Describe your perfect TW game! Mention any detail you like. That's it... just a small brainstorm session. There is no wrong answer; don't bash other peoples opinion. I start:

My setting would be historical because I don't like magic. That stuff is for witches...
Yes indeed I would pick early medieval or late antiquities as my preferred era; maybe border to the age of gunpowder. 

Although I do like a campaign games I only like the strategy map part to set up the best possible battles in terms of quantity and quality of troops and picking the battlegrounds. I don't like micro managing the economics of an empire and going over every settlement and deciding what to build to make the inhabitants happy and I just don't enjoy the merchant, spy mini games in the game (I do like the assassin in game mini game). I understand not all players are precious snowflakes like me so maybe make auto manage economics/buildings/agents a configuration for lazy players like me. Instead of building an actual spy and placing it somewhere. I would rather just have an basic static cost for espionage/commerce and have an adviser ask me how much I want to invest in my spy of merchant network (% wise), on counter espionage or a special missions (infiltrate town/poison wells, bribe, etc) every season. 

These missions could be shown in a specific table with the number of turns it would take and chance of success. And these missions could also trigger certain events.. 

I would like to see more random events that require player choices for small gains like a general's retinue or feat. 

Because I do believe a persons retinue was always a personal choice and I would like to see the retinue more personalized. In the games I played they just popped up.

For me the fun in playing a historical campaign is the chance to learn something new or rewrite history. I think this is a great opportunity to teach people interesting knowledge about what happened and when (during the campaign, not just historical battles) and give players the chance to do something different. 

Also a big focus on multiplayer games. Apart from standard 1v1, 2v2, etc, I would make Arena a multiplayer game type when hosting a multiplayer game. 10v10, 7v7. On release I would spam it with at least 30 historical commanders. Quantity over quality. Just listen to community and patch periodically.

I don't like grinding games much so I would opt for a simplified unit tech tree; no tiers. It sucks to lose to a T3 unit with a T1 just because of unit stats instead of strategy and timing. Also I think (with a smaller game population), the tier difference is also bad for matchmaking. Just pick a commander, pick a faction, confirm 3 units of the faction roster and go. Maybe even add a pick/ ban option if there are enough commanders/units to choose from and and some are still OP.

Cosmetic customization of units would be nice too. Yeah sure CA, I would pay for that separate from the game price. 

So tl;dr

Medieval 3 with a lazy option for the strategy map (not on settlement/agent level but as a game config)

More events with cool player options for thing like retinue or feats

(Optional) in game history lessons 

Arena game mode with a twist

How about you? Any wishes for 2026?

well first of all I think the time has come for medieval 3. I would like it to be a trilogy: high middle ages, low middle ages and late middle ages/early renaissance.

also in this case I would like an expanded map that takes europe and the middle east at the beginning, then asia and finally a part of america.

-I would like diplomacy even better than that of 3K. exchanges, trades, marriages, alliances, betrayals...the whole package.

-I absolutely want agents of all types back with their videos and their peculiarities.

-naval battles.

-port battle with the possibility of landing troops.

-possibility of building barricades and siege engines, no tower game or ladders from the ass.

-possibility of customizing ALL characters with weapons, armor, banners, horses, rare and ancillary items, that have visual feedback in the campaign and in battle.

- family tree

- the whole plague, earthquakes, floods, decay package

- a new way to manage settlements: I'm tired of colored construction slots and buildings that only give + percentage points of something.

- DLC that tell something: william wallace, the crusades, the mayans, the teutons and 20 others come to mind. there's enough for the next 10 years.

- clearly, a new engine

The games I want..

Historical

Medieval 3

Sword and Pike

Victoria

A medieval sized Asia TW

Fantasy

Just stick with the 2 WH IPs and maybe do the HH as a Saga title

Honestly I agree Medieval 3  has to be made this year Hopefully!! fingers crossed guys lets hope they listen to us!

TW is going to do 25 years. And we dont know nothing about a new Historical TW game. 

Enough of 9 years of phantasy games, enough of TW Warhamer!!!

Bring bakc Historical TW campaign and clan ladder!

Please! 

I would like to see:

1. RTW2 remastered
2. MTW2 remastered
3. And maybe a new historical game in WW1 age
   

​

oOIYvYIOo#4650 wrote:

TW is going to do 25 years. And we dont know nothing about a new Historical TW game. 

Enough of 9 years of phantasy games, enough of TW Warhamer!!!

Bring bakc Historical TW campaign and clan ladder!

Please! 

They never left Historical TWs. We've had 4 Historical TWs in the same time of the 3 WHF and even got patches and content for another 2 Historical titles alongside that. That's quite a lot of History support.

​

Commisar#2307 wrote:

​

oOIYvYIOo#4650 wrote:

TW is going to do 25 years. And we dont know nothing about a new Historical TW game. 

Enough of 9 years of phantasy games, enough of TW Warhamer!!!

Bring bakc Historical TW campaign and clan ladder!

Please! 

They never left Historical TWs. We've had 4 Historical TWs in the same time of the 3 WHF and even got patches and content for another 2 Historical titles alongside that. That's quite a lot of History support.

They didn't left the Historic games, that's true. But, in my opinion, they failed with "Attila", "Thrones of Britannia", "Three Kingdoms", "Troy" and "Pharaoh"... 5 consecutive games! :(

You know, I actually agree with the OP on this.

I mean sure, I want to see a few periods and such for TW games as much as anyone else, but I do think and wish that CA would take another crack at a truly multiplayer TW game, but do it better this time around.

I would say that instead of simply recreating TW Arena, CA should really focus on giving us a better TW battle experience first, with the "gimmick" being that they allow us to create our own unit rosters, pretty much from the ground up. I really think that doing something like that could give the game a great sense of freedom, but not so much freedom that it would just become a completely unbalanced mess.

But I just think that if CA is just allowed to handle it carefully, they could absolutely make a multiplayer focused TW game that would be a big hit.

​

DiKristo#6902 wrote:

​They didn't left the Historic games, that's true. But, in my opinion, they failed with "Attila", "Thrones of Britannia", "Three Kingdoms", "Troy" and "Pharaoh"... 5 consecutive games! :(

Did you actually play Pharaoh?

Because I actually put at least 100 hours into it, and while not perfect, I can say that it was certainly not a bad game and truly didn't deserve that stupid boycott it was given.

I honestly think that people need to stop trying to pretend that those old fossils of TW games were perfect, because they certainly weren't.

I didn't really want to make this a discussion about historical vs fantasy. I even kind of understand CA reasons to implement historical TW titles with smaller scale periods/maps not yet included in their time/map range. They can save time and stomp out variants faster with a smaller team.

I honestly think that people need to stop trying to pretend that those old fossils of TW games were perfect, because they certainly weren't.

They are not perfect, but that's exactly why I (and I guess other people like me) want one of the ancient 4 games (rome/medieval/shogun/empire) reinvented with a the most modern tech. The beauty of these settings (except Shogun) imo is the emergence of global (ancient world) super powers and the clash of civilizations. I miss this in the new historical titles. 

That being said; anybody memberberry the time when RTA was pitched as a high tech battle simulator in a tv show? 

Time Commanders: 4 history geeks playing a historical battle like noobs. I member thinking this was the pinnacle of strategy gaming and couldn't wait to play it myself. That's what I want again.. Something revolutionary..

Really out of the box.. 

I just think CA should focus on it's strengths and make sure the battles and online experience is optimal (more fun/strategic, less dreary) and less on the setup elements like agent placement and buildings (or make the minigame a better experience). 

There are better games if you want to manage an empire or build a castle. Micromanaging this sound silly in a grand campaign. An emperor wouldn't sent out 1 or 2 spies/merchants right? It would be an investment in a network of agents like procursatores/exploratores/speculatores/frumentarii/merchants and the success of it's missions would be based on the spread and infiltration level (over time) of the network. 

So to eleborate on my previous thought; basically pay money to invest in influence in a certain region. This could be made visible in a ratio heatmap layover.

Also building units shouldn't be regional or just dependent on the building in a certain region. Would make more sense if it's more dependent on the availability of resources like metals and people. I would therefor make resources more influential on the map. This would also incentivize players to play more battles on the map instead of boring siege battles. Seizing these resources to gathering storage would be essential for a good economy and strong army. So army composition would depend very much on the availability of resources and investments in regional infrastructure. This means you can recruit the army you want faster, but also make strategical map decisions if you know your enemy needs a key resource for his/her plans. 

Online games with a arcade/reality slide setting would be nice. I loved the well timed click of the charge/battle roar in Arena although it's not really realistic. Making it optional you can cater to more types of players.

​

B00Tstrap#4999 wrote:

They are not perfect, but that's exactly why I (and I guess other people like me) want one of the ancient 4 games (rome/medieval/shogun/empire) reinvented with a the most modern tech. The beauty of these settings (except Shogun) imo is the emergence of global (ancient world) super powers and the clash of civilizations. I miss this in the new historical titles.

Online games with a arcade/reality slide setting would be nice. I loved the well timed click of the charge/battle roar in Arena although it's not really realistic. Making it optional you can cater to more types of players.

Well, I've just seen a number of fanboys and such try to talk as if those older TW games were all but perfect while they say all the modern ones are crap, so I'm just a little tired of such nonsense. And I'm certainly not against seeing such time periods and such be turned into TW games, I'm just against the common viewpoint that I've seen many such fanboys hold, and that is the idea that a single Medieval 3 will all but be the answer to all the world's problems.

I just think that at this point, Sega should actually allow CA to focus on first making a TW game that they know will work instead of trying to meddle with how they do things. But I digress.

I think that CA should be allowed to first make another TW game set in ancient times, but do a bit more with it, and then they could try to make an Empire 2 and or a Medieval 3 "trilogy". As that could work well enough for them and could help them get back on their feet.

​

B00Tstrap#4999 wrote:

That being said; anybody memberberry the time when RTA was pitched as a high tech battle simulator in a tv show? 

Time Commanders: 4 history geeks playing a historical battle like noobs. I member thinking this was the pinnacle of strategy gaming and couldn't wait to play it myself. That's what I want again.. Something revolutionary..

Yeah, it was great. I loved that they brought it back for another season...in 2016 yikes thought it was more recent lol.

B00Tstrap#4999 wrote:
There are better games if you want to manage an empire or build a castle. Micromanaging this sound silly in a grand campaign. An emperor wouldn't sent out 1 or 2 spies/merchants right?

They have gotten rid of that. Attila is the last historical game with agents like that. ToB and Pharaoh have them as part of characters stats/spies are in diplomacy for P/D. 3K has a more in-depth system and sort of brings back agents with the assignments which I would be happy to see cut.

B00Tstrap#4999 wrote:
Also building units shouldn't be regional or just dependent on the building in a certain region. Would make more sense if it's more dependent on the availability of resources like metals and people. I would therefor make resources more influential on the map. This would also incentivize players to play more battles on the map instead of boring siege battles. Seizing these resources to gathering storage would be essential for a good economy and strong army. So army composition would depend very much on the availability of resources and investments in regional infrastructure.

Key part of resources and empires is that the resources can be moved and that's part of why empires form and expand to gain control of them to steer where they are moved to. It's why their building chains generate money and trade goods. Also there's not actually that many resources you need for most units. Bigger part is the traditions/culture of the people in that region. Part of why R2 has the auxiliary chain building and P/D has regional units.

It doesn't stop siege battles, we'd still have them to take control of the main city assuming minor settlements don't get walls. ToB did try this by making minor settlements have no walls or garrisons so sniping resource regions was possible. It's not been a very popular implementation and is a bit annoying in game to chase down a single enemy general that keeps capturing minor provinces due to them being cavalry and having more movement.

I just woke up with a new idea; Total War: Timed Commanders!

The Total War autobattler! 

Come to think of it; I cannot imagine a better fit for an autobattler game, with all the troop diversity available from all TW titles.

You are welcome CA for all the millions you will be making. Just give me a shoutout in game...

​

B00Tstrap#4999 wrote:

Come to think of it; I cannot imagine a better fit for an autobattler game, with all the troop diversity available from all TW titles.

You are welcome CA for all the millions you will be making. Just give me a shoutout in game...

Honestly, I don't think those two things mix all that well, at least being the main thing of a TW game anyway.

I mean sure, a cinematic battle creator would be awesome, but I don't think it would work all that well as the main draw of a TW game.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I think a remaster of Napoleon with the map size/scope of Empire would be a great idea. Empire's scale is one of its strongest points. Combining that with the units of Napoleon (which I think, while not perfect, were much better than Empire's) and other features such as winter attrition, auto-replenishment, and lessened focus on religion, would make for a fun game. Just a thought.

​

B00Tstrap#4999 wrote:
Regional cultural/traditional influence is a big part, but de fluidity of this factor makes it harder to base a standard unit roster. Merc roster would be regional/culture for sure, but I'd keep the roster based on the picked culture and partly infrastructure.  I haven't played ToB but I think I will try it after my current Atilla campaign and make judgement on how they tackled the issue. I must say I also dislike slippery escaping high mobility units and trying to chase them down with 1 stack until you can trap them with a 2nd stack.
Like with most things it depends on how it's implemented. A good idea done bad is terrible; a bad idea done good is decent.The idea of an autobattler is nothing more then a combination of a healthy pool of units to choose from (which TW titles can provide) and impactful strategic player choices (like changing movement paths, temp buffs, temp debuff) and reducing in battle micro managing and replacing it with premeditated macro decisions.I think a good percentage of TW players would enjoy a different game where their favorite TW title can be pitted against units from other TW titles. Vikings vs Samurai? Shieldwall vs a chinese crossbowmen volley? Is this opinionated, pure speculation and perhaps a tad too optimistic ? Yes.. absolutelyBut I think it would very much work and you don't have to believe me, but 9 out of 10 I'm 100% right. Not convinced? Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion man.
You are right; CA should focus on the TW game they think will work. Question is: What would CA like to focus on? I wish I could ask that question to their lead designer/director and get an honest answer. Or maybe they did and I just don't know it yet?
I have another idea for future TW titles I would like to pick your brains, but this is not the right thread.

Well, I do understand what you mean, such things would need to be implemented properly or they probably wouldn't be worth making at all.

And it's not that I don't think that some kind of cinematic battle creator or whatever you might call it would be a bad idea, but like I said, I  think it would be too hard of a sell for its own standalone TW game, that's all. 

Though I think it could work really well if tied to an idea I had for a MP focused TW game, where the big draw is that it would be mostly about creating your own units and using them in MP battles against other players created units. But maybe having a cinematic battle editor would be a nice little side mode that could add to the fun of such a TW game, as I would like to see players be able to make Viking and Samurai style units as well as many others based on historical and some slight fantasy stuff.