Where might Total War style Gaming be going??

As has been suggested in other posts, the TW series seems to be continually going back in time from shougun to MI to MTW to Vikings to Rome..... The question (and I know RTW is still a long way off so this is a tad far sighted) is where to next???

Some have suggested they would love to see MTW features in a new Shogun game. I couldn't agree more, but would it sell? What would it be called, shogun: Total war II ??

There have been suggestions such as Napeoleonic or WWI, WWII Total war games, but I think this touches on a slightly broader issue.....


What IS Total War Gaming??

I've heard it be referred to as RTS, but to me Total War games seem very unique from RTS games. Please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong, but there just seems to be no other games out there that are similiar. Not in the way say a Warcraft II fan could play Command and COnquer and experience a different take on the RTS genre. To me Total war is it's own genre.

There's a lot of talk on these forums about parts of the game that aren't quite right, and I agree with a lot of these problems. Dumb AI, broken GA's, bizarre rebellions etc etc etc however I think most of us really appreciate what CA have given to the gaming community.

SO what is the point of my rambling. If there is one, I think it is this. We need to come up with a (non-copyright) name to describe this unique genre of game and try and hype it a bit so that other developers may start making similar games. Developing this genre to the point that all the topics in forums would be "I was playing faction X in Y mode and the year Z such and such happened, and I thought 'Hey cool that's so appropriate/fun/challenging/funny' " rather than continual (legitamate) gripes about weird stuff that happened, (gasp) is a huge job, and I feel if CA are the only group making these types of games, then I fear they will eventually peter out and be crushed and the games community will lose one of the few "gameplay over graphics" developers that still manage to scratch a living in the Eye Candy supermarket of modern gaming.

So if anyone knows of other similiar games and I'm just talking crap then plaese let me know, but otherwise I think we need to find a Cool Genre name and Hype the hell out of it so that everyones wishes for a Shogun/Rome/Ancients/WWI/WWII/Civil War etc etc Total war game may be satified much quicker and the (as yet uname) genre grows rich and diverse (and hopefully lucraive for CA and any other genuine Gameplay developers).

Well that was a long post. I hope to either be proved wrong or stimulate some consructive discussion.

I think you gave the name already in the header...

TWS (Total-War-Style)

I like it.

I think TWS is good http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif I want to see a WWI or WWII style game, although the map would need to be changed to reflect changing fronts and stuff, but I think they are doing that in Rome anyway. Rome looks sweet as well though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif Can't wait to storm cities with my polgonal warriors screaming crudely in Latin http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/smokin.gif

I wrote in some other thread some time ago, that I believe the unique part of TW is the well-working hybrid between a strategic level and a battle level. As a genre I believe it needs to develope more, and that is discussed a lot around this place.

Actually, the level of focus on problems with TW, and especially what could improve it, is NOT a sign of unsatisfaction, but the opposite; this game is so great itself, but the potential of what it could develope into, is even greater.

But, as a hybrid I think it's difficult to establish a genre. RTS differs from the rest on a number of elements, as does other genres. TW does not (of course it does, but not in a scale to name a genre, the point being&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif, but it integrates more or less known elements.

And isn't that grant? All to many games are directly placeable under known genres. Then, once and awhile a totally new concept occur. But almost always one single concept. TW brings strategy games and battle games to meet, which works more than well. Next step is to integrate these concepts better, as I understand is already on the agenda for both Viking Invasion and Rome: TW.

BTW: "The Great Dane" suggested somewhere, that the american civil war in many aspects marked the end of this type of warfare. That could become an interesting theme.

All the best,

Bakdal

Well the total war series is like a hybrid between traditional strategy gaming and rts imho, and its definately one of its kind in the current pc gaming market. It seems to be a combo working wonderfully especially the grandscale outfield battles being the biggest plus and its potential to grow into an even bigger thing looks bright.

TWS(Total-War-Style) sounds quite original and certainly suits the birth of this new genre. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/wacko.gif

i think the next possible step for TWS to go into is the full introduction of firearms into the game. Everyone knows the way units with muskets and cannons fought will be quite different with the h-h combat style used by the current game machine and that will be a quite a shift from the present AI of TWS...Napolonic War or American Civil War as the next agenda??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Yes, for the World Wars, a new concept might be needed.
As for Civil War, and Napoleonic Era (possibly an evolution from around the 30 Years War (17th century), to Frederick the Great's time and ending with Napoleon), it should be doable with the current TWS format, but I imagine it would require a lot of hardware and perhaps some improved battlefield control methods...

Yeah... for the World Wars to work in a TW game youre either going to have to zoom right out to a macro level or right in to a much smaller scale than we're currently used to. So it would be a completely different type of game to the other TWs.

I think we *do* need a bit of a change though. Napoleonic is the way to go IMHO - its going to be similar in some ways to what we've got (i.e. we already have cannon, rifles and cavalry) but will be different enough to be new due to the style of warfare in that age.

I'd also like to see some significant changes to the strategy map - move away from the 'risk' style provinces to something a bit more flexible, say a Civ style model.

But if CA really want to rack up some sales, Fantasy TW is the way to go (thinks: Master of Magic with TW engine).

hmm... napoleon would be fun.. but if they keep going back id love to play ancient mesopotamia/egypt/anatolia/greece

that would cover assyria, babylon, hittites, minoan, mycanean, mittanites, egypt, aram, israel.... you name it... that would be one of the coolest total wars ever

The TW engine as we know it is designed to support a battle system based on lots of prolonged melee with troops in formations, which is why Rome will be the best yet. The formations in Shogun and Medieval are over done from a historical perspective, for the most part. This will not be true for Rome because legions and phalanxes really did march around in combat like the Coldstream Guards on the Queen’s birthday. I doubt samurai or men at arms were so precise as they appear in TW.

Once you reach the 18th century, firepower is so overwhelming that melee becomes less important. For all that is said about the bayonet, wounds with them were a tiny fraction of artillery and gunshot casualties. Charges still happened but usually one side or the other broke before contact or else the “melee” actually became a very short range gun fight. In a Napoleonic battle assaults should see a route almost every time a charge is conducted by either the attacker or defender before much melee occurs. This isn't the game people want to play IMO. Cavalry still charged home but it became very brittle and vulnerable with so many guns about and had to be used with great care. By the mid 19th century shock cavalry was a complete anachronism and troopers became mounted infantry, occasional battle aberrations not withstanding.

For these reasons it is not likely that Total War will go to into the World Wars. Formations are gone, ranges are great and genuine melee rare. Anything up through the 30 Years War might work. I’d like to try my hand with pike and shot in the 17th century.

I would like to see a Gunpowder: Total War game which would encompass the years from 1500 to 1865.

I don't see a whole lot of major changes in the real time aspect because up until the end of the Civil War, units fought 'in formation'... it was after the Civ War that units became more individual.

Formations were the rule in the ACW but shock cavalry actions were rare and suicidal against formed infantry. From the mid 19th century onward, attrition was the way to victory. Any defender with time to dig in did so. This habit would not make for interesting tactical combat without overhauling the engine into something totally different. The battlefild would be dominated by earthworks, artillery and rifle fire. Cavalry would disappear unless it dismounted.

Imagine Medieval if all infantry were deadly accurate long range arquebusiers, often entrenched in defense. Efficient anti-personnel catapults are everywhere. Oh, and mounted cavalry are worthless in battle. That would be the ACW, Total War style.

(posted by bakdal)

Actually, the level of focus on problems with TW, and especially what could improve it, is NOT a sign of unsatisfaction, but the opposite; this game is so great itself, but the potential of what it could develope into, is even greater

Bakdal, I couldn't agree more I think we all see the potential that this unique genre blending game has, and as such are passionate about where we would like to see it go.

However I do think that this unique blend could be expanded into its own genre. I would love to see other developers getting in on the Strategy meets battle game concept and therfore becoming the TWS genre
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

From a personal note, I always thought "gee a good turn based strategy game that then let you control the battles in a RTS style way where you could pause and give orders so it dosn't become a click fest would be the ultimate game ever". And then all of a sudden when I first saw Shogun.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Again, everyone in this thread seems to have their idea about what they would like to see next. I think the best way for the most people to be satisfied is for more developers to get in on the act. So lets all tell our friends about TWS games and hope the other devs realise what their missing out on.....

I see TW heading off into the fantasy area - there's probably a bigger market there than historical and after LotR's is finished possibly heightened interest - TWME?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Feb. 19 2003,07:11)]hmm... napoleon would be fun.. but if they keep going back id love to play ancient mesopotamia/egypt/anatolia/greece

that would cover assyria, babylon, hittites, minoan, mycanean, mittanites, egypt, aram, israel.... you name it... that would be one of the coolest total wars ever

---

That seems like a perfect expansion to RTW, just like how Viking Invasion 'turns back the clock' for MTW.


Hey why stop there, we could go all the way back and have "Cro-Magnon:Total War", and then people could beg and plead to the devs. to have a playable Neandertal faction. Imagine upgrading to a Master Clubsmith... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif

Hakonarnson wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]I see TW heading off into the fantasy area - there's probably a bigger market there than historical and after LotR's is finished possibly heightened interest - TWME?

---

I believe someone somewhere these parts were creating a Middle Earth map, and that some players were testing it. I've lost track of the thread though.

Middle Earth: Total War is a great idea. The "risk" being, that the game evolution is being parted from history, and hence moving onto a fantasy path, which I can't figure out if I'd like. But the mere fact that Middle Earth is more than suitable, and that I as a personal Tolkien fan would love such a variant, is beyond discussion.

Bakdal

I agree that TW is running out of feasible historical periods to play in. Although my love of Fantasy has waned as I get older and more cynical, I still think LOTR is the way to go.
BUT there may be a huge copyright issue - now Hollywood has made the films do you think they would happily hand over the rights to a PC game set in the same world to another company?
I doubt it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Warner Bros or whoever has the rights would want to make the money from it for themselves http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (powdermonkey @ Feb. 20 2003,06:32)]I agree that TW is running out of feasible historical periods to play in.

---

No, we're not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

MikeB ~ CA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ Feb. 21 2003,10:29)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (powdermonkey @ Feb. 20 2003,06:32)]I agree that TW is running out of feasible historical periods to play in.

---

No, we're not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

MikeB ~ CA

---

I knew it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

I would like to see something that depicts the Early American conflicts, French+Indian,British,Revolutionary,Civil war tie them all in some how I think would make a whole new avenue for MTW by the way I like TWS total war style I have a game Robert E. Lee civil war generals by Sierra that is cool all unit based RTS stuff but entertaining also.

yes the civil war would be a very nice game that goes with the total war universe.

i also think the strategic map needs more work, say more like civ3 without the building of cities, civ3 has some great diplomacy options, not too hard not too easy.

WW1 would be easier than WW2, but both are still extreemly good options. Sure you might not be having the same open battle effect so much, but there are other straegies...

WW1: trench warfare... lots of hiding and shooting, then the charge when the men go over the top, pulling back when trenches are overrun, hitting points on the trench to penetrate and out flank.... its all there, and just as fun.. imagine seeing thousands of little men going over the top... awesome

WW2: squad warfare at its best... imagine controlling units of about 50 men, moving seperatly to ake a town, try out flank the enemy position, take thier guns.. its all possible still.. use your imagination

For an intro into the gunpowders period, the time from the end of the renaissance to the 30 yrs war or maybe even the english civil war would be interesting. Firmarms were just matchlocks and soldiers still engage in hand to hand combat.
Plus the STW was also depicted in about this same period so it may be a good way for all of us to a sniff of the new AI.
Though a jump into later period(WW1-WW2) would be really interesting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

hmm i doubt ww2 would be a good game for the "total war" type. i mean some parts of ww2 just werent in the open, i mostly like the urban fighting. i dont know how the hell you can do urban fighting when your commanding 50 soldier with one click. and dont forget about the tanks, planes, ships. those are to be put in place too, to be historically correct. and i can see it now, whole squads of infantry using stgs....moving down waves and waves of russians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif, ww2 would be hard to make.

on the other hand ww1 would be something else, albeit pretty boring, i mean it was old tactics with enw weapons http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif.

alrowan: have you tried G.I.Combat? its sort of like what your saying only it sucks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif the game O.o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ Feb. 21 2003,04:29)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (powdermonkey @ Feb. 20 2003,06:32)]I agree that TW is running out of feasible historical periods to play in.

---

No, we're not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

MikeB ~ CA

hey Mike, do you think it`s posible to do a WW1 game with the totalwar engine? i really want to play a trench warfare game in real-time. is this posible?

---

hey Mike, do you think it`s posible to do a WW1 game with the totalwar engine? i really want to play a trench warfare game in real-time. is this posible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]I see TW heading off into the fantasy area - there's probably a bigger market there than historical and after LotR's is finished possibly heightened interest

---

this is true their is a pole here at the org and after 2824 votes 923 people (33%) want to see hobbits and wizards the most? all i can say is this- "why lord why?"

i don`t know, must be that damn frodo character that turns people on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]on the other hand ww1 would be something else, albeit pretty boring, i mean it was old tactics with enw weapons

---

i don`t think it would be boring.. i think the battles would take much longer and it could turn out to be very similar to the sid meier games (gettysburg) where you are constantly trying to outflank your opponent and hold the battle line i think it could be pretty cool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]but if they keep going back id love to play ancient mesopotamia/egypt/anatolia/greece

that would cover assyria, babylon, hittites, minoan, mycanean, mittanites, egypt, aram, israel.... you name it... that would be one of the coolest total wars ever.

---

agree this would be a great choice too just imagine playing as alexander the great or the Spartans etc..etc.. it would be very cool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]What IS Total War Gaming??

I've heard it be referred to as RTS, but to me Total War games seem very unique from RTS games.

---

i like to call it Real-Time-Tactical. in most RTS games their`s not a whole lot of strategy in the battles themselves. the battles are very watered down and have an arcade feel to them. while RTT games like shogun have more of a sim feel to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]So if anyone knows of other similiar games and I'm just talking crap then plaese let me know,

---

well actually their are a few games that are similar to Totalwar. the first one that comes to mind are the sid meier games like sid meier`s gettysburg and sid meier`s antietam. they`re american civil war games. and they play very similar to CA`s totalwar series. both are great games

also a game called Ground Control by sierra games is a little bit like the totalwar games but with more modern weapons.

and of course the last 2 that i know of is a game called WATERLOO: napoleans last battle and Austerlitz: napoleans greatest battle- these 2 games are based on the gettysburg game engine but the BIG addition to these 2 is cavalry and it makes a very noticeable difference for sure

while i don`t think these 2 are as fun as gettysburg and antietam... the addition of cavalry changes the game quite a bit and forces players to make better battle field decisions etc...etc..

but that`s about it. and i would have to say the totalwar series is the best

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (oldwarhorse @ Feb. 22 2003,02:06)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]i don`t think it would be boring.. i think the battles would take much longer and it could turn out to be very similar to the sid meier games (gettysburg) where you are constantly trying to outflank your opponent and hold the battle line i think it could be pretty cool

---

---

hmmm the no mans land (or however you call it O.o) was just a few miles....it would be boring coz
1. one side attacks with numerical superiority, wins like..say 100 yards with lots of casualties. then the beaten side counter attacks and takes back the 100 yards that was lost. they try to hold it but other side COUNTERATTACKS yet again, you see where im getting at?.
2. artillery, i dont suppose well see artillery on the map....since well theyre artillery http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif. they were quite developed during that time.
3. gas, yes gas warfare needs to be in the game too for it to be historically correct. plus its kinda sad seeing your men drop like flies on machinegun fire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif