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 game

Rollins#3150Rollins#3150 Registered Users Posts: 36
edited December 2022 in Total War General Chat
I hope we get news about the next historical game soon, I hope it will be something new like Victoria Total war, WW1, or WW2 but I think we should get first Victoria total war and after that WW1, WW2, Cold war, and so on.

I have been waiting a long time to see CA making modern warfare total war games.

After seeing COH3 and The Great War: Western Front implementing turn-based campaign and real-time battles in their games I really can't wait to see CA making modern warfare total war.
Post edited by dge1 on
«1

Comments

  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,179
    Would expect you will be waiting a very, very long time for that. As you say, SEGA already has Relic to make WW2 combined games, so they don't need CA to go that direction and they play very differently to the TW systems to fit their time frames.

    Victoria might be possible, although bit of a stretch on the scale of it in both size and the changes that happen which makes it a nightmare to try to pace and balance it.

    But a Historical game is in the works, has been "well underway" now for over a year as it was confirmed to be in the works last year. Might get news early next year (like March-April) on either that or the next Saga title.
  • Rollins#3150Rollins#3150 Registered Users Posts: 36

    As you say, SEGA already has Relic to make WW2 combined games, so they don't need CA to go that direction and they play very differently to the TW systems to fit their time frames.

    Yeah I get that personally I like COH but it isn't enough for me, I mean modern warfare on a total war scale will be very different with world campaign, diplomacy, real-time battles, research and so on that's epic.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,179

    Yeah I get that personally I like COH but it isn't enough for me, I mean modern warfare on a total war scale will be very different with world campaign, diplomacy, real-time battles, research and so on that's epic.

    But it's the direction the game would need to go to try and cover such a setting...which becomes a waste of time and money when they can just sell that. It's such a change that it wont be a Historical TW but a new product line.

  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,091
    I’d say Victoria would definitely be possibility with some far out late game tech and units. It would of course get many features from FotS but on a much grandeur scale.

    There’s be many options for DLC including the ACW and race for Africa.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434
    Sorry OP, but we'll never see a WW1 or 2 TW game, or at least we should never see one, as those periods WILL NOT work within the TW battle formula.

    And I have to say that it's kind of ridiculous how people want to see a TW game set in the Victorian era. Why?

    Guns, guns, and more guns and melee units be even more hamstrung than they were in FotS?

    Because despite what some people may want to believe, not all time periods will work for the TW games, as the battles are what really set the TW games apart from other strategy games.

    It would be far better for CA to kind of "play it safe" with another but better installment of time periods they've done before, such as an Empire 2 or TW: Antiquity.
  • Heretical_Cactus#7598Heretical_Cactus#7598 Registered Users Posts: 3,036

    Sorry OP, but we'll never see a WW1 or 2 TW game, or at least we should never see one, as those periods WILL NOT work within the TW battle formula.

    And I have to say that it's kind of ridiculous how people want to see a TW game set in the Victorian era. Why?

    Guns, guns, and more guns and melee units be even more hamstrung than they were in FotS?

    Because despite what some people may want to believe, not all time periods will work for the TW games, as the battles are what really set the TW games apart from other strategy games.

    It would be far better for CA to kind of "play it safe" with another but better installment of time periods they've done before, such as an Empire 2 or TW: Antiquity.

    If WW1/2 are impossible, then 40k is too

    But TW WW1/2 would be very different from previous TW, and could not be called a TW game
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,091

    Sorry OP, but we'll never see a WW1 or 2 TW game, or at least we should never see one, as those periods WILL NOT work within the TW battle formula.

    And I have to say that it's kind of ridiculous how people want to see a TW game set in the Victorian era. Why?

    Guns, guns, and more guns and melee units be even more hamstrung than they were in FotS?

    Because despite what some people may want to believe, not all time periods will work for the TW games, as the battles are what really set the TW games apart from other strategy games.

    It would be far better for CA to kind of "play it safe" with another but better installment of time periods they've done before, such as an Empire 2 or TW: Antiquity.

    If WW1/2 are impossible, then 40k is too

    But TW WW1/2 would be very different from previous TW, and could not be called a TW game
    Not really, 40k is played in a similar way to WHFB on the TT, we quite often see blocks of infantry charging into combat.

    When it comes to WW1 and WW2 I haven’t a clue how they’d do it, but, a few CA employees have looked favourably at this time period so it’s fair to say they may think it’s possible.

    I think one of the most important thing to remember is that our limitations isn’t automatically CA’s. Just as important, it’s usually a case of what people prefer on here seems to have a determination in its likelihood, which is wrong.

    If CA create a Victoria game, it’ll likely be well received like FotS was and equally if they do a game from any other period it will most likely be popular. I would suggest if they’ve decided on a WW style game they may do it over a Saga game so it isn’t a huge release.

    It is interesting that CA started to recruit someone who specialised in vehicle graphics.

    Like I always say, keep an open mind, as none of us truly know the mind or plans of CA.
  • Rollins#3150Rollins#3150 Registered Users Posts: 36

    Sorry OP, but we'll never see a WW1 or 2 TW game, or at least we should never see one, as those periods WILL NOT work within the TW battle formula.

    And I have to say that it's kind of ridiculous how people want to see a TW game set in the Victorian era. Why?

    Guns, guns, and more guns and melee units be even more hamstrung than they were in FotS?

    Because despite what some people may want to believe, not all time periods will work for the TW games, as the battles are what really set the TW games apart from other strategy games.

    It would be far better for CA to kind of "play it safe" with another but better installment of time periods they've done before, such as an Empire 2 or TW: Antiquity.

    You just have a certain perspective of something, and there is no vision at all in that.

    I'm sure CA will eventually explore different time periods like Victoria, WW1, WW2, etc. like when they made fantasy total war (Warhammer).
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,091

    Sorry OP, but we'll never see a WW1 or 2 TW game, or at least we should never see one, as those periods WILL NOT work within the TW battle formula.

    And I have to say that it's kind of ridiculous how people want to see a TW game set in the Victorian era. Why?

    Guns, guns, and more guns and melee units be even more hamstrung than they were in FotS?

    Because despite what some people may want to believe, not all time periods will work for the TW games, as the battles are what really set the TW games apart from other strategy games.

    It would be far better for CA to kind of "play it safe" with another but better installment of time periods they've done before, such as an Empire 2 or TW: Antiquity.

    You just have a certain perspective of something, and there is no vision at all in that.

    I'm sure CA will eventually explore different time periods like Victoria, WW1, WW2, etc. like when they made fantasy total war (Warhammer).
    Tbf CA have already explored the Victorian period and it was very positive. FotS was a great success on release and was well liked. Personally I loved the Gatling gun and the mechanic that allowed the use of bombardment. What makes something a good game is probably more to do with the execution rather than the period.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434

    If WW1/2 are impossible, then 40k is too

    But TW WW1/2 would be very different from previous TW, and could not be called a TW game

    Well, not exactly.

    Because despite what you clearly want to believe, 40k is far more than just purely ranged combat that WW1 and 2 were, and there's ways for stuff like space marines to get in closer, such as their jump packs and the like.

    But I will agree that it would be another giant effort on CA's part to make a 40k TW work properly.

    And as someone who played a LOT of Shogun 2 and FotS in the past, I can attest to the FACT that WW1 and 2 would not work, or at least would really dumb down the tactics that could be used, as it would end up with the spamming of guns and such like never before.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434


    You just have a certain perspective of something, and there is no vision at all in that.

    I'm sure CA will eventually explore different time periods like Victoria, WW1, WW2, etc. like when they made fantasy total war (Warhammer).

    Not really.

    I look at the big picture and what works for the TW games rather than just hoping that a new time period or setting would just magically work because I hope it would.

    And I can say for CERTAIN that from all of what I've seen in Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai, going any further forward in time would NOT work out very well for a TW game, as it WOULD end up dumbing down the strategy to just being spamming firepower at everything.

    At least with a TW: Antiquity or Empire 2, there'd be a lot of room for all the factions to be viable in some way or another.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,179

    Tbf CA have already explored the Victorian period and it was very positive. FotS was a great success on release and was well liked. Personally I loved the Gatling gun and the mechanic that allowed the use of bombardment. What makes something a good game is probably more to do with the execution rather than the period.

    Small snapshot yeah, grand-scale it's going to struggle, it's not going to be building off FotS lines but more taking Empire and super sizing it and much of the tech changes is going to make the solo warrior style game play even worse but at least be based off history.
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,091

    Tbf CA have already explored the Victorian period and it was very positive. FotS was a great success on release and was well liked. Personally I loved the Gatling gun and the mechanic that allowed the use of bombardment. What makes something a good game is probably more to do with the execution rather than the period.

    Small snapshot yeah, grand-scale it's going to struggle, it's not going to be building off FotS lines but more taking Empire and super sizing it and much of the tech changes is going to make the solo warrior style game play even worse but at least be based off history.
    I don’t see any real problems for CA as long as they do their research and make sure it’s a stable game. The specific Victorian tech was handled well and was fun to use, be it Gatling guns, naval bombardments or torpedos.

    I’m sure CA are more than capable of creating an interesting game for this period. I’m sure the US market would certainly lap up a possible ACW DLC.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434


    Small snapshot yeah, grand-scale it's going to struggle, it's not going to be building off FotS lines but more taking Empire and super sizing it and much of the tech changes is going to make the solo warrior style game play even worse but at least be based off history.

    For once I kind of agree with you Commisar.

    I think that the biggest problem with setting a full TW game in the Victorian era would be the fact that the technology of some factions would make others all but pointless, which would be terrible for the game.

    Because I don't think they can simply nerf stuff like the "modern" infantry of the Anglo Zulu War too much because then people will get mad at their range for instance being super limited.

    But with how powerful all that sort of stuff could be, it would make factions like the Zulu and Maori all but meaningless, as they wouldn't have nearly the same level of firepower that the European factions could bring to bear.
  • Lotor12#2810Lotor12#2810 Registered Users Posts: 1,002
    Next "historical" TW game will be the TW Medieval 2 remaster - IMO
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,179

    I don’t see any real problems for CA as long as they do their research and make sure it’s a stable game. The specific Victorian tech was handled well and was fun to use, be it Gatling guns, naval bombardments or torpedos.

    I’m sure CA are more than capable of creating an interesting game for this period. I’m sure the US market would certainly lap up a possible ACW DLC.

    Same issues that Empire ran in to, most of them they still haven't fixed. Research wont solve that.

    They covered a single snapshot of the Victorian era tech, missing all the tech before which in made obsolete and the tech after which made the tech we saw obsolete.

    For once I kind of agree with you Commisar.

    I think that the biggest problem with setting a full TW game in the Victorian era would be the fact that the technology of some factions would make others all but pointless, which would be terrible for the game.

    Because I don't think they can simply nerf stuff like the "modern" infantry of the Anglo Zulu War too much because then people will get mad at their range for instance being super limited.

    But with how powerful all that sort of stuff could be, it would make factions like the Zulu and Maori all but meaningless, as they wouldn't have nearly the same level of firepower that the European factions could bring to bear.

    Thanks but think we view it from a different angle. Zulu and Maori wouldn't be playable and would be rather silly in the time frame to expect them to be so. Faction choices are still there, there's lots of possible factions with the ability to project power across the globe if they worked up to it and be able to compete on some level with other powers.

    Bigger issue for factions will be province density. You'll end up missing out a lot of factions that played a role and lots of important regions/cities and then that also knocks on to the power of nations. Sure many remember how popular single province France was.
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,091

    I don’t see any real problems for CA as long as they do their research and make sure it’s a stable game. The specific Victorian tech was handled well and was fun to use, be it Gatling guns, naval bombardments or torpedos.

    I’m sure CA are more than capable of creating an interesting game for this period. I’m sure the US market would certainly lap up a possible ACW DLC.

    Same issues that Empire ran in to, most of them they still haven't fixed. Research wont solve that.

    They covered a single snapshot of the Victorian era tech, missing all the tech before which in made obsolete and the tech after which made the tech we saw obsolete.

    For once I kind of agree with you Commisar.

    I think that the biggest problem with setting a full TW game in the Victorian era would be the fact that the technology of some factions would make others all but pointless, which would be terrible for the game.

    Because I don't think they can simply nerf stuff like the "modern" infantry of the Anglo Zulu War too much because then people will get mad at their range for instance being super limited.

    But with how powerful all that sort of stuff could be, it would make factions like the Zulu and Maori all but meaningless, as they wouldn't have nearly the same level of firepower that the European factions could bring to bear.

    Thanks but think we view it from a different angle. Zulu and Maori wouldn't be playable and would be rather silly in the time frame to expect them to be so. Faction choices are still there, there's lots of possible factions with the ability to project power across the globe if they worked up to it and be able to compete on some level with other powers.

    Bigger issue for factions will be province density. You'll end up missing out a lot of factions that played a role and lots of important regions/cities and then that also knocks on to the power of nations. Sure many remember how popular single province France was.
    I don’t think the problems of what was essentially a successful game would tell me it’s a reason not to do it. ETW was still successful despite perceived issues.

    In reference to technologies? Again, CA are more than capable of balancing these issues to the level were the game can be fun rather perfect, which no TW game is.

    Without a specific and clear example it’s hard to argue for and against the point you’re trying to make.
  • Rollins#3150Rollins#3150 Registered Users Posts: 36
    It doesn't mean that if I think that something won't work that it's not going to work, it's just my point of view and it could be wrong.

    So that I highly encourage CA to explore different eras that they didn't explore yet like modern warfare, and I'm sure they are a highly talented game developer and they can do it and do it good.

    Humans throughout the ages tried new things and that's where innovation came from.



  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,091

    It doesn't mean that if I think that something won't work that it's not going to work, it's just my point of view and it could be wrong.

    So that I highly encourage CA to explore different eras that they didn't explore yet like modern warfare, and I'm sure they are a highly talented game developer and they can do it and do it good.

    Humans throughout the ages tried new things and that's where innovation came from.



    I think that it’s about what people prefer, this usually colours what they think will work or not.

    As someone who isn’t a CA employee I kind of accept there are things I shouldn’t pretend to be certain about. A game that hasn’t existed as a TW game is something a long those lines (WW1/2), however, in the case of the Victorian era the fact that we already have a game based on this era it’s quite reasonable to assume they could do it again.

    For sure, there are issues, just like there are with all TW options but the fact remains that no one here can be accurate about the likelihood of a particular era. It’s dependant on so many things be it current ideas or personal preferences within the staff.

    I personally loved FotS and would certainly buy a Victoria game. There’s certainly a lot of room to include popular wars/battles during this period.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434


    Thanks but think we view it from a different angle. Zulu and Maori wouldn't be playable and would be rather silly in the time frame to expect them to be so. Faction choices are still there, there's lots of possible factions with the ability to project power across the globe if they worked up to it and be able to compete on some level with other powers.

    Bigger issue for factions will be province density. You'll end up missing out a lot of factions that played a role and lots of important regions/cities and then that also knocks on to the power of nations. Sure many remember how popular single province France was.

    Well, that's kind of the problem with the Victorian era, the exact time in which it takes place.

    I just googled it, and the Victorian era was supposed to have started in roughly June of 1837 and lasted to January of 1901. That's more than half of of the 1800s dude.

    All I'm saying is that the armies of those time periods would be like 90% at least focused one firepower rather than any sort of melee, which is why it would make factions like the Zulu and Maori all but pointless, as any melee guys they have would get shot to pieces before ever getting the chance to even outflank European troops.

    I mean, I still remember how overpowered most FotS firearm units could be, but I understand that they couldn't be too powerful, as they were still a part of Shogun 2, so I don't think that going full on Victorian era would be all that great of an idea for the sake of tactical options alone.


    At least with an Empire 2, whose campaign I would hope would start in 1696 or so and last to 1800 or 1812 at the latest, there would be all sort of possibilities for interesting playable factions that aren't completely overshadowed by the European ones.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434

    It doesn't mean that if I think that something won't work that it's not going to work, it's just my point of view and it could be wrong.

    So that I highly encourage CA to explore different eras that they didn't explore yet like modern warfare, and I'm sure they are a highly talented game developer and they can do it and do it good.

    Humans throughout the ages tried new things and that's where innovation came from.

    I can mostly agree with you on that, I just think that we all do need to be realistic in that we need to accept that not ALL time periods will work within the TW formula for battles.

    I mean, it's pretty obvious that WW1 and 2 are out of the question, as the tactics and scale used in those battles are a little too big to properly work in a TW game, not to mention that the Victorian era would pretty much be nothing but firearms and that's it as well.

    I for one would rather see CA take another crack at a time period or era that they may have done before, but do it far better this time around, like and Empire 2 or TW: Antiquity.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,179

    Well, that's kind of the problem with the Victorian era, the exact time in which it takes place.

    I just googled it, and the Victorian era was supposed to have started in roughly June of 1837 and lasted to January of 1901. That's more than half of of the 1800s dude.

    All I'm saying is that the armies of those time periods would be like 90% at least focused one firepower rather than any sort of melee, which is why it would make factions like the Zulu and Maori all but pointless, as any melee guys they have would get shot to pieces before ever getting the chance to even outflank European troops.

    I mean, I still remember how overpowered most FotS firearm units could be, but I understand that they couldn't be too powerful, as they were still a part of Shogun 2, so I don't think that going full on Victorian era would be all that great of an idea for the sake of tactical options alone.

    At least with an Empire 2, whose campaign I would hope would start in 1696 or so and last to 1800 or 1812 at the latest, there would be all sort of possibilities for interesting playable factions that aren't completely overshadowed by the European ones.

    Yes that's the time frame, that's not the issue, it being relatively short means they can at least do two seasons per year. The issue in of it's self but the scale and tech changes it has that represent the Victorian age. The tech changes would be a problem mostly for map scale for land battles and for fortifications but the navy that's an issue although CA could just continue the tradition of cutting it so avoid that entirely.

    Again not something new or unique to the time period and again those factions aren't really a thing even in the time period so them being outclassed means nothing to it.

    Even if they do an Empire 2 all other factions will be over shadowed by the Europeans. That was the most effective combat style and the one that during it the rest of the world was moving to adopt.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434


    Yes that's the time frame, that's not the issue, it being relatively short means they can at least do two seasons per year. The issue in of it's self but the scale and tech changes it has that represent the Victorian age. The tech changes would be a problem mostly for map scale for land battles and for fortifications but the navy that's an issue although CA could just continue the tradition of cutting it so avoid that entirely.

    Again not something new or unique to the time period and again those factions aren't really a thing even in the time period so them being outclassed means nothing to it.

    Well, I do somewhat agree about the tech and scale of battles and such, but mainly because it would go from men with muzzle loading muskets to much faster firing stuff like breach loaders and the like, which would make firepower the best course of action to a ridiculous degree.

    And I kind of disagree with the idea that naval battles and such wouldn't be in either setting.

    Just because it's not in Warhammer doesn't mean they've 150% given up on naval battles in the TW games.


    Even if they do an Empire 2 all other factions will be over shadowed by the Europeans. That was the most effective combat style and the one that during it the rest of the world was moving to adopt.

    Well, not really, as that would just be dumb and a giant waste of time and potential.

    You see, just because European navies and massed firepower were, well, powerful, doesn't mean that all the other possible factions should be forced to copy them and end up using massive numbers of line infantry and so on.

    But if you want to discuss this sort of thing about Empire 2, please, let's move this particular discussion over to my Empire 2 thread, as that would be a better place to discuss Empire 2 in its properly.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,179

    Well, I do somewhat agree about the tech and scale of battles and such, but mainly because it would go from men with muzzle loading muskets to much faster firing stuff like breach loaders and the like, which would make firepower the best course of action to a ridiculous degree.

    And I kind of disagree with the idea that naval battles and such wouldn't be in either setting.

    Just because it's not in Warhammer doesn't mean they've 150% given up on naval battles in the TW games.

    Welcome to history. How it's gone through the course of warfare.

    I didn't say they wouldn't add them but current state I wouldn't be shocked if they didn't. They would be rather expensive to make for the time period, really hard to balance and they aren't popular.

    No, they also haven't been in the historical games. Last TW game with naval battles was ToB which was just a port of from Attila which was itself a port of R2 just they ended up cutting the actual fleets from it, being just army transports. 3K didn't even get that, didn't even get the WH island battles for the armies which it would of benefited from.

    So I'd say getting fleets with auto-resolve is is more likely at this point.

    Well, not really, as that would just be dumb and a giant waste of time and potential.

    You see, just because European navies and massed firepower were, well, powerful, doesn't mean that all the other possible factions should be forced to copy them and end up using massive numbers of line infantry and so on.

    But if you want to discuss this sort of thing about Empire 2, please, let's move this particular discussion over to my Empire 2 thread, as that would be a better place to discuss Empire 2 in its properly.

    No it wouldn't, it would be following history and what makes sense. Having them ignore it and go pretty much fantasy would be dumb, it's not wasting any potential.

    Those that survived contact did though, and they did copy it for very good reason, it was the only system that could possibly work. Keeping it op topic, it's why the non-European empires ended up trying to emulate European forces during the Victorian period - great example already being covered with Japan in FotS.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434
    edited December 2022

    I'm pretty sure we'll get a new engine and such if and when CA makes something like an Empire 2 dude, so I think they'll probably bring back naval battles.

    And the 3K period wasn't exactly known for a ton of giant naval battles dude, so that's a bad example.


    Welcome to the TW games dude.

    And you're wrong about how the game should play out, and you're kind of putting words in my mouth.

    I said nothing about some factions not advancing and such things. I did however say that they shouldn't all just be ridiculous copies of the Europeans, as that WOULD take away a lot of the flavor and enjoyment of a TW game.

    Here's a fact about the time period that Empire should take place in, that being mainly the 1700s.

    Muskets were still had pretty short range and weren't all that accurate on their own. Good bows could still out range them.

    And factions like the Qing Dynasty should be able to stand up to the European factions once they get going, without having to mob a single army with four of their own.

    Because if you think about it, the Qing had the capabilities to actually advance on their own, but because of several bad emperors and some stuff like that, they missed their chance for their armies to be on par with those of Europe.


    But my point is that the various playable non European factions they could add into an Empire 2 shouldn't just be completely overshadowed by the European ones just because that's how history played out.

    These ARE sandbox games after all.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066#5774 on
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,179

    I'm pretty sure we'll get a new engine and such if and when CA makes something like an Empire 2 dude, so I think they'll probably bring back naval battles.

    And the 3K period wasn't exactly known for a ton of giant naval battles dude, so that's a bad example.


    Welcome to the TW games dude.

    And you're wrong about how the game should play out, and you're kind of putting words in my mouth.

    I said nothing about some factions not advancing and such things. I did however say that they shouldn't all just be ridiculous copies of the Europeans, as that WOULD take away a lot of the flavor and enjoyment of a TW game.

    Here's a fact about the time period that Empire should take place in, that being mainly the 1700s.

    Muskets were still had pretty short range and weren't all that accurate on their own. Good bows could still out range them.

    And factions like the Qing Dynasty should be able to stand up to the European factions once they get going, without having to mob a single army with four of their own.

    Because if you think about it, the Qing had the capabilities to actually advance on their own, but because of several bad emperors and some stuff like that, they missed their chance for their armies to be on par with those of Europe.


    But my point is that the various playable non European factions they could add into an Empire 2 shouldn't just be completely overshadowed by the European ones just because that's how history played out.

    These ARE sandbox games after all.

    If it's a new engine then pretty much no chance of them doing Empire 2 for a very long time and would seem no chance of naval battles being in it for a while. CA learnt from the first Empire not to stretch that far on new tech.

    It did have several however and there are a lot of important rivers which were defended by large fleets for the time frame and as happens really often in the game, battles take place on those rivers. As I said they didn't even bother porting the island battles from WHF to solve them, or even port the Attila style army transport battles like they did for ToB, just auto resolved.

    No I'm not. I never said they shouldn't advance either. I said they shouldn't go fantasy, the advancement of the time frame is moving to European style armies. Nations wanted the guns and the cannons as they realised just how powerful that is. Those that didn't ended up getting crushed by those that did. And no it wouldn't take away the flavour of a TW game, this is what TW does, it follows the historical time frame.

    They might be, but unlike a bow which takes years to train a soldier for a soldier can be trained for the musket in a single day. It's also not on it's own, that's just the average grunt. No bow outranges the cannons of the day. So the heavy guns wipe out the archers as we see in Empire 1, this then forces them to launch an assault and melee soldiers have greatly reduced range than a musket, will also be vulnerable to the cannon but now also face the cannister shot.

    If they made the game cover that far then yeah a Qing that modernised and dealt with the corruption would be able to, but that would mean them going to a more European style army design which again historically they had already started to do before the time frame.

    Didn't say they would be overshadowed. I said they shouldn't go a fantasy path. Historically nations that came in to contact with the Europeans started to adopt the European equipment and tactics. Ignoring that is a fantasy path. They might be a sandbox, but again never before have the TW titles ignored the technological paths for advancement.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434

    You are wrong about it dude. As the vast majority of us would much rather have fun gameplay over fanaticism for historical accuracy.

    And you kind of are putting words in my mouth by implying that what I suggest is somehow fantasy, which it's not.

    I simply want the game to be fairly balanced to where stuff like line infantry isn't as OP as in FotS, but aren't useless either. I want ALL the units to have some viability to them.

    Because if you think about it, if the enemy has good artillery, you might actually have to turn your artillery toward them rather than blasting their cavalry or something like, which would kind of leave their cavalry or whatever a lot more room to do stuff.

    And don't try to act like ALL archers HAD to magically be the same as English Longbowmen, because that's just trying to use a single instance as if it's the entirety, of archers in this case.

    Composite bows were known to have similar power to longbows but didn't require the same amount of strength to shoot, so that kind of destroys your argument of all archers NEEDING years and years to be good with their weapons.

    And in a SANDBOX game like these, the Qing shouldn't be held back just because of historical events and such, as that would just be plain stupid and a waste of potential.

    But my point is that ALL the factions should be viable and not just be forced to copy the European factions in terms of tactics and such used. Things like Qing Manchu and Mongolian horse archers should absolutely be useful in the game.
  • Commisar#2307Commisar#2307 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,179
    No I'm not. No where did I say otherwise, again stop putting words in other peoples mouths. And considering how the reviews of 3K for the light fantasy elements tanked its reputation with historical fans...no most do want CA to stick to their tradition of keeping Historical titles on the Historical side.

    No it's not putting words in your mouth, it is what it would be. If we literally throw out history to make non-viable units suddenly uber warriors that would be fantasy.

    But that's not TW. There's always an imbalance in units. There's always units that are worthless or so situational that they aren't worth it and the default and dominant tactic of the day is powerful enough to be dominant.

    But the same happens to you. If you target my artillery I can target yours and now my cavalry are free as well.

    Again I didn't. Didn't even mention them. It has nothing to do with them, all archers to develop the strength and skill take years of training and become a limited resource. Yes a composite and a recurved bows have better energy transfers than a longbow did, still the war bow versions take years to learn and build up the strength for it, it still takes a long time of training to develop the skill for it's use at the longer ranges and is documented by the cultures that used them.

    At game start they would. That's how the sandbox works, you have to solve the issues the nation faces at the game start and go from there to solve the issues that will crop up. For Qing, if you don't continue to develop your military and reduce corruption then you will struggle to deal with a European force, although outside of multiplayer I don't see a European managing to send anything against China.

    Again never said they wouldn't be useful. They were in Empire. But considering the key battles will be for cities they end up rather limited because they suck at that type of combat and are vulnerable to the developments that happened.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434

    Oh shut up with you BS Commisar.

    This is always what you turn any thread you go into, well, into.

    And quit being such a fanatic about historical accuracy that you blind yourself to the fact that these are SANDBOX strategy games.


    And you ARE putting words into my mouth because you're IMPLYING all sorts of stupid crap by saying I said X when I didn't.

    And because these ARE sandbox games, factions like the Qing and others could and should be able to advance in their own ways, without CA making them all stupid copies of the European factions.

    And it's not like players will magically not advance their faction just because they didn't advance all that much in history.

    So your whole "arguments" is just full of crap. As usual.

    And I never said anything about the game being perfectly balanced, but that factions should all be VIABLE, but that's just you putting words in my mouth again.


    And guess what genius?

    If the other faction has decent artillery, then you will more than likely HAVE to target said artillery with your artillery rather than just having a free time bombarding their army, which in fact would give the other army more of a free hand to actually push what advantages them may have.
  • VikingHuscal1066#5774VikingHuscal1066#5774 Registered Users Posts: 4,434

    And quit assuming that because I say something like "They shouldn't all be copies of the European factions" that that means that the European factions will magically be weak or whatever, or that all some factions will be able to do is purely melee rush like in Empire 1.

    Like with the Native American tribes.

    They learned how to use guerilla tactics to such a degree that the British almost lost the French and Indian War, which only undermines your ridiculous "argument" that all the factions must copy the European tactics and such.

    You need to just accept that an Empire 2 shouldn't and or isn't going to be a 1 for 1 retelling of history and just get over it.
This discussion has been closed.