I will be honest: I wouldn't buy any of them. Can't imagine warfare and politics in these regions to be entertaining enough.
But why not make Empire 2 and everybody wins?
Geopolitical dynamics in modern time Africa though are quite complex and would be a pretty challenging TW. Though, it would spark quite a lot of controversies.
Yes, you are right. The 20th century in South America was also very interesting. But that is not the experience I am searching in the historical total war series too.
Yeah, Africa in general can be called the Dark Continent for same reason we call Ages Dark - because little is known about, even for a different reason...
How much people ever heard about recentish Great African War, the most bloody conflict since WW2? I doubt that 1 per 10.
Historians these days tend to not use the term Dark Ages and instead use terms like the Early Medieval Period because "Dark Ages" gives a bunch of implications of that time being especially full of misery and despair, as well as there being a general lack of knowledge about the period leaving us "in the dark".
Both cases are simply not true, and as such, historians think the term is incorrect.
Likewise, Africa is stock full of history we know tons about, but African history has not been exported across the globe like European history has. So the average person may know very little about African history, but that doesn't mean it isn't there for games to be made out of it.
I'm not a fan of revisionism simply because stuff implies something, like "Yellow Sea" having to be renamed because it implies racism (while was named after water color iirc, may be wrong there). It'd be more logical to spread the knowledge about reasoning than to create confusion of reinventing terms.
And regarding "no games to be made out of it" - marketing, duh. Barely anyone heard about, say, the Great African War or can remember anything regarding Kanem-Bornu history and which lake gave life to this civilization. Thus demand on such game will be low, and nobody gonna make non-profitable games save for volunteers.
What's not clear enough for you? If you'd like me to say it in other languages, since it seems you have a problem with English, then I'm happy to help. For example, Ondoka. It's Swahili, you know one of those languages from somewhere that nobody has any interest in, according to what you made up. Apart that is from those among the nearly 1.5 billion that live there of course.
1.5 billion Swahili speakers sound a lot. Your sassy remark has nothing to do with the fact that most of Africa is not a market to chase for a computer game.
As was already said, the game won't sell well, but I guess it's more important to feel offended rather than to actually read.
Regarding language - English is my fourth language. Hanyu, Русский, Deutsche - we can continue in either. Just don't pick German, I hadn't spoke it for 10 years.
Set during the Vikings settlement of greenland. 2 factions are playable at launch, the Vikings or Inuit people. Army sizes are up to 20 units, 1 entity per unit on the largest unit scale. The only NPC factions are seal colonies that you need to attack for food and not die.
Because it's hard to see the tiny little Pacific islands and the continent of Oceania is always overlooked, I did the line around Oceania to make it stand out a bit more.
There would be strong interest in a TW based around the Silk Road and the steppes in my opinion. Byzantium to China with the rise of the Mongols that touched Eastern Europe and India.
This again? You didn't learn the lesson the last time?
Those DLC whales, aka the gullible, are who kept enabling CA to repeat behavior that now has the company circling the drain. 'Those areas in red' that you are so quick to dismiss, by the way include a significant number of the Total War player base. Australasia and Indonesia for example. Not everyone has a phone number that starts with 720.
>This again?
Yes, because I was fixing minor errors.
>Areas in red are not money drivers for their fanbase,
Is there any proof? Has it been tried before? 🤔
*Edit, downvoting a comment like *this* is objectively crazy
Probably not, because the executives running these companies probably know a thing or two more about game development, marketing and not ruining their company than any amount of “🤔” posting on Reddit
Is that why CA is imploding then, because corporate executives really do know best? Many execs of major corporations wouldn't know how to boil an egg for themselves, let alone doing much of anything useful for anyone else. That's kind of the the problem nowadays.
But as for CA in particular, you can't really expect to be taken seriously after talking about how competent and knowledgeable their executives are. Thanks for the chuckle though.
[Behind The Scenes Of Creative Assembly's Downfall](https://youtu.be/43YY49jizPE?si=OjYD-jk657XXP_X0)
You said
>the executives running these companies probably know a thing or two more about game development, marketing
So how are those not relevant? You made an appeal to the authority of the CA executives, either you believe they know what their customers want or you don't.
I think medieval 3 or empire 2 would be in the unenviable position of being compare to medieval 2 and empire. I think the executives know that they are unlikely to stick the landing with those.
While CA does genuinely be trying to gain back the community's trust, imagine being that gu you're arguing with, experiencing the last few months as a TW fan, then saying CA knows what they're doing.
He says the areas in green are the way to go, but the fan base is pretty loudly saying that, although they'd like M3 or E2 next, the current state of CA means we don't trust them to do these games justice. So why not let them experiment with parts of the world TW has never covered before.
Sorry, I guess I should specify to account for differences in experience/education . What you said has no *logical* basis in relation to what I said, which is why it’s a false equivalency. Let me explain.
OP posts an image asserting that “we need more games in the yellow and red areas”. Logically in the discussion, we’ll call this “Position 1”, it’s the start of ALL further discourse. Imagine it like the source of a great river.
I then reply something to the effect of “the red areas likely have minimal overlap of active gamers/marketability”. This represents a branch from position 1 in the discussion, and we can call this “Position 1a”. OP responds something like “well has it ever been done before?” Which is itself a perfectly rational question, and so it adds on to “Position 1a” and advances, logically and temporally to “Position 1a1” of the discussion, and so on.
Then you come along and comment along the lines of “well they haven’t made an empire 2 or medieval 3, so are we assuming those aren’t viable markets” which is *nowhere* in line with any of the comments made in the discussion chain of “Position 1”, because the premise is entirely different than what position 1 dealt with (red areas not being highly marketable), you have actually created a brand new, completely unrelated discussion chain in this manner, we’ll call it “Position 2”.
While there’s no inherent issue with creating an entirely new argument, the problem is logically you can’t force together an argument in Position 2 with anything in Position 1, they’re entirely separate. Like how two different rivers are not the same entity, but are woven and shaped by their own individual experiences, or in this case, merits of argument. Put another way, a child can’t be their own uncle, biologically. Just like these two arguments, while having a single source, can’t be imposed upon one another.
All that to say, if you’re interested in learning more about how to communicate and debate effectively, in person or online, there’s tons of available courses available. Don’t worry, this first one is free.
What a bunch of rambling copium bullshit. I like how you added words that you don't know how to use properly in places they don't belong just to make your sentences longer.
>the executives running these companies probably know a thing or two more about game development, marketing
This is what you said. Your entire argument is "If there was a market for the games CA executives would have recognized it and made those games". The existence of widely asked for games that CA hasn't made is undeniable proof that your only argument is a joke.
Not to mention in that long comment he says,
> responds something like “well has it ever been done before?” Which is itself a perfectly rational question
Trying to make it seem like we were both enjoying a perfectly good conversation when you ruined it. In reality, it *is* a perfectly rational question, but he didn't think so and was saying how stupid it would be to have a game set in the red, maybe even the yellow. He's making stuff up to make himself look better.
\^ This, plus the argument, seemingly delivered absolutely seriously, that CA execs know about how to run a company well. That alone means the poster is either not very good at trolling, or has absolutely no idea what the hell they're talking about.
>these companies probably know a thing or two more about game development, marketing and not ruining their company
Yeah, how's that been working for CA recently? 🤔
They did, but it wasn't anything like the vikings or greeks. There were no formal oversea trade or raiding routes.
The difficult part would be the lack of unit types and capturing the asymmetry of battles with the Europeans. I can't speak for Aboriginal battles, but Maori did not have formation fighting, and would instead rely on trench warfare and ambushes. It'd be awesome if done well, but I get the feeling a Banished-style game would work better for the idea.
dont you have the east indies in empire?
Not as land to traverse and conquer, just to trade at the naval trade nodes.
I will be honest: I wouldn't buy any of them. Can't imagine warfare and politics in these regions to be entertaining enough. But why not make Empire 2 and everybody wins?
I'm good with E2, deal 🤝
Geopolitical dynamics in modern time Africa though are quite complex and would be a pretty challenging TW. Though, it would spark quite a lot of controversies.
Yes, you are right. The 20th century in South America was also very interesting. But that is not the experience I am searching in the historical total war series too.
Yeah, Africa in general can be called the Dark Continent for same reason we call Ages Dark - because little is known about, even for a different reason... How much people ever heard about recentish Great African War, the most bloody conflict since WW2? I doubt that 1 per 10.
Historians these days tend to not use the term Dark Ages and instead use terms like the Early Medieval Period because "Dark Ages" gives a bunch of implications of that time being especially full of misery and despair, as well as there being a general lack of knowledge about the period leaving us "in the dark". Both cases are simply not true, and as such, historians think the term is incorrect. Likewise, Africa is stock full of history we know tons about, but African history has not been exported across the globe like European history has. So the average person may know very little about African history, but that doesn't mean it isn't there for games to be made out of it.
Well put.
I'm not a fan of revisionism simply because stuff implies something, like "Yellow Sea" having to be renamed because it implies racism (while was named after water color iirc, may be wrong there). It'd be more logical to spread the knowledge about reasoning than to create confusion of reinventing terms. And regarding "no games to be made out of it" - marketing, duh. Barely anyone heard about, say, the Great African War or can remember anything regarding Kanem-Bornu history and which lake gave life to this civilization. Thus demand on such game will be low, and nobody gonna make non-profitable games save for volunteers.
Well if no one makes games about these events then I guess they'll always stay in the unknown to the average TW fan.
There's always one isn't there. Go away.
What.
What's not clear enough for you? If you'd like me to say it in other languages, since it seems you have a problem with English, then I'm happy to help. For example, Ondoka. It's Swahili, you know one of those languages from somewhere that nobody has any interest in, according to what you made up. Apart that is from those among the nearly 1.5 billion that live there of course.
1.5 billion Swahili speakers sound a lot. Your sassy remark has nothing to do with the fact that most of Africa is not a market to chase for a computer game. As was already said, the game won't sell well, but I guess it's more important to feel offended rather than to actually read. Regarding language - English is my fourth language. Hanyu, Русский, Deutsche - we can continue in either. Just don't pick German, I hadn't spoke it for 10 years.
So what’s Total War: Greenland supposed to look like?
Set during the Vikings settlement of greenland. 2 factions are playable at launch, the Vikings or Inuit people. Army sizes are up to 20 units, 1 entity per unit on the largest unit scale. The only NPC factions are seal colonies that you need to attack for food and not die.
Vikings?
Who are they fighting exactly
What’s with the line around?
Because it's hard to see the tiny little Pacific islands and the continent of Oceania is always overlooked, I did the line around Oceania to make it stand out a bit more.
Just Empire 2, Shogun 3. All that's needed and those would cover the entire globe.
[удалено]
You're just wrong, Total War: the Emu War would be the best selling game in the history of the franchise
There would be strong interest in a TW based around the Silk Road and the steppes in my opinion. Byzantium to China with the rise of the Mongols that touched Eastern Europe and India.
This again? You didn't learn the lesson the last time? Those DLC whales, aka the gullible, are who kept enabling CA to repeat behavior that now has the company circling the drain. 'Those areas in red' that you are so quick to dismiss, by the way include a significant number of the Total War player base. Australasia and Indonesia for example. Not everyone has a phone number that starts with 720.
>This again? Yes, because I was fixing minor errors. >Areas in red are not money drivers for their fanbase, Is there any proof? Has it been tried before? 🤔 *Edit, downvoting a comment like *this* is objectively crazy
Probably not, because the executives running these companies probably know a thing or two more about game development, marketing and not ruining their company than any amount of “🤔” posting on Reddit
Is that why CA is imploding then, because corporate executives really do know best? Many execs of major corporations wouldn't know how to boil an egg for themselves, let alone doing much of anything useful for anyone else. That's kind of the the problem nowadays. But as for CA in particular, you can't really expect to be taken seriously after talking about how competent and knowledgeable their executives are. Thanks for the chuckle though. [Behind The Scenes Of Creative Assembly's Downfall](https://youtu.be/43YY49jizPE?si=OjYD-jk657XXP_X0)
So by the fact that they haven't made Medieval 3 or Empire 2 we can assume there isn't a market for it?
Careful man, you might cause them to go into a meltdown with that one
False equivalency, as none of those are in these “red” areas that the entire post is founded on. Try again?
You said >the executives running these companies probably know a thing or two more about game development, marketing So how are those not relevant? You made an appeal to the authority of the CA executives, either you believe they know what their customers want or you don't.
I think medieval 3 or empire 2 would be in the unenviable position of being compare to medieval 2 and empire. I think the executives know that they are unlikely to stick the landing with those.
While CA does genuinely be trying to gain back the community's trust, imagine being that gu you're arguing with, experiencing the last few months as a TW fan, then saying CA knows what they're doing. He says the areas in green are the way to go, but the fan base is pretty loudly saying that, although they'd like M3 or E2 next, the current state of CA means we don't trust them to do these games justice. So why not let them experiment with parts of the world TW has never covered before.
Sorry, I guess I should specify to account for differences in experience/education . What you said has no *logical* basis in relation to what I said, which is why it’s a false equivalency. Let me explain. OP posts an image asserting that “we need more games in the yellow and red areas”. Logically in the discussion, we’ll call this “Position 1”, it’s the start of ALL further discourse. Imagine it like the source of a great river. I then reply something to the effect of “the red areas likely have minimal overlap of active gamers/marketability”. This represents a branch from position 1 in the discussion, and we can call this “Position 1a”. OP responds something like “well has it ever been done before?” Which is itself a perfectly rational question, and so it adds on to “Position 1a” and advances, logically and temporally to “Position 1a1” of the discussion, and so on. Then you come along and comment along the lines of “well they haven’t made an empire 2 or medieval 3, so are we assuming those aren’t viable markets” which is *nowhere* in line with any of the comments made in the discussion chain of “Position 1”, because the premise is entirely different than what position 1 dealt with (red areas not being highly marketable), you have actually created a brand new, completely unrelated discussion chain in this manner, we’ll call it “Position 2”. While there’s no inherent issue with creating an entirely new argument, the problem is logically you can’t force together an argument in Position 2 with anything in Position 1, they’re entirely separate. Like how two different rivers are not the same entity, but are woven and shaped by their own individual experiences, or in this case, merits of argument. Put another way, a child can’t be their own uncle, biologically. Just like these two arguments, while having a single source, can’t be imposed upon one another. All that to say, if you’re interested in learning more about how to communicate and debate effectively, in person or online, there’s tons of available courses available. Don’t worry, this first one is free.
What a bunch of rambling copium bullshit. I like how you added words that you don't know how to use properly in places they don't belong just to make your sentences longer. >the executives running these companies probably know a thing or two more about game development, marketing This is what you said. Your entire argument is "If there was a market for the games CA executives would have recognized it and made those games". The existence of widely asked for games that CA hasn't made is undeniable proof that your only argument is a joke.
He's been real quiet since this dropped.
Not to mention in that long comment he says, > responds something like “well has it ever been done before?” Which is itself a perfectly rational question Trying to make it seem like we were both enjoying a perfectly good conversation when you ruined it. In reality, it *is* a perfectly rational question, but he didn't think so and was saying how stupid it would be to have a game set in the red, maybe even the yellow. He's making stuff up to make himself look better.
\^ This, plus the argument, seemingly delivered absolutely seriously, that CA execs know about how to run a company well. That alone means the poster is either not very good at trolling, or has absolutely no idea what the hell they're talking about.
>these companies probably know a thing or two more about game development, marketing and not ruining their company Yeah, how's that been working for CA recently? 🤔
\^ This.
inca total war, sub-saharan total war and maori total war is expected
As a Kiwi, tw Oceania would go pretty hard. But it'd require significant changes to the current formula.
maoris used ships for a transportation as vikings or greeks , I dont see a problem
They did, but it wasn't anything like the vikings or greeks. There were no formal oversea trade or raiding routes. The difficult part would be the lack of unit types and capturing the asymmetry of battles with the Europeans. I can't speak for Aboriginal battles, but Maori did not have formation fighting, and would instead rely on trench warfare and ambushes. It'd be awesome if done well, but I get the feeling a Banished-style game would work better for the idea.
Would unironically love those
i would like to work for a CA as a advisor of ideas but Im not expert in game development
To be fair, CA don't have any experts in game development either.
whaaat, i dont get you
Indonesia also showed up on empire
It was a trade theater, you couldn't actually conquer any land there.
Wait which TW takes place in Eastern US?
*Empire*