I would be very supportive of the type of model you described. The historical titles they've released in the last 5 years all seem a bit limited in scope and the largest one, three kingdoms, they cut support for. The large amount of support for Rome 2 is what made it hold my attention for so long. I'd rather see them take longer to make an amazing game then get a okay game every other year.
Honestly CA just aren't pricing these old titles right... for an essentially unsupported game that's more than 7 years old, the price for the full game (DLC included) is still very high, even during sales. If they genuinely want to continue retaining an active and growing historical community, they should be cutting the prices on these older games (especially the base game) drastically.
Also, I just want to take a moment to thank you for providing great content without the need to constantly cuss or take the Lord's name in vain like so many ungrateful content creators on this platform.
I would absolutely support a longer development/post-release cycle for the bigger historical titles. Rome 2 is already great but I agree that it could have tarnished the reputation of the franchise if CA had decided to abandon it post-release. With that being said, I also would not want CA to release half finished games at full price knowing there is much more work to do.
Correct. Spend 5 years developing a real amazing game then spend 5 years at least supporting and adding to it. That gives all that time for the next release and so on.
@@HeirofCarthageThat would be the best "bang for buck" type deal. Some games are great. But they need refining. For example troy looks great. But it needs a battle rework,and some other tweaks to make it a great game. And i have played plenty of troy. But Rome's simply the best combinations. Battle,Campaign,everything.
I’d be cool with large gaps between new entries, as long as they release a COMPLETE game. Consistent health and quality of life updates is a big plus. However, trying to finish the game after release is my biggest issue.
I like how CA supported Rome 2 and left it in a really good place. I think the time period of the major historical games is also a major factor. A lot of people are interested in the ancient Roman era which is why they still play it. Going forward I would want to see Empire 2. Great time period and there’s so much they can do to get it right this time.
I really like the idea of these games getting longer support times too. I know people who even still enjoy playing the original Rome or Medieval 2 Total War, so I think Total War titles can easily have very long lifespans when the foundations are solid.
I agree a large gap but with support would be fine. They do need the long term plan to either grow the map or build out the minor factions to keep things fresh. Perhaps dlc to add new mechanics to all the factions rather than add new factions. Jumping the timeline forward or back 50-100 years also sounds good. A bit of reskin for new units and altered starts
We know that Pharoah is going to get new faction packs and other DLC because of the special edition details, which bodes well for continued content support
Personally I’d love a revamp of the total war historical games as one new grand approach where they do ONE historical game but they continually add to it. It covers copper/Bronze Age settings , antiquity-late settings , medieval and colonial. Each acting like one theatre of war spanning the entire earth. More paradox -esq elements into the campaign maybe. But one grand perpetual total war focused on history. Hell, optional dlc for the “truth behind the myth” type theme of Troy
I agree with you, Heir. CA should spend the necessary time before release or in between releases to make their games, especially historical titles, the best version they can be and then come back to them every now and then to update or add content. I would love to see a Rome 2 remastered like they did for Rome 1. Rome 2 is definitely my favorite historical title, alongside Shogun 2.
2:55 we have a term for that... the Paradox model... I think they are still releasing DLCs and patches for EU4, a title from 10 years ago. From what I know, that business model gets its own fair share of flak from the player base.
CA have fumbled the bag constantly for 10 years. I agree with your ideas regarding keeping the game updated and waiting longer between releases, but we still need to get a good NEW game before that means anything. Realistically Rome 2 and older games are too dated but I would still like more content for it. But we are all clamoring for a new historical title. It could be Rome 3 just updated to modern standards and I think most people would be happy. From the opinion of a historical fan. I can't stand WH so it's not taken account of in my comment there.
As someone who plays 2011 Napoleon Total War modded in 2023, it would be amazing if CA continued with at least lightweight support for their historical titles until the successor title is released.
I'd be fine with a longer development/post-release cycle for larger historical Total War titles. Supporting those games for longer is a good idea, as long as people are still playing them. However, I don't want CA to release half-finished games and end up with terrible launches like what happened with Rome 2. As far as this battle goes, Hotel Soap picked an unusual army but used it and the terrain expertly. I was unsure that Getae could cut through all of that Roman armor and they couldn't, especially since several Noble Swords got shut down early. GG to both players.
I personally would rather a game that is supported for longer with the aspiration of trying to get the game as close to perfect as possible rather then releasing new games and starting from scratch (sort of). I guess it depends on what makes monetary sense like Heir mentioned.
Yeah, I prefer longevity over a game every one or two years. When I buy a game I kinda wanna play it for about 5 years. Especially Total War like games.
Yes long gaps is fine as long as they keep supporting the game. I'm not moaning at the price but, people spend their hard earned cash on something they like the look of and for the game to be kept updated etc over a long period makes it seem worth the price.
People think rome is not good because they lose in most of your games. But I think this is because, since they are actually VERY GOOD, people like to send you replays defeating them.
I do agree with supporting the historical games for longer. What I would say is it would work a lot better if they really took their time adding factions or nations, or however they choose to title them. Warhammer was a great example where they really took time adding races, and making them really unique and well thought out. If they did that, and did it in a way that makes sense rather than churning out copy and paste factions for the purpose of selling DLC, that would be a welcome method in my humble opinion. Thoughts? Does everyone agree? Disagree?
I played Warhammer 3 until I lost my save to an update. In Rome 2 it didn't happen which is why I still play it. So updates? As long as saves are not affected. And I won't play Pharaoh or Troy because they lack the scale of Rome 2. But thats just me.
It's because Rome loses so much in his replays or never seems to win with a high margin that people have started saying Rome is bad and honestly I see where they are coming from
I would actually prefer if CA, or any game developer, spaced games out more. Fully flesh out your game before releasing it to us, and support the game so the player base stays as high as possible for as long as possible.
Yes it would be okay if they extended the lifetime of the games by leaving bigger gaps between patches. But in the end it will all come down to dollars and cents in the boardroom.
I don't want or enjoy being negative but the point you make about Zelda, that's a developer that cares. CA don't care about me, you, their games or apparently their reputation. All they care about now is money, they want to take the FIFA path, copy and paste their way through every new game and ignore anyone who complains or makes genuine criticisms. For years now they've been doing everything they can to bully the older fanbases into abandoning actually well creating games and pay full price for a borderline unfinshed game. I don't care if they ever make a new Rome or Shogun because it won't be good, and that makes me sad but it's just facts.
The problem is that every game ive played with long term support is equally likely to introduce new bugs over time. Rome II has some really buggy unit interactions now where they teleport through shieldwalls. They also ruined the way trees look, theyre like shaved polystyrene now. The same developers who made those older titles never stick around, and new developers who dont know how the old devs worked are let loose to made changes on increasingly complicated codebases. Ideally games should just be made for release and left alone after a few patches. Nobody can plan for a game to last 10 years and when companies say theyre doing that, It often seems like an excuse to release the game with nothing to do.
Divide Et Impera, I don't even care for vanilla R2 besides multiplayer. I don't have any desire for CA to make their games better, modders do a better job of it anyway.
I mean, if you put the question in a vacuum it definitely could be a good thing. Looking at it as what would more realistically happen and it becomes a lot more questionable. CA has a terrible track record with the releases of their historical titles and as of late it at least feels like they've been putting all their effort into the Warhammer games and only releasing historical titles as cash grabs or to shut up fans of historical titles. Warhammer 1, 2 and 3 were great games, but then you had Atilla which is so unoptimized that it still runs like crap on hardware that came out after they stopped supporting it and you had Three Kingdoms and Britania which had every faction feeling the same for the most part. I'm sure another down below has already said it, but they need to actually release complete games first instead of treating it like they have a year after release to finish it. They also would need to try and update/change the game towards proper balancing rather than what they did with Rome 2 a bit with the whole making DLC factions stronger and stronger as they go to encourage people to buy it.
I wish CA would focus on making their historical titles look more realistic rather than this cartoony look they've been doing lately. They are a AAA team and many would be willing to wait 5 years or longer for a historical TW that has good mechanics and looks photorealistic. People are tired of this oversaturated bright cartoony look as well, it's lazy and shows a lack of ambition from CA, a company that used to break much new ground with every release.
Rome2 is by far the most played historical title,,i LOVE IT,,give us more CA
I would be very supportive of the type of model you described. The historical titles they've released in the last 5 years all seem a bit limited in scope and the largest one, three kingdoms, they cut support for. The large amount of support for Rome 2 is what made it hold my attention for so long. I'd rather see them take longer to make an amazing game then get a okay game every other year.
Honestly CA just aren't pricing these old titles right... for an essentially unsupported game that's more than 7 years old, the price for the full game (DLC included) is still very high, even during sales.
If they genuinely want to continue retaining an active and growing historical community, they should be cutting the prices on these older games (especially the base game) drastically.
Also, I just want to take a moment to thank you for providing great content without the need to constantly cuss or take the Lord's name in vain like so many ungrateful content creators on this platform.
Age of Empires is another example of a single-player game with long-term support and crazy good player retention
I would absolutely support a longer development/post-release cycle for the bigger historical titles. Rome 2 is already great but I agree that it could have tarnished the reputation of the franchise if CA had decided to abandon it post-release. With that being said, I also would not want CA to release half finished games at full price knowing there is much more work to do.
Correct. Spend 5 years developing a real amazing game then spend 5 years at least supporting and adding to it. That gives all that time for the next release and so on.
@@HeirofCarthageThat would be the best "bang for buck" type deal. Some games are great. But they need refining. For example troy looks great. But it needs a battle rework,and some other tweaks to make it a great game. And i have played plenty of troy. But Rome's simply the best combinations. Battle,Campaign,everything.
I’d be cool with large gaps between new entries, as long as they release a COMPLETE game. Consistent health and quality of life updates is a big plus. However, trying to finish the game after release is my biggest issue.
Exactly. Release an amazing base game after 5 or so years of development. Then use that base for DLC and expansions into different time periods.
I like how CA supported Rome 2 and left it in a really good place. I think the time period of the major historical games is also a major factor. A lot of people are interested in the ancient Roman era which is why they still play it. Going forward I would want to see Empire 2. Great time period and there’s so much they can do to get it right this time.
They did not getae up the hill!
I really like the idea of these games getting longer support times too. I know people who even still enjoy playing the original Rome or Medieval 2 Total War, so I think Total War titles can easily have very long lifespans when the foundations are solid.
I agree a large gap but with support would be fine. They do need the long term plan to either grow the map or build out the minor factions to keep things fresh. Perhaps dlc to add new mechanics to all the factions rather than add new factions. Jumping the timeline forward or back 50-100 years also sounds good. A bit of reskin for new units and altered starts
BTW I would love mixed battles of different eras, so DLC Aurellian's Rome vs classical Rome or some other faction.
So many videos! Thank you Heir
The game that I think that aged well is Shogun II. If they ever revamped the graphics, and or streamlined the gameplay, take my money.
This battle replay is sadly corrupted by the last patch. I have uploaded the original battle on my own channel for those who are interested :)
We know that Pharoah is going to get new faction packs and other DLC because of the special edition details, which bodes well for continued content support
Personally I’d love a revamp of the total war historical games as one new grand approach where they do ONE historical game but they continually add to it. It covers copper/Bronze Age settings , antiquity-late settings , medieval and colonial. Each acting like one theatre of war spanning the entire earth. More paradox -esq elements into the campaign maybe. But one grand perpetual total war focused on history. Hell, optional dlc for the “truth behind the myth” type theme of Troy
100% yes Heir. I'd be happy with longer gaps between major historical releases of it meant more support.
I agree with you, Heir. CA should spend the necessary time before release or in between releases to make their games, especially historical titles, the best version they can be and then come back to them every now and then to update or add content. I would love to see a Rome 2 remastered like they did for Rome 1. Rome 2 is definitely my favorite historical title, alongside Shogun 2.
Hey heir can we get more battles with non linear maps like this, I find it much more fun that just flat pitch battles
2:55 we have a term for that... the Paradox model... I think they are still releasing DLCs and patches for EU4, a title from 10 years ago. From what I know, that business model gets its own fair share of flak from the player base.
Rome TW is 19 years old and people still play that. Keep supporting or do remasters like Rome.
I would prefer that model, especially as these games they have left behind are still full price in several cases.
Paradox does it with all their titles, its a cool format
Of course I’d support that idea
CA have fumbled the bag constantly for 10 years. I agree with your ideas regarding keeping the game updated and waiting longer between releases, but we still need to get a good NEW game before that means anything. Realistically Rome 2 and older games are too dated but I would still like more content for it. But we are all clamoring for a new historical title. It could be Rome 3 just updated to modern standards and I think most people would be happy.
From the opinion of a historical fan. I can't stand WH so it's not taken account of in my comment there.
As someone who plays 2011 Napoleon Total War modded in 2023, it would be amazing if CA continued with at least lightweight support for their historical titles until the successor title is released.
Hey heir i know its out of the content but did u try mount and balde bannerlord 2? I know u will like it
I'd be fine with a longer development/post-release cycle for larger historical Total War titles. Supporting those games for longer is a good idea, as long as people are still playing them. However, I don't want CA to release half-finished games and end up with terrible launches like what happened with Rome 2. As far as this battle goes, Hotel Soap picked an unusual army but used it and the terrain expertly. I was unsure that Getae could cut through all of that Roman armor and they couldn't, especially since several Noble Swords got shut down early. GG to both players.
hello, I just bought Total war rome II , i got problem with the multiplayer it says that i have different game version
do you know how to fix ?
I personally would rather a game that is supported for longer with the aspiration of trying to get the game as close to perfect as possible rather then releasing new games and starting from scratch (sort of). I guess it depends on what makes monetary sense like Heir mentioned.
I agree with you 100%. Yearly releases was a shitty decision by CA tbh. Look at PDX for example, EU4 has a ton of players still
Yeah, I prefer longevity over a game every one or two years. When I buy a game I kinda wanna play it for about 5 years. Especially Total War like games.
Yes long gaps is fine as long as they keep supporting the game. I'm not moaning
at the price but, people spend their hard earned cash on something they like the look of
and for the game to be kept updated etc over a long period makes it seem worth the price.
People think rome is not good because they lose in most of your games. But I think this is because, since they are actually VERY GOOD, people like to send you replays defeating them.
What is this army comp for rome lol
I do agree with supporting the historical games for longer. What I would say is it would work a lot better if they really took their time adding factions or nations, or however they choose to title them. Warhammer was a great example where they really took time adding races, and making them really unique and well thought out. If they did that, and did it in a way that makes sense rather than churning out copy and paste factions for the purpose of selling DLC, that would be a welcome method in my humble opinion.
Thoughts? Does everyone agree? Disagree?
what are the coordinates of this map guys?
I played Warhammer 3 until I lost my save to an update. In Rome 2 it didn't happen which is why I still play it. So updates? As long as saves are not affected. And I won't play Pharaoh or Troy because they lack the scale of Rome 2. But thats just me.
The longer the game's lifespan, the more I respect the developer. Also I still play the original rome
I just want CA to give elite Hoplites elite spear. That is the minimum of what I can ask for
What do you mean Rome is not a useless faction? :))
To me it really seems like they're a cut above the rest. Especially with the post Marian troops.
It's because Rome loses so much in his replays or never seems to win with a high margin that people have started saying Rome is bad and honestly I see where they are coming from
I would actually prefer if CA, or any game developer, spaced games out more. Fully flesh out your game before releasing it to us, and support the game so the player base stays as high as possible for as long as possible.
I would greatly prefer they stick with the bigger games as long as they continue to improve them via player feedback and release gradual content.
Hank dale Bill KOH
Yes it would be okay if they extended the lifetime of the games by leaving bigger gaps between patches. But in the end it will all come down to dollars and cents in the boardroom.
I don't want or enjoy being negative but the point you make about Zelda, that's a developer that cares. CA don't care about me, you, their games or apparently their reputation. All they care about now is money, they want to take the FIFA path, copy and paste their way through every new game and ignore anyone who complains or makes genuine criticisms. For years now they've been doing everything they can to bully the older fanbases into abandoning actually well creating games and pay full price for a borderline unfinshed game. I don't care if they ever make a new Rome or Shogun because it won't be good, and that makes me sad but it's just facts.
Tbh fifa was a very good game not that long ago it was only after fifa 18 that they practically just became copy and paste.
The problem is that every game ive played with long term support is equally likely to introduce new bugs over time. Rome II has some really buggy unit interactions now where they teleport through shieldwalls. They also ruined the way trees look, theyre like shaved polystyrene now.
The same developers who made those older titles never stick around, and new developers who dont know how the old devs worked are let loose to made changes on increasingly complicated codebases.
Ideally games should just be made for release and left alone after a few patches. Nobody can plan for a game to last 10 years and when companies say theyre doing that, It often seems like an excuse to release the game with nothing to do.
Divide Et Impera, I don't even care for vanilla R2 besides multiplayer.
I don't have any desire for CA to make their games better, modders do a better job of it anyway.
Play Napoleon
I mean, if you put the question in a vacuum it definitely could be a good thing. Looking at it as what would more realistically happen and it becomes a lot more questionable. CA has a terrible track record with the releases of their historical titles and as of late it at least feels like they've been putting all their effort into the Warhammer games and only releasing historical titles as cash grabs or to shut up fans of historical titles. Warhammer 1, 2 and 3 were great games, but then you had Atilla which is so unoptimized that it still runs like crap on hardware that came out after they stopped supporting it and you had Three Kingdoms and Britania which had every faction feeling the same for the most part.
I'm sure another down below has already said it, but they need to actually release complete games first instead of treating it like they have a year after release to finish it. They also would need to try and update/change the game towards proper balancing rather than what they did with Rome 2 a bit with the whole making DLC factions stronger and stronger as they go to encourage people to buy it.
Sorry but a proper historical title is long long overdue but i get your point
Hard disagree the realistic style of Rome 2 is infinitely better than the low grade smooth cartoony and plastic aesthetic of Troy and pharaoh.
What's weird is napoleon total war still looks good sometimes, heck even better than Rome 2.
I wish CA would focus on making their historical titles look more realistic rather than this cartoony look they've been doing lately. They are a AAA team and many would be willing to wait 5 years or longer for a historical TW that has good mechanics and looks photorealistic. People are tired of this oversaturated bright cartoony look as well, it's lazy and shows a lack of ambition from CA, a company that used to break much new ground with every release.
Hey heir can we get more battles with non linear maps like this, I find it much more fun that just flat pitch battles