​I mean it wouldn’t even be that complicated to create a medieval-to-victorian era total war.

You put all human entities to have say 100 hp.

Then you make all guns deal 100 armour piercing damage with varying degrees of accuracy and fire rate.

To set someone’s general unit to only lose the general if the entire unit has died (to prevent general sniping).

And then you just add the wide flavour of melee units that come through the era’s.

With units able to use formations, so for example Napoleonic era gun infantry can use kneeling fire, which just means the front line of troops kneels which enables the second line to also fire.

And enable line infantry to form a square which gives a bonus against large.

Or pikemen with a phalanx and pike square etc.

It’s all been done before in total war, it would be an easy step to just recycle all that and put it all together in one huge historical game.

​Glad to hear other people enjoying it, although not always agreeing on this.

City maps feel rather the same to me. Yeah I've seen capture points give a slight bonus but never found it useful - by the point my force is there and needing that I'm going to lose anyway. I think the bigger change is the need to use siege equipment and not just one turn attack with catapults.

Personally I skip the post battle animations but good to hear it wasn't wasted on everyone lol.

​Resource trading I think it fits the period the game is in, but doesn't fit for the series as a whole. Other periods they are better as a trade resource being exchanged for money for the state like normal.

​Outposts I find the opposite, they are a good boost for power. I tend not to build them on the vulnerable edges of my empire tho. I find the defensive ones a nice idea but fail vs players (I siege enemy forts so they can't help the settlement which bypasses their investment) but the production and religious buildings make a big difference. It's also useful for the movement bonuses when in your own regions. Depending where you are as well the short buff of immunity to desert attrition is needed for effective expansion.

torak8988#3885 wrote:

I honestly can’t wait for the Pharao team to do a medieval 3, featuring the entire world. Where medieval 3 begins in the early medieval era and ends with the first world war era.

So roughly starting when William the conquer conquered England (1075) and ending in 1900, ending before the introduction of aircraft.

That...really wont be possible. Sheer cost it wouldn't be viable.

Fair,

But it doesn't have to be all that detailed, for example if every faction gets say a few units per era in each class, the demand could easily be met.

I mean the napoleonic era can be summarized by artillery + line infantry + skirmishers + lancers, as a baseline for roughly all factions of that era.

And the musket era essentially has the same, just instead of skirmishers they have pikemen.

Yes, there is less detail or less niche historical units will be featured, but the overal scope is where it is at, it captures the advancement of technology, which is a part I really loved about medieval 2 and shogun 2.

​

torak8988#3885 wrote:

Fair,

But it doesn't have to be all that detailed, for example if every faction gets say a few units per era in each class, the demand could easily be met.

I mean the napoleonic era can be summarized by artillery + line infantry + skirmishers + lancers, as a baseline for roughly all factions of that era.

And the musket era essentially has the same, just instead of skirmishers they have pikemen.

Yes, there is less detail or less niche historical units will be featured, but the overal scope is where it is at, it captures the advancement of technology, which is a part I really loved about medieval 2 and shogun 2.

Considering the flack Historical already gets for lack of unit diversity, building a game to strip that out needlessly seems a terrible idea. It'd also be skipping the advancement of tech for most of that if you boil it down that much. Most of the game will be just your Napoleonic units. 

I mean that's kind of the point of my suggestion

expanding the timeframe significantly increases unit diversity

and since half the game is still set in the medieval period, not to mention you can play as japan, china, indians etc.

there is an absolute TON of diversity going around, not only do you have the medieval era, but also the gunpowder era, each with a wide range of technological improvements in them.

line infantry is going to be a lot deadlier than musketeers

​

torak8988#3885 wrote:

I mean that's kind of the point of my suggestion

expanding the timeframe significantly increases unit diversity

and since half the game is still set in the medieval period, not to mention you can play as japan, china, indians etc.

there is an absolute TON of diversity going around, not only do you have the medieval era, but also the gunpowder era, each with a wide range of technological improvements in them.

line infantry is going to be a lot deadlier than musketeers

But it doesn't if you strip the time periods down to bare minimum units. Most of the games time frame will end up with the exact same units for it. Otherwise like I said its not possible for them as it will be too expensive to make and sell. It also runs the issue that people wont experience that range of units as most players don't play that long.

don't forget, we are talking about a world map

you get the european medieval/gunpowder units

and the asian, indian, american, african, siberian, middle eastern etc.

there's so much content to feast on, and they can always print an "england DLC" or something that adds some extra english specific units if they weren't featured in the basegame.

​

torak8988#3885 wrote:

don't forget, we are talking about a world map

you get the european medieval/gunpowder units

and the asian, indian, american, african, siberian, middle eastern etc.

there's so much content to feast on, and they can always print an "england DLC" or something that adds some extra english specific units if they weren't featured in the basegame.

I know we are, which really doesn't help it any more, that just makes it even worse for making it. There's unlikely to be an England in that game. They wont have the province count for it.

A change in the colour of the skin wont help it. The bluecoats vs red coats vs white coats in Empire didn't make it more varied.

yeah

but like i said, it isn't about europe

its a global map, there's tons more cultures

europe is just a tiny portion of it

​

torak8988#3885 wrote:

yeah

but like i said, it isn't about europe

its a global map, there's tons more cultures

europe is just a tiny portion of it

Everywhere will be just a tiny portion of it. There wont be the province count for more. Much of the rest of the map has no unit diversity over this period - they historically got conquered by Europeans and their developments before that were rather limited. So it wont have the unit diversity and will barely have faction diversity as a result.

just make some fantasy units for those factions

I mean it isn't too complicated to imagine the american plain natives using primarily skirmisher muskets

And asian armies line infantry etc.

Some creative freedom is needed if you want to explore alternative history

​

torak8988#3885 wrote:

just make some fantasy units for those factions

I mean it isn't too complicated to imagine the american plain natives using primarily skirmisher muskets

And asian armies line infantry etc.

Some creative freedom is needed if you want to explore alternative history

It is if they haven't ever experienced muskets. And when you are cutting out historical units to save time and money...seems pointless to spend it on making fantasy units for non playable factions which much of the map will be covered with.

non playable?

No I mean quite specifically yes, you can play as the native americans, who share the same research tree as all other factions, but where their historical units end, fantasy units are filled in.

It's empire total war, but with a global focus, you can play as anyone on the globe, and still have a full roster of units for every era, they're just fantasy units roughly fitting their historical theme.

​

Commisar#2307 wrote:

​

torak8988#3885 wrote:

just make some fantasy units for those factions

I mean it isn't too complicated to imagine the american plain natives using primarily skirmisher muskets

And asian armies line infantry etc.

Some creative freedom is needed if you want to explore alternative history

It is if they haven't ever experienced muskets. And when you are cutting out historical units to save time and money...seems pointless to spend it on making fantasy units for non playable factions which much of the map will be covered with.

​Total war only provides players with a certain historical background, but players are the creators of history in the game, as long as backward civilizations are given a certain amount of time and opportunity, they still have the opportunity to learn from more advanced civilizations, or even become advanced civilizations, total war should not limit the development direction of these backward civilizations, more randomness can have more diverse challenges.

​

Commisar#2307 wrote:

​

torak8988#3885 wrote:

just make some fantasy units for those factions

I mean it isn't too complicated to imagine the american plain natives using primarily skirmisher muskets

And asian armies line infantry etc.

Some creative freedom is needed if you want to explore alternative history

It is if they haven't ever experienced muskets. And when you are cutting out historical units to save time and money...seems pointless to spend it on making fantasy units for non playable factions which much of the map will be covered with.

​When we play Pharaohs attacking the Aegean Sea and Babylon, when we play any country of the three kingdoms unify China, when we lead the Muslims to occupy Rome in the Middle Ages, total war is out of history and into the fantasy stage, because there has never been any proof that the above powers actually did those things.

​

torak8988#3885 wrote:

non playable?

No I mean quite specifically yes, you can play as the native americans, who share the same research tree as all other factions, but where their historical units end, fantasy units are filled in.

It's empire total war, but with a global focus, you can play as anyone on the globe, and still have a full roster of units for every era, they're just fantasy units roughly fitting their historical theme.

As in half the map will have no playable faction in it. They have no factions that can compete on the same level as everyone else.

It would have to start as fantasy, a lot of these areas we have no real historical sources on and it would have to go fantasy from the start if they are to be playable to make them playable.

Then again you wont have the game. It's not possible for them to make a full roster of such a time frame for each faction.

ZWY#7702 wrote:

​Total war only provides players with a certain historical background, but players are the creators of history in the game, as long as backward civilizations are given a certain amount of time and opportunity, they still have the opportunity to learn from more advanced civilizations, or even become advanced civilizations, total war should not limit the development direction of these backward civilizations, more randomness can have more diverse challenges.

It still bases the factions and their progress on history. Why we don't see the Native Americans in Empire using advanced weapons.  It's not about them being backwards they weren't it's that they are on very different technological lines. If it takes most of the game before you see these more advanced civilisations to learn off, that's a boring game and means you are going to be a few thousands years out of date still.

ZWY#7702 wrote:

When we play Pharaohs attacking the Aegean Sea and Babylon, when we play any country of the three kingdoms unify China, when we lead the Muslims to occupy Rome in the Middle Ages, total war is out of history and into the fantasy stage, because there has never been any proof that the above powers actually did those things.

When we play as the Sea People we don't get tech they didn't have. There's a difference between us getting options of where to attack and what they build in to the base game as the tech.

​

Commisar#2307 wrote:

​

torak8988#3885 wrote:

non playable?

No I mean quite specifically yes, you can play as the native americans, who share the same research tree as all other factions, but where their historical units end, fantasy units are filled in.

It's empire total war, but with a global focus, you can play as anyone on the globe, and still have a full roster of units for every era, they're just fantasy units roughly fitting their historical theme.

As in half the map will have no playable faction in it. They have no factions that can compete on the same level as everyone else.

It would have to start as fantasy, a lot of these areas we have no real historical sources on and it would have to go fantasy from the start if they are to be playable to make them playable.

Then again you wont have the game. It's not possible for them to make a full roster of such a time frame for each faction.

ZWY#7702 wrote:

​Total war only provides players with a certain historical background, but players are the creators of history in the game, as long as backward civilizations are given a certain amount of time and opportunity, they still have the opportunity to learn from more advanced civilizations, or even become advanced civilizations, total war should not limit the development direction of these backward civilizations, more randomness can have more diverse challenges.

It still bases the factions and their progress on history. Why we don't see the Native Americans in Empire using advanced weapons.  It's not about them being backwards they weren't it's that they are on very different technological lines. If it takes most of the game before you see these more advanced civilisations to learn off, that's a boring game and means you are going to be a few thousands years out of date still.

ZWY#7702 wrote:

When we play Pharaohs attacking the Aegean Sea and Babylon, when we play any country of the three kingdoms unify China, when we lead the Muslims to occupy Rome in the Middle Ages, total war is out of history and into the fantasy stage, because there has never been any proof that the above powers actually did those things.

When we play as the Sea People we don't get tech they didn't have. There's a difference between us getting options of where to attack and what they build in to the base game as the tech.

​The story background before the game starts is the real history, and what the player sees after the game starts is the player's own history. As long as the technology meets the productivity level at that time or has the opportunity to realize things, they can be properly fantasized. For example, in the original Total War ： Medieval 2, the Byzantine Empire has almost no regular army musketeers. Because the late Byzantine Empire in history did not have enough wealth to establish its own musketeers, often can only hire mercenary musketeers who are not easy to supplement, but we play the Byzantine recapture of the Roman homeland, accumulate a lot of wealth after still can not form a regular army musketeers is how regrettable and abnormal things, this time appropriate fantasy units can make the game more real. As a matter of fact, war is a means of communication in science and technology, economy and culture among different civilizations. Maritime nations are bound to absorb the science and technology, economy and culture of other civilizations in numerous wars of aggression, and maritime nations will gradually make progress in the communication with these civilizations. The history of total war is a parallel world, which belongs only to the players. In the course of normal historical development, the maritime peoples should also have access to technology that they did not have in their history, and which, as long as it matched the level of productive forces of the time, could appear as a fantasy. It is a pity that the present total war unduly limits the course of development of a later civilization.