A Modern Total War? (Discussion, Oppinions)

[Sir Beane]

The feasability and appeal of a Total War game set in the modern era (1900 onwards) has been a topic I've seen crop up a lot recently on the forum, so I though we should have a thread to discuss, plus it kills time until Empire is released. I'm posting it here because it ties in with Empire being a more modern period, and because it might become an issue for an expansion to Empire.

Recently in a Eurogamer TV interview a member of CA stated a game set over the two World Wars would be an interesting period for a Total War game. This seems to indicate CA are atleast considering it, which makes it a possible candidate for the next game. I'd like to see peoples oppinions on whether it's a good idea or not.

Personally I think not. For me Total War is about massed ranks of men, fighting in large groups. Melee has to be present and important.

A modern Total War game would have to involve to some degree: trench warfare, tanks, armored vehicles, artillery with ranges of miles or more, air combat, bombing, the holocaust, combat on a much smaller scale (squads fighting in urban conditions) and a much larger scale (tank battles, gigantic battles like the Somme) as well as long range missiles, and nuclear weapons.

Personally I don't think any of that really fits in with what I think of as a Total War game. Total War is unique in it's blend of history, grand strategy and visceral close up melee battles. World War strategy games are not unique at all.

But this is just one fan's opinion, so what do the rest of you think? Let CA know how you feel.

[Megas Methuselah]

No. Aircraft and long-range artillery wouldn't work. Maybe up until 1899 at the latest, but no more.

I love this time-era, I love WW2, but it just wouldn't work with the Total War engine.

[Sir Beane]

No. Aircraft and long-range artillery wouldn't work. Maybe up until 1899 at the latest, but no more.

I love this time-era, I love WW2, but it just wouldn't work with the Total War engine.

I'm impressed with the speed of your reply Methuselah!

To make it clear I to am interested in both World Wars, and by no means do I dislike the period in question. However I just don't think it's suitable Total War material.

My ideal cut-off date would be about 1870, just before modern warfare tactics really caught on.

[Mailman653]

I'd love to see WWI, but I think the spirit of TW has always been formations of soldiers clashing together and bringing down the walls of a fort or castle.

Imagine controlling whole regiments in various formations in previous TW titles, and then only controlling squads and platoons because what a modern TW will end up becoming is just that, whole units spiting up all over the place, and trying to take positions at various landmarks.

I don't know if I explained that properly, but I just don't see how a modern setting can work with TW style of play without drastically changing it.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Yup, wrong engine for the subject IMHO. Total War has always been dense formations hacking, stabbing and shooting at other dense formations. Modern warfare has completely different requirements. I'm still waiting with trepidation how light 18th century infantry will function. 20th century rifleman and their completely different way of functioning on a modern battlefield doesn't bear thinking about.

If you want modern warfare I can heartily recommend the Combat Mission series.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I forgot to mention penetration. Any WWI and beyond game requires you model armour and the penetration thereof. That'll be whole new nightmare for CA. They could model it if they wanted to, but I hope CA stick with what they are good at.

[Owen Glyndwr]

I would say no. By that time, wars were faught on such a grand scale, with wide battle lines and so many troops, that it would probably come out as something similar to Civilization 4. By that point, wars were more about logistics, timing, and production than singular battles. Most strategies were general directions (i.e. We'll move our 3rd Panzer division through Belgium and cut a swath straight to Paris), rather than specific battle strategies such as those of Hannibal and Henry V (we'll meet the enemy on this battlefield and decisively defeat the majority of the army and have the entire west open to our legions). Nevermind dealing with planes, bombing, trench warfare, and finding a way to put hundreds of thousands to millions (rather than ten-thousand max) troops on a single battlefield, I think if you even start to consider Modern Warfare (By modern we mean WWI and II right? Because I wouldn't even start to think about how Vietnam or Counter: Terrorist type games would work) from a gameplay standpoint, it just wouldn't be the type of TW game we've been seeing for the last 10+ years.

-Speaking of which, totally unrelated, when did STW and MTW come out?

[IsItStillThere]

I'm with the rest of you. The massive scale of battles in the 20th century just couldn't be modeled with any sort of accuracy and realism on a reasonably sized battle map. And the total war series has been about nothing if not accurate/realistic battles.

[Martok]

I completely agree with just about everything that's been said thus far. While I find both World Wars fascinating in and of themselves, they simply wouldn't fit with the Total War style of gameplay.



-Speaking of which, totally unrelated, when did STW and MTW come out?
Shogun = 2000
MTW = 2002

[Polemists]

I agree with what others have said.

WW2 has it's fun, and on a engine like say, Company of Heroes, it has some fun strategic elements but I don't think it lends itself to the more global scale or intracies of WW2/WW1 period. I always view TW as a better reflection of the game series Universalis (Europa Universalis, Rome, may have mispelled it). The idea is more about forming things, creating things, and the further you move, the less creating there is, in my view.

Plus I just think Tanks and soliders with machine guns have just been in FAR to many games and there are FAR to few games with swords, bayonets, archers, shields, and cannons. The possible exception being Age of Empires, whose studio recently died.

I'm sure they could do the engine from the ground up, and make it look good, but still I'd just rather see more history and less current events.

I'd almost rather them go into a non historical (Fantasy, Steampunk, Sci-Fi) setting rather then a ww2 era themed game. Which they have also stated a interest in some time ago.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Am I the only one who said "yes definitely"? Wow. Think outside the box guys. ETW already has fortifications and just about every unit with a gun, so why not do a modern-day TW? It would be heck of a lot different, but so what? I could imagine a Company of Heroes-style TW. I wouldn't want the Modern-day TW to come after ETW, but after, say the Bronze Age and 150-1600 TWs are already done, than why not?

Then again, I might just need to go to sleep.... Maybe its my sleepiness talking in me...

[Megas Methuselah]

The entire system would have to be revamped to make a modern TW. It's a lot of work, and most like wouldn't work.

Go to sleep, Aemilius. :clown:

[Fisherking]

As much as I love combined arms warfare, I just can’t see it in a Total War format as it currently exists.

It would require a complete change of scale.

Adding airpower is very problematic in a tactical game.

Continuous battle lines, field works, mine fields, and Gas Warfare…

Maneuver warfare became stalled by trench warfare by the American Civil War(1861-1865), which also ushered in machineguns, armored ships, and the submarine. Not to mention repeating firearms. The lethality of the weapons dictated the abandonment of formations and the use of elaborate trenches and field works. Rail Roads became the primary means of massed movement to shuttle men and material to the front.

The Campaign Map would also need to be the battle map…perhaps zoomed in so you could fight local engagements but the string of battles you would need to fight for a general offensive would be staggering and a single turn could last for days without auto-resolve.

I am not saying that you couldn’t do a game but I am sure that the compromises necessary would allow you to have the same feel in the game that is currently there.

[Ja'chyra]

I say yes. The only thing that would be difficult about it would be aircraft and this isn't impossible to add.

Saying that this time period is against the spirit of the game is rubbish, the spirit of the game is war and it doesn't get any bigger than world war.


The entire system would have to be revamped to make a modern TW. It's a lot of work, and most like wouldn't work.

Go to sleep, Aemilius.

What's with this? If someone doesn't share your view its discounted?

[Fondor_Yards]

I voted no. As for the reason why not in the modern period, see basically anyone's post before mine.

The next TW should start in 632 ad and go till, well in my opinion it wouldn't need an end date but if I had to pick one 1000 ad. The rise of the Islamic Caliphates and the total anarchic in Europe then would make for a great game.

[PBI]

I voted no. All the factors others have mentioned are certainly true, but for me the main problem with WWI/WWII Total War is that both conflicts primarily took place in Europe. In my opinion the series is in serious danger of becoming stale if the next installment does not have a non-European setting.

We have basically had the same geographical setting and thus largely the same campaign map since MTW, and I have played the campaign map of Europe to death, I know every mountain range and river crossing and there are no longer any surprises there. The campaign map is such a huge part of the game that to keep it basically the same for yet another installment would be a great shame; frankly, any game set in the Renaissance, the Dark Ages or the Ancient period in Europe is going to feel like Empire, Medieval or Rome yet again with just a couple of cities and factions shuffled around and with cosmetically different guys in tin cans.

I find WWI to be a fascinating conflict and one which is criminally unrepresented in gaming in favour of the (IMHO far less interesting) WWII. However, although the nature of combat in the modern period would be drastically different to earlier periods, we would still basically have the same campaign map; places in Russia would still be very far apart, the Alps would still be a very effective natural defense, the Bosphorus would still be a key strategic chokepoint, etc.

The series needs to leave Europe, at least for one game. For me the obvious choice is medieval China, although this is far from the only option; however it certainly is a geographical region and culture which is entirely untapped and would be a refreshing departure for the series. Otherwise, I fear I will increasingly be of the suspicion that I am being asked to buy the same game I already own.

So, to summarize:

ASIA PLEASE!

[Polemists]

Am I the only one who said "yes definitely"? Wow

Well you are the only one who voted Yes definetly though another poster did say yes. So it's 19 to 1 right now against it.

For me it's not just the whole tech thing, or graphics.

It has to do with it being over done. Do you know how many ww2 strategy games there are? Guess, double that, your close.

For me it no longer has even the faintest shred of interest. FPS's and strategy games have been done, redone, and overdone about ww2 so much that I see no physical means, even if they developed a moon engine, of making it interesting.

WW 2 maybe the largest war..depending on how you factor it.

My bigger question would be is this TW 1900-1950 or TW WW2. The idea being TW 1900-1950 you could form your own alliances, disasters and enemies and you would decide how the eventual allies v axis teams break out. WW2 TW would be the same old Americans/British/French/Russians v Germans/Japs/Italians.

Company of heroes is real time. I don't think the time frame translates that well to turn base.

That said, I'd assume if they did aircombat they would do it similiar to naval. IE you'd zoom into a sky scene and control individual planes that battle. Like ships pretty much.


I just think the period is massively overdone in every other form of media out there, including games. I have no interest in seeing it in TW :thumbsdown:

[caravel]

Imagine controlling whole regiments in various formations in previous TW titles, and then only controlling squads and platoons because what a modern TW will end up becoming is just that, whole units spiting up all over the place, and trying to take positions at various landmarks.

I don't know if I explained that properly, but I just don't see how a modern setting can work with TW style of play without drastically changing it.

This says it all. TW is based on rectangular units marching in formation onto a small scale battlefield. Modern warfare is quite obviously nothing like this and there is no realistic way of getting TW battles to work in this fashion.

[General SupaCrunk]

I would vote for never! If i could vote! :furious3:

[Nelson]

For the tactical game to mesh properly with the strategic game the scale of forces needs to work. TW simulates battles covering small distances that could be controlled by one man and fought within hours to a decision. As players, we become that man. The game convincingly recreates period tactics using a few percent of the actual troop numbers typical in history. Two armies that historically might have had about 30,000 men each are fought with 2,000 to 3,000 men in the game. It works. There are no fronts that are hundreds of miles long. Until the late 19th century armies collided and outcomes were decided in a day. Perfect for the TW design approach.

The scale of modern combat is far too vast for the TW system to work tactically. How would it be implemented? How would Stalingrad be done? How could commanding a few platoons simulate the battle of Kursk? Not to mention needing to handle aircraft somehow. A battle could start on a front 50 miles wide. Small scale skirmishes could be portrayed no doubt but how could that be extrapolated to represent a million men struggling for weeks? TW can’t do that and scale back to the map in any sensible way that I can imagine.

[Tsavong]

I would like to see a game which explores the time from 1900 to 1950 ish but done as well and fun as total war has done its games form Shogun to M2TW. though for some reason even though others have tried to do things like total war they always fall short of the mark such as Imperial Glory.

Though i do like the idier of total war leaving Europe and going back to Asia i remember STW and thinking it was great at the time. i wonder if its vista compatible..... probably not

[Fisherking]

I have never played a RTS game set in WWII. But knowing what I know of combat and armored vehicles I don’t know how you could maintain control of the situation if it were larger than company scale. Every element has a task and every leader fights his own little engagement as best he can. Trying to micro manage 12 to 17 tanks even without infantry support would be draining. Trying to get fire support also takes time. Artillery doesn’t just start shooting. It has to be called up, the guns have to be laid for the target area, and then they have to be adjusted to the target. They can’t see what they are shooting at.

One person can not hope to control everything going on in such an environment. Each tank has several types of ammunition for different types of targets. Every platoon has a limited objective. This is to help maintain control of what is happening. Trying to understand what is happening over the radio net can be difficult in its self.

Let’s just say for the purpose of this that infantry starts engaging targets at 500 meters. Tanks begin engaging at 1000 meters and supporting artillery and mortars at about 5000 meters and stops at a minimum of 250 meters. The standard interval for a tank platoon is 100 meters between vehicles. Ideally infantry is spaced at about 5 to 10 meters. Artillery is positioned one terrain feature to the rear of the battle line. You want to have air power do its attacking just as far away from your position as you can. From up there it is hard to tell who is who and the direction of attack can be crucial.

Can you see what a wide area just a company sized element takes up? Then you add in smoke, dust, explosions, and so forth and it gets really hard to tell where anyone else is. And that is in good weather! It seems though that you never fight in good weather! And we haven’t even gotten to terrain yet.

For this reason everything is broken down into 4 or 5. Four or five men on a crew, four or five infantrymen in a team, four or five tanks in a platoon, and so on up the line, so someone can keep a handle on what is happening.

Now of course games are not real life so the complexity can be reduced a little but you are still not going to manage 10,000 individual men on the battlefield. If there were, it just would not be an enjoyable experience. If you have the computer control most of the units while you watch for the most part, and just make critical adjustments then you have an operational scale game, and not a tactical one. If you change the scale to go with abstract units it just is not the same game anymore.

For those reasons a 20th century game might best be something for a different series, rather than a Total War. (or more rightly Total War as we have come to know it)

Also I don’t think that the period exactly meets up to what they like to have. Wars in the 20th century were either small scale one on one brush wars or massive coalitions struggling over whole continents or the entire world. In effect just a larger one on one conflict.

I have no problem with CA creating what ever game they care to in what ever time period but it doesn’t require it to be part of the Total War Series.

[Mailman653]

The series needs to leave Europe, at least for one game. For me the obvious choice is medieval China......

Yes! That way I can keep China Qin!:knight:

[Sir Beane]

I think the current results have made it clear that the majority of people really don't want Total War to head in this direction. I hope CA take note (if indeed they were ever seriously considering this in the first place.)

Also I agree with those who say we should head for Asia.

Bring on Dynasty: Total War!

[General SupaCrunk]

Stone Age: Total War :laugh4:

[Megas Methuselah]

Personally, I don't much care which timeframe it's in (as long as it's not too modern), I just want it to cover the entire globe.


What's with this? If someone doesn't share your view its discounted?

It's a private joke between two friends; that's why there's a little clown-smiley there, you see?

[Aemilius Paulus]

I have never played a RTS game set in WWII.
Then I suggest you play one before you make inaccurate comments.

As for stone age total war, that would actually be quite interesting... really, not kidding. So why else is for a Bronze Age Total War with Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medians, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Mitanni, Elamites, and maybe even some barbarians from Northern Greece? Or an Asian TW taking place during the RTW period? Or 1500-1700 TW?

[Lusitani]

I believe that a Total War series starting in the mid XIX century and ending around 1920 would provide a very wide range of conflicts and intense diplomacy opportunities ... specially in a worldwide scenario.

[Sir Beane]

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

As for stone age total war, that would actually be quite interesting... really, not kidding. So why else is for a Bronze Age Total War with Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medians, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Mitanni, Elamites, and maybe even some barbarians from Northern Greece? Or an Asian TW taking place during the RTW period? Or 1500-1700 TW?

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.

[Megas Methuselah]

So why else is for a Bronze Age Total War with Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medians, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Mitanni, Elamites, and maybe even some barbarians from Northern Greece?

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

[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. :yes:

Yeah this sounds very sweet!! :yes:

[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.:idea2:

[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 :laugh4: 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 :laugh4: 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.:hmg:

[Sir Beane]

It seems this topic is more devicive than I first thought when I posted the poll :laugh4:.

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 :smash:, 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.:wall:

[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!:dizzy2:

[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.:idea2:

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. :bow:

[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. :shame:

[Sir Beane]

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

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

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 :laugh4:

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. :oops:

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 :laugh4:

[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 :laugh4:

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? :dizzy2: (If I din't know better, I'd say this was a bit of an oxymoron...:clown: )

[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.:yes:

[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! :yes:

[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.:yes:

[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. :2thumbsup:

[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. :2thumbsup:

There is (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=106871) :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]

:yes: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.:yes:

[Wishazu]

There is (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=106871) :P

Thankyou very much mate. :beam:

[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.

[Sir Beane]

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.

We realise it wasn't the entire war, but it was most of it. If one side uses trench warfare the other side doesn't really have a choice in the matter, they are forced into using it as the best way of defending ground.

If we have a WW1 game where trench warfare wasn't a big part of it, it isn't really a WW1 game..

Also if the endgame was WW1 CA would have to script things so it always happens, otherwise it probably would never happen at all. And we know that CA dislike scripted events.

[IsItStillThere]

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.

I see what you are saying, but my impression is trench warfare was a tactic that grew widespread during WWI because of the technology available in 1914--eg, accurate infantry rifles, and especially the general use of machineguns...these made more open warfare much too deadly (it took both sides a while to learn this lesson, even after the trenches made their appearance). When tanks and airplanes took the fore the tactic fell away (but not completely...infantry still had the desire to dig in when defending, just not to the same scale).

You are right, in a WWI sim you could use different tactics, but if the technology was the same you should lose.

[hoom]

naval battles, and all the different theater's of war would interest me the most about a ww1 total war.I don't see WWI as being a viable period for a Total War game but I sure would love to try emulating Goodenough & his actions with the 1st (later 2nd) Light Cruiser Squadron of the Grand Fleet :2thumbsup:

[BeenPlayingSinceRTW]

Yes, definitely. (For some reason, I am unable to vote on this poll)

There are a lot of decent WWI/WWII era games out there, but none on the scale of the Total War games with a true large scale campaign mode. If CA doesn't do a modern version of Total War, I am sure someone else will do one. All that's missing is the campaign.

There's a reason that military students at West Point and other schools are still taught fundamental historical battles and tactics from the time periods of the current Total War games - it's because those old methods actually translate very well to modern warfare. Tactics like flanking are still used. A tank division was used to smash enemy lines in WWII that same way we use heavy cavalry in the TotalWar games.

Modern infantry w/rifles = archers
Artillery = culverin and other gunpowder weapons
Air force = horse archers
tanks = elephants
armored personnel carriers = praetorians
etc.

It would definitely be possible for CA to upgrade the game to the modern era, although obviously, there would have to be changes in the scale of battles

[BeenPlayingSinceRTW]

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. :bow:

Great post.

Modern battle tactics are just melee on a large scale - a Total War WWI/WWII game could simply be built around a larger scale battle map for the battles.

And as for trench warfare, how is that any different from fighting the enemy on walls? Moving troops in and out of trenches could be managed the same way troops are manoevered onto walss in the current TW games.

[Praxil]

And as for trench warfare, how is that any different from fighting the enemy on walls? Moving troops in and out of trenches could be managed the same way troops are manoevered onto walss in the current TW games.

Well, you have clearly no idea whats so ever. This is front line warfare we are talking about not some hordes roaming.

Trench warfare was where they fought with 200k of infantry overall against, to gain ONE kilometer of advance. Who on earth would like to play game like that?

When it comes to WWI and WWII. The grand campaign and real time battle can be done only separately. PERIOD. Campaign for example Hearts of Iron way, real time strategy for example the Theatre of War way. Them coming together in one package the way the Total War plays, this is simply not possible. PERIOD. I will not buy the idea where in Total War - WWII Germany does blitzkrieg in Poland with 6k large stack. How you will implement battles taking weeks, not just evening or morning? And more importantly who will play that? Man, I deeply think that there should be far less battles in Total War games, but when they occur they should be important and last longer that 30 minutes. Saying that I got my ass beat up, because they didn't wanted "realism". If you don't want realism don't do WWII game, please just leave it be.

The Total War game with WWII theme has no value whatsoever. However Total War with only WWII naval warfare in it with huge realistic enough distances (battle map) and realistic battle. I'm listening, yeah let me see that project.


I would love finally hear those ideas of how this WWI or WWII gameplay will be implemented? How did any of you imagined it when you voted yes? Please, since you all already voted yes, might as well go ahead and eagerly tell me what kind of a game I will be playing.

[BeenPlayingSinceRTW]

Well, you have clearly no idea whats so ever. This is front line warfare we are talking about not some hordes roaming.

Trench warfare was where they fought with 200k of infantry overall against, to gain ONE kilometer of advance. Who on earth would like to play game like that?

When it comes to WWI and WWII. The grand campaign and real time battle can be done only separately. PERIOD. Campaign for example Hearts of Iron way, real time strategy for example the Theatre of War way. Them coming together in one package the way the Total War plays, this is simply not possible. PERIOD. I will not buy the idea where in Total War - WWII Germany does blitzkrieg in Poland with 6k large stack. How you will implement battles taking weeks, not just evening or morning? And more importantly who will play that? Man, I deeply think that there should be far less battles in Total War games, but when they occur they should be important and last longer that 30 minutes. Saying that I got my ass beat up, because they didn't wanted "realism". If you don't want realism don't do WWII game, please just leave it be.

The Total War game with WWII theme has no value whatsoever. However Total War with only WWII naval warfare in it with huge realistic enough distances (battle map) and realistic battle. I'm listening, yeah let me see that project.


I would love finally hear those ideas of how this WWI or WWII gameplay will be implemented? How did any of you imagined it when you voted yes? Please, since you all already voted yes, might as well go ahead and eagerly tell me what kind of a game I will be playing.

You need to broaden your mind.

Battles could be fought in a manner like, say, the World in Conflict game, where you can take control of infantry, armor, artillery, and air, call in air strikes, etc. Attach a large scale campaign to that and you have WWII: Total War.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but during the time periods covered by the Total War games, it was common for sieges and battles to take weeks, months, and even years, so I don't see why that would be an impediment to having WWI/WWII: Total War. If you doubt what I'm saying, just do some reading about the Crusades, or check out Caesar's Commentaries for the full details.

And trench warfare IS analagous to sieges - moving a lot of troops around to capture a small area. They didn't dig trenches all over the place for no reason in WWI. Trenches were a form of fortification, erected to defend strategic areas, just like forts and sharpened stakes in the Total War games.

Also... relax a little. These are only games after all. :beam:

[Meneldil]

Not only the TW engine couldn't represent the 20th century battles properly, but CA would face a major public relation problem.

Enslaving, murdering, deporting innocent people is a part of TW, at least since MTW (can't remember if we could do that in STW). While it's okay to enslave inhabitant of a captured settlement in MTW or to exterminate them in RTW, can you imagine the outrage it would cause if the game was set in the 20th century ?

CA would either have to make sure to not hurt nationalistic and personal sensibilities, thus dumbing down the content (no genocides, no somewhat iffy traits), thus not correctly representing the era, or to cause real outrage in some countries.

I mean, I would be like pretty shocked if I were playing let's say Germany, and was asked if I wanted to exterminate a given part of the population after I conquer a settlement. And I'm not even talking about some countries like Japan, who still somehow think they're a victim of WW2 and can't admit they've done anything wrong during WW2. Any mention of Nankin and the game would probably be boycotted in Japan. A Tibet province independent from China ? Game forbidden in China. A mention of soviet war crimes? Game boycotted in Russia. And the list goes on.

This wasn't such a problem in game like Heart of Iron, because it's mostly centered around diplomacy, empire-building and large scale strategy. But TW, with its character development system, and its previous "what shall we do with this conquered settlement" choice? I can see bad things happening there.

[Fisherking]

I am not really for or against a WWI game. But something to be considered is the reason there are so few WWI games is because they don’t generate much interest in the public.

Everyone thinks trench warfare and hundreds of thousands of dead, sometimes in a single day and people kind of loose interest right there.
Also chemical warfare is something of a turn off for a lot of people…the early equivalent of nuclear I guess. But not something just to leave out either! They made masks for the dogs and horses, for the love of Mike!

With that said, there are a lot of interesting aspects to a global conflict in that era. Steel Ships, submarines, Zeppelins, airplanes, machineguns, & tanks all hold an allure.


However, a scripted set of players on each side would not be a big sell for me. I can’t even imagine how the Central Powers had a chance to win outside Europe, or even in it for that matter.

It might make for a fascinating multi player diplomatic game. But by the same token it would not be a great draw for the single player without all of the diplomatic intrigues. Something we have yet to see a game get right!

How do you bribe Italy to change sides? How do you get countries that have so little self interest to get involved in a global conflict?

I am sure the units and battlefield engineering could be worked out but that is only a minor part of the whole picture of what was termed the war to end all wars.

Strategic submarine warfare and strategic bombing played a part. Cutting off of recourses at sea. These are not ship to ship or plane to place battles with clear winners and looser. A submarine that escapes an escort will still hunt merchant ships. Every ship at sea is a target and every bomb that strikes a city has an impact on building and infrastructure, not to mention the actual damage to war materials. Mine fields were established at sea as well as on land and those at sea sometimes were cast loose just to drift until the found some target. It is not just the battle map where people die!

Supply and logistics also played a huge part. Moving whole armies by rail and ship. Supply of scarce resources in far flung locations. When artillery barrages last for days ammunition resupply is a big issue.

A game of the first world war would be an onion of ever more layers.

It would be a hard game to get right and it would also have an uncertain market. It makes it a tough sell.

[BeenPlayingSinceRTW]

Everyone thinks trench warfare and hundreds of thousands of dead, sometimes in a single day and people kind of loose interest right there.
Also chemical warfare is something of a turn off for a lot of people…the early equivalent of nuclear I guess. But not something just to leave out either! They made masks for the dogs and horses, for the love of Mike!

With that said, there are a lot of interesting aspects to a global conflict in that era. Steel Ships, submarines, Zeppelins, airplanes, machineguns, & tanks all hold an allure.


However, a scripted set of players on each side would not be a big sell for me. I can’t even imagine how the Central Powers had a chance to win outside Europe, or even in it for that matter.

It might make for a fascinating multi player diplomatic game. But by the same token it would not be a great draw for the single player without all of the diplomatic intrigues. Something we have yet to see a game get right!

How do you bribe Italy to change sides? How do you get countries that have so little self interest to get involved in a global conflict?

I am sure the units and battlefield engineering could be worked out but that is only a minor part of the whole picture of what was termed the war to end all wars.

Strategic submarine warfare and strategic bombing played a part. Cutting off of recourses at sea. These are not ship to ship or plane to place battles with clear winners and looser. A submarine that escapes an escort will still hunt merchant ships. Every ship at sea is a target and every bomb that strikes a city has an impact on building and infrastructure, not to mention the actual damage to war materials. Mine fields were established at sea as well as on land and those at sea sometimes were cast loose just to drift until the found some target. It is not just the battle map where people die!

Supply and logistics also played a huge part. Moving whole armies by rail and ship. Supply of scarce resources in far flung locations. When artillery barrages last for days ammunition resupply is a big issue.

A game of the first world war would be an onion of ever more layers.

It would be a hard game to get right and it would also have an uncertain market. It makes it a tough sell.

All of the complexities you list are what would make it an interesting game, in my opinion.

I agree that a scripted outcome would detract from the gameplay, I think it would be better if the outcome were affected by your actions in the game, the same way it is in the existing Total War games. In a WWI/WWII: Total War you shouldn't be restricted to playing along with history, you should be able to form alliances and make decisions that differ from what actually happened. (For example, if you're playing as Japan, you could decide not to attack Pearl Harbor; if you're playing as USA you could decide to attack Germany early in the game without waiting for Europe to be overrun)

I think the Total War franchise will slowly wither and die if they simply go back and redo an era that they've already done. What separates the Total War games from other games out there is the campaign rather than the battle engine (although the battle engine is quite good). Without the drama and novelty of the campaign circumstances, the battles would get old quickly, which is why I believe the TW:multiplayer so far has been kind of lame.

So far, with every release, they've added different historical elements to the campaign (hordes, religion, gunpowder, discovery of the Americas, American Revolution) that added to the complexity and made the game more interesting as a result. Bringing the game into the present day is the natural next step.

Personally, I think that even if the Total War franchise decides against it, someone will do a WWII/WWI game with full campaign and realtime battles anyway. The market for such a game would be huge - there are already more WWII strategy games than any other time period if I'm not mistaken. There might be some controversy, but controversy sells - I bet every single person on this board would go out and buy a WWII game if it had a campaign like Total War along with realtime battles (assuming it was decent). I know I would. And I will. :yes:

[magnum]

While I choose 'Wouldn't Mind', I have to say it wouldn't be high on my list. As much as I enjoy the modern area of warfare, I think Total War has done a fantastic job with those 'older' eras. After the evolution release (which I think should cover the next approx 100 years after Empire) I would prefer to see them go back to Three Kingdoms or Mongol, some asian centered total war.

[peacemaker]

well, I honestly don't like all-ranged warfare(or mostly-ranged). ETW was already kind of a stretch. But anyway, how are we going to incorporate airstrikes and tanks and all this other stuff. Both sides have made strong arguments, but let me ask you this: How is CA going to make a game that will a)offend many with extermination, etc. as listed earlier, b)give massive-scale battles, c)keep it all going smoothly on a computer, and d)incorporate airstrikes, tanks, small islands, brutal warfare, POW camps, and the like? It's a very tricky thing to do and if CA can pull it off, I will buy that game out of respect for making it work, even If I don't like it that much. I think TW should go back to an asian style total war, or maybe even babylonian or fantasy TW. TW so far has been mostly infantry and tactics, I think incorporating all the technology and guns and stuff from WWI will stop making it as much of a TW as we know it and more of some other game.

[Polemists]

I think the Total War franchise will slowly wither and die if they simply go back and redo an era that they've already done.

Really? Because you know they seemed to do just fine after they released MTW2 and I'm willing to bet that same group would go out and Buy Shogun Total war 2 or Rome total War 2 just as likely as they would a WW 1/2 game.

That's the whole point though, it's already out there. It's been done. If your argument is it's a redux, then it's a mute point because WW 2 has been redone more then any era period. It does sell to the RTS crowd. The crowd that want's buildings, instant gameplay and little patience.

This is the same crowd and reason that CA has repeatedly made Total war games have less management and more main streamed.

In all likely hood they may have to make it eventually if only as a cash cow. I can accept that.

I just don't have to like it.

as the demo will show (oh you all saw that coming) there are other fun periods beyond ww2 struggles.

[Sir Beane]

Really? Because you know they seemed to do just fine after they released MTW2 and I'm willing to bet that same group would go out and Buy Shogun Total war 2 or Rome total War 2 just as likely as they would a WW 1/2 game.

That's the whole point though, it's already out there. It's been done. If your argument is it's a redux, then it's a mute point because WW 2 has been redone more then any era period. It does sell to the RTS crowd. The crowd that want's buildings, instant gameplay and little patience.

This is the same crowd and reason that CA has repeatedly made Total war games have less management and more main streamed.

In all likely hood they may have to make it eventually if only as a cash cow. I can accept that.

I just don't have to like it.

as the demo will show (oh you all saw that coming) there are other fun periods beyond ww2 struggles.

I agree with basically everything in this post. I still don't get why people claim they want CA to do something different and then ask for a World War game however.

Whilst WW1 has not been done too frequently WW2 certainly has. So why make yet another WW2 game? CA cover time periods that very few other games cover, and they do them better than any other game company. Ther eare a whole lot of other time periods CA can cover before they need to go do a World War game.

Those who are saying they might get stuck in a rut have a point, but that will only be if CA let themselves. History is pretty big, there's a lot of it. We have enough countries and time periods to make a hundred games before running out of ideas.

I like my warfare to be up close and personal with big sticks, or at least from a reasonable distance with sticks that go BANG and produce lots of smoke.

Warfare where you can be killed by a man who is sitting in a building several miles a way, or in the cockpit of a plane a mile above you, just doesn't seem like it would make a very fun TW game.

[BeenPlayingSinceRTW]

Really? Because you know they seemed to do just fine after they released MTW2 and I'm willing to bet that same group would go out and Buy Shogun Total war 2 or Rome total War 2 just as likely as they would a WW 1/2 game.

That's the whole point though, it's already out there. It's been done. If your argument is it's a redux, then it's a mute point because WW 2 has been redone more then any era period. It does sell to the RTS crowd. The crowd that want's buildings, instant gameplay and little patience.

This is the same crowd and reason that CA has repeatedly made Total war games have less management and more main streamed.

In all likely hood they may have to make it eventually if only as a cash cow. I can accept that.

I just don't have to like it.

as the demo will show (oh you all saw that coming) there are other fun periods beyond ww2 struggles.

You could be right.

But for me personally, M2TW was the weakest of the three. I played it much less than the other two (RTW and RTW:BI), and have not played it at all since a few months after getting it, although I have gone back and played the other two many times. I think probably part of that has to do with the fact that there wasn't really that much difference between the battle tactics and campaign characteristics between RTW:BI and M2TW. Yeah, there was gunpowder in the late stages of the game, but a lot of the city building was kind of redundant (rebuilding the same things as in the earlier two games - roads, blacksmiths, etc.).

There were major differences in the RTW and RTW:BI campaigns - in RTW, you had to start from nothing to build an empire, while in RTW:BI you started with a full empire and the challenge was to prevent it from collapsing. The lack of a major change in scenery in M2TW made the game less interesting, in my opinion. Would I really be excited by the prospect of rebuilding the same type of civilization that I already built in RTW again for RTW2? I don't think so. Given a choice between a rehash of RTW and a game set in a completely different time period I would choose the new game rather than the retread.

For me, these games are just entertainment. I play other games now, and I'll play others in the future. Some of the other war games I play are set in modern times, and I would love to play a TW-style campaign along with the modern-day battles. I don't think I'm the only person who feels this way, which is why I'm sure someone will build such a game. As game franchises go, TW has already lasted longer than most games...

[Polemists]

They may build one, Tw has lasted longer then some not as long as others.

They would get more of the main stream I have little doubt and that is always a fore focus of CA's mind. I will say though, that quite clearly, as this poll shows. The die hard fans are overwhelmingly against it. Not to say there isn't a small percantage that want it, but the percantage that definetly do not want it is far larger, almost double.

It's merely how you view it. Yes if you view it in the spectrum of total war Rome or shogun would be a reappearance of a similiar theme previously played. That said CA has stated they would love to at some point go back to Rome and Shogun and give them the MTW2 treatment, it was in a interview shortly after MTW 2 released, so it's coming at some point.

The next game, I don't know but some point.

In the main market though WW2 games are are probably 8 to 1 over other startegy games. Even roman games which had a slight resurrgance, Europa: Rome, Pratoreans, Civcity:Rome, etc, quickly vanished. WW 2 games sell normally because they are fast paced.

Games like Company of Heroes, Commandos, and other small tactical games sold because they brought a tactical fast paced setting to a familiar time frame.

Games like Battlefield 1942, and Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor, sell because FPS's are far more popular then almost all other genres combined.

Yes, a campaign map game could be done with WW2 and it might be semi new, but I don't want Axis vs Allies again, I've done it to many times, in to many games. Even Rome vs Carthage has seen less action.

Honestly, if the buildings depress you I think you'll be disappointed in Empire. We've already seen university (academy), and farms (land clearance) being done again.

We are also seeing familiar factions again England, France, Germany.

and we are seeing a familiar region of map, (You are starting in Europe again for the most part)


Many find the true joy of TW games not the newness, Japan wasn't new when Shogun came out, it's the way they refine, detail, and enhance a game to truly make it a game that puts you in the seat of the Shadow Advisor behind the throne/faction.

They could make Shogun4 as far as I'm concerned, if it has better graphics, a more detailed campaign map, and better Ai, i'd buy it.

Of course I'd much rather have

A

Demo

[BeenPlayingSinceRTW]

They may build one, Tw has lasted longer then some not as long as others.

They would get more of the main stream I have little doubt and that is always a fore focus of CA's mind. I will say though, that quite clearly, as this poll shows. The die hard fans are overwhelmingly against it. Not to say there isn't a small percantage that want it, but the percantage that definetly do not want it is far larger, almost double.

It's merely how you view it. Yes if you view it in the spectrum of total war Rome or shogun would be a reappearance of a similiar theme previously played. That said CA has stated they would love to at some point go back to Rome and Shogun and give them the MTW2 treatment, it was in a interview shortly after MTW 2 released, so it's coming at some point.

The next game, I don't know but some point.

In the main market though WW2 games are are probably 8 to 1 over other startegy games. Even roman games which had a slight resurrgance, Europa: Rome, Pratoreans, Civcity:Rome, etc, quickly vanished. WW 2 games sell normally because they are fast paced.

Games like Company of Heroes, Commandos, and other small tactical games sold because they brought a tactical fast paced setting to a familiar time frame.

Games like Battlefield 1942, and Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor, sell because FPS's are far more popular then almost all other genres combined.

Yes, a campaign map game could be done with WW2 and it might be semi new, but I don't want Axis vs Allies again, I've done it to many times, in to many games. Even Rome vs Carthage has seen less action.

Honestly, if the buildings depress you I think you'll be disappointed in Empire. We've already seen university (academy), and farms (land clearance) being done again.

We are also seeing familiar factions again England, France, Germany.

and we are seeing a familiar region of map, (You are starting in Europe again for the most part)


Many find the true joy of TW games not the newness, Japan wasn't new when Shogun came out, it's the way they refine, detail, and enhance a game to truly make it a game that puts you in the seat of the Shadow Advisor behind the throne/faction.

They could make Shogun4 as far as I'm concerned, if it has better graphics, a more detailed campaign map, and better Ai, i'd buy it.

Of course I'd much rather have

A

Demo

I hear what you're saying.

But I think that a big part of the attraction of WWI/WWII is that they are events that just about everyone in the world is very familiar with, having learned about them in school. Also, many people have parents who actually fought in those wars or were displaced by them, so many people have a personal connection.

RTW and the other Rome-era titles you mention came out just after the movie 'Gladiator' which was a worldwide smash hit that many people saw.

I happen to do some historical reading, so I have an unusual interest in the historical time periods covered by the TW series. I bet most TW customers have a similar interest, but I don't think most gamers are as interested as we are. I think the farther back in history you go, the smaller will probably be the potential audience for a TW game, for this reason.

I will admit, it's a little disappointnig to see that the faction list for ETW is basically the same as M2TW - if I end up deciding to get the game, it will be for the America piece and maybe to play as the Dutch (United Provinces?), but that may just be because I'm unfamiliar with European history (except French Revolution?) during this time period.

[PBI]

CA cover time periods that very few other games cover

Like WWI, perhaps?



Those who are saying they might get stuck in a rut have a point, but that will only be if CA let themselves. History is pretty big, there's a lot of it. We have enough countries and time periods to make a hundred games before running out of ideas.


I strongly agree. There are plenty of previously untouched historical settings for the series to cover. WWI is only one of them, and not by any stretch the best candidate for the next game in my opinion; I simply feel it should not be dismissed out of hand, nor lumped in as a concept with the saturated WW2 market.


Because you know they seemed to do just fine after they released MTW2 and I'm willing to bet that same group would go out and Buy Shogun Total war 2 or Rome total War 2 just as likely as they would a WW 1/2 game.

I don't know about that; I played the Civilization games since the first installment way back in the day, yet my love affair with the series ended precisely because I saw no point in shelling out another 30GBP for what is basically the same game released back in 1991, with a few extra bells and whistles but no real change in gameplay or setting. It's understandable the series went that way, a scope covering the whole of human history doesn't leave a lot of room for new settings, but the Total War series does not have that excuse.

If the Total War series goes the same way, I certainly will take my money elsewhere to more original titles.

[Sic semper tyrannis]

That said, I'd assume if they did aircombat they would do it similiar to naval. IE you'd zoom into a sky scene and control individual planes that battle. Like ships pretty much.
You can complete air superiority all day long, but unless you affect what's happening on the ground, it is all for naught. This couldn't work. Unfortunately, I have no suggestions in this department.


A battle could start on a front 50 miles wide. Small scale skirmishes could be portrayed no doubt but how could that be extrapolated to represent a million men struggling for weeks? TW can’t do that and scale back to the map in any sensible way that I can imagine.
In the short term, battle lines were actually pretty static. Battles were primarily 'pushes' into the enemy line to either move it or to break through entirely. These took place on a relatively small scale in regards to both troop numbers and time. You could amass forces in an area and select a spot on the front to make a push which would bring you into the battle map just like on current TW games. Similarly, you would defend a section of the front against AI. Tactically the battles would play out much differently of course, but I see no problem with the ability to represent the current strategic map and its transition to individual battles.

Instead of regions controlled by cities, you would have an entire front represented by a flexible line alterable through battles. Cities would still exist but their importance would be diminished. A front could run through a city, resulting in an urban battle to capture it. I forsee the huge, continent-spanning fronts using a spline mechanic rather than having predefined locations, resulting in an infinite number of possible versions. This would allow (without manually programming it in) natural barriers to be used as they would be unassailable.

WWI naval battles were fought basically the same as the ones Empire will represent. WWII saw the role of the carrier becoming significant which, as I stated above, I cannot fathom being integrated.

Further, another large argument against any such attempt to integrate this period into a TW game is the miniturization of military infantry units. As a former infantryman, I can tell you that platoons (of 33ish) are put into companies, which are in turn parts of a batallion, etc. When battles take place, orders do not come down from On High (the role of the player) to individual platoons to do this or that. Rather, each batallion would have an objective (storm that part of the trench!) and each smaller unit acts as part of the whole based on training. Perhaps the solution to this isn't having rows of infantry marching in a neat formation, but having the batallion made up of more independant companies/platoons that realistically approach the objective. This would require infantry to be programmed so each member of a unit can act with more autonomy, approaching under cover if available, etc.
Basically:

MTW 'walk forward as unit' would morph into 'walk forward as gaggle of smaller parts'
MTW 'attack unit' would morph into 'approach using cover, with individuals rushing forward while others provide cover fire, etc., until you get into range and start blasting'
MTW 'charge unit' would morph into 'run at a crouch until you get into range and start blasting'
In truth, that's all I see needing work as far as mechanics goes. The unit attributes and battlefield layout would take care of the rest.

Overall, I am receptive to the idea, particularly as I have a particular affection to naval battles before the carrier era (WWI dreadnoughts slugging it out), and WWI is rarely represented in any facet of entertainment.

Please, share your thoughts on my ideas. I just realized this has turned into a real wall of text.

[Don Jacopo Caldora]

While I would be interested in a WW1 game, I am think WW1 is perhaps too late of a period for total war to cover. The biggest problems to me is going from the normal total war standards of infantry calvery and artillery and somehow introducing tanks, airpower and possibly chemical weapons is perhaps a bit much for total war to do justice too.

Trench Warfare with both repeating weapons and machine guns slugging it out will lead to many stalemates on the battlefield. It may be nearly impossible to manuvere on the battlefield to gain an advantage. Perhaps the Spanish American War (1898) and the following Phillippine insurection would be the latest wars I would consider as potential Total War material.

[Polemists]

Empire total war for Ca I think was the best they could do to try and appease both crowds.

The fundemental gameplay changed drastically by basically turning every unit into a ranged unit.

Meanwhile you still had the familiar buildings, past history, and factions.


For those of you making the new=ww1/2 argument. I just don't get it.

I hear, I dont' like the europe map, I want new factions, I don't want a rehash of the same buildings and techs.

Well other then techs...I think you'd be stuck. If CA did WW2 you'd get even less then you get in Empire. I mean why put in the Carribean..it has no role in WW2.

So you get Europe and you get Japan/China region of Asia. Yet this is the crowd saying they don't want Europe and Japan in another RTW or Shogun tw.

Your still going to get europe, your major factions are going to be, (for a third time) England, France, Germany, Russia, Japan. Your going to start in Europe or Japan. I mean other then China, who loses badly, I don't see any major faction in this time period that would be quote/unquote "new".

I see new units, which I think is the argument, you get planes and submarines. Yet the map, the factions, won't change.

Thus I don't see it as being that much different over Shogun 2 or Rome 2. I mean while CA will not pull a Civ 4 and do all of time, they do focused periods. Yet as they expand the globe only so much of the globe can be "new". Unless they go fantasy or sci fi or go with Australia total war lol :yes:

[Sir Beane]

Empire total war for Ca I think was the best they could do to try and appease both crowds.

The fundemental gameplay changed drastically by basically turning every unit into a ranged unit.

Meanwhile you still had the familiar buildings, past history, and factions.


For those of you making the new=ww1/2 argument. I just don't get it.

I hear, I dont' like the europe map, I want new factions, I don't want a rehash of the same buildings and techs.

Well other then techs...I think you'd be stuck. If CA did WW2 you'd get even less then you get in Empire. I mean why put in the Carribean..it has no role in WW2.

So you get Europe and you get Japan/China region of Asia. Yet this is the crowd saying they don't want Europe and Japan in another RTW or Shogun tw.

Your still going to get europe, your major factions are going to be, (for a third time) England, France, Germany, Russia, Japan. Your going to start in Europe or Japan. I mean other then China, who loses badly, I don't see any major faction in this time period that would be quote/unquote "new".

I see new units, which I think is the argument, you get planes and submarines. Yet the map, the factions, won't change.

Thus I don't see it as being that much different over Shogun 2 or Rome 2. I mean while CA will not pull a Civ 4 and do all of time, they do focused periods. Yet as they expand the globe only so much of the globe can be "new". Unless they go fantasy or sci fi or go with Australia total war lol :yes:

I agree with pretty much all of this. Thats why I want a Total War game set in either China and the rest of Asia, or in Africa. Both are places no TW game has gone before.

Asia especially has a rich and colourful history, with many different factions of varying power and location. An Asian TW game could really shine, and it seems like the logical choice for the next 'Revolution' development step.

I'm not sure how well it works with this engine however. The current TW engine is based around gunpowder and naval combat. Perhaps it would be better suited to a game set in either of two periods. 1600-1700, or 1700-1850. These may be too similar to Empire however.

If TW ever do go down the fantasy route then I hope we see a game based around mythology, in the same style as Age Of Mythology. Either that or CA make a Lord of the Rings: Total War. :laugh4:

[wumpus]

Guys, it CAN be done. But it will be vastly different from the Spartan phallanxes and massed armored feudal knights that we know. Modern warfare is more of trenches (maybe similar to a shield wall or phallanx, with rapid-fire archer support as machineguns--or ribauts?), keeping an open logistics line behind you, artillery (onagers won't be much different from howitzers), a panzergruppe to take the place of a batallion of knights... But it will take SO MUCH, MUCH work for CA to make a Modern War:TW. Or, maybe, SEGA. Are they willing to take up the challenge and create something which will be very much different looking than the usual TWs we know? Maybe yes, if they see there's money to make from it--after all, adding ships that blast at each other in E:TW was itself already a great step forward from the Romans and Seleukids that we intimately knew. And after all, let's not forget, when Shogun:TW was first made, they DID start from nearly nothing. So why not start from nearly nothing again and produce a modern TW?
A problem with aircraft, you think? Just look at airplanes as faster versions of cavalry, they get places very quickly, drop bombs as mounted archers unleash their Hell, and so forth--I see not much problem there if you have very determined game-makers. A little challenging problem with making paratroopers work, I think, but people have brains--they can solve the problem, no matter how dificult. Hawooh.

[Polemists]

E:TW was itself already a great step forward

Whoa, whoa, whoa, we don't even have a DEMO yet, so let's not get to reviewing a game not yet out.

I love ETW as much as next guy, but common.

It's not out, who knows how it will sell. Some the tw fan fanatics arn't buying it because it relies ot heavily on gunpowder. I can only imagine, and as this poll shows, alot of people would fret and frown at a Modern Total War REGARDLESS of how good it was.

ETW will decide it based on sales. If it sells very , very well, i assure you Sega will have someone say, "Hey, maybe something new again next time."

Now whether that new is Lord of the Rings, Startrek or World War 2 Total war, I don't know.

However, be warned, if ETW gets flaked in sales, and DOW2 crushes it, then I assure you, someone at Sega is going to go, "Hey remeber how well MTW2 sold?"

Just nature of marketing i'm afraid.

Time will tell.

As will

a

DEMO