The anti-ETW cycle

[D.B. Cooper]

I'm glad CA is trying something new, and personally I think that a Shogun2 would be boring.

[General A. Skywalker]

That sounds gay, every time I read it... each time hoping it would sound less gay.

Well, it's not meant to sound gay, my Swedish friend.
It's just... my love for that epoch is undescribable!!

[Teodosio]

I would love a Rome 2 TW and a Shogun 2 TW!

But I voted Napoleonic TW in that famous poll because I wanted something new for a change... lucky of me!

And let me add more: I hope next game will be 3rd World War TW, with thanks, gunships, atomic bombs and all the rest!

[Roman Clone]

Anakin, You Should've sticked to Padme XD

There's no reason for 10 Medievals, No one really likes that period as well, knights and castles are for kids, roman steel is for [straight ] men.

[Amorphos]

shogun was for me the most personal, it was hard to get a nine star general and they never died so one got quite attached to them. in battle these guys would make a real difference just by their presence and could kill over half a unit.

STW2 is a must at some point, sounds like CA got two teams on the go, so who knows we may get two new games next year!

[La Vache Qui Rit]

shogun was for me the most personal, it was hard to get a nine star general and they never died so one got quite attached to them. in battle these guys would make a real difference just by their presence and could kill over half a unit.

That whole fantasy side of it really put me off. In fact I never bought the Mongol invasions expansion because of this.

I don't think they will be able to do this kind of thing with this setting - thankfully.

[morteduzionism]

lol nakedbarbarian, i have to agree, the negativity and abject fear of change is starting to get really annoying

I don't get the impression it's really a fear of "change" so much as a fear of disappointment.

I think the experiences people had with Medieval: Total War II have them worried that CA is only going to make a different TW game not necessarily a better TW game.

Improving/upgrading trade and diplomacy, incorporating 3D naval battles, expanding into India and adding more factions in Rome: Total War would make the game brand new and different...What it wouldn't be is boring. It would be the game that EVERYONE has wished they could play.

First of all, it's a radical departure from the previous 4 TW's, and I think that's exactly what the series needs: a big change in setting and style of play, which is radical, but keeping with a historical setting, and not going into a fantasy world.

No. Change for the sake of change is nonsensical. Upgrade/improve Rome. Reissue it. Make money. I'd buy another Rome game that promised improved diplomacy/trade.

It's hard to believe but in all 4 games, we've had the same 3 single-unit formations (close, loose, wedge)

umm, what else is there? If you were marching a company of musket infantry to the line and was attacked by grape shot, what formation would you call?

, essentially the same rock-paper-scissors format (archers > spears, spears > cavalry, cavalry > archers),

muskets/flintlocks>pikemen; pikemen>cavalry; cavalry>muskets/flintlocks...so what's going to be different?

and essentially the same strategies (lets be honest, the majority of battles fought are basically an infantry line of spears/pikes/heavy infantry that hold the line until a cavalry flank routs them.

Not me.

Besides that's still pretty much a military doctrine. Hold a line and flank it.

What are you going to do? Outduel artillery? Or are you going to try and flank it?

This has been the same basic format since Shogun with obvious differences for the differing cultures (such as horse archers for eastern nations) etc.

Now they'll be ALL the same. All muskets/flintlocks and cannons. From India to Spain 18th century warfare was pretty much the same...unless you'll get a kick out of sending muskets against cultures/peoples who didn't have the musket(Americas, Africa, India)

Now though, we get a radical departure in the real time land combat. For one, we're going to see new single-unit formations such as column (presenting the smallest frontal target possible), line (maximizing firepower at risk of being spread thin), square (protecting all flanks at cost of firepower).

Isn't "column" a formation currently available? Furthermore, isn't that only used to march into a battle(or did the French fight in columns?) Do you think they'll have an aspect of the game where an army has to march on the battle map? Can't you do the "line" now? Isn't 'shiltron' just like a square?

We'll also for once see the importance of artillery on the battlefield.

hmmm, there's 'artillery' in Rome, isn't it? Couldn't they[CA] just improve the artillery in Rome?

That in turn means that the environment is more important than ever. For example, hiding behind a hill or placing infantry in a ditch may be important to get cover from an enemy bombardment but that might also mean your guys will get one shot off before an enemy charge is on top of your troops.

That sounds like Company of Heroes...lol...

How many men per/unit do expect there will be? You think you can hide a Company(100) of men in a hole?

Placing your units on a hill side may provide longer range of fire, but that can also present a nice open target for enemy artillery.

19th century muskets weren't really effective beyond 100yds. How far do you think 18th century muskets fired?

This also brings up a whole new dimension such as artillery duels. Defending won't be such an easy task anymore either, especially with artillery being effective, meaning that you might not be able to just sit around on a hill with ranged units as you slaughter the enemy trying to approach you.

You probably will. Men would have to deploy under fire. Depending on the range a couple grape shots will totally wipe out gun teams.

Also, cavalry are no longer the kings of the battlefield and that should mean new important strategies.

They're not the kings now(at least not in RTRE)

No longer can cavalry be used to charge a main line and expect victory

You must play Vanilla or Medieval II(besides, that's what cavalry did in the Middle Ages) that's why I say CA should just improve Rome: Total War

A decisive charge, however, can still mean victory, especially on an unprepared line. Not to mention that cavalry taking out artillery and raiding behind the enemy can be a crucial key to victory.

Precisely how they're used in RTRE/Imp II. And isn't this the exact same tactic you eschewed earlier?

Also, it's been stated that there will be a fire command which means micromanagement of units is once again important, and not just the "click on the enemy and let the unit engage and do everything on its own" type of combat. For instance, do you choose to have your units automatically fire at a longer range, and waste ammo, or do you wait until the enemy gets close before unleashing your volley.

Make this a feature of Rome II

Finally with naval combat in and a TW game that spans more than one continent

What do you mean by this? You mean like if I sent a Roman fleet to fight Carthage? Wouldn't that be "spanning more than one continent"?

we might finally see the importance of naval blockades, trade/diplomacy, and expansion.

Make this a feature of Rome II. This improvement alone would make Rome II a totally different game!

Just the mere fact that one can choose between invading one's neighbors or fighting them abroad is making me quite happy.

You mean like if, as Rome, I fought a Carthaginian army in Northern Italy? Or do you mean similar to the relationship of Macedonia and Rome(Macedonia helping Illyria[IIRC]) causing Rome to go to war with Macedonia?


Improving Rome would make a world of differences. It would make it a totally different game.

[Gabriel A]

You can reply to all the quotes you want.

Empire TW FTW

[NakedBarbarian2]

@Morteduziosim
When Rome 2 does come out it will be all the better for all these things being tested in ETW. And when rome 2 comes out i will buy it. But like CA said the napoleonic era was the best era to showcase the new naval battle engine. So you're just gonna have to harden the **** up. We've been waiting years for this. You guys (sword and sandals) have had your way for four games. you can wait for the next game which will almost 100% garuntee will be ancient europe or asia.

[kafka]

you can wait for the next game which will almost 100% garuntee will be ancient europe or asia.

i don't think so based on what CA said in that famous interview

The developers of the Total War games are changing their tactics. Out go suits of armour, big sticks and straightforward conquests of Europe. In come ships. Cannons. Muskets. Steam power. The American Revolution. The race for colonisation. Men in extravagant hats.

I think that they will continue on the path laid out with their new engine. TW will go global. I don't think they will return back to representing just a part of the world, and though I'm sure that the next games will include most continents (Asia for sure) I do not think they will return too early to the pre-gun era after developing a new engine based on the gunpowder-era.
After all with ETW the series has conquered the sea, it's a consequent step to suppose that the next engine will go for conquering the sky.

[NakedBarbarian2]

I honesty don't think CA will take that step too early, given that fanbase support for the new game was roughly 50% napoleon and 50% Rome2, plus trench warfare/ww1 stuff would not make for diverse nor dynamic gameplay, something CA is all about. SO i don't think we have to worry about that for a while.

The quote you gave was in reference to ETW, not the overall creative direction CA is going to take in the future. SO i think its likely that the next game will in fact be RTW2, and if they were to continue along the path of world maps (ie Rome in europe + China in Asia etc) would that b so bad? you never know, they may even take it a step further and have the entire world with HEAPS of ancient playable factions.

[el_dude]

meh i don't know if they'll go for conquering the skies...it seems to me that the CA guys aren't really interested in modern warfare, but who knows? all we know for certain is that naval battles will be a major part of their games from now on, even if they kick it back to roman times

[Teodosio]

I honesty don't think CA will take that step too early, given that fanbase support for the new game was roughly 50% napoleon and 50% Rome2, plus trench warfare/ww1 stuff would not make for diverse nor dynamic gameplay, something CA is all about. SO i don't think we have to worry about that for a while.

Don't worry, a large part of that 50% that voted for Rome 2 is just for a natural, good old fear of changement.
When the game will be out I think it will drop to 5%.
Don't forget that CA is developing a new engine! When we'll experiment the firts battle, with cannon balls flying around, shouts, moskets firing with abundance of smoke and noise, heads cut, and all the rest, we'll forget all this nonsense. Remember they want to sell, they will try to insert plenty of features and strategy to attract as many people as possible.
Probably they will then re-use the engine to do something "safe" for the next game, like a Shogun 2 or Rome 2.
But for the next game with a new engine I really hope to see atomic bombs!

"TO BOLDY GO WHERE NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN BEFORE"

[kafka]

I refer to the development cycle mentioned in that interview: they basically develop two games on a given engine. So, the new engine on which ETW is based will be only used for the game after ETW. When the development of the second game starts, they will also start the development of the new engine. I think that the second and final game based on the new etw engine will also be about the gunpowder era but be more global to encompass still more continents, this won't probably include modern warfare (wwi oe 2) yet, but stick to the timeframe of ETW, more or less. But I guess the first game based on the next engine will be as revolutionary as this one and possibly
enter a totally new part of history, the human conquest of the sky.

Don't get me wrong: It's not about what I'd like to have but about what I think the series will go forward based on that development cycle and the overall evolution of the game market. I loved the melee and charge based games so far, all of them, and I would buy a future TW game based on them again, for sure. But I think that from a developer viewpoint the 'conquering of the sky' is a great challenge and that ca will go for it some time. And, looking at the success games like pacific storm (a reference for the new era strategy games in my eyes) or supreme ruler (though without tactical level battles)had, because of their global approach in modern times, I think this may be the overall direction

[Chlodwig I.]

And where should they go?
after Napoleon?
Colonial TW?
European Armys equiped with guns killing native tribes equip with spears?

And when you go to WW1 or later period
you would have to include tanks, planes, "railroad" Artillery you know these big Artillery Trains etc.
And you would loose this "TW feeling", you know the soldier marching in colums over the battlefield. etc.

I can't see how you will include planes, Artilery and keep the TW feeling

[el_dude]

they're going to the renaissance after ETW (at least i think they should )