Civil War Total War?

[mikec1088]

Not sure if this is the best place for this thread, but I couldn't find anywhere better to put it, so here we go. The other night I was thinking of possible future Total War titles, and an interesting idea popped into my head: American Civil War. It would fit the Total War brand better than any other previous title, because most historians agree that it was the first "total war." The awful diplomacy and alliance system of the Total War series wouldn't even need to be included in a Civil War Total War as there are only two sides, which would thus most accurately live up to the "Total War" brand name. The game would be entirely about building up your military infrastructure, waging war, and crushing your opponent.

Now, as the conflict lasted only four years in real life, the usual one turn equals six months turn system would need to be altered; one turn equaling one week would be a good plan in my mind. As for the character system, it would still retain the usual governors and generals, with generals able to become governors and vice versa, and each possessing unique traits as in all the past Total War games. Since the conflict lasted such a short time, we obviously would not be seeing children growing up to be generals, so new generals would be created through a promotion system similar to how captains are promoted to generals in other Total War games. However, despite not seeing children growing up to be generals, we could still see older generals die of old age or in battle of course.

The game would start just after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861 and each side would begin with the generals it had and the cities it controlled in real life at the beginning of the war. However, from there the game would of course be completely open-ended and anything could happen.

I know there are a lot of non-Americans on this board and I'm not sure how much of the Civil War is known to the rest of the world, but I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this crazy little idea of mine. I know it would be a bit of a departure from previous Total War titles, as there would only be two factions, which probably would be a turn-off to a lot of people who are used to battling over multiple continents with a dozen or more factions. However, it really fits the definition of "Total War," so I think it'd be an interesting concept.

[Owen Glyndwr]

I think it would be interesting, given E:TWs re-worked Diplomacy and government systems if all the states were individual factions. Then you as a player would have to work to keep your states under control (The South had an especially tough time doing this, states' rights and all:book:) and it would be neat as it would allow you to re-write history (Such as, for example, forging a new empire in the mid-west)

[Pontius Pilate]

Not sure if this is the best place for this thread, but I couldn't find anywhere better to put it, so here we go. The other night I was thinking of possible future Total War titles, and an interesting idea popped into my head: American Civil War. It would fit the Total War brand better than any other previous title, because most historians agree that it was the first "total war." The awful diplomacy and alliance system of the Total War series wouldn't even need to be included in a Civil War Total War as there are only two sides, which would thus most accurately live up to the "Total War" brand name. The game would be entirely about building up your military infrastructure, waging war, and crushing your opponent.

Now, as the conflict lasted only four years in real life, the usual one turn equals six months turn system would need to be altered; one turn equaling one week would be a good plan in my mind. As for the character system, it would still retain the usual governors and generals, with generals able to become governors and vice versa, and each possessing unique traits as in all the past Total War games. Since the conflict lasted such a short time, we obviously would not be seeing children growing up to be generals, so new generals would be created through a promotion system similar to how captains are promoted to generals in other Total War games. However, despite not seeing children growing up to be generals, we could still see older generals die of old age or in battle of course.

The game would start just after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861 and each side would begin with the generals it had and the cities it controlled in real life at the beginning of the war. However, from there the game would of course be completely open-ended and anything could happen.

I know there are a lot of non-Americans on this board and I'm not sure how much of the Civil War is known to the rest of the world, but I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this crazy little idea of mine. I know it would be a bit of a departure from previous Total War titles, as there would only be two factions, which probably would be a turn-off to a lot of people who are used to battling over multiple continents with a dozen or more factions. However, it really fits the definition of "Total War," so I think it'd be an interesting concept.



yes, I liked some of the ideas you mentioned and the whole idea of America total war, but I think it would work better as an expansion to Empire: total war, rather than it being the next full release of a total war game. it just wouldn't have enough content and the two factions is a real turn off for alot of people. And yeah, alot of people who aren't American don't really know too much about the war or care about it, but this is just non-Americans in general, I'm sure some of them would be educated about it.

[cambovenzi]

Wow, i was JUST thinking about a civil war game.
i would be extremely interested. i was looking for one in the past.

although i dont think it fits the TW settings very well.

[Martok]

although i dont think it fits the TW settings very well.
I concur, if for no other reason than that an ACW Total War title would only have two factions. As CA said in a recent article (http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1044) that they look for historical periods where there were numerous parties involved, I'd say that the American Civil War isn't what they're looking for.

[Quintus.JC]

It would make a good expansion pack to Empire.

[mikec1088]

Yeah, I guess the only chance to ever see it would probably be in the form of an Empire expansion pack.

[Brandy Blue]

I personally think that the War of 1812 would be more interesting. Admittedly, it was just a side show of the Napoleonic Wars, and pretty obscure, even to most Americans. However, you would get a lot more faction possibilites. The War of 1812 would allow an English faction, an unplayable Canadian faction (if you allow an unhistorical possiblity that Canada would declare independence), an American faction and lets say a few Native American/Indian factions, which would mostly be inclined to ally with the British and/or war against the Americans. (Perhaps a confederation of tribes under Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa as one faction, and the Creeks as another.) Make the Native Americans stronger and more united than history indicates, and with perhaps a few units of altilery loaned them from the British, so that they are potential winners. Potentially 5-6 factions, if you don't mind cheating with the history that much.

Alternatively, you could jazz up the American Civil War by allowing Indian/Native American factions in the "Indian Territory" and making them unhistorically strong, real possible contenders. Throw in the possibility of the British or French invading the North (never happened, but the Southerners kept hoping they would), and the game would be a bit less predictable. Otherwise, with two factions it would be down to who got the upper hand early on. Almost certainly that would be the North, if you allowed them the economic, infrastructure and population advantages they actually had.

I'm not sure that making each state a seperate faction makes much sense, unless you really just want to throw the history book out the window. Instead of a Northern cluster fighting a Southern cluster, you'd have wierd stuff happening, like maybe Pennsylvania invading New Jersey. But it might be a good idea to make rebellion and influence a big factor. The North's biggest challenge historically was to get its people behind the war effort. Its troops wouldn't fight too hard until General Grant took control, and Lincoln had trouble getting support for the war because people just didn't see the point. As long as Lincoln kept the North in the war at all, it was just a matter of time before the Southerners were ground down by sheer numbers and economic stagnation. One of the biggest hopes for the South was that the Northerners would just not go along with the war for long, whatever Lincoln wanted. Northern States suceeding via rebellion might be the closest simulation you could get to that. Its already been pointed out that the Southern government had trouble keeping its states in line, but they had to stick together to have a chance of survival. It makes sense then that the South would face less chance of rebellion, and the South's biggest chance would be to inflict a big loss of influence on President Lincoln, either causing the Union to split over whether to continue the war or not, or persuading the French and / or British to intervene.

Actually, I wouldn't really suggest the War of 1812 or the Civil War as new TW games. Not enough interest internationally, I'd imagine. Also, you have to make some real historical compromises to make the Civil War balanced enough to be interesting, and American Civil War buffs tend to be picky about accuracy, in my experience. They might make good mods, though.

[Thermal]

Yeah, I guess the only chance to ever see it would probably be in the form of an Empire expansion pack.

napoleonic war is a likely expansion though they may bring to out, i hope its mod friendly....

[Shieldmaiden]

yes, I liked some of the ideas you mentioned and the whole idea of America total war, but I think it would work better as an expansion to Empire: total war, rather than it being the next full release of a total war game. it just wouldn't have enough content and the two factions is a real turn off for alot of people. And yeah, alot of people who aren't American don't really know too much about the war or care about it, but this is just non-Americans in general, I'm sure some of them would be educated about it.

I agree. Its limited enough to be better off in an ETW expansion (a la Kingdoms) as a tighter, more period-detailed campaign.

[Spartan198]

it just wouldn't have enough content and the two factions is a real turn off for alot of people.
No, it could realistically be pushed to four factions. California was neutral in the conflict, and even though the Confederacy considered Texas to be a member state, it was still largely independent because it contributed very little, if anything at all, to the Confederate war machine.

[Quirinus]

There would probably also be Mexico and Canada in the same way the Numidians or Scythians were in RTW, but only two main factions.

California as a viable faction would probably require some alternate-history scenario where Johnston agreed to form the Pacific Republic....
don't know if that's true about Texas either. Quoting Wikipedia, "over 70,000 Texans served in the Confederate army and Texas regiments fought in every major battle throughout the war". According to the same article it also contributed significant supplies to the Confederate war effort.

But in truth, I just don't see the Civil War working out with any amount of realism using a TW engine. The American Civil War was a lot more than just warfare, and, if the RTW and M2TW engines are any indication, beyond the capabilities of a TW engine. We would see silly scenarios like Helena, Montana becoming huge while Philadelphia and Richmond having tiny populations, or Canada invading the Midwest, or something.

[Spartan198]

California as a viable faction would probably require some alternate-history scenario where Johnston agreed to form the Pacific Republic....
And a Macedonian occupation of Italy in RTW is any different? :rolleyes:

don't know if that's true about Texas either. Quoting Wikipedia, "over 70,000 Texans served in the Confederate army and Texas regiments fought in every major battle throughout the war". According to the same article it also contributed significant supplies to the Confederate war effort.[/list]
An article (non-Wikipedia) I read somewhere said otherwise, but since I can't find said article, I'll bow to all mighty Wikipedia for now because the US Civil War isn't my area of expertise. :bow:

[Pinxit]

Not sure if this is the best place for this thread, but I couldn't find anywhere better to put it, so here we go. The other night I was thinking of possible future Total War titles, and an interesting idea popped into my head: American Civil War. It would fit the Total War brand better than any other previous title, because most historians agree that it was the first "total war." The awful diplomacy and alliance system of the Total War series wouldn't even need to be included in a Civil War Total War as there are only two sides, which would thus most accurately live up to the "Total War" brand name. The game would be entirely about building up your military infrastructure, waging war, and crushing your opponent.

Now, as the conflict lasted only four years in real life, the usual one turn equals six months turn system would need to be altered; one turn equaling one week would be a good plan in my mind. As for the character system, it would still retain the usual governors and generals, with generals able to become governors and vice versa, and each possessing unique traits as in all the past Total War games. Since the conflict lasted such a short time, we obviously would not be seeing children growing up to be generals, so new generals would be created through a promotion system similar to how captains are promoted to generals in other Total War games. However, despite not seeing children growing up to be generals, we could still see older generals die of old age or in battle of course.

The game would start just after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861 and each side would begin with the generals it had and the cities it controlled in real life at the beginning of the war. However, from there the game would of course be completely open-ended and anything could happen.

I know there are a lot of non-Americans on this board and I'm not sure how much of the Civil War is known to the rest of the world, but I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this crazy little idea of mine. I know it would be a bit of a departure from previous Total War titles, as there would only be two factions, which probably would be a turn-off to a lot of people who are used to battling over multiple continents with a dozen or more factions. However, it really fits the definition of "Total War," so I think it'd be an interesting concept.

Boring. Two factions is a huge yawn. And as a non-American I would have no interest in such a limited setting for a Total War game. As an expansion for Empire, perhaps. But im sorry to say that the Napoleonic Wars is a lot more attractive as an expansion than some short war in a single country. Its just not huge enough to make a Total War game.

[Pinxit]

Boring. Two factions is a huge yawn. And as a non-American I would have no interest in such a limited setting for a Total War game. As an expansion for Empire, perhaps. But im sorry to say that the Napoleonic Wars is a lot more attractive as an expansion than some short war in a single country. Its just not huge enough to make a Total War game.

Which reminds me, wouldnt it be a lot more fun if the United States of America wasnt united? If all states currently in the USA were different countries, it would no doubt be great fun. I do realise that some people from USA might throw rocks at me now, but I stand by it. It would be fun. All the countries evolving seperately and different from each other.

Actually, it would be fun both for the purpose of a Total War game and real life.

[Spartan198]

Which reminds me, wouldnt it be a lot more fun if the United States of America wasnt united? If all states currently in the USA were different countries, it would no doubt be great fun. I do realise that some people from USA might throw rocks at me now, but I stand by it. It would be fun. All the countries evolving seperately and different from each other.

Actually, it would be fun both for the purpose of a Total War game and real life.
You think it'd be fun if my country fractured into 50 countries? :inquisitive:

Yeah, absolutely no one will take that offensively, least of all me. :rolleyes:

[Pinxit]

You think it'd be fun if my country fractured into 50 countries? :inquisitive:

Yeah, absolutely no one will take that offensively, least of all me. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, no doubt. How fun would Europe be if it was made up by one single country? How many games about wars would you be able to play if Napoleon united Europe during the 19 th century? One country is boring, lots of countries is fun. Its as simple as that. I have never been a supporter of hegemony.
On the other hand, there is a reason to why Europe is and always has been made up by so many countries. Its because of the much stronger and older history of Europe compared to the US and national pride, its simply a lot easier to unite north america than Europe.

[Pontius Pilate]

Which reminds me, wouldnt it be a lot more fun if the United States of America wasnt united? If all states currently in the USA were different countries, it would no doubt be great fun. I do realise that some people from USA might throw rocks at me now, but I stand by it. It would be fun. All the countries evolving seperately and different from each other.

Actually, it would be fun both for the purpose of a Total War game and real life.


In a total war game, maybe. In real life, NO. One of the things that the American Civil War helped prove was that a nation governed by its people could stay together as one. Also, I think WWII and maybe WWI could have gone a little differently if it wasn't for the USA being united as one country. There are also many other reasons but I won't go into them.

[Pinxit]

In a total war game, maybe. In real life, NO. One of the things that the American Civil War helped prove was that a nation governed by its people could stay together as one. Also, I think WWII and maybe WWI could have gone a little differently if it wasn't for the USA being united as one country. There are also many other reasons but I won't go into them.

WWII and WWI would hardly have taken place if the United States of America was not founded in the 18th century. World Wars might have taken place, quite surely, but not World War 1 and 2. At least not as we know them.

[Martok]

We seem to be going off the rails here. :focus:


As has been mentioned before (by both myself and others), I don't think a TW game set in the American Civil War would work. There'd be too few factions, it covers too short a time span, and the options for diplomacy would be extremely limited (especially because of the aforementioned "too few factions" problem).

It's *maybe* something that could work in an expansion, but even then I would say no. While I find the ACW to be an interesting period history-wise, it simply wouldn't make for a good Total War title.

[Baby Boomer]

Hm, I quite agree with all mentioned.

There are several ways you could get around the timespan though. I like the shortened time idea, but weeks would take two long, from my limited knowledge of the war (Hey, I am Australian!) it lasted 'till '65 didn't it? There was a LOT from pre war, obviously, which led up to it so if one was to be included it would have to start at the start of the US - Mexican war, which was a big factor Army wise for the US regarding the ACW.

Another way maybe as a simple Historical battle you could include Chancellorsville, gettysburg, Bull Run etc? That way they massive battles would be easily represented, and the two factions problem would be overcome.

Another Civil War idea worth considering, would perhaps be the English Civil war of 1642 to 1651? (Well, there were three in the time period) I am currently writing a book about this era, and its amazing. You would have many factions. Royallists, Parliamentarys, Scottish, Irish Rebels and perhaps the French. The battles were spectacular and the time period is very long. Plus you could start the campaign several years before in 1628 just after the Duke of Buckingham was assainated? As that is when England started to go to war with Scotland...

Sorry for the *perhaps* boring explanation but I think its a very possible idea.

[Pontius Pilate]

WWII and WWI would hardly have taken place if the United States of America was not founded in the 18th century. World Wars might have taken place, quite surely, but not World War 1 and 2. At least not as we know them.

What are you talking about? I am pretty sure that the US helped win both wars for the Allies. So you're saying that if the US wasn't founded, the world would not have to fight WWI and WWII? Any sources please? I think you might have to do a little more research on the topics, maybe just a little.

[Monk]

Hey guys.

I know Martok might not be an official Mod of the EH, but when he asks to keep things on topic you can be sure he carries my blessing and train of thought. While I don't particularly want to close this thread up, the conversation seems to have run its course for better or for worse.

I want to thank everyone for contributing to it, but for now I think the topic needs a nap. :book: