Our strategy gaming veterans analyze Creative Assembly’s upcoming December announcement for the Total War franchise, debating whether the series needs a new engine, examining the tension between historical and fantasy titles, and predicting which games will define the franchise’s future direction.
LISTEN: https://criticalmovespodcast.com/listen
This episode provides comprehensive analysis of Total War’s future, with hosts exploring the franchise’s potential direction following Creative Assembly’s announcement of multiple games coming in December. The discussion examines the divide between historical and fantasy titles, evaluates why games like Three Kingdoms 2 and a World War I title were cancelled, and debates whether franchises like Warhammer 40k or Lord of the Rings could work within Total War’s framework. The hosts analyze engine limitations, discuss the commercial viability of historical versus fantasy settings, and make their predictions for what Creative Assembly will announce while sharing their dream titles for the series.
Episode Details
Episode Title: The Future of Total War
Hosts: Al, Timothy, Joseph
Episode Length: ~51 minutes
Episode Summary: The forty-ninth episode of Critical Moves focuses entirely on the future direction of the Total War franchise following Creative Assembly’s announcement that multiple new games will be revealed in December. The hosts examine the franchise’s current state, debating whether the aging engine can support ambitious new projects and analysing the stark commercial divide between fantasy titles like Warhammer and historical releases like Pharaoh. Through extensive discussion of potential franchises including Warhammer 40k, Medieval 3, Empire 2, and Lord of the Rings, the conversation reveals both excitement and concern about how Creative Assembly will balance innovation with the expectations of its deeply divided fanbase.
The State of Total War’s Engine
Technical Limitations and Innovation
The conversation reveals significant concerns about whether Total War’s existing engine can support the franchise’s evolution. The hosts note that Creative Assembly has been using essentially the same engine since the first Warhammer game, potentially longer, raising questions about whether truly innovative mechanics and settings are possible without fundamental technological investment. The discussion emphasizes that while the engine has served historical titles well, ambitious future projects may require complete overhauls rather than incremental updates.
The cancellation of both Three Kingdoms 2 and a World War I game suggests Creative Assembly may be consolidating resources for more significant technological development. This pattern indicates potential recognition within the company that continuing to release games on the aging engine may no longer satisfy player expectations or enable the innovative gameplay mechanics that modern strategy gamers demand.
The New Engine Question
Timothy raises the critical question of whether Creative Assembly has invested Warhammer’s substantial profits into developing a new engine rather than continuing to produce games on outdated technology. The hosts agree this would represent a significant but necessary investment for the franchise’s long-term viability, particularly if Creative Assembly intends to tackle ambitious settings like Warhammer 40k or Lord of the Rings that would require capabilities beyond what current Total War games offer.
The discussion reveals tension between short-term financial gains from releasing another historical title on the existing engine versus long-term strategic investment in technology that could enable genuinely ground-breaking Total War experiences. The hosts suggest that titles like Medieval 3 or Empire 2 could theoretically succeed on the current engine but would likely feel stale without significant mechanical innovation.
Fantasy Versus Historical: The Commercial Divide
DLC Disparity and Market Realities
The episode confronts an uncomfortable reality for historical Total War fans: fantasy titles dramatically outperform historical ones commercially. Warhammer 3 has received approximately 28 paid DLCs with another launching soon, while Warhammer 2 exceeded 30 DLCs. In stark contrast, Pharaoh received only two or three DLCs, and Three Kingdoms got seven before being abandoned entirely. This commercial reality shapes Creative Assembly’s development priorities regardless of community preferences.
Al argues that from a purely financial perspective, Creative Assembly should focus almost exclusively on fantasy titles, as they generate vastly more revenue through DLC sales and maintain larger player bases. This creates tension within the Total War community, where many long-time fans who grew up with historical titles feel abandoned as the franchise increasingly prioritizes fantasy settings that enable more diverse and monetizable content.
Creative Constraints of History
The discussion explores how historical accuracy inherently limits Total War’s design space compared to fantasy settings. Historical games are constrained by what actually existed, making it difficult to create the faction diversity and unique mechanics that drive player engagement and DLC sales. Fantasy settings face no such limitations, allowing Creative Assembly to create as many factions, mechanics, and DLC opportunities as licensing agreements permit.
Joseph and Timothy note that Warhammer’s success demonstrates how fantasy settings enable Creative Assembly to introduce mechanics impossible in historical contexts; heroes, magic, monsters, and fantastical abilities that create gameplay variety. Historical titles must rely primarily on relatively similar infantry, cavalry, and artillery units across factions, making differentiation and replayability more challenging to achieve.
Warhammer 40k: The Fantasy Favourite
Why 40k Makes Sense
All three hosts predict Warhammer 40k as the most likely fantasy announcement, citing Creative Assembly’s established relationship with Games Workshop, the massive commercial success of the Warhammer Fantasy trilogy, and 40k’s even larger fanbase. The transition from Warhammer Fantasy to 40k represents a natural evolution, with many factions having direct parallels; the Empire becomes the Imperium, Chaos remains Chaos, Elves become Eldar, Orcs stay Orks, and Dwarves become the League of Votann.
The hosts emphasize that 40k’s popularity dwarfs even Warhammer Fantasy’s substantial fanbase, making it an obvious commercial decision. The universe offers extensive DLC potential with four separate Chaos gods, multiple Space Marine chapters, various Eldar craftworlds, Tyranid hive fleets, and countless other factions that could sustain years of post-launch content similar to Warhammer Fantasy’s model.
The Scale Challenge
The discussion reveals the massive technical challenge a 40k Total War would present. Unlike Warhammer Fantasy, which easily translated Total War’s traditional ground combat mechanics into a fantasy setting, 40k’s lore demands galactic-scale warfare including space combat between massive fleets. Al argues that the 40k community would not accept a single-planet game, as it would betray the fundamental nature of the setting where warfare spans entire star systems and sectors.
The hosts debate whether Creative Assembly would attempt to properly implement space combat or simply abstract it away. Al passionately argues that space combat is essential to capturing 40k’s scope and that naval warfare already exists in Total War’s DNA from Empire and Napoleon. However, Joseph and Timothy express scepticism that Creative Assembly would invest in developing proper three-dimensional space combat when they could simply have planets trigger invasion battles similar to how island invasions work in Warhammer Fantasy.
Battlefleet Gothic and Existing Mechanics
Al corrects misconceptions by noting that space combat already exists in Warhammer 40k’s tabletop through Battlefleet Gothic, giving Creative Assembly source material for implementing fleet battles. He draws parallels to Man O’ War in Warhammer Fantasy, demonstrating that Games Workshop has established space combat mechanics that Total War could adapt. This existing framework potentially reduces the development challenge compared to creating space combat systems from scratch.
The conversation explores whether Creative Assembly would implement a galactic map with planetary maps nested beneath it, creating a three-tier system: galactic strategic map, planetary regional map, and tactical battle map. This ambitious structure would require significant engine development but could properly capture 40k’s epic scale. The hosts remain divided on whether Creative Assembly would attempt this or opt for simplified mechanics.
Medieval 3: The Historical Hope
The Obvious Historical Choice
All three hosts predict Medieval 3 as the most likely historical announcement, citing the original Medieval’s status as an early franchise entry, Medieval 2’s enduring popularity, and the setting’s proven commercial appeal. Medieval represents the most requested historical period among the Total War community, making it the safest choice for Creative Assembly’s announced historical title alongside whatever fantasy game they reveal.
Timothy expresses concern that Medieval 3 might simply be “the same game all over again” with updated graphics but minimal mechanical innovation. This fear reflects broader anxiety that Creative Assembly might take the easy route of releasing a graphically updated Medieval 2 rather than genuinely reimagining what medieval Total War could be with modern design sensibilities and mechanics developed since Medieval 2’s 2006 release.
Post-Medieval 2 Mechanics
The discussion highlights that Medieval 2 predates major mechanical overhauls introduced in Rome 2, including area of control, different army stances, and revised city management systems. This means Medieval 3 could represent a dramatic mechanical upgrade even if it retreads the same historical period, as the franchise has evolved significantly since 2006. The hosts suggest this provides opportunity for genuine innovation while maintaining the beloved setting.
Joseph proposes a character creator DLC concept where players design custom characters that could appear in campaigns either forced to their faction or randomly distributed across the game world. This would allow personalization while maintaining historical immersion, as created characters would emerge naturally within the game’s systems rather than breaking the historical simulation. The idea represents the type of innovative thinking the hosts hope Creative Assembly applies to Medieval 3.
Empire 2: The Underdog Candidate
Scale and Ambition
The hosts identify Empire 2 as their preferred historical title over Medieval 3, citing Empire’s unique scope covering Europe, the Americas, and India across multiple theatres of war. Empire represented Total War’s most ambitious geographical scale, with trade routes, colonial expansion, and naval warfare creating a genuinely global experience unmatched by other historical titles in the franchise.
Timothy notes that Empire was an excellent concept that needed more polish, which Napoleon partially provided but within a more limited scope focused on Napoleon’s campaigns. Empire 2 could combine Empire’s ambitious scale with Napoleon’s refined mechanics, potentially creating the definitive gunpowder-era Total War experience. The setting’s unique characteristics—line infantry warfare, naval combat, colonial expansion, and technological advancement—distinguish it from medieval or ancient warfare.
Naval Combat Potential
The discussion emphasizes Empire’s naval warfare as a distinctive feature that could be significantly improved in a sequel. While the original Empire’s naval battles were somewhat simplistic – essentially whoever had the biggest fleet won – the hosts suggest that adding terrain features like island chains, straits, and coastal fortifications could create more strategic depth similar to how Battlefleet Gothic Armada uses space stations and nebulae.
Al expresses particular fondness for Empire’s naval combat despite acknowledging its simplicity, suggesting that many players appreciated this element even if it was less popular than land battles. A properly developed Empire 2 could make naval warfare a core attraction rather than a supplementary feature, especially if Creative Assembly invested in more sophisticated ship mechanics, weather systems, and tactical options.
Lord of the Rings: The Dream License
Why Middle-earth Works
The hosts identify Lord of the Rings as their dream Total War license, citing the franchise’s massive popularity, rich lore, extensive faction variety, and proven success in strategy games through titles like Battle for Middle-earth. The setting offers everything Total War needs: diverse factions with distinct unit rosters, heroes with special abilities, large-scale battles, and a beloved intellectual property with built-in audience appeal.
Timothy proposes innovative mechanics specific to Middle-earth, including corruption mechanics related to the One Ring, diplomatic challenges in uniting different races against Sauron, and potentially even a unique campaign mode where players control the Fellowship attempting to reach Mount Doom while larger wars rage across the map. These ideas demonstrate how Lord of the Rings could enable Total War mechanics impossible in other settings.
The Scale Problem
The conversation identifies a significant challenge: Lord of the Rings battles, particularly in the films, are depicted at larger scales than Warhammer Fantasy battles. The siege of Minas Tirith, the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, and similar engagements involve armies potentially too large for Total War’s engine to handle without significant upgrades. This scale concern suggests Lord of the Rings might require the new engine the hosts speculate Creative Assembly may be developing.
Joseph recalls the beloved Battle for Middle-earth strategy game, particularly the experience of commanding Rohirrim charges through orc armies, expressing desire to see modern technology recreate that experience with contemporary graphics and scale. The Medieval 2 Third Age mod’s enduring popularity demonstrates sustained community interest in experiencing Middle-earth through Total War mechanics.
Timothy’s Fellowship Concept
Timothy proposes an innovative game concept combining Total War’s grand strategy with a unique Fellowship mode where one player controls only the Fellowship of the Ring, managing stealth, resources, and small-scale encounters while avoiding detection as the larger war unfolds around them. This asymmetric gameplay could even flip perspectives, allowing players to control Nazgûl hunting the Fellowship across Middle-earth while other factions wage war.
The “Hobbit Hunters” concept, as Al jokingly names it, represents creative thinking about how licenses could enable unique Total War experiences beyond standard faction-versus-faction warfare. While the hosts acknowledge Creative Assembly probably wouldn’t implement such experimental mechanics, the discussion illustrates the creative possibilities that beloved fantasy settings could bring to Total War’s established formula.
Star Wars: The Controversial Contender
Faction Diversity Concerns
The episode critically examines Star Wars Total War, with Al raising concerns about whether the franchise offers sufficient faction diversity for Total War’s traditional scope. Unlike historical periods or Warhammer with dozens of distinct factions, Star Wars typically presents binary conflicts: light versus dark, Empire versus Rebels, Republic versus Separatists. This limited factional structure could make Star Wars unsuitable for Total War’s traditional grand strategy format.
Timothy counters by noting that Star Wars contains subfactions like the Hutt Cartel, Trade Federation, various Sith orders, and different Jedi traditions, suggesting more diversity than initially apparent. The timeline chosen would significantly impact available factions, as different Star Wars eras offer different factional landscapes. However, the hosts remain sceptical whether these subfactions provide enough mechanical and visual distinction to sustain a full Total War game.
Similarity Problems
Joseph observes that Star Wars factions use remarkably similar technology and weapons, lacking the fundamental mechanical diversity that makes Total War engaging. Unlike Warhammer where each race uses completely different unit types and gameplay mechanics, most Star Wars factions would field similar infantry, vehicles, and starships with only cosmetic differences. Jedi and Sith would provide some distinction but function essentially as opposite sides of the same coin.
The discussion concludes that while Star Wars has massive brand recognition and passionate fans, it may not translate well to Total War’s specific formula. The franchise works better for games focused on small-scale tactical combat like Battlefront or space combat like Empire at War rather than the large-scale grand strategy with dozens of factions that defines Total War.
Games That Won’t Return
Three Kingdoms 2 and The Great War
The hosts confirm that Three Kingdoms 2 and a World War I game were both in development before being cancelled, removing them from consideration for December’s announcements. Joseph speculates the World War I game was cancelled because playtesting revealed it would be fundamentally boring within Total War’s framework, as trench warfare doesn’t suit the franchise’s emphasis on maneuver and tactical flexibility.
Timothy notes that World War I battles would consist of two static lines with minimal unit movement, eliminating the hammer-and-anvil tactics, flanking manoeuvres, and dynamic battlefield positioning that make Total War combat engaging. While World War I featured tanks, aircraft, and poison gas, the fundamental nature of trench warfare would create mostly static, attritional battles ill-suited to Total War’s real-time tactical combat system.
Rome’s Unlikely Return
The hosts debate whether Rome 3 could appear, ultimately concluding it’s unlikely despite the period’s popularity. Rome and Rome-adjacent games have appeared frequently in Total War’s history: the original Rome, Barbarian Invasion expansion, Rome 2, and Attila. Timothy suggests Creative Assembly has exhausted the Roman period’s possibilities and should explore other settings before returning to Rome again.
Al counters that Rome 2’s relative recency and the Rome Remastered release demonstrate continued commercial interest in the setting, noting that Creative Assembly remastered Rome rather than Medieval 2 despite both being from similar eras. This decision suggests Rome remains commercially important to the franchise. However, the hosts generally agree that if Creative Assembly is announcing only two games, Rome 3 is less likely than Medieval 3 or Empire 2.
Modern Warfare’s Total War Problem
World War II and Beyond
The discussion explores whether Total War could successfully depict modern warfare, with Timothy noting that World War II and later conflicts would require completely new mechanics including cover systems, suppression mechanics, and fundamentally different unit behaviour. Unlike pre-modern warfare where formations and mass charges made sense, modern combat emphasizes small unit tactics, combined arms coordination, and terrain utilization in ways Total War’s engine doesn’t support.
Al disagrees that modern settings couldn’t work, arguing that World War II Total War could succeed with appropriate mechanical innovation. However, he acknowledges this would require a completely new engine and would feel dramatically different from traditional Total War experiences. The conversation reveals tension between wanting Total War to evolve versus recognizing that certain time periods may simply not suit the franchise’s core design philosophy.
The Earlier-Is-Better Principle
Timothy articulates a principle that earlier historical periods suit Total War better than later ones because pre-modern warfare emphasized the massed formations, cavalry charges, and linear tactics that Total War’s engine handles well. As warfare evolved toward dispersed formations, cover-based combat, and mechanized warfare, it moved away from what makes Total War’s combat system engaging and distinctive within the strategy genre.
This principle explains why medieval and ancient settings remain Total War’s sweet spot. They feature the large-scale formation combat that the engine excels at depicting. Modern settings would require either radical mechanical changes that might alienate the existing fanbase or simplified abstractions that wouldn’t satisfy players expecting authentic modern combat simulation.
Publisher and Industry Context
Microprose’s Role
While not extensively discussed in this episode, the hosts reference Microprose’s broader role in publishing strategy titles, providing context for Creative Assembly’s position within the larger strategy gaming market. The comparison suggests Creative Assembly operates in an increasingly competitive environment where specialized publishers support niche strategy titles that might not receive mainstream attention.
This competitive landscape potentially influences Creative Assembly’s decisions about which Total War projects to greenlight, as they must consider both internal franchise management and external market competition from other strategy game publishers and developers attempting to capture similar audiences.
Contact & Links
About | Contact | Meet the Team | Get Involved | Forum | Episodes
Patreon | Discord | Reddit | Twitter / X | Facebook
Instagram | Twitch | Steam Group | Steam Curator
YouTube | Spotify | Apple | Amazon
Email: [email protected]
Episode Verdict
This episode successfully captures both the excitement and anxiety surrounding Total War’s future as the franchise approaches a critical juncture. The hosts’ predictions – Warhammer 40k and Medieval 3 – represent the safest commercial bets for Creative Assembly, balancing fantasy’s proven profitability against historical fans’ long-standing requests. However, the extensive discussion of engine limitations, scale challenges, and mechanical innovation reveals deeper questions about whether Creative Assembly will simply deliver graphically updated versions of familiar experiences or truly reimagine what Total War can be.
The conversation’s recurring emphasis on engine limitations suggests the community increasingly recognizes that incremental improvements may no longer satisfy players expecting transformative experiences. Whether Creative Assembly announces ambitious projects requiring new technology or opts for safer titles on existing infrastructure will significantly impact the franchise’s trajectory and its ability to satisfy increasingly divided fantasy and historical communities.
Next Episode: The Current State of Real-time Strategy Games
Discover more from Critical Moves Podcast
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.