Personally I'd love a Total War: Victoria set between the 1840s and 1890s. It would be so cool to be able to play in the franco-prussian war, wars of italian unification, crimean war, american civil war and even to play as european great powers struggling for colonization in africa and asia. It'd be like empire with a later setting and reworked mechanics.
Except for the fact that the battles would no doubt devolve into nothing but spamming guns at every problem, thereby stripping away a lot of tactical options.
@@chubbyninja89 what do you mean by "spamming guns"? Yes, victorian era western warfare is dominated by firearms but that doesn't mean there are no tactics involved, quite the contrary. I don't see how that would be different from Napoleon or Empire total war.
@@andreacasalena2809 Well, the translating that into a game probably won't be as easy as you think. And what I mean about spamming guns is that in FotS, especially in the MP, you could just spam a handful of firearm units and easily win battles without actually have to truly have a strategy. I mean, if we're talking about all the wars that were properly in the Victorian era, you can't exactly limit the ranges to only 100 in TW terms or something like that, but the infantry with breach loading rifles would have more like 200 range and VERY high reload skill/speed. I mean, what can the likes of say, the Zulu truly do against such ridiculous firepower beyond relying on ambushes? I know there's use of terrain, which could certainly help back in Shogun 2's MP, but not every battle map is going to be strictly super hilly and such, so you can't just use terrain as freely as you might think.
A Total War Saga: Italian Wars would be perfect. Short period, specific region which is what saga is aiming for. This could also help them get feedback for Empire 2 on what works or doesnt
I have to say, I absolutely love this idea and I'm surprised I've never seen it brought up before, lol! As someone who is still a fan of the potential of Saga titles and a big fan of the pike and shot and empire era this would be great.
potential growth: Total War Saga: Germanic Wars which would also be set into pike and shot of similar era and than so on and so on, until finally going to release a ''Immortal campaign'' of sort where you get all these on the world wide map
@@SamuelBenedicic_of_NSK I was actually thinking that might be the end result, and honestly, so long as the map was detailed and expansive I would be really okay with that, in my opinion anyway.
What I found most interesting with Fall of the Samurai is the change in tone, at least what I perceive and think about it: The base Shogun 2 is pretty colorful and FotS is a lot grittier and almost sadder looking. This whole transition and conflict between the old and new ways is what makes FotS so fascinating for me. Something along these lines could be replicated beatifully in a game that encompassed the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern times. On another note: I absolutely love how especially Napoleon is still held up by mods and how they emphasize smaller nations as well. As a Hanoveranian myself I enjoy it so much to play Hanover in 1814 or 1815. It's so sad that LME isn't continued (at least I don't know of it) and from what I gathered, NTW3 is more on the multiplayer side of things while I enjoy custom battles the most.
I always liked gunpoweder battles more, because im not a really "good" player. they allowed me to built a strong firing line and then "sit back" and simply hold out and plug the holes until one side is beaten. This worked especially nice, because the AI was always just too stupid to fight a proper line battle with me. They clumped up, the strentched thin. They run up to then run away again. All while under constant fire from my guns and me just taking in the view. I loved this because it made me win against endless waves of fullstacks.
This. While i dont mind the micro and set up necessary in warhammer, sometimes I just want to make a line and a wall of leads and just watch people drop like a fly.
Funnily enough, gunpowder has been a crucial part of Total War since Shogun 1. Matchlocks in that game were a key part of the tactical puzzle, really adding another dimension to the use of terrain and positioning.
@@AndysTake And that remained true in shogun 2 as well, not only where matchlocks quite deadly but even if they didn't kill very much they would cause morale shock, thus causing them to route very quickly. You did have to protect them however since unless we are talking about Matchlock samurai they would just get OWNED in melee of any kind.
The reason why I think gunpowder is always so much better than melee in TW is because it makes your tactical choices so much more important. All of a sudden having the high ground (something that is almost irrelevant in R2) is just as important as it was historically. Because the angles of fire matter that much, also the gunpowder units don't just flat out shred each other like some melee troops do in TW, wich rewards clever maneuvering. Long story short, for whatever reason, the way CA has ballanced their games make melee battles feel really arcade-y while gunpowder battles feel like they have a much higher skill ceiling and they are alot more exciting cause your choices matter alot more. Edit: The most epic TW moments I have have been from NTW, where on top of all of this, you can select the terrain you have if you are the defender in a battle via the campaign map, something newer total wars have not let you do the same way.
Yep I agree. When I used to play a lot of shogun 2 online, fall of the samurai battles were much more tactical and required a lot of focus and planning before the battle even started. Every position had to be evaluated and you’d have to “imagine” how the battle would turn out if you move a unit into this location. You can’t just blob all your troops together and hope you hero units win like in regular shogun 2 battles.
You have no idea how true that is. Like in Empire a shooting match between 2 units of line infantry would last like a minute or 2, while a fight between melee infantry in Warhammer or Shogun 2 (due to morale and casualties) takes only seconds to conclude in some cases.
I actually agree with you on that, though I think that it should ALWAYS purely come down to the use of terrain every single battle. I played a lot of Shogun 2 multiplayer back in the day, and I can tell you that sadly, one of the only ways you could truly get the end on a FotS gun spammer was to use the terrain like big hills and such, but that was more so forced upon you by the game's poor map design. But my point is that I do think that terrain should matter more, but not ALWAYS be the only thing certain factions HAVE to rely on to win any battles.
Honestly, despite starting off in Medieval Japan, I think the line combat gunpowder era is the best suited to TW's combat. Not only do you not need mechanics liked mixed units which TW doesn't support to make combat realistic, but also it really suits the static, geometric formations of the TW engine. While I don't think any game has quite fulfilled the potential for gunpowder TW, I do think that potential is there, just waiting to be actualised.
I thought this video was gonna be some bullshit about why these games are just unique for whatever reason, but no... Honestly you're exactly right, gunpowder is what makes me play these games. Musket volleys.. There's something about them that just draws you in.
My entry in the TW series was through Napoleon and Empire. I love gunpowder units and always add them to my armies, even if there are better alternatives. Sometimes, I hesitate playing factions in Medieval II if I know they have inferior gunpowder technology in the late game.
@@Phantom-xp2co Not yet. I struggle a bit with M2 TW mods (Stainless Steel and 1648) because they keep crashing on my new Gaming Laptop. But I hear Tsardom is exceptionally well done.
@@MrBell-iq3sm Tsardom is incredibly well done, while also being very stable. It's also the most historically accurate med 2 mod. I'm currently doing a byzantine campaign and I'm experimenting with a proto pike&shot eastern roman army. Blocks of mercenary arquebusiers, archers and heavy spearmen working together in checkerboard formation, supported by the old fashioned byzantine cathpracts and the best western mercenary cavalry. Quite funny and really efficient. It really feels a slower, more tactical gameplay compared to other mods
doing what they did with Warhammer and creating a series of historical total wars that are late medieval - reserved to Europe and the Middle East, Reneissance - slightly expanded europe and introduction to the Americas and then a Victorian/Napoleonic Empire game that would start as expanding your empire and end in Revolution mechanics with a worldwide scale would be incredible, perhaps with a combined campaign in the nature of Immortal Empires that could see your technology change over the centuries
Gunpowder allows battles to be quick while remaining realistic. You expect a line of shield infantry to hold for very long against another line of shield infantry, so if the numbers make such combat quick, it doesn't feel right. Likewise, archers can only do minimal damage against properly armoured troops. But defending against bullets is something else entirely, one good volley and a nice chunk of the target regiment falls, a couple more and it's obliterated, in a couple minutes max. This makes battles a matter of manoeuver and focusing fire, instead of having a massive stalemate that is only breakable if you have more cavalry than the enemy.
A game that Starts during napoleon and ends with the modern age in in 1930s. Muskets to machine guns. Cavalry to light tanks. 12 inch cannon ball to 1ton artillery shell
Yes so we can get a new dog shit game bc they’re trying to add stuff never touched by the studio before. We need an Empire too that spans 1500-1800, world wide and let’s you create your own story of history or recreate it with you at the helm. We have hundreds of WW2 RTS, a brand new WW1 RTS, and modern. People are really wanting that historical line battle cannon feel
@@boylibrary3533 they literally have everything in place? You just change the texture and the power and speed on units. There are a ton of ww2 rts games but there’s none that look as realistic as total war can
The first time I played empire I played a long campaign as the ottomans. It was such a great challenge, I was on my toes until mid to late game. Yes the ottomans are very different from the euros but that added complexity of irregular infantry and melee troops really helped me learn the game. Not to mention the big f**k off artillery the ottos have at start game. By the end of the campaign, I had euro infantry (nizam I cedit) I basically owned most of Europe, Russia, North Africa and Persia. My love for gunpowder total war games was complete. I really hope they make an empire 2!
Yes yes and yes! A Total War Saga focused on the colonization of North America will be my dream come true. I love the period and the setting - this huge wild untamed land.
As iv said before, Total War works best in times of Transition. A Total War Victoria would be a grate main game with some DLCs covering specific conflicts, like the US Civil War for example. Also as someone that watches alot a Crusader kings and loves Empire/Napolians naval combat, I would KILL for a Total War game set in that Late medieval/renaissance period with those early Cannon ships. Any Total War game set somewhere between...1500 to 1890 or so would be awesome. You have the late medieval period, pike and shot period, the Renaissance, the age of colonization, and the early industrial revolution. Then after that you have WW1, which with all the Unit types introduced in Warhammer, CA has no excuse not to at least TRY to do. Infantry (including specialized teams like Assault teams, Snipers, Flamethrowers), Cavalry, Machine guns, Tanks, Artillery, Planes, Ships, it would have it ALL!
I 100% agree. Gunpowder brings so much tactical depth to the battlefield, in the words of Klausewitz "artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl". I really hope the next total war is set in the early modern period
0:36 I prefer the concept of flamethrowing. Gunpowder comes second. Kill it with fire and make it go boom. 3:05 And all of those factions can ally with the dwarfs and recruitment Irondrakes.
I actually just started a new empire vanilla campaign as thr British and am loving it. I really miss the old wealth mechanics, build population, get industry and farming, roads and trade resources and growth machines in general are so good. It makes you want ans like to invest to build things over time. The research system is soo good too. The technology not only gives stat bonuses but also influences and changes how your units look. Seeing the improved muskets and ballets actually show up in the game models makes me gitty. And the ship battles are so amazing. My only complaint is I wish it was more polishes. I still run I to bugs and glitches. But still love it so much.
I just played a few hours of Thrones of Britannia. The reason this game feels so lack luster is the units route to fast. The share size of units and the maps makes it allmost impossible to do cool flanks or manouvers. Long before you are in position, the center is allready routed. And the npc's mostly just kite with skirmishers or mounted skirmishers. just becomes this endless chase where no one is winning. even after the main battle is won. Old melee battles could last from dusk to dawn, this allso gave room for tactics. I feel the fast pace of the fightring in Britania just remove alot of the strategic planning of a battle. Most of the battles is won within 1 min of fighting in the center. it takes 2 min just to run the troops up to the center, and 3-5min running after skirmishers. So annoying. When it comes to the map of britannia the size is huge, and your campgain movment speed is way way to low. One turn is 3 months, and the fact that you cant move between 2 cities in 3 months is just absurd. Trying to cross the map or sea in Thrones is just a daunting task, you move way to short compared to the insane size of the map. In Napoleon the fights last very long, even after they are engage in line combat. this gives alot of room for manouvering and tactics, the main reason it feels so good. All fights can go in so many diffrent ways.
Considering this point of view, which I share, I would like a new historical main title like Medieval III rather than a Saga title. As CA has done before with Medieval II, Rome II and Attila, in addition to the main campaign they could release DLC campaigns such as Italian Wars, 30 years war and so on to include more accurate scenarios. The important thing is that they don't sell me a clearly incomplete base game at full price and then an endless series of DLC without which the base experience is bland.
Nice video buddy, I agree with the points you've made. Although I am a huge fan of medieval era I do feel like an another gunpowder TW would be the best choice. Now that the Warhammer 3 is out, and even tho they will continue working on it, I can't wait to see what the future holds for us historical fans. Also just realized that I wasn't subscribed so I fixed that immediately.
I had more than 400 hours in Empire Total War. We really need a New Gunpowder Total War like an Empire 2 or Victoria, where you can't take France in two turns and the sieging of cities don't be only a unfun star fort
Star forts are accurate to the period. The problem is that in Empire 2 sieges were poorly designed. Star forts were bugged, you couldn't even defend the walls properly. Historically the attacker had to dig trenches and bombard the fort for months, because a direct assault was suicidal. Also many armies used to dig tunnels to place explosives under the walls, since they were basically immune to cannon shots. In short: start forts should have been stronger and easier to defend, the attacker should have multiple options and tools to lay siege (dig tunnels, trenches ecc). Also having more historically accurate forts from real life would have been nice, so it doesn't feel like any siege is a copy and paste
Gave up on ca after 3k was another fantasy based game . only next historical game will bring me back and nothing like Troy where troops look like Disney characters.im ok with gunpowder but drop the fantasy and give me a true historical game
I personally think the 30s year war would be PERFECT for Total war in so many ways. Here are some: The overall way it is played: Because in the 30 years war the nations didnt use national armies all the time, but mostly employed a lot of mercenary armies wich were even lead by foreign generals. Armies often lived off the land (either trade or plunder), recruited from the countryside that surrounded them and abandoned their leaders when they ran out of moral and/or money. We could play a famour general, like Wallenstein, or one of our own making, walking through allied and enemy territory always fighting his armies moral and finances, wagering if to plunder and loot a neutral or allied territory, but later running into trouble because they dont want to support my army anymore. We could "outflank" our enemies, by capturing their allies territory, before their armies get to reach ours, causing their main army to loose sponsorship, thusly moral and therefor relying more on looting, but only until we have beaten them or they disbanded, did we really beat them. The entirety of central europe would become a giant playing mat where the territory held wouldnt be as important as the relations, diplomacies and fundings we would get. So even IF we controlled the map, if the moral towards us would be low, we would have to deal with a lot of infighting, assasination attempts and rebellions. Also this army moving mechanic could be expanded further. A rather long example: Like "ok I want my army, wich is 40.000 men strong, to move from Köln to Hannover. So I establish relations with Hannover and order 40.000 pair of boost, food for 40.000 for several weeks and other things I need. And while I prepare the travel, Hannover is producing my order. They need help with it, so they ask Bielefeld for additional ressources. But When I finally wanna go I hear that Hannover has problems with enemy raiding parties and they need help to carry out my order. But I need to get my Army to Hannover because I need to cut off my enemy from traveling south. So I sent 5000 counter-skirmishers first and then go to Hannover anyways, even though they only have half of the things I ordered at the ready. So I tell my men to "Live off the land" and make them aquire the things they need from the people of Bielefeld, causing an outrage because Hannover hasnt payed it yet. So finally I have reached Hannover and cut off my enemies path to the south, but now my looting army has caused the Bielefeldians to support my enemy and they start to boost his armies size and their rebels attacked my supply lines, causing me to still have not enough ressources (not enough boots would lead to my men beeing slower on the march and battlefield). And my enemy aproaches with his army well fed, supplied and supported. It is an uphill battle from the start and I have to fortify the entire north of Hannover to block their movement and level the strength out. I fighht several smaller battles with my 5000 skirmishing troops, to slow the enemies advance and destroy supplies. I am successfull and the enemy is bogged down for too long so I could prepare. Now to the battle. two 40.000 strong armies meet. But I cant command so many troops on such a big battlefield. So I allocate trustworthy AI generals with securing the flanks off screen. I fight the main battle, while the other ones happen offscreen, but they determine the outcome of the battle too. Not as much as mine ofc, but they are a factor. And then the big battle is fought in the middle. We win the center and the right flank. the enemy is fleeing the field, but he has broken our right flank wich grants him a safe passage to Nienburg. He has had strong losses, but is not defeated. The battle has to be decided another day but we have prevented him from travelling south and supporting his allies, who lay down their arms since they ran out of supplies and manpower to siege Kassel. You see so instead of 2 armies clashing once, deciding the fate of both, the armies are in a constant "dance" on the map, trying to outmanouver eachother and gain support. small skirmishes of smaller armies over ressource points and important locations. We wouldnt so much as to command a nation, but actually a buzzing army beehive slowly grinding forward. Meanwhile our waring back and forth is destroying the countries we fight in and it will become more and more harder to uphold the armies, but also more and more poor people want to join us because the soldiers life is the only way out of poverty for them. So increasing army numbers and depleting ressources force us to find new routes, wich leads to new countries beeing destroyed or saved. Until we eventually beat our enemy and piece comes back. But oh no the Swedes are coming from the north with a new army and there are rumors of the Bohemians mustering a force too! Maybe we can make then fight eachother first before we are caught in the middle? make haste! and so on and so on. And finally winning the game wouldnt be relying on taking the entire world map as our territory, but also successfully beating the opposing faith into submission to our dominance, or even eradicate its influence. We would get points for how much we actually won, how much fame and money we have earned, but we could also "win" the game by simply not loosing to the opposing side and making them suffer more than we do so they have to accept a 50/50 deal. you see the 30 years war is a very exciting and complicated affair wich would be absolutely thrilling to explore if it is done correctly. sorry for the novel.
I dont think it would be that compl8cated. The unit could work as war dog units in rome 2, where you have 2 separate stats for the dogs and the trainers
Also enjoy making my own fun with ETW and NTW. I use my generals almost like messangers, a unit can only change plans if a cmdr is near by. Also find using the formations buttons have been super satisfying, making the musket combat that much more fun
would love a total war based on the time period of age of empires 3 idealy global campaign for the purpose of sandbox mode like immortal empires but i would love an updated gunpowder total war game great video mate much agreed !
I would love to see some kind of 30 Years War Total War. It’s probably a bit big for a Saga unless you tunnelled on Germany but including Western Europe could bring in both the 30 Years War and the British Civil Wars. Supplying Spanish troops in the Netherlands and rampaging through Germany could be fun to represent. More specific wars for a saga game could be the Italian Wars or the 80 Years War. The Italian Wars could be excellent given the variety of polities in Italy and the growing developments and importance of economy. Small but economically-powerful states such as Genoa, Florence and Venice could force the player to properly utilise mercenaries not as an extra, like in most total war games, but as the backbone of an army. Mercenary bands of Condottieri could wander Italy being hired by the highest bidder, each with their own reputations for loyalty and bravery affecting their costs. Could be a very interesting game
Just do TW in 16th century setting (starting art 1501), WORLDWIDE. When firearms were used but not wholesale. Safavid unification of Persia, Italian Wars, Henry VIII's shenanigans, Babur's invasion of India, Japanese Warring States, New World Colonization etc...
My dream TW game now that we've seen they can combine several games together like in the Warhammer series, would be to do three games that go from 1500-1900 1st one probably being 1500-1700, then 1700-1800, and finally 1800-1900. Eventually they could be combined into one massive game that would take months to play all the way through and keeping up with technology would be more important than in any other game. Also covers some periods that TW hasn't covered yet, pike and shot era, American Civil War, Rise and Fall of the Ottoman empire, Shogun 3 fits in there, its all too ambitious for one game so its perfect for the trilogy format
I like gunpowder because you don’t have to charge and break away and charge again. I find that kind of gameplay a bit annoying when I’m trying to protect my flanks from being well… flanked lol.
yes but why there are no more gunpowder eras releases after Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai? This was released in 2012 and we are already on 2023. The next historical games after Shogun 2 had nothing to do with gunpowder eras, is there any project to return to modern times?
I think the colonization era of Northern America is way to controversial. I was learning about the history of this time period and I have to say that many games (including many that I very much like) kind of whitewash the atrocities committed by the settlers. On the other hand if you give a somewhat realistic depiction it can get too dark very quick and also there is the problem that you had to reflect that the most cruel tactics oftentimes also were the most"successful". Plus, many of the unjust mechanics have impact on real life people up until today. Look into the channel "Knowing better" for more into this topic.
This is very true, and I completely understand. But this is a question of… ethics in gaming I feel, and the exact same question can be asked when talking about WW2 games, I feel. We can play as the Third Reich and the Soviet Union in Hearts of Iron 4, states responsible for so much death and genocide - or heck, what about EU4 where we literally play during the colonial era I am outlining in this video? I think it could work, but perhaps as long as it’s mostly stripped clean of the more social or humane aspect side of things. But I don’t know, it’s a difficult philosophical question indeed.
To be frank, I think this is entering the realm of 'think piecing' every aspect of society way too hard, if a person of color does not wish to partake in games like this because they personally do not want to play a game which portrays said eras where their ancestors were exploited, abused, and enslaved, in which they're still living the consequences of said actions to this day, that's perfectly valid and I think CA could and should make it clear in their games about the kind of content they're trying to make, and that they're in no way endorsing these crimes of the past. A problem these strategy games sometimes get(and they're in no way unique in this regard) is that you get a number of far-right people who latch on to these games and CA should make it clear to these people that they are not welcome in any way, shape, or form. That being said there are also plenty of people of color who are able to look past the real life events behind these games and accept that they're ultimately strategy games where you're managing an empire and conquering stuff. Even if a game is portraying a historical event which affects people to this day(which in reality is inherently all of them, since the present is by it's very nature always attached to the past), many people are capable of playing a fictionalized version of it without personally condoning it and accepting how horrible this all was in reality. I'm also interested to understand what you mean by the Total War series 'whitewashing' historical events, in my experience they are usually pretty frank about how barbaric the past was, they don't necessarily cover *everything* but that in of itself is not whitewashing, this implies CA is deliberately not showing everything to conceal crimes of the past, that they want to mislead people into thinking the past 'wasn't that bad.' Instead of the more rational explanation that they are in fact primarily making a GS/RTS game, not a chattel slavery simulator or a game where the focus is to solely exploit minorities in countless inhumane ways. Not everything is going to be covered because CA still has the priority of creating a game about war, not necessarily all the stuff that at times went with war. People just want a war game with gunpowder, tactics, strategy, and good campaign mechanics with historical flavor, every reasonable person already knows how horrible the past could be, even if they do not necessarily know every single horrible event, and for the reactionary far-right who see no problem with it, their views will not be changed just because we'd suddenly stopped making games which cover this era. Ultimately these games are not a 1:1 representation of real life, nor are they meant to be, even games which cover real events are still ultimately fictional, if a person does not want to partake regardless of this, that's perfectly fine and should be accepted without judgment. I just really dislike the moralizing tone a lot of these 'ethical consumerists' take with topics like this, a lot of it is pure slacktivism, they gain an unjustifiable moral superiority and are utterly not self-aware to how vapid they are. The average person of color who is struggling right now is not concerned with an historical strategy game which portrays a problematic era, it's really the chronically online who usually have issues with stuff like this. 🤷♂
@@AndysTake Can't judge on HoI, as I didn't play it. I think WW2 as a scenario is a little different because the involved (European nations) were more at the same eye level and after all the baddies lost the war. EU4 should do more to reflect the inhuman conditions of colonialism, but I think Paradox is actively avoiding a too dark tone in this series. I don't say that game devs should stay away from these topics, but they should be aware of the long time of misrepresentation of the history of Natives, Africans and African slaves. And I see this tradition in some games, where the American Natives are an obstacle to overcome deeply baked into the game mechanics (for example Sid Meier's Colonization, a game that I love up until today for its simple but deep mechanics). I really hope that we are mature enough to make better games today, which picture the history of this era while also reflect the complex structures and rich history of the First Nations. May I ask how comes you know so much about the "average person of colour"? I don't say that games should teach something. If a Dev doesn't want to bother with morale, they should develop a fictional game. Nobody complains about a Slaveholders Race in Stellaris, nor about the onslaught of Imperial Civilians by Orcs or Skaven. But when you want to have a historic setting, you should think hard about the inaccuracies you want.
@@Hybrid980 Wow, you have a lot to say, and I therefore to unpack. First, it is not about if a PoC likes the game or not or wants to play the game or not. It is about what picture of the historical events we want to reproduce and, consciously or not, pass on to future generations. It's also neither that someone gets all of his historic education from games, nor it is true that games have no influence on our idea how history went.
total wars foundations are well built at this point. so much so that i dont really think any era or setting of combat is out of their reach. to this very day in modern combat, formations, fatigue, morale, supply all have their role to play. it will also help the series evolve in a big way if they can truly master that style of combat, both mechanically and with their own ai.
Honestly, what I want to see is a Empires 2. I want to see and experience making a nation that slowly evolves from old fashion industry , horse carriage, and musket rifles to full on trains, actual industrial machines, and breech-loading rifles. I want to start with wind based ships and evolve to engine driven iron clads. I want to start with line infantry fighting styles to fighting in trenches. I want to not only see N. and some of S. America, Europe, N. Africa, and India, I also want to see Japan, China, Korea, the Philippines, Australia, S. Africa. Madagascar. I want the chance to interact with Samurais and Zulu warriors. I want natural disasters, (Earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, tornados) to happen that will cause me to want to work on the science part of my nation. I want a good sequel to one of my top 3 favorite Total War games, Empires, to be made.
I think CA should priotise making regular melee mechanics more interesting and immersive than what there is right now. In twenty years nothing has changed about how individual models in the unit behave. There's no cohesion, formations don't really exist either. In fact formations even traded some physical function in favour of simple stat bonus they give. I believe seeing a phalanx of hoplites or a shieldwall act in a more realistic manner and as cohesive unit where individual models are actually working together could be way more fun than just seeing more smoke and explosions. But we won't see it in Total War I think, as there hasn't been any development in that direction since well, Shogun 1. Just the graphics got better, but mechanics are the exact same.
In my Warhammer 3 The Empire is just industrialized. Guns of the Empire and Total war Millennium. Mashed together. Musket meet bolt action rifles. Only thing i hate about warhammer guns is the way the soilders shoot. I feel like the recoil shouldn't push the gun up 90 degrees up but a nice little 20 degrees
The units should either not reform after losing men or more preferably, not wait to reload or shoot until the first line is back in full strength. Because of this not being the case, much more experienced units can get obliterated by numerically superior inexperienced units
I’d say the best Total War games are the ones where traditional combat is the name of the game, but gunpowder comes in as a special treat, like how Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 do it.
Gunpowder era allows you to focus on manouvering rather than counter stratting a certain unit with their counter. Having full battalions of axes that specifically counter heavy armour or full battalions of zweihanders who specialise in charging turns the game into an annoying basebuilding rts style fuckfest. It also isnt very historically authentic either. Men at arms battalions and levies would be mixed and matched with specialised battalions being pikemen, archers, and cavalry. Imo if CA slowed the game down a bit and made terrain way more of a factor rather than rock paper scissors, then strategy would actually really flow well. Pre battle skirmishes would actually have some value rather than 15 seconds of archers firing at each other then being redundant the rest of the battle, and cavalry engagements would have more depth to them rather than baiting and then using arcade movement to gain the upper hand via pullthroughs and other stupid shit. Playing Napoleon Total War and Empire Total War with "The Rights of Man 1&2 respectively" were some of my favourite total war moments purely because artillery and cavalry actually wins you battles. You are encouraged to research artiller and to bomb the shit out of your enemy to break his morale. Cavalry is a glass cannon and misuse of it will absolutely fuck you. Charging your infantry into an enemy line like a knobhead gets your battalion killed if you don't do it well.
‘Did you know alongside Total War - spanning historical and fantasy realms, and our new multi-player shooter, HYENAS, we’ve also got two new unannounced projects in development.’ … i mean come on they don’t even mention anywhere of a TW title, apart from the TK2 being in development. My guess is a 2024 announcement. Keep making those vids love speculations 😮! Just something I noticed on the blurry image of their unannounced projects on Twitter, is a steam train on the dark left side…
What about the Attila total war ? Altough it is without gunpowder, it is a really fun game to play. Sure, it may be kinda hard to play with some fractions, like Western Rome, but that's a challenge.
Played EMPIRE using a RTX 4090 graphics card and a i9-13k. It looked so much of a new polished game. But the features still the same wonky gameplay. But still good to play and look at.
I think people over value how italian wars were fought prior to Charles the ass invading italy with his french army... it was mainly a mercenary competition to who had the biggest coin purse and it rarely ended in bloodshed as the nobles and merchants and mercenaries were wary of the terrible consequences of war and to get loose on devastation would be disastrous for all parties.
Charles the Ass LOL! I mostly know how from the Borgia series and he surely seemed like it! And that’s very interesting. Well, the French usage is still major - and the question might be how did the Italians respond?
Take off the graphics mod bro but we could use a renaissance mod from the early renaissance to the end of the thirty years war so pretty much between 1440s to 1648
I think the empire should explore mid 1840s the 1870s a lot of events American civil war taking place Mexican American tension through expansion along with European expansions across the globe
Never going to happen. At best we can get WW1 but anything after that is impossible to represent in TW. WW1 is the last war where we see large scale tactics and after that we move into squad tactics, which TW doesn't represent very well.
@@cadenvanvalkenburg6718 You think? I reckon it could be done but it is true that it would be very hard to pull off. There is a new game in development that is a good example of how a TW could do it, it's called "total conflict".
Ya only problem is that Gunpoweder feels like a 100 times better in Napoleon and especialy Shogun 2 /FotS than in Warhammer... so really hope when the next historic game comes out and it has gunpoweder it should be at least be on the level of FotS in smoke, projectile trace and sound! Not to mention i cant believe short armed Dwarf mofos can shot an arrow with an tiny bow farther than Imperial guns can shoot! xD
I just hope they bring back more in depth and intelligent battle mechanics from earlier games. The lack of actual rank and file combat, especially for gunpowder units, completely sank my experience in the Warhammer games. Units shooting through each other, formation shape playing no part in combat effectiveness, over reliance on character abilities, slow as molasses projectiles. It was all just so simple and uninspired, and the cool aesthetic and outward look of the game only went so far. And don't try to excuse these simplifications in gameplay by saying "it's fantasy". That's a cheap copout that devalues fantasy settings as a whole. No one would try to use that argument for a Lord of the Rings game. I would have loved *loved* if Warhammer had used Shogun 2's or even Medieval 2's battle mechanics instead. That would have been a great game, but to me these games are just forgettable.
Sorry guys, but you've got it wrong in a major way. Gunpowder and all isn't what's important, it's HOW it's implemented within the TW battles that's important. You see, FotS may be liked by many, but most haven't actually played anything but the campaigns, against the dumb AI, but not the multiplayer. And whether anyone admits it or not, the multiplayer of the TW games is a far, far better measurement of how balanced or good the game is. Because it offers you the ability to truly see what is over or underpowered in the game. I won't go into it all here, but FotS was terribly balanced. But my point is, that going too far forward in time in terms of firearm technology WILL hurt a TW game's battles rather than help it. They shouldn't do any fully TW games that take place after Napoleon's day, as that level of technology still allows things like cavalry and melee in general to still be viable tactical options if used right. That's why an Empire 2 should be set from 1696 to 1820, as that would allow for a lot more factions other than the Europeans to be viable in their own ways without just being one trick pony factions.
I want CA to do Medieval 3, Empire 2 and a Victoria TW like they did Warhammer 1, 2 and 3... with a megacampaign that combines all three games into one. Imagine being able to play from 1080 to 1900... with superevents that could shake things up.
I must be the exception then, because I disliked Empire exactly because of the gunpowder combat and I also don't like gunpowder units in Warhammer. Medieval setting and combat style is still my favourite and I'd much rather have a new Total War Medieval.
Would love to see a prehistoric total war, or a Bronze Age total war, ancient India total war, Mongolian total war. These would be perfect for total war’s engine.
Personally I'd love a Total War: Victoria set between the 1840s and 1890s. It would be so cool to be able to play in the franco-prussian war, wars of italian unification, crimean war, american civil war and even to play as european great powers struggling for colonization in africa and asia. It'd be like empire with a later setting and reworked mechanics.
And call it Imperial Total War!
Yup, great era in terms of "content". Certainly there will be enough for countless campaigns.
Except for the fact that the battles would no doubt devolve into nothing but spamming guns at every problem, thereby stripping away a lot of tactical options.
@@chubbyninja89 what do you mean by "spamming guns"? Yes, victorian era western warfare is dominated by firearms but that doesn't mean there are no tactics involved, quite the contrary. I don't see how that would be different from Napoleon or Empire total war.
@@andreacasalena2809
Well, the translating that into a game probably won't be as easy as you think.
And what I mean about spamming guns is that in FotS, especially in the MP, you could just spam a handful of firearm units and easily win battles without actually have to truly have a strategy.
I mean, if we're talking about all the wars that were properly in the Victorian era, you can't exactly limit the ranges to only 100 in TW terms or something like that, but the infantry with breach loading rifles would have more like 200 range and VERY high reload skill/speed.
I mean, what can the likes of say, the Zulu truly do against such ridiculous firepower beyond relying on ambushes?
I know there's use of terrain, which could certainly help back in Shogun 2's MP, but not every battle map is going to be strictly super hilly and such, so you can't just use terrain as freely as you might think.
A Total War Saga: Italian Wars would be perfect. Short period, specific region which is what saga is aiming for. This could also help them get feedback for Empire 2 on what works or doesnt
I have to say, I absolutely love this idea and I'm surprised I've never seen it brought up before, lol! As someone who is still a fan of the potential of Saga titles and a big fan of the pike and shot and empire era this would be great.
Plus it bridges the gap between Medieval and Empire eras, which means it would be relevant whether the next historical game is Empire 2 or Medieval 3
potential growth: Total War Saga: Germanic Wars which would also be set into pike and shot of similar era
and than so on and so on, until finally going to release a ''Immortal campaign'' of sort where you get all these on the world wide map
@@SamuelBenedicic_of_NSK I was actually thinking that might be the end result, and honestly, so long as the map was detailed and expansive I would be really okay with that, in my opinion anyway.
Isn't the last one in 1520s
What I found most interesting with Fall of the Samurai is the change in tone, at least what I perceive and think about it: The base Shogun 2 is pretty colorful and FotS is a lot grittier and almost sadder looking. This whole transition and conflict between the old and new ways is what makes FotS so fascinating for me. Something along these lines could be replicated beatifully in a game that encompassed the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern times.
On another note: I absolutely love how especially Napoleon is still held up by mods and how they emphasize smaller nations as well. As a Hanoveranian myself I enjoy it so much to play Hanover in 1814 or 1815. It's so sad that LME isn't continued (at least I don't know of it) and from what I gathered, NTW3 is more on the multiplayer side of things while I enjoy custom battles the most.
I always liked gunpoweder battles more, because im not a really "good" player. they allowed me to built a strong firing line and then "sit back" and simply hold out and plug the holes until one side is beaten. This worked especially nice, because the AI was always just too stupid to fight a proper line battle with me. They clumped up, the strentched thin. They run up to then run away again. All while under constant fire from my guns and me just taking in the view. I loved this because it made me win against endless waves of fullstacks.
Hahaha it’s all about having fun in the end!
This. While i dont mind the micro and set up necessary in warhammer, sometimes I just want to make a line and a wall of leads and just watch people drop like a fly.
Put it to max difficulty lol it’ll not be the same
@@CrAzYxBoBbY sorry but I tried with several games. the good old firing line beat them all^^
Funnily enough, gunpowder has been a crucial part of Total War since Shogun 1. Matchlocks in that game were a key part of the tactical puzzle, really adding another dimension to the use of terrain and positioning.
This is very true! Good point!
@@AndysTake And that remained true in shogun 2 as well, not only where matchlocks quite deadly but even if they didn't kill very much they would cause morale shock, thus causing them to route very quickly. You did have to protect them however since unless we are talking about Matchlock samurai they would just get OWNED in melee of any kind.
The reason why I think gunpowder is always so much better than melee in TW is because it makes your tactical choices so much more important. All of a sudden having the high ground (something that is almost irrelevant in R2) is just as important as it was historically. Because the angles of fire matter that much, also the gunpowder units don't just flat out shred each other like some melee troops do in TW, wich rewards clever maneuvering. Long story short, for whatever reason, the way CA has ballanced their games make melee battles feel really arcade-y while gunpowder battles feel like they have a much higher skill ceiling and they are alot more exciting cause your choices matter alot more.
Edit: The most epic TW moments I have have been from NTW, where on top of all of this, you can select the terrain you have if you are the defender in a battle via the campaign map, something newer total wars have not let you do the same way.
Yep I agree. When I used to play a lot of shogun 2 online, fall of the samurai battles were much more tactical and required a lot of focus and planning before the battle even started. Every position had to be evaluated and you’d have to “imagine” how the battle would turn out if you move a unit into this location.
You can’t just blob all your troops together and hope you hero units win like in regular shogun 2 battles.
You have no idea how true that is. Like in Empire a shooting match between 2 units of line infantry would last like a minute or 2, while a fight between melee infantry in Warhammer or Shogun 2 (due to morale and casualties) takes only seconds to conclude in some cases.
I actually agree with you on that, though I think that it should ALWAYS purely come down to the use of terrain every single battle.
I played a lot of Shogun 2 multiplayer back in the day, and I can tell you that sadly, one of the only ways you could truly get the end on a FotS gun spammer was to use the terrain like big hills and such, but that was more so forced upon you by the game's poor map design.
But my point is that I do think that terrain should matter more, but not ALWAYS be the only thing certain factions HAVE to rely on to win any battles.
Honestly, despite starting off in Medieval Japan, I think the line combat gunpowder era is the best suited to TW's combat. Not only do you not need mechanics liked mixed units which TW doesn't support to make combat realistic, but also it really suits the static, geometric formations of the TW engine. While I don't think any game has quite fulfilled the potential for gunpowder TW, I do think that potential is there, just waiting to be actualised.
Thing is, what can you do with gunpowder that isn’t a reskin of Empire, Napoleon or FotS?
@@elgenerico6263 I don't understand why it would be a reskin?
I thought this video was gonna be some bullshit about why these games are just unique for whatever reason, but no... Honestly you're exactly right, gunpowder is what makes me play these games. Musket volleys.. There's something about them that just draws you in.
My entry in the TW series was through Napoleon and Empire.
I love gunpowder units and always add them to my armies, even if there are better alternatives.
Sometimes, I hesitate playing factions in Medieval II if I know they have inferior gunpowder technology in the late game.
Have you tried Tsardom, the medieval 2 mod set in the Balkans during the late middle ages?
@@Phantom-xp2co Not yet. I struggle a bit with M2 TW mods (Stainless Steel and 1648) because they keep crashing on my new Gaming Laptop. But I hear Tsardom is exceptionally well done.
@@MrBell-iq3sm Tsardom is incredibly well done, while also being very stable.
It's also the most historically accurate med 2 mod.
I'm currently doing a byzantine campaign and I'm experimenting with a proto pike&shot eastern roman army.
Blocks of mercenary arquebusiers, archers and heavy spearmen working together in checkerboard formation, supported by the old fashioned byzantine cathpracts and the best western mercenary cavalry.
Quite funny and really efficient.
It really feels a slower, more tactical gameplay compared to other mods
This video was spot on. I think I'm one of the few people who would prefer Empire 2 over Medieval 3.
Thank you, Derrick!
Medieval 3 if it still includes Pike and Shot like in M2 would still be really good though
doing what they did with Warhammer and creating a series of historical total wars that are late medieval - reserved to Europe and the Middle East, Reneissance - slightly expanded europe and introduction to the Americas and then a Victorian/Napoleonic Empire game that would start as expanding your empire and end in Revolution mechanics with a worldwide scale would be incredible, perhaps with a combined campaign in the nature of Immortal Empires that could see your technology change over the centuries
Time for Empire Total War 2!
Gunpowder allows battles to be quick while remaining realistic.
You expect a line of shield infantry to hold for very long against another line of shield infantry, so if the numbers make such combat quick, it doesn't feel right. Likewise, archers can only do minimal damage against properly armoured troops. But defending against bullets is something else entirely, one good volley and a nice chunk of the target regiment falls, a couple more and it's obliterated, in a couple minutes max.
This makes battles a matter of manoeuver and focusing fire, instead of having a massive stalemate that is only breakable if you have more cavalry than the enemy.
A game that Starts during napoleon and ends with the modern age in in 1930s. Muskets to machine guns. Cavalry to light tanks. 12 inch cannon ball to 1ton artillery shell
Yes so we can get a new dog shit game bc they’re trying to add stuff never touched by the studio before. We need an Empire too that spans 1500-1800, world wide and let’s you create your own story of history or recreate it with you at the helm. We have hundreds of WW2 RTS, a brand new WW1 RTS, and modern. People are really wanting that historical line battle cannon feel
@@boylibrary3533 they literally have everything in place? You just change the texture and the power and speed on units. There are a ton of ww2 rts games but there’s none that look as realistic as total war can
The first time I played empire I played a long campaign as the ottomans. It was such a great challenge, I was on my toes until mid to late game.
Yes the ottomans are very different from the euros but that added complexity of irregular infantry and melee troops really helped me learn the game. Not to mention the big f**k off artillery the ottos have at start game. By the end of the campaign, I had euro infantry (nizam I cedit) I basically owned most of Europe, Russia, North Africa and Persia.
My love for gunpowder total war games was complete. I really hope they make an empire 2!
I’m glad I’m not the only 1 who downloads empire every once awhile
Yes yes and yes! A Total War Saga focused on the colonization of North America will be my dream come true. I love the period and the setting - this huge wild untamed land.
Glad I’m not alone!
You literally said what's in my heart for Total war in this video, I hope the Creative assembly listen to you at least
As iv said before, Total War works best in times of Transition. A Total War Victoria would be a grate main game with some DLCs covering specific conflicts, like the US Civil War for example. Also as someone that watches alot a Crusader kings and loves Empire/Napolians naval combat, I would KILL for a Total War game set in that Late medieval/renaissance period with those early Cannon ships.
Any Total War game set somewhere between...1500 to 1890 or so would be awesome. You have the late medieval period, pike and shot period, the Renaissance, the age of colonization, and the early industrial revolution. Then after that you have WW1, which with all the Unit types introduced in Warhammer, CA has no excuse not to at least TRY to do. Infantry (including specialized teams like Assault teams, Snipers, Flamethrowers), Cavalry, Machine guns, Tanks, Artillery, Planes, Ships, it would have it ALL!
I 100% agree.
Gunpowder brings so much tactical depth to the battlefield, in the words of Klausewitz "artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be an ugly brawl".
I really hope the next total war is set in the early modern period
0:36 I prefer the concept of flamethrowing.
Gunpowder comes second.
Kill it with fire and make it go boom.
3:05 And all of those factions can ally with the dwarfs and recruitment Irondrakes.
I actually just started a new empire vanilla campaign as thr British and am loving it. I really miss the old wealth mechanics, build population, get industry and farming, roads and trade resources and growth machines in general are so good. It makes you want ans like to invest to build things over time. The research system is soo good too. The technology not only gives stat bonuses but also influences and changes how your units look. Seeing the improved muskets and ballets actually show up in the game models makes me gitty. And the ship battles are so amazing. My only complaint is I wish it was more polishes. I still run I to bugs and glitches. But still love it so much.
I just played a few hours of Thrones of Britannia. The reason this game feels so lack luster is the units route to fast. The share size of units and the maps makes it allmost impossible to do cool flanks or manouvers. Long before you are in position, the center is allready routed.
And the npc's mostly just kite with skirmishers or mounted skirmishers. just becomes this endless chase where no one is winning. even after the main battle is won. Old melee battles could last from dusk to dawn, this allso gave room for tactics. I feel the fast pace of the fightring in Britania just remove alot of the strategic planning of a battle.
Most of the battles is won within 1 min of fighting in the center. it takes 2 min just to run the troops up to the center, and 3-5min running after skirmishers. So annoying.
When it comes to the map of britannia the size is huge, and your campgain movment speed is way way to low. One turn is 3 months, and the fact that you cant move between 2 cities in 3 months is just absurd. Trying to cross the map or sea in Thrones is just a daunting task, you move way to short compared to the insane size of the map.
In Napoleon the fights last very long, even after they are engage in line combat. this gives alot of room for manouvering and tactics, the main reason it feels so good. All fights can go in so many diffrent ways.
Considering this point of view, which I share, I would like a new historical main title like Medieval III rather than a Saga title. As CA has done before with Medieval II, Rome II and Attila, in addition to the main campaign they could release DLC campaigns such as Italian Wars, 30 years war and so on to include more accurate scenarios. The important thing is that they don't sell me a clearly incomplete base game at full price and then an endless series of DLC without which the base experience is bland.
Nice video buddy, I agree with the points you've made. Although I am a huge fan of medieval era I do feel like an another gunpowder TW would be the best choice. Now that the Warhammer 3 is out, and even tho they will continue working on it, I can't wait to see what the future holds for us historical fans.
Also just realized that I wasn't subscribed so I fixed that immediately.
Forgot to mention that I still enjoy greatly playing modded NTW and sometimes even ETW.
I had more than 400 hours in Empire Total War. We really need a New Gunpowder Total War like an Empire 2 or Victoria, where you can't take France in two turns and the sieging of cities don't be only a unfun star fort
Star forts are accurate to the period.
The problem is that in Empire 2 sieges were poorly designed.
Star forts were bugged, you couldn't even defend the walls properly.
Historically the attacker had to dig trenches and bombard the fort for months, because a direct assault was suicidal.
Also many armies used to dig tunnels to place explosives under the walls, since they were basically immune to cannon shots.
In short: start forts should have been stronger and easier to defend, the attacker should have multiple options and tools to lay siege (dig tunnels, trenches ecc).
Also having more historically accurate forts from real life would have been nice, so it doesn't feel like any siege is a copy and paste
Gave up on ca after 3k was another fantasy based game . only next historical game will bring me back and nothing like Troy where troops look like Disney characters.im ok with gunpowder but drop the fantasy and give me a true historical game
hear hear, back to the historical games
Hey, nice video. What ever happened to your Norway playthrough?
My computer died so I lost the save. But something else might come up soon, my friend…
@@AndysTake looking forward to it!
I personally think the 30s year war would be PERFECT for Total war in so many ways. Here are some:
The overall way it is played: Because in the 30 years war the nations didnt use national armies all the time, but mostly employed a lot of mercenary armies wich were even lead by foreign generals. Armies often lived off the land (either trade or plunder), recruited from the countryside that surrounded them and abandoned their leaders when they ran out of moral and/or money.
We could play a famour general, like Wallenstein, or one of our own making, walking through allied and enemy territory always fighting his armies moral and finances, wagering if to plunder and loot a neutral or allied territory, but later running into trouble because they dont want to support my army anymore. We could "outflank" our enemies, by capturing their allies territory, before their armies get to reach ours, causing their main army to loose sponsorship, thusly moral and therefor relying more on looting, but only until we have beaten them or they disbanded, did we really beat them.
The entirety of central europe would become a giant playing mat where the territory held wouldnt be as important as the relations, diplomacies and fundings we would get. So even IF we controlled the map, if the moral towards us would be low, we would have to deal with a lot of infighting, assasination attempts and rebellions.
Also this army moving mechanic could be expanded further. A rather long example:
Like "ok I want my army, wich is 40.000 men strong, to move from Köln to Hannover. So I establish relations with Hannover and order 40.000 pair of boost, food for 40.000 for several weeks and other things I need. And while I prepare the travel, Hannover is producing my order. They need help with it, so they ask Bielefeld for additional ressources. But When I finally wanna go I hear that Hannover has problems with enemy raiding parties and they need help to carry out my order. But I need to get my Army to Hannover because I need to cut off my enemy from traveling south.
So I sent 5000 counter-skirmishers first and then go to Hannover anyways, even though they only have half of the things I ordered at the ready. So I tell my men to "Live off the land" and make them aquire the things they need from the people of Bielefeld, causing an outrage because Hannover hasnt payed it yet. So finally I have reached Hannover and cut off my enemies path to the south, but now my looting army has caused the Bielefeldians to support my enemy and they start to boost his armies size and their rebels attacked my supply lines, causing me to still have not enough ressources (not enough boots would lead to my men beeing slower on the march and battlefield). And my enemy aproaches with his army well fed, supplied and supported. It is an uphill battle from the start and I have to fortify the entire north of Hannover to block their movement and level the strength out. I fighht several smaller battles with my 5000 skirmishing troops, to slow the enemies advance and destroy supplies. I am successfull and the enemy is bogged down for too long so I could prepare. Now to the battle. two 40.000 strong armies meet. But I cant command so many troops on such a big battlefield. So I allocate trustworthy AI generals with securing the flanks off screen. I fight the main battle, while the other ones happen offscreen, but they determine the outcome of the battle too. Not as much as mine ofc, but they are a factor.
And then the big battle is fought in the middle. We win the center and the right flank. the enemy is fleeing the field, but he has broken our right flank wich grants him a safe passage to Nienburg. He has had strong losses, but is not defeated. The battle has to be decided another day but we have prevented him from travelling south and supporting his allies, who lay down their arms since they ran out of supplies and manpower to siege Kassel.
You see so instead of 2 armies clashing once, deciding the fate of both, the armies are in a constant "dance" on the map, trying to outmanouver eachother and gain support. small skirmishes of smaller armies over ressource points and important locations. We wouldnt so much as to command a nation, but actually a buzzing army beehive slowly grinding forward. Meanwhile our waring back and forth is destroying the countries we fight in and it will become more and more harder to uphold the armies, but also more and more poor people want to join us because the soldiers life is the only way out of poverty for them. So increasing army numbers and depleting ressources force us to find new routes, wich leads to new countries beeing destroyed or saved. Until we eventually beat our enemy and piece comes back. But oh no the Swedes are coming from the north with a new army and there are rumors of the Bohemians mustering a force too! Maybe we can make then fight eachother first before we are caught in the middle? make haste! and so on and so on.
And finally winning the game wouldnt be relying on taking the entire world map as our territory, but also successfully beating the opposing faith into submission to our dominance, or even eradicate its influence. We would get points for how much we actually won, how much fame and money we have earned, but we could also "win" the game by simply not loosing to the opposing side and making them suffer more than we do so they have to accept a 50/50 deal.
you see the 30 years war is a very exciting and complicated affair wich would be absolutely thrilling to explore if it is done correctly. sorry for the novel.
I love gunpowder but we need mixed weapons' units for the rotating musket volley fire from the pike and shoot era imo.
That would require CA to NAIL the Combat Drills like they did in Empire.
I dont think it would be that compl8cated.
The unit could work as war dog units in rome 2, where you have 2 separate stats for the dogs and the trainers
Gunpowder is fun, but I want Medieval III. Yes, gunpowder shows up at the end, but that's sure not the focus.
Yes
I understand, I want Medieval III too!
This is a beautiful video 😅 the gunpowder and line combat is so epic in these titles. Here’s hoping for a gunpowder Total War announcement in 2023!
Also enjoy making my own fun with ETW and NTW. I use my generals almost like messangers, a unit can only change plans if a cmdr is near by.
Also find using the formations buttons have been super satisfying, making the musket combat that much more fun
would love a total war based on the time period of age of empires 3 idealy global campaign for the purpose of sandbox mode like immortal empires but i would love an updated gunpowder total war game great video mate much agreed !
Thank you for making videos for us historical fans expecially Empire and Napoleon thank you sir
My pleasure, mate :)
I would love to see some kind of 30 Years War Total War. It’s probably a bit big for a Saga unless you tunnelled on Germany but including Western Europe could bring in both the 30 Years War and the British Civil Wars. Supplying Spanish troops in the Netherlands and rampaging through Germany could be fun to represent.
More specific wars for a saga game could be the Italian Wars or the 80 Years War. The Italian Wars could be excellent given the variety of polities in Italy and the growing developments and importance of economy. Small but economically-powerful states such as Genoa, Florence and Venice could force the player to properly utilise mercenaries not as an extra, like in most total war games, but as the backbone of an army. Mercenary bands of Condottieri could wander Italy being hired by the highest bidder, each with their own reputations for loyalty and bravery affecting their costs. Could be a very interesting game
Just do TW in 16th century setting (starting art 1501), WORLDWIDE. When firearms were used but not wholesale. Safavid unification of Persia, Italian Wars, Henry VIII's shenanigans, Babur's invasion of India, Japanese Warring States, New World Colonization etc...
My dream TW game now that we've seen they can combine several games together like in the Warhammer series, would be to do three games that go from 1500-1900 1st one probably being 1500-1700, then 1700-1800, and finally 1800-1900.
Eventually they could be combined into one massive game that would take months to play all the way through and keeping up with technology would be more important than in any other game. Also covers some periods that TW hasn't covered yet, pike and shot era, American Civil War, Rise and Fall of the Ottoman empire, Shogun 3 fits in there, its all too ambitious for one game so its perfect for the trilogy format
I like gunpowder because you don’t have to charge and break away and charge again. I find that kind of gameplay a bit annoying when I’m trying to protect my flanks from being well… flanked lol.
If Empire II is not announced in a couple of months, we riot.
Total War is best set in periods of great change in technology in my opinion.
I agree!
Honestly I think the Napoleon series by epic history provides lots of inspiration for a Napoleon 2 Total war
Empire 2 covering the whole Globe would be amazing. Grand campaign from 1492-1892.
yes but why there are no more gunpowder eras releases after Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai? This was released in 2012 and we are already on 2023. The next historical games after Shogun 2 had nothing to do with gunpowder eras, is there any project to return to modern times?
They should do a 17th century setting from the start of the 80 years war to the end of the 30 years war, it would be so amazing if they did it right!
Vampire Coast from WH is like playing Prusia with giant crabs
Good video and what is the unit name in 4:32 btw
I think the colonization era of Northern America is way to controversial. I was learning about the history of this time period and I have to say that many games (including many that I very much like) kind of whitewash the atrocities committed by the settlers. On the other hand if you give a somewhat realistic depiction it can get too dark very quick and also there is the problem that you had to reflect that the most cruel tactics oftentimes also were the most"successful". Plus, many of the unjust mechanics have impact on real life people up until today.
Look into the channel "Knowing better" for more into this topic.
This is very true, and I completely understand. But this is a question of… ethics in gaming I feel, and the exact same question can be asked when talking about WW2 games, I feel. We can play as the Third Reich and the Soviet Union in Hearts of Iron 4, states responsible for so much death and genocide - or heck, what about EU4 where we literally play during the colonial era I am outlining in this video? I think it could work, but perhaps as long as it’s mostly stripped clean of the more social or humane aspect side of things. But I don’t know, it’s a difficult philosophical question indeed.
To be frank, I think this is entering the realm of 'think piecing' every aspect of society way too hard, if a person of color does not wish to partake in games like this because they personally do not want to play a game which portrays said eras where their ancestors were exploited, abused, and enslaved, in which they're still living the consequences of said actions to this day, that's perfectly valid and I think CA could and should make it clear in their games about the kind of content they're trying to make, and that they're in no way endorsing these crimes of the past. A problem these strategy games sometimes get(and they're in no way unique in this regard) is that you get a number of far-right people who latch on to these games and CA should make it clear to these people that they are not welcome in any way, shape, or form.
That being said there are also plenty of people of color who are able to look past the real life events behind these games and accept that they're ultimately strategy games where you're managing an empire and conquering stuff. Even if a game is portraying a historical event which affects people to this day(which in reality is inherently all of them, since the present is by it's very nature always attached to the past), many people are capable of playing a fictionalized version of it without personally condoning it and accepting how horrible this all was in reality.
I'm also interested to understand what you mean by the Total War series 'whitewashing' historical events, in my experience they are usually pretty frank about how barbaric the past was, they don't necessarily cover *everything* but that in of itself is not whitewashing, this implies CA is deliberately not showing everything to conceal crimes of the past, that they want to mislead people into thinking the past 'wasn't that bad.' Instead of the more rational explanation that they are in fact primarily making a GS/RTS game, not a chattel slavery simulator or a game where the focus is to solely exploit minorities in countless inhumane ways. Not everything is going to be covered because CA still has the priority of creating a game about war, not necessarily all the stuff that at times went with war.
People just want a war game with gunpowder, tactics, strategy, and good campaign mechanics with historical flavor, every reasonable person already knows how horrible the past could be, even if they do not necessarily know every single horrible event, and for the reactionary far-right who see no problem with it, their views will not be changed just because we'd suddenly stopped making games which cover this era. Ultimately these games are not a 1:1 representation of real life, nor are they meant to be, even games which cover real events are still ultimately fictional, if a person does not want to partake regardless of this, that's perfectly fine and should be accepted without judgment. I just really dislike the moralizing tone a lot of these 'ethical consumerists' take with topics like this, a lot of it is pure slacktivism, they gain an unjustifiable moral superiority and are utterly not self-aware to how vapid they are.
The average person of color who is struggling right now is not concerned with an historical strategy game which portrays a problematic era, it's really the chronically online who usually have issues with stuff like this. 🤷♂
@@AndysTake Can't judge on HoI, as I didn't play it. I think WW2 as a scenario is a little different because the involved (European nations) were more at the same eye level and after all the baddies lost the war.
EU4 should do more to reflect the inhuman conditions of colonialism, but I think Paradox is actively avoiding a too dark tone in this series.
I don't say that game devs should stay away from these topics, but they should be aware of the long time of misrepresentation of the history of Natives, Africans and African slaves. And I see this tradition in some games, where the American Natives are an obstacle to overcome deeply baked into the game mechanics (for example Sid Meier's Colonization, a game that I love up until today for its simple but deep mechanics). I really hope that we are mature enough to make better games today, which picture the history of this era while also reflect the complex structures and rich history of the First Nations.
May I ask how comes you know so much about the "average person of colour"?
I don't say that games should teach something. If a Dev doesn't want to bother with morale, they should develop a fictional game. Nobody complains about a Slaveholders Race in Stellaris, nor about the onslaught of Imperial Civilians by Orcs or Skaven.
But when you want to have a historic setting, you should think hard about the inaccuracies you want.
@@Hybrid980 Wow, you have a lot to say, and I therefore to unpack.
First, it is not about if a PoC likes the game or not or wants to play the game or not. It is about what picture of the historical events we want to reproduce and, consciously or not, pass on to future generations.
It's also neither that someone gets all of his historic education from games, nor it is true that games have no influence on our idea how history went.
total wars foundations are well built at this point. so much so that i dont really think any era or setting of combat is out of their reach. to this very day in modern combat, formations, fatigue, morale, supply all have their role to play.
it will also help the series evolve in a big way if they can truly master that style of combat, both mechanically and with their own ai.
I still want a Total War set in the world during the last half of the 19th century.
A good Empire 2 would be the kick Historical Total War needs. Napoleon fixed Empire main problems, is probably on my top 3 but Its still so underrated
Definitely!
Honestly, what I want to see is a Empires 2. I want to see and experience making a nation that slowly evolves from old fashion industry , horse carriage, and musket rifles to full on trains, actual industrial machines, and breech-loading rifles. I want to start with wind based ships and evolve to engine driven iron clads. I want to start with line infantry fighting styles to fighting in trenches. I want to not only see N. and some of S. America, Europe, N. Africa, and India, I also want to see Japan, China, Korea, the Philippines, Australia, S. Africa. Madagascar. I want the chance to interact with Samurais and Zulu warriors. I want natural disasters, (Earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, tornados) to happen that will cause me to want to work on the science part of my nation. I want a good sequel to one of my top 3 favorite Total War games, Empires, to be made.
Empire 2 now!
Hear hear!
I think CA should priotise making regular melee mechanics more interesting and immersive than what there is right now. In twenty years nothing has changed about how individual models in the unit behave. There's no cohesion, formations don't really exist either. In fact formations even traded some physical function in favour of simple stat bonus they give. I believe seeing a phalanx of hoplites or a shieldwall act in a more realistic manner and as cohesive unit where individual models are actually working together could be way more fun than just seeing more smoke and explosions. But we won't see it in Total War I think, as there hasn't been any development in that direction since well, Shogun 1. Just the graphics got better, but mechanics are the exact same.
In my Warhammer 3 The Empire is just industrialized. Guns of the Empire and Total war Millennium. Mashed together. Musket meet bolt action rifles. Only thing i hate about warhammer guns is the way the soilders shoot. I feel like the recoil shouldn't push the gun up 90 degrees up but a nice little 20 degrees
I Hope The Next is Total War : Age of Revolution
Please no more sagas games. I want medieval 3 or Empire 2
agreed, its time to return to the historical
The units should either not reform after losing men or more preferably, not wait to reload or shoot until the first line is back in full strength. Because of this not being the case, much more experienced units can get obliterated by numerically superior inexperienced units
I’d say the best Total War games are the ones where traditional combat is the name of the game, but gunpowder comes in as a special treat, like how Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 do it.
I think they should try and move up to later periods. Victorian era, ww1/2 etc
we need empire2
what is the best Napoleon total war mod for single player experience?
FOS was my JAM
Total Bang Wars!
Gunpowder era allows you to focus on manouvering rather than counter stratting a certain unit with their counter. Having full battalions of axes that specifically counter heavy armour or full battalions of zweihanders who specialise in charging turns the game into an annoying basebuilding rts style fuckfest. It also isnt very historically authentic either. Men at arms battalions and levies would be mixed and matched with specialised battalions being pikemen, archers, and cavalry.
Imo if CA slowed the game down a bit and made terrain way more of a factor rather than rock paper scissors, then strategy would actually really flow well. Pre battle skirmishes would actually have some value rather than 15 seconds of archers firing at each other then being redundant the rest of the battle, and cavalry engagements would have more depth to them rather than baiting and then using arcade movement to gain the upper hand via pullthroughs and other stupid shit.
Playing Napoleon Total War and Empire Total War with "The Rights of Man 1&2 respectively" were some of my favourite total war moments purely because artillery and cavalry actually wins you battles. You are encouraged to research artiller and to bomb the shit out of your enemy to break his morale. Cavalry is a glass cannon and misuse of it will absolutely fuck you. Charging your infantry into an enemy line like a knobhead gets your battalion killed if you don't do it well.
That sounds awesome! Would definitely love more of a focus on tactics and those smaller movements that can turn a game.
Hva tou talked about manor lord's?
‘Did you know alongside Total War - spanning historical and fantasy realms, and our new multi-player shooter, HYENAS, we’ve also got two new unannounced projects in development.’ … i mean come on they don’t even mention anywhere of a TW title, apart from the TK2 being in development. My guess is a 2024 announcement. Keep making those vids love speculations 😮! Just something I noticed on the blurry image of their unannounced projects on Twitter, is a steam train on the dark left side…
What about the Attila total war ? Altough it is without gunpowder, it is a really fun game to play.
Sure, it may be kinda hard to play with some fractions, like Western Rome, but that's a challenge.
Attila is great
Played EMPIRE using a RTX 4090 graphics card and a i9-13k. It looked so much of a new polished game. But the features still the same wonky gameplay. But still good to play and look at.
I think people over value how italian wars were fought prior to Charles the ass invading italy with his french army... it was mainly a mercenary competition to who had the biggest coin purse and it rarely ended in bloodshed as the nobles and merchants and mercenaries were wary of the terrible consequences of war and to get loose on devastation would be disastrous for all parties.
Charles the Ass LOL! I mostly know how from the Borgia series and he surely seemed like it! And that’s very interesting. Well, the French usage is still major - and the question might be how did the Italians respond?
Take off the graphics mod bro but we could use a renaissance mod from the early renaissance to the end of the thirty years war so pretty much between 1440s to 1648
Take off the graphics mod?
Fun powder 😜
You know it! :D
I was thinking about a total war in Afrika with the british as a sort of horde faction like in attila in the mid game
I think the empire should explore mid 1840s the 1870s a lot of events American civil war taking place Mexican American tension through expansion along with European expansions across the globe
I do like smoke and really hope we get Empire 2. If not then that they skip the whole humanwarfare and look at Ants instead :D.
id love to see the German wars of unification or maybe the Franco Prussian war
I have a dream: XX century total war
Never going to happen. At best we can get WW1 but anything after that is impossible to represent in TW. WW1 is the last war where we see large scale tactics and after that we move into squad tactics, which TW doesn't represent very well.
@@cadenvanvalkenburg6718 You think? I reckon it could be done but it is true that it would be very hard to pull off. There is a new game in development that is a good example of how a TW could do it, it's called "total conflict".
@@TomLokiFab I think it would be incredibly hard while keeping the core of the TW experience. Other studios can do it better.
I mean we could do Napoleon 2
Ya only problem is that Gunpoweder feels like a 100 times better in Napoleon and especialy Shogun 2 /FotS than in Warhammer... so really hope when the next historic game comes out and it has gunpoweder it should be at least be on the level of FotS in smoke, projectile trace and sound! Not to mention i cant believe short armed Dwarf mofos can shot an arrow with an tiny bow farther than Imperial guns can shoot! xD
I just hope they bring back more in depth and intelligent battle mechanics from earlier games. The lack of actual rank and file combat, especially for gunpowder units, completely sank my experience in the Warhammer games. Units shooting through each other, formation shape playing no part in combat effectiveness, over reliance on character abilities, slow as molasses projectiles. It was all just so simple and uninspired, and the cool aesthetic and outward look of the game only went so far. And don't try to excuse these simplifications in gameplay by saying "it's fantasy". That's a cheap copout that devalues fantasy settings as a whole. No one would try to use that argument for a Lord of the Rings game. I would have loved *loved* if Warhammer had used Shogun 2's or even Medieval 2's battle mechanics instead. That would have been a great game, but to me these games are just forgettable.
Yeah I agree, I really wish the battle mechanics in Warhammer was more realistic.
Sorry guys, but you've got it wrong in a major way.
Gunpowder and all isn't what's important, it's HOW it's implemented within the TW battles that's important.
You see, FotS may be liked by many, but most haven't actually played anything but the campaigns, against the dumb AI, but not the multiplayer.
And whether anyone admits it or not, the multiplayer of the TW games is a far, far better measurement of how balanced or good the game is. Because it offers you the ability to truly see what is over or underpowered in the game. I won't go into it all here, but FotS was terribly balanced.
But my point is, that going too far forward in time in terms of firearm technology WILL hurt a TW game's battles rather than help it. They shouldn't do any fully TW games that take place after Napoleon's day, as that level of technology still allows things like cavalry and melee in general to still be viable tactical options if used right.
That's why an Empire 2 should be set from 1696 to 1820, as that would allow for a lot more factions other than the Europeans to be viable in their own ways without just being one trick pony factions.
Shogun 2 fall of the samurai had the best gunpowder warfare
I want CA to do Medieval 3, Empire 2 and a Victoria TW like they did Warhammer 1, 2 and 3... with a megacampaign that combines all three games into one. Imagine being able to play from 1080 to 1900... with superevents that could shake things up.
Except in Warhammer, reloading is done through magic
Creative Assembly will probably avoid indigenous people games for a while. Too many landmines.
Love napoleon total war sadly its bug ridden and you cant get in a proper MP match without desyncs which really sucks
wen ww1 or ww2 ttw? just imagine...
I must be the exception then, because I disliked Empire exactly because of the gunpowder combat and I also don't like gunpowder units in Warhammer. Medieval setting and combat style is still my favourite and I'd much rather have a new Total War Medieval.
man why is this blowing up all of a sudden
i concur!
Empire starts in the 1600 so its the 17th not the 18 century
Gunpowder set in China
~that’s all i ask tysm
Please give us a napoleon II total war!!!!!
Yay new vid
Would love to see a prehistoric total war, or a Bronze Age total war, ancient India total war, Mongolian total war. These would be perfect for total war’s engine.
Why because the engine is also prehistoric?
@@jaywerner8415 yeah and also modern warfare doesn’t translate well to total war’s mechanics. It shines in melee combat and simple ranged weapons.
Total War 40k gonna be soooooo hype
Saying that Warhammer TW and FotS have anything in power is like saying aborigines r same as native Americans
Total War: Afghanistan
Its not better, the melee in Total War just sucks @$$ and I say this with great affection for the title.
Didnt see the video... but disliked it because I despise clickbaits.