World War 2 Total War??

[aX1s]

I know the total war series is mainly based on history and melee units....but i was thinking imagine a total war battle set in the World war 2 era.

Jebus that'll be awesome......mabye good idea for next title in the Total Wars series??

What do you guys think?

[Boondock Saint]

Check out combat mission ...

I would have more to say but ... you know ... I get alot of flak for all my "spam"

------------------
.com died ... so I am here ...

.com refugee 123321003

[ShadesWolf]

I dont like the idea....

I dont think the battle mech is setup for gun battles....

[Hakonarson]

Nah - sorry - like you said in your message - the TW engine is about melee and close combat.

How on earth are you going to integrate armour, artillery, anti-tank, engineer, etc in all their permutatios - a single battle would require more than 16 slots just for the different type of troops available.

Or, if you took it up a level or 2 so "units" were larger units like battalians or even brigades or divisions then the tactical battles become nonsense.

IMO TW might be able to be stretched to the end of the era where infantry fought in close formations - perhaps the start of WW1 even, but then it's all over for this engine.

It's probably best served by not even trying to enter the era of rifled firearms.

[Veiny Eyeball]

I think with a bit of tweaking the battle engine could simulate early modern-Industrial era conflicts quite well. Modern warfare is going a bit too far though because you don't have large formations of men bunched together like you used to.

[maroule]

Quote Originally posted by Veiny Eyeball:
I think with a bit of tweaking the battle engine could simulate early modern-Industrial era conflicts quite well. [/QUOTE]


hum, I don't see it for any period that starts emphazising on ranged weapons : once close combat gets rare, the whole engine is disqualified for me. So I don't believe in a Napoleonic adaptation either (but I wouldn't mind being proved wrong).

We can obviously go down in history, and there has been a lot of talks about it, or go exotic (why not pre-colombian -battles between Andean empires-, Alexander's campaign, and others) but I'd set the natural limit around the 16th century at the latest. Otherwise, it's not tweaking the engine, but making a new one.

[This message has been edited by maroule (edited 10-23-2002).]

[sapphoo]

i have said it before, although not here, the way to go with the total war series is: Schoolyard Total War.

Elite Melee units: Bullies
Archer units: boys/girls with slingshots
Peasants: just the regular 'i don't fit in' kids.
Cavalry: Boys on the shoulders of other boys carrying large sticks.
Elite of the Elite Melee units: girls (they fight mean)


everybody can relate to Schoolyard TW and it is bloody and it is fun. It's like taking candy from a baby when you would put this game on the shelves.

[Swoosh So]

Oh no my favourate series turned into an action man game!!!!

[Sainika]

I don't like this idea too. One of the main reason for me to love this game is that I can see and enjoy the close combat. When i see how one single unit of heroes stand firm against hordes of enemies and it wins I'm happy. And victory depends on your own tactic and strategic talants. And when guns became the main weapon - is it so interesting to see how two armies stand very far fron each other and fire, and fire, and fire until ammo depletes or until the gamer gets bored with all this. And MP with gun powder as main weapon is exactly predictible. I don't like it.
I'm dreaming of Ancient world: total war with no guns at all, but with personal heroism of soldiers, mass close combat and big map of Ancient world inc. China. I'd like to see marching macedonian falanx, roman legion, persian heavy cavalry, hordes of gots, gunnes etc. I like Age of Empires (first) time period but hate to play with 30 soldiers representing the whole army of thousands men.

[JRock]

I think it would suck because aircraft, ships, and vehicles would all look super-silly on the current Total War engine.

[Veiny Eyeball]

Still plenty of melee oppurtunities in the Napoleonic period.

[Ktonos]

Maybe the title will be...
"World TOTAL War II"

[aX1s]

Quote Originally posted by Sainika:
I don't like this idea too. One of the main reason for me to love this game is that I can see and enjoy the close combat. When i see how one single unit of heroes stand firm against hordes of enemies and it wins I'm happy. And victory depends on your own tactic and strategic talants. And when guns became the main weapon - is it so interesting to see how two armies stand very far fron each other and fire, and fire, and fire until ammo depletes or until the gamer gets bored with all this. And MP with gun powder as main weapon is exactly predictible. I don't like it.[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree....guns can be a whole lot more interesting then melee for instance each gun/company will have its own purpose such as light infantry, Bar infantry, Mg 42, Bazooka, tanks(cavalry), SS (elite units), Artillery, and the list goes on...

And instead of just one general...there would be a staff sergeant for each battalion
and the death of a staff sergeant will result in the whole battalion panicking and goin AWOL etc....also they can go beserk and go on a rampage just like the INvISIBLE generals/kings/princes in mtw

As for aircraft i think they should be included but not as a part which u have control over in battle....say on the strategic map you can move planes into countries for air support but they will only bomb the enemy area once and return to base in the actual battle....and base upgrades can have AA guns etc

And to makee all this plausible terrain will have to be fully interactive..such as buildings bunkers which you can go into and use for cover and one who has played the CLOSE COMBAT series can see where iam going with this....but with Total War style itll be really awesome..

But the more i think about it the more i can see how impossible it is with the games current engine so unless CA come up with a new engine this idea pretty much down the drain...

As for Napoleonic period thats the second best thing i can think of either Napoleonic period or Imperialistic period (not good with history, u know like when the british,dutch etc took over asia and created vast trade routes) both these periods in history offer for a good mix of Cavalry, Melee, ranged and artillery (the total war formula) and instead of those silly archers, Muskets and rifles will take place along with cannons...and whole new strategies will have to be devoloped to keep on top.

[[RDH] Spetz Natz]

There is a pretty decent World War II RTS coming out next month - "WW2 Panzer Claws".

Nothing like MTW, but I'm sure it will stand on its own as a great RTS.

[Sainika]

Quote Originally posted by aX1s:
I have to disagree....guns can be a whole lot more interesting then melee for instance each gun/company will have its own purpose such as light infantry, Bar infantry, Mg 42, Bazooka, tanks(cavalry), SS (elite units), Artillery, and the list goes on...

[/QUOTE]

Did you ever play Cossacks in MP? There is similar quasi-3d maps as in MTW and a lot of units with guns and artillery.
In MP the most of players choose this tactic: they hire A LOT OF dragoons (cavalry with guns) and artillery - up to 1000-1500 men and simply stand. To break such a wall of fire is almost impossible with fast attack or sudden maneuvre, cause your units die far from their target. Thus you have to build dragoons too, lots of them. And your fight turns into an endless duel. Is it interesting? And all your tactic ideas has only two finals: rush asap if you outnumber your enemy or fire at him until you run out of money. That's not the problem of the game, that's the problem of gun weapon's idea realisation in games. It's far from reality. You CAN win in MTW even if you're seriously outnumbered, but hardly you have chances to win in a fight against outnumbering enemy forces if you play in World War I or II time period. Killing 100 men by guns - it isn't a feat, because that wasn't you who killed them. Gun did it. And you're not a heroe, you simply hold gun.

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

Another problem with doing WWII in a Total War game is the theater-sized dynamics. Units such as strategic bombers which were used extensively to degrade enemy industrial capacity would have to be strategic units like assassins are in MTW, except they would return to one's territory for the beginning of the next turn & would need to take losses unlike current strategic units which either live or die completely. Strategic bombing would require modelling of population in addition to money in production & support of military muscle. It would be possible, but I think the Total War engine & game design work best when the actual combat remains tactical with the general on the field. A good, historical endpoint seems, to me, to be the widespread use of the bolt-action rifle & introduction of the Gatlin gun. Basically, that would put it at about the end of the American war between the Union & Confederacy, when offensive technology required the development of more extensive defensive works on the battlefield & trenches.

There's an idea: The Great War: Total Sitting Around in the Mud.

------------------
Others enslave by victory,
Their subjects, as their foes, oppress;
Anna conquers but to free,
And governs but to bless. -- Edmund Smith (Anna stands for England)

[ShingiOnimushi]

lol i came up with that idea too
i had it all planned out
u will be able to go Churchill,Roosevelt,Stalin,hitler etc
u could control some form of economy eg. Heavy industry and creating tanks out it and stuff
on world map ( and i repeat WORLD )u can create divisions and army groups and coups etc etc
except the graphics will be diff( if u ever seen line of fire on the history channel - that type of graphics they use)
u can fight in land sea + air
Navel tactics such as convoy and stuff
he can have fighter squaderons for Air ( bombers and fighter planes )
u can get war loans and all that
u can control the world
etc etc etc
the probvlem would be the actuall fighting
If any ya played battlefield 1942 somewhere along the lines of that

oh oh u can also set up communitication lines and plan out the defences and attacks
set up trenches and get diggers and stuff

It could work b4 y'all start strugging it away
and if totalwar don't make it
i'll study software development and create it myself hehe

u have to admitt it's got the protential

------------------
Glad to be serving a great clan such as shingi

::bows::
ShingiOnimushi

[This message has been edited by ShingiOnimushi (edited 10-23-2002).]

[TheViking]

They could make shogun totalwar 2 instead with bigger map (more territorys), more units and better diplomatic game.

Or Mongol Invasion 2 where the japaneese could attack the mongols, china, and Korea with more units ofcuz and a better diplomatic game.

Fantasy TW should b a good game too if someone made it.

Someone told me about Stoneage TW http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif wouldnt that be cool with mammuth as the best cav unit hehehe

------------------
There I see my father.
There I see my mother, my sisters and brothers.
There I see my line of ancestors back to the beginning.
They call on me and ask me to take my place with them in the halls of Valhalla where the brave may live forever.

[aX1s]

Yep ive played Cossacks but not Mp though (i have dial up)....but that game got me extemely bored due to those idiotic missions where u have a few men and you have to free your general etc etc in SP...THERE WAS SO MANY OF THEM and not enuff hardcore battles.

But whats to say just because Cossacks was unbalanced a WW2 TW will be as well?

BTW i know what you mean by theres no heroism in using a gun (after all theres no such feeling as seeing your men as they impact and fight it out man to man, the clash of metal on metal) but in a ww2 game its more about the man using the gun then the gun.say for instance a sqaud is under heavy fire from both artillery and heavy mg and suddenly one of your leuitenits goes beserk runs straight past the mg fire, fixes his bayonet and kicks some NAZI ass.....now thats heroism.....ive seen it happen in games such as close combat...but with TW emphasis on morale and epic battles it could be such a great game.

So far the only ww2 games ive played are DOD, Medal of honour allied assault, and close combat....and thoese are mainly FPS's (with the exception of the CC series) and there are not many casual WW2 strategy games out there...not including the hardcore turn based realism based games...a ww2 game using Total war style would be the near perfect game for me (hehe throw in a bit of RPG Fallout style and itll be the PErfect game http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif )....

ShingiOnimushi really great ideas...if your serious about creating it ill be the first one to go out and by it.



[This message has been edited by aX1s (edited 10-23-2002).]

[johnmcd]

Did you ever play Commanche Havok? Its a flight sim but the dynamic campaigns are incredible. An engine like that turned to an RTS like those in the Total War games would work fine IMHO.

[sbreden]

Yes, ww2 totalwar is an interesting concept. Perhaps if the engine were grossly modified and the scope set to theater wide campaign and company sized "armies".

I definitely think a fantasy totalwar is a must. What is the closest thing out there right now? The mtw engine would not need to be revamped much...well depending where the developers wanted to go with magic. Maybe they could even pick up a license from an existing rpg franchise...(i.e. warhammer).



[This message has been edited by sbreden (edited 10-23-2002).]

[solypsist]

OT