Aside from Empire 2 & Medieval 3 so aside from setting, what are YOU looking for from the next Historical Total War? What sort of mechanics do you want to see, what type of visual style, what kind of improvements on the battle side of things, how do you want the AI to improve, etc. What is a Good Historical Total War is to you?
What's in my mind is the Pike and Shot era and remake Thrones of Britannia (Viking age). Nevertheless, the main focus should be on Empire 2 and Medieval 3 games as perfect sequels that appeal to the core historical players. There should be no compromises between historical and fantasy players.
bring back the population mechanic. make wars devistating to sustain. we need more connection between the overworld and the battles. more strategy. no more heros.
A feature set which allows us to play around with how centralised or decentralised our kingdom should be. In other words, I would like to be able to either go deeper into feudalism and rely more on local nobility, or concentrate power into the hand of the king, or even set up a federal electoral empire like the HRE. Social classes should be better presented and should have an actual impact on the gameplay.
I am right there with you on the Pike & Shot; phenomenal time period -- the start of the entire state system with the Treaty of Westphalia. I'd be all over that one!
The more veteran a unit is, the slower it should replenish. It would be sick to have like, 3 stages of visual veterancy so you could tell by looking that this unit, although not fully manned, is full of badasses.
You should be given a choice on how fast a unit replenishes. For example, if an elite unit gets replenished fast, it loses alot of its veterancy, but if it's replenished more slowly with better trained recruits, it only loses some veterancy (it can never keep elite status fully unless merged with another depleted elite unit or it refuses replenishment). I also believe replenishment should actually cost something, like a percentage of the unit's original price based on how it's replenished.
This wouldn't work well, ranged units are already dominant and they are far easier to keep alive. It would result in blocks of elite range units defended by cheap infantry.
OP and longtime subscriber here. I wrote up the post in a few minutes and after I had posted it, I knew there were a few things I regretted and could've elaborated upon much better such as "wanting battles as real as possible". I didn't take enough time to fully define my thoughts, but the overall goal was to get people discussing so I'm really glad to see this video amplifying the conversation.
Hell yeah buddy! Even if you only wrote it up in a few minutes it was well put and it (as you can see) has sparked some great conversation. Well done for doing so ❤️
Only modders know the Historical Authenticity despite of being an independent self reliance. Meanwhile CA has professional employee back up by huge amount of money, but still didn't know historical Authenticity.
they don't care about, it are big city dwelling netflix watching starbucks sitting deracinated and degenerated urban hipsters. their knowledge of history goes back a century and their interest in history goes back to last week at the sportsball event. we need game development studios staffed entirely by autistic people instead of these normies. another sign that dei just does not work. they are watering down their output because they want to hire people who don't care about the original premise of the franchise
I´ve been asking for a Pike and Shot era for 10 years. The period should be 1500-1700. It can sel TONS of DLCS. Americas, India, Africa, Pacific, Asia... It has tremendous dynamic gameplay potential. We see the progression of firearms improving, and we NEED a good Siege mechanics.
are you asking for DLC? wtf man, games not even in development and your already offering to buy it incomplete..... Isn't "new DLC for things that should have already been in the game" one of the biggest complaints of the last 4 TW titles? and all of the warhammer titles? this man must really love pike and shot era
To expand on the 'fantasy fans and historical fans don't want the same experience' I think it is deeper. In my opinion: Lord of the Rings TW fans and Warhammer don't want the same experience also, in the same way Medieval 3 fans and Empire 2 fans also would want difference purposes. LOTR fans would likely want more realism than the Warhammer fans, for example. I want Medieval 3 to be a very serious title (like Medieval 2), but I also want Rome 3 to be a bit goofier (like Rome 1).
theres a mod coming out for lotr i doubt no im 100% sure ca will never realease a lotr total war oitherwise itll be way similar to warhammer games single entities itll be stupid x
There is no such thing as a "historical player". 99% of the TW audience played Warhammer. The most popular TW mod has always been third age. People have been asking for a fantasy title for ages. What is the case is that a *lot* of new players played Warhammer drawn to it due to the setting. And yes many of those players are not nearly as likely to play a new historical title. That does not mean the community is split into historical and fantasy player bases.
@@XMysticHerox I partly agree. I think the split is more realism vs non-realism based, and many confuse the idea of a historical game with meaning realism. Although the comment that 99% played warhammer is clearly false, visible by the public steam stats. I think Third Age is also popular because it maintains that realism in combat from the older titles and adds onto it.
For me historical total war is much more than just a game and most of the time good “time consumation”. It layed a foundation for me, of historic interest in more history than that is just portrayed in the game. It incentived me to learn about history, understand cultures also on conflicts in the past. It just was like; let’s check the abbasid chaliphate, what has that people or specifc region gone through in a certain time, and from that you get into tinny rabbit holes. I like how this goes for me and therefore i hope we will get new decent content
When i'm in a "not delivering a game that people want to buy in order to not make a lot of money and tank my company to the ground within the next upcoming years because i'm lazy and that would require doing more than reskins of units." competition but my opponent is *Creative Assembly*.
Don’t love the idea of supply line simulator. My biggest gripe with pharaoh was egypt being 20 factions, not an empire facing collapse. Battles are too frequent, every city has weak but numerous garrisons that make conquest a slog. Healing a whole army in 1-2 turns after their 30th battle is quite unimmersive. The gameplay loop is just bad.
Look how well they did with the Remaster of Rome Total War. This would fail just like Rome as they wouldn’t do anything with the game other then a Graphical upgrade.
@ People aren’t gonna build major mods for a remaster and not all the major mods of Medieval 2 are gonna port over if even possible. Everything they did in the remaster of Rome wasn’t even remotely enough to be successful, they need a co-op campaign not the shit hot seat campaigns we had in Medieval 2 and improved AI otherwise the game will fail just like Rome.
I just want an Empire 2 with better graphics or a Medieval 3 that I can deselect my units and observe the battle and just have the great features of Rome 2 HUD and Warhammer graphics to be in the setting of a working game like Empire, Shogun or Medieval etc. For a different time period I would love the Thrones of Britannia game to be expanded and explore better ways of integrating Vikings and raider style 'skirmisher' infantry who ambush, fight 3v1 and raid villages for gold crosses. The same would be great in every other time period but really I just want the same games with newer graphics and features. Don't fix what isn't broken, just polish it a little.
As long as modders continue to reshape the product into a fun and enjoyable game, I will be content. Everyone has their own tastes and modders give us the chance to experience more what is preferred to each player. I love long, hard fought battles that last for hours in which fatigue, morale, leadership play a key roles in the battle. Thank god for modders as they allow such realism to be created. I curse updates which break the mods and the vanilla defaults of most CA games. Modders, I salute you.
@@gsdasda Stainless Steel for Medieval 2 Sir, if you like even the historical improvement submod is damn good. For Attilla: medieval kingdoms 1212 AD (still WIP but damn good)
@@gsdasda Listitan said it for me, 1212 and Stainless are both great. I often will search through available mods for simply slower combat if it is available for the played version.
From my observation, definitions of good total war game actually differ from gamer to gamer, reddit poster to reddit poster. The historical vs fantasy is oversimplification and makes a crude line across very diverse landscape of opinions. I'm amazed at posts where people complain "CA does not listen to players". Listening to Total War players is like listening to the whole kindergarten talking at once. Everybody has something to say, and everybody acts like his opinion is the most important one :) Campaign complexity scale - everybody has their own personal sweet spot, where we find the campaign just challenging enough without being tedious, but also speedy enough without being too simple. I would love if players could choose (i.e. as in Shogun 2 you could choose short/long/domination campaign, I myself really liked the short campaigns, because it lets gamer to get the most out of replayability without spending the life with a single total war title :) ) Personally I find Pharaoh Dynasties campaigns too complicated and going too much towards Paradox / Civilization, but other players really enjoy it. Campaign scope scale - Some people like huge world/continent maps, where they can just go crazy and "paint the map", conquer everything. Other people (myself included) prefer more "localized" experience, i.e. Wrath of Sparta because it usually allows for a bit shorter campaigns, with interesting events. Or Age of Charlemagne. Battle complexity scale - similarly, people enjoy different speeds of battle, I myself like slower battles because cannot keep up when units are dying to quickly, for example to archers/infantry in Shogun 2, but other people like it speedier, otherwise they find it boring. Battle difficulty - Again many opinions. I guess people universally hate AI "cheat" in the form of flat stat booster. But especially use of cavalry can be pretty dangerous. AI when programmed right, can micromanage to much greater extent than human. So imagine 6 cavalry units harassing the army line being micromanaged simultaneously. I myself (casual player) am partly relieved that AI just tries to beeline for archer units at times. Historical authenticity - even many "historical" players do not realize, that all those units they love, may have not been present at the battlefields at the same time and most of the times not in the numbers we are allowed to recruit. Campaigns in total war start at a specific date. Would you really want only the units that were historical present at that date? What if your campaign runs too long? I myself love all the historical eye candy i can get. i very much enjoy the experience from Hellenika, where you have limited numbers of Spartans, and you simply cannot replenish them outside of Sparta. And population limit, because there simply was not enough people to fill all the armies i would like to have. But would I like the same when playing as Rome? Maybe not. Historical attractiveness - Medieval fans are the most vocal :D I myself prefer classical / Hellenistic Greek periods, and have to do with mods for Total War Rome 2. There is no Total War : Hellenic, I cannot play Pyrrhus campaign in Italy, I cannot play as Phillip 2nd and unite Greece. I cannot play Peloponnesian War with Athenian's disastrous Sicillian expedition which lost them the war. I cannot defend ancient Greek world against Persians. And last Alexander campaign is from 2006. So be grateful you got Medieval 1 and 2 :D I doubt anybody read all the way here. :D If you did, good job!
generaly speaking i have found the people who talk about the ˝core fanbase˝ to be rather obnoxious fellows that act as if they own the game , and dont get me started on volound and his little posse of imbeciles
CA should just look back at what actually worked in the past, what made great those games that people still love today; take the best from every old game of the series to form the basis of what the next historical title should be. Medieval 2, Shogun 2, fall of the samurai, Rome 2, they all had different but great battle systems, that favour strategy and morale over stats, and unit interaction with eachother and the map terrain was crucial. Regarding the campaign map phase, titles like Rome 1, Three Kingdoms, Medieval 2, they all brought interesting mechanics to the series. We need a system where population growth matters, where economy is a little bit more complex than just making a trade deal with other factions and building the same structure in every region; a system with varied diplomacy options, all with different advatages and disadvantages. Of course Total War shouldn't try to be as complex as Paradox games. But a good tw title should have challenging, cinematic, strategic battles and an interesting, varied and intriguing map phase.
One thing I would love to see in a total war game is a population system like in imperator rome from paradox, Its a lot more complex, for sure, but the viability to manage and worry about your total workforce to be able to have and army at all, makes another interesting approach in a strategy focused on grinding out some other nation's population, and avoiding it being done to you, so no one can simply spam troops out of thin air. It makes a more believable scenario and makes the game way more immersive imo. The thing that sucks the most about total war is that with their increased popularity over the years, they are trying to simplify a lot of things so their games can be more viable to the average joe, but in that they are destroying what made them them at the first place, a nice STRATEGY game above everything. Anyone who likes their type of games and stick to it through thick and thin are the ones who appreciate complexity, because that's what a strategy game usually means and how they differentiate themselves from the other genres. Even though they could achieve what they are trying to do, as in making a more accessible game for more players, it will probably suck gameplay-wise because its gonna be a bland rendition of a brand that one day was way more than that. And as more and more people get to know the company's history, they are going to see that as the years pass, it feels like every time their games are more and more lazily developed for being simpler and simpler, even with all the bells and whistles with graphical improvements and flashier unit models like they so eagerly like to focus above all else these past few years.
DEI for Rome Total War 2 has population, it honestly is a good change. I haven't played vanilla in a while but I've been playing RTW1 Remastered with Imperium Surrectum and that's a bunch of fun once you get over the absolute shite UI.
The real problem here, is that you can't really please everyone. And if you try, like in 3k and Troy, CA can't really make both experiences well in the same game. Because they work differently. I personally prefer more complex campaign mechanics, but they will always be more casual in total war. The moment someone says something interesting that needs more than two brain cells to understand it's paradoxification of the game... I don't want eu4 with RTS battles. I want total war with nice population mechanics, meaningful and interesting buildings, a nice diplomacy system and supply lines. And to a high degree, three kingdoms has that. The population works a bit backwards, as Legend put it, compared to medieval 2, as in 3k pop boost the plain building income and in med2 the building boost the pop income, which is more realistic. Add in some population tiers and done, really. The economy and buildings are nice in 3k because it divides income into the 3 sectors, primary, secondary and tertiary, that's all I want economy wise. Diplomacy wise, 3k has the best one in any total war, hands down. It also has a supply system, it's rudimentary, but it works, and it's all that there needs to be. Having food to grow your cities is great too, similar to Shogun 2. Combat wise it also has potential, I like how instead of melee attack or melee defence, you have % to his, evade, block, etc. It also had formations. Make soldiers have 100hp and most weapons have 100 damage, so the one hit one kill works, but also gives you a chance to make different weapons unique. As armour would reduce the chance of impact, you could have weapons with higher hitting chances but less damage, for example, to counter heavy infantry. You could also make armour piercing be an armour reduction instead of fixed damage. Regarding what you said of promotions, I can see units having less levels, like 3, harder to get to, but gives you an upgrade to something in the unit, like better weapons, better armour, better training, or something like that. That way your same spearmen militia unit could eventually "evolve" into a mid tier unit, when their 3 upgrades are complete, for example, a bit like the warband system but more individualized. With this, I'm not saying 3k is perfect or anything, but it's a very good stepping stone into future historical games.
I would be okay with any setting. I would absolutely LOVE the scale to increase to replicate more of a real historical battle. 10-25K battles. The technology is there.
I want an Empire 2, Medieval 3, A official Third Age Total War, and most of all a Victoria/Imperial Total War which could have a bigger map to Empire as it would be able them to go over things like the scramble for africa, american civil war, opium wars, the sepoy mutiny, franco prussian war, etc. The game could start in 1835 with the texas revolution and end with the 2nd boer war so we get the whole rain of victoria and little more. also unit delay in battles work as the game Grand Tactician show with possible the display of linear warfare.
I don't know how realistic this hope is, but one can dream. I would love it if we got a historical Total War set in east/southeast Asia durning the late 16th to early/mid 17th centuries. That would be a dream come true. 😊
The historical player was abandoned after Romance of the 3K (which was excellent). They could simple reskin and continue to improve that model. For the life of me don't know why you wouldn't just take that easy win. The programmer who developed the CaoCao algorithm should be retained as it's incredible. The main problem is that the non-historical titles are just arcade games where everything blobs together meaninglessly and whoever has the cheesiest unit wins.
CA needs to connect with some of these Modders. Im a huge Rome era fan. If they did a remastered Rome 2 where they updated the graphics to now a day type graphics that sysyems can handle, added with amazing sounds and diplomacy that would be amazing. Then work from there and figure out new games to drop. Use these older games as starting points of making WAY better games, then use what they learned and make new ones.
I'm going to agree with most of what the post says that TW games absolutely do better if they simulate being as close to real battles as we can get. I'll tie this in with the DEI comment, of which I agree more TW games need to be like DEI, by using Egypt as an example (for both the realistic battles + DEI points). After months playing a campaign as Egypt in DEI with authentic Greek units with appropriate levels of Egyptian flavour, looking at the vanilla Egypt roster is disgusting. It's halfway like CA still wanted to do the New Kingdom Egypt like in R1. And of course the class population stuff in DEI is great and we need more of that too (in a R1 fashion), not just one general population for everyone. For the comments, I will absolutely come out to bat for Jilopez and push back a little on what you said. While a vocal minority are very over-the-top annoying about demanding M3 and E2 next, the majority of the fanbase still wants them, not just that vocal minority (which I mean fair, I also want M3 and E2). However, Jilopez is absolutely right; games like Pharaoh-Dynasties and 3K are amazing TW games. 3K is the second most played historical title to this day, and Pharaoh had a bunch of stuff working against it that wasn't it's fault (and like one or two that were that have been fixed with Dynasties) that caused many people to decide they'll never play it. But putting all that aside and knowing that Pharaoh was unjustly done dirty and will never get a massive fanbase, the game is very polished. Obviously it's not perfect, but neither are 3K, S2, R1, or M2. Jilopez is 100% on the money when he says most historical fans want sequels to the same games every few years: Romans, Vikings, Knights, Samurai, European gunpowder, rinse and repeat every 10-15 years with each of them. They aren't strictly "historical fans", but fans of popular history-based settings in pop-culture like those I mentioned above. Most "down to the core" historical fans enjoy Dynasties if they bothered to try it despite all the initial outrage, because it's a polished, good game with a cool setting (and if you still don't that's perfectly fine). I guarantee you that if CA made the most technically polished game with the best battle and campaign gameplay so far out of any TW we've ever had, but the game is set in the pre-Colombian Americas, Sub-Saharah Africa, or Oceania, the majority of TW fans would hate it because it's not the pop-culture history they're so used to (and then you'd also get a minority of people openly spouting racist stuff (I've seen it plenty) about black Africans for example having "no history/ culture" or whatever). And honestly, I've seen enough people hate on the idea of India and Southeast Asia as well that even THOSE two (quite popular underdog) locations would get hate for not being Europe/ Japan from Romans to Victorian era. So again, from my experience on both the TW sub and Discord, most historical fans would enjoy a good game if they try it out, but most won't try it out unless it's a pop-culture history setting.
With a mod like Empire 2 I like the mechanics it adds and the changes it makes but I don't want tedium. It adds a plethora of new units which is really cool but when the stat differences are next to 0 or even exactly 0 it just get's annoying to filter through each unit just because I want all my redcoats to be wearing a red coat. It's nice that there is other stuff and new units but having them be no different when they could be the updated version or a late game unit like how older games changed appearances if you got better shields, swords or armour etc would be great, adding new units so every faction starts with 18 to choose from and 9 of them are the same 3 repeated 3 times over is too much.
The point you made with different weapons in a unit making them better sounds awesome. What comes to mind is a unit of pikes, just fighting against each other and matched. then you develop the technology to add great sword fighters to your unit, two will be added and in their first clash they will run out to a free side, and just jump on the enemies pikes, mowing them away. than the to sides are clear of damaging pikes and you will start winning on those fronts, eventually winning the whole interaction. It are things like that, that would make it really appealing, not just to a history fan, but to everyone I would think, as it would look cool as hell. much better than a +10. Ofcourse when they die, maybe an other member of the group can pick up their sword, or it just gets lost for the rest of the battle, but you would have gained an initial advantage.
In historical pike units there were men who fought with (two handed swords) and other close quarters weapons. The Germans called them doppelsoldner (double soldiers) because they were the most heavily armoured and best fighters in the unit, and thus were paid twice as much as a pikeman. They were used at the front of the unit, to try and break through the pike press when two opposing pike units engaged.
As a video game player, in almost 30 years I have never had the "WOW...WTF" experience that I had when I played Rome 1! I think that's what the franchise needs to rescue in all of us!
I think a cool new system that could work is all factions start with 3 units infantry, Calvary, and range. Then, you add weapons and armor to customize the unit to be more specialized and you can take them out for a turn or two so they can learn skills and formations. Different buildings and provinces will provide the updated and customized gear. Provinces can be used for horses and other animals plus different metals. Building for different armor, weapons, and shields. I think that would make a really good historical system
The loyalty system for atilla worked very well. This should be expanded to cities as well as many cities will go over to a faction after a great battle especially on empire periphery
The most important point seems to be missing from the OP however: prerequisite for a sucessfull new tw game is a new engine and a capable AI that is able to wield the tools given to it. Doesn't matter if the units have nice unique abilities, if the battles are clunky as heck. Same for the strategic layer: doesn't matter if it has a cool dynasty system, if the AI is just sitting around the map not knowing what is going on (think of empire vanilla). These technical issues must to be adressed and are more important imho than any single point the reddit OP has made
Having gained some experience from working on software projects for some time now, I can understand the reasoning of CA's indifference towards what we, Historical Players want. What's the point of working on an elaborate supply system for a campaign, overcomplicate the production cycle and spend so much more resources when this won't make a bit of a difference in sales? It's an unfortunate reality of quality-quantity.
i agree with you on that but i cant get the reason why they dont make their games open to moders who are going to make overcomplicated games based on the original for the hardcore history fans or a more funny and easy experience for the gamers who want just battles
As a historical player I care a lot about realism/authenticity. Screw "balance" if it makes the game less authentic. I want the simulation to produce plausible battle results. Balancing can be done by tweaking the victory conditions without hurting the realism. Restricting the time frame or zooming into a smaller battle of a larger conflict can make balanced scenarios also.
For a future historical Total War, look at Grand Tactician Civil War - GTCW. How it handles recruitment, arming, armaments production, outfitting, supply, army makeup, morale, on and on. The only thing GTCW is missing compared to a TW is eye candy. In features and functions, it's generations ahead of TW.
In my opinion, Total War Empire II would be the best solution to save the series, as in that game you can display more than one time period by entering it through developing combat units passing through time within the game. Imagine starting with swords and spears, then moving to gunpowder, and with many options in diplomatic relations and adding naval battles. I think it is better to use a new engine for battles so that many strategies can be added within the battle with new graphic forms.
I appreciate the various time period, even though I'm totally not interested in the bronze era, but for the love of God, we've been screaming what we want for a decade.
Total War Veteran here, I want a new game engine and a beeter AI before they do anything else. Not much changed since Attila, the same cheese still works.
I think fun and challenging are important but immersion and realism are what make the game fun so I think they are just as important to me being a historical fan and a historical TW fan
I can give some insight into the image at the top of the post. As the author of an article on the 15th century battle of Grandson, I worked with Darren Tan who created that image. It can be found in Medieval Warfare magazine issue IV.4
In terms of sheer variety and re-playability i would personally want a massively improved and expanded Empire 2 that could have different start dates and so many units, factions, a colossal map using the continents system from the first one including almost the entire known world at that time, visual upgrades for your units and the ability to spend money to equip them and increase their stats but the buildings needed for that would need other buildings that are advanced enough, Veterancy would increase stats but not as extremely as significant tech and equipment upgrades, Campaign wise melee troops would be viable because if you invaded a country with no gunpowder infrastructure and lost your musket troops you wouldn't be able to replenish them.
I'll be honest, I want Empire 2 or Medieval 3 because those are the time periods which, apart from Rome/Ancient world, are the most interesting to me but my first TW game was Rome 2 so I had a pretty 'new' and later updated to be quite good TW game set in Ancient Rome, Greece etc etc. Medieval 2 shows it's age but I would absolutely play it more if it were updated slightly, just change the graphics and some HUD mechanics (let me deselect units) and off we go for 200-300 hours. Same with Empire, really really like the setting and way the game plays out due to muskets and cannons. Don't like that it looks kinda funky and can't deselect units etc but I still played tons of it in spite of all that so it is a genuinely good and fun game.
Unit Interaction is the term to describe one of the things I've wanted more of from total war but didn't know how to articulate. It's one of the things I still don't really like about Total Warhammer, despite having really warmed up to it by the third entry. I've seen ppl really talk bad about unit animations and I get it can be a clunky messy way to add life to the gameplay but I always liked it from the historical titles as it added some life to the battles.
Resource system added a lot of depth to campaign, at least in the early/mid game, guiding expansion and diplomacy dynamically and in some cases forcing you to take on tougher opponents to secure what you lack. Felt much more engaged in campaign layer than in 3K initially. But after while you have everything in surplus and things get boring - and the collapse system was far too toothless to really prevent you from snowballing. What I worry about after Dynasties is that the genuinely good ideas and improvements in that update will not be carried on because Pharaoh was a failure. It would be good to identify what worked and what didn’t so that CA don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Armies weren't led by 1 general historically. There were captains, colonels, brig generals, major generals etc. Adding an Order of Battle mechanic would take immersion to the next level! I like to have multiple generals. One "in danger with the men" and one higher (held back and more strategic) for instance. At the same time, we should have the ability to have armies led by lesser officers without including a general.
One thing that's always bothered me about the combat in TW games is that units stay tight in formation. There's no chaos in the fighting, with units separating during the fight. Sure, some very disciplined factions like Rome would stay in formation, but most would not once the fighting starts
Here's an idea - how about creating a historical title where you can manually choose the mechanics available to your game? E/g turns per year, seasons on/off, being able to move single units without a general around the map or not, etc. It really can't be that difficult to implement something like this with today's technology at hand.
Pharaoh sctually has almost everything you’ve described. You still need a general to move armies around but there are actual incentives to have small armies, like reduced upkeep for example.
I feel like ranged units overall need a bit better AI for pike and shot to work as people want to. As noted in earlier games as well as more recently warhammer, ranged units (especially gunners) tend to be "stubborn & stupid" if there is uneven terrain, objects, friendly units or just a few troops not in formation your ranged units wont shoot or they will walk into enemy lines before they realise that they can in facts use their gun. Sure they work better than some older titles but I feel like they need to become alot better for the audience.
I would like a more customizable type of campaign that you could change the difficulty from normal to hard and that could mean not only that ai has more units and the diplomacy is just not an option but that everything you do as a player should be planned. From the units you are gathering to the place you are camping to the diplomatic moves and deals you accomplish. For example if an enemy faction is getting hammered by you or your allies they should be willing to neggotiate, be your vassal, pay you, marry one of their children to you, give you some land or slaves that could be used as population to raise an army...or in case you are the one in a bad possition you should be pressed by your political enemies and your people by low public order and other penalties to agree on their terms and pay a fee or give some land to them. If CA doesnt want to do all that searching and to go on that level of accuracy at least they should allow moders to completely change the game as they want, because that could create replayability and that means more sales, more players and more good ratings.
16:00 I don't know what was the last time you playyed Pharao, but what you just said applies actually to the gameplay of pharao, maybe it's time to give it another chance and try out for yourself
The gameplay that ppl are looking for is unit interactions and to simulate the order of battle in a fun way As opposed to unit variety and stat buffs debuffs which has been the focus in newer TW titles
I've never played Pharaoh nor Troy, but from what I saw here on youtube, it seems to me that they have good ideas and mechanics for what concerns the campaign map turn, but awful awful awful battle gameplay
SIMPLE WINNING FORMULA ready? Victoria 1 (1837-1901). A global map that includes the Napoleonic Wars, Carlist Wars, The American Civil War and finally end with fall of the samurai 2. Then make a preclude expansion pack or another game that is EMPIRE III. Include the various colorizations in Africa and India, the American Revolutionary War, Indian Wars, Mexican War etc. This is not hard! You have muskets, artillery, cavalry, infantry, naval combat. Include a researched Order of battle system for the generals for immersion, include government trees, tech trees, naval combat. It just doesn't stop. It's a money tree. Get it done! Do the work, do the research, higher the consultants. Make the game that everyone wants!
Some things I would like: Cities that adjust according to the buildings you make, and if they're damaged in the battle they're damaged in the campaign. Allow ALL settlements to be fortified and developed, rather than the silly "region" mechanic. Work on increasing army sizes. We've been stuck on 16*200 max for army composition for 25 years. We need to see 20,000 strong armies. Reduce the internal faction mechanics, - they just don't matter, - but instead inter-faction mechanics, like a similar culture should mean huge buffs to alliances, and different religion should make alliance almost impossible. Overall, a new engine. They've had 15 years of milking this reskin. It's time for a global games developer to Actually Make A New Game...
A proper skirmishing formation please. Not the enemy is getting near so we scoot away but, the whole unit spreads out, not randomly, but in squads of 10 or less moving independently, firing their weapon regardless if they're moving or not. Then as the enemy get close they run away, but still fire their weapon as they flee. Or vice versa for pursuing skirmisher. A proper skirmish engagement or behavior. They're used in whether for screening the main battle line, contesting a location, supporting a unit by scattering at the sides or at the gaps of a formation to "guard them", roaming around seeking targets, or just scouting. A proper light infantry behavior.
You know the whole province system and mechanics that we have had since Rome 2 are absolutely fantastic for warhammer, but not great for historical titles. I think that sentence resonates so much. Historical fans and fantasy fans want different things from their games.
I'll admit that I'll pretty much be happy with any kind of Medieval 3. But what would I like to see improved? Improved AI that feels more organic and less "gamey". It'd be nice if it didn't feel like the AI was trying to "beat" me as much as it felt like the AI was trying to simulate running a nation, with its own unique goals and personality. I'd also like CA to concentrate on making the game feel epic. Fights should be a spectacle where the player is encouraged to zoom in and is rewarded with cool animations that make it look like the troops are actually fighting and not just randomly swinging their weapons here and there in between mostly just staring at each other. Troops should be pushing and shoving each other around. It should look like a dirty, grimy struggle for life and death. Maybe have a grand campaign where the goal is less about taking over half the world and more about establishing a strong, stable empire (as opposed to the psychopathic death machine permanent war empire that the current total war games force you to make).
I STRONGLY agree with the redditor who said people only want Empire 2 or Medieval 2 and not an actual good historical title. And I am also a Pharaoh Dynasties player, I have played almost all total war titles and I believe it is one of the best ones.
Like I said, just because most people didn’t pick up what you believe to be a good game, doesn’t automatically mean people don’t know what a good game is and therefore only want Med 2 or Empire 3. What you’re seeing is just the most vocal group of players. People ultimately disagreed with Pharaoh, which at launch was a mostly agreed bad game and therefore wrote off the update. That’s not on them, its on CA.
Love to see research & development tree and original population mechanics be incorporated again. Battle realism too. Not this arcade style feel it gives after winning or losing a battle like pharoah does
As Volound has already said elsewhere, I think they would benefit from going back to look at the original medieval as there were aspects of the battle gameplay that were superb. Alright, visually it's very dated but that's not the point. Warhammer TW relies too heavily on stat buffing, the developers even explicitly talk about this in a recent video. The OP makes some excellent points wrt to supply, this is something that has not been done before, as far as I know.
The most enjoyable experience, I've had playing total war recently has come from NTW3, for me I think it comes from how every decision has consequences, and that even though its difficult it never feels unfair. I think mainly modern total war has just been very arcadey, I would much prefer a more slow methodical realistic total war.
I think one of the problems is that they have no major competition, so there is no need to listen to the fanbase. Kinda like simcity died to cities skylines (but they had other problems than dont listen to their fanbase) Another example is civ. After civ 6 other games like humankind or old world were published and civ now tries to compete again. I hope yall get what i mean. So i think we really have to look forwars for some competition pr even a better series from another developer who listens to what the fans want. I know many player want medieval 3, some want shogun 3 and i want rome 3 the most. But not without heart. I want to enjoy a game in long term again. Atm i rather play old ttw like rome 2, shogun 2, medieval 2 or atilla, but im craving for a GOOD new Historical Total war Game. Pharaoh Dynasties is okay, but didnt catched me to long. I have a perfect game in mind (atleast what i considere the perfect game) but to create it i neither have knowledge, nor Cash to finance it Haha
1. Diplomatic system like 3k 2. Longer battle allows maneuver warfare. Unlike S2, of which unit break the moment they contact, ancient battle can last many day, not second 3. Unpopular opinion: R2 DEI is the best battle system. Please don't hit me WH fan, i like 3k too 😂
For many years now, the historical community has felt pretty let down by CA. It seems to me that many in the community never bothered with Pharaoh, because they either didn't like the setting, didn't like the different style of gameplay, or just didn't touch it at all because of all the negativity around the title, right from the start. Pharaoh was also released a bit undercooked, but the free update fixed all of those issue. Thrones suffered much the same issues as Pharaoh, and like Pharaoh, actually became a good little game with a bit of time and updates. CA appears to know what the historical community wants if the dynasty update for Pharaoh is anything to go by and I am confident that the next historical title will be a success. I very much agree with you that a game set in the age of pike and shot, would be a great choice. Hopefully we'll hear some news on the next historical game soon.
Nah, I think a population mechanic would be great. The only thing wrong with DEI is that the population is too few and the unit limit hampers the player agency in the name of "balance".
I feel like for a TW game to feel historic or real it needs to pass the 300 test. A small veteran unit that's heavily armored should be able to hold a bottleneck against a larger horde. And it should all be based on common sense and proper tactics and positioning, not some arbitrary stat boosts.
A total war set in India . From early medieval to mid 19th century . CA wants a triology , there you go a 1500 year period with early medieval, medieval and musket era . 3 to 4 games could be made easily . Distinct cultures , gigantic civilizations there is so much to look into . Sadly no one wants it .
CA aren't known for listening to their player-base. They have been told for years to develop an Empires 2 and/or Medieval 3 etc and we got..... bronze age Egypt. Pharoh, which was grossly over-priced and devoid of content was a massive flop. Pharoh Dynasties, (taken in isolation) after a lot of work has actually turned into a well made game however and worth around £10-15. Warhammer is arcade Total War for those with limited attention spans and patience. The WH games don't really feel like TW games anyway and I have been playing TW since the first Shogun. Although I do enjoy WH3 and have had a lot fun with it a good, solid historical TW would be great. No silly bullshit, no magical nonsense, no DLC cash-milking/same-old-rope selling... just an immersive, challenging epic game that we know CA can make. It doesn't have to be either/or. While making Rome 2 CA also made Alien Isolation so they can make two games at the same time, a Histortical one and a more Fantasy one...why not? Well, we'll see what happens. I may have to spank the Athenians as Agamemnon now... just for funsies...... ;-)
OG TW player here, dating back to Shogun 1. These discussions are quitte funny to me because the issue is simple. CA is not here to cater to us fans but to make money and since money is the root of all evil, corporate greed trumps anything else. That's why we get garbage like Pharaohs nowadays which is just fantasy TW re-packaged basically. The classic COD marketing strategy and one that the fanboys eat up every year because they dont know anything else and have never played battlefield 3&4 for example. Same goes with the massive Warhammer fanbase who eat up anything Warhammer so as a result CA just regurgitates the same type of game yearly, just re-branded now and then to sell as many as possible. This is just how i see it and i don't expect it to change anytime soon.
In Rome 1 and Med 2 all the big strategy mechanics were “covered” by motivations inside the story. Like money from the council of nobles, missions from the senate from other factions etc., I really dislike the “imperium” thing in Rome 2 and Attila and hope they get rid of it or find better narrative inside the game to “motivate” (to cover) it. All for immersion!
empire 2 is my dream total war set in 1800 1890 even if i am worried i love to see stuff like terrain having an effect on battles so we can place heavy guns on hills and rain shells over enemy troops supply lines is a much have so we can blockade an enemy nation with the navy and again prober city battles insted of them beeing field battles and the option of build other defences and weather having effect on a battle and diseases naval battles need an update so is not just the same open sea battle wich would get so boring love to see hybrid battles like the ultimate games would be so cool to land troops on coast and capture a fort and then you had to hold it and wait for reinforcement before you can capture the main target wich could be a importen supply hub
I second the unit variety one. Ive been saying it for years. Stat boosts are LAMMMEEEEE. Units should FUNCTIONALLY and VISIBLY display upgrades/interactions. I dont want +10 goodboy points. I want the units to actually use whatever the upgrade is. Ill take less "unique" units if the units are more interesting. The phalanx formation in RTW1 is the perfect example, greek factions FELT so different from the fast moving melee Gauls or the slow but versatile roman legions or the unstoppable lumbering Seleucid Elephants. THAT IS UNIT VARIETY. Not that units LOOK different, but they literally PLAY different and feel different. That is why faction variety was a thing with not that many units.
I do think they need to delve more into to the internal side of nation building. When I play campaigns the objective isint just to paint the map for me. But obviously that’s terribly boring in total war
About sound, spaciel thanks to PUA team that made amazing job on their mod, especially the fact that u can change sound and smoke settings as u want, for attila, i will prefer brighter graphics, even if an excellent mod made for mk1212 ad graphics work perfzctly well with vanilla ou other mod for attila 😁
I feel like the older games were simpler in the right ways and more complex in the right ways. the newer games have made some things needlessly complex and made other things woefully too simple. like buildings for one example.
The problem is that CA doesn't care about their historical fanbase. That fanbase, forged in the Shogun1-Shogun2 period is already adult and diminishing. And it was always niche. In order to sustain a large studio like the one CA has, they need to appeal to younger masses, and I'm sorry to say the younger masses were not raised in movies like 13Warriors, Gladiator, Alexander or Kingdom of Heaven. They were raised with Captain America, Avengers, and Call of duty with zombies. From their perspective, Warhammer makes more money than historical titles. That's the end of it, unfortunately. Of course, they're wrong. If they actually made a competent historical title with large epic battles, and easy to start multiplayer the game would succeed. But you probably don't need such a large studio for that, since instead of pushing graphics and effects, you need to push gameplay loops and engine physics.
8:56 the ai being able to cope with no general armies is total nonsense. If mods for decades old games can actually fix the issue then a AAA company with loads of employees and funding had nothing they can hide behind. They just don’t want to try to fix it. That’s the only answer. If a devoted nerd on a MacBook can fix a decades old problem then you just know that CA wasn’t even trying.
honestly for me, I just want a good grand strategy game with realistic battle simulations. feels like i havn't got that from CA in 15 years. Would i enjoy learning more about history alongside? sure, but no more or less than i'd have enjoyed learning Warhammer's Lore or any other fictional or real lore....too bad the TW games don't really teach you Warhammer lore. but yea i really couldn't care less if the pikemen are orc's or humans, just so long as they act like the pikeman i've been told they are, have a pikewall formation (really the only reason to have pikemen at all is the wall) and actually counter the cavalry like they should. like whats the one thing TW has that no other game in the whole industry has? EVEN TODAY IN 2024., theres still no other game in the world that has this one thing and its the only reason CA can keep getting me to buy a new TW game every 5 years or so. Its not the campaign map, every "grand Strategy" game has a good campaign map, every game has a tech tree and upgrading units, every game has leaders with portraits and stories, cool sound effects, units with spells/abilities. every game has lore or history, so whats TW got that no one else is even attempting? its the battle sim. thats it, thats the one thing TW has that makes me play it instead of some other "pretend your a general/dictator" game. every other game makes the battles on like a hextile field or with turnbased mechanics or something. TW has a real time battle. Its at the core of every game (unless your an auto-resolve addict) and it drives the gameplay of the whole series. units i like or dislike is based soley on their performance in these battle sims. what i decide to put in the army is based on what i think i can win with ( do i need catapult/trebs? what should i flex out to make room for them), which then determines which buildings i think i need and what provinces i should try to conquer first... all of the gameplay decisions flow from the "RTT" battle sim. And it Works! Nothing in this game feels as good when the Auto resolve tells you that you should be decisively defeated but you play the sim and through your knowledge of units and terrain and tactics you prevail and get that "Heroic Victory" screen. Thats what i play this game for. and whats the one part of total war that hasn't changed at all and in many cases has lost features? the battle sim. Hence we say "TW is dead" because they've not improved the heart of their game in no joke 30 years. Instead CA chooses to focus on superficial details like the setting and pretend that those are issues, as if three kingdoms china or ancient Egypt were unpopular settings or something? as if they could have just picked an era more popular and it would all be fine now? hahahahahaha tell that to the Black Myth Wukong devs! go tell them ancient china just isn't a desired setting for stories. They'll agree right? /s Go tell Paradox that CK3 is a bad game because no one wants to explore early-medieval Britain. like what are we talking about? clearly the problem isn't the setting its just that Thrones of Britannia is a shit game. theres nothing wrong with a setting in egypt, every loves ancient egypt and mummies and Pharohs! your game just sucks. I know a guy who doesn't play TW at all, but he's a three kingdoms stan so he got TW 3K. They have already picked all of histories most exciting time periods to make games in, and here we all are, still not happy. the problem is not the setting. TL:DR "if you build it they will come" just make a good game. Edit: Thinking about it more....what are the only games that have been called TW killers or hailed as competition to TW? Its Manor Lords (has battle sim) and the Mount and Blade games (again, battle sims). idk maybe thats just my experiance, maybe yall have heard other games called "TW killers" but those are the 2 i think of. just fix the battle sim and everyone will be happy.
Just give us Medieval 2: Remastered and let the mod teams go nuts. With that both historical and fantasy fans should be satisfied indefinitely. Than again that could be the end of CA or maybe not. It could teach them a hard lesson on what made people love the Total War series to begin with.
Aside from Empire 2 & Medieval 3 so aside from setting, what are YOU looking for from the next Historical Total War? What sort of mechanics do you want to see, what type of visual style, what kind of improvements on the battle side of things, how do you want the AI to improve, etc. What is a Good Historical Total War is to you?
We need wayyyyy more regions on the map. Attila AoC and the last roman showed it's possible!
What's in my mind is the Pike and Shot era and remake Thrones of Britannia (Viking age).
Nevertheless, the main focus should be on Empire 2 and Medieval 3 games as perfect sequels that appeal to the core historical players. There should be no compromises between historical and fantasy players.
bring back the population mechanic. make wars devistating to sustain. we need more connection between the overworld and the battles.
more strategy. no more heros.
A feature set which allows us to play around with how centralised or decentralised our kingdom should be. In other words, I would like to be able to either go deeper into feudalism and rely more on local nobility, or concentrate power into the hand of the king, or even set up a federal electoral empire like the HRE. Social classes should be better presented and should have an actual impact on the gameplay.
I am right there with you on the Pike & Shot; phenomenal time period -- the start of the entire state system with the Treaty of Westphalia. I'd be all over that one!
CA literally knows what we all want but they seem to be blind and deaf for some reason...
bien dit Sylvain . they don't care
Can’t give the goy anything good
They have been doing for since ROME1. CA is just CA
Because they know that for medieval 3 or empire 2 another Warhammer reskin wont be enough
They aren't blind or deaf, Warhammer is just too profitable wether we like it or not.
The more veteran a unit is, the slower it should replenish. It would be sick to have like, 3 stages of visual veterancy so you could tell by looking that this unit, although not fully manned, is full of badasses.
You should be given a choice on how fast a unit replenishes. For example, if an elite unit gets replenished fast, it loses alot of its veterancy, but if it's replenished more slowly with better trained recruits, it only loses some veterancy (it can never keep elite status fully unless merged with another depleted elite unit or it refuses replenishment). I also believe replenishment should actually cost something, like a percentage of the unit's original price based on how it's replenished.
i like that. that would force you to keep largely militia units with a core of veterans like real life
I preferred the retrain mechanic from previous games to the auto replenishment
This wouldn't work well, ranged units are already dominant and they are far easier to keep alive. It would result in blocks of elite range units defended by cheap infantry.
In old TW games, also in new ones if you merge units, they loose experience
OP and longtime subscriber here. I wrote up the post in a few minutes and after I had posted it, I knew there were a few things I regretted and could've elaborated upon much better such as "wanting battles as real as possible". I didn't take enough time to fully define my thoughts, but the overall goal was to get people discussing so I'm really glad to see this video amplifying the conversation.
Hell yeah buddy! Even if you only wrote it up in a few minutes it was well put and it (as you can see) has sparked some great conversation. Well done for doing so ❤️
@@TheTerminatorGaming Thanks brother. Keep up the good work! You're invaluable for historical TW fans.
Only modders know the Historical Authenticity despite of being an independent self reliance.
Meanwhile CA has professional employee back up by huge amount of money, but still didn't know historical Authenticity.
@The Terminator: Modding,Modding and Modding. Next historical TW must be Modding open and friendly.
they don't care about, it are big city dwelling netflix watching starbucks sitting deracinated and degenerated urban hipsters. their knowledge of history goes back a century and their interest in history goes back to last week at the sportsball event. we need game development studios staffed entirely by autistic people instead of these normies. another sign that dei just does not work. they are watering down their output because they want to hire people who don't care about the original premise of the franchise
I´ve been asking for a Pike and Shot era for 10 years. The period should be 1500-1700. It can sel TONS of DLCS. Americas, India, Africa, Pacific, Asia... It has tremendous dynamic gameplay potential. We see the progression of firearms improving, and we NEED a good Siege mechanics.
That would be awesome and definitely profitable for CA
It should really start in 1300 then bild up to 1700
@@MultiApanssonbut if it starts in 1300, it would no longer be the pike and shot era then.
we literally just need medieval 3 bro. different eras can be added on via dlc
are you asking for DLC? wtf man, games not even in development and your already offering to buy it incomplete..... Isn't "new DLC for things that should have already been in the game" one of the biggest complaints of the last 4 TW titles? and all of the warhammer titles?
this man must really love pike and shot era
To expand on the 'fantasy fans and historical fans don't want the same experience' I think it is deeper.
In my opinion: Lord of the Rings TW fans and Warhammer don't want the same experience also, in the same way Medieval 3 fans and Empire 2 fans also would want difference purposes.
LOTR fans would likely want more realism than the Warhammer fans, for example.
I want Medieval 3 to be a very serious title (like Medieval 2), but I also want Rome 3 to be a bit goofier (like Rome 1).
Totalus Warus
theres a mod coming out for lotr i doubt no im 100% sure ca will never realease a lotr total war oitherwise itll be way similar to warhammer games single entities itll be stupid x
There is no such thing as a "historical player". 99% of the TW audience played Warhammer. The most popular TW mod has always been third age. People have been asking for a fantasy title for ages.
What is the case is that a *lot* of new players played Warhammer drawn to it due to the setting. And yes many of those players are not nearly as likely to play a new historical title. That does not mean the community is split into historical and fantasy player bases.
@@XMysticHerox I don't disagree but there's definitely the newer total war fans that prefer Warhammer to us ogs who like the originals
@@XMysticHerox I partly agree. I think the split is more realism vs non-realism based, and many confuse the idea of a historical game with meaning realism.
Although the comment that 99% played warhammer is clearly false, visible by the public steam stats.
I think Third Age is also popular because it maintains that realism in combat from the older titles and adds onto it.
For me historical total war is much more than just a game and most of the time good “time consumation”. It layed a foundation for me, of historic interest in more history than that is just portrayed in the game. It incentived me to learn about history, understand cultures also on conflicts in the past. It just was like; let’s check the abbasid chaliphate, what has that people or specifc region gone through in a certain time, and from that you get into tinny rabbit holes. I like how this goes for me and therefore i hope we will get new decent content
Only mods did that for me. Vanilla medieval 2 might as well be fantasy in most regards.
same. imo a good game is education. you are able to learn something from it.
Europa Barbarorum did that for me :)
When i'm in a "not delivering a game that people want to buy in order to not make a lot of money and tank my company to the ground within the next upcoming years because i'm lazy and that would require doing more than reskins of units." competition but my opponent is *Creative Assembly*.
Don’t love the idea of supply line simulator. My biggest gripe with pharaoh was egypt being 20 factions, not an empire facing collapse. Battles are too frequent, every city has weak but numerous garrisons that make conquest a slog. Healing a whole army in 1-2 turns after their 30th battle is quite unimmersive. The gameplay loop is just bad.
I still think the safest bet right now is to make Medieval 2 Remastered!
Med 2 remastered with improved diplomacy and PLEASE don't screw up the ui like rome remastered I will be content
Look how well they did with the Remaster of Rome Total War. This would fail just like Rome as they wouldn’t do anything with the game other then a Graphical upgrade.
@@segmenteddig6822 well, a graphical update is exactly the proposal of a remastered version.
@@segmenteddig6822 Graphical update, control update and lifted modding restrictions. That would be enough.
@ People aren’t gonna build major mods for a remaster and not all the major mods of Medieval 2 are gonna port over if even possible. Everything they did in the remaster of Rome wasn’t even remotely enough to be successful, they need a co-op campaign not the shit hot seat campaigns we had in Medieval 2 and improved AI otherwise the game will fail just like Rome.
I just want an Empire 2 with better graphics or a Medieval 3 that I can deselect my units and observe the battle and just have the great features of Rome 2 HUD and Warhammer graphics to be in the setting of a working game like Empire, Shogun or Medieval etc. For a different time period I would love the Thrones of Britannia game to be expanded and explore better ways of integrating Vikings and raider style 'skirmisher' infantry who ambush, fight 3v1 and raid villages for gold crosses. The same would be great in every other time period but really I just want the same games with newer graphics and features. Don't fix what isn't broken, just polish it a little.
As long as modders continue to reshape the product into a fun and enjoyable game, I will be content. Everyone has their own tastes and modders give us the chance to experience more what is preferred to each player. I love long, hard fought battles that last for hours in which fatigue, morale, leadership play a key roles in the battle. Thank god for modders as they allow such realism to be created. I curse updates which break the mods and the vanilla defaults of most CA games. Modders, I salute you.
What medieval mod would you advice for me?
@@gsdasda Stainless Steel for Medieval 2 Sir, if you like even the historical improvement submod is damn good. For Attilla: medieval kingdoms 1212 AD (still WIP but damn good)
you can't mod warhammer into medieval 3. stop trying to make excuses for developers by assuming that modders can or would be able to fix everything.
@@gsdasda Listitan said it for me, 1212 and Stainless are both great. I often will search through available mods for simply slower combat if it is available for the played version.
From my observation, definitions of good total war game actually differ from gamer to gamer, reddit poster to reddit poster. The historical vs fantasy is oversimplification and makes a crude line across very diverse landscape of opinions.
I'm amazed at posts where people complain "CA does not listen to players". Listening to Total War players is like listening to the whole kindergarten talking at once. Everybody has something to say, and everybody acts like his opinion is the most important one :)
Campaign complexity scale - everybody has their own personal sweet spot, where we find the campaign just challenging enough without being tedious, but also speedy enough without being too simple. I would love if players could choose (i.e. as in Shogun 2 you could choose short/long/domination campaign, I myself really liked the short campaigns, because it lets gamer to get the most out of replayability without spending the life with a single total war title :) ) Personally I find Pharaoh Dynasties campaigns too complicated and going too much towards Paradox / Civilization, but other players really enjoy it.
Campaign scope scale - Some people like huge world/continent maps, where they can just go crazy and "paint the map", conquer everything. Other people (myself included) prefer more "localized" experience, i.e. Wrath of Sparta because it usually allows for a bit shorter campaigns, with interesting events. Or Age of Charlemagne.
Battle complexity scale - similarly, people enjoy different speeds of battle, I myself like slower battles because cannot keep up when units are dying to quickly, for example to archers/infantry in Shogun 2, but other people like it speedier, otherwise they find it boring.
Battle difficulty - Again many opinions. I guess people universally hate AI "cheat" in the form of flat stat booster. But especially use of cavalry can be pretty dangerous. AI when programmed right, can micromanage to much greater extent than human. So imagine 6 cavalry units harassing the army line being micromanaged simultaneously. I myself (casual player) am partly relieved that AI just tries to beeline for archer units at times.
Historical authenticity - even many "historical" players do not realize, that all those units they love, may have not been present at the battlefields at the same time and most of the times not in the numbers we are allowed to recruit. Campaigns in total war start at a specific date. Would you really want only the units that were historical present at that date? What if your campaign runs too long? I myself love all the historical eye candy i can get. i very much enjoy the experience from Hellenika, where you have limited numbers of Spartans, and you simply cannot replenish them outside of Sparta. And population limit, because there simply was not enough people to fill all the armies i would like to have. But would I like the same when playing as Rome? Maybe not.
Historical attractiveness - Medieval fans are the most vocal :D I myself prefer classical / Hellenistic Greek periods, and have to do with mods for Total War Rome 2. There is no Total War : Hellenic, I cannot play Pyrrhus campaign in Italy, I cannot play as Phillip 2nd and unite Greece. I cannot play Peloponnesian War with Athenian's disastrous Sicillian expedition which lost them the war. I cannot defend ancient Greek world against Persians. And last Alexander campaign is from 2006. So be grateful you got Medieval 1 and 2 :D
I doubt anybody read all the way here. :D If you did, good job!
Well said :)
Thanks for letting those crybabies know that they don't represent the community
generaly speaking i have found the people who talk about the ˝core fanbase˝ to be rather obnoxious fellows that act as if they own the game , and dont get me started on volound and his little posse of imbeciles
CA should just look back at what actually worked in the past, what made great those games that people still love today; take the best from every old game of the series to form the basis of what the next historical title should be.
Medieval 2, Shogun 2, fall of the samurai, Rome 2, they all had different but great battle systems, that favour strategy and morale over stats, and unit interaction with eachother and the map terrain was crucial.
Regarding the campaign map phase, titles like Rome 1, Three Kingdoms, Medieval 2, they all brought interesting mechanics to the series. We need a system where population growth matters, where economy is a little bit more complex than just making a trade deal with other factions and building the same structure in every region; a system with varied diplomacy options, all with different advatages and disadvantages.
Of course Total War shouldn't try to be as complex as Paradox games. But a good tw title should have challenging, cinematic, strategic battles and an interesting, varied and intriguing map phase.
One thing I would love to see in a total war game is a population system like in imperator rome from paradox, Its a lot more complex, for sure, but the viability to manage and worry about your total workforce to be able to have and army at all, makes another interesting approach in a strategy focused on grinding out some other nation's population, and avoiding it being done to you, so no one can simply spam troops out of thin air. It makes a more believable scenario and makes the game way more immersive imo. The thing that sucks the most about total war is that with their increased popularity over the years, they are trying to simplify a lot of things so their games can be more viable to the average joe, but in that they are destroying what made them them at the first place, a nice STRATEGY game above everything. Anyone who likes their type of games and stick to it through thick and thin are the ones who appreciate complexity, because that's what a strategy game usually means and how they differentiate themselves from the other genres. Even though they could achieve what they are trying to do, as in making a more accessible game for more players, it will probably suck gameplay-wise because its gonna be a bland rendition of a brand that one day was way more than that. And as more and more people get to know the company's history, they are going to see that as the years pass, it feels like every time their games are more and more lazily developed for being simpler and simpler, even with all the bells and whistles with graphical improvements and flashier unit models like they so eagerly like to focus above all else these past few years.
DEI for Rome Total War 2 has population, it honestly is a good change. I haven't played vanilla in a while but I've been playing RTW1 Remastered with Imperium Surrectum and that's a bunch of fun once you get over the absolute shite UI.
The real problem here, is that you can't really please everyone. And if you try, like in 3k and Troy, CA can't really make both experiences well in the same game. Because they work differently. I personally prefer more complex campaign mechanics, but they will always be more casual in total war. The moment someone says something interesting that needs more than two brain cells to understand it's paradoxification of the game... I don't want eu4 with RTS battles. I want total war with nice population mechanics, meaningful and interesting buildings, a nice diplomacy system and supply lines. And to a high degree, three kingdoms has that. The population works a bit backwards, as Legend put it, compared to medieval 2, as in 3k pop boost the plain building income and in med2 the building boost the pop income, which is more realistic. Add in some population tiers and done, really. The economy and buildings are nice in 3k because it divides income into the 3 sectors, primary, secondary and tertiary, that's all I want economy wise. Diplomacy wise, 3k has the best one in any total war, hands down. It also has a supply system, it's rudimentary, but it works, and it's all that there needs to be. Having food to grow your cities is great too, similar to Shogun 2. Combat wise it also has potential, I like how instead of melee attack or melee defence, you have % to his, evade, block, etc. It also had formations. Make soldiers have 100hp and most weapons have 100 damage, so the one hit one kill works, but also gives you a chance to make different weapons unique. As armour would reduce the chance of impact, you could have weapons with higher hitting chances but less damage, for example, to counter heavy infantry. You could also make armour piercing be an armour reduction instead of fixed damage. Regarding what you said of promotions, I can see units having less levels, like 3, harder to get to, but gives you an upgrade to something in the unit, like better weapons, better armour, better training, or something like that. That way your same spearmen militia unit could eventually "evolve" into a mid tier unit, when their 3 upgrades are complete, for example, a bit like the warband system but more individualized.
With this, I'm not saying 3k is perfect or anything, but it's a very good stepping stone into future historical games.
I would be okay with any setting. I would absolutely LOVE the scale to increase to replicate more of a real historical battle. 10-25K battles. The technology is there.
For real. If I can run 7 ai armies in a battle of 20k troops then why can’t I just control a full army of 10k troops?
I want an Empire 2, Medieval 3, A official Third Age Total War, and most of all a Victoria/Imperial Total War which could have a bigger map to Empire as it would be able them to go over things like the scramble for africa, american civil war, opium wars, the sepoy mutiny, franco prussian war, etc. The game could start in 1835 with the texas revolution and end with the 2nd boer war so we get the whole rain of victoria and little more. also unit delay in battles work as the game Grand Tactician show with possible the display of linear warfare.
I love non European centric games like Pharoah and 3k. Most historical fan base are European centric
I don't know how realistic this hope is, but one can dream. I would love it if we got a historical Total War set in east/southeast Asia durning the late 16th to early/mid 17th centuries. That would be a dream come true. 😊
It would satisfy the pike and shotte as well as the colonial era for the European factions while bringing in a new region to focus on.
east and southeast of what?
@@valhall89 I believe he meant the Far East and SE Asia.
The historical player was abandoned after Romance of the 3K (which was excellent). They could simple reskin and continue to improve that model. For the life of me don't know why you wouldn't just take that easy win. The programmer who developed the CaoCao algorithm should be retained as it's incredible. The main problem is that the non-historical titles are just arcade games where everything blobs together meaninglessly and whoever has the cheesiest unit wins.
My dream is for total war to be on historical documentaries just like the original Rome Total War was
Yeah exactly, realism is key. Not making arcade games. Coincidence their parent company is SEGA? lol
Rome total war or something historical, pick one, you can't have both
CA needs to connect with some of these Modders. Im a huge Rome era fan. If they did a remastered Rome 2 where they updated the graphics to now a day type graphics that sysyems can handle, added with amazing sounds and diplomacy that would be amazing. Then work from there and figure out new games to drop. Use these older games as starting points of making WAY better games, then use what they learned and make new ones.
stop relying on modders. ca needs to just hire better people and make better games
I'm going to agree with most of what the post says that TW games absolutely do better if they simulate being as close to real battles as we can get. I'll tie this in with the DEI comment, of which I agree more TW games need to be like DEI, by using Egypt as an example (for both the realistic battles + DEI points). After months playing a campaign as Egypt in DEI with authentic Greek units with appropriate levels of Egyptian flavour, looking at the vanilla Egypt roster is disgusting. It's halfway like CA still wanted to do the New Kingdom Egypt like in R1. And of course the class population stuff in DEI is great and we need more of that too (in a R1 fashion), not just one general population for everyone.
For the comments, I will absolutely come out to bat for Jilopez and push back a little on what you said. While a vocal minority are very over-the-top annoying about demanding M3 and E2 next, the majority of the fanbase still wants them, not just that vocal minority (which I mean fair, I also want M3 and E2). However, Jilopez is absolutely right; games like Pharaoh-Dynasties and 3K are amazing TW games. 3K is the second most played historical title to this day, and Pharaoh had a bunch of stuff working against it that wasn't it's fault (and like one or two that were that have been fixed with Dynasties) that caused many people to decide they'll never play it. But putting all that aside and knowing that Pharaoh was unjustly done dirty and will never get a massive fanbase, the game is very polished. Obviously it's not perfect, but neither are 3K, S2, R1, or M2.
Jilopez is 100% on the money when he says most historical fans want sequels to the same games every few years: Romans, Vikings, Knights, Samurai, European gunpowder, rinse and repeat every 10-15 years with each of them. They aren't strictly "historical fans", but fans of popular history-based settings in pop-culture like those I mentioned above. Most "down to the core" historical fans enjoy Dynasties if they bothered to try it despite all the initial outrage, because it's a polished, good game with a cool setting (and if you still don't that's perfectly fine). I guarantee you that if CA made the most technically polished game with the best battle and campaign gameplay so far out of any TW we've ever had, but the game is set in the pre-Colombian Americas, Sub-Saharah Africa, or Oceania, the majority of TW fans would hate it because it's not the pop-culture history they're so used to (and then you'd also get a minority of people openly spouting racist stuff (I've seen it plenty) about black Africans for example having "no history/ culture" or whatever). And honestly, I've seen enough people hate on the idea of India and Southeast Asia as well that even THOSE two (quite popular underdog) locations would get hate for not being Europe/ Japan from Romans to Victorian era. So again, from my experience on both the TW sub and Discord, most historical fans would enjoy a good game if they try it out, but most won't try it out unless it's a pop-culture history setting.
With a mod like Empire 2 I like the mechanics it adds and the changes it makes but I don't want tedium. It adds a plethora of new units which is really cool but when the stat differences are next to 0 or even exactly 0 it just get's annoying to filter through each unit just because I want all my redcoats to be wearing a red coat. It's nice that there is other stuff and new units but having them be no different when they could be the updated version or a late game unit like how older games changed appearances if you got better shields, swords or armour etc would be great, adding new units so every faction starts with 18 to choose from and 9 of them are the same 3 repeated 3 times over is too much.
Day xxx of waiting for the release of MK1212 campaign map update.
Im excited
The point you made with different weapons in a unit making them better sounds awesome.
What comes to mind is a unit of pikes, just fighting against each other and matched. then you develop the technology to add great sword fighters to your unit, two will be added and in their first clash they will run out to a free side, and just jump on the enemies pikes, mowing them away. than the to sides are clear of damaging pikes and you will start winning on those fronts, eventually winning the whole interaction. It are things like that, that would make it really appealing, not just to a history fan, but to everyone I would think, as it would look cool as hell. much better than a +10. Ofcourse when they die, maybe an other member of the group can pick up their sword, or it just gets lost for the rest of the battle, but you would have gained an initial advantage.
In historical pike units there were men who fought with (two handed swords) and other close quarters weapons. The Germans called them doppelsoldner (double soldiers) because they were the most heavily armoured and best fighters in the unit, and thus were paid twice as much as a pikeman. They were used at the front of the unit, to try and break through the pike press when two opposing pike units engaged.
As a video game player, in almost 30 years I have never had the "WOW...WTF" experience that I had when I played Rome 1! I think that's what the franchise needs to rescue in all of us!
I think a cool new system that could work is all factions start with 3 units infantry, Calvary, and range. Then, you add weapons and armor to customize the unit to be more specialized and you can take them out for a turn or two so they can learn skills and formations. Different buildings and provinces will provide the updated and customized gear. Provinces can be used for horses and other animals plus different metals. Building for different armor, weapons, and shields. I think that would make a really good historical system
The loyalty system for atilla worked very well. This should be expanded to cities as well as many cities will go over to a faction after a great battle especially on empire periphery
The most important point seems to be missing from the OP however: prerequisite for a sucessfull new tw game is a new engine and a capable AI that is able to wield the tools given to it. Doesn't matter if the units have nice unique abilities, if the battles are clunky as heck. Same for the strategic layer: doesn't matter if it has a cool dynasty system, if the AI is just sitting around the map not knowing what is going on (think of empire vanilla). These technical issues must to be adressed and are more important imho than any single point the reddit OP has made
Having gained some experience from working on software projects for some time now, I can understand the reasoning of CA's indifference towards what we, Historical Players want.
What's the point of working on an elaborate supply system for a campaign, overcomplicate the production cycle and spend so much more resources when this won't make a bit of a difference in sales?
It's an unfortunate reality of quality-quantity.
i agree with you on that but i cant get the reason why they dont make their games open to moders who are going to make overcomplicated games based on the original for the hardcore history fans or a more funny and easy experience for the gamers who want just battles
@@cpt_xfiles5486 That's a good point to make.
I don't know, but I can make some guesses.
It is true that Total War should have been easily modable.
As a historical player I care a lot about realism/authenticity. Screw "balance" if it makes the game less authentic. I want the simulation to produce plausible battle results. Balancing can be done by tweaking the victory conditions without hurting the realism. Restricting the time frame or zooming into a smaller battle of a larger conflict can make balanced scenarios also.
For a future historical Total War, look at Grand Tactician Civil War - GTCW. How it handles recruitment, arming, armaments production, outfitting, supply, army makeup, morale, on and on. The only thing GTCW is missing compared to a TW is eye candy. In features and functions, it's generations ahead of TW.
In my opinion, Total War Empire II would be the best solution to save the series, as in that game you can display more than one time period by entering it through developing combat units passing through time within the game. Imagine starting with swords and spears, then moving to gunpowder, and with many options in diplomatic relations and adding naval battles. I think it is better to use a new engine for battles so that many strategies can be added within the battle with new graphic forms.
I appreciate the various time period, even though I'm totally not interested in the bronze era, but for the love of God, we've been screaming what we want for a decade.
"In Rise of Nations Extended Edition i managed to beat Alexander the Great campaign got achievement for it."
Total War Veteran here, I want a new game engine and a beeter AI before they do anything else. Not much changed since Attila, the same cheese still works.
I think fun and challenging are important but immersion and realism are what make the game fun so I think they are just as important to me being a historical fan and a historical TW fan
I can give some insight into the image at the top of the post. As the author of an article on the 15th century battle of Grandson, I worked with Darren Tan who created that image. It can be found in Medieval Warfare magazine issue IV.4
In terms of sheer variety and re-playability i would personally want a massively improved and expanded Empire 2 that could have different start dates and so many units, factions, a colossal map using the continents system from the first one including almost the entire known world at that time, visual upgrades for your units and the ability to spend money to equip them and increase their stats but the buildings needed for that would need other buildings that are advanced enough, Veterancy would increase stats but not as extremely as significant tech and equipment upgrades, Campaign wise melee troops would be viable because if you invaded a country with no gunpowder infrastructure and lost your musket troops you wouldn't be able to replenish them.
I'll be honest, I want Empire 2 or Medieval 3 because those are the time periods which, apart from Rome/Ancient world, are the most interesting to me but my first TW game was Rome 2 so I had a pretty 'new' and later updated to be quite good TW game set in Ancient Rome, Greece etc etc. Medieval 2 shows it's age but I would absolutely play it more if it were updated slightly, just change the graphics and some HUD mechanics (let me deselect units) and off we go for 200-300 hours. Same with Empire, really really like the setting and way the game plays out due to muskets and cannons. Don't like that it looks kinda funky and can't deselect units etc but I still played tons of it in spite of all that so it is a genuinely good and fun game.
Unit Interaction is the term to describe one of the things I've wanted more of from total war but didn't know how to articulate.
It's one of the things I still don't really like about Total Warhammer, despite having really warmed up to it by the third entry.
I've seen ppl really talk bad about unit animations and I get it can be a clunky messy way to add life to the gameplay but I always liked it from the historical titles as it added some life to the battles.
That soundtrack brought up some sweet memories...
I like how a lot of what you say is just in Pharaoh. That game is great just hampered by it being in the bronze age
Is it though? Tell me where exactly?
Pharaoh is warhammer with a bronze age skin
Resource system added a lot of depth to campaign, at least in the early/mid game, guiding expansion and diplomacy dynamically and in some cases forcing you to take on tougher opponents to secure what you lack. Felt much more engaged in campaign layer than in 3K initially. But after while you have everything in surplus and things get boring - and the collapse system was far too toothless to really prevent you from snowballing.
What I worry about after Dynasties is that the genuinely good ideas and improvements in that update will not be carried on because Pharaoh was a failure. It would be good to identify what worked and what didn’t so that CA don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Armies weren't led by 1 general historically. There were captains, colonels, brig generals, major generals etc. Adding an Order of Battle mechanic would take immersion to the next level! I like to have multiple generals. One "in danger with the men" and one higher (held back and more strategic) for instance. At the same time, we should have the ability to have armies led by lesser officers without including a general.
One thing that's always bothered me about the combat in TW games is that units stay tight in formation. There's no chaos in the fighting, with units separating during the fight. Sure, some very disciplined factions like Rome would stay in formation, but most would not once the fighting starts
Here's an idea - how about creating a historical title where you can manually choose the mechanics available to your game? E/g turns per year, seasons on/off, being able to move single units without a general around the map or not, etc. It really can't be that difficult to implement something like this with today's technology at hand.
Pharaoh sctually has almost everything you’ve described. You still need a general to move armies around but there are actual incentives to have small armies, like reduced upkeep for example.
I feel like ranged units overall need a bit better AI for pike and shot to work as people want to. As noted in earlier games as well as more recently warhammer, ranged units (especially gunners) tend to be "stubborn & stupid" if there is uneven terrain, objects, friendly units or just a few troops not in formation your ranged units wont shoot or they will walk into enemy lines before they realise that they can in facts use their gun. Sure they work better than some older titles but I feel like they need to become alot better for the audience.
I would like a more customizable type of campaign that you could change the difficulty from normal to hard and that could mean not only that ai has more units and the diplomacy is just not an option but that everything you do as a player should be planned. From the units you are gathering to the place you are camping to the diplomatic moves and deals you accomplish. For example if an enemy faction is getting hammered by you or your allies they should be willing to neggotiate, be your vassal, pay you, marry one of their children to you, give you some land or slaves that could be used as population to raise an army...or in case you are the one in a bad possition you should be pressed by your political enemies and your people by low public order and other penalties to agree on their terms and pay a fee or give some land to them. If CA doesnt want to do all that searching and to go on that level of accuracy at least they should allow moders to completely change the game as they want, because that could create replayability and that means more sales, more players and more good ratings.
16:00 I don't know what was the last time you playyed Pharao, but what you just said applies actually to the gameplay of pharao, maybe it's time to give it another chance and try out for yourself
The gameplay that ppl are looking for is unit interactions and to simulate the order of battle in a fun way
As opposed to unit variety and stat buffs debuffs which has been the focus in newer TW titles
I've never played Pharaoh nor Troy, but from what I saw here on youtube, it seems to me that they have good ideas and mechanics for what concerns the campaign map turn, but awful awful awful battle gameplay
SIMPLE WINNING FORMULA ready? Victoria 1 (1837-1901). A global map that includes the Napoleonic Wars, Carlist Wars, The American Civil War and finally end with fall of the samurai 2.
Then make a preclude expansion pack or another game that is EMPIRE III. Include the various colorizations in Africa and India, the American Revolutionary War, Indian Wars, Mexican War etc. This is not hard! You have muskets, artillery, cavalry, infantry, naval combat. Include a researched Order of battle system for the generals for immersion, include government trees, tech trees, naval combat. It just doesn't stop. It's a money tree. Get it done! Do the work, do the research, higher the consultants. Make the game that everyone wants!
Some things I would like:
Cities that adjust according to the buildings you make, and if they're damaged in the battle they're damaged in the campaign.
Allow ALL settlements to be fortified and developed, rather than the silly "region" mechanic.
Work on increasing army sizes. We've been stuck on 16*200 max for army composition for 25 years. We need to see 20,000 strong armies.
Reduce the internal faction mechanics, - they just don't matter, - but instead inter-faction mechanics, like a similar culture should mean huge buffs to alliances, and different religion should make alliance almost impossible.
Overall, a new engine. They've had 15 years of milking this reskin. It's time for a global games developer to Actually Make A New Game...
A proper skirmishing formation please.
Not the enemy is getting near so we scoot away but, the whole unit spreads out, not randomly, but in squads of 10 or less moving independently, firing their weapon regardless if they're moving or not. Then as the enemy get close they run away, but still fire their weapon as they flee. Or vice versa for pursuing skirmisher.
A proper skirmish engagement or behavior.
They're used in whether for screening the main battle line, contesting a location, supporting a unit by scattering at the sides or at the gaps of a formation to "guard them", roaming around seeking targets, or just scouting. A proper light infantry behavior.
You know the whole province system and mechanics that we have had since Rome 2 are absolutely fantastic for warhammer, but not great for historical titles. I think that sentence resonates so much. Historical fans and fantasy fans want different things from their games.
I'll admit that I'll pretty much be happy with any kind of Medieval 3.
But what would I like to see improved? Improved AI that feels more organic and less "gamey". It'd be nice if it didn't feel like the AI was trying to "beat" me as much as it felt like the AI was trying to simulate running a nation, with its own unique goals and personality. I'd also like CA to concentrate on making the game feel epic. Fights should be a spectacle where the player is encouraged to zoom in and is rewarded with cool animations that make it look like the troops are actually fighting and not just randomly swinging their weapons here and there in between mostly just staring at each other. Troops should be pushing and shoving each other around. It should look like a dirty, grimy struggle for life and death. Maybe have a grand campaign where the goal is less about taking over half the world and more about establishing a strong, stable empire (as opposed to the psychopathic death machine permanent war empire that the current total war games force you to make).
A total war modern ui and engine with scourge of war scale and tactics would be the dream for me
I would like a simple campaign map / game.. just enough to get into interesting and varied battles.. a campaign gives games meaning.
I STRONGLY agree with the redditor who said people only want Empire 2 or Medieval 2 and not an actual good historical title. And I am also a Pharaoh Dynasties player, I have played almost all total war titles and I believe it is one of the best ones.
Like I said, just because most people didn’t pick up what you believe to be a good game, doesn’t automatically mean people don’t know what a good game is and therefore only want Med 2 or Empire 3. What you’re seeing is just the most vocal group of players. People ultimately disagreed with Pharaoh, which at launch was a mostly agreed bad game and therefore wrote off the update. That’s not on them, its on CA.
Total War: Pharaoh is $19.99 on Steam this week. Will be interesting to see the sales numbers.
Love to see research & development tree and original population mechanics be incorporated again. Battle realism too. Not this arcade style feel it gives after winning or losing a battle like pharoah does
a English war of roses could be cool but sounds more like a dlc
I have given up waiting for CA to make a good game 🤷♂️
As Volound has already said elsewhere, I think they would benefit from going back to look at the original medieval as there were aspects of the battle gameplay that were superb. Alright, visually it's very dated but that's not the point. Warhammer TW relies too heavily on stat buffing, the developers even explicitly talk about this in a recent video.
The OP makes some excellent points wrt to supply, this is something that has not been done before, as far as I know.
Empire 2 should be focused on the colonization of the new workd where nations are still wearing armor. Cortes should be the campaign!
The most enjoyable experience, I've had playing total war recently has come from NTW3, for me I think it comes from how every decision has consequences, and that even though its difficult it never feels unfair.
I think mainly modern total war has just been very arcadey, I would much prefer a more slow methodical realistic total war.
They really need to take a look at Medieval 1212 mod and take notes. The realistic feel to it is better than any vanilla total war game imo.
a junction of medieval simple population system with still med 2 sieges and rome 2 style of battle and campaign and a kinda of warhammer 3 tech trees
I agree. It's not about stats. The variety comes from the systems, not the units themselves.
Friendly fire on shogun
I think one of the problems is that they have no major competition, so there is no need to listen to the fanbase. Kinda like simcity died to cities skylines (but they had other problems than dont listen to their fanbase)
Another example is civ. After civ 6 other games like humankind or old world were published and civ now tries to compete again. I hope yall get what i mean.
So i think we really have to look forwars for some competition pr even a better series from another developer who listens to what the fans want.
I know many player want medieval 3, some want shogun 3 and i want rome 3 the most. But not without heart. I want to enjoy a game in long term again.
Atm i rather play old ttw like rome 2, shogun 2, medieval 2 or atilla, but im craving for a GOOD new Historical Total war Game. Pharaoh Dynasties is okay, but didnt catched me to long.
I have a perfect game in mind (atleast what i considere the perfect game) but to create it i neither have knowledge, nor Cash to finance it Haha
1. Diplomatic system like 3k
2. Longer battle allows maneuver warfare. Unlike S2, of which unit break the moment they contact, ancient battle can last many day, not second
3. Unpopular opinion: R2 DEI is the best battle system. Please don't hit me WH fan, i like 3k too 😂
For many years now, the historical community has felt pretty let down by CA. It seems to me that many in the community never bothered with Pharaoh, because they either didn't like the setting, didn't like the different style of gameplay, or just didn't touch it at all because of all the negativity around the title, right from the start. Pharaoh was also released a bit undercooked, but the free update fixed all of those issue. Thrones suffered much the same issues as Pharaoh, and like Pharaoh, actually became a good little game with a bit of time and updates. CA appears to know what the historical community wants if the dynasty update for Pharaoh is anything to go by and I am confident that the next historical title will be a success. I very much agree with you that a game set in the age of pike and shot, would be a great choice. Hopefully we'll hear some news on the next historical game soon.
Well I don't know about challenging , I'm someone who actually zooming in and watching shit.
Same. The try-hard cheesers always whining about difficulty are the worst
Nah, I think a population mechanic would be great. The only thing wrong with DEI is that the population is too few and the unit limit hampers the player agency in the name of "balance".
Arrows should be realistic. NO CURVED LINES ACROSS THE SKY FROM ARROWS AND JAVELINS.
I feel like for a TW game to feel historic or real it needs to pass the 300 test. A small veteran unit that's heavily armored should be able to hold a bottleneck against a larger horde. And it should all be based on common sense and proper tactics and positioning, not some arbitrary stat boosts.
What’s the last Total War game you’ve played?
ngl we need a victoria total war
You literally can combine both groups with
Westeros total war
Medieval 3
WWI
Expanded world map (Empire 2 but every continent available)
The first point is the most important point imo.
Empire 2 or nothing for me.
And like everyone says, go back to the roots and bring it forward into a new game.
I want them to revert the engine to Shogun 2 because the new games feel awkward.
The setting is secondary at best.
A total war set in India . From early medieval to mid 19th century . CA wants a triology , there you go a 1500 year period with early medieval, medieval and musket era . 3 to 4 games could be made easily . Distinct cultures , gigantic civilizations there is so much to look into . Sadly no one wants it .
CA aren't known for listening to their player-base.
They have been told for years to develop an Empires 2 and/or Medieval 3 etc and we got..... bronze age Egypt.
Pharoh, which was grossly over-priced and devoid of content was a massive flop.
Pharoh Dynasties, (taken in isolation) after a lot of work has actually turned into a well made game however and worth around £10-15.
Warhammer is arcade Total War for those with limited attention spans and patience.
The WH games don't really feel like TW games anyway and I have been playing TW since the first Shogun.
Although I do enjoy WH3 and have had a lot fun with it a good, solid historical TW would be great.
No silly bullshit, no magical nonsense, no DLC cash-milking/same-old-rope selling... just an immersive, challenging epic game that we know CA can make.
It doesn't have to be either/or.
While making Rome 2 CA also made Alien Isolation so they can make two games at the same time, a Histortical one and a more Fantasy one...why not?
Well, we'll see what happens.
I may have to spank the Athenians as Agamemnon now... just for funsies......
;-)
OG TW player here, dating back to Shogun 1. These discussions are quitte funny to me because the issue is simple. CA is not here to cater to us fans but to make money and since money is the root of all evil, corporate greed trumps anything else. That's why we get garbage like Pharaohs nowadays which is just fantasy TW re-packaged basically. The classic COD marketing strategy and one that the fanboys eat up every year because they dont know anything else and have never played battlefield 3&4 for example. Same goes with the massive Warhammer fanbase who eat up anything Warhammer so as a result CA just regurgitates the same type of game yearly, just re-branded now and then to sell as many as possible. This is just how i see it and i don't expect it to change anytime soon.
In Rome 1 and Med 2 all the big strategy mechanics were “covered” by motivations inside the story. Like money from the council of nobles, missions from the senate from other factions etc., I really dislike the “imperium” thing in Rome 2 and Attila and hope they get rid of it or find better narrative inside the game to “motivate” (to cover) it. All for immersion!
empire 2 is my dream total war set in 1800 1890 even if i am worried i love to see stuff like terrain having an effect on battles so we can place heavy guns on hills and rain shells over enemy troops supply lines is a much have so we can blockade an enemy nation with the navy and again prober city battles insted of them beeing field battles and the option of build other defences and weather having effect on a battle and diseases naval battles need an update so is not just the same open sea battle wich would get so boring love to see hybrid battles like the ultimate games would be so cool to land troops on coast and capture a fort and then you had to hold it and wait for reinforcement before you can capture the main target wich could be a importen supply hub
So basically we want, ck3 with semi realistic battles ,w here strategy matter not just statistic of the units
I second the unit variety one. Ive been saying it for years. Stat boosts are LAMMMEEEEE. Units should FUNCTIONALLY and VISIBLY display upgrades/interactions. I dont want +10 goodboy points. I want the units to actually use whatever the upgrade is. Ill take less "unique" units if the units are more interesting.
The phalanx formation in RTW1 is the perfect example, greek factions FELT so different from the fast moving melee Gauls or the slow but versatile roman legions or the unstoppable lumbering Seleucid Elephants. THAT IS UNIT VARIETY. Not that units LOOK different, but they literally PLAY different and feel different. That is why faction variety was a thing with not that many units.
I do think they need to delve more into to the internal side of nation building. When I play campaigns the objective isint just to paint the map for me. But obviously that’s terribly boring in total war
Oh wow I’m an indie dev and I was working on the ideal total war feature/mechanic list before I knew about this. Maybe I drop it in? 🤔
Drop it in!
About sound, spaciel thanks to PUA team that made amazing job on their mod, especially the fact that u can change sound and smoke settings as u want, for attila, i will prefer brighter graphics, even if an excellent mod made for mk1212 ad graphics work perfzctly well with vanilla ou other mod for attila 😁
I feel like the older games were simpler in the right ways and more complex in the right ways. the newer games have made some things needlessly complex and made other things woefully too simple. like buildings for one example.
The problem is that CA doesn't care about their historical fanbase. That fanbase, forged in the Shogun1-Shogun2 period is already adult and diminishing. And it was always niche. In order to sustain a large studio like the one CA has, they need to appeal to younger masses, and I'm sorry to say the younger masses were not raised in movies like 13Warriors, Gladiator, Alexander or Kingdom of Heaven. They were raised with Captain America, Avengers, and Call of duty with zombies.
From their perspective, Warhammer makes more money than historical titles. That's the end of it, unfortunately.
Of course, they're wrong. If they actually made a competent historical title with large epic battles, and easy to start multiplayer the game would succeed. But you probably don't need such a large studio for that, since instead of pushing graphics and effects, you need to push gameplay loops and engine physics.
Have you ever done a tutorial on how to install mods to medieval 1 on steam I want to try out the XL mod ?
8:56 the ai being able to cope with no general armies is total nonsense. If mods for decades old games can actually fix the issue then a AAA company with loads of employees and funding had nothing they can hide behind. They just don’t want to try to fix it. That’s the only answer. If a devoted nerd on a MacBook can fix a decades old problem then you just know that CA wasn’t even trying.
honestly for me, I just want a good grand strategy game with realistic battle simulations. feels like i havn't got that from CA in 15 years. Would i enjoy learning more about history alongside? sure, but no more or less than i'd have enjoyed learning Warhammer's Lore or any other fictional or real lore....too bad the TW games don't really teach you Warhammer lore. but yea i really couldn't care less if the pikemen are orc's or humans, just so long as they act like the pikeman i've been told they are, have a pikewall formation (really the only reason to have pikemen at all is the wall) and actually counter the cavalry like they should.
like whats the one thing TW has that no other game in the whole industry has? EVEN TODAY IN 2024., theres still no other game in the world that has this one thing and its the only reason CA can keep getting me to buy a new TW game every 5 years or so. Its not the campaign map, every "grand Strategy" game has a good campaign map, every game has a tech tree and upgrading units, every game has leaders with portraits and stories, cool sound effects, units with spells/abilities. every game has lore or history, so whats TW got that no one else is even attempting?
its the battle sim.
thats it, thats the one thing TW has that makes me play it instead of some other "pretend your a general/dictator" game. every other game makes the battles on like a hextile field or with turnbased mechanics or something. TW has a real time battle. Its at the core of every game (unless your an auto-resolve addict) and it drives the gameplay of the whole series. units i like or dislike is based soley on their performance in these battle sims. what i decide to put in the army is based on what i think i can win with ( do i need catapult/trebs? what should i flex out to make room for them), which then determines which buildings i think i need and what provinces i should try to conquer first... all of the gameplay decisions flow from the "RTT" battle sim.
And it Works! Nothing in this game feels as good when the Auto resolve tells you that you should be decisively defeated but you play the sim and through your knowledge of units and terrain and tactics you prevail and get that "Heroic Victory" screen. Thats what i play this game for.
and whats the one part of total war that hasn't changed at all and in many cases has lost features? the battle sim. Hence we say "TW is dead" because they've not improved the heart of their game in no joke 30 years.
Instead CA chooses to focus on superficial details like the setting and pretend that those are issues, as if three kingdoms china or ancient Egypt were unpopular settings or something? as if they could have just picked an era more popular and it would all be fine now? hahahahahaha tell that to the Black Myth Wukong devs! go tell them ancient china just isn't a desired setting for stories. They'll agree right? /s Go tell Paradox that CK3 is a bad game because no one wants to explore early-medieval Britain. like what are we talking about? clearly the problem isn't the setting its just that Thrones of Britannia is a shit game. theres nothing wrong with a setting in egypt, every loves ancient egypt and mummies and Pharohs! your game just sucks. I know a guy who doesn't play TW at all, but he's a three kingdoms stan so he got TW 3K.
They have already picked all of histories most exciting time periods to make games in, and here we all are, still not happy.
the problem is not the setting.
TL:DR "if you build it they will come" just make a good game.
Edit: Thinking about it more....what are the only games that have been called TW killers or hailed as competition to TW? Its Manor Lords (has battle sim) and the Mount and Blade games (again, battle sims). idk maybe thats just my experiance, maybe yall have heard other games called "TW killers" but those are the 2 i think of.
just fix the battle sim and everyone will be happy.
Would love a rise of Islam mod. I think it’d be really cool to play in that era
Just give us Medieval 2: Remastered and let the mod teams go nuts. With that both historical and fantasy fans should be satisfied indefinitely. Than again that could be the end of CA or maybe not. It could teach them a hard lesson on what made people love the Total War series to begin with.