A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

[Fisherking]

Then I suggest you play one before you make inaccurate comments.

Would you care to expound on what part was inaccurate?

I have not played a modern war RTS but I have done the real thing. That is why I have not bothered with a game…

[General SupaCrunk]

Dude, that sounds pretty cool! Don't forget the Nubians, too. The idea is pretty sweet.

Yeah this sounds very sweet!!

[Owen Glyndwr]

I think it'd be pretty neat to encompase all of eastern asia (Japan, Indochina, maybe even some Polynesian Islands). I think it'd be pretty cool to re-do the Mongol invasion of Japan (and win, of course). I mean I agree with what has been said, that Europe has been done to death. I'd just like to see more emphasis put into strategy, as, having read such books as ROTK, it appears to me that strategy played a HUGE part of war, I mean look at the kind of strategms from Chuko Liang and SSumi, and such and it becomes apparent that warfare was about using the battlefield to one's advantage. Essentially I think Asia would be pretty friggin' awesome, regardless of the time period (by that I mean, whether it be Warring States, Three Kingdoms, lead up to Yuan Dynasty, etc.)

[Noncommunist]

Do you think we have enough information of the Meso Americans in pre columbian times to make a good game? I guess you would have to put it pretty far back to prevent it from being a repeat of the America's Campaign.

[PanzerJaeger]

A think it is feasible and would be fun. A Hearts of Iron with real time battles. Scale would be the biggest obstacle, but not impossible to do..

[Belgolas]

I would love a 20 centuray total war timeframe. It would probably be hard to do but with some creative thinking I bet it could be done. Although I would much rather revisit Roman time period because of naval warefare. Although stone age total war seems applealing too. Imagine raft naval battles lol where you throw rocks at the other rafts lol.

[Polemists]

Although stone age total war seems applealing too. Imagine raft naval battles lol where you throw rocks at the other rafts lol.

You bring up a good point, now that naval combat is in and took soooo much time to implement whatever game is next will probably have more advanced naval combat.

[Mailman653]

Renaissance TW? Pick up where MTW2 left off and end where Empires begin.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I don't see why you think his comments were inaccurate. To me his points seem valid and well made. And I don't think you have to have played an RTS set in the period to know whether you would like it or not. Anyway, traditional RTS games have very little in common with Total War.

As for your suggested setting. I'd take it over a modern total war, but I would definitely prefer to see the series head over to Asia for the next installment. Europe and the area around the Med has been done to death.

Well, I thought that Fisherking should have first played a real RTS game, and then commented on them. His comment was very accurate for a person who hasn't played a modern RTS game, but if he would have played a modern RTS first, then it would have answered quite a bit of his questions. He sounded like an intelligent person who does not know any history trying to explain WWII, just to give you an example.

Anyway, what makes you think I did not play any RTW games set in that period/any other RTS games at all? I have never tried any other games but RTS. I have played Company of Heroes, as my previous comment said, if you read it. I also played Empire Earth I & II, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, Age of Empires II & III, Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations, and Stronghold 1 & 2 (not so much RTS though). You are right that the RTS games have very little in common with Total War. TW series are RTT - real-time tactics, which is a different genre. I personally think TW series are one of the most unique game series in the world, with nothing like them. There are some other RTT games out there, but they still feature resource-gathering, building and training like other "normal" RTS games.

[Polemists]

The closest tactical modern war game, is Company of Heroes, which features a squad based combat system but still has a generalized resource gathering and building structures motiff to it.

Like i've stated, I have no interest in this just because it's over done, a fair bit. Yes, i'm sure graphically they could somehow do it, I just wouldn't have any interest.

Now a fantasy or Renaissance TW and i'm there, even sci fi. Or any time Pre 1850. Post 1850 bores me.

[ThePianist]

For a WWII game with the same style of realism as the Total War series, try downloading the demo of Theater of War, also the demo of Officers.

Theater of War is the most realistic. It's hard. Each unit has a computed line of sight and angle of fire it is covering and there is no formation whatsoever. The demo map scenario (not the training missions, the one battle map) is more than a mile by a mile. Tanks can fire from over a mile away. And I really mean over 1760 yards away. Infantry are in trenches or foxholes but you can barely even see muzzle flashes, and in order to see all the units at once, the few tanks are little rectangles and the infantry just little dots. Once in a while one of the infantry dies. But the enemy is still a mile away. You didn't even see the firing that killed him. You can zoom in and see the soldiers at about RTW quality of graphics. The demo is a very very realistic map, it has about 50 soldiers and a few German tanks, and you have to stop a few Soviet tanks plus many soldiers. Only 50 soldiers and a few tanks, and the micromanagement is overwhelming. Every soldier has a face, a name, a rank, a health bar, a weapon and how many rounds of ammunition.

Officers has this demo of Omaha beach, and it has even more men. It's even more epic in scale. You have a map of 5 miles by 10 miles, or something like that, and you have to first capture the beach bunkers, then the coastal defenses, then leapfrog the inland cities (all historical locations). You can get reinforcements by air and sea. The number of units is staggering. In addition to destroying enemies, there is supply roads that you have to keep open between cities. This is all on the real time action map that you can zoom in and out. The "campaign map" is the minimap on the corner of the screen, where you get to see which city you captured, a bit like the radar map in most RTS. Now the action is really intense in this one, and for WWII it is much better than the set-piece battles of Total War series, because the battlemap is many miles by many miles, and it's continuous action by your side and the enemy side. It would be as if the battle map included Mediolanum, Rome, Arretium, Ariminum and Tarentum, and while some of your forces are fighting outside Rome, you can fly the camera and see enemy reinforcement coming from the road to Mediolanum, and you move some other forces to fight there.
In ancient times, set-piece battles were realistic, because it took a long time for armies to march. So when two armies meet in battle, some other armies from 50 miles away could not arrive in time in a few hours even if they wanted to. But in the battle of Normandy in the 20th century, the Germans could move forces from miles away and arrive by wheels. So the battle map included like between ten and twenty cities, coastal and inland, and all the action was connected.
And the only way Officers could do this, is to have each battle (or, regional-huge-battle) to be a separate scenario. Normandy is one scenario, and some other battle is some other scenario. The scenarios are not connected on a continuous world map, because I fail to see how it would work with a Total War world map.

By the way, I wouldn't mind a massive RTS simulation of WWII, it would gather together games like Atari's Axis and Allies -NOT the board game- (strategies of planning and production), Company of Heroes (took all the ideas from Axis and Allies) and Sudden Strike (has 10 to 20 times more units than Company of Heroes, land sea and air, very realistic limited by isometric map).

However, that would mean I would like to play things like the Battle of Stalingrad, with all 200000 men of the Sixth Army in the city, plus the Third Romanian Army on the Don, plus the perhaps half a million Soviet troops in the vicinity, and Chuikov's soldiers in the city and Romistrov's Guard units. It would be fulfillment of childhood dream, but I don't think the game engine and computing capabilities are ready to make such a game. Perhaps in 5 years or so.
Another example, the Allied campaign in Italy in 1943. The Germans prepared a horizontal defense across the Italian peninsula, the Gothic line and the Gustav line. That means across the entire width of the peninsula, no matter where you go you'll come upon German units. How is that going to be simulated on the campaign map? A row of a thousand banners across Italy?

WWII/WWI simulation is better left to games like Theatre of War and Officers, because they do not correspond to the Total War engine and campaign gameplay. In order to make any WWII RTS up to Total War standards, it would wait a few years for graphics cards and game development to catch up. So for now it's better to not downgrade the Total War name, and keep it excellent as it has been, in pre-20 century war RTS's.

There were similar proposals of making a WWII Battlefield mod with Half Life's Valve engine. Most people recognized it just wouldn't work. The HL engine is made for infantry combat, and that's it. It wouldn't model jeeps, tanks or airplanes well at all.

Total War engine is made for historical melee combat, and is the best in the gaming world for that.

If all the Euro-centered ideas have been exhausted (even WWI and WWII are Euro-centered), there is plenty of material for a world map that starts at the Pacific coast of Asia, and ends at the Bosphorus. Or, it starts at the Pacific coast of Asia and ends at the Caspian sea. In other words, either from Constantinople to China/Japan, or from Susa-Arsakia (the "edge of the world" in original RTW) to China/Japan, including Central Asia, Russia/Siberia, India/Afghanistan in between. Everything east. Aside from a bit on China, and apart from some 20th century history, I myself know virtually nothing about all the history that went on in that region of the world, between antiquity and 1900. There should be a lot of civilizations. It's better than the MesoAmerica idea, because the cultures on the American continent were more homogeneous than the culture of Western, Central, Northern, Southern, and East Asia. There is more difference and diversity among the Asian civilizations, and there must have been plenty of empires and sub-faction there in Roman era, in Medieval era, in Renaissance era, and in Imperial-colonial era. That's four games that can be made on that map. European factions could be like invading hordes in the Imperial-colonial era, coming from off the map. It would be a very interesting experience.

[Fisherking]

Well, I thought that Fisherking should have first played a real RTS game, and then commented on them. His comment was very accurate for a person who hasn't played a modern RTS game, but if he would have played a modern RTS first, then it would have answered quite a bit of his questions. He sounded like an intelligent person who does not know any history trying to explain WWII, just to give you an example.

No! What I was trying to do was explain military operations in bite sized bits so that those unfamiliar with them could have some grasp as to what is going on.

You made an assumption when I said WWII RTS that I had not played any RTS…

A very important part of any game is giving you the feel of “Being There”.

When it comes down to it RTS type games have limitations in projecting that image when it comes to 20th century combat. Most of the RTS games I have played have little to do with reality. Men just don’t walk out of an armory and into combat with no preparation and getting replacements is an arduous process.

Actually, you don’t want all of the problems of actually being there. Most of us would just turn off the machine after a few seconds and try to calm down. There is just no way to control or even see everything that is going on. It just happens too fast!

A Commander has the job of maintaining some semblance of control and directing his forces where he thinks they will do some good.

If you have ever seen a military battle map you will have noted that it is covered in graphics to the point to where it is difficult to see what the terrain actually is.

It is marked with lanes, phase lines, intermediate and primary objectives, perhaps fields of fire, obstacles, mine fields, and planed artillery fires.

The purpose behind all the graphics is to maintain control and give a quick reference to locations so that the leader has some idea of where his troops are and what may be happening.

Examples:
Black 6 this is Red 1, crossing phase line Sword! Continuing!(Your first platoon has just crossed a control line marked on your map…you know where he is, still moving to his objective.)

Black 6 this is Blue 1, we’re taking fire from vicinity of objective Orange. ( Your third platoon is taking fire from a hilltop…you have a reference for calling in suppressive artillery fire)

Without these references a commander has all of the control of a man hurdling 100 cats in a thunderstorm.

In a game at least you can see where everyone is but in real time you still lack much control.

With the lethality of modern warfare once you order your guys to move out, you soon find that you have no one left.

The best way to portray modern combat and its feel is to use a phased turn based system. This allows you to move, fire, and the enemy to fire or return fire while you maintain control of your forces.

The game that comes to mind that best portrayed the feel of modern combat was the old Steel Panthers 1 and 2.

Now I have been a participant in large simulations used by the military to “war game” an attack or defense in real time.

These are not usually very enjoyable. After you tell your guys to move out you often get back successive messages of element destroyed!, element destroyed!, element destroyed! And you are left wondering what happened.

If 10 or so unseen enemy tanks suddenly open fire on one of your elements the effect is immediate and devastating. It isn’t much fun either.

Preparations take hours or even days just finding enemy positions with scouts and infantry patrols before committing larger forces to battle. It just isn’t a line up and shoot event!

Thus, it is hard to translate to a Total War style game.

[hellenes]

I dont understand why one would approach this topic in such a narrow way of thinking....
Look at World In COnflict....its almost like a TW game with unit cards and squad combat without basebuilding...
I dream a day that CA overcomes the narrowmindness of a part of its fanbase and creates a WWII game...Its time for the Dune2 plague to be cured from post 1900 RTS games...

[Polemists]

I dream a day that CA overcomes the narrowmindness of a part of its fanbase and creates a WWII game

Keep dreaming, as it stands your outnumbered 2 to 1 by this fanbase.

Again it's not narrowedmindness it's just what I and others like. I like melee, hand to hand, historical combat. WW2 is not based on this, it is based on tanks, planes, trains, and u-boats. There are infantry and sometimes they stab each other, but it is not even a moderate part of game play.

World in Conflict is a fun game, but to say it's anything like total war. Is ridiculous. I've played it. There are no agents, no diplomacy, no economics, no governments, no generals, no lineage. I think you forget that what makes TW games so loved by many, other then melee combat, is all the stuff outside the battle.

World in Conflict is a slugfest, with super powers being dropped as you gain more victories. Same as Dawn of War, same as Red Alert 3. That's the point, I don't want super powers.

I don't want to play a total war where after fifty kills I suddenly summon in a panzer. I don't want a nuclear ability card.

I still want the game to be tactical, with no easy one shots.

Maybe the rest of the fanbase has a variety of reasons for disliking ww2 games. These are just mine. Luckily for me, the fanbase stands behind this pretty heavily, so if CA listens to fans the next game will not be a ww2 themed, maybe in 4 years.

[hellenes]

Keep dreaming, as it stands your outnumbered 2 to 1 by this fanbase.

Again it's not narrowedmindness it's just what I and others like. I like melee, hand to hand, historical combat. WW2 is not based on this, it is based on tanks, planes, trains, and u-boats. There are infantry and sometimes they stab each other, but it is not even a moderate part of game play.

Thats not the reason to say that it cannot be done. Just say that YOU dont WANT it to be done.

World in Conflict is a fun game, but to say it's anything like total war. Is ridiculous. I've played it. There are no agents, no diplomacy, no economics, no governments, no generals, no lineage. I think you forget that what makes TW games so loved by many, other then melee combat, is all the stuff outside the battle.

So youre saying that this cannot be done during 1900-1945? Are you sure?

World in Conflict is a slugfest, with super powers being dropped as you gain more victories. Same as Dawn of War, same as Red Alert 3. That's the point, I don't want super powers.

Your hatred towards advanced gunpowder era clearly fogs you vision....You cannot be serious in saying that WWII had no tactics...Oh and WiC has nothing to do with either RA3 or DoW....which are mere sad and pathetic Dune2 clo(w)nes....

I don't want to play a total war where after fifty kills I suddenly summon in a panzer. I don't want a nuclear ability card.

Neither do I thats why I despise all teh Dune2 clo(w)nes that plague the RTS market....

I still want the game to be tactical, with no easy one shots.

Dune2 clo(w)nes do exactly that...they have this pathetic notion of hitpoints and life bars....one shot is far more tactical...like TW games....

Maybe the rest of the fanbase has a variety of reasons for disliking ww2 games. These are just mine. Luckily for me, the fanbase stands behind this pretty heavily, so if CA listens to fans the next game will not be a ww2 themed, maybe in 4 years.

What about people that like both the melee and the gun based combat? I mean CA has dominated the melee RTS market....why shouldnt they expand into the modern era?

[Polemists]

The dreadful art of counter quotes. Okay people be prepared Remeber I do this with my happy nice face on :)

Thats not the reason to say that it cannot be done. Just say that YOU dont WANT it to be done.

I didn't say Can't. I said

Again it's not narrowedmindness it's just what I and others like

So youre saying that this cannot be done during 1900-1945? Are you sure?

Didn't say can't. Stated none of those things exsisted in World in Conflict, again my point is they could do it, but I don't think it would be very fun.

Your hatred towards advanced gunpowder era clearly fogs you vision....You cannot be serious in saying that WWII had no tactics...Oh and WiC has nothing to do with either RA3 or DoW....which are mere sad and pathetic Dune2 clo(w)nes....

Actually I love the gunpowder era, which is what Empire is, and I love empire. I loathe the automatic weapon era.

I never even played dune 2.

Wic has alot to do with RC3 and Dow, more then it has to do with MTW2 I'd wager. As in Dow and RC3 you build bases, in Wic you build bases, and both have abilities you use in combat. I don't recall any base building in total war.

Neither do I thats why I despise all teh Dune2 clo(w)nes that plague the RTS market....

Your reference was World in Conflict, which has a Nuclear Missle ability.

Dune2 clo(w)nes do exactly that...they have this pathetic notion of hitpoints and life bars....one shot is far more tactical...like TW games....

Tw games have hitpoints, they are on all the unit stats. One shot kills can still occur but only with proper tactics. Aka Spearmen v Calvary.

What about people that like both the melee and the gun based combat? I mean CA has dominated the melee RTS market....why shouldnt they expand into the modern era?

If CA wants to expand into modern era and keep making melee rts games as well, kudos, great for them. Currently CA barely makes one game year, one being a total war, and the alternate year being a expansion or a console game. CA does expand into other markets, as shown by the console games. Spartan, Viking, etc.

That said if CA continues with only make one TW game after another. I'd prefer it to be melee and diplomacy based. Not fighting germans and japs yet again.

One final note, and I don't speak for community but this is a respectful community so let's try to keep the name calling on the lower end. I completely disagree with you, but don't feel any hostility towards you. This forum has always been, in my view about respectful debate. So let's try not and piss of the mods by over stepping the line.

[hellenes]

The dreadful art of counter quotes. Okay people be prepared Remeber I do this with my happy nice face on :)

Me too :)

I didn't say Can't. I said





Actually I love the gunpowder era, which is what Empire is, and I love empire. I loathe the automatic weapon era.



Didn't say can't. Stated none of those things exsisted in World in Conflict, again my point is they could do it, but I don't think it would be very fun.

"Fun" is subjective...I just cannot understand whats so bad about the automatic weapon era....

I never even played dune 2.

You dont have to...practically 90% of the mainstream RTS market is a blatant copy of it...

Wic has alot to do with RC3 and Dow, more then it has to do with MTW2 I'd wager. As in Dow and RC3 you build bases, in Wic you build bases, and both have abilities you use in combat. I don't recall any base building in total war.

Thats a clear indication how youve never played WiC....which has 0 basebuilding...0 troop training....And the "abilities" are mere commands of what one whants the unit to do....TW has abilities too...So WiC has alot in more in common with TW than with dune2 clo(w)nes....

Your reference was World in Conflict, which has a Nuclear Missle ability.

So what? Nuclear weapons are a reality...lets not forget the whole Elephant cannon system in M2TW....

Tw games have hitpoints, they are on all the unit stats. One shot kills can still occur but only with proper tactics. Aka Spearmen v Calvary.

nah...TW doesnt have hitpoints in the RTS green bar sense....its more of a chance stats calculator which is faaar deeper...

If CA wants to expand into modern era and keep making melee rts games as well, kudos, great for them. Currently CA barely makes one game year, one being a total war, and the alternate year being a expansion or a console game. CA does expand into other markets, as shown by the console games. Spartan, Viking, etc.

That said if CA continues with only make one TW game after another. I'd prefer it to be melee and diplomacy based. Not fighting germans and japs yet again.

One final note, and I don't speak for community but this is a respectful community so let's try to keep the name calling on the lower end. I completely disagree with you, but don't feel any hostility towards you. This forum has always been, in my view about respectful debate. So let's try not and piss of the mods by over stepping the line.

Ive never called you any names....Ive just made some observations...
Lastly I would suggest you try Hearts of Iron....maybe you will reconsider your position...

[DisruptorX]

Falklands War: Total War

[IsItStillThere]

Falklands War: Total War

LOL

Give Maggie Thatcher an AK47 and let her win it by herself.

[Sir Beane]

It seems this topic is more devicive than I first thought when I posted the poll .

It's great to see the arguments and counter arguments going on. Let's all try to keep the discussion based around points and facts rather than attacking other people and their oppinions directly. I'm not accusing anyone, but I can see the discussion heading that way if we aren't careful.

hellenes I think the point us 'narrow-minded' fans are trying to make is that a modern Total War game would be so different to previous titles it wouldn't really be Total War. I'm not saying a game like that couldn't be made, but if it was then it would be Total War in name only. Everything else I love about the series would have gone.

For me Total War is a godsend because I love the history of warfare and I have a great interest in many of the periods the series has covered. The thing is, Total War is the only game series to cover this period in the right amount of detail.

Age of Empires and Civilization try, but ultimately their gameplay just doesn't interest me in the same way. Total War has a unique blend of grand strategy and battle tactics. I would hate to see them do a Modern Total War because there are so many other companies doing the same time period.

If CA doesn't make games set in the Era of sword warfare, then who will?

[Divinus Arma]

YES. But...

The gameplay potential is evolving. The Total War experience is only limited to CA's imagination.

A good example of the potential for Total War in the modern era rests with "World in Conflict". Take this to a turn based system, tweak the reinforcements, unit sizes and deployments, and VOILA! The greatest marvel of this accomplishment would be in the AI required. A player MUST be able to delegate to an AI controlled group: Hold this area, flank in this direction, do this, do that, etc. AI delegation would be critical because of the need for micro-managing cover and concealment in modern combat.

As the perfect example of how the AI must be able to perform: An AI controlled group should be able to divide into two on its own and with one force pin, and the second force flank. Its a basic small unit tactic and essential in modern combat. If the AI is not delegatable in this manner, than NO.

[Kiron Drayga]

Hey folks, long time Medieval, Rome, and Medieval 2 Total War player, first time poster here at the forums.

I'd actually be all right with a pseudo-sequel to Empire: Total War that took us to WW1. I just feel like WW1 has really been undervalued in strategy gaming and I do think trench warfare would be a neat change of pace. Nothing beats the raw brutality of a howitzer slicing through men charging a trench. As for the planes...well, in the WW2 era with bombers and whatnot I think it'd be more problematic, but in WW1

So an Empire: Total War sequel that went from, say, 1820 to 1920 would be okay in my book.

I think anything beyond 1920 would stretch my interest. When you start to get into the modern era with mass production and quick transportation / communication, the turn-based nature of the Total War campaign era doesn't hold up quite as well. That and, I just really doubt playing as the Germans in WW2 would "hold up" well in a turn-based format. Company of Heroes for example basically ignores everything but the military structure of Nazi Germany; by contrast, we'd expect a Total War game to actually have you lead the country -- and, uhh, I'd be uncomfortable with Concentration Camps in my Total War experience (don't ask me why I'm okay exterminating medieval cities but I feel queasy on this subject; I'm aware of the double standard.) I'm not really sure how that'd be handled unless you made WW2 Germany an unplayable faction.

Also, I don't think adding primitive WW1 armor / primitive WW1 biplanes would necessarily destroy an Empire sequel that ended around 1920, as those innovations would be late game occurrences, and biplanes wouldn't exactly change the power alignment of units significantly, their role in WW1 combat was limited at best.

[Megas Methuselah]

As much as I love the 20th century, it just couldn't be done with total war. Units didn't fight in orderly lines anymore, and if they did, they'd be gunned down in seconds. Trench warefare would somehow have to be represented but, well:

The Total War experience is only limited to CA's imagination.

That is correct. The whole system would have to be remade for this time period. Not that it's impossible or anything...




...But 20th century-conflicts are in a time period that has already been sucked dry by the gaming industry.

[Haxorsist]

I hope CA has the courage to set the next game to a less "popular" period of history (that is, conflicts that I know next to nothing about). I consider myself pretty average when it comes to knowledge of history (which would be below average here). I hadn't heard much about the Teutonic crusades before the Kingdoms expansion and I found it very interesting. That's the kind of game I want. WWII has been done so many times before, and Total War has always been different from other strategy games. If they're gonna keep making Total War games, I want to them to stay true to what Total War is, and I don't see that happening with a WWII game.

I don't find the renaissance particularly interesting, but I didn't find the Empire period interesting when the game was first announced either. I'd like to see a Total War in Asia. I never tried Shogun for some reason, but Kessen was an awesome game. ^^

[Pinxit]

Hey folks, long time Medieval, Rome, and Medieval 2 Total War player, first time poster here at the forums.

I'd actually be all right with a pseudo-sequel to Empire: Total War that took us to WW1. I just feel like WW1 has really been undervalued in strategy gaming and I do think trench warfare would be a neat change of pace. Nothing beats the raw brutality of a howitzer slicing through men charging a trench. As for the planes...well, in the WW2 era with bombers and whatnot I think it'd be more problematic, but in WW1

So an Empire: Total War sequel that went from, say, 1820 to 1920 would be okay in my book.

I think anything beyond 1920 would stretch my interest. When you start to get into the modern era with mass production and quick transportation / communication, the turn-based nature of the Total War campaign era doesn't hold up quite as well. That and, I just really doubt playing as the Germans in WW2 would "hold up" well in a turn-based format. Company of Heroes for example basically ignores everything but the military structure of Nazi Germany; by contrast, we'd expect a Total War game to actually have you lead the country -- and, uhh, I'd be uncomfortable with Concentration Camps in my Total War experience (don't ask me why I'm okay exterminating medieval cities but I feel queasy on this subject; I'm aware of the double standard.) I'm not really sure how that'd be handled unless you made WW2 Germany an unplayable faction.

Also, I don't think adding primitive WW1 armor / primitive WW1 biplanes would necessarily destroy an Empire sequel that ended around 1920, as those innovations would be late game occurrences, and biplanes wouldn't exactly change the power alignment of units significantly, their role in WW1 combat was limited at best.

CA stated that there would be no Concentration Camps if a Total War game ever took place in that era. I consider this to be wrong in more than one way. As you said, there is little, if any, difference between exterminating an entire city and doing so in an organized fashion (Concentration Camps). Also, it would look bad if the worst part about Nazi Germany was ignored in a game that prides itself being fair to history. It wouldnt be very accurate or fair to history or all the people who died by not showing the bad sides of Nazi Germany.

Besides 1: the player could be given the choice to simply destroy the Concentration Camps and try to run Germany along a more moral road. Even declaring peace, or whatever. It would be a fun "What if..."-game.

Besides 2: it is just a game. If I had any problems playing as the "bad guys" and doing things that dont seem moral I wouldnt be able to play any Total War game. Or any game about war, for that matter. Exterminating cities, killing people, running them over with elephants, hello , enslaving the world, hello... I have done things in games that I would never do in real life.

[Kiron Drayga]

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure how a WW2 Total War wouldn't offend regardless of how they portrayed (or did not portray) Concentration Camps. Either the Camps aren't there, in which case Jewish commentators could accurately blast the game for romanticizing Nazi Germany into a morally acceptable faction; or, the Camps are there, in which case Jewish commentators would blast the existence of the Camps in a video game, and a lot of people like me just wouldn't play the Nazi faction.

Another big problem with WW2 Total War would be the diplomacy; whereas in WW1, the factions were roughly equal on their individual merits, in WW2 the Nazis were clearly the superior force in Europe and it took the combined efforts of the USA, UK and USSR to even match them; by contrast, Italy, Turkey, and other European factions would be virtually worthless to play as. There's just a huge power gap by WW2 that'd leave only a few factions remotely playable. By contrast, the Medieval, early Roman, and Imperial periods all have this balance of power where any one faction can grow into a powerhouse.

Also, playing as the Allies would be a real drag without appropriate AI; if you're the UK, for example, you'd have to pray the USA and USSR AI is actually going to hold their own and not backstab you for no apparent reason; if you are backstabbed as an allied power, you essentially lose the game. The alternative would be to program "fixed alliances" (where none of the Allies can negotiate with Hitler) but then you've taken away a good portion of Total War's strategic flexibility. But if Hitler's Germany is just presented by the Total War code to be this random powerful faction, there's nothing to stop Germany signing a peace treaty with the U.S., which would be horrifically unrealistic in portraying the time period.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

They would have to utterly redisign the WHOLE TW concept to make this idea even remotly feasable. Plus its another Europe game and i think most of us are sick of Europe, i know i am.
Why not make a fantasy TW or an ancient Americas/ Mideval China TW? THAT would be fun, and a nice change of pace.

[Lokar]

No it wouldn't work, the scale of the battles is just too huge. Battles that go on for months, across hundreds of miles, involving millions of individual troops, how could you put all that into one battle map? Not in the total war series where there's a clear distinction between the battle maps and the campaign map.

But I would like to see CA try a WWII grand strategy game. Just please make it turn based. WWII games and real time strategy games are the two most overdone game genres ever.

[Belgolas]

I seriuosly think it would be pretty boring, plus it would be very hard to implament. Also there are sooooo many WW2 games out there. Let COH do their job. Oh and WiC is not WW2 era it is cold war era.

Anyways I would love an ancient china/asia Total War. Common you can't say that having indians, chinese, Japanese, Mongols, the middle east, and other parts of Asia wouldn't be fun to play as. There is SO much variety between culter and military. WW2 just has tanks vs. tanks, guys with guns, vs guys with guns(and then planes which would pretty much be impossible unless you do it like COH style but that would suck).

Asia Total War is LONG over due!

[Fisherking]

First off, If and when CA does a modern game it may cover the time of the second world war but they do eras and not specific wars in Total War Campaigns.

More importantly though, they will of course need a different engine than this latest game has.

The reason for that is that currently the naval units can not interact with the land units, so no fort bombardment and no amphibious landings of troops to capture forts. When they have worked that out then they will be able to integrating air units and submarines.

These are not the only challenges they would have in the more modern period but they are enough to show that the next game is not going to be set in that time.

I look forward to the time when they will be able to do the period right, but it is not here yet.

So chill out guys!