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

Poll : Next Historical Total War

13»

Comments

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,662
    edited February 17
    Wonder if some people will complain and tell this poll is biased if their vote is minority... Cough... SiWi... Cough...

    They will talk about concepts or whatever.... Cough... Cough....

    If their favorite title got the most votes, they will be silent.... Cough.... SiWi.... Cough...
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • Maxim1lianMaxim1lian Registered Users Posts: 64
    But this is already interesting. I don't know if the moderators will delete...


  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,662

    But this is already interesting. I don't know if the moderators will delete...


    What ia that?
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706
    edited February 17

    Are you definitely talking about provinces, and not about settlements (regions)? Because by going to Honga along Attila and further on the map, there are 62 provinces, but if you consider that there are on average 3 settlements in the provinces (3 regions), then yes - there will be somewhere 180+ settlements (regions). By the way, I originally meant to shove into these regions instead of 1 settlement - 3-5 settlements (Big city, small cities, castles or fortresses).

    It also seems to me that Europe will need to be made more dense, since in my opinion it was historically a very densely built up region with cities and settlements. I can't say the same for most of Asia, and especially Africa.

    Yeah sorry still tend to use the old terminology lol yeah settlements in provinces. India and China were also very highly built up.

    I think you're talking apples and oranges here, as in surface area compared to major settlements. You also appear to be very selective about your examples. Compare how many settlements there are in the UK in Empire TW compared to ToB. Would a global wide map be disappointing if the UK had 3 to 5 settlements rather than a 100?

    If you look at Empire TW what has more settlements? The Americas or Europe? The answer as I'm sure you know is Europe despite Europe being 4 times smaller. Using land mass as an argument is a little far fetched.

    The ME map may end up with up to 600 settlements, considering the Americas, Europe, parts of Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia were completed with 138 settlements.. I don't think we need to be in any doubt of what can be achieved.

    Not so much, but would I be disappointed in nations existing from the game start that didn't form for hundreds of years? Or that their formation is their history during this time period? Yeah I would.

    It's why I went with Attila, it's got good range but still some depth for many regions and still lacks in a lot of it. Means a HUGE amount of content will be cut for them to do a combined campaign map.

    And what was the population density of the Americas during the time frame? Compare that to India and China. India is about on par with Europe in Empire in comparison.

    Yeah, the detail of Empire is part of the issue people have with such a large map.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,167
    Commisar said:

    Are you definitely talking about provinces, and not about settlements (regions)? Because by going to Honga along Attila and further on the map, there are 62 provinces, but if you consider that there are on average 3 settlements in the provinces (3 regions), then yes - there will be somewhere 180+ settlements (regions). By the way, I originally meant to shove into these regions instead of 1 settlement - 3-5 settlements (Big city, small cities, castles or fortresses).

    It also seems to me that Europe will need to be made more dense, since in my opinion it was historically a very densely built up region with cities and settlements. I can't say the same for most of Asia, and especially Africa.

    Yeah sorry still tend to use the old terminology lol yeah settlements in provinces. India and China were also very highly built up.

    I think you're talking apples and oranges here, as in surface area compared to major settlements. You also appear to be very selective about your examples. Compare how many settlements there are in the UK in Empire TW compared to ToB. Would a global wide map be disappointing if the UK had 3 to 5 settlements rather than a 100?

    If you look at Empire TW what has more settlements? The Americas or Europe? The answer as I'm sure you know is Europe despite Europe being 4 times smaller. Using land mass as an argument is a little far fetched.

    The ME map may end up with up to 600 settlements, considering the Americas, Europe, parts of Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia were completed with 138 settlements.. I don't think we need to be in any doubt of what can be achieved.

    Not so much, but would I be disappointed in nations existing from the game start that didn't form for hundreds of years? Or that their formation is their history during this time period? Yeah I would.

    It's why I went with Attila, it's got good range but still some depth for many regions and still lacks in a lot of it. Means a HUGE amount of content will be cut for them to do a combined campaign map.

    And what was the population density of the Americas during the time frame? Compare that to India and China. India is about on par with Europe in Empire in comparison.
    Yes, I used the term UK to save time.. you should have informed me you were feeling pedantic.

    So, you're going for your own subjective view on Atilla? But I think we can both agree that Empire was just as popular and I am also quite sure that if the limit is currently up to 600 and Empire had 138, I think we will have more than enough room for depth.

    Again, we are talking major settlements here and not worrying about certain countries having a different lay out as in a majority of people working in agriculture outside major cities. Do you think the huge land masses of Mongolia should be saturated with settlements? Are you honestly claiming people will equally do a land mass/settlement calculation or can we both agree that probably won't happen?

  • LaindeshLaindesh Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,461
    Mm, i''d take a shogun 3 or mongol one (which stretches from japan to europe).

    A well done medieval 3 isnt out of question either (there's been so many european based TW's tho >.<)

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,167
    Laindesh said:

    Mm, i''d take a shogun 3 or mongol one (which stretches from japan to europe).

    A well done medieval 3 isnt out of question either (there's been so many european based TW's tho >.

    I’d like something that stretches from Europe to Asia but I’m not a fan of horse archer factions so I never really went for the Mongols. I’d love to see more work done in Asia like Siam and Burma as well as the usuals.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,706
    jamreal18 said:

    So, you're going for your own subjective view on Atilla? But I think we can both agree that Empire was just as popular and I am also quite sure that if the limit is currently up to 600 and Empire had 138, I think we will have more than enough room for depth.

    Again, we are talking major settlements here and not worrying about certain countries having a different lay out as in a majority of people working in agriculture outside major cities. Do you think the huge land masses of Mongolia should be saturated with settlements? Are you honestly claiming people will equally do a land mass/settlement calculation or can we both agree that probably won't happen?

    How is it? I'm basing it off the most recent map with the most provinces in Europe we have. That's not subjective. Empire is my favourite TW to date however it would require CA to go back multiple games to have provinces like that rather than the current settlement system. Only if you want the Empire regional depth, again you are adding a far larger area to the game than Empire even covers.

    There's many areas in Attila that didn't have huge numbers of settlements such as Eastern Europe and Arabia, then there's others which are rather high density like Northern Italy. While the Northern and central area of the map might not have much density the South and Eastern areas would have a lot.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,167
    Commisar said:

    jamreal18 said:

    So, you're going for your own subjective view on Atilla? But I think we can both agree that Empire was just as popular and I am also quite sure that if the limit is currently up to 600 and Empire had 138, I think we will have more than enough room for depth.

    Again, we are talking major settlements here and not worrying about certain countries having a different lay out as in a majority of people working in agriculture outside major cities. Do you think the huge land masses of Mongolia should be saturated with settlements? Are you honestly claiming people will equally do a land mass/settlement calculation or can we both agree that probably won't happen?

    How is it? I'm basing it off the most recent map with the most provinces in Europe we have. That's not subjective. Empire is my favourite TW to date however it would require CA to go back multiple games to have provinces like that rather than the current settlement system. Only if you want the Empire regional depth, again you are adding a far larger area to the game than Empire even covers.

    There's many areas in Attila that didn't have huge numbers of settlements such as Eastern Europe and Arabia, then there's others which are rather high density like Northern Italy. While the Northern and central area of the map might not have much density the South and Eastern areas would have a lot.
    Yes, it’s objective how many settlements are in Atilla, the subjective part is your personal opinion on how many settlements are required to create a sense of depth. I don’t understand this ‘CA would have to go back to an old settlement system’, it’s a new game and can have has many settlements as CA wants. They do not need to copy and paste a Euro Atilla map. Why do you add rules that do not need to be added?

    The map of Northern Europe to Asia would have 600 (at least) settlements to play with. CA can create this map with the tech they currently have.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,662
    Commisar said:

    jamreal18 said:

    So, you're going for your own subjective view on Atilla? But I think we can both agree that Empire was just as popular and I am also quite sure that if the limit is currently up to 600 and Empire had 138, I think we will have more than enough room for depth.

    Again, we are talking major settlements here and not worrying about certain countries having a different lay out as in a majority of people working in agriculture outside major cities. Do you think the huge land masses of Mongolia should be saturated with settlements? Are you honestly claiming people will equally do a land mass/settlement calculation or can we both agree that probably won't happen?

    How is it? I'm basing it off the most recent map with the most provinces in Europe we have. That's not subjective. Empire is my favourite TW to date however it would require CA to go back multiple games to have provinces like that rather than the current settlement system. Only if you want the Empire regional depth, again you are adding a far larger area to the game than Empire even covers.

    There's many areas in Attila that didn't have huge numbers of settlements such as Eastern Europe and Arabia, then there's others which are rather high density like Northern Italy. While the Northern and central area of the map might not have much density the South and Eastern areas would have a lot.
    I dont remember I said that. Why are quoting me there?
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,449
    edited February 18
    jamreal18 said:

    Wonder if some people will complain and tell this poll is biased if their vote is minority... Cough... SiWi... Cough...

    They will talk about concepts or whatever.... Cough... Cough....

    If their favorite title got the most votes, they will be silent.... Cough.... SiWi.... Cough...

    there is not much value to discuss this with you since you are either too dense to understand it or chose not to understand it, but size of a polling group and how that group is elected, do make a difference in the usefulness of polls.

    If one would make a Poll "does TW suck? yes/no" on a CoD forum and of the 30 people voting 20 say "yes", does that mean that "the CoD community" or "mankind" as a whole think that TW is bad?

    Well according to jamreal18 it does.

    I and others beg to differ.

    (also it may amaze you, but I don't look at every thread)
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Maxim1lianMaxim1lian Registered Users Posts: 64
    jamreal18 said:

    But this is already interesting. I don't know if the moderators will delete...


    What ia that?
    Trademark registration. At one time, they discovered what the next game would be in the Saga, that is, Troy.
    But with Medieval everything is much more complicated - it can be a rebranding of Medieval 1 or porting it to mobile devices (although it was logical to port Medieval 2, since it is on the same engine as Rome 1, and Medieval 1 is too old and not even 3D ), or is it just a license renewal for the name. In general, you just need to wait
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,662
    edited February 18
    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Wonder if some people will complain and tell this poll is biased if their vote is minority... Cough... SiWi... Cough...

    They will talk about concepts or whatever.... Cough... Cough....

    If their favorite title got the most votes, they will be silent.... Cough.... SiWi.... Cough...

    there is not much value to discuss this with you since you are either too dense to understand it or chose not to understand it, but size of a polling group and how that group is elected, do make a difference in the usefulness of polls.

    If one would make a Poll "does TW suck? yes/no" on a CoD forum and of the 30 people voting 20 say "yes", does that mean that "the CoD community" or "mankind" as a whole think that TW is bad?

    Well according to jamreal18 it does.

    I and others beg to differ.

    (also it may amaze you, but I don't look at every thread)
    There are 100+ of people who participated. It was posted on OFFICIAL FORUM. It is posted on REDDIT. It is posted on TWCENTER.

    You are are allowed to share it as well because you are saying there are only specific people.

    Come on, Official Forum..... Specific people? These are Total War fans, dude!

    You are finding it hard to get a grasp of what is going on. Do you know that? Poll is showing already which title MOST fans want.

    If poll is biased, so what is useful? Your opinion alone? Ok! You are the ONE! You mouth speaks for EVERYONE that even polls are useless.

    It is useless to talk to someone that is close minded. Telling polls are useless because his ideal game is not No.1 is illogical. Even CA themselves are making polls. Just say whatever concept uou want. You are the master of polls anyways. if its your choice, its good; if its not, there is concept.... Hahahaha!

    @SiWI tell CA what you are talking about...

    CA also made poll, check it out!

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/221887/vote-for-your-favourite-total-war-era-in-the-summer-cup#latest

    CA used the official forum to gather data.

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/19308/community-feature-requests/p1

    So what do you want to tell CA?
    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,662
    edited February 18
    @SiWI What do you say about the poll conducted by CA themselves? Do you remember Summer Cup?

    Why do you have too much blah, blah, blah now and didn't complain before?

    Do you want to tell CA that the Winner of that poll was not deserving as well just like the poll about next next fantasy because of your "specific group excuse"?
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,449
    edited February 18
    as predicted, he is really too dense to understand the problems of polling especially on the internet.

    but given that he throws imminently tantrums and uses worse and worse "arguments" all the time, if someone doesn't agree I don't see the point of arguing it.

    So just to short notice:
    hundreds are nothing next to millions

    most people don't visit or interact with any forum but rather simply play the game or don't.

    CA didn't made any business decision base on that poll but use it as community engagement excessive.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,662
    edited February 19
    Warhammer won in the poll and Warhammer got lots of content. What a coincidence?

    Getting millions of votes is not necessary if its obvious that sentiment favors one title.

    Can't answer directly the question above because eating his own words is painful.

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,662
    SiWI said:

    CA didn't made any business decision base on that poll but use it as community engagement excessive.

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/149787/what-s-next-for-dlc-opinion-poll-inside/p1
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,449
    oh look they did it "maybe" once in 2015, I wonder why they don't repeat it since then...
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • ghonywill@live.ca[email protected] Registered Users Posts: 1
    I know it would be tough but I would love to see CA do the US civil war. Lots of big personalities and famous battles.
  • greendolphingreendolphin Registered Users Posts: 53

    I know it would be tough but I would love to see CA do the US civil war. Lots of big personalities and famous battles.

    Two factions and nearly same unit rosters. Boring AF.

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,167

    I know it would be tough but I would love to see CA do the US civil war. Lots of big personalities and famous battles.

    I think that would work as part of a wider game like Victoria TW.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 361
    edited February 27
    I think that Thirty Years' War belongs to Renaissance era (pike and shot), should be one option, not two
  • greendolphingreendolphin Registered Users Posts: 53
    edited February 27
    Lotor12 said:

    I think that Thirty Years' War belongs to Renaissance era (pike and shot), should be one option, not two

    You might be right.

    But since renaissance covers 15th and 16th centuries and thirty years' war starts in 1618 -and considering the real part starts after 1630- i thought it would be better as a separate option.

    Maybe i was wrong but it's too late to change it now
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 361
    @greendolphin
    This "deforms" survey a bit;
    I would compare to have a two options for 1/ medieval and 2/ 100 years war; renaissance can cover 17th century as well
    Anyway I do not take it too serious
Sign In or Register to comment.