Icerian Rex
10-13-2003, 22:09
In the past, I always thought that the direction Totalwar should go in would be toward more, More, MORE However, as I've played MTW over and over and over, I've found that it's a little like drinking liquid drano: It fills me up for awhile, but leaves me feeling empty. It's simply too big. After awhile, with 100+ provinces firmly under control, it just gets boring wrapping up.
It appears, at least from a graphical view, that RTW is going to resolve some of these issues. However, I think that more could be done. Toward this end, one of the things that I'd really like to see (especially now that this platform/gaming engine/whatever is coming into it's own, would be a future expansion into the Civil War. BUT - with a different approach. Rather than having a static game where the point is to build build build (and with more building coming better/different units), the approach would be instead on managing a populace devoid of food, or unfavorable to the war (perhaps due to a battle that went poorly). These things could be done via periodic newspaper articles that flash on the screen or something. Also, since the Civil War won no points for the Yankees as they invaded the South (nor for the Southerners as they invaded the north prior to Gettysburgh), the player would instead have to deal with more or less finite resources... both in terms of manpower/material/and weaponry, and would gain no leverage for conquering territory.
For those that have a general idea of what I'm trying to say, help me out. For those that don't, picture combining something akin to Sid Meier's Gettysburgh with the imagery (or better) of RTW, putting a cap on the time limit, and making it to where each soldier that fell/each unit that routed really said something more than simply Oh well, look's like I've got to go back and build another thousand or so swiss pikemen. Here are some ideas I've got for such a venture:
1. Battles don't simply line people up on a field and commence fighting. Instead, units are marched in (or not, based on choosing and speed of march) at different parts of the battlefield and at different times. Also, battles would have the voices of commanders, the bugle calls, the cracking of muskets and explosion of cannonballs (you'd want to have your speakers turned up), and the confusion of smoke from the battle as commanders tried to make sense of things.
2. Since battles don't begin immediately, soldiers would have the opportunity of entrenching (and could determine the type of entrenching, such as simply sawing down trees or building large earthworks).
3. Battles would be of different types (as attacks on fortified cities would be far different than happenstance encounters in the woods), and could include naval units as well (such as in the siege of Vicksburg). Obviously, on such a grand scale, there would need to be maps of the largest of sizes (although hopefully of even more more more detail!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.
4. Speaking of naval units, THERE HAVE GOT TO BE REALTIME NAVAL BATTLES Could you imagine the exchange between the Monitor and the Merrimac if it were done via autoresolve?
5. With regard to the strategic aspect of things, there wouldn't be any of this army's sitting there, someone attacks, armies fight. Instead, it would be necessary to move one's troops around. Strategic areas would need to be guarded. Supply depots. Train lines. Riverways. Cities. Etc... Marching would probably cost money and supplies, but not marching might lead to a quick defeat.
6. Continuing the strategic theme, either side could call upon other nations to come to their aid, although rather than this being simply a matter of paying people off (such as paying off rebel armies), it would be a cumulative affair, that might require on a specific battle for aid.
7. Finally, since resources (and people) are finite, there would eventually come a time when one side or the other could simply no longer fight. As each side wore the other down, this would come into play in terms of one side's ability to adequately wage war, and could eventually cost the game.
I dunno. Those are just some of my ideas. If anyone can picture what I'm talking about let me know. Long, drawn out battles. Massive sounds. Constant movement and real confusion (the fog of war). This same idea could be applied to the Revolution as well. I look forward to hearing back from people.
It appears, at least from a graphical view, that RTW is going to resolve some of these issues. However, I think that more could be done. Toward this end, one of the things that I'd really like to see (especially now that this platform/gaming engine/whatever is coming into it's own, would be a future expansion into the Civil War. BUT - with a different approach. Rather than having a static game where the point is to build build build (and with more building coming better/different units), the approach would be instead on managing a populace devoid of food, or unfavorable to the war (perhaps due to a battle that went poorly). These things could be done via periodic newspaper articles that flash on the screen or something. Also, since the Civil War won no points for the Yankees as they invaded the South (nor for the Southerners as they invaded the north prior to Gettysburgh), the player would instead have to deal with more or less finite resources... both in terms of manpower/material/and weaponry, and would gain no leverage for conquering territory.
For those that have a general idea of what I'm trying to say, help me out. For those that don't, picture combining something akin to Sid Meier's Gettysburgh with the imagery (or better) of RTW, putting a cap on the time limit, and making it to where each soldier that fell/each unit that routed really said something more than simply Oh well, look's like I've got to go back and build another thousand or so swiss pikemen. Here are some ideas I've got for such a venture:
1. Battles don't simply line people up on a field and commence fighting. Instead, units are marched in (or not, based on choosing and speed of march) at different parts of the battlefield and at different times. Also, battles would have the voices of commanders, the bugle calls, the cracking of muskets and explosion of cannonballs (you'd want to have your speakers turned up), and the confusion of smoke from the battle as commanders tried to make sense of things.
2. Since battles don't begin immediately, soldiers would have the opportunity of entrenching (and could determine the type of entrenching, such as simply sawing down trees or building large earthworks).
3. Battles would be of different types (as attacks on fortified cities would be far different than happenstance encounters in the woods), and could include naval units as well (such as in the siege of Vicksburg). Obviously, on such a grand scale, there would need to be maps of the largest of sizes (although hopefully of even more more more detail!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.
4. Speaking of naval units, THERE HAVE GOT TO BE REALTIME NAVAL BATTLES Could you imagine the exchange between the Monitor and the Merrimac if it were done via autoresolve?
5. With regard to the strategic aspect of things, there wouldn't be any of this army's sitting there, someone attacks, armies fight. Instead, it would be necessary to move one's troops around. Strategic areas would need to be guarded. Supply depots. Train lines. Riverways. Cities. Etc... Marching would probably cost money and supplies, but not marching might lead to a quick defeat.
6. Continuing the strategic theme, either side could call upon other nations to come to their aid, although rather than this being simply a matter of paying people off (such as paying off rebel armies), it would be a cumulative affair, that might require on a specific battle for aid.
7. Finally, since resources (and people) are finite, there would eventually come a time when one side or the other could simply no longer fight. As each side wore the other down, this would come into play in terms of one side's ability to adequately wage war, and could eventually cost the game.
I dunno. Those are just some of my ideas. If anyone can picture what I'm talking about let me know. Long, drawn out battles. Massive sounds. Constant movement and real confusion (the fog of war). This same idea could be applied to the Revolution as well. I look forward to hearing back from people.