I'd prefer they abandon separate unlockable elite units and focus on experience based promotions that allow any regiment to eventually become a famous "elite" unit. A regiment that performs plenty of heroic actions (successful bayonet charges against superior enemy numbers, holding ground against intense fire, etc...) or reaches enough milestones could either retain their earned buffs as that regiment or be reorganized into an iconic "Elite Unit" of history for that faction.
@@Logan0o IMO elite units in the OG game feels video gamey. IRL elite units were either distinguished regiments or formed of distinguished soldiers taken from across the army. Britain didn't unlock a tech and suddenly had elite grenadiers lol I would prefer a more organic system of earning elite units through experience. This would make them feel way more special.
@@Logan0o I think they mean things like normal line infantry vs new/elite/guard line infantry, where the latter are just a tech upgrade of the former. But theyre suggesting that say after a normal line infantry unit maxes experience they can be swapped for the elite version, to mirror how irl the elite groups were often made of veteran soldiers or veteran regiments given recognition rather than say "ok boys its 1786 youre the Kings Line Infantry now"
@@Rynewulf prob the best thing to do be just upgrade their stats to reflect the cahgning tech in small arms dev such as when rifled rifles became a thing. Or a way to convert units without them loosing their prev earned exp
@@forrestpenrod2294 could argue tho that you are supposed to role play with your own units making them elite and name them personally rather then just recruiting one
Empire 2 or a Victoria Total War are honestly the only two options I'm excited for in a new historical title. I feel like Napoleon was the last game in which battles felt truly large-scale, fitting for its period. No game since has managed to match the sense of scale that Empire and Napoleon did. I'd argue they've been progressively going in the opposite direction, with significantly smaller and shorter battles.
There’s really no good strategy/4x games for the 19th century - very early 20th century time period, there’s Victoria 2 but despite what the fanboys say it’s really not that great for a variety of reasons.
Anything but a Victorian era TW game! An Empire 2 should take place from 1696 or so, basically soon after the Siege of Vienna, and go up until 1800, with 4 turns per year. Because the 1700s would offer a very unit period that could not only have a wide range of different cultures and armies to play around with, but not have the technology be at such a ridiculous level that the European factions ALWAYS win no matter what.
It has the most potential. Top 5 things they need to change: 1. Conscription/volunteer mechanic that can be turned off for players that don't want it. For players that do want it, an army loss is a huge defeat and it is more realistic. 2. New Map. Add Africa and Asia. Both are valuable in the 1700s and will make Empire 2 feel more unique. 3. Improved economic system. Restructure of trade and tariffs primarily but also a mechanic to hire privateers. 4. Navy and army combined attacks. This includes mortar ships that will bombard forts 5. Good uniforms and art. Empire's art and uniforms were garbage and an eye sore.
@@miceliusbeverus6447 Yeah. When two major nations are at war, it's not going to be 3 armies or so against each other or the AI just sitting with the armies and not attacking legitimate targets
Especially for attacking capitals. Conscription/Total War mechanic should be applied for a max of 5 turns allowing for huge bonuses to enlistment and munitions, however deficits penality is huge.
yeah I’d love if they add coastal battles. bombarding enemy coastal defenses with my ship of lines and rocket/mortar ships then disembark redcoats to siege enemy fort.
This era, renaissance, victorian, pretty much anything involving early to modern gunpowder up until aviation warfare, is my favorite time period. So I hope they do make another Empire Total War.
That is probably the latest time period they can do without feeling like a men of war game. If you think about it Napoleon total war is already unrealistic because there were engagements where units ambushed an army then disappeared. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia the Russians would set up cannons and units and shoot at the advancing French then retreat to do it again
@@jaywerner8415 we always hear in media how ai is getting more intelligent, yet creative assembly haven't really improved how the ai behaves in over 20 years of making games now.
@@willc1294 The Sad part is, its mostly the BATTLE AI that is lagging behind, the Campaign map AI was and is pretty good now. Still it could do with some work itself (AI never tries to ambush you for example). The Field Battle AI hasn't improved in the past 10 years or 20 years depending your Total War career. It still just BONAZI charges you in a single line, Cavalry will always Flank you, and the artillery will sit in the back totally undefended. Not only are we all used to this tactic by now, but this also limits how you can play as well to a extent. The Siege AI was better in the OLDER games (if it worked in Med 2 with 3 layers of WALL, they got no excuse for the modern AI and city design), got SHIT in Empire and they have just been "rebuilding" it since then. Warhammers siege AI worked Pretty well when it was only ONE WALL and a small city, (a testamate to how shit it is) Now with the more complicated cities ITS BACK TO BEING RETARDED! (like Shogun 2 lvls of retarded, the Siege AI in that game was pretty awful)
First and foremost I think the biggest thing that needs to be emphasized in an Empire 2 is that this is an Age of Revolution. You should always feel like you are sitting on a giant powder keg. They could also extend the timeline a bit to include both the Scramble for Africa and the Great Game.
The age of revolution began in the *late* 18th century as a result of the Seven Years' War (essentially World War Zero). Before that, it was a time of a very stable, rising trend towards powerful monarchies, enlightened absolutism remaining the reigning idea up till Napoleon. I mean, you had figures like Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, Cathrine the Great and Louis XIV and XV all reigning in the 18th century, and those were some of the most powerful monarchic regimes of all time.
@@pl-AEtheRR I actually quite like how Empire handled it with Clamour of reform as the game went on. Not much of an issue in the early game, but as you industrialize and become more enlightened people are more dissatisfied with their absolutist monarchs. Obviously it would need a lot of polishing, revolutions in Empire are very underwhelming, but it stands on a good foundation.
@@sebastianwallin3726 true is see what you mean BUT! not like 20th century trench warfare but 18th century style sieging trenches. Like maybe the longer the siege the closer the trench lines get to the city so the attack is easier. Etc etc.
@Sebastian Wallin total war used to be more historically accurate focused, but maybe you're too used to the cartoonish arcade style wack fests they are now to know that.
I would LOVE to see Empire encompass the era from early gunpowder (1500, Spanish Tercios) through the 1600-1700s, and then into the 1800s, large range of time I know, and a time of significant tactical and technological development, but also many similarities in those areas as well. ... But watching and experiencing the progression of tactics and technology and strategies moving through that era would be so fascinating!!
Empire's campaign map is the best in any total war game hands down. The naval aspect was truly amazing. I know people didn't like the naval combat but once you got the hang of it I started looking forward to them more than land battles. At first it's a chaotic mess, but you can give structure to the naval battles with proper formations. Empire 2 would definitely be on the top of the list for the next historical TW game. Followed closely by a medieval 3.
I still don't understand why they don't release or announce Empire 2. Every one of my friends who likes Total War wants it desperately. If it ever comes out, I hope sea battles will return in all their glory. WE NEED THIS.
If they make a empire 2. Not only have naval battles have to return. They also have to slow down land battles again. This is maybe just me. In warhammer they just feel so quick. You always have to pay attention to what happens. While also true for empire total war. At least I felt I had more time just watching my army fight.
I've been saying that for years. Old skool total was was making sure you brought the right quality and quantity of troops to a battle. Deploy them in the formations you wanted and then the battles had more of a "let them clash and manage them slightly where needed". It was fantastic and you could have time to watch those sweet animations as the chaos of the battle went on around you. New total war battles are just keep clicking on buffs after cool down and it's all ovwr in minutes. Awful
I'd like to see: -Actual siege warfare with sapping, siege guns, and breaches. -Turns being two weeks instead of 6 months. -Coordination mechanics, especially as warfare evolves into the Napoleonic period and armies get larger, being able to send out scouts in front of an army and order multiple corps to take different routes and converge simultaneously or in succession instead of only being able to order one unit at a time. You could kind of set up this type of action in Empire, but it was clunky. -Choosing retreat distance and direction unless it's after a major defeat.
Agreed on all fronts - in Napoleon the turns were about two weeks (early January, late January, early February, etc.), so going that route or even one month per turn would allow for simpler turns and ability to better respond to enemy actions. The retreat mechanics ESPECIALLY drove me mad! There'd be a city of mine they could easily retreat to, and they'd take the other split or no road at all and dead-end themselves into a river or something so they could be easily reached and attacked again. Just being able to pick a general direction or which road to take on a split would make such a difference...
Perhaps, perhaps… the cool gunpowder stuff+ships might be the hardest obstacles to surpass, although compared to Warhammer, at least Attila has naval battles!
Not likely. Atilla had its own issues, mostly through the mechanics. The last Total War game to pretty much get the battle gameplay right was Fall Of The Samurai, which is STILL one of the greatest Total War experiences to date. Something Atilla and Warhammer both share is an awful engine that does away with the individual models and stats that we had in Medieval 2 and Empire. You can see it in the health bars for units where a shower of arrows hits your guys and they take barely any casualties at first, then start to drop like flies once their unit HP is low enough. It used to be that if an arrow model hit a unit model, that one unit would take damage.
Just started playing ck2 for the fist time, story cut short creative assembly has to talk to paradox the grand strategy and empire maneging is amazing.
If the rumors are true and this year comes a monumantal movie about Napoleon by Ridley Scott and if it''s scaled like Gladiator, Troy or Kingdom of Heaven the hype about 17th-19th century could be insane.
I hope they can represent accurately how campaigns were operated in that era; supply systems, reconnaissance, reinforcements, and most importantly the order of battle & the command structure; having battalions/regiments be the primary unit of maneuver being a part of brigades>divisions>corps>field armies, etc., with their appropriate generals. To me this is an aspect that being unrealized really leaves much to be desired when it comes to immersion in games based in this era. I hope the devs take inspiration from some notable campaigns and how they played out with all the maneuvering, FoW, and the order & phases in which battles were fought.
They won't do anything realistic because they refuse to contract military personnel to set them straight. They are a bunch of liberal scum bags placating to PC culture as to not offend anyone by making an overly "masculinzed" game. Everything is policy behind closed doors and their shareholders have no balls.
love the video. Like to see some more minor playable factions with their own historical uniforms. Adding Holy Roman Empire schenario/arc would be fantastic.
They have mentioned a trilogy of historical games being the next big thing, I would love to start with Pike and Shot, have "Empire 2" be the middle game, and then end on Victorian. Expand the map a little each game until it is global in the third, or at least has major theaters to travel between. Real naval warfare would be a must.
About battle AI: given than military tactics in the 18th-19th centuries were focused on the 'geometry'' of units formations (squares, lines, columns...) I would like battles to reflect that a bit more, so that units should feel like you are almost playing with geometric shapes. This would also possibly help the battle AI to improve, as it would have a smaller range of options for unit formations. In Napoleon, I remember that almost always the best way to get battles done was to form a line as large and thin as possible so everybody could shoot.
That and the implementation of military drilling and field commanders. Assigning field commanders pre battle, you give commands and the ai takes over while you general the main line. Similar to madden, you get a menu to select what play you want to run, and the ai carries out those routes. Their effectiveness depends on the overall status of that player, and the same could reflect in this game to. A pre stage chess match, taking up positions was just as imperative as line formations and bravery. That'd be pretty neat imo
Assigning field commanders as separate detachments in a pre engagement strategy mapping. Line infantry with drummers and flags representing the panpoloy of war. Scraping 1 v 1 melee animations for more brutal and effective charges based on bravery morality commander and national pride. Unique national units willing to die and suffer the atrocities of campaign. Only available for recruitment when nation prestige is maxed out, or in times of war against ethnic enemies. Racial tensions back then can't be represented properly in today's pussified society unfortunately. And CA placate to that sensitivity as if Karen's are calling all the shots. They lost their balls. And I bet they can make games too masculine based, they softened everything up and say it's the engine, or the ai as a piss poor excuse to actually address the issue. Why else would it be 10 20 years plus of the same regurgitated bs
If there is a plan for empire 2 they better start with a napoleon 2 first, so they can fuck up and experiment with the smaller one instead of the other way around, again.
It would be great that the round system changes for multiplayers, so that 5+ players could play on one server for a set of time (1-2 weeks) while the gameplay time is going slowly starting at (let's say 1700 and finishes in 2 weeks at let's say 1815-20...); and while you are on your diplomatic map creating new buildings, units, relations, etc. you can zoom into a current stage of events (battle) to make decisions within the battle field and zoom out again if necessary
It'd be fun if they did one that took you from the late medieval period up into the industrial revolution- roughly 1450-1800 or 1850. It'd be good to show how technologies changed during that period and how that affected the battlefield and military tactics. The original Empire did this quite well, but the relatively narrow focus on the 18th century meant that for most factions the units you finished the game with were usually just improved versions of the ones you had near the start. You spent the majority of the campaign churning out Line Infantry as you pretty much had to use them for most of your army, regardless. Broadening the time period would make you adapt your tactics and approach more as the game progressed, reflecting the real history. You'd start with relatively small armies of armoured knights and archers, then move into the 'pike and shot' era, ending up with much larger gunpowder armies and linear warfare. An earlier starting time would also allow you to incorporate the 'Age of Discovery'. One of the best things about Medieval II was when you realised late on that you could actually sail to the New World and encounter the Aztecs- the sense of adventure and exploration was great. More like that would be incredible, especially if you could unlock some of the historically colonised civilisations as playable factions and try to create alternate histories where they could resist invasion and maybe even turn the tables on the colonisers- e.g. if the Incas could defeat Pizarro, buy ships from the Dutch and use them to invade Spain...
To not mention the list of other things people in the comments have already mentioned, I wish that A) We'd get three campaigns: two global maps in 1700 & 1836, and a Europe map in 1618. B) These maps come out 1.5 to 2 years apart so to not repeat the mistake of Three Kingdoms having too many time periods released so quickly and none being super polished.
it's simply the best time period and setting for any total war game IMO. I love the warfare, the units, the time period, the uniforms. It needs a proper sequel.
I doub't they'll do it, but active trading like the cathay caravans from Warhammer3 might be the best System for trade in Empire 2: You send out a convoi of merchantment/tradeships/gaĺleons who have a capacity/ combat ability trade off going on. They can be attacked and defended by themselfs and warships, however sending a lot of huge Warships with your convoi is gonna cut into your profits. This would incentivise Colonisation in a more historical/organic fashion: you're not conquering all of China for their taxes, you're trying to get a trading port to increase your trading profits.
Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnaughts kinda fills the Empire/Victoria Total War niche right now, I advise ppl to give it a look. It's only naval battles, no land battles, but they are very detailed and the entire world is represented on the campaign map.
Something I've always found lacking in Total War was that logistics were totally missing in land campaigns, and that scouting, and vanguards weren't a thing. I want attacks on baggage trains, hit and run tactics and (anti-)scouting action which make campagin movement important and hazardous and add more flavor than just "2 full stacks of army meet in the middle, big fight".
The thing I loved about Empire was it was the first and probably the only total war game that had my country in it where they were not this all powerful god tier lvl.
There's a mod to play USA in the Grand Campaign but modding it in required a couple of concessions such as starting with no armies and not building fortifications. And because of how the diplo works in game it meant that Iroquois would declare first turn and Britain who still owns the rest of the thirteen colonies will declare within a few turns unless you get them on side. Granted the AI struggles to invade the new world but it still felt tense and exciting for a good while, one of my most enjoyable and memorable campaigns. Every tech mattered, building up cities from tribal camps and kicking the europeans back to their theater. Darth Mod has a USA GC start date but it adds a lot, I found a different mod that let me play it vanilla
Shogun 2 had stuff like this that I’d love to bring back - provincial specialties like Naval Traditions or Schools, and events like a foreign missionary or infrastructure development affecting public happiness or settlement growth via ports, farms etc. Naval Bombardments and Marines getting involved are two things I’d like in a new Empire entry
I repeat it again and again until Creative Assembly will heart it. I don't want any new game if it's not Empire 2 Total War That's the only game I want and I don't care about another period. I want an Empire 2 Total War with the biggest map we have ever seen, bigger than Attila, bigger than Warhammer 3, bigger than any game before. I want muskets, I want mind blowing naval combat. I want dozens and dozens of factions like in Warhammer 3. Any other total war is not interesting me.
Fall of the Samurai kind of returned to that time period or at least a very similar technology base. I felt personally it felt like a good example of what Empire 2 could've been. I'm just not sure if they'll ever return to that
Empire 2 is the total war game I've been craving for a very long time now. I definitely have a different wish list than you, but I'd be happy with most of the improvements you've outlined. I really likes the province system from three kingdoms, as well as rome 2's blending of navy and land, combine that with the line infantry tactics of the day and earth shattering events (american and French revolutions, maybe some family dynamics à la CK2) and I think CA could make an absolute juggernaut of a game.
Any available engine will end up resulting in the same issues. They always fire everyone that develops and engine that better than the one shareholders are invested in. Happens every time.
The dream is that CA have been secretly working on the title since warhammer 1 launched and has a fully polished Empire 2 ready to go this year… I said it was only a dream.
Takk for en inspirerende video! I would love to see a new empire with a real focus on how different and unique the factions and struggles was during this period, and show how long lasting these rivalries and wars was at this time. With a lot of freedom on how to play, at the same time having major events that will force you to act based on the circumstances. - With a focus on the continuous struggle between france, prussia, and austria on who can control the german states. (United germany with prussia, french vasal german confederation or larger austrian empire) - The deluge and the david and goliath fight between russia and sweden (showing two comparable, but totally different factions at war, with a split and chaotic poland clinging to power, while fighting the former mentioned and the cossacks). Russia playing the long game, while sweden and poland having high stakes and short time period to win. - Smaller factions that want independence, but need to pick a side to have a chance, like cossacks, wallachians, moldovans and german states. Having to supply tribute and men to their vasal lords, or fight an uphill scheming battle for independence. - A real balance of power system that sees factions team together to stop anyone from being to powerful, or attacking a faction that is losing a war, to get land and resources during peace negotiations (like the silesian wars, deluge, great northern war). - Ethnic groups always being an important factor, with rebellions and having to keep each group happy or suppressed if you have an empire or multiethnic nation. With the ability to grant autonomy or fund rebellions. - Unique strength and weaknesses like russia with large army, but weak at beginning and with a large land to protect. Sweden with well equipped elite veteran army and effective, but risky army doctrine, low population, hard to defend and few allies. Poland with best cavalry in europe, but internally fragile with opportunist subjects and nobles and powerful enemies incroaching from the start. Austria having consolidated control and influence over neighbours and strong military, but overstretched, diverse populations, constant conflict with strongest powers. - A focus on army supplies, with the ability of attacking enemy supply line with light units. Also to prevent the ability of directly going to the enemy capital in a few turns. To do a major invasion you need to save up or steal enough supplies, or risk catastrophe. And holding territory you need a functioning and constant supply line and garrisons. - More focus or raiding and protecting smaller settlements, factories, ports and food supply. This makes forts and their strategic placement crucial, and is a major bargaining chip at peace negotiations. And ofcourse the ability to do scorched earth when you are desperate to hinder an invitation. - For sea powers there should be the ability to set up small or big blockades, forcing the weaker sea faction to try to break it, ignore it and stop major trading or try to trade through the blockade if the blockade is spread out. All with totally different consequences. - Engineers should be a big factor, from building fortifications, trenches, bridges for armies river crossing, siege mines and other siege equipment. Loss of important roles like engineers and officers and generals are hard to replace and will consiterebly weaken the army and need time and funds to be replaced. - More freedom in choices, ability to cut corners in desperate times, like with having low trained troops to boost recruitment time and numbers, less firearms and more pikes for cheap equipped army, worse uniforms and boots to save funds (no winter clothing to save cost), low rations/bad rations to save food. And drastic measures as stealing critical food from population, binding farmers to their landlords to have more control or mass drafting to scrape your nation of manpower in a total war. And ability to choose where to recruit, like if you want to rely on your vassals to keep your population happy, with the risk of angry, low moral, treacherous vassals. - Last, have the ability to be conquered and keep playing, either having to give land, play as a new subjugate ally, vassal or incorporated ethnic group ready to revolt or change allegiance.
I liked how I needed to manually replenish units for money. Too bad they made it auto-replenishment. It just doesn't feel right. But we also need a manpower pool from which we can recruit and replenish.
Yup. Military academies, quarters and housing troops separate from Military and volunteers. It's quite simple, they just won't address it because they have taken a liberal direction and made it political. I've always felt and anti-war conscious behind CAs combat. Even the developers I've seen the interviews look like a bunch of French panty sniffers. They need to contract Military personnel to set to help the development team. Not a bunch of underpaid college students majoring in offensive language and how to avoid them.
If there can be a bridge between the mechanics of Empire and Europa 4…that would be an amazing game. Consequences to both warfare and diplomacy on a massive scale
They could implement two different map modes. One for big scale battles and a good overview and one with a lot of smaller towns and smaller units. You will have the choice to use your whole army or only detachments. Example for romans: Use one or more legions or use cohortes or even centuries. You can decide then as well to play as a general or start as a leader of a small unit. With experience, you can get promoted and command more men. Napoleon did not start as a commander of the grande armée, he started as an artillery officer.
Empire has a special place in my heart, and just as the original game heralded a new era for Total War at the time, so too could an Empire 2. If we get Medieval 3 next as a sort of culmination of this generation of TW games, taking the best things from 3K and Troy and Attila and Rome 2 (and maybe even some lessons from Warhammer), Empire 2 could follow as a new horizon. I genuinely think seeing naval battles make a comeback would be just as exciting as seeing them debut for the first time.
I really liked the "path of independence" campaign, if they made empire 2 and they make the entire world map. Edit: they should make a 30 years war campaign.
I am strongly recommending playing Absolute Dominium mod. Even Mysore gets new units. Every faction playable with original vanillia feeling. And every faction has unique UI.
I have always been waiting for a empire 2. Only total war game to have world map, and I have always had such a fondness for that time period! I really hope empire 2 happens
love everything you just said, I still play empire total war to this day like 10,000 hours worth of game play .....well maybe not that much but does feel like it
Bring back more micro management to the economy, make it feel more like your building an empire. Also have more strategic location in a region to draw out the army from the major city location. We need more grand strategy features and events in these games.
A feature that I would really like would be weather & status accurate skins for your units - for example impact of your state beeing bad in finance leeding to worn down uniforms and maybe even having impact on equipment quality & stats -or bad weather battles having units wearing coats and stuff. Apart from that I would really like to see more realistic battle mechanics like we found them in the NAP Toal war 3 mod. And for battles I would suggest 3 types of scale. Skirmish, Engagement and full scale Battle. These could differ like you chose a different rank of leader - for Skrimish beeing Brigadier General, for Engagement beeing Division General and for Full Scale battle be it on Marshal/General Major. These then could have historic characters and sub General units with each special capeabilitys on the field - so each army could be really unique in how it behaves in battle and on campaign map. I aswell imagine that you could establish regiments - who then could have battalions - each battalion beeing a bit bigger in size then the company sized units in NTW and ETW. For City Fights I think Rome 2 and Atilla did some cool things - I would really love the charge on a city district even if its partial displayed - with or without any armorments - like we have it in Rome 2 - civilist city, militaristic city something like that :) diplomacy needs to be improved a bit on the campaign map. Computer steered countrys do very often take stupid decissions & interaction/influence is somewhat functioning randome. Also I would love more variety in characters on the campaign map & more options for diplomacy overall like we finde it for ex. in Shogun 2. Also production of goods and weapons could be a bit more diverse/unique per region. Thats it :D
That of what you said and more. Though what we need the brigade system for each of the formations in the game which will be a useful way to fit the population system in. And it should allow the corps system for attachable officers and agents in to the lot to allow them to have flare not to mention I think the artifact and item system can be used in there to just more focused on banners and other items for the troops. And if one can be bold get the ability to put fit the troops yourself with what equipment is best needed for them to fight at max capacity. Also for the models themselves creative assembly should hire reenactors to animate new models to make them behave more realistically especially when the models become casualties with how they fall. Hell if you know the movie effects especially in gods and generals with how the lot get thrown around by artillery shells that should be used as well.
I have some ideas on how to improve on Empire. First, keep the army “stances” from Rome 2, make it also linked to the total ammo you have for the battle (like 200% for fortify, 150% for raiding and 50% for force march) and make units out of ammo a frequent occurrence if you are not careful, making melee attack a necessity. It also should have more provinces per faction (like in Rome 2), but keep the population dynamic of the original Empire (like if a region have enough population surplus, it spawns a new city that has only a couple construction slots, but can be conquered by another faction). To avoid the “1 turn sieges” in the early game, it would need to remade how sieges works, I would like to see better fortification on the first round (with multiple ditches, walls etc) that would be slowly be damaged by each turn the siege goes on (maybe even with the player choosing which line of defense should be eliminated first). Having separate research trees per faction could also be a way to balance the game, with the Spanish and Ottoman empires having a strong position and poor research options, while the British have stronger research ti compensate the weaker positions at the start of the game. It would be good if the internal politics of Rome 2 would be replicated in an Empire world (but I wouldn’t abandon the ministries system), specially with the HRE electing an emperor and having civil wars and choosing between an absolute monarchy, a parliamentary system and a republic. But it also should merge with dynastic diplomacy, being able to inherit an empire if you play the cards right (but that would make all your neighbors declare war on you, like what happened in the Spanish Secession War). It could also cause a civil war if another nation leader has a claim to your throne. In the unit roster side, it would be cool to see more unique units depending on the nation (like Caroleans for Sweden) and I would like to see a trade off between line width (that would increase fire attack and limit the damage caused by cannons) and speed for infantry, maintaining the square formation against cavalry.
One thing I do hope they take from Empire, is the huge battlefields. With room to actually manouver and skirmish and stuff, even with very big armies and many players
Let's be real... Everyone loves TW because of realtime battles, gunpowder tactics even though are cool, oh man knights clashing into combat are even cooler!!! Mediaval 3 FTW
I love TW because it mix turns with real time, it make things more engaging. I just want this series to get bigger, gigantic maps, units should have thousand models, not just a hundred... But that will demand a real evolution of the engine, to go nextgen in a literal way... CA is too greedy for that, they want to maximize profits in the short-term
I still play it. Absolutely my favorite Total War game still. And don't underestimate the Campaign. It was very simple, but it was perfectly paced and created a lot of diverse battles, both at sea and on land. I find also, if you play it cleanly just for fun, and don't cheese battles, or the campaign, in order to beat it on the hardest difficulty, it is a lot of fun. It definitely is the game for the casual history enthusiast, rather than the hardcore gamer.
Empire TW was and still is my all time favorite Total War game. It had and still has it's issues (buggy siege battles), but that's never been enough to knock it off it's number one spot for me and I've by far put more hours in that game than any other TW game. If Creative Assembly put Empire 2 up for pre-order tomorrow, it would be an immediate purchase for me. I so badly want to get lost in that scale and scope in that era again.
I've poured over a 1000 hours in Empire now (mainly using Minor Factions or Darth Mod) but we really do need an Empire 2 or maybe one set around the 1800s. The game has so much potential to go further with new features, units, factions, regions, technology etc. I could go on.. I really do hope CA considers developing a new Empire game, so many possibilities.
I'd add three more things that should be fleshed out: 1. Dynasties were immensely important for the politics of the time and I always thought that Empire did only scratch the surface. They could for example use the system from Attila for that. 2. Internal politics are always kinda underdeveloped in Total War. Taking inspiration from the interest groups from Victoria 3 could make a huge difference in gameplay immersion and difficulty as one has to balance these interest groups with the drive to expansion. 3. Demographics, colonization and migration is a key element for a game set in this time period and should be fleshed out more. The development of new cities was a great innovation at the time, however one has to remember that the 18th century was a time of massive colonization projects in the Americas and Europe. They could easily borrow some mechanics from Victoria 3 for that.
For me it needs: Scramble for africa. So you control the Provence meaning you control the trade area. You choose who can send their ships and get money from it. In return, you protect the waters etc. The ability to build smaller ‘towns’ in wilderness areas. Certain areas give certain benefits (bison huntin increases food in the main town, trade depots for stop offs for trade and improved trading in the area) Privateers. It happened and we need it in a game. Robbing gold ships etc etc. be a great addition. That’s the main things I’d think of. A
Fort battles need an overhaul and mechanics from Shogun2 like naval bombardment and tech upgrades. Use events like Industrial Revolution and invention of percussion shells to challenge power structure as small rapidly modernizing factions can temporarily achieve local superiority. Tactics should evolve as tech evolves. By late game have trenches, bunkers and campaign map areas of attrition from fort gun batteries.
I am reading Kingdom right now and that made me buy Warhammer "3" even if I promised to myself to not support greedy CA anymore (addiction sucks). And I was surprised to remember how the units had like 80 models, 160 at best, etc I think if Total War is supposed to finally reach the "nextgen" regardless of the theme (empire, medieval, shogun, etc), they need to improve the engine to accommodate thousands of models at the same time. Regardless of the graphical fidelity, TW is a double A game (there's no parameters, CA has a monopoly on this niche), so to expect super realistic graphics and fancy effects, that's not the proposition. However, to use the extra processing power of PCs to accommodate thousands of models, that is a difference maker. In Kingdom, there is battles of 90 thousand vs 60 thousand, this is the kind of stuff I want to see on a nextgen TW game. If they just improve the graphics superficially and keep up with limited models (which means they are not taking the next step with the engine), that will be a letdown
Some things I'd like to see in an Empire 2 is cultural/ ethnic conversion like EU4 has in addition to religious conversion. A longer timeline, ideally the mid to late 1600s to just before WW1. And then obviously a full map of the world, maybe even including Antarctica for exploratory/ prestige purposes.
I'd love a Victorian Total War running from the 1848 Spring of Nations through the Spanish American War/Boxer Rebellion (the Russo-Japanese/Balkan Wars might be too ambitious). Just hoping they'd also implement: An actual coalition system (maybe run it like the crusade mechanics). Multi-day battles, sieges that don't necessarily break just because an assault failed, and the choice to pursue a fleeing army on the campaign map a bit after a victory (the distance can be calculated by the remaining stamina of the units and a detachment(s) can be made; same for the defeated army to create a rear-guard to save other units; these detachments could then receive any reinforcements which weren't able to reach the initial battlefield; the ability to select which units of which armies come to aid in battles and that impacting their campaign map locations (and impacting their ability to reinforce other battles during that turn. A map scaled in such a matter that rail is vital, Expeditionary forces are a must, and events like the American Civil War can play out in Campaign instead of as an expansion. Oh and a return to the old style of melee combat that doesn't see units standing around because the animations are 1v1. Probably asking too much, but one can hope 😅
@@theforbiddenpotato8032 remember that 1600's was filled with lot of small wars between countries and the 30 years war in central europe? it was basically an era filled with lots of big and small scale wars as a result of monarchs gaining absolute power while the church lost lots of its power.
@@sebastianwallin3726 "one of the most peaceful times of modern history" Here's a list of conflicts that took place around the same time frame: (NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) Anglo-Afghan Wars Texan War of Independence Italian Wars of Independence Anglo-Sikh Wars Mexican-American War Sepoy Mutiny Taiping Rebellion Crimean War Polish January Uprising American Civil War French Invasion of Mexico Second Schleswig War Boshin War Austro-Prussian War Paraguayan War Franco-Prussian War War of the Pacific Satsuma Rebellion Anglo-Zulu War Spanish-American War Boer Wars First Sino-Japanese War Boxer Rebellion I could name more, but I think you get my point by now. Peaceful? Maybe for Ancient and Medieval standards, but it'd still be a good setting for a total war game. That said, I think a 1700-1900 timeframe would be better, though that might just be too much given the drastic changes to warfare and technology through those centuries.
@@draconariusa7v421 Yes that is actually one of the most peaceful times in all of modern history you just listed. You seriously think Spanish American war was a large conflict when it was just about Cuba and Philipines? You even listed Texas war for independence. Are you so historically dumb you aren't aware entire Texas was just around 250.000 in population at that time period? You even listed Paraguyan war 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡 READ THIS TOTAL WAR there is no total war over Paraguyan skirmish battle or the satsumu rebellion. You're a joke
As the warfare doctrines hadn't changed drastically from early 1700s to pretty much early 1900s (line formations, use of artillery and cavalry and such) I hope CA will cover that entire period, Empire 2 encompassing most of it, and maybe having either DLCs or Total War Sagas of Napoleon 2, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, Crimean War, Russian Civil War and, perhaps even WWI...
Unfortunately, I think the studio is trending in the wrong direction to add most of these fixes. They just refuse to make the changes in staffing and commitments to overhaul the code to do these sorts of things.
Thats because they hire underpaid college grads majoring in women studies rather than historical reinactors for a closer simulation of reality. It's like rendering a referee in a sports game rather than hiring an actual ref and simulate their actions. It's cheaper for them to copy and paste animations over and over and over. Been doing it for 20 years.
Like these guys from TW could dominate the massive strategy area if they only put some love into one BIG game with a highly detailed world map.. How I've been wishing for such a game, lel. :D
I live in hope that the inclusion of gunpowder units in Warhammer means CA might decide to do empire 2. I think the biggest sticking point is fear of potential backlash. A "colonialism simulator", as I'm sure it would be deemed by some, has potential to attract a lot of negative press.
History is history. Its a shame that certain periods are 'taboo' and others aren't. No one complains that Rome: Total War glorifies imperialism or colonialism, or that Medieval 2: Total War glorifies the crusades.. yet they would complain about Empire: Total War. Do we really need to wait 1000 years for this game to be acceptable because of people not understanding history and that hating on the Spanish/British Empires is currently trendy and encouraged lmao. What about the Ottoman Empire? Why is it socially accepted to play as the USSR from 1901 onwards but not ok to play as Britain in the 1700s?
Not only that but they also did a three stage world wide map releasing each theater with each following game, so it could be similar for empire 2 Europe/Africa, Americas as the next and then Asia, south east Asia and Australia as the last
@@Patriotsfan123321 no, I wouldn't want it in stages. I want the whole world map accessible from turn 1. If I want to play as an African/South East Asian nation and expand locally, then fight off the British/French.. I shouldn't have to wait until "Stage 2". If I play as the French, and get to Australia before the British, why not? I loved that about Empire. Do we go to India first? North America first? Or try stop the Ottomans expanding through the Middle East? I'd HATE it if they released the map in "stages". Would ruin it for me and I wouldn't bother playing
@@benc640 yeah, that vocal segment speak more than they listen too it seems. People think they should have an opinion on something, even if they know nothing about it. Infuriates me but.. Let's not get into that lol. People who enjoy history, for what it is- history, are the ones that should be listened to. The people who have taken countless hours to read about things are the ones who should be listened to. Not the "I'm offended, and that's all that matters" people. I'll stop ranting now.
Given the sheer size of Warhammer 3 now. There is nothing stopping CA from having a game that spans across eras progressing through from the sometime in the renaissance through to the victorian era, it could easily be the most expansive Historical TW game ever, they could definitely do a full world map too (WH3 is already that sort of size), but splitting into the zones that Empire did could be good to save needless sea space. Either way, a game spanning such a large period could be fantastic and add a lot of variety compared to a lot of other historical titles. It might even bring in a lot of warhammer players that might not go for historical games due to a smaller variety of units. Personally for me they really need to go back to a lot of stuff that Empire did that modern TW games don't, like having certain buildings dispersed through a region, and also allowing units to be separate from an assigned leader so you could adequately defend a territory from small raids, and also making small raids on undefended infrastructure a valid strategy. Personally it would be super annoying to have an entire worlds worth of sea to fight over and only being able to have fleets recruited leaders. It just wouldn't capture the feel of Empire if units were so tied to almost heroes as they are right now in TW games.
The ultimate total war would be one that combines the economy of victoria 2 (havn't played viky3 so thats the one I know) with the zoomed in battles we know and love, with a full world map, with customizable provinces with the entire history to play through and also being able to choose at which point in history to start like CK2, maybe its too much to ask, and maybe too hard to monetize and balance but dam it would be awesome. An idea on how to monetize would be to sell like the one time in history which would be most popular first like the middle ages maybe and then release previous and future times as DLCs
8:55 Well, keep in mind that amphibious assaults were not done contested in this era. It simply wasn't practical, so no D-Day landings. If a spot was contested, it was easier to just keep sailing to a point there was no contest, because a ship could move much, much faster than an army. Expanding on the piracy system, it'd be cool if letters of marque could be issued, and if piracy was a more constant problem. I'd personally love to see the time period expanded to some of the industrial era units, like the ironclads.
The scramble for Africa setting is nice. With some dlc like the unification of the German and Italian States, then the crimean war. With some balkan war for regional setting.
Things I'd like to see considered in a new empire game, an economic dynamic of industrialists, engineers and scientists and how the working class operated along with the elite class. Make it more reflective of the actual greats responsible. General traits that are reflected on the battlefield. This should improve ai combat depending on who leads the army, the ai would adopt those tactics. Captains would be the typical charge and flank method we are so accustomed to. Expanding the major city and provincial system. Coupled with ordinances depending on government structure, laws and legislation should be treated the same as building browser. So a brand new tab for law would be nice. Multi-staged seige battles. Major cities assaulted in 3 stages giving ai/player time to respond, and each time you fight you'd be either deeper into the city, pushed back into the open field, or a stalemate to continue bombardment at the cost of attrition. Population mechanic overhaul would be nice. It would really make an immersive recruitment system heavily dependant on industry and scientific revolution. Buildings and technology overhaul, maybe an amalgamation of the 2 rather than separate entities. So a particular building would host technologies representative of that structure. Pre stage strategic mapping. Including assigning field commanders and their effectiveness to carry out these orders are reflected on the skill of the commander and unit stats. If you've ever played Madden, it would be similar to that. Before each play, you have a playback designed to get around the defense. They'd be cool as some decisions could be pivotal to your victory, or the detriment to your defeat, and you have to bare witness of it unfolding. This would make heroic units to save a commander under pressure. Or an additional cavalry regiment to support a faltering flank. Making you more of a general giving command in real time battle simulation limited to that Era.
For me a empire settled in the time of 1500 to 1600’s about that. Enough melee combat and the rise of gunpowder fights. Just something shogun was about but then European based, with a wider world map than the empire one. That would be the sweetspot
I just want a full world map that’s what made empire total war one of my favorites growing up, the ability to traverse and invade multiple continents and not just Europe made the campaign feel grand
A new Empire 2 Game would be appreciated. For the Provinces, maybe we could use the Rome2/ Attilla mechanic. 1 Region. With 3 Province in it, one main City 2 smaller. PS: good Soundtrack I love Empire OST, but some OST were from Napoleon. Weren't they :-P
An improved and deeper Empire 2 would be an instant "Take my money". And just imagine the modability and the sheer creativeness as we've seen with Warhammer.
I'd prefer they abandon separate unlockable elite units and focus on experience based promotions that allow any regiment to eventually become a famous "elite" unit.
A regiment that performs plenty of heroic actions (successful bayonet charges against superior enemy numbers, holding ground against intense fire, etc...) or reaches enough milestones could either retain their earned buffs as that regiment or be reorganized into an iconic "Elite Unit" of history for that faction.
but historically there were "elite" units also normal line inf can become elite from gaining exp boosting their stats
@@Logan0o IMO elite units in the OG game feels video gamey.
IRL elite units were either distinguished regiments or formed of distinguished soldiers taken from across the army. Britain didn't unlock a tech and suddenly had elite grenadiers lol
I would prefer a more organic system of earning elite units through experience. This would make them feel way more special.
@@Logan0o I think they mean things like normal line infantry vs new/elite/guard line infantry, where the latter are just a tech upgrade of the former. But theyre suggesting that say after a normal line infantry unit maxes experience they can be swapped for the elite version, to mirror how irl the elite groups were often made of veteran soldiers or veteran regiments given recognition rather than say "ok boys its 1786 youre the Kings Line Infantry now"
@@Rynewulf prob the best thing to do be just upgrade their stats to reflect the cahgning tech in small arms dev such as when rifled rifles became a thing. Or a way to convert units without them loosing their prev earned exp
@@forrestpenrod2294 could argue tho that you are supposed to role play with your own units making them elite and name them personally rather then just recruiting one
Empire 2 or a Victoria Total War are honestly the only two options I'm excited for in a new historical title. I feel like Napoleon was the last game in which battles felt truly large-scale, fitting for its period. No game since has managed to match the sense of scale that Empire and Napoleon did. I'd argue they've been progressively going in the opposite direction, with significantly smaller and shorter battles.
Yep... That would be awesome. But they'd wreck itand jt would be a cartoon game. They could never match NTW3
Something with an EU4 size scale and scope would be INCREDIBLE.
There’s really no good strategy/4x games for the 19th century - very early 20th century time period, there’s Victoria 2 but despite what the fanboys say it’s really not that great for a variety of reasons.
Napoleon 2 maybe? :D
Anything but a Victorian era TW game!
An Empire 2 should take place from 1696 or so, basically soon after the Siege of Vienna, and go up until 1800, with 4 turns per year.
Because the 1700s would offer a very unit period that could not only have a wide range of different cultures and armies to play around with, but not have the technology be at such a ridiculous level that the European factions ALWAYS win no matter what.
It has the most potential.
Top 5 things they need to change:
1. Conscription/volunteer mechanic that can be turned off for players that don't want it. For players that do want it, an army loss is a huge defeat and it is more realistic.
2. New Map. Add Africa and Asia. Both are valuable in the 1700s and will make Empire 2 feel more unique.
3. Improved economic system. Restructure of trade and tariffs primarily but also a mechanic to hire privateers.
4. Navy and army combined attacks. This includes mortar ships that will bombard forts
5. Good uniforms and art. Empire's art and uniforms were garbage and an eye sore.
AI sucks throughout TW games. That alone makes it hard for me to get excited...
@@miceliusbeverus6447 Yeah. When two major nations are at war, it's not going to be 3 armies or so against each other or the AI just sitting with the armies and not attacking legitimate targets
I don't see how a conscription mechanic would work, not to mention conscription was not a thing until the Napoleonic era.
Especially for attacking capitals. Conscription/Total War mechanic should be applied for a max of 5 turns allowing for huge bonuses to enlistment and munitions, however deficits penality is huge.
yeah I’d love if they add coastal battles. bombarding enemy coastal defenses with my ship of lines and rocket/mortar ships then disembark redcoats to siege enemy fort.
One can only dream. It was my first total war game and I remember it fondly, very much so
Good times :)
This era, renaissance, victorian, pretty much anything involving early to modern gunpowder up until aviation warfare, is my favorite time period. So I hope they do make another Empire Total War.
30 years war would also be very interisting.
That is probably the latest time period they can do without feeling like a men of war game. If you think about it Napoleon total war is already unrealistic because there were engagements where units ambushed an army then disappeared. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia the Russians would set up cannons and units and shoot at the advancing French then retreat to do it again
Early gunpowder is 900 a.d. china
You do realise that between end of renaissance and start of victorian period was like 200 years ?
@@Romczy have you seen the time period other Total Wars involve? Sometimes almost a halve millennium
God, I wish we could actually get an Empire II 🤤
You and me both :’(
I’ve been dreaming for Empire 2 damn
Loved the province system in Empire and Shogun 2. Don't know what they were thinking with newer titles..
Good video 👍
Making it easier for AI to understand. That is what they where thinking. You can say that for alot of their decisions as of late.
Yeah, it is the golden middle between older "everything in city" and newer "provinces with limited potential". Wish it became back.
@@jaywerner8415 we always hear in media how ai is getting more intelligent, yet creative assembly haven't really improved how the ai behaves in over 20 years of making games now.
@@willc1294 The Sad part is, its mostly the BATTLE AI that is lagging behind, the Campaign map AI was and is pretty good now. Still it could do with some work itself (AI never tries to ambush you for example).
The Field Battle AI hasn't improved in the past 10 years or 20 years depending your Total War career. It still just BONAZI charges you in a single line, Cavalry will always Flank you, and the artillery will sit in the back totally undefended. Not only are we all used to this tactic by now, but this also limits how you can play as well to a extent.
The Siege AI was better in the OLDER games (if it worked in Med 2 with 3 layers of WALL, they got no excuse for the modern AI and city design), got SHIT in Empire and they have just been "rebuilding" it since then. Warhammers siege AI worked Pretty well when it was only ONE WALL and a small city, (a testamate to how shit it is) Now with the more complicated cities ITS BACK TO BEING RETARDED! (like Shogun 2 lvls of retarded, the Siege AI in that game was pretty awful)
Thank you, Maximilian :)
First and foremost I think the biggest thing that needs to be emphasized in an Empire 2 is that this is an Age of Revolution. You should always feel like you are sitting on a giant powder keg. They could also extend the timeline a bit to include both the Scramble for Africa and the Great Game.
Sounds awesome!
or expand it the other way, and include the early exploration age, and Global Empire building.
The age of revolution began in the *late* 18th century as a result of the Seven Years' War (essentially World War Zero). Before that, it was a time of a very stable, rising trend towards powerful monarchies, enlightened absolutism remaining the reigning idea up till Napoleon.
I mean, you had figures like Frederick the Great, Peter the Great, Cathrine the Great and Louis XIV and XV all reigning in the 18th century, and those were some of the most powerful monarchic regimes of all time.
@@pl-AEtheRR I actually quite like how Empire handled it with Clamour of reform as the game went on. Not much of an issue in the early game, but as you industrialize and become more enlightened people are more dissatisfied with their absolutist monarchs. Obviously it would need a lot of polishing, revolutions in Empire are very underwhelming, but it stands on a good foundation.
@@Marius2Rocker That I agree with, Empire had great ideas in general. Just not the budget and polish to execute on them.
Fort battles should include trenches and multiple layers of defense like actual forts of the time.
They could even do 2 part battles, one to take the outskirts and the other to storm the gates.
Yesss love these ideas
trench warfare would be boring. find yourself something else than total war
@@sebastianwallin3726 true is see what you mean BUT! not like 20th century trench warfare but 18th century style sieging trenches. Like maybe the longer the siege the closer the trench lines get to the city so the attack is easier. Etc etc.
@Sebastian Wallin total war used to be more historically accurate focused, but maybe you're too used to the cartoonish arcade style wack fests they are now to know that.
I would LOVE to see Empire encompass the era from early gunpowder (1500, Spanish Tercios) through the 1600-1700s, and then into the 1800s, large range of time I know, and a time of significant tactical and technological development, but also many similarities in those areas as well. ... But watching and experiencing the progression of tactics and technology and strategies moving through that era would be so fascinating!!
Empire's campaign map is the best in any total war game hands down. The naval aspect was truly amazing. I know people didn't like the naval combat but once you got the hang of it I started looking forward to them more than land battles.
At first it's a chaotic mess, but you can give structure to the naval battles with proper formations.
Empire 2 would definitely be on the top of the list for the next historical TW game. Followed closely by a medieval 3.
I suggest that people who don’t like naval battles simply don’t know how to conduct them.
You also get to capture ships if you do it right
@@OhhJim I agree. Once you learn how to conduct them properly, they were amazing.
I think I will begin a new campaign.
I loved naval battles from the start. It's just you can't play them in any other game. This is why it's exciting.
I still don't understand why they don't release or announce Empire 2. Every one of my friends who likes Total War wants it desperately. If it ever comes out, I hope sea battles will return in all their glory.
WE NEED THIS.
Hitting the magazine as the finishing blow in Empire was one of the most satisfying things.
If they make a empire 2. Not only have naval battles have to return. They also have to slow down land battles again. This is maybe just me. In warhammer they just feel so quick. You always have to pay attention to what happens. While also true for empire total war. At least I felt I had more time just watching my army fight.
True!
big map and better siege battle if possible more historically accurate cities would be fantastic
I've been saying that for years. Old skool total was was making sure you brought the right quality and quantity of troops to a battle. Deploy them in the formations you wanted and then the battles had more of a "let them clash and manage them slightly where needed". It was fantastic and you could have time to watch those sweet animations as the chaos of the battle went on around you.
New total war battles are just keep clicking on buffs after cool down and it's all ovwr in minutes. Awful
I'd like to see:
-Actual siege warfare with sapping, siege guns, and breaches.
-Turns being two weeks instead of 6 months.
-Coordination mechanics, especially as warfare evolves into the Napoleonic period and armies get larger, being able to send out scouts in front of an army and order multiple corps to take different routes and converge simultaneously or in succession instead of only being able to order one unit at a time. You could kind of set up this type of action in Empire, but it was clunky.
-Choosing retreat distance and direction unless it's after a major defeat.
Agreed on all fronts - in Napoleon the turns were about two weeks (early January, late January, early February, etc.), so going that route or even one month per turn would allow for simpler turns and ability to better respond to enemy actions.
The retreat mechanics ESPECIALLY drove me mad! There'd be a city of mine they could easily retreat to, and they'd take the other split or no road at all and dead-end themselves into a river or something so they could be easily reached and attacked again. Just being able to pick a general direction or which road to take on a split would make such a difference...
I mean... Now that they figured out how to mod the campaign map in Atilla, perhaps we can make our own Empire 2.
Perhaps, perhaps… the cool gunpowder stuff+ships might be the hardest obstacles to surpass, although compared to Warhammer, at least Attila has naval battles!
@@AndysTake Or maybe they'll crack the code for Empire.
Not likely. Atilla had its own issues, mostly through the mechanics. The last Total War game to pretty much get the battle gameplay right was Fall Of The Samurai, which is STILL one of the greatest Total War experiences to date. Something Atilla and Warhammer both share is an awful engine that does away with the individual models and stats that we had in Medieval 2 and Empire. You can see it in the health bars for units where a shower of arrows hits your guys and they take barely any casualties at first, then start to drop like flies once their unit HP is low enough. It used to be that if an arrow model hit a unit model, that one unit would take damage.
Just started playing ck2 for the fist time, story cut short creative assembly has to talk to paradox the grand strategy and empire maneging is amazing.
I still dont know if I'd rather have Medieval 3 or Empire 2
Yeah that’s my position as well haha
If the rumors are true and this year comes a monumantal movie about Napoleon by Ridley Scott and if it''s scaled like Gladiator, Troy or Kingdom of Heaven the hype about 17th-19th century could be insane.
Yes.
You Medieval scum have had your sequel. It's our turn.
It's 50/50 for me, I'd be happy with 1 of them they can chose for me
I hope they can represent accurately how campaigns were operated in that era; supply systems, reconnaissance, reinforcements, and most importantly the order of battle & the command structure; having battalions/regiments be the primary unit of maneuver being a part of brigades>divisions>corps>field armies, etc., with their appropriate generals. To me this is an aspect that being unrealized really leaves much to be desired when it comes to immersion in games based in this era.
I hope the devs take inspiration from some notable campaigns and how they played out with all the maneuvering, FoW, and the order & phases in which battles were fought.
They won't do anything realistic because they refuse to contract military personnel to set them straight. They are a bunch of liberal scum bags placating to PC culture as to not offend anyone by making an overly "masculinzed" game. Everything is policy behind closed doors and their shareholders have no balls.
love the video. Like to see some more minor playable factions with their own historical uniforms. Adding Holy Roman Empire schenario/arc would be fantastic.
They have mentioned a trilogy of historical games being the next big thing, I would love to start with Pike and Shot, have "Empire 2" be the middle game, and then end on Victorian. Expand the map a little each game until it is global in the third, or at least has major theaters to travel between. Real naval warfare would be a must.
About battle AI: given than military tactics in the 18th-19th centuries were focused on the 'geometry'' of units formations (squares, lines, columns...) I would like battles to reflect that a bit more, so that units should feel like you are almost playing with geometric shapes. This would also possibly help the battle AI to improve, as it would have a smaller range of options for unit formations.
In Napoleon, I remember that almost always the best way to get battles done was to form a line as large and thin as possible so everybody could shoot.
That and the implementation of military drilling and field commanders. Assigning field commanders pre battle, you give commands and the ai takes over while you general the main line. Similar to madden, you get a menu to select what play you want to run, and the ai carries out those routes. Their effectiveness depends on the overall status of that player, and the same could reflect in this game to. A pre stage chess match, taking up positions was just as imperative as line formations and bravery. That'd be pretty neat imo
Assigning field commanders as separate detachments in a pre engagement strategy mapping. Line infantry with drummers and flags representing the panpoloy of war. Scraping 1 v 1 melee animations for more brutal and effective charges based on bravery morality commander and national pride. Unique national units willing to die and suffer the atrocities of campaign. Only available for recruitment when nation prestige is maxed out, or in times of war against ethnic enemies. Racial tensions back then can't be represented properly in today's pussified society unfortunately. And CA placate to that sensitivity as if Karen's are calling all the shots. They lost their balls. And I bet they can make games too masculine based, they softened everything up and say it's the engine, or the ai as a piss poor excuse to actually address the issue. Why else would it be 10 20 years plus of the same regurgitated bs
If there is a plan for empire 2 they better start with a napoleon 2 first, so they can fuck up and experiment with the smaller one instead of the other way around, again.
Loooool
My first total war and my most played game ever
It would be great that the round system changes for multiplayers, so that 5+ players could play on one server for a set of time (1-2 weeks) while the gameplay time is going slowly starting at (let's say 1700 and finishes in 2 weeks at let's say 1815-20...); and while you are on your diplomatic map creating new buildings, units, relations, etc. you can zoom into a current stage of events (battle) to make decisions within the battle field and zoom out again if necessary
WE deserve an Empire 2.
It'd be fun if they did one that took you from the late medieval period up into the industrial revolution- roughly 1450-1800 or 1850. It'd be good to show how technologies changed during that period and how that affected the battlefield and military tactics. The original Empire did this quite well, but the relatively narrow focus on the 18th century meant that for most factions the units you finished the game with were usually just improved versions of the ones you had near the start. You spent the majority of the campaign churning out Line Infantry as you pretty much had to use them for most of your army, regardless. Broadening the time period would make you adapt your tactics and approach more as the game progressed, reflecting the real history. You'd start with relatively small armies of armoured knights and archers, then move into the 'pike and shot' era, ending up with much larger gunpowder armies and linear warfare.
An earlier starting time would also allow you to incorporate the 'Age of Discovery'. One of the best things about Medieval II was when you realised late on that you could actually sail to the New World and encounter the Aztecs- the sense of adventure and exploration was great. More like that would be incredible, especially if you could unlock some of the historically colonised civilisations as playable factions and try to create alternate histories where they could resist invasion and maybe even turn the tables on the colonisers- e.g. if the Incas could defeat Pizarro, buy ships from the Dutch and use them to invade Spain...
To not mention the list of other things people in the comments have already mentioned, I wish that A) We'd get three campaigns: two global maps in 1700 & 1836, and a Europe map in 1618. B) These maps come out 1.5 to 2 years apart so to not repeat the mistake of Three Kingdoms having too many time periods released so quickly and none being super polished.
it's simply the best time period and setting for any total war game IMO. I love the warfare, the units, the time period, the uniforms. It needs a proper sequel.
Amen to you
If it ever happens, hope they add the whole world!
I doub't they'll do it, but active trading like the cathay caravans from Warhammer3 might be the best System for trade in Empire 2: You send out a convoi of merchantment/tradeships/gaĺleons who have a capacity/ combat ability trade off going on. They can be attacked and defended by themselfs and warships, however sending a lot of huge Warships with your convoi is gonna cut into your profits.
This would incentivise Colonisation in a more historical/organic fashion: you're not conquering all of China for their taxes, you're trying to get a trading port to increase your trading profits.
Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnaughts kinda fills the Empire/Victoria Total War niche right now, I advise ppl to give it a look. It's only naval battles, no land battles, but they are very detailed and the entire world is represented on the campaign map.
Something I've always found lacking in Total War was that logistics were totally missing in land campaigns, and that scouting, and vanguards weren't a thing. I want attacks on baggage trains, hit and run tactics and (anti-)scouting action which make campagin movement important and hazardous and add more flavor than just "2 full stacks of army meet in the middle, big fight".
The thing I loved about Empire was it was the first and probably the only total war game that had my country in it where they were not this all powerful god tier lvl.
Haha and which country was that?
@@AndysTake U.S of A
@@DeadMarine1980 yeah that’s what I thought haha. Cheers from Norway!
There's a mod to play USA in the Grand Campaign but modding it in required a couple of concessions such as starting with no armies and not building fortifications. And because of how the diplo works in game it meant that Iroquois would declare first turn and Britain who still owns the rest of the thirteen colonies will declare within a few turns unless you get them on side. Granted the AI struggles to invade the new world but it still felt tense and exciting for a good while, one of my most enjoyable and memorable campaigns. Every tech mattered, building up cities from tribal camps and kicking the europeans back to their theater. Darth Mod has a USA GC start date but it adds a lot, I found a different mod that let me play it vanilla
Shogun 2 had stuff like this that I’d love to bring back - provincial specialties like Naval Traditions or Schools, and events like a foreign missionary or infrastructure development affecting public happiness or settlement growth via ports, farms etc. Naval Bombardments and Marines getting involved are two things I’d like in a new Empire entry
I repeat it again and again until Creative Assembly will heart it.
I don't want any new game if it's not Empire 2 Total War
That's the only game I want and I don't care about another period.
I want an Empire 2 Total War with the biggest map we have ever seen, bigger than Attila, bigger than Warhammer 3, bigger than any game before. I want muskets, I want mind blowing naval combat. I want dozens and dozens of factions like in Warhammer 3.
Any other total war is not interesting me.
Fall of the Samurai kind of returned to that time period or at least a very similar technology base. I felt personally it felt like a good example of what Empire 2 could've been. I'm just not sure if they'll ever return to that
Man, you are such a underrated youtuber dude. Love your vids.
Thank you, Peter, that’s lovely to hear! :D
Napoleonic era's one of my favorite, but if there will be games around this era I'll be ok with that too.
Empire 2 is the total war game I've been craving for a very long time now. I definitely have a different wish list than you, but I'd be happy with most of the improvements you've outlined. I really likes the province system from three kingdoms, as well as rome 2's blending of navy and land, combine that with the line infantry tactics of the day and earth shattering events (american and French revolutions, maybe some family dynamics à la CK2) and I think CA could make an absolute juggernaut of a game.
We NEED an Empire 2 seriously! It would be total war's biggest selling game yet im sure!
Any available engine will end up resulting in the same issues. They always fire everyone that develops and engine that better than the one shareholders are invested in. Happens every time.
The dream is that CA have been secretly working on the title since warhammer 1 launched and has a fully polished Empire 2 ready to go this year… I said it was only a dream.
Takk for en inspirerende video!
I would love to see a new empire with a real focus on how different and unique the factions and struggles was during this period, and show how long lasting these rivalries and wars was at this time. With a lot of freedom on how to play, at the same time having major events that will force you to act based on the circumstances.
- With a focus on the continuous struggle between france, prussia, and austria on who can control the german states. (United germany with prussia, french vasal german confederation or larger austrian empire)
- The deluge and the david and goliath fight between russia and sweden (showing two comparable, but totally different factions at war, with a split and chaotic poland clinging to power, while fighting the former mentioned and the cossacks). Russia playing the long game, while sweden and poland having high stakes and short time period to win.
- Smaller factions that want independence, but need to pick a side to have a chance, like cossacks, wallachians, moldovans and german states. Having to supply tribute and men to their vasal lords, or fight an uphill scheming battle for independence.
- A real balance of power system that sees factions team together to stop anyone from being to powerful, or attacking a faction that is losing a war, to get land and resources during peace negotiations (like the silesian wars, deluge, great northern war).
- Ethnic groups always being an important factor, with rebellions and having to keep each group happy or suppressed if you have an empire or multiethnic nation. With the ability to grant autonomy or fund rebellions.
- Unique strength and weaknesses like russia with large army, but weak at beginning and with a large land to protect. Sweden with well equipped elite veteran army and effective, but risky army doctrine, low population, hard to defend and few allies. Poland with best cavalry in europe, but internally fragile with opportunist subjects and nobles and powerful enemies incroaching from the start. Austria having consolidated control and influence over neighbours and strong military, but overstretched, diverse populations, constant conflict with strongest powers.
- A focus on army supplies, with the ability of attacking enemy supply line with light units. Also to prevent the ability of directly going to the enemy capital in a few turns. To do a major invasion you need to save up or steal enough supplies, or risk catastrophe. And holding territory you need a functioning and constant supply line and garrisons.
- More focus or raiding and protecting smaller settlements, factories, ports and food supply. This makes forts and their strategic placement crucial, and is a major bargaining chip at peace negotiations. And ofcourse the ability to do scorched earth when you are desperate to hinder an invitation.
- For sea powers there should be the ability to set up small or big blockades, forcing the weaker sea faction to try to break it, ignore it and stop major trading or try to trade through the blockade if the blockade is spread out. All with totally different consequences.
- Engineers should be a big factor, from building fortifications, trenches, bridges for armies river crossing, siege mines and other siege equipment. Loss of important roles like engineers and officers and generals are hard to replace and will consiterebly weaken the army and need time and funds to be replaced.
- More freedom in choices, ability to cut corners in desperate times, like with having low trained troops to boost recruitment time and numbers, less firearms and more pikes for cheap equipped army, worse uniforms and boots to save funds (no winter clothing to save cost), low rations/bad rations to save food. And drastic measures as stealing critical food from population, binding farmers to their landlords to have more control or mass drafting to scrape your nation of manpower in a total war. And ability to choose where to recruit, like if you want to rely on your vassals to keep your population happy, with the risk of angry, low moral, treacherous vassals.
- Last, have the ability to be conquered and keep playing, either having to give land, play as a new subjugate ally, vassal or incorporated ethnic group ready to revolt or change allegiance.
I liked how I needed to manually replenish units for money. Too bad they made it auto-replenishment. It just doesn't feel right.
But we also need a manpower pool from which we can recruit and replenish.
Yup. Military academies, quarters and housing troops separate from Military and volunteers. It's quite simple, they just won't address it because they have taken a liberal direction and made it political. I've always felt and anti-war conscious behind CAs combat. Even the developers I've seen the interviews look like a bunch of French panty sniffers. They need to contract Military personnel to set to help the development team. Not a bunch of underpaid college students majoring in offensive language and how to avoid them.
We now need a musket/rifle time period. It has been years. With big scale campaign and battle maps
If there can be a bridge between the mechanics of Empire and Europa 4…that would be an amazing game. Consequences to both warfare and diplomacy on a massive scale
Grand strategy map aspects of paradox games and total war battles + actual battle AI would be unironically one of the best games out there
They could implement two different map modes. One for big scale battles and a good overview and one with a lot of smaller towns and smaller units. You will have the choice to use your whole army or only detachments. Example for romans: Use one or more legions or use cohortes or even centuries. You can decide then as well to play as a general or start as a leader of a small unit. With experience, you can get promoted and command more men. Napoleon did not start as a commander of the grande armée, he started as an artillery officer.
Authentic world-spanning map and limitless modding capacity will do for me
An Empire 2 made like this would be a dream
I agree with everything I see
I also saw Norway taking over Sweden hehe
Empire is arguably my favourite Total War game but I would love a Total War game set in the late 19th Century i.e Crimea, Scramble for Africa etc
Way ahead of its time ... let's just be thankful it exists and doesn't crash every time you play it
Empire has a special place in my heart, and just as the original game heralded a new era for Total War at the time, so too could an Empire 2. If we get Medieval 3 next as a sort of culmination of this generation of TW games, taking the best things from 3K and Troy and Attila and Rome 2 (and maybe even some lessons from Warhammer), Empire 2 could follow as a new horizon. I genuinely think seeing naval battles make a comeback would be just as exciting as seeing them debut for the first time.
I really liked the "path of independence" campaign, if they made empire 2 and they make the entire world map.
Edit: they should make a 30 years war campaign.
The naval battles are what made empire really stand out. I would play a whole game just based on the naval feature
Doing a Qing playthrough sounds nice if empire expands east
I am strongly recommending playing Absolute Dominium mod. Even Mysore gets new units. Every faction playable with original vanillia feeling. And every faction has unique UI.
Link, my friend?
I also promote this mod at every opportunity. The Absolutum Dominium: Mods and Monuments mod also contains unique buildings for all factions.
I have always been waiting for a empire 2. Only total war game to have world map, and I have always had such a fondness for that time period! I really hope empire 2 happens
love everything you just said, I still play empire total war to this day like 10,000 hours worth of game play .....well maybe not that much but does feel like it
Bring back more micro management to the economy, make it feel more like your building an empire. Also have more strategic location in a region to draw out the army from the major city location. We need more grand strategy features and events in these games.
A feature that I would really like would be weather & status accurate skins for your units - for example impact of your state beeing bad in finance leeding to worn down uniforms and maybe even having impact on equipment quality & stats -or bad weather battles having units wearing coats and stuff. Apart from that I would really like to see more realistic battle mechanics like we found them in the NAP Toal war 3 mod. And for battles I would suggest 3 types of scale. Skirmish, Engagement and full scale Battle. These could differ like you chose a different rank of leader - for Skrimish beeing Brigadier General, for Engagement beeing Division General and for Full Scale battle be it on Marshal/General Major. These then could have historic characters and sub General units with each special capeabilitys on the field - so each army could be really unique in how it behaves in battle and on campaign map. I aswell imagine that you could establish regiments - who then could have battalions - each battalion beeing a bit bigger in size then the company sized units in NTW and ETW. For City Fights I think Rome 2 and Atilla did some cool things - I would really love the charge on a city district even if its partial displayed - with or without any armorments - like we have it in Rome 2 - civilist city, militaristic city something like that :) diplomacy needs to be improved a bit on the campaign map. Computer steered countrys do very often take stupid decissions & interaction/influence is somewhat functioning randome. Also I would love more variety in characters on the campaign map & more options for diplomacy overall like we finde it for ex. in Shogun 2. Also production of goods and weapons could be a bit more diverse/unique per region. Thats it :D
That of what you said and more. Though what we need the brigade system for each of the formations in the game which will be a useful way to fit the population system in. And it should allow the corps system for attachable officers and agents in to the lot to allow them to have flare not to mention I think the artifact and item system can be used in there to just more focused on banners and other items for the troops. And if one can be bold get the ability to put fit the troops yourself with what equipment is best needed for them to fight at max capacity.
Also for the models themselves creative assembly should hire reenactors to animate new models to make them behave more realistically especially when the models become casualties with how they fall. Hell if you know the movie effects especially in gods and generals with how the lot get thrown around by artillery shells that should be used as well.
Tw reformation/empire2/Victoria will be amazing
Gawd I miss naval warfare.
Hoi4 like Capitulation would be a lovely mechanic if done right
I have some ideas on how to improve on Empire. First, keep the army “stances” from Rome 2, make it also linked to the total ammo you have for the battle (like 200% for fortify, 150% for raiding and 50% for force march) and make units out of ammo a frequent occurrence if you are not careful, making melee attack a necessity.
It also should have more provinces per faction (like in Rome 2), but keep the population dynamic of the original Empire (like if a region have enough population surplus, it spawns a new city that has only a couple construction slots, but can be conquered by another faction).
To avoid the “1 turn sieges” in the early game, it would need to remade how sieges works, I would like to see better fortification on the first round (with multiple ditches, walls etc) that would be slowly be damaged by each turn the siege goes on (maybe even with the player choosing which line of defense should be eliminated first).
Having separate research trees per faction could also be a way to balance the game, with the Spanish and Ottoman empires having a strong position and poor research options, while the British have stronger research ti compensate the weaker positions at the start of the game.
It would be good if the internal politics of Rome 2 would be replicated in an Empire world (but I wouldn’t abandon the ministries system), specially with the HRE electing an emperor and having civil wars and choosing between an absolute monarchy, a parliamentary system and a republic. But it also should merge with dynastic diplomacy, being able to inherit an empire if you play the cards right (but that would make all your neighbors declare war on you, like what happened in the Spanish Secession War). It could also cause a civil war if another nation leader has a claim to your throne.
In the unit roster side, it would be cool to see more unique units depending on the nation (like Caroleans for Sweden) and I would like to see a trade off between line width (that would increase fire attack and limit the damage caused by cannons) and speed for infantry, maintaining the square formation against cavalry.
A man has the right to dream. No? I've become more cynical regarding Total War, but hope to be proved wrong. Cheers.
Me too! Cheers!
One thing I do hope they take from Empire, is the huge battlefields. With room to actually manouver and skirmish and stuff, even with very big armies and many players
Let's be real... Everyone loves TW because of realtime battles, gunpowder tactics even though are cool, oh man knights clashing into combat are even cooler!!! Mediaval 3 FTW
Would love a Medieval 3 as well!
I love TW because it mix turns with real time, it make things more engaging. I just want this series to get bigger, gigantic maps, units should have thousand models, not just a hundred... But that will demand a real evolution of the engine, to go nextgen in a literal way... CA is too greedy for that, they want to maximize profits in the short-term
I disagree I'm burnt out on knights, spears, and crossbowmen, give me a proper Empire/Napoleon 2, better still give me a Victorian era TW.
I still play it. Absolutely my favorite Total War game still. And don't underestimate the Campaign. It was very simple, but it was perfectly paced and created a lot of diverse battles, both at sea and on land.
I find also, if you play it cleanly just for fun, and don't cheese battles, or the campaign, in order to beat it on the hardest difficulty, it is a lot of fun. It definitely is the game for the casual history enthusiast, rather than the hardcore gamer.
Empire TW was and still is my all time favorite Total War game. It had and still has it's issues (buggy siege battles), but that's never been enough to knock it off it's number one spot for me and I've by far put more hours in that game than any other TW game. If Creative Assembly put Empire 2 up for pre-order tomorrow, it would be an immediate purchase for me. I so badly want to get lost in that scale and scope in that era again.
I've poured over a 1000 hours in Empire now (mainly using Minor Factions or Darth Mod) but we really do need an Empire 2 or maybe one set around the 1800s. The game has so much potential to go further with new features, units, factions, regions, technology etc. I could go on.. I really do hope CA considers developing a new Empire game, so many possibilities.
I'd add three more things that should be fleshed out:
1. Dynasties were immensely important for the politics of the time and I always thought that Empire did only scratch the surface. They could for example use the system from Attila for that.
2. Internal politics are always kinda underdeveloped in Total War. Taking inspiration from the interest groups from Victoria 3 could make a huge difference in gameplay immersion and difficulty as one has to balance these interest groups with the drive to expansion.
3. Demographics, colonization and migration is a key element for a game set in this time period and should be fleshed out more. The development of new cities was a great innovation at the time, however one has to remember that the 18th century was a time of massive colonization projects in the Americas and Europe. They could easily borrow some mechanics from Victoria 3 for that.
For me it needs:
Scramble for africa. So you control the Provence meaning you control the trade area. You choose who can send their ships and get money from it. In return, you protect the waters etc.
The ability to build smaller ‘towns’ in wilderness areas. Certain areas give certain benefits (bison huntin increases food in the main town, trade depots for stop offs for trade and improved trading in the area)
Privateers. It happened and we need it in a game. Robbing gold ships etc etc. be a great addition.
That’s the main things I’d think of. A
Fort battles need an overhaul and mechanics from Shogun2 like naval bombardment and tech upgrades.
Use events like Industrial Revolution and invention of percussion shells to challenge power structure as small rapidly modernizing factions can temporarily achieve local superiority.
Tactics should evolve as tech evolves. By late game have trenches, bunkers and campaign map areas of attrition from fort gun batteries.
I am reading Kingdom right now and that made me buy Warhammer "3" even if I promised to myself to not support greedy CA anymore (addiction sucks). And I was surprised to remember how the units had like 80 models, 160 at best, etc I think if Total War is supposed to finally reach the "nextgen" regardless of the theme (empire, medieval, shogun, etc), they need to improve the engine to accommodate thousands of models at the same time. Regardless of the graphical fidelity, TW is a double A game (there's no parameters, CA has a monopoly on this niche), so to expect super realistic graphics and fancy effects, that's not the proposition. However, to use the extra processing power of PCs to accommodate thousands of models, that is a difference maker. In Kingdom, there is battles of 90 thousand vs 60 thousand, this is the kind of stuff I want to see on a nextgen TW game. If they just improve the graphics superficially and keep up with limited models (which means they are not taking the next step with the engine), that will be a letdown
Some things I'd like to see in an Empire 2 is cultural/ ethnic conversion like EU4 has in addition to religious conversion. A longer timeline, ideally the mid to late 1600s to just before WW1. And then obviously a full map of the world, maybe even including Antarctica for exploratory/ prestige purposes.
I would love to see a pike and Shot total war.
I'd love a Victorian Total War running from the 1848 Spring of Nations through the Spanish American War/Boxer Rebellion (the Russo-Japanese/Balkan Wars might be too ambitious).
Just hoping they'd also implement:
An actual coalition system (maybe run it like the crusade mechanics).
Multi-day battles, sieges that don't necessarily break just because an assault failed, and the choice to pursue a fleeing army on the campaign map a bit after a victory (the distance can be calculated by the remaining stamina of the units and a detachment(s) can be made; same for the defeated army to create a rear-guard to save other units; these detachments could then receive any reinforcements which weren't able to reach the initial battlefield; the ability to select which units of which armies come to aid in battles and that impacting their campaign map locations (and impacting their ability to reinforce other battles during that turn.
A map scaled in such a matter that rail is vital, Expeditionary forces are a must, and events like the American Civil War can play out in Campaign instead of as an expansion.
Oh and a return to the old style of melee combat that doesn't see units standing around because the animations are 1v1.
Probably asking too much, but one can hope 😅
so you want a total war game to take place in one of the most peaceful times of modern history...
what a stupid idea
@@sebastianwallin3726 Total war Spanish Empire during the 1600s, basically Spain soloing Europe and holding the Americas at the same time.
@@theforbiddenpotato8032 remember that 1600's was filled with lot of small wars between countries and the 30 years war in central europe?
it was basically an era filled with lots of big and small scale wars as a result of monarchs gaining absolute power while the church lost lots of its power.
@@sebastianwallin3726 "one of the most peaceful times of modern history"
Here's a list of conflicts that took place around the same time frame: (NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)
Anglo-Afghan Wars
Texan War of Independence
Italian Wars of Independence
Anglo-Sikh Wars
Mexican-American War
Sepoy Mutiny
Taiping Rebellion
Crimean War
Polish January Uprising
American Civil War
French Invasion of Mexico
Second Schleswig War
Boshin War
Austro-Prussian War
Paraguayan War
Franco-Prussian War
War of the Pacific
Satsuma Rebellion
Anglo-Zulu War
Spanish-American War
Boer Wars
First Sino-Japanese War
Boxer Rebellion
I could name more, but I think you get my point by now.
Peaceful? Maybe for Ancient and Medieval standards, but it'd still be a good setting for a total war game.
That said, I think a 1700-1900 timeframe would be better, though that might just be too much given the drastic changes to warfare and technology through those centuries.
@@draconariusa7v421
Yes that is actually one of the most peaceful times in all of modern history you just listed.
You seriously think Spanish American war was a large conflict when it was just about Cuba and Philipines?
You even listed Texas war for independence.
Are you so historically dumb you aren't aware entire Texas was just around 250.000 in population at that time period?
You even listed Paraguyan war 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡
READ THIS
TOTAL WAR
there is no total war over Paraguyan skirmish battle or the satsumu rebellion.
You're a joke
Don't understand why CA didn't came back too this time of truly TOTAL WAR.. on a world scale ...
I often consider learning game design just to create a new game like Empire Total War.
hears an idea just slap on total war combat in vic 3 for combat. Boom, everyone will now be happy with combat and well get our new total war
As the warfare doctrines hadn't changed drastically from early 1700s to pretty much early 1900s (line formations, use of artillery and cavalry and such) I hope CA will cover that entire period, Empire 2 encompassing most of it, and maybe having either DLCs or Total War Sagas of Napoleon 2, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, Crimean War, Russian Civil War and, perhaps even WWI...
Unfortunately, I think the studio is trending in the wrong direction to add most of these fixes. They just refuse to make the changes in staffing and commitments to overhaul the code to do these sorts of things.
Thats because they hire underpaid college grads majoring in women studies rather than historical reinactors for a closer simulation of reality. It's like rendering a referee in a sports game rather than hiring an actual ref and simulate their actions. It's cheaper for them to copy and paste animations over and over and over. Been doing it for 20 years.
Like these guys from TW could dominate the massive strategy area if they only put some love into one BIG game with a highly detailed world map.. How I've been wishing for such a game, lel. :D
Land sea battle mix. Being able to shell anfort from the sea would be a game changer.
The best total war and my first one.
I live in hope that the inclusion of gunpowder units in Warhammer means CA might decide to do empire 2. I think the biggest sticking point is fear of potential backlash. A "colonialism simulator", as I'm sure it would be deemed by some, has potential to attract a lot of negative press.
History is history. Its a shame that certain periods are 'taboo' and others aren't. No one complains that Rome: Total War glorifies imperialism or colonialism, or that Medieval 2: Total War glorifies the crusades.. yet they would complain about Empire: Total War. Do we really need to wait 1000 years for this game to be acceptable because of people not understanding history and that hating on the Spanish/British Empires is currently trendy and encouraged lmao. What about the Ottoman Empire? Why is it socially accepted to play as the USSR from 1901 onwards but not ok to play as Britain in the 1700s?
@@ethanwashington60 Hey I totally agree with you, I just know there's a very vocal segment of society that doesn't.
Not only that but they also did a three stage world wide map releasing each theater with each following game, so it could be similar for empire 2 Europe/Africa, Americas as the next and then Asia, south east Asia and Australia as the last
@@Patriotsfan123321 no, I wouldn't want it in stages. I want the whole world map accessible from turn 1. If I want to play as an African/South East Asian nation and expand locally, then fight off the British/French.. I shouldn't have to wait until "Stage 2".
If I play as the French, and get to Australia before the British, why not?
I loved that about Empire. Do we go to India first? North America first? Or try stop the Ottomans expanding through the Middle East?
I'd HATE it if they released the map in "stages". Would ruin it for me and I wouldn't bother playing
@@benc640 yeah, that vocal segment speak more than they listen too it seems. People think they should have an opinion on something, even if they know nothing about it. Infuriates me but.. Let's not get into that lol. People who enjoy history, for what it is- history, are the ones that should be listened to. The people who have taken countless hours to read about things are the ones who should be listened to. Not the "I'm offended, and that's all that matters" people.
I'll stop ranting now.
Given the sheer size of Warhammer 3 now. There is nothing stopping CA from having a game that spans across eras progressing through from the sometime in the renaissance through to the victorian era, it could easily be the most expansive Historical TW game ever, they could definitely do a full world map too (WH3 is already that sort of size), but splitting into the zones that Empire did could be good to save needless sea space.
Either way, a game spanning such a large period could be fantastic and add a lot of variety compared to a lot of other historical titles. It might even bring in a lot of warhammer players that might not go for historical games due to a smaller variety of units.
Personally for me they really need to go back to a lot of stuff that Empire did that modern TW games don't, like having certain buildings dispersed through a region, and also allowing units to be separate from an assigned leader so you could adequately defend a territory from small raids, and also making small raids on undefended infrastructure a valid strategy. Personally it would be super annoying to have an entire worlds worth of sea to fight over and only being able to have fleets recruited leaders. It just wouldn't capture the feel of Empire if units were so tied to almost heroes as they are right now in TW games.
The ultimate total war would be one that combines the economy of victoria 2 (havn't played viky3 so thats the one I know) with the zoomed in battles we know and love, with a full world map, with customizable provinces with the entire history to play through and also being able to choose at which point in history to start like CK2, maybe its too much to ask, and maybe too hard to monetize and balance but dam it would be awesome. An idea on how to monetize would be to sell like the one time in history which would be most popular first like the middle ages maybe and then release previous and future times as DLCs
8:55
Well, keep in mind that amphibious assaults were not done contested in this era. It simply wasn't practical, so no D-Day landings. If a spot was contested, it was easier to just keep sailing to a point there was no contest, because a ship could move much, much faster than an army.
Expanding on the piracy system, it'd be cool if letters of marque could be issued, and if piracy was a more constant problem.
I'd personally love to see the time period expanded to some of the industrial era units, like the ironclads.
If the game makes all factions playable, then I think letter of marque would be good for pirates. In lieu of a formal trade agreement.
The scramble for Africa setting is nice. With some dlc like the unification of the German and Italian States, then the crimean war. With some balkan war for regional setting.
Things I'd like to see considered in a new empire game, an economic dynamic of industrialists, engineers and scientists and how the working class operated along with the elite class. Make it more reflective of the actual greats responsible.
General traits that are reflected on the battlefield. This should improve ai combat depending on who leads the army, the ai would adopt those tactics. Captains would be the typical charge and flank method we are so accustomed to.
Expanding the major city and provincial system. Coupled with ordinances depending on government structure, laws and legislation should be treated the same as building browser. So a brand new tab for law would be nice.
Multi-staged seige battles. Major cities assaulted in 3 stages giving ai/player time to respond, and each time you fight you'd be either deeper into the city, pushed back into the open field, or a stalemate to continue bombardment at the cost of attrition.
Population mechanic overhaul would be nice. It would really make an immersive recruitment system heavily dependant on industry and scientific revolution. Buildings and technology overhaul, maybe an amalgamation of the 2 rather than separate entities. So a particular building would host technologies representative of that structure.
Pre stage strategic mapping. Including assigning field commanders and their effectiveness to carry out these orders are reflected on the skill of the commander and unit stats. If you've ever played Madden, it would be similar to that. Before each play, you have a playback designed to get around the defense. They'd be cool as some decisions could be pivotal to your victory, or the detriment to your defeat, and you have to bare witness of it unfolding. This would make heroic units to save a commander under pressure. Or an additional cavalry regiment to support a faltering flank. Making you more of a general giving command in real time battle simulation limited to that Era.
For me a empire settled in the time of 1500 to 1600’s about that. Enough melee combat and the rise of gunpowder fights. Just something shogun was about but then European based, with a wider world map than the empire one. That would be the sweetspot
I love Empire Total War, me and two friends used to roleplay in the game.
I just want a full world map that’s what made empire total war one of my favorites growing up, the ability to traverse and invade multiple continents and not just Europe made the campaign feel grand
My favourite Total Wars from all time are Napoleon and Shogun 2 FOTS. I would love an Empire 2. Medieval 2 remake would be cool.
A new Empire 2 Game would be appreciated. For the Provinces, maybe we could use the Rome2/ Attilla mechanic. 1 Region. With 3 Province in it, one main City 2 smaller.
PS: good Soundtrack I love Empire OST, but some OST were from Napoleon. Weren't they :-P
An improved and deeper Empire 2 would be an instant "Take my money".
And just imagine the modability and the sheer creativeness as we've seen with Warhammer.
Give me a Pirate Faction and damn good Naval combat, it's all I want in a total War game.
I’ve seen people say they don’t want it to get to big and complicated but look at HOI or stellaris for example,very complicated games that are loved