Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think another fantasy game would be good. Lord of the rings would be good but like with warhammer part of the issue is how good the story is and how total war can't really show it with its free form campaign.

It's sort of there in some quest battles but not really. While i prefer total war warhammer to mark of chaos every time. There wasn't quite as much story and uniqueness in tww1 and 2. Maybe I'm wrong and it's been a while.

You know what'd be really cool? Total war: dragon age like with the first game and the darkspawn in the form of the first game.

I suppose game of thrones would work too. I was one of the few that never got into it tho.

Elder thrones would be fun for it though.

Lord of the Rings Battle for Middlearth should have been a TW title, but EA had the licence.


Lord of the Rings likely comes with a lot more problems than the Warhammer licence since you've not only got the Tolkien Estate, but potentially the Hollywood end holding licences and having to deal with both. After the films the game licence is already in the wild and might well be held for years to come by a company, thus requiring subcontracting and such.

Tolkien Estate itself might not be able to just approve of a separate game licence. Which is a shame as it would give them potential to seek their own vision with the game not just the film designs.



That said GW has seen nothing but positive results from TW Warhammer, there's no reason for them to refuse CA another licence and every reason to want them to keep going. Now perhaps they might say "ok we've done Old World, lets put it aside and do AoS since that's our current fantasy game." Which would give CA several years to work on that and release it and then come back to Old World at a time when the market will have moved on a good 5-10 years - thus a reboot of Old World (esp since by then GW's old world game should be on the the market too) would be most welcome with another decade or so of computer development and advance.

Well CA getting AoS rights to a game is entirely dependent on whether or not GW is over their fear of competition with their table top game. The argument for as long as I can remember as to why GW didn't do a Total war game earlier was it was seen as eating into their WHFB profits.

Hopefully they will realize that its not really "competition" so much as it is "cross promotion" to people who would otherwise not be interested in tabletop. Heck, maybe they don't want to collect minis but take a look over at their AoS RPG instead.

Promotion is promotion afterall.

To be honest I don't see them going down the AoS route, the universe doesn't necessarily lend itself to TW playstyle.

Lord of the Rings would obviously be supoib, but I don't quite see that happening either. Although possibly it could be tied into the Amazon tv show.

CA did a great job with Halo Wars 2 so they could certainly manage a 40k game, but I don't necessarily thing it should be a Total War style game. Again I just don't see the playability.

Maybe something Forgotten Realms ?

AoS works great for TW though. Its the same basic structure as Old World. The only difference is a vastly increased level of magic. If anything the battles are even bigger which would be neat to see CA working with if they developed/improved their engine further and on superior newer PC systems.

AoS still has rank and file armies; vast swaths of troops and organised pitched battles. The only difference tabletop side is that now its freemovement units instead of unit blocks, but that doesn't really matter as its a game that isn't trying to go for movement block style representation of the wars in the lore.


I don't really see any barriers to CA doing AoS unless either they or GW just don't want to do it. I can't see CA doing another Warhammer fantasy game so soon after these three; so moving to AoS lets them keep within world whilst expanding upon it.


That said they could make Man O War if they wanted as a fully separate sea game with only securing settlements on land and no land battles (or only limited elements). It would be a neat way to stretch their creativity; and it would mean they could focus on races that actually had sea vessels rather than having to shoe horn in how Wood Elves or Beastmen wind up with fleets of ships to go with the fleets that Dwarves, Men, Elves etc... have.

Maybe a return to Medieval?

 LordofHats wrote:
Maybe a return to Medieval?

I can see them doing this after Three Kingdoms. Heck if nothing else it would at least finally silence the fanatics who tend to bad review/rave in forums that the newest CA game isn't "Medieval 3".

From the perspective of the engine in use, i'd say a TW with shooting units focus might very well be a better option.

Personally, a warlord era china total war would be amazing. but that is just wishfull thinking and basically automatically exclude the chinese market.

I can imagine a WW1 TW aswell, some mechanics needed were allready in place, like shelling in shogun 2 fall of the samurai, field fortifications in NTW and ETW aswell as shogun 2. Railways etc.

Time period wise there are a few which would make sense due to not beeing covered really:
- 30 years war, english civil war. (pike and shot era)
- Imperial age so after napoleon into the very early 20th century.
- American civil war.
- etc. heck the mexican civil war / revoltuion might lend itself size wise better

 Overread wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Maybe a return to Medieval?

I can see them doing this after Three Kingdoms. Heck if nothing else it would at least finally silence the fanatics who tend to bad review/rave in forums that the newest CA game isn't "Medieval 3".

Followed by subsequent warring by the immediate splinter groups that feel it isn't enough like medieval 1 or 2.
You underestimate the ability of fanatics to be unhappy.

Voss wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Maybe a return to Medieval?

I can see them doing this after Three Kingdoms. Heck if nothing else it would at least finally silence the fanatics who tend to bad review/rave in forums that the newest CA game isn't "Medieval 3".

Followed by subsequent warring by the immediate splinter groups that feel isn't enough like medieval 1 or 2.
You underestimate the ability of fanatics to be unhappy.

Oh not at all. Plus I'd fully expect the "women in my wargames" group to kick up a fuss if there's one queen present in the whole game.
I mean heck Warhammer TW got a lot of fuss over having simpler sieges - even though I think it works better in some ways. IT's a shame to lose some aspects like ships landing at the battlefield; but at the same time its great to have siege maps where you're not spending half the time chasing the AI army around to fight it. Or where the map is so huge that the armies feel undersized. Some of the vast maps TW has for sieges are really detailed, but also highlight how few actual warriors we have when you can't even man all the walls or surround the whole settlement etc... Limitations of the engine, computers etc..

I disagree on the sieges working better...
At most, they are even more exploitable in many ways.

Queens shouldn't be an issue in a hypothetical Medeival 3. Unlike China (exactly one Empress Regnant over the *entire* period of China's recorded history, and she seized the throne from her son), there have been some noteworthy reigning queens in Europe (Elizabeth I says hello! Though she might be a bit late.). Generals is another matter entirely, though. Women didn't lead armies outside of very exceptional circumstances (Joan of Arc, who was probably more of a figurehead).

Personally, I think CK3 handled it the right way. One of the options at the start of the game allows you to go historical, one lets you do "gender is irrelevant for this stuff", and one lets you invert the genders.

On another note, I fully expect the "Medeival 4 when?" chant to start up the moment 3 finally gets released (assuming it does).

So speaking of warhammer 3. I'm catching up on prerelease videos for Amazons in Troy, and I'm wondering if some of their design choices will wander over.

Primarily, because they're a Horde army (for some reasons, since the amazons in the base game have cities).

But the big thing for Amazon Hordes is the can't recruit advanced units. Instead basic units get upgraded to more advanced units after battles, using a 'battle glory' resource that accumulates (and they have to be a certain rank- 4 or 5 chevrons accumulated, and you have to have the specific horde building)

Additionally, their Horde armies can't reinforce or be reinforced. Ever.

Horde growth seeems to have stayed.

Curious if some of this is going to transfer over for Chaos or beastmen. Some of it would be odd if it did, but they're clearly using Saga to play with ideas again.

I could see the 'battle glory' points system being overhaul for summoning daemon units quite easily.

Voss wrote:
But the big thing for Amazon Hordes is the can't recruit advanced units. Instead basic units get upgraded to more advanced units after battles, using a 'battle glory' resource that accumulates (and they have to be a certain rank- 4 or 5 chevrons accumulated, and you have to have the specific horde building)

Oh dang. I've wanted this for a looong time. Since Rome 1. Always thought I should be able to upgrade Hastati on Principe. Or how you have some units where their lore explicitly states they're hand-picked veterans to become elites. Bugged me when low tier units with veterancy just get disbanded or ground into the dirt via attrition when a superior unit becomes available. Worse when it's something silly like Warhammer's Spearmen vs Spearmen with Shields.

I might actually look this Troy Amazon stuff up now. Though I'm not keen on playing a horde army.

Yeah, I put on the video on a whim, and when it got to 'amazons are a horde' I made a fairly loud and vulgar sound of disgust.

But I like the upgrade mechanic in theory.
Same with getting special units through 'battle glory.' That's easily adapted to any sort of special resource the player accumulates by doing appropriate actions.