Participate in my giveaway on Instant Gaming to win ANY game of your choice! www.instant-gaming.com/en/giveaway/andystake But if you don't win or don't wanna wait, you can still get amazing discounts on the games you want, and use my link to support the channel: www.instant-gaming.com/?igr=andysinstantgaming
Accurate. I have nothing against old games, but at this point, I've played those old games so much already because they were the only ones to fill the niche back then, and somehow, still are the only ones to fill that niche now. Ever since I was a kid, I wanted a modern medieval 2, with cool blood vfx and stuff, nice animations, and a functional ai. Imagine how annoyed I was to see them make three Warhammer in a row.
As one youtube commenter once said "Creative Assembly, has a monopoly on a genre, that it itself created, where it is the sole competitor and is still losing to itself from 20 years ago"
An Empire 2 could, but not so much a Medieval 3. People need to stop being blinded by nostalgia and take off their rose tinted glasses. I would think CA, if they must, should make a trilogy of medieval TW games instead of stupidly trying to cram it all into a single game, like far too many idiots think would work.
If CA released Med 3, crusades would be a UI screen mechanic where you click a button to appoint a crusade leader via another UI screen after spending 10 intensely boring minutes wading through meaningless 2% bonus traits. Then a few turns later you get a pop up notification " Successful Crusade!". Celebrate wildly as your faction receives +5% religious piety bonus for 10 turns.
CA can release a Empire 2 in the engine of Napoleon today, and it will sell as hot cakes at a fire sale at full price...... It is just total mismanagement at CA drive by short time revenue...... leaving Historical players behind ( that made the series) even as they said : no worry we now are doing War hammer and wil not forget our historical fans .....we can al see how that turned out .......this is not rocked science....
I currently enjoy using Empire 2 mod and have read hat the Pirate uber Alles mod is even better and crash free but all the options look a bit overwhelming
@@alancraig2879 it is, and it can vary massively, from a highly realistic downscaled "simulator", to an arcade experience. i really like how you can choose accuracy (if you want realistic NTW3 battles where like 2 guys die every volley, or quicker battles where 25 guys die every volley like in imperial destroyer)
Andy one thing I would correct you on: Medieval 2 DID NOT have better modding support. The reason Medieval 2 was so moddable is not due to the modding support from CA but due to the fact that it's an old game, using old technologies that don't require high computing power. The reasons why newer games are harder to mod are: 1. CA unwillingness to provide in-house tools as is (likely due to the way those tools are tied to their development processes and can't be easily decoupled) 2. Because modern games require much more effective computation. Processing text files and images is not as e efficient as processing binary files in a specific (RAM and game engine code friendly) format. The takeaway is that don't attribute Medieval 2 modding capabilities to CA. They did less for that than they do currently for games like WH and Pharaoh. But they can do much more, that is true
@@victimized1 thanks for the clarification, you’re entirely correct! Forgot to indeed mention that games were simply easier to mod back in the day because they are so much more complex now with way more layers to get through and «crack». I just wish we had better official support, I don’t know why it’s so hard for them to give
@@AndysTake I can see at least three reasons why it's so hard for them: 1. Lack of desire to deal with legal issues in case LotR, GoT and other third party IPs appear in big numbers (especially on officially moderated platforms like Steam Workshop) 2. Imperfect workflow, where their in-house tools are too deeply integrated with other internal resources that they cannot share (simplest example is some in-house tools might require connection to a central server that collects bug reports. They obviously cannot provide access to that). It can also include documentation that contains sensitive information that they don't want to share. 3. They might think that effort is not worth it. Making the tools community-ready requires allocation of programmers, meaning those programmers cannot be allocated to working on games and fixing bugs. The decision to release all tools also implies additional costs for paying developers involved in the process.
@@victimized1 I've heard several times from videos Analyzing the CA dev process that developing CA games is a nightmare. That their engine is a rats nest of Byzantine dependencies and quirks, that each new "generation" of the engine is just as messed up as the previous one. I would not be surprised to hear if creating Dev Tools for such engine is a nightmare and very expensive in terms of dev time. Though I also wouldn't be surprised if the main motive was money. (you can't charge for DLC packs if the community can make it themselves)
What I don't get is that I can spend 10 minutes on Total War's Reddit or various community forums, and you will find so many amazing ideas for improving the game which wouldn't take a complete overhaul of their game engine... yet CA keeps impressing with not making any of those changes and instead reguarly dumbing down their games and removing complexity. It's so strange...
Welcome to modern gaming. You must be new. Oh and the fact that if they do not get the aproval from GW then CA can not put anything into tveir games. They even have to send reports for their patches to them! 💀
It doesn't help most of, if not all, of the old blood has been spent. The people who made Shogun 2, Rome 1, they aren't around anymore. That's why the quality continues to fall. The people who know not only what they are doing but know what the people want no longer work at Creative Assembly.
We in general live in a world where we as consumers are always wrong. Happens with games and movies. They know best, if we complain and want something else we are toxic.
I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marbles… That’s why. Now, every city in every region is reduced to the same buildings, represented by unattractive icons, which fails to reflect how cities actually developed. City viewer could be implemented without a loading screen but CA would have to innovate for that not chipping away.
I have two questions: 1. Do we even think they still have the capability to produce a masterpiece? 2. Do we think they want to create a truly historical Total War? My fear is that the decision makers at CA realized that the Warhammer IP made them so much cash, why even bother making anything else? You don't have to are about naval battles, a smart AI, complex settlement management, cultures, historic accuracy and all that other stuff... just paint some models, give them some cool spells and voila. I will believe it when it happens - if it ever happens. I am not sure I trust CA enough to produce anything good anymore. They would have to completely change every aspect of their games... the settlement management needs complete overhaul and added complexity, so does the building and province management. The AI needs a complete overhaul. There needs to be more long term motivation to play a campaign. Let's be honest, 90% of the time you have loads of fun for the first 50 turns until you have established yourself on the map and cannot be challenged by the AI anymore and then it just becomes a question of how many more provinces do you want before you quit the campaign that you've already won anyway. The game just needs a lot more complexity. The buildings are way too few, too generic, every city has the same exact stuff. The battles are awful - especially sieges. There is just so much wrong with these games... unless they do a complete reset - which they won't - I don't see how this gets fixed.
I mean, that's what players pay for. It's them who show the company that players want more no-brainer stuff in the fantasy setting over a well thought-out historical setting. It's not company's mistake they listen to what players pay for. You saw the stats yourself, people prefer WH3 over everything else. What I'm saying is players should really higher their standards and not buy games just because it's their beloved setting or because it's wrapped in a shiny package
As the friend here says it depend a lot on the community. If you really look into it, newest games from legacy titles are mostly objectivly BAD just endorsed by whales and fanbois. You could take the newes call of duty, assasins creed, battlefield, civilisation, etc. Change it title and nobody is gonna buy it. People just love to buy a piece of that brown thing thing from the bottom wrapped in a box with logo that used to be a real MASTERPIECE about 15 years ago. Amd they wont ever change it because they got enough people who will buy that box for 50, 60, 70 $/€ or more.
@@victimized1 I don't disagree, although I would say we don't know how high the demand for a truly historical TW actually is because it has been so long since we've had one. I mean the demand only really went down because they introduced all these weird fantasy elements like 3K an Troy. So the argument is kind of upside down in a way. I would argue a GOOD historical game could outcompete the fantasy stuff. But if they keep delivering trash historical games, then obviously people will go for Warhammer
@@patrikmokos9864 oh totally agree... I myself made an entire video on that topic hahaha.... it's just sad. Rome 1 was the game that got me into PC gaming...but since Shogun 2, I've really felt let down by CA
@@TiGGowich for me it was empire that got me. Im really into history stuff and mostly imperial era. If CA made a GOOD empire 2, I would buy it even for full price. But it would have to be Tatal war: Empire II, not Total War: Empire -1
Honestly, I'm kind of over wanting a medieval 3. I'm not sure I trust CA not to mess it up. Just give me an M2 with updated graphics and I'll be good to go.
Pike and shoot formations from early moder era would be a good unexplored setting for a new game. Or another fantasy setting like Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, etc
Respectfully disagree as proven by paradox numbers. The historical titles are just not generating any excitement. Paradox, with all their faults have moved forward and are trying new things, with Hoi IV and Vic III being vastly different to their predecessors. CA on the other hand, yes they have moved their favoured setting from historical to fantasy, but ultimately the gameplay loop is the same. On top of this rather than adding dynamic parts to it, they are in fact simplifying it.
@@SamOrthodoxy I think you dont understand how Warhammer plays so much differently than any historical just because they are similar does not make them the same
@@Riskyfortabisky I mean I have played Warhammer so I think I do understand, but I'm not talking about the minor facets of gameplay, I'm talking about the overall gameplay loop that really hadn't changed since the early 2000s. What do you do in a total war game? You make an army, take a settlement, regroup, rinse and repeat until you control the entire map. Everything else is just added extras to either speed up or slow down the game play loop.
One thing that I really miss from Rome 1 is how you could see elements from the campaign map in the battle map. Fighting near the colossus of Rhodes? Look around and you'll see it. Fighting next to a town? There it is in the distance. I also miss the traits from Rome 1 and Med 2. It really gave each character their own personality. Seeing your drunkard, whore-loving heir develop into a mighty general and worthy future king was a nice, self-contained story that was all your own. My dream is that CA and Paradox collaborate on a project that has the campaign mechanics of games like Imperator, but also has the battles of TW. The campaign side of TW has never been particularly exciting, but it does add context to the battles. It's not the same thing to fight a desperate battle in your last settlement as it is to fight just another siege as you conquer your foe. There is hope for TW yet.
An update to medieval but with the early colonial period (1453-1700) to take advantage of the naval combat developments. And allow maps to zoom sp ypu can have many minor settlements, like Thrones of Brittania.
I would like to see Empire 2 as a next historical game. As for the fantasy section, I really, really need Lord of the Rings Total War, although I don't think they can afford that one.
Another thing I wish the community would push is for multiplayer improvements. I was frankly floored when they released Rome remastered without a multiplayer campaign. We had 8 player simultaneous multiplayer in warhammer, but not in pharaoh??? I personally think 8 player is overkill, but at the very least it needs to be a minimum standard of 3 players with simultaneous turns. My friends and I pretty much exclusively play multiplayer, and it’s incredibly frustrating that CA won’t put in a bare-minimum effort for us. I personally don’t care for warhammer 3 all that much, but I put in a ton of hours simply due to the multiplayer campaign. Now we’ve played out WH3, but even if another game was release in a less than ideal state we would probably buy it just to play it together.
I would start with the remasters of Medieval 2 and Empire. Then making sequels. What needs to be done: -better battles -everything you said in your list -actually good AI -more paradox like diplomacy -being able to move the army without general, and being able to have as many armies as we want. We all know this limit was because CA didn't want to mess with AI, but this limit is bad for gameplay. -CA needs to add features to their games while kepping the mechanics from the past, not changing the "highlight" feature every game ( diplomacy in 3k, materials in Troy, etc.) I would personally try to experiment with "real-time" ( the system that is in PDX games) strategies, instead of turn-based games, but I know it can be controversial topic for many long-lasting fans. But given the SEGA survey, I don't have a much hope for a big historical game. CA seems to be too much focused to making fans of IPs playing their games on license, rather than making the games that made the initial success for a studio.
I know I'm probably in a minority here, but I like the idea of army size being tied to population. Many ask for 40+ units in their armies, but I think it's about right at 20. Your units will be more valuable to you.
@@getsomeboy321 I want more tech. Make it so it is difficult to research it all before the end of the game, forcing you to make strategic choices. I want to see a Medical tech tree go into the empty slot next to philosophy. Introduce 'Stud farms' like they have in Napoleon. Factions breed a certain number pf horses p/month or year. Stud farms add to that, as does the tech tree. ('Veterinary Science', 'Horse Breeding', some kind of tech) increase the time it takes to recruit your units back up to strength after a battle, but Medical tech can lessen it, maybe you get a small percentage back immediately with the right tech. (Representing the lightly wounded). Other benefits of a med tech tree: Population growth, Happiness, Adds to average lifespan of ministers, agents, generals. Faction-specific tech in the existing trees. Iron ramrods were a major invention during the time period. It sped up reloading time. Just some ideas. Probably pie-in-the-sky 😂😂. P.S Increase number of turns per year.
I think total war could take a lot from ck3, and creating a large scale ‘Total War: 1066” etc, simplifying the boring micro-mechanics, and expanding on the macros that are fun and exciting such as diplomacy, combat and troop. This would define the genre
I would love to see more unique settlement battles as in medieval 2 where buildings you built actually made a difference visually in battle. As well as how armors change units visually like its so satisfying to see your preperations and decisions actually show real difference than just stat numbers.
Even of they make an medieval III, empire 2 or a Rome III, I don't trust them to do it right, im pretty sure there will be Witchers and dragons for the crusades
Here is my take Andy. I think some one high up in CA is waiting until he/she is about to retire and thus wanting to have more money in their bank account, they will release Med 3 or Empire 2. If CA doesn't release Med 3 or Empire 2 they are dumb.
They should be big enough now to have 2 teams. 1 that works on fantasy games like 40k and lord of the rings if they can get the IP, and 1 that works on medieval 3, empire 2 etc. Kind of like how call of duty games had infinity ward and treyarch doing the modern warfare and black ops etc.
4:19 The 3 Warhammer games were planned before the release of Total War Warhammer 1 to connect the various races and factions and expand the world map into a bigger sandbox. As long as the series remained successful of course.
THEY HAAAVE TO and i mean HAAAVE TO.send out medieval 3 first. They seriously lack a bit of brain power considering there is a serious damand for medieval games,it arguably being the most known part of history to us humans and the most favorite,i think that will be quite a beneficial scheme to work for in terms of revenue .after that i want Empire 2,you dont have to be a gunpowder era fan to enjoy this era.
if Medieval 3 is just about plain middle ages and renaissance (11th to 15th century) im not buying it, Medieval 3 NEEDS a Pike and Shot era were Spain was the main world power, they always avoid the 17th century for some... strange reason
I still play medieval 2 total war to this day. I currently have a campaign going as the HRE in the base game, as well as a New Spain campaign in the Americas dlc. Medieval 2 is my favorite total war of all time, despite how clunky it is. Its aged like wine. I also have a huge soft spot for Empire despite its many shortfalls, the naval battles are sublime. I think it was way to ambitious for its time however, but would love to see a medieval 3, or an Empire 2.
I think the most importantly any new TW game should aim to resolve the tension between "battle"- and "campaign"-gameplay. Right now you essentially have two opposing game systems working against each other instead of being complementary. What do I mean by this? Well, if you play “good” on the campaign map you probably won't have to play any "cool" battles since your superior manoeuvring of forces, your effective diplomacy, your efficient army built-up and all that stuff will put you in a position where most fights are auto-resolvable. On the other hand any mistake, challenge or difficulty on the campaign side of things can be easily mitigated by just playing the battles yourself. We all know how cool it is to defend a small city with a tiny garrison…for the first time, but when you have to repeat it like 20ty times over the cause of one campaign its much less exciting ( - even ignoring cheese strats). This often leads to campaigns culminating after to first 20-40 turns and after that it’s just a mob-up duty for a vaguely experienced player. I also believe TW would really profit from a province/ movement system like seen in most Paradox games. It wouldn’t even need to be real time to already greatly help to improve the scope of the map while also leading to more focused battles (with larger forces involved). Anyhow, if they make anything named Medieval 3 it will probably a success - even if nothing is changed from current TW games.
CA needs a new battle engine before developing another historical title. Currently: Commanders are supermen- there are plenty of examples of leaders being lost suddenly by incidental attacks; arrow to the neck, died on the charge at an enemy, hit by a siege engine. the current engine makes them survive when normal people should never. Cavalry charges feel limp- the charge itself looks good but loses all impact when the infantry just stand back up. Melee combat boils down to blobbing massive numbers of units that don't move much once combat starts- Basically, units that are outmatched should give ground before they break. There should be indications about having a weakness in the line other than watching health bars. Honestly, these are only a few examples of things that need to be fixed for a competent historical title at this point. But CA at this stage appears unlikely to attempt it.
I love how you say exactly what I am thinking when it comes to Total War, I could listen to you complain about new ones and opine about old ones for hours, it's an odd thing to enjoy listening to so much, but I sure do lol. I think I am going to start a new campaign tonight, how about a Rome Remastered Europa Barbarorum mod Baktria campaign :)
Empire 2 done right with a lot of content and flexibility in gameplay would be a hit. Make the special characters no so upfront gun blazing important units like previous titles
Empire 2, medieval 3, shogun 3. Those would be my top 3 requirements, ive been saying it the last few years, but warhammer was their first trilogy, which shows me they are willing to do games in threes, and with the pharoah failure, i do think they will be returning to historical realism.
Empire 2 is what they need. They need to make this the biggest and most grand game they can. Empires and kingdoms around the world. They can make good money in dlc as well if they aren’t evil about it.
i agree with all points. i think SEGA needs to give CA a chance to make a true historical. hire professional orchestras and market their soundtracks as a dlc. for example london philharmonic orchestra, bavarian radio symphony orchestra, whatever. music makes the tone of a video game. ive been playing empire total war for a long time now with darth mod. i tried playing with no mods and the lack of true historical tracks with the og tracks really made a difference. i think if CA can emulate the dedication to detail that ubisoft did with the notre dame cathedral to things like ships and historical armours and unit varients, licensing historical paintings that detail events for loading screens etc that all these other AAA gaming developers do, then they would be able to sell true dlcs that support history and peak our interests. enough of paying for blood graphics or for a unit. mods do that.
I'm just gonna say it AGAIN! We, Need, A, new, HISTORICAL, GUNPOWDER game. We have had so many Melee combat focused Total Wars at this point we may as well start comparing Animation Quality or lack their of. HELL, ILL TAKE A SCI FI TOTAL WAR for god sake, just hand me a Rifle and Shape piece of metal to stick on the end of it. I think the next Major step for Total War is introducing Proper Urben Combat, a COVER System on the BattleField, Garrisonable Buildings, Cheeky flanking routes thought the Back streets and back allys. Hell they would kinda need to if you want to do a WW1 game WELL.
No NO IM SO SICK OF THIS. you people dont understand wtf you want. "Medieval 3 will fix everything!". All youre going to get is a pile of shit with a 3 slapped onto it. They need new management, they need a new engine, they need to rework the entire development team from the ground up and they need to stop letting executives decide whats best for their games. Until then, youre going to keep getting the same shit over and over, and then you will demand Empire 2, because that will "fix everything"
I think CA prioritizes the easy to make animations/mechanics vs the harder, higher quality but more complex ones. This kind of prioritization is disgustingly apparent in all of their recent titles (E.g., Troy, Pharaoh) and I hope it changes.
Great video. I agree whole heartedly with every point made. Though at this point, the only way to save/revive TW is for CA to sell it to Paradox. CKIII with TW battles! I know there is a mod for that, but not the same.
What I think the reason of the success of the paradox games is that they actually listen to the player and thier desires , I mean look at eu4 latest dlc . They literally made it to meet the players complains and wishes .
I wish they would make a new similar genre like total war but fresh with brand new mechanics for combat and less micro management hell and turn waiting
WE NEED MEDIEVAL 3.... or failing that give us a MEDIEVAL 2 remaster.. that will save the brand and top all recent CA releases. Give the people what they want. 😊
Im telling you a Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones total war game done right and with care would be a massive hit, alot of rts players are already familiar with both franchises and the amount of lore and unique mechanics that could come from either of these would give CA so much to work with on top of potential submod communities. Also a medival 2 rework would be a good historical option. They could also be a good bridge between the more grounded nature of many historical titles and the hyper fantasy of warhammer.
They need to make a M3 or Empire 2… but more importantly, they should make modding their new game very easy with lots of options. These newer releases should have way more mods with the quality and scale of mods like DAC from M2. Newer Total wars should have incredible Lotr mods, elder scrolls mods, GoT mods etc… and the game should aid modders in making them.
Development tools is IMO the major shackles holding CA back. It shouldn't take 3-6 months to release a handful of reskinned models that utilize the exact same skeleton and only have 1 to 2 new items/armor. Plug and play features should be fundamental and core to whatever new engine CA comes up with in the future. My fantasy Historical Total War involves an entirely new engine, visually as stunning as Unreal Engine V that allows for plug and play titles within the same game client. With good development tools the studio could rapidly expand through the ages while simultaneously sharing and updating assets across all times and game entities.
Most attractive era, that was not yet covered, is obviously new world conquest. But that requires topic of enslavement, game would be at risk of being sued and cancelled for portraying the truth.
My dream would be to see CA partnering with Brandon Sanderson and making a Total War: Stormlight Archives. But I doubt that will happen :/ Well.. at least watching Lord units in Warhammer 2 demolish enemy frontlines is the closes I'll get to watch a Shardbearer in battle in a video game.
Put in one of the most simplistic ways, the total war games have reversed what made the older games great. The campaign map was more complicated with more strategy. And the battles were more simple with less chaos. That’s what they need to return to. Realistic nitty gritty battles that “make sense” And a large grand scale of strategy for the campaign map, that would also, make sense. Smack on a realistic graphical art style instead of a cartoony aesthetic? And badda-bing, badda-boom, good game. 👌
With what they said could be a star wars game or 40k could be released could be amazing with the current engine as it works well with large units and ranged units.
I just dont have faith that we'll get that old TW feel. Their newest games feel like MOBAs where Hero units carry whole fights, and the regular units are after thoughts. Even if they release Medieval 3, I half expect to see Hero units like William Wallace or King Richard running amok slaughtering whole swaths of soldiers single handedly.
Shogun 3, Empire 2, Medieval 3 would all be great. I was never excited for Pharoah because the Bronze Age just isn't that interesting of a period of time as most cultures are primarily the same. So it just feels overall samey. Though I am a Warhammer player as well, so I really appreciate the focus and expansion that the Warhammer series has carried over from game to game which made investment in the DLCs through the whole series feel more worthwhile as it carried over to the next one as well.
The diplomacy system is bang on. I remember Napoleon, which is the darling of good total war games. In NTW, as Britain, I destroyed and liberated Spain. Not to my surprise they declared war on me two turns later, why?!? I have destroyed your armies and economy, what in the name of Grouchy did Spains AI think that declaring war again would have been a good idea.
Its almost like after 20 years they might consider making a Medieval 3 considering how medieval 2 has got 1/4 the active players right now that Total War: Warhammer 3 does despite coming out in 2006 and about tied with Rome 2 despite that coming out 7 years later. But why would they possibly do that when they can make whatever these other random games are that nobody asked for?
I think we are asking for something impossible, because Creative Assembly does not have the staff or the talent to make either of those two historical games, I am very sorry, but we will have to settle perhaps with another "remastered" like a Medieval 2 remastered.
They HAVE TO make a Macedonian total war. The time of Alexander the Great, including kingdoms of India africa Europe or China. We miss a huge map total war game i believe.
*sips some hot tea*.... look, they're chasing money, and i'm honestly happy with modded med2. My heart would break even more if CA did a bad remaster or sequel, and the chances of that is higher than them doing it good, like 70% they'll screw it, 30% + alot of prayers they might make it right. Plus, i'm very happy to see people learning to trust old titles and mods, the "oh it released in 2024-2025 i need to play this instead" trend really needs to end.
If you only focus on Warhammer, then this is the result. Not to say nothing new has come in historicals, but it’s been so minimal I can’t even remember the last time we had something major historically. (Excluding Pharaoh) Announce something CA! And total war mods ability is not I think going to be any easy in the future. Getting full mod overhauls is impossible now anyway.
I would actually argue that the future of the Total War series lies in the fantasy, because the biggest selling point of the series is the battles, which calls for a more arcady/streamlined approach, especially on the campaign map. Reason why Paradox titles don't have huge real time battles is because they are for the spreadsheet (autoresolve) people and CA know that if they made the campaign map stuff too complex, they'd scare away the battle people! However, they can compete in fantastical spectacle of the battles - hence why Warhammer was such a success. Imo, they'd have much more success with something like Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones Total War than really deep Empire 2 or perhaps even Medieval 3.
I disagree completely, there's no reason why you need to make arcady and shallow battles for fantasy games for TW to be good. Look at the Divide and Conquer mod for Med 2 which is LOTR. Those battles are not arcady and do not involve magic and yet are incredible because of the depth and realism they provide which is weird to say but true. Don't lower standards for CA, they can do both and succeed or they can continue on as they are and fail. If you lower standards CA will meet them.
@@brendanfeely7390 Arcady doesn't have to mean dumbed down and I meant it more in terms of heightening the spectacle for which the titles with a fantasy slant, like mythological Troy, Three Kingdoms, Warhammer are naturally more accommodating towards. You know, "gamifying" the realism. Like, do I really want to think about marrying out Arwen to the Tooks to save my economically failing Rivendell? That kind of depth is best left to the Paradox titles:)
I think the biggest issues for total war are its continued use on this particular engine, how they moved towards "unit health" all the way back in rome II but especially in new titles, unit health i feel makes the game feel so arcady, like watching my matchlocks in warhammer fire volly after volly at another humanoid race and watch them soak up ammo and yet nobody actually dies because unit health high. the combat system in earlier titles was so much better where they have 1 hp and the thing that kept the unit alive was their armor, shield and defense skills. I want a volly of longbowmen to kill a good number of unarmored peasents on the FIRST VOLLY, it shouldnt take 3 vollies against lightly armored troops to start seeing their unit numer go down (even rome and attila had this issue), also the campaigns are just arcadey, paradox games thrive because they attempt to bring a sense of realism, CA abanonded realism in favor of "flair"
Total War is fine, it might not fill the itch ur looking for, but in terms of sales, popularity, and growth, its never been better I do want a new TW... specifically Empire 2 or Medieval 3
Participate in my giveaway on Instant Gaming to win ANY game of your choice! www.instant-gaming.com/en/giveaway/andystake
But if you don't win or don't wanna wait, you can still get amazing discounts on the games you want, and use my link to support the channel: www.instant-gaming.com/?igr=andysinstantgaming
"im tired of going back to decade old games to find what im looking for" pretty much sums up my whole temperament here
Accurate. I have nothing against old games, but at this point, I've played those old games so much already because they were the only ones to fill the niche back then, and somehow, still are the only ones to fill that niche now. Ever since I was a kid, I wanted a modern medieval 2, with cool blood vfx and stuff, nice animations, and a functional ai.
Imagine how annoyed I was to see them make three Warhammer in a row.
@@LeiSnows id kill for an empire 2, napoleon and empire are the games i go back to a lot
@@barcotics1880thank you, I thought I was alone
As one youtube commenter once said "Creative Assembly, has a monopoly on a genre, that it itself created, where it is the sole competitor and is still losing to itself from 20 years ago"
@@TheAdmirableAdmiral that’s an excellent way of putting it into words 👍
Empire 2 or Medieval 3 are essential
when done right!
The former. There are more than enough melee combat games.
Empire 2 for sure. With DLC to take it out in directions undone yet, like pike and shotte and Victorian era
Nope. Wont save them.
Only a 30 years war can
An Empire 2 could, but not so much a Medieval 3.
People need to stop being blinded by nostalgia and take off their rose tinted glasses.
I would think CA, if they must, should make a trilogy of medieval TW games instead of stupidly trying to cram it all into a single game, like far too many idiots think would work.
They can start with a Medieval 2 remaster
and actually add a multiplayer campaign with it
Medieval 3 but made actually good? I know, its quite a lot to ask from any gaming corporate to make a new GOOD game these days, but who knows...
@@patrikmokos9864 WAY TOO MUCH to ask of Creative Assembly
@@Ryan-ed1lq yeah but I mean lately it seems it is too much to ask ANY corporation with legacy title on record for an actually good game.
@@patrikmokos9864 Tragically true.
If CA released Med 3, crusades would be a UI screen mechanic where you click a button to appoint a crusade leader via another UI screen after spending 10 intensely boring minutes wading through meaningless 2% bonus traits. Then a few turns later you get a pop up notification " Successful Crusade!". Celebrate wildly as your faction receives +5% religious piety bonus for 10 turns.
😂😂😂 I agree… or you’ll get a portal to a “eastern” realm for a battle.
CA can release a Empire 2 in the engine of Napoleon today, and it will sell as hot cakes at a fire sale at full price...... It is just total mismanagement at CA drive by short time revenue...... leaving Historical players behind ( that made the series) even as they said : no worry we now are doing War hammer and wil not forget our historical fans .....we can al see how that turned out .......this is not rocked science....
I currently enjoy using Empire 2 mod and have read hat the Pirate uber Alles mod is even better and crash free but all the options look a bit overwhelming
@@alancraig2879 it is, and it can vary massively, from a highly realistic downscaled "simulator", to an arcade experience. i really like how you can choose accuracy (if you want realistic NTW3 battles where like 2 guys die every volley, or quicker battles where 25 guys die every volley like in imperial destroyer)
Empire 2 would be huge. Everything from Rome 2 on still feels modern to me but Empire feels dated enough a good remake would be very cool to see.
Exactly
They've released a few historical games since starting to do Warhammer...what you said is nonsense.
Andy one thing I would correct you on: Medieval 2 DID NOT have better modding support. The reason Medieval 2 was so moddable is not due to the modding support from CA but due to the fact that it's an old game, using old technologies that don't require high computing power.
The reasons why newer games are harder to mod are:
1. CA unwillingness to provide in-house tools as is (likely due to the way those tools are tied to their development processes and can't be easily decoupled)
2. Because modern games require much more effective computation. Processing text files and images is not as e efficient as processing binary files in a specific (RAM and game engine code friendly) format.
The takeaway is that don't attribute Medieval 2 modding capabilities to CA. They did less for that than they do currently for games like WH and Pharaoh. But they can do much more, that is true
@@victimized1 thanks for the clarification, you’re entirely correct! Forgot to indeed mention that games were simply easier to mod back in the day because they are so much more complex now with way more layers to get through and «crack». I just wish we had better official support, I don’t know why it’s so hard for them to give
@@AndysTake I can see at least three reasons why it's so hard for them:
1. Lack of desire to deal with legal issues in case LotR, GoT and other third party IPs appear in big numbers (especially on officially moderated platforms like Steam Workshop)
2. Imperfect workflow, where their in-house tools are too deeply integrated with other internal resources that they cannot share (simplest example is some in-house tools might require connection to a central server that collects bug reports. They obviously cannot provide access to that). It can also include documentation that contains sensitive information that they don't want to share.
3. They might think that effort is not worth it. Making the tools community-ready requires allocation of programmers, meaning those programmers cannot be allocated to working on games and fixing bugs. The decision to release all tools also implies additional costs for paying developers involved in the process.
@@victimized1 I've heard several times from videos Analyzing the CA dev process that developing CA games is a nightmare.
That their engine is a rats nest of Byzantine dependencies and quirks, that each new "generation" of the engine is just as messed up as the previous one.
I would not be surprised to hear if creating Dev Tools for such engine is a nightmare and very expensive in terms of dev time.
Though I also wouldn't be surprised if the main motive was money. (you can't charge for DLC packs if the community can make it themselves)
3. Mods cut into bullshit DLC like skins and units
@@lastword8783 that’s debatable. I would believe it if there’s a research that backs up this claim
What I don't get is that I can spend 10 minutes on Total War's Reddit or various community forums, and you will find so many amazing ideas for improving the game which wouldn't take a complete overhaul of their game engine... yet CA keeps impressing with not making any of those changes and instead reguarly dumbing down their games and removing complexity. It's so strange...
Welcome to modern gaming. You must be new.
Oh and the fact that if they do not get the aproval from GW then CA can not put anything into tveir games. They even have to send reports for their patches to them! 💀
They think that they get more players that way. That's the only reason I can think of.
It doesn't help most of, if not all, of the old blood has been spent. The people who made Shogun 2, Rome 1, they aren't around anymore. That's why the quality continues to fall. The people who know not only what they are doing but know what the people want no longer work at Creative Assembly.
@@hundun5604As if historical grand strategy isn't a niche.
We in general live in a world where we as consumers are always wrong. Happens with games and movies. They know best, if we complain and want something else we are toxic.
Number 7: City viewer, i want to see might of my civilization. Huge cities with expensive buildings.
Pharaoh dynasties was supposed to have it but due to time and budget was cut
I never understand why people want this. I used this "feature" like three times when I was a child and since then it never interested me again.
I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marbles… That’s why.
Now, every city in every region is reduced to the same buildings, represented by unattractive icons, which fails to reflect how cities actually developed.
City viewer could be implemented without a loading screen but CA would have to innovate for that not chipping away.
I wouldn’t even trust them with a decent medieval 3 let alone a masterpiece.
They didn't even make medieval 2 it was outsourced kekw
@@isayaragnes8066 It was a Australian developer team which was disbanded later and doesn't work for them anymore, those are my real heroes.
I have two questions:
1. Do we even think they still have the capability to produce a masterpiece?
2. Do we think they want to create a truly historical Total War?
My fear is that the decision makers at CA realized that the Warhammer IP made them so much cash, why even bother making anything else? You don't have to are about naval battles, a smart AI, complex settlement management, cultures, historic accuracy and all that other stuff... just paint some models, give them some cool spells and voila.
I will believe it when it happens - if it ever happens. I am not sure I trust CA enough to produce anything good anymore.
They would have to completely change every aspect of their games... the settlement management needs complete overhaul and added complexity, so does the building and province management. The AI needs a complete overhaul. There needs to be more long term motivation to play a campaign. Let's be honest, 90% of the time you have loads of fun for the first 50 turns until you have established yourself on the map and cannot be challenged by the AI anymore and then it just becomes a question of how many more provinces do you want before you quit the campaign that you've already won anyway.
The game just needs a lot more complexity. The buildings are way too few, too generic, every city has the same exact stuff. The battles are awful - especially sieges.
There is just so much wrong with these games... unless they do a complete reset - which they won't - I don't see how this gets fixed.
I mean, that's what players pay for. It's them who show the company that players want more no-brainer stuff in the fantasy setting over a well thought-out historical setting. It's not company's mistake they listen to what players pay for. You saw the stats yourself, people prefer WH3 over everything else.
What I'm saying is players should really higher their standards and not buy games just because it's their beloved setting or because it's wrapped in a shiny package
As the friend here says it depend a lot on the community. If you really look into it, newest games from legacy titles are mostly objectivly BAD just endorsed by whales and fanbois.
You could take the newes call of duty, assasins creed, battlefield, civilisation, etc. Change it title and nobody is gonna buy it. People just love to buy a piece of that brown thing thing from the bottom wrapped in a box with logo that used to be a real MASTERPIECE about 15 years ago. Amd they wont ever change it because they got enough people who will buy that box for 50, 60, 70 $/€ or more.
@@victimized1 I don't disagree, although I would say we don't know how high the demand for a truly historical TW actually is because it has been so long since we've had one. I mean the demand only really went down because they introduced all these weird fantasy elements like 3K an Troy. So the argument is kind of upside down in a way. I would argue a GOOD historical game could outcompete the fantasy stuff. But if they keep delivering trash historical games, then obviously people will go for Warhammer
@@patrikmokos9864 oh totally agree... I myself made an entire video on that topic hahaha.... it's just sad. Rome 1 was the game that got me into PC gaming...but since Shogun 2, I've really felt let down by CA
@@TiGGowich for me it was empire that got me. Im really into history stuff and mostly imperial era. If CA made a GOOD empire 2, I would buy it even for full price. But it would have to be Tatal war: Empire II, not Total War: Empire -1
The restriction on construction in cities should be removed and returned as in Medieval 2
To me it just shows that players want depth. I repeat "depth". Not accessibility, or dumb down mechanics : depth.
That should be synonymous with strategy games
But CA is retarded
Honestly, I'm kind of over wanting a medieval 3. I'm not sure I trust CA not to mess it up.
Just give me an M2 with updated graphics and I'll be good to go.
With stainless steel improvements
Pike and shoot formations from early moder era would be a good unexplored setting for a new game. Or another fantasy setting like Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, etc
Empire 2 will do it
Strangely enough, in the early CA games there are more online players, Empire, Napoleon, Medieval 2
Because they’re better . I still play NTW darthmod every day
A lot of people are playing fantasy mods though like Third Age Divide and Conquer.
City viewer was the most immersive feature seeing your city grow. Damn I miss this one
Unfortunately, the reality is that us historical fans are VASTLY outnumbered by fantasy ones.
Respectfully disagree as proven by paradox numbers. The historical titles are just not generating any excitement. Paradox, with all their faults have moved forward and are trying new things, with Hoi IV and Vic III being vastly different to their predecessors. CA on the other hand, yes they have moved their favoured setting from historical to fantasy, but ultimately the gameplay loop is the same. On top of this rather than adding dynamic parts to it, they are in fact simplifying it.
@@SamOrthodoxy I think you dont understand how Warhammer plays so much differently than any historical just because they are similar does not make them the same
@@Riskyfortabisky I mean I have played Warhammer so I think I do understand, but I'm not talking about the minor facets of gameplay, I'm talking about the overall gameplay loop that really hadn't changed since the early 2000s.
What do you do in a total war game? You make an army, take a settlement, regroup, rinse and repeat until you control the entire map. Everything else is just added extras to either speed up or slow down the game play loop.
@@SamOrthodoxy All Paradox games are played the same
@@sercravenmohead3631 Willing to listen, but I'm going to need some examples, because you would struggle to play EU4 if you just applied CK3 logic.
One thing that I really miss from Rome 1 is how you could see elements from the campaign map in the battle map. Fighting near the colossus of Rhodes? Look around and you'll see it. Fighting next to a town? There it is in the distance. I also miss the traits from Rome 1 and Med 2. It really gave each character their own personality. Seeing your drunkard, whore-loving heir develop into a mighty general and worthy future king was a nice, self-contained story that was all your own. My dream is that CA and Paradox collaborate on a project that has the campaign mechanics of games like Imperator, but also has the battles of TW. The campaign side of TW has never been particularly exciting, but it does add context to the battles. It's not the same thing to fight a desperate battle in your last settlement as it is to fight just another siege as you conquer your foe. There is hope for TW yet.
Oh yeah, the battle map perfectly matched the campaign map. That was awesome!
An update to medieval but with the early colonial period (1453-1700) to take advantage of the naval combat developments. And allow maps to zoom sp ypu can have many minor settlements, like Thrones of Brittania.
I would like to see Empire 2 as a next historical game. As for the fantasy section, I really, really need Lord of the Rings Total War, although I don't think they can afford that one.
It's crazy to think that the latest Historical War Generation Rome 2 Total War, is 11 years old now, more than decade.
Another thing I wish the community would push is for multiplayer improvements. I was frankly floored when they released Rome remastered without a multiplayer campaign. We had 8 player simultaneous multiplayer in warhammer, but not in pharaoh??? I personally think 8 player is overkill, but at the very least it needs to be a minimum standard of 3 players with simultaneous turns.
My friends and I pretty much exclusively play multiplayer, and it’s incredibly frustrating that CA won’t put in a bare-minimum effort for us.
I personally don’t care for warhammer 3 all that much, but I put in a ton of hours simply due to the multiplayer campaign. Now we’ve played out WH3, but even if another game was release in a less than ideal state we would probably buy it just to play it together.
@@DanielRaymondZink completely agree!
They need to beg jeff van dyck to come back.
I would start with the remasters of Medieval 2 and Empire. Then making sequels. What needs to be done:
-better battles
-everything you said in your list
-actually good AI
-more paradox like diplomacy
-being able to move the army without general, and being able to have as many armies as we want. We all know this limit was because CA didn't want to mess with AI, but this limit is bad for gameplay.
-CA needs to add features to their games while kepping the mechanics from the past, not changing the "highlight" feature every game ( diplomacy in 3k, materials in Troy, etc.)
I would personally try to experiment with "real-time" ( the system that is in PDX games) strategies, instead of turn-based games, but I know it can be controversial topic for many long-lasting fans.
But given the SEGA survey, I don't have a much hope for a big historical game. CA seems to be too much focused to making fans of IPs playing their games on license, rather than making the games that made the initial success for a studio.
I like your thinking, but Im afraid of that irritation and frustration an AI one-unit-armies raidings would bring me in real time...
I know I'm probably in a minority here, but I like the idea of army size being tied to population. Many ask for 40+ units in their armies, but I think it's about right at 20. Your units will be more valuable to you.
Hero of the battle, move capitals, naval battles with land bombardment
@@mattgardiner614a blend of population and replenishment would be really cool
@@getsomeboy321 I want more tech. Make it so it is difficult to research it all before the end of the game, forcing you to make strategic choices. I want to see a Medical tech tree go into the empty slot next to philosophy. Introduce 'Stud farms' like they have in Napoleon. Factions breed a certain number pf horses p/month or year. Stud farms add to that, as does the tech tree. ('Veterinary Science', 'Horse Breeding', some kind of tech) increase the time it takes to recruit your units back up to strength after a battle, but Medical tech can lessen it, maybe you get a small percentage back immediately with the right tech. (Representing the lightly wounded).
Other benefits of a med tech tree: Population growth, Happiness, Adds to average lifespan of ministers, agents, generals.
Faction-specific tech in the existing trees. Iron ramrods were a major invention during the time period. It sped up reloading time. Just some ideas. Probably pie-in-the-sky 😂😂.
P.S Increase number of turns per year.
I think total war could take a lot from ck3, and creating a large scale ‘Total War: 1066” etc, simplifying the boring micro-mechanics, and expanding on the macros that are fun and exciting such as diplomacy, combat and troop. This would define the genre
Or a 30 years war
A new Medieval Total War. That said, Total War: Warhammer 3 with the expansions are epic, and will keep staying epic.
I would love to see more unique settlement battles as in medieval 2 where buildings you built actually made a difference visually in battle. As well as how armors change units visually like its so satisfying to see your preperations and decisions actually show real difference than just stat numbers.
Creative Assembly: victorian era ? medieval period ?... all i hear is warhammer total war 4, with a $50 DLC "sh1t for the sh1t god"
Even of they make an medieval III, empire 2 or a Rome III, I don't trust them to do it right, im pretty sure there will be Witchers and dragons for the crusades
Here is my take Andy. I think some one high up in CA is waiting until he/she is about to retire and thus wanting to have more money in their bank account, they will release Med 3 or Empire 2. If CA doesn't release Med 3 or Empire 2 they are dumb.
Historical : American Civil War, Crusades, WW1, the Crimean War
Fantasy: Game of Thrones, House of the Dragon, Lord of the Rings, Warhammer 40k
This is basically the 16 min version of “please dear god give us medieval 3 or empire 2 already”
And I don't think I hear anybody asking for Pharoh back then.
They should be big enough now to have 2 teams. 1 that works on fantasy games like 40k and lord of the rings if they can get the IP, and 1 that works on medieval 3, empire 2 etc. Kind of like how call of duty games had infinity ward and treyarch doing the modern warfare and black ops etc.
We need something like "Feudal Total War"
4:19
The 3 Warhammer games were planned before the release of Total War Warhammer 1 to connect the various races and factions and expand the world map into a bigger sandbox. As long as the series remained successful of course.
And also the use of diplomats is a must for me, not just magically contacting everyone in one turn.
Medieval 3 with a timespan from 10-16th century will save the franchise
THEY HAAAVE TO and i mean HAAAVE TO.send out medieval 3 first.
They seriously lack a bit of brain power considering there is a serious damand for medieval games,it arguably being the most known part of history to us humans and the most favorite,i think that will be quite a beneficial scheme to work for in terms of revenue .after that i want Empire 2,you dont have to be a gunpowder era fan to enjoy this era.
Serious demand = not even half as high as your average TWW dlc demand.
Sad but true
if Medieval 3 is just about plain middle ages and renaissance (11th to 15th century) im not buying it, Medieval 3 NEEDS a Pike and Shot era were Spain was the main world power, they always avoid the 17th century for some... strange reason
Medieval 3 that focuses on campaign map immersion and political mechanics that affect armies and diplomacy
I still play medieval 2 total war to this day. I currently have a campaign going as the HRE in the base game, as well as a New Spain campaign in the Americas dlc. Medieval 2 is my favorite total war of all time, despite how clunky it is. Its aged like wine. I also have a huge soft spot for Empire despite its many shortfalls, the naval battles are sublime. I think it was way to ambitious for its time however, but would love to see a medieval 3, or an Empire 2.
I think the most importantly any new TW game should aim to resolve the tension between "battle"- and "campaign"-gameplay. Right now you essentially have two opposing game systems working against each other instead of being complementary. What do I mean by this? Well, if you play “good” on the campaign map you probably won't have to play any "cool" battles since your superior manoeuvring of forces, your effective diplomacy, your efficient army built-up and all that stuff will put you in a position where most fights are auto-resolvable. On the other hand any mistake, challenge or difficulty on the campaign side of things can be easily mitigated by just playing the battles yourself. We all know how cool it is to defend a small city with a tiny garrison…for the first time, but when you have to repeat it like 20ty times over the cause of one campaign its much less exciting ( - even ignoring cheese strats). This often leads to campaigns culminating after to first 20-40 turns and after that it’s just a mob-up duty for a vaguely experienced player.
I also believe TW would really profit from a province/ movement system like seen in most Paradox games. It wouldn’t even need to be real time to already greatly help to improve the scope of the map while also leading to more focused battles (with larger forces involved).
Anyhow, if they make anything named Medieval 3 it will probably a success - even if nothing is changed from current TW games.
CA needs a new battle engine before developing another historical title. Currently:
Commanders are supermen- there are plenty of examples of leaders being lost suddenly by incidental attacks; arrow to the neck, died on the charge at an enemy, hit by a siege engine. the current engine makes them survive when normal people should never.
Cavalry charges feel limp- the charge itself looks good but loses all impact when the infantry just stand back up.
Melee combat boils down to blobbing massive numbers of units that don't move much once combat starts- Basically, units that are outmatched should give ground before they break. There should be indications about having a weakness in the line other than watching health bars.
Honestly, these are only a few examples of things that need to be fixed for a competent historical title at this point. But CA at this stage appears unlikely to attempt it.
Funny I have Rome 2 uninstalled in steam and still somehow always play Rome 1.
I love how you say exactly what I am thinking when it comes to Total War, I could listen to you complain about new ones and opine about old ones for hours, it's an odd thing to enjoy listening to so much, but I sure do lol. I think I am going to start a new campaign tonight, how about a Rome Remastered Europa Barbarorum mod Baktria campaign :)
Empire 2 done right with a lot of content and flexibility in gameplay would be a hit. Make the special characters no so upfront gun blazing important units like previous titles
I’ve been waiting for a new medieval for so long
Empire 2, medieval 3, shogun 3. Those would be my top 3 requirements, ive been saying it the last few years, but warhammer was their first trilogy, which shows me they are willing to do games in threes, and with the pharoah failure, i do think they will be returning to historical realism.
Is CA still reusing the battle engine from Empire?
Modability is the number one thing that keeps single player games player count alive in the long term, this is something paradox does so well
Empire 2 is what they need. They need to make this the biggest and most grand game they can. Empires and kingdoms around the world. They can make good money in dlc as well if they aren’t evil about it.
i agree with all points. i think SEGA needs to give CA a chance to make a true historical. hire professional orchestras and market their soundtracks as a dlc. for example london philharmonic orchestra, bavarian radio symphony orchestra, whatever. music makes the tone of a video game. ive been playing empire total war for a long time now with darth mod. i tried playing with no mods and the lack of true historical tracks with the og tracks really made a difference. i think if CA can emulate the dedication to detail that ubisoft did with the notre dame cathedral to things like ships and historical armours and unit varients, licensing historical paintings that detail events for loading screens etc that all these other AAA gaming developers do, then they would be able to sell true dlcs that support history and peak our interests. enough of paying for blood graphics or for a unit. mods do that.
A LoTR game would go so hard.
I'm just gonna say it AGAIN! We, Need, A, new, HISTORICAL, GUNPOWDER game. We have had so many Melee combat focused Total Wars at this point we may as well start comparing Animation Quality or lack their of. HELL, ILL TAKE A SCI FI TOTAL WAR for god sake, just hand me a Rifle and Shape piece of metal to stick on the end of it.
I think the next Major step for Total War is introducing Proper Urben Combat, a COVER System on the BattleField, Garrisonable Buildings, Cheeky flanking routes thought the Back streets and back allys. Hell they would kinda need to if you want to do a WW1 game WELL.
No NO IM SO SICK OF THIS. you people dont understand wtf you want. "Medieval 3 will fix everything!". All youre going to get is a pile of shit with a 3 slapped onto it.
They need new management, they need a new engine, they need to rework the entire development team from the ground up and they need to stop letting executives decide whats best for their games.
Until then, youre going to keep getting the same shit over and over, and then you will demand Empire 2, because that will "fix everything"
I think CA prioritizes the easy to make animations/mechanics vs the harder, higher quality but more complex ones. This kind of prioritization is disgustingly apparent in all of their recent titles (E.g., Troy, Pharaoh) and I hope it changes.
Let's add a wider scope and variation for battlefields as well!
More dynamic battlefields where terrain matters a lot!
You said everything we are all thinking
Great video. I agree whole heartedly with every point made. Though at this point, the only way to save/revive TW is for CA to sell it to Paradox. CKIII with TW battles! I know there is a mod for that, but not the same.
What I think the reason of the success of the paradox games is that they actually listen to the player and thier desires , I mean look at eu4 latest dlc . They literally made it to meet the players complains and wishes .
Medieval 3 would be epic or either empire 2
I wish they would make a new similar genre like total war but fresh with brand new mechanics for combat and less micro management hell and turn waiting
WE NEED MEDIEVAL 3.... or failing that give us a MEDIEVAL 2 remaster.. that will save the brand and top all recent CA releases. Give the people what they want. 😊
It’ll either be Med 3, ww1
/Victoria or 40k, either options I’m both worried but excited
Warhammer is one. It's the most succesful Total War game ever.
All the WH games are boring and broken trash.
Im telling you a Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones total war game done right and with care would be a massive hit, alot of rts players are already familiar with both franchises and the amount of lore and unique mechanics that could come from either of these would give CA so much to work with on top of potential submod communities. Also a medival 2 rework would be a good historical option. They could also be a good bridge between the more grounded nature of many historical titles and the hyper fantasy of warhammer.
They need to make a M3 or Empire 2… but more importantly, they should make modding their new game very easy with lots of options. These newer releases should have way more mods with the quality and scale of mods like DAC from M2. Newer Total wars should have incredible Lotr mods, elder scrolls mods, GoT mods etc… and the game should aid modders in making them.
Thanks Gud for Divide et Impera and 1212 MK mods!
Thank you for you hard work
Development tools is IMO the major shackles holding CA back. It shouldn't take 3-6 months to release a handful of reskinned models that utilize the exact same skeleton and only have 1 to 2 new items/armor. Plug and play features should be fundamental and core to whatever new engine CA comes up with in the future. My fantasy Historical Total War involves an entirely new engine, visually as stunning as Unreal Engine V that allows for plug and play titles within the same game client. With good development tools the studio could rapidly expand through the ages while simultaneously sharing and updating assets across all times and game entities.
Most attractive era, that was not yet covered, is obviously new world conquest. But that requires topic of enslavement, game would be at risk of being sued and cancelled for portraying the truth.
My dream would be to see CA partnering with Brandon Sanderson and making a Total War: Stormlight Archives. But I doubt that will happen :/
Well.. at least watching Lord units in Warhammer 2 demolish enemy frontlines is the closes I'll get to watch a Shardbearer in battle in a video game.
Put in one of the most simplistic ways, the total war games have reversed what made the older games great.
The campaign map was more complicated with more strategy.
And the battles were more simple with less chaos.
That’s what they need to return to.
Realistic nitty gritty battles that “make sense”
And a large grand scale of strategy for the campaign map, that would also, make sense.
Smack on a realistic graphical art style instead of a cartoony aesthetic?
And badda-bing, badda-boom, good game. 👌
From what I can tell, there are 3 games that are on demand the most. Medieval 3, Rome 3 and empire 2.
With what they said could be a star wars game or 40k could be released could be amazing with the current engine as it works well with large units and ranged units.
I just dont have faith that we'll get that old TW feel.
Their newest games feel like MOBAs where Hero units carry whole fights, and the regular units are after thoughts.
Even if they release Medieval 3, I half expect to see Hero units like William Wallace or King Richard running amok slaughtering whole swaths of soldiers single handedly.
I’m still playing medieval 2 or Attila’s mod medieval kingdoms 1212ad, i don’t like the new total war games to be honest
Shogun 3, Empire 2, Medieval 3 would all be great. I was never excited for Pharoah because the Bronze Age just isn't that interesting of a period of time as most cultures are primarily the same. So it just feels overall samey.
Though I am a Warhammer player as well, so I really appreciate the focus and expansion that the Warhammer series has carried over from game to game which made investment in the DLCs through the whole series feel more worthwhile as it carried over to the next one as well.
We need either Rome 3 with 8 player campaign, Medieval 3 with 8 player campaign or remastered Medieval 2
One medieval 3 and trust me CA sales will sky rocket!
The diplomacy system is bang on. I remember Napoleon, which is the darling of good total war games. In NTW, as Britain, I destroyed and liberated Spain. Not to my surprise they declared war on me two turns later, why?!? I have destroyed your armies and economy, what in the name of Grouchy did Spains AI think that declaring war again would have been a good idea.
Its almost like after 20 years they might consider making a Medieval 3 considering how medieval 2 has got 1/4 the active players right now that Total War: Warhammer 3 does despite coming out in 2006 and about tied with Rome 2 despite that coming out 7 years later. But why would they possibly do that when they can make whatever these other random games are that nobody asked for?
A lot of those Medieval 2 players are using fantasy mods like Third Age Divide and Conquer, Warhammer, and Elder Scrolls.
vassals of allies or allies of vassalmasters need to count as allies, that would help me a lot in pharaoh dynasties
İ must say this Total War disappionted to historical game fans but this team maked so big historical games and you know these games
I think we are asking for something impossible, because Creative Assembly does not have the staff or the talent to make either of those two historical games, I am very sorry, but we will have to settle perhaps with another "remastered" like a Medieval 2 remastered.
Unless there's a Medieval 3 or Empire 2 in the next 3 years, Total war's finished
What about a late Rome with tech tree to get to medieval era or medieval era with tech tree to Napoleon
An game of thrones adaptation would be awesome.
total war need to bring back general speeches before battle
some of them were funny!
They HAVE TO make a Macedonian total war. The time of Alexander the Great, including kingdoms of India africa Europe or China. We miss a huge map total war game i believe.
Hire the manor lords creator and let him create the first rough draft
*sips some hot tea*.... look, they're chasing money, and i'm honestly happy with modded med2. My heart would break even more if CA did a bad remaster or sequel, and the chances of that is higher than them doing it good, like 70% they'll screw it, 30% + alot of prayers they might make it right.
Plus, i'm very happy to see people learning to trust old titles and mods, the "oh it released in 2024-2025 i need to play this instead" trend really needs to end.
If you only focus on Warhammer, then this is the result. Not to say nothing new has come in historicals, but it’s been so minimal I can’t even remember the last time we had something major historically. (Excluding Pharaoh)
Announce something CA!
And total war mods ability is not I think going to be any easy in the future. Getting full mod overhauls is impossible now anyway.
I would actually argue that the future of the Total War series lies in the fantasy, because the biggest selling point of the series is the battles, which calls for a more arcady/streamlined approach, especially on the campaign map. Reason why Paradox titles don't have huge real time battles is because they are for the spreadsheet (autoresolve) people and CA know that if they made the campaign map stuff too complex, they'd scare away the battle people! However, they can compete in fantastical spectacle of the battles - hence why Warhammer was such a success. Imo, they'd have much more success with something like Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones Total War than really deep Empire 2 or perhaps even Medieval 3.
I disagree completely, there's no reason why you need to make arcady and shallow battles for fantasy games for TW to be good. Look at the Divide and Conquer mod for Med 2 which is LOTR. Those battles are not arcady and do not involve magic and yet are incredible because of the depth and realism they provide which is weird to say but true. Don't lower standards for CA, they can do both and succeed or they can continue on as they are and fail. If you lower standards CA will meet them.
@@brendanfeely7390 Arcady doesn't have to mean dumbed down and I meant it more in terms of heightening the spectacle for which the titles with a fantasy slant, like mythological Troy, Three Kingdoms, Warhammer are naturally more accommodating towards. You know, "gamifying" the realism. Like, do I really want to think about marrying out Arwen to the Tooks to save my economically failing Rivendell? That kind of depth is best left to the Paradox titles:)
I think the biggest issues for total war are its continued use on this particular engine, how they moved towards "unit health" all the way back in rome II but especially in new titles, unit health i feel makes the game feel so arcady, like watching my matchlocks in warhammer fire volly after volly at another humanoid race and watch them soak up ammo and yet nobody actually dies because unit health high. the combat system in earlier titles was so much better where they have 1 hp and the thing that kept the unit alive was their armor, shield and defense skills. I want a volly of longbowmen to kill a good number of unarmored peasents on the FIRST VOLLY, it shouldnt take 3 vollies against lightly armored troops to start seeing their unit numer go down (even rome and attila had this issue), also the campaigns are just arcadey, paradox games thrive because they attempt to bring a sense of realism, CA abanonded realism in favor of "flair"
They should go back to a medieval, empire, or mongol total war.
Total War is fine, it might not fill the itch ur looking for, but in terms of sales, popularity, and growth, its never been better
I do want a new TW... specifically Empire 2 or Medieval 3
Medieval 3, Empire 2. Both guaranteed success.
Medieval 3 with some abilities from pharaoh would be amazing