The Historical TW games we NEED

VikingHuscal1066#5774

I will be so bold as to say something like that, as I'm not just trying to tout my opinion alone as fact, but rather try to explain something that I have thought long and hard about so that others will understand what I'm talking about and where I'm coming from.

Now, I don't know just how long it will ultimately be, as I'll be trying to explain the basics of two separate TW games, so I would like to ask that you guys please bear with me when it comes to reading all of the OP before commenting.


But what I wanted to talk about two possible TW games that I'm sure would be ultimately great additions to the TW series.

And like I said, I'm not just speaking my opinions alone, but rather thinking in terms of how CA could possibly do to make the best overall TW games possible, not just for me but for everyone as well. And those two games would be

An Empire 2 set from 1696 to 1820 and a game called TW: Antiquity which would have campaigns that range from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome.

Now, I'll just get into the major sections of what sort of stuff could be done with these two games.


The Periods/Eras
This is as good of a place to start. Why these particular time periods/eras?

Well, like I said before, I'm trying to think of what works best for a TW game rather than just wanting a time period because I think it would be cool, even if it means CA does a period or era that they've already done before, but this time they can do it better than before.

Setting an Empire 2 from 1696 to 1820 would certainly allow for a lot of gunpowder units and tactics, but not to the point where the all the game will devolve into is something where things like melee aren't viable at all.

The idea of a TW: Antiquity isn't to just be a repeat of Rome 2 all over again, but rather to have have the base campaign kind of be like a Rome 2.5 or 3 if you will but also eventually have campaigns that span the majority of Antiquity, like I previously said, from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome.


Refinement over New Things
What I mean by this isn't that I don't think that there aren't any possibilities for new mechanics and such, but just that they don't need to necessarily try to reinvent the wheel as it were either.

For instance, in a TW: Antiquity, CA could use a slightly altered version of Troy's unit weight class system and weapon switching mechanic, while they could bring back quite a lot of things from Napoleon and even some parts of FotS for a Empire 2.

Maybe they could do some simplifying of stats and such, such as unit speeds and how shields factor in as well, but we can get into that in future comments.


The "Campaign Spectrum"
This is kind of a weird thing to talk about, but I'll do my best.

I think that both of these possible TW games kind of come from roughly two sides of a spectrum. That being that a Empire 2 could and probably should be focused more on giving us a major grand campaign where as a TW: Antiquity would be more about ultimately giving us different campaigns from across antiquity, that are still enjoyable of course.

And I think that that could be shown through how CA would do their DLC, which should both still be similar in some ways.

The DLC for an Empire 2 should be all about expanding the grand campaign map with bigger map expansion DLC packs.

The DLC for a TW: Antiquity should similarly be more about providing bigger campaign packs for the most part rather than smaller culture packs, though the campaigns packs could somewhat range in size. It should be something like this.

Base "Grand Campaign"
Rise of Persia
Twilight of Rome
Spartacus's Rebellion
Peloponnesian War

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head for TW campaigns from across antiquity. But I'm sure you guys can come up with more that aren't just repeats of Rome 2 DLCs, at least not entirely.


Other Things
This is just kind of the summery part of the OP.

I think that one thing that could be pretty interesting for both games would be how they handle map design, especially for sieges, and stuff like multiplayer and so on.

I think that an Empire 2's multiplayer could be a lot of fun because of all the different factions that would eventually be introduced into the campaign.

Though I think that CA could stand to do just a little more with the multiplayer for a game like TW: Antiquity, which wouldn't actually need all that much work done on the side. All they'd have to do is

Keep all the factions in the same overall ballpark in terms of balance.
Not divide them into different campaigns.
Have major factions represent certain cultural groups to hold back on faction bloating by number of factions.

You could have all kinds of fun matchups with that sort of MP.


I might make a couple of explanatory comments explaining how CA could implement a few things here and there into these two possible TW games.

But I hope I was able to explain why these CA should make these two TW games in particular and possibly how they could do it in the most effective way possible.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Empire 2 Features

I feel like some of the things they could introduce and reintroduce into an Empire 2 would be some things like refined diplomacy options, as there was quite a lot of politicking between nations in the 1700s.

But I think that one thing in particular that could be truly interesting about an Empire 2 would actually be something somewhat new to the TW games. And that would be the that most of the factions would already start with decent empires or kingdoms of their own.

I think that such a thing would not only be pretty interesting, as it would cut back on a lot of minor factions, for the most part anyway, but also make it to where you couldn't just destroy your rivals too quickly or something like that.

Honestly, I just think it would be pretty interesting for a faction like Great Britain, France, and even Spain to start out with a bunch of either controlled or vassalized territory, as that would really help make them feel like an empire rather than just another faction in a TW game.

Aside from stuff like that, I could see an Empire 2 having fairly interesting battle map design as well as some reworking of things like battlefield formations and such.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

TW: Antiquity Features

As for things they could do with a TW: Antiquity, I would say that they could be a bit more imaginative with the ancient world than with an Empire 2, but only by a little bit.

I really do think that CA could and should use some mechanics and such from games like Thrones and Troy as much as they should bring back things from Rome 1 and 2 and Attila.

I would love to see things like Troy's unit weight class system and weapon switching be updated and made better for this sort of game. Like having the weight class system be a little simplified in that instead of having 2 or 3 more bonuses for flanking, the light units are just quicker and more nimble, but maybe also have other benefits to their lightness.

I'd also love to see CA bring back the weapon switching that the Memnon's Egyptian units from Troy had, but do it better.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see all units get the weapon switching, as that would take away its specialness, but I would like to see see units like the professional and elite hoplites, as well as the elite "barbarian" infantry be able to be more than what they were in games like Rome 2.

I'd like to see things like Gallic Oathsworn and Noble Spears from Rome 2 be reworked into a Oathsworn Warriors unit that not only have swords or spears and javelins, but both swords and spears and heavy javelins.

Here's some Steam screenshots of what I'm aiming for.

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/2030597346705930011/88043D8AD764A1BEEA49EB6017F2FFF688630E4B/?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=#000000&letterbox=false

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/2030597346705929895/256638D610C9701BC93A6908E2D516531D6EBED9/?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=#000000&letterbox=false

And they're just Steam screenshots guys, nothing to worry about.

But I think that they could possibly take this mechanic to the next level with a few units, mainly the Persian Immortals, who should be able to swap between good bows, spears and shields, and swords and shields, as they were reported to have been VERY well equipped in terms of weapons.

I also think that it would nice to see some more unique units as well, such as this unit from Europa Barbarorum

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/1865079973063097314/D91B4796A7AE06D58EF286D2B4B48217BF31981F/?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=#000000&letterbox=false

But I think that it would be cool if they took this type of unit and turned it into a rare mercenary/regional pike unit that is also really good outside of their formation, as that would make for a truly interesting unit that gives the "barbarian" factions something that they wouldn't normally have, but in a limited fashion of sorts.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Campaign Battle Map Design
I'm going to separate the map design discussion into Campaign and Multiplayer, as I do think that there's enough differences to be worth separating them.

But I think that CA could certainly design the maps for both an Empire 2 and TW: Antiquity effectively enough to offer players a lot of tactical options and variety in where they fight.

I honestly think that the siege maps in particular or both games should land in between Rome 2/Attila and Thrones in terms of defensiveness and complexity, though not quite being as crazy as some fortresses were supposed to be, so the players and AI can actually attack a fortress.

I think that for both games they could have siege maps really vary, with great use of terrain and all, but maybe also play into either period's/era's type of fortifications and all that.

I would mind seeing an Empire 2 bring back some things like garrisonable buildings and such on maps that can help you fortify an area, as well as having some powerful star fort designs as well.

But they could possibly do some interesting things with the forts and such of non European factions/cultures as well, like having Native American forts and such not being as big and imposing as the biggest European star forts, but they make great use of terrain, such as swamps and forests, making sallying out to ambush the enemy more of a viable option.

As for an Antiquity, I could really see them doing like I said, not just repeating the Rome 2 or Attila siege maps, but not going quite as extreme as Thrones in terms of being on mountains and such. I think that they could manage to make iconic cities and such of the ancient world pretty interesting.

Heck, maybe they could also make it to where you could build different types of forts in different areas or something like that, but be more like actual fortresses rather than just an army camp.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Multiplayer Map Design
Now this is something that I've really wanted to talk about, and from what I've seen over the years, can really effect how much people would be willing to play a TW game's multiplayer, nearly as much as the faction balance.

And don't get me wrong, I know a lot of people love the campaigns and all, but it's truly the MP that can show us just how good a TW game can really be, as it allows us players to actually have challenges the AI just can't give us.

I just want to see CA actually give the MP for a TW game just a little more attention than just the campaign factions but against other players.

But if the maps are poorly designed, then it wouldn't matter how interesting or fun the factions would be, the MP would suck. And that's why I want to see CA put a bit more effort into the MP for both of these sorts of TW games.

But I think that I'll just give two basic examples of how they could design maps for these games' MP in a better way.

And those are Siege Maps and River Maps.

I'll just say that CA should design the MP siege maps to be just a little bit more complex than in the campaigns, as it would be expected that actual players would be attacking and defending the cities or fortresses.

Some things they should do is to make citadels not only less common, but not as ridiculously impregnable as in past TW games, as well as not just giving defenders a bunch of overpowered stuff for freaking free, like in Rome 2, as the attackers should have an actual chance to win as well.

But as for river maps. I think that what they need to do with such maps for either game is pretty simple.

Just don't put both sides right on top of the river but actually start them back a ways from it. Not like 5 miles or something, but just not super close to it.

Aside from that, they should make there be more than just one single crossing point, but give most of the river maps at least one nice big bridge or crossing point in the middle, while having multiple smaller crossing points near the edges of the map.

This sort of design would force players to really have to learn how best to approach these sorts of battles, in a good way of course.

Do you rush for the main crossing point or do you try to send your cavalry or faster infantry to secure the other crossings?

It's the fact that you should be forced to ask such questions that could help make maps like river crossing maps more fun to play.

And I think that applying a similar outlook to the design of all the other maps, be them land or siege, would help make them all interesting in their own way.

pdboddy#2093

The only historical games I want are Shogun 3, Medieval 3 and Rome 3.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

pdboddy#2093 said:

The only historical games I want are Shogun 3, Medieval 3 and Rome 3.

That's kind of redundant dude.

I mean, what could a Shogun 3 actually bring to the table?

And I think that a Medieval 3 is overhyped.

And I for one would like to see another go at the ancient world be a little more interesting than just a Rome 3 and that's it.

That's kind of why I want CA to do something that they may have kind of done before, but do it better this time around.

Jam#4399

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

pdboddy#2093 said:

The only historical games I want are Shogun 3, Medieval 3 and Rome 3.

That's kind of redundant dude.

I mean, what could a Shogun 3 actually bring to the table?

And I think that a Medieval 3 is overhyped.

And I for one would like to see another go at the ancient world be a little more interesting than just a Rome 3 and that's it.

That's kind of why I want CA to do something that they may have kind of done before, but do it better this time around.

Medieval 3 is what people want.
Ancient is just another Rome 2. It will feature Romans from Rome 2 again in the same time period, right?

How about title focused on Mongols and Greek? Those are new.

Renaissance is also good though.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Jam#4399 said:

Medieval 3 is what people want.
Ancient is just another Rome 2. It will feature Romans from Rome 2 again in the same time period, right?

How about title focused on Mongols and Greek? Those are new.

Renaissance is also good though.

That may be, but I think that too many people are putting too much pressure on CA to make Medieval 3 perfect that the second it's not, they'll just act like CA wasn't even trying with it or whatever.


And no, ancient times does NOT simply equal a Rome 2 or 3.

There's a LOT of wars that were fought in ancient times, so something like a TW: Antiquity doesn't HAVE to be solely focused on Rome exclusively. I'll give you that the base campaign for a TW: Antiquity would and probably should be similar to a Rome 2.5 in a lot of ways, but many of the DLC campaigns could be about various other major factions or empires. I'll give a few examples.

The Rise of Persia: A campaign mainly focused on Cyrus the Great's found of the Achaemenid Persian Empire.
The Twilight of Rome: A campaign focused on the late Roman Empire, kid of what Attila should've been.
The Peloponnesian War: A much better take on the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, but maybe have other players in it too.
Spartacus's Rebellion: A far more focuses campaign that would feature the Servile Rebels of Spartacus as the main playable faction.

And that's just 4 examples.

They could probably do some things like the Conquests of Alexander or the Diadochi Wars and others I'm sure.


And as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have CA make a historical TW game that has the potential for a LOT more options to play around with and doesn't solely focus on any one particular period, at least in a lot of ways.

That's why I want to see them make an Empire 2 that's set from 1696 to 1820 and a TW: Antiquity that has different campaigns that range from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome.

Jam#4399

The Rise of Persia could have been better if it's made in a new game. Maybe an expansion for Alexander just like Attila to Rome 2 or vice versa.

Twilight of Rome, same same with Rome 2? Isn't it?

Peloponnesian War, another Peloponnesian DLC? How about making a game centered on Greeks instead of DLC?

Sprtacusus Rebellion, better if made in Rome 2 instead rather than be in another game.

----------

I agree with you on Alexander though. Alexander should be made into a full title just like Attila and Napoleon.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Jam#4399 said:

The Rise of Persia could have been better if it's made in a new game. Maybe an expansion for Alexander just like Attila to Rome 2 or vice versa.

Twilight of Rome, same same with Rome 2? Isn't it?

Peloponnesian War, another Peloponnesian DLC? How about making a game centered on Greeks instead of DLC?

Sprtacusus Rebellion, better if made in Rome 2 instead rather than be in another game.

----------

I agree with you on Alexander though. Alexander should be made into a full title just like Attila and Napoleon.

That's not the point dude, nor is it right.

The point of a TW: Antiquity is to put many different campaigns from ACROSS antiquity in one game rather than ridiculously spreading them out into their own things, which WOULD all be limited.

The Twilight of Rome is supposed to be what Attila should've been, with a campaign set in the late Roman period.

And a Peloponnesian War DLC is to basically a chance do the Peloponnesian War right and not like the Wrath of Sparta from Rome 2.


The point of a TW: Antiquity and an Empire 2 is for CA to do those time periods again, but far better this time around.


A TW: Antiquity should be, like I said, about giving us a lot of different campaigns to play around with that span the era of antiquity, while an Empire 2 should be about giving us a single grand campaign that gives us a more fun with a far grander scale to it.

Jam#4399

I don't know if many people request for Antiquity but I am sure that Medieval is the most requested title.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Jam#4399 said:

I don't know if many people request for Antiquity but I am sure that Medieval is the most requested title.

Well, I'm more so wanting CA to make a TW game or two that can eventually give a lot more options to play around with than them just focusing on a game like M3, which would just end up being more limited.

Like I previously said, the point of either game is for CA to give a lot of options within a single game, but just in slightly different ways.

An Empire 2, which should be set from 1696 to 1820, should be all about making the main grand campaign better and better rather than splitting the game up into different campaigns.

A TW: Antiquity is really about doing more than just Rome alone and doing it all better than before, while possibly doing something simple but interesting with its multiplayer.

Jam#4399

CA can't make pikes properly in Rome 2 yet you want them to make larger scope game? Do you think they can focus and make that game good quality?

That is the reason why I want Alexander or Greek centered game instead.

Anyways, it's fine.

I believe CA knows what to do.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Jam#4399 said:

CA can't make pikes properly in Rome 2 yet you want them to make larger scope game? Do you think they can focus and make that game good quality?

That is the reason why I want Alexander or Greek centered game instead.

Anyways, it's fine.

I believe CA knows what to do.

Yeah, they've done pretty well with the TW: Warhammer games so far, so I think they could manage doing a game or two with just humans pretty easily.

And while not perfect, Rome 2 is far better of a game then when it started.

And like I said before dude, it's about them doing it all better this time around. Be it an Empire 2 or TW: Antiquity.

Jam#4399

Wonder who among here like the whole Antiquity in one game. Care to make a poll?

Let the people decide...

davedave1124#4773

Jam#4399 said:

Wonder who among here like the whole Antiquity in one game. Care to make a poll?

Let the people decide...

What would that prove? The amount of people who would see or take an interest in that poll would be in the single figures.

Everyone has their favourite and we will see when CA finally release some info as I’m sure they would’ve decided by now. I’d be happy with full Bronze or Victoria and others would want something else. We will get what we get.

Commisar#2307

Also got the issue that trying to cram all of antiquity in to a single game means really lacklustre in content as they have to cover such a large time period in a single game with the same amount of resources as if they focused on one period.

And polls are quite common on the series Reddit, tends to be Medieval and Empire for Historical games.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Jam#4399 said:

Wonder who among here like the whole Antiquity in one game. Care to make a poll?

Let the people decide...

As Dr. Evil would say. How about no!

Again, the point is to suggest that CA try these periods again but do it all better this time.

I mean, just look at Empire 1 again, and you might be able to see how much CA wanted to do with that game but couldn't do to the limitations they had back then.

And as for Antiquity, I would personally just rather see CA have the game be about more than just Rome alone instead of spreading out all those wars into a bunch of saga titles.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Commisar#2307 said:

Also got the issue that trying to cram all of antiquity in to a single game means really lacklustre in content as they have to cover such a large time period in a single game with the same amount of resources as if they focused on one period.

And polls are quite common on the series Reddit, tends to be Medieval and Empire for Historical games.

That's not entirely true Commisar.

CA can easily make the content for a TW: Antiquity good, all they have to do is put a little effort into it.

And like I just told Jam, I'd much rather see CA make a big TW game that gives us options for campaigns instead of breaking them all up into a bunch of saga titles. Because that's what it would end up as otherwise.

I would just like a TW game set in the ancient world that isn't held back by being tied to certain factions and such alone.


But that's kind of the point of at least my idea for a TW: Antiquity and Empire 2.

A TW: Antiquity should ultimately be about giving us a bunch of campaigns to play around with, with enough differences in them to warrant buying the DLC campaigns and all.

An Empire 2 on the other hand should be all about giving us a single grand campaign that is expanded through its DLC to ultimately give us a nearly global scale and a ton of playable factions that all feel fairly unique.

davedave1124#4773

Polls aren’t as useful or a prime factor in CA’s decisions. Not sure anyone expected Shogun 2 or 3K but they were selected.

As long as they have a baseline of interest they will most likely do well dependent on the quality of the content.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

Polls aren’t as useful or a prime factor in CA’s decisions. Not sure anyone expected Shogun 2 or 3K but they were selected.

As long as they have a baseline of interest they will most likely do well dependent on the quality of the content.

That's actually a really good point, and kind of the reason why I would want CA to go with the periods I've mentioned.

An Empire 2 set from 1684 or so to 1820 which is focused far more on a single grand campaign that gets expanded with its DLC would bring a lot to the table, as could a TW: Antiquity that may start out like a Rome 2.5 or 3, but would eventually get a bunch of different campaigns, ranging from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome.

Commisar#2307

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

That's not entirely true Commisar.

CA can easily make the content for a TW: Antiquity good, all they have to do is put a little effort into it.

And like I just told Jam, I'd much rather see CA make a big TW game that gives us options for campaigns instead of breaking them all up into a bunch of saga titles. Because that's what it would end up as otherwise.

I would just like a TW game set in the ancient world that isn't held back by being tied to certain factions and such alone.


But that's kind of the point of at least my idea for a TW: Antiquity and Empire 2.

A TW: Antiquity should ultimately be about giving us a bunch of campaigns to play around with, with enough differences in them to warrant buying the DLC campaigns and all.

An Empire 2 on the other hand should be all about giving us a single grand campaign that is expanded through its DLC to ultimately give us a nearly global scale and a ton of playable factions that all feel fairly unique.

Didn't say they couldn't make good content, just that it would be watered down.

That's what it's going to end up as anyway, just with one installation and less advancement for the series as a whole. Means likely to see a lot more repeat elements, animations and so forth to cover each area as they have less time and money to do it.

davedave1124#4773 said:

Polls aren’t as useful or a prime factor in CA’s decisions. Not sure anyone expected Shogun 2 or 3K but they were selected.

As long as they have a baseline of interest they will most likely do well dependent on the quality of the content.

Well after they made Shogun 1 a second was always on the cards but starting with Shogun is a bit of a surprise for a UK based company which wasn't under SEGA at that time. 3K has been requested quite a bit and does have a huge following especially with Dynasty warriors so again not a shock they eventually branched out to it. But both of these do have a rather large pop following across the globe.

davedave1124#4773

Commisar#2307 said:

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

That's not entirely true Commisar.

CA can easily make the content for a TW: Antiquity good, all they have to do is put a little effort into it.

And like I just told Jam, I'd much rather see CA make a big TW game that gives us options for campaigns instead of breaking them all up into a bunch of saga titles. Because that's what it would end up as otherwise.

I would just like a TW game set in the ancient world that isn't held back by being tied to certain factions and such alone.


But that's kind of the point of at least my idea for a TW: Antiquity and Empire 2.

A TW: Antiquity should ultimately be about giving us a bunch of campaigns to play around with, with enough differences in them to warrant buying the DLC campaigns and all.

An Empire 2 on the other hand should be all about giving us a single grand campaign that is expanded through its DLC to ultimately give us a nearly global scale and a ton of playable factions that all feel fairly unique.

Didn't say they couldn't make good content, just that it would be watered down.

That's what it's going to end up as anyway, just with one installation and less advancement for the series as a whole. Means likely to see a lot more repeat elements, animations and so forth to cover each area as they have less time and money to do it.

davedave1124#4773 said:

Polls aren’t as useful or a prime factor in CA’s decisions. Not sure anyone expected Shogun 2 or 3K but they were selected.

As long as they have a baseline of interest they will most likely do well dependent on the quality of the content.

Well after they made Shogun 1 a second was always on the cards but starting with Shogun is a bit of a surprise for a UK based company which wasn't under SEGA at that time. 3K has been requested quite a bit and does have a huge following especially with Dynasty warriors so again not a shock they eventually branched out to it. But both of these do have a rather large pop following across the globe.

Yes, but we are talking numbers and a medieval or Rome game was much higher on the list.

So, my point was we don’t have to go for the highest, we merely have to go for one which is viable, there are other factors at play

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Commisar#2307 said:

Didn't say they couldn't make good content, just that it would be watered down.

That's what it's going to end up as anyway, just with one installation and less advancement for the series as a whole. Means likely to see a lot more repeat elements, animations and so forth to cover each area as they have less time and money to do it.

Well, I still have to disagree that it would even be watered down.

Try looking at it like this Commisar.

Look at the TW: Warhammer games.

They have all those crazy races and crazy units within their rosters. That takes a LOT of effort to make them all work in their own ways.

Now just think about them going back to a TW game where it's just humans again.

The workload requirements and all would a fair bit less extensive, and thereby easier for the devs to design.

The point is that if they go back to a nice big historical TW game, they can put in a lot more effort into the content, as they wouldn't HAVE to worry about mixing in any giant monsters or magic and such things.

So a lot of that effort can go to things like expanding the grand campaign map in an Empire 2, and or making better campaign packs for a TW: Antiquity.

Commisar#2307

VikingHuscal1066#5774 said:

Well, I still have to disagree that it would even be watered down.

Try looking at it like this Commisar.

Look at the TW: Warhammer games.

They have all those crazy races and crazy units within their rosters. That takes a LOT of effort to make them all work in their own ways.

Now just think about them going back to a TW game where it's just humans again.

The workload requirements and all would a fair bit less extensive, and thereby easier for the devs to design.

The point is that if they go back to a nice big historical TW game, they can put in a lot more effort into the content, as they wouldn't HAVE to worry about mixing in any giant monsters or magic and such things.

So a lot of that effort can go to things like expanding the grand campaign map in an Empire 2, and or making better campaign packs for a TW: Antiquity.

It takes more time to animate them, but they have multiple advantages on it. Firstly all the lore, names and units already exist and are written. So effectively no research they have to do, also very little design they have to do. Secondly they split it over 3 games so far over 7 years to get all that so far.

Covering more time means more research, more design work and having to repeatedly redo content already made. Yeah they can cut down the animations with it being human based but it's only one small part of it and doesn't speed up the content creation that much as all the previous TWs have shown.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Commisar#2307 said:

It takes more time to animate them, but they have multiple advantages on it. Firstly all the lore, names and units already exist and are written. So effectively no research they have to do, also very little design they have to do. Secondly they split it over 3 games so far over 7 years to get all that so far.

Covering more time means more research, more design work and having to repeatedly redo content already made. Yeah they can cut down the animations with it being human based but it's only one small part of it and doesn't speed up the content creation that much as all the previous TWs have shown.

I'll give you most of that, to an extent though.

Like you said, they wouldn't have to create all sorts of crazy animations for non human units, as like in an Empire 2, they could simply have a few versions of certain animations, such as reloading firearms and such.

But I do think that a lot of that effort that was put into all those extra animations and so on could be put to use elsewhere, such as expanding the map for an Empire 2 or making slightly bigger campaign packs for a TW: Antiquity instead of small culture packs.

The idea isn't so that much that CA will magically start cranking out DLCs for a historical TW game, but rather just be able to put some of that effort that went into part of the Warhammer games into making the games and content better overall.

davedave1124#4773

I don’t think we should pretend it’s easy to make WH content in terms of models to humans in anyway and not forgetting the cost of these monsters and the amount of detail in a single model.

The vast majority (human) will share the same skeleton and animation loops. When it comes to designing WH CA still have to research what they are going to build, how they will change it, how they will be animated. The research required to do the WE animation for example had them studying rope dancers from real life. History as well is all there for them and I imagine they have a huge wealth of historical research already.

I don’t think there are many units out there in the historical that CA don’t know about.

If you look at Shogun or Empire there are so many shared character models and animations it certainly will be less work. The real work comes at getting the balance right and creating interesting features that doesn’t rely on far fetched fantasy mechanics.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

davedave1124#4773 said:

I don’t think we should pretend it’s easy to make WH content in terms of models to humans in anyway and not forgetting the cost of these monsters and the amount of detail in a single model.

The vast majority (human) will share the same skeleton and animation loops. When it comes to designing WH CA still have to research what they are going to build, how they will change it, how they will be animated. The research required to do the WE animation for example had them studying rope dancers from real life. History as well is all there for them and I imagine they have a huge wealth of historical research already.

I don’t think there are many units out there in the historical that CA don’t know about.

If you look at Shogun or Empire there are so many shared character models and animations it certainly will be less work. The real work comes at getting the balance right and creating interesting features that doesn’t rely on far fetched fantasy mechanics.

I'm certainly not trying to say that making content for the Warhammer games is easy, but just that going back to just humans in a historical TW game would kind of ease the need for tons of fancy animations and such, or at least to the same degree anyway.

I mean, if you were to use the idea of an Empire 2 as an example, you could see how they wouldn't need quite as many different variations and such in terms of animations. For instances, the line infantry shooting and reloading animations could be used by many units, with only some slight variations in how they look and work, mostly based on things like formations and such things.

And they could probably make a few variations for stuff like Light Infantry with firearms and such, but they wouldn't really need to go too crazy with them.

Commisar#2307

CA has always done a lot of work on their animations, they've had their own motion capture studio for a while and upgraded it the other year:
https://www.creative-assembly.com/blog/new-uk-studio-and-motion-capture-facility

While keeping it human does mean they can re-use animations they do still add and work on new ones as well. It's good business and game production, build up the catalogue while spreading out the cost.

VikingHuscal1066#5774

Commisar#2307 said:

CA has always done a lot of work on their animations, they've had their own motion capture studio for a while and upgraded it the other year:
https://www.creative-assembly.com/blog/new-uk-studio-and-motion-capture-facility

While keeping it human does mean they can re-use animations they do still add and work on new ones as well. It's good business and game production, build up the catalogue while spreading out the cost.

Oh, I agree with you on that Commisar.

I'm sure CA will put a lot of effort into all the animations and such, be it for an Empire 2 or whatever big historical TW game they might make out there.

The only thing I hope they don't do is go too overboard with synced kill animations and such, you know, just needless extra taxing for people's computers and all.