lightning fast then, plus not what the OP wants.

    More reforms that change how the faction plays would be interesting, but it simply not progressing would just be more a challenge run like not researching any tech.

    what time period? could you provide a link?

    Battle of Crecy was the first from sources of the time period, part of the hundreds year war between France and England. Personally seems surprising that it would be France and England who first used it, would of thought more south eastern European nations would of used it first. Quite possibly it was used by them but in fewer numbers of note in the smaller and rich towns with private sponsors.
    Why must time skip fast?

    1345 sounds like a great end-time period. So 500-1346 ad. It would be a good end notice, something has happened that will change warfare gunpowder has been used to deadly effect in battle or something like that.
  • virginia1861virginia1861 Registered Users Posts: 302

    I believe the earliest use was by the Moors against Spain. At some of these sieges there were a few high ranking Englishmen who reported back their effectiveness. This was around early to mid 1300s.

    a great date to end an early/feudalistic med 3 TW.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439

    I believe the earliest use was by the Moors against Spain. At some of these sieges there were a few high ranking Englishmen who reported back their effectiveness. This was around early to mid 1300s.

    a great date to end an early/feudalistic med 3 TW.
    There is no way CA would finish M3 there and I do mean no way.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,916
    Early ,High, Late
  • bilbobaggins764bilbobaggins764 Registered Users Posts: 140

    I believe the earliest use was by the Moors against Spain. At some of these sieges there were a few high ranking Englishmen who reported back their effectiveness. This was around early to mid 1300s.

    a great date to end an early/feudalistic med 3 TW.
    There is no way CA would finish M3 there and I do mean no way.
    Please support your reasoning. Mid 1300's sounds great to me.

    Would the time period of 500-1350 not be enough for CA? What is it about 1350 that prevents CA from stopping?
  • bilbobaggins764bilbobaggins764 Registered Users Posts: 140
    jamreal18 said:

    Early ,High, Late

    Early/ feudal. Expansion, late 1350-1600.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439

    I believe the earliest use was by the Moors against Spain. At some of these sieges there were a few high ranking Englishmen who reported back their effectiveness. This was around early to mid 1300s.

    a great date to end an early/feudalistic med 3 TW.
    There is no way CA would finish M3 there and I do mean no way.
    Please support your reasoning. Mid 1300's sounds great to me.

    Would the time period of 500-1350 not be enough for CA? What is it about 1350 that prevents CA from stopping?
    If CA cut gunpowder units from a future M3 roster it will feel like cut content. Why would they do that? M3 will be big impact, all the units and all the mechanics, it will not be based on a few people’s obsession with a particular period.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439
    Late - 1250 to 1500
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035

    Why must time skip fast?

    1345 sounds like a great end-time period. So 500-1346 ad. It would be a good end notice, something has happened that will change warfare gunpowder has been used to deadly effect in battle or something like that.

    Game design. Average player campaign length is 200 turns. So you have a game going much further than that with lots of content, people will not be accessing it and it will harm the overall experience and ratings of the game.

    Please support your reasoning. Mid 1300's sounds great to me.

    Would the time period of 500-1350 not be enough for CA? What is it about 1350 that prevents CA from stopping?

    Might be great for you but not generally for the marketing. The icons and most famous elements of the "Medieval period" tend to be after that date. They need to market it and want to give people the Medieval period. So why would they cut it just because you dislike that part of history? They'd also need to cut out the Mongol invasion as well, as they brought gunpowder weapons but as it would be an end game event that most wont experience anyway it wouldn't be missed.

    Also current book I'm reading makes mention of the use of a mortar type bombard in Italy in 1357 by a mercenary captain.
  • virginia1861virginia1861 Registered Users Posts: 302

    I believe the earliest use was by the Moors against Spain. At some of these sieges there were a few high ranking Englishmen who reported back their effectiveness. This was around early to mid 1300s.

    a great date to end an early/feudalistic med 3 TW.
    There is no way CA would finish M3 there and I do mean no way.
    Please support your reasoning. Mid 1300's sounds great to me.

    Would the time period of 500-1350 not be enough for CA? What is it about 1350 that prevents CA from stopping?
    If CA cut gunpowder units from a future M3 roster it will feel like cut content. Why would they do that? M3 will be big impact, all the units and all the mechanics, it will not be based on a few people’s obsession with a particular period.
    Lets take this to its logical conclusion. If ca does a med 3 that stops before plane tanks machine guns etc it is cutting content and therefore they wont do this. Thus using your logic, ca must either do a game that begins at the begging of time and runs through a long distant future warfare, or it is cutting content, something it wont do according to you.

    How about late medical can be a DLS or expansion?
  • virginia1861virginia1861 Registered Users Posts: 302

    Late - 1250 to 1500

    but that would cut massive content. Not just from feudalistic [something they have not done] but very early [dark ages]. Further, it cuts content after 1500 something you say ca won't do. So your own time period you offer is cutting more content than what I suggested and that is the very reason you argued against feudalistic.

  • virginia1861virginia1861 Registered Users Posts: 302
    Commisar said:

    Why must time skip fast?

    1345 sounds like a great end-time period. So 500-1346 ad. It would be a good end notice, something has happened that will change warfare gunpowder has been used to deadly effect in battle or something like that.

    Game design. Average player campaign length is 200 turns. So you have a game going much further than that with lots of content, people will not be accessing it and it will harm the overall experience and ratings of the game.

    Please support your reasoning. Mid 1300's sounds great to me.

    Would the time period of 500-1350 not be enough for CA? What is it about 1350 that prevents CA from stopping?

    Might be great for you but not generally for the marketing. The icons and most famous elements of the "Medieval period" tend to be after that date. They need to market it and want to give people the Medieval period. So why would they cut it just because you dislike that part of history? They'd also need to cut out the Mongol invasion as well, as they brought gunpowder weapons but as it would be an end game event that most wont experience anyway it wouldn't be missed.

    Also current book I'm reading makes mention of the use of a mortar type bombard in Italy in 1357 by a mercenary captain.

    You could have the option as every medieval TW has in the past of starting at a later period. So those who want to start around 500 ad could, those who want to at say 1000 could do the same, problem solved.

    Also, a 900-1350 would be great or even a 950-1200 IMO.




    Well, my suggestion was to add new aspects [fudlaism] to previous medieval games thus making it unique rather than a third basic med game. But if late is so popular, why not an expansion or DLS, I am told CA loves those.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035

    You could have the option as every medieval TW has in the past of starting at a later period. So those who want to start around 500 ad could, those who want to at say 1000 could do the same, problem solved.

    Also, a 900-1350 would be great or even a 950-1200 IMO.

    Well, my suggestion was to add new aspects [fudlaism] to previous medieval games thus making it unique rather than a third basic med game. But if late is so popular, why not an expansion or DLS, I am told CA loves those.

    And yet they still only did the last 500 years of the period, which is already more than enough to split it in to multiple blocks with a goal of 200 turn time.

    That would be the feudalism that would be the DLC and at that point would look and feel more like a different game, more of a Darkages game from what you've said. Which they have already done a portion of with ToB as standalone and Charlemagne for Attila.
  • bilbobaggins764bilbobaggins764 Registered Users Posts: 140
    Commisar said:

    You could have the option as every medieval TW has in the past of starting at a later period. So those who want to start around 500 ad could, those who want to at say 1000 could do the same, problem solved.

    Also, a 900-1350 would be great or even a 950-1200 IMO.

    Well, my suggestion was to add new aspects [fudlaism] to previous medieval games thus making it unique rather than a third basic med game. But if late is so popular, why not an expansion or DLS, I am told CA loves those.

    And yet they still only did the last 500 years of the period, which is already more than enough to split it in to multiple blocks with a goal of 200 turn time.

    That would be the feudalism that would be the DLC and at that point would look and feel more like a different game, more of a Darkages game from what you've said. Which they have already done a portion of with ToB as standalone and Charlemagne for Attila.
    If you remember the op was an idea to make the new med different from the previous two. Feudalism would accomplish that. I see no reason why late cant be the dlc/expansion but lets say feudalism is the expansion, I would be more than happy with that.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439

    I believe the earliest use was by the Moors against Spain. At some of these sieges there were a few high ranking Englishmen who reported back their effectiveness. This was around early to mid 1300s.

    a great date to end an early/feudalistic med 3 TW.
    There is no way CA would finish M3 there and I do mean no way.
    Please support your reasoning. Mid 1300's sounds great to me.

    Would the time period of 500-1350 not be enough for CA? What is it about 1350 that prevents CA from stopping?
    If CA cut gunpowder units from a future M3 roster it will feel like cut content. Why would they do that? M3 will be big impact, all the units and all the mechanics, it will not be based on a few people’s obsession with a particular period.
    Lets take this to its logical conclusion. If ca does a med 3 that stops before plane tanks machine guns etc it is cutting content and therefore they wont do this. Thus using your logic, ca must either do a game that begins at the begging of time and runs through a long distant future warfare, or it is cutting content, something it wont do according to you.

    How about late medical can be a DLS or expansion?
    From a company, marketing and user perspective that would be an awful idea. Why take the popular M2 model and cut it up into individually paid content?

    Late and high medieval troops will be expected. You cannot expect CA to apply your very specific and limited wants to a game that many people will buy, why disappoint the majority of your player base?

    When did I suggest creating a game from the beginning of time??? That’s be a slow start.

    I’m suggesting that we give players a baseline of what came before and add more content from there. Cutting content is never popular.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,439

    Late - 1250 to 1500

    but that would cut massive content. Not just from feudalistic [something they have not done] but very early [dark ages]. Further, it cuts content after 1500 something you say ca won't do. So your own time period you offer is cutting more content than what I suggested and that is the very reason you argued against feudalistic.

    No, I’m saying that’s the period of Late medieval in a historical sense.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,035

    If you remember the op was an idea to make the new med different from the previous two. Feudalism would accomplish that. I see no reason why late cant be the dlc/expansion but lets say feudalism is the expansion, I would be more than happy with that.

    Issue is it will be effectively a different game and not Med 3. Feudalism wont be a new mechanic without radical changes to how it works as a TW game. You don;'t make the most popular content a long term DLC project, firstly it might as a result flop and not get to that point and secondly it will have far worse returns on a companies investment as their main profit will be the initial game release.
  • bilbobaggins764bilbobaggins764 Registered Users Posts: 140
    Commisar said:

    You could have the option as every medieval TW has in the past of starting at a later period. So those who want to start around 500 ad could, those who want to at say 1000 could do the same, problem solved.

    Also, a 900-1350 would be great or even a 950-1200 IMO.

    Well, my suggestion was to add new aspects [fudlaism] to previous medieval games thus making it unique rather than a third basic med game. But if late is so popular, why not an expansion or DLS, I am told CA loves those.

    And yet they still only did the last 500 years of the period, which is already more than enough to split it in to multiple blocks with a goal of 200 turn time.

    That would be the feudalism that would be the DLC and at that point would look and feel more like a different game, more of a Darkages game from what you've said. Which they have already done a portion of with ToB as standalone and Charlemagne for Attila.
    that would be fine by me. but i was just saying to make med 3 different from the others [instead of 3 in a row] feudalism seems a good place to go.
  • bilbobaggins764bilbobaggins764 Registered Users Posts: 140

    I believe the earliest use was by the Moors against Spain. At some of these sieges there were a few high ranking Englishmen who reported back their effectiveness. This was around early to mid 1300s.

    a great date to end an early/feudalistic med 3 TW.
    There is no way CA would finish M3 there and I do mean no way.
    Please support your reasoning. Mid 1300's sounds great to me.

    Would the time period of 500-1350 not be enough for CA? What is it about 1350 that prevents CA from stopping?
    If CA cut gunpowder units from a future M3 roster it will feel like cut content. Why would they do that? M3 will be big impact, all the units and all the mechanics, it will not be based on a few people’s obsession with a particular period.
    Lets take this to its logical conclusion. If ca does a med 3 that stops before plane tanks machine guns etc it is cutting content and therefore they wont do this. Thus using your logic, ca must either do a game that begins at the begging of time and runs through a long distant future warfare, or it is cutting content, something it wont do according to you.

    How about late medical can be a DLS or expansion?
    From a company, marketing and user perspective that would be an awful idea. Why take the popular M2 model and cut it up into individually paid content?

    Late and high medieval troops will be expected. You cannot expect CA to apply your very specific and limited wants to a game that many people will buy, why disappoint the majority of your player base?

    When did I suggest creating a game from the beginning of time??? That’s be a slow start.

    I’m suggesting that we give players a baseline of what came before and add more content from there. Cutting content is never popular.

    Because that is what Ca does, it forces people to pay for the same game multiple times. Have you not noticed this b-4?

    I never said to cut content, i said later middle ages could be done as a game, dls, or expansion connected to the original med mid/early game.
  • bilbobaggins764bilbobaggins764 Registered Users Posts: 140

    Late - 1250 to 1500

    but that would cut massive content. Not just from feudalistic [something they have not done] but very early [dark ages]. Further, it cuts content after 1500 something you say ca won't do. So your own time period you offer is cutting more content than what I suggested and that is the very reason you argued against feudalistic.

    No, I’m saying that’s the period of Late medieval in a historical sense.
    yet you would cut the early and feudalistic aspects. So it is you who wishes to cut content.
Sign In or Register to comment.