Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

What you want to see in the next Total War ?

1343537394069

Comments

  • Dionysius the MightyDionysius the Mighty Senior Member Posts: 3,194Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    Merging with existing sticky thread.
    [PORTABLE-ID]dionysiusthemighty[/PORTABLE-ID]

    "Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause each one of us must fight on to the end." ~ Field Marshal Haig, order to British troops, 1918

    Please view the Total War Forum: Terms and Conditions
  • Whopper44Whopper44 Senior Member Posts: 148Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    They said they already started on the next TW before Shogun 2 even came out. I'm surprised nothing has leaked since then. You're probably right that we have to wait a few months after FotS is released.

    I really want a Victorian Total War solely because of the Franco-Prussian War. This war is what changed all of Europe. The shift in power from Western Europe to Central Europe would stage the greatest wars the world has ever seen. I was thinking that if Victorian Total War comes out (may it be the next TW game or 5 Tw games from now) they could have many small campaigns like in Napoleon Total War. Some campaign ideas could be the Crimean War, American Civil War, Unification of Italy, Unification of Germany, and Indian Wars.
    "When the enemy is driven back, we have failed, and when he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded." -Alexander Suvorov
  • IquabakanerIquabakaner Senior Member Posts: 149Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    There should be an influence level for each nation showing how much they can influence other nations in diplomacy. It's like the "major nation" and "minor nation" thing in ETW but it should be changeable. Nations with a high influence level would tend to give more demanding proposals in diplomacy. You can affect a nation's influence by making war, perhaps kicking it out of the major power politics. Just like how Russia in the beginning of the 18th century fought to become one of the major powers.
  • Whopper44Whopper44 Senior Member Posts: 148Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    There should be an influence level for each nation showing how much they can influence other nations in diplomacy. It's like the "major nation" and "minor nation" thing in ETW but it should be changeable. Nations with a high influence level would tend to give more demanding proposals in diplomacy. You can affect a nation's influence by making war, perhaps kicking it out of the major power politics. Just like how Russia in the beginning of the 18th century fought to become one of the major powers.

    That's a good idea. I'd love to play as a smaller nation such as Switzerland and have as much diplomatic power as France. Are you talking about a specific game or just an idea for any future Total War game?
    "When the enemy is driven back, we have failed, and when he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded." -Alexander Suvorov
  • IquabakanerIquabakaner Senior Member Posts: 149Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    Whopper44 wrote: »
    That's a good idea. I'd love to play as a smaller nation such as Switzerland and have as much diplomatic power as France. Are you talking about a specific game or just an idea for any future Total War game?
    For any TW game. And the change in influence level should delay a little bit. When you grow in power, it would take time for the other nation to admit that truth. So you won't have a higher influence at the instant you have larger power.
    Influence shouldn't only base on military might or territories, but also economical power.
    If you use Switzerland, I'm sure the influence wouldn't be very bad because of its economy, but certainly not high too.
  • adesades Junior Member Posts: 3Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    please make GREEK TOTAL WAR, that would be awesome
    with legendary spartan army, persian, and the great alexander
  • gradgrgradgr Junior Member Posts: 5Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    I would reccomend ANCIENT GREECE TOTAL WAR... but this would be a shame for other nations... (maybe not cause this was done in shogun... LOL) ..

    IT would be great (and quite profitable for ca) to have DLC nations sold, IN A WORLD TOTAL WAR SERIES...

    i think that (if that is possible) every gamer could take his country SCORE up in online ranked games divided into leagues for each ERA... well it sounds yammi :p
  • Gordon003Gordon003 Senior Member Posts: 124Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    Why not make China: Total War? There are a lot of fighting between the 7 states who want to unite China.
  • tht1dudetht1dude Junior Member Posts: 12Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    While listening to my Viking Folk Metal today in school instead of doing my math work, I came upon a thought that I thought I should put up here. What if there was a Scandinavia or Viking Total War. Taking place in the time period before Medieval times and after the fall of the Roman Empire. The campaign map could be Norway, Sweden, Finland, maybe Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and also could have the British Isles and Ireland and could even have Faroe Islands, Iceland and maybe even a little part of Greenland. There could be a bunch of different tribes, and if you have coastal settlements, then you could make a raiding army or something. But I don't know for certain. I'm just saying things off the top of my head.
  • IquabakanerIquabakaner Senior Member Posts: 149Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    Gordon003 wrote: »
    Why not make China: Total War? There are a lot of fighting between the 7 states who want to unite China.
    I would like that too :)
    Warring_States_350_BC.png

    Think about it, even the minor state Zhong Shan has tens of thousands of soldiers :P
  • King MakerKing Maker Member Posts: 83Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    These are my thoughts on why I think a Victoria Total War is a good future title. Copied over from the old boards.

    --

    Having been chatting to some people on Steam, I've been convinced to actually write down my thoughts on why Victoria Total War is my preferred choice of era for the next Total War title, and some ideas on how I think it could work. So I'm going to quickly lay out some proposals for how I think the game could function, and what it could feature.

    Time Period

    My ideal time period would be 1815-1915. Napoleon Bonaparte has just been defeated, and a new age of global expansion, technological innovation and communication is beginning. This allows for a lot of technological advances, covers many major wars and political events. For instance:

    * American Civil War
    * Crimean War
    * Franco-Prussian War
    * Zulu Wars
    * Third Anglo-Maratha War
    * Boer War
    * Opium War
    * Unification of Italy
    * Unification of Germany
    * Russo-Japanese War
    * Scramble for Africa
    * South American Independence Wars
    * Westward expansion of the USA/Wars against Mexico


    Map Area

    There's only really one possible map for this title - global. I started out with a list of which areas should be covered, but it soon turned into a list of the entire world!

    Technologies

    Steam technologies for industry and railways would obviously be very important. As well as that, naval technology advances from massive wooden sailing ships to ironclads, to steamships with paddlewheels, then screw propellers, before finally ending up with the mighty Dreadnaughts. Communication also improves with the invention of the telegraph and improvements in transportation like trains and improved shipping. In military terms, the development of the breech loading rifle eventually replacing the musket, improved artillery, the development of the machine gun. Also, the changing uniforms could be covered by technologies. In Empire, researching techs already changes the appearance of your units. So if Victoria Total War features maybe three or four different types of uniforms (Napoleonic, mid 19th Century, late 19th Century, and Khaki for instance) and different types of headgear (Shakoes, Pith Helmets and WWI style helmets for example) with each changed tied to a technology. So as you advance through the technology of the period your armies will change their appearance.

    Playable Factions

    Some possibles that spring to mind:

    * Great Britain
    * France
    * Prussia
    * Russia
    * Austria
    * Ottoman Empire
    * United States
    * Mexico
    * Maratha Confederacy
    * China
    * Japan

    Personally, I would much rather see this title than a dedicated WWI Total War. A Victoria title would have so much more potential for variety and open ended gameplay than a title dedicated to the First World War, which would end up being even more linear and with a smaller scope than Napoleon! Now, don't get me wrong, I like Napoleon a lot, but I think CA could be barking up the wrong tree slightly by making future titles smaller, more focused on an individual or specific conflict. Total War should be about epic, sweeping campaigns across continents and oceans, being able to take the Austrians and invade Mexico, or play as an Indian faction and launch an invasion of Europe. I think that a Victoria title will give CA a massive opportunity to show what Warscape can do, before potentially then going back to look again at more ancient periods of history.


    Good ideas but instead call it

    Total War: World at War


    Since the period 1815-1915 includes conflict all over the World, i think a base game, with DLC "conflicts" would work....Since we are a community divided sometimes on which TW Titles would be too boring (ACW Total War for instance) Let the gamer choose which direction to go ...only add the conflict that happened between this time period that HE or SHE wants to....it might work


    "Those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the Tiger, ended up inside" JFK


    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or Sega
  • ThejoulsThejouls Junior Member Posts: 1Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    would'nt it be cool to have a totalwar game for the second world war with a new style of gameplay reworked to fit with that kind of battle and campaign but with the totalwar signature
  • NormandymasterNormandymaster Senior Member Posts: 146Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    yeah I agree victoria tw is neither appealing nor enough as a title
  • NormandymasterNormandymaster Senior Member Posts: 146Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    just read an interview of mike Simpsons asst eurogamer http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-30-inside-the-creative-assembly
    we won't see med3 or shogun3 soon wich is not surprising. Rome 2 is still an option or a new game
  • flamingsychicflamingsychic Junior Member Posts: 2Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    I like the Rome TW in series most.But I don't want next total war to be Rome 2.Because I don't really satisfy current overview of Shogun 2.Today game's graphic properties and overview is not ready to release Rome 2 yet(I think). I want Rome 2 much better than Shogun 2(including fall of the Samurai). So we need a new medium total game to stop releasing Rome 2 next. The longer we wait,the better Rome 2 will be. So we must choose new medium TW game carefully. Next popular total war games are Rome 2,Fantasy,World War 1 or 2,Ancient Greece and so on. At first,Rome 2,we need to wait for great improvements(I hope so). Second,Fantasy,I think that is not a bad idea but Mythology TW will be greater than that(Achilles_Aemilius, your idea.I am also AoM fan). Third, World war TW ,that is the worst idea ever for TW series. TW is famous in old age and must be stay away from modern warfare(including WW). There was many WW strategy games in PC platforms. So this idea will be think later. My idea is to create TW Three kingdoms. That will be one of the suitable ideas(I think). With not so many unit type but many warlords and warriors with numerous ability and techniques. Other TW members have many ideas of add on game plays(I don't want to ask details,their ideas are better than me). I(including other members) want to release TW three kingdoms or TW Mythology before Rome 2. Mythology will be greater than Three kingdoms.(Also good ideas)
  • NormandymasterNormandymaster Senior Member Posts: 146Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    med3 won't happen for years! as for Rome 2 why wait? a Rome 2 based on an upgraded version of tws2 would be awesome. to wait is as logical as wait to buy a PC: sure the longer you wait the better it can be but the wait could be endless. one day they'll do a Rome 3. it's been 8 years and Rome 2 has not even be announced how long must we wait 10 years? 15 years?
  • IquabakanerIquabakaner Senior Member Posts: 149Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    I don't like the idea of focusing a TW game on a war. A TW game should be focused on a time period, a period with MANY wars, and diplomacy. Say if it's a WW1 TW then you're forced to either join the war with your allies or betray them. This isn't the way a TW game should work. I want a game about WW1 too. But if it's a TW game to be made, it should be focusing on the entire beginning of the 20th century, not WW1 itself. You should be able to play diplomacy freely, not to be limited by a bunch of ongoing wars and existing alliances.

    I saw many ppl wanting a Three Kingdoms TW. Seriously? Do you know how many games about the Three Kingdoms were made? I say 9 out of 10 Chinese historical games is about the Three Kingdoms. I'm bored of it.
  • Hunter_X22Hunter_X22 Senior Member Posts: 275Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    About WW1 why not include the Victorian era, and then end the game with WW1. Say start in 1800s and end at like 1920.
    Rome II is making a comeback :)

    76561198013201974.png
  • MadSamuraiMadSamurai Senior Member Posts: 226Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    I think CA should focus on the Asia continent rather than go back to Europe. I do not want to see another focused campaign playing only as Chinese or Japanese but rather multiple nations ranging from the Japan all the way to Turkey; maybe including all the way down to Australia. This would be refreshing i think. As for the time period it does not matter to me, it will be fun.
  • Colonel MallardColonel Mallard Senior Member Posts: 1,044Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    I would like that too :)
    Warring_States_350_BC.png

    Think about it, even the minor state Zhong Shan has tens of thousands of soldiers :P

    But whilst the diplomatic situation was very interesting, the actual battles were really not dreadfully interesting. Arms and armour of that time and place were pretty primitive, and making it balanced and varied would be pretty difficult.
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy it...

    "If at first you don't succeed, you fail."

    "All I know is that my gut says maybe" - President Average of the Neutral Planet

    Total War:Barbarian Invasion 2:The Invadening
  • IquabakanerIquabakaner Senior Member Posts: 149Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    But whilst the diplomatic situation was very interesting, the actual battles were really not dreadfully interesting. Arms and armour of that time and place were pretty primitive, and making it balanced and varied would be pretty difficult.
    "Bronze crossbow bolts dating as early as mid 5th century BC were found at a State of Chu burial site in Yutaishan, Hubei. The earliest handheld crossbow stocks with bronze trigger, dating from the 6th century BC, comes from Tomb 3 and 12 found at Qufu, Shandong, capital of the State of Lu."

    The manufacture of crossbows in the Warring States Period has been standardized. The Qin crossbows, for example, are around 130-145 cm in length. Qin smiths made 16 million exactly the same crossbow bolts per year. The Qin crossbows have a range of 300m. The state of Han is the best in crossbows at that period. Its standard crossbows ranged more than 800m. The stronger Qin "jingnu" has a range of 900-1000m.

    It took more than a thousand years for the Europeans to invent a weapon with such a range. So I don't see how primitive that period was.:)

    Somebody predicted what would happen if Alexander the Great crossed India and reached China. His army would simply be shattered by Qin crossbow bolts before they even see the Qin army. Their shields and armours would have been pierced through like a piece of paper.
  • Whopper44Whopper44 Senior Member Posts: 148Registered Users
    edited March 2012
    "Bronze crossbow bolts dating as early as mid 5th century BC were found at a State of Chu burial site in Yutaishan, Hubei. The earliest handheld crossbow stocks with bronze trigger, dating from the 6th century BC, comes from Tomb 3 and 12 found at Qufu, Shandong, capital of the State of Lu."

    The manufacture of crossbows in the Warring States Period has been standardized. The Qin crossbows, for example, are around 130-145 cm in length. Qin smiths made 16 million exactly the same crossbow bolts per year. The Qin crossbows have a range of 300m. The state of Han is the best in crossbows at that period. Its standard crossbows ranged more than 800m. The stronger Qin "jingnu" has a range of 900-1000m.

    It took more than a thousand years for the Europeans to invent a weapon with such a range. So I don't see how primitive that period was.:)

    Somebody predicted what would happen if Alexander the Great crossed India and reached China. His army would simply be shattered by Qin crossbow bolts before they even see the Qin army. Their shields and armours would have been pierced through like a piece of paper.

    Also think about how much he would be outnumbered by. He would have to face millions of Chinese warriors in their own homeland. India's army was only 300,000 and he couldn't defeat it. Alexander could never conquer Asia.
    "When the enemy is driven back, we have failed, and when he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded." -Alexander Suvorov
  • IquabakanerIquabakaner Senior Member Posts: 149Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Whopper44 wrote: »
    Also think about how much he would be outnumbered by. He would have to face millions of Chinese warriors in his own homeland. India's army was only 300,000 and he couldn't defeat it. Alexander could never conquer Asia.
    Alexander had only tens of thousands of soldiers. And yet that was the number of troops of the weakest state in the Warring States period. Not to mention that the western China was owned by Qin, one of the strongest state at the time.
  • King MakerKing Maker Member Posts: 83Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    yeah I agree victoria tw is neither appealing nor enough as a title
    Total War:Victoria..... just doesnt make me wanna play and re create History


    "Those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the Tiger, ended up inside" JFK


    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or Sega
  • TercioTercio Member Posts: 56Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Another Empire Total War ^^
  • duneknightduneknight Junior Member Posts: 13Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    China will not seem like a radical change from Shogun. And WW1 wont sell. I say they should go back to Medieval, especially the late period, and focus on castle and rampart seiges.
  • Brenticus1Brenticus1 Senior Member Posts: 643Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    I have always found open field combat to be more enjoyable, where you do not necessarily have to defend or attack a certain position.
    The more you kill, the less the lag.
  • WarlordnippleWarlordnipple Junior Member Posts: 3Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    These games the way they are designed only really make sense in eras where total war is being practiced. Even though I love Empire and enjoy Medieval mostly for the battles the campaign piece does not make a whole lot of sense because of the total lack of any real diplomacy. Shogun 2 goes a really long way to solving the diplomacy problem as I have had multiple year (10+) turns with no war. In all the other game I am lucky if I get 2 or 3 turns without some random person trying to backstab me for no real reason. So if they do make one in an era besides the "Temujin era" or an era they have already made on in they should really seriously overhaul diplomacy and nation choices.
  • IquabakanerIquabakaner Senior Member Posts: 149Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    duneknight wrote: »
    China will not seem like a radical change from Shogun. And WW1 wont sell. I say they should go back to Medieval, especially the late period, and focus on castle and rampart seiges.
    Indeed. Probably shouldn't make it the next title. Maybe the one after?
  • SmokeScreenSmokeScreen Senior Member Posts: 2,429Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    duneknight wrote: »
    And WW1 wont sell.

    Really? Not Hollywood enough?

    Empire was a huge hit and still selling today, and I don't believe for a second that CA chose 18th century because the era has so many enthusiasts that also buys games. So I don't see why not WW1?
    "I just traded Finland's military to Kenya for 50 lions"

    The awesome World War 1 Thread
Sign In or Register to comment.