Aside from Empire 2 & Medieval 3 so aside from setting, what are YOU looking for from the next Historical Total War? What sort of mechanics do you want to see, what type of visual style, what kind of improvements on the battle side of things, how do you want the AI to improve, etc. What is a Good Historical Total War is to you?
What's in my mind is the Pike and Shot era and remake Thrones of Britannia (Viking age). Nevertheless, the main focus should be on Empire 2 and Medieval 3 games as perfect sequels that appeal to the core historical players. There should be no compromises between historical and fantasy players.
bring back the population mechanic. make wars devistating to sustain. we need more connection between the overworld and the battles. more strategy. no more heros.
A feature set which allows us to play around with how centralised or decentralised our kingdom should be. In other words, I would like to be able to either go deeper into feudalism and rely more on local nobility, or concentrate power into the hand of the king, or even set up a federal electoral empire like the HRE. Social classes should be better presented and should have an actual impact on the gameplay.
I am right there with you on the Pike & Shot; phenomenal time period -- the start of the entire state system with the Treaty of Westphalia. I'd be all over that one!
The more veteran a unit is, the slower it should replenish. It would be sick to have like, 3 stages of visual veterancy so you could tell by looking that this unit, although not fully manned, is full of badasses.
You should be given a choice on how fast a unit replenishes. For example, if an elite unit gets replenished fast, it loses alot of its veterancy, but if it's replenished more slowly with better trained recruits, it only loses some veterancy (it can never keep elite status fully unless merged with another depleted elite unit or it refuses replenishment). I also believe replenishment should actually cost something, like a percentage of the unit's original price based on how it's replenished.
This wouldn't work well, ranged units are already dominant and they are far easier to keep alive. It would result in blocks of elite range units defended by cheap infantry.
OP and longtime subscriber here. I wrote up the post in a few minutes and after I had posted it, I knew there were a few things I regretted and could've elaborated upon much better such as "wanting battles as real as possible". I didn't take enough time to fully define my thoughts, but the overall goal was to get people discussing so I'm really glad to see this video amplifying the conversation.
Hell yeah buddy! Even if you only wrote it up in a few minutes it was well put and it (as you can see) has sparked some great conversation. Well done for doing so ❤️
Total War Veteran here, I want a new game engine and a beeter AI before they do anything else. Not much changed since Attila, the same cheese still works.
I´ve been asking for a Pike and Shot era for 10 years. The period should be 1500-1700. It can sel TONS of DLCS. Americas, India, Africa, Pacific, Asia... It has tremendous dynamic gameplay potential. We see the progression of firearms improving, and we NEED a good Siege mechanics.
are you asking for DLC? wtf man, games not even in development and your already offering to buy it incomplete..... Isn't "new DLC for things that should have already been in the game" one of the biggest complaints of the last 4 TW titles? and all of the warhammer titles? this man must really love pike and shot era
Only modders know the Historical Authenticity despite of being an independent self reliance. Meanwhile CA has professional employee back up by huge amount of money, but still didn't know historical Authenticity.
they don't care about, it are big city dwelling netflix watching starbucks sitting deracinated and degenerated urban hipsters. their knowledge of history goes back a century and their interest in history goes back to last week at the sportsball event. we need game development studios staffed entirely by autistic people instead of these normies. another sign that dei just does not work. they are watering down their output because they want to hire people who don't care about the original premise of the franchise
For me historical total war is much more than just a game and most of the time good “time consumation”. It layed a foundation for me, of historic interest in more history than that is just portrayed in the game. It incentived me to learn about history, understand cultures also on conflicts in the past. It just was like; let’s check the abbasid chaliphate, what has that people or specifc region gone through in a certain time, and from that you get into tinny rabbit holes. I like how this goes for me and therefore i hope we will get new decent content
When i'm in a "not delivering a game that people want to buy in order to not make a lot of money and tank my company to the ground within the next upcoming years because i'm lazy and that would require doing more than reskins of units." competition but my opponent is *Creative Assembly*.
Don’t love the idea of supply line simulator. My biggest gripe with pharaoh was egypt being 20 factions, not an empire facing collapse. Battles are too frequent, every city has weak but numerous garrisons that make conquest a slog. Healing a whole army in 1-2 turns after their 30th battle is quite unimmersive. The gameplay loop is just bad.
Supply lines can work, if they did them better. But I also agree. If we look at a game like Crusader Kings, you can be a small player inside a larger Empire and watch the AI in control lose control - or you work your way up to take control yourself, maybe even fighting rivals within the Empire you chose to play. The gameplay loop works there. Its core to CK as a franchise. And yes, battles are way too frequent. Fighting the most epic battle in a nation's history...every season...just makes the campaign modes a joke. We get to keep refighting the same battle over and over again just to stretch out the campaign length. Let me charge cycle my cav into their flanks for the 20th battle in a row...
To expand on the 'fantasy fans and historical fans don't want the same experience' I think it is deeper. In my opinion: Lord of the Rings TW fans and Warhammer don't want the same experience also, in the same way Medieval 3 fans and Empire 2 fans also would want difference purposes. LOTR fans would likely want more realism than the Warhammer fans, for example. I want Medieval 3 to be a very serious title (like Medieval 2), but I also want Rome 3 to be a bit goofier (like Rome 1).
theres a mod coming out for lotr i doubt no im 100% sure ca will never realease a lotr total war oitherwise itll be way similar to warhammer games single entities itll be stupid x
There is no such thing as a "historical player". 99% of the TW audience played Warhammer. The most popular TW mod has always been third age. People have been asking for a fantasy title for ages. What is the case is that a *lot* of new players played Warhammer drawn to it due to the setting. And yes many of those players are not nearly as likely to play a new historical title. That does not mean the community is split into historical and fantasy player bases.
@@XMysticHerox I partly agree. I think the split is more realism vs non-realism based, and many confuse the idea of a historical game with meaning realism. Although the comment that 99% played warhammer is clearly false, visible by the public steam stats. I think Third Age is also popular because it maintains that realism in combat from the older titles and adds onto it.
I just want an Empire 2 with better graphics or a Medieval 3 that I can deselect my units and observe the battle and just have the great features of Rome 2 HUD and Warhammer graphics to be in the setting of a working game like Empire, Shogun or Medieval etc. For a different time period I would love the Thrones of Britannia game to be expanded and explore better ways of integrating Vikings and raider style 'skirmisher' infantry who ambush, fight 3v1 and raid villages for gold crosses. The same would be great in every other time period but really I just want the same games with newer graphics and features. Don't fix what isn't broken, just polish it a little.
Look how well they did with the Remaster of Rome Total War. This would fail just like Rome as they wouldn’t do anything with the game other then a Graphical upgrade.
@ People aren’t gonna build major mods for a remaster and not all the major mods of Medieval 2 are gonna port over if even possible. Everything they did in the remaster of Rome wasn’t even remotely enough to be successful, they need a co-op campaign not the shit hot seat campaigns we had in Medieval 2 and improved AI otherwise the game will fail just like Rome.
I want an Empire 2, Medieval 3, A official Third Age Total War, and most of all a Victoria/Imperial Total War which could have a bigger map to Empire as it would be able them to go over things like the scramble for africa, american civil war, opium wars, the sepoy mutiny, franco prussian war, etc. The game could start in 1835 with the texas revolution and end with the 2nd boer war so we get the whole rain of victoria and little more. also unit delay in battles work as the game Grand Tactician show with possible the display of linear warfare.
From my observation, definitions of good total war game actually differ from gamer to gamer, reddit poster to reddit poster. The historical vs fantasy is oversimplification and makes a crude line across very diverse landscape of opinions. I'm amazed at posts where people complain "CA does not listen to players". Listening to Total War players is like listening to the whole kindergarten talking at once. Everybody has something to say, and everybody acts like his opinion is the most important one :) Campaign complexity scale - everybody has their own personal sweet spot, where we find the campaign just challenging enough without being tedious, but also speedy enough without being too simple. I would love if players could choose (i.e. as in Shogun 2 you could choose short/long/domination campaign, I myself really liked the short campaigns, because it lets gamer to get the most out of replayability without spending the life with a single total war title :) ) Personally I find Pharaoh Dynasties campaigns too complicated and going too much towards Paradox / Civilization, but other players really enjoy it. Campaign scope scale - Some people like huge world/continent maps, where they can just go crazy and "paint the map", conquer everything. Other people (myself included) prefer more "localized" experience, i.e. Wrath of Sparta because it usually allows for a bit shorter campaigns, with interesting events. Or Age of Charlemagne. Battle complexity scale - similarly, people enjoy different speeds of battle, I myself like slower battles because cannot keep up when units are dying to quickly, for example to archers/infantry in Shogun 2, but other people like it speedier, otherwise they find it boring. Battle difficulty - Again many opinions. I guess people universally hate AI "cheat" in the form of flat stat booster. But especially use of cavalry can be pretty dangerous. AI when programmed right, can micromanage to much greater extent than human. So imagine 6 cavalry units harassing the army line being micromanaged simultaneously. I myself (casual player) am partly relieved that AI just tries to beeline for archer units at times. Historical authenticity - even many "historical" players do not realize, that all those units they love, may have not been present at the battlefields at the same time and most of the times not in the numbers we are allowed to recruit. Campaigns in total war start at a specific date. Would you really want only the units that were historical present at that date? What if your campaign runs too long? I myself love all the historical eye candy i can get. i very much enjoy the experience from Hellenika, where you have limited numbers of Spartans, and you simply cannot replenish them outside of Sparta. And population limit, because there simply was not enough people to fill all the armies i would like to have. But would I like the same when playing as Rome? Maybe not. Historical attractiveness - Medieval fans are the most vocal :D I myself prefer classical / Hellenistic Greek periods, and have to do with mods for Total War Rome 2. There is no Total War : Hellenic, I cannot play Pyrrhus campaign in Italy, I cannot play as Phillip 2nd and unite Greece. I cannot play Peloponnesian War with Athenian's disastrous Sicillian expedition which lost them the war. I cannot defend ancient Greek world against Persians. And last Alexander campaign is from 2006. So be grateful you got Medieval 1 and 2 :D I doubt anybody read all the way here. :D If you did, good job!
generaly speaking i have found the people who talk about the ˝core fanbase˝ to be rather obnoxious fellows that act as if they own the game , and dont get me started on volound and his little posse of imbeciles
One thing I would love to see in a total war game is a population system like in imperator rome from paradox, Its a lot more complex, for sure, but the viability to manage and worry about your total workforce to be able to have and army at all, makes another interesting approach in a strategy focused on grinding out some other nation's population, and avoiding it being done to you, so no one can simply spam troops out of thin air. It makes a more believable scenario and makes the game way more immersive imo. The thing that sucks the most about total war is that with their increased popularity over the years, they are trying to simplify a lot of things so their games can be more viable to the average joe, but in that they are destroying what made them them at the first place, a nice STRATEGY game above everything. Anyone who likes their type of games and stick to it through thick and thin are the ones who appreciate complexity, because that's what a strategy game usually means and how they differentiate themselves from the other genres. Even though they could achieve what they are trying to do, as in making a more accessible game for more players, it will probably suck gameplay-wise because its gonna be a bland rendition of a brand that one day was way more than that. And as more and more people get to know the company's history, they are going to see that as the years pass, it feels like every time their games are more and more lazily developed for being simpler and simpler, even with all the bells and whistles with graphical improvements and flashier unit models like they so eagerly like to focus above all else these past few years.
DEI for Rome Total War 2 has population, it honestly is a good change. I haven't played vanilla in a while but I've been playing RTW1 Remastered with Imperium Surrectum and that's a bunch of fun once you get over the absolute shite UI.
As long as modders continue to reshape the product into a fun and enjoyable game, I will be content. Everyone has their own tastes and modders give us the chance to experience more what is preferred to each player. I love long, hard fought battles that last for hours in which fatigue, morale, leadership play a key roles in the battle. Thank god for modders as they allow such realism to be created. I curse updates which break the mods and the vanilla defaults of most CA games. Modders, I salute you.
@@gsdasda Stainless Steel for Medieval 2 Sir, if you like even the historical improvement submod is damn good. For Attilla: medieval kingdoms 1212 AD (still WIP but damn good)
@@gsdasda Listitan said it for me, 1212 and Stainless are both great. I often will search through available mods for simply slower combat if it is available for the played version.
CA needs to connect with some of these Modders. Im a huge Rome era fan. If they did a remastered Rome 2 where they updated the graphics to now a day type graphics that sysyems can handle, added with amazing sounds and diplomacy that would be amazing. Then work from there and figure out new games to drop. Use these older games as starting points of making WAY better games, then use what they learned and make new ones.
CA should just look back at what actually worked in the past, what made great those games that people still love today; take the best from every old game of the series to form the basis of what the next historical title should be. Medieval 2, Shogun 2, fall of the samurai, Rome 2, they all had different but great battle systems, that favour strategy and morale over stats, and unit interaction with eachother and the map terrain was crucial. Regarding the campaign map phase, titles like Rome 1, Three Kingdoms, Medieval 2, they all brought interesting mechanics to the series. We need a system where population growth matters, where economy is a little bit more complex than just making a trade deal with other factions and building the same structure in every region; a system with varied diplomacy options, all with different advatages and disadvantages. Of course Total War shouldn't try to be as complex as Paradox games. But a good tw title should have challenging, cinematic, strategic battles and an interesting, varied and intriguing map phase.
I would be okay with any setting. I would absolutely LOVE the scale to increase to replicate more of a real historical battle. 10-25K battles. The technology is there.
The historical player was abandoned after Romance of the 3K (which was excellent). They could simple reskin and continue to improve that model. For the life of me don't know why you wouldn't just take that easy win. The programmer who developed the CaoCao algorithm should be retained as it's incredible. The main problem is that the non-historical titles are just arcade games where everything blobs together meaninglessly and whoever has the cheesiest unit wins.
The point you made with different weapons in a unit making them better sounds awesome. What comes to mind is a unit of pikes, just fighting against each other and matched. then you develop the technology to add great sword fighters to your unit, two will be added and in their first clash they will run out to a free side, and just jump on the enemies pikes, mowing them away. than the to sides are clear of damaging pikes and you will start winning on those fronts, eventually winning the whole interaction. It are things like that, that would make it really appealing, not just to a history fan, but to everyone I would think, as it would look cool as hell. much better than a +10. Ofcourse when they die, maybe an other member of the group can pick up their sword, or it just gets lost for the rest of the battle, but you would have gained an initial advantage.
In historical pike units there were men who fought with (two handed swords) and other close quarters weapons. The Germans called them doppelsoldner (double soldiers) because they were the most heavily armoured and best fighters in the unit, and thus were paid twice as much as a pikeman. They were used at the front of the unit, to try and break through the pike press when two opposing pike units engaged.
As a video game player, in almost 30 years I have never had the "WOW...WTF" experience that I had when I played Rome 1! I think that's what the franchise needs to rescue in all of us!
SIMPLE WINNING FORMULA ready? Victoria 1 (1837-1901). A global map that includes the Napoleonic Wars, Carlist Wars, The American Civil War and finally end with fall of the samurai 2. Then make a preclude expansion pack or another game that is EMPIRE III. Include the various colorizations in Africa and India, the American Revolutionary War, Indian Wars, Mexican War etc. This is not hard! You have muskets, artillery, cavalry, infantry, naval combat. Include a researched Order of battle system for the generals for immersion, include government trees, tech trees, naval combat. It just doesn't stop. It's a money tree. Get it done! Do the work, do the research, higher the consultants. Make the game that everyone wants!
I don't know how realistic this hope is, but one can dream. I would love it if we got a historical Total War set in east/southeast Asia durning the late 16th to early/mid 17th centuries. That would be a dream come true. 😊
The real problem here, is that you can't really please everyone. And if you try, like in 3k and Troy, CA can't really make both experiences well in the same game. Because they work differently. I personally prefer more complex campaign mechanics, but they will always be more casual in total war. The moment someone says something interesting that needs more than two brain cells to understand it's paradoxification of the game... I don't want eu4 with RTS battles. I want total war with nice population mechanics, meaningful and interesting buildings, a nice diplomacy system and supply lines. And to a high degree, three kingdoms has that. The population works a bit backwards, as Legend put it, compared to medieval 2, as in 3k pop boost the plain building income and in med2 the building boost the pop income, which is more realistic. Add in some population tiers and done, really. The economy and buildings are nice in 3k because it divides income into the 3 sectors, primary, secondary and tertiary, that's all I want economy wise. Diplomacy wise, 3k has the best one in any total war, hands down. It also has a supply system, it's rudimentary, but it works, and it's all that there needs to be. Having food to grow your cities is great too, similar to Shogun 2. Combat wise it also has potential, I like how instead of melee attack or melee defence, you have % to his, evade, block, etc. It also had formations. Make soldiers have 100hp and most weapons have 100 damage, so the one hit one kill works, but also gives you a chance to make different weapons unique. As armour would reduce the chance of impact, you could have weapons with higher hitting chances but less damage, for example, to counter heavy infantry. You could also make armour piercing be an armour reduction instead of fixed damage. Regarding what you said of promotions, I can see units having less levels, like 3, harder to get to, but gives you an upgrade to something in the unit, like better weapons, better armour, better training, or something like that. That way your same spearmen militia unit could eventually "evolve" into a mid tier unit, when their 3 upgrades are complete, for example, a bit like the warband system but more individualized. With this, I'm not saying 3k is perfect or anything, but it's a very good stepping stone into future historical games.
I'm going to agree with most of what the post says that TW games absolutely do better if they simulate being as close to real battles as we can get. I'll tie this in with the DEI comment, of which I agree more TW games need to be like DEI, by using Egypt as an example (for both the realistic battles + DEI points). After months playing a campaign as Egypt in DEI with authentic Greek units with appropriate levels of Egyptian flavour, looking at the vanilla Egypt roster is disgusting. It's halfway like CA still wanted to do the New Kingdom Egypt like in R1. And of course the class population stuff in DEI is great and we need more of that too (in a R1 fashion), not just one general population for everyone. For the comments, I will absolutely come out to bat for Jilopez and push back a little on what you said. While a vocal minority are very over-the-top annoying about demanding M3 and E2 next, the majority of the fanbase still wants them, not just that vocal minority (which I mean fair, I also want M3 and E2). However, Jilopez is absolutely right; games like Pharaoh-Dynasties and 3K are amazing TW games. 3K is the second most played historical title to this day, and Pharaoh had a bunch of stuff working against it that wasn't it's fault (and like one or two that were that have been fixed with Dynasties) that caused many people to decide they'll never play it. But putting all that aside and knowing that Pharaoh was unjustly done dirty and will never get a massive fanbase, the game is very polished. Obviously it's not perfect, but neither are 3K, S2, R1, or M2. Jilopez is 100% on the money when he says most historical fans want sequels to the same games every few years: Romans, Vikings, Knights, Samurai, European gunpowder, rinse and repeat every 10-15 years with each of them. They aren't strictly "historical fans", but fans of popular history-based settings in pop-culture like those I mentioned above. Most "down to the core" historical fans enjoy Dynasties if they bothered to try it despite all the initial outrage, because it's a polished, good game with a cool setting (and if you still don't that's perfectly fine). I guarantee you that if CA made the most technically polished game with the best battle and campaign gameplay so far out of any TW we've ever had, but the game is set in the pre-Colombian Americas, Sub-Saharah Africa, or Oceania, the majority of TW fans would hate it because it's not the pop-culture history they're so used to (and then you'd also get a minority of people openly spouting racist stuff (I've seen it plenty) about black Africans for example having "no history/ culture" or whatever). And honestly, I've seen enough people hate on the idea of India and Southeast Asia as well that even THOSE two (quite popular underdog) locations would get hate for not being Europe/ Japan from Romans to Victorian era. So again, from my experience on both the TW sub and Discord, most historical fans would enjoy a good game if they try it out, but most won't try it out unless it's a pop-culture history setting.
how cool would it be that from defeating enemy armies your troops begin to use some of their armour that they’ve looted off bodies! adding some form of stat boost or morale boost. adding not only a neat visual troop variety mechanic
As a historical player I care a lot about realism/authenticity. Screw "balance" if it makes the game less authentic. I want the simulation to produce plausible battle results. Balancing can be done by tweaking the victory conditions without hurting the realism. Restricting the time frame or zooming into a smaller battle of a larger conflict can make balanced scenarios also.
I am a die hard TW games fan since Shogun I. A TW historical game for me would compile all good aspects from all previous titles. This would require to review the most acclaimed mods and talk with the modding community since they have done a wonderful job supporting and improving the games. For example, I'm myself still playing Empire with one mod that was updated only a few months ago, and the original game is already 10+ years old. I think it would be essential to listen to modders and fans to create a really good historical game, leaving an open door to modding and and make easy to keep adding content and improving that new game. Then, it will be legendary. For my taste, a good scenario would include a much larger world, more trading opportunities, and more possible interactions between factions. I am thinking of a 1500-1700 era including the world from Japan to the Americas showing the full potential of one game that includes Shogunates, the Ming Dynasty, Indian kingdoms, the Ottoman Empire, crusaders, Mongol Khanates, Western Empires, North African Kingdoms, Mesoamerican civilizations y native American tribes, combined with world discovery, the fight to control the Silk Road, religion, and naval battles. In general, battles would be as much realistic as possible, editing new commands for orders and making artillery and fire arms much more devastating, expensive and determinant. In campaign mode, AI has been ridiculous. Difficulty is not just throwing enemies at you one after another, and your allies abandoning you, but presenting other realistic fun challenges such us progress, loyal factions really fighting for the cause (not just standing there doing nothing), more cooperation, and... more sense.
Added to reddit. my take... and my Christmas list to Santa :) Good discussion, imho my hours played indicate my preference, from Attila 1.5k to Troy at 160 (and it was free!). Historical being at the top end and fantasy middle to bottom. I'm a defender and like 'Siege that castle’ type of gameplay and would consider any type of total war from historic to future!. My wish list for total war… Good AI both campaign & battle, large maps with diverse landscapes and weather. Would like to see a return to viewing settlements without entering battles, like the first Rome if I remember. Some of the settlement details are awesome and after all the work put in they should show them off and this could help in strategy for example what do the defences of a settlement look like? This might dictate the garrison for example. As with 2) being able to determine the layout of the settlement as you see fit, design your own settlement layouts and type of garrison. This would be a third plane to the total war franchise, campaign, battle and the additional settlement design. More defence options that work! I’m not a fan of clicking buff buttons as often I forget during an intense battle, also for the same reason I rarely zoom in as I’m macro managing my forces, therefore some ideas for that…. A major additional battle ‘option’… turn based, plays for some time then pauses, very much like how Battlestar Galactica Deadlock works. Add the highlight movie with AI camera director at the end = awesome! More AI control ‘options’ for your unit cards, like skirmish mode currently works i.e. can leave my archers on skirmish and they will retreat when threatened then stop and fire, I feel I can almost leave them to do their job (within reason) however with other units they just seem dumb with lots of macro management. Therefore some options could include cavalry ‘flank and attack rear only’, ‘unit attack if under missile fire’ or ‘move out of missile fire attack’, ‘assault attack and if enemy unit defeated then attack the nearest enemy’ this would be like having an officer in control of those units and would make an ideal addition where you could expand these abilities with experience points. This works already for the enemy AI anyway, so should be easy to add! :> More historical (or fiction) notes on turns, love these details. More actual historic figures included but limited units like the Darthmod for empire. More historic music of the times (most is royalty free) again like the Darthmod for empire. No woke bull**it at all, stick to the facts when dealing with actual history and real biology within those historic games.................... thats all for now...
I think a cool new system that could work is all factions start with 3 units infantry, Calvary, and range. Then, you add weapons and armor to customize the unit to be more specialized and you can take them out for a turn or two so they can learn skills and formations. Different buildings and provinces will provide the updated and customized gear. Provinces can be used for horses and other animals plus different metals. Building for different armor, weapons, and shields. I think that would make a really good historical system
With a mod like Empire 2 I like the mechanics it adds and the changes it makes but I don't want tedium. It adds a plethora of new units which is really cool but when the stat differences are next to 0 or even exactly 0 it just get's annoying to filter through each unit just because I want all my redcoats to be wearing a red coat. It's nice that there is other stuff and new units but having them be no different when they could be the updated version or a late game unit like how older games changed appearances if you got better shields, swords or armour etc would be great, adding new units so every faction starts with 18 to choose from and 9 of them are the same 3 repeated 3 times over is too much.
The loyalty system for atilla worked very well. This should be expanded to cities as well as many cities will go over to a faction after a great battle especially on empire periphery
My opinion on Audio is that somewhere they don't do good job with software and audio mixing. I heard the sound in asset editors and they are high quality. But they are too quiet in game. And huge problem with Total war is that Effect volume also increases unit voice response (when you click on them), and that one is very loud at the so they will basically rip your ears off if you make it louder. Another things are sound in distance, like in Shogun 2 you could hear eco of cannons in distance etc.
I can give some insight into the image at the top of the post. As the author of an article on the 15th century battle of Grandson, I worked with Darren Tan who created that image. It can be found in Medieval Warfare magazine issue IV.4
For a future historical Total War, look at Grand Tactician Civil War - GTCW. How it handles recruitment, arming, armaments production, outfitting, supply, army makeup, morale, on and on. The only thing GTCW is missing compared to a TW is eye candy. In features and functions, it's generations ahead of TW.
The most important point seems to be missing from the OP however: prerequisite for a sucessfull new tw game is a new engine and a capable AI that is able to wield the tools given to it. Doesn't matter if the units have nice unique abilities, if the battles are clunky as heck. Same for the strategic layer: doesn't matter if it has a cool dynasty system, if the AI is just sitting around the map not knowing what is going on (think of empire vanilla). These technical issues must to be adressed and are more important imho than any single point the reddit OP has made
I'll be honest, I want Empire 2 or Medieval 3 because those are the time periods which, apart from Rome/Ancient world, are the most interesting to me but my first TW game was Rome 2 so I had a pretty 'new' and later updated to be quite good TW game set in Ancient Rome, Greece etc etc. Medieval 2 shows it's age but I would absolutely play it more if it were updated slightly, just change the graphics and some HUD mechanics (let me deselect units) and off we go for 200-300 hours. Same with Empire, really really like the setting and way the game plays out due to muskets and cannons. Don't like that it looks kinda funky and can't deselect units etc but I still played tons of it in spite of all that so it is a genuinely good and fun game.
I appreciate the various time period, even though I'm totally not interested in the bronze era, but for the love of God, we've been screaming what we want for a decade.
In terms of sheer variety and re-playability i would personally want a massively improved and expanded Empire 2 that could have different start dates and so many units, factions, a colossal map using the continents system from the first one including almost the entire known world at that time, visual upgrades for your units and the ability to spend money to equip them and increase their stats but the buildings needed for that would need other buildings that are advanced enough, Veterancy would increase stats but not as extremely as significant tech and equipment upgrades, Campaign wise melee troops would be viable because if you invaded a country with no gunpowder infrastructure and lost your musket troops you wouldn't be able to replenish them.
I think fun and challenging are important but immersion and realism are what make the game fun so I think they are just as important to me being a historical fan and a historical TW fan
Unit Interaction is the term to describe one of the things I've wanted more of from total war but didn't know how to articulate. It's one of the things I still don't really like about Total Warhammer, despite having really warmed up to it by the third entry. I've seen ppl really talk bad about unit animations and I get it can be a clunky messy way to add life to the gameplay but I always liked it from the historical titles as it added some life to the battles.
Having gained some experience from working on software projects for some time now, I can understand the reasoning of CA's indifference towards what we, Historical Players want. What's the point of working on an elaborate supply system for a campaign, overcomplicate the production cycle and spend so much more resources when this won't make a bit of a difference in sales? It's an unfortunate reality of quality-quantity.
i agree with you on that but i cant get the reason why they dont make their games open to moders who are going to make overcomplicated games based on the original for the hardcore history fans or a more funny and easy experience for the gamers who want just battles
In my opinion, Total War Empire II would be the best solution to save the series, as in that game you can display more than one time period by entering it through developing combat units passing through time within the game. Imagine starting with swords and spears, then moving to gunpowder, and with many options in diplomatic relations and adding naval battles. I think it is better to use a new engine for battles so that many strategies can be added within the battle with new graphic forms.
I would be interested in a Victorian era game. You could have the Zulu war, boar war, Crimean war and the Indian mutiny. Different wars where some were gun vs gun and gun vs tribesmen.
Love to see research & development tree and original population mechanics be incorporated again. Battle realism too. Not this arcade style feel it gives after winning or losing a battle like pharoah does
more hot air that will just blow over and it will all be at square 0 (i said zero because it never moved from 0) , this is the gazzilionth video on the topic
Resource system added a lot of depth to campaign, at least in the early/mid game, guiding expansion and diplomacy dynamically and in some cases forcing you to take on tougher opponents to secure what you lack. Felt much more engaged in campaign layer than in 3K initially. But after while you have everything in surplus and things get boring - and the collapse system was far too toothless to really prevent you from snowballing. What I worry about after Dynasties is that the genuinely good ideas and improvements in that update will not be carried on because Pharaoh was a failure. It would be good to identify what worked and what didn’t so that CA don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I would like a more customizable type of campaign that you could change the difficulty from normal to hard and that could mean not only that ai has more units and the diplomacy is just not an option but that everything you do as a player should be planned. From the units you are gathering to the place you are camping to the diplomatic moves and deals you accomplish. For example if an enemy faction is getting hammered by you or your allies they should be willing to neggotiate, be your vassal, pay you, marry one of their children to you, give you some land or slaves that could be used as population to raise an army...or in case you are the one in a bad possition you should be pressed by your political enemies and your people by low public order and other penalties to agree on their terms and pay a fee or give some land to them. If CA doesnt want to do all that searching and to go on that level of accuracy at least they should allow moders to completely change the game as they want, because that could create replayability and that means more sales, more players and more good ratings.
Here's an idea - how about creating a historical title where you can manually choose the mechanics available to your game? E/g turns per year, seasons on/off, being able to move single units without a general around the map or not, etc. It really can't be that difficult to implement something like this with today's technology at hand.
Pharaoh sctually has almost everything you’ve described. You still need a general to move armies around but there are actual incentives to have small armies, like reduced upkeep for example.
I feel like ranged units overall need a bit better AI for pike and shot to work as people want to. As noted in earlier games as well as more recently warhammer, ranged units (especially gunners) tend to be "stubborn & stupid" if there is uneven terrain, objects, friendly units or just a few troops not in formation your ranged units wont shoot or they will walk into enemy lines before they realise that they can in facts use their gun. Sure they work better than some older titles but I feel like they need to become alot better for the audience.
Armies weren't led by 1 general historically. There were captains, colonels, brig generals, major generals etc. Adding an Order of Battle mechanic would take immersion to the next level! I like to have multiple generals. One "in danger with the men" and one higher (held back and more strategic) for instance. At the same time, we should have the ability to have armies led by lesser officers without including a general.
I'll admit that I'll pretty much be happy with any kind of Medieval 3. But what would I like to see improved? Improved AI that feels more organic and less "gamey". It'd be nice if it didn't feel like the AI was trying to "beat" me as much as it felt like the AI was trying to simulate running a nation, with its own unique goals and personality. I'd also like CA to concentrate on making the game feel epic. Fights should be a spectacle where the player is encouraged to zoom in and is rewarded with cool animations that make it look like the troops are actually fighting and not just randomly swinging their weapons here and there in between mostly just staring at each other. Troops should be pushing and shoving each other around. It should look like a dirty, grimy struggle for life and death. Maybe have a grand campaign where the goal is less about taking over half the world and more about establishing a strong, stable empire (as opposed to the psychopathic death machine permanent war empire that the current total war games force you to make).
The most enjoyable experience, I've had playing total war recently has come from NTW3, for me I think it comes from how every decision has consequences, and that even though its difficult it never feels unfair. I think mainly modern total war has just been very arcadey, I would much prefer a more slow methodical realistic total war.
One thing that's always bothered me about the combat in TW games is that units stay tight in formation. There's no chaos in the fighting, with units separating during the fight. Sure, some very disciplined factions like Rome would stay in formation, but most would not once the fighting starts
As long as the game is historical it doesnt really matter if its medieval 3 or Empire 2. With that being said, a pike and shot era would be interesting.
I STRONGLY agree with the redditor who said people only want Empire 2 or Medieval 2 and not an actual good historical title. And I am also a Pharaoh Dynasties player, I have played almost all total war titles and I believe it is one of the best ones.
Like I said, just because most people didn’t pick up what you believe to be a good game, doesn’t automatically mean people don’t know what a good game is and therefore only want Med 2 or Empire 3. What you’re seeing is just the most vocal group of players. People ultimately disagreed with Pharaoh, which at launch was a mostly agreed bad game and therefore wrote off the update. That’s not on them, its on CA.
empire 2 is my dream total war set in 1800 1890 even if i am worried i love to see stuff like terrain having an effect on battles so we can place heavy guns on hills and rain shells over enemy troops supply lines is a much have so we can blockade an enemy nation with the navy and again prober city battles insted of them beeing field battles and the option of build other defences and weather having effect on a battle and diseases naval battles need an update so is not just the same open sea battle wich would get so boring love to see hybrid battles like the ultimate games would be so cool to land troops on coast and capture a fort and then you had to hold it and wait for reinforcement before you can capture the main target wich could be a importen supply hub
You know the whole province system and mechanics that we have had since Rome 2 are absolutely fantastic for warhammer, but not great for historical titles. I think that sentence resonates so much. Historical fans and fantasy fans want different things from their games.
Disagree. I think that the original devs were originally going for as much realism as possible with current pc power. They covered what they could not simulate with abstraction. In later games the new devs seem to focus on gameplay abstraction because they seem to think total war is a game of magic the gathering or something. Total war has become a cheap parlor game. Battle Simulator that should have improved with pc processing power instead got hijacked and turned into a sitcom tv series of who is dating who and who earns more stats. This I think is why the battle graphics are horrible and battles never advanced to scourge of war waterloo remastered levels and sieges never got interior fights. Basically the game became a game for the masses who can say they are playing total war like it still means something. Total War is no longer an attempt to study battles with context. We have not advanced to logistics physically or pre battle manoevers, instead we still do the same thing for battles we did in rome or medieval 1 but worse. Pike and Shot or Victorian era would be good but would probably require a new engine and some work to make the tercio and other tactics viable. Plus they would be scared by other traits of the periods they would depict. Another reason to stick more closely to the physical battle mechanics. I gave up on total war being a real time tabletop simulator a long time ago and am resigned to it being s light game where you need trucks of salt to suspend your disbelief even if you only know a little of historical battles. Total War never left the 2000s and imho the older games are actually better mechanically. P.s. I considered getting paroah total war because of the update. But when I noticed they put cavalry in as a default without any option to go full historical I realised this was just a bunch of compromises and ahistorical stats power ups instead of a properly developed battle system for ancient wardare.
As Volound has already said elsewhere, I think they would benefit from going back to look at the original medieval as there were aspects of the battle gameplay that were superb. Alright, visually it's very dated but that's not the point. Warhammer TW relies too heavily on stat buffing, the developers even explicitly talk about this in a recent video. The OP makes some excellent points wrt to supply, this is something that has not been done before, as far as I know.
Personally, i think CA is scared to make a new Medieval. The communtiy wants medieval, but its pretty divided on what they want to see in the new medieval. For example, i think it would be awesome to bring a toned down version of heroes from Warhammer. This would replicate the great warriors from medieval history and also the lengths that European lords would go to to recruit the best knights. Id say tone down their comat stats, but give them a leadership aura, replicating the morale effect theyd have. Id also love to see titles come back from the original medieval. Thatd be very authentic un you could raise/hire a knight and then ensure his loyalty and boost his states by giving him titles (not combat stats necessarily, but rulership stats). But i dont think CA will do it because i think they are scared to fail.
About sound, spaciel thanks to PUA team that made amazing job on their mod, especially the fact that u can change sound and smoke settings as u want, for attila, i will prefer brighter graphics, even if an excellent mod made for mk1212 ad graphics work perfzctly well with vanilla ou other mod for attila 😁
I think one of the problems is that they have no major competition, so there is no need to listen to the fanbase. Kinda like simcity died to cities skylines (but they had other problems than dont listen to their fanbase) Another example is civ. After civ 6 other games like humankind or old world were published and civ now tries to compete again. I hope yall get what i mean. So i think we really have to look forwars for some competition pr even a better series from another developer who listens to what the fans want. I know many player want medieval 3, some want shogun 3 and i want rome 3 the most. But not without heart. I want to enjoy a game in long term again. Atm i rather play old ttw like rome 2, shogun 2, medieval 2 or atilla, but im craving for a GOOD new Historical Total war Game. Pharaoh Dynasties is okay, but didnt catched me to long. I have a perfect game in mind (atleast what i considere the perfect game) but to create it i neither have knowledge, nor Cash to finance it Haha
Some things I would like: Cities that adjust according to the buildings you make, and if they're damaged in the battle they're damaged in the campaign. Allow ALL settlements to be fortified and developed, rather than the silly "region" mechanic. Work on increasing army sizes. We've been stuck on 16*200 max for army composition for 25 years. We need to see 20,000 strong armies. Reduce the internal faction mechanics, - they just don't matter, - but instead inter-faction mechanics, like a similar culture should mean huge buffs to alliances, and different religion should make alliance almost impossible. Overall, a new engine. They've had 15 years of milking this reskin. It's time for a global games developer to Actually Make A New Game...
1. Diplomatic system like 3k 2. Longer battle allows maneuver warfare. Unlike S2, of which unit break the moment they contact, ancient battle can last many day, not second 3. Unpopular opinion: R2 DEI is the best battle system. Please don't hit me WH fan, i like 3k too 😂
For many years now, the historical community has felt pretty let down by CA. It seems to me that many in the community never bothered with Pharaoh, because they either didn't like the setting, didn't like the different style of gameplay, or just didn't touch it at all because of all the negativity around the title, right from the start. Pharaoh was also released a bit undercooked, but the free update fixed all of those issue. Thrones suffered much the same issues as Pharaoh, and like Pharaoh, actually became a good little game with a bit of time and updates. CA appears to know what the historical community wants if the dynasty update for Pharaoh is anything to go by and I am confident that the next historical title will be a success. I very much agree with you that a game set in the age of pike and shot, would be a great choice. Hopefully we'll hear some news on the next historical game soon.
Complete disagree on Delayed orders being bad. They worked 100% fine in Rome 1 and Med 2. They weren't even "delayed", its just they reacted to the order by rank. The one closest to the officer moves first, then the 2nd, 3rd, etc.
Im just a casual Total War player so why the games feel differently is completely beyond me. What Im fed up with is just this superhero-movie-look all the armor has. why does it look like spraypainted plastics?? I want my old rusty and beat up armor suits again
Nah, I think a population mechanic would be great. The only thing wrong with DEI is that the population is too few and the unit limit hampers the player agency in the name of "balance".
16:00 I don't know what was the last time you playyed Pharao, but what you just said applies actually to the gameplay of pharao, maybe it's time to give it another chance and try out for yourself
The gameplay that ppl are looking for is unit interactions and to simulate the order of battle in a fun way As opposed to unit variety and stat buffs debuffs which has been the focus in newer TW titles
I've never played Pharaoh nor Troy, but from what I saw here on youtube, it seems to me that they have good ideas and mechanics for what concerns the campaign map turn, but awful awful awful battle gameplay
I feel like for a TW game to feel historic or real it needs to pass the 300 test. A small veteran unit that's heavily armored should be able to hold a bottleneck against a larger horde. And it should all be based on common sense and proper tactics and positioning, not some arbitrary stat boosts.
Aside from Empire 2 & Medieval 3 so aside from setting, what are YOU looking for from the next Historical Total War? What sort of mechanics do you want to see, what type of visual style, what kind of improvements on the battle side of things, how do you want the AI to improve, etc. What is a Good Historical Total War is to you?
We need wayyyyy more regions on the map. Attila AoC and the last roman showed it's possible!
What's in my mind is the Pike and Shot era and remake Thrones of Britannia (Viking age).
Nevertheless, the main focus should be on Empire 2 and Medieval 3 games as perfect sequels that appeal to the core historical players. There should be no compromises between historical and fantasy players.
bring back the population mechanic. make wars devistating to sustain. we need more connection between the overworld and the battles.
more strategy. no more heros.
A feature set which allows us to play around with how centralised or decentralised our kingdom should be. In other words, I would like to be able to either go deeper into feudalism and rely more on local nobility, or concentrate power into the hand of the king, or even set up a federal electoral empire like the HRE. Social classes should be better presented and should have an actual impact on the gameplay.
I am right there with you on the Pike & Shot; phenomenal time period -- the start of the entire state system with the Treaty of Westphalia. I'd be all over that one!
CA literally knows what we all want but they seem to be blind and deaf for some reason...
bien dit Sylvain . they don't care
Can’t give the goy anything good
They have been doing for since ROME1. CA is just CA
Because they know that for medieval 3 or empire 2 another Warhammer reskin wont be enough
They aren't blind or deaf, Warhammer is just too profitable wether we like it or not.
The more veteran a unit is, the slower it should replenish. It would be sick to have like, 3 stages of visual veterancy so you could tell by looking that this unit, although not fully manned, is full of badasses.
You should be given a choice on how fast a unit replenishes. For example, if an elite unit gets replenished fast, it loses alot of its veterancy, but if it's replenished more slowly with better trained recruits, it only loses some veterancy (it can never keep elite status fully unless merged with another depleted elite unit or it refuses replenishment). I also believe replenishment should actually cost something, like a percentage of the unit's original price based on how it's replenished.
i like that. that would force you to keep largely militia units with a core of veterans like real life
I preferred the retrain mechanic from previous games to the auto replenishment
This wouldn't work well, ranged units are already dominant and they are far easier to keep alive. It would result in blocks of elite range units defended by cheap infantry.
In old TW games, also in new ones if you merge units, they loose experience
OP and longtime subscriber here. I wrote up the post in a few minutes and after I had posted it, I knew there were a few things I regretted and could've elaborated upon much better such as "wanting battles as real as possible". I didn't take enough time to fully define my thoughts, but the overall goal was to get people discussing so I'm really glad to see this video amplifying the conversation.
Hell yeah buddy! Even if you only wrote it up in a few minutes it was well put and it (as you can see) has sparked some great conversation. Well done for doing so ❤️
@@TheTerminatorGaming Thanks brother. Keep up the good work! You're invaluable for historical TW fans.
Total War Veteran here, I want a new game engine and a beeter AI before they do anything else. Not much changed since Attila, the same cheese still works.
I´ve been asking for a Pike and Shot era for 10 years. The period should be 1500-1700. It can sel TONS of DLCS. Americas, India, Africa, Pacific, Asia... It has tremendous dynamic gameplay potential. We see the progression of firearms improving, and we NEED a good Siege mechanics.
That would be awesome and definitely profitable for CA
It should really start in 1300 then bild up to 1700
@@MultiApanssonbut if it starts in 1300, it would no longer be the pike and shot era then.
we literally just need medieval 3 bro. different eras can be added on via dlc
are you asking for DLC? wtf man, games not even in development and your already offering to buy it incomplete..... Isn't "new DLC for things that should have already been in the game" one of the biggest complaints of the last 4 TW titles? and all of the warhammer titles?
this man must really love pike and shot era
Only modders know the Historical Authenticity despite of being an independent self reliance.
Meanwhile CA has professional employee back up by huge amount of money, but still didn't know historical Authenticity.
@The Terminator: Modding,Modding and Modding. Next historical TW must be Modding open and friendly.
they don't care about, it are big city dwelling netflix watching starbucks sitting deracinated and degenerated urban hipsters. their knowledge of history goes back a century and their interest in history goes back to last week at the sportsball event. we need game development studios staffed entirely by autistic people instead of these normies. another sign that dei just does not work. they are watering down their output because they want to hire people who don't care about the original premise of the franchise
For me historical total war is much more than just a game and most of the time good “time consumation”. It layed a foundation for me, of historic interest in more history than that is just portrayed in the game. It incentived me to learn about history, understand cultures also on conflicts in the past. It just was like; let’s check the abbasid chaliphate, what has that people or specifc region gone through in a certain time, and from that you get into tinny rabbit holes. I like how this goes for me and therefore i hope we will get new decent content
same. imo a good game is education. you are able to learn something from it.
Europa Barbarorum did that for me :)
When i'm in a "not delivering a game that people want to buy in order to not make a lot of money and tank my company to the ground within the next upcoming years because i'm lazy and that would require doing more than reskins of units." competition but my opponent is *Creative Assembly*.
Don’t love the idea of supply line simulator. My biggest gripe with pharaoh was egypt being 20 factions, not an empire facing collapse. Battles are too frequent, every city has weak but numerous garrisons that make conquest a slog. Healing a whole army in 1-2 turns after their 30th battle is quite unimmersive. The gameplay loop is just bad.
Supply lines can work, if they did them better. But I also agree. If we look at a game like Crusader Kings, you can be a small player inside a larger Empire and watch the AI in control lose control - or you work your way up to take control yourself, maybe even fighting rivals within the Empire you chose to play. The gameplay loop works there. Its core to CK as a franchise. And yes, battles are way too frequent. Fighting the most epic battle in a nation's history...every season...just makes the campaign modes a joke. We get to keep refighting the same battle over and over again just to stretch out the campaign length. Let me charge cycle my cav into their flanks for the 20th battle in a row...
To expand on the 'fantasy fans and historical fans don't want the same experience' I think it is deeper.
In my opinion: Lord of the Rings TW fans and Warhammer don't want the same experience also, in the same way Medieval 3 fans and Empire 2 fans also would want difference purposes.
LOTR fans would likely want more realism than the Warhammer fans, for example.
I want Medieval 3 to be a very serious title (like Medieval 2), but I also want Rome 3 to be a bit goofier (like Rome 1).
Totalus Warus
theres a mod coming out for lotr i doubt no im 100% sure ca will never realease a lotr total war oitherwise itll be way similar to warhammer games single entities itll be stupid x
There is no such thing as a "historical player". 99% of the TW audience played Warhammer. The most popular TW mod has always been third age. People have been asking for a fantasy title for ages.
What is the case is that a *lot* of new players played Warhammer drawn to it due to the setting. And yes many of those players are not nearly as likely to play a new historical title. That does not mean the community is split into historical and fantasy player bases.
@@XMysticHerox I don't disagree but there's definitely the newer total war fans that prefer Warhammer to us ogs who like the originals
@@XMysticHerox I partly agree. I think the split is more realism vs non-realism based, and many confuse the idea of a historical game with meaning realism.
Although the comment that 99% played warhammer is clearly false, visible by the public steam stats.
I think Third Age is also popular because it maintains that realism in combat from the older titles and adds onto it.
I just want an Empire 2 with better graphics or a Medieval 3 that I can deselect my units and observe the battle and just have the great features of Rome 2 HUD and Warhammer graphics to be in the setting of a working game like Empire, Shogun or Medieval etc. For a different time period I would love the Thrones of Britannia game to be expanded and explore better ways of integrating Vikings and raider style 'skirmisher' infantry who ambush, fight 3v1 and raid villages for gold crosses. The same would be great in every other time period but really I just want the same games with newer graphics and features. Don't fix what isn't broken, just polish it a little.
I still think the safest bet right now is to make Medieval 2 Remastered!
Med 2 remastered with improved diplomacy and PLEASE don't screw up the ui like rome remastered I will be content
Look how well they did with the Remaster of Rome Total War. This would fail just like Rome as they wouldn’t do anything with the game other then a Graphical upgrade.
@@segmenteddig6822 well, a graphical update is exactly the proposal of a remastered version.
@@segmenteddig6822 Graphical update, control update and lifted modding restrictions. That would be enough.
@ People aren’t gonna build major mods for a remaster and not all the major mods of Medieval 2 are gonna port over if even possible. Everything they did in the remaster of Rome wasn’t even remotely enough to be successful, they need a co-op campaign not the shit hot seat campaigns we had in Medieval 2 and improved AI otherwise the game will fail just like Rome.
I want an Empire 2, Medieval 3, A official Third Age Total War, and most of all a Victoria/Imperial Total War which could have a bigger map to Empire as it would be able them to go over things like the scramble for africa, american civil war, opium wars, the sepoy mutiny, franco prussian war, etc. The game could start in 1835 with the texas revolution and end with the 2nd boer war so we get the whole rain of victoria and little more. also unit delay in battles work as the game Grand Tactician show with possible the display of linear warfare.
From my observation, definitions of good total war game actually differ from gamer to gamer, reddit poster to reddit poster. The historical vs fantasy is oversimplification and makes a crude line across very diverse landscape of opinions.
I'm amazed at posts where people complain "CA does not listen to players". Listening to Total War players is like listening to the whole kindergarten talking at once. Everybody has something to say, and everybody acts like his opinion is the most important one :)
Campaign complexity scale - everybody has their own personal sweet spot, where we find the campaign just challenging enough without being tedious, but also speedy enough without being too simple. I would love if players could choose (i.e. as in Shogun 2 you could choose short/long/domination campaign, I myself really liked the short campaigns, because it lets gamer to get the most out of replayability without spending the life with a single total war title :) ) Personally I find Pharaoh Dynasties campaigns too complicated and going too much towards Paradox / Civilization, but other players really enjoy it.
Campaign scope scale - Some people like huge world/continent maps, where they can just go crazy and "paint the map", conquer everything. Other people (myself included) prefer more "localized" experience, i.e. Wrath of Sparta because it usually allows for a bit shorter campaigns, with interesting events. Or Age of Charlemagne.
Battle complexity scale - similarly, people enjoy different speeds of battle, I myself like slower battles because cannot keep up when units are dying to quickly, for example to archers/infantry in Shogun 2, but other people like it speedier, otherwise they find it boring.
Battle difficulty - Again many opinions. I guess people universally hate AI "cheat" in the form of flat stat booster. But especially use of cavalry can be pretty dangerous. AI when programmed right, can micromanage to much greater extent than human. So imagine 6 cavalry units harassing the army line being micromanaged simultaneously. I myself (casual player) am partly relieved that AI just tries to beeline for archer units at times.
Historical authenticity - even many "historical" players do not realize, that all those units they love, may have not been present at the battlefields at the same time and most of the times not in the numbers we are allowed to recruit. Campaigns in total war start at a specific date. Would you really want only the units that were historical present at that date? What if your campaign runs too long? I myself love all the historical eye candy i can get. i very much enjoy the experience from Hellenika, where you have limited numbers of Spartans, and you simply cannot replenish them outside of Sparta. And population limit, because there simply was not enough people to fill all the armies i would like to have. But would I like the same when playing as Rome? Maybe not.
Historical attractiveness - Medieval fans are the most vocal :D I myself prefer classical / Hellenistic Greek periods, and have to do with mods for Total War Rome 2. There is no Total War : Hellenic, I cannot play Pyrrhus campaign in Italy, I cannot play as Phillip 2nd and unite Greece. I cannot play Peloponnesian War with Athenian's disastrous Sicillian expedition which lost them the war. I cannot defend ancient Greek world against Persians. And last Alexander campaign is from 2006. So be grateful you got Medieval 1 and 2 :D
I doubt anybody read all the way here. :D If you did, good job!
Well said :)
Thanks for letting those crybabies know that they don't represent the community
generaly speaking i have found the people who talk about the ˝core fanbase˝ to be rather obnoxious fellows that act as if they own the game , and dont get me started on volound and his little posse of imbeciles
One thing I would love to see in a total war game is a population system like in imperator rome from paradox, Its a lot more complex, for sure, but the viability to manage and worry about your total workforce to be able to have and army at all, makes another interesting approach in a strategy focused on grinding out some other nation's population, and avoiding it being done to you, so no one can simply spam troops out of thin air. It makes a more believable scenario and makes the game way more immersive imo. The thing that sucks the most about total war is that with their increased popularity over the years, they are trying to simplify a lot of things so their games can be more viable to the average joe, but in that they are destroying what made them them at the first place, a nice STRATEGY game above everything. Anyone who likes their type of games and stick to it through thick and thin are the ones who appreciate complexity, because that's what a strategy game usually means and how they differentiate themselves from the other genres. Even though they could achieve what they are trying to do, as in making a more accessible game for more players, it will probably suck gameplay-wise because its gonna be a bland rendition of a brand that one day was way more than that. And as more and more people get to know the company's history, they are going to see that as the years pass, it feels like every time their games are more and more lazily developed for being simpler and simpler, even with all the bells and whistles with graphical improvements and flashier unit models like they so eagerly like to focus above all else these past few years.
DEI for Rome Total War 2 has population, it honestly is a good change. I haven't played vanilla in a while but I've been playing RTW1 Remastered with Imperium Surrectum and that's a bunch of fun once you get over the absolute shite UI.
As long as modders continue to reshape the product into a fun and enjoyable game, I will be content. Everyone has their own tastes and modders give us the chance to experience more what is preferred to each player. I love long, hard fought battles that last for hours in which fatigue, morale, leadership play a key roles in the battle. Thank god for modders as they allow such realism to be created. I curse updates which break the mods and the vanilla defaults of most CA games. Modders, I salute you.
What medieval mod would you advice for me?
@@gsdasda Stainless Steel for Medieval 2 Sir, if you like even the historical improvement submod is damn good. For Attilla: medieval kingdoms 1212 AD (still WIP but damn good)
you can't mod warhammer into medieval 3. stop trying to make excuses for developers by assuming that modders can or would be able to fix everything.
@@gsdasda Listitan said it for me, 1212 and Stainless are both great. I often will search through available mods for simply slower combat if it is available for the played version.
CA needs to connect with some of these Modders. Im a huge Rome era fan. If they did a remastered Rome 2 where they updated the graphics to now a day type graphics that sysyems can handle, added with amazing sounds and diplomacy that would be amazing. Then work from there and figure out new games to drop. Use these older games as starting points of making WAY better games, then use what they learned and make new ones.
stop relying on modders. ca needs to just hire better people and make better games
CA should just look back at what actually worked in the past, what made great those games that people still love today; take the best from every old game of the series to form the basis of what the next historical title should be.
Medieval 2, Shogun 2, fall of the samurai, Rome 2, they all had different but great battle systems, that favour strategy and morale over stats, and unit interaction with eachother and the map terrain was crucial.
Regarding the campaign map phase, titles like Rome 1, Three Kingdoms, Medieval 2, they all brought interesting mechanics to the series. We need a system where population growth matters, where economy is a little bit more complex than just making a trade deal with other factions and building the same structure in every region; a system with varied diplomacy options, all with different advatages and disadvantages.
Of course Total War shouldn't try to be as complex as Paradox games. But a good tw title should have challenging, cinematic, strategic battles and an interesting, varied and intriguing map phase.
I would be okay with any setting. I would absolutely LOVE the scale to increase to replicate more of a real historical battle. 10-25K battles. The technology is there.
For real. If I can run 7 ai armies in a battle of 20k troops then why can’t I just control a full army of 10k troops?
The historical player was abandoned after Romance of the 3K (which was excellent). They could simple reskin and continue to improve that model. For the life of me don't know why you wouldn't just take that easy win. The programmer who developed the CaoCao algorithm should be retained as it's incredible. The main problem is that the non-historical titles are just arcade games where everything blobs together meaninglessly and whoever has the cheesiest unit wins.
The point you made with different weapons in a unit making them better sounds awesome.
What comes to mind is a unit of pikes, just fighting against each other and matched. then you develop the technology to add great sword fighters to your unit, two will be added and in their first clash they will run out to a free side, and just jump on the enemies pikes, mowing them away. than the to sides are clear of damaging pikes and you will start winning on those fronts, eventually winning the whole interaction. It are things like that, that would make it really appealing, not just to a history fan, but to everyone I would think, as it would look cool as hell. much better than a +10. Ofcourse when they die, maybe an other member of the group can pick up their sword, or it just gets lost for the rest of the battle, but you would have gained an initial advantage.
In historical pike units there were men who fought with (two handed swords) and other close quarters weapons. The Germans called them doppelsoldner (double soldiers) because they were the most heavily armoured and best fighters in the unit, and thus were paid twice as much as a pikeman. They were used at the front of the unit, to try and break through the pike press when two opposing pike units engaged.
As a video game player, in almost 30 years I have never had the "WOW...WTF" experience that I had when I played Rome 1! I think that's what the franchise needs to rescue in all of us!
SIMPLE WINNING FORMULA ready? Victoria 1 (1837-1901). A global map that includes the Napoleonic Wars, Carlist Wars, The American Civil War and finally end with fall of the samurai 2.
Then make a preclude expansion pack or another game that is EMPIRE III. Include the various colorizations in Africa and India, the American Revolutionary War, Indian Wars, Mexican War etc. This is not hard! You have muskets, artillery, cavalry, infantry, naval combat. Include a researched Order of battle system for the generals for immersion, include government trees, tech trees, naval combat. It just doesn't stop. It's a money tree. Get it done! Do the work, do the research, higher the consultants. Make the game that everyone wants!
I don't know how realistic this hope is, but one can dream. I would love it if we got a historical Total War set in east/southeast Asia durning the late 16th to early/mid 17th centuries. That would be a dream come true. 😊
It would satisfy the pike and shotte as well as the colonial era for the European factions while bringing in a new region to focus on.
east and southeast of what?
@@valhall89 I believe he meant the Far East and SE Asia.
"In Rise of Nations Extended Edition i managed to beat Alexander the Great campaign got achievement for it."
The real problem here, is that you can't really please everyone. And if you try, like in 3k and Troy, CA can't really make both experiences well in the same game. Because they work differently. I personally prefer more complex campaign mechanics, but they will always be more casual in total war. The moment someone says something interesting that needs more than two brain cells to understand it's paradoxification of the game... I don't want eu4 with RTS battles. I want total war with nice population mechanics, meaningful and interesting buildings, a nice diplomacy system and supply lines. And to a high degree, three kingdoms has that. The population works a bit backwards, as Legend put it, compared to medieval 2, as in 3k pop boost the plain building income and in med2 the building boost the pop income, which is more realistic. Add in some population tiers and done, really. The economy and buildings are nice in 3k because it divides income into the 3 sectors, primary, secondary and tertiary, that's all I want economy wise. Diplomacy wise, 3k has the best one in any total war, hands down. It also has a supply system, it's rudimentary, but it works, and it's all that there needs to be. Having food to grow your cities is great too, similar to Shogun 2. Combat wise it also has potential, I like how instead of melee attack or melee defence, you have % to his, evade, block, etc. It also had formations. Make soldiers have 100hp and most weapons have 100 damage, so the one hit one kill works, but also gives you a chance to make different weapons unique. As armour would reduce the chance of impact, you could have weapons with higher hitting chances but less damage, for example, to counter heavy infantry. You could also make armour piercing be an armour reduction instead of fixed damage. Regarding what you said of promotions, I can see units having less levels, like 3, harder to get to, but gives you an upgrade to something in the unit, like better weapons, better armour, better training, or something like that. That way your same spearmen militia unit could eventually "evolve" into a mid tier unit, when their 3 upgrades are complete, for example, a bit like the warband system but more individualized.
With this, I'm not saying 3k is perfect or anything, but it's a very good stepping stone into future historical games.
I'm going to agree with most of what the post says that TW games absolutely do better if they simulate being as close to real battles as we can get. I'll tie this in with the DEI comment, of which I agree more TW games need to be like DEI, by using Egypt as an example (for both the realistic battles + DEI points). After months playing a campaign as Egypt in DEI with authentic Greek units with appropriate levels of Egyptian flavour, looking at the vanilla Egypt roster is disgusting. It's halfway like CA still wanted to do the New Kingdom Egypt like in R1. And of course the class population stuff in DEI is great and we need more of that too (in a R1 fashion), not just one general population for everyone.
For the comments, I will absolutely come out to bat for Jilopez and push back a little on what you said. While a vocal minority are very over-the-top annoying about demanding M3 and E2 next, the majority of the fanbase still wants them, not just that vocal minority (which I mean fair, I also want M3 and E2). However, Jilopez is absolutely right; games like Pharaoh-Dynasties and 3K are amazing TW games. 3K is the second most played historical title to this day, and Pharaoh had a bunch of stuff working against it that wasn't it's fault (and like one or two that were that have been fixed with Dynasties) that caused many people to decide they'll never play it. But putting all that aside and knowing that Pharaoh was unjustly done dirty and will never get a massive fanbase, the game is very polished. Obviously it's not perfect, but neither are 3K, S2, R1, or M2.
Jilopez is 100% on the money when he says most historical fans want sequels to the same games every few years: Romans, Vikings, Knights, Samurai, European gunpowder, rinse and repeat every 10-15 years with each of them. They aren't strictly "historical fans", but fans of popular history-based settings in pop-culture like those I mentioned above. Most "down to the core" historical fans enjoy Dynasties if they bothered to try it despite all the initial outrage, because it's a polished, good game with a cool setting (and if you still don't that's perfectly fine). I guarantee you that if CA made the most technically polished game with the best battle and campaign gameplay so far out of any TW we've ever had, but the game is set in the pre-Colombian Americas, Sub-Saharah Africa, or Oceania, the majority of TW fans would hate it because it's not the pop-culture history they're so used to (and then you'd also get a minority of people openly spouting racist stuff (I've seen it plenty) about black Africans for example having "no history/ culture" or whatever). And honestly, I've seen enough people hate on the idea of India and Southeast Asia as well that even THOSE two (quite popular underdog) locations would get hate for not being Europe/ Japan from Romans to Victorian era. So again, from my experience on both the TW sub and Discord, most historical fans would enjoy a good game if they try it out, but most won't try it out unless it's a pop-culture history setting.
how cool would it be that from defeating enemy armies your troops begin to use some of their armour that they’ve looted off bodies! adding some form of stat boost or morale boost. adding not only a neat visual troop variety mechanic
As a historical player I care a lot about realism/authenticity. Screw "balance" if it makes the game less authentic. I want the simulation to produce plausible battle results. Balancing can be done by tweaking the victory conditions without hurting the realism. Restricting the time frame or zooming into a smaller battle of a larger conflict can make balanced scenarios also.
I love non European centric games like Pharoah and 3k. Most historical fan base are European centric
I am a die hard TW games fan since Shogun I.
A TW historical game for me would compile all good aspects from all previous titles. This would require to review the most acclaimed mods and talk with the modding community since they have done a wonderful job supporting and improving the games. For example, I'm myself still playing Empire with one mod that was updated only a few months ago, and the original game is already 10+ years old. I think it would be essential to listen to modders and fans to create a really good historical game, leaving an open door to modding and and make easy to keep adding content and improving that new game. Then, it will be legendary.
For my taste, a good scenario would include a much larger world, more trading opportunities, and more possible interactions between factions. I am thinking of a 1500-1700 era including the world from Japan to the Americas showing the full potential of one game that includes Shogunates, the Ming Dynasty, Indian kingdoms, the Ottoman Empire, crusaders, Mongol Khanates, Western Empires, North African Kingdoms, Mesoamerican civilizations y native American tribes, combined with world discovery, the fight to control the Silk Road, religion, and naval battles. In general, battles would be as much realistic as possible, editing new commands for orders and making artillery and fire arms much more devastating, expensive and determinant.
In campaign mode, AI has been ridiculous. Difficulty is not just throwing enemies at you one after another, and your allies abandoning you, but presenting other realistic fun challenges such us progress, loyal factions really fighting for the cause (not just standing there doing nothing), more cooperation, and... more sense.
Added to reddit. my take... and my Christmas list to Santa :)
Good discussion, imho my hours played indicate my preference, from Attila 1.5k to Troy at 160 (and it was free!). Historical being at the top end and fantasy middle to bottom. I'm a defender and like 'Siege that castle’ type of gameplay and would consider any type of total war from historic to future!.
My wish list for total war…
Good AI both campaign & battle, large maps with diverse landscapes and weather.
Would like to see a return to viewing settlements without entering battles, like the first Rome if I remember. Some of the settlement details are awesome and after all the work put in they should show them off and this could help in strategy for example what do the defences of a settlement look like? This might dictate the garrison for example.
As with 2) being able to determine the layout of the settlement as you see fit, design your own settlement layouts and type of garrison. This would be a third plane to the total war franchise, campaign, battle and the additional settlement design. More defence options that work!
I’m not a fan of clicking buff buttons as often I forget during an intense battle, also for the same reason I rarely zoom in as I’m macro managing my forces, therefore some ideas for that…. A major additional battle ‘option’… turn based, plays for some time then pauses, very much like how Battlestar Galactica Deadlock works. Add the highlight movie with AI camera director at the end = awesome!
More AI control ‘options’ for your unit cards, like skirmish mode currently works i.e. can leave my archers on skirmish and they will retreat when threatened then stop and fire, I feel I can almost leave them to do their job (within reason) however with other units they just seem dumb with lots of macro management. Therefore some options could include cavalry ‘flank and attack rear only’, ‘unit attack if under missile fire’ or ‘move out of missile fire attack’, ‘assault attack and if enemy unit defeated then attack the nearest enemy’ this would be like having an officer in control of those units and would make an ideal addition where you could expand these abilities with experience points. This works already for the enemy AI anyway, so should be easy to add! :>
More historical (or fiction) notes on turns, love these details. More actual historic figures included but limited units like the Darthmod for empire.
More historic music of the times (most is royalty free) again like the Darthmod for empire.
No woke bull**it at all, stick to the facts when dealing with actual history and real biology within those historic games.................... thats all for now...
My dream is for total war to be on historical documentaries just like the original Rome Total War was
Yeah exactly, realism is key. Not making arcade games. Coincidence their parent company is SEGA? lol
Rome total war or something historical, pick one, you can't have both
I think a cool new system that could work is all factions start with 3 units infantry, Calvary, and range. Then, you add weapons and armor to customize the unit to be more specialized and you can take them out for a turn or two so they can learn skills and formations. Different buildings and provinces will provide the updated and customized gear. Provinces can be used for horses and other animals plus different metals. Building for different armor, weapons, and shields. I think that would make a really good historical system
With a mod like Empire 2 I like the mechanics it adds and the changes it makes but I don't want tedium. It adds a plethora of new units which is really cool but when the stat differences are next to 0 or even exactly 0 it just get's annoying to filter through each unit just because I want all my redcoats to be wearing a red coat. It's nice that there is other stuff and new units but having them be no different when they could be the updated version or a late game unit like how older games changed appearances if you got better shields, swords or armour etc would be great, adding new units so every faction starts with 18 to choose from and 9 of them are the same 3 repeated 3 times over is too much.
The loyalty system for atilla worked very well. This should be expanded to cities as well as many cities will go over to a faction after a great battle especially on empire periphery
My opinion on Audio is that somewhere they don't do good job with software and audio mixing. I heard the sound in asset editors and they are high quality. But they are too quiet in game.
And huge problem with Total war is that Effect volume also increases unit voice response (when you click on them), and that one is very loud at the so they will basically rip your ears off if you make it louder.
Another things are sound in distance, like in Shogun 2 you could hear eco of cannons in distance etc.
I can give some insight into the image at the top of the post. As the author of an article on the 15th century battle of Grandson, I worked with Darren Tan who created that image. It can be found in Medieval Warfare magazine issue IV.4
For a future historical Total War, look at Grand Tactician Civil War - GTCW. How it handles recruitment, arming, armaments production, outfitting, supply, army makeup, morale, on and on. The only thing GTCW is missing compared to a TW is eye candy. In features and functions, it's generations ahead of TW.
The most important point seems to be missing from the OP however: prerequisite for a sucessfull new tw game is a new engine and a capable AI that is able to wield the tools given to it. Doesn't matter if the units have nice unique abilities, if the battles are clunky as heck. Same for the strategic layer: doesn't matter if it has a cool dynasty system, if the AI is just sitting around the map not knowing what is going on (think of empire vanilla). These technical issues must to be adressed and are more important imho than any single point the reddit OP has made
I'll be honest, I want Empire 2 or Medieval 3 because those are the time periods which, apart from Rome/Ancient world, are the most interesting to me but my first TW game was Rome 2 so I had a pretty 'new' and later updated to be quite good TW game set in Ancient Rome, Greece etc etc. Medieval 2 shows it's age but I would absolutely play it more if it were updated slightly, just change the graphics and some HUD mechanics (let me deselect units) and off we go for 200-300 hours. Same with Empire, really really like the setting and way the game plays out due to muskets and cannons. Don't like that it looks kinda funky and can't deselect units etc but I still played tons of it in spite of all that so it is a genuinely good and fun game.
I appreciate the various time period, even though I'm totally not interested in the bronze era, but for the love of God, we've been screaming what we want for a decade.
In terms of sheer variety and re-playability i would personally want a massively improved and expanded Empire 2 that could have different start dates and so many units, factions, a colossal map using the continents system from the first one including almost the entire known world at that time, visual upgrades for your units and the ability to spend money to equip them and increase their stats but the buildings needed for that would need other buildings that are advanced enough, Veterancy would increase stats but not as extremely as significant tech and equipment upgrades, Campaign wise melee troops would be viable because if you invaded a country with no gunpowder infrastructure and lost your musket troops you wouldn't be able to replenish them.
I think fun and challenging are important but immersion and realism are what make the game fun so I think they are just as important to me being a historical fan and a historical TW fan
Unit Interaction is the term to describe one of the things I've wanted more of from total war but didn't know how to articulate.
It's one of the things I still don't really like about Total Warhammer, despite having really warmed up to it by the third entry.
I've seen ppl really talk bad about unit animations and I get it can be a clunky messy way to add life to the gameplay but I always liked it from the historical titles as it added some life to the battles.
That soundtrack brought up some sweet memories...
Having gained some experience from working on software projects for some time now, I can understand the reasoning of CA's indifference towards what we, Historical Players want.
What's the point of working on an elaborate supply system for a campaign, overcomplicate the production cycle and spend so much more resources when this won't make a bit of a difference in sales?
It's an unfortunate reality of quality-quantity.
i agree with you on that but i cant get the reason why they dont make their games open to moders who are going to make overcomplicated games based on the original for the hardcore history fans or a more funny and easy experience for the gamers who want just battles
@@cpt_xfiles5486 That's a good point to make.
I don't know, but I can make some guesses.
It is true that Total War should have been easily modable.
In my opinion, Total War Empire II would be the best solution to save the series, as in that game you can display more than one time period by entering it through developing combat units passing through time within the game. Imagine starting with swords and spears, then moving to gunpowder, and with many options in diplomatic relations and adding naval battles. I think it is better to use a new engine for battles so that many strategies can be added within the battle with new graphic forms.
Day xxx of waiting for the release of MK1212 campaign map update.
Im excited
I would be interested in a Victorian era game. You could have the Zulu war, boar war, Crimean war and the Indian mutiny. Different wars where some were gun vs gun and gun vs tribesmen.
Love to see research & development tree and original population mechanics be incorporated again. Battle realism too. Not this arcade style feel it gives after winning or losing a battle like pharoah does
more hot air that will just blow over and it will all be at square 0 (i said zero because it never moved from 0) , this is the gazzilionth video on the topic
I would like a simple campaign map / game.. just enough to get into interesting and varied battles.. a campaign gives games meaning.
I like how a lot of what you say is just in Pharaoh. That game is great just hampered by it being in the bronze age
Is it though? Tell me where exactly?
Pharaoh is warhammer with a bronze age skin
Resource system added a lot of depth to campaign, at least in the early/mid game, guiding expansion and diplomacy dynamically and in some cases forcing you to take on tougher opponents to secure what you lack. Felt much more engaged in campaign layer than in 3K initially. But after while you have everything in surplus and things get boring - and the collapse system was far too toothless to really prevent you from snowballing.
What I worry about after Dynasties is that the genuinely good ideas and improvements in that update will not be carried on because Pharaoh was a failure. It would be good to identify what worked and what didn’t so that CA don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I would like a more customizable type of campaign that you could change the difficulty from normal to hard and that could mean not only that ai has more units and the diplomacy is just not an option but that everything you do as a player should be planned. From the units you are gathering to the place you are camping to the diplomatic moves and deals you accomplish. For example if an enemy faction is getting hammered by you or your allies they should be willing to neggotiate, be your vassal, pay you, marry one of their children to you, give you some land or slaves that could be used as population to raise an army...or in case you are the one in a bad possition you should be pressed by your political enemies and your people by low public order and other penalties to agree on their terms and pay a fee or give some land to them. If CA doesnt want to do all that searching and to go on that level of accuracy at least they should allow moders to completely change the game as they want, because that could create replayability and that means more sales, more players and more good ratings.
Here's an idea - how about creating a historical title where you can manually choose the mechanics available to your game? E/g turns per year, seasons on/off, being able to move single units without a general around the map or not, etc. It really can't be that difficult to implement something like this with today's technology at hand.
Pharaoh sctually has almost everything you’ve described. You still need a general to move armies around but there are actual incentives to have small armies, like reduced upkeep for example.
I feel like ranged units overall need a bit better AI for pike and shot to work as people want to. As noted in earlier games as well as more recently warhammer, ranged units (especially gunners) tend to be "stubborn & stupid" if there is uneven terrain, objects, friendly units or just a few troops not in formation your ranged units wont shoot or they will walk into enemy lines before they realise that they can in facts use their gun. Sure they work better than some older titles but I feel like they need to become alot better for the audience.
Empire 2 should be focused on the colonization of the new workd where nations are still wearing armor. Cortes should be the campaign!
ngl we need a victoria total war
Armies weren't led by 1 general historically. There were captains, colonels, brig generals, major generals etc. Adding an Order of Battle mechanic would take immersion to the next level! I like to have multiple generals. One "in danger with the men" and one higher (held back and more strategic) for instance. At the same time, we should have the ability to have armies led by lesser officers without including a general.
A total war modern ui and engine with scourge of war scale and tactics would be the dream for me
I agree. It's not about stats. The variety comes from the systems, not the units themselves.
Friendly fire on shogun
I'll admit that I'll pretty much be happy with any kind of Medieval 3.
But what would I like to see improved? Improved AI that feels more organic and less "gamey". It'd be nice if it didn't feel like the AI was trying to "beat" me as much as it felt like the AI was trying to simulate running a nation, with its own unique goals and personality. I'd also like CA to concentrate on making the game feel epic. Fights should be a spectacle where the player is encouraged to zoom in and is rewarded with cool animations that make it look like the troops are actually fighting and not just randomly swinging their weapons here and there in between mostly just staring at each other. Troops should be pushing and shoving each other around. It should look like a dirty, grimy struggle for life and death. Maybe have a grand campaign where the goal is less about taking over half the world and more about establishing a strong, stable empire (as opposed to the psychopathic death machine permanent war empire that the current total war games force you to make).
The most enjoyable experience, I've had playing total war recently has come from NTW3, for me I think it comes from how every decision has consequences, and that even though its difficult it never feels unfair.
I think mainly modern total war has just been very arcadey, I would much prefer a more slow methodical realistic total war.
One thing that's always bothered me about the combat in TW games is that units stay tight in formation. There's no chaos in the fighting, with units separating during the fight. Sure, some very disciplined factions like Rome would stay in formation, but most would not once the fighting starts
last mohican soundtrack on the background, men of culture :DDD
Great points!...appreciate you Brother! =)
Always!
a junction of medieval simple population system with still med 2 sieges and rome 2 style of battle and campaign and a kinda of warhammer 3 tech trees
As long as the game is historical it doesnt really matter if its medieval 3 or Empire 2. With that being said, a pike and shot era would be interesting.
I STRONGLY agree with the redditor who said people only want Empire 2 or Medieval 2 and not an actual good historical title. And I am also a Pharaoh Dynasties player, I have played almost all total war titles and I believe it is one of the best ones.
Like I said, just because most people didn’t pick up what you believe to be a good game, doesn’t automatically mean people don’t know what a good game is and therefore only want Med 2 or Empire 3. What you’re seeing is just the most vocal group of players. People ultimately disagreed with Pharaoh, which at launch was a mostly agreed bad game and therefore wrote off the update. That’s not on them, its on CA.
Total War: Pharaoh is $19.99 on Steam this week. Will be interesting to see the sales numbers.
empire 2 is my dream total war set in 1800 1890 even if i am worried i love to see stuff like terrain having an effect on battles so we can place heavy guns on hills and rain shells over enemy troops supply lines is a much have so we can blockade an enemy nation with the navy and again prober city battles insted of them beeing field battles and the option of build other defences and weather having effect on a battle and diseases naval battles need an update so is not just the same open sea battle wich would get so boring love to see hybrid battles like the ultimate games would be so cool to land troops on coast and capture a fort and then you had to hold it and wait for reinforcement before you can capture the main target wich could be a importen supply hub
You know the whole province system and mechanics that we have had since Rome 2 are absolutely fantastic for warhammer, but not great for historical titles. I think that sentence resonates so much. Historical fans and fantasy fans want different things from their games.
Disagree. I think that the original devs were originally going for as much realism as possible with current pc power. They covered what they could not simulate with abstraction. In later games the new devs seem to focus on gameplay abstraction because they seem to think total war is a game of magic the gathering or something. Total war has become a cheap parlor game. Battle Simulator that should have improved with pc processing power instead got hijacked and turned into a sitcom tv series of who is dating who and who earns more stats. This I think is why the battle graphics are horrible and battles never advanced to scourge of war waterloo remastered levels and sieges never got interior fights. Basically the game became a game for the masses who can say they are playing total war like it still means something. Total War is no longer an attempt to study battles with context. We have not advanced to logistics physically or pre battle manoevers, instead we still do the same thing for battles we did in rome or medieval 1 but worse.
Pike and Shot or Victorian era would be good but would probably require a new engine and some work to make the tercio and other tactics viable. Plus they would be scared by other traits of the periods they would depict. Another reason to stick more closely to the physical battle mechanics. I gave up on total war being a real time tabletop simulator a long time ago and am resigned to it being s light game where you need trucks of salt to suspend your disbelief even if you only know a little of historical battles. Total War never left the 2000s and imho the older games are actually better mechanically.
P.s. I considered getting paroah total war because of the update. But when I noticed they put cavalry in as a default without any option to go full historical I realised this was just a bunch of compromises and ahistorical stats power ups instead of a properly developed battle system for ancient wardare.
As Volound has already said elsewhere, I think they would benefit from going back to look at the original medieval as there were aspects of the battle gameplay that were superb. Alright, visually it's very dated but that's not the point. Warhammer TW relies too heavily on stat buffing, the developers even explicitly talk about this in a recent video.
The OP makes some excellent points wrt to supply, this is something that has not been done before, as far as I know.
Personally, i think CA is scared to make a new Medieval. The communtiy wants medieval, but its pretty divided on what they want to see in the new medieval.
For example, i think it would be awesome to bring a toned down version of heroes from Warhammer. This would replicate the great warriors from medieval history and also the lengths that European lords would go to to recruit the best knights. Id say tone down their comat stats, but give them a leadership aura, replicating the morale effect theyd have.
Id also love to see titles come back from the original medieval. Thatd be very authentic un you could raise/hire a knight and then ensure his loyalty and boost his states by giving him titles (not combat stats necessarily, but rulership stats).
But i dont think CA will do it because i think they are scared to fail.
About sound, spaciel thanks to PUA team that made amazing job on their mod, especially the fact that u can change sound and smoke settings as u want, for attila, i will prefer brighter graphics, even if an excellent mod made for mk1212 ad graphics work perfzctly well with vanilla ou other mod for attila 😁
Well I don't know about challenging , I'm someone who actually zooming in and watching shit.
The first point is the most important point imo.
a English war of roses could be cool but sounds more like a dlc
I think one of the problems is that they have no major competition, so there is no need to listen to the fanbase. Kinda like simcity died to cities skylines (but they had other problems than dont listen to their fanbase)
Another example is civ. After civ 6 other games like humankind or old world were published and civ now tries to compete again. I hope yall get what i mean.
So i think we really have to look forwars for some competition pr even a better series from another developer who listens to what the fans want.
I know many player want medieval 3, some want shogun 3 and i want rome 3 the most. But not without heart. I want to enjoy a game in long term again.
Atm i rather play old ttw like rome 2, shogun 2, medieval 2 or atilla, but im craving for a GOOD new Historical Total war Game. Pharaoh Dynasties is okay, but didnt catched me to long.
I have a perfect game in mind (atleast what i considere the perfect game) but to create it i neither have knowledge, nor Cash to finance it Haha
Arrows should be realistic. NO CURVED LINES ACROSS THE SKY FROM ARROWS AND JAVELINS.
Some things I would like:
Cities that adjust according to the buildings you make, and if they're damaged in the battle they're damaged in the campaign.
Allow ALL settlements to be fortified and developed, rather than the silly "region" mechanic.
Work on increasing army sizes. We've been stuck on 16*200 max for army composition for 25 years. We need to see 20,000 strong armies.
Reduce the internal faction mechanics, - they just don't matter, - but instead inter-faction mechanics, like a similar culture should mean huge buffs to alliances, and different religion should make alliance almost impossible.
Overall, a new engine. They've had 15 years of milking this reskin. It's time for a global games developer to Actually Make A New Game...
They really need to take a look at Medieval 1212 mod and take notes. The realistic feel to it is better than any vanilla total war game imo.
You literally can combine both groups with
Westeros total war
Medieval 3
WWI
Expanded world map (Empire 2 but every continent available)
1. Diplomatic system like 3k
2. Longer battle allows maneuver warfare. Unlike S2, of which unit break the moment they contact, ancient battle can last many day, not second
3. Unpopular opinion: R2 DEI is the best battle system. Please don't hit me WH fan, i like 3k too 😂
For many years now, the historical community has felt pretty let down by CA. It seems to me that many in the community never bothered with Pharaoh, because they either didn't like the setting, didn't like the different style of gameplay, or just didn't touch it at all because of all the negativity around the title, right from the start. Pharaoh was also released a bit undercooked, but the free update fixed all of those issue. Thrones suffered much the same issues as Pharaoh, and like Pharaoh, actually became a good little game with a bit of time and updates. CA appears to know what the historical community wants if the dynasty update for Pharaoh is anything to go by and I am confident that the next historical title will be a success. I very much agree with you that a game set in the age of pike and shot, would be a great choice. Hopefully we'll hear some news on the next historical game soon.
Complete disagree on Delayed orders being bad. They worked 100% fine in Rome 1 and Med 2. They weren't even "delayed", its just they reacted to the order by rank. The one closest to the officer moves first, then the 2nd, 3rd, etc.
Im just a casual Total War player so why the games feel differently is completely beyond me. What Im fed up with is just this superhero-movie-look all the armor has. why does it look like spraypainted plastics?? I want my old rusty and beat up armor suits again
I’m only really still hanging around in the Total war community cuz I’m waiting for Victoria Total war
Nah, I think a population mechanic would be great. The only thing wrong with DEI is that the population is too few and the unit limit hampers the player agency in the name of "balance".
Empire total war 2 would be game changing
About time.. meats back on the menu boys
16:00 I don't know what was the last time you playyed Pharao, but what you just said applies actually to the gameplay of pharao, maybe it's time to give it another chance and try out for yourself
The gameplay that ppl are looking for is unit interactions and to simulate the order of battle in a fun way
As opposed to unit variety and stat buffs debuffs which has been the focus in newer TW titles
I've never played Pharaoh nor Troy, but from what I saw here on youtube, it seems to me that they have good ideas and mechanics for what concerns the campaign map turn, but awful awful awful battle gameplay
And like everyone says, go back to the roots and bring it forward into a new game.
I have given up waiting for CA to make a good game 🤷♂️
Yes we want a really realistic historical accurate historical total war and we want it as medieval 3 or empire 2!!!!
Oh wow I’m an indie dev and I was working on the ideal total war feature/mechanic list before I knew about this. Maybe I drop it in? 🤔
Drop it in!
I feel like for a TW game to feel historic or real it needs to pass the 300 test. A small veteran unit that's heavily armored should be able to hold a bottleneck against a larger horde. And it should all be based on common sense and proper tactics and positioning, not some arbitrary stat boosts.
What’s the last Total War game you’ve played?