Creative Assembly *the Future Of Total War* [Archive]

Divinus Arma

03-07-2005, 01:11

I have heard multiple ideas over other threads... Space, the American Revolution, World Wars I and II.

One of the impediments to implementing some of these concepts can be found in the evolution of warfare over the centuries. This article: http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm, and other articles on the topic of "generational warfare" focus on an evolution from 1st gen warfare to modern 4th generation warfare.

One of the key components to the transition between one generation to another is the deliniation of battle lines, deception on the battlefield, and tactical/operational/strategic manuever. Where 1st generation warfare holds clear battle lines, 4th Generation warfare sees the elimination of battle lines.

A good example of 1st Gen Warfare is Phalanx warfare in the 5th century BC and earlier. Opposing wills decided the course of their future by standing toe to toe and duking it out until one side was destroyed or capitulated. The battle lines were obvious, manuever was minimized, and civilians (generally) were left out of the battle.

Modern global terrorism is an example of 4th gen warfare and represents a complete elimination of battle lines, sponsor states, and defined combat. The targets are military, commercial, technology, infrastructure, civilians, anything and everything. The enemy blends within our own society and refuses to fight face to face. We call it cowardice. I call it 4th Gen warfare.

Somewhere in between these two extremes are 2nd and 3rd generation warfare. THE TOTAL WAR SERIES HAS SO FAR BEEN RESTRICTED TO 2ND GENERATION WARFARE. We see manuever at the tactical, operational, and strategic level within the game. When battles are fought, the battle lines are clear. The enemy is apparent. The battlefield is apparent.

World War 2 was 3rd generation warfare. We began to incorporate deception and manuever to extremes that had never been seen before. Instead of simply bashing arms against arms, we went around each other and sought critical vulnerabilites to exploit.

How can TW break out of 2nd Gen warfare and into this Arena? I'm not sure just yet. I'll post again soon.

Zharakov

03-07-2005, 03:58

World War: Total War
Some kind of a space title
A Nepolianic game that includes things that happined ells where in the world (like the American Civil War, or is that not important enough? ~D )

Are the ones I'd like to see.

However, I believe that CA is going to keep going further back in time.

I think the next one will be Rome:Total War Hunic Invasion, followed by Assryian: Total War, then Cave Man: Total War. With them leaveing off at Paliazoaic: Total War... ~D

LegolasII

03-07-2005, 04:32

world war total war game would be hard to make considering the knowledge that most ppl have of it and it would seem weird for imperialism during this time (well for the axis actually yes but its not liekly that america or britain would start attackin eachotehr and try to kill eachother.....) maybe they could have of Tribal:Total war of the indian tribes....... but i guess it would be hard considering i dont think they had that much variety in weapons. Or even a sorcery:total war with demons, sorcerors, etc.

Come Together

03-07-2005, 06:03

My ideal TW would be one that plays like MTW(mostly, take the few good features of RTW), looks like RTW, and bugfree. I could really care less what time period it is if it has these elements.

MadSpazz

03-07-2005, 06:45

I would just be thrilled to see MTW 2. The same time period, events, etc., just revamped with some of the new innovations of RTW like graphics, strat map, and I like the new boat/trade system. WWI or WWII would be weird because all the fighting would be ranged, and bombings, artillery barrages, etc. would be fun, but would be hard or confusing to develop and use in game, but that is just my opinion.

Lochar

03-07-2005, 07:56

I also would like to see both shogun and medievel revamped graphically. As for future products, well maybe upto gunpower just coming out but after that, I wouldnt enjoy it as much. It would feel like that movie the Last samurai, technology just replacing good old fashion warriors.

I would also just see more innovations to the current timelines already given like supply lines, resources needs (altho not resource gathers like AOE type games) of the sort that iron maybe scarce now where no mopre units can be trained. Better AI, etc , etc

Hurin_Rules

03-07-2005, 08:57

I'd like to see a fantasy game.

Why? One of the things that bugs me about RTW is that many of the units are not historically accurate. In a fantasy game these constraints are gone and this wouldn't be a problem. I'd like to use a wedge of trolls to bust open a phalanx or have my mages finish off those pesky horse archers with a couple of fireballs. ~:)

Wishazu

03-07-2005, 09:20

i dont really mind which time period they use as long as they include a mp campaign.

AquaLurker

03-07-2005, 10:26

I would like see a Renaissance period total war in RTW engine, Napoleon total war would seems fine too. Then maybe a Victorian age total war series. If possible a fantasy total war. Alexander total war? Go research on Chinese history and produce a 'Chun Qui Zhan Guo: Total War' or 'Three Kingdoms: Total War?

Mongolian: Total War where they can include Southern Song Chinese faction, the nomadic Lao factions(or later Jin Empire), Xixia Faction, Tibetan factions, Persians faction, Korean faction, Burmese faction, Japanese faction, North Indian factions and include some central Asian or middle eastern factions with eastern European factions in the expansion pack.
Of course the design team will have to put on alot of heavy research on the history of asian armies, culture and history and I can tell you it is really tough to find book relating to (translated into english) asian military history and culture of that period, probably they will have to give it a 'Rome Total War' treatment for gameplay sake. : Book: And If they embark on this, there is definitely be allot of culture appearance inaccuracies but we can't blame them. Even learned European historians writing about Asian histories make cultural reference error.

I think they are more specialized in historical warfare of the 'second generation'(borrowed someone else term ~D ) and should find ways to improve on this aspect of their specialties. Unless they can find a way to produce World War 1 or 2 games that are unique and different (the way that made total war series cool) from the current existing ones in the market, I don't think they should venture into that area.

Starship battles genre are already covered by relic of serria in the form of 'Home World' and 'Xenos'.

Count Belisarius

03-07-2005, 16:23

Assuming that TW wants to retain any pretence of realism, I think the current Total War tactical model might not be able to cope with warfare beyond what I call 2nd generation: uniformed combatants, line-of-sight battles, a discrete battlefield, fairly clear battle lines, and sight- or sound- based tactical communications. 2nd generation combat was gone by WWI, and I think the TW tactical model would have trouble with combat as it existed after, say, the Crimean War, the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War.

For example, how would the TW tactical engine account for radios, airplanes, snipers, and, most importantly, artillery? In WWI and beyond, heavy artillery (not field guns, but heavy artillery) often did not operate on the 'battlefied' at all. In WWI, for example, an order to attack would come down the chain of command, coupled with a notation that the regiment/division artillery would conduct a rolling bombardment of such-and-such duration, beginning at such-and-such a time. Once troops left their trenches, they were out of touch with high command, since their communications relied primarily on telephones as opposed to radios.

The TW engine would work better, but probably not well, in WWII. In WWII, radio communications largely replaced telephones, and this gave commanders at least theoretical tactical control over artillery that was out of their line of sight. So the TW engine might work. But still, how to incorporate air power (and anti-air units) into the mix? The game probably would wind up clunky and ponderous because of all the additional variables.

Personally, I would LOVE to see a "Napoleon: Total War" perhaps with a "Seven Years' War" or "American Revolution" or "Invasion of Russia" expansion pack. Imagine leading Wellington's British in the Peninsula or taking Frederick the Great's Prussians into battle. The possibilities are practically ENDLESS, especially since "Napoleonic" warfare was technologically unchanged from about 1700 into the 1840's, and we're talking about warfare that occurred all over the world. The basic tactical model is already out there with "Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle", albeit with grapics that look like circa 1990.

I also would like to see the incorporation of a tactical engine for naval battles. This may be unfeasible as a practical matter, but it's a great theory. How might the world have been different if the Greeks had not prevailed at Salamis, if Marcus Antonius had won at Actium, or if Nelson had been annihilated at the Nile or at Trafalgar?

I think a fantasy version of the TW engine would be fun, too. This might add a younger crowd to the existing fan base, which would increase sales, which is always good for the developers.

A revamping of MTW or STW, either one, would be an excellent in the extreme. I cannot tell you how many hours I have devoted to this series of games, and the greatness of STW and MTW is the primary reason why I am still playing RTW with all of its deficiencies.

Other ideas. "Conquistadors: Total War". "China: Total War" or "India: Total War" or "Renaissance: Total War" some of which other posters already suggested.

hrvojej

03-07-2005, 16:38

The Stranger

03-07-2005, 16:44

They definitly should remake MTW, it's good for us and for them cause most people will buy it.

[GG]vonDöbeln

03-07-2005, 17:02

Napoleonic Total War would be awesome, as would Lord of The Rings Total War.

[GG]vD

Dutch_guy

03-07-2005, 17:21

caesar44

03-07-2005, 18:42

AquaLurker

03-07-2005, 18:47

Napoleonic Total War would be awesome, as would Lord of The Rings Total War.

if you want Lord of The Rings Total War. you should try Lord of the Rings Battle for Middle-Earth , it's the closest you can get at teh moment
was going to buy that game if I wasn't broke.. ~:)

I have the game...and I really hate the multiplayer games, the 'good' heros are too powerful and Mordor is trash. But other than that the campaign are nice.

Vanya

03-07-2005, 18:54

GAH!

Biblical Total War

Scenario #1:
Youz be Moses. Youz lead your sirley band of believers through the desert so that youz can carve out your empire in the lands of your enemies. Can youz come down from Mount Sinai and seize the throne of Egypt and make yourself pharoah? Can you conquer the Assyrians? Or will youz be crucified into a mere footnote in history? GAH!

Scenario #2:
Crusades! Kinda half-done in MTW. So a full-blown "behead the infidel and drink their blood" type game would be nice.

Scenario #3:
While we be on the subject of glorious salvation, the current Holey Land conundrum can be included too! Youz can march out as a PLO "general" and lead a brigade of Elite Armored Stone Throwing Youths and try to take over the Jewish state through terror and blood. If you tech up some, youz can then field Militia Qasam Rocket Units and even hire Mercenary Jihadi Footsoldiers or the more elitist "special" units of the Army of [Insert name of deity here].

Scenario #4:
Dante Total War. Field legions of the dead in your bid to conquer Hell from Dante's Satan. Seal the deal by annexing the ninth circle of Hell. Start off by recruiting the guy that rolls the rock up the hill, fight 3-headed pooches, etc. Vanya sez: this be a FIREY game indeed! Let the brimstone burn! GAH!

~:cheers: :charge:

GAH!

Mikeus Caesar

03-07-2005, 19:21

In my mind, the next TW would be one starting in the Renaissance when hand to hand combat has been almost completely removed, up to sometime just before WW1, when mechanized warfare is starting to replace everything.

Divinus Arma

03-07-2005, 21:16

Some good ideas here. I think becasue of the advances in warfare following the sceond generation, anything beyond WWI would be incompatible with the current system. Air power, more then anything creates a real difficulty.

However, I think air power could be included on a very limited scope, a cross between "Civilization" and RTW. Whereas RTW uses navy, but omits naval battles, the same concept could apply to early airpower.

Airpower in WWI was a footnote, and was not crucial to either side gaining the absolute advantage. Airpower become the dominate leverage in WW II, when Germany passed over the Maginot line set up by the French. The french had largely dismissed airpower, and that is why they were smoked so quickly.

Getting back on topic, WW I was still quite strightforward as far as battles were concerned. Lines were drawn, trenches were dug, and the enemy faced off. The imposition of the Machine gun made a big difference, as did the tank and long range artillery. Still, I think all of these can be incoprorated into a TW style of play without reverting to garbage tactics like Age of empires and command and conquer. There will certainly be some challenges with this.

Prior to this, the age of Napoleon and the American revolutionary war would be a great concept and more easily incoporated. Battle lines still formed "plates and seams" and a break in the battle line was still disastrous. Even better, the ranged combat is limited to short distances, and enemies could eventually engage in hand to hand. Additionally, imperial exapnsion was a big part of each country during these centuries: America to the west with manifest destiny, the french in europe, english imperialism and colonization, even the asian countries were active.

Therefore, I think the next TW game that could be created while maintaining the integrity of the current system should be Gunpowder: Totalwar. It should incorpoate the end of the renaissance, the napolianic wars, the american revolution all the way up to the war of 1812. Union and Confederacy: Total War should be an expansion pack.

This could be done, it could be huge, and it doesn't break the gameplay basic concepts.

Arrowhead

03-07-2005, 21:46

Age of empires: Total war! ~D ~D ~D ~:cool: ~:eek:

Jagger

03-07-2005, 22:30

Personally I wonder if Total War is going to abandon any pretenses of realism and go the arcade route. STW and MTW did focus on realism as much as possible. We didn't have fantasy units or 3 second melees. If they continue further along this design path, the game will be for someone other than me.

I will be much more cautious about my next TW purchase.

A.Saturnus

03-07-2005, 22:38

Pacifism: Total War

Quietus

03-07-2005, 23:00

The Sims: Total War :dizzy2: ~D

"Men! Let's take back our neighborhood from these nasty barbarian gangsters!".

"So, lift up your baseball bats and frying pans, adjust your sneakers then let's give them hell!"

BeeSting

03-07-2005, 23:36

As always, the first thing that comes to mind is the blend between Europa Universalis strategical game (not necessarily in the same period as EU though) and TW battles.

Alas, 'tis but a dream. :happy:

And the surprising success of the game in spite its great depth and detail to historical accuracy. It just goes about to prove that the market is there, it's just that the ones targeting this market have been poor in making good games.

I agree…. such combination would truly be my dream come true.

mxlm

03-08-2005, 02:29

Getting back on topic, WW I was still quite strightforward as far as battles were concerned. Lines were drawn, trenches were dug, and the enemy faced off. The imposition of the Machine gun made a big difference, as did the tank and long range artillery. Still, I think all of these can be incoprorated into a TW style of play without reverting to garbage tactics like Age of empires and command and conquer. There will certainly be some challenges with this.

WWI didn't need to be as straightforward as it was, though; that, in essence, occured dye to a lack of imagination from the leadership of all sides. Hundreds of miles of trenches bar your way? Fine. Go around. Use an amphibious landing. Whatever. Oh, right, that'd be risky. So instead we'll use frontal assaults. And more frontal assaults. And more frontal assaults. And...

*ahem* [/tangent]

mrdarklight

03-08-2005, 03:24

I don't think you can do anything after the American Civil War or before say the Greeks. Total War is largely based on unit formations - well-ordered lines facing each other standing up. This went away after the US Civil War and didn't exist much before the Greeks.

If they really changed the format of the game, they could go for the post-Civil War stuff, which could be interesting, but it would be a big departure and maybe not suitable for the "total war" series. Space battles are totally out of the question I think.
Something like the battle of Kursk or Kharkov in WWII might be doable. WW1 was really trench warfare, which could be interesting too, but again, it would really diverge from what Total War has been so far.
I don't think the Revolutionary War was quite long enough for warrant a whole Total War game.

So some ideas (with cool titles!) are:

Blue vs. Gray: Total War
Napoleon: Total War
Greece: Total War (really would work well as an expansion to RTW, actually)
And I really liked this other guy's idea:
Middle Earth: Total War!

mrdarklight

03-08-2005, 03:27

Oh, wait, how about naval warfare? That could work...
Frigates: Total War

Maybe a new franchise with this:
Britain: Sea War...

soibean

03-08-2005, 05:28

I have the game...and I really hate the multiplayer games, the 'good' heros are too powerful and Mordor is trash. But other than that the campaign are nice.

I thought the game was awful
the gameplay was boring, the maps were... I dont know... had a lack of inspiration. the heros were trash as you said, units had their super advantage units which could total anything. i.e. trolls wrecked house against everything unless they massed archers, in which case I couldnt win. I hated how your cavalry died from charging into your opponent, no matter the angle and what they were doing. Nothing like losing half your cavalry force from charging into the flank of already engaged orcs.
there were many other things i hated about this game... if you disagree Im sorry enjoy it while you can

soda

03-08-2005, 05:52

I'm not sure what Medieval TW covered since I never played it but I get the impression it dealt with Europe and a bit of western Asia. I'd like to see a game that heads a bit east (and perhaps a bit earlier) so we can have the Arabs, Persians, multiple Turkish groups, Indians, Byzantium etc. Again I'm not sure what MTW covered from this reigon.

I really don't like hte idea of going further back in time. Sure theres potential with Persia and Egypt and Greece and Assyria all fighting each other but I don't want to have lesser technology and all.

hoom

03-08-2005, 06:33

Use an amphibious landing. Whatever. Oh, right, that'd be risky Dude, that was Churchills' master plan.
It resulted in the Gallipoli fiasco.

WWI & the period leading up to it (not sure how long) are useless for a TW game.
Imagine a game that consisted of sitting around fighting over an 8km or so thick ribbon of land several thousand long all game.

No fun there.

I don't think you can do anything after the American Civil War or before say the Greeks. Total War is largely based on unit formations - well-ordered lines facing each other standing up. This went away after the US Civil War and didn't exist much before the Greeks. I largely agree with this.

I really think a Space:TW would be awesome.
To do it right would probably (but not necessarily) require implementation of a naval system first.
Space battles can be done at an absolute minimum just with a (largely) flat, black terrain, replacing individuals with ships & with some more spacey unit formations.

Actually I don't see much difference required to do bi/tri-reme battles.
The ship is a mount kinda like a big floating elephant.
Put an archer or two in the tower & some soldiers on deck to fight, a gang plank like the siege towers, then have at you!
Even just ramming & archers would do.

Whoever said Homeworld covers space adequately needs a kick in the head 'cos he might as well say AoE II covers the medieval period adequately so there was no need of M:TW :furious3:

There's an interview where Mr. Grasdyke said he hoped someone would make a LoTR mod but that CA was unable to due to licencing.

I want to see a China:TW or India:TW as the next one.
If they get into remaking Shogun & Medieval already, then there will just be an endless cycle of S, M, R, M2, S2, R2, S3, R3, M3...

Fundamentally I'd like the future of TW to include multiplayer campaigns, proper modability ie no hard coded limits/behaviour getting in the way, no more pandering to the dumb crowd or at least doing it in a way that doesn't infuriate those who aren't dumb (see sig) and patches as required by bug fixing needs (more frequent & numerous).

L`zard

03-08-2005, 10:27

Considering the last two issues of Total War, and what the game engine is set up for, Me thinx that china:tw would be the best, assuming that CA incorporates the best of m:tw and r:tw.

Could be the best o' Shogun, eh?

Nothing like wars of unification to make a good game........

Otherwise, how 'bout the Hundred Years War? Same sort of thing, tho it's been touched on in M:tw...........A more 'detailed' look might be fun, eh?

My own thought is that the 'scale' of the game engine needs be considered. While I'm a large fan of WW1, it doesn't play out well tactically, even less so for WW2. Not to mention that either ww1 or 2 would require going 3d in the tactical maps, which I don't see happening with this game engine.

Basic take: 'whatever':Total War must stay inside the present conventions of the game engine, if we are to expect cures for the present complaints concerning details like AI behavior etc etc.

AquaLurker

03-08-2005, 10:44

I think that who ever compares TW series with AOE needs a kick in the head.
~D

Both games may be of the same topic but the games are of different genre. AOE is 'real time strategy' game while TW series is a strategy game with 'real time tactical battles' and it is because of this feature that separates TW series with other RTS games.

Homeworld on the other hand is the space version of TW series, emphaise more on the tactical aspect. If someone is to say starcraft and Home world is the same type of game, then he really needs a real kick in the head ~D

Yasko

03-08-2005, 10:50

There could be some interesting titles about Rome. "RTW-Hunnic invasions", "RTW-Eeast Roman Empire", but i would also love to play MTW II, "Nappy TW", "Dark Ages TW", "China TW", "India TW", "Islamic Empire TW", "Crusuaders TW"' "Colonization TW", hell the possibilities are endless.... :charge:

Captain Fishpants

03-08-2005, 11:24

Hortensius

03-08-2005, 12:22

MTW 2 based around the crusades......awesome :charge:

Brutus

03-08-2005, 14:02

What about something like Religion: Total War? Probably very much politically incorrect, but I think it could be within a time period ranging from roughly 1500 to 1648 (the peace of Westphalia, which ended most of western Europe's religous wars) In which you would not play as a country, but more like a family like Habsburg, Valois, Bourbon, Nassau etc. in which alliances and such would be linked to your religious preference...so all western european powers would start as Catholics, but as the game advances beyond, say, 1521 (Diet of Worms), a player could choose to become Lutheran and even later Calvinist... This would then be linked to the religious feelings of your subjects, making them more or less likely to revolt, as well as making troops and especially mercenaries likely to revolt as well.

In that case i would like a strategy map with more cities too, by the way, maybe provinces with one capital and multiple other cities? (for example: Province: Brabant, Title: Duchy, Capital: Brussels, Other cities: Antwerp, Louvain, Bois-le-Duc, Breda) So that whoever owns the capital gets the title of the province and some additional benefits, but to reap all of these one would have to own all cities. This would also involve more captains and governors (non-family members) like in MTW, having governors revolt and start their own family...
:thinking2:

Anyway, just a thought ~D

SpencerH

03-08-2005, 17:46

Even modern wars could be modelled except that the unit scale would have to be much smaller. For example a unit might be a half section/squad or single tanks. Heavy arty and airpower would be 'off-map'.

PS. I'd like to see a napoleonic version.

Crandaeolon

03-08-2005, 18:03

Midkemia: Total War. That would be just about the perfect setting for the current engine, plus maybe a few special effects. ~D

mrdarklight

03-08-2005, 21:20

---Not to mention that either ww1 or 2 would require going 3d in the tactical maps, which I don't see happening with this game engine.---

Um... Rome is full 3D on the tactical maps...

mxlm

03-09-2005, 05:37

Dude, that was Churchills' master plan.
It resulted in the Gallipoli fiasco.

Point was it didn't need to become a fiasco, and with better planning...

'Course, opinions are like...y'know. I'm probably way off base ;)

Gravitons

03-09-2005, 06:58

I would love to have WW2:Total War.
It would be interesting to play the germans.
HEIL HITLER! :duel:

Wicked

03-09-2005, 07:37

I really hope they don't go farther than early gunpowder warfare...the engine would never be able to handle it unless you auto-calc every battle, I can see how they can get away with calling 160 guys a cohort, there are plenty of people who don't know any better, but modern military organizations are pretty well known, and very easy to look up, if I see the word "Regiment" then I'll expect to see at least 2500 guys in it, while playing anything called Total War using company or squad sized units would be a waste of time, there are plenty of other games for the time period that do that better.

I can really imagine World War: Total War...

"Dude, I just laid the smackdown on France, they thought they were like sooo badass with their 6 companies of infantry on the border, but I was all like smarter and used a full stack, like 1500 elite super duper riflemen!!!"

"Hey guys, I'm having a problem with ships and need some help, you see I really want to use battleships as my main fleet unit, but they take 240 men out of the population, unlike the heavy cruiser which only takes 160, what ratio do you think I should have in my fleets?"

That's how it would be, there's just no way in hell they'll be able to make a gunpowder game that can actually represent numbers without it having so many bugs and running so slow that you will beat your computer to death out of sheer frustration.

Catiline

03-09-2005, 16:33

Anyone want to see some screens - http://www.actiontrip.com/link.phtml?http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=23882&mode=thread&order=0

Ulfang

03-09-2005, 17:12

I'm looking forward to see any future titles particularly in the Napoleonic era or maybe the Victorian. I think the games are very replayable when you can play so many countries.

More than anything I'd love to see MTW 2. I love the MEdieval Era and with the graphics and system RTW incorporates it would be a world beater! Problem now is I find it very hard to go back to MTW when I can do sieges like in RTW (i.e stationing troops on your walls) and the Graphics I once loved now look soooooo dated lol

Paradox has had huge sucess with titles such as Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Crusader Kings and Victoria and they re-released EU under an EU2 title and have now released a Hearts of Iron 2 and will prbably relese second versions of their other games so don't see why we can't have a MTW 2, RTW 2 and STW2!

Intrepid Sidekick

03-09-2005, 18:09

Anyone want to see some screens - http://www.actiontrip.com/link.phtml?http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=23882&mode=thread&order=0

This is not the future of "Total War" but the future of "Total Warrior".

We at CA are developing a new string and a new bow - not changing the perfectly good one we have made already.

We will continue concentrating on enhancing and developing the Total War brand.

"Spartan :Total Warrior" has been worked on and is being worked on by a seperate team. The Total War team, including "Capt. Fishpants", continues to work on mouthwatering goodies to make you all drool. Do not fear Total War is still here. ~:cool:

Intrepid Sidekick
#C.A. Staff#

RedJack

03-09-2005, 18:26

"Spartan :Total Warrior" has been worked on and is being worked on by a seperate team. The Total War team, including "Capt. Fishpants", continues to work on mouthwatering goodies to make you all drool. Do not fear Total War is still here. ~:cool:

Intrepid Sidekick
#C.A. Staff#
Good to hear.

hoom

03-09-2005, 22:29

We at CA are developing a new string and a new bow - not changing the perfectly good one we have made already...
We will continue concentrating on enhancing and developing the Total War brand...Do not fear Total War is still here. :balloon2: Glad to hear it.

Homeworld on the other hand is the space version of TW series, emphaise more on the tactical aspect. If someone is to say starcraft and Home world is the same type of game, then he really needs a real kick in the head

Starcraft and Homeworld are essentially the same type of game.
They are RTSes.

For Homeworld to be in a similar genre to TW games, it would require all of the following: A turn based, strategic, empire building mode
Fleets on the scale of thousands of ships divided into easily controllable units
No resource gathering during the realtime battles
An open ended (largely storyless) gameplay
In actual fact Homeworld features zero of those requirements.
Therefore it is not of the TW genre.
4x games like MoO2 are the closest thing to TW that have been done in the space genre.
Shogun could be said to be MoO2, set in Medieval Japan, with a simplified drag & drop strategic map, realtime battles instead of turnbased + flanking, morale & handy unit based control.

---Not to mention that either ww1 or 2 would require going 3d in the tactical maps, which I don't see happening with this game engine.--- Yes, 3d movement rather than the 2d ground based movement of existing TW games would be hard to implement well.

playing anything called Total War using company or squad sized units would be a waste of time, there are plenty of other games for the time period that do that better. Totally agree.

Point was it didn't need to become a fiasco, and with better planning... Churchill thought the Turks were little better than MTW peasants.
In fact they were well trained, well armed, well fortified, motivated forces, fighting to repel foriegn invaders on their own turf.
The fact that the troops wound up on the wrong spot with impossible goals only made the failure more prominent.

With better millitary intelligence, I contend that the entire operation would have been cancelled due to the 100% chance of it becoming just as bogged down as the Western Front.

Pode

03-09-2005, 23:29

Given the success of the Lordz and their Napoleonic Total War mod (NTW 1 for MTW:VI available, NTW 2 for RTW under development), I doubt very much that CA will publish a Napoleonic era TW game. I would bet on a Fall of Rome expansion for RTW (in keeping with the barabrian invasion theme of expansions for the series). I have no idea what TW 4 might be, but I for one would like to see it based on the Mongols. They crashed the party in STW and MTW, I'd like to see them be the focus. The map would have to cover all of Eurasia and North Africa. Factions would include the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, Muslims (did the Shiite / Sunni distinction exist?), Orthodox, and all the major Catholic players of the time. Start with the Mongolian steppes, and try to equal the success of Genghis. Surpass it, even. Definitely would need region restricted recruiting, Korean Thunder bombers in Hungary would be just wrong.

Turbo

03-09-2005, 23:56

Total War is headed for console games (XBOX, etc). No great secret. The arcade style of RTW was designed for this. There are company agreements already in place to enable this.

ElmarkOFear

03-10-2005, 00:10

I am sure the ultimate goal of the TW series is to get to a point where multiple platform releases are common place. Making game adjustments, to eventually be able to make one game which can be played on the PC, XBox, PS2, and/or Gamecube.

Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that to make a game which will be playable on all of these platforms, will end up in a mediocre game. Each platform has its own distinct advantages/disadvantages over the other and you would have to lose these advantages to have it playable on every platform. At least with the current technology.

As PCs and Consoles move forward in development and try to include the advantages of the other platforms, you will eventually see hardware which will be capable of taking advantage of both. But that is still years away.

AntiochusIII

03-10-2005, 01:36

ElmarkOFear : I think you're getting a bit paranoid since the arrival of the Spartan Cao Cao with lighting sword fighting Rome(?) ... no insult intended. Just pointing.

Well, for me I vote for China Total-War. It fits the scale of lots of factions, you can even split China into three kingdoms (with an imperial capital somewhere ready to be burned: the annoying emperor - no, I don't like this system) to increase even more, though there are already LOTS of factions to choose from. NE India can even be implemented, so as SE Asia. lots of POSSIBILITIES (consider this US Civil war guys - possibilities and variety are necessary for the prime TW games) lots of land to conquer, and lots of times to choose from and make a few Expansions (though the tradition is one.)

And of course, the traditional Mongol appearance as a mighty foe coming from the other side of the world...they're now just right next door!

It's gonna be fun. ~D

Nelson

03-10-2005, 01:44

Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that to make a game which will be playable on all of these platforms, will end up in a mediocre game.

Certainly a danger but this need not always be the case. GTA-Vice City was a big hit on consoles and even better on PCs. A game can go the other way too. Morrowind is a great PC game that ported well to console.

Now granted, these are not the same genre as TW.

ChaosLord

03-10-2005, 07:07

What I would really want(but will probably never happen) is a Civilization: Total War. From 4000 BC to 2050 or whatever. Civilization with TW battles and titles/characters.

But, more realistically i'm hoping they make a Three Kingdoms: Total War. The popularity of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series proves theres already a market for that sort of game, and I think TW could pull it off better so long as thing stop slipping into becoming an arcade game.

One last note though, I hate remakes. Remaking MTW or STW would just be wasting time. I(any many others, I think) don't want rehashed crap fed back to us, I want a new game. If the TW series goes down that road i'll know CA is done producing worthwhile games.

Ulfang

03-10-2005, 12:53

Well I think many others would also love to see their favourite MTW improved. I wish they'd made RTW first and the third title had been MTW but you can't have everything ;)

I don't think i'd be interested in a China Total war. I'm not interested at all in Asian History. Couldn't stand Shogun and only became interested in the series when Medieval came along. Still with the modding capabilities of RTW I'll have loads of games to keep me going for a long time to come.

Can't see a Civilization Total War ever appearing. Reason they are so good is because the titles are set in a limited time period. To open that to run from the dawn of man to the future wouldn't work.

Drisos

03-10-2005, 13:16

HEIL HITLER!

. . . :shocked: DELETE THOSE WORDS!!!!

it's not normal to post things like this, what were you thinking?? ~:eek:

GilJaysmith

03-10-2005, 14:23

Total War is headed for console games (XBOX, etc). No great secret. The arcade style of RTW was designed for this. There are company agreements already in place to enable this.

Not heading for X-Box, no "secret" because it's not true, no it wasn't, and no there aren't.

Your score: zero. Please try again...

SpencerH

03-10-2005, 16:16

I think a true civ-tw cross will become a reality.

I fully expected civ3 to incorporate some type of tactical combat (especially since firaxis already owns a good tactical engine in the gettysburg games) but I think the concept may have been axed by SM based on the philosophy that civ is not a wargame. CIV4 may be out late in the year and there are hints that it will incorporate more complex combat (if not full tactical screens).

RTW is clearly CA's step toward combining complex strategy and tactical games. Obviously it takes a lot of time and experience to produce a game such as RTW that combines the two styles. Bugs are inevitable in games of this complexity but assuming that they are fixable before other similar games emerge, I expect that future iterations of TW will include more civ-like capabilities.

Ulfang

03-10-2005, 19:23

SpencerH

03-10-2005, 20:18

Perhaps, perhaps not we'll have to see :) I've always loved Civ but have to admit the game isn't enough fro me anymore i need more to keep me interested. I'd love to see a TW that did run from 4000bc onwards but these games always advance too fast its all a big rush to keep up with everyone else. With games like TW you are stuck in one Era making the overall game a lot more enjoyable.

Problem i've always had with RTS games based on Civ such as Empire Earth, Dawn of War etc is you spend five mins in one era before you're in the next. I did like Age of Empires 2 as you were stuck in a medieval age. Ok so you advanced between different ages within that Era but it didn't get out of control. I just can't see a game like total war being enjoyable spread over many eras. If the advancement was slow and gave you 100 hours playing in one era before the next then maybe it would be good but its never like that is it!

I agree, its why I dont appreciate RoN as much as many other civ'ers do. I wasnt really thinking of the huge march through time though so much as the emphasis on strategic concepts, diplomacy, culture, etc. RTW has taken an important step from MTW but there's a fair way to go (although a surprising number of people, disappointed with the tactical side of RTW, play with autocalc which says a lot I think).

hoom

03-10-2005, 23:04

I'd actually rather see the future TWs be more focussed & smaller games.
Shogun & VI were good little maps that you could complete a campaign on in sufficient time not to get bored & start a new campaign as someone else.
I know few people who have finished a RTW campaign.

I'm really liking the look of Gaius Julius' Punic:TW mod over at TWC.
A big map but focussed on a relatively small geographical area, so lots more detail.

Herakleitos

03-10-2005, 23:23

I agree. Shogun and Viking-games take long enough for me... Conquering the whole of Europe in MTW or 50 provinces in RTW just takes forever...

hrvojej

03-11-2005, 01:25

On the contrary, I really enjoy the epics of it all. TW games are among the last of their kind, where it easily takes weeks to finish a single game, instead of a few hour fix or a series of unrelated missions. The only other ones I can think of are the Paradox games, and to a point dynamic campaigns in some simulations.

What happened to the 4X games anyway? I guess they got wasted in the attempts to fit them into the beer'n'pretzel mode of the mainstream (like MoO3) and were deemed "unsuccessful". I guess the powers never bothered to think that maybe if they didn't try to pander the people with short attention spans in such games, it wouldn't necessarily happen like that. Speaking of which, has anybody ever wondered why there aren't any more epic space sims nowdays (like Privateer), or the likes of Jagged Alliance? I guess these also went down the drain as "too involved". (edit: upon rereading, it occured to me that the RPGs are also going the dodo way... *sigh*)

But who would have thought that the gaming evolution would go this way? Long ago I remember thinking "wow, if games are this complex now, who knows where they will be in a few years". Well, let's just say that the direction they took wasn't the one I wanted or expected, and if it continues like this some day hand-held devices may look like an intelectual pinnacle of gaming entertainment. That's why I probably spend so much time playing TW anyway - what else is there that doesn't last a few evenings worth of missions at best?

Here is to ther hope that not all developers/publishers/etc are blind to the different tastes, and the audience that *is* there (for evidence, just look at all the complaining on any game forum) - but which just doesn't have anything to buy any more. That's the best I can think of to wish for the future of TW/CA branching out/all that business.

Ashitaka-san

03-15-2005, 02:55

It has already been mentioned but I would really like to see a TW game based in China. I believe they could make a great game there. You have a great, large area to work with and many factions that coule be involved (depending on what era the game is developed in).
It may even be nice to enlarge it to cover most of the East... sort of a MTW but in the East.

hoom

03-15-2005, 03:19

Theres also some serious variety of weaponry & big cool building projects in China.

lars573

03-15-2005, 05:39

On the future of total war I prefer to paraphrase the space marines in DOW
"My faith holds me", that is my faith in CA. Faith that they now what they are doing and wouldn't sell there souls completely. I'm not so naive as to think you can't sell out.

Divinus Arma

03-15-2005, 19:24

First of all, I concur with everyone on the ideas that cover 1st and 2nd Generation warfare (attrition with minor to moderate manuever at the tactical and operational level: example- surrounding a bad guy army with three of your good guy armies). China is a great concept. Napoleonic warfare is good, as is the age of european colonialism and expansion, as well as the american civil war.

I believe that the total war series has one primary limitation preventing development of 3rd generation (manuever warfare: example- avoiding the enemy whenever you can and crippling his infrastructure and eroding his will to fight) tactics and strategy. Consider the following:

We would like to have a TW game in WWI, WWII, any of the cold war "hotspots", or a post modern era such as world geopolitics and warfare following a global nuclear holocaust or the advance into space. We face the same issues each and every time that appear unresolvable:

**time/space/distance issues: speed of units and the relationship between rapidity and repetition of weaponary. Example: laying down a suppresive fire while calling in airstrikes.

**This issue is exponential compounded by DECENTRALIZATION OF COMMAND CONTROL. 3rd generation warfare requires decision making power be pushed down to the lowest levels. Instead of Generals making key decisions, Captains (hell even Sergeants and Coporals) make critical decisions that can shape the battlefield.

**Line of sight/ camoflauge/ deception. How do you engage an enemy who's position is unknown to you? What do we do, look for the general and his entourage of bodyguards? Me thinks not.

**logistics/supply lines/rear area support

While these issues I have presented represent the problem, we must endeavor to solve these problems with the following:

I believe that the central issue that must be resolved first is decentralization of command. Time/space/distance is secondary and line of sight/camoflauge/deception is third. This requires an AI system of unprecedented caliber. Instead of saying: "march hear and attack the enemy", your orders would be "approach in line formation and assualt the enemy by fire teams while utilizing standard flanking manuevers when possible". (of course the order would be more concise on screen).

Now that is just one example at the tactical level. The question now is, how do we tie this into the operational level (campaign map)? Consider the following:

You have a "full stack" located in the city of Los Angeles in post nuclear U.S. You know your enemy's formal border is South of you, near the Mexican border. However, your recon patrols (spies) have given you information that the enemy has advanced north, to a location near the ruins of San Diego. You know this becasue you sent the unit down to that area and they dissapeared after making contact. Still, their exact location is unknown. You decide to send a half stack south: two companies of mechanized mobile infantry, four companies of conscription survivors, and four companies of politically loyal basic ground infantry. You also send a recon VTOL over the area whcih reveals nothing- the enemy must be entrenched and under concealment (a build option for generals on the move). Your stacks always have a recon platoon attached ( a spy agent) to provide info to you as you advance. As you spend your move points slowly heading south, you finally get the information you need: The enemy faction has a half stack entrenched, cover and concealment in the ruins of san diego. You decide to go ahead and lay seige on their position, breaking your half stack into two armies: one to the south to cut off logistical support on the campaign map, and the other on the north end to keep them blocked in. Your forces are far enough away to where they will either slowly wither away in their entrenched position or they will have to break loose and try to assualt.

NExt turn: you say screw it and decide to assualt their position. First from L.A., you send bombers supported by a few VTOL fighters to soften their position in a bombing campaign. As the bombers begin their run and fly over san diego, enemy faction VTOLs (on automtaic defend orders from Tijuana baseport) fly out to defend the entrenched position. They shoot down half your bombers and 1/3 of your VTOL fighters in an automatically calculated battle. They turn tail and head back, leaving the reamining bombers free to lay down some bunker busters and fly back to L.A. The enemies stack is reduced only slightly. It's time to engage. You move your forces into the san diego ruins for an assault. The familiar "battle square" outline comes up and you are taken to the tactical map.

TO BE CONTINUED...

BeeSting

03-15-2005, 20:20

I see it this way:

CA could either take the path to appease the more serious strategy game players, who calls for historical accuracy and sophistication; or, they could seek out the highly impacted market that wants RTS games to be more in line with the Warcraft or Starcraft level of play. The going pattern seems to be the former, in hopes to win the latter by visual impressions and epic proportions of the game, which I am sure they were highly successful in doing.

In spite my many criticisms on this site, the game is impressive, I admit. And I certainly got more than my money's worth with countless hours of play and fun for the first month of purchasing this game.... but my on going disappointment is that although it has the potential to make that fun ever lasting, it failed to do so mainly due to its second rate AI that still needs quite a bit of patching. So I am left hanging with this great battle engine with a horribly poor opponent, and there's not a word from its creators that it will be improved. Is this going be their pattern of QA testing? With little hope after its release to fully patch up the bugs? Because whether their customer is a sensitive strategy game player or not, he or she will be quick to find out the incompetence of the AI and become bored of the game after a month of play. So the two years of their hard work lasted in only two months of our enjoyment, only because they overlooked for whatever reasons, the important aspect of a competent AI opponent. Ah, what a waste!

Turin

03-15-2005, 23:03

Okay, it's obvious that they can't go backwards in time anymore. So they have to move forward in time. Unless they want to make remakes of their previous games (not a bad idea by the way) they have to settle for the next historical military period: pike and musket warfare, Baroque warfare or Napoleanic warfare. Most likely it will be something that goes from the Reformation to Napoleon.

Really I can see no other direction for the total war series. A world war 1 or 2 game would be a terrible idea. Just think about it, how the hell are you suppose to keep the realism that the total war games have? I mean you have rifles that shoot across an entire RTW battlemap!!!

BeeSting

03-16-2005, 00:31

Okay, it's obvious that they can't go backwards in time anymore.

Why, they can go back to the time of Chinese warring states; the time of total war, total conquest, befitting the fact that Sun Tzu's masterpiece the Art of War was written during this period. You also have the time of Alexander the Great; the great clash between East and West. They can go back even further to the time of Bronze Age wars that includes the Hittites, Assyrians, Egyptians, and the Canaanites. Shoot, you can even include Trojans, Mycenaeans, and Minoans for this period. The Total War title itself is a can of warms, just waiting to be opened.

Strongsword

03-16-2005, 04:52

The next title (after the RTW Expansion) will likely be set in Medieval times. Either directly using MTW "2" or some other variation of the same (Feudal Total War, Dark Ages Total War, etc.).

Why so certain? It's all about the money.

MTW employs basically the same engine as the previous STW. It did not take much to change the countries and units from Japan to Europe. The "sequel" costs less to produce than a next generation product.

RTW, on the other hand, represents the next generation from STW/MTW. Much higher development costs. So, to get the most out of the work performed on RTW, the next game has to use the same engine and require few changes. Hence, MTW2 (or whatever) set in Europe in the next era from Roman times.

After that, a new advanced engine will be developed, and so on...

Divinus Arma

03-18-2005, 22:18

Ah, where was I? Oh yes.

The familiar tactical map ring surrounds your general on the strategic map and you are taken to the tactical map. But... this is Third Generation Warfare! How are you to know the size, strength, and composition of the enemy in an urban environment? You cannot! Nor could you do so in a jungle environment unless you napalmed the canopy. So, the army comparison sheet comes up and you are granted a glimpse of the enemy. Perhaps size in numbers only. You choose to fight the battle personally...

You find your view changes to that of something COMPLETELY new to Total War: A grid square representation of the tactical map. You have a birds eye perspective of the city, divided into 9 squares. A representation of your army from the north is in the upper center square. You army to the south is in the center southern square. This is the OPERATIONAL MAP.

(In modern warfare there are three levels of warfare: tactical, operational, and strategic. Think of tactics as the formation you will use in a football game. Think of operations as a linked series of tactical decisions; you run the ball twice, and now that you are on the 3rd down, the other team expects a pass- but you run instead! Strategy is the grand linkage between seperate operations: you invade Gaul and conduct operations against their territories but raid rich egyptian cities at the same time to keep them from growing too powerful until such time as you are ready to invade them.)

The operational map provides another dimension to the TW experience that compensates for some of the dynamics in third generation warfare.

As you look at the satelite imagery of devasted city of san diego, you see the following characteristics: The western grid squares are within range of YOUR naval gunfire. The northern grid squares are closest to you for reinforcement and resupply. The southern grid squares offer the same advantages to the enemy. You see that the center grid squares running north to south have a major freeway running through it, ideal for rapid redistributions of your troops (and for theirs). In the center square lies the heart of the city. The buildings, although crumbling, are still several stories high, and could house a large garrison.

What does all this mean? The operational map gives you the following objective: clear each grid square of the enemy. The operational map allows you to decide HOW to do this. Advantages of the defender AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL (tactical level includes camo, cover, and concealment, as well as naval gunfire or supporting airstrikes) include: falling back to an uncleared zone, counter-attacking grid squares you have taken, abandoning the city from an uncleared outside zone with an avenue of escape.

Is this making sense to anyone?

Defenders are of course also afforded the luxuries of tactical advantage: choice of defensive positions, setting up booby traps and ambushes, clearing and shaping rubble areas to create avenues of approach and interlocking fields of fire.

And of course, the advantage of airstrikes go to the faction currently dominating the airspace at that time.

What about the Attacker? The OPERATIONAL map plays right into the advantages of the defender with a direct relationship to advantages given to the attacker. Just as the defender may retreat from a grid square, the attacker may shape the battlefield by controlling desirable grid squares and forcing the enemy to retreat to undesirable grid squares.

Remember the operational details I outlined above? The ocean to the west? The major buildings in the center? You decide to conduct an offensive operational campaign with the goal of pushing the enmy to the sea. From there, they will be trapped by the ocean and you will have the advantage of supporting naval gunfire! You decide to divide your southern forces into three small contigents, one in each southern square. Here they will fight for a defensive position. This position will be used to prevent enemy reinforcements from resupplying the city and also prevent the enemy forces from leaving the city! Now, for your northern army... You shift them to the northeast gridsquare. With massive force, they will take the northeast gridsquare before moving south before pushing to the center and on to the coast.

Now how is the Operational Map organized? Grid squares are denoted with marker, a color coded system, or any other way CA deems fit in order to represent: Held by your faction (secure), forces from both factions are present (contested), held by the enemy (unsecure).

TO BE CONTINUED...

Romeus Petrus

03-19-2005, 00:34

MTW II would be the best thing that ever happenned to the gaming community

Divinus Arma

03-19-2005, 00:55

Now keep in mind a few things for this operational map: They do not necessarily have to be grid SQUARES. They can be designed to meet certain shapes within the battlefield to allow for a certain quality of combat. For example, a large open field would be conducive to a larger operational grid size. Likewise, confined quarters for fighting with multi level battles (several story buildings) could be contained within a smaller operational grid size. In this way, the player is actively engaged in a reasonably sized engagement with maximum controlability.

As I should have explained earlier, these "grid squares" are the tactical deployment map, similar to RTW and MTW. The need for the operational level reflects the dynamics of decentralized command and control. As one battle yields an advantage over the enemy, opportunities for exploitation and initiative will materialize and dissipate with each push in the respective grids of control.

How will this work with a turn based system? The essence of 3rd generation warfare is nature of how a battle is won. The guy who loses all his guys doesn't necessarily "lose". Similar to RTW, if an urban cohort takes out ten units of egyption axemen before going down, who really lost? Similarily, it is difficult to define a win or a loss in 3rd generation warfare, where "ground" can define a win or a loss.

The answer to this is an attacker defined assault period. The attacker has the initiative and should therefore decide how best to exhaust the intiative.

Consider our scenario... Your northern army begins it's assault on the northeast "grid" of the city, an area defined by devastated suburbs, scorched roadways, light rubble, and few major obstacles. The largest buildings in the vicinity may be a stripped outdoor shopping mall. This is a simple sweep operation: on an encounter with the enemy, the fighting will be direct and straightforward. They may be dug in, entrenched in the rubble, with roadside bombs scattered here and there on the battlefield. There are no civilians here and perhaps a few scrawny stray dogs thrown in for good measure. This is where the critical AI will be absolutley beautiful... but I will save that for my next post. For now, we are dealing with turn duration. As your army moves in a loose line formation with direction given to subordinate commanders, small scale fire fights erupt along the sweep. After facing a few pockets of resistance, you finally reach a point where the enemy has dug in. Fortunatley for you, you recognize the unusual placement of certain geographic features that allows you to prevent your forces from walking into a well covered and concealed defensive position. A look at the battlemap shows that you have pretty much covered the whole of the grid, and you are now left with this one area in the southwest corner. You decide that you want to wait a little longer and bring in armor support on your next turn. Thus, remaining on the battlefield, you place your men with orders to "dig in" (no different then a formation button such as testudo). You then end the battle, with your general's movement points spent.

But wait? Who won? Nobody really. The grid square is marked "contested". You can bring in reinforcements and so can the enemy. If you had control of the grids behind the enemy, you could assualt his rear on the next turn!

TO BE CONTINUED

Divinus Arma

03-19-2005, 01:22

***AI in 3rd generation conflict Total War:***

Okay, up to this point I have pretty much covered the mechanics of the tactical/operational/strategic interface. Now consider the possibilities with AI.

We must concede that tactics radically change and the entire concept of formations needs to be readdressed. Yes you can have a platoon of 36 men, but these are broken into three squads of three fireteams each. How is that managed?

By new formations.

The same formations used by modern military.

TO BE CONTNIUED

Divinus Arma

03-20-2005, 19:54

Have any modders considered trying to produce a modern unit based mod of RTW?

With that said, are formations alterable? This may be possible as a mod. (Not the operational map of course)

Craterus

03-20-2005, 19:59

maybe do another time period, but i think they have covered the two main ones... i don't know what is next maybe to develop MTW and RTW into MTW2 and RTW2...
you never know..

Divinus Arma

03-25-2005, 01:14

I would be surprised if they did the same period again. Why do the same period again?

Sam Adams

03-25-2005, 01:40

Lochar

03-25-2005, 09:15

Total war could handle any era of massed formations.

Basically anything up to and including the american civil war.

The period of early gunpowder, up to the civil war, including primarily napoleonic type tactics, would be the ideal. Everything in that era could be well represented by the total war engine by modifying only units and building types, and adding some new artillery graphics and stone forts. Stone walls of the type that helped stop picketts charge are allready in the game, that notch on top of the big walls. maybe give the later period units the ability to create small and weak walls like in sid meirs gettysburg.

I cant see why they dont make a 'napoleonic' total war. That would be sweet.

They have a game coming out called imperial glory I think the name was, it looks like early TW campaign maps with RTW type battles, it seems to be based on the napolean era. It only offers like 5 nations to play but this one apparently is taking diplomacy much further as the ign review said you may not even need to fight much to gain territory. If the game does it decently then I wont need a TW covering this era.

What would be cool is a world map tho and having multiple timelines starting with the bronze age and ending around gunpowder. But then some things may suffer if not as focused, but it woulda been interesting to bring the shogun armies to meet the western armies.

ToranagaSama

03-25-2005, 15:52

I think it would be great to see The Creative Assembly apply their considerable talents with other teams in a collaborative effort.

For example there is no *significantly* popular Space Based strategy game, and the best ones could use a lot of updating that most the developers can't afford.

So in that vein, I would ask that the CA team or lease with Relic and use their Homeworld 2 engine as a Tactical base for a Space Based strategy game in the view of of the TW series.

For the Strategy front end, how about teaming with Stardock (boy could he use the funds and the extra hands) and its Galatic Civilizations.

Relic is no longer developing the Homeworld series, which, I believe, is owned by Sierra. So leasing the engine may be highly possible!! Stardock is a one man operation, unless things have changed in recent times, so maybe he can be bought, hehehe.

Anyway, merging the Strategic elements of Galactic Civilization with the tactical engine of Homeworld 2 would be INCREDIBLE!!! Barring any collaborative effort, the two games could be used as a model for a Total War space based TBS with RT battles game.

---

My second vote would be for a modernization of Shogun, note, that doesn't mean a RTWmization!!!!

Third, a Three Kingdoms version of TW.

Homeworld 2 (http://www.homeworld2.com/homeworld2.jsp)

Galactic Civilization (http://www.galciv.com/index.asp?c=1&u=0)