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.


Napoleon II??????

Octavian_and_KutusovOctavian_and_Kutusov Registered Users Posts: 6
edited September 2020 in Total War General Chat
I've recently got back into NTW and realised that if CA were to make a NTW 2 I would think lots of people would buy it. It wouldn't take a lot of effort either, they have the foundations already there, they just need to update the graphics and gameplay. Maybe adding the Anatolian Territories of the Ottomans so that Russia has a Caucasian front along with a North Africa with pirates and Arabs. They have to keep the naval battles because they were an important part of the game.

If anybody has new ideas add them below and like the discussion to show your support for a NTW2
Post edited by BillyRuffian on


  • RingDatBellRingDatBell Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3
    I would love that !
    Modernising the current game would be enough, but I would love too...
    • approval / diplomatic / economic victories
    • more politic (arranged marriage) / religion options
    • better multiplayer
    • real coop campaigns
  • AgentGBAgentGB Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 491
    Just can't help but think how good Napoleon total War 2 would be so good since coming along way since then. Ship battles where well ahead of their time in that mechanic wise. A part of me would like them to stretch back that timeline to the revolutionary wars.
    • So you'd have France trying to screw Britain over with the Thirteen colonies to impact their expansion
    • Then Britain intervening in the French Revolution
    • Finally arriving at the Napoleonic wars with a bunch of techs dipping into the Industrial Age.
    Could be neat if they we has far back as the seven years wars or great northern wars, or atleast leave that door open depending on how the above three start dates do, which allows you to start from an earlier game date while encompassing all the nation events/objectives that see them attempting to fulfill these, so if the player or ai controlled France, they'd attempt to fulfill these missions/national goals.

    But even so i'd more then welcome a title specifically focused during the Napoleon Wars, especially if it meant i could see the level of mechanics from 3k & wh2 put into such a title. Don't have to be the same mechanics per se, but the same ethic of attention to game mechanics that at the same time can be thoroughly enjoyed and fits into such a tight time scale. Since some great mechanics from the 3k diplomacy system just would not get the limelight it deserves in such a tight timescale unless the turns per year were really stretched.

    But some things i'd like to see although may not fit terribly well into the timeline, but more a campaign multiplayer

    - Custom Nations (allowed to pick starting ideas & troop types with point allocation & starting position) Could be even better in different settings/era with a bigger map and wider time frame though (so 5/10)
    - Random world generator, shuffles factions around, fictional or not for a crazy sandbox experience, same as above, different era/setting, this could allow for a different feel (so 4/10)
    - Coalitions attempting to amass an allocation of their offensive forces together for an attack/epic battles. Theory behind this, it would reduce the amount of smaller skirmishes/battles for big pivotal battles, that would force the player to amass alot of their armies at one point to engage the deathstacks that would stop the player carpet capturing enemy settlements across a wide front. Would also focus in on how troublesome a coalition can be, the equivalent of a European Waaagh slapping down someone whom accumulated too much aggression in the eyes of the world stage thus reducing the rate at which players can expand. Would be even neater if such forces could just be attached to the coalition leader so they move on the same turn as the coalition leader (8/10)
    - Feeling of running a nation & its economy/trade/military-spending in more detail but streamlined too:
    (a) Price of good changing depending on market availability & current state of affairs. E.g War has caused a demand for horses & cannons, that can be a lucrative trade good if selling or a sought one if needing to refit an army that requires these as a resource & can change the composition of armies based on this.
    (b) The very same goods you trade can also be the required resource for the production of equipment.

    Some old ideas i had too


    Overall, think whatever CA did it would be good

    Would like to see multiplayer campaigns extended to more players, although not sure how highly this is sought, & how CA could do something like this that doesn't leave players idle while ongoing battles are happening. So unless limiting the amount of battles a player can be played (E.g a pivotal battle campaign mode) that allow the player to play up to ten battles personally to sway the outcome of their campaign with the rest having to be autoresolved, it could turn these battles into more epic centerpiece battles to watch. Also if other players were able to stay on the campaign map & continue tweaking their faction state affairs if not wanting to watch other player battles.

    But if it did go deep with the mechanics, while trying to edge away from busy work, where it felt like a swiss watch with all the different mechanical cogs working in unison, automated, So value of trade goods is affected by the amount of ongoing wars, famine caused by devastation increases the price of grain, lack of horses drives up the price of fodder for horse breeders. Limited war goals, or public opinon/ war exhaustion that begins to affect varies economic components. Perhaps war goals should be limited to just & unjust demands, with unjust demands causing alot of aggressive expansion globally.
  • jordang777jordang777 Registered Users Posts: 3
    I totally Agree!! And definitely leave the naval battles, even expand the whole naval scene.

    What I would love to see:

    -Expanded campaign map that include all of North Africa, the Middle East, Anatolia and perhaps even India?
    -More Island settlements in the Mediterranean.
    -More mainland settlements in areas that were previously fairly empty. Such as Paris, Madrid and Russia. There could have easily been 3 or 4 smaller provinces around those Settlements.
    -In Napoleon, it takes till later in the game with more techs to upgrade your trade ports to max level; and even then you only get 2 building slots to put out trade ships. Perhaps make unit producing buildings expandable as well as upgrade-able? Example: why not be able to add building slots to barracks or shipyards by being able to expand the barracks or ship yards themselves, and upgrading them to produce better units?
    -Skill trees for Agents and Generals.
    -More Techs.
    -More Buildings Resources and Agriculture.
    -The ability for an army to build forts on the campaign map that they can winter in and fight out of in Battles.
    -More City defenses and siege warfare. In Napoleon pretty much all battles were essentially field battles.
    -More playable factions and unique units to each faction.
    -Unique agents for factions.
    -The ability to field at least 2 full stacks in a battle like Shogun 2 and Rome 2, maybe even 3 full stacks?
    -The ability for navies to bombard coastal settlements.
  • HamidslayerHamidslayer Registered Users Posts: 1
    Let's think bigger, total war should make some ways to push the player to become a dictator cuz when i start a campaign i have to make my country , gather an army and move on but if total war make a system like you pay money of your country to see something interesting like buy mansion ,buy special horses or buy outfits then maybe some players become a dictator and keep pushing their people to earn more taxes.

    Whats your ideas?
Sign In or Register to comment.