Your ideal next historical title? Mine would be one set from 1850-1950 with the whole world as the campaign map...

Your ideal next historical title? Mine would be one set from 1850-1950 with the whole world as the campaign map. Sure it's unrealistic but I said "ideal" for a reason.

Other urls found in this thread:

eurogamer.net/articles/2016-11-16-the-next-historical-total-war-is-an-era-we-havent-tackled-yet
youtube.com/watch?v=Onik-BD92Ow
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Now that would a shit setting.

I just want Medieval 3

I don't see you proposing any amazing new ideas, wise guy

why don't you just go buy a map and color it by hand? much more exciting imho

Medieval 3 with nerfed Mali as a selectable faction

And I say "nerfed" because if their GNP was historically accurate you could go through the game buying mercenaries and controlling the entire planet

Renaissance Pike Warfare

Shogun 3 but with more units and sieges that aren't shit.

>1900 and onwards

Now how would that fit Total War gameplay? 150-man smg squads moving and fighting in tight formations?

Total War: Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Hero units from the book featuring magical powers of the Tao.

Why didn't they do that in real life?

1400-1600's Spanned between Iran, India, Indochina, and Indonesia.
I'd play the fuck outta that.

Ideal? Shogun 3 with improvements in all the areas 2 was weak in. Love me some medieval Japan.

Ideally? A 20th Century Total War with the battle system stolen from the Wargame series and the political simulation stolen from Paradox' best.

Realistically, we'll get China Total War. Which is fine too, but really just more of the same formula.

Wargame's Devs and Paradox Interactive have teamed up for their newest game funnily enough

>Medieval 3 with nerfed Mali as a selectable faction

>And I say "nerfed" because if their GNP was historically accurate you could go through the game buying mercenaries and controlling the entire planet

WE WUZ

I want a game like CoH, base building, fighting over resource nodes or whatever you'd change them to, but rome vs carthage with total war style unit control, unit size, and large maps to accommodate.

I'm amazed they still haven't done Three Kingdoms instead of rehashing the same eras.

Talking about a TW, I'd love to get a diadochi era one

That's fucking retarded.

All I want is a Total War game with good AI.

Inflation exists in real life. Mansa Musa pretty much ruined the Middle East for quite a while with hyperinflation because he was a retard.

The only reason Mali was rich was that it had a shitload of gold mines.

American Conquest

So I can purge every native tribes and make the greatest world genocide happening once again. Can't wait to kill all women and children.

Fall of Samurai was everything I needed to ask for.

Some major tweaks though could make this game LESS irritating:

Army / fleet limit is needed, because:
>small one-unit armies constantly harassing you buildings
>it is even WORSE with single ships raiding docks all the time

Well there you go. They can simulate that for Mali or make inflation a universal mechanic.

Is shogun 2 the most overrated game in the history of Videogames?

...

Finno-Korean hyperwar

What is Victoria 2

This.
But I would prefer something set in the 17th century with a heavy focus on the 30 years war. If done right, it could have a great mix of artillery, heavy cavallery and melee tactics. Also a great variety of factions and the interesting aspect of religion, like in Medieval 2.

1800-1900

American Civil War
Japan when Shogunate would take over
Feudal Japan
Wars in America with Indians
Colonial Britain vs Zulus

I'd really prefer a very historical setting based in ancient times

Total war of might and magic. Warhammer isnt fantasy enough, we need to go deeper.

This, fucking gooks are gonna regret invading the greatest empire.

...

It's already almost confirmed that the next historical game will be Renaissance and will be released in 2019 after Warhammer trilogy ends.

Is that real? I never knew about Finnish empire. I thought Egypt was the only player at that time

No

>he doesn't know about the Finno-Korean hyperwar

Source

it's a Sup Forums meme. finno-ugric people were literally slaves up until 1918.

t. assmad korean

>Egypt

You mean Sumerians.

Corean*

>Not 1820-1910

Shame CA gave up on expansions proper and now just overprice individual smaller DLC. That practice frankly started with Empire which very much like Shogun 2 got an outstanding expansion. Shame for the shitty state at launch and time period that didn't interest as many people.

Cause them niggas was dumb bruh, plus torn apart by civil war

t. african historian

If they want serious money, they'd make a usa civil war with lots of weight on slavery. Sup Forumstards from usa to europe can't resist not to play confederates and hurt them darkies, and the rest can't resist playing the yanks to fight for "good".

If they add a world scoreboard/competition showing how many won as either side and the first side to get x number of completed campaigns win the round, and the game will never die too

The Great War: Total War or bust.
Give me 1900-1920 or give me nothing at all.

eurogamer.net/articles/2016-11-16-the-next-historical-total-war-is-an-era-we-havent-tackled-yet

this only leaves only renaissance as medieval and pre-medieval games covered until 1453 and Empire covers after 1700s. between 1453-1700 is renaissance

*the great total war
Fixed the name

I suspect Chink Wars don't really interest that many people not to mention you would once again have the same roster all across the board and after Warhammer there would be huge backlash about that. Shogun had the whole SAMURAI going for it.

How's that supposed to play? I'm pretty sure line infantry is no longer a thing at that point.

Might be Mesopotamia, India, aztecs etc. Not guaranteed to be eurocentric

its just whisful thinking not to expect a euro-centric game. all of their other games were eurocentric except Shogun and people love japanese history unlike *indians*

You can base it on a lot of things, but the problem is you need to get people to actually buy it which means time period needs to have wider appeal.

Might be 1800s. The kind of 'Victoria: Total War' that people keep asking for.

That really seemed like the direction they were going in with Fall of the Samurai

>Might be 1800s. The kind of 'Victoria: Total War' that people keep asking for.
This
Plus they can get the burgers interested with Civil war stuff

>rome 2 over 2.5 million copies sold
>attila not even at one million

people just have shit taste

I wasn't willing to touch Attila after being burned by Rome 2 until it was on sale for $8.

I dont think you can really blame people for not buying Attila after Rome 2. It's the same shit with Napoleon and Empire.

They should just make the first big game not a total mess rather than releasing a smaller second one that tries to fix all the mistakes

a non-eurocentric TW game besides Japan is bound to fail, unless it's about China which might have a chance

>Might be 1800s. The kind of 'Victoria: Total War' that people keep asking for.

Two biggest things I've seen people ask for are China/Three Kingdoms and Victoria, followed by the Great War (and a bunch of people trying to figure out how that would even work given the TW formula) and all the retreads (Medical/Rome/Shogun 3 or Empire 2). Both China and Victoria allow for a lot of growth, with Chinese expansions across the eras (all the way up to the 20th century, which would be a good testing ground for the Great War) and Victoria expansions expanding the map and playable factions (which could segue into China via the Opium Wars and Boxer Rebellion and maybe into the Great War via time period expansion). Both would be great choices.

Non-eurocentric warfare is total shit because all enemies are same or lack enough historical references to distinguish them.

Medieval remains the most diverse period.

I haven't bought anything after Shogun 2 because they don't do complete editions anymore and I'll be damned if I buy their overpriced DLC.

>Attila on sale for $10 on Bundlestars
>all the DLC was $40 during that same sale
Fuck that shit.

Give me a quick rundown on Total War. I'm interested in the series but am not sure which ones are worth buying or considered the best.

>tfw late Romeaboo
>Attila's failure means we'll never get another Late Roman game again

>not sure which ones are worth buying
whichever has the setting that most interests you, with the exception of Rome II which is just shit

I could take a rancid shit, release it to the community and have it do better than how Rome 2 did. Of course people would be wary

They should've made Medieval 3 instead of Attila. You even had the ERE having Varangians and Greek Fire even though those didn't exist until later on

Rome 2 was an utter disaster so I don't blame them.

>tfw no Rome vs Han China Total War

TOTAL WARHAMMER 2

Medieval 3 is a big title where they save for a rainy day.
If medieval 3 comes out as a disaster like Rome 2, it's over.

Attila is the best generally from a mechanical perspective, great battles and a great campaign map
Warhammer has the best battles but is lacking in all other areas
Empire has the best campaign map but is kind of a shit game overall

Not him but there is only 1 good option left and its Early 14th century to late 17th. Involves the end of the knight period, the early gun age, and the Renaissance gun age of pike/shot. Basically its like Empire and Medieval had a baby and gave it a giant floppy hat with a feather in it.

Because no one gives a flying fuck about Chinese warfare

It doesnt take you long to realize its literally one of the most boring periods of human warfare.

Entire point of Attila was to try out some shit they would end up using in Warhammer like, for example, how a horde faction would work.

Total War: Iraq

Yeah but it seems like the wanted to make Medieval 3 instead of Attila

Medieval 3.

Let me form the Kalmar Union.

>total war that includes entire world
Possible? And I mean to make it fun and not tedious to have to deal with entire world

After Warhammer's financial success I think they're scouting for more properties they can adapt as opposed to rehashed sequels they know fans will be never be satisfied with.

No it wasnt you complete moron, CA always does a second game thats a similar time period as to the last game. Attila was their attempt to recoup face after Rome 2 was such a disaster.

Hordes existed years before Attila came out in the exact same fashion.

Poor sales in a series are often reflective of the failures of the previous title and not necessarily the failures of the current one. Like the others, I got Rome 2 but am now more cautious so I didn't get anything since (though Rome 2 after a shitload of patches is better, though still has plenty of questionable design decisions).

>I haven't bought anything after Shogun 2 because they don't do complete editions anymore and I'll be damned if I buy their overpriced DLC.

Man I feel the same way. All of this DLC nonsense has sort of forced me to patiently wait for a complete edition that just has everything. Unfortunately it seems they've caught wind of all the smart consumers waiting for the good deal and don't do that any more, or have very incomplete complete editions.

Rome 1 and Medieval 2 are considered the best by many, but do as says and pick the period that most interests you.

>Realistically, we'll get China Total War
no we won't. the chinese don't allow accurate portrayal of their past. they literally believe it's filled with actual magic and wizards and shit. fucking subhumans

Well, they make Total Warhammer.

Lot of that meshes with Medieval 3.

>the game in which France is one province has the best campaign map

You're all thinking too small

Here is the real ultimate TW game

Total War: Age of Mythology
>youtube.com/watch?v=Onik-BD92Ow

>the Great War (and a bunch of people trying to figure out how that would even work given the TW formula)
Literally by not putting trenches so it doesn't end like the european theatre, thats literally all you need to do.

Isn't Hearts of Iron banned in China because it portrays a fragmented China at game start?

>They pretend it's been the same size throughout its history.

I think the problem is only the minority of players actually cares that much for the campaign aspect and focus more on combat. Total War designed has merely reflected this over the years.

>A 20th Century Total War with the battle system stolen from the Wargame
That is the single worse suggestion for a TW game iv ever heard

>mythology
Fuck no. I'm sick of le magic and fantasy setting

Do not touch Medieval 2. It's shit praised by delusioned nostalgiafags with only redeeming quality being mods. Play Shogun 2 at first, as it is the easiest one to grasp due to having only one faction in entire game.
Then play Atilla or Warhammer, they are the best in the series.

Total Warhammer is the first game where they skim on the campaign features, though it is a special title, you cannot expect dorfs to ally with orcs and you cannot have normal faction leaders like normal TW games.

It also shows Nationalist China (now called Taiwain) as the actual goverment.

>After Warhammer's financial success I think they're scouting for more properties they can adapt

The Elder Scrolls. Fucking calling it. You get varied armies, extensive lore and whatever the fuck scenarios you can set the game to.