Total War, Where To Next?

[thethingthatlurks]

The late 19th century in Europe would be cool. You had the Italian and German unifactions, a final push for imperialism, Japan became a major power in the east, the US recovered from a civil war. Plus there were major advances in technology at the time, which could be really cool. Honestly a campaign from 1870 to 1910 would be really cool...
But I'll have to agree, good support, and no bugs.

 

[syndicated44]

Where to next? The $2 bin at Gamestop.

Total War died with Empire. poor support, Terrible AI and Gameplay tactics that amount to little more than stand in a line and shoot.

I was a huge huge fan of Total War from Shogun all the way up to Medieval II. Empires was the single greatest disappointment I have experienced in gaming and then they make a whole new game just to do bug fixes... which amount to "We didn't actually fix anything, we just removed all the shit that didn't work and are charging you $30 for it."

I love the combat in Empire, it was what I wanted out of a Total War game for quite some time. I dont know I just enjoy watching two armies meet head to head marching straight into gunfire. There is just something about the time period and the weapons that just entrances me. I never really ran into any bugs and since I upgraded my computer the load times are not a killer anymore. Actually what bugs have you run into?

Will the lack of history end this series or will it rehash old ideas or will it press on into the future?

They haven't even stripped mined all of European history yet let alone other regions.

Personally, I'd love to see a Three Kingdoms: Total War.

I should elaborate more then I did. I know of course there is a COLOSSAL amount more history then what is covered in the TW games it just seems that going back to anything involving older style warfare would be a step back. It has been done already. So in some ways perhaps they shot themselves in the foot by moving forward in time. Perhaps they will go back and focus on a smaller scale. But to me its just all a step backwards, I cant get excited about a Medieval 3 (perhaps a Rome 3 but it would have to be absolutely breathtaking).

 

[ioxles]

yeah, can't play vanilla empire, luckily DarthMod's version makes it the best total war game I've played by far, no kidding.

I really liked Napoleon TW and thought they changed too much stuff to make it a mod, they really did a good job with that, but I'm a much greater fan of the peninsula war rather that Napoleons campaigns (thank you Sharpe) so.....

As for the future of the games, well, I can see them rehashing old titles for years to come and adding another number to the end as long as people like me happily gorge on the recycling's.

I would really like a TW game based on the years of Flashman and the campaigns he took part in, that would cover most of the victorian era and most of the world.

Ok I've just had an idea: taking a feather out of Napoleon TW cap, they will create detailed (really detailed) multi campaign games based in an era rather than the sweeping nature of the past games where you take the role of the main generals (who have a much more active role) in said campaigns.

Imagine: Rome 2: TW The campaigns of Julius Caesar.

That would rule.

Really. REALLY. MAKE THIS GAME.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I should elaborate more then I did. I know of course there is a COLOSSAL amount more history then what is covered in the TW games it just seems that going back to anything involving older style warfare would be a step back. It has been done already. So in some ways perhaps they shot themselves in the foot by moving forward in time. Perhaps they will go back and focus on a smaller scale. But to me its just all a step backwards, I cant get excited about a Medieval 3 (perhaps a Rome 3 but it would have to be absolutely breathtaking).

See, I'd be indifferent to a Rome 2: Total War (probably because I didn't particularly care for RTW in the first place, it's just not a time period that interests me)... As for a move backward, it seemed to work last time they did it if the unsightly puddles left by RTW fans are any indication. Of course part of RTWs popularity goes beyond the setting and has a lot to do with TCA redesigning campaign map play.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

However, with Europe done from early Rome to the end of Renaissance it may be hard to pull out another non-sequel game with a European setting.

Did they cover the Dark Ages when I wasn't looking?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Imagine: Rome 2: TW The campaigns of Julius Caesar.

Feh. Scipio Africanus.

 

[Tarquinius Superbus]

Yeah, I'm seconding a game based around the Orient.

Don't really see where else they can go that hasn't been already covered and fits the current gameplay model.

 

[Void(null)]

Where to next? The $2 bin at Gamestop.

Total War died with Empire. poor support, Terrible AI and Gameplay tactics that amount to little more than stand in a line and shoot.

I was a huge huge fan of Total War from Shogun all the way up to Medieval II. Empires was the single greatest disappointment I have experienced in gaming and then they make a whole new game just to do bug fixes... which amount to "We didn't actually fix anything, we just removed all the shit that didn't work and are charging you $30 for it."

Part of the problem is that Enlightenment Age warfare just isn't very inherently interesting. If they stick to what they do best, which is melee, siege engine, and archery combat as seen in Rome and Medieval 1/2 (and Shogun as well), they'll be fine.

Personally I'd like to see a Shogun 2: Total War done with the Empire/Napoleon graphics engine.

Agreed. However Creative Assembly/Sega really need to work on their customer support. They broke the launcher for Medieval II for the longest time, so that you could not launch campaigns or mods from the launcher. The outright lied about the Co-Op Multiplayer for Empire and then used E:TW as a test bed for Napoleon: Total War (Including a very tagged in, poorly implemented co-op campaign a year later when it was advertised as an included feature during pre-order.)

And I am honestly getting sick of buying a game from Creative Assembly and it being a broken piece of shit for the first 6 months. Anyone remember when M2:TW first came out and the AI would not respond to Archers and would stand there all day and let you kill them? How the hell does that get past QA? That's a huge, obvious bug that has nothing to do with the end users and everything to do with buggy code and terrible QA.

I never really ran into any bugs and since I upgraded my computer the load times are not a killer anymore. Actually what bugs have you run into?

I never had any performance problems with Empire, the game always ran smooth with decent load times. My big battle with Bugs in Empire, came in the form of the Save Game Corruption bug that was present for the first 6 months of the games lifespan that wouldn't let me finish a complete game. By the time they got around to properly fixing it, I had given up on E:TW.

CA has killed the last speck of trust I had in their competence. It took them 10 years but they finally did it, and its going to take something "monumental" like them releasing a game that bloody works on day 1... which I am pretty certain they are incapable of.

I still love the Total War series, I am just fed up of dealing with Sega/CA's shit.

 

[almostgold]

However, with Europe done from early Rome to the end of Renaissance it may be hard to pull out another non-sequel game with a European setting.

Did they cover the Dark Ages when I wasn't looking?

Yes, apparently. Twice.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Did they cover the Dark Ages when I wasn't looking?

Yes, apparently. Twice.

Fuck... apparently I can't chew and think at the same time... so much for posting while I eat lunch.

I meant the early dark ages period (collapse of the western roman empire to the rise of major european medieval powers).

 

[Nouw]

Since the World Wars aren't that huge BUT! nevertheless, controlling how the Allied Forces invade Europe could be a lot of fun!

 

[syndicated44]

Big snip

Now that you mention it I do believe I ran into that problem but that was so long ago it nearly slipped my mind. I just recently started another campaign in Empire because I never actually beat an entire campaign yet. I do believe I got it the third day it was out and I swear to god all that is on that disk is steam because it wouldnt let me install with the disk so it took me a good 6 hours to get it installed.

The loads were not bad on the Campaign map it was just going inbetween campaign and combat the loads took a good minute and a half to two minutes to load in and out so I usually just had a very large army and let the computer roll dice.

Not so big snip

I really enjoyed the beginning of RTW there was a lot going on and there plenty of variety between countries and factions. It was endgame that started to just annoy me though because after I took Rome I was left with the daunting task of eliminating the other houses which had taken over the south and the east where I had taken the north. This led to a monumental amount of grinding away at an endless amount of green and blue colored Romans. I never finished that campaign but I was pretty sure if I kept at it I would eventually win.

Which leads me to believe that this is an inherent problem with a TW on a smaller scale. Medieval 2 (never played the first) fixed this by having a larger scale and more variety in factions however I could not for the life of me keep up with the constant demands from the pope so I was constantly fighting revolts which kept getting worse and worse as public opinion kept getting worse as the pope kept screwing me over with demands to fight my allies or trek all the way across the map only to be yelled at for not arriving on time to have me fight some little nowhere town in the middle of the desert which had no importance whatsofreaking ever. (sorry rant over)

I believe a proper step (in the long run) would be to have to 20th century. At the same time I could also spell disaster. Technology moved so fast that their tech tree would have to be intensely intrecate and balance would be a major issue. (we dont want people using muskets against some GI from Vietnam). As the game would progress battles would get smaller as technology became more advanced. In warfare now a large group of soldiers is more of a target then it is a threat. The Cold War would also be a factor because instead of actually having fighting it goes to an arms race and essentially turns it into a prestige battle.

As trends have been made though I would probably predict they maybe take on the 19th century or go back and tackle individual countries. I believe this is a mistake however I can imagine no way they could pull off a game of this type in todays world without removing their history and personally I dont believe that Sega/CA is up to that task. Globalization and technology is TW's bane and saving grace. There is collosal amount of potential but a collosal amount of work involved.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'm thinking Modern Era, from pre-WWI to modern day.

This really wouldn't work within the established style of Total War. Once automatic weapons (and weapons that can fire repeatedly really), the massed units of troops maneuvering as one idea falls apart. Hell, even by late game in Empire, it's a silly idea to march onto an enemy's position. I considred my own infantry nothing more than defense against assault for my artillery.

 

[octafish]

I want CA to do a standalone expansion or at least some DLC for the American Civil War too.

English Civil War, first. Far cooler hats.

This^^^^.
Can't see how well Total War: Cromwell would sell in Ireland or Wales though.

I'd like to see Total War: Temujin. It wouldn't work very well for Mongols without some tweaking, although a Mongol campaign with false feints, mobile archery and traps for heavy cavalry could be a lot of fun.

Just of the top of my head the Anglo-Zulu war, and the Crimean war are other possiblities.

 

[The Madman]

And I am honestly getting sick of buying a game from Creative Assembly and it being a broken piece of shit for the first 6 months. Anyone remember when M2:TW first came out and the AI would not respond to Archers and would stand there all day and let you kill them? How the hell does that get past QA? That's a huge, obvious bug that has nothing to do with the end users and everything to do with buggy code and terrible QA.

I remember how in Rome: Total War the AI didn't know how to cross rivers and so entire units would silently march to their death. I remember how when the game first came out, your archers would kill the row of archers in-front of them as well as any allied infantry nearby, making them absolutely useless to bring into battle. I remember the siege AI being completely and utterly incapable of actually waging siege, and how sometimes the AI would simply give up entirely and just sit there outside your walls indefinitely, not even reacting if you rallied out and started killing them. I remember bridges that magically didn't exist, and which soldiers would try to cross only to fall to their deaths. I remember how war dogs were literally the best unit in the game, and how elephants had no pathfinding AI so they were just as likely to trample your own soldiers as the enemies.

I remember alot of stuff. The point I'm getting at is that Creative Assembly have always been known for their ridiculously buggy initial release, and always it was the mod community and a follow up expansion which came and cleaned up the mess. It's happened with every single one of the Total War games so far! If most any other studio pulled this they'd be gone by now, but since Creative are pretty much the only dev that makes games the way they do, people cut em slack.

As far as Empire went, it was actually much smoother on the initial release than any other one of their games thus far with only one major game-breaking bug that I can think of which I experienced: The AI's inability to do naval invasions. There were lag and crash issues, the AI was sketchy at best, but hell; it worked. Which isn't to say it was perfect, hell no, but complaining that 'this' is the game that ruined the franchise... well... it's kinda silly when you look back in retrospect at the their past games. Rome was much, much, much, much worse on release, and yet it's now viewed by most as the best of the series. Go figure!

Speaking of which I'd actually love a Rome 2: Total War, inevitable bugs, horribly unfinished release and all!

 

[RicoADF]

*SNIP*but since Creative are pretty much the only dev that makes games the way they do, people cut em slack.*SNIP

Same goes for BIS with Armed Assault games (ArmA 1 & 2). So bugged at first, but patches fixes the games over time and mods makes it better. Rather rediculas tbh.

 

[Peta Michalek]

SPACE.

 

[ioxles]

Imagine: Rome 2: TW The campaigns of Julius Caesar.

Feh. Scipio Africanus.

Yeah I'd go for that. But his campaigns were relatively short compared to Julius and the battles/events around that particular period. With Scipio you'd be fighting for a few years against the Carthaginian's and kicking their ass. That's it.

 

[WolfThomas]

Definitely a Rome 2, RTW is still IMO the best game in the series, it's factions where different in troops and tactics, making it different each time you played. Units were mostly weak with only one or good traits that you had to use at the right time, for example most cavalry was useless against anything but archers and retreating troops.

I finished RTW with nearly every faction.

 

[Nunny]

Either a Fully Global version of Medieval Total war or Empire total war and slow the turn rate down to something similiar to Napoleon but on the scale of 100+ years. Also the introduction of a true raiding and supply feature.... I should be able to perform a suprise raid without it counting as a lose when i withdraw back into the woods.