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

Is it possible there will never be another pure historical?

davedave1124davedave1124 Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 13,254
I wanted to focus on this question, I'm not for but I would understand if CA did.

Is it possible that ToB will be the last pure historical game? I don't count Troy or 3K because of the element of fantasy.

So, is it possible? Or how likely is it?

Comments

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,704
    Let's wait for stand-alone expansion of 3K.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,254
    jamreal18 said:

    Let's wait for stand-alone expansion of 3K.

    They will still probably have hero generals of some sort. Records Mode is rarely updated. Which I have to admit confuses me as I only play Records Mode.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,332
    Sure. History is a matter of personal perspective. tbk. It is now defined by all the "experts" that cover all the historical information we have now. We'll only see it through their now, I'm afraid.

    What that probably means now, for a historical game, is that we will see it in today's perceptions, rather that how it really was, whatever the time frame.

    Not unexpected, imo. Hopefully, we'll see something worthwhile and does mean something in the future.

    Maybe in MY lifetime!
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,254
    I've been personally looking forward to Victoria TW or Bronze Age TW.

    Don't get me wrong, I like Warhammer TW but I also like that complete opposite for a change. If we are going to have Fantasy and Persado-Fantasy/historical they will more blend into each other rather than give a genuine break from each.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,704
    dge1 said:

    Maybe in MY lifetime!

    Please tell us what era do you wish for. Tell it to CA.

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,332
    jamreal18 said:

    dge1 said:

    Maybe in MY lifetime!

    Please tell us what era do you wish for. Tell it to CA.

    1. Victorian period
    2. Middlel East (Mesopotamia period)

    to name a couple.....
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,704
    dge1 said:

    jamreal18 said:

    dge1 said:

    Maybe in MY lifetime!

    Please tell us what era do you wish for. Tell it to CA.

    Middle East (Mesopotamia period).
    This era was hit by Troy

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,719
    I'd say no. There's always been quite a few fantastical elements in the historical games, just now more noticeable with hero generals but the two recent titles they've fitted with the source material used in the setting. Most historical settings don't have that, so would mean CA ignoring most history or having to ignore history and invent high detailed characters and their backstory. I don't really see them doing either of them, but I do expect them to add outlandish units for nations and pull some elements from before and after their game times.
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 288
    There will be purely historical titles in the future. There are plenty of players who prefer historical games and originally started playing Total War because of the historical games.

    And with every non-historical title that gets released or announced (which have been five in the last five years) and with every year that passes since Rome II and Attila, the wish for another great historical game grows in many fans of the series.

    CA is a company so when they see a proftable thing that they can do, they will do it. And a full historical title seems like a pretty profitable idea to me since millions of players have been waiting for it for six years now.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,254
    Commisar said:

    I'd say no. There's always been quite a few fantastical elements in the historical games, just now more noticeable with hero generals but the two recent titles they've fitted with the source material used in the setting. Most historical settings don't have that, so would mean CA ignoring most history or having to ignore history and invent high detailed characters and their backstory. I don't really see them doing either of them, but I do expect them to add outlandish units for nations and pull some elements from before and after their game times.

    I think there's a big difference between Troy/3K and what's gone before. The last truly historical game was ToB and that did not go well.

    The units diversity, huge characters etc may be difficult for CA to replicate in a pure historical game that goes beyond creating the off historically dubious unit.

    This is more how likely something is rather than a yes or no because we simply don't know.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,471
    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.
    But for a TW Victoria I would imagine that such elements would be reduce.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,332
    I concur about the future of possibility of historical games in the future. Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later!

    Right now, while I personally would prefer something from a 'Guns & Powder' era, I will, quite frankly, take on most anything!
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,704
    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,471
    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 288
    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    I agree that generals and kings regularly personally participated in the fight.

    But it's not like they charged into battle and tried to get as many kills as possible. A general is far too important to risk his life like that. So when generals joined the fight, they were protected by a bodyguard, usually the most elite soldiers in the army. So it could happen that the general got into a duel with somebody, but not in the style of 3K or Troy.

    The classic Total War approach represents this very well. Bodyguards are usually the best unit the faction can bring so there is a good protection for the general. But the general can also get stuck in melee personally and die, if he is unlucky. Therefore, this approach should also be used in future historical games.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,704
    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    Do you want Single Entity Units who duel each other?

    They fought in battles but with bodyguards. I don't want to see another Lu Bu nor Achilles in Medieval Era. I prefer kings and generals surrounded by bodyguards.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,471
    edited February 18
    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    Do you want Single Entity Units who duel each other?

    They fought in battles but with bodyguards. I don't want to see another Lu Bu nor Achilles in Medieval Era. I prefer kings and generals surrounded by bodyguards.
    its not about what I want or you want but what I think CA might do in a M3.

    Thou that might be another concept too hard for you to get.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,704
    edited February 18
    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    Do you want Single Entity Units who duel each other?

    They fought in battles but with bodyguards. I don't want to see another Lu Bu nor Achilles in Medieval Era. I prefer kings and generals surrounded by bodyguards.
    its not about what I want or you want but what I think CA might do in a M3.

    Thou that might be another concept too hard for you to get.
    Too much concept, is that your favorite word? How many times you said that word in 24 hrs? Even here, you still talk about concept. Come on, man! You have too much "concept" in your life.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,471
    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    Do you want Single Entity Units who duel each other?

    They fought in battles but with bodyguards. I don't want to see another Lu Bu nor Achilles in Medieval Era. I prefer kings and generals surrounded by bodyguards.
    its not about what I want or you want but what I think CA might do in a M3.

    Thou that might be another concept too hard for you to get.
    Too much concept, is that your favorite word? How many times you said that word in 24 hrs? Even here, you still talk about concept. Come on, man! You have too much "concept" in your life.
    No, I don't think I have too much understanding of concepts.
    You have too little.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,471

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    I agree that generals and kings regularly personally participated in the fight.

    But it's not like they charged into battle and tried to get as many kills as possible. A general is far too important to risk his life like that. So when generals joined the fight, they were protected by a bodyguard, usually the most elite soldiers in the army. So it could happen that the general got into a duel with somebody, but not in the style of 3K or Troy.

    The classic Total War approach represents this very well. Bodyguards are usually the best unit the faction can bring so there is a good protection for the general. But the general can also get stuck in melee personally and die, if he is unlucky. Therefore, this approach should also be used in future historical games.
    they maybe didn't went into battle alone (thou a single entity unit still can have units to its left and right), but the concept that a ruler must lead from the front and earn personal glory was in effect during the middle age.

    Also lets remember that I talk about what CA might do not what I think CA should do.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 288
    SiWI said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    I agree that generals and kings regularly personally participated in the fight.

    But it's not like they charged into battle and tried to get as many kills as possible. A general is far too important to risk his life like that. So when generals joined the fight, they were protected by a bodyguard, usually the most elite soldiers in the army. So it could happen that the general got into a duel with somebody, but not in the style of 3K or Troy.

    The classic Total War approach represents this very well. Bodyguards are usually the best unit the faction can bring so there is a good protection for the general. But the general can also get stuck in melee personally and die, if he is unlucky. Therefore, this approach should also be used in future historical games.
    they maybe didn't went into battle alone (thou a single entity unit still can have units to its left and right), but the concept that a ruler must lead from the front and earn personal glory was in effect during the middle age.

    Also lets remember that I talk about what CA might do not what I think CA should do.
    Thats's right, a leader should lead from the front, this is a military principle even now. What I'm saying is that this principle is displayed very well in Rome II etc. without single entity units.

    I agree, CA might do it, after five years of ahistorical games you can't exclude that possibility. But I think that it would be a very bad decision and it would be a real bummer for me.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,471
    edited February 18

    SiWI said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    I agree that generals and kings regularly personally participated in the fight.

    But it's not like they charged into battle and tried to get as many kills as possible. A general is far too important to risk his life like that. So when generals joined the fight, they were protected by a bodyguard, usually the most elite soldiers in the army. So it could happen that the general got into a duel with somebody, but not in the style of 3K or Troy.

    The classic Total War approach represents this very well. Bodyguards are usually the best unit the faction can bring so there is a good protection for the general. But the general can also get stuck in melee personally and die, if he is unlucky. Therefore, this approach should also be used in future historical games.
    they maybe didn't went into battle alone (thou a single entity unit still can have units to its left and right), but the concept that a ruler must lead from the front and earn personal glory was in effect during the middle age.

    Also lets remember that I talk about what CA might do not what I think CA should do.
    Thats's right, a leader should lead from the front, this is a military principle even now. What I'm saying is that this principle is displayed very well in Rome II etc. without single entity units.

    I agree, CA might do it, after five years of ahistorical games you can't exclude that possibility. But I think that it would be a very bad decision and it would be a real bummer for me.
    well I don't think you will find many Command-in-Chief that will lead a personal a bayonet charge...
    In fact I think Napoleon was the last King/emperor to personally lead troops into battle.
    So leading from the front "only" applies under a certain threshold nowadays.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,704
    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    Do you want Single Entity Units who duel each other?

    They fought in battles but with bodyguards. I don't want to see another Lu Bu nor Achilles in Medieval Era. I prefer kings and generals surrounded by bodyguards.
    its not about what I want or you want but what I think CA might do in a M3.

    Thou that might be another concept too hard for you to get.
    Too much concept, is that your favorite word? How many times you said that word in 24 hrs? Even here, you still talk about concept. Come on, man! You have too much "concept" in your life.
    No, I don't think I have too much understanding of concepts.
    You have too little.
    But you dont know the concept of poll as you keep on talking about. How can you explain this? They post it here on forum. So you will tell your concept and specific group only?
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/149787/what-s-next-for-dlc-opinion-poll-inside/p1

    You dont need to put concept on everything. Make your life easy.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,471
    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    Do you want Single Entity Units who duel each other?

    They fought in battles but with bodyguards. I don't want to see another Lu Bu nor Achilles in Medieval Era. I prefer kings and generals surrounded by bodyguards.
    its not about what I want or you want but what I think CA might do in a M3.

    Thou that might be another concept too hard for you to get.
    Too much concept, is that your favorite word? How many times you said that word in 24 hrs? Even here, you still talk about concept. Come on, man! You have too much "concept" in your life.
    No, I don't think I have too much understanding of concepts.
    You have too little.
    But you dont know the concept of poll as you keep on talking about. How can you explain this? They post it here on forum. So you will tell your concept and specific group only?
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/149787/what-s-next-for-dlc-opinion-poll-inside/p1

    You dont need to put concept on everything. Make your life easy.
    I, as well as others have already told you about this.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 288
    SiWI said:

    SiWI said:

    SiWI said:

    jamreal18 said:

    SiWI said:

    I think that if we see a M3, it may also have elements like duels and such.

    Imagine Joan of Arch duels Saladin. Seems inappropriate.

    Kings and Generals must be protected at all times.
    except that at those times, Kings did actually still fought in battle and actively risk their lives.
    I think the King of Bohemia went into battle even blind, because he didn't want to shame the throne of Bohemia
    So for a M3, it wouldn't be completely out of the realm, to have General to fight in "duels".
    I agree that generals and kings regularly personally participated in the fight.

    But it's not like they charged into battle and tried to get as many kills as possible. A general is far too important to risk his life like that. So when generals joined the fight, they were protected by a bodyguard, usually the most elite soldiers in the army. So it could happen that the general got into a duel with somebody, but not in the style of 3K or Troy.

    The classic Total War approach represents this very well. Bodyguards are usually the best unit the faction can bring so there is a good protection for the general. But the general can also get stuck in melee personally and die, if he is unlucky. Therefore, this approach should also be used in future historical games.
    they maybe didn't went into battle alone (thou a single entity unit still can have units to its left and right), but the concept that a ruler must lead from the front and earn personal glory was in effect during the middle age.

    Also lets remember that I talk about what CA might do not what I think CA should do.
    Thats's right, a leader should lead from the front, this is a military principle even now. What I'm saying is that this principle is displayed very well in Rome II etc. without single entity units.

    I agree, CA might do it, after five years of ahistorical games you can't exclude that possibility. But I think that it would be a very bad decision and it would be a real bummer for me.
    well I don't think you will find many Command-in-Chief that will lead a personal a bayonet charge...
    In fact I think Napoleon was the last King/emperor to personally lead troops into battle.
    So leading from the front "only" applies under a certain threshold nowadays.
    Of course not, but on a tactical level (not the strategic level of War minsters, four-star generals etc.) a leader is supposed to be near the point of main effort. And on the lower levels (company, platoon, group etc.) this is even more so the case. This is because it is easier to lead your troops, you have a better view of the situation and also because it inspires the men.

    So although the concrete form is different than in earlier times (mostly it is on a much lower level, it's not king/emperor anymore, more like lieutenant colonel) the basic principle of leading from the front has remained the same.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,159
    I don't think CA is ever going to stop doing historical titles, and I think we'll definitely see more games set in historical settings, such as the medieval period, early modern, classical antiquity, etc. I'm not worried about that at all.

    What I am worried about however is whether CA will drop the "Classic" Total War style of battles in favor of the "Heroic" style of battles. What I mean by that is;

    "Classic Mode" (as I call it), where generals are accompanied by a small, elite retinue of bodyguards, like in Med2, Rome 2, Shogun 2, ToB, etc. "Abilities" are more grounded and believable, more akin to tactical orders. Like using "Rally" to restore a wavering unit's morale, or a "Double Time" order that increases the movement of nearby troops, but at the cost of increased stamina depletion.

    "Heroic Mode", where generals are single-entity units, capable of taking on entire enemy regiments, and unleashing fantastical abilities, like area-of-effect attacks. Warhammer, Troy, and Romance Mode from 3K being the prime examples.

    CA have abandoned Records Mode (the "Classic Mode") in 3K, and they seem to be doubling down with it in Warhammer 3 and Troy, and this makes we wonder about where the series is heading. If CA ends up ditching the "Classic Mode" for future titles, then no setting they do will interest me.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,254

    I don't think CA is ever going to stop doing historical titles, and I think we'll definitely see more games set in historical settings, such as the medieval period, early modern, classical antiquity, etc. I'm not worried about that at all.

    What I am worried about however is whether CA will drop the "Classic" Total War style of battles in favor of the "Heroic" style of battles. What I mean by that is;

    "Classic Mode" (as I call it), where generals are accompanied by a small, elite retinue of bodyguards, like in Med2, Rome 2, Shogun 2, ToB, etc. "Abilities" are more grounded and believable, more akin to tactical orders. Like using "Rally" to restore a wavering unit's morale, or a "Double Time" order that increases the movement of nearby troops, but at the cost of increased stamina depletion.

    "Heroic Mode", where generals are single-entity units, capable of taking on entire enemy regiments, and unleashing fantastical abilities, like area-of-effect attacks. Warhammer, Troy, and Romance Mode from 3K being the prime examples.

    CA have abandoned Records Mode (the "Classic Mode") in 3K, and they seem to be doubling down with it in Warhammer 3 and Troy, and this makes we wonder about where the series is heading. If CA ends up ditching the "Classic Mode" for future titles, then no setting they do will interest me.

    I don't think they will leave historical, but my question is pure historical. It's known that the Sherwood Foresters or Byzantine flamethrower units are one of the many non historical features but nothing overly fantastical. The last pure historical was ToB and I wonder if it's difficult to just remove all the modern fantasy features without upsetting the sensibilities of newer players. I hope they don't but I think it is possible.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,159

    I don't think CA is ever going to stop doing historical titles, and I think we'll definitely see more games set in historical settings, such as the medieval period, early modern, classical antiquity, etc. I'm not worried about that at all.

    What I am worried about however is whether CA will drop the "Classic" Total War style of battles in favor of the "Heroic" style of battles. What I mean by that is;

    "Classic Mode" (as I call it), where generals are accompanied by a small, elite retinue of bodyguards, like in Med2, Rome 2, Shogun 2, ToB, etc. "Abilities" are more grounded and believable, more akin to tactical orders. Like using "Rally" to restore a wavering unit's morale, or a "Double Time" order that increases the movement of nearby troops, but at the cost of increased stamina depletion.

    "Heroic Mode", where generals are single-entity units, capable of taking on entire enemy regiments, and unleashing fantastical abilities, like area-of-effect attacks. Warhammer, Troy, and Romance Mode from 3K being the prime examples.

    CA have abandoned Records Mode (the "Classic Mode") in 3K, and they seem to be doubling down with it in Warhammer 3 and Troy, and this makes we wonder about where the series is heading. If CA ends up ditching the "Classic Mode" for future titles, then no setting they do will interest me.

    I don't think they will leave historical, but my question is pure historical. It's known that the Sherwood Foresters or Byzantine flamethrower units are one of the many non historical features but nothing overly fantastical. The last pure historical was ToB and I wonder if it's difficult to just remove all the modern fantasy features without upsetting the sensibilities of newer players. I hope they don't but I think it is possible.
    I don't have a problem with CA drawing on folklore or obscure historical footnotes if it makes for a fun unit or interesting mechanic.
    Nuragic Runners in Rise of The Republic for example were infantry armed with spiked iron gloves, and while they looked bizarre, there was actually some historical reference for such a thing being used in combat, even if it was only in passing. They were a fun and effective unit, and their unit description proved very interesting (I love reading unit descriptions and lore blurbs in TW games).

    It's just single-entity units solo-ing regiments of several hundred men and swatting down dozens of men at a time with fantastical abilities that I don't like. Feels too much like a MOBA to me.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,704
    Even Richard the Lionheart shall be accompanied by bodyguards.
  • Lotor12Lotor12 Registered Users Posts: 365
    edited March 1
    Do You not consider Three Kingdoms in records mode as "historical " title??

    I understand, that the single unit superheroes with "magical abilities" in romance mode are out of the tabble, but the records mode "pass through the history test" at me

    -----
    BTW
    As a historical enthusiast, I am confused from categories like "pure historical" and "historical"
Sign In or Register to comment.