THIS is Total War's Road to Redemption

[@bcapp4304]

The saddest part of Total War’s progress for me is the lost potential. For years I would play Total War games and think “Man! I can’t wait to see what future Total War’s will be like!” Eventually I just became jaded and realized, not only are the games not progressing as they should, like this video shows, they can’t even carry the good parts of one game to another.

[@AndysTake]

Felt the exact same way. “Damn total war in 10 years is gonna be insane, look how much it changed from Shogun 1 to Shogun 2”, and now, well

[@Kristaliorn]

So true

[@Hrodholf]

Same here, but not only regarding the TW franchise, but gaming as a whole. Growing up in the 90's and early 00's, having seen the insane developments in gameplay and graphics during that time period, the stagnation or even degradation we've seen in the gaming industry over the past decade has been so dissapointing.

[@johnybravo4807]

@@AndysTake i agree on almost everything you said in video it's sad that they didn't improve features but removing them completely , the sieges were 3 layer in med 2 which was epic in own way, but i don't agree they can do it in this engine it's old and it shows the bugs since rome2 and older titles and performance issues as well as they can't probably add new cool features is because nobody knows even how to work on it, the leaks say documentation was lost and some senior devs left imagine being a new dev there...

[@decoybackatitagain6576]

Never agreed more with a comment

[@lewis9159]

The best thing for CA to do is focus their energy on one big, new title they know will have a large audience waiting (Med III/Empire) and don't rush to release it. In the mean time, patching bugs and improving the AI in older games could be a way of rebuilding trust with the community.

[@TonyTrunzo]

Joe has a plan.... THREADS How about the voice over for the generals really liked that

[@christos-marioseftichidis4139]

At this point they should remaster old games + hire the modders that supported their stupid game and implement their features.

[@therasco400]

I don't think they have the money reserves to do that.

[@ThePanosassasin]

most historiacl players play just Rome 2 bro... They should make Rome 3 with new engine and without hardcoded shit and voila best game ever.

[@AndysTake]

Yeah they need to put a lot of effort into the next one

[@thunderbagel3886]

I fully expect CA community managers to watch your video and pass along all of your very constructive suggestions just for CA to announce Hello Kitty TW late next year

[@AndysTake]

Hah

[@Juvelira]

Nobody in CA gives a shit about his suggestions

[@jmctajmcta]

Or ban you like they are doing to everyone else who is mildly critical of them. I imagine the person in charge of those choices is a 25yo Karen with 57 cats working from home.

[@TheVonWeasel]

unfortunately that's far too original of an idea so that would never happen

[@bradjarman8721]

Would be nice. But CA don't give a crap about what people want. They're completely money driven and will make whatever they want..

[@merc715]

At the end of the day the biggest problem is still the AI. At this point simply buffing the AI's stats is not a sufficient way to increase difficulty. All that does is force you to play a certain way with certain units and reduces the players choices in game.

[@AndysTake]

the AI needs a buff for sure, although I find it varies by game, and I honestly think the AI in Napoleon (when it doesnt just rush you) can be surprisingly great at flanking and the like

[@axel-fu9hx]

@@AndysTake the AI in Napoleon and Empire is the biggest piece of dogshit ever made dude

[@merc715]

@AndysTake I think that goes back to my point though. Napoleon was what 10 or 15 years ago? We should be able to point to significant improvements since then.

[@axel-fu9hx]

@@JBaker-lh8pl the multiplayer meta in Napoleon is to spam skirmishers and stretch your lines as wide as possible, infantry reserves are almost completely useless since you just get outflanked if you concentrate too much in the center.

[@srdjan455]

The problem with asking for "good AI" is that it's easier to do in paper, but extremely hard to do in reality because there are too many variables at play for the AI to be good

[@wesleys4507]

What i liked about Empire was the tech tree. It really made you choose on what to research next. Now they only focus on buffs.... in Empire you had for example: better bayonets, cannons and rank and fire.

[@AndysTake]

Yes this was so awesome about Empire

[@MatthewOlney]

this. The tech tree made each faction feel different and you could see the difference when a more advanced faction fought a lesser one. The rank and file shooting for example was such a game changer.

[@wesleys4507]

@@MatthewOlney exactly!

[@Zarken26]

Funny thing is, 3 Kingdoms had many of the features you listed. Apart from its very good diplomacy system where the AI was fully capable of understanding when its stronger or weaker than you. I loved it for the first time when I saw a faction I whose main army I just crushed offered their entire treasury, the province we were fighting over and even them becoming my vassal as long as I would end the war. The same happened to me in reverse. I underestimated an enemy faction and did not realise their armies were far stronger than mine. I lost a major battle and was about to reload. Then that faction offered peace as long as I gave all my treasury, two provinces and became their vassal. It was really cool. In 3 Kingdoms you can assign officers you hire to be city governors, spies, scouts, agents to provide bonuses to a province or to command a portion of your army. I remember saying to a friend of mine, that I was not a fan of the setting, but loved the mechanics. If I would get 3 Kingdoms mechanics (except the Warhammer style lords, I hated that) & use them to make a Medieval 3 that for me would be excellent.

[@constantinexi6489]

Records mode with mods makes for a decent historical TW imo

[@Zarken26]

@@constantinexi6489Yea, I tried both and preferred to play records. The only problem with records mode was it was clearly a tacked on afterthought by CA. Because the 3 Kingdoms factions were built in the same style as the warhammer inspired legendary lords, once your starting lord dies then your factions looses a lot of inherent power. Dong Zhuo & Liu Chong being a perfect example of this. I still enjoyed the game in records though.

[@justkris6461]

So true.

[@logicgamingwizzardtv2294]

well said

[@logicgamingwizzardtv2294]

well said

[@FluppiLP]

For me Shogun 2's real unmatched feature was the unit variety. Yes some were garbage but they were so different and it could be so much fun to use them. And what I miss the most in all TW since then is meaningful cavalry. They were such a menace and whenever the AI had a cavalry advantage I was actually feeling threatened. TW's biggest problem in the battle mode is the AI as it makes every battle bland and similar. But the second problem that goes hand in hand with it is the lack of meaningful units. They are all the same. And because they changed their artstyle since shogun 2, I don't even see them winning or losing. The textures and animations got mushy since then and more arcady. So not only are the battles worse, they look worse too and feel less immersive. I also don't understand why we never had a 30 years war game. It offer so much potential with the rise of gun units during that time and so many factions involved

[@Ronin.97]

what are you talking about there was very little unit variety in base shogun 2 vs Rome 2

[@Constanza235]

Shogun's strenght was the exact opposite lol. The unit roster was limited but each unit was specialized in a role, making the entire roster very tight and always useful.

[@Kidneyjoe42]

@@Constanza235 You're talking about the same thing but wording it differently. Almost every unit in shogun 2 serves a different purpose. So while the raw number of different types of units is low, the functional variety is disproportionately high. And every faction having the same units ironically makes the variety more keenly felt. Taken as a whole, there's plenty of unit variety in Rome. But every faction only has access to a limited portion of that variety. Even the Seleucids, the faction with the greatest unit variety, are limited to phalanx pikemen as their sole form of infantry for most of the game. Not everyone even gets archers. Mercenaries do help with this, but you're still going to primarily be using just a few types of units with each faction. Meanwhile in shogun 2 every faction gets most of the different types of units. What this ends up meaning is that in a single campaign you get to use a greater variety of functionally different units in shogun 2, but different campaigns feel more similar.

[@mattparks954]

"Hey boss someone made one of those videos again where they told us exactly what the fan base wants" "How dare they fucking criticize us, blacklist them immediately"

[@danielvanhaften5779]

As a former Mod team leader for RTW (Roma Surrectum) I understand and agree with almost everything you've said in this video. The thing is, I learned a long time ago that CA does not respect or care what modders or their fans say regarding their games. The original RTW was a great game, and I have personally modded the heck out of it both as a team member and for my own personal enjoyment, but I saw the writing on the wall when CA came out with RomeII (which so many of us eagerly awaited). It was broken out of the box, and obviously was not played or tested by anyone who cared. Battle mechanics were WORSE than RTW\MTW2, city battles were an absolute joke, and I decided from then on "I'm done". And you can throw in on top of that that all the promised modding tools they promised never came about for anything (that I know of).

[@madwellmusic8995]

That was such a shame. CA should have facilitated those relationships as third party contracted developers and focused on a unified front. Instead they decided to be egotistical pricks and intentially change the engine to make modding more difficult, as they couldn't profit off dlc that modders offered through care for free. What a shameful display.

[@ForFunksSake]

Awesome video again man! I also want to mention that in rome 1 and barbarian invasion, traits had a very real effect on the generals in battle. These were gained on their military escapades, on chance, and through the buildings in the city they spent time in. For instance, if the general had the long winded trait, his pre-battle speech would go on forever, and the army would stop cheering. If the general had the coward trait they would be attached to a unit of bows instead of cavalry. Taverns would have a chance to give your general a drunkard trait or a drunken uncle retainer, schools and religion buildings would give you so many good traits and retainers that it was a focus for me to 'train' my non active generals by leaving them in that city until I had enough money to outfit them with an army. You could have any number of retainers, and trade them between generals if they were in the same army. These are great examples of immersive traits, and makes it so that every general is unique. Granted this is still somewhat present in current games, just not nearly as important because now we have the same exact skill tree per general, which seems more like a chore when you have 15 armies than an important gameplay mechanic.

[@AndysTake]

Thanks man! Absolutely agree, the more organic traits etc of generals of the older titles is just such a better system!

[@barneythepurpledinosaur7002]

Just pick time periods that people give a darn about. And bring back the mechanics that made medieval and Rome so fun.

[@AndysTake]

this 100%, don't know why it's so damn difficult to do

[@srdjan455]

Everyone cares for a certain time period, just because your knowledge in history is bad doesn't mean others are in the same boat. And what mechanics made Medieval and Rome fun?

[@GM-gb1eu]

@@srdjan455 Smaller battles for example. In post rome 2 TW most of battles are nearly full stack vs nearly full stack, because you, as a player, are limited to number of armies with generals, so you try to have main, big armies so every battle feels the same. In old TW you could have 4 units battles without generals and that was fun, because it was strange condition to play the battle so you had to manouver the regiments more to response to enemy movement.

[@srdjan455]

@@GM-gb1eu I'm my current medieval 2 campaign I'm bringing in a lot more than just four units without a general. So why do you lie?

[@madwellmusic8995]

​@@srdjan455its the premise of role playing. Family tree, gathering small troops from all over the kingdom to simulate mustering forces. Hidden triggers that supported players actions. Randomized traits that made character unique to bloodlines. You could have a full stack, but split it into 2 and attack an enemy full stack with divided forces without spamming generals to reinforce. Especially for times when money was tight, or your forces are stretched thin. Authority made splitting up risky to armies rebelling. Map generation representing campaign geography to battle. Offers many strategies with that. Elevation actually impacting range and unit effectiveness. Though clunky and terribly wonky at times, when they did work, cav charges with noticeable impact regardless of "health" bar. Garrison forts with Captains at choke points. Assisted your own generals in Rome 1. Settlement conversion. Should I go on?

[@OMAROMAROMAboa]

They need to bring back all the features from rome/medieval II, if they just remake a rome II with the goddaful health bar system in battle, general led army, city slot limit and so on, it will be the same slop.

[@TonyTrunzo]

It was simple clean and fun until they started adding all the crap to the flags.... THREADS

[@PAPAGAMERSZ]

in many games CA...only rome 2 is the one that I am very interested in playing until now because of the willingness of our friends who make thousands of moddings for all of us...if not...emmmm

[@madwellmusic8995]

The health bar system. Would have been more effective if it was implemented more from realism. Higher stamina, higher attack ratios, better post battle recovery.

[@luigisaguier8336]

CA needs to follow this guide to HEART if they want to get some of their community back for their next TW

[@IronHorse1854]

I'm convinced we'll never see anything like naval battles or an increase in campaign complexity/depth again. These are features which alienate some players. They make the game far better for those of us interested in engaging with them, but it also makes the game more niche. It goes back to the casualisation of games in general. I'm not hostile to casual games, I sometimes like to play games with simple mechanics that I can just switch off and play, and I understand why people like that. But my bread and butter are simulation games and grand strategies with many interconnected systems and features to learn and master, it was what I liked so much about the Total War franchise pre-Warhammer. Naval battles are especially alienating for the majority of potential players as they are mechanically entirely different from land battles. When I first played Empire when it came out, and Shogun 2 as well, I was a huge military history buff as I have been my whole life, but never had much interest in naval history and didn't understand a lot about how ships fight or gain advantage over each other. I knew that if you go side on you have more guns available, if you are sailing into the wind you don't have speed advantage, common things like that but thats it. I sucked at naval battles, and it frustrated me back in the day because whenever my trade routes got raided I knew that unblocking my route would mean sending as many expensive ships into battle and coming out with massive and expensive losses no matter what, because I had no idea what I was doing. There was no terrain on the sea obviously, and I had no idea what made one ship better than another. Was more guns better? Was smaller and faster better? How many of one type of ship should I have over another, should I just have all one type of ship or a mix of certain types and what for and why, and how should I play them? How should I maneuver? How do I know if I have the advantage or not? I knew these things on land battles, but naval was an entirely different game, literally. I remember I wished I could choose an option to turn them off or something, but in Empire and Shogun, that would not be feasible without totally breaking those games campaigns. I only became good at naval battles and learned to love them later in life after developing an interest in the history of naval warfare in the age of sail. A casual player can easily learn that spears beat cavalry, archers beat melee if they're protected, and cavalry is good for flanking archers, at a minimum. These concepts are easy to understand and are immediately obvious even to a first time player. But it takes learning to know which ships to use against what other ships, and what is a third rate, or a ship of the line, and why should I pick this ship over that ship, what are their roles in the fleet and how are they used, how do I compose a successful naval fleet. It isn't as immediately intuitive as "guy with sword and shield" versus "guy with bow". After learning years later about naval warfare and returning to shogun 2 and modded Empire, I found that I was far more successful at naval battles because I had an understanding of how that era of naval warfare worked in the real world now and could apply a bit of that in the game with good results. But prior to that, I found them frustrating and sometimes campaign ruining because I had no idea how to play them and wasn't super interested in learning at the time. I want them back too, but we never will see it again. We all learned what we already knew from the CA leaks that what games will be made and what their feature sets will be is decided entirely by their marketing team, and marketing only cares about initial sales. They will try to make games that appeal to the widest audience to get the most amount of sales, not great games that are loved by a niche audience even if that niche is huge. Why make a great product that will be loved by a huge niche when you can make a bland product that will at minimum appeal to everyone? A more complex and wide reaching campaign? No, the strategy fans would love it but it would scare off casuals and it's more expensive to implement, simplify it. Naval battles? They're a barrier to entry for the casual gamer and it's more expensive to implement, it's off the table. Historical settings that are actually historical? No, it's too dry for those not already interested in the subject, make it more mystical and flashy at the cost of period accuracy. Mechanics that are realistic? Just give units health bars, those are more understandable to a person who's never played or been interested in this type of game before. Again, I also enjoy casual experiences in games, so I'm not saying "casual gamers are ruining everything" like maybe some people would. I like simple games that I can grasp instantly and just switch off playing after a long day of work, it's not the fault of those interested in those types of experiences. But I also like deep, complex simulations, and when I think of Total War, what I want is a deep complex simulation that I can sink hours and hours into. I want more control, I want more systems, more political simulation, naval battles, all of it, like we used to have. The fault lies with CA being greedy and growing too large. I'm under no illusion that Total War was never anything more than a product for CA, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of video games besides like niche little indie games made by someone in a bedroom just wanting to make a game for fun or whatever. But at least there was a sense that they knew their audience, and they had focus to provide a product that their community would enjoy. Now instead of making great games that a large niche will play and absolutely love, now they make bland products that everyone will play and say "it's playable I guess.". Sorry for the novel, it's so frustrating. Nothing else is like Total War. TW has been an absolute favourite franchise of mine since I first played it when Rome 1 came out. Sad to see what it's become these days.

[@madwellmusic8995]

I relate to those difficult naval battles. What helped me was reading the unit description. That informed me of the little tricks you could pull, and how those ships performed compared to the others. I Uninstaller empire becuase I couldn't stand the paper mache charges and nerfed cavalry. The dulled down sound of canons and men yelling and all the panapoly of war. They made no effort to immerse the player in the ripping and tearing of canons and bullets and screams. There was no punch, no umph, I felt nothing. Whatever audio assets were used just pissed me off. Lord of the Rings 2 towers got those sounds from recording crowds at football stadiums directed to shout uruk phrases or war. That's so creative and raw and perfect. You sit back and really think, damn, how come CA doesn't go out and do anything creative like that to make immersion in their battles. I'd do it if they'd pay me. I'd go right to a civil war reenactment and capture all the sounds and sell them those assets.

[@calimerohnir3311]

I loved the ability to burn buildings down in Attila, thus affecting the morale of defending units. Also If I remember correctly in medieval 2 some of your buildings were physically present on the map during sieges and would get damaged after the battle if a stray artillery shot knocked them over. I also think medieval 2 was the last game with actual layered defenses (Shogun 2 doesn't count as any units can climb any wall anyhow)

[@logandaley1544]

I agree with most of your points, I feel like another remaster or brand new games that combined a bunch of the best features of past games would be pretty solid.

[@nyanko2077]

You didn't talk about the hilarious assassination cutscenes in Shogun 1. And it was during those you saw if it was a success or not. I wish they were back.

[@skywindow6764]

m2 too

[@gulli72]

Here is one non-existent feature that really bugs me: Realistic Fog of War. - My clan and that other clan have been neighbors for the past 500 years... and I have to first "discover" them? - All of Japan is pledged to the Shogun... and I don't know how to locate the dude? - My neighbor has been importing boatloads of stone and hiring countless workers to upgrade his castle... and no passing merchant mentioned that? - I control several cities, three fleets and 12,000 armed men... but I don't have a network of small-time agents sending me the most basic news?

[@ElZorro85]

One of the biggest things for me is how the battles feel and control. I really wish they do away with matching combat (it creates more problems than anything) and I hope they create a new engine because it’s clear that Warscape has massive problems with unit collision that they can’t seem to fix.

[@vaughn1804]

Hopefully manor lords can break creative assembly's monopoly. 🤞

[@looseleaf8859]

Manor lords is looking hot! Theres also games like age of sail and ultimate general thats been coming out which is taking a swing at total war. I hope more people like these see the potential of the genre and give us something else to latch onto, and have some fresh passion to bring to the table instead of Total war's corporate stagnation and bad vibes

[@Prophed2301]

Monor lords is different in it's core though... it's a city (village) builder withnsome fighting. And although that looks really good, its only a small part with like 5 different units...

[@x08Gunner08x]

@@Prophed2301it’s still in progress tho

[@svn7667]

It is, but it's been clear from the start that manor lords is an imersive city (village ?) builder... Hyping it up that it's going to replace total war is just false and will lead to dissapointment. I don't doubt that manor lords will be great, but it will not be in the style of total war.@@x08Gunner08x

[@BellePepprs]

It makes sense why the features are spread out across these games when you consider the leak that says every game is just a fork of a fork of a fork and there is no single engine that CA returns to and iterates on to prepare for the next game. When every new feature was tailor-made for that game alone and not just built into an engine it's going to take a total duplication of effort to put that in the next game

[@AndysTake]

That’s just so depressing

[@cocofashosho]

The part about Rome 2 being the first game that allows you to switch government types is untrue. In Empire you could change from an absolute monarchy, to a republic, and then a constitutional monarchy.

[@pigerion]

There was events related to the harvest in Shogun 1 which could mean a good harvest so more money or the opposite. Medieval 1 had titles you would give your generals that were boosting stats.

[@santawashere4877]

I feel like if total war struggles implementing everything in the deadlines set, they could follow the paradox strategy of releasing meaningful expansions for years afterwards that add entire new features instead of just new factions. They did something similar with rome 2 and it worked

[@pedrotbird5426]

Its not a great consumer-model, but I would rather fork over £200 for a really good total war game with an actually sizeable map at this point

[@ignacio1171]

Rome II released in such a poor and garbage state that the only way was up... so any expansion was a slight "improvement" upon the game. It still took them a year to release the "fixed" version with the Emperor Edition, and another year to introduce "better" family and politics mechanics. The game is far better, but when you start from nothing, something is always better.

[@ZZ-cr9pz]

CA is dead, i really doubt they can turn it around. The improvements have been so minor for waaaay too long and with added bugs and issues.

[@ollygrace2864]

My idea: river battles so that there is actual reason to have small warships, more generally more differentiated terrain and circumstances that demands specialised units so the game isn't just filling your military with meta infantry and ships.

[@xathlak]

CA doesn't want to go back and work all the band-aid fixes they've made over the years into a working, documented engine that can then be added to. So any time they try to do anything they break something else, meaning they can barely add anything since it takes them so long to try and track down where they broke it when they do.

[@smoadia85]

Only by a complete management change will they change. They will never let go of the common market strategy of DLC.

[@pb3662]

Good points. The real issue is their lack of back end tools. Huge technical debt and many code bases (never had the time or resources allocated to fix that.). This means all those good features are isolated to their code base. Same with bugs that are fixed in some releases and not others.

[@Ranmyakki]

My friend and I still occasionally go back and play Shogun 2, the Total War game we started on and played the most until Total Warhammer 1.

[@gageroberts5513]

I wouldn't even be playing PC in general if I hadn't stumbled upon pixelated Apollo playing Rome 2 battles back in like 2013 or 2014. I've purchased every one of their games up to Warhammer 2. Got thousands of hours all together and I see the gradual decline that has taken place. More and more playable factions are being locked behind paywalls, overall quality and creative uniqueness has declined dramatically over time. It has become almost like a yearly cod reskin. I and everyone else is sick and tired of waiting a decade for sequels to our favorite games. So I understand the want to push things out regularly. But yearly or every other year just simply isn't enough to create a whole new game experience. CA isn't the same people anymore. They do not care about the players who gave them their spotlight. They want to please everybody but end up pleasing nobody by ignoring feedback and dropping KZbinrs who have been giving them clout and valuable advice since the beginning. They deserve this backlash. They need to either wake up, give us an amazing medieval 3 or something. Why have they STILL not make the trilogy to their most beloved game medieval 2!? They can really use it by now!! With the price of games sky rocketing. This is unacceptable.

[@AndysTake]

It really is unacceptable

[@srdjan455]

You don't deserve Medieval 3, you don't even deserve empire 2.

[@srdjan455]

@@1992zorro Because you have been given good games and refuse to see it.

[@basileusp5494]

You really hit the nail on the head. With the current disaster that CA is facing doing a series of remastered games would be a great way to make a comeback. I totally agree with you on the common sense of carrying forward the things that made the earlier games so enjoyable. Hopefully CA is paying attention.

[@AndysTake]

Glad we agree!

[@setsen941108]

I swear nobody wanted Troy or Pharoah, those areas are completely explored. How bout Mongols, Empire 2, or Medieval, fk it make it Victorian ages. You know what Elder scrolls or LOTR is not bad as well. We need map like CK3 like really really big one.

[@RJTradess]

There is so many things they could do. Empire 2, Victorian, Medieval 3, Mongols, hell id even go for a Great War total war, I know some people question whether that would even be possible but I believe it would be. Warhammer assets could easily be used as they already have tons of Gunpowder, tank/vehicle, flying units to use for planes and of course horses for cav. I believe it would be amazing tbh. Imagine having to control your dog fighters in the sky, your tanks in the field and your soldiers in the trenches. I understand this wouldn’t be for everyone, but if CA executed this it would be a hit not just for a total war players but a GOTY competitor I believe. Heck I’d even go for a LOTR or a GOT TW. We know that they are capable of acquiring famous franchises (Warhammer) Until then I will continue playing Attila mods and Shogun2/Empire

[@nicolasmarkham9656]

Troy and Ancient Egypt are definitely not fully explored lol

[@TheAchilles26]

The Bronze Age is underrated and underappreciated..... unfortunately CA has only made that worse with how they handled Troy and Pharaoh.

[@DerFreiegedanke]

This is either Hopium or Copium, CA is finished - they have to rework their whole engine and this costs time and money. This can take up to 3 years or more. Nobody is willing to pay a dying studio for a engine overhaul and THEN pay for additional 3-5 years to develop a game with that "repaired" engine. TW will winter be sold to somebody completely new and they have to do the same or we will see further cash grabs that insult all the customers or milk the stupid.

[@seanbrennan4356]

I’ve been playing total war since rome1 like everyone else it was just so awesome. I even kind of liked empire and remember thinking wow the next total wars will be crazy. The introduction of naval warfare even if it wasn’t great was just so new and cool. I still mess around on empire just for the vastness of it. I love the idea of the trade routes all over the world. It’s sad to see all the new ones suck

[@fearan9406]

the people who made the games we loved arnt there anymore, it will never return best chance is modders and indies coming together

[@AstreaHTT]

I don't know why CA can do what AoE did with his Definitive Edition. Took one of the modders team (Forgotten Empires) the ones how made the first un-official expansion "The Forgotten Empires" then Microsoft Games Team approach to them to help on the new HD Edition, after some time MGS Team added them to the Developer Team on the Newer games. Every single data on the old games was used to improve aspects of the new ones. Multiplayer matches where used to improve the Enemy IA from both Singleplayer and Multiplayer. (Like Starcraft does). The map creators where tasked to make new maps, fix old ones or improve them. That same principle can work on CA, modders at least have some experience with the games they mod. CA can create small teams for each Total War game to give some love for the franchise.

[@TonyTrunzo]

How about the voice over for the generals really liked that

[@jonash3406]

Whatever historical title they go with next, I hope its a Gunpowder era one. I have immense fatigue of the sword and sandals era and even a Medieval 3, as much as I would like to see it, will not hit as good as a new Empire or or the likes. I didnt even check in on Pharaoh that much because I just didnt want another game set in an era they have been releasing a lot of content for the last few yers (with VERY mixed results to be fair)

[@TiGGowich]

Good list of features. A lot of them I've thought of in the past. Some I think would need to be expanded upon, some are probably missing. But everything you suggest would be a step in the right direction. What would give me the most pleasure is if there was more interaction with settlements on the campaign map as you alluded to. 1. Let me build whatever I want. I don't understand why CA feels the need to tell me what I can and cannot build in a settlement... it should be MY choice. The only limiting factor should be the size and population of the settlement, and the availability of certain resources... i.e. if there is no rock deposit, obviously I would not be able to build a stone mine etc. Obviously there could be unique buildings in certain places that others then don't have... 2. Keep the province system, but instead of the nonsensical "minor", "major" settlement dynamic, have them grow organically similar to how it was in Empire. Difference being that I think it should be completely up to the player what to do with those "empty spots" on the map. Do I want to create a new settlement for strategic purposes so I can keep a garrison there to protect i.e. a river crossing? Do I lack a certain resource like rock, iron, wood or whatever and this spot has that resource available? Ok maybe I decide to create a mining settlement there that can develop later on. I don't have enough food? Find fertile farmland in your province and raise a farming settlement there.. you get the idea. This would always help with TRADEOFFS. Maybe I can trade resources with other factions, but maybe then I'm giving them an advantage so maybe it's better to take the resource myself... tradeoff being I relocate population and funds which may mean I am more vulnerable as I cannot recruit as many troops etc... Anyway, this has been my biggest wish for years... making the campaign map, settlement development, construction etc. more meaningful and tactical... I doubt CA will ever do something like it, but you never know...

[@antalito3047]

I love the idea of founding your own settlements! You would have your major cities but you’d be able to create minor settlements wherever you want and name them. It would make the game so immersive as you’d want to hold onto these settlements and you have a personal connection with them. You could see them grow from tiny villages to prosperous cities because you placed them well, close to a resource or strategic points!

[@TiGGowich]

@@antalito3047 precisely. It's a roleplay and super immersive element. But I like it especially because it hsa implications on so many other features in the game i.e. diplomacy, resource management, strategic development and positioning, military, trade, population and income etc. It cannot just be a gimmick - we have already had plenty of those in the previous games... but I believe this would be an amazing feature. Total War's strength has always been "Complexity through simplicity" as I call it: Things look "easy" on the surface but the decisions we make at the top level trigger a bunch of chain reactions that we need to think about. Anyway, I doubt CA is capable of doing such a thing, but I've always dreamed about having a proper settlement management and everything that comes with it.

[@Hrodholf]

The same thing that happened to Blizzard happened to CA. The core dev team that made the classics and was passionate, experienced and innovative left and the suits took over. The suits only care about milking the franchise and pumping out another title every year. This pretty much explains the poor state new games are releasing in, as well as the lack of innovation from title to title. I've been with the series since the original Shogun released in 2000, and for a new historical TW game to grab my attention, they will need to code a completely new engine and add a whole new set of features to the battles. I want to play something that feels fresh, new and exciting.

[@freemantle85]

A couple of aspects I miss from the first Medieval: Total War was the ability to give people titles, like Duke of York or Lord Chamberlain, and the risk of nationalist revolts. I enjoy Crusade Kings games for the politics and dynastic management but the battle system and AI are lacking. If someone was able to put the best bits of the Paradox games into a Total War game it would be the perfect medieval game. I would love to see things like being able to make claims to rival thrones, like if you play as England and your faction leader married a princess from Scotland or France you could claim to the throne especially when those nations have a succession crisis. And the same could happen if your faction leader dies without an heir and you have to choose a claimant. I would also like to see some sort of court system, where you can reward loyal and competent lords or give positions to some people since it's better to keep them close. As much as I enjoyed Medieval II there were things that annoyed me. The line of succession could get screwed up and some random bloke could become king. You could also assassinate a whole royal family and turn them into a collection of rebel provinces so they become easy pickings. Just because the king is dead it wouldn't mean a nation like Milan or Spain would suddenly stop existing.

[@innocuouscircumstances4210]

There's a mod in CK3 where when u battle u can load up the battle in Attila and do the battle there. The battle in Attila will reflect all your levies and men-at-arms accurately, even for the time period etc etc. And once the battle is over it goes back to CK3. Seems like a really promising mod

[@Chris_MarMar]

​@@innocuouscircumstances4210what is this mod or mods?

[@innocuouscircumstances4210]

@@Chris_MarMar should be called Crusader Wars

[@Zeek-Tomo]

Adjustable battle slow-motion with sound, just like in Medieval 2.

[@rohrlucas]

Correction, OG Medieval had governors.

[@leobezard5998]

you forgot about the physics based damage of Rome and Medieval 2 instead of the percent buff nonsense that came with the warscape engine.

[@rogofos]

total war's journey is really one step forward one step back every change for the better is followed by a change for the worse I don't think total war will die any time soon but I don't think it will ever live up to its amazing potential I think the true problem is the quantity over quality approach they seem to be more focused on upholding the content schedule over upholding its quality and they're failing at both due to poor resource allocation

[@QueenAleenaFan]

They're never going do what needs to be necessary to fix it. So it'd be easier to let it die.

[@AndysTake]

I'm just hoping this whole debacle has given them a kick in the ass

[@QueenAleenaFan]

@@AndysTake wishful thinking, but I hope that comes true

[@Skylivedk]

Great points. A minor point for you: all the slides you have start with 1. So i.e. it says "1. Remaster Old Titles" Even though it is point 2 or 3

[@noviceleader8745]

You mean to tell me ALL THIS TIME I could've BUILT A FORT ANYTIME I BLOODY WANTED?!

[@plinioandreasgaston-dabao3843]

It's not that simple. The warscape engine is incredibly bloated with technical debt They need to do a complete tear down and rebuild before they can do any of this CA has repeatedly refused to do that because it costs money

[@Griffinattack]

Another thing from Warhammer 3, the ability to recruit allied units. Playing through Shogun 2 now, wishing to recruit from my vassals. In the Rome 2 and Attila, you could, but I'd love to see my Samurai armies with representative units from my loyal retainer clans. Hell, could even boost clan relations by winning battles with allied units

[@madwellmusic8995]

That would be awesome. Especially barbarian confederation as allies usually became passive and turtle. Or a siplomacy feature to request troops, and over a turn via distance based those units would arrive at your capital. I was hoping that would be a unique faction bonus for rome 2 tribal factions.

[@inotaarto8719]

Here im sitting playing medieval 2 sship mod. Haertely recommend if you are ok with brutal campaign difficulty. Cheffs kiss

[@jaredcullum117]

Total War Warhammer 3 does have something of a governor system, but only for Kislev. The Elector Counts system for the empire is also similar, and the wood elves and vampirates both have a sort of government offices system. Having these kind of systems more tied to locations would be pretty nice though.

[@dustindrabek1400]

An Empire II/Victoria Total War could seriously benefit from the Warhammer multi-game treatment. Game 1: Europe and the Americas. Game 2: Africa, Middle East, and India. Game 3: Asia, Australia, and the Pacific.

[@bombyouup62]

Yeah i completely agree about governors. Actually they were in three kingdoms and i use a mod to have unlimited.

[@fringer6]

They need to bring back mechanics, such as the population/slaves for individual cities, and return individual soldiers in a unit to only having a couple health. I agree with the mustering mechanic, as I believe it only needed tweaking to be interesting. A good chunk of Atilla's features, because that has to be my favorite game. There's a lot more to mention, but those are two mechanics that come to mind. Caravans and religious boons are a good idea, and I would love to see it expanded, as commerce and faith are two pillars of a successful nation, along with military might and diplomacy. The battle maps need more variety. I want to have a reason to split forces, and make use of my terrain more effectively. I can't remember the last time I had to deal with marshy wetlands bogging down my heavy units, or anything that forced me to reconsider my strategies.

[@aesirgaming1014]

I'm pretty sure that the original Medieval had governors, or at least titles that were given to lords to improve loyalty. This was something awesome about the original Medieval. You could put titles on a lord to increase not just his loyalty, but also his stats. I think it got a little ridiculous. However, I would love to see a more moderate form of this in the game. For example, you could take a particularly good general and make him the Master of the Horse to give him a slight bonus to his command skill and morale. However, if his loyalty drops below a certain threshold then the morale of your troops falls and there's an increased chance for mutiny. I also wish they'd bring back marriage alliances from Medieval, where you used your princesses as pawns to forge alliances.

[@hans7686]

I really prefer the campaign maps in original Medieval and Shogun. The maps in those games looked hand drawn and had character. The new maps look artificial and at worst like a cartoon. All bright colors and movement.Your armies in the old games these tokens that you picked up and moved to nearby provinces. Made you feel like a general sitting back in his capital moving tokens around on a board that represents the war. The old games were much quicker and more fluid than the later games where you watched weird army soldiers slowly and tediously move across the map. (Yeah you could skip the animation but then that made the game choppy if that makes sense). The current system of moving armies is also boring. Even when I skip the movement animations it takes forever. It can take several turns to move across a single province! Then when you finally get to an enemy army they just retreat half the time and you have to keep chasing them. That really breaks up the flow of the game for me because over the course of several turns of moving/chasing I have to keep switching my attention back to economy management. What's fun about total war is building your economy, recruiting an army, and then fighting with that army. I don't want to tediously move my armies across the map. Original Medieval and Shogun just let you pick them up with your mouse and put them in the province next door to attack. Simple and to the point, let's you move on quickly and play the fun parts of the game!

[@mattgardiner614]

I really loved this video and the points you made. I think the 'Mustering' mechanic would be brilliant (And realistic) in a new Empire/Napoleon Game where it actually did take a fair bit of time to recruit a regiment up to strength. And when you mentioned horses while talking about Troy, I envisioned something like how books work in Knights of Honor II. But instead of improving your characters, reaching a certain amount enables you to recruit new Cavalry and Artillery. (This could have implications for replenishment after battles as well.) The rate could be increased by 'Stud Farms' like Napoleon has, and introducing some new tech. For Empire, agree with you about naval battles and the smaller settlements, but would like to have more options. For example, instead of only being offered a textile OR metalwork building, offer me both and let me choose. Maybe import some building options over from Napoleon such as Gunsmith and Supply Post also. And how about having 2 building slots in these, rather than just one? One thing you didn't talk about was number of turns. Am playing an Empire game presently as Courland and it took me (From memory) 10 turns to get ships from Courland to India. If I'm right that it was ten turns, that means 5 years as far as the game is concerned. So I'd make Empire 4 turns per year. Finally, yes! A remastered Empire or Napoleon would suit me just fine. Preferably the former. Not everyone agrees with me but I feel that when CA made Napoleon they DID take player feedback into consideration. Hence actual research into uniform accuracy, a better zoom, smoother to switch ministers between roles, France and Spain divided into more regions etc, more building options for minor cities, etc.

[@ZachEllis-tv7xs]

I miss Empire occupy buildings feature

[@Niveaufriedhofchef]

You are so right about the loss of mechanics, its just sad to see. I believe CA as opposed to paradox for example tries to target a younger, less involved audience and aims for lower hours played per player but higher overall player count as that translates into more revenue if you discard a longlasting DLC strategy. Looking a SEGA and CA from a business point of view (I'm a strategy consultant) I see what they are doing and I hate it. I'm that involved player who likes to spend 1000s of hours on good games, look up their history and really immersive myself in the querks of ancient/medieval strategy, but TW doesn't deliver that kind of depth anymore on the campaign map. Paradox picked up that ball and I dont think CA even aims to design deep complex games with high skill floors anymore EDIT: yes CA releases a crap ton of DLCs, but they rarely ever change the base game, its mostly more playable factions with individual mechanics, instead of overhauling the base game

[@AndysTake]

Absolutely! I too need CA to start making DLCs that actually overhauls the base game, not just add factions with minor changes exclusively for that faction etc

[@theauven]

The best feature of Warhammer III is the ability to use your allies armies

[@InfectedByZanza]

Medieval 2, Rome total war, Shogun 2 FOTS, best Total war games,

[@RJTradess]

Attila with mods

[@order_truth_involvement6135]

The most polished game in terms of quality is still Shogun 2. I have no idea how they downgraded from that smoothness of battle gameplay and mechanics.

[@matthewneuendorf5763]

The Medieval 2 unit visual upgrades didn't work the way they originally intended, with certain upgrades which should have increased armor by several points being limited to only a single point increase. IMO the Attila version of using technology unlocks to upgrade one unit to another (say, Sergeants to Armored Sergeants or Skutatoi Spearmen to Heavy Skutatoi Spearmen) is the best way CA has found to get around engine limitations and implement combined visual and statistical upgrades as your infrastructure improves.

[@chocolaterain5097]

After this mess I just went back to Attila. What an amazing game. Tone, gameplay, everything. Its even running well for me, im not sure if something was updated. I just want a new game to see some updates for AI with better diplomacy and city management.

[@inotaarto8719]

Have you tried the 1212 mod. Its amazing. Basically med 3

[@AndysTake]

Yeah, with 1212 Attila might just be the best total war game actually

[@andysalter7779]

I've not played Rome2 in a while but I'm sure one update added the ability to recruit units from you allies when in their region. Empire i believe added the ability to mount and dismount cavalry. Which can be very helpful in sieges.

[@JZ0UK]

I would be *extremely* surprised if the average total war player wanted a 8 player campaign. It would be a nice thing if you didn't have to sacrifice something to get it... But I would never even try it.

[@madwellmusic8995]

Although I'd enjoy having a single player control multiple factions. Some good gameplay as you could make hemisphere face off with hemisphere

[@Popcornchicken42]

You didn't mention how awesome the scale and spectacle hasn't ever been replicated since Rome 1 and especially Medieval 2 of the city siege / defense. Medieval had multi ringed walls!

[@eggsntoast4298]

The one feature I will always miss from Rome 1 is the AI retreating. I remember in Rome Total War remastered, I was playing a bridge battle, only way bridge, no land bridges or nothing. I was the greeks, had hoplites on the bridge head. And waited. I would've slaughtered their army. But instead the AI looked at this situation and said "No, Not today I don't think I can win this, and even if I do it won't be worth it. Withdraw men!" And their entire army, just turned around and left. they technically "Lost" but they didn't loose a single unit and got a batter battle field later because I chased them in the campaign map and they got something better suited. The modern Total War AI Would just yell "CHARGE ACROSS THE BRIDGE" And they would all get butchered.

[@Titan_70]

Honestly i never really played the old Rome Games but viewing your city and what you built in sounds so cool, be way cooler in a newer total war like a Empire 2 or Medieval 3

[@VV00d13]

I agree with almost every aspect of this. I always missed great features from others games and these features made me go back to those games even today. BUT one feature I never really liked was the replenishment from Britania for these reasons: A The replenishment always felt super mega slow many times. Like no area really gave you the men you needed. B at the same time you could abuse replenishment stats. In ThreeK. I chose the yellow rebels that had bonuses to replenishment and teched replenishment and that resulted in that I could recruit an ELITE army and the next turn I had 80% strength on every unit. Both A and B contradict each other but the point is I always felt a problem with each spectrum. Either it was super slow if you did not abuse stats that broke the immersion of it. C Finally, as of now, CA cant make an AI without cheats so in ThreeK. I always found the AI massing armies one turn that was at 80% replenishment the next which made the game for me in to an arcade battle simulator. What I mean is that defeating an army had no purpose and I couldn’t advance and conquer because the Ai just spawned a new army so fast and attack me so I just found myself over 100 turns in a cat and mouse chase against the AI. I do have a suggestion: Implement 12 turns per year. Make seasons have more affect on everything. Lets say resources are introduced, especially horses and metals. Then you grade all units into different elite categories. First is levies and here maybe there should be some options: 1 turn and no resources - Recruit levies with like pitchforks. Its like a mob of farmers that you have recruited only for “body” 1 turns and some leather and little metal - Recruit levies with swords and leather armor 2-3 turns and more metal - Levies with armor and basic but real weapons. After this everything just goes up to trained men to elites where the time to recruit is a symbolism of creating the materials and make the weapons and armor. And then mercenaries where you get to pay tons but it is already fully trained armies that you get that instance. This tier system would make a different between your own troops and mercenaries quite much without the replenish per turn system that the AI abuses. The AI would have the same premises as you when it comes to recruit armies and make it harder to abuse. On top of this I would like to see that every individual unit in an army had its own experience, much like shogun 2 online units, where you could choose what the unit would excel in as well as the army or general having traditions or army wide bonuses. This truly would give you unique armies every game!

[@madwellmusic8995]

A unit class system the interacted with resources and infrastructure. Barracks would house a number of men, so professionally trained soldiers would have a small pool. Levies would be recruited from farms and unemployed citizens. As settlements progress, walls and defensive buildings would recruit militias and city guards. Tribal units and warriors recruited from temples, and buildings of labor. Regional native units would be recruited from foraging paths, river ports and villages. Reforms would advance your military complex while advanced armouries manufactured more goods to supply massive armies. Manufacturing would have a cap, and you'd need to develop more regions to keep up with production. The province system in Rome 2 was good in theory becuase it did offer that give and take balance, along with a diverse selection of geographically based economic buildings. Just fell short in execution. It was disjointed, but it needed more progressive cohesion like anno games.

[@Soviless99]

Empire 2 Tw from early 1600s to 1800 would be insane

[@aposvlah1855]

No empire 2 should be 1700 - 1870

[@Soviless99]

@@aposvlah1855 Empire 2 should be from 1581 to 1870

[@voidplayy]

17:46 this. CA needs to revive no slot system

[@AndysTake]

since day 1 they needed to do this..

[@SRosenberg203]

lol I loved that poll. I was in the 8%, Republic Forever!!

[@michaelr3583]

Naval bombardment was the biggest pain in the ass, mainly because 90% of settlements werr within bombardment range

[@manmallard]

Rome 1 had governors. And they were more immersive because the actual campaign unit had to actually walk across the campaign map to be actually present in the city they were governing.

[@GalcianBTH]

The road to redemption for the Total War series is as simple as this, Medieval Total War 3.

[@AnimeFan-dl4qd]

I would not only talk about good features of older TW games - but also cool features which the modders implemented. The obvious best examples are Medieval 1212 ad with the vassal system and divided empires with more, meaningful seasons. Or the population system of Ancient Empires and 1212ad, where farms in less populated settlments are better than in cities with high populations.

[@AndysTake]

Yeh for sure, mods are just what total war should have been

[@legatilegions8055]

What total war needed was to improve and use the previous total war games best mechanics, and they should have made formations way sooner, the rock, paper, siccor, will always hold up, but with formations like in napolion, the tactical ascept of total war games would have been greatly improved. In regards to naval combat, CA really did try and make it for the warhammer series, but a game called Man o war "or something like that" already had the rights to use those assest from game work shop, and there was not much to do in a legal sense, but i remember there war alot of talk about it in warhammer 1, a shame they couldnt buy the rights to the game

[@pieternoordenbos]

2024 Medieval III with some DLC 2025 Empire II with some DLC 2026 Shogun III with some DLC 2027 Rome III with some DLC 2028 Atilla III with some DLC 2029 Viking Invasion II with some DLC

[@oneballimann6425]

Thank you for your work and thank you for thinking about the perfect Total War game... we will never see in our live. i dont know if its true, but i lost after troy and pharao every hope for a good historical total war... dreaming is good and maybe this will at some point come true... maybe...

[@prototype102010]

From what I understand, as a very casual TW player, just give their second smaller studio who did Pharaoh and Troy the remasters, and the bigger studio gets the mainline games. But it just shocks me how much TW doesn't listen to their fans. I remember when Shogun 2 was out people LOVED avatar conquest, I think it was the feature I heard the most about with Shogun 2 and yet it's never been seen again. There's still people asking for it today with new titles, though less so as older players are bailing on the series. It's clear either way that they need to do something BIG, POPULAR, and well with the next game.

[@buinghiathuan4595]

For the love of god, pls bring back 3k diplomatic gameplay. It so dynamic. You may find yourself surrounded by enemy since this guys allies with that guys which are friend with other guys just right behind you. So I have to make peace with the guys ASAP if I don't want get a whole alliance come down on me. Playing as Yellow Turbans, the only reason i survived as long as 200 turn is that i engaged in diplomacy a lot. Everyone hate me so i have to very careful who i attack or who i send tribute

[@giuseppepecoraro1018]

The feature i find most interesting is the train in fall of samurai 🚂

[@AndysTake]

I love that one! Plus the naval bombardment

[@alexpeers9863]

Good vid! Particularly the last part about an Empire TW remastered. I would buy that.

[@AndysTake]

Same here! :D

[@100gendos]

I think that Creative Assembly simply doesn’t have enough experienced and motivated people left to create something worthy: only soulless managers, marketing functionaries and inexperienced newcomers working for food. P.S. I am one of those who waited for the Bronze Age, but not in such a truncated form as in Troy or Pharaoh.

[@gearlordgeneration6673]

I also think they have to make your capital more important. Loosing it or taking it should be a devastating blow. For example loosing a lot of your money because thats where you store it. I would also like to see armies reworked. Not sure what would work but I think replenishment should be reworked and elite units shouldnt get replenished at the same rate as literal pesent units. Armies shouldnt be caped at 20 units and you shouldnt be able to spam elite units. Edit: I also think trade should be changed a bit. Trade deals should be a peace option that you can enforce on others. I dont know how complicated they should become however. Trade deals as you do them currently should be limitless but focus on literally trading resscoureces you recieve and can accumulate Edit2: I would also like to make plundering more meaningful. Like in Britannia I like the idea of villages without garisons but I think you shouldnt be able to conquer them but instead just plunder and move on. If a main city grows larger and wealthier it automaticly should gain villages. Those would just randomly spawn in your province. Like in Empire Castles or forts you should be able to place yourself however but they are just a defense structure to block a path/secure it and wouldnt be housing any infrastructure or military buildings. Edit3: Prisoners should slow you down. If you dont execute prisoners after battle or release them they should slow you down. Over a few turns they get bought free and your army becomes faster again. Would work greatly with a population system

[@buzter8135]

It's always irked me that we don't get the Treasury of a faction we take over, good to know it's not just me.

[@brandonzzz9924]

I would stockpile food for at least a month if Empire 2 or Empire remastered was released and play it nonstop. I love Rome 2 (especially with DeI), but Empire has by far the most potential of any Total War game in history. The small town system, globe spanning and trading, naval combat (still so good, and would feel modern if fleets started closer than 5 minutes at max speed away from each other), resource system, and even the combat with highly varied unit types and cover systems make Empire a game with limitless capacity for growth. A little bit of clean up for bugs and pain points would make this the best selling Total War game ever, without a doubt. The level of detail I am looking for is the attention put into naval battles extended to every part of the game, which would make it by far the most comprehensive in the franchise, *if done well* even beating out DeI (crazy, I know, but Empire is that good). Not having played every Total War title, but watching content for all, empire is the most balanced and well proportioned game in the franchise and is the closest base game to being a flagship (all pun intended) game for the franchise. The campaign is amazing, with built in limitations to expansion through stringent public order mechanics and a vast array of player agency in optimizing a campaign. Truly an amazing baseline that would output more professional game per unit of dev input than any other title. CA would stand to make record profits by remastering Empire, and Empire 2 (with a new engine: which is high fantasy at this point) would effectively cement their monopoly of the genre for another decade at least.

[@kayak1969p]

My main saying is "if its not broke why fix it" by tweeking this and adding that has fundamentally destroyed what was the greatest franchise in the genre ever made

[@alexmiley6351]

IMO whoever can properly marry Paradoxs Mechanics from CK III and all the Good things from all the TW series will have a gaming Dynasty un matched for decades

[@CommodoreTyrannosaurusTux]

I wouldn't even say "No" to Rome Remastered DLC that expands the game in ways that Paradox games do, with Naval, Family Trees, Horde Faction infrastructure, AI revamps, new settings or even crossovers would just be printing money

[@AndysTake]

Yeah I mean that would be awesome

[@ayhanfedai5013]

how could you forget medieval 1 features ; being able to dismount your cavalry and using them as infantry(you can do it after empire games but medieval 2 was lacking of it) , having characters as captains in every unit and being able to giving them titles or your generals new titles or apointing them as governors

[@madwellmusic8995]

Right. I never played original med so finding those features were stripped made me realize that really, CA been on a downfall since med 2 in all reality.

[@Kenjo39]

I miss when a unit will fight to the death when they have no room to run away.

[@bgwarior]

I remember the first time I encountered Total War and how blown away I was by the scale of the battles.... Sadly, scale has not increased since the first Total War, if I do not say it has shrunk.

[@madwellmusic8995]

Gradually it got lack luster too. People focus on features and the battles slip through the cracks. Imagine if they infused animations with unit behavior. Low quality troops would be clunky like med 2. Warrior tribal units unruly and aggressive like hack and slash rome 1. Higher tier troops would hold formation, better pathfinding and killer animations from training and experience. They needed to scrap 1 v 1 lock on kills as that made cav obsolete and unimpactful.

[@michaelh878]

The only really fun battles are when there are stacks of allies and enemies (if the ai isn't being moronic)

[@patricksleep9787]

You know a total war Empire 2 or Medieval three could’ve had a lot of potential man

[@TheOriginalFishPond]

Dynasty/family, Weather, terrain bonuses, culture, NAVAL COMBAT.

[@Daily_Sac]

I genuinely believe that if CA remastered Med 2 and Empire, they will bring in A LOT of revenue

[@madwellmusic8995]

WW1 total war, but it would depict a particular major battle withing a particular theatre. Trenches would be pre built into the map, along with major defesnive structures. Every turn would be a day. They could cycle through day and after a time, night occurs preventing troop movement. Troops could be garrisoned, but not engage in battle unless they were commanded by an operation mechanic similar to crusades/jihad. Enemy spies would relay movement to gayher enemy intel as they prepared for massive invasions. The objective, sieze enemies captiol city and cut off manufacturing. Air battles would be ai simulated, but the player gets to create the airraid on offense, and player on defense would be in city mode (from rome 1) to manage anti air and mustering populace. I know its nigh impossible, but those naval battles would be epic. And the lines would stretch along and skirmishes would happen over attrition. Keep focusing troops at certain points to break through. Battles would be limited by command points, as that would depict your armies willingness to keep fighting regardless of losses. The battle map: troops gather at cluster points to strike at weak points. Artillery strikes would maybe work like agents, or special character abilities during battle so youd have to get the timing just right so they wouldnt necessarily be displayed as individual units.

[@MrBell-iq3sm]

Just play The Great War: Western Front. I bet the developers will expand this concept.

[@Talk3rs]

One thing I hate about "modern" TW (Rome2 and later) is the system of provinces, where you need to get 3-4 settlements to get full rewards. And the rewards were/are just so generic and there is simply no reason to it. If you could appoint some administrator for these, who would create bonuses based on characteristics, that might feel different. Or if it was for example entire region (for Rome Galia, Italy, Iberia etc) and gain for it some bonuses, that might make sense. But this way you feel forced to get those towns just to get some basic bonus. There are probably many different ways how to handle this. Compared to Empire natural growth and settlements it just fel terrible and I hated it. And I still hate it with passion.

[@AndysTake]

Me too…

[@madwellmusic8995]

Yea it's just implemented bad. It makes sense as not every city was a thriving metropolis. But why limit the metropolis to a township. The province system could have worked better as real estate. A clean slate of land dedicated to either capitolize on a resource, or mitigate populations to specific regions. Building slots would be limited, but they'd be a base structure that branches into specialized infrastructure. And technologies would be researched within the base building. Like a market would be just that, but after construction, you get a few slots to work with the resources within that region. As the market grows, the slots expand and you can get more options to optimize imports and exports with bonus infrastructure or manufacturing.

[@badhabits1965]

I don't think CA has the money/funding or human talent left to recover. I think the company is going to go under, maybe after a few more years and a few more failed cash grab attempts.