A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

[Spookybear]

Planes would ruin the total war game, its way too fast

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

I second that

[PBI]

Suffice it to say I agree with just about everything Kiron Drayga has said in this thread. I'm glad someone else appreciates that WWI and WWII are not the same thing; it's getting a little tiresome that every time I mention that I'd like to see a WWI strategy game I am told "but there are loads of WWII games already"; they are totally different conflicts. Does the prevalence of games set in the Ancient period negate the need for games set in the Medieval period?

I also largely agree with the assertion that although WWII is outside the bounds of what Total War could forseeably do, WWI is not. It would take a major reimagining of the tactical aspect of the game, not to mention a significant advance on the current technical capabilities of the batle engine, but I suspect it could be done. We need to distinguish between what the Total War series has been about so far, and what it fundamentally must be about.

So far, the tactical combat has been primarily about melee, with ranged units playing an important but ultimately secondary role (although I would argue that the tactical game would be very boring if it were just melee, with no skirmishing at all to limit the dominance of heavy troops). In Empire this is likely to change, with ranged fire being the main means by which two armies will engage in combat and with the ability to charge to melee playing an important, but ultimately supporting, role. It's a different interpretation from what Total War combat has been about so far, but I would argue it would be take an extremely narrow and needlessly restrictive definition of the tactical game to argue it is not still recognisably Total War.

Similarly, tactical combat has so far been about close-packed, ordered formations of men who by and large fight as a unit and have relatively little individual autonomy. However, I see no fundamental reason why a Total War game could not take a different interpretation of how units should behave without ceasing to be a Total War game.

As I have previously stated, the main obstacle to a WWI-era Total War, besides the fact that apparently no one realises it is not the same thing as WWII, is the sheer question of scale. Armies became so large and fronts became so long that the idea of flanking in the sense it currently exists in in Total War became impractical. Although this would certainly require an interesting departure from traditional Total War tactics (I for one would relish the challenge of trying to turn the first day of the Somme into a British victory, for example), at present the battle engine is simply not equipped to deal with the idea of scale being an important factor; in all but the largest battles, the amount of time it takes for a unit to march the length of the battle line is unlikely to be large enough to affect the outcome of the battle. Basically, we would need to see an increase in both the size of the battlefield and the number of soldiers by an order of magnitude or two; armies numbering in the tens of thousands and a battle front of ten kilometers or so would I suspect be enough to do the typical WWI battle justice.

Again this would be a significant reimagining of what Total War combat has traditionally been about, but I don't see why it's something the Total War model couldn't be adapted to, other than the fact that at present the technology isn't up to modelling such huge battles. Certainly it couldn't and shouldn't be done in the next installment; but maybe a few installments down the line, when technology has advanced, it could be done.

On a different note, I'd also like to point out that I too have no desire whatsoever to see concentration camps in a Total War game, nor do I think it could tastefully be done, not in abstracted, conspicuous-by-its-absence form and certainly not in all its horrific detail. I simply don't believe we are yet in a era where it would be appropriate to present an atrocity so keenly felt in the modern conciousness as the Holocaust in the context of an entertaining game. Similarly, I have no desire whatsoever to play Rwandan Genocide: Total War, Darfur: Total War, or Khmer Rouge: Total War.

PS It's good to see so many high-quality contributions from new members at the moment.

[Megas Methuselah]

Well said, PBI. I completely agree with you on everything you've said, but would like to add something to your details on WWI. It would be a wondrous war to fight, but as you say, it would require a shockingly huge amount of troops and land on the battlefield.

It's possible, and doesn't take much imagination to make it into a total war game, but it probably won't take place with today's gaming technology. In the years to come, when the average computer can handle the sheer imensity of WWI in a game, we'll probably see something like this. But not now.

[Sir Beane]

Well said, PBI. I completely agree with you on everything you've said, but would like to add something to your details on WWI. It would be a wondrous war to fight, but as you say, it would require a shockingly huge amount of troops and land on the battlefield.

It's possible, and doesn't take much imagination to make it into a total war game, but it probably won't take place with today's gaming technology. In the years to come, when the average computer can handle the sheer imensity of WWI in a game, we'll probably see something like this. But not now.

The problem I see with WW1 is also a matter of scale. A typical battle would consist of hundreds of thousands of men on a battlefield that could be a hundred miles across. The battlelines are trenches with maybe a mile or more of land between them. Every so often one side loses or gains a few feet of land and builds a new trench. Occasionally artillery rains down hell on side or the other, or both.

Snipers make the odd potshot, men die of trenchfoot. Sometimes the higher ups order suicidal charges into no-mans land against a machine gun nest, maybe you get lucky and take it, maybe your whole squad dies.

Battles last weeks, maybe even months. Tactics take second place to large scale strategy. Victory depends on supply lines and huge grand campaign scale decisions rather than battlefield ones. Logistics are much more important than in any battle before.

When you can't flank, you can't succesfully charge, there is no melee, no line for you to break, no routing the whole enemy force, and the only way to win is through long, slow attrition warfare.

How do you make it fun for the player?

I'm not saying you can't. And I'm not saying that's all there is to WW1, but I would appreciate some input from the people who are championing a WW1 game. I would love to see it done if someone can think of a way to make it work.

[Megas Methuselah]

Wow, that was a depressing (and brutally honest) post.

[Sir Beane]

Wow, that was a depressing (and brutally honest) post.

I've gone and tuined the mood for everyone now haven't I?

In that case let me assure you on behalf of the British government that WW1 will be "over by Christmas", its "all a bit of a lark" you'll see "interesting new places and people" and that "the hun will run at the mere sight of a bit of good old British courage and fighting spirit".

Rest assured our boys over there all had a bit of a laugh, kicked some German arse and then came home heroes.

I hope that cheers everyone up

In the case that you are German and reading this, feel free to replace Britain with Germany and 'the Hun' with 'Tommy Brit', and 'German arse' with 'British keister'.

Also this came across as more sarcastic than I meant it to.

[Arcana]

The World Wars are much more ideally suited to the Supreme Commander engine and its playstyle. So unless CA are going to do away with everything we know about Total War and make a SupCom-beater, best we wind our time machines back to the ancient or medieval world. Or maybe our dimensional portal to some fantasy world, who knows?

I do essentially agree with the near-universal consensus here. I believe WW2 would be the best possibility, although the chances of it are so remote they rank with the infinite-monkey-typewriter theorem. It would in any case be done very differently, sort of like a cross between Company of Heroes', World in Conflict's, or EndWar's squad-based tactical combat, Supreme Commander's scope and scale, with a bit of old-skool Command & Conquer branching campaigns (to allow you to select your next country or province to attack next - perhaps you can do it better than the real generals of the time? Frankly, that might not be too difficult if you read up on some of the blunders they made).

I reckon that, unless it was a project you'd worked on for a stupidly long time, like SupCom was, it would be a complete monkey's breakfast of a game, and would be barely even enjoyable to play. Plus, it'd be set in World War 2, which IMHO has had far too much milking from video game creators. Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Red Orchestra, Company of Heroes, ad nauseum et infinitum.

For me, part of the enjoyment factor of the TW series is the ability to cast ourselves back to a time of which we have relatively little knowledge. Of sword-and-shield tactics. Of valiant knights going on crusades and charging down saracens, or Roman legions putting their jack-sandal down on Gallic hordes... :D With World War 2, and indeed modern warfare in general, it's already been done, and it would take something special to do it better than it already has been.

Best Total War stick to what it knows - good old sword-and-shield-and-spear fights. I would love to see Shogun 2, just to know what I missed the first time round (and have it be playable on my poor nVidia machine :P )

[Kiron Drayga]

The problem I see with WW1 is also a matter of scale. A typical battle would consist of hundreds of thousands of men on a battlefield that could be a hundred miles across.

Well yes, but a typical medieval battle usually consisted of armies that included substantially more then only the six hundred to one thousand per "side" represented in Medieval 2: Total War.

We just accept the artificial constraints and go with the flow of the limited battlefield CA provides us. When Saladin and Guy faced off in Hattin, each fielded more then 10,000 men on the battlefield (and Saladin dramatically more then that), but I don't get angry when Medieval 2's Crusades pack limits me to 800 or 900 avatars charging through the desert; I consider each unit symbolic of far greater numbers, just rendered in more intimate detail so A: my computer can handle the action, and B: I can lead the action.

Likewise, I would not be upset if a hypothetical World War One: Total War significantly toned down the scale of the battles, while retaining the strategic overview and grandiosity of the combat. I'm not asking for a point by point historical reconstruction of the finite details of World War One combat; Rome and Medieval didn't do that for their respective eras and I doubt we'll get a "totally realistic" approach to the era of Empires, either. (The Rome: Total Realism mod in particular makes the balancing dynamics in RTW and the representation of the factions look outright arcade-ish. There was no historical equivalency of the Julii, Brutii, and Scipii factions running amok at the same time in respective starting regions in Italy, that's for sure, but no one seemed to mind that glaring inaccuracy.)

So, if we can have the Julii, Brutii, and Scipii factions in RTW, not to mention M2TW's representation of Portugal existing as an independent state long before Portugal actually existed as an independent state, I won't have a heart attack if the scope and scale of World War One's trenches are reduced significantly. What I care about more is that the aura, the essence of what fighting in World War One would actually be like is accurately conveyed, which is something video games haven't really tackled yet. (At least, none that I know of.)

Medieval 2: Total War is a series of fictionalized, almost cartoonish battles between oversimplified representations of political factions, but what M2TW does right is give you a legitimate thrill -- that feeling of awe and wonder as if you really are in the midst of a medieval battle. (It helps if your graphics card can render the beautiful graphics in cinematic glory!) But, the feeling is achieved entirely by placebo -- you're not actually experiencing anything remotely on the true scale of a medieval conflict, you're just playing out a representation that feels "close enough to the real thing." So, yes, a real medieval battle would probably require a lot more than just two trebuchets wailing away for five minutes to knock down a gigantic stone wall, but it still looks really freakin' cool and reasonably authentic to the era when you command those two trebuchets to destroy that wall.

Similarly, give me a couple thousand men on a battlefield representing a region of trenches. Give me the opportunity to see a company of a hundred doughboys charge the enemy trench and watch each of them react in horror as they're chewed down in a once-beautiful field now mired in mud, rain, and muck. Let me hear their screams of agony, let me sit there in wonder: so is this is what World War One was like. It's totally different than the chivalric experience of M2TW.

Then, let me take flight with a squadron of biplanes experiencing the earliest moments of man's conquest of the skies, and let me recover my sense of chivalry as I go dogfighting with the Knights in their biplanes, watching as the planes get so much closer then we'd imagine in later technological eras, and seeing my honorable opponent salute his victorious foe in the moments before his shattered ruin of a biplane falls from glory.

And, give me a revamped diplomatic system every bit as complex and convoluted as The Great War's diplomacy was.

Ironclads, Dreadnoughts, railroads, democracy and communism, once-beautiful lands turning into over-polluted industrialized cities, one-beautiful battlefields absolutely wrecked before your eyes. (Here's a new feature for this hypothetical new Total War for you; artillery so powerful you can literally permanently rip apart the battlefield. I'm talking craters pockmocking the tactical map, and artillery shells literally caving in trenches.) Well, I think the 1820-1920 period would a badass setting, anyway. Just keep WW2 the heck away from it and subsequently enable me the opportunity to actually play as the Germans. (They weren't so evil in the 1910's.) And, I'm ready to go.

[Akka]

I already consider that E:TW and its gunpowder units is out of the zone of interest for TW games, so don't even let me start with a modern TW.

[Arcana]

I already consider that E:TW and its gunpowder units is out of the zone of interest for TW games, so don't even let me start with a modern TW.

I think it gets away with it purely because melee was not unheard-of in this field, and units operated still in squares and columns, rather than in trenches or random-seeming squads and fire teams. It's a chance, I suppose, for CA to try something new, and we're the willingly-paying guinea pigs. If it's no good, I dare say I'll never buy another Total War again, but we'll have to see. ;-)

[darrin42]

How could someone vote no lol. 1900 onwards total war would be sheer brilliance. We have seen enough of the past, their is no reason why the games should not modernise. And dont give me the ''Their is no Units or possitioning of troops in that era'' because its just not true! And total war could adopt modern warfare techniques into the game with a bit of tweaking. I think it would be a great thing to look towards after Empire.

[Sir Beane]

How could someone vote no lol. 1900 onwards total war would be sheer brilliance. We have seen enough of the past, their is no reason why the games should not modernise. And dont give me the ''Their is no Units or possitioning of troops in that era'' because its just not true! And total war could adopt modern warfare techniques into the game with a bit of tweaking. I think it would be a great thing to look towards after Empire.

I think that if you reda through the thread there are several better arguments against the idea than the one you mentioned. And from my perspective and apparently that of atleast 35 other members there are plenty of reasons why the game shouldn't try to go further than 1900, and definitely no further than WW1.

And I have to argue that it IS more or less true that there are no units or positioning of troops in the traditional Total War style. Modern sodiers don't march in columns and blocks. They move in small squads, staying behind cover and mostly acting independantly from other groups.

For instance in WW1 a typical battle strategy would probably consist of "Right, I'll set my men up in this trench here, these guys in this trench here, some artillery here. The enemy are in that trench there. Right, you fire on them, you fire on them and... GO! Twenty minutes later, a few on each side have died, some people have attempted to cross no-mans land and been cut down by snipers or mines, and nothing is happening except the slow death of your men from trench foot and malnutrition. Of course that's if CA wanted to actually stay true to the period, for all I know everyone else is imagining a completely different idea of WW1 than the one I have.

[PBI]

How do you make it fun for the player?

I'm not saying you can't. And I'm not saying that's all there is to WW1, but I would appreciate some input from the people who are championing a WW1 game. I would love to see it done if someone can think of a way to make it work.

This is a difficult issue to address, since the question of whether something is "fun" is so very subjective. For me, winning a medieval battle with a massed charge of heavy knights to crush the flanks leaves me a little cold, it feels like victory gained too easily and quickly; for some though overwhelming their enemy in a whirlwind of hooves and steel is utterly exhilarating and what Total War is all about. Similarly some would consider trying to break the stalemate of the trenches and struggling to make any kind of headway in the hell of mud and wire and bullets to be the most excruciating tedium; I however cannot think of a more enticing challenge for my jaded tactical palate than to face the task of making an advance against some of the most formidable defensive odds ever to exist.

Basically, I would say the best way is to make it possible to implement the tactics which worked in real life. It's true that many battles in WWI were largely about mindless attrition, but I suspect many battles in the medieval and ancient period were also fought with a similar lack of imagination on the part of the commanders; it's just that in those periods the weapons used were not quite so exquisitely deadly as the weapons available by WWI, so an indecisive stalemate would not generally still result in hundreds of thousands dead on either side. Ultimately the tactical challenge of mounting a successful offensive against trenches was overcome; the last year of the war saw successful large-scale offensives from both sides for almost the whole year. I see no reason why the player could not be able to implement an effective set of offensive tactics sooner than occured in real life, what with the benefit of hindsight and the long standing tradition of Total War games to strip out the boring aspects in favour of decisive showdowns.

To take a specific example: There was an interplay between the use of infantry assaults and artillery bombardments. The defenders hunkering down in their dugouts and keeping much of their strength in reserve behind the front might protect them from heavy casualties in a bombardment, but it would leave the forward trenches vulnerable to being overrun by attacking infantry. This was the idea between the creeping barrage; if timed correctly, the attackers could follow the barrage and overrun the enemy trenches before the defenders could climb out and set up their machine guns. Risky, and requiring of very careful planning and timing, but very effective when done right, for example the famous Canadian assault on Vimy Ridge.

The inverse was also possible: a diversionary infantry attack to draw out the defenders, then a sudden barrage to surprise them before they could retreat underground. You could argue there is an analogy here between the interplay of artillery and infantry and the use of flanking in earlier games; there, the basic interplay is between spreading the line too thin and risking it being broken by a concentrated attack, and making it too short and leaving the flanks exposed. Similarly, against massed artillery there was a balancing act between being impregnable to infantry attack but at the mercy of artillery, and being sheltered from bombardment but lowering your guard against infantry.

Of course, if the trenches are simply not to your tastes one could always simply choose to fight on one of the other fronts, where the fighting was generally more fluid. As Kiron points out, the game would likely be a broader late 19th/early 20th century setting encompassing the WWI era, not a myopic focus on one front of that single conflict. In this case I suspect that wars in which such a huge number of men are concentrated along a relatively short front as in the Western Front of WWI will be relatively uncommon, as was the case in real life.

Ultimately though, I suspect the main obstacle to a WWI-era Total War is simply the relative lack of interest in the conflict rather than any fundamental problem in the ability to make a fun game out of it. Most people tend to either be interested in WW2, or in the Napoleonic period or earlier; aptly enough WWI seems to occupy something of a No-Man's-Land in between, too modern for the medieval fans and too primitive for the WW2 fans.

I remain of the opinion that a relatively faithful but still entertaining depiction of WWI-era combat could be made in the Total War format. However there is no denying it would be a huge gamble, both since it would require such a radical reinterpretation of the tactical aspect of the game (although I would hope that the series will make steady progress toward overcoming the main obstacle, scale, in subsequent titles), but also as the game would have to stand purely on its own merits to win acceptance from a skeptical fanbase.

In the end I fear it will be too big of a gamble for CA to risk, but I think this is a shame. I would much rather have a CA which both boldly experiments with the parameters of the game, and is willing to explore relatively unknown or unpopular historical settings just to see if there is potential for a good game hiding in there somewhere, than a CA which plays it safe and simply churns out sequel after sequel to Medieval with a few extra features and fancier graphics.

[Fisherking]

Ah yes…and let us not forget the Gas Attacks! Mustard gas, Chlorine gas, and some other agents. They even made gas masks for horses and dogs.

Artillery Barrages lasting for days…

After the war, when they talked of the lost generation, they were not kidding…the losses were staggering.

On their worst day of battle the British lost 58,000 men in an attack. There were a lot of day when more than 50,000 fell.

At Verdun the casualties for both sides totaled about 1,000,000 with more than half of those killed.

At Somme there were 620,000 allied casualties. German casualties were estimated at 500,000.

Total military casualties for the war in all theaters is put at 37,508,686 that was 57.6% of all men mobilized. Just under 1,300,000 were from Gas.

Italy’s treachery in the war might be a nice topic too. But likely not for Italians.

All in all a colossal blood bathe that moved with glacial speed.

It has some very interesting events and side lights, but I am not so sure I would enjoy gaming it.

but never say never

[Polemists]

As others have stated it is obvious the numbers would have to stay small.

It could be done as others have stated.

However, for several of us, total war will always be about the melee more then the ranged, some people like the ranged more. Heck one poster in here even stated he's not even buying Empire because it put to much focus on ranged.

Obviously CA will do a expansion before a another game, so there's a full year and a half left to debate this at very least, so dont' worry plenty of time to debate

[Fisherking]

That is all very true. In fact I figure the Australian branch is working on the next game with this engine and the UK office already has a good handle on what the add-on will be.

I am not opposed to them moving forward in time. I just perceive a few difficulties if they wish to stay with the same general style of tactical play.

What ever they come out with I will surly give it serious consideration. Maybe even if it is a Star Wars TW…shiver…

Change though, always happens. Even if not everyone likes it.

The finished products have always been worth playing and for now I am assuming that they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

I like the Series but even if they change I will trust what CA comes up with….to a point…


Please! No Sponge Bob Total War!

[Arcana]

Obviously CA will do a expansion before a another game, so there's a full year and a half left to debate this at very least, so dont' worry plenty of time to debate

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to the expansion's name, especially since the most-likely expansion setting has already been confirmed as the second playable campaign in the game.

So, what do we reckon?
French Invasion? (If I din't know better, I'd say this was a bit of an oxymoron... )

[Megas Methuselah]

Heh heh, "French invasion." But yeah, you're right. The expansion will probably include the Napoleonic Wars, as they keep mentioning Napoleon and the ability to recruit him, et al.

[lenin96]

What would everyone here think if CA anounced a total war game in the modern era. I don't care where total war goes next, it will probaly still be a great game.

[Wishazu]

I`m opposed to a "modern" total war game. As many have mentioned before the scale needed to be achieved is mind boggling and to be honest I can`t think of anything more depressing and boring than WW1.

I want a return to Shogun for the next instalment though I doubt that will happen. Like others have already said, I`m bored to tears of playing over the same campaign map, I don`t think I could stomach another European theatre after Empire.

[Polemists]

Agreed, while they keep increasing the map (aka include India subcontinent, america and carribean this time around) the focus has been since Rome anyway, on Europe.

I like europe, nothing against it, and i'm all for larger, and larger maps, but rather then the next stage being a big old globe, some kind of Asian Total War might be nice, with all of asia, lots of dynasties, factions, etc, and a different vibe.

[Megas Methuselah]

Bronze Age: Total War! Focus on the mid-east! Yeh!

[Martok]

What would everyone here think if CA anounced a total war game in the modern era.

I wouldn't get it.

As it is, I'm still skeptical about whether or not I'll enjoy Empire, simply because of the gunpowder aspect. The period's naval battles aside, gunpowder-dominated warfare has never interested me. The only real reason I'm interested in ETW is because of the changes CA is supposedly making to the political/diplomatic system and (most importantly) AI.

[lenin96]

For the next Total War game i think asia in the medieval era or from europe to asia around 1200BC-600BC would be a good idea. I disagree with a modern total war not because i don't like it when warfare became completely guns or because i think it would be boring (it wouldn't in my opinion) but because the Total War series isn't ready yet, but eventually i think they should go into the 20th century.

[Wishazu]

If there was a poll here for the next installment(forgive me if there already is, I havnt looked) my vote would go to Shogun 2/Asia total war - aslong as you can command hordes of Samurai.

[Arcana]

If there was a poll here for the next installment(forgive me if there already is, I havnt looked) my vote would go to Shogun 2/Asia total war - aslong as you can command hordes of Samurai.

There is :P

[SpencerH]

Would I like to see it done? No.

Could it be done? Easily, as a series of company-based scenarios based on "Band of brothers" (for example).

[Ozzman1O1]

Id love to see a trench warfare game,but thats the only 20th century game i would be interested in.and if its an expansion you want,an 1800 game featuring crimean and french and indian warfare would be nice if it isnt already in the first game.

[Wishazu]

There is :P

Thankyou very much mate.

[WarHawk]

people don't seem to realize that trench warfare wasn't all of ww1...it was a tactic, they didn't have to use, and prolonged the war. Use different tactics.

naval battles, and all the different theater's of war would interest me the most about a ww1 total war.

they could do it say... 1860 -1920, start off with american civil war, franco-prussian war, unification of germany, spanish-american war, then endgame with ww1.

possibility of going ahistoric with say, the CSA in WW1.

then ww2 expansion.