Has CA genuinely moved on from Historical?

cbferris1#4524

I know this was brought up years ago around the time of 3K following WH2, but at this point I do not think the company is actually interested in Historical whatsoever any more. It is ultimately where the came from so there will always be hope, but the most we have had was a Saga 5 years ago with ToB. Fantasy has proved to be a money make like no other, so I have a hard time believing WH will ever be just a phase though it may be complete.

The chats on Medieval 3 or Empire 2 seem just circular discussions at this point going in a repeated loop going on for years. Is anyone else starting to think historicals are no more?

davedave1124#4773

This is an interesting question. I don’t think they’ve moved on from history like Troy or 3K but, they may have moved on from pure historical like Medieval 2 and Rome 2.

Hopefully they haven’t but they have become rather risk averse.

cbferris1#4524

I do agree risk averse seems like the right word to use. Although WH1 probably was considered a huge risk at the time and that turned out very well for them.

Given Attila was really something like a revisit of TW1 Barbarian invasion. They have not truly attempted anything new in the realm of true historical since Fall of the Samurai, which was 11 years ago. It has been so long at this point their plans just seem strange.

davedave1124#4773

I think they’d claim R2, Atilla and ToB as their last historicals but, especially due to the way it went for ToB and the fact fantasy elements seem to support DLC better it maybe the safest option.

Mind you, if they did do a Med 3 or Victoria TW I’d certainly support it.

You never know with CA but, I have a feeling we may not see a pure historical for a long time.

cbferris1#4524

Having played TW since M1. I would really just like to hear some kind of statement from them clarifying their direction just for the sake of closure on this, but that’s asking a bit much.

Commisar#2307

We will have to wait and see. They did say the next Historical was in the works so quite possibly be the next TW title to be released. So when we start getting details of it drop then we can see how they are handling it.

Recent titles have ran the issue of trying to cover the period. Troy is based entirely off a rather fantastical set of poems (worth a read but can be hard to get in to) so makes sense to have it include the fantastical elements. Similar for 3K the big market there is the Romance of Three Kingdoms so again made sense that was a big part of the game.

So we will need to see what the setting is I guess.

dge1

I seriously doubt it, (I do NOT have any preferential knowledge!) Game planning takes some time and I suspect they've put pen-to-paper on a few ideas.

Right now, from all indications the current focus seems to be on getting the Warhammer games completed (and fixed/updated). They have said many times they have multiple teams working on multiple game material aspects.

I'm sure we'll hear something 'one of these days'.

LESAMA#5456

Ca already officially stated their will be historical content this year whatever that means remains to be seen.

davedave1124#4773

I think there’s no doubt we will get another historical game, the question is whether it will be based in reality similar to R2, Atilla or ToB rather than a 300 style reality or a novel based reality like 3K. The last 2 have those fantasy elements like single and all powerful legendary style lords.

Whiskeyjack_5691#3558

I don't think they've moved on from Historical titles, or plan to just stop making them anytime soon.
However, I am starting to think that future historical titles aren't going to be anything like the old games.

3K launched with two modes; "Romance Mode", which was the more "fantasy" mode with single-entity units and semi-fantastical unit abilities like splash attacks and such. And "Records" mode, which was the more "historical/classic" mode, where generals were accompanied by a bodyguard and the fantastical abilities were significantly toned down or removed where appropriate.
However, within a few months of launch, they stopped supporting Records mode entirely, and new content was built solely with Romance mode in mind. Actually, they stopped talking about Records mode altogether, and essentially pretended it didn't even exist.
Even after they abandoned the game and announced they were were working on a "Three Kingdoms "2"", they stated that this new game would align more closely with the fantastical Romance novels than the actual history of the setting. Which - if you've read the novels - essentially means the new game will involve magic.

Troy was a bit of an oddity in that it tried to blend history with elements of fantasy with the "Truth Behind the Myth" approach. Personally, I thought it was a really clever take on the whole setting, and I really liked the implementation (although I know I'm in the minority on that). The only thing I didn't like about the game was the single-entity units and fantastical abilities, which was still too "fantasy" for my tastes.
To their credit, CA Sofia did later implement a more grounded "Historical" Mode which was more in-line with the "classic" TW games, and a "Mythos" mode that was straight up fantasy with actual centaurs and gryphons and Cerberus, etc. But the fact remains that the "Historical" mode was only an afterthought and optional add-on to the main game.

So it seems to me like the "classic" style of TW games is taking more and more of a backseat. I'm 100% sure we'll see things like Medieval 3 or Empire in the future, but I am worried that they're going to try and incorporate some fantasy elements in those games (although I've no idea how, especially in Empire 2).

united84#8186

CA obviously hasn't abandon the historical genre. There are two historicals work in progress.

However, I do wish the historical settings do not get overly repetitive of previous games. I think that 3K1 to 3K2 within a short amount of time is just crazy. In addition, CA needs to explore more of East Asia and I am not talking about 3K or Shogun. The greater East Asia that comprises of the Steppes, China, Korea & Japan.

I reckon TW3K's engine was done in a hurry hence all those limitation. Otherwise, it would have been an opportunity to introduce the Imjin War as a SAGA title which include Japan, Korea and China as well as the Warring States. All of which are extremely popular pop culture in Asia (Movies, TV Series and even created festivals).

Commisar#2307

united84#8186 said:

CA obviously hasn't abandon the historical genre. There are two historicals work in progress.

However, I do wish the historical settings do not get overly repetitive of previous games. I think that 3K1 to 3K2 within a short amount of time is just crazy. In addition, CA needs to explore more of East Asia and I am not talking about 3K or Shogun. The greater East Asia that comprises of the Steppes, China, Korea & Japan.

I reckon TW3K's engine was done in a hurry hence all those limitation. Otherwise, it would have been an opportunity to introduce the Imjin War as a SAGA title which include Japan, Korea and China as well as the Warring States. All of which are extremely popular pop culture in Asia (Movies, TV Series and even created festivals).

Considering the difference in 3K2 it really isn't. It's going to be quite different to what we saw in the first game and doubling down on the popular content where the first game fell off.

And no sign of the engine being done in a hurry and causing any limitations that aren't the same for the series.

Lotor12#2810

cbferris1#4524 said:

I know this was brought up years ago around the time of 3K following WH2, but at this point I do not think the company is actually interested in Historical whatsoever any more. It is ultimately where the came from so there will always be hope, but the most we have had was a Saga 5 years ago with ToB. Fantasy has proved to be a money make like no other, so I have a hard time believing WH will ever be just a phase though it may be complete.

The chats on Medieval 3 or Empire 2 seem just circular discussions at this point going in a repeated loop going on for years. Is anyone else starting to think historicals are no more?

Well, it is good to say openly, that CA is not "historical" company, they do not have duty to release a games with historical setting.

"Fantasy has proved to be a money make like no other, so I have a hard time believing WH will ever be just a phase though it may be complete."

I think, it is not about fantasy/historical setting. In Rome2 and Attila, they made many bad design choices in game - unnecessary character attributes, complicated building system with many small %modiefiers, complicated food and public order system, which does not work properly in practice, complicated politics...

In Warhamner, they rid off all these unnecessary and broken mechanics... And Warhamner became super succesful game. And they made Thrones of Brittania, where they returned to Attila design again, and the game... "was not succesful".

+ the "historical fans" became a bit toxic, I am also the historical enthusiast, what I remember, many of these "historical fans" complained and were angry about irrelevant details or even nonsense, and claimed that Total War is not historical enough.
You do not need/want this kind of customers.

Lotor12#2810

cbferris1#4524 said:

It is ultimately where the came from so there will always be hope, but the most we have had was a Saga 5 years ago with ToB.

actually, The Troy in historical mode is fine historical TW game.

Although the Three Kindoms is set in real historical era within chinese history, the records mode do not work properly in practice, general is overpowered cavalry unit, and character RPG mechanicst (mentioned attributes) do not interact properly with a rest of the game.
in Troy's historical mode, they made very simple, but very effective solution for heroes and bodyguards.

LESAMA#5456

Lotor12#2810 said:

cbferris1#4524 said:

I know this was brought up years ago around the time of 3K following WH2, but at this point I do not think the company is actually interested in Historical whatsoever any more. It is ultimately where the came from so there will always be hope, but the most we have had was a Saga 5 years ago with ToB. Fantasy has proved to be a money make like no other, so I have a hard time believing WH will ever be just a phase though it may be complete.

The chats on Medieval 3 or Empire 2 seem just circular discussions at this point going in a repeated loop going on for years. Is anyone else starting to think historicals are no more?

Well, it is good to say openly, that CA is not "historical" company, they do not have duty to release a games with historical setting.

"Fantasy has proved to be a money make like no other, so I have a hard time believing WH will ever be just a phase though it may be complete."

I think, it is not about fantasy/historical setting. In Rome2 and Attila, they made many bad design choices in game - unnecessary character attributes, complicated building system with many small %modiefiers, complicated food and public order system, which does not work properly in practice, complicated politics...

In Warhamner, they rid off all these unnecessary and broken mechanics... And Warhamner became super succesful game. And they made Thrones of Brittania, where they returned to Attila design again, and the game... "was not succesful".

+ the "historical fans" became a bit toxic, I am also the historical enthusiast, what I remember, many of these "historical fans" complained and were angry about irrelevant details or even nonsense, and claimed that Total War is not historical enough.
You do not need/want this kind of customers.

And warhammer fanboys aren’t toxic? They are at least on the same level as other total war players. The toxic environment on the forums and reddit is mainly due to ca’s own communication failing horribly and the fact that people can’t behave when they are online…

I’ve played wh3 and to be honest stopped playing it after 2 campaigns never finishing the second one. It’s boring going from one battle to the next. No strategy involved and a very shallow campaign. Still play 3k though and looking forward to the great war western front.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

LESAMA#5456 said:

And warhammer fanboys aren’t toxic? They are at least on the same level as other total war players. The toxic environment on the forums and reddit is mainly due to ca’s own communication failing horribly and the fact that people can’t behave when they are online…

I’ve played wh3 and to be honest stopped playing it after 2 campaigns never finishing the second one. It’s boring going from one battle to the next. No strategy involved and a very shallow campaign. Still play 3k though and looking forward to the great war western front.

What are you talking about? There's strategy in Warhammer 3, especially if you play with a bunch of overhaul mods and no on easy mode.

I honestly think that people need to stop expecting Warhammer to function EXACTLY like Rome 2 or something and understand that things like magic and giant monsters do in fact change up exactly how you have to approach fighting some armies.

And as for historical TW, I'd say anything back in time from the Victorian era could work if they put in the right amount of effort.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

As far as all this goes, I'd say that CA knows the winds are changing, in that there is in fact a lot more possibilities to play around with from fantasy settings as compared to historical ones, but I still they have the potential for at least 2 great historical TW games, those being an Empire 2 and a TW: Antiquity.

I say those two in particular because they do seem like the periods and eras that could offer quite a lot of content while not trying to reinvent the TW formula, at least when it comes to battles, and I think that both can offer their own unique experience for a TW game.


Empire 2
I think that with an Empire 2, we could get a bigger focus on the grand campaign rather than smaller campaigns for the most part, with it ranging from 1696 or so, basically right after the Great Siege of Vienna, and go up to as far as 1820 or so.

With the 1700s being the main period in which the game takes place, it could offer quite a lot in terms of possible playable factions from all over the world.

And I think that CA could manage that sort of thing because through a different style of DLC packs, ones that almost work as old school expansion packs, by adding in great expanses to the grand campaign map. Because they'd just be making different human factions rather than tons of different races like in Warhammer.

But I think that CA could manage to make most of the playable factions really feel like their own thing without resorting to the lazy route of all of them and their armies copying the European line infantry and such.

I do think that an Empire 2 could actually end up being a nearly global TW game that still has a massive of scale to it that really makes you feel like you can conquer pretty much all of the world and actually have it be worth it.


Total War: Antiquity
Now, despite what some may assume, a TW: Antiquity wouldn't and shouldn't simply be a Rome 2.5 or 3 and that's it, at least not ultimately anway.

With me, I would almost call a TW: Antiquity the other side of the coin to an Empire 2.

What I picture a TW: Antiquity being is CA giving us a base game that is kind of like a Rome 3, but with some new features and such from games like Troy and so on, but then adding in different campaigns that span the era of Antiquity, ranging from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome.

But what I think that one of the things they could do that could make such a TW game would actually be in the Multiplayer department, which wouldn't have to be a giant thing but could still be meaningful and actually make the MP for such a game far more appealing and interesting.

All they would have to do is to keep all the factions in the game in the same overall ballpark in terms of balance and have all the major factions from the different campaigns be able to vs each other instead of being divided by different campaigns, but in multiplayer.

I mean, just stop and think about that for a few minutes.

Imagine all the different matchups you could possibly get.

But one thing I think that they could do to help with this would also be to not have literally every playable faction be in the faction roster for multiplayer, but have some factions be narrowed down a little bit to fewer but more meaningful factions.

What I mean is that instead of having 5 Gallic factions like in Rome 2, it could be narrowed down to 2, which I guess in this case could be a Gallic Tribes faction and Galatia.

The idea of a Gallic Tribes faction/army would be for CA to take some inspiration from past mods like Europa Barbarorum and even DEI and add in some regional units to this faction's roster to add some flavor units that help make them feel like they've got all sorts of stuff from all the different Gallic tribes in this case.

Galatia on the other hand could be its own faction, as CA could take their own "copycat" type of gimmick from Rome 2 and run with it, giving them stuff like Galatian Pikemen and such units that are somewhat copied from their neighbors.

But I think that while the campaigns for a TW: Antiquity could certainly be a lot of fun, they could also manage to make the MP for such a TW game far more interesting and fun to play as well, with comparably little effort.

gabe1010#7432

I tried making my own historical TW-like:
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/328351/historical-total-war-like-indie-prototype#latest
https://gabe1010.itch.io/formation-tactics-game-prototype-battle
*it's a bit pseudo-historical right now in terms of the exact units, but the idea is to hash out the more complex and historical mechanics first using prototype assets

Lotor12#2810

LESAMA#5456 said:

Lotor12#2810 said:

cbferris1#4524 said:

I know this was brought up years ago around the time of 3K following WH2, but at this point I do not think the company is actually interested in Historical whatsoever any more. It is ultimately where the came from so there will always be hope, but the most we have had was a Saga 5 years ago with ToB. Fantasy has proved to be a money make like no other, so I have a hard time believing WH will ever be just a phase though it may be complete.

The chats on Medieval 3 or Empire 2 seem just circular discussions at this point going in a repeated loop going on for years. Is anyone else starting to think historicals are no more?

Well, it is good to say openly, that CA is not "historical" company, they do not have duty to release a games with historical setting.

"Fantasy has proved to be a money make like no other, so I have a hard time believing WH will ever be just a phase though it may be complete."

I think, it is not about fantasy/historical setting. In Rome2 and Attila, they made many bad design choices in game - unnecessary character attributes, complicated building system with many small %modiefiers, complicated food and public order system, which does not work properly in practice, complicated politics...

In Warhamner, they rid off all these unnecessary and broken mechanics... And Warhamner became super succesful game. And they made Thrones of Brittania, where they returned to Attila design again, and the game... "was not succesful".

+ the "historical fans" became a bit toxic, I am also the historical enthusiast, what I remember, many of these "historical fans" complained and were angry about irrelevant details or even nonsense, and claimed that Total War is not historical enough.
You do not need/want this kind of customers.

And warhammer fanboys aren’t toxic? They are at least on the same level as other total war players. The toxic environment on the forums and reddit is mainly due to ca’s own communication failing horribly and the fact that people can’t behave when they are online…

I agree, that people are generaly toxic, when they are online, especialy in "nerd enviroment".
But even that, I consider Warhammer fans abit "healthier", what I noticed, the warhammer fans just interest in warhammer, they do not care for non-wh tw games. in contrast, there were always some people, who claim, that total war should be historical only, and not fantasy with dragons etc.

The Warhammer fans appreciate new DLCs, with Rome2 or Attila DLCs, the people claimed that DLCs should be part of the game from beginning. Attila should be DLC for Rome 2, not stand-alone game, and call for boycott, etc.

Also the historical "experts" complained, about "historical correct" name for spearmen, and other nonsenses, and claim, that the Total War is not "historical" enough

LESAMA#5456 said:

I’ve played wh3 and to be honest stopped playing it after 2 campaigns never finishing the second one. It’s boring going from one battle to the next. No strategy involved and a very shallow campaign. Still play 3k though and looking forward to the great war western front.

WH3 is great, both in strategy and campaign mechanics, every faction works different - just compare Nurgle and Tzentch.

problem is not in the game. You propbably played too much, or the game "is not for You"