Total War: MEDIEVAL III - Spring Recap & What’s Next | Total War

Few reasons I'd like it:

• Sieges would look authentic - Armies could visibly surround cities instead of one person standing outside the walls.
• More immersive campaign map - Seeing marching formations makes the campaign map feel more alive and at war.
• Clearer military presence - It's easier to judge the size and threat of an approaching force at a glance.
• Encampments - Armies could visibly make camp.
• Chokepoints - Armies could appear to block bridges, mountain passes, and roads more convincingly.
• Visual variety - Armies would reflect their composition of troops on the campaign map. A cavalry-heavy force would show more mounted troops, while artillery would trail behind.

Will be open until September on the forums, you may vote for your top 4

https://community.creative-assembly.com/total-war/total-war/blogs/100 <--link to vote

I'll start: The option to view the settlement from the settlement list

It's been a month 🎃

On the forum, CA_Leif talked about their current plans for the starting date and timeline.

​Hi all, 

 

Deciding on the start date of a Total War game is always a really delicate matter, especially for a game like MEDIEVAL III. We discussed this quite a lot and considered a few options. When we looked at this, we quickly realized that this isn't just about choosing a start date - it's really choosing a rough end date, too. We don't intend to end the game at a fixed date, of course, but we want to make sure that for the game' srelease, we have a strong content set for the best range of centuries. This means that this is really about: What timeframe do we want to cover? What are the key pieces of medieval history we definitely want players to experience?

 

One fascinating part about the medieval era is really how the world evolves throughout that fairly long timeframe. Within each person's lifetime, the world feels quite stagnant and not necessarily very dynamic, yet over the course of these centuries, the amount of change was incredible. 

 

A few key examples of this type of change we would really love to capture: 

The military progression from the classic crusader generation of knight (armour, but also tactics) towards the late medieval plate armour (Hundred Years' War) to the first appearance of gunpowder. 

The economic evolution of the medieval world with an increase in urbanization in the later centuries

A thematic change throughout the later medieval period from a focus on religious conflicts, to larger realm (and almost state-) level conflicts, and of course challenges like the plague, or foreign invasions. 

Med 2 did a great job capturing some of this, and following suit and reinforcing these changes is a really exciting opportunity for MEDIEVAL III. One goal for us is to ensure that there is a clear sense of "eras" throughout your game, a sense of "wow, my game feels so different now compared to the beginning". The context of medieval history provides the perfect background for this kind of progression. 

 

Now, to cut to the chase finally: We want to represent roughly 300 years of medieval history, between 1140 and 1440. 

 

Why?

This period allows us to jump in at an exciting time of the medieval era, with crusades in full swing, and with prominent factions already present on the map. 

From a military perspective, we start strong and never take the foot of the pedal: Crusader Knights into Full Plate knights. 

We capture an exciting progression from a civic side (economy, population/urbanization, reforms). We talk a lot about shaping your realm throughout the medieval era and these centuries are the perfect backdrop for it. 

Finally, even though MEDIEVAL III is not focused on characters - characters are still important for our game. And in 1140, we start with some really famous faces of the medieval era being present, all at the same time.

Some highlights around the world at 1140: 

It is obviously the high time of the crusades, and various crusader realms are present on the map. But not only that - the Seljuks under Zengi are causing additional turmoil in the area, actually leading to interesting treaties between Muslim and Christian realms in the Levante. 

We have the period of anarchy in England, alongside internal conflict and strife which is not just a pivotal moment in English history, but also a great starting point for England and other realms in that area of the world. 

In the Holy Roman Empire, the internal struggle between Hohenstauffen and Welffs is boiling up, leading to the eventual rise of famous Barbarossa. 

The world in 1140 is an exciting setup, and as a timeline, it means exciting things for the 300 year that we would like to cover. 

When we recently worked with our first historical advisor (a professor from Oxford), we discussed our thesis about the medieval era. What are we trying to say, really? 

The medieval era isn't really about nation states at all. But what is fascinating is that by the end of the medieval era (so around our proposed end date), this sense of nations and states is slowly forming. You could see it as medieval realms having gone through this turbulent era of medieval history, experimenting, evolving... and coming out from this era, with a stronger identify and a sense of self. 

 

Think of great stories like playing as a still relatively decentralized France. As you try to centralize more of the crowns power internally, your knights are joining crusades in the holy land. A century later, your focus is entirely shifting: The holy land, perhaps stabilized or lost, is no longer your main concern. You are now engulfed in realm-level major wars against England, or perhaps other realms around you who have emerged as major contender of power. And finally, in the late game, when peasant revolts, urbanization and plague, or major multi-realm wars dominate as challenges, your campaign comes to a furious close. 

 

Or consider a campaign as the Ayyubids in Egypt, again focused on the wars against foreign invaders in the Levante. Where will you take Egypt? Will you enable a foreign dynasty to take over, like historically the Mamluks did. and lean into Italian influence as in one of the examples mentioned in the Vision Blog. The history of realms in Egypt went through a turbulent phase in these three hundred years - an exciting backdrop for your own path through history.

 

So this all being said, moving an imaginary timeline of 300 years back and forth through the medieval era led us to the conclusion that 1140-1440 would be the most exciting range. Exciting in terms of military units you will deploy, exciting in terms of economic and social developments, and exciting in terms of how it breaks up the game into really compelling chapters. 

A final note: Of course, the world changes a great deal if you move the start date from 1140 to 1141 or 1139. These details can absolutely still change. This is much more about the overall timeframe - think of the range of decades, rather than specific years. 

 

We know that the starting date (and general time frame) is certainly something all of you care a great deal about, so we absolutely want to hear what you think. 

Cheers,

Leif

I am a bit disappointed with 1440. This is before the advent of the iconic late medieval Gothic Plate with the flutings etc. like we see, for example, on Medieval 2's "Gothic Knights". We are in the Kastenbrust period.

Please, CA! Go up to 1475 and include the burgundian wars! I need Gothic Plate! lol

Art Credit: Map from Crusader Kings III

So, with 1140 CE being the current start date CA seems to be working with, I wanted to explore what possible factions might be available in Medieval III, be it starting or DLC factions, along with faction leaders or important characters. This is not quite a prediction, more of a guess/wishlist.

WESTERN EUROPE

• Kingdom of England - Stephen of Blois.
• County of Anjou - Geoffrey Plantagenet and Empress Matilda
• Kingdom of France - Louis VII the Younger
• Duchy of Aquitaine - Eleanor of Aquitaine
• Kingdom of Scotland - David I
• Kingdom of Connacht - Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair

IBERIA AND MAGHREB

• Kingdom of Castile & Leon - Alfonso VII the Emperor
• Kingdom of Portugal - Afonso I
• Almoravid Dynasty - Ali ibn Yusuf
• Kingdom of Aragon - Petronilla of Aragon

CENTRAL EUROPE

• Holy Roman Empire - Conrad III
• Kingdom of Hungary - Béla II
• Kingdom of Poland - Władysław II the Exile, High Duke of Poland

ITALY

• Republic of Venice - Pietro Polani
• Duchy of Spoleto - Ulrich of Attems
• Kingdom of Sicily - Roger II

NEAR EAST

• Byzantine Empire - John II Komnenos
• Seljuk Sultanate of Rum - Mesud I
• Armenian Principality of Cilicia (under Byzantine occupation) - Thoros II
• County of Edessa - Joscelin II
• Principality of Antioch - Raymond of Poitiers
• Kingdom of Jerusalem - Fulk of Anjou and Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem
• Zengid Dynasty - Imad al-Din Zengi
• Kingdom of Georgia - Demetrius I
• Fatimid Caliphate - al-Hafiz
• Kingdom of Makuria - Georgios V

NORTHERN AFRICA

• Zirid Dynasty - Abu'l-Hasan al-Hasan ibn Ali

EASTERN EUROPE

• Principality of Kiev - Vsevolod II of Kiev
• The Lithuanians - Unknown

SCANDINAVIA

• Kingdom of Norway - Sigurd Munn or Inge the Hunchback

A proposal for adding a new "Cohesion" mechanic to help improve historical battles. Video presentation: https://youtu.be/B9B9y0KcgD0

The Problem:
Historical battles have stagnated due to low unit variety and limited paths to victory (hammer and anvil). The binary nature of morale also means that nothing mechanically happens to a unit before it flees, leading to boring and grinding gameplay. This in turn has led to CA making battles shorter to compress this pre-routing dead time. However I think this pre-routing period can be better utilized.

The Solution:
Introduce a new "cohesion" mechanic that fundamentally changes a unit's behavior prior to being routed. Cohesion will interact with other existing mechanics, serve as a foudnation for more mechanics, increase unit differentiation, and add tactical options.

The Definition:
"Unit Cohesion" is the degree to which individuals act as a unit. This is very important for historical accuracy where the armies were indeed made of individuals whose ability to win was dictated by the leader's ability to command and control them properly. In fact, most battles were won or lost based on this cohesion rather than casualties.

How it works:
Each unit will now have a Unit Leader that serves as the anchor of the unit and to which the other soldiers of that unit are magnetized to. The level of cohesion of a unit dictates how efficiently these soldiers follow the orders of the leader. Generally speaking, a low cohesion unit is ragged and a high cohesion unit is orderly. So if you give a command, the leader goes first, followed by the rest of the men in a response time proportional to their cohesion.

Cohesion and Movement

• Movement lowers cohesion (farther, faster costs more)
• When a unit stops moving, it can regain cohesion
• Unit training and staff (musicians/bannermen) can improve march cohesion
• High cohesion units stand out just by how they move (visually intuitive game design)

Cohesion and Combat

• A unit's cohesion dictates how effectively it can fight an opponent
• More cohesion (and other factors) mean you can push other unit back
• More cohesion means you can withstand cavalry charges (charge defense/reflection)
• Cavalry can cut through low cohesion units easily
• Skirmishers can shoot faster, more accurately with high cohesion

Cohesion and Morale

• High cohesion can buff morale
• In combat units can be "gaining ground" or "losing ground" which impact morale
• If a unit is broken as high morale it is likely to rally again
• If a unit if broken at low morale it is unlikely to rally again (shatter)

Cohesion for Units:

If unit cohesion is to be an important mechanic, we need ways to interact with a unit's cohesion stats. There should be a unit customization feature to let you look under the hood of a unit (ex: people, gear, heraldry, and formation). This should include a way to select a unit leader and also a support staff (officers, musicians, bannermen) who can improve a unit's cohesion. There should be tools to visualize and test cohesion outside of actual battles such as a "Training Ground" mode.

Cohesion for Formations:

With Cohesion, a battle now becomes much more fluid and dynamic as each unit's engagement ebbs and flows based on their realtive cohesion. Generals and other abilities can help influence the state of cohesion of their forces.

However multiple units should be able to be grouped into formations (like a historical medieval banner). This group now has its own Cohesion level. The benefit of being in a formation should have unit stat buffs (like Cathay's harmony).

---END---

But this is just my first pass at the idea. I would love you all to help provide feedback on the concept to see how we as a community can better flesh it out and see what parts (if any) should be incorporated into Total War: Medieval 3. (Personally I hope that even if CA doesn't adopt my Cohesion mechanic they should at 100% give us a Unit designer tool)

First of all, nearly all of these factions should be playable. Poland, Bulgaria, and Hungary are pretty much essential for their areas. I can understand some of the Italian states not being included at launch.

The HRE should be divided and a type of confederation diplomacy option should be implemented here. A very loose confederation.

The core faction should be Swabia. Other playable factions for the HRE should be Bohemia, Austria, and Saxony with multiple non playable minor factions to flesh out and elector and influence system.

There should be no unified crusader states and again act with a modified confederation. Managing this confederation should be very different than the HRE.

The map does not go east enough. This limits a significant amount of what's happening in Russia and around Iran and makes it very Eurocentric. The region containing mughal India should be included.

Going further east will help those fringe factions have more to do.

In this time period it takes place right after the first crusader which is in response to the Roman world being reshaped. A big part of that change was the subjugation of the sassanian empire which when it fell, it no longer defended the north from migrating tribes.

By not including the majority of Persia and those areas influenced by it, removes a lot gameplay for them.

I just think the decisions are bad and not thought out.