View Full Version : Would CA ever make a Greek/Roman era game?
I'd love to have phalanx tactics, legions of Roman soldiers, Trojan warriors, Carthaginians with Elephants, etc. Mmmmmm. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Did they just skip around that era since there are other games like Caesar and Age of Empires that deal with it and they wanted a more unique game like Medieval? Would they ever consider making a game with their game engine and tactical/strategic combination of gameplay like Shogun and Medieval have?
Stephen Hummell
08-01-2002, 06:47
I hope they make a game like that.
Papewaio
08-01-2002, 07:22
We have the right map with MTW. Just a tiny bit of modding for sprites and troops and away you go.
Hmmm don't know about the religous structures...
I believe that one interview included something about that. CA said they wanted a Medieval time with many factions and units rather than a few factions and few units... THIS TIME!!! So the next is perhaps not unlikely around the Greek times, which I personally prefer. I even made a complete list of factions, units and some maps...
Nobunaga0611
08-01-2002, 10:29
Definitely a good idea I think. Another one, which some paeople may think is a bit repetitive, would be a game based on China. I know, too much like Shogun, but if they continue to increase the potential for the total amount of units on the field at one time, this would be a good place to do it. It wasn't uncommon for battles in China to reach a MILLION soldiers on each side. Image a battle of that size. Not feasible in a game, but still...
i'd love a roman era game, but...i don't think there'd be enough factions. unless no one minds only having a couple factions, like say rome/carthage, or troy/greece, or rome/every barbarian ever running across the rhine screaming. maybe the game could take place around the fall of rome, with you trying to stop it.
------------------
-All knowledge is worth having-
there would be plenty of factions i reckon
extend the map east a bit (to cover up to india and central asia) then you could have rome (start the game when it was relativly small), one or two greek factions, gaul, persia/assyria, possibly one (or a few) factions in the sub-continent (how unified/powerful was india in ancient times), egypt .etc
im not great with history so there are probably alot of errors, ommisions and overlaps in that but those are just some places i thought of that might of fitted the time...
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/%7Edee/GRAPHICS/ATLASES/MAURYA.GIF
well there was a fiarly large indian empire then... it could easily serve as a major faction in those time
so...
rome
gaul
egypt
greece (macedonia?)
india
china
there were plenty of other faction sized places in the middle east and northern europe (maybe not as much there really) that could be put into a game too... random tribes would appear as rebels .etc
as long as they DONT do napoleonic era total war
the problem ith TW3 would be the fact of how to cram even more into the game, they have put SO much into MTW I really can't see how they would do it, they would need to change summin big to make an acceptable sequel in my opinion, just the same game except different time wouldn't do it for me, unless they perfected itto the extreme(which is possible)
Toda Nebuchadnezzar
08-01-2002, 19:18
Personally I would love to see TW3 in India at the time of the British Empire and the East India Company.
There were roughly 12 large factions then made up of different principalities and kingdoms.
Then 5 non-playable factions would also be in the game.
Britain
East India Company (british but had its own army and so on)
France
Holland
Spain
(the last two didnt really show much interest in India but still nice to have them there as an alternative ally!)
As for troops, Nobunaga-san said that in China you could have upto 1million men on each side. True but alot of these men were armed and dressed the same ways.
In India each faction had its own type of men and dress because it stuck to tradition. Certain types of men were famous for coming from certain areas and were ferocious in battle therefore that kingdom specialised in training those men.(Takeda and cavalry!)
But also not too many people here know alot about India at the time. Would be interesting to find out!
Well either that or have a futuristic Total War where the world is in ruins(Mad Max, Waterworld - films to help u understand) that would always be interesting.
------------------
Jaguara-Spoken like a TRUE SPAMMER Toda!
No Fear Legend.
What about the Moghuls??? I think you forgot the Indians themselves. Rather them than the Spanish.
Emp. Conralius
08-01-2002, 22:35
I think it would be a great idea. I'de have it run from, lets say 1000BC to about 453AD. I'm not implying that you'de play straight through that time gap. These might be the factions (since it's a lot of time, a lot of factions! But if they were to make a game like this, I hope they'de leave out some boring civs. like the Palmyrans):
-Egyptians
-Romans (of course!)
-Greeks (duh!)
-Persians
-Germans (or Germanians)
-Britons
-Goths (-visi and -ostro would take up too much faction variety)
-Vandals
-Carthaginians
-Chinese (kinda AOE1ish, eh?)
-Huns
-Vikings
-Indians (geese, this game would be huge)
-Macedonians
I'm sure I missed a few...but I think I go most of the broad strokes...
[This message has been edited by Emp. Conralius (edited 08-01-2002).]
Emp. Conralius
08-01-2002, 22:40
I think the sieges would suffer...
Quote Originally posted by Papewaio:
We have the right map with MTW. Just a tiny bit of modding for sprites and troops and away you go.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe they could create a stand-alone add-on to M:TW... And expand the map further East for more Arab/Afghani/Persian goodness, even to the Hindu/Mongols/Chinese.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 08-01-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
-Egyptians
-Romans (of course!)
-Greeks (duh!)
-Persians
-Germans (or Germanians)
-Britons
-Goths (-visi and -ostro would take up too much faction variety)
-Vandals
-Carthaginians
-Chinese (kinda AOE1ish, eh?)
-Huns
-Vikings
-Indians (geese, this game would be huge)
-Macedonians
[/QUOTE]
I think you got them all except the Gauls and maybe a few other Eastern ones that wouldn't be very necessary to include. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Stephen Hummell
08-01-2002, 22:58
The middle east would have the hebrews too. They have help from God.
Three things I'd like to point out:
---------
First, got to avoid too much simple "mapping" from one set to another.
For instance, in Shogun, we have "Yari vs heavy cavalry", now in MTW, we have "schiltron vs knights". That's what I call non-creative mapping. Basically you are giving the old units another set of fancy names and pictures. The mechnaism isn't changed here.
Imagine if you go too far on that track, you end up with a lot of boring replicas. Indian TotalWar, Roman Total War, Chinese Total War ... it'll soon be as boring as hell.
---
Secondly, balance issue.
If you allow the tech-tree to go too complex, you will soon run into balance issue.
In real life, not much strategy is needed if one side has stealth bombers while the other side only has assault rifles.
In the game, if you allow late Gothic knights (armed from head to toe) to meet early greek sailors (those "heroes"), who were only armed with Javalin and dressed in leather skirt, you are ruining the game.
----
Third, learning curve.
You have to make games complex enough to ensure the replayability, but you also need to make them simple enough so that it's easy to learn.
If you develop a game with dozens of civilizations and hundreds of (repetitive) units, don't expect the players to have patience to read each and every page of the manual (which is doomed to be hundreds of pages long by the way). When the learning curve becomes too steep, the game loses its appeal.
-----
For me, I really don't care about those fancy names. Indian TotalWar, Roman TotalWar, etc, etc. If you don't come up with revolutionary ideas, they all look like the same old STW to me.
Just my 3 koku.
------------------
Pain is weakness leaving the body.
http://www.grahamday.dial.pipex.com/rose-knight1.gif
Emp. Conralius
08-02-2002, 00:27
Quote Originally posted by JRock:
I think you got them all except the Gauls and maybe a few other Eastern ones that wouldn't be very necessary to include. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif[/QUOTE]
you're right...
Quote Originally posted by Toda Nebuchadnezzar:
As for troops, Nobunaga-san said that in China you could have upto 1million men on each side. True but alot of these men were armed and dressed the same ways.
[/QUOTE]
That's why it is not very interesting to make a TW base on Chinese history even though there are many great warring periods.
I won't be surprise to see TW3 has a totally different look such as futuristic warfare or modern warfare or even fantasy warfare.
Other periods such as Roman, Greek could be done as expansion. It's not big enough to develope as a major title (if most of it was done in MTW).
I hope the next Total War game is somewhat Civilizationish. You can start when the fertile cresent is at its peak and it can end with the discovery of gun powder. Troops evolve with the time period and that would assure a vast array of different units. It could take place throughout the Asia, Africa and Europe. If done correctly it would be an amazing game.
Funky Phantom
08-02-2002, 15:45
I agree, i think if they combined the evolution and scale of Civ with the graphics and gameplay of MTW, they would have a great game.
The next great innovation they could add is naval battles. If you do "Conquest of Paradise: Total War" you'll have plenty of naval battles to do!
You can have maritime battlefields... complete with coral reefs, sand barriers, small islands... weather events like hurricanes, water spouts... animals like WHALES blowing air out their blowholes and scaring your "ashigaru" sailors!
You can manuever your ships like units... say they keep the 16 unit limit for now. You can field 6 caravels, 6 schooners and 4 something else. You can attempt to board the enemy (like the Spanish) and use your superior manpower to win. Or you can rely on your cannon (like the English) to destroy the enemy ship using broadsides before they reach you. You can RAM the enemy flagship!
And there are plenty of factions to choose from. England, France, Spain, Holland, Portugal, indiginous peoples...
GAH!
Many possibilities. And it would add a NEW dimension to the game.
Doing a WWII Total war is likely to get Monsta-san in a frenzy over the proliferation of the gun monkey strategies...
GAH!
[This message has been edited by Vanya (edited 08-02-2002).]
I hope they stay back in history with these games and don't go any more modern with the time period than, say, American Civil War (late 1800s). Any later and it just wouldn't play right because battlefield vehicles were used in The Great War (WW1) and up.
I would like to see:
*Greek/Roman era
*Conquistador/New World era (explorers/traders/natives... would require a full world map)
many is possible, byzantin....inkas....kartago.....ägypt....
....but the best idea i saw latly was about Phantasie!
this would be the best, noone can complain about the correct history....all is possible and they could create a real balanced system.... with maybe more gamebalance ...
koc
------------------
Grey Wolves (http://www.totalwar.club.tip.nl/)
Emp. Conralius
08-02-2002, 22:16
Though CA already annouced that they were gonna make the new TW based on WWII, a game based on the Roman/Greek era would be huge! Though I am for the idea, many of those fctions were very similar in that age, so there would be a lot of dry gameplay. Carthage probably would't have elephants as unique units because the Persians were known to deploy them as well. And in one era in history, most of the factions, including China, used chariots. But then again, the game would have a whole lot more variety than MTW.
Gothmog,
You speak my language. The 14 Senkoku unit types in Shogun provide considerable variety of tactial play when they are properly balanced. The MTW battle engine does have improvements over Shogun: 1) ability to disengage, 2) routers moving away from the threat, 3) cavalry penetrating the enemy unit, 4) variable unit cohesion (I think) and 5) 2nd and 3rd ranks assisting the first rank in fighting. The unchanged honor, weapon, armor upgrade system is disappointing with valor apparently the same as honor and still tied to morale. That suggests that the underlying mathematical model is the same as STW, but the system does work well if you don't push it to far away from its optimum operating point.
guys, this gamemashine dont allow much diferent styles of games. it will be always the same...
just units change and u need more micromanaging, but at the end, it will be the same...
like egoshooters!
u realy think this games will be boring?!?!
...its always the same, but peoles jump from 1 game to the other, ...
no, this gamestyle will be the same, teh next 20 years, just the graphic will become better, no lagg....maybe 20peeps in 1 game... and ofcourse u will see otehr periods of history... but at the end its all the same, and u will see in 2 or 3 years more than 1000 peoples will play this game online!
koc
------------------
Grey Wolves (http://www.totalwar.club.tip.nl/)
Red Peasant
08-03-2002, 00:09
The time will be right for a game involving the ancient Greeks in a year or two when the film version of "Gates of Fire" is released.
Can't wait for that one!
------------------
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
William Blake.
I'm interested to see how they work vehicles, aircraft, and ships into the WW2 game, as they are all vital parts of every major battle I can think of except a few paratrooper missions.
Unless they redesign the engine almost completely, I think it would be very difficult to pull off visually-attractive and well-animated vehicles/machinery.
But ohhhh boy does the thought of a Maginot line and fortifications ever get me excited! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
I sorta think a Great War game would be better, engine-wise, since there were less vehicles and aircraft, and more focus on trench warfare and gas/artillery attacks.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 08-02-2002).]
I would really like to see a Total War game on the early Roman/late Greek period around 300-200 B.C. in the Mediterranean region.
There could be at least six powerful empires in the game:
Rome
Carthage
Macedon/Greece
Egypt (Ptolemaic)
The Seleucid Kingdom
Parthia
Any of these could, in theory, have "conquered the world."
I think this (hypothetical) game would benefit greatly from having naval battles as well.
Aelfred Magna
08-03-2002, 01:48
Con,
Why you call the Palmyrans boring? They'd be one of the factions I'd absolutely LOVE to play . . . after all, they held off Marcus Aurelius for quite some time, and chewed up a couple of his armies - kicked Rome outta the Middle East for a while.
Quote Originally posted by Loras:
i'd love a roman era game, but...i don't think there'd be enough factions. unless no one minds only having a couple factions, like say rome/carthage, or troy/greece, or rome/every barbarian ever running across the rhine screaming. maybe the game could take place around the fall of rome, with you trying to stop it.
[/QUOTE]
Start a game at the beginning of the Punic Wars and there would be plenty of factions:
1) Rome (Italy)
2) Carthage
3) Macedonia/Greece
4) Seleucids (Syria, Asia Minor)
5) Ptolemies (Egypt)
6) Parthians/Persians
7) Gauls
8) Germans
9) Celts (Britain)
10) and all sorts of minor factions/tribes
Plenty for a fun game.
Grifman
deejayvee
08-05-2002, 09:17
What I'd like to see would be a TW game that covers the time period 800bc to 1500ad and the map would include Europe, all of Asia and North Africa.
You could play one of 3 eras: Ancient, Dark Ages or Medieval; or all 3!
Your faction choices would vary depending on the time period chosesn but you'd be able to play anyone from Rome to Huns to Medieval Chinese.
If you started during Ancient time, imagine how different the world will look by the Middle Ages!!
There is at least one downside: due to the size of the game there is no way that seasons could be included!
DarknScaly
08-05-2002, 19:55
Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
Though CA already annouced that they were gonna make the new TW based on WWII, [/QUOTE]
erm - no they haven't....
It started out as a rumour and remains a rumour..one i dont personally have any faith in at all.
Unless you've got access to an Official Press Release from CA that is...?
Catiline
08-05-2002, 23:18
What i'm about to say is going to seem like a heresy to many of you, and will no doubt provoke howls of protest. I have a fear that MTW will be a let down because of the scope it tries to encompass. The entire medieval period is just too huge. I hope i'm wrong, and the division into eras is promising.
In STW works well IMO because of it's selfcontained and balanced nature. There are problems in this respect, but they are I suspect going to be nothing compared to the balancing issues that are likely with MTW.
Wiht regard to TW3 this is going to be a major issue. Many of you talk about huge spans of time, massive georaphical areas. This would not be the same sort of game, beyond perhaps the way it looks.
I don't see the need to have 3000 years worth of tech tree and advantages. STW does need expanding upon, BUT IMO simplicity is the key hereIntroducing hundreds of different options which require 15 different criteria is not going to be the same game, go play Birth of the Federation.
Loosely STW benefits from a basicaly historical setting and timescale. The campaign game provides you with ample play if you ever wnat to actually finish it. The armies whilst stylised and a historical to an extent do have some bearing on reality, they did fight each other, the Mongols provide variation and an interesting enemy. Randomly think, hey Ancients, listing off every culture you can think of in a 3000 year span doesn't make a game. Rome didn't fight the Indians or the Chinese (well maybe the remnants of Crassus' legions at Carrhae did but that another issue), the Carthaginians didn't come into conflict with the Vikings. This is why AOE and it's clones are crap. they're fantasy masquerading as history, and bad history at that. The Macedonian and Punic wars have huge potential, without the need to involve Vikings. The late Roman empire, with it's internal schisms, religious problems, Byzantine politics and powerful and glamorous external enemies works fine without the need for a huge map and chinese rocket troops.This game/series won't be improved by breadth of scope in the chronological or geographical spheres, but it will be by focus on periods richer in their own potential rather than a broadbrush approach to history/fantasy
------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri
DarknScaly
08-06-2002, 00:29
Well said Catiline.
MagyarKhans Cham
08-06-2002, 00:49
Nothing beats more gameplay... just add gameplay and skip the "eras"
DarknScaly
08-06-2002, 01:57
"depth doesn't always come with size" ;-)
Quote Originally posted by Catiline:
Wiht regard to TW3 this is going to be a major issue. Many of you talk about huge spans of time, massive georaphical areas. This would not be the same sort of game, beyond perhaps the way it looks. [/QUOTE]
If they were to do something along the lines of Greeks/Romans, there would be fewer factions and a slightly smaller worldmap than Medieval is using, as the "known world" to the Greeks/Romans was a bit smaller than it was in the Medieval age.
Emp. Conralius
08-06-2002, 04:03
Quote Originally posted by DarknScaly:
erm - no they haven't....
It started out as a rumour and remains a rumour..one i dont personally have any faith in at all.
Unless you've got access to an Official Press Release from CA that is...?[/QUOTE]
Yes, they have, read a inteview and the guy from CA mentioned that they were thinking about using a WWII base.
*clap clap clap* nice, what would that entail, Im sure platoons withs m16's and tanks wouldnt run well with the total war system
Krasturak
08-06-2002, 04:07
Quote Originally posted by Funky Phantom:
I agree, i think if they combined the evolution and scale of Civ with the graphics and gameplay of MTW, they would have a great game.[/QUOTE]
Krast agrees wholeheartedly.
Actually, the one feature of the Totalwar series so far that doesn't work for Krast is the building construction, 'tech tree' thing.
The more abstract system in the Civ series seems much more reasonable to KRast.
[This message has been edited by Krasturak (edited 08-05-2002).]
Catiline
08-06-2002, 04:10
So far as i recall there's not been any direct mention of WW2 by CA in any context. I could be wrong, but this is the sort of reference that would've gained a huge amount more momentum. WW2 would be a waste.
------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri
The Total War engine as we know it would be best with units that fought in true, recognizable formations while still relying on plenty of melee action. The Roman era anywhere between 300BC and 100AD with legions and phalanxes would make for a perfect fit.
Any timeframe involving lots of long range gunfire would bust the system IMO. Cavalry becomes ever more vulnerable as guns improve which would remove a big part of the game.
------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO
Erado the Black
08-06-2002, 04:53
Someone posted on one of the boards that PCGamer have a sort of 'rumours' section, where they mentioned that WW2 would perhaps be the next topic of Total War.
I personally don't believe it. I heard they were working on an exciting new TW instalment http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Forward Observer
08-06-2002, 07:50
Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
Yes, they have, read a inteview and the guy from CA mentioned that they were thinking about using a WWII base.[/QUOTE]
WW II makes no sense for the TW engine. The technology is just too advanced and diverse, plus the scope is just too broad. It would almost be impossible to focus on something a simple as the WW II ground war without involving armor, artillery, engineering, air support, intelligence, supply, transport, endless varieties of weapons--the list could go on forever. As Catline pointed out. the narrower focus of STW is what made it so great.
However, all of that said, I would dearly love for someone to make a WW II armor sim in the vein of the old Panzer Commander, with updated terrain, pyrotechnics, and graphics. I don't know how many times that I was playing STW, that I looked lovingly at the terrain and pictured a couple of German Tiger I's rolling along with their Maybach engines whining, about to wreck havoc on a bunch of unsuspecting Sherman's. Add some infantry for cannon fodder, and viola', you've got a game that I will pre-order at least two copies, right now.
Maybe they should just quit while they are ahead or make a Total War Roller Coaster sim! yeah, that's the ticket.
Cheers
------------------
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
Kongamato
08-06-2002, 07:58
Hey, you wanna WWII RTS game?
How bout WWII RTS?
http://www.ww2rts.com/
by the makers of IL-2 Sturmovik.
DarknScaly
08-06-2002, 09:37
Quote Originally posted by Emp. Conralius:
Yes, they have, read a inteview and the guy from CA mentioned that they were thinking about using a WWII base.[/QUOTE]
Erm - some guy at PCG claimed an "inside source" had "hinted" it might be WWII - thats a LONG way from anything even vaguely official and its also (almost def~) a wind-up.
anymapkoku
08-06-2002, 10:17
I like the idea of greece or rome, but it might not work out so well to make it so broad geographically. Why not just greek city states? Or Italian city states?
Athens
Thebes
Sparta
MAcedonia
Persia
Countless other cities
This would be better because it's focused on one culture in a smaller area. There's more historical complexity because it's within a smaller space.
You might even be able to make naval battles, because of the islands and lots of ocean. This would make Greek total war fresh and not just a rehash of STW.
On a side note, I'd like to see some sort of resource system for the battles. Lets say, if you're units are positioned next to a river or cornfield, they fatigue less quickly than if they are at the top of a flat hill next to no water or food source. Maybe archers would have more arrows when next to trees?
For roman tw I'd rather see things related to Rome, not china or the Vikings or the Eskimos from the black african Jewish nation of yiddish. Rome interestes me more.
Rome
Latins
Veii
Capua
Greeks/pyrhuss in campania
Syracuse
Carthaginians in sicily
Gauls in northern italy
Most of all I'd like to see more balanced maps and more variety in starting locations so that the attacker doesn't always have the disadvantage.
And for crap sakes CA needs to deal with the redzone and 4 unit max issues. They totally ruined STW because it caused controversy.
although id prefer an "Anceint: total war" set in europe (roughly the MTW map, more to the east) im starting to think that WW2 wouldnt be that bad as a total war game, the engine would require a massive re-design but isnt that a good thing? the total war engine is starting to show its age and after MTW sticking too closely on what they made for shogun might not be a good idea. who knows? perhaps a full new engine made for more modern warfare, the thing that defined STW for me was the great mix of turn-based management and massive real-time battles, this could still be done really well in a game with a turn+real time based game but probably not with the total war engine in its current state.
if the size of the maps were doubled (or more) again there would be plenty of room for tanks and artiellery, you could incorparate intelligence and bombings into the campaign map
example...
if you were playing germany you would have access to V2 and V1 missiles, say you could build these from some building in a province and they would appear on the map like a non-battlefield unit (diplomat, ninja .etc) which you could then drag and drop on a province which would then send it there and have a chance of damaging buildings (tyf00n!) or killing people (perhaps inorparate a population cap to the amount of soldiers you can support)
also i think the ability to use planes and boats along with just plain land units and vehicles would be great, having them all in battle at the same time would be great (maybe a slow down option on the time scale so you can give orders to plains easy)
hmmm....
Aelfred Magna
08-06-2002, 12:40
problem is, to do a WW2 Total War game right, you'd have to have combat engines that work in three different dimensions . . . land, air, and sea (no way they could get away with automating sea battles - or air battles, for that matter - in WW2. Do that, and all you've got is "Axis & Allies" with a few bells and whistles)
. . . it wouldn't even work to develop separate engine for each type of combat, as this would eliminate battles that used two or three simultaneously (Midway, Leyte Gulf, D-Day). Right now the most you can field at once is 3200 men . . . and 20th Century tactics don't always allow realistically for "sending in the reinforcements," so there's NO way you're gonna be able to create a reasonable replication of anything more than what would be, in 20th century terms, a skirmish. Sure, they could upgrade the capabilities, but we're gonna be quite taxed as it is, trying to keep up with all the units on the field . . . the gameplay factor is gonna plummet if we're trying to deal with hundreds of thousands of troops, as well as aircraft and ships, all in one battle.
another problem is that the diplomatic aspect (one of the things I'm looking forward to the most) would be severely curtailed . . . if you allow open alliances and open up the chance for Germany, Britain, and the US (for example) to pit their combined production/military capabilities against the world . . . you're gonna have MASSIVE game-balancing issues. The total war concept just won't be the same in a bi-polar "world" . . . I mean sure, you could allow for treachery, stabbing in the back, and other such stuff . . . but that just didn't happen too terribly much (unless you're Italy) . . . I mean sure, Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back, but did they then proceed to switch back and forth from allies to enemies, etc, etc, like we can supposedly do in MTW? Not hardly . . . the world just doesn't work that way anymore.
in some settings, I'll admit, a turn-based strategy level, with a real-time combat level *could* make for a good game . . . but not a Total War game
I'd MUCH rather see them stick with what works, and create Ancient Empires: Total War, or something like that.
Papewaio
08-06-2002, 15:56
Actually as Shogun is based on Shogun the board game (now know as Samurai Swords) and is in the same set of Axis and Allies. I wouldn't mind having the battles land focused and the bombers and ships strategic pieces... like one of those bomber command board rooms for the strategy map.
For the main battles you would need to add in tanks. Keep fighter planes and artillery as some sort of call in attack (have spotters and there 'missile' attack calls in the extras). But 20,000 is a lot of guys so it wouldn't take too much of an addition to the engine (not with current computer specs doubling every 18 months) to handle a super large battle.
120*16*8= 15360 for STW use that as the base. Two years to get MTW. Another 2 for WWII. 4 years so that is 2 1/2 doublings.
So computers in 2 years should be able to perform at the same specs with STW about 80,000 men on the battlefield for WWII.
As for Ancient times I would focus the strat map down and focus on city states. Probably have to make macro formations (Phalanx etc) and at the same time have more units on the field. Would be nice to have individuals from a unit flee rather then the whole unit.
Another really great period to model (as someone mentioned above) would be the Fall of Rome.
The period from AD 400 to AD 500 was WILD! Civil war, Huns, Goths-- and the Vandals sailed from Spain to Carthage and started a North African Empire. Lots of very cool stuff-- too bad they will probably never make a game like this...
World War 2 would not work, it wouldn't be close to even the same game. The tactical battlefield wouldn't work, it would be impossible. Divisions covered miles of fronts, battles weren't discrete events but went on for days/weeks at a time, there weren't nice little lines of troops and tanks, artillery was miles behind the main line, you might advance 5-10 miles one day, less than 100 yards another day, etc. The engine just isn't made for WW2 and any suggestion to the contrary is insane - unless you want a game that doesn't resemble WW2 in any reasonable historical way.
If you want a RTS WW2 game, then go play Sudden Strike.
Grifman
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 08-07-2002).]
Kongamato
08-07-2002, 08:47
Hey, didnt any of you look at my link to WWII RTS? It is by the IL-2 people! It looks like it is aiming to outclass any WW2 game out there! Look at the screens!
You should find a link a few posts back.
like i said the next total war game may not use the total war engine...
but id prefer anceint: total war
no one has brought up napoleonic total war in this thread yet...
Yes, an Ancient-Total-War would be very nice.
And here are some factions that would be nice in the game too: Phönizians
Minoans
Skyts
Traker
Indians
Nubians
I wish, that they would make such a game very soon after MTW.
[This message has been edited by Nakiros (edited 08-08-2002).]
Kamui_Imagawa
08-09-2002, 04:00
Well i dont think an TW3 would work in WWII simply because there wouldn't be enough infantry to support the game and give it variety, it would be quite dull, just shooting people all the time and never getting any real action done. I'm not sure how the tactics would work either. As for a greek/roman one, could be good with the diverse amount of tactics at the time but it would be too much (as rokkaku says) like the other games and would need some major features to make it good, and there again is a problem since MTW has pretty much dried up that style. Noe personally i think a fantasy total war would be brilliant. There would be far more room for ideas and factions are obvious. New tactics could be invented and tried and peronally i think it would work well. This however must include wood elves cos' they rock but yeah i think that the best solution to the TW3 would be "FANTASY:TOTAL WAR"
------------------
The assasin of night is a dangerous foe, the assasin of day is extremely dangerous
NagatsukaShumi
08-09-2002, 04:19
I'll make the MOD if you wish (That is MOD the game so this could happen), I'm looking for a big project to do as well as the mini MOD's I'm doing.
Quote Originally posted by Nakiros:
Yes, an Ancient-Total-War would be very nice.
And here are some factions that would be nice in the game too: Phönizians
Minoans
Skyts
Traker
Indians
Nubians
[/QUOTE]
That'd be really REALLY boring, IMHO.
You know, not only the factions I´ve told before.
Of corse the other factions too: Ägyptens
Greeks
Romans
Macedonians
Persia
Kingdom of Kush
Arab factions
Germanians
Celts
Karthagans
Huns
And like I´ve said: Minoans
Skyts
Traker
Indians
Nubians
[This message has been edited by Nakiros (edited 08-11-2002).]
chilliwilli
08-10-2002, 03:19
1. I would not buy a WW2 game using The TW engine there are already WW2 games coming out that would do a better job using a different engine.
2. Ancient would be good, but you may feel like your getting alot of the same when comparing it with MTW.
3. I would vote for a TW game with an alternate fantasy setting. I know fantasy seems to be a bad word to you guys, but I don't necessarily mean dwarfs, ogres, and elves fantasy(even though I would buy that game too). Look at a game like Savage thats coming out early 2003. I know its nothing Like TW, but it is a fantasy game except it deals with humans and beasts wich isn't as far fetched and may appeal more to fans than traditional fantasy. TW could use humans in its next installment, but just made up factions in an alternate time period with strange new technology.
4. To tell you the truth I won't think twice about the future of TW until this game has actually come and I've been playing it for a year.
[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-09-2002).]
chilliwilli
08-10-2002, 03:22
Oh by the way if you want an Ancient Times TW game just buy Pax Romana its TW except it concentrates more on the strategy map than the battles eventhough battles are like TW and it takes place in the iron age. Its coming out end of this year or beggining of next. I also think it has multiplayer campaign, so that solves 2 problems.
------------------
Master Guardian of The Turkish empire for The Oner Order of Ommisions. http://oooo.freewebspace.com/
[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-09-2002).]
[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-09-2002).]
Dionysus9
08-10-2002, 03:54
Part of the appeal of the TW series for me is its concentration on HAND TO HAND COMBAT, or at least close quarters fighting (even musks and archers have to get pretty close to be effective). Once you move too far into gunpowder weaponry, the "face to face" aspect of the battle falls away. In modern combat troops engage from further and further away.
When I am playing a tactical simulation, I want to see each individual soldier under my command...I don't want to see boxes that represent units, I dont want to see pictograms that represent units...I want to see groups of individual soldiers who represent units.
World War II was fought on such a grand scale, with sooo many levels of command, sooo many support units, and such vast spaces of open country that it was more of a Strategic conflict than a Tactical conflict.
I love Multiplayer far more than Singleplayer precisely because of the emphasis on tactics (as opposed to the strategy employed on the campaign map).
Of course, tactics are always present at the squad-level, but being a WWII squad-commander doesn't appeal to me for some reason. Someone said they already have games that do a good job replicating WWII...I think that is probably right.
The Total War combat engine is designed for close quarters fighting with "primitive" weapons. I think they should concentrate on perfecting it, not on expanding it.
Civil War is as far as I think they can go with the present combat engine, and even that would be pushing it to its limits.
But what do I know....
I don't know if a really good World War II battle game exists now-- but this one looks like it could be a winner.
http://www.il2center.com/article.php?sid=98
chilliwilli
08-10-2002, 06:54
dancho, that does look like a winner hehe. I would buy that if I actually wanted a WW2 game right now. Sadly though, I don't.
------------------
Master Guardian of The Turkish empire for The Oner Order of Ommisions. http://oooo.freewebspace.com/
[This message has been edited by chilliwilli (edited 08-10-2002).]
Catiline
08-10-2002, 16:49
Conralius, unless you can provide a link there's not much point in telling us to read aN interview. And even if it does exist, that's not confirmation, it's pure rumour. Everyone here should remember perhaps that one possible description for the MTW forum was 'baseless speculation'
------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri
Catiline
08-10-2002, 16:55
As to JRock's point, i agree with you. Though there wouldn't necessarily be fewer factions. There would be fewer national types if that makes sense.
------------------
Timeo hominem unius libri
theforce
08-10-2002, 23:12
I really want to see a game with a Greek theme http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
It would be awesome http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
I cannot return l presume so l will keep my name among those who are dead by bows!
http://www.dedicatedgaming.com/~angelsofdarkness
chilliwilli
08-11-2002, 02:05
Yeah it sure would be cool, but I don't know if its the best path for the TW series to take.
czaralex
08-11-2002, 02:07
I disagree with most of you saying that the tactical side of a modern War would be bad, I for one think that with some major changes CA could make a great Great War game. I mean think about it, hiding in the trenches with your artillary shoting the hell out of those guys and then trying to get across to the other trench, that would take real strategy. The AI woudln't have to be that smart to stop you getting to him with a few machine guns. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif Planes could be easily brought into the game, you would produce them at strategic level, and then have an option on the tactical level of calling in an air strike. Then when the planes show up, you get to take control of them, and you get them for a limited time becasue ammo and gas are used up very quicly.
However there would be a huge problem with a WWI game in strategic level, because the type of fighting they used in wWI only lasted from 1871 (Fraco-Prussian War) to 1937 (Spanish Civil War), but than again with a monthly breakup instead of a year as in MtW or even a seasonal as in STW, (because of rail trasnport speeading up movement) this would be a rather long game 66*12= 792 turns. There would have to be a naval transport system like in Crusader kings, where you have direct control over the products going from one province to another, and you can only build a tank in province X if that province was dilivered iron from province Y, and ammunition from province Z, etc. Naval Battles is a must.
WWI: TW would be my second favorite choice for tW3 after Imperial: TW 1453 to 1789.
bruteztrausen
08-11-2002, 14:02
Why not a mundial total war in the epoc of napoleon?
With all the provinces of the world.
For example we could see the redcoats fighting against the samurai or the tartars conquering USA.
Quote Originally posted by bruteztrausen:
Why not a mundial total war in the epoc of napoleon?
With all the provinces of the world.
For example we could see the redcoats fighting against the samurai or the tartars conquering USA.[/QUOTE]
Soon to be a major motion picture starring Jackie Chan.
Wavesword
08-12-2002, 00:34
It would be nice if the editing system were flexible enough for us to represent such things in our deranged little way, but I don't need CA to be slaving at a conversion of Total War: Inferno, dueling princes of the abyss with legions recruited from different time periods! e.g. in STW some people modified TBs so they became artillery. I would like to play a WW1 game, but have doubts about the viability of a European based version.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.