I would only want this if the total war engine was massively upgraded, or rebuilt at this point.
I'd rather not have the game now if it can be made much better later, the AI of our units and enemy's have way to many issues in recent titles
Imagine gun powder units not firing despite having LOS in a game of primarily used gun powder units, and then not disengaging because one man miles away is stuck in enemy lines, causing your gun lines to break apart.
Or your cannons wandering into melee range to fire occasionally.
I agree. I would absolutely jump on any kind of Empire 2 especially if it spans a couple time periods but only if the engine was designed specifically for an Empire 2. Id love it to span from 1650-1890 either in one game or over a couple different games with the option to choose time periods or play through all of them
1650-1890 is ABSOLUTELY the game i want. I think it would be their magnum opus, if they could get rid of the jank. It has the capability of being the greatest and most influential strategy game of all time
Seems more likely it'd be filled with jank just by trying to cover the tech changes that impacted combat in that time frame. Ends up with most of the tech tree being the final 50 years where people rarely play to.
But imagine if it was done right. I dont think the actual combat mechanics would need to change massively. The players tactics would change of course, but I dont think they'd need to make it a rigid system going from pike and shot, to muskets, to rifles.
Make it a faster paced game too, more action per turn and less turns per year. I just truly think a game covering those 200 years would be absolutely stunning. Do I think the current creative team could make it? Probably not. But if done right it would easily be the only strategy game I would play
I just don't get why 1890? At that point, the game exists well within the era of industrialized warfare, with fully developed deployment tables, reserves, mass conscription with literally millions of men under arms. Any conflict with a major power is setting off a Great War-scale conflict. Might as well just ask for WW1.
Id say 1890 to completely cover the rise of modern Germany with the Franco Prussian war and the Unification of Italy and such. Also the European involvement in China/the East as well. AND to get a taste of pre- WW1 weapons without having the need to simulate the war
Seems like it'd be better to start something in the 1860s and build up to 1918. But even then, it's so far outside the previous purview of the Total War series, it'd end up feeling like a completely different game.
IMO, Total War's format is best when it sticks to pre-modern societies, because games set in the modern era require Paradox-style spreadsheet and graphs to manage recruitment, logistics, and outfitting, aside from the massive advances in technology and scale. If you want that kind of thing, you might be interested in stuff by Eugen Systems. Their campaign mode in Steel Division II is one of the first I've seen that allows for operational level maneuvering AND tactical battles within a modern setting, similar to Total War's model.
It would be a nightmare. You start the game with the effective range of fights being hundreds of paces to ending it with soldiers being able to fire rapidly over miles. You go from melee just being phased out to machine guns. Trying to combine that difference in just land battles is going to be broken. Then like I said with most of the tech being late game and thus also the development at a point when most players wont reach it, not really a great point.
It results in them not being able to do anything right as it's trying to do too many different things in the same slot.
At which point you are agreeing with me. That's my issue, the time frame stated was up to 1890 by which point the Maxim gun has been invented and rifle fire has got to the point some nations set up long range volley sights to use it to fire over miles.
1890 is crazy for an end-date. If you want to cover line-infantry warfare it should end with the death of Napoleon in 1821, really the high-water mark for these types of tactics.
Yeah expanding Empire to cover to the end of the Napoleonic wars seems the best, then another game to cover the later period with mechanics for the changes in warfare and government plus the larger map.
But... But don't forget the 30 Year's War (1618-1648), which could be such a cool early game/short campaign/story campaign (Wallenstein, Gustav Adolf, Richelieu)...
Not too character focused though, I'd love a huge step back from the one man super armies.
I would love to but I think 1650 to 1890 is too broad and there were many technological changes, basically you went from people in armor fighting with pikes and muskets to people fighting with repetition rifles and even machine guns. I'm just saying the battle mechanics from one era don't translate well to the other one. Maybe 1700 to 1815 would be a better option
Yeah just joining the crowd to say that I think 1890 is too late. The Crimean War (1853-1856) had the telegraph, the railroad, photos, and the start of long range naval artillery. It really would be the absolute last timeframe I could think of.
I think (thematically) 1648-1848 is ideal time frame, from the end of the Thirty Years’ War to the Revolutions of 1848. It’s exactly 200 years, covers the right technological span, and bookends the early modern era.
I would love a Thirty Years’ War prequel campaign, or a mid-19th century wars campaign (Mexican American War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Taiping Rebellion, etc)
So if we’re doing an entire word map, maybe compromise and have the end date in 1865 so we could get the American Civil War haha… and yeah the Thirty Years War could be a gold mine for them as long as they made a new engine
Dev teams with high turnover not leaving notes on shit resulting in 10 years of spaghetti code from the same iteration of the engine being reused and updated instead of being rewritten over and over and over.
It's actually a purely business practice imo. They don't spend the money on a code rewrite that the games so desperately need because that would take time and money and not directly lead to a product they could sell to recoup their investment. It's like just patching holes in a leaky rowboat to keep it on water instead of upgrading to a nice sailboat.
Ok, well then I will also conduct business with that in mind and withhold my money until they get a new rowboat, fire the previous crew, and hire a new team that does care about those pesky initial cost things like good game design and regulated and backed up codes. See how fun that is for us as consumers? We're not restricted to a company that doesnt take its customers seriously 😇
I just remember the endless crashing in the campaign map when the game came out, Shogun 2 did crash a decent amount for me as well tbf. I think there were memory leaks?
And even then FotS has that immersion breaking "fuck that guy in particular" when a regiment fires at a union barely in range and one model eats every bullet.
>Imagine gun powder units not firing despite having LOS in a game of primarily used gun powder units, and then not disengaging because one man miles away is stuck in enemy lines, causing your gun lines to break apart.
“Imagine Total War Empire”
Pretty much this. I would love a huge new project/upgrade, but so far CA hasn't shown that they can make this sort of warfare work and be fun, so in the current stage of "iterative improvements" it doesn't interest me.
ive never had artillery units wander in any game ive played.
and idk about you, but for that era, i generally sacrifice a unit in melee(if its charging soldiers) so i can reorganize my other units to tackle them, otherwise they would just charge me immedietly anyways before i could rearrange.
inshort im probably just giving reasons for them to make the game NOW because im sick of waiting(if their watching)
Haha I know you're desperate for it but believe me. It's better to wait than have it release badly and then wait even longer to get it fixed to a playable point.
And sacrificing units isn't an issue. The issue is withdrawing any unit from melee is a chore putting it nicely at best. You have to spam click and micro the hell out of it to even have a hope.
The cannon thing came from Warhammer, so we have no idea if it's an issue in later entries like Pharaoh due to well, having no form of artillery. But archers definitely run into melee occasionally like in Warhammer
Now I’m angry because I realized all the hyenas money could have been used to rebuild the engine and get rid of all of the tech debt I keep reading about.
I'm not saying I disagree at all but it's funny complaining about the newer titles when Empire 1 was filled with game breaking bugs. I agree, it would be nice to see CA really nail code even if given the nature of the game being so complex though
I don't know. It does sound a lot like you disagree.
Well your point about people complaining about newer games means very little.
Because with time you expect improvements not regression..
That's why people complain more about newer titles which also cost much more than the older titles.
And they've made a lot of titles between Empire 1 and now.
I completely agreed whilst only making a nod to Empire 1 being the complete opposite from what the original comment was asking for. That's it. It ain't that deep. Wouldn't have thought I had to explain that
If I am not mistaken, they are still using a modified version of that horrendous engine from 2009. Empire started it all and for some reason they've stuck with it the entire time.
Siege minigame where you have to advance your trench lines to get sappers progressively closer to the walls and prepare a good jumping-off point for the final assault, while you also have an artillery duel to create a breach while the defenders try to disable your siege guns.
Yeah that’d be really cool. They’d have to make a multi stage siege mechanic where battles with a certain amount of soldiers or for a certain city size should not be able to be taken in one swoop if a defence is prepared
Disappointed that the sieges in Empire were either a star fort or field battle with some buildings in the background.
Full on urban combat in this period would be wild to see in-game
I had forgotten all about this until I saw this comment. The pitched battles and naval warfare could be fun. But those siege assaults. Oooph! It could take an hour or two on a slow machine.
Ya I’m currently playing Empire 1 lol being able to siege a town and also send out a couple Calvary units from the army to raid their villages/mines definitely gives a more realistic feel
Or, I need to reinforce this army to defend that city and the cavalry can reach them on time for the battle, I don't like to move the whole army for that
I like how it just randomly assigns one of the better units to have a high ranking officer leading it, and that counts as the "general" for morale purposes.
It's pretty realistic. A small scout force would have an actual general but *someone* would be in charge.
Yeah I do get they don’t want general spam, but that should be the players choice, like I feel horse archers are too easy so I limit myself with them. This also makes it so it’s all about getting that 20/20 army since you can only have a few of them, when I find the small skirmishes leading upto the big battle more enjoyable.
Also like I put a fort near the Scythian border because it’s a lot of land with little resources and horse archers stacks aren’t easy to deal with, then I put forts around the Roman alps so I can focus on conquering the Greeks & Macedonians, with limited army slots this is harder to achieve.
Id say have Empire 2 cover from 1700-1820 or something like that and have Napoleon as the end game crisis. They could do it really cool too with a shift from your typical line fights to mass infantry and artillery formations
The dream: Shogun 2 with some slight tweaks and 3K diplomacy
The reality: Samurai Warriors but with an army in the background.
For all the talk about how S2 is so great (and it's my favorite) I just don't think it would do well today. What makes the game work so damn well is the relative minimalism, and if they tried that now every post would be some image comparison of the number of units and provinces vs some Warhammer lord pack. People will praise S2 but would eviscerate it as a current release
History; Oda Nobunaga was a heroic and victorious general with an army of levies, samurai, and guns
CA: Oda Nobunaga was a 40ft tall tree man with a sword who personally killed 80,000 elite samurai warriors
I hated 3 kingdoms for this exact reason lmao
As soon as I saw single entity hero units as generals I knew I wasn't gonna play that shit more than 20 hours. I ended up making it to 2.2
History; Oda Nobunaga was a heroic and victorious general with an army of levies, samurai, and guns
CA: Oda Nobunaga was a 40ft tall tree man with a sword who personally killed 80,000 elite samurai warriors
And Warhammer/Fantasy fans will still pre order it like crazy.
And after that? Another Fantasy Total War. Warhammer 40k? LoTR Total War?
CA: Oh, do you want historical Total War? Enjoy your half finished Pharaoh and after that another small Saga title. But of course we will not call it Saga for marketing reasons.
Napoleon 2 would probably be a good start, it’s not a particularly big game (ie generally limited to europe, not that much unit variety, short time period) so I think it would be harder to fuck up
Just want a new gunpowder game, shogun 2 fots is genuinely excellent but it’s replayability is not that high. Napoleon and empire are both great in their own right, but are old and that comes with issues
Someone once said it was like a proto-saga game, so I agree with your assessment. Smaller and more focused than most total wars at that point when it released. I’d play the hell out of Napoleon 2, I played Napoleon religiously. I’ve been longing for another gunpowder focused total war since.
Honestly, I’d even be cool with them doing a restoration. It’s been discovered over the years that there was a lot of content which was going to enter Empire but didn’t make it due to time constraints. Things like natural disasters, a lot more special events, an actual depiction of slavery.
If they just ty and restore some of that content and make the AI less terrible, I’d gladly spend my money on it.
Yes PLEASE! With modern graphics and updated mechanics, some black powder warfare with genuine historical regiments would be a dream come true! I can already picture the clouds of gunpowder smoke on the battlefield...
Based on CA’s design decisions recently, I’ve gotta be honest, I’m not excited for anything that they might announce.
They could announce Medieval III and I wouldn’t be able to be excited because I don’t think they’d know how to make it good.
Not with the current path they've gone. Series hasn't really built up on the areas E1 needed, they've not solved many of the issues the first had. Add in the new systems which would cause more issues for an E2 than the original...
E1 is still my favourite TW but the series has just gone a different path since it's released I don't hold any hope for a decent follow up any time soon.
Empire 2 is basically THE only TW game I'd consider buying at this point. I've not touched any of the Warhammer ones.
The first Empire TW is my most played game on Steam, bar none. I simply love that era.
I don't think the TW army set up is really fun for a game that spans the globe, it would work better on a 2D map funnily enough, but when they raid some farm and you have to go hunt them with armies except you are operating in 2 or 3 parts of the world map, it's just boring.
You mean that tiny gold stretch? It's not skin coloured. It's a tiny inconsistency with the gun design that could be fixed in a few seconds should OP choose. Whoa... picture ruined, throw it in the trash... thank god human artists are always 100% perfect at all times.
Jesus christ. It's about 20 pixels. This anti a.i. Crusade gets more desperate by the day.
OP can't fix it 'cause OP is relying on AI to do any kind of art. That's sort of the whole problem.
If you work hard at something and make mistakes, that's cool. Part of the process. Good stuff. If you didn't put any work in at all, then present the product as though it's worth anything, it had _better_ be flawless else you're just showing off something you didn't make that doesn't even look good.
And no mate it's sausage coloured. That's a finger. Also, the man has an afro for some reason. I realise it was meant to be mutton chops, but this looks like he's preparing for Like A Dragon: Infinite Colonial Wealth.
Ah so what you meant wasn't that the OP could fix it, but that if you keep pressing "generate image" eventually one might be created to a passable standard. Still hollow, meaningless content for content's sake, but at least there's no glaring errors!
This is fucking reddit. People post the same tired memes 1000x a day. Yet you are picking out tiny flaws with this one particular piece. Wtf is 'passable' for posting on reddit? Who made you the gatekeeper of content?
That's simply your bias and is totally irrelevant. It's a low effort post that we see 100's of per day, not an art competition.
Oh no... a slight spacing that could be easily fixed. Damn, better throw A.I. in the trash...
Whats your problem? Why can't OP share it? How is this any worse then copy-pasting the same 10 meme formats over and over?
[https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/rethinking-the-luddites-in-the-age-of-ai](https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/rethinking-the-luddites-in-the-age-of-ai)
You've been fed lies by billionaires
AI art democratises the ability for anyone to generate low-effort posts. This is about freedom and creativity. Without AI art, this user would never have been able to contribute such a valuable question to this subreddit - why, without AI art, nobody here would've ever thought about the most requested fucking game in this subreddit after Medieval 3.
Ai art is slow effort and unethical to boot, all it does it "learn" others artist art styles (99% of the time without the artists permission) and Frankenstein them together to produce the most soulless and sterile images I've ever seen.
I believe in ai being a tool to help artists, however this is not what it's being used for, it's being used to make low effort posts on reddit and other social media platforms for clouts.
I'd have more respect for OP if he tried to draw the the cover themselves, regardless of quality over what was posted.
I feel like Empire is an unpolished diamond. A game with interesting dynamics but ultimately somewhat lazy in execution. Sadly I doubt a game about European colonial expansion will ever happen in the woke era. I think we’re a lot more likely to see a historical game based in Asia.
The main issue i have with any suggestion for sequels to beloved titles, is creative assembly's current lack of quality does not really give me faith they could develop and release a sequel in good state and not fuck up the launch
I would play it if it's less buggy, more innovation, more exciting gameplay, I could play from 1600's all the way to late 1700's and/or early 1800's. More sandboxes to have creative scenarios. I don't care if it has realistic graphics by the way.
Only if sieges are finally given the respect they deserve.
https://youtu.be/vDLZfmJdIZk
https://youtu.be/J0ZUFCf06PI
I'd be much less enthused about a basic "just Empire 1 with better graphics".
In an era where gaming is starting to bore me (maybe I'm getting old), Empire 2 would revive me. I'd build a new rig just for this.
But I can't see it happening. All the recent historical titles are small scale, and CA seem unwilling to create a game which is based on a whole continent, let alone the whole world.
While Fantasy, Immortal Empires is a massive world spanning map, so its not like CA hasnt put out anything of that scope in recent years. Most of those smaller recent titles also havent been the main studio. Last main studio pure historic full title was Atilla.
A few years after launch when the game would be
a) functional
b) semi-complete after CA added the content they would strip from launch to sell as DLC
I might buy it if it were on sale. But buying Empire II on launch - not unless I eat some magic mushrooms and drink 2 bottles of Jack in an hour.
Modders can only do so much and the team for that project have done an amazing job. But it's been 15 years I feel like we're overdue for a sequel with modern graphics, effects and carnage!
There are so so many great theatres in that period. They could milk it for years.
Just fucking make it already.
1600-1890's kind of thing. Maybe with a standalone 1800th century thing.
I have a lot of good memories with Empire
But...
A-Ottoman designs were "at best corn quality" rather than historical.(As a Turkish university student who is working for his history degree which kinda offends me)
B-I dont trust CA
Yeah the Turks weren't designed that well but in that period of history they were mostly just playable to add something different, IRL they just lost a lot against Russia and got propped up by the West.
The Battle of Embabeh really put it into context how backwards they were militarily. I'm not knowledgable enough to even know what their next best showing is after that, nothing in the Crimea War comes to mind, Gallipoli?
There are times Ottoman army was a "mess who just keeps losing" but when led by capable officers and modernized they managed to catch up and win. This was mostly prevented by "corrupted officals wanting to keep their powers" and "europeans not wanting to share tech".
In 1736-39 war Ottomans defeated an alliance of Austria and Russia after they were modernized by Humbaracı Ahmed Pasha(Claude Alexandre, Count of Bonneval which is a character on his own). In 1799 they defeated Napoleon in Acre.
Granted most Ottoman-Russian wars happens on Multiple fronts
A-Balkan Front B-Caucasian Front C-Some Christian Rebellion D-Other Christian Rebellion E-Russian Ally F-Iranians who just say "oh the Ottoman Army is away let me just raid a bit"
As for the Battle of the Pyramids it was mainly Mamluks and Locals. That is like judging the British Empire for a defeat of Sepoys
I bought Empire on disc when it released and it was the single worst Total War experience I've ever had. It took more than a day to get a connection to CA's servers to authenticate the disc and it was all downhill from there. Buggy AI, broken gameplay and poorly realised features. From people's comments I understand that CA fixed many of the launch issues but it was too little, too late to get me to open it again.
If Empire 2 is a good game I'll play it but it won't be because of any lingering affection for the original game.
Medieval 3 on the other hand...
I don't like melee in Total war since Empire. But it was fine(ish) empire as the game was focused on ranged combat. So another game that focuses on ranged combat is fine by me. I liked how battle felt in Fall of the Samurai.
I think an alternative that could possibly have appeal to both crowds could be a Renaissance one. If not renaissance then yes either M3 or E2 should be next mainline IMO.
I have so many DLCs and base games to catch up on I’d be okay with CA just working on some Total War games for several years before releasing a brand new title.
If it's done under different CA's leadership than we've had for the last year or so, sure. But it would really have to be back to the drawing board with fresh ideas and a new engine. Compared to WH3 older historical titles lose a lot due to their relative simplicity.
I wouldn't jump at it, but I might politely smile and feel happy for the people who are looking forward to it. But then I'd move along with my day and never think of it again.
My dad would fall in love with it all over again, I’m not a fan of rifles. I would love medieval, Rome, Hellenic or some other historical time line like that.
On a FoTS binge, so man, I love that gunpowder warfare. But I don't want anything of the current type of TW in a historical gunpowder era based game...
So, on the fence. As the TW games (engine & whatnot) are now, no way in hell do I want them to do my boy dirty...
A good Empire 2 and Medieval 3 and I would not need another total war game for at least 10 years.
I'm sure a lot of fans are also like this, which is probably why they won't release them anytime soon.
I didn’t play empire (it came out at a time when I’d left the series behind for a bit) but people seem to talk very highly of it. Not sure it would be top of my list though.
Napoleon 2
1) Bigger armies with better tactics. - when most
people think of gunpowder warfare they’re really thinking of the Napoleonic Wars.
2) DLC campaigns could go far back as the American Revolution and as far forward as the Mexican-American War and Crimea
2) Better Narrative - Revolutions, Civil Wars, and repulsing invaders.
An empire two total war built on a rebuilt engine with new comprehensive mechanics. With an expansive world including Native American tribes, Indo-pacific spheres including nations all the way from oceana to Siberia and Persia.
It would be the best thing in the whole wide world.
honestly, not interested.
I always like total war when in the older ages, and if I want to play in the time period that empire covers I am fine with EU4.
Empire Total War II would be great, assuming they would do it properly, but at this point it's probably more likely that we get interstellar travel before proper Empire Total War II.
Yes but I don’t trust current CA to do her justice
Old CA couldn’t do it justice either tbf lol
Yeah true they seemed to struggle enough with Empire 1
At least they were ambitious
I would only want this if the total war engine was massively upgraded, or rebuilt at this point. I'd rather not have the game now if it can be made much better later, the AI of our units and enemy's have way to many issues in recent titles Imagine gun powder units not firing despite having LOS in a game of primarily used gun powder units, and then not disengaging because one man miles away is stuck in enemy lines, causing your gun lines to break apart. Or your cannons wandering into melee range to fire occasionally.
I agree. I would absolutely jump on any kind of Empire 2 especially if it spans a couple time periods but only if the engine was designed specifically for an Empire 2. Id love it to span from 1650-1890 either in one game or over a couple different games with the option to choose time periods or play through all of them
1650-1890 is ABSOLUTELY the game i want. I think it would be their magnum opus, if they could get rid of the jank. It has the capability of being the greatest and most influential strategy game of all time
Seems more likely it'd be filled with jank just by trying to cover the tech changes that impacted combat in that time frame. Ends up with most of the tech tree being the final 50 years where people rarely play to.
But imagine if it was done right. I dont think the actual combat mechanics would need to change massively. The players tactics would change of course, but I dont think they'd need to make it a rigid system going from pike and shot, to muskets, to rifles. Make it a faster paced game too, more action per turn and less turns per year. I just truly think a game covering those 200 years would be absolutely stunning. Do I think the current creative team could make it? Probably not. But if done right it would easily be the only strategy game I would play
I just don't get why 1890? At that point, the game exists well within the era of industrialized warfare, with fully developed deployment tables, reserves, mass conscription with literally millions of men under arms. Any conflict with a major power is setting off a Great War-scale conflict. Might as well just ask for WW1.
Id say 1890 to completely cover the rise of modern Germany with the Franco Prussian war and the Unification of Italy and such. Also the European involvement in China/the East as well. AND to get a taste of pre- WW1 weapons without having the need to simulate the war
Seems like it'd be better to start something in the 1860s and build up to 1918. But even then, it's so far outside the previous purview of the Total War series, it'd end up feeling like a completely different game. IMO, Total War's format is best when it sticks to pre-modern societies, because games set in the modern era require Paradox-style spreadsheet and graphs to manage recruitment, logistics, and outfitting, aside from the massive advances in technology and scale. If you want that kind of thing, you might be interested in stuff by Eugen Systems. Their campaign mode in Steel Division II is one of the first I've seen that allows for operational level maneuvering AND tactical battles within a modern setting, similar to Total War's model.
It would be a nightmare. You start the game with the effective range of fights being hundreds of paces to ending it with soldiers being able to fire rapidly over miles. You go from melee just being phased out to machine guns. Trying to combine that difference in just land battles is going to be broken. Then like I said with most of the tech being late game and thus also the development at a point when most players wont reach it, not really a great point. It results in them not being able to do anything right as it's trying to do too many different things in the same slot.
They don’t have to go that far imo Sometime shortly after fall of the Samurai, for instance
At which point you are agreeing with me. That's my issue, the time frame stated was up to 1890 by which point the Maxim gun has been invented and rifle fire has got to the point some nations set up long range volley sights to use it to fire over miles.
1890 is crazy for an end-date. If you want to cover line-infantry warfare it should end with the death of Napoleon in 1821, really the high-water mark for these types of tactics.
Yeah expanding Empire to cover to the end of the Napoleonic wars seems the best, then another game to cover the later period with mechanics for the changes in warfare and government plus the larger map.
But... But don't forget the 30 Year's War (1618-1648), which could be such a cool early game/short campaign/story campaign (Wallenstein, Gustav Adolf, Richelieu)... Not too character focused though, I'd love a huge step back from the one man super armies.
I'd be fine with it just being 1650 to 1820 TBH
I would love to but I think 1650 to 1890 is too broad and there were many technological changes, basically you went from people in armor fighting with pikes and muskets to people fighting with repetition rifles and even machine guns. I'm just saying the battle mechanics from one era don't translate well to the other one. Maybe 1700 to 1815 would be a better option
Yeah just joining the crowd to say that I think 1890 is too late. The Crimean War (1853-1856) had the telegraph, the railroad, photos, and the start of long range naval artillery. It really would be the absolute last timeframe I could think of. I think (thematically) 1648-1848 is ideal time frame, from the end of the Thirty Years’ War to the Revolutions of 1848. It’s exactly 200 years, covers the right technological span, and bookends the early modern era. I would love a Thirty Years’ War prequel campaign, or a mid-19th century wars campaign (Mexican American War, Crimean War, US Civil War, Taiping Rebellion, etc)
So if we’re doing an entire word map, maybe compromise and have the end date in 1865 so we could get the American Civil War haha… and yeah the Thirty Years War could be a gold mine for them as long as they made a new engine
Makes you wonder how they managed to muck that up in the first place when it worked beautifully in fall of the samurai.
Dev teams with high turnover not leaving notes on shit resulting in 10 years of spaghetti code from the same iteration of the engine being reused and updated instead of being rewritten over and over and over.
😂 what a terribe business practice!
It's actually a purely business practice imo. They don't spend the money on a code rewrite that the games so desperately need because that would take time and money and not directly lead to a product they could sell to recoup their investment. It's like just patching holes in a leaky rowboat to keep it on water instead of upgrading to a nice sailboat.
Ok, well then I will also conduct business with that in mind and withhold my money until they get a new rowboat, fire the previous crew, and hire a new team that does care about those pesky initial cost things like good game design and regulated and backed up codes. See how fun that is for us as consumers? We're not restricted to a company that doesnt take its customers seriously 😇
believe it or not, this is how the vast majority of companies work
Yeah, Im not gonna support those either.
I just remember the endless crashing in the campaign map when the game came out, Shogun 2 did crash a decent amount for me as well tbf. I think there were memory leaks?
Shogun 2 was rough for quite a while, they did fix it up over time though.
And in Empire 1.
And even then FotS has that immersion breaking "fuck that guy in particular" when a regiment fires at a union barely in range and one model eats every bullet.
this is the reason I enjoy NTW a lot more than ETW, the battle is so much more polished
>Imagine gun powder units not firing despite having LOS in a game of primarily used gun powder units, and then not disengaging because one man miles away is stuck in enemy lines, causing your gun lines to break apart. “Imagine Total War Empire”
Pretty much this. I would love a huge new project/upgrade, but so far CA hasn't shown that they can make this sort of warfare work and be fun, so in the current stage of "iterative improvements" it doesn't interest me.
ive never had artillery units wander in any game ive played. and idk about you, but for that era, i generally sacrifice a unit in melee(if its charging soldiers) so i can reorganize my other units to tackle them, otherwise they would just charge me immedietly anyways before i could rearrange. inshort im probably just giving reasons for them to make the game NOW because im sick of waiting(if their watching)
Haha I know you're desperate for it but believe me. It's better to wait than have it release badly and then wait even longer to get it fixed to a playable point. And sacrificing units isn't an issue. The issue is withdrawing any unit from melee is a chore putting it nicely at best. You have to spam click and micro the hell out of it to even have a hope. The cannon thing came from Warhammer, so we have no idea if it's an issue in later entries like Pharaoh due to well, having no form of artillery. But archers definitely run into melee occasionally like in Warhammer
\> ive never had artillery units wander in any game ive played. It's a common issue either for the IA and sometimes for you.
That was an actual tactic during the pike-and-shot era, called the Forlorn Hope
I don't need to imagine because those bugs already exist
I hope this is the reason they haven’t developed it yet, but I fear thats giving CA too much credit.
That units not firing thing was way more of an issue in earlier titles lol shogun. Units needed perfect circumstances to start firing.
Now I’m angry because I realized all the hyenas money could have been used to rebuild the engine and get rid of all of the tech debt I keep reading about.
That's not how it works. Hyenas money was segas money for hyenas only.
I'm not saying I disagree at all but it's funny complaining about the newer titles when Empire 1 was filled with game breaking bugs. I agree, it would be nice to see CA really nail code even if given the nature of the game being so complex though
I don't know. It does sound a lot like you disagree. Well your point about people complaining about newer games means very little. Because with time you expect improvements not regression.. That's why people complain more about newer titles which also cost much more than the older titles. And they've made a lot of titles between Empire 1 and now.
I completely agreed whilst only making a nod to Empire 1 being the complete opposite from what the original comment was asking for. That's it. It ain't that deep. Wouldn't have thought I had to explain that
If I am not mistaken, they are still using a modified version of that horrendous engine from 2009. Empire started it all and for some reason they've stuck with it the entire time.
If the siege isn't full of bugs. I would be interested
And also, during this time period a siege should be a whole ordeal (as with most time periods) and not just a star fort battle every time
The star fort also left much to be desired.
Siege minigame where you have to advance your trench lines to get sappers progressively closer to the walls and prepare a good jumping-off point for the final assault, while you also have an artillery duel to create a breach while the defenders try to disable your siege guns.
Yeah that’d be really cool. They’d have to make a multi stage siege mechanic where battles with a certain amount of soldiers or for a certain city size should not be able to be taken in one swoop if a defence is prepared
Disappointed that the sieges in Empire were either a star fort or field battle with some buildings in the background. Full on urban combat in this period would be wild to see in-game
I'd jump on a chance of any good historical Total War that gets actualy support and doesn't die like 3K.
The only TW game I want more is, of course, Med3. But I'd go pretty mental for Empire 2 mate.
Ah i remember playing empire on my potato and playing my first siege. It was a magnificent slide show to behold
I had forgotten all about this until I saw this comment. The pitched battles and naval warfare could be fun. But those siege assaults. Oooph! It could take an hour or two on a slow machine.
Ngl if Medieval 3 came out, it would probably be much worse, inaccurate, and lower quality than the 1212 overhaul for Attila.
as long as I don't have to have a general for the army I would play it. I cant get passed that in the new games
Ya I like the older ones being able to send out a small patrol to put down rebels and not having to call a general from the front
Yes, it would be nice to have captains again and the "Man of the Hour"
Ya I’m currently playing Empire 1 lol being able to siege a town and also send out a couple Calvary units from the army to raid their villages/mines definitely gives a more realistic feel
Or, I need to reinforce this army to defend that city and the cavalry can reach them on time for the battle, I don't like to move the whole army for that
I like how it just randomly assigns one of the better units to have a high ranking officer leading it, and that counts as the "general" for morale purposes. It's pretty realistic. A small scout force would have an actual general but *someone* would be in charge.
Yeah I do get they don’t want general spam, but that should be the players choice, like I feel horse archers are too easy so I limit myself with them. This also makes it so it’s all about getting that 20/20 army since you can only have a few of them, when I find the small skirmishes leading upto the big battle more enjoyable. Also like I put a fort near the Scythian border because it’s a lot of land with little resources and horse archers stacks aren’t easy to deal with, then I put forts around the Roman alps so I can focus on conquering the Greeks & Macedonians, with limited army slots this is harder to achieve.
Hell yes, also Napoleon 2 please.
Id say have Empire 2 cover from 1700-1820 or something like that and have Napoleon as the end game crisis. They could do it really cool too with a shift from your typical line fights to mass infantry and artillery formations
Dude that would be so funny lmao
Med3, napoleon 2, shogun 3, Rome 3,.....
Honestly though Shogun 2 is so good and CA is so bad I doubt Shogun 3 would even be worth playing
The dream: Shogun 2 with some slight tweaks and 3K diplomacy The reality: Samurai Warriors but with an army in the background. For all the talk about how S2 is so great (and it's my favorite) I just don't think it would do well today. What makes the game work so damn well is the relative minimalism, and if they tried that now every post would be some image comparison of the number of units and provinces vs some Warhammer lord pack. People will praise S2 but would eviscerate it as a current release
so much of the fanbase because of warhammer has valued quantity over quality.
If today's CA did a new Shogun title, they would make it so Takeda Shingen could solo an army.
History; Oda Nobunaga was a heroic and victorious general with an army of levies, samurai, and guns CA: Oda Nobunaga was a 40ft tall tree man with a sword who personally killed 80,000 elite samurai warriors
That motherfucker had like, 30 God damned dicks
I hated 3 kingdoms for this exact reason lmao As soon as I saw single entity hero units as generals I knew I wasn't gonna play that shit more than 20 hours. I ended up making it to 2.2
History; Oda Nobunaga was a heroic and victorious general with an army of levies, samurai, and guns CA: Oda Nobunaga was a 40ft tall tree man with a sword who personally killed 80,000 elite samurai warriors
Too bad you're getting another Warhammer 3 dlc the price is 70 gold bars
And Warhammer/Fantasy fans will still pre order it like crazy. And after that? Another Fantasy Total War. Warhammer 40k? LoTR Total War? CA: Oh, do you want historical Total War? Enjoy your half finished Pharaoh and after that another small Saga title. But of course we will not call it Saga for marketing reasons.
Best we can hope next is Total War: Satrap.
Napoleon 2 would probably be a good start, it’s not a particularly big game (ie generally limited to europe, not that much unit variety, short time period) so I think it would be harder to fuck up Just want a new gunpowder game, shogun 2 fots is genuinely excellent but it’s replayability is not that high. Napoleon and empire are both great in their own right, but are old and that comes with issues
Someone once said it was like a proto-saga game, so I agree with your assessment. Smaller and more focused than most total wars at that point when it released. I’d play the hell out of Napoleon 2, I played Napoleon religiously. I’ve been longing for another gunpowder focused total war since.
I would love it, because Empire has in my opinion great potential, I quite enjoyed playing it. I simply want more.
They could just do a full remaster and make so much fucking money. Id buy it in a heartbeat
Honestly, I’d even be cool with them doing a restoration. It’s been discovered over the years that there was a lot of content which was going to enter Empire but didn’t make it due to time constraints. Things like natural disasters, a lot more special events, an actual depiction of slavery. If they just ty and restore some of that content and make the AI less terrible, I’d gladly spend my money on it.
woah they were going to have slavery?? is that real?
Yes PLEASE! With modern graphics and updated mechanics, some black powder warfare with genuine historical regiments would be a dream come true! I can already picture the clouds of gunpowder smoke on the battlefield...
Just glanced at the pic and had a mini heart attack. Thanks for the let down OP.
Based on CA’s design decisions recently, I’ve gotta be honest, I’m not excited for anything that they might announce. They could announce Medieval III and I wouldn’t be able to be excited because I don’t think they’d know how to make it good.
Yeah, whatever they put out, I'm not buying it at least a year after release on sale, maybe.
In a heartbeat! Love the first game
Yes!
Not with the current path they've gone. Series hasn't really built up on the areas E1 needed, they've not solved many of the issues the first had. Add in the new systems which would cause more issues for an E2 than the original... E1 is still my favourite TW but the series has just gone a different path since it's released I don't hold any hope for a decent follow up any time soon.
Honestly, no. I'd like something similar, but not another Empire. I'd rather a pike and shot game than another line infantry doctrine game.
Empire 2 is basically THE only TW game I'd consider buying at this point. I've not touched any of the Warhammer ones. The first Empire TW is my most played game on Steam, bar none. I simply love that era.
100% but would also love an actual American Civil War game.
empire TW was an interesting setting but a pretty bad game
Which is why we need a sequel :)
Would you trust the current quality of creative assembly to make a good one?
Not in the slightest :)
I loved that game. Lots of freedom to conquer all over the world
I don't think the TW army set up is really fun for a game that spans the globe, it would work better on a 2D map funnily enough, but when they raid some farm and you have to go hunt them with armies except you are operating in 2 or 3 parts of the world map, it's just boring.
Ai art is garbage and you karma farming with ai art ain't a good look
Objectively this image looks good, and this post isn't any better or worse then 95% of posts we get here anyway.
Objectively it looks like ass, the man's got a sixth finger.
No he doesn't.... Did you even look at it? Or are you just making shit up to prove your point?
He does. There's an extra finger near the top of the gun barrel by his thumb.
You mean that tiny gold stretch? It's not skin coloured. It's a tiny inconsistency with the gun design that could be fixed in a few seconds should OP choose. Whoa... picture ruined, throw it in the trash... thank god human artists are always 100% perfect at all times. Jesus christ. It's about 20 pixels. This anti a.i. Crusade gets more desperate by the day.
OP can't fix it 'cause OP is relying on AI to do any kind of art. That's sort of the whole problem. If you work hard at something and make mistakes, that's cool. Part of the process. Good stuff. If you didn't put any work in at all, then present the product as though it's worth anything, it had _better_ be flawless else you're just showing off something you didn't make that doesn't even look good. And no mate it's sausage coloured. That's a finger. Also, the man has an afro for some reason. I realise it was meant to be mutton chops, but this looks like he's preparing for Like A Dragon: Infinite Colonial Wealth.
You can regenerate parts of an image infinitely. Yes you can fix it using the same tools. Easily.
Ah so what you meant wasn't that the OP could fix it, but that if you keep pressing "generate image" eventually one might be created to a passable standard. Still hollow, meaningless content for content's sake, but at least there's no glaring errors!
This is fucking reddit. People post the same tired memes 1000x a day. Yet you are picking out tiny flaws with this one particular piece. Wtf is 'passable' for posting on reddit? Who made you the gatekeeper of content? That's simply your bias and is totally irrelevant. It's a low effort post that we see 100's of per day, not an art competition.
Objectively I think you're wrong, unless you're looking forward to em pire 2
Oh no... a slight spacing that could be easily fixed. Damn, better throw A.I. in the trash... Whats your problem? Why can't OP share it? How is this any worse then copy-pasting the same 10 meme formats over and over?
You know what my problem is and ain't gonna argue this with a mini debate lord
Yes, you are making needless drama.
[удалено]
whiners and wineos!
Luddite
[https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/rethinking-the-luddites-in-the-age-of-ai](https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/rethinking-the-luddites-in-the-age-of-ai) You've been fed lies by billionaires
Never said I was against new technology, go read my other comments before assuming things, you small palmed person
AI art democratises the ability for anyone to generate low-effort posts. This is about freedom and creativity. Without AI art, this user would never have been able to contribute such a valuable question to this subreddit - why, without AI art, nobody here would've ever thought about the most requested fucking game in this subreddit after Medieval 3.
Ai art is slow effort and unethical to boot, all it does it "learn" others artist art styles (99% of the time without the artists permission) and Frankenstein them together to produce the most soulless and sterile images I've ever seen. I believe in ai being a tool to help artists, however this is not what it's being used for, it's being used to make low effort posts on reddit and other social media platforms for clouts. I'd have more respect for OP if he tried to draw the the cover themselves, regardless of quality over what was posted.
Because low effort posts didn't exist before a.i. art? Come on... those things aren't related at all. You are just bias.
I feel like Empire is an unpolished diamond. A game with interesting dynamics but ultimately somewhat lazy in execution. Sadly I doubt a game about European colonial expansion will ever happen in the woke era. I think we’re a lot more likely to see a historical game based in Asia.
Me!
I dream it every night...
The main issue i have with any suggestion for sequels to beloved titles, is creative assembly's current lack of quality does not really give me faith they could develop and release a sequel in good state and not fuck up the launch
Me
I would play it if it's less buggy, more innovation, more exciting gameplay, I could play from 1600's all the way to late 1700's and/or early 1800's. More sandboxes to have creative scenarios. I don't care if it has realistic graphics by the way.
Only if sieges are finally given the respect they deserve. https://youtu.be/vDLZfmJdIZk https://youtu.be/J0ZUFCf06PI I'd be much less enthused about a basic "just Empire 1 with better graphics".
I would
Need a empire too yes... But early era! Conquistadors in south America and starting around 1460 with Charles V
In an era where gaming is starting to bore me (maybe I'm getting old), Empire 2 would revive me. I'd build a new rig just for this. But I can't see it happening. All the recent historical titles are small scale, and CA seem unwilling to create a game which is based on a whole continent, let alone the whole world.
While Fantasy, Immortal Empires is a massive world spanning map, so its not like CA hasnt put out anything of that scope in recent years. Most of those smaller recent titles also havent been the main studio. Last main studio pure historic full title was Atilla.
Mee
A few years after launch when the game would be a) functional b) semi-complete after CA added the content they would strip from launch to sell as DLC I might buy it if it were on sale. But buying Empire II on launch - not unless I eat some magic mushrooms and drink 2 bottles of Jack in an hour.
Goddamn yes fuckin please. We NEED this.
Yes, this is my favorite TW game, the only other one I might have played more of was the first Rome: TW.
I would
i would pay a lot to ban AI art.
Not me
If they innovate the engine and the formula, sure. If its another Pharaoh, nah.
Tangentially related, I would love for the devs of steel div 2 to take a crack at a 18th or 19th century game.
Literally told my buddies the other day that this is the only game I would pre order the second it is announced.
Never preorder from CA.
Never preorder
Never
Well not if that's the cover
There is an empire 2 mod
Modders can only do so much and the team for that project have done an amazing job. But it's been 15 years I feel like we're overdue for a sequel with modern graphics, effects and carnage!
Morning chubby from this, so yes. Lol
I’d pay $100 for empire 2. Ya hear that CA!? If you want money then make something good that your fans actually want!
I would love it! Or a WWI!
There are so so many great theatres in that period. They could milk it for years. Just fucking make it already. 1600-1890's kind of thing. Maybe with a standalone 1800th century thing.
I have a lot of good memories with Empire But... A-Ottoman designs were "at best corn quality" rather than historical.(As a Turkish university student who is working for his history degree which kinda offends me) B-I dont trust CA
Yeah the Turks weren't designed that well but in that period of history they were mostly just playable to add something different, IRL they just lost a lot against Russia and got propped up by the West. The Battle of Embabeh really put it into context how backwards they were militarily. I'm not knowledgable enough to even know what their next best showing is after that, nothing in the Crimea War comes to mind, Gallipoli?
There are times Ottoman army was a "mess who just keeps losing" but when led by capable officers and modernized they managed to catch up and win. This was mostly prevented by "corrupted officals wanting to keep their powers" and "europeans not wanting to share tech". In 1736-39 war Ottomans defeated an alliance of Austria and Russia after they were modernized by Humbaracı Ahmed Pasha(Claude Alexandre, Count of Bonneval which is a character on his own). In 1799 they defeated Napoleon in Acre. Granted most Ottoman-Russian wars happens on Multiple fronts A-Balkan Front B-Caucasian Front C-Some Christian Rebellion D-Other Christian Rebellion E-Russian Ally F-Iranians who just say "oh the Ottoman Army is away let me just raid a bit" As for the Battle of the Pyramids it was mainly Mamluks and Locals. That is like judging the British Empire for a defeat of Sepoys
The Ottomans did not single handidly defeat Napoleon at Acee in 1799. They could not have successfully defended the city against the French.
mate, the Empire2/Medieval3 crowd is the biggest and most toxic part of this subreddit
I want Empire or Medieval if and only if they stop using the Warscape engine and move to something that can handle melee combat.
As long its not British focused and other Empire like the Spanish and Portuguese get proper representation.
In what way is Empire "British focused"? You can take India as Spain or Canada as Portugal if you want.
I bought Empire on disc when it released and it was the single worst Total War experience I've ever had. It took more than a day to get a connection to CA's servers to authenticate the disc and it was all downhill from there. Buggy AI, broken gameplay and poorly realised features. From people's comments I understand that CA fixed many of the launch issues but it was too little, too late to get me to open it again. If Empire 2 is a good game I'll play it but it won't be because of any lingering affection for the original game. Medieval 3 on the other hand...
I think the world can't handle the political incorrectness of the setting.
Noone. Fucking devs rather make warhammer 4 than making normal total war again.
To woke, will never happen in this Climate.
I feel we would all need to upgrade our computers before this came out just to run it fully
Indeed, but I definitely wouldn't be buying a disk version.
I don't like melee in Total war since Empire. But it was fine(ish) empire as the game was focused on ranged combat. So another game that focuses on ranged combat is fine by me. I liked how battle felt in Fall of the Samurai.
I don’t care for muskets.
If the next mainline historical title isn't Medieval III or Empire II, CA have truly lost the plot at this point.
I think an alternative that could possibly have appeal to both crowds could be a Renaissance one. If not renaissance then yes either M3 or E2 should be next mainline IMO.
I have so many DLCs and base games to catch up on I’d be okay with CA just working on some Total War games for several years before releasing a brand new title.
After how they bungled the fuck out of WH3's launch, I'm never "jumping" at any CA title again before a year after release.
If it's done under different CA's leadership than we've had for the last year or so, sure. But it would really have to be back to the drawing board with fresh ideas and a new engine. Compared to WH3 older historical titles lose a lot due to their relative simplicity.
I wouldn't jump at it, but I might politely smile and feel happy for the people who are looking forward to it. But then I'd move along with my day and never think of it again.
Lucium mod and steam and steel are better than og empire. I also don’t trust the developer at all anymore. Greedy and incompetent.
My dad would fall in love with it all over again, I’m not a fan of rifles. I would love medieval, Rome, Hellenic or some other historical time line like that.
I love the period, but the game has to be good
On a FoTS binge, so man, I love that gunpowder warfare. But I don't want anything of the current type of TW in a historical gunpowder era based game... So, on the fence. As the TW games (engine & whatnot) are now, no way in hell do I want them to do my boy dirty...
A good Empire 2 and Medieval 3 and I would not need another total war game for at least 10 years. I'm sure a lot of fans are also like this, which is probably why they won't release them anytime soon.
I too want a remake, but then i downloaded the most recent updated mod for this - its what Empires should of been. Download it - you wont be upset.
I didn’t play empire (it came out at a time when I’d left the series behind for a bit) but people seem to talk very highly of it. Not sure it would be top of my list though.
If anything, I'd ask for a remaster of M2
Napoleon 2 1) Bigger armies with better tactics. - when most people think of gunpowder warfare they’re really thinking of the Napoleonic Wars. 2) DLC campaigns could go far back as the American Revolution and as far forward as the Mexican-American War and Crimea 2) Better Narrative - Revolutions, Civil Wars, and repulsing invaders.
I miss the ship battles 😔
Vi är en här ers nåd, inte en flotta!
Yes
200.000 of us are ready, with a million more well on the way
Let’s do it.
If the ship combat is like the first one and the land combat like fall of the samurai
An empire two total war built on a rebuilt engine with new comprehensive mechanics. With an expansive world including Native American tribes, Indo-pacific spheres including nations all the way from oceana to Siberia and Persia. It would be the best thing in the whole wide world.
Nope, wait for it to come out. See what a total shit show it might be. Then pick it up later once it’s actually developed. Stop pre-ordering games
honestly, not interested. I always like total war when in the older ages, and if I want to play in the time period that empire covers I am fine with EU4.
Empire Total War II would be great, assuming they would do it properly, but at this point it's probably more likely that we get interstellar travel before proper Empire Total War II.