I wasn't sure exactly what to title this thread, as it I decided to make it more of a multifaceted thread that cover the ideas of multiple possible TW games.

Now, don't worry too much guys, I'm not going to try to go into crazy deep detail about each game's idea but I will just try to give a basic idea of what could be done with each idea.

I will say that I think the ideas for TW games I'm going to talk about are not simply just ideas for good TW games, but rather settings and time periods that work most effectively for the formula of the TW games.

Now, I'm just going to break the thread's OP into three main sections, which are, Historical, Non Historical, and Dream TW Games, with maybe a couple sub sections for each game's ideas.

But I'll just get straight into it.

Historical

Honestly, I think that I can think of only two possible historical TW games that I want CA to make is an Empire 2 and what I like to call a TW: Antiquity, as those time periods that could work incredibly well for a TW game, even if we're seen them before.

Now, I won't get into all the semantics, as we can discuss such details in the comments, but I will say that an Empire 2 that starts about 1684 or so and goes to 1820 and a TW game set in the ancient world could not only be a fairly safe bet for CA to take on, but be able to do a lot of things better this time around.

I will say that the only TW games I really don't see is time periods Victorian Era and WW1, really anything after Napoleon's wars. I don't hate those periods, but I know that not all time periods will work as well for a TW game, and I think that the level of technology in those time periods absolutely would cause problems for just what sorts of tactics can be effectively used in the battles, especially in the multiplayer. So I would just rather CA stay away from these sorts of more "modern" time periods.

 ​​Empire 2​​

I really do think that CA could do quite a lot with another attempt at the "linier warfare" and such of the 1700s, without trying to reinvent the wheel of the TW games.

I would like to see an Empire 2 be more focused on mainly having a single large grand campaign that gets expanded over time to encompass most of the world of that time, which could open up the door to a lot of possible playable factions as well.

And I will just say that I would like to see CA take some lessons from and improve upon things from old Empire 1, Napoleon, and Shogun 2, and Shogun 2 FotS, but in more modern and updated ways. But we can get into all the deeper details in the comments.

TW: Antiquity​

I think while CA has set a number of TW games in various sub periods of ancient times, I don't think it would hurt if they gave it another shot and worked to improve many aspects from those past games, and even refine and improve upon some of the newer things, such as the unit weight classes from Troy and Pharaoh. And I even think they could manage to do some simple but effective things with the game's MP battles.

I will say that I think it'd be a good idea for CA to somewhat repeat what they did with Rome 2, that is, to focus giving us a nice enough basic "grand" campaign at first and then making a bunch of campaign DLCs, but not solely have them all be related this time around. 

I will say that they could make the base game's starting "grand" campaign start a bit earlier than Rome 2, I'm thinking about when Rome was becoming a regional power in Italy but hadn't yet conquered all of it. But the other campaigns should range from things like the rise of Cyrus the Great's Persian Empire to the late Roman Empire period and almost anything in between.

Non Historical 

I know that a lot of people would like to see a TW: Warhammer 40,000 or even TW: Star Wars, and I think that would be plenty cool as well, I'll just stick with fantasy settings to keep this section fairly simple.

But I think that there really only 2 fantasy settings (technically 3) I  can think of that could make for great TW games, but there's some issues with them. They are

TW: Middle Earth and TW: Hyboria. 

That is of course a TW game set in Tolkien's Middle Earth (duh) and one set in the world of Conan the Barbarian's Hyborian Age.

​TW: Middle Earth 

This one's pretty self explanatory. They could make a TW  game set in the Third Age of Middle Earth, mainly around the period before the War of the Ring fully started, and it could have a good number of the different races of Middle Earth be playable factions and all. It could be like a bigger better version of the older Third Age mod.

I will say that one of the possible issues with this setting would be that they might need to make two separate game, the first one being in the Third Age and the other in the First Age.

I suggest this only really because of the great difference in scale between the wars that were fought in the First Age and the Third Age. I mean, there's all manner of crazy creatures that Morgoth was able to call upon in the First Age are far more powerful than most of the stuff Sauron was able to call upon in the Third Age. 

I'm just saying, having the First Age stuff in the same game would absolutely overshadow the Third Age stuff that was in the game before, so it would just be better to make two games.

TW: Hyboria ​

Now I will say that I don't know about all the lore in Conan's world of the Hyborian Age, but I do know that there's a whole lot of different factions and stuff they could play around with, but that also kind of leads into some of the issues that may come with trying to make a TW game set in the Hyborian Age.

1. Most of the stories of Conan and a few other notable characters, mostly have the do with, well, them as the hero of the stories, and they're not exactly military manuals that explain all the armies of every faction/race of the Hyborian Age.

2. Things like magic are fairly rare and not all factions make use of a bunch of monsters and other fantasy creatures they can make use of, as from what I understand, a lot of creatures are literally just that, wild creatures that try to eat or otherwise kill other living things. So it could easily end up with the game mostly being a bunch of human factions and a comparably few non human factions with comparably few options for creatures and magic.

I don't think CA couldn't manage to make a good TW game set in Conan's Hyborian Age, but they'd really have to do a lot of work to help translate the various factions to where they all feel viable and interesting without it feeling it a TW: Warhammer knock off or something.

New "IP"​ 

This kinda gets into the next section, but I think it's still worth mentioning. And this is the technical 3rd option I hinted at before.

I think that one thing that CA could possibly be in a unique positions to actually do would be to just make their fantasy setting specifically for a TW game.

And I it has to do with the big misconception, which is that only established franchises and settings can ever be successful. 

I say that because I do think that why CA could do something like that is simply because they're a game development studio and aren't trying to make some big TV show or series of movies or anything that might require them to take a long time to write up tons of lore for the setting they're wanting to create. 

Because when you stop and think about it, the guys at CA could just make some super basic lore for this fantasy TW game's world and the factions that are in it, as video games don't necessarily need a ton of lore and such to be fun to play and all.

I mean, Helldivers 2 has more than proven that a game doesn't absolutely need to be tied to an long established franchise or setting or have tons of deep lore to be successful.

But the point is that I think that CA could manage to make a fairly basic fantasy setting that they could end up doing almost anything with in terms of variety between factions/races and all that stuff, they could just mostly focus on making a good TW game.

Dream TW Games 

This is where I'm just kind of just what I would love to see in a TW game if I could just give CA a bunch of money and just have them make my dream TW game.

As much as I would love to see CA make any of the TW games I mentioned above and design them well, with the last one actually kind of previously being part of an idea of a dream TW game, my biggest dream TW game is actually fairly simple when all is said and done.

I wish CA would make a TW game that's entirely focused on the multiplayer battles, maybe not even having any campaigns at all.

It could kind of be like TW: Arena, but done a lot better this time around and having a far better gimmick.

What CA could do is to allow players to create their own units pretty much from the ground up and then use them to fight battles against other players. 

Maybe it could simply be called TW: Battles.

And while there should certainly be some parts in the unit creation to help keep things relatively balanced, it would never really devolve into stupid metas being formed all the time, because I do know how annoying it can be to see some sweaty tryhard trying to spamming this or that cheap OP stuff.

But I while I really do appreciate the TW campaigns a lot more than when I was younger, there is just so much the TW MP battles offer that so many people sadly often unjustly look down upon because they don't really understand what it truly has to offer. 

And I will be so bold as to say that if CA gave the TW MP battles even a 5th or even 10th of the attention as the campaigns, the TW MP could easily have surpassed even the likes of Starcraft 2 and AoE4 in terms of popularity for strategy game tournaments, or at least certainly be up there with them.

I will say that the idea of CA making their own setting I mentioned before could be a way for CA to give this sort of a game a campaign if they truly felt like they had to have one, though I think they'd have to do quite a lot of stuff to make that work, which could possibly lead to it almost being more trouble than it's worth.

That's why I would just like to see a TW game that's entirely focused on the MP battles.

Only Medieval 3 with global map from Portugal up to Japan))

​

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

I will say that the only TW games I really don't see is time periods Victorian Era and WW1, really anything after Napoleon's wars. I don't hate those periods, but I know that not all time periods will work as well for a TW game, and I think that the level of technology in those time periods absolutely would cause problems for just what sorts of tactics can be effectively used in the battles, especially in the multiplayer. So I would just rather CA stay away from these sorts of more "modern" time periods.

CA already made a game set in Victorian era and it worked just fine.

1. Star Wars 

2. LotR 

3. 40k 

4. Med 3 Trilogy (combined Wold Map icluding Europe, North Africa and Asia)

​

pashyash#4000 wrote:

Only Medieval 3 with global map from Portugal up to Japan))

Sorry for not replying sooner, as it there was a bunch of stuff going on.

But I will say that I think the idea of a singular Medieval 3 isn't what we really need, as I think far too many people are blindly by nostalgia and think that a single game will be the answer to all the problems.

I'd rather see CA make another trilogy of TW games, but basically have it be about the medieval era, with each game covering the early, high, and late sub periods within it.

I'm sure that could work because three games could allow for each sub period to shine on their own without all the best stuff in the early period instantly becoming outdated by the time the high and late periods roll around.

​

united84#8186 wrote:
Since you mentioned "We", I would like to interject and put down my own wishlist.

1. Spring and Autumn Period. Most under rated era, this is the era where Sun Tzu & Confucius were born.
2. Imjin War.

Sorry for not replying sooner, some stuff was happening for me.

But which dynasties or period do you mean in the Spring and Autumn periods with Sun Tzu exactly?

And I ask just because I'm not an expert on all Chinese history, that's all.

And I think that the Imjin War could be really interesting, but I do feel like there are some problems with it, and not just how a few people might get mad over it.

I think that it would probably have to be part of a Shogun 3 of sorts, or something like that, where you could also include a Mongol Invasion, which could certainly add some needed variety that Shogun 2 didn't have.

I would just hope that CA would stick to their guns and not portray one side of the Imjin War as "the bad guys" or any such nonsense.

​

SerPus#7395 wrote:

CA already made a game set in Victorian era and it worked just fine.

Sorry for not replying sooner.

But correction. They made an expansion that was in the Victorian era that was later sold on its own, not a truly stand alone TW game all its own.

And when you really stop and think about what the military technology in the Victorian era was really like, FotS was really nerfed compared to what they had during the decade the Bosin War took place in.

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

I believe many people would like to see Victoria TW and it would work fine, as it did in FotS. If you didn't like it, that's fine, but, I and a lot of people did, as seen by the good reviews on Steam (This changed because they sold it as a separate Saga DLC).

40K would be considered a fantasy setting set in space and is the most likely fantasy to come next.

Sorry for not replying sooner.

I don't doubt that there's stuff from the Victorian era as a whole that could work within a TW game, but I feel far too many people don't consider what could happen with that era from the perspective of the battles themselves.

When I think about what I know about the wars and such of Victorian era, I don't really tend to think of anything more than guns gun and more guns, which just seems like it would get really old after a while. I think that having firearms be really prominent isn't the problem, is the fact that there's so little that can counter the firearm technology of 1830s onward short of ambushing and such, which could be far easier said than done.

I just think that while an  Empire 2, probably from 1684 or so to 1820, would certainly have a lot of firearm units, but the level of they're at would still be at such a point that using things like melee infantry and cavalry could still be useful, at least to a degree in the case of melee infantry.

And honestly, I just feel like an Empire 2 set in the aforementioned time period would also have a lot more variety in terms of viable playable factions that wouldn't strictly get wiped out by the European ones in a single battle.

​

Captain_Rex#1635 wrote:

1. Star Wars 

2. LotR 

3. 40k 

4. Med 3 Trilogy (combined Wold Map icluding Europe, North Africa and Asia)

Sorry for not replying sooner.

But those do sound like they could be pretty good, though I wouldn't want CA having any dealings with Disney at this point, though a LotR and 40k TW game or two could probably be pretty dang fun.

And I would say that a Medieval 3 trilogy could work pretty well, though I think it should be more based on the early, high, and late periods of medieval European and such areas.

Now, I'm not saying that there wasn't anything interesting going on beyond Europe during the medieval era, I just feel like CA should try to hold things to a reasonable level, that's all. And what I mean is that I simply don't think CA should try so hard to shove the entire medieval era into just 3 games and try to have it span the known world and all at the same time.

I just feel that that might very well force them to cut corners and such in certain areas and then we would get a trilogy of good TW games, but ones that would take a while to be made great. But I'm sure you know what I mean.

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

The 19th Century contained vast amounts of hand to hand combat, that also includes plenty in even in WW1. More than that, there'll me plenty of melee in the year 40000.

Victoria is a popular era so, I imagine it would work well. They would set it up similar to FoTS, there was plenty of melee in that game.

Well, I know that there's a lot of melee combat in 40k, but I also know that a big reason for that is that the units either have enough armor to survive small arms fight long enough to reach melee combat and or some of them use things like jump packs to get into melee range far faster.

And I know that there were instances of melee combat in the 19th and 20th centuries, but I also know how horrendous the casualties were in the Battle of the Somme alone, so I'm not exactly thrilled at the idea of a TW game that devolves into who can set up the most terrible defenses and who has the most guns.

And it's not that I hate the Victorian era or anything, but do just understand and am willing to admit that the TW games work best when you can have a nice balance of ranged and melee combat, factoring in various kinds of infantry, cavalry, and artillery, in most cases. But you know what I mean.

I just feel that if they make a full on Victorian era TW game, the only time you'll ever really be incentivized to use melee tactics like bayonet charges will be if the terrain is incredibly hilly or something like that where melee charges might be one of the only options.

I just believe like an Empire 2 set in mainly the 1700s can offer a lot of options for firearms and artillery, but without completely throwing effective use of melee units away entirely.

​

VikingHuscarl1066#3718 wrote:

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

The 19th Century contained vast amounts of hand to hand combat, that also includes plenty in even in WW1. More than that, there'll me plenty of melee in the year 40000.

Victoria is a popular era so, I imagine it would work well. They would set it up similar to FoTS, there was plenty of melee in that game.

Well, I know that there's a lot of melee combat in 40k, but I also know that a big reason for that is that the units either have enough armor to survive small arms fight long enough to reach melee combat and or some of them use things like jump packs to get into melee range far faster.

And I know that there were instances of melee combat in the 19th and 20th centuries, but I also know how horrendous the casualties were in the Battle of the Somme alone, so I'm not exactly thrilled at the idea of a TW game that devolves into who can set up the most terrible defenses and who has the most guns.

And it's not that I hate the Victorian era or anything, but do just understand and am willing to admit that the TW games work best when you can have a nice balance of ranged and melee combat, factoring in various kinds of infantry, cavalry, and artillery, in most cases. But you know what I mean.

I just feel that if they make a full on Victorian era TW game, the only time you'll ever really be incentivized to use melee tactics like bayonet charges will be if the terrain is incredibly hilly or something like that where melee charges might be one of the only options.

I just believe like an Empire 2 set in mainly the 1700s can offer a lot of options for firearms and artillery, but without completely throwing effective use of melee units away entirely.

I’d have a look at the actual history books on this one. The ACW contained a lot of brutal hand to hand combat, as did the Zulu Wars.

You often forget that the programmers decide how powerful range is in these games and they can be balanced as such. Add to that there was plenty of hand to hand combat in the 19th century. This isn’t an issue.

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

​I’d have a look at the actual history books on this one. The ACW contained a lot of brutal hand to hand combat, as did the Zulu Wars.

You often forget that the programmers decide how powerful range is in these games and they can be balanced as such. Add to that there was plenty of hand to hand combat in the 19th century. This isn’t an issue.

I know that there was melee combat in the ACW and in the Zulu Wars, but I feel like the Zulu and possibly Maori are some of the only possible factions to have any slightly meaningful number of melee units that aren't cavalry, most which would have guns by this period.

And I now that the programmers are the ones who decide how powerful ranged units will be, but that's partly where the problem with the Victorian era comes in.

If you look at the ranges of "modern" units in FotS, you'll probably see that they don't really have that much better range then the matchlock units from the base game. It's very obvious that that was done so that they wouldn't be quite as OP, and that makes it all the clearer that the historical ranged for such "modern" firearms would've had considerably better range to those old matchlocks.

But my point is that if we're talking the Zulu and such wars, it's not really wrong to say that rifles were far far more common and could easily lead to the firearm units being incredibly OP, as if they had more historical range, which would probably be like 200 range in Shogun 2 terms, they'd be able to gun down pretty much anything that wasn't a stealthy infantry or hidden unit, and the reload speed and accuracy of units just furthers the ability for melee to be as useful.

I just think that when it comes to earlier smoothbore muskets and such, you could still have melee that wasn't strictly cavalry be more of a viable options, plus, there'd be more room for some factions to not be in terminal decline, or not nearly as much as they'd be by say 1850 or so, such as the Mughal Empire in India and the Qing Dynasty in China.

​

VikingHuscarl1066#3718 wrote:

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

​I’d have a look at the actual history books on this one. The ACW contained a lot of brutal hand to hand combat, as did the Zulu Wars.

You often forget that the programmers decide how powerful range is in these games and they can be balanced as such. Add to that there was plenty of hand to hand combat in the 19th century. This isn’t an issue.

I know that there was melee combat in the ACW and in the Zulu Wars, but I feel like the Zulu and possibly Maori are some of the only possible factions to have any slightly meaningful number of melee units that aren't cavalry, most which would have guns by this period.

And I now that the programmers are the ones who decide how powerful ranged units will be, but that's partly where the problem with the Victorian era comes in.

If you look at the ranges of "modern" units in FotS, you'll probably see that they don't really have that much better range then the matchlock units from the base game. It's very obvious that that was done so that they wouldn't be quite as OP, and that makes it all the clearer that the historical ranged for such "modern" firearms would've had considerably better range to those old matchlocks.

But my point is that if we're talking the Zulu and such wars, it's not really wrong to say that rifles were far far more common and could easily lead to the firearm units being incredibly OP, as if they had more historical range, which would probably be like 200 range in Shogun 2 terms, they'd be able to gun down pretty much anything that wasn't a stealthy infantry or hidden unit, and the reload speed and accuracy of units just furthers the ability for melee to be as useful.

I just think that when it comes to earlier smoothbore muskets and such, you could still have melee that wasn't strictly cavalry be more of a viable options, plus, there'd be more room for some factions to not be in terminal decline, or not nearly as much as they'd be by say 1850 or so, such as the Mughal Empire in India and the Qing Dynasty in China.

All units are melee when they get up close. I think you are overcomplicating an issue that does not require it. There was a lot of melee in the wars of the 19th Century, ipso facto a Victorian TW game will have plenty of melee. It really is that simple.

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

​All units are melee when they get up close. I think you are overcomplicating an issue that does not require it. There was a lot of melee in the wars of the 19th Century, ipso facto a Victorian TW game will have plenty of melee. It really is that simple.

I know that all units can switch to melee weapons, but I'm obviously talking about dedicated melee units rather than that and just how risky melee charges are when the "modern" firearm units in FotS can get off at least two deadly volleys that can almost wipe out entire units at times.

And I say that because of how much I played Shogun 2 and saw how ridiculously OP the "modern" FotS firearm units could be, so I'm not exactly ecstatic at the idea of more advanced weapons being the main focus in a TW game.

At least during the 1700s, muskets were certainly powerful, but that time period could still allow for melee troops to able to overcome them if used correctly.

​

VikingHuscarl1066#3718 wrote:

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

​All units are melee when they get up close. I think you are overcomplicating an issue that does not require it. There was a lot of melee in the wars of the 19th Century, ipso facto a Victorian TW game will have plenty of melee. It really is that simple.

I know that all units can switch to melee weapons, but I'm obviously talking about dedicated melee units rather than that and just how risky melee charges are when the "modern" firearm units in FotS can get off at least two deadly volleys that can almost wipe out entire units at times.

And I say that because of how much I played Shogun 2 and saw how ridiculously OP the "modern" FotS firearm units could be, so I'm not exactly ecstatic at the idea of more advanced weapons being the main focus in a TW game.

At least during the 1700s, muskets were certainly powerful, but that time period could still allow for melee troops to able to overcome them if used correctly.

However, it was possible to use an almost total melee army in FotS due to the elite melee units. I never had real issues using melee in FotS so, I don't think it would be an issue in any other Victoria era game. The ACW was famous for it's infantry charges and the effectiveness of melee engagements.

It's also perfectly reasonable to have elite melee units even those that use range, for example any guard unit within a European nation, the Gurkha and Sikh regiments within the British army and many others.

This isn't an issue for any half decent dev.

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

​However, it was possible to use an almost total melee army in FotS due to the elite melee units. I never had real issues using melee in FotS so, I don't think it would be an issue in any other Victoria era game. The ACW was famous for it's infantry charges and the effectiveness of melee engagements.

It's also perfectly reasonable to have elite melee units even those that use range, for example any guard unit within a European nation, the Gurkha and Sikh regiments within the British army and many others.

This isn't an issue for any half decent dev.

Well, as someone who played a lot of Shogun 2 MP, a decent part of which was on the FotS armies, I can say that I saw how easy it could be to just spam guns and win, and that was against players and not the AI. So you can probably imagine how much easier to exploit such things against the AI in campaigns.

And I'm not doubting that sorts of elite units wouldn't be good in melee, it's just that such units might never really need to worry about most enemies getting to them in melee if the technology is even better than the weapons from FotS.

Because my real concern with a Victorian TW is that if not handled right, it could easily just devolve into throwing more guns at an enemy in a sense, or being able to defeat many times your numbers simply because you have a few more guns than them. And with how quickly the more "modern" units in FotS could shoot and reload their weapons, I'm just concerned that the proper "modern" stuff the European factions and such would use would be all the more OP and make melee charges incredibly risky.

And I honestly fear that if they'd really have to give them some abilities and such for factions like the Zulu and Maori to feel like they can stand up to the European factions, besides cheap numbers. Because you can't just give all Zulu units the vanguard/guerilla deployment and stalk traits or they'd be insanely OP.

I just really feel like an Empire 2 set from about 1684 to 1820 could not only allow for dedicated melee units to still be more viable without making firearms nothing but peashooters or too OP either. Then you could have melee units like various Native American warriors, Scottish Highlanders, Sikh Warriors, among others still be able to be effective if used right, but without getting ripped to shreds by "modern" infantry who have like 175 or 200 range.

I would just rather CA try to balance things to where firearms are certainly powerful, but do so without sacrificing other parts of the tactical toolbox.

​

VikingHuscarl1066#3718 wrote:

​

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

​However, it was possible to use an almost total melee army in FotS due to the elite melee units. I never had real issues using melee in FotS so, I don't think it would be an issue in any other Victoria era game. The ACW was famous for it's infantry charges and the effectiveness of melee engagements.

It's also perfectly reasonable to have elite melee units even those that use range, for example any guard unit within a European nation, the Gurkha and Sikh regiments within the British army and many others.

This isn't an issue for any half decent dev.

Well, as someone who played a lot of Shogun 2 MP, a decent part of which was on the FotS armies, I can say that I saw how easy it could be to just spam guns and win, and that was against players and not the AI. So you can probably imagine how much easier to exploit such things against the AI in campaigns.

And I'm not doubting that sorts of elite units wouldn't be good in melee, it's just that such units might never really need to worry about most enemies getting to them in melee if the technology is even better than the weapons from FotS.

Because my real concern with a Victorian TW is that if not handled right, it could easily just devolve into throwing more guns at an enemy in a sense, or being able to defeat many times your numbers simply because you have a few more guns than them. And with how quickly the more "modern" units in FotS could shoot and reload their weapons, I'm just concerned that the proper "modern" stuff the European factions and such would use would be all the more OP and make melee charges incredibly risky.

And I honestly fear that if they'd really have to give them some abilities and such for factions like the Zulu and Maori to feel like they can stand up to the European factions, besides cheap numbers. Because you can't just give all Zulu units the vanguard/guerilla deployment and stalk traits or they'd be insanely OP.

I just really feel like an Empire 2 set from about 1684 to 1820 could not only allow for dedicated melee units to still be more viable without making firearms nothing but peashooters or too OP either. Then you could have melee units like various Native American warriors, Scottish Highlanders, Sikh Warriors, among others still be able to be effective if used right, but without getting ripped to shreds by "modern" infantry who have like 175 or 200 range.

I would just rather CA try to balance things to where firearms are certainly powerful, but do so without sacrificing other parts of the tactical toolbox.

Well, as someone who equally played a lot of FotS I can tell you that I used the elite melee troops effectively who could easily blend through line infantry.

Add to that, no reviewers pros or players brought it up as a problem. It’s worth remembering that personal experience isn’t an argument for how a game plays. 

The fact remains that FotS is a popular game and received good reviews before people started to review bomb the series.

There is nothing stopping CA creating a well balanced Victorian game.