Maybe because the tercio formation is very difficult to make in a total war game. You should have in a single unit pikeman and mosketeers in a square formation.
@@roccolicinio9757 It is actually not that hard to make, I have seen some modders create the tercio formation in the TTW Empire engine! It would be hard to believe a company that big with so many experienced developers can fail to make that happen. I think it was just the financial problem, Warhammer franchise is making them so much money now!
Yeah, I think the Total War franchise is on its way to becoming a Assassins Creed style franchise. They will keep pumping dull titles with no innovation and soon they will abandon historical titles altogether. The legacy of total war will live on, but we will need new developers to really keep these kinds of games with historical settings
This is why I like what feral is doing by remastering for pc and porting the older great total war games to mobile it’s been nice to play M2TW on my iPad and I hope now it’s out on mobile they are working on a pc remaster like they did with Rome 1
It sucks, I personally have less than 0 interest in the warhammer fantasy universe, it just never appealed to me so to see total war mostly focusing on that is kind of lame.
I've been thinking the same way for a while now. Fantasy is making more money and attracting more mainstream appeal. They may start mainstreaming the franchise more and more until it becomes unrecognizable. Only the text "Total War" will remain as a remnant of the past in the game's names. I hope we're wrong.
@@KaiserMattTygore927 I do like the warhammer titles, but they just aren't a proper total war. They are too arcady and the fantasy and magic can really dumb down the game and make it less about strategy and more about gaming the system. I wish they would go back to historical titles and do it with some seriousness instead of just churning out warhammer and a bunch of DLCs, but I guess when the company becomes as big as they have creativity becomes sidelined.
I would love to see a total war that touches on the time between the end of Medieval total war and the start of Empire. Spain would be the biggest empire with colonial holdings, and you play as the other nations trying to catch up to the discovery of the new world. start in the 1400s and end in the 1600s
Basically a Renaissance Era game. I agree that would make a great game. Especially the Wars of the Roses, 100 Years War, the dominance of mercenaries etc.
While I would like see this period done by TW, I doubt that they can do it in a faithfull way in regards to the battles. Warefare changed dramaticly during this period, but it did so in a somewhat counterintuitve way, which doesn't work well for TW games. Cavalry for example turned away from elite Men at Arms to less heavily armoured curassiers supported by trashy Arquebusiers and Dragoons, but in TW terms the early Men at Arms would still be the "better" unit. Similar things for infantry. We also have the problem of combined infantry (Pikemen with supporting weapons llike Xbows, Arquebuses, later on also Muskets, etc.) - something that I can't see working well in a TW context.
@@l.s.9095 Well think about how the Shogun series worked well in an era that was very similar, but condensed. Literally in the period of a few generations the combat went from medieval to being early modern, which is a lot more than the 1600s. Imagine the options you could come up with in this time period. Do you invest in men at arms, upgrading their armor and attack abilities for an earlier advantage, or forge a new path and work on gunpowder weapons. There are the Pike and shot units, the fall of the classic elite knights. I mean even the campaign map could show the rise of the Ottomans, the fall of Constantinople in the 1450s being a starting point in the game. it's such a rich and colorful time period that even if it doesn't live 100% to the potential, it could make a great game.
The naval battles in empire/Napoleon were so fun. You had to pay attention to the weather gauge and keep your ships in formation. They really need to go back to that ara
@@ussarman8922 I loved them and could win 1 vs 3 in most cases. In fact I only fought the sea battles having tired of the land battles. I miss the strategy of it all as well!
@@ussarman8922 I recommend starting a custom battle where you have a single flagship versus a few enemy ships of similar to smaller size, and focusing entirely on micro. If you get used to micro'ing ships by having yours flee from a "superior" force and jackknifing back and forth to fire on the ships chasing it, you can defeat a LOT of enemy ships with just one of your own. For the best example of this in action, check out Legend of Total War's Empire Blitz campaign. Once you get used to micro'ing in those circumstances, things will start to click into place on how to tactically move ships in larger scale battles, it's all about making use of both broadsides.
I want a game that covers the time period of the Franco-Prussian War. I genuinely believe that's the latest Total War can go with its regimental style battle mechanics.
Technically FotS is partially set in a later time period, although I get and agree with your point. I think they could (and maybe should) go with the "Ultimate General"-approach of having one soilder depecting a number of men so that they can have large formations (Brigades) as the tactical unit on the battlefield.
The almost static battlefields of ww1 would be fantastic I believe, new trench system instead of fortresses, hard trade systems and lack of farming etc it could be incredible.
@L. S. They already do that, cohorts 480-600man units irl are represented by 80-160 man units in Rome 1/2. Regements 1-2000 man units respresented by 120man units in empire, etc. Total war has never been 1 to 1 scale except maybe in warhammer.
Empire 2 has been a dream of mine ever since I played Empire 1 as a child. Despite some simplicity in the systems I’d always pay attention to the trade values on resources and plan my economy around them. I miss that so bad in Warhammer and I’ve shelved it unless I play with friends.
maybe give Troy a chance :) it has some very interesting changes to the economy and was ignored in this video. Ressources matter in this game because you need them to build stuff or recruit armies. here is the official explanation from ca ruclips.net/video/6VQdVYQoT0g/видео.html
Empire actually had a more complex economy system than the new games. Research and technology could boost the economic growth so much more substantially than the newer games.
I’ve been wanting ETW2 for years. Three kingdoms was a mix of mystical and historical, as was Troy and Warhammer has seen 3 titles. When are we gonna go back to TW grass roots.
To be fair, both Troy and 3K do have a historical mode which is great. I have only dabbled a little in the mythical stuff purely for curiosity, and yeah its fun, for 5 minutes. Then you want to go back and get the real stuff again. Looking forward to an Era with no mythical stuff so more time is spent making the historical content very detailed and realistic.
Making shogun 2 run smoothly is almost impossible, but seeing the troops actually massacre each other after warhammer 3 combat aka "lets stare at each other, do some bumping, and from time to time fall dead to the ground" is a treat
I don't know how its set up for you but shogun II runs just fine for me. I can crank up the settings on my mid tier gtx 1050ti and have massive battles run smoothly. In the modern day it would probably be hardy though, with all the obsessions of getting every wrinkle and scuff marks in ridiculous detail.
Agreed! Shogun 2 just doesnt work +60 fps in battles on even new high systems. I loved that game back when it was released but with my new high end pc after years passed i wanted to play it smoothly but no chance. Problem was the unit detail option... Anyway warhammer battles ate boring when you compare to Shogun 2 imo
@@resentfuldragon The problem with shogun 2 is that it was made with 2 core cpus in mind and on 32x system, if I remember right So newer processors, with lets say 8 cores can struggle, because Shogun 2 will bottleneck. I have ryzen 7 3700x and oh boy, the game died the moment there were 30+ units on the screen. I had to play around with settings and mods and now I can finally run it well enough, but it was an ordeal. The game is great, but I honestly wouldnt recommend it. CA did not bother with optimization at all.
@@yavuztezcan8684 I think this has to be something related to computer optimization because my game runs +100 fps and only dips in 20 vs 20 unit battles when I zoom in.
Everytime I hear about KoH2, I'm just like "Please be good, please be good, please be good...", I fear the game will get compared too much to CK3 and TW and then can't hold up to these othere games (which have a much larger budget).
Man I‘d love a reworked Empire or a new title set in the long 19th century or in the 17th century (thirty years war). That would be awesome. More depth in the campaign play would be very refreshing and I think people would be ready for it.
well i think 30 years war scenario , should be like a total war 3 kingodm game. The map is only germany and many faction fighting each other. I would like to see vicotria total war, which is world map in which factions fight over america africa and asia. Time should be after napolonic war and ends nearly before ww1. Also a american civil war total war should be nice too. shogun 2 fall of the samurai felt a bit like that :D. But still the idea is nice but Empire has the perfect time with 7 years war, american revolution and industrialisation. Also fall of the ottoman and Span and rise of Prussia, Britian and russia :D
Very true, I personally haven't bought a Total War title since Attila and have no attention to until they get back to what they did best. If they don't want to renovate the old work then sublet or sell them to creators who do want to.
Same here. Total War ended in early 2015. I believe the series has gone the way of The History channel... they have dumbed-down and turned their back on their original mission, in favour of chasing the money. In the same way that Ancient Aliens replaced serious history content on TV, ridiculous fantasy nonsense has replaced serious historical gameplay in Total War. It's a case of 'network decay'. A slide into commercial trash rather than the high-quality material that originally made us interested in the series in the first place.
@@brydenholley1904 The old total wars are quite dumb. The Ai's are garbage in almost all of them compared to Warhammer 3 Ai and since you haven't played it you wouldn't know. It seems like "historical" fans are the ones unwilling to expand their horizons.
@@brydenholley1904 Its not just a ridicolous fantasy nonsense you moron, the setting is older than Total War itself, if you dont want to play fantasy its ok, just dont make dumb statments about things you dont understand
I bought Warhammer 1 and I honestly regret it. It's too flashy and the generals/heroes are kinda overpowered. Plus I see quite some problems with units' balance between different factions. I'll stick to Rome2 and Attila for now.
The franchise really isn't what it was. It's pretty clear ever since they lost their independent status as a studio that that marketing and visuals are priority. Strategic gameplay is an afterthought.
Pretty much, this has been echoed from the rooftops from OG strategy players when Rome 2 hit. It's about selling titles, so the game attempts to reach a wider audience, so it's become more streamlined casual. They added things, but removed much..... Only provincial capitals having walls was BS. Historically sieges were a thing, and could be epic, removing them killed a lot of immersion. They realized their stupid mistakes, and brought back walls to Attila, but the damage was done. All the original devolpers have left..... Really don't have much hope for the future.
@@AggressiveLemur 3K and Troy are nowhere near the levels of success that WH has achieved, the only reason they've achieved any success is because they stand on Total War: Warhammer's shoulders and because the Three Kingdoms period is popular in video game format, once they milk Warhammer for all it's worth, they're in deep shit, because they've already alienated their OG audience and the Warhammer audience will have moved on to something else. It's typical modern corporate mentality, no regard for the big picture and only focused on short-term profit. Tell me something, in 200 years time, do you think people will still be talking about the countless Transformer movies that were cynically milked for all their worth? Or do you think people will still be buying and talking about Star Wars(OT, PT, and old Expanded Universe)? It's time that is the ultimate judge of what is great. That's all what Warhammer: Total War games are, Transformer movies in strategy game form, they're the flavor of the month, CA needs to start thinking about what truly made them great, that's what will lead them to long term success and greatness.
@@Hybrid980 My thoughts exactly. If people are still nostalgic about games from 10 or 20 years ago and not giving much of a damn about the newer titles, there's something that went really bad. I still miss the RTW and M2's atmosphere. Somehow I got it back with R2TW and Attila, playing Brittania gave me lots of fun (except for the cheesy late game with random viking dreadnought army spawns). I miss that ominous and imperial flavour mix to the game that ended quite with Attila though.
I’m probably the odd one here, but I loved three kingdoms system innovations and narrative, you may not like the setting but it’s undeniable that Three kingdoms brought a lot of new stuff, like a much better diplomacy, that I hope to see implemented and expanded upon in future titles
except modders did all of that years beforehand and CA literally just copied and pasted their work and got a bunch of shit for it but yeah they innovated a system that wasnt even functional and slapped in barebones systems modders already expanded.
@@feeblemind Yeah but modders can only do so much without the source code so the fact that it's now baked into it means modders can only make it go up from there instead of jerry-riggin something to work and that's if the mod either doesn't end up dead on ModDB becuase they "lost interest" or takes years to complete Developing something from scratch > modding
I really miss the old mocap matched fight animations, they were the nice added bit of detail that got me into the series to begin with, and they added a ton to making the battles feel grounded and flow in a prettier way. Zooming down to soldier level used to be my favourite thing to do, it felt like watching a cinematic little bit of movie, now it's almost entirely these unmatched ridiculous animations where some guy swings a sword into the air and someone a meter away goes flying backwards, zooming down really breaks the immersion. I get why a system like that wasn't really feasible for a game like Warhammer, but I really don't know why they didn't bring it back for Three Kingdoms. I really hope that the next big historical title won't continue down that path of that kind of dumb and implausible arcade-y combat animations, its so much worse than the old system :/
Believe it or not at the time just before the release of Warhammer perhaps the most common complaint of Total War fans was that the matched animation sequences ruined unit cohesion and the old Rome/Medieval 2 flow of combat. IMO they were not wrong. Units behave MUCH more like they should when you don't have to worry about individual models sticking to each other and dragging the entire formation behind with them when they receive a move order.
a lot of ppl also hate matched combat and think it affects gameplay in a negative way. i think ppl forgot abt this after attila. i use unmatched combat on rome 2 because units actually hold formation, and dont run 10 meters into enemy lines to fight one guy. i think matched combat can be done correctly but its not implemented well in titles where it exists.
I think I would rather have empire 2 over medieval 3, i really like this setting and the scale of the campaign can be achieved considering how big mortal empires is. the only problem is I think CA has lost the plot, and I'm hesitant to believe they'll be able to make a proper realistic historical title since they haven't made one in so long.
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 those games are not even historical theyre more mythical. they tried to appeal to both fan groups by making a semi historical semi fantasy game, but by doing so they made niche games that appeals to neither. i want a fully historical and realistic game
Thrones of Brittania was a realistic game and everyone hated it. Historical title doomers are hilarious. There is no grand conspiracy and there is no lack of innovation, the end of the story is that they're a business. They dont make historical titles(or when they do they dont stick with them) because people dont buy them. They're not going to keep doing something for 10% of the profit because a niche audience just wants to stomp their feet and have a tantrum about how a different game is bad because its not the game they specifically want. Look at the steam charts. Warhammer 3 is actually in a bad state at the moment and still has 20k concurrent players average, it will improve once some DLC gets released. Warhammer 2 has 5k. Rome 2 has 4k and Medieval 2 has 3k. The fanbase is exponentially larger now, what a bad sign for the future of the franchise. If they make another mistake on this scale they're going to crack 100,000 players average. Truly these are dark times. You want historical games to come back to the forefront? Buy the next one and get other people to buy it, buy the dlc, show the kind of interest that the fantasy community has. They will be waiting with a red carpet rolled out for you to come drop off your money.
Change for the sake of change is nothing I loath for. If they just did a new game, which is similar to Rome II in its current state. I would be happy. I think this is true for many people. Innovations can also lead to failure as seen with Thrones of Britannia. For these reasons I don't think that TW really has a problem in regards to innovations. (This idea only works anyway, if you don't count the Warhammer games as TW games...as viewpoint, which I share, but maybe an unfair one, as these games were the main product for the last few years.) One could also look at the newest Rome II DLCs, which innovated the game quite a bit imo. "Rise of the Republic" essentially proved that special faction mechanics could work in a historical setting. (Although this could obviously still be improved on...) I also don't think, that a lack of scale is the problem for TW games. Small and focused scenarios have worked very well in the past ("Age of Charlemagne; Napoleon, Shogun II for example) and could also work very well in the future. Although I would like a world-spanning Empires II, I would also like a "TW: Great Northern War"-game, just focusing on said conflict. In the end it will all depend on good the game is made. Overall I don't think you really show a "Massive Problem", which TW has, other then the fact, that they haven't released a historical title for years.
shut up boomer. you even state your veiw point is baseless and unfair. SO just don't say it. The warhammer games are total war games. Weather your delusional boomer mind likes it or not. We are not the problom you are adapt or step aside
1690-1870 Would be amazing. So many opportunities for dlc campaigns aswell. Then bring in the best parts lf the historical titles, borrow some minor stuff from paradox games for that sweet sweet depth maybe. Im still playing mostly Empire, NTW and Attila... Played Empire 2 mod today and its awesome. Just lacks the depth sometimes.
I agree with everything. I don't think TW is passing through a "decadence" era or anything like that since, regarding sales and popularity, they are actually doing better than any time before. I also enjoyed a lot 3K and Warhammer, even when I had no interest on fantasy sagas (not even the Lord of the Rings), but I'm aware this is because playing total war is already familiar. I find an interesting paralelism between TW and Pokemon: Once they find a perfect formula, they squeeze it to the very end and, when developers try to bring up "revolutionary" changes to the saga, then it is the fandom itself who complain in order to keep the same mechanics in every game. For example, when I first tried M&B many years ago, my first thought was: "If only there was a Total War game with the same RPG mechanics, quest system and character encarnation, it would be the best strategy game ever". I exposed my thoughts on TW forums and I only received hate with comments like "I would never play that shit, 'cause it simply wouldn't be total war", but the day after you see comments like "Man, total war sucks since it's always the same". So yeah, I'm the first one who would really enjoy a risky change in the course of the franchise, while exploring new horizons.
I really love the warhammer line up, then again I always wanted a game the scope of TW:WH3 :D Compared to many other fans, I loved Troy more than 3K tbh... there is just something about 3K that makes me not want to play it too much. And based on my experience on Troy I would really fancy a Bronze Age Total War title, no mythology this time, and especially the resource system of Troy which was a mechanic that I liked a lot. And maybe some kind of an actual pop mechanic.
IMO it's not as much as decadence as more like finding a "golden" formula and sticking to it (probably way too rigorous). And if AGEOD or Telltale Games taught us something is that even goldest of formula won't work forever.
@@loneirregular1280 Yep, Troy was amazing to me as well. We can't ask an Spin-off for the same ambition as a main-line game, but the way they implemented the resurce system, the personalized mechanics on every character and the smooth performance in battles, made it a really enjoyable experience to me.
I should say, even though it's not more popular, it is their money maker. Reason being the fans of the game are shills who spend tons of money on skins and systems that already existed in other games. I for one refuse to spend $300 more dollars on stuff that's already in game.
@@spiffygonzales5899 Warhammer has outsold all other historical titles and currently is the most popular if you count single titles. Warhammer 3 has 23k on right now next best is 6k Warhammer 2 and Rome 2 3 kingdoms has a pathetic 3k playing, although they only made that to try and milk that Chinese money.
Agreed, a continuation focusing on Europe after Napoleon would be great to be honest. So much history in the Revolutions of 1848 and up to the Great War.
I would like to be able to customize my cities on the battle map like its design. Like an age of empires view foe each city along with a battle map and campaign map.
A Medieval 3 game in the warhammer-trilogy style(ie theres multiple games that all connect on a bigger map together) with 3Ks diplomacy and spy system and Troy's multi-resource/currency system and hopefully some form pf 3K's characters are most likely next
In immortal empires it annoys me so much that there are factions entirely based around naval raiding (zombie pirate faction, dark elves) but when your "fleet" attacks an enemy "fleet" somehow both fleets decide to land at a nearby beach to battle it out... naval battles would be amazing and bring a whole new dimension, it seems like they were put on a timeline and forced to put the campaign out so hopefully itll come in an update
The setting itselve makes a balanced naval System impossible. Beastmean and Orks have no Ships or some made out of scrap and Dwarfs in Comparison have Steam engined Steelships and Submarines.
@@pascalheinrich3990 you dont need balanced naval combat lol, playing skarbrand isnt exactly balanced land combat so I dont see why factions that are weak on land cant be strong on sea
@@pascalheinrich3990 And I dont see a problem with it, to balance it they could give naval factions weaker land or just make land factions even stronger on land (maybe extra training slots, or reduced upkeep price)
The AI is a massive problem for me, both in battle and campaign. If CA can't figure out how to make it smart and challenging, they should at least make it more immersive. I hate seeing regiments/units act like robots, changing direction 20 times within seconds, because something in the code triggers strange behaviour like this.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle Yeah but I think the scope and diversity of the newer game doesn't help quite to the contrary. Shogun 2 is often cited as having one the best AI in total war. And I think a lot of it is thanks to the low unit diversity which is easier for a game AI to handle.
@@benjaminparent4115 Yeah. That's also my main complaint about Shogun 2, and the games like it. There's no real unit diversity, so it doesn't feel good after a while.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle And I disagree with that, It could be better but not by much, Shogun 2 has small but meaningful unit diversity, they are no upgrades just side grade. A yari Ashigaru doesn't has the same role on the battlefield as a Yari Samurai. In rome 2 for example you have loads of unit that have the exact same role but only have marginal stat differences, or some version are just straight upgrade of a lower version. Many unit fell out of use throughout the campaign This type of diversity is way less interesting from a gameplay perspective in my opinion, while on top of it making it harder for the AI.
It's a completely different team by now since ten years ago and with that comes new derictions and new dev ideas. I personally think that everyone can forget that "realistic" feel that you had in medieval and Rome. It's arcady it's more for masses than the niche and we just have to accept it and move on to indie titles or next CA titles
What I like about the Warhammer games is the variety. Every faction plays different and has it's own strengths. Yes the old titles bring up nostalgia, but let's be honest Rome 1 and 2, medieval 2 were basically heavy infantry spam and the factions didn't feel as unique except one or two special units. When the Warhammer Fantasy game first came out everyone claimed that this would flop, so I would say it was a brave step and a lot of creativity went into it.
cavalry barely worked in med2 , while in rome 1 you had broken phalanx units and crap like egypt , on top of that the game was very fast paced , and most factions in med2 were reskins , and no matter how different you make a faction most players will gravitate towards the ˝˝hammer and anvil˝˝ tactic , which led to people saying that wood elves suck cause they cand hold a line long enough for the hammer to strike , there are incredibly stupid people playing this game that have their fingers in directing the development of future titles , every other person in this comment section believes their solution to be the best one which is hilarious
It would be interesting to see someone do a video sometime on potential causes for this stagnation in the total war franchise. One theory could be that the sudden burst in ambition behind Empire TW was due to the company’s acquisition by Sega in 2005 (Empire TW likely was the first full development cycle after the acquisition with Medieval 2 likely being mid-development during the acquisition). Additionally, Empire was Mike Simpson’s first title as director. Now Mike has been the director for almost every subsequent title, which have all appeared to be very profitable, so there may be less appetite for risk in upper mgmt. considering how well the status quo is. All of this is 100% speculation on my part, so if anyone has any further thought/insights I would love to hear it.
All you historical game boomers. Just come to the conculusion "its the total war fantasy/warhammer peoples fault" and disregard anything that disproves that...A game could come out that has everything you ask for. But if it had any fantasy elements at all. You would disregard it as "one of those total war games new thing bad old thing good" Thats the problom with you historic total war boomers. soooo
If total war ever does do WW1 and adds planes I could see them working like how Wargame does it, where you have to build them as units on the grand strategy map but in real time battles you call them in from off map on a cooldown timer.
Dude ww1/ww2 or modern total war would be awful... the game doesnt really work if you cant have neat military formations as they did historically. Are you gonna micro manage 10 dudes in a trench or something?
@@antoniodelaugger9236 yes obviously the point is trench lines were massive and there were no formations. It wouldnt even be a total war game itd just be a crappy mobile game
Honestly they fixed the major things everyone hated about Rome 2, it's not a bad game at all. Still prefer Atilla to it as I love the mod options that there, but a good game in of itself
@@FordHoard No, the core gameplay is simply worse than its predecessor, like the fact that generals must be present to move armies, only capital provinces have walls, navies are almost entirely worthless, general traits are not dynamic and are instead random, so on and so forth, battles are vastly inferior, i’ll stick with Rome 1, sorry. I recommend you watch some of Volound’s videos if you want more in-depth criticism.
I had always wanted a Total War set in 16th-17th century Asia. Imagine all the factions that can be played there, from the Shogunate, to the Ming, the Qing, the Joseon, Dai Nam, Spanish Philippines, Dutch East Indies, among others. I think it would be absolutely spectacular.
I agree. Also, I want all world in that period, Europe, America too. Imagine Galleon, Turtle ship, Pike and Shot, Hwacha, Samurai, Janissary, Jaguar warrior etc in one title.
@@dwl3006 Then you clearly haven’t read about the Sengoki Jidai and the subsequent Imjin war(s). Hideyoshi was an ancient kind of Hitler, coming from nothing, raised in a time of endless war, and hell bent on conquering an entire fucking continent. 1500-1600 Japan was ANYTHING BUT the boring mess it became in later centuries until it opened up again.
When Napoleon came out I refused to buy it for years because I was so angry that they were taking what should have been fixes and innovations for Empire Total War, but instead abandoned that game just to produce a cheap sequel. I have since bought it, and enjoy it, but for me the treatment of ETW both pre and post release was when Creative Assembly lost my goodwill. Even if they did put out Shogun 2 later (which I'd say is the best Total War to date).
A WW1 Total War game would be something to see. They could easily focus on what the historical generals had to deal with: a race of supplies, technical innovation, manpower and planning. Knowing when to withdraw and when to advance. They'd have to develop a trench warfare system but knowing TW's history they could nail it if they wanted. I'm sure with another historical title they could get a lot of disinterested players back.
I think it could work or would be worth exploring at least from the studio point of view. The battles could have trenches laid out each side where you position your men, your artillery somewhere in the back, small airbattles, perhaps incorporate gas somehow which could also result in friendly fire. Granted most of the war was a stalemate so you'd have to somehow incentivize players to move out from the cover of their trenches instead of the guarantee you are going to see your men get mowed down.
@@synergygaming65 Exactly my thoughts! Gas, tanks and all that were developed during the actual war, so these could be researched in the game in the development trees. These of course would impact the power balance but supply should also be taken care of, because that was one of the main deciding factors of the great war.
@@synergygaming65 Yeah and Prussia didn't conquer West Prussia and Silesia at the beginning of the 1700s(this what I usually do in my own Prussian campaigns)
I Think would be a great game a mix between Paradox-Totalwar. Like the Crusaders Kings 3 mod with bannerlord but with total war. Imagine a Victoria 3 with napoleon total war battles and military management
Victoria 3 💀 I would just buy the nations banks and systems and make sure the political parties which agree with what I believe in (which makes me more profit) would win with my vast wealth. Ez victory by money.
As someone who joined total war only in the last couple years, and only has really played Warhammer 3, this video is kinda shocking. I didn't know naval battles had ever been a thing in TW, and now imagining the potential of Vampire Counts, chaos factions, or any other groups actually using ship battles makes me realize how much could still be possible if the scope of the game was less narrow. I hope this video maybe reaches someone who can hand this to devs. There's so much in just a moment of watching this that I wish could still find some way into these newer titles. Like, I'm trying to wrap my head around how incredible a plague fleet of nurgle squaring off against the Vampire coast would be. Or seeing a dark elf Black Ark face off against Lizardmen ships or High elves. There's just so much that would be incredible if included
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It’s very interesting to hear from newcomers who have little knowledge of what we had before. Naval battles were more hit or miss when they were mostly close-ups (as in Rome 2), but they were absolutely amazing in Empire/Napoleon/Shogun 2/Fall of the samurai, and I’m sure the case would be the same in Warhammer 3 because of the diversity of technology and factions. I’m glad you took the time to comment!
I think CA should abandon the yearly launches, even though one is a saga game. A 3 years life civky would be better, as a game could have sufficient time to be devoloped and not suffer from fatigue or the devs needing to play safe to bring a new game in 1-2 years
A more realistic approach to warfare would greatly increase interesting gameplay. Rather than micromanaging a small hive mind, it'd be better to prepare a battle plan and then see it play out, having a few options for changes on the field. Being able to have some choice in the terrain of where a battle is fought, having to deal with the limitations of logistics be it food, water, etc and choices about how much to forage/raid for supplies, having doctrine options for how to react to certain situations or how to fight, actually seeing the farmland and cities rather than a small splattering of buildings, having to be restricted by roads and choosing between large slow armies or smaller faster ones, seeing the differences in maneuverability, realistic cavalry instead of battering rams, better systems and interfaces for choosing city construction, more fortifications, resupplying by rivers, having to deal with omens and camp followers, realistic sieges, etc, etc, etc.
CA are game developers, not tooth fairies. It would be great if the things you mentioned were a realistic goal for CA to achieve, however I don’t think they are capable of achieving such a feat.
@@thelad9434 It's all about trade offs. Simplified graphics/animations could allow more memory for deeper simulations, a more realistic game would have a different tempo than real time micromanaging, etc. What I listed isn't difficult given it's not a 1-1 simulation but a gamified representation of those systems. The key is giving the right experience rather than simulating every blade of grass, but that experience can be made to give the impression of far more complex and deeper simulation which provides far more interesting decisions and events than the current games they make. People often overestimate the difficulty in making games, the main issue is the risk aversion game devs and more importantly the studio execs have. Instead of trying to innovate and realize a vision, they aim for the widest appeal and copy proven products. This is why a lot of the most interesting games come from indie devs or small studios pursuing a passion project, but at the cost of less time, resources, and talent limiting it. Same thing has happened in filmmaking, practically all movies today are extremely safe and shallow for commercial reasons.
@@josecarlosmoreno9731 Some of the points you make I do agree with, however we are talking about the Creative Assembly here. Also, you say people overestimate the difficulty in making games. Do you have game dev experience? Do you even know all the work that goes into making a game? The programming is not even the main workload. So many other things go into making a game, such as marketing, design, modeling, animation, foley, etc. Also, your statement on indie devs is just wrong. If anything, indie devs produce garbage most of the time. Even the more “popular” indie games are lacking in actual game design and marketing. You are absolutely right with the fact that big game studios are not willing to take risks, however they are not taking risks because there are profits and a salary on the line. I am not giving them an excuse, I am just saying why your idea of a game is extremely unrealistic.
@@thelad9434 Marketing can be simplified through targeting a specific audience. I'd say there is sufficient demand and lack of supply when it comes to strategy games to make marketing for it easier. Design depends on scope, planning, and iteration, which shouldn't be difficult as long as you can keep everyone focused and on the same page (which is personality dependent). Modeling, animation, foley, etc are dependent on scope, a good strategy game should depend primarily on gameplay rather than assets. Most modern games are far too graphics/asset focused which makes them both more expensive/difficult/and shallow. CA has done well taking their existing framework and reskinning it in interesting ways, though that might be better done by licensing it out to smaller studios while they focus on deeper iterations on the framework. Given the success of larger studios, they should have far more ability to take risks, etc because they have countless advantages others don't. The problem is that once they get big, money becomes the focus. I doubt the big studios are money deprived, rather they just choose to have bigger admin paychecks, bloat and shareholders. If one looks back at games over the last 2 decades, apart from graphics they have changed very little. People before used to be able to do more with less.
@@josecarlosmoreno9731 The stuff you mentioned in the original comment has nothing to do with this. Making a game that is as complex as you are stating is not realistic.
My biggest pet peeve is the four build slots for a city! That, honestly, was enough to make me stop playing, but add the fact that mechanism have been removed or changed instead of just adding to. Plus how Warhammer was developed into three none full games.
Yeah I fucking hate how little building slots there are for cities now. Even a huge capital like Rome gives you too little to build and makes it feel way too boring and dumbed down compared to older titles.
Little did we know that after top tier titles as Rome, Shogun 2, Medieval 2, Empire and Napoléon, they'd never reach that level again. Never been into Atilla, as it is a périod I care little for, and I only played the Saxon campaign. Playing Rome 2 vanilla and ToB was to make you cry. Probably so we would care less about them switching to fantasy 🙂
Its a harsh world for historical total war fans. If their next historical game is not a success then they will stick with fantasy/sci fi forever. Too much money in wh nerds to milk.
No they won't. They'll leave. Do you even have any idea how many games have popped up just to cater to those fans? How many indie devs got sick of CAs b.s and made games that are like total war, but BETTER? Nah dude. I'm not sticking with fantasy. The only reason I even have WH is because I have friends who play it. I'll get the final bret DLC and whatever they give tzeench. And that's it. Once WH is done if I hear another fantasy or a b.s half historical game like troy or 3K I'm done. If I hear "pay $30 to get the unit so that Hungary isn't trash" I'm done. If I hear "and this is how you cheese" I'm done. If there's even a hint that Naval or Sieges are garbage, or that my units can shoot through each other without taking damage, or that my units all share the same health, or that they still have the B.S rock paper scissors matchups, or that some core part of the previous title has been stripped out, or anything at all similar to the absolute nonesene that goes on with Warhammer, Troy, and 3K all are stuck with right now than I will never look at another CA game again. They could release Empire 3 and it could be a gift from God himself and I will say "screw you CA." Go ahead, let me hear it. "Herr derr super big corporation isn't gonna miss you." But honestly I'm not the only one. There's a LOT of people who are sick of CA dumbing down everything and selling you crap from 20 years ago as somehow new and innovative DLC. So while all the shills happily spend OVER THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS on a game that isn't even as advanced as Empire is, I will be more than happy spending $40 on indie games that are better than the garbage CA spits out.
Attila changed the siege system, giving us ware damage on sieged settlements and placeable defences. Three kingdoms have us one of the most in-depth diplomacy systems we have had in total war, it also gave us duals which was pretty amazing. Warhammer gave us fantasy and warhammer 3 gave us survival spawn in battles
would love to see a medieval 3, as someone who just got into total war about a year ago i love the rome series and shogun and napoleon however going back to medieval 2 is just a bit jarring as its so old but I love the medieval period
@@l.s.9095 The very end of the Medieval 2 main campaign time period. THIS needs to be explored as it has been sadly ignored. The 1400s through to the 1600s is an incredible period where we move from medieval weaponry to early modern gunpowder tactics!
They have intentionally skipped the whole stage of the 30 years war. There is more than a century of emptiness in Total War games and many of us would like to know why?
There’s so many mechanics/skill trees/units in warhammer it’s not surprising you don’t get naval warfare or any extras. It’s a GREAT game and I think nostalgia makes people think the others were better. They were great though.
Totally agree with you. I own all Total War games released but these days I mostly play Empire and Napoleon with the Darthmod mod. What I wish for is a new game with a medieval setting, for instance set during the crusades. A game more in the tradition of Empire with naval battles and trade. It feels like the series have peaked.
I'm not even going to pretend that total wars strategy map element was ever really that deep, but there was a clear progression of effort up to a certain point. In addition to that the battles used to have a slower pace. They have gone in the exact opposite direction now, the strategy map has been gutted and over simplified and the RTS battles have genuinely turned into traditional RTS experiences where it's become a hyper clicker gameplay loop with victory being the only real objective since they've trivialized unit replenishment so there's no encouragement for good battle habits to preserve units. It was really the one big thing that was keeping a lot of fans of traditional RTS games from jumping over to total war and CA essentially pulled the trigger on trying to bring in as many people as possible to the franchise for company growth at the expense of losing the main identity of the franchise.
To be honest. I'm a casual gamer. I just dream of Total War going back to being a simpler game to play like the original. There's just too much to navigate in the newer TW games. It kills it for the casual dudes like me. I don't want to micro mannage everything.
I firmly believe one of the reasons the warhammer games are doing so well is because they tried "unconventional" stuff in them - magic, single entities, stuff like that. I had no contact besides knowing it exists with warhammer before the total war games, I actally avoided them at first. Warhammer 2 turned into my favourite Total War ever, after I actually tried it
There's also the fact that warhammer is very old and Gw killed it in an insulting manner for all those who had played it for decades. Total war series managed to keep it breathing and even make Gw bring it back. It's by no means a lore accurate version of warhammer and it's missing the best part about warhammer in my opinion which is making your own army. There should have been options to recolour your army and start with an unknown general not all these legendary characters. I never liked special characters in the tabletop version, buy they were nice to have in books as a sort of power indicator for what a single entity could be in this world. But man as a Warhammer fan am I still glad that they made these total war games, even if some old school fans of the game series don't like em.
I think that motion capture ruined Total War. It switched it from being lines of disciplined infantry fighting in formations to a jumbled mosh pit of individual choreographed duels
TW have evolved into making games for kids.They used to deliver massive battles but now they focus on cartoons with flying color flashes. And that's perfectly fine, it makes Shogun, Rome and Medieval series so much more valuable.
Total war has always had a massive problem since empire! Volound and Dishonorable Daimyo explained this. CA can not undig the hole that they dug. You all can still have hope but I say just wait till a good contender for the next real-time tactics game comes.
This video perfectly describes how I feel about Total War games right now. I’m praying the next game is an Empire sequel with the improvements and depth we’re looking for.
TW has so many established fixed ideas we take as unchangeable that are pretty arbitrary. Here are some examples: 1. You are the faction leader. 2. You control every army. 3. "Stacks" occupy a single point. 4. You resize units like desktop windows freely in width, depth. 5. Units are commonly at 100.0% strength. 6. Disbanded soldiers forget their training next year. 7. You have a clear idea what's going on around you. 8. Rebels gather in stacks to fight pitched battles. 9. You can only run away once then any loss is oblivion. 10. Ambushes happen with whole armies vs whole armies. 11. The general orders every detail directly like Starcraft. 12. There's an "end turn" phase. 13. Units walk through other units. 14. Disengagement is paniced routing. 15. Fleeing soldiers are harmless. 16. Research is a 1 by 1 shopping list divorced from world events. TW has so many tropes that just burden the player with minutiae and not broad strokes decisions like a leader would do. Things happen because "that's just how TW is" not for good reasons.
I see the concept of total war as a big sand box where you can drop an idea and expand on it. I hope CA stay with the fantasy worlds and explore other IPs. Also id like to see a world war 1 total war... on a truly world scale. CA has the platform to make big epic rts games and i am all for them to continue improving and having fun
Total War Warhammer was a huge Innovation with flying Units, Magic, combined Worlds. It would just have been nice to have sea battles and more complex economy systems.
The problems with Total War: Warhammer were not it's setting, it was the abandonment of deep and meaningful mechanics in favor of flashy visuals and focus on single heroes rather than the whole army. The Warhammer world was always about tactics and strategy and outplaying your opponent. It offered some of the greatest potential for Total War in terms of mechanics that could have been added but CA opted to just go the route of "Warhammer hype," selling the game on the title alone and simplifying the gameplay to make it more akin to old RTS' like Warcraft or C&C, rather than the real-time tactics game it used to be. And people will say "oh it's fantasy, it's supposed to be silly and cartoonish." No one is going to look at official Warhammer artwork and say that it looks silly or cartoonish or even flashy, they'd say it looks gritty and mean and grim and dark. What's more, no one would even try to make that argument if the game was set in the Lord of the Rings, which is apparently where a lot of people wanted the series to go. Just a huge waste of potential for the sake of appealing to the lowest common denominator.
With their current development, I've lost all hope in them reclaiming the past. Their actions in DLC and charging absurd prices for unfinished games hits hard on the professionalism that was embellished in some (not all) of the previous titles. The dedication to unit animation/combat, tactic, decision-making, theatrical scene, agents, research, and many other that contribute to exceptional replay-ability still makes those older titles still the most favorite in my heart. Even if they were to remaster some of the older titles like what they did to Rome. I'd still play the older games like Shogun 2, Napoleon, and Medieval 2.
Three kingdoms deserves mention imo for how much it brought the series up in terms of campaign mechanics, especially diplomacy. It was just as revolutionary in its depth as ETW was in its scope. Both games have 'meh' battles imo but the campaigns really shine in different ways (ETW scope & 3k depth). If the setting for Three Kingdoms had been Medieval Europe instead of three kingdoms China, I think the game would be an absolute smash hit with western total war fans and regarded as a high point in the series. I don't appreciate it as much as I wish I did because I still struggle to get into the setting.
Most massive problem for TW series is that MTW2 was last game in the series that allowed extended modding by allowing to make own campaigns and custom maps. ETW had this scrapped. Engine limitation suppose, but this is the reason I many else still play MTW2 and don't have any new hype for new games or remasters.
I feel like your requests are kinda contradictory. You want a game that is willing to try something new like empire with its naval features (which many people didn't like) but you also don't consider the warhammer games or three kingdoms "real" total war games because of their new features and settings (which many people don't like). Yet many people love these games which is evident from their profits. So do you want a total war game that is willing to stay to tradition and be "real" total war, or a game that is willing to try something new?
He wants them to keep the good things like naval battles, sync kills and so on, while experimenting on new stuff. Games like warhammer always get couple things right, but also fuck up some, like sieges, naval battles, animations and overall feeling. The result is 2 steps back and one forward, which leads us into a downwards spiral
@Filip Shitty sieges have been a problem long before the warhammer games. Even Shogun 2 (which is one of the greatest tw games ever) had some of the worst siege gameplay of the franchise. As for naval battles please feel free to tell me how a norsecan long ship would fair agents a dwarven ironclad. I'm sure their would be no complaints about balance at all.(Just like how everyone complained about siege battles and when they were fixed, people complained about AI dispute being warned about the limitations of AI) Also wtf do you mean bad animations. Have you seen warhammers animations? They look b.a. It's not two steps back. They are using a fellow franchise to bring in fans from both areas. If it was two steps back warhammer 2 would not be a thing sense of would not be profitable to make more like it. New players of total war like the newer games. That's plain to see.
@@casualmeme1854 just because more people buy that stuff doesn’t mean it’s better, just more appealing. The sieges are shit compared to med2, Rome 1, Attila, Rome 2… yeah you can say how the “pathfinding was broken” yeah no shit when those games are 10+ years old. They should’ve had developed a new engine if this one just doesn’t cut it. Oh please, more of those excuses about why we cannot have naval battles. Has it ever occured to you than the ironclads aren’t the only ships dwarfs have? Maybe for 1 ironclad the norscans can bring 10 of their ships and overwhelm it (you know, like in the lore). But fine, naval battles wouldn’t be neccesary, if the campaign and land battles and sieges would make up for it, but they dont. Campaigns lack depth, and with battles where 1 lord can win you a game if you just click attack on enemy forces… no wonder most players dont finish their campaigns.
@Fillip Sorry for late response had irl stuff to do. What is your first point even supposed to be lol?! If a game is fun and people play it more, than it is a better game, it is more appealing to its audience and thus more successful warranting more resources from its creator to keep the fans playing it. Where are you getting confused here? Yes I will say that seiges in tw suck especially in the new ones.(although you saying rome 2 has good sieges in a game where units can walk past pikemen in formation is just sad) this is as you said due to the shitty engine saga insists on using suz cheap. Not even going to pressure the naval bs: but sure, explain how wooden sail ships will "overwhelm" a steam powered ship made of metal with more firepower, range, and speed than them. I'm pretty sure a historical tw fan would see a problem here even with superior numbers. Which is hard to make in a game where ships are single entities and you can only have 20. But I digress, you think that warhammer campaigns lack death (sense this is a warhammer debate now) and I strongly disagree along with most of tw 's newer players as well as many old. And sense that seems to be an opinion, it is irrelevant to rather the new games are "bad" yes one lord can kill hundreds if the opponent is careless... it's tragic. In fact it's almost as bad as blocking off a rode with heavy infantry and using stupid amounts of artillery to destroy an entire army in a chokepoint. Oh sh!t why is tw Attila calling me?!
@@casualmeme1854 there are more people playing candy crush than all of tw players combined. Not sure how can you not understand that it doesn’t make their game better but ok. Yes, even r2 sieges are way better than wh, because pike are at least killable and believable, and you at least have to make an effort to find a position for them. And about that naval bs of yours, you could almost wonder how is it possible that orcs can win against a faction with flamethrowers and helicopters but ok, i won’t push it too much either. Also if you don’t see how flawed the single entity lords are, then probably I’m just wasting time and WH is the right game for you, never said it wasn’t. It’s just doesn’t do justice to neither total war games or WH lore, that’s it. But go and play, enjoy, nothing is holding you back. Peace
It's sad that creative assembly seem to have given up recently and no longer wants to innovate but this is what usually happens when there is no competition. I feel they would need a threat to their dominance before they start to really care about improving their games. A new engine would be great as the current one certainly has its limits and pitfalls.
Don't forget Rome II, amphibious landing, synced battle and strategic maps, army traditions, ... they were still trying to improve the technical aspects of the game. I don't really understand why people like Attila ... outside of "challenge for challenge's sake". The game just seems boring, buggy and frustrating : - The mechanic are really arcade (Say hello to Attila the 27th, because you haven't quite killed me the way you have to, oh and the games just bugged out, so now you can never completely kill me) - The controls awful (massive delays for units to obey, terrible maps with units getting stuck on every fence, not guard mode, ...) - The period is interesting, but the rosters are basically copy/paste and focused on really dumb hard-counters - The cities are even worse than Rome 2, because now you need mandatory public order, sanitation and food buildings in you 4 slots settlement ... Oh - The battles are over in a blink, making placement and actual strategy much less effective than just rush-and-overwhelm. - The player bias is ridiculous, and allies are completely useless, especially when playing as roman factions. - By turn 100, 90% of Europe is just waste because barbarians are out of control and burn entire countries just for the sake of it. - The performance are horrible. It crashed on me more often than modded Med2, ...
I'll comment as someone like you, who's been playing Total War games since the very firsts. Yes you can say that Shogun, Empire and Napoleon are big leaps, but honestly for me the golden age was Rome 2. By far this was their best and also most optimized Historic Game :) Attila was also a great title, even Thrones was great in its own way. Its that the current fanbase wanted something like warhammer. I've only managed to play up till some point on Warhammer 2, and its a great game, its just not Total War for me :)
Haven’t played empire but seems like if it was fully realized it would be a paradox game grand strategy on the campaign level meets a total war game tactical strategy on the battlefield
Total War Warhammer 3 was dead out the gate for me. When they said the Ogre Kingdoms were gonna be day 1 dlc, thats when i had had enough. And even still, they sell the blood pack separately to not only gouge your wallet for doing businesses with them, but also, to be able to sell the game to younger audience. Like, every other instance in life when someone says "yeah im selling that separately so i can target kids", you blacklist them. Which is exactly what I did to CA. They can go shove one, ill buy warhammer 3 when they remove the ogre kingdoms dlc.
CA is still using Empire TW's engine for today's title -- thats been 15 years. And not only is it about the lack of innovation despite better technology, it's the change in franchise's scope and identity. TW used to be simulation like wargame, now it's just became an arcade casual experience. The original hardcore historical player-base is now a minority amongst this newer audience. Now we have to look for other developers who can take 4x strategy and tactical wargaming to new pastures.
They have no interest in innovation, they can just keep churning out WH games on the same shit engine that has been used for 5 years, and people will still buy them. Personally, i think the engine used since wh1 is absolutely awful and has led the series completely astray from what made it so good in the first place. Now, just to wait for the "wh good historical bad, look at sales" comments...
@@joecadden1536 I did look at the sales. And I can be happy that the shills like you lose a boat load of money, meanwhile I get to enjoy actual good games.
@@spiffygonzales5899 jokes on you mate, I enjoy my Fantastic Warhammer games while still enjoying the other total wars, the ones you call "actual good games" despite ones own perspective on any respective game being completely subjective. I don't consider it "losing money" if I love the product and sink hundreds of hours into it. Try better next time bud 👍
they should make a sequel to Empire total war and release it like warhammer, make it in 2-3 parts and in few years to have a grand campaign composing most of the world during the victorian era, if they made a fantasy setting under that format, than a historical setting should deserve the same ammount of love
WRE grand campaign on Attila is to this day, the hardest TW camping I've ever played. Even an extreme difficulty Rome II campaign with Macedon was a cake walk in comparison.
I have to agree with you there, I really love the setting and time period, and despite often being quite a challenge the campaigns can be totally wild and random! And yeah as you say that mod is brilliant, closest thing to medieval 3 we'll get for a while
Total War has me very dissapointed with it's progress too. I crave for terrain, morale, formations, angles and distance to be important again. More than ever actually. Id wish for the scope to slowly but surely go on to become global, Europe, Asia, Africa and America in separate games, that can be played together if u own all of them, a wide 1500-1800 setting with extra smaller campaings. I don't rlly care that much for naval battles, but Id love to see improvements to army manuevers on Battle, and options in the campaing.
@ 5:45 You get a glimpse of it in the 1942 mod for Rome total war. It's buggy in its current state, but it's perfectly feasible, and there's no reason why it would not be desirable. What you would need to do is modify the reinforcement mechanics from RTW, and you could simulate calling in an airstrike or something. Actually, this can (and should) be implementable on the strategic level: you can, say, park your artillery in one place, and have them bomb a city on the other side of a wide river--so long as it's within the gun's range (exactly what happened at Quebec in 1759). That actually brings up something: Total War Franchise, IMO, missed a great chance for innovation all the way back in 2009 (being that the game is set in the 18th century): Instead of focusing purely on eye-candy (which was and is already stellar in M2TW), more units on the batlemap could have been introduced, and the idea of "support units" explored (any putative air-force unit goes here). For the larger (and doubtless more cumbersome) armies, you can introduce a divisional system: you can organize the, say, 50 units into groups and larger groups, which you can control simultaneously, or (for lower-level tactical situations), individual units. Total War could have also substitute/expand on some of the tech tree stuff for a tactical doctrine system: want to minimize micro-management? Give your soldiers specific methods of attack and defense, that way there's a default you can fall back to, allowing you to focus on the big picture. If they could, perhaps make this usable in multiplayer. BTW: aside from the tactical doctrine proposal, every other proposal here has been done in other games. The idea of calling in support from off-map comes from Red Orchestra 2--an FPS game; marry it to the reinforcement mechanic, and go from there. The divisional command system is in a game simply called the Seven Years War: it lets you do what I propose, and having played the game, it's an absolute God-send for the larger battles; in this context, this method would simply be an expansion on the unit grouping already present in Total War. There's a long list of things that could have been done or changed, but these are what come to me hearing what you say.
Remember when every two games there'd be a massive change and push for innovation? Just compare Shogun1/Med1 to Rome1/Med2 to Empire/Napoleon. Within 8 years we went from sprite armies to full 3D naval battles.
Hell yeah. Within 8 years we went from 4 best titles to ones that almost ruined the franchise because they were so bugged and un-optimised that they almost ruined the franchise. Also been sold to Sega that almost nailed coffin nails in vanilla Medieval2
we need a Paradox grand strategy (victoria era setting?) and total war combat, yes maybe it won't work, maybe it will be bad but if they really try i think it would be great. To me total war always felt small and simple in scale, Paradox grand strategy always felt big and somewhat complex in scale but the combat was always to simple while TotalWar combat was always so vivid and real, a combination would be great, maybe one day i can see that.
Total war games changed a lot since Shogun2 though: Diplomacy AI and diplomacy options, magic, more diverse unit types, flying units, more sophisticated campaign features, more sophisticated campaign AI in general, more and diverse late-game mechanics, resource innovations like in Troy (although the systems sucks), more focus on characters and heroes, (more options in) character equipment, partly scripted scenario battles that fit into your personal sandbox campaign, diverse campaign maps (although there is still considerable room for improvement), more significant impact of seasons, weather and climate, recruitment system (3K and Britannia), more variety between different factions ... and this is just off the top of my head. Needless to say, I'm not happy with all the innovation but saying CA is not creative (pun intended) is a stretch. I sure wish for another pure historical title as well. Preferably some Total War Victoria/WW1 of some kind (1850-1920).
I think one of the most underrated aspects of Empire was the pace of battles. In most total war games, there’s so little time between battle lines meeting and the battle being over. In Empire, there was time to adjust, rethink, reposition. Like in a real battle, things were dynamic. I love 3K, but in battles I just use cavalry to ambush and soften their army till I’m ready for the main charge. Once my infantry touch theirs, the battle is basically over. I miss being able to pull back infantry who were coming under heavy fire, move some troops in a flanking maneuver while others are firing, etc. if you try that in any other total war, one battle line will have already broken before your men can even get in position.
I honestly hated that. Empire's battles lasted way too long and became boring as fuck too quickly. Hell even speeding up battles felt slower than older TW titles. It make me always stop playing the game after one big battle because they took too damn long, and I hate when battles are over too quickly but there is a limit when shit gets tedious.
The only problem I can see in Empire and Napoleon is the size of map, in Napoleon they put a winter attrition mechanic but Russia is to small to make a huge impact, in 5 turns you can go from Viena to Moscow and when you take the city the russians just surrenders, the distances betwen the majors cities really looks bigger than in western Europe but what it's simpler than could, I'm a programmer and have a basic idea what problems they would have faced with a pardox like map, even more in the early 2010's, but they could have add some minor cities. Theare are some minor problems in Napoleon but it's not so different than the others games (at least the historical ones) like after a initial challenge, the game becomes easy (if you play against France, if you defeat Napoleon in 1805 the game is over) and in campaing battles you could beat any 2~3 full armies with 4 line inf, 1 elite inf, 2 art and 2 cav, if you prepare a line with your art in front of it firing cannister shot, the AI will charge in the center, in the cross fire they will flee and you cav will finish them, I tried this in single player custom battle and didn't work (in open field), just in campain.
You've putted in this video everything I've been thinking for years! Empire 2 would be the best Total War ever made and I really hope that the next historical game will be the one to improve everything we had in the past 💪Thank you for making this 👍
in the new total war games , the battles have no impact , because of the health bar system.The last great total war game was Shogun 2. The new animations system looks great , but it does nothing to the battlefield with no impact physics , and just health bar everywhere .
For me the greatest flaw was, that every faction in historical Total War games felt or played rather similar. Warhammer Total War fixes that for me, but I agree that they could have fleshed out some things more (Diplomacy beeing my greatest disappointment with newer titles). Thats why I enjoy battles over campaign and therefore find it hard to play older Total War games.
@@biggie_boss You are right that steppe nomads play totally different, but for me the diversity of factions is at its peak in warhammer and therefore most enjoyable.
@@danielw48 I think diversity depends on the era of the game. It makes sense that Empire had little diversity because most of the world's armies were modernizing into line infantry with supporting artillery and cavalry. In older eras, like Rome and Medieval you have a lot more diversity.
I can't wait for George Washington to become a Hero Character or for there to be more lackluster cannons that self loaded cause the animators couldn't be bothered animating it... I just want these games to have more love put into them and not with a paywall..
About a year ago, I did a custom battle against AI in Napoleon Total War. I had the Darth Mod installed and played on a flat grass map. I played Prussia and had a considerable amount of cavalry, fighting the British with a bigger infantry force. The Battle had proceeded as a fire fight, filling the entire area with lingering smoke. Then I used the cavalry to crush the flanks. As the line broke, I let the whole Hussar force lose and let the Prussian infantry charge the most stubborn remains. (Granted: Not a challenging fight, it was very much a proof of concept/visual splendor ordeal.) That imagery of the scattered Hussars running through breaking troops, as the infantry charged and advanced to claim final victory, even zoomed out taking up the entire screen... that stayed with me. The cinematic potential of NTW is just amazing.
One of the features i missed most after Rome was how unit upgrades are reflected on esthetics .. when i d upgrade a unit and see how their armour improves for example or weapons .. that was so pleasing and rewarding
Is this the NEXT Paradox game? ruclips.net/video/GJNiPxLDeuE/видео.html
Hey Andy, which one should I buy tw fall of the samurai or tw shogun 2 ?
@@omardarwish958 depends on what gameplay u want. If u want muskets, cannons and gun powder you should get Fall of the Samurai
Total War needs a Empire 2 plane and simple.
Hey Andy, have you looked at Knights of Honor 2? It seems like CA and Paradox will be getting some competition
@@omardarwish958 I think you need shogun 2 to play Fall of the Samurai
We need Empire 2 or a Medieval 3 as the next historical game
Or a Victoria Total War
Warlord era in China TW, when?
@@l.s.9095 three kingdoms
@@l.s.9095 wait nvm
@@wahtx7717 Ohh, yeah, I guess thats my mistake 😅 Forget that China had more then one Warlord era!
I meant the late one in the 20th century.
I can’t believe they’ve never done a total war during the pike and shot era in the 1500s or 1600s. It lends itself so well to their style of battles.
Maybe because the tercio formation is very difficult to make in a total war game. You should have in a single unit pikeman and mosketeers in a square formation.
Nowadays kids like more magic splashing effects, dragons, monsters all sort of similar fantasy models...
@@markus_gold Not true. I'm 15 and would like something historical.
@@roccolicinio9757 It is actually not that hard to make, I have seen some modders create the tercio formation in the TTW Empire engine! It would be hard to believe a company that big with so many experienced developers can fail to make that happen. I think it was just the financial problem, Warhammer franchise is making them so much money now!
they did. it's called Shogun 2. Play otomo.
Empire Total war is my favorite , its shame to see that it had so much potential and see them leave it dead in only one year
You could say that it's Shameful Display!!
Absolutely. The fact that NTW is cleaved off from ETW & the two don't share features triggers me to this day.
I mean everything about it beside the map and the sea battles are mediocre at best...
@@RagnaRockAlone * cough cough* I believe you mean... SHAMEFUR DISPRAY!!!!
don't you love how no matter how many years would pass (in game) you could never repair your fortress walls?....
Yeah, I think the Total War franchise is on its way to becoming a Assassins Creed style franchise. They will keep pumping dull titles with no innovation and soon they will abandon historical titles altogether. The legacy of total war will live on, but we will need new developers to really keep these kinds of games with historical settings
This is why I like what feral is doing by remastering for pc and porting the older great total war games to mobile it’s been nice to play M2TW on my iPad and I hope now it’s out on mobile they are working on a pc remaster like they did with Rome 1
It sucks, I personally have less than 0 interest in the warhammer fantasy universe, it just never appealed to me so to see total war mostly focusing on that is kind of lame.
I've been thinking the same way for a while now.
Fantasy is making more money and attracting more mainstream appeal.
They may start mainstreaming the franchise more and more until it becomes unrecognizable. Only the text "Total War" will remain as a remnant of the past in the game's names.
I hope we're wrong.
@@KaiserMattTygore927 I do like the warhammer titles, but they just aren't a proper total war. They are too arcady and the fantasy and magic can really dumb down the game and make it less about strategy and more about gaming the system. I wish they would go back to historical titles and do it with some seriousness instead of just churning out warhammer and a bunch of DLCs, but I guess when the company becomes as big as they have creativity becomes sidelined.
That's just bullshit, Three Kingdoms was innovative as fuck.
Just that CA fucking killed that title.
Even Troy brought some new ideas in.
I would love to see a total war that touches on the time between the end of Medieval total war and the start of Empire. Spain would be the biggest empire with colonial holdings, and you play as the other nations trying to catch up to the discovery of the new world. start in the 1400s and end in the 1600s
Basically a Renaissance Era game. I agree that would make a great game. Especially the Wars of the Roses, 100 Years War, the dominance of mercenaries etc.
While I would like see this period done by TW, I doubt that they can do it in a faithfull way in regards to the battles. Warefare changed dramaticly during this period, but it did so in a somewhat counterintuitve way, which doesn't work well for TW games. Cavalry for example turned away from elite Men at Arms to less heavily armoured curassiers supported by trashy Arquebusiers and Dragoons, but in TW terms the early Men at Arms would still be the "better" unit. Similar things for infantry.
We also have the problem of combined infantry (Pikemen with supporting weapons llike Xbows, Arquebuses, later on also Muskets, etc.) - something that I can't see working well in a TW context.
They are british they wouldnt like seeing us so big xdd
@@l.s.9095 Well think about how the Shogun series worked well in an era that was very similar, but condensed. Literally in the period of a few generations the combat went from medieval to being early modern, which is a lot more than the 1600s. Imagine the options you could come up with in this time period. Do you invest in men at arms, upgrading their armor and attack abilities for an earlier advantage, or forge a new path and work on gunpowder weapons. There are the Pike and shot units, the fall of the classic elite knights. I mean even the campaign map could show the rise of the Ottomans, the fall of Constantinople in the 1450s being a starting point in the game. it's such a rich and colorful time period that even if it doesn't live 100% to the potential, it could make a great game.
So just a short game of Europa Universalis IV
The naval battles in empire/Napoleon were so fun. You had to pay attention to the weather gauge and keep your ships in formation. They really need to go back to that ara
i never figured how naval battles worked i would rarely win
While FOTS can have you alot of fireworks from ships blowed up
@@ussarman8922 I loved them and could win 1 vs 3 in most cases. In fact I only fought the sea battles having tired of the land battles. I miss the strategy of it all as well!
Personally I hated them. The controls were clunky and unintuitive and I never enjoyed one.
@@ussarman8922 I recommend starting a custom battle where you have a single flagship versus a few enemy ships of similar to smaller size, and focusing entirely on micro. If you get used to micro'ing ships by having yours flee from a "superior" force and jackknifing back and forth to fire on the ships chasing it, you can defeat a LOT of enemy ships with just one of your own. For the best example of this in action, check out Legend of Total War's Empire Blitz campaign.
Once you get used to micro'ing in those circumstances, things will start to click into place on how to tactically move ships in larger scale battles, it's all about making use of both broadsides.
I want a game that covers the time period of the Franco-Prussian War. I genuinely believe that's the latest Total War can go with its regimental style battle mechanics.
Technically FotS is partially set in a later time period, although I get and agree with your point. I think they could (and maybe should) go with the "Ultimate General"-approach of having one soilder depecting a number of men so that they can have large formations (Brigades) as the tactical unit on the battlefield.
The almost static battlefields of ww1 would be fantastic I believe, new trench system instead of fortresses, hard trade systems and lack of farming etc it could be incredible.
@L. S. They already do that, cohorts 480-600man units irl are represented by 80-160 man units in Rome 1/2. Regements 1-2000 man units respresented by 120man units in empire, etc.
Total war has never been 1 to 1 scale except maybe in warhammer.
Maybe they could do it axis and allies style and make it traditional rts squad based with the units from your army
@@arkwrightdubstep WW1 Total War???
It would either be amazingly good and innovative or fail spetacularly! And I am leaning towards the fail!
Empire 2 has been a dream of mine ever since I played Empire 1 as a child.
Despite some simplicity in the systems I’d always pay attention to the trade values on resources and plan my economy around them. I miss that so bad in Warhammer and I’ve shelved it unless I play with friends.
maybe give Troy a chance :) it has some very interesting changes to the economy and was ignored in this video. Ressources matter in this game because you need them to build stuff or recruit armies. here is the official explanation from ca ruclips.net/video/6VQdVYQoT0g/видео.html
I haven’t bought a total war game since Attila because all I wanted was an Empire 2
Empire actually had a more complex economy system than the new games. Research and technology could boost the economic growth so much more substantially than the newer games.
I’ve been wanting ETW2 for years. Three kingdoms was a mix of mystical and historical, as was Troy and Warhammer has seen 3 titles. When are we gonna go back to TW grass roots.
To be fair, both Troy and 3K do have a historical mode which is great. I have only dabbled a little in the mythical stuff purely for curiosity, and yeah its fun, for 5 minutes. Then you want to go back and get the real stuff again. Looking forward to an Era with no mythical stuff so more time is spent making the historical content very detailed and realistic.
Making shogun 2 run smoothly is almost impossible, but seeing the troops actually massacre each other after warhammer 3 combat aka "lets stare at each other, do some bumping, and from time to time fall dead to the ground" is a treat
I don't know how its set up for you but shogun II runs just fine for me. I can crank up the settings on my mid tier gtx 1050ti and have massive battles run smoothly.
In the modern day it would probably be hardy though, with all the obsessions of getting every wrinkle and scuff marks in ridiculous detail.
Agreed! Shogun 2 just doesnt work +60 fps in battles on even new high systems. I loved that game back when it was released but with my new high end pc after years passed i wanted to play it smoothly but no chance. Problem was the unit detail option... Anyway warhammer battles ate boring when you compare to Shogun 2 imo
@@resentfuldragon The problem with shogun 2 is that it was made with 2 core cpus in mind and on 32x system, if I remember right
So newer processors, with lets say 8 cores can struggle, because Shogun 2 will bottleneck.
I have ryzen 7 3700x and oh boy, the game died the moment there were 30+ units on the screen.
I had to play around with settings and mods and now I can finally run it well enough, but it was an ordeal.
The game is great, but I honestly wouldnt recommend it.
CA did not bother with optimization at all.
@@schizosamurai8840 i have an intel cpu and for me it actually runs smoothly even if im in a 3v3 battle
@@yavuztezcan8684 I think this has to be something related to computer optimization because my game runs +100 fps and only dips in 20 vs 20 unit battles when I zoom in.
We need Empire 2, but for now I look forward to December 6th Knights of honor 2: Sovereign.
Everytime I hear about KoH2, I'm just like "Please be good, please be good, please be good...", I fear the game will get compared too much to CK3 and TW and then can't hold up to these othere games (which have a much larger budget).
Koh 2 will be great!
Its coming out december 6th? Im so excited
It's kinda disappointing
@@mickethegoblin7167 Nah, I'm happy with what we got. Pretty much what I expected it to be.
(Although I could see how someone could be disappointed.)
Man I‘d love a reworked Empire or a new title set in the long 19th century or in the 17th century (thirty years war). That would be awesome. More depth in the campaign play would be very refreshing and I think people would be ready for it.
well i think 30 years war scenario , should be like a total war 3 kingodm game. The map is only germany and many faction fighting each other. I would like to see vicotria total war, which is world map in which factions fight over america africa and asia. Time should be after napolonic war and ends nearly before ww1. Also a american civil war total war should be nice too. shogun 2 fall of the samurai felt a bit like that :D. But still the idea is nice but Empire has the perfect time with 7 years war, american revolution and industrialisation. Also fall of the ottoman and Span and rise of Prussia, Britian and russia :D
Very true, I personally haven't bought a Total War title since Attila and have no attention to until they get back to what they did best.
If they don't want to renovate the old work then sublet or sell them to creators who do want to.
Same here. Total War ended in early 2015. I believe the series has gone the way of The History channel... they have dumbed-down and turned their back on their original mission, in favour of chasing the money. In the same way that Ancient Aliens replaced serious history content on TV, ridiculous fantasy nonsense has replaced serious historical gameplay in Total War. It's a case of 'network decay'. A slide into commercial trash rather than the high-quality material that originally made us interested in the series in the first place.
@@brydenholley1904 The old total wars are quite dumb. The Ai's are garbage in almost all of them compared to Warhammer 3 Ai and since you haven't played it you wouldn't know. It seems like "historical" fans are the ones unwilling to expand their horizons.
@@brydenholley1904 Its not just a ridicolous fantasy nonsense you moron, the setting is older than Total War itself, if you dont want to play fantasy its ok, just dont make dumb statments about things you dont understand
I bought Warhammer 1 and I honestly regret it. It's too flashy and the generals/heroes are kinda overpowered. Plus I see quite some problems with units' balance between different factions.
I'll stick to Rome2 and Attila for now.
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 lol 😆 I just don't like it, it's not for me. 😉
The franchise really isn't what it was. It's pretty clear ever since they lost their independent status as a studio that that marketing and visuals are priority. Strategic gameplay is an afterthought.
Pretty much, this has been echoed from the rooftops from OG strategy players when Rome 2 hit. It's about selling titles, so the game attempts to reach a wider audience, so it's become more streamlined casual. They added things, but removed much.....
Only provincial capitals having walls was BS. Historically sieges were a thing, and could be epic, removing them killed a lot of immersion. They realized their stupid mistakes, and brought back walls to Attila, but the damage was done. All the original devolpers have left.....
Really don't have much hope for the future.
@@pompeythegreat297 if they are going where the money is, they are by definition winning, TW:WH, and TW:3K are by far their most lucrative products
I swear people like yourself have never played a modern title to make complaints like this
@@AggressiveLemur 3K and Troy are nowhere near the levels of success that WH has achieved, the only reason they've achieved any success is because they stand on Total War: Warhammer's shoulders and because the Three Kingdoms period is popular in video game format, once they milk Warhammer for all it's worth, they're in deep shit, because they've already alienated their OG audience and the Warhammer audience will have moved on to something else.
It's typical modern corporate mentality, no regard for the big picture and only focused on short-term profit. Tell me something, in 200 years time, do you think people will still be talking about the countless Transformer movies that were cynically milked for all their worth? Or do you think people will still be buying and talking about Star Wars(OT, PT, and old Expanded Universe)? It's time that is the ultimate judge of what is great. That's all what Warhammer: Total War games are, Transformer movies in strategy game form, they're the flavor of the month, CA needs to start thinking about what truly made them great, that's what will lead them to long term success and greatness.
@@Hybrid980 My thoughts exactly. If people are still nostalgic about games from 10 or 20 years ago and not giving much of a damn about the newer titles, there's something that went really bad. I still miss the RTW and M2's atmosphere. Somehow I got it back with R2TW and Attila, playing Brittania gave me lots of fun (except for the cheesy late game with random viking dreadnought army spawns). I miss that ominous and imperial flavour mix to the game that ended quite with Attila though.
I’m probably the odd one here, but I loved three kingdoms system innovations and narrative, you may not like the setting but it’s undeniable that Three kingdoms brought a lot of new stuff, like a much better diplomacy, that I hope to see implemented and expanded upon in future titles
except modders did all of that years beforehand and CA literally just copied and pasted their work and got a bunch of shit for it but yeah they innovated a system that wasnt even functional and slapped in barebones systems modders already expanded.
Like the other guy said CA didn't innovate shit with that game. You all got scammed into 3K lmao.
@@feeblemind Pfffft, you would be complaining that the devs didnt do it themselves then.
@@Brandon-bc1fz I still loved it tho
@@feeblemind Yeah but modders can only do so much without the source code so the fact that it's now baked into it means modders can only make it go up from there instead of jerry-riggin something to work and that's if the mod either doesn't end up dead on ModDB becuase they "lost interest" or takes years to complete
Developing something from scratch > modding
I really miss the old mocap matched fight animations, they were the nice added bit of detail that got me into the series to begin with, and they added a ton to making the battles feel grounded and flow in a prettier way. Zooming down to soldier level used to be my favourite thing to do, it felt like watching a cinematic little bit of movie, now it's almost entirely these unmatched ridiculous animations where some guy swings a sword into the air and someone a meter away goes flying backwards, zooming down really breaks the immersion.
I get why a system like that wasn't really feasible for a game like Warhammer, but I really don't know why they didn't bring it back for Three Kingdoms. I really hope that the next big historical title won't continue down that path of that kind of dumb and implausible arcade-y combat animations, its so much worse than the old system :/
I doubt that ca will fix it as they know from the Warhammer series it's a corner they can get away with cutting
Believe it or not at the time just before the release of Warhammer perhaps the most common complaint of Total War fans was that the matched animation sequences ruined unit cohesion and the old Rome/Medieval 2 flow of combat. IMO they were not wrong. Units behave MUCH more like they should when you don't have to worry about individual models sticking to each other and dragging the entire formation behind with them when they receive a move order.
a lot of ppl also hate matched combat and think it affects gameplay in a negative way. i think ppl forgot abt this after attila. i use unmatched combat on rome 2 because units actually hold formation, and dont run 10 meters into enemy lines to fight one guy. i think matched combat can be done correctly but its not implemented well in titles where it exists.
@@raganwall1990 exactly
@@pissgod6289 its a feature, not a cut lmao. they just cant do matched combat correctly.
I think I would rather have empire 2 over medieval 3, i really like this setting and the scale of the campaign can be achieved considering how big mortal empires is. the only problem is I think CA has lost the plot, and I'm hesitant to believe they'll be able to make a proper realistic historical title since they haven't made one in so long.
They made Troy amd 3K
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 those games are not even historical theyre more mythical. they tried to appeal to both fan groups by making a semi historical semi fantasy game, but by doing so they made niche games that appeals to neither. i want a fully historical and realistic game
@@lmaogottem5984 You want a grounded game, realistic would detract a little bit of the game experience if the realistic part is too realistic
Unfortunately the remake of Total War Three Kingdoms is gonna come first. Tough luck
Thrones of Brittania was a realistic game and everyone hated it.
Historical title doomers are hilarious. There is no grand conspiracy and there is no lack of innovation, the end of the story is that they're a business. They dont make historical titles(or when they do they dont stick with them) because people dont buy them.
They're not going to keep doing something for 10% of the profit because a niche audience just wants to stomp their feet and have a tantrum about how a different game is bad because its not the game they specifically want.
Look at the steam charts. Warhammer 3 is actually in a bad state at the moment and still has 20k concurrent players average, it will improve once some DLC gets released. Warhammer 2 has 5k. Rome 2 has 4k and Medieval 2 has 3k.
The fanbase is exponentially larger now, what a bad sign for the future of the franchise. If they make another mistake on this scale they're going to crack 100,000 players average. Truly these are dark times.
You want historical games to come back to the forefront? Buy the next one and get other people to buy it, buy the dlc, show the kind of interest that the fantasy community has. They will be waiting with a red carpet rolled out for you to come drop off your money.
Change for the sake of change is nothing I loath for.
If they just did a new game, which is similar to Rome II in its current state. I would be happy. I think this is true for many people. Innovations can also lead to failure as seen with Thrones of Britannia. For these reasons I don't think that TW really has a problem in regards to innovations. (This idea only works anyway, if you don't count the Warhammer games as TW games...as viewpoint, which I share, but maybe an unfair one, as these games were the main product for the last few years.)
One could also look at the newest Rome II DLCs, which innovated the game quite a bit imo. "Rise of the Republic" essentially proved that special faction mechanics could work in a historical setting. (Although this could obviously still be improved on...)
I also don't think, that a lack of scale is the problem for TW games. Small and focused scenarios have worked very well in the past ("Age of Charlemagne; Napoleon, Shogun II for example) and could also work very well in the future. Although I would like a world-spanning Empires II, I would also like a "TW: Great Northern War"-game, just focusing on said conflict. In the end it will all depend on good the game is made.
Overall I don't think you really show a "Massive Problem", which TW has, other then the fact, that they haven't released a historical title for years.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
shut up boomer. you even state your veiw point is baseless and unfair. SO just don't say it. The warhammer games are total war games. Weather your delusional boomer mind likes it or not. We are not the problom you are adapt or step aside
1690-1870 Would be amazing. So many opportunities for dlc campaigns aswell.
Then bring in the best parts lf the historical titles, borrow some minor stuff from paradox games for that sweet sweet depth maybe.
Im still playing mostly Empire, NTW and Attila... Played Empire 2 mod today and its awesome. Just lacks the depth sometimes.
I agree with everything. I don't think TW is passing through a "decadence" era or anything like that since, regarding sales and popularity, they are actually doing better than any time before. I also enjoyed a lot 3K and Warhammer, even when I had no interest on fantasy sagas (not even the Lord of the Rings), but I'm aware this is because playing total war is already familiar. I find an interesting paralelism between TW and Pokemon: Once they find a perfect formula, they squeeze it to the very end and, when developers try to bring up "revolutionary" changes to the saga, then it is the fandom itself who complain in order to keep the same mechanics in every game.
For example, when I first tried M&B many years ago, my first thought was: "If only there was a Total War game with the same RPG mechanics, quest system and character encarnation, it would be the best strategy game ever". I exposed my thoughts on TW forums and I only received hate with comments like "I would never play that shit, 'cause it simply wouldn't be total war", but the day after you see comments like "Man, total war sucks since it's always the same".
So yeah, I'm the first one who would really enjoy a risky change in the course of the franchise, while exploring new horizons.
I really love the warhammer line up, then again I always wanted a game the scope of TW:WH3 :D
Compared to many other fans, I loved Troy more than 3K tbh... there is just something about 3K that makes me not want to play it too much.
And based on my experience on Troy I would really fancy a Bronze Age Total War title, no mythology this time, and especially the resource system of Troy which was a mechanic that I liked a lot.
And maybe some kind of an actual pop mechanic.
IMO it's not as much as decadence as more like finding a "golden" formula and sticking to it (probably way too rigorous). And if AGEOD or Telltale Games taught us something is that even goldest of formula won't work forever.
@@090giver090 Exactly that. Even old dogs can (and should) learn new tricks.
@@loneirregular1280 Yep, Troy was amazing to me as well. We can't ask an Spin-off for the same ambition as a main-line game, but the way they implemented the resurce system, the personalized mechanics on every character and the smooth performance in battles, made it a really enjoyable experience to me.
It happened to a lot of series, but I didn't think about it in TW, you are right.
Empire 2 would be my dream, but i feel like Warhammer and fantasy in general being so much more popular killed that hope off.
Warhammer 3 is the last one they doing i believe
CA said more than once that they are working on historical titles
It's not more popular. I legit just looked at the steam charts and there's 18K history players atm while there's 16K fantasy players.
I should say, even though it's not more popular, it is their money maker.
Reason being the fans of the game are shills who spend tons of money on skins and systems that already existed in other games. I for one refuse to spend $300 more dollars on stuff that's already in game.
@@spiffygonzales5899 Warhammer has outsold all other historical titles and currently is the most popular if you count single titles. Warhammer 3 has 23k on right now next best is 6k Warhammer 2 and Rome 2 3 kingdoms has a pathetic 3k playing, although they only made that to try and milk that Chinese money.
Agreed, a continuation focusing on Europe after Napoleon would be great to be honest. So much history in the Revolutions of 1848 and up to the Great War.
Like a Victoria Total War.
Guns are boring
@@yourealittlebitfat4344 They are not, it's just the maps would be like 10x bigger.
@@yourealittlebitfat4344 Least fanatical Khorme fam
I would like to be able to customize my cities on the battle map like its design. Like an age of empires view foe each city along with a battle map and campaign map.
A Medieval 3 game in the warhammer-trilogy style(ie theres multiple games that all connect on a bigger map together) with 3Ks diplomacy and spy system and Troy's multi-resource/currency system and hopefully some form pf 3K's characters are most likely next
In immortal empires it annoys me so much that there are factions entirely based around naval raiding (zombie pirate faction, dark elves) but when your "fleet" attacks an enemy "fleet" somehow both fleets decide to land at a nearby beach to battle it out... naval battles would be amazing and bring a whole new dimension, it seems like they were put on a timeline and forced to put the campaign out so hopefully itll come in an update
The setting itselve makes a balanced naval System impossible. Beastmean and Orks have no Ships or some made out of scrap and Dwarfs in Comparison have Steam engined Steelships and Submarines.
@@pascalheinrich3990 you dont need balanced naval combat lol, playing skarbrand isnt exactly balanced land combat so I dont see why factions that are weak on land cant be strong on sea
@@Azaqa would still leave some factions without any Naval at all. Beastmen, Woodelves and Ogres. To some extends Orks too
@@pascalheinrich3990 And I dont see a problem with it, to balance it they could give naval factions weaker land or just make land factions even stronger on land (maybe extra training slots, or reduced upkeep price)
@@Azaqa and how should they get over sea to other continents without a navy?
The AI is a massive problem for me, both in battle and campaign. If CA can't figure out how to make it smart and challenging, they should at least make it more immersive. I hate seeing regiments/units act like robots, changing direction 20 times within seconds, because something in the code triggers strange behaviour like this.
Honestly, their AI has never been impressive...
@@MrJinglejanglejingle Yeah but I think the scope and diversity of the newer game doesn't help quite to the contrary. Shogun 2 is often cited as having one the best AI in total war. And I think a lot of it is thanks to the low unit diversity which is easier for a game AI to handle.
@@benjaminparent4115 Yeah. That's also my main complaint about Shogun 2, and the games like it. There's no real unit diversity, so it doesn't feel good after a while.
@@MrJinglejanglejingle And I disagree with that, It could be better but not by much, Shogun 2 has small but meaningful unit diversity, they are no upgrades just side grade. A yari Ashigaru doesn't has the same role on the battlefield as a Yari Samurai.
In rome 2 for example you have loads of unit that have the exact same role but only have marginal stat differences, or some version are just straight upgrade of a lower version. Many unit fell out of use throughout the campaign
This type of diversity is way less interesting from a gameplay perspective in my opinion, while on top of it making it harder for the AI.
@@benjaminparent4115 "Meaningful unit diversity" Meanwhile, at all levels of tech/campaign, Yari Ashigaru remain top tier.
It's a completely different team by now since ten years ago and with that comes new derictions and new dev ideas. I personally think that everyone can forget that "realistic" feel that you had in medieval and Rome. It's arcady it's more for masses than the niche and we just have to accept it and move on to indie titles or next CA titles
@@ngkhaijie yeah that was a bit of a let down.
What I like about the Warhammer games is the variety. Every faction plays different and has it's own strengths. Yes the old titles bring up nostalgia, but let's be honest Rome 1 and 2, medieval 2 were basically heavy infantry spam and the factions didn't feel as unique except one or two special units.
When the Warhammer Fantasy game first came out everyone claimed that this would flop, so I would say it was a brave step and a lot of creativity went into it.
cavalry barely worked in med2 , while in rome 1 you had broken phalanx units and crap like egypt , on top of that the game was very fast paced , and most factions in med2 were reskins , and no matter how different you make a faction most players will gravitate towards the ˝˝hammer and anvil˝˝ tactic , which led to people saying that wood elves suck cause they cand hold a line long enough for the hammer to strike , there are incredibly stupid people playing this game that have their fingers in directing the development of future titles , every other person in this comment section believes their solution to be the best one which is hilarious
It would be interesting to see someone do a video sometime on potential causes for this stagnation in the total war franchise. One theory could be that the sudden burst in ambition behind Empire TW was due to the company’s acquisition by Sega in 2005 (Empire TW likely was the first full development cycle after the acquisition with Medieval 2 likely being mid-development during the acquisition).
Additionally, Empire was Mike Simpson’s first title as director. Now Mike has been the director for almost every subsequent title, which have all appeared to be very profitable, so there may be less appetite for risk in upper mgmt. considering how well the status quo is. All of this is 100% speculation on my part, so if anyone has any further thought/insights I would love to hear it.
All you historical game boomers. Just come to the conculusion "its the total war fantasy/warhammer peoples fault" and disregard anything that disproves that...A game could come out that has everything you ask for. But if it had any fantasy elements at all. You would disregard it as "one of those total war games new thing bad old thing good" Thats the problom with you historic total war boomers. soooo
If total war ever does do WW1 and adds planes I could see them working like how Wargame does it, where you have to build them as units on the grand strategy map but in real time battles you call them in from off map on a cooldown timer.
Dude ww1/ww2 or modern total war would be awful... the game doesnt really work if you cant have neat military formations as they did historically. Are you gonna micro manage 10 dudes in a trench or something?
@@Azaqa nations didn't exactly sent only 10 people to assault trenches or defend them in reality
@@antoniodelaugger9236 yes obviously the point is trench lines were massive and there were no formations. It wouldnt even be a total war game itd just be a crappy mobile game
Rome 2 has been my favorite game since it came out. For me it really has to do with the setting. Would love to see a rome 3 next!
Rome 2 is a pitiful game, but good for you.
@@scorpionfiresome3834 what’s so bad about it?
@@scorpionfiresome3834 You're still stuck in 2013 thinking the game is still bad.
Honestly they fixed the major things everyone hated about Rome 2, it's not a bad game at all. Still prefer Atilla to it as I love the mod options that there, but a good game in of itself
@@FordHoard No, the core gameplay is simply worse than its predecessor, like the fact that generals must be present to move armies, only capital provinces have walls, navies are almost entirely worthless, general traits are not dynamic and are instead random, so on and so forth, battles are vastly inferior, i’ll stick with Rome 1, sorry.
I recommend you watch some of Volound’s videos if you want more in-depth criticism.
I had always wanted a Total War set in 16th-17th century Asia. Imagine all the factions that can be played there, from the Shogunate, to the Ming, the Qing, the Joseon, Dai Nam, Spanish Philippines, Dutch East Indies, among others. I think it would be absolutely spectacular.
No one gives a fock about that tho.
Same here
I agree. Also, I want all world in that period, Europe, America too. Imagine Galleon, Turtle ship, Pike and Shot, Hwacha, Samurai, Janissary, Jaguar warrior etc in one title.
The Shogunate didn't really do anything during that time period except isolate themselves lol.
@@dwl3006 Then you clearly haven’t read about the Sengoki Jidai and the subsequent Imjin war(s). Hideyoshi was an ancient kind of Hitler, coming from nothing, raised in a time of endless war, and hell bent on conquering an entire fucking continent.
1500-1600 Japan was ANYTHING BUT the boring mess it became in later centuries until it opened up again.
Empire re-masterd
Hopefully. Medevil 2 as well
When Napoleon came out I refused to buy it for years because I was so angry that they were taking what should have been fixes and innovations for Empire Total War, but instead abandoned that game just to produce a cheap sequel.
I have since bought it, and enjoy it, but for me the treatment of ETW both pre and post release was when Creative Assembly lost my goodwill. Even if they did put out Shogun 2 later (which I'd say is the best Total War to date).
Agreed!
My biggest issue with Napoleon was that governments weren't as good and they got rid of firing types.
Still a good game tho.
I heard a joke saying if CA did a historical title now, Napoleon would just be a singular unit with high HPs and armed with duel wielding shotguns
A WW1 Total War game would be something to see. They could easily focus on what the historical generals had to deal with: a race of supplies, technical innovation, manpower and planning. Knowing when to withdraw and when to advance. They'd have to develop a trench warfare system but knowing TW's history they could nail it if they wanted. I'm sure with another historical title they could get a lot of disinterested players back.
I think it could work or would be worth exploring at least from the studio point of view. The battles could have trenches laid out each side where you position your men, your artillery somewhere in the back, small airbattles, perhaps incorporate gas somehow which could also result in friendly fire. Granted most of the war was a stalemate so you'd have to somehow incentivize players to move out from the cover of their trenches instead of the guarantee you are going to see your men get mowed down.
@@synergygaming65
Exactly my thoughts!
Gas, tanks and all that were developed during the actual war, so these could be researched in the game in the development trees. These of course would impact the power balance but supply should also be taken care of, because that was one of the main deciding factors of the great war.
@@synergygaming65 Yeah and Prussia didn't conquer West Prussia and Silesia at the beginning of the 1700s(this what I usually do in my own Prussian campaigns)
I Think would be a great game a mix between Paradox-Totalwar. Like the Crusaders Kings 3 mod with bannerlord but with total war. Imagine a Victoria 3 with napoleon total war battles and military management
Victoria 3 💀 I would just buy the nations banks and systems and make sure the political parties which agree with what I believe in (which makes me more profit) would win with my vast wealth. Ez victory by money.
@@ivanthehighman177 wow almost like real life
As someone who joined total war only in the last couple years, and only has really played Warhammer 3, this video is kinda shocking. I didn't know naval battles had ever been a thing in TW, and now imagining the potential of Vampire Counts, chaos factions, or any other groups actually using ship battles makes me realize how much could still be possible if the scope of the game was less narrow. I hope this video maybe reaches someone who can hand this to devs. There's so much in just a moment of watching this that I wish could still find some way into these newer titles.
Like, I'm trying to wrap my head around how incredible a plague fleet of nurgle squaring off against the Vampire coast would be. Or seeing a dark elf Black Ark face off against Lizardmen ships or High elves. There's just so much that would be incredible if included
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It’s very interesting to hear from newcomers who have little knowledge of what we had before. Naval battles were more hit or miss when they were mostly close-ups (as in Rome 2), but they were absolutely amazing in Empire/Napoleon/Shogun 2/Fall of the samurai, and I’m sure the case would be the same in Warhammer 3 because of the diversity of technology and factions. I’m glad you took the time to comment!
@@AndysTake This would also mean an nightmare for the devs, if they do it would be an entiree dlc not a free update.
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 oh I'm sure it would be a challenge for sure and definitely dlc
I think CA should abandon the yearly launches, even though one is a saga game. A 3 years life civky would be better, as a game could have sufficient time to be devoloped and not suffer from fatigue or the devs needing to play safe to bring a new game in 1-2 years
A more realistic approach to warfare would greatly increase interesting gameplay. Rather than micromanaging a small hive mind, it'd be better to prepare a battle plan and then see it play out, having a few options for changes on the field. Being able to have some choice in the terrain of where a battle is fought, having to deal with the limitations of logistics be it food, water, etc and choices about how much to forage/raid for supplies, having doctrine options for how to react to certain situations or how to fight, actually seeing the farmland and cities rather than a small splattering of buildings, having to be restricted by roads and choosing between large slow armies or smaller faster ones, seeing the differences in maneuverability, realistic cavalry instead of battering rams, better systems and interfaces for choosing city construction, more fortifications, resupplying by rivers, having to deal with omens and camp followers, realistic sieges, etc, etc, etc.
CA are game developers, not tooth fairies. It would be great if the things you mentioned were a realistic goal for CA to achieve, however I don’t think they are capable of achieving such a feat.
@@thelad9434 It's all about trade offs. Simplified graphics/animations could allow more memory for deeper simulations, a more realistic game would have a different tempo than real time micromanaging, etc. What I listed isn't difficult given it's not a 1-1 simulation but a gamified representation of those systems. The key is giving the right experience rather than simulating every blade of grass, but that experience can be made to give the impression of far more complex and deeper simulation which provides far more interesting decisions and events than the current games they make.
People often overestimate the difficulty in making games, the main issue is the risk aversion game devs and more importantly the studio execs have. Instead of trying to innovate and realize a vision, they aim for the widest appeal and copy proven products. This is why a lot of the most interesting games come from indie devs or small studios pursuing a passion project, but at the cost of less time, resources, and talent limiting it.
Same thing has happened in filmmaking, practically all movies today are extremely safe and shallow for commercial reasons.
@@josecarlosmoreno9731 Some of the points you make I do agree with, however we are talking about the Creative Assembly here. Also, you say people overestimate the difficulty in making games. Do you have game dev experience? Do you even know all the work that goes into making a game? The programming is not even the main workload. So many other things go into making a game, such as marketing, design, modeling, animation, foley, etc. Also, your statement on indie devs is just wrong. If anything, indie devs produce garbage most of the time. Even the more “popular” indie games are lacking in actual game design and marketing. You are absolutely right with the fact that big game studios are not willing to take risks, however they are not taking risks because there are profits and a salary on the line. I am not giving them an excuse, I am just saying why your idea of a game is extremely unrealistic.
@@thelad9434 Marketing can be simplified through targeting a specific audience. I'd say there is sufficient demand and lack of supply when it comes to strategy games to make marketing for it easier. Design depends on scope, planning, and iteration, which shouldn't be difficult as long as you can keep everyone focused and on the same page (which is personality dependent). Modeling, animation, foley, etc are dependent on scope, a good strategy game should depend primarily on gameplay rather than assets. Most modern games are far too graphics/asset focused which makes them both more expensive/difficult/and shallow.
CA has done well taking their existing framework and reskinning it in interesting ways, though that might be better done by licensing it out to smaller studios while they focus on deeper iterations on the framework.
Given the success of larger studios, they should have far more ability to take risks, etc because they have countless advantages others don't. The problem is that once they get big, money becomes the focus. I doubt the big studios are money deprived, rather they just choose to have bigger admin paychecks, bloat and shareholders.
If one looks back at games over the last 2 decades, apart from graphics they have changed very little. People before used to be able to do more with less.
@@josecarlosmoreno9731 The stuff you mentioned in the original comment has nothing to do with this. Making a game that is as complex as you are stating is not realistic.
My biggest pet peeve is the four build slots for a city! That, honestly, was enough to make me stop playing, but add the fact that mechanism have been removed or changed instead of just adding to. Plus how Warhammer was developed into three none full games.
Yeah I fucking hate how little building slots there are for cities now. Even a huge capital like Rome gives you too little to build and makes it feel way too boring and dumbed down compared to older titles.
Little did we know that after top tier titles as Rome, Shogun 2, Medieval 2, Empire and Napoléon, they'd never reach that level again.
Never been into Atilla, as it is a périod I care little for, and I only played the Saxon campaign.
Playing Rome 2 vanilla and ToB was to make you cry. Probably so we would care less about them switching to fantasy 🙂
Well.. A 1400s to 1700s Total War which you play on a Earth Map with gradual DLCs added on it.. Would be a Win Win.
Its a harsh world for historical total war fans. If their next historical game is not a success then they will stick with fantasy/sci fi forever. Too much money in wh nerds to milk.
I wouldn't mind 40k lol
Probably Game of Thrones or LoTR series, if they're gonna go fantasy route again.
No they won't. They'll leave. Do you even have any idea how many games have popped up just to cater to those fans? How many indie devs got sick of CAs b.s and made games that are like total war, but BETTER?
Nah dude. I'm not sticking with fantasy. The only reason I even have WH is because I have friends who play it. I'll get the final bret DLC and whatever they give tzeench. And that's it. Once WH is done if I hear another fantasy or a b.s half historical game like troy or 3K I'm done. If I hear "pay $30 to get the unit so that Hungary isn't trash" I'm done. If I hear "and this is how you cheese" I'm done. If there's even a hint that Naval or Sieges are garbage, or that my units can shoot through each other without taking damage, or that my units all share the same health, or that they still have the B.S rock paper scissors matchups, or that some core part of the previous title has been stripped out, or anything at all similar to the absolute nonesene that goes on with Warhammer, Troy, and 3K all are stuck with right now than I will never look at another CA game again. They could release Empire 3 and it could be a gift from God himself and I will say "screw you CA."
Go ahead, let me hear it. "Herr derr super big corporation isn't gonna miss you."
But honestly I'm not the only one. There's a LOT of people who are sick of CA dumbing down everything and selling you crap from 20 years ago as somehow new and innovative DLC. So while all the shills happily spend OVER THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS on a game that isn't even as advanced as Empire is, I will be more than happy spending $40 on indie games that are better than the garbage CA spits out.
Seems like CA learned a lesson from Empire "Don't innovate too much or you'll make a buggy mess" .
As long as they make a new historical title without silly bugs, that runs well, I will get it regardless of time period and quality of visuals.
What you just asked for is more fantastical than Warhammer 😂. CA and buggy launches go hand in hand. I agree with you 100% 👍
Attila changed the siege system, giving us ware damage on sieged settlements and placeable defences.
Three kingdoms have us one of the most in-depth diplomacy systems we have had in total war, it also gave us duals which was pretty amazing.
Warhammer gave us fantasy and warhammer 3 gave us survival spawn in battles
would love to see a medieval 3, as someone who just got into total war about a year ago i love the rome series and shogun and napoleon however going back to medieval 2 is just a bit jarring as its so old but I love the medieval period
I'd like that, with an early modern pike and shot expansion campaign with Americas colonisation. They have done every period but this!!
you should try attila's 1212ad mod
Which part of the medieval period do you love? (And would like to see as a TW game?)
@@l.s.9095 The very end of the Medieval 2 main campaign time period. THIS needs to be explored as it has been sadly ignored. The 1400s through to the 1600s is an incredible period where we move from medieval weaponry to early modern gunpowder tactics!
@@l.s.9095 Charlemagne time, or let one play as a nors clan. Medieval 2 was underwhelming and it only started at the year 1000
They have intentionally skipped the whole stage of the 30 years war. There is more than a century of emptiness in Total War games and many of us would like to know why?
There’s so many mechanics/skill trees/units in warhammer it’s not surprising you don’t get naval warfare or any extras. It’s a GREAT game and I think nostalgia makes people think the others were better. They were great though.
Totally agree with you. I own all Total War games released but these days I mostly play Empire and Napoleon with the Darthmod mod. What I wish for is a new game with a medieval setting, for instance set during the crusades. A game more in the tradition of Empire with naval battles and trade. It feels like the series have peaked.
Empire is one of my fave Total Wars
so by "Total War Has a Massive Problem" you mean "I like historical Total War and wish they made a good one again."
Cause of this video I’m redownloading Napoleon
I'm not even going to pretend that total wars strategy map element was ever really that deep, but there was a clear progression of effort up to a certain point. In addition to that the battles used to have a slower pace. They have gone in the exact opposite direction now, the strategy map has been gutted and over simplified and the RTS battles have genuinely turned into traditional RTS experiences where it's become a hyper clicker gameplay loop with victory being the only real objective since they've trivialized unit replenishment so there's no encouragement for good battle habits to preserve units. It was really the one big thing that was keeping a lot of fans of traditional RTS games from jumping over to total war and CA essentially pulled the trigger on trying to bring in as many people as possible to the franchise for company growth at the expense of losing the main identity of the franchise.
I want more city/ province/ fortification dynamics thatd be amazing
Said French @ 1939.
To be honest. I'm a casual gamer. I just dream of Total War going back to being a simpler game to play like the original.
There's just too much to navigate in the newer TW games. It kills it for the casual dudes like me.
I don't want to micro mannage everything.
I firmly believe one of the reasons the warhammer games are doing so well is because they tried "unconventional" stuff in them - magic, single entities, stuff like that. I had no contact besides knowing it exists with warhammer before the total war games, I actally avoided them at first. Warhammer 2 turned into my favourite Total War ever, after I actually tried it
There's also the fact that warhammer is very old and Gw killed it in an insulting manner for all those who had played it for decades. Total war series managed to keep it breathing and even make Gw bring it back. It's by no means a lore accurate version of warhammer and it's missing the best part about warhammer in my opinion which is making your own army. There should have been options to recolour your army and start with an unknown general not all these legendary characters. I never liked special characters in the tabletop version, buy they were nice to have in books as a sort of power indicator for what a single entity could be in this world.
But man as a Warhammer fan am I still glad that they made these total war games, even if some old school fans of the game series don't like em.
I think that motion capture ruined Total War.
It switched it from being lines of disciplined infantry fighting in formations to a jumbled mosh pit of individual choreographed duels
TW have evolved into making games for kids.They used to deliver massive battles but now they focus on cartoons with flying color flashes. And that's perfectly fine, it makes Shogun, Rome and Medieval series so much more valuable.
Total war has always had a massive problem since empire! Volound and Dishonorable Daimyo explained this. CA can not undig the hole that they dug. You all can still have hope but I say just wait till a good contender for the next real-time tactics game comes.
This video perfectly describes how I feel about Total War games right now. I’m praying the next game is an Empire sequel with the improvements and depth we’re looking for.
TW has so many established fixed ideas we take as unchangeable that are pretty arbitrary. Here are some examples:
1. You are the faction leader.
2. You control every army.
3. "Stacks" occupy a single point.
4. You resize units like desktop windows freely in width, depth.
5. Units are commonly at 100.0% strength.
6. Disbanded soldiers forget their training next year.
7. You have a clear idea what's going on around you.
8. Rebels gather in stacks to fight pitched battles.
9. You can only run away once then any loss is oblivion.
10. Ambushes happen with whole armies vs whole armies.
11. The general orders every detail directly like Starcraft.
12. There's an "end turn" phase.
13. Units walk through other units.
14. Disengagement is paniced routing.
15. Fleeing soldiers are harmless.
16. Research is a 1 by 1 shopping list divorced from world events.
TW has so many tropes that just burden the player with minutiae and not broad strokes decisions like a leader would do. Things happen because "that's just how TW is" not for good reasons.
I see the concept of total war as a big sand box where you can drop an idea and expand on it. I hope CA stay with the fantasy worlds and explore other IPs. Also id like to see a world war 1 total war... on a truly world scale. CA has the platform to make big epic rts games and i am all for them to continue improving and having fun
Total War Warhammer was a huge Innovation with flying Units, Magic, combined Worlds. It would just have been nice to have sea battles and more complex economy systems.
The problems with Total War: Warhammer were not it's setting, it was the abandonment of deep and meaningful mechanics in favor of flashy visuals and focus on single heroes rather than the whole army. The Warhammer world was always about tactics and strategy and outplaying your opponent. It offered some of the greatest potential for Total War in terms of mechanics that could have been added but CA opted to just go the route of "Warhammer hype," selling the game on the title alone and simplifying the gameplay to make it more akin to old RTS' like Warcraft or C&C, rather than the real-time tactics game it used to be. And people will say "oh it's fantasy, it's supposed to be silly and cartoonish." No one is going to look at official Warhammer artwork and say that it looks silly or cartoonish or even flashy, they'd say it looks gritty and mean and grim and dark. What's more, no one would even try to make that argument if the game was set in the Lord of the Rings, which is apparently where a lot of people wanted the series to go.
Just a huge waste of potential for the sake of appealing to the lowest common denominator.
With their current development, I've lost all hope in them reclaiming the past. Their actions in DLC and charging absurd prices for unfinished games hits hard on the professionalism that was embellished in some (not all) of the previous titles. The dedication to unit animation/combat, tactic, decision-making, theatrical scene, agents, research, and many other that contribute to exceptional replay-ability still makes those older titles still the most favorite in my heart.
Even if they were to remaster some of the older titles like what they did to Rome. I'd still play the older games like Shogun 2, Napoleon, and Medieval 2.
The problem with total war is the battle ai of the enemy.
Three kingdoms deserves mention imo for how much it brought the series up in terms of campaign mechanics, especially diplomacy. It was just as revolutionary in its depth as ETW was in its scope. Both games have 'meh' battles imo but the campaigns really shine in different ways (ETW scope & 3k depth). If the setting for Three Kingdoms had been Medieval Europe instead of three kingdoms China, I think the game would be an absolute smash hit with western total war fans and regarded as a high point in the series. I don't appreciate it as much as I wish I did because I still struggle to get into the setting.
Most massive problem for TW series is that MTW2 was last game in the series that allowed extended modding by allowing to make own campaigns and custom maps. ETW had this scrapped. Engine limitation suppose, but this is the reason I many else still play MTW2 and don't have any new hype for new games or remasters.
I feel like your requests are kinda contradictory. You want a game that is willing to try something new like empire with its naval features (which many people didn't like) but you also don't consider the warhammer games or three kingdoms "real" total war games because of their new features and settings (which many people don't like). Yet many people love these games which is evident from their profits. So do you want a total war game that is willing to stay to tradition and be "real" total war, or a game that is willing to try something new?
He wants them to keep the good things like naval battles, sync kills and so on, while experimenting on new stuff. Games like warhammer always get couple things right, but also fuck up some, like sieges, naval battles, animations and overall feeling. The result is 2 steps back and one forward, which leads us into a downwards spiral
@Filip
Shitty sieges have been a problem long before the warhammer games. Even Shogun 2 (which is one of the greatest tw games ever) had some of the worst siege gameplay of the franchise.
As for naval battles please feel free to tell me how a norsecan long ship would fair agents a dwarven ironclad. I'm sure their would be no complaints about balance at all.(Just like how everyone complained about siege battles and when they were fixed, people complained about AI dispute being warned about the limitations of AI)
Also wtf do you mean bad animations. Have you seen warhammers animations? They look b.a.
It's not two steps back. They are using a fellow franchise to bring in fans from both areas. If it was two steps back warhammer 2 would not be a thing sense of would not be profitable to make more like it. New players of total war like the newer games. That's plain to see.
@@casualmeme1854 just because more people buy that stuff doesn’t mean it’s better, just more appealing. The sieges are shit compared to med2, Rome 1, Attila, Rome 2… yeah you can say how the “pathfinding was broken” yeah no shit when those games are 10+ years old. They should’ve had developed a new engine if this one just doesn’t cut it. Oh please, more of those excuses about why we cannot have naval battles. Has it ever occured to you than the ironclads aren’t the only ships dwarfs have? Maybe for 1 ironclad the norscans can bring 10 of their ships and overwhelm it (you know, like in the lore). But fine, naval battles wouldn’t be neccesary, if the campaign and land battles and sieges would make up for it, but they dont. Campaigns lack depth, and with battles where 1 lord can win you a game if you just click attack on enemy forces… no wonder most players dont finish their campaigns.
@Fillip
Sorry for late response had irl stuff to do.
What is your first point even supposed to be lol?! If a game is fun and people play it more, than it is a better game, it is more appealing to its audience and thus more successful warranting more resources from its creator to keep the fans playing it. Where are you getting confused here?
Yes I will say that seiges in tw suck especially in the new ones.(although you saying rome 2 has good sieges in a game where units can walk past pikemen in formation is just sad) this is as you said due to the shitty engine saga insists on using suz cheap.
Not even going to pressure the naval bs: but sure, explain how wooden sail ships will "overwhelm" a steam powered ship made of metal with more firepower, range, and speed than them. I'm pretty sure a historical tw fan would see a problem here even with superior numbers. Which is hard to make in a game where ships are single entities and you can only have 20.
But I digress, you think that warhammer campaigns lack death (sense this is a warhammer debate now) and I strongly disagree along with most of tw 's newer players as well as many old. And sense that seems to be an opinion, it is irrelevant to rather the new games are "bad" yes one lord can kill hundreds if the opponent is careless... it's tragic. In fact it's almost as bad as blocking off a rode with heavy infantry and using stupid amounts of artillery to destroy an entire army in a chokepoint. Oh sh!t why is tw Attila calling me?!
@@casualmeme1854 there are more people playing candy crush than all of tw players combined. Not sure how can you not understand that it doesn’t make their game better but ok. Yes, even r2 sieges are way better than wh, because pike are at least killable and believable, and you at least have to make an effort to find a position for them. And about that naval bs of yours, you could almost wonder how is it possible that orcs can win against a faction with flamethrowers and helicopters but ok, i won’t push it too much either. Also if you don’t see how flawed the single entity lords are, then probably I’m just wasting time and WH is the right game for you, never said it wasn’t. It’s just doesn’t do justice to neither total war games or WH lore, that’s it. But go and play, enjoy, nothing is holding you back. Peace
It's sad that creative assembly seem to have given up recently and no longer wants to innovate but this is what usually happens when there is no competition. I feel they would need a threat to their dominance before they start to really care about improving their games. A new engine would be great as the current one certainly has its limits and pitfalls.
Three kingdoms had so much potential, the diplomacy is far better than any other total war entry.
I loved the way you could use your generals to fake defection to a rival faction and spy for you
I so hope they make Medieval 3 in my lifetime, some influence from Crusader Kings would be good.
Don't forget Rome II, amphibious landing, synced battle and strategic maps, army traditions, ... they were still trying to improve the technical aspects of the game.
I don't really understand why people like Attila ... outside of "challenge for challenge's sake". The game just seems boring, buggy and frustrating :
- The mechanic are really arcade (Say hello to Attila the 27th, because you haven't quite killed me the way you have to, oh and the games just bugged out, so now you can never completely kill me)
- The controls awful (massive delays for units to obey, terrible maps with units getting stuck on every fence, not guard mode, ...)
- The period is interesting, but the rosters are basically copy/paste and focused on really dumb hard-counters
- The cities are even worse than Rome 2, because now you need mandatory public order, sanitation and food buildings in you 4 slots settlement ... Oh
- The battles are over in a blink, making placement and actual strategy much less effective than just rush-and-overwhelm.
- The player bias is ridiculous, and allies are completely useless, especially when playing as roman factions.
- By turn 100, 90% of Europe is just waste because barbarians are out of control and burn entire countries just for the sake of it.
- The performance are horrible. It crashed on me more often than modded Med2, ...
I'll comment as someone like you, who's been playing Total War games since the very firsts.
Yes you can say that Shogun, Empire and Napoleon are big leaps, but honestly for me the golden age was Rome 2. By far this was their best and also most optimized Historic Game :)
Attila was also a great title, even Thrones was great in its own way. Its that the current fanbase wanted something like warhammer. I've only managed to play up till some point on Warhammer 2, and its a great game, its just not Total War for me :)
Haven’t played empire but seems like if it was fully realized it would be a paradox game grand strategy on the campaign level meets a total war game tactical strategy on the battlefield
Total War Warhammer 3 was dead out the gate for me. When they said the Ogre Kingdoms were gonna be day 1 dlc, thats when i had had enough.
And even still, they sell the blood pack separately to not only gouge your wallet for doing businesses with them, but also, to be able to sell the game to younger audience. Like, every other instance in life when someone says "yeah im selling that separately so i can target kids", you blacklist them. Which is exactly what I did to CA. They can go shove one, ill buy warhammer 3 when they remove the ogre kingdoms dlc.
I'll wait till WH3 becomes 50% off before buying it 🤣 I'm not in a rush
CA is still using Empire TW's engine for today's title -- thats been 15 years. And not only is it about the lack of innovation despite better technology, it's the change in franchise's scope and identity. TW used to be simulation like wargame, now it's just became an arcade casual experience. The original hardcore historical player-base is now a minority amongst this newer audience. Now we have to look for other developers who can take 4x strategy and tactical wargaming to new pastures.
They have no interest in innovation, they can just keep churning out WH games on the same shit engine that has been used for 5 years, and people will still buy them. Personally, i think the engine used since wh1 is absolutely awful and has led the series completely astray from what made it so good in the first place. Now, just to wait for the "wh good historical bad, look at sales" comments...
Warhammer good. Look at sales. Cry more.
@@joecadden1536 Imagine liking Warhammer. Lol nerd. Gtfo.
@@Stevenio I don't have to imagine anything, I like Warhammer, love actually. Nice copium though, hope it made you feel a little better.
@@joecadden1536
I did look at the sales.
And I can be happy that the shills like you lose a boat load of money, meanwhile I get to enjoy actual good games.
@@spiffygonzales5899 jokes on you mate, I enjoy my Fantastic Warhammer games while still enjoying the other total wars, the ones you call "actual good games" despite ones own perspective on any respective game being completely subjective. I don't consider it "losing money" if I love the product and sink hundreds of hours into it. Try better next time bud 👍
they should make a sequel to Empire total war and release it like warhammer, make it in 2-3 parts and in few years to have a grand campaign composing most of the world during the victorian era, if they made a fantasy setting under that format, than a historical setting should deserve the same ammount of love
Actually just nabbed Rome 2 modded with Para Bellum and am absolutely hooked. Surprised you didn't mention it here.
Honestly, Attila is my favorite one. I know, blasphemous, but I love horse archers, and the 1200s mod is great.
I LOVE Attila as well, my friend
WRE grand campaign on Attila is to this day, the hardest TW camping I've ever played. Even an extreme difficulty Rome II campaign with Macedon was a cake walk in comparison.
I have to agree with you there, I really love the setting and time period, and despite often being quite a challenge the campaigns can be totally wild and random! And yeah as you say that mod is brilliant, closest thing to medieval 3 we'll get for a while
@@mantistoboggan1614 It is oddly satisfying to play as either Mongol horde and just destroy literally everything.
Total War has me very dissapointed with it's progress too.
I crave for terrain, morale, formations, angles and distance to be important again. More than ever actually.
Id wish for the scope to slowly but surely go on to become global, Europe, Asia, Africa and America in separate games, that can be played together if u own all of them, a wide 1500-1800 setting with extra smaller campaings.
I don't rlly care that much for naval battles, but Id love to see improvements to army manuevers on Battle, and options in the campaing.
@ 5:45
You get a glimpse of it in the 1942 mod for Rome total war.
It's buggy in its current state, but it's perfectly feasible, and there's no reason why it would not be desirable. What you would need to do is modify the reinforcement mechanics from RTW, and you could simulate calling in an airstrike or something. Actually, this can (and should) be implementable on the strategic level: you can, say, park your artillery in one place, and have them bomb a city on the other side of a wide river--so long as it's within the gun's range (exactly what happened at Quebec in 1759).
That actually brings up something: Total War Franchise, IMO, missed a great chance for innovation all the way back in 2009 (being that the game is set in the 18th century):
Instead of focusing purely on eye-candy (which was and is already stellar in M2TW), more units on the batlemap could have been introduced, and the idea of "support units" explored (any putative air-force unit goes here). For the larger (and doubtless more cumbersome) armies, you can introduce a divisional system: you can organize the, say, 50 units into groups and larger groups, which you can control simultaneously, or (for lower-level tactical situations), individual units.
Total War could have also substitute/expand on some of the tech tree stuff for a tactical doctrine system: want to minimize micro-management? Give your soldiers specific methods of attack and defense, that way there's a default you can fall back to, allowing you to focus on the big picture. If they could, perhaps make this usable in multiplayer.
BTW: aside from the tactical doctrine proposal, every other proposal here has been done in other games. The idea of calling in support from off-map comes from Red Orchestra 2--an FPS game; marry it to the reinforcement mechanic, and go from there. The divisional command system is in a game simply called the Seven Years War: it lets you do what I propose, and having played the game, it's an absolute God-send for the larger battles; in this context, this method would simply be an expansion on the unit grouping already present in Total War.
There's a long list of things that could have been done or changed, but these are what come to me hearing what you say.
Remember when every two games there'd be a massive change and push for innovation? Just compare Shogun1/Med1 to Rome1/Med2 to Empire/Napoleon. Within 8 years we went from sprite armies to full 3D naval battles.
Hell yeah.
Within 8 years we went from 4 best titles to ones that almost ruined the franchise because they were so bugged and un-optimised that they almost ruined the franchise.
Also been sold to Sega that almost nailed coffin nails in vanilla Medieval2
we need a Paradox grand strategy (victoria era setting?) and total war combat, yes maybe it won't work, maybe it will be bad but if they really try i think it would be great. To me total war always felt small and simple in scale, Paradox grand strategy always felt big and somewhat complex in scale but the combat was always to simple while TotalWar combat was always so vivid and real, a combination would be great, maybe one day i can see that.
Total war games changed a lot since Shogun2 though: Diplomacy AI and diplomacy options, magic, more diverse unit types, flying units, more sophisticated campaign features, more sophisticated campaign AI in general, more and diverse late-game mechanics, resource innovations like in Troy (although the systems sucks), more focus on characters and heroes, (more options in) character equipment, partly scripted scenario battles that fit into your personal sandbox campaign, diverse campaign maps (although there is still considerable room for improvement), more significant impact of seasons, weather and climate, recruitment system (3K and Britannia), more variety between different factions ...
and this is just off the top of my head. Needless to say, I'm not happy with all the innovation but saying CA is not creative (pun intended) is a stretch. I sure wish for another pure historical title as well. Preferably some Total War Victoria/WW1 of some kind (1850-1920).
I think one of the most underrated aspects of Empire was the pace of battles. In most total war games, there’s so little time between battle lines meeting and the battle being over.
In Empire, there was time to adjust, rethink, reposition. Like in a real battle, things were dynamic.
I love 3K, but in battles I just use cavalry to ambush and soften their army till I’m ready for the main charge. Once my infantry touch theirs, the battle is basically over. I miss being able to pull back infantry who were coming under heavy fire, move some troops in a flanking maneuver while others are firing, etc. if you try that in any other total war, one battle line will have already broken before your men can even get in position.
I honestly hated that. Empire's battles lasted way too long and became boring as fuck too quickly. Hell even speeding up battles felt slower than older TW titles. It make me always stop playing the game after one big battle because they took too damn long, and I hate when battles are over too quickly but there is a limit when shit gets tedious.
The only problem I can see in Empire and Napoleon is the size of map, in Napoleon they put a winter attrition mechanic but Russia is to small to make a huge impact, in 5 turns you can go from Viena to Moscow and when you take the city the russians just surrenders, the distances betwen the majors cities really looks bigger than in western Europe but what it's simpler than could, I'm a programmer and have a basic idea what problems they would have faced with a pardox like map, even more in the early 2010's, but they could have add some minor cities. Theare are some minor problems in Napoleon but it's not so different than the others games (at least the historical ones) like after a initial challenge, the game becomes easy (if you play against France, if you defeat Napoleon in 1805 the game is over) and in campaing battles you could beat any 2~3 full armies with 4 line inf, 1 elite inf, 2 art and 2 cav, if you prepare a line with your art in front of it firing cannister shot, the AI will charge in the center, in the cross fire they will flee and you cav will finish them, I tried this in single player custom battle and didn't work (in open field), just in campain.
I agree with everything. I for example am just waiting for naval battles on 1212 AD to come back to the series, after smth like two years off.
The biggest problem is Sega not making Napoleon 12th gen CPU compatible!!! I haven't been able too play my favorite one in forever.
Yikes! Makes me glad I still have a 9th gen CPU.
You've putted in this video everything I've been thinking for years! Empire 2 would be the best Total War ever made and I really hope that the next historical game will be the one to improve everything we had in the past 💪Thank you for making this 👍
Thank you for the kind words! Glad we agree, and I really hope they make Empire 2 soon!
in the new total war games , the battles have no impact , because of the health bar system.The last great total war game was Shogun 2.
The new animations system looks great , but it does nothing to the battlefield with no impact physics , and just health bar everywhere .
For me the greatest flaw was, that every faction in historical Total War games felt or played rather similar. Warhammer Total War fixes that for me, but I agree that they could have fleshed out some things more (Diplomacy beeing my greatest disappointment with newer titles). Thats why I enjoy battles over campaign and therefore find it hard to play older Total War games.
You think playing as steppe nomads is the same as playing as the Romans?
@@biggie_boss You are right that steppe nomads play totally different, but for me the diversity of factions is at its peak in warhammer and therefore most enjoyable.
@@danielw48 I think diversity depends on the era of the game. It makes sense that Empire had little diversity because most of the world's armies were modernizing into line infantry with supporting artillery and cavalry. In older eras, like Rome and Medieval you have a lot more diversity.
Anyone remember that ROME 2 teaser trailer? Cause I do. Shit was a blatant lie.. “and it’s going to look better than this on release!”
I can't wait for George Washington to become a Hero Character or for there to be more lackluster cannons that self loaded cause the animators couldn't be bothered animating it... I just want these games to have more love put into them and not with a paywall..
About a year ago, I did a custom battle against AI in Napoleon Total War. I had the Darth Mod installed and played on a flat grass map.
I played Prussia and had a considerable amount of cavalry, fighting the British with a bigger infantry force.
The Battle had proceeded as a fire fight, filling the entire area with lingering smoke. Then I used the cavalry to crush the flanks. As the line broke, I let the whole Hussar force lose and let the Prussian infantry charge the most stubborn remains. (Granted: Not a challenging fight, it was very much a proof of concept/visual splendor ordeal.)
That imagery of the scattered Hussars running through breaking troops, as the infantry charged and advanced to claim final victory, even zoomed out taking up the entire screen... that stayed with me. The cinematic potential of NTW is just amazing.
One of the features i missed most after Rome was how unit upgrades are reflected on esthetics .. when i d upgrade a unit and see how their armour improves for example or weapons .. that was so pleasing and rewarding
I loved it in medieval 2 as my empire became richer and more sophisticated as turns went on even my levy spearmen were well armoured and capable