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

Which historical setting can claim the place to WH3 next?

ChrisSchChrisSch Registered Users Posts: 90
edited August 1 in Total War General Chat
My advice:

World War One

Post edited by BillyRuffian on

Comments

  • BloodydaggerBloodydagger Registered Users Posts: 4,297
    Cowboys and Indians

  • destroyer67115destroyer67115 Registered Users Posts: 1,294
    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.

  • MaziskyMazisky Registered Users Posts: 1,086
    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.
  • Jote191Jote191 Registered Users Posts: 2,147
    Shogun 3 but it's focused on the Imjin War with China and Korea as fully playable. I want it so bad guys ahhhhhhh
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,502
    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.
  • Jote191Jote191 Registered Users Posts: 2,147
    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.
  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,401
    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.
  • arthadawarthadaw Registered Users Posts: 2,368
    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)


  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 35,000
    TW: Maori

    The map is focused on New Zealand and the only 2 faction groups are the Maori tribes and the British Empire. Enjoy!
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,329
    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.
  • GoblinDoomStackGoblinDoomStack Registered Users Posts: 238
    I honestly think 40k is more likely that WW1
  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 5,780
    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.
    BEARS, Beets, Battlestar Galactica 🧝‍♀️ Pandas too please CA!
  • zuendl86zuendl86 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 578
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 903

    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_MenousseRed_Menousse Registered Users Posts: 161
    Empire 2 or medieval 3.

    I'm still disappointed by empire.. it could have been so much more.
  • PedePede Registered Users Posts: 1,676
    40k!

    It's future history after all.

  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,502
    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.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125
    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.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,578
    Can? Any age from the Bronze to the modern era.. however, it's up to CA.
  • Horus89Horus89 Registered Users Posts: 283
    I'd like Thirty Years' War(pike and shot) or napoleonic wars but I expect the next big game will probably be medieval 3.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 903
    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
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,010
    edited August 9
    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.
    Post edited by SiWI on
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,010
    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).
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • bli-nkbli-nk Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,841
    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.
    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Mark Twain
Sign In or Register to comment.