If you could chose what would be the setting for the new historical total war?
I would love a "Total war: Tamerlane"
The faction verity would be insane
>The Timurid empire
>The Ottoman empire
>The Mamluks
>The Dheli sultenet
>The Golden horde
>The Russ principalities
>The remnants of the Byzantine empire
>The Balkan kingdoms
>Etc etc
And it would be fun to create massive pyramids of skulls.
Some modders found a way to do map editing for Attila recently, I wonder if anyone will use that.
Atilla is the best game. I wish.
>medieval 3
It already exists. Its called atilla.
Attila is mod for rome2.
We want med3 instead.
>We want
Who's we, homosexual?
Me and my medieval enjoyers bros.
Now stfu, moron.
could you elaborate on map editing? if true then attila be bussin fr
Empire 2 - basically fall of the samurai but in europe + colonies
Medieval 3 - basically three kingdoms but in europe + mena
>could you elaborate on map editing? if true then attila be bussin fr
just as he says, though it will still be years before anyone can get any work done on it
30 years war.
This. Pike and shot is peak total war yet CA refuses to go down that route.
they could do gunpowder empires
>theaters from Americas to nippon
>plenty of different cultures and nations
>plenty of famous units
>could make plenty of dlc
>could sell separate theaters as expansions
Only if it has Rome's population mechanics so I can larp as the eternal swede in northern krautland.
I think the problem with pike & shot warfare in the TW engine as we know it, is how to do it satisfactorily. Do you go with 'mixed' units, i.e. a big blob with pike and musket, but then you're going to get some unintended gamist bullshit to hit the shooters rather than melee types, and CA have not yet really adequately implemented units like this anyway.
Or do you try to approximate it as I did with Custom Late battles in Med2, with a unit of pike sleeved by shot - sort of works with liberal use of Formations but the current stack limits restrict what you can get up to, and of course you don't really get the complex interactions between the various parts of the tercio this way.
You'd also really want to slow the pace down again, but I'm not sure the wider audience would go for that.
The problem with doing a 30 year war game is that most of the conflict was a glorified stalemate in which nobody won. A pike and shot game would be neat though.
Don't think that matters. The Boshin war was a year long relatively bloodless conflict but they still made Fall of the Samurai look like WW1 on the back of it
True. Though, frankly, I would rather have a game based around the early modern era than a 30 Year war game anyway. Perhaps as a smaller campaign off the side.
Pike and shot would be the most boring thing in the world and battles would be micromanaging hell that wouldn't even resemble what battles actually looked like in that period.
This.
I do share concerns of how it would work or if CA is capable of making mixed formations work reasonably. I don't think the rectangle formations as they are would really work with other troops hiding inside a square. I can already see CA making sending your zweihander dudes to break enemy formation a goblin fanatic-like ability.
YES
1200's East Asia
Surprising you think Creative Assembly can even do a historical total war. They shit at it. That's why they focus on Warhammer onions more.
Frickin medieval 3 ffs
Fix the merchant system
South East Asia frickery, almost any setting is good
Genghis: Total War
Pike & Shot/30 years War - early 17th century Europe + early colonialism, bonus scenario for English civil war or The Deluge of Poland. If that was entirely up to me I'd start the timeline with 1492 as the discovery of America, thus enabling colonialism and the age of discovery, making going tall for that sweet sweet spice or east asian goods a good way to play tall, and ended it with the Great Northern War
Any pre-british India setting
Dedicated Crusades game, including Sicily and Iberia with the Baltics as a bonus scenario. I know that Medieval 2 + Kingdoms already exists but this could be much, much bigger, especially Reconquista.
Anything post-Napoleon, especially in Europe, is rather dumb, unless it's rapid modernization cases like Bakumatsu Japan, but my idea would be the Chinese Warlords Era [20th century]. Ranged weapons are both scarce and not as powerful as everyone would've hoped, cavalry is still a major player, dedicated melee units still exist. And that happened right in the middle of WW1 and ended only with the start of WW2. Lots of kino potential.
>Anything post-Napoleon, especially in Europe, is rather dumb,
The great war mod for napoleon is my favorite tw game. It's not really a ww1 game because they use pre-early war tactics but the weapons used are great and the battles are beautifully brutal.
It's good fun and impressive considering what they had to work with.
Africa
WOW!
Cant wait to recreate the great battle of Quqquaka!
200 warriors of Mqikiki tribe vs a massive army of 500 Monkiqokor empire!
why does everything concerning africa trigger you so much
Doing a historical total war game won't happen since it would be a step backwards.
You can have all units and mechanics in a fantasy game and add magic, heroes and monsters.
Why would you even want a devolved total war game?
Let modders just make a rewamp mod for a fantasy game.
>You can have all units and mechanics in a fantasy game and add magic, heroes and monsters
Call me when they add all mechanics that they cut from historical games
>formations
>epidemies and diseases
>cavalry have charge weight and impact
>arrows is not dodgeable for most of units except very fast ones, that is rare and mostly weak
>fleet
>sieges
And when they cut moronic fantasy thing like resistance to dmg.
I have zero interest in the fantasy TW-games, even Three kingdoms is too fantastical for me. I want to feel the wings of history as I'm playing, I want to experience a sliver of time as if I'm a regent of that era. Just mashing "giant plastic dinosaur" against "giant plastic dragon" got boring to me after I was 5
Yeah but people like you are so niche you don't even have a name. Actual history autists wouldn't be satisfied with CA's rape on history, with Bronze Age Egypt in Roman times or ninja units in Shogun. Slavic empires with special poison archers aren't any more realistic than dragons.
History autists and fantasy autists aren't separate groups, silly. And no, name one fantasy setting that isn't more niche then its historical equivalent.
The only non-niche fantasy TW title could be a LOTR one, but Sega doesn't have the loicense money for that.
The other path from history would be mythology, but they kinda ruined chances for that with Troy.
Reading comprehension, Black person.
>but Sega doesn't have the loicense money for that.
Are you sure?
>The other path from history would be mythology, but they kinda ruined chances for that with Troy.
Wasn't the actual mythology expansion well received?
>pseud thinking that slamming plastic men together is any better than plastic dragons
You're playing an arcade non-history game no matter what entry in TW you're playing.
Yes, but it FEELS better when it's trying to emulate history to some degree
shit taste
I like fantasy in general, and I like fantasy RTS-games. It's just that for me the TW-style of gameplay lends itself best to historical settings.
cont. I think the problem I have with the fantasy TW-games isn't truly that they are fantasy, it's that they are unrealistic. If you have a dragon-type unit as an example, and that unit breathes fire on a formation, that formation should be gone, you no longer have a formation, you have a bunch of corpses and a few survivors running the opposite direction. In modern TW-games units feel to much like abstractions or RTS-type units, they have health bars and can tank damage to a higher degree than before. It just feels bad.
I don't mind fantasy settings, but they are too niche, anon.
Warhammer only worked because its one of the most popular ones with a pre-existing developed strategy system. LOTR could work too, but it could be outside Sega's money range, while any other fantasy setting is too niche.
>fantasy is more niche than history
>WHFB, the game that died shortly beford the first TWWH stsrted being worked on, is one of the most popular fantasy settings
Which parallel timeline did you come from? I want to move there.
>the game that died
Not died moron. Just retconed by sygmarines. It mean all fb fans still here and w8 for new games that NOT sygmarines, like twwh.
>Just retconed by sygmarines.
Replaced, mostly
Age of Sigmar is mostly just fantasy anyway.
It died Anon. AoS exists because GW found themselvs with a warehous full of unsold wfb models and they needed a way to flip them for profit.
To be fair, Aos is actually pretty fun nowadays. No clue how I plays compared to Fantasy, but I'll take it over 40k. It actually has decent balance and games aren't decided by who alpha strikes on turn 1.
>splits a unit from the army at will
>recruits new units directly from the settlement
まさか。。。このpowerだ。。。ありえない
World War II. They could do it but they're pussies. I've planned everything out in my head and it would work fine.
Otherwise I'd like a game that goes from about 1300 to 1600 or an ancient game like Rome II but like the entire old world.
>MUH BYZANTINE WANKERY!
Seek treatment
30 years war or 7 years war.
But it'll never happen. CA has said at ever opportunity given they will not make a new historical total war.
They've already explored many interesting conflicts in medival and pre-medieval history, so I'd like some more focus on 18-19th century warfare. Other than that, I don't know. A medieval 3 with the same level of polish that Shogun 2 had would be fantastic, thoughever.
Mongol Total War. With all of Eurasia(And north Africa) being playable.
Renaissance total war might also be nice as well
Just give me Medieval 3 finally ffs
Attila 2.
Total war is dead and it's never coming back. Enjoy Medieval II, Empire, Shogun II and Attila.
This anon is right. Anyone really thinks current CA can make a good historical TW again. Just look at the last three 'historical' total wars. Flops all of them. If they ever try to tackle history again I'm sure they will try to rape medieval period to pander to older fans and nostalgia gays. Can't wait for Joan of Arc to kill 500 englishmen by herself while tanking all of their longbow arrows.
>Can't wait for Joan of Arc to kill 500 englishmen by herself while tanking all of their longbow arrows.
Just make it a crossover with Fate.
The problem is that they are fricking moronic. Just make a history game in the vein of Shogun 2. I.e keep fantasy-shit to a minimum, only take a trip down fantasy-land when it's appropriate to the setting (so movie-ninjas are okay, as an example). DO NOT go moron-mode and include units such as "tiger cavalry" in a game that's supposed to be somewhat historical
How do you guys feel about Napoleon?
More optimized and better AI than Empire. Overall pretty good but I wish the map was Empire sized because Empire is so unplayable
Ignore the name I was posting in a shitty thread earlier
does it really not work anymore?
I liked it, felt like Empire but not a mess
Mongol Total War expanding out to cover the whole medieval world would be the best
- Won't be made because Mongols only got to Europe at the end and CA fanbase is all historylets who just want to repeat devs vvlt Paradox memes.
Medieval 3 Total war expanding out into Asia would be the second best
>You'll have to pay extra for a sandnig expansion, then vodkanig expansion, then throatsinging Black person expansion, pajeet expansion and by then the jenga tower codebase will fall apart and they'll never cover East Asia. Again. Just like Pajeet Kings 3.
>- Won't be made because Mongols only got to Europe at the end and CA fanbase is all historylets who just want to repeat devs vvlt Paradox memes.
Just start the game off with a world wide map and work your way backwards from there. Not everything needs to be Warhammer 3.
Though, with that said, if they wanted to I don't think that's the worst idea. High middle ages to reformation wars with a world wide map would be pretty cool.
>Mongol Total War expanding out to cover the whole medieval world would be the best
CA will divide the game into a trilogy with East Asia, Middle East, and Europe campaigns. You can only play the whole medieval world when you buy the 3 games
I would probably do it like this:
First game focusing on the Mongol conquests. Playable map would be: Central Asia, China, Russia, southeast Asia, Persia, Japan.
Second game focusing on Spain. Playable map would be West Europe, Central Europe, South Europe, West Africa, North Africa, and central America.
Third game focusing on Byzantium. Playable map would be Balkans, Middle East, Egypt, Italy, Turkey/Asia minor, Arabia, Persia, Caucasus, India.
I want a bronze age setting which features the bronze age collapse
and a pike and shot setting
Two of the most dumb takes:
>bronze age setting
This is bad because there is literally NOTHING to build it on top of. Troy already showed it perfectly by using every single artifact there was from that entire god-damn period just to deck out 2 opposing factions. The fact is there is just very little we can build on unless you put pedal to the metal and start inventing armor and weapons to fill out all the old kingdoms and statelets with unique, or at least visually distinctive units.
>pike and shot
It was the era of a single "unit type" in Total War terms dominating everything. It's line warfare but there are no conscripts, elite regiments like grenadiers or sharpshooters with rifles. Ditto for specific cannons and ammo for different engagements you get in line warfare.
There's just 3 units. A cannon, armored cavalry and tercio. Maybe you could get a little creative with some light cavalry and cavalry with pistols and shit to spice it up.
Perfectly fine for a Fire Emblem game but absolutely trash for a Total War which abstracts all the details away and would just have majority engagements as pretty skirmishes of identical units, like a superbly castrated Shogun.
>It was the era of a single "unit type" in Total War terms dominating everything.
that is brainlet and historylet take
>Gustav used riders with lances and not riders with pistols, therefore it's different
All armies would look the same, at least from a Gankerlet perspective
whatever you say, if you want play ignorant fool(or be one) your choice
The Ottomans would look and play very differently from the Spanish
I mean, depending on when it takes place:
Native Americans, Aztecs/Maya's, West Africans, Muslims, and Indians would all play pretty differently.
Don't see any of those as problems. People have different taste. Unit variety has 0 appeal to me. There is actually more strategy between like units.
Interesting maps, representing different warfare technology, and especially late game BIG HAPPENING is what appeals to me.
I would love Bronze age, b/c Greece and Mesopotamian cultures developing organized armies and phallanx and would love to have Sea Peoples invade causing the bronze age collapse.
neither was Tercio as widespread as you think nor was it a unit. It was a formation.
Yeah, bronze age setting is stupid. The reality is that nobody knos enough to put together a cohesive campaign map. The factions that could possibly exist would have very limited tech. The equipment would be very, VERY basic stuff like bronze axe/sword/spear infantry and some basic archers/cavalry, all wearing little more than loincloth at the highest tiers. Tactics were basicaly non-existant. Bronze age is a cool setting to study because of the mystery surrounding it, but it would be an awful setting for a TW game.
>It was the era of a single "unit type" in Total War terms dominating everything.
Historylet detected. The cavalry-spamming era that was the Middle Ages was way more martially homogenous that the Early Modern era that saw combined arms warfare become the status quo. It was also the most Ganker era by far.
Renaissance/pike and shot
With Fire and Sword
America discovery
Byzantium fall
Thirty Years' War
All could fit into this setting. So most possible variety there is, before everything gets samey like in Empire. Hussars, Janissaries, Jaguar Warriors, Conquistadors, Streltsy, Landsknechts all could show up during the game. Include naval battles again and a huge world map with both Europe and Americas. Let me gun down natives or kill invaders, remove kebab and rebuild Byzantium or destroy it etc
Either this or Medieval 3
13th century
>Battle Royale in Balkans and Anatolia
>Mongoloids
Medieval 3 or Empire 2 either one works for me.
Any era with good variety of units and cultures would be cool. Don't get me wrong, I ove Shogun 2, but the lack of some difference between factions (even cosmetic ones) can be tiresome.
But I'd really love something starting after 1460 AD with a frickheug map from Portugal to China and some America
Ideal era for that would be 1200 to 1600. If that's too long (I mean, Rome 1 and 2 did it), 1400 to 1600 would also work.
>Don't get me wrong, I ove Shogun 2, but the lack of some difference between factions (even cosmetic ones) can be tiresome.
To be fair, Shogun 2 WOULD theoretically have differences between major clans if those major clans, you know, survived.
>1400 to 1600 would also work
That's a good timeframe, military tech would change gameplay a lot. But I don't know if CA can pull off Reformation, HRE and Papacy mechanics for this period.
HRE should just work like the Empire in Warhammer.
Reformation would be complex, but not impossible. At worst they could just totally script it.
>At worst they could just totally script it
Eh, fair enough. If it works, fine by me
New historical total war
>New mechanics on the battle, like split a regiment, new tactics and so on, i shouldn't see the enemy without picket or recon, new stamina system
>New mechanics on the campaign, new formation of an army, not only 20 unit and other mechanics
>New AI
>Maps bigger and that can contain real cities when i fight in a city
>Historically accurate units and i don't want only 10 units like Etw
>Campain map must contain at least 80 region (but only in europe) and it must be dynamic, where you can build railway/road and you can destroy bridges and railway not only with sabotage (made by an army or a group of sappers) but even in your own territory to stop the enemy.
Period 1800 circa but i prefer modern rifles like 1860/1880
>wants large unit variety
>also wants the game in the age of everyone being rifle infantry
>there are different rifles, different technology for a rifle, muzzle velocity, purpose, accuracy and so on
>cavalry have Hussar, dragons (that was the first mobile infantry), cuirassier, uhlan, militia cav and so on.
>infantry: line infantry, grenadier, sapper, elité, guards, light infantry, skirmirsher, special regiment with some
>artillery: different caliber, purpose, rate of fire, machineguns were considered artillery, howitzer, mortars and so on
>ships: lol
You are a fricking moron
>Special regiment like bersaglieri, mountain troops, cossacks........
Almost all of those are rifle armed dudes who basically function the same. Also how would loose order actually function? You can't really just have guys with bolt actions in blocks.
Strategy:
Middle age/classical age > Late modern period
Ok moron
> Also how would loose order actually function?
Like grand tactician or something similar
It's not like I think it's bad I just think it would be like Empire, which I like but is mostly just musketmen.
Just try Napoleonic total war 3 and pick the french
I've been playing an empire mod lately. I think it's empire II. Speaking of which why do most grenadiers not carry grenades?
Total War isn't even that good. Arcadey trash.
NuCA makes Medieval 3
>Muslim nations have flying carpets and genies
>Thor Odinson fights for Norway
>Pope casts spells
>Excommunication is one of them
>Henry VIII channels Nurgle
>Machiavelli's 'unique mechanics' make a number go up and then the resource can be spent on a scheme
>The game will not have any depth for the player to actually do anything cunning, the mechanic/resource will just be called 'Cunning'
>Mongol invasion is a single stack
>Demi-lancers will shoot through each other, harmlessly and with no formations or firing drills
>Family-tree and politics will be an even worse eye-rape tapestry of stat-modifiers, if they exist at all
>Temperate, snow or arid climates will have no effect on unit's fatigue depending on where they were recruited from, as was the case in Med2.
>Dracula turns up and is actually a vampire, but not with his own powers; just copies of spells from WH
>pope is a hero unit with a health bar that can only hit or be hit by 4 melee enemies at a time, leading to a huge tarpit where he jumps and slashes at the air while 3 enemies fly back for 30 straight minutes
>Dracula turns up and is actually a vampire, but not with his own powers; just copies of spells from WH
>"BYZANTIUM WAS WEAK! WITNESS TRUE POWER!"
They've never made a historical total war that's literally the whole world. I understand the problem of getting around to north America or other places but the journey has never actually been impossible under the right conditions. It's mostly a matter of willingness to go and people knowing it's there. Or it could just be like 1900 to 1950 and that problem would go away. Then there's just all the other problems of how much bigger and complex everything would become, especially on the battlefield where tactical battles would suddenly have to be like 10x10 miles at least and have aircraft. There would have to be a ton of units on the campaign map and more roads and railroads and armies would have to be actually a division or at most corps but that would mean even bigger maps and massive troop counts (30000 on each side at least). The attrition system would have to be modeled based on whether a division can access roads. It could be good but they wouldn't do that much work nowadays and probably couldn't get it right
What the frick went through modders heads to remove grenades from grenadiers
Grenadiers didn't carry grenades after a certain point. The term went from meaning "grenade tosser" to "tough dude" basically.
Is Brittania as bad as people say it is? It's the only historical game I don't own
I think it had some technical issues and probably wasn't worth the asking price at the time, but I think a lot of the hate was just warhammer kiddies jumping on the bandwagon it because it was smaller scale and didn't have a bloated unit roster.
It's not actually as bad as people make it out to be.
I'm not really a fan of legend but I agree with his assessment of tob. I'm not as extreme as him, but I just don't find it very fun.
ToB helpfully proves that the issue with modern TW is not 'too many fantasy games and not enough historical'. It's probably the most-historical setting, the problem is it's modern Total War and all systems are dumbed-down to hell. Has the Paradox curse of thinking a spreadsheet is a game.
Warhammer 40k Total War
Game of Thrones Total War
Lord of the Rings Total War
Bronze Age Total War
But my facourite would be "Modern Age Total War" with all the current weaponry, drones, nukes, aircraft carriers,.... and even slight science fiction units in late game like picrel.
>Bronze Age Total War
They attempted that with Troy and it was hot garbage.
Total war is a dead franchise and there will never be a good total war game again.
Late medieval age to late Renaissance with good sieges, pop mechanics and resource control + trade.
Modern CA can't do that type of game anymore though.
Historical total war that covers every period in one grand campaign from hellenics to pike & shot. Basically Sid's Civilization 4 but with total war battles. It's gonna be pain in the ass to make, but they already have a unit bloat queen called warhammer. Add a turnbased grid system too, for less campaign map cheesing.
The best way to do this would be to operate on the civilization cycle theory do that you have to deal with catastrophe and other things to keep the game dynamic and changing. Or to make carrying wars to completion more difficult and have better diplomacy that incentivizes limited wars. Or both. In any case it would probably be necessary to make it unfeasible to really keep an empire going strong for more than a couple centuries. One or two turns a year would be fine but I think they really ought to increase movement distance a lot. Especially navally. An army should also have stances or some kind of scouting thing that allows a wider range to react to an enemy off turn.
Also grids are gay and counter to good campaign maps.
Is Three Kangdoms worth it? The relatively deep characterization of generals and courtiers I have seen in gameplays looks fun but the last Total War game I played was Shogun II
Wasn't meant as a reply btw, lol
Rise to fall of the ottomans would be kino. Could start the game in the late 1300s with the Ottoman wars in the Balkans and then finally defeating Byzantium. 1500 and 1600 would see the expansion into Egypt, North Africa, the Mediterranean and central Europe. Youd see the change from the end of medieval warfare into the age of gun powder. Pike and shot, cannons etc would all become key aspects so you get a quasi napoleon/shogun hybrid.
Major factions: Ottomans, Persia, Mamluks, Austria, Poland-Lithuania, HRE, Hungary. Youd also have the liked of Christian Albania, Wallachia, Serbia, Byzantines (though pretty weak), Georgia, the bedouin tribes, the Knights of Rhodes, Venice etc.
>Ottomans
Holy frick no