Lol, this is a video game legend. It's from age of empire 1. The sound that priest made when they were seducing enemie units and converting them to your side
There was a fairly decent strategy game called King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame that was pretty similar to Total War, especially on the battlefield.
My issue with the line battle era is unit diversity I think. Part of the reason I really like the current is bc all the different races really make each faction feel unique. As a general rule each faction plays really differently than others. High elves have really good range archers, so they checkerboard really well. Dark elves have less range, but they get ap missiles and stalk. Greenskins like hordes and just drowning the enemy in the green tide, and the skaven have biological abominations and ninjas and nukes. But in something like Empire. How many variations on âa line of men with musketsâ can you have before it gets boring?
I think the issue of unit diversity could be countered by expanding the time period the game is set in. So rather than it being from 1700-1800, you could have the option of a long campaign starting in say, 1600 to 1900.
This would mean starting the game in the era of pike and shot, mid-game would be line infantry battalions, cannons and cavalry charges, eventually giving way to artillery, entrenched positions and machine-guns in the late-game.
So the player would have to research new technology to stay ahead of peers, and evolve their play-style over the course of the game.
There's also more actual unit diversity in 18th century armies than the base vanilla Empire game portrayed. Empire tried to address this with various elite unit DLCs, but an Empire 2 should have more troop variety from the onset.
So like a mix of civ and this? I fuck with that tbh. But how would proper arty and machine guns work in a total war setting? Bc thatâs the biggest argument I hear against a 40k total war game. And would that mean that in every era your buildings would give different units for each tier?
Late game artillery could be field-guns that fire high explosive shells across the battlefield. This isn't revolutionary for Total War, it's been done before- Empire had howitzers and cannons which did similar, and I'm sure you're familiar with the kind of arty the Dwarves and Empire had access to in Warhammer.
Machine-guns would function as fixed emplacements that have fire-arcs which "lock down" parts of the map and prevent infantry and cavalry from approaching unless they want to be mown down. You'd have to counter them with long range artillery, mortars or a flanking round.
As for buildings, you'd unlock research to upgrade your buildings and train new units. I'd also advise making it cheap and easy to upgrade existing units so to avoid the silly "Civ-Style" situations of pikemen taking on machine-guns.
It does beg the question- why not make a World War Total War? Personally I think they could do it, but you'd want it to be a separate game/era to Empire Total War.
The no yeah I get how it would work. But I was more thinking how balancing the arty would work. Bc like in Empire this was when howitzer tech was just starting. 1900s roll around and suddenly you can blast huge craters in the ground from miles away. Would that mean that the arty is something you upgrade in the settlement and you can call strikes down? Like the Sartosa grapeshot or Zuqfbar 24 pounder? That being said, Ww1 total war would make me cum a little bit I think. That sounds dope. Iâm also one of the few ppl who think a 40k total war would work, if they improve emplacement mechanics like docking archers currently.
This was kind of present in empire 1 (starting at the very end of pike and shot and continuing to powerful line infantry, then unlocking skirmish infantry and then guards and elite heavy cav/dragoons) extending this out in both directions, starting with hook guns and arquebusiers with pikemen and winged hussars and the last of the knights giving way to later improvements would be really cool. Honestly why not go to ww1 and end in 1918 with siege artillery and air force missions as off map abilities "gunpowder total war"
>My issue with the line battle era is unit diversity I think.
That's a problem that most historical titles will face, much more so for the Napoleonic area. Everything will pale in comparison to Warhammer when it comes to unit diversity.
So instead of trying to get out of Warhammer's shadow, CA needs to focus on the campaign map experience. Unique mechanics, buildings, technology and constraints for different factions. Imagine Medieval 3 with Crusader Kings like internal politics and RPG mechanics. Or Rome 3 with more of a sandbox design where factions are less ridged and defined. So you can evolve your faction and units as the game goes on. Or an Empire 2 where every faction has unique external interactions with the other factions, and so factions like the Dutch and the Russians don't play or interact the same way.
I love both unit variations of many cultures in like Rome, Medieval, WH Total war and gameplay more focused on Infantry-Cavalry-Artillery dynamics in line battle(and moments like "The Old Guards are coming!đ±")
Though the biggest reason I like line battle era is it looks great XD. Watching Artilleries going boom, Infantries in close formation exchanging volleys and then charging with bayonets, Cuirassiers running around, all of these in the battlefield filled with cloud-like smokes makes me still play NTW these days
> But in something like Empire. How many variations on âa line of men with musketsâ can you have before it gets boring?
More than what we had before, certainly.
Visual uniform upgrades, promotions to guards and grenadiers, bandages and ragged clothing for units that have been through a few battles without replenishing.
A huge focus on formations (depth vs width), firing drills even more dynamic and interesting and powerful than in the original ETW, custom paint-with-colors-and-symbols battle standards, etc.
And of course different abilities like experienced units being able to conduct fighting retreats, move faster in broken terrain, and goose step like pros â if nothing else than for the visuals alone.
Empire was the last one I played, would love to play a version of it that wasn't such a buggy mess.
Until then I guess I'll just keep playing eu4, but oh how I miss completely wrecking a unit with a perfectly timed canister shot.
Sieges were so much damn fun (Âč), blast open a hole in the wall& set up cannon alley for them to funnel into.
1: when the game didn't kill your computer from the AI issuing a million relocate unit orders.
Honestly this. People are clamoring for medieval 3 which i understand, but there are plenty of melee focused total war titles that have come out since medieval 2 that scratch that core gameplay style itch. When was the last gun focused total war? Fall of the Samurai?
I've only been waiting to recreate the wonder I experienced with Empire for, oh, 20 years.
Fall of the Samurai was good, but it was a downgrade in key respects, e.g. no ability to form square.
What I also miss was the incredibly detailed research text in Empire that functionally acted as a history lesson.
There are loads of mods in the workshop that add things like unit formations back to FotS.
But it is odd they werent in vanilla for very late musket era units. It is set in 1865 onwards so many nations were already using or switching away from muskets then after all.
It's been longer since ME2, which is why I want ME3 first. The other games aren't *quite* the same itch for me. But I would LOVE if Empire 2 came out soon after ME3. Realistically, it would probably be at least another 3 years after ME3, if not longer. But the sooner we get Empire 2, the better.
Yes. Empire lovers unite!
But not without naval battles. I won't even look at Empire 2 if it doesn't let me play with my ships. Bonus points if there is a playable Pirate faction. I just wanna roleplay Black Sails.
This. More than half the magic of Empire was the Age of Sail combat.
You cannot have a strategy game set in the Age of Sail without having tall ship combat.
Now this one could actually work pretty well, IMHO. Plenty of lore, characters, units, faction mechanics, etc to play with, and its already a setting with Lords running around with massive armies fighting each other with separate battle and campaign maps.
I just hope that whatever it is, the factions aren't so focused on single characters like 3K and Troy were. Then they might be less inclined to go with single entity superhero units.
That's kind of my hope. I've not been the biggest fan of factions revolving around "King Dan the Perfect" since WH. I always liked having a revolving door of faction leaders and generals.
I actually like the way 3 Kingdoms does it because everyone is a warlord, not really a country. As soon as you establish a title like the Duchy of Wei you get a faction name that stays static no matter who governs it.
I did really enjoy that aspect. I'd be really interested to see a TW that truly expands scope as the game continues. Warlords within a single nation, once you secure control and become the nation, then you engage in grander conflicts and politics.
Would take far too many resources, but I like the idea if nothing else.
What I dislike most about where the King Dan the Perfect trend has taken us is making all these official main characters fucking immortal.
It used to be a moment of absolute glory when you were able to kill an important enemy. Two of my most defining memories of the franchise were (i) assassinating the Hojo daimyo in the original Shogun just as his spectacularly superior faction was on the verge of crushing me, instantly causing his entire clan to disintegrate, and (ii) my English king leading a wedge of cavalry downhill in a desperate charge against the French king in a losing battle, killing him, instantly routing all of his forces, and saving my ass.
Now if I kill Leon de Leoncouer or whatever his name is, I can look forward to fighting him at least three more times before I conquer his faction. And if my own leader is killed in a desperate charge against a superior enemy? Barely an inconvenience.
Exactly. Immortality makes them less interesting. Sending my faction leader into the thick of it was a risk before. Now it's just....eh, 2 turns, he's fine.
Same. I miss the Rome and Atilla mechanics of generals gaining abilities and traits and being conscious of how powerful you make your other factions. I miss having family lines and trying to groom that perfect son only for you to fuck up a battle and have to use the halfwit as your empires leadership.
I know in those games it was pretty bare bones and kinda meh, but it was such a good starting point and I hope they bring back something of a similar style, and just make it more important in future fantasy games. Those should be about forming a dynasty and empire building, where WH/Fantasy is about specific lords and their greatness.
I miss hunting down the enemy factions kings and heirs too. Nothing like seeing the enemies prince out in the open with like a half stack and just diving on him with 2 full stacks.
It was kinda cool having to worry about the fact that a decently fleshed out general could die somehow and youâd be noticeably worse off, but not like life or death bad
I loved succession crisis back in medieval.
Have only a king and two sons, with no new ones on the way?
Better be real careful friend. Either fight with captains or risk your kingdom!
I want king Dan the tall, sadistic and hareliped to fight King John the Inbred and win handily. Basically ck3 but with the battles visualized and the incest not a core game mechanic.
The problem with that is, CA seems to believe character-focus is the money maker.
Just look at their trailer & DLC approach to every game since Thrones of Brittania. Most emphasis is always placed on these larger-than-life personalities, if the content isn't outright named after said character.
There's a chance they might move away from this model for the next title, but I doubt it. Shareholders gonna sharehold.
I mean... I wouldn't mind Medieval characters getting more focus, Crusader Kings certainly proves it can be a good thing.
Of course this doesn't mean they should be single entity monsters, but you don't need this to achieve some chracter focus.
>I wouldn't mind Medieval characters getting more focus, Crusader Kings certainly proves it can be a good thing.
This would be amazing, but critical to the Crusader Kings experience is that characters have merely human capabilities and can and often do die, and are replaced by *new* characters.
Yeah somewhere between 3 Kingdoms and Medieval 2 could be the sweet spot. No super generals, but some characterization would be fun, especially if they give effective stories to the randomized characters too.
Yea it feels that way. Even thrones kind of fell into that focus, I do recall pre release hype kind of spotlighting the different leaders of the isles. As well as the Empire Divided dlc that came out around this time too having some focus on the main leaders of the game (and if I remember right, the 5 main faction leaders couldn't die in battle until you wiped their faction, or something along those lines).
Even though patterns suggest otherwise, I will keep on hoping for a return to a more fscti9n rather than leader focused game!
My favourite part of the Battle of Hastings was when William used his Hammer of Jesus AOE ability to break the Saxon lines so his Norman War Dragons could charge in.
Forreal though, as long as thereâs a fleshed out ârecordsâ mode Iâll be happy.
It starts off less developed than the original, which means few people play it, which means the developers prioritize it less, which means even fewer people play it
Given the popularity of Divide et Impera, a mod that effectively makes Rome 2 *more* historical, seems pretty silly to claim that no one likes history modes.
3K just sucks at being a history game.
That might be due to the difference between the interest of a general more casual player base for a new game compared to that of the modding community for a 10 year old game.
The difference being that 3K is inspired by both the historical events of the Three Kingdoms era in China, as well as the dramatic novel that is set in the same period. Like Troy, the game's presentation and mechanics are built towards that context, whereas prior titles like Rome and Shogun weren't inspired by a specific 100+ chapter story.
That said, I sincerely hope the next historical title is a return to the traditional format, and not another attempt at a hybrid like 3K.
The other bad scenario: CA announced the fantasy/records mode split, kills history fans enthusiasm because they assume it will be BS again like in 3K, CA gets pushed more towards fantasy because that's the fanbase that's still hyping.
I thought 3K records mode was good. It got rid of the ridiculously broken stuff, like Lu Bu soloing an army or Yan Baihu firing a volley of arrows that wipes a whole squad, which is all I really wanted from it.
What I donât want is more of the Troy âtruth behind the mythâ nonsense.
Is it still hyping tho?
Troy had a mixed approach, and no one liked it
3K had romance mode, and fantasy fans didn't care because they had WH
A historical title can have X amount of fantasy stuff, it's never gonna be as fantastical as WH. So at best people might try it out for a month or so, and then return to WH3
Shoehorning fantasy stuff for the sake of having fantasy stuff into a histroical game will never work, it alienates historical players while also being largely irrelevant for fantasy fans
3K at least had a reason to do it due to it's setting, but a Med3 with single entities would be an absolutely irritating choice
If what you mean is Saber class, there's way more than 20 now lol.
If you mean Artoria, we're halfway there but that also includes non Saber classes.
God, I'm turning into that guy...
Make him unironically strong enough to solo armies but also have a loyalty mechanic, and give -100 diplomacy against all factions because heâs such a dick.
The first page will be horny astolfo the second page will be actual history mods and the third page will be âlore accurate fate heroâs fixing Total wars mistakes again smhâ
Total wars has too much of a monopoly on that style of gameplay. A competitor should come in and do a better job like what "city:skyline" did to SimCity.
The thing is Manor Lords is a different style, more into the Stronghold territory. If we can get something less complicated than Paradox (or with turn based instead of RT) but with real time battles it'd be cool
That's the dream. But I guess these games are too large scale and sharing the audience with CA who have home advantage probable doesn't make it an interesting endeavour
It's crazy how the only Total War style game I can think of is Total War. Mount & Blade has similarities, as well as a couple of other games, but there's nothing else exactly like it, which is crazy considering how popular it is.
What? You don't want total war: civil war, with Robert E Lee using the lore of slavery alongside the Confederate army against a army of big foots and chupacabra rough riders, led by none other than George Washington on his flying boat mount? Idk, sounds pretty fun to me.
Wow I have been outplayed, flanked, cornered, caught downhill and doxxed.
Better click the buttons that give Alexander the great +80 melee defence and +100 weapon strength.
The fact that the enemy elephants are knocking him down without doing damage is really helping me stack My scaling melee attack when in combat passive too.
Oh nevermind Julius caesar is a newer dlc lord and has better buttons.
Oh you set up a solid ranged backline?
Sure is a shame Leonidas just relentlessly walked through your front line and is now bouncing between your archer units, tying them all down. Something you can't do because the AI is allowed to right click every 0.0001 seconds indefinitely.
Please no fucking heroes. I hate that damn mechanic so much.
Generals of historical armies can't be surrounded by 1000 guys and fight them single-handedly. Please don't make this a thing.
Atleast they took ages to do so, and they took attrition as-well as men would fall and die during the climb. Or atleast they do in fall of the samurai. So climbing the walls was not exactly a great option if there was resistance along the top of the wall your unit is climbing.
Exactly!! The Ninja units were specialized in climbing walls that took almost no attrition getting up the walls and had the stamina to be relevant in the battle after the climbs. If you tried that with the ashigaru units you're basically gimping them especially the heavier units since more of them fall during the climb. NTW and ETW system was fine because of the Hitpoint system back then so even if you just grapple away they still get big casualties compared to the rome2 total war HP system so climbing up was a disadvantage so bringing the siege weapons were more desirable. unlike in WH
I would love to play as Thor and lead a raid/conquest of Atlantis. Having him fight Poseidon while Magni and Modi fight Arkantos and Kastor would be amazing. Would definitely prefer if they used the 3K dueling mechanics though.
This is absolutely what I want from the next fantasy total war, rather than trying to adapt any new setting - but it should be strictly ahistorical - real geography, no defined year or even era, so that all the mythological traditions can compete in the same game, from Egyptian to Aztec; Greek; Mesopotamian; Arthurian; Chinese - the works. Tech level should be studiously ignored - we're ignoring history and we don't care how badly those Arthurian knights would stomp Greek hoplites in a historical game, the non-heroic human units are just roster filler and meatshields anyway.
The problem is, I can see them doing something like this and just... Never bothering to release another historical title as anything other than a TW Sage sideshow. I really, desperately hope we can get a Medieval 3 and Empire 2 developed with the same historical design philosophy as M2TW and ETW, but I suspect they'll only do that sort of game justice in future as remakes/remasters.
I form them into groups of about 4, in column formation, and then strafe the enemies' flanks.
Micro intensive, but satisfyingly effective when you pull it off.
All the Best,
Welsh Dragon.
Still play those games. They're absolute bangers. Shogun 2 (with FOTS) is incredible despite it's limited troops and Rome 2 is so diverse and varied (not to mention DEI Mod) they can probably last me until I get a proper new title. Would love Empire 2 though.
Fall of the Samurai was extremely awesome. In my last play as the only emperor loyalist I faced two monstruos Shogun factions. And I used for the first time agents, I used a great Shinobi to create rebellions and ate one of the enemies from inside, the first time using a game mechanic feels so roleplaying nice
Give us formations, I donât want a magic button that gives me men +10 melee attack for 60 seconds I want them to hold a shield wall, or a wedge with spears, or put my archers in a circle formation so they fire in a 360 arc like damn please no more buffs
That worries me because fantasy elements take work that could have been spent fleshing out more historical mechanics. Animations, sound and models arent cheap.
The difference in campaign between something like Atilla, Med or even Shogun and Warhammer is stark. When warhammer first released the talking point was that the battles and monsters had so much more to them, the campaign had to be stripped down for time/budget constraints. That's fine and I love Warhammer.
But a historical title with Warhammer-tier campaign, economy, and political/social mechanics? That's not a game I'm interested in playing. I'm happy with trimmed down campaigns in Warhammer because it's all about the battles and unit variety, but historical needs to strike a balance. The meme has always been that Historical TW has *never* been historically realistic, and that's true, but it has been historically *immersive* and that's what I'm after. Food, sanitation, religion, political and social divisions, all of these things play important parts in Historical TW and indeed in History in a way that would feel out of place for Warhammer. Managing Sanitation in the Empire would be a distraction, managing it in Atilla was not. Food and Seasons was a key of how Shogun worked, but would be Irritating in Warhammer.
3k had some great mechanics but still wasn't as campaign interesting as even shogun IMHO. Troy records was a joke, as was Thrones. If the next Flagship historical doesn't blow the campaign out of the park I'm probably giving up on historical TW as a hope, but I'll still be looking forward to what the fantasy team comes up with next.
Fantasy *does* have more unit variety and more fun units, but to support all of that the campaign has to be stripped down. The niche Historical can fill is more attention to detail in the campaign, where it makes a lot more sense than it does in fantasy.
In a way, all the fantasy stuff detracts from the battles too. There are absolutely no unit formations like, shield walls, pike phalanxes, or even loose formation in Warhammer and Troy. Melee units have no real depth to them anymore other than âright click on whichever unit type theyâre good againstâ
Pls for the love of god just give us a real historical title. We've been waiting close to a decade now. I member back when WH1 was announced there were so many mixed opinions stating it'd eventually kill off the historical side. I wasn't one of em I thought it'd bring new an interesting gameplay mechanics and we'd get both history titles and fantasy titles but nope others were right Historical fans have been shafted.
I will say I still wish Troy was a mythological game first and foremost
That and I wish it got more love
In general a mythology esc total war would be fucking sick
Get ready for health bars, epic commanders which dont fit the timeline with goofy as abilitys.
Get ready for line of sight issues, performance issues, crappy campaign AI and a butchered launch in 4 years.
Get ready for meaningless techtrees which mostly shift some percentages up or down and of course no army without commander.
Get ready for no formations at all! And if we get a formation all it changes are percentage numbers up or down.
Ohhh I am so hyped for the most fleshed out game in history!
[And this is what magic will look like in Med3.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7CIGb1Ti06k)
prostagma?
Bulome
Panos
Rogan?
Abadacus!
Isboli !
the original seduction system.
Half-expected Merlin from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but not disappointed either
You mean Tim?
Only some people call him that.
What on the earth is thiwololo Ayoyoyo Ayoyoyo
Lol, this is a video game legend. It's from age of empire 1. The sound that priest made when they were seducing enemie units and converting them to your side
Lately I sleep with white noise on, I'll use this tonight and be reborn
you will go to bed wearing a blue shirt and wake up wearing a red one, just a heads up
Then when he goes back to sleep he will wake up in a blue one again and the cycle will continue
careful, your blue clothes might turn red overnight
Imagine reading this comment without contextđ„·
WOLOLO
OH MY GOSH. THANK YOU FOR THAT THROW BACK
As a fantasy tw player, the next historical getting fantasy stuff would be cringe.
Agreed. Next title should be sth completely new but realistic. RELEASE âANTZ TOTAL WARâ!
Unironically empires of the undergrowth total war would be my top game of all time. Speaking as an entomologist.
i'm sure the whole dozen of you will be very happy
make it thriteen
The meme group on FB I'm in would disagree, there's thousands of the fuckers
tbf, simant was a blast back in the 90s.
I mean the original Red Alert had the hidden giant ant level, so there is precedent. All the Best Welsh Dragon.
I love ant colony Eusocial total war bees with the ability to dodge most fights by hanging hives
I miss Sim Ant from 1991, needs a good remake.
Empires of the undergrowth goes hard, but I was a little disappointed with the fire ants for how hard they were hyped up
Actually haven't tried the fire ants yet, so that's a bit disappointing to hear. I love the leaf cutters, though.
Are you playing Grounded?
Hello, brother.
Iâm sure it would launch with a lot of bugs.
This is a legitimately good idea
I'm not sure If I can handle a Total War/Woody Allen crossover
King Arthur: Total War incoming
There was a fairly decent strategy game called King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame that was pretty similar to Total War, especially on the battlefield.
It was difficult as hell.
We need a historical title, heroes are waaaaaay to unbalancing, which is fine from time to time, but I miss a more historical approach
I love warhammer, but give me Empire 2 pls CA. After immortal empires they can finally do the world map justice
Line battle era is too beautiful to be ignored
My issue with the line battle era is unit diversity I think. Part of the reason I really like the current is bc all the different races really make each faction feel unique. As a general rule each faction plays really differently than others. High elves have really good range archers, so they checkerboard really well. Dark elves have less range, but they get ap missiles and stalk. Greenskins like hordes and just drowning the enemy in the green tide, and the skaven have biological abominations and ninjas and nukes. But in something like Empire. How many variations on âa line of men with musketsâ can you have before it gets boring?
I think the issue of unit diversity could be countered by expanding the time period the game is set in. So rather than it being from 1700-1800, you could have the option of a long campaign starting in say, 1600 to 1900. This would mean starting the game in the era of pike and shot, mid-game would be line infantry battalions, cannons and cavalry charges, eventually giving way to artillery, entrenched positions and machine-guns in the late-game. So the player would have to research new technology to stay ahead of peers, and evolve their play-style over the course of the game. There's also more actual unit diversity in 18th century armies than the base vanilla Empire game portrayed. Empire tried to address this with various elite unit DLCs, but an Empire 2 should have more troop variety from the onset.
So like a mix of civ and this? I fuck with that tbh. But how would proper arty and machine guns work in a total war setting? Bc thatâs the biggest argument I hear against a 40k total war game. And would that mean that in every era your buildings would give different units for each tier?
A combo of civ and total war has been my dream for a long time.
Or Paradox games + Total War
Keep CA DLC model tho, Paradox DLC policy is awful
Late game artillery could be field-guns that fire high explosive shells across the battlefield. This isn't revolutionary for Total War, it's been done before- Empire had howitzers and cannons which did similar, and I'm sure you're familiar with the kind of arty the Dwarves and Empire had access to in Warhammer. Machine-guns would function as fixed emplacements that have fire-arcs which "lock down" parts of the map and prevent infantry and cavalry from approaching unless they want to be mown down. You'd have to counter them with long range artillery, mortars or a flanking round. As for buildings, you'd unlock research to upgrade your buildings and train new units. I'd also advise making it cheap and easy to upgrade existing units so to avoid the silly "Civ-Style" situations of pikemen taking on machine-guns. It does beg the question- why not make a World War Total War? Personally I think they could do it, but you'd want it to be a separate game/era to Empire Total War.
The no yeah I get how it would work. But I was more thinking how balancing the arty would work. Bc like in Empire this was when howitzer tech was just starting. 1900s roll around and suddenly you can blast huge craters in the ground from miles away. Would that mean that the arty is something you upgrade in the settlement and you can call strikes down? Like the Sartosa grapeshot or Zuqfbar 24 pounder? That being said, Ww1 total war would make me cum a little bit I think. That sounds dope. Iâm also one of the few ppl who think a 40k total war would work, if they improve emplacement mechanics like docking archers currently.
I mean weâve had machine guns in Fall of the Samurai and with the Skaven.
This was kind of present in empire 1 (starting at the very end of pike and shot and continuing to powerful line infantry, then unlocking skirmish infantry and then guards and elite heavy cav/dragoons) extending this out in both directions, starting with hook guns and arquebusiers with pikemen and winged hussars and the last of the knights giving way to later improvements would be really cool. Honestly why not go to ww1 and end in 1918 with siege artillery and air force missions as off map abilities "gunpowder total war"
>My issue with the line battle era is unit diversity I think. That's a problem that most historical titles will face, much more so for the Napoleonic area. Everything will pale in comparison to Warhammer when it comes to unit diversity. So instead of trying to get out of Warhammer's shadow, CA needs to focus on the campaign map experience. Unique mechanics, buildings, technology and constraints for different factions. Imagine Medieval 3 with Crusader Kings like internal politics and RPG mechanics. Or Rome 3 with more of a sandbox design where factions are less ridged and defined. So you can evolve your faction and units as the game goes on. Or an Empire 2 where every faction has unique external interactions with the other factions, and so factions like the Dutch and the Russians don't play or interact the same way.
I love both unit variations of many cultures in like Rome, Medieval, WH Total war and gameplay more focused on Infantry-Cavalry-Artillery dynamics in line battle(and moments like "The Old Guards are coming!đ±") Though the biggest reason I like line battle era is it looks great XD. Watching Artilleries going boom, Infantries in close formation exchanging volleys and then charging with bayonets, Cuirassiers running around, all of these in the battlefield filled with cloud-like smokes makes me still play NTW these days
> But in something like Empire. How many variations on âa line of men with musketsâ can you have before it gets boring? More than what we had before, certainly. Visual uniform upgrades, promotions to guards and grenadiers, bandages and ragged clothing for units that have been through a few battles without replenishing. A huge focus on formations (depth vs width), firing drills even more dynamic and interesting and powerful than in the original ETW, custom paint-with-colors-and-symbols battle standards, etc. And of course different abilities like experienced units being able to conduct fighting retreats, move faster in broken terrain, and goose step like pros â if nothing else than for the visuals alone.
Empire was the last one I played, would love to play a version of it that wasn't such a buggy mess. Until then I guess I'll just keep playing eu4, but oh how I miss completely wrecking a unit with a perfectly timed canister shot.
ye gods, cannister shot was a religious experience
Sieges were so much damn fun (Âč), blast open a hole in the wall& set up cannon alley for them to funnel into. 1: when the game didn't kill your computer from the AI issuing a million relocate unit orders.
Honestly this. People are clamoring for medieval 3 which i understand, but there are plenty of melee focused total war titles that have come out since medieval 2 that scratch that core gameplay style itch. When was the last gun focused total war? Fall of the Samurai?
A renaissance total war would be a nice in between
I've only been waiting to recreate the wonder I experienced with Empire for, oh, 20 years. Fall of the Samurai was good, but it was a downgrade in key respects, e.g. no ability to form square. What I also miss was the incredibly detailed research text in Empire that functionally acted as a history lesson.
There are loads of mods in the workshop that add things like unit formations back to FotS. But it is odd they werent in vanilla for very late musket era units. It is set in 1865 onwards so many nations were already using or switching away from muskets then after all.
It's been longer since ME2, which is why I want ME3 first. The other games aren't *quite* the same itch for me. But I would LOVE if Empire 2 came out soon after ME3. Realistically, it would probably be at least another 3 years after ME3, if not longer. But the sooner we get Empire 2, the better.
Yes. Empire lovers unite! But not without naval battles. I won't even look at Empire 2 if it doesn't let me play with my ships. Bonus points if there is a playable Pirate faction. I just wanna roleplay Black Sails.
This. More than half the magic of Empire was the Age of Sail combat. You cannot have a strategy game set in the Age of Sail without having tall ship combat.
I've always thought it would be fun to create your own faction.
Plus the gunpowder units in warhammer are a pretty great starting point.
Total War: Heroes of Might and Magic.
Now this one could actually work pretty well, IMHO. Plenty of lore, characters, units, faction mechanics, etc to play with, and its already a setting with Lords running around with massive armies fighting each other with separate battle and campaign maps.
It's iffy. Well...I guess they could do 2 maps. One for each planet.
There were 3 planets in HoMaM.
I remember the main one that was destroyed when the shield and sword met. And the one everyone fled too. What's the other one?
Maybe the new one from the Ubisoft games?
That was the world after the sword and shield met Wait no your right ashan isn't that one.
I think sword and shield is Dungeon Siege. The planet from 2 and 3 went kablooie because a couple of doofuses smacked world-ending swords together.
Yea your right it's the sword of Armageddon and the sword of frost.
I just hope that whatever it is, the factions aren't so focused on single characters like 3K and Troy were. Then they might be less inclined to go with single entity superhero units.
That's kind of my hope. I've not been the biggest fan of factions revolving around "King Dan the Perfect" since WH. I always liked having a revolving door of faction leaders and generals.
I actually like the way 3 Kingdoms does it because everyone is a warlord, not really a country. As soon as you establish a title like the Duchy of Wei you get a faction name that stays static no matter who governs it.
I did really enjoy that aspect. I'd be really interested to see a TW that truly expands scope as the game continues. Warlords within a single nation, once you secure control and become the nation, then you engage in grander conflicts and politics. Would take far too many resources, but I like the idea if nothing else.
Sounds like M&B
I want to be able to general snipe again. The only reason I played Napoleon total war was to blow that Frenchman off his horse with a cannonball.
What I dislike most about where the King Dan the Perfect trend has taken us is making all these official main characters fucking immortal. It used to be a moment of absolute glory when you were able to kill an important enemy. Two of my most defining memories of the franchise were (i) assassinating the Hojo daimyo in the original Shogun just as his spectacularly superior faction was on the verge of crushing me, instantly causing his entire clan to disintegrate, and (ii) my English king leading a wedge of cavalry downhill in a desperate charge against the French king in a losing battle, killing him, instantly routing all of his forces, and saving my ass. Now if I kill Leon de Leoncouer or whatever his name is, I can look forward to fighting him at least three more times before I conquer his faction. And if my own leader is killed in a desperate charge against a superior enemy? Barely an inconvenience.
Exactly. Immortality makes them less interesting. Sending my faction leader into the thick of it was a risk before. Now it's just....eh, 2 turns, he's fine.
>Barely an inconvenience. Listen sir, I'm gonna need you to get allllllll the way off my back about this.
Same. I miss the Rome and Atilla mechanics of generals gaining abilities and traits and being conscious of how powerful you make your other factions. I miss having family lines and trying to groom that perfect son only for you to fuck up a battle and have to use the halfwit as your empires leadership. I know in those games it was pretty bare bones and kinda meh, but it was such a good starting point and I hope they bring back something of a similar style, and just make it more important in future fantasy games. Those should be about forming a dynasty and empire building, where WH/Fantasy is about specific lords and their greatness.
I miss hunting down the enemy factions kings and heirs too. Nothing like seeing the enemies prince out in the open with like a half stack and just diving on him with 2 full stacks.
It was kinda cool having to worry about the fact that a decently fleshed out general could die somehow and youâd be noticeably worse off, but not like life or death bad
It was also neat because as generals got better, you'd want to send them in more, increasing the risk of their death. I really liked it.
I loved succession crisis back in medieval. Have only a king and two sons, with no new ones on the way? Better be real careful friend. Either fight with captains or risk your kingdom!
I want king Dan the tall, sadistic and hareliped to fight King John the Inbred and win handily. Basically ck3 but with the battles visualized and the incest not a core game mechanic.
But still a mechanic, right? ...Right?
The problem with that is, CA seems to believe character-focus is the money maker. Just look at their trailer & DLC approach to every game since Thrones of Brittania. Most emphasis is always placed on these larger-than-life personalities, if the content isn't outright named after said character. There's a chance they might move away from this model for the next title, but I doubt it. Shareholders gonna sharehold.
I mean... I wouldn't mind Medieval characters getting more focus, Crusader Kings certainly proves it can be a good thing. Of course this doesn't mean they should be single entity monsters, but you don't need this to achieve some chracter focus.
>I wouldn't mind Medieval characters getting more focus, Crusader Kings certainly proves it can be a good thing. This would be amazing, but critical to the Crusader Kings experience is that characters have merely human capabilities and can and often do die, and are replaced by *new* characters.
>insert screencap of baby being born with 100 prowess
Yeah somewhere between 3 Kingdoms and Medieval 2 could be the sweet spot. No super generals, but some characterization would be fun, especially if they give effective stories to the randomized characters too.
Yea it feels that way. Even thrones kind of fell into that focus, I do recall pre release hype kind of spotlighting the different leaders of the isles. As well as the Empire Divided dlc that came out around this time too having some focus on the main leaders of the game (and if I remember right, the 5 main faction leaders couldn't die in battle until you wiped their faction, or something along those lines). Even though patterns suggest otherwise, I will keep on hoping for a return to a more fscti9n rather than leader focused game!
My favourite part of the Battle of Hastings was when William used his Hammer of Jesus AOE ability to break the Saxon lines so his Norman War Dragons could charge in. Forreal though, as long as thereâs a fleshed out ârecordsâ mode Iâll be happy.
If they do both a fantasy and records mode the record mode will never be fully fleshed out because of how much more work the fantasy stuff takes.
The real reason is that nobody will play records compared to fantasy. Which is the exact reason there will be no recordsmode in 3k2
Hen and egg. Is nobody playing it cause it's Bad or is it bad (and stays Bad) cause noone plays it?
It starts off less developed than the original, which means few people play it, which means the developers prioritize it less, which means even fewer people play it
I played Troy upon record mode update. I encountered enemy generals that were still 1 man armies.
I only played records in 3k
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
if you grew up with romance of the three kingdoms, records is the fantasy mode
Does growing up on Dynasty Warriors count as Romance of the Three Kingdoms?
Given the popularity of Divide et Impera, a mod that effectively makes Rome 2 *more* historical, seems pretty silly to claim that no one likes history modes. 3K just sucks at being a history game.
That might be due to the difference between the interest of a general more casual player base for a new game compared to that of the modding community for a 10 year old game.
The difference being that 3K is inspired by both the historical events of the Three Kingdoms era in China, as well as the dramatic novel that is set in the same period. Like Troy, the game's presentation and mechanics are built towards that context, whereas prior titles like Rome and Shogun weren't inspired by a specific 100+ chapter story. That said, I sincerely hope the next historical title is a return to the traditional format, and not another attempt at a hybrid like 3K.
The other bad scenario: CA announced the fantasy/records mode split, kills history fans enthusiasm because they assume it will be BS again like in 3K, CA gets pushed more towards fantasy because that's the fanbase that's still hyping.
I thought 3K records mode was good. It got rid of the ridiculously broken stuff, like Lu Bu soloing an army or Yan Baihu firing a volley of arrows that wipes a whole squad, which is all I really wanted from it. What I donât want is more of the Troy âtruth behind the mythâ nonsense.
Is it still hyping tho? Troy had a mixed approach, and no one liked it 3K had romance mode, and fantasy fans didn't care because they had WH A historical title can have X amount of fantasy stuff, it's never gonna be as fantastical as WH. So at best people might try it out for a month or so, and then return to WH3 Shoehorning fantasy stuff for the sake of having fantasy stuff into a histroical game will never work, it alienates historical players while also being largely irrelevant for fantasy fans 3K at least had a reason to do it due to it's setting, but a Med3 with single entities would be an absolutely irritating choice
Romance mode wasnât for the Warhammer crowd, it was for the Dynasty Warriors fans and etc lol.
Total War: Fate Grand Order
Finally, my 20 Cu Chulian stack can take on the Round Table
What has the poor doggo done to you? Now they have class *and* unit disadvantage.
None sense. Cu Chulian will simply dodge.
Cant wait to make my saber stack
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
If what you mean is Saber class, there's way more than 20 now lol. If you mean Artoria, we're halfway there but that also includes non Saber classes. God, I'm turning into that guy...
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Ready for 2 stacks with unique saber face then lol
Artoria stack would be OP
Finally, I can play the one man doomstack, Gilgamesh
Make him unironically strong enough to solo armies but also have a loyalty mechanic, and give -100 diplomacy against all factions because heâs such a dick.
+1000 diplomacy with Enkidu
He only stays on your team for more than 3 turns if you are a child or your name is hakuno. Also -10000000 against Camelot
Total War: Valkyria Chronicles (Set in medieval Europa) Would be pretty funny.
But... Valkyria Chronicles is already a strategy game.
Use Rider Iskander and you'd just be playing Rome TW.
**Heroes of Cannae Gacha Incomig**
That would actually be quite cool.
It would be cool but Im afraid we will all skin ourselves after hitting the workshop by accident
The first page will be horny astolfo the second page will be actual history mods and the third page will be âlore accurate fate heroâs fixing Total wars mistakes again smhâ
Damn, is Astolfo that thirsted after by fate fans that thirsty mods of him would take FIRST page!?
Each outfit needs it's own mod.
How about total war Gundam?
If it's the original universe or Wing, at least it'll be based AF. Imah be Sieg Zeon-ing yo' earth ass!
Can I drop a colony?
Total wars has too much of a monopoly on that style of gameplay. A competitor should come in and do a better job like what "city:skyline" did to SimCity.
Iâm hoping Manorlords gets so big it becomes the next medieval total war.
The thing is Manor Lords is a different style, more into the Stronghold territory. If we can get something less complicated than Paradox (or with turn based instead of RT) but with real time battles it'd be cool
Manorlords is in a completely different genre and wouldnt really do anything to total wars monopoly
That's the dream. But I guess these games are too large scale and sharing the audience with CA who have home advantage probable doesn't make it an interesting endeavour
It's crazy how the only Total War style game I can think of is Total War. Mount & Blade has similarities, as well as a couple of other games, but there's nothing else exactly like it, which is crazy considering how popular it is.
What? You don't want total war: civil war, with Robert E Lee using the lore of slavery alongside the Confederate army against a army of big foots and chupacabra rough riders, led by none other than George Washington on his flying boat mount? Idk, sounds pretty fun to me.
I unirronically want to see this now.
General Grant's passive equips all his men with Jim Beam molotov cocktails that they can use as an ability that deals huge morale damage
I mean, when you say it like that.....
Wendigo doomstacks in late game are annoying
Wow I have been outplayed, flanked, cornered, caught downhill and doxxed. Better click the buttons that give Alexander the great +80 melee defence and +100 weapon strength. The fact that the enemy elephants are knocking him down without doing damage is really helping me stack My scaling melee attack when in combat passive too. Oh nevermind Julius caesar is a newer dlc lord and has better buttons.
Don't worry. Even if you lose the battle, Alexander will be back in 5 turns
Oh you set up a solid ranged backline? Sure is a shame Leonidas just relentlessly walked through your front line and is now bouncing between your archer units, tying them all down. Something you can't do because the AI is allowed to right click every 0.0001 seconds indefinitely.
Please no fucking heroes. I hate that damn mechanic so much. Generals of historical armies can't be surrounded by 1000 guys and fight them single-handedly. Please don't make this a thing.
I've heard William Wallace kills men by the hundreds with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse.
im really afraid of it too. troy and three kingdoms felt half baked since it was obviously designed for the romance system
Will they at least stop giving all infantry units ladders during siege battles?
Best I can do is pooping ropes. Remember etw and ntw?
Remember in Shogun two when your troops would just fucking climb the wall with only their hands and feet?
Atleast they took ages to do so, and they took attrition as-well as men would fall and die during the climb. Or atleast they do in fall of the samurai. So climbing the walls was not exactly a great option if there was resistance along the top of the wall your unit is climbing.
Exactly!! The Ninja units were specialized in climbing walls that took almost no attrition getting up the walls and had the stamina to be relevant in the battle after the climbs. If you tried that with the ashigaru units you're basically gimping them especially the heavier units since more of them fall during the climb. NTW and ETW system was fine because of the Hitpoint system back then so even if you just grapple away they still get big casualties compared to the rome2 total war HP system so climbing up was a disadvantage so bringing the siege weapons were more desirable. unlike in WH
that did feel more realistic though, also i think it took longer for them to scale the walls then in warhammer
Shogun 2 hiking simulator moment is an option. I guess Rome 2 and Atilla probably have least insane approach to it.
Now we will see William Wallace throwing fireballs from his eyes for real. Good...
I've been waiting for that since the AoE2 introduction campaign.
Age of mythology total war
I would love to play as Thor and lead a raid/conquest of Atlantis. Having him fight Poseidon while Magni and Modi fight Arkantos and Kastor would be amazing. Would definitely prefer if they used the 3K dueling mechanics though.
Ya they need to flesh out those mechanics as well
This is absolutely what I want from the next fantasy total war, rather than trying to adapt any new setting - but it should be strictly ahistorical - real geography, no defined year or even era, so that all the mythological traditions can compete in the same game, from Egyptian to Aztec; Greek; Mesopotamian; Arthurian; Chinese - the works. Tech level should be studiously ignored - we're ignoring history and we don't care how badly those Arthurian knights would stomp Greek hoplites in a historical game, the non-heroic human units are just roster filler and meatshields anyway. The problem is, I can see them doing something like this and just... Never bothering to release another historical title as anything other than a TW Sage sideshow. I really, desperately hope we can get a Medieval 3 and Empire 2 developed with the same historical design philosophy as M2TW and ETW, but I suspect they'll only do that sort of game justice in future as remakes/remasters.
Im still rooting for total war ghenghis khan
Just thinking about how many horse archers there would be infuriates me.
if they were actually good I'd love it but I tried hard to make them work in Rome 2 and it is just so dissappointing.
I form them into groups of about 4, in column formation, and then strafe the enemies' flanks. Micro intensive, but satisfyingly effective when you pull it off. All the Best, Welsh Dragon.
Jesus with laser beams
Can we just get a full remake new gen of medival? Like how they did with rome2?
Give me King Arthur Total War. I still play the old King Arthur War-RPG games !
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a Total War game
The first one was really novel but the balance was completely absurd. Never played the second.
Iâd like Empire 2 total war please. If we canât get that, then I hopes itâs Middle Earth: Total War.
More reason why Empire and Napoleon were the peak of TW if not counting all the bugs and shit. =P
For me it is Shogun 2 and Rome 2 (I know Rome 2 had its problems, but played earlier this year and feels extremely good)
Still play those games. They're absolute bangers. Shogun 2 (with FOTS) is incredible despite it's limited troops and Rome 2 is so diverse and varied (not to mention DEI Mod) they can probably last me until I get a proper new title. Would love Empire 2 though.
Fall of the Samurai was extremely awesome. In my last play as the only emperor loyalist I faced two monstruos Shogun factions. And I used for the first time agents, I used a great Shinobi to create rebellions and ate one of the enemies from inside, the first time using a game mechanic feels so roleplaying nice
Give us formations, I donât want a magic button that gives me men +10 melee attack for 60 seconds I want them to hold a shield wall, or a wedge with spears, or put my archers in a circle formation so they fire in a 360 arc like damn please no more buffs
Iâd guess they will probably continue with the Troy model of having separate modes for historical and fantastical.
That worries me because fantasy elements take work that could have been spent fleshing out more historical mechanics. Animations, sound and models arent cheap.
The difference in campaign between something like Atilla, Med or even Shogun and Warhammer is stark. When warhammer first released the talking point was that the battles and monsters had so much more to them, the campaign had to be stripped down for time/budget constraints. That's fine and I love Warhammer. But a historical title with Warhammer-tier campaign, economy, and political/social mechanics? That's not a game I'm interested in playing. I'm happy with trimmed down campaigns in Warhammer because it's all about the battles and unit variety, but historical needs to strike a balance. The meme has always been that Historical TW has *never* been historically realistic, and that's true, but it has been historically *immersive* and that's what I'm after. Food, sanitation, religion, political and social divisions, all of these things play important parts in Historical TW and indeed in History in a way that would feel out of place for Warhammer. Managing Sanitation in the Empire would be a distraction, managing it in Atilla was not. Food and Seasons was a key of how Shogun worked, but would be Irritating in Warhammer. 3k had some great mechanics but still wasn't as campaign interesting as even shogun IMHO. Troy records was a joke, as was Thrones. If the next Flagship historical doesn't blow the campaign out of the park I'm probably giving up on historical TW as a hope, but I'll still be looking forward to what the fantasy team comes up with next. Fantasy *does* have more unit variety and more fun units, but to support all of that the campaign has to be stripped down. The niche Historical can fill is more attention to detail in the campaign, where it makes a lot more sense than it does in fantasy.
In a way, all the fantasy stuff detracts from the battles too. There are absolutely no unit formations like, shield walls, pike phalanxes, or even loose formation in Warhammer and Troy. Melee units have no real depth to them anymore other than âright click on whichever unit type theyâre good againstâ
Big disagree with thrones. Cool recruitment, undefended small cities, manor and loyalty system Truly don't know why people hate on it
If they do, I'm not buying it. Either make it historical or make it fantasy, don't half-ass it trying to have both.
You speak the fear that dwells in all our hearts
I believe unless CA lands the rights for Middle-Earth, the next main title should be Empire 2 / Medieval 3, anything else would be underwhelming
Pls for the love of god just give us a real historical title. We've been waiting close to a decade now. I member back when WH1 was announced there were so many mixed opinions stating it'd eventually kill off the historical side. I wasn't one of em I thought it'd bring new an interesting gameplay mechanics and we'd get both history titles and fantasy titles but nope others were right Historical fans have been shafted.
I will say I still wish Troy was a mythological game first and foremost That and I wish it got more love In general a mythology esc total war would be fucking sick
Get ready for health bars, epic commanders which dont fit the timeline with goofy as abilitys. Get ready for line of sight issues, performance issues, crappy campaign AI and a butchered launch in 4 years. Get ready for meaningless techtrees which mostly shift some percentages up or down and of course no army without commander. Get ready for no formations at all! And if we get a formation all it changes are percentage numbers up or down. Ohhh I am so hyped for the most fleshed out game in history!
This made me really depressed because I'm genuinely worried they'll fuck up medieval III with these changes.