Why did CA start with 3K rather than Warring States Period?

[JackDionne]

I was thinking to myself why would CAintroduce Three Kingdoms, rather than the Warring States period inChinese history.


The only thing I can put my finger onis the marketing aspect. Their is no way the Warring States periodcan be a DLC because the time frames differ so much.


What do you guys think, marketing?

[zoner16]

I was thinking to myself why would CAintroduce Three Kingdoms, rather than the Warring States period inChinese history.


The only thing I can put my finger onis the marketing aspect. Their is no way the Warring States periodcan be a DLC because the time frames differ so much.


What do you guys think, marketing?

Three kingdoms are better known, we have better sources, there are more possible mechanics to explore, and the scope is much grander. And if I may, the team probably likes it better.

The real question is why does it matter? They chose a period and its a good period.

[JackDionne]

Three kingdoms are better known, we have better sources, there are more possible mechanics to explore, and the scope is much grander. And if I may, the team probably likes it better.

The real question is why does it matter? They chose a period and its a good period.

I agree it's a good period, it's just the Warring States period I would of thought had more potential for dlc, maybe. Also because it was earlier in history to start with that first. I would love to pick a ancient Chinese historians brain on this topic. I am hoping it doesn't turn into the same fiasco we found ourselves in when Rome II launched. It's alwaysin the back of my mind. I will pre-order hoping for the best ofcourse.

[LestaT]

Warring States period, though longer was more limited in size (or area). Three Kingdoms period are bigger in size and scope.

[ptoss1]

Same reason why Rise of the Samurai wasn't Shogun 2 vanilla. Because it's not as popular and is a more obscure period.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Typically Chinese history goes through phases of popularity. Back in the 1990's and early 2000's the popular topic was the Warring States and this was pushed if not started by the discovery of the Qin Shi Huangdi tomb. For example we can see plenty of entertainment material from the 1990's and the early 2000's of this period such as the films "Hero", "The Emperor and The Assassin" and "The Emperor's Shadow". However there are very few games on the subject as well as other material.

In 2008 the tomb of Cao Cao was discovered and incidentally or purposely the release of the film Red Cliff sparked a new interest in the Three Kingdoms period. Historically as well the Three Kingdoms as preserved in the Records of Three Kingdoms (Sanguo Zhi), the Book of Wei and the Cao Man Zhuan and then during the late 1300's and early 1400's the Romance of Three Kingdoms (Sanguo Yanyi) has always been popular. By contrast the history of the Qin Dynasty was never popular as Qin Shi Huangdi was vilified, especially in the records of Sima Qian (the Shiji). In fact much of the Romance of Three Kingdoms was derived from folklore and stories that were created immediately after the Three Kingdoms period. So the short period of time has always captured the Asian imagination.

There also exists plenty of material on the Three Kingdoms such as multiple Dynasty Warriors titles, Kessen 2 and the ROTK games by Tecmo Koei. Based on that CA must realize that there does exist a market for the Three Kingdoms both in the West and in Asia.

[roarer]

As a person who is rather familiar with both period, I must contribute to this post. Personally, the Spring & Autumn + warring state period is my favorite period in Chinese history, followed by the Three Kingdoms period.

The warring state period has a number of key features:
1) Politically speaking, China transitioned from decentralized feudal lords government into a centralized Central bureaucracy system.
2) China transitioned from the Bronze age to iron age. In fact, the ultimate winner : Qin, is excellent in bronze working while some other states are more advanced in iron working. This is an age of innovation and technology advance.
3) A great number of tribes are assimilated into Chinese Culture, enriching the meaning of the word "Chinese".
4) Before this period, warfare are limited to nobles, while after wards, peasants are equally involved. People were also moving much more quickly on the social ladder.
5) Battles are having more and more variety, from plain battles to river battles to mountain battles. The most famous battle, Battle of Changping, last over 3 years, and both side have changed their commanders. Battles are frequent, bloody and brilliant.
6) On top of technology advancement, this is also a period of with heavy advancement in ideas and philosophies. "Hundred Schools of Thoughts" was actually the same period as the warring state period. The Daoism and Confucianism we knew today were just two schools of thoughts among the ten major schools. The ruling classes are actually heavily influenced by these schools of thought and employ different people and strategies due to them.
7) As every state is trying to survive and conquer each other, reforms were taking place actively in every state and meet with different level of success.
8) Inter-states diplomacy are heavily intertwined and very complicated, and diplomats can play as big of a role as generals to the survival of a state.
9) Numerous heroes / talents blossom to maintain the divided map, leading to dramatic events happening one after another.

The three kingdoms period on the other hand are marked by the following set of features:
1) Events are heavily romanticized by novels in later years, turning characters into myths or sometimes magicians.
2) Individualism is much more promoted, simplifying events to only affected by a few factors
3) As Confucianism and Daoism were already dominant in China by this time, they were both used in politics to obtain support.
4) As the period is closer to modern days, more record of events of that time survive, providing much more details on characters and field generals.
5) As the Southern lands are much more developed over the hundreds of years, Southern China play a much larger role in the stories.
6) Chariots warfare were already complete obsolete, and with the poor state of Han, professional soldiers no longer existed in China. Therefore, each local power find their own way to train and organize their own troops. More often, certain troops under certain generals can greatly distinguish themselves from others, even with the same equipment.
7) Battles in these period are much more complicated and the most iconic battles involve massive fire attacks as the deciding factor to the outcome.
8) Strategists play a much larger role in battles and the direction of states development.


From the above lists of features, it is easy to find that the Three Kingdoms Period is much more attractive to the modern market and easier to implement. In order to do justice to the Warring state / Spring & Autumn period, CA still has a long way to go. However, if they focus on three kingdoms, they do not have to think about the political systems / reforms, the implementation of different ideas / school of thoughts, the rise and fall along the social ladders, the incompetent AI for meaningful diplomacy etc.

With three kingdoms, they can just focus on the famous characters, build features around them, add a few battle mechanics, continue build on the character system they got in Warhammer, and sell for great profit. They can then sell DLC for less famous characters etc. Frankly speaking though, if CA want to make a masterpiece, they should also promote the ideologies of the famous novels : loyalty, brotherhood, wisdom and courage. These are the traits that make characters in that period attractive. In addition, the impact of strategists may also be glossed over, focusing only on the field generals and commanders. These are aspects where no game developers have ever successfully grasped. I would not expect CA to be able to make such a great game, when they are not even that familiar with these ideas.

My bottom line is ... make massive fire and flooding a possible strategy on the battlefield, and do not make them OP. That's my expectation for CA... hopefully they don't disappoint.

[NostalgiaFan]

SNIP

What you said is exactly why I hope CA make an expansion about the Warring States Period the same way they did for Rise of the Samurai in Shogun 2. Of course I would hope they put more detail into it like you did so it could have way more to it to make it really feel like a different time period and not copy pasted.

[roarer]

What you said is exactly why I hope CA make an expansion about the Warring States Period the same way they did for Rise of the Samurai in Shogun 2. Of course I would hope they put more detail into it like you did so it could have way more to it to make it really feel like a different time period and not copy pasted.

With the current state of total war and CA, it is going to be hard for them to do justice to the Warring state period. Many features in total war are shallow. Eg diplomacy. Think about diplomacy in Total war, and compare with those in histories. Various number of diplomats come to propose different ideas / strategies, and the king would have to pick / counter propose to everyone of them.Every one of them made sound arguments, because there are many aspects in kingdom management. But in total war, things are simplified so choices are always easy.

CA would have to develop a number of systems to make diplomat gameplay resemble the warring state period. That is just out of the reach of CA and I cant blam them for it

[zoner16]

With the current state of total war and CA, it is going to be hard for them to do justice to the Warring state period. Many features in total war are shallow. Eg diplomacy. Think about diplomacy in Total war, and compare with those in histories. Various number of diplomats come to propose different ideas / strategies, and the king would have to pick / counter propose to everyone of them.Every one of them made sound arguments, because there are many aspects in kingdom management. But in total war, things are simplified so choices are always easy.

CA would have to develop a number of systems to make diplomat gameplay resemble the warring state period. That is just out of the reach of CA and I cant blam them for it

Diplomats were an important part of plenty of other time periods. Hasn't stopped CA from keeping the shallow diplomacy in the Total Wars they make set in them. The reason they seem so much more important in this period is the writers of the Strategies of the Warring States had a particular worldview and agenda that featured diplomats very heavily (I mean, they were part of the School of Diplomacy). Writers of other histories tend to be more enamored with kings, strategists, and generals.

The real problem with transferring the time period is that the Warring states period takes place over a much smaller areas, which would likely required an entirely different map. They can, however, get around this by including non-Zhou factions as full contenders in the areas they would have inhabited at the time. It'll just mean we get a lot of "barbarian" factions which we don't have a lot of information on included in the final game.

The rest of the period isn't hard to put into a Total War game. We've ignored civil tech and social progression in the other major games that took place in similarly transformative time periods. This isn't any different.

[LestaT]

With the current state of total war and CA, it is going to be hard for them to do justice to the Warring state period. Many features in total war are shallow. Eg diplomacy. Think about diplomacy in Total war, and compare with those in histories. Various number of diplomats come to propose different ideas / strategies, and the king would have to pick / counter propose to everyone of them.Every one of them made sound arguments, because there are many aspects in kingdom management. But in total war, things are simplified so choices are always easy.

CA would have to develop a number of systems to make diplomat gameplay resemble the warring state period. That is just out of the reach of CA and I cant blam them for it

There's already features like that in current TW games which is presented as dilemma. This can be build upon to enhance diplomacy.

[Ngazi]

No need to do justice to statesmanship in a Warring States Total War game, and I really hope no is holding their breadth that CA will do justice to the politics and Confucianism of the Three Kingdoms. There are plenty of armies and battlefields just as in Three Kingdoms, a bit too much to be a simple add-on. They should keep the add-ons to the Han and after periods.

[roarer]

Diplomats were an important part of plenty of other time periods. Hasn't stopped CA from keeping the shallow diplomacy in the Total Wars they make set in them. The reason they seem so much more important in this period is the writers of the Strategies of the Warring States had a particular worldview and agenda that featured diplomats very heavily (I mean, they were part of the School of Diplomacy). Writers of other histories tend to be more enamored with kings, strategists, and generals.

The real problem with transferring the time period is that the Warring states period takes place over a much smaller areas, which would likely required an entirely different map. They can, however, get around this by including non-Zhou factions as full contenders in the areas they would have inhabited at the time. It'll just mean we get a lot of "barbarian" factions which we don't have a lot of information on included in the final game.

The rest of the period isn't hard to put into a Total War game. We've ignored civil tech and social progression in the other major games that took place in similarly transformative time periods. This isn't any different.

In my opinion, diplomacy in the warring state period is much more important than most eras, except for the Napoleon / Metternich era. Anyway, I am just using diplomacy as an example. As you said, even if it is important to an era, it won't stopped CA from keeping diplomacy shallow. To me, such narrow implementation would not do justice to said era. That is already a real problem to me but it seems that's not that big of a deal to you.

If we want smaller areas, I think they can do it just like the expansions of Rome 2 , the Gallic campaign / the Greek states. So that is the least of my concern. To me all that other features you said they ignored in other titles are crucial to a successful depiction of warring state period. To me, those things are like crusades to Medieval age. I have listed what features define the Spring & Autumn period and warring states period for me. Maybe you should list out what define warring states period or else this discussion can hardly move forward.

[zoner16]

In my opinion, diplomacy in the warring state period is much more important than most eras, except for the Napoleon / Metternich era. Anyway, I am just using diplomacy as an example. As you said, even if it is important to an era, it won't stopped CA from keeping diplomacy shallow. To me, such narrow implementation would not do justice to said era. That is already a real problem to me but it seems that's not that big of a deal to you.

If we want smaller areas, I think they can do it just like the expansions of Rome 2 , the Gallic campaign / the Greek states. So that is the least of my concern. To me all that other features you said they ignored in other titles are crucial to a successful depiction of warring state period. To me, those things are like crusades to Medieval age. I have listed what features define the Spring & Autumn period and warring states period for me. Maybe you should list out what define warring states period or else this discussion can hardly move forward.

Again, Total War has always been about taking a period of history and viewing it through a military lens. Everything else, politics, economics, culture, religion, administration, diplomacy, etc. is there to serve the military angle because that's what the games are about. Take Fall of the Samurai, for example. Historically a period with little battlefield bloodshed and instead a lot of political intrigue, assassinations, and diplomatic maneuvering, we're given instead a version of it that requires almost solely pitched battle to decide who wins and loses. Obviously one of the more extreme examples in the series, but you get the point.

Even something like the Spring and Autumn period could theoretically be given this treatment, but the Warring States are even easier, as diplomacy shifted from political and influence maneuvering over the Zhou court and its vassals to the more familiar Total War diplomacy of "you attack that guy in exchange for x" and "lets ally against those guys." Obviously missing a lot of nuance, but Total War diplomacy always has.

Ultimately, if we take the Warring States through what the Total War lens has been, I do not believe the team would have to make much up in order to fit the time period. There's frequent and varied battles between different factions, conquest, rebellion, and even a well defined victory condition. As for what's missing, it'd be no worse than the lack of real feudalism mechanics in Med II or the stripped down inter-family politics in both Rome games, and those games survived and even thrived despite it.

[roarer]

Again, Total War has always been about taking a period of history and viewing it through a military lens. Everything else, politics, economics, culture, religion, administration, diplomacy, etc. is there to serve the military angle because that's what the games are about. Take Fall of the Samurai, for example. Historically a period with little battlefield bloodshed and instead a lot of political intrigue, assassinations, and diplomatic maneuvering, we're given instead a version of it that requires almost solely pitched battle to decide who wins and loses. Obviously one of the more extreme examples in the series, but you get the point.

Even something like the Spring and Autumn period could theoretically be given this treatment, but the Warring States are even easier, as diplomacy shifted from political and influence maneuvering over the Zhou court and its vassals to the more familiar Total War diplomacy of "you attack that guy in exchange for x" and "lets ally against those guys." Obviously missing a lot of nuance, but Total War diplomacy always has.

Ultimately, if we take the Warring States through what the Total War lens has been, I do not believe the team would have to make much up in order to fit the time period. There's frequent and varied battles between different factions, conquest, rebellion, and even a well defined victory condition. As for what's missing, it'd be no worse than the lack of real feudalism mechanics in Med II or the stripped down inter-family politics in both Rome games, and those games survived and even thrived despite it.

You simply used the term "things that serve the military angle" to describe what I mean by "elements defining a period" (warring state period). However, there is no arguments put forth to explain why a feature should be included in or excluded from this so call "things that serve the military angle". I mean, yeah, you can make diplomacy and Russian Winter being non factors for a Napoleon game. If you ask CA, of course they accept a Napoleon TW without deep diplomacy mechanics. However, that is not up to my standard. To me, that did not justify the period. If we keep on allowing such a low standard, all we get is this shallow TW get pushed out years after years, and every historical period is simply a re-skin.

Who cares why Napoleon has to fight a coalition in the first place? Who cares Metternich saving Austria and balancing the power in Continental Europe by his diplomatic skills? I care. I don't want the TW franchise to keep the gameplay simple and let noobs over-run everything without second thought.

By your logic, you can argue an acceptable Medieval TW without crusade and Jihad mechanics; a Rome TW without family trees, a Shogun TW without Ninjas. We got to draw the line somewhere, right? I am trying to raise the bar by providing more info and factors to include in a TW game.

At the end of the day, I want achievements and blunders of the notable characters in the warring states era be felt through the gameplay. E.g.

1)A great number of tribes are assimilated into Chinese Culture, enriching the meaning of the word "Chinese" - King Wuling of Zhao's "Wearing the Hu (styled) Attire and Shooting from Horseback (in battle)"(胡服騎射) propelling the Zhao into a super power.
2) China transitioned from decentralized feudal lords government into a centralized Central bureaucracy system. - The leaders of Han, Zhao and Wei leading to The partitiion of Jin because of decentralized power.
3) diplomats can play as big of a role as generals to the survival of a state - Yue Yi's plan to drive Kingdom Qi to destroy the Kingdom Sung, allowing him to lead a 5-kingdom allied force to crush Qi's army in the battle of Ji Xi (濟西之戰) , Lord XiLing's "Stealing seal to save Zhao"(竊符救趙) and Battle of Henai(河內之戰) being the last man to lead the other states to halt Qin's unification of China.

My list can go on and on.... I wanna recreate these events, and face the challenge that these people faced. Their achievements should be praised, instead of being gloss-over and streamlined because they do not fit in the so call "military lens". That's what I call doing justice to a historical period. How about you?

[zoner16]

You simply used the term "things that serve the military angle" to describe what I mean by "elements defining a period" (warring state period). However, there is no arguments put forth to explain why a feature should be included in or excluded from this so call "things that serve the military angle". I mean, yeah, you can make diplomacy and Russian Winter being non factors for a Napoleon game. If you ask CA, of course they accept a Napoleon TW without deep diplomacy mechanics. However, that is not up to my standard. To me, that did not justify the period. If we keep on allowing such a low standard, all we get is this shallow TW get pushed out years after years, and every historical period is simply a re-skin.

Who cares why Napoleon has to fight a coalition in the first place? Who cares Metternich saving Austria and balancing the power in Continental Europe by his diplomatic skills? I care. I don't want the TW franchise to keep the gameplay simple and let noobs over-run everything without second thought.

By your logic, you can argue an acceptable Medieval TW without crusade and Jihad mechanics; a Rome TW without family trees, a Shogun TW without Ninjas. We got to draw the line somewhere, right? I am trying to raise the bar by providing more info and factors to include in a TW game.

At the end of the day, I want achievements and blunders of the notable characters in the warring states era be felt through the gameplay. E.g.

1)A great number of tribes are assimilated into Chinese Culture, enriching the meaning of the word "Chinese" - King Wuling of Zhao's "Wearing the Hu (styled) Attire and Shooting from Horseback (in battle)"(胡服騎射) propelling the Zhao into a super power.
2) China transitioned from decentralized feudal lords government into a centralized Central bureaucracy system. - The leaders of Han, Zhao and Wei leading to The partitiion of Jin because of decentralized power.
3) diplomats can play as big of a role as generals to the survival of a state - Yue Yi's plan to drive Kingdom Qi to destroy the Kingdom Sung, allowing him to lead a 5-kingdom allied force to crush Qi's army in the battle of Ji Xi (濟西之戰) , Lord XiLing's "Stealing seal to save Zhao"(竊符救趙) and Battle of Henai(河內之戰) being the last man to lead the other states to halt Qin's unification of China.

My list can go on and on.... I wanna recreate these events, and face the challenge that these people faced. Their achievements should be praised, instead of being gloss-over and streamlined because they do not fit in the so call "military lens". That's what I call doing justice to a historical period. How about you?

To me, Total War has always been about being able to experience the battles and campaigns of the setting they were representing in a fun and immersive way. Other aspects of gameplay exist to make those parts better. A game about the military aspect of a time period doesn't invalidate the rest of the period, it just chooses to focus on one part.

I'm all for new and exciting gameplay features that aren't directly war related, but I still find them of secondary importance to the actual war part. I don't disparage Medieval II for having incredibly barebones feudal mechanics or Crusader Kings II for having even more barebones warfare mechanics. Neither of those games is about that particular thing. Rather, they excel in the aspect they focus on, and use what they have from the other one to make their focus more flavorful and fun. Neither is doing any "injustice" to their time periods.

If we could get the best of all worlds, I'd throw money at the steam store page, but development time and money isn't infinite, and for Total War, I demand excellent warfare mechanics first, and then good ancillary systems afterwards. If the former is nailed, I'm willing put up with mediocrity in the latter. If the former fails me, the latter isn't saving it.

Of course we draw the line somewhere. The slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. A crap game is a crap game, and a game where warfare happens in a bubble devoid of context and flavor is neither fun nor immersive. It's just that the things that provide context and flavor don't have to be entire games unto themselves. They can just be secondary features that elevate the military angle.

In the Warring States, there's definitely enough war to make a Total War game. There's more than there was during the Bakamatsu, and they still made a great game out of that.