Which historical setting can claim the place to WH3 next?

ChrisSch

My advice:

World War One

Bloodydagger#9716

Cowboys and Indians

destroyer67115

I dunno. I think for the general public, historical is kinda dead.

I'd love a historical game. But I just don't see them doing well in the current total war fandom.

Mazisky#3267

Medieval setting is the most popular and what would sell more. It is a no brainer for CA and they are probably making it already.

JToegiTheSnotling#6624

Shogun 3 but it's focused on the Imjin War with China and Korea as fully playable. I want it so bad guys ahhhhhhh

Itharus#3127

Given Romance mode in 3k and the pseudo myth crap from Troy, I am convinced that CA will never do a proper historical total war ever again.

RIP.

JToegiTheSnotling#6624

Another one I would love to see and would have a massive scope would be a game about the Mongolian Empire. Ahhhhh it sounds so good it's too good. I can't even imagine it. We talking most of Asia and Europe being plunged into chaos by the Steppe Hordes.

Nitros14#7973

ChrisSch said:

My advice:

World War One

World war 1 is not a good total war setting.

Total War is about blocks of units moving around a battlefield, with flank and rear charges being important and a variety of different unit types. Your general fights personally.

To make a total war game in world war 1 you'd need to get rid of everything that world war 1 was. Largely static, the defensive is supreme, 90% of combat casualties caused by artillery fire. Battles are on a vast scale with millions of soldiers involved, victory is achieved through attrition. Cavalry mostly worthless. 75% of the war had mostly no involvement of tanks. Even when they were involved they were painfully slow and relegated to an infantry support role. Generals/lords are miles behind the front line taking no direct part.

Heretical_Cactus#7598

Anything after the Franco Prussian war would need a major engine update (which would also be needed for 40k)

But strictly historical won't replace TWwarhammer, the next 2 I think are going to be Empire 2, and Napoleon 3 or something

But to replace fantasy games/warhammer It would need to be a fantasy game:
- Lord of the Ring (can be done in 2 games)
- Golarion
- Wheel of time
- Grand Mythology (Different pantheon/ Gods, multiple games each centering to a differentpart of the world, Europe, America, asia)

Captain_Rex#1635

TW: Maori

The map is focused on New Zealand and the only 2 faction groups are the Maori tribes and the British Empire. Enjoy!

Valkaar#2507

I was actually going to suggest WW2!

Active tanks, air forces, and more mobile infantry fighting would work.

We ALREADY have aerial units, machine guns, tanks, flamethrowers, and grenades already in the game.

Port over dockable buildings from Empire to make make defensive bunkers, add in some other types of deployables, maybe a return of naval battles, and I think you could have an excellent Total War experience.

I'd also gladly take a Medieval 3. Or a new setting entirely. But I definitely could see WW2 working.

GoblinDoomStack#3145

I honestly think 40k is more likely that WW1

Fingolfin_the-Golden#2157

ArneSo said:

TW: Maori

The map is focused on New Zealand and the only 2 faction groups are the Maori tribes and the British Empire. Enjoy!

More bland than thrones of Britannia I would say.
Half the game would be treaty negotiations.

zuendl86

Most likely Medieval...

https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/logzbe/psa_ca_filed_for_the_medieval_trademark_on/

But I would love an Empire II

Lotor12#2810

destroyer67115 said:

I dunno. I think for the general public, historical is kinda dead.

I'd love a historical game. But I just don't see them doing well in the current total war fandom.

Yes, the "Warhammer-only" fans would not interested, but there is a huge demand for Medieval 3 & Empire 2 in the comments on TW Instagram, FB or here on this forum

Red_Menousse#8056

Empire 2 or medieval 3.

I'm still disappointed by empire.. it could have been so much more.

Pede#6322

40k!

It's future history after all.

Itharus#3127

I'd buy Medieval 3 over TW: Age of Sigmar and TW: 40K any day of the week...

... presuming they don't do some nonsense like add King Arthur or make various royalty have super powers on the battlefield.

Romance mode was cancer.

Historical or gtfo.

This sort of thing is fine in Warhammer. It is NOT fine in an historical game.

Commisar#2307

If you mean have a bad launch where people go back to other titles then yeah a WW1 TW would be a good comparison to WH3.

If you mean a game that would be hyped up and so large of scale then....not really. Would have so many issues that it really wouldn't get like that.

Only Historical setting that could really try to compete would be Medieval 3, that's due to just how popular it is but I still wouldn't expect it to have similar numbers to WHs average player count.

Valkaar said:

I was actually going to suggest WW2!

Active tanks, air forces, and more mobile infantry fighting would work.

We ALREADY have aerial units, machine guns, tanks, flamethrowers, and grenades already in the game.

Port over dockable buildings from Empire to make make defensive bunkers, add in some other types of deployables, maybe a return of naval battles, and I think you could have an excellent Total War experience.

I'd also gladly take a Medieval 3. Or a new setting entirely. But I definitely could see WW2 working.

Just having some units isn't the same as having the combat style and campaign elements to cover it. Plus SEGA already has Relic making WW2 games with grand strategy mechanics in a system far better than CA would be able to cover so really not needed or worth them doing.

arthadaw said:

But to replace fantasy games/warhammer It would need to be a fantasy game:
- Lord of the Ring (can be done in 2 games)
- Golarion
- Wheel of time
- Grand Mythology (Different pantheon/ Gods, multiple games each centering to a differentpart of the world, Europe, America, asia)

Pretty much just WH lite there. So they wont be able to overthrow WHF either. Needs to be really different so it isn't an easy comparison.

davedave1124#4773

Can? Any age from the Bronze to the modern era.. however, it's up to CA.

Horus89#9789

I'd like Thirty Years' War(pike and shot) or napoleonic wars but I expect the next big game will probably be medieval 3.

Lotor12#2810

Horus89 said:

I'd like Thirty Years' War(pike and shot) or napoleonic wars but I expect the next big game will probably be medieval 3.

Exactly same

SiWI#8629

Nitros14 said:

ChrisSch said:

My advice:

World War One

World war 1 is not a good total war setting.

Total War is about blocks of units moving around a battlefield, with flank and rear charges being important and a variety of different unit types. Your general fights personally.

To make a total war game in world war 1 you'd need to get rid of everything that world war 1 was. Largely static, the defensive is supreme, 90% of combat casualties caused by artillery fire. Battles are on a vast scale with millions of soldiers involved, victory is achieved through attrition. Cavalry mostly worthless. 75% of the war had mostly no involvement of tanks. Even when they were involved they were painfully slow and relegated to an infantry support role. Generals/lords are miles behind the front line taking no direct part.

someone ignores the eastern front of WW1 or every other front for that matter then the west front.

SiWI#8629

the WW's would be a an option.

Medieval 3 would also get a lot of hype.

A TW Victoria could also do very well (it could end in WW1).

bli-nk#6314

SiWI said:

someone ignores the eastern front of WW1 or every other front for that matter then the west front.

Like what? Russians captured Galicia in the first year then started losing in the 2nd and the frontier was mostly stalemate until the final German invasion to put pressure on for the peace treaty once the Bolshi/White war began.

Western front was mostly trenches, Italy was mostly mountain trenches and caves, Ottoman front saw a couple bold attempts which quickly became trench warfare as well.

Does not sound a fun setting for a TW war.

SiWI#8629

bli-nk said:

SiWI said:

someone ignores the eastern front of WW1 or every other front for that matter then the west front.

Like what? Russians captured Galicia in the first year then started losing in the 2nd and the frontier was mostly stalemate until the final German invasion to put pressure on for the peace treaty once the Bolshi/White war began.

Western front was mostly trenches, Italy was mostly mountain trenches and caves, Ottoman front saw a couple bold attempts which quickly became trench warfare as well.

Does not sound a fun setting for a TW war.

"mostly" stalemate.
That is all I need to know about either your knowledge or your honesty on the matter.


Let alone that trench warfare itself offers options for TW, but oh well.

bli-nk#6314

SiWI said:

Let alone that trench warfare itself offers options for TW, but oh well.

What options on the TW units scale of 30-200 model that don't move in platoon skirmish mode?

I repeated, mostly stalemate- the front ONLY in some parts of the east moved alot with Romanian entry into the war and the Russian invasion to Trabazond but really- what did it accomplish? Stalemate a few months later with the Russian civil war.

Lotor12#2810

WW1 setting would need a "Conpany of Heroes" style tactical battles with small squads, not"Total War" style with big formations

Commisar#2307

Lotor12 said:

WW1 setting would need a "Conpany of Heroes" style tactical battles with small squads, not"Total War" style with big formations

Decent mod for CoH1 covering a bit of WW1. Last I checked though they had abandoned it which was a shame. Could see it working even better with the new CoH3 mechanics.

Valra

Lotor12 said:

WW1 setting would need a "Conpany of Heroes" style tactical battles with small squads, not"Total War" style with big formations

No offense, but I really don't get this line of argument, even though it comes up very often. The core Total War experience to me is turn based strategy on a world map combined with epic real time battles that happen organically due to the actions on the world map. The traditional blocks of soldiers is itself not the core of TW and a more squad-based system would still be a proper Total War, as long as the battles are still on an epic scale. In fact I think something like the battles in Steel Division 2 would be pretty cool and would work well for a modern TW or a 40k game.

Commisar#2307

Valra said:

No offense, but I really don't get this line of argument, even though it comes up very often. The core Total War experience to me is turn based strategy on a world map combined with epic real time battles that happen organically due to the actions on the world map. The traditional blocks of soldiers is itself not the core of TW and a more squad-based system would still be a proper Total War, as long as the battles are still on an epic scale. In fact I think something like the battles in Steel Division 2 would be pretty cool and would work well for a modern TW or a 40k game.

If it's squad size you wont get "epic" in what many want, if you try CoH you might see what I mean. It's not easy to manage a large number of units as the combat requires a lot of micro and active abilities to cover the fighting style of the period and that's with magic health. So that would end up doubly so with the TW system, CoH you can at least recruit a replacement in the battle.

So the end result is that the real time battles have to change to effectively be a different game...and one SEGA already has to make these products. Then they also make huge changes to the grand campaign to cover the changes there as well, would look more like either CoH3 or HoI.