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.
That’s the advantage with human animations, you can initially put some decent work in and then copy and paste to every other unit.
Imagine doing that with humans, dwarfs, rats, LM etc and then going through the numerous sizes and types of creature be it a Dragon, Ogre, Hell Pit Abomination, walking trees, floating humanoids, huge machinery, flying creatures etc. in that sense it will always be vastly more complex than a historical game. Yes, there’s a level of complexity to making any game but with these 2 there’s a big difference.
That’s the advantage with human animations, you can initially put some decent work in and then copy and paste to every other unit.
Imagine doing that with humans, dwarfs, rats, LM etc and then going through the numerous sizes and types of creature be it a Dragon, Ogre, Hell Pit Abomination, walking trees, floating humanoids, huge machinery, flying creatures etc. in that sense it will always be vastly more complex than a historical game. Yes, there’s a level of complexity to making any game but with these 2 there’s a big difference.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Yeah, making all that stuff for the Warhammer games takes a lot of effort, but you can use the same human animations and all in historical TW games comparably easily.
Like I said before, most line infantry in an Empire 2 would use the same overall animation sets, with only a few having variations of them, like the Swedish Caroleans drawing swords instead of bayonets.
That’s the advantage with human animations, you can initially put some decent work in and then copy and paste to every other unit.
Imagine doing that with humans, dwarfs, rats, LM etc and then going through the numerous sizes and types of creature be it a Dragon, Ogre, Hell Pit Abomination, walking trees, floating humanoids, huge machinery, flying creatures etc. in that sense it will always be vastly more complex than a historical game. Yes, there’s a level of complexity to making any game but with these 2 there’s a big difference.
We already have said that, although a number of them do also still easily take existing models to help with them. Pretty sure I keep seeing jokes on the reddit about them not bothering with some simple animations we have from the Historical games in the WH one, think it's about reloading of the guns.
That’s the advantage with human animations, you can initially put some decent work in and then copy and paste to every other unit.
Imagine doing that with humans, dwarfs, rats, LM etc and then going through the numerous sizes and types of creature be it a Dragon, Ogre, Hell Pit Abomination, walking trees, floating humanoids, huge machinery, flying creatures etc. in that sense it will always be vastly more complex than a historical game. Yes, there’s a level of complexity to making any game but with these 2 there’s a big difference.
We already have said that, although a number of them do also still easily take existing models to help with them. Pretty sure I keep seeing jokes on the reddit about them not bothering with some simple animations we have from the Historical games in the WH one, think it's about reloading of the guns.
A single animation reload compared to the expanse of models, skeletons, animations doesn’t change these huge differences.
I don’t think there’s much to stop a large, almost global game be it Empire, Victoria or something else. Considering the size of IE and the higher complexity of units, magic, races etc. I don’t think a major historical release would be an obvious issue. If you can make Empire in 2009 I can only imagine the scope of the game in 2023+
We already have said that, although a number of them do also still easily take existing models to help with them. Pretty sure I keep seeing jokes on the reddit about them not bothering with some simple animations we have from the Historical games in the WH one, think it's about reloading of the guns.
I've heard about some people saying stuff like that too.
Though I think it's just a tad silly, as there's a lot more going on in the Warhammer battles that the missing reloading animations do seem like the least important stuff to worry about.
A single animation reload compared to the expanse of models, skeletons, animations doesn’t change these huge differences.
I don’t think there’s much to stop a large, almost global game be it Empire, Victoria or something else. Considering the size of IE and the higher complexity of units, magic, races etc. I don’t think a major historical release would be an obvious issue. If you can make Empire in 2009 I can only imagine the scope of the game in 2023+
That's actually one of the biggest reasons I want to see CA do an Empire 2 so badly, as they could possibly redirect how they make DLC for such a game and give us larger map expansion DLC packs that actually expand the campaign map to be nearly global in scale.
Though I would hope that they would just eventually keep it only nearly global, as there are some factions that would just get utterly destroyed by even most other non European factions.
I've heard about some people saying stuff like that too.
Though I think it's just a tad silly, as there's a lot more going on in the Warhammer battles that the missing reloading animations do seem like the least important stuff to worry about.
Just seems strange they wouldn't bother with that when it's such a simple animation to port over from the historical side. It's also just the one known to have been skipped over, so seems a good change they "optimised" what animations they chose to do for the WH line to help save the time and money as well.
I don’t think there’s much to stop a large, almost global game be it Empire, Victoria or something else. Considering the size of IE and the higher complexity of units, magic, races etc. I don’t think a major historical release would be an obvious issue. If you can make Empire in 2009 I can only imagine the scope of the game in 2023+
The amount of content pretty much does and the depth they would need for it. They can't do it in a single game as they've shown and unless they switch it to either a trilogy style support they don't have the time to expand it that much.
I've heard about some people saying stuff like that too.
Though I think it's just a tad silly, as there's a lot more going on in the Warhammer battles that the missing reloading animations do seem like the least important stuff to worry about.
Just seems strange they wouldn't bother with that when it's such a simple animation to port over from the historical side. It's also just the one known to have been skipped over, so seems a good change they "optimised" what animations they chose to do for the WH line to help save the time and money as well.
I don’t think there’s much to stop a large, almost global game be it Empire, Victoria or something else. Considering the size of IE and the higher complexity of units, magic, races etc. I don’t think a major historical release would be an obvious issue. If you can make Empire in 2009 I can only imagine the scope of the game in 2023+
The amount of content pretty much does and the depth they would need for it. They can't do it in a single game as they've shown and unless they switch it to either a trilogy style support they don't have the time to expand it that much.
I don’t think it would. I can’t see any solid evidence to suggest either way, all we have is general evidence as in over 10 years ago we had a game that covered a lot of the globe and we have a huge map that could easily represent the majority of the world minus huge unused landmasses.
Just seems strange they wouldn't bother with that when it's such a simple animation to port over from the historical side. It's also just the one known to have been skipped over, so seems a good change they "optimised" what animations they chose to do for the WH line to help save the time and money as well.
I get that, though I've seen a few people talk like as if it was the biggest problem ever, which was kind of funny.
I mean, some of them seemed to look at that one little thing and miss all the other stuff that was going on in the game.
I would love nothing more than a Medieval setting with the character focused gameplay of Total War 3K.
And please make the combat closer to Ultimate General / Scourge of War (more methodical, decisive, formation based, with command-hierarchy, organized reinforcements) rather than continue the slump to Age of Empire type button-mashing prevalent in Warhammer.
I would love nothing more than a Medieval setting with the character focused gameplay of Total War 3K.
And please make the combat closer to Ultimate General / Scourge of War (more methodical, decisive, formation based, with command-hierarchy, organized reinforcements) rather than continue the slump to Age of Empire type button-mashing prevalent in Warhammer.
Dude, these are the Total War games, not whatever those other ones are, and having a few abilities and such doesn't make them click fests.
Oh no, you have to manage your armies in real time, the horror!
And I think that the medieval period is overrated.
Medieval is just getting the attention it deserves.
It's just overly glamorized and overhyped.
Sure, I think that a Medieval 3 could be a good enough TW game, but after some deep thought, I think that an Empire 2 and or TW: Antiquity could actually be the next great TW game if CA handles them right.
An Empire 2, set from 1684 or so to 1820, could possibly give us the ability to eventually have a truly great, and nearly global in scale, grand campaign that has a ton of possible playable factions that actually feel different from each other.
A TW: Antiquity on the other hand could allow CA to give the ancient world another go, but do it far better this time around, eventually giving us a good number of interesting campaigns to play around with, that span from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome. And they could even do some simple things to greatly improve its multiplayer as well.
I don't want to play "Rise of Persian" units against "Fall of Rome" units. It has no basis since they were from different era.
Rather play TW Arena instead.
They're from different eras? You don't say?
But you kind of miss the point.
A TW: Antiquity would split them up into different campaigns rather than it all being one giant campaign.
And the point of mixing factions in multiplayer would in fact help liven up the game's multiplayer into be a lot more interesting, as the multiplayer and single player already aren't entirely historical, as many factions you can play as never actually met in history. So that's a weak argument.
I would love nothing more than a Medieval setting with the character focused gameplay of Total War 3K.
And please make the combat closer to Ultimate General / Scourge of War (more methodical, decisive, formation based, with command-hierarchy, organized reinforcements) rather than continue the slump to Age of Empire type button-mashing prevalent in Warhammer.
Dude, these are the Total War games, not whatever those other ones are, and having a few abilities and such doesn't make them click fests.
Oh no, you have to manage your armies in real time, the horror!
And I think that the medieval period is overrated.
I have no issues with unit abilities or real time. Both of the games I mentioned are in real time and have unit abilities. If you do not know "whatever those other ones are", why bother replying to me? LOL. If you are a fan of war games, I recommend you to try them. Try Ultimate General Civil War first. Scourge of War later. Also try Grand Tactician Civil War.
Medieval is just getting the attention it deserves.
It's just overly glamorized and overhyped.
Sure, I think that a Medieval 3 could be a good enough TW game, but after some deep thought, I think that an Empire 2 and or TW: Antiquity could actually be the next great TW game if CA handles them right.
An Empire 2, set from 1684 or so to 1820, could possibly give us the ability to eventually have a truly great, and nearly global in scale, grand campaign that has a ton of possible playable factions that actually feel different from each other.
A TW: Antiquity on the other hand could allow CA to give the ancient world another go, but do it far better this time around, eventually giving us a good number of interesting campaigns to play around with, that span from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome. And they could even do some simple things to greatly improve its multiplayer as well.
TW Antiquity would be disappointing (for me at least) if it was next game. We just had Total War Troy which is set in antiquity. Technically Rome 2 and 3K were also set in the time period you mentioned. Warfare before the innovations of the Macedonians and the Romans was way too simplistic and limited in tactical variety. It would make for very uninteresting gameplay. Improvements to multiplayer should not come at the cost of core gameplay or single player. Unfortunately, the opposite has been true for recent TW games, especially WH.
TW Antiquity would be disappointing (for me at least) if it was next game. We just had Total War Troy which is set in antiquity. Technically Rome 2 and 3K were also set in the time period you mentioned. Warfare before the innovations of the Macedonians and the Romans was way too simplistic and limited in tactical variety. It would make for very uninteresting gameplay. Improvements to multiplayer should not come at the cost of core gameplay or single player. Unfortunately, the opposite has been true for recent TW games, especially WH.
Well, that's kind of why I said that one of the big points would be for CA to do a TW game set in antiquity, but overall better this time around.
And I wouldn't say that warfare was overly simplistic before the Macedonian reforms came around, as not all battles were simply just a couple of volleys of arrows or whatever and then both armies just mindlessly charged into each other, becoming little more than a mass armed brawl. I'm sure there were tactics used and all.
And that's another point of a TW: Antiquity, to give us a bit more of a wide ranging ancient TW game that isn't purely just about Rome alone.
I never said that the improvements to multiplayer would or should have to come at the cost of the campaigns, but rather just have a bit of effort given to them.
You see, with an TW: Antiquity, they could simply just make things a little different when they're designing what factions are in the multiplayer section of the game.
Instead of just having the same old thing as Rome 2, they could simply have most playable factions from the campaigns not be divided into different campaigns in MP, for a lot more fun matchups. But they might need to condense a few factions together so that its not just 100+ factions that all feel the same.
Maybe instead of having 5 or 6 Gallic factions, they could narrow it down to 2, with a Gallic Tribes faction and a Galatia faction, with the former representing a mixture of Gallic tribes and units from all over mainland Europe and the latter being a unique faction for the Galatians.
That way you could still have lots of factions, without it just feeling like many of them are incredibly similar to each other.
I don't have a horse in that race. I don't really care about Historical games. But:
In the Historical side I think Antiquity can wait, it already got a few. Now there are the sequel ideas that are somewhat popular for Empire and Medieval which would certainly work.
For a new concept, we could see an TW Colonial age, might be a bit difficult to represent it well, otherwise some global scale ones. Or Pike and Shot.
I don't have a horse in that race. I don't really care about Historical games. But:
In the Historical side I think Antiquity can wait, it already got a few. Now there are the sequel ideas that are somewhat popular for Empire and Medieval which would certainly work.
For a new concept, we could see an TW Colonial age, might be a bit difficult to represent it well, otherwise some global scale ones. Or Pike and Shot.
I can understand that, if you're not too well versed in the historical periods and all, but that's kind of why I want to see an Empire 2 over a Medieval 3.
I just think it could give us far more varied and interesting factions to play around with in a nearly global scale campaign map.
Comments
Imagine doing that with humans, dwarfs, rats, LM etc and then going through the numerous sizes and types of creature be it a Dragon, Ogre, Hell Pit Abomination, walking trees, floating humanoids, huge machinery, flying creatures etc. in that sense it will always be vastly more complex than a historical game. Yes, there’s a level of complexity to making any game but with these 2 there’s a big difference.
- Report
1 · 1Disagree 1AgreeYeah, making all that stuff for the Warhammer games takes a lot of effort, but you can use the same human animations and all in historical TW games comparably easily.
Like I said before, most line infantry in an Empire 2 would use the same overall animation sets, with only a few having variations of them, like the Swedish Caroleans drawing swords instead of bayonets.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeI don’t think there’s much to stop a large, almost global game be it Empire, Victoria or something else. Considering the size of IE and the higher complexity of units, magic, races etc. I don’t think a major historical release would be an obvious issue. If you can make Empire in 2009 I can only imagine the scope of the game in 2023+
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeThough I think it's just a tad silly, as there's a lot more going on in the Warhammer battles that the missing reloading animations do seem like the least important stuff to worry about.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThough I would hope that they would just eventually keep it only nearly global, as there are some factions that would just get utterly destroyed by even most other non European factions.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeI mean, some of them seemed to look at that one little thing and miss all the other stuff that was going on in the game.
But you know what I mean.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAnd please make the combat closer to Ultimate General / Scourge of War (more methodical, decisive, formation based, with command-hierarchy, organized reinforcements) rather than continue the slump to Age of Empire type button-mashing prevalent in Warhammer.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeOh no, you have to manage your armies in real time, the horror!
And I think that the medieval period is overrated.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeSure, I think that a Medieval 3 could be a good enough TW game, but after some deep thought, I think that an Empire 2 and or TW: Antiquity could actually be the next great TW game if CA handles them right.
An Empire 2, set from 1684 or so to 1820, could possibly give us the ability to eventually have a truly great, and nearly global in scale, grand campaign that has a ton of possible playable factions that actually feel different from each other.
A TW: Antiquity on the other hand could allow CA to give the ancient world another go, but do it far better this time around, eventually giving us a good number of interesting campaigns to play around with, that span from the Rise of Persia to the Fall of Rome. And they could even do some simple things to greatly improve its multiplayer as well.
- Report
0 · 3Disagree AgreeRather play TW Arena instead.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeBut you kind of miss the point.
A TW: Antiquity would split them up into different campaigns rather than it all being one giant campaign.
And the point of mixing factions in multiplayer would in fact help liven up the game's multiplayer into be a lot more interesting, as the multiplayer and single player already aren't entirely historical, as many factions you can play as never actually met in history. So that's a weak argument.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAnd I wouldn't say that warfare was overly simplistic before the Macedonian reforms came around, as not all battles were simply just a couple of volleys of arrows or whatever and then both armies just mindlessly charged into each other, becoming little more than a mass armed brawl. I'm sure there were tactics used and all.
And that's another point of a TW: Antiquity, to give us a bit more of a wide ranging ancient TW game that isn't purely just about Rome alone.
I never said that the improvements to multiplayer would or should have to come at the cost of the campaigns, but rather just have a bit of effort given to them.
You see, with an TW: Antiquity, they could simply just make things a little different when they're designing what factions are in the multiplayer section of the game.
Instead of just having the same old thing as Rome 2, they could simply have most playable factions from the campaigns not be divided into different campaigns in MP, for a lot more fun matchups. But they might need to condense a few factions together so that its not just 100+ factions that all feel the same.
Maybe instead of having 5 or 6 Gallic factions, they could narrow it down to 2, with a Gallic Tribes faction and a Galatia faction, with the former representing a mixture of Gallic tribes and units from all over mainland Europe and the latter being a unique faction for the Galatians.
That way you could still have lots of factions, without it just feeling like many of them are incredibly similar to each other.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeIn the Historical side I think Antiquity can wait, it already got a few. Now there are the sequel ideas that are somewhat popular for Empire and Medieval which would certainly work.
For a new concept, we could see an TW Colonial age, might be a bit difficult to represent it well, otherwise some global scale ones. Or Pike and Shot.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeI just think it could give us far more varied and interesting factions to play around with in a nearly global scale campaign map.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree