As to a sequel. What is missing from the genre is any game that covers the period of musket and pike. The age of the English Civil War and the Thirty Years War. A most interesting period and lots of strategic and tactical variety.

As to a sequel. What is missing from the genre is any game that covers the period of musket and pike. The age of the English Civil War and the Thirty Years War. A most interesting period and lots of strategic and tactical variety.
Off topic: Do you know the medieval 2 total war submod "For King or Country" ? It is set in the English civil war.
On topic: I doubt gunpowder weapons would realy work with the current engine. It's more designed to be centered around melee battles. But you're right, the time is full of interesting conflicts.

Wow, the thirty years' war is a very interesting period (especially for a Swede :o) )!

I don't know of any computer games about that. Does anyone?

Wonder why there hasn't been any focus on this war (or war of wars, more correctly).

I don't understand.

Why a sequel?

With further refining hegemony could be a seriously masterful game, full of depth and almost endlessly replayable..
Heck, fix the controls, add player unit AI/patrol commands, add multiplayer, keep refining and adding features here and there to make economics and city development more intricate and you have the perfect game

I don't understand.

Why a sequel?


Well, sequels are the natural evolution of games, plus this company cannot consistently polish the same game, or else they would go out of business, at least from my personal opinion.

Plus, based off this engine, there's still plenty of history to talk about, so who knows what will happen honestly, but I personally don't mind a sequel. Naturally, we're getting Gold first which has tons of improvements to the original game, and that will still be further refined before a sequel becomes a reality.

that's definitely true from a business standpoint, what you said.

But I don't think that many people actually know about hegemony.. that from the number of posts/posters on the forum.

I'm pretty sure that if they add multi-player, keep polishing hegemony and making it the uber-game it's so close to being, they could do a high profile 're-launch' and have tons and tons of people ready to dig it.
I don't know exactly how it all works, but it seems on the surface of things that this will be easier than making a new game.
Also, from a personal standpoint, I really dig the setting and all the flavor text and history that's gone into the game.
It's great.. think of how much effort goes into the art assets and texts alone in a new game

But as I said, I really don't know a lot

I know whatever the time period, the Longbow game will be a fantastic one, the balance of historical reality and freedom is what makes Hegemony fantastic. I would love to see a game of Genghis Khans conquests although I think it will not be able to be emulated well in the engine.

Sengoku Jidai would be a perfect setting.

And with the feature of generals and story-scenes, perhaps even Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Or a fantasy setting...hell, ANYTHING is possible. The game-play is amazing and fit for purpose.

I'd even love to play an RPG (where I just control a single guy or behave as a mercenary force with no empire building to worry about)

ya it'd be soooooo sick if u guys made an rpg

This is my sincere suggestion:

SEQUEL: Alexander the Great in Persia (suitable for expansions too: Far East, Western Mediterranean, etc., two main powers to choose between).
GAME 3: Successor Wars (new setting in that is a civil war, four major factions only).

These eras are suitable in that they naturally link to Hegemony:PoM plus that they cover not too few, not too many years: 13-45years.

The game can have multiple campaigns, not just one. My Sugestions:

- Alexander The Great - conqueror of the Persian Empire and the greatest general in Antic History (the map will be at least 5 times bigger than the one in Hegemony: Philip of Macedon)
- Sargon of Akkad - creator of the first empire in the world who won the fight for supremacy among the other city states in Mesopotamia
- Rise of Rome - right after 509 BC, Rome became an Republic and started to expand, and in 300 BC it became a rival to Cartage, the strogest power in western Mediteranean ( the game will focus on the conquering of Italy and the Punic Wars)
- Burebista - considered by Heodot the greatest Thracian King, he is the one that first united the Dacians
- Charlemagne - Frank king who created a very big empire that ruled West Europe and stoped the Arabian Expansion
- The Crusades - Religious wars between Muslims and Christians for the "Sacred Land"
- Reconquista - Spanish war to conquer back their country from Arabians
- Gengis Kahn - Son of the steppes who united the mongols and conquered China and Persia.
- The 100 years war - Either conquer France with the English or resist the attacks and drive the English from France with the French

I think that the longbow team are set on Caesars conquest of Gaul (If this is wrong please correct me!), but the brilliance of the Hegemony engine is that in can be transposed to many many scenarious. However not all those scenarios will give the feel that the first Hegemony did, it would be a requirement that you balance both realism and player freedom, the objectives of Philip did this fantastic, and gave you a sense of achievement, instead of just conquest after conquest, you felt you were building up to something great. Not that I am an expert, but in my humble opinion Hegemony sequels most occur in conquests where a lot of information exists. Additionally I think campaigns like Alexanders conquests and Genghis Khan will not be able to give both a sense of fun and realism.

I think that the longbow team are set on Caesars conquest of Gaul (If this is wrong please correct me!), but the brilliance of the Hegemony engine is that in can be transposed to many many scenarious. However not all those scenarios will give the feel that the first Hegemony did, it would be a requirement that you balance both realism and player freedom, the objectives of Philip did this fantastic, and gave you a sense of achievement, instead of just conquest after conquest, you felt you were building up to something great. Not that I am an expert, but in my humble opinion Hegemony sequels most occur in conquests where a lot of information exists. Additionally I think campaigns like Alexanders conquests and Genghis Khan will not be able to give both a sense of fun and realism.
I agree, these two seem like a lot of marching/riding. My problem with Caeser in Gaul is it would be hard for a balanced game. To make it realistic the roman legions would be way better than the Gallic tribes. And it still seems like a lot of space in between cities like Massilia, Alesia, and uhh I can't think of another one. Another thing, I would like to see realistic Romans so those short little kitchen knives you see in rtw wouldn't be realistic. A gladius was about 3 feet long and 2.5-3 inches wide