1914 total war?

[wisefather]

Hi

I know this isnt a medievil 2 total war topic, but i would dearly like to see a ww1 total war game, i was wondering if anyone else would fancy seeing a ww1 game ^^

[Oaty]

By this time rank and file was obsolete. Horses were drawn to carriages rather than charges.

So considering CA's style I'd say not a chance

[Keba]

Hi

I know this isnt a medievil 2 total war topic, but i would dearly like to see a ww1 total war game, i was wondering if anyone else would fancy seeing a ww1 game ^^

It's unlikely. The limitations of the TW engine prevent a proper representation of a more modern front line. Anything past the Napoleonic age is unlikely, as the lack of large formations and concentrated forces makes it impossible to represent.

Thus, unless they make an entirely new engine capable of recreating a front stretching from the English Channel to the Mediterranean, it is unlikely that you will see such a total war game.

However, I do seem to remember a thread in the Arena about a game similar to TW, but in WWI ... however, I do believe that the battles were akin to the battles of Age of Empires (namely, fairly small numbers of troops).

[Comrade Alexeo]

Hi

I know this isnt a medievil 2 total war topic, but i would dearly like to see a ww1 total war game, i was wondering if anyone else would fancy seeing a ww1 game ^^

I tried running a WW1 mod briefly, but its simply too complicated and not popular enough to really ever be feasible... sadly.

[iraklaras]

Hi

I know this isnt a medievil 2 total war topic, but i would dearly like to see a ww1 total war game, i was wondering if anyone else would fancy seeing a ww1 game ^^
lol?

[Fwapper]

WWI warefare was massively different to Medieval warfare. (though the dumbass generals didn't seem to realise this.)

The air was thick with metal, and the ground was pitted with muddy shell holes. When men tried to run across no man's land they were just mowed down. For example, in the battle of the Somme, there were 60,000 British casualties on the first day. These men were just mown down by the German machine guns. They couldn't move quickly for the barbed wire, and the mud, which was so deep it swallowed whole tanks. (no joke) Cavalry charges were just impossible. No horse could ever get over no-mans land. WWI warefare was so absolutely unique and not at all similar to anything else that it just wouldn't make a good game, and is totally not in the style of other TW games...

phew. I'll shut up now. That was just me spewing out my standard grade history...

Fwapper

[Comrade Alexeo]

No, I assure you a good WW1 mod/game is possible with a Total War engine - it'd just be difficult. I can tell you the various ways "The Great War: Total War" was going to get past those obstacles, but it is irrelevant.

A WW1 game is neither impossible nor pointless - its just that no one will bother when WW2/Nam are vastly easier and "cooler."

[Comrade Alexeo]

Learned it was the opposite of that actually. Strategic is relatively easy - substitute an enormous line of forts for an enormous line of forts and trenches at the start, and you've got the Western Front.

The problem comes with representing the trenches properly on the battle-map. Several theories were presented on how to simulate them, but none was really any good.

[][GERUDO][Mojoman]

dont think ti would be possible....the war had absolutely no short term strategy like medieval or rome (where u make quick decisions like flanking etc) only long term strategy (and not very good strategy) like when to attack, where to attack....the actual battles just went like this: artillery bombardement, charge....with 2 lines and 1 of them staying still, there isnt much strategy....

[Comrade Alexeo]

Ah, but that was the point.




Imagine a game that's impossible to win.

You can attack the enemy lines with most of your army in a single all-out assault, but it might still fail - and then your own lines would be weakened. Or you could sit inert, maybe try and open up another front - but in the meanwhile you're spending vast resources just maintaining the lines.

Imagine a game in which your only goal is to capture a single city in four years, and still being unable to accomplish it.

Do you concentrate on masses of artillery, and completely obliterate your opponent - but be unable to capitalize on it? Do you form vast reserves of cavalry, gambling that you'll be able to exploit their mobility and power on a static battlefront - and hope that their utter lack of any defense whatsoever can be overcome? Do you try and use specialized units like tanks and stormtroopers, and brush aside any opposition - until they're completely overwhelmed? Do you simply recruit vast hordes of infantry and steamroll your opponent - and throw away your most valuable resource, manpower?

Imagine a game that brutally lacks any point except in and of itself.





Just like the Great War.

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

I can see the appeal, but I have my doubts as well.

The Eastern front was more dynamic on a large scale, if just as brutal.

To do the Western front, it would be best to concentrate on a portion of it, such as The Somme: Total War. But somehow even that would fail to capture the flavor of a battle where over a period of 5-months the casualty rate worked out to almost 5 men every second. And you would also need to be a brigadier general rather than the prime minister.

Cavalry were used, even on the Western front, where the idea was that infantry would create breaks in the German lines which the cavalry would then exploit. It never worked very well, and the horses tended to get hit by German artillery as they sat waiting massed behind the front line, so they stopped doing it eventually.

Artillery played such a large part in the conflict, especially after the British developed the creeping barrage, that it would need to be modeled somehow, but by this point the range of the guns far exceeds the size of a Total War map.

[][GERUDO][Mojoman]

Ah, but that was the point.




Imagine a game that's impossible to win.

You can attack the enemy lines with most of your army in a single all-out assault, but it might still fail - and then your own lines would be weakened. Or you could sit inert, maybe try and open up another front - but in the meanwhile you're spending vast resources just maintaining the lines.

Imagine a game in which your only goal is to capture a single city in four years, and still being unable to accomplish it.

Do you concentrate on masses of artillery, and completely obliterate your opponent - but be unable to capitalize on it? Do you form vast reserves of cavalry, gambling that you'll be able to exploit their mobility and power on a static battlefront - and hope that their utter lack of any defense whatsoever can be overcome? Do you try and use specialized units like tanks and stormtroopers, and brush aside any opposition - until they're completely overwhelmed? Do you simply recruit vast hordes of infantry and steamroll your opponent - and throw away your most valuable resource, manpower?

Imagine a game that brutally lacks any point except in and of itself.





Just like the Great War.


what you describe here is not a total war game :no:

the fact is that one of the teams is sitting on the other side behind machine guns doing nothing....WW2 total war could be done maybe...it wasnt trench based

[Alien_Tortoise2345]

Is a shame such a major conflict has been neglected for so long in this way. :embarassed: